Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Than Singh S/O Late Sh. Lalu Singh on 28 March, 2018

    IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH TEWARI : DISTRICT &
     SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS :
                        DELHI: 

SC No. 457/2016
CNR No. DLET01­000485­2013

State             Vs.          1. Than Singh S/o Late Sh. Lalu Singh 
                               R/o H.No. B­42, South Ganesh Nagar, 
                               Delhi. 

                               2. Dheeraj Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Than 
                               Singh, R/o H.No. B­42, South Ganesh 
                               Nagar, Delhi.

                               3. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Than Singh,
                               R/o H.No. B­42, South Ganesh Nagar, 
                               Delhi.


FIR No. 443/2013
U/s 307/302/34 IPC
PS Shakarpur

Date of Institution              : 26.08.2013
Date of Reserving for Judgement  : 13.03.2018
Date of Pronouncement            : 22.03.2018

J U D G M E N T :­ 
    1.

The prosecution case emanates from the facts that on 16.05.2013, Inspector Vikaramjit Singh received DD No.3A, and as per the said DD, an occupant of Swift Dzire bearing No. SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.1/50 DL5CK2955   fired   a   gun   shot.   In   the   meantime,   at   about 12.47am vide DD No. 4A dated 16.05.2013, SI Yogesh along with Ct. Mohit reached at the spot i.e. on the Pushta Road the way leading from Gandhi Nagar to Akshardham Mandir, near Lalita Park bus stand speed braker, and that at the spot, two cars i.e. Swift Dzire No. DL5CK2955 of white colour and Swift VDI No. DL9CK9245 were found stationed in accidental condition, and that blood, glass pieces of cars, pieces of Mangalsutra, one broken   Kadi   (hook)   of   Lane   Yard   and   five   empty   cartridges were found at the spot, and that it revealed that the PCR van removed the injured to Walia Nursing Home, Laxmi Nagar, and Inspector   Vikramjit   Singh   along   with   staff   reached   Walia Nursing Home where it transpired that one Rajiv was declared brought dead who was having gun shot injuries, and that Raju, maternal cousin brother of deceased met them in the hospital, and that two persons, namely, Raj Kumar and Mohit Singh from the   opposite   side   were   also   found   admitted   in   the   Nursing Home, and that on the basis of MLCs of Raj Kumar and Mohit, a   separate   case   was   registered   vide   FIR   No.   444/2013   under Section 323/341/34 IPC by SI Rishikesh with regard to injuries sustained by Raj Kumar and Mohit Singh, and that on enquiry, Raju informed that Than Singh along with his sons fired gun shots to Rajiv and two sons of Than Singh were also involved in the incident, and that one person Than Singh, having used the SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.2/50 revolver   in   the   incident,   also   met   in   the   hospital   who   was identified by Raju, and that 11 live cartridges were found in the belt of his revolver case, and that on checking the revolver, six loaded cartridges were also found therein, and that Than Singh disclosed that he had fired upon the deceased, and the revolver as well as one live cartridge out of those cartridges were seized and dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary, and that Raju, Than Singh and Dheeraj son of Than Singh who were present in the   hospital,   were  taken   to  the   spot.   Photographs   of   the   spot were taken. 

2.   The statement of Raju was recorded and as per his statement, on 15.05.2013 at about 12.00am he along with his cousin Rajiv, Sandeep and Sita Ram were returning from a party at Khajuri, and that they were in the red coloured Swift car of Sandeep   bearing   No.   DL9CK9245   which   was   driven   by Sandeep,   and   when   their   car   reached   the   road   leading   from Gandhi   Nagar   to   Akshardham,   near   Lalita   Park   bus   stop, suddenly   the   driver   of   the   car   moving   ahead   bearing   No. DL5CK2955   applied   brakes   and   their   car   hit   the   car   moving ahead and  that when they tried to stop that car, the said car also hit another car on the way due to which the said car stopped, and that when Raju and others asked the driver of the said car to come out, it was found that it was driven by Dheeraj son of Than Singh who was known to them earlier, and that in the said car, SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.3/50 Dheeraj  was accompanied  by his father  Than Singh, brothers Raj Kumar, Mohit and the wife of Dheeraj and that Dheeraj, his brothers Raj Kumar and Mohit and his father Than Singh came out of the car and started beating them with legs and fists, and that accused Raj Kumar asked "Papa Aaj Inko Jaan Se Maar Denge and Papa Revolver Nikalo and Inko Goli Maar Do" (Dad, they would be killed on that very day and asked the dad to take out   revolver   and   shoot   them),   and   that   Than   Singh   took   out revolver from his side and fired three gun shots on Rajiv and also fired gun shots towards them, and that they all three saved themselves by running from there and he informed the police at number   100,   and   he   removed   his   brother   to   Walia   Nursing Home in the said PCR Van and doctor declared him brought dead in the said Nursing Home. 

3.   On the basis of the said statement of Raju, the case FIR   was   registered   under   Section   302/307/323/34   IPC   and Section  27  of   the  Arms  Act  through  Ct.  Bijender  by  the  IO. During investigation,   Crime team reached at the spot and the spot   was   got   photographed   from   different   angles.   In   the meanwhile, an information received through control room E­50 that   the   third   car   involved   in   the   incident   was   caught   at Mandawali picket in accidental condition. Then SI Yogesh along with   Inspector   Vikramjit   Singh   reached   Akshardham   picket where   car   bearing   No.   HR26AP3526   being   driver   by   Ajay SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.4/50 Kumar was found. He was accompanied with Jagram who was also having injuries on his person. He was sent to LBS Hospital for   treatment.   The   said   car   was   taken   into   police   possession. Statement of Ajay was recorded who reiterated the allegations against the accused persons and also stated that Mohit (Juvenile) gave severe beatings to Jagram. IO reached back at the spot and prepared   the   site   plan   of   the   spot   and   five   empty   cartridges found at the spot were seized and exhibits were lifted, besides blood, blood stained earth and earth control were also lifted in different   Parcels.   There   were   eight   other   exhibits   viz   broken glass pieces, mangalsutra of a lady and broken kadi (hook) of lanyard etc were taken into possession by the police and the cars bearing   No.   DL5CK2955   (Swift   D'zire   white   colour)   and DL9CK9245 (Swift VDI) were also seized by the police. One sword along with its case was also seized from car bearing No. DL5CK2955. Supplementary statement of Raju was recorded in which he stated that the third car bearing No. HR26AP3526 was also there and due to death of Rajiv, he could not state so. He stated that the said car was being driven by Ajay Kumar who was accompanied with his uncle Jagram. In the quarrel, accused Mohit gave severe beatings to Jagram and also asked his father Than Singh to shoot him also. IO seized the blood stained cloths of the accused persons. Accused Than Singh, Dheeraj and Raj Kumar   were   arrested.   Accused   Mohit   was   also   apprehended.

FSL Team inspected the cars in question. Bumpers of the cars were also seized. Bullet recovered from the body of deceased was sent to FSL. 

4.   During   investigation,   statements   of   Ajay   Kumar, Jagram and Sita Ram were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C in which they stated that they were given beatings by the accused pesons   and   that   accused   Than   Singh   fired   gun   shots   upon deceased Rajiv and also on them. During investigation, it was found   that   accused   Mohit   was   juvenile,   therefore,   separate proceedings   were   initiated   against   him.   Consequently, chargesheet   was   filed   against   accused   Than   Singh,   Dheeraj Kumar   and   Raj   Kumar   for   offence   under   Section 302/307/323/34 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act, 1959. 

5.   Vide order dated 18.09.2013, my Ld. Predecessor framed   charges   against   the   accused   for   the   offences   under Sections   302/307/323/34   IPC,   besides   a   separate   charge   for offence under Section 27 Arms Act against accused Than Singh was framed,  to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 

6.   In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined   as   many   as   37   witnesses   in   the   case,   whose depositions have been discussed below.

