Delhi District Court
State vs . Jitan @ Jitan Bora on 15 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-05: SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-008906-2019
SC No. 490/2019
STATE Vs. JITAN @ JITAN BORA
FIR No. 134/2019
U/S. 302 IPC
PS : GREATER KAILASH
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 490/2019. 2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 30.10.2019 3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ajeet Pandey.
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 13.07.2019.
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : Jitan @ Jitan Bora S/o. Sh. Gulab Bora Presently R/o. H. No. 130, Room No. 13, Zamrudpur, New Delhi.
Permanent R/o.:
Village Dhalaibil, Shamdhara, PS Jamagudi Haat, District Sunitpur, Assam.
6. Offence Complained of : U/s. 302 IPC.
7. Offence Charged : U/s. 302 IPC.
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Convicted.
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 03.07.2023.
11. Date on which Order Announced : 15.07.2023.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.1/52 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 12- 13/07/2019, at about 02:00am, at H. No. 130, First Floor, Jamrudpur Village, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora murdered victim Sanjeev Pandey by causing multiple stab injuries on his chest and left thigh, with knife. On the statement of Ajit Pandey and considering the injuries, caused to Sanjeev Pandey, accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora was arrested for offence U/s. 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed for offence U/s. 302 IPC.
2. Detailed arguments on charge were heard from Ld. Defence Counsel and Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 30.10.2019, the Court charged accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora for the offence U/s. 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and preferred trial.
3. The prosecution led evidence and examined 15 witnesses to bring home the charged offence against the accused.
4.(a) PW1/eye witness Ajit Pandey deposed that he had been residing in a room at First Floor of H. No.130, Jamrudpur Village, New Delhi, as a tenant for about 20 months, whereas, victim i.e. his cousin Sanjeev Pandey started residing in the same tenanted premises for about 08 months prior to the incident. He deposed that the tenanted premises was constructed upto 4-5 floors and each floor consisted of approximately 10 rooms. He deposed that he was an AC Technician, whereas, victim Sanjeev SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.2/52 Pandey worked as a helper at tea shop of one Raju. Victim also used to work as Security Guard in Bhavishya Nidhi Apartments in a shift-wise job. He deposed that he knew accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora prior to the incident as he too used to reside as a tenant alongwith his wife and son in one of the rooms that was situated in front of his room at first floor in the same premises.
4.(b) PW1 deposed that in the intervening night of 12- 13.07.2019, at about 02:00am, he and victim Sanjeev Pandey heard a noise from room of accused Jitan as he was quarreling with his wife. He deposed that his cousin Sanjeev Pandey went to the room of accused and, on return, told him that he settled the matter between accused and his wife. He deposed that, in the meantime, accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora followed Sanjeev Pandey and entered his room having a knife in his hand. He deposed that he tried to stop the accused, however, Sanjeev Pandey hit a danda on head of the accused because he came with a knife and was saying "tera roz-roz kaa humare kamre mein aana khatam kar doonga" (I will end your daily visits to my house).
4.(c) PW1 deposed that the accused pushed him and he fell on the floor. Thereafter, accused attacked Sanjeev Pandey with knife and caused injury on his chest and thigh. He deposed that the accused while giving knife blows to Sanjeev Pandey with intent to kill him, saying that "tera aaj kissa khatam kar doonga" (I will kill you today) and the blood was oozing out from injury of the victim. He deposed that the accused fled from the spot with the knife. He deposed that he lifted injured Sanjeev Pandey, wrapped SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.3/52 him in a bed sheet, called one of his neighbour, arranged a TSR and with the help of a neighbour he took the injured to AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi, where he got him admitted for medical examination.
4.(d) PW1 deposed that prior to shifting the injured in TSR, he called police at 100 number. He deposed that police reached the hospital after about 30-40 minutes. He deposed that the doctor told him that injured Sanjeev Pandey had expired and his body was handed over to police by hospital staff. He deposed that the injured wore an underwear when he wrapped him in bed sheet (chaadar), whereas, he wore black pant and lining shirt. On the other hand, accused wore T-shirt and Lower. He deposed that his clothes were blood stained and were, therefore, seized by police. He admitted his signature at point 'A' on his statement Ex. PW1/A, recorded by police in AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi. He deposed that from AIIMS Trauma Center, he alongwith the police returned to the spot, where he showed place of incident to police and police prepared the site plan. He admitted his signature at point 'A' on site plan Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that police lifted blood as well as other things from the spot and sealed them in several parcels, however, he did not know how many parcels were prepared.
4.(e) PW1 deposed that accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora was arrested in his presence in the evening of 13/07/2019 from N-Block Park, GK-I, New Delhi, vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and police conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/D. He admits SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.4/52 his signature on seizure memo Ex. PW1/E that was prepared regarding seizure of his clothes by police. He deposed that he identified the dead body of deceased Sanjeev Pandey on 13/07/2019 and police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/F in that regard. He deposed that the postmortem examination of deceased was conducted on 13/07/2019 and after postmortem he and his uncle Umesh Pandey received the dead body against receipt Ex. PW1/G. He deposed that he did not remember the exact date, however, after some days of the incident, police obtained his blood sample. He identified 28 photographs Mark PW1/1 to Mark PW1/28. He deposed that the knife used in commission of offence was a kitchen knife, having total length about 8-9 inches.
4.(f) MHC(M) produced one bed sheet in two pieces of multi colour, one other bed sheet piece of different colour and one light brown torn underwear make Rupa in four sealed parcels bearing no.1A, 1I, 1J and 1G. PW1 identified the underwear Ex. PW1/P1 as the one belonging to deceased Sanjeev Pandey, bed sheet in two pieces Ex. PW1/P2 and other piece of bed sheet Ex. PW1/P3 of different colour as the same that he used to cover/wrap the blood stained body of deceased Sanjeev Pandey to take him to hospital after the incident and which was later seized by the doctor. He also identified one blue and white checkdar shirt Ex. PW1/P4 and one black pant Ex. PW1/P5 as the same that he wore at the time of incident and that got stained with blood while taking his deceased cousin to hospital.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.5/52
4.(g) MHC(M) also produced one multi colour gamcha, one camal colour pillow cover and one grey colour, having three white strips, barmuda nicker, all having blood stains, in three different sealed parcels bearing no.1E, 1F and 1K. PW1 identified the gamcha Ex. PW1/P6 and pillow cover Ex. PW1/P7 as the same belonging to him and were seized by police being stained with blood. He identified the nicker Ex. PW1/P8 as the same belonging to the accused that accused wore at the time of incident. MHC(M) also produced one black handle knife in parcel bearing no.1L. PW1 identified the knife Ex. PW1/P9 as the same with which the accused caused injury to deceased.
4.(h) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 replied that he started residing as tenant at 1st Floor of H. No.130, Jamrudpur Village, New Delhi, around 20-22 months before July-2019, whereas, deceased Sanjeev Pandey joined the tenancy in his room in the same house around six months before July- 2019 and they used to pay equal rent of Rs.3,200/- per month to the landlord. He replied that he knew accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora and his wife being tenants in the same house/premises. He replied that there were five rooms between his room and the room of accused. He replied that he had no visiting terms to the house of accused. He replied that the accused never quarreled him or his cousin Sanjeev Pandey (deceased) prior to the incident. He replied that he had no knowledge if Sanjeev Pandey and accused Jitan Bora used to consume liquor; neither did he know if Sanjeev had consumed liquor in the night of incident. He replied that accused never quarreled with him or with any other SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.6/52 resident in his presence. He replied that he was not aware if accused and deceased had consumed liquor together on the fateful night. He replied that he never consumed liquor. He denied the suggestion that Sanjeev Pandey used to consume liquor and for that reason he used to scold him.
