State vs . 1) Sahil Mathur on 15 February, 2022

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1) Sahil Mathur on 15 February, 2022

   IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
            JUDGE04 (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI


Session Case No. 58688/2016
CNR No. DLNT010034012015

State               Vs.                                    1) Sahil Mathur
                                                           S/o late Sh. Anoop Singh
                                                           R/o H.No. 193, VillageKarala,
                                                           Near M.S. Model School, Delhi.

                                                           2) Gaurav @ Punit @ Banda
                                                           S/o late Sh. Sanjay Verma
                                                           R/o H.No. 371,
                                                           VillageMadanpur Dabas,
                                                           Delhi.

                                                           3) Sharna Dhar
                                                           s/o Sh. Dayal Sharma
                                                           R/o B4/211, Sector20,
                                                           Rohini, Delhi.

                                                           4) Ashish Dalal
                                                           s/o Sh. Joginder Dalal
                                                           R/o H.No. 1572, Sector6,
                                                           Bahadurgarh, Haryana.

                                                           5) Dinesh Mathur
                                                           s/o Sh. Virender Singh
                                                           R/o Village Majri, Kanjhawla,
                                                           Delhi.




SC No. 58688/2016     FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors.   Page 1 of 144
                                                             6) Nitin
                                                            s/o Sh. Anand Singh
                                                            R/o H.No. 51, Dispensary wali gali,
                                                            VillageKarala, Kanjhawla, Delhi.


                                                            7) Sujit Dabas
                                                            s/o Sh. Udaivir Singh
                                                            R/o VillageMdanpur Dabas,
                                                            Kanjhawla, Delhi.

                    FIR No.       : 797/15
                    Police Station : Prashant Vihar
                    Under Sections: 364/365/302/120B/201/34/174A IPC

Date of Institution before Magisterial Court: 22/10/2015
Date of committal to Sessions Court         :09/11/2015
Date of institution before Session Court :17/11/2015
Date of Argument                             :07/02/2022
Date on which Judgment pronounced            :15/02/2022

                                      JUDGMENT

1. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 25/06/2015, at 3.25, DD no. 23A was recorded at PS Prashant Vihar to the effect that at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini, some persons had come in two cars, had beaten one boy and took away two boys after lifting them in a car. The contents of said DD were telephonically conveyed to SI Shyam Singh for taking necessary action and SHO was also apprised about it. Thereafter Inspector Jitender Singh along with Ct Dharambir left for the spot in government vehicle no. DL3CZ9325. In the meantime, "AJ" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) also came back, who told that he knew the persons SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 2 of 144 who were involved in the abduction of his friend Deepak Gulia i.e. "RM" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) and Ashish Dalal and that "RM" (JCL) was of Village Majri. Accordingly, Inspector Jitender Singh along with Ct Dharambir and "AJ" (JCL) headed for Village Manjri in government vehicle. On the way, information was received on wireless set that dead body of a 2022 old years boy was found in Kanjhawla Industrial Area and since according to "AJ" (JCL), the description and clothes of the dead body were matching with the description of his friend Deepak Gulia, they reached Kanjhawla Industrial area, where along side road going towards Madanpur village, one approach road was heading, where by the side of the road, dead body of one 2022 years old boy was found lying and from Kanjhawala, SI Kamal Singh and other staff was also found present. "AJ" (JCL) identified the dead body to be of his friend Deepak Gulia, on whose body and head there were injury marks. In the meantime, SI Shyam Singh along with staff came at the spot on the calling of Inspector Jitender Singh. Crime team was also called at the spot by SI Kamal Singh. Inspector Jitender Singh recorded statement of "AJ" (JCL).

1.2. In his statement, "AJ" (JCL) has stated that he is residing at B 13/104, TypeII, Pitampura Police Line, and he had passed 12 th class that year from Apollo International School, Barho, Sonipat Haryana. In that school, Deepak Gulia s/o Krishan Gulia, R/o Jhandewalan Chowk, Narela, Delhi, was also studying, who was in his room, but was one class junior to him. He further stated that today i.e. on 25/06/2015, there was birthday of girlfriend of Deepak Gulia namely Dhwani Gupta but since few days there was some tiff between them. "MB" (JCL) (her complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity), friend of Dhwani Gupta, had told Deepak Gulia 23 days before that SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 3 of 144 birthday of Dhwani Gupta will be celebrated in City Centre Mall, Rohini and Deepak wanted to conciliate Dhwani Gupta on her birthday. "AJ" (JCL) further stated in his stated that today i.e. on 25/06/2015, he was at his home and at about 11.30 a.m., Deepak called on his mobile from his mobile phone bearing no. 9017223223 and asked him to go to City Centre Mall for celebrating the birthday of Dhwani Gupta, on which, he told Deepak that he had to go to Satyawati College for his admission and he could not come, upon which, Deepak asked him to go for 10 minutes only and thereafter he will accompany him to his college, to which he nodded and came to the gate of his colony. In the meantime, in one Swift car, Deepak and his friend Sagar Katariya came. The car was of Sagar Katariya which was driven by his driver. "AJ" (JCL) further stated that he also sat in the car and they all four went to the "Big Cake" shop in Kohat Enclave and from there Deepak bought a cake for Dhwani Gupta and thereafter they all headed for City Centre Mall, Rohini. During that time, call of "MB" (JCL) was received on the phone of Deepak who asked to come in five minutes at City Centre Mall, Dhwani Gupta was to arrive. He further stated that at about 12 noon, they reached at the backside parking of City Centre Mall and Deepak asked "MB" (JCL) over phone as to where she was, on which, "MB" (JCL) told him to come inside the mall. Sagar Katariya sent his car with driver back to his home and they all three went inside the mall, where after roaming inside the mall, "MB" (JCL) and Dhwani Gupta did not meet them, then Deepak again called "MB" (JCL) and asked her as to where she was, on which, "MB" (JCL) asked him to come at "McDonald". As soon as, they all three came outside the mall, 45 boys after coming to them, had put their hands on their shoulders, out of which, one was Ashish Dalal, who is previously known to him. Ashish Dalal kept his hand on the shoulder of Deepak and while asking his well being, those boys brought all three of them on the road between City Centre SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 4 of 144 Mall & DMall, where 67 boys also came comprising "RM" (JCL) , who was studying in Apollo International School and Ashish Dalal was son of his "Bua" (father's sister). All those boys started grappling with them and forcefully tried to lift them in XUV vehicle of cream colour & I20 car. Sagar somehow managed to escape but those boys forcefully made him ("AJ" (JCL)) and Deepak to sit on the backside seat of XUV vehicle of "RM" (JCL) , bearing registration no. DL6CN 2223 and both the aforesaid vehicles left from there. "AJ" (JCL) further stated in his statement that Ashish Dalal bent his ("AJ" (JCL)'s) head and gave a slap on his waist, then "RM" (JCL) , who was sitting on the rear seat asked Ashish Dalal not to beat him, his father is in police. Beneath the Rithala Metro Station, both the vehicles stopped and those boys alighted him from the vehicle and "RM" (JCL) , Ashish Dalal and their associates, who were in XUV vehicle and I20 car, took along Deepak with them and went towards the road going to Sector 24, Rohini.

"AJ" (JCL) further stated that he became nervous and quietly headed for Satyawati College in metro for the purpose of his admission. This incident was of 12.30 noon. On the way, phone of Sagar Katariya came but due to nervousness, he could not gather courage to talk to him. After Sagar's phone, phone of Deepak's mother also came but he did not pickup her phone also due to nervousness and when he received phone call from his mother, he pickedup the call and from her he came to know that Deepak's mother had called her and his mother told everything to Deepak's mother. He told his mother that those boys had left him but they took Deepak with them and that he will reach home after his admission. Later on phone of Sagar was received and he also apprised him that those boys had left him beneath Rithala Metro Station and he was going to Satyawati college for admission. "AJ" (JCL) further stated in his statement that while he was standing for admission in Satyawati College, in the meanwhile, SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 5 of 144 phone call from mother of Sagar and Deepak came and he told everything to Deepak's mother. Sagar also made him to talk to police. He, without getting his admission at college, at about 5.15 pm came to PS Prashant Vihar and then he along with police went in search of Deepak, "RM" (JCL) , Ashish Dalal and their associates in government vehicle to Village Majri of "RM" (JCL) . On the way, information was received on wireless set regarding dead body of one 2022 years old boy at Kanjhawala Industrial Area whose clothes and description was matching with Deepak and accordingly he along with the police came to Kanjhawala Industrial Ara , whereby the side of the road, dead body of his friend Deepak Gulia was found lying on whose body & head , there were injury marks. He after identifying the dead body, told the police that the dead body was of his friend Deepak to whom "RM" (JCL) , Ashish Dalal and their associates, whom he can identify, abducted along with him from City Centre Mall and left him ("AJ"

(JCL)) beneath the Rithala Metro Station but took away Deepak and committed his murder. "MB" (JCL) is girlfriend of "RM" (JCL) who had called Deepak to City Centre Mall but she did not meet them there but "RM" (JCL) , Ashish Dalal and their associates reached there under conspiracy and committed the incident.

2. On the basis of aforesaid statement of "AJ" (JCL), inspection of the spot as well as of dead body of deceased Deepak Gulia, offences u/s 364/365/302/120B IPC were found to be committed. Accordingly, Inspector Jitender Singh got registered the FIR of the present case under the said sections.

3. During investigation, crime team inspected the spot and spot was got photographed. Dead body of deceased was got sent to the mortuary of BSA hospital. Exhibits were lifted from the spot and deposited in the malkhana. On SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 6 of 144 26/06/2015, postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted and after postmortem the dead body was handed over to the family of the deceased.

3.1. On 26/06/2015, JCL "RM" was apprehended. He disclosed about hatching a conspiracy with his brother "AM" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) and other friends to teach a lesson to Deepak Gulia and as to how he was murdered. His mobile phone bearing no. 9211929294 which he had thrown on the way, could not be recovered. On 15/07/15, JCL "AM" was apprehended who had also thrown his mobile phone bearing no. 8800885694 at some unknown place after the incident, but the same could not be recovered. However, XUV car bearing no. D6CN 2233 used in the commission of offence was recovered from his possession. During interrogation, JCL "AM" disclosed that "AJ" (JCL) was also involved in the incident and he had also accompanied them to the place where Deepak Gulia was murdered and that he ("AJ" (JCL)) had also beaten Deepak Gulia. On subsequent interrogation from "AJ" (JCL) , he disclosed that "RM" (JCL) and his associates did not leave him at Rithala Metro Station and had taken him along with them to the plot of family of "RM" (JCL) in Karala Village in front of water tank and there they had severely beaten Deepak with legs and fists and "RM" (JCL) had also beaten Deepak with danda as a result of which he died and then "RM" (JCL) along with his two associates had dropped him at Rithala Metro Station in I20 car.

"AJ" (JCL) also pointed out the said plot.

4. On 24/07/2015, "HB" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) was apprehended. He also did not get recovered his mobile phone and told that he had thrown it SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 7 of 144 somewhere. He also disclosed that Sahil Mathur of Karala Village was also involved in the incident. The said JCL also got recovered the Santro car no. DL 8CS2093 belonging to father of Nitin, from outside the house of Nitin. Said Nitin was absconding. On the same day, accused Sahil Mathur (kept in column no. 11 of main chargesheet) was arrested. Accused Sahil Mathur had also thrown his mobile, but SIM no. 9999330080 which was used by him on the day of incident, was recovered from him, which was in his name.

4.1. On 01/08/2015, accused Gaurav @ Puneet (kept in column no. 11(A) of main chargesheet) was arrested. Mobile phone & SIM no. 9211130652 used by accused Gaurav @ Puneet on the day of incident, were recovered from him. The said accused refused his TIP.

5. On 05/08/2015, accused Sharna Dhar (kept in column no. 11(B) of main chargesheet) was arrested. The mobile phone which was used by him on the day of incident, was also recovered from him. The said accused also refused to get conduct his TIP.

6. On 19/08/2015, "AC" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) was apprehended. Mobile phone bearing no. 8800964938 used by him on the day of incident was recovered from him, with which, he had talked with his friends on 25/06/2015.

7. On 02/09/2015, JCL "MB" (JCL) was apprehended and her two mobile phones bearing no. 9728016343 & 9467549603 were recovered which were used by her on 23/24/25.06.2015 and before that for making calls to Dhwani SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 8 of 144 Gupta, Deepak Gulia (since deceased) and "RM" (JCL) and apprising about the activities of Deepak Gulia to "RM" (JCL) and she was also involved in the conspiracy of the present incident.

8. On 09/09/2015, JCL "AJ" (JCL) who was complainant earlier, was also apprehended since during enquiry, analysis of CDR and his overall conduct, it was revealed that he was in constant touch with JCL "RM" (JCL) through mobile for last few days, was involved in the conspiracy, was telling lies in order to save him and he also destroyed the SIM of his mobile phone two days after the incident. His mobile phones were also taken into police possession.

9. Application was moved for getting conducted the TIP of JCL "AM" , "HB" (JCL) and "AC" (JCL) but JCL "AM" and "AC" (JCL) refused to get conduct their TIP, whereas "HB" (JCL) was not identified by the witness during TIP. JCL "RM" (JCL) was already named in the FIR and as such his TIP was not necessary. JCL "MB" (JCL) was not present at the spot and was in constant touch on phone with Dhwani Gupta, Deepak Gulia and "RM" (JCL) from her home at Fatehabad, Haryana. From the CCTV footage of City Centre Mall, JCL "AM", "HB" (JCL), accused Sahil Mathur & Gaurav @ Puneet and other absconding accused were visible and accused Sahil Mathur, Gaurav @ Puneet & Sharna Dhar and on getting the CDRs of mobile phones of JCL "RM" (JCL) , "AM" (JCL) , "HB" (JCL), "AC" (JCL), "AJ" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) and other absconding accused persons, their location was at City Centre Mall at the time of incident and location of accused Sahil Mathur, Gaurav @ Puneet & JCL "RM" (JCL) , "AM" (JCL) , "HB" (JCL), "AC" (JCL), "AJ" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 9 of 144 purpose of not disclosing his identity) & other absconding accused persons was found at Village Karala and they were found conversing with each other on phone.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that till the filing of main chargesheet, accused Sahil Mathur, Gaurav @ Puneet and Sharna Dhar were arrested in the present case, whereas accused Ashish Dalal, Nitin, Dinesh Mathur, Sujit Dabas and other were absconding. Accused Ashish Dalal was declared P.O. on 15/10/2015 by the concerned Magisterial Court. Process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated against accused Nitin, Dinesh Mathur and Sujit Dabas.

11. Postmortem report was collected. Mobile phones recovered from accused and JCLs and hard disk of CCTV footage were sent to FSL, report of which was awaited. The plot in front of Karala water tank where Deepak Gulia was murdered & XUV car no. DL6CN2223 in which dead body of deceased was taken from Karala to Kanjhawla Industrial Area by the accused and JCLs were got inspected through FSL team, Rohini (report of which was awaited), but the same were already cleaned by the JCLs and accused. Certified copies of CDRs with location and CAF of mobile phones were obtained. Final report (PIR) was already filed before JCL "RM" (JCL) , "AM" (JCL) ,"HB" (JCL) , "AC" (JCL), "MB" (JCL) and "AJ" (JCL) before Juvenile Justice Bord.

12. On completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 364/365/302/201/120B/34 IPC was filed against accused Sahil Mathur, Gaurav @ Puneet and Sharna Dhar before the Duty Metropolitan Magistrate (North) on 22/10/2015, cognizance of the offences was taken on 28/10/2015. The case was committed to the Court of session on 09/11/2015 and was received on assignment SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 10 of 144 by Sessions Court on 17/11/2015. It is pertinent to mention here that by the time the challan was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court, FSL result was awaited.

13. On 28/02/2016, supplementary chargesheet qua accused Nitin, Ashish Dalal, Dinesh Mathur and Sujit Dabas was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court on 28/02/2016, which was ordered to be put up before ld. District & sessions Judge on 05/03/2016 and was received by Sessions Court on 05/03/2016 itself.

14. Vide order dated 23/04/2016, charge u/s 120B IPC & u/s 364/365/302/201/34 read with Section 120B IPC was framed against all the seven accused, whereas separate charge u/s 174A IPC was framed against each accused Dinesh Mathur, Ashish Dalal & Sujit Dabas, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

15. Another supplementary chargesheet qua CDR, CAF and location along with certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of mobile number of accused Nitin, deceased and JCL "MB" (JCL) was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court on 06/06/2017 and it was ordered to be placed before ld. District & Sessions Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, on 09/06/2017 and was received by Court of Sessions on 09/06/2017.

16. On 17/11/2017, another supplementary chargesheet qua FSL result was filed before the concerned Magisterial Court on 17/11/2017 and was ordered to be placed before ld. District & Sessions Judge, North, Rohini Court, Delhi on SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 11 of 144 04/12/2017 which was received by Court of Sessions on 04/12/2017 itself and PWs Amit Aggarwal, Geetesh Patel and Dr. C.P. Singh were ordered to be summoned for 05/12/2017.

17. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 63 witnesses in all. The details of said witnesses are as under: S. Name of prosecution witness Purpose of examination No. 1 PW1 HC Jitender Kumar, duty officer Who came to prove computerized copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A, his endorsement on rukka Ex.

PW1/B, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in token of correctness of FIR Ex. PW1/C, DD no. 37A Ex. PW1/D and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/E. 2 PW2 HC Satish Kumar, DD Writer Who came to prove DD no. 23A Ex. PW2/A. 3 PW3 W/Ct Sangeeta Qua apprehension of JCL "MB" (JCL).

4 PW4 Bimla Devi, mother of deceased For proving the factum that JCL "AJ" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) invited her son Deepak for his birthday on 24/06/2015 with Sagar, visiting of Sagar to her house on 25/06/2015 &taking away of her son, making of call to Deepak, "AJ" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) & Sagar Kataria on their mobile phones, receiving of call from Sagar at about 3.00 p.m. qua abduction of her son Deepak and "AJ" (JCL) by accused "RM" (JCL) , his elder brother Akash and Ashish Dalal son of Bua of Akash aong with 1012 other boys in their vehicles at about 1.00 p.m. from City Centre Mall, receiving of phone call from "AJ" (JCL) qua abduction of her son Deepak by the aforesaid persons.

5 PW5 Krishan Kumar, father of deceased Who came to prove the factum that on 26/09/2014, a quarrel had taken place between "RM" (JCL) and accused "AJ" (JCL) and his son Deepak intervened and then quarrel took place between his son and "RM"

(JCL) , qua depression of his son Deepak due SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 12 of 144 to threat given by Sanjay Manjri (uncle of "RM" (JCL) ), who was a bad element, to school authorities for not allowing him to study in school, qua friendship of "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) as told by his deceased son, qua following of his son by "AM" (JCL) (elder brother of "RM" (JCL) ) along with his friends in the area of Narela, talking in this regard with father of "RM" (JCL) , qua threat given by Sanjay Manjri (uncle of "RM" (JCL) ) for not keeping his son in the school, patchup of Rhit and his son Deepak with the intervention of school Principal, exchanging of his mobile number with the mother of "RM" (JCL) , qua planning to kill his son Deepak by "RM" (JCL) and his friends as told to him by his son Deepak, qua pacifying his son that he will remove him from the school in next session, qua visit of his son to the house of "AJ" (JCL) by his son Deepak along with Sagar Kataria, qua giving of SIM card no. 9017223223 by Sagar Kataria to his son Deepak for use, qua use of mobile no. 9212312317 by Deepak of his mother, qua alluring of his son Deepak to take him out of station by Sagar Kataria and "AJ" (JCL), qua inviting of his son Deepak to the birthday celebration of "AJ" (JCL) on 25/06/2015 at City Centre Mall, Rohini along with Sagar Kataria at 10.00 a.m., qua convincing of his wife by "AJ" (JCL) for allowing his son Deepak to attend his birthday, qua going of his son Deepak with Sagar Kataria and Hemraj (driver of sagar) at about 10.00 a.m., qua receiving of call at about 3.00 p.m. from his wife regarding abduction of his son Deepak by "RM" (JCL) , his brother Akash and Ashish Dalal (son of their Bua) along with their 1012 friends in a vehicle, qua talking with Pradeep Mathur father of "RM" (JCL) on mobile no. 9999182960 at about 3.00 p.m. asking him to make understand his sons, qua visiting PS Prashant Vihar, qua again calling Pradeep who told that mobile phones of aforesaid persons were switched off, meeting of Sagar Kataria and driver Hemraj at PS, SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 13 of 144 obtaining of mobile no. 9818611899 of "AJ"

(JCL) from Sagar Kataria &talking to him, who reached at PS and told that "RM" (JCL) , his brother Akash and Ashish Dalal along with 10 12 friends had abducted his son in two vehicles XUV2223 of white colour and I20 of white colour, qua making a call on mobile no.

9211929294 of "RM" (JCL) , receiving of information at PS qua lying of one dead body in the area of Kanjhwala Industrial Area, qua identifying the dead body of his son, qua conducting of postmortem on the body of deceased and how his son was taken away by alluring by Sagar Kataria, driver Hemraj from house on false pretext of birthday of "AJ"

(JCL) at City Centre Mall under conspiracy done by "RM" (JCL) , "AM" (JCL) and Ashish Dalal, who had committed his son's murder.

6 PW6 Sagar Kataria, friend of deceased Who came to prove the factum of abduction of Deepak Gulia Deepak Gulia (since deceased) &"AJ" (JCL) on 25/06/2015 by 67 persons outside City Centre Mall in two vehicles &how he managed to escape from their clutches, qua informing Ravi (elder brother of deceased) in this regard, qua visiting PS Prashant Vihar, qua making a talk of "AJ" (JCL) with police, qua joining the TIP proceedings of Nitin Ex.

PW6/A, of Ashish Dalal Ex. PW6/B and that of Dinesh Mathur 6/C bearing his signatures at points A. 7 PW7 Hemraj, driver of PW6 Sagar Kataria Qua proving the factum of abduction of Deepak Gulia &beating given to Sagar Kataria by the abductors, as told to him by Sagar Kataria, qua informing the family members of Deepak Gulia regarding his abduction and making a call at 100 number to the police.

8 PW8 Dhwani Gupta Qua receiving call from "MB" (JCL) (JCL) for arranging a surprise party on her (Dhwani's) birthday which falls on 25thJune one week prior to her birthday, receiving of information from Dhwani qua cancellation of party on 25/06/2015, receiving of a call by her mother from the mother of Deepak (deceased) qua his missing in the evening of 25/06/2015, receiving a call qua death of Deepak from SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 14 of 144 brother of deceased Deepak &qua her acquaintance with Deepak Gulia as good friend &"AJ" (JCL) being residing in hostel of the school.

9 PW9 Ashok Kumar Qua identification of dead body of Deepak Gulia (since deceased) at the spot and at mortuary BSA hospital vide Ex. PW9/A and receiving of dead body vide memo Ex. PW9/B. 10 PW10 Ram kishan Qua going of his grandson Deepak Gulia (since deceased) with Sagar on 25/06/2015 to celebrate some birthday, receiving of information regarding missing of Deepak Gulia from his son Kishan, visiting at PS Rohini, where Sagar told about taking away of Deepak (deceased) in the car by "AJ" (JCL) and other boys, visit of "AJ" (JCL) in PS, lying of dead body of one boy in the area of village Kanjhawala &identification of same to be of Deepak, identification of dead body at the mortuary vide memo Ex. PW10/A &receiving it vide memo Ex PW9/B. 11 PW11 HC Chhote Lal Who came to prove PCR form no. 1390271 Ex. PW11/A. 12 PW12 Ct Ram Khiladi Qua apprehension of JCLs, seizure memo of Santro car Ex. PW12/A, arrest memo &personal search memo of accused Sahil Mathur Ex. PW12/B &Ex. PW12/C, recovery of one mobile phone make HTC from accused Gaurav, seizure memo of Karbon mobile phone recovered by accused Gaurav Ex.

PW12/D, seizure of I20 car vide memo Ex.

PW12/E at the instance of accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur, pointing out of City Centre Mall, Sector10 by accused Ashish Dalal &Nitin vide memos Ex. PW12/G &Ex.

PW12/H, pointing out of plot by accused Nitin vide memo Ex. PW12/I &seizure memo Ex.

PW12/J. 13 PW13 Dr. Mukesh Kumar Who came to prove postmortem report Ex PW13/A. 14 PW14 Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Who came to prove the following record: Airtel Ltd. i) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9211130652 Ex. PW14/A1, which was registered in the name of Deepak Mathur, SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 15 of 144 photocopy of driving license Mark PW14/A2, its CDR from 10/06/15 to 26/06/2015 Ex.

PW14/A3 collectively

ii) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9818611899 Ex. PW14/B1 which was registered in the name of Azad Singh Ex.

PW14/B1, photocopy of Delhi Police ID card &election ID card Mark PW14/B colly &CDR of said mobile from 10/06/15 to 26/06/15 Ex.

PW14/B3 colly.

iii) Photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

8800885694 Ex. PW14/C1 which was registered in the name of Priya, photocopy of voter ID card mark PW14/C2 and its CDR from 20/06/15 to 26/06/15 Ex. PW14/C3 colly.

iv) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

8800736976 Ex. PW14/D1 which was registered in the name of Heru Biswas, photocopy of election ID card mark PW14/D2 &its CDR from 20/06/2015 to 26/06/15 Ex.

PW14/D3 colly.

v) Photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9211130652 Ex. PW14/E1 which was registered in the name of Gaurav, photocopy of Aadhar card mark PW14/E2 &its CDR from 20/06/15 to 26/06/15 Ex. PW14/E3 colly.

vi) Photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9958602141 Ex. P/W14/F1 which was registered in the name of Aashutosh Gupta, photocopy of voter ID card mark PW14/F2 &its CDR from 20/06/15 to 26/06/15 Ex. PW14/F3 colly.

Vii) Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.

PW14/G &CDR location chart EX. PW14/H colly.

15 PW15 Amit Aggarwal Who came to prove handing over of hard disk of DVR no. 7 containing CCTV footage from dt. 22/06/15 to 14/07/15 which was seized vide memo Ex. P/w15/A &certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW15/B. 16 PW16 Constable Naveen Who came to prove scaled site plan of the place of City Centre Mall Ex. PW16/A and that of Kanjhawala Industrial Area Ex. PW16/B. 17 PW17 ASI Ram Kumar, the then incharge Who came to prove crime team report Ex mobile crime team PW17/A. SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 16 of 144 18 PW18 HC Satender, photographer of mobile Who came to prove negatives of photographs crime team Ex. PW18/A1 to A21 &photographs Ex.

PW18/B1 to B21.

19 PW19 ASI Subhash, the then MHC(M). Who came to prove the relevant entries regarding depositing of case property in the malkhana and sending the same to FSL i.e. Ex PW19/A to Ex. PW19/J and RC no.

57/21/15 Ex. PW19/K &RC no. 69/21/15 Ex.

PW19/L, acknowledgment of FSL Ex.

PW19/M, RC no. 87/21/15 Ex PW19/N, acknowledgement of FSL Ex. PW19/O, RC no. 177/21/16 Ex. PW19/P, acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW19/Q, RC no. 3/21/16 Ex.

PW19/R, acknowledgment of FSL Ex.

PW19/S, RC no. 74/21/17 Ex. PW19/T &acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW19/U. 20 PW20 Ms. Alaisoi Pyster, the then Principal Who came to prove the record of incident Apolo International School, Sonepat. dated 25/09/2014 Ex. PW20/A 21 PW21 Constable Babu Lal Who came to prove the factum that he took sealed pullandas to FSL, Rohini from MHC(M)on 04/09/2015 &16/10/2015 and after depositing the same he handed over the copy of RC and acknowledgment of FSL to MHC(M).

22 PW22 Constable Raza Bilal Qua the investigation conducted in his presence.

23 PW23 Constable Ashok Kumar Qua proving of factum of delivering the copy of FIR to senior police officials &ld. MM and that receiving of SUV no. D6CN2223 for taking to FSL for inspection vide RC no.

57/21/15 and after inspection depositing the same with MHC(M) and handing over the copy of RC to MHC(M).