7.   The   accused   were   examined   under   Section   313 Cr.P.C, wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them as false and claimed themselves to be innocent and having SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.6/50 been falsely implicated in the case. They pleaded that they have not committed any such offences. However, accused Than Singh pleaded   that   one   Ram   Prakash   relative   of   Sandeep,   Jagram, Ajay,   Rajeev,   Sita   Ram,   Raju,   Dinesh   and   Umesh   had threatened   him   of   his   life   and   a   complaint   was   filed   by   him against him on 13.05.2016 at PS Mandavali, Delhi. In retaliation when he along with his sons and daughter­in­law were returning to their home from engagement ceremony of Bhuvnesh, son of Bharat Singh from Bhajanpura, Sandeep, Jagram, Ajay, Rajeev, Sita Ram, Raju, Dinesh and Umesh armed with danda, iron rod, hammer,   hockey   sticks   and   revolvers   in   their   hands   attacked them in a pre­planned manner. They opened the door of their car and pulled his daughter­in­law at the point of revolver. The said persons also  pulled  his sons Raj  Kumar  and Mohit  and gave beating   to   them.   Raj   Kumar   became   unconscious   due   to beatings. They also pulled Dheeraj and gave blows from the butt of the revolver on his head. He was also pulled by Jagram Ajay and Sita Ram and they tried to snatch his revolver and he pulled the revolver in the process, and the kunda of the lanyard was broken, and during that process Jagram opened the lock of the revolver and bullets were fired during the hustle and pulling of both sides. Ajay along with Umesh and Dinesh left the spot with the car, and he also saved his daughter­in­law from the second car. In the meantime, police gypsy came to the spot and he along SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.7/50 with his sons and daughter­in­law were shifted to Walia Nursing Home   for   treatment.   Similar   is   the   claim   of   accused   Dheeraj Singh and Raj Kumar Singh. 

8.   In   support   of   their   defence,   accused   persons examined one Sh. Bharat Singh as DW1, who deposed that on 15.05.2013   there   was   an   engagement   ceremony   of   his   son Bhuvnesh at Ambika Palace, Wazirabad Road, Bhajanpura, and the invitation card of said ceremoney is Ex.DW1/A. He further deposed   that   he   had   invited   all   the   accused   along   with   their family members in the said function, and accused Than Singh, his sons, namely, Dheeraj, Raj Kumar and Mohit and daughter­ in­law   Babli   attended   the   said   function,   and   that   he   did   not remember the exact time of leaving accused from there, and the he had not invited Jagram, Sandeep, Ajay, Raju, Rajiv and Sita Ram in the said function. On being cross­examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he replied that Jagram, Sandeep, Ajay, Raju and   Sita   Ram   had   not   attended   the   function   and   he   had   no relations with them. He also replied that it might be possible that his son Bhuvnesh might have invited Jagram, Sandeep, Ajay, Raju and Sita Ram. 

9.   I have heard the Ld. Chief PP for the State as well as Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, for the accused, as well as perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused and on behalf of the complainant, and also perused the record. 

10.  Taking   the   Official   witnesses   first,   the   PW1   SI Sumer   Singh   registered   case   FIR   No.   443/2013,   U/s 302/307/323/34 IPC & U/s 27/54/59 Arms Act vide DD No. 7A and made his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/A and proved copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B, and thereafter sent a copy of the same to Senior   Police   Officers   and   concerned   Ld.   MM.   PW2   HC   Jai Prakash deposed about the fact of taking possession of Swift car vide Memo Ex.PW2/A. PW3 Ct. Vikas took 29 photographs of the scene of crime as well as of the Swift Car of red colour, which collectively exhibited as Ex.P1 and P2 as the negative and positive   photographs   respectively.   PW5   Ct.   Devender   was posted as motorcycle rider on 16.05.2013 at PS Shakarpur and he   delivered   copies   of   FIR   to   Senior   Police   Officers   and concerned Ld. MM. PW8 Ct. Gajender was handed over rukka by Inspector Vikramjeet and he got the case FIR   No. 443/13 registered and thereafter returned original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. 

11.  PW9 Ram Prakash deposed that on 16.05.2013 he was informed that his son Rajeev had been murdered and he was called at Mortuary Subzi Mandi, where he identified dead body of his son Rajeev and his statement Ex.PW9/A was recorded, his signatures   also   appears   on   death   Report   Ex.PW9/B   and   after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to him vide memo Ex.PW9/C.   PW10   Rakesh   Thakur   being   distant   relative   of SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.9/50 deceased visited the mortuary Subzi Mandi on 16.05.2013 on receipt of information that Rajeev had expired. PW13 Chetan was working as motor mechanic and he was called by police on 20.05.2013 and removed bumpers and number plates of car No. DL5CK2955   and   HR26AP3526,   which   police   had   taken   into possession   vide   memo   Ex.PW13/A.     PW14   Ct.   Mohit   joined investigation with Inspector Vikramjit Singh and SI Yogesh. He deposed   all   the   investigative   steps   which   took   place   in   his presence   viz   collection   of   MLCs   of   Rajeev,   Raj   Kumar   and Mohit,   sending   of   dead   body   of   Rajeev   to   Subzi   Mandi Mortuary,   deposit   and   preservation   of   dead   body   and postmortem on the dead body was got conducted. Thereafter, he produced three parcels, one consisting of bullet recovered from body of Rajeev; one pullanda consisting of cloths of deceased Rajeev  and one  pullanda  of   blood gauze,  sealed  with  seal  of mortuary  and  sample  seal  and  viscera  to the  IO,  which  were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/A. 

12.  PW15   Dr.   Sachin   proved   MLC   of   Jagram   as Ex.PW15/A,   which   was   prepared   by   Dr.   J.   Mech   who   had worked under his supervision in the casualty and he had seen him   writing   and   signing.   PW16   Constable   Pramod   Bhardwaj deposed   that   he   had   driven   the   car   No.   HR26AP3526,   Ct. Nagender had driven car No. DL5CK2955 and Ct. Gajender had driver   Car   No.   DL9CK9245   from   malkhana   to   spot   on SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.10/50 20.05.2013 and then CFSL Team inspected the scene of crime as well as position of vehicles. PW17 Constable Balwan deposited exhibits viz one viscera parcel sealed with seal of CMO Subzi Mandi   Mortuary   and   four   parcels   sealed   with   seal   of   PS Shakarpur vide RC No. 139/21/13 and 141/21 respectively at FSL Rohini under the receipt, which receipt was deposited with MHC(M) on the same day. PW18 Constable Arun had deposited 15 parcels at FSL Rohin vide RC No. 143/21/13 on 10.06.2013 and handed over receipt of the same to MHC(M) on that very day. PW19 Constable Anu Kumari was working at Channel No. 126 at Police Control Room as Channel Operator on intervening night of 15/16­05­2013 and at about 12.33am, she recorded an information   in   PCR   Form   No.1   Part   II   and   proved   said information   as   Ex.PW19/A.   PW20   HC   Adesh   Kumar   proved copy   of   DD   No.6B   dated   13.05.2013   as   Ex.PW20/A   and photocopy of complaint of Than Singh as mark PW20/A which bears official seal of PS Mandawali marking therein DD No.6B in the relevant column. 