4.(i) PW1 replied that he and his brother Sanjeev Pandey were awakened when they heard the noise of quarrel between accused and his wife in the intervening night of 12-13 July-2019, at about 02:00AM. He replied that Sanjeev Pandey discussed nothing with him prior to going to the room of accused on the night of incident. He replied that he did not step out from his room at that time, neither was he aware what happened in room of the accused. He replied that after about 15 minutes, his brother returned to their room from the room of accused. He replied that there were 10 rooms at first floor of the tenanted house and approximately 18-20 persons resided in the said rooms. He replied that he was not aware if any of the occupant from other nine rooms had gone to room of the accused. He replied that loud noise was coming out from the room of the accused. He denied the suggestion that many other occupants from first floor had also reached the room of accused. He replied that he was sitting inside his room, whereas, Sanjeev Pandey was standing at a distance of 5-6 feet from door of the room when accused came in their room at about 02:00AM. He stated that as soon as accused Jitan Bora came in their room, he tried to stop him near gate of their room.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.7/52
4.(j) PW1 admitted that his brother Sanjeev Pandey had hit danda on head of the accused first in their room. He replied that first of all manhandling (roka roki) occurred between him and the accused when accused entered his room. He replied that he saw knife in hand of the accused when he entered his room and, therefore, he stopped the accused at the door of his room. He denied the suggestion that the accused was empty handed (khali haath) when he entered in their room. He denied the suggestion that accused had hot talks with him and his brother i.e. deceased and, thereafter, he went from his room. He replied that no occupant from first floor had come to their room during as well as after the incident. He voluntarily stated that the occupants were watching the incident from their respective rooms. He replied that on raising alarm one Vidhan Chand came to him for help, however, he did not see the incident occurred inside their room. He voluntarily stated that Vidhan Chand had seen accused Jitan Bora going out of their room. He replied that the accused was arrested in his presence in noon hours.
4.(k) PW1 replied that the accused had worn T-shirt and lower, however, he did not remember their colour. He replied that many persons were present inside the park at the time of arrest of accused. He replied that 2-3 persons were present at a distance of 100 meters from the place of arrest of accused. He replied that the accused was sitting inside the park at the time of apprehension, however, he did not see accused entering the park. He replied that someone had told police about presence of accused in the park before his apprehension. He replied that he SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.8/52 was not aware about presence of accused in the park before going there alongwith police officials; police officials told him about presence of accused in park. He denied the suggestion that accused himself surrendered at police station. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not arrested by police from N- Block Park. He replied that he did not see colour of the handle of knife. Again said: colour of the handle of knife might be black. He replied that the accused wore half nicker having lines, at the time of incident, but was wearing nothing on upper portion of his body. He denied the suggestion that he did not see accused Jitan Bora coming towards his room having knife in his hand. He denied the suggestion that he did not see the accused giving knife blows to his brother i.e. deceased Sanjeev Pandey. He denied the suggestion that he leveled false and frivolous allegations against the accused to implicate him in present case since apart from him no other person was present at the time of incident. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely for personal reasons in order to implicate the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was interested witness as deceased was his cousin and was residing with him.
5. PW2 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, Draftsman, deposed that on 05/08/2019 on request of IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey, he alongwith the IO visited the spot i.e. First Floor, H. No.130, Jamrudpur, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, where he inspected the spot, took measurements and prepared rough notes on the spot, pointed out by the IO. On the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW2/A on SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.9/52 06/08/2019. He deposed that after preparation of scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes.
6.(a) PW3 Vidhan Chand Rai deposed that he alongwith his roommate Amit used to reside as tenant in room no. 11 at first floor of the same H. No. 130 (supra), where accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora was residing as a tenant in room no.13. He deposed that he had no knowledge if wife of Jitan Bora was also residing with him. He deposed that there were 10 rooms at first floor of the tenanted house.
6.(b) PW3 deposed that in the intervening night of 12- 13/07/2019, at about 03:00AM, he returned to his room and went to bed. In the morning at about 07:00AM, when he woke up, he found 4-5 police officials busy in some proceedings at first floor and after noting down his name, parentage and address, they left from there. He deposed that he came to know about murder of a boy at first floor, however, he did not know his name. He deposed that on 13/07/2019, at about 09:00AM - 10:00AM, he left his room. He deposed that he did not know Sanjeev Pandey, neither police overpowered accused Jitan Bora in his presence at any point of time. He deposed that he did not know other facts of the case. Since PW3 resiled from his previous statement recorded U/s. 161 CrPC, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State.
6.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, PW3 denied the suggestion that police recorded his statement on 14/07/2019. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely regarding his SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.10/52 arrival at his room from his work place in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2019, at about 03:00AM. He admitted that accused Jitan Bora used to reside with his wife in room no.13. He denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement dated 14/07/2019 to police that accused and his wife used to quarrel with each other (PW3 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW3/A, from portion A to A, wherein it was so recorded). He denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement dated 14/07/2019 to police that in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2019, at about 01:00AM - 02:00AM, a quarrel took place between accused Jitan Bora and his wife Rukmani (PW3 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW3/A, from portion B to B, wherein it was so recorded). He denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement dated 14/07/2019 to police that in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2019, at about 02:00AM, he heard a noise of Ajit Pandey, resident of room of 19, who was raising alarm that his brother had been killed and was crying for help. He denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement dated 14/07/2019 to police that on hearing the cry of Ajit Pandey, he came out of his room and saw that accused Jitan Bora, having a knife in his hand, was fleeing from the first floor (PW3 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW3/A, from portion C to C, wherein it was so recorded). He denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement dated 14/07/2019 to police that accused had worn a long nicker at that time (PW3 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW3/A, from portion D to D, wherein it was so recorded). He denied the suggestion that he stated in his statement dated 14/07/2019 to police that he immediately reached room no.19 SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.11/52 and saw that Ajit Pandey was holding his injured brother Sanjeev and was taking him downstairs. He denied the suggestion that Ajit Pandey brought an auto/TSR and took his injured brother to hospital and, thereafter, he returned to his room (PW3 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW3/A, from portion E to E, wherein it was so recorded). He voluntarily stated that after about 2-3 days of the incident, he came to know that Sanjeev had expired. He replied that he came to know about arrest of accused Jitan Bora when he was at his native village and received Court notice, voluntarily stating that "isse saaf jahir hota hai ki kuch to hua hai iske dwara (Jitan Bora) tabhi ye jail me gaya hai ". He denied the suggestion that he intentionally did not support the prosecution case being won over by the accused and created a new story that he was not present in his room at the time of incident, neither did he see accused Jitan Bora having knife in his hand. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely to save the accused.
6.(d) In cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW3 admitted that he deposed in Court without any force, threat or coercion. He replied that accused Jitan and his wife were not personally known to him. He voluntarily stated that he started residing in the tenanted room 5-6 months prior to the incident. He replied that police never recorded his statement.
7. PW4 Dr. Subhankar Paul, DNB SS Resident, BLK Super Specialty Hospital, deposed that on 13/07/2019, he was on emergency duty at Emergency Department at JPNA Trauma SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.12/52 Center, AIIMS and, at about 02:47AM, injured Sanjeev Pandey, aged 28 years, was brought by Ajit Pandey with alleged history of assault. He deposed that he conducted medical examination of the injured and noticed that the injured had sustained three injuries. He deposed that after giving first aid, he referred the injured to Radiology, Neuro Surgery, Orthopedics, trauma Surgery and Medicine for further treatment and management. He deposed that the injuries were caused by sharp object and he opined the nature of injury as dangerous. He deposed that he prepared MLC Ex. PW4/A.
8.(a) PW5 Dr. Shinto Devassy, Asstt. Professor, Govt. Medical College, Haldwani, Uttrakhand, deposed that on 13/07/2019 he was posted as Sr. Resident in Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, and on that day Inspector Pankaj Pandey moved application Ex. PW5/A for conducting postmortem examination of deceased Sanjeev Pandey. He deposed that after identification of the dead body by its relatives i.e. Umesh Pal and Ajeet Pandey, he conducted postmortem examination of deceased Sanjeev Pandey and found following injuries on his body:
i) Sutured wound was present over right side upper abdomen, obliquely placed, measuring 1.5cm x 0.6cm, upper end was 38cm below the right shoulder tip, lower end was 110cm from right heels and 11.5cm from the midline. One suture was present insitu and, on opening, upper end was blunt and lower end was sharp.