24 PW24 Chanderkala Qua mobile no. 8585905950 being used by her.

25 PW25 Arvind Qua I20 car bearing no. HR12U7885 which was sold by him to Satish s/o Ram Mehar.

26 PW26 Rajbir Qua proving the factum of use of office of Maha Laxmi property in D2/1, 40 Foota Road, Rama Vihar, Delhi, by one Virender Singh for property dealing.

27 PW27 Santosh Kumar Qua the plot in front of water tank, Village Majri.

28 PW28 Chirag, friend of accused Dinesh Qua making calls to accused Dinesh Mathur Mathur from mobile no. 9899572696.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 17 of 144

29. PW29 Virender Singh Qua property no. D2/1, Khasra no. 6/12, Rama Vihar, Majari, seizure memo Ex.

PW29/A &photocopy of power of attorney markPW29/B. 30 PW30 Constable Pradeep For proving disclosure statements of accused Ashish Dalal &Dinesh Mathur Ex. PW30/A1 &Ex. PW30/B1 respectively, their arrest memos &personal search memos Ex.

PW30/A2 &Ex. PW30/A3 &Ex. PW30/B2 &Ex. PW30/B3 respectively.

31. PW31 HC Rajesh For proving arrest memo, personal search memo &disclosure statement of accused Nitin Ex. PW31/A, Ex. PW31/B &Ex. PW31/C respectively.

32 PW32 HC Birender Rai For proving arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Sujit Dabas Ex. PW32/A, Ex. PW32/B &Ex.

PW32/C respectively.

33 PW33 Constable Amit For proving pointing out memo of City Centre Mall by accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur Ex. PW12/F & pointing out memo of Karala water tank in front of Madanpur road in a plot Ex PW12/G, seizure memo of I20 car 20 HR 12 U 7885 Ex. PW12/E, pointing out memo of City Centre Mall by accused Sujit Dabas and Nitin Ex. PW12/H &pointing out memo of Karala water tank in front of Madanpur road in a plot Ex PW12/I 34 PW34 Ravi, uncle of accused Sujeet Dabas Qua SIM no. 8375074077 on which accused Sujeet Dabas used to receive calls from his friends.

35 PW35 Sachin Qua mobile no. 9582635163.

36 PW36 Dalbir Qua XUV bearing no. DL6CN2223 Ex.

PW36/Article, superdaginama Ex. P/w36/A, punchnama Ex. PW36/B,copy of RC Ex.

PW36/C and photographs of vehicle Ex.

PW6/E colly.

37 PW37 Retired SI Shyam Singh Qua investigation conducted in his presence and for proving seizure memo Ex. PW37/A to Ex. PW37/D. 38 PW38 Pradeep Kumar, DE MSC Panipat, For proving photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

Haryana 9467549603 which was issued in the name of Anil Kumar s/o Ram Saran, photocopy of election I card Ex. P/W38/B, its CDR from 15/06/15 to 26/06/15 Ex. PW38/C colly and SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 18 of 144 certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.

PW38/D. 39 PW39 SI Rakesh Qua investigation conducted in his presence and for proving Ex. PW39/A to Ex. PW39/C. 40 PW40 Constable Deepak Qua deposit of three sealed plastic jar along with sample seal to FSL vide RC no. 3/21/16.

41 PW41 Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, For proving the following record: Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd. i)photocopy of CAF of mobile no. 9999330080 issued in the name of accused Sahil Mathur Ex. PW41/A1, photocopy of Aadhar card Ex.

PW41/A2, CDR Ex. PW41/A3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW41/A4.

ii)photocopy of CAF of mobile no. 8587069869 issued in the name of Yogender Singh Ex.

PW41/B1, photocopy of voter ID card Ex.

PW41/B2, CDR Ex. PW41/B3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW41/B4.

iii) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

8800964939issued in the name of Karambir Singh Ex. PW41/C1, photocopy of voter ID card Ex. PW41/C2, CDR Ex. PW41/C3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.

PW41/C4.

iv) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

8930050096issued in the name of Jogender Singh Dalal Ex. PW41/D1, photocopy of ration IDcard Ex. PW41/D2, CDR Ex. PW41/D3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.

PW41/D4.

v) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9540289989 issued in the name of accused Dinesh Mathur Ex. PW41/E1, photocopy of driving license &PAN cardEx. PW41/E, CDR Ex. PW41/E3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW41/E4.

vi) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9999302728issued in the name of accused Dinesh Mathur Ex. PW41/F1, photocopy of driving license Ex. PW41/F2, CDR Ex.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 19 of 144

PW41/F3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW41/F4.

Vii) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

8375074077 issued in the name of RaviEx.

PW41/G1, photocopy of voter ID card Ex.

PW41/G2, CDR Ex. PW41/G3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.

PW41/G4.

Viii) Photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

8585905950 issued in the name of Chander Kala Ex. PW41/H1, photocopy of voter ID card Ex. PW41/H2, CDR Ex. PW41/H3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.

PW41/H4.

ix) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9250929294 issued in the name of Deepak Mathur Ex. PW41/I1, photocopy of driving iicense Ex. PW41/I2, CDR Ex. PW41/I3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW41/I 4.

x) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

8053190009issued in the name of Dinesh Ex.

PW41/J1, photocopy of driving license Ex.

PW41/J2, CDR Ex. PW41/J3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW41/J 4.

xi) photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9953561578 issued in the name of Hemraj Ex.

PW41/K1, photocopy of driving license Ex.

PW41/K2, CDR Ex. PW41/k3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW41/k4.

Xii) photocopy f CAF of mobile no.

9811530641 issued in the name of Ashutosh Gupta Ex. PW41/L1, photocopy of driving license Ex. PW41/L2, CDR Ex. PW41/L3 colly &certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.

PW41/l4.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 20 of 144

Xiii) two Cell ID charts of Vodafone for Delhi NCR Ex. PW41/M and Ex. PW41/N respectively.

42 PW42 Yogender Singh, friend of accused Qua purchase of SIM of vodafone having Sharna Dhar number 8587069869 on his ID i.e. voter I/card on 28/03/2014 vide customer application form Ex. PW42/A, which was handed over by him to father of accused Sharna Dhar.

43 PW43 Jogender Singh, father of accused Qua purchase of one SIM of vodafone having Ashish Dalal no. 8930050096 on his ID i.e. ration card on 21/08/2020 vide customer application form Ex.

PW43/A and has proved photocopy of ration card as Ex. PW43/B. 44 PW44 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea For proving following record: Cellular Ltd. i)Photocopy of CAF of mobile no. 9017223223 Ex. PW44/A, which was in the name of Kamla Devi, photocopy of voter ID card Ex. PW44/B, CDR from 01/06/15 to 26/06/15 Ex. PW44/C colly and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex. PW44/D.

ii) Photocopy of CAF of mobile no.

9728016343 Ex. PW44/A, Which was issued in the name of Anju w/o Anil Kumar, photocopy of Aadhar card Ex. PW44/F, CDR from 01/06/15 to 26/06/15 Ex. PW44/G colly and certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act Ex.

PW44/H. 45 PW45 Ms. Monika Chakravarty, SSO For proving inspection report Ex. PW45/A of (Biology), FSL, Delhi. vehicle Mahindra XUV 500DL6CN2223. 46 PW46 Sumit, uncle of accused Sujeet Dabas Qua using mobile no. 9868971390 with which he used to make call on the mobile phone of father of accused Sujeet Dabas.

47 PW47 Sh. Harjeet Singh Jaspal, ld. Civil For proving TIP proceedings of accused Judge, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi. Sharna Dhar, Sahil Mathur, Gaurav, JC "HB"

(JCL), JCL "AM" Ex. PW47/A colly to Ex.

PW47/F colly.

48 Sh. Abhilash Malhotra, ld. MM03, Central, For proving following record: Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. i) application to declare accused Ashish Dalal as P.O. vide application EX. 48/1, proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW48/2, order qua declaring accused Ashish Dalal P.O. Ex. PW48/3.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 21 of 144

ii) application to declare accused Dinesh Mathur & Sujit Dabas as P.O. vide application EX. 48/4, proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against said accused Ex. PW48/5 &Ex. PW48/6 respectively, order qua declaring both these accused P.O. Ex. PW48/7 49 PW49 Sh. Mahendra Singh Niranjan, For proving report Ex. PW49/A qua analyzing JF/ACE, FSL, Rohini. of mobile phone and SIM cards.

50 PW50 ASI Dharambir Singh For proving investigation conducted in his presence.

51 PW51 Dinesh Kumar, uncle of deceased Qua CCTV footage dated 25/06/2015. Deepak Gulia 52 PW52 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Assistant For proving report Ex. PW52/A. Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi.

53. PW53 Sh. M.L. Meena, SSO (Chemistry), For proving report Ex. PW53/A. FSL, Rohini, Delhi.

54 PW54 Dr. Vijay Dhankar For proving PM report Ex. PW13/A &report Ex. PW54/A. 55 PW55 Dr. C.P. Singh, Asst. Director, physics, For proving reports Ex. PW55/A &Ex.

FSL, Rohini, Delhi. PW55/B.

56. PW56 Dr. Aanchal Dwivedi, Jr. Scientific For proving report Ex. PW56/A Officer, CFSL, Chandigarh.

57 PW57 Sh. Geetesh Patel, Jr. Forensic/Asst. For proving report Ex. PW57/A. Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, Delhi.

58 PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh, investigating Qua the investigation conducted by him. officer 59 PW59 Sh. T. Ashok,Asst. Director, Cyber and For proving report Ex. PW59/A. Audio video forensic truth labs, Bangalore.

60 PW60 Constable Vinod Kumar Qua depositing sealed pullanda and DVR in Truth Lab, Delhi along with forwarding letter vide RC no. 85/21/18.

61 SI Pancham Kumar Qua deputing Ct Vinod (PW60) for deposing one sealed pullanda &DVR in Truth Lab, Delhi vide RC no. 85/21/18 and preparing of forwarding letter.

62 PW62 HC Anil Kumar For proving the fact that he handed over to Ct Vinod one sealed pullanda, one DVR along with forwarding letter for depositing the same in Truth Lab, Safdarjung, Delhi vide RC no.

85/21/18 Ex. PW62/A, who later on handed over the copy of road certificate regarding receipt of exhibits in the said lab &he made relevant entry in register no. 19 at point X in Ex. PW62/B. SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 22 of 144 63 PW63 Sh. Vivek Kumar, Jr. Forensic/Asst. For proving report Ex. PW63/A &certificate u/s Chemical Examiner, FSL, Rohini, Delhi. 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW63/B.

18. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 27/01/2018, wherein they have denied the case of prosecution and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Except accused Nitin and Sharna Dhar, all the accused opted to lead evidence in defence.

19. In defence, DW1 Hari Om Jindal (on behalf of accused Dinesh) & DW2 Ms. Mukta Singh were examined. DE was closed on 22/02/2018.

20. It is pertinent to mention here that on 10/08/2018, FSL result was filed and witness from Truth Lab was ordered to be summoned and thereafter PW59 to PW62 were examined and PE was closed and thereafter supplementary statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 07/09/2018. Thereafter, case was fixed for final arguments. However, on 20/09/2018, an application u/s 311 CrPC for recalling PWs 59, 61 and 62, which was allowed. On 01/02/2019, PE was closed & case was listed for final arguments. Almost all the arguments were completed and even written arguments were also filed on behalf of the accused persons. On 28/01/2021, prosecution has moved an application u/s 311 CrPC for recalling PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh, IO of the case, which was allowed vide order dated 08/04/2021. Accordingly, PW58 was examined, cross examined and discharged. Ld. counsels for the accused persons have submitted that since no further evidence has come on record in the crossexamination of 58, therefore there is no need to record the supplementary statements of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC and as such the matter was listed for final arguments.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 23 of 144

21. I have heard ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsels for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record.

22. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that though PW6 Sagar Kataria has not supported the case of the prosecution qua the identity of the accused persons as assailants who had abducted the deceased, who was later on murdered, but IO 58 Inspector Jitender Singh has identified all the accused persons after seeing the CD containing CCTV footage. He has further submitted that all the accused persons were in touch with each other & with "RM" (JCL) (JCL) through their mobile phones and they hatched a conspiracy to eliminate the decease Deepak Gulia and their CDRs also reveal their presences at the place of abduction, at the place of murder and at the place where the dead body of the deceased was thrown.

23. Sh. Sunil Ahuja, ld. counsel for accused Sahil Mathur has submitted that PW6 Sagar Kataria did not support the case of prosecution at all and therefore the evidence of the TIP being alleged against the accused becomes meaningless since there is no other identifying witness. He has further submitted that there is no other evidence which would link the present accused with the commission of the crime. He has further submitted that accused refused his TIP since he was kept in unmuffled face after his arrest. He has further submitted that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. He has further submitted that in a case where the prosecution relies purely upon the circumstances, then the motive plays an important role which link is clearly missing in this case. In this regard, ld. counsel has relied upon Crl. Appeal no. 57/1994 of 22/01/2010 of Delhi High Court. He has further submitted that it is SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 24 of 144 not the case of prosecution that accused Sahil Mathur had accompanied the deceased in XUV car in which he was allegedly taken or in the i20 car which had gone to the mall. He has further submitted that there is no evidence connecting the accused or his presence in the mall except the bald disclosure statement of the accused, which cannot be read for any purpose whatsoever. He has further submitted that CDR details of a phone have been placed on record to suggest that accused was in touch with other accused on the date of incident and his location was fund to be that of village Karala. He has further submitted that prosecution has not been able to link this piece of evidence or the phone with the accused. He has further submitted that accused resides in a same vicinity and a cell tower covers a distance of 3 kms which fact had gone admitted on record by PW14. In this regard, ld. counsel has placed reliance on 2016 (1) AD Crl. DHC 739 & 2015 Crl.L.J. 3152. He has further submitted that the prosecution is relying upon a cryptic piece of evidence i.e. CCTV, the recovery of which is shrouded in mystery. He has further submitted that there are contradictory statements of witnesses with regard to the contents of the recordings. He has further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions and not admitting, but the recordings are showing that the accused alone roaming entering the mall, not accompanying the abductors or the deceased He is allegedly entering the mall and not accosted the deceased while coming out and even after the vehicle sped away or not following the car or any other accused and as such the said accused cannot be roped in with the aid of Section 120B IPC. In this regard, he has relied upon 2012 (3) JCC 2011. Ld. counsel has further argued that the prosecution is alleging that the accused had identified the plot, which has no substance or evidentiary value in view of the fact that the place was already known to the police and the confessional statement of the accused is also an inadmissible piece of evidence in SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 25 of 144 view of the settled proposition of law on Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

24. Sh. I.A. Alvi, ld. counsel for accused Gaurav has argued that the present case was registered on the statement of "AJ" (JCL), who was later on apprehended in this case as an accused and is facing trial at JJB and the case against the accused persons was registered on the basis false statement, which is not admissible in evidence and this fact goes to show that manipulation had started in this case from the beginning. He has further submitted that PW6 Sagar Kataria, who is the sole eyewitness of the incident of kidnapping, neither deposed anything against the accused persons nor identified them. He has further argued that nothing incriminating had come out against accused Gaurav and coaccused persons in the statement of PW6 Sagar Kataria. He has further argued that PW6 did not even identify the accused persons in the Court after seeing the DVD Ex. P2 allegedly containing the CCTV footage. He has further argued that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence against the accused Gaurav which may link him to the kidnapping or murder of the deceased Deepak Gulia. He has further argued that no motive has been attributed or proved against the accused Gaurav and he was not connected or linked with JCL "RM" (JCL) . The said accused neither knew deceased Deepak Gulia nor did he know JCL "RM" (JCL) . He has further submitted that PW9 Ashok Kumar and PW1) grandfather of the deceased did not state anything against accused Gaurav nor there is any evidence qua any conversation or meeting between accused Gaurav and JCL "RM" (JCL) . He has further argued that there is no last seen evidence against accused Gaurav. He has further submitted that the CCTV footage was not proved as per the Indian Evidence Act and two FSL reports of Govt. agency did not give any information that the DVR contained any footage, whereas a private agency Truth Lab stated SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 26 of 144 that DVR was containing CCTV footage. He has further submitted that even as per statement of PW59 T Ashok, all the images visible in the recording of the DVR marked item no. A1 referred as Q1 & Q2 in the report retrieved on the CD Ex Art 59/A were suffering from low quality due to distance between the camera and the subject. He has further submitted that reliance cannot be placed on an unauthentic report of a private agency. He has further argued that even for the sake of argument, though not admitted, if the CCTV footage is considered, even then the accused Gaurav was not captured in the CCTV footage. He has further argued that mere presence of the accused near the place of kidnapping does not conclusively indicate the involvement of the accused in the alleged conspiracy. Ld. counsel has further argued that the allegation against the accused Gaurav is that he was using mobile no. 9211130652 and had received calls from mobile no. 8375074077allegedly used by coaccused Sujit Dabas in the morning of 25/06/2015 and the CDR does not prove what was the conversation between them and even otherwise, both the said accused live in the same village as per the case of the prosecution and it is not unusual if there is any conversation between them. He has further submitted that location of mobile phone of accused Gaurav does not connect him with the place of murder. In support of his arguments, ld. counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

i) P.K. Narayan Vs State of Kerala [1995 SCC (Crl) 215.

ii) Saju Vs State of Kerala [2001 SCC (Crl) 160.

iii) Babubhai Bhimbhai Bokhiria & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors. [2014 [2] JCC 1224}.

iv) Padala Veera Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 79).

v) Ram Badan Yadav Vs State JCC 2020 (1) Delhi 134.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 27 of 144

25. Sh. Rahul Sharma, ld. counsel for accused Sharnadhar has argued that as per the case of prosecution, the role of said accused is that he was introduced in a preexisting conspiracy by accused Dinesh, who asked the accused Sharnadhar to join the offence likely to be committed on 25/06/2015 and accordingly accused Dinesh took accused Sharnadhar from his house at around 10.00 a.m. and they both reached at City Centre Mall and at around 12:45 pm. deceased Deepak Gulia along with his two friends reached the said Mall, where the accused persons surround them and tried to forcibly make them sit in the cars and during this one of the friend of deceased namely Sagar ran away and all the accused persons took the deceased and one of his friend, but accused Sharnadhar could not board any of the vehicle/car and he went back to his house. He has further argued that out of 58 witnesses examined by the prosecution, only four witnesses are relevant for accused Sharna Dhar. Ld. counsel has further argued that PW6 Sagar Kataria turned hostile and he failed to identify the accused persons as the persons who had abducted Deepak Gulia and stated that he was seeing them for the first time and they have no role in the murder of deceased Deepak Gulia. He has further argued that PW42 Yogender Singh, whose mobile phone was allegedly used by accused Sharna Dhar, had turned hostile and he has specifically stated that he handed over the SIM to father of the accused Sharnadhar and denied his statement dated 06/08/205 Ex. PW42/B. Ld. counsel has further argued that PW50 SI Dharambir Singh is witness to investigation and qua the arrest of accused Sharnadhar and he has proved Ex PW50/A to Ex. PW50/D in his testimony and has stated in his crossexamination that he does not know where he met the father of accused and further stated th at he did not meet the father of the accused and he does not remember whether the father of the accused signed any document in his presence or not. Ld. Counsel has further SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 28 of 144 argued that PW50 has admitted that Ex. PW50/A to Ex. PW50/D were signed by him at the PS at the instance of IO and whatever was found with accused Sharnadhar was mentioned in his personal search memo. Ld. counsel has further submitted that the crossexamination of PW50 casts doubt upon the manner of arrest of accused Sharnadhar and recovery of the mobile from the accused as in personal search memo there is no recovery than when and from where the mobile was recovered. He has further argued that PW50 did not participate in any investigation qua accused Sharnadhar as he himself admitted that he signed all the documents only at PS and that too at the instance of IO. He has further argued that PW58 IO Inspector Jitender Singh has proved Ex. PW50/A to Ex. PW50/D qua accused Sharnadhar in his testimony and in the crossexamination he has stated that prior to the arrest of the accused, he had evidence against him (the accused) that is CDR of his mobile and the secret information. He has further submitted that mobile phone with two SIMs were found in the possession of accused Sharnadhar but the same was seized as case property and the SIM which was used at the time of commission of offence was not found in the mobile phone and could also not be recovered later on. Ld. counsel has further argued that father of said accused is not a witness to the seizure of mobile phone, no public witness was joined at the time of arrest of accused, whereas the accused was arrested from a public place. Ld. counsel has further submitted that PW58 has admitted that as per CDR, the location of accused Sharnadhar was not in Karala prior to abduction or thereafter and has further stated that accused Sharnadhar was known to accused Dinesh as they both had studied together and on that day, they were also in touch with each other and that he did not verify from the school in which they studied together but both of them told so. Ld. counsel has further submitted that there is no incriminating evidence against accused SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 29 of 144 Sharnadhar which connects him with the alleged offences. He has further submitted that as per the prosecution, accused Dinesh and Sharnadhar were together at City Centre Mall Rohini, however, the CDR suggests that they were making calls to each other which suggests that accused Dinesh and Sharnadhar were not at the same place as no prudent person will make a call to another person who is with him only. He has further submitted that solely CDR is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused as there is no other corroborative evidence against the accused Sharnadhar.

26. Sh. Pawan Gulia, ld counsel for accused Ashish Dalal has submitted that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. He has further submitted that "AJ" (JCL), complainant of the present case was subsequently made an accused in the present case and it is a trite law that a statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused in the case, cannot, in any manner, be used against anther accused and even as against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a witness in trial. He has further argued that the very limited use of it is as an admission U/s 21 of the Evidence Act against its maker alone unless the admission does not amount to confession. In this regard, ld. counsel has relied upon Bandlamuddi Atchuta Ramaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh 1996 Cri LJ 4463. He has further argued that there is sufficient evidence in the present case to establish that the FIR is a result of due deliberations and fabrications containing a false and fabricated version and has been antetimed. He has further submitted that even the FIR has not been proved as per the provisions of Evidence Act as certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW1/E was issued by Inspector Sanjay SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 30 of 144 Bhardwaj who has not been examined in the present case. Ld. counsel has further submitted that as per prosecution, Sagar Kataria and Hemraj with the IO since 3.30 p.m., however, neither their statements were recorded nor the FIR was got registered. He has further submitted that in fact, Sagar Kataria and Hemraj did not know the name of the persons who had committed the offence and their statements subsequently recorded u/s 161 CrPC are fabricated. He has further submitted that "AJ" (JCL) met PW58 at around 5.15 p.m., however, even his statement was not recorded at that time, which also reflects delay which has not been explained by the prosecution. Ld. counsel has further argued that first version of the incident was information to PCR by PW6 Sagar Kataria and PW7 Hemraj vide PCR form Ex. PW1/A, wherein no names of any person/accused is mentioned. He has further argued that PW37 SI Shyam Singh along with PW22 Ct. Raza Bilal met PW6 Sagar Kataria and PW7 Hemraj and none of them discoed the names of any person involved in the abduction. He has further argued that in fact, as per PW7 Hemraj, PW6 Sagar Kataria informed him that he did not know any of the assailants. He has further submitted that PW6 Sagar Kataria, the only witness to the alleged abduction, did not identify accused Ashish Dalal during TIP proceedings Ex. PW6/B nor did he identify him or any other accused during his deposition before the Court. Ld. counsel has further argued that PW51 Dinesh Kumar, a close relative of deceased, did not support the prosecution version and was unable to identify accused Ashish Dalal in the said footage. He has further argued that as per report of Truth Lab Ex. PW59/A, faces of the persons in the relevant portion of the recording could not be enhanced due to poor quality of video and, therefore, even from the video, the identity of the persons involved could not be established. He has further argued that hard disk was also examined at government labs but no data could be read in the hard disk and was not visible, SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 31 of 144 whereas private lab could thereafter extract the data and file report Ex. PW59/A and the crossexamination of PW59 has exposed him to be filing false and fabricated report. Ld. counsel has further argued that prosecution tried to establish the presence of accused Ashish Dalal around the place of occurrence through the CDR of mobile no 8930050096 through CAF Ex. PW51/D1, which reflects that it was issued in the name of Joginder Singh Dalal, who was examined as Ex. PW43 and said witness specifically denied the said number was being used by accused Ashish Dalal. Ld. counsel has further argued that evidence of PW4 Bimla Devi, PW5 Krishan Kumar, PW9 and PW10 are hearsay and as such they are inadmissible in evidence. Ld. counsel has further submitted that prosecution did not prove the CAF from Ex PW41/D1 to establish that mobile no. 9212312317 belonged to PW4. He has further submitted that PW5 had claimed that he had made a call to the PCR between 3.30 pm to 4.00 pm after reaching home from his mobile phone, however, neither any such PCR form has been placed on record nor any CDR has been proved on record. He has further argued that PW6 Sagar Kataria did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to motive and "AJ" (JCL) was made an accused and as such his version in the FIR cannot be read against the coaccused. He has further submitted that statements of other witnesses including pW4 and PW5 are highly belated and in contradiction to the statement of PW20 Ms. Alaisoi Pyster, who has stated that there was a patch up between Deepak Gulia, "RM" (JCL) and their families and thereafter there was no animosity between the families. He has further submitted that as per certificate Ex PW20/A, it was deceased Deepak Gulia and his friends who had assaulted "RM" (JCL) ,causing him serious injuries and were thereafter suspended and later there was no animosity between "RM" (JCL) and Deepak Gulia, therefore, to allege that "RM" (JCL) had a grudge on Deepak Gulia on that aspect as deposed by PW5 is SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 32 of 144 incorrect. He has further submitted that PW5 stated that Chacha of "RM" (JCL) came in school and threatened him, which fact is not reflected in certificate Ex. PW20/A or the deposition of PW20 nor is there any police complaint in this regard. He has further submitted that abovesaid alleged motive has been fabricated only in order to falsely implicate the accused. He has further submitted that PW Dhwani Gupta has created a false story of "MB" (JCL) as narrated in her deposition. He has further submitted that there is no independent corroboration to the disclosure statement of Ashish Dalal Ex. PW30/A2. He has further submitted that pointing out memo Ex. PW12/F is not admissible in evidence as it does not come under exception as carved U/s 27 of the Evidence Act. He has further argued that even the pointing out memo Ex. PW12/G of the place where the abducted by was killed is of no relevance as there is no evidence whatsoever of the incident taking place there & even as per CFSL report Ex. PW52/A, no biological clue material could be detected at the said place. Ld. counsel has further argued that alleged recovery of car I20 bearing registration no. HR12U 7885 from outside Mahalaxmi property vide memo Ex. PW12/E is also false and is not connected with the offence as PW6 did not identify the same nor it belonged to accused. He has further argued that PW25 Arvind denied that he sold the car t Virender Singh and PW29 (father of accused Dinesh Mathur) did not depose that car belonged to him and he denied that there was any office of Mahalaxmi property at that place as alleged by the prosecution. He has further submitted that even PW26 Rajbir denied that there is any such office in the lane of Mahalaxmi property on the said plot as alleged by the prosecution. Ld. counsel has further submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of witnesses qua the said recovery. He has further submitted that there is sufficient evidence in the case that postmortem report Ex. PW13/A has been prepared in a cursory manner SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 33 of 144 without ruling out other possibilities. Ld. counsel has further submitted that DVD Ex. P2 has no source, authenticity and also the certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act is false and unreliable. He has further submitted that hard disk Ex. Item 1A is neither original evidence but has been manipulated, unauthorizedly accessed and also its chain of custody is nor proved beyond doubt. He has further submitted that Truth Lab is not notified u/s 79A of the IT Act, 2000, hence the opinion is not relevant u/s 45A of Indian Evidence Act. The FSL report Ex. PW59/A has so many contradictions/falsifications which on the face of it make it an unreliable piece of document and it does not provide any credible opinion and chain of custody not proved beyond doubt. He as further argued that expert i.e.PW59 is not qualified, experienced and skilled person. In support of his arguments, ld. counsel for the accused has relied upon Rajiv Vs Kapoor Singh (MANU/PH/4266/2013 and Chamkaur Singh Vs Mithu Singh of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

27. Sh. Pradeep Rana, ld. counsel for accused Dinesh Mathur and Sujit Dabas has submitted that one 100 number call was made by witness Deepak but neither the name of accused persons nor the make of cars was mentioned therein & any i20 car used in the alleged incident is not established from any evidence. He has further submitted that nothing has been mentioned by the public witnesses about the use of alleged i20 car in the crime or that the alleged car was used by accused Dinesh Mathur. He has further submitted that there are contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses qua the recovery of i20 car. He has further submitted that PW25 Arvind denied that car belongs to Dinesh Mathur. He has further submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that any such office of Mahalaxmi property exists at Rama Vihar & PW26 Rajbir turned hostile. He has further submitted that there is pointing out of recovery of i20 car made by the IO.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 34 of 144

Ld. counsel has further argued that as per CDR, the location of accused Dinesh is at 10 a.m. at D Mall and from the CDR and location it can be inferred that accused Dinsh was at D Ma near about 2:30 hours before the incident. He has further submitted that PW28 Chirag has stated that on the alleged day of incident, he made phone call to Dinesh Mathur who replied that he was in his classroom. Ld. counsel has further submitted that PW34 Ravi was examined who deposed that mobile number 8375074077 is registered in his name and he used to receive phone calls from the friends of Sujeet Dabas as Sujeet Dabas was preparing for his nation games & PW34 further deposed that he is employed in DTC department and on 25/06/2015, he was going from that route, hence, as per the location chart, his location is in Rohini because he was going for his employment. Ld. counsel has further argued that there is no explanation as to why the IO f the case seized the DVD containing CCTV footage of incident and not hard disk before 14/07/2015. He has further submitted that as per PW15 Amit Aggarwal, police took alleged DVD from him before 15/07/2015 but no seizure memo was prepared by police official who took DVD from PW15 & moreover two FSLs i.e. Delhi and Chandigarh found no data. He has further submitted that family members of the complainant are hearsay witnesses. He has further submitted that there is no recovery of any kind of weapon from the accused persons. Ld. counsel has further argued that TIP of Dinesh Mathur failed. He has further submitted that there is nothing in chargesheet or in evidence recorded which can prove that both accused Dinesh and Sujeet were known to the deceased or his family members & that there is nothing to establish that accused persons had ever any conversation with deceased or any dealing at any point of time. In support of his arguments, ld. counsel has relied upon the following judgments:

i) Surender Pal Jain Vs Delhi Administrator, 1999 (Suppl3)SCC SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 35 of 144 681.

ii) Jaharlal Das Vs State of Orissa, MANU/SC/0586/1991

iii) Tika VS State of U.P. AIR, 1974 SC 155.

iv) Bhikari Vs State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1.

v) Barej Singh Vs Punjab 1976 Cri.L.J. 1471.

vi) Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0468/2013.

vii) Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs State (Delhi Admn.) MANU/SC/0241/1988.

viii) Narender Singh and Anr. Vs State of M.P.

ix) State of Rajasthan Vs Raja Ram, MANU/SC/0595/2003.

x) Subhash Vs State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1064/2010.

