Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Yadav Etc on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-000807-2015
SC 56438/2016
STATE Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ another
FIR No.1525/2014
PS:(Rajouri Garden)
U/s : 120B IPC and u/s
326A/392/397/411 read with Section 120B IPC IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of commission of offence 23.12.2014 Date of Committal in the Court of 16.04.2015 Sessions Name of the complainant Dr. 'AK' Name of accused and addresses 1. Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o A-16B, MIG Flat, Mayapuri, New Delhi.
2. Vaibhav Kumar S/o Sh.
Anand Kumar R/o Plot no.24A, Top Floor, Pratap Nagar, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved Section 120B IPC and u/s 326A/392/397 read with Section 120B IPC and u/s 411 IPC. Plea of the accused persons Not pleaded guilty or claimed State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 1 of 137 trial. Final Order Both the accused convicted for offence under section 120- B IPC and under Section 326A/392/394 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 411 IPC Date of announcing of judgment 16.07.2025 BRIEF FACTS
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.12.2014, a PCR call vide DD no.30B at 09:50 a.m. was received at PS Rajouri Garden regarding acid attack on one lady at the Main market, Chawla Jewellers, from mobile no. 9717271916. On receiving the said information, SI Suresh Chand and Ct. Tej Pal reached the spot. They found one Honda Activa scooty having registration no. PB-XX- XX17 (hereinafter referred to as the victim's scooty) with droplets of some chemical on its head light and handle. In the meanwhile, another DD no.33B was received by SI Suresh Chand regarding admission of victim Dr. 'AK' at ESI hospital, Basai Darapur with acid attack on her face and eyes. SI Suresh reached the said hospital and found that the victim had been further referred to AIIMS hospital. He reached AIIMS hospital where he met the victim, who informed him that two boys on a motorcycle had thrown some chemical on the right side of her face and had snatched her bag. He recorded the statement of the victim and seized her hand gloves and woollen cap.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 2 of 137Thereafter, he returned to the spot and prepared the rukka and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Tej Pal.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. On basis of the rukka, present FIR was registered under Section 394/326A/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC). During investigation, Call Detail Records (CDR in short) of victim and accused Ashok were obtained, on basis of which accused Vaibhav was apprehended and the stolen bag of the victim was recovered from his possession. In his mobile phone, WhatsApp chats and audio recordings of the conversation between him and accused Ashok were discovered. Accused Vaibhav led the police to JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' (names not disclosed to protect their identity). The debit cards/credit cards of the victim were recovered from the possession of the JCLs. Mobile phone of the victim was recovered from the possession of accused Ashok Yadav. The accused persons were arrested. The JCLs were also apprehended and investigation was carried out against them. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 326A/392/394/397/120B/411/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons in the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate concerned. After completion of proceedings U/s 207 Cr.P.C, Learned MM committed the case to Learned Sessions Court. Separate final report against the JCLs was filed before the concerned Juvenile Justice Board.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 3 of 137CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 06.10.2015, charge under Section 120B IPC and under Section 326A/392/397 read with Section 120B IPC was framed against the accused Ashok and Vaibhav, to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate charge under Section 411 IPC was also framed against the accused Vaibhav, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The present case was received by this court by way of transfer vide order of Learned Principal District and Session Judge, West on 05.03.2025.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 44 witnesses in total.
6. PW-1/Sh. Gurdeep Singh Malhotra deposed that he had a jewellery shop in the name of Ram Hari Jewellers situated on the ground floor of his house. He had installed CCTV Camera at his house as well as shop. On 23.12.2014, at about 09:30 am, he was present on the upper floor of his house. On hearing some commotion, he came down and saw a gathering of people in front of his shop. He came to know that two persons had poured acid on a doctor Madam. She was having white colour Scooty. She informed that she was doctor on duty at Basai Darapur hospital. After sometime, one of her friends came there and took her to the hospital. He deposed that the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 4 of 137 victim/doctor was having acid injury on her face and was crying in pain and also seeking help. He checked the CCTV Camera installed at his shop and saw that two persons had thrown something on her and snatched her bag from the Scooty. He conveyed this fact to the police. DCP, ACP and other senior officers of the police reached there and saw the CCTV footage installed at his shop. He provided the CCTV footage of relevant time of that day wherein the incident was covered to the police on 24.12.2014. He identified the CCTV footage coverage from the period 08:08 am to 10:41 am dt. 23.12.2014 (Tuesday) as the same coverage which he had provided to the police. The victim, her Scooty and two persons on motorcycle throwing something at her were visible in the said CCTV footage. Pen Drive containing the CCTV footage is Ex.P-1/1. The certificate under Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/A. The witness identified the accused Ashok Yadav as the friend of the victim. He admitted the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP that the name of victim is Dr. 'AK'.
7. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he handed over the Pen Drive containing the CCTV footage to the Police on 24.12.2014 at about 2:30-3:00 PM. He could not recall the make, model, number & capacity of the said Pen Drive. He stated that he had signed on the seizure memo of that Pen Drive, however, when confronted with the seizure memo of CCTV Footage Ex.PW-1/DA, he admitted that it does not bear his signatures.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 5 of 1378. PW2/victim Dr. 'AK' deposed that she was residing in Delhi at H.No. XX/XX, Hari Nagar since last five years and had been working as Senior Resident doctor at XX hospital, Basai Darapur, Delhi since 01.10.2014. On 23.12.2014, at about 09:15-09:30 AM, she was going to the hospital to attend her duty by her white colour Honda Scooty bearing no. PB-XXXX-17. When she reached the main market, Rajouri Garden, two bike borne persons came from behind and picked her bag which she had kept between her legs on the Scooty. The bag was of orange brown colour of Tommy Hilfiger brand, containing a pink- coloured wallet, stethoscope, cosmetic items, pen, some other documents. The wallet was containing her ATM Cards of Axis Bank, OBC Bank, HDFC Bank, PNB Bank and SBI Bank, Debit Card, cash of Rs.5,000/-, hospital stamps, I phone S-4 of white colour, charger, one Mala (Rosary/Sumirani) and driving license. Thereafter, they threw some chemical on her face. She stopped her Scooty and was sensing much pain on her face. She took her Scooty by the side of road and asked for help from the persons present there but none came forward. After about half an hour, one Sikh gentleman came there and she was taken to nearby maternity home. She disclosed her identity to the doctor of that maternity home. They informed her that her injury was serious. She washed her face with the water provided by them. Thereafter, she rang the accused Ashok Yadav from the mobile phone of someone who was present outside the Maternity Home. She dialed the mobile State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 6 of 137 number 9990700626 and informed accused Ashok Yadav that someone had thrown acid on her and called him at the spot i.e. at Rajouri Garden. Accused Ashok Yadav reached the spot within 10 minutes and took her to ESI hospital, Basai Darapur in his Car. She asked him to inform the police but he told her to go to Emergency and that he would come after informing the police. She went to the Emergency of the hospital where she was given initial treatment. Thereafter, she was shifted to AIIMS hospital, where she was immediately attended as information had already reached there. Police came at AIIMS hospital and recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. She correctly identified the accused Ashok Kumar before the court.
9. PW-2 further deposed that she and accused Ashok Yadav were good friends since long, may be 2-3 years prior to this incident. Accused Ashok Yadav was working in DDU hospital with her as a colleague and they were having visiting terms in their families. There was good bonding in their families as father of accused was serving in ITBP and her father was serving in BSF. They developed good relations with each other. She deposed that the accused Ashok Yadav proposed her for marriage, but she refused. At that time, they were in DDU hospital. He repeatedly proposed her for marriage, but she refused and told him that there cannot be inter-caste marriage in her family. Then accused asked her to remain friends despite their marriage may not be performed. She accepted his friendship proposal as they were already State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 7 of 137 friends/colleagues. Thereafter, accused Ashok Yadav started raising objections as to why she was talking to somebody else, why she was exchanging her duty with other doctors and that she should consult him prior to exchanging her duty with other doctors. Thereafter, her marriage was fixed with Dr.G Singh in December, 2014. Thereafter, the behavior of accused Ashok changed towards her. He used to ask her as to why she was going for arrange marriage. His possessiveness increased towards her. He used to ask her not to go here and there and thereafter, this incident happened. She correctly identified the case properties i.e:-
1. One ladies purse containing one small money purse, one $100 bearing No. CB 72344369 CB 2, one Debit Card of State Bank bearing nо. 6220180177700035831, some visiting Cards, six coins (Indian Currency), one stethoscope, mobile charger, documents out of which some pertain to ESI Hospital, one passport size photograph of her father, driving license, Adhar Card, Voter I-Card, PAN Card, Shoppers stop card having no.
2210912501081820, some cosmetic articles and one mobile I-Phone. All the articles are collectively Ex.P-1.
2. Honda Activa Scooty as Ex. P-2.
3. One partly burnt woollen Cap (Ex. P-3) and one pair of partly burnt woollen gloves, which she was wearing at the time of incident as Ex. P-4 (Colly).
4. Two ATM Cards, one of HDFC Bank having no. 4386- 2430-0594-1242 and other of Punjab National Bank having no. 5126-5200-5335-7476, collectively Ex.P-5.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 8 of 1375. Two ATM Cards, one of Axis Bank having no. 4179170020180509 and other of Oriental Bank of Commerce having no. 4357089628774543, collectively Ex.P-6.
10. The case property Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 were released to her on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW-2/B and Panchnama Ex. PW-2/C.
11. In her cross-examination, PW-2 stated that she had met the accused Ashok Kumar 4-5 years back at DDU hospital. She was unable to tell the exact date on which accused Ashok had proposed her. However, it was after one month of their meeting. She stated that accused Ashok used to ask her for marriage sometimes seriously and sometimes in a lighter mood (मज़ाक से). She never took the said proposal seriously. Whenever he proposed her, she always asked him to talk to her parents in this regard. She admitted that there used to be disputes due to the marriage proposals which used to be brought by her parents.
12. PW-2 stated that she had told police in her statement about the contents of her purse. She did not have any diary in her purse at the time of incident. She admitted that she had met the accused Ashok one day prior to the date of incident. She was in contact with accused Ashok Kumar on telephone, message and WhatsApp messages. She admitted that initially she did not suspect Ashok Kumar and had not given any statement in this regard to the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 9 of 137 police. She came to know about the involvement of Ashok Kumar in the present case when he was arrested by the police, and when she was still in the hospital.
13. PW-2 further stated that at the time of TIP of the JCLs, she had the knowledge that Ashok Kumar Yadav was being interrogated by the police in respect of the present incident. After 7-8 days of her identifying the JCL, she came to know that both the JCLs were in touch with accused Ashok Yadav. She denied having told the parents of accused Ashok Kumar that she wanted to marry him. She denied that accused Ashok Kumar never wanted to marry her. She never conveyed to her father that accused Ashok wanted to marry her.
14. PW-2 further deposed that on 16 or 17.12.2014, she had exchanged duty with accused Dr. Ashok Kumar. She had to take a flight early in the morning and accused Ashok asked her not to wake up her father and instead inform him, so that he could be in contact with her for her safety to the airport. When she was leaving for the Airport, she called accused Ashok Kumar and then she saw the two JCLs standing just in front of her staircase and she told him about their presence near her house on telephone itself.
15. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused Vaibhav, PW-2 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not recorded : the bag was of State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 10 of 137 orange brown colour of Tommy Hilfiger brand containing stethoscope, cosmetic items, pen, I phone S-4 of white colour, Charger and one Mala (Rosary/Sumirani).
16. PW-3/Manoj Kumar, landlord of the victim deposed that Dr. 'AK' resided on third floor of his house as a tenant from 2010 till 2015, at monthly rent of Rs.4000/-. The rent agreement is Mark PW3/A. He identified the accused Ashok Yadav as friend of the victim and deposed that he used to visit her at her residence.
17. During cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he had no interaction with the guests visiting the house of Dr. 'AK. He did not know if Dr. Anees used to visit the house of Dr. AK regularly for about three years. He admitted that doctors used to visit the victim's house but he cannot identify them by their names except for the accused Ashok Yadav. He denied that Dr. 'AK' represented Dr. Anees as her husband or that she had informed him that her husband Dr. Anees got employment in Gulf country. He knew that Dr. Anees used to visit Dr. 'AK' but could not tell if he used to stay there or that he was her husband. He admitted that Dr. Anees had visited Dr. 'AK's house about 10 days before the incident, however, he could not tell whether he stayed there for 8-10 days.
18. PW-3 further stated that he is not aware whether Dr. Abhay Sharma or one Amit, who was bouncer in a club in G.K, used to visit victim's house frequently. He denied that in State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 11 of 137 April, 2013 Dr. Abhay Sharma had suddenly met Amit at her house and a fight ensued between them or that he had intervened and pacified them and advised not to call police. He denied that Dr. Abhay Sharma was also injured in that fight.
19. PW-4/Raj Kumar Malhotra deposed that he runs a shop under the name and style of M/s Raj Sanitary & Paints in Ashok Nagar, Delhi. He voluntarily stated that police from PS Rajouri Garden had enquired from him whether he had sold chemical to any person and he had told the police that he did not deal in chemicals. The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for state under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that he used to sell toilet cleaners containing acid at his shop. He denied his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 26.12.2014, Mark PW-4/A. He denied that on 26.12.2014, police had brought two persons at his shop, whose names were disclosed as 'S' and 'S' and that he had identified them as the persons who had purchased acid (used for toilet cleaner) from him few days before.
20. PW-5/Sushil Kapoor deposed that he had provided to the police a pen drive containing CCTV camera recording of the CCTV Camera installed at Arya Samaj Chowk, Subhash Nagar, Delhi on 23.12.2014. He also issued the certificate Ex.PW-5/A regarding the said CCTV recording. The pen drive Mark PD (make Sandisk, Cruzer Blade 16 GB) was played in the court. It contained a folder namely State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 12 of 137 'Acid Attack CCTV Footage' having 12 files. Two files named as "Arya Samaj Chowk at 09.14-26 AM" and "Arya Samaj Chowk at 09.14-29 to 40 AM" were played and after seeing them, the witness stated that the footages feature the same area covered within the range of CCTV Camera installed at Arya Samaj Chowk and is the same footage handed over by him to the police in the Pen drive Mark 'PD'.
21. PW-6/Santosh Tripathi, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini deposed that on 29.12.2014, he alongwith his team consisting of Mr. Shahjad Ali, Ms. Anjana and Sh.Kunal had visited PS Rajouri Garden at the request of SHO and thoroughly examined the victim's scooty parked in the premises of the police station. He observed dried brownish stains on the headlight and its cover area, on both rear-view mirrors, on mudguard of front wheel and on front portion between 'Honda' Logo and number plate. Cotton swabs of dried brown stains were collected and handed over to the IO in a container for further examination in the FSL. He prepared the report Ex.PW6/A to that effect. He further deposed that 3 sealed parcels and 6 duly sealed plastic containers were received through SI Manohar Lal in FSL on 30.12.2014. He examined all these parcels and containers:-
Parcel No.1 contained one sealed plastic container having white coloured bandage cloth having pink and brownish stains on it, and was marked Ex.1 by him.State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 13 of 137
Parcel No.2 contained plastic container having transparent droplets sticking inside the syringe make DISPOVAN with needle, and was marked Ex.2 by him.
Parcel no.3, bearing seal of SCM, containing plastic container having blackish brown colour earth material and marked Ex.3 by him.
Parcel No.4, bearing two seals of SCM containing one plastic container containing one woolen hand glove black colour with white design on it having brownish stains was marked Ex.4A by him; and one woolen hand glove black colour with white design on it with torns of thumb, index, middle and small finger alongwith brownish stains on it was marked Ex.4-B by him; and one partially torn dark brown colour feather design head cap having brownish red stains on it was marked Ex.4-C by him. Parcel No.5 bearing seal of SCM contained one plastic container having blackish brown colour earth material, marked Ex.5 by him.
Parcel No.6 had three seals of SCM containing one transparent polythene having one white colour and blue design full sleeves sweatshirt with cap make 'Super brand', in it and was marked Ex.6A by him. It also contained one sunglass with black and red frame, which was marked Ex.6-B by him. Parcel No.7 bearing seven seals of SCM was one sealed cloth parcel having one white polythene containing blue colour sleeveless jacket, which was State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 14 of 137 marked Ex.7 by him.
Parcel No.8 bearing two seals of SCM was one cloth parcel containing one syringe 'B/BRAUN OMNI VAN' having brownish stains on it, marked Ex.8-A by him; and one Dispovan syringe having brownish stains in it, marked Ex.8-B by him.
Parcel No.9 bearing seal of SCM was a plastic container containing cotton swab, marked Ex.9 by him.
22. He deposed that on chemical examination of the exhibits, Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 6A, 6B, 7, 8A, 8B and 9 were found to contain sulfuric acid. However, he did not find sulfuric, hydrochloric or nitric acid on Ex.5. His report is Ex.PW6/B.
23. During cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he had lifted the dried brownish stains from the scooty at four places.
He had prepared one cotton swab of all the samples. He had not specifically mentioned in Ex.PW6/A that only one cotton swab was used to collect dried brown stains. He had not sealed that cotton swab nor IO had sealed it in his presence.
24. PW-7/Dr. Hemant Kumar Kesri, ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur had examined the victim on 23.12.2014 vide MLC No.1012/14 (Ex.PW7/A). The patient was brought by accused Ashok Yadav with alleged history of acid attack. During examination, PW-7 observed that the victim State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 15 of 137 had suffered injury on right eye and right side of the face. She was complaining of pain on the right side of face and diminution of vision in the right eye with pain. She was also complaining of burning sensation. The patient on examination was found conscious, oriented and her general condition was fair. After providing initial treatment, he referred her to the Eye department and Surgery. He had called the concerned eye surgeon and general surgeon for further treatment in Emergency ward itself.
25. PW-8/Pankaj Arora, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi had conducted the Test Identification Proceedings (TIP in short) of the victim's bag. He deposed that on 30.1.2015 while he was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, SI Mangal Ram from P.S Rajouri Garden moved an application Ex.PW8/A for conducting TIP of case property in this case. He fixed the TIP proceeding for 31.1.2015 in his chamber. On 31.1.2015, IO produced two white coloured pullandas, sealed with the seal of SCM. On opening the pullandas, one was found containing black colour bag and other one having orange colour Tommy Hilfiger Bag with brown straps containing some articles. IO stated that articles contained in orange colour bag Tommy Hilfiger are not required to be subjected to TIP. IO had also brought two identical black colour bags and four pink colour bags for mixing with the case property. The TIP proceedings were conducted in his chamber. The witness 'AK' was identified State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 16 of 137 by the IO. She failed to identify the black bag but she identified the orange colour Tommy Hilfiger bag. The TIP proceeding is ExPW8/B (colly).
26. During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that the identical articles produced by the IO for mixing with the case property were not brought in sealed condition.
27. PW-9/Chander Shekhar, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., produced the record pertaining to Mobile phone number 98XXXX38 and 9990700626 for the period from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014. As per record, mobile phone number 9990700626 has been subscribed by accused Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 29.04.2013. The copy of his Election I/Card is Mark PW9/B, copy of CAF is Ex.PW-9/A (OSR) and the CDR running in 35 pages back-to-back for the period between 01.11.2014 and 24.12.2014 is Ex.PW-9/C (colly). The printouts of the CDR brought by the witness is Ex.PW-9/C.1.
28. PW-9 further deposed that mobile phone number 98XXXXXX38 was subscribed by one Bhupender Singh w.e.f. 16.07.2014. The copy of his election I-Card submitted at the time of subscription is Mark PW9/E; copy of CAF is Ex.PW-9/D (OSR); and CDR for the period from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014, running in 32 pages back- to-back, is Ex.PW-9/F. The printouts of CDR brought by the witness is Ex.PW-9/C. The Cell Location Code Chart, running in 8 pages back-to-back, in respect of the Cell IDs State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 17 of 137 reflected in CDRs is Ex.PW-9/G. The certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of CDRs Ex.PW-9/F and Ex.PW-9/C is Ex.PW-9/H.
