State vs . 1. Inderpal @ Mandhu S/O Sh. on 18 July, 2014

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Inderpal @ Mandhu S/O Sh. on 18 July, 2014

                                                                        SC No 77/12
                                                                       FIR no. 45/12
                                                                        PS J.P.Kalan
                                                       St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc


              IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
               ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
                                NEW DELHI
In the matter of :

SC No.                                 77/12
FIR No.                                45/12
Police Station                         J.P. Kalan
Under Section                           302/201/34 IPC 
Received on assignment                 07/28/12
Reserved for orders on                 07/17/14
Judgment announced on                  18.07.2014 ( convicted )


            State Vs. 1. Inderpal @ Mandhu S/o Sh. 
                       Sardar Singh 
                       2. Inder @ Sachinder @ Mona S/o Sh. 
                       Ram Karan.
                       3. Amit S/o Sh. Raj Singh
                       All R/o Village Galibpur, New Delhi

J U D G E M E N T

1. Accused persons have been sent up for trial for the offence under sections 302/201/34 IPC.

FIR 45/12 Page 1 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are like this. On 25.04.2012 at about 02:05 pm on receipt of secret information, a team of A.A.T.S (S/W.)D Staff comprising of S.I. Sushil Kumar, ASI Sahib Rao and others had apprehended two persons, later identified as Inder Pal @ Mandhu and Inder @ Sachinder @ Mota near Jhuljhuli Mod, Main Ujwa Rawta Road, Delhi while coming on a Motor cycle. A country made pistol 9 mm bore was recovered from possession of Inderpal upon FIR no. 44/12 dated 25.04.2012 under Section 25 Arms Act , P S J.P Kalan was got registered by ASI Saheb Rao. The further investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Parveen Kumar. During the course of investigation of this case, Inder Pal and Inder @ Sachinder revealed that on the intervening night of 2223.04.2012, they had killed one Lalit @ Gandhi S/o Sh. Azad Singh, R/o Village Galibpur, Delhi with this firearm and have thrown his body in the Gandha Nala, Near Village Kanganheri, Delhi.

3. Meanwhile at about 03:55 pm, a PCR call regarding missing of Lalit aged 25 years from Galibpur Village for the last three days was received in the PS, upon which DD no.

FIR 45/12 Page 2 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc 16A was recorded and was entrusted to ASI Ved Prakash for enquiry. ASI Ved Prakash on reaching the spot confirmed the information and also informed S.H.O. At about 06:00 pm, SHO reached Gandha Nala in front of Haritima Tourist Complex, Village Kanganheri, Delhi where SI Parveen Kumar, SI Sushil Kumar, AATS Staff, accused namely Inder Pal and Inder met him. District Crime Team/ SWD on requisiton has also arrived. ASI Ved Prakash alongwith staff and one Raj Kumar Drall (complainant) also reached there. Blood marks and hairs were found on the concrete stairs towards Gandha Nala.

4. On being enquired by SHO , Inder Pal @ Mandu and Inder @ Sachinder confessed that on the intervening night of 2223.04.2012 they had killed one Lalit @ Gandhi S/o Azad Singh with firearm and has dumped his body in the Gandha Nala, Near Village Kanganheri, Delhi. Accordingly, at their instance and pointing out, a male dead body was fished out of the Gandha Nala which was identified by Raj Kumar Darall as that of Lalit @ Gandhi. Statement of Raj Kumar Darall was recorded wherein he has stated that Azad Singh S/o Late Dariyao Singh is his brotherinlaw and on his request he had come to their home in the FIR 45/12 Page 3 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc afternoon. During conversation, his brotherinlaw Azad Singh had informed him that his son Lalit @ Gandhi aged 25 years has not returned home for the last three days. After discussion, at about 03:45 pm they had informed police on 100 number. After some time ASI Ved Prakash, PS Jaffarpur Kalan visited the house of Azad Singh and made inquiry about missing Lalit. Thereafter, he brought Raj Kumar Daral to the spot i.e Near Gandha Nala, in front of Haritima Tourist Complex, Village Kanganheri, Delhi where police was present with Inder Pal @ Mandhu and Inder @ Sachinder @ Mota whom he knew earlier. On questioning before him, they stated that on the intervening night of 2223.04.2012 they had killed Lalit @ Gandhi S/o Azad Singh with firearm and dumped his body in the Gandha Nala, Near Village Kanganheri, Delhi. At their instance and point out, a dead body was taken out from the water of Gandha Nala which was identified by them as that of Lalit @ Gandhi. On 07.01.2012, Inder Pal @ Mandhu was shot at Village Ghalibpur. In that case, Lalit was also arrested who was recently admitted to bail. In order to take revenge , Inder Pal alongwith Inder @ Sachinder has killed Lalit @ Gandhi. From the facts and circumstances and statement of complainant, a case FIR 45/12 Page 4 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc under Section 302/201/34 IPC was got registered and investigation was taken up.

5. During the course of investigation, the crime scene was inspected. The photographes were taken and site plan was prepared. The dead body of Lalit @ Gandhi was sent to Mortuary, RTRM Hospital, Delhi for preservation and postmortem examination through HC Krishan Kumar. The exhibits from the scene of crime i.e. Blood stains, hairs, earth control and a while colour sport shoe were taken into possession vide separate seizure memo. Statements of Crime Team officials and AATS Staff were recorded under Section 161 Cr PC. On 26.04.2012 postmortem of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi was conducted and after postmortem, the dead body of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi was handed over to his family members. Sealed parcel containing clothes of deceased, blood sample, hair, two bullets found from the body of deceased were obtained from Mortuary and taken into possession vide separate seizure memo and deposited in Malkhana of PS.

6. On 26.04.2012 the accused Inder Pal and Sachinder were produced in the court were remanded. On 01.05.2012, the FIR 45/12 Page 5 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc accused got recovered the Maruti Esteem Car No. HR 26 BA 2426 (used to dump the body of deceased ), three empty cartridges and one bullet lead from Bani of Village Surhera. The crime scene was got inspected and photographed from the crime team and exhibits from the crime scene were taken into possession vide seizure memo. The accused also took the police party to the place of occurrence i.e. Gali near house of Prakash and Vijender Singh Dabas in Village Galibpur and pointed out the place where they had allegedly shot dead Lalit @ Gandhi on 22.04.2012 around 10:00 pm. The crime scene was got photographed from crime team. During enquiry at the spot, two eye witnesses to the incident namely Prakash and Vijender Singh Dabas came forward and narrated the incident. Their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr PC. On 12.05.2012 the postmortem report no. 69/12 in respect of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi was received from Autospy Surgeon, RTRM Hospital, Delhi. The cause of death of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi is: (1) Death in this case is due to haemorrhage and shock alongwith cranio cerebral damage (head injury), consequent to the multiple injuries described above. All the injuries are recent ante mortem in nature. Injuries No. 4,5,6 & 7 are entry FIR 45/12 Page 6 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc wounds caused by ammunition discharged from a rifle or a firearm from a distant range. Injuries no. 8 & 9 are the exit wound of 7 & 6 respectively. Injuries No. 1,2, & 3 are caused by hard blunt force impact. Injuries are collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. (2) Time since death is approximately 3 ½ days at the time of postmortem examination.

7. On 24.05.2012, third accused Amit surrendered in Dwarka Court, Delhi who was formally arrested and remanded to PC by the court for further investigation. During investigation, on 24.05.2012 accused Amit led the police party to the place of occurrences and pointed out the place where deceased Lalit was shot dead by them, place where body of deceased was dumped I.e the Gandha Nala, the place where the car was abandoned and the place where empty cartridges and bullet lead were thrown. On 18.06.2012, exhibits were deposited in FSL, Rohini, Delhi vide RC no. 33/21/2012 in Biology Division which was duly acknowledged vide File no. FLS2012/B4433. On 20.06.2012 exhibits were deposited in FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 35/21/2012 in Ballistic Division which was duly acknowledged vide File no. FSL2012/F4500 dated FIR 45/12 Page 7 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc 20.06.2012. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 302/201/34 IPC for trial.

8. The copies of charge sheet and documents were supplied to the accused and case was committed to the court of sessions.

9. After hearing Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Defence counsel, charge under Section 302/201/34 IPC was framed against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

10. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to establish its case. Prosecution has tendered 35 witnesses in all but there is no witness number PW16 as by inadvertence after examination of PW15 another witness has been named as PW17 in support of its case namely: PW1 Sh. Raj Kumar Daral PW2 Sh.Prakash s/o Sh. Maan Singh PW3 Sh. Vijender Singh s/o Sh.

Birkha Ram PW4 H C Manoj Kumar PW5 Sh. Ram dass s/o Sh. Daryaun FIR 45/12 Page 8 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Singh PW6 Dr. Parvinder Singh, Junior Specialist, forensic Medicine RTRM hospital.

PW7 Ct. Arun Kumar PW8 H C Satish PW9 Sh. Sunil s/o Sh. Ranbir Singh PW10 11.Constable Anuj PW11 12.Sh. Ashok Dagar PW12 13.H C Narender Singh PW13 14.Sh. Jai Singh s/o Tadbir PW14 15.ASI Jagat Singh PW15 16.Sh. Momin s/o Sh. Mumtiyaz PW17 17.Sh.Naeem s/o Sh. Mumtiaz PW18 18.H C Bhanu Partap PW19 19.Ct. Hardeep Singh PW20 20.ASI Ved Prakash PW21 21.Sh. Azad Singh s/o Late Sh.

Dariyao Singh PW22 22.ASI Attar Singh PW23 23.H. Ct. Jai Bhagwan PW24 24.Ct. Rakesh PW25 25.H.Ct. Krishan Kumar PW26 26.Sh. Krishan Dagar s/o Sh.Zile Singh FIR 45/12 Page 9 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc PW27 27.Sh. Sunil s/o Sh.Randhir Singh PW28 28.SI Sushil Kumar PW29 29.ASI Sahib Rao PW30 30.Constable Anil PW31 31.Sh. Atul singh Pawar s/ Sh. Bhole Singh PW32 32.ASI Pardeep Kumar PW33 33.SI Parveen Kumar PW34 34.Smt. Shashi Bala Pahuja PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED BY THE WITNESSES Exhibit No. Date of Details of exhibited documents.

Statement PW1 : Shri Raj Kumar Daral S/o Late Sh.Pyare Lal Ex.PW1/A 25.4.2012 Complaint EX PW1/B 25.4.2012 Seizure memo of blood stains cotton gauze, blood with concrete , strauds of hairs , control sample of concrete , one white colour sport shoe etc FIR 45/12 Page 10 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc PW2: Sh. Parkash No exhibits PW3: Sh.Vijender Singh No exhibits PW4: H C Manoj No exhibits PW5: Ram Dass Ex. PW5/A 26.4.2012 Identification memo Ex.PW5/B 26.4.2012 Handing over memo of dead body to pW5 PW6: Dr. Parvinder Singh Ex.PW6/A 26.4.2012 Detail examination report prepared by doctor of RTRM hospital PW7: Constable Arun Kumar Ex.PW7/A1 to 25.4.2012 Positive photographs of the spot.

Ex. PW7/A25 Ex.PW7/B1 to 25.4.2012 Negative photographs of the spot.

Ex.PW7/B25 Ex.PW7/C 1.05.2012 28 positive photographs FIR 45/12 Page 11 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Ex.PW7/D 05/01/12 28 negative photographs PW-8 : H. Ct. Satish Ex.PW-8/A 25.04.2012 Computerized copy of FIR Ex.PW-8/B 25.4.2012 Endorsement on rukka PW9: sunil s/o Sh. Ranbir Singh No Exhibits Mark P9/1 25.4.2012 Statement u/s 161 of pw 9 PW10 : Ct.Anuj No Exhibits PW11: Sh. Ashok Dagar MarkPW11/1 4.5.2012 Statement u/s 161 of pw 11 PW12: H C Narender Singh Ex.PW12/A 04/25/12 Copy of relevant entry qua deposit of case property in mal khana by Inspector Rajesh Dahiya vide entry no. 967/12 Ex.PW12/B 26.04.12 Copy of register no.19 showing relevant entry qua deposint of four sealed parcels alongwith two sample seals vide entry no. 968/12 EX.PW12/C 01.05.12 Copy of register no.19 showing relevant entry qua deposint of 10 sealed parcels alongwith one car FIR 45/12 Page 12 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc no. HR 26BA 2426 vide entry no.

973/12

Ex.PW12/D 06/18/12 Copy of RC no. 32/33/21 vide which sealed parcels were sent to FSL &EX.PW12/E Rohini.

EX PW12/F 06/18/12 Copy of acknowledgment regarding deposit the sealed parcel in FSL Ex.PW12/G 20.6.2012 Copy of RC no. 35/21 vide which four sealed parcels were sent to FSL Rohini.

EX.PW12/H 20.6.12 Copy of acknowledgment regarding deposit the sealed parcel in FSL PW13: Sh. Jai singh Ex.PW13/A 27.4.2012 Statement of PW13 u/s 161 Cr.pc.

PW14 : ASI Jagat Singh Ex.PW14/A 25,04.12 Copy of PCR form in respect of CRD no. 1290253 dt.25.4.12 PW15: Sh. Momin s/o Sh. Myumtiyaz Ex.PW15/A 26.4.2012 Statement u/s 161 cr.pc of pw15 PW16 : No witness examined PW17: Naeem s/o sh. Mumtiaz Ex.PW17/A 26.4.2012 Statement u/s 161 cr.pc of pw15 FIR 45/12 Page 13 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc PW18: H C Bhanu Partap No exhibit PW19 : Ct. Hardeep Singh Ex.PW19/A 10.07.12 Scaled site plan.

&Ex.PW19/B PW20 : ASI Ved Prakash No exhibits PW21: Sh. Azad Singh No exhibits PW22: ASI Attar Singh Ex.PW22/A 25.4.2012 Crime Scene Report Ex.PW22/B 01.05.2012 Inspector of crime scene report PW23: H C Bhagwan Ex.PW23/A 25.4.2012 Copy of FIR no.3/12 P S Jafar Pur Kalan PW24: Constable Rakesh No exhibits PW25: H.Ct. Krishan Kumar Ex.PW25/A 01.05.12 Pointing out cum seizure memo of articles recovered from car no.HR26BA 2426 Ex.PW25/B 01.05.12 Seizure memo of empty cartridge FIR 45/12 Page 14 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc and lead EX. PW25/C 01.05.12 Sketch of empty cartridge & Lead EX. PW25/D 01.05.12 Seizure memo of car bearing no.HR26BA 2426 Ex.PX2 01.05.12 One torned plastic glass Ex.PX3 01.05.12 One racksin piece alongwith form Ex.PX4 01.05.12 One small rachsin piece Ex.PX5 01.05.12 One small racksin piece alongwith form Ex.PX6 01.05.12 One racksin piece Ex.PX 7 01.05.12 One racksin piece Ex.PX8 01.05.12 One racksin piece alongwith form Ex.PX9 & 01.05.12 One small plastic container (Phial) having two empty cartridges of 9 Ex.PX10 mm Ex.PX11 01.05.12 One small plastic container (Phial) having one empty cartridge Ex.PX12 01.05.12 One small plastic container (Phial) having one bullet lead PW26 Sh. Krishan Dagar s/o Sh. Zile Singh No exhibits PW27: Sh. Sunil s/o Sh. Randhir Singh Ex.PX1 01.05.12 Car PW29: ASI Sahab Rao FIR 45/12 Page 15 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc No exhibit PW30: Ct. Anil No exhibits PW31: Sh.Atul Singh Pawar Ex.PW31/A 23.04.12 8.40 Copy of visitor book of hotel p.m to Gaurav 24.4.12 8a.m PW32: ASI Pardeep Kumar Ex.PW32/A 25.4.2012 Copy of FIR no. 44/12 u/s 25 Arms Act PW33 : SI Parveen Kumar Ex.PW33/A 25.4.12 Copy of disclosure statement of accused Inder pal @ Mandu recorded in case FIR no. 44/12 Ex.PW33/B 25.04.12 Arrest memo of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu Ex.PW33/C 25.04.12 Arrest memo of accused Sachinder Ex.PW33/D 25.04.12 Personal search memo of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu Ex.PW33/E 25.04.12 Personal search memo of accused Sachinder EX.PW33/F 25.04.12 Disclosure statement of Inder Pal@ Mandu Ex.PW33/G 25.04.12 Disclosure statement of Sachinder FIR 45/12 Page 16 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Ex.PW33/H 25.04.12 Pointing out memo of place of occurrence Ganda Nala prepared at the instance of accused Inder Pal Ex.PW33/I 25.04.12 Pointing out memo of place of occurrence Ganda Nala prepared at the instance of accused Sachinder Ex.PW33/J 26.4.2012 Seizure memo of articles collected from RTRM hospital Ex.PW33/K 26.4.2012 Statement of Identification of dead body of deceased by Raj Kumar Daral Ex.PW33/L 01.5.2012 Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu Ex.PW33/M 01.5.2012 Supplementary disclosure statement of accused Sachinder Ex.PW33/N 01.5.2012 Pointing out memo of place of occurrence by Inder Pal @ Mandu Ex.PW33/O 01.5.2012 Pointing out memo of place of occurrence by Sachinder EX.PW33/P 24.5.2012 Arrest memo of accused Amit Ex.PW33/Q 24.5.2012 Disclosure statement of accused Amit FIR 45/12 Page 17 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Ex.PW33/R 24.5.2012 Pointing out memo of place of occurrence by Amit Ex.PW33/S 24.5.2012 Pointing out memo of place of occurrence i.e Ganda Nala by Amit Ex. PW33/T 24.5.2012 Pointing out memo of place of occurrence i.e Surerha village Baini by Amit Ex.PX2 01.05.12 One torned plastic glass Ex.PX3 01.05.12 One racksin piece alongwith form Ex.PX4 01.05.12 One small rachsin piece Ex.PX5 01.05.12 One small racksin piece alongwith form Ex.PX6 01.05.12 One racksin piece Ex.PX 7 01.05.12 One racksin piece Ex.PX8 01.05.12 One racksin piece alongwith form Ex.PX9 & 01.05.12 One small plastic container (Phial) having two empty cartridges of 9 Ex.PX10 mm Ex.PX11 01.05.12 One small plastic container (Phial) having one empty cartridge Ex.PX12 01.05.12 One small plastic container (Phial) having one bullet lead Ex.PX13 01.05.12 Gauze clopth piece having blackish browned stains kept in a plastic FIR 45/12 Page 18 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc dibbi EX.P14 01.05.12 Bunch of black hairs in a plastic dibbi described as stands of hairs EX P15 01.05.12 Concrete cemented material described blood with concrete EX P16 01.05.12 Control concrete cemented Ex.P17 01.05.12 One shoe described as sport shoe PW34: Smt. Shashi Bala Pahuja Ex.PW34/A 18.7.2013 DNA report of the exhibits Ex.PW34/B 18.7.2013 DNA report alongwith Covering letter sent to SHO P S JP Kalan Ex.6A DNA profile performed on plastic glass disposable Ex.6b DNA profile performed on rexine piece with foam Ex.6f DNA profile performed on rexine piece Ex.6g DNA profile performed on rexine form with foam and 10 hair of deceased ex.10 PW35: Inspector Rajesh Dahiya Ex.PW35/A 25.4.12 Rukka Ex.PW35/B 25.4.2012 Rough site plan FIR 45/12 Page 19 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Ex.PW35/C 26.4.2012 Inquest proceeding

11.PW1 Sh. Raj Kumar Daral stated that on 24.04.2012 he has gone to the house of his brotherinlaw Azad Singh at Village Galibpur who told him that his son Lalit @ Gandhi has been missing for the last 23 days and summons has come from the court in respect of Lalit. At that time 23 persons were also present there who advised to make call on 100 number as the mobile number of Lalit was not reachable. Azad Singh made a call on 100 number. After 23 hours, one HC and two Constables came there and made inquiries from Azad Singh who was ill and bed ridden at that time. Police officials took hm to some place which he did not know but it was at a distance of about 10 miles. PW1 inquired from police party as to where they were taking him and they told him that one dead body is recovered and he has to identify the same. At that place dead body was lying and he has identified the dead body as the son of his brotherinlaw Azad Singh . Police have also shown him one person and asked him whether he knew him or not. He told them that he had never seen said person before. He does not know whether police had recorded his statement but he admitted that his signatures were taken on some papers at the police station. Complaint Ex PW 1/A bears his signatures at FIR 45/12 Page 20 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Point A and he did not know anything about this case and thereafter he was declared hostile and cross examined him.