28. Sh. Amit Vohra, ld. counsel for accused Nitin has submitted that accused Nitin was arrested on disclosure statement of coaccused "HB" (JCL), nothing was recovered from him or at his instance, eye witness did not assign any role or whispered about the involvement of the present accused. He has further submitted that the eye witness did not state about any involvement of the third vehicle in the alleged incident and subsequently only after the accused surrendered on 30/11/2015, a statement was recorded to the effect that the accused came in third vehicle, which is an afterthought. He has further argued that the accused was not identified in TIP conducted on 10/12/2015. He has further argued that PW6 Sagar Kataria did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile, there is no motive to kill Deepak Gulia, who was unknown to accused Nitin and there is no conversation with him before the alleged incident.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 36 of 144

He has further submitted that accused Nitin did not know coaccused "RM" (JCL) (JCL) and other coaccused and there is no conversation with them prior to alleged incident or with Dhavani Gupta and "MB" (JCL) prior to incident or thereafter. He has further submitted that no conspiracy proved against accused Nitin u/s 120B IPC. He has further submitted that PW4 and PW5 have not alleged any allegation against accused Nitin. He has further submitted that in PCR form Ex PW11/A, there is no whisper of any third vehicle. He has further submitted that mobile phone 8585905950 allegedly used by accused Nitin did not show any conversation of Nitin with either the deceased or his friends or with "RM" (JCL) . He has further submitted that presuming the story of prosecution to be true, accused Nitin had not accompanied the deceased in XUV and I20 cars when the deceased was abducted. He has further submitted that there cannot be any presumption under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act even admitting alleged CCTV footage to be true and report of private FSL expert does not prove anything and cannot be relied upon. He has further submitted that there is no evidence of Nitin coming in Santro car or going back in the same or participating in alleged crime of murder at Kanjhawala Industrial Area. In support of his arguments, ld. counsel has placed reliance in the case of Shamal Shah & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal, 2014 Legal Eagle 132.

29. Qua the abduction of Deepak Gulia (since deceased), the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW6 Sagar Kataria. In his statement, PW6 Sagar Kataria has deposed that deceased Deepak Gulia was his friend and they were in friendship since 1½ years prior to the murder of Deepak Gulia. He further deposed that he was studying in Kasturi Ram International School, Narela and Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was also studying in the same SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 37 of 144 school and he developed friendship with Deepak Gulia thrugh other friends who were also studying in the same school. PW6 further deposed that Deepak Gulia later on took admission in Apollo International School, Sonepat in hostel & he once visited the school of Deepak Gulia, who later on left the school in the year 2015 in which he was murdered. He further deposed that they used to roam around jointly. PW6 further deposed that he knew "AJ" (JCL) who was studying along with Deepak Gulia (since deceased) in Apollo International school, was resident of Delhi & was a friend of Deepak Gulia. He further deposed that he also talked with "AJ" (JCL) whenever he talked to deceased Deepak Gulia on phone, who got him talked with "AJ" (JCL) on phone. He further deposed that Deepak Gulia (since deceased) used to use his phone whenever there was no balance in his phone.

29.1. PW6 further deposed that his grandmother was admitted at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital since 23 days prior to 25/06/2015 and he had to visit the said hospital on 25/06/2015. He further deposed that in the morning of 25/06/2015, he was taking shave at Narela and before that he telephonically called Deepak Gulia to meet him at the said barber shop, who accordingly reached there and he (PW6) told Deepak that he was going to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital & Deepak offered to accompany him and told him that while returning from the said hospital, they would take some snacks. He further deposed that on the way to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital, Deepak Gulia (since deceased) asked him to first eat something and to send his driver uncle Hemraj to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital and after eating they would go to the hospital. PW6 further deposed that before that, in the vehicle Swift bearing no. HR104699, in which they were travelling, Deepak Gulia telephonically called "AJ" (JCL) to City Centre Mall, Rohini. He further deposed that after dropping him and Deepak Gulia (since SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 38 of 144 deceased), his driver Hemraj left for Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital. PW6 further deposed that "AJ" (JCL) also reached at City Centre Mall and met them and they all three thereafter went inside the mall and then planned to go to Mcdonalds (MC'D), situated outside the Mall. He further deposed that while they all three were coming outside the Mall, 34 persons came and put their hands on their shoulders, shook hand with Deepak Gulia, came out with all three of them outside the mall, where 67 persons were present and they gave beatings to them. He further deposed that thereafter, those persons forcefully abducted Deepak Gulia (since deceased) and "AJ" (JCL) in two vehicles, whose make and registration number he does not remember. He further deposed that he was not sure whether there were two vehicles or three vehicles. PW6 further deposed that those 67 persons took away Deepak Gulia (since deceased) and "AJ" (JCL) and he managed to save himself by firmly holding the window of the vehicle and managed to escape from their clutches vehicle and thereafter those persons left him at the spot and took away Deepak Gulia and "AJ" (JCL). He further deposed that he became perplexed, went inside the mall and contacted on the mobile phone of his driver Hemraj by taking mobile phone of some person since there was no balance in his phone. PW6 Sagar further deposed that his driver Hemraj reached outside City Centre Mall and he told him about the aforesaid incident and from the mobile phone of Hemraj, he contacted at the house of Deepak Gulia and talked with his elder brother Ravi and told him about the aforesaid facts and on the asking of Ravi, he told his driver Hemraj to make a call to police at 100 number, who did so and police reached there. He further deposed that he and Hemraj thereafter went to PS Prashant Vihar and police made enquiry from them and they told the aforesaid facts to the police. PW6 claimed that his statement was not recorded by the police. PW6 further deposed that before arrival of the police at City Centre SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 39 of 144 Mall, he also tried to contact "AJ" (JCL) but he did not pickup his phone and after half an hour, "AJ" (JCL) picked up the phone and on asking he told that he was left at Rithala Metro Station by the abductors, who took Deepak along with them. PW6 Sagar Kataria further deposed that later on, on the arrival of police when he got talked "AJ" (JCL) with the police, "AJ" (JCL) told that he was returning to Rohini and will reach at PS. He further deposed that he does not know from where "AJ" (JCL) was returning. He further deposed that he does not know any girl by the name of Dhawni Gupta and no one had told me about the said girl by that name. PW6 further deposed that he was using mobile no. 8053190009 at that time and he did not give his SIM to deceased Deepak Gulia for using the same. He further deposed that he did not join the investigation in this case and did not identify any accused at Rohini Court Complex, Juvenile Justice Board, Kingsway Camp and PS. He further deposed that he joined the TIP proceedings in this case and the abductor/murderers of Deepak Gulia were not present in the persons and as such he could not identify them. TIP proceedings of accused Nitin Ex. PW6/A colly, Ashish Dalal Ex. PW6/B colly and Dinesh Mathur Ex. PW6/C colly were shown to PW6 Sagar Kataria and he identified his signature at points A on the same. He claimed that his statement was not recorded by the police.

29.2. During further examinationinchief of PW6 Sagar Kataria, his attention was drawn towards accused Sahil Mathur, Gaurav @ Puneet @ Banda, Sharna Dhar, Nitin, Sujeet Dabas, Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur, but he failed to identify them and specifically stated that accused persons present in the Court were not the abductors of Deepak Gulia (since deceased) and he was seeing them for the first time and they were not having any role in the murder of Deepak Gulia and he had nothing to depose against them. Even DVD Ex. P2 containing SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 40 of 144 the CCTV footage of City Centre Mall was played and shown to PW6 in the Court and after seeing the same, he has stated that he cannot identify the area/location shown in the DVD and refused to identify any of the accused persons present in the Court today. Since PW6 Sagar Kataria did not support the case of the prosecution, ld. Addl. PP for the State has sought permission to crossexamination him since he was resiling from his earlier statement and during said cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, he did not support the case of the prosecution at all and denied all the suggestion put to him.

30. In his testimony, PW7 Hemraj (driver of PW6 Sagar Kataria) has deposed qua the incident of the present case that last year on the day of the incident (the witness was examined on 20/07/2016) , month and date, he does not remember, on the asking of PW6 Sagar Kataria, he took PW6 & his Mama Ravi to the barber shop at Narela at about 8.30 a.m. and thereafter he went to his house. He further deposed about seeing Deepak Gulia (since deceased) with PW6 Sagar Kataria and his Mama Ravi at the barber shop, dropping Ravi at Bahadurgarh and thereafter reaching at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini on the asking of PW6 Sagar Kataria and Deepak Gulia. He further deposed that on the asking of Deepak Gulia (since deceased), he went to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital and he was told by Deepak Gulia that he would be called back whenever necessary. PW7 further deposed about receiving a call from PW6 Sagar Kataria after 1015 minutes from someone's phone qua scuffle/quarrel ensued with him & his reaching at the mall within 57 minutes, seeing PW6 Sagar Kataria having injury on his face, who told him that Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was abducted. He further deposed that on his asking, PW6 Sagar Kataria told him that he was being given beatings by the abductors and Deepak Gulia was abducted and he did not know SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 41 of 144 any abductors. He further deposed about searching of Deepak Gulia (since deceased) at nearby places, informing family members of Deepak Gulia by making a call, talking of Sagar with the family of deceased, his making a call at 100 number on the asking of PW6 Sagar, reaching of police, taking of him and Sagar Kataria to PS Prashant Vihar by the police and on enquiry telling all these facts to police. He further claimed that his statement was not recorded by the police. Even accused persons present in the Court were shown to him but he showed his inability to identify them and stated that he was seeing them for the first time.

30.1. Since PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution and has resiled from his previous statement made to police, ld. Addl. PP for the State has sought permission to crossexamine him and during his said crossexamination, PW7 has denied the suggestion that his statement dated 26/06/2015 Mark PW7/A was recorded by the police or that he found the same to be correct. He even denied having made any such statement to the police. He has admitted that the date of incident was 25/06/2015 and that in the morning of 25/06/2015, Sagar Kataria (PW6) told him that he along with Deepak Gulia (since deceased) had to go to City Centre Mall, Rohini. He further deposed that he does not remember if on reaching Narela, PW6 Sagar Kataria made a mobile call to Deepak Gulia but at that time Deepak Gulia did not pickup the phone. He has further denied the suggestion that Mama Ravi of PW6 Sagar Kataria had also accompanied to his house after leaving Sagar Kataria at barber shop. He has further denied the suggestion that at the time when they were taking breakfast, Deepak Gulia (since deceased) made a call to him asking him "abhi kitni der aur lagegi" or that he told him "bus nashta karke pahunch rahe hain". PW7 has voluntarily stated that on reaching back to barber shop, Deepak Gulia asked him "Badi der laga di". PW7 SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 42 of 144 has further denied the suggestion that from Bahadurgarh , he along with PW6 Sagar Kataria and Deepak Gulia reached in swift car in front of Mangolpuri Kalan Pathar Market outside Pitam Pura colony, where "AJ" (JCL) friend of Deepak Gulia met them or that he does not remember as to in the meantime Deepak Gulia received phone call to the effect "kahan reh gaye" or that said "AJ" (JCL) also sat in the car or that on the asking of said "AJ" (JCL), they also went to the market near Peeragarhi situated at the right side by taking left turn from the side of Peeragarhi or that "AJ" (JCL) returned shortly after visiting that market as he had to get sign a cheqe there or that from there they went to Kohat Enclave from where Deepak Gulia purchased a cake from a shop ort hat from there they went to City Centre Mall or that there he dropped Sagar Kataria, Deepak Gulia and "AJ" (JCL) in the rear parking or that at that time, he left the City Centre Mall for Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital. He has voluntarily stated that Deepak Gulia was receiving continuous calls. PW7 has further denied the suggestion that PW6 Sagar Kataria also told him that said "AJ" (JCL) was also being taken away after giving beatings by the abductors. He has admitted that PW6 Sagar Kataria told him that abductors had used two vehicles and that thereafter, he got recharged the mobile phone of PW6 Sagar Kataria from a shop near Cancer Hospital. He has further admitted that PW6 Sagar Kataria had made several calls from his mobile number. He has denied the suggestion that in the meantime, it came to their knowledge that aforesaid "AJ" (JCL) had been left near Rithala Metr Station by the abductors or that aforesaid "AJ" (JCL) went to his college or that when police talked to "AJ" (JCL) and he returned. PW7 admitted that later on they came to know that the dead body of Deepak Gulia was found in the area of Kanjhawala. However, he denied the suggestion that all the accused persons present in the court were seen by him previously also in the company of PW6 Sagar Kataria and "AJ" (JCL) or SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 43 of 144 that he was intentionally not identifying them. He has further stated that he does not remember the mobile number of PW6 Sagar Kataria which he was using since last 45 years from the day of incident. He has further stated that he cannot say whether the mobile number was 8053190009 which Sagar Kataria was using. He has further stated that he does not know if the aforesaid SIM was lost by Sagar Kataria or that since 1-½ month before the incident he was using SIM no. 9017223223 or that when Sagar Kataria got a new SIM of his previous mobile no. 8053190009, Sagar Kataria stopped using the new SIM 9017223223 or that at about 1012/06.2015, PW6 Sagar Kataria had given his new SIM no. 9017223223 to Deepak Gulia (since deceased) for his use. PW7 has denied the suggestion that he was not disclosing true and actual facts in order to save he accused persons or that he was deposing falsely being won over by the accused persons.

31. PW8 Dhwani Gupta has deposed that she was studying in class 8th of Apollo International School, Sonepat and those days she used to stay in the hostel of the school. She further deposed that her younger sister namely Aeshna was also studying in the same school in third class. She further deposed that "MB" (JCL) (JCL) was studying in 11 th class of above named school and was her room mate in hostel. PW8 further deposed that "MB" (JCL) was resident of Fatiabad, Haryana and some time she used to come from Noida (UP). She further deposed that her mother was having mobile no.9811530649 & "MB" (JCL) was having a mobile phone no.9728016343 and whenever my mother had to call, she used to call on the mobile phone of "MB" (JCL) as she (PW8) was not having any mobile phone. PW8 further deposed that her father was having mobile no.9650191150 & her parents used to make a call on the mobile phone of "MB" (JCL) for talking to her on Sunday morning & as per hostel rules, the parents could talk to their SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 44 of 144 children on phone between 10 AM to 12 noon.

31.1. PW8 further deposed that her birthday falls on 25 th June. She further deposed that one week before her birthday, she received telephone call of "MB" (JCL) on the phone of her mother as she was also at home at that time. She further deposed that "MB" (JCL) was calling from Noida at that time and she told her that she ("MB" (JCL)) is arranging a surprise party on the occasion of her (PW8's) birthday. PW8 further deposed that "MB" (JCL) told her that she (PW8) will come to know about the persons attending the party only in the party. She further deposed that the party was arranged at Citi Centre Mall, Rohini on 25.06.2015. PW8 further deposed that when she informed her mother that "MB" (JCL) is arranging surprise party on her birthday, her mother refused/did not allow her to attend such party & also talked with "MB" (JCL) on telephone and told her that Dwani (PW8) will not attend that party. She further deposed that on the same day in the evening, "MB" (JCL) talked to her mother and requested her to permit her (PW8) to attend the party and this time her mother agreed to permit her to attend the party.

31.2. PW8 further deposed that one day prior to her birthday, "MB" (JCL) made a call and asked her whether she is coming to the party and she told "MB" (JCL) that she will come along with her younger sister and her father will drop them. She further deposed that on 25.06.15 at about 11 AM, "MB" (JCL) again called her and inquired from her at what time she (PW8) will reach Citi Centre, Rohini & she told her that after the tuition of her younger sister is over, she will reach there along with her father and sister at about 12/12.30 PM.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 45 of 144

31.3. PW8 further deposed that at about 12/12.30 PM, she along with her father and younger sister left home for reaching Citi Centre, Rohini in the car driven by driver & while they were near Madhuban Chowk and were not able to locate Citi Centre, at the same time, "MB" (JCL) made a call on the mobile phone number of her father and informed that party has been canceled and no body is coming & thereafter they returned home.

31.4. PW8 further deposed that in the evening on 25.06.15, mother of Deepak (deceased) made a call on the mobile phone of her mother informing that her son is missing. She further deposed that on 26.06.15, brother of Deepak (deceased) made a call on the mobile phone of her mother informing that Deepak had died. PW8 further deposed that Deepak Gulia (deceased) was studying in her school and was staying in hostel of the school. She further deposed that after some days, police reached at her house and inquired from her, recorded her statement and informed her that Deepak Gulia was murdered by accused "RM" (JCL) . She further claimed that she can identify "RM" (JCL) , if produced before her as he was also residing in the school hostel. She further deposed that she does not know any of the accused present in the court. She further deposed that she knew "AJ" (JCL) as he was also residing in the hostel of the school. She further deposed that Deepak Gulia was his good friend and in a house party organized in the school, he was member of the dance party wherein she was also a member & their relation was only as friends.

32. PW9 Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 25.06.15, his brother Kishan Kumar informed him that his son Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was taken by 23 boys I.e. Mohit and others. He further deposed that he also reached SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 46 of 144 at the PS and from there he along with his brother and other relatives reached at Karale wala road where the dead body of Deepak Gulia was lying & he identified the dead body of his nephew Deepak Gulia. He further deposed that dead body was removed to the BSA hospital & on 26.06.15, he along with his relatives went to the mortuary of Dr. BSA hospital, where he identified the dead body vide Ex. PW9/A & after the postmortem, he along with his relative received the body vide memo Ex. PW9/B. 32.1. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused persons, he has admitted that he did not tell the police in his statement that he received the call of his brother, who told him that Deepak was taken by 23 boys i.e. Mohit and others.

33. PW10 Ram Kishan has deposed that Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was his grand son. He further deposed that on 25.06.15 in the morning hours, PW6 Sagar, friend of Deepak Gulia (since deceased) came home and Deepak Gulia went along with Sagar, who told that they are going to celebrate birthday. He has further deposed that Sagar was in a car driven by a driver and Deepak Gulia left with Sagar in that car. He further deposed that on the same day in the evening, he received call from Krishan, father of Deepak Gulia, who told him that Deepak is not traceable and that he made calls on the mobile of Deepak as well as Sagar, but those are not reachable. PW10 further deposed that he went to the house of Krishan and thereafter they all went to Rohini PS, where PW6 Sagar was already present with driver. He further deposed that on inquiry, PW Sagar told that Deepak was taken in the car by "AJ" (JCL) and other boys. He further deposed that at about 5 or 5:30 pm or 6:00 pm, "AJ" (JCL) came to the police SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 47 of 144 station and police took "AJ" (JCL) in the police jeep and they remained in the police station. PW10 further deposed that after some time, a telephone was received in the police station by police officer that dead body of a boy had been found & they reached that place i.e. fields in the area of village Khanjhawala, where many persons were already present as well as police & he identified the dead body as of Deepak. He further deposed that dead body was removed to the mortuary of Dr.BSA hospital & he identified the same in the mortuary vide memo Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that after post mortem, dead body was handed over to them vide memo already Ex.PW9/B. PW10 further deposed that he does not remember the number of the mobile phone of Deepak, however, PW6 Sagar had given his SIM to Deepak about 15 days prior to this incident which was being used by Deepak. He further deposed that PW Sagar used to ask Deepak to accompany him to Haridwar, Dehradun etc. and also that he will arrange medicine for the father of Deepak but they always refused and did not allow Deepak to accompany Sagar.

33.1. In his crossexamination conducted on behalf of the accused persons, PW10 has claimed that his statement was recorded by the police. He further claimed that he and Krishan are residing in the same house. He further claimed that Deepak did not accompany Sagar in his presence and has voluntarily stated that he was told this fact by Krishan and his wife. He further stated that he does not remember if he told the police that krishan and his wife told him that Deepak was taken away by Sagar in his car. The Court has observed that the said fact was not mentioned in the statement of PW10). PW10 further claimed that he did not tell the police that Deepak (since deceased) had gone with PW6 Sagar to attend some birthday party. He has voluntarily stated that police obtained SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 48 of 144 his signature on one blank paper and one written paper. He further stated that he did not tell the police that "AJ" (JCL) came to PS and he was taken by the police to some place. He has denied the suggestion that he has voluntarily stated that these facts were told to them by the police only.

34. PW13 Dr. Mukesh Kumar, SR Forensic Medicines, Dr.BSA Hospital, Delhi, has deposed that on 26.05.15, he and Dr. Vijay Dhankar had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Deepak son of Krishan Gulia, aged 20 year male on the request of Inspector Jitender Singh,PS Prashant Vihar and gave the detailed report. He further deposed that in their opinion, death was due to cardiac temponade consequent to trauma to the chest and abdomen, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW13 further deposed that all injuries were ante mortem and fresh in duration prior to death, caused by blunt force. He further deposed that the tramline contusions and contused abrasions were likely to have been caused by elongated hard object like lathi, danda, rod etc. PW13 further deposed that they also preserved viscera along with blood sample, clothes and other articles, blood on gauze and entire heart for histopethology. He has proved their report as Ex.PW13/A.

35. PW14 Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal officer Bharti Airtel Ltd. 224, Okhla PhIII, New Delhi, has deposed that he had brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile nos.9211929294, 9818611899, 8800885694, 8800736976, 9211130652 and 9958602141. He further deposed that as per record of CAF, mobile no. 9211929294 was registered in the name of Deepak Mathur son of Kuldeep Mathur r/o 499, V&PO Karala, Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of the CAF as Ex.PW14/A1 & photocopy of driving license of subscriber as mark PW SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 49 of 144 14/A2. He has proved the CDR of this mobile no.from dt.10.06.15 to 26.06.15 of Delhi circle as Ex.PW14/A3 collectively.

35.1. PW14 further deposed that as per record of CAF, mobile no. 9818611899 was registered in the name of Azad Singh son of Lahna Singh r/o B 13/104 Type II Qtr, police colony, Pritam Pura, Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of the CAF as Ex. PW14/B1 (OSR) & photocopy of delhi police ID card and election ID card of subscriber as mark PW14/B2 colly. He has further proved CDR of this mobile no. from dt.10.06.15 to 26.06.15 of Delhi circle as Ex.PW14/B3 collectively.

35.2. PW14 further deposed that as per record of CAF, mobile no. 8800885694 was registered in the name of Priya daughter of Pradeep Mathur r/o 499, Opp. Sr. Secondary School, Karala, village Mohd.Puri Majri, Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of the CAF as Ex. PW14/C1, photocopy of Voter ID card of subscriber as mark PW14/C2 & CDR of this mobile number from dt.20.06.15 to 26.06.15 of Delhi circle as Ex. PW14/C3 collectively.

35.3. PW14 further deposed that as per record of CAF, mobile no. 8800736976 was registered in the name of Heru Biswas son of Akshay Biswas r/o 1513, village Karala, Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of the CAF as Ex. PW 14/D1, photocopy of election ID card of subscriber mark PW14/D2 & CDR of this mobile number from dt.20.06.15 to 26.06.15 of Delhi circle as Ex. PW14/D3 collectively.

35.4. PW14 further deposed that as per record of CAF, mobile no.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 50 of 144

9211130652 was registered in the name of Gaurav son of Sanjay r/o 371 Madanpur Dabas, Rani Khera, Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of the CAF as Ex. PW14/E1, photocopy of Adhar Card of subscriber as mark PW14/E2 & CDR of this mobile no. from dt.20.06.15 to 26.06.15 of Delhi circle as Ex.PW14/E3 collectively.

35.5. PW14 further deposed that as per record of CAF, mobile no. 9958602141 was registered in the name of Aashutosh Gupta son of Shashi Prakash Gupta r/o 105, B Block, Nehru Vihar, Delhi. He has proved the photocopy of the CAF as Ex. PW14/F1, photocopy of voter ID card of subscriber as mark PW14/F2 and CDR of this mobile number from dt. 20.06.15 to 26.06.15 of Delhi circle as Ex. PW14/F3 collectively.

35.6. PW14 has proved the certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act Ex. PW14/G & CDR location chart Ex. PW14/H collectively.

36. PW15 Amit Aggarwal has deposed that he is a Mall Manager and is working in Company namely Surya Maintenance Agency Pvt. Ltd having maintenance of CCTV cameras, its recording and other maintenance at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that on 15.07.15, he handed over hard disk of DVR no.7 containing the CCTV footages from dt. 22.06.15 to 14.07.15 to the police, who seized the same vide memo Ex. PW15/A. He further deposed that police/IO mentioned the complete particulars of the DVR and seized the same in an envelope, which was sealed with seal of SB. PW15 further deposed that he also gave certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW15/B. He has further deposed that he can identify the hard disk, if shown SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 51 of 144 to him. PW15 has correctly identified the hard disk Ex. PW15/article 1 as the same which was seized by the police from his possession on 15.07.2015. During examination of PW15 DVD Ex. P2 was played on the computer, showing the back gate of City Centre Mall and the parking area of City Centre Mall. He has further stated that the footage showing the CCTV camera installed by his company at and around City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini, Delhi. The witness has correctly identified the DVD Ex. P2 seized by the IO having the footage of the hard disk Ex. PW15/article 1.

37. PW11 HC Chhote Lal has deposed that on 25.06.15, he was posted at CPCR, Head quarter at extension No.139 and on that day at 15:13:19 hrs, an information was received from mobile number 9963561678 that "yahan kuchh log do car le kar ayee thay jo ek ladke ko peeta aur do logon ko car mein daal ke le gaye hain" at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini. He further deposed that he fed this information in PCR form No.1390271 Ex.PW11/A & flashed this information to command room at 15:19:29.

