Delhi District Court
State vs Om Prakash@Pandey on 26 March, 2025
DLNW010013902015
Presented on : 13-06-2015
Registered on : 08-07-2015
Decided on : 26-03-2025
Duration : 9 years, 9 months,
13 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC/52630/2016
Annexure 'A'- List of witnesses
Annexure 'B'- List of exhibits
STATE
Through Police Station Officer Mangolpuri
NORTH WEST DELHI
VERSUS
1. OM PRAKSH @ PANDEY
S/o Sh. Kairati Lal
R/o P-2/477, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.
2. SUBHANG @ SUBHANG KARAN
S/o Sh. Rakesh Kumar
R/o A-104, Gali No. 6,
Prem Nagar, Extn. Kirari,
Delhi.
3. BHAVNESH @ BHIMA
S/o Sh. Digmaber
R/o A-1455, Agar Nagar,
Prem Nagar-III, Kirari, Delhi.
SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 1 of 41
Digitally signed
by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26
18:05:14 +0530
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ld. Addl. Substitute PP for State : Ms. Geeta Bansiwal
Ld. counsel for accused Om Prakash : Sh. D.P. Sharma and
Sh. Gaurav Sharma
Ld. counsel for accused Subhang : Sh. Dhan Mohan and
Ms. Tanisha Bhatia
Ld. counsel for accused Bhavnesh : Sh. Rakesh Kumar
FIR No. : 2306/2016
Police Station : Mangolpuri
Under Section : 302/34/120B IPC, 364/34/120B IPC &
471/201/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 26-03-2025)
1. Facts of prosecution case in brief are that on 05.12.2014 at 08.00 am Smt. Kamla (Pw22) lodged a missing report of his son vide DD no. 11B that they had come to attend the marriage of the daughter of her sister Nathi (Pw21), at J 108 Mangolpuri and on 04.12.2014 from about 5 PM her son Manoj (deceased) is missing. Pw11 Mohan lal, who is father of deceased, was at Rajashthan. He came to Delhi and visited PS Mangolpuri and gave his complaint Ex.Pw11/A that his son has been kidnapped and kept confined by someone on which the IO/SI Kailash (Pw18) prepared rukka Ex.Pw18/A and got the FIR Ex.Pw7/A, of offence u/S 365 IPC, registered. In Ex.Pw11/A the complainant suspected on his brother in law (Sala) Om Prakash Pandey i.e. accused No.1 (A1).
2. After registration of FIR, on the same day, the IO recorded statement of Pw22 and Pw21. From their statement it was SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 2 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:05:21 +0530 revealed that Pw21 had a property at Dausa, Rajashthan and the deceased used to live there. However, A1 had an eye on that property and wanted to grab the same, due to which deceased had altercation with A1 many a time and A1 had threatened the deceased that he and his family will be taught a lesson if he does not vacate that house. They also revealed that on the date of missing, at around 5 pm, the deceased was seen with A1. Subsequently on 17.12.2014 Smt. Padma (Pw24) was examined and she disclosed that the deceased had come to her house on the evening of 04.05.2014 and while returning A1 was following the deceased and they left the gali and after that deceased as well as A-1 were not seen. She suspected that A1 had kidnapped the deceased and also stated that A1 has been threatening Pw-11 that he will do something which Pw-11 will remember for his life. Similarly Pw-17 disclosed to the IO that on the evening of 04.12.2014 when she went to the house of her uncle Prem, she saw the deceased alongwith A1 and they were having altercation and even dragged the deceased out of the gali.
3. Later Pw-11 also disclosed to the IO that on 31.12.2014 Pw-23 had received the call from two landline numbers for Pw-11 and when he talked on the phone it was A1 on the other side and he told Pw-11 that he will never be able to see the face of his son. Deceased was, however, not found until Pw-11 received information from NCRB regarding the death of his son.
4. While the investigation in this case was going on for around a month and more, on 05.12.2014 itself an FIR No. SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 3 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:05:27 +05301566/2014 U/s 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Narela as the body of deceased was found at Mansa Devi Road, Singhu Border. The investigating Officer of FIR No. 1566/2014 got the spot inspected and preserved the dead body in the mortuary and when no one claimed dead body, it was examined in post mortem after getting it photograph. IO of FIR No 1566/2014 had preserved the exhibits.
5. After getting the information of the deceased in FIR no. 1566/2014, investigation of this case was converted into that of murder and was taken over by Pw-39. After that on 15.03.2015, on secret information, A1 was arrested. A1 confessed that he had planned with A2 & A3, to teach a lesson to deceased for the scene he had created at Dausa and on finding the opportunity on 04.12.2014 as deceased had arrived at marriage, he shared the plan with A2 & A3 and at about 05:00 pm he brought A2 & A3 in his accord car bearing registration no. DL 7CF 0816, J Block, Mangolpuri and when he saw deceased in a gali, A1 went to deceased and asked him to come to his car. The deceased, however, did not agree. Therefore, he dragged the deceased to his car and forcefully put in the car with help of A2 & A3 and abducted the deceased from there and brought the deceased to Alipur where the hands and legs of deceased were tied. From there, they moved towards Narela and on the way to Narela the deceased was beaten and A2 who had brought a knife with him tried to stab the deceased, however, A2 was stopped as the blood of deceased would fall on the car. Therefore, at Mansa Devi road in an isolated place near some bushes, the car was stopped and SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 4 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:05:33 +0530deceased was taken out of the car and given beatings. A2 then stabbed the deceased on his face and chest while A3 had caught hold of deceased. A1 himself went to car and brought the spanner (pana) and hit on the head of deceased with that spanner and the deceased lost his conscious. They checked the pulse of deceased and confirmed that the deceased is dead. Therefore, they remove the ropes from the hands and legs and placed the body of deceased on the road to make it look like an accident case and fled from the spot.
6. A1 disclosed that deceased was having a mobile phone which was kept by A3 and knife was kept by A2 and he later concealed the car at Bharatpur Rajasthan alongwith the spanner and the ropes. Subsequently A2 & A3 were also arrested on 15.03.2015 iteself and they also gave confessions.
7. On 17.03.2015 A1 gave supplementary disclosure that he had concealed the car at Rajender Park, Gurgaon and the rope with which the deceased was tied was taken by A3. Accordingly A3 gave supplementary disclosure statement that the rope was kept by him. On the basis of disclosure statement the car, spanner, the rope and knife were seized.
