Delhi District Court
State vs Manjeet Thakran on 28 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH-
WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
CNR No. DLNW01-004936-2016
Sessions Case No. 53316/2016
FIR No: 277/2016
U/S 302 IPC & 25/27 of Arms Act
P.S. Begumpur
STATE V/s Manjeet Thakran
S/o Shri Braham Singh
R/o House No.43, Village Nangal
Thakran, Delhi
At present : House 100, Pocket 26
Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi
Date of Institution : 19.07.2016
Date of arguments : 25.03.2023
Date of judgment : 28.03.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.03.2016 at about 8.03 pm, an information received from PCR that in Sector 24, Pocket 26, Rohini, Delhi, a man had been shot. DD No.41-A was registered by W. Ct. Snehlata and investigation was assigned to SI Pukhraj. On receiving the same, SI Pukhraj along with Ct. Surender Pal went to the spot i.e. House No.100, Pkt.26, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi where Eeco Van bearing No.DL2CAN- 1731 of blue colour was found parked there. On inquiry, he came to know that the person who had been shot, came in the said vehicle and he had been shot by Manjeet who lived on the top floor of that building. He also came to know that the injured was taken to Dr. BSA Hospital by the PCR. After leaving Ct.Surender Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 1 of 84 Pal at the spot for its security, SI Pukhraj went to Dr. BSA Hospital where injured Gaurav Chauhan S/o Rattan Lal R/o 319- 320, First Floor, Pkt.4, Sector 22, Rohini aged about 30 years was found under medical treatment vide MLC No.4032/16 on which it was opined by the doctor that it was alleged H/o Gunshot 1 hour back as told by Pt. himself. No eye witness was found at the hospital. SI Pukhraj came back at the spot where he searched for the eye witness but no eye witness was found. Mobile Crime Team was called at the spot and the spot was inspected and photographed. During inspection, two empty cartridges were found in the car on which KF 7.65 was written. On the basis of DD no. 41A, MLC of injured and recovery of empty cartridges, case u/s 307 IPC & 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act was got registered. SI Pukhraj seized the said two empty cartridges into police possession and the Eeco Van bearing No.DL2CAN-1731 was also taken into police possession for FSL Inspection. Site plan was prepared and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded. Clothes of the injured with the sample seal from the doctor were taken into custody. Statement of father of injured was recorded according to which his son Gaurav aged 30 years for some reason had taken loan of Rs.1.00 Lac from Manjeet. Manjeet used to take Rs.3,000/- weekly and he had repaid Rs.35000/- approximately to him. Due to illness of Gaurav and his wife, his shop was closed from a month and he could not repay the amount to Manjeet.
2. In his statement, father of the Gaurav namely Rattan Lal Chauhan further stated that Manjeet was pressurizing his son Gaurav and was also threatening to kill his son. On 30.03.2016, Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 2 of 84 Gaurav went to Haridwar and on 31.03.2016, he informed him on phone that by making repeated phone call, Manjeet has been calling him for settlement. Father of Gaurav told Gaurav to come to him first and then to meet Manjeet. At 7.30 pm, Gaurav returned from Haridwar and remained in the house for 10 minutes and he along with his wife Manju Chauhan went to the house of Manjeet. As per the mobile of his son Gaurav, at about 7.56 pm, he made a call from his mobile no.9250589872 to him and told him that Manjeet shot him and requested him to come there. Father of Gaurav immediately went to the house of Manjeet and found Gaurav lying in blood. After some time, police reached at the spot and took Gaurav and his mother to the hospital. Gaurav and his mother told that Manjeet came and started talking with Gaurav in a side and she alighted from the car. All of sudden, she heard the noise of bullets. She saw that Manjeet gave bullet injury to the Gaurav and ran away from there. Father of Gaurav told the PCR officials that financier Manjeet gave two gun shots to his son due to money matter who succumbed to his injuries. Statement of mother of Gaurav was also recorded who narrated the incident. On 03.04.2016 vide DD No. 20-A, an information was received that injured Gaurav succumbed to his injuries during medical treatment in Dr. BSA Hospital. Thereafter, Section 307 IPC was changed to Section 302 IPC. Further investigation was assigned to Inspector Mohinder Singh. On 05.04.2016, Manjeet Thakran surrendered himself at the Police Station and confessed his crime. The pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Manjeet Thakran. Mobile phone call recording of Gaurav and his father, in a CD Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 3 of 84 was sent to FSL for expert opinion. On 16.06.2016, three live cartridge kf 7.65 were also sent to FSL for fire opinion. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed u/s 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act against the accused before the court.
3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 302 IPC & 25/27 of Arms Act was framed against the accused Manjeet Thakran to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined 33 witnesses. Statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied all the allegations made against him. The accused did not opt to lead defence evidence.
5. I have heard the Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. Chief PP for the State and have perused the entire records.
6. Ld. Defence counsel for the accused argued that the only public witness i.e. PW-4 is not an eye-witness but is a planted witness. The present FIR was registered on DD No.41A which itself shows that there was no eye-witness to the scene of occurrence. PW 21 SI Satyapal stated that he firstly reached at the spot and had removed the injured/deceased to the hospital himself said that PW-4 was not present at the spot. Even, PW21 did not meet any eye-witnesses at the spot. Site plan Ex.PW-32/B does not show the presence of PW4 at the spot. Seizure memo of Car of deceased and seizure memo of empty cartridge Ex.PW18/A, seized immediately after the incident, do not bear the signature of PW-4. Even in the MLC, there is no mention of PW-4. PW-4 is the mother of the deceased but as per her deposition, she did not intervene to save her son from the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 4 of 84 accused. She also did not raise any alarm during or after the incident. PW4 also did not disclose to the police that she is an eye-witness to the incident. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not take police to either the house of the accused to get him arrested or to the place of incident. Even, the PW-4 did not give her statement to the police on 31.03.2016, 01.04.2016 and 02.04.2016 but her first statement was recorded on 03.04.2016 i.e. after 3 days of the incident and after death of her son. There is also no presence of PW-4 in the scene of Crime Report (SOC) Ex.PW-3/DA. PW-4 is neither a witness to the arrest nor to the recovery of weapon. EB-I (One Bullet) has not been fired from the recovered pistol marked as Ex.F-1 As per biological report no blood was recovered from the EECO car bearing No.DL2CAN-1731 of deceased. No incident as alleged took place at the spot. TIP was also not conducted to identity the accused. There is no single iota of evidence to show that accused gave Rs.1.00 lakhs to the deceased. Firing was done from above to downward. Accused made 4-5 calls to the deceased but Dharamvir in whose name the mobile number was registered was neither made witness not he was examined. PW4 did not inform the police officers/officials in the hospital that she was the eyewitness. The first statement of PW4 was made after the death of deceased.
7. Ld. Counsel for the accused also argued the weapon of offence was also not shown to the witness. The bullet recovered from the dead body i.e. EB-1 has not connected with the alleged weapon of offence Marked as Ex.F-1. The weapon of offence was never produced before PW-4 to establish its identity.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 5 of 84The opinion of Autopsy surgeon was not obtained as to whether the injury on the person of deceased has been caused with that firearm or not. PW-22 Dr. Mahesh Chander Meena conducted the post mortem upon the body of the deceased has also admitted in his cross examination that the use of two different weapon could be possible in the present case. The bullet recovered was not matched with the pistol. Bullet found in the body is not the same from the same pistol which was recovered. Either other pistol was involved or shooter may be someone else. Recovery of weapon of offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has also failed to connect the alleged recovery of weapon with the murder in question. Blood stains were not found in the vehicle. PW4 is the mother of deceased. There is nothing on record that accused was tenant or owner of the property and no investigation on this aspect was done. Mobile of accued was not recovered. The weapon may be planted. Ld. Counsel for the accused further argued that fundamental of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. However, the accused can prove his innocence merely by preponderance of probability. There must have some corroboration to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses by way of ocular version, medical and scientific evidence to bring home the charges against the accused. It has been argued that Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused and therefore he is liable to be acquitted. There are contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses and therefore it shall not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies of witnesses. In support of his Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 6 of 84 arguments, Ld. Defence counsel relied upon the judgments in the cases of Rahees Ahmed Versus State (Delhi Admn.) 1998(1) C.C. Cases 72 (HC); Arjun Singh V. The State AIR 1965 Punjab 443 (V 52 C 142); Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration in Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1987 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 17.08.1987; Datar Singh Vs. The State of Punjab AIR 1974 Supreme Court 1193; Vijay Singh V. State of M.P. 2005 CRI.L.J. 299; State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ghudan 2003 [3] JCC 1890 and Devesh Kumar Vs. State 2010 [1] JCC
762.
8. Ld. Chief PP for the State argued that deceased was lying on the roadside. Testimony of PW4 explains the motive of the accused. The incident happened due to money transaction between accused and deceased. The other material witness i.e. father of the deceased has expired. PW-4 correctly identified the accused in the court to be the person who fired upon her son/deceased in her presence. The presence of accused at the time of incident has also been proved by PW-4. The accused has also made calls to the deceased prior to the incident itself. The accused has also recovered the pistol used by him in the offence. The death of the injured was caused due to fire by the pistol.
9. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel and the Ld. Chief PP for the State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused had committed the offence as charged u/s 302 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act or whether he has been falsely implicated. PW-4 Smt. Manju Chauhan, mother of the deceased deposed that on 31.03.2016, it was Thursday and her son deceased Gaurav who Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 7 of 84 had gone to Haridwar came back at their residence at about 7.30 pm and on his way from Haridwar to Delhi, he informed them that accused Manjeet was calling him repeatedly but her husband asked him to come home directly and thereafter to go to meet Manjeet. PW4 further deposed that after his arrival at their home, he had stayed for a short time and in that duration also, he received 2-3 phone calls of Manjeet and when he decided to go to the house of Manjeet, then she asked him that she will also accompany him as earlier also, she used to accompany Gaurav to the house of Manjeet for giving installments etc. PW4 further deposed that she along with her son Gaurav reached at the house of Manjeet at about 7.40 pm and they had gone there in Maruti Eeco car and Gaurav parked his car outside the house of Manjeet, adjacent to his house and asked her to alight from the car and to stay outside saying that he knew well that Manjeet did not like her accompanying him, thereafter, she alighted from the car and remained standing outside, meanwhile, accused Manjeet arrived there and within no time, he fired two bullets on her son Gaurav and after seeing this, she fell down on the ground and thereafter, she did not know whether and when her husband came there and if he had offered water to her and when she regained senses, she found that her husband was lifting her and taking her towards her son, who had fallen down and was shouting "Papa mujhe bacha lo, mai mar jaunga'. PW4 further deposed that Gaurav had made a call at number 100 from his mobile phone and informed that Manjeet had shot him twice in stomach on the road outside his house and after sometime police came at the spot and the police men lifted Gaurav and also took her in police van to Dr. Baba Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 8 of 84 Saheb Ambedkar Hospital. PW4 also deposed that her husband remained at the spot with other police men and in the police van on way to the hospital, Gaurav had asked her to remove his shoes as he was feeling perturbed and when she did not remove his shoes, while Gaurav was repeating his request, police man asked her to remove his shoes and then, she removed shoes and socks of Gaurav. PW4 further deposed that on reaching the hospital, when police removed Gaurav, on seeing the blood coming out of his body, she again fell down and lost senses and soon thereafter, their relatives reached at the hospital. She remained lying in hospital for next 2-3 days in the waiting area and whenever, she asked for seeing her son on coming to senses, their relatives would say that Gaurav is being treated and he will soon recover. PW4 had also asked that Gaurav be removed to Saroj hospital or any other private hospital but doctor had advised against it saying that he is not likely to survive, if removed from Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital.
10. PW4 further deposed that on 03.04.2016, in the morning, Gaurav died in the hospital. On hearing this news, she again lost her senses. PW4 also deposed that on 05.04.2016, she along with her husband went to the Police Station Begumpur in the afternoon to ask about the status of call that Gaurav had made to the police, after suffering injuries. PW4 further deposed that at the gate of PS Begumpur, she had seen accused Manjeet coming down the steps with policemen and she had there and then identified him to be the person who had shot her son. PW4 also deposed that her son had taken some amount on loan from accused Manjeet and the interest of said amount used to be paid Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 9 of 84 to him after every five days and some times, he used to collect the payment from their shop and some times, she or her son used to pay him at his house. PW4 had suffered an accident due to which, they could not open their shop for about 10-15 days nor could pay interest to the accused. On the day of incident, Gaurav had taken about Rs.30,000/-40,000/- for making payment to Manjeet and she did not know where that money has gone after Gaurav was shot. During her examination-in-chief, PW4 correctly identified accused Manjeet present in the court. PW4 further deposed that many persons came to meet them after the incident and asked them for the amount which they would like to have for this case and she and her husband straight away refused saying that they are not to sell the shroud of their only son and even then, those persons insisted that they will have to settle this case somehow. PW4 further deposed that she can identify the signatures of her husband Late Shri Ratan Lal and deposed that seizure memo dated 14.04.2016 bears his signatures at point A. The document is Ex.PW4/A (objected to by Ld. Defence Counsel on the ground that the witness is not the author of the document.) Heard. The witness Shri Ratan Lal before whom this document was prepared is no more. The present witness being his wife has been able to identify his signatures, even though, she is not aware of contents of the document, it needs to be exhibit for the limited purpose. PW4 also deposed that in her presence, the mobile phone of her husband, that of Gaurav and CDs in which voice of Gaurav was recorded were given to the police by her husband through this document.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 10 of 8411. During her cross examination, PW4 deposed that she had met the police a number of times in connection with this case and she cannot tell whether she had met police 10 times or more or less in this regard. PW4 further deposed that she used to visit the police with her husband who used to interact with the policeman while she remained standing besides him and when her husband was there, she did not need to talk to the police. PW- 4 also deposed that whatever statement was made to the police was by her husband and never by her except on 05.04.2016. PW-4 could not tell any specific date or month of her visit to the house of accused Manjeet for making payment. PW-4 did not know as to whom the houses adjacent to or opposite to the house of accused Manjeet belong. PW4 voluntarily deposed that accused Manjeet was on the second floor of his house. PW4 denied that accused Manjeet had nothing to do or had any transactions with her son Gaurav. PW4 also denied that she had never visited his house. PW4 admitted that the spot is a residential area. PW4 denied that generally, it is a crowded place. PW4 did not know whether many offices are there in the vicinity of the spot. PW4 voluntarily deposed that she had seen only one office opposite to the house of accused Manjeet and none had come out when her son was shot. PW4 admitted that the sound of firing was loud but none came out of their houses from the neighborhood on hearing it. PW4 voluntarily deposed that public persons started gathering there only on arrival of police. None had informed the police about firing at the spot and she did not know whether police had asked anyone from the public about firing. PW-4 voluntarily deposed that the police had lifted her Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 11 of 84 and her son in the van on arrival at the spot and took them to the hospital. Police had reached the spot after 5-7 minutes of his regaining senses. PW4 did not know after how much time of the incident, her husband had come there and probably, her son was put into police van by policemen. PW4 did not help police in such effort. PW4 voluntarily deposed that she was not in such a position. She did not know whether her husband had helped in putting Gaurav in police van. PW4 also deposed that she did not make an attempt to stop oozing of blood from the wound of her son in the police van. PW-4 voluntarily deposed that she was just wiping his face and weeping. She did not see blood of Gaurav lying in the car or near it where Gaurav had lay down before arrival of police. She has denied that she had not accompanied Gaurav to the spot and for this reason, she did not see the blood at the spot. PW4 further deposed that there were three police men in the police van including the driver and she did not know their names or rank and one of them however was having two stars on his shoulders and only she and her son were on the backside of police van. PW4 also deposed that she was talking with her son on the way from the spot to the hospital in the police van and the said talks were limited to the effect that Gaurav was saying, "Mummy mujhe bacha lo, mujhe bacha lo".