38. PW20 Ms. Alaisoi Pyster wife of Hector Pyster, has deposed that she joined Apolo International School at Sonepat on 01.10.2011 as principal & resigned from there on 31.12.16. She further deposed that police officials of PS Prashant Vihar came to their school with a request to furnish detail of incident pertaining to dt.25.09.14 and inquired about the students studying in the above named school. She further deposed that she perused the record of above named school and gave the report of incident dt.25.09.2014 Ex. PW20/A. PW20 further deposed that so far as she remembered, at the relevant time, Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was student of class XI, who was suspended from the school from SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 52 of 144 25.09.14 for a period of 15 days and as thereafter there were exams, school called Deepak Gulia, but the boy did not choose to join the school & she did not know the reason for not joining the school. PW20 further deposed that absence continued and Deepak Gulia came back on 20.01.15, gave the final examination and asked for the school leaving certificate, which was issued. She further deposed that when Deepak Gulia joined in Jan.15, there was patch up between Deepak Gulia and "RM" (JCL) and their families also & there was no animosity between the two and their respective families.

39. PW24 Smt. Chanderkala has deposed that accused Nitin is son of Anand Singh, his eldest son. He further deposed that she was having mobile SIM no.8585905950, which she was using. She further deposed that she was working as Teacher in government school and retired in the year 2008. She further deposed that she used this mobile phone number for about 1213 years & was used by her upto 2015/2016. PW24 further deposed that this mobile phone number was not used by any other person except her, however, sometimes her younger son Devanand also used this mobile phone number that too when his own mobile phone used to be not in working order. She has correctly identified accused Nitin present in the court.

39.1. Since PW24 has resiled from her earlier statement given to the police, the then Ld. Addl. PP for the state has sought permission to crossexamine her. During crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she deposed that she never gave this mobile phone no.8585905950 to Nitin. She has denied the suggestion that this phone number, from very beginning, was used by Nitin or that she never used this mobile phone number. She has further stated that she retired SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 53 of 144 about eight years back and hence cannot tell the telephone number of her seniors / colleagues to whom she called using this mobile phone number. PW24 has denied the suggestion that accused Nitin used to talk with his friends, teachers and other known persons by using this mobile phone number as per the call detail record.

40. PW25 Arvind has deposed that in the month of October or November 2013, he sold his car I20 bearing no.HR12U 7885 to Satish son of Sh. Ram Mehar r/o Vill.Bor Majra, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana for a sum of Rs.4 lacs, but did not transfer the said vehicle in the name of Satish. He further deposed that in the month of December 2015, he received telephone call of Satish who informed him that the above number vehicle met with an accident & he along with Satish came to Delhi to PS Prashant Vihar for the release of above number vehicle. He further deposed that they got the vehicle released from PS Prashant Vihar. During his examination, PW25 has produced the aforesaid vehicle before the Court i.e. I 20 car no. HR 12U 7885 Ex. PW25/Article 1.

40.1. Since PW25 has resiled from his previous statement made to the police, ld. Addl. PP for the State has sought permission to crossexamine him and during his said crossexamination, the said witness has stated that he cannot produce any document by which he sold the above vehicle to Satish son of Sh. Ram Mehar r/o Vill. Bor Majra, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana. He has further stated that he did not know any person by the name of Dinesh Mathur son of Sh. Virender Singh nor is having any relative by the name of Virender Singh son of Heera Singh r/o village Majari, Karala, Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that he sold the above number car to Virender Singh, who is father of accused Dinesh Mathur. He SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 54 of 144 has admitted that he moved an application before Ld. Concerned MM, court no.110, Rohini court complex for the release of above number vehicle and by the order of ld.MM the above car was released to him on superdari. He has denied the suggestion that he was still registered owner of the above car or that the above car was in possession of Virender Singh and his family from last one year since dt.11.12.15 or that he sold the above car to Virender for a sum of Rs.4 lacs about one year ago or that he did not sell the above car to Satish or that he was deliberately and intentionally suppressing the material facts recorded in his statement Ex. PW25/A or was deposing falsely in order to save accused persons.

41. PW26 Rajbir has deposed that he did not give any statement to the police and police did not make any inquiry from him and that he does not know anything about this case. Since PW26 has not supported the case of the prosecution and has resiled from his earlier statement made to the police, ld. APP has sought permission to cross examine him. During crossexamination by ld. APP for state, PW26 Rajbir has admitted that he is running a building material supply shop from C2/25, 40 foota Road, Rama Vihar, Delhi. He has further stated that he does not know if there was an office of Mahalaxmi property in D2/1, 40 Foota Road, Rama Vihar, Delhi. He has further stated that he does not know any person by the name of Virender Singh s/o Heera Singh, r/o Vill. Majari, Karala, Delhi. He has further stated that he does not know if Virender Singh is using the above said office of Mahalaxmi property, which he is running his business of property dealing. PW26 has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save accused Dinesh Mathur s/o Virender Singh. On being pointed out towards accused Dinesh Mathur whether PW26 knew him, he deposed that he does not know the said accused. He has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately & SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 55 of 144 intentionally suppressing the facts recorded in his statement Ex. PW26/A. He has further stated that he does not know any lady by the name of Chandrawati w/o Heera Singh.

42. PW27 Santosh Kumar has deposed that he is running a shop of cycle repair at Karala chowk, Harijan Basti for last 1516 years. He has further deposed that there is a plot on the road leading from Karala to Mundka near the water tank of Delhi Jal Board and Junk vendors are operating and residing in the said plot. He has further deposed that he does not want to say anything about this case. Since PW27 has not supported the case of prosecution and resiled from his previous statement made to the police, ld. APP has sought permission to cross examine him. During his said crossexamination by ld. APP, PW27 has admitted that there is factory in front of Karala water tank but has further stated that he does not know if the plot in front of water tank belongs to Pradeep Mathur son of Sh.Rohtash Singh r/o Vill.Majari. He has further stated that he does not know if the family members of Pradeep Mathur used to visit the said plot. PW27 has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately and intentionally suppressing the facts recorded in his statement Ex.PW27/A.

43. PW28 Chirag has deposed that he is having mobile no.9899572696. He has correctly identified accused Dinesh Mathur present in the court, being his friend since they both studied in IVS School of Designs at D Mall, Rohini, Sector 10 and Dinesh Mathur was one year junior to him in the above mentioned institute. He further deposed that accused Dinesh Mathur was using 2 mobile sets and two mobile numbers and used to make call on his mobile phone by his two mobile nos. and mobile sets. He further deposed that he does not remember the mobile no.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 56 of 144

which Dinesh Mathur was using while studying with him. Ld. APP has sought permission to put leading question to PW28 qua the mobile nos.of Dinesh Mathur. During crossexamination by ld. APP for state, he admitted that accused Dinesh Mathur might be using mobile phone number starting with 9999 but he was not confirmed, if the number was 9999302728. He further claimed that he cannot say, if the other mobile phone number used by Dinesh Mathur was 9540289989. PW28 further admitted that on 25.06.15, he and accused Dinesh Mathur talked with each other on mobile phone and he made the call to Dinesh Mathur on his mobile phone and has voluntarily stated that accused Dinesh Mathur told him that he was in the class room. He has further admitted that he had saved both the mobile numbers of Dinesh Mathur in his mobile phones. He has further deposed that he made the call by name from his mobile phone and hence cannot tell on which number of Dinesh Mathur the call was made.

44. PW29 Virender Singh has deposed that accused Dinesh Mathur present in the court, is his son. He further deposed that property bearing no. D2/1 Khasra no.6/12 Rama Vihar, Majari, Delhi was registered in the name of his mother Smt. Chandrawati which was let out to Golu, Naveen, Satish and two other persons who were running their shops of vegetables, xray lab, repair of set up box. He further deposed that his mother Chandrawati is residing with his younger brothers namely Ghan Shyam and Jitender & he has nothing to do with the above mentioned property. PW29 further deposed that the above property is in the share of his younger brothers Ghan Shyam and Jitender, however, no written document was prepared with regard to the partitioning of the property. During examination of PW29, ld. APP has sought permission to ask leading question to the said witness. On being putting specific question that PW29 had given photocopy of the General SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 57 of 144 Power of Attorney dt. 05.04.05 executed by Mehar Chand Mehta in the name of Smt. Chanderwati w/of Heera Singh (his mother) to the police on 17.02.16 which was seized by the police, the witness has replied in affirmative. On being put question that the above mentioned power of attorney was seized by the police and prepared the document in this regard on which PW29 put his signature after going through the contents, the said witness has deposed that it bears his signature at point A & he put his signature without going through the contents of the document. Since PW29 has identified his signature on the memo Ex.PW29/A, the photocopy of power of attorney was marked PW29/B. PW29 has denied the suggestion that he signed Ex.PW29/A after going through and understanding the contents of Ex.PW29/A. During crossexamination by ld. Counsel for accused Sujit Dabas and Dinesh Mather, PW29 has deposed that he visited once or twice in the property no. D2/1, Khasra no. 6/12, Rama Vihar, Majari, Delhi, owned by his mother and he had never seen any office in the name of Mahalaxmi properties there.

45. PW34 Ravi has deposed that accused Sujeet Dabas is his real nephew. He has correctly identified the said accused in the court. He has further stated that he got issued SIM No. 8375074077 from the mobile company and is using the SIM since its issuance by the company. He further deposed that he did not give the abovesaid SIM to any person for use. PW34 further deposed that whenever friends of he nephew Sujeet Dabas(accused) used to call at his mobile, he used to hand over the mobile to his nephew for talking with them. He further deposed that on 25.06.2015, he was going to perform his duty in DTC and while travelling in Bus route No. 921, he received a call of one boy who wants to borrow the boxing kit from his nephew and he made a call at home and talked to the SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 58 of 144 mother of Sujeet Dabas who informed him that Sujeet had gone to stadium. He further deposed that he again made a call to the said boy from his mobile and informed him that Sujeet Dabas had gone to stadium. He further deposed that he does not want to say anything else. Since PW34 has not supported the case of the prosecution, ld. Addl. PP has sought permission to crossexamine the witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police. During his cross examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW34 has denied that accused Sujeet Dabas is using the above number mobile phone since the same was issued to him (PW34) by the company or that he never used the said mobile phone. He further deposed that he cannot say with certainty that to whom the mobile No. 9211061138 belonged. PW34 has admitted that Mark PW34/A bears his photograph at point A & has further admitted that on Mark PW34/B, photocopy of his voter identity card is at point B. He has further denied that Mark PW34/A & Mark PW34/B bear his signatures at points X. PW34 has further deposed that he does not remember what other phone calls he received on 25.06.2015 and the detail of the said call. He has voluntarily stated that he does not remember the same due to lapse of period of two years. He further deposed that he cannot tell the mobile number of any of his colleague serving in DTC at the relevant time or any of his close friend and has voluntarily stated that the mobile number were saved in his mobile set (Nokia), but he cannot tell the model number of said mobile. PW34 has denied the suggestion that in the CDR, there is not a single call made by him to any of his friends and colleague of DTC office. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not receive any call of the friend of his nephew on dated 25.06.2015 or that he was not using the above mobile number. He has further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately and intentionally deposing falsely in order to save his nephew Sujeet Dabas (accused).

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 59 of 144

45.1. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Gaurav, PW34 has deposed that his nephew (accused Sujeet Daas) is a kickboxer champion of national level, who used to practice at Bawana Stadium and two three other stadiums/academies & he used to receive phone calls of friends of his nephew Sujeet Dabas prior to 25.06.2015.

45.2. On being put Court Question whether he used to talk with the friends of his nephew whenever the calls of his friend was received, PW34 has replied that he used to call his nephew whenever any such call of his friend was received. With regard to Court question whether he used to accompany his nephew along with the mobile phone so that he may talk with his friends on this mobile phone, the witness has replied in negative. On being put another court question that whenever his nephew used to go to stadium or any other places, he never used to accompany him with the above mentioned mobile phone number, the witness has relied in affirmative.

46. PW35 Sachin has deposed that now, he does not have any mobile number & earlier he was using mobile no.9582635163. He further deposed that since child hood, he was residing with his maternal uncle Lalit Chhikara at his house Village Sherpur Lohara, Dist. Badoth (UP). He further deposed that he was not residing with his parents in village Karala, Delhi. He further deposed that he is residing with his parents in Delhi from last one year. PW35 further deposed that he does not know any person by the name of Nitin son of Anand Singh r/o Village Karala, Delhi. He further deposed that he does not want to say anything in this case. Since PW35 has not supported the case of the prosecution, ld. APP has SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 60 of 144 sought permission to cross examine the witness as he was resiling from his earlier statement. During crossexamination of PW35 conducted on behalf of ld. APP for the State, accused Nitin was pointed out to the witness but he did not identify the accused Nitin. PW35 has denied that accused Nitin son of Anand Singh was present in the court today or that he was deliberately and intentionally not identifying him. He has further denied that he was in continuous contact with accused Nitin son of Anand on his mobile through his mobile. He has further denied that that accused Nitin was using mobile no.8585905950 or that CDR of mobile of accused reflects his phone number or that he talked with accused Nitin on 25.06.15 from his mobile. He has further denied that he knew accused, who was his friend or that he was resident of his village or that he used to reside with his parents. He has further denied that on 25.06.15, he was in Delhi and made a contact with accused on his mobile number or that he was deposing falsely in order to save the accused, who is his friend and covillager. He has also denied that he was deliberately and intentionally suppressing the material facts recorded in his statement Ex.PW35/A which was recorded on his narration truly and correctly.

47. PW36 Dalbir has deposed that he is dealing in property and running an office by the name of Mathur Associates at B3/35, ground floor, Rohini Sector 6, Delhi. He further deposed that he was registered owner of the vehicle XUV bearing no.DL6CN 2223 and that in the month of October 2016, he sold the above number vehicle to Puri Car Seller, Sector2, Rohini, Delhi.He further deposed that in the month of JuneJuly 2015, two police official came to his house and called him at PS Prashant Vihar and was informed by those police officials that above number vehicle was involved in case of PS Prashant Vihar. He further deposed SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 61 of 144 that he went to PS Prashant Vihar where his photographs were taken with his above number vehicle, was informed that his vehicle would be released in 15 days and after 15 days, his vehicle was released to him. He further deposed that he had brought the vehicle that day along with police, also filled the fuel in the vehicle, which was parked in the parking and was the same which he got released on superdari. He further deposed that he did not want to say anything more. Since PW36 was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police, ld. Addl. PP for the State has sought permission to cross examine him and during his said cross examination, he has deposed he neither knew any person by the name of Pradeep Mathur son of late Sh.Rohtash Singh r/o H.No.499, Vill.Majari, Karala, Delhi nor knew if father of Pradeep Mathur was having a plot in front of Karala water tank where he was having a factory of manufacturing plastic granules and office of property dealing. PW35 has further pleaded ignorance if Pradeep Mathur was having two sons and one daughter and one of his son is A"AM" (JCL) . He has denied the suggestion that he sold the above mentioned vehicle to Pradeep Mathur on 15.03.15 or that he did not fill form no.29 and 30 Motor Vehicle Act. He has admitted that vehicle was not transferred in the name of Pradeep Mathur and has voluntarily stated that he had never sold the vehicle to Pradeep. He has further denied the suggestion that he got the vehicle released from the court on the asking of Pradeep Mathur. The said witness has identified the aforesaid vehicle Ex.PW36/Article 1 which was parked in the parking of Court as the one which was released to him on superdari by the orders of the court. He has further identified his signatures at points A on the superdginama Ex.PW36/A, Punchnama Ex.PW36/B and copy of RC Ex.PW36/C and has further identified the photographs of the said vehicle Ex.PW6/E collectively.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 62 of 144

48. As per case of prosecution, on 25/06/2015, DD no. 23A Ex. PW2/A was recorded by PW2 HC Satish Kumar, who was working as DD Writer at PS Prashant Vihar from 8.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on receipt of information at about 3.25 p.m., that some persons after coming at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini, in two cars, gave beatings to one boy and took away two boys after putting them in car. The said DD was assigned to PW37 retired SI Shyam Singh, who has deposed that on 25.06.15, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as SI & on that day on receipt of DD no.23A Ex. PW2/A, he along with PW22 Ct. Raza Bilal went to Central City Mall, Rohini, Sector10, where he met PW6 Sagar Kataria along with his driver PW7 Hemraj, who informed that some boys had taken away/kidnapped Deepak Gulia and "AJ" (JCL) in a vehicle. He further deposed that PW6 Sagar Kataria also informed that he was beaten and that he made a call to Deepak Gulia but the same was found switched off. PW37 further deposed that "AJ" (JCL) informed that he was dropped at metro station Rithala and he had gone to Satyawati College for admission. He further deposed that at the same time, he came to know that one dead body was lying in Kanjawala Indl.Area & he along with PW22 Ct. Raza Bilal reached at Kanjawala Indla. Area, where PW50 Ct. Dharambir (now ASI) and PW58 Inspector Jitender were already present. He further deposed that the crime team was also present at the spot & crime team inspected the spot and photographer took the photographs. PW37 further deposed that dead body of Deepak Gulia was sent to mortuary of BSA hospital through PW22 Ct. Raza Bila & that "AJ" (JCL) Jhajaria was already present at the spot. He further deposed that the blood stain earth control was broken from approach road with 'Chenni' and hammer and the same was put in a plastic container, which was wrapped with doctor tape & sealed with the seal of "SST", it was given serial no.1 & was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW37/A. PW37 further SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 63 of 144 deposed that the earth control was broken from the approach road with 'Chenni' and hammer, it was put in a plastic container & was wrapped with doctor tape and sealed with the seal of "SST", was given serial no.2 & the same was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW37/B. He further deposed that the blood stain dry grass was also broken from the approaching road, which was put in a plastic container, was wrapped with doctor tape and sealed with the seal of 'SST', it was given serial no.3 & was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 37/C. He further deposed that the dry grass was also broken from the approaching road, same was put in a plastic container which was wrapped with doctor tape and sealed with the seal of 'SST', was given serial no.4 & was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW37/D. PW37 further deposed that seal after use was handed over to him. He further deposed that PW58 IO Inspector Jitender recorded the statement of "AJ" (JCL) and made endorsement on the same which was handed over to Ct. Dharmbir at 8.20 PM. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant "AJ" (JCL) at City Centre Mall Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that he along with IO and other police staff went for the search of accused "RM" (JCL) , Ashish Dalal but they were not found at their house and their mobile phones were switched off. He further deposed that they returned to the PS and IO deposited the case property with MHC(M).

49. PW22 Ct. Raza Bilal deposed that on 15.06.15, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar and was on Emergency Duty. He further deposed that at 3.30 PM, a call was received that two boys had been kidnapped by their friends in a vehicle & on this information, he along with PW37 SI Shyam Singh reached at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini,where two persons met them, one was Sagar (PW6) and other was his driver (PW7). He further deposed that PW6 Sagar told SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 64 of 144 them that two boys were taken away, out of which, mobile phone of one was switched off i.e. of Deepak & the other boy was dropped at Metro station and the mobile phone of that boy was still on. PW22 further deposed that thereafter PW37 SI Shyam Singh told him that they had to reach to Kanjawala Indl. Area as one dead body was found there. He further deposed that he along with PW37 Shyam Singh reached at Kanjawla Indl. Area where Ct. Dharambir was already present. He further deposed that at about 8 PM, PW37 SI Shyam Singh handed over the dead body to him along with some rukka & he took dead body to BSA hospital and dead body was deposited in the mortuary. PW22 further deposed that next day i.e. on 26.06.15, postmortem was conducted on the dead body & after the postmortem, the dead body was released to the relatives i.e. grand father and uncle (chacha) of deceased. He further deposed that thereafter at about 8 PM, his statement was recorded in the PS. Since PW22 was resiling from his earlier statement, ld. APP has sought permission to crossexamine him. During cross examination by ld. APP for state, PW22 has admitted that he was on Emergency duty with PW37 SI Shyam Singh from 8 AM to 8 PM on 25.06.15 and that PW37 SI Shyam Singh received the call at 3 PM. He has further admitted that PW6 Sagar Kataria and his driver PW7 Hem Raj met them and informed that friends of PW6 Sagar Kataria and who were also known to Deepak Gulia (since deceased) had lifted Deepak Gulia and "AJ" (JCL) in vehicles and that they had also beaten PW6 Sagar Kataria. PW22 has further admitted that PW6 Sagar Kataria also told that he had a talk with "AJ" (JCL) on his mobile phone, who told that he was dropped at Rithala Metro station, from there he had gone to Satyawati College, Ashok Vihar for admission and was coming back, who could tell all the facts. He has further admitted that when they reached at Kanjawla Indl. Area, where the dead body was found, PW22 further deposed that PW58 Inspector Jitender was SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 65 of 144 also present there with "AJ" (JCL). He has also admitted that crime team also visited the spot & photographs of the scene of crime were taken by the crime team. He further deposed that Crime team also inspected the scene of crime and dead body was identified to be of Deepak Gulia. He further admitted that he was given the application for depositing the dead body in mortuary and not the rukka. He has further admitted that he had forgotten all these facts due to lapse of time and involvement in so many investigation and now he recollected the same. He has further admitted that all these facts were also told by him to the IO. PW22 further deposed that his statement was recorded on 25.06.15 the date is shown to the witness in his statement and after seeing the same he stated that his statement was recorded on 26.06.15.

50. PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh is the investigation officer of this case. He has deposed that on 25.06.15, he was posted as Inspector at PS Prashant Vihar & on that day at 3.30 PM, an information was received that at City Centre, Sector10, Rohini, few boys had abducted two boys in two vehicle and gave beatings to one boy. He further deposed that on this information, DD no.23A was recorded, which was assigned to PW37 SI Shyam Singh for necessary action. He further deposed that "AJ" (JCL) came to PS at about 5.15 PM. & he along with "AJ" (JCL) and other staff went in search of accused persons and abducted boy Deepak Gulia (since deceased). He further deposed that they reached at Majri village in search of the accused persons and in the mean while an information was received that in Kanjawala Indl. Area a dead body has been recovered and the description of the body matches with the description of the abducted boy. PW58 further deposed that on this information, they went to Kanjawala Indl.Area, whereby by the side of the road, dead body of a boy aged 2022 years old, was SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 66 of 144 lying having many injuries on his body. He further deposed that "AJ" (JCL) identified him as Deepak Gulia. He further deposed that SI Kamal Singh along with staff from PS Kanjawala was already present there & had already summoned the crime team. PW58 further deposed that he called PW37 Shyam Singh and other staff on the spot itself and later on crime team came there. He further deposed that crime team inspected the scene of crime and also took the photographs of the scene of crime.

50.1. PW17 ASI Ram Kumar has deposed that on 25.06.15, he was posted as Incharge of Mobile Crime team & on that day he along with photographer PW18 HC Satender and other staff went to near Electric poll no.HT 53339/13/3/1/14 near Kanjawala Indl.Area to Madan Pur Road, Delhi where they met PW37 SI Shyam Singh of PS Prashant Vihar and other police officials. He further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and photographer took the photographs from different angles & remained at spot from 7 PM to 8 PM. He has proved his report as Ex. PW17/A.017 50.2. PW18 HC Satender has deposed that on 25.06.15, he was posted as photographer of Mobile Crime team & on that day he along with PW17 ASI Ram Kumar, incharge mobile crime team and other staff went to near Electric poll no.HT53339/13/3/1/14 near Kanjawala Indl.Area to Madan Pur Road, Delhi where they met PW58 Inspector Jitender, PW37 SI Shyam Singh of PS Prashant Vihar and other police officials. He further deposed that he took 21 photographs from different angles of the scene of crime and the dead body. He has proved the negatives as Ex. PW18/A1 to A21 and the photographs as Ex.PW18/B1 to B

21. SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 67 of 144 50.3. PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh has further deposed that in the mean time, he recorded the statement of "AJ" (JCL) Ex.58/A & made endorsement Ex. PW58/B on the same and sent the rukka through PW50 Ct. Dharambir (now ASI) for registration of the case. PW58 further deposed that in the mean while, PW37 SI Shyam Singh sent the dead body to the mortuary of BSA hospital through PW22 Ct. Raza Bilal. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW 58/C of the place where dead body was found at the instance of "AJ" (JCL). He further deposed that he made inquiries in the neighborhood to find out if any witness could be found but no witness could be found. He further deposed that PW50 Ct. Dharambir came back to the spot after getting the case registered. He further deposed about lifting of exhibits from the spot which were seized vide Ex. PW37/A to Ex. PW37/D, seal after use was returned to PW37 SI Shyam Singh & the exhibits were handed over to PW50 Ct. Dharambir. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, father of "AJ" (JCL) also reached at the spot and thereafter he along with his staff i.e. PW37 SI Shyam Singh, PW50 Ct. Dharambir and "AJ" (JCL) and his father reached City Centre Mall. He further deposed that at the instance of "AJ" (JCL), he prepared the site plan Ex.PW58/D, recorded his supplementary statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. & he was discharged. He further deposed that they went in search of accused persons to village Majri and Bahadurgarh, Haryana, but they could not be found and thereafter they returned to the PS. PW58 further deposed that the mobile phone of "RM" (JCL) , Ashish Dalal and "AM" (JCL) (all JCLs) were found switched off. He further deposed that he deposited the case property in the malkhana & recorded the statements of PW37 SI Shyam Singh and PW50 Ct. Dharambir. PW58 further deposed that when they returned to PS, at that time, witness Sagar Kataria (PW6) along with his driver Hemraj (PW7) were present & he recorded their statements also under Sec.161 SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 68 of 144 Cr.PC and discharged them. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement of PW23 Ct. Ashok, through whom the copies of FIR were sent to the Sr. Police officials and the area MM.

50.4. PW58 has further deposed that on 26.06.15, he along with staff went to the mortuary of BSA hospital, where the dead body was identified by the relatives of deceased. He further deposed that he prepared the inquest papers and moved application for Autopsy & after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of the relatives of deceased under Sec.161 Cr.PC and discharged them. He further deposed that JCL "RM" (JCL) was apprehended as he was brought to the hospital by his father.

50.5. PW58 has further deposed that on 15.07.15, JCL Akash was produced by his father in the PS and he was apprehended. He further deposed that on the same day, SUV car no.DL6CN2223 was produced by father of Akash, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW39/A. He further deposed that on the same day, PW15 Amit Aggarwal from City Centre Mall produced the hard disk of DVR installed at City Centre Mall & he (PW58) seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that PW15 Amit Aggarwal also handed over the certificate under Sec.65 B Evidence Act Ex. PW15/B. 50.6. PW58 has further deposed that on 19.07.15, he got SUV no.DL6CN 2223 examined at FSL Rohini for retrieving any biological evidence from the vehicle & the experts of FSL examined the vehicle but no evidence could be recovered.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 69 of 144

50.7. PW58 further deposed that on 24.07.15, JCL "HB" was apprehended, who got recovered vehicle no.DL8CS 2093, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A. He further deposed that while they were coming back to PS along with JCL "HB" and reached the school outside Karala village, accused Sahil Mathur (A1 herein) was pointed out by JCL "HB". PW58 further deposed that he arrested Sahil Mathur vide memo Ex. PW12/B, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW12/C and said accused made disclosure statement vide memo Ex.58/E. He further deposed that in the personal search of Sahil Mathur, one sim card and mobile phone were recovered. PW58 further deposed that accused Sahil Mathur pointed out the place of occurrence where the abducted person was killed i.e. in plot, opposite water tank, village Karala vide memo Ex. PW58/F and thereafter he was produced in the court and was sent to JC. He further deposed that case property was deposited in the malkhana. PW58 has correctly identified accused Sahil Mathur present in the court.

50.8. PW58 has further deposed that on 29.07.15, the place where the abducted boy was murdered was got inspected from FSL team, but no incriminating evidence was found & FSL team later on gave its report.