12. During cross examination by Ld. APP crossexamined he stated that he did not tell to police that after reaching Haritma Tourist Complex, Kanganheri, he met police staff, Inderpal @ Mandhu and one Inder @ Mota ( who were in the custody of police whom he knew previously). He did not tell to police that accused Inderpal and Inder @ Mota told that on the intervening night of 2223.04.2012,they had killed Lalit @ Gandhi and thrown the dead body in Gandha Nala and thereafter at their instance, the dead body of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi was taken out. He further denied that on 07.01.2012 fire was opened on Inderpal @ Mandhu and in that case deceased Lalit was arrested and later on he was bailed out. He further denied that he told to police that the statements of Crime Team Staff and private videographer were recorded and IO sent the dead body to RTRM Hospital. He further denied that he told to police that police had seized bunch of hair from the concrete stairs near the Nala, blood stains with the help of white cotton, blood stained concrete and concrete and after seizing them IO also seized one sport shoe and FIR 45/12 Page 21 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc kept the same in transparent polythene.

13. He further denied that dead body was taken out from the Nala in his presence. He further denied that there was previous enmity between Inderpal and deceased Lalit. During court question, he has admitted that seizure memo Ex PW 1/B bears his signature. In cross examination by defence counsel he admitted that his signatures were obtained on blank sheets but he cannot say what was written on it. He does not know at what time police reached at the house of his brotherinlaw Azad Singh but they reached the place where dead body was recovered in about 3035 minutes where PW1 stayed for about 1 - 1 ½ hours. Police have brought two boys after about 11 ½ hours of arrival of PW1, dead body was lying on the patri on the side of nala and after keeping the dead body on a sheet its photographs were taken and he left the spot thereafter and returned home.

14. PW2 is Sh. Prakash who has deposed that he has retired as baildar from DESU in December, 2011. He does not know anything about this case. Police had noted down his name and address and also beaten him. Police did not FIR 45/12 Page 22 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc record his statement. Ld. APP declared him hostile and cross examined him. During cross examination by ld. Addl. PP, he denied that he has told police that on the intervening night of 2223.04.2012, at 10 p.m he was sleeping on cot and got up after hearing noise of quarrel and saw that accused Inderpal @ Mandhu, Amit and Sachinder were standing with pistols in their hand and they fired upon one Lalit @ Gandhi due to which Lalit @ Gandhi fell down after being injured near his cot and died. He further denied that he told police that accused Inderpal put pistol on his temple and threatened to kill him if he would say anything about this incident to anyone and due to which he ( PW2) entered his house and after some time all the accused put the dead body of Lalit in a car and washed the spot before leaving the same. He did not tell to police that other persons have also seen this incident and dog of one Vijender Singh who resides in front of his house was also shot at by the accused. He did not tell to police that after some time accused again came back to the spot and they washed the spot properly and collected empty cartridges from the spot. He did not tell police that on 01.05.2010 he has seen the accused Inderpal and Sachinder in the custody of police. He knew the accused FIR 45/12 Page 23 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Inderpal, Sachinder and Amit only by face. He further denied that he has voluntarily given his statement marke PW 2/1 to the police.

15. PW3 is Sh. Vijender Singh who has stated that he does not know anything about this case as he has not seen anything related to this case. 23 police officials visited his house and took him to PS. He does not know whether his statement was recorded or not by the police but his signatures were taken on some blank papers. This witness also did not support the prosecution case . He was declared hostile and crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for State. In his crossexamination by State counsel, he has admitted that he cannot tell whether his statement was recorded by the police or not. He has denied that on the intervening night of 2223.04.2012, at 10p.m he was sleeping in a cot on the roof of his house when he heard some noise from street. He got up and saw from his roof. He denied having told to police that he found accused Inderpal @ Mandhu, Sachinder @ Mota and Amit armed with pistols and fired gun shots on Lalit @ Gandhi as a result of which Lalit @ Gandhi fell down near the cot of his neighbour Prakash and his pet dog also sustained gun shot FIR 45/12 Page 24 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc injury. He further denied that accused is a goon of his locality and on account of this fact he has not told anything to anyone. He has further denied that accused Inderpal put his pistol on the temple of Prakash and extended threats to him and after that Prakash entered his house and after some time accused persons Inderpal, Amit and Sachin put the dead body of Lalit @ Gandhi into a car and left the spot after extending threats to them. He further denied that accused persons again came to the spot and washed the place of incident and took the empty cartridges from the spot.

16. PW4 is HC Manoj Kumar who has deposed that on 25.04.2012 he was posted at AATS, South West District. On that day at about 02.30 pm he alongwith ASI Sahab Rao, HC Manoj Kumar, Ct. Hawa Singh, Ct. Anil, SI Sushil, HC Vijay, HC Vinod and Ct. Rakesh left the office in two private vehicles for Jhuljhuli mod, Main Ujwa Road. At about 03:30 pm they alongwith secret informer reached there. IO had talked to twothree passersby to join the investigation but none of them came forward. They parked their vehicles at Jhuljhuli Mod. ASI Sahab Rao briefed them that two boys will come on a motorcycle FIR 45/12 Page 25 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc from the side of Ujwa and they will go to village Rawta. After 1015 minutes two boys came from the side of Village Ujwa, who were apprehended. Their formal search was carried out , one country made pistol was recovered from pillion rider who disclosed his name as Mandhu. IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR. Another IO also came to spot from PS, Jaffarpur whose name he did not remember. IO made inquiry from both the boys and thereafter took them to Kanganheri Drain. SHO, P.S Jaffarpur alongwith one private photographer also reached there. Crime Team was also called at the spot. Accused Mandhu and Sachinder pointed out towards the drain and told that they have thrown the dead body of Lalit @ Gandhi in this drain after committing his murder. 23 divers went in the drain and they took out the dead body of deceased. Thereafter, he ( PW4) left the spot and returned to his office at Dwarka. He identified both accused Mandhu and Sachinder, who are present in the court.

17. PW5 is Ram Dass who has deposed that on 26.04.2012 he alongwith his brother in law went to RTRM hospital where they both identified the dead body of deceased Lalit FIR 45/12 Page 26 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc @ Gandhi vide memo Ex PW 5/A and after postmortem dead body was handed over to him vide Memo Ex PW 5/B.

18. PW6 is Dr. Parvinder Singh, Junior Specialist, Forensic Medicine, RTRM Hospital who has examined and conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi and found the injuries which are as follows: External Injuries:

1. Lacerated wound measuring 8.5 X 1.5 cms situated over middle of forehead (upper part), bone deep.

2. Lacerated wound measuring 6 X 2 cms situated over mid occipital region of skull with fractures underlying bone present.

3. Lacerated wound measuring 8 X 1 cms situated over left occipital region of skull.

4. One firm arm entry wound measuring 2 X 1.5 cms, oval shape surrounded by a collar of abrasion of size 2.1 X 1.6 cms, margin inverted, situated over lower part right lateral chest wall in mid axillary line, 30 cms above umbilicus, 28 cms from mid line, 23 cms below right to right nipple and 121 cms above right heel, blackening and tattooing absent.

5. One firm arm entry wound measuring 1.4 X 1.4 cms, FIR 45/12 Page 27 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc circular shape surrounded by a collar of abrasion of size 1.5 X 1.5 cms, situated over lower part of lateral chest wall in posterior axillary line, 9 cms mid line, 39 cms below tip of right shoulder and 130 cms above right heel, margins inverted, blackening and tattooing absent.

6. One firm arm entry wound measuring 2 X 1.2 cms, oval shape, margin inverted and surrounded by a collar of abrasion of size 2.1 X 1.3 cms situated over upper most part back of chest on left side, one 6 cms from mid line back, 11 cms from tip of left shoulder. Blackening and tattooing absent.

7. One firm arm entry wound measuring 1.4 X 1.4 cms circular shape margines surrounded by a collar of abrasion of size 1.5 X 1.5 cms situated over upper part outer aspect of left thigh, 90 cms above left heel, 16 cms from anterior superior iliac spine and 35 cms below umbilicus. Blackening and tattooing absent.

8. One firm arm exit wound if size 2 X 1.5 cms, oval shaped margins averted situated over right inguinal region, 92 cms above right heel and 20 cms below and right to umbilicus.

9. One firm arm exit wound of size 3 X 2 cms, oval shape margins averted situated over upper part of right FIR 45/12 Page 28 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc side of chest in supra curricular area, 2.5 cms from mid line, 16 cms above right nipple and 148 cms above right heel.

Internal Examination:

Abdomen Mid pelvis fractured. Pelvic cavity contains blood. Neck structure severed and described in the track of wounds. Right clavicle fractured medically. First rib on the right side fractured and first and fifth rib fractured on right side.

Chest Pleural clarity contains blood. Pleura severed bilaterally as described in the track of wound. Both lungs severed and described in the would track. Head Effusion of blood present under the skull over frontal and occipital and left temporal parital areas of skull. Occipital bone is fractured (communited fracture). Subdural and Subrachnoid hemorrhage present over left temporo parital occipital lobes of brain. Clotted and free blood present at the base of the skull (approximately 150 ml.). Brain is gelatinus in texture. Contusions and laceration of brain present under the fracture sides. Ventricles intact.

Articles/ specimen preserved

1. Clothings FIR 45/12 Page 29 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

2. Blood Sample (dried gauze piece)

3. Scalp hair

4. Two bloods

5. Three X ray plates - all were sealed with the seal of RTRM hospital and were handed over to IO.

Opinion Death in this case was due to hemorrhage in shock alongwith cranio cerebral damage (head injury) consequent to the multiple injuries described in the PM report. All the injuries were ante mortem and recent. Injuries no. 4,5,6 and 7 were entry wounds caused by ammunition discharge from a rifled fire arm from a distant range (exact range will be given by ballistic expert). Injuries no. 8 and 9 were exit woulds of 7 and 6 respectively. Injuries no. 1,2, and 3 were caused by hard blunt force impact. Injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was approximately three and half days at the time of PM examination.

In his cross examination he denied of having noticed any mud or muddy water on the body but admitted that time of death can be ascertained from the life of maggots on the dead body and the same was present on the dead body but FIR 45/12 Page 30 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc were not preserved while conducting autospy. He denied that blackening and tattooing would not be visible on a body which is lying in a drain for a period of about 3 ½ days.

19. PW7 is Const. Arun Kumar who stated that on 25.04.2012 he alongwith Attar Singh, Incharge Crime team has gone to the ganda nala, Kanganheri and took photographs Ex.PW7/C, ( 28 in numbers), the negatives of which are Ex. PW7/D, at the instance of accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Moto who were in the custody of police. He stated that on 25.4.12 at 4.15 p.m, they received an information and reached at the spot I.e Ganda nala at 5.30 p.m. and remained there till 8.15 p.m .ATS Staff, accused persons, SI Praveen and staff of the police station were already present there when they reached the spot. The divers were not present there when Crime Team arrived at the spot. As far as he knows divers were not called specifically but passersby were stopped and asked if anybody could enter the nala for bringing out the dead body. Dead body was not wrapped in a bag or cloth but it was wearing cloths. The dead body was having injury marks on its back and forehead . He FIR 45/12 Page 31 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc cannot say the distance from which the photographs were taken by him however, by approximation it should be 1520 feets. Videography was also done by someone. The roll was of Kodak400. He is not a witness on any disclosure or pointing out memo of any of the accused persons. He had taken the photographs only at the instance of IO / Incharge of Crime team on 1.5.2012. They left the office at about 10 a.m on 1.5.12 and returned at about 1:302:00 noon. On 1.5.12, they had also visited Village Galibpur . The dog shown in the photograph was in the house of Vijender . He does not know from whom he came to know about the house of Vijender. He did not remember whether the car shown in the photographs was locked or not. He did not know the date when the photographs were prepared. However, it is correct that rolls were sent for developing by him. The FIR number is mentioned on the roll after it is taken out of the camera. If one roll consists of photographs of more than one FIR then all the FIR numbers are mentioned on the roll as per serial number.

20. PW8 is H C Satish. He has deposed that on 25.4.2012 , he was working as Duty officer in P S, J. P Kalan from 4 FIR 45/12 Page 32 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc p.m to 12 midnight. On that day, at 9 p.m he received rukka through Ct. Anuj , he recorded kaymi DD No. 20 A and after making endorsement ( Ex.PW8/B) on rukka, he recorded FIR ( Ex.PW8/A) . He handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Anuj. In cross, he has stated that Ct. Sandeep was the computer operator. There is no certification by him with regard to typed substance /FIR recording its comparison with the original rukka. Words "

Ad 25 A Act" does not find mention in Ex.PW8/A. He cannot tell when and by whom these words have been inserted. Copy of FIR from the register brought by him is proved as Ex. PW8/DA.

21.PW9 is Sh. Sunil s/o Sh.Ranbir Singh. He has stated that on 25.4.12 he was going from his house to Village Dhansa for some work and on route, he met Azad Singh who asked for his mobile phone. He gave the same to him ( Azad Singh) and took back after returning from Village Dhansa. The official number is 9953661071. This witness was declared hostile by state counsel . In cross, he denied having made his statement to the police put by state counsel to him. In cross examination on behalf of accused , he stated that he had handed over the mobile FIR 45/12 Page 33 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc phone at about 78 p.m near Shiv temple, Galibpur. He denied that mobile was not given to anyone by him on 25.4.12.

22. PW10 is Ct. Anuj. He has stated that on 25.4.12 he had joined the investigation in this case. After registration of FIR no. 44/12, he alongwith SI Praveen Kumar and H C Krishan went to Jhuljuli Mor where staff of AATS including SI Sushil Kumar, ASI Sahib Rao were present. Accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder were interrogated in his presence who gave their disclosure statements in which they have disclosed that they have murdered one Lalit and thrown dead body in ganda nala near Kanganheri. Accused took them to said place near Ganda Nala Kanganheri. Crime team also reached there and interrogated the accused persons in his presence. After some time, ASI Ved Prakash alongwith Ct. Pradeep and one Raj Kumar Daral , uncle of deceased reached there. At the instance of accused persons , one dead body was recovered from the said Ganda Nala. Raj Kumar Daral identified the deceased as Lalit @ Gandhi s/o Azad Singh. SI Praveen prepared rukka and sent him to P S at about 8.15 p.m for registration of FIR. He FIR 45/12 Page 34 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc handed over rukka to Duty officer at about 9 p.m and got registered FIR of this case and came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SI Praveen Kumar . Thereafter, they went to village Galibpur where both the accused persons identified the place of occurrence near phirni. They also went to the house of deceased where his father Azad Singh alongwith other relative met but no one told anything due to grief. Then, they went to RTRM hospital where all were medically examined. They came back to P S at 11: 45 p.m and deposited the case property in mal khana.

23. In cross examination, he stated that he is not a witness of investigation of this case. He remained associated with regard to investigation of case FIR no. 44/12 from 04.45 p.m to 12'O clock mid night on 25.4.2012. They remained at Jhuljuli mor till 5.45p.m. They had travelled by ERV ( Emergency response Vehicle ) however , he cannot tell its registration number though, it remained with them through out i.e from the time they started from P S and returned to P S. Prior to their reaching to ganda nala, no other police official had reached there. SI Parveen had FIR 45/12 Page 35 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc called SHO from Jhuljuli mor at about 5/ 5.30 p.m. The crime team as well as the SHO arrived at Ganda Nala within 57 minutes. He does not know who had brought the photographer or what time he reached. He did not remember if the arrangement for lighting was made or not. The SI who had given him rukka was also the IO of case FIR no. 44/12. He had gone for registration of FIR on a motorcycle but he cannot tell description of the same nor he can tell about the owner of that motorcycle. He did not remember if any independent witness was joined in the investigation at Ganda Nala or at village Galibpur or not. Statement of Azad Singh was not recorded on 25.4.12 . He cannot tell the house number or description of house of Azad Singh. He cannot tell about the persons who were the persons present at the house of Azad Singh. They stayed in village Galibpur for about 2025 minutes. Ex. PW 1/A does not bear signature of SI Parveen. He denied that he become a witness at the instance of senior officers nor he was a part of the investigation team and that is why his signatures do not appear on any document as a witness. He is a witness in FIR no.44/12 in which IO recorded his statement. He does not remember where the disclosure statement of FIR 45/12 Page 36 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc accused Inderpal @ Mandhu was recorded. It was not recorded in his presence.

24. PW11 is Sh. Ashok Dagar. He states that once he had gone to Village Galibpur in the evening to examine buffalo of one Mange Ram but one person on the way, requested him to examine one street dog lying in the street . He examined the dog. The dog was having some scratch marks on its front leg. He provided first aid to the dog and left the place. Police did not met him at any point of time and did not record his statement. Thereafter, he was declared hostile and cross examined by ld. State counsel. In cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for state, he denied that on 4.05.2012 police has recorded his statement and on the request of Bijender Singh Dabas, he has examined one dog having wound under his neck from which blood was coming out. He also denied that Bijender had told him that the dog has sustained bullet injury.

25. PW12 is H C Narender Singh . He stated that on 25.4.2012 he was posted as MH C ( M) in P S, J P Kalan. On that day, IO / Inspector Rajesh Dahiya has deposited five sealed parcels alongwith sample seal in mal khana FIR 45/12 Page 37 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc and recorded entry ( Ex.PW12/A) in register no. 19 at sr. no. 967/12. On 26.4.2012 the said IO again deposited with him four sealed parcels alongwith two sample seals vide entry no. 968/12 (Ex.PW12/B) in register no. 19. On 1.5.12, I.O again deposited ten sealed parcels alongwith one car bearing no. HR 26BA 2426 in mal khana vide entry no. 973/12 ( Ex.PW12/C) in register no.19.

26. On 18.6.2012 on the directions of the IO , he has sent the above said sealed parcels alongwith respective seals to FSL Rohini through SI Praveen vide RC no. 32/33/21 ( Ex.PW12/D) & Ex.PW12/E). SI Parveen, after depositing the said case property, handed over acknowledgment ( Ex.PW12/F) to him. On 20.6.12 , on the direction of IO , he again sent four sealed parcels alongwith one seal to FSL Rohini vide RC no.35/21 ( Ex.PW12/G) through SI Parveen who thereafter, handed over to him copy of acknowledgment ( Ex.PW12/H).