29. PW-10/Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. produced the record in respect of mobile phone numbers 8587059020, 99XXXXXX73, 83XXXXXX15 and 96XXXXXX97 alongwith respective CDRs for the period from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014. As per record, Mobile Number 8587059020 was subscribed by Ms. Laxmi W/o Anand Kumar w.e.f. 25.10.2013. The copy of the CAF is Ex.PW-10/A (OSR). Copy of her Election I-Card, submitted at the time of subscribing the connection, is Mark PW-10/B. The CDR in respect of this number for the period from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014 running in eleven pages back-to-back is Ex.PW-10/C. He produced a fresh Printout of the same Ex.PW-10/C.1. The certificate U/s 65-B, Indian Evidence Act in respect of the CDR is Ex. PW-10/D.
30. PW-10 further deposed that per record, mobile phone number 99XXXXXX73 has been subscribed by Sh.'SJ' (Father of JCL 'SM') w.e.f. 05.03.2011. Copy of the CAF is Ex.PW-10/E (OS&R). Copy of the Election I-Card, submitted by the customer at the time of subscription is Mark PW-10/E1 and the CDR running in 4 pages is Ex.PW-10/F. He also produced a fresh Print out and the same is Ex.PW-10/F.1. The certificate U/s 65B, Indian Evidence Act in support of the CDR is Ex.PW-10/G. State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 18 of 137
31. PW-10 further deposed that mobile phone number 83XXXXXX15 has been subscribed by Ms. 'SJ' (Mother of JCL 'SM') w.e.f. 09.01.2013. Copy of the CAF is Ex.PW-10/H (OS&R). Copy of the Election I-Card, submitted at the time of subscription is Mark AW-10/H1. The CDR in respect of this mobile phone number for the said period, running in 16 pages is Ex.PW-10/J. He also produced fresh print out of the same which is Ex.PW-10/J.1. The certificate U/s 65-B, Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-10/K.
32. PW-10 further deposed that mobile phone number 96XXXXXX97 has been subscribed by Ms. 'AS' w.e.f. 05.09.2013, copy of the CAF is Ex.PW-10/L (OS&R). Copy of the Election I-Card, submitted by the customer at the time of subscription is Mark PW-10/L1. The CDR in respect of this mobile phone number for the said period, running in 8 pages is Ex.PW-10/M. Fresh printout of CDRs is Ex.PW-10/M.1. Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-10/N. The Cell ID Code Chart in respect of the said phone numbers, running into 6 pages is Ex.PW-10/P.
33. PW-11/Sh. Ritesh Kumar deposed that earlier he was working in ECIL as Consultant for operating CCTV cameras. The DVR system was at PATS, Rajouri Garden and all the CCTV cameras were operated from there. On 23.12.2014, an incident of acid attack had taken place and State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 19 of 137 he was asked to provide the CCTV footage by the police officials. He had saved the data in the system and handed over the same to the police official in pen drive. The witness identified his signature on the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C Ex.PW11/A at point A. The certificate U/s 65 B of Evidence Act is Ex.PW11/B. The pen drive was played in the laptop of IO SI Manohar Lal. It contained a folder namely "Acid attack CCTV Footage", containing 12 files out of which, files at serial no.1 to 9 bearing following file titles were pointed out as relevant-
1. D 09 Gambhir Hospital Road Corner at 9.32.59 a.m.
2. D08 Near fruit shop.
3. F 19 near fruit shop.
4. F 18 near Park Avenue at 9.32.49 a.m.
5. F 17 near Nokia and Lucky at 9.32.47 a.m.
6. F 14 near Chawla Fruit Juice at 9.34.07 a.m.
7. F 12 near Bajaj Estates at 9.33.55 a.m.
8. F 11 Opp. Woodland at 9.33.58 a.m
9. D 03 Opp. Woodland at 9.33.58 a.m.
34. All the above-said files were played and the witness duly identified all the CCTV footages played in the court and deposed that it was the same which he had had handed over to the police official.
35. During cross examination, PW-11 stated that he had taken the CCTV footage on 23.12.2014 and saved it in the system. He handed over the pen driver to police official on State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 20 of 137 19.2.2015. He admitted that there were 12 files in the pen drive but expressed ignorance to how and when the other three files were transferred in the said pen drive.
36. PW-12/Dr. Tushar Aggarwal, Professor of Ophthalmology, R.P Centre, AIIMS deposed that on 23.12.2014, the victim was admitted under Unit III. Prior to that she had visited the general OPD of the hospital on the same morning and was advised admission for management of chemical injuries. Medical management of the patient was started on 23.12.2014. On 24.12.2014, the patient underwent one surgery for Amniotic Membrane Transplant. Subsequently, she underwent Pro Kera transplantation twice, i.e. first on 05.01.2015 and second on 19.01.2015. Due to typographical mistake, year 2015 was mentioned instead of 2014 in his report ExPW12/A. The patient was discharged on 28.1.2015. Her visual acuity was 3/60 in the R/E (unaided vision) with epithelization of the cornea. The patient was advised further follow up in the OPD. He had also given final opinion about the injury of the said patient on 5.3.2015 which is ExPW12/B. As per record, the victim had grievous injuries at presentation on 23.12.2014. The covering letter prepared by the Medical Record Officer along with his opinion is Mark PW-12A.
37. During cross-examination, the witness was asked to explain Dua's Classification, as in his record, he had mentioned that the right eye injury of the victim was graded as 'Grade 4 injury according to Dua's State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 21 of 137 classification'. He stated that it is an established method of classifying chemical injuries based on the extent of limbal ischemia. It helps to guide the management of the case. Dr. Dua's classification is considered as standard of care in ophthalmology.
38. PW-13/Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Teleservices Limited deposed that in January, 2015, at the request of police, he had provided details of mobile phone No. 9250925082. As per record, this phone was subscribed by Ms. Sapna Sharma R/o T-9/2, Sanyat Line, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi and was activated in her name w.e.f. 16.5.2013. Photocopy of CAF is ExPW13/A (OSR). Copy of her PAN card is Mark PW13/B. The CDR of the said mobile number from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014 running in 28 pages, is Ex.PW13/C (colly). The certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act in support of the CDR is Ex.PW13/D. The CAF alongwith CDR and certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was forwarded to the IO vide his letter Ex. PW13/E.
39. PW-14/Ajit Singh, Asstt. Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd.
proved the CDR of phone number 95XXXXXX50 for the period from 1.11.2014 to 24.12.2014, running in 58 pages as collectively ExPW14/A. The certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act is ExPW14/B. The said phone number was subscribed in the name of victim 'AK' and was activated on 23.10.2010. The copy of driving license of the applicant provided is Mark PW14/D. Copy of CAF is State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 22 of 137 ExPW14/C (OSR).
40. PW-15/father of the victim deposed that in the year 2014, he was posted in XX Academy, Tekan Pur, Madhya Pradesh. On 23.12.2014, he received a phone call from his daughter informing him that someone had thrown acid on her. He sought leave and proceeded to Delhi. He reached Delhi in the evening and came to know that his daughter was admitted for treatment in AIIMS. On visiting AIIMS, he found that his daughter had sustained acid burns on her right-side face around the eye. Her neck and one hand were also affected by the acid burns. His daughter remained admitted in AIIMS for about two months. Police recorded his statement probably on 28.12.2014. From police, he came to know that accused Ashok Yadav has been apprehended. He had heard about the accused Ashok Yadav earlier from his daughter. His reference was on account of his daughter's professional relations. At the time of incident, his daughter's marriage was arranged to be fixed with 'Dr. G Singh'.
41. In cross-examination, PW-15 stated that his daughter had completed her MBBS from XX, Russia in the year 2007-
08. She passed requisite examinations conducted by MCI after coming to India in the year 2008-09. She had undergone her internship from XXU hospital, Hari Nagar. He could not recall when she got employment in Delhi. She resided in Delhi after returning from Russia except for the period when she had done post-graduation from State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 23 of 137 Indore. He could not recall when she had undertaken post- graduation course. While undergoing her post graduation in Indore, his daughter used to stay in hostel as well as in a separate accommodation for some period.
42. He could not recall whether his daughter had ever told him about Dr Aneesh and that she was residing with him in Delhi. He did not know whether his daughter was having friendship with Dr Abhay Sharma or one Amit. He did not know whether his daughter had to leave for Indore on 16.12.2014. However, she had told him that she had left for airport early in the morning for taking flight to Indore and had seen two persons on the way under suspicious circumstances. He denied that they treated Ashok's parents as local guardian for his daughter.
43. He denied that his daughter had earlier rejected the proposal to marry Dr G. Singh. He further denied that as she intended to avoid her marriage with Dr. G. Singh, the victim herself had staged or managed this incident through the JCLs.
44. PW-16/Ms. XX, mother of JCL 'SM' deposed that the last digits of her mobile number were 315 and her son 'SM' was using the said number in the year 2014. The said mobile number was issued in the name of her husband. She had another mobile number 92XXXXXX53. In answer to a leading question put by Ld. APP on the point of ID on which the number 83XXXXXX15 was issued, she admitted her photograph on the CAF of the said State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 24 of 137 mobile number 83XXXXXX15 Ex. PW-10/H and that it was issued on her ID. She admitted that copy of Election ID card Mark PW-10/H1 was tendered at the time of issuance of said mobile number. This witness was not cross examined by either accused.
45. PW-17/father of JCL 'SM' stated that his son was using mobile number issued on his ID. The mobile number on which he used to speak with his son was 99XXXXXX69. He admitted the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP that his son was using two cell phone numbers, one on his ID and the other on the ID of his wife. He was shown the customer application form for mobile number 99XXXXXX73 Ex. PW-10/E and he admitted his photograph thereupon, and that it was issued on his ID. He also admitted that copy of Election ID card Mark PW-10/E1 was tendered at the time of issuance of said mobile number. He also admitted his photograph on the CAF of mobile number 83XXXXXX15 Ex. PW-10/H and that it was issued on his ID. He admitted that copy of Election ID card (Mark PW-10/H1) was tendered at the time of issuance of said mobile number. He was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state under Section 154 Evidence Act wherein he admitted having told the police that mobile no. 83XXXXXX15, issued in the name of his wife was being used by his son. He could not remember if he had told the police that his son was also using the other phone number 99XXXXXX73 issued in his name.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 25 of 13746. PW-18/mother of JCL 'SS' deposed that in 2014, the JCL was using two cell phones. One mobile number 98XXXXXX78 belonged to her. She did not have any other mobile number and used that number only. On the date of incident, her son was using the said phone number. The other cell number which her son was using belonged to her husband and she could not remember that number. She deposed that her son used to take her husband's cell phone with him sometimes. When she had to speak with him, she used to call him on 98XXXXXX78 from her husband's phone number. She was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state was confronted with her statement recorded by police dated 19.02.15, which she admitted to be correct. The statement is Ex. PW-18/P1. She admitted that her son had found one mobile sim in Jheel Wala Park bearing no. 98XXXXXX38 and was using it.
47. PW-19/Laxmi Rajput, mother of accused Vaibhav Rajput admitted the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. for the State that her son was using cell phone number 8587059020. She admitted her photograph on the CAF for mobile number 8587059020 Ex. PW-10/A, and also admitted that the same was issued on her ID. She admitted that copy of her Election ID card Mark PW-10/B was tendered at the time of issuance of said mobile number.
48. PW-20/Phool Chand Sharma deposed that Sapna Sharma is his daughter while Rajnish Kaushik is his son-in-law. In the year 2014, police came to his residence inquiring about State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 26 of 137 his daughter and he told them that she was residing at Bahadurgarh with her in-laws. Police recorded his statement. He stated that he does not know the accused. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act. He admitted his statement given to the police dated 19.02.2015 as correct.
49. In cross-examination by accused Ashok Yadav, PW-20 denied that he never made the statement Ex. PW-20/P1 to the police voluntarily, and the same is false and fabricated.
50. PW-21/SI Kalyan Singh, Incharge, Mobile crime team reached the spot on 23.12.2014 at about 11:10 am, along with SI Dharamvir Singh (Finger Prints Expert) and PW-24/Ct.Amit (Photographer). IO/SI Suresh Kumar met him at the spot. There were some stains/drops of transparent liquid on the footrest and other parts of the victim's Scooty, and also on the road near the Scooty. Some blood stains were also observed on the road and on the seat of Scooty. He prepared his detailed report Ex.PW-21/A. PW-24/Ct. Amit, Photographer, Mobile Crime Team took nine photographs at the spot which are Ex.PW-24/A1 to Ex.PW-24/A9 and the negatives are Ex.PW-24/B (colly). In his cross-examination, he identified two photographs indicating presence of blood spots on the scene of crime i.e Ex.PW-24/A.3 and Ex.PW-24/A.9.
51. PW-22/Retired ASI Pradeep Kumar deposed that on State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 27 of 137 23.12.2014 at about 12:30 PM, Ct. Tej pal presented a rukka sent by SI Suresh Chand for registration of FIR. He got registered FIR no. 1525/14 U/s 394/34/326 IPC through computer operator and signed the computerized copies of the FIR. The FIR is Ex. PW-22/A and his endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW-22/B. Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-22/C.
52. PW-30/Nitin Jain, registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-4S-BC-4072 deposed that in the month of December, 2014, his motorcycle was stolen from outside their house. He got registered an FIR for theft of his motorcycle at PS Hari Nagar. After about 2-3 months, he received phone call from a police official to contact PS Hari Nagar. He reached PS Hari Nagar, where he was informed that his motorcycle was used in an incident in the area of PS Rajouri Garden and has been seized by the police officials of PS Rajouri Garden. He got his motorcycle released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW-30/A. Six photographs of the Motorcycle are Ex.PW-30/B1-B6. PW-29/Satya Prakash, LDC, Transport Department, Janakpuri Authority produced the record pertaining to the above-said motorcycle, as per which, the motorcycle is in the name of Nitin Jain. Same is Ex.PW-29/A.
53. PW-23/ASI Shri Ram Meena, Duty officer at PS Hari Nagar on 21.12.2014, had registered the FIR no. 1489/14 U/s 379 IPC on receiving rukka sent by HC Om Prakash.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 28 of 137The said FIR is Ex.PW-23/A. PW-34/Ct. Deepak had collected the abovesaid motorcycle from MHC(M) PS Rajouri Garden and deposited the same in the Malkhana of PS Hari Nagar on 01.02.2015.
54. PW-25/Ct.Anil Kumar deposed that in February, 2015 he deposited three sealed Parcels alongwith two sample seals at FSL, Rohini from MHC(M). One parcel was sealed with the seal of SCM and other two parcels were sealed with the seal of PK. The acknowledgment receipt was given to the MHC(M).
55. PW-26/Abhishek @ Manu is the eye witness to the alleged incident. He deposed that on 23.12.2014, at about 09:30 AM, he was present on the roof of his house. He saw a scooty coming from the side of MS Marg towards main market, Rajouri Garden. When the Scooty reached near the shop of Chawla Jewellers, he saw that one Motorcycle rider took over the Scooty and snatched the purse kept on the footrest of the scooty. There were two persons on the Motorcycle. The rider of the Motorcycle took the Purse while the pillion rider, who was carrying a bottle, threw the liquid of the bottle towards the face of lady riding the Scooty. Both the offenders fled with their Motorcycle. The lady stopped her Scooty near shop of Ram Hari Jewellers and started shouting. He rushed to the spot to assist. The lady told him that her purse has been snatched by the two boys on motorcycle and that her face felt as if it was burning. The witness took that lady to Kathuria hospital on State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 29 of 137 foot which was at a distance of about 50 mtrs. from the spot. The doctors available in the Kathuria hospital refused to provide treatment to that lady saying that it was a police case. The lady informed him that her mobile phone was in the purse which had already been taken away by the offenders. He gave her his mobile phone. She made call to one person Ashok Yadav. The witness called the police on 100 number. The victim informed her name as 'AK'. Then he took the victim to the spot. Accused Ashok Yadav came there and the victim went with him. He further deposed that within 2-3 minutes police reached the spot. The CCTV Cameras installed in his house had captured the entire incident and on the next day, police obtained the recording of CCTV footage for the period from 09:00 AM to 10:00 AM of 23.12.2014, in a pen drive brought by Manohar Lal and SI Suresh. Police served a notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-26/A) on him. The Pen drive Mark PD (make Sandisk, Cruzer blade 16 GB) was taken out from a sealed envelope on judicial record and played in the court. There were total 12 files namely (1) Gambhir hospital, Road corner D-09, (2) near Fruit shop D-08 (3) F-19, near Fruit shop (4) F-18, near Park avenue (5) F-17 near Nokia and Lucky (6) F-14, near Chawla Fruit Juice (7) F-12, near Bajaj State (8) F-11, Opposite Woodland (9) D-03, opposite Woodland (10) Arya Smaj Chowk (11) Arya Smaj Chowk and (12) Ram Mari Jewellers shop. Out of these, file no.12 was played and the witness stated that the incident narrated by him in his examination in chief is recorded therein. However, he also submitted that this file State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 30 of 137 is not from his CCTV Camera footage that he handed over to the police officials. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the Pen drive Mark PD does not contain the CCTV Footage obtained from this witness. Infact, the CCTV footage supplied by PW-26 has not been filed with the present chargesheet, however, it has been filed before Learned JJB which conducted the trial of the two JCLs 'SS' and 'SM'.
56. During cross-examination, PW-26 stated that he reached the spot within 4-5 minutes after witnessing the incident. His statement as recorded by the police is Ex.PW-26/DA. He denied the suggestion that he neither witnessed the incident nor took the Victim to the hospital. In his presence, the police had taken photographs and members from Forensic team of the police had inspected the spot.
57. The credit cards and debit cards in the name of the victim, which were recovered from the possession of accused Vaibhav and the JCLs were duly proved by the following witnesses:
a) PW-27/Ram Kripal, Asstt. Manager, Axis Bank, Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi produced the details of Debit Card No. 4179xxxxxx059, issued in the name of the victim by their branch. Same is Ex.PW-27/A.
b) PW-28/Pappu Kumar, Asstt Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Maharaja Agarsain branch produced the details of Debit Card no.
4357xxxxxxxxx4543, issued by their branch in the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 31 of 137 name of the victim. Same is Ex.PW-28/A.
c) PW-35/Ritesh Kumar, Manger, PNB, Rajouri Garden Branch, Delhi produced the record relating to the debit card bearing no. 51xxxxxxxxxxxx76, issued in the name of the victim. The letter of their senior manager Mrs. Urmila Jain is Ex.PW-35/A and the statement of account of this debit card is Ex.PW-35/B (colly). The certificate u/s 65 Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-35/C.
d) PW-36/Sh. Harish Sharma, Assistant Vice President, HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi produced the record relating to the debit card bearing no. 43xxxxxxxxxxxx242 issued by their bank in victim's name. Same is Ex.PW-36/A. The statement of account is Ex.PW-36/B (colly) and certificate u/s 65 Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-36/C.
e) PW-38/Sh. Ashish Kaushik, Senior Associate, SBI, Rajouri Garden Branch produced the record regarding debit card no. 62XXXXXXXXXXXX5831, pertaining to account of the victim at SBI ADB, XX branch, Punjab. His report is Ex. PW-38/C. His authorization letter is Ex. PW-38/A and copy of his identity card is Ex. PW-38/B (OSR).
58. PW-31/ Inspector Hukum Chand deposed that on 23.12.2014, he was Incharge of PCR, PHQ. At about 9.43:55 a.m, W/Ct. Jyoti had fed the information regarding call in PCR form. This call was recorded vide DD no.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 32 of 1371060080. PW-32/W/Ct. Jyoti deposed that on 23.12.2014, she was working as call operator in PCR, PHQ. At about 9.43:55 a.m, she had fed the information regarding call in PCR form, which was recorded vide DD no. 1060080. The computerized copy of the DD no is Ex.PW-32/A. The PCR form of DD no. 1060080 dated 23.12.2014 is Ex.PW32/B and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Mark X1.