50.9. PW58 has further deposed that on 01.08.15, he obtained the police custody remand of accused Sahil Mathur and they went in search of mobile of Sahil Mathur but the same could not be recovered. He further deposed that on the same day, on the pointing out of accused Sahil Mathur, from the bus stand of village Madan Pur Dabas, accused Gaurav @ Puneet was apprehended, who was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW58/G and his personal search was SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 70 of 144 conducted vide memo Ex.58/H. PW58 further deposed that in the personal search of accused Gaurav @ Puneet, one mobile phone and two sim cards were recovered & one sim card was taken as case property. He further deposed that accused Gaurav @ Puneet made the disclosure statement Ex. PW58/I & pointed out the place where the abducted person was killed vide memo Ex. PW58/J. PW58 has correctly identified the said accused in the court. He further deposed that thereafter they returned to PS and deposited the property in the malkhana. He further deposed that accused Sahil Mathur made the supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW58/K. 50.10. PW58 further deposed that on 05.08.15, he received secret information in the PS that accused Sharnadhar wanted in this case, was present near Metro station Rithala. He further deposed that he along with PW50 Ct. Dharambir (now ASI) went to Rithala Metro station & secret informer met them there. He further deposed that on the pointing out of secret informer, the accused Sharnadhar was apprehended, interrogated and arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex. PW50/A, whose personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW50/B. He further deposed that from the possession of accused Sharnadhar, one mobile phone was recovered, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW50/D. PW58 further deposed that said accused made the disclosure statement Ex. PW50/C & also pointed out the place from where Deepak was abducted vide pointing out memo Ex. PW50/E. PW58 has correctly identified accused Sharnadhar in the court. He has further deposed that the TIP of accused persons were got conducted and they refused to participate in the TIP & he placed the TIP proceedings on record. He further deposed that he made efforts for search of other accused persons, but they could not be apprehended. PW58 further deposed that thereafter he prepared SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 71 of 144 the charge sheet against Sahil Mathur, Puneet and Sharnadhar and filed the same in the court, whereas charge sheet against the JCLs were prepared separately and filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.

50.11. PW58 has further deposed that on 30.11.15, accused Nitin surrendered in the court before Ld. MM in court no.110 & he (PW58) moved an application for interrogation and arrest of the said accused, which was allowed. He further deposed that he interrogated and arrested the accused Nitin vide arrest memo Ex. PW31/A, personal search of accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW31/B & said accused made the disclosure statement Ex. PW31/C (in presence of PW31 HC Rajesh). He further deposed that he moved an application for TIP of accused, who was sent to JC, accused joined the TIP but the witness could not identify him.

50.12. PW58 has further deposed that on 03.12.15, accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur surrendered in the PS & they were already declared PO before that. He further deposed that he interrogated Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur and arrested them vide arrest memo Ex. PW30/A2 and PW30/B2, their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex. PW30/A3 and B3, they made the disclosure statement Ex. PW30/A1 and B1 respectively (in presence of PW30 constable Pradeep) and were got medically examined and put in the lock up.

50.13. PW58 has further deposed that on 04.12.15, he along with PW12 Ct. Ram Khiladi and PW33 Ct. Amit & accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur went in search of their mobile phones. He further deposed that both the accused persons also pointed out the place of abduction vide pointing out memo Ex. PW SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 72 of 144 12/F and also pointed out the place where the abducted boy was killed vide pointing out memo Ex. PW12/G. He further deposed that accused Dinesh and Ashish got recovered the car I20 no.HR12U 7885 from outside Mahalaxmi Property, 40 feet road, Rama Vihar, Delhi and the said car was seized vide memo Ex. PW12/E. He further deposed that thereafter we returned to the PS. Case property was deposited in the malkhana. PW58 has further deposed that he produced the accused persons in the court and they were sent to JC & he moved an application for TIP of both the accused, who joined the TIP but the witness could not identify both of them.

50.14. PW58 has further deposed that on 09.12.15, accused Sujeet Dabas who was declared PO, surrendered in the court and he with the permission of court arrested him vide arrest memo Ex. PW32/A, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW32/B, said accused made disclosure statement Ex. PW32/C (in presence of PW32 HC Birender Rai) & was sent to JC. He further deposed that he moved an application for TIP of accused, but later on accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings.

50.15. PW58 has further deposed that on 11.12.15, he obtained one day police custody remand of accused Nitin and Sujeet and both the said accused persons pointed out the place of abduction vide memo Ex. PW12/H & the place where the abducted boy was murdered vide pointing out memo Ex. PW12/I in presence of PW12 Ct. Ram Khilari. He further deposed that they made efforts to recover the mobile phones of accused persons, but the same could not be recovered.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 73 of 144

50.16. PW58 has further deposed that on 04.01.16, he along with PW12 Ct. Ram Khiladi went to BSA hospital where hospital handed over to him the exhibits, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/J. He further deposed that he returned to the PS,deposited the case property in the malkhana & sent the exhibits to FSL for analysis. He further deposed that the exhibits were analyzed in FSL and reports were collected & the FSL results were placed before the court. PW58 further deposed that the hard disk was also sent for analysis to Hyderabad and Chandigarh & the reports from there were also placed before the court.

50.17. PW58 has further deposed that on 17.02.16, he collected the documents of ownership of Mahalaxmi Property from PW29 Virender Singh which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW29/A. He further deposed that on 30.06.15, he along with PW16 Ct. Naveen visited the City Centre Mall and Kanjawla where the dead body was found & at his instance, PW16 Ct. Naveen took the measurements and prepared rough notes,who later on prepared the scaled site plans Ex. PW16/A and 16/B. He further deposed that he collected the photographs and scene of crime report from the mobile crime team and placed the same on record. He further deposed that he collected the PCR form and placed the same on record Ex. PW11/A. 50.18. PW58 has further deposed that on 28.09.17, Inspector Hans Raj of PS Prashant Vihar seized the DVD of CCTV footage of camera no.9 and 13 dt.25.06.15 of City Centre Mall, Rohini, Delhi from PW15 Amit Aggarwal vide seizure memo Ex. PW58/L, who also gave certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act Ex. PW58/M. SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 74 of 144 50.19. PW58 has further deposed that he collected CDR of the relevant mobile phone of accused persons, JCLs, witnesses and deceased and placed the same on record. He further deposed that he collected FSL results and file the same on record. He has correctly identified all the seven accused persons present before the Court. PW58 further deposed that he recorded statements of witnesses under Sec.161 Cr.PC and placed all the relevant documents on record.

50.20. PW58 further deposed that he prepared the charge sheet against accused Nitin, Sujeet, Dinesh and Ashish and the same was sent to court by the ACP.

50.21. PW58 has identified the four photographs Ex.PW6/D (colly) of car make I20 registration no. HR12U7885 Ex.P1, which was recovered from the possession of accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur, 4 photographs Ex.PW 6/E (colly) of SUV car no.DL6CN 2223 Ex. P2, which was seized by him, santro car no.DL8CS 2093 Ex.PW12/Article1 as the one which was seized from the house of accused Nitin belonging to Anand Singh. (Superdar), one mobile phone of HTC Desire 620G having IEMI No.359342062412567 and 359342062300564 and two SIM i.e. of Airtel and Reliance and battery Ex.PW12/Article2 colly as the one, which were recovered in the persons search of accused Gaurav @ Punit, one white colour mobile phone of Carbon having IEMI No.911309357844599 and 911309357844607 and battery Ex.PW12/Article3 colly as the one, which were recovered from the possession of accused Gaurav @ Punit, one white colour mobile phone of Nokia X302 having IEMI No. 358648/04/060344/5 with battery and SIM i.e. of Vodafone Ex.PW12/Article4 colly as the one which were recovered in the personal search of accused Sahil Mathur, one hard disk Ex.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 75 of 144

PW15/article 1 as the same which was seized by him from PW15 Amit Aggarwal on 15.07.2015, DVD Ex. P2 taken in possession by him having the footage of the hard disk Ex. PW15/article 1, one mobile phone set of Micromax Unite 2A106 having IMEI no. 911345009446912 and 911345009746915, two SIMs i.e. one Aircel and Vodafone Ex. PW50/Article1 colly, which was recovered from accused Sharnadhar having two SIMs collectively, one DVDR of WRITEX Ex. PW 57/ArticleA,which was seized by Inspector Hans Raj in his presence.

50.22. PW58 has further deposed that on 02.08.15, he along with PW12 Ct. Ram Khiladi and accused Gaurav went to the house of accused Gaurav at the ground floor room where the accused opened an almirah and produced one mobile phone of Karbonn of white colour, which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/D, particulars of which were mentioned in the seizure memo.

50.23. PW58 has further deposed that he arrested the accused persons by identifying them as visible in CCTV footage. He further deposed that he collected the CDR and CAF of mobile phone used by the accused persons at the relevant time and as per the location of mobile which shows that they were at City Centre Mall and Karala village.

50.24. PW50 ASI Dharambir has corroborated PW58 Inspector Jitender and has additionally deposed that on On 22.07.2015, he alongwith IO (PW58) and PW39 SI Rakesh Rana went to Village Karala, Delhi where they met "AJ" (JCL) and his father. He further deposed that accused "AJ" (JCL) pointed the plot in front of Karal Water Tanki, Madanpur Road, which was covered with boundary wall and SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 76 of 144 there were some rooms in the said plot. He further deposed that "AJ" (JCL) pointed out the said plot where Deepak Gulia was brought from City Centre Mall and he was beaten with kicks and fist blows & he died due to the injuries caused by Ashish, "RM" (JCL) and their associates. He further deposed that IO (PW58) prepared the pointing out memo of the scene of Crime vide Ex. PW39/B. 50.25. PW50 further deposed that on 19.08.2015, he joined the investigation with the IO (PW58) and PW39 SI Rakesh Rana left for apprehending "AC" (JCL) who was caught by them behind Rohini Court Complex. He further deposed that the said JCL was inquired and his apprehension memo, personal search and his version was recorded & one mobile phone was found in possession of JCL which was seized by the IO. He further deposed that IO mentioned the particulars of the mobile phone and JCL informed that he used SIM number on 25.06.2015 and destroyed the same on 26.06.2015. PW50 further deposed that the JCL pointed out the scene of Crime i.e. plot in front of Water Tanki, Village Karala where Deepak Gulia was beaten by him and his associates. He further deposed that IO prepared the pointing out memo which was signed by him.

50.26. PW50 further deposed that on 03.09.2015, the father of "AJ" (JCL) namely Azad Singh came to the PS and presented two mobile phone sets i.e. Samsang Galaxy S6, black Colour and Samsang Grand, white colour having duel SIMs and these phones belongs to accused "AJ" (JCL). He further deposed that both the mobile phones set without SIM & IO mentioned the particulars of both mobile phones set in the seizure memo. He further deposed that both mobile phones were wrapped in a piece of clothe and the same were taken into SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 77 of 144 possession vide seizure memo which was signed by him.

50.27. PW50 further deposed that on 09.09.2015, he joined the investigation with the IO (PW 58) and PW39 SI Rakesh Rana. At about 8:15 p.m. JCL "AJ" (JCL) was apprehended outside the PS & IO made inquiries from him in front of his father Azad Singh. He further deposed that the JCL was inquired and his apprehension memo, personal search and his version was recorded.

51. PW4 Smt. Bima has deposed that she is the mother of deceased Deepak. She further deposed that on 24/06/2015, his son Deepak (since deceased) made her to talk on phone with his friend "AJ" (JCL) at about 7.00/8.00 p.m., who claimed that tomorrow (25/06/2015), it would be his birthday and asked her to send her son Deepak along with PW6 Sagar tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. to his place. She further deposed that her son Deepak made her to talk on the mobile phone whose SIM no. 9017223223 was provided by PW6 Sagar to his son Deepak on 15/06/2015. She further deposed that before that, her son Deepak was using his mobile phone no. 9212312317. PW4 further deposed that on 25/06/2015, PW6 Sagar Kataria visited their house at about 10.00 a.m. and took away her son Deepak with him. She further deposed that at about 11.30 a.m., she made a call to Deepak but it was out of coverage area. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, she made call to "AJ" (JCL) and PW6 Sagar Kataria on their phone but the same were also found out of coverage area.

51.1. PW4 has further deposed that PW6 Sagar made a phone call to her at about 3.00 p.m. and told her that her son Deepak (since deceased) and "AJ" (JCL) were abducted by "RM" (JCL) , his elder brother Akash and Ashish Dalal SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 78 of 144 son of 'Bua' of Akash along with 1012 other boys in their vehicle at about 1.00 p.m. from the City Centre Mall. She has further deposed that on her asking, Sagar denied about making call to police and she asked him to make a call to police. She further deposed that thereafter she informed her husband Krishan Kumar on phone and asked him to come home immediately. PW4 further deposed that she thereafter made a phone call to "AJ" (JCL) but he did not pickup the phone. She further deposed that thereafter she made a call on the other phone of "AJ" (JCL) which was picked by his 'Chachi' from Sonepat and on her asking about the whereabouts of "AJ" (JCL), she told her that he had gone to college. She further deposed that on her inquiry about the birthday of "AJ" (JCL) on that day, 'chachi' of "AJ" (JCL) denied that "AJ" (JCL) was having birthday on that day i.e. 25/06/2015. She further deposed that after about 1015 minutes, "AJ" (JCL) made a phone call to him and told her that he and her son Deepak (since deceased) were abducted by "RM" (JCL) , his elder brother Akash and Ashish Dalal son of Bua of Akash along with 1012 other boys in their vehicle at about 1.00 p.m. from City Cetre Mall and he was made to get down at Rithala Metro Station and thereafter he came to college. PW4 further deposed that she asked "AJ" (JCL) as to why he did not make a call to the police, but he did not give any reply and disconnected the phone. She further deposed that PW6 Sagar Kataria, "AJ" (JCL) and PW7 Hemraj (driver of Sagar) all were having her mobile number but none of them had informed and contacted her at the relevant time. She further deposed that they all for the last one month wanted to take her son Deepak out of station by alluring him. PW4 further deposed that Sagar Kataria (PW6), "AJ" (JCL), driver Hem Raj (PW7), "RM" (JCL) , "AM" (JCL) and Ashish Dalal with their 1012 other associates were in conspiracy with each other and committed the murder of her son. She has further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 79 of 144

52. PW5 Krishan Kumar has deposed that he is the father of deceased Deepak, who studied in Apollo International school. He further deposed that "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) were also studying in that school. He further deposed that on 26/09/2014, a quarrel took place between "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) and his son Deepak intervened in the same and a quarrel took place between "RM" (JCL) and his son Deepak. PW5 further deposed that the staff of the school had left his son Deepak to his house but did not tell him anything about the said quarrel at that time. He further deposed that after about 1015 days, he telephonically inquired from the school as to when Deepak had to be sent to the school and the school staff had told him that they would tell him as to when he would send his son Deepak to school. He further deposed that he inquired from Deepak about the matter and Deepak told him as to how the quarrel took place whereby a quarrel took place between "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) in which he had intervened and "RM" (JCL) started quarreling with him. PW5 further deposed that his son Deepak also told him that his friends had told him that Sanjay Manjri is the 'Badmash' (bad element) who is the 'Chacha' of "RM" (JCL) and Sanjay Manjri had threatened to the school officials not to allow his son (PW5's) to study in the school. He further deposed that his son Deepak went in depression, who told him the reason for the same that how "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) became thick friends and they remained with each other for several hours together and also talked with each other considerably and frequently. He further deposed that his son Deepak also told him once that "AM" (JCL) , elder brother of "RM" (JCL) along with his friends were following him in the area of Narela. PW5 further deposed that he obtained the mobile number of Pradeep Mathur, father of "RM" (JCL) from the school and talked with him on phone who showed his inability to do anything in that regard and told him that his brother Sanjay would talk to him. He further SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 80 of 144 deposed that in January, 2015, his son Deepak went to aforesaid shool and on 26/01/2015, he along with his wife Bimla Devi (PW4) visited the school and were sitting in the waiting hall. He further deposed that mother and uncle (Chacha) Sanjay Manjri of "RM" (JCL) along with two other persons also came to the school in the said waiting room. PW5 further deposed that the mother of "RM" (JCL) told him that "RM" (JCL) , her son, had shot somebody in the village and as such "RM" (JCL) was admitted in the hostel of that school. He further deposed that Sanjay Manjri, 'Chacha' of "RM" (JCL) had threatened him by saying that "hamare baare mein jante ho ke him kaun hai" and in continuation of his threat, Sanjay Manjri asked him not to keep his son (PW5's) son in the aforesaid school, otherwise anything could happen to his son Deepak (since deceased). He further deposed that principal of the school came to the waiting room where they were sitting and offered them tea and made them understand and Principle made "RM" (JCL) and Deepak (since deceased) shake hands. He further deposed that the mother of "RM" (JCL) exchanged his mobile number and that of her husband which he had already obtained from the school. PW5 further deposed that they thereafter returned to their house.

52.1. PW5 further deposed that once Deepak told him that he came to known from his friends that "RM" (JCL) and his friends were planning to kill him. He further deposed that he pacified his son Deepak and asked him not to believe any such friend and told him that he will remove him from the school from next session and would allow him to sit on their shop and would make him to do 12 th from Open School. PW5 further deposed that from January, 2015, PW6 Sagar Kataria, resident of village Saboli started visiting their house and Hemraj, driver of Sagar Kataria, who was residing near to their house, also started visiting their SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 81 of 144 house. He further deposed that they also started visiting the house of "AJ" (JCL). PW5 further deposed that driver Hemraj (PW7) used to take his son Deepak along with Sagar Kataria (PW6) to the house of "AJ" (JCL). He further deposed that from the first week of June, several times Deepak told him that Sagar Kataria and "AJ" (JCL) wanted him to accompany them to Haridwar but he refused for the same. He further deposed that after 23 days, PW6 Sagar Kataria and "AJ" (JCL) asked his son to accompany them to Masorrie for which he refused. PW5 further deposed that thereafter, on one day, Deepak told him that PW6 Sagar Kataria had asked his son to accompany him to Haridwar as he was going there to bring medicine for his grandparents and also offered his son to bring medicine for his mother (wife of PW5) for which PW5 again refused. He further deposed that PW6 Sagar Kataria also insisted him to send his son Deepak to Haridwar by saying that he along with "AJ" (JCL) were going to Haridwar and would return back within two days but he refused for the same.

52.2. PW5 further deposed that near about 15.06.2015, PW6 Sagar Kataria had given his SIM card no. 9017223223 to his son Deepak for using the same and on inquiry by him (PW5), his son Deepak told him that Sagar Kataria was having two SIMS and as such he had given one SIM to him (Deepak) and further told him that PW6 Sagar Kataria had instructed him to return the mobile phone of his mother (PW5' wife) and also asked his son Deepak to talk to him and others henceforth from the SIM provided by him (Sagar Kataria). PW5 further deposed that prior to that, his son Deepak was using the mobile phone number 9212312317 of his mother which was used to be kept at home. He further deposed that thereafter, PW6 Sagar Kataria started taking his son Deepak to a gym situated at Kundli and that both PW6 Sagar Kataria and "AJ" (JCL) Jhanjhari SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 82 of 144 for the last one month were alluring his son Deepak to take him out of station and because of the reason that they did not get success in taking him outside, made an excuse/pretext of the birthday of "AJ" (JCL).

52.3. PW5 further deposed that on 24/06/2015, on the mobile phone number 9017223223, which his son Deepak was carrying given by PW6 Sagar Kataria, "AJ" (JCL) talked with his son and his son Deepak told him about the aforesaid talk, whereby "AJ" (JCL) had invited him to celebrate his birthday falling on next day i.e. 25/06/2015 at City Centre Mall, Rohini and asked him to come along with PW6 Sagar Kataria at 10.00 a.m. for which he refused. PW5 further deposed that "AJ" (JCL), thereafter, talked to his wife and convinced her to allow his son Deepak to attend his birthday celebration on 25/06/2015 at City Centre Mall. He further deposed that on 25/06/2015, PW6 Sagar Kataria, at about 10.00 a.m. came to their house and he again objected but PW6 Sagar told him that they would return upto 2.00/3.00 pm and his driver Hemraj (PW7) was also going with them and they were just going to attend the birthday party of "AJ" (JCL) and were not going to anywhere else and as such Sagar Kataria (PW6) and his driver Hemraj (PW7) took away his son Deepak along with them from their house at about 10.00 a.m. on 25/06/2015. PW5 further deposed that after that, at about 2.00 p.m., he left for Pilia Ceremony of the daughter of his village 'Chacha' (uncle) for a village near Nangloi. He further deposed that at 300 p.m., he received a phone call from his wife, who asked him to reach home immediately and told him that she received a phone call from PW6 Sagar Kataria, who told her that "RM" (JCL) , his brother Akash and Ashish Dala (son of their 'Bua') along with their 10 12 friends had abducted his son Deepak from City Centre Mall, Rohini, by taking him away in the vehicle. He further deposed that he immediately reached his SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 83 of 144 house and from the home diary after seeking the number of Pradeep Mathur, father of "RM" (JCL), talked with Pradeep Mathur on mobile phone no. 9999182960 at about 3.30 p.m. PW5 further deposed that he asked Pradeep Mathur to make understand his sons as they and their friends had abducted his son Deepak. He further deposed that thereafter he left for PS Prashant Vihar and again at about 4.25 pm., he made a call to Pradeep but Pradeep told him that he had found their mobile phones switched off. PW5 further deposed that on reaching the PS, PW6 Sagar Kataria and driver Hemraj (PW7) met him and he took the mobile phone number of "AJ" (JCL) i.e. 9818611899 from PW6 Sagar Kataria. He further deposed that He talked to "AJ" (JCL) on phone, who told him that he was coming to PS and was at Kanhaiya Nagar. He further deposed that "AJ" (JCL) reached at the PS and told him that "RM" (JCL) , his brother Akash and Ashish Dalal (son of their 'Bua') along with their 1012 friends had abducted his son Deepak in two vehicles i.e. XUV2223 of white colour and I20 of white colour. PW5 further deposed that he asked about birthday of "AJ" (JCL) on that day but he did not respond and his face became pale (uske chehre ka rang ud gaya). He further deposed that he asked the mobile number of "RM" (JCL) from "AJ" (JCL), who verbally from his own memory, told the mobile number 9211929294 of "RM" (JCL) . PW5 further deposed that he, thereafter, called on the aforesaid mobile phone of "RM" (JCL) but it was fond switched off. He further deposed that thereafter, he remained in the PS when information was received telephonically from PS Kanjhawala that in the area of Kanjhawala Industrial Area one dead body was found. PW5 further deposed that he along with the police persons reached there and identified the dead body being of his son Deepak and dead body was shifted to the hospital. He further deposed that postmortem was got conducted on the body of his son Deepak. PW5 further claimed that his son (Deepak) was taken SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 84 of 144 away by alluring by Sagar Kataria (PW6) & driver Hemraj (PW7) from his house and "AJ" (JCL) made false excuse and on the pretext of his brother, which was false, they took his son at City Centre Mall and by conspiracy done by "RM" (JCL) , "AM" (JCL) and Ashish Dalal had committed the murder of his son Deepak by preplanning. He further deposed that this was also to him at the police station by PW6 Sagar Kataria and "AJ" (JCL) at PS Prashant Vihar.

53. PW19 ASI has deposed that on 26.06.15, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar as MHC(M) & on that day PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him four duly sealed pullandas with copy of seizure memos & he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3708 Ex. PW19/A. He further deposed that on 15.07.15, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him one duly sealed pullanda/envelope with copy of seizure memo and he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3740 Ex. PW19/B. He further deposed that on 24.07.15, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him one Santro car no. DL8CS2093 with copy of seizure memo & he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3753 Ex. PW19/C (OSR) & on 11.12.15 vehicle was released on superdari by the order of Ld. MM.

53.1. PW19 further deposed that on 1.8.15, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him personal search article of accused Gaurav with copy of seizure memo & he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3761 Ex. PW19/D. He further deposed that on 02.08.15, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him one mobile of Karbonn (white) with copy of seizure memo in which regard he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3763 Ex. PW19/E. He further deposed that on 05.08.15, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him one SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 85 of 144 duly sealed mobile phone with copy of seizure memo & he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3771 Ex. PW19/F. He further deposed that on 19.08.15, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him personal search articles of accused "AC" (JCL) with copy of memo and he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3791 Ex. PW19/G. PW19 further deposed that on 02.09.15, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him two mobile phones of Sony and Samsung and two another mobile phones Samsung Gallaxy and Samsung Grand with copy of seizure memos & he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3810 Ex. PW19/H. He further deposed about deposit of personal search article of "AJ" (JCL) with copy of memo on 09.09.15 by PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh and which regard he made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3826 Ex. PW19/I. He further deposed that on 04.01.16, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh deposited with him five sealed pullandas and three envelopes containing sample seals of the hospital with copy of seizure memo and PW19 made entry in register no.19 at serial no.3477/16 Ex. PW19/J. 53.2. PW19 further deposed that on 17.07.15, on the directions of SHO and IO, the vehicle Mahendra SUV Car no. DL6CN2223 was sent to FSL through PW23 Ct. Ashok vide RC no.57/21/15 Ex. PW19/K (OSR), who took the vehicle to FSL with the request of IO for inspecting the vehicle & after inspection by FSL brought the vehicle to the PS and deposited the same with him.

53.3. PW19 further deposed that on 04.09.15, on the directions of the SHO and IO, he handed over 9 mobile sets to PW21 Ct. Babu Lal for depositing the same in FSL vide RC no.69/21/15 Ex. PW19/L (OSR), who deposited the same in FSL and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW19/M and further SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 86 of 144 handed over copy of acknowledgment of FSL and copy of road certificate to him in which regard entry was made by him in register no.19.

53.4. PW19 further deposed that on 16.10.15, on the directions of SHO and IO, he handed over one duly sealed envelope to PW21 Ct. Babu Lal for depositing the same with FSL vide RC no.87/21/15 Ex. PW19/N, who deposited the same with FSL and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW19/O and handed over him copy of road certificate and acknowledgment of FSL and he (PW19) made entry in this regard in register no.19.

53.5. PW19 further deposed that on 02.01.17, on the directions of SHO and IO, he handed over two duly sealed pullandas and one DVR to Ct. Sachin for depositing the same in FSL vide RC no.177/21/16 Ex. PW19/P (OSR), who deposited the same with FSL and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW 19/Q and further handed over him copy of road certificate and acknowledgment of FSL & PW19 made entry in this regard in register no.19.

53.6. PW19 further deposed that on 21.01.16, on the directions of SHO and IO, he handed over three duly sealed plastic jars and one sealed envelope containing sample seals to PW40 Ct. Deepak for depositing the same in FSL vide RC no.3/21/16 Ex. PW19/R, who deposited the same with FSL and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW19/S and further handed over him copy of road certificate and acknowledgment of FSL & PW19 made entry in this regard in register no.19.

53.7. PW19 further deposed that on 05.05.17 on the directions of SHO SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 87 of 144 and IO, he handed over four plastic jars and one envelope duly sealed with sample seal of hospital to PW21 Ct. Babu Lal for depositing the same in FSL vide RC no.74/21/17 Ex. PW19/T (OSR), who deposited the same with FSL and obtained the acknowledgment of FSL Ex. PW19/U and handed over copy of road certificate and acknowledgment of FSL to PW19, who made entry in this regard in register no.19. PW19 further deposed that during the period exhibits/case property remained in his possession, no one tampered the same in any manner.

54. PW38 Pradeep Kumar has brought the summoned record of mobile phone no.9467549603 and as per CAF, this mobile number was issued in the name of Anil Kumar son of Sh. Ram Saran r/o H.no.141, Ward N.15, Fatyabad Dist. Hissar, Haryana. He has proved the photocopy of CAF as Ex. PW38/A, photocopy of the Election I Card which was annexed with the application as Ex. PW38/B bearing the stamp and signature of Sub Divisional Officer at point A, CDR from 15.06.15 to 26.06.15 collectively Ex. PW38/C having my stamp and signature on each page at point A & certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act Ex. PW38/D having his stamp and signature at point A.

55. PW41Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Service Ltd., has produced the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.9999330080. He further deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.9999330080 was issued in the name of Sahil Mathur (accused herein) S/o Sh. Anoop Singh Mathur R/o H.No.193, Satghara, Kararla Delhi. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/A1,photocopy of Aadhar Card as Ex.PW41/A2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/A3 collectively & the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/A4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 88 of 144 55.1. PW41 has further proved the record of mobile phone No.8587069869. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.8587069869 was issued in the name of Yogender Singh S/o Sh. Chetan Mal. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/B1, photocopy of Voter ID Card as Ex.PW41/B2 & the CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/B3 collectively & the certificate u/s65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/B4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.2. PW41 has further proved the record of mobile phone No.8800964939. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.8800964939 was issued in the name of Karambir Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/C1, photocopy of Voter ID Card as Ex.PW41/C2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/C3 collectively & the certificate u/s65B Evidence Act is Ex.PW41/C4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.3. PW41 has further proved the record of mobile phone No.8930050096. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.8930050096 was issued in the name of Jogender Singh Dalal S/o Sh. Ram Prasad. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/D1, photocopy of Voter Ration Card as Ex.PW41/D2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/D3 collectively & the certificate u/s65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/D4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.4. PW41 has further proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.9540289989. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.9540289989 was issued in the name of Dinesh Mathur (accused herein) S/o Sh. Birender and has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/E1, photocopy of Driving License and PAN Card as Ex.PW41/E2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/E3 collectively & the certificate SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 89 of 144 u/s65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/E4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.5. PW41 has further proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.9999302728. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.9999302728 was issued in the name of Dinesh Mathur (accused herein) S/o Sh. Birender and h as proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/F1, photocopy of Driving License as Ex.PW41/F2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/F3 collectively & the certificate u/s65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/F4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.6. PW41 has further proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.8375074077. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.8375074077 was issued in the name of Ravi S/o Sh. Ram Chander and has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/G1, photocopy of Voter ID Card as Ex.PW41/G2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/G3 collectively & the certificate u/s65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/G4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.7. PW41 has further proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.8585905950. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.8585905950 was issued in the name of Chander Kala W/o Sh. Randhir Singh. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/H1, photocopy of Voter ID Card as Ex.PW41/H2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/H3 collectively & the certificate u/s65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/H4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.8. PW41 has also proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.9250929294. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.9250929294 SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 90 of 144 was issued in the name of Deepak Mathur S/o Sh. Kuldeep Mathur. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/I1, photocopy of Driving License as Ex.PW41/I2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/I3 collectively and the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/I4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.9. PW41 has further proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.8053190009. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.8053190009 was issued in the name of Dinesh S/o Sh. Ved Prakash. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/J1, photocopy of Driving License as Ex.PW41/J2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/J3 collectively & the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/J4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.10. PW41 has further proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.9953561578. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.9953561578 was issued in the name of Hemraj (PW7) S/o Sh. Mange Ram. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/K1, photocopy of driving License as Ex.PW41/K2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/K3 collectively & the certificate u/s65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/K4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. 55.11. PW41 has further proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile phone No.9811530641. He deposed that as per CAF, the mobile No.9811530641 was issued in the name of Ashutosh Gupta S/o Sh. S.P. Gupta. He has proved the CAF as Ex.PW41/L1, photocopy of Driving License as Ex.PW41/L2, CDR of this mobile as Ex.PW41/L3 collectively & the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.PW41/L4 bearing his signature and stamp of the company at point A. SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 91 of 144 55.12. PW41 has further proved the two cell ID charts of Vodafone for Delhi NCR as Ex.PW41/M & Ex.PW41/N respectively bearing his initials and stamp of the company.

55.13. PW41 further deposed that earlier, they had supplied the above documents to the police as per their request under the signatures of Sh. Anuj Bhatia, who has left the service.

55.14. PW41 Israr Babu was recalled by the court under Sec. 311 Cr.PC. and in his said statement, he deposed that Vodafone provides the CDR of all the mobile phones on all India basis in alphabetical order i.e. firstly starting with A and onwards. He further deposed that all the CDRs already exhibit on the record are on All India basis and that is why the same are in alphabetical order, state wise. He further deposed that after one state call detail record is over for period, the call detail of the next state starts in alphabetical orders.

55.15. PW41 further deposed that as per Ex. PW41/D3 i.e. CDR on 25.06.15 at 14.20.47, duration 151 seconds, cell ID 17806 of out call, same call is again reflected on the next page. He further deposed that if the call is made in a circle, which is not the circle of the mobile phone user, then if the CDR is generated, it will reflect in the original circle of 5 digit and in the circle where call was actually made, it will reflect 15 digit.

56. PW42 Yogender Singh has deposed that accused Sharna Dhar present in the Court is his friend and is residing in front of his house. He further deposed that he purchased one SIM of Vodafone having number 8587069869 on SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 92 of 144 his ID i.e. voter ID card in the year 28/03/2014 vide customer application form Ex. PW42/A bearing his photograph at point A and his signatures at point B. He further deposed that he handed over the said SIM to father of accused Sharna Dhar. He further deposed that now, he is using mobile no. 8800348647. PW42 has further deposed that he does not know what number was used by accused and his father these days. He further deposed that he does not want to say anything else.

56.1. Since PW42 has turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and resiled from his previous statement made to the police, ld. APP has sought permission to cross examine him. During his said crossexamination by ld. APP, PW42 has denied that the above number was used by accused Sharna Dhar to whom he handed over the same after purchasing from Vodafone company or that he used to talk to him by using this number or that from last one and half year since 06/08/2015, the said accused was using the above said number which was not used by him ever or that he narrated these facts to PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh on 06/08/2015 in his statement Ex. P/W42/B. PW42 has further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately suppressing the material facts recorded in Ex. PW42/B or that the same was read over and explained to him. He has further denied the suggestion that he handed over the above number SiM to accused who was using the same or that he did not hand over the SIM to the father of accused. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being won over by the accused.

57. PW43 Jogender Singh has deposed that accused Ashish Dalal present in the Court is his son. He further deposed that he purchased one SIM of SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 93 of 144 Vodafone having number 8930050096 on his ID i.e. Ration card on 21/08/2010 vide customer application form Ex. PW43/A being his photograph at point A and his signatures at point B. He has proved the photocopy of ration card as Ex PW43/B. He further deposed that he was using the above mobile number since he purchased the same. He further deposed that he is still using mobile no. 7206308808. He further deposed that he never handed over the mobile no. 8930050096 to anyone. He further deposed that he does not want to say anything else.

57.1. Since PW43 has turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution, ld. APP for the State has sought permission to crossexamine him as he was resiling from his previous statement made to the police. During his cross examination by ld. APP, PW43 has denied that the number 8930050096 was being used by accused Ashish Dalal to whom he handed over the same after purchasing from Vodafone Company or that he used to talk to him by using this number on his mobile no. 7206308808 or that he narrated these facts to PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh on 04/12/2015 in statement EX. PW43/C. He has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately suppressing the material facts recorded in Ex. P/w43/C or that the same was read over and explained to him. He has further denied the suggestion that he handed over the above SIM number to accused Ashish Dalal who was using the same or that he was not using the said number. He has also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being won over by the accused Ashish Dala, who is his son.

58. PW44 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., has produced the original customer application form of mobile no. 9017223223. He deposed SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 94 of 144 that as per the application, this number was allotted to Smt. Kamla Devi w/o Sh. Vaid. He has proved the photocopy of the customer application form as Ex PW44/A, photocopy of voter ID card as Ex. PW44/B, call detail record of the said number for the period from 01/06/2015 to 26/06/2015 as Ex. PW44/C (colly) and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW44/D having the seal of the company and his initials at point A. 58.1. PW44 has further produced the original customer application form of mobile no. 9728016343. He deposed that as per the application, this number was allotted to Smt. Anju w/o Anil Kumar. He has proved the photocopy of customer application form as Ex. PW44/E, photocopy of Aadhar card as EX. PW44/F, call detail record of the said mobile number for the period from 10/06/2015 to 26/06/2015 as Ex. PW44/G (colly) and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW44/H having the seal of the company and his initials at point A.

59. PW45 Ms. Monika Chakravarty, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL, Delhi, has deposed that on 17.07.2015, she alongwith Manoj Kumar (Bio), Kapil Tanwar (photographer) and Veer Singh (Bio) inspected the vehicle Mahindra XUV 500DL6CN2223 in the premises of FSL, Rohini, Delhi, which was brought by Ct. Maya Ram of PS Prashant Vihar. She further deposed that the blood / hair could not be detected from the said vehicle & has proved her detailed report Ex. PW45/A in this regard.

60. PW46 Sumit has deposed that accused Sujeet Dabas present in the court is his nephew & has correctly identified the said accused before the Court. He has deposed that in the year 2015, he was using mobile no. 9868971390 & SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 95 of 144 claimed that he was not knowing the mobile number of accused Sujeet Dabas. He further deposed that he never talked to accused Sujeet Dabas on his mobile. PW46 further deposed that he used to make call on the mobile phone of father of accused Sujeet Dabas whose number was fed in his mobile phone. He further claimed that he does not remember the phone number of father of accused Sujeet Dabas and that he does not want to say anything more.

60.1. Since PW46 has resiled from his previous statement made to the police, ld. Addl. PP has sought permission to crossexamine him. During cross examination by ld. APP, PW46 has admitted that he made a call on the mobile no. 8375074077 on 25.06.2015. However, he has voluntarily stated that this phone number belonged to Narender, who is his cousin brother and uncle of accused Sujeet Dabas. He has denied the suggestion that mobile phone no. 8375074077 was used by accused Sujeet Dabas or that he talked with Sujeet Dabs on this number on 25.06.2015. He has voluntarily stated that he talked with Narender. He has further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in order to save accused Sujeet Dabas who is his nephew.

61. PW47 Sh. Harjeet Singh Jaspal has proved the TIP proceedings of accused Sharna Dhar Ex. PW47/A (colly), of accused Sahil Mathur Ex. PW47/B (colly), of accused Gaurav Ex. PW47/C (colly), of "HB" (JCL) Ex. PW47/D (colly), of JCL "AC" Ex. PW47/E (colly) and that of JCL "AM" Ex. PW47/F (colly) and all the said accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.

62. PW48 Sh. Abhilash Malhotra has deposed that application dated 15/10/2015 Ex. PW48/1 & application dated 30/11/2015 Ex. PW48/4 were moved SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 96 of 144 by PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh of PS Prashant Vihar to declare accused Ashish Dalal & Dinesh Mathur and Sujit Dabas as proclaimed offenders. He has proved the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued against said accused persons as as Ex. PW48/2,Ex. PW48/5 & Ex. PW48/6 respectively and further proved the order dated 15/10/2015 & 30/11/2015 vide which the said accused persons were declared proclaimed offenders as Ex. PW48/3 & Ex. PW48/7 respectively.

63. PW49 Mahendra Singh Niranjan has deposed that seven sealed parcels were received in FSL through Ct. Babu Lal. He further deposed that he opened the parcels and took out the exhibits, details of which were given in his report. He further deposed that he analyzed the mobile phone and the SIM cards by using Universal Forensic Extraction Devise of M/s. Cellebrite Mobile Synchronization Ltd. Israel and also prepared the image copy of MC1, MC2 and MC3 on the strile storage media and analyzed the same by using encase of M/s. Guidance Software Inc. USA. PW49 further deposed that the data (SMS and chat) could not be retrieved from Ex.MC1, MC2 and MC3. He further deposed that the mobile phone marks Ex.MP2 and MP5 were password protected, hence the data could not be retrieved from Ex.MP2 and MP5 in the laboratory. He further depoed that after examination, the exhibits were resealed with the seal of FSL, MSN, Delhi and sent back to police along with his report. He has proved his report as Ex.PW49/A bearing his signature at point A, B and C with the seal of department at point D.

64. PW51 Dinesh Kumar has deposed that deceased Deepak Gulia S/o Sh. Kishan was his nephew. He further deposed that his uncle Devender was married in village Karala Delhi. He further claimed that IO/any police official of PS SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 97 of 144 Prashant Vihar had never shown him any CCTV Footage. He further claimed that he can identify his nephew Deepak Gulia if he is shown in any CCTV Footage containing in any CD. During examination of PW51, CD Ex. P2 was played on the computer before the court. After seeing the same, PW51 has claimed that he cannot identify the persons visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:50:08 as one of the boy wearing gray pant and green TShirt and another boy wearing blue Tshirt and blue lower.

64.1. PW51 Dinesh Kumar further claimed that even he cannot identify four other boys visible in CCTV Footage of camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:51:24 as one of the boy wearing green Tshirt blue jeans and orange shoes and another boy wearing military colour shirt, black colour half pant having bandage on left foot.

64.2. PW51 further claimed that he cannot identify three other boys visible in CCTV Footage of0 camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:53:37 as one of the boy carrying a polythene bag. He also claimed that he cannot identify some boys visible in CCTV Footage of camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:56:32 as one of the boy having his hand around the shoulder of his nephew Deepak Gulia and another boy who also having hand around the shoulder of Sagar (PW6) or that other boys visible in the said footage whose name he does not know. However, PW51 has correctly identified his nephew Deepak Gulia (since deceased) who was seen in a group of three boys and has further identified PW6 Sagar, who was on the right side of Deepak Gulia (since deceased) & was friend of Deepak & was wearing black kurta pajama as visible in CCTV Footage of dated 25.06.2015 of camera no.9 at 12:53:37.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 98 of 144

64.3. PW51 Dinesh Kumar has further correctly identified Sagar (PW6) as the one on whose shoulder a boy has put his hand around his (Sagar's) neck. He has further correctly identified his nephew Deepak Gulia as the one on whose shoulder the boy has put a hand around his (Deepak Gulia's) neck. The witness has identified his nephew and Sagar (PW6) visible in CCTV Footage of dated 25.06.2015 of camera no.9 at 12:56:32.

64.4. PW51 Dinesh Kumar further claimed that he cannot identify the other boys visible in the CCTV footage of dated 25.06.2015 of camera no.9 shown to him before the Court on that day.

64.5. Since PW51 Dinesh Kumar resiled from his previous statement given to the police, ld. APP has sought permission to crossexamine him. During his said crossexamination by Ld. APP, PW51 has denied that he had visited PS on 30.11.2015 or that he was shown CD of CCTV Footage City Centre Mall Rohini, Delhi of dated 25.06.2015 of camera no.9 or that he identified the persons visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:50:08 as one person wearing gray pant and green TShirt R/o Karala Village younger son of Dr. Heru Biswas and the said boy was also known by the nick name of 'bangali' and his real name is "HB" (JCL) JCL and another boy wearing blue Tshirt and blue lower R/o Village Karala in the street of dispensary, son of Anand Singh and the name of the said boy is Nitin whose father works in fire brigade or that he identified these boys as he had seen them in village Karala where he used to visit because his relatives are resident of this village or that on his narration, his statement Ex. PW51/A was recorded.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 99 of 144

64.6. PW51 has further denied that he had visited PS on 30.11.2015 or that he was shown CD of CCTV Footage City Centre Mall Rohini, Delhi of dated 25.06.2015 of camera no.9 or that he identified two boys visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:51:24 as one of the boy wearing green T shirt blue jeans and orange shoes R/o village Karala Satghara namely Sahil Mathur and another boy wearing military colour shirt, black colour half pant having bandage on left foot, known as boxer namely Sujit Dabas R/o Madanpur Dabas or that he identified both the boys as he had seen them at the places where he used to visit because his relatives are resident of the said area or that on his narration his statement Ex. PW51/A was recorded.

64.7. PW51 Dinesh Kumar has further denied that he had visited PS on 30.11.2015 or that he was shown CD of CCTV Footage City Centre Mall Rohini, Delhi of dated 25.06.2015 of camera no.9 or that he identified a boy visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:53:37 as the said boy was carrying a polythene bag whose name "AJ" (JCL) or that he identified this boy as he had seen him or that on his narration, his statement Ex. PW51/A was recorded.

64.8. PW51 further denied that he had visited PS on 30.11.2015 or that he was shown CD of CCTV Footage City Centre Mall Rohini, Delhi of dated 25.06.2015 of camera no.9 or that he identified some boys visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:56:32 as one of the boy namely "AM" (JCL) /JCL having his hand around the shoulder of his nephew Deepak Gulia (since deceased) or that "RM" (JCL) and his nephew were studying and were residing in the same school & hostel or that both of them had a quarrel last SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 100 of 144 year or that another boy namely Ashish (accused herein) who also having hand around the shoulder of Sagar (PW6) or that Ashish (accused herein) is a resident of Bahadurgarh or that he (PW51) used to visit village Majri and Karala or that other boys visible in the said footage whose name he did not know or that he identified these boys as he had seen them or that on his narration, his statement Ex. PW51/A was recorded.

64.9. During crossexamination of PW51 by ld. APP, accused Nitin was shown to the witness and asked if the said accused was the same person visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:50:08 who was wearing blue Tshirt and blue lower, PW51 has stated that he cannot identify if the said accused is the same person seen in the CCTV footage. Similarly, accused Sahil Mathur was also shown to the witness and asked if the said accused was the same person visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:51:24 who one of the boy wearing green Tshirt blue jeans and orange shoes, PW51 stated that he cannot identify if the said accused was the same seen in the CCTV footage. Further, accused Sujit was also shown to PW51 and was asked if the said accused was the same person visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:51:24 who wearing military colour shirt, black colour half pant having bandage on left foot, PW51 stated that he cannot identify if the said accused Sujit was the same seen in the CCTV footage. Similarly, accused Ashish was shown to the witness and was asked if the said accused was the same person visible in CCTV Footage camera no.9 of dated 25.06.2015 at 12:56:32 as who also having hand around the shoulder of Sagar, PW51 stated that that he cannot identify if the said accused was the same seen in the CCTV footage. Even other accused persons present in the court that day were shown to PW51 and he SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 101 of 144 was asked if those accused persons were the same persons visible in the CCTV Footage Camera no.9 of City Centre Mall, Rohini, Delhi dated 25.06.2015, he stated he cannot identify if the other accused present were the same persons seen in the CCTV footage.

64.10. PW51 has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately and intentionally not identifying accused present in the court that day including accused Nitin, Sahil Mathur, Sujit Dabas and Ashish. He has further denied the suggestion that all the accused were visible in the CCTV Footage shown to him that day. He has further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately and intentionally suppressing the material facts recorded in his statement Ex.PW51/A which was recorded on his narration or that the same was read over and explained to him or that he confirmed the same duly recorded by IO. He has further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused persons being won over by the accused persons or that he was deposing falsely.

65. PW52 Ms. Poonam Sharma, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, has deposed that on 29/07/2015, at about 2.40 p.m., she along with her team left the office and reached at Plot Opposite Karala Water Tank at Village Karala Delhi, where they inspected the scene of crime. She further deposed that no biological clue material could be detected at the scene of crime and that they remained at the spot upto 4.15 p.m. She has proved her report Ex. PW52/A bearing her signature at point A.

66. PW53 M.L. Meena, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL< Rohini, Delhi, has deposed that on 21/01/2016, three sealed plastic jars duly SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 102 of 144 sealed with the seal of FSL were received by her for examination. The seals on the said parcels were found intact and were tallying with the specimen seal impression. She has further deposed that on chemical, microscopic, TLC and GCHS examination (I) Exhibit 1, 2 & 3 were found to contain 'ethyl alcohol, (ii) exhibit 3 was found to contain "ethyl alcohol 29.2 mg/100 of blood. She further deposed that after the examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with her seal impression of "MLM FSL DELHI". She has proved her report Ex. PW53/A bearing her signature at point A.

67. PW54 Dr. Vijay Dhankar has deposed that on 26/05/2015, he along with Dr. Mukesh Kumar had conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Deepak and has proved the postmortem report Ex. PW13/A and has identified his signature at point B and that of Dr. Mukesh at point A on the same.

67.1. PW54 has further deposed that on 24/04/2017, he along with Dr. Renu Gupta examined specimen of intact heart measuring 12x8x4 cm and weighing 310 gm. He further deposed that findings of postmortem report Ex. PW13/A were confirmed by Histopathological Examination. He has proved their detailed report Ex. PW54/A being his signature at point A and that of Dr. Renu Gupta at point B.

68. PW55 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, has deposed that on 16/10/2015, one sealed parcel was received in the FSL and sealed were found intact, which were tallying with the specimen seal on the forwarding letter. He further deposed that he opened the parcel which was found containing one hard disk of "WD" make, of capacity "4TB". He further deposed SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 103 of 144 that on examination, the hard disk marked "Exhibit 1", the blank internal hard disk of similar capacity of "Exhibit 1" and same DVR were not provided, hence, the requisite examination could not be carried out in the absence of similar capacity hard disk i.e. 4 TB and same DVR. PW55 further deposed that the hard disk was sent back after sealing the same. He has proved his report dated 11/05/2016 as Ex. PW55/A. 68.1. PW55 has further deposed that on 02/01/2017, one duly sealed parcel was received in the FSL, seals of which were intact and were tallying with the specimen seal on the forwarding letter. He has further deposed that he opened the parcel, which was found containing one hard disk, which was sent back after sealing with his seal. He further deposed that the hard disk found in the sealed parcel was of make "WD" of capacity "4TB". PW55 has further deposed that he also received one blank internal hard disk of make Skyhawk "4TB" along with one DVR make Dahua modelDHHCVR5116HV2 S.No. TZA4ME181WBV7Q1 with power adopter model no. SOY024A1200200EU. He further deposed that on examination of hard disk marked "exhibit 1" using the admitted DVR, no data could be read in the hard disk and hence no opinion could be formed regarding query no.1 & 2 with reference to "Exhibit 1". He further deposed that hard disk was sent back after sealing the same. PW55 has proved his report as Ex. PW55/B. 68.2. PW55 was recalled for examination after receiving the report from FSL dated 27/10/2017 and in his said statement, he deposed that Geetesh Patel, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner (Physics) Forensic Science Laboratory, GNCT of Delhi examined the exhibits of this case under his supervision and in that regard he signed the report Ex PW57/A at point B having his seal impression.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 104 of 144

69. PW56 Dr. Aanchal Dwivedi Jr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, Chandigarh, has deposed that on 07.06.17, she received one sealed paper envelope, one open DVR and one opened hard disk. She further deposed that the seals on the paper envelope were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal provided on the forwarding letter. She further deposed that she opened the envelope and it was found containing one hard disk Western Digital of 4 TB which was marked as Ex.HD/1. PW56 further deposed that the DVR (Dauha Technology, model no.Dh HCVR5116HV2) marked as DVR/1. She further deposed that the opened hard disk was of seagate, SN WDH1500A of 4 TB stated to be clone of HD/1 and was marked as HD/2. She further deposed the she examined the exhibits and her examination revealed that i. The exhibit HD/1 showed that the total space is 3.63 TB and the free space is 0 MB. However, data is not visible.

ii. The exhibit HD/2 shows that both the total and free space is 3.63 TB.

69.1. PW56 further deposed that after the examination, the parcels containing the exhibits/remnants were with the seal impression given on her report. She has proved her report as Ex. PW56/A having her signature at point A and the seal of the CFSL at point B. She has identified the hard disk which was referred as HD/2 in her report & it was stated to be clone of Ex. HD/1. She has further identified the hard disk Ex. PW15/article 1 as the same which was examined by her and having her signature at point A.

70. PW57 Geetesh Patel, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, Delhi, has deposed that on 29.09.17, one sealed parcel having SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 105 of 144 seal of H.R was received and on opening it was found containing one DVD which was marked as Ex.1 by him in his report. He further deposed that it was DVDR of Writex. He further deposed that it was found containing a folder namely City Centre Mall, Sec.10, Rohini, Delhi having two sub folders "camera no.13" having recording in three video files and "camera no.9 (fountain area)" having recording in four video files. He further deposed that I had given the details of the same in his report. PW57 further deposed that he examined the same and found that,

i) The laboratory examination of video recording "Exhibit 1". There was no indication of alteration; on the basis of frame by frame analysis using video analyst system.

ii) The requisite images as per quarry no.2 were range images in low pixel resolution, hence the enhancement of the same was not possible on current facilities of the laboratory.

70.1. PW57 further deposed that the case exhibits sent to the laboratory for examination were sealed with the seal of FSL x G:P x Delhi. He has proved his report as Ex. PW57/A having his signature at point A with his seal. He has identified one DVDR of WRITEX and has further identified that it was the same DVD Ex. PW57/ArticleA which he examined and was having his initial at point A.

71. PW59 T. Ashok, Asst. Director, Cyber and Audio Video Forensic, Truth Labs, Bangalore, has deposed that on 14/05/2018, they have received sealed parcel containing DVR of Dahua Technology make modelDH HCVR5116HV2 and S/N TZA4 GP 032WN039F containing 4TB hard disk of WD Green make, model WD40EZRX00SPEB bearing S/N WCC4E7VHXRE and one DVDR of 4.7 GB capacity bearing no. 5146 519R E B 21256 and one 2tB hard SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 106 of 144 sterile disc. He further deposed that further, he opened the sealed parcel and examined the DVR, 4 TB hard disk, 1 DVR of 4.7 GB and one TB Hard disk. He further deposed that DVR was marked as item 1 and hard disk was marked as item 1a. He further deposed that the DVDR of Writex was marked as item no. 2. PW59 further deposed that in the DVDR, it was found containing two folders namely camera no. 13 and camera no.9 (Fountain area). He further deposed in folder name camera 13, it contained two video films and the relevant videos were marked Q3. He further deposed that in the folder name camera no.9 contained four video files and the relevant videos were marked as Q4. PW59 further deposed that he examined the above exhibits as marked by him and on the basis of the examination, observations and findings. He further deposed that the default settings in the "AUTO MAINTENANCE" option in the DVR marked "item1"

indicated that the setting 'AutoDelete Files" was set to "customized" and "33 Day

(s) Ago" the screenshot of the same was shown in his report at point no.5 at page 7 and 8. He further deposed that the relevant videos could not be viewed even though the hard disk was not empty. He further deposed that the reason for the nonavailability of videos for playback or back up in this setting was due to the fact, that the system marks any video older than the set day (s) i.e. 33 Days in this case, as not available in the disk and hence does not index it for play back or back up. PW59 further deposed that during examination, the "AutoDeleteOld Files"

was set to "never" and the relevant video files were then searchable as the limitation on time was bypassed without affecting the stored data. The image of the recordings being played back through DVR marked "Item1" was shown in point no.5 at page no.8 of his report. He further deposed that these settings were left unchanged so that the relevant video recordings can be played back whenever needed. He further deposed that he opined that the hard disk marked "Item 1a" of SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 107 of 144 DVR marked "Item1" contained the relevant CCTV footage. He further deposed that the recordings were retrieved in the original "dav" format as well as in "asf" format. He further deposed that the recordings Q1 to Q4 did not contain any sign of editing indicating that they are authentic recordings. He further deposed that the recordings "Q3" and "Q4" were portions of the recordings "Q1 and "Q2" respectively. He further deposed that the faces of the persons seen in the relevant portions of the recording "Q1" could not be enhanced due to poor quality of video. PW59 further deposed that printout of the images of 2 personsone person wearing green Tshirt and black trousers and other wearing blue Tshirt and blue trousers seen in camera no. 9 from the duration 12 minutes 50 seconds 08 milliseconds to 12 minutes minutes 50 seconds and 10 miliseconds was provided in annexure1. He further deposed that the registration number of the white colour vehicle with black glasses seen at 12 minutes 51 seconds 48 miliseconds and 12 minutes 57 seconds 32 miliseconds in recording Q2 was found to be DL6C2223. PW59 further deposed that print out of the image of this vehicle was provided in Annexure2. He further deposed that the partial registration number of the white colour vehicle seen at 12 minutes 58 seconds 30 miliseconds and at 12 minutes 57 seconds 32 miliseconds in the recording "Q2" was found to be "CH729". He further deposed that the printout of the image of this vehicle was provided in Annxure3. He further deposed that the registration plate of the bike seen at 12 minutes 58 seconds 30 miliseconds and at 12 minutes 57 seconds 32 miliseconds in the recording Q2 and the facial images of the riders of this bike could not be enhanced due to poor quality of video. He further deposed that the printout of this image was provided in Annexure4. PW59 has proved his report dated 20/07/2018 as Ex. PW59/A and annexures 1, 2 3 and 4 bearing his stamp and signature with stamp of the lab.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 108 of 144

71.1. PW59 has identified the DVR of Dahua Technology Ex. PW 15/Article 1 as the same stating that it was given mark as item no.1 and item 1a and was examined in the laboratory, DVDR of Writex make 4.7 GB capacity bearing no. 5146 519R E B21256 Ex. P2 as the one which was given mark as item no. 2 and was examine din the laboratory. The DVD Ex. P2 was played on the computer and was shown to PW59 and he correctly identified the same as the one which was examined by him as item no.2. PW59 has further identified two CDs of Moser Baer marked as TLD/AV/018/2018CD1 dav format FIR no. 797/15 PS Prashant Vihar and of Moser Baer Marked as TLD/AV/018/2018CD2 asf format FIR no. 797/15 PS Prashant Vihar along with certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act stating that the same were prepared of relevant video recordings retrieved in .dav format and .asf format from the hard disk marked item 1a contained in a DVR marked item1 in the laboratory and identified the same as EX. PW59/Article 1 collectively. CD of format dav was played on the computer and was shown to PW59 and he correctly identified the same as the one which was retrieved from DVR marked as item no.1a in his report. CD of format asf was played on the computer and was shown to PW59 and he identified the same as the one which was retrieved from DVR marked as item no. 1a in his report. He further deposed that he gave certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW59/B.

72. PW61 SI Pancham Kumar has deposed that on 08/05/2018, he was posted at PS Prashant Vihar and on that day, on the direction of SHO and PW58 IO/Inspector Jitender, he deputed PW60 Ct Vinod Kumar to receive sealed pullanda and one DVR from MHC(M). He further deposed that he prepared the forwarding letter in consultation with PW58 IO Inspector Jitender. PW62 HC Anil SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 109 of 144 Kumar & PW60 Ct Vinod Kumar have corroborated PW61 SI Pancham Kumar qua deposit of aforesaid exhibit in Truth Labs vide RC no. 85/21/18 Ex. PW62/A . PW62 has further proved the relevant entry in register no. 19 as Ex. PW62/B. 72.1. PW63 Sh. Vivek Kumar, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner, FSL, Rohini, Delhi, has deposed that on 10/12/2018, one unsealed parcel was received from PS Prashant Vihar in connection with the present case, which was found containing one 'DAHUA' make digital video recorder marked as DVR1 and its Wester Digital make hard disk bearing serial no. WCC4E7VHXUDE of 4TB capacity marked as 'HDD1'. He further deposed that the suspect storage media marked 'HDD1' was forensically cloned on sterile storage media by using Tableau Forensic Duplicator (Model TD2u) and the cloned copy of exhibit marked HDD1 was enclosed with one hard drive marked as annexure SHDD1. He has proved his detailed report regarding the same as Ex. PW63/A bearing his signature at point A. PW63 further deposed that after examination, the exhibits were sealed with the seal of FSL VK DELHI and sent to SHO, PS Prashant Vihar along with his report and certificate. He has further submitted that he issued certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW63/B regarding the data retrieval from the exhibit DVR marked DVR1 and its hard drive marked HDD1. PW63 has identified his signature on the hard disk as well as the DVR Ex. PW15/Article 1 stating that he cloned the hard disk (exhibited as item 1a) which was in the DVR on the sterile hard disk.

73. In the present case, all the accused persons have been charged for the offences u/s 120B IPC & u/s 364/365/302/201/34 read with Section 120B IPC, whereas accused Dinesh Mathur, Ashish Dalal & Sujit Dabas have also been SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 110 of 144 charged for the offence u/s 174A IPC. Since "RM" (JCL) , "AM" (JCL) , "HB" (JCL), "AC" (JCL), "MB" (JCL) and "AJ" (JCL) (who was earlier prosecution witness but later was found involved in the incident) were juveniles, therefore, final report against them was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board.

74. It is pertinent to mention here that the case was listed for final arguments and almost all the arguments were completed and even written arguments were also filed. Thereafter, prosecution has moved an application u/s 311 CrPC for recalling PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh, IO of the case on the ground that at the time of examination of PW58 Inspector Singh, the DVR (Ex.P2) was played in the Court and footage has been shown to the said witness, wherein he has correctly identified the said DVD as Ex.P2 having the footage of last seen and the query regarding the contents of footage and identity of the accused persons are required to be asked from the said witness and that some facts stated by "AJ" (JCL) (JCL, who himself claimed to be one of the victim & on whose statement FIR of kidnapping was registered) is to be brought on record u/s 154 CrPC and same are also to be proved by the IO of the case. Vide order dated 08/04/2021, the said application was allowed and PW58 IO Inspector Jitender Singh was recalled and he disclosed the identity of accused persons, who were visible in the CCTV footage. After completion of evidence of IO PW58, ld. Counsels for accused persons have submitted that since no further evidence has come on record in the crossexamination of PW58, therefore, there is no need to record additional statements of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC. Accordingly, the matter was again listed for final arguments, which were again heard.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 111 of 144

APPRECIATON OF EVIDENCE

75. Before dealing with the evidence produced before the Curt, brief facts are stated hereby. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on 25/06/2015, at 3.25, DD no. 23A was recorded at PS Prashant Vihar to the effect that at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini, some person had come in two cars, had beaten one boy and took away two boys after lifting them in a car. Police went to the spot and one "AJ" (JCL) (his complete particulars are not mentioned for the purpose of not disclosing his identity) (JCL) came there, who told that he knew the persons who were involved in the abduction of his friend Deepak Gulia i.e. "RM" (JCL) and Ashish Dalal and that "RM" (JCL) was of Village Majri. Accordingly, Inspector Jitender Singh along with Ct Dharambir and "AJ" (JCL) headed for Village Manjri in government vehice. Meanwhile, information was received that dead body of a 2022 old years boy was found in Kanjhawla Industrial Area. Accordingly police along with "AJ" (JCL) reached the said place, where "AJ" (JCL) identified the dead body to be of his friend Deepak Gulia. Statement of "AJ" (JCL) was recorded, wherein he claimed that he had passed 12 th class that year from Apollo International School, Barho, Sonipat Haryana, in which, Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was also studying,was his roommate, but was one class junior to him. He further stated that on 25/06/2015, there was birthday of girlfriend of Deepak Gulia namely Dhwani Gupta but since few days there was some tiff between them & "MB" (JCL) (JCL) friend of Dhwani Gupta, had told Deepak Gulia 23 days before that birthday of Dhwani Gupta will be celebrated in City Centre Mall, Rohini and Deepak (since deceased) wanted to conciliate Dhwani Gupta on her birthday. The case of prosecution is that on 25/06/2015,at about 11.30 a.m., Deepak (since deceased) called "AJ" (JCL) from his mobile phone bearing no. 9017223223 and asked him to go to City Centre Mall for celebrating the birthday of Dhwani Gupta SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 112 of 144 for 10 minutes only. Thereafter, in one Swift car, Deepak (since deceased) and his friend Sagar Katariya (PW6) came and they all including driver went in the said vehicle and after purchasing a case, they all headed for City Centre Mall, Rohini & during that time, call of "MB" (JCL) was received on the phone of Deepak who asked to come in five minutes at City Centre Mall, Dhwani Gupta was to arrive. At at about 12 noon, they all reached at the backside parking of City Centre Mall and Deepak (since deceased) asked "MB" (JCL) over phone as to where she was, on which, "MB" (JCL) told him to come inside the mall. It is further the case of prosecution is that Sagar Katariya (PW6) sent his car with driver back to his home and they all three went inside the mall, where after roaming inside the mall, "MB" (JCL) and Dhwani Gupta did not meet them, then Deepak again called "MB" (JCL) and asked her as to where she was, on which, "MB" (JCL) asked him to come at "Mcdonald" & as soon as, they all three came outside the mall, 45 boys after coming to them, had put their hands on their shoulders, out of which, one was Ashish Dalal, who was previously known to "AJ" (JCL). Ashish Dalal kept his hand on the shoulder of Deepak (since deceased) and while asking his well being, those boys brought all three of them on the road between City Centre Mall & D Mall, where 67 boys also came comprising "RM" (JCL) who was studying in Apollo International School and Ashish Dalal was son of his "Bua" (father's sister). All those boys started grappling with them and forcefully tried to lift them in XUV vehicle of cream colour & I20 car. Sagar Kataria (PW6) somehow managed to escape but those boys forcefully made "AJ" (JCL) and Deepak to sit on the backside seat of XUV vehicle of "RM" (JCL), bearing registration no. DL6CN 2223 and both the aforesaid vehicles left from there. Thereafter, beneath the Rithala Metro Station, both the vehicles stopped and those boys alighted him from the vehicle and "RM" (JCL) , Ashish Dalal and their associates, who were in XUV SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 113 of 144 vehicle and I20 car, took along Deepak with them and went towards the road going to Sector 24, Rohini.

FACTS RELATED TO VEHICLES ALLEGEDLY USED IN CRIME

76. It is pertinent to mention here that as per case of prosecution, the accused persons including JCLs had come in four vehicle at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini i.e. XUV vehicle bearing No. DL6CN2223, i20 car bearing registration no. HR12U7885, Santro Car bearing registration no. DL8SC2093 & one motorcycle. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier, there were two vehicles but subsequently on the basis of disclosure, two vehicles were also mentioned. Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was allegedly abducted & was made to sit in XUV car bearing no. DL6CN2223, in which, "RM" (JCL) & "AM" (JCL) (both JCLs) were sitting. Accused Ashish Dalal, Sujeet Dabas, Dinesh Mathur (accused persons herein) and "AJ" (JCL) were sitting in i20 vehicle. Accused Nitin was in Santro vehicle bearing no. DL8SC2093 and accused Gaurav and one JCL were in the motorcycle. Thus, none of the accused persons facing trial in the present case, was present in the aforesaid XUV vehicle, wherein Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was abducted. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that all the accused persons had hatched a conspiracy and in pursuance to that conspiracy, they all came to City Centre Mall and abducted Deepak Gulia(since deceased) and after his abduction, they gave beatings to him and killed him.

76.1. As per seizure memo Ex. PW39/A, JCL "AM" produced Mahendra XUV car No. DL6CN2223 along with its key before PW58 IO Inspector Jitender Singh on 15/07/2015. PW36 Dalbir has claimed in his testimony that he was registered owner of the vehicle XUV bearing no.DL6CN 2223 and that in the SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 114 of 144 month of October 2016, he sold the above number vehicle to Puri Car Seller, Sector2, Rohini, Delhi. He further claimed that in the month of JuneJuly 2015, two police official came to his house and called him at PS Prashant Vihar and was informed by those police officials that above number vehicle was involved in case of PS Prashant Vihar & he went to PS Prashant Vihar where his photographs were taken with his above number vehicle, was informed that his vehicle would be released in 15 days and after 15 days, his vehicle was released to him. Since PW36 did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State and in the said crossexamination, he has deposed he neither knew any person by the name of Pradeep Mathur son of late Sh. Rohtash Singh r/o H.No.499, Vill.Majari, Karala, Delhi nor knew if father of Pradeep Mathur was having a plot in front of Karala water tank where he was having a factory of manufacturing plastic granules and office of property dealing. PW35 has further pleaded ignorance if Pradeep Mathur was having two sons and one daughter and one of his son is "AM" (JCL) . He has denied the suggestion that he sold the above mentioned vehicle to Pradeep Mathur on 15.03.15 or that he did not fill form no.29 and 30 Motor Vehicle Act. He has admitted that vehicle was not transferred in the name of Pradeep Mathur and has voluntarily stated that he had never sold the vehicle to Pradeep. He has further denied the suggestion that he got the vehicle released from the court on the asking of Pradeep Mathur. Moreover, IO PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh has claimed in his examination in chief that on 19.07.15, he got SUV no. DL6CN 2223 examined at FSL Rohini for retrieving any biological evidence from the vehicle & the experts of FSL examined the vehicle but no evidence could be recovered. Thus, the prosecution has failed to connect the SUV No. DL6CN2223 with the present accused persons.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 115 of 144

77. As per seizure memo Ex. PW12/E, accused Dinesh Mathur and Ashish Dalal have got recovered i20 car bearing no. HR12U7885 from in front of office of Mahalaxmi Property, Rama Vihar, 40 Foota Road claiming that it was of the family of accused Dinesh Mathur which was used in the commission of offence. PW25 Arvind has claimed in his testimony that in the month of October or November 2013, he sold his car I20 bearing no.HR12U 7885 to Satish son of Sh. Ram Mehar r/o Vill. Bor Majra, Dist. Rohtak, Haryana for a sum of Rs.4 lacs, but did not transfer the said vehicle in the name of Satish. He further claimed that in the month of December 2015, he received telephone call of Satish who informed him that the above number vehicle met with an accident & he along with Satish came to Delhi to PS Prashant Vihar for the release of above number vehicle, which was got the vehicle released from PS Prashant Vihar. During his examination, PW25 has produced the aforesaid vehicle before the Court i.e. I20 car no. HR 12U 7885 Ex. PW25/Article 1. Since this witness turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, therefore, he was crossexamined by ld. Addl. PP for the State & in the said cross examination, PW25 has claimed that he cannot produce any document by which he sold the above vehicle to Satish son of Sh. Ram Mehar r/o Vill. Bor Majra, Dist.Rohtak, Haryana. He has further stated that he did not know any person by the name of Dinesh Mathur son of Sh. Virender Singh nor is having any relative by the name of Virender Singh son of Heera Singh r/o village Majari, Karala, Delhi. He has denied the suggestion that he sold the above number car to Virender Singh, who is father of accused Dinesh Mathur. He has admitted that he moved an application before Ld. Concerned MM, court no.110, Rohini court complex for the release of above number vehicle and by the order of ld. MM the above car was released to him on superdari. He has denied the suggestion that he was still registered owner of the above car or that SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 116 of 144 the above car was in possession of Virender Singh and his family from last one year since dt.11.12.15 or that he sold the above car to Virender for a sum of Rs.4 lacs about one year ago or that he did not sell the above car to Satish or that he was deliberately and intentionally suppressing the material facts recorded in his statement Ex. PW25/A or was deposing falsely in order to save accused persons. So, the prosecution has failed to connect the abovesaid I20 bearing no.HR12U 7885 with accused Dinesh Mathur as it is not proved on record that the said vehicle was in the name of father of accused Dinesh Mathur or any of his family member.

78. As per seizure memo Ex. PW12/Article 1, JCL "HB" got recovered Santro Car no. DL8CS2093 claiming that in the said vehicle, he along with accused Nitin had come from Karala to City Centre Mall on the day of incident and returned back and that the said car was of father of Nitin namely Anand. The recovery of the car is effected at the instance of JCL and not at the instance of accused Nitin. Moreover, PW6 Sagar Kataria has not supported the case of the accused persons with regard to their identity as the assailants who had abducted the deceased, took him in the aforesaid cars and murdered him.

78.1. Thus, the prosecution has failed to connect the SUV no. DL6CN 2223, i20 car bearing no. HR12U7885 and Santro Car no. DL8CS2093 with the present accused persons as the aforesaid witnesses have not supported the version of prosecution in this regard. Nothing has come on record with regard to the motorcycle.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 117 of 144

RELEVANCY OF MOTIVE

79. As per the case of prosecution, Deepak Gulia (since deceased) had studied in Apollo International school and "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) were also studying in that school. As per testimony of PW5 Krishan Kumar, on 26/09/2014, a quarrel took place between "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) (both JCLs) and his son Deepak (since deceased) intervened in the same and a quarrel took place between "RM" (JCL) and his son Deepak. He further claimed that the staff of the school had left his son Deepak to his house but did not tell him anything about the said quarrel at that time & after about 1015 days, he telephonically inquired from the school as to when Deepak had to be sent to the school and the school staff had told him that they would tell him as to when he would send his son Deepak to school. PW5 further claimed that when he inquired from Deepak (since deceased) about the matter, Deepak told him as to how the quarrel took place. PW5 further claimed in his testimony that his son Deepak also told him that his friends had told him that Sanjay Manjri is the 'Badmash' (bad element) who is the 'Chacha' of "RM" (JCL) and Sanjay Manjri had threatened to the school officials not to allow his son (PW5's) to study in the school. He further claimed that his son Deepak (since deceased) went in depression, who told him the reason for the same that how "AJ" (JCL) and "RM" (JCL) became thick friends and they remained with each other for several hours together and also talked with each other considerably and frequently. PW5 further claimed in his testimony that his son Deepak also told him once that "AM" (JCL), elder brother of "RM" (JCL) along with his friends were following him in the area of Narela. PW5 further claimed that he obtained the mobile number of Pradeep Mathur, father of "RM" (JCL) from the school and talked with him on phone who showed his inability to do anything in that regard and told him that his brother Sanjay would talk to him. He further claimed that in SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 118 of 144 January, 2015, his son Deepak went to aforesaid school and on 26/01/2015, he along with his wife Bimla Devi (PW4) visited the school and were sitting in the waiting hall & mother and uncle (Chacha) Sanjay Manjri of "RM" (JCL) along with two other persons also came to the school in the said waiting room & mother of "RM" (JCL) told him that "RM" (JCL) , her son, had shot somebody in the village and as such "RM" (JCL) was admitted in the hostel of that school. PW5 further claimed in his testimony that Sanjay Manjri, 'Chacha' of "RM" (JCL) had threatened him by saying that "hamare baare mein jante ho ke him kaun hai" and in continuation of his threat, Sanjay Manjri asked him not to keep his son (PW5's) son in the aforesaid school, otherwise anything could happen to his son Deepak (since deceased). He further claimed that after the intervention of the Principal, the matter was patched up between his son Deepak (since deceased) and Rahul. From the testimony of PW5, the main motive can be said to be against accused "RM" (JCL) & prima facie, it seems that "MB" (JCL) called "RM" (JCL) and she can be said to be an accomplice with "RM" (JCL). To attribute motive against the accused persons is a far fetched story. There is no conversation that they were also inspired with the motive and they also conspired with "RM" (JCL) for the commission of offences. Moreover, PW5 nowhere has claimed in his testimony that he made any complaints to police or any other higher authority qua the apprehensions raised by his son (since deceased) against the JCLs or his alleged friends. The rest of the testimony of PW5 and his wife PW4 can be said to be hearsay as whatever information was received by them qua abduction of their son is through PW6 Sagar Kataria & PW7 Hemraj, driver of PW6 and "AJ" (JCL). Moreover, PW6 Sagar Kataria, the eyewitness/star witness, of prosecution has completely turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution qua the identity of accused persons as the assailants. Merely because accused SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 119 of 144 Ashish Dalal (his Bua's son) & other accused persons, were also having the same motive is not believable. The statement u/s 161 CrPC of "AJ" (JCL) on the basis of which present FIR was registered, cannot be given weightage since he was also found involved in the incident. Further, the quarrel between "RM" (JCL) and victim Deepak Gulia (since deceased) had taken about 1 year ago, whereas the incident took place in 2015. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove any motive qua the abduction & murder of deceased Deepak on record.

80. The case of prosecution is mainly based on evidences of PW6 Sagar Kataria (eyewitness/star witness), "AJ" (JCL), phone locations & CCTV footage.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF PW6 SAGAR KATARIA

81. PW6 Sagar Kataria, who was allegedly present at the spot & in whose presence victim Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was abducted in two vehicle, had turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution that accused persons had abducted the deceased in his presence and had taken him in two vehicles i.e. XUV and i20 cars. He denied the identity of accused persons and has also not identified the vehicles before the Court. Even CCTV footage was also shown to him, but despite that, he did not identify any of the accused persons. Since PW6 Sagar Kataria did not support the case of the prosecution, ld. Addl. PP for the State has sought permission to crossexamination him since he was resiling from his earlier statement. During crossexamination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW6 has denied the suggestion that his statement dated 26/06/2015 mark PW6/A was recorded by the police or that he found the same correct. Even said statement mark PW6/A was read over to him but he denied having made any such statement to the police. He has denied the suggestion that he used to talk to "AJ" (JCL) when Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was staying at SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 120 of 144 Hostel, Apollo International School and as and when Deepak Gulia made him to talk to "AJ" (JCL). He further deposed that he does not remember, if the household mobile number used by Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was 9212312317. PW6 has denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not stating the aforesaid mobile phone of Deepak Gulia used by him previously in order to save the accused persons or that about 1015 days before the incident of murder of Deepak Gulia, he gave his mobile SIM no. 9017223223 to Deepak Gulia as he wanted to purchase a new SIM or that he was having two SIMs at that time. He has further denied the suggestion that Deepak Gulia had already told him that a quarrel took place between him and "RM" (JCL) in the hostel but later on the matter was got compromised by the family of both of them. He has admitted that he along with Deepak Gulia (since deceased) used to visit gym situated at Kundli Village. PW6 has denied the suggestion that on 24/06/2015, when he along with Deepak Gulia (since deceased) was returning from the gym or that he was driving his Swift car no. HR10T4699 & they both were alone in that car or that Deepak Gulia told him that there was birthday on 25/06/2015 of his girlfriend Dhwani Gupta or that Deepak asked him to accompany him. PW6 has further denied the suggestion that Deepak had already told him that for a considerable time, he did not talk with Dhwani Gupta, who was his girlfriend in the hostel or that on25/06/2015, said Dhwani Gupta would come at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini, to celebrate her birthday or that he would meet her there. He has further denied the suggestion that Deepak Gulia (since deceased) told him that "AJ" (JCL) would also come there as he had already talked with him or that on his asking for the time, Deepak Gulia told him that to go at 10.00 a.m. on the next morning. PW6 has admitted that his aunt (Tai) was staying in Rajiv Gandhi hospital to look after his grandmother and on 25/06/2015, at about 7.30 a.m., he along with his SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 121 of 144 driver Hemraj went to Rajiv Gandhi hospital and brought back his aunt (Tai) to the house. He has denied the suggestion that he told Deepak Gulia (since deceased) telephonically that at about 9.15 a.m., after leaving his maternal uncle Ravi to Bahadurgarh, they would proceed for City Centre Mall. PW6 has voluntarily stated that it was Deepak Gulia (since deceased) who asked him to go to City Centre Mall and on 25/06/2015, he had gone in the morning to leave his maternal uncle Ravi to Bahadurgarh but he does not remember the time. He has further denied the suggestion that he himself told deceased Deepak Gulia to go to City Centre Mall, after leaving his maternal uncle Ravi to Bahadurgarh at about 9.15 a.m. He has admitted that on 25/06/2015, he along with Deepak Gulia went to Bahadurgarh in his Swift car, being driven by driver Hemraj to leave his maternal uncle Ravi and left his maternal uncle there, but has denied that after leaving his maternal uncle at Bahadurgarh, they reached at Pitam Pura Police Lines, where "AJ" (JCL) met them outside the gate. PW6 has voluntarily stated that "AJ" (JCL) met them at City Centre Mall, Rohini, where he along with Deepak Gulia (since deceased) straightaway reached from Bahadurgarh. He has denied the suggestion that "AJ" (JCL) after meeting them outside the gate, Pitam Pura police Line, took them to a nearby market, situated near to his house on the pretext of getting signed a cheque or that after stopping a while at that market near to the house of "AJ" (JCL), where he reached after a short time after visiting the market, they went to "Big Bake Shop" at Kohat Enclave, where Deepak Gulia purchased a cake or that thereafter, they proceeded for City Centre Mall. PW6 Sagar Kataria has further denied the suggestion that when they proceeded for City Centre Mall from Kohat Enclave, Deepak Gulia (since deceased) received a phone call from "MB" (JCL) (JCL) and Deepak Gulia told her that they would be reaching within five minutes. He has voluntarily stated that he does not know any girl by the name SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 122 of 144 of "MB" (JCL). PW6 has further denied the suggestion that Deepak also received several phone calls of "MB" (JCL) previously also during that period or that thereafter, they reached at City Centre Mall parking or that Deepak Gulia, on mobile, asked "MB" (JCL) as to where they should come, on which, Mukskan asked to come to inside mall or that at that time, he sent his driver Hemraj along with his vehicle to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital or that they three (Deepak Gulia, "AJ" (JCL) and PW6) went inside the mall. PW6 has further denied the suggestion that at that time, "AJ" (JCL) told Deepak Gulia that brother of "RM" (JCL) was standing there. He has further denied the suggestion that when Dhwani and "MB" (JCL) (JCL) were not found in the mall, Deepak Gulia again called "MB" (JCL), who told to come at Mc'Donald or that at that time, on disclosing of "AJ" (JCL) that Mc'Donald was situated outside, they came outside City Centre Mall or that at that time, 45 boys came near to them and by putting their hands on their shoulder (Deepak Gulia, "AJ" (JCL) and PW6), accompanied them to outside the mall or that one of the boy out of the aforesaid 45 boys said "kahan reh gaye the, bahut der se intezaar kar rahe the" or that one XUV vehicle of cream coloured, was found parked at a small distance. PW6 has voluntarily stated that vehicle was parked but he cannot say as to which vehicle was found parked. He has denied the suggestion that out of the other 67 boys, who also reached there, along with 45 boys, who met them while leaving the mall, & gave beatings to them, also include "RM" (JCL) or that his I20 car of white colour was found parked in start condition. He has admitted that both the vehicles, after abducting "AJ" (JCL) and Deepak Gulia left from the side of Haldi Ram. He has further admitted that he tried to contact Deepak (since deceased) on his mobile phone from the mobile phone of Hemraj but the phone was found switched off. He has also admitted that he called on the phone of mother of Deepak Gulia but did not tell anything to her SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 123 of 144 and asked her to let him talk with Ravi, brother of Deepak. PW6 has denied the suggestion that he told Ravi that "RM" (JCL), who had previously quarreled with Deepak Gulia in school, along with his associates had abducted Deepk Gulia and "AJ" (JCL) in vehicles or that on calling to "AJ" (JCL), he told him that he (PW6) went to his college at Ashok Vihar to get admission or that it came to know later on that the dead body of Deepak was found in the area of Kanjhawala. PW6 has admitted that Deepak Gulia was found murdered after being abducted from City Centre Mall.

81.1. PW6 Sagar Kataria has denied the suggestion that his statement dated 21/07/2015 Mark PW6/B was recorded by the police or that he found the same correct. He has further denied having made any such statement to the police. He has denied the suggestion that 34 months before the murder of Deepak Gulia (since deceased), he along with Deepak Gulia planned to visit Agra or that father of Deepak Gulia refused for the same by saying that he would not allow Deepak to go alone outside Delhi. He has further denied the suggestion that SIM no. 8053190009 which he was using for the last 45 years before the incident, had lost or that 11½ months before the incident, he started using SIM no. 9017223223 or that when he obtained the SIM of his previous mobile no. 80531900009, then he stopped using the new SIM no. 9017223223 or that Deepak wanted to purchase a new SIM or that on his (PW6's) asking , Deepak Gulia took his SIM no. 9017223223 on 1012/06/2015 or that he started using the same.

81.2. PW6 Sagar Kataria has also denied the suggestion that his statement dated 31/08/2015 Mark PW6/C was recorded by the police or that he SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 124 of 144 found the same correct. On being read over statement mark PW6/C, PW6 has denied having made any such statement to the police. He has denied the suggestion that on 31/08/2015, he along with "AJ" (JCL) visited Rohini Court or that outside Court no. 110, IO Inspector Jitender Singh met them or that three boys were found apprehended by the police or that he and "AJ" (JCL) identified all three of them, being the associates of "RM" (JCL) or that he explained their role that on 25/06/2015, they came at City Centre Mall along with their other associates and gave beatings & tried to abduct him also or that after abducting Deepak Gulia & "AJ" (JCL) in vehicle left the spot. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sahil Mathur, Gaurav and Sharna Dhar present in the Court were the same person to whom he and "AJ" (JCL) had identified on 31/08/2015 before the police or that "AJ" (JCL) also told that accused Sahil Mathur present in the Court along with his one another associate left him at Rithala Metro Station after incident at Karala or that he told about the presence of Sahil Mathur and Gaurav at plot in Karala or that he had seen them at the said time of incident who were involved in the commission of murder of Deepak Gulia by causing his death.

81.3. PW6 Sagar Kataria has denied the suggestion that his statement dated 07/09/2015 was recorded by the police or that he found the same correct. Said statement Mark PW6/D was read over to PW6 and he denied having made any such statement to the police. He has denied the suggestion that on 07/09/2015 at Juvenile Justice Board Complex, Kingsway Camp, he identified three JCLs "AM" (JCL) , "HB" (JCL) and "AC" (JCL) being involved in the abduction & murder of Deepak Gulia or that he explained their roles in giving beatings to them and abducting of Deepak Gulia and "AJ" (JCL) in XUV vehicle or that he told about the role of JCL "AM" who kept his hand on the shoulder of SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 125 of 144 Deepak Gulia and caught hold of Deepak Gulia during the incident.

81.4. PW6 has denied the suggestion that his statement dated 11/12/2015 was recorded by the police or that he found the same correct. On being read over said statement Mark PW6/E to PW6, he denied having made any such person. He has denied the suggestion that on 10/12/2015 during TIP proceedings as he became afraid of the several accused persons, he could not pay much attention or that he stated to ld. MM that accused was not present amongst the persons standing in the row during TIP proceedings or that in fact, he had not carefully seen all the persons in the row. PW6 has further denied the suggestion that on 11/12/2015, he visited the PS and identified accused Nitin (to whom he failed to identify in TIP dated 10/12/2015) and accused Sujit Dabas, both present in the Court and explained their role in the incident of murder of Deepak Gulia (since deceased). He has further denied the suggestion that accused Nitin and Sujit Dabas, both present in the Court, on 25/06/2015 along with their other associates involved in abduction and murder of Deepak Gulia or that accused Nitin was wearing Blue Tshirt and blue lower at the time of the incident or that accused Sujit Dabas was wearing Military Coloured shirt and black coloured half pant or that was having bandage on his left leg. PW6 has further denied the suggestion that he identified I20 car number HR12U7885 at the PS being used in abduction of Deepak Gulia on 25/06/2015 along with XUV vehicle in which "AJ" (JCL) was also taken. He has further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally refusing to identify both the vehicle in order to save the accused persons. During cross examination by ld. APP for the State, four photographs Ex. PW6/D colly of I20 car bearing no. HR12U7885 Ex. P1 & four photographs Ex. PW6/E colly of XUV no. DL6CN2223 Ex. P2 were shown to PW6 but he refused to identify the same SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 126 of 144 and has denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the said vehicles in order to save the accused persons or that both the said vehicles were involved in the incident of abduction and murder of Deepak Gulia or that he had seen them at the spot at City Centre Mall, Rohini.

81.5. PW6 further denied the suggestion that his statement dated 17/12/2015 was recorded by the police or that he found the same correct. Said statement Mark PW6/F was read over to PW6 and he denied having made any statement to the police. He has denied the suggestion that on 17/12/2015, he visited the PS and identified accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur (to whom he failed to identify in TIP dated 16/12/2015), present in the Court, and explained their role in the incident of murder of Deepak Gulia. He has denied the suggestion that accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur, present in the Court, on 25/06/2015 along with their other associates involved in the abduction & murder of Deepak Gulia or that accused Ashish Dalal caught hold of him at the time of incident or that accused Dinesh Mathur was involved in the beating or that were involved in taking away Deepak Gulia or that on 16/12/2015 in Tihar Jail no. 7, during TIP proceedings, because of many accused persons, he became afraid and out of fear, he could not identify both of them or that on 25/06/2015, both accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur were amongst 1520 persons or that as such he could not identify them in judicial TIP out of fear. PW6 has denied the suggestion that on 17/12/2015, he had correctly identified both accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur. He has further denied the suggestion that accused Sahil Mathur, Gaurav @ Puneet @ Banda, Sharna Dhar, Sujit Dabas, Ashish Dalal, Nitin and Dinesh Mathur along with their other associates, in pursuance to their common object of criminal conspiracy, on 25/06/2015 at about 12.30 p.m., at City Centre Mall, SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 127 of 144 Sector10, Rohini, Delhi, abducted Deepak Gulia for commission of his murder and in order to secretly and wrongfully confining him, abducted him in vehicles and thereafter committed his murder at plot of JCL "RM" (JCL) bearing Khasra no. 10/8/2, Village Majri, opposite Karala water tank, Delhi or that thereafter threw his dead body on road at Kanjhawala Industrial area near approaching road to Madan Pur Dabas, Delhi.

81.6. During crossexamination of PW6 Sagar Kataria by ld. APP for the State, DVD containing CCTV footage dated 26/06/2015 of City Centre Mall was played in the Court and was shown to him, wherein at 12:50:00, accused Nitin present in the Court was seen coming in blue Tshirt and lower along with JCL Bangali and after seeing the same, the witness has denied the same. The attention of PW6 was also drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:51:15, accused Sahil Mathur, who was wearing green shirt with orange shoes, accused Sujit Dabas having bandage on his left leg with half pant and white Tshirt, accused Gaurav @ Puneet wearing half pant and white Tshirt, with JCL Pawan, were seen coming and PW6 denied the same. The attention of PW6 was also drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:53:57, deceased Deepak Gulia was in the middle and PW6 wearing black Kurta Pajama and JCL "AJ" (JCL) having bag, were seen coming and thereafter entering into the mall and PW6 correctly identified the same and has stated that it was the scene of City Centre Mall dated 25/06/2015. Attention of PW6 was also drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:54:57, accused Nitin and Sahil Mathur were seen talking with four boys present in the Court & PW6 denied the same. Attention of PW6 was also drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:54:50, accused Ashish Dalal, who was wearing pantshirt with accused Nitin, present in the Court, with JCL "AM" , was seeing coming and PW6 SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 128 of 144 denied the same. The attention of PW6 was further drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:55:37, accused Ashish and Sujit Dabas , present in the Court, were seen going inside the mall and accused Nitin, present in the court, was present outside the mall and the witness has denied the same. The attention of this witness was further drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:56:25, accused Ashish, present in court, was seen holding PW6 Sagar Kataria by putting his hand on his shoulder and accused Nitin, present in the Court, was seen caught holding the hand of deceased Deepak Gulia and accused Sujeet present in the Cout today, was also standing there, but PW6 has denied the same stating that he was unable to identify the accused persons, though he (PW6) and Deepak Gulia (since deceased) were present in the said footage. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons at that time were taking away deceased Deepak Gulia towards the vehicle for quarreling towards the vehicle and again the attention of the witness was drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:58:09, the witness i.e. PW6 returned to the mall and PW6 identified himself in the said CCTV footage and thereafter accused Nitin, present in the Court, was seen going straight and thereafter accused Sahil and Gaurav, present in the court today, were also seen, whereas accused Sahil along with others went inside the mall and accused Gaurav with others went straight and witness denied the same. Further, the attention of witness was drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 13:02:22, the witness (PW6) was seen coming out from the Mall and was running towards the parking and PW6 identified himself in the said CCTV footage. PW6 has denied the suggestion that all the aforesaid activities of the accused persons were seen in camera no. 9 installed at City Centre Mall.

81.7. During further crossexamination, CCTV footage of camera no. 13 on SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 129 of 144 DVD Ex. P2 dated 25/06/2015 was also shown, wherein at 12:56:42, 12:57:27, 12:58:05, 12:58:17 and 12:58:28, arrival of XUV is seen at 12:51:44 and thereafter, witness Sagar Kataria (PW6), deceased Deepak Gulia and JCL "AJ" (JCL) were taken from the side of mall towards the vehicle and Deepak Gulia was made to sit in XUV, beatings given to PW6 and thereafter leaving of XUV and thereafter JCL "AJ" (JCL) was made to sit in I20 car and witness Sagar Kataria (PW6) fled away by escaping and PW6 identified himself in the DVD but denied stating that he was unable to identify Deepak and the abductors. PW6 has denied the suggestion that deceased Deepak Gulia was seen in the DVD and the accused present in the Court were also seen in the DVD. Attention of PW6 was also drawn to CCTV footage, wherein at 12:58:17, accused Ashish (wearing blue Tshirt), present in the Court today, was seen sitting in I20 car and the witness denied stating that he was unable to identify the accused. He has further denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the accused Nitin, Sahil, Surjeet, Gaurav @ Puneet and Ashish Dalal in the CCTV footage in DVD Ex. P2. PW6 has further denied the suggestion that accused Nitin, Sahil, Sujeet, Gaurav @ Puneet, Ashish Dalal, Sharna Dhar and Dinesh along with their other associates on 25/06/2015 at 12.30 p.m., at City Centre Mall, Sector10, Rohini, Delhi, after abducting Deepak Gulia secretly by confining him in XUV vehicle committed his murder by causing his death. PW6 has admitted that name of his Dadi is Kamla Devi and his grandfather is Ved Prakash. He has further denied the suggestion that he was using mobile no. 9017223223, which was issued in the name of my grandmother or that initially he was using this number or that at the relevant date and time, deceased was using this number. He has further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that the above mobile number was used by deceased at the relevant time. DVD Ex. P2 was played in the Court and SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 130 of 144 was shown to the witness and he has stated that he cannot identify the persons visible in the DVD shown to him, but recognized himself and Deepak Gulia (since deceased).

81.8. Thus, PW6 Sagar Kataria has completely denied the case of prosecution qua abduction of deceased by the accused persons.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF "AJ" (JCL)

82. The prosecution has submitted that statement of "AJ" (JCL) was recorded u/s 161 CrPC but during investigation, it was revealed that he was also involved as there were contradictions in his testimony and he was also apprehended as JCL. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that IO had made reference of statement of "AJ" (JCL) recorded u/s 161 CrPC in his testimony and as such the same is also credible and it be read against the accused persons. The said submission of ld. Addl. PP for the State is completely inadmissible. First of all, "AJ" (JCL) is not a witness of prosecution. Merely because the IO has referred in his testimony that statement of "AJ" (JCL) was recorded u/s 161 CrPC, that does not mean that the same become a proof. As per Article 20(3) of the Constitution, no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. If "AJ" (JCL) has not been declared a juvenile, he would have been an accused in the case and parameters of Article 20(3) of the Constitution would have been applicable and his statement would have been inadmissible. Moreover, the statement u/s 161 CrPC was never approved by the "AJ" (JCL) during the trial, so, no reliance can be placed on the same.

83. The major evidence against the accused persons is that their phone SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 131 of 144 locations were at City Centre Mall from where the deceased was abducted and and thereafter at Karala where the deceased was murdered. Further, as per the case of prosecution SIM of accused Sahil Mathur, two mobiles phones of accused Gaurav & 1 mobile phone of accused Sharna Dhar were recovered. Mobile phone of accused Dinesh Mathur was not recovered but his SIM was recovered. Mobile phones of accused Akash, Nitin and Sujeet Dabas were not recovered and SIM of some relative of accused Sujeet Dabas was recovered, which showed that they were connected and they were present at the spot. As per seizure memo Ex. PW50/Article 1 accused Sharna Dhar got recovered one mobile phone make Micromax Unite 2A106 of black colour, IMEI no. 911345009446912 & 911345009746915, which had two SIM i.e. Airtel having no. 8285928980 and other Vodafone, having no. 8860807789 and he claimed that on 25/06/2015 he had used SIM no. 8587069869 on this mobile phone, which was thrown by him on 26/06/2015 after breaking it. PW42 Yogender Singh has claimed in his testimony that he had purchased the Vodafone SIM no. 8587069869 and gave the same to father of Sharna Dhar. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution that the above number was used by accused Sharna Dhar to whom he handed over the same after purchasing from Vodafone company or that he used to talk to him by using this number or that from last one and half year since 06/08/2015, the said accused was using the above said number which was not used by him ever or that he narrated these facts to PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh on 06/08/2015 in his statement Ex. P/W42/B. 83.1. As per seizure memo Ex. PW12/Article3, accused Gaurav @ Puneet @ Banda got recovered one mobile phone make Carbon, having IMEI no. 911309357844599 & 911309357844607, bearing SIM no. 9211130652.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 132 of 144

83.2. It is pertinent to mention here that City Centre Mall is local hub, where lot of people come and go. In such like Malls, everyday people come for one or other purpose. If there was presence of accused, that cannot be a ground that they came there just to abduct the deceased and mere from their presence, which was of the morning hours, when lot of people visit the Mall, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against them. Moreover, accused Dinesh Mathur, Nitin and Sujit Dabas are residents of Kanjhawala and if the presence of accused persons is found at Karala, the said fact is not sufficient to say that there was any kind of conspiracy and in pursuance of such conspiracy the accused persons were present at the aforesaid places in absence of any evidence qua abduction and murder of the deceased.

TESTIMONY OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER QUA CCTV FOOTAGE

84. As already stated above in preceding paras, PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh was recalled u/s 311 CrPC by the State and during his further examination, CD Ex. P2 (CCTV footage of City Centre Mall of the date of incident) was run in the computer system and after seeing the CCTV footage dated 25/06/2015, PW58 has identified all the accused persons and JCLs and further identified one while colour XUV car seen coming at the mall further stated that accused persons were visible while taking out deceased Deepak Gulia from outside the mall and while making him enter inside the said white colour XUV car, also seen while beating witness Sagar Kataria and JCL "AJ" (JCL) was taken in the I20 car. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons has objected to their identification in the manner narrated above. IO has further deposed that the abovesaid CCTV footage shows that the abovesaid accused persons has SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 133 of 144 gathered at City Centre Mall Rohini and had called the deceased at the spot and had thereafter abducted him from the said place.

84.1. During crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Ashish Dalal, PW58 admitted that he got forwarded the hard disk and CD to various FSL, CFSL & Lok Nayak Jai Prakash National Institute of Criminology & Forensic Science & Truth Lab. In reply to question that he had requested for visible and enlarged photographs of the persons reflected in the above video, PW58 stated that he requested only for enlarged photographs and has voluntarily stated that it could not be provided by above labs and reasons of the same have been mentioned in the relevant reports. He has further admitted that I did not mention anywhere in chargesheet submitted before the Court that he had identified the accused in the manner mentioned above from the CCTV footage Ex. P2. However, he has voluntarily stated that at the time of arrest of the accused persons, he had taken the help of abovesaid CCTV footage and the details of the same has been mentioned by him in his initial chief examination. He has further admitted that this fact of identification in the abovesaid manner is also not reflected in his case diary. He has further admitted that arrest memos of various accused do not mention that at the time of their arrest, he had taken the help of CCTV footage. He has further admitted that the video footage is from the cameras placed at a higher level.

84.2. During crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Gaurav, PW58 has admitted that in the abovesaid CCTV footage, accused Gaurav is not visible together with deceased (in camera no. 9 first camera). He has further admitted that accused Gaurav was also not present from the place where SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 134 of 144 deceased was taken in XUV car. He has admitted that accused Gaurav was not found present with the deceased while coming outside the City Centre Mall when deceased was brought inside the mall.

84.3. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Sahil Mathur, PW58 has admitted that accused Sahil Mathur is not seen in the CCTV recording of camera no. 9 & 13 in the company of the deceased. However, he has voluntarily stated that said accused can be seen in the recording of camera no. 9. In reply to question can Sahil Mathur be seen in any of the recording with the alleged i20 car parked outside mall, PW58 has stated that he can be seen in the street along with two accused and one JCL near i20. He has further stated that he has seen the mall which is the place of the incident including entry as well as the exit. He has admitted that in the recording of camera no. 9 at 12:58, accused Sahil can be seen going inside the mall.

84.4. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused Nitin, PW58 has admitted that in camera no. 13, accused Nitin is not visible while going with deceased in XUV car at 12:57:27. He has further admitted that as per camera no. 9 at 12:58:12, accused Nitin is visible outside the mall.

84.5. In the crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Dinesh Mathur and Sujit Dabas, PW58 has stated that he had not mentioned in the chargesheet anywhere that he had seen accused Sujit Dabas in the CCTV footage during investigation at any point of time "that in the CCTV footage at about 12:51:51, witness has identified Sujit Dabas" or that he had seen any such CCTV footage in this regard.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 135 of 144

84.6. The aforesaid testimony of IO PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh is not acceptable. The timing of evidence of PW58 IO Inspector Jitender Singh in recalling is highly doubtful because his detailed examination and cross examination was conducted two years back. He did not state that he had seen the CD and he can identify the accused persons. After hearing the arguments, the fact has come before the Court that no one has identified them, then the application was moved, which was an afterthought and the IO simply identified the accused persons. The evidence of IO is hit by the statement of PW59 Sh. T. Ashok,Asst. Director, Cyber and Audio video forensic truth labs, Bangalore, who has stated that quality of video was poor and as such the faces of the persons in the video could not be enhanced. He had failed to give the registration number of Santro car. PW57 Geetesh Patel, FSL expert, has stated that range images in low pixel resolution, hence the enhancement of the same was not possible on current facilities of the laboratory. Furthermore, PW56 Dr. Aanchal Dwivedi, Junior SO, CFSL, Chandigarh, has claimed in her testimony that exhibit HD/1 showed that the total space was 3.63 TB and the free space was 0 MB, however, no data was visible & Ex. HD/2 showed that both the total and free space was 3.63 TB. PW57 Geetesh Patel, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, Delhi, has claimed in his testimony that range images were in low pixel resolution, hence the enhancement of the same was not possible on current facilities of the laboratory. Moreover, in the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that he had not received any hard disk in this case nor he asked the investigating agency for the master copy or the hard disk. PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh has also admitted in his crossexamination that initially from Rohini CFSL and thereafter from Chandigarh CFSL, the report has been received by him that no data is retrievable in the DVR/Hard disk. As per testimony of IO, the camera was at high range. This SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 136 of 144 fact was in the knowledge of the prosecution and IO was recalled just to fill the lacunae of case. The testimony of IO is in complete contradiction with expert witness who has stated that the quality of video was very low and even if the images are enlarged, the accused persons cannot be identified. Both the witnesses i.e. PW56 Dr. Aanchal Dwivedi, Junior SO, CFSL, Chandigarh & PW57 Geetesh Patel, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, Delhi, have clearly stated that there was hardly data in the DVR/hard disk and the images were of very poor quality. Even the testimony of PW59 T. Ashok of Trurth Lab corroborates the same fact.

84.7. As per case of prosecution, PW51 Dinesh Kumar, who is uncle of deceased Deepak Gulia, had seen the CD containing CCTV footage in the PS on 30/11/2015 and had identified the accused persons including JCLs, Sagar Kataria & his nephew Deepak Gulia, but in his testimony before the Court, he turned hostile and even after seeing the CCTV footage, he only identified PW6 Sagar Kataria and deceased Deepak Gulia and failed to identify the accused persons.

THE PLACE WHETHER THE VICTIM/DECEASED WAS BEATEN AT A PLOT IN FRONT OF WATER TANK IN VILLAGE KARALA

85. As per the case of prosecution, accused persons took the victim Deepak Gulia (since deceased) in XUV car, who was beaten at a plot in front of water tank in village Karala. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the CDRs of the accused persons claiming that location of their mobile phones were at City Centre Mall as well as at Village Karala. In this regard, eyewitness PW6 Sagar Kataria has outrightly denied the case of the prosecution that accused persons had taken the deceased in aforesaid XUV car. As discussed above, the SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 137 of 144 statement u/s 161 CrPC of "AJ" (JCL) cannot be relied and considered being hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Except PW6 Sagar Kataria, there is no other independent witness, who could have stated that deceased was taken at the said place, was beaten and murdered and further stated that the place was isolated one and who were present there. At the most, "RM" (JCL) & "AM" (JCL) can be alleged that they had taken the deceased. It is not sufficiently proved on record that the accused persons were also with aforesaid JCLs, who had taken the deceased at the said place, beaten him and murdered him. Moreover, some of the accused persons were living nearby and from this fact, it cannot be ascertained that the accused persons were present at the place of beating. Furthermore, the location related to mobile phone is dependent upon various factors such as location of the towers, strength of the signals etc. and the location may vary to the extent of few hundred meters or even may vary to few kilometers. Hence, no much reliance can be placed on the mobile phone locations unless the same is corroborated by other evidence, which is not in the present case.

EXTENT OF RELEVANCY & POOR VISIBILITY IN CCTV FOOTAGE

86. As per the case of prosecution, the CCTV footage is showing the presence of XUV bearing registration no. DL6CN2223. However, PW6 Sagar Kataria has denied the case of prosecution qua the identity of accused persons as the assailants who had abducted deceased Deepak Gulia, though he claimed in his testimony that some boys had come and had abducted Deepak Gulia and took him in the said XUV vehicle. The prosecution could not prove the ownership of the vehicle in the name of Pradeep Mathur, father of JCL "RM". If for arguments sake, the prosecution case is believed to be true, the said fact indicates towards "RM" (JCL) and his brother "AM" (JCL) , who were stated to be in the said XUV but as SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 138 of 144 they were found to be JCLs lateron, so no case was made out against them. Except that, no other evidence can be deduced from the said CCTV footage. Moving of application u/s 311 CrPC for recalling of IO PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh by the prosecution, is an afterthought just to prove its case. Furthermore, PW56 Dr. Aanchal Dwivedi, Junior SO, CFSL, Chandigarh, has claimed in her testimony that exhibit HD/1 showed that the total space was 3.63 TB and the free space was 0 MB, however, no data was visible & Ex. HD/2 showed that both the total and free space was 3.63 TB. PW57 Geetesh Patel, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, Delhi, has claimed in his testimony that range images were in low pixel resolution, hence the enhancement of the same was not possible on current facilities of the laboratory. Moreover, in the crossexamination, this witness has admitted that he had not received any hard disk in this case nor he asked the investigating agency for the master copy or the hard disk. PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh has also admitted in his crossexamination that initially from Rohini CFSL and thereafter from Chandigarh CFSL, the report has been received by him that no data is retrievable in the DVR/Hard disk. It is quite surprising that when both the government agencies i.e. CFSL Chandigarh and FSL Rohini have submitted that no data was available and images were on low pixel resolution and enhancement was not possible, then why the IO had sent the same to a private agency Truth Lab. No proper explanation has come on record regarding this fact. Both the witnesses i.e. PW56 Dr. Aanchal Dwivedi, Junior SO, CFSL, Chandigarh & PW57 Geetesh Patel, Jr. Forensic/Asst. Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, Delhi, have clearly stated that there was hardly data in the DVR/hard disk and the images were of very poor quality. Even the testimony of PW59 T. Ashok of Trurth Lab corroborates the same fact.

SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 139 of 144

WHETHER INGREDIENT OF CONSPIRACY MADE OUT

87. The prosecution case is based on the basis of conspiracy hatched between "RM" (JCL) and other persons including the present accused persons. In this regard, there is nothing on record to show that the accused persons facing trial before this Court had any conversation with "RM" (JCL) and hatched a conspiracy to abduct the deceased and murder him. For proving the factum of conspiracy, meeting of minds is very much necessary. Merely saying that accused persons were having conversation with each other, is not sufficient in the present case. Even if for arguments sake, it is believed that all the accused persons were friends, were of same age group and known to each other and they would have been usually talking with each other, but prosecution has not shown anything that they were never on talking terms prior to the day of incident. So, this fact does not take the case of prosecution any ahead as even it is not sufficient to raise suspicion. The theory of prosecution with regard to conspiracy is very ambiguous. The factum that when the conspiracy was hatched is not reflected in the charge sheet. Merely that there were some telephonic talks between the accused persons, is not sufficient. Nothing has come on record to say that accused persons had hatched any conspiracy. As already discussed above, mere presence is not sufficient to prove the factum of guilt of the accused in absence of any corroborative evidence. PW6 Sagar Kataria has not supported the case of the prosecution and statement u/s 161 CrPC of "AJ" (JCL) would have been hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, if he would have not been a JCL. Even otherwise, "AJ" JCL never approved his statement u/s 161 CrPC before the Court not being a witness in the case, therefore, his statement given to police cannot be substantiated and is of no value. Furthermore, if prosecution case is to be believed, "MB" (JCL) was conversing with "RM" (JCL) (another JCL) and not with SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 140 of 144 the accused persons & whether they were aware that there was any planning, nothing has come out from the case of the prosecution and as such the factum of conspiracy can also not be attributed to the present accused persons.

WHETHER INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 364 & 365 IPC ARE PROVED OR NOT

88. Abduction requires force or deceit to be applied to the victim. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that accused persons abducted Deepak Gulia (since deceased) from City Centre Mall during daytime when there were lot of people. He has not raised any hue and cry to show that he was being forcibly taken. Even for the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that IO has identified the accused persons & they are also found present at the spot of abduction, but accused are not seen as showing any force and what deceit was played by the accused persons to bring the deceased outside the Mall is also not reflected by the prosecution. So, both the elements, necessary for the offence of abduction are lacking. As already discussed above, the star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW6 Sagar Kataria has not supported the case of the prosecution qua the identity of accused persons as the same who had abducted Deepak Gulia (since deceased) and murdered him. Moreover, as per the Cyber Expert, the quality of video was low and as such the faces of the persons in the video could not be enhanced. There is no statement of any other public witness to corroborate the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the offences u/s 364 & u/s 365 IPC against the accused persons.

WHETHER MURDER CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE ACCUSED PERSONS.

89. As per case of prosecution, the accused persons took the deceased SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 141 of 144 to a plot in front of Karala water tank, where he was beaten with legs, fists and danda by the accused persons along with JCLs as a result of which the deceased died & thereafter his dead body was taken from Karala to Kanjhawla Industrial Area by the accused in XUV car no. DL6CN2223 and was thrown there. As per testimony of PW13 Dr. Mukesh Kumar, who had conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, death was due to cardiac temponade consequent to trauma to the chest and abdomen, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further claimed that all injuries were ante mortem and fresh in duration prior to death, caused by blunt force. He further claimed that the tramline contusions and contused abrasions were likely to have been caused by elongated hard object like lathi, danda, rod etc. Thus, from the testimony of PW13, the prosecution has able to prove that the death of deceased was due to beatings. However, as already discussed above, there is no independent witness who would have seen the accused persons and JCLs taking the deceased to the said plot, where he was given severe beatings and was murdered. Moreover, the star witness of prosecution namely PW6 Sagar Kataria has turned hostile and did not identify any of the accused persons before the Court as the ones who had abducted the deceased in his presence. The statement of "AJ" (JCL) cannot be considered being not a witness in this case. Furthermore, as per FSL report Ex. PW52/A of PW2 Ms. Poonam Sharma, FSL expert, no biological clue material could be detected at the scene of crime i.e. plot opposite Karala Water tank at Village Karala. Thus, the prosecution has also failed to connect the accused persons with the commission of murder of the deceased. Hence, offence u/s 302 IPC has also not been proved on record qua the accused persons.

WHETHER OFFENCE U/S 201 IPC IS PROVED OR NOT

90. As per case of prosecution, the accused persons had thrown the SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 142 of 144 dead body of deceased Deepak Gulia on road at Kanjhawala area near approaching road to Madanpur Dabas, Delhi and also destroyed some mobile phones and some SIMs used by them. As already discussed above, the factum of conspiracy has not been proved and even PW6 Sagar Kataria has not supported the case of prosecution qua the identity of the accused persons as the assailants who had abducted deceased Deepak Gulia. For arguments sake, if it is presumed that the accused persons were friends, were talking with each other and were known to each other and they came to know about the involvement of "RM" (JCL) (JCL), the possibility that they might have destroyed the SIMs or mobile phones cannot be ruled out. Unless the conspiracy is proved, the same will not take the case of prosecution any ahead. Moreover, some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, has denied that accused persons were using the said SIMs or mobile phones. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence u/s 201 IPC against the accused persons.

Whether Section 174A IPC has been proved against accused Dinesh Mathur, Ashish Dalal & Sujit Dabas

91. Accused Dinesh Mathur, Ashish Dalal and Sujit Dabas have also been charged for the offences u/s 174A IOC. PW48 Sh. Abhilash Malhotra has claimed that application dated 15/10/2015 Ex. PW48/1 & application dated 30/11/2015 Ex. PW48/4 were moved by PW58 Inspector Jitender Singh of PS Prashant Vihar to declare accused Ashish Dalal & Dinesh Mathur and Surjit Dabas as proclaimed offenders. The proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued against said accused persons were exhibited during the testimony of PW48 as Ex. PW48/2,Ex. PW48/5 & Ex. PW48/6 respectively and the order dated 15/10/2015 & 30/11/2015 vide which the said accused persons were declared proclaimed offenders were SC No. 58688/2016 FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors. Page 143 of 144 exhibited as Ex. PW48/3 & Ex. PW48/7 respectively. However, the process server(s), who has/have executed the said process against these accused persons has/have not been called in the Court and as such no proper opportunity was given to these accused persons to crossexamine the process server(s), whether he/they actually went to the given addresses on process or not & only reports of process server and proclamation order were exhibited. He was the most material person. Secondly, as per case of prosecution, accused on 03.12.15, accused Ashish Dalal and Dinesh Mathur had surrendered themselves in the PS on 03/12/2015 & accused Sujeet Dabas had surrendered himself on 09/12/2015. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove offence u/s 174A IPC against accused Ashish Dalal, Dinesh Mathur and Sujeet Dabas.

92. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. Resultantly, all the accused persons are acquitted for the offences u/s 120B IPC & u/s 364/365/302/201/34 read with Section 120B IPC, whereas accused Dinesh Mathur, Ashish Dalal & Sujit Dabas are also acquitted for the offence u/s 174A IPC.

93. They are directed to furnished personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount u/s 437A CrPC.



Announced in the open Court
today i.e. on 15th of February 2022                                      (Shivaji Anand)
                                                                   Additional Sessions Judge04
                                                               North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi


SC No. 58688/2016      FIR no. 797/2015 PS Prashant Vihar State Vs Sahil Mathur & Ors.   Page 144 of 144

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1) Sahil Mathur on 15 February, 2022