Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy on 2 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No. 65/2020
Unique Case ID No. 709/2016
FIR No.77/2014
U/S: 302/307/34 IPC
& 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
P.S: Vivek Vihar
State Versus 1. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy
S/o. Shiv Kumar,
R/o A-Gharoli Dairy Farm
Near Mother Dairy, Delhi.
2. Nitin, S/o Puran Chand
R/o. 4/472, Trilok puri,
Santoshi Mata Mandir Wali Gali,
Delhi.
3. Vinay Pandey, S/o Harish Pandey
R/o. 4/472, Trilok puri,
Santoshi Mata Mandir Wali Gali,
Delhi. (Abated vide order
dated 27.09.2018)
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 1 of 51
4. Raju @ Shunty, S/o Ram Lakhan
R/o. 11/428, Kalyanpuri,
Delhi.
5. Sajid, S/o Mohd. Shahid
R/o. Mahesh Pandit Ka Makan,
Ground & Ist floor, Vill. Gharoli,
MV-III, Gazi Pur, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 08.05.2014
Date of Arguments : 17.07.2023
Date of Judgment : 02.09.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the case, as per charge sheet are that on 31.01.2014 an information was received from Dr. Hedgewar Hospital that injured Mohil Saha was admitted in the hospital in unconscious condition by his brother Mohit and the doctor has declared him brought dead. IO SI Sanjeev Kumar along with Ct. Ram Swaroop reached at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and collected the MLC of Mohil Saha. As per Mohit, his injured brother Mohil Saha had stab wound on left side of chest and was declared brought dead. Meanwhile, another injured Mukul also came to the hospital and his MLC was also prepared by the concerned doctor, who was also having incised FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 2 of 51 wound i.e. stab wound size 2X0.5 cm at right gluteal region. The pant of Mukul as well as blood samples were seized by the concerned doctor and were handed over to SI Sanjeev Kumar along with sample seal and was seized by the IO. Mukul was discharged, thereafter, IO SI Sanjeev Kumar along with Mukul came at the spot i.e. Bus Stand Ramprastha, Road No. 56, Anand Vihar. Blood was found on the road and on the back side of the Bus Stand. Statement of Mukul was recorded where he stated that he works as a labor and at around 12.30 noon, injured Mohil was standing at Bus Stand Ramprastha and complainant was standing at some distance to purchase cigarettes. When the complainant returned after purchasing cigarettes and reached at Bus Stand Ramprastha, he saw that 6 young boys were fighting with Mohil and were asking him to return Rs.1500/-. They also told him that as he was showing an attitude, they would teach him a lesson. Two boys, out of the six persons took out knife. Complainant tried to intervene but one of those boys tried to stab on the stomach of the complainant but complainant turned back and suffered knife injury on his hip/back. Another boy gave stab wound on the chest of Mohil. Complainant Mukul further stated that when he raised alarm all the six boys run towards Anand Vihar, ISBT, boarded a bus and fled away. He further stated that when he was taking Mohil towards Jhuggi then Mukesh, brother of Mohil came. Thereafter, Mohit Shah another brother of Mohil also came and they both brought a rickshaw and took Mohil to the hospital. Complainant went to his jhuggi, took his jacket and then reached at hospital. He further stated that he can identify all the six boys if brought before him who had with their common intention to kill them inflicted FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 3 of 51 knife injuries to him as well as Mohil. On his statement, the present FIR was registered. Crime Team inspected the spot. Photographs of the dead body were taken. Blood samples and slippers were seized from the spot. Postmortem of the deceased was got conducted. On 09.02.2014, on the information of secret informer, accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy, Nitin and a JCL were arrested/apprehended. Accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy revealed the name of Raju @ Shunty, Sajid and Vinay Pandey and also revealed that Nitin and JCL were also involved. Nitin also in his confession named his associates. Accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy and Nitin got recovered their cloths which they were wearing at the time of incident. Accused Vinay Pandey was apprehended on 12.02.2014. At the instance of Vinay Pandey, accused Raju @ Shunty was apprehended and arrested. The wearing cloths were got recovered by accused Raju @ Shunty and Vinay Pandey which were seized and sealed by the IO. Accused Sajid moved an anticipatory bail application. Accused Vinay Pandey and Raju @ Shunty refused to participate in the TIP. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death was opined as shock as a result of injury to the heart consequent upon stab injury which is necessarily fatal. Accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy and Nitin also refused for their TIP. During the PC remand of accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy, the weapon of offence i.e. blood sweared knife was recovered and Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was added. Supplementary chargesheet was filed against Sajid, after he was arrested on 08.09.2014. Section 174A IPC was also added, as far as accused Sajid was concerned, as he was declared P.O. on 10.07.2014. Accused Sajid also FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 4 of 51 refused for his TIP. PC remand of the accused Sajid was obtained and at his instance, another weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered. Subsequent opinion of the doctor was obtained and he opined that the injury on the person of the deceased are possible by the examined weapon i.e., knife. Thereafter, after completing other necessary formalities, supplementary charge-sheet against accused Sajid was filed.
2. On appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copies were supplied to accused persons and after considering the material placed on record, ld. CMM vide order dt. 19.11.2014 observed that Section 302/307 IPC are made out and the present case was committed to Sessions Court qua accused persons.
3. Accused persons were charged for having committed offence u/s. 302/34 IPC read with Section 34 IPC as well as Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep and Sajid were also charged for having committed offence under Section 5 and 27 of Arms Act to which they also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charge u/s. 174 A IPC was also framed against accused Sajid, to which also he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined twenty one witnesses in all who can be divided in three categories :
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 5 of 51POLICE WITNESSES AND OTHER FORMAL WITNESSES:
5. PW-3 Ct. Satya Narayan is the photographer who had accompanied Incharge of Mobile Crime Team and had taken photographs of the scene of crime from different angles as well as of the dead body. The photographs along with negatives are Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.3/A-13.
6. PW-6 Ct. Puneet Kumar stated that on 15.04.2014, he had taken 14 sealed pullandas along with some sample seal to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 42/21/14 and deposited the same in sealed condition at FSL Rohini and thereafter, given a receipt of the letter of acknowledgement from FSL and handed over the receipt and letter to MHC(M).
7. PW-7 HC Ishwar Singh stated that on 06.09.2014, at around 10.35 pm, he received an information regarding arrest of accused Sajid who was P.O. as he was Duty Officer. The said information was recorded vide DD No. 37A Ex.PW7/A.
8. PW-8 Ct. Anil Kumar had delivered the copy of FIR at the residence of concerned MM, Joint CP (Eastern Range) and DCP (East).
9. PW-11 HC Bhagwat Singh stated that he was Duty Constable at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and on 31.01.2014, at about 1.20 pm, 3 - 4 boys brought one injured in unconscious condition having injury on his chest.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 6 of 51Injured Mohil was declared brought dead and he sent this information to the PS Vivek Vihar and SI Sanjeev from PS Vivek Vihar came to hospital. He further stated that after about 1-1.15 hours, another injured Mukul also came to hospital and his MLC was also prepared and doctor had handed over blood stained pant of Mukul to IO SI Sanjeev in his presence. After seeing the seizure memo, PW-11 stated that it does not bear his signatures.
10.PW-12 SI Kaushal Gangoli is the Incharge of the Crime Team who inspected the spot on 31.01.2014. He stated that blood was lying near the bus stop and a pair of chappal was also lying behind the bus stop at a distance of about 25 steps. Photographs of scene of crime was taken by Ct. Satya Narayan. He had lifted blood samples and chappal from the spot. His report is Ex.PW12/A. During cross on behalf of accused Sanjeev and Sajid, he stated that blood had dried which was found on the bus stand. Two blood stains were found at the distance of 20-25 steps from bus stop. During cross on behalf of accused Nitin, he stated that he prepared his report Ex.PW12/A at the spot itself in standing position.