13.  PW21 Dr. Akash Jhanjee conducted postmortem on the   dead   body   of   deceased   Rajeev   and   proved   his   report   as Ex.PW21/A. As per the said PM report, he found six external injuries on the body of deceased and he gave the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock consequent upon firearm injuries to chest, abdomen and left lower limb, and all the injuries were SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.11/50 antemortem and fresh in duration, and that injury No.1 to 5 were caused by ammunition of rifled fire arm, and injury No.6 was causerd by blunt force/surface impact, and that the hemorrhage and   shock   produced   are   sufficiet   to   cause   death   in   ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively.  PW22 Dr. Amar Lal proved the MLC No. 2025 dated 16.05.2013 in respect of deceased Rajeev as Ex.PW22/A, which was prepared by Dr. Dinesh Kr. Bharti. PW23 Sh. Amit Rawat, Sr. Scientific Officer, chemically   examined   exhibits   1A,   1B   and   1C,   viscera   of deceased, which were found to contain ethyl alcohol and Ex.1C was   found   to   contain   ethyl   alcohol   107.7   mg   per   100   ml   of blood.   He   proved   his   chemical   examination   report   as Ex.PW23/A.  PW24  Inspector   Mahesh  Kumar   prepared  scaled site plan Ex.PW24/A on 26.07.2013 on the basis of rough notes and   measurements.   PW25   Sh.   Parshuram   Singh,   Assistant Director (Physics), FSL Rohini, had examined vehicles bearing registration No. DL5CK2955, HR26AP3526 and DL9CK9245, which were parked in the premises of PS Shakarpur. As per the said   examination,   it   revealed   that   collusion   had   taken   place between   the   cars   bearing   registration   No.   HR26AP3526   and DL5CK2955. He proved his report to this effect as Ex.PW25/B. PW26   Sh.   Vijender,   Lab   Assistant,   Photo,   CFSL   Rohini, deposed that he had taken 14 photographs of three cars bearing registration No. DL5CK2955 (Swift Dezire), HR26AP3526 and SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.12/50 DL9CK9245 (Swift) at PS and four photographs at the spot, and that the said photographs   taken at PS are Ex.PW26/P1 to P14 and   photographs   taken   at   the   spot   are   Ex.PW26/P15   to   P18. PW27 Sh. V.R. Anand, Assistant Director  (Ballistic) deposed that   on   examination   of   cars   bearing   registration No.DL5CK2955, HR26AP3526 and DL9CK9245, no dent/hole mark of bullet had been found inside or outside the said cars. PW28 Nagender, Constable, deposed the same facts as deposed by   PW16   Constable   Pramod   Bhardwaj.   PW29   Sh.   Pradeep Singh,   Nodal   Officer,   Vodafone   Mobile   Services,   proved   the CDR of mobile No. 9873791621 from 15.05.2013 to 16.05.2013 as well  as the certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW29/A and Ex.PW29/B respectively, besides the Customer Application   Form   as   Ex.PW29/C   and   photocopy   of   ID   as Ex.PW29/D, and as per the said record the said mobile phone number was issued to Jagram s/o Durga Prasad r/o B­132, Gali No.6, Block­D, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. PW30 Dr. Sarabjit Singh, Sr. Forensic Chemical Examiner, FSL Rohini, gave biological analysis of exhibits of the case vide his report Ex.PW30/A and also examined exhibits said exhibits using various serological techniques   vide   report   Ex.PW30/B.   He   also   conducted   DNA examination vide his report Ex.PW30/C. PW31 Constable Anita received a call from one Jagram regarding firing. She filled up the PCR form and sent it to Communication Cell and proved SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.13/50 attested copy of the same as Ex.PW31/A. She also proved the certificate   under   Section   65B   of   Indian   Evidence   Act   as Ex.PW31/B.   PW32   Dr.   N.P.   Waghmare,   Assistant   Director (Ballastics)   examined   the   exhibits   of   case   and   proved   his detailed report to this effect as Ex.PW32/A. 

14.  PW33 SI Rishikesh deposed that on 16.05.2013, on receipt of DD No.3A, he along with Ct. Nagender went to Lalita Park Bus Stand, Pusta Road, Gandhi Nagar, Akshardham Road, where   he   found   two   cars   bearing   No.DL5CK2955   and DL9CK9245 in accidental condition. He found blood and five empty   cartridges   on   the   road.   In   the   meantime,   SHO   PS Shakarpur,   SI   Yogesh   and   other   staff   reached   at   the   spot. Thereafter, they went to Walia Nursing Home and found Rajiv s/o Ram prakash brought dead. Two other injured, namely Raj Kumar and Mohit were under treatment there. On the basis of MLC of both injured, SHO directed him to take action. After interrogation of both injured, their blood stained clothes were taken in separate Parcels and sealed with seal of PS Shakarpur, East District, SP­1 and both the Parcels were seized vide memo Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B, and on enquiry he found accused Mohit   was   juvenile   and   produced   before   the   Juvenile   Justice Board and was sent to Remand Home. He further deposed that accused Raju Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW33/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW33/D, SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.14/50 and he also identified the jeans pant, white shirt, baniyan, pair socks   belonging   to   accused   Raj   Kumar   as   Ex.PW33/P1 collectively. 

15.  PW35   Ms.   L.   Babyto   Devi,   Assistant   Director (Biology) inspected cars bearing registration No. DL5CK2955, HR26AP3526 and DL9CK9245, and collected blood from left side   of   the   car   No.   DL5CK2955   by   a   gauze   and   kept   in   an envelope. He also collected blood by gauze from right side of the said car and also collected blood in gauze from the car No. DL9CK9245, and handed over three envelopes to the IO, who sealed and seized the said Parcels. PW36 SI Yogesh deposed that   Than   Singh   s/o   Sh.   Lalu   Singh,   r/o   Q.No.   B­42,   South Ganesh Nagar, Shakarpur, Delhi, was having revolver No. FG­ 10729 and was issued licence No. EDTP/6/1992/3 and was valid upto 28.06.2014. He proved attested copy of the particulars of licence as Ex.PW36/A. 

16.  PW34   SI Yogesh and PW37 Inspector Vikramjit Singh, the IO, have deposed similar facts and detailed all the investigative   steps   taken   by   them.   As   per   the   testimony   of PW37, Inspector Vikramjit Singh, he was posted as SHO PS Shakarpur on the intervening night of 15/16­05­2013. On receipt of information regarding firing at Pusta Road, Lalita Park, he along with SI Yogesh and other staff went to Pusta Road, Lalita Park   Bus   Stand   where   they   found   two   vehicles   bearing SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.15/50 registration No. DL5CK2955 (Swift D'zire of white colour) and DL9CK9245 (Swift VDI of red colour) in accidental condition. He also found blood, broken glasses and five empty cartridges at the spot, and that he came to know that injured had been shifted to Walia Nursing Home by the PCR. During investigation, he directed ERV­7 staff to remain at the spot to secure the spot and went   to   Walia   Nursing   Home   along   with   other   staff,   and   he directed   SI   Rishikesh   to   take   necessary   action   on   MLCs   of injured Mohit and Raj Kumar. He further deposed that during investigation, he made inquiries from Raju (the complainant); asked accused Than singh to hand over the holster containing a revolver   and   belt   containing   cartridges;   prepared   sketch   of cartridges   and   revolver   vide   memo   Ex.PW7/B;   cartridges, holester and revolver were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/C; seized the   parcels   handed   over   by   SI   Yogesh   containing   clothes   of deceased Rajiv duly sealed with seal of Walia Nursing Home vide   memo   Ex.PW7/J;   prepared   sketch   of   one   fired   cartridge which was lying at the spot vide memo Ex.PW7/B;   recorded statement of Raju Ex.PW7/A and made endorsement vide memo Ex.PW37/A; prepared rukka and got the case registered; called the crime team and got inspected and photographed the spot; prepared site plan Ex.PW37/B on the pointing out of Raju; lifted five empty catridges from spot and kept in a parcel, sealed with seal of PS Shakarpur East District SP­1 and seized vide memo SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.16/50 Ex.PW7/D; lifted the blood with help of gauze from spot, blood stained earth control and earth control from the spot, duly sealed with seal of PS Shakarpur East District SP­01 and seized vide memo   Ex.PW7/E;   seized   the   car   No.   DL5CK2955   and   No. DL9CK9245 vide memo Ex.PW7/G and Ex.PW7/H; measured the sword, sealed it and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/G; seized blood   stained   clothes   of   accused   Than   Singh   vide   memo Ex.PW34/A, that of accused Dheeraj vide memo Ex.PW34/B, that of accused Raj Kumar vide memo Ex.PW33/A and that of accused   Mohit   (Juvenile)   vide   memo   Ex.PW33/B;   arrested accused Than Singh, Dheeraj and Raj Kumar and also prepared apprehension memo of Juvenile Mohit and also recorded their disclosure   statements   and   pointing   out   memos.   He   further deposed   that   he   also   got   examined   the   cars   bearing   No. DL5CK2955,   DL9CK9245   and   HR26AP3526   from   the   FSL Rohini,   and   recorded   statements   of   witnesses   and   after completion of investigation, challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 