12. PW4 further deposed that she did not know whether her clothes were also stained with blood of her son in the police van. PW4 denied that she had not accompanied her son Gaurav in the police van to the hospital. They had reached the hospital at about 8.00-8.05 pm and on reaching the hospital, the doctor had not asked about her name or that the name of her husband from Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 12 of 84 her. PW-4 voluntarily deposed that by that time, her husband and some of their relatives had reached the hospital. PW4 also deposed that the doctor however pushed all of them out of the room and till the time, Gaurav reached hospital, he was in senses and was talking. PW4 voluntarily deposed that he was just saying, "Mujhe bacha lo". She did not meet the doctor who was treating her son. PW4 voluntarily deposed that her husband and other relatives may be interacting with him. PW4 denied that she had not accompanied her son to the hospital. PW4 further deposed that she cannot tell the time when her husband had reached the hospital. PW4 voluntarily deposed that by the time, they reached there in police van, he had just reached there before them. PW4 further deposed that they were not discussing about the case with their relatives in the hospital, however, her relatives were talking to the doctors and many policemen had collected at the hospital but she did not know them included ACP and SHO. PW4 voluntarily deposed that she was more concerned with the condition of her son. She did not tell any of the policemen about being an eye witness of the incident. PW4 voluntarily deposed that she herself was very much depressed and perturbed after the incident. PW-4 also deposed that she did not know whether the police had talked to Gaurav in the hospital. PW-4 voluntarily deposed that because she was outside his room. Her husband had told police that she (PW-4-herein) had accompanied Gaurav to the house of Manjeet. PW4 voluntarily stated that police had twice come for recording her statement but she was not in proper state. She did not know whether the police was taking down whatever was being told by her husband. PW4 also deposed that Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 13 of 84 she remained in the hospital till when Gaurav was alive and she however was not allowed to go to meet in the room. PW4 deposed that police continued coming to the hospital all these days. Her husband had made statement to the police during this period. She has denied that she and her husband did not make any statement to the police till Gaurav was alive because neither she had witnessed the incident nor her husband had come at the spot in her presence. PW4 further deposed that she had not suffered any injuries on falling at the spot after Gaurav was shot. PW-4 denied that this fact was manipulated by the police and as per the choice of police, she has so stated in the court. PW4 deposed that they were keeping account of the interest payments being made to accused Manjeet. She did not give that document to the Police. She did not know as to with whom in the market, her son had money dealing. PW4 voluntarily deposed that he had money dealing only with accused Manjeet. PW-4 denied that Gaurav had taken loan from many in the market people and therefore had inimical relations with many people. PW4 further deposed that Gaurav was married on 6/7th June, about eight years ago prior to the incident. PW4 deposed that her daughter-in-law was living separately since last about 12-15 months prior to the incident. PW4 voluntarily deposed that 'accused Manjeet had started coming to our house and was threatening her son that he will be shot, on which her daughter-in-law got scared and shifted to her parents.' PW-4 denied that she was living separately due to matrimonial dispute with Gaurav. PW-4 admitted that there was a matrimonial case between the two. PW-4 voluntarily stated that, 'that case had settled and only for paying obeisance, Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 14 of 84 Gaurav had gone to Haridwar and from there he had returned on the day of incident." PW-4 denied that the matrimonial dispute between Gaurav and his wife had not settled. PW-4 also denied that even after the death of Gaurav her daughter-in-law had not visited them.
13. During her cross-examination, PW4 further deposed that her daughter-in-law Bhawna has not made any statement to the police in this case pertaining to the threats extended by accused Manjeet. PW4 voluntarily deposed that police did not examine her. PW-4 denied that there were strained relations between Gaurav and Bhawana or that Bhawana had threatened her husband that she will see him.' She did not go to the spot with Police at any time subsequently. PW-4 denied that since she was not aware of the place of incident, she did not take Police there. She did not take Police to the house of accused Manjeet after the incident, to get him arrested. PW4 also denied that she did not take Police to his house as she is not a witness to the incident. PW-4 voluntarily stated that police had told that already team is after the accused to nab him. PW4 also deposed that she had not discussed with her husband on 05.04.2016 as to what statement is to be made to the Police. PW4 voluntarily stated that whatever she had seen was to be told to Police. PW4 further deposed that document Ex.PW4/A was prepared by the police at their shop on 03/05.04.2016 and she had told the Police in her statement dated 05.04.2016 that on 31.03.2016, her deceased son Gaurav had gone to Haridwar and came back their residence at about 7:30 pm. PW4 also deposed that she had told the police that her son had informed them on way back from Haridwar to Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 15 of 84 Delhi that accused Manjeet was calling him repeatedly but her husband asked him to come home directly and thereafter, to go to meet Manjeet. PW4 was confronted with statement of the witness dated 03.04.2016, which was then exhibited as Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 also deposed that she did not remember whether she had told the police that even after reaching home, Gaurav had received 2-3 calls from Manjeet, when he decided to go the house of Manjeet. PW4 was confronted with statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 deposed that she had told the police that earlier also she used to accompany deceased Gaurav to the house of Manjeet for giving installments. On confrontation with statement Ex.PW4/DA, it was not so recorded. PW4 had also told to police that they had gone to the house of accused Manjeet in Maruti Eeco car. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where Maruti Eeco is not so recorded. PW4 also deposed that she had also told the police that they parked the car outside the house of Manjeet and he asked her to alight from the car and to stay outside saying that Manjeet did not like her to accompany him. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where only this fact is recorded that after reaching the house of Manjeet her son asked her to alight from the car and to stand outside as he had to talk with Manjeet. PW4 further deposed that she had also told the police that accused Manjeet fired two bullets on her son Gaurav. PW-4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where the word two is not recorded. PW4 had also stated to police that when she regained senses she found that her husband was lifted her and taking her towards her son who had fallen Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 16 of 84 down and was shouting "Papa mujhe bacha lo, mai mar jaunga". PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where only this fact is recorded that her husband came and lifted her.
14. PW4 further deposed in her cross-examination that she had also told the police that Gaurav made a call at number 100 from his mobile and informed that Manjeet has shot him twice in stomach on the road outside his house. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is also not so recorded. PW4 also deposed that she had also told to police that she removed the socks of Gaurav. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 had also told to police that on reaching the hospital, when police removed Gaurav, on seeing blood coming out from his body, she again fell down and statement of the witness dated lost senses. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. She had also told to police that soon thereafter, their relatives reached at the hospital and she remained lying in the hospital for next 2-3 days in the waiting area. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. She had also told to police that whenever she asked for seeing her son, on coming to senses, her relatives would say that Gaurav is being treated and will soon recover. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 also deposed that she had also told to police that Gaurav be removed to Saroj hospital or any other private hospital but doctor advised against it saying that he is not likely to survive if removed from BSA hospital. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. She had also Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 17 of 84 told to police that on hearing the news regarding the death of Gaurav, she again lost her senses. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 also deposed that she had also told to police that her son had taken some amount on loan from accused Manjeet and interest of said amount used to be paid to him after every five days. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where only this fact is recorded that there was money transaction between accused and deceased. She had also told to police that accused used to collect the payment from their shop and sometimes, she or her son used to pay him at his house. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 also deposed that she had also told to police that she had suffered an accident due to which, they could not open their shop for about 10-15 days nor could pay the interest to the accused. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 had also told to police that on the day of incident, Gaurav had taken about Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,000/- for making payment to the accused. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW-4 had also told to police that she came to know where that money has gone after the Gaurav was shot. PW4 was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA, where it is not so recorded. PW4 cannot tell the name or any description of said persons who had come to them after the incident and asked them for the amount for settlement. PW4 voluntarily stated that they all were new for her. She personally had not made any complaint in this regard to the police. PW4 voluntarily deposed that her husband used to make Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 18 of 84 the same.
15. In her cross-examination, PW-4 also deposed she had accompanied her husband to the police station for making the complaints in this regard. Her husband had also made a complaint to the help line number police for Senior Citizens (Buddho ki police). PW-4 further deposed that she cannot tell any specific day or date of any such report. PW-4 voluntarily deposed that they started receiving threats and compromise offers after the period when accused Manjeet was on interim bail for 10 days. PW4 also deposed that she cannot tell the date and month when Manjeet had come on interim bail. PW4 denied that no such threat was ever exercised or that she has deliberately improved her statement. During his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW4 deposed that an advocate is present with her in the court. PW4 voluntarily deposed that she is not in a position to pay for a counsel. PW4 also deposed that Ms. Surbhi Chandra, Advocate present with her was representing her son in his matrimonial case and has come with her without charging fee. PW4 denied that she has been tutored by her private counsel or that on the instructions of IO and her counsel, she deposed in the court to falsely implicate the accused. PW4 denied that she had not accompanied her son to the house of Manjeet on 31.03.2016. PW4 denied that accused Manjeet had nothing to do with the murder of her son or that she had not seen firing accused Manjeet on her son. PW4 further denied that she had not removed her son to the hospital or that being interested witness, she has deposed falsely.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 19 of 8416. PW2 Shri Rajender Kashyap deposed that on 04.04.2016, he identified the dead body of the brother-in-law of his brother-in-law (sala) deceased Gaurav Chauhan at mortuary Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital prior to the postmortem vide his statement Ex.PW2/A in this regard recorded by IO. PW1 ASI Naveen Kumar deposed that on 31.03.2016, he was posted as HC at PS Begumpur, Delhi and was working as Duty Officer from 4 pm to 12 midnight and on that day, at about 8.03 pm, Wireless Operator of PS Begumpur arrived at DO Room and informed him that "Sector 24, Pkt. 26, ek aadmi ko goli maar di hai, phone no.9250589872". On the basis of said information, PW1 recorded DD No.41A and the copy of the same was handed over to SI Pukhraj who left the PS along with Ct. Surender Pal to reach at the spot. PW1 proved attested copy of DD No./41A as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 has further deposed that on the same day at about 11.05 pm, he received rukka sent by SI Pukhraj through HC Surender Pal and on the basis of said rukka, he got the present FIR recorded on computer through Computer Operator and computerized copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/B. Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the computerized copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/C.
17. PW-3 ASI Rakesh No. 2196/RD, Mobile Crime Team, Rohini District, Delhi deposed that on 31.03.2016, on receiving information from control Room, he along with other members of crime team headed by their In-charge SI Ajit Singh (since expired), reached at H.No.100, Pocket-26, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi and one blue colored Maruti Eeco car bearing registration No. DL2C AN 1731 was found parked outside the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 20 of 84 said house. PW3 clicked seven photographs of the spot as per the instructions of I/C Crime Team and SI Pukhraj, out of which six photos could have been developed. PW3 handed over the photographs to Inspector Mahender Singh and said six photographs available on judicial file are Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A6. PW3 brought the negatives of said photographs which are Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B6. During cross- examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW3 deposed that the call was received at their office at about 8.30 pm. He had noted down the said information in his diary. The information was to the effect of firing incident at the above mentioned address. They reached at the spot at about 9.00 pm and remained there till 10.00 pm. His statement was recorded by IO SI Pukhraj at the spot at about 9.45 pm. I/C Crime team had prepared his report at the spot in his presence. PW3 further deposed that he knows the meaning of A.M. and P.M. which denotes before noon and afternoon respectively. PW-3 denied that they remained there at the spot from 10.00 am to 11.00 am. PW-3 admitted that in scene of crime visit report which was prepared by SI Ajit Singh (since expired) Ex.PW3/DA, in the column no.10 i.e. date and time of examination, time is mentioned as 10.00 to 11.00 am. PW3 also deposed that he can identify the signature and handwriting of SI Ajit Singh as he had seen him writing and signing in the official course of duties. PW3 further deposed that no eye witness of the incident met him at the spot. The information as mentioned in column no.11 from point A to A was supplied to them by IO/SI Pukhraj. PW3 deposed that IO SI Pukhraj was not the witness of incident. PW-3 further deposed that in column no.7, name and Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 21 of 84 address of complainant is mentioned as PCR call. As he did not ask, as such, he cannot tell whether any FIR was registered till 10.00 pm. PW3 also deposed that SI Ajit Singh had handed over the report Ex.PW3/DA to SI Pukhraj at 9.45 pm. This report was prepared at the spot by SI Ajit Singh and as soon as it was completed, it was delivered by him to the IO. SI Ajit Singh had not obtained his signature on this report. PW3 further deposed that he as well as SI Ajit Singh had minutely seen the car found parked at the spot from outside as well as inside. No chance prints were available on it. Two empty cartridges were recovered from the car by the IO. IO had not given any mark of identification on those cartridges in his presence. He had not seized those cartridges in his presence. PW3 denied that no cartridges were found in the car or that the same were subsequently planted by the IO. PW-3 denied that he had not visited the spot nor had taken any photographs.