8. After concluding the investigation, all three accused persons were charge sheeted for offence under Section 302/364/120B/201/34 IPC. The case was committed to this Court after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and on 06.10.2015 charge under Section 302/34 IPC was settled against all three SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 5 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:05:39 +0530accused persons. Additionally A1 was also charged under Section 364 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
9. In order to prove this case, prosecution examined 41 witnesses. The gist of their testimonies are as under:
9.1 Pw1 HC Anjeev Kumar PS Narela proved the DD no. 12A dated 05.12.2014 regarding a person lying in injured condition at Mansa Devi Road Singhu Border, as Ex.Pw1/A. 9.2 Pw2 ASI Surender PS Narela proved the FIR no.
1566/2014 u/s 279/304 IPC as Ex.Pw2/A. 9.3 Pw3 HC Shivom, photographer Crime Team proved the photographs taken at the spot i.e. Mansa Devi Road Narela as Ex.Pw3/X (Colly).
9.4 Pw4 Ct. Gopiram joined the investigation on 20.05.2015 when he took the exhibits vide RC no. 75/21/15 and deposited the same with FSL.
9.5 Pw5 HC Balbir proved the FIR no. 493/2015 PS Mangolpuri u/S 308/452 as Ex.Pw5/A. 9.6 Pw6 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar and Pw19 HC Mantu Kumar proved the missing report vide DD no. 11B dated 05.12.2024 as Ex.Pw6/A. SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 6 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.03.26 18:05:46 +0530 9.7 Pw7 HC Subhash proved the FIR of this case i.e. FIR no. 2306/2014 dated 05.12.2014 as Ex.Pw7/A and its endorsement on rukka Ex.Pw7/B 9.8 Pw8 Inspector Mahesh proved the scaled site plan Ex.Pw8/A of the spot i.e. Mansa Devi Road where the dead body was recovered.
9.9 Pw9 ASI Ajeet is in charge Crime team who visited the spot i.e. Mansa Devi Road, on 05.12.2014 and proved the crime team report Ex.Pw9/A. 9.10 Pw10 HC Prem Singh is MHCM and he proved the relevant entries in register no. 19 with respect to deposit and movement of case properties as Ex.Pw10/A to Ex.Pw10/E. He also proved the road certificate no. 72/21/15 as Ex.Pw10/F and receipt of FSL Ex.Pw10/G. 9.11 Pw11 Mohan lal is father of deceased . Most of his testimony is hearsay as he was not in Delhi when his son went missing. His relevant deposition is that 04.12.2014 his wife and children were to return to Rajasthan from Delhi and at about 5.00 pm he made call to his son but the phone of his son could not be connected due to roaming, therefore, he called his sister in law Nathi to verify if his family has returned. However, Nathi told him that his son is not in the house and after some time she told him that his son is taken by A1. From this point on wards the SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 7 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:05:52 +0530testimony of Pw11 is hearsay account of what was told to him by other witnesses. As the son of Pw11 was not found Pw11 came to Delhi. He deposed that he arrived at Delhi at about 3.00 pm of 05.12.2014 after which he alongwith other family members searched for his son at different places and finaly at 7.00 pm he went to PS and met IO SI Kailash and told him that A1 has taken his son and Tek chand, Tilak Raj and Prem might be knowing about A1 and his son on which SI Kailash took these three persons in lock up. Pw11 further deposed that on his request complaint Ex.Pw11/A was recorded and after that he alongwith IO came to J-108 Mangolpuri where IO made inquiries. Pw11 further deposed that during his inquiry he came to know from Padma that she had seen his son with A1 at about 6.00 pm therefore he told this fact to IO. He further deposed that he stayed in Delhi till around 30-31 December when some neighbour of J-108 told him that he had received a call and on the other side his son wants to talk to him and when he went to answer the call it was A1 on other end and A1 threatened that since he was not allowed to take the flat in Dausa he is going to teach lesson to Pw11 and also told Pw11 that he will never see his son again.
PW11 further deposed that his sister in law Natthi was having a flat at Dausa, Rajasthan, where his son was staying and Natthi was having dispute with respect to this property with her brothers Om Prakash, Tilak Raj and Tek Chand as they wanted to sell the property and on one occasion, they had gone there to sell the flat along with some property dealer but deceased had objected and informed the property dealer that the property does not belong to them but to his maternal aunt and therefore, they SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 8 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:05:59 +0530were having grudge with Manoj and Om Prakash had even indulged in verbal duel. He further deposed that the missing report of his son was uploaded on net and on 09.01.2015 he received the information from the office of NCRB on which he went to the office and saw the photograph of his son and came to know that the dead body of his son was recovered in the area of PS Narela on 05.12.2014 itself. Therefore, he along with IO went to PS Narela and collected the copy of FIR and the clothes including one teeth and other exhibits. He is witness to seizure memos Ex. PW18/B to Ex. PW18/D of those exhibits and after that he deposed that he alongwith his wife were taken to the hospital for their blood sample to match the DNA. He identified the teeth Ex. P-3, clothes of deceased Ex. P-4 and the exhibits lifted from the spot Ex. P-5 seized from PS Narela. As he missed some facts, on refreshing PW11 further proved his letter Ex. PW11/C containing descriptions of unidentified dead body along with its photograph, and the photograph of his son Ex. PW3/X. 9.12 Pw12 Dr. Jatin Bodwal proved the PM report Ex.Pw12/A. He had examined the spanner and knife to see if these were the possible weapon of crime and proved his report Ex.Pw12/B which states that spanner and knife could be possible weapon of offence. As per PM report cause of death was head injury consequent upon blunt force impact which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and said injury was possible with the spanner he examined.
9.13 Pw13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar proved the MLC Ex.Pw13/A of SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 9 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2025.03.26 18:06:06 +0530
deceased.
9.14 Pw14 Dr. M. Dass proved the MLC of the parents of deceased through which he collected the blood samples of the parents which were to be matched with blood of deceased for identification of deceased.
9.15 Pw15 Commercial Officer MTNL produced the customer application form Ex.Pw15/A as per which the landline number 27922231 was installed in the name of Ghanshyam Prasad at Shop No. 1, J Block Mangolpuri. He also proved the demand note and KYC details of this number as Ex.Pw15/B & Ex.Pw15/C respectively and also proved the CDR of this number from 29.12.2014 to 02.01.2015 as Ex.Pw15/D, alongwith certificate under Section 65B IEA Ex.Pw15/E. Pw15 further produced the customer application form Ex.Pw15/F as per which the landline number 27924674 was installed in the name of Chajju Ram at Shop No. 1, J-2/15 Block, JJ Colony Mangolpuri.
He also proved the demand note and KYC details of this number as Ex.Pw15/G & Ex.Pw15/H respectively and also proved the CDR of this number from 29.12.2014 to 02.01.2015 as Ex.Pw15/J, alongwith certificate under Section 65B IEA Ex.Pw15/E. 9.16 Pw16 Sandeep Garg is the son of Ghanshyam Prasad and he deposed that Shop No. J-2/1, DDA Market Mangolpuri is having PCO bearing no. 27922231.
SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 10 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:06:13 +0530
9.17 Pw17 Divya @ Vidya is the sister of deceased. She deposed about her visit to house of Natthi with her mother and deceased brother and their plan of return in the evening of 04.12.2014. She deposed that her brother had gone to take mobile at the house of maternal uncle Prem but did not return and therefore, she went to the house of Prem to call Manoj and there she saw that Manoj was watching mobile and someone was lying in the bed. She deposed that she asked Manoj to come back but he did not come. Therefore, she returned to her mother at house of Natthi and told her mother that Manoj is not coming. She further deposed that after that her mother Kamla went to the house of Prem and after sometime Kamla returned weeping and told that Om Prakash took her brother after slapping him. In the same breath, she also deposed that her mother was told this fact by someone. The witness was declared hostile as she was projected as a witness who saw accused Om Prakash taking Manoj and subjected to cross examination. However. Pw17 denied the suggestion of State that she saw accused Om Prakash taking her brother. She also denied that she had seen Om Prakash in the gali when she had went to the house of her uncle Prem and seen Om Prakash dragging his brother away.
9.18 Pw18 SI Kailash is the 1st IO who was assigned the investigation after registration of FIR. He proved rukka Ex.Pw18/A and deposed that after fleshing the message of missing of the deceased in ZIP net, he recorded the statement of witnesses who were mostly relatives and neighbours but no clue was found. Pw18 further deposed that on 12.01.2015 SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 11 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:06:21 +0530complainant came to PS and told him about the call from NCRB through which complainant was informed about the discovery of dead body of his son in the area of PS Narela in FIR No. 1566/2014. Therefore, he alongwith complainant went to PS Narela where the complainant identified the clothes of the deceased kept in the malkhana. Therefore, he collected the entire file of the case and resealed the clothes and exhibits and proved their seizure memo Ex.Pw18/B to Ex.Pw18/D and also collected PM report. Since the case was transferred to Insp. Rajpal Singh, he joined the investigation with Insp. Rajpal Singh on 15.03.2015 and arrested the accused persons and recovered the case properties which has already been discussed in brief facts. Pw18 proves arrest memo of A1 Ex.Pw18/E, his disclosure statement Ex.Pw18/F and personal search memo Ex.Pw18/G. He also proved arrest memo of A2 Ex.Pw18/H, disclosure statement Ex.Pw18/I and personal search memo Ex.Pw18/J. Pw18 further proved the arrest of A3 vide memo Ex.18/K, his disclosure statement Ex.Pw18/L and personal search Ex.Pw18/M. He proved the supplementary disclosure statement of A1 & A3 as Ex.Pw18/N & Ex.Pw18/O respectively.
Pw18 had again joined the investigation on 17.03.2015 when on disclosure statement of A1 Honda Accord car bearing no. DL 7CF 0816, Ex.P8, alongwith spanner, Ex.P1A were recovered and seized vide memo Ex.Pw18/P. He also proved the site plan of place of recovery of the car Ex.Pw18/Q. Pw18 had further joined the investigation on 18.03.2015 when on the disclosure of A2 knife Ex.P1B was recovered and he proved the sketch of the knife Ex.Pw18/R, its seizure memo SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 12 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2025.03.26 18:06:27 +0530
Ex.Pw18/S and site plan of place of recovery Ex.Pw18/T. He further proved the recovery memo of nylon rope, Ex.P2, at the instance of A3 vide memo Ex.Pw18/U and the site plan of its place recovery Ex.Pw18/V. Pw18 further proved the pointing out memo of the place of incident of all the accused persons Ex.Pw18/W and the place where the body was found Ex.Pw18/X. He identified the case properties.
9.19 Pw20 Ct. Ramveer is from PS Narela who deposed that on 05.12.2014 on receipt of information he reached at Mansa Devi Road near Anjali Foundation De-addiction Center where is met the IO who told him to safeguard the spot. He further deposed that after sometime IO returned and got the spot inspected from Crime Team and collected the exhibits and proved their seizure memos Ex.Pw20/A, Ex.Pw2/B & Ex.Pw20/C. He also deposed that after IO prepared the tehrir he went to PS Narela and got the FIR registered and as the caller met the IO, IO prepared site plan at his instance.
9.20 Pw21 Natthi Devi is the aunt of the deceased at whose place deceased, his mother and his sister had come to attend the marriage on 01.12.2014. She deposed that on 04.12.2014 at about 05:00 pm she had bid good bye to them and they were ready to go to board the train. However, deceased went to meet his maternal uncle Prem before leaving for village and he did not return. She deposed that Vidya alongwith some other girls went to the house of Prem to call deceased as they may miss the train but she came back. She further deposed that after sometime one SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 13 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:06:34 +0530 girl came and told mother of deceased that accused Om Prakash Pandey had taken Manoj with him. Therefore, she alongwith Kamla went to the house of Prem but Manoj was already taken away. She further deposed that they kept searching for Manoj but did not find any clue, therefore, went to PS to lodge the complaint but police refused to take the complaint. Pw21 further deposed that previously accused Om Prakash Pandey had stolen the papers of her house situated at J-108 Mangolpuri and of her property at Dausa, Rajasthan which he wanted to grab.
Pw21 was declared hostile as she was brought in to prove that her relation with Om Prakash Pandey were tense and that deceased was staying at her premises at Dausa Rajasthan where Om Prakash had altercation with deceased and had threatened him. However, despite cross examination Pw21 did not confirm these facts and denied all the suggestions.
9.21 Pw22 Kamla is the mother of deceased. Like Pw17 she also deposed about her visit to house of Natthi and on 04.12.2014 Manoj going to meet his uncle Prem. She further deposed that Manoj did not return till 07:00 pm, therefore, she sent Vidya to call him and when Manoj did not return, she went to the house of Prem. Pw21 deposed that Prem told her that Manoj had already left after Vidya, on which she told him that Manoj has not come back. Then Prem called Om Prakash Pandey and inquired from him about the Manoj. She deposed that Om Prakash Pandey told her that Manoj had met him near temple and had asked Manoj to accompany him but Manoj refused as he was getting late and showed his ignorance about the whereabouts of Manoj after SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 14 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:06:41 +0530which she returned back. She further deposed that after sometime she again went to Prem's house and at that time Prem told her that his son Sagar had seen that accused Om Prakash Pandey beating Manoj and this was also confirmed by wife of Prem namely Padma. She further deposed that she returned back and while coming back one Sikander met her and that Sikander also told her that Manoj was being beaten by accused Om Prakash Pandey and he did not intervene because Om Prakash Pandey was beating Manoj on the pretext that his sister is searching for him and he was not going to his house. She further deposed that Natthi also arrived with her daughters at that time and police was called at 100 number on which they were told to go to PS to lodge the complaint and accordingly they went to PS but the police did not register the complaint.