27. In cross examination, he stated that he has copied the seizure memos in the register and made entries in register no. 19 on the basis of the same. He did not open the seal of any parcel and as such could not verify the contents of FIR 45/12 Page 38 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc the pullandas. The seizure memos of all the cases are retained in the same record according to serial number of entries. He admitted that after page no.219 entries are made in the register . He denied that all the said entires are manipulated.

28. PW13 is Sh. Jai Singh. He has stated that he did not remember, date, month or year . However, he received a call that wife of Lalit's brother was ill and admitted to General Hospital, Rohtak. He alongwith Lalit had gone to Rohtak hospital in his Hundai Acent Car H R 26 AF0110. They had started at about 9/9.30a.m for Rohtak and came back at about 2 p.m to 2.15 p.m . He had dropped Lalit at his plot at about 2.15 p.m . Thereafter, he came at the taxi stand. He did not know anything else about this case. After 45 days , he was brought to P S by police. He was informed that Lalit is murdered. He does not know any other detail about this case. He was declared hostile and cross examined by ld. State counsel. In his cross, he stated that police had recorded his statement. Police has taken his signatures on a paper. He has denied the contents of his statement put by ld. State counsel to him . He even denied that he dropped Lalit at outer circle FIR 45/12 Page 39 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc of village Galib Pur at 9.30 p.m or he has seen accused Inderpal and his two associates following the deceased. He does not know any of the accused as he has neither seen any one of them nor he can identify them . In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, he stated that Police never demanded copy of RC of the vehicle on which they had gone to Rohtak. The plot where Lalit was circuitous road ( Phirni) of the village Galibpur.

29. PW14 is ASI Jagar Singh . He stated that he has brought record pertaining to PCR in respect of CRD no. 1290253 dt. 25.4.2012(Ex.PW14/A) which was recorded in respect of missing of one person.

30. PW 15 is Sh. Momin . He has deposed that around one or two years ago on 25th of one month, SHO , P. S Alipur called him. He alongwith his brother Naeem and Satar went to P S. They went to a particular point near nala at about 2.30p.m. At about 3 p.m , they took out a dead body from the said ganda nala. 6/7 police officials were present there and they do not know who had identified the dead body. He is declared hostile and cross examined by Ld. FIR 45/12 Page 40 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc State counsel. During cross examination by ld. State counsel, he stated that he did not give statement to the police that on 25.4.12 he alongwith his brother Naeem has gone to Village Kanganheri for labour and at about 6 p.m, they were returning to their home and when they reached near ganda nala. He did not tell to police that two accused who were with the police, had pointed out ganda nala where they had thrown dead body of deceased after committing his murder and they took out the dead body tied with a stone from ganda nala, at the instance of accused. He came to know about name of accused persons as Inderpal and Sachinder@ Mota and he also came to know name of deceased as Lalit @ Gandhi.

31. During his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, he stated that they had taken out the dead body till 3 p.m. No stone was tied with the dead body and at that time , the body was floating on the bank of the nala. They stayed at the spot till 7 p.m. At about 6.30 p.m , police brought two persons in custody and police directed them to bring the dead body again from ganda nala and after this, police took their photographs and that of those two FIR 45/12 Page 41 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc persons, after they retrieved the dead body from ganda nala. When they reached at the spot, the body was floating and the police persons were already present. They did not visit the police station. They came to their house after leaving the spot. They did not meet the police after that day.

32. PW17 is Naeem. He has deposed that around 1 & ½ years ago on 25th of some month, a call was received at about 10 p.m from the SHO . Police Vehicle came and he alongwith his brother Momin ( PW15) went to the police station. They stayed at PS for about 2 hours. Thereafter they were taken to the site. It was a nala in which one dead body was floating. At 3 P.M, they took out the dead body from the ganda nala. 6/7 police officials were present there . Nothing else has happened in his presence. Two boys were brought later on at about 6.30 P.M. Thereafter, he was also declared hostile & cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP. During his cross examination, he denied to have made any statement to the police. During cross examination by ld. defence counsel , he stated that he had never visited the area of ganda nala prior to the above stated date and time and they used to FIR 45/12 Page 42 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc work as divers in the area of Wazirabad only.

33. PW18 is H C Bhnau Partap. He has deposed that on 1.5.2012 accused Inderpal @Mandu and Sachinder were already in police custody. He alongwith the accused, SI Praveen Kumar, H C Krishan Kumar, Ct. Balwan and Inspector Rajesh Dahiya went to a small forest ( Bani) of village Surerha in pursuant to disclosure statements made by the accused , one esteem car was recovered at the instance of accused. Some blood stain parts of seat cover were cut off. One disposable glass was also found in the car which was sealed by the IO in a transparent small bags. At the instance of accused Inderpal, 3 empty cartridges and one lead were recovered from the bushes. IO prepared sketch of the cartridges and seized the same after sealing with the seal of RKD. Crime team also reached there and took photographs of the car. They went to village Galibpur where accused pointed out place of occurrence IO recorded statements of two public witnesses namely Parkash and Vijender. Crime team took photographs there . Accused were produced before the court. They again went to village Galibpur where IO recorded statement of father of deceased and came back FIR 45/12 Page 43 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc to P S. Crime team had come to the spot before cutting the seat cover and seizure of the articles.

34. In his cross examination, he stated that he never participated in the investigation of this case except on the the date as stated in his examination in chief. He is not witness to the disclosure statements of accused but he knew that the same were recorded at 8.30/9 a.m by Inspector Rajesh Dahiya. They left police station at 10 a.m in official vehicle bearing no. DL 1 CJ 4864 for going to the spot. The distance between police station and bani should be around 34 k.ms and abadi from the bani area is at a distance of about 2 k.ms . They remained at the bani up to 12 noon. The track shown in the photographs was used commonly by the people of the area. IO has asked public persons to join the investigation but he does not know what was their answer. There must be around 20 to 30 shops on the way from police station to bani spot. He does not know the persons contacted were owners of shops or just passers by . He is not a witness of any document/ memo of this case. SHO /Io had informed the crime team from his wire less set soon after coming out of the police station. Crime team must have FIR 45/12 Page 44 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc arrived after about 1530 minutes of their reaching the spot. The keys of the car were with the IO The Incharge, crime team had handed over the inspection report to the IO.

35. PW19 is Ct. Hardeep Singh. He has stated that on 2.7.12 , on being called by IO/ Inspector Rajesh Dahiya, he reached P S and thereafter, they went to ganda nala opposite Hari Tima Tourist Complex, Village Kanganheri. He took rough measurement and notes at the instance of IO. Thereafter, he also went to semi forest area ( banii ) in Village Surerha where he took rough measurement and prepared rough notes at the instance of the IO. Thereafter, he came to his office. Later on, he prepared scaled site plans Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B and destroyed the rough notes and measurement.

36.PW20 is ASI Ved Prakash. He stated that on 25.4.12 he was on emergency duty for 24 hours. On receipt of DD No.16 A at about 4 p.m, he alongwith Ct. Pradeep went to Village Galibpur where complainant Azad Singh met them who informed him about missing of his son since 22.4.2012.

FIR 45/12 Page 45 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc He informed SHO regarding the facts of the case who directed him to bring complainant to village Kanganheri but Azad Singh did not accompany him as he was having some problem in his back. One Raj Kumar Daral, the uncle ( fufa) of deceased, accompanied him to village Kanganheri. SHO / Inspector Rajesh Dahiya met him there and two accused Inderpal @ Mandu and inder @ Mona were in the custody of IO. The police staff of P. S, J.P Kalan was also present there. On interrogation, both the accused admitted that they have murdered Lalit @ Gandhi and thrown the dead body in the nala after tying the same with stone. They also pointed towards the place where they had thrown the body. The dead body was taken out and identified by Raj Kumar Daral as his nephew. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of Raj Kumar and sent rukka through Ct. Anuj Kumar to P S with rukka for registration of FIR. IO inspected the spot and prepared site plan. Crime team was also present there. Before taking out the dead body from nala, photographs were taken by private photographer. IO recorded statement of private photographer and members of crime team. Ct. Anuj came back with rukka and copy of FIR at the spot and handed over the same to the IO. Accused led them to FIR 45/12 Page 46 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc firni road , village Galibpur and pointed out the place where they had fired shots. IO tried to trace the empty cartridges but in vain. Thereafter, they went to the house of deceased Lalit but the family members of deceased could not give their statements due to grief. Before going to village Galibpur, IO had seized from the spot i.e ganda nala bunch of hair, blood, earth control and one sport shoe of right foot and sent the dead body to RTRM hospital through H C Krishan. He alongwith IO went to RTRM hospital . The medical examination of accused was also conducted.

37.During cross examination, he stated that he had visited only one house which belongs to Azad Singh. Except Azad Singh and Raj Kumar, no one else was in the room. He did not notice anybody present in the house except Azad Singh and Raj Kumar. From the house of Azad Singh also , he travelled on his motorcycle to the place told by the SHO. Raj Kumar Daral had not travelled with him. He had gone of his own on his own motorcycle. Raj Kumar accompanied him on his motorcycle. He remained at the spot from 5.30 p.m to 10.15 p.m. After making inquiry from Azad Singh, he did not make any missing report nor FIR 45/12 Page 47 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc he had taken any details about the wearing clothes, shoes etc nor he had taken the descriptions or identification mark of the person, reported to be missing. He has no knowledge where from, when and by whom the accused were apprehended. The statement of Raj Kumar was recorded by SHO himself at the spot at about 7.30 p.m. Ct. Anuj returned to the spot after getting the case registered at about 10 p.m. The IO had recorded statements of crime team and private photographer at about 9 p.m. The IO had enquired about FIR number on phone from the duty officer at about 9 p.m. No disclosure of any of the accused persons was recorded in his presence. His statement was recorded in police station about 11.45p.m. The crime team did not have the photographer on that day and he did not know who had arranged the private photographer. He did not mention in his statement u/s 161 cr.p.c about taking FIR number and section from Duty officer by the IO. In his presence ,no site plan was prepared at Firni road. He had only seen father of deceased and did not see any other family member of deceased. Io had told him that family members of deceased were not in a position to give statement. He denied that he did not visit Village Galibpur or that he met father of deceased pursuant to FIR 45/12 Page 48 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc call received by him.

38.PW21 is Sh. Azad Singh. He stated that he was having some problem in his backbone and due to this, he used to remain in the house On 22/4/12, his son Lalit went to Rohtak to meet his sisterinlaw (Bhabhi) who was in hospital but he did not return. He waited for him for 3 days but no clue was found. Then, he made a call to police on 100 number from the phone of one Tony S/o Ranbir Singh as his phone was having some network problem and later on, he came to know that he ( his son) has been murdered. He received an information from police. PCR van came to his house. He was called to identify the dead body. Sh. Raj Kumar Daral, the Fufa of deceased Lalit, had gone along with police on that day who after returning told him that his son was murdered by three accused and dead body was thrown in a drain near Kanganheri and the accused got the dead body recovered. He did not remember whether police had recorded his statement or made inquiries from him.

39. During his cross examination, he stated that he cannot FIR 45/12 Page 49 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc tell the date, month when Lalit went to jail and when he was released. He did not know the name of the hospital where the Bhabhi of Lalit was admitted. He further denied that he made any call on number 100. The police had reached to him after about 1 ½ / 2 hours after making call at 100 number. He further stated that the police officials did not have any interaction with him.

40.PW 22 is ASI Attar Singh. He stated that on 25/4/12, on being called through control room, he reached the spot i.e. Ganda nala opposite Harit Marg Tourist Complex along with his team comprising of himself, Photographer, Ct Arun Kumar and fingerprint proficient Ct. Manish Kumar He inspected the spot. Ct. Arun Kumar took the photographs of the spot from different angles. The dead body was taken out from ganda nala in his presence, at the instance of both the accused and photographs of dead body after being taken out were also taken. He prepared his report Ex PW22/A. On 1/5/12, on the direction of SHO, he along with his team went to Bani of village Surhera from where one Maruti Esteem Car was recovered by local police at the instance of accused person and empty cartridges alongwith lead were recovered from the spot FIR 45/12 Page 50 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc near the car. His detail report regarding his inspection of the spot is Ex PW22/B.

41. During cross examination, he stated that on 25/4/12, he received the information at about 5 pm. He had filled up the particulars of the case in his report, on the basis of information received from IO at the spot. The persons were called to retrieve the dead body. In column no. 11 of his report i.e. Exhibits which may be seized by IO, had not been seized till the time, he prepared the report but were seized later. He is not witness of disclosure memos and pointing out memos of any of the accused persons as the same were not prepared in his presence. He had examined the dead body but he cannot tell the time when he examined the dead body. He did not mention the factum of examination of dead body in his report. He admitted that he has not mentioned in the report as to where the injury were noticed by him. He had noticed the gun shot injury himself which was on the forehead and he does not know about the other injuries. Perhaps sustained in stomach. He received information on 1/5/12, at about 10 am and on that day, he did not see any dead body. He filled up the column no. 3, 4, 5 and 6 on the basis of FIR 45/12 Page 51 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc information received from IO and the spot was 34 kms away from village Surhera. Nobody opened the lock of the car in his presence. There is nothing mentioned in his report whether the car was locked or not. He examined the diggi of the car also and had obtained the keys from IO. He admitted that the point where the car was examined by him, was a kaccha raasta and was not a thoroughfare. During his stay there, no public person visit the spot. He did not prepare any site plan of place of cartridges and lead. He denied that he did not visit the spot at any point of time or that he had prepared his both the reports at the instance of IO while sitting in his office. He further stated that photographers of crime team did not tell him as to how many photographs were taken by them.

42.PW 23 is HC Jai Bhagwan. He has proved the original FIR No. 3/12, PS : Jafarpur Kalan as Ex PW23/A (OSR). During cross examination, he stated Ct. Sandeep had typed the FIR in CIPA and he did not issue certificate required u/s 65B. He denied that a line at point X shown in dim printing was inserted later on.

FIR 45/12 Page 52 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

43. PW24 is Ct. Rakesh. He has stated that on the directions of duty officer on 25.04.12, he took the copies of FIR contained in the envelopes to the residence of Ld Metropolitan Magistrate and Senior Officers of police and delivered the same at the resident of Ld MM and Sr. Officers of Police

44.PW25 is HC Krishan Kumar has stated that after registration of FIR, he alongwith SI Praveen Kumar, Ct. Anil and Ct. Anuj reached Jhuljuli Mor where ASI Sahib Rao , ASI Sushil Kumar and other AATS staff met them. Two accused persons namely Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota were produced before SI Praveen. SI Praveen interrogated accused Inder Pal @ Mandu in case FIR no. 44/12 and arrested him in that case. IO recorded his disclosure statement in which the accused Inderpal @ Mandu confessed his involvement of murder of one Lalit @ Gandhi. Thereafter, they left for near Tourist Complex , Kanganheri, Ganda Nala. SI Praveen Kumar informed SHO on telephone and they reached at the said spot. Aftersome time , crime team reached there and at about 6 p.m SHO Inspector Rajesh Kumar Dahiya reached the spot. In the mean time, ASI Ved Prakash alongwith Ct.

FIR 45/12 Page 53 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Pradeep and one Raj Kumar Daral 'fufa' of deceased came there. SHO made inquiry from both accused I.e Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder@ Mota and both of them confessed their involvement of committing murder of Lalit @ Gandhi and throwing dead body of deceased in ganda nala . Thereafter, dead body of deceased was taken out from the ganda nala at the instance of both the accused persons. Raj Kumar Daral identified the dead body of deceased as his nephew. The dead body was also identified by both the accused persons. SHO Rajesh Kumar recorded statement of Raj Kumar Daral and made his endorsement and sent Ct. Anuj to police station for registration of FIR . He left the spot at about 8.15 p.m. Thereafter, on the directions of the SHO , he took the dead body of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi to mortuary of RTRM hospital and deposited the dead body in the mortuary. Thereafter, he returned to the P.S. His statement was recorded by IO on 26.4.2012 at midnight.

45.He further stated that on 1.5.2012, he again joined investigation alongwith SI Praveen Kumar , H C Bhanu Partap and Ct. Balwan. On that day, at about 8.15 a.m both the accused persons were taken out from the lock up and FIR 45/12 Page 54 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc handed over their custody to H C Bhanu Partap and Ct. Balwan. Both the accused thoroughly interrogated and they told to the IO that they had hidden Maruti Esteem Car in semi forest area of Village Surehra and they had thrown the empty cartridges there. Their supplementary disclosure statement to this effect were recorded . Thereafter, both the accused took them to semi forest area of Village Surehra and got recovered one maruti esteem car bearing no. H R 26 A BA2426. Crime team was called who reached there at about 10.45a.m. The spot was inspected by Crime team. The car was checked and it was found opened and the key was put in the ignition. Blood stains were noticed on the front and rear seat of the car and one disposable plastic glass having blood stains were lying between left front and rear seat. Six pieces having blood stains of seat cover were cut by the IO and sealed with the seal of RKD and seized the same. Thereafter, at the instance of accused persons, three empty cartridges ( two cartridges of 9 mm and one cartridge of 7.65mm) and one bullet lead were recovered which were sealed into pullanda after preparing their sketch and seized by the IO. Pointing out cum seizure memo ( Ex.PW25/A) of above said articles was prepared. PW25 proved seizure FIR 45/12 Page 55 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc memo of empty cartridge and lead as Ex.PW25/B, sketch of cartridges as Ex.PW25/C and seizure memo of car as Ex.PW25/D which were prepared in his presence and bears his signatures. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and deposited the case property in mal khana. Thereafter, he alongwith IO , Crime team , both the accused and the police staff went to the scene of crime I.e in Village Galibpur , where accused persons pointed out the place of incident between the house of one Prakash and Vijender . Crime team inspected the spot and recorded statement of said persons I.e Prakash and Vijender. Then, they produced both the accused persons before Ld. MM in Dwarka court and both the accused were sent to J/C . Again, they went to Village galib pur and recorded statement of Azad Singh, father of deceased. Thereafter, they returned to police station at about 8.30 p.m. This witness identified all the case property and proved the same as Ex.PX2 to Ex.PX11.