18. PW5 Ct. Ran Singh deposed that on 24.05.2016, he was working as Assistant of MHC(M) CP and on that day as per the instructions of IO/ Inspector Mohinder Singh, he handed over two sealed parcels along with FSL form and other documents vide RC No.62/21/16, three sealed parcels and one sample seal along with FSL form and other documents vide RC No.63/21/16, two sealed parcels and two sample seals along with FSL form and other documents vide RC no.64/21/16 to Ct. Rajender. PW5 deposed that after depositing the said exhibits at FSL, Ct. Rajender returned one copy of each road certificate along with acknowledgments of FSL to him and copies of RC No.62,63 and 64 are Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively, all Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 22 of 84 signed by him at point A and their respective acknowledgements of FSL are Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F, original register no.19 and 21 are seen and returned. PW5 further deposed that on 16.06.2016, on the instructions of IO, he handed over three live cartridges in unsealed condition to Ct. Rajender vide RC No.83/21/16 along with letter of FSL for depositing the same at FSL. The said cartridges were received from old police line for firing practice and were of 7.65 mm caliber and after depositing the said cartridges at FSL, Ct. Rajender returned one copy of the road certificate along with acknowledgements of FSL to him. Copy of RC is Ex.PW5/G and the receiving of FSL on the back of Ex.PW5/G is Ex.PW5/H (OSR). During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW5 denied that he has tampered with the exhibits before sending them to FSL. PW6 Dr. Ravi Kant Bhaskar deposed that on 31.03.2016 at about 20.32 hrs, he along with Dr. Shagun, JR had medically examined one Garuav S/o Ratan Lal, 30 years old, male brought by Ct. Satya Pal of PCR with the alleged history of gun shot around one hour back as told by patient himself. PW6 further deposed that on local examination, he observed three punctured wounds, one in right hypochondrium, second in right illiac fossa and the third on left lumber area. Patient was referred to SR Surgery for further management and opinion. Clothes of the injured Gaurav i.e. one vest of white colour make Dollar Big Bosss, shirt of blue, black and white checks make Calvin Klain, underwear make Jockey and trouser make wrangle, were sealed with the seal of hospital and were handed over to the IO through Duty Constable. PW6 has further deposed that the MLC of Gaurav Ex.PW6/A is in the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 23 of 84 handwriting of the then JR Casualty Dr. Shagun and it bears his signature at point A and his signature along with the official seal at point B. In his cross-examination by Ld. Decence counsel, PW6 deposed that injured did not tell the name of assailant at the time of the admission in the hospital.
19. PW7 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini deposed that in connection with this case on 24.05.2016, two sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL in sealed condition. Seals on the parcels were as per the forwarding letter and on 22.12.2016, one parcel was received from Ballistics Division of FSL, Rohini in sealed condition for examination. PW7 further deposed that on opening the parcel No.1 received on dt.24.05.2016, it was found containing one shirt having darker stains Ex.1a, one baniyan having brown stains Ex.1b, one underwear having small brown stains Ex.1c and one pants having darker stains Ex.1d. On opening parcel no.2 which was received on dt.24.05.2016, it was found containing brown gauze cloth piece described as blood in gauze of deceased Ex.2. On opening the parcel which was received from Ballistics Division on 22.12.2016, it was found containing one metallic piece kept in cotton wool swab described as one lead bullet Ex.2. PW7 further deposed that on examination, blood was detected on Ex.1a, Ex.1b, Ex.1c, Ex.2 (received on 24.05.2016) and Ex.2 (received on 22.12.2016). PW7 also deposed that on DNA finger printing examination performed on the above mentioned exhibits, it was sufficient to conclude that the blood stains found present on Ex.1a, Ex.1b and Ex.2 i.e. metallic piece are from the source of Ex.2 i.e. blood Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 24 of 84 stained gauze of deceased. Her detailed report in this regard dt.15.02.2017 is Ex.PW7/A signed by her on both the sides of page of her report at point A. PW-7 had also prepared the report of allelic data of the said exhibits and same is Ex.PW7/B signed by her at point A.
20. PW8 Shri Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. brought the summoned record i.e. certified CDRs of mobile no.9811181762 for the period from 30.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 (two pp) Ex.PW8/A signed by him on both the pages at point A. PW8 further deposed that the certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the said computerized CDR is Ex.PW8/B. PW8 also deposed that the said mobile number was in the name of Shri Ratan Lal Chauhan and copy of CAF is Ex.PW8/C (Original CAF seen and returned). PW8 further deposed that the photocopy of the Aadhar Card of Ratan Lal Chauhan which was submitted by him at the time of purchase of said mobile SIM is Mark PW8/X. During his cross-examination, PW8 deposed that he is in service with Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. since May, 2010. PW8 further deposed that there is only one Nodal Officer in their company for Delhi and five alternate Nodal Officers. PW8 also deposed that he is not having any assistant or deputy. No request by the investigating agency for the CDR of the said mobile number was made to him personally. PW8 further deposed that he had not handed over the said record personally to the investigating agency. PW8 voluntarily deposed that the request was made to the company. PW8 also deposed that the certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW8/DA regarding the CDR of said Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 25 of 84 mobile number available on judicial file which was issued by the then Alternate Nodal Officer Mr. Pradeep Singh bearing signature of Mr.Pradeep Singh at point A. PW8 further deposed that Mr. Pradeep has left the services of Vodafone and he can identify his signature as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duty. PW8 also deposed that he cannot tell the date of execution of document Ex.PW8/DA but its date is the same which has been mentioned in the covering letter.
21. PW9 Shri Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd. on the request of investigating agency, had supplied the CDR Ex.PW9/A of mobile no.8606990442 from 30.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 bearing his signature and official seal at point A and the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/B regarding the said computerized CDR is bearing his signature and official seal at point A. PW9 deposed that the said mobile number was in the name of Gaurav Chauhan S/o Ratan Lal Chauhan and the copy of CAF is Ex.PW9/C (original CAF seen and returned). During his cross examination conducted by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW9 deposed that besides him, there are two more Nodal Officers in his company for Delhi, NCR and he is not having any assistant or deputy. PW9 further deposed that he did not remember the name of the IO on whose request the said exhibited documents were supplied by him and he did not remember the date of the said request made by IO as well as whether the request was made by meeting him personally or not. PW9 further deposed that he had personally handed over the said record to the IO but he did not remember the day, date or month. No memo while receiving the said record was prepared by the IO Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 26 of 84 and his statement was not recorded by the IO. A question that did he personally operate the system and retrieve the CDR was put to PW9 to which he replied 'Yes'. PW9 denied that if the contents of Ex.PW9/A are typed and feeded in a computer a print out of the same can be taken out. PW9 voluntarily deposed that Ex.PW9/A was retrieved by him from his system and same cannot be done there. PW9 also deposed that the ID proof submitted at the time of purchase of SIM card is verified first and only thereafter they activate the number. PW9 further deposed that he did not verify the CAF personally and he is not aware of the abbreviation of BTS by which he presumed regarding the tower. PW9 also deposed that there may be 3,4 and even 5 antennas on a single tower. In general, the range of tower is 0 to 2.5 km in Delhi and NCR. A question that can he tell as to how many towers of his company are situated within a four kilometer radius of Sector 24, Rohini and Sector 22, Rohini was put to him to which he replied that he is not having any idea in this regard being a technical issue. PW9 also deposed that he did not remember if the Cell ID Chart of Idea Cellular was supplied by him to the IO or not.
22. PW10 ASI Jai Kumar being duty officer on 03.04.2016, received telephonic information at about 1.05 pm, from HC Suresh that Gaurav S/o Ratan Lal who was under
treatment in BSA hospital had been declared dead by the doctor in ICU. PW10 recorded DD no.20A regarding this information and he passed this information to the IO of this case namely SI Pukhraj who left the PS along with Ct. Mandeep and SHO was also informed. The attested copy of DD No.20A is Ex.PW10/A (OSR) signed by PW10 at point A. PW11 Ct. Rajender Singh Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 27 of 84 deposed that on 24.05.2016, as per the instructions of IO Inspector Mahender Singh, he received two sealed parcels along with the FSL Form and other documents from MHC (M), PS Begumpur vide RC No.62/21/16. PW11 also received three sealed parcels along with one sample seal, FSL Form and other documents vide RC No.63/21/16 and two sealed parcels along with two sample seals, FSL form and other documents vide RC No.64/21/16 and deposited all the above said sealed parcels, sample seals and documents at FSL Rohini and came back to PS and handed over one copy of all the said three road certificates and three acknowledgements of FSL to MHC (M) HC Jaiveer.
PW11 deposed that the said pulandas and sample seals were not tampered with during the period said pulandas and sample seals remained in his custody. During cross-examination by Ld. Decenc counsel, PW11 denied that above said sealed parcels were tampered before depositing in the FSL. PW-12 ASI Suresh Kumar deposed that on 03.04.2016, his duty was at Dr.BSA Hospital as Duty Head Constable and on that day, one Gaurav Chauhan S/o Ratan Lal who was admitted in ICU since 31.03.2016 vide MC No.4032/16 was declared dead. PW12 passed this information to PS Begumpur which was recorded there vide DD No.20A and pursuant to the said information given by him, SI Puskhraj along with Ct. Mandeep from PS Begumpur reached at BSA hospital and SI Pukhraj got the dead body of Gaurav Chauhan shifted to mortuary of Dr.BSA hospital under the supervision of Ct. Mandeep. SI Pukhraj also received the death summary and dead certificate of Gaurav Chauhan from the hospital in his presence. PW12 further deposed that IO Inspector Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 28 of 84 Mahender Singh recorded his statement on 15.04.2016.
23. PW13 Ct. Deepak was performing his duty at BSA Hospital, Rohini on 31.03.2016 from 09.00 am to 09.00 am next day i.e. 01.04.2016. PW13 further deposed that on 31.03.2016, one Gaurav Chauhan son of Rattan Lal having two bullet injuries was got admitted in the hospital by in-charge of PCR van L-17 vide MLC No.4032/16 at about 20:32 hours. In his cross- examination, PW13 deposed that police recorded his statement and the same was read over to him and found to be correct. PW13 also deposed that he had told in his statement that deceased Gaurav Chauhan was admitted in the hospital in conscious and oriented state. PW14 Lady Ct. Snehlata deposed that on 31.03.2016 at 20:03:30 hours, she received information from mobile number 9250589872 and the caller informed her "sector 24, Rohini, pocket-26, ek aadmi ke goli maar dee hai injured" and she filled PCR Form Ex.PW14/A in this regard and passed this information further to district net. In her cross examination, PW14 deposed that her statement was recorded by the IO in this case and same was read over and explained to her and she found the same as correct. PW14 admitted that Gaurav Chauhan informed her that "GOLI MAAR DI HAIN".
24. PW15 Inspector Manohar Lal being draftsman along with IO reached at the spot i.e. near H.No.100, Pocket 26, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi on 11.04.2016 where on the point out of IO, he prepared rough notes and took measurements of the scene of crime and thereafter, on the basis of rough notes, he had prepared scaled site plan in his office which is Ex.PW15/A signed by him at point A and handed over the same to the IO.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 29 of 84After preparation of scaled site plan, he had destroyed the rough notes. During his cross-examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW15 deposed that police had recorded his statement in this case which was read over to him by the IO and he had affirmed it. PW15 further deposed that he did not remember having stated to the IO that he had prepared the scaled site plan in his office. PW15 admitted that he had not stated to the IO about taking rough notes at the spot or of their destruction after preparing the plan. PW15 further deposed that IO had called him on his mobile and he did not remember the telephone number from which his call was received by him. PW15 also deposed that he is having office in Ashok Vihar PS premises and a duty officer sits in District Line and whenever he leaves his office for official work, he informs the said Duty Officer. PW15 further deposed that he did not remember having informed the duty officer of District Line regarding his aforesaid visit on 11.04.2016. PW15 also deposed that he has denied that he is not remembering all these details because neither he had received any call from the IO nor had he visited the spot on the stated date. PW15 further deposed that he had left his office for this case at about 2-3 pm and had reached PS Begumpur within about 40-45 minutes. PW15 also deposed that he did not make any arrival entry there and he did not know who was the SHO/Duty Officer of PS Begumpur on that day. PW15 further deposed that they had left the PS within 10-15 minutes for the spot. The IO had told him about the facts of this case at the spot. He did not remember whether any departure entry was made at PS Begumpur at the time of leaving for spot. PW15 further deposed Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 30 of 84 that they had gone to the spot in a government vehicle. PW15 had been in Delhi since 1989. PW15 did not remember whether any entry of their visit to the spot had been made in the log book of such government vehicle. PW15 also deposed that he did not remember the registration number and the particulars of driver of said vehicle. PW15 denied that government vehicle had not been used by them for commuting to the spot. PW15 further deposed that they had reached the spot at about 4.00 pm. PW15 did not recall having asked the IO as to whether there is an eye witness in this case. PW15 also deposed that he did not remember having asked the IO for calling the eye witness for identifying the spot. PW15 further deposed that he has not gone through the FIR of this case at any time. PW15 did not know whether IO had already prepared a rough site plan of the spot. PW15 had not shown the position of injured, assailant and the witness in the site plan Ex.PW15/A. PW15 voluntarily stated that as the same were not pointed out to him by the IO. IO had received the scaled site plan from him on 16.04.2016 in his office. PW15 also deposed that he had not delivered the rough notes to him. PW15 did not remember whether IO had verified as to whom House no.100, pocket 26, Sector 24, Rohini belong. PW15 denied that he had neither visited the spot nor prepared the scaled site plan or that he had prepared the same in the PS at the instance of IO.
25. PW16 Shri Santosh Kumar Meena, Addl.DCP-1, Rohini District deposed that on 30.01.2017, he was posted as Addl. DCP-1, Rohini and on that day after perusal of the photocopy of case file of the present case and the enclosed statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C., ballistics report and Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 31 of 84 seizure memos, on being satisfied that the accused was found in possession of a country made pistol and two live cartridges of 7.65 mm on 05.04.2016, he had accorded sanction u/s 39 of the Arms Act for prosecution of the accused Manjeet Thakran for commission of offence u/s 25 Arms Act. The sanction running into two pages is Ex.PW16/A. In his cross examination, PW16 deposed that he did not exactly remember the number of cases in which he had accorded sanctions for prosecution of accused persons under the Arms Act u/s 39 thereof but they may be around ten. PW16 further deposed that he did not remember the FIR numbers of such cases in which he had given sanction and so far, he has not refused the grant of sanction in any case. PW-16 also deposed that there is no separate FIR u/s 25 of the Arms Act in this case and as such, no such FIR was produced before him. The photocopy of the case file was received in his office on 30.01.2017 itself and the said photocopies were returned to the IO on the same day. PW16 did not put his signatures/initial or office seal on the documents including seizure memo of pistol and cartridges and ballistics report perused by him. Inspector Mohinder Singh was the IO of the case on that day. PW-16 admitted that he was not working as DCP even in officiating capacity on 30.01.2017. PW16 denied that he was neither competent nor authorized to accord sanction under the Arms Act. Pw16 did not visit the spot at any time. PW16 also deposed that he did not find out the jurisdiction of police station in which the recovery of firearm was effected. PW16 did not verify the antecedents of accused at the time of according sanction. PW-16 further deposed that he did not examine the weapon at that time.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 32 of 84PW16 did not give any instructions/directions to the IO before according sanction. PW16 deposed that sanction is accorded on the basis in which the recovery of firearm is effected from the possession of the accused. PW16 did not inquire from the IO whether in this case the recovery was effected from the exclusive possession of the accused. PW16 also deposed that he did not go through the case diary of this case. PW16 denied that neither the case file nor documents connected therewith were produced before him. PW16 denied that he had not perused the case file or that he had accorded the sanction mechanically and without application of mind.