She further deposed that on the same night at about 03:00 am, her sister Natthi contacted Om Prakash Pandey on his phone and asked if he had taken away Manoj but Om Prakash Pandey refused by saying that Manoj was not with him and Om Prakash Pandey was at his home. However, when she talked with Om Prakash Pandey he replied by saying "mere pass nahi hai Manoj or tujhe property chaiye ya tera beta chahiye, mere naam ki complaint likhwane gayi thi na, police walo ne nahi diya na tujhe tera beta" and also said "hum pancho bhaiyo ko marwa ke sabki property le lena. Tujhe property he chahiye or ainda mujhe phone mat karna". She further deposed that she requested Om Prakash to at least allow her to talk with Manoj on which Om Prakash replied "maine kha na mere pass Manoj nahi hai, dobar mujhe phone mat karna" and then Om Prakash disconnected the phone SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 15 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2025.03.26 18:06:48 +0530
and switched off.
As Pw22 missed some crucial facts she was subjected to cross examination in which she admitted that Manoj was residing at the property of her sister Natthi at Dausa Rajasthan and Manoj wanted to grab that property due to which there was tension between Natthi and Om Prakash. However, she denied that Om Prakash had threatened Natthi in her presence that he would hurt Manoj in a way that everybody would remember. Pw22 also admitted that on 17.04.2015 she and her husband had went to hospital for giving blood samples vide Ex.Pw22/A and her husband had identified the dead body of Manoj. She further admitted that because Manoj was living at the property of Dausa and Om Prakash Pandey wanted to grab that property, Manoj was becoming eye sore for Om Prakash Pandey and on earlier occasion Om Prakash Pandey had threatened that he would do something with Manoj so that everybody will remember. She also admitted that when they were searching for her son Manoj, Om Prakash had threatened her husband that they would never see their son.
9.22 Pw23 Smt. Kamlesh is the neighbour of Smt. Natthi and owner of mobile no. 9899262920 which was in the name of her mother Lali. She deposed that when complainant had come to attend some marrige in her neighbourhood she had once received a call from one Ravi who asked her to get him talk to his father.
She claimed that Ravi was son of Mohan Lal. Therefore, she told him to call after sometime and after reaching home she again received the call and she saw Mohan Lal standing outside the SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 16 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:06:57 +0530 house,she gave the phone to Mohan Lal to talk with the person. She was reminded in cross examination that Mohan Lal had come at House No. J-108. However, she refused the suggestion that the caller on the other side was Om Prakash Pandey.
9.23 Pw24 Padma is the wife of Prem i.e. maternal uncle of deceased where deceased had went. She was brought in witness box to prove that deceased had come to her house and while he was going she had seen deceased being forcibly taken away by accused Om Prakash Pandey. However, this witness did not depose any such fact and was declared hostile. In cross examination she denied the fact that deceased had visited her house and she had noticed deceased and accused Om Prakash going towards the park side. She deposed in cross examination that mother of deceased came to her house and asked about Manoj and Om Prakash but she did not know about them and told her that they had not come to her house.
9.24 Pw25 Meera is the daughter of Natthi. She deposed that on 04.12.2014 after the farewell of her sister she had left for her matrimonial house and later come to know that Manoj has been taken away by Om Prkash Pandey. Therefore, she returned back and while on the way back to her mother's house she called one Ajay nephew of Om Prakash and then she accompanied her mother and Kamla to PS Mangolpuri for lodging a missing report but police refused to lodged the report. She further deposed that she also came to know that Manoj had been taken away by Om Prakash Pandey. This witness was also declared hostile as she SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 17 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:07:03 +0530 was brought in as witness of last seeing Om Prakash Pandey and deceased having verbal duel in the park. However, she denied such suggestion. She also denied the suggestion that Om Prakash Pandey had threatened Manoj in her presence.
9.25 Pw26 Pankaj Luthra is the registered owner of car Honda Accord bearing no. DL 7CF 0816. He deposed that on 03.02.2014 he had sold this car to accused Om Prakash for sum of Rs. 2,05,000/- which was paid in cash. However, at that time Om Prakash was not having any identify proof. Therefore, the documents of the car were prepared in the name of Jai Pal who was accompanying Om Prakash. He proved the delivery receipt Ex.Pw26/B which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.Pw26/A. 9.26 Pw27 Jai Pal deposed that he used to work with Om Prakash as painter and on 03.02.2014 he accompanied Om Prakash for purchasing a car and purchased car from Pankaj Luthra and since Om Prakash was not having identity documents, he gave his identity proofs and got the car delivered in his name vide delivery receipt Ex.Pw26/B. 9.27 Pw28 Sh. Rameshwar was summoned from Dausa to prove that Manoj was residing in his neighbourhood at the house of his maternal aunt. He did not remember the house number but deposed that Manoj used to live in his neighbourhood where his maternal aunt and elder brother used to visit sometime.
9.28 Pw29 Chiranji Lal is again a witness from Dausa who SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 18 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:09:15 +0530deposed that Manoj was residing in his colony i.e. Housing Board Dausa where his maternal aunt, elder brother and sister used to visit sometime.
9.29 Pw30 Deepak Khatri is the person who has seen the dead body and called Narela Police. He deposed about finding dead body at Mata Mansa Devi road, therefore, called 100 number.
9.30 Pw31 SI Ved Prakash had joined the investigation with IO and he was witness to the disclosure statement of accused Om Prakash in which Om Prakash had disclosed about his involvement in FIR No. 493/2015. Therefore, he had arrested Om Prakash in FIR No. 493/2015 and at his instance got recovered the iron road i.e. weapon of offence in FIR No. 493/2015.
9.31 Pw32 Dr. Suminder Kaur is Senior Forensic/ chemical examiner who has received the exhibits of the present case for biological analysis. She had examined the exhibit 1, 1A, 10, 12 and 12A having blood and exhibit 2, 6, 11A and 11B. She processed the exhibits for DNA and prepared report Ex. PW32/A as per which the DNA generated from the source Ex. 10 i.e., blood gauze of deceased matched with DNA found at metallic rod Ex. 11B and also it matched with genotypic data of the parents of the deceased.
9.32 Pw33 Sh. Chhajju Ram was running a PCO at J 925, Mangolpuri but he could not remember, if the telephone number of that PCO was 27924674.
SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 19 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:09:21 +05309.33 Pw34 Ct. Sandeep Kumar had on 27.01.2017 taken two sealed pullandas along with sample seal to the FSL vide RC No. 27/21/17.