17.  In his Cross­examination on behalf of the accused, PW37   IO/Inspector   Vikramjit   Singh   replied   that   no   public persons   were   present   at   the   spot   when   he   reached   there.   He replied that he came to know from ERV staff and SI Rishikesh that the injured persons were shifted to the said Nursing Home by   the   PCR.   He   replied   that   after   reaching   the   said   Nursing SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.17/50 Home, he made inquiry from Raju, the cousin of the deceased, who informed him that accused Than Singh, Raj Kumar, Mohit were also present in the said Nursing Home, and he also came to know that accused Dheeraj was also present there. He answered that  Raju had told him about involvement of only four accused on one side in the said incident, and that the deceased Rajiv and one Sita Ram  were also with him in the car. He replied that during   investigation,   he   came   to   know   that   Raju,   Rajiv (deceased),   Sita   Ram,   Sandeep,   Jagram   and   Ajay   were   also present   at   the   spot   from   the   side   of   the   complainant.   He answered that Raju had not told him that wife of Dheeraj was also   present   at   the   spot,   and   he   was   confronted   with   the statement   of   Raju   Ex.PW7/A   where   the   presence   of   wife   of Dheeraj was mentioned. He replied that he had not recorded the statement of Smt. Babli, wife of Dheeraj in this case, and that he had not examined Bharat Singh from whose marriage ceremony, the accused and the complainant party were allegedly returning in this case. He did not remember the name of the Incharge, Crime Team and the photographer who had come to the spot on that day. He replied that no articles at the spot were seized by the Crime Team and that there was street light at the spot and all the   proceedings   were   conducted   under   the   said   light.   He volunteered  that  he  had   seized  black   beads   and  thread   at  the spot.   He   replied   that   he   had   recorded   the   statement   of   Raju SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.18/50 twice, and he sent the rukka to the PS from the spot at about 4.30am,   and   the   accused   were   arrested   at   about   2.00pm   on 16.05.2013. He replied that the third vehicle was not present at the spot and as such he had not shown the same in the site plan Ex.PW37/D. He replied that he had received wireless message only regarding the detention of car No. 3526 near Akshardham Temple,   and   that   no   separate   DD   entry   regarding   the   said vehicle   was   received   by   him   at   the   spot.   He   replied   that   he recorded   the   statement   of   Ajay   Kumar   near   the   Akshardham Temple after the seizure of car No.3526 and the statement of Jagram   was   recorded   after   his   return   from   the   hospital.   He admitted that another FIR was lodged at PS Shakarpur on the basis of the complaint of the accused of this case. He admitted that the witnesses of this case namely Jagram, Sandeep, Raju, Sita Ram and Ajay are accused in the cross­case. He did not remember if accused of FIR No.444/2013 were arrested by the IO in that case during his tenure as SHO of PS Shakarpur or not. He did not remember if he had gone through the statement of the witnesses recording in FIR No. 444/2013 by the IO of that case or not. He answered that he had inspected the car No.3526 near the Akshardham Temple and that the breaking of glass of cars and dent on the cars may be possible by blunt force at the spot. He volunteered that no danda, hockey and iron rod were found at the spot. He replied that only two accused namely Raj Kumar SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.19/50 and Mohit were having injuries on that day. He came to know that black beads and the thread belonged to Smt. Babli, wife of accused Dheeraj. He answered that the Kunda (Hook), which was seized at the spot was the part of lanyard which was usually used to hold the weapon, and he could not say as to whom the Kunda belonged which was seized at the spot. He replied that during investigation, he had not taken any steps to recover the pendant   of   the   mangalsutra   and   that   no   danda,   iron   rod   or hockey sticks were recovered by him in this case. He replied that when   he   visited   the   spot,   he   found   a   gap   between   vehicle No.2955   and   9245,   but   he   could   not   say   the   exact   gap.   He admitted that he had verified from PS Mandawali that regarding complaint submitted by accused Than Singh on 13.05.2013 at the said PS and the copy of the same is already on record as Mark   PW20/A,   and   that   he   had   not   taken   any   action   on   the complaint, and he volunteered that the complaint was received at PS   Mandawali   and   a   separate   cross­case   of   the   incident   was registered at PS Shakarpur. He replied that he had not collected the   call   detail   records   and   customer   application   forms   of   the mobile phones of the complainant party and the accused persons in this case nor he seized the mobile phones of the said two parties. He replied that no finger prints were found at the spot. He admitted that he had identified the glass pieces of the car windows   taken   from   the   spot,   on   the   basis   of   particulars SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.20/50 mentioned on the parcels. He could not say if clothes of accused Than Singh, Dheeraj and Raj Kumar had blood stains due to injuries sustained by them. He had not seized the clothes of Raju and Jagram. 

18.  Coming   to   the   public   witnesses,   PW4   Sh.   Ajay Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 15/16­05­2013, he   went   to   a   party   at   Khajuri   Khas   with   his   maternal   uncle Jagram   and   Sita   Ram   and   brothers­in­law   namely   Sandeep, Rajeev   and   Raju,   and   after   attending   the   party,   they   were returning   in   the   red   colour   Swift   Car   No.   HR26AP3526, registered in the name of his brother­in­law Sandeep, and the car was being driven by him (Sandeep), and that there was another red Swift car driven by Sandeep registered in his name bearing No.   DL9CK9245.   When   they   reached   near   Lalita   Park,   one white Swift D'zire car bearing No. DL5CK2955 hit his car on the back of his car. He stopped the car and came out of it and saw occupants of that car to whom they knew earlier, namely, Dheeraj, Raj  Kumar, Mohit, Than Singh and the wife of Raj Kumar.   Meanwhile,   all   the   occupants   of   the   car   including accused persons started beating them. Meanwhile, the other car bearing No. DL9CK9245 reached there. The moment they came out of the car, the accused persons attacked them. Accused Than Singh took out the revolver and fired three gun shots upon his brother­in­law Rajeev. Accused also fired towards him and his SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.21/50 maternal uncle Jagram, and he and his uncle Jagram ran away to save themselves. They stopped at Akshardham Temple.

19.  The said witness was cross­examined on behalf of the   prosecution   because   he   was   resiling   from   his   earlier statement,   and   in   his   cross­examination   by   Ld.   Addl.   PP,   he admits that accused Dheeraj was driving the vehicle in which accused  persons  were  coming.  He  also  admitted  that  accused persons caused beating to them with first and leg blows, and his maternal uncle Jagram was badly beaten, and that he stated to police in his statement that "Raj Kumar Bola, Papa Aaj Inko Jaan Se Maar Denge Va Dheeraj Bola Ki Papa Revolver Nikalo Aur Inko Goli Maar Do", and that he stated to the police in his statement that Mohit said "Jagram is Jhagrey Ki Jadd Hai, Isko bhi   Goli   Maar   Do",   and   that   after   being   said   so   by   Mohit, accused Than Singh fired towards Jagram, and that Jagram and he   himself   ran   in   the   vehicle   HR26AP3526   towards Akshardham,   and   that   vehicle   HR26AP3526   was   taken   into custody by police in his presence vide memo Ex.PW2/A and identified the same as Ex.P3. 

20.  In his cross­examination on behalf of the accused, PW4 replied that they had gone to Khajuri Khas to attend the engagement of son of Bharat, upon on an invitation card sent to them, but he had not brought the same. He knew the accused for last four or five years. He replied that incident took place in the SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.22/50 midnight and it was dark. He replied that the number of vehicle used by the accused was not visible from the mirror of his car. He   replied   that   the   vehicle   driven   by   him   was   having   his maternal uncle Jagram with him and none else was present in the said vehicle, and the vehicle driven by Sandeep was occupied by Raju, Sita Ram and Rajiv. He replied that he was having the knowledge   that   the   vehicle   of   the   accused   Than   Singh   was coming   from   behind   his   car.   He   admitted   that   vehicle   struck from back side was at the place where speed breaker was there. He volunteered that Smt. Babli, wife of the accused Dheeraj, did not come out of the vehicle. He replied that he remained at the spot   of   incident   for   about   15­20   minutes.   He   admitted   that thereafter, he and his maternal uncle Jagram ran away  in his vehicle and he admitted that his maternal uncle Jagram and he were   having  the   mobile  phones   and  that   he  made   the   call  at phone number 100 to the police. He replied that the police met them   at   Akshardham   Temple   and   he   and   his   maternal   uncle Jagram were brought to the spot at about 1.00 - 1.30am, but he again said that they were brought to PS Shakarpur and not to the spot and that he had not seen any of the accused in the PS, and that he had not seen any of the persons, who were available in the  vehicle   of  his   brother­in­law  Sandeep.   He  replied   that   he remained in the PS till noon of the next date i.e. 16.05.2013, and that his statement was recorded in the PS in the morning, but he SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.23/50 did not recollect the time and that he remained sitting in the PS of his own and was not made to sit by the police in the PS. 