59. PW-33/ Dr. Paschal Dsouza, deposed that on 12.02.2015, he was posted as Additional Medical Suptd. at ESI hospital, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. On 09.02.2015, notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C was received at their office sent by SI Pravesh Kaushik. He prepared reply to the said notice on the basis of relevant document available at their office and the document in this regard is Ex. PW-33/A.
60. In his cross-examination, PW-33 stated that the victim was selected as Senior Resident for period of three years which was renewable after every one year depending upon the satisfactory work and conduct. Criteria for selection as Senior Resident is MD degree in the concerned specialty or MBBS with two years of experience after MBBS in the relevant specialty in a government hospital. He had no personal knowledge whether the victim Dr. AK had fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be appointed as Senior Resident, but he voluntarily stated that without fulfilling the criteria, the appointment cannot be made. As per their record, Dr. AK remained on leave from 23.12.2014 to State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 33 of 137 24.05.2015 on medical grounds.
61. PW-37/Mr. V. Lakshmi Narsimhan, deposed that on 12.02.2015 he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) at FSL Rohini, Delhi. On that day, three sealed parcels in connection with case FIR 1525/2014, PS Rajouri Garden were received in his office and marked to him for examination. He examined the exhibits after breaking the seals of the parcels. His detailed report in this regard dated 29.09.2015 is Ex.PW37/A. As per the said report, the voice exhibit of speaker marked Ex.Q1 and Ex.S1 are of the same person i.e. accused Vaibhav Kumar; and voice exhibit of speaker marked Ex.Q2 and Ex.S2 are of the same person i.e. accused Ashok Yadav. After examination, the said parcels were re-sealed with the seal of "V. L.N. FSL-DELHI".
62. In his cross-examination, PW-37 stated that he completed examining the said parcels on 29.09.2015 when the aforesaid report was prepared. He stated that he had not prepare phonetic transcription for voice exemplars. He had not recorded the specimen voice samples of the accused. He admitted that he had not given the (hash) value of electronic measurement in his report. He explained that the hash value in case of electronic measurement of voice recording pertains to the Hex value of a digital file. He stated that the continuity of the relevant audio files was examined as per the procedure and no sign of any form of alteration were observed. He denied that since he had not State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 34 of 137 mentioned the speed of recording in the cassette and CD, therefore, it cannot be termed as phonetically same in both samples. He stated that he had not mentioned the dissimilarity of specimen voice sample with the questioned voice in his report. He had received training in the forensic speaker identification from National Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science, Rohini Delhi and do not have diploma in auditory and phonetics linguistics.
63. PW 44/IO SI Suresh Chand deposed that on 23.12.2014, he along with Ct Tej Pal was on emergency duty from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. At around 9:50 AM he received DD no.30B (Ex.PW44/A) that acid was thrown on a girl. They reached the main market, Rajouri Garden. Victim's scooty was parked in front of Chawla Jewellers. In the meanwhile, he received a telephone call from PS Rajouri Garden regarding admission of the victim Dr. 'AK' in ESI Hospital vide DD no.33B. He left Ct. Tej Pal at the spot and proceeded to ESI hospital. On his way to the hospital, he collected DD no. 33B (Ex.PW44/B) from PS Rajouri Garden. At ESI Hospital he collected the MLC of the victim (Ex.PW7/A). He was told by the doctor that victim has been referred to AIIMS hospital. He reached AIIMS hospital where injured Dr 'AK' was found admitted. He recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. The treating doctor handed over to him two woolen gloves having white colour mark and one woolen cap of coca cola colour.
64. He returned to the spot and made endorsement on State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 35 of 137 Ex.PW2/A and handed over the rukka to Ct Tej Pal for registration of the case. Mobile crime team was already present there. SI Kalyan Singh, Mobile Crime Team In- charge inspected the spot and handed over the crime visit report Ex.PW21/A to him. Ct. Tej Pal returned to the spot at around 1:20 PM and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He sealed both the woolen gloves and cap of the victim in a plastic container with the seal of SCM and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/G. The Crime team lifted the following evidence from the spot:-
(i) unknown chemical substance from the handle and headlight of victim's scooty with the help of a syringe;
(ii) unknown chemical substance of Red colour from the seat of the scooty;
(iii) earth control where chemical substance was lying as well as earth control without chemical substance near it.
65. The witness sealed all the said articles in separate plastic containers and seized them vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/B, Ex.PW39/A, Ex.PW39/C and Ex. PW39/D. Thereafter he checked the CCTV footage installed at house no. F-128, First Floor, main market Rajouri Garden, where PW-26/Abhishek @ Manu met him. In the CCTV Footage he saw that two boys on a red colour motorcycle were following the victim. He also checked the CCTV Footage installed in the area of PS Rajouri Garden by ECI State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 36 of 137 company and control room of the said CCTV Cameras are in the police station Rajouri Garden. He checked the CCTV Footage of the camera of the route of the victim as well as the place of incident. In the said CCTV Footage also, those two boys on a red colour motorcycle were seen chasing the scooty of the victim. He got developed the photographs of the said CCTV Footage. Same are marked PW44/C1 and PW44/C2. The said photographs were circulated to the police officer of West district to trace out the accused persons.
66. He further deposed that on 24.12.2014 he got collected the CDR of the mobile phone of the victim/complainant Ex.PW14/A. On analyzing, he found that the victim was having lot of conversations with 3-4 other numbers. Out of those, two mobile numbers were 9250925082 and 9990700626. The other mobile numbers were 8962553000 and 776884466. These calls were duly catalogued in the CDR Ex.PW14/A. After analyzing the CDR of the victim, he sent the mail to service provider of the company of the aforesaid numbers to provide the CDRs and CAF of the aforesaid mobile numbers.
67. He along with PW-40/SI Manohar Lal and other staff checked the CCTV footage installed at Ram Hari Jewellers, Rajouri Garden with the help of PW-1/Gurdeep Singh. In the said CCTV footage, they found that two boys were chasing the scooty of the complainant. Gurdeep Singh handed over the said CCTV footage to him in a pen State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 37 of 137 drive alongwith certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act. He seized the said pen drive vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/DA.
68. Thereafter they reached at the house of PW-26/Abhishek, who handed over to him the CCTV footage in a pen drive alongwith certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act (Mark PW44/D). He seized the pen drive vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/A. Thereafter he along with PW-40/SI Manohar Lal and other police officials reached the office of one property dealer namely Sushil Kapoor situated at Arya Samaj Road and checked the CCTV Footage installed at his office. The same two boys on motorcycle were seen chasing the scooty of the victim. However, due to some technical problem, Sushil Kapoor did not provide the said CCTV Footage. They also checked the CCTV installed at the house of Himanshu Bhasin situated at Janak Park, Hari Nagar, Delhi. Again, the two boys on motorcycle were seen chasing the scooty of the victim. Himanshu Bhasin handed over the CCTV footage in a pen drive to him, which he seized vide seizure memo.
69. PW-44 further deposed that on making inquiry with the doctors at ESI hospital, he came to know that the victim and accused Ashok were friends and were dating at that time. However, neither the victim nor her father expressed their suspicion on anyone. He obtained the CDR of mobile no.9250925082 and analyzed the same. He found one suspicious number i.e. 8287059020 and obtained the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 38 of 137 ownership details of phone number 8287059020 from Nodal Officer telephonically. He came to know that the said number belongs to one Smt. Laxmi W/o Anand R/o 174, Pratap Nagar, Hari Nagar, Delhi. Next day i.e. 25.12.2014 at about 7:00 AM, he constituted a team including PW-40/SI Manohar Lal, PW-43/SI Pravesh Kaushik, HC Satender, Ct Yashpal, Ct Jyoti Prakash and PW-43/Ct Vivek. They reached at 174, Pratap Nagar, Hari Nagar, Delhi where they met the landlord Shyam Sharma. He disclosed that Laxmi and Anand resided earlier on rent but now they were residing in House no.24, Top Floor, Pratap Nagar, Delhi. They reached the said address where Laxmi was present. She disclosed that her son Vaibhav was using the said mobile number. Accused Vaibhav was also present there. He interrogated the accused Vaibhav, who admitted that he was using the said mobile number. He inquired him about the mobile number 9250925082, but he did not give any satisfactory answer. They brought the accused Vaibhav to PS and interrogated him but he did not cooperate in the investigation. He examined the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav and found some screenshots of WhatsApp chatting between him and accused Ashok in the gallery. The mobile number of accused Ashok Yadav was saved in the WhatsApp of accused Vaibhav. He found call recordings between the accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav till 14-15.12.2014. He interrogated the accused Vaibhav regarding the screenshots, WhatsApp chats and call recordings, and the accused disclosed that the said number belongs to accused Ashok Yadav and that he along with State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 39 of 137 accused Ashok Yadav made the conspiracy to throw the acid on the victim.
70. Thereafter he along with staff members went to the house of accused Ashok Yadav and brought him to the PS. He was confronted with accused Vaibhav and the above-said screenshots, whatsapp chat and call recordings. Both the accused persons admitted their involvements. Both the accused were arrested and their personal search were conducted. He also recorded their disclosure statements.
71. The mobile phone of accused Vaibhav make Micromax (dual SIM) was sealed in a pullanda and seized vide Ex.PW40/D. The two mobile phones of accused Ashok were also sealed in a pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/J.
72. As per the disclosure statement of accused Vaibhav, the bag of victim was lying in his house. They reached at the house of accused Vaibhav and one ladies bag orange/brown colour was produced by the accused Vaibhav. The witness checked the bag and found a pink colour purse, DL, Voter ID Card, PAN Card, SBI Debit Card, Cash Back Card, Shopper Stop Card, some slips of ESI Hospital, 6 coins, one stethoscope etc. (total 16 items) in the same. The bag with all its articles was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/K.
73. PW-44 deposed that as per disclosure of the accused State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 40 of 137 persons, the accused Ashok Yadav was in love with the victim but victim's marriage was fixed with someone else. So, to teach lesson to the victim, accused persons hired the JCLs to throw acid on victim. Accused Vaibhav led the police team to the house of JCL 'SM'. They took both Vaibhav and Ashok with them to his house. The JCL was interrogated and he disclosed his involvement in the incident. He was apprehended vide apprehension memo Ex.PW40/M. SI Manohar Lal recorded his version of child in conflict with law, Ex.PW40/P. The witness also recorded his version, Ex.PW40/Q. The proceedings were conducted in presence of his parents. As per version of the JCL 'SM', accused Vaibhav had hired him and another JCL 'SS' to execute the incident. He produced one credit card of HDFC Bank and one debit card of PNB belonging to the victim from the almirah. The cards were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/S. Two mobile phones (Nokia and Nokia Lumia) of JCL 'SM' were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/T. JCL 'SM' also produced one hoodie (woolen jacket with cap) and one goggles, which he was wearing at the time of the incident, which were sealed in a pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/R.
74. Thereafter, they reached at the house of another JCL 'SS' at XX, Hari Nagar. He interrogated the JCL 'SS' and his apprehension memo was prepared. SI Manohar Lal recorded his version of child in conflict with law, Ex.PW40/X. The witness also recorded his version Ex.PW40/Y. The JCL produced two mobile phones, one State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 41 of 137 make Nokia and one Blackberry, which were sealed in a pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z2. JCL 'SS' also produced two debit cards from the pocket of a pair of jeans hanging in his house. One of the debit cards was of Axis Bank and the other was of Oriental Bank of Commerce. Both the cards belonged to the victim. He seized the said cards vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z1. JCL 'SS' also produced one blue colour jacket having white and red colour stripes, which he was wearing at the time of incident as disclosed by him. The said jacket was sealed in a cloth pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z. These proceedings were conducted in presence of his parents.
75. PW-44/IO further deposed that the JCLs 'SM' and 'SS', led police team to the park behind Gurudwara, Pratap Nagar. At the instance of both JCLs, two syringe lying in the bushes, near the gate of the park were found. Both JCLs disclosed told that one syringe was used by them on 16.12.2014 when they were trying to throw the acid on the victim and another syringe was used by them in the crime. Both syringes were put in a polythene and wrapped with white colour cloth and sealed with the seal of SCM and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z3.
76. From the park, the police team alongwith both accused and JCLs reached at the house of accused Vaibhav, from where a black colour bag, which he had given to the JCL to look like a student at the time of crime, was recovered and State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 42 of 137 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/L. Thereafter, all of them reached at the house of accused Ashok. They interrogated the accused Ashok qua the diary and mobile phone of the victim but he did not cooperate.
77. PW-44/IO further deposed that the JCLs got recovered the motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SBC-4072 which they had used in the crime from D-45, Rajouri Garden, Ring Road. Both JCLs disclosed that they had stolen it from Ghanta Ghar, A Block, Hari Nagar on 21.12.2014. Through zipnet, they came to know that the said motorcycle was stolen from the area of Hari Nagar and one FIR was lodged in the PS Hari Nagar. The motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z4. Pointing out memo Ex.PW40/Z5 and Ex.PW40/Z6 of the place of occurrence were prepared at the instance of JCL 'SM' and 'SS'.
78. PW-44 further deposed that both JCLs pointed out the shop namely Raj Sanitary situated at 64/14, Ashok Nagar from where they had purchased the acid. The owner of the shop, PW4/Raj Kumar Malhotra was present in the shop.
79. IO further deposed that on 26.12.2014, accused Ashok was remanded to police custody by Ld. MM concerned. He was taken to his house for search of mobile and diary of the victim. Accused Ashok took out the mobile phone of victim make I-Phone S-4 White Colour from box of his bed. The said mobile phone was sealed in a pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z8. He mentioned the mobile number, IMEI number and SIM number of the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 43 of 137 mobile phone in the seizure memo.
80. PW-44 further deposed that on 05.01.2015, FSL team came to PS Rajouri Garden and inspected the victim's scooty and took samples of acid with the help of cotton and handed it over to him. He kept the same in plastic container and sealed it with the seal of SCM. The said plastic container was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/F. The witness identified the following case properties:-
(i) One woolen cap and two woolen gloves belonging to victim, which were handed over to him at RP Eye center of AIIMS. Same are Ex.P3.
(ii) Two syringes recovered from a park at the instance of JCL 'SS' and 'SM' as Ex.PW43/P2.
(iii) One spectacle and one hoody recovered at the instance of JCL 'SM' are Ex.PW43/P3.
(iv) One syringe with cap vide which the Crime team officials had lifted the chemical from the head light and handle of scooty of victim is Ex.PW44/P1.
(v) One sleeveless jacket of red, blue, white and black color belonging to JCL 'SS' is Ex.PW43/P4.
(vi) Small piece of stones i.e. earth control lifted from the spot is Ex.PW44/P2.
(vii) Small piece of stones i.e. earth control with chemical substance lifted from the spot is Ex.PW44/P3.
(viii) One gauze with light brown stains with which the liquid drops of chemical were lifted from victim's scooty is Ex.PW44/P4.State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 44 of 137
(ix) Two mobile phones, one make Lenovo and the other make Samsung CDMA, recovered from accused Ashok is Ex.PW43/P5 (colly).
(x) Three cotton balls, with which the FSL team lifted the chemical/acid swab from victim's scooty at PS Rajouri Garden are Ex.PW44/P5.
81. The witness also identified the WhatsApp chats obtained from the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav. The 20 photographs reflecting the WhatsApp chats are Ex.PW40/X1.
82. During cross examination on behalf of accused Vaibhav, PW-44 stated that he had interrogated 3-4 other persons on behalf of the CDR of the mobile phone of the victim apart from accused Ashok Yadav, however he could not recall their names. He further stated that accused Ashok Yadav used to call to the victim through his two mobile numbers. He stated that initially, he obtained CDR of mobile phone of accused Ashok Kumar for one week prior to 23.12.2014. During investigation later on, he collected certified copy of CDR of mobile phone of accused Ashok but he could not recall for which period. PW-44 stated that had made efforts to join independent public witnesses at the time of recovery of victim's bag and pitho bag from the house of accused Vaibhav, however, none joined. No notice was served upon those public persons who refused to join the proceedings. No videography and photography were done at the time of recovery of above said articles State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 45 of 137 from the house of accused Vaibhav.
83. He stated that the photographs of conversation between co-accused Ex.PW40/X1 were recovered from the Whatsapp chats of the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav and same are not screenshots. He did not serve any notice on META to provide end to end encrypted chats of the conversation. He also did not export the complete Whatsapp conversation between the accused persons from the original source/phone. He denied that he alongwith other police officials and father of the victim created incriminating Whatsapp chats to falsely implicate the accused persons.
84. During cross examination on behalf of accused Ashok Kumar, PW-44 stated that he had received the information of the present case through PCR on 23.12.2014 at about 09:45 a.m. He stated that the doctor at AIIMS hospital produced the gloves and cap of victim. He took the same from doctor but prepared its seizure memo after reaching at the spot. He admitted that the doctor who handed over the cap and gloves of victim to him was not made a witness in this case nor was his signature obtained on the seizure memo of those articles. He admitted that the pubic persons were present at the spot but he did not record the statement of any of those public persons.
85. PW-44 stated that he had procured the CDR of mobile phone of accused Ashok at about 11:45 p.m. on State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 46 of 137 24.12.2014 for a period of one year. He was unable to recall whether the fourth mobile number, apart from that of the accused Ashok and Vaibhav's father, on which the victim had conversed, belonged to Dr. Anees. He did not place the CDR and CAF of that mobile number on the record. He denied that victim had informed him that Dr. Abhay Sharma had made complaint against her before MCI and on this issue, there was quarrel between her and Dr. Abhay. He denied that the victim had informed him that she had handed over her mobile phone to accused Ashok Kumar when he brought her to AIIMS.
86. PW-44/IO admitted that he did not make enquiry from Sapna regarding the mobile number 9250925082 that the same was used by accused Ashok Kumar. He voluntarily stated that the accused Ashok had told him on 24.12.2014 that he was using the sim issued in the name of Sapna. However, he admitted that he had not recorded any statement of accused Ashok Kumar to that effect. He denied that the abovesaid phone number in the name of Ms. Sapna was never used by accused Ashok and was falsely planted on him. He did not give any notice to Sapna to join the investigation.
87. PW-44/IO stated that victim's scooty was parked inside the PS premises and no general public had access to that place prior to its inspection as the said place was cordoned off by them. He had not made any departure or arrival entry regarding his visits to the house of accused Ashok.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 47 of 13788. He stated that no technical expert was called when the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav was checked. The recording of conversation and WhatsApp chats between both the accused persons were transferred by him in his personal HP laptop from the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav. He denied that public person gathered near the house of accused Vaibhav when they went there on 25.12.2014. He admitted that the signature of mother of accused Vaibhav or of any independent public person were not taken on the seizure memo Ex.PW40/K.
89. He stated that Victim had informed him that even on 16.12.2014, she had observed two persons standing outside her house. He had recorded her statement in this regard on 24.12.2014. All the CCTV footages relevant to present case were taken in one pen drive, however, the CCTV footage of the cameras installed by the PWD/govt. authority was taken in separate pen drive. He did not seize the DVR of the said CCTV cameras. He did not seal the pen drives containing CCTV footage nor were they sent to FSL for examination. He admitted that as per the CDR and location chart of both the accused and JCLs, no conversation or similar location was found between accused Ashok and JCLs at any point of time.
90. PW-40/Insp. Manohar Lal was part of the police team constituted to investigate the present case and had joined the investigation with PW-44/IO SI Suresh and PW-42/SI State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 48 of 137 Parvesh Kaushik on 24.12.2024. He corroborated the testimony of PW-44 & PW-42 regarding the investigation, the recoveries and the arrest and disclosure of the accused persons and the JCLs, and deposed on the same lines. He witnessed the recovery proceedings and signed the seizure memo Ex. PW-40/A, Ex.PW40/E and Ex.PW40/F. The transcription of whatsapp chats is Ex.PW40/F (colly) (2 pages) while the photographs of the whatsapp chat, 20 in total are Ex.PW40/X1 (colly).