11.PW-15 Ms. Ritu Singh, Ld. MM proved the TIP proceedings of the accused Vinay Pandey and Raju @ Shunty as Ex.PW15/B and the application of the IO is Ex.PW15/A. She further stated that despite warning, the accused persons refused to participate in TIP. They were explained that an adverse inference can be drawn against them but still the accused persons were not ready to participate in the TIP. The certificate in this respect is Ex.PW15/C. FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 7 of 51
12.PW-16 SI Sanjeev Kumar stated that on 31.01.2014, he was posted at PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi and was on emergency duty and was assigned DD No.15A, Ex.A-1 which was received from Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. He further stated he took Ct. Ramswaroop with him to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and collected the MLC No. 334/14 of Mohil Shah Ex.A4 as per which injured was brought dead. He further stated that Mohil was brought to hospital by his brother Mohit and the MLC of injured Mukul was prepared vide No. 338/14 Ex.PW-1/A. Thereafter, doctor handed over two sealed pullandas alongwith sample seal and MLC of injured Mukul which were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. He further stated that Ct. Ramswaroop at Hedgewar Hospital proceeded towards the spot with injured Mukul and when he reached at the spot, he noticed blood on main road opposite bus stand and found one pair of slippers of gray colour behind bus stand , blood was also on slipper. In the meantime, Ct. Gajanand also reached there. He recorded the statement of injured Mukul, Ex.PW13/A. He prepared tehrir on statement of Mukul, Ex.PW16/B and sent Ct. Gajanand to PS alongwith tehrir for registration of case. After about one hour, he narrated the facts to Inspector Vijay Kumar who had come there and handed over relevant documents alongwith sealed exhibits to him. IO put FIR number on the relevant documents. PW-16 had given information to Crime Team to come at the spot. IO prepared site plan at the instance of injured Mukul and had lifted four exhibits from the spot and marked as A, B, C and D, thereafter, sealed exhibits were taken into police possession. IO directed photographer of crime team to take photographs of FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 8 of 51 dead-body at mortuary. He was duly cross examined by ld. Amicus Curiae. During cross, he deposed that clothes of deceased were blood soaked but he exactly could not tell on which place of clothes, more blood was there. He further deposed that he handed over two sealed exhibits, two MLC, sample seal and seizure memo to IO, however, he did not remember the exact time of preparation of site plan.
13.PW-17 Ct. Ram Swaroop stated that on 31.01.2014, he was posted as Constable at PS Vivek Vihar and on that day, he was on emergency duty and SI Sanjeev was assigned DD No.15A. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Sanjeev went to Hedgewar Hospital where SI Sanjeev collected MLC No. 337/14 of Mohil Shah, Ex.A4, as per which injured was brought dead. He further stated that after about one hour, one person namely Mukul reached at Hedgewar hospital, and SI Sanjeev inquired from him regarding the injuries and Mukul stated that he was present with Mohil at the spot who was earlier brought to the hospital by his brother Mohit and MLC of injured Mukul was prepared vide No. 338/14 Ex.PW-1/A. He further stated that doctor handed over two sealed pullandas alongwith sample seal and MLC of injured Mukul and two sealed pullandas were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. He further stated that he was directed by SI Sanjeev to shift the dead-body at Sabzi Mandi mortuary and after that he left the spot. He shifted the body at Sabzi Mandi mortuary in the hospital vehicle vide token No.194 and got the same preserved at mortuary. He stated that after identification of the body of Mohil by his brother Mohit and Bala Yadav, the postmortem was conducted at mortuary FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 9 of 51 and the identification memos are Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW10/A. Thereafter, body of Mohil was handed over to his brother Mohit Shah vide handing over memo Ex.PW4/B and after postmortem, doctors handed over exhibits to the IO with sample seal, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/A. During cross, he stated that he did not remember the time of DD, however, he along with SI Sanjeev went to hospital. He also stated that he did not remember the time when deadbody was deposited.
14.PW-18 Ct. Gajanand stated that on 31.01.2014, he was posted at PS Vivek Vihar, Delhi as constable and on that day he was on beat patrolling duty and on getting information vide DD No. 15A from Hedgewar Hospital, he reached at spot i.e. Ramprastha Bus Stand and stood there to guard the spot. He stated that IO prepared tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of case at 05:45 pm and he went to PS for registration of present case. He further stated that he alongwith Inspector Vijay Kumar reached at the spot where SI Sanjeev handed over the documents and sealed the exhibits to IO, thereafter, IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and IO lifted the four exhibits from spot and marked as A, B, C and D and four sealed exhibits were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A, thereafter, he alongwith IO went to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, where they came to know that dead body was shifted to Sabji Mandi mortuary by Ct. Ram Swaroop earlier. During cross, he denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot and no exhibits were lifted from the spot in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation and was deposing falsely at the instance FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 10 of 51 of IO.
15.PW-19 SI Deshraj Singh stated that on 09.02.2014, he was posted as ASI at PS Vivek Vihar and joined the investigation of present case with IO/Insp. Vijay Kumar and Ct. Dev Dutt. He stated that while receiving secret information raiding party was constituted alongwith informer and they all left the PS with secret informer in a Private Santro Car at Patparganj Indl. area Bus Stand, Road No.56 and took the position in scattered manner ahead of the bus stand towards ISBT side and all the members of raiding party rushed and apprehend all three Sanjeev@Sandeep@Moti Mummy, Nitin and 'A' (JCL, name not reproduced to withhold identity). Accused Sanjeev was arrested vide memo Ex.PW19/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/C. Accused Nitin was arrested vide memo Ex.PW19/D, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/E and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/F. PW-19 further stated that JCL 'A' told his date of birth as 22.07.1996 and he was JCL at the time of commission of offence, IO called JWO at spot to conduct proceedings regarding JCL. JWO prepared apprehension memo, personal search memo of JCL and he signed on the memos prepared by JWO regarding CCL. Pointing out memo of accused Sanjeev is Ex.PW19/G, pointing out memo of accused Nitin is Ex.PW19/H. Thereafter, JWO was directed by IO to do the proceedings regarding CCL and they all alongwith accused persons left for place where accused persons had hidden their clothes. Accused Sanjeev FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 11 of 51 led them to a place near Khora Devta Mandir near bushes on road which leads from Kondli Nehar to Dharamshila hospital and accused got recovered a poloythene bag from bushes containing his clothes i.e. one black colour jean having blood stains on front side and one white colour shirt also having blood stains towards front side and same were seized in a pullanda vide Ex.PW19/I, thereafter, accused Nitin also got recovered his clothes which were kept in a polythene from the bushes i.e. one blue jean, one blue jersy both having blood stains in their front side, recovered clothes were kept in white cloth and converted into pullanda with the help of cloth and same were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW19/J. PW-19 further stated that thereafter accused persons were sent to J/C and application for TIP of accused persons were fixed for 10.02.2014 and case property deposited in malkhana by IO and his statement was recorded thereafter. It is further stated that they apprehended accused Vinay Pandey and arrested him vide memo Ex.PW19/K, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/L and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/M, thereafter, they went in search of co-accused Sajid and reached at H.No.13/351, Kalyan Puri, Delhi at the instance of accused Vinay but accused Sajid was not found, however, at the instance of accused Vinay they apprehended accused Raju from his house. Accused Raju was interrogated and he confessed regarding his involvement in the present case and IO arrested accused Raju vide memo Ex.PW 19/N, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/O and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/P. Thereafter, both the accused persons led them to FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 12 of 51 place of incident and two separate pointing out memos were prepared by the IO. Pointing out memo of accused Vinay is Ex.PW19/Q and accused Raju@Shanti is Ex.PW19/R. PW-19 further stated that at the instance of accused Vinay Pandey, they reached ahead of Gazipur Shamshan Ghat and got recovered his clothes i.e. blue jeans, blue stipped shirt having blood stains on both from bushes kept in polythene bag and converted into pullanda and taken into police possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/S. Thereafter, accused Raju@Shanti got recovered his clothes i.e. white pant stripped and stripped biscuit colour shirt having blood stains on the front side, worn by him at the time of incident and same were sealed with the seal of VK and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW19/T. PW-19 further identified the recovered clothes of accused Sanjeev i.e. shirt and pant, same is Ex.PW19/Article-1. He has also identified the recovered clothes of accused Nitin i.e. blue pant and blue track suit jersy is Ex.PW19/Article-2. He has also identified the recovered clothes of accused Vinay Pandey i.e. blue jean and sky blue colour stripped shirt as Ex.PW19/Article-3. He identified the recovered clothes of accused Raju @ Shanti i.e.one striped pant and one biscuit colour stripped shirt are Ex.PW19/Article-4 (colly). During cross, he stated that in his presence informer had not given information and it was conveyed by Inspector Vijay Kumar to them and they reached bus stand Patparganj Industrial area at 11
- 11.30 am in Santro car of Inceptor Vijay Kumar. He further stated no notice was given to public persons who did not join investigation, however, he did not recollect which accused was apprehended by whom.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 13 of 5116.PW-20 Devdutt stated that on 09.02.2014 he was posted as Constable at PS Vivek Vihar and on that day, he joined the investigation of present case with IO/Inspector Vijay Kumar and ASI Desh Raj. He almost deposed on the similar lines PW-19 SI Deshraj Singh. On 15.02.2014, he again joined investigation of the present case with IO and at the instance of accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy after digging the soil they recovered one knife from Safeda Park buried inside the soil, which was used in commission of offence and taken out from polythene and blood stains were found visible on the blade of the knife. Sketch of the same was prepared by the IO which is Ex.PW20/A. Thereafter, knife was wrapped in a white cloth after closing the knife with the help of button and converted it into pullanda and sealed with the seal of AK and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/B. He further deposed that on the blade of knife some brown stains were present on the edge of the knife which was found recovered at the instance of accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep@Moti Mummy, knife is Ex.PW20/Article-1. During cross, he deposed that no notice in writing was given to the public person and their names were not written. He further deposed that they took position in scattered manner at a distance of 5-6 meter and they remained there for 2-2 ½ hour and the accused persons came between 1 - 1.30 pm, however, he did not remember who was apprehended firstly. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were lifted from their house. He further denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement of accused Raju was recorded.
