Delhi District Court
State vs . Sagar & Ors. on 25 May, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SAMAR VISHAL,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-08,
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-002840-2017
SC No.208/2017
FIR No746/2016.
State Vs. Sagar & Ors.
Police Station: Hari Nagar
Under Section: 302/34 IPC
In the Session Case of :
State
Versus
1. Sagar
S/o Mahipal Singh Rawat
R/o - RZ-44, Madanpuri,
Gali No.10, East Sagarpur,
New Delhi.
Permanent Address :
Village Kot Sara, PS Pori,
District Pori, Garwal, Uttrakhand.
2. Vikram @ Bhuri Bhai
S/o Jawaharlal Verma
R/o C-23, Ground Floor, C-Block,
Anand Vihar, Old Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Subham @ Honey
S/o Ashok Kumar
R/o RZ-6A/15B, Gali No. 3,
Main Sagarpur,
Delhi.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 1/52
Date of Institution : 01.04.2017
Date of reserving Judgment : 11.05.2022
Date of pronouncement : 25.05.2022
Appearances
For the State Mr. Santosh Kumar,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For accused Mr. R.R. Jha, Legal Aid Counsel
for accused Sagar and Shubham
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for accused
Vikram.
JUDGMENT
1. This is the judgment in the trial of the murder of Abhishek Yadav in the noon of 13.12.2016 at around 1.30 PM near IITM College, Janakpuri where he was a student. The accused Sagar, Vikram @ Bhuri, Subham @ Honey and one juvenile are accused of murdering Abhishek in furtherance of their common intention. The juvenile in conflict of law was enquired separately by the Juvenile Justice Board. Remaining three have been prosecuted before this court. The determination of the fact whether deceased Abhishek Yadav was murdered, as alleged by the prosecution is the subject of the present judgment of this trial in which the aforesaid three accused stood charged of murdering Abhishek before this Court.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 2/522. The case is a result of an assault on Abhishek Yadav by these accused persons. The case of prosecution as reflected in the chargesheet is that on 13.12.2016, an information was received at 4:00 pm at police station Hari Nagar which was recorded vide DD No. 40A. The information was that a boy Bittu was injured in a fight and he was admitted to DDU Hospital by his friend Nitesh. This call was entrusted to Sub Inspector Devender. He reached the hospital. He saw the injured and obtained his MLC reflecting the injuries suffered by him. Primarily, the injuries were on his head. The injured was unfit for statement. He found the eye witness Nitesh, who brought the injured to the hospital and recorded his statement, which became the basis of the FIR of this case. According to his complaint Ex.PW3/A, complainant Nitesh was the student of IITM College in Janakpuri. At around 1:15 pm, he and his friends Abhishek, Kunal, Yashwant Tyagi, Yash Tyagi and Robbin were standing at the road behind the police station. A Honda City car was parked nearby. Four boys were standing near it. A boy from it had an altercation with his friend Abhishek (This is the Abhishek, who was injured in this case and died later on. It was he who is referred as Bittu above). After this altercation, all these friends came on the road of their college. Abhishek, Robin and one boy remained there and rest of them went to have tea. When he and Yashwant came back after having tea, they saw that 4-5 boys were fighting with Abhishek and Robin. They were beating Abhishek and Robin with chair and Sticks/dandas(lathis), kicks and fists. After beating both of them, those boys fled away in their car towards Sagarpur. He, Abhishek and Kunal brought the injured Abhishek @ Bittu to Deen Dayal Hospital.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 3/523. On this, Sub Inspector Devender Singh got registered an FIR under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The spot was inspected and photographed by crime team. At the instance of complainant Nitesh, site plan was prepared, blood in gauze of the injured was lifted and seized. On 14.12.2016, the juvenile involved in this case was apprehended by the police. He disclosed the identities of other accused as Sagar, Shubham and Vikram. On 14.12.2016, the accused Sagar was apprehended by the police from his home and after interrogation he was arrested. On the basis of the confessional statement of accused Sagar, a chair allegedly used in the assault to hit the injured, was recovered from the place of incident and was seized through a seizure memo Ex.PW17/E, by the police.
4. On 15.12.2015, on the identification of the eye witnesses Robin and Yashwant, the accused Vikram Verma @ Bhuri Bhai was arrested from his house. The police interrogated him and recorded his confessional statement. Investigating officer recovered a danda(stick) used in the crime at the instance of this accused on the same day from a drain nearby through seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. The recovery was made in the presence of the witnesses Robin and Yashwant.
5. On 22.12.2016, injured Abhishek Yadav @ Bittu left the world in the early morning. On the same day, his postmortem was conducted after which the case was converted into section 302 IPC.
6. The third accused Shubham @ Honey was arrested on 30.12.2016. Police interrogated him also and recorded his confessional statement. He also got recovered a danda from the drain, which was seized by the police through seizure memo Ex.PW20/E. Both these dandas and chair were allegedly used to commit assault on the FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 4/52deceased. During the investigation, the witness Robin and Yashwant identified the accused Shubham and Sagar in test identification parade. The Investigating officer then collected the postmortem report, got prepared the scaled site plan of the place of incident, analysed the call details record of the juvenile and the accused Sagar. He came to the conclusion that the juvenile made a call to Sagar after the altercation with the deceased and their location was also found at the place of incident. The relevant exhibits were deposited in FSL. Finally, after completing the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge- sheet in the present case on 10.03.2017. The learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court for 04.01.2017.
7. On 12.04.2017, charge was framed against all the three accused under section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which all of them did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
8. During trial, the prosecution has examined thirty-three witnesses. Among them, there are some eye witnesses of the incident and rest are those related to the investigation of the case or the doctors, FSL expert etc.
9. The case is based on the eye witness's account. There are nine eye-witnesses in this case, who according to the prosecution have seen the incident. These are the complainant PW-3 Nitesh, PW-1 Robin, PW-2 Yashwant, PW-6 Kamla Devi, PW-8 Shivani, PW-9 Sapna, PW- 10 Abhishek(the name of deceased also Abhishek but he is a different person), PW-13 Kunal, PW-14 Yash Tyagi. Since they are the eye witnesses of the case, the entire case is based on the edifice of their testimonies. But let me say at the outset that not all of them supported the case of the prosecution.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 5/5210. The first witness examined by the prosecution is Robin. According the initial complaint he was with deceased and was also to some extent assaulted. According to his testimony, he was on the spot and seen the assault. He was the student of IITM College. On 13.12.2016 at around 1:30 pm, a fight took between the deceased Abhishek and the accused Sagar, Shubham and Vikram. He, Sapna, Shivani, Abhishek and Yashwant were sitting near an omelette rehri (temporary food stall). The accused Sagar, Shubham and Vikram came there and beaten the deceased Abhishek with danda and chair. Due to this assault, Abhishek fell down. Accused Sagar hit the chair on Abhishek. Rest of the accused beaten the deceased Abhishek with fists and kicks after he fell down. He started bleeding from his head after which all accused ran away. Nitesh made a call to the police on 100 number. Police recovered that danda from a drain near the college. He identified the accused Sagar and Shubham in police station as well as during test identification parade. He identified all the accused in the court. He identified the chair as Ex.P1 and the danda as Ex.P2. When he could not depose fully according to the prosecution, he was cross examined by learned prosecutor in which he stated that he accompanied the police and on his identification the police arrested the accused Vikram. He proved the arrest memo of Vikram as Ex.PW1/B. He also stated that he had seen the accused Sagar and Shubham in Tihar Jail for the first-time during test identification parade proceeding after the incident. Though this witness has supported the assault but pulled himself back on the point of recovery in the cross examination by the defence. In cross examination he stated that he signed the documents in the police station and he did not accompany the police during the recovery of danda Ex.P2. He also stated that he did not FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 6/52accompany the police at the time of recovery of danda. In cross- examination, he stated that he and other students tried to rescue the deceased Abhishek at that time.