46. During his crossexamination, he stated that he is not a witness of any document prepared on 25.4.12 at Jhuljuli mor or ganda nala spot. He had reached at Jhuljuli Mor at about 5 p.m and left the said spot at 6 p.m. He does not FIR 45/12 Page 56 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc know when and where accused Sachinder was arrested. The distance The distance between Jhuljuli Mor and Ganda Nala should be about 67 k.m. It might have taken them to reach Jhuljuli Mor about 10 minutes and they might have used Gypsy for their transportation. He does not remember whether the said Gypsy belongs to police department or it was private vehicle. He cannot tell number of the vehicle nor he can give name of the driver. They reached Jhuljuli Mor in same gypsy in which they left for Ganda Nala. They had gone via the road along side the Ganda nala. They were the first to reach Ganda nala and he cannot tell who arrived after them and at what time. He does not remember after how long of their reaching Jhuljuli mor , SI Praveen interrogated accused persons nor he can tell if any documentation was done during or after the interrogation. Kanganheri Tourist complex should be around 200 250 meter from ganda nala spot. No paper work was done in his present, so he cannot say what all documentation was done at the spot. As far as , he remember only one document i.e rukka was prepared at the spot and nothing else. He alongwith dead body left ganda nala spot at about 8 .35 p.m. Ct. Anuj had taken rukka 1015 minutes prior to his leaving FIR 45/12 Page 57 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc the ganda nala spot. He cannot say at what time Ct. Anuj returned to the spot nor he can say if he had come back or not. He cannot say as to in whose custody, the accused persons were at ganda nala. He does not remember if any documentation was done prior to discovery of the dead body. The persons who took out the dead body were brought by SHO so, he cannot say where from they had come. He cannot tell if any document was prepared after the dead body was taken out. He does not remember time of his reaching the police station from RTRM hospital after depositing the dead body in mortuary. He did not made any arrival entry with regard to his arrival in the police station from the mortuary. He cannot tell time when his statement was recorded by the IO. He had seen the dead body but he cannot tell size of maggots thereon. He also cannot tell any identification mark on the dead body. He admitted that FIR number was not communicated to him when he left for the mortuary with the dead body or when he deposited the dead body in the mortuary.

47. PW25 further stated that on 1.5.2012, he does not remember the time of his leaving the police station .

FIR 45/12 Page 58 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Similarly, he cannot tell time of his returning to the police station but it was dark. He does not remember all the places visited by him on 1.5.2012. However, he remember his visiting at village Surehra Bani. He does not remember from what time to what time, they remained at village Surehra Bani. On 1.5.12 also ,he did not sign any document as a witness so, he does not know whether any documentation was prepared prior to leaving the police station or not.

48. Further, he stated that the maruti Esteem car was open so, there was no occasion of arranging the key from anybody and the car's keys were in ignition of the car. He does not remember if any site plan of the place where the car was noticed bythem was prepared or not. He does not remember for how long they stayed at the place of discovery of the car. Even by approximation also, he cannot tell if it was 10, 20 minutes or more or less. He admitted that place where the car was stationed , was an open place accessible to all public persons and it was not a restricted area. Probably, there was no passage for the persons for going to their fields . He does not know if there were fields ahead of the place where the car was FIR 45/12 Page 59 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc parked. The village should be at distance of about 1/ 1 ½ k.m from the point where the car was noticed by them. For going to the place of car, the route was not from the side of the village. He denied that Ex. PW25/A was signed by him in the police station or that no proceeding had taken place in his presence. He does not know whether keys of the car were also seized or not. He does not remember, as to how the car was removed from the spot for being taken to P. S. Even , he does not remember if the car was toed away by the crane or any other vehicle or it was driven to the police station. The car was not in the bushes but on a katcha road. He denied that nothing was recovered or disclosed by any of the accused persons or that he has deposed falsely in this regard. He denied that Ex. PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B, Ex. PW25/C and Ex. PW25/D were not prepared in the manner as stated by him. However, he does not remember if he had signed any other document or not.

49.PW26 is Sh. Krishan Dagar s/o Sh.Zile Singh. He is a photogrpaher . He stated that on 25.4.12, on being called by SHO, he reached at the spot I.e near ganda nala in front of Haritima Tourist Complex for conducting videography FIR 45/12 Page 60 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc on the spot. Some police officials 78 in numbers alongwith two accused persons were present there. On the direction of the IO, he had conducted the videography of the spot but due to some technical problem , the entire video tape got damaged and no video clip/CD could be prepared in respect of this videography. When he reached at the spot, the dead body had already been taken.

50.PW27 is Sh.sunil s/o Sh. Randhir singh . He has stated that his uncle Sh. Satbir Singh is registered owner of Esteem car bearing no. H R 26 BA 2426 and he had purchased the said car from his uncle 12 months prior to this case. On 25.4.12, police took the said vehicle from the plot after taking keys from him and police asked for the documents of the car but he could not furnish the same as he had submitted the documents in concerned authority for transfer of the car in his name. Police told him that said car was a stolen vehicle and they were taking away the same. Police did not record his statement nor made inquiries from him at any point of time. The said vehicle is still with the police and he can identify the same. He identifed the said car as Ex.PX1. Thereafter, he was declared hostile and was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP FIR 45/12 Page 61 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc for the state.

51. During his cross examination on behalf of state, he stated that he denied that police had recorded his statement on 4.5.12. He did not tell police that on 22.4.12 at about 10.30 p.m, accused Inderpal @ Mandu came to him and told him that his son was seriously ill and he required his car for taking his son and he had given his car to Inderpal @Mandu but Inderpal @ Mandu did not return alongwith his car nor contact him. He denied that he has been won over by accused as his co villager and deposing falsely.

52.During cross examination on behalf of accused, he stated that police did not make any document at the time of taking the keys from him. The car was not in working order so, it was towed away by the police with the help of a Gypsy.

53.PW28 is SI Sushil Kumar . He has stated that on 25.4.12, ASI Sahab Rao of AATS was having some information that two boys would go towards Village Rawta from Village Ujwa and they were having illegal arms with them. After informing senior officers about the information, a raiding FIR 45/12 Page 62 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc party was custituted comprising himself, ASI Sahib Rao, H C Vinot, H C Vijay, Ct. Anil, Ct. Hawa Singh and others. At about 12 noon, they left their office and reached Jhuljuli mor at about 1.30p.m. At about 2 p.m, one motorcycle appeared coming from Village Ujwa , it was stopped at the instance of secret informer. The name of motorcycle rider was came to know as Sachinder and name of pillion rider of motorcycle was revealed as Inderpal @ Mandu. Both of them failed to furnish documents of the said motorcycle. On formal search of accused Inderpal @ Mandu, one country made pistol of 9 m.m was recovered from his right dub. The pistol was checked and it was found containing two live cartridges. ASI Sahib Rao prepared the sketch of pistol and cartridges and converted the same into sealed parcel and sealed the same with seal of VK and seized the same. The seal was handed over to Ct. Hawa Singh after use. ASI Sahab Rao prepared rukka and sent Ct. Anil Kumar to P S for registeration of FIR. As per consultation with senior officers, SI Praveen Kumar came from P S J.P Kalan and he took over the investigation of this case. SI Praveen Kumar arrested the accused persons, took their personal search and conducted further investigation. SI Praveen FIR 45/12 Page 63 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc interrogated both the accused and informed P S JP Kalan about involvement of both the accused in FIR no. 45/12. Inspector Rajesh Dahiya came there from P S J. P Kalan. Both the accused persons were also interrogated by Inspector Rajesh Dahiya and both of them admitted their involvement in case FIR no.45/12. Then, Inspector Rajesh Dahiya called Crime team and the divers and both the accused persons took them to drain from where one dead body of a male person was taken out from the drain. The name of the deceased was revealed as Lalit. Some persons from the village of deceased also reached there. Further proceeding qua dead body was conducted by Inspector Rajesh Dahiya at the spot and thereafter, they left the spot for their office.

54. During his cross examination, he stated that SHO Inspector Rajesh Dahiya did not come at Jhuljuli Mor and his statement to this effect in case FIR no. 44/12 P S JP Kalan is incorrect. He is not a witness on any document in both the cases i.e FIR no. 44/12 and 45/12 as such he cannot say what document, when and through whom the same were got prepared. SHO Inspector Rajesh Dahiya had not come at Jhuljuli Mor in his presence. He had FIR 45/12 Page 64 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc signed his statement after going through the same on 18.1.2014. He did not notice in his statement about reaching of SHO at Jhuljuli Mor at that time so, he could not point out that this fact had been wrongly mentioned. He denied that after due deliberation of IO of this case and to support the case of the prosecution, as per version of other witnesses, he is deliberately changing his statement today even after taking the oath. He admitted that for reaching Ganda nala from police station JP Kalan , one has to pass through Jhujuli Mor. Jhuljuli Mor is at a distance of about 12 15 k.m from P S. The distance between Jhuljuli Mor and the spot from where the dead body was recovered should be around 810 k.m. No one was present at the spot prior to their reaching Ganda Nala. It took them about half an hour for reaching ganda nala spot from Jhuljuli Mor. He does not know when and by which mod, SHO crime team at the spot. Crime team reached Ganda Nala spot after about 30 to 45 minutes. His entire team left the ganda nala spot at 9:309:45 p.m. None of the official of his team witnessed any document of case FIR no. 45/12. On the basis of normal practice that the IO calls the crime team, he stated in his statement that the crime team was called by the IO /SHO FIR 45/12 Page 65 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Rajesh Dahiya in the present case. He does not know who were the persons, who took out the dead body as the entire arrangement was made by local police. The persons who took out the dead body arrived at ganda nala spot after 3035 minutes of their reaching there. As far as he remember, crime team had arrived prior arrival of the persons who took out the dead body from ganda nala. He does not know if the persons who took out the dead body were called from Wazirabad or that they were contacted in the morning at about 10 'O clock. He denied that they were present at the spot prior to arrival of their team. He denied that he neither visited Jhuljuli Mor nor ganda nala Kangan heri or that he has become a witness to strengthen the case of the prosecution, at the instance of IO of this case. No paper work was done after interrogation from the accused persons of this case, in his presence.

55.PW29 ASI Sahab Rao deposed on the line of PW28 who was a team member of raiding party headed by him. During his cross examination, he stated that he was posted as ASI in Anti Auto Theft Squad in April 2012. The information as stated by him regarding this case was not FIR 45/12 Page 66 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc with regard to any stolen vehicle. They remained at Jhujuli more spot from 1 p.m to 6.15 p.m. SI Praveen had reached there about half an hour before they left the spot alongwith two constables. He had taken search of Mandu only the other person, however, other was not searched by him. The other person with accused Inderpal @ Mandu was not detained by him, he ( Sachinder ) volunteered to stay there. SI Praveen Kumar did not prepare any document on his information. SI Praveen Kumar had prepared only one document in his presence I.e fard havaligi of documents. He is not a witness of any document pertaining to case FIR no.45/12. At ganda nala spot, he remained from 6.30 p.m to 8.40 p.m. None was present there prior to them and entire team of their reached at the same time. He does not know what proceedings were conducted, as long as , he remained at ganda nala spot. The police crime team had come during his stay there at 8.35 p.m and one or two relatives of deceased came there at about 7 p.m. Some one from local police station had gone to call them but he does not know the name of said official, who had arrived after half an hour of his reaching there. Public people had gathered and he was busy in keeping them away. No paper work FIR 45/12 Page 67 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc was done in respect of FIR no. 45/12 in his presence. Since, he did not participate in the investigation , so he cannot say if statement of anybody was recorded by any police official. He denied that accused Inderpal @ Mandu was not apprehended in the manner stated by him or that he did not visit ganda nala, Kanganheri spot . On the oral directions of the SHO, he accompanied SI Praveen Kumar to ganda nala, kanganheri spot despite the fact that the custody of the accused had already been handed over to local police at Jhuljuli mor itself.

56. PW30 is constable Anil. He has stated that on 25.4.2012 he alongwith SI Sahab Rao, SI Sushil, H C Manoj , H C Vinod, H C Vijay, Ct. Hawa Singh and Ct. Rajesh went to Jhuljuli Mor and at about 2.30 p.m accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder were apprehended while coming on a motorcycle. During search of accused Inderpal Mandu one country made pistol was recovered which was loaded with two live cartridges. ASI Sahab Rao conducted the proceedings qua recovery of the weapon and he got the case registered through him vide FIR no. 44/12 P S JP Kalan. Further investigation of that case carried out by SI Praveen Kumar who had also come to the FIR 45/12 Page 68 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc spot. After arrest of accused Inderpal, he ( accused ) made his disclosure statement that he alongwith his associates Sachinder and one Amit had murdered one Gandhi of their village. Thereafter, accused persons and they went to Kanganheri road near Ganda Nala where accused Inderpal Mandu and said Sachinder pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body of Gandhi in the nala. Crime team also came there, One private photographer was also called. At the instance of accused persons, one dead body was taken out from Ganda nala and same was identified by one person who was the phupha of deceased. IO recorded statement of said Raj Kumar Daral , the phupha of deceased and he got the case registered through constable Anuj. I.O recorded statement of the witnesses including crime team member and photographer and they were relieved from there and dead body was shifted to RTRM hospital.

57.During cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded at Jhuljuli mor in case FIR no. 44/12 and both the accused made their disclosure statement at Jhuljuli mor before SI Praveen Kumar. The disclosure statement of said accused persons was not recorded in his FIR 45/12 Page 69 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc presence in case FIR no.45/12. The distance between Jhujuli Mor and Kanganheri Ganda nala should be around 1415 k.ms. They had started from Jhuljuli mor at about 6.30p.m and reached Kanganheri at about 7.308 p.m. he is not a witness on any document pertaining to case FIR no. 45/12. He noticed about 1015 police officials and 1012 public persons already present there at Kanganheri Ganda nala when he reached there. SI Parveen Kumar was in a Govt. Gypsy and they were in private vehicles. The entire AATS team left together with him at about 9 9.30 p.m . After aorementioned date, he never joined the investigation of this case. IO of the case FIR no. 45/12 never issued any notice/ summon to him for making him join the investigation after 25.4.12. He denied that he has become witness in this case at the instance of senior officials or that he has deposed falsely.

58.PW31 is Sh. Atul Singh Pawar s/o Sh.Bhole Singh Pawar.

He has stated that he is working as Manager in Hotel Gaurav opposite bus stand, Rishikesh, Uttrakhand. On 29.4.12, police came to him alongwith two persons and enquired about the stay of above said persons on 23.4.12. After checking the record, he had told the IO that on FIR 45/12 Page 70 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc 23.4.12 at about 8.40 p.m, two persons had come to the hotel and stayed till 8 a.m on the next day I.e 24.4.12. They had made entries in the name of Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder and handed over photo copy of visitor book. The copy of relevant entry of hotel book is Ex.PW31/A. He cannot identify those persons who had come alongwith police as many persons used to come to his hotel. Thereafter, this witness was declared hostile on the point of identity of accused persons. Even in his cross examination, he denied that accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota had come to his hotel on 23.4.2012.

59.During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he stated that he did not handover any proof with regard to his employment in the said hotel as same was not asked for. His statement was recorded in his hotel by the IO. He admitted that he did not give the alias name of the accused persons . He admitted as correct that there is some overwriting in the serial numbers mentioned in the register including in the relevant entry. He does not know if any handing over memo of photocopy of register book was prepared by IO or not.

FIR 45/12 Page 71 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

60.PW32 is ASI Pardeep Kumar . On 25.4.12 , he recorded FIR no.44/12 u/s 25 Arms Act ( Ex.PW32/A) on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Anil . The investigation was marked to SI Parveen.

61.PW33 is SI Parveen Kumar. He stated that on 25.4.2012 investigation of case FIR no. 44/12 u/s 25 Arms Act was assigned to him and at about 4.45 p.m he reached the spot alongwith H. C Krishan. ASI Sahib Rao , the complainant of case FIR no. 44/12 alongwith his staff met him and he ( ASI Sahib Rao ) produced accused Inderpal @ Mandu and one Sachinder @ Inder. He also produced the case property of case FIR no. 44/12. He arrested accused Inder Pal @ Mandu in case FIR no. 44/12. On interrogation, he ( Inderpal @ Mandu) disclosed that he alongwith Sachinder @ Inder had murdered one Lalit @ Gandhi on the night intervening 2223.4.2012 by pistol recovered in FIR no. 44/12. The copy of disclosure statement of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu recorded in FIR No. 44/12 is Ex.PW33/A vide which accused had disclosed that he alongwith his associates had disposed off the dead body in Ganda nala near Kangan Heri. Accused Inderpal had also disclosed about one Amit who was also involved FIR 45/12 Page 72 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc in that incident. He informed SHO P S JP Kalan, Inspector Rajesh Dahiya on telephone in this regard. Sachinder @ Inder was also detained . Thereafter, he alongwith accused Inderpal and said Sachinder @ Inder and the staff of ATS went to Ganda Nala, opposite Haritma Tourist complex , village Kangan heri. After some time, Inspector Rajesh Dahiya came there at about 6 p.m. Crime team also came there after sometime. ASI Ved Prakash of P S JP Kalan came there alongwith one Raj Kumar Daral, the uncle ( Phupha) of deceased. Divers were also called. He had seen blood stains on the stairs going downwards ganda nala and hair strand were also lying there. At the instance of accused Inderpal @ Mandu and the said Sachinder @ Inder , one dead body of male was taken out from gandanala. The dead body was tide with one big stone. Raj Kumar Daral identified the dead body as his nephew Lalit @ Gandhi. The crime team photographer took the photographs of the spot. One private videographer was also called and he video graphed the site. Inspector Rajesh Dahiya recorded statement of Raj Kumar Daral and he got the case registered through constable Anuj at about 8.15 P.M. IO recorded statement of crime team officials and relieved FIR 45/12 Page 73 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc them from there. I.O lifted and seized blood stains on cotton gauze from the stairs, strands of hairs from stairs, blood with concrete, control sample of concrete and one white colour sport shoe of right foot vide seizure memo already Ex. PW1/B. The dead body was sent to R.T.R.M hospital through H C Krishan. IO arrested Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Inder vide arrest memos Ex. PW33/B and Ex. PW33/C. Their personal search were taken vide memo Ex. PW33/D and Ex. PW33/E. Accused persons made their disclosure statements vide Ex. PW33/F and Ex.PW33/G. Accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW33/H and Ex. PW33/I. Thereafter, they took the accused persons to the hospital where their medical examination was got conducted. Thereafter, both the accused persons were lodged in lock up and case property was deposited in mal khana.

62. On 26.4.2012 postmortem of deceased was got conducted at RTRM hospital Mortuary and doctor handed over four sealed parcels alongwith two sample seals to the IO after postmortem which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW33/J. After postmortem, the FIR 45/12 Page 74 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased vide memo Ex. Pw5/B after getting the body identified vide memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW33/K. Thereafter, the accused persons were produced in the court and five days police custody remand was taken. After taking police custody remand, they returned to the police station.

63. On 28.4.2012, he alongwith IO and both the accused persons went to Haridwar after taking permission in search of another pistol used in this case but same could not be recovered. Thereafter, they went to the hotel where the accused had stayed in Haridwar and IO collected photo copy of relevant entry of the hotel and recorded statement of Manager u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter,they returned to the police station on 30.4.2012.

64. On 1.5.2012 both the accused persons were taken out from lock up and they made their supplementary statements Ex.PW33/L and Ex.PW33/M stating that they had hidden the vehicle in which the dead body was brought in the semiforest area of Village Surerha. Thereafter, they alongwith accused persons went to Bani FIR 45/12 Page 75 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc of Village Surerha from where one maruti esteem car bearing no. HR26BA2426 was recovered at the instance of accused persons. The car was not locked. IO called crime team at the spot. On checking of said car, one blood stained plastic dispose able glass in crushed condition was found lying in between of rear seat and front left seat. The blood stains were also found on the seat cover of the car on different places. Crime team photographer took the photographs of the car. Thereafter, IO cut six blood stain pieces of seat cover from different places and seized them alongwith crushed plastic glass vide memo Ex. PW25/A after converting the same into different seals parcel sealed with the seal of RKD. Thereafter, the said car was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/D. At the instance of both the accused persons , three empty cartridges and one bullet led were recovered which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/B. One empty cartridge ( 7.65 m.m) and two empty cartridges ( 9 m.m ) were recovered. The sketch of empty cartridges and bullet led was prepared vide Ex. PW25/C. Accused persons led them to village Galib Pur where they pointed out place of occurrence vide pointing out memos Ex. PW33/N and Ex.PW33/O. The case property was deposited by the IO in FIR 45/12 Page 76 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc the mal khana. IO recorded statement of public witnesses namely Prakash and Vijender. Thereafter, both the accused persons were produced in the court and were remanded to J/C.