On dissection the track of wound was going upward medially and backward penetrating skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.13/52 parietal fold of peritoneum entering the peritoneal cavity. The track of wound measures 07cm and blood was extravasated throughout the track.
ii) Sutured wound was present over left side of lower chest, obliquely placed, measuring 2cm x 0.6cm, upper end was 27cm below the left shoulder, end was 122cm from left heels and 17cm from midline. One suture was present insitu and, on opening, upper end was blunt and lower end was sharp. On dissection thoracotomy or surgical incised wound was present over the sixth intercostal space and muscles of sixth intercostal space was excised and retracted. The sixth rib was fractured and displaced at the level of midclavicular line. The wound was penetrating skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles and then the track could not be traced because of surgical intervention. Pericardium was incised and kept open. Heart was having a sutured wound over the lateral aspect measuring 4cm and a rent of 1.5cm x 1.5cm x left ventricle cavity deep in between was noted. On dissection a clean was present over the mid of papillary muscle extending for 3.5cm. The wound was directed upward, medially and backward. The track of wound could not be measured because of surgical intervention and blood was extravasated throughout and over the fracture site.
iii) Stab wound was present over the left thigh, obliquely placed, measuring 1.2 x 0.6cm, upper end was 21.5cm below the anterior superior iliac spine and lower end was 68cm from left heels. Upper end was sharp and lower end was blunt. On SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.14/52 dissection, the track of wound was going upward, medially and backward penetrating skin and subcutaneous tissue. The track of wound measures 3cm and blood was extravasated throughout the track.
8.(b) PW5 deposed that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to injuries sustained to heart and injury No.2 was fatal and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He prepared postmortem report Ex. PW5/B. He identified the knife Ex. PW1/P9, produced by MHCM(M), submitting that injuries no.1, 2 and 3 were possible with the produced weapon of offence i.e. knife.
8.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 replied that he conducted the postmortem at about 12:30PM, almost 09 hours after death. He admitted that there was surgical procedure conducted on body of the deceased and due to which he was not able to ascertain the measurement of the wound. He replied that injury no.2 could be possible by the knife shown to him.
9. PW6 HC Parasram, deposed that on 13/07/2019, he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Greater Kailash, from 08:00AM to 04:00PM and, at about 09:50AM, on receipt of rukka from Ct. Asif, prepared by Inspector Pankaj Pandey, he recorded DD Entry No. 14-A, got the FIR Ex. PW6/A registered through computer operator and made endorsement Ex. PW6/B on it. The investigation was handed over to Inspector Pankaj Pandey. He SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.15/52 deposed that he handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Asif to be given to the IO. He also issued certificate Ex. PW6/C regarding correctness of FIR as well as proper care and maintenance of computer system. He produced original FIR and DD No.14-A Ex. PW6/D.
10. PW7 HC Basant Kumar, PS Saket, deposed that on 13/07/2019 he was posted in PCR and was on duty at vehicle no. Eagle-8 that was stationed at Emergency Gate of AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi. He deposed that during night at about 02:58AM he received a call from Command Room to inquire about admission of the injured, who was already admitted in hospital. He deposed that on conversation, caller Ajit Pandey (PW1) informed him that injured Sanjeev Pandey, stabbed by one Jitan, was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center and was under
treatment. He deposed that he passed the said information to Command Room Eagle-I, made entry in PCR Call Book and handed over the copy of said book to IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey. He identified the PCR Call that he wrote in Call Book Mark PW7/A. IO recorded his statement.
In cross-examination, he replied that he received the call from Eagle-I. He replied that he did not meet the injured in hospital as he was taken to operation theater.
11.(a) PW8 HC Kailash Singh, PS Saket, deposed that in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2019 he was on emergency duty from 08:00PM to 08:00AM alongwith Ct. Asif and, at about SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.16/52 02:16AM, on receipt of information that one person had become unconscious due to bleeding, he reached H. No.130, 1st Floor, Jamroodpur, however, the said house was found locked. He deposed that on inquiry at the spot he came to know that the injured was already taken to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. He reached AIIMS Trauma Center, where he met brother of injured, who told him that injured i.e. his brother Sanjeev Pandey was in operation theater and his condition was serious. He deposed that he gave the said information to IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey, who reached the hospital and, in the meantime, they came to know that the injured had died. He deposed that the IO interrogated Sanjeev Pandey, brother of deceased, and recorded his statement. He deposed that duty Constable Sunil handed over blood stained cloth pullandas, sealed with the hospital seal, of deceased alongwith sample seal to the IO. IO seized the said pullandas Ex. P-9 and prepared the inquest papers of deceased.
11.(b) PW8 deposed that the IO left him in hospital and went to place of incident alongwith Ct. Asif and complainant Ajit Pandey. He deposed that SI Sanjay also reached the hospital, got the postmortem of deceased conducted and after postmortem the body was handed over to its relatives, and he signed the handing over memo of dead body. He deposed that the complainant Ajit Pandey handed over his wearing blood stained black pant and blue & white check shirt to IO. IO seized the clothes of complainant in a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of PP. He deposed that on the same day i.e. 13/07/2019, at about 02:30PM, on receipt of a secret information regarding presence SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.17/52 of accused Jitan in N-Block Park, Jamroodpur, New Delhi, he alongwith IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey, Constable Asif, secret informer and complainant Ajit Pandey reached there. He deposed that on the pointing out of secret informer as well as on identification of the complainant as the offender who stabbed deceased Sanjeev Pandey with knife, they apprehended the accused, who was sitting under a tree in the said park. He deposed that on inquiry by IO, the apprehended person disclosed his name as Jitan @ Jitan Bora and confessed the commission of offence. He deposed that IO arrested the accused and discharged the complainant after recording of his statement U/s. 161 CrPC.
11.(c) Accused was brought to police station and IO recorded his disclosure statement. In his disclosure statement, the accused disclosed that at the time of incident he wore a barmooda (nicker) that he kept in a plastic panni (polythene) alongwith the knife that he used to commit the offence, in bushes near N-Block Park and he could get them recovered. Thereafter, the police team alongwith the accused reached N-Block Park, where the accused got recovered one blood stained knife that he used to cause injuries to the deceased. The recovered knife had a steel blade engraved with the words ACIER INOX THEIR FRANCE on it, sharp edge of the knife was 10 cm and the length of its handle was 11cm, which was made of black plastic. He deposed that IO prepared sketch of the knife, wrapped it in a white paper, prepared a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of PP. Thereafter, accused got recovered a white polythene from bushes which contained one blood stained barmooda shorts having white strips SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.18/52 with label 'APINDHRA WEAVIN THE PLUSH'. IO kept the barmooda in same panni (polythene), prepared a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of PP. He deposed that IO prepared site plan of place of recovery and he signed all the memos including site plan, prepared by IO. IO recorded his statement. He identified his signatures at point 'A' on seizure memo Ex. PW8/A of clothes of deceased, at point 'B' on arrest memo Ex. PW1/C as well as personal search memo of the accused, at point 'A' on disclosure statement Ex. PW8/B of the accused, at point 'A' on seizure memo Ex. PW1/P-8 containing barmooda, at point 'A' on seizure memo Ex. PW8/C of plastic panni (polythene) containing recovered knife at the instance of accused, at point 'A' on site plan Ex. PW8/D of place of recovery of barmooda.
11.(d) PW8 deposed that on 23/07/2019, on the directions of IO, he visited AIIMS Trauma Center, in forensic department and collected postmortem report, viscera box, blood gauze and sample seal of JPNATC AIIMS and handed over the said articles to IO, who prepared their seizure memo. PW8 identified the accused. He also identified the blue and white checkdar shirt Ex. PW1/P4, one black pant Ex. PW1/P5 as the clothes belonging to complainant, one gray colour barmooda having white strips/nicker Ex. PW1/P8 as the same that was got recovered by accused from bushes and the knife with black handle Ex. PW1/P9.
11.(e) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW8 replied that he was asked by the duty officer to reach the spot.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.19/52 He replied that at that time he received no information about the accused. He replied that IO reached the AIIMS Trauma Center after him and after recording the statement of Ajit Pandey, they all left the AIIMS Trauma Center at about 05:00AM and went to PS. He replied that on receipt of telephone call from the IO regarding presence of the wanted person in this case, he alongwith other 2-3 police officials including secret informer accompanied the IO to the park at about 02:30PM in police vehicle, however, they did not make any departure entry in that regard in any register. He replied that on the pointing out of secret informer IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey apprehended accused Jitan Bora. He replied that there were 3-4 public persons sitting in the park, however, they were far away from the spot and nobody was inquired about the matter. He replied that they spent almost one hour in conducting proceedings in the park and, thereafter, they left the park and reached police station. He replied that IO made no entry in any register in his presence regarding apprehension of accused Jitan Bora. He replied that about 04:30PM, he deposited the knife in malkhana of police station. He replied that he signed the seizure memo of knife and also witnessed the seizure memo of clothes of the accused. He replied that the IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not apprehended from the park but himself surrendered in police station on 13/07/2019. He denied the suggestion that no knife was recovered from bushes in the park on 13/07/2019.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.20/52
12.(a) PW9 ASI Charat Lal deposed that in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2019 he was posted at PS Greater Kailash as duty officer from 12:00 Midnight to 08:00AM and, at about 02:16AM, he received a PCR call from Control Room that " 130 Zamdurpur G.K.-I, GK or Moolchand ke beech Metro Pillar No.66 bleeding ke karan behosh ho gaya", that he reduced into writing vide DD No.6A Ex. P-9/A and marked it to HC Kailash Chand for necessary action. He produced DD No.6A Ex. PW in Court.