26. PW17 Dr. Narayan Dabas, SR, Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital has deposed that 04.04.2016, he was posted as SR in the Deptt. of Forensic Medicine, Dr. BSA hospital, Delhi and on that day, Inspector Mohinder Singh of PS Begumpur requested to conduct the postmortem examination on the dead body of Gaurav Chauhan, aged about 30 years, male and the postmortem examination was conducted by him and Dr. Mahesh Chand Meena, Assistant Professor, Dr.BSA hospital, from 11.30 am to 2.00 pm. PW17 further deposed that on the external examination, four external injuries were present, as mentioned in page no.3 of PM report No.218/2016 dated 04.04.2016. PW17 also deposed that in his opinion, the death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to the gun shot injury to the abdomen. All the injuries were antemortem, 3-4 days old before death and caused by a projectile discharged from some firearm, injury no.1, 2 and 3 along with the corresponding injuries were sufficient to cause Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 33 of 84 death in the ordinary course of nature. PW17 further deposed that during the postmortem examination, blood sample on gauze piece and bullet recovered from the body were sealed and handed over to the IO of the case along with sample seal of department and his detailed postmortem report is Ex.PW17/A. In his cross examination, PW17 deposed that he had received inquest papers of the present case on 04.04.2016 just before the postmortem. PW17 did not remember the total number of inquest papers received by him. PW17 had also received the brief facts prepared by the IO. PW17 again said that he might had received the brief facts separately or same are also always find mentioned in the request for PM. A question was put to PW17 that whether brief facts is also part of the inquest papers to which he replied that "Not necessarily always as the history of the case is mentioned in the request for postmortem and in form no.25.35 (1) (b)." PW17 further deposed that he did not remember the time of preparation of Ex.PW17/A. PW17 voluntarily stated that the same was prepared on 04.04.2016 itself. PW17 admitted that he had prepared a rough report while conducting the postmortem in the autopsy room.
27. PW17 in his cross-examination also deposed that same were not handed over by him to the police along with Ex.PW17/A. PW17 did not remember on which date, the PM report was received by the IO from their department, but he can tell the same after referring the register, maintained at their department, in which receiving is obtained. PW17 admitted that on page No.6 of Ex.PW17/A, the columns namely handed over to the police personnel, signature, name and PS, date and time are Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 34 of 84 vacant. PW17 denied that the said columns were left vacant because of the reason, as he had prepared Ex.PW17/A as per the choice and wishes of IO. PW17 did not put any mark of identification on the bullet recovered from the body of deceased. A question was put to PW17 that is it correct that if the bullet recovered from the body is mixed with the other bullet of same caliber, one cannot identify the same with naked eye to which he replied in negative by stating that bullet cannot be identified with naked eye examination, though the bullets cytology can differentiate the bullet recovered from the body, from other bullets. PW17 further deposed that he did not mention the initials of seal in the PM report. PW17 admitted that in case of close range firing, there will be blackening, tattooing and singeing around the wound, only on the exposed parts of the body. PW17 further deposed that he did not visit the place of occurrence prior to conducting the postmortem. PW17 admitted that injury no.1 and 2 have different dimensions. PW17 admitted that there are two types of firearm i.e. smooth bore and rifled. It is not necessary that the exit wound should always be bigger in size in comparison to entry wound. The country made pistol may be smooth bore and may also be rifled. PW17 denied that the country made pistol is always a smooth bore weapon. PW17 admitted that revolver is a rifled firearm. During his cross- examination, questions were also put to PW17 which are as under:
"Q. I put it to you that a cartridge of a rifled firearm did not contain pellets, rather it contains only a single lead bullet? Ans. Yes. It is correct.Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 35 of 84
Q. I Suggest to you that the skin wound of entrance always corresponds the size to the diameter of the bullet used? Ans. No. It is wrong."
28. During his cross-examination, PW17 denied that the skin wound of entrance always corresponds the size to the diameter of the bullet used. PW17 also deposed that he cannot tell the diameter of bullet recovered from the body of deceased Gaurav. PW17 admitted that as per his postmortem report, there were two firearm entry wounds of two different dimensions on the person of deceased. PW17 denied that in this case, since there are two different dimensions of entry wounds, at least, there is a possibility of use of two weapons for causing injury, on the person of deceased. PW17 admitted that he had not mentioned in the PM report, the shape of firearm wounds. PW17 voluntarily stated that though same were oval in shape but he had not mentioned the same in the PM report, as the same is not required to be mentioned. PW17 did not find any grease or dirt collar around the entry wound. A question was put to PW17 that is it correct that he had not opined as to how injury no.1 to 4 have been caused or what kind of weapon/ force has been used to inflict these injuries to which PW17 replied that he did not mention the kind of weapon used in causing injury no. 1, 2 and 3 to the deceased, in the PM report. PW-17 voluntarily stated that though the injuries have been caused by a firearm like pistol, revolver or any country made hand gun, but he had not mentioned the same in his PM report. He had not mentioned the weapon of offence or the force used for inflicting injury no.4. PW-17 voluntarily stated that the injury no.4 could be caused due Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 36 of 84 to blunt surface impact at the time of incident, but he had not mentioned this fact in Ex.PW17/A. PW17 further deposed that the weapon of offence was not shown to him by the lO of the case. The IO did not take the opinion regarding the clothes of deceased, worn by him at the time of incident. Ld. Addl. PP sought permission to re-examine the witness on the point of close range, which was allowed by the court. In re-examination of PW- 17, a question was put to him that what is the minimum and maximum distance between part of the body effected with gun shot, and end point of the barrel, when tattooing, singeing and blackening or greasing may occur. PW-17 replied that if singeing is present, the distance is 1-2 inches, if blackening, tattooing is present, the distance is upto 30 cm for hand guns and that too only in such cases where the part of the body is not covered with any cloth.
29. PW18 ASI Surender Pal deposed that on 31.03.2016, he was posted at PS Begumpur, as constable and on that day, at about 8.05 pm, on receiving DD No.41A, he along with SI Pukhraj reached at H. No.100, pocket-26, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhi and there, they found one blue colored Maruti Eeco Car bearing registration No. DL2C AN 1731, parked and on inquiry, they came to know that the person who had sustained bullet injury had come in the said car and one person namely Manjeet who used to reside on the top floor of the said building, had caused bullet injury to him. (objected by Ld. Defence Counsel being hearsay). They further came to know that injured had already been shifted to Dr. BSA hospital, by PCR van. PW18 further deposed that SI Pukhraj left him at the spot to preserve Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 37 of 84 the spot and he went to BSA hospital and after about one and half hour, SI Pukhraj again reached at the spot and requisitioned crime team and got the spot and said EECO car inspected from crime team and at about 10.45 pm, he handed over a tehrir to him and he went to the PS and after getting the FIR registered, came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to SI Pukhraj. Thereafter, SI Pukhraj lifted one empty cartridge case lying on the foot mat of driver seat and also lifted another empty cartridge case from the foot mat of front left seat and both the said empty cartridge cases were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A, signed by him at point A, after keeping the same it in a plastic container and preparing pulanda with the help of white cloth and sealing the same with the seal of PS. Seal after use was handed over to him. The said EECO car was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B. SI Pukhraj also prepared the site plan of the spot. Thereafter, they came back to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana by SI Pukhraj. PW-18 identified the empty cartridge cases Ex.P-18/1 & Ex.P-18/2 to be recovered from the EECo Car. During his cross examination, PW18 deposed that he had not gone through the contents of DD No.41A Ex.PW1/A. He had handed over the same to SI Pukhraj and did not ask SI Pukhraj about the contents of DD No.41A. PW-18 voluntarily deposed that as duty officer while handing over him the copy of DD no.41A had already informed him that the call was regarding firing in Sector-24 Rohini. Duty officer had not told him the names of injured or assailant. PW-18 also deposed that he did not go through DD no.41A till date. PW-18 admitted that they always make a DD entry while leaving PS in Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 38 of 84 connection with some call or while returning to PS after attending the call. His departure entry was recorded by the duty officer at about 8.05 pm in DD No.41-A itself. No separate departure entry was made. They had left the PS in the private car of SI Pukhraj, of which the registration number, he did not recall. PW-18 further deposed that they reached at the spot at about 8.15 pm. PW-18 could not tell the name or the facial description of the person who had informed them that accused Manjeet had fired on a person, who had been shifted to BSA hospital. The tehrir was not prepared on the statement of any such person rather it was prepared on DD no.41A. PW-18 denied that nobody at the spot had named Manjeet that only because of this reason, statement of any such person was not recorded at any stage of investigation. Prior to leaving the spot with tehrir, PW-18 remained there from 8.15 pm to 10.45 pm and he again reached at the spot at about 11.40 pm and they finally left the spot at about 12.30 am. No eye witness of this case was found during his said stay at the spot.
30. In his cross-examination, PW-18 further deposed that he as well as IO had seen the said EECO car from outside as well as from inside as well as its surroundings. PW-18 did not observe or find any foot steps around the car or the finger prints inside or outside the car. PW-18 voluntarily deposed that same might have been done by the lO as his duty was only to guard the place of occurrence and the vehicle. PW-18 reached at PS Begumpur along with tehrir at about 11.00 pm. PW-18 did not make any arrival entry in the PS at the time of his arrival or departure entry while leaving the PS with copy of FIR, after about 40 minutes of his reaching there. The cartridge cases and Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 39 of 84 the car were seized after the registration of FIR. PW-18 admitted that spot is a thickly populated area. In his presence, SI Pukhraj did not record the statement of any person from neighborhood regarding the incident. PW-18 voluntarily deposed that but he (IO) had made inquiries from some persons. In his presence, no independent person was called by SI Pukhraj to join the investigation at the time of seizure of empty cartridge cases and car. He cannot read and understand the site plan as such he cannot tell whether SI Pukhraj had shown the presence of said person, who had informed them about the incident or not, in the site plan. PW-18 deposed that he had signed the site plan. Attention of PW18 was drawn towards site plan Mark PW18/DA, where his signature is not there. PW-18 admitted that his statement was recorded by the SI Pukhraj, same was read over and explained to him and he found it to be correct. PW-18 further deposed that he had not mentioned in his statement Ex.PW18/DB, that SI Pukhraj requisitioned the crime team and got the spot and EECO car inspected. PW-18 did not make any arrival entry after his return to PS from the spot along with SI Pukhraj. PW-18 denied that nothing was done in his presence at the scene of occurrence. PW-18 denied that nothing was found or seized at the spot by the lO in his presence. PW-18 also denied that neither rukka was prepared at the spot nor the same was handed over to him for registration of FIR. PW-18 further denied that rukka was prepared by the IO in the PS after great consultation and deliberations with senior officers. PW19 Shri Kapoor Singh deposed on 04.04.2016, he was called by the IO at Ambedkar Hospital for getting the videography of postmortem Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 40 of 84 conducted on the body of a male. PW19 video-graphed the proceedings of postmortem and prepared the same in a DVD which was handed over by him to the IO. He identified the DVD Ex.PW19X which was prepared by him and handed over to the IO. The DVD Ex.P-19/X was shown to PW19 and he identified the same DVD which was prepared by him and was handed over to IO.
31. PW20 ASI Jaibir Singh was working as an MHC(M) on 31.03.2016 and on that day SI Pukhraj deposited one sealed pulanda duly sealed with the seal of PS containing one plastic container in the present case in Malkhna. PW-20 deposed that on the same day, one ECCO Car bearing registration No.DDL2CAU 1731. The IO had also deposited the sealed cloth pulandas and sample seal of BSA Hospital. PW-20 made entry in Register no.19 to that effect at Sr.No.216, 216A and 216B respectively. PW-20 had brought register no.19 in the court and photocopy of the relevant entries is Ex.PW20/A. PW20 also deposed that on 04.4.2016, Inspector Mahender Singh had deposited two sealed pulandas duly sealed with the seal of Dept. of FM DR BSAH Govt. of Delhi with sample seal and the same was deposited in the Malkhana by PW-20 vide entry no.223/16. He had brought register no.19 day in the court and photocopy of the relevant entires is Ex.PW20/B. PW20 further deposed that on 05.04.2013, Inspector Mahender Singh deposited one sealed plastic container duly sealed with the seal of MSK containing one pistol and live cartridge in the present case in Malkhana. PW-20 made entry in register no.19 to that effect at Sr. No.227/16. PW-20 had brought register no.19 in the court and Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 41 of 84 photocopy of the relevant entires is Ex.PW20/C. PW20 also that on 14.04.2016, Inspector Mahender Singh deposited two mobile phones and two DVDs duly sealed with the seal of MSK in different pulandas in the present case in Malkhana. PW-20 made entry in register no.19 to that effect at Sr.No.236/16. PW-20 had brought register no.19 in the court and photocopy of the relevant entries is Ex.PW20/B. All the exhibits except two DVDs were sent to FSL Rohini on 24.05.2016 through constable. PW-20 further deposed that on 24.05.2016, he was posted at PS Begumpur as HC and was working MHC(M) and on that day on the request of IO of this case, his assistant Ct. Ran Singh handed over two parcels sealed with the seal of MSK to Ct. Rajender vide RC No.62/21/16, one parcel sealed with the sea of PS, one parcel sealed with the seal of department of FM, DR. BSAH, Govt. of Delhi and one parcel sealed with the seal of MSK along with one sample seal of FM, DR.BSAH, Govt. of Delhi vide RC No.63/21/16 and two parcels, one sealed with the seal of casualty Dr.BSAH, 31.03.2016, Govt. of Delhi and the other sealed with the seal of FM, Dr.BSAH, Govt. of Delhi along with two sample seals i.e. of casualty Dr.BSAH, 31.03.2016, Govt. of Delhi and FM Dr.BSAH, Govt of Delhi vide RCT No.64/21/16 along with FSL form and other documents. After depositing all the exhibits at FSL, Rohini, Ct. Rajender returned one copy of RC of each above mentioned road certificate along with acknowledgement of FSL to him. Copies of RC No.62, 63 and 64/21/16 are Ex.PW20/E, Ex.PW20/F and Ex.PW20/G respectively, all signed by Ct. Ran Singh at point A and their respective acknowledgement of FSL are Ex.PW20/H, Ex.PW20/J and Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 42 of 84 Ex.PW20/K respectively. (Original Register no.21 containing said road certificates and acknowledgement seen and returned). PW20 further deposed that on 26.09.2017, as per the instructions of IO, he handed over two parcels sealed with the seal of MSK to Ct. Sanjeev Kumar vide RC No.140/21/17 and he after depositing the same at FSL Rohini, returned one copy of RC and acknowledgement of FSL to him. Copy of RC is Ex.PW20/L and copy of acknowledgement of FSL is Ex.PW20/M respectively. PW-20 also deposed that the above pulandas and sample seals were not tampered with during the period said pulandas and sample seals remained in his custody. In his cross examination, PW-20 denied that all the aforesaid pulandas were tampered by him.