91. He deposed that on 25.12.2014 accused Ashok Yadav was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW40/G and his personal search was conducted vide search memo Ex.PW40/H. Disclosure statement of accused Ashok Yadav was recorded by the IO vide memo Ex.PW40/I. His two mobile phones were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/J. Accused Vaibhav was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-40/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW40/C and his disclosure statement is PW40/A.
92. PW-40 deposed that he accompanied the IO to the house of JCL 'SM'. He prepared the social background report of JCL being the JWO. Same is Ex.PW40/O (colly). He recorded the version of JCL in the presence of his mother which is Ex.PW40/P. He signed the seizure memo Ex.PW40/R vide which one upper woolen shirt with cap and sunglasses, which he was wearing at the time of incident was seized and also seizure memo Ex.PW40/S State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 49 of 137 vide which one debit card of PNB Bank and one credit card of HDFC Bank were seized. He also signed the seizure memo Ex.PW40/T, vide which two mobile phones make Nokia and Nokia Lumia 520 were seized from the possession of the said JCL. He also accompanied the IO to the house of JCL 'SS' and was part of the proceedings and recoveries conducted there. He prepared the social background report of JCL Ex.PW40/W (colly). He also recorded the version of JCL in the presence of his mother. Same is Ex.PW40/X. He was a witness to the seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z, Ex. PW40/Z1, Ex.PW40/Z2 vide which one blue color jacket, which JCL was wearing it at the time of incident; two debit cards of Axis Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce of the victim; and two mobile phones make Nokia and Blackberry were seized respectively. He was also witness to the recovery of two syringes from Pratap Nagar Park at the instance of the JCLs.
93. He further corroborated the testimony of PW-44 and PW-42 qua the investigation conducted on 26.12.2014. He deposed that on 30.12.2014, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. During the investigation he deposited the exhibits in the FSL, Rohini. On 06.01.2015 he seized the CCTV Footage of Arya Samaj Chowk, Subhash Nagar from the office of Sushil Kapoor vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z7. The exhibits of the present case were collected by him from the malkhana vide RC No.162/21/14 dated 30.12.2014 and deposited in State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 50 of 137 the FSL, Rohini. The copy of the said RC No. 162/21/14 is Ex. PW40/Z-9. After depositing the exhibits in the FSL, Rohini, he obtained acknowledgment slip Ex. PW40/Z-10 and handed it over to MHC(M). On 03.01.2015 he served notice under Section 91 CrPC on the Nodal Officers of Idea Company, Vodaphone Company and TATA Indicom Company for collecting the CAF and CDRs of mobile numbers of victim, both the JCLs 'SM' and 'SS' and both the accused. Same are Ex. PW40/Z-11 to Ex. PW40/Z-13.
94. PW-40 further deposed that he had moved application for TIP of case property before court concerned on 05.01.2015 (Ex. PW40/Z-14) and on 12.01.2015 (Ex. PW40/Z-15). However, TIP of the case property could not be conducted on these applications as the victim was admitted in the hospital. On 20.01.2015 he again moved the application Ex. PW40/Z-16. He also moved an application (Ex. PW40/Z-17) before the court for getting the voice samples of accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav. On 12.01.2015 both the accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav were taken to FSL, Rohini and their voice samples were collected. On 23.01.2015, further investigation of the present case was marked to SI Parvesh Kaushik. However, on 13.03.2015 again the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC. On 21.03.2015, after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the court.
95. While recording the testimony of PW-40, efforts are made State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 51 of 137 to switch on the mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav, however, the same could not be switched on. One pen drive make Sandisk Cruzer Blade 16GB of red and black color was played while recording his evidence. Out of total 12 files, file no.1 Gambhir Hospital, Road Corner D-09 and 12 Ram Hari Jeweller Shop were played as the same were containing the recording of the incident.
96. In File no.1, the timing of said footage is from 9:33 AM (for 56 seconds) at 9:33 AM, and one black color motorcycle with rider and pillion rider (both JCLs) were seen chasing one white color scooty which the victim was riding. In File no.12, the timing of footing is from 08:08:32 hours till 10:41:46 hours and the incident is captured from 09:23:06 to 9:23:11 hours. It was seen that two boys on one motorcycle were chasing the victim's scooty. The rider of the said motorcycle snatched the bag of the victim from the footrest of the scooty. The left hand of the pillion rider of the motorcycle was very close to the right-side face of the victim, close enough to the right eye of the victim and he could be seen throwing something on the face of the victim. Within a second after the motorcycle riders crossed her, the victim stopped her scooty and she was seen in visible pain and calling for help and she could be seen having some problem on her face towards the right side near the eye portion.
97. During recording of the testimony of this witness, file of JJB-1 pertaining to present case was received. The mobile State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 52 of 137 phones recovered from the JCL 'SS' and 'SM' were released to their mothers vide two separate orders dated 13.07.2017. Copy of the said order sheet dated 13.07.2017 are Mark PW40/Z21 (OSR) and PW40/Z23 respectively.
98. In the cross examination, PW-40 admitted that the family members of accused Vaibhav or the public persons were not made witness by the IO to the recovery proceedings. He admitted that at the time of recovery of the lady's bag and one pitho bag from the house of accused Vaibhav, the family members or public persons were not made witness to the seizure memos. He had not prepared any video nor clicked any photographs at the time of recoveries. He denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused Vaibhav or at his instance. He denied the suggestion that the IO had tampered with the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav to create false evidence against the accused persons.
99. PW-40 was questioned regarding the procedure to obtain CDR of a mobile number. He stated that IO has to make a written request for obtaining CAF, CDR and location of any mobile number addressed to DCP and same is to be forwarded through SHO and ACP. After receiving the abovesaid request in the office of DCP, a mail is sent to mobile service provider company by DCP and thereafter, the requisite information was provided by the mobile service provider. He admitted that he did not send any request to the DCP office for obtaining CDR of any mobile number.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 53 of 137100. He admitted having seen the contents of mobile phone of accused Vaibhav. He stated that IO had requested the neighbours to join the proceedings at the time of recovery of mobile phone of the victim from the house of accused Ashok but none joined. He admitted that IO SI Suresh did not make enquiry from Ms. Sapna, in whose name SIM of mobile no. 9250925082 was issued and was being used by accused Ashok Kumar.
101. PW-41/ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 12.01.2015, he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO/SI Parvesh Kaushik and Ct. Phool Kumar. On that day, they reached Tihar Central Jail and took the custody of accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav for recording of their voice sample at FSL, Rohini. Both the accused were taken to FSL, Rohini where FSL expert took their voice samples in two separate cassettes and prepared copy of each separate cassette. Four voice recording cassette were handed over to the IO including two original cassette and 2 copy cassettes. IO sealed the same in a pullanda with the seal of PK and seized the pullanda vide seizure memo. Thereafter, both accused persons were brought back to Tihar Central Jail and their custody was handed over to the Jail Supt. IO deposited pullanda of voice sample in the malkhana. He identified the audio cassette having FSL no. 'O' Ashok Yadav dt. 12.01.2015, in which FSL experts had taken the voice sample of accused Ashok Yadav as Ex.PW41/P1; and the audio cassette having FSL. no. Ex.2 State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 54 of 137 and 'O' Vaibhav dt.12.01.2015, in which FSL experts took voice sample of accused Vaibhav as Ex.PW41/P2.
102. PW42/Parvesh Kaushik was part of the investigation team since 25.12.2014 along with PW44/IO SI Suresh Chand and PW40/Inspector Manohar Lal. He has corroborated the testimony of PW-44 and deposed on the same lines. He deposed that during interrogation, accused Ashok revealed that he knew Dr. AK since college days and he liked her a lot and wanted to marry her. After college, both of them met at DDU Hospital where they both were working. Thereafter, they started working in ESI, Govt. Hospital. When accused Ashok Yadav came to know that marriage of Dr. 'AK' was fixed with someone, he hatched a conspiracy with accused Vaibhav, who was his ex- employee and used to work at call center, Janakpuri. Accused Ashok Yadav revealed about his feelings for Dr. 'AK' to Vaibhav and shared his intention to take revenge from her. He planned to throw acid on Dr. 'AK' and instructed Vaibhav that while committing the said crime, the purse and belongings of the victim be snatched in order to give the crime a shape of robbery. Accused Ashok also told him that he need the mobile phone and dairy of Dr. 'AK' which might be kept in the said purse to know her contacts as he had doubts that Dr. 'AK' was in relationship with someone else. Accused Vaibhav arranged the meeting with his two friends i.e JCLS 'SS' and 'SM' with accused Ashok and told him that they have previously been involved in many incidents and 'SS' is a very good driver State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 55 of 137 and can run away from the spot after the incident. All the above said 4 persons hatched the conspiracy and deal was fixed for Rs.25,000/-. Accused Ashok handed over Rs.12,000/- to Accused Vaibhav as part payment, out of which Rs. 2,000/- was kept by Vaibhav himself and 5,000/- each was given to 'SS' and 'SM'. Accused asked them to arrange a stolen motorcycle, so that registration number is not traceable. Accused Ashok trained both the JCLs to throw acid on the victim with the help of syringe. The route which the complainant took on daily basis was also found out by the accused persons. Accused Ashok showed them the victim so as to successfully conduct the said crime. Special directions were given by accused Ashok to the other accused persons not to use the mobile phone at the time of incident. Accused Ashok used to pressurize the other accused persons to conduct incident as early as possible. Proper practice of the incident was conducted by accused persons. It was decided that the incident will be conducted on 23.12.2014. On 22.12.2014 all the said accused persons met at Partap Nagar Park where JCLs told accused Ashok that they have arranged one stolen motorcycle make discover in order to commit the crime. On 23.12.2014, accused persons committed the said incident and also met each other in the evening. The balance amount of Rs.13,000/- was paid by accused Ashok to the JCLs and accused Vaibhav. Out of the said amount, 3,000/- was kept by accused Vaibhav and 5,000/- each was given to the two JCLs. At the time of incident, the acid was thrown by JCL 'S' and motorcycle was being driven State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 56 of 137 by JCL 'S'.
103. PW-42 further deposed that on 25.12.2014 disclosure statement of accused Vaibhav Ex. PW43/A was recorded and he was arrested. PW-42 corroborated the testimony of PW-44 with respect to the arrest of accused Vaibhav and recovery of his mobile phone Micromax having mobile SIM No. 8587059020 and regarding data transfer of the Whatsapp chats and audio conversation between Ashok and Vaibhav dated 14.12.2014 and 15.12.2014, from his phone to the laptop of PW-44. He further corroborated the testimony of PW-44 with respect to the investigation qua the accused Ashok Yadav, recording of his disclosure statement and seizure of his mobile phones. He further corroborated the testimony of PW-44 regarding the recoveries made from both the accused persons and the investigation qua the two JCLs 'SS' and 'SM'. He further corroborated the testimony of PW-44 and PW-41 with respect to the proceedings conducted on 12.01.2015 regarding recording of the voice samples of both the accused persons. He deposed that he alongwith his team had gone to Tihar jail and procured the custody of both the accused and taken them to FSL, Rohini where their voice samples were taken by FSL team. After recording of voice samples, FSL officials handed over four cassettes of the same to him, which were marked by FSL official as 'O' for original and 'C' for copy of the voice sample. Out of the said 4 cassettes, two pertained to accused Ashok and two to accused Vaibhav. He seized the cassettes vide seizure State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 57 of 137 memo Ex.PW42/A.
104. He further deposed that on 24.01.2015, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He perused and analyzed thoroughly the CDRs of total 7 mobile numbers, out of which one mobile number 8587059020 belongs to accused Vaibhav and same was connected with other mobile numbers belonging to accused Ashok (9250925082 and 9990700626) and the JCL 'SS' (98XXXXXX38 and 96XXXXXX97) and JCL 'SM' (83XXXXXX15 and 99XXXXXX73). After analyzing the CDRs, it was revealed that the said mobile numbers were frequently in touch with each other from 02.12.2014. It was also revealed that one day prior from the incident in question, the two JCLs were continuously in touch with accused Vaibhav. In the morning of day of incident also both the JCLs were in touch with accused Vaibhav over mobile phone, and had also talked to him on that evening on mobile phone.
105. He further deposed that on 31.01.2015, TIP of case property i.e. purse of victim and the black bag, recovered at the instance of accused Vaibhav was conducted. The victim identified her purse but failed to identify the black colour bag. Test Identification Parade (TIP) of JCL 'SM' was conducted at the Observation Home, Majnu ka tilla, where the victim correctly identified him. However, JCL 'SS' refused to participate in the TIP. The TIP proceedings of JCL 'SM' is Mark A and that of JCL 'SS' is Mark C; TIP State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 58 of 137 proceedings of case property is Mark B. He prepared the site plan of the place of incident (Ex.PW42/B) at the instance of victim.
106. On 12.02.2015, PW-42 got deposited the voice sample cassettes and recovered mobile phones with FSL Rohini through Ct Anil. He collected the employment record of victim and accused Dr. Ashok from ESI Hospital, Basai Darapur, Delhi. On 18.02.2015, he recorded the supplementary statement of the victim at her home. On 19.02.2015, he got collected the PCR form through Ct Bhagirath from PCR Control Room, which is Ex.PW42/C. On the same day Sh. Ritesh Kumar, In-charge, CCTV Camera ECIL gave him a pen drive containing the CCTV Footage of the incident dated 23.12.2014 between 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW42/D. He also examined the persons in whose name the SIM cards were issued and the said SIM cards were used by the accused persons and JCLs in their respective mobile phones. He also recorded the statement of Sh Nitin, owner of motorcycle no. DL-4SBC-4072.
107. PW-42 further deposed that he served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC to PNB, HDFC, OBC, Axis Bank and SBI which had issued the debit cards recovered from the possession of accused Vaibhav and the JCLs. Same are Ex.PW42/E to Ex.PW42/L. On 21.02.2015, the concerned officials of PNB Bank and HDFC Bank gave reply to the said notice that the debit cards were issued in the name of Ms. State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 59 of 137 Amarjeet Kaur. The officials of OBC Bank, Axis Bank and SBI also replied to the notice that these ATM/Debit cards were issued in the name of the victim. Thereafter PIR was filed in JJB against the JCLS 'SS' and 'SM'.
108. PW-42 further deposed that on 07.03.2015, he obtained the opinion of the concerned doctor on MLC of injured/victim who opined that nature of injury was grievous. As such, he added Section 397 IPC in the charge-sheet.
109. In his cross examination, PW-42 admitted that daily diary registers A and B were maintained at PS Rajouri Garden and one daily diary register was maintained at Police Post, MIG Flat. He admitted that it is mandatory for police officers to record entry in the registers at the time of his leaving or coming back to the PS or PP. He did not make any departure entry on 25.12.2014 while leaving from PS at 7:00 am and voluntarily stated that the said departure entry was made by the IO vide DD No. 10. He stated that the place where Vaibhav's house is situated is thickly populated residential area. IO had not requested any of the neighbours of the said house or adjacent house to join the investigation. They had made efforts to join independent public witnesses on the day when they went to carry investigation on 25.12.2014 at Vaibhav's house but no public witness joined. No formal notice was served on any public witness to join investigation nor were their names written down.
110. He admitted that a Micromax mobile phone was recovered State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 60 of 137 from accused Vaibhav and the phone was checked by the IO at the PS. He admitted that the locality where accused Ashok resides and from where he was apprehended is fairly populated and some shops were situated around those Flats. He admitted that no person was asked to join investigation in his presence by IO.
111. PW-42 further stated that IO must have asked members of the public to join the investigation when they again went to the house of accused Vaibhav for making recovery. He did not ask any member of the public to join investigation. No notice was given to any public person nor their names and details were recorded. He had sent the exhibits i.e. audio cassettes and mobile phones to FSL Rohini on 10.02.2015. He could not tender any explanation for the delay in sending the above-said exhibits. No videography was done in his presence at the time of recovery of mobile phone and seizure of other case properties from accused Vaibhav. The mobile phone of accused Vaibhav was in sealed condition at the time it was sent to FSL. He could not tell the number of audio recordings found in the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav at the time when it was checked by IO. The IO had recovered the screenshots of whatsapp chats from the image gallery of the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav.
112. PW-42 further stated that IO had asked the independent public persons to join the investigation at the house of JCLS 'ss' and 'SM', but none had joined due to their own State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 61 of 137 reason. No notice was served upon such public persons. At Partap Nagar Park near Gurdwara also, IO had asked the public witnesses to join the investigation but none joined. The distance between the park and house of 'SS' was about 500-600 meters. The distance between the place of incident and the park was about 1½-2 km. The syringes were lying behind the bushes in polythene. There were no needles along with syringes. IO had asked the public persons to join the investigation at house of accused Ashok but none had joined. He admitted that there was no communication of accused Ashok Yadav from any of his mobiles with any of the mobile numbers maintained by the other two JCLs. He admitted that there was no CCTV footage obtained with respect to meeting of accused persons and JCLs on 23.12.2014 at Pratap Nagar Park at around 5:00-5:30 PM evening. After going through the CDRs, he admitted that there were no calls reflecting regarding calls between Vaibhav and Ashok from period 19.12.2014 to 24.12.2014. No scientific test was conducted on the recovered mobiles phones to ascertain whether any whatsapp chats/sms/whatsApp calls/normal call logs or any other records were deleted by the accused persons from their mobile phones. He stated that the phone of accused Ashok (CDMA) bearing the SIM of Tata did not have Whatsapp. He denied the suggestion all the recoveries made in this case are planted. He denied the signatures of accused persons were obtained on several blank papers and thereafter those documents were misused to falsely implicate them.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 62 of 137113. PW43/ASI Vivek had jointed the investigation on 25.12.2014 and was a part of the investigation team alongwith PW44/IO SI Suresh Chand, PW-40/SI Manohar Lal and PW42/SI Parvesh Kaushik, HC Satender, Ct Jaswir, Ct. Yashpal and Ct. Jyoti Parkash. He has corroborated the testimony of PW-40, PW-42 and PW-44 and deposed on the same lines qua investigation in this case, i.e arrest of the accused persons, recovery of the case property from them; apprehension of JCLs 'SS' and 'SM'; recoveries of victim's belongings from the JCLs; recovery of motorcycle used in offence and the two syringes used by JCLs in the offence. The witness identified the following case properties amongst others:-
(i) One plastic box containing one syringe as Ex.PW43/P1.
(ii)One plastic box containing one syringe as Ex.PW43/P2.
(iii)One full sleeve sweatshirt of super brand and one sunglass/specs belonging to JCL 'SM' as Ex. PW43/P3.
(iv)One sleeveless jacket belonging to JCL 'SS' as Ex.PW43/P4.
(v)Two mobile phones of accused Ashok, one make Samsung red-black colour keypad and other make Lenova as Ex.PW43/P5.
(vi) One mobile phone make Micromax white colour with battery recovered from accused Vaibhav as Ex.PW43/P6.State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 63 of 137
(vii) One black colour school bag recovered from accused Vaibhav as Ex.PW43/P7.
(viii) Two debit cards, one of PNB and other of HDFC bank as Ex.PW43/P8 (colly).
(ix) Two debit card of Axis Bank and Oriental bank of commerce as Ex.PW43/P9 (colly).
114. During cross examination, PW-43 stated that he had not asked any public persons to join the raiding party before reaching house of accused persons. He admitted that IO did not ask any passersby or resident to join the investigation conducted at the house of accused Ashok or Vaibhav. He admitted that the IO did not make the family members and neighbors witness to the seizure memo of the purse or the pithoo bag from accused Vaibhav.
115. PW-39 ASI Tejpal had accompanied PW-44/SI Suresh to the spot on 23.12.2014. He had taken the rukka to PS Rajouri Garden and got the present FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the FIR and original rukka to SI Suresh. He had signed the seizure memos Ex. PW-39/A, PW-39/B, PW-39/C, PW-39/D and Ex. PW-39/E.
116. Vide their statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. dated 20.03.2025, accused persons admitted the following documents:-
(i) DD entries no.30 and 33B dated 23.12.2014 PS Rajouri Garden, Ex.PW44/A and Ex.PW44/B.