21.  PW6 Jagram Singh deposed that on 15.05.2013, he along with his nephew Ajay went to attend a marriage function at Khajuri in red Swift Car No. 3526 driven by his son Ajay, while his son Sandeep, nephew Raju, Sita Ram and Rajeev also went to attend the said marriage in another red Swift Car No. 9245, driven by Sandeep, and the said marriage was attended by many other persons, including accused Than Singh, accused Raj Kumar, Mohit, accused Dheeraj and his wife whose name he did not   recollect.   He   further   deposed   that   they   had   started   from Khajuri   at   about   11.45pm   for   their   house,   and   that   accused persons also started from there with them. The swift car being driven   by   Ajay   was   ahead,   while   the   other   car   driven   by Sandeep was in the last that is after the car of accused persons. At   about   12.05/12.10am,   they   reached   near   Lalita   Park   Bus Stand, Akshardham Road. Meanwhile, accused persons struck their car on the back of their car, driven by Ajay. They stopped their car. Accused persons also stopped their car. He and Ajay came out of their car. Meanwhile, his nephew Sandeep along with other relatives also reached there and thereafter, they asked the accused persons to come out from the car. Accused persons came out from the car and thereafter, they immediately assaulted them and gave kick and fist blows to him, Sandeep, Raju, Sita SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.24/50 Ram and Rajeev. Meanwhile, accused Raj Kumar asked accused Than Singh to take out his revolver and kill him (the witness). Meanwhile, Dheeraj said "Papa Goli Nikalo, Inkoi Jaan Se Maar Do" (Dad, take out firearm and kill them). Than Singh took out the revolver and shot at his nephew Rajeev. Than Singh also fired at him (the witness) and he ran away. One fire was shot towards him, one shot towards Sandeep and three shots hit at Rajeev. Thereafter, he made call to police, PCR vehicle came and the dead body of Rajeev was picked up by PCR vehicle and meanwhile,   his   nephew   Raju   who   was   hiding   himself   in   the bushes   came   out.   The   PCR   vehicle   took   Rajeev   and   Raju   to Walia   Nursing   Home,   Laxmi   Nagar.   He   further   deposed   that local   police   also   reached   there.   He   reached   there   after   10­15 minutes.   Doctors   declared   Rajeev   as   dead,   and   enquiry   was made from Raju, and that accused persons were also brought to Walia   Nursing   Home   and   accused   Than   Singh   was   having revolver, and police recovered the revolver and the revolver was completely loaded with six bullets, and that dead body of Rajeev was  sent   to mortuary,  and since  he (the witness)   was  having injury,   he   was   taken   to   LBS   Hospital   and   after   his   medical examination, he was brought back to the spot and his statement was recorded. 

22. In his cross­examination, PW6 replied that he went to attend the marriage party of Bharat Singh, and an invitation SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.25/50 card  was   sent   to  them  by  Bharat  Singh,  and   that  he  had  not brought that card that day. He admitted that Raju is son of his sister and that Sita Ram is the son of his eldest brother Ganga Ram,   and   that   Rajeev   was   the   son   of   his   elder   brother   Ram Prakash, and that Ajay is the brother­in­law of Raju and son­in­ law of his sister  Munni Devi. He also admitted that his daughter Suman got herself married with a Mohammadon Boy and that he had quarreled with Than Singh three or four days prior to the incident in a marriage at Ghaziabad. He further answered that accused  Than Singh was known to him for last 15­20 years and admitted that the fact that native place of accused Than Singh and his own native place is the same i.e. Village Bagrena Garia, Tehsil Bah, District Agra. He further replied that his statement was recorded by the police in the night intervening 15/16­05­ 2013 at about 3.00/4.00am and his statement was read over to him by the police. He also admitted that at the time of firing, all the three cars were stationed at the spot, and that he ran away and reached traffic signal Laxmi Nagar at the distance of about 200 meters and Ajay followed him in his car and took him along with   him   (PW4   Ajay   Kumar)   where   from   they   went   to Akshardham and that they went to Walia Nursing Home and that he was treated in LBS Hospital, and that they were not treated in the said Nursing Home and that he had not seen accused Than Singh, Raj Kumar and Dheeraj in the Walia Nursing Home. 

23.  PW7   Raju   deposed   in   his   deposition   that   on 15.05.2013, he along with Rajeev, Sandeep and Sita Ram went to Khajuri Khas to attend a marriage function in Red Swift Car No. DL9CK9245 which was being driven by Sandeep, and that they had attended the marriage function, and at about 11.45pm, they   started   from   Khajuri   Khas   in   the   said   car   and   at   about 12.00/12.15am, they reached near Lalita Park bus stop, Gandhi Nagar   Road   lead   to   Akshardham,   and   one   another   car   No. DL5CK2955 (car of the accused persons) running ahead to their car used sudden break and their car struck against the said car. They got stopped the said car No. DL5CK2955 and one of other car was going ahead of the car of accused persons. He further deposed that vehicle at second bearing No. DL5CK2955 hit the vehicle No. HR26AP3526, and he along with Sandeep, Rajeev and   Sita   Ram   alighted   from   their   car   and   made   inqiry   from accused Than Singh, Dheeraj and his wife, Raj Kumar, Mohit and they all came out of their car and quarrel started between them and accused persons, and accused Raj Kumar told Than Singh to kill them. Meanwhile, accused Dheeraj also told Than Singh to take out his revolver and kill them, and accused Than Singh took out his revolver and fired on them with the same, and that accused Than Singh fired three shots at Rajeev and then started firing towards them and then they saved themselves by running from there. He made call at 100 number. He took his SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.27/50 brother Rajeev to Walia Nursing Home where his brother was declared   brought   dead,   and   accused   Than   Singh   had   also reached Walia Nursing Home before his reaching there, and he told the police officials that accused Than Singh was having the revolver.   Thereafter,   police   took   him   to   the   spot   where   his statement was recorded which is Ex.PW7/A, and then he was taken to police station and at the spot, blood was lying, 5 empty cartridges were lying there and dandas and his slippers were also lying  there.  When  he  was  lifting  his   brother  Rajeev,   accused Than Singh had assaulted him from his back, while accused Raj Kumar was assaulting from the front, and accused Raj Kumar gave blow on his mouth with some object which resulted into breaking of his teeth. 

24. The PW7 was cross­examined by the prosecution as he was resiling from his previous statement given to the police, and in his cross­examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted that IO had prepared sketch Ex.PW7/B of the revolver along with live cartridges and one fired cartridge, and that the revolver along with belt, string, 11 live cartridges, holster were taken   into   police   possession   vide   memo   Ex.PW7/C,   and   that police officials seized 5 used cartridges also from the spot by converting the same into parcel having seal of PS Shakarpur, East District vide memo Ex.PW7/D, and that the police officials lifted blood on gauze from the sot, blood stained earth control SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.28/50 and   earth   control   which   were   kept   in   plastic   container   and envelope respectively and converted into Parcels and sealed with seal of PS Shakapur and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/E, and that police had lifted broken wind glasses of car No. DL9CK9245 from front side as well as from the road which were stained with blood, broken glasses of car No. DL5CK2955, broken   kadi   (hook)   of   Lanyard,   broken   glasses   of   third   car, beads of mangalsutra were also lifted, kept in envelope, sealed with   seal   of   PS   Shakarpur   East   District   and   were   taken   into police possession vide memo Ex.PW7/F, and that the one sword along with its cover was also seized from car No. DL5CK2955 which was also converted into parcel, sealed with seal of Police Station   Shakarpur,   East   District   and   was   taken   into   police possession   vide   memo   Ex.PW7/G,   and   that   Car   No. DL9CK9245 was also seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW7/H, and that he had pointed out the place of occurrence to police and at his instance site plan Ex.PW7/I was prepared, and that when deceased   Rajeev   was   examined   in   Emergency   Ward,   Walia Nursing Home, doctor had seized his clothes and were converted into parcel and seal of WHL was affixed thereon and the same were   handed   over   to   police   which   were   taken   into   police possession   vide   memo   Ex.PW7/J,   and   that   thereafter   the   IO lifted   blood   on   gauze,   blood   stained   earth   control   from   spot which were taken into police possession by converting the same SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.29/50 into sealed parcel affixing seal, and that five live cartridges were lifted and were taken into police possession, and that he went to mortuary   where   he   identified   dead   body   of   Rajeev   and   his statement Ex.PW7/K was recorded to that effect, and that doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body had handed over some   sealed   parcels   to   the   police   after   postmortem   and   dead body of Rajeev was handed over to Ram Prakash vide memo Ex.PW9/C. He identified the bullet belt Ex.P1, Holster Ex.P2 and Sling Ex.P3 as the same articles which were recovered from accused Than Singh and seized by police. 