32. PW21 Ct. Satyapal deposed that on 31.03.2016, he received a call at 08:08 PM as he was attending some other call and was not relived from his duty on that day and since the call received by him about the heinous offence, he had gone to attend the said call. The contents of the call was that at Sector 24, Pocket 26, one person has been fired. PW-21 immediately reached at Sector-24, Pocket-13, where he saw that one boy namely Gaurav was lying on the roadside and was crying. Nobody was present with him at that time and he along with the Driver Ct. Narender removed the injured in the PCR vehicle and they had proceeded towards BSA Hospital and while they were about to proceed for Hospital from the said spot, the mother of the injured came while crying and she also accompanied them to the Hospital. Injured had informed them that he had received two bullet shots and they also checked the same. PW-21 also deposed Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 43 of 84 that they reached at the BSA Hospital and handed over the injured to Duty Ct. Deepak in the emergency ward and about 15/20 minutes later lO SI Pukhraj also reached there and they handed over the injured to him. They made inquiries from the mother of the injured as well as from the injured as to how he sustained the injuries and who caused the same. None of them named anybody. Later on, father of the injured also reached at Hospital and he informed about the person who caused the injury to his son and reason thereof. PW-21 recorded the same in the log book to the effect that "Caller Gaurav Ko Financer Manjeet Ne Paiso kai Len den Par Do Goli Dahini Side Me Pet Me Mari, Call per SI Pukhraj'. PW-21 handed over the copy of log book. PW-21 had brought the original log book containing the relevant entry and photocopy is Ex.PW21/A. Ld. Addl. PP for the State requested to put some leading questions to the witness. His request was allowed. PW-21 deposed that his statement was recorded by the IO. PW-21 also deposed that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had stated that in the Hospital Ratan Lal father of injured reached and who on inquiry informed him that Manjeet had fired at his son who is a financier and had some money transactions with each other. PW-21 had also stated that he informed the entire facts to the Control Room. In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW21 deposed that within five minutes, he reached at the place of occurrence. The injured was lying on the road. PW-21 had seen the blood lying at the spot. Rattan Lal was not found present at the place of incident. Mother had come at the spot after about five minutes of their reaching. Except him and Ct. Narender, no other Police Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 44 of 84 officer was with them. PW21 also deposed that the injured was conscious and was talking. PW-21 asked the injured as to who had caused the injuries to him. He did not name accused Manjeet to be the assailant. Mother of the deceased did not ask anything from the deceased. PW21 further deposed that after about five minutes, they reached the Hospital and after reaching to the Hospital, the injured was immediately removed to the ICU. The Doctor did not ask anything from the injured in his presence. SI Pukhraj did not make any inquiry from the injured in his presence. PW-21 deposed that SI Pukhraj had told him that Manjeet has caused injuries to Gaurav (now deceased). PW-21 further deposed that SI Pukhraj did not record his statement on 31.03.2016. PW21 also deposed that the IO Insp. Mahender Singh did not record his statement on 31.03.2016. On 01.04.2016, Insp. Pratap had given him a call and had discussed with him about the present case. PW-21 deposed that he did not know whether he recorded whatever, they had discussed on phone. PW21 further deposed that as disclosed by SI Pukhraj that accused Manjeet had fired bullet shots on the deceased, he had recorded the same in his log book. PW-21 denied that Insp. Mahender Singh, IO of this case had met him outside the Court. PW-21 denied that as per the choice and asking of Insp. Mahender Singh, he had deposed in the Court in his examination in chief.
33. PW22 Dr. Mahesh Chand Meena, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini deposed that he along with Dr. Narayan Dabas, on the request of Inspector Mahender Singh, Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 45 of 84 conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased Gaurav Chauhan from 11.30 hrs. to 14.00 hrs. vide their detailed PM Report Ex.PW17/A running in six pages. After the postmortem, the body was handed over to the IO along with sealed blood sample of deceased on gauze and sealed bullet recovered from the body along with sample seal of the department. During his cross examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW22 deposed that he is posted in the forensic department of BSA hospital since 29.09.2015. They had received inquest papers prior to conducting the postmortem. PW-22 deposed that he did not remember the total number of inquest papers. PW-22 did not recall the exact time of receiving the inquest papers, however, same were received prior to conducting the postmortem. Brief facts of the cases were also part of the inquest papers. PW-22 also did not recall the time when the PM Report was prepared on 0404.2016. During conducting the postmortem, rough notes were prepared by them. PW-22 did not recall when the PM report was handed over to the IO. PW22 also deposed that after preparing the PM Report Ex.PW17/A, he had destroyed the rough notes. No mark of identification was put on the bullet which was recovered from the body of deceased. The bullet and blood sample on gauze was sealed by PM Technician Shri Surender Tanwar in his presence. The said exhibits were sealed with the seal of Forensic Department of BSA Hospital. PW-22 had gone through Ex.PW17/A prior to signing the same. The initial of the seal which was affixed on the exhibits and of which the sample impression was provided is not mentioned in the PM Report. PW-22 further deposed that he cannot tell the time, date of Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 46 of 84 handing over the PM Report and name of official to whom the same was handed over, however, he can tell the same after referring there register maintaining at their department. PW-22 also deposed that on the last page of the PM Report, the columns with the heads i.e. signature, name, rank and PS and date and time are blank. PW-22 was asked to give answer of a question that in case of close range firing, there will be blackening, tattooing and singeing around the wound, PW-22 replied "yes". PW22 also deposed that he did not find any blackening, tattooing and singeing around the wound of injury no.1 to 3 mentioned in PM Report PW-22 volunteered that patient remained hospitalized for 3-4 days and the wounds must have been cleaned which may be the reason of non available of blackening. PW-22 also deposed that this fact was not mentioned in the PM Report as they mentioned only findings in the PM Report. PW-22 had not medically examined the deceased when he was alive. PW-22 did not visit the place of occurrence. PW-22 admitted that the dimensions of injury No.1 and 2 are different. PW-22 admitted that the use of two weapons could be possible. Court Question was put to PW-22 that why there is difference of opinions regarding injury no.1 and 2, when the postmortem was conducted by two doctors in presence of each other to which PW-22 replied that he had said that two weapons could have been used but cannot say with certainty that two weapons must have been used.
34. PW23 Ct. Mandeep deposed that on 03.04.2016, he along with SI Pukhraj Singh reached Dr. BSA Hospital and SI Pukhraj Singh got shifted the dead body of Gaurav Chauhan from emergency department to mortuary Dr.BSA Hospital and he Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 47 of 84 was deputed there for the protection of the dead body. On 04.04.2016, Inspector Mohinder Singh along with SI Pukhraj Singh again reached at mortuary Dr.BSA Hospital and made a request to the doctor for conducting the postmortem of the deceased Gaurav and during the period, PW-23 remained deputed at mortuary, no tampering was done with the dead body. PW24 HC Yashpal deposed that in the intervening night of 4/5.4.2016, he joined the investigation of the present case along with Ct. Parveen and IO Inspector Mohinder Singh. PW-24 correctly identified accused Manjeet Thakran in the court. PW-24 deposed that accused was in the custody of Inspector Mohinder Singh who was interrogated and thereafter, he was arrested vide arrest memo EX.PW24/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo EX.PW24/B. IO recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW24/C of the accused. Information regarding arrest of accused Manjeet Thakran was given to his brother Sh. Jasbir. Pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Manjeet Thakran led the police party to a park near pocket 5, Sector 24, Rohini, in front of Deep Vihar and moved towards north side of the said park, where some bushes were there and from the said bushes accused Manjeet Thakran got recovered one pistol. The said pistol was checked by the IO after taking out its magazine and two live cartridges were found inside the magazine of said pistol. The said cartridges were of brass and on their percussion cap 7.65 again said kf 7.65, again said kf 7.65 cm was found engraved. There were two black strips of plastic on both the sides of the butt of the pistol which were found broken partially on upper side. IO prepared sketch of the said pistol, magazine and Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 48 of 84 cartridges, which is EX. PW24/D. The oblique length of the pistol was 17 cm, length of the barrel was 11.5 cm, and length of the butt was 11 cm. The width of the bottom of magazine was 3.5 cm and the width of upper portion of magazine was 3 cm and length of the magazine was 10 cm. The length of the cartridges were 2.5 cm each. The said magazine was again inserted in the pistol and the said pistol and two live cartridges were kept in a transparent plastic container and after closing its cap, the mouth of the container was tied with the Dr. tape and same was sealed with the seal of MSK and was seized vide seizure memo EX.PW24/E. Seal after the use was handed over to PW-24. Thereafter, accused Manjeet led them to the spot i.e. in front of H.No. 100, pocket 26, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi and pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo EX.PW24/F. (Obj. to by ld. Counsel for the accused). IO deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded his statement. PW24 further deposed that on 14.04.2016, he again joined the investigation in the present case along with Ins. Mohinder Singh and on that day, Rattan Lal (since expired) arrived at the PS and handed over two mobile phones make Micromax, having two SIM cards each and one memory card each, along with two DVDs, stated to be containing some voice recording, to Inspector Moninder Singh. IO prepared two separate pullandas of mobile phones and DVDS and same were sealed with the seal of MSK and were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/A. PW-24 PW-24 also deposed that due to lapse of time, he did not remember the IMEl numbers of the said phones. Ld. Addl. PP for the State put a leading question to PW-24 that on the bottom Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 49 of 84 of the said cartridges KF 7.65 mm was found engraved and the oblique length of the pistol of 17.5 cm to which PW-24 stated that it is correct and voluntarily stated that he had forgotten these minor details due to lapse of time.
35. PW-24 correctly identified two empty cartridges on the basis of words engraved on the same. The country made pistol and two empty cartridges are collectively Ex.PW- 30/Article-1. PW-24 also identified mobile phone (make MI/Micromax) with IMEI No. 911367150372259 & 911367150722255 along with two SIM Cards and one memory card Ex.P1 (colly) as belonging to deceased Gaurav. PW-24 further identified mobile phone (make MI/Micromax) having IMEI No. 911302501202178 with two SIM Cards and one memory card Ex.P2 (colly) as belonging to Rattan Lal. PW24 also identified one DVD on which word "Gaurav Audio/Video as well as particulars of FSL has been written" as Ex.P3. PW24 further identified one DVD on which word "Ratan Lal received call from Gaurav along with Phone Number i.e. 9811181762 & 9250589872 along with date 31.03.2016" has been written as Ex. P-4. In his cross-examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW24 deposed that he is working in Delhi Police for the last about 20 years. PW-24 also deposed that whenever, they leave the police station for the purpose of investigation, they make departure entry in the PS. They left the PS along with accused on 05.04.2016. PW-24 did not make any departure entry on that day. However, PW-24 deposed that IO can tell about it. PW-24 did not recall the name of duty officer on that day. They used government gypsy on that day. PW-24 admitted that in Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 50 of 84 every govt. vehicle, a log book is maintained. In his presence, no log book was updated by the driver on that day. PW-24 denied that they did not leave the PS on that day along with accused or that the entire writing work was done at PS. PW-24 admitted that accused Manjeet was arrested in the PS. The arrest memo, personal search memo were prepared and disclosure statement of accused was recorded in the PS. Across the road of PS Begumpur, there are residential houses and adjoining to the PS, Maharaja Agrasen hospital is situated. No public witness was called prior to recording of disclosure statement of accused. PW- 24 had never gone through the FIR of this case. The distance between the PS Begumpur and the place of recovery is about one kilometer.
36. PW-24 also deposed during his cross-examination that it is a thoroughfare but at that time, very less people were passing from there. No public person was joined in the investigation even on the way by the IO. They did not offer their search and of the govt gypsy to the accused. Personal search of the accused was not taken at the spot. They remained at the place of recovery for about 40 minutes. They all were having mobile phones. No photography or videography of the recovery was done by them. They came to know about the place of recovery prior to the leaving of PS. As it was night time, so FSL experts were not called by the IO at that time. The recovered pistol and cartridge were not taken from under the surface of the land. No earth sample was taken into possession along with the recovered articles. They all had seen the recovered pistol and cartridges minutely. They did not observe any finger print either on the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 51 of 84 pistol or cartridges. A common pulanda was prepared of the pistol and cartridges. PW-24 did not recall as to how many seals were affixed on the said pulanda. PW-24 further deposed that it is not within his knowledge, if any FSL form was filled by the IO at the said place or not. No mark of identification was put on the recovered pistol or cartridges. The strip of pistol was found broken at that time. PW-24 also deposed that he can identify the said pistol and cartridges without any identification mark, even after mixing the same with similar type of weapons. PW-24 denied that under these circumstances, nobody can identify any article if the same type of articles are mixed. No information was given to the Police control room after the recovery of pistol and cartridges. The accused was taken at the place of occurrence at about 12.45 am. Again said, it was 1.30 am. PW-24 also deposed that he was aware about the place of occurrence prior to the taking of accused there or prior his arrest. PW-24 denied that accused did not point out the place of occurrence nor he led them to the said place. The recovered articles remained in the custody of IO from the place of recovery to the PS. The site plan of the place of recovery was prepared. The court file was shown to PW- 24 and there was no site plan of the place of recovery. They returned to the PS on that day. PW-24 did not recall who was the duty officer at that time. PW-24 further deposed that it is not within his knowledge if the IO had made any arrival entry at the PS. PW-24 denied that accused never made any disclosure statement nor he led them to the place of recovery. PW-24 denied that the recovery in this case has been planted on the accused just to give a color to the prosecution case. PW-24 also denied that Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 52 of 84 the entire paper work was done at the PS or that the accused was forced to sign certain blank papers which were converted into documents later on. No mark of identification was put by the IO on the mobile phone, SIM card or memory card at the time of its seizure. No mark of identification was put on two DVDs Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4. The said DVDs/ CDs were not played in his presence before its seizure. PW-24 denied that the said articles were planted on the accused in this case.