17.PW-21 ASI Sonu Kaushik deposed that he inspected the place of incident FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 14 of 51 along with Inspector Vijay Kumar and had prepared rough notes and on the basis of which he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW21/A.
18.PW-22 ASI Hari Singh has deposed about executing the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C against accused Sajid. The statement of landlord recorded by him is Ex.PW22/A and his report on the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C is Ex.PW22/B dated 12.07.2014 declaring the accused Sajid as PO is Ex.PW22/C.
19.PW-23 ASI Sanjay Nain deposed that on 06.09.2014, he along with HC Sudhir reached at Ambedkar park, Block No.3, Kalyanpuri and on the basis of information given by a secret informer they had apprehended PO Sajid who had come near Gharoli Dairy farm. He stated that at the time of apprehending the accused Sajid, he resisted and in this process he hit his head against a car due to which he sustained minor injuries. The information about his arrest was given to Smt. Sheetal and a Kalandra under 41 1 (c) Cr.P.C was prepared. Arrest memo of Sajid is Ex. PW23/A and personal search memo is Ex.PW23/B. During cross-examination he denied that accused Sajid was apprheded from his house.
20.PW-24 HC Ravi deposed that on 09.10.2014 he was working as Malkhana Munshi at PS Vivek Vihar and he had handed over sealed pullanda containing a knife to Ct. Devdull vide RC No. 11/14 for expert opinion. He further stated that Ct. Devdutt got a sealed pullanda with the seal of CMO IC888GH along with one sample seal and said articles were deposited in FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 15 of 51 malkhana.
21. He further stated that on 13.10.2014 he had handed over the sealed pullanda along with sample seal to Ct. Devdutt for depositing the same and FSL, Rohini vide RC No.116/21/14 and after depositing the parcel on FSL, Ct. Devdutt handed over the receipt of the same which was kept on the malkhana register. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he made false entry in the malkhana register at the instance of IO.
22. PW-25 HC Vijender deposed that on 10.09.2014 he had joined investigation. IO Inspector Vijay Kumar and Constable Manoj with accused Sajid took them to the place of incident and Sajid pointed out the said place vide memo Ex.PW25/A. Thereafter, the accused was brought back. He was again taken out from lockup and was taken to Dharamshila Hospital near New Ashok Nagar from where he recovered knife which was kept in the earth and the skech of the knife was prepared by him which is Ex.PW25/B. The knife was sealed in the pullanda with the seal of VK and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/C. He identified the accused Sajid as well as the knife recovered from accused Sajid as Ex.PX. During cross- examination he denied that the accused has not pointed any place or that the writing work was done by the IO in the Police Station. He also denied that the accused did not got recovered any knife or that the knife was planted upon the accused.
23.PW-26 HC Praveen deposed that on 08.09.2014 he had joined FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 16 of 51 investigation with IO Vijay Kumar and Ct. Vijender when accused Sajid was arrested after taking permission from court vide Ex.PW26/A and personal search memo Ex.PW26/B, disclosure statement of Sajid Ex.PW26/C.
24.PW-27 SI Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 06.09.2014, he along with Head Constable Sanjay Nain i.e., PW-23 had apprehended the PO Sajid. He further stated that when his police team apprehended him, accused had hit his head against a standing vehicle. He identified his signature on the arrest memo of accused Sajid Ex.PW23/A and personal search memo Ex.PW23/B. The Kalandara under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C is mark PW27/A. He has identified the accused correctly.
25.PW-28 Inspector Vijay Kumar deposed that on 31.01.2014, he was posted as ATO at PS Vivek Vihar and on the same day investigation in the present case was marked to him by SHO. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Gajanand reached at the spot i.e. bus stands Ram Prastha Road No.56 and directed the crime team officials to click the photographs of the deceased in hospital and prepared rough site plan of place of occurrence Ex.PW28/A. He has also lifted the blood sample from the spot and kept the same in small plastic jar and also seized pieces of tile stained with blood and seized one pair of slippers of grey colour stained with blood through separate pullandas A, B, C and D and prepared seizure memo already Ex.PW18/A. He has further deposed that he seized the pant of injured Mukul vide memo Ex.PW16/A and mentioned the case particulars and FIR on the said memo FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 17 of 51 on 31.01.2014. He has further deposed that on 01.02.2014, he recorded statement of Mohit and Bala Yadav already Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW10/A and handed over dead body of deceased after P/M to Mohit, brother of deceased vide receipt already Ex.PW4/B and received three sealed pullandas and one sample seal from doctor with seal of CMO-I/C-AAAGH and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW17/A and deposited the same in malkhana.
26. It is further stated that on 09.02.2014, PW-28 had received an information from secret informer that suspect will assemble near Patparganj Indl. Area Bus Stand. He has further deposed that at around 10:30-10:45 am, he requested some passersby to join the raiding team but none agreed, at around 12:00 Noon, one bus stopped at bus stand and three boys came down from the said bus and informer pointed out towards those boys and all the three boys were apprehended, out of which one of them was JCL 'A'. Thereafter, accused Sanjeev was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/C. Thereafter, accused Nitin was interrogated and arrested vide Ex.PW19/D and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW19/E and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/F. He thereafter took accused Sanjeev and Nitin to the place of occurrence in muffled face and prepared pointing out memo at the instance of both accused persons already Ex.PW19/G and Ex.PW19/H. FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 18 of 51
27. It is further deposed that on 09.02.2014, accused Sanjeev got recovered one plastic polythene which was concealed by him in the bushes containing one black colour jeans having blood stain marks and one white colour shirt having blood stain marks and disclosed that he wore the same at the time of incident. The clothes were seized vide memo already Ex.PW19/I. Accused Nitin also got recovered his wearing clothes from bushes at some distance from where accused Sanjeev got recovered one polythene and it was found containing one blue colur jeans and one jersey of blue colour both having blood stain marks and same were taken in possession and seized vide memo already Ex.PW19/J. Both the pullandas were sealed with the seal of VK.
