Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Fir No. 1081/06; State vs . Ranbir @ Pappu Etc. Page 1 Of 60 on 30 August, 2012

     IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS 
                  JUDGE­03: NW: ROHINI: DELHI


SESSIONS CASE  NO: 79/08
                                                            FIR No.     1081/06
                                                            P.S.        Nangloi
                                                            U/S:        302/34 IPC
STATE
                                                 Versus

(1) Ranbir @ Pappu
s/o Bhartu
r/o Village Mundka 
near Balmiki Chaupal, Delhi

(2) Ravi @ Ashu 
s/o Ranbir @ Pappu
r/o Village Mundka 
near Balmiki Chaupal, Delhi

(3) Daulat Ram 
s/o Duli Chand
H. No. 517/3, Village Mundka
Delhi.

(4) Mukesh Kumar 
s/o Bishan Singh
r/o 518/3, Vill. Mundka, Delhi.


JUDGMENT

1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 1 of 60 complainant Suresh used to visit his widow sister Sarla w/o late Sh. Rajbir Singh r/o H. No. 97/1, village Mundaka, Delhi in 8­10 days and his younger brother Sudhir @ Dhillu also used to stay at her house from the last 7/8 years for the help of their sister. On 12­10­2006 at about 10 pm, complainant Suresh was sitting on cot in the courtyard of his sister's house and Sudhir also reached there. His sister Sarla told that Pappu had come and was talking of returning the money of Rs. 2 lacs borrowed from her two years ago and she asked Sudhir to bring the money from Pappu. Immediately, Sudhir went outside to bring the money from Pappu. After some time, they heard noise from the gali "maro sale ko, jyada paise wala banta hai". They also heard the noise of their brother Sudhir "bachao­bachao". Complainant immediately saw in the gali where under the streetlight and near the electricity pole adjoining their house, in front of their gate, accused Ranbir @ Pappu along with Daulat and Mukesh had caught hold of his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu and giving him leg and fist blows. Ranbir @ Pappu had caught Sudhir from his neck and son of Ranbir namely Ashu gave lathi blow on the head of Sudhir. Complainant ran for the help of his brother Sudhir after opening the door. In the meanwhile, accused gave 2­3 more blows to Sudhir and thereafter, FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 2 of 60 Daulat and Mukesh ran on a motorcycle, already standing there, towards Phirni Road. Accused Ranbir @ Pappu and Ashu also ran from there in the gali towards the village. Sudhir @ Dhillu fell on the ground. In the meanwhile, Sunil and Manish also reached there and shifted Sudhir @ Dhillu to Sonia Hospital in the car of one Chand. After examination, the doctors in the hospital declared Sudhir @ Dhillu "brought dead". Police was informed and DD no. 45A was recorded. ASI Om Prakash along with Ct. John Patrick reached at the spot and came to know that victim Sudhir was already shifted to Sonia Hospital. FIR u/s 302/34 IPC was registered and investigation was marked to Inspector R. S. Malik. On 26­10­2006, accused Ranbir @ Pappu and Ashu @ Ravi were arrested. Accused Ashu @ Ravi got recovered the lathi, with the help of which he hit Sudhir @ Dhillu, from his house. Accused Daulat and Mukesh were also arrested who were friends of Ranbir. Accused Mukesh also got recovered the motorcycle no. DL4SAY­5392. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court u/s 302/34 IPC.

2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 3 of 60 guilty and claimed trial.

3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution has examined 23 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the allegations made against them. Accused Ranbir @ Pappu and Ravi @ Ashu opted to lead defence evidence whereas accused Daulat Ram and Mukesh did not opt to lead defence evidence. However, later on accused Ranbir and Ravi also opted not to lead defence evidence and DE was closed vide order dated 10­06­2011.

4. I have heard Ld. Defence counsel and the Ld. APP for State and have perused the entire records.

5. Ld. Counsel for accused persons argued that it is a case of eyewitnesses. PW1 and PW2 are the only eyewitnesses as per the Prosecution story. DD entry shows stabbing whereas the prosecution case is that danda blows were used by the accused upon the deceased. FIR also does not reveal any provocation. PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6 are the material witnesses. There is a contradiction in the statement of PW1 and PW2 regarding the place of occurrence. However, PW6 is not the eyewitness and he became hostile. Two of the witnesses are the siblings of the deceased and the other two of the witnesses are FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 4 of 60 nephew of Sarla/ PW2, therefore, they are the interested persons. The accused Mukesh Kumar has been charged u/s 302/34 IPC. Here, two issues are to be considered whether section 34 IPC is applicable in the case of accused Mukesh Kumar and whether PW1 and PW2 are credible witnesses. There is an improvement in the statement of PW1 recorded in the court. PW1 deposed that he had told in his statement to the police officials that four accused had pressed the neck of his brother using danda. The witness PW1 was confronted with the statement Ex. PW1/A where it was not so recorded. PW1 had not visited the house of Sarla on 12­10­2006 which is the date of incident, therefore, he was not present on the spot. Even, PW1 did not know as to who is Mukesh Kumar. Further, many complaints were already there against Sudhir, brother of Mukesh Kumar in the locality since he was notorious man and also used to molest girls and women in the locality. Since the accused Mukesh Kumar had to object Sudhir that he should not have teased/ molested girls of Balmiki community, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, Sudhir, brother of Mukesh Kumar was habitual drunkard and gambler. The family of PW2 Sarla Devi also used to harass the Balmiki of their village and the accused Mukesh Kumar always used to intervene to save FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 5 of 60 them from the harassment from their family. Therefore, they were having grudge against the accused Mukesh Kumar regarding his interference and trying to save the Balmikies of the area.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons further argued that the accused Mukesh Kumar did not press the danda on the neck of the deceased Sudhir since the accused Mukesh Kumar was not present at the spot. PW2 was not aware as to which side the accused persons were there at the spot, meaning thereby PW2 did not see the incident. The house of Manish is more than a half kilometer from the house of PW5. The accused Mukesh Kumar used to go to Sultanpuri to perform his duty and he never visited neighborhood of PW5. Further, the accused Mukesh Kumar is not residing in the vicinity of house of PW6. The Ld. Counsel for the accused Mukesh Kumar also argued that ASI Prem Singh/ PW9 had not recorded DD entries what PW9 deposed in the court since DD entries were inserted later on to falsely implicate the accused persons. Ct. Rajender Kumar/ PW16 was not present at the hospital, therefore, he was not aware whether statements of the witnesses were recorded or not at the hospital. No independent persons were made as witnesses to the arrest, therefore, arrest memo reveals that it had been fabricated later on FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 6 of 60 at the PS. Thus, the events regarding the arrest of the accused Mukesh Kumar deposed by PW20 ASI Jagmer Singh are fabricated to falsely implicate the accused persons. Further, the accused Mukesh Kumar never made disclosure statement and even it was not recorded in the presence of PW20. The rukka was also ante­time. Ct. John Patrick was never deployed to carry the rukka from the place of occurrence to PS for the registration of this case. PW13 did not notice any danda or chappal. The incident is dated 12­10­2006 and the danda was recovered on 26­10­2006 i.e. after two weeks of the incident. There are material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, in support of their arguments, relied upon the judgments reported in the case of Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2001 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 668; Mukati Prasad Rai alias Mukti Rai and others Vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 69; State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhanwar Singh 2005 SCC (Cri) 73; Nagaraja Vs. State of Karnataka, 2009 [1] JCC 386; Arun Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamilnadu (2008) 15 Supreme Court Cases 501; Dharam Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 440; and Pandurang, Tukia and Bhillia Vs. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216. FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 7 of 60

7. Whereas, Ld. APP for State argued that murder was committed in a brutal manner and PW1 and PW2 both eyewitnesses have proved that accused persons had committed the murder of Sudhir @ Dhillu. It was further argued that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve their testimonies. Accused Ranbir @ Pappu was holding Sudhir @ Dhillu from neck and accused Mukesh, Daulat were giving legs and fists blows to Sudhir @ Dhillu. Accused Ravi @ Ashu gave danda blows on the head of Sudhir @ Dhillu which proves that they had intention to cause death of Sudhir @ Dhillu and therefore charge under Section 302 IPC is clearly proved. Ld. APP for State further argued that there are some minor contradictions in the testimony of the PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. The Ld. APP for the State also argued that public persons generally do not become witnesses to the criminal proceedings / investigations. Further, the accused persons cannot take benefit of defective/ faulty investigation. The Ld. APP for the State, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the judgments reported in the case of Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhanda, AIR 2011 SC 200; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920; Khujji FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 8 of 60 alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653(1) and State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & Ors., 2010 CRI. L.J. 3889.

8. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Defense counsel and the Ld. APP for the State as well as the judgments relied upon by them, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused persons committed the offense as per charge framed against them or whether they have been falsely implicated in this case. PW1 Suresh deposed that his sister Sarla was married with Rajbir Singh at Mundka, however he could not recall the actual date of her marriage. His brother­in­law Rajbir expired about 10/11 years prior to this incident. His sister Sarla was residing at her in­laws house. After the death of his brother­in­ law Rajbir, PW1 started living with his sister Sarla at her in­laws house at Mundka. He further deposed that after 2­3 years, his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu had started living with his sister Sarla at her in­laws house. PW1 also used to visit at the house of Sarla usually after a gap of 10/12 days. On 12.10.2006 at about 10 pm, PW1 was present at the house of his sister Sarla at village Mundka. In the meantime, his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu entered in his sister's house and Sarla told Sudhir that Pappu @ Ranbir had come to her house and offered to return Rs. 2,00,000/­ which was FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 9 of 60 given to accused by his sister Sarla prior to incident. PW1 was not aware about the date and time when the said amount was given to accused by his sister. PW1 volunteered to say that this fact was only known to Sarla and his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu (deceased). Accused Pappu (correctly identified) was known to PW1 as he was residing near the house of his sister Sarla at Mundka. His brother Sudhir @ Dhillu immediately left the house of Sarla to receive money from accused Pappu. After some time, they heard noise towards pond in a gali as they were sitting in the courtyard of the house of Sarla. PWI heard noise of his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu "bachao­bachao" and he left the house. He was followed by his sister Sarla and reached at the gate of their house. They saw that accused Ranbir @ Pappu was holding his brother from neck and accused Mukesh, Daulat were giving legs and fists blows to his brother Sudhir in gali by the side of the gate. Immediately, accused Ashu also reached there having danda in his hand and gave two­three danda blows on the head of his brother Sudhir. PW1 identified all the four accused in the court. Due to the scuffle and injuries, his brother Sudhir fell down on the ground. After that all the four accused pressed the neck of his brother Sudhir with danda using force. They reached there to intervene but accused FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 10 of 60 Daulat and Mukesh ran away from the spot on motorcycle after the incident towards Firni Road and the remaining two accused i.e Ranbir @ Pappu and Ashu ran towards their houses. After some period Sunil and Manish, residents of same locality near the house of his sister Sarla and used to come to the house of Sarla to meet Sudhir, also reached at the spot and they brought the car of one Chand to the spot and took his injured brother to Sonia hospital and PW1 also accompanied them to hospital.

9. PW1 further deposed that after examining his brother Sudhir, doctor declared him as brought dead. IO recorded statement of PW1 as Ex. PW1/A. After the postmortem, dead body of his brother was handed over to them. IO lifted blood, one hawai chappal of his deceased brother from the spot and both these articles were sealed by the IO but he could not recall the specimen of the seal. The articles were taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex. PW2/B. PW1 pointed out the place of occurrence to IO. PW1 also handed over his blood­stained shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident and when he lifted his brother from the spot, into possession after sealing the same into pullanda. The shirt was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Police prepared site plan of the place of occurrence at his FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 11 of 60 instance in the month of December. PW1 handed over the photocopies Mark A to C of the account of his sister Sarla to police which was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/D. PW1 also identified the case property i.e. one danda Ex. P­1 which was in the hands of the accused Ashu at the time of incident and by which he had given beatings to his brother and was also used by other accused to press the neck of his brother; blue colour blood­stained shirt Ex. P­2 which he was wearing at the time of incident; one blood­stained shirt, one blood­stained jean pant and one underwear as Ex. P­3 (colly) which his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu was wearing at the time of incident; one pair of hawai chappal made Rexona Ex. P­4 (colly) out of which one was seized by the IO from the spot and other were found near the gate of the house of Sarla.

10. PW­2 Sarla deposed that she is housewife and her husband Rajbir Singh had expired about 10­11 years ago. After the death of her husband, her brother Suresh started residing with her at her house for help her. After that, Suresh left her house and 7­8 years prior to the incident, her another brother Sudhir started residing with her at her house. On 12.10.2006, her brother Suresh came to her house and she along with her brother Suresh were FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 12 of 60 sitting in the courtyard of her house. PW2 had given Rs. 2 lacs to accused Pappu 2½ years prior to the incident. At about 10.00 pm, accused Pappu (correctly identified) known to her as he was residing near her house, came to their house and asked her to receive money from him after visiting his house and thereafter accused Pappu left her house. After 2­3 minutes, when Pappu left her house, her brother Sudhir came from outside and she told Sudhir to collect money from accused Pappu by visiting the house of accused Pappu. Thereafter, her brother Sudhir left the house to collect money. After about 4­5 minutes, she heard the noise "Maro sale ko, jyada paise wala banta hai" in the gali near her house. She again heard the cries of her brother Sudhir "Badhao­Bachao". After that, she along with her brother Suresh left their house towards the gali from where they heard the noise. Her brother Suresh was ahead of her. There was light in the gali as the light of their house was on towards gali. PW2 correctly identified accused Ranbir @ Pappu, Daulat and Mukesh in the court. PW2 deposed that she knew the three accused persons as they used to visit at the house of accused Pappu. All the three accused persons were beating her brother Sudhir with legs and fists blows. Pappu caught hold the neck of her brother Sudhir at that time and was exhorting FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 13 of 60 "Maro sale ko". After that, accused Ashu @ Ravi son of accused Pappu also reached there and he gave a lathi blow on the head, by the side of right ear, shoulder and other parts of Sudhir's body. All the accused persons also gave legs and fist blows to her brother Sudhir at that time. After that they opened the gate of their house and in the meantime accused Ashu gave 4­5 lathi blows to her brother Sudhir and accused Pappu again caught hold the neck of her brother. When they reached there, all the four accused pressed the neck of her brother Sudhir with the help of danda (lath) jointly. On their intervention, all the accused escaped from the spot after leaving danda at the spot. Her brother Sudhir became unconscious at the spot. In the meantime, Manish and Sunil, known to her brother, arrived and brought one Maruti car of Chand Ram at the spot and shifted Sudhir to Sonia hospital. Her brother Suresh took Sudhir to the hospital in the car. PW2 came to know about the death of her brother Sudhir on next day as she remained at the house. At the time of giving money to accused Pappu, no paper was prepared in this regard. PW2 identified the case property i.e. danda Ex. P1 which was used by the accused persons at the time of incident. PW2 stated that police had not recorded her statement. In response to leading question, PW2 admitted that FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 14 of 60 her first statement was recorded by IO on 13.10.2006 and her other statement was recorded on 02.01.2007. PW2 paid the cash amount of Rs. 1,40,000/­ to accused Ranbir @ Pappu in the presence of Sachin Kumar (son of her jeth). Rs. 20,000/­ was also paid to the accused Ranbir @ Pappu six months prior to the incident. PW2 identified all the accused in the court.