9.34 Pw35 HC Charan Singh was MHCM on 12.01.2017 when IO deposited two sealed pullandas along with sample seals vide entry no. 3175 and proved the same as Ex. PW35/A. He also proved the RC No. 29/21/17 Ex. PW35/B. 9.35 Pw36 Ct. Deepak was posted at PS Narela and he deposed that while he was on emergency duty, from 08:00 p.m to 08:00 a.m, in the intervening night of 04/05.12.2014, at about 07:00-
07:30 a.m, on receipt of DD NO. 12A, he accompanied the IO and reached Mansa Devi Road near Anjali Foundation, Singhu Border where blood stains was found scattered. He deposed that injured had already been shifted to SHRC hospital and after arrival of Ct. Rambir, he along with IO left for the spot where he collected the MLC of injured who was declared brought dead. He further deposed that he returned to the spot with the IO and at the spot, IO called the crime team and the caller. Pw36 had again joined the investigation in the case of Narela on 24.12.2014 when the dead body was examined through postmortem and exhibits of the dead body were seized. He proved the seizure memo of exhibits of the deceased Ex.Pw36/A. 9.36 Pw37 Israr Babu Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea, deposed that as per record, the mobile phone number SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 20 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:09:28 +0530 9899262920 was issued to Smt. Lali Devi vide CAF Ex. PW37/A against KYC Ex. PW37/B. He proved the CDR of this phone from 29.12.2014 to 02.01.2015 as Ex. PW37/C & Ex. PW37/D. PW37 further deposed that as per record mobile no. 8447253900 was issued to Om Prakash vide CAF Ex. PW37/F and KYC documents Ex. PW37/G. He also proved the CDR of this number from 03.12.2014 to 05.12.2014 having nil report as Ex. PW37/H. 9.37 Pw38 SI Puppu Lal Meena, was on emergency duty at PS Narela and on receipt of DD NO. 12A Ex. PW1/A he along with PW36 went to the spot i.e., Mansa Devi Road and as the injured was already shifted to the hospital, he went to the hospital and after collecting the MLC returned to spot. He had called the crime team and got the spot inspected and photographed and then prepared tehrir, Ex. PW38/A, on the basis of DD NO. 12A. He also deposed about lifting the exhibits from the spot, seized vide memo Ex. PW20/A to Ex. PW20/C. He had applied postmortem of deceased on 24.12.2014, vide inquest proceedings Ex.
PW38/B and Ex. PW38/C and seized the exhibits of the deceased vide Ex. PW36/A. He also proved the site plan of the spot Ex. PW38/D. This witness also proved the additional papers of inquest Ex. PW38/D-1 and Ex. PW38/D-2 which were handed over to the IO of this case along with copy of FIR No. 1566/14, PS Narela Ex. PW38/E-1, and death certificate Ex. PW38/E-2. He identified and proved the exhibits seized vide memo Ex. PW36/A i.e., the teeth of the deceased Ex. P-3 and clothes Ex. P-4. He also proved the exhibits lifted from the spot i.e., concrete pieces Ex. P-5, blood gauze of the sample taken from deceased SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 21 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:09:35 +0530Ex. P-6 and blood gauze lifted from the spot Ex. P-7.
9.38 Pw39 Insp. Rajpal Singh, is the the IO of this case, who received the file on 17.01.2015 and conducted the further investigation. He deposed that on 29.01.2015, he recorded the statement of Meera after which on 05.02.2015, he attended anticipatory bail matter of accused OM Prakash Pandey and after dismissal of anticipatory bail, he applied for NBWs against accused Om Prakash. PW39 further deposed that on 15.03.2015 he along with other police staff were patrolling and on secret information of presence of accused Om Prakash at Bamboo Wala Park, 100 foota Road, Sector 21, he constituted a raiding team and on reaching the park, at the identification of secret information, apprehended accused Om Prakash and interrogated and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.Pw18/F. Then, he prepared the arrest memo Ex.Pw18/E and personal search memo Ex.Pw18/G. He further deposed about the disclosure of OM Prakash regarding involvement of co accused persons and their arrest which has already discussed in brief facts and the memos, which have been proved in the testimony of PW18 and PW21.
He proved additional documents i.e., application of PC Remand Ex. PW39/A, request to obtain the ownership detail of car Ex. PW39/B, a report of Transport Authority Ex. PW39/C, seizure memos of blood samples of parents of deceased Ex. PW39/D. He also identified and proved the car Ex. P-8, the vile containing blood sample of father of deceased Ex. P-9 and of mother of deceased Ex. P-10.
SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 22 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:09:42 +0530
9.39 Pw40 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services, deposed that on request letter of IO, with respect to mobile phone no. 9212903384 along with CAF and CDR, he forwarded the documents to the IO vide letter Ex. PW40/A and proved the CAF Ex. PW40/B as per which SIM was issued to Sheela Devi W/o Om Prakash against KYC Ex. PW40/D. He also proved the CDR from 03.12.2014 to 05.12.2014 Ex. PW40/E along with location chart Ex. PW40/F. He deposed that on 04.12.2014, location of this phone was found at Narela from 20:29:12 hours to 20:39:09 hours and location of this mobile was also found at Mangolpuri at 18:20:13 hours. He also deposed that on 05.12.2014, the location of this phone was again at J. J Colony, Mangolpuri, at 08:24:46 hours.
9.40 PW41 Gurdeep Singh Arora, CMO SGM Hospital proved the MLC of parents of deceased Ex. PW41/A and Ex. PW41/B.
10. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C and all the incriminating material was put to them, in which accused persons claimed innocence and stated that they are falsely implicated and the police officers have planted the evidence against them. Accused Om Prakash specifically claimed that he was not in talking terms with mother of deceased for long and he was not even invited to the marriage of daughter of Nathi and claimed that the family of deceased falsely implicated him without basis. He also claimed that Honda Accord car was not purchased by him and police have planted false material to implicate him and planted false SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 23 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:09:49 +0530witnesses to support that false material. Accused persons opted not to lead evidence in defence.
ARGUMENTS
11. It is submitted by ld. Addl. PP for the State that although public witnesses have varied from their initial statement given to police as such the theory of last seen has become doubtful, however, prosecution has proved sufficient circumstances on record to shows that deceased was kidnapped in the evening of 05.12.2014 and was taken to Narela Area and because the CDR location of mobile phone of Sheela W/o of Omprakahs has shown that Om Prkash had gone to Narela. It proves that deceased was taken to Narela where he was dropped dead. Ld. Addl. PP for State would further submit that the subsequent discovery of the spanner which has been proved to contain the DNA of deceased proved that the deceased was hit with the same spanner which was discovered at the instance of accused Om Prakash Pandey from the car which was discovered at his instance and the car is proved to have been purchased by accused Om Prakash Pandey. Therefore, there is no doubt that Om Prakash Pandey had kidnapped the deceased and disposed the body of deceased after murdering him. It is further submitted that the association of accused Subhang and Bhavnesh also proved that the knife and rope used in commission of crime has been discovered at their instance. It is submitted that there is no doubt that accused Om Prakash wanted to eliminate the deceased as he was hurdle in his design of grabbing the property of Nathi at Dausa.
SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 24 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.03.26 18:09:55 +0530
12. Per contra it is submitted by ld. Defence counsels that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted on behalf of accused Om Prakash that although Pw Nathi has stated that accused Om Prakash Pandey wanted to grab her property at Dausa but her own cross examination and documents show that the dispute with respect to property was with other brothers and not with accused Om Prakash Pandey. Ld. Defence counsel would further submit that the all the witnesses have deposed that the deceased had gone to the house of Prem and he had met with Prem but this Prem was never examined during investigation and not brought in evidence and the wife of Prem Smt. Padma clearly deposed that deceased not come to her house. She has completely turned hostile. It is further submitted that so far as the other facts mentioned by the witnesses specially Pw11 that received a call from Om Prakash Pandey is completely false because if Om Prakash Pandey would have killed the deceased on 5 th itself, he would not make a secret call at the house of some neighbour to inform him about the same. It is submitted that this Pw11 wanted to frame the accused, therefore, kept on bringing some or other material to get the accused arrested. It is submitted that even evidence with respect to this fact is not there on record as the call was received in the house of Smt. Lali and she has deposed that she has received the call from one Ravi not the accused Om Prakash. To the discoveries, it is submitted by ld. Counsels for accused persons that the case properties are planted upon accused persons and even the record shows that the case properties were SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 25 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:10:02 +0530tampered as the spanner seized is different than the spanner examined by the doctor who gave subsequent opinion. It is further submitted that doctor i.e. Pw12 who had examined the spanner has mentioned the dimension of the spanner in the schematic design of weapon and the same is different from what is mentioned in seizure memo Ex.Pw18/P.
13. Ld. Defence counsels would further submit that the body of deceased was discovered on 05.12.2014 itself under the suspicion of accident and the cause of death is head injury consequent upon blunt force impact. Other two injuries on the bodies i.e. incised wound on the left cheek and incised wound on the outer aspect of chest, although shown to be possible with knife examined in this case were not the cause of death. It is submitted that a person having knife, who wanted to kill the deceased, would, instead of causing death wound with knife, will not cause such injuries. It is submitted that it was possibly an accident and the same is not ruled out by the doctor who examined the dead body of the deceased in the hospital at initial stage. Ld. Defence counsels have also pointed out that the prosecution has claimed the deceased was tied from his legs and hand and was taken from Sultanpuri to Narela and if that is to be believed the tying of hands/legs of the deceased should have left some marks of tying on the hands and legs but no such marks was observed either at the time of initial examination of deceased or in the PM. It is further submitted by ld. Defence counsels that the theory that some CDR shows that accused Om Prakash Pandey was present at Alipur and Narela Area on the night of SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 26 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:10:08 +0530 incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as the phone, CDR of which is relied by the prosecution, does not belong to the accused nor the same was recovered from accused Om Prakash Pandey. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of prosecution, based circumstantial evidence, has failed to show any circumstance beyond reasonable doubt pointing towards guilt of accused persons.
FINDINGS
14. Of all the witnesses examined in the trial, as discussed above no witness has proved that he or she had seen accused Om Praksh Pandey with the deceased on the evening of 04.12.2014. The source of this information as per the witnesses, who deposed about altercation between accused Om Prakash Pandey and deceased, is never examined during investigation nor called in evidence. Therefore, the theory of last seen is based on hearsay. Hence, cannot be relied.
15. Pw11 had deposed that he received call from accused Om Prakash at the phone of Pw23 but this appears to be a doubtful fact because Pw23 who is neighbour of accused Om Prakash is supposed to identify who is calling. On the other hand, her deposition is that some Ravi had called and stated that he wants to talk to Pw11. These calls were received from two landline numbers and both witnesses to these landline numbers have failed to remember, or to say that denied that it was Om Prakash who called at mobile phone of Pw23. Therefore, in absence of SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 27 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:10:16 +0530any recording to relate the voice of the person calling with the voice of accused Om Prakash this evidence too cannot be relied. It would be foolish for Om Prakash to commit murder on 5 th and wait for 25 days to call the father of deceased, through the phone of some other person, only to inform was that he would never be able to meet his son. If Om Prakash would be so vengeful to hurt Pw11, with whom he had no personal dispute, Pw11 having a mobile phone, he would have directly called Pw11.
16. The theory led by the prosecution that accused Om Prakash had gone to Narela area and as proved through Pw40 that location of mobile phone number 9212903384 had shown the movement of accused Om Prakash confirming the incident again appears to be fabricated. The IO claimed that this mobile number was recovered from accused Om Prakash in his jamatalashi. However, the jamatalashi of accused Om Prakash shows that it was reliance CDMA phone but the record produced by Pw40 is of TATA Tele Services. The CDMA phones do not contain SIM or number of other service provider. Further the jamatalashi Ex.Pw18/G only mentions the model number of CDMA phone not the number which it was carrying. The record produced by Pw40 belongs to some Sheela Devi who has no relation with accused Om Prakash. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the circumstance that accused Om Prakash had gone to Narela area on the night of 4 th & 5th of December 2014.
17. That leaves this Court with the discoveries made SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 28 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:10:23 +0530subsequent to disclosure statements after the arrest of accused persons. It is a case of prosecution that the deceased was moved in the car of Om Prakash. This car, as per prosecution, is the Honda Accord bearing registration no. DL 7CB 0816. The defence had denied that car was owned by accused Om Prakash as the car was registered in the name of Pw26 and the documents proved by the prosecution show that it was sold to Pw27. It is claimed by the prosecution that Pw27 gave his identification documents at the insistence of accused Om Prakash Pandey. Assuming it to be true, the alleged recovery from the car is of one spanner only. This spanner is claimed to have contained DNA of deceased as proved by Pw20. However, as questioned by defence, there is a serious disputed on the spanner seized and spanner examined. Ex.Pw18/P records the dimension of spanner that it's length of 28cm and the length after forming L towards the socket is 9 cm. However, Pw12 while examining the spanner had to prepare the schematic design of the weapon and this shows that the length of the spanner after forming L is 4.5cm + 2.8 cm i.e. around 7.3 cm. Therefore, the spanner examined is completely different than the spanner seized. Hence, there is doubt that not only the seized spanner was changed but DNA of the deceased in some form was put on the spanner. Record shows that it was seized on 17.03.2015 and the doctor had examined the same on 13.05.2015 i.e. after around two months and it was deposited with FSL on 20.05.2015. The spanner from the date of seizure i.e. 17.03.2015 to 13.05.2015 could not have reduced its size. There is possibility that the spanner was changed before it was sent for examination from Pw12. Consequently the report SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 29 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2025.03.26 18:10:30 +0530
Ex.Pw32/A and Ex.Pw32/B which contains the DNA on the spanner as the only incriminating material also becomes doubtful.