37. PW25 Shri Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. deposed that he has seen the attested copy of call detail record and CAF in respect of mobiles number 9250589872 and as per the CAF, the said mobile phone was issued in the name of Gaurav kumar S/o Shri Rattan Kumar. The attested copy of original CAF Ex.PW25/A (OSR) bears his signatures and official stamp at point A. At the time of applying for the aforesaid mobile number, Gaurav Kumar had tendered his Election Commission ID card copy attested copy of which is Ex.PW25/B bearing his signatures and official stamp at point A. the attested copy of CDR of aforesaid mobile number for the period of 30.03.2016 to 31.03.2016 is Ex.PW25/C. PW25 also issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW25/D. PW-25 also brought Cell ID chart of tower location for Delhi circle Ex.PW25/E. PW25 further deposed that as per the CAF, the mobile number 9910937169 was issued in the name of Dharamveer S/o Shri Mohar Singh vide attested copy Ex.PW25/F (OSR). At the time of applying for the aforesaid mobile number Dharamveer had tendered his Election Commission ID card and attested copy is Ex.PW25/G. The Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 53 of 84 attested copy of CDR of the aforesaid mobile number for the period of 25.03.2016 to 02.04.2016 (running into two pages) is Ex.PW25/H. PW-25 also issued certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW25/J. PW-25 also brought the Cell ID Chart of tower location for Delhi circle Ex.PW25/K. In his cross examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW-25 has deposed that as per the CDR Ex.PW25/C and Cell ID chart Ex.PW25/E, the location of the mobile number 9250589872 as on 31.03.2016 at about 7.05 pm was at Sector 11, Rohini. As per the CDR Ex.PW25/C and Cell ID chart Ex.PW25/E, the location of the mobile number 9250589872 as on 31.03.2016 at about 7.33 pm was at Pkt. 9, Sector 22, Rohini. PW-25 further deposed that as per the CDR Ex.PW25/C and Cell ID Chart Ex.PW25/E, the location of the mobile number 9250589872 as on 31.032016 at about 7.47 pm is pkt.9, Sector 22, Rohini. PW-25 also deposed that as per the CDR Ex.PW25/C as many as 11 calls were made or received with effect from 7.47 pm to 8.16 pm as on 31.03.2016. PW25 further deposed that as per the CDR Ex.PW25/H and Cell ID chart Ex.PW25/K, the location of the mobile number 9910937169 as on 31.03.2016 at about 7.45 pm is not shown, however as per Cell ID chart Ex.PW25/E, the location of the aforesaid mobile at aforesaid time and date was at plot no.14, Sector 24, Rohini. PW25 deposed that in certificate Ex.PW25/J and Ex.PW25/D, it is nowhere mentioned hat he was occupying a responsible position in Bharti Airtel Ltd. PW-25 voluntarily stated that he has an authorization letter issued by the company for issuing certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-25 had not attested the said authorization letter at the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 54 of 84 time of supplying the aforesaid exhibited documents to the police. PW-25 denied that he was authorized to issue the certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-25 also deposed that in the certificate Ex.PW25/J and Ex.PW25/D, he has specifically not mentioned the dates on which the printouts of the aforesaid CDRs were taken out. PW-25 voluntarily deposed that the dates are already printed in the CDRs i.e. 24.06.2016.
38. PW26 Shri V.R. Anand, Assistant Director (Ballistic), FSL, Rohini deposed that vide letter no.1295/SHO/PS Begumpur dt.24.05.2016 their office received three sealed pullanda in connection with case FIR No.277/16. The said parcels were marked to him for examination purposes. PW-26 had checked the said parcels and the seals over the said parcels were found intact. PW-26 had checked the said parcels which was one sealed cloth parcel, one sealed yellow envelop and one sealed plastic box. PW-26 had opened the said parcel and the material contained therein were given S.No.1,2 and 3. PW-26 had examined the said exhibits and also used test cartridges which were given S.No. as TC1 to TC3 during the examination of the aforesaid exhibits. After examination he had prepared detailed report dt.23.02.2017 Ex.PW26/A running to 3 pages. Upon examination, PW-26 had opined that the evidence cartridge cases marked Ex.EC1 and EC2 have been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked as Ex.F1 by him. PW-26 had also concluded that Ex.F1/A1, A2, EC1, EC2 and EB1 were fire-arm/ ammunition as defined in Arms Act, 1959. During his cross- examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW26 deposed that in his report Ex.PW26/A, he had specified that the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 55 of 84 class characteristics of striation marks present on evidence bullet marked Ex.EB1 and Riffling marks present on test fired recovered bullets marked as TB1 to TB3 i.e. bullet recovered after test firing are different, hence, the evidence bullet marked Ex.EB1 has not been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked Ex.F1. PW27 Shri Vivek Kumar, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner (DOC), FSL, Rohini deposed that vide letter/memo no.1294/SHO/PS Begumpur dt.24.05.2016 their office received two sealed pullanda in connection with case FIR No.277/16. The said parcels were marked to him for examination purposes. He had checked the said parcels and the seals over the said parcels were found intact. PW-27 had opened both the said parcels and parcel no.1 found containing one Micromax mobile phone, modal no.A121 which was marked MP1 and its two SIM cards of Airtel and Idea were marked as SC1 and SC2. Parcel no.2 was found containing one Micromax mobile phone, model no.GC333 and two SIM cards both of Vodafone which were marked as SC3 and SC4 and its memory card was marked as MC1. The exhibits marked MC1 was forensically imaged on a sterile storage media and image storage media was analyses by using "encase" of M/s Guidance Software Inc. USA. The audio files dt.31.03.2016 could be retrieved from the exhibit mark MC1 and provided in compact disc marked CD1. No data could be retrieved from the rest of exhibits. Upon examination, PW-27 had prepared report dt.31.05.2017 Ex.PW27/A. After examination, the exhibits were sealed with the seal of FSL VK. Delhi. In his cross examination, PW-27 deposed that exhibit marked MP1 could not be turned on Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 56 of 84 and the same was not responding, hence returned unexamined. PW-27 deposed that he had mentioned in his report that the facility to examine the exhibit marked MP2 was not available in their lab hence, returned unexamined. PW-27 also admitted that exhibit marked SC1 to SC4 were analyzed but no requisite dates could be retrieved from the said exhibits. PW-27 also deposed that the memory card data storage in device the date can be copied and pasted many times. PW-27 admitted that the file can modify many times.
39. PW28 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL deposed that a report dt.13.02.2018 Ex.PW28/A prepared by Shri Geetesh Patel of FSL was endorsed by him in order to ensure the completeness of the process of examination conducted by Shri Geetesh in examining the exhibits. In his cross examination, PW-28 admitted that he did not examine/compare the exhibits mentioned in the report Ex.PW28/A. PW29 Shri Geetesh Patel, Junior Forensic /Assistant Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL deposed that on 26.09.2017, two sealed parcel duly sealed received in the official of FSL were marked to him for examination. PW-29 examined the exhibits and concluded that the auditory analysis of voice sample of speakers marked Exhibits Q1 and exhibit Q2 and subsequent acoustic analysis of voice samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speaker marked 'Exhibits q1' having insufficient clue words. Hence, speaker identification test could not be conducted. The laboratory examination of audio- video recording in 'Exhibit-1', it was revealed that each video file contain four identified video shots as discontinuous recordings, Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 57 of 84 however, no indication of alteration was observed in identified video shots on the basis of frame by frame analysis using video analyst system. The auditory analysis by critical listening and subsequent waveform and spectrographic analysis by using CSL (computerized Speech Lab) of acoustic signals of audio recordings in 'Exhibit-2', there is no indication of alteration. PW- 29 prepared report dt.13.02.2018 Ex.PW28/A was endorsed by Dr. CP Singh in order to ensure the completeness of process of examination conducted by him in examining the exhibits. During his cross-examination, PW29 deposed that the date of creation of a file and modification of a file will be according to the date and time of the system. PW-29 also deposed that the date and time of the system i.e. computer, laptop and phone can also be changed by the user. PW-29 further deposed that the recordings which were examined by him were not original. During the time of examination of exhibits by him, no phone was produced by him for comparison. PW-29 further deposed that any person can create a similar recording as mentioned in Ex.Q2.
40. PW30 Ct. Parveen deposed that in the intervening night of 4/5-4-16, he joined the investigation with Insp. Mahender Singh and HC Yashpal. PW-30 deposed that the accused Manjeet Thakran came to the PS and interrogated by the IO. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW-24/A and Ex.PW-24/B respectively. Accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW-24/C. PW-30 deposed on the similar lines of PW-24 about recovery of contaminate pistol with two cartridges in its magazine and its seizure vide memo Ex.PW-24/E and also about preparation of pointing out memo EX.W-24/F. Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 58 of 84 PW30 also deposed about interrogation and supplementary disclosure statement of accused which is Ex.PW-30/A. PW-30 correctly identified the accused Manjeet Thakran produced through video conference from Jail no. 10, Rohini Court. PW-30 identified the case property i.e. two lead piece and two empty cartridges and one country made pistol Ex.PW30/Article-1 to be produced by the accused. During his cross examination, PW30 deposed that his statement was recorded only once in this case in the police station in the intervening night of 4/5.04.2016. PW30 further deposed that accused was arrested in the IO room of PS Begumpur. PW-30 also deposed that accused came to the PS on his own. PW-30 had the knowledge regarding the FIR in the present case and Rattan Lal was the complainant in the same. Name of accused Manjeet had been mentioned in the present FIR as per best of his knowledge. PW-30 denied that no FIR was registered in this case on the statement of Ratan Lal or that present FIR was registered on the basis of DD No.41A. PW-30 further denied that accused was not named as an assailant in the said FIR. PW-30 deposed that he had knowledge of the place of occurrence before accused was taken out of PS. PW-30 did not recall whether parents of deceased were called /informed at the PS regarding arrest of accused for his identification. Disclosure Statement of accused was recorded in the PS. PW-30 did not recall whether parents of deceased or any public person was called at the PS before recording disclosure statement of accused Manjeet Thakran. PW-30 denied that signature of accused were taken on some blank papers forcibly or that same were converted into the documents later on by the IO. PW30 further deposed that Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 59 of 84 IO had asked accused Manjeet Thakran whether he was making the disclosure statement without any pressure or coercion and same was explained to him. PW-30 also deposed that he had gone through the disclosure statement Ex.PW24/C of accused. The fact regarding non pressure upon accused has been mentioned in his disclosure statement Ex.PW24/C. PW-30 further deposed that he had also mentioned about this fact in his statement u/s.161 CrPC that the disclosure statement was made by accused without any pressure or coercion and same was voluntary. PW30 also deposed that they along with accused had left the PS at about 12.35 AM in official gypsy. PW-30 admitted that a log book is maintained for the use of said govt. vehicle. HC Yashpal was driving the said gypsy but PW-30 did not recall its registration number. PW-30 also did not know whether any entry was made in the log book of said gypsy by Inspector Mahender or HC Yashpal. PW-30 denied that no govt. vehicle was used by them while leaving the PS or that they did not go anywhere on the intervening night of 04/05.04.2016.
41. PW30 further deposed in his cross-examination that the spot of recovery of weapon Ex.PW30/Article-1, is within the area of one kilometer from PS Begumpur. No public person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of aforesaid weapon. PW-30 also admitted that they came to know about the spot where the weapon was available in the PS itself. PW-30 voluntarily deposed that it was disclosed by accused. PW-30 also deposed that he did not have any knowledge whether after the disclosure statement of accused, IO had informed the FSL team, ballistic expert or finger print expert. No photographer was called Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 60 of 84 at the spot of recovery by IO. They were having their mobile phones at that time. The proceedings of recovery were not videographed by them. They did not offer their personal search or the search of official gypsy to accused before the recovery of above said weapon. They had minutely observed the spot of recovery. He had not observed any foot steps / tyre marks of vehicle at the spot. PW-30 voluntarily stated that "Park ke andar gaadi nahi ja sakti". The recovered weapon was not buried under the surface of land. The said weapon was lifted with the help of a white cloth. PW-30 also deposed that he did not have any knowledge whether the finger prints were available on the recovered weapon or not. Finger prints of accused were not collected by IO in his presence. The two live cartridges and one pistol were kept in one pulanda. PW-30 further deposed that he did not remember as to how many stamps were used on the said pulanda. PW-30 did not recall whether IO had filled the FSL form at the spot or not. IO did not put any mark of identification on the said cartridges and pistol. PW-30 also deposed that it will be difficult to identify the recovered cartridge if same are mixed with the similar type of cartridge. PW-30 voluntarily stated that the same can be identified on the basis of particular mentioned on the cartridge. They remained at the spot of recovery for about 40-45 minutes. No public person was joined during these proceedings. The seizure memo was prepared at the spot of recovery itself. IO had prepared the site plan of the spot of recovery. There was light in the said park. During his cross- examination, PW30 was asked to go through the case file and trace the site plan of place of recovery. However, after going Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 61 of 84 through the case file, PW-30 stated that no such site plan is available on record. PW-30 denied that no such site plan is available on record as he never visited at the said spot or no recovery was effected from said place. He did not remember whether IO had informed the control room regarding the recovery of weapon. PW-30 also deposed that IO had the knowledge regarding the place of incident prior to the pointing out of accused. They returned to PS at about 2.00-2.15 AM. PW- 30 further deposed that he did not remember as to who was working as DO in the said night. PW-30 also deposed that he did not remember whether IO had made any arrival entry at PS in this regard or not. PW-30 denied that accused was not taken out of the PS on the intervening night of 4/5.04.2016 or that no weapon was recovered at his instance or that same was planted on him. PW-30 also denied that all the documents were prepared by IO in the PS.
