Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Pramod @ Langra on 21 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 1255/10
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0135582010
State Vs. (1) Pramod @ Langra
S/o Hira Lal
R/o LBlock Jhuggi N105/182,
JJ Colony, Shakur Pur,
Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental
S/o Kanda Swami @ Marimmutu
R/o E683, JJ Colony,
Shakur Pur, Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Manoj @ Monu
S/o Chandan Singh
R/o K272, JJ Colony,
Shakur Pur, Delhi
(Convicted)
(4) Narbahadur @ Ladies Monu @
Dhan Bahadur
S/o Prem Bahadur
R/o D73, JJ Colony,
Shakur Pur, Delhi
(Convicted)
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 1
FIR No.: 80/2010
Police Station: Saraswati Vihar
Under Section: 458/460/302/411/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Session Court: 12.7.2010
Date on which orders were reserved: 17.7.2012
Date on which judgment announced: 20.7.2012
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations, on the intervening night of 23.3.2010 in between 11:30 PM to 5:30 AM in front of Shop No. 18 and 19, Shivani Tent Sajawat, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi all the four accused namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Narbahadur @ Ladies Monu @ Dhan Bahadur jointly committed lurking house trespass and in furtherance of their common intention all the accused committed the murder of Dheeraj who was sleeping outside the Shop No. 18 and 19, by hitting the iron rod on his head. It is also alleged that on 6.3.2010 at Main Road, Lok Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Narbahadur @ Dhan Bahadur dishonestly received or retained the Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL9C1C3999 knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen property. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 3.3.2010 at about 6:15 AM one Sanjay Sharma came to the Police Station Saraswati St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 2 Vihar and gave information that his employee Dheeraj who was working in his Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi was lying dead in front of Shop No.18 and there were injury marks on his head. Pursuant to the said information DD No. 5A was lodged which was marked to SI Sanjay Kumar who along with Ct.
Pappu Lal reached the spot where they found the dead body of Dheeraj lying in front of Shop No.18 in a pool of blood. The locks of the Shop No.17 were also found broken. One Shri Ram met SI Sanjay Kumar who gave his statement to him wherein he informed the police that he was working in Shop No. 19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar under the name and style of Shivani Tent Sajawat and used to stay in the shop itself. Shri Ram also informed the police that Dheeraj also used to work in the said shop who also used to sleep in the shop. According to Shri Ram, on the night of 2.3.2010 he slept at his shop at about 10:30 PM while Dhreej had gone somewhere and at about 11:30 PM Dheeraj came and woke him up, after which Dheeraj took his quilt and went to sleep on the Sofa lying outside the shop. He further informed that thereafter he closed the glass door of the shop and went of the sleep, in the morning of 3.3.2010 at about 5:30 AM when he woke up, he found a lot of blood outside the shop and Dheeraj was lying dead in front of Shop No. 18 and the shutter of the shop no. 17 was also partly opened. On this, he telephonically informed his owner Sh. Sanjay Sharma who inturn informed the police. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 3 (3) On the basis of the said statement of Shri Ram the rukka was prepared and the present case was got registered. In the meantime Inspector Praveen Kumar reached the spot who again interrogated Shri Ram wherein he informed the police that during the intervening night of 23.03.2010 he heard the noise of khatpat from Shop No.17 when he woke up and saw outside from the mirror door that Dheeraj was crying and two persons were standing near him with rods. He also informed Inspector Praveen Kumar that Dheeraj tried to stand and came up till Shop No.18 when he heard the voice from inside the Shop No.17 that 'Isko jaan se maar do' on which he had seen both the persons hitting rod on the head of Dheeraj. According to Shri Ram, he was so scared due to which reason he could not come outside from his shop. He further informed the police that he had seen that third person had brought wooden drawer from Shop No.17 after which all the three boys left the spot and Dheeraj fell down in front of Shop No.18.
(4) While Inspector Praveen was still present at the spot, HC Ram Dayal of Police Station Keshav Puram came to the spot who produced one wooden drawer/ galla containing iron rod, documents and other articles which were recovered from Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which was stationed at Service Road B3, Keshav Puram. The said drawer was put into the box of Shop No.17 and it was found belonging to same box and the owner of Shop No.17 St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 4 namely Vikas had also identified the drawer and other articles/ documents as belonging to him. During investigations it was revealed that the Esteem Car bearing no. DL8CK2765 was left by the assailants at B3 Block, Keshav Puram when they were seen by the Guard namely Anil Kumar Tiwari while the said boys were trying to broke open the locks of another Esteem Car No. DL9CP8957, on which information was given to PCR. HC Ram Dayal informed Inspector Praveen Kumar the the drawer and other articles were recovered from the said Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765. (5) Further, the case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 0506.03.2010 at 1:45 AM, the accused Manoj @ Monu was apprehended by the police of Police Station Rani Bagh while he was present in Esteem Car having the number on the plate of DL3CG5278 at Raja Park Road, Red Light chowk. On checking one iron rod was found lying on the back seat and one RC was also found lying on the desk board reflecting the number DL3CR6881 and one rexene bag was also found on the desk board which was found to contain some documents. The number of the number plate was not matching with the number mentioned on the RC and the chassis of the vehicle. Pursuant to the same a separate case vide FIR No.75/10 at Police Station Rani Bagh was registered wherein the accused made his disclosure statement and disclosed his involvement in the present case. Thereafter information was given to Police Station Saraswati Vihar St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 5 pursuant to which Inspector Praveen Kumar reached Police Station Rani Bagh on 6.3.2010 and interrogated the accused Manoj @ Monu wherein the accused admitted his involvement in the present case and also named his associates as Pramod, Mini and Nar Bahadur. On the same day, pursuant to a secret information the remaining three accused namely Pramod, Mini and Nar Bahadur were apprehended in front of Lok Vihar, ABlock, Main Road when they were in possession of an Esteem Car of grey colour bearing No. DL9CK3999. One knife from the possession of the accused Pramod @ Langra and one iron rod was recovered from near driver seat of the car and another rod was recovered from the dicky of the car. Thereafter all the accused were arrested in this car and their disclosure statements were recorded wherein they admitted their involvement in the present case. On 18.3.2010 the witness Shri Ram identified the accused Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini during the Judicial Test Identification Parade and on 19.3.2010 he also identified the accused Manoj @ Monu when he was on police custody remand. On 19.3.2010 the witness Anil Kumar Tiwari also identified all the four accused when they were produced in the Court, as the boys who were present at B3 Block, Keshav Puram and had left their Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765. After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against all the four accused. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 6 CHARGE:
(6) Charges under Section 460/302/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against all the four accused namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Narbahadur @ Ladies Monu @ Dhan Bahadur to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Further, charges under Section 411/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. An alternative charge under Section 458 Indian Penal Code was settled against all the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(7) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses:
Sr. Witness Name Category of witness
No. No.
1. PW1 Ct. Shiv Kant Police witness who had handed over
the original rukka to IO
2. PW2 WHC Pravesh Police witness/ DD writer
3. PW3 HC Hawa Singh Police witness/ DD writer
4. PW4 HC Gulbir Police witness/ Duty Officer
5. PW5 L/Ct. Sangeeta Police witness/ DD writer
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 7
6. PW6 HC Ravinder Police witness/ MHCM
7. PW7 HC Sunil Police witness/ MHCM
8. PW8 HC Halwant Police witness/ DD writer
9. PW9 HC Vijay Police witness/ Duty Officer
10. PW10 HC Ram Charan Police witness/ Duty Officer
11. PW11 SI Suraj Pal Police witness who has proved the
arrest of accused Manoj
12. PW12 L Ct. Suman Official from PCR, PHQ
13. PW13 Vikas Public witness/ owner of Shop No.17,
DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar
14. PW14 SI Sanjay Police witness who had first reached
the spot of incident of murder
15. PW15 Dr. K. Goel Autopsy Surgeon
16. PW16 Naresh Kumar Forensic Expert
17. PW17 SI Manohar Lal Draftsman
18. PW18 Sanjay Sharma Public witness/ owner of Shop No.19,
DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar who was
the employer of the deceased
19. PW19 Shyam Charan Father of the deceased
20. PW20 M.L. Narang Public witness/ President of RWA B3
Keshaw Puram
21. PW21 Parmeet Singh Public witness/ owner of car no.
DL8CK2765
22. PW22 Manoj Kumar Private Photographer
23. PW23 Neeraj Sharma Brother of deceased Dheeraj
24. PW24 Rajesh Kumar Public witness/ owner of car No.
DL9CK3999
25. PW25 Jagbir Shah Public witness who had made a PCR
call
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 8
26. PW26 Ct. Rohtash Police witness who had taken the
maruti car No. DL9CK3999 to FSL
27. PW27 Ct. Dipesh Police witness who had taken the
maruti car No. DL8CK2765 to FSL
28. PW28 Anil Kr. Tiwari Public witness/ Guard posted at B3
Block, Keshav Puram
29. PW29 Shri Ram Public witness/ eye witness to the
incident
30. PW30 Prem Prakash Public witness/ owner of Sanjeev
Mittal Departmental Store
31. PW31 Lal Bihari Guard who was posted at Netaji
Subhash Palace
32. PW32 HC Ashok Kumar Police witness who had joined
investigations with Insp. Praveen
Kumar
33. PW33 Ct. Ram Kumar Police witness who has taken the
parcels to FSL
34. PW34 Ct. Subash Crime Team photographer
35. PW35 Ct. Ram Kishan Crime Team photographer
36. PW36 Anil Yadav UDC from Home department who has
proved the Arms Act Notification
37. PW37 Ct. Ghasi Ram Police witness who had joined
investigations with Insp. Praveen
Kumar
38. PW38 SI Devender Crime Team Incharge
Singh
39. PW39 SI Satpal Crime Team Incharge
40. PW40 HC Ravinder MHCM
Nath
41. PW41 Harpal (DHG Official witness who has proved the
Constable) arrest of accused Manoj
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 9
42. PW42 Ct Ramraj Police witness has proved the arrest of
accused Manoj
43. PW43 Ct. Kulbhushan Police witness has proved the arrest of
accused Manoj
44. PW44 SI Ramesh Police witness has proved the arrest of
Kumar accused Manoj
45. PW45 Ct. Mehkar Police witness who had joined
Sjingh investigations with Insp. Praveen
Kumar
46. PW46 Ct. Pappu Lal Police witness who had reached the
spot along with SI Sanjay
47. PW47 Insp. Praveen Investigating Officer
48. PW48 HC Ram Dayal Police witness who had reached B3
Block, Keshav Puram and informed the
owner of car no. DL8CK2567
49. PW49 Sh. V. Shankara Forensic Expert
Narayanan
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit No. Details of document Proved by
No.
1. Ex.PW1/1 Affidavit of Ct. Shiv Kant Ct. Shiv Kant
2. Ex.PW2/1 Affidavit of W/Ct. Parvesh W/Ct. Parvesh
3. Ex.PW2/A DD No 40A
4. Ex.PW2/B DD No. 48B
5. Ex.PW3/1 Affidavit of HC Hawa Singh HC Hawa Singh
6. Ex.PW3/A DD No.6A
7. Ex.PW4/1 Affidavit of HC Gulbir HC Gulbir
8. Ex.PW4/A DD No. 5A
9. Ex.PW4/B DD No. 6A
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 10
10. Ex.PW5/1 Affidavit of L/ Ct. Sangeeta L/ Ct. Sangeeta
11. Ex.PW5/A DD No. 32B
12. Ex.PW5/B DD No.42 B
13. Ex.PW6/1 Affidavit of HC Ravinder HC Ravinder
14. Ex.PW6/A Copy of Register No. 19 .
15. Ex.PW6/B Copy of Road Certificate
16. Ex.PW7/1 Affidavit of HC Sunil HC Sunil
17. Ex.PW7/A Copy of Register No. 19
18. Ex.PW7/B Copy of Road Certificate
19. Ex.PW8/1 Affidavit of Ct. Halwant Ct. Halwant
20. Ex.PW8/A DD No. 4 PP
21. Ex.PW9/1 Affidavit of HC Vijay Kumar HC Vijay Kumar
22. Ex.PW9/A Copy of FIR No. 82/10
23. Ex.PW10/1 Affidavit of HC Ram Charan HC Ram Charan
24. Ex.PW10/A DD No. 9A
25. Ex.PW10/B Copy of FIR
26. Ex.PW10/C DD No. 10A
27. Ex.PW10/D DD No. 11A
28. Ex.PW10/E Copy of FIR No. 81/10
29. Ex.PW11/1 Affidavit of SI Suraj Pal SI Ruraj Pal
30. Ex.PW12/A PCR Form L/ Ct. Suman
31. Ex.PW13/A Seizure memo of cash counter and Vikas Iron Road etc
32. Ex.PW13/B Pointing out memo Nar Bahadur
33. Ex.PW13/C Pointing out memo Mini
34. Ex.PW13/D Pointing out memo Pramod
35. Ex PW13/E Pointing out memo Manoj St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 11
36. Ex.PW14/A Crime team report SI Sanjay Kumar
37. Ex.PW14/B Statement of Shri Ram
38. Ex.PW14/C Rukka
39. Ex.PW14D Seizure memo of cotton Swabs
40. Ex.PW14/E Seizure memo of Blood sample from earth
41. Ex.PW14/F Seizure memo of kota stone and earth control
42. Ex.PW14/G Seizure memo of kota stone and earth control
43. Ex.PW14/H Seizure memo of Sofa
44. Ex.PW14/I Seizure memo of Rajai
45. Ex.PW14/J Seizure memo of Hawai Chappal
46. Ex.PW14/K Seizure memo of Tai caring Machine Stand
47. Ex.PW141/L Seizure memo of lock
48. Ex.PW14/M Seizure memo of Coins
49. Ex.PW14/N Seizure memo of Pullanda
50. Ex.PW15/A Postmortem Report Dr. Kulbhushan
51. Ex.PW15/B Opinion Goel
52. Ex.PW15/C Iron rod sketch
53. Ex.PW16/A FSL Crime Scene Report Naresh Kumar
54. Ex.PW17/A Scaled site plan SI Manohar Lal
55. Ex.PW18/A Statement of Sanjay regarding dead Sanjay body identification
56. Ex.PW20/A Copy of Attendance Register M.L. Narang
57. Ex.PW20/ Copy of Attendance Register B1 to B4
58. Ex.PW21/A Seizure memo of Car bearing No. Parmeet Singh DL8CK2765 St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 12
59. Ex.PW21/B Seizure memo of Receipt of Mobile
60. Ex.PW22/A Photographs Manoj Kumar 1 to A13
61. Ex.PW22/B CD of photographs
62. Ex.PW22/C Photographs 1 to C8
63. Ex.PW23/A Dead body identification statement Neeraj Sharma of Neeraj Sharma
64. Ex.PW23/B Dead body handed over memo
65. Ex.PW26/A Seizure memo of Exhibits handed Ct. Rohtash over by the doctor
66. Ex.PW28/A Statement of Anil Tiwari U/s. 161 Anil Tiwari Cr.P.C.
67. Ex.PW29/A Copy of statement of Shri Ram Shri Ram
68. Ex.PW32/A Arrest memo of Pramod HC Ashok
69. Ex.PW32/B Arrest memo of Minni Kumar
70. Ex.PW32/C Arrest memo of Nar Bahadur
71. Ex.PW32/D Personal search memo of Pramod
72. Ex.PW32/E Personal search memo of Minni
73. Ex.PW32/F Personal search memo of Nar Bhadur
74. Ex.PW32/G Sketch of knife
75. Ex.PW32/H Seizure memo of knife
76. Ex.PW32/I Seizure memo of cloths
77. Ex.PW32/J Seizure memo of Iron rod
78. Ex.PW32/K Seizure memo of bunch of key
79. Ex.PW32/K Site plan
80. Ex.PW32/M Seizure memo of Car bearing No. DL9CK3999
81. Ex.PW32/N Disclosure Statement of Pramod St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 13
82. Ex.PW32/O Disclosure Statement of Minni
83. Ex.PW32/P Disclosure Statement of Nar Bahadur
84. Ex.PW36/A Notification under Arms Act Anil Yadav
85. Ex.PW37/A Disclosure Statement of of Manoj Ct. Ghasi Ram
86. Ex.PW39/A Crime team Report SI Satpal
87. Ex.PW39/B Crime team Report
88. Ex.PW40/A Copy of Register No. 19 HC Ravinder
89. Ex.PW40/B Copy of register No 19 Nath 90. Ex.PW40/C Copy of register No. 19
91. Ex.PW40/D Copy of Register no. 19
92. Ex.PW40/E Copy of Rc No. 48/21/10
93. Ex.PW40/F Copy of FSL Receipt
94. Ex.PW41/A Copy of seizure memo of Rakseen Ct. Harpal bag (DHG)
95. Ex.PW47/A Site plan Inspector Praveen
96. Ex.PW47/B Inquest form
97. Ex.PW47/C Brief Fact
98. Ex.PW47/D Death report ( Form no. 25:35)
99. Ex.PW47/E Application for Postmortem
100. Ex.PW47/F Arrest memo of Manoj
101. Ex.PW47/G Request for TIP of Manoj
102. Ex.PW47/H Request for TIP of Other accused
103. Ex.PW47/I Application for copy of TIP
104. Ex.PW47/J Request for Examination of weapon of offence
105. Ex.PW49/A Biological Report Sh. V. Shankara
106. Ex.PW49/B Serological Report narayanan St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 14 EVIDENCE:
(8) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Forty Seven witnesses as under:
Public witnesses/ eye witnesses:
(9) PW13 Vikas is the owner of the shop No.17, DDA Market Sandesh Vihar. He has deposed that he was having a business of repair of cars and spare parts from shop No. 17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampur under the name and style of North Delhi Motors. According to him, on 03.03.2010 at about 66:15 AM Sanjay Sharma his neighbour who is having a shop near his shop by the name of Shivani Tent Shajawat bearing shop No. 19 telephoned him and informed that the locks of his shop were broken and his labour Dheeraj Kumar who used to stay in the shop during the night hours, was lying dead in front of shop No. 18. He has deposed that on coming to know of the same he immediately came to his shop where he found police already present and the dead body of Dheeraj was lying outside shop No.18 with lot of blood lying on the chabutra outside shop No. 19. Witness has further deposed that he also found the shutter of his shop down but its locks were broken and with permission from the police, he opened the shutter of his shop and found that the tool box was opened and tools which were lying inside the tool box were missing, iron rods, hammer and the cash drawer (locker) of his shop which was containing his trade licence (colored St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 15 photocopy and original), telephone bills, a cheque book in the name of his father. Sh. H.N. Batra, cash of Rs. Eleven Hundred, hexa blades, a carry bag containing documents like application for Pan Card of his wife and some spare parts of car were missing on which he informed the police of the said facts. According to the witness, persons from the crime team also visited the spot and inspected the same and tried to lift some finger prints. He has testified that telephone/MTNL bills which were lying inside the drawer and had been stolen were of their old address of Shop No. 13 where they were previously on rent. The witness has further deposed that on the same day at about 12 noon the police officials from Police Station Keshavpuram came to him and brought with them one drawer along with trade licence in his name, MTNL bills, cheque book in the name of his father, application of his wife for Pan Card, hexa blades, spare parts of the car, carry bag, three iron rods, one hammer which they showed to him and he put the drawer inside the table and found that it was same drawer which was stolen from his shop. According to the witness, he identified all those articles as those which were stolen from his shop in the intervening night and after he identified the same the Investigating Officer prepared the seizure memo of the same which is Ex.PW13/A. The witness has further deposed that he was told by the police officer that all these articles were found in one Esteem Car along with threefour boys, exact number he does not recollect and his statement was again St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 16 recorded by the Investigating officer on the same day. (10) PW13 Vikas has further deposed that on 06.03.2010 at about 33:30 PM the police persons came to his shop along with three boys who were in muffled faces and the police officials were making inquires from those boys in his presence who pointed out his shop and the tent shop and the place where the body of Dheeraj was lying and those boys were telling the police officials about the details and what they had done but he cannot hear the details properly. He has further deposed that the pointing out memos were prepared in his presence at the instance of all the four accused. He has also proved the pointing out memo of Shop No. 18 and 19 prepared at the instance of accused Nar Bahadur which is Ex.PW13/B; the pointing out prepared at the instance of accused A. Mini @ Minni of shop No. 17,18 and 19 which is Ex.PW13/C and the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Manoj @ Langra in respect of shop No.18 and 19 which is Ex.PW13/D. He has further deposed that on 19.03.2010 the police officials again came to him with another boy namely Monu whom he knew previously also as he (Monu) used to work in his shop about one and a half to two years ago and the said boy was being interrogated by the police, the details of same he could not hear but he (accused) pointed out his shop and also the shop of the tent wala (shop No. 17 and 19) pursuant to which the pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused Monu in his presence which is Ex.PW13/E. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 17 According to the witness, his statement was again recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day.
(11) The witness has correctly identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. the original trade licence and the colored photocopy of the same both of which were duly laminated which are collectively Ex.P1; two original MTNL bills, application form for obtaining the Pan Card in the name of Geeta Batra and Vikas Batra, cheque book in the name of Sh. H.N. Batra, receipt dated 15.11.2009 to 29.12.2009, full and final settlement of the salary executed by Umre Alam who was his previous employee, which documents are collectively Ex.P2; three iron rods which are collectively Ex.P3; one hammer with wooden handle which is Ex.P4;
one steel katori which is Ex.P5; Four Locas TVS auto electrical spare parts which are collectively Ex.P6; Six electric bulbs of blue color which are collectively Ex.P7; Ten hockshow iron blade which are collectively Ex.P8; Seven tools which are collectively Ex.P9; one wooden drawer which is Ex.P10; Some paper pieces collectively 19 in number which are Ex.P11 and spare parts of vehicles collectively four in number which is Ex.P12; two pens, two refills, one eraser and one clip which are collectively Ex.P13. The witness has also correctly identified two blank Hippo Chinese Manchurian snacks packets which are Ex.P14 as the same which were recovered along St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 18 with his stolen articles but according to the witness they do not belong to him.
(12) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that on 03.03.2010 after receiving the information from Sanjay Sharma he reached his shop at about 6:306:45 AM. According to him, the deceased Dheeraj Kumar was working in Shivani Tent Sajawat, shop No. 19 and used to sleep in that shop. Witness has further deposed that when he reached the spot five to six police officials were already present there and he told the police officials regarding the stolen articles at about 8:30 AM after lifting the shutter of his shop. He has also deposed that Crime Branch tried to lift the chance prints from inside the shop and his statement was recorded by the police officials at about 910 AM. He has further deposed that ten to fifteen persons were gathered outside the shop and statement of Sanjay Sharma was also recorded at the spot by the police official. He has denied the suggestion that no police official from Police Station Keshavpuram had brought one drawer along with trade licence, MTNL bills, cheque book, application for Pan Card, hexa blades, spare parts of the car, carry bag, three iron rods, one hammer and shown to him. He has further denied the suggestion that all these articles were taken by the Investigating officer from his shop or that police official never told him that these articles were found in one Esteem car along with three to four boys. The witness has testified that his supplementary St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 19 statement was recorded by the Investigating officer on the same at about 12 noon. According to him, on 06.03.2010 at about 3:30 PM police officials came to his shop in white color Maruti Ritz along with accused persons and remained at his shop for about 1520 minutes and all the writing work was done by the police officials while standing outside his shop. He is not aware if any other witness from the near by shops were interrogated by the Investigating Officer on that day. He has denied the suggestion that police officials did not visit his shop on 06.03.2010 along with the accused persons or that he was called by the police officials in the police station where all the three accused persons were shown to him in the police station. The witness has denied the suggestion that all the three accused persons were sitting in the police station in unmuffled face or that no pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused persons. He has further denied the suggestion that Monu was not interrogated in his presence or that no pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused Monu.
(13) PW18 Sanjay Sharma has deposed that he is running a tent shop at shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi and Dheeraj was his employee. According to the witness, he had identified the dead body of the deceased Dheeraj Kumar, his employee at mortuary BJRM hospital and his statement was recorded in this regard which is Ex.PW18/A. He has further deposed that the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 20 deceased was a resident of Maujpur, Jamunapar and used to sleep at the shop at night and used to go to his house after a long gap. The witness has also deposed that he knew Shri Ram who was also his worker and used to remain at his shop. According to the witness, on 03.03.2010 Shri Ram had come to his house and informed him that Dheeraj was lying in a pool of blood on which he reached at his shop and found Dheeraj in the pool of blood. He has further deposed that he immediately went to the police station and informed the police after which police came to the spot and found the lock of Shop No. 17 broken. He has testified that police got the shutter of Shop No.17 opened and found blood in front of his shop as well as on the sofa lying on the chabutra. He has further deposed that the blood was also found lying on the rajai/quilt and on the stand of sewing machine. The witness has also testified that police lifted blood from there and also broken the blood stained floor and without blood and took the sample of both, from near the sofa, blood stained earth and earth without blood stains and kept the same in a plastic container. According to him, the blood lifted from the earth was kept in the white cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of PK and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW14/D, Ex.PW14/G, Ex.PW14/F, Ex.PW14/E to Ex.PW14/H and the rajai/quilt and stand of sewing machine were also seized vide memos Ex.PW14/I and Ex.PW14/K. The witness has proved that about St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 21 2022 coins were lifted from Shop No.17 lying on the floor which were also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M and his statement was recorded by the Investigating officer. According to him, the dead body was sent to mortuary BJRM Hospital and after getting the postmortem conducted the same was identified by him after which it was handed over to the father of the deceased.
(14) He has correctly identified the case property in the Court i.e. earth material having darker stains which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the chabutra, which is Ex.P18; blood stained earth which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the chabutra, which is Ex.P19; blood stained piece of stone which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.19 which is Ex.P20; blood stained earth control which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.19 which is Ex.P21; blood stained floor which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.18 which is Ex.P22; piece of stone which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.19 which is Ex.P23; blood stained wooden piece which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the sewing machine which is Ex.P24; piece of cloth which was lifted by the Investigating officer from sofa, which is Ex.P25; blood stained piece of quilt (rajai) with cotton which as St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 22 lifted by the Investigating Officer from quilt (rajai), which is Ex.P26; one control of quilt (rajai) with cotton which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from quilt, which is Ex.P27; blood stained piece of sofa cloth which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the sofa, which is Ex.P28 and one wooden piece which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the sewing machine, which is Ex.P29; (15) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded at the spot. According to him, Shri Ram informed him regarding the dead body of Dheeraj at about 5:45 AM after which he immediately reached the spot and informed the police officials at about 6:15 AM. He has further deposed that Vikas came to the spot at about 7:00 AM and SI Sanjay came to the spot around 6:25 AM and later other senior police officers came to the spot. He has stated that the investigating officer took about one and a half hour to two hours in lifting the exhibits from the spot. He has testified that the police officials remained at the spot till about 11:30 AM and the statement of Shri Ram was not recorded in his presence. He has also deposed that Shri Ram used to sleep inside his shop and Dheeraj used to sleep on the sofa lying outside his shop. He has denied the suggestion that he signed all the memos in the police station at the instance of the investigating officer or that no proceedings were conducted in his presence by the investigating officer. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 23 (16) PW19 Shyam Charan is the father of the deceased who has deposed that his son Dheeraj was working at Shivani Tent, Shop No.19, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura and used to live there. According to him, on 3.3.2010 some person informed him that his son Dheeraj had expired after which he along with his relatives reached Sandesh Vihar market and found his son lying in a pool of blood. The witness has further deposed that the lock of one shop was also found broken and his deceased son was taken to the BJRM Hospital where his postmortem was conducted and after getting the postmortem of his deceased son conducted, he identified the dead body vide statement Ex.PW19/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontrovertd.
(17) PW20 M.L. Narang has deposed that he was the President of RWA up to July 2010 and on the intervening night of 23.03.10, Anil Tiwari was on duty as Guard in their colony. He has proved having handed over the photocopy of his attendance register to the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW20/A (running into three pages). The witness has also produced the photocopy of the original salary register which is Ex.PW20/B1 to Ex.PW20/B4 bearing the name of Anil Tiwari at point B. (18) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that the aforesaid original register was signed either by President or Secretary St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 24 of RWA and in the said register, the entries were made by him in the month of March 2010. He has denied the suggestion that in the entry of attendance register of March and April 2010, some of the serial numbers before the names of guard was mentioned and some serial numbers were missing. He has also denied the suggestion that Anil Tiwari was not working as Guard in their colony in the month of March 2010 or that the entries in the said register had been manipulated in order to show Anil Tiwari as Guard in their colony. He has admitted that they did not take the signatures of the Guard in the salary register and has voluntarily explained that they used to make the payment through cheque to the placement Agency from where the guard was deployed/ provided and that they did not sign any salary register.
(19) PW21 Parmeet Singh has deposed that he was having Timber business in Nangloi and on 02.03.10, he shut the main gate of his house at about 11.30 p.m and till then their maruti Esteem car bearing no. DL8CK 2765 was already parked outside their house. He has further deposed that at about 2.45 a.m. one HC Ramdayal of Police Station Keshav Purma telephoned his father Sh. Surender Singh on his mobile phone no. 9310520988 and asked his father whether their vehicle was available in their house or not on which his father opened the main gate and found that their vehicle was missing and his father informed him also. He has testified that HC Ramdayal St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 25 informed them that their vehicle was found at B3 Block Keshav Puram after which he along with his father rushed at B3, Keshav Puram where HC Ramdayal and one chowkidar Anil Tiwari of B3 Block were found available and Anil Tiwari informed them that four young boys aged about 20/25 years had brought their vehicle. According to the witness, he found some tools and table drawer containing some papers inside the car which articles were not belonging to them and hence after the car was released to them by the police of Police Station Keshav Puram they left the aforesaid articles in the police station as they (articles) did not belong to them. According to the witness, the original RC of their car which was in the car was missing. He deposed that on 03.03.10 the every next day they were asked to bring the car in the Police Station Saraswati Vihar on which they took the same to the Police Station and the police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW21/A and on inspection, found some blood stains on the rear side of the car which were not available prior to this on the car. He has proved that his statement was recorded and the documents i.e. trade licence Ex.P1 (2 in numbers) which were in the name of Mr. Batra, MTNL bill/ Federal bank Form and covering page of Federal Bank and two slips Ex.P2 were also found in the drawer. He has also proved that one cash memo of Loveleen Electrical work was also found in the car on which the mobile phone number was mentioned which is Ex.PX3 which was seized by the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 26 Investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW21/B. The witness has brought the aforesaid car in the Court which car is Ex.PX. He has also identified his Esteem car reflecting registration no. DL8CK 2765 from the photographs which are Ex.PW21/C1 to Ex.PW21/C8. (20) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that he along with his father reached B3 block at about 3.15 a.m and watchman Anil Tiwari remained there for about one hour with them. He has denied the suggestion that watchman Anil Tiwari was not there or that the fact that Anil Tiwari informed them that four boys brought their car has been concocted by them later on at the instance of the Investigating Officer. The witness has further deposed that their signatures were taken on the documents at the time of release of the said vehicle and his statement was recorded at about 10.30 p.m. on 03.03.10 in Police Station Saraswati Vihar. He has deposed that on that day, he received a phone call of Inspector Praveen calling them in the Police Station. He has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the aforesaid articles in the car when he reached at B3 Block Keshav Puram on the intervening night of 23.03.10 or that he had seen the aforesaid articles only on 03.03.10 for the first time in the Police Station Keshav Puram. The witness has also denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer of his own.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 27 (21) PW22 Manoj Kumar has deposed that he is running a Photo Studio at WZ311, Shakurpur village, Delhi. According to him, on 03.03.2010 he was called by the Investigating Officer at the spot on which he reached at Sandesh Vihar, DDA market at shop No.17, Pitampura and took 13 photographs of the spot and the dead body from different angles. He has proved that after developing the same he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.PW22/A1 to PW 22/A13. The witness has also produced the CD of the aforesaid photographs which is Ex.PW22/B. According to him, when the Maruti Esteem car was released from the police station, he was again called in the police station by the Investigating Officer and he took eight photographs of the maruti esteem car reflecting the number DL8CK2765. He has proved that after developing the photographs he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.PW22/C1 to Ex.PW22/C8.
(22) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that his photo studio was not registered with the government and there was no use of word messers in the name of his studio. He has further explained that he is running the photo studio in his residence. He has admitted that police used to call him as Photographer and has deposed that he was a witness as Photographer in many other cases. He has denied that he did not visit the spot on 03.03.2010 or did not take the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 28 photographs or that the photographs have been manipulated by him at the instance of police.
(23) PW23 Neeraj Sharma is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that he is the resident of Mauzpur, Delhi and is having the chemical shop at Kharibawri. He has further deposed that on 03.03.2010, they received information from one person working at shop at Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura Market was injured on which he and his father went to shop no. 19 of Shivani Tent House, where Dheeraj was working. According to him, they found the dead body of Dheeraj lying outside shop no. 19 having injuries on his head and blood all around him which was adjoining shop no. 18. he has testified that his brother Dheeraj used to stay in the shop i.e. Shivani Tent House, shop no. 19 and used to reside inside and returned home only sometimes. He has further deposed that the police thereafter took the dead body to the BJRM Hospital where he identified the dead body of his brother vide memo Ex.PW23/A. According to the witness, after the postmortem was conducted, the dead body of his brother was handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex.PW23/B and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 29 (24) PW24 Rajesh Kumar is the owner of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 who has deposed that he is a resident of Tri Nagar and on 02.03.2010 his brother Naresh Kumar's driver had parked his Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. DL9 CK 3999 in the gali in front of his house at about 88.30 p.m. He has further deposed that on 03.03.2010 at about 3.40 a.m the chowkidar of their area came to their house and informed him that he had seen three to four boys taking their vehicle towards Ashok Vihar side. According to him, on receipt of this information, he immediately dialed 100 number and informed the police about it and later got an FIR bearing No. 82/10 registered at police station Keshav Puram. He has further deposed that on that day their vehicle could not be traced and after twothree days information was received by him from SHO Police Station Sarswati Vihar that his vehicle had been found in the area along with threefour boys on which he went to the police station, he saw his vehicle which was damaged from the front side. The witness has testified that he noticed some dark stains which appeared to be blood stains in the side of the vehicle on the seat at the back and also noticed that the seats at the back and the front were dirty. He also found an empty bottle lying on the back side seat and some wrappers showing that somebody had eaten something. He has further deposed that he identified the vehicle and later his statement was recorded by the police in the police station.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 30 (25) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed he had seen his vehicle for the first time in the police station Saraswati Vihar. He has admitted that he did not see the accused persons and when he saw his vehicle there was nobody in it. He has denied the suggestion that there were no blood stains or other articles inside the vehicle.
(26) PW25 Jagbir Shah Singh has deposed that he is a resident of Keshav Puran and on the intervening night of 23.03.2010 he was coming back from Ganga Ram Hospital with his wife after visiting his relative and at about 2.30 AM when he reached the colony gate of pocket B3, MIG Flats, he saw that the gate was closed and the guard was not present there. He has further deposed that he waited for some time and then finally asked his wife to walk in from the smaller gate and as soon as she went inside, he saw the guard/ chowkidar running towards the gate and told him that three four boys were trying to steal a car parked on a sliproad (service road) adjoining the colony. On this he asked the guard why he did not call the police, on which the Guard told him that he was not aware, where to call on which he immediately made a call to 100 number from his wife's mobile bearing no. 9910343441. According to him, immediately thereafter he saw three to four boys running away who had left their vehicle at that place. Witness has further deposed that on this, he and his wife went home and after about a day, the police contacted him on St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 31 which he told them what had happened and his statement was recorded.
(27) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he was working as a Manager with the Jet Airways Airlines. According to him, he could not identify the boys who were running away from the spot and has voluntarily explained that their distance was more than 100 meters from him and the roads were not very well lit. He has further deposed that he had not noted down the number of the vehicle which the said boys had left behind. The witness has further explained that he had seen the vehicle which they had left behind from the place where he was standing i.e. at the gate of colony which was a Maruti Esteem Car. He has also deposed that he had not noticed the colour of the car and has further explained that the vehicle was parked vertically and it was difficult to notice the details from a distance. He does not remember the name of guard/ chowkidar who had told him about the incident and has voluntarily added that the guards were mostly on shift duties and keep on changing.
(28) PW28 Anil Kumar Tiwari is the Guard who was posted at B3 Block, Keshav Puram who has deposed that on the intervening night of 23.03.2010 he was on duty and was on duty from 8PM to 8 AM as Chowkidar at B3 Block, Keshavpuram and had joined his duty at 8PM on 02.03.2010. He has deposed that he was performing St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 32 his duty near the main gate when one esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 had come and was parked in between the other cars which were already parked at service lane. According to him, another esteem car No. DL9CP8957 was already parked there and there were four boys in esteem car No. DL8CK2765. He has further deposed that he went near the car and found that one of the said boys was breaking the lock of DL9CP8957 and on seeing him, he (accused) got apprehensive and entered in the DL8CK2765. The witness has also deposed that when he reached near the vehicle he found that three persons were already sitting in the same and he (the boy who was breaking the lock of other car) was the fourth boy. He has testified that he asked him (accused) what they were doing in the car at that hour, when they were not residents of the society, on which the said boys told him not to worry as they were waiting for somebody and would leave as soon as that person would come. The witness has also deposed that he told them that they were welcome to sit inside the car and wait but one of them should accompany him to the supervisor who had called them for inquiries. He has further deposed that the boy who was breaking the lock was the one who was answering to his queries and as soon as he asked him to accompany him, he sat in the car on the seat adjoining the driver and did not come out, but the other two boys who were sitting on the back seat came out when he noticed that one of them was holding a rod in his hand by hiding it on his side. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 33 According to the witness, as soon as he saw this, it struck him that these boys might be criminals on which he ran from the spot and came back to his gate where he saw a Sikh gentlemen who was a resident of house No. 20A standing there with his vehicle as the gate was closed. The witness has also deposed that he immediately stopped his vehicle and told him that the boys were trying to commit such illegal act on which the Sikh Gentlemen immediately came out of the car and called up on 100 number from his mobile phone and while he was still talking to the police the said boys came out of the car and ran away on foot towards Tri Nagar side which was also noticed by the Sikh Gentleman. The witness has testified that while running away he noticed that one of the boys was carrying a rod and states that the Sikh gentlemen went back to his house after making the call. He has further deposed that after some time police came to the spot on which he showed them the place where the boys had left the vehicle. According to the witness, they were then joined by the local police who also came to the spot and when the police checked the vehicle they found twothree rods, arri blade (hexa blade), few documents, wooden drawer which were checked by the police and address found to be of Sandesh Vihar. According to the witness, the police thereafter called up the person on the basis of the documents present in the vehicle and came to know that the vehicle had been stolen from the area of Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on the basis of the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 34 documents the police also called the owner of the car who initially did not believe that his vehicle could be found there but later when he checked he found that it was his vehicle. The witness has testified that thereafter two Sikh Persons and one lady had come and claimed that the vehicle had been stolen and belonged to them but when the police showed them the rods, hexa blades, drawer and other articles recovered, they only claimed that the stereo and the vehicle belonged to them whereas all other articles did not belong to them. According to him, the articles recovered were seized by the police and the vehicle was handed over to the owner. He has also deposed that the persons/ boys whom he had seen in the vehicle were in the age group of 2025 years and one of the boys was of a dark complexion whereas other three were fairer to him but not otherwise fair. He has also deposed that the other three boys were having dusky complexion but not fair. He has explained that he had gone to the jail previously for identification but since he was feeling scared, so he did not identify accused persons. According to the witness, on 19.03.2010 he had come to the Court with his Manager Sh. Ramayan Mishra, to attend some challan case and all the four accused persons whom he had seen in the car were present in the same Court which fact he told to Ramayan Mishra on which Ramayan Mishra advised him to tell some police man present in the court about it. The witness has further deposed that Sh. Ramayan Mishra himself called some police official St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 35 and in the meantime he also saw Inspector Parveen Kumar in the Court when he told him that all the four persons present in the court were the same boys who were present in the car. He has proved that his statement was recorded by Inspector Parveen Kumar. (29) The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court by pointing out towards them. He has correctly identified the dark complexion boy as the accused Minni @ A. Minni. He has also identified the other three boys with dusky complexion who were Parmod; accused Nar Bahadur @ Monu and the accused Manoj.
(30) A specific Court Question was put to the witness as to why he could not identify the accused persons during the judicial Test Identification Parade proceedings, on which the witness has explained that he had gone to the jail for the first time and when he saw number of accused persons standing in the row who were standing in the row and had a threatening body language, it frightened him. He has further explained that he was otherwise scared and perplexed that he had to identify these persons being a stranger and outsider in Delhi.
(31) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel he has deposed that a register was kept at the gate for the attendance of Guards on duty and there was no supervisor of the guards in the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 36 society and has voluntarily explained that he was telling those boys falsely that the Supervisor was calling because his intention was to take one of the boys to the gate so that the other Guard could also come and they could apprehend them. He does not remember the names of other Guards and has explained that this was because he had left the job in December 2010 and also because the Guards used to keep changing frequently. He has testified that it was his duty to check and note the numbers of the vehicles which were parked along with the road adjoining the society outside. According to him, there was no need to check this vehicle (i.e. vehicle in which accused were sitting) and stop the same because when he noticed this incident the vehicle was already parked there and has voluntarily explained that after he had made the entries of the vehicle at 12 midnight it was at around 22:15 AM that he noticed this vehicle had come from the other side and got parked at that place. He has also deposed that he waited for about ten minutes for the persons in the vehicle to get down and come so that he could make the entry, but when nobody came he got suspicion and went towards the vehicle and it was then that he noticed the boys. According to the witness at the time when he saw the vehicle coming he was in the Guard room of the gate. He has further deposed that the vehicle was of Sunehri Color and the glasses were plain without any taint. He has testified that the other guard was on the round on the back side when this vehicle came there. The St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 37 witness has also stated that he had told to the police that when two boys came out, one of them was carrying a rod by hiding the same. The witness has been confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW28/A where this fact was not found so recorded. According to him, he had not raise any alarm because when he was talking to the first boy he did not have any rod or weapon and it was only after he saw the rod then he immediately ran from there. He is not aware of the name of the Sikh Gentlemen who had come at the gate and made the call and has voluntarily added that he knew that this Sikh gentleman resided in house no. 20A as he used to make the entry in the register while entering the society. He has denied the suggestion that no Sikh gentlemen had come to the gate or made any call. According to the witness Anil Kumar Tiwari he had not signed any document when the police recovered the rods, wooden drawer, documents and the hexa blades from the car which they had seized. He has denied that there was no recovery of the aforesaid articles from the car and it was for this reason that his signatures were not present on any documents prepared by the police.
(32) The witness PW28 has also deposed that he had not told the police that the lady had also come with the two Sikh gentlemen when they came on the call of the police and has voluntarily added that there was no occasion to tell them this fact because the police was already present at the spot and those persons had come on their St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 38 calling. According to him, he had told the police the description of accused persons and has voluntarily added that he had told them the age and complexion of the accused persons. He has further deposed that he had not told them the exact height of the accused persons and has voluntarily added that he only told the police that they all were shorter to him. He does not recollect whether he had informed the Investigating Officer in his statement about the above details of the accused persons. He has also deposed that he had gone to Jail for Judicial Test Identification Parade with Ramayan Mishra. He is unable to give the details of the case in which Ramayan Mishra, the security manager had to come to the Court and has voluntarily added that when he came back from duty Ramayan Mishra only told him that he had to accompany him to the Court for some work. He is also unable to tell the name of number of the court and has voluntarily explained that in case he would have known if he had to remember all these details then he would have asked somebody to write down these details for him. He has denied the suggestion that Ramayan Mishra did not make any call to Inspector Parveen or that he did not go to the Court with Ramayan Mishra on 19.03.2010 or that he identify the accused persons in the court. Witness has denied that he had come to the Court with the Investigating Officer who has pointed out the accused persons to him and asked him to identify them in the Court. He has denied that the accused persons were not the same persons St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 39 whom he had seen or that they were some other persons. (33) PW29 Shri Ram is an Eye Witness to the incident who has deposed that in the month of March, 2010 he was working at Shivani Tent for decoration which was situated at Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar and he used to sleep at the aforesaid tent house. He has further deposed that Dheeraj Sharma was also working at the aforesaid shop with him and used to sleep at the said tent house. According to the witness, on the night of 02.03.2010 he took dinner and slept and Dheeraj had been already gone to somewhere and was not present at the tent house at that time in the night when he slept. He has further testified that at about 11:30 PM Dheeraj came and woke him up after which he (Dheeraj) took a quilt after hanging his pant on the hanger and slept on the sofa which was lying in front of the tent house whereas he himself slept inside the shop after closing the door. He has also deposed that in the morning when he got up at about 5 AM and came out of the tent house he found Dheeraj in a pool of blood lying in front of shop No.18 and there was blood near the sofa and the lock of shop No.17 was also found broken. According to the witness, he found the injuries on the head of Dheeraj who was found dead on which he informed the tent owner Sanjay Sharma who came to the spot. He has proved that his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW29/A. According to the witness, at that time he was so scared due to which reason he was unable to tell the entire St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 40 incident to Dahiya Sahib and he was again interrogated by Parveen Sir to whom he had given his further statement. He has further deposed that in the night he had heard the voice of khat pat from Shop No.17 and woke up when he saw from inside from the mirror door that Dheeraj was crying and two persons were found standing near him with rods. The witness has testified that the injured Dheeraj tried to stand up and came up to shop No.18, when he heard the voice from inside the shop No. 17 that "isko jan se mar do". He has testified that he had seen both the persons hitting rod on the head of Dheeraj and he became so scared that he could not came out from the shop. The witness has also deposed that he had seen a third person who had brought wooden drawer from shop No. 17 and thereafter at the same time the two persons who hit the rod on the head of Dheeraj and the person who brought drawer, left the spot. According to the witness, Dheeraj fell down in front of shop No.18 and he had given this version to the police in which he had also stated that he can identify those persons if shown to him. He has further deposed that on 18.03.2010 he attended Rohini Jail and participated in the Test Identification Parade Proceedings of accused persons in which he had identified two persons by pointing towards them as those who had given beatings to Dheeraj whose names he later on came to know through the Investigating Officer as Pramod and Mini. He has correctly identified both the accused Pramod and Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 41 in the Court as the persons who had inflicted beatings to Dheeraj. The witness has explained that he could not identify the third person during the Judicial Test Identification Parade due to fear but he had seen the third boy and can recognized him. He has further deposed that earlier on 19.03.2010 the Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen had brought the boy to his shop during interrogation when he identified him as the boy who had removed the drawer from the table of the shop and taken the same away. He has correctly identified the accused Manoj as the boy who had been brought to his shop by Inspector Parveen during investigation. According to the witness, the accused Manoj was the person who had removed the drawer and had an iron rod in his hand at the time of committing the offence. He has testified that the accused Manoj pointed out the spot on which Investigating Officer prepared the memo which is Ex.PW13/E. He has proved that police also lifted the blood with the help of cotton from various points from the spot. The witness has also deposed that on 25.03.2010 the official (nakshawala/draftsman) had come to the spot and taken various measurements and prepared the scaled site plan. He has correctly identified the case property i.e. three rods which are Ex.P3 and one wooden drawer which is Ex.P10. (34) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that Dheeraj was in normal condition when he met him at 11:30 PM and did not tell him about any quarrel with any person. According to the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 42 witness, he had stated to the Investigating Officer that the deceased has put his pant on the hanger before sleeping and has voluntarily added that earlier he could not disclose all the details to the police but in his later statement to the Investigating Officer he informed him about all the details. The witness has testified that the shop where they used to sleep was approximately 10 x 12 feet and they also keep their goods on the chabutra in front of the shop and the gallery ahead of it. He has further deposed that there was an iron shutter on the front side of the shop and also a glass door and has voluntarily added that on the day of the incident they had only shut down the glass door but the shutter was open. The witness has also deposed that the place where he used to sleep was hardly about one feet away from the main door and the light of the shop was closed and has explained that the light was coming inside from the glass door as the light of House No. 1, which was open, was coming inside. According to him, House No.1 was at a distance of hardly twenty feet from the shop and has voluntarily explained that it is situated right adjoining the chabutra. He has further deposed that the said house no.1 was situated right opposite their shop and there was a small gallery between the house No.1 and their shop and has voluntarily added that the door of the house leading to the clinic of the doctor opens in the gallery in front of their shop. The witness has testified that there were shops on either side of their shop and has voluntarily explained that it was a market. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 43 According to him, the houses/ residential area starts after house No.1 and at the time of incident there was no chowkidar/ guard in the area. The witness has further deposed that in the morning when he saw the dead body of Dheeraj soaked in blood he got perplexed and had telephoned to his owner and has voluntarily added that he was so confused and scared that after making the call he personally went to the house of his owner to inform him about what had happened. According to the witness, he had called up his owner through his personal mobile phone bearing No. 9310367105 and has voluntarily added that he is still continuing to use the same connection which was operational when he was in Delhi. He has deposed that he had given this number to the police when he made his statement. The witness was confronted with his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which are Ex.PW29/A, Ex.PW29/DX1, Ex.PW29/DX2 and Ex.PWDX3 where the said number has not been mentioned but this Court has observed that this mobile phone number has been mentioned along with his name and address at point B on Ex.PW29/A. He has testified that he had informed his owner about the incident at about 55:30 AM and he came to the spot within five to seven minutes along with him. According to him, his owner/ employer had informed the police and had not telephoned the police but had personally gone to the police station and he himself did not accompany him and when he noticed the incident in the morning, some people were passing St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 44 through the road after which slowly the crowd gathered around the place of the incident. He has further deposed that police reached the spot at about 66:15 AM and a crowd of around 5060 persons gathered. He has further deposed that police had not asked any person from the crowd to join the investigations in his presence. The witness has also deposed that Inspector Parveen met him at around 2:303PM when police had gone to the spot and his second statement was recorded in the afternoon of the same day i.e. 03.03.2010. According to the witness, when he had heard the noises at night at that time he was sleeping behind the counter but he had not moved out because he was scared that these people would see him and he therefore he kept hiding behind the counter. Witness has further deposed that he was not having a wrist watch and states that he had seen the time from his mobile when it was around 1:00 midnight and has voluntarily added he had seen the time when he felt that the things had become normal. He has further deposed that the counter in their shop was about three feet high, which counter was made of ply and there was no glass on the front side. The witness has also testified that on the date of incident he was sleeping on the floor and did not raise any hue and cry when he saw the incident and has voluntarily explained that he himself was very scared. He has also deposed that he did not make any telephone call to anybody between 1AM and 5AM to inform them about some persons having entered the shop nor St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 45 he made any 100 number call. According to the witness, he was not sleeping at that time and has voluntarily explained that feeling scared he was not coming out and it was only when he felt that people were moving in the road outside that he came out. He has also stated that when he slept the door of the shop was closed but he came out in the morning it was already opened and has voluntarily explained that there was a system of internal locking in the door like a daraj which lock was already open. He has admitted that whenever they slept the door of the shop was locked from inside. The witness has further deposed that the door of their shop was about three and a half feet wide and the length of the counter adjoining the door was approximately 6 x 3 feet in L shape. The witness Shri Ram has also deposed that a wooden portion of six feet runs along the length of the shop and the portion of three feet of the counter was on the front side and he could see from under the counter when he heard the noises by hiding under the counter. The witness has denied the suggestion that in case if he could see the accused from outside it was possible for them also to have seen him and has voluntarily explained that he was inside the shop whereas the accused were outside in front of the adjoining shop. He has testified that when he was sleeping his head was towards the door and has voluntarily added that he was sleeping on top of the counter and not on the floor and that is how he could notice what was happening outside by turning his head. According to St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 46 Shri Ram, the distance between the place where he was sleeping and the place where the deceased was lying was about fifteen feet and the distance between the shop No. 17 and shop No. 19 was about twelve to fifteen feet and has voluntarily explained that the shop in between i.e shop No.18 was hardly about twelve feet wide. The witness has also deposed that initially he did not tell the police the description of the accused and has voluntarily stated that in his second statement he had told them that he could identify the accused but he did not tell the description. He has admitted that no sketches of the accused were got prepared by the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that he is not a witness to the incident and has been planted at the instance of the Investigating Officer and the owner. The witness has further denied that he did not see anybody and it was not possible for him even otherwise to have seen any person from behind the counter as he was hiding or that he was shown the photographs of accused Minni @ Mental and it was for this reason he had identified him at the instance of the Investigating Officer during the judicial TIP proceedings. He has also denied that he was shown the photographs of accused Parmod @ Langra by the Investigating Officer only after which he identified him at his instance or that he had never seen the incident and it was for this reason that he could not identify accused Manoj during the Judicial Test Identification Parade. The witness has further denied that the drawer/ counter and the iron rods which he St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 47 identified were commonly and easily available in the market and has voluntarily explained that the sunmica of the counter/ drawer was similar to the sunmica of the main table/ counter and matched with it which was not available in the market. He has further denied that the counter/ drawer was not stolen and was planted upon the accused. (35) PW30 Prem Parkash Rathore has deposed that he was having a departmental store in the name of Sanjeev Mittal departmental store at Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place. According to him, on 02.03.2010 he shut and locked his departmental store at about 10 PM and in the morning at about 9 AM when he came to his store he found the lock and kundi broken and the goods were found scattered in the store. The witness has deposed that when he checked his goods he found some packets of cigarettes, seven petties of bear and other articles were found stolen. He has further deposed that the chowkidar Lal Bihari had informed him that at about 5 AM two or three boys had taken the goods from his shop in a car bearing No. DL3CK3999 and on seeing him they ran away. According to the witness, he went to the police station and lodged the report in this regard.
(36) The Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor put leading question to the witness on the aspect of registration number of the car on which the witness has admitted that the number of the car was not DL3CK3999 but was DL9CK3999.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 48 (37) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that he went to police station himself. He has further deposed that when the police went to the spot they had made inquires from the chowkidar but he has no knowledge if the police had made inquires from other persons apart from chowkidar. According to the witness, police had informed him regarding the apprehension of the accused in the present case and that some of the stolen articles had been recovered from the accused which he identified in the Court. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was shown the articles for mixing in the Judicial TIP prior to the production in the court of Ld. MM and it was for this reason he could identify the recovered articles. (38) PW31 Lal Bihari has deposed that he was working as Security Guard at Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi and on the intervening night of 2/3.03.2010 he was on duty as security guard at Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi. He has further deposed that at about 4.30AM he went to toilet and after about fifteentwenty minutes when he came back from toilet he saw one Esteem car bearing No. DL9CK3999 in front of Sanjeev Mittal Store and he saw two persons taking some goods from Sanjeev Mittal Store and were keeping the same in the said car. According to the witness, he also found another person sitting in the said car but he could not see his face as he had not got any suspicion at that time and on seeing him they sat in the said car and left. The witness has testified that he St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 49 had noted down the aforesaid number of the car and since he was not having any telephone so he could not give information to the owner of the said store. He has also deposed that he remained at the spot upto 9.00AM and after the owner of the shop Sanjeev Mittal Departmental Store came he informed him about this. According to the witness, he had told the police that the boy who had committed the robbery were young boys and he had given their age group of 2530. He has testified that he also went to the police station and informed them about the incident in detail when his statement was recorded there. (39) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that he could not identify the accused and has voluntarily explained that he had seen their backs when they just sat in the car and ran away. He has denied that being dark he could not see the number of the vehicle and he has given the number at the instance of the police.
Medical witness:
(40) PW15 Dr. K. Goyal has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was working as CMO in BJRM Hospital and on that day he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Dheeraj, aged about 30 years Male, S/o Shyam Charan which was sent by Insp. Parveen Kumar, Police Station Saraswati Vihar with alleged history of found dead by the police after receiving a call vide DD No.5A dated 03.03.2010 at 6:15 St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 50 PM in DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura. Witness has further deposed that the clothes on the body were shirt, baniyan and underwear which were blood stained. He has proved that there were following external injuries on the dead body:
1. Laceration 5x1 cms over top of vault midline with crust margins.
2. Laceration 6.5 x 1.5 cms over junction of right forehead and right frontal with crushed margins and contused abraded marks around with depressed deformity around.
3. Two lacerations each 1cm and 1.5 cms long over left side forehead just above the medial end of left eye brow, two small lacerations each about 0.75 cms over nose with contused abraded area around with fracture nasal bone, laceration 1 cm long just in front of right ear with abrasions around, laceration 1x0.5 cms over upper lip.
4. Abrasion 3x2 cms over right cheek radish brown in color.
(41) The witness has further proved that on Internal Examination there was sub scalp bruising with hematoma over frontoparietals and there were depressed commuted fractures in area 7x1.5cms underneath injury No.2 over frontal bone with two fissure fracture lines extending to parietals and one towards anterior cranial fossa right side; the meninges were torn at right St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 51 frontal lobe; Sub dural hematoma over fronto parietal lobes; Defuse sub arachnoid hemorrhage over frontal and parietals; contusiols seen over frontal lobes and poles and fracture base of skull at anterior cranial fossa with blood and clots. According to the witness, he has opined that all injuries were antemortem in nature caused by blunt forced impacts and cause of death was extensive craniocerebral injuries as a result of hard, relatively heavy blunt object diverted upon head, mode of death was homicidal. He has further proved having opined that Cranio cerebral injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the time since death was about 1415 hours. He has also proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW15/A and has deposed that the clothes and blood sample in gauze piece of the deceased were preserved, sealed and handed over to the police. (42) The witness has also deposed that on 21.04.2010 Inspector Parveen Kumar of Police Station Saraswati Vihar tendered an application for opinion of weapon of offence and produced one sealed packet sealed with the seal of PK. According to the witness, on opening the packet it was found to contain one iron rod about 55 cms long weighing about 1360 gms and the rough sketch of the iron rod was prepared on the separate sheet along with its dimensions. He has proved having opined that the injuries No.1, 2 and 3 mentioned in St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 52 the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A were possible by this weapon or similar such type of some other weapon. According to him, the rod was resealed along with the police seal with the seal of KG BJRM hospital, mortuary and handed over that to Inspector Parveen Kumar along with sample seal. He has proved the opinion which is Ex.PW15/B and the rough sketch of the rod which is Ex.PW15/C. (43) In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestion that he has prepared the postmortem report at the instance of Investigating Officer or that the opinion was given by him at the instance of Investigating Officer.
Forensic witness:
(44) PW16 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology) FSL, Rohini has deposed that on 09.03.2010 he examined two grey color maruti esteem cars No. DL8CK2765 and DL9CK3999 at about 12:10 PM on the request of Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar of Police Station Saraswati Vihar.
According to the witness, both the cars were thoroughly examined and blood was detected on different parts of both the Esteem cars. He has deposed that the blood stains/ portion were lifted from the left side of back seat and one piece of mat below the foot mat was taken (left side of back seat) from the Esteem Car No. DL8CK2765. He has further proved that the stains prepared from internal side of window of driver St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 53 seat, stains prepared from the area near the hand brake, a piece of seat cover taken from sitting place of driver and stains prepared from internal side of right rear window. The witness has deposed that all the aforesaid stains/portions were kept in the envelopes and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar for further examinations. The witness has proved his detailed report which is Ex.PW16/A. (45) In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestion that no blood stains or portions were lifted from the cars car by him nor he examined the cars.
(46) PW49 Sh. V. Sankaranarayanan Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) has deposed that 26 sealed parcels were received at their office, at FSL Delhi on 23.04.2010 in connection with case FIR No. 80/10 police station Saraswati Vihar and the seals were found intact as per forwarding letter and were tallied. The witness has further deposed that he opened the above said 26 parcels and found Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and Ex.P18a, 18b, 18c and Ex.19 to Ex.26 which exhibits were examined biologically by him. According to the witness blood was detected on exhibits (cotton wool swab), 2 (cotton wool swab), 3 (cotton wool swab), 4 (Blood stained earth material), 6 (piece of stone), 8 (piece of stone), 10 (piece of stone), 12 (piece of cloth), 14 (piece of cloth), 16 (a pair of chappals), 17 (blood stained gauze cloth), 18a (shirt), 18b (banian), 18c (underwear), 19 (piece of cloth), St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 54 20 (iron rod), 21 (piece of cloth), 22 (piece of cloth), 23 (piece of cloth), 24 (gauze cloth piece), 25 (gauze cloth piece) and 26 (gauze cloth piece) and his detailed biological report in this regard is Ex.PW49/A (running into three pages). He has testified that the above said exhibits were also examined by him serologically during which human blood of A Group was found on Exhibit 1 (cotton wool swab), 2 (cotton wool swab), 3 (cotton wool swab), 12 (piece of cloth), 14 (piece of cloth), 17 (blood stained gauze cloth), 18a (shirt) and 18b (banian) and human blood was also found on Exhibits 4 (blood stained earth material), 6 (piece of stone), 8 (piece of stone), 10 (piece of stone), 18c (underwear), 19 (piece of cloth), 20 (iron rod) and 22 (piece of cloth). He has proved his detailed serological report is Ex.PW49/B. According to the witness, the remnants of the above said exhibits after his examination were resealed with the seal of VSN FSL Delhi. The witness has also deposed that the above said biological report and serological report were forwarded by their Director with sample seal impression vide Ex.PW49/C signatures of their Assistant Director, Dr. Rajender Kumar for his director at point A which he has identified. The witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite the opportunity in this regard and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 55 Police/ official witnesses:
(47) PW1 Ct. Shiv Kant is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted as Constable at Police station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and at 10.50 AM the Duty Officer HC Ram Charan handed over him the original rukka and special report of case FIR No.80/10, under Section 458/460/302 IPC after which he proceeded on government motorcycle no. DLISN3988 and first reached at place of occurrence DDA market SandeshVihar Delhi and handed over original rukka and one copy of FIR to Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar. He has further deposed that thereafter he gave special reports to DCP/NW and PHQ to senior officers. According to him, he reached Rohini Court in room no. 102 and one special report was given to Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
(48) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that no rukka was received by him and FIR was ante time or that no special report was sent to senior officers.
(49) PW2 W/Ct. Parvesh is a formal witness being Daily Diary Writer who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 23.04.2010 she was posted as Constable at Police Station Saraswati St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 56 Vihar, Delhi and was deployed as Daily Diary Writer from 9 AM to 5 PM and on that day Ct. Ram Karan alongwith one DHG Ct. Suresh had gone to FSL/Rohini with exhibits of this case for depositing the same in FSL/Rohini and she had made their departure vide DD no. 40B at 10.45 AM which is Ex.PW2/A. She has further deposed that on that day Ct. Ram Karan alongwith DHG Ct. Suresh returned after depositing exhibits in FSL/Rohini and she had made their arrival vide DD no.48 B at 1.00 PM which is Ex.PW2/B. (50) She has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and her testimony has gone uncontroverted.
(51) PW3 HC Hawa Singh is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that in the night of 23.3.2010, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Keshav Puram Delhi and was deployed as Duty Officer, when at 2.31 AM on 03.03.2010 a PCR call was received through wireless operator that B3, PART KESHAV PURAM LARENCE ROAD, KUCH LADKE GADI CHORI KARNE AAYE. According to the witness, on this he lodged DD No.6B which is Ex.PW3/A and marked that DD to HC Ramdayal for further inquiry. In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestion that DD No.6B was fabricated later on.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 57(52) PW4 HC Gulbir is a formal witness being a Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 03.03.2010, he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi from 1:00 AM to 9:00 PM and at 6.15 AM, one Sanjay Sharma had arrived in the Police Station and informed about death of his servant Dheeraj opposite shop no.18, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Delhi. He has further deposed that he recorded the said information vide DD No.5 A dated 03.03.2010 which is Ex.PW4/A and sent that DD entry through Ct. Narender to SI Sanjay Dahiya for further necessary action. According to the witness, on 06.03.2010 also he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi from 1:00 AM to 9:00 PM and at 8.00 AM Duty Officer of Police Station Rani Bagh HC Ram Lakhan had given information of arrest of one accused Manoj @ Monu. Witness has further deposed that he recorded the said information vide DD No.6A dated 06.03.2010 which is Ex.PW4/B. (53) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that on 03.03.2010 Sanjay Sharma came to Police Station at about 6:15 AM and remained there up to five minutes. He has denied the suggestion that all the DDs were fabricated later on.
(54) PW5 Lady Ct. Sangeeta is again a formal witness being the Daily Diary Writer who has been examined on by way of affidavit St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 58 Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). She has deposed that on 09.03.2010 she was posted as Constable at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and was deployed as Daily Diary Writer from 9 AM to 5 PM. According to her, on that day Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Dipesh had gone to FSL/Rohini with car no. DL8CK2765 and DL9CK3999 from Malkhana for FSL inspection and she had made their departure vide DD No.32B at 10.30 AM which is Ex.PW5/A. She has further deposed that on the same day Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Dipesh returned after inspection of the cars in FSL/Rohini and she had made their arrival vide DD No.42 B at 1.25 PM which is Ex.PW5/B. In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestion that all the DDs were fabricated later on. (55) PW6 HC Ravinder is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 23.04.2010 he was posted as MHC(M) CP at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi and on that day on the instruction of Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar, he sent total 26 sealed exhibits of this case along with FSL form and sample seals vide R/C no. 48/21/10 dated 23.04.2010 to FSL/Rohini through Ct. Ram Karan from Malkhana of Police Station Saraswati Vihar and one Delhi Home Guard Ct. Suresh was also sent with Ct. Ram Karan for assistance. He has further deposed that out of 26 parcels/ exhibits, 23 exhibits were sealed with St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 59 the seal of PK while 3 exhibits were sealed with the seal of KG BJRM Hospital Mortuary. According to him, Ct. Ram Karan deposited the above mentioned exhibits with FSL form and sample seals at FSL, Rohini, Delhi on the same day i.e. dated 23.04.2010. He has further deposed that Ct. Ram Karan handed over the acknowledgment no. FSL2010/B1668 and copy of RC to him. He has proved that so long as the exhibits were in his custody, the same remained intact and his statement was recorded by Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar on the same day on 23.04.2010. He has proved the copy of relevant entry in register no.19 which is Ex.PW6/A and relevant entry in register no.21 which is Ex.PW6/B. (56) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has denied that the case property was tampered with the same during the period it remained in his possession. He has admitted that at the time of deposition of case property in the malkhana was not mentioned in register No.19.
(57) PW7 HC Sunil is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined on by way of affidavit Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 06.03.2010 he was posted as MHC(M) CP at Police Station Rani Bagh, Delhi and on that day ASI Ramesh Kumar of police station Rani Bagh had deposited a rexene bag in Malkhana as a case property in FIR No.75/10, under Section 482/411 IPC, Police Station Rani St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 60 Bagh. He has proved that so long as the exhibits remained in his custody, the same remained intact. He has also proved the copy of relevant entry in register no.19 which is Ex.PW7/A and copy of relevant entry in register No. 21 which is Ex.PW7/B. (58) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that on 06.03.2010 ASI Ramesh Kumar deposited a rexene bag in the malkhana as the case property. He has admitted the fact that time of the deposition of bag was not mentioned in the register No. 19. (59) PW8 Ct. Halwant is a formal witness being the Daily Diary Writer who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that in the night of 2/3.3.2010 he was posted as Constable at Police Post Shanti Nagar Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi and was deployed as Daily Diary Writer. He has further deposed that at 4.10 a.m. on 03.03.2010 a PCR Call was received through wireless operator that TRINAGAR GANESH PURA ESTEEM CAR NO. DL4C3999 KO 4 AADMI CHORI KARKE ASHOK VIHAR KI TRAF BHAG GAYI. According to him, he lodged a DD entry vide DD no.4 PP Shanti Nagar which is Ex.PW8/A and handed over the DD entry to HC Kiran Pal for further enquiry.
(60) This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 61(61) PW9 HC Vijay Kumar Meena is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi from 9 AM to 5 PM and at 9.55 AM Ct. Bachu Singh produced one rukka endorsed by HC Kiran Pal on the statement of one Rajesh Kumar regarding theft of car no. DL9CK3999. The witness has proved having made Kayami vide DD no.10A at 9.5 AM and registered case FIR No. 82/10, under Section 379 IPC copy of which is Ex.PW9/A and handed over the investigation to HC Kiran Pal. In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestion that DD entries were fabricated later on.
(62) PW10 HC Ram Charan is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi from 9 AM to 5 PM and on 03.03.2010 at 9.45 PM Ct. Pappu Lal handed over to him one rukka written by SI Sanjay Kumar on which he recorded Kayami vide DD no.9A which is Ex.PW10/A. According to him, the rukka was given to Ct. Dipesh for recording FIR No.80/10, under Section 458/460/302 IPC in computer, copy of which FIR is Ex.PW10/B. The witness has proved having recorded the kayami of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 62 completion of FIR No.80/10 vide DD No.10A at 10.50 AM which is Ex.PW10/C. According to the witness, Ct. Shivkant was sent for giving special report and also to give copy of FIR and rukka to Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar. The witness has clarified that in the FIR by clerical mistake, at the place of name of Investigating Officer SI Sanjay was got written while he was Inspector Parveen Kumar so he recorded another DD No.11A regarding this mistake which DD No.11A is Ex.PW10/D. He has also proved that on 03.03.2010 he had also registered FIR No. 81/10, under Section 457/380 IPC copy of which is Ex.PW10/E rukka of which was sent by HC Parveen. In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestions that all the DDs were fabricated later on or that the FIR was ante time.
(63) PW11 SI Suraj Pal is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW11/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). He has deposed that on 09.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Sarswati Vihar, Delhi and on that day, he has accompanied Inspector Parveen Kumar for the investigation of this case FIR No.80/10 at Rohini Court. The witness has further deposed that Inspector Parveen Kumar arrested accused Manoj @ Monu S/o Chandan Singh R/o K272, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi after court permission at 2.05 PM. He has proved the arrest memo of accused St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 63 Monu which is Ex.PW11/A. He has further deposed that accused Manoj @ Monu was advised to keep his face muffled in view of his Test Identification Parade on which the accused kept his face muffled. (64) In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestion that accused was not in muffled face or that he did not join the investigations of this case.
(65) PW12 L/Ct. Suman has deposed that on the intervening night of 23.03.2010 a call was received by PCR control room regarding robbery of a vehicle at Pocket B3, Keshavpuram, Lawerence Road on which she filled up the PCR form which is Ex.PW12/A in the computer and forwarded the call to concerned NET, Keshavpuram for attending to the same. Here, I may observe that the PCR Form Ex.PW12/A reveals that it was Jagbir Shah Singh who had made a call from his mobile No. 9910343441 and the information given was "kuch larke gaari chori karne ke liye aaye hain, police bheje". The report from the PCR Van which is also mentioned in the PCR Form shows that number of the Esteem Car which the accused wanted to steal was wrongly mentioned as DL8CK2765 whereas the car number as confirmed by Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) and HC Ram Dayal (PW48) was DL9CP8975 and in fact they had left the car No. DL8CK2765 and is liable to be read as such. She has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite an opportunity in this regard and her testimony has gone St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 64 uncontroverted.
(66) PW14 SI Sanjay Kumar has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 6:20 AM Ct. Narender handed over to him DD No. 5A which is Ex.PW4/A regarding murder of one Dheeraj, whose dead body was lying in front of shop No.18, DDA market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura. Witness has further deposed that on receipt of this DD he along with Ct. Pappu Lal went to the spot i.e. shop No. 18 and 19, DDA market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura where they found a dead body of a boy lying in front of shop No.18 whose name he later on came to know as Dheeraj. He has deposed that he also found blood lying in front of shop No.19 and on the sofa lying on the chabutra in front of shop No.19. The witness has stated that he also found that the locks of shop No.17 under the name and style of North Delhi Motors were also broken and currency coins were also found inside and outside the shop No.17. He has proved having called the Crime Team at the spot after which Crime Team reached the spot and inspected and thereafter the Incharge Crime Team handed over report of the same to him which is Ex.PW14/A. According to the witness, he recorded the statement of Shri Ram which is Ex.PW14/B who was working at shop No.19, on the basis of which statement he prepared a rukka which is Ex.PW14/C and sent the rukka to Police Station through Ct. Pappu Lal for registration of the case. According to him, St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 65 Ct. Pappu Lal thereafter returned to the spot along with Inspector Parveen who inspected the spot and lifted the exhibits from the spot. He has deposed that Ct. Shiv Kant thereafter came to the spot along with original rukka and copy of FIR which is Ex.PW10/B and handed over the same to Inspector Parveen Kumar. The witness has proved that Inspector Parveen Kumar lifted the sample of blood from the chabutra with the help of cotton and kept the same into a plastic container and sealed with the seal of PK which was given serial No. A. He has further deposed that Inspector Parveen Kumar also lifted blood sample in front of shop No. 19 with the help of cotton and kept the same into plastic container and sealed with the same seal which was given serial No. B. Thereafter Inspector Parveen Kumar lifted blood sample from in front of shop No.19 with the help of cotton and kept the same into a plastic container and sealed it with the same seal which was given serial No. C. According to the witness, seizure memo of all three blood samples were prepared by Inspector Parveen Kumar which is Ex.PW14/D. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer also lifted the earth control and blood stained earth from near the sofa lying on the chabutra outside shop No.19 and put the same in separate containers and converted the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of PK after which he prepared the seizure memo of the same which is Ex.PW14/E. He has also deposed that the Investigating officer thereafter broke the floor outside shop St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 66 No.19 with the help of a chaini and lifted the blood stained floor piece which he put in a plastic container and converted it into pullanda and sealed with the seal of PK after which he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW14/F. He has further proved that the Investigating Officer also lifted the blood stains from the floor outside shop No.18 by breaking the floor with the help of a chaini and put the same in a plastic container and converted the same into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of PK which was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/G. According to him, thereafter the Investigating Officer lifted the blood stains from the sofa lying outside shop No.19 by cutting the same with a help of blade and also lifted the cloth and put the same in two different plastic container and converted the same into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of PK after which it was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/H. Witness has further deposed that they also found a blood stained quilt (rajai) lying near the sofa and the Investigating Officer cut the blood stained portion of the quilt with the help of a blade and the control from the rajai, which he put in two different plastic containers and converted the same into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of PK and thereafter seized the same vide memo Ex.PW4/I. The witness has testified that one pair of slippers of black color of Relaxo were lying near the sofa which were also lifted by the Investigating Officer who put the same into cloth and converted the same into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 67 of PK after which it was seized vide memo Ex.PW14/J. He has further deposed that stand of sewing machine was lying in front of shop No.19 which was also having blood stains and therefore the Investigating Officer also lifted the piece of wood of stand of sewing machine with the help of chaini and put the same in plastic container and converted the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of PK. Thereafter Investigating officer also lifted one another wooden piece from the same stand without having blood stains and put the same in different plastic container and converted the same into pullanda and sealed with the same seal and both pullandas were seized by the Investigating officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/K. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer also took into possession broken locks of Harrison which were lying near the shop No. 17 which were wrapped in a cloth and converted the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the same seal and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/L. According to him, the Investigating Officer lifted twenty three currency coins which were lying inside shop No.17 and put the same into pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed the same with the seal of PK and thereafter Investigating Officer also lifted two currency coins which were lying outside Shop No.17 and put the same into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of PK and thereafter both pullandas were seized by the Investigating officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M. The witness has testified that Ct. Shiv Kant St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 68 handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Parveen Kumar and thereafter dead body was sent to Mortuary BJRM hospital along with Ct. Pappu Lal and inquest papers were prepared by the Investigating Officer. According to him, thereafter HC Ram Dayal came to the spot from Police Station Keshavpuram and informed the Investigating Officer that some documents were recovered form one Esteem car which was stationed in the area of Police Station Keshavpuram and in those documents there were some bills which were pertaining to Shop No. 17 after which HC Ram Dayal had shown said bills, one wooden drawer, some iron blade, some spare parts and some other articles to Vikas Batra the owner of Shop No.17 who identified the same as belonging to him. He has further deposed that HC Ram Dayal handed over the articles to Investigating Officer and all the documents were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer by putting the same into plastic katta which he sealed with the seal of PK and seized the pullanda and documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. The witness SI Sanjay Kumar has testified that he along with Investigating Officer went to BJRM Hospital mortuary for conducting the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Dheeraj and after postmortem doctor handed over one sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of KG BJRM hospital, one sealed pullanda sealed with the same seal and sample seal to the Investigating Officer who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/N. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 69 (67) The witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. original trade licence and the colored photocopy of the same both of which were duly laminated which are collectively Ex.P1; two original MTNL bills, application form for obtaining the Pan Card in the name of Geeta Batra and Vikas Batra, cheque book in the name of Sh. H.N. Batra, receipt dated 15.11.2009 to 29.12.2009, full and final settlement of the salary executed by Umre Alam which are collectively Ex.P2; three iron rods which are collectively Ex.P3; one hammer with wooden handle which is Ex.P4; one steel katori which is Ex.P5; Four Locas TVS auto electrical spare parts which are collectively Ex.P6; Six electric bulbs of blue color which are collectively Ex.P7; Ten hawkshow blade iron which are collectively Ex.P8; Seven tools which are collectively Ex.P9; one wooden drawer which is Ex.P10; 19 paper pieces which are collectively Ex.P11; four spare parts of vehicles which are collectively Ex.P12; Two pens, two riffles, one eraser and one clip which are collectively Ex.P13 and two blank Hippo chinese manchurian snacks packets which are already Ex.P14; cotton wool swab which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the chabutra which is Ex.P15; cotton wool swab which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No. 19 which is Ex.P16; cotton wool swab which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.18 which is Ex.P17; earth material St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 70 which was as lifted by the Investigating Officer from the chabutra which is Ex.P18; blood stained earth which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the chabutra which is Ex.P19; blood stained piece of stone which was lifted by the Investigating officer from in front of shop No.19 which is Ex.P20; blood stained earth control which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.19 which is Ex.P21; blood stained floor which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.18 which is Ex.P22; piece of stone which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from in front of shop No.19 which is Ex.P23; blood stained wooden piece which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the sewing machine which is Ex.P24; piece of cloth which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the sofa which is Ex.P25; blood stained piece of quilt (rajai) with cotton which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from quilt (rajai) which is Ex.P26; one control of quilt (rajai) with cotton which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from quilt which is Ex.P27; blood stained piece of sofa cloth which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the sofa which is Ex.P28; one wooden piece which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the sewing machine which is Ex.P29 and one pair of chappals which was lifted by the Investigating Officer from the chabutra near sofa which is Ex.P30.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 71 (68) In his crossexamination the witness has deposed that on 03.03.2010 after receiving DD No.5A he reached the spot at about 6:30 AM along with Ct. Pappu Lal on the motorcycle of Ct. Pappu Lal and when he reached the spot twothree public persons were present there. According to him, the Crime Team reached the spot at about 7:30 AM and statement of Shri Ram was recorded outside the shop while sitting on a chair. He has further deposed that he sent the rukka through Ct. Pappu Lal at about 9:35 AM and Inspector Parveen Kumar reached the spot along with Ct. Pappu Lal at about 10 AM. The witness has testified that Ct. Shiv Kant came to the spot along with original rukka and copy of the FIR at about 11 AM and states that the Investigating Officer took one hour for lifting the exhibits from the spot. He also does not remember to whom Investigating Officer handed over the seal after use. He has further deposed that all the writing work was done by the Investigating Officer while sitting at shop No.19 on a chair. According to him, no finger prints were found at the spot by the Crime Team. He has testified that the dead body was sent to mortuary BJRM hospital through Ct. Pappu Lal at about 11 AM and HC Ram Dayal came to the spot at about 12 noon and remained at the spot for about 3045 minutes. He has denied the suggestion that HC Ram Dayal did not hand over any documents, bill, wooden drawer, some iron blade, some spare parts and some other articles to the Investigating Officer or that the said articles were never St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 72 shown to Vikas Batra. He has also denied the suggestion that all the above said articles were lifted from the shop No.17 and seized by the Investigating Officer. According to SI Sanjay Kumar, he along with Investigating Officer went to BJRM hospital for conducting the postmortem at about 2 PM. He has denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or that he had signed all the documents while sitting in the police station.
(69) PW17 SI Manohar Lal has deposed that on 25.03.2010 he was working as Draftsman in Delhi Police, NE District and on that day he visited the spot along with the Investigating Officer and prepared the rough notes and measurements on the pointing out of complainant Shri Ram. The witness has proved that thereafter on 26.3.2010 he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW17/A and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer after which he destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
(70) In his crossexamination the witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or that he did not prepare the aforesaid scaled site plan. Witness has denied the suggestion that the aforesaid site plan was manipulated later on at the instance of Investigating Officer.
(71) PW26 Ct. Rohtash has deposed that on 09.03.2010 he was posted at police station Sarswati Vihar and on that day on the directions of the Investigating Officer he had taken the vehicle Maruti St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 73 Esteem Car bearing no. DL9CK3999 from Malkhana of the Saraswati Vihar police station to FSL Rohini vide RC No.33/21/10 and at FSL Rohini, the FSL team had inspected this vehicle and also another vehicle whose number he does not remember which vehicle was brought by Ct. Dipesh. The witness has also deposed that blood was found on both the vehicles and the FSL team lifted total number of four exhibits from his vehicle and three exhibits from the other vehicle as told to him by Ct. Dipesh and all the pullandas were taken by him to the police station which were sealed with the seal of PK and thereafter seized vide memo Ex.PW26/A. He has also deposed that on his return to the police station he deposited the vehicle Maruti Esteem car bearing no. DL9CK 3999 in malkhana of Police Station Saraswati Vihar and his statement was recorded on the same day. (72) The witness has further testified that on 21.04.2010 he again joined the investigation in the present case and on the directions of the Investigating Officer he went to BJRM Hospital. According to him, he took one sealed pullanda bearing the seal of PK to the doctor and presented the same to him which pullanda was opened and it was found to be containing an iron rod which was examined by the doctor. He has also deposed that after examining the said rod the doctor gave his opinion and resealed the rod by converting the same into a pullanda with the seal of KG BJRM Hospital and handed over the pullandas to him. The witness has also deposed that the doctor St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 74 handed over the report to the Investigating Officer who had reported to the doctor. According to the witness, on the directions of the Investigating Officer, he took the sealed pullanda in the police station and deposited the same in the malkhana on same day at about 4.25 PM and his statement was recorded on the same day. (73) With the permission of the Court, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State put leading questions to the witness as he was not disclosing the complete details, on which the witness has admitted the number of the other vehicle which taken by Ct. Dipesh was DL8CK 2765 and that a total number of six exhibits were prepared i.e. four exhibits were lifted from vehicle bearing no. DL 9CK 3999 and two exhibits were lifted from the vehicle no. DL8 CK 2765. He also admitted that Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar had accompanied him to FSL and he had put the seal of PK on the pullandas at Rohini itself. (74) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel witness the witness has deposed that he had made an entry in the Roznamcha regarding his Rawangi to FSL Rohini vide entry no. 32B which entry he had made this entry separately and not with the Investigating Officer. The witness has further deposed that on 21.04.2010 when he had gone to BJRM Hospital, he did not make any separate entry and has voluntarily added that the Investigating Officer had made the same. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer had also made a separate entry when he had gone to FSL St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 75 Rohini with him but he is unable to tell the entry number. He has denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer was not present at FSL Rohini and all the seals were put by him in the police station later on. He is unable to tell whether the iron rod or any other exhibits were having any blood stains at the time when the recovery of the vehicle was made at the stage of initial investigation. The witness has admitted that since he did not participate in the investigations at the initial stages so he cannot say what articles were recovered during the investigations and has voluntarily stated that he had only gone to FSL Rohini and BJRM hospital on the directions of the Investigating Officer. He has denied that all proceedings were conducted while sitting in the police station and he did not go to the FSL Rohini nor the vehicle was examined by the FSL team.
(75) PW27 Ct. Dipesh has corroborated the testimony of PW26 Ct. Rohtash and has deposed that on 09.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Sarswati Vihar when he joined the investigation in the present case. According to him, on that day on the directions of the Investigating Officer he had taken one esteem car bearing no. DL8CK2756 from malkhana of Police Station Saraswati Vihar vide RC No. 32/21/2010. He has deposed that the FSL team had inspected the said vehicle along with another Esteem car which was brought by Ct. Rohtash and the FSL team had lifted a total number of six exhibits from both the vehicles, which exhibits were duly converted into St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 76 pullanda and sealed and were handed over the Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar who sealed the same with the seal of PK and seized vide memo Ex.PW26/A. According to the witness, thereafter on the directions of the Investigating Officer he brought the vehicle bearing no. DL8CK2756 and deposited the same in the malkhana of PS Sarswati Vihar and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day.
(76) The said witness was also crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same.
(77) PW32 HC Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 06.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day he along with Inspector Praveen Kumar, SI Lalit, HC Parveen and Ct. Pappu Lal were busy in the investigation of this case. He has further deposed that Inspector Praveen Kumar received an information from Police Station Rani Bagh at about 8.00AM that one Manoj @ Monu has been arrested in case FIR No.75/10 of Police Station Rani Bagh who had made a disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case. According to the witness, he along with Inspector Praveen and the staff reached Police Station Rani Bagh and met the Investigating Officer of that case ASI Ramesh. He has testified that firstly the accused Manoj @ Monu was interrogated by Inspector Praveen Kumar after which he collected the documents from ASI Ramesh and thereafter they left the Police Station Rani Bagh. He has St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 77 further deposed that the accused Manoj had disclosed that the Esteem car no. DL 9C K 3999 was with Pramod, Minni @ Mental and Nar Bahadur which was stolen by them from the area of Tri Nagar and thereafter accused Manoj was left in the Police Station Rani Bagh whereas they came to Sidharth Apartment, Saraswati Vihar. He has also deposed that one secret informer met Inspector Praveen Kumar who informed him that the aforesaid car was stationed in front of Lok Vihar on the road leading to Jheel Wala Park and one Pramod was sitting on the driver seat of the said car alongwith two other associates who could be Nar Bahadur and Minni @ Mental. According to him, Inspector Praveen Kumar requested two passerbyes namely Pradeep Yadav and Rohtash Singh to join the investigations but they refused and without wasting the time, Investigating Officer formed a raiding party and proceeded towards the place pointed out by secret informer. He has also deposed that they reached in front of Lok Vihar on the road leading Jheel Wala Park where they found one esteem car bearing no. DL 9C K 3999 in which three persons were sitting. The witness has proved having overpowered one person who was sitting on the driver seat whose name was later on revealed as Pramod whereas HC Parveen apprehended the boy sitting next to the driver seat whose name was later on revealed as Minni @ Mental and Ct. Pappu Lal apprehended the boy sitting on the back seat whose name was later on revealed as Nar Bahadur. He has deposed that search of Pramod St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 78 revealed a buttondar knife which was recovered from the right dub of his pant and when the car was searched and inspected they observed that there was blood scattered on the seats and widow panes on which they interrogated the accused persons thoroughly when they disclosed that they had committed a robbery at DDA Market Sandesh Vihar in the intervening night of 23.03.2010 and inflicted injuries upon a person sleeping outside the shop. According to him, Pursuant to their disclosures all the accused i.e. Pramod, Minni @ Mental and Nar Bahadur were arrested in the present case. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Pramod which is Ex.PW32/A; arrest memo of the accused Minni @ Mental which is Ex.PW32/B and the arrest memo of the accused Nar Bahadur which is Ex.PW32/C. He has also proved the personal search memos of accused Pramod, Minni and Nar Bahadur which are Ex.PW32/D, Ex.PW32/E and Ex.PW32/F respectively. The witness has testified that crime team was called by the Investigating Officer who came at the spot and inspected the vehicle, took photographs and lifted finger prints. He has further testified that sketch of the knife recovered from Pramod was prepared by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW32/G. According to him, the knife was measured which was found to be having a total length of 25.5 cms and with the handle measuring 14.5 cms and the blade measuring 11 cms. He has further deposed that the knife was converted into the pullanda and sealed with the seal of PK and seizure St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 79 memo of the knife was prepared by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW32/H. He has also deposed that thereafter the vehicle was searched by the Investigating Officer and a red colour cloth was recovered from near the seat having blood stains and the said cloth was converted into the pullanda and sealed with the seal of PK and the seizure memo of the said cloth which is Ex.PW32/I. According to the witness, one iron rod was also recovered from near the driver seat of the said car which rod was having certain stains which appeared to blood stains after which the said rod was converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of PK. Further, according to him, one iron rod was also recovered form the dicky of the car which was converted into a pulanda and sealed with the seal of PK after which both the rods were seized vide memo Ex.PW32/J. He has stated that one bunch of keys was recovered from the possession of the accused Pramod which bunch on checking was found to contain eight keys and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/K. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer thereafter prepared the site plan of the place from where the recoveries were affected which site plan is Ex.PW32/L and the car bearing no. DL 9C K 3999 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/M. He has also deposed that the accused Pramod, Minni and Nar Bahadur were interrogated and they made a detailed disclosure statements which were recorded by the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 80 Investigation Officer which disclosure statements are Ex.PW32/N, Ex.PW32/O and Ex.PW32/P. He has further deposed that the case property was deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station by the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded in the evening hours.
(78) He has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court and the buttondar knife which was recovered from the accused Pramod, which is Ex.P31; two iron rods (part of three rods) which were recovered from the car which are collectively Ex.P3; bunch of keys containing eight keys which was recovered from the accused Pramod, which is Ex.P32 and one red coloured piece of cloth which was recovered from the car, which is Ex.P33.
(79) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused the witness has deposed that the information from Police Station Rani Bagh was received by the Investigating Officer on Telephone and Investigating Officer collected the copy of disclosure statement of accused Manoj from ASI Manoj. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer received the secret information at about 12:00 Noon regarding the aforesaid vehicle and the accused persons but the said secret information was not written. He is not aware if Inspector Praveen conveyed the secret information to higher police officials. He has further deposed that there was no public person on St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 81 the road near Lok Vihar, Jheel Park Road. According to him, they reached the spot at about 12.06 PM (Noon) and no public person was called from the residential area to join the investigation. He has also deposed that no blood stains were lifted from the car in his presence and he had not seen the blood stains on the clothes worn by the accused persons. He does not remember to whom the seal after use was handed over. The witness has denied the suggestion that neither the aforesaid vehicle was recovered from the accused persons nor any other incriminating articles were recovered from them or that no piece of cloth of red colour having the blood stains was recovered from the vehicle. He has also denied that they did not find any blood stains on the windows and other parts of the car. He has testified that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting on bench which was lying outside the park and no public persons were gathered at the time of interrogation of the accused. The witness has further deposed that Inspector Praveen Kumar was in uniform and other police officials were in plain clothes. According to him, he had signed 1516 memos and first of all the disclosure of accused Pramod was recorded by the Investigating Officer, after which the disclosure of Mini @ Mental was recorded and at last disclosure of accused Nar Bahadur was recorded. He has also deposed that it took about 1520 minutes in recording the statements of each of the accused and the sealing material was within the Investigating Officer bag (black colour) which St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 82 was made of leather. According to the witness, they remained at the place where the car was recovered upto 2:30 PM. He has denied the suggestion that all writing work was done while sitting in the police station or that no disclosure statement of any accused was recorded in his presence. He has also denied that nothing was recovered from the accused.
(80) PW33 Ct. Ram Karan has deposed that on 23.04.2010 he was posted at the Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day, he took 26 sealed parcels out of which 23 parcels were having the seal of PK and the remaining 3 parcels were having the seal of KG BJRM Hospital mortuary from the MHC(M). He has further deposed that he along with Ct. Suresh (DHG) took the same to FSL Rohini and got deposited the same vide RC No. 48/21/10 along with the sample seal after which he handed over the receipt to the MHC(M) after getting the said parcels deposited at FSL Rohini. He has proved that no tampering was done while the aforesaid exhibits and sample seals remained in his possession. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite an opportunity in this regard. (81) PW34 Ct. Subhash has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was working as Photographer Crime Team (NW) and on that day on receipt of information from control room at about 7.10 AM, he along with the Incharge Crime Team N/W SI Devender reached at Sandesh Vihar, DDA Market, opposite MM Public School, Pitam Pura. He has St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 83 further deposed that he took 19 photographs of the place of incident on the instructions of Investigating Officer from different angles. He has proved the 17 photographs attached with the file which are Ex.PW34/A1 to Ex.PW34/A17 and has also proved the negative of the said photographs which are collectively Ex.PW34/B. (82) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at around 7:30 AM and apart from their Crime Team, seven to eight other police officials were present at the spot at that time. He does not remember whether any public person was also present there at that time or not. He has further deposed that they remained at the spot upto 8:30 AM and when he took the photographs of the spot, the dead body was found lying in front of shop No. 18.
(83) PW35 Ct. Ram Kishan has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was working as Photographer in Mobile Crime Team North West and on that day he along with SI Satpal, Incharge Crime Team reached at Police Station Saraswati Vihar where they found one esteem car No. DL2CK2765 parked in the police station. According to the witness, he took eight photographs of the said car which are Ex.PW35/A1 to Ex.PW35/A8 and the negatives of the said photographs are collectively Ex.PW35/B. The witness has also deposed that on 06.03.2010 on the receipt of information from Control Room he along St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 84 with SI Satpal again went at Main Road Lok Vihar, Pitampura where they found another esteem car bearing No. DL9CK3999 parked on the main road. He has testified that he took 16 photographs of the said car from different angles which photographs are Ex.PW35/C1 to Ex.PW35/C16. He has also proved the negatives of the said photographs which are collectively Ex.PW35/D. (84) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he reached at the police station on 03.03.2010 at around 10:30 PM and on 06.03.2010 he had reached Lok Vihar, Pitampura at around 1:15 PM (afternoon). He has further deposed that on 06.03.2010 he found threefour police officials at the place where they found the vehicle and twothree public persons were also standing there. According to him, the information was received by the Incharge Crime Team and hence he is unable to tell the time of receiving the same. The witness has testified that he was instructed by Incharge Crime Team SI Satpal to reach the spot. He has deposed that on 06.03.2010, the front side of the car was towards Lok Vihar side and he had not taken the photographs of the chassis or the engine. Witness has denied that he did not go to the place where the aforesaid vehicles were stationed or that he did not take the photographs of the aforesaid two vehicles.
(85) PW36 Anil Yadav UDC from Home Department proved the notification No. F13/203/78Home (G) dated 17.02.1979 copy of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 85 which is Ex.PW36/A. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite an opportunity in this regard. (86) PW37 Ct. Ghasi Ram has deposed that on 19.03.2010 he was present in the investigations of this case and on that day he along with Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar and Ct. Mehkar Singh reached at Rohini Court and after taking permission from the Hon'ble Court the accused Manoj @ Monu was taken on police remand for one day by Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen Kumar. According to him, they took the accused to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital for his medical examination and thereafter he was brought to the police station Saraswati Vihar. According to the witness, the accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW37/A. He has correctly identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Court. (87) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that no public person was present at the time when the accused Manoj made the disclosure statement. He does not remember whether he had gone through the disclosure statement of the accused before signing the same or not. He also does not remember as to how many pages the disclosure statement was reduced into writing. According to the witness, Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen Kumar had recorded the disclosure of Manoj. Witness has denied that no disclosure statement was made by the accused Manoj St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 86 or that he did not participate in any investigations. (88) PW38 SI Devender Singh has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was working as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, NW District and on that day he received information from District control Room on wireless set regarding this incident. He has further deposed that he along with his Crime Team member comprising HC Vikas, Finger Print Proficient, Ct. Subhash Photographer reached at DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar opposite MM Public School where they met SI Sanjay Dahiya, SHO and other staff of the police station in front of Shop No.19, Shivani Tent house. According to the witness, they found a dead body lying in front of shop No. 18 which was in pool of blood and he examined the body when he found lacerated wound on the right side of forehead and small wound on the left side of forehead. He has testified that he also found one long wound on head and also found blood stained sofa set on the chabutra. The witness has also deposed that the blood in huge quantity was found on the sofa and under the sofa and one rajai which was also having blood was also lying near sofa. He has testified that one pair of slipper was found under sofa and he found blood on the table of sewing machine in front of shop No.19. According to the witness, they also found broken lock of the shop number 17 after which the entire spot of incident was got photographed by Ct. Subhash. He has further testified that HC Vikas Finger print proficient examined the shop No.17 for the purpose of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 87 chance print but the same could not be traced on the said shop. He has proved having prepared the detailed report which is Ex.PW14/A which he handed over to the Investigating Officer. (89) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he received the information at 7:10 AM and reached at the spot at about 7:30 AM. He does not remember as to how many public persons were standing near the spot and states that the dead body was lying in front of shop No.18, very close to shutter. Witness has denied that he did not go to the spot or lift any exhibits or that he prepared the report at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (90) PW39 SI Satpal Singh has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted in Crime Team North West District, Delhi and on that day on the receipt of information, he along with his Crime Team comprising of Ct. Ram Kishan who was Photographer as well as Finger Print Proficient went to Police Station Saraswati Vihar where he found one car bearing no. DL8CK2765 esteem of silver colour stationed in the police station and on the request of the Investigating Officer he inspected the said vehicle when he found blood stains on the rear seat, on the back side of leftfront seat and mat lying on the back side. He has testified that the photographer Ct. Ram Kishan had taken the photographs and he requested the Investigating Officer to take the seat cover into possession for the purpose of sending the same to FSL. He has proved having prepared his detailed report which is St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 88 Ex.PW39/A. The witness has further testified that on 06.03.2010, on receipt of another call he along with Ct. Ram Kishan who was working as photographer as well as finger print proficient, reached in front of Lok Vihar towards park on the main road where he found a car bearing no. DL9CK3999 Maruti Esteem of silver colour. According to him, he inspected the said car and found one iron rod lying near the driver's seat and another iron rod was found lying in the dicky of the said car. He has testified that he found blood stains on inside the window of driver side. He has also deposed that after examination, he prepared a detailed report vide Ex.PW39/B and handed over the said report to the Investigating Officer. (91) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he had reached the spot i.e. Police Station Saraswati Vihar at about 10.45PM and the vehicle was parked inside the police station. He has further deposed that on 06.03.2010 he reached the spot i.e. opposite Lok Vihar at about 1.15 PM and the inspection lasted till 2.00 PM. The witness has also deposed that he had not measured the rods recovered from the front seat and from the dicky, therefore, he is unable to tell their measurements. According to the witness, he had not measured the rods since the Investigating Officer was present and he handed over the rods to the Investigating Officer for further proceedings. He has also deposed that both the rods were separately handed over to the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 89 Investigating Officer and has voluntarily added that at first he removed the rod from the seat and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and then from the dicky and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. He is unable to tell which of the two rods was longer whether the one recovered from the seat or recovered from the dicky. He has testified that he had prepared the report while sitting on the footpath adjoining the park. According to the witness, the front side of the car was towards the west direction. He has also stated that he had checked the engine number of the vehicle and has voluntarily added that he only saw the front side number plate which was broken. He has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot to inspect the vehicle either on 03.03.2010 or on 06.03.2010 and therefore he is unable to provide the details. The witness has also denied that there was no gate of the park adjoining the place where the car was parked on 06.03.2010. (92) PW40 HC Ravinder Nath Singh has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was working as MHC(M) at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day Inspector Parveen Kumar had deposited 19 pullandas and one plastic bag containing tools duly sealed with the seal of PK pursuant to which he recorded the entry No. 3698 in register No. 19, copy of which is Ex.PW40/A running into seven pages. According to him on 06.03.2010, Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar had deposited the articles pertaining to St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 90 accused Nar Bahadur, Parmod @ Langra and Minni, one sealed parcel containing buttondar knife, another sealed parcel containing bunch of keys pertaining to accused Parmod, one sealed parcel containing blood stained clothes duly sealed with the seal of PK, one Esteem car bearing No. DL9CK3999 and two parcels containing iron rods duly sealed with the seal of PK; pursuant to which he recorded the entry No.3703 in Register No. 19, copy of which entry is Ex.PW40/B running into two pages. The witness has testified that on 09.03.2010 Inspector Parveen Kumar had deposited six parcels duly sealed with the seal of PK and he received the same vide entry No. 3711, copy of which is Ex.PW40/C. According to him, on 05.05.2010 Ct. Gilawar handed over one sealed parcel which he received vide entry No. 3774 copy of which entry is Ex.PW40/D. The witness has further deposed that he sent the aforesaid parcels to FSL Rohini on 23.04.2010 through Ct. Ram Karan and on 16.09.2010 Ct. Avdesh had brought the FSL result and handed over the same to him which he took into possession. He has proved the copy of RC No.48/21/10 which is Ex.PW40/E and the copy of receipt of FSL Rohini which is Ex.PW40/F. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and hence, the testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 91 (93) PW41 Sh. Harpal was working as Constable in Delhi Home Guard and has deposed that on the intervening night of 0506.03.2010 he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Ramraj at beat No.5, Raja Park. According to him, on the receipt of DD No.2B he along with Ramraj reached at Raja Park red light chowk at about 1:45 AM where they found one esteem car bearing No. DL3CG5278. The witness has further deposed that one young boy was found sitting on the driver seat of the said car and when they reached near the said car the said boy become scared and tried to run away but was apprehended. According to him, on interrogation his name was known as Monu and was found under the influence of liquor at that time. He has testified that he was having some old injury mark and on interrogation about the esteem car the said boy did not give any satisfactory answer. The witness has testified that the vehicle was checked during which one long iron rod was found and some gutka of Raj Darbar and some chutki were found in a polythene. According to him, some cigarette packets were also found lying on the deskboard and they found one RC having the registration No. DL3CR6881 which number was found matching with the chassis number of the engine. He has further deposed that one rexene bag was found on the desk board containing some documents after which Ct. Ramraj informed the police station from where ASI Ramesh and Ct. Kulbhushan came there on which they handed over the vehicle, St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 92 accused and the aforesaid articles to ASI Ramesh. He has testified that at about 3:30 AM rukka was given to Ct. Kulbhushan and the accused was taken to the police station.
(94) With the permission of the Court leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he has admitted that the accused was arrested in this case. He is not not aware if the disclosure statement of accused was recorded. The witness has also admitted that the rexene bag, other documents and the iron rod was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW41/A. The documents already Ex.P1, Ex.P2 collectively running into six pages were shown to the witness who admitted that these documents were the same which were taken into possession.
(95) The witness, however, could not identify the accused Manoj @ Monu and when the accused Manoj @ Monu was specifically put to the witness he has stated that he does not remember and he was only called to the Court mujhe kuch dhyan nahi mujhe to court mein bulaya gaya hai". It has been observed by this Court that witness has stated above and his body language reflects as if he has been pressurized to come to the court. He has further stated that he only remember that some one was apprehended in his presence on that day. "mujhe itna hi yad hai mein us din duty per tha aur mere samne kisi ko pakra tha aur mujhe kuch yad nahi".
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 93 (96) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that before deposing he had gone through his statement. He has admitted that before deposing he had noted the facts of this case on the summon and thereafter he had deposed. He has denied that he was not present at the spot, therefore he does not remember the aforesaid facts.
(97) PW42 Ct. Ramraj has deposed that on the intervening night of 0506.03.2010, he was on patrolling duty at night and Ct. Harpal of DHG was also on duty with him in beat No.5. According to him, he received DD No. 2B at 12:45 AM and they reached Raja Park Road, Red Light Chowk at about 1:45 AM where they found one esteem car having the number on the plate DL3CG5278 and he found one young boy sitting on the driver seat in the said car. According to the witness, on seeing them the said boy tried to run away but he was apprehended by him and Ct. Harpal. He has deposed that the said boy was under the influence of liquor at that time and there were some old mark of injuries on his face and on interrogation regarding the aforesaid vehicle but he could not give satisfactory answer. The witness has testified that the said vehicle was checked during which one iron rod was found lying on the back seat and one sky blue polythene was also found lying on the rear seat which was found to contain gutkas of Dilbagh etc. and when they checked the desk board, two cigarette box of classic, two cigarette box of gold St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 94 flake were found. According to him, one RC was also found lying on the desk board reflecting the number DL3CR6881 and one rexene bag was also found on the desk board which was found to contain some documents. He has further deposed that they matched the number mentioned on the RC with the chassis of the vehicle and they found both the numbers matching on which he informed the police station at about 2:05 AM. According to the witness, at about 2:15 AM ASI Ramesh and Ct. Kulbhushan came there and he narrated the entire incident to them. He has deposed that on interrogation the name of that person was known as Manoj @ Monu and the accused, the vehicle, rod and the documents articles were handed over to ASI Ramesh Kumar. He has further deposed that private photographer was also called who took the photographs of the vehicle from inside and outside and the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RK and the aforesaid parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW41/A. The witness has also deposed that Ct. Kulbhushan took the rukka to the police station and Investigating Officer ASI Ramesh Kumar prepared the site plan at his instance. He has testified that the accused Manoj @ Monu was arrested and a separate case vide FIR No.75/10 at Police Station Rani Bagh was registered wherein the accused made his disclosure statement.
(98) He has correctly identified the accused Manoj @ Monu St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 95 in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. the documents recovered from the car which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
(99) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the number of motorcycle on which they were patrolling the area was DL4SAG0759 which it was his personal motorcycle. According to him, he had not stated the number of motorcycle in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has further deposed that at that time no public person was present at the spot. He has deposed that the spot was covered with residential houses on both sides and no public person including chowkidar etc. were called from the residential area to be a witness in this case. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded at about 3:00 AM while sitting on the pavement and there were street light at the spot which statement was read over to him. According to the witness, his statement was recorded by ASI Ramesh Kumar firstly on the spot and another statement was recorded by Inspector Parveen Kumar on 08.03.2010. He has denied the suggestion that he has falsely deposed regarding his supplementary statement. He has admitted that "Tatima" means statement recorded subsequently and has denied that he did not give any subsequent/ "Tatima" statement. The witness has also deposed that he informed the police station from his mobile phone No. 9868969924 at about 2:05 AM and that they stayed at the spot upto 5:306AM. The witness has further deposed that the rod St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 96 which was found lying on the back seat, was about three to three and a half feet long. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such rod was found lying in the said car or that same has been planted by them. He has also denied that Manoj @ Monu did not make any disclosure statement or that the accused has been lifted from his house and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(100) PW43 Ct. Kulbhushan has deposed that on the intervening night of 0506.03.2010, he was on emergency duty from 8PM to 8AM along with ASI Ramesh Kumar when at about 2:05 AM on receipt of DD No.7A they reached Raja Park Road, Red Light Chowk at about 02:15 AM where Ct. Ramraj and Ct. Harpal from DHG met them who had produced the accused Manoj @ Monu along with one esteem car having the number plate DL3CG5278 and had narrated the facts of this case. He has further deposed that they had also produced one iron rod, one sky blue polythene contain gutkas of Dilbagh etc, two cigarette box of classic, two cigarette box of gold flake, one RC reflecting the number DL3CR6881, one rexene bag. The witness has also deposed that a Private photographer was called who took the photographs of the vehicle from inside and outside and thereafter the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RK and the aforesaid parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW41/A. According to the witness, at about 3:30AM he took the rukka to the police station St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 97 where he reached at about 3:45 AM and returned back to the spot along with copy of FIR No. 75/10, PS Rani Bagh and original rukka at about 4:45 AM. He has further deposed that the number of the RC was got verified from automac and thereafter it was found that the said car was found stolen vide FIR No.43/10, under Section 379 IPC of Police Station Maurya Enclave. The witness has further deposed that the accused Manoj @ Monu was arrested after which the accused made his disclosure statement and Investigating Officer recorded the same which was in case FIR No. 75/10 PS Rani Bagh. He has testified that his statement was recorded in this case also as well as in case FIR No.75/10 and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. (101) The witness has correctly identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Court and has also identified the case property i.e. the documents which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 which were recovered from the said car.
(102) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the public persons were moving at the spot and they were requested by ASI Ramesh Kumar to join the proceedings but they had refused to join and left the spot. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer had not given them any legal notice for not joining the proceedings. He has admitted that on one side of the road there was a residential colony and the market was on the other side and states that no public person including chowkidar St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 98 or shopkeeper were asked by the Investigating Officer to join the proceedings. He is not aware if the Investigating Officer had noted down the names and addresses of those public persons who were passerby. According to the witness, the accused Manoj @ Monu was not known to him prior to this incident. He has denied that no incriminating articles/ aforesaid vehicle was recovered from the accused or that no recovery has been effected from the aforesaid car. The witness has also denied that Manoj @ Monu did not make any disclosure statement or that the accused was lifted from his house and has been falsely implicated in the present case. (103) PW44 SI Ramesh Kumar has corroborated the testimony of PW43 Ct. Kulbhushan in toto. He has also identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Court and also identified the case property. He has also been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel on similar lines as that of Ct. Kulbhsuahn (PW43) but nothing much has come out of the same.
(104) PW45 Ct. Mehkar Singh has deposed that on 19.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day he along with Ct. Ghasi Ram and Inspector Parveen had come to the Court complex where Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen took the police remand of accused Manoj @ Monu and thereafter the medical examination of the accused was got done after which they went to the police station Saraswati Vihar. He has also St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 99 deposed that the accused Manoj @ Monu was interrogated in the room of Inspector Parveen during which the accused Manoj had disclosed that on the intervening night of 02/03.03.2010 he along with his associates Parmod, Mini and Nar Bahadur committed the theft after breaking the lock. According to the witness, the accused Manoj further disclosed that accused Parmod had hit a iron rod on a person who was sleeping outside the shop and disclosed about the other facts. The witness has proved that the disclosure statement of accused Manoj @ Monu was recorded vide Ex.PW37/A and his statement was recorded in this case by the Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen. He has correctly identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Court. (105) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he does not remember the court room number from where the accused was taken on police remand. He has further deposed that no other person was present in the Investigating Officer's room when accused Manoj @ Monu was interrogated. He has denied that accused Manoj @ Monu did not make any disclosure statement or that the disclosure statement Ex.PW37/A was recorded by Inspector Parveen Kumar of his own and he had signed the same later on.
(106) PW46 Ct. Pappu Lal has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day on receipt of DD No.5A at about 6:15 AM he along with SI Sanjay St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 100 Dahiya reached at DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura where they found a dead body in front of shop No.18 and on inquiry the name of the deceased came to be known as Dheeraj. He has further deposed that the blood was found lying in front of shop No.19 and they found a sofa in front of shops No.18 and 19 on a chabutra. According to the witness, the said sofa was also having blood and blood was also found lying near the sofa on the chabutra and one blood stained quilt was also lying on the sofa. He has testified that one sewing machine was also found lying in front of shop No.19 and blood was also lying there on the ply of the machine and one pair of chappal was found near sofa. According to the witness the shutter of shop No. 17 was found broken and shutter was opened and two broken locks were found lying near the shutter. He has also deposed that some coins were found lying scattered inside the shop No.17 and outside also and one Shri Ram who was working at shop No.19 i.e. Shivani Tent Sajawat met them. The witness has further deposed that Shri Ram was interrogated by SI Sanjay Dahiya whose statement was also recorded on which SI Sanjay Dahiya prepared the rukka. According to the witness, SI Sanjay Dahiya handed over the same to him at about 9:35 AM pursuant to which he took the same to the police station at about 9:45 AM and handed over the same to the Duty Officer and thereafter he along with Inspector Parveen came to the spot. The witness has deposed that Inspector Parveen inspected the spot and prepared the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 101 site plan after which Inspector Parveen called the crime team to the spot. He has further deposed that Crime Team inspected the spot and the photographer of the crime team took the photographs of the spot after which Inspector Parveen lifted the blood stained stone and earth control and converted the same into two parcels, which parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G and Ex.PW14/F. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen lifted the blood stained earth and converted the same into two plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal and took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/E. The witness has testified that the said sofa was separated into two pieces and one portion was having the blood stained and other was without blood. According to him, the portion of the sofa having the blood stains was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of PK which parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/H. He has also deposed that the pair of chappal was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/J. The witness Ct. Pappu Lal has deposed that the sewing machine and the pieces of ply were converted into parcels and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/K; the broken locks were also sealed with the same seal and taken into St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 102 possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/L; the coins were collected and converted the same into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal which parcel taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M. He does not recollect about other articles which were taken into possession. According to the witness he took the dead body to Mortuary BJRM Hospital for getting the postmortem conducted and on the same day the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted after which the doctor concerned handed over the exhibits of the deceased to Inspector Parveen which he took into possession and thereafter he came back to the police station. He has also stated that the vehicle number DL8CK2765 was examined by the Crime Team in the compound of police station in his presence and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (107) The witness Ct. Pappu Lal has further proved that on 06.03.2010 he again joined the investigations with Inspector Parveen, SI Lalit, HC Ashok, HC Parveen and on that day they all reached at Police Station Rani Bagh where the police official of Police Station Rani Bagh had caught hold one boy whose name was known as Manoj @ Monu who was interrogated by Inspector Parveen Kumar regarding his involvement in the present case. According to the witness, since the accused Manoj @ Manu had given the names of the three accused persons in his disclosure namely Parmod @ Langra, Mini @ Mental and Nar Bahadur @ Ladies Monu and hence they all left the police St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 103 station in search of these persons. He has deposed that while they were coming back after searching them towards police station and reached at in front of Siddharth Apartment, Pitampura one secret informer met who informed the Investigating Officer that in front of Lok Vihar on a road leading to Jheel Wala Park, from the police station one Esteem Car was parked in which the accused Parmod @ Langra and his two associates were sitting who may be Mini @ Mental and Nar Bahadur @ Ladies Monu. The witness has testified that on the receipts of this information, Inspector Parveen requested two public persons to join raiding party but none agreed and left the spot and therefore, Investigating Officer Inspr. Parveen Kumar formed a raiding party comprising of himself, SI Lalit, HC Ashok and HC Parveen. He has further deposed that they all reached in front of Lok Vihar, ABlock, Main road where they found an Esteem Car of Grey colour bearing DL9CK3999 in which three persons were found sitting and they (police team) surrounded the said car. He has also deposed that the person who was sitting on the driver seat was apprehended by HC Ashok Kumar whose name was known as Parmod @ Langra on interrogation; HC Parveen apprehended the person sitting on the front seat near driver's seat whose name was known as Mini @ Mental and the third boy who was sitting on rear seat was apprehended by him (witness Ct. Pappu Lal) whose name was known as Nar Bahadur after which all the three boys were taken St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 104 out from car. According to the witness, the personal search of accused Parmod was conducted during which one knife was found from the pocket of his pant and one bunch of keys was also recovered from his pant. He has deposed that when the car was inspected, they found blood stained in the car on which Inspector Parveen called the Crime Team who inspected the car and Photographer took the photographs of the car. He has also deposed that one iron rod was recovered from the car near driver seat which rod was also having blood stained after which the said rod was measured and it was found to be 21.5 inches long. According to him, another rod was recovered from the Dicky of the car whose total length was 38.5 inch and one red colour cloth which were having blood stained was also recovered from under the driver seat. He has proved that the accused persons were interrogated who made their disclosure statement and thereafter Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW32/D which knife was converted in parcel and sealed the same with seal of PK. He has testified that the said parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H; the bunch of keys was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/K; the aforesaid rods were also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/J; the car was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/M; the aforesaid red cloth piece was also converted into parcel and sealed St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 105 with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I. He has proved that the accused Parmod @ Langra was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW32/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/E; the accused Nar Bahadur was arrested vide Ex.PW32/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/F and the accused Mini @ Mental was arrested vide memo Ex.PW32/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/E. According to the witness, all the accused persons were brought to Police Station and the case property was deposited in Malkhana after which all the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated. He has further proved the disclosure statement of accused Parmod @ Langra which is Ex.PW32/N; disclosure statement of accused Mini @ Mental which is Ex.PW32/O and the disclosure statement of accused Nar Bahadur which is Ex.PW32/P. The witness has further deposed that all the accused persons were kept in muffled face after which the accused person had taken them to the spot of incident where Inspector Parveen Kumar prepared the memo of pointing out of all the accused persons separately vide Ex.PW13/B, PW13/C and PW13/D and thereafter the accused persons were produced before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. According to him, the case property was deposited in Malkahana and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 106 (108) The witness has correctly identified the accused persons by their faces and also by their names in the Court. He has also identified the case property i.e. earth material which is Ex.P18; blood stained earth which is Ex.P19; blood stained stones which is Ex.P20; blood stained earth control which is Ex.P21; blood stained floor which is Ex.P22; piece of stone which is Ex.P23; red cloth piece which is Ex.P25; quilt which is Ex.P26; one control of quilt/ rajai which is Ex.P27; piece of Sofa cloth which is Ex.P28; one wooden piece separated from sewing machine which is Ex.P29; one pair of chappal which is Ex.P30; esteem car in the photograph reflecting the number DL8CK2765 which photographs are Ex.PW21/C1 to Ex.PW21/C8; one knife which was recovered from the accused Pramod @ Langra which is Ex.P31; two iron rods which are Ex.P3.; bunch of key which was recovered from the accused Pramod @ Langra which is Ex.P32 and one red colour piece of cloth recovered from the car which is Ex.P33.
(109) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on 03.03.10 they left the police station at about 6:20 AM in a private car which belong to SI Sanjay Dahiya but he does not remember its number and states that it was of white colour. According to the witness, departure entry was made by Duty Officer and they both were in uniform. The witness has also deposed St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 107 that fourfive public persons were present at a distance of ten to fifteen meters from the dead body. He has testified that the statement of Shri Ram was recorded by SI Sanjay Dahiya at the spot and he took the Rukka to police station at about 9:35 AM and came to the spot along with Inspector Parveen at around 10:00 AM. He has also deposed that Crime Team reached at the spot at about 10:25 AM and the chance print and finger prints from the spot. According to him, it took about one hour in sealing the case property and the sealing material was with the Investigating Officer at that time in his Kit but he does not remember the colour and make of Investigating Officer Kit. He has further deposed that he signed all the memos which were prepared at the spot and the seal after use was handed over to him. The witness has also testified that he had returned the seal after two days to Inspector Parveen and no separate memo of taking over and handed over of seal was prepared. The witness has also deposed that he took the dead body to Mortuary at BJRM around 1:30 PM and remained there at about 55:30 PM after which he reached police station around 6:15630 PM and his statement was recorded in Police Station. He has testified that on 06.03.2010 they left the police station 8:15 AM but he does not remember who made the departure entry. According to him, they all were in civil dress and they left police station in a private car which was belonged to Inspector Parveen. The witness has testified that it was white colour car but he does not recollect its St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 108 number and make. He has also deposed that they reached at Police Station Rani Bagh at about 8:40 AM. According to him, Manoj was interrogated on the first floor at police station Rani Bagh and they remained there for half an hour. The witness has further deposed that they reached in front of Siddharth Apartment around 12:00 Noon. He has also deposed that secret informer gave information to Inspector Parveen and remained with them for only two minutes which secret information was not reduced in writing by the Investigating Officer. He is not aware whether Investigating Officer informed his senior officers about the secret information. He has deposed that the Investigating Officer asked two or three passerbyes to join the investigation but they refused and that the Investigating Officer noted the name and address of two persons in which one was Rohtas R/o Village Sakurpur and second was Pardeep R/o Sri Nagar Colony. According to him, no legal notice was served to these persons and the raiding party was already constituted but the Investigating Officer told them regarding raiding at the spot. He has also deposed that the Esteem car no. DL9CK3999 was not visible from the spot where they were standing and at the time the secret informer was not with them. He has testified that the secret informer did not tell them the description of the accused regarding their identification as height, colour and body structure. He has further deposed that five to six persons were gathered near the place of incident on 03.03.2010 and St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 109 had not recollected whether SI Sanjay Dahiya asked the people to join investigations. According to the witness, at that time one person namely Shri Ram and owner of the tent house was present at the spot and the owner of the shop no.17 Vikas Batra reached at the spot after some time. He has further deposed that dead body was lying at a distance of two to two and a half feet from the shop no.18 and the "Chabutra" was four feet at a distance from shop no.18. The witness has also deposed that the sewing machine was about two feet in height and three feet in length and the sewing machine was four feet away from the dead body. He has further deposed that the blood was spread on the right corner of the swing machine board and in the diameter of six to seven cm. The witness has also deposed that there were no blood stains on the body of sewing machine and remaining part of wooden board of sewing machine and there were a distance of three feet between chabutra and dead body. He does not remember whether there was any tree on the "Chabutra". According to the witness, there was one and a half Kg. blood present on the Chabutra near sofa and some blood was also present on the sofa however, blood was also there near the shop no.18 where the dead body was lying. The witness has testified that no site plan was prepared inside the car from there and all the writing work was done while standing near Car DL9CK3999. He has further deposed that there was a park in the left side of car and the Investigating Officer prepared arrest memo and St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 110 search memo while putting the paper on his one thigh and his one foot was on the railing and they parked out vehicle near the esteem car. The witness has deposed that the distance between Esteem car and other vehicle was about one meter. He does not recollect the colour of cloth which were worn by the accused persons and he signed at about 12 papers on that day. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer had not offered his personal search before taking the accused persons and they remained there upto 1:45 pm at the spot on 06.03.10. The witness has denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that no disclosure statement was made by the accused persons. He has also denied that no pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused persons or that all writing work was done while sitting in the police station. The witness has denied the suggestion that all the accused persons were lifted from their house and falsely implicated in this case. (110) PW47 Inspector Praveen Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day on the receipt of DD No. 9A at about 9:45 AM, he along with Ct. Pappu Lal reached at DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura where they found a dead body in front of shop No.18 and on inquiry the name of the deceased was known as Dheeraj. He has further deposed that the blood was found lying in front of shop No.19 and they found a sofa in St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 111 front of shops No.18 and 19 on a chabutra which sofa was also having blood stains and blood was also found lying near the sofa on the chabutra. According to the witness, one blood stained quilt was also lying on the sofa and one sewing machine stand was found lying in front of shop No.19 on which the blood was there on the ply of the machine. He has testified that one pair of chappal was found near sofa and the shutter of shop No.17 was found broken which shutter was partly opened and two broken locks were found lying near the shutter. According to the witness, some coins were found lying scattered inside the shop No.17 and outside also. He has also deposed that one Shri Ram who was working at shop No.19 i.e. Shivani Tent Sajawat met them and his (Shri Ram's) was already recorded and rukka was already prepared by SI Sanjay Dahiya who had also sent the same to the police station before his arrival at the spot. The witness has proved that he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW47/A. He has deposed that the Crime Team inspected the spot and the photographer of the crime team took the photographs of the spot. The witness has proved having lifted the blood stained stone and earth control and converted the same into two parcels, which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/G and Ex.PW14/F; having lifted the blood stained earth and converted the same into two plastic container and sealed the same with the same seal and took the same into possession vide seizure memo St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 112 Ex.PW14/E; having taken one blood stained piece of sofa and one control piece of sofa which were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of PK, which parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/H; having pair of chappal which was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/J; having taken the sewing machine stand and the pieces of ply after converting them into parcels and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/K; having lifted the broken locks which were sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/L; having collected the coins which were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M; having lifted the blood sample from three places with the help of Cotton and sealed the same with the seal PK and three pullands were prepared which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/D. and also having taken into possession the quilt vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/I. The witness has further testified that HC Ram Dayal of Police Station Keshav Puram had come to the spot who had produced before him one wooden drawer/ galla containing iron rod, documents and other articles and informed him that the aforesaid articles had been recovered from Esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which was St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 113 stationed at service road B3, Keshav Puram. According to the witness, he placed the documents with the file and the articles were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of PK and took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. He has testified that he put the drawer produced by HC Ram Dayal into the box of the drawer in shop no.17 and it was found belonging to the same box and the owner of the shop no.17 namely Vikas had identified the drawer and other articles/ documents as belonging to him after which he sealed and seized the same. The witness has proved having prepared the inquest form which is Ex.PW47/B; brief facts which are Ex.PW47/C; death report which is Ex.PW47/D and application for conducting the Postmortem which is Ex.PW47/E. He has also deposed that he sent Ct. Pappu Lal with dead body to Mortuary BJRM Hospital for getting the postmortem conducted. According to the Investigating Officer, he recorded the statement of Sh. Shyam Charan father of deceased, Sanjay Sharma and Neeraj Sharma regarding identification of dead body which statements are Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW23/A and on the same day the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted vide Postmortem report Ex.PW15/A. He has testified that the doctor concerned handed over the exhibits of the deceased to him which he took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/N after which the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 114 dead body was handed over to the father of deceased vide memo Ex.PW23/B. The witness has further deposed that he called the owner of the vehicle namely Surender and Parmeet Singh along with vehicle number DL8CK2765 in the police station which was examined by the Crime Team in the compound of police station. According to him, the crime team prepared the inspection report which is Ex.PW39/A and thereafter he seized the aforesaid car vide memo Ex.PW21/A. He has further deposed that on 4.3.2010 he collected the photocopies of attendance register from Sh. M. L. Narang president of RWA, B3, Keshav Puram which documents are Ex.PW20/A and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (111) The witness Inspector Praveen Kumar has also deposed that on 06.03.2010 he again joined the investigations with Ct. Pappu Lal, SI Lalit, HC Ashok, HC Parveen and on that day they all reached at police station Rani Bagh where the police official of police station Rani Bagh had caught hold one boy whose name was known as Manoj @ Monu. According to the witness, he interrogated the accused regarding his involvement in the present case. He has testified that since the accused Manoj @ Monu had given the name of three accused persons i.e. Parmod @ Langra, Mini @ Mental and Nar Bahadur @ Ladies Monu in his disclosure, they all left the police station for the search of these persons and while they were coming back after searching them towards police station and reached in front St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 115 of Siddharth Apartment, Pitampura one secret informer met him who informed him that in front of Lok Vihar on a road leading to Jheel Wala Park, from the police station one Esteem Car was parked in which the accused Parmod @ Langra and his two associates were sitting who may be Mini @ Mental and Nar Bahadur @ Ladies Monu. The witness has further deposed that on receipt of this information, he requested two public persons to join raiding party but none agreed and left the spot after which he formed a raiding party comprising of himself, SI Lalit, HC Ashok, HC Parveen and Ct. Pappu Lal and they all reached in front of Lok Vihar, ABlock, Main road where they found an Esteem Car of Grey colour bearing no. DL9CK3999 in which three persons were found sitting. He has deposed that they surrounded the said car and the person who was sitting on the driver seat was apprehended by HC Ashok Kumar whose name on interrogation was revealed as Parmod @ Langra; HC Parveen apprehended the person sitting on the front seat near driver's seat whose name was known as Mini @ Mental and third boy who was sitting on rear seat was apprehended by Ct. Pappu Lal whose name was known as Nar Bahadur. According to the witness, all the three boys were taken out from the car and the personal search of accused Parmod was conducted during which one knife was recovered from the pocket of his pant and one bunch of keys was also recovered from his pant. The witness has deposed that when the car was inspected, St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 116 they found blood stains in the car on which he called the Crime Team who inspected the car and photographer took the photograph of the car. According to him, one iron rod having blood stains was recovered from near driver seat of the car which rod was measured and found to be 21.5 inches long. He has further deposed that another rod was recovered from the Dicky of the car and the total length of this rod was 38.5 inch and one red colour cloth which was having blood stains was also recovered from under the driver seat. He has further deposed that the accused persons were interrogated who made their disclosure statements and thereafter, he prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW32/G and the said knife was converted in parcel and sealed the same with seal of PK which parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/H. According to Inspector Praveen Kumar, the bunch of keys was also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/K; both the aforesaid rods were also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/J; the aforesaid car was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/M and the aforesaid red cloth piece was also converted into parcel and sealed the same with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I. He has proved deposed that the accused Parmod @ Langra was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW32/A and his St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 117 personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/E; the accused Nar Bahadur was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW32/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/F; the accused Mini @ Mental was arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW32/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW32/E. The witness has testified that all the accused persons were brought to Police station and the case property was deposited in Malkhana after which all the accused persons were thoroughly interrogated. According to him, the disclosure statement of accused Parmod @ Langra was recorded vide Ex.PW32/N; disclosure statement of accused Mini @ Mental was recorded vide Ex.PW32/O and the disclosure statement of accused Nar Bahadur was also recorded vide Ex.PW32/P. He has also deposed that all the accused persons were kept in muffled face and the accused took them to the spot of incident where he prepared the memo pointing out of all accused persons separately vide Ex.PW13/B, PW13/C and PW13/D after which the accused persons were produced before Ld. MM and all the case property was deposited in Malkahana.
(112) The witness has testified that on 08.03.10 he recorded the statement of SI Ramesh, Ct. Kulbhusan, Ct. Ram Raj and Ct. Harpal under Section 161 Cr.PC. and he collected the photocopy of the seizure memo of one bag recovered from the possession of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 118 accused Manoj which is Ex.PW14/A. According to him, on 9.3.2010 both cars were taken to FSL Rohini where FSL officials inspected both the cars. He has deposed that the FSL officials lifted the blood stains and incriminating material from six places from the car which were sealed by him with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/A. He has proved having collected the FSL Report which is Ex.PW16/A. The witness has also deposed that the accused Manoj @ Monu was produced pursuant to production warrants before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and after taking permission from Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate he arrested the accused Manoj in this case vide memo Ex.PW47/F. He has further deposed that he moved an application before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for conducting the Test Identification Parade of the accused Manoj which is Ex.PW47/G and also moved another application for conducting the test Identification Parade of remaining accused which application is Ex.PW47/H. He has testified that on 18.3.2010 the Test Identification Parade of all the accused persons were conducted vide proceedings Ex.PX1 to PX4 and he moved an application for providing the copy of the proceedings which application is Ex.PW47/I which was allowed pursuant to which he collected the copy of Test Identification Proceedings. The witness has proved that on 19.3.2010 he took the police remand of accused Manoj who was interrogated and his St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 119 disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW37/A and during the police remand the accused Manoj took them to the place of incident where he prepared the memo of pointing out which is Ex.PW13/E. He has further deposed that on 25.3.2010 he took SI Manohar to the spot where at the instance of complainant Shri Ram, SI Manohar Lal took the rough notes and measurement at the spot and thereafter he prepared the scaled site plan which he handed over to him which scaled site plan is Ex.PW17/A. The Investigating Officer has also deposed that on 21.4.2010, he took the sealed parcel containing iron rod to BJRM hospital and obtained the opinion of the doctor on his application Ex.PW47/J. According to him, the opinion Ex.PW15/B was given by Dr. Kulsbhushan Goel who had also prepared the sketch of the iron rod which is Ex.PW15/C which he took into possession. He has also deposed that on 23.4.2010 he sent the exhibits to FSL through Ct. Ram Karan who deposited the same in FSL and thereafter he collected the FSL report. According to him, on 20.5.2010 he collected the receipt of the battery from Parmeet Singh and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.21/C. He has proved having recorded the statements of all witnesses and prepared the charge sheet. According to the witness, on 25.10.2010 he moved an application before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for getting the Test Identification of the case property conducted after which on 29.10.2010 the Test St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 120 Identification Parade of the case property was got done in which the witness Vikas has correctly identified the case property and thereafter, he filed the supplementary charge sheet in this case. (113) The witness has correctly identified the accused persons in the Court and has also identified the case property which is Ex.P1 to Ex.P33.
(114) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on 3.3.2010 he reached the spot at about 9:55 AM and at that time eight to ten public persons were present there. According to him, when he reached the spot the crime team had already left the spot after inspecting the spot. He has further deposed that he recorded the supplementary statement of Shri Ram outside the shop while standing on the same day after sending the rukka. He has denied the suggestion that he improved the statement of Shri Ram and recorded the supplementary statement of Sri Ram of his own after improving the same. The witness has also deposed that he took about two and a half hours in lifting the articles from the spot and the sealing material was with him at that time in his Kit which was of black colour made of leather. According to him, some of the memos were prepared by SI Sanjay. He has further deposed that he handed over the seal to Ct. Pappu Lal who returned the same to him after two to three days. The witness has testified that HC Ram Dayal of police station Keshav Puram had come to the spot around 12 PM St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 121 and remained there for about thirty to forty minutes and he recorded the statement of HC Ram Dayal at the spot itself while Vikas was present at the spot. He has admitted that wooden drawer was having only some instruments and papers. The witness has denied the suggestion that the said drawer was not handed over to him by HC Ram Dayal and it was lying in the shop and has been planted in the present case. He has further deposed that he remained at the spot till about 2:00 PM and he called Parmeet and Surender in the police station at about 9:30 PM. He has testified that on 6.3.2010 they in total five members left the police station at about 8:30 AM in Maruti car belonging to him and a departure entry was made by him but he does not remember its number. He has further deposed that they reached police station Rani Bagh at about 8:509:00 AM and the accused Manoj was found in the Investigating Officer room of police station Rani Bagh. According to the witness, the accused was interrogated by him but he did not record his disclosure statement and no entry was made by him at police station Rani Bagh for his arrival. The witness has also deposed that the secret informer had given him the information by taking him to one side and not in front of everybody. According to him, the informer remained with them for about twothree minutes and he had not reduced the information in writing. He has admitted that the place where the secret information was received was thickly populated area with residential houses. He St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 122 has testified that he had asked twothree persons to join the investigations and has voluntarily added that the name of the person was Pradeep and the other was Rohtash. The witness has also deposed that those persons did not give him their complete addresses and he did not initiate any legal proceedings against the public persons who refused to participate in the proceedings since they were getting late. He has further deposed that the distance from the place of receiving the information and the place of apprehension of accused persons was about 250 to 300 meters. The witness has deposed that he was not known to the accused persons prior to their arrest. He has testified that no description was given by the secret informer to him about the accused persons and has voluntarily added that only vehicle number was given by the secret informer. Inspector Praveen Kumar has deposed that they parked their vehicle in front of the esteem car and he himself and SI Lalit were in uniform but is unable to tell about the others. According to him, all the accused had tried to escape when they tried to apprehend them. The witness has denied the suggestion that the question of running away does not arise as the accused had already been lifted from their houses. He has admitted that the place from where the car was recovered was having large number of residential houses. According to him, he had asked some residents to join the investigations but none agreed. However, he is unable to tell the name and address of any public persons who refused St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 123 to join the investigations. He has further deposed that at the time of apprehension of the accused neither he nor any other members of the police party offered to get themselves searched from the accused or from any other public persons prior to conducting the search of the accused. Witness has admitted that the site plan showing the position/ place from where the various articles were recovered from inside the car has not been prepared by him and has voluntarily explained that photographs were taken. He has also deposed that the documentation was done by standing outside the car and not by sitting inside. According to him, he remained at the spot for about two hours and some documents were prepared by him while some other were written by SI Lalit. He has also deposed that first the disclosure of Pramod was written followed by disclosure of Mini and thereafter Nar Bahadur. He has denied the suggestion that the accused were kept in unmuffled faces during this period and were shown to the witness at the spot and also at the police station. The witness has also denied that no pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused. (115) The witness Inspector Praveen Kumar has deposed that on that day he reached the police station at about 2:303 PM and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana on the same day after they reached police station but he does not recollect the exact time. He has also deposed that after the Test Identification Parade the Police Custody remand of only accused Manoj was taken. Witness has St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 124 denied that the accused had been shown to the witnesses Shri Ram, Vikas Batra and Sanjay Sharma and it was for this reason that the accused had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade. He has also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the accused persons or that no disclosure statement was made by the accused persons. The witness has further denied that no pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused persons or that all writing work was done while sitting in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that all the accused persons were lifted from their house and falsely implicated in this case after planting the witnesses.
(116) PW48 HC Ram Dayal has deposed that on 03.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and was on patrolling duty. According to him, on that day on receipt of DD No.6 B which is Ex.PW3/A, he reached at B3, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road where one chowkidar namely Anil Tiwari met him who informed him that threefour persons had come there and left the Esteem Car and ran away. According to the witness, he checked the car reflecting the registration no. DL8CK2765 and during the search he found a slip in the car which was having phone number of one Surender. He has testified that he made a call on that number i.e. 9810820988 on which the said Surender informed him that he was the owner of the car and the same was parked by him in front of his house. The witness has St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 125 further deposed that on this Surender came there and identified the car parked there as belonging to him and on further checking the car, one wooden galla/ drawer was found inside the car having some cutters, papers and two bills of MTNL, cover of the cheque book of blue colour on which Surender said that the said things did not belong to him. He has also deposed that Surender had taken away the aforesaid car leaving the aforesaid articles and documents which documents are Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. According to him, he thereafter went to shop no.17, Sandesh Vihar, DDA Market, Pitam Pura where police party met him including Inspector Praveen to whom he handed over the aforesaid documents/ articles who took into the possession vide memo Ex.PW13/A. The witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. three iron rods, one hammer with wooden handle, one steel katroi (Bowl), 4 locas TVS auto electrical spare parts, six electric bulbs of blue colour, 10 hawkshow blades, seven tools, One wooden drawer, some paper pieces (19 in number), spare parts of vehicle (four in number), two pens, two refills, one eraser and one clip which were recovered from the car, which are Ex.P3 to Ex.P13 respectively. (117) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that the paper slip on which the phone number of Surender was present, was not handed over to the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily explained that Surender had already taken away the vehicle containing the paper slip and there was no opportunity of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 126 doing so. He has denied that the paper slip containing the number of Surender was never recovered and it was for this reason that it was not handed over to the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that in his presence the Investigating Officer did not put any specific identification mark on the drawer nor he noticed any specific identification mark on the drawer. He has denied that no vehicle was left at the spot as claimed by him nor the articles were recovered. He has also denied that the drawer containing the articles has been planted only to connect the accused in the present case to work out the same. The witness has further denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(118) After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating was put to them which they have denied. The accused Pramod @ Langra has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, he was lifted from his house and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident in question. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the alleged recovery shown by the police has been planted upon him. The accused has further stated that his St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 127 photographs were shown to the witnesses by the prior to the Test Identification Parade. He has denied having made any disclosure statement to the police and according to him, he was forced to sign certain blank papers which were later on converted into various memos including his alleged disclosure statement. (119) Similarly, the accused Mini @ A. Mini has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
According to him, he was lifted from his house and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident in question. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the alleged recovery shown by the police has been planted upon him. The accused has further stated that his photographs were shown to the witnesses by the prior to the Test Identification Parade. He has denied having made any disclosure statement to the police and according to him, he was forced to sign certain blank papers which were later on converted into various memos including his alleged disclosure statement.
(120) The accused Manoj @ Monu has similarly stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, he was lifted from his house and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident in question. He has similarly stated that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the alleged recovery shown by the police has been planted upon him. The St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 128 accused has further stated that his photographs were shown to the witnesses by the prior to the Test Identification Parade. He has denied having made any disclosure statement to the police. (121) The accused Nar Bahadur @ Ladies Monu has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, he was lifted from his house and he has nothing to do with the alleged incident in question. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the alleged recovery shown by the police has been planted upon him. The accused has further stated that his photographs were shown to the witnesses by the prior to the Test Identification Parade. He has denied having made any disclosure statement to the police and according to him, he was forced to sign certain blank papers which were later on converted into various memos including his alleged disclosure statement.
(122) The accused Nar Bahadur has examined himself in his Defence as DW1 and has placed on record the certified copy of the judgment dated 14.5.2010 in case bearing FIR No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram wherein he has been acquitted, which judgment is Ex.DW1/A. According to him, no appeal has been preferred by the State to his knowledge.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 129 FINDINGS:
(123) I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses so examined by the prosecution individually in a tabulated form as under
and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition No. witness PUBLIC WITNESSES/ EYE WITNESSES: 1. Vikas (PW13) He is the owner of the shop No.17, DDA Market Sandesh
Vihar who has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is having a business of repair of cars and spare parts at shop No. 17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampur under the name and style of North Delhi Motors.
2. That on 03.03.2010 at about 66:15 AM Sanjay Sharma his neighbour who is having a shop near his shop by the name of Shivani Tent Shajawat bearing shop No. 19 telephoned to him and informed that the locks of his shop were broken and his labour Dheeraj Kumar who used to stay in the shop during the night hours, was lying dead in front of shop No. 18.
3. That on coming to know of the same he immediately came to his shop where he found police had already reached and the dead body of Dheeraj was lying outside shop No.18 with lot of blood lying on the chabutra outside shop No. 19.
4. That he also found the shutter of his shop down but its locks were broken and after permission from the police, he opened the shutter of his shop and found St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 130 that the tool box was opened and tools which were lying inside the tool box were missing, iron rods, hammer and the cash drawer (locker) of his shop which was containing his trade licence (colored photocopy and original), telephone bills, a cheque book in the name of his father Sh. H.N. Batra, cash of Rupees Eleven Hundred, hexa blades, a carry bag containing documents like application for Pan Card of his wife and some spare parts of car were missing on which he informed the police of the said facts.
5. That the persons from the crime team also visited the spot and inspected the same and tried to lift some finger prints.
6. That telephone/MTNL bills which were lying inside the drawer and had been stolen were of their old address of Shop No. 13 in which shop he was previously on rent.
7. That on the same day at about 12 noon the police officials from Police Station Keshavpuram came to him and brought with them one drawer along with trade licence in his name, MTNL bills, cheque book in the name of his father, application of his wife for Pan Card, hexa blades, spare parts of the car, carry bag, three iron rods, one hammer which they showed to him and he put the drawer inside the table and found that it was the same drawer which was stolen from his shop.
8. That he identified all those articles as those which were stolen from his shop during the intervening night and after he identified the same the Investigating Officer prepared the seizure memo of the same which is Ex.PW13/A.
9. That he was told by the police officer that all these articles were found in one Esteem Car along with threefour boys, exact number he does not recollect.
Thereafter his statement was again recorded by the Investigating officer on the same day.
10. That on 06.03.2010 at about 33:30 PM the police persons came to his shop along with three boys who St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 131 were in muffled faces made inquires from those boys in his presence who pointed out to his shop and the tent shop and the place where the body of Dheeraj was lying. Those boys were also telling the police officials about the details and what they had done but he could not hear the details properly.
11. That the pointing out memos were prepared in his presence at the instance of all the four accused. He has also proved the pointing out memo of Shop No. 18 and 19 prepared at the instance of accused Nar Bahadur which is Ex.PW13/B; the pointing out prepared at the instance of accused A. Mini @ Minni of shop No. 17,18 and 19 which is Ex.PW13/C and the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Manoj @ Langra in respect of shop No.18 and 19 which is Ex.PW13/D.
12. That on 19.03.2010 the police officials again came to him with another boy namely Monu whom he knew previously also as he (Monu) used to work in his shop about one and a half to two years ago and the said boy was being interrogated by the police, the details of same he could not hear but he (accused) pointed out his shop and also the shop of the tent wala (shop No. 17 and 19) pursuant to which the pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused Monu in his presence which is Ex.PW13/E. The witness has correctly identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Court and also identified the case property.
2. Sanjay Sharma This witness has deposed as under:
(PW18) 1. That he is running a tent shop at shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi and Dheeraj was his employee.
2. That he had identified the dead body of the deceased Dheeraj Kumar, his employee at mortuary BJRM hospital and his statement was recorded in this regard which is Ex.PW18/A. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 132
3. That the deceased was a resident of Maujpur, Jamunapar and used to sleep at the shop at night and used to go to his house after a long gap.
4. That he knew Shri Ram who was also his worker and used to remain at his shop.
5. That on 03.03.2010 Shri Ram had come to his house and informed him that Dheeraj was lying in a pool of blood on which he reached at his shop and found Dheeraj in the pool of blood.
6. That he immediately went to the police station and informed the police after which police came to the spot and found the lock of Shop No. 17 broken.
7. That police got the shutter of Shop No.17 opened and found blood in front of his shop as well as on the sofa lying on the chabutra.
8. That the blood was also found lying on the rajai/quilt and on the stand of sewing machine.
9. That police lifted blood from there and also broken the blood stained floor and without blood and took the sample of both, from near the sofa, blood stained earth and earth without blood stains and kept the same in a plastic container.
10. That the blood lifted from the earth was kept in the white cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of PK and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW14/D, Ex.PW14/G, Ex.PW14/F, Ex.PW14/E to Ex.PW14/H and the rajai/quilt and stand of sewing machine were also seized vide memos Ex.PW14/I and Ex.PW14/K.
11. That about 2022 coins were lifted from Shop No.17 lying on the floor which were also sealed with the same seal and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/M and his statement was recorded by the Investigating officer.
12. That the dead body was sent to mortuary BJRM Hospital and after getting the postmortem conducted the same was identified by him after which it was handed over to the father of the deceased.
He has correctly identified the case property in the Court. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 133
3. Shyam Charan He is the father of the deceased who has deposed as (PW19) under:
1. That his son Dheeraj was working at Shivani Tent, Shop No.19, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura and used to live there.
2. That on 3.3.2010 some person informed him that his son Dheeraj had expired after which he along with his relatives reached Sandesh Vihar market and found his son lying in a pool of blood.
3. That the lock of one shop was also found broken and his deceased son was taken to the BJRM Hospital where his postmortem was conducted and after getting the postmortem of his deceased son conducted, he identified the dead body vide statement Ex.PW19/A.
4. M.L. Narang He is the President of RWA who has proved that on the (PW20) intervening night of 23.03.10, Anil Tiwari was on duty as Guard in their colony. He has also proved having handed over the photocopy of his attendance register to the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW20/A (running into three pages). He has produced the photocopy of original salary register which is Ex.PW20/B1 to Ex.PW20/B4 bearing the name of Anil Tiwari at point B.
5. Parmeet Singh He is the owner of Maruti Esteem car bearing No. (PW21) DL8CK2675 and has deposed on the following lines:
1. That he was having Timber business in Nangloi and on 02.03.10, he shut the main gate of his house at about 11.30 p.m and till then their maruti Esteem car bearing no. DL8CK2765 was already parked outside their house.
2. That at about 2.45 a.m. one HC Ramdayal of Police Station Keshav Purma telephoned his father Sh.
Surender Singh on his mobile phone no. 9310520988 and asked his father whether their vehicle was available in their house or not on which his father opened the main gate and found that their vehicle was missing and his father informed him (HC Ram Dayal) about the same.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 134
3. That HC Ramdayal informed them that their vehicle was found at B3 Block Keshav Puram after which he along with his father rushed at B3, Keshav Puram where HC Ramdayal and one chowkidar Anil Tiwari of B3 Block were found available and Anil Tiwari informed them that four young boys aged about 20/25 years had brought their vehicle.
4. That he found some tools and table drawer containing some papers inside the car which articles were not belonging to them and hence after the car was released to them by the police of Police Station Keshav Puram they left the aforesaid articles in the police station as they (articles) did not belong to them.
5. That the original RC of their car which was in the car was missing.
6. That on 03.03.10 the every next day they were asked to bring the car in the Police Station Saraswati Vihar on which they took the same to the Police Station and the police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW21/A and on inspection, found some blood stains on the rear side of the car which were not present in the car prior to this.
7. That his statement was recorded and the documents i.e. trade licence Ex.P1 (2 in numbers) which were in the name of Mr. Batra, MTNL bill/ Federal bank Form and covering page of Federal Bank and two slips Ex.P2 were also found in the drawer.
8. That one cash memo of Loveleen Electrical work was also found in the car on which the mobile phone number was mentioned which is Ex.PX3 which was seized by the Investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW21/B.
9. He has identified his Esteem car reflecting registration no. DL8CK 2765 from the photographs which are Ex.PW21/C1 to Ex.PW 21/C8.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 135
6. Manoj Kumar He is a private photographer who has deposed as under:
(PW22) 1. That he is running a Photo Studio at WZ311, Shakurpur village, Delhi.
2. That on 03.03.2010 he was called by the Investigating Officer at the spot on which he reached at Sandesh Vihar, DDA market at shop No.17, Pitampura and took 13 photographs of the spot and the dead body from different angles.
3. That after developing the same he handed over the photographs to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.PW22/A1 to PW 22/A13.
4. That the CD of the aforesaid photographs is Ex.PW22/B.
5. That when the Maruti Esteem car was released from the police station, he was again called in the police station by the Investigating Officer and he took eight photographs of the maruti esteem car reflecting the number DL8CK2765.
6. That after developing the photographs he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.PW22/C1 to Ex.PW22/C8.
7. Neeraj Sharma He is the brother of the deceased who has deposed on the (PW23) following aspects:
1. That he is the resident of Mauzpur, Delhi and is having the chemical shop at Kharibawri.
2. That on 03.03.2010, they received information from one person working at shop at Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura Market was injured on which he and his father went to shop no. 19 of Shivani Tent House, where Dheeraj was working.
3. That they found the dead body of Dheeraj lying outside shop no. 19 having injuries on his head and blood all around him which was adjoining shop no. 18.
4. That his brother Dheeraj used to stay in the shop i.e. Shivani Tent House, shop no. 19 and used to reside inside and returned home only sometimes.
5. That the police thereafter took the dead body to the BJRM Hospital where he identified the dead body of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 136 his brother vide memo Ex.PW23/A.
6. That after the postmortem was conducted, the dead body of his brother was handed over to him vide handing over memo Ex.PW23/B and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day.
8. Rajesh Kumar He is the owner of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. (PW24) DL9CK3999 who has deposed on the following lines:
1. That he is a resident of Tri Nagar and on 02.03.2010 his brother Naresh Kumar's driver had parked his Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. DL9 CK 3999 in the gali in front of his house at about 88.30 p.m.
2. That on 03.03.2010 at about 3.40 a.m the chowkidar of their area came to their house and informed him that he had seen three to four boys taking their vehicle towards Ashok Vihar side.
3. That on receipt of this information, he immediately dialed 100 number and informed the police about it and later got an FIR bearing No. 82/10 registered at police station Keshav Puram.
4. That on that day their vehicle could not be traced and after twothree days information was received by him from SHO Police Station Sarswati Vihar that his vehicle had been found in the area along with three four boys on which he went to the police station, he saw his vehicle which was damaged from the front side.
5. That he noticed some dark stains which appeared to be blood stains in the side of the vehicle on the seat at the back and also noticed that the seats at the back and the front were dirty.
6. That he also found an empty bottle lying on the back side seat and some wrappers showing that somebody had eaten something.
7. That he identified the vehicle and later his statement was recorded by the police in the police station. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 137
9. Jagbir Shah This witness has deposed as under:
Singh (PW25) 1. That he is a resident of Keshav Puran and on the intervening night of 23.03.2010 he was coming back from Ganga Ram Hospital with his wife after visiting his relative and at about 2.30 AM when he reached the colony gate of pocket B3, MIG Flats, he saw that the gate was closed and the guard was not present there.
2. That he waited for some time and then finally asked his wife to walk in from the smaller gate and as soon as she went inside, he saw the guard/ chowkidar running towards the gate and told him that three four boys were trying to steal a car parked on a sliproad (service road) adjoining the colony.
3. That he asked the guard why he did not call the police, on which the Guard told him that he was not aware, where to call. On this he immediately made a call to 100 number from his wife's mobile bearing no. 9910343441.
4. That immediately thereafter he saw three to four boys running away who had left their vehicle at that place.
5. That thereafter he and his wife went home and after about a day, the police contacted him on which he told them what had happened and his statement was recorded.
10. Anil Kumar He was the Guard who was posted at B3 Block, Keshav Tiwari (PW28) Puram who has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on the intervening night of 23.03.2010 he was on duty and was on duty from 8PM to 8 AM as Chowkidar at B3 Block, Keshavpuram and had joined his duty at 8PM on 02.03.2010.
2. That he was performing his duty near the main gate when one esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 had come and was parked in between the other cars which were already parked at service lane.
3. That another esteem car No. DL9CP8957 was already parked there and there were four boys in esteem car No. DL8CK2765.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 138
4. That he went near the car and found that one of the said boys was breaking the lock of DL9CP8957 and on seeing him, he (accused) got apprehensive and entered in the DL8CK2765.
5. That when he reached near the vehicle he found that three persons were already sitting in the same and he (the boy who was breaking the lock of other car) was the fourth boy.
6. That he asked him (accused) what they were doing in the car at that hour, when they were not residents of the society, on which the said boys told him not to worry as they were waiting for somebody and would leave as soon as that person would come.
7. That he told them that they were welcome to sit inside the car and wait but one of them should accompany him to the supervisor who had called them for inquiries.
8. That the boy who was breaking the lock was the one who was answering to his queries and as soon as he asked him to accompany him, he sat in the car on the seat adjoining the driver and did not come out, but the other two boys who were sitting on the back seat came out when he noticed that one of them was holding a rod in his hand by hiding it on his side.
9. That as soon as he saw this, it struck him that these boys might be criminals on which he ran from the spot and came back to his gate where he saw a Sikh gentlemen who was a resident of house No. 20A standing there with his vehicle as the gate was closed.
10. That he immediately stopped his vehicle and told him that the boys were trying to commit such illegal act on which the Sikh Gentlemen immediately came out of the car and called up on 100 number from his mobile phone and while he was still talking to the police the said boys came out of the car and ran away on foot towards Tri Nagar side which was also noticed by the Sikh Gentleman.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 139
11. That while running away he noticed that one of the boys was carrying a rod.
12. That the Sikh gentlemen went back to his house after making the call.
13. That after some time police came to the spot on which he showed them the place where the boys had left the vehicle.
14. That they were then joined by the local police who also came to the spot and when the police checked the vehicle they found twothree rods, arri blade (hexa blade), few documents, wooden drawer which were checked by the police and address found to be of Sandesh Vihar.
15. That the police thereafter called up a person on the basis of the documents present in the vehicle and came to know that the vehicle had been stolen from the area of Police Station Shalimar Bagh and on the basis of the documents the police also called the owner of the car who initially did not believe that his vehicle could be found there but later when he checked he found that it was his vehicle.
16. That thereafter two Sikh Persons and one lady came and claimed that the vehicle had been stolen and belonged to them but when the police showed them the rods, hexa blades, drawer and other articles recovered, they only claimed that the stereo and the vehicle belonged to them whereas all other articles did not belong to them.
17. That the articles recovered were seized by the police and the vehicle was handed over to the owner.
18. That the persons/ boys whom he had seen in the vehicle were of the age group of 2025 years and one of the boys was of a dark complexion whereas other three were fairer to him but not otherwise fair.
19. That the other three boys were having dusky complexion but not fair.
20. That he had gone to the jail previously for identification but since he was feeling scared, so he did not identify accused persons.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 140
21. That on 19.03.2010 he had come to the Court with his Manager Sh. Ramayan Mishra, to attend some challan case and all the four accused persons whom he had seen in the car were present in the same Court which fact he told to Ramayan Mishra on which Ramayan Mishra advised him to tell some police man present in the court about it.
22. That Sh. Ramayan Mishra himself called some police official and in the meantime he also saw Inspector Parveen Kumar in the Court when he told him that all the four persons present in the court were the same boys who were present in the car.
The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court by pointing out towards them. He has correctly identified the dark complexion boy as the accused Minni @ A. Minni. He has also identified the other three boys with dusky complexion who were Parmod; accused Nar Bahadur @ Monu and the accused Manoj.
A specific Court Question was put to the witness as to why he could not identify the accused persons during the judicial Test Identification Parade proceedings, on which the witness has explained that he had gone to the jail for the first time and when he saw number of accused persons standing in the row who were standing in the row and had a threatening body language, it frightened him. He has further explained that he was otherwise scared and perplexed that he had to identify these persons being a stranger and outsider in Delhi.
11. Shri Ram He is an Eye Witness to the incident who has deposed on (PW29) the following aspects:
1. That in the month of March, 2010 he was working at Shivani Tent for decoration which was situated at Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar and he used to sleep on the aforesaid tent house.
2. That Dheeraj Sharma was also working at the aforesaid shop with him and used to sleep at the said tent house.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 141
3. That on the night of 02.03.2010 he took dinner and slept and Dheeraj had already gone somewhere and was not present at the tent house at that time in the night when he slept.
4. That at about 11:30 PM Dheeraj came and woke him up after which he (Dheeraj) hung his pants on the hanger and took a quilt and slept on the sofa which was lying in front of the tent house whereas he himself slept inside the shop after closing the door.
5. That in the morning when he got up at about 5 AM and came out of the tent house he found Dheeraj in a pool of blood lying in front of shop No.18 and there was blood near the sofa and the lock of shop No.17 was also found broken.
6. That he found the injuries on the head of Dheeraj who was found dead on which he informed the tent owner Sanjay Sharma who came to the spot.
7. That his statement was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW29/A.
8. That at that time he was so scared due to which reason he was unable to tell the entire incident to Dahiya Sahib (Police) and he was again interrogated by Parveen Sir (Police) to whom he had given his further statement.
9. That in the night he had heard the voice of khat pat from Shop No.17 and woke up when he saw from inside from the mirror door that Dheeraj was crying and two persons were found standing near him with rods.
10. That the injured Dheeraj tried to stand up and came up to shop No.18, when he heard the voice from inside the shop No. 17 that "isko jan se mar do".
11. That he had seen both the persons hitting rod on the head of Dheeraj and he became so scared that he could not came out from the shop.
12. That he had also seen a third person who had brought wooden drawer from shop No. 17 and thereafter at the same time the two persons who hit the rod on the head of Dheeraj and the person who St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 142 brought drawer, left the spot.
13. That Dheeraj fell down in front of shop No.18 and he had given this version to the police in which he had also stated that he could identify those persons if shown to him.
14. That on 18.03.2010 he attended Rohini Jail and participated in the Test Identification Parade Proceedings of accused persons in which he had identified two persons by pointing towards them as those who had given beatings to Dheeraj whose names he later on came to know through the Investigating Officer were Pramod and Mini.
15. He has correctly identified both the accused Pramod and Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental in the Court as the persons who had inflicted beatings to Dheeraj.
16. That he could not identify the third person during the Judicial Test Identification Parade due to fear but he had seen the third boy and can recognized him.
17. That earlier on 19.03.2010 the Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen had brought a boy to his shop during interrogation when he identified him as the boy who had removed the drawer from the table of the shop and taken the same away.
18. He has identified the accused Manoj as the boy who had been brought to his shop by Inspector Parveen during investigation.
19. That the accused Manoj was the person who had removed the drawer and had an iron rod in his hand at the time of committing the offence.
20. That the accused Manoj pointed out the spot on which Investigating Officer prepared the memo which is Ex.PW13/E.
21. That police also lifted the blood with the help of cotton from various points from the spot.
22. That on 25.03.2010 the official (nakshawala/ draftsman) had come to the spot and taken various measurements and prepared the scaled site plan.
He has correctly identified the three rods which are Ex.P3 and one wooden drawer which is Ex.P10.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 143
12. Prem Prakash He has deposed on the following aspects:
Rathore (PW30) 1. That he was having a departmental store in the name of Sanjeev Mittal departmental store at Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place.
2. That on 02.03.2010 he shut and locked his departmental store at about 10 PM and in the morning at about 9 AM when he came to his store he found the lock and kundi broken and the goods were found scattered in the store.
3. That he checked his goods and found some packets of cigarettes, seven petties of bear and other articles were found stolen.
4. That the chowkidar Lal Bihari had informed him that at about 5 AM two or three boys had taken the goods from his shop in a car bearing No. DL9CK3999 and on seeing him they ran away.
5. That he went to the police station and lodged the report in this regard.
13. Lal Bihari This witness was working as Security Guard at Best (PW31) Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi who has deposed as under:
1. That on the intervening night of 23.03.2010 he was on duty as security guard at Best Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi.
2. That at about 4.30AM he went to toilet and after about fifteentwenty minutes when he came back from the toilet he saw one Esteem car bearing No. DL9CK3999 in front of Sanjeev Mittal Store and also saw two persons taking some goods from Sanjeev Mittal Store and were keeping the same in the said car.
3. That he also found another person sitting in the said car but he could not see his face since he was not suspicious at that time and on seeing him they sat in the said car and left.
4. That he had noted down the aforesaid number of the car but he was not having any telephone so he could not give information to the owner of the said store. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 144
5. That he remained at the spot upto 9.00AM and after the owner of the shop Sanjeev Mittal Departmental Store came he informed him (owner) about this.
6. That he had told the police that the boy who had committed the robbery were young boys and he had given their age group of 2530.
7. That he also went to the police station and informed them about the incident in detail when his statement was recorded there.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
14. Dr. K. Goyal This witness has proved that on 03.03.2010 he was (PW15) working as CMO in BJRM Hospital when he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Dheeraj vide postmortem report Ex.PW15/A. He has proved that there were following external injuries on the dead body:
1. Laceration 5x1 cms over top of vault midline with crust margins.
2. Laceration 6.5 x 1.5 cms over junction of right forehead and right frontal with crushed margins and contused abraded marks around with depressed deformity around.
3. Two lacerations each 1cm and 1.5 cms long over left side forehead just above the medial end of left eye brow, two small lacerations each about 0.75 cms over nose with contused abraded area around with fracture nasal bone, laceration 1 cm long just in front of right ear with abrasions around, laceration 1x0.5 cms over upper lip.
4. Abrasion 3x2 cms over right cheek radish brown in color.
The witness has further proved that on Internal Examination there was sub scalp bruising with hematoma over frontoparietals and there were depressed commuted fractures in area 7x1.5cms underneath injury No.2 over frontal bone with two fissure fracture lines extending to parietals and one towards anterior cranial fossa right side; the meninges St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 145 were torn at right frontal lobe; Sub dural hematoma over fronto parietal lobes; Defuse sub arachnoid hemorrhage over frontal and parietals; contusiols seen over frontal lobes and poles and fracture base of skull at anterior cranial fossa with blood and clots. According to the witness, he has opined that all injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by blunt forced impacts and cause of death was extensive craniocerebral injuries as a result of hard, relatively heavy blunt object diverted upon head, mode of death was homicidal. He has further proved having opined that Craniocerebral injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the time since death was about 1415 hours.
The witness has also deposed that on 21.04.2010 Inspector Parveen Kumar of Police Station Saraswati Vihar tendered an application for opinion of weapon of offence and produced one sealed packet duly sealed with the seal of PK. According to the witness, on opening the packet it was found to contain one iron rod about 55 cms long weighing about 1360 gms and the rough sketch of the iron rod was prepared on the separate sheet along with its dimensions. He has proved having opined that the injuries No.1, 2 and 3 mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A were possible by this weapon or similar such type of some other weapon. According to him, the rod was resealed along with the police seal with the seal of KG BJRM hospital, mortuary and handed over that to Inspector Parveen Kumar along with sample seal. He has proved the opinion which is Ex.PW15/B and the rough sketch of the rod which is Ex.PW15/C. FORENSIC EVIDENCE:
15. Sh. Naresh This witness has deposed as under:
Kumar (PW16) 1. That on 09.03.2010 he examined two grey color Senior Scientific Maruti Esteem Cars No. DL8CK2765 and Assistant (Bio) DL9CK3999 at about 12:10 PM on the request of FSL, Rohini Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 146 Police Station Saraswati Vihar.
2. That both the cars were thoroughly examined and blood was detected on different portions of both the Esteem cars.
3. That the blood stains/ portion were lifted from the left side of back seat and one piece of mat below the foot mat was taken (left side of back seat) from the Esteem Car No. DL8CK2765.
4. That the stains prepared from internal side of window of driver seat, stains prepared from the area near the hand brake, a piece of seat cover taken from sitting place of driver and stains prepared from internal side of right rear window.
5. That all the aforesaid stains/portions were kept in the envelopes and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar for further examinations.
He has proved his detailed report which is Ex.PW16/A.
16. Sh. V. Shankara This witness has proved that 26 sealed parcels were Narayanan received at their office, at FSL Delhi on 23.04.2010 in (PW49) connection with case FIR No. 80/10 police station Senior Scientific Saraswati Vihar and the seals were found intact as per Officer forwarding letter and were tallied. The witness has (Biology) further deposed that he opened the above said 26 parcels and found Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and Ex.P18a, 18b, 18c and Ex.19 to Ex.26 which exhibits were examined biologically by him. According to the witness blood was detected on exhibits 1 (cotton wool swab), 2 (cotton wool swab), 3 (cotton wool swab), 4 (Blood stained earth material), 6 (piece of stone), 8 (piece of stone), 10 (piece of stone), 12 (piece of cloth), 14 (piece of cloth), 16 (a pair of chappals), 17 (blood stained gauze cloth), 18a (shirt), 18b (banian), 18c (underwear), 19 (piece of cloth), 20 (iron rod), 21 (piece of cloth), 22 (piece of cloth), 23 (piece of cloth), 24 (gauze cloth piece), 25 (gauze cloth piece) and 26 (gauze cloth piece) and his detailed biological report in this regard is Ex.PW49/A (running into three pages). He has testified that the above said exhibits were also examined by him serologically during which human St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 147 blood of A Group was found on Exhibit 1 (cotton wool swab), 2 (cotton wool swab), 3 (cotton wool swab), 12 (piece of cloth), 14 (piece of cloth), 17 (blood stained gauze cloth), 18a (shirt) and 18b (banian) and human blood was also found on Exhibits 4 (blood stained earth material), 6 (piece of stone), 8 (piece of stone), 10 (piece of stone), 18c (underwear), 19 (piece of cloth), 20 (iron rod) and 22 (piece of cloth). He has proved his detailed serological report is Ex.PW49/B. The witness has proved that the above said biological report and serological report were forwarded by their Director with sample seal impression vide Ex.PW49/C signatures of their Assistant Director, Dr. Rajender Kumar for his director at point A which he has identified.
POLICE/ OFFICIAL WITNESSES (Proving investigations)
17. Ct. Shiv Kant He is a formal witness who has proved that on 03.03.2010 (PW1) at 10.50 AM the Duty Officer HC Ram Charan handed over him the original rukka and special report of case FIR No.80/10, under Section 458/460/302 IPC after which he proceeded on government motorcycle no. DL ISN3988 and first reached at place of occurrence DDA market Sandesh Vihar Delhi and handed over original rukka and one copy of FIR to Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar. He has further proved that thereafter he gave special reports to DCP/NW and PHQ to senior officers. The witness has also deposed that he reached Rohini Court in room no. 102 and one special report was given to Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.
18. W/Ct. Parvesh She is also a formal witness being Daily Diary Writer (PW2) who has proved that on 23.04.2010 Ct. Ram Karan alongwith one DHG Ct. Suresh had gone to FSL/Rohini with exhibits of this case for depositing the same in FSL/Rohini and she had made their departure vide DD no.40B at 10.45 AM which is Ex.PW2/A. She has further proved that on that day Ct. Ram Karan alongwith DHG Ct. Suresh returned after depositing exhibits in St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 148 FSL/Rohini and she had made their arrival vide DD no. 48 B at 1.00 PM which is Ex.PW2/B.
19. HC Hawa Singh He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has (PW3) proved that on 3.3.2010 at 2.31 AM a PCR call was received through wireless operator that B3, PART KESHAV PURAM LARENCE ROAD, KUCH LADKE GADI CHORI KARNE AAYE on which he lodged DD No. 6B which is Ex.PW3/A and marked that DD to HC Ramdayal for further inquiry.
20. HC Gulbir He is a formal witness being a Duty Officer who has (PW4) proved that on 03.03.2010, he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Saraswati Vihar, Delhi when at 6.15 AM, one Sanjay Sharma arrived in the Police Station and informed about death of his servant Dheeraj opposite shop no.18, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Delhi, which information he recorded vide DD No.5 A dated 03.03.2010 which is Ex.PW4/A and sent that DD entry through Ct. Narender to SI Sanjay Dahiya for further necessary action. He has also proved that on 06.03.2010 at 8.00 AM Duty Officer of Police Station Rani Bagh HC Ram Lakhan had given information of arrest of one accused Manoj @ Monu which information he recorded vide DD No.6A dated 06.03.2010 which is Ex.PW4/B.
21. Lady Ct. She is also a formal witness being the Daily Diary Writer Sangeeta (PW5) who has proved that on 09.03.2010 Ct. Rohtash and Ct.
Dipesh had gone to FSL/ Rohini with car no.
DL8CK2765 and DL9CK3999 from Malkhana for FSL inspection and she had made their departure vide DD No. 32B at 10.30 AM which is Ex.PW5/A. She has further proved that on the same day Ct. Rohtash and Ct. Dipesh returned after inspection of the cars in FSL/Rohini and she had made their arrival vide DD No.42 B at 1.25 PM which is Ex.PW5/B.
22. HC Ravinder He is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has (PW6) proved the copy of relevant entry in register no.19 which is Ex.PW6/A and relevant entry in register no.21 which is Ex.PW6/B. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 149
23. HC Sunil He is also the MHC(M) CP at Police Station Rani Bagh, (PW7) Delhi who has proved the copy of relevant entry in register no.19 which is Ex.PW7/A and copy of relevant entry in register No. 21 which is Ex.PW7/B.
24. Ct. Halwant He is a formal witness being the Daily Diary Writer who (PW8) has proved that in the night of 2/3.3.2010 at 4.10 a.m. on 03.03.2010 a PCR Call was received through wireless operator that TRINAGAR GANESH PURA ESTEEM CAR NO. DL4C3999 KO 4 AADMI CHORI KARKE ASHOK VIHAR KI TRAF BHAG GAI, which information he lodged vide DD no.4 PP Shanti Nagar which is Ex.PW8/A and handed over the DD entry to HC Kiran Pal for further enquiry.
25. HC Vijay He is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer at Kumar Meena Police Station Keshav Puram who has proved that on (PW9) 03.03.2010 at 9.55 AM Ct. Bachu Singh produced one rukka endorsed by HC Kiran Pal on the statement of one Rajesh Kumar regarding theft of car no. DL9CK3999. He has proved having made Kayami vide DD no.10A at 9.5 AM and registered case FIR No. 82/10, under Section 379 IPC copy of which is Ex.PW9/A and handed over the investigation to HC Kiran Pal.
26. HC Ram He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has Charan (PW10) proved that on 03.03.2010 at 9.45 PM Ct. Pappu Lal handed over him one rukka written by SI Sanjay Kumar on which he recorded Kayami vide DD no.9A which is Ex.PW10/A. According to him, the rukka was given to Ct. Dipesh for recording FIR No.80/10, under Section 458/460/302 IPC in computer, copy of which FIR is Ex.PW10/B. The witness has proved having recorded the kayami of completion of FIR No.80/10 vide DD No.10A at 10.50 AM which is Ex.PW10/C. He has proved that Ct. Shivkant was sent for giving special report and also to give copy of FIR and rukka to Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar. The witness has clarified that in the FIR by clerical mistake, at the place of name of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 150 Investigating Officer SI Sanjay was got written while he was Inspector Parveen Kumar so he recorded another DD No.11A regarding this mistake which DD No.11A is Ex.PW10/D. He has also proved that on 03.03.2010 he had registered FIR No. 81/10, under Section 457/380 IPC copy of which is Ex.PW10/E rukka of which was sent by HC Parveen.
27. SI Suraj Pal He is a formal witness who has proved that on 09.03.2010 (PW11) he accompanied Inspector Parveen Kumar for the investigation of this case FIR No.80/10 at Rohini Court where Inspector Parveen Kumar arrested accused Manoj @ Monu S/o Chandan Singh R/o K272, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi after court permission at 2.05 PM. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Monu which is Ex.PW11/A. He has further deposed that accused Manoj @ Monu was advised to keep his face muffled in view of his Test Identification Parade on which the accused kept his face muffled.
28. L/ Ct. Suman She has proved that on the intervening night of (PW12) 23.03.2010 a call was received by PCR control room regarding robbery of a vehicle at Pocket B3, Keshavpuram, Lawerence Road on which she filled up the PCR form which is Ex.PW12/A in the computer and forwarded the call to concerned NET, Keshavpuram for attending to the same.
29. SI Sanjay This witness had first gone to the spot and has proved the Kumar (PW14) following documents:
Ex.PW14/A Crime Team report
Ex.PW14/B Statement of Shri Ram
Ex.PW14/C Rukka
Ex.PW14/D Seizure memo of the blood samples
Ex.PW14/E Seizure memo of earth control and blood
stained earth lifted from near the sofa
lying on the chabutra outside shop No.19
Ex.PW14/F Seizure memo of blood stained floor
piece lifted from outside shop No.19
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 151
Ex.PW14/G Seizure memo of blood stains from the
floor outside shop No.18
Ex.PW14/H Seizure memo of blood stains lifted from
the sofa
Ex.PW14/I Seizure memo of blood stained quilt
(rajai) lying near the sofa and the blood
stained portion of the quilt
Ex.PW14/J Seizure memo of one pair of slippers of
black color of Relaxo
Ex.PW14/K Seizure memo of sewing machine stand
Ex.PW14/L Seizure memo of broken locks of
Harrison which were lying near the shop
No. 17
Ex.PW14/M Seizure memo of coins
Ex.PW14/N Seizure memo of sealed envelope handed
over by the doctor
30. SI Manohar Lal He is the Draftsman who has proved that on 25.03.2010 (PW17) he visited the spot along with the Investigating Officer and prepared the rough notes and measurements on the pointing out of complainant Shri Ram. The witness has proved that thereafter on 26.3.2010 he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW17/A and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer after which he destroyed the rough notes and measurements.
31. Ct. Rohtash This witness has proved that on 09.03.2010 on the (PW26) directions of the Investigating Officer he had taken the vehicle Maruti Esteem Car bearing no. DL9CK3999 from Malkhana of the Saraswati Vihar police station to FSL Rohini vide RC No.33/21/10 and at FSL Rohini, the FSL team had inspected the vehicle and also another vehicle bearing No. DL8CK 2765 which was brought by Ct. Dipesh. The witness has also deposed that blood was found on both the vehicles and the FSL team lifted total number of six exhibits the vehicles and all the pullandas were taken by him to the police station which were sealed with the seal of PK and thereafter seized vide memo St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 152 Ex.PW26/A. He has also proved having joined the investigations with the Investigating Officers.
32. Ct. Dipesh This witness has corroborated the testimony of PW26 Ct.
(PW27) Rohtash in toto.
33. HC Ashok This witness has proved that on 06.03.2010 he had joined
Kumar (PW32) investigations along with Inspector Praveen Kumar, SI
Lalit, HC Parveen and Ct. Pappu Lal were busy in the investigations of this case. He has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW32/A Arrest memo of Pramod
Ex.PW32/B Arrest memo of the accused Minni @
Mental
Ex.PW32/C Arrest memo of the accused Nar Bahadur
Ex.PW32/D Personal search memos of the accused to Ex.PW32/F persons Ex.PW32/G Sketch of the knife Ex.PW32/H Seizure memo of the knife Ex.PW32/I Seizure memo of the cloth recovered from the car Ex.PW32/J Seizure memo of the iron rod recovered from the dicky of the car Ex.PW32/K Seizure memo of bunch of keys Ex.PW32/L Site plan of spot of recovery Ex.PW32/M Seizure memo of the car No. DL9CK3999 Ex.PW32/N Disclosure statement of accused Pramod Ex.PW32/O Disclosure statement of accused Mini Ex.PW32/P Disclosure statement of accused Nar Bahadur
34. Ct. Ram Karan He is a formal witness who has proved that on 23.04.2010 (PW33) he took 26 sealed parcels out of which 23 parcels were having the seal of PK and the remaining 3 parcels were having the seal of KG BJRM Hospital mortuary from the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 153 MHC(M) and took the same to FSL along with Ct. Suresh (DHG) and got deposited the same vide RC No. 48/21/10 along with the sample seal after which he handed over the receipt to the MHC(M) after getting the said parcels deposited at FSL Rohini.
35. Ct. Subhash He is the Crime Team Photographer who has proved that (PW34) on 03.03.2010 on receipt of information from control room at about 7.10 AM, he along with Incharge Crime Team N/W SI Devender reached at Sandesh Vihar, DDA Market, opposite MM Public School, Pitam Pura where he took 19 photographs of the place of the incident on the instructions of Investigating Officer from different angles, which photographs are Ex.PW34/A1 to Ex.PW34/A17 and the negative of the said photographs are collectively Ex.PW34/B.
36. Ct. Ram Kishan He is also the Crime Team Photographer who has proved (PW35) that on 03.03.2010 he along with SI Satpal, Incharge Crime Team reached at Police Station Saraswati Vihar where they found one esteem car No. DL2CK2765 parked in the police station and he took eight photographs of the said car which are Ex.PW35/A1 to Ex.PW35/A8 and the negatives of the said photographs are collectively Ex.PW35/B. He has further proved that on 06.03.2010 on the receipt of information from Control Room he along with SI Satpal again went at Main Road Lok Vihar, Pitampura where they found another esteem car bearing No. DL9CK3999 parked on the main road where he took 16 photographs of the said car from different angles which photographs are Ex.PW35/C1 to Ex.PW35/C16 and negatives are collectively Ex.PW35/D.
37. Anil Yadav He is the UDC from Home Department who has proved (PW36) the notification No. F13/203/78Home (G) dated 17.02.1979 copy of which is Ex.PW36/A.
38. Ct. Ghasi Ram He is a formal witness who had joined the investigations (PW37) of this case on 19.03.2010 along with Investigating Officer Inspector Parveen Kumar and Ct. Mehkar Singh St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 154 reached at Rohini Court. He has proved that after taking permission from the Hon'ble Court the accused Manoj @ Monu was taken on police remand for one day by Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen Kumar after which they took the accused to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital for his medical examination and thereafter he was brought to the police station Saraswati Vihar. He has further proved that the accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW37/A.
39. SI Devender He is the Incharge of Mobile Crime Team who has Singh (PW38) deposed as under:
1. That on 03.03.2010 he received information from District Control Room on wireless set regarding the incident on which he along with Crime Team members reached DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar opposite MM Public School where they met SI Sanjay Dahiya, SHO and other staff of the police station in front of Shop No.19, Shivani Tent house.
2. That they found a dead body lying in front of shop No. 18 which was in pool of blood and he examined the body when he found lacerated wound on the right side of forehead and small wound on the left side of forehead.
3. That he also found one long wound on head and also found blood stained sofa set on the chabutra.
4. That the blood in huge quantity was found on the sofa and under the sofa and one rajai which was also having blood was also lying near sofa.
5. That one pair of slipper was found under sofa and he found blood on the table of sewing machine in front of shop No.19.
6. That they also found broken lock of the shop number 17 after which the entire spot of incident was got photographed by Ct. Subhash.
7. That HC Vikas Finger print proficient examined the shop No.17 for the purpose of chance print but the same could not be traced on the said shop.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 155
He has proved having prepared the detailed report which is Ex.PW14/A which he handed over to the Investigating Officer.
40. SI Satpal Singh He is also the Incharge of Crime Team North West (PW39) District who has deposed as under:
1. That on 03.03.2010 on receipt of information, he along with his Crime Team comprising of Ct. Ram Kishan who was Photographer as well as finger print proficient reached at Police Station Saraswati Vihar.
2. That he found one car bearing no. DL8CK2765 Esteem of silver colour stationed in the police station and on the request of the Investigating Officer he inspected the said vehicle when he found blood stains on the rear seat, on the back side of leftfront seat and mat lying on the back side.
3. That the photographer Ct. Ram Kishan had taken the photographs.
4. That he requested the Investigating Officer to take the seat cover into possession for the purpose of sending the same to FSL.
5. He has proved having prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW39/A.
6. That on 06.03.2010 on receipt of another call he along with Ct. Ram Kishan who was working as photographer as well as finger print proficient, reached in front of Lok Vihar towards park on the main road where he found a car bearing no.
DL9CK3999 Maruti Esteem of silver colour.
7. That he inspected the said car and found one iron rod lying near driver seat and another iron rod was found lying in the dicky of the said car.
8. That he found blood stains inside the window of the driver side.
9. That after examination, he prepared a detailed report vide Ex.PW39/B and handed over the said report to the Investigating Officer.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 156
41. HC Ravinder He is the MHCM at Police Station Saraswati Vihar Nath Singh 03.03.2010 and has proved the entry No. 3698 in register (PW40) No. 19, copy of which is Ex.PW40/A running into seven pages; entry No.3703 in Register No. 19, copy of which entry is Ex.PW40/B running into two pages; entry No. 3711, copy of which is Ex.PW40/C; entry No. 3774 copy of which is Ex.PW40/D; copy of RC No.48/21/10 which is Ex.PW40/E and the copy of receipt of FSL Rohini which is Ex.PW40/F.
42. Sh. Harpal He was working as Constable in Delhi Home Guard and (PW41) has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on the intervening night of 0506.03.2010 he was on patrolling duty along with Ct. Ramraj at beat No.5, Raja Park.
2. That on the receipt of DD No.2B he along with Ramraj reached at Raja Park red light chowk at about 1:45 AM where they found one esteem car bearing No. DL3CG5278.
3. That one young boy was found sitting on the driver seat of the said car and when they reached near the said car the said boy become scared and tried to run away but he was apprehended.
4. That on interrogation the name of the said boy came to be known as Monu and was found to be under the influence of liquor at that time.
5. That the said boy was having some old injury mark and on interrogation about the esteem car the said boy did not give any satisfactory answer.
6. That the vehicle was checked during which one long iron rod was found and some gutka of Rajdarbar and some chutki were found in a polythene.
7. That some cigarette packets were also lying on the deskboard and they found one RC having the registration No. DL3CR6881 which number was found matching with the chassis number of the engine.
8. That one rexene bag was also found on the desk board containing some documents after which Ct. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 157
Ramraj informed the police station from where ASI Ramesh and Ct. Kulbhushan came there on which they handed over the vehicle, accused and the aforesaid articles to ASI Ramesh.
9. That at about 3:30 AM rukka was given to Ct.
Kulbhushan and the accused was taken to the police station.
10. That the accused Monu was arrested and the rexene bag and other documents were taken into possession and the iron rod was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW41/A. However, this witness could not identify the accused Manoj @ Monu and it has been observed by this Court that witness has stated above and his body language also reflects that he was a disturbed witness.
43. Ct. Ramraj This witness has corroborated the testimony of PW1 (PW42) Harpal and has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on the intervening night of 0506.03.2010, he was on patrolling duty at night and Ct. Harpal of DHG was also on duty with him in beat No.5.
2. That he received DD No. 2B at 12:45 AM and they reached Raja Park road, red light chowk at about 1:45 AM where they found one esteem car having the number on the plate DL3CG5278 and he found one young boy sitting on the driver seat in the said car.
3. That on seeing them the said boy tried to run away but he was apprehended by him and Ct. Harpal.
4. That the said boy was under the influence of liquor at that time and there were some old mark of injuries on his face and on interrogation regarding the aforesaid vehicle but he could not give satisfactory answer.
5. That the said vehicle was checked during which one iron rod was found lying on the back seat and one sky blue polythene was also found lying on the rear seat which was found to contain gutkas of Dilbagh etc. and when they checked the desk board, two cigarette box of classic, two cigarette box of gold St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 158 flake were found.
6. That one RC was also found lying on the desk board reflecting the number DL3CR6881 and one rexene bag was also found on the desk board which was found to contain some documents.
7. That they matched the number mentioned on the RC with the chassis of the vehicle and they found both the numbers matching on which he informed the police station at about 2:05 AM.
8. That at about 2:15 AM ASI Ramesh and Ct.
Kulbhushan came there and he narrated the entire incident to them.
9. That on interrogation the name of that person was known as Manoj @ Monu and the accused, the vehicle, rod and the documents articles were handed over to ASI Ramesh Kumar.
10. That private photographer was also called who took the photographs of the vehicle from inside and outside and the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RK and the aforesaid parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW41/A.
11. That Ct. Kulbhushan took the rukka to the police station and Investigating Officer ASI Ramesh Kumar prepared the site plan at his instance.
12. That the accused Manoj @ Monu was arrested and a separate case vide FIR No.75/10 at Police Station Rani Bagh was registered wherein the accused made his disclosure statement.
He has correctly identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. the documents recovered from the car which are Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
44. Ct. Kulbhushan This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW43) 1. That on the intervening night of 0506.03.2010, he was on emergency duty from 8PM to 8AM along with ASI Ramesh Kumar when at about 2:05 AM on receipt of DD No.7A they reached Raja Park Road, St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 159 Red Light Chowk at about 02:15 AM where Ct.
Ramraj and Ct. Harpal from DHG met them who had produced the accused Manoj @ Monu along with one esteem car having the number plate DL3CG5278 and had narrated the facts of this case.
2. That they had also produced one iron rod, one sky blue polythene contain gutkas of Dilbagh etc, two cigarette box of classic, two cigarette box of gold flake, one RC reflecting the number DL3CR6881, one rexene bag.
3. That a Private photographer was called who took the photographs of the vehicle from inside and outside and thereafter the entire articles were converted into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RK and the aforesaid parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW41/A.
4. That at about 3:30AM he took the rukka to the police station where he reached at about 3:45 AM and returned back to the spot along with copy of FIR No. 75/10, PS Rani Bagh and original rukka at about 4:45 AM.
5. That the number of the RC was got verified from automac and thereafter it was found that the said car was found stolen vide FIR No.43/10, under Section 379 IPC of Police Station Maurya Enclave.
6. That the accused Manoj @ Monu was arrested after which the accused made his disclosure statement and Investigating Officer recorded the same which was in case FIR No. 75/10 PS Rani Bagh.
7. That his statement was recorded in this case also as well as in case FIR No.75/10 and the case property was deposited in the malkhana.
45. SI Ramesh He has corroborated the testimony of PW43 Ct.
Kumar (PW44) Kulbhushan in toto and has proved the seizure memo of the articles recovered from the car found in possession of accused Manoj @ Monu, which seizure memo is Ex.PW41/A. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 160
46. Ct. Mehkar This witness has corroborated the testimony of Ct. Ghasi Singh (PW45) Ram (PW37) in toto and has proved the disclosure statement of accused Manoj @ Monu which is Ex.PW37/A.
47. Ct. Pappu Lal This witness has corroborated the testimony of SI Sanjay (PW46) Dahiya (PW14) and has proved having joined the investigations with Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen Kumar.
48. Inspector He is the Investigating Officer of the present case and has Praveen Kumar proved the investigations conducted by him. He has (PW47) proved the following documents:
Ex.PW47/A Site plan
Ex.PW47/B Inquest form
Ex.PW47/C Brief Fact
Ex.PW47/D Death report ( Form no. 25:35)
Ex.PW47/E Application for Postmortem
Ex.PW47/F Arrest memo of Manoj
Ex.PW47/G Request for TIP of Manoj
Ex.PW47/H Request for TIP of Other accused
Ex.PW47/I Application for copy of TIP
49. HC Ram Dayal This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW48) 1. That on 03.03.2010 he was posted at Police Station Keshav Puram and was on patrolling duty.
2. That on that day on receipt of DD No.6 B which is Ex.PW3/A, he reached at B3, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road where one chowkidar namely Anil Tiwari met him who informed him that threefour persons had come there and left the Esteem Car and ran away.
3. That he checked the car reflecting the registration no. DL8CK2765 and during the search he found a slip in the car which was having phone number of one Surender.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 161
4. That he made a call on that number i.e. 9810820988 on which the said Surender informed him that he was the owner of the car and the same was parked by him in front of his house.
5. That on this Surender came there and identified the car parked there as belonging to him and on further checking the car, one wooden galla/ drawer was found inside the car having some cutters, papers and two bills of MTNL, cover of the cheque book of blue colour on which Surender said that the said things did not belong to him.
6. That Surender had taken away the aforesaid car leaving the aforesaid articles and documents which documents are Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
7. That he thereafter went to shop no.17, Sandesh Vihar, DDA Market, Pitam Pura where police party met him including Inspector Praveen to whom he handed over the aforesaid documents/ articles who took into the possession vide memo Ex.PW13/A. He has identified the case property i.e. three iron rods, one hammer with wooden handle, one steel katroi (Bowl), 4 locas TVS auto electrical spare parts, six electric bulbs of blue colour, 10 hawkshow blades, seven tools, One wooden drawer, some paper pieces (19 in number), spare parts of vehicle (four in number), two pens, two refills, one eraser and one clip which were recovered from the car, which are Ex.P3 to Ex.P13 respectively.
(124) Now coming to the microscopic evaluation of evidence against the accused persons.
Identity of the accused:
(125) In so far as the identity of the accused is concerned, I may observe that the accused who are stated to be habitual robbers have been duly identified by one Shri Ram (PW29) an employee of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 162 Shop No. 19 where the incident of robbery and murder had taken place and thereafter by Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) the security guard of B3 Block, Keshav Puram when he noticed the accused in Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 (belonging to Surender Singh father of Parmeet Singh which was stolen from the area of East Shalimar Bagh a few hours before the incident) where the accused left the car along with the stolen articles which was immediately reported to the police. (126) Coming first to the identification of accused by Shri Ram (PW29), the case of the prosecution is that the accused Manoj @ Monu was a former (ex) employee of Vikas (PW13) the owner of shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi which shop he is running under the name and style of North Delhi Motors for almost 1½ to 2 years and it was he who along with the accused Pramod Langra and Mini @ A. Mini committed the robbery in the shop No. 17 while the accused Nar Bahadur @ Dhan Bahadur was sitting in the car. According to the prosecution, while the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu were leaving the shop after committing the robbery, Dheeraj (deceased) an employee of the adjoining shop no. 19 (Shivani Tent House) belonging to Sanjay, was sleeping on a sofa outside the shop on a chabutra, got up on hearing the noises. Apprehending and fearing that they would be identified, Dheeraj was clubbed to death with iron rods by the accused after which they escaped with the stolen articles in an Esteem St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 163 Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which they had stolen from East Shalimar Bagh a few hours ago. Shri Ram (PW29) another employee working in Shop No. 19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Delhi (Shivani Tent House) was sleeping inside the said shop (No.19) which had a glass door attached to it on the front side (glass door is evident from the photographs Ex.PW34/A14, Ex.PW34/A15 and Ex.PW34/A16). This fact was unknown to the accused. While Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini were coming out of the shop, Dheeraj who was sleeping on the sofa outside got up and Manoj @ Monu who was carrying the drawer of the counter which they had robbed from Shop No. 17, fearing that Dheeraj would identify him asked Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini to finish Dheeraj. All this was witnessed by Shri Ram who was sleeping inside the Shop No. 19 through the glass door. Shri Ram saw Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini hitting Dheeraj with iron rods and Manoj @ Monu coming out of the shop with drawer and telling Pramod and Mini to finish Dheeraj by saying "Isko jaan se maar do". Little did the accused realize that Shri Ram was seeing all the happenings from inside the shop No. 19. Here, I may observe that while the accused were all visible to Shri Ram from inside (there being darkness inside the shop and light coming from house no.1 outside), Shri Ram was not visible to them. (This House No.1 is shown in the site plan Ex.PW47/A and the photograph Ex.PW34/A16 confirms this fact). St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 164
(127) I may further observe that this Shri Ram had at the first instance identified the accused Pramod and Mini in the Judicial Test Identification Parade which rules out any possibility of tutoring and false implication. I may further observe that Shri Ram had not identified the accused Manoj @ Monu in the Judicial Test Identification Parade but during his deposition in the Court he has offered a valid explanation for the same. He informed the Court that it was out of fear that he did not identify the accused Manoj @ Monu which explanation appears to be reasonable, natural and probable since it was the accused Manoj @ Monu who was the former employee of Vikas having worked with him for almost two years and was naturally known to the other persons in the area. Being known to both Dheeraj (deceased) and fearing that he would be identified and exposed, that he had exhorted the accused Pramod and Mini to kill Dheeraj who was sleeping on the sofa outside and had incidentally got up on hearing the noises. Shri Ram who was sleeping inside the Shop No. 19 saw the entire incident and naturally identified Manoj @ Monu. He was so terrified and stunned by the incident that out of fear he did not move out of the shop till the break of the dawn when people started moving about in the streets. The assailants had not realized at that time that Shri Ram who was sleeping inside, was seeing the entire happening through the glass door. Given the background that the deceased Dheeraj, eye witness Shri Ram and the accused Manoj @ St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 165 Monu being employees of the adjoining shops situated in the same area and being known to each other, it is impossible that Shri Ram would not know who Manoj @ Monu was and the explanation given by him that he did not identify Manoj @ Monu on account of fear because he was scared, is probable and convincing. It is only natural that Shri Ram being a petty employee/ servant did not want to involve himself with a criminal (Manoj) particularly when he had seen the manner in which Dheeraj had been killed on the exhortation of the accused Manoj. Shri Ram has proved that on 19.3.2010 when the Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen brought the accused Manoj @ Monu to the shop during investigations, it is then that he identified him as the boy who had taken away the drawer. This being the background, there is no reason to doubt the identification of Manoj @ Monu by Shri Ram.
(128) In his testimony Shri Ram (PW29) has specifically deposed that he could identify the three boys who had committed the incident. In the Court he has identified the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ Mental and Manoj @ Monu as the boys who had committed the robbery in Shop No.17 and the murder of Dheeraj while they were leaving the spot as Dheeraj had got up. In his testimony he has explained that at the time of the incident when he got up on hearing the noises from outside he saw two boys standing in front of the Sofa where Dheeraj was sleeping. They had iron rods in St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 166 their hands and inflicted injuries upon him on which Dheeraj even tried to save himself but collapsed as soon as he reached in front of Shop No. 18. He has identified the accused Pramod @ Langra & Mini @ A. Mini as the boys who had inflicted injuries upon Dheeraj with iron rods and the accused Manoj @ Monu as the person who was carrying a drawer while coming out of the Shop No.17 and had exhorted the other boys to kill Dheeraj by saying "Isko jaan se mar do". Here, I may note that it has come during the evidence at the time of the incident Shop No.18 which is situated between Shop No. 17 and 19 was vacant and hence the employees of Shop No.19 used to sleep on the chabootra outside the shops without any hindrance and the photographs Ex.PW34/A14 to Ex.PW34/A16 confirm the presence of glass door from where the incident would be seen. (129) Coming now to identification of the accused by the Security Guard (of B3 Block, Keshav Puram) Anil Kumar Tiwari, at the outset I may observe that M.L. Narang (PW20) the President of the Residents Welfare Association has proved that on the intervening night of 23.3.2010 Anil Tiwari was deployed and working as the security guard in their area. He has proved having handed over the photocopy of his attendance register which is Ex.PW20/A and has also placed on record the salary register which is Ex.PW20/B1 to Ex.PW20/B4. I hereby hold that the fact that Anil Tiwari, Security Guard was on duty at B3 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi and had joined St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 167 the duty at 8:00 PM on 2.3.2010, stands established. I may further observe that Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) who is a resident of the same area in House No.B3/20A, Keshav Puram has also confirmed the presence of Anil Tiwari on the gate at about 2:30 AM where he had seen him while he was returning to his house. In fact Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) in his testimony before the Court has specifically deposed that on the intervening night of 23.3.2010, at about 2:30 AM when he reached the colony gate of Pocket B3, MIG Flats he saw that the gate was closed and the guard was not present. He waited for some time and then finally asked his wife to walk in from the smaller gate and as soon as he went inside, he saw the guard (Anil Kumar Tiwari) running towards the gate who told him that threefour boys were trying to steal a car on which he immediately made a call at 100 number from his wife's mobile bearing no. 9910343441. He has proved that immediately thereafter he saw threefour boys running away who had left their vehicle at that place. This witness Jagbir Shah Singh has not only confirmed the presence of Anil Tiwari at the spot but has also independently corroborated the version given by Anil Kumar Tiwari that four boys were trying to steal a car on which he immediately made a call to the police and thereafter he saw three to four boys running away after leaving their vehicle (i.e. Esteem Car No. DL8CK2765).
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 168 (130) Anil Tiwari (PW28) has in his testimony correctly identified the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur in the Court by pointing out towards them as the four boys who were sitting in Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and were trying to break open another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 and had run away on foot towards Tri Nagar side by leaving the said car behind when they saw him informing Jagbir Shah Singh. There is no reason to doubt the identification of the accused by Anil Tiwari. It has come on record that on noticing the boys sitting in the car in suspicious condition, Anil Tiwari had gone to the Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 where he found one of them breaking the lock of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 when he questioned the boys as to what they were doing and also one of them to accompany him. This clearly shows that Anil Tiwari had sufficient opportunity to see the boys while he was talking to them and hence his identification cannot be doubted.
(131) Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that Anil Tiwari (PW28) was not able to identify any of the accused in the Judicial Test Identification Parade at the first instance and hence it is apparent that he has only identified the accused on the asking of the Investigating Officer. Ld. Addl PP has on the other hand submitted that a valid explanation has been given by Anil Tiwari with regard to non St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 169 identification the accused in the Judicial Test Identification Parade which explanation is natural and probable and hence, there is no reason to doubt his version.
(132) I have considered the rival contentions and also the explanation offered by Anil Kumar Tiwari in not identifying the accused at the first instance. In his testimony before the Court the witness Anil Tiwari (PW28) has duly explained that he is an outsider in Delhi and had gone to the jail for the first time when the Test Identification Parade was conducted. He has stated that when he saw a large number of criminals standing in a row with threatening body language, staring at him, he got extremely scared and did not identify them which fact he also disclosed to his Manager Ramayan Mishra. He has further explained that thereafter when he came to the Court on 19.03.2010 with Ramayan Mishra to attend a court hearing in some other case, when he saw all the accused in the Court on which he informed Ramayan Mishra who in turn informed the police officials present in the Court and also the Investigating Officer with regard to the identification. I may note that Anil Kumar Tiwari belongs to a poor section of the society. He has migrated to Delhi for his livelihood and has no exposure to the Courts and the Criminal Proceedings. Having gone to the Jail for the first time it is only natural for this poor man (Anil Tiwari) to be overowed by the atmosphere of the jail and having felt scared because of his personal St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 170 insecurities due to which reason he did not identify any of the accused feeling terrified when he saw many persons staring at him. The explanation given by him is probable, natural and reasonable and hence under the given circumstances, I hereby hold that there is no ground to disbelieve the version given by Anil Kumar Tiwari in the Court qua the identification of the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur as the boys present in Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which they had left at the spot from which the stolen drawer and other articles were recovered. Why Shri Ram and Anil Tiwari are credible/ truthful witnesses:
(133) The best evidence in any case is the Ocular Evidence. It is settled law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of eye witness if found to be reliable, truthful and trustworthy. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 171 be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
(134) The present case revolves around the testimony of sole eye witness to the incident of robbery and murder namely Shri Ram (PW29). Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) is an independent witness who had noticed all the four accused at B3 Block, Keshav Puram and has identified them as the boys who were present in the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 (stolen car) which they had left behind not being aware that the accused had reached there after committing the murder. The testimony of Anil Kumar Tiwari is relevant connected with the fact in issue so as to form a part of same transaction (Section 6 of Evidence Act).
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 172 (135) Coming first to the testimony of the eye witness Shri Ram (PW29) is concerned, both Shri Ram (PW29) and the deceased Dheeraj were the employees of Sanjay Sharma in Shop No. 19 hardly measuring 10 x 12 feet which shop is adjoining to the shop in question where the incident of theft took place. Shop No. 18 was reported to be vacant at the time of the incident and the said shop had a Chabootra in front where a sofa was lying in front of Shop No. 19 (Shivani Tent House) where the deceased Dheeraj used to sleep whereas Shri Ram used to sleep inside the said shop (Shop No. 19) which shop was having a glass door on the front side. The accused Manoj @ Monu was an employee of Vikas at Shop No. 17 under the name of New Delhi Motor and was naturally aware of the various details including the place where the money could have been kept or could be found (being an insider). The disclosure statement of accused Manoj @ Monu reflects that he was aware that Vikas used to keep money in the drawer. The relevant portion of the testimony of Shri Ram (PW29), is reproduced as under:
In the month of March, 2010 I was working at Shivani Tent for decoration which is situated at shop No. 19, DDA market, Sandesh Vihar. I used to sleep at the aforesaid tent house. Dheeraj Sharma was also working at the aforesaid tent with me and used to sleep at the said tent house. On the night of 02.03.2010 I took dinner and slept and Dheeraj had been already gone to some where and he was not present at the tent house at that St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 173 time in the night when I slept. At about 11:30 PM Dheeraj came and got me woke up. He took quilt and hung his pant on the hanger and slept on the sofa which was lying in front of the tent house. I also slept inside the shop after closing the door. In the morning when I got up at about 5 AM and came out of the tent house I found Dheeraj in the pool of blood lying in front of shop No. 17. There was blood near the sofa. Again said the injured Dheeraj was found in front of shop No. 18 and also found the lock of shop No. 17 broken. I found the injuries on the head of Dheeraj and he was found dead. I informed the tent owner Sanjay Sharma who came to the spot. My statement was recorded by the police which is EX PW 29/A bearing my signature at point A. At that time I was so scared therefore I could not tell the entire incident to Dahiya sahib. I was again interrogated by Parveen Sir to whom I had given my further statement. I heard the voice of khat pat. I woke up I saw from inside from the mirror door that Dheeraj was crying and two persons were found standing near him with rods. I heard the noise of khat pat from shop No. 17. Injured Dheeraj had tried to stand and came up to shop No. 18, I heard the voice from inside the shop No. 17 that "isko jan se mar do". I had seen both the persons hitting rod on the head of Dheeraj. I was so scared, therefore I could not come outside from our shop. I had seen that third person had brought wooden drawer from shop No. 17. At the same time the two persons who hit the rod on the head of Dheeraj and the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 174 person who brought drawer, left the spot. Dheeraj fell down in front of shop No. 18. I had given this version to the police in which I had also stated that I can identify those persons if shown to me.
On 18.03.2010 I attended Rohini Jail and I participated in the TIP proceedings of accused persons in which I had identified two persons by pointing towards them as those who had given beatings to Dheeraj whose names I later on came to know through the IO were Pramod and Mini. Both the said persons are present in the court. The witness has been asked to identify the said persons who are sitting in the court from amongst the others and he has correctly identified both the accused Pramod and Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental both of whom are sitting in the court as the persons who had inflicted beatings to Dheeraj. I could not identify the third person during the judicial TIP due to fear but I had seen the third boy and I can recognize him. Earlier on 19.03.2010 the IO Insp. Praveen had also brought the boy to my shop during interrogation when I identified him as the boy who had removed the drawer from the table of the shop and taken away the same. The said boy is present in the court today. At this stage the witness has pointed out towards the accused Manoj (in JC) sitting in the second last row as the boy who had been brought to his shop by Insp. Parveen during investigations and whom he had identified. The witness submits that the accused Manoj was the person who had removed the drawer and had an St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 175 iron rod in his hand at the time of committing the offence.
(136) The witness Shri Ram has been crossexamined at length. He has deposed that at the time when Dheeraj had met him in the night at 11:30 PM he was in normal condition and had no quarrel with any person. He has explained that there is an iron shutter on the front side of the shop and also a glass door and has further explained that on the date of incident they had only shut down the glass door but the shutter was opened since he used to sleep hardly one feet away from the main door. Further, with regard to the source of light he has explained that there was light coming inside from the House no. 1 which is hardly at a distance of 20 feet from the shop, which light was also entering inside the shop. He has further explained that House No. 1 is right opposite their shop and there is a small gallery between house No. 1 and their shop and the door of the house leading to the clinic of the doctor opens in the gallery in front of their shop. (Reference is made to Site Plan Ex.PW47/A showing the position of House No.1 and the shops/ spot of incident and also to the photograph Ex.PW34/A16 in which a portion of the House No.1, the Shop No.19 with a glass door and sofa where deceased was sleeping is clearly visible). He has further explained that at the time of incident there was no chowkidar/ guard in the area and in the morning when he saw St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 176 the dead body of Dheeraj he got perplexed and had telephoned to his owner and was so scared that after making the call he personally ran to the house of his owner which is in the same area near the shop and informed him about what had happened. He has proved that he had called up his employer through his mobile phone No. 9310367105 and thereafter it was his owner Sanjay who had informed the police by personally going to the Police Station Saraswati Vihar on which DD No.5A was lodged (Reference is made to DD No.5A which is Ex.PW4/A proving that Sanjay had personally gone to the Police Station and given the information). The witness Shri Ram in his crossexamination has further explained that at night he was sleeping behind the counter and did not move out being terrified and it was only when people started coming on the road, that he came out. When asked if he had called the police on 100 number, he has explained that he did not make any 100 number call and states that he was extremely scared to even come out to the stop of the incident and it was only when he felt that people were moving on the road outside that he came out. According to him, when he slept the door of the shop was closed but when he came out in the morning it was already opened and has explained that there is a system of internal lock in the door like a daraj which lock was already opened. Witness has admitted that whenever he used to sleep the door of the shop used to be locked from inside which door is hardly three and a half feet wide. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 177 Here, I may observe that what the witness is saying is correct because the latch/ lock which can be operated from both inside and outside, naturally when he slept he must have locked the same from inside but later when the deceased Dheeraj came, he would have opened the same from outside and after hanging his pants on the hanger and taking his quilt must have gone out perhaps not bothering to lock the same again and it is for this reason that he found the door open in the morning (Reference is made to the photographs of the site which are Ex.PW34/A2, PW34/A3 and Ex.PW34/A6 which photographs clearly show that at the time of incident the deceased was not wearing his pants confirming the version of Shri Ram).
(137) Shri Ram has further explained that it was possible for him to see the accused outside but it was not possible for the accused to have seen him because he was inside the shop and he himself was sleeping with his head towards and door on the top of the counter. Here, I may note that the counter is also visible in photographs Ex.PW34/A14 to Ex.PW34/A16 which is big enough for a person to sleep. According to this witness Shri Ram, the distance between the place where he was sleeping and the place where the deceased was lying was about fifteen feet and the distance between the shop no. 17 and 19 is about twelve to fifteen feet.
(138) The fact that Shri Ram was an employee of Sanjay Sharma at his Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 178 has been duly proved by Sanjay Sharma (PW18) and is also not disputed. Sanjay Sharma has also proved that both Dheeraj (deceased) and Shri Ram (PW29) used to sleep in the shop itself during the night hours. The testimony of Shri Ram (PW29) to the effect that he had seen the entire incident through the glass door, appears to be credible. The photographs of the spot placed on record (Ex.PW34/A14, Ex.PW34/A15 and Ex.PW34/A16) clearly reflect the glass doors installed at Shop No.19 (Shivani Tent House) which corroborates the version of Shri Ram. The said photographs also show the existence of counter inside the Shop No.19 where according to Shri Ram he was sleeping at the time of the incident and had witnessed the incident and it was possible for him to see the Sofa lying on the chabutra just in front of the Shop No.18 and 19. (139) Different people react differently when faced with a similar situation and so is the case with Shri Ram. When he saw what the accused had done, he was so terrified and stunned by the incident that out of fear he did not move out of the shop till the break of the dawn when people started moving about in the streets. On the one hand the assailants did not realize that Shri Ram who was sleeping inside the adjoining shop no.19, was seeing the entire incident through the glass door whereas on the other hand seeing what Manoj @ Monu and his associates had done with Dheeraj, the eye witness Shri Ram was so terrified that he did not move out of the shop or inform St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 179 anybody till morning and it was only when he saw people moving out that he came out and informed his owner. His disturbed state of mind is also evident from his first statement which he made to the police at about 9:00 AM on the basis of which the present FIR was registered, when he did not give the complete details and only mentioned that he saw the dead body of Dheeraj in the morning lying in a pool of blood. It was only later during the day, when he regained his confidence and composure that he gave the complete details regarding the involvement of three boys i.e. two boys who had hit iron rods on the head of deceased and one boy who was carrying the drawn and an iron rod and had exhorted them to kill Dheeraj on which his supplementary statement was recorded by Inspector Praveen Kumar. It is in this background that even in the Judicial Test Identification Parade he (Shri Ram) identified Pramod and Mini but not Manoj @ Monu despite the fact that Manoj was known to him previously being an employee of the adjoining shop.
(140) Given the background that the deceased Dheeraj, eye witness Shri Ram and the accused Manoj @ Monu being employees of the adjoining shops situated in the same area it is only natural and probable that they were known to each other. It is impossible that Shri Ram would not have known Manoj @ Monu and the explanation given by him that he did not identify Manoj @ Monu on account of fear is probable and convincing. It is only natural that Shri Ram being St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 180 a petty employee/ servant in Shop No.19 did not want to get himself involved himself with Manoj a criminal and that too after seeing how they had killed Dheeraj. Any ordinary person in his situation on witnessing a ghastly crime being committed, would have in a state of shock. Shri Ram has proved that on 19.3.2010 when the Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen brought the accused Manoj @ Monu to the shop during investigations, it is then that he identified him as the boy who had taken away the drawer.
(141) I may observe that this witness Shri Ram (PW29) has identified the drawer and the iron rods which had been recovered from the possession of the accused. A specific suggestion had been put to the witness that the drawer/ counter and the iron rods are easily available in the market, which suggestion he has denied and has explained that the sunmica of the counter/ drawer is similar to the sunmica of the table/ counter which was not otherwise easily available in the market. I may also observe that the drawer Ex.P10 which had been recovered from the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 left behind by the accused at B Block, Keshavpuram, was duly identified by its owner Vikas (PW13) and was also found to fit in his table showing that it was the same drawer which was stolen and was containing the various articles belonging to the owner Vikas which he had duly identified in the Judicial Test Identification Parade. The testimony of witness Shri Ram (PW29) who had identified the accused at the first St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 181 instance is hence credible and truthful.
(142) Coming now to the testimony of Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28), I may observe that he was posted at the Main gate of B3 Block, Keshav Puram on the intervening night of 23.03.2010. In his testimony before this Court he has specifically deposed that he had noticed one Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 had come and was parked in between the other cars which were already parked at service lane. According to Anil Kumar Tiwari, he went near the car and found four boys in the said car and one of them was breaking the the lock of another Esteem Car DL9CP8957 parked next to the said car. He has proved that on seeing him, the said boy got apprehensive and entered in his esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 where three boys were already sitting in the said car and he was the fourth boy who was breaking the lock of another esteem car. He has further deposed that when he (witness) asked him what they were doing in the car when they were not the residents of the society, on which the said boys told him that they were waiting for somebody and would leave as soon as the said person would come, on which the witness (Anil Tiwari) told the said boys that one of them should accompany him to the Supervisor who had called them for inquiries which was only a ploy by him to take the boys to the other Chowkidar but the said boys refused. Anil Tiwari has explained that the boy who was breaking the lock of another car was the one who was answering to his queries but St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 182 he did not accompany him to the supervisor. He has further explained that thereafter the two other boys who were sitting on the back seat came out when he noticed that one of them was holding a rod in his hand by hiding it on his side and on seeing this the witness (Anil Tiwari) apprehending that the said boys may be criminals, ran back to the gate where he saw a Sikh gentleman who was a resident of house No. 20A standing there as the gate was closed and he had stopped his vehicle for entering. On this Anil Tiwari immediately informed the Sikh gentleman about what he had seen and that the said boys were trying to commit some illegal act. On this the Sikh gentleman immediately came out of the car and called up the 100 number from his mobile phone. While this Sikh gentleman (Jagbir Shah Singh - PW25) was still talking to the police, the boys came out of the car and ran away on foot towards Tri Nagar side which was noticed by both Anil Tiwari and Jagbir Shah Singh) as well and while running away Anil Tiwari noticed that one of the boys was carrying a rod. According to Anil Tiwari, he had given the description of the boys who were in the age group of 2025 years and that one of the boys was of a dark complexion whereas other three were fairer to him but not otherwise fair.
(143) I may observe that M.L. Narang (PW20) the President of the Residents Welfare Association has proved that on the intervening night of 23.3.2010 Anil Tiwari was the security guard. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 183 He has proved having handed over the photocopy of his attendance register which is Ex.PW20/A and has also placed on record the salary register which is Ex.PW20/B1 to Ex.PW20/B4. Hence, I hold that the fact that Anil Tiwari, Security Guard was on duty at B3 Block, Keshav Puram, Delhi and had joined the duty at 8:00 PM on 2.3.2010, stands established. Further, one Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) who is a resident of the same area in House No.B3/20A, Keshav Puram has also confirmed the presence of Anil Tiwari on the gate at about 2:30 AM where he had seen him while he was returning to his house. In fact Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) in his testimony before the Court has specifically deposed that on the intervening night of 23.3.2010, at about 2:30 AM when he reached the gate of the colony gate of Pocket B3, MIG Flats he saw that the gate was closed and the guard was not present. He waited for some time and then finally asked his wife to walk in from the smaller gate and as soon as he went inside, he saw the guard (Anil Kumar Tiwari) running towards the gate who told him that threefour boys were trying to steal a car on which he immediately made a call at 100 number from his wife's mobile bearing no. 9910343441 (Reference is made to PCR form Ex.PW12/A which confirms this fact). He has proved that immediately thereafter he saw threefour boys running away who had left their vehicle at that place. This witness Jagbir Shah Singh has not only confirmed the presence of Anil Tiwari at the spot but has also independently corroborated the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 184 version given by Anil Kumar Tiwari that four boys were trying to steal a car on which he immediately made a call to the police and thereafter he saw three to four boys running away. Pursuant to the PCR call made by Jagbir Shah Singh, HC Ram Dayal reached the spot i.e. B3 Block, Keshav Puram where he inspected the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 (left behind by the accused) wherein he found a wooden drawer containing some documents, automobile spare parts and other articles. On the basis of the documents of the car at about 2:45 AM he contacted Surender Singh (registered owner of the Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765. Thereafter Surender Singh along with his son Parmeet Singh (PW21) came to B3 Block, Keshav Puram and identified the Esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 as belonging to them. However, they did not claim the drawer and its contents and the iron rods due to which reason they handed over the said drawer and other articles to HC Ram Dayal. In the morning, Ram Dayal reached Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura on the basis of various papers lying in the drawer where he met Inspector Praveen Kumar and came to know that the offence of robbery/ murder had taken place.
(144) Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) has correctly identified all the accused i.e. Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj and Nar Bahadur as the boys who had come in the car. He (Anil Kumar TiwariPW28) has also clarified that earlier he had gone to jail for St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 185 Test Identification Parade of the accused where he did not identify all the accused out of fear. He has explained that he had gone to the jail for the first time and when he saw number of accused persons standing in the row having a threatening body language he out of fear did not identify them being an outsider in Delhi. However, later when on 19.3.2010 he along with his Manager Sh. Ramayan Mishra had come to the Court to attend some challan case when he had identified all the four accused in the Court.
(145) I may observe that it is a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily witnesses are either not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons and one of the reasons is that they do not have courage to depose against habitual criminal apprehending threats to their life. A rustic or an illiterate witness may not be able to withstand the test of cross examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of crossexamination, certain answers are snatched from him. When such a person is faced with an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, hence minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Instances are not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. (Ref. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965).
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 186 (146) In the present case both Shri Ram (PW29) and Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) are outsiders and migrants in Delhi. In fact Shri Ram has no place to stay and used to sleep at night in the Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura where he is working during the day. Both of them belong to poor strata of the society, Shri Ram being employed at Shivani Tent House and Anil Kumar Tiwari being the security guard. Initially Shri Ram had not identified the accused Manoj and a valid explanation is forthcoming for the same, because it was the accused Manoj @ Monu who was an employee of the owner Vikas (PW13) for almost one and a half to two years and it is only natural that Dheeraj (deceased) would have identified explaining why Dheeraj was killed (for the fear of Manoj being identified). This also explains why Shri Ram (PW29) chose to keep quiet. It is also natural and probable that after seeing what had happened with Dheeraj who had probably identified Manoj @ Monu while the robbery was being committed, that Shri Ram (PW29) had initially chosen to keep quiet and did not identify Manoj @ Monu initially and later on identified the accused Monu on 19.3.2010 and also in the Court (during his deposition). In view of the aforesaid I hereby hold that there is no reason to doubt the version given by witness Shri Ram which is otherwise natural, probable, credible and truthful as against the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu. Further, in so far as the accused Nar Bahadur is St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 187 concerned, the case of the prosecution is that he was boy who was sitting in the vehicle. It is evident from the scaled site plan Ex.PW14/A and also from the site plan Ex.PW47/A that the Maruti Esteem car DL8CK2765 (stolen from BM55, East Shalimar Bagh belonging to Parmeet SinghPW21) was parked at the corner of the market and it would, in any case, not have been possible for Shri Ram (PW29) to see the spot where the said car was parked or the accused Nar Bahadur who was sitting inside the same (because he never came out of the car). Same is the position with Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28). Initially during the Judicial Test Identification Parade on 18.3.2010 he did not identify the accused at the first instance but thereafter on 19.3.2010 when he came to the Court to attend a date in another case with Ramayan Mishra his Manager, he saw all the accused in the Court and accordingly informed Ramayan Mishra who in turn informed the police officers. He has in his testimony before the Court explained that he is an outsider in Delhi and had gone to Jail for the first time when the Judicial Test Identification Parade was conducted. He has also explained that a large number of criminals were standing in a row with threatening body language staring at him, he got extremely scared and did not identify them which fact he had disclosed to his Manager Ramayan Mishra. Anil Kumar Tiwari is not an original resident of Delhi and has only come to the City for earning livelihood, has no exposure to the Court and Criminal Proceedings St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 188 and hence it is only natural for any person in his position to become overawed by the atmosphere of the Jail. The evidence on record shows that Anil Kumar Tiwari was in a position to identify the accused because he had seen them, closely observed them when he went to the car in which they were sitting and spoke to them and even questioned them regarding their presence in the area and the accused had responded to him. This proves that there was sufficient time for him to have seen their faces when he was closely interacting with them and hence there is no reason to doubt the identification of the accused by him. Even otherwise, there being no history of animosity between him and the accused and also there being no reason to falsely implicate the accused, I hereby hold that the explanation forthcoming is valid and reasonable. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the testimonies of the eye witness Shri Ram (PW29) and Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) are credible, trustworthy, reliable and truthful. There is no reason to disbelieve their versions particularly with regard to the identity of the accused particularly of Shri Ram who is an eye witness of killing of Dheeraj.
Theft of Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and the drawer of the counter of shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar and their recovery/ identification:
(147) In addition to the eye witness count, the prosecution heavily relies upon the recovery and identification of the stolen St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 189 property. The case of the prosecution is that the accused are professional robbers. On the intervening night of 23.03.2010 one Parmeet Singh resident of BM55, East Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi had parked his Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 in front of his house at 11:30 PM and it was only at about 2:45 AM when he received a call from HC Ram Dayal of Police Station Keshav Puram that he realized that his car had been stolen which was now found in the area of B3 Block, Keshav Puram. When Parmeet Singh reached B3 Block Keshav Puram he found his car along with all its documents except the original RC. He also noticed a drawer lying in the car containing a large number of documents and other articles which did not belong to him which included three rods, which he immediately handed over to HC Ram Dayal.
(148) It is further the case of the prosecution that after this car DL8CK2765 was stolen from BM55, East Shalimar Bagh the accused went to DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura where they committed robbery in shop no. 17 (belonging to Vikas) where the accused Manoj was previously an employee for almost two years.
There they removed the drawer of the counter containing cash and other articles and while going away they clubbed to death one Dheeraj an employee of the adjoining shop who was sleeping on the sofa lying on the Chabootra outside the shop no. 18 and 19. This they did fearing exposure since Manoj @ Monu was previous employee in St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 190 Shop No.17 for almost two years. Thereafter they went to B3 Block, Keshav Puram where they parked the stolen Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 adjoining another Esteem car bearing No. DL9CP8957 and while they were trying to open when they were seen by the guard Anil Kumar Tiwari and hence they panicked and fled on foot thereby leaving the stolen car bearing no. DL8CK2765 along with the drawer stolen from the shop of Vikas (PW13). (149) The recovery of the stolen Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 duly containing the drawer/ locker removed from the counter/ table of Vikas (PW13) which drawer was containing various documents and also containing iron rods, has been duly proved by the eye witness Anil Kumar Tiwari who has identified all the four accused namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur as the boys who had come in the said car and had thereafter fled by leaving the car and the contents behind in respect of which immediate call was made to the PCR by Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) at 2:26 AM and on the basis of the documents found in the car the owner Parmeet Singh (PW21) was contacted on telephone who immediately came to the spot and identified his car. The aspect of recovery of stolen car along with the drawer stolen from the shop of Vikas (PW13) has been duly proved by Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28), Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25), Parmeet Singh (PW21) and HC Ram Dayal (PW48). In the morning of 3.3.2010 it is this HC Ram Dayal (PW48) St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 191 who on the basis of the various documents contained in the drawer went to Shop No.17, DDA Market Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura where he handed over the drawer so recovered from the car to the Investigating Officer which was immediately identified by Vikas (PW13) as the one which was stolen from his shop in the intervening night.
(150) This drawer/ locker which had been taken away by the accused from the shop of Vikas (PW13) was containing cash, stationery articles and documents belonging to Vikas and his family, cheque books and other articles such as hammer with wooden handle, steel katori, Locas TVS Auto Electrical spare parts, electrical bulbs, hawkshow iron blades, spare parts of vehicles etc. Vikas (PW13) has in the Judicial Test Identification Parade conducted on 29.10.2010 and also in the Court (at the time of his deposition) correctly identified the drawer stolen from his shop and the various other articles contained in the same which are original trade license and coloured copy of the same which is Ex.P1; two original MTNL bills, application for obtaining the PAN Card in his name and in the name of his wife Geeta Batra, cheque book in the name of Sh. H.N. Batra , receipt dated 15.11.2009 to 29.11.2009, full and final settlement of salary of Umar Alam which are collectively Ex.P2; three iron rods which are collectively Ex.P3; one hammer with wooden handle which is Ex.P4; one steel katori which is Ex.P5; four Locas TVS Auto Electrical St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 192 spare parts which are collectively Ex.P6; Six electrical bulbs of blue colour which are Ex.P7; ten hawkshow iron blades which are collectively Ex.P8; seven tools which are collectively Ex.P9; one wooden drawer which is Ex.P10; 19 papers which are Ex.P11; 4 spare parts of vehicles which are Ex.P12; two pens, two refills, one eraser and one clip which are collectively Ex.P13. (151) Further, the eye witness Shri Ram (PW29) has also identified the drawer of the counter Ex.P10 as the same which he had seen in the hands of accused Manoj @ Monu while they were leaving the shop of Vikas after committing the robbery. A specific suggestion had been given to Shri Ram (PW29) that similar drawers are easily available in the market which he has denied and has explained that he could identify the stolen drawer recovered later because of its sunmica which was the same as that of the table/ counter from where it was stolen and it fitted into the same.
(152) In view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the fact that the Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 belonging to Parmeet Singh had been stolen from in front of his house at BM55, East Shalimar Bagh which was found in possession of the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur at B3 Block, Keshav Puram which they left at the spot while fleeing on foot after being noticed by Anil Kumar Tiwari stands established. It also St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 193 stands established that when the Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 was identified by the owner Parmeet Singh during the intervening night of 23.03.2010 it was found to contain a drawer having various documents and other item in it which Parmeet Singh immediately handed over to HC Ram Dayal as they did not belong to him. It further stands established that on 3.3.2010 when HC Ram Dayal went to Shop No.17, DDA Market Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura on the basis of the address mentioned on the documents contained in the drawer, he found Inspector Praveen Kumar already present there in view of the robbery/ murder which had taken place and when he handed over the said drawer to Inspector Praveen Kumar, it was duly identified by Vikas (PW13) as the same which had been stolen from his shop in the intervening night, thereby connecting the accused with the incident of House Trespass and also murder of Dheeraj. Incident of Robbery/ Murder at Shop No.17, DDA Market Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura had taken place after theft of Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 from BM55, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi:
(153) The case of the prosecution is that after the Esteem Car Bearing No, DL8CK2765 was stolen from BM55, East Shalimar Bagh by all the four accused who are professional robbers, they came to Shop No.17, DDA market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura where they committed robbery in Shop No.17 and while fleeing from there, they St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 194 committed the murder of Dheeraj. Thereafter they fled from Sandesh Vihar in the same stolen Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and went to B3 Block, Keshav Puram where while trying to commit theft of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 they were noticed by Anil Kumar Tiwari a security guard of the area when they fled leaving behind the stolen Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765. (154) The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that there is no evidence to show that the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 had been stolen by the accused or had been used while committing House Trespass and robbery in Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar. The Ld. Addl. PP has on the other hand pointed out that the sequence of events as they unfold speak for themselves. He has submitted that DDA Market Sandesh Vihar is an area which falls on the route while going from East Shalimar Bagh to Keshav Puram. He has also pointed out that the recovery of the drawer stolen from the shop No. 17 of Vikas which Shri Ram had seen in the hands of Manoj and the presence of blood spots on the seats of Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 are a strong pointer towards the fact that it is this vehicle which was used by the accused when they went to commit the robbery in Shop no.17, DDA Market Shadesh Vihar. (155) I have considered the rival contentions and I find merit in what has been submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP. Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) the Security Guard of B3 Block, Keshav Puram has St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 195 identified all the four accused as the same boys who were found sitting in Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765. There is nothing on record to suggest that he was known to any of the accused persons previously or had any kind of animosity with them and hence there is no reason to disbelieve his version. He has been found to be a credible and truthful witness because there was sufficient opportunity for him to see these boys as he went to them and even spoke to them.
This Anil Tiwari has also proved the recovery of the drawer from the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which Parmeet Singh had handed over to HC Ram Dayal. When was it that the accused Parmod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur came into possession of this Esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and how, is an aspect which was in the best knowledge of these accused. The accused Parmod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur are the best persons who could have without any difficulty offered an explanation with regard to the possession of the Esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 in which they were sitting when they were seen by Anil Kumar Tiwari before they fled from B3 Block Keshav Puram and how the drawer stolen from the Shop No.17 of Vikas from DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar. The onus under these circumstances is not on the prosecution since the facts relating to the same being especially within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. The legislature engrafted a special rule in Section 106 of the Evidence Act St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 196 to meet exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible to disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. In their statements under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the accused have not offered any explanation for the same. Further, the presence of blood spots from the seats of the said Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 (found to be of Human origin as per the FSL Report) also lends credence to the prosecution version that the said vehicle was the one which was used by the accused for reaching to Shop No. 17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura and for fleeing from there.
(156) I may further observe that it is evident from the testimony of Parmeet Singh that he had parked his Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 in front of his house at about 11:30 PM and it is this car which was found at B3 Block, Keshav Puram at about 2:15 AM (around 2.45 hours later) when it was found containing the stolen drawer and was also having blood spots. The PCR call was made by Jagbir Shah Singh at 2:26 AM on the information given by Anil Tiwari when he had also seen these three four boys running away from there. This confirms that the incident of robbery and murder at Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura took place after 11:30 PM and before 2:15 AM. The St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 197 succession with which the incidents have taken place and the identification of the accused first by Shri Ram at DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar and then by Anil Tiwari at 2:15 AM are circumstances which lends credence to the prosecution versions coupled with the fact that the blood lifted from the stolen car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and on the iron rod (sketch of which is Ex.PW15/C) was found to be of human origin (as per the FSL Report).
Apprehension and arrest of the accused:
(157) The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 56.3.2010 Ct. Ramraj (PW42) and DHG Ct. Harpal (PW41) of Police Station Rani Bagh were on patrolling duty and at about 1:45 AM they reached Raja Park Road, Red Light Chowk where they noticed one Esteem Car having the number plate DL3CG5278 in which one young boy was found sitting on the driver seat. On checking the documents of the vehicle they found that the documents did not tally on which the said boy was apprehended and it was then that he disclosed his name as Manoj @ Monu and it was revealed that the original registration number of the car was DL3CR6881. The said vehicle was checked during which one iron rod was found lying on the back seat. Manoj @ Monu was thereafter interrogated and it was then that he disclosed that he belong to a gang of professional robbers who were indulging into theft of vehicles (particularly Maruti St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 198 Esteem Car) and that he along with his other associates were also involved in similar incident which had taken place on the intervening night of 23.3.2010. Manoj further disclosed that he along with his other associates were also involved in housebreaking/ robbery and murder which had taken place at DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura. The accused Manoj @ Monu was initially arrested in case FIR No.75/2010 of Police Station Rani Bagh and information was given to Police Station Saraswati Vihar to the Investigating Officer of the present case and it was only then that there was a break through in the investigations of the present case.
(158) Further, on 6.3.2010 on receipt of information from Police Station Rani Bagh, the Investigating Officer of the present case Inspector Praveen Kumar along with Ct. Pappu Lal, SI Lalit, HC Ashok and HC Praveen reached Police Station Rani Bagh and interrogated the accused Monu who disclosed the names of his three associates as Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Nar Bahadur.
On the same day the police party started the search for the other associates of Manoj @ Monu in the area. A secret information was received by Inspector Praveen Kumar that one Esteem Car was parked on a road leading to Jheel Wala Park, from the Police Station in which car three persons were sitting who could be the assailants/ associates of Manoj. Pursuant to the secret information the police party reached in front of Lok Vihar, ABlock, Main Road, Saraswati Vihar and St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 199 found three boys sitting in Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 (car stolen from Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar in the intervening night of 23.03.2010 at 3:40 AM which car was belonging to Rajesh Kumar). Immediately the said boys were apprehended while they were sitting in the said car and their names were disclosed as Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Nar Bahadur. From the possession of accused Pramod @ Langra one knife and a bunch of keys were recovered from the pocket of his pant and on checking the car one blood stained iron rod was recovered from near the driver seat of the car; another rod was recovered from the dicky of the car and one blood stained red colour cloth was recovered from under the driver seat. (159) The various police officers (HC Ashok KumarPW32, Ct. KulbhushanPW43, SI Ramesh KumarPW44, Ct. Pappu Lal PW46 and Inspector Praveen KumarPW47) have proved the apprehension and arrest of all the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsels that the accused had been lifted from their respective houses and falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that none of the memos of arrest bear the signatures of any public witnesses which is despite the fact that the Investigating Officer had prior secret information and it is this which creates a doubt with regard to the manner of arrest of these accused. Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has argued that in so as the arrest of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 200 the accused Manoj @ Monu is concerned it was a chance arrest by the police of Police Station Rani Bagh when Manoj was apprehended along with the stolen vehicle. Further, in respect of apprehension and arrest of the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Nar Bahadur, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that there is no reason to doubt the version of the police officers only because public witnesses have not been joined because a valid explanation is coming on behalf of the Investigating Officer for the same. (160) I have considered the rival contentions. I may observe that it is common experience that public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. There is general apathy and indifference on the part of public to join such proceedings. This position of law was reiterated in Aslam and Ors. (Mohd.) Vs. State reported in 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133. It was also observed by Hon'ble High Court that reluctance of the citizens to join police proceedings is well known and needs to be recognized. It cannot be disputed that public does not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases and wants to avoid them, because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment. Similar view was taken in Manish Vs. State, reported in 2000 VIII AD (Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) 29 and in A. Bhai Vs. State, reported in AIR 1989 SC 696, where it was held that we cannot be oblivious to the reluctance of the common man to join such raiding parties organized St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 201 by the police, lest they are compelled to attend police station and Courts umpteen times at the cost of considerable inconvenience to them, without any commensurate benefit.
(161) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case, I hold that there is no reason to disbelieve testimony of police officials regarding arrest of the accused persons. Their testimonies cannot be rejected merely because they happen to be police officers. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir Vs. State reported in (1996) 3 SCC 338, no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to the police force. It was observed in Aner Raja Khimavs. The State of Saurashtra, reported in AIR 1956 SC 217 that the presumption that a person acts honestly and legally applies as much in favour of police officers as of others. It is not proper and permissible to doubt the evidence of police officers. Judicial approach must not be to distrust and suspect their evidence on oath without good and sufficient ground thereof. [These two authorities have been relied upon by our own High Court in the case of Aslam & Ors (Mohd.) Vs. State, reported in 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133].
(162) Further, it is evident that in so far as the arrest of the accused Manoj @ Monu is concerned, it was only by chance that the police officers of Police Station Rani Bagh had apprehended him while he was in possession of a stolen vehicle bearing No. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 202 DL3CR6881. It was only during his sustained interrogation when he himself disclosed his involvement in the present case, that there was a breakthrough in the investigations of the present case. Further, in so far as the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Nar Bahadur are concerned, they were arrested pursuant to a secret information. The Investigating Officer Inspector Praveen Kumar (PW47) and other police witnesses in their testimonies have explained that a request had been made to two public persons to join the proceedings who refused and hence, without wasting time they reached the spot and apprehended the accused persons and hence, sufficient explanation is forthcoming. The accused are all professional robbers and dreaded criminals. It is natural that public persons would be slow to join the investigations for the fear of being harassed in the Courts of Law. General public does not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases and wants to avoid them, because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsels and I hold that the apprehension and arrest of all the accused namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur stands established and proved.
Medical evidence:
(163) PW15 Dr. K. Goyal has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW15/A showing that there were following injuries on St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 203 the body of the deceased:
1. Laceration 5 x 1 cms over top of vault midline with crushed margins.
2. Laceration 6.5 x 1.5 cms over junction of right forehead and right frontal with crushed margins and contused abraded marks around with depressed deformity around.
3. Two lacerations each 1cm and 1.5 cms long over left side forehead just above the medial end of left eye brow, two small lacerations each about 0.75 cms over nose with contused abraded area around with fracture nasal bone, laceration 1 cm long just in front of right ear with abrasions around, laceration 1x0.5 cms over upper lip.
4. Abrasion 3 x 2 cms over right cheek reddish brown in color.
(164) He has proved that the Cause of Death was extensive craniocerebral injuries as a result of hard, relatively heavy blunt object diverted upon head. He has also opined that the death was homicidal. Further, Dr. K. Goyal (PW15) has also proved having given the opinion on the Weapon of Offence i.e. iron rod weighing about 1360 gms. which opinion is Ex.PW15/B and rough sketch of the rod is Ex.PW15/C. According to the subsequent opinion Ex.PW15/B the injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 (Laceration 5 x 1 cms over top St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 204 of vault midline with crushed margins; Laceration 6.5 x 1.5 cms over junction of right forehead and right frontal with crushed margins and contused abraded marks around with depressed deformity around and Two lacerations each 1cm and 1.5 cms long over left side forehead just above the medial end of left eye brow, two small lacerations each about 0.75 cms over nose with contused abraded area around with fracture nasal bone, laceration 1 cm long just in front of right ear with abrasions around, laceration 1x0.5 cms over upper lip) were possible by this weapon or similar such type of some other weapon. In view of the above, I hereby hold that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution version and the death of the deceased has been held to have been caused on account of the repeated blows given by the recovered iron rod.
Forensic Evidence:
(165) PW16 Sh. Naresh Kumar Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has proved that on 9.3.2010 he had lifted the exhibits/ samples from the Esteem cars No. DL8CK2765 and DL9CK3999 and has proved the FSL Reports Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B. Further, V. Shankaranarayanan (PW49) has also proved the biological report in respect of the samples sent to him which report is Ex.PW49/A and the serological report which is Ex.PW49/B. For the sake of convenience the said reports are put in a tabulated St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 205 form as under:
Sr. Exhibit Details of the exhibit Exhibit no. Opinion/ Result No. no. in the in the Court FSL
1. '1' Cotton wool swab taken P15 Human blood of from the Chabutra 'A' Group (same as belonging to the deceased)
2. '2' Cotton wool swab taken P16 Human blood of from outside the Shop No.19, 'A' Group (same Sandesh Vihar Market as belonging to the deceased)
3. '3' Cotton wool swab taken P17 Human blood of from outside the Shop No.18, 'A' Group(same as Sandesh Vihar Market belonging to the deceased)
4. '4' Blood stained earth P18 Human blood material taken from the Chabutra
5. '5' Earth material (Control) P19 Blood was taken from the Chabutra detected
6. '6' Piece of stone taken from P20 Human blood outside the Shop No.19, Sandesh Vihar Market
7. '8' Piece of stone (Control) P21 Human blood taken from outside the Shop No.18, Sandesh Vihar Market
8. '10' Piece of Plastic/ Control P25 Human blood sample of Sofa found at Chabutra opposite Shop No. 19, Sandesh Vihar Market
9. '12' Piece of cloth/ pieces of quilt P26 Human blood of found at the Chabutra 'A' Group (same opposite Shop No.19, as belonging to Sandesh Vihar the deceased) St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 206
10. '14' Piece of cloth taken from P28 Human blood of outside the shop no.19, 'A' Group (same Sandesh Vihar, as belonging to the deceased)
11. '16' A pair of chappals P29 Blood was detected
12. '17' Blood stained gauze cloth Human blood of i.e. Blood sample of the 'A' Group (same deceased Dheeraj as belonging to the deceased)
13. '18a' Shirt of deceased Dheeraj Human blood of 'A' Group (same as belonging to the deceased)
14. '18b' Banian of deceased Dheeraj Human blood of 'A' Group (same as belonging to the deceased)
15. '18c' Underwear of deceased Human blood Dheeraj
16. '19' Piece of cloth recovered P33 Human blood from beneath the driver seat of car No. DL9CK3999
17. '20' Iron rods P3 (colly.) Human blood
18. '21' Piece of cloth taken from the Blood was left side rear seat of car no. detected DL8CK2675
19. '22' Piece of cloth taken from left Human blood side rear seat of car no.
DL8CK2675
20. '23' Piece of cloth (seat cover) Blood was taken from the driver seat detected from car no. DL8CK3999 St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 207
21. '24' Gauze cloth piece taken from Blood was internal right rear side detected window of car No. DL9CK3999
22. '25' Gauze cloth piece taken from Blood was space near hand brake of car detected no. DL9CK3999
23. '26' Gauze cloth piece taken from Blood was driver side door/ window of detected car no. DL9CK3999 (166) It has been established from the Forensic Evidence on record that the blood group of the deceased Dheeraj was of 'A' Group.
Further, the exhibits lifted from both the cars i.e. DL8CK2765 and DL9CK3999 show the presence of blood and traces of human blood was also found on the iron rod recovered from the esteem car bearing no. DL9CK3999 recovered from the possession of the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Nar Bahadur. I hereby hold that the Forensic Evidence is compatible to the version put forward by the prosecution.
Motive and common intention:
(167) The case of the prosecution is that the murder of Dheeraj had been committed since the accused Manoj @ Monu was previously employed at the Shop of Vikas (PW13) at Shop No.17, DDA, Market Sandesh Vihar, Delhi. Dheeraj was sleeping on the sofa outside the Shop No. 19 and on hearing the noises from inside the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 208 shop, had woken up. Apprehensive of being exposed by Dheeraj, the accused killed him while leaving. According to the prosecution the motive of the crime initially was house breaking and robbery and it was in furtherance of this common intention that all the four accused had come to the DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar in Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which they had stolen from BM55, East Shalimar Bagh and while Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu committed robbery in Shop No.17, DDA Market the accused Nar Bahadur waited for them in the vehicle. It is also the case of the prosecution that while Pramod, Mini and Manoj were fleeing away after committing the robbery, the deceased Dheeraj an employee of the adjoining Shop No.19 who was sleeping on a sofa outside Shop No. 18 and 19, noticed what was happening. Manoj @ Monu being an exemployee previously working in Shop No. 17 became apprehensive and it was then that Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu for the fear of being exposed on the exhortation of Manoj @ Monu (isko jaan se maar do) decided to kill Dheeraj and in furtherance of the same Pramod and Mini inflicted repeated blows to Dheeraj with iron rods with the intention to cause his death. (168) However, before coming to the merits of the case, I may observe that the motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 209 strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(169) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
(170) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 210 Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257].
(171) Further, in so far as the existence of common intention is concerned, I may observe that the provisions of Section 34 IPC have been enacted on the principal of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 IPC if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34 IPC, be if pre arranged or on the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 211 individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 (1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential elements for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The Section does not say "the common intentions of all" nor does it say "an intention common to all". Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34 IPC, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 IPC is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying section St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 212 34 IPC, it is not necessary to show some over act on the part of the accused. The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004(3) SCC 793.
(172) Now, applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case while analyzing the evidence before this Court, I may observe that it is the testimony of Shri Ram (PW29) which is most important. Shri Ram (PW29) has specifically deposed that at night he had woken up on hearing the noise of khatpat when he saw from the glass door that Dheeraj was crying and two persons were standing near him with rod. According to Shri Ram, Dheeraj tried to stand up and come upto Shop No.18 when he heard the voice inside the shop no.17 that "Isko jaan se mar do".
(173) It has come on record that Manoj @ Monu was a former employee of Vikas and had worked with him for about one and a half to two years and hence was known to both Shri Ram and Dheeraj (deceased). It is for this reason that while they (assailants) were leaving, Dheeraj who was sleeping of the Shop on a Chabootra, got up and it was Manoj who fearing that deceased had identified him asked others (Pramod and Mini) to kill him when both Pramod and Mini killed Dheeraj little realizing that Shri Ram another employee of the neighbouring shop of Sanjay Sharma was also sleeping inside and was seeing through the glass door (which glass door is clearly visible in photographs Ex.PW34/A14, Ex.PW34/A15 and Ex.PW34/A16). St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 213 (174) It is clear from the testimony of Shri Ram that he had only seen three persons actively participating in the robbery and thereafter in the murder of Dheeraj. It is further borne out from his testimony that all the three boys whom he has identified as Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu were armed with iron rods, thereby establishing that they had come prepared for all eventualities in case of any resistance. It is also established from the testimony of Shri Ram that he has identified Manoj @ Monu as the person who had exhorted the other two boys Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini to finish by saying "Isko jaan se maar do". (175) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to conclusively established that initially the motive of the crime was house breaking and robbery but while the accused were fleeing away from the spot, Dheeraj the employee of the adjoining shop woke up and Manoj @ Monu apprehending that he would be exposed and identified, exhorted Pramod and Mini to kill Dheeraj. It is writ large that the motive of the murder of Dheeraj had developed at the spot of the incident when Manoj realized that he had seen them and would identify them. Further, the fact that Pramod, Mini and Manoj had come to Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar duly armed with iron rods and thereafter on the exhortation of Manoj @ Monu clubbed Dheeraj to death, are indicative of the common intention of these three accused to commit the murder to St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 214 Dheeraj having acted in consortium.
(176) Further, in respect of the incident which took place at B3, Block, Keshav Puram, the fact that at 2:15 AM all the four accused namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Narbahadur @ Dhan Bahadur were found sitting in Esteem Car no. DL8CK2765 (which car had been stolen from M55, East Shalimar Bagh) and were thereafter noticed by Anil Tiwari (PW28) a Security Guard to be behaving in a suspicious manner, while trying to open the lock of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 and were in possession of iron rods, is again indicative of the common intention of the accused to commit robbery of the Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957. This coupled with the fact that the accused on noticing Anil Tiwari talking to another resident of the area who made a call to the police, ran away on foot towards Tri Nagar from where another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 belonging to Rajesh a resident of 1910/143, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar was stolen at 3:40 AM, again conclusively establishes the common intention so attributed to the accused.
Sequence of events:
(177) The entire case of the prosecution revolves around four incidents which are so connected with each other, so as to form a part of the same transaction (Ref.: Rule of ResGestae Section 6 of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 215 Indian Evidence Act).
(178) Firstly all the four accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur who are stated to be professional robbers had stolen the Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 belonging to Surender Singh (R/o BM55, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi) on 2.3.2010.
(179) Secondly the accused Manoj @ Monu was previously employed at the Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura owned by Vikas (PW13). After committing theft of the above car all the accused namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur came to Sandesh Vihar in the same Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8C2567 (belonging to Surender Singh) which was stolen by them. While the accused Nar Bahadur parked the Esteem Car at the corner of the Market, the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu entered the shop no. 17 of Vikas and committed Housebreaking/ Robbery in the same and removed the drawer/ cash counter. However, while they were carrying away the same, the worker/ servant of Sanjay Kumar the owner of Shop No.19 namely Dheeraj who was sleeping on a Sofa kept on the Chabutra outside the shop got up and hence feeling apprehensive and scared of being identified, the accused Manoj @ Monu exhorted the accused Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini to kill him by saying "Isko jaan se maar do" on which the accused Pramod @ Langra and St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 216 Mini @ A. Mini gave iron rod blows on the head of Dheeraj. (180) Thirdly these accused after committing the robbery and committing the murder of Dheeraj, went to B3 Block, Keshav Puram where they left the said vehicle since the said vehicle was not in working order and while they were trying to break the locks of another Esteem car parked next to it (DL9CP8957) but they were noticed by the Chowkidar Anil Kumar Tiwari who immediately informed Jagbir Shah Singh a resident of the area who made a PCR call and on this all the four accused ran away from B3 Block, Keshav Puram on foot and also left the Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 at the spot along with its contents (stolen drawer and rods). (181) Lastly at about 3:40 AM all the accused committed the theft of Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 belonging to Rajesh Kumar from the area of Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar which is adjoining the Keshav Puram area where they had left the earlier vehicle. This was noticed by the Chowkidar of the area who informed Rajesh of it and pursuant to the same Rajesh informed the Police and an FIR bearing No.82/2010 was registered at Police Station Keshav Puram, under Section 379 IPC.
(182) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as Forty Nine witnesses including public witnesses i.e. Vikas (PW13) the owner of Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura; Sanjay Sharma (PW18) the owner of Shop No.19, DDA Market, St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 217 Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura; M.L. Narang (PW20) the President of RWA B3 Block, Keshav Puram; Parmeet Singh (PW21) the son of the registered owner of Maruti Esteem Car No. DL8CK2765; Rajesh Kumar (PW24) owner of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999; Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) who had made a PCR call and most important of all Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) and Shri Ram (PW29) who have stood by their version. Both Shri Ram and Anil Kumar Tiwari have not only identified the accused persons but have also been able to built the continuous chain of evidence. (183) On the basis of the testimonies of the public witnesses/ eye witnesses, witnesses of medical examination/ postmortem; the witnesses conducting forensic examination and the police officers, the sequence of events which now stands established and proved are as under:
➢ That on 2.3.2010 at about 11:30 PM Parmeet Singh (son of Surender Singh) parked his Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 in front of his house i.e. BM55, East Shalimar Bagh which car was stolen. ➢ Thereafter all the four accused came to Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura where the accused Manoj @ Monu was previously employed for almost two years and was aware that the owner (Vikas) used to keep the money in the locker of the shop.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 218 ➢ That the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu entered the shop No.17 duly armed with iron rods and after breaking open the counter, removed the drawer/ locker from the table/ cupboard. ➢ That while the accused Manoj @ Monu carried the drawer containing cash amount of Rs.1,100/, other documents and items such as automobile spare parts, the accused Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini joined him.
➢ That while coming out of the Shop No.17 after committing robbery, one Dheeraj who was working in the adjoining shop No. 18 who was sleeping on the Sofa lying on the Chabutra in front of Shop No.18 & 19 woke up, on which the accused Manoj @ Monu fearing identification exhorted Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini to kill him by saying Isko jaan se maar do. ➢ That pursuant to the same Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini inflicted repeated injuries on the head of Dheeraj with the iron rods which they were carrying in their hands and clubbed him to death.
➢ That Shri Ram (PW29) another employee working in Shop No.19 was sleeping inside the Shop No. 19 on the wooden counter, who got up on hearing the cries of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 219 Dheeraj and witnessed the entire incident through the glass door but did not come out of the shop till the break of dawn feeling extremely scared and terrified. ➢ That at about 2:15 AM all the four accused went to B3 Block, Keshav Puram in the same stolen car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and parked the same besides another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 and tried to break open its locks when they were noticed by the guard Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) who was on duty at the Main Gate of B3 Block, Keshav Puram.
➢ That Anil Kumar (PW28) questioned them about there presence in the area as they were not residing there and also asked them to come with him but the accused refused.
➢ That Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) noticing the strange and suspicious behaviour of the accused and the fact that the accused were armed with iron rods, returned back to the Main Gate where he met Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) a resident of the same area who was waiting at the gate for him as the gate was closed and informed him about the presence of four boys who were trying to break open the locks of the Esteem Car.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 220 ➢ That Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) immediately made a call to the PCR at 2:26AM and while Jagbir Shah Singh was still talking on the phone, accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur ran away on foot from there towards Tri Nagar side leaving the Esteem Car bearing no. DL8CK2765 behind. ➢ That pursuant to the PCR call HC Ram Dayal (PW48) reached the spot and inspected the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 when he found a drawer containing documents and other articles.
➢ That on the basis of the documents of car, HC Ram Dayal contacted Surender Singh the registered owner of the car who along with his son Parmeet Singh (PW21) reached the spot and identified their car but did not claim the drawer and other articles including rods and handed over the said drawer and its contents to HC Ram Dayal. ➢ That after the accused fled to Tri Nagar on foot at about 3:40 AM they committed theft of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 from 1910/143, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar belonging to Rajesh which was witnessed by the Chowkidar of the area who immediately informed Rajesh (PW24) of it, pursuant to which Rajesh (PW24) immediately made a call to police and an FIR bearing St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 221 No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram was registered regarding theft of this car.
➢ That simultaneously at Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura Shri Ram who had witnessed the murder kept hiding inside Shop No.19 being terrified and it was only in the morning when people started moving in the area that Shri Ram rushed to the house of his owner Sanjay Sharma (PW18) and informed him about the incident on which Sanjay Sharma immediately went to the Police Station personally and informed the police about the incident after which the present FIR was registered on the statement of Shri Ram.
➢ Meanwhile HC Ram Dayal of Police Station Keshav Puram after going through the documents lying in the drawer found the address of Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura also reached DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar and it was there that he met Inspector Praveen Kumar and came to know of the robbery and murder on which he handed over the drawer and its contents to Inspector Praveen Kumar. The owner of the Shop No.17 namely Vikas also identified the said drawer, papers and articles as belonging to him.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 222 (184) It is evident from the aforesaid that the prosecution has been able to successfully prove their case starting from theft of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and murder of Dheeraj and thereafter the abandoning of the said car at B3 Block, Keshav Puram when the accused fled on foot towards Tri Nagar side where they committed theft of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 belong to Rajesh Kumar (PW24) which vehicle was recovered from the possession of accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Nar Bahadur on 6.3.2010 at the time when they were apprehended.
Role of accused Nar Bahadur is different from the role attributed to other accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu:
(185) The case of the prosecution is that all the four accused are professional robbers and habitual in committing robberies and on the intervening night of 23.03.2010 had committed robbery in Shop No. 17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura pursuant to which they also committed the murder of Dheeraj. The direct evidence on record in the form of the eye witness account of Shri Ram (PW29) suggests that it was only Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu who were involved in committing robbery in the Shop No. 17 (belonging to Vikas) and murder of Dheeraj. The accused Nar Bahadur has been identified only by Anil Tiwari (PW28) as the person who was sitting in the stolen Esteem Car bearing No. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 223 DL8CK2765 belonging to Parmeet Singh in which the drawer stolen from Shop No.17 (of Vikas) was found. There is no other evidence in the form of chance prints etc. to connect the accused Nar Bahadur with the robbery so committed in the Shop No. 17, DDA Market, Sadesh Vihar, Pitampura naturally so because as per the case of the prosecution Nar Bahadur was the person who was driving the stolen car and had parked the same in the corner of the street i.e. not within the visibility zone of Shri Ram (eye witness). (186) The accused Nar Bahadur has only been identified by Anil Tiwari (PW28) as the person was sitting in the stolen Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which was left at the spot from which the stolen drawer from the shop of Vikas was recovered which Vikas has duly identified. When this incriminating evidence was put to the accused Nar Bahadur in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he simply denied the same. When was it that Nar Bahadur had joined the company of the other three accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu who had been identified by the eye witness Shri Ram (PW29) at DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura is a special fact which was only in the knowledge of Nar Bahadur which only he could explain (under Section 106 Evidence Act) which he has failed to do and is liable to be read against him. (187) I hereby hold that the accused Nar Bahadur can only be held guilty of being in possession of the stolen car of Parmeet Singh St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 224 bearing No. DL8CK2765 in respect of which no separate FIR has been registered in view of the fact that the said car which was stolen from Parmeet Singh was recovered within a few hours even before the owner could have realized or come to know of the same being removed. The aspect of theft of the car stands established from the testimony of Parmeet Singh proving that he had parked the same in front of his house at BM55, East Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and had been removed to another area without his consent and was found in possession of the accused when they were noticed by Anil Kumar Tiwari which possession they have not been able to explain. (188) Therefore, under these circumstances, there being no eye witness (Shri Ram not having seen Nar Bahadur) nor any other circumstantial/ forensic evidence to connect Nar Bahadur with the robbery/ murder of Dheeraj at Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the accused Nar Bahadur under Section 302, 458 and 460 Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. (189) However, in so far as his presence in stolen Esteem Car of Surender Singh bearing No. DL8CK2765 at B3 Block, Keshav Puram at 2:15 AM is concerned, there is no reason to doubt the version of Anil Kumar Tiwari which finds due corroboration from the testimony of Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25). Nar Bahadur along with Pramod, Mini and Manoj were not only found in possession of the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 225 stolen car bearing No. DL8CK2765 but was also involved in an attempt to commit theft of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 which was parked along with the car bearing no.
DL8CK2765 in which they were sitting duly armed with iron rods. He is also liable for being in possession of the stolen drawer/ locker stolen from the Shop No.17 of Vikas which was found inside car No. DL8CK2765 after Nar Bahadur along with Pramod, Mini and Manoj escaped from the spot i.e. B3 Block, Keshav Puram when noticed by Anil Tiwari.
(190) Hence, under these circumstances, Nar Bahadur along with Pramod, Mini and Manoj are held guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code for being found in possession of the stolen car bearing no. DL8CK2765 belonging to Parmeet Singh and the drawer stolen from the Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura. They are further liable for the offence under Section 379 read with 511 Indian Penal Code for attempt to break the locks of Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 at B3 Block, Keshav Puram [in terms of the provisions of Section 221 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure even though no separate charge had been framed]. FINAL CONCLUSION:
(191) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 226 down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(192) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. From the evidence on record, the following facts and sequence of events stand established and proved: St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 227
➢ That on 2.3.2010 at about 11:30 PM Parmeet Singh (son of Surender Singh) parked his Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 in front of his house i.e. BM55, East Shalimar Bagh which car was stolen.
➢ Thereafter all the four accused came to Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura where the accused Manoj @ Monu was previously employed for almost two years and was aware that the owner (Vikas) used to keep the money in the locker of the shop.
➢ That the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu entered the shop No.17 duly armed with iron rods and after breaking open the counter, removed the drawer/ locker from the table/ cupboard. ➢ That while the accused Manoj @ Monu carried the drawer containing cash amount of Rs.1,100/, other documents and items such as automobile spare parts, the accused Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini joined him.
➢ That while coming out of the Shop No.17 after committing robbery, one Dheeraj who was working in the adjoining shop No. 18 who was sleeping on the Sofa lying on the Chabutra in front of Shop No.18 & 19 woke up, on which the accused Manoj @ Monu fearing identification St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 228 exhorted Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini to kill him by saying Isko jaan se maar do.
➢ That pursuant to the same Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini inflicted repeated injuries on the head of Dheeraj with the iron rods which they were carrying in their hands and clubbed him to death.
➢ That Shri Ram (PW29) another employee working in Shop No.19 was sleeping inside the Shop No. 19 on the wooden counter, who got up on hearing the cries of Dheeraj and witnessed the entire incident through the glass door but did not come out of the shop feeling extremely scared and terrified.
➢ That at about 2:15 AM all the four accused went to B3 Block, Keshav Puram in the same stolen car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and parked the same besides another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 and tried to break open its locks when they were noticed by the guard Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) who was on duty at the Main Gate of B3 Block, Keshav Puram.
➢ That Anil Kumar (PW28) questioned them about there presence in the area as they were not residing there and also asked them to come with him but the accused refused.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 229 ➢ That Anil Kumar Tiwari (PW28) noticing the strange and suspicious behaviour of the accused and the fact that the accused were armed with iron rods, returned back to the Main Gate where he met Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) a resident of the same area who was waiting at the gate for him as the gate was closed and informed him about the presence of four boys who were trying to break open the locks of the Esteem Car.
➢ That Jagbir Shah Singh (PW25) immediately made a call to the PCR at 2:26AM and while Jagbir Shah Singh was still talking on the phone, accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur ran away on foot from there towards Tri Nagar side leaving the Esteem Car bearing no. DL8CK2765 behind. ➢ That pursuant to the PCR call HC Ram Dayal (PW48) reached the spot and inspected the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 when he found a drawer containing documents and other articles.
➢ That on the basis of the documents of car, HC Ram Dayal contacted Surender Singh the registered owner of the car who along with his son Parmeet Singh (PW21) reached the spot and identified their car but did not claim the drawer and other articles including rods and handed over St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 230 the said drawer and its contents to HC Ram Dayal. ➢ That after the accused fled to Tri Nagar on foot at about 3:40 AM they committed theft of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 from 1910/143, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar belonging to Rajesh which was witnessed by the Chowkidar of the area who immediately informed Rajesh (PW24) of it, pursuant to which Rajesh (PW24) immediately made a call to police and an FIR bearing No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram was registered regarding theft of this car.
➢ That simultaneously at Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura Shri Ram who had witnessed the murder kept hiding inside Shop No.19 being terrified and it was only in the morning when people started moving in the area that Shri Ram rushed to the house of his owner Sanjay Sharma (PW18) and informed him about the incident on which Sanjay Sharma immediately went to the Police Station personally and informed the police about the incident after which the present FIR was registered on the statement of Shri Ram.
➢ Meanwhile HC Ram Dayal of Police Station Keshav Puram after going through the documents lying in the drawer found the address of Shop No.17, DDA Market, St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 231 Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura also reached DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar and it was there that he met Inspector Praveen Kumar and came to know of the robbery and murder on which he handed over the drawer and its contents to Inspector Praveen Kumar. The owner of the Shop No.17 namely Vikas also identified the said drawer, papers and articles as belonging to him.
(193) The medical evidence on record proves that the cause of death was extensive craniocerebral injuries as a result of hard, relatively heavy blunt object diverted upon head of the deceased which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It also stands established that the injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 (Laceration 5 x 1 cms over top of vault midline with crushed margins;
Laceration 6.5 x 1.5 cms over junction of right forehead and right frontal with crushed margins and contused abraded marks around with depressed deformity around and Two lacerations each 1cm and 1.5 cms long over left side forehead just above the medial end of left eye brow, two small lacerations each about 0.75 cms over nose with contused abraded area around with fracture nasal bone, laceration 1 cm long just in front of right ear with abrasions around, laceration 1x0.5 cms over upper lip) were caused by the iron rod recovered from the possession of the accused. It has been further established from the Forensic Evidence (FSL Report) that the blood group of the deceased St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 232 Dheeraj was of 'A' Group, the exhibits lifted from both the cars i.e. DL8CK2765 and DL9CK3999 show the presence of blood and traces of human blood was also found on the iron rod recovered from the esteem car bearing no. DL9CK3999 which the accused have not been able to explain.
(194) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence. (195) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 233 to built up a continuous link.
(196) Therefore, in view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu of having committed lurking house trespass (lurking house trespass as defined under Section 442 of Indian Penal Code includes the place used for custody of the property) in Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura for which they are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 458 read with 460 Indian Penal Code. I also hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the knowledge and intent of the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu as contemplated under Section 300 Indian Penal Code to cause death of Dheeraj, for which they are held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. The accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu are also held guilty of the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code for being found in possession of the stolen car bearing no. DL8CK2765 belonging to Surender Singh and the drawer stolen from the Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura. They are further liable for the offence under Section 379 read with 511 Indian Penal Code for attempt to break the locks of Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 at B3 Block, Keshav Puram [in terms of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 234 the provisions of Section 221 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure even though no separate charge had been framed].
(197) In so far as the accused Nar Bahadur is concerned, he was the person who was driving the stolen car and had parked the same in the corner of the street i.e. not within the visibility zone of the eye witness Shri Ram. He has only been identified by Anil Kumar Tiwari as the person who was sitting in the stolen Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 which was left at B3 Block, Keshav Puramfrom which the stolen drawer belonging to Vikas was recovered. Therefore, he is acquitted of the charges under Section 302,458 and 460 IPC and has been held guilty of the offence under Section 411 and 379 read with 511 Indian Penal Code [in terms of the provisions of Section 221 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure even though no separate charge had been framed].
(198) Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 27.7.2012.
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.7.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 235
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 1255/10 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0135582010 State Vs. (1) Pramod @ Langra S/o Hira Lal R/o LBlock Jhuggi N105/182, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental S/o Kanda Swami @ Marimmutu R/o E683, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Manoj @ Monu S/o Chandan Singh R/o K272, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi (Convicted) (4) Narbahadur @ Ladies Monu @ Dhan Bahadur S/o Prem Bahadur R/o D73, JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, Delhi (Convicted) St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 236 FIR No.: 80/2010 Police Station: Saraswati Vihar Under Section: 458/460/302/411/34 Indian Penal Code Date of conviction: 20.7.2012 Arguments on sentence concluded on: 14.8.2012 Date of sentence: 21.8.2012 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Sukhbeer Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
All the four convicts namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental, Manoj @ Monu and Narbahadur @ Dhan Bahadur in judicial custody with Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, Sh. B.S. Solanki and Sh. Praveen Dabas Advocates/ Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide a detailed judgment dated 20.7.2012 this Court has held the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental and Manoj @ Monu guilty of the offence under Sections 302/458/460/411 and Section 379 read with 511/34 Indian Penal Code for which they have been accordingly convicted. Further, the accused Narbahadur @ Dhan Bahadur has been held guilty of the offence under Sections 411 and Section 379 read with 511/34 Indian St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 237 Penal Code and accordingly convicted.
All the convicts before this Court are reported to be professional robbers. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused persons are professional robbers and on the date of incident i.e. on the intervening night of 23.3.2010 all the accused namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur first committed the theft of Maruti Esteem Car bearing No. DL8CK2765 belonging to one Parmeet Singh at BM55, East Shalimar Bagh after he (Parmeet Singh) had parked his vehicle outside his house at 11:30 PM. Thereafter they all came to Shop No. 17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura where the accused Manoj @ Monu was previously employed for almost two years and was aware that the owner (Vikas) used to keep the money in the locker of the shop. Thereafter while the accused Nar Bahadur remained inside the car which he had parked at the corner of the street, the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu entered the shop No.17 duly armed with iron rods and after breaking open the counter, removed the drawer/ locker from the table/ cupboard. While the accused Manoj @ Monu carried the drawer containing cash amount of Rs.1,100/, other documents and items such as automobile spare parts, the accused Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini joined him. While coming out of the Shop No.17 after committing robbery, one Dheeraj who was working in the adjoining shop No. 18 St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 238 who was sleeping on the Sofa lying on the Chabutra in front of Shop No.18 & 19 woke up, on which the accused Manoj @ Monu fearing identification exhorted Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini to kill him by saying Isko jaan se maar do. Pursuant to the same Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini inflicted repeated injuries on the head of Dheeraj with the iron rods which they were carrying in their hands and clubbed him to death. Shri Ram another employee working in Shop No.19 was sleeping inside the Shop No. 19 on the wooden counter. He got up on hearing the cries of Dheeraj and witnessed the entire incident through the glass door but did not come out of the shop feeling extremely scared and terrified. Thereafter at about 2:15 AM all the four accused went to B3 Block, Keshav Puram in the same stolen car bearing No. DL8CK2765 and parked the same besides another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CP8957 and tried to break open its locks when they were noticed by the guard Anil Kumar Tiwari who was on duty at the Main Gate of B3 Block, Keshav Puram. Anil Kumar questioned them about there presence in the area as they were not residing there and also asked them to come with him but the accused refused. On this, Anil Kumar Tiwari noticing the strange and suspicious behaviour of the accused and the fact that they were armed with iron rods, returned back to the Main Gate where he met Jagbir Shah Singh a resident of the same area who was waiting at the gate for him as the gate was closed and informed him about the St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 239 presence of four boys who were trying to break open the locks of the Esteem Car. Jagbir Shah Singh immediately made a call to the PCR at 2:26AM and while Jagbir Shah Singh was still talking on the phone, accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur ran away on foot from there towards Tri Nagar side leaving the Esteem Car bearing no. DL8CK2765 behind. Pursuant to the PCR call HC Ram Dayal reached the spot and inspected the car bearing No. DL8CK2765 when he found a drawer containing documents and other articles. On the basis of the documents of car, HC Ram Dayal contacted Surender Singh the registered owner of the car who along with his son Parmeet Singh reached the spot and identified their car but did not claim the drawer and other articles and handed over the said drawer and its contents to HC Ram Dayal. After the accused fled to Tri Nagar on foot at about 3:40 AM they committed theft of another Esteem Car bearing No. DL9CK3999 from 1910/143, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar belonging to Rajesh which was witnessed by the Chowkidar of the area Lal Bihari who immediately informed Rajesh of it, pursuant to which Rajesh immediately made a call to police and an FIR bearing No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram was registered regarding theft of this car. Simultaneously at Shop No.19, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura Shri Ram who had witnessed the murder kept inside Shop No.19 being terrified and it was only in the morning when people started St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 240 moving in the area, that Shri Ram (who had witnessed the incident of robbery and murder) rushed to the house of his owner Sanjay Kumar and informed him about the incident on which Sanjay Kumar immediately went to the Police Station personally and informed the police about the incident and the present FIR was registered on the statement of Shri Ram. Meanwhile HC Ram Dayal of Police Station Keshav Puram after going through the documents lying in the drawer found the address of Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar, Pitam Pura also reached DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar and it was there that he met Inspector Praveen Kumar and came to know of the robbery and murder on which he handed over the drawer and its contents to Inspector Praveen Kumar. The owner of the Shop No.17 namely Vikas also identified the said drawer, papers and articles as belonging to