(ii) Entries made by MHC(M) of PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 64 of 137 in register no.19 at the time of deposition of case property of present case in the Malkhana and relevant entries made by MHC(M) in register no.21 vide RC no.162/21/14 and 21/21/15 at the time of sending the case property to FSL and the acknowledgment receipts received after deposition of these exhibits in FSL. The photocopies of relevant entries made in register no. 19 (running into 07 pages) are Ex.PA-1 and photocopies of RC no.
162/21/14 and 21/21/15 with acknowledgment receipts (running 04 pages) are Ex.PA-2.
117. Also, vide another statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
jointly made by both the accused, they have not disputed DD no. 30 and 33B dated 23.12.2014 PS Rajouri Garden, which are Ex.PW44/A and Ex.PW44/B respectively.
118. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, separate statement of accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the entire prosecution evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Vaibhav admitted that he was in touch with the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' since 2008-2009 and with co-accused Ashok Yadav since 2012. He also admitted that he used to converse with the JCLs as well as with the co-accused Ashok on regular basis. He also admitted using the mobile phone Micromax having number 8587059020. He has also admitted in answer to ques. No.145 that their voice samples were taken by the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 65 of 137 FSL. He stated that in the year 2012 he used to do job at the call centre of father of co-accused Ashok Yadav and he came in contact with him there. He remained in his contact even after leaving the job. He admitted having accompanied the police officials to the house of the JCLs, however he stated that he was made to sit in the car and expressed his ignorance about the proceedings conducted there. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to extensive media coverage and since the victim belong to an influential family, which extorted pressure on the police to solve the case. He has been made scapegoat in this case as he belongs to the socially and economically lower strata of the society.
119. Similarly, the accused Ashok also in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he had reached the spot on receiving the call from the victim and had taken her to ESI hospital. He also admitted that she was shifted to AIIMS and thereafter to RP eye center. This factum he has stated even in his testimony as DW-1. However, he stated that the mobile phone of the victim was never robbed during the incident and the same was left by her in Kathuria hospital. He had informed the IO about this on 23.12.2014 itself. He alleged that the said mobile phone has been planted on him. He also stated that he was using only one mobile phone make Lenovo having mobile no. 9990700626 and admitted that it was seized from his possession. He denied using the mobile phone Samsung and the no.9250925082. He further stated that the victim State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 66 of 137 had left her wollen cap and gloves at Kathuria hospital only. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case being the soft target as he was victim's friend and victim's father did not like their friendship.
Accused Ashok Kumar Yadav lead defence evidence and got himself examined as DW-1 and Sh. Priyadarshi Veeresh as DW-2.
120. DW-1/Ashok Yadav deposed that he joined ESI hospital, Basai Darapur on 07.10.2014. After about 1-2 days of his joining, he met the victim Dr. AK for the first time. As both of them had completed their MBBS from foreign country and as their fathers were working in para-military forces, friendship developed between them.
121. He further deposed that during that time, he was serving notice period in ESI hospital, Okhla. The victim was impressed with him as he was working at two places and performing duty of eight hours at each place. He further deposed that the victim was pursuing her PG course from Index College, Indore. She requested him to perform her duty in the hospital as her exams were approaching. He was shocked to know that she was working in a government hospital and pursuing regular PG course in Indore at the same time. He agreed to perform her duty at the hospital considering that victim is a female.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 67 of 137122. DW-1 further deposed that he lastly performed his duty in ESI hospital, Okhla on 21.10.2014. However, just after 1-2 days, victim asked him to perform her duty as she had to study for her exams. Thereafter, it became a routine for the victim to ask him to perform her duty. She used to call him telephonically, asking to perform her duty and informing her duty hours. She started making frequent calls i.e. about 4-5 calls to the accused on daily basis to enquire whether anyone came to know that he was performing duty on her behalf. He performed duty on behalf of victim continuously from 10.11.2014 to 20.11.2014, while she appeared for her exams at Indore. After returning from Indore, she called accused and proposed to celebrate as he had released her from a big tension. She invited him to her house on 22.11.2014 or 25.11.2014. He went to her house at about 6:00-7:00 p.m. He observed that victim had taken a very big house on rent. When he asked her why she had taken such a big house for herself on rent, she informed him that during the year 2009-2010, when she was doing her internship in DDU hospital, one Dr. Anees, Senior Resident, department of Pediatrics, had proposed her and thereafter, they had starting living together in the said house in live-in relationship. She also told him that during the year 2010-2011, she met Dr. Abhay while she was working as JR in ESI hospital, Basai Darapur and they started dating. However, the victim concealed this fact from Dr. Anees and also concealed her relationship with Dr. Anees from Dr. Abhay. However, one day, Dr. Anees and Dr. Abhay came to know about the relationship of State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 68 of 137 victim with both of them. They both got furious and Dr. Abhay made a complaint with MCI (Medical Council of India) against the victim that she is pursuing PG course from Indore while doing govt. job at ESI hospital. Dr. Anees left the victim. The victim got a call from Index Medical College, Indore that a complaint has been lodged in MCI against her that she is doing govt job while pursuing the PG course and directed the victim to leave the job, otherwise her degree will be cancelled. The victim left her govt job at XX hospital and shifted to Punjab. Since the post-graduation of the victim was getting effected, therefore, she apologized to Dr. Abhay and requested him to take back the complaint. Dr. Abhay agreed to the same and assured her that he would not make any complainant against her in future. Thereafter, she came back to Delhi. After some time, she again started talking with Dr. Anees on phone. Dr. Anees informed her that he has shifted to Gulf country for his job but they continued to talk with each other on phone. The victim also informed him that she is now engaged with one Dr. G. Singh and they are going to get married soon. The accused asked her about the person who used to pick and drop her at the hospital, to which she replied that he is Amit, owner of a night club and that she is in open relationship with him. The victim also informed him that whenever Dr. Anees visits India, he stays with her for a few days. He asked the victim why she did not marry Dr. Anees, to which she replied that her family members are against inter-caste marriage and Dr. Anees belongs to different religion.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 69 of 137123. DW-1 further deposed that during the period from 10.12.2014 to 20.12.2014, victim again started calling him to perform duty on her behalf as she had to complete her thesis for her PG course. But he refused as he was very much tired due to double shift duty for last two months and requested her to ask someone else. She replied that she cannot ask anyone else as no one else knows about her pursuing PG course and govt. job at the same time. On repeated requests, he agreed to perform duty on her behalf for the above said period.
124. On 22.12.2014 victim called him at about 2-3 p.m. and invited him at her house for party as she had completed her thesis and she wanted to thank him for the help. He told her that he was on emergency call and would call her back. He got free by 8-9 p.m. on that day and called the victim to inform her that they would party some other day as he was late. But she insisted saying that the cook has already prepared the dinner and requested him to come to have dinner atleast. He reached the house of victim at about 9:30-10:00 p.m. However, he noticed that the victim was continuously on phone call with some other persons and her phone was continuously ringing. She informed him that she was very much tensed as her fiancé was coming tomorrow i.e. on 23.12.2014 and would stay with her for two days and Dr. Anees was also coming tomorrow to stay with her for 2-3 days. She was busy talking on phone till State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 70 of 137 01:30 a.m. DW-1 was tired and fell asleep in her house. When he got up at about 06:30 a.m., even at that time the victim was talking on phone. They left together at around 08:45 a.m. Her phone kept ringing even when she was locking her house and when she came near her scooty. She said "आज फोन मेरा पीछा नहीं छोड़ेगा'. The victim dropped him outside her society on the main road as his bike was parked in DDU hospital Residential flats. She apologized for spoiling his time and requested him to continue their party some other day. Her phone again started ringing at about 09:15 a.m. At that time, she was wearing a cap. She put her phone under the cap near her ear and said that she would drive the scooty while talking on phone, otherwise she would get late.
125. Thereafter, she left the place and the accused also went to his home on his bike. At about 09:50-10:00 a.m. he received a call from an unknown number. It was the victim who told him that she had sustained injury near her eye and requested him to come to Rajouri Garden Main market. He reached there by his car after 10 minutes and found the victim standing near her scooty. There was redness in her right eye and she was holding a water bottle. One Sikh person was also standing with her for her help. He took her to ESI hospital in his car. In the car, she informed him that she left her jacket, cap and clothes in the nearby hospital and her phone was also inside her jacket and she asked him to pick the said things. But he insisted that she first reach the hospital and get treatment, State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 71 of 137 assuring her that he would collect her above said belongings later. She also told him that on her way to hospital on her scooty, two unknown persons came on bike and robbed her bag and put something in her eye and that no one came for her help for about 30 minutes. Therefore, she called him for help. When they reached ESI hospital, victim went inside the casualty while instructing him to go to the police booth located inside the hospital premises and inform the police. After informing police, the accused went to the emergency ward where victim was getting treated and remained there for about one hour. Thereafter, the victim was referred to eye department of ESI hospital and was admitted there. The doctor advised to take the patient to AIIMS and also arranged the ambulance. When they were waiting for the ambulance, IO SI Suresh reached the hospital. After consulting with doctor and after talking with victim for 2-3 minutes, they all left for AIIMS hospital. After initial examination, she was referred to RP Eye centre, which was at a distance of about 5-10 minutes from AIIMS. Victim was treated in OPD and then was taken to surgery room where a minor eye surgery was performed. Thereafter, she was admitted in the eye department.
126. DW-1 further deposed that during enquiry by IO, the victim has stated that she could not see the faces of the robbers as they were in muffled faces and everything happened in the spur of a moment. IO recorded her statement. IO SI Suresh also made enquiry from him and State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 72 of 137 treating doctor. He reached the house of victim at about 07:00 p.m. to take her clothes. Her landlord and some police officials were present there. One police official gave his phone and asked him to talk to IO SI Suresh, who directed him to come to PS. He first went to his house and got some food packed for victim and then went to PS Rajouri Garden. He called SI Suresh, who asked him to wait at the police post located at the back side of PS Rajouri Garden. After around one hour, IO came there and showed him one print out of a photograph in which two persons were sitting on a motorcycle and enquired whether he recognize them or not. He replied that since their faces were muffled, he cannot identify them. IO SI Suresh asked him about any enmity of victim with any person, to which he replied that once victim had informed him that on one occasion she had quarreled with Dr. Anees and Dr. Abhay on some issue. He also informed IO SI Suresh about her current relationship with one Amit and also with Dr. Anees, who was about to come to meet her on 23.12.2014. IO SI Suresh also showed him 03 pen drives in three different envelopes. Two pen drives kept in the envelope bearing the title "Chawla Jwellers' and "Ram Hari Jwellers" respectively contained CCTV footage reflecting the incident which took place with victim but the faces of offenders were not visible being muffled. On the third envelope, 'Himanshu Janak Park' was written and the pen drive kept in the same contained the CCTV footage of the road outside the gate of the society of victim in which victim was driving the scooty and he was sitting as pillion State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 73 of 137 rider. He left PS at about 11:30 p.m. and called the victim to inform her that he was coming to hospital with her clothes and food, to which, she replied that her parents had come to the hospital and her father is angry with him and asked him not to come to hospital. When he asked the victim for the reason of his anger, she replied that she would tell later on.
127. DW-1 further deposed that on 24.12.2014 at about 10:00 a.m. he reached RP Eye Centre. He asked the victim about the reason of anger of her father with him. She told him that his father did not like his staying overnight with her. He met her father, who was in the lobby outside the room, but he started shouting at him saying, "how dare you come here" and held him responsible for what had happened with the victim. He threatened that he would not spare him. The accused informed the victim that during enquiry made in PS, he had specified the names of Dr. Anees and Dr. Abhay before the police, on which she became angry saying that now police will make enquries from them as well and her father would be angrier with her.
128. DW-1 further stated that at about 08:00 p.m. on 24.12.2014, three police officials in civil dress came to his residence and asked him to accompany them to identify some persons apprehended by them. When he sat in the car, one official forcibly took his phone and card holder having his Adhar Card, hospital ID card and some cash. They took him to a flat in Rajouri Garden. Enquiry was State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 74 of 137 done as to when he first met the victim and when he last met her by 2-3 different police officials at different times and his statement was recorded. After some time, SI Parvesh Kaushik came with his mobile phone and after showing the call logs available in his mobile phone, he started making enquiries from him about the details of the mobile number available in his call log. He enquired about the mobile number of co-accused Vaibhav and that of his friend Sapna having mobile no.9250925082. Thereafter, SI Parvesh left and after about one hour he heard voices of his friends and acquaintances with whom he was in regular touch and after some time, SI Parvesh alongwith some other police officials came to his room with his friends and acquaintances one by one and made enquiries from them in his presence asking them how they know him and victim. Accused Vaibhav was brought to that flat at about 4:00-5:00 a.m. on 25.12.2014. SI Parvesh made enquiries from him and Vaibhav as to how they know each other, to which he replied that Vaibhav used to come to DDU hospital alongwith his father in the year 2012-2013 for taking medicines for his father. Vaibhav used to talk in English and was friendly in nature and from there he got acquainted with him. Later Vaibhav sent him friend request on Facebook, which he accepted. Thereafter, Vaibhav started sending him messages on Facebook. He alleged that SI and other police officials started torturing him and also hit him. He told police that he had started making calls to Vaibhav one month before the date of incident and was sending messages to him. He also told State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 75 of 137 the police that he never talked with accused Vaibhav regarding victim. Thereafter, police gave him some printouts running into 15-20 pages and asked him to read those papers.
129. DW-1 admitted that the photographs reflecting conversation and Whatsapp Chats between him and accused Vaibhav, Ex.PW40/X1 which were shown to him and these photographs reflects screenshots of WhatsApp conversation between him and accused Vaibhav. He asked the police officials on what basis they were trying to link the said chats with acid attack on victim, as the said chats were not related to victim. He also explained that the said chats did not relate to the present incident, rather the said conversation was related to his personal work for which, he asked Vaibhav to follow some persons to whom he had given money on loan, indirectly through gym instructor namely Jitu. He asked Vaibhav to follow those unknown persons and keep track on them and inquire about their addresses, so in case of any default and from the next time he could directly contact them for giving loan. The witness pointed out towards four photographs of WhatsApp conversation, marked as Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/A3 stating that in these chats, he was talking about following those unknown persons to whom Jitu has given his money on higher interest.
130. Police had also shown him some other chats with Vaibhav, which are not in Ex.PW40/X1. After seeing the same, he State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 76 of 137 specifically told them that it does not belong to the present case and even the name of victim was not there in the said chats, on which, police official threatened him by saying 'हम जब इस chat को case के साथ जोड़गे तो तू क्या तेरा बाप भी कहेंगा कि यह इस case की chat है'.
131. Thereafter, one police official took Vaibhav to another room and the remaining police official started asking him to tell the name and address of those persons who had thrown acid on victim. They also asked him to help them in preparation of their sketches. He replied to them that the victim has already told SI Suresh that she had not seen the faces of those robbers, so how can he help them in making sketch as he was not present at the time of incident. He heard SI Parvesh Kaushik saying to someone on phone that 'हमने जो बुलवाना था बुलवा लिया आप चिंता मत करो काम हो जाएगा'. After some time, one police official came with some typed printouts of the WhatsApp chats with Vaibhav and asked him to see the same. After seeing the same he noticed that most of the conversation was removed by the police officials and informed them that this was not complete conversation. Thereafter, police officials showed him 2-3 pages of typed conversation and asked him to read the same loudly. He read the same conversation loudly three to four times and recorded his voice. He also informed the police official that he does not know about the duty hours of victim as reflected in Ex.PW40/F (colly).
132. DW-1 further deposed that on 25.12.2014, police official State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 77 of 137 came with unknown persons and stated that they had put acid on victim and robbed her bag. Police officials asked him whether he knew them, to which he replied that he had seen them for the very first time. Thereafter, police official took him, Vaibhav and those two persons to PS Rajouri Garden. From there, they were taken to Vaibhav's house but nothing was recovered from his house. Thereafter, they all came back to PS Rajouri Garden. After some time, police official took them to the house of those JCLs. He and Vaibhav were made to sit inside the car only. After sometime police official came with said JCL and told that they have recovered one bag belonging to the victim from the house of one JCL. Thereafter, they all came to PS Rajouri Garden. He alleged that SI Manohar Lal alongwith SI Suresh Chand forcibly obtained his signatures on two blank papers and printed proformas. On 12.01.2015 he and Vaibhav were taken to FSL from jail and their voice sample were taken. While giving his voice sample, he noticed that they were making him read the same page having conversation i.e. Ex.PW40/F, which he was made to read loudly on the intervening night of 24/25.12.2014. He alleged that police has falsely implicated him in the present case by fabricating false evidence.
133. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, DW-1 stated that he had joined DDU hospital as intern in the year 2010 and after completing internship for one year, he joined as JR in DDU hospital and worked there till about June/July, 2013. However, he denied having met and State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 78 of 137 befriended the victim in DDU hospital. He had never made any complaint against the victim before any authority that she had asked him to perform her duty repeatedly. He denied the suggestion that victim had already given her written exams of MD course prior to joining XX hospital, Basai Darapur and only her practical exams were pending at Medical College, Indore. DW-1 produced a copy of his RTI reply from XX XX Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, in which date-sheet of the exam schedule of Xx Medical College for the post of MD was mentioned. The exams were scheduled from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014. Same is Mark DW1/1.
134. DW-1 denied that he wanted to marry the victim and that he got furious when he learnt that she was engaged to Dr. G. Singh. He denied that he and the victim were friends for last 1-2 years. He denied that victim never informed him about Dr. Anees and that they were in a Live-in relationship and that he had cooked up a false story regarding Dr. Anees. He denied that Dr. Abhay was just a colleague of victim and that she was not in an open relationship with one Amit. He stated that the victim did not ask him to inform Dr. Anees and Dr. Abhay about the incident of acid attack. He admitted that neither Dr. Anees nor Dr. Abhay visited the hospital to see victim after the incident.
135. He stated that Rajnish Kaushik, husband of Sapna was his friend and Sapna was using the mobile number 9250925082. He denied that he was using the said sim in a State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 79 of 137 Samsung mobile phone, and that he used to call the victim as well as co-accused Vaibhav with the said mobile number. He denied that his mobile phone make Samsung in which he was using above said mobile number was recovered from his house. He admitted that during the period of 1½ years prior to the incident, he never talked to accused Vaibhav on phone. He voluntarily stated that Vaibhav used to send messages to him on Facebook.
136. DW-1 further stated that he had given approximately Rs.8- 10 lacs in cash to gym instructor Jitu on different occasions for giving his money on interest. He was not aware of the names and details of persons to whom Jitu had given his money on interest. He did not have any document to show the amount given by him to Jitu. He voluntarily stated that he used to maintain a diary in which he used to write the details of the money give to the said Jitu, however, since he was in JC for about 10 years, therefore, he does not have the said diary because of change of address. He did not produce the any such document/diary before the police during investigation. He had not informed his department about his lending money on interest. He called Vaibhav on 15.12.2014 for helping him locate the persons first time but he could not do so on one pretext or other. He requested Vaibhav 2-3 times for locating those persons, to whom Jitu used to lend his money, however, on first occasion Vaibhav informed him by saying 'अंधेरा ज्यादा था इसलिए मैं देख नहीं पाया' on second occasion he informed him 'एक आते ही गाड़ी कै से भगा रहा था.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 80 of 137आपने बोला था bike पे आएगा पर वो कार पे आया. Thereafter, he messaged him 'तेरे बस की नहीं है रहने दे' and after 16- 17/12/2014, he never called him or messaged him.
137. He denied that he had never given any money to any Jitu for lending the same further on high interest. He denied that he and co-accused Vaibhav hatched conspiracy to throw acid on the victim as he had a grudge against the victim after she was engaged with Dr. G Singh.
138. DW-1 was re-examined by his counsel. He relied upon and produced certain documents i.e Ex.DW1/B (colly), which are as follows:-
1. RTI application of the accused seeking information regarding the term of employment of victim at Xx hospital, Basai Darapur and reply thereof that she was employed at the said hospital from 12.10.2010 to 11.10.2011.