12.(b) PW9 deposed that in the same night at about 04:53AM, he received another information from AIIMS Trauma Center from Duty Constable Sunil who informed him about admission of one Sanjeev Pandey in Trauma Center by his brother Ajit Pandey. He reduced the said information into writing vide DD NO.7A, Ex. PW9/B and marked it to Inspector Pankaj Pandey for necessary action. He produced DD No.7A in the Court.
12.(c) PW9 further deposed that in the morning of same night at about 05:48AM Duty Constable Sunil from AIIMS Trauma Center again informed him that injured Sanjeev Pandey had expired. He reduced the said information into writing vide DD No.8A, Ex. PW9/C and marked it to Inspector Pankaj Pandey. He produced DD No.8A in the Court.
In cross-examination, PW9 replied that he received the call from South Control Room in his computer and, thereafter, he looked at the call.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.21/52
13. PW10 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 13/07/2019 he was posted as Constable at PS Greater Kailash and on that day he delivered copy of FIR of present case at the residence of Area Magistrate, DCP as well as to Joint CP. He deposed that on 26/07/2019, on the direction of IO, he collected 14 sealed pullandas, three sample seals and one box containing viscera from Malkhana, took them to FSL, Chankya Puri vide RC No.27/21/2019, Ex. PW10/C and deposited the box containing viscera at FSL against receipt EX. PW10/A. He deposed that as the other exhibits could not be deposited on that day due to some objections, he brought them back to PS and deposited in Malkhana. He deposed that on 06/08/2019 he again collected 14 sealed pullandas and three sample seals from Malkhana and went to FSL, Chankya Puri, vide RC No.45/21/2019, Ex. PW10/D, and deposited them at FSL against receipt Ex. PW10/B. IO recorded his statement.
In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW10 replied that he did not remember what objection was raised by FSL on 26/07/2019, however, he was provided with a written paper that he handed over to the IO and deposited the pullandas back to Malkhana. He replied that he did not remember what document was given to him by FSL after he deposited Ex. PW1/B there on 06/08/2019. He replied that he did not ask the IO on 06/08/2019 about removal of objection raised by FSL.
14.(a) PW11 Constable Asif deposed that in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2019 he alongwith HC Kailash was posted at PS SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.22/52 Greater Kailash and was on emergency duty from 08:00PM to 08:00AM. He deposed that, during night hours on receipt of DD No.6A by HC Kailash from duty officer, he alongwith HC Kailash reached the spot i.e. H. No.130, First Floor, Jamroodpur, where they came to know that the injured was already taken to Trauma Center, AIIMA Hospital. He deposed that HC Kailash asked him to go back to police station and himself went to AIIMS Trauma Center. He deposed that IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey also received DD No.7A in police station and he alongwith the IO reached AIIMS Trauma Center, where they found admitted one Sanjeev Pandey, who was in operation theater. He deposed that in Trauma Center, they came to know that the injured had expired during treatment and the doctor handed over one sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased alongwith one sample seal to them. IO seized the said pullanda Ex. PW8/A. He deposed that complainant Ajit Pandey was also present in Trauma Center, with whom he and the IO reached the spot i.e. H. No.130 (supra). He deposed that on call of IO, the crime team reached the spot, which inspected as well as photographed the spot. The crime team also lifted blood sample from the spot and handed it over to the IO, who seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. He deposed that IO prepared pullanda of exhibit, selaed it with the seal of PP and recorded statement of complainant Ajit Pandey. He deposed that the IO endorsed the statement and handed over the rukka to him for registration of FIR. He deposed that he went to police statement, got the FIR Ex. PW6/A registered through duty officer. After registration of FIR, PW11 returned to the spot and handed over SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.23/52 the rukka and copy of FIR to IO. He deposed that at the instance of complainant, IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/B.
14.(b) PW11 deposed that HC Kailash also reached the spot and after getting the postmortem of deceased conducted, they started searching for the accused. He deposed that at about 02:30PM a secret information was received by IO that the accused wanted in the present case was sitting in park of N-Block and was waiting for someone. On receipt of said information, he alongwith HC Kailash, IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey, complainant Ajit Pandey and the secret informer reached N-Block, Park, where, at the pointing out of secret informer, they apprehended a body, who after apprehension revealed his name as Jitan Bora. He deposed that during interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt and, thereafter, he was arrested, his personal was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. After recording of supplementary statement, complainant Ajit Pandey was relieved and the accused, who wore an underwear (varmuda short/nicker) at that time, was brought to police station.
14.(c) PW11 deposed that the accused disclosed that he used a knife in committing the offence that he hid in bushes in N-Block Park and he could get it recovered. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Kailash, the IO and the accused reached N-Block Park, where accused led them to bushes and pointed out the knife lying in the bushes, stating that it was the knife by which he attacked Sanjeev Pandey. He deposed that something was written in English on knife. He deposed that IO prepared sketch Ex. PW11/B of the SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.24/52 recovered knife and there were blood stains on its blade. Thereafter, IO prepared pullanda of knife, sealed it with the seal of PP and seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/C. PW11 again said that when accused was apprehended, he disclosed that he had hidden his underwear barmuda in bushes of N-Block Park and he could get it recovered. He deposed that the accused also got recovered the varmuda/nicker from the park, which was seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/D. There were blood stains on the recovered barmuda/nicker. IO prepared pullanda of barmuda short and sealed it with the seal of PP. PW11 deposed that he inadvertently stated that accused wore barmuda short at the time of his apprehension.
14.(d) PW11 further deposed that the IO also found blood in the room where Sanjeev Pandey was murdered. He deposed that the IO seized 5-6 articles (pillow cover, folding cot) from room no.19 of H. No.130 (supra) and prepared their seizure memo Ex. PW11/E. He deposed that the complainant also handed over his blood stained pant and shirt to the IO stating that he wore the said clothes while saving his deceased brother. IO seized the said clothes vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/E, prepared their pullanda and sealed it with the seal of PP. IO recorded his statement. He identified the accused. He also identified the knife Ex. PW1/P9, barmuda short having white strips on both sides Ex. PW1/P8, one blue and white checkdar shirt Ex. PW1/P4 and black pant Ex. PW1/P5, both having blood stains, of the complainant, one multi colour gamcha having blood stains Ex. PW1/P6 stated to be seized from room no.19 and one pillow cover Ex. PW1/P7 stated SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.25/52 to be seized from room of the accused. PW11 also identified 03 plastic pieces of niwad of folding cot Ex. PW11/P-1 (Colly.) having some brownish stains/blood stains over them stating that the same were lifted from room no.19, H. No.130 (supra), one piece of plastic sack Ex. PW11/P-2, having blood stains stating that it was taken by cutting plastic sack lying in room of the accused. He deposed that the IO also lifted the blood lying in the room as well as on its wall, prepared the pullanda and sealed it with the seal of PP.
14.(e) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW11 replied that he met complainant Ajit Pandey at AIIMS Trama Center, from where, he alongwith the IO reached the spot of incident. He replied that the crime team photographed the spot of incident. He replied that the accused was apprehended from N- Block Park. He replied that he alongwith IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey, HC Kailash Chand and secret informer went to apprehend the accused. He replied that the complainant also accompanied them. He replied that the accused was identified by complainant as well as secret informer and the accused was apprehended by police team. He replied that he did not remember who conducted personal search of the accused, however, he was interrogated by IO in his presence at police station. He replied that the accused got recovered the knife and barmooda underwear from bushes. He replied that the blood was present on several places of the room. He replied that the articles i.e. gamcha, pillow cover, pieces of folding cot, blood from the room as well as as its wall, plastic piece of sack containing blood etc. were SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.26/52 seized by police team in his presence. He replied that at the time of recovery of knife public persons park mein honge hee... per hamare nazdeek koi nahi thaa..., however, he did not remember if they had talked to any public person there. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation during recovery of articles and, later on, he was cited as witness of recovery of articles. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not arrested in his presence.