11. The next important witness is Yashwant PW-2. He has supported the prosecution's case regarding the assault and the recovery of danda through seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. According to his evidence, on 13.12.2016 at around 1:15 PM, he and his friends Abhishek, Abhishek @ Bittu, Yash Tyagi and Kunal were standing on a road behind their college. Some unknown boys were standing at some distance from them. One of the them abused Abhishek on which an altercation took place. This witness and others pacified them and then they came to the road between IITM College and the Church at the omelette reheri. At about 1:30 pm, this witness Yashwant, Robin, Abhishek @ Bittu, Sapna and Shivani were sitting there. 3-4 boys came from the side of Sagarpur. One of them gestured towards deceased Abhishek and thereafter all the boys pounced upon him and beaten him. The accused Vikram had a danda. He first hit the danda on this witness and then on the head of Abhishek @ Bittu. Abhishek fell on the road. Sagar picked up a stool/chair and hit the same on the head of Abhishek. Shubham also had a danda from which he beaten Abhishek. All the three boys beaten Abhishek. Then a crowd gathered there. After beating Abhishek, all these accused ran away. He and his friends took the injured to DDU hospital. On 15.12.2016, he, Robin and the police went to the house of Vikram at around 10:30 PM. On seeing Vikram, he immediately identified him as one of those boys who assaulted deceased. Police interrogated him, wherein he confessed his crime. Police arrested him and then on his confessional statement recovered a danda from the drain as per seizure memo Ex.PW1/A which also bear his signature. He FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 7/52also proved the arrest of accused Vikram through seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. On 20.12.2016, he identified the accused Sagar and Shubham during test identification proceedings. He identified all the accused in the court during evidence and the exhibits stool and danda which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
12. PW-3 is Nitesh on whose complaint the FIR was registered. He was the one who took Abhishek to hospital but he did not support the case of the prosecution and did not depose in court, in line with his complaint. According to his evidence, when at around 5-5:30 pm, he was about to go to his house from school, he saw a crowd in front of his college. A boy was lying in injured condition and nobody was helping him. He then with the help of some other boys took the injured to the hospital. In cross examination, by learned prosecutor, he deposed that he does not know Abhishek, Kunal, Yashwant and Robin. He also does not know the injured. To justify his complaint Ex.PW3/A which narrated a different story that he witnessed the incident, he stated that his signatures were taken by the police on some blank papers. He admitted that the site plan Ex.Pw3/B bears his signature and also that his complaint Ex.PW3/A bears his signature along with the seizure memo of blood gauze Ex.PW3/C. In rest of the cross examination, he denied the suggestions of the public prosecutor regarding the facts he stated in his complaint.
13. The next witness is PW-6 Kamla Devi. According to the prosecution, it was near her reheri, this group of students was standing when the incident took place and it is alleged that she has witnessed the crime. But during her evidence in the court, she completely denied having seen the incident. She stated that at that time she left her tea stall for taking her grand-daughter from school and by the time she FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 8/52returned the incident had already happened. She was thoroughly cross examined by learned public prosecutor but failed to elicit anything from her of importance to the case of prosecution. She denied all the suggestions given to her.
14. PW-8 and PW-9 are Shivani and Sapna who were also present there. Both of them supported the case of the prosecution that 3-4 boys had beaten Abhishek @ Bittu on that day, in a fight. The boys used dandas and stool to commit the assault. They said that due to the gravity of the situation, they left the spot and they did not identify the accused as the assailants in their evidence in Court. However, their evidence corroborates the other witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the manner in which the deceased was beaten.
15. PW-10 is again an important witness. Though he did not talk about the incident on the first day of his evidence prompting learned prosecutor to cross examine him, on the next date, when his cross examination continued, he admitted all the suggestions of the state. He stated that on the last date he changed the statement because the family members of accused Vikram had come to the office of his brother along with some co-villagers and asked his father to change his statement. His father got frightened and asked him to change his statement. On last date he gave wrong statement out of fear but on the next date, he spoke the truth. According to his statement on that day at around 11 AM, the accused Vikram and Shubham were standing near their Honda City car. While they wanted to take their car from there, it was obstructed by the bike of Kunal which was parked in the middle of the road. The deceased Abhishek @ Bittu was sitting on the bike. Vikram and Shubham asked Abhishek to remove the bike so that they can take their car. The accused also hurled abuses to Abhishek @ Bittu on FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 9/52which an altercation took place between Abhishek and both the accused. This witness intervened and separated them. They said sorry to the accused on which they left from there but Shubham exhorted that he will see Abhishek. After 5-6 minutes, they also left from there and Abhishek @ Bittu, Yashwant and Robin went to the Maggi Stall situated on the Church Road near the college. He and his friends went inside the college. At around 1:15 pm, when he came out of the college, he saw a crowd on the road and his friend Abhishek @ Bittu was lying injured. He took him to the hospital. This witness identified the accused Vikram and Shubham in the court. From his evidence it is clear that he is the witness to the first incident of altercation and not the main incident of assault which was the result of the first episode of altercation.
16. Next eye witness is PW-13 Kunal. He was also the student of IITM College. According to his testimony, on that day, he, Abhishek @ Bittu, Yash Tyagi, Robin, Nitesh and Yashwant were standing on the road at the back of the collage. Four unknown persons abused Abhishek @ Bittu without any cause as the bike of Yashwant touched them. The matter got pacified. After around 20-25 minutes, this witness was talking to his friend at some distance from the omelette stall near the college. Yashwant, Robin and Abhishek @ Bittu were sitting near the omelette vendor. Four boys came there and fought with Abhishek @ Bittu. He tried to stop them but was hit by a danda by one of the boys. Abhishek @ Bittu was beaten and fall on the ground. They hit chair on Abhishek due to which he sustained head injury and his head started bleeding. The boys ran away from there. Nitesh and Abhishek took Abhishek @ Bittu to the hospital in an auto rikshaw. He rode in FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 10/52front of TCR to clear the traffic. This witness identified all the three accused in the court.