28.PW-28 has further deposed that on 11.02.2014, accused Vinay Pandey was apprehended and after interrogation he was arrested vide memo already Ex.PW19/K, thereafter, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW19/L and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/M. Vinay Pandey took them to the house of Sajid but Sajid was not traceable. Thereafter, they went to the house of accused Raju @ Shanti at H.No. 11/428, Kalyan Puri, Delhi from where Raju @ Shanti was apprehended and arrested vide Ex.PW19/N and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/O and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW19/P. He has further deposed that thereafter accused Vinay took police team to the place of occurrence and pointing out memo was FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 19 of 51 prepared at his instance vide Ex.PW19/Q. Accused Raju @ Shanti also took police team to the place of occurrence and prepared pointing out memo vide Ex.PW19/R. He has further deposed that accused Vinay Pandey and Raju @ Shanti also got recovered their wearing clothes which they wore at the time of incident. He has further deposed that accused Vinay took the police team to Ghazipur Shamshan Ghat and got recovered a polythene bag from the bushes which was found containing one blue jeans and sky-blue strip shirt, both having blood stain marks and taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW19/S. Thereafter, accused Raju @ Shanti also took the police team under Kondli Flyover near Dharamshila Hospital and got recovered a polythene bag from bushes which was found containing one biscuit colour check shirt and white colour linedar pant which he wore at the time of incident. Said clothes were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW19/T. Both the sealed pullandas were affixed with the seal of VK.
29.PW-28 further deposed that on 12.02.2014, both accused Sanjeev and Nitin refused to undergo TIP proceedings. He has further deposed that on 14.02.2014, accused Sanjeev was produced in the court and thereafter taken on two days police remand. Thereafter, accused Sanjeev got recovered one buttondar knife after digging the earth in Safeda Park, Ghadoli Dairy Farm near Mayur Vihar Phase-III. The sketch of knife is Ex.PW20/A and knife thereafter was taken into police possession vide FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 20 of 51 memo Ex.PW20/B. Thereafter, exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini for opinion and during investigation, he recorded statement of witnesses.
30.He further deposed that on 06.09.2014 accused Sajid was arrested by police officials of PS Anand Vihar in kalandra u/Sec. 41.1(c) Cr.P.C., thereafter, he was produced in court on 08.09.2014 from J/C and interrogated and arrested by him vide arrest memo already Ex.PW26/A and personal search memo vide Ex.PW26/B and his disclosure statement is Ex.PW26/C. He has further deposed that on 10.09.2014 accused Sajid took police team to the place of occurrence and thereafter pointing out memo got prepared vide Ex.PW25/A. Thereafter, accused Sajid got recovered one steel knife after digging the earth near Kondli Nehar towards Dharamshila Hospital. Sketch of knife was prepared vide Ex.PW25/B and its seizure memo was prepared vide Ex.PW25/C. After subsequent opinion, he received knife and sample seal and same were taken into police possession vide Ex.PW28/PX.
31.PW-28 identified the clothes of accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep which were exhibited vide Ex.PW19/Article-1, clothes of Nitin were exhibited vide Ex.PW19/Article-2, clothes of accused Vinay Pandey were exhibited vide Ex.PW19/Article-3, clothes of Raju @ Shanti were exhibited vide Ex.PW19/Article-4. Thereafter, one buttondar knife with mark of USA Super Knife which was got recovered by accused Sanjeev and exhibited vide Ex.PW20/Article-1. He has further deposed that one knife churi FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 21 of 51 shape with steel handle was got recovered at the instance of accused Sajid is Ex.PX.
32.PW-29 Ms. Geetanjali deposed that on 12.02.2014, she was working as MM, KKD Courts, Delhi and on that day she visited Tihar Jail, Delhi for conducting TIP of accused Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy and accused Nitin s/o Pooran Singh and conducted their TIP proceedings, carbon copy of the TIP proceedings of accused persons are Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B bearing her signatures.
33.PW-30 Sh. Sumeet Anand Ld. MM deposed that on 09.09.2014 an application of IO/Insp. Vijay Kumar was fixed for conducting TIP of accused Sajid, application is Ex.PW30/A. He has further deposed that on that day he was working as Judge Reliever, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi, thereafter, accused Sajid produced before him from J/C for conducting TIP but accused Sajid refused to participate in the TIP. Statement of refusal of TIP of accused Sajid is Ex.PW30/B duly attested at point A. TIP proceeding is Ex.PW30/C. IO was allowed to obtain copy of TIP proceedings vide his request Ex.PW30/D.
34. PW-31 SI Rohtash deposed that on 31.01.2014, he was working as HC in PS Vivek Vihar and working as MHC(M) in malkhana and SI Sanjeev Kumar had deposited two sealed pullandas including one sample seal in malkhana and made entry with regard to the same at Srl. No. 2779, FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 22 of 51 photocopy of said entry is Ex.PW31/A. Also, Insp. Vijay Kumar had deposited four sealed pullandas with seal of VK in malkhana and had made entry with regard to the same at Srl. No. 2780, photocopy of register No. 19 is Ex.PW31/B.
35. PW-31 further deposed that on 01.02.2014, Insp. Vijay Kumar deposited three sealed pullandas with seal of CMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital and had made entry to this effect at Srl. No. 2781, photocopy of the same is Ex.PW31/C.
36.He further deposed that on 09.02.2014, Insp. Vijay Kumar had deposited one sealed pullanda with seal of VK in malkhana and entry with regard to the same is at Srl. No. 2791, photocopy of the said register No.19 is Ex.PW31/D. Also two personal search articles of Nitin and Sanjeev @ Sandeep were also deposited in malkhana by IO.
37. PW-31 further deposed that on 10.02.2014, Insp. Vijay Kumar deposited two sealed pullandas with seal of VK with personal search articles of Raju @ Shunty and entry to this effect made at Srl. No. 2792, photocopy of the register is Ex.PW31/E.
38. He further deposed that on 15.02.2014, Insp. Vijay Kumar deposited one sealed pullanda with seal of VK and entry to this effect is made at Srl. No. 2796, photocopy of said register is Ex.PW31/F. He has further deposed FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 23 of 51 that 14 sealed parcles alongwith sample seals were sent to FSL Rohini, Delhi through constable Puneet vide RC No. 44/21/14 on 15.04.2014, photocopy of same is Ex.PW31/G, however, after deposition of the said sealed parcels, he received acknowledgment of the same vide Ex.PW31/H.
39. Reports prepared by Dr.Manisha Upadhyaya vide Report No. FSL- 2014/B-2658 dated 20.03.2015 are Ex.A6 and A7 and Report No. FSL- 2014/B-7607 dated 20.03.2015 are Ex.A8 and Ex.A9. Also, document Ex.A1 i.e. DD No.15A dated 31.01.2014, Copy of FIR - Ex.A2, Death Report dated 01.02.2014 prepared by ATO/Vivek Vihar - Ex.A3 and MLC No. 337/2014 dated 31.01.2014 prepared by Dr. Shalini Gupta is Ex.A4 and Postmortem Report No. 180/14 dated 01.02.2014 prepared by Dr. A.S. Bajwa is Ex.A5. The above said documents were admitted by the defence counsel as per order dated 28.08.2025, at the time of framing of Charge.
EXPERTS WITNESSES/DOCTOR :
40.PW-1 Dr. Shalini Gupta deposed that on 31.01.2014, at 2.38 pm injured Mukul was brought with alleged history of assault. He was conscious oriented and had one stab wound i.e. incise wound of size 2X0.5 cm at right gluteal region. The MLC is Ex.PW1/A. The nature of injury was kept pending but the weapon used was opined as sharp.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 24 of 5141.PW-2 Dr. Ajay Madan has also proved his notings on the MLC of the injured Mukul Ex.PW1/A. He has also stated that injured had one stab wound measuring 2X0.7X muscle deep over right gluteal region in medial lower aspect with no active bleeding. During cross, he deposed that he had measured depth of the wound and had given observation about muscle deep wound meaning thereby wound had gone up to a layer beneath skin and he had not measured the depth through any scale as it is not done so usually.
42.PW-14 Sh. Dr. Reetesh Ranjan deposed that on 31.01.2014 at about 5 pm, a brown color full pant was sealed by him with the seal of CMO DHAS Delhi and same was smeared with blood. He also collected blood sample in gauze piece and after drying it, it was sealed with same seal. He recorded these facts in MLC Ex.PW1/A from portion Z to Z1, the said portion is Ex.PW14/A. This pant is of injured Mukul.