42. PW31 Dr. Ashesh Kumar Jha, Associate Professor, Surgery, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital, Delhi deposed that he had worked with Dr.Tarik and he seen him signing and writing in due course of his duties and therefore, he is acquainted with his handwriting and signatures and he has gone through the death summary of one Gaurav S/o Shri Ratan Lal aged about 30 years, male. PW-31 also deposed that the said death summary Ex.PW31/A has been prepared by Dr.Tarik bearing the signatures of Dr.Tarik at point A. In his cross examination, PW31 deposed that the death summary Ex.PW31/A did not bear the date of its preparation. PW-31 also deposed that said death summary was not prepared in his Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 62 of 84 presence. PW-31 further deposed that he has no personal knowledge regarding the same. PW32 SI Pukhraj deposed that on 31.03.2016 at about 8.03 pm, on receipt of DD No.41A Ex.PW1/A, he along with Ct. Surender Pal, went to the spot of incident i.e. in front of H.No. 100, Pocket-26, Sector-24, Rohini, Delhí and at the spot, one blue color EECO car bearing registration no. DL2C AN 1731 was found. On inquiry, they came to know that injured had been taken to BSA hospital by PCR van. Thereafter, PW-32 instructed Ct. Surender Pal to take care of the spot of incident and he himself went to BSA hospital, where injured was found admitted in emergency ward. PW-32 collected MLC of injured. Thereafter, PW-32 returned to the spot. PW-32 prepared rukka Ex.PW32/A at the spot. PW-32 called the crime team at the spot. PW-32 handed over the rukka to Ct. Surender for registration of FIR. The crime team inspected the spot of incident. PW-32 recorded statement of crime team officials. Ct. Surender Pal returned to the spot and handed over him original rukka and copy of FIR. PW-32 further deposed that after inspection by crime team, he lifted one empty cartridge from the foot mat of driver's seat and one empty cartridge from the front left seat of the car. PW-32 put both the cartridges in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of PS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. Thereafter, PW- 32 seized the said EECO car vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B. PW-32 had also prepared site plan Ex.PW32/B. PW-32 also deposed that thereafter they along with case property returned to the PS. PW-32 had also seized the clothes of deceased which were handed over by doctor in sealed condition, vide seizure Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 63 of 84 memo Ex.PN32/C. PW32 further deposed that on 03.04.2016, he received an information vide DD No.20A that the injured had expired in the hospital. Thereafter, PW-32 went to house of deceased and informed his family members regarding the death of deceased Gaurav. PW-32 recorded statement of mother of deceased Smt. Manju and father of deceased u/s.161 CrPC. Thereafter, PW-32 returned to the PS. Further investigation of the present case was marked to Addl. SHO/ Inspector Mahender Singh. As such, PW-32 handed over the case file to Inspector Mahender Singh.
43. PW-32 further deposed that on 04.04.2016, he along with Inspector Mahender Singh went to mortuary of BSA hospital, where the postmortem of deceased was got conducted by the autopsy surgeon. Doctor handed over the bullet led taken out from the body of deceased, blood gauze and sample seal to Inspector Mahender who had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/D. Thereafter, they returned to PS. IO recorded his statement. One blue check shirt having blood stains and one jeans pants having cut marks and blood stains, were shown to PW-32 and he submitted that the clothes were given to him in sealed condition by the doctor of BSA hospital. Attention of PW-32 was drawn towards six photographs taken by crime team officials Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-6. PW32 correctly identified the car, the inner portion of the car, the empty cartridge lying on the foot mat and seat of the car depicting in the said photographs. A sealed pulanda sealed with the seal of court was opened, which was found containing one plastic box which contained two empty cartridges on which 7.65 KF was engraved and shown to PW-32.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 64 of 84PW-32 submitted that these cartridges were lifted and seized by him from the said EECO car. Same are already Ex.P-18/1 and Ex.PW18/2. The Ld. Defence counsel submitted that identity of the EECO Car is not disputed and same need not be produced in the court. In his cross examination, PW-32 deposed that he was on emergency duty on 31.03.2016 when DD no. 41A was assigned to him. PW-32 had read the contents of the said DD before leaving the PS. PW-32 deposed that the DD no. 41A does not mention about names of the assailants. The DD no. 41 A mention about the mobile number from which the call was made of the specific caller. The caller did not meet him when he reached at the spot. PW-32 did not investigate to ascertain as to in whose name the said mobile number was registered. PW-32 did not know if it is correct to suggest that the said mobile number belong to the injured Gaurav or that he had deliberately concealed about the ownership of the mobile number. PW32 further deposed that he stayed at the spot initially for about 15-20 minutes before he left for the hospital. During this time, PW-32 did not find any eye-witness at the spot. PW-32 had minutely inspected the EECO car as well as the spot including the interior and exterior of the car. PW-32 did not observe any foot steps outside or around the car. PW-32 also did not inspect the car to find out the presence of any finger print impressions. PW-32 did not either remember if any blood stains came to his notice during his stay at the spot or inside the car. PW-32 denied that he did not notice any blood stains as no incident of firing on any person took place at the spot where he had reached.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 65 of 8444. In his cross-examination, PW-32 also deposed that the said spot is thickly populated with multistorey building around. PW-32 did not seize any article before leaving from the hospital. PW-32 reached BSA hospital directly from the spot but he could not tell the exact time. PW-32 had seen and read the MLC on reaching the hospital. PW-32 did not remember if he had taken the MLC or not. PW-32 did not recall if he had met the injured in the hospital. PW-32 further deposed that he met the doctor on emergency duty. PW-32 did not recall if he had asked the doctor if the injured/patient was conscious or in a position to give any statement. The doctors although stated that he was unfit to give his statement. PW-32 did not observe on the MLC or took any endorsement of the doctor on the MLC regarding the unfitness of the witness/patient. PW-32 denied that injured Gaurav was conscious and he met him and that he had stated to him that he was attacked by unknown assailants. PW-32 stayed in the hospital for about 15-20 minutes. The parents of Gaurav were present in the hospital but PW-32 could not tell if any relative was also present or not. PW-32 did not examine the parents of Gaurav at the hospital. PW-32 voluntarily stated that they were not in such a position. PW-32 did not remember if he had mentioned this fact in his case diary. PW-32 denied that the parents of Gaurav had stated to him in the hospital that they were not present at the spot at the time of incident or that they have not witnessed the incident. PW-32 did not recall the time when he returned to the spot from the hospital. PW-32 did not recall that when he had called the crime team or when the crime team arrived at the spot. The crime team officials inspected the spot Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 66 of 84 minutely in his presence. PW-32 did not recall if they found any blood spot stains at the spot or the car or any finger prints impression on the car. PW-32 further deposed that this time he remained at the spot for more than 1 hour. No eye witness was found this time also. Crime team officials stayed at the spot for about half an hour. PW-32 did not know if crime team officials observed any foot marks around the car. PW-32 deposed that Gaurav remained under treatment for about 4 days. PW-32 continuously visited the hospital during this time. PW-32 further deposed that till the death of Gaurav after four days, his parents have not come forward to give any statement of having witnessed the incident. PW-32 also deposed that the parents of Gaurav did not come to the PS after the death of Gaurav. PW-32 denied that the parents of Gaurav did not give any statement even after the death of Gaurav or that he himself fabricated their statements. PW-32 admitted that the IO Inspector Mahender Singh had recorded his statement. It was recorded after the postmortem but he did not recall the exact date. PW-32 admitted that the IO recorded his statement which is Ex.PW32/DA. PW-32 also admitted that the said statement does not mention about recording of the statement of the parents of Gaurav. PW-32 denied that being official witness, he is deposing falsely or that his investigation is biased and tainted.
45. PW33 Insp. Mohinder Singh is IO of the case.
PW33 deposed that on 03.04.2016, investigation was handed over to him when he was posted as Inspector at PS Begumpur. Initially, the case was registered u/s 307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act and later injured Gaurav had expired in BSA Hospital on Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 67 of 84 03.04.2016 and a DD entry no. 20A Ex.PW10/A was received at PS Begumpur regarding the expiry of injured Gaurav from BSA Hospital and the same was assigned to him for further investigation. PW33 further deposed that on 04.04.2016, he along with SI Pukhraj who was the first IO in this case, went to BSA Hospital where Rajinder and Ratan Lal, father of the deceased met them there and Ratan Lal who was father of deceased Gaurav identified the dead body and his statement Ex.PW33/A was recorded to this effect. Rajinder Kashyap who was brother-in-law of deceased Gaurav also identified the dead body of Gaurav in BSA Hospital mortuary and his statement Ex.PW2/A was also recorded. PW-33 also got conducted the postmortem of the dead body and after postmortem, dead body was handed over to the heirs of the deceased i.e. Ratan Lal Chauhan vide carbon copy of the memo Ex.PW33/B. Concerned doctor has given a sealed pulanda which was of plastic small container (dibbi) which was sealed with the seal of DEPT of FM, Dr. BSA H Govt. of Delhi along with the sample seal, the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/D signed by him at point B. PW-33 recorded the statement of SI Pukhraj u/s 161 CrPC and then came to the PS. Pulanda was deposited with MHCM. PW-33 further deposed that on 04.04.2016 in the night at around 10.00 or 10.30 pm, duty officer called alleged accused Manjeet Thakran in the PS and handed over to him his custody. PW-33 interrogated him in presence of HC Yashpal and Ct. Praveen and after interrogation, on the next day i.e. around 00.15 am on 05.04.2016, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/A. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 68 of 84 Ex.PW24/B. After intensive interrogation, disclosure statement Ex.PW4/C of accused Manjeet was recorded. Accused disclosed that the weapon of offence used in the case can got recovered from Sector 24 where he had hidden it. PW-33 along with HC Yashpal and Ct. Praveen went in search of the weapon of offence as per the disclosure statement of accused in front of Deep Vihar, Sector-24, near the Park. Inside the park, under the bushes from the northern side corner of the park, the accused taken out a pistol which was opened and containing a magazine having two live cartridges. The sketch Ex.PW24/D of the pistol, magazine and two live cartridges and measured the said articles and mentioned in the sketch. All the articles were kept in a transparent plastic container and wrapped doctor tape and prepared a pulanda and same was sealed with the seal of MSK and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW24/E. Accused also pointed out the place of incident at Sector-24, Pocket 26 in front of H.No. 100, Delhi and a pointing out memo Ex.PW24/F was prepared.
46. PW-33 further deposed that the accused was further interrogated about the mobile phone which he has used for calling the deceased. He disclosed the number of phone which he was using always for demanding his money which he has given to deceased on interest. He disclosed the phone number as 9910937169. His supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW30/A was recorded to this effect which was recorded after the pointing out memo of the place of incident. He disclosed that phone belongs to his friend Dharambir resident of Shalimar Village but he did not know his address but he used to meet him Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 69 of 84 in Sector 24 Rohini. He further disclosed that the above mobile phone used by him when he called Gaurav on the day of incident. The mobile phone was searched near the place of incident as he has thrown the mobile phone when he was going after the incident to hide his pistol and thrown on the way. But on the way all their efforts are in vain to trace the said mobile phone. Then along with the accused, they returned to the PS. Accused was sent to lock up after got his medical examination. PW-33 recorded the statements of witnesses and deposited the case property with the MHCM. Outside the PS near the gate, parents of deceased Gaurav met them and both of them identified the accused Manjeet that he is the same person who had fired gun shot injury to deceased Gaurav. The accused was sent to JC by the court. After returning PS, PW-33 recorded the supplementary statement of Ratan Lal and Manju with regard to identification of the accused u/s 161 CrPC. PW33 further deposed that on 08.04.2016, he recorded the statement of W/Ct. Snehlata u/s 161 CrPC. PW-33 got prepared the scaled site plan from Insp. Manohar Lal and same was handed over to him during investigation which is Ex.PW15/A. PW-33 also deposed that on 14.04.2016, HC Yashpal has given a mobile phone make Micromax having double SIM and another mobile make Micromax belongs to Ratan Lal, father of deceased and deceased Gaurav. He also produced two DVD which was of celebration function of Gaurav and another of call recording in the mobile phone of Ratan Lal. Two pulandas were prepared of two DVDs and two mobile phones in the white cloth and both pulandas were sealed with the seal of MSK and taken into possession vide Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 70 of 84 memo Ex.PW4/A. PW-33 recorded the statement of HC Yashpal and Ratan Lal u/s 161 CrPC. Case property was deposited with MHCM. PW-33 also recorded the statements of other relevant witnesses during investigation. PW-33 also sent the exhibits of this case to FSL Rohini through Ct. Rajinder on 24.05.2016. PW- 33 also procured three cartridges used for the test fire of the cartridges recovered from the accused and the same were deposited with the FSL office. Later PW-33 also procured the result from the FSL. PW-33 also collected the logbook of the PCR who had taken the deceased to the hospital on the day of incident. PW-33 also recorded the statement of In-charge PCR van, Ct. Satpal u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW33 further deposed that after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet as per procedure. Later on, he filed the FSL report in the court received from FSL.
47. PW-33 identified one country made pistol and two empty cartridges and to lead pieces already collectively Ex.PW30/Article 1. PW-33 also identified one mobile phone make MI with IMEI No.911367150372259 and 911367150722255 along with two SIM card and one memory card Ex.P1(colly) as belonging to deceased Gaurav. PW-33 further identified one mobile phone having IMEI No. 911302501202178 with two SIM card and one memory card already collectively Ex.P2. PW-33 also identified DVD Ex.P3 on which word Gaurav Audio/Video is written. PW-33 further identified one DVD Ex.P4 on which word Ratan Lal received call from Gaurav along with phone number i.e. 9811181762 and 9250589872 along with date 31.03.2016 has been written. PW-33 Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 71 of 84 also deposed that three cartridges were sent to FSL on 16.06.2016 vide RC No. 83/21/16 by Ct. Rajinder. PW33 also correctly identified accused Manjeet Thakran in the court. In his cross examination, PW-33, deposed that accused Manjeet had been produced by the DO in the PS and he did not know how he has come to PS. PW-33 also deposed that he cannot tell that whether he was brought by someone or not. PW-33 had not called the parents of deceased on that day. PW-33 had not gone through the FIR and rukka prior to the arrest of accused on that day. PW-33 had gone through the file and he knew that the FIR was registered on the DD entry. PW-33 was not aware about the place of incident prior to 04.04.2016 though the case file was with him since 03.04.2016. PW-33 was also aware about the time of incident and date of incident as he had gone through the file prior to the arrest of accused. PW-33 had not called any public witness or parents of deceased at the time of arrest of accused. He had not called any public witness at the time of recording of disclosure statement of the accused. PW-33 also deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW24/C of the accused while sitting in the PS. It was recorded after 12.15 am (midnight) and it took him around 5 minutes. PW-33 denied that accused never made any disclosure statement or that the accused was forced to sign certain blank papers which were later on converted into documents.