2. RTI application of the accused filed seeking information regarding the term of employment of victim at Xx hospital, Noida and reply thereof that she was employed there from 21.04.2012.
3. RTI application of the accused seeking information regarding the examination schedule of Xx Medical College, Indore; and reply thereof that the exam schedule was from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014.
4. RTI application of the accused seeking information regarding the date of completion/award of degree to the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 81 of 137 victim by Xx Medical College, and reply thereof that the victim cleared her PG in 2015.
5. RTI application of the accused seeking information regarding the mandatory attendance required by MCI for PG course, and reply thereof that 80% attendance is mandatorily required for PG course.
139. He was again cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. He admitted that he has not filed any complaint against the victim before any forum regarding her PG.
140. DW-2 Sh. Priyadarshi Veeresh, Legal Consultant, EMRB National Medical Commission, Dwarka, Delhi failed to produce the summoned record i.e complaint made against the victim/Dr. AK in the year 2011-2012 stating that no complaint could not be traced out despite online and offline search. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he stated that no information regarding the name of person who had made complaint against Dr. AK was provided to them for tracing the record.
141. The accused Vaibhav did not lead any evidence despite opportunity and case was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
142. Ld. Counsel for accused Vaibhav as well as Learned APP for state have made detailed oral submissions. The accused Ashok Yadav has himself addressed the final arguments and has also filed written submissions.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 82 of 137143. Learned counsel for accused Vaibhav has submitted that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of the said accused and the recovery of victim's bag was planted on him. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the IO did not join any independent public witness in the recovery proceedings, nor any videography or photography of the recovery proceedings were conducted. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the Whatsapp chats were recovered from the mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav. The police also failed to examine Shyam Sunder, the person who had given the address of the accused, as a prosecution witness. Also, accused Vaibhav is not visible in any of the CCTV footages. There is nothing in the CDRs or the CCTV footages played in the court to prove that the accused Vaibhav was present at the spot, where incident had taken place or even near the place of incident. Further, there is no proof of any acquaintance between Vaibhav and Ashok or between Vaibhav and the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM'. The prosecution has failed to prove any link between the accused persons and the JCLs, and has further failed to prove any conspiracy between them.
144. The accused Ashok has submitted that first and foremost the injury received by the victim is not grievous. PW-12 has deposed that on 23.12.2014 the injury was 'grievous on presentation'. However, there is no final opinion that the injury was grievous. He has further submitted that State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 83 of 137 PW-2/victim is an unreliable witness as she had prepared false documents to obtain the job at Xx hospital. She was pursuing her MD from Indore while still working as a full- time doctor in government hospital in Delhi. Also, she was in relationship with one Dr. Abhay and one Dr. Anees at the same time. She herself had told the accused that she was in an open relationship with one Amit. Hence, she is not a credible witness. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove any documents or Whatsapp chats or messages to show that the accused Ashok was romantically inclined towards PW-2 or even to prove that he started harassing the victim later on.
145. Further, the accused Ashok has submitted that the CDRs were not obtained by the police officials as per rules. The CDR can be obtained only through the DCP concerned, however there is no communication on record to show that any request to obtain the CDRs was made by the IOs through DCP. He has further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that he was using mobile no.9250925082. He has alleged that Sapna in whose name the said mobile number was issued, was not examined as a prosecution witness, nor was she made part of the investigation at any point of time. He has pointed out that as per the CDR of mobile no.9250925082 and 9990700626, there are several calls between these two mobile numbers. If he himself was using both the said numbers, why would he make call to himself from one mobile number to another. He has submitted that a study State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 84 of 137 of CDR of his mobile no. 9990700626, mobile no. of Sapna 9250925082 and mobile number of the victim shows that he had called the victim 83 times but he called Sapna 120 times. Also, it was the victim, who had called him 248 times. Then how can it be said that he was pursing or harassing the victim. No staff or doctor or friend of the victim was examined to prove that the accused Ashok had proposed the victim or even that he was harassing her when she refused his proposal. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive in the present case.
146. The accused Ashok has further argued that no independent person was made to join the investigation by the IO. The recovery of mobile phone of the victim from his possession has been planted on him. He has further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove his link with the JCLs; there is no proof that he had met the JCLs at any point of time or contacted them telephonically. He has further submitted that the Whatsapp conversation between him and co-accused Vaibhav pertained to some other job. He had given some money on loan to unknown persons through one person Jitu and had asked Vaibhav to trace them out. However, the IOs have manipulated these chats to falsely implicate him in this case. He has further submitted that there is no proof that the syringe used in commission of the offence were procured by him.
147. He has further alleged that the story that JCLs were present near the house of the victim on 16.12.2014 is a State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 85 of 137 false and concocted one only to show that the victim had seen them and justify their identification by the victim. He has also alleged that the victim was shown the photographs of the JCLs before the TIP and hence, she was able to identify them in TIP proceedings. He has also submitted that PW-3/landlord of the victim admitted that Dr. Anees used to visit the victim.
148. Another argument of the accused is that their voice samples were sent on 12.02.2015 i.e. after a considerable delay and the prosecution has failed to explain this delay.
149. Per contra, Learned Addl. PP for the state has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and the accused persons are liable to be convicted. Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons. It has been submitted that from the CCTV footages, the entire incident has been captured and it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was attacked with acid and her bag was robbed by the JCLs. The samples of acid were collected from the scooty of the victim, her cap and gloves and from the FSL result ExPW6/B, it has been proved that it was sulfuric acid. The hoodie and sun glasses of the JCL 'SM' as well as jacket of JCL 'SS' also contained traces of sulfuric acid. Further, from the CDRs placed on record, it has been proved that the accused persons were in constant touch with each other and that the accused Vaibhav was in constant touch with the JCLs.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 86 of 137Even on the date of incident the JCLs and accused Vaibhav were in touch before and after the incident.
150. Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the mobile phone Samsung CDMA having mobile no.9250925082 was recovered from the possession of the accused Ashok. The accused Ashok has failed to lead any evidence to prove that Sapna, in whose name the mobile number 9250925082 was subscribed, was his girlfriend and she only was using the said mobile phone. She has further submitted that PW-2/victim has deposed that the accused Ashok wanted to marry her and had repeatedly proposed her but she declined saying that her family would not agree to inter-caste marriage. Hence, the accused Ashok had the motive to cause hurt to the complainant.
151. It has also been submitted that the accused Ashok has made a false and concocted story that the victim had left her cap, gloves and mobile in Kathuria hospital, where she was first taken and that the mobile phone was later on planted on him. Had the victim been in possession of her mobile phone, why would she use someone else's mobile phone to call the accused. Further, both the accused Ashok and Vaibhav have admitted in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were known to each other and were in touch with each other telephonically and through WhatsApp messages. The accused Vaibhav has even admitted that he was in touch with the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' since 2008-2009.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 87 of 137152. Ld APP has heavily relied upon the WhatsApp conversations between accused Ashok and Vaibhav Ex. PW40/X1 and has pointed out that it clearly suggests that some conspiracy was brewing between the accused persons. She has further submitted that the recoveries made from the accused persons cannot be questioned merely because they were proved by police officials and no independent witness joined them. She has also submitted that accused Ashok has failed to prove the alleged relationships of the victim with Dr. Anees, Dr. Abhay and one Amit, and it is a false story only to defame her. She has also submitted that the audio conversations between the accused persons have been duly proved by PW-37/Mr. V. Lakshmi Narsimhan. Hence, the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
COURT FINDINGS
153. I have heard the final arguments addressed on behalf of the accused and the State and perused the entire record carefully. The findings of the court are as below.
154. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Ashok Kumar Yadav hatched a conspiracy alongwith accused Vaibhav to throw acid on the victim and snatch her bag to give it a colour of robbery. To achieve that purpose, accused Vaibhav contacted two JCLs 'SS' and 'SM', who procured a stolen motorcycle and the acid. The accused Ashok provided the syringe and showed them the victim. He gave them details of victim's duty hours and route to State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 88 of 137 the hospital. Finally, on 23.12.2024 the JCLs committed the offence by throwing acid on face of the victim and robbing her bag.
THE INCIDENT
155. PW-2/Dr. 'AK' is the victim in the present case. She deposed that on 23.12.2014 at about 9:15-9:30 a.m, she was going to her hospital for duty on her scooty (Ex.P-2). When she reached the main market Rajouri Garden, two persons came on a bike from behind. They took her bag of orange-brown colour of Tommy Hilfiger brand (containing a pink-coloured wallet, stethoscope, cosmetic items, pen, some other documents as well as ATM Cards of Axis Bank, OBC Bank, HDFC Bank, PNB Bank and SBI Bank, cash of Rs.5,000/-, hospital stamps, I phone S-4 of white colour, Charger, one Mala (Rosary/Sumirani) and driving license), which she had kept between her legs on the scooty and threw some chemical on her face. She sensed pain and burning sensation on her face and asked for help. Initially she was taken to a nearby hospital, where she was informed that she had sustained serious injuries. She called the accused Ashok, who reached at the spot and took her to ESI hospital. From there, she was referred to AIIMS hospital for treatment.
156. PW-2 was subjected to a detailed and lengthy cross-
examination. However, no material discrepancy has come in the testimony of this witness. The defence has not been able to impeach her credibility or to shake the veracity of State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 89 of 137 her statement. The facts as deposed by PW-2/victim in her testimony before the court were also stated by her in her complaint Ex. PW2/A, which was recorded on the very same day at 12:15 P.M i.e within 3 hours of the incident. It is a settled law that ocular evidence of the injured witness is the best evidence. In the case titled as "Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P." 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1027, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. It was observed, "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." Similarly, in the case titled as "State of U.P. v. Naresh"
2011 SCC OnLine SC 450, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under, "27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 90 of 137 grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259:
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262])"
157. The testimony of PW-2 has been sufficiently corroborated by the testimony of eye-witness PW-26 Abhishek, who deposed that he saw the incident and helped the victim. He also called the PCR on 100 number to inform the police about the incident. PW-26/Abhishek is a reliable witness as it has been established from the PCR form Ex.PW32/B that the information about the incident of acid attack was received from one person namely Abhishek Jetly from mobile number 9717271916. It is further mentioned in the PCR form that caller Abhishek, F-120A, Rajouri Garden met the PCR officials at the spot and informed them that the injured had been taken to hospital. The same address has been mentioned by the witness at the time of recording his testimony in the court. Hence, PW-26 is a trustworthy witness being naturally present at the spot.
158. Further, the testimony of the victim qua this incident is also corroborated by CCTV footages seized by the police from various persons i.e PW-1, PW-26 and PW-11 along with certificates under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act. On seeing the CCTV footage in court during recording of his testimony, PW-26 denied that it was the same clip as supplied by him to the police. However, he admitted that it showed the same incident as described by him.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 91 of 137159. The pen drive Ex.P-1/1 was played in the testimony of PW-1. In the said CCTV footages, two boys are seen following the victim and the entire incident of snatching of victim's bag by the bike-rider and throwing of chemical by the pillion rider is visible. PW-1 has deposed that the alleged incident is captured in the said CCTV footage.
160. Hence, it has been proved beyond doubt that on 23.12.2014 at around 09:15-09:30 a.m., two boys on a motorcycle had thrown some chemical on the face of the victim and also robbed her of her bag.
161. It has been alleged by the accused persons that the victim was not attacked by acid and the IO later on planted acid droplets on the scooty and clothes to falsely implicate the accused persons. However, it has been deposed by PW-2/victim that the bike-riders threw some chemical on right side of her face, due to which, she sensed tremendous pain on her face. The first MLC of the victim was prepared at ESI hospital at 10:00 a.m. on 23.12.2014 by PW-7 Dr. Hemant Kumar Kesari. As per the MLC Ex.PW7/A and also from the testimony of PW-7/Dr. Hemant Kumar Kesari, it is established that the victim had suffered injury on her right eye and on the right side of face and she was complaining pain on the right side and diminution of vision in the right eye with pain. She was also complaining of burning sensation. She was referred to Eye department and Surgeon. Testimony of PW-7 has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted as he was not cross examined by the accused persons.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 92 of 137162. PW-12/Dr. Tushar Aggarwal, AIIMS hospital has proved his report qua injuries of the victim as Ex.PW12/A and his final opinion qua her injury is Ex.PW12/B. As per Ex. PW-12/A, the patient was having severe chemical burns in the right eye including involvement of the right eye eyelid and skin of the right side of the face. It is also stated that the right eye injury of the victim was 'Grade 4 injury as per Dua's classification'. The victim underwent Amniotic Membrane Transplant and she subsequently underwent Pro Kera transplantation twice. In his final opinion, PW-7 has given nature of injury as 'grievous'.
163. Further, as per the report of PW-6/ Sh. Santosh Tripathi, FSL expert, which is Ex. PW6/B, it has been proved that the chemical, traces of which were picked from gloves, woolen cap and scooty of the victim were containing sulfuric acid. Thus, it is established that the chemical thrown on the face of the victim was sulfuric acid.
164. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established beyond doubt that in the incident dated 23.12.2014, the victim had suffered injury due to acid attack and her bag containing various articles was also robbed by the assailants.
THE ASSAILANTS
165. It is deposed by PW-2/victim that there were two boys on a motorcycle who committed the offence in question. In her State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 93 of 137 cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused Ashok Kumar, PW-2 has clearly stated that she had identified the JCLs in TIP proceedings. She stated that the two assailants, who attacked her were juveniles and she had gone for their judicial TIP. She further stated that after identifying those juveniles she came to know that accused Ashok Yadav was in their touch.
166. PW-42/SI Parvesh Kaushik has also deposed that Test Identification Parade (TIP) of JCL 'SM' was conducted at the Observation Home, Majnu ka tilla, where the victim correctly identified him. However, JCL 'SS' refused to participate in the TIP. The TIP proceedings of CCL 'SM' is Mark A and TIP proceedings of JCL 'SS' is Mark C. It is a settled law that an adverse inference can be drawn against the accused who refuses to participate in the TIP proceedings that he is avoiding identification by the witness. In 'Shyam Babu and Ors v State of Haryana', AIR 2009 SC 577, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the accused persons had refused to join TIP, it would speak volumes about their participation in the crime.
167. PW-2/victim further stated in her cross-examination that on 16th or 17th December, 2014, when she was going to the airport in the early morning, she had seen those two JCLs standing in front of her staircase and she had informed accused Ashok Kumar about the same. Thus, from the testimony of PW-2/victim, it is established that the two boys who attacked her on 23.12.2014 were the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 94 of 137 JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' (names not disclosed to protect their identity).
168. Further, it has been deposed by PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal, PW44/IO SI Suresh Chand and PW42/IO SI Parvesh Kaushik that during the investigation of the present case, the accused Vaibhav led the police team to the house of JCL 'SM' from where the JCL was apprehended and one debit card of PNB bank and one credit card of HDFC bank, belonging to the victim were recovered from his possession. PW-2/victim has duly identified these cards as Ex. P-5 colly in her examination-in-chief.
169. JCL 'SS' was also apprehended at the instance of accused Vaibhav. He also got recovered two debit cards - one of Axis bank and the other of Oriental Bank of commerce belonging to the victim. PW-2 duly identified these two cards as Ex. P-6 colly. She had mentioned in her FIR and in her testimony before court that these cards were in her bag which was robbed at the time of incident. The witnesses called from the banks i.e PW-27, PW-28, PW-35 and PW-36 have proved that the abovesaid cards were issued in the name of the victim.
170. Further, JCL 'SM' also got recovered one woolen shirt with cap (sweat shirt/hoody) and sun glasses, which he was wearing at the time of commission of the offence in question, which were seized from his house vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/R. JCL 'SS' also got recovered a blue colour jacket, which he was wearing at the time of State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 95 of 137 commission of offence, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z. The abovesaid articles were sent to FSL for examination. As per FSL report Ex. PW-6/B, the said sweatshirt (Ex.6A) and sunglasses (Ex.6B) as well as the jacket (Ex.7) were having remnants of sulfuric acid, which is the same acid which was found on the cap and gloves of the victim and on her scooty.
171. Also, two syringes were recovered from the bushes behind the wall of Gurudwara, near Pratap Nagar Park at the instance of the two JCLs. The said syringes were also sent to FSL for examination, and as per FSL result Ex.PW-6/B, they were also found containing sulfuric acid.
172. The JCLs also got recovered the motorcycle bearing registration number DL-4S-BC-4072, which was used by them at the time of incident from D-Block, Rajouri Garden. From a joint reading of testimony of PW-30/Nitin Jain, owner of the said motorcycle, PW-29/Satya Prakash (transport department) and PW-23/ASI Sri Ram Meena, it has been proved on record that this motorcycle belonged to PW-30 and was stolen from the jurisdiction of PS Hari Nagar qua which a separate FIR no. 1489/14 u/s 379 IPC dated 21.12.2014 was registered.
173. None of the police witnesses i. e. PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal, PW44/SI Suresh Chand, PW-43 ASI Vivek and PW42/SI Parvesh Kaushik were cross examined on the aspect of apprehension of JCLs in the present case. No suggestion was given to them that the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 96 of 137 were not involved in the offence in question. Infact, accused Ashok had given a suggestion to PW-15/father of the victim in his cross-examination that victim herself got the acid attack staged on herself through the two JCLs as she intended to avoid her marriage with Dr G Singh.
174. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that it was JCL 'SM' and 'SS' who were the assailants and who had followed the victim on motorcycle and thrown acid on her face and robbed her bag.
175. It is to be noted that record of Learned Juvenile Justice Board, where inquiry was conducted qua the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM', is attached with the present file. Vide order dated 09.12.2015 both the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' were held guilty for offence under Section 326A/394/397/34 IPC by Learned Principal Magistrate, JJB-I for acid attack and robbery committed with the victim. In the said judgment dated 09.12.2015, it was observed by Ld. Principal Magistrate that the victim Dr. AK (who was examined as PW-4 before Ld. JJB) had identified both the JCLs during recording of her testimony, as the same boys, who had snatched her bag containing valuable and thrown acid on her face on 23.12.2014. She also recognized the JCLs as the same boys, whom she had noticed loitering around her house at 04:00 a.m. on 16.12.2014 and had felt odd about their presence. Their conviction has been upheld in appeal by Sh. Pawan Kumar Mattoo, Ld. ASJ-01, West, THC vide order dated 30.11.2016.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 97 of 137THE CONNECTION
176. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Ashok Kumar Yadav and Vaibhav Kumar had conspired with the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' to throw acid on the victim under the garb of robbing her bag.
177. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the prosecution has proved that the juveniles 'SS' and 'SM' have committed the offence in question. To prove the connection between the accused persons and the JCLs, the prosecution has relied upon the CDRs of the accused Ashok and Vaibhav, and JCLs SS and SM.
178. As deposed by PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal, PW44/IO SI Suresh Chand, PW-43 ASI Vivek and PW42/IO SI Parvesh Kaushik, JCL 'SM' got recovered two mobile phones with mobile phone numbers 83XXXXXX15 and 99XXXXXX73 which were seized vide memo Ex.PW40/T. PW-10/Israr Babu, Nodal Officer Vodaphone has proved that the mobile number 83XXXXXX15 was issued in the name of Mrs. SJ/mother of JCL 'SM' and 99XXXXXX73 was issued in the name of Mr. SJ/father of the JCL 'SM'. PW-16/Mother of JCL 'SM' deposed that her son i.e JCL 'SM' was using her mobile number in the year 2014, last digits of which were '315'. She admitted her photograph on the Customer application form of mobile number 83XXXXXX15, Ex. PW-10/H and that it was issued on her ID. She also admitted that copy of Election ID card Mark PW-10/H1 was tendered at the time State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 98 of 137 of issuance of said mobile number. PW-17/father of JCL SM also admitted that his son was using two cell phone numbers, one on his ID and the other on the ID of his wife. He admitted his photograph on the Customer application form for mobile number 99XXXXXX73, Ex. PW-10/E and that it was issued on his ID. He also admitted his copy of Election ID card, Mark PW-10/E1 which was tendered at the time of issuance of said mobile number.