65. On 24.5.2012 accused Amit surrendered himself before the court of ld. MM from where he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW33/P and the accused made his disclosure statement Ex. PW33/Q . 3 days police custody remand was taken of accused Amit by the I.O and he pointed out the place of occurrence I.e the place of throwing dead body and place of leaving car vide pointing out memo Ex.PW33/ R, Ex.PW33/S and Ex. PW33/T. They tried to search pistol involved in this case but same was not found.

66. On 18.6.2012 on the direction of IO, he took the exhibits of this case to FSL Rohini and deposited the same in biology division and obtained receiving of the same. On 20.6.2012 on the direction of IO, he deposited the exhibits in ballistic division of FSL Rohini and obtained the receiving of same. He also identified all the case property as Ex.PX2 to Ex.PX17.

FIR 45/12 Page 77 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

67. During cross examination, he has stated that he had conducted complete investigation of FIR No. 44/12 and had filed the charge sheet under his signatures. He admitted that he had signed various documents in FIR no. 45/12 in which accused Inderpal is same. He had joined the investigation in FIR no. 45/12 67 times on oral directions of IO of this case and no written communication was made in this regard. Inspector Rajesh Dahiya, IO of this case met him for the first time on 25.4.12 at about 6 p.m at Ganda Nala near Haritima Tourist complex after his leaving the police station in connection with FIR 44/12. The distance between Jhuljuli Mor and Ganda Nala spot is about 68 k.m. He had gone through in QRT gypsy but did not remember registration number of said gypsy. He did not mention number of gypsy in departure entry made by him while leaving police station for Jhuljuli Mor. He also did not mention that he was leaving P S in QRT gypsy. He does not remember name of driver of said QRT gypsy as these vehicles were private. QRT gypsy are deployed as per directions of DCP and officers of P.S can use the same as per their requirement. He cannot say whether FIR 45/12 Page 78 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc control of QRT gypsy with DCP and his subordinate staff. The record of travelling through QRT is maintained in log book of the vehicle. He does not know if the officer who use the QRT is required to sign the log book of QRT. He did not fill the timings of retaining the vehicle with him in the log book. He does not remember whether he had seen the log book of QRT gypsy. He denied that he has made a false statement with regard to use of QRT or that no such vehicle was used by him on that day when he reached Ganda Nala spot , no one was there. He had informed SHO through his mobile phone no. 9868609298 from Jhuljuli mor at about 5.15 to 5.30p.m. He did not inform duty officer of PS JP Kalan regarding making of disclosure statement of accused Inderpal and his movement from Jhuljuli mor to Ganda nala spot. He left Jhuljuli mor after 15 minutes of making call to SHO. He had given detailed information about the disclosure of Inderpal Mandu recorded by him. He had shown the disclosure statement of Inderpal at Ganda nala spot to the SHO when he met him for the first time, at about 6 p.m. SHO might have arrived at the spot after 23 minutes after his reaching. He does not know who else with the SHO at that time. SHO was accompanied by 23 FIR 45/12 Page 79 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc officials but he cannot tell their description. In his presence, SHO did not call for crime team so, he cannot tell as to at what time and how the crime team was summoned. The crime team reached within 1520 minutes of arrival of SHO. He does not remember now as to how long the crime team remained at the spot nor he can tell whether it was for 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours or more. No senior officer arrived at the spot, as long as he remained there. However, ASI Ved Prakash alongwith relative of deceased had also arrived at the spot within 57 minutes of arrival of crime team but he does not remember time of the same. It is however correct that by that time, the dead body had not been extricated. The divers were not brought specifically by anybody but they were passers by and were called by Inspector Rajesh Dahiya. He cannot tell time of arrival of those passers by nor he can tell even by approximation as to how long of arrival of ASI Ved Prakash, passers by were called. He was not told by anybody that two passers by were divers. Since they had taken out the dead body so, he referred them in his statement as divers . Names and addresses of the two persons addressed by him as divers , were inquired in his presence. They both were resident of FIR 45/12 Page 80 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Wazirabad area. In his presence the SHO did not inquire about the reason of their presence in the area of P S Chhawla at the time when they were called in this case. He admitted that Haritima Tourist complex was not in the jurisdiction of P S JP Kalan. To his knowledge no information was sent to the Police Station Chhawla, having jurisdiction of the area of Gandha Nala. No police official from Police Station Chhawla visited the spot of Gandha Nala as long as they remained there.

68. He further stated that neither the stone nor the tying material, as deposed by him in his statement was not seized by the investigating officer of this case. IO did not lift any tyre marks from the vicinity of ganda nala. The impression of tyre marks of maruti esteem car were also not taken by the crime team officials. He does not know who and from where the private videographer was brought but he knows his name and address of business. His name is Krishan Dagar and shop is at Rawta Mor and he came at the spot at about 7 p.m but he does not know his mode of transportation. He had come alone. He does not remember when the video photographer left the spot. He had covered the spot by video graphy for FIR 45/12 Page 81 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc about 2025 minutes. The videography made by Mr. Krishan Dagar has never been seen by him till date. He does not know after how long of arrival of the divers, the video grapher had come. The hair strands and blood was lifted by the IO and not by him and same were lifted after arrival of videographer. The hair strands and blood were also covered in the videography . Since the camera was on, so he can say that hair stands and blood were also covered though, he has not seen the videography.

69. For transfer of custody an accused in case to IO of other case, handing over memo is to be prepared. In this case, no handing over memo of accused was prepared. He cannot give any specific reason for not preparing handing over memo of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu to the I.O of case FIR no.45/12. The documents of case file no. 44/12 were not handed over to the IO of case FIR no. 45/12 but the same were only shown to him. He cannot tell the date of the said handing over photo copies of documents to IO of case FIR 45/12. No receipt/ fard / memo was prepared at the time of handing over photo copies of documents.

FIR 45/12 Page 82 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

70. On 26.4.2012 he remained associated with the investigation of this case from 9 a.m to 10 p.m approximately. He joined investigation at about 12 'O clock and remained associated with investigation till 30.4.2012, however he does do not remember the time of the same. During this period also he was the IO of case FIR no. 44/12. He does not remember the places visited by him on 28.4.12. To his knowledge the departure entries were made by Inspector Rajesh Dahiya on 28.4.12 but he cannot tell time of such entries. He admitted that there is no mentioned of three pistol or their use in the disclosure statement of accused Inder Pal in case FIR 44/12. In none of the disclosure statements of accused Inder Pal , there is no mention of three pistol or their having been used in this case. He was informed verbally this fact by the IO. He admitted that no fire arm was recovered in pursuance of disclosure statement of any of the accused persons. He did not tell complainant Raj Kumar Daral about the disclosure of Inderpal @ Mandu. He had visited the spot before arrest of accused Amit and before his taking to the spots. He denied that disclosure statement of Inderpal @ Mandu was recorded later on in FIR no. 44/12 or that accused Amit is falsely implicated in FIR 45/12 Page 83 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc this case .

71. He himself did not take permission from his senior officers for going out of station. They had hired a private vehicle which was a safari and driven by Ct. Gurudev. He cannot tell the names of police stations visited by them for the purpose of investigation of this case on their visit to Haridwar. He remember the name of only one police station I.e P S Kotwali, Rishikesh, Uttrakhand. He does not remember the time of their visit in P S but it was noon time. No local police official from P Skotwali was taken by the IO for joining the investigation of this case. They did not visit any police station at Haridwar. The hotel , stated by him in his statement was in the jurisdiction of P S Kotwali. They retruned to Delhi on 30.4.12 in the evening. On 1.5.212 he remained associated from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. They had visited Surehra Bani, Village Galibpur and Dwarka court. He had handed over custody of accused Sachinder at about 6 p.m on 25.4.12 to the IO of the present case. IO interrogated accused Sachinder at Ganda Nala spot at about 7p.m for about 15 minutes. He admitted that by that time, accused Sachinder was being interrogated, it was already dark and no paper work could FIR 45/12 Page 84 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc be done without light. The writing work was done in the head lights of vehicle of SHO. Besides the head light of the vehicle, there was one torch also. The SHO was having search light operated by battery also in his vehicle. He denied that no paper work was done at the spot or that they did not have the lighting arrangement or that he has deposed falsely in this regard. The arrest of accused Sachinder was made after about 2 hours of his interrogation. The disclosure statement of accused Sachinder was written after about 2 ½ hours of his interrogation.

72.No seizure memo of the car keys was prepared in his presence. He had seen the key of the car which was without any key ring and it was only one key. The key was in the ignition of the car. He admitted that this fact is not recorded in any of the documents of this case that key of the car was in the ignition. They remained at the place where the car was seized, for about 1 ½ hour. The IO did not call any independent witness from the village or otherwise before the search and seizure of the car. Car was then towed behind the gypsy for being taken to police station. There was a rope in the gypsy which was FIR 45/12 Page 85 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc using in towing the car to the police station. They reached the police station at about 11.30 12 noon. No documentation was done, in his presence , in the police station after they reported back to the police station. No departure / arrival entries were made on 1.5.2012, after arrival and before departure for Galib Pur. He admitted that articles i.e disposable glass seized from the car are readily available on almost all the stalls / shops etc. He denied that nothing else was recovered at the instance of accused persons on that day. On 24.5.2012 he joined the investigation from 11 a.m to 7 p.m. On that day, they had visited Dwarka Court and Gurgaon Jhajar road. He admitted that there was no recovery / discovery pursuant to disclosure of accused Amit. The seal used on 1.5.2012 had impression on RKD. He does not know who produced the seal on that day or to whom it was handed over after, it was used. His statement was recorded by IO of this case on 25.4.12 at about 12.30 a.m in the police station and again at about 8 p.m in the police station. He does not remember dates and timings and place of recording of his other statements by the IO. He does not remember if any attempt was made to lift chance print from the car. He denied that being an I.O of case FIR no. 44/12 and to FIR 45/12 Page 86 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc attract conviction for the accused, he has become a witness in case FIR no. 45/12 or that for succeeding in the case investigated by him, he has made false statement in this case against the accused. He denied that proceeding / investigation had not taken place in the manner , as stated by him or that being an interested witness, he has made improvements in the statement made in the court.

73.PW34 is Smt. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Senior Scientific Officer .

She has stated that on 18.7.2013 15 parcels were received in the office of FSL Rohini and same were assigned to her for examination. She examined the exhibits and prepared her detailed DNA report Ex.PW34/A. The report was sent to SHO P S JP Kalan through covering letter Ex.PW34/B. In her opinion, the DNA profiling performed on the source of exhibits 6a ( torn plastic glass disposable) , 6b ( rexine piece with foam), 6f ( rexine piece), 6g ( rexine piece with foam) and 10 hair of deceased is sufficient to conclude that the stains I.e blood stains on the source of exhibits I.e exhibits 6a ( torn plastic glass disposable), 6b ( rexine piece with foam), 6f ( rexine piece ), 6g ( rexine piece with foam) and hair in exhibit 10 ( hair of deceased) are from the FIR 45/12 Page 87 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc same source.

74.PW35 is Inspector Rajesh Dahiya . He stated that on 25.4.2012 he was posted as SHO of P S J.P Kalan and at about 5.15 p.m when he was in DCP office Dwarka, Delhi, he received a phone call from SI Praveen Kumar who was investigating case FIR no. 44/12 u/s 25 of Arms Act regarding arrest of accused Inderpal @ Mandu and his confession about his involvement in case FIR no.45/12 qua murder of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi . SI Parveen also informed him that Inderpal @ Mandu disclosed that he alongwith his associates Sachinder and Amit and after committing murder of Lalit @ Gandhi, they dumped the dead body of deceased into a drain near Kanganheri Village. On this, he flashed the message and informed District Crime team and he also informed one videographer namely Krishan Dagar to reach the spot I.e drain near Haritima Tourist Complex, Kanganheri Village. At about 6 p.m, he alongwith staff reached the spot where SI Parveen alongwith accused Inderpal @ Mandu and his associates Inder @ Sachinder and staff of AATS South West District was already arrived. Crime team had also reached. In the mean time, ASI Ved Prakash FIR 45/12 Page 88 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc alongwith Constable Pradeep and one Raj Kumar ( Fufa) of deceased came there. ASI Ved Parkash was having a DD entry regarding missing of Lalit @ Gandhi and he was making inquiries in respect of that DD. He made interrogation from both Inderpal and Sachinder jointly in presence of all the persons present there and both the accused jointly made their disclosure statement that they alongwith one Amit had murdered Lalit @ Gandhi on the night intervening 22/23.4.2012 on the outer periphery road of Village Galibpur and had thrown the dead body in the drain near Haritma Tourist Complex. Both the accused persons jointly disclosed that they had enmity with Lalit @ Gandhi previously as Lalit @ Gandhi alongwith his associates had fired upon Inderpal @ Mandu. He requested some passersby to assist the police in taking out the dead body from the drain. One Momin and Naeem , resident of Jagatpur who were working as labourer, were passing through the way and they agreed to assit the police in taking out the dead body from the drain. On joint pointing out of both the accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota, dead body was taken out from the drain by said Momin and Naeem with the help of the staff. The public persons present at the spot FIR 45/12 Page 89 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc identified the dead body to be of one Lalit @ Gandhi . Raj Kumar Daral, fufa of deceased also identified the dead body and he recorded statement Ex.PW1/A of Raj Kumar Daral and sent rukka to P S through Ct,. Anuj for registeration of FIR. During process of taking out the dead body from the drain, photographer of crime team ct. Arun was taking photographs on his directions and videographer ASI Attar Singh was recording video of entire proceedings which was being conducted at the spot, on the directions of crime team branch. ASI Attar Singh crime team Incharge prepared his report and handed over to him which he took on record. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PW35/B of the spot. He recorded the statement of crime team staff and relieved them from there. The videographer was also released after recording his statement. The dead body was sent to RTRM hospital, Mortuary through HC Krishan and got the same preserved there. He recorded the statement of AATS staff members namely ASI Sahib Rao, SI Sushil Kumar, Ct. Anil and Head Constable Manoj and they were relieved from there. He collected blood stains from concrete stairs with the help of cotton gauze, strains of hair from concrete stairs, blood with concrete, control sample of concrete and one white FIR 45/12 Page 90 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc colour sport shoe of right foot having blood stains from there and converted the same into different seal parcels and Sl no. 1 to 5 was provided to those parcels and thereafter, he seized those parcels vide seizure memo Ex PW 1/B. After interrogation, both the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex PW 33/B and 33/C respectively. He took their personal search vide memo Ex PW 33/D and E respectively. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons vide disclosure statement Ex PW 33/F and G respectively. He prepared pointing out memo of drain at the instance of accused persons vide memo Ex PW 33/H and Ex.PW33/ I respectively. During the period of interrogation with the accused persons, Ct. Anuj returned to the spot along with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. After completing the investigation from there, he along with both the accused person and staff and paternal uncle of deceased namely Raj Kumar Drall went to village Galibpur. They also visited the house of Lalit @ Gandhi where the father of deceased and other family members met him but they were not in a position to talk due to grief. He recorded supplementary statement of Raj Kumar Drall and he was relieved by him. Thereafter, they went to RTRM FIR 45/12 Page 91 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc hospital where both the accused persons were got medically examined and then they returned to P.S. lodged both the accused persons in the lock up and he deposited the case property with the MHCM. He recorded statements of witnesses including SI Parveen, ASI Ved Parkash, HC Krishan, Ct Pradeep and Ct. Anuj respectively.

75.On 26.04.2012, he recorded the statement of special messenger Ct. Rakesh in the morning. He called said Momin and Naeem in the P.S and recorded their statements as they could not give their statements on 25.04.2012 as they were in hurry to go their house due to illness of their father. He along with staff went to the RTRM hospital in the mortuary and he conducted inquest proceedings vide Ex PW 35/C collectively and the dead body was identified by Raj Kumar Drall and one Ram Dass uncle of deceased. After postmortem, the dead body of deceased was handed over to the relative of the deceased. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Parvinder Singh. After postmortem, Dr. Parvinder Singh handed over to him four sealed parcels along with two sample seals containing the clothes and blood sample, two bullets and hair strands of deceased which he seized vide seizure memo already Ex FIR 45/12 Page 92 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc PW 33/J. Thereafter, they returned to the P.S and he deposited the case property with the MHCM. Thereafter, both the accused persons were produced before Ld Magistrate at Dwarka Courts and he took 5 days P.C remand of both the accused persons. On further interrogation, both the accused persons told that they could get the car recovered and could get their coaccused Amit arrested and they kept on them roaming on different area of Delhi and Gurgaon but nothing could be recovered at their instance. Thereafter, they returned to the P.S. He recorded the statement of SI Parveen.

76. On 27.04.2012, he examined one Jai Singh S/o Tadbeer Singh who had gone Rohtak along with deceased Lalit @ Gandhi on the evening of 22.04.2012 and he had dropped Lalit @ Gandhi at the periphery road of village Galibpur at about 9.30 p.m and he had also seen the accused persons in the nearby area. On 28.04.2012, during investigation, accused persons took them to Rishikesh where they had concealed the weapon of offence and they had stayed. They reached Rishikesh on 29.04.2012 and accused persons took them to hotel Gaurav near bus stand where Manager of hotel Mr. Atul Pawar met them and on FIR 45/12 Page 93 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc interrogation he (Mr. Atul) identified both the accused persons and confirmed their visit. He also produced the photocopy of visitor's register of the hotel of 23.04.0212 having the entry of stay of accused persons in the hotel. He took on record the photocopy of visitor register Ex PW 31/A and recorded the statement of Mr. Atul. Thereafter, they returned to Delhi on 30.04.2012. He recorded the statement of SI Parveen.

77. On 01.05.2012 both the accused persons namely Inderpal @ Mandu and Inder @ Sachinder were again interrogated and he recorded their supplementary disclosure statements Ex PW 33/L and M respectively and pursuant to their supplementary disclosure statements, both the accused persons took them to Bani (semi forest area) of village Surehera where they saw a silver colour Maruti Esteem car no. HR 26 BA 2426. Thereafter, they called the crime team on the spot. The door of the car was opened and the key was available inside the car. Crime team inspected the car and photographer of crime team took the photographs of car from inside and outside and they noticed some blood stains on the rear seat as well as on the area between front and back seats. Three empty FIR 45/12 Page 94 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc cartridges and one lead of bullet were also lying there at a distance of 34 feet from the car. One disposable plastic glass was also lying there which was also blood stained. He cut the blood stained portions of rexin seat cover and seized them along with disposable plastic glass vide seizure memo Ex PW 25/A. He prepared the sketch of empty cartridges and a lead vide Ex PW 25/C. He also seized the empty cartridges and a lead after converting the same into three sealed parcels vide seizure memo Ex PW 25/B. He also seized the car vide seizure memo Ex PW 25/D, prepared the site plan of that place vide Ex PW 35/D and pursuant to their disclosure statements, accused took them to the place where they had fired shot on the deceased in village Galibpur. When they were going to Village Galibpur P.S J.P. Kalan was falling on the way and he deposited the case property with the MHCM and then they proceeded for village Galibpur. After reaching Village Galibpur, both the accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex PW 33/N and O respectively. He examined the persons namely Parkash and Bijender Singh opposite whose house the incident had taken place and recorded their statements. Crime team was with them and the photographer of crime team took the photographs of FIR 45/12 Page 95 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc that place including one dog who sustained bullet injury. He collected the report of crime team incharge from him and he recorded his statement and relieved him.