17. Last eye witness is PW14 Yash Tyagi. According to his evidence, he was also the student of IITM. On that day, at around 1.15 PM, he and his friends Abhishek @ Bittoo, Kunal, Yashwant, Robin and Nitesh were standing on the road behind police station Sagarpur. A Honda city car came there from which two persons alighted and asked Abhishek @ Bittoo to remove his Pulsar motorcycle parked on the road. Abhishek @ Bittoo refused on which an altercation took place between him and those boys. Thereafter they left in their car. This witness went inside the college while Abhishek, Kunal, Robin, Nitesh and Yashwant were outside the college. He came to know about the quarrel which took place outside between the person who came earlier in the Honda City car that "Bitto ko maar diya" He came outside the college to find that Bittu was shifted to Deen Dayal Upadhaya Hospital Hari Nagar. He identified the accused Vikram @ Bhuri as one of those persons who alighted from the car.
18. PW-15 Head Constable Suresh Thalaor has proved the FIR of this case as Ex.PW15/C. It was registered on the ruqa (Arabic for a chit, letter or note still frequently used in police documentation) brought by Sub Inspector Devender Singh. He also proved the certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW15/D in support of the computer printout of the FIR.
19. PW-4 and PW-5 are formal witnesses, who identified the dead body of deceased Abhishek before postmortem. According to the testimony of PW-4 Sumit, deceased Abhishek was the son of the sister of his wife. On 22.12.2016, he identified the dead body of Abhishek FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 11/52before autopsy in mortuary of DDU hospital vide his statement Ex.PW4/A. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to him. Similar is the statement of PW-5 the father of the deceased, who identified the dead body vide his statement Ex.PW5/A.
20. Next are the doctors. PW-23 is Dr. Jatin Bodwal, Specialist of Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital, Delhi. According to his testimony, on 22.12.2016, he conducted postmortem of deceased Abhishek Yadav, son of Devender Kumar on the request of the investigation officer of the case namely Inspector Rajesh Brar, PS Hari Nagar. After the postmortem, he opined the cause of death as head injury consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head via injury no.1 and 2, which are sufficient to cause death individually and collectively, in ordinary course of nature. Injury no. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by blunt force impact and were ante-mortem in nature. Possibility of homicide cannot be ruled out. He proved his detailed report in this regard as Ex.PW-23/A. According to his report, the deceased Abhishek has following wounds on external examination. 1. Stitched lacerated wound, 3cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5cm, was preset on the right side of occipital region, 2 cm above mastoid process and 4 cm from mid line. 2. Stitched lacerated wound, 2.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm, was present on the right side of occipital region, 1.5cm below injury no.1. 3. Bluish black bruise, 2cm x 2cm, was preset around the left eyes. On internal examination of the scalp, doctor found that on reflection, effusion of blood was present on the occipital region. On internal examination of skull, he found fracture present in the occipital region. Effusion of blood was present at fracture site. On internal examination of brain, meanings and vessels he found patchy areas of subarachnoid haemorrhage were present. Brain was oedematous and base of skull FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 12/52was intact. The investigating officer Inspector Usha Sharma has sought his opinion regarding the weapon of offence used in the case. This doctor examined the dandas and the stool and opined that the injuries aforesaid are possible from any of the examined sticks Ex.P2 and P-3 and metallic part of the stool Ex.P-1.
21. PW-24 is Dr. Mukesh, Junior Resident of Department of Anesthesia, DDU hospital, Delhi. He has proved the death summary report of the deceased prepared by him on 22.12.2016. According to this report, the brief history of the patient / deceased Abhishek Yadav is that he was brought to the casualty of DDU hospital with alleged history of RTA , physical assault. The patient was unconscious. The patient was incubated and shifted to ICU for further treatment. Patient was put on the ventilator support. Then they took cross consultations from various departments regarding the multiple injuries on the body of deceased. In the early morning of 22.12.2016, patient had cardiac arrest. CPR was given, but the patient could not be revived and was declared clinically dead at 4.30 a.m. He proved the death summary report Ex.PW24/A and the medical certificate Ex.PW24/B and the death report Ex.PW24/C. This witness was not cross examined by the defence.
22. The doctor who attended the deceased is Dr. Pallavi who prepared his MLC Ex.PW13/A, when Abhishek was admitted in the hospital on 13.12.2016. According to this MLC, there were similar injuries mentioned in the postmortem report.
23. PW-7 is Bhupender. He was the registered owner of the Honda City Car which find mentions in this case. Prosecution alleged that this car was given by this witness to accused Vikram and he used to return FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 13/52it back post noon. The investigating officer gave a notice to this person during investigation under section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act. To that notice he replied through Ex.PW7/B in which he stated that his friend Sagar had undergone a surgery. Doctor advised physiotherapy to Sagar. Sagar requested this witness to come along for physiotherapy. Since this witness did not have time, he asked Sagar to arrange a driver. Vikram who had worked as a driver to this witness then used to take Sagar for physiotherapy. He has given the car to Vikram Bhuri. Vikram used to take Sagar for physiotherapy in his car in the morning and used to return the car by 2/3 PM. On the day of incident, Vikram had taken the car and returned it at around 3.30 PM.
24. But this witness did not support his earlier statement when he gave his evidence in court. In court he said that the accused Sagar met with an accident and Vikram who has earlier worked as driver to him, used his car to take Sagar for physiotherapy and that Vikram used to take car in the morning and return it by 11:30 am. When he did not depose according to his reply PW7/B, he was cross examined by learned prosecutor wherein he denied that from 8 AM, his car was taken by the accused Vikram every day and used to return in afternoon at around 2/3 PM. He also denied that the accused Vikram took his car and returned it at 3:30 pm on the day of incident.
25. PW-11 is the nodal officer of Bharti Airtel Company. According to his testimony, the phone number 8800338253 was subscribed in the name of Deepak Kumar and phone number 9560610868 was subscribed in the name of Aakash Rawat. He has proved the certified copy of call detail record of these numbers as Ex.PW11/C with certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW11/D, the FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 14/52location charts of both the mobiles Ex.PW11/G. He also proved the customer application forms of both the mobiles.
26. PW-12 is Inspector Rajesh Barar. He proved that after the death of deceased on 22.12.2016, he got conducted his postmortem. He proved the relevant records for getting the post mortem done and the exhibits of the deceased given to him by the doctor which were seized through Mark PW12/A.
27. PW-16 is the Assistant Draftsman, Mapping Section. He visited the spot on 16.01.2017 and prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW16/A on the basis of his rough notes on 19.01.2017.