11. PW3 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Sonia Hospital deposed that on 12.10.2006, at about 10.30 pm patient Sudhir aged about 27 years was brought to Sonia Hospital by Sunil and Manish with alleged history of altercation between self and neighbor fighting. PW3, in the presence of Dr. Ashwani Kumar Kukreja, examined the patient and declared the patient as brought dead. PW3 prepared MLC Ex. PW3/A. PW4 Om Parkash deposed that on 13.10.2006, he went to SGM hospital Mortuary and identified the dead body of his brother­in­law (sala) Sudhir @ Dhillu vide Ex. PW4/A. After the postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to his brother Naresh Kumar vide receipt Ex. PW4/A. PW5 Sunil Kumar Vats @ Sonu deposed that on 12.10.2006 at about 10.00 pm, he was present at his house and heard noise of quarrel in the gali near his house. He came outside in the gali and found Manish, his neighbor. PW5 found FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 15 of 60 Sudhir present in the gali opposite to the house of neighbour in injured condition. PW5 again said, opposite the shop of Sudhir situated in the house of sister of Sudhir. Sudhir (since deceased) used to reside with his sister Sarla Devi at the time of incident. When PW5 went near Sudhir, he found accused Daulat and Mukesh running towards Phirni Road from the gali on a motorcycle. PW5 saw accused Ashu running towards village with his father Pappu. Witness correctly identified four accused in the court. PW5 got shocked on the injured condition of Sudhir and he went to fetch the Maruti van of his friend Chand whose registration number he could not recall. Then, PW5 along with Suresh removed Sudhir to the Sonial hospital in the Van. Manish followed them on a motorcycle. His chachi Sarla was sitting near Dhillu (since deceased). His chachi was not feeling well after seeing the injured, so she was not taken to the hospital. After examination, doctor at the hospital declared the injured as brought dead. Thereafter, PW5 came back to the spot where police had already arrived.

12. PW6 Manish Lakra deposed that on 12.10.2006, he was taking rest at his house and at about 9.45 pm, his neighbor Sonu called him from outside. He came out and went in nearby FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 16 of 60 gali with Sonu where he saw Dhillu @ Sudhir lying on the ground. PW6 was told by Suresh @ Mama that Pappu and his son had killed Dhillu and fled away. Dhillu was rushed to hospital by his brother Chand. PW6 also went to Sonia hospital on his motorcycle. The doctor declared Sudhir @ Dhillu dead. Police came at the hospital. Statement of PW6 was recorded by the police. PW6 further deposed that he did not see any other person except Dhillu and Suresh @ Mama. During cross­examination conducted by Ld. APP for State, PW6 deposed that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that at about 10 pm while he was taking rest at his house, he heard the noise of quarrel and he came out and went in front of house of Rajbir along with his neighbour Sunil Vats. He deposed that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that Sudhir @ Dhillu was the brother­in­law of his neighbour Rajbir and he was lying in an unconscious and injured condition in gali. He also deposed that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that Suresh was saying that Mukesh @ Hawaldar, Daulat, Ranbir @ Pappu and Ashu had fled away after killing his brother. He deposed that Suresh was asking to take Dhillu to the hospital immediately. PW6 further deposed that Sunil Vats went to bring the vehicle of Chand and Sunil and Chand rushed Sudhir @ Dhilu FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 17 of 60 to the hospital in the said vehicle. He also deposed that he had apprised the incident to the police in the hospital. PW7 Naresh Kumar deposed that deceased Sudhir @ Dhillu was his brother. On 13­10­2006, he went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mortuary where he identified the body of his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu vide identification statement Ex. PW7/A. After postmortem, the body was handed over to him vide receipt Ex. PW4/A. PW8 Sunny Lakhra deposed that on 17­04­2006, he along with his chachi Sarla went to PS Nangloi to make inquiry about their case. In the PS, accused Daulat Ram (correctly identified) was interrogated by the IO and during interrogation, accused Daulat Ram gave a disclosure statement Ex. PW8/A. Next day, accused Daulat Ram took the police party opposite the house of Pappu at Balmiki Chaupal, village Mundka and pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW8/B. In response to leading question put up by Ld. APP for State, PW8 deposed that disclosure statement and pointing out memo were prepared in the month of November 2006 and not April 2006.

13. PW9 ASI Prem Singh deposed that on 12­10­2006, he was posted at PS Nangloi as DO and at about 10:30 pm, he recorded DD no. 45A Ex. PW9/A on the information received from FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 18 of 60 HC Sabis, PCR regarding stabbing of one person near Mundka village, Harijan Chaupal, near Goonga talab and DD was sent to ASI Om Prakash through Ct. Arun. At about 10:40 pm Dr. G. K Mishra telephonically informed from Sonia hospital, Nangloi that one Sudhir who was brought by two persons for medical examination was declared "brought dead". PW9 recorded the said information vide DD no. 46A Ex. PW9/B and sent the same to ASI Om Prakash through Ct. Ajit. On the intervening night of 12/13­10­2006, Ct. John Patrick brought a rukka sent by ASI Om Prakash on which basis he registered the FIR no. 1081/06 Ex. PW9/C (OSR) and made endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW9/D. PW10 Sukhbir Singh deposed that on 26­10­2006, at about 5:30 pm, accused Pappu and Ashu (correctly identified) in police custody brought the police at the house of Pappu from where accused Ashu got recovered a danda lying underneath the bed in the room. The danda was smeared with limestone. On measurement, the length of the danda was found to be 3½ feet. The danda was then kept in a piece of cloth and was sealed by the police with their seal in his presence. The pullanda was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. PW10 identified the danda as Ex. P1. In response to leading question put up by Ld. APP for State, FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 19 of 60 PW10 deposed that accused Pappu and Ashu had also pointed out the place of murder to the police vide pointing out memo Ex. PW10/B. PW11 Ct. Pradeep deposed that on 13­10­2006, DO ASI Prem Singh handed over the copies of FIR no. 1081/06 u/s 302/34 IPC for delivering the same to Area MM, Joint CP, SR, DCP (West). PW11 delivered the copy of the aforesaid FIR to the residence of Ld. MM, Joint CP (SR) and DCP (West) on motorcycle no. DL1SN­3624. PW12 Ct. Raj Kumar deposed that on 12­10­2006, he was posted as Photographer in Crime Team, West District. At about 11 pm, on receipt of a call, PW12 along with I/C, Crime Team Anil Yadav, reached at village Mundka, Nangloi in front of house of Rajbir where ASI Om Prakash met them. Blood was lying at the spot. One blue colour hawai chappal of the right foot was also lying there. PW12 took photographs Ex. PW12/1 to PW12/10 of the spot from different angles and handed over the same to the IO. PW12 brought the negatives Ex. PW12/11 to PW12/20 of the photographs. They had also come to know that chappal of the left foot was lying inside the house.

14. PW13 HC John Patrick deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13­10­2006 he along with ASI Om Prakash were on emergency duty. At about 10:30 pm at Rohtak Road, FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 20 of 60 Phirni Mundka, DD no. 45A was received through Ct. Arun. PW13 along with ASI Om Prakash reached Harijan Chaupal, village Mundka and came to know that injured Sudhir @ Dhullu was already shifted to Sonia hospital in a private vehicle. PW13 along with ASI Om Prakash reached at Sonia hospital where ASI Om Prakash collected MLC of Sudhir @ Dhillu who was declared "brought dead". The brother of deceased also reached at the hospital along with three other persons. ASI Om Prakash recorded statement of brother of deceased after reaching the spot and prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through PW13. Inspector R. S. Malik also reached at the hospital who also accompanied them to the spot. PW13 returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original endorsement to Inspector R. S. Malik. On receipt of application from ASI Om Prakash, PW13 deposited the dead body of Sudhir at Mortuary of SGM Hospital. In response to leading questions put up by Ld. APP for State, PW13 deposed that Sunil, Manish and Suresh met him and ASI Om Prakash at the hospital and on the statement of Suresh Kumar recorded at the hospital by ASI Om Prakash, rukka was prepared and PW13 went to the PS from the hospital with the rukka. PW14 SI Anil Kumar deposed that on 12.10.2006, he was posted as In­ FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 21 of 60 charge Mobile Crime Team, West District and on receipt of an information through wireless, PW14 along with his team reached in front of house of Rajbir, near Harijan Chaupal, village Mundka where blood and a blue colour chappal of right foot was lying. Constable Raj Kumar took photographs of the spot. PW14 prepared his report Exbt. PW­14/A and the same was handed over to the IO. In response to leading question put up by Ld. APP for State, PW14 deposed that he directed the IO to lift the blood stained exhibits from the spot. PW15 HC Pawan Kumar deposed that on 11.12.2006, HC Balwan Singh gave him four sealed pullandas along with FSL form, two pullandas bearing the seal of RS, two pullandas bearing the seal of SGMH Mortuary and a sample seal and he deposited them at FSL vide RC No. 553/21.