179. Similarly, JCL 'SS' got recovered two mobile phones, which were having mobile no.98XXXXXX38 and 96XXXXXX97, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW40/Z2. PW-10/Israr Babu proved that mobile phone number 96XXXXXX97 has been subscribed by Ms. AS, mother of the JCL SS. Copy of the CAF is Ex.PW-10/L (OS&R). Copy of the Election I-Card, submitted by the customer at the time of subscription is Mark PW-10/L1.
180. PW-9/Chandra Shekhar, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel has proved that the mobile phone number 98XXXXXX38 was subscribed by one Bhupender Singh w.e.f. 16.07.2014. PW-18/mother of SS in her cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP admitted that her son had found one mobile sim in Jheel Wala Park bearing no. 98XXXXXX38 and he started using it.
181. As deposed by PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal, PW44/SI Suresh Chand, PW-43 ASI Vivek and PW42/SI Parvesh Kaushik, accused Vaibhav got recovered a 'Micromax' State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 99 of 137 mobile phone from his house, wherein he was using mobile no.8587059020. PW-19/Laxmi, Mother of accused Vaibhav has admitted that her son Vaibhav was using the mobile no.8587059020, which was issued in her name. PW-10/Israr Babu, Nodal officer, Vodafone has also proved that the mobile Number 8587059020 was subscribed by Ms. Laxmi w.e.f. 25.10.2013. The CAF is Ex.PW-10/A (OSR) and copy of her Election I-Card, submitted at the time of subscribing the phone connection, is Mark PW-10/B.
182. As per the prosecution, accused Ashok was using two mobile phones - 9990700626 issued in his own name and 9250925082 issued in the name of one Sapna Sharma. While the accused Ashok has admitted that the mobile number 9990700626 was issued in his name and that he was using the same, he has denied that he was using the other number 9250925082.
183. PW-13/Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services has proved the CAF and CDR of the mobile no.9250925082, which are Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/C respectively. As per the CAF, the said mobile number was activated in the name of Ms. Sapna Sharma. PW-9/Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, proved the CAF and CDR of mobile no.9990700626, which are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/C respectively. As per the same, the said mobile number was subscribed in the name of accused Ashok.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 100 of 137184. A number of Nodal Officers from various service providers have been examined in the court i.e. PW-9, PW-10, PW-13 and PW-14, who have exhibited CAF and CDR of the phone numbers of accused persons, JCLs and the victim. From the analysis of the CDR records of the mobile phones of the accused Ashok i.e. Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW9/C; of accused Vaibhav i.e. Ex.PW10/C; of JCL 'SM' i.e. Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/J; of JCL 'SS' i.e. Ex.PW10/M and Ex.PW9/F, it had been proved that the accused Ashok was in contact on phone with accused Vaibhav and that accused Vaibhav was in contact with accused Ashok as well as with JCL 'SS' and 'SM'.
185. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Vaibhav has categorically stated that mobile no.8587059020 was used by him and he used to communicate with accused Ashok Yadav through mobile phone calls as well as through Whatsapp chats. He has also stated that he was in touch with both the CCLs 'SS' and 'SM' since 2008-2009. He has further stated that since long he was using mobile phone and used to converse with the co-accused Ashok as well as with the CCLs on regular basis and that his CDR reflects his conversations with co- accused Ashok and the CCLs.
186. Furthermore, in his testimony under Section 315 Cr.P.C., accused Ashok Yadav/DW-1 has stated that he was in contact with accused Vaibhav since 2012. He deposed that the accused Vaibhav used to bring his father to ESI State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 101 of 137 hospital. Hence, it has been admitted by both the accused persons that they were in contact with each other.
187. Thus, from the above discussion, it is proved beyond doubt on record that accused Vaibhav was in contact with accused Ashok as well as with the two JCLs namely 'SS' & 'SM' who had thrown acid on the face of the victim and had robbed her bag.
188. It has been argued by the accused Ashok that the mobile number 9250925082 belongs to his girlfriend Sapna and she was using it. Infact, there are various calls between this mobile no.9250925082 and his mobile no.9990700626. He has further argued that it was his girlfriend Sapna who had conspired with co-accused Vaibhav and the JCLs SS and SM to commit the present offence out of jealousy. However, this contention of the accused is not acceptable for the following reasons:-
(i) As per police witnesses PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal and PW44/SI Suresh, the mobile phone Samsung CDMA having sim no. 9250925082 was recovered from accused Ashok Yadav vide seizure memo Ex.PW-40/J.
(ii) As per the CDR of mobile no.9250925082 (Ex.
PW-13/C), there are various calls between this number and that of accused Vaibhav i.e. 8587059020. Hence, accused Vaibhav was having conversation on this number. However, the accused Vaibhav has nowhere stated that he was in conversation with anyone named Sapna.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 102 of 137(iii) Further, there are various calls between the no.9250925082 and the phone number of the victim. Again, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said girlfriend of accused Ashok Yadav was in contact with victim as well. Infact, no suggestion has been given to the victim/PW-2 that she was in contact with Sapna, or that they even knew each other. It is interesting to note that a suggestion was given to PW-15/father of the victim that the victim got the attack staged on herself as she intended to avoid her marriage with Dr G. Singh. However, no suggestion was given to him or PW-2/victim that it was Sapna, who got the acid thrown on the face of the victim.
(iv) Also, as per the CDR of mobile number 9250925082 Ex.PW13/C, there are various calls between the number 9250925082 and the victim's number, that too for very long durations and sometimes at odd hours too.
189. It is highly unbelievable that girlfriend of the accused namely Sapna, was in contact with the victim as well as accused Vaibhav who was known to accused. Hence, the fact that mobile no.9250925082 was in contact with victim as well as accused Vaibhav, proves beyond doubt that it was accused Ashok only who was using this number as well.
190. PW20/Sh. Phool Chand Sharma, father of Sapna has also not been cross examined by the accused on this aspect. No suggestion has given to him that Sapna was using the said mobile number or that she was in a relationship with State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 103 of 137 accused Ashok. Further, the SIM of the said mobile number was in the mobile phone make Samsung CDMA, Ex. P-43/5, which was recovered at the instance of the accused Ashok vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/J.
191. It has been argued by accused Ashok that prosecution has failed to prove any link between him and the JCLs who have allegedly committed the crime. However, it was never the case of the prosecution that the accused Ashok had hired the juveniles to commit the offence. Infact, as per the prosecution, it was accused Vaibhav, who had contacted and hired the JCLs to commit the offence. And as discussed above, the CDRs have duly proved the connection between Vaibhav and the two JCLs.
192. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the connection between the accused Ashok, Vaibhav and the JCLs SS and SM.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
193. Criminal conspiracy has been defined under Section 120A IPC, while Section 120-B IPC prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy. The said provisions are reproduced verbatim as under:-
"Section 120 A- When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done -
(1) an illegal act, or State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 104 of 137 (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
"Section 120 B - (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both."
194. It is established principle of evidence that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In the case titled as 'Santoshanand Avdoot @ Ghanshyam Prashad & Anr v State' 2014 (4) JCC 2649, it was observed by Hon'ble High court of Delhi, "159. It is true that direct evidence is rarely available to prove conspiracy. The law on conspiracy has been discussed in detail in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, 2005 State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 105 of 137 (11) SCC 600. The Supreme Court while relying on 'Major E.G. Barsay vs. State of Bombay', AIR 1961 SC 1762, held :
"...the gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts."
160. It further observed :
"90. In Nalini's case, S.S.M. Quadri, J. pointed out that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy. Judge L. Hand, in Van Riper v. United States (13 F 2d. 961) said of conspiracy: "When men enter into an agreement for an unlawful end, they become ad hoc agents for one another and have made a partnership in crime."
91. In Yashpal Mittal v. State of Punjab, Goswami, J, speaking for a three-Judge Bench analyzed the legal position relating to criminal conspiracy. At pages 610- 611, the learned Judge observed that "the very agreement, the concert or league is the ingredients of the offence." and that "it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy". It was then observed that "there must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means, sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators.
92. Dr. Sri Hari Singh Gour in his well known 'Commentary on Penal Law of India', (Vol.2, 11th Edn. page 1138) summed up the legal position in the following words: "In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in a general conspiracy though he may not know State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 106 of 137 all its secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to be accomplished. The evil scheme may be promoted by a few, some may drop out and some may join at a later stage, but the conspiracy continues until it is broken up. The conspiracy may develop in successive stages. There may be general plan to accomplish the common design by such means as may from time to time be found expedient."
93. In State of H.P. v. Krishan Lal Pradhan, it was reiterated that every one of the conspirators need not take active part in the commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts. In the case of State v. Nalini, S.S.M. Quadri, J, after a survey of case law made the following pertinent observations:
(at paragraph 662) "In reaching the stage of meeting of minds, two or more persons share information about doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. This is the first stage where each is said to have knowledge of a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Among those sharing the information some or all may form an intention to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Those who do form the requisite intention would be parties to the agreement and would be conspirators but those who drop out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the basis of mere knowledge unless they commit acts or omissions from which a guilty common intention can be inferred. It is not necessary that all the conspirators should participate from the inception to the end of the conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them and some others may quit from the conspiracy. All of them cannot but be treated as conspirators. Where in pursuance of the agreement the conspirators commit offences individually or adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such offences even if some of them have not actively participated in the commission of those offences."
XXX XXX XXX State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 107 of 137
96. There is one particular observation made by Jagannadha Shetty in Kehar Singh's (supra) case which needs to be explained. The learned Judge observed: "It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient." The expression 'physical manifestation' seems to be the phraseology used in the Article referred to by the learned Judge. However, the said expression shall not be equated to 'overt act' which is a different concept. As rightly stated by the learned senior counsel, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the phrase has reference to the manifestation of the agreement itself, such as by way of meetings and communications.
97. Mostly, the conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. (Per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini's case (supra) at page 516). The well known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and "the circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible." G.N. Ray, J. in Tanibeert Pankaj Kumar, observed that this Court should not allow the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. 98. As pointed out by Fazal Ali, J, in V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.), "In most cases it will be difficult to get direct evidence of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence." In this context, the observations in the case Noor Mohammad State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 108 of 137 Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra are worth nothing: "...in most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts.
Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material."
99. A few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. The circumstances before, during and after the occurrence can be proved to decide about the complicity of the accused. (vide Esher Singh v. State of A.P.) XXX XXX XXX
101. One more principle which deserves notice is that cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to conspiracy, the Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution. K.J. Shetty, J, pointed out in Kehar Singh's case that "the innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidents should not enter the judicial verdict."
XXX XXX XXX
113. "....If there is proof to the effect that the accused played a role, attended to certain things or took steps consistent with the common design underlying the conspiracy, that will go a long way in establishing the complicity of the accused, though it is not a legal requirement that the conspirator should do any particular act beyond the agreement to commit the offence."
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 109 of 137195. It is settled position of law that act or action of one accused cannot be used as evidence against the other accused. However, an exception to the said rule is laid down in Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Same is reproduced verbatim as under, "Section 10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design - Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
196. In 'Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v State of Maharashtra' (1964) 2 SCR 378, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court, "This section, as the opening words indicate will come into play when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should be a prima facie evidence that a person was a party to the conspiracy before his acts can be used against his co-conspirators. Once such a reasonable ground exists, anything said, done or written by one of the conspirators in reference to the common intention, after the said intention was entertained, is relevant against the others, not only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy but also for proving that the other person was a party to it. The evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall have reference to their common intention and in respect of a period after such intention was State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 110 of 137 entertained by any one of them. The expression in reference to their common intention is very comprehensive and it appears to have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words "in furtherance of in the English law; with the result, anything said, done or written by a co- conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will be evidence against the other before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Another important limitation implicit in the language is indicated by the expressed scope of its relevancy. Anything so said, done or written is a relevant fact only 'as against each of the person believed to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it'. It can be used only for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy or that the other person was a party to it. It cannot be said in favour of the other party or for the purpose of showing that such a person was not a party to the conspiracy. In short, the Section can be analysed as follows: (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; (5) it can only be used against a co- conspirator and not in his favour."
197. It is also trite to observe that, it is not necessary that all the actors in the conspiracy must have joined the offence from its very inception. Conspiracy is a continuing offence and the acts of the persons who join the conspiracy at a later point in time, in furtherance of the object thereof, form a part of the same offence of conspiracy.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 111 of 137198. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that the accused Ashok had hatched the conspiracy to throw acid on the victim, as he wanted to marry her, but she has rejected his marriage proposal and her marriage was fixed elsewhere. It has been proved by the prosecution that the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' who threw acid on the face of the victim and robbed her of her bag were not even known to her nor were they in any kind of romantic relationship with her. Apparently, the offence of robbery was a camouflage to commit the offence of throwing acid on the face of the victim. In other words, the main goal of the attackers was to throw acid on the face of the victim. However, in doing so they robbed bag of the victim in order to give it the colour of robbery with a view to mislead the police or conceal the real motive behind the offence.
199. As deposed by PW-2/victim, the accused Ashok Yadav had proposed her repeatedly but she rejected his proposals. She has also deposed that she and accused Ashok were good friends for last 2-3 years and that accused Ashok Yadav had repeatedly proposed her for marriage but she refused every time and also told him that her family would not allow inter-caste marriage. She has also deposed that accused Ashok had started raising objection on her talking with others, which shows that he was becoming possessive towards her. Finally, she deposed that in the month of December, 2014 her marriage was fixed with Dr. G. Singh by her family, and thereafter, the behavior of accused Ashok changed towards her. He used to ask her as to why State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 112 of 137 she was going for arrange marriage. His possessiveness increased towards her and he used to ask her not to go here and there. In the very same month, on 23.12.2014, the acid was thrown on the face of the victim.
200. Acid attack is a peculiar kind of offence, mostly committed against women by the persons whose marriage proposal or proposal for romance is rejected by her. On the other hand, generally, the robbers do not use acid to attack their victim; rather they use weapons like firearms or knife, which inflict quick and neat injury to the victim in order to facilitate them to quickly commit robbery.
201. The Law Commission of India in its 226th report titled as "The Inclusion of Acid Attacks as Specific Offences in the Indian Penal Code and a law for Compensation for Victims of Crime" observed, "Though acid attack is a crime which can be committed against any man or woman, it has a specific gender dimension in India. Most of the reported acid attacks have been committed on women, particularly young women for spurning suitors, for rejecting proposals of marriage, for denying dowry etc. The attacker cannot bear the fact that he has been rejected and seeks to destroy the body of the woman who has dared to stand up to him.
Thus, acid throwing is an extremely violent crime by which the perpetrator of the crime seeks to inflict severe physical and mental suffering on his victim. As stated above this kind of violence is often motivated by deep- seated jealousy or feelings of revenge against a woman."
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 113 of 137202. In article 'A Theoretical Overview on Acid Victims and Government Regulations in India' published in IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Volume 21, Issue 2. Ser. II (February. 2019), PP 35-41, it was observed that as per a study conducted by UNICEF reveals, "Acid attack is a serious problem all over the world, even children are become victim of acid attack in many cases. In an Acid attack, acid is thrown at the face or body of the victim with deliberate intent to burn and disfigure. Most of the victims are girls, many below the age of 18, who have rejected sexual advances or marriage proposals. Acid attack or vitriolage is defined as the act of throwing acid onto the body of a person "with the intention of injuring or disfiguring [them] out of jealousy or revenge".
203. Though accused Ashok Yadav had denied the allegations that he had proposed the victim or wanted to marry her, however, CDRs of mobile number of the accused Ashok 9990700626 (Ex.PW-9/C) and 9250925082 (Ex.PW13/C) and that of the victim (Ex.PW-14/A) clearly show that they were having frequent conversations for long durations and sometimes these calls have been made at odd hours i.e. at 01:00 a.m or 12:00 midnight. Further, the victim was so close to the accused Ashok that when she had to catch an early flight on 17.12.2014, she had called the accused at 04:00 a.m. in the morning. This fact is corroborated from the CDR of the victim (Ex.PW-14/A) which reflects that various calls were made from the mobile number of the victim to the mobile number of the accused Ashok on the morning of 17.12.2014. Even after the incident in question had taken place, the first person State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 114 of 137 she contacted for help was none other than the accused Ashok Yadav. This shows that the victim and accused Ashok shared a deep bond and the victim trusted him more than anyone else in her friend circle.
204. From the above stated facts two things have been established that the accused Ashok was having romantic inclination towards victim and he was very close to the victim. The marriage of the victim was fixed somewhere else and accused Ashok was disheartened due to this. As already discussed, in most of the cases of acid attack, the assailant is a spurned suitor. Thus, it is established that the accused Ashok Yadav had the motive to throw acid on the victim.
WhatsApp conversations-
205. The prosecution has relied on the screen shots of the Whatsapp chats stored in the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav. The 20 photographs of the screen shots of the WhatsApp chats have been exhibited on record as Ex.PW40/X1 (colly). Though no certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act qua these screen shots have been filed on record, however, the original Mixcromax mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav was exhibited in the court from which these screen shots were taken, though the said mobile phone could not be turned on during recording of evidence.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 115 of 137206. Further, in his on-oath testimony under Section 315 Cr.P.C., accused Ashok has admitted and even relied on these chats and claimed that those chats were not in respect of the victim but were in respect of some other work. He claimed that he had asked the accused Vaibhav to follow some persons to whom he had given money on loan indirectly, through a gym instructor namely Jeetu. He wanted the accused Vaibhav to follow and locate the addresses of those persons to whom money was lent by the said Jeetu. However, story of the accused Ashok is nothing but a desperate attempt on his part to give an explanation to the dubious kind of communication between him and accused Vaibhav. His story suffers from the following flaws:-
(i) The gym instructor Jeetu, whether is a fictional person or a real person is not known to the court, has not been examined by accused Ashok to prove that he had asked him to further lend his money to others as loan.
(ii) There is no proof of any money given by the accused Ashok to any such person namely Jeetu. In his cross examination, DW-1 Ashok stated that on one occasion, he had given Rs.8,00,000/- to Jeetu. However, he failed to prove the same by leading any documentary evidence.
(iii) If the accused Ashok had given any money to any person through Jeetu, he could have straightaway asked Jeetu about whereabouts of those persons. What was the need of asking accused Vaibhav to follow them?State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 116 of 137
(iv) There is no name fictional or real stated by the accused Ashok of the persons to whom loan was given through gym instructor Jeetu and for whom he was requesting accused Vaibhav to follow and locate. If he was not aware of such details, how and whom he asked accused Vaibhav to follow is not clear.
207. Now, let us have a look at the WhatsApp Chats between the accused Ashok and Vaibhav. Same is Ex.PW40/X1 and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-
"Date : 16.12.2014 Vaibhav at 6:37 P.M. : Bs* Ashok at 10:29 PM : Haan Ashok at 10:29 PM : Ab Bata Ashok at 10:29 PM : Message delete kar diyo fir Vaibhav at 10:31 PM: Wo pahuche to WO nikal gayi thi Vaibhav at 10:31 PM : Pehle hi Ashok at 10:31 PM : Nahi Yaar Vaibhav at 10:31 PM : Ha ya sachi Ashok at 10:31 PM : 9.15 par to wo hai thi Ashok at 10:31 PM : Meri baat hui Ashok at 10:32PM : Mujhe lagta hai tumhare Baski nahi hai.
Ashok at 10:32 PM : Yaar Itne din Vaibhav at 10:32PM : Nhi yr 9:25 pe to ghr PR thi State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 117 of 137 Ashok at 10:33 PM : Kal last baar hai Vaibhav at 10:33PM : Pta hai Ashok at 10:33 PM : Kal nahi to fir mat Karna Vaibhav at 10:33 PM : Kkk Ashok at 10:34 PM : 8.50 se Ashok at 10:34 PM: Ghar se nikalne tak wait Karna Vaibhav at 10:34 PM : Kkk Vaibhav at 10:34 PM : Pkka Ashok at 10:35 PM : Dekh lo kal Koi galti nahi Honi chahiye Vaibhav at 10:35 PM : Kkk no galti Ashok at 10:36 PM : Ghr se nikalte hi kar dena nahi to raste Mai...