28. Rest of the police witnesses were involved in the investigation of the case and has corroborated the evidence given by the investigating officers. The case was investigated by two investigating officers. One was Sub-Inspector Devender Singh PW-28 and second was Inspector Usha Sharma PW-29. According to testimony of PW-28 Inspector Devender Singh, on 13.12.2016, he was Sub Inspector at police station Hari Nagar. He received DD No. 40A Ex.PW-28/A regarding admission of the injured Bittu in DDU hospital. He reached the hospital. He found that Bittu was admitted in the hospital vide MLC no. 12244/16. The injured was admitted in neuro surgery ward. The injured was unfit for statement. He met an eye witness Nitesh in the hospital. He recorded statement Ex.PW-3/A of Nitesh. He prepared a ruqa on this statement Ex.PW-3/A. He then left the hospital and reached at police station where he registered the FIR Ex.PW-15/C. He reached the spot where the crime team was also present. The complainant Nitesh also reached the spot. Constable Shiv Kumar came there with copy of FIR and original ruqa. The Crime team lifted certain FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 15/52relevant exhibits from the spot. He sealed them vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/C. The report Ex.PW-2/A prepared by the crime team was also given to him. He prepared site plan Ex.PW-3/B at the instance of complainant Nitesh. On 14.12.2016, during investigation, he went to the spot and recorded the statement of eye witness Kamla. A secret informer met at the spot who informed that a juvenile involved in this case resides in Sagarpur. He and his police team led by secret informer reached the house of the juvenile in Palam colony, where at the identification of the secret informer, he apprehended the juvenile. On interrogation, the juvenile disclosed the names of his other associates as Sagar, Vikram and Shubham. The juvenile led them to the house of accused Sagar in Sagarpur and on his identification the investigating officer apprehended accused Sagar. After interrogation and on satisfaction of the involvement of Sagar in this case, investigating officer arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/A and recorded the confessional statement. The accused Sagar and JCL were brought to the spot by the police team and at the instance of accused Sagar, police recovered the stool used to struck the deceased. While he was doing investigation of this case, he came to know that the accused Vikram was present in his house in Old Uttam Nagar Delhi. He called the witnesses Yashwant and Robin and asked them to meet him at Uttam Nagar Chowk. Then all of them reached the house of Vikram. Vikram was at his home. Both the eye witnesses identified him. Vikram Verma was apprehended. After his interrogation and confessional statement, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/D. The accused Vikram was taken to the spot for investigation. He then led the police team to a nearby drain and got recovered a danda from there which is Ex.P2. The IO seized the danda through memo Ex.PW1/A. He recorded the FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 16/52statements of other eye witnesses. He identified the accused Sagar and Vikram in the court and the case exhibits seized by him i.e., the stool Ex.P1, wooden stick Ex.P2 and the blood gauze Ex.PW28/PX.
29. Next important witness is PW-29 Usha Sharma. According to her testimony, the investigation was marked to her on 24.12.2016. On 30.12.2016, she arrested the accused Shubham vide arrest memo Ex.PW20/A on a secret information, from Sagarpur Flyover. She recorded his confessional statement and thereafter he led her to the drain near Sagarpur Shani Mandir from where he got recovered a danda used in the crime. The investigating officer seized the danda vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/E. She deposed about the test identification parade of the accused Shubham. She got prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PW16/A. She collected the postmortem report, Ex.PW23/A. She sent the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory. She gave a notice under section 133 MV Act to the owner of Honda City Car which is Ex.PW29/A. Thereafter she completed the investigation and prepared the chargesheet. The subsequent opinion taken by the doctor and the FSL result was filed through supplementary chargesheet. She identified the accused Shubham and the danda Ex.P2 recovered through him.
30. The Metropolitan Magistrate Sh. Manoj Kumar PW-25 has proved test identification proceedings of the accused Shubham. He proved his report, Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B according to which the accused Shubham was identified by the witness Yashwant and Robin during these proceedings.
31. PW-26 Metropolitan Magistrate, Sushil Kumar has proved the test identification proceedings of accused Sagar Ex.PW26/A. During FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 17/52these proceedings the accused Sagar was identified by the witness Robin and Yashwant.
32. The next witness is PW-30 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) FSL Rohini. According to her evidence, on 09.02.2017 four sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL in the present case. The same were assigned to her for examination. The seals on the parcel no. 1, 4 and 5 were "DEV" and the parcel no. 2 bearing seal "PMDDUH" were intact as per the forwarding letter. She opened the parcels and examined the exhibits and prepared her detailed report Ex.PW-30/A. As per biological examination, the blood was detected on exhibits 1, 2, 4 & 5. She also examined the exhibits by doing DNA finger printing. As per the opinion, the source of exhibit-1 (blood in gauze of deceased from spot), exhibit-2 (blood in gauze of deceased) & exhibit 5 (danda) is sufficient to conclude that the biological stains i.e., blood stains present on the source of exhibit-1 (blood in gauze of deceased from the spot), exhibit-2 (blood in gauze of deceased) & exhibit-5(danda) are from the same source. She also prepared allelic data Ex.PW30/B. Allelic data means the alleles from the source of exhibit 1, 2 & 5 are from the same source.
33. The DNA report suggests that the biological stains that are blood stains present on blood gauze of deceased from spot, blood gauze of deceased and one danda are of the same source. Therefore, it can be inferred that this danda has stains matching the DNA profile of the deceased and might have been used in the assault.
34. This is the primary evidence of the prosecution.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 18/5235. The remaining witnesses are police witnesses involved in the investigation. Their evidence is not reproduced for the sake of brevity and to avoid reproduction of evidences.
36. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.PC and the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them were put to them. All the accused denied the evidence against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion and at the instance of police to solve this case. The accused did not lead any defence evidence.
37. I have heard the final arguments for prosecution advanced by learned Public Prosecutor Sh. Santosh Kumar and for defence by Sh. R.R. Jha for accused Sagar and Shubham and Sh. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for accused Vikram.
38. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the entire case is based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who were already present on the scene before the incident and one or two were even minorly injured during the intervention. He further stated that there is nothing in the cross-examination of the eyewitnesses and other prosecution witnesses which could be said to be sufficient to create a doubt in the story of the prosecution. Most of the eyewitnesses have given a true and reliable account of how the offence was committed in this case and there is nothing to disbelieve their unflinching and cogent testimony on this issue. He stated that the evidences given by the prosecution witnesses are so meticulously flawless that it points to only one conclusion that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt which is the required standard for it. He stated that the testimony of the witnesses was consistent throughout. He has read the evidence and the FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 19/52important documents to connect the role of the accused with the crime alleged. He stated that the prosecution has broken the back of this case by examining these eyewitnesses and corroborating them with medical evidence and that the accused have been duly identified by the eye witnesses. The postmortem report has clearly established that the deceased was murdered. The motive of the crime has been proved by the prosecution. It is stated by him that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and all the accused deserves to be convicted for the offences with which they are charged.
39. On the other hand, the defence has focused on the issues relating to the contradictions, variations and improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses, mistakes in postmortem report, no independent witness of the incident, no CCTV footage and no proper investigation in this case. I will deal with these submissions ahead in this judgment.
40. Now to summarise the case, the deceased Abhishek Yadav @ Bittu was battered to death by four persons, out of which three are facing trial before this court as the fourth was the juvenile. The deceased and the eye witnesses were the students of the college. On some minor issue, an altercation occurred between the juvenile accused and the deceased which later took this unfortunate turn of event. Deceased Abhishek was beaten with kicks and fists, lathis and stool. He suffered at least two fatal head injuries and after around 10 days succumbed to the injuries. The postmortem report gives us the cause of death as homicidal and the reason was the head injury of the deceased. Therefore, the case is based on the eye-witnesses testimonies relating to the cause of death of Mr. Abhishek Yadav @ Bittu and not on circumstantial evidence.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 20/5241. A witness that saw the happening of the incident being inquired by the court is an eyewitness. Reliable evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be disregarded in the absence of strong reasons. Conviction can be based upon the testimony of sole eyewitness if the same is found wholly reliable. In case, if his testimony is not found to be wholly reliable, the court may insist upon some independent corroboration.