78. Further, he stated that he produced both the accused persons before Ld M.M and accused persons were remanded to J.C. Thereafter, they went to village Galibpur where he recorded the statement of father of deceased and then they returned to the P.S. He recorded the statements of witnesses namely SI Parveen, HC Bhanu Pratap and HC Krishan respectively. On 04.50.2012 , he contacted one Sunil Kumar Dagar from whose mobile phone call on 100 number was made. He recorded his statement. He also recorded the statement of Veterinary Inspector Mr. Ashok Dagar regarding the treatment of dog. He also examined Mr. Sunil Dagar, the owner of the car of village Galibpur from whom accused persons had taken the car however the registered owner was relative of Sunil Dagar. During the course of investigation, he sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through SI Parveen and he recorded his statement as well as statement of MHCM. During the investigation, accused Amit has surrendered in the court of Ld M.M on 24.05.2012. He formally arrested FIR 45/12 Page 96 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc him after taking permission from the court. The arrest memo of accused Amit is Ex PW 33/P. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex PW 33/Q. Accused Amit pointed out the place of occurrence, place of throwing the dead body and place of leaving car vide memos Ex PW 33/R to Ex PW 33/T respectively. Accused Amit was produced in the court and was remanded to J/C. He got the scaled site plan prepared through draftsman HC Hardeep and placed the same on record. He recorded his statement also. After completing the investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the court.

79. During cross examination, he stated that on 25.4.2012, he left the police station at about 3 p.m for crime review meeting. He had made departure entry with regard to his leaving the police station for DCP office. The meeting had started at about 4 p.m and lasted for an hour. Minutes of the meetings are prepared and so, the minutes with regard to the meeting, referred to in this case, were also prepared. He did not visit the police station, after he received the phone call from SI Praveen Kumar. He did not have any information about the registration of case FIR no. 44/12, prior to receiving the call from him. He FIR 45/12 Page 97 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc left the office of the DCP immediately, after receiving the call. At that time , he was having his official mobile phone no. 8750871033 but he cannot tell the calling number from which the information was received. The duration of the call must have been about one minute. The distance between ganda nala spot and office of DCP should be around 10 k.m. He was having his official gypsy and was accompanied by the driver only. It might have taken around 40 minutes to reach the ganda nala spot from DCP office. Ganda nala falls in the jurisdiction of P S Chhawla. He did not make any communication to the SHO / duty officer of P S Chhawla with regard to the information received by him from SI Praveen Kumar. However, he had made communication to the control room S/W through wireless set. He did not make any communication to the duty officer of his police station giving him information about his visit to Ganda Nala from the office of DCP. He did not see the disclosure statement made by accused Inderpal @ Mandhu ,as informed by SI Praveen Kumar. Whatever information was given to him by SI Praveen Kumar on his mobile phone, he took the same as correct and proceeded for ganda nala spot. He cannot give the date, time and FIR 45/12 Page 98 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc month when he go through the disclosure statement of Inder Pal @ Mandu first time.

80. He further stated that accused Sachinder was not in detention when he saw him at ganda nala spot. Therefore, there is no occasion for him to ask as to under what provision of law , he was detained. He was told by SI Praveen Kumar that pursuant to disclosure made by Inderpal @ Mandhu , giving names of three persons including Sachinder , he was brought by him to the spot. It was 6 p.m when he reached the spot of ganda nala. SI praveen Kumar with staff members namely H C Krishan, Ct. Anuj with accused Inderpal and Sachinder, SI Susheel Kumar with staff members namely ASI Sahib Rao ,H. Ct. Manoj Kumar , Ct. Anil and some other 45 police officials whose name ,he does not recollect, were present when he reached the spot of incident. Besides crime team had also reached there. He had also called private videographer. The government vehicle used by him had a log book in it. He did not fill in the distance or destinations travelled by him in the said vehicle on 25.4.2012. The log book is maintained by driver of the vehicle. Ct. Praveen had filled the log book. He reached FIR 45/12 Page 99 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc at the P S at 11.45 p.m on 25.4.2012. At 5.15 p.m, on 25.4.12 he informed the crime team from the office of DCP, to reach the spot. At the same time, he had called the videographer at the spot through phone call. The recording of videographer was vitiated so, he could not file the same on the judicial record. He has mentioned this fact in the charge sheet about vitiating of videographing. Videographer was known to him earlier as he was called by him in other cases. He does not know the exact amount which was given to the said videographer but he had submitted the bill to him which was paid to him. He has not placed any document to show the payment having been made to the private videographer.

81.He further stated that the ganda nala covers the area of Haryana, Bhadurgarh, Jafarpur, Chhawla and further into West District. On the information provided to him by SI Parveen Kumar, he communicated to the crime team to reach near Haritima Tourist Complex, Village Kanganheri. The distance between Haritima Tourist Complex and village Kanganheri should be around 2 or 2 ½ km. The police party, the accused and the ATS officials were present on the ganda nala road near Haritima Tourist Complex. He FIR 45/12 Page 100 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc denied that the spot was known to the police party/ATS staff or SI Parveen was known to them prior to recording of pointing out memo. The pointing out memo was prepared later. He interrogated both the accused persons and got the dead body taken out from the nala and the dead body was got identified through the relative of deceased. Then, he recorded the statement of Raj Kumar and prepared tehrir and send the same to P.S for registration of the FIR and also he inspected the site. Then, he recorded the statement of witnesses. During this period, he seized the exhibits and recorded the disclosure statement of accused persons after their arrest. Thereafter he prepared the pointing out memo. Further, he stated that he prepared the pointing out memo at about 10.0010.30 p.m. Prior to that he had recorded the disclosure statements of both the accused persons. He denied that all the documents were prepared by him at the spot, after the preparation of pointing out memo. Crime team had left the spot of ganda nala after 2½ hours of his arrival. During this period, he recorded the statement of Raj Kumar Drall, prepared rukka, prepared site plan and recorded the statement of crime team staff. He also collected the report from IC Crime Team. The said two persons who retrieved the dead FIR 45/12 Page 101 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc body were joined at about 6.30 p.m. He denied that the above said two persons were with him since 10.00 a.m and they were arranged from Wazirabad Bridge. He admitted that both the above said persons were resident of village Jagatpur, Wazirabad. He did not verify the place where they had come. He did not note down the name of persons who have been stated to be present at the spot and identified the dead body. He does not know their names however they were from Village Galibpur. They were relatives of the deceased. He did not mention this fact in the charge sheet. The dead body was noticed in ganda nala at a distance of about 20 ft from blood stained stairs. The dead body was retrieved from ganda nala after 1½ hour of his arrival. The statement of Raj Kumar Daral was recorded after about 5 minutes of retrieval of dead body. He admitted that he did not seize the stone and the tying material. He replied to the question of collecting missing report stating that the relevant DD entry is already on the file. At around 5.20 p.m, SI Parveen informed him about the arrest of accused in case FIR no. 44/12 and thereafter ,ASI Ved Parkash informed him about receiving PCR call about missing of Lalit @ Gandhi. ASI Ved Parkash has informed me about all these facts FIR 45/12 Page 102 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc telephonically. He had all the details of description of deceased as he had fired on accused Inderpal @ Mandu and was arrested in FIR no. 3/12, P.S. J.P. Kalan. He was an accused in that case. He was not having case FIR no. 3/12 at the time of retrieval of dead body. He was aware about the description. From the spot, dead body was sent to the mortuary. He had not sent FIR no. 3/12 to mortuary. The height of deceased should be between 5 ft 7 inch to 5 ft 9 inch and his weight was around 8090 kg and he was having wheatish complexion. He does not remember whether he was having any specific point of identification on his body. He does not know what description of case was written in inspection report however, inspection was carried out in respect of this case only. He being the SHO was guiding the crime team at the spot. This fact is mentioned in the charge sheet. He admitted that the place where the alleged shots were fired was thickly populated area, having houses around. He has not collected any evidence to prove the place from where accused had taken water for washing the spot of incident. He did not find any blood at the spot of firing. He did not get the said spot inspected by FSL. The District Crime Team also did not find any blood stained spot or sign of blood at that place.

FIR 45/12 Page 103 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc He admitted that the said spot is very busy area having heavy traffic. The weather was pleasant as persons were sleeping outside their houses. He denied that since no such incident had taken place in the manner as deposed by him or that the witnesses produced by him were not the truthful witnesses or due to this reason they have not supported the case projected by him.

82. Further, he stated that the photographs were taken by the District Crime Team on 01.05.2012 at about 12 noon. He does not remember how many photographs were taken by the photographer. The crime team had handed over inspection report to him. He admitted that in column no. 7 of Inspection Report Ex PW 22/B date of offence is mentioned as 22/23.4.12 and date of inspection is not mentioned however word "inspection" is inserted at point X. Word "inspection" inserted in column no.7 has no relevance with this column. On 01.05.2012, crime team had inspected two places and prepared combined report. He denied that nothing was found on the spot so no observation was required to be made in inspection report. The report Ex PW 22/B was prepared at village Galib Pur. Crime team had reached at Surehera Bani about 10.45 a.m. FIR 45/12 Page 104 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc and remained there for about ½ and hour. Thereafter, the crime team visited Galib pur and remained there for about half an hour. The crime team officials had prepared rough notes only. In photographs Ex PW 7/A1 (D1,D2 and D3), the stairs are not seen. The gloves seen in the photographs were worn by three persons were in his official vehicle. Besides gloves there were some other equipment also pertaining to the investigation. The dead body was retrieved and identified by the persons and Mr. Raj Kumar Daral and subsequent thereto only, the rukka was sent for registration of the FIR. It is recorded in Ex PW 1/A that the dead body had been identified by PW1 Raj Kumar Daral vide Ex. PW 1/A. He did not take the hair sample of any of the accused persons. He also did not obtain blood sample of any of the accused. He did not ascertain the blood group of the deceased. Since, he did not ascertain the blood group of the deceased so he cannot say blood noticed on the stairs were of deceased or not. He admitted that he was well aware of the fact that SI Parveen Kumar was investigating officer of case FIR no. 44/12 of PS J.P.Kalan. He was aware of this fact also that the accused of FIR No 44/12 was also an accused of FIR No 45/12. SI Parveen Kumar remained associated with FIR 45/12 Page 105 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc him in investigation of Case FIR No 45/12 throughout. SI Parveen Kumar recorded statements of some of the witnesses and also prepared some documents of this case.

83. Further , he stated that he had made efforts to recover the cloths of accused persons but could not as the accused persons did not cooperate. He has not mentioned this fact anywhere in the chargesheet or any other record. The car was in open condition when noticed by them. The photographs were clicked by Crime Team at the point where it was discovered. He denied that the car shown in the photographs is on a kacha rasta and not in the isolation. He denied that the car was not recovered in the manner stated by him or that the car was brought from the house of Suneel or that it has been wrongly projected/shown having been discovered in the bani of Surehera village. He did not know about the educational qualification of Raj Kumar Daral. He denied that Raj Kumar Daral was called through ASI Ved Parkash after the recovery of dead body or that it had already been retrieved when Raj Kumar Daral was brought to spot by ASI Ved Parkash. He denied that under duress Parkash S/o Man Singh and Vijender S/o Bikhla Ram were forced to FIR 45/12 Page 106 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc become a witness or that they did not know anything about the case or that signatures of Raj Kumar Daral were obtained on blank sheet in the police station and later, the rukka was prepared on that. Supplementary disclosure statement led them to recovery of car, cartridges and blood stains. The supplementary disclosure was recorded in the PS on 1.5.2012 at about 9 a.m. No independent witness were called prior to recording of the supplementary disclosure. He had interrogated the accused persons during the days from 25.4.2012 to 1.5.2012. He admitted that no document was prepared with regard of investigation of accused Sachinder and Inder Pal Mandu from 25.4.2012 to 1.5.2012 till the supplementary disclosure was recorded. He had not minutely examined the dead body to know whether Maggots were present on the dead body or not.

84. During cross examination on behalf of accused Amit, he stated that when he interrogated both the accused persons at the spot the complainant Raj Kumar Daral was also present on the spot. He admitted that in their disclosure statement, the accused persons mentioned the name of other accused persons. Name of accused Amit is FIR 45/12 Page 107 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc not mentioned in the rukka but word 'uneoney' (those) were mentioned in the rukka. He admitted that name of accused Amit is not mentioned in the FIR. Nothing is on record to show that he deployed any police person in search of accused Amit and nothing came in his investigation whether the accused Amit was present or not. Besides statements of witnesses examined under section 161 cr.p.c, there is no other evidence to show that the accused Amit was present in the village on the night of 2223/4/2012. He admitted that there is nothing on record to show that the accused Amit had any enmity with the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that he had friendship or close proximity with the other accused persons. He denied that the disclosure statement of accused Sachinder @ Mota was manipulated later on and the accused Amit was falsely implicated by him and that is why the name of the accused Amit did not mention in the rukka or in the FIR. Prior to preparing the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Amit, all the spot were in his knowledge and he had already visited/ examined/ inspected all the spots. The disclosure statement of accused Amit was in the handwriting of SI Parveen Kumar and he is also attesting witness of the said FIR 45/12 Page 108 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc disclosure. He admitted that he has nowhere mentioned that the same were written by SI Parveen on his dictation. He admitted that nothing on record to show that he visited for the search for another pistol belonginig to accused Amit in pursuance of his disclosure statement. He denied that he did not try to search the alleged pistol because he was well aware that accused Amit was falsely implicated by him and he did not make any such disclosure statement or that nothing could be recovered as such.

85. It is contended by the Ld. State Counsel that accused with common intention have committed the murder of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi during the intervening night of 22/23.04.2012 on the outskirts of the village Galibpur. Accused followed the deceased Lalit @ Gandhi who had alighed from the car of his relative and fired upon him, in the presence of PW2 Prakash and PW3 Bijender, who died on the spot. He further contended that accused Inderpal @ Mundu brought the Maruti Esteem car bearing no. H26 BA 2426 belonging to Sunil s/o Randhir Singh on the pretext that he has to take his son to hospital and thereafter, accused picked up the dead body of the FIR 45/12 Page 109 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc deceased from the spot and after putting the dead body in the said car, had thrown the same in the drain/Nala after tying the dead body with a heavy stone in front of Government Tourist Complex, Village Kaganheri. He further contended that accused have hidden the Maruti Esteem car in the semi jungle (Bani) of Village Surerha and accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota went to Haridwar and left accused Amit in Delhi. Thereafter, they returned to Delhi. He also contended that on 25.04.2012 accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota while coming on motorcycle bearing no. DL 9S W 2682 were apprehended and a revolver was recovered from the possession of accused Inderpal @ Mandu, who disclosed to AATS that they have murdered deceased, Lalit @ Gandhi during the intervening night of 22/ 23.04.2012. He also contended that the information was brought to the notice to SHO, PS, J.P. Kalan who reached at the spot i.e Ganda Nala, Kanganheri village and a separate FIR Under Arms Act was recorded against the accused Inderpal @ Mandu. Father of the deceased Sh. Azad Singh got lodged a DD regarding missing of his son. He also contended that at the joint discloser statements accused Inderpal @ Mandu & Sachinder @ Mota, the dead body of deceased FIR 45/12 Page 110 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc was recovered by police from the Ganda Nala, Kanganheri Village.

86. He also contended that on 1st May, 2012 accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota made joint supplementary disclosure statement and got recovered Maruti Esteem car bearing no. H26 BA 2426 from semi jungle of village Surerha. He also contended that FSL report depicts that weapon recovered from the possession of accused Inderpal @ Mandu, was used by them in the commission of murder of deceased Gandhi, as the bullet recovered from the dead body has been opined to have been fired from said pistol so, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused and they deserve to the convicted accordingly.

87. Ld. Counsel for the accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota has contended that the accused have been falsely implicated. He contended that On 25.4.2012,accused Inderpal @ Mandu was apprehended by the official of AATS and FIR No. 44/2012 was registered at Police Station, J.P Kalan accused Inderpal disclosed about FIR 45/12 Page 111 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc the commission of offence of murder for which separate FIR No. 45/12 was lodged. It is further submitted that in FIR No. 44/12 fourteen witnesses have been examined. The pubic person have not supported the case of prosecution. Further, testimony of police witness is highly unreliable which makes the story of prosecution highly improbable. He also contended that there are severe lapses and wide gaps in the prosecution story and even circumstances make the story of prosecution unreliable as accused were not apprehended in the manner as put forth by the prosecution.

88. He contended that in DD No. 5 there is mention of accused persons as 'these persons', whereas all the witness address them as 'boys'. And neither the registration of the Motorcycle nor description of any of the accused persons mentioned in the DD. He also contended that even the registration of the car no. and other details are not mentioned. He also contended that as per testimony of PW1 there are three routes for going from village Ujhwa to village Rawta. He also contended that the accused have tried to flee away but no relevant provision of the IPC has been added and even the rider of the motorcycle has not been challaned for riding FIR 45/12 Page 112 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc motorcycle without helmet. He contended that there are material contradictions and vital discrepancies with regard to the apprehension of accused Inderpal @ Mandu & Sachinder @ Mota by the team of AATS, their search and recovery of country made pistol, arrival of local police at Jhujuli mor and thereafter recording of disclosure statement of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu admitting commission of murder of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi and thereafter departure of police official to Kanganheri , Ganda Nala and arrival of crime team. Thereafter fishing out of the dead body from the Ganda Nala at the instance of accused persons Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder, therefore, prosecution case is a bundle of lies as all public witnesses have turned hostile on the point of each and every fact which may connect the accused with the alleged offence. Reliance is also placed upon Tejinder Singh @ Kaka Vs. State of Pb by SC in Cri. Appl. 1279/08

89.Needless to mention that Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Defence counsel took me through whole material on record which includes voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence and written submissions.

FIR 45/12 Page 113 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

90.By now, it is evident that the case of the prosecution rests squarely on the circumstantial evidence. There is no direct eye witness to the crime. In such cases, the culprits are tracked either on the basis of last seen together or other circumstances appearing on the scene including motive of crime, from which their guilt is inferred. Such type of evidence is called as 'circumstantial evidence'.

91. It is settled principle of law that such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established.

(ii) those circumstances should be of such tendency which point towards guilt of the accused.