15. PW12 Constable Ajit Kumar deposed that on 17/01/2020 he joined investigation of present case and, on the directions of IO, he took pullanda containing a knife, duly sealed with the seal of 'VSN R FSL CH PURI' from Malkhana vide RC No. 66/21/20, Ex. PW12/A, and deposited the same at Forensic Department, AIIMS, against acknowledgment.
In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW12 replied that he did not remember at what time the pullanda containing knife was handed over to him by the MHC(M). He replied that he signed RC after taking pullanda from the Malkhana.
16.(a) PW13/IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey deposed that on 13/07/2019 he was posted at PS Greater Kailash, New Delhi, and, at about 04:30AM, he received a telephonic information from HC Kailash that one Sanjeev Kumar from Jamroodpur was admitted in hospital and was serious. He deposed that Duty Constable at AIIMS Trauma Center also informed the police SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.27/52 station through DD No.7A about the same information vide MLC Ex. PW4/A. He deposed that he alongwith Constable Asif reached AIIMS Trauma Center, where they met HC Kailash and complainant Ajit Pandey, cousin of injured Sanjeev Pandey. He deposed that he also saw injured Sanjeev Pandey, who was unconscious having injuries on his thigh and chest. He deposed that he inquired from Ajit Pandey about the incident and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that while in hospital he came to know that the injured had expired due to the injuries and DD No.8A was recorded in that regard as the information was sent to hospital by Duty Constable. He deposed that in hospital the concerned doctor handed over to him the blood stained clothes of deceased Sanjeev Pandey, sealed with the seal of CMO JPNATC AIIMS NEW DELHI.
16.(b) PW13 deposed that he alongwith Ajit Pandey went to the spot, inspected the spot and found blood stains inside the room as well as on its wall, floor and cot. He deposed that he informed Crime Team, which reached the spot, inspected the spot and photographed it. He deposed that the Crime Team lifted blood from the spot, kept it in a voil stick and handed it over to him. He seized the voil stick vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A, prepared its pullanda, sealed it with the seal of PP and recorded statement of officials of Crime Team. Thereafter, he made endorsement Ex. PW13/A on the statement of complainant Ajit Pandey, sent rukka through Constable Asif for registration of FIR, informed the Mobile FSL Team to reach the spot, seized the blood stained clothes of complainant and sealed them with the seal of PP.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.28/52
16.(c) PW13 deposed that after registration of FIR Constable Asif returned to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He deposed that he made inquiry from the neighbours of victim/complainant, who were residents of first floor at the place of incident. He deposed that there were rooms no. 11 to 20 at the place of incident, in which accused was residing in room no. 13, whereas, the victim was residing in room no.19. He deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B, made inquiry from wife of accused regarding quarrel as well as injuries sustained by Sanjeev Pandey, however, she could not tell anything about the injuries. He deposed that he called SI Sanjay to the spot, prepared inquest papers Ex. PW5/A and sent him as well as complainant to hospital for postmortem examination of the deceased. He deposed that prior to postmortem, the body of deceased was identified by Umesh Pal and Ajit Pandey vide their identification statements A4 and Ex. PW1/F, respectively. He deposed that the dead body was handed over to Ajit Pandey vide handing over memo Ex. PW1/G.
16.(d) PW13 deposed that the Mobile FSL Team reached the spot and lifted one blue colour blood stained gamcha, one blood stained pillow cover, blood stained pieces of folding cot, blood in gauze from the floor, blood from wall of the room and one piece of blood stained plastic gunny bag from the spot and handed them over to him. He prepared separate pullandas of the said exhibits, sealed them with the seal of PP and seized them vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/E. He deposed that at about 02:15PM, SI Sanjay along with complainant and HC Kailash returned from SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.29/52 the hospital and handed over the copies of preparation of papers for postmortem to him. He recorded statement of SI Sanjay. He deposed that he alongwith complainant and police staff reached near Blue Bell School, Jamroodpur, New Delhi, where they met with a secret informer, who informed that accused was sitting in N-Block Park, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. He deposed that he told the said fact to 4-5 passersby and requested them to join investigation, however, they left without telling their name or address. Thereafter, he alongwith police staff, informer and the complainant reached N-Block Park, where complainant pointed out towards a young man, who was sitting in one corner of the Park, as accused Jitan Bora who stabbed his cousin Sanjeev Pandey and he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C, and conducted his personal search Ex. PW1/D. He deposed that he recorded statement of complainant Ajit Pandey and relieved him from there.
16.(e) PW13 deposed that, thereafter, he alongwith the accused and police staff came to police station, where he interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW8/B. He deposed that during his disclosure statement, accused Jitan Bora disclosed that he hid his shorts that he wore at the time of incident and the kitchen knife that he used to commit the offence, in the park from where he was arrested. Thereafter, he alongwith the police staff and the accused reached N-Block Park, Jamroodpur and the accused led them to the place where he hid the kitchen knife and his shorts. He deposed that the accused took out the knife from bushes that had blood stains on its blade.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.30/52 He took measurement of the recovered knife, prepared its sketch Ex. PW11/B. He deposed that the total length of the knife was 21cm, length of blade was 10cm, length of handle, made of black plastic, was 11cm and something was engraved on the knife. He wrapped the knife in a white paper, prepared its pullanda and sealed it with the seal of PP. Thereafter, accused took out a plastic panni (polythene) containing one gray barmooda shorts having three strips on its both sides, from bushes. There were blood stains on the recovered clothe and it was the only one that he wore at the time of incident. He seized the recovered barmooda shorts, prepared its pullanda and sealed it with the seal of PP.
16.(f) PW13 deposed that he prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW8/C of place of recovery of knife and barmooda shorts, prepared the sketch Ex. PW8/D of place of recovery and returned to police station alongwith the accused and police team. He deposited the exhibits in Malkhana and recorded statement of witnesses, who joined recovery of knife and barmooda shorts. He deposed that on 14/07/2019, accused was sent to judicial custody. He deposed that during investigation he met one person namely Bidan Chand (PW3 Vidhan Chand), who claimed himself to be the eye witness of the incident dated 13/07/2019 and he recorded his statement. He deposed that during investigation he collected viscera and blood in gauze of the accused and prepared their seizure memo Ex. PW13/B. He deposed that on 31/07/2019, with permission of the Court, blood sample of the accused was taken at DDU Hospital and was handed over to him. He seized the SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.31/52 blood sample of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/C. He deposed that on 05/08/2019, he took complainant Ajit Pandey to AIIMS Hospital, where his blood sample was taken and was handed over to him. He seized the blood sample of complainant vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/C. He deposed that during investigation he also recorded statement of witness Khem Chand, brother-in-law of deceased.
16.(g) PW13 deposed that on 26/07/2019 he sent one box containing viscera of deceased to FSL Chankya Puri through Ct. Ashok vide RC No.27/12/19, Ex. PW10/D. On 08/08/2019, he also sent 14 exhibits alongwith sample seal to FSL through Ct. Ashok Kumar vide RC, who after depositing the same at FSL, handed over receipt Ex. PW10/B to him. He deposed that during investigation he collected Crime Team Report Ex. A-3 and 28 photographs Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/28 as well as report of the Mobile FSL Team. He deposed that he got the spot inspected by Draftsman Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW2/A, collected MLC of deceased Ex. PW4/A at the time of postmortem, also collected postmortem report Ex. PW5/B, recorded statement of witnesses and filed them in Court.