25. In his cross­examination on behalf of the accused, PW7 admitted that  bumper  Ex.P4 was in damaged condition, and that bumper Ex.P5 of red colour had no dent or scratch. He further replied that deceased Rajeev is his cousin brother (son of his maternal uncle), and Jagram is his maternal uncle, Sita Ram is the son of his elder maternal uncle Sh. Gagandin, and Ajay is his Jija while Sandeep is his cousin (maternal uncle's son), and they   had   gone   to   attend   a   marriage   function   of   Bharat's   son namely Bhuvnesh at Khajuri. He further answered that Bharat is the mternal uncle of his bhabhi Sunita, and he did not recollect the number of participants in the said marriage party, and they left   the   marriage   function   after   completion   at   about   12.00 midnight, and it was a lagan ceremony, and their car reached at Gnadhi Nagar Pusta Road at about 12.20am, and that he cannot SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.30/50 tell as to how many cars were moving ahead or following their car. He further replied that he was sitting on the left front seat of car No. DL9CK9245 of red colour while returning from Khajuri, and he did not remember about the position of other relatives travelling in the said car. He admitted that Sandeep used brakes for   stopping   the   car   when   they   reached   Pusta   Road,   Gandhi Nagar. He also answered that Jagram and Ajay were sitting in Car   No.   HR26AP3526   moving   ahead   to   the   car   of   accused persons.   He   further   replied   that   quarrel   between   them   and accused persons continued for about 5­7 minutes at the spot, and admitted that wife of accused Dheeraj was also sitting in their car and accused Dheeraj was married before about 5­6 months of  the  incident.  He further   replied  that when  the  quarrel  was going   on,   it   was   not   visible   as   to   who   was assaulting/kicking/blowing   to   whom   due   to   darkness.   He admitted   that   one   Mangalsutra   and   broken   glass   bangles   and beads were recovered by the police from the place of occurrence in his presence. He also replied that deceased Rajeev was on his right side at  a distance of about 15 ft during the quarrel. He admitted that there was speed breaker where the car of accused Than Singh suddenly stopped and further replied that their car also stopped and they all came out of their car and accused Than Singh   did   not   come   out   of   his   car,   and   meanwhile   they   had reached to his car. He admitted that Jagram and Ajay also came SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.31/50 out of their car and reached to the car of Than Singh. He further replied that Raj Kumar suffered injury and made call at number 100 and police came after about 10­15 minutes, and at the time of arrival of police, accused Than Singh, Raj Kumar, Dheeraj and   Mohit   were   present   and   did   not   recollect   whether   Babli, daughter­in­law of Than Singh was present there or not, and no other person was present there at the time of arrival of police, and he lifted the injured Rajeev with the assistance of  police to put him in the PCR Van, and his clothes stained with blood, and that police took his blood stained clothes after about half an hour at Walia Nursing Home. He had also answered that he could not say whether injured Raj Kumar and other accused persons were brought to Walia Nursing Home or not and he again came to the spot at about 2.30 or 3.00am and thereafter his statement was recorded by police at the spot, and he did not collect that as to how   many   times,   police   recorded   his   statement   and   his statements were read over to him by the police whenever it was recorded. He further replied that he did not know if Than Singh lodged   report   in   PS   Mandawali   against   Jagram   and   father   of deceased,   namely,   Ram   Prakash   about   2­3   days   prior   to   the incident with regard to threatening the life of Than Singh. He also replied that he did not know if accused Raj Kumar lodged an FIR No. 444 against him or Jagram and other persons in PS Shakapur.   He   admitted   that   no   card   was   sent   addressing   his SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.32/50 name.

26.  PW7 Raju was again called for his examination­in­ chief under Section 311 Cr.P.C, wherein he identified the case properties i.e. revolver already Ex.PW34/P4, 13 live cartridges and four empty (test fired by the FSL), already Ex.PW34/P5, five empty cartridges seized from the spot, already Ex.PW34/P6, one sword seized from car No.2955 already Ex.PW34/P9, the car   2955   already   Ex.PW34/P10,   the   car   No.9245   already Ex.PW34/P11, Kunda (hook) of the sling seized from the spot vide memo Ex.PW7/F, already Ex.PW34/P12, black beads in a red   thread   seized   from   the   spot   already   Ex.PW34/P13,   glass pieces of car No.9245 already Ex.PW34/P14, blood stained glass pieces from the back side of car No. 9245 seized from the road, already Ex.PW34/P15, glass pieces seized from the spot lying between   car   No.  9245  and  2955  already  Ex.PW34/P16,  glass pieces seized from the spot from behind the car No.2955 already Ex.PW34/P17, glass pieces seized from the spot belonging to the third vehicle (back wind glass) already Ex.PW34/P18, and glass   pieces   seized   from   the   spot   belonging   to   third   vehicle (frong wind glass) already Ex.PW34/P19. 

27.  In his further cross­examination when called under Section 311 Cr.P.C, on behalf of the accused, he replied that he did   not   remember   the   time   when   he   accompanied   the   police officials to the spot from Walia Nursing Home, and he did not SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.33/50 remember the place where the seizure memo of revolver and cartridges was prepared. He also replied that he had signed some documents at the spot and some documents at police station, and the   documents   were   prepared   in   his   presence   but   he   did   not remember the contents of the documents and again replied that he had not read the documents, and he had seen the revolver and cartridges at the time of seizure, a danda was also lying at the spot but he did not know whether police seized the same or not, and he cannot say if police had seized the article seen in the photograph P­2/3 or not, and admitted that in the quarrel iron rod, danda and firearm were used. He also replied that he did not know   whether   any   hammer   was   used   or   not,   and   he   did   not know   at   what   time   the   vehicle   bearing   registration   No. HR26AP3526 left the spot. He also replied that he cannot say from   which   car,   the   glass   pieces   were   taken   at   the   spot   and further replied that sword was recovered from the dickey of the car, and he did not remember how many fire cartridges were lifted from the spot on that day, and he did not know whether any proceeding regarding taking of the fire arm and cartridges from   accused   Than   Singh   was   conducted   at   Walia   Nursing Home   or   not.   He   further   replied   that   he   had   signed   some documents at Walia Nursing Home and his statement was not recorded   at   Walia   Nursing   Home.   He   identified   the   lanyard (kunda) Ex.PW34/P12 and could not say as to for what purpose, SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.34/50 the said Kunda is being used. 

28. PW11   Sita   Ram   deposed   that   on   the   intervening night   of   15/16­05­2013,   he   had   gone   to   Khajuri   to   attend   a marriage function and when he along with Rajeev, Sandeep and Raju and was returning from there in red colour Swift car No. 9245,   driven   by   Sandeep   and   at   about   12.00midnight,   they reached near Lalita Park Bus stop. Meanwhile, a car No. 2955 being running ahead to their car stopped all of a sudden and therefore,   their   car   struck   on   its   back,   and   car   No.2955   had struck one car running ahead that car bearing No.HR3526 being driven   by   Ajay   and   meanwhile,   they   came   out   and   saw   that Dheeraj, Than Singh, Raj Kumar, Mohit and wife of Dheeraj were sitting in that car and was being driven by Dheeraj, and meanwhile   above   persons   also   came   out   and   started   giving beatings to them with kick and fist blows. They were having danda   and   rods   in   their   hands.   He   further   deposed   that   Raj Kumar   exhorted   that   "papa   aaj   inko   jaan   se   maar   do",   then accused Dheeraj told that "papa apni revolver nikalo aur inko jaan se maar do", meanwhile accused Than Singh took out his revolver and started firing and three bullets hit against Rajeev, and thereafter, he also fired towards them and they ran away, and   also   deposed   that   Mohit   also   told   that   "papa   Jagram   is Jhagre Ki Jar hai, isko bhi maar do". He deposed that all the accused were abusing them and that thereafter he reached his SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.35/50 house, while Ajay and Jagram ran away from there in their car and that in the morning, he came to know that Rajiv had died, and his statement was recorded on 25.05.2013 by the police. 

29.  He was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP as he was   resiling   from   his   earlier   statement,   and   in   his   cross­ examination   on   behalf   of   the   ld.   Addl.   PP   for   the   State,   he admitted that he had stated to the police in his statement that the accused were known to him earlier, and that Mohit was beating Jagram badly and that since he was under shock, so he could not go   anywhere   and   he   made   his   statement   subsequently   to   the police. He did not recollect as to whether he told the police in his statement that when the vehicle struck, Ajay ran away with the vehicle.