Vaibhav at 10:36 PM : Kkk Ashok at 10:36 PM : Magar kal mujhe Ashok at 10:36 PM : Bad news mat dena ki hua nahi Vaibhav at 10:37 PM : Kkk sir Ashok at 10:37 PM : Saala mai aaj bank se paise nikal ke laya Ashok at 10:37 PM : Ki kal dene padende Vaibhav at 10:37 PM: Thk hai kl de dena Ashok at 10:37 PM : Ushi time wahi par milta hu Vaibhav at 10:38 PM : Ok Ashok at 10:38 PM: Chat abhi delete kar Ashok at 10:38 PM : Delete all conversation mai ja kar State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 118 of 137 Vaibhav at 10:40 PM : Kr bhi di Ashok at 10:40 PM : Ok Ashok at 10:41 PM : Waiting 4 Gud news Vaibhav at 10:41 PM : Me too
208. It is clear from these conversations that the two accused persons are planning to do something, and the person they are taking about is a female. The accused Ashok had asked Vaibhav to do it as soon as she leaves the home or on the way. He has also asked the accused Vaibhav repeatedly to delete the chats. Apparently, the dubious communication between accused Ashok and Vaibhav was only in respect of the present victim. He was ensuring that the victim be followed by the JCLs arranged by accused Vaibhav and acid be thrown on the face of the victim. Further, the accused Ashok insisted that all the chats be deleted immediately. If he was trying to locate the persons to whom his money was lent, why would he insist on deletion of chats. It only indicates that the said chat pertains to some illegal act or some conspiracy to commit an illegal act, and that the accused wants to erase each and every evidence related to the same. It is a clear proof of a conspiracy between the two accused persons.
209. During investigation, accused Vaibhav got recovered the orange and brown colour ladies' bag, which was found containing an orange colour wallet, Adhar card, election card and pen card of the victim and DL of the victim, slips State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 119 of 137 of ESI hospital, 100 dollar notes, one debit card of SBI bank, Stethoscope, photographs of father of the victim, cosmetic articles, mobile charger, six coins, visiting card and other articles. The said bag and articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/A. PW-2/Victim duly identified these articles in judicial TIP conducted before PW8/Ld. MM Sh. Pankaj Arora vide proceedings Ex.PW8/B and also identified the same before the court as Ex. P-1 colly.
210. Similarly, mobile phone i.e. I phone S-4 bearing sim no.
96XXXXXX50 of the victim was recovered at the instance of accused Ashok Yadav from his house. It has been contended on behalf of accused Ashok Yadav that mobile phone of the victim was never stolen and it was available with her at all the time. Infact, she had left the same at Kathuria hospital where she was taken immediately after the incident. However, this contention of the accused Ashok Yadav is not tenable for the following reasons:-
(a) If the mobile phone of the victim was not robbed and was in her possession at Kathuria hospital, she would have called the police herself from her mobile phone. However, as already proved on record by PW-26/Abishek @ Mannu and as per PCR form Ex. PW-32/A, the call on 100 number was made by PW-26/Abhishek from his mobile phone having number 9717271916.
(b) If the mobile phone of the victim was available with her, she would have called accused Ashok Yadav for help State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 120 of 137 from her own mobile phone. However, as per the own admission of accused Ashok, the victim had called him from an unknown number for help after the acid attack.
This is further proved by the CDR of accused Ashok Ex. PW-9/A, as per which, a call from mobile no 9717271916 was received on his mobile number 9990700626 on 23.12.2014 at 10:24:08 hours.
(c) Offence in question had taken place at 09:30 a.m. on 23.12.2014. Statement of the victim was recorded and rukka was prepared on the same day at about 12:15 p.m., i.e within three hours of the offence in question. In her statement Ex.PW2/A, the victim has categorically stated that her mobile phone i.e. I phone S-4 having number 96XXXX50 was kept in her bag which has been robbed. It is to noted that by this time victim had no intention to implicate the accused Ashok, whom she herself called for help, nor she had the knowledge of his involvement in the present case. Then why would she falsely state about theft of her mobile phone.
211. Hence, it is established beyond doubt that the mobile phone of the victim i.e I phone S-4 bearing no. 96XXXXXX50 was also robbed with her bag.
212. The accused persons have raised objections qua recovery of the articles at their instance and from their houses on the basis that the recoveries are planted on them. It has been contended that no public person was made witness to the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 121 of 137 said recoveries despite availability. Hence, the said recoveries have not been proved as per law.
213. In the present case, all the police officials who were part of the investigation team i.e PW-39, PW-40, PW-41, PW-42, PW-43 and PW-44, have deposed about the recoveries made from the accused persons and the JCLs. They have been subjected to detailed and lengthy cross-examination. However, none of the said witnesses has given conflicting or evasive statements or shifted their stand, nor any major discrepancy has come in their testimony. When their testimonies have not been varied from any spectrum, there is no reason to discard the same only for the reason that they are police officials.
214. At this stage, the court finds it appropriate to refer to the case titled as 'Kashmiri Lal v State of Haryana', (2013) 6 SCC 595, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, "As far as first submission is concerned, it is evincible from the evidence on record that the police officials had requested the people present in the dhaba to be witnesses, but they declined to cooperate and, in fact, did not make themselves available. That apart, there is no absolute command of law that the police officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their testimony should always be treated with suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show their disinclination to come forward to become witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer is found to reliable and trustworthy, the court can definitely act upon the same. If in the course of scrutinising the evidence the court finds the evidence of the police officer as unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may disbelieve him but it should not do so solely on the presumption that a witness from the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 122 of 137 department of police should be viewed with distrust. This is also based on the principle of quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence. These aspects have been highlighted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and another and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of Bihar. Appreciating the evidence on record on the unveil of the aforesaid principles, we do not perceive any acceptable reason to discard the testimony of the official witnesses which is otherwise reliable and absolutely trustworthy."
215. Similarly, in the case titled as 'Sonu @ Hemraj v State (NCT of Delhi)' 2021, 1AD (Delhi) 280, it was held by Hon'ble High court of Delhi, "It was next argued by the Ld. defence counsel that IO has not joined public witnesses during the investigation and also at the time when the appellants pointed out the place of occurrence. As far as the question of non-joining of public witnesses is concerned, no doubt, the IO has not joined the public witnesses but that by itself does not falsify the entire case of the prosecution. The testimony of the official witnesses cannot be thrown away simply on the ground that IO failed to join public witnesses. Experience has shown that public witnesses are reluctant to join the investigation. Even otherwise, the non-joining of public witness by the IO can only be said to be a fault on the part of the IO which cannot be the sole basis for disbelieving the entire case of the prosecution and the testimony of the believable official witnesses. Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of police officials without corroboration from a public witness, if it inspires confidence. In this regard reliance can be placed upon Tahir v. State (1996) 3 SCC 338, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
"No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 123 of 137 police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."
216. In the present case, as deposed by PW-40 Insp Manohar Lal, PW-42/SI Parvesh Kaushik and PW-44/SI Suresh, the accused Vaibhav had led the police team to the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM'. While on one hand police was investigating through CCTV footages and trying to locate the assailants, at the same time they analysed the CDRs of the victim and made enquiry from the hospital where victim was working. They discovered that the victim and accused Ashok were friends and dating at that time and were in regular telephonic contact with each other. From analysis of two CDRs of accused Ashok (Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW9/C) it was discovered that accused Ashok was in regular contact with accused Vaibhav from starting of December till middle of December i.e. upto 17-18th December. Accused Vaibhav was interrogated, who confessed to his culpability before the police and told the entire story. Police also found certain WhatsApp chats in his mobile phone with accused Ashok, which were of suspicious/dubious nature. Police also found audio recording of telephonic conversations between accused Vaibhav and accused State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 124 of 137 Ashok recorded in his phone by accused Vaibhav. Transcript of those two audio conversations was prepared by the police. Voice sample of accused Vaibhav and accused Ashok were also taken qua same. These Voice samples along with those transcripts were matched in FSL, report qua same is exhibited on record as Ex.PW37/A. This report established that the two conversations were having voices of accused Ashok and accused Vaibhav.
217. The audio recordings of these conversations were recorded in the Micromax mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/D. The said mobile phone has been exhibited on record as Ex.PW43/P6. Transcript of the said audio recordings Ex.PW40/F were prepared by the IO. The said audio files were sent to FSL, where they were compared with the specimen voice samples of both the accused. As per Ex/PW37/A, prepared by PW37/Mr. V. Lakshmi Narsimhan, FSL Expert, the original voice of the two accused persons matched with the samples given. However, the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav could not be switched on in the court despite efforts. Thus, the two audio files could not be played in the court.
218. These audio recordings are very relevant for the present case. In first of the transcript of the said audio recordings, accused Ashok is telling accused Vaibhav ' तू बस इनको बता दियो क्योकिं फिर time नहीं है, कल रात को ही करना पड़ेगा उनको ठिक है'. Thereafter, he is telling accused Vaibhav 'कल उनकी evening duty ही है और 8 बजे मिल ले मैं 8 baje aur State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 125 of 137 confirm kr dunga sab'. Further in the second transcript accused Ashok is asking accused Vaibhav ' अच्छा ठिक है उनको ये तो बोल दे कि कल सवेरे तो कर देगें ना कम से कम 9 baje उसकी duty है 9 या 09:30 तक निकलेगी. From this communication, it is clear that accused Ashok is asking accused Vaibhav to tell some other persons to do something in the morning as a female would leave around 9:00 or 09:30. It is further stated by accused Ashok that सवेरे 09 बजे निकलेगी वो कल आखरी दिन है फिर वो जा रही है flight है उसकी. From these conversations also it is clear that accused was taking about victim that on 16th or 17th December, victim had to catch a flight. From these transcripts it is apparent that accused Ashok was planning to inflict acid injury on the victim for last few days but was unable to get the work done.
219. However, these transcripts though very relevant for the present case cannot be read in the evidence as the mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav Ex.PW43/P6, though produced before the court many times, could not be switched on at any point of time and the audio recordings of the conversation between the co-accused were never played before the court. The audio cassettes containing the voice samples of the accused Ashok (Ex.PW41/P1) and accused Vaibhav (Ex.PW41/P2) were also never played during evidence before the court. This is despite the fact that the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav was in working condition during the time it was with FSL lab, where specimen of accused Ashok and Vaibhav were State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 126 of 137 positively compared with the recordings of accused's conversation.
220. Merely by producing the transcripts of the said audio conversations, the prosecution cannot prove that the said audio recordings was of the conversation between the two accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP has relied upon the FSL report prepared and exhibited by PW37 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narsimhan, FSL expert. However, the testimony of said witness is of no use to the prosecution as the original audio recording of the conversation contained in the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav was never played during recording of prosecution evidence and hence, it has not been proved as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
221. Be that as it may, even otherwise, there is sufficient material on record as discussed above to connect the accused Ashok and Vaibhav with the incident of throwing of acid and robbery committed with the victim by the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM'.
222. One of the arguments raised by accused Ashok is that PW-2/victim was in Live-in relationship with one Dr. Anees and also in relationship with one Dr. Abhay and a person called Amit. He has also deposed about the same in his statement under Section 315 Cr.P.C. However, he has miserably failed to prove any such relationship of the victim. Infact, he has failed to cross examine PW-2/victim on the said aspect of her relationships with the above said State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 127 of 137 persons. Though, he had questioned PW-3/landlord of the victim, about Dr. Anees and PW-3 admitted that Dr. Anees used to visit the victim. However, this is not sufficient to prove that Dr. Anees and the victim were in any relationship or were in a live-in relationship. The accused has also failed to show that Dr. Abhay had filed any complaint against the victim at MCI regarding her PG course. Also, the accused has not put a single question to PW-2 regarding her PG course or her PG exams or any complaint filed against her regarding her pursuing a regular PG course while employed at a Govt. hospital. He did not cross examine her regarding exchange of duties or that he was present with her on the previous night or had left with her in the morning.
223. It has been alleged that the IOs have failed to follow the protocol to obtain the CDRs and hence, the CDRs cannot be read in evidence. However, it is a settled law that any lacunae in investigation by the IO shall not affect the case of the prosecution.
224. In 'C. Muniappan and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu', 2010 (9) SCC 567, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court, "55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 128 of 137 investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
225. In the present case, PW-40/Insp Manohar Lal stated that IO has to make a written request for obtaining CAF, CDR and location of any mobile number addressed to DCP and same is to be forwarded through SHO and ACP. After receiving the abovesaid request in the office of DCP, a mail is sent to mobile service provider company by DCP and thereafter, the requisite information was provided by the mobile service provider. He admitted that he did not send any request to the DCP office for obtaining CDR of any mobile number. However, in light of the above- discussed judgment, this court is of the view that even if there is any failure on part of the IOs in procuring the CDRs as per procedure, it would not be a fatal blow to the prosecution.
THE OFFENCE
226. It has been argued by the Ld. PP for the state that in view of the incident committed with the victim, the accused State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 129 of 137 persons are liable to be convicted for offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC and Section 326A IPC/392/397 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. Further, the accused persons are also liable to be convicted under Section 411 IPC.
227. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of accused persons that offence under Section 326A IPC is not made out in the present case, as the victim has not received any grievous injury in terms of Section 320 IPC.
228. Let us first examine the relevant provisions for the purpose of this case. Section 326-A IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc. Same is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.- Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine.
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim.State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 130 of 137
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim."
229. 'Grievous hurt' has been defined under Section 320 IPC.
Same is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"Section 320. Grievous hurt- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as 'grievous':
(i) Emasculation.
(ii) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(iii)Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
(iv)Privation of any member or joint.
(v)Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(vi)Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(vii)Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(viii)Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
230. The scope of Section 326A IPC was discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as 'Maqbool Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh' AIR 2018 SC 5101. The relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"6. Section 326-A carries title of "voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid" whereas Section 326-B does not carry any such indication in the title regarding the nature of injury as grievous. But on closer analysis, it can be seen that both the Sections provide for State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 131 of 137 eight types of injuries - (i) permanent damage,
(ii) partial damage, (iii) deformity, (iv) burns,
(v) maiming, (vi) disfigurement, (vii) disability or (viii) grievous hurt.
7. The first seven of the injuries referred to in the Sections are classified based on the normal aftereffect of acid attack whereas the eighth one is on the gravity of the effect. Under Section 326A and Section 326B, grievous hurt is only one among the eight injuries. In view of the explanation under Section 326B, the resultant damage or deformity under 326A or 326B is not required to be irreversible. The other seven injuries may be either simple or grievous. The nature of injury being simple or grievous, is irrelevant for distinguishing between Section 323 and Section 326A of IPC or between Section 326A and Section 326B of IPC. If the injury referred to under Section 326A or 326B is one among the specified eight injuries, whether the seven of them be simple or grievous, the special provisions are attracted.
XX X XXX XXX
9. Thus, merely because the title to Section 326A of IPC speaks about grievous hurt by use of acid, it is not a requirement under the Section that the injuries caused should be invariably grievous. Even if the seven injuries are simple, Section 326A, and under Section 326B the mere act of throwing or attempt, as indicated in the Section, would attract the offence.
10. The title to the provision need not invariably indicate the contents of the provision. If the provision is otherwise clear and unambiguous, the title pales into irrelevance. On the contrary, if the contents of the provision are otherwise ambiguous, an aid can be sought from the title so as to define the provision. In the event of a conflict between the plain expressions in the provision and the indicated title, the title cannot control the contents of the provision. Title is only a broad and general indication of the nature of the subject dealt under the provision.State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 132 of 137
XXX XXX XXX
16. As we have already discussed above, it is not the percentage or gravity of injury, which makes the difference. Be it simple or grievous, if the injury falls under the specified types under Section 326A on account of use of acid, the offence under Section 326A is attracted.
Section 326B would be attracted in case the requirements specified are met on an attempted acid attack."
231. From the above stated judgment, it has been squarely established that there are eight kind of injuries contemplated under Section 326A IPC, out of which first seven injuries can be simple hurt; still offence under Section 326A IPC would be made out.
232. In the present case, the victim suffered burn injuries on her face and right eye due to throwing of acid on her face. This injury may not fall within the definition of grievous hurt as provided by Section 320 IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove that permanent disfiguration or permanent privation of right eye of the victim has been caused. However, even if the injury is simple one, Section 326A IPC would still be attracted. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused persons had conspired to throw acid on the victim with an intention to cause partial damage to her face and eye, and the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 326A IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 133 of 137OFFENCE OF ROBBERY
233. The offence of robbery is defined under Section 390 IPC.
As per the said provision, theft/extortion becomes robbery when a person during theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, causes to a person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. The said section is reproduced verbatim as under:-
"Section 390. Robbery- Robbery is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation - The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
234. Section 392 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of robbery, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and also fine. If the robbery is State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 134 of 137 committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. Section 397 IPC deals with robbery or dacoity (robbery by a group of five or more) when the offender uses a deadly weapon, causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt during the commission of the crime. The minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment of at least seven years.
235. Section 394 IPC and Section 397 IPC are aggravated forms of offence of robbery. Section 394 IPC is attracted when hurt is caused voluntarily in committing robbery or while attempting to commit robbery. This section is applicable to the person who has actually caused the hurt as well as the other accused persons who have not actually caused the hurt but were jointly concerned in causing hurt. Hence, the perpetrator of hurt as well as to the others who were jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit robbery are constructively liable under this section. Unlike Section 394 IPC, the concept of vicarious/constructive liability is not applicable to Section 397 IPC. Section 397 IPC relates only to the offender who actually uses the deadly weapon. Guilt of the accused under this section can be attributed only to that offender who uses deadly weapons or causes grievous hurt to anyone during the course of commission of robbery.
236. In the present case, at the time of committing the theft of the bag of the victim and while taking away her bag, acid was thrown on the face of the victim. Thus, at the time of State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 135 of 137 theft, hurt was caused to the victim. Thus, the act of the assailants squarely falls within the definition of robbery as punishable under Section 392 IPC. However, as already discussed, the injury sustained by the victim does not fall within the definition of grievous hurt as provided by section 320 IPC. Also, Section 397 IPC does not contemplate vicarious liability. Only the person who actually uses the deadly weapon is punishable under this section. Hence, offence under section 397 IPC is not made out in the present case as the accused Ashok or Vaibhav did not actually threw the acid on the face of the victim to commit robbery. However, even if the hurt caused during robbery is simple, Section 394 IPC would be attracted, Hence, the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
CONCLUSION
237. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt all the facts and circumstances by leading convincing evidence that the accused persons Ashok Kumar Yadav and Vaibhav Kumar alongwith the JCLs 'SS' and 'SM' hatched the conspiracy to throw acid on the face of the victim with a view to cause hurt to her and to rob her of her bag, with a view to give it the colour of robbery. All the facts and circumstances so established are consistent with the hypothesis of their guilt. The prosecution has successfully proved the chain State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 136 of 137 connecting the accused persons with the JCLs and with the offence.
238. The accused Ashok and Vaibhav are convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC as well as under
Section 326A/392/394 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. The accused Vaibhav is further convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC as the bag of the victim (Ex P-1) was recovered from his possession. Even though no charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against the accused Ashok, he is also convicted for offence under Section 411 IPC as he was found in possession of the mobile phone of the victim, and as Section 411 IPC is a lesser offence for the offence of robbery.
239. Copy of judgment be supplied free of cost to both the accused persons or their counsel alongwith coversheet as per practice direction by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi contained vide no.124/Rules/DHC dated 10.12.2024.
Digitally signed by SAUMYA CHAUHAN SAUMYA Date: CHAUHAN 2025.07.16 17:01:21 +0530 Announced in the open court (Saumya Chauhan) today i.e. 16.07.2025 ASJ/FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 137 pages and each page Digitally signed bears my signatures. SAUMYA by SAUMYA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2025.07.16 17:01:41 +0530 (Saumya Chauhan) ASJ/FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 16.07.2025 State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 137 of 137