42. The prosecution has nine eyewitnesses to this matter. They are Robin, Yashwant, Nitesh, Kamla Devi, Shivani, Sapna, Abhishek, Kunal and Yash Tyagi, out of them, Robin, Yashwant, Abhishek, Kunal and Yash Tyagi the star witnesses and they the linchpin of the prosecution case. The witness Nitesh and Kamla Devi completely turned hostile for the prosecution. The witness Sapna and Shivani though described the assault on the deceased but did not identify the accused in the court.
43. Eyewitnesses play an important role in the criminal justice system. The quality of evidence of an eyewitness depends on many factors prominent among them are his view in which the crime is committed, his confidence with respect to the accuracy of the description of the crime and identification of the accused and his description, the amount of attention the witness paid to the crime during its occurrence, the probability of the witness being present at the place of incident, the accuracy and probability of what he is defining etc. The law related to the appreciation of evidence of eyewitnesses is completely settled that generally the testimony of eyewitness of the incident is considered credible unless and until it is specifically shown or proved to have a taint for any reason on which it is assailed. Generally, the courts tend to believe what the eyewitnesses depose in the court and it is only when there exists grave and material FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 21/52discrepancies and contradictions in their statements which compels the court to think and doubt that whether the eyewitness is giving a truthful account, it can come in the domain of suspicion. When the tenacity and doggedness of the eyewitness is suspicious, when the truthfulness of the testimony of the eyewitness is shrouded in grave clouds of suspicion and falsity, the court may disbelieve that witness or may look for such corroboration of his evidence which are capable of removing the blemish from his evidence. However, the contradictions and omissions which are not material regards being to the facts of the case, those can be overlooked. Way back in 1957, in Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, A.I.R. (1957) S.C. 614, Hon'ble Supreme Court has divided the witnesses in three categories. It was held that as a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:(1) Wholly reliable, (2) Wholly unreliable, (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 22/52the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
44. In Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 256, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testimony totally non- discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
45. In Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the legal position that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 23/5246. Further, in case of State v. Saravanan, AIR 2009 SC 152, it was held that the court can overlook minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master, AIR 2010 SC 3071, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that it is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from the truth, in sifting the evidence. At the same time, the eye-witness testimony must be credible and reliable. It should not be contradicted by other eyewitnesses or by the medical and forensic evidence, if any.
47. In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 3352, Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated the law laid down in its previous judgements and observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye- witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence. The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact, it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not failing within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 24/5248. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj & Anr., 1999 (9) Supreme Today 155, dealing with discrepancies, contradictions and omissions held that discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. Parrot like statements are disfavoured by the courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstances of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.
49. Again, recently in Bhagchandra vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online SC 1209, Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant in a murder case based on the testimonies of FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 25/52eye witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased like wife. While referring to other authorities on this issue, observed that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies, howsoever honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 26/52due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to the life. It is not un-often that improvements in earlier version are made at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case, albeit foolishly. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from the truth. In sifting the evidence, the court has to attempt to separate the chaff from the grains in every case and this attempt cannot be abandoned on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really so confusing or conflicting that the process cannot reasonably be carried out. In the light of these principles, the court will have to determine whether the evidence of eyewitnesses examined in this case proves the prosecution case. It could thus be seen that what is required to be considered is whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. It has been held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. It has been held that the prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. What is important is to see as to whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. It has been held that there are always normal discrepancies due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence. It is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from the truth in every case.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 27/5250. Now with these legal parameters regarding appreciation of evidence of eyewitness and being conscious of the fact that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is always on the prosecution and it never shifts and to secure a conviction, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence, I will proceed for the appreciation of evidence. It is a settled principle of criminal law jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. Though it is neither possible nor prudent to have a straight-jacket formula or principle which would apply to all cases without variance and every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and in light of the evidence led by the parties. It is for the court to examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
51. Now coming the appreciation of evidence. The case is based on the evidence of nine witnesses, all except one, were the students of the same college of the deceased. As said above, out of them, the most important are Robin, Yashwant, Abhishek, Kunal and Yash Tyagi.
52. Each of these five witnesses have described the assault on Abhishek Yadav @ Bittu in their own way. Before explicating on their evidence, I am referring to the manner of assault portrayed in the complaint on which the FIR was registered. PW-1 Robin said that the accused came there and started beating Abhishek with danda and chair. Due to this assault, Abhishek fell down. Sager gave a blow of a chair FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 28/52on Abhishek. Rest of the accused had beaten Abhishek with fists and kicks after Abhishek fell down. When Abhishek started bleeding from head, the accused ran away. Though he deposed about the incident but flinched on recovery as discussed above. He identified the accused in the court as the assailants. In cross examination, he stated that the attendance of a student is marked in the class. The timings of his class were from 9:30 am to 2:30 pm except on Tuesday and Friday. At the time of incident, two public persons were also present on the omelette stall and other public persons were passing from there. The deceased Abhishek, Shivani and Sapna were already sitting near the omelette stall when he, Yash Tyagi and Yashwant reached there to eat snacks. The accused came there after around 10 minutes. There were benches for customers near the omelett stall. They were all eating omelettes when the accused came there. The incident continued for ten minutes. He was carrying phone but did not call the police. Around 50 college students and public persons gathered there and 100/200 students gathered there after the quarrel. He admitted a suggestion of the defence that the scuffle took place between them and the assailants during the incident. He denied the suggestion that he did not try to save the deceased Abhishek. He also denied the suggestion that the photograph of the accused Sagar was shown to him by the police before the test identification proceedings.
53. PW-2 Yashwant is the star witness because he not only deposed about the assault but also proved the recovery of one of the danda and the stool. He identified the accused and these case properties. According to his evidence, the accused Vikram was holding a danda. He hit the danda on him and thereafter on the head of Abhishek. Abhishek fell on the road with this blow on his head. Then Sagar came, FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 29/52picked a stool and hit it on the head of Abhishek. Shubham also had a danda with him with which he beaten Abhishek. As the crowd gathered, the accused ran away. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased Abhishek was his college friend. He does not know the exact cause of quarrel. He sustained injury on his right arm. He also did not also call the police. A suggestion was given to him by the defence that the fight actually happened in the college in the canteen between the students and to save those students, the accused have been falsely implicated. He stood by his version unlike PW-1 Robin that the danda was recovered from the drain in Sagarpur in his presence. He also stated that PW-1 Robin accompanied them on 15.12.2016 during the recovery proceedings.
54. PW-10 Abhishek though was threatened by the family of Vikram, stood by the prosecution and not only described the previous incident of altercation which subsequently turned into ghastly attack on the deceased but also identified the accused Vikram and Shubham in the court during his evidence, who were involved in the first altercation. In cross examination, he stated that he came to know the names of the accused on the date of incident itself from the students of Sagarpur, who used to study in the college. He stated that the uncle (mama) of the accused Vikram came to the office of his brother after he received the summons of this case. He stated that he did not make the complaint to the police or to the court.