15. PW16 Ct. Rajinder Kumar deposed that on 13.10.2006, he was sent for the postmortem of Sudhir @ Dhillu's body at SGM Hospital. Inspector Rajinder Singh met him in the hospital. The body was got identified by the relatives of the deceased. IO prepared the papers for postmortem. Thereafter, IO got conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. After postmortem, the doctor handed over one sealed packet containing the clothes of the deceased, another packet containing blood FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 22 of 60 gauze and the third packet containing the sample seal of SGMH Mortuary. All the three packets were bearing the seal of SGMH Hospital Mortuary. PW16 handed over the sealed packets to the IO which were seized vide seizure memo Exbt. PW­16/A. PW17 HC Balwan Singh, MHCM proved the entry at serial No. 5753 as Exbt. PW­17/A (OSR); entry no. 5802 Exbt. PW­17/B; entry no. 5894 as Exbt. PW­17/C. On 11.12.2006, four sealed pullandas were sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Pawan Kumar vide RC No. 553/21 Ex. PW17/D. Out of the four pullandas, two pullandas were bearing the seal of RS and another two were bearing the seal of SGMH and one sample seal of SGMH. PW17 also proved the receipt as Ex. PW­17/E (OSR). On 17.11.2006, Inspector R.S. Malik took the danda from the Malkhana for the opinion of doctor at the hospital and the danda was having the seal of RS and after the opinion, it was again deposited in the Malkhana with the seal of SGMH. On 17.05.2007, the result of the case property was received in the Malkhana through Ct. Pawan Kumar along with four sealed pullandas. On 27.01.2007, motorcycle was released to the Supardar Satya Prakash vide endorsement at point X on Exbt. PW­17/C.

16. PW18 Sachin Lakra deposed that after completing his FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 23 of 60 studies he was residing at H. No. 13, Village Mundka, Delhi and not doing any job. He took his aunt Sarla to SBI, Mundka where his aunt withdrew Rs. one lac from the bank. In the year 2004, in evening time, his aunt had handed over Rs. 1,40,000/­ to Ranbir @ Pappu (correctly identified) in his presence but he could not tell the exact date or month. Accused Pappu had borrowed the said amount from his aunt but he was not aware for what purpose the said amount was given to Ranbir. Accused Pappu was residing in the neighborhood of his aunt Sarla. No writing was done regarding borrowing of said amount by accused Pappu. PW19 ASI Om Prakash deposed that during intervening night of 12/13­06­2006, he was on emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am at PS Nangloi. On receipt of DD no. 45A Ex. PW9/A through Ct. Arun, he along with Ct. John Patrick went to village Mundka where he came to know that injured had been shifted to Sonia Hospital in a private vehicle. Thereafter, PW19 along with Constable reached at the said hospital. In the meanwhile, he also received DD no. 46A through Ct. Ajit. PW19 collected MLC no. 612 in respect of injured Sudhir @ Dhillu. He was declared "brought dead" by the doctor. Thereafter, PW19 sent the dead body to Sanjay Gandhi Mortuary through Ct. John Patrick along with a request letter Ex. PW19/A for FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 24 of 60 preserving the same. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Suresh in the hospital. In the meanwhile, Addl. SHO/ SHO also reached at Sonia Hospital. Ct. John Patrick also reached Sonia Hospital after preserving the dead body. PW19 prepared a rukka on the statement of Suresh Ex. PW9/D and got the FIR registered through Ct. John Patrick. Thereafter, PW19 along with Addl. SHO, SHO and Inspector Rajender Singh came at the spot. Crime Team inspected the spot and photographer of the Crime Team took photographs. Further investigation was carried out by Inspector R. S. Malik who prepared site plan of the place of incident at his instance. Blood sample and two rubber slippers of blue colour were seized from the spot which were lying at different places. Both the articles were kept in a sealed pullanda and sealed with the seal of "RS" and then seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Search was made for accused persons but they were not traceable. On the next day i.e. 13­06­2006, PW19 along with Inspector R. S. Malik went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. Postmortem was got conducted in his presence at the mortuary. PW19 identified the rubber slippers as Ex. P­4 collectively which were seized from the spot.

17. PW20 Dr. V. K Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM Hospital FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 25 of 60 deposed that on 13­10­2006, he was posted in the Mortuary of SGM hospital, Mangolpuri. On that day, he conducted postmortem on the body of Sudhir @ Dhillu aged about 27 years vide MLC Ex. PW20/A. After postmortem examination, PW20 opined cause of death as coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force diverted upon head by other party. Head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On 17­11­2006, IO moved an application before him for opinion regarding weapon of offence recovered. PW20 also proved his subsequent opinion Ex. PW20/B. PW20 opined that injury over head and neck mentioned in Ex. PW20/A under the heading of Head & Neck could have been produced by this weapon of offence i.e. bamboo stick containing wide thick stain on its surface or similar such weapons. PW20 ASI Jagmer Singh was also examined as PW20. He deposed that on 26­10­2006, he along with Inspector R. S. Malik came to Rohini Court along with informer and accused Ranbir @ Pappu, Ravi @ Ashu (correctly identified) were apprehended in front of Gate no. 4, Rohini Court. Both the accused were interrogated and arrested vide arrest memos and their personal search was also conducted. HC Vijender Singh signed the arrest memos and personal search memos of accused. Accused made disclosure regarding their FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 26 of 60 involvement in the present case vide Ex. PW20/A and PW20/B respectively. In their disclosure statement, they disclosed the names of their other associates as Mukesh Kumar and Daulat Ram. Accused had also stated that they can recover the danda used in the commission of offence. Accused Ranbir and Ravi then pointed out the place of occurrence at Munga Jhod, Balmiki Chaupal, Mundka vide pointing out memo Ex. PW10/B. Accused Ravi had also produced a danda lying under the bed from his room at Mundka. One end of the danda was pointed while the other was blunt. The danda was having whitewash. On measurement, its length was found to be 3 feet 1.2 inches. The danda was kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of RS and then seized vide memo Ex. PW10/A. The recovery of danda was effected in the presence of public witness Sukhbir Singh who also signed the recovery memo Ex. PW10/A along with PW20. On 17­11­2006, PW20 again joined investigation of the present case with the IO. Accused Daulat Ram was produced by his advocate Sh. Gupta before Inspector R. S. Malik at 8:45 pm who interrogated the accused Daulat Ram (correctly identified). Accused Daulat Ram was then arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW20/C and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW20/D. FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 27 of 60 In the meanwhile, Sunny Lakhra came at the PS to make inquiry about the case. In the presence of Sunny Lakhra, accused Daulat Ram made a disclosure statement Ex. PW8/A. On 18­11­2006, accused Daulat Ram pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW8/B. On 27­11­2006, PW20 again joined investigation of this case with IO Inspector R. S. Malik. On that day, a secret informer gave information to Inspector R S Malik that Mukesh Kumar would come on his motorcycle from the side of Mundka village. At about 9:30 am, accused Mukesh (correctly identified) came on motorcycle no. DL4S­AY­5392 make Bajaj Discover from the side of village Mundka. Accused Mukesh was stopped and arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW20/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW20/F. On interrogation, accused Mukesh gave a disclosure statement Ex. PW20/G. The aforesaid motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW20/H. Accused Mukesh then pointed out the aforesaid place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW20/I. Accused Mukesh was then taken to PS and case property was deposited in Malkhana. PW20 identified the danda Ex. P1