48. During his cross-examination, PW-33 also deposed the place of occurrence was at a distance of 2 ½-3 km from the police station. The place of recovery of weapon of offence is around 2 km from the PS. PW-33 did not remember as to what Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 72 of 84 time they had left the PS on 05.04.2016. They were commuting by government gypsy on that day. PW-33 did not recall whether he had made any departure entry or not. PW-33 also deposed that every government gypsy is having logbook to show the movement of vehicle. PW-33 had not made any entry in the logbook and neither any entry was made in his presence in the logbook. They reached at the place of recovery of weapon at about 1.30 am on 05.04.2016. PW-33 admitted that the place of recovery is surrounded with the residential houses. On the way or after reaching the spot, no public person was asked to join the investigation as no one was available. PW-33 had not called ballistic FSL team, photographer or crime team at that time. PW- 33 was carrying his own mobile phone at that time but he did not make any video of recovery of weapon or photograph of the same. PW-33 also deposed that he did not know as to for how much time they remained at the spot. They did not offer their own search or the search of police gypsy to the accused before effecting recovery. PW-33 had minutely inspected the place of recovery. No footprints or any other prints were noticed by him at that time. No finger prints were observed by him on the pistol. PW-33 had not called any finger print expert at that time or after recovery of weapon. No chance prints were taken by them from the pistol on that day. PW-33 also deposed that recovery of weapon was made from an open area under bushes in a pile of leaves. No earth control was taken from the place of the recovery. PW-33 denied that chance prints were developed from the pistol and they did not match with the finger prints of the accused and being the IO, he had withheld this piece of evidence. PW-33 Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 73 of 84 voluntarily stated that chance prints were not seen on the pistol as such he had not called crime team. PW-33 further deposed that he is not the proficient finger print expert and he has no knowledge in this regard. PW-33 admitted that the seal after use was not given to any independent public person after use. PW-33 voluntarily stated that he had given the seal after use to HC Yashpal.
49. In his cross-examination conducted by the Ld. Defence counsel, PW-33 further deposed that he did not recall whether any FSL Form was filled up at the spot or not. PW-33 had not marked any identification of him on the cartridge as well as on the pistol recovered from the accused. PW-33 had not called any eye witness at the time of recovery of weapon. No intimation was given to police control room of the recovery of weapon and live cartridge or to the concerned Magistrate. PW-33 was aware about the place of incident before recovery of the weapon. PW-33 also deposed that he had not called any public witness at the time when accused pointed out the place of occurrence. PW-33 admitted that place of incident is surrounded by residences. PW-33 denied that accused never pointed out the place of incident or that he was forced to sign blank papers which were later on converted into documents. PW-33 further deposed that after recovery of weapon, it remained in his possession till the same was deposited with the MHCM. PW-33 had not made site plan from where the recovery was effected. They returned to PS at about 1.45 am. PW-33 did not recall the name of DO at that time. PW-33 also did not recall if he had made the arrival entry at that time. PW-33 had not examined the vehicle of accused.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 74 of 84During investigation, he did not collect any evidence that accused was using mobile number 9910937169. PW-33 voluntarily deposed that he himself stated that he was using the above mobile number and he had also taken the CDR of the above mobile. PW-33 also deposed that the SIM of the above mobile was in the name of one Dharam Veer though he was not traceable in the investigation, therefore, he was not cited as a witness. PW-33 further deposed that he visited the address mentioned in the CAF form. PW-33 voluntarily deposed that the said address was not traceable. PW-33 denied that on the said address, he had met one Mrs. Saroj W/o Sunil Kumar who had stated that Dharam Veer was never their tenant nor resided there. PW-33 voluntarily stated that the said address is not traceable. PW-33 did not put any identification mark on the mobile phone of Ratan Lal and deceased Gaurav. PW-33 denied that all the documents have been prepared sitting in the PS itself. PW-33 also denied that accused never pointed out towards the place of occurrence or that nor got recovered the alleged pistol. During investigation, no documents was collected by him to show that accused and deceased had some financial transaction between them. PW-33 denied that his investigation in the present case is biased and tainted. PW-33 denied that he had falsely implicated the accused in the present case at the behest of complainant. PW- 33 also denied that the weapon of occurrence has been planted upon the accused in the present case.
50. It has emerged from the evidence discussed above that PW-4 Smt. Manju Chauhan, mother of the deceased deposed that she alighted from the car and remained standing outside, Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 75 of 84 meanwhile, accused Manjeet arrived there and within no time, he fired two bullets on her son Gaurav and after seeing this, she fell down on the ground and thereafter, she did not know whether and when her husband came there and if he had offered water to her. During her cross-examination, PW4 deposed that she had told the police that they parked the car outside the house of Manjeet and he asked her to alight from the car and to stay outside saying that Manjeet did not like her to accompany him. PW4 also deposed that she had also told the police that accused Manjeet fired two bullets on her son Gaurav. However, the word 'two' is not there in her statement and to this effect, she was also was confronted with her statement Ex.PW4/DA. PW-4 could not tell any specific date or month of her visit to the house of accused Manjeet for making payment. PW4 admitted that the spot is a residential area. PW18 ASI Surender Pal along with SI Pukhraj after receiving information of the incident reached and SI Pukhraj left him at the spot to preserve the spot and he went to BSA hospital and after about one and half hour, SI Pukhraj again reached at the spot. In his cross-examination, PW18 admitted that no eye witness of this case was found during his said stay at the spot. PW-18 admitted that spot is a thickly populated area. In his presence, SI Pukhraj did not record the statement of any person from neighborhood regarding the incident. In his presence, no independent person was called by SI Pukhraj to join the investigation at the time of seizure of empty cartridge cases and car. PW-21 SI Satyapal who after receiving intimation regarding the incident, reached at the spot and removed the injured/deceased to the hospital himself deposed that PW-4 was not present at the spot. PW21 also stated Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 76 of 84 that they made inquiries from the mother of the injured as well as from the injured as to how he sustained the injuries and who caused the same. None of them named anybody. PW21 deposed in his cross-examination that mother had come at the spot after about five minutes of their reaching. Meaning thereby, the presence of PW4 at the spot is in doubt.
51. As per the prosecution story, father of the deceased gave statement to the police that on 31.03.2016 at 7.30 pm, Gaurav returned from Haridwar and remained in the house for 10 minutes and he along with his wife Manju Chauhan went to the house of Manjeet. As per the mobile of his son Gaurav, at about 7.56 pm, he made a call from his mobile no.9250589872 to him and told him that Manjeet shot him and requested him to come there. Incident of gunshot was happened on 31.03.2016 and on 03.04.2016 in the morning, the injured succumbed to his injuries in the hospital but complaint was made on 05.04.2016. PW4 deposed that they had reached the hospital at about 8.00-8.05 pm and on reaching the hospital, the doctor had not asked about her name or that the name of her husband from her. PW-4 voluntarily deposed that by that time, her husband and some of their relatives had reached the hospital. PW-4 also deposed that she did not know whether the police had talked to Gaurav in the hospital. PW17 SR, Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr.Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital Dr. Narayan Dabas admitted that as per his postmortem report, there were two firearm entry wounds of two different dimensions on the person of deceased. PW17 denied that in this case, since there are two different dimensions of entry wounds, at least, there is a possibility of use of two weapons for Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 77 of 84 causing injury, on the person of deceased. PW17 admitted that he had not mentioned in the PM report, the shape of firearm wounds. PW17 further deposed that the weapon of offence was not shown to him by the lO of the case. PW22 Dr. Mahesh Chand Meena admitted that the dimensions of injury No.1 and 2 are different. PW26 Shri V.R. Anand, Assistant Director (Ballistic), FSL, Rohini in his cross-examination deposed that in his report Ex.PW26/A, he had specified that the class characteristics of striation marks present on evidence bullet marked Ex.EB1 and Riffling marks present on test fired recovered bullets marked as TB1 to TB3 i.e. bullet recovered after test firing are different, hence, the evidence bullet marked Ex.EB1 has not been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked Ex.F1. PW29 Shri Geetesh Patel, Junior Forensic /Assistant Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL examined the exhibits and concluded that the auditory analysis of voice sample of speakers marked Exhibits Q1 and exhibit Q2 and subsequent acoustic analysis of voice samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speaker marked 'Exhibits q1' having insufficient clue words. Hence, speaker identification test could not be conducted. PW-29 in his cross- examination stated that the recordings which were examined by him were not original. On 31.03.2016 at about 20.32 hrs, PW6 Dr. Ravi Kant Bhaskar along with Dr. Shagun, JR had medically examined deceased Garuav. In his cross-examination by PW6 Dr. Ravi Kant Bhaskar deposed that injured did not tell the name of assailant at the time of the admission in the hospital.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 78 of 8452. On 31.03.2016 at about 08.03 pm, on receipt of DD No.41A Ex.PW1/A, PW32 SI Pukhraj he along with Ct. Surender Pal went to the spot of incident and on inquiry, they came to know that injured had been taken to BSA hospital by PCR van. In his cross-examination PW-32 stated that the DD no. 41A does not mention about names of the assailants. PW32 further deposed that he stayed at the spot initially for about 15-20 minutes before he left for the hospital. During this time, PW-32 did not find any eye-witness at the spot. As per prosecution story, deceased himself made call to police as well as his father. PW13 Ct. Deepak in his cross-examination also deposed that he had told in his statement that deceased Gaurav Chauhan was admitted in the hospital in conscious and oriented state. It is admitted fact that the police did not record the statement of the injured (now deceased) in the hospital. Even PW-32 did not observe on the MLC or took any endorsement of the doctor on the MLC regarding the unfitness of the witness/patient. PW-32 remained at the spot for more than 1 hour but no eye witness was found this time also. PW-32 deposed that Gaurav remained under treatment for about 4 days. PW-32 continuously visited the hospital during this time. PW-32 further deposed that till the death of Gaurav after four days, his parents have not come forward to give any statement of having witnessed the incident. PW-32 also deposed that the parents of Gaurav did not come to the PS after the death of Gaurav. PW30 Ct. Parveen in his cross-examination stated that they remained at the spot of recovery for about 40-45 minutes. No public person was joined during these proceedings. The seizure memo was prepared at the spot of recovery itself. PW-33 Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 79 of 84 Inspector Mohinder Singh did not call any public witness or parents of deceased at the time of arrest of accused and also any public witness at the time of recording of disclosure statement of the accused. PW-33 admitted that the place of recovery is surrounded with the residential houses. On the way or after reaching the spot, no public person was asked to join the investigation as no one was available. PW33 also did not offer their own search or the search of police gypsy to the accused before effecting recovery. PW-33 further stated that no finger prints were observed by him on the pistol. PW-33 had not called any finger print expert at that time or after recovery of weapon. No earth control was taken from the place of the recovery. PW-33 had not marked any identification of him on the cartridge as well as on the pistol recovered from the accused. PW-33 had not called any eye witness at the time of recovery of weapon. PW-33 also deposed that he had not called any public witness at the time when accused pointed out the place of occurrence. PW-33 admitted that place of incident is surrounded by residences. PW- 33 also deposed that the SIM of the above mobile was in the name of one Dharam Veer though he was not traceable in the investigation, therefore, he was not cited as a witness. In Staila Sayyed Vs. State 2008 (4) JCC 2840, it was held that there was non-joining of public witness at the time of arrest of accused and recoveries. All the witnesses to the recoveries were police officials. Such recoveries do not inspire confidence. It seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt for the prosecution case.
Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 80 of 8453. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence discussed above in detail that PW-21 SI Satyapal is stated to be reached first at the spot and who removed injured/deceased to the hospital himself testified that PW-4 was not present at the spot. In her testimony PW4 deposed that she stated to police that when she regained senses she found that her husband was lifting her and taking her towards her son. It is strange that above police officials reached there but did not find PW-4 who lost her sense at the spot. Therefore, the presence of the material witness PW-4 at the place of incident is doubtful as there are contradictions in her testimony and the testimonies of the police officials. As per DD No.41A there was no eye-witness to the scene of occurrence. PW21 made inquiries from PW4/mother of the deceased of the injured as well as from the injured as to how he sustained the injuries and who caused the same but none of them named anybody. The testimony of PW22 also shows that bullet recovered after test firing are different, hence, the evidence bullet marked Ex.EB1 has not been discharged through the improvised pistol 7065 mm caliber marked Ex.F1. Even no efforts were made by the IO and police officials for joining any public witness in the investigation or to the recoveries made in this case despite the fact that the place of recovery is surrounded with the residential houses. PW4 deposed that public persons started gathering there only on arrival of police. PW33 also did not offer their own search or the search of police gypsy to the accused before effecting recovery. The Site plan Ex.PW-32/B also does not show the presence of PW4 at the spot. The memos prepared by the police like Seizure memo of Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 81 of 84 Car of deceased and seizure memo of empty cartridge Ex.PW18/A also do not bear the signature of PW-4. PW4 also did not disclose to the police that she is an eye-witness to the incident. It is pertinent to mention here that PW-4 did not give her statement to the police on 31.03.2016 i.e. the date of incident and injured succumbed to his injuries on 03.04.2016 and thereafter the complaint was made. The weapon of offence was also not shown to PW-4. PW-22 Dr. Mahesh Chander Meena who conducted the post mortem upon the body of the deceased also stated in his cross examination that the use of two different weapon could be possible in the present case. Further, PW26 deposed that bullet recovered after test firing are different, hence, the evidence bullet marked Ex.EB1 has not been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked Ex.F1. Recovery of weapon of offence has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has also failed to connect the alleged recovery of weapon with the murder in question.
54. It is well settled and one of the cardinal principles in criminal jurisprudence that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty by the prosecution. Another golden thread which runs through the veins of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision in Bhikari Vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC 1, therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "undoubtedly, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 82 of 84 accused has committed offence with the requisite mens rea. Once it is done, the accused can rebut this presumption either by leading evidence or by relying on the prosecution evidence itself. If upon evidence adduced in the case, either by prosecution or by defence, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court, regarding one or more ingredients of the offence including mens rea, then he would be entitled to be acquitted". In, Tika Vs. State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 155, it was held that "one of the cardinal principles which has always to be kept in view, in our system of administration of justice for criminal cases, is that an accused is presumed to be innocent, unless, that presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by production of evidence which may show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged". In Balraj Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, 1976 Cr.L.J. 1471 (DB) (Punjab), it was held that "The guilt of accused is to be established by the prosecution beyond the possibility of any reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on record. Even if, there may be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused and considered as a whole, the prosecution may be true, but between 'may be true' and 'must be true', there is invariably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted". In Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (3) Crimes 55, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that in a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 83 of 84 prosecution appears to be improbably or lacks 'credibility', benefits of doubt necessarily has to go to accused. In Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (1) CC Cases (SC) 35, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where two views of a story appeared to be probable, the one that was contended by the accused should be accepted.
55. In my considered opinion, the Prosecution has failed to prove any incriminating fact or circumstance against accused which may lead to the inference of the guilt of accused. The evidence brought on record against accused is of extremely doubtful in nature. Prosecution has thus failed to prove the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused namely Manjeet Thakran is therefore acquitted of the charge. His bail bond is cancelled and surety is discharged. Documents of surety, if any, be released against proper acknowledgement. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by YASHWANT YASHWANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2023.03.28 18:39:06 +0530 Announced in the open court (YASHWANT KUMAR) th today on 28 March 2023 Principal District & Sessions Judge North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi Sc No. 53316/2016 State Vs. Manjeet Thakran Page No. 84 of 84