16.(h) PW13 deposed that he collected PCR Form, copy of Logbook, both Ex. A-1 (Colly.) and recorded statement of Basant Kumar, In-charge PCR Van. He identified the following articles/case property that were seized during the investigation:-
i) Ex. PW1/P-1: Underwear; ii) Ex. PW1/P-2: Two pieces of bed sheet (Colly.); SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.32/52 iii) Ex. PW1/P-3: Another piece of bed sheet stating that all three articles were received from hospital by Duty Constable Sunil, after death of deceased Sanjeev Pandey; iv) Ex. PW1/P-4: One blue and white checkdar Shirt & v) Ex. PW1/P-5: Black Pant as the same belonging to complainant Ajit Pandey; vi) Ex. PW1/P-6: Gamcha & vii) Ex. PW1/P-7: pillow cover as the same that were lifted by Mobile FSL Team from the spot. viii) Ex. PW1/P-8: Barmooda Nicker as the same belonging to accused Jitan Bora that accused got recovered from N-Block Park, Jamroodpur; ix) Ex. PW1/P-9: Knife as the same that accused got recovered from bushes at N-Block Park, near Jamroodpur; x) Ex. PW11/P-1: The pieces of plastic niwar (Colly.) having brownish blood stained as the same that were cut by Mobile FSL Team from the cot at the spot; xi) Ex. PW11/P-2: Piece of sack having blood stains as the same that was cut by Mobile FSL Team at the spot; xii) Ex. PW13/P-1: Blood in gauze as the same that was lifted by Mobile FSL Team from wall of the room of incident; SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.33/52 xiii) Ex. PW13/P-2: Blood in gauze as the same belonging to the accused and that was collected at DDU Hospital; xiv) Ex. PW13/P-3: The voil stick as the same that was lifted by Mobile Crime Team from the spot; xv) Ex. PW13/P-4: Blood in gauze as the same that was taken by doctor in hospital and was, later on, handed over to him; xvi) Ex. PW13/P-5: Blood in gauze as the same that he seized from hospital after medical examination of complainant; xvii) Ex. PW13/P-6: Blood in gauze as the same that was lifted by Mobile FSL Team from floor of the room of incident;
He deposed that he prepared the chargesheet and filed it in the Court. He deposed that he deposited the exhibits in FSL, collected FSL result, postmortem report, subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence and cause of death, and filed them in Court through supplementary chargesheet Ex. PW13/E. He deposed that he collected photographs of place of incident, the scaled site plan from Draftsman and filed them in main chargesheet.
PW16.(i) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW13 replied that he remained at the spot for about 5-6 hours, however, he could not tell the exact time. He replied that he made inquiry SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.34/52 from various people of the same floor in the morning of 13/07/2019 but he could not tell the exact number of people. He replied that the complainant told him that accused Jitan Bora had also sustained injury. He denied the suggestion that during investigation he came to know that accused and deceased were about to consume liquor in the room of the deceased and the deceased had passed some filthy comments about wife of the accused and, thereafter, a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. He voluntarily stated that during investigation, accused disclosed that he doubted that deceased had an illicit relation with his wife. He replied that as far as he remembered they were 5-10 in number including him, other police staff, secret informer and the witness i.e. complainant, when he arrested the accused from N-Block Park. He replied that he made efforts to join 4-5 people in investigation outside N-Block Park, however, they left the spot without providing their details and reasons. He replied that the complainant accompanied him at the time of arrest of the accused. He replied that he tried to join public witness at the time of recovery of knife but none had agreed. He replied that he did not send the knife for opinion as the fingerprints did not come on rough surfaces because of material of its handle. He replied that the accused pointed out by secret informer and identified by complainant Ajit Pandey. He denied the suggestion that the accused himself surrendered in police station and was not arrested from N-Block Park. He denied the suggestion that to hide the true facts, no eye witness was made from place of the incident.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.35/52
17. PW14 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, Professor, JPNTC AIIMS, deposed that on 18/01/2020, Inspector Pankaj Pandey submitted a request for subsequent opinion on weapon of offence in regard to PM Report No. TC-484-19 of Sanjeev Pandey alongwith document mentioning RC No.66/21/20 and the weapon in sealed cover. He deposed that the subsequent opinion dated 18/02/2020 in that regard was prepared vide detailed report Ex. PW14/A and, as per opinion, the injuries as mentioned in MLC as well as in PM Report could be possible by the weapon examined. The sketch of the weapon is Ex. PW14/B bearing his signature at point 'A' and seal of the hospital at point 'B'. He identified the knife Ex. PW1/P9 as the same that was examined by him.
In cross-examination, PW14 replied that all three injuries could be possible by weapon Ex. PW1/P9.
18. PW15 Dr. V. Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Scientific Officer (Retired), deposed that on 06/08/2019, he was posted at RFSL Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, and on that day, 14 sealed parcels were received in the office of RFSL Chanakya Puri, in connection to present case. He deposed that he opened the exhibits, conducted biological as well as DNA analysis on them and blood was detected on exhibits 1B(i), 1B(ii), 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, 1H, 1K, 1L, 1M and 1N. The DNA analysis was conducted on the said exhibits. He deposed that the DNA (STR analysis) profiling performed on source of Ex. 1B(i) i.e. shirt (complainant), Ex. 1B(ii) i.e. pant (complainant), Ex. 1C i.e. cotton wool swab (PoO), Ex. 1D i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (deceased), Ex. 1E i.e. towel (spot), Ex. 1H i.e. cotton wool swab SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.36/52 (PoO), Ex. 1K i.e. half pant (accused), Ex. 1L i.e. knife, Ex. 1M i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (Jitan @ Jitan Bora) and Ex. 1N i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (complainant) was sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile from source of Ex. 1D i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (deceased) was similar to DNA profile from source of Ex. 1B(i) i.e. shirt (complainant), Ex. 1B(ii) i.e. pant (complainant), Ex. 1C i.e. cotton wool swab (PoO), Ex. 1E i.e. towel (spot), Ex. 1H cotton wool swab (PoO) and Ex. 1L i.e. knife. In the Allelic Data column 1C, 1E and 1H might be read as 'from the scene of crime' and 1D might be read 'that of deceased'. He proved his detailed DNA examination report alongwith Allelic Data Ex. PW15/A (Colly.). The remnant of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of 'VSN RFSL Ch. Puri New Delhi'.
19. Since accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora, through separate statements recorded U/s. 294 CrPC on dated 18/12/2021, 05/07/2022 and 14/09/2022, admitted contents and genuineness of the following documents, therefore the requirement to prove the said documents through concerned PWs was obviated:
i) Ex. A-1: PCR Form dated 13/07/2019 and record of Call Book of PCR (running into five pages);
ii) Ex. A-2: Record of Malkhana Register No.19 pertaining to deposition of case property/ exhibits in Malkhana and sending them to FSL and receipt of result from FSL;
iii) Ex. A-3: Scene of Crime Report (fingerprint expert/ proficient Report);
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora
FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.37/52
iv) Ex. A-4: Statement of Umesh Pal recorded on
13/07/2019, who identified dead body of
deceased Sanjeev Pandey;
v) Ex. A-5: Statement of Ct. Amit recorded on
13/07/2019, who photographed the spot
(Colly.);
vi) Ex. A-6: Statement of HC Sunil recorded on
05/08/2019, who took the complainant to
hospital for blood collection;
vii) Ex. A-7: Statement of HC Daya Nand, MHC(M),
recorded on 12/01/2020, who handed over the
sealed pullanda containing knife to Ct. Ajit to deposit the same to Department of Forensic Medicine for opinion;
viii) Ex. A-1: FSL Report dated 28/08/2019, prepared by Dr. Kanak Lata Verma from FSL Chanakya Puri, New Delhi;
ix) Ex. A-2: FSL Report dated 08/08/2019, prepared by Dr. Alka Jindal from FSL Rohini, Delhi;
x) Ex. A-8: 28 photographs (Colly.) showing the place of incident and the material found on the floor as well as inside the room;
20. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to the accused and his statement was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC. In SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.38/52 explanation to incriminating evidence, accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He stated that in the intervening night of 12-13/07/2019, after consuming liquor outside his house, when he came to his home, complainant Ajit Pandey and Sanjeev Pandey invited him to their room to consume liquor and, he, being under influence of liquor, agreed to drink in their room. He stated that when he went to their room, Ajit Pandey brought some namkeen from nearby shop and when they were about to consume liquor, Sanjeev Pandey passed some filthy comment about him and his wife stating that "tum chinki log bade kamine hote ho, tumhari aurten dhandha karti hain, teri wife badi sexy lagti hai aur main usse sex karna chahta hoon". He stated that on hearing such comment about his wife, he got angry and abused Sanjeev Pandey, on which Sanjeev Pandey gave blows on his face and hit on his head with a danda, whereas, Ajit Pandey started beating him with hands. He stated that he tried to resist them but could not, being under influence of liquor and started beating him very badly. He stated that because of danda blow on his head, he felt dizziness, however, succeeded somehow to release himself from them and ran away from room of Sanjeev Pandey. He further stated that in the next morning he went to house of his brother-in-law, who told him that police had taken his wife to police station for some inquiry. Thereafter, at about 06:00am - 06:30AM, he reached police station and, on inquiry about summoning of his wife to police station, Inspector Pankaj Pandey told him that a man named Sanjeev Pandey had expired and, for which brother of deceased had blamed him and made a complaint against him. He SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.39/52 stated that the IO further told him that an FIR U/s. 302 IPC had been lodged against him in which he was implicated as the accused, however, he was not aware of any death as he, being under influence of liquor as well as injured, left his house in the night. He stated that when he ran from his room, Sanjeev Pandey was alive. He stated that he did nothing wrong to Sanjeev Pandey.
The accused stated that he wished to lead evidence in defence, however, he did not avail of the opportunity to lead evidence in his defence. I have heard the elaborate final arguments from both sides. The evidence is analyzed as under:-
21. The Incident: - PW1 Ajit Pandey was present at the spot along with deceased Sanjay Pandey when the incident occurred. He described the incident in detail. He deposed that in the intervening night of 12 and 13 July 2019, at about 02:00AM, he and Sanjay Pandey heard a noise from the room of accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora, who was quarreling with his wife. His cousin Sanjay Pandey went there on hearing the noise from the room of accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora. On returning from the room of accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora, his cousin Sanjay Pandey told him that he had settled the matter between them. In the meantime, accused Jitan @ Jitan @ Jitan Bora followed his cousin Sanjeev Pandey from his room to their room, with a knife in his hand. He tried to stop the accused, but his cousin Sanjeev Pandey hit Danda on the head of accused Jithan Bora, as he had come to SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.40/52 their room with a knife and was saying " tera roz- roz kaa hamare kamre me aana khatam kar doonga".
PW1 stated that accused Jitan Bora pushed him as a result of which he fell on the floor. The accused then attacked Sanjeev Pandey with knife and caused injury on his chest and thigh. He stated that accused gave several knife blows on the person of Sanjeev Pandey with intention to kill him, while screaming " tera aaj kissa khatam kar doonga" He stated that he lifted injured Sanjeev Pandey and wrapped him with a bed sheet. He rushed injured Sanjeev Pandey to AIIMS trauma Centre in a TSR with the help of a neighbour. PW1 called police at 100 number before he rushed injured Sanjeev Pandey to the hospital. PW1 identified the seized clothes worn by him, by accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora and by deceased Sanjeev Pandey at the time of incident. He also identified the knife used by accused to stab the victim.
In cross-examination, PW1 replied that he was sitting in his room when accused Jithin Bora came there at around 02:00 am at night. At that time, Sanjeev Pandey was standing 5-6 feet away from the door in the room. When accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora attempted to enter the room, PW1 tried to stop him. Sanjeev Pandey hit danda on the head of accused Jithin Bora when he entered the room. Scuffling took place between PW1 and accused Jithin Bora in the room. PW1 replied that he saw knife in the hand of accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora, because of which he stopped him from entering the room. He denied the suggestion that accused Jatin Bora was bare handed when he entered the room.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.41/52 PW1 denied the suggestion that accused Jithin Bora merely exchanged hot words with him and victim Sanjeev Pandey, after which he returned to his room.
The presence of PW1 Ajit Pandey at the spot at the time of occurrence of incident is beyond pale of doubt. He explained in detail, the manner of occurrence of incident.
22. Medical Evidence: - PW-4 Dr. Subhankar Paul stated that on 13.07.2019 he was on duty in Emergency Department at JPNA Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi. On that day at about 02.47 am injured Sanjeev Pandey, 28 years, male brought by Ajit Pandey with alleged history of assault was medically examined by him. He recorded general condition of the injured. He noticed three injuries on the person of injured which were mentioned in detailed in the MLC Ex. PW-4/A. After giving first aid, he referred the injured to Radiology, Neuro Surgery, Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery and Medicine for further treatment and management. He recorded that injuries to the patient were caused by sharp object. Nature of injury was opined as dangerous.
PW5 Dr. Shinto Devassy contacted postmortem examination of body of deceased Sanjeev Pandey. As per postmortem report Ex. PW 5/B, body of deceased Sanjeev Pandey had following injuries: -
i) Sutured wound present over the right side upper abdomen, obliquely placed, measuring 1.5cm x 0.6 cm, upper end is 38cm SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.42/52 below the right shoulder tip, lower end is 110cm from the right heels and 11.5cm from the midline. One suture is present in situ and on opening upper end is blunt and lower end is sharp. On dissection the track of wound is going upward, medially and backward penetrating skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle and parietal fold of peritoneum entering the peritoneal cavity. The track of wound measures 07cm and blood is extravasated throughout the track.
ii) Sutured wound present over the left side of lower chest, obliquely placed, measuring 2cm x 0.6 cm, upper end is 27cm below the left shoulder tip, lower end is 122cm from the left heels and 17cm from the midline. One suture is present in-situ and on opening upper end is blunt and lower end is sharp. On dissection thoracotomy or surgical incised wound is present over the sixth intercostal space and muscles of sixth intercostal space is excised and retracted. The sixth rib is fractured and displaced at the level of mid clavicular line. The wound is penetrating skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscles and then the track could not be traced because of surgical intervention. Pericardium is incised and kept open, Heart is having a sutured wound over the lateral aspect measuring 4cm and a rent of 1.5cm x 1.5 cm x left ventricle cavity deep in between is noted. On dissection a clean is present over the mid of papillary muscle extending for 3.5cm.
The wound is directed upward, medially and backward. The track of wound cannot be measured because of surgical intervention and blood is extravasated throughout and over the fracture site.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora
FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.43/52
iii) Stab wound present over the left thigh, obliquely placed,
measuring 1.2cm x 0.6 cm, upper end is 21.5cm below the anterior superior iliac spine and lower end is 68cm from the left heels. Upper end is sharp and lower end is blunt. On dissection the tract of wound is going upward, medially and backward penetrating skin and subcutaneous tissue. The tract of wound measures 3cm and blood is extravasated throughout the track.
PW5 stated that the cause of death was due to hemorrhagic shock due to the injuries sustained to heart. Injury No. 2 was fatal and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Upon looking at the knife Ex. PW1/P9, PW5 stated that injuries no. 1,2 and 3 mentioned in the postmortem report could possibly be inflicted with it.
23. Recovery of Weapon of Offence: - PW8 HC Kailash Singh deposed that on 13/07/2019 he joined investigation with IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey who, at around 02:30PM received the secret information through informer near Blue Bell School, Jamroodpur, that accused wanted in the present case, was sitting at N-Block Park, Jamroodpur, New Delhi, waiting for his relatives and that he was about to leave for his village. He stated that he alongwith complainant Ajit Pandey, Inspector Pankaj Pandey, Ct. Asif and informer reached at N-Block, GK-I. The informer pointed out towards the accused who was sitting under a tree in the park and complainant Ajit Pandey also identified him as Jitan Bora, who stabbed his brother Sanjeev Pandey with the knife. Accused was surrounded by the police team and apprehended. On enquiry by the IO, he disclosed his name Jitan SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.44/52 @ Jitan Bora S/o Gulab Bora R/O Room No. 13, House No. 130, Jamroodpur, New Delhi and he confessed regarding commission of offence in the present case. Thereafter, accused was arrested. IO recorded statement of Ajit Pandey under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and discharged him from investigation. Accused was brought to the police station and a detailed interrogation was conducted from the accused and IO recorded his disclosure statement. During interrogation, the accused disclosed that at the time of the incident he was wearing a barmooda (nickker) and he had kept the said barmooda in a plastic panni (polythene bag) alongwith the knife which was used by him in the crime and concealed the same in bushes near N-Block Park and that he can get the same recovered. Thereafter, police team alongwith accused reached at N-Block Park and accused got recovered one knife which was stained with blood which was used by him in causing injury to the deceased. The knife was having blade of steel and same was engraved with the words ACIER INOX THEIR FRANCE and the sharp edge of the knife was 10 cm and length of the handle was 1 cm and handle was made of black plastic. IO prepared sketch of the said knife and thereafter the said knife was wrapped in the white paper and a pullanda was prepared of the said knife with the seal of PP. Thereafter, accused Jitan Bora got recovered a polythene of white colour from the bushes and said polythene was containing one barmooda stained with blood. There were white strips on the barmooda and having label of APINDHRA WEAVIN THE PLUSH. The barmooda was kept in same panni and a pullanda was prepared for the same. Thereafter, it was sealed with the seal of PP. IO also prepared the site plan of the SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.45/52 place of recovery and I had signed the memos prepared by the IO including the site plan as well as recovery.
PW8 identified the barmooda Ex. PW1/P8 and knife Ex. PW1/P9 as the same that were recovered at the instance of accused Jitan Bora. Similar is the deposition of PW11 Ct. Asif and PW13 Insp. Pankaj Pandey.
24. Forensic Evidence - PW15 Dr. V. Sankaranarayanan deposed that DNA Analysis was conducted on the forensic exhibits. The D N A (STR Analysis) Profiling performed on the source of Ex. 1B(i) i.e. shirt (complainant), Ex. 1B(ii) i.e. pant (complainant), Ex. 1C i.e. cotton wool swab (PoO), Ex. 1D i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (deceased), Ex. 1E i.e. towel (spot), Ex. 1H i.e. cotton wool swab (PoO), Ex. K1 i.e. half pant (accused), Ex. 1L i.e. knife, Ex. 1M i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (Jitan @ Jitan Bora) and Ex. IN i.e blood stained gauze cloth (complainant) is sufficient to conclude that the DNA Profile from the source of Ex. ID i.e. blood stained gauze cloth (deceased is similar to the DNA from the source of Ex. 1B(i) i.e. shirt Profile (complainant), Ex. 1B(ii) i.e. pant (complainant), Ex. IC i.e. cotton wool swab (PoO), Ex. IE i.e. towel (spot), Ex. 1H cotton wool swab (PoO) and Ex. 1L i.e. knife.
The forensic report Ex. PW15/A proved that deceased Sanjeev Pandey was murdered with the knife exhibit 1L that was recovered at the instance of accused Jithin Bora. The clothes of SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.46/52 complainant Ajay Pandey also got stained with blood of deceased Sanjeev Pandey since he carried him to the hospital in injured condition.
25. Explanation of Accused U/s. 313 CrPC: - In answer to incriminating evidence, put to him after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused stated under section 313 CrPC that -
" It is a false case. I have been falsely implicated in this case. In the intervening night of 12/13.07.2019, I consumed liquor outside my house. Thereafter, I came to my house and Ajit Pandey and Sanjeev Pandey asked me to come to their room as they had brought liquor and they requested me to consume the same with them in their room. As I was already under the influence of liquor, I agreed to drink the liquor with them in their room. I went to their room. Ajit Pandey brought some namkeen from the nearby shop and we were about to take the liquor. In the meanwhile, Sanjeev Pandey passed some obscene comment about my wife and myself. He said "tum chinki log bade kamine hote ho, tumhari aurten dhandha karti hain, teri wife badi sexy lagti hai aur main usse sex karna chahta hoon";. Hearing this, I got enraged and abused him as to how he dared to say this to me about my wife. Thereafter, he gave blows to my face and he took a danda and blew to my head. Ajit Pandey also started beating me with hands. I tried to resist but SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.47/52 being under influence of liquor I was unable as they were two persons. They both started beating me very badly. As I had received danda blow on my head I felt dizziness and after having some efforts, I succeeded to release myself from their beatings. I ran away from the room of Sanjeev Pandey. For sometime, I sat beside the road in G.K.-I and in the morning, I became sober, I went to the house of my brother in law in G.K.- I. My brother-in-law told me that the police have taken your wife to the police station for some enquiries. Thereafter, in the morning at about 6.00 am to 6.30 am, I went to police station to inquire the reason why they have brought my wife in police station. Thereafter, IO Inspector Pankaj Pandey told me that a man named Sanjeev Pandey has expired and his brother has blamed me and has made complaint against me. He further told me that they have lodged the FIR U/s. 302 IPC wherein I am implicated as accused but I am not aware of any death as I was under the influence of liquor and also I was injured and had left the house in the night. Last time when I ran away from the room of Sanjeev Pandey, he was alive. I have not done anything wrong to Sanjeev Pandey.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora admitted to having quarreled with complainant Ajay Pandey and deceased Sanjeev Pandey in the SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.48/52 intervening night of 12 and 13 July 2019. He was under the influence of liquor at that time. He stated that during the physical fight, deceased Sanjeev Pandey gave danda blow on his head, whereas, Ajay Pandey gave him fist blows. He did not give cogent and reasonable explanation why he ran away from his home on simply having quarreled with deceased Sanjeev Pandey and complainant Ajit Pandey.
26. Credibility of Deposition of PW1 Ajay Pandey - It was submitted by Ld. defence counsel that PW1 Ajay Pandey is an interested witness, being brother of deceased Sanjeev Pandey and his testimony could not be relied upon.
No doubt PW1 was a near relation of the deceased, however, he had no enmity with the accused before the occurrence or has got other motive or consideration for false implication of the accused nor it is shown that deceased Sanjeev Pandey had any prior enmity with the accused to his knowledge. Relationship by itself is not sufficient to discard the evidence of a witness as unworthy of credit in the absence of other circumstances to detract from the evidentiary value of his testimony. If there is to ill will or hostility a close relation would be the last person to screen the real culprits and falsely implicate an innocent person. It was held in Shivnath Singh Vs. State of U.P., J.T. 1994 (1) SC 423 (29); the testimony of witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased. What is necessary in such cases is that a closer scrutiny has to be done.
SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.49/52 PW1 Ajay Pandey is no doubt the brother of deceased but he is not an interested witness. As has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki (1981) 2SCC 752, Myladimmal Surendran Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 11 SCC 129 and Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat (2011) 10 SCC 158, an interested witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow convicted for some extraneous reason and a near relative of the victim is not necessarily an interested witness. There is no evidence to show that PW1 was somehow interested in having the accused convicted.
The testimony of PW1, on closer scrutiny has been found reliable, satisfactory and trustworthy. The testimony of sole eye witness is sufficient if such a witness is found truthful witness and is also corroborated by other satisfactory and reliable evidence. Besides that as noticed above PW1 has been corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, as well as by the recovery of knife Ex. PW1/P-9 from accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora.
27. Requirement of corroboration of testimony of PW1 Ajay Pandey - Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the uncorroborated testimony of PW1 Ajay Pandey couldn't be relied upon to convict the accused. He argued that other key witness i.e. PW3 Vidhan Chand Rai did not support the prosecution case, whereas, PW1 was himself an interested witness. In this regard Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P AIR 1994 SC 1251 that as a general rule the Court can and SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.50/52 may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "The Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the Courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the Court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
It was held that conviction on the basis of testimony of sole eye witness is permissible provided his evidence is free of any blemish or suspicion and impresses the Court as wholly truthful, reliable and natural. The testimony of PW1 is found cogent, credible and trustworthy. His testimony requires no corroboration from another witness; and the Court has no hesitation in convicting the accused guilty on basis of his testimony.
28. Conclusion: - In conclusion, it is held that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by leading ocular, medical and forensic evidence that in the intervening night of 12 and 13 July 2019, at about 02:00AM, accused, Jitan @ Jitan Bora went to the room of victim Sanjeev Pandey armed with knife and intentionally stabbed him with knife on his chest SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.51/52 and thigh multiple times, with intention to kill him. While stabbing the victim with knife, the accused uttered the words, recounted by PW1 Ajay, that reflected his intention to kill. Accused Jitin had motive to kill victim Sanjay since he suspected that victim had evil eye on his wife. The stab injuries inflicted by accused were medically opined as sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Accused Jitin inflicted the stab injuries without reasonable justification or excuse. The case is not covered by any exception to Section 300 IPC. Hence, accused Jitan @ Jitan Bora is convicted U/s. 302 IPC for murdering victim Sanjeev Pandey. The sentence shall be announced after following due procedure.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL SINGH Announced in the open Court SINGH Date: 2023.07.15 dated: 15.07.2023 15:35:25 +0530 (VISHAL SINGH) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURT NEW DELHI SC No. 490/2019 State Vs. Jitan @ Jitan Bora FIR No. 134/2019 PS : Greater Kailash Page No.52/52