55. PW-13 Kunal stated that he was also present in the group of students, when the accused came and started fighting with Abhishek. They went there to stop the fight. He was also hit by a danda by those boys when he intervened. Due to the assault Abhishek fall on the ground. Those boys hit a chair on Abhishek due to which he sustained FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 30/52head injury and started bleeding from his head. He identified all the accused in the court correctly. Though he did not describe specific roles to each accused but deposed about the attack in general.
56. PW-14 is Yash Tyagi. Like Abhishek, he deposed about the initial episode of altercation and identified the accused Vikram as one of those persons, who got down from the Honda City car in the initial incident. After the first incident of altercation, he went into the college. He came to know after sometime that some incident happened between the persons who came earlier in the Honda city car and that Abhishek was beaten. When he came outside, he could not find anybody. PW-9 Shivani though had not identified the accused but corroborated the statement of other witnesses about the assault. She was also present in that group of students in which the deceased Abhishek was there. She has described the assault stating that 3-4 boys came there and started beating Abhishek. First, they slapped Abhishek. Robin and Yashwant tried to save him. One of the accused got a danda and hit Abhishek. Robin and Yashwant saved themselves by moving apart from Abhishek. All these 3-4 boys kept beating Abhishek. They used a stool in the assault. After seeing the gravity of the situation, she left the spot. In similar vein, PW-9 Sapna also deposed, defining the assault though not identifying the accused. She said that some boys 6-7 in number came there. The boys were not of their college. Those boys started beating Abhishek. She and Shivani went aside. Shivani was looking at Abhishek while those boys were beating him. She faced Shivani as she was crying badly. In cross examination by the learned prosecutor, she stated that those boys beaten Abhishek with wooden sticks and chair which was lying on the spot.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 31/5257. The witness PW-6 Kamla Devi who used to run the stall where these students were present had not said anything about the assault or the accused stating that at that time, she went to pick her grand- daughter from her school.
58. Lastly, the complainant PW-3 Nitesh who was made complainant because according to the complaint Ex.PW3/A, he had seen the incident but in court he turned hostile and said that he came at the spot after the incident was over and his role was limited to taking the deceased to hospital.
59. So, these are the star witnesses of the prosecution's case. These witnesses have given the account of the incident though with slight variations. Some of them have identified the accused in the court as the assailants of the deceased Abhishek. Though the witnesses who have identified the accused were not known to accused but they had sufficient time and opportunity to see and observe them. Two of them not only identified the accused in court but also in the test identification proceedings as well. Therefore, the identification of the accused by these witnesses is not an issue and stands proved.The presence of these witnesses on the spot is neither impossible nor suspicious because they were the students of the same collage. They do not fall in the category of chance witnesses. They (Robin, Yashwant, Sapna , Shivani and Kunal) all say that they have seen the incident and they have described it. They have described the assault on Abhishek Yadav @ Bittu and it is a fact that after this incident Abhishek Yadav @ Bittu was admitted in hospital and passed away during medical treatment after few days. These are all eyewitness of this case. Eyewitnesses play an important role in the criminal justice system. The quality of evidence of an eyewitness depends on many factors FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 32/52prominent among them are his view in which the crime is committed, his confidence with respect to the accuracy of the description of the crime and identification of the accused and his description, the amount of attention the witness paid to the crime during its occurrence, the probability of the witness being present at the place of incident, the accuracy and probability of what he is defining etc. The testimony of witness Yashwant in this case inspires confidence and so also of Robin, Sapna , Shivani and Kunal. I can say that they are wholly reliable witnesses. Their evidence deserves to be given due weightage due to its consistency as there is nothing in cross examination of these witnesses to impeach their credit. The question also arises that why would these witnesses, if they have not witnessed the incident, lie. The evidence of these eye witnesses has to be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of their evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein which are absent in this case. There was no delay in the registration of the case as the case was registered on the same day. These witnesses did not drift from their allegations throughout the case. Some of them have identified the accused as the murderers of deceased and detailed as to how his death was caused. Though in cases of direct evidence motive is generally immaterial but it is clear that the incident was a result of a senseless, useless, purposeless act of these accused which caused death. Whatever motive was there, it was an altercation similar to road rage, nothing more than that. The defence has not produced any proof/material that what can be the reason for their false implication if any in this case except a bald assertion in their statements under section 313 Cr.PC that they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 33/5260. So, these witnesses have clearly deposed about the assault and the manner in which it was done by the accused. All these eye witnesses corroborated the oral evidence of each other. The witness Yashwant proved the stool/chair and a danda used in the assault.
61. The testimonies of these witnesses are the backbone of the case of the prosecution. Their evidences inspire confidence and there is nothing in them to create any doubt or suspicion on their probative value showing an inherent strength and consistency in what they said. In criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Consistency is the keyword. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all witnesses. And it happened here.
62. The evidence of these witnesses is further corroborated by medical evidence. After the postmortem, PW23, opined the cause of death as head injury consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head via injury no.1 and 2, which are sufficient to cause death individually and collectively, in ordinary course of nature. There were two prominent head injuries to the deceased. These were a stitched lacerated wound, 3cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5cm, preset on the right side of occipital region, 2 cm above mastoid process and 4 cm from mid line, second stitched lacerated wound, 2.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm, present on the right side of occipital region, 1.5cm below injury no.1. On internal examination of the scalp, doctor found that on reflection, effusion of blood was present on the occipital region. On internal examination of skull, he found fracture present in the occipital region. This doctor also FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 34/52opined that the injuries aforesaid are possible from any of the examined sticks Ex.P2 and P-3 and metallic part of the stool Ex.P-1. The doctor who attended the deceased first when he was taken to the hospital was Dr. Pallavi who prepared his MLC Ex.PW13/A. According to this MLC, there were similar injuries mentioned in the postmortem report. Therefore, the MLC and post mortem report corroborates each other. The DNA report suggests that the biological stains that are blood stains present on blood gauze of deceased from spot, blood gauze of deceased and one danda are of the same source. Therefore, it can be inferred that this danda has stains matching the DNA profile of the deceased and might have been used in the assault.
63. Coming now to the defences raised by the accused.
64. The first argument is related to the improvements and the contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. It has been argued that the complainant Nitesh has been shown an eye witness by the prosecution but his testimony shows that he had not seen the incident, which makes his complaint false. Since the complaint Ex.PW3/A itself became false, the entire basis of the case goes away. It is further argued that different witnesses have told different number of assailants. For example, Yashwant and Shivani stated that 3-4 boys were assailants whereas Sapna says that 6-7 boys were assailants. Sapna and Shivani are shown as eye witnesses but did not identify the accused. The only independent witness Kamla has not supported the case of the prosecution. Then there is difference in the time of the incident also. The prosecution estimates the time of incident as around 1:30 pm, whereas the complainant says that when he came out of the college at around 5-5:30 pm, he saw that public persons had surrounded that place and Abhishek was lying in an injured condition. Further, the most FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 35/52important witness Robin has said that the danda was not recovered in his presence. According to the testimony of Nitesh, Yashwant was with him when they went to had tea whereas PW-1 Robin says that Yashwant was present with the deceased. PW-13 Kunal says that Nitesh was at the spot whereas the Nitesh who is the complainant, denied his presence at the time of incident.