18. PW21 Inspector Rajender Singh deposed that on 12­10­2006, he was posted as Inspector (investigation) in PS FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 28 of 60 Nangloi and on receipt of information from ASI Om Prakash, he reached Sonia Hospital, Nangloi at around 11:30 pm where he came to know that one Dhillu had died due to injuries caused by some assailants. The dead body was sent to SGM hospital by ASI Om Prakash for preservation. PW21 along with Om Prakash and other police staff reached at the place of occurrence i.e. village Mundka. ASI Om Prakash prepared a rukka on the statement of one public witness Suresh. At around 12:30 am, Ct. John Patrick was deputed for registration of FIR at PS Nangloi. Crime Team inspected the spot and prepared their report Ex. PW14/A and handed over same to PW21. Photographs of the place of occurrence were taken by Crime Team official. PW21 identified the photographs Ex. PW12/1 to PW12/10. Thereafter, PW21 collected blood sample lying on the road and kept the same in a plastic jar and same was sealed with the seal of RS. One right side slipper belonging to deceased was seized which was lying at the corner of gali and other chappal of deceased was seized from the house of Sarla, sister of deceased. A separate pullanda was prepared of both the slippers and same were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/B. PW21 recorded statements of Crime Team officials and prepared rough site plan Ex. PW21/A at the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 29 of 60 instance of public witness Suresh. PW21 recorded statements of public witnesses namely Sarla, Sunil and Manish. PW21 seized the blood­stained shirt of brother of deceased namely Suresh which he was wearing when deceased was shifted to hospital by him. The sealed pullanda of the same was prepared and seal of RS was appended and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Thereafter, search was made of accused persons named in the FIR. Thereafter, PW21 went to SGM hospital along with Naresh, brother of deceased and one relative of deceased from village Mundka. Dead body was shown to both the witnesses and they identified the dead body of deceased Sudhir @ Dhillu. Statement of Naresh Kumar and Om Prakash were recorded regarding identification of deceased vide Ex. PW7/A and PW4/A. Form 25.35B was prepared by PW21 as Ex. PW21/B. A request was made to the doctor to conduct autopsy on the body of deceased vide Ex. PW21/C. PW21 also prepared brief facts of the case vide Ex. PW21/D. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to relatives of deceased. Ct. Rajender handed over to PW21 two sealed pullandas and one sample seal which he received from the doctor after postmortem of the deceased and he seized the said pullanda through seized memo Ex. PW16/A. FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 30 of 60 Search was made for accused persons.

19. PW21 further deposed that on 26­10­2006, accused Ranbir and Ashu did not surrender before the court despite moving application in this regard. PW21 along with staff came to the court and both the accused Ranbir and Ashu (correctly identified) met them outside Gate no. 4 (western side) Rohini Court. Both of them were apprehended and arrested in the present case vide arrest memo Ex. PW20/A and PW21/E. PW21 also prepared personal search memo of both the accused vide memo Ex. PW21/F and PW21/G. Both of them were interrogated and they made disclosure statements Ex. PW20/A and PW9/B. Thereafter, both accused persons led the police team to the place of incident i.e. in front of house of Sarla and pointed out memo of place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of both the accused vide Ex. PW10/B. Public witness Sukhbir was also present at the time of pointing out by accused. Thereafter, accused Ravi @ Ashu got recovered a danda which was concealed by him under his bed which was taken into possession. PW21 measured the said danda and total length of the danda was 3 feet 1.2 inches. The said danda was kept in a cloth piece and seal of RS was appended on the same and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A. FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 31 of 60 PW21 recorded statement of public witness Sukhbir Singh. Accused persons were again interrogated regarding their associates but they could not tell about the same. PW21 also prepared rough site plan Ex. PW21/G1 regarding the place of recovery of danda at the instance of accused Ravi @ Ashu from the house of Ranbir (father of accused Ravi). On 17­11­2006, PW21 took danda for taking subsequent opinion from the doctor regarding injuries. PW21 made a request Ex. PW21/H to the doctor for subsequent opinion. Doctor opined in subsequent opinion regarding the danda vide his endorsement Ex. PW20/B. On the same day, accused Daulat Ram (correctly identified) was produced by his advocate Sh. Gupta before PW21. Daulat Ram was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex. PW20/C and his personal search memo Ex. PW20/D was also prepared. PW21 also recorded disclosure statement of accused Daulat Ram vide Ex. PW8/A. On 18­11­2006, accused Daulat Ram was taken to the place of incident and he pointed out the place of occurrence vide Ex. PW8/B at his instance. PW21 recorded statement of public witness Sunny Lakhra. On 27­11­2006, PW21 received a secret information regarding presence of accused Mukesh in village Mundka. PW21 along with other staff reached Mundka. FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 32 of 60 Accused Mukesh was apprehended by police team near police stand near bus stand in village Mundka along with his motorcycle no. DL4SAY­5392. Accused Mukesh (correctly identified) was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW20/E and his personal search memo Ex. PW20/F was also prepared. The motorcycle seized from accused was taken into possession along with key vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/H. Thereafter, PW21 recorded disclosure statement of accused Mukesh vide Ex. PW20/G. Accused Mukesh took them to the place of incident and pointing out memo Ex. PW20/I was prepared at his instance. On 09­12­2006, PW21 took draftsman SI Mahesh Kumar to the place of occurrence and he took rough measurements and notes of the place of occurrence at his instance as well as of Suresh. Thereafter, SI Mahesh Kumar handed over to him a scaled site plan. On 11­12­2006, Ct. Pawan was directed to collect the samples from the Malkhana and he was deputed for deposit of samples at FSL Rohini. On 02­01­2007, PW21 recorded statements of Sarla, Sachin Lakhra. He seized photocopy of bank passbook Mark A and B of State Bank of India, of village Mundka from Sarla Devi from which she had withdrawn amount of Rs. 1,40,000/­ and given the same to Ranbir @ Pappu two years prior to the incident vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/D. FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 33 of 60 PW21 identified the danda Ex. P1 which was recovered by him; one full sleeves shirt of sky blue colour Ex. P­2 which was seized from Suresh, brother of deceased and one pair of rubber slipper make Relaxo Ex. P­4.

20. PW22 Ms. Anita Chhari, Senior Scientific Assistant, FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 11­12­2006, four sealed parcels were received in their office in case FIR no. 1081/06 u/s 302/34 IPC from PS Nangloi. Parcel No. 1 i.e. one sealed plastic container with the seal of RS was found containing cotton wool swab having brown stains and same was given Ex. 1. Parcel no. 2 one sealed polythene bag with the seal of SGMH mortuary was found containing one shirt, one jeans pant and one baniyan, all having brown stains and one underwear and same were given Ex. 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d. Parcel no. 3 one sealed envelope with the seal of SGMH mortuary was found containing one brown gauze piece and it was given Ex. no. 3. Parcel no. 4 one sealed cloth parcel with the seal of RS was found containing one shirt. PW22 proved her report dated 15­03­2007 as Ex. PW22/A. PW22 also examined the exhibits serologically and proved her detailed report as Ex. PW22/B.

21. It is evident from the cross­examination of PW1 that his FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 34 of 60 statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. PW1 denied the suggestion that Pappu had not visited the house of Sarla in his presence. PW1 also denied the suggestion that he had not visited the house of Sarla on the date of incident i.e. 12­10­2006. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and he does not know Mukesh. PW1 further deposed in his cross­ examination that police met him at the house of Sarla on the date of incident and on one more date on which the site plan was prepared by the police. However, PW1 did not remember the exact date but it was in October. PW1 denied the suggestion that there were many complaint against his brother Sudhir/ deceased in the locality as he was a notorious man and used to molest girls/ women in the locality. PW1 further denied the suggestion that his brother was a habitual drunkard and gambler. PW1 also denied the suggestion that his brother was under the heavy influence of liquor on 12­10­2006. PW1 further denied the suggestion that his brother did not go to the house of Ranbir but had gone for gambling with his friends. PW1 also denied the suggestion that Pappu had not taken any loan from Sarla Devi. PW1 denied the suggestion that since the pigs used to enter her house, thus many a times quarrel had taken place between his sister and brother and FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 35 of 60 those Valmikies. PW1 further denied the suggestion that those Valmikies used to throw garbage in the front of the house of Sarla in a vacant plot and thus she had taken up quarrel with them regarding it. PW1 also denied the suggestion that his brother had molested wife of one Vijay who is a resident of same locality and which was strongly objected by the residents of those locality. PW1 deposed that his sister has not given loan to anybody else. However, PW1 volunteered that she is not engaged in the business of money lending. PW1 denied the suggestion that he has not witnessed the incident. PW1 further denied the suggestion that Ranbir @ Pappu and Ravi were not present at the time of the incident or that PW1 has got them implicated in this case due to personal animosity. PW1 also denied the suggestion that Sunil and Manish are not his relatives, however, they may be related to his sister Sarla Devi. PW1 categorically denied the suggestion that the night of the incident was very dark night. PW1 deposed in his cross­examination that he and Sunil had taken his brother/ Sudhir to the hospital in the car of Chand, which was being driven by Chand. PW1 denied the suggestion that he had not taken his brother to the hospital as he was not present at the spot. PW1 denied the suggestion that Daulat Ram was never present at the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 36 of 60 spot and he is not a witness to the incident or that he has been introduced later on by the police to suit their case. PW1 also denied the suggestion that he never saw either Daulat Ram or Mukesh running from the spot. PW1 denied the suggestion that there is no electricity pole outside the house of his sister Sarla. PW1 deposed that when he had taken his brother Sudhir @ Dhillu to Sonia hospital, he met with the doctor who had examined his brother there. PW1 denied the suggestion that Daulat Ram has been falsely implicated in this case at his and his sister's instance although he had no role to play in the said incident.