30.    In his cross­examination on behalf of the accused, PW11 admitted that he was in the same vehicle along with other three persons when they attended the marriage and they came back   together,   and   also   admitted   that   other   three   persons accompanied   him   in  the  same   vehicle  in  which  they  went  to attend the marriage and after the marriage, they were coming back,  where  Rajeev, Sandeep  and Raju met them. He  further admitted that other vehicle also accompanied their vehicle and the occupants of the other vehicle were Jagram and Ajay and the number of the vehicle was 3526. He replied that they had gone to attend the engagement ceremoney of  son of  Bharat Singh, SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.36/50 who was called as "Mama" as he belonged to village Jarari and the maternal uncle "Mama" of wife of my brother Rajiv is from the   same   village.   He   replied   that   he   belonged   to   Baghel Community whereas Bharat Singh is of Gujjar Samaj. He did not recollect as to who alighted from the vehicle first at the spot from the vehicle in which he was sitting, and that the grappling might have taken for about ten minutes, and he volunteered that it   was   not   grappling   but   was   beating.   He   replied   that   firstly, beating was given and thereafter accused Than Singh fired the shot.   He   replied   that   police   had   not   come   to   the   spot   in   his presence. He did not remember the date when he met the IO for the first time. He replied that his statement was recorded at PS Shakarpur and that he himself went to the PS. He admitted that he, Sandeep, Jagram, Raju, Rajiv (the deceased) and Ajay are relatives. He could not say, if Jagram, Sandeeep and father of Rajiv   were   having   dispute   with   accused   Than   Singh   and   his family. 

31.  PW12 Sandeep deposed in his examination­in­chief almost   on   the   same   lines   on   which   the   said   other   public witnesses have deposed with the difference that when accused persons started giving beatings to them, his father Jagram had intervened and accused Mohit assaulted his father, and in the meantime, accused Raj Kumar, present in Court, asked his father Than Singh to kill them and to take out the revolver. He further SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.37/50 differed   from   the   said   other   witnesses   that   accused   persons started firing on them, and that he got scared due to the incident and   later   on   his   statement   was   recorded   by   the   police   on 25.05.2013. 

32.  In his cross­examination on behalf of the accused, PW12  replied that the distance between the spot and his house at Ganesh Nagar might be about two and half kilometers. He replied that accused persons hail from his native place and are of the same cast. He did not know, if there had been any quarrel between   his   father   and   accused   persons   or   that   his   father, deceased Rajiv and Ram Prakash threatened accused Than Singh or   that   Than   Singh   made   complaint   at   PS   Mandawali.   He admitted that the persons present on the side of accused at the time of quarrel were present in the engagement ceremony which they   attended,   and   that   where   accused   had   put   brakes   to   the vehicle, there was speed braker ahead. He replied that he had suffered   abrasions   during   the   scuffle/quarrel,   but   he   was   not medically   examined.   He   replied   that   he   was   at   a   distance   of about 10­15 feet from Rajiv when bullet hit him and that there was street light at the spot. He did not recollect as to who had been grappling with whom while the scuffle was going on prior to firing. He replied that statement of Sita Ram was recorded on the same date, and at that time he was outside the room. He replied that he did not try to remove injured Rajiv to hospital.

He did not recollect, if the accused persons also suffered injuries in the incident. 

33.  It has been contended by the Ld. Addl. PP as well as by the counsel for the complainant side that previous enmity as posed by accused Than Singh vide complaint mark PW20/A is nothing but a pre­planning to commit the offence, and that Smt. Babli, wife of accused Dheeraj, has turned hostile in the cross­case vide FIR No. 444/2013 and that presence of Dinesh and   Umesh   was   not   deposed   by   accused   persons   in   their respective   statements   under   Section   161  Cr.P.C   in  cross   case vide   FIR   No.   444/2013.   It   has   been   further   contended   that weapons of offence allegedly used by the complainant side on the accused persons as deposed by them in the said cross­case is nothing but an improvement and a concocted story. It has been further contended that Mangalsutra and bangles etc were thrown by said Smt. Babli in order to manipulate the incident. It has been further contended that prosecution witnesses, including the eyewitnesses have proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as they have corroborated each other. 

34.  On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has pointed out   the   material   contradictions   and   improvements   in   the depositions of said public witnesses and he submitted that they have failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the   accused   as   has   been   mentioned   by   him   in   his   written SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.39/50 submissions. 

35.  The   bare   reading   of   the   examination­in­chief   of PW4,   PW6,   PW7,   PW11   and   PW12   goes   to   show   that   their examination­in­chief in itself is full of contradictions which are so material which go to the root of the matter. 

36.  The contradictions may be pointed out by examples from the depositions, such as, PW7 Raju who is the complainant and on whose statement the present FIR was registered deposed in his  examination­in­chief  and the complaint Ex.PW7/A that car of the accused bearing No.2955 applied brakes and due to sudden stopping of the said car, the car No. 9245 had hit the said car of the accused, which in turn hit another car, but he nowhere disclosed   the   details   of   the   third   card,   but   in   his   cross­ examination, he stated the number of the third car as 3526 in which PW6 Jagram and PW4 Ajay Kumar were sitting and also revealed   his   relations   with   them,   whereas   PW4   in   his examination­in­chief stated that he was driving car No. 3526 and when he reached Lalita Park, car of the accused No.2955 hit his said car, but in his cross­examination, he stated about the car of PW7   Raju   and   stated   that   while   the   accused   persons   were beating him and Jagram, the other car No. 9245 reached there. Yet PW6 Jagram stated in his previous statement that when he reached Lalita Park, car No. 2955 had hit their car No. 3526 and when   they   reached   near   the   car   of   the   accused   persons   after SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.40/50 leaving their car, then they found that car No. 9245 which was driven by PW12 Sandeep had hit the car of the accused persons from   behind,   but   he   had   improved   his   version   in   his examination­in­chief by deposing that car No. 3526 driven by PW4 Ajay was ahead while the other car driven by Sandeep was in the last after the car of the accused persons and he further stated that accused persons struck their car from the back and they stopped their car and in the meantime Sandeep with the relatives reached there in another car. PW11 Sita Ram narrated the story in a different manner whose statement was recorded after 9 days of the incident on 25.05.2013 stated that car of the accused   No.   2955   was   running   ahead   of   car   No.   9245   and accused  stopped  the  car  suddenly   and  therefore  their   car  No. 9245   struck   the   same   from   the   back,   and   that   car   No.   2955 struck one car running ahead bearing No. 3526 being driven by PW4   Ajay.   However,   PW12   Sandeep   whose   statement   was recorded after 9 days of the incident on 25.05.2013, stated that car No. 2955 of the accused was running ahead of car No.9245 and car of the accused suddenly applied brake, therefore car No. 9245 struck on its back and he along with his other colleagues alighted  from  the  car  and  tried to  get the  car  of  the  accused stopped,   but   accused   accelerated   their   car   and   they   struck another car No. 3526 being driven by their family member PW4 Ajay. 

37.  The   story   put   forth   by   the   said   witnesses   with regard to stopping and striking of the cars with each other was belied   by   the   PW25,   the   expert   from   the   FSL   who   gave   the opinion that back portion of car No. 3526 (driven by PW4 Ajay) and front portion of car No. 2955 (driven by the accused) could have collided with each other and there is no sign indicating of collision between car No. 9245 (driven by the complainant side) and   car   No.2955   (driven   by   the   accused)   and   his   testimony almost remained unrebutted on the record, and thus, the dent has been created on the assertion of the complainant side that their car collided with the car of the accused from behind. 

38.  Similarly,   about   the   manner   in   which altercation/scuffle/quarrel has been alleged, the same has been differently deposed by different PWs. For example, PW7 in his complaint Ex.PW7/A has stated that after the hitting of their car by the car of accused, when they went to car of accused and asked   them   to   come   out   of   their   car,   accused   persons   Than Singh, Raj Kumar, Dheeraj and Mohit came out of their car and hit them with fists and blows, and in his examination­in­chief, he stated that after the collision, he along with Sandeep, Rajiv and Sita Ram alighted from their car and made inquiry from the accused   persons,   on   which   they   came   out   of   their   car   and   a quarrel started among them. For PW4 Ajay, when he stopped their car No. 3526 after it was hit by the car of accused from the SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.42/50 back side, he came out and found accused persons along with wife of accused Raj Kumar in that car and all the accused came out of their car and started beating them and he also involved the said lady occupant of the car of the accused in the quarrel, and accused straight away attacked them, the moment they came out of the car. In his cross­examination, he stated that he was having prior knowledge that vehicle of accused Than Singh was coming behind his car. PW6 Jagram stated that car of the accused No. 2955   hit   his   car   No.   3526   and   when   they   stopped   their   car, accused persons also stopped their car and he and Ajay came out from their car and in the meantime, his nephew Sandeep along with other relatives also reached there and therefore they asked the accused persons to come out from the car, but the accused immediately assaulted them and gave fist and kick blows to him, Sandeep,   Sita   Ram   and   Raju.   PW11   Sita   Ram   in   his examination­in­chief stated that when they came out of their car and saw Dheeraj, Raj Kumar, Mohit, Than Singh and wife of Dheeraj were sitting in the car of the accused and it was being driven by accused Dheeraj and all the accused came out and started beating them with fists and kicks blows and that they were having danda and rods in their hands. 