EYE WITNESSES/PUBLIC WITNESSES :
43.PW-4 Sh. Mohit Shah, brother of the deceased deposed that the deceased Mohil was his younger brother and on 31.01.2014 at about 12.40 - 12.50 pm, he reached near building towards road no. 56, when he saw Mohil was bleeding from his chest. Mukesh and Mukul were taking care of Mohil. He brought a cycle rickshaw and he was also joined by his friend Laalu and Mohil was taken on cycle richshaw up to a TSR which was standing near Sai Baba Temple, Anand Vihar and thereafter was taken to Dr. Hedgewar FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 25 of 51 Hospital. On the way, his brother Mohil was trying to say something, but he was unable to talk, however, during talks he told that "main tere pass hi aa raha tha". In the hospital, doctors declared his brother Mohil dead. He identified the dead body of his brother Mohil Ex.PW4/A. Dead body was handed over to him vide Ex.PW4/B. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Vinay, PW-4 stated that they would have reached at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital at about 1.30 pm. He denied the suggestion that he did not took his brother to the hospital. During cross examination on behalf of accused Nitin, he stated that it took about 15 - 20 minutes to reach Dr. Hedgewar Hospital by TSR. He further stated that he returned to the spot from Dr. Hedgewar Hospital after 30-35 minutes when his brother was declared dead. He denied the suggestion that he did not return to the spot from the hospital. During cross on behalf of accused Sanjeev, Sajid and Raju, he stated that he had not made call at 100 number and volunteered that he was busy in taking his brother to hospital. He stated that he did not count total number of injuries on the body of his brother Mohil and volunteered that at that time, their only concern was to take him to hospital and his mind was not working so promptly so as to count his injuries. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot or that he did not take his brother to the hospital.
44.PW-5 Sh. Mukesh Shah another brother of deceased stated that his brother was murdered on 31st January, 3 years back at around 12.30 pm when he was returning to his jhuggi for taking lunch, he found his brother Mohil lying near bus stand. Meanwhile, his another brother Mohit and one person FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 26 of 51 Laalu and Neeraj also reached there and they took the injured Mohil to near Sai Baba Mandir in a rickshaw and from there they took him in a autorickshaw to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. He further stated that he did not see anyone inflicting injuries to his brother Mohil and he did not identify anyone before police as assailants. This witness was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for State but he denied that he gave a statement to the police on 31.01.2014, 15.02.2014, 18.02.2014, 22.02.2014, 25.02.2014 and 11.09.2014. He denied the suggestion that he had seen all six boys who were quarreling with Mohil and Mukul from the divider. He also denied the suggestion that two boys were having knife in their hands and after the incident they had closed the knives and put it in their pockets, boarded a DTC bus going towards ISBT Anand Vihar and fled away in the bus. Despite drawing his attention towards the accused persons by ld. Addl. PP for State, the witness failed to identify any of them and has not supported the case of the prosecution.
45.PW-9 Lalu Kumar stated that on 31.01.2014, he was going to take lunch after work and at around 12.50 pm, when he reached vacant area behind Ramprastha bus stand, he saw Mukesh, Mukul and Neeraj were present there and Mohil was sitting on the ground and was bleeding. He stated that all of them put Mohil in rickshaw and took him below the flyover, near Sai Baba Mandir, Savita Vihar and stopped a TSR and shifted Mohil in TSR and took him to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. Mukul had also reached hospital after changing his clothes, in injured condition and he came to know that Mohil had died.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 27 of 5146.PW-10 Sh. Bala Yadav proved the dead body vide identification memo Ex.PW10/A as well as handing over memo Ex.PW4/B bearing his signatures.
47.PW-13 who is also one of the injured and an eye-witness to the incident deposed that on 31.01.2014 at around 12.00 PM to 1.00 PM he along with Mohil (deceased)were sitting on a rickshaw in front of Ramprastha on the read going towards Dilshad Garden. He told Mohil that he and Mohil were together since morning and further saying this he proceeded towards his house and while he was going towards Anand Vihar, Mohil also started following him. He further stated that he saw that six persons came and caught hold of Mohil and started beating him and he requested those six persons not to beat Mohil. He further stated that one of those six persons gave fist blow on his chin and another one who was standing behind PW-13 inflicted knife injury on the back side of his thigh. He further stated that he pushed that boy with his knee and ran 6-7 steps away from the bus stand and one of those six boys inflicted knife injury to Mohil on the left side of the chest. He identified the five accused persons in the court and also pointed out towards the accused Sanjeev stated that accused Sanjeev had inflicted knife injury on him. He further stated that he had not seen the person who had stabbed Mohil as he had moved ahead but he heard cries and saw that Mohil was profusely bleeding. Mohil came to him and fell on him. He further stated that he was in the process of tying his T-shirt over the body of Mohil when brothers of Mohil came there.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 28 of 51Thereafter, he went to his house for changing his jacket and after changing his jacket he returned at the spot where he came to know that Mohil had expired. He was also told by mother of Bala that Mohil was taken to Dr.Headgewar Hospital thereafter he also went to Dr.Headgewar Hospital where he was medically examined. He further stated that Doctor removed his pant. He had shown the place of incident to the Police where blood was lying there. His statement was recorded by the Police and the same is Ex.PW13/A. He further stated that Police had prepared site plan on his pointing out and had also lifted the knife from that place. He stated that he had identified the person who had stabbed Mohil before Police in the Police Station. He identified his pant which he was wearing at the time of incident and which was taken by the doctor as Ex.PW1/13/Article A. He further stated that the Police had lifted stones, blood stained concrete from two places, pair of slippers and had kept the same in separate boxes and sealed the same. He identified the pair of slippers as Ex.PW13/Article 2. During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he denied that he had seen the person who had stabbed Mohil with knife. He further stated that he cannot tell the name of the person who was identified by him in Police Station at a later stage as the person who had stabbed Mohil was moti mummy and volunteer that this name was used by accused persons and he did not know his actual name but he further stated that he was the person who was arrested after long time. Witness further stated that he can identify the persons whom he identified before the police and pointed out towards the accused Sajid.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 29 of 5148.During cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he stated that he was working during those time as labour with Bala who was uncle of Mohil and was a contractor but on the day of incident it was holiday and, therefore, he was not supposed to go for any work. He denied the suggestion that one day previous to his recording of testimony in the court he was shown photographs of accused persons by the IO. He also denied the suggestion that he had falsely identified Sajid before Police in Police Station at the instance of Police officials. He also denied the suggestion that he had taken the name of moti mummy in his statement at the instance of IO. He further stated that he told the IO that he tried to intervene when he was further hit by those persons with fist or chin. He further stated that he told the IO that he had pushed one boy with his elbow and further stated that in his examination-in-chief he had wrongly mentioned knee instead of elbow. He further stated that he had not make call to police when he left for his home to change his jacket as family members of Mohil had already come. He further stated that doctors had not asked him as to how he had received injuries nor he told the doctors about the same and volunteer that Police officials who were already present there had asked him to get his MLC prepared though he can more interested in knowing about his friend. He further stated that he remained in the hospital for about 30 minutes and thereafter reached back at the spot with Police officials at about 4.00 to 5.00 PM. Thereafter, from the spot he went to Police Station with Police officials and remained there till midnight.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 30 of 5149.He further stated that Police had shown him some photographs but the said photographs did not pertain to the accused persons prior to his visit to Police Station for identification of person who had stabbed Mohil. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the place of incident or he had seen the incident or he did not suffer any injury from the accused persons. This witness was further examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that no knife was recovered from the Police from the place of incident on the day of incident but the witness had denied this suggestion.
50.The accused persons admitted the DD No.15 A dated 31.01.2014 Ex.A1, FIR Ex.A2, death report of Mohil Saha Ex.A3, MLC of Mohil Saha Ex.A4, postmortem report of Mohil Ex.A5 and four FSL reports Ex.A6, Ex.A7, Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 and thus HC Usha, ASI Rajender Kumar, Dr. A S Bajwa and Ms. Manisha Upadhaya were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 28.08.2015. Witness Neeraj Jha could not be traced as he changed his address and thus was dropped vide order dated 12.04.2019. HC Manoj was dropped vide order dated 11.07.2022, at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State as HC Vijender on similar facts had already been examined. Ahlmad of the court of PS Vivek Vihar was also dropped vide order dated 08.05.2017 as the original kalandra was already available on record.
51.Thereafter statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated by the police and arrested from their house. Accused FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 31 of 51 Sanjeev has stated that his photograph was taken by the police official and he is innocent and has no concern with the present case. Accused Nitin, Sajid and Raju have also taken a similar plea. Though, the accused persons took the plea of being innocent in their statements u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. but have preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
52.Arguments addressed by Sh. Virender Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as by Sh.Rajiv Pratap Singh, Amicus Curiae for accused persons have been heard and record perused.
53.Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt in as much as eye-witness as well as injured, PW-13 Mukul Kumar had correctly identified the accused persons in the Court during his examination-in-chief. Eye-witness PW-13 has also specifically identified accused Sanjeev to be the same person who had inflicted knife injury on him. The Ld. Addl. PP has further stated that complainant PW-13 has identified all the accused persons correctly in the court to be the same persons who had come and had started giving beatings to deceased Mohil. It is argued that the accused persons had in furthrance of their common intention killed deceased Mohil by stabbing knife in his chest and had also inflicted knife injury on the complainant Mukul with an intention to cause his death and thus, all of them are liable to be convicted for the offence u/s. 302 read with Section 34 IPC as well as u/s. 307 IPC. It is stated that knife was recovered at the instance of Sanjeev @ Sandeep and Sajid and thus, FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 32 of 51 the offence u/s. 27 Arms Act is also proved against Sanjeev and Sajid. Also accused Sajid was declared PO on 10.07.2014 and thus, he is liable for the offence u/s 174 A IPC.
54.Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the brother of the deceased PW-5 Mukesh Shah has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. It is further argued that though as per the IO, knife Ex.PW20/B was recovered at the instance of accused Sanjeev from Safeda Park, Ghadoli Dairy Farm near Mayur Vihar Phase-III but PW-13 has clearly stated that the knife was lifted by the police from the spot on the day of the incident. Despite being cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State he has stood by his version and has denied the suggestion that no knife was recovered by the police from the place of incident. It is argued that the prosecution story thus, is doubtful. It is further argued that no public witnesses were joined by the IO during the alleged recovery of the clothes and weapons from or at the instance of the accused persons. Moreover, the star witness PW-13 also has denied to have seen as to who had inflicted the stab injury on the chest of the deceased Mohil. It is argued that as it is not been established on record as to who had inflicted the knife injury on the deceased, therefore, the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt. It is also argued that even if the prosecution version is accepted, there is nothing on record to suggest that all the accused persons shared a common intention to murder the deceased Mohil.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 33 of 5155.As per the MLC Ex.A4 of the deceased Mohil Shah, he was examined in the hospital at 13.26 PM and was brought by his brother Mohit to the Hospital. He was declared brought dead and on local examination it was found that he was having one stab wound present on the left side of his chest.
56.As per postmortem report Ex.A5, the deceased had following injuries- External Injuries-
1. Stab incised wound (spindle shaped) is obliquely placed at left side of chest wall 2.2X1.2 cm in size. 3 cm below and lateral to left nipple at 5 clock position. O/D wound is directed backward and medially between 4 th and 5th intercostal space, causing cut fracture of 4 th and 6th ribs, Piercing the left pleura and pericardial sac on left side thus causing stab wound at left chamber (ventrical) of heart. Both the angle of the wound is acute. Depth of the wound is 13.2 cm. About 1.5 litre of fluid and clotted blood present at pericardial sac and left pleural cavity.
2. Reddish brown abrasion 0.6X0.4 cm present at back of right hand (knuckle) 11 cm above tip of right little finger.
57.It was opined that the injuries are antemortem in nature. Injury no.1 is caused by sharp pointed weapon and injury No.2 by blunt force/surface impact. The cause of death was opined as shock as a result of injury to heart consequent upon stab injury i.e., injury no.1 which is necessarily fatal.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 34 of 5158.From the postmortem and MLC, it is proved on record that the deceased Mohil had suffered one stab wound on the left side of his chest which pierced through his heart and proved fatal to him and has thus, died a homicidal death. From MLC Ex.A-4 as well as postmortem Ex.A-5 it is also cleat that only one stab wound was given on the chest of the deceased which proved fatal.
59.As per the case of prosecution, PW5 Mukesh Shah brother of the deceased was also an eye-witness however, he has denied to have seen the incident and also denied to have identified anyone before the Police so as to identify the assailants. The only other eye-witness is PW-13, who is also an injured. Let us analyse his testimony first qua the charge under Section 307 IPC. The FIR Ex.A-2 was recorded on the complaint of PW13 Mukul. In his complaint Ex.PW13/A, he has stated that six young boys were fighting with deceased Mohil and were asking him to return their amount and further told him as to how many times they would come to the deceased for Rs.1500/-. He further stated that two out of those six boys took out knives and he tried to intervene, then one person who was wearing black jeans pant and blue white check shirt tried to inflict a knife injury on his abdomen on which complainant Mukul PW13 immediately turned and the knife injury landed on his right side back (hip portion). Thereafter, one more boy who was having a knife inflicted a stab injury on the chest of Mohil and when they raised alarm, all the six boys boarded a bus and fled away. PW-13 when was examined in court, has not stated about any demand of Rs.1500/- by the accused persons from the deceased. In fact, FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 35 of 51 PW-13 has not deposed about any words being spoken by the assailants or about any conversation between the assailants and the deceased. He has only stated that he saw that six persons came and caught hold of Mohit (seems to be a typing mistake as the name of the deceased is Mohil) and started beating him. PW-13 requested those six persons not to beat Mohil but one of those six boys gave fist blow on his chin and another one who was standing behind him inflicted knife injury on the back side of his thigh. He then pushed that boy and ran 6 to 7 steps away. He further stated that one of those six boys inflicted knife injury on Mohit on left side of chest. PW-13 specifically pointed out towards Sanjeev stating that Sanjeev had inflicted knife injury on him. During cross also, nothing has come on record to doubt his testimony in this regard. Despite his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he has stood by his version that accused Sanjeev had inflicted knife injury upon him.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Sayeed v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, has held that:
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the
effect that the testimony of the injured witness is
accorded a special status in law. This is as a
consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 36 of 51 the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
60.Moreover, the MLC Ex.PW14/A of victim Mukul PW-13 prepared immediately after the incident at 14:38 hours has shown the injuries as one incised stabbed wound present on right gluteal region of 2 X 0.5 cm. There cannot be any iota of doubt, considering the injuries suffered by the injured, that he would not have concocted a story to falsely implicate the accused, while hiding the name of the actual assailant.
61.It is not the case of the accused persons that PW-13 Mukul had any previous enmity with them or that the injuries were self inflicted. Despite the detailed cross examination of injured witness, the accused had not been able to bring any reasonable doubt in his testimony in respect of the impugned incident and indicating false implications of the accused in the present case.
62.Though as per the IO knife Ex.PW20/Article-1 was recovered at the instance of accused Sanjeev on 15.02.2014 during the PC remand but the injured PW-13 has clearly stated that one knife was recovered from the spot and was lifted by the police and thus, the recovery of knife at the instance of accused Sanjeev becomes doubtful. Moreover, the clothes of the accused Sanjeev were recovered by the IO on 09.02.2014 after his arrest and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/I. The pointing out memo FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 37 of 51 Ex.PW19/G was also prepared on 09.02.2014. The disclosure statement of accused Sanjeev Ex.PW19/C was also recorded on 09.02.2014. When the accused had got his clothes recovered on 09.02.2014 after his arrest, it is really doubtful as to why he would not have got the knife recovered on the same day and why the knife was recovered on 15.02.2014 during the PC remand. The recovery of the knife Ex.PW20/Article-1 on 15.02.2014 at the instance of Sanjeev is thus, doubtful, more so in view of the version of PW- 13 that one knife was lifted by police from the spot.
63.It is argued that as it has not been established beyond doubt that the knife was recovered at the instance of accused Sanjeev, therefore, it also becomes doubtful that accused Sanjeev had inflicted knife injury on PW-13 Mukul.