18. Similarly the alleged recovery of knife is of no consequence because knife has not led to any distinct relation with the dead body except for the opinion of Pw12 which is not sufficient in itself to conclude that the injury on the cheeks and outer aspect of chest was caused by the same knife.
19. Further the nylon rope seized in this case appears to be completely planted as tying the deceased with the nylon rope would have left some marks on the body of the deceased but no such mark was recorded either at the time of local examination when the the body was first examined at SRHC Hospital nor any such mark is recorded in the PM report.
20. The burden on the prosecution is absolute. In case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has not only to prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt but also to form the chain of such circumstances leading to only hypothesis that it was the accused only who committed the offence and none else.
21. A reference may be made to Sharda Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1984 SC 1622), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with circumstantial evidence, laid that, SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 30 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:10:36 +0530 "onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
22. Only thing which has been brought on record consistently is that the deceased used to reside at the property of Nathi at Dausa, Rajasthan and accused Om Prakash alongwith other brothers of Nathi were having some dispute with respect to that property and once accused Om Prakash had threatened the deceased. To this also even the sister and mother of the deceased have denied that Om Prakash had threatened to eliminate the deceased. This motive alone cannot, therefore, be held sufficient to prove the charge against accused Om Prakash that he kidnapped and murdered the deceased. As against accused Subhang and Bhavnesh there is nothing to show any association with accused Om Prakash except an inadmissible disclosure SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 31 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:10:43 +0530statement.
23. In view of the discussion above held, I am of the view that prosecution has filed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons on all charges. Hence, all accused persons are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date:VIKRAM 2025.03.26 Date : 26.03.2025 18:10:50 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/26.03.2025 Dictated on : 26.03.2025 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Transcribed on : 26.03.2025 VIKRAM Date: 2025.03.26 checked on : 26.03.2025 18:10:53 +0530 Signed on : 26.03.2025 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/26.03.2025 SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 32 of 41 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 1. PW-1 HC Anjeev Kumar Police witness 2. PW-2 ASI Surender Singh Police witness 3. PW-3 HC Shiv Om Photographer crime team 4. PW-4 Ct. Gopi Ram Police witness 5. PW-5 HC Balbir Police witness 6. PW-6 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar Police witness 7. PW-7 HC Subhash Sharma Police witness 8. PW-8 Insp. Mahesh Kumar Police witness 9. PW-9 SI Ajit Singh Incharge crime team 10. PW-10 HC Prem Singh MHCM 11. PW-11 Sh. Mohan Lal Father of deceased 12. PW-12 Dr. Jatin Bodwal Specialist Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital 13. PW-13 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Medical Officer, SRHC Hospital 14. PW-14 Dr. M. Das CMO. SGM Hospital 15. PW-15 Sh. Hitesh Kumar Commercial Officer, MTNL 16. PW-16 Sh. Sandeep Garg Public witness 17. PW-17 Ms. Divyr @ Vidya Sister of deceased 18. PW-18 SI Kailash 1st IO 19. PW-19 HC Mantu MHCM 20. PW-20 Ct. Rambir Police witness 21. PW-21 Smt. Nathi Devi Aunt of deceased 22. PW-22 Smt. Kamla Mother of deceased 23. PW-23 Smt. Kamlesh Public witness SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 33 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.03.26 18:11:03 +0530 24. PW-24 Smt. Padma Public witness 25. PW-25 Smt. Meera Daugher of Nathi 26. PW-26 Sh. Pankaj Luthra Owner of car Honda Accord 27. PW-27 Sh. Jai Pal Public witness 28. PW-28 Sh. Rameshwar Public witness 29. PW-29 Sh. Chiranji Lal Public witness 30. PW-30 Sh. Deepak Khatri Public witness 31. PW-31 SI Ved Prakash Police witness 32. PW-32 Dr. Suminder Kaur Senior Forensic/Chemical Examiner (BIO/NDA), RFSL 33. PW-33 Chajju Ram 34. PW-34 Ct. Sandeep Kumar 35. PW-35 HC Charan Singh 36. PW-36 Ct. Deepak 37. PW-37 Sh. Israr Babu Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. 38. PW-38 SI Pappu Lal Meena 39. PW-39 Insp. Rajpal Singh 40. PW-40 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Nodal officer, TATA Tele Services Ltd. 41. PW-41 Dr. Gurdeep Singh CMO, SGM Hospital Arora Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:11:09 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/26.03.2025 SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 34 of 41 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents 1. Ex.Pw1/1 Affidavit of witness 2. Ex.Pw1/A DD entry 3. Ex.Pw2/1 Affidavit of witness 4. Ex.Pw2/A Copy of FIR no. 1566/2014 dated 05.12.2014 5. Ex.Pw2/B Endorsement on rukka 6. Ex.Pw3/1 Affidavit of witness 7. Ex.Pw3/X 10 photographs of the spot alongwith negatives 8. Ex.Pw4/1 Affidavit of witness 9. Ex.Pw5/1 Affidavit of witness 10. Ex.Pw5/A Copy of FIR No. 493/2015, PS Mangolpuri 11. Ex.Pw6/1 Affidavit of witness 12. Ex.Pw6/A DD No. 11B 13. Ex.Pw7/1 Affidavit of witness 14. Ex.Pw7/A Copy of FIR No. 2306/2014 PS Mangolpuri 15. Ex.Pw7/B Endorsement on rukka 16. Ex.Pw7/C Certificate under Section 65B IEA 17. Ex.Pw8/1 Affidavit of witness 18. Ex.Pw8/A Scaled site plan SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 35 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date: 2025.03.26 18:11:17 +0530 19. Ex.Pw9/1 Affidavit of witness 20. Ex.Pw9/A Crime team report 21. Ex.Pw10/1 Affidavit of witness 22. Ex.Pw10/A to Entry no. 4036, Ex.Pw10/E 4205, 4214 & 4290 in register no. 19 23. Ex.Pw10/F RC No. 75/21/15 24. Ex.PW10/G Acknowledgment of FSL 25. Ex.Pw11/A Complaint 26. Mark Pw11/B Letter given to Also Ex.Pw11/C complainant by NCRB 27. Ex.Pw12/A PM report 28. Ex.Pw12/B Report with respect to subsequent opinion 29. Ex.Pw13/A MLC No. 3958 30. Ex.Pw14/A MLC no. 6529 & 6530 31. Ex.Pw15/A CAF Phone No. 27922231 32. Ex.Pw15/B Demand note 33. Ex.Pw15/C Copy of Ration card 34. Ex.Pw15/D CDR from Phone No. 27922231 29.12.2014 to 02.01.2015 35. Ex.Pw15/E Certificate under Section 65B IEA 36. Ex.Pw15/F CAF Phone No. 27924674 37. Ex.Pw15/G Demand note 38. Ex.Pw15/H Copy of voter ID 39. Ex.Pw15/J CDR from Phone No. 27924674 29.12.2014 to 02.01.2015
SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 36 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:11:24 +053040. MarkPw17/A Statement of witness Also Ex.Pw17/DA