39.  The   said   witnesses   of   the   complainant   side   also deposed differently about the involvement of the persons in the SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.43/50 incident. PW7 in his complaint Ex.PW7/A stated that accused Raj Kumar told Than Singh to kill them (the complainant side), meanwhile accused Dheeraj also told Than Singh to take out his revolver and to kill them and that accused Than Singh took out his revolver and fired on them with the same, and that accused Than Singh fired three shots over Rajiv and then started firing towards   them   and  they  all  three   saved  their  lives   by  running from there, but PW4 Ajay stated in his examination­in­chief that accused Than Singh took out his revolver and fired three shots upon his  brother­in­law Rajiv,  the accused  also fired towards him   and   his   maternal   uncle   Jagram   and   when   he   did   not implicate   any   other   accused   involved   in  the   incident,  he   was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP wherein PW4 stated about the   exhortation   given   by   accused   Raj   Kumar,   Dheeraj   and Mohit. Yet PW6 has another story to tell when he deposed in his examination­in­chief that accused Raj Kumar asked his father to take out his revolver and kill him (the PW6) and that Dheeraj also told Than Singh not to spare him (PW6) that day as he was the main head of the family. PW6 did not attribute any role to Mohit and he further stated that one fire was shot towards him, one towards Sandeep and three shots hit Rajiv. Further more, PW11 Sita Ram stated in his examination­in­chief that   Than Singh took his revolver and started firing and three bullets hit Rajiv and thereafter he fired towards them and they ran away SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.44/50 and that Mohit also gave exhortation to Than Singh to kill all of them, and in his cross­examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW11 stated that Mohit had beaten PW6 Jagram badly. PW12 Sandeep in his examination­in­chief stated that accused Mohit assaulted his father and meanwhile accused Raj Kumar asked his father to kill them (the complainant side) and then asked his father to take out his revolver. 

40.  PW7   and   PW12     specifically   answered   in   their cross­examination that when the quarrel was going on, it was not visible as to who was assaulting/kicking/blowing to whom due to   darkness.   This   was   a   fatal   blow   to   the   prosecution   story particularly   with   regard   to   the   fact   of   the   alleged   firing   by accused   Than   Singh.   Coupled   with   other   circumstances   as discussed below, it created a reasonable doubt as to whether at all accused Than Singh himself fired from his revolver. 

41.  Further there are contradictions in the depositions of PW7 Raju, PW4 Ajay Kumar and PW11 Sita Ram with regard to facts regarding wife of accused Dheeraj Kumar. PW7 stated that wife of Dheeraj namely Babli was present at the time of incident   and   in   his   cross­examination,   he   stated   that   one mangalsutra and broken glass bangles and beads were recovered by the police from the place of occurrence in his presence. This fact gives an inference that either she was assaulted or she was also involved in the quarrel. PW4 Ajay in his examination­in­ SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.45/50 chief stated that wife of Dheeraj was sitting in the car and he denied the suggestion as wrong, in his cross­examination that bangles and mangalsutra of wife of accused Dheeraj was broken at the spot and he volunteered that she did not come out from the car.   PW11   in   his   cross­examination   denied   the   suggestion   as wrong that bangles and mangalsutra were broken and she was shouting. 

42.  Now   coming   to   the   lapses   on   the   part   of   the   IO during the investigation. He did not try to establish on record as to how the beads, thread and broken bangles came to the spot and to whom the same belonged and he did not examine Smt. Babli in this case for the reasons best known to him. PW7 Raju although claims that seizure memo of revolver and cartridges were prepared in his presence and he signed some documents at the spot and some at the police station, but he did not remember the contents of the same. He further deposed that a danda was lying   there   at   the   spot,   but   the   IO   did   not   seize   the   same. Moreover,   a   sword   was   also   seized,   but   the   IO   did   not investigate as to whom it belonged and if the same was used in the incident or not.

43.  From   the   depositions   of   the   witnesses,   it   is established on record that before the local police reached the spot, the PCR Van had taken the injured persons to the hospital, but   it   was   for   the   IO   to   explain   as   to   why   the   statement   of SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.46/50 officials of the PCR Van were not recorded or as to why they were not made witnesses in the present case. 

44.  The IO also did not take care to establish as to how the kunda (hook) of the lanyard with which the revolver of the accused Than Singh was tied was broken. It seems that it was not   deliberately   done.   If   the   investigation   would   have   been carried out in that direction, the defence of the accused Than Singh would have become highly probable. The defence of the accused persons as put forth in the cross­examination of the said witnesses and in their statements, particularly of accused Than Singh, under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that PW Sandeep, Jagram, Ajay, deceased Rajiv, Sita Ram, Raju and two persons, namely, Dinesh and Umesh armed with danda, iron rod, hammer, hockey sticks   and   revolvers   in   their   hands   attacked   them   in   a   pre­ planned manner. The accused Than Singh further stated in his said   statement   that   PW   Jagram,   Ajay   and   Sita   Ram   tried   to snatch his revolver and he pulled the revolver and in that process the kunda of lanyard broken and during that process PW Jagram opened the lock of the revolver and bullets were fired during the hustle   and   pulling   of   both   sides.   In   the   absence   of   any explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to how the said hook (kunda) of the lanyard was broken with which the revolver was tied, the said stand and defence of accused Than Singh becomes highly probable, particularly, in view of the admitted position by SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.47/50 PW7 and PW12 that it was dark and it was not visible as to who was quarreling/beating with whom. Further, the rough site plan Ex.PW7/I   and   the   scaled   site   plan   Ex.PW24/A,   the   empty cartridges were found at point H, I, J, K & L points and broken part of lanyard was found at point 'M', which are approximately found at the considerable distance from each other and are in different directions, from which an inference can be drawn the firing took place in different directions which may also be result of snatching of revolver in the scuffle as alleged by the accused in his defence.  The accused is not required to prove his defence "beyond   reasonable   doubt",   but   it   is   enough   for   him   that   he creates a doubt or put a dent on the story of prosecution, for the simple reason that, on the one hand, there is mighty state having all instrumentalities of investigation and scientific methods at its commands and on the other hand, there is an individual alone known as accused, and to balance and protect the interest of both the   said   parties   to   the   prosecution,   the   weaker   side   i.e.   the accused   has   been   protected   by   casting   a   lesser   duty   on   his shoulder of showing doubts in the prosecution story in order to win his acquittal. 

45.  Moreover,   neither   the   said   PWs   nor   the   IO explained as to how the accused persons received injuries. Their MLCs on the record go to establish that the accused received injuries in the said scuffle, but no explanation has come forth SC No. 457/2016      State Vs. Than Singh & Ors. Page No.48/50 either from the mouth of the witnesses or from the investigation of the IO with regard to the said injuries. As such the case of the prosecution also becomes doubtful.  

46.  The   complainant   PW7   specifically   in   his   cross­ examination dated 18.02.2016, categorically admitted that it is correct that in the quarrel, iron rod, danda and fire arm were used, but no such weapon except the revolver of the accused Than Singh seized in the case. 

47.  From   the   above   said   discussion,   I   am   of   the considered opinion that neither the said public witnesses nor the IO painted true genesis of the case before this Court, and all witnesses, including the IO deposed to their  convenience and suitability hiding the real facts from the Court. It seems to be a confictional quarrel between the said two parties, in which no party   wanted   to   assist   the   Court   in   arriving   at   the   truth, particularly, while appreciating the evidence in the present case and the cross­case vide FIR NO. 444/13. 

48.  Thus,   I   am   of   the   considered   opinion   that prosecution   has   miserably   failed   to   prove   the   guilt   of   the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charge for offences under Section 307/302/323/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Their PB and SB are hereby discharged. 

49.  The file be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced in the Open Court                    (Rakesh Tewari) 
          th
On this 28  day of Mar., 2018         District & Sessions Judge (East)
                                        Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 

                                                 
                                                          Digitally
                                                          signed by
                                                          RAKESH
                                                          TEWARI
                                              RAKESH      Location:
                                                          Karkardooma
                                              TEWARI      Courts
                                                          Date:
                                                          2018.03.28
                                                          16:13:44
                                                          +0530




SC No. 457/2016             State Vs. Than Singh & Ors.      Page No.50/50