(iii) the circumstance, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that with all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and

(iv) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanations of any other hypothesis than that of the FIR 45/12 Page 114 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

92. As per prosecution story, on the intervening night of 2223.4.2012 accused have murdered the deceased Lalit @ Gandhi in the presence of PW2 Sh. Prakash , PW3 Sh. Vijender Singh, and when the dog of PW3 started barking said dog was also fired upon and received injury. PW3 got his pet dog treated from PW11 Ashok Dagar. After committing murder of the deceased, the accused brought the car bearing No. HR 26B A2426, of PW27, Sunil, and removed the dead body of the deceased from place of incident and tied it with a heavy stone and threw the same in the Ganda Nala near Kangan Heri Village and fled to Haridwar. They stayed at Rishi Kesh, Uttrakhand in the intervening night of 2324.04.2012. On 25.04.12 at about 3 p.m when they were coming from Village Ujjwa side for going to Galib Pur village, they were apprehended by AATS staff. On personal search of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu, one country made revolver / pistol alongwith two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. Both the accused told SI Sushil Kumar regarding commission FIR 45/12 Page 115 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc of murder with said weapon.

93. On 25.04.12 at about 4 p.m, father of the deceased namely PW21, Sh.Azad Singh, has made a call at 100 number from mobile phone number 9553661073 of PW9 Sh. Sunil. On getting this information , PW20 ASI Ved Prakash went to the Village Galib Pur and inquired from Azad Singh at 4.20 p.m. PW20 informed about the call to PW35 SHO Rajesh Dahiya, who, in turn, directed PW20 ASI Ved Prakash to bring complainant to Village Kanganheri but Azad Singh did not accompany the police. He instructed his brotherinlaw PW1 Raj Kumar Daral to accompany PW20 ASI Ved Prakash.

94.It may be noted here that official of AATS PW4 H C Manoj Kumar , PW29 ASI Sahib Rao , PW30 Ct. Anil, PW28 SI Sushil Kumar have already apprehended both the accused Inder Pal @ Mandu and Sachinder near juhljuli mor and local police was informed. In the mean time, police officials from P S, Jafar Pur Kalan namely PW10 Ct. Anuj, PW33 SI Parveen Kumar and PW25 H.C Krishan Kumar came to Jhuljuli Mor. PW28 SI Sushil Kumar interrogated accused Inderpal @ Mandu, who gave a disclosure FIR 45/12 Page 116 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc statement (ExPW33/F) and disclosed that he alongwith co accused has killed the deceased and threw the dead body in the Ganda Nala, Kanganheri Mor. PW28 SI Sushil Kumar informed the SHO and narrated these facts to him and also instructed Crime team to reach at the spot of incident near Ganda Nala. I.O further instructed PW26 Krishan Dagar, Private Photographer to approach the spot of incident i.e Kanganheri , Ganda Nala.

95. PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya reached the Ganda Nala, in front of Govenment Tourist Complex, Kanganheri and interrogated the accused Inderpal @ Mandu & Sachinder @ Mota jointly who confessed about the commission of murder by them alongwith co accused Amit in terms of their disclosure statements ExPW33/F & ExPW33/G respectively that they alongwith co accused Amit had murdered the deceased on the intervening night of 2223/04/2012 and had thrown the dead body in the Ganda Nala and had hidden the Maruti esteem car of Sushil near the area of Gurgaon, Haryana. Thereafter, they jointly pointed out the place where the dead body was thrown by them vide their pointing out memo (ExPW33/H & ExPW33/I respectively). They got the dead body FIR 45/12 Page 117 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc recovered from Ganda Nala in the presence of PW4 H.C Manoj, Pw7 Ct. Arun Kumar, PW10 Ct. Anuj, PW20 ASI Ved Prakash, PW25 H C Krishan Kumar , PW26 Sh. Krishan Dagar, PW28 SI Sushil Kumar , PW29 ASI Sahib Rao, PW30 Constable Anil and PW33 SI Parveen Kumar including public witnesses PW21 Azad Singh and PW26 Sh. Krishan Dagar. Thereafter, the accused were interrogated and they were taken to Rishi Kesh to verify regarding their abscondance and they have been found to have stayed in the Rishikesh Hotel. The relevant record was recovered from PW31 Atul Singh Pawar

96. Thereafter, on 01.05.2012 accused were again interrogated jointly by PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya and the accused disclosed that they had hidden the esteem car bearing no H R 26 BA 2426 in the semi forest area of village Surerha and in terms of their joint supplementary disclosure statement of accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota (ExPW33/L & ExPW33/M respectively), accused Inderpal @ Mandu & Sachinder @ Mota pointed out the place where they had hidden the car bearing no. HR 26 BA 2426 after committing murder of deceased. In terms of joint disclosure statement, maruti FIR 45/12 Page 118 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Esteem car was recovered from the bani (semi forest) of village Surerra in terms of joint disclosure statement as well as pointing out memo (ExPW33/W & ExPW33/Y respectively). The said Maruti Esteem car was got inspected by the Crime team inspector and photographs were taken and blood sample were taken from maruti car. DNA profile of the blood sample of deceased found in the car were got compared with the DNA of hairs of deceased.

97. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence and first link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is the testimony of police officials AATS, who on the basis of secret information went to Jhuljuli Mor, at about 2 p.m. Accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder were coming on motorcycle bearing no. DL9SW2682. Police asked them to stop but the accused tried to fled away but they were nabbed and from the possession of pillion rider namely Inderpal @ Mandu one revolver was recovered, which was seized by PW28 SI Sushil Kumar. This recovery of fire arm from the possession of accused Inderpal is tried to be proved by the prosecution by leading testimony of other members of AATS including that of FIR 45/12 Page 119 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc PW28, SI Sushil Kumar, who has stated that on 25.4.2012 a raiding party was constituted comprising of ASI Sahib Rao, H C Vinod, H C Vijay, Ct. Anil,Ct. Hawa Singh, HC Manoj and they reached at Jhuljuli Mor at about 1.30p.m and at about 2 p.m one motorcycle came from the side of Village Ujhwa. Accused InderPal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota were asked to furnish documents of the motorcycle but could not produce, and thereafter from personal search of accused Inderpal, one country made pistol of 9mm was recovered, which was found containing two live cartridges . PW29 ASI Sahib Rao prepared a sketch of pistol and cartridges and sealed the same in a parcel with seal of VK and said parcel was seized by ASI Sahib Rao vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/A and Ex.PW25/B. ASI Sahib Rao sent rukka through Constable Anil Kumar for registration of FIR.

98.Thereafter, registration of FIR ExPW44/12 under Arms Act, PW33 SI Parveen Kumar took over the investigation of Arms Act case. Both the accused were taken into custody and personal search was conducted. The apprehension of both the accused persons by AATS team member is corroborated by the testimony of PW4 H C Manoj Kumar FIR 45/12 Page 120 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc who has deposed on the lines of PW28 SI Sushil Kumar ,PW29 ASI Sahib Rao and PW30 Constable Anil, so far as apprehension of accused persons Inderpal @ Mandu & Sachinder @ Mota and recovery of pistol from accused Inderpal @ Mandu as well as disclosure statement of accused Inderpal @ Mandu (ExPW33/A) regarding his confession of having murder the deceased with the said pistol while sharing common intention with the co accused Sachinder and Amit.

99. From the con joint reading of the testimonies of these witnesses i.e PW4 H C Manoj, PW28 SI Sushil Kumar ,PW29 ASI Sahib Rao and PW30 Constable Anil, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving the fact that accused Inderpal was apprehended with pistol alongwith two live cartridge by the police official of AATS at Jhuljuli Mor who confessed his involvement in the murder of deceased Lalit@ Gandhi and thereafter throwing of dead body in ganda nala Kanganheri. I found no substance in the contention raised by the ld. Defence Counsel that the accused persons Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder were not apprehended in the manner as stated by the police FIR 45/12 Page 121 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc witnesses, as there are contradictions with regard to the arrival of AATS team at Jhuljuli Mor and thereafter, recovery of fire arm from the possession of accused Inderpal @ Mandu because this contention appears to be attractive but found fallacious and is hereby rejected, in as much as, all the police witnesses have unequivocally and categorically deposed that they were present at the spot near Jhuljuli Mor where accused came on the motorcycle and they were apprehended. There is nothing in their cross examination which may raise a cloud of doubt over their testimonies. All these witnesses withstood the test of cross examination and I found no reason to disbelieve their testimonies . They are truthful witnesses and that is why there are some minor discrepancies in their testimonies with regard to the arrival of AATS at the spot of incident is of no consequence.

100. The information regarding apprehension of the accused was sent by SI Sushil Kumar to PW35, SHO, Rajesh Dahiya who, in turn, flashed the message and informed the crime team to reach in village Kanganheri near drain. SHO also instructed PW 26 Sh. Krishan Daggar, a private FIR 45/12 Page 122 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc photographer, to reach the ganda nala, Kanganheri village for videography of the spot . PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya alongwith staff reached at the spot near drain village Kanganheri where SI Parveen alongwith accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder and staff of AATS S/W District arrived. PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya has further stated that he interrogated accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder who jointly made disclosure statement that they alongwith co accused Amit has murdered deceased Lalit @ Gandhi during the intervening night of 22/23.4.2012 on the outskirts of Village Galibpur and have thrown the dead body in the drain near Ganda Nala, Kanganheri village. Accused jointly pointed out the place where they had thrown the dead body of the deceased Lalit. PW35 Rajesh Dahiya requested some passersby to join the investigation and to assist the police in taking out the dead body from the drain., PW15 Sh. Momin and Sh. Naeem have come forward, who were crossing the area, to assist the police in fishing out the dead body from Ganda Nala. In the mean time, PW20 ASI Ved Prakash alongwith PW 1 Raj Kumar Daral reached at the spot of incident PW1 Raj Kumar Daral identified the dead body of the deceased as that of his FIR 45/12 Page 123 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc nephew Lalit @ Gandhi. PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW35 /A and sent the same through PW10 Ct. Anuj . The photographs Ex. A1 A 25 of fishing out of dead body were taken by PW7 Ct. Arun Kumar on the directions of PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya. PW26 Sh. Krishan Dagar took video of the process of taking out the dead body from the drain. PW22 ASI Attar Singh prepared crime team report and handed over the same to PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya . IO prepared rough site plan. This piece of evidence of PW35/IO Inspector Rajesh Dahiya whereby it is proved that the dead body of the deceased was retrieved from the Ganda Nala at the instance of accused Inder Pal @ Mandu & Sachinder @ Mota is not only corroborated by other police witnesses namely PW4, PW7, PW25, PW28, PW29, PW30, PW33 but by public witnesses namely PW1 & PW26. PW4 H C Manoj Kumar has stated that he alongwith other members of AATS team reached at Jhuljuli Mor Main Najafgarh Road at about 3.15 p.m and after 1015 minutes two boys came from the side of Jhuljuli Village Ujjwa who were apprehended. One fire arm/ pistol was recovered from possession of accused Inderpal @ Mandu. He admitted FIR 45/12 Page 124 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc that he alongwith his associates committed murder of deceased Lalit Gandhi and had thrown the dead body in ganda nala/ drain in village Kanganheri. Thereafter, PW33 SI Parveen Kumar came from P. S, J.P. Kalan and police officials took the accused persons to Kanganheri drain. One Photographer came there, Crime Team also came at the spot . Accused jointly made a disclosure statement that they had thrown the dead body of the deceased after committing his murder. This proceedings continued up to 6 p.m.

101. Other member of AATS team i.e PW29 ASI Sahib Rao has supported the case of the prosecution, who had apprehended the accused persons, near Jhuljuli Mor on the basis of secret information. The disclosure statement of the accused Inderpal @ Mandu that they had murdered the deceased and then thrown his dead body in the drain in village Kanganheri was recorded. SI Praveen Kuamr informed the SHO who came at spot i.e ganda nala, Kanganheri. Testimony of PW35, Inspector Rajesh Dahiya has been further corroborated by PW33 SI Parveen Kumar who is IO in other case bearing FIR no. 44/12. He stated that he informed SHO on telephone that accused FIR 45/12 Page 125 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Inderpal @Mandu had confessed regarding committing murder of Lalit @ Gandhi and accused Inderpal and Sachinder were also detained. PW33 SI Parveen Kumar alongwith staff member of AATS and accused persons went to Ganda Nala in Kanganheri Village . PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya came there. Crime team came there after some time. PW20 ASI Ved Prakash alongwith PW1 Raj Kumar Daral also approached to the spot where divers fished out the dead body from the drain which was videographed by one video grapher called by the SHO.

102. It may be noted that on 25.4.2012 PW4 H C Manoj Kumar, PW28 Sushil Kumar, PW 29 ASI Sahab Rao, PW30 Ct. Anil Kumar reached the spot of incident i.e Jhuljuli Mor after getting a secret information regarding coming of the accused persons on a motorcycle in the after noon. PW29 ASI Sahab Rao stated in cross that he remained at Jhuljuli Mor from 1.30 p.m to 6.15 p.m. PW4 H C Manoj Kumar stated that members of AATS reached Jhujuli Mor at about 3.15 p.m. PW28 SI Sushil Kumar stated that accused persons Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota were apprehended at about 2 p.m at Jhuljuli mor.

FIR 45/12 Page 126 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc PW30 Ct. Anil Stated that they reached Jhuljuli mor at about 2.30 p.m . Therefore, from the conjoint reading of the testimonies of PW4 H C Manoj , PW28 SI Sushil Kumar , PW29ASI Sahib Rao and PW30 Ct. Anil, it can be inferred that time of arrival of AATS team at Jhuljuli mor varies from 1.30 p.m to 3.15 p.m. Such variation in the time of arrival of AATS as deposed by these witnesses is not going to affect the prosecution story as contended by Ld Defence counsel as such variation can never be termed as contradiction or discrepancies which may affect the prosecution case, otherwise a truthful witness who deposes in a natural manner, such minor discrepancies are bound to occur. Otherwise also , while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.

FIR 45/12 Page 127 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.

103.It is noted that after arrival of the accused persons namely Inderpal @ Mandhu and Sachinder @ Mota and on formal search of Inderpal @ Mandhu a pistol alongwith two live cartridges were recovered by ASI Sahab Rao. He also prepared rukka and sent Ct. PW30 Anil for registration of the FIR under Arms Act.

104. After registration of the FIR investigation was handed over to SI PW33 Praveen Kumar. PW33 Praveen Kumar alongwith PW10 Ct. Anuj and PW25 HC Krishan Kumar went at the spot. PW10 Ct. Anuj has stated that he FIR 45/12 Page 128 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc remained at Jhuljhuli Mor up to 5:45 p.m. and PW33 SI Praveen Kumar made a call to SHO at 5:30 p.m. PW29 ASI Sahab Rao has stated that he also remained at Jhuljhuli mod upto 6:15 p.m., entire team reached at Kaghanheri Mod where the dead body of the deceased was recovered and crime team reached at spot and relative of the deceased came at 7:00 p.m. and he remained Kaghanheri Mod from 6:30 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. PW 4 HC Manoj Kumar has also stated that he remained Jhuljhuli mod up to 5:45 p.m. and local police also arrived at 5:45 p.m. PW30 Ct. Anil has stated that he had started from Jhuljhuli Mod at about 6:30 p.m. and reached Kanganheri at about 7:30/8:00 p.m. He further stated that he left Jhuljhuli Mod after 20 minutes after making call to SHO and SI Parveen reached at about 5:50 p.m. He further clarified that SI Sushil left Jhuljhuli Mor before his leaving the Jhuljuli Mod and PW20 is the last person to leave the Jhuljhuli Mor.

105. From the conjoint reading of testimony of PW4, PW28, PW30 and PW33 it can safely be inferred that member of AATS left the Jhuljhuli Mod at about 5:45 p.m. The leaving of the AATS team, before 6 p.m as per the testimony of officials of AATS is supported by PW10 Ct. Anuj, PW25 FIR 45/12 Page 129 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Krishan Kumar and PW33 Praveen Kumar, who had reached Jhuljuli mor after registration of the FIR.

106. So far as reaching of police official at spot of incident Kaghanheri gandanala where the dead body of the deceased was found is concerned, it may be noted that members of the crime team have stated that the crime team reached Kaghanheri gandanala at about 5:30 p.m. and IO PW35 Inspector Rajesh reached gandanala at about 5:30 p.m. where member of AATS staff namely Praveen Kumar and others were present. PW25 HC Krishan Kumar, has stated that he alongwith SI Praveen Kumar, Ct. Anil and Ct. Anuj reached Jhuljhuli mod and they reached Kaghanheri gandanala at 6:00 p.m. and SHO came there. PW22 ASI Attar Singh has also deposed that he alongwith PW7 Arun Kumar and driver reached at drain near Kanganheri. He has not been cross examined as to at which time he reached Kaghanheri and left the same. PW25 Kishan Kumar has stated that he alongwith SI Praveen Kumar and accused persons reached the Kaghanheri gandanala and after some time crime team reached at about 6:00 p.m. PW20 Ved Prakash alongwith fufa of deceased (PW1) reached spot from village FIR 45/12 Page 130 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Galibpur. He has stated that he reached at spot 5:30 p.m. and remained there up to 8:30 p.m. & SHO/PW35 Rajesh met him at about 6:00 p.m. at Kaghanheri. From the conjoint reading of testimony of all PWs including police official it can be safely concluded that accused persons Inderpal @ Mandhu and Sachinder @ Mota were brought from Jhuljhuli mod to Kaghanheri at about 6:00 p.m.

107. It may be noted that PW35 SHO/IO Rajesh not gone to jhuljhuli mod and directly went to Kaghanheri mod as deposed by all the witnesses namely PW4, PW25, PW28, PW29, PW33 and even PW30 Anil clarified in his cross examination that IO has not went to the spot at Jhuljhuli mod and IO PW35 was informed by PW33 Praveen Kumar. IO/SHO went to Kaghanheri and his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 44/12 is not correct. Therefore, it can be concluded that accused Sachinder and Inderpal were at spot at 6:00 p.m. alongwith police official at Kaghanheri drain gandanala where both were jointly interrogated by PW35 inspector Rajesh at about 6:00 p.m. and in terms of their joint pointing out the dead body of the deceased was retrieved from gandanala and a heavy stone was tied with dead body with a rope.

FIR 45/12 Page 131 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

108. It may be noted here that the alleged contradictions in the testimony of public witnesses with regard to the leaving of Jhuljuli Mor, and arrived at Kanganheri Ganda Nala by police is neither here nor there as such contradictions are minor discrepancies which are going to effect the prosecution case. Otherwise also, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the Court must take into consideration whether contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence are material, merely because there are some inconsistencies, is it sufficient to impair the credit of the witness? Should the entire evidence of the witness be discredites. The Apex Court has taken into consideration the grounds/facts which court should take into consideration while dealing with the contradictions in the statement, but the contradictions should not be material. A witness who is examined at length is also likely to make some discrepancies, unlike a person who has crammed up the evidence, undue importance should not be given by the Court due to minor discrepancies as long as the test of trustworthiness is satisfied. In this regard reliance is placed on In State of UP Vs. M.K.Anthony, reported at (1985) (1) SCC 505;

FIR 45/12 Page 132 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Rammi Vs. State of MP, report at JT 1999 (7) SC 247; 1999 SC 1012; Appalbhai and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat, reported at JT 1989 (1) SC 597; and Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, etc., reported at 2002 AD .

109. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possesses a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen: Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. People cannot accurately recall as conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

110. It may be noted here that accused Inderpal @ Mandu in terms of Ex. PW33/A has confessed that he alongwith FIR 45/12 Page 133 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc co accused persons Sachinder and Amit had murdered the deceased Lalit @ Gandhi. Therefore, factum of murder of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi with the weapon of offence , found in possession of accused Inderpal was within the knowledge of PW33 SI Parveen Kumar but exact location of the spot from where the dead body of Lalit @ Gandhi was retrieved was not in the knowledge of anybody till PW35 further interrogated accused persons Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota. Therefore, exact location of the spot from where the dead body was fished out came to the knowledge, only after the accused persons were interrogated by PW35 Inspector Rajesh Dahiya to whom they told about the exact location of dead body by down staring the stairs of Ganda Nala as depicted in the photograph taken by PW7. The testimony of police officials is further corroborated by PW1 Raj Kumar Daral and PW26 Sh. Krishan Dagar although, PW1 Raj Kumar Daral has not supported the case of the prosecution, in toto, but he has admitted that he approached the spot of incident accompanied by one police official. PW1 Raj Kumar Daral has admitted that he was made to sit in the vehicle for taking to some place and on his inquiry, he was stated that dead body has been recovered and he FIR 45/12 Page 134 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc has to identify the dead body . He identified the dead body as son of his brother in law. PW 1 Raj Kumar Daral has stated that he did not know whether police had recorded his statement. However, he admitted that his signatures were taken on Ex.PW1/A. In his cross examination , he has stated that when he reached at the spot dead body was lying on the patri on the side of nala. Therefore, although PW1 is hostile to the prosecution but that part of his testimony so far as the same support the case of the prosecution can be taken into consideration. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that dead body was retrieved from the spot in question as pointed out by the accused in terms of their joint pointing out memo & joint disclosure statements. PW26 Sh. Krishan Daggar, who has came to the spot on the instruction of PW35 IO / Inspector Rajesh Dahiya and video graphed the entire incident including fishing out of dead body although such videography got damaged due to some technical problem, and but he has stated that when he reached the spot , the dead body had already been taken. Therefore, these witnesses i.e PW1 Raj Kumar and PW26 Krishan Dagar have at least supported the prosecution case regarding the factum of recovery of dead FIR 45/12 Page 135 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc body from Ganda Nala Kanganheri Village in the evening of 25.4.2012.

111.Now question arises whether the dead body was recovered from the Ganda Nala at the instance of the joint disclosure statement and joint pointing out incriminating accused persons. Pertaining to the recovery of the dead body effected on 25.4.12 pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex. PW 33/A made by the accused persons Inderpal @ Mandu and thereafter both accused persons made joint disclosure statements and jointly pointed out the exact location on the same day and accused persons leading the police to the same spot near drain, village kanganheri and simultaneously pointed out the same , as detailed in the two pointing out memos Ex. PW33/H and Ex. PW33/I, suffice would it be to state that as hold in the decision reported as State ( NCT of Delhi ) Vs Navjot Sandhu 2005 Cri. (SC) 382 there is nothing in law which does not recognized joint pointing out by two co accused . Thus, recovery affected from the spot as per joint pointing out memo and as recorded in the pointing out memo PW33/H and Ex.PW33/I cannot be ruled out on the said point alone. What become FIR 45/12 Page 136 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc admissible u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act pertains to statement made to the police by the accused is in the knowledge of the accused to the fact which was not in the knowledge of the police and the said fact is found to be correct with reference to the subsequent event of recovery is made.

112. There is no sufficient reason to hold that a fact cannot be said to be discovered in consequence of the information of more than one person accused of any offence. The information may be by one or by several persons but, if the information precedes the fact of discovery, the discovery must be attributed to the joint and several information by all and so much of the information as leads distinctly to the fact thereby discovered must be admitted in evidence under Section 27 against all such persons who gave that information. No principle in support can be found for the view, that the statements of two or more accused leading to the discovery of a relevant fact will be admissible only if they are simultaneously made. The statement nevertheless remains the statement of two or more persons, whether made simultaneously or one after the other, and, if it is FIR 45/12 Page 137 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc admissible against all those who made the statement , if made simultaneously, it is equally admissible if made one after the other, provided always that the statements made by those accused which are to be admitted relate distinctly to the discovery and not rediscovery of the relevant fact.

113. Thus S. 27 on its plain language does not exclude the interpretation as to plurality of information received from persons accused of any offence. Being an exception to the general rule contained in the preceding section, it nevertheless insists that only such information shall be admitted as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered. The information should directly and distinctly relate to the facts discovered. Where, therefeore a fact has already been discovered, any information given in that behalf afterwards cannot be said to lead to the discovery of the fact. There cannot be rediscovery. It is easily conceivable that two or more persons simultaneously or jointly furnish an information and as a result of that information a common discovery is made ; such a case will, if other conditions are satisfied, be covered by the section. Each case will, however, have to FIR 45/12 Page 138 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc be judged on its own facts but the underlying principle seems to be that the information is such information as cannot be said to be already in the possession of the police and that the discovery is made in consequence of that information and further that the discovery is made in consequence of that information and further that the discovery is not rediscovery of something already discovered." There is nothing repugnant in the provisions of Section 27 for acceptance of statements jointly made by more than one person provided that facts discovered in consequence thereof afford some guarantee about truthfulness of their statements.

30. It may be noted that recovery in pursuance to disclosure statement is also relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on A.N Venkatesh & Another Vs. State Karnataka, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1938 .

31. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, there is no legal bar to the admissibility of two simultaneous disclosure statements made by accused persons which leads to discovery of certain facts. " Parliament attack case", where dwelling on Section 27 of the Evidence Act FIR 45/12 Page 139 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc with particular reference to joint disclosures , it was held as under : "Joint disclosures - to be more accurate, simultaneous disclosures, per se, are not inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act ,1872. A person accused need not necessarily be a single person, but it could be plurality of accused. It seems that the real reason for not acting upon the joint disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in a chorus.

At best , one person would have made the statement orally and the other person would have given unequivocal nod to what has been said by the first person. Or, two persons is custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneously and both of them may furnish similar information leading to the discovery of fact. Or, in rare cases, both the accused may reduce the FIR 45/12 Page 140 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc information into writing and hand over the written notes to the police officer at the same time. But such disclosures by two or more persons in police custody do not go out of the purview of Section 27 altogether. If information is given one after the other without any break almost simultaneously, and if such information is followed up by pointing out the material thing by both of them, we find no good reason to eschew such evidence from the regime of Section."

114. It may be noted that dead body was recovered from Ganda Nala in terms of the joint disclosure statement as well as joint pointing out memo meaning thereby, the dead body of deceased was recovered in pursuant of voluntarily joint disclosure statement of accused. Therefore, it can be presumed in absence of explanation that it was these two accused who had murdered deceased and thrown the dead body after tying the same FIR 45/12 Page 141 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc with the stone in the ganda nala. Three possibilities may be countenanced when an accused points out the place where a dead body was recovered at the instance of accused persons I.e (I) That he himself would have concealed it.

(ii) That he would have seen somebody else concealing it.

(iii) That he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there.

115. But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities, the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself. This because accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the Court as to how else he came too know of it, the presumption is a well justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this regard reliance is placed on Reliance is placed on State of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh (2000)1 SCC 472 and FIR 45/12 Page 142 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Ningappa Yallappa Hosamani & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1460.

116. I found no substance in the contention of the Ld. defence counsel that PW15 Sh. Momin and PW17 Sh. Naeem who have retrieved the dead body from the drain have turned hostile and has not supported the recovery of dead body as per prosecution witnesses, although these witnesses are hostile and stated that they had retrieved the dead body at 3p.m and after that two boys were brought by police and they also fished out the dead body. But law with regard to hostile witness is settled that that part of the testimony of hostile witnesses can be relied upon which supports the prosecution story. Otherwise also, all police witnesses have stated that police alongwith accused persons reached at ganda nala at about 6 p.m and accused got recovered dead body of the deceased Lalit@ Gandhi from ganda nala in terms of their joint disclosure statement and joint pointing out memo. The testimony of police witnesses when juxta posed with the testimony of those divers namely PW15 Momin and PW17 Naeem inspires much confidence and I found no ostensible reason to disbelieve the same. I am FIR 45/12 Page 143 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc of the opinion that the dead body was recovered from ganda nala only after the information supplied by accused persons jointly.

117. In the present case also, the accused person has failed to offer any explanation as to how they came to know such concealment. The evidence on record amply proved that the accused had thrown the dead body in the ganda nala and it was discovered in furtherance of information furnished by them.

118. Another incriminating fact against accused Inderpal @ Mandhu is that the murder of the deceased was done with fire arms and one weapon / pistol which was got recovered from accused in connected case FIR No. 44/12 in which he is convicted. Therefore, possession of the said weapon with accused Inderpal is proved. The said fire arm/weapon recovered from the possession of accused Inderpal @ Mandu with which the deceased was fired upon arm was used for killing the deceased and other weapons cannot be recovered. The weapon recovered from accused Inderpal was sent to FSL examination. The bullets found in the body of deceased were compared in FIR 45/12 Page 144 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc FSL and by FSL expert it was found that the bullet recovered from dead body of deceased was fired from the pistol recovered from Inderpal @ Mandhu in FIR No. 44/12 u/s Arms Act ,P S JP Kalan. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that deceased Lalit @ Gandhi was done to death with the weapon recovered from accused Inderpal @ Mandhu and I found no substance in the contention of the defence counsel that doctor has stated that all injuries are rifled injuries and the weapon of offence/ pistol recovered from accused Inderpal is non rifled so, the weapon of offence as alleged can not connect the accused with the murder. As the doctor opined regarding injuries whether those are rifled or non rifled is having a persuasive value and doctor cannot opined the nature of injuries whether caused by rifled or non rifled weapon with exactness. But the report of forensic expert is admissible per see which clearly depicts that bullet recovered from the dead body was fired from the pistol recovered from the possession of accused Inderpal. Otherwise also, the opinion given by a medical witness that not be the last word. Such opinion shall be tested by the court . If the opinion is to bereft of logic , the court is not obliged to go by that opinion . After FIR 45/12 Page 145 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc all, opinion is what is found in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If the opinion given by doctor is not consistent with probability , the court has no liability to go by that opinion.

119. It may be noted that thereafter, the accused persons were interrogated and they told IO that after committing murder of the deceased , they fled away from Delhi to Haridwar and remained there. On 28.04.2012 accused persons took the police party to Rishikesh as they had disclosed that the weapon of evidence was hidden by them in Rishikesh. Police party reached Rishikesh on 29.04.2012 and accused persons took them to hotel Gaurav near bus stand where Manager of the hotel Mr. Atul Pawar met police officials . He joined investigation and copy of the visitor register was seized EX.PW31/A, in terms of the disclosure statement of accused persons that they have visited Rishikesh after the murder of deceased Lalit @ Gandhi. PW31 Atul Singh Pawar was hostile regarding the identity of accused Inderpal @ Mandhu and Sachinder @ Mota but he admitted that two persons have stayed in his hotel on the intervening night of 23.04.2012 and 24.04.2012 and they had made entries in the name of FIR 45/12 Page 146 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Inderpal and Sachinder. Therefore, on the basis of this piece of evidence it can be safely concluded that accused persons were absconding and abscondance of accused persons is an incriminating piece of evidence if such abscondance is not explained by the absconder with a plausible explanation.

120.It is settled law that mere absconding by itself does not necessary lead to a conclusion of a guilty mind. The act of self preservation is such that an innocent man may feel paniky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime. The act of absconding is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence to be considered alongwith other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. For instance, the circumstance of abscondance can be extremely fatal, if the prosecution is able to prove that the victim was last seen in the company of the deceased and that the accused is absconding after the death of the victim. Normally, the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating as a very small much item in the evidence for recording conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in the chain of circumstance FIR 45/12 Page 147 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis then that of the guilt of the accused. In this regard, I found support from Matru Vs State of U.P. AIR 1972 SC 1050.

121. Criminal trial is not an enquiry into the conduct of an accused for any purpose other than to determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged. In that connection, that piece of conduct of the accused be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can alone be considered as material.

122. It be noted that another incriminating fact that prosecution has proved against accused persons is the recovery of car from which the blood stains of deceased were found and those blood stains tallied with DNA of hairs of deceased. On 01.05.2012 accused persons namely Inderpal @ Mandhu and Sachinder were interrogated and accused persons got recorded joint supplementary disclosure statements as EX.PW33/L and M respectively.

FIR 45/12 Page 148 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc Accused persons disclosed that they after committing the murder of Lalit @ Gandhi in silver colour Maruti Esteem No. HR 26BA2426, have concealed the said car in the semi forest ( Bani) of village Surehera. PW35 IO/Inspector Rajesh alongwith PW33 SI Praveen Kumr and PW25 HC Krishan Kumar went to the forest of village Surehera. Thereafter, they called the crime team on the spot. From where three empty cartridges and one lead of bullet were found. The door of the car was found opened and blood stains were found on the rear seat and area between front and back seats and those blood stains samples were seized from the car and other incriminating articles were also seized . Those samples were sent for FSL examination for DNA profiling. As per deposition of PW34 Dr. Shashi Bala Pahuja the DNA of blood stains found at the spot as well as in Esteem Car tallied with DNA of the deceased which was taken from his hairs. Therefore, from the testimony of these PWs and recovery of car at the pointing out memo namely Ex.PW33/N and Ex.PW33/O, from which the blood stain of the deceased is recovered also incriminates that accused Inderpal and Sachinder and therefore, confirms the fact that dead body was taken in the said car before throwing the same in the FIR 45/12 Page 149 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc gandanala Kaghanheri.

123. I found no force in the contentions of the defence counsel that recovery of car is made as such a belated stage, therefore, recovery is doubtful in as much as pertaining to recoveries, the law is that as the recovery becomes distant in the past the possibility of the same being acquired by the possessor other by way of fruit of the crime can not be ruled out and thus recoveries which move further away in point of time vis a vis the date of the offence got diminished in their incriminating character and that recovery of cheap articles are less incriminating as these articles are likely to change hands very quickly. Thus both aspect i.e how distant away is the date of the recovery and what is the value of the articles recovered have to be kept in mind. Where the recovery of a valuable which cannot be expected to be acquired by the accused, unless the accused explains, notwithstanding the recovery being far removed from the date of the crime, its incriminating evidence would be of high degree.

124. PW27 is the owner of maruti esteem car . He has FIR 45/12 Page 150 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc deposed that his car was seized by police on 25.4.2012 but he did not move any complaint till 1.5.2012 i.e when said car was got recovered by accused persons , therefore, there is no force in the contention of ld. Defence counsel that recovery of car is not made at the instance of accused as no public witness is joined at the time of recovery of dead body and PW1 has turned hostile, and thereafter at the time of recovery of maruti esteem car no public witness was joined is also devoid of merit in as much as: "There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Nonexamination of independent witness of even presence of such witness during police raid would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care while scrutnising the evidence of the police officers. If the evidence of the police officer is found acceptable it would be an erroneous proposition that court must reject the prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness was examined. In this regard, reliance is placed on Kalpnath Rai vs. State (1997) 8 SCC 732.

125. It is settled law that arrest/recovery memo prepared by FIR 45/12 Page 151 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc the investigating officer may necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. But if in a given case, no witness is present or nobody agrees to attest the memo, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition that the discovery must be treated tainted or that the discovery evidence is unreliable. In such a situation, the Court has to consider the report of the investigating officer who made discovery on its own merits as experience reminds that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil disputes is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness much consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused.

FIR 45/12 Page 152 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

126. While it is true that the police should not involve innocent persons, fabricate evidence and obtain convictions, it is equally true that cases in which substratum of the prosecution case is strong and substantiated by reliable evidence, lapses in investigation should not persuade the court to reject the prosecution case. The court with its vast experience should be quick to notice mischief if there is any. Incompetent prosecuting agencies or prosecuting agencies which are driven by extraneous considerations should not be allowed to take the court for a ride. The courts will have to adopt a pragmatic approach. No scope must be given to absurd and fanciful submissions. It is true that there can be no compromise on basic legal principles, but, unnecessary weight age should not be given to minor errors or lapses. If courts get carried away by every mistake or lapse of the investigating agency, the guilty will have a field day.

127. So far as motive is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, prosecution has proved the motive of commission of the offence and the present case FIR 45/12 Page 153 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc based on circumstantial evidence. Motive and conduct of accused has paramount importance. In this regard reliance is placed upon Sanjay Mittal Vs. State of Haryana 200293) RCR criminal 127:

128. In a murder case, which is based on circumstantial evidence motive plays a vital role. The court is to take into consideration the motive for the crime. When there is no motive, then the link in the chain is missing. When the prosecution fails to prove the motive in the part of the accused, its case becomes doubtful. Not only this, the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstance beyond reasonable doubt that accused was not the person who committed the offence and none else. The court is not to base its findings in surmises and conjunctures.

129. In the present case, the deceased Lalit @ Gandhi had fired upon accused Inderpal @ Mandu and he was facing charged u/s 307 IPC in case FIR no.44/12 where Inderpal @ Mandu was complainant, therefore, accused Inder pal @ Mandu and Sachinder might be having a grudge against him and wants to settle the scores with the deceased and FIR 45/12 Page 154 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc where they got an opportunity , they have done away with the deceased.

130. So far as accused Amit is concerned, apart from the disclosure statements of co accused Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Mota , there is no other evidence on record to connect accused Amit with the murder of the deceased. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made at his instance. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the murder of the deceased. Therefore, accused Amit deserves to be acquitted and is hereby acquitted of the charges.

131. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence that the deceased was murdered by the accused persons Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Motu and following facts in the chain of circumstantial evidence has been proved by prosecution namely"

(I) The dead body of decesaed Lalit @ Gandhi was recovered at the joint disclosure statements and joint pointing out memo.

FIR 45/12 Page 155 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12

PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc

(ii) The weapon of offence / pistol recovered from the possession of accused Inderpal, was used for the commission of murder of the deceased as per the report of Forensic expert mark.

(iii) The car maruti Esteem bearing no. HR26BA2426 was used in the commission of murder of deceased which was recovered at the instance of accused Inderpal and Sachinder as the blood stains found present in the said car tallied with DNA profile of the hair of deceased.

(iv) Accused Inderjeet and Sachinder were absconding and such abscondance incriminates them.

132.Therefore the accused persons namely Inderpal @ Mandu and Sachinder @ Motu are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under section 302/201/34 IPC. However, accused Amit is hereby acquitted of charge under section 302/201/34 IPC by giving the benefit of doubt.

133.Accused Amit is, however, directed to furnish fresh bail bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C undertaking to appear if called, before Appellate Court as mandated FIR 45/12 Page 156 of 157 SC No 77/12 FIR no. 45/12 PS J.P.Kalan St V. Inder Pal @ Mandu etc therein. Personal bond and surety bond are to be filed and be accepted for a period of six months as provided under Section 437A Cr.P.C.

134. Put up for hearing on the quantum of sentence on 30.7.2014.

Announced in open court (Dr. Vijay Kumar Dahiya) On the 18th Day of July, 2014 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts New Delhi FIR 45/12 Page 157 of 157

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Inderpal @ Mandhu S/O Sh. on 18 July, 2014