65. This may be true to some extent that every witness has described the incident in their own way but that is not unnatural. Only the witnesses who depose by rote can give the same testimony otherwise, there are bound to be differences. These differences no doubt are there in this case also but can be ignored if considered on the anvil of the settled law in this regard discussed above, particularly in the judgment of Lekh Raj (Supra) and Rammi @ Rameshwar (Supra) wherein it was observed that no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. In the present case, all the variations and contradictions referred above are minor in nature and when so many eye witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, some variations in their evidences are bound to occur. The case of the prosecution has to be seen in broad probabilities and not each and every variation in the evidence of different witnesses be accepted as creating a doubt. Whether the assailants were 3-4 or 7-8 as said by one witness is hardly immaterial. Incidents like the present one happens quickly and is embedded in the memory of the witnesses in different manner. The witness Robin may have said that one of the stick was not recovered in his presence, but the investigating officer and Yashwant has deposed that he was present at that time. The witness Sapna and Shivani may have not identified the accused and may be considered hostile to that extent but they have defined the assault. The entire testimony of a FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 36/52hostile witness is not effaced off the record as per law. In Vijay Pal vs State of Delhi 2014 SCC Online, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the evidence of hostile witnesses to the extent it is truthful and reliable, remains admissible and it is open to the court, depending upon the fact of each case, to rely upon dependable and acceptable part of the statement made by a hostile witness. In Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross- examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
66. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra [(1996) 10 SCC 360, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon.
67. In C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [(2010) 9 SCC 567, the Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the law applicable to the case of hostile witnesses by holding that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 37/5268. Therefore, though the witness Sapna and Shivani may be considered hostile to the prosecution but that part of their testimony in which they described the assault is relevant. Similarly, the testimony of Nitesh PW-3 that he saw the deceased lying on the road immediately after the incident and took him to hospital is also relevant.
69. The witness Kamla Devi may have turned hostile and her testimony is of no use for the prosecution but it at least proves that she used to run a food stall outside the college where the incident took place. Her testimony has to be seen in the context that she had no interest in the matter and if the accused can threaten one of the witness Abhishek then there is no doubt that she is more vulnerable to fear and threats. Regarding difference in some time or the slight variations in the testimony of witnesses about the presence of one or the other witness at or near the spot is not much relevant to the accused for his defence.
70. The third argument of the defence is that the postmortem report has typographical errors. It is correct that there is a typographical error on the first page of postmortem report and the date of autopsy has been mentioned as 29.11.2016. But this witness has clarified in his cross examination that is typed date in the postmortem report is a typographical error and therefore can be ignored. Otherwise, there is categorical evidence on record that Abhishek died on 22.12.2016 at around 4:30 am. Dr. Jatin Bodwal has clearly stated in his examination in chief that he conducted the autopsy on 22.12.2016. This typographical error will be of no help to the accused.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 38/5271. Next argument is that the eyes witnesses are chance witnesses and are planted by the investigating agency. There is no evidence that they were the students of IITM college as alleged. Regarding this argument, these eye witnesses orally deposed that they were the students of the college outside which the incident took place. It is true that the investigating officer has not collected the relevant records of their education from the college but this is the lapse on the investigating officer and the prosecution and victim should not suffer due to it. Despite the oral evidence of these eye witnesses, if there was any doubt to the defence, they could have summoned the relevant records from the college but they did not chose to do so and there is no evidence that these witnesses are not natural witnesses or are chance witnesses. Their presence at the spot is very much natural as they were the students of the same college.
72. It was then argued that all the witnesses were friends of the deceased and have good reasons to implicate the accused falsely in the present case as they are interested witnesses. This argument is not acceptable as these witnesses cannot be termed as interested witnesses. The mere relation these witnesses had with the deceased was that they were of the same college. This does not qualify them to be termed as interested witnesses. Even otherwise, the law related to interest/partisan witnesses is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. Sudershan Reddy &Ors vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 10 SCC 163 held that relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 39/52In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364) it has been laid down that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has a cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, then there is a tendency to drag an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. In Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (1974 (3) SCC 698) in which Vadivelu Thevar vs State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614) was relied upon, it was observed that the ground that the witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance.
73. Therefore, when the law does not disqualify the relatives to be witnesses, the eye witnesses of this case falls in a much superior category and therefore the argument of defence that they are interested witnesses have no merits.
74. The eyewitnesses in the present case have been found to be reliable witness. Their presence at the spot was natural as they were the school mates of the deceased. The defence is unable to show any FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 40/52serious animosity of these witnesses with the accused in order to discard their testimony.
75. It has been further argued that despite the availability of large number of independent witnesses including the employees of the shop and the onlookers gathered outside during the incident, none of them was made a witness in this case. It is further argued that there must have been CCTV cameras on the road which were not seized. It has been argued that the investigation of the case is faulty.
76. As far as the issue of independent witnesses is concerned, no doubt that it appears that there were some persons available, who were passing through that road or have stopped there as onlookers but then it cannot be overlooked that the eye witnesses examined are also the members of public. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which proves a fact. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that in world we live today hardly anyone can be found, who would like to spare time for others, particularly to depose in a criminal case. People are afraid of many things, most common among them is the apprehension of their own harm. Making somebody a witness in murder case is not that easy and then there are always apprehensions that he may be won over destroying the case of prosecution that is why police may at times avoid basing their case on such witnesses. Further, there is no rule of law that the case cannot be decided or truth cannot be discovered without independent or unrelated witnesses. The quest is to find the truth and there is no particular path to it. Though it is a very convenient argument for defence that the independent witnesses not examined but is not very convincing. The persons gathered there may FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 41/52be mere onlookers. They may not be aware of the facts and witnesses who were acquainted with the facts are nevertheless made witnesses in this case. I only need to reproduce the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Appabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 to repel this argument which are that it is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensible when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate but it is there, everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused.
77. Further in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 42/52made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand, if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself- whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses.
78. As far as CCTV footages are concerned, there is no evidence on record that there were CCTV cameras at the spot and they were deliberately concealed. Therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.