64.Though the recovery of knife is doubtful but still as already observed the testimony of PW-13 inspires confidence and it has been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sanjeev had inflicted knife injury on the person of accused Mukul Kumar. MLC of Mukul is Ex.PW14/A as per which he had one incised stabbed wound present on right gluteal region of 2 X 0.5 cm and the nature of injury is sharp. The injury was muscle deep. The version of the injured PW-13 was duly corroboated by his MLC Ex.PW14/A and thus, even if the recovery of knife at the instance of accused Sanjeev is doubtful, the same is not sufficient to discard the testimony of injured PW-13. The final opinion regarding the nature of injury has not been obtained by the IO and thus, it is not known whether the same is grievous or not. At best it can be said to be simple sharp FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 38 of 51 injury. Though in the complaint Ex.PW13/A, Mukul has stated that the accused has tried to inflict injury on his abdomen and he had turned back due to which he suffered injury on his right thigh back side but during his testimony in court he has only stated that accused Sanjeev who was standing behind him had inflicted knife injury on the back side of his thigh. It is not the version of the injured complainant PW-13 that the accused wanted to inflict injury on the abdomen or any vital part of his body and he had turned back suddenly, due to which he suffered injury on back side right hip. In court PW-13 has deposed on oath that the person standing behind him had inflicted knife injury on the back side of his thigh and clearly identified accused Sanjeev to be the said person.
65.In view of the above deposition of PW-13, prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had any intention to kill PW-13 or had inflicted the knife injury on PW-13 on any of his vital body part with an intention to murder him. However, PW-13 has clearly deposed that it was accused Sanjeev who had inflicted knife injury upon him from back side and had used knife thus, at best, offence u/s. 324 IPC and u/s. 27 of Arms Act is made out, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
66. Now coming to the offence u/s. 302 IPC, injured PW-13 Mukul Kumar though has stated that six persons came and caught hold of Mohil and gave beatings to him but he has clearly stated that he did not see as to which one of them had stabbed Mohil. Despite being cross-examined by Addl. PP for the State, he maintained his version that he has not seen the person who FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 39 of 51 had stabbed Mohil with knife. At one point of time, he stated that he had identified a person who had stabbed Mohil before Police in PS but he stated that he cannot identify that boy in the court due to lapse of time. It is a settled law that identification of an accused in court is the only substantial piece of evidence and mere identification of accused during TIP or in PS during investigation is not sufficient.
67.As PW-13 eye-witness Mukul Kumar, complainant has failed to specifically to point out as to who amongst the accused person had inflicted the knife injury on the person of the deceased Mohil, the only evidence on record is that six boys had come and had assaulted the deceased Mohil and one of them had inflicted knife injury to Mohil. It is pertinent to mention here that one of the assailants was found to be juvenile during investigation and proceedings against him were conducted separately before JJB. One of the accused Vinay Pandey has expired during the proceedings and proceedings against him abated. It has not been established on record that as to whether it was the said juvenile or Vinay Pandey or any of the present accused persons who had inflicted the knife injury on the chest of the deceased Mohil. In the present case, two knives were recovered, one is Ex.PW20/Article-1 and the other is Ex.PX. As per the testimony of PW-28 IO, knife Ex.PX was recovered at the instance of accused Sajid. Neither knife Ex.PW20/Article-1 nor knife Ex.PX were shown to PW-13 during his testimony who could have identified the knives to be the same which were used by the assailants/accused persons and thus, the knives were not identified by PW-13 in the court. Also, as the FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 40 of 51 knives were not shown/put to the witness PW-13 during his testimony, it is not known as to which of the knives was recovered from the spot and which was recovered from the accused persons, which makes the recovery of both the knives doubtful.
68.As per the Serology report Ex.A7 human blood was found on buttondar knife but the blood group could not be ascertained. Similarly as per the serology report Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, human blood was detected on the guptinuma knife but the blood group again could not be ascertained.
69. As per serology report Ex.A6, human blood was detected on the concrete material and pieces of cement and blood stained gauze piece which was received with the seal of VK i.e., which was lifted by the IO from the spot as well on the pair of chappal and on the pant and gauze cloth piece of Mukul and blood was also detected on the belt and the clothes of the deceased as well as on the blood stained gauze cloth piece sealed by the CMO I/C, AAAGH Subji Mandi mortuary. Similarly blood was also detected on some clothes of the accused persons as well as the buttondar knife, however, as far as species of origin of blood is concerned as per report Ex.A7, the same was of human origin except on the clothes of the deceased and the cotton wool swab sealed with the seal of CMO I/C, AAAGH Subji Mandi mortuary on which the result is "no reaction"
and thus, it appears that the clothes of the deceased as well as the cotton wool swab were not preserved properly and were contaminated and therefore, the species of origin of the blood as well as the blood group FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 41 of 51 could not be ascertained on the clothes of deceased and the cotton wool swab handed over by the doctor who conducted postmortem. 'A' blood group was found on blood gauze cloth piece lifted by the IO from the spot, on one jeans 10B, on another pant 11B, one shirt 12A and one shirt 12B. The DNA profiling was not done and no such report is available on the record to prove that the DNA of the blood on the clothes of the accused persons was the same as that of the deceased and thus, the serology report wherein only blood group of 'A' is found on the clothes of some of the accused persons does not help the case of prosecution.
70.The only evidence on record is the testimony of PW-13 stating that six boys had come including the present accused persons and started beating him. When he intervened accused Sanjeev gave him a knife blow on his back side. He moved six to seven steps and one of the said six persons inflicted a knife blow on the chest of Mohil. There is a single stab wound on the person of the deceased which proved fatal. The question now is as to whether there was any common intention on the part of accused persons and whether the provisions u/s. 34 IPC are applicable or not.
71.It is a settled law that in order to have common intention there must be meeting of minds to commit a particular offence. The common intention pre supposes prior concert. There should be some pre arranged plan, even though the said plan is formed hastily or all of a sudden.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 42 of 5172. Section 34 IPC is a rule of evidence which provides that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The burden lies on prosecution to prove that actual participation of more than one person for commission of criminal act was done in furtherance of common intention of all at a prior concert. However, it is not required for the prosecution to establish that there was a prior conspiracy or pre-meditation, common intention can be found in the course of occurrence.
73. In the present case, there is no evidence of any prior meeting of minds. The court knows nothing of what the accused persons said or did before the attack and also, during the attack. It is nowhere on record that other five boys indulged in any overt or covert act as such based on which any inference of common intention could be drawn. Section 34 is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. There is no law which lays down that a person accompanying the principal culprit shares his intention in respect of every act which the latter might eventually commit. The existence or otherwise of the common intention depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The intention of the principal offender and his companions to deal with any person who might intervene to stop the quarrel must be apparent from the conduct of the persons accompanying the principal culprit or some other clear and cogent incriminating piece of evidence. In the absence of such material, the companion or companions FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 43 of 51 cannot justifiably be held guilty for every offence committed by the principal offender.
74.In Paramjit Singh Vs. State 23 (1983) DLT 338 the facts were that one of the accused had caught hold of the deceased from behind and the other had given a stab wound. It was held that though the intention of the accused was to teach a lesson to the deceased but teaching of lesson does not spell out any intention to cause death or kill. It was further observed that teaching of lesson could be confined only to causing of simple hurt. It was further observed that though one of the accused had caught hold of the deceased from behind but it cannot be said that he knew that the accused would given knife stab. The knife was taken out from the pocket by the other accused and it was held that the person who had got hold of the deceased from behind could not have imagined that the other accused would take out knife. It was further observed that only one blow was given. The relevant portion of the judgment are reproduced below-
"18...........Paramjit Singh was not carrying open knife.
He took out the knife from his pocket. Therefore, Surinder Singh could not imagine that Paramjit Singh would take out the knife. It was only one blow which was given. Had repeated blows by knife been inflicted it could be said that although Surinder Singh did not have any meeting of mind with Paramjit Singh for causing injuries by knife, yet plan or meeting of mind between him and Paramjit Singh was formed at the spot and then FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 44 of 51 there could be existence of common intention. But there could be no such formation of plan with single injury only."
75. In Abdul Rasheed Vs. State judgment dated 02.04.2014 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Criml. Appeal No.694/99 the facts were that three accused persons had gone to the house of the deceased and knocked their door and deceased came out of the house and all the three accused had scuffled with him. One of the accused Yameen brought a chhuri from his house and stabbed at the chest of the deceased while the other two were holding the deceased. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as below-
"11. Considering the facts on record, there can arise no dispute with regard to the factum of death of the deceased Aashkin on the intervening night of 21/22.03.1996. There also remained no doubt that all three accused persons were present at the scene of the crime and all of them were unarmed when they had approached to knock the door of jhuggi of the deceased. We also do not find any material on record which can suggest that there was any kind of premeditated plan or prior meeting of minds of these persons to develop a common intention to carry out the murder of the deceased. In fact as per the prosecution case Mohd. Yameen had knocked at the door of the deceased so as to call him to have a talk with Abdul Rasheed. It is also the case of the prosecution that FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 45 of 51 soon after deceased Ashkin along with his son came out of their jhuggi, all the three accused persons grappled with the deceased and in the process the deceased fell down. As a consequence, Mohd. Yameen had gone to his jhuggi to bring a chhuri to inflict a stab blow on the right chest of the deceased. This act of bringing weapon at that moment, was a unilateral act of the accused Mohd. Yameen and there is no evidence adduced on record to suggest that the other two accused persons also shared a common intention with him to stab the accused with that weapon and kill him. Undeniably, the common intention amongst assailants can even develop on the spur of the moment but then the circumstances should clearly suggest and indicate that such common intention was developed on the spur of moment. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and therefore, the intention on the part of the assailants can only be inferred from the circumstances as proved on record."
"13..............Here the accused persons were totally unarmed and they had accompanied the co-accused Mohd. Yameen to have a talk with the deceased over some trivial issue concerning some fight amongst the kids......So far the role of these two accused persons are concerned they had only grappled along with the third accused with the deceased and no other role has been FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 46 of 51 ascribed to them. They were totally unarmed. They never had a common intention to carry out the murder of the deceased and it is only the third accused who had gone to his jhuggi to bring out the knife and to inflict stab injury upon the person of the deceased. To infer a common intention on a mere fact that they had waited till Mohd. Yameen came back with a churri and did not make any efforts to stop him from giving churri blow would not be sufficient to enrobe or inculpate these persons along with the third co-accused.
14. As per the settled principle as envisaged under Section 34 IPC, we are not persuaded to the reasoning given by the learned trial court that these two accused persons shared common intention with Mohd. Yameen because of the said conduct of them not leaving the spot of crime and not dissuading Mohd. Yameen from inflicting stab injuries."
76. There can be no strait jacket formula based on which the common intention can be inferred as proven facts of each case will be a determinative factor. In Manubhai Chimanlal Senma (Senwa) & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 10 SCC 173, where also two accused persons had caught hold of the deceased while he third accused person had given knife blow as a result of which he had died, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a view that the two accused persons who were unarmed were not sharing FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 47 of 51 common intention with the third accused person who had inflicted injuries to the deceased, therefore by a mere fact that they had accompanied the main assailant to pick up a quarrel with the deceased and being totally unarmed would not be sufficient to attribute sharing of common intention by them along with the third co-accused who was armed and had inflicted a knife blow to the deceased.
77.The facts of the present case are also similar to the facts of the above discussed cases. Only one single blow/stab by knife has been given on the person of the deceased. PW-13 has nowhere stated about what conversation took place between the deceased and the accused persons. He has also not deposed about any words being spoken by any of the accused persons at the time of incident from which it can be inferred that all the six persons who were giving beating to the deceased had any common intention to commit murder of the deceased. From the testimony of PW-13, the facts established are that the present four accused persons along with two others were beating the deceased and when he requested them not to beat Mohil, then Sanjeev inflicted knife injury on the back side of his thigh. He pushed Sanjeev and ran six to seven steps away and then one of those six boys inflicted knife injury to Mohil on left side of chest. There is nothing on record to establish that the other persons were aware about the fact that two persons were carrying knife or could have anticipated that the said two persons would use knife or would stab the deceased or PW-13 Mukul Kumar. No other covert act such as holding the deceased or exhorting anyone to stab the deceased has been attributed to FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 48 of 51 the other members of the group by PW-13 at the time when one of them inflicted knife injury to Mohil on left side of chest. Common intention to murder the deceased Mohil or to inflict the stab injury on his person has not been established on record beyond any reasonable doubt and in such circumstances, only the person who has inflicted the knife injury on the chest of the deceased is liable for the offence u/s. 302 IPC. The possibility that the accused Vinay Pandey against whom proceedings have been abated or the juvenile who was also part of the group, inflicting the fatal blow on the person of the deceased Mohil cannot be ruled out. It has not been established on record as to who amongst the six assailants had inflicted the fatal knife blow and the common intention on the part of the accused persons has also not been established beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, all the accused persons are given benefit of doubt for the offencw u/s.302 IPC. As far as offence u/s.307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC is concerned, as common intention has not been proved on the part of assailants by the prosecution, therefore, only accused Sanjeev is liable for the offence u/s. 307 IPC and the other accused persons are acquitted for the offence u/s. 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Also, as the recovery of knife is doubtful, accused Sajid is acquitted of the offence u/s. 27 of Arms Act.
78.Lastly, charge u/s. 174 A IPC is framed against the accused Sajid. Proclamation u/. 82 Cr.P.C was issued by the court on 19.05.2014 and was pasted on his house No.13/351, Kalyan Puri, Delhi on 03.06.2014. He was declared PO vide order dated 10.07.2014 and was thereafter apprehended on 06.09.2014 by the officials of PS Anand Vihar. The statement of HC FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 49 of 51 CW-1 Hari Singh was recorded to this effect. PW-22 ASI Hari Singh has been examined in this respect and he has proved the statement of the landlord as Ex.PW22/A and his report regarding publication of the proclamation u/s. 82 Cr.P. as Ex.PW22/B (also Ex.C1) and the order of Ld. CMM as Ex.PW22/C. Only one suggestion was given to him during cross- examination that the proclamation was not published at the address of accused Sajid which was denied by the witness PW-22 ASI Hari Singh. The proclamation was issued at the address 13/351, Kalyan Puri. The same address was mentioned of accused Sajid at the time of framing of charge. Though at the time of TIP proceedings and in the arrest memo and personal search memo, the address of accused Sajid is mentioned as "Mahesh Pandit ka makaan, ground and first floor" Gharauli Village, MV III Gazipur but it is nowhere the case of accused that at the time of incident or at the time of issuing the process u/s. 82 Cr.P.C he was not residing at 13/351, Kalyan Puri, Delhi. At the time of furnishing bail bond on 07.11.2017 also, the address of accused Sajid is mentioned as 13/351, Kalyan Puri, Delhi. Copy of Aadhar card of Sajid is annexed along with the bail bond and as per the address on the Aadhar Card also his address was 13/351, Block 13, Kalyan Puri, Delhi-91. The proclamation was issued at the above said address of Kalyan Puri and was duly published. The accused had failed to appear despite publication of the proclamation and thus offence u/s. 174 A is duly proved on the record against accused Sajid.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 50 of 5179.After considering the evidences of witnesses and material placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 31.01.2014 at around 12.30 pm, accused Sanjeev had inflicted injury with knife i.e., sharp object on the right gluteal region of Mukul Kumar and had used knife in contravention to Section 5 of the Arms Act and thus, committed offence u/Sec. 324 IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. It is further proved that accused Sajid had failed to appear in the court despite proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C and thus committed offence u/Sec.174 A IPC.
80.In view of above discussion, accused persons Nitin ad Raju are acquitted. Accused Sanjeev is convicted for offence u/Sec. 324 IPC and under Section 27 of Arms Act and accused Sajid is convicted for the offence u/Sec.174 A IPC. All the accused are however, acquitted of the offence u/s. 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and offence u/s. 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Accused Sajid is acquitted of the offence u/s. 27 of Arms Act.
Announced in the open court on 2nd Day of September 2023.
(KIRAN BANSAL) ASJ-04/Shahdara/KKD Courts Delhi.
FIR No.77/2014, PS. Vivek Vihar State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sandeep @ Moti Mummy Page 51 of 51