22. During cross­examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that her brother was accused of molesting the girls in the locality and he was admonished several times by the locality people for his immoral conduct. PW­2 further denied the suggestion that about 15­20 days prior to the incident, her brother had molested wife of one Vijay a resident of locality along with his accomplishes. PW­2 also deposed in her cross examination that in the present case, PW­2 had helped the accused Ranbir by giving money and her husband had a plot which was sold by him, however, the sale proceeds were with her and out of curiosity, she helped the accused. The accused did not tell her his need when she gave FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 37 of 60 money to him. The source of income of PW­2 is one plot which is having two shops and which she had given on rent and she also received pension of her husband. The rent received by her is approximately Rs. 2,000/­ p.m. and the pension she received is Rs. 2,500/­ p.m. PW­2 also deposed in her cross examination that she had given the money in two installments by way of Rs. 1 lakh on one occasion and Rs. 40,000/­ on second occasion and on both the occasions, Sachin was present there. However, this fact was not stated in her statement Ex.PW2/DA, but the presence of Sachin was recorded in her supplementary statement. PW­2 denied the suggestion that deceased received injuries in the scuffle which took place at the time when he was gambling with other persons. PW­2 denied the suggestion that when her brother molested wife of Vijay, accused Ranbir and his son and other members of the locality had objected to this behaviour. PW­2 further denied the suggestion that they were having animus towards the family of Ranbir as they belong to lower caste and living in their neighbour. PW­2 also denied the suggestion that about 15 days prior to the incident, she along with her brother Sudhir and his accomplishes went to the house of Ranbir when he was taking his meals at about 8 pm in the evening and threatened FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 38 of 60 him that he would not rear pigs in the vicinity of their house and when he refused, Sudhir/deceased had manhandled him also. PW­2 deposed in her cross examination that Manish is her real nephew and is residing at a distance from her house. Sunil is a distant relative and is residing at a distance of around 3­4 minutes walk from her house. PW­2 could not tell the exact time of arrival of Manish and Sunil, but they came immediately after the occurrence when accused ran away. Chand Ram is also her nephew and is living in other street. Sudhir brother of PW­2 was taken in Maruti Car by Chand. Suresh and Manish followed them in a motorcycle. Many persons gathered at the spot after Sudhir was taken away. PW­2 denied the suggestion that her brother had an altercation with the persons with whom he was drinking and gambling on the issue of money and because of the said reason, a fight broke out between them in which he received injuries. PW­2 further denied the suggestion that she had not seen the accused persons at the time of alleged incident at the place of incident. PW­2 also denied the suggestion that she has falsely implicated the accused in connivance with her brother to settle personal scores with the accused as they do not want that the accused persons should live in the locality because of pig rearing and other FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 39 of 60 habits ancillary to their caste.

23. During cross­examination, PW2 further deposed that she had usually seen accused Mukesh sitting with accused Pappu outside the house of Pappu. She also deposed that the house of accused is situated in the next gali from her house. PW2 further deposed that accused Mukesh is in Delhi Police but she was not aware about his rank. PW2 also deposed that after hearing the noise outside her house, she went outside her house and place of occurrence was about 10 to 15 paces from her house. PW2 rushed immediately to the spot but she could not tell the exact time in which she reached there. PW2 further deposed that time taken in reaching to the place of occurrence from her house shall be around one minute. The incident of fighting continued for 5­7 minutes. PW2 also deposed that at the time when accused persons were pressing the danda on the throat of the deceased, she was opening the grill of her gate and danda was pressed on one side by accused Ashu and Pappu and on other side, it was being pressed by accused Mukesh and Daulat. PW2 denied the suggestion that accused had not pressed the danda on the neck of deceased Sudhir or that accused Mukesh was not present at the spot. PW2 further denied that accused persons had not escaped FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 40 of 60 from the spot after leaving the danda at the spot. PW2 also denied that on the day of incident there was no electricity in the area.

24. PW1 and PW2, both the eyewitnesses of the occurrence are the relatives of the deceased. Relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyze the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. It cannot be said that a witness being a close relative and consequently being a partisan witness should not be relied upon. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sucha Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 3617 (1). Similarly, in the case of Harbans Kaur & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 2989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no proposition in law that the relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. Reason has to be shown when plea of partiality is raised to show that witnesses had reason to shield the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 41 of 60 actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. In the present case, accused have not shown any reason as to why the brother and sister of the deceased would shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused persons.

25. During cross­examination, PW3 deposed that except the signatures at point A, the remaining portion of the MLC Ex. PW3/A is in his handwriting which was prepared in the presence of Dr. Kukreja. In cross­examination, PW5 deposed that house of Manish is in the next gali and may not even be 100 meters from his house. PW5 further deposed that house of Sarla is at a distance of 4­5 houses away from his house. PW5 denied the suggestion that house of Manish is more than a half kilometer from his house. PW5 also deposed that he heard the noise/ voices coming from the gali and he met Manish outside his house. PW5 further deposed that there was light in the gali and he saw Daulat and Mukesh running towards Phirni Road on a motorcycle and at that time, he was at a distance of 100­150 feets from Sudhir. PW5 denied the suggestion that accused Daulat and Mukesh were not even present at the spot due to which he was unable to tell the number and colour of motorcycle. PW5 further deposed that Manish accompanied him to the spot. PW5 also deposed that he had seen FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 42 of 60 accused Mukesh and Daulat while fleeing from the spot on a motorcycle and they were known to him before the incident. PW5 further deposed that Mukesh had been visiting his neighborhood and as such he knew him. PW5 denied the suggestion that Mukesh used to go to Sultanpuri to perform his duty or that he never visited his neighborhood. PW5 further deposed that it takes about 30 seconds to reach the house of Sarla from his house. PW5 also deposed that he got the Maruti van from his known persons near the house of Manish and Chand drove the Maruti van to the hospital. PW5 further deposed that Sonia Hospital is at a distance of about 2­3 kilometers from the spot.

26. In his cross­examination, PW6 deposed that he had stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that Sudhir @ Dhillu was the brother in law of his neighbour Rajbir and he was lying in an unconscious and injured condition in the gali and Suresh was asking to take Dhillu to hospital immediately. PW6 further deposed that Sunil Vats went to bring the vehicle of Chand and that Sunil and Chand rushed Sudhir @ Dhillu to the hospital in the said vehicle. PW6 also deposed that he was not aware that Sudhir was a gambler but deposed that he used to consume alcohol occasionally. PW6 further deposed that distance between his FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 43 of 60 house and house of Sunil is about 150­200 meters. PW6 also deposed that he was on the first floor of the house when his mother told him that Sunil was calling him from outside. PW6 deposed that house of Sarla is about 200­250 meters from his house. PW6 denied the suggestion that there was no light at the house of Sarla. PW6 also denied the suggestion that a quarrel had taken place between the families of accused Ranbir and Sarla because sometimes the pigs entered the house of Sarla. PW6 also deposed that Sarla was dealing in money lending. PW6 further denied that Sudhir was sharing the company of vagabonds. PW6 deposed that he reached the spot within two minutes. PW6 denied the suggestion that he had deposed at the instance of family of Sarla and Suresh. PW6 further denied that Suresh did not disclose to him that Sudhir had been attacked by accused persons. During cross­examination, PW9 denied the suggestion that he had not recorded DD entries as deposed or that said DD entries were inserted later on to falsely implicate the accused persons.