79. About the argument that investigation officer had not done proper investigation in this case and that the recoveries had been shown to be recovered very casually or that the evidence that some of the FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 43/52witnesses were students, was not collected, admittedly, these are lapses but what is to be seen is that even without these evidences, whether the prosecution case is proved or not. If the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt with the evidences led, the absence of the other evidences which were available but not filed, will hardly make a difference. The case is to be considered by the positive evidences led and should not be handicapped by what has been omitted unless it causes prejudice to the accused and questions fair investigation. A lot could have been done by the investigating officer, but that would have made the case of prosecution stronger and not weak. In Dayal Singh & others vs State of Uttranchal 2012 (8) SCC, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that merely because there has been some defect in the investigation, it would not be to the benefit of the accused persons to the extent that they would be entitled to an order of acquittal on this ground. In the case of Suresh Chand Jana vs State of West Bengal (2017) 16 SCC 466, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding defective investigation and prosecution that the function of a criminal court is to find out the truth. The whole purpose of the trial is to convict the guilty and at the same time to protect the innocent. In this process, court should always be in search of the truth and should come to the conclusion, based on the facts and circumstances of each case, without defeating the very purpose of justice. It is impossible to come across a single case where the investigation was completely flawless or absolutely fool proof. The function of the criminal court is to find out the truth and it is not the correct approach to simply pick up the minor lapses of the investigation and acquit the accused, particularly when the ring of truth is undisturbed. It may be mentioned that it is not every doubt but only a FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 44/52reasonable doubt of which benefit can be given to the accused. A doubt of a timid mind which is afraid of logical consequences, cannot be said to be reasonable doubt. The experienced, able and astute defence lawyers do raise doubts and uncertainties in respect of evidence adduced against the accused by marshalling the evidence, but what is to be borne in mind is - whether testimony of the witnesses before the court is natural, truthful in substance or not. The accused is entitled to get benefit of only reasonable doubt, i.e., the doubt which rational thinking man would reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a vacillating mind that has no moral courage and prefers to take shelter itself in a vain and idle scepticism. The administration of justice has to protect the society and it cannot ignore the victim altogether who has died and cannot cry before it. If the benefits of all kinds of doubts raised on behalf of the accused are accepted, it will result in deflecting the course of justice. The cherished principles of golden thread of proof of reasonable doubt which runs through web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt.
80. The alleged lapses in investigations are not so overwhelming that the accused can take any advantage of it in this case.'
81. Therefore, the above discussion shows that all the facts/circumstances and the evidence led to prove the same indicates towards only one conclusion and that is the guilt of these accused. To finally conclude, there is no doubt that on 13.12.2007 at around 1.30 PM in the noon, all the three accused in furtherance of their common FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 45/52intention assaulted Abhishek, who died in consequences of that assault on 22.12.2016. The accused are charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 IPC for causing the death of Abhishek.
82. Section 302 IPC punishes the offence of murder. Murder is defined under section 300 of IPC in the following words :-
Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code-
300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or (Secondly)--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (Thirdly)--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or (Fourthly)--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
83. It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that this case will fall under clause (1) and (3) of section 300 meaning thereby the death of Pankaj amounts to murder because the act by which the death was caused, was done with the intention of causing death and also with the intention of causing bodily injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 46/52course of nature to cause death. On the contrary, it has been also argued on behalf of defence that even if the prosecution case is accepted, an offence of murder is not made out as the accused are not alleged to have assaulted Abhishek with any deadly weapon which does not show their intention to cause the death.
84. In view of the allegations of the prosecution as well as the evidence, it is clear that this case will not fall in first clause of Section 300 IPC meaning thereby it cannot be said that the assault was done with the intention of causing the death of the deceased Abhishek. Whether the death was actuated by the intention to cause death is a subjective element and has to be deduced from the objective facts, circumstances and behaviour of the accused. In this clause, all those cases will be covered where the direct intention of the accused is to cause the death of a person. Inference of such intention can be drawn from the manner in which the death is caused, the weapon used, the nature of injury given, the seat of injury on the human body, the motive and any other relevant circumstance connected with the death of a person. In the present case, it is clear that the intention of the accused was not to cause the death of the deceased, which is clear from the fact that the accused were not conspicuously armed with any dangerous or lethal weapon, had grudge due a previous altercation on a minor issue and therefore it would need very strong evidence of a definite, explicit, unambiguous and precise intention to kill, which is not reflected in the facts of this case. The accused fought with the deceased as students fight with each other. It was a mad act of showing predominance, a feature of human trait not uncommon in youth. Their intention was to beat and to beat so severely so as to teach the deceased a lesson. And in that frenzy and hate they went so ahead in thrashing the deceased that FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 47/52they forget the distinction between a normal assault and a life- threatening assault. Therefore, I give them a benefit of causing an unintended death.
85. The third clause of section 300 IPC states that every culpable homicide is murder, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
86. To see whether the case of these accused will also fall under section 302 clause three or not, I am relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Virsa Singh vs State 1958 AIR 465. In this case, Hon'ble Court has set out the four elements test, which the prosecution must prove to bring its case under this section. The following passage in the judgment which has become locus classicus on this issue. It's as -
"To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s.300, 3rdly" ; First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present ;Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of FIR No746/2016.Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 48/52
the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, 3rdly. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was no intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a license to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional.
87. Now in the present case, it is clear that the bodily injuries were present on deceased Abhishek and these were three in number out of which two were the cause of his death. The nature of injuries is described in the post- mortem report(mentioned above). I have already stated above that the facts and circumstances of the case shows that the accused intended to inflict the same injuries which were in fact there FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 49/52on the deceased Pankaj. Otherwise, they would not have chosen to inflict injuries on the head of the deceased. The decision to hit his head with the dandas and stool with metallic parts on the head was a conscious decision and therefore the accused deliberately chose that part of the body to injure him. The blow was so forceful that the skull of the deceased was also fractured. It is no case of the defence that it was accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended. Therefore, first three requirements according to this judgement are fulfilled. Lastly, it has to be proved by the prosecution that the injuries inflicted by the accused were sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor, who had conducted the post- mortem has stated this fact in clear terms in the post- mortem report that the injury no.1 and 2 caused to the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Whether an injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature depends upon the probability of death which, if it is very great than the requirement of third clause is satisfied and the fact that a particular individual may by the fortunate accident of his having secured specially skilled treatment or being in possession of particularly strong constitution, have survived an injury which would prove fatal to the majority of persons subjected to it is not enough to prove that an injury is not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It cannot be said that an injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death is an injury which inevitably and in all circumstances must cause death. The best evidence to prove the nature of injury and whether it is sufficient to cause death is the medical evidence of a competent doctor. And it has been so given in this case that injury number 1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, in FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 50/52the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts that these accused caused murder of Abhishek and they do not have any plausible defence to justify their acts.
88. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussion it is clear that all the accused can be safely convicted under section 302 IPC.
89. All the accused are also charged with section 34 IPC. Section 34 IPC carves out an exception from general law that a person is responsible for his own act, as it provides that a person can also be held vicariously responsible for the act of others if he has the common intention to commit the offence. The phrase common intention implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. The common intention must be there prior to the commission of the offence in point of time and it can also develop at the spot.
90. In Girija Shankar v. State of U.P, (2004) 3 SCC 793, it was observed that section 34 has been enacted to elucidate the principle of joint liability of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances.
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 51/5291. In the present case it has been proved that that all the three accused shared common intention as required under section 34 of the IPC and were confederates of each other in the commission of this crime. Therefore, each one is liable not only for his own act but for the acts of others also and can be convicted with the aid of this section.
92. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, all the three accused Sagar, Vikram @ Bhuri, Subham @ Honey are convicted for offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
93. List the matter for arguments on sentence.
Digitally
signed by
SAMAR SAMAR
Pronounced in the open VISHAL
VISHAL
Date:
2022.05.25
Court on 25.05.2022 15:29:52 -0400
(Samar Vishal)
Additional Sessions Judge -08
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
FIR No746/2016.
Police Station: Hari Nagar Page No. 52/52