41. Ex.Pw18/A Endorsement on complaint
42. Ex.Pw18/B, Seizure memos of Ex.Pw18/C & exhibits i.e. clothes Ex.Pw1/D of deceased
43. Ex.Pw18/E Arrest memo of accused Om Prakash
44. Ex.Pw18/F Disclosure statement of accused Om Prakash
45. Ex.Pw18/G Personal search memo of accused Om Prakash
46. Ex.Pw18/H Arrest memo of accused Shubhang
47. Ex.Pw18/I Disclosure statement of accused Shubhang
48. Ex.Pw18/J Personal search memo of accused Shubhang
49. Ex.Pw18/K Arrest memo of accused Bhavnesh
50. Ex.Pw18/L Disclosure statement of accused Bhavnesh
51. Ex.Pw18/M Personal search memo of accused Bhavnesh
52. Ex.Pw18/N & Disclosure statement Ex.Pw18/O of accused Omprakash and Bhavnesh
53. Ex.Pw18/P Seizure memo of vehicle bearing no.
DL 7CF 0816
54. Ex.Pw18/Q Site plan of place of SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 37 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:11:30 +0530 recovery
55. Ex.Pw18/R Sketch of knife
56. Ex.Pw18/S Seizure memo of knife
57. Ex.Pw18/T Site plan of place of recovery
58. Ex.Pw18/U Seizure memo of rope
59. Ex.Pw18/V Site plan of place of recovery
60. Ex.Pw18/W Pointing out memo of place of incident
61. Ex.Pw18/X Point out memo of the place where the dead body was thrown
62. Ex.Pw20/A, Seizure memos of Ex.Pw20/B & earth control with Ex.Pw20/C blood, earth control without blood and blood gauze
63. Ex.Pw21/A Statement of witness
64. Ex.Pw21/A1 Marriage card
65. Ex.Pw21/A2 Copy of agreement (colly) to sell and application of missing of original
66. Ex.Pw21/A3 Seizure memo
67. Ex.Pw22/A MLC of taking blood samples
68. Ex.Pw22/DA Statement of witness
69. Ex.Pw23/A Statement of witness
70. Ex.Pw24/A Statement of witness
71. Ex.Pw25/A Statement of witness
72. Ex.Pw26/A Seizure memo of SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 38 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2025.03.26 18:11:37 +0530
delivery receipt of car
73. Ex.Pw26/B Copy of delivery receipt
74. Ex.Pw28/DA Statement of witness
75. Ex.Pw32/A Biological report/DNA examination report
76. Ex.Pw35/A Entry no. 3175 in register no. 19
77. Ex.Pw35/B & Carbon copy and Ex.Pw35/C photocopy of RC no.
29/21/17
78. Ex.Pw36/A Seizure memo of exhibits handed over by doctor
79. Ex.Pw37/A CAF Mobile no.
9899262920
80. Ex.Pw37/B Copy of ration card
81. Ex.Pw37/C CDR from Mobile no.
29.12.2014 to 9899262920 02.01.2015
82. Ex.Pw37/D CDR
83. Ex.Pw37/E Certificate u/S 35B IEA
84. Ex.Pw37/F CAF Mobile no.
8447253900
85. Ex.Pw57/G Copy of voter ID card
86. Ex.Pw57/H CDR from 03.12.2014 to 05.12.2014
87. Ex.Pw37/I Certificate u/S 65B IEA
88. Ex.Pw38/A Tehrir SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 39 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:2025.03.26 18:11:43 +0530
89. Ex.Pw38/B Brief facts prepared by witness
90. Ex.Pw38/C Death report (Form 25.35(1)(B))
91. Ex.Pw38/D Site plan of the place where the dead body was lying
92. Ex.Pw38/D1 Inquest proceedings & Ex.Pw38/D2
93. Ex.Pw38/E1 Copy of FIR No. & 1566/14 PS Narela Ex.Pw38/E2 & death certificate of deceased
94. Ex.Pw39/A Application for PC remand of accused persons
95. Ex.Pw39/B Letter for ownership details of vehicle bearing no. DL 7CF 0816
96. Ex.Pw39/C Ownership details of vehicle bearing no.
DL 7CF 0816
97. Ex.Pw39/D Seizure memo of blood samples
98. Ex.Pw39/E Four photographs of vehicle bearing no.
DL 7CF 0816
99. Ex.Pw40/A Forwarding letter
100. Ex.Pw40/B Certificate u/S 65B IEA
101. Ex.Pw40/C CAF Mobile no.
9212903384
102. Ex.Pw40/D Copy of voter ID
103. Ex.Pw40/E CDR from Mobile no.
SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 40 of 41 Digitally signed by VIKRAM VIKRAM Date:
2025.03.26 18:11:50 +053003.12.2014 to 9212903384 05.12.2014
104. Ex.Pw40/F Location chart
105. Ex.Pw41/A & MLC no. 681 & 682 Ex.Pw41/B
106. Ex.P3/X Photographs of (colly) deceased
107. Ex.P1 (colly) Knives and pana Also Ex.P1B & (spanner) Ex.P1A
108. Ex.P2 Rope
109. Ex.P3 (colly) Teeth
110. Ex.P4 (colly) Clothes of deceased
111. Ex.P5 (colly) Concrete pieces
112. Ex.P6 Gauze piece
113. Ex.P7 Blood gauze
114. Ex.P8 Honda Accord car bearing no. DL 7CF 0816
115. Ex.P9 Glass vial having blood sample of Mohan Lal
116. Ex.P10 Glass vial having blood sample of mother of deceased Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date: VIKRAM 2025.03.26 18:11:57 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/26.03.2025 SC No. 52630/2016 State Vs. Om Prakash @ Pandey Page no. 41 of 41