27. In cross­examination, PW10 deposed that police officials had prepared the site plan of the spot from where danda Ex. P1 was recovered. PW10 denied the suggestion that nothing FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 44 of 60 was recovered at the instance of accused Ravi @ Ashu as alleged or that he was a planted witness. During cross­examination, PW11 denied that he had not delivered the copies of FIR as deposed. In cross­examination, PW12 denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot or that he had not clicked the photographs as deposed. In his cross­examination, PW13 deposed that documents had already been prepared by the concerned doctor before he reached the hospital. He further deposed that rukka was handed over to him at about 12:30 am in the night and it took him about 10 minutes to reach the PS along with rukka. PW13 denied the suggestion that Suresh never met him at the hospital or that he was deposing falsely. PW13 also denied that rukka was not prepared in the hospital or that it was prepared later on at PS. PW13 further deposed that when he reached the spot along with IO ASI Om Prakash, there were about 4­5 persons present there and they had inspected the spot on reaching there. PW13 also deposed that spot was located in a street in the residential locality. PW13 further deposed that ASI Om Prakash had made markings on the spot. PW13 also deposed that he did not notice the direction towards which the trail of blood was leading as it was night time but he had noticed the blood spots. PW13 denied the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 45 of 60 suggestion that he had gone to Sonia Hospital alone because of which only his name is entered in the MLC. PW13 further deposed that he had taken the dead body to SGM hospital after registration of FIR and at the time of deposit of dead body in the mortuary, an entry was made in the register upon which he initialled the entry. PW13 further deposed that he stayed at SGM mortuary till the postmortem of dead body. PW13 denied the suggestion that all the writing work was done while sitting at PS or that FIR have been manipulated later on at the instance of relatives of deceased to falsely implicate the accused persons.

28. During cross­examination, PW14 deposed that besides him, the other members of Crime Team were photographer Ct. Raj Kumar and HC Surender. PW14 further deposed that they remained at the spot for about one hour and IO of this case was present at the spot prior to the Crime Team arrival. PW14 also deposed that after giving instructions to the IO to collect the blood stained earth, he left the spot. PW14 identified the right foot chappal as Ex. P4 (colly) which he had seen at the spot. In his cross­examination, PW16 denied the suggestion that no departure entry was made in DD register of PS. PW16 deposed that he reached the hospital at about 10--10:05 am and he remained at FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 46 of 60 the hospital till he was handed over seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. PW16 further deposed that he left the hospital and reached PS at 1:30 pm. PW16 denied the suggestion that since he was not present at the hospital, he was not aware if recording of witnesses had taken place or not at the hospital. PW16 further deposed that public witnesses were present when Ex. PW16/A was prepared. In his cross­examination, PW18 deposed that he was not aware as to why Smt. Sarla had given Rs. 1,40,000/­ to Ranbir but by chance, he was there. Ranbir remained for about half an hour at the house of Smt. Sarla in his presence and he left the house of Smt. Sarla before Ranbir left the house of Smt. Sarla. PW18 further deposed that he knew Ranbir prior to the date when the money was paid by Smt. Sarla to him since he was living in the neighborhood of Smt. Sarla. PW18 also deposed that no writing work was done in respect of money paid by Smt. Sarla to Ranbir. PW18 also deposed that he was not on visiting terms at the house of accused Ranbir but was on talking terms. PW18 denied the suggestion that fact of giving Rs. 1,40,000/­ by Smt. Sarla to accused Ranbir is a concoction on his part or that no such amount was paid by Smt. Sarla to accused Ranbir.

29. During cross­examination, PW19 deposed that at the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 47 of 60 time of receiving DD no. 45A, he was on emergency duty in PS and he departed the PS immediately after receiving the DD. PW19 further deposed that it took him around ten minutes for reaching the spot from the PS and after reaching the spot, he made inquiries from the local residents and he was told that injured had been taken to Sonia Hospital. PW19 also deposed that Ct. John Patrick accompanied him to the hospital and after reaching the hospital, he met the concerned doctor on duty. PW19 further deposed that MLC of deceased had already been prepared by the concerned doctor before they reached the hospital and his signatures were taken on the MLC register at the time of taking the MLC from hospital. PW19 further deposed that at the time of his reaching the hospital, he came across three persons including Suresh. PW19 denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely regarding the presence of Suresh in the hospital as if he was there, his name would have been mentioned in the MLC. PW19 also deposed that he recorded statement of Suresh at the spot and thereafter tehrir was prepared and when they again reached the spot, some local people were still there who were inquired by IO Inspector R. S. Malik. PW19 could not recollect the nature of photographs taken by the Crime Team at the spot but according to FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 48 of 60 him photographs of blood­stained earth, chappal of the injured and other places were taken. PW19 denied the suggestion that at the time when they reached the spot, there was complete darkness over there. PW19 further denied that he had not joined the investigation on the said date as deposed or that he had not visited the spot and hospital or that no inquiries or investigation was conducted in his presence at the spot.

30. In his cross­examination, PW20 ASI Jagmer Singh denied the suggestion that documents pertaining to the recovery of danda as well as pointing out memos and disclosure statements were fabricated later on at the PS by the IO. PW20 further deposed that accused Ravi @ Ashu took them to his house having one gate from where he got recovered the danda and there were two rooms in the said house. PW20 also deposed that IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery. PW20 further deposed that they remained in the house of accused Ravi for about 30­45 minutes. PW20 also deposed that people from the neighborhood gathered on seeing the police and they refused to join the investigation. PW20 further deposed that seizure memo of danda was prepared in his presence and it was recorded i the seizure memo that one side of danda was pointed. PW20 denied FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 49 of 60 the suggestion that no recovery was effected as alleged or that entire proceedings were conducted while sitting in the PS. PW20 further denied that alleged danda was planted on the accused at the behest and instance of Smt. Sarla and Sukhbir Singh. PW20 further denied that theory of information received from the secret informer regarding the identity of Mukesh is false and manipulated in order to suit the story of Prosecution. PW20 also deposed that place from where accused Mukesh was arrested was a busy road and there were lot of people/ passersby who were travelling on the road at the time of arrest of accused Mukesh. PW20 further deposed that IO had requested number of persons to become witness to the arrest of accused Mukesh but they refused. PW20 also denied that he gave false explanation regarding non­joining of independent persons at the time of arrest of accused Mukesh. PW20 further denied that accused Mukesh never made disclosure statement nor it was recorded in his presence.

31. In his cross­examination, PW21 denied the suggestion that when he reached the spot, he found complete darkness over there. He volunteered to say that there was light and he showed the same in the site plan. PW21 further volunteered that factum of bulb hanging outside the house of Sarla was mentioned in the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 50 of 60 statement of Suresh. PW21 also deposed that Crime Team arrived at the spot after his reaching there. PW21 further deposed that there is no other house adjacent to the house of Sarla except the house of accused Ranbir. PW21 denied that he had deliberately not examined any independent witness and had made only the family members of Sarla and Suresh as the witnesses in the case in order to crop up the false story of the investigation. PW21 further deposed that investigation of this case remained with him from the date of registration of FIR till the filing of the chargesheet. PW21 also deposed that he came to know about the actual place of occurrence on 13­10­2006. PW21 denied the suggestion that he had deliberately called Sunny Lakra to become a witness knowing fully well that he was not an independent person being related to Sarla. PW21 volunteered to say that he had not recorded the statement of any other witness because no other person of the locality came forward to testify regarding the incident. PW21 denied that he had selectively made relatives of Sarla as witnesses in the case to falsely implicate the accused and to support the false story of Prosecution. PW21 further denied that he introduced Suresh much later to the incident and made him an eyewitness deliberately in order to falsely implicate the accused. FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 51 of 60 PW21 also deposed that MLC of deceased prepared in Sonia Hospital was collected by ASI Om Prakash. He further volunteered to say that when he reached Sonia Hospital, he found Suresh present in the hospital with ASI Om Prakash. PW21 also deposed that he had correctly recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Viz. Ex. PW1/DA, Ex. PW2/DA, PW5/DA. PW21 further denied the suggestion that documents relating to disclosures and seizure memos were fabricated later on at the PS.

32. Therefore, it is proved on record by way of oral testimony of PWs supported by documentary evidence and the case property as discussed above that PW1 categorically deposed that accused Ranbir @ Pappu was holding his brother from neck and accused Mukesh, Daulat were giving legs and fists blows to his brother Sudhir in gali by the side of the gate. Immediately, accused Ashu also reached there having danda in his hand and gave two­three danda blows on the head of his brother Sudhir. PW1 identified all the four accused in the court. Due to the scuffle and injuries, his brother Sudhir fell down on the ground. After that all the four accused pressed the neck of his brother Sudhir with danda using force. They reached there to intervene but accused Daulat and Mukesh ran away from the spot on motorcycle after the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 52 of 60 incident. PW1 proved his statement Ex. PW1/A recorded by the IO. PW1 also proved blood stained shirt of the deceased as Ex. PW1/C which he was wearing at the time of incident, blue colour blood stained shirt Ex. P­2, one blood stained jeans pant and one underwear Ex. P­3 (colly), one pair of hawai chappal Ex. P­4 (colly) out of which one was seized by the IO from the spot. PW1 also identified one danda Ex. P1 which was used by the accused at the time of incident i.e. to press the neck of the deceased. PW2 also deposed that all the three accused persons were beating her brother Sudhir with legs and fists blows. Accused Pappu caught hold the neck of her brother Sudhir at that time and was exhorting "maro sale ko". After that, accused Ashu @ Ravi s/o accused Ranbir @ Pappu also reached there and he gave a lathi blow on the head, by the side of right ear, shoulder and other parts of the body of her brother Sudhir. All the accused persons also gave legs and fists blows to her brother Sudhir at that time. After that they opened the gate of their house and in the meantime accused Ashu gave 4­5 lathi blows to her brother Sudhir and accused Pappu again caught hold the neck of her brother. When they reached there, all the four accused pressed the neck of her brother Sudhir with the help of danda jointly. On their intervention, all the accused FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 53 of 60 escaped from the spot after leaving danda at the spot. Her brother Sudhir became unconscious at the spot. There is a minor contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 regarding the blows of lathi which do not affect the merits of the case. PW2 paid the cash amount of Rs. 1,40,000/­ to the accused Ranbir @ Pappu in the presence of Sachin Kumar and also an amount of Rs. 20,000/­ which was paid to the accused Ranbir @ Pappu six months prior to the incident. PW2 also identified all the accused persons in the court. PW5 found the accused Daulat and Mukesh running towards Phirni Road from the gali on a motorcycle and also the accused Ashu with his father accused Pappu running towards village. PW5 correctly identified all the accused persons. PW6 also came out and went in nearby gali with Sonu where he saw Dhillu @ Sudhir lying on the ground. During investigation, the accused Daulat Ram gave disclosure statement Ex. PW8/A and also pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW8/B. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 54 of 60 no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted.

33. PW3 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Mishra examined the patient Sudhir @ Dhillu in the presence of Dr. Ashwani Kumar Kukreja and declared him as "brought dead". PW3 proved the MLC as Ex. PW3/A. PW4 identified the dead body of his brother in law Sudhir @ Dhillu vide Ex. PW4/A. PW9 proved the DD no. 45A Ex. PW9/A and DD no. 46A Ex. PW9/B and further the FIR no. 1081/06 as Ex. PW9/C and endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW9/D. PW10 identified accused Pappu and Ashu. The accused got recovered the danda Ex. P­1 lying underneath the bed in the room at the house of accused Pappu. Accused Pappu and Ashu also pointed out the place of murder to the police vide pointing out memo Ex. PW10/B. PW12 took photographs Ex. PW12/1 to PW12/10 of the spot from different angles and also proved the negatives of the photographs as Ex. PW12/11 to PW12/20. PW14 SI Anil Kumar also proved his report as Ex PW14/A. PW16 proved sealed packets containing the clothes of the deceased, blood gauze and sample of SGMH mortuary vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. PW17 MHCM also proved the entry at Sl. no. 5753 as Ex. PW17/A, entry no. 5802 Ex. PW17/B, entry no. 5894 as Ex. PW17/C, four sealed FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 55 of 60 pullandas vide RC no. 553/21 as Ex. PW17/D received as Ex. PW17/A. PW19 proved the request letter for preserving the dead body of the deceased as Ex. PW19/A. PW20 ASI Jagmer Singh proved the disclosure statements of the accused as Ex. PW20/A and PW20/B. The recovery of danda was effected in the presence of public witness Sukhbir Singh who also signed the recovery memo as Ex. PW10/A with PW20. PW20 also proved the arrest memo of accused Daulat Ram as Ex. PW20/C and his personal search memo as Ex. PW20/D. PW20 further proved the arrest memo of accused Mukesh as Ex. PW20/E and his personal search memo as Ex. PW20/F, disclosure statement of accused Mukesh as Ex. PW20/G, seizure memo of motorcycle as Ex. PW20/H, pointing out memo of accused Mukesh as Ex. PW20/I. PW20 also identified the danda as Ex. P­1. PW21 further proved the rough site plan as Ex. PW21/A. PW21 further proved the form 25.35B prepared by him as Ex. PW21/B, request made to the doctor to conduct autopsy on the body of deceased vide Ex. PW21/C, brief facts of the case as Ex. PW21/D, the arrest memo of accused Ranbir and Ashu as Ex. PW20/A and PW21/E, personal search memos of both the accused as Ex. PW21/F and PW21/G.

34. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 56 of 60 investigation is defective or faulty, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported as Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1995 SC 2472=AIR 2004 SC 1920 it was held that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused persons solely on account of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.

35. In the present case, though there are some contradictions in the testimony of the aforesaid PWs yet these contradictions are minor contradictions and do not go to the root or core of this case. In this context, a reliance is placed upon the judgement reported as State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety. Further, so far as public witnesses joining the investigation are concerned, PW20 ASI Jagmer Singh in his cross­examination deposed that IO had FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 57 of 60 requested number of persons to become a witness to the arrest of accused Mukesh. However, they refused to do so. During cross­ examination, PW21 also volunteered that he had not recorded statement of any other witness in the locality because no other person of the locality came forward to testify regarding the incident. It is relevant to mention here that the public persons are reluctant to become witnesses of criminal trial. Therefore, law is not that testimony of police officers apart from the eyewitness is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. It has been held in a catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because public witnesses are not joined in a case, the Prosecution case cannot be thrown out. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused for non­joining of independent public witnesses. In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgements reported as State of UP Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998; Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State 2002 (2) Crimes 63 (SC); Dr. Krishna Pal & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1996 (7) SCC 194.

36. As per the postmortem report following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

1. Bruising on left shoulder on its outer aspect of size 3 cms x 2 FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 58 of 60 cms.

2. Bruising of lower lip.

3. Lacerated wound just below chin 3 cms x .5 cms x muscle deep.

4. Multiple bruises on front of neck of size varying from 3 cms x 2 cms to 2 cms x 2 cms.

5. Lacertated would on right temporal region 3 cms x 2 cms x scalp deep.

On internal examination, there was sub­scalp haemotoma on right temporo­parietal region. There was generalized subdural haemotoma and subarachnoid haemorrhage on tempo­parietal region, on internal examination of neck, there was bruising of neck tissue on front. PW20 Dr. V. K. Jha, Medical Officer, BJRM hospital after conducting postmortem vide PM report Ex. PW20/A, also opined that cause of death as coma as a result of head injury consequent to blunt force diverted upon head by other party and the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There is sufficient evidence proved on record that the accused persons had assaulted upon the deceased Sudhir @ Dhillu and from the injuries found on the person of deceased as detailed in the postmortem report, it can be said beyond FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 59 of 60 reasonable doubt that the accused persons really intended to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, the accused persons can be attributed that there was intention on their part either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for accused are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

37. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold all accused namely Ranbir @ Pappu, Ravi @ Ashu, Daulat Ram and Mukesh Kumar guilty and convict them u/s 302/34 IPC.

(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW­03:ROHINI:DELHI.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 30­08­2012 FIR No. 1081/06; State Vs. Ranbir @ Pappu etc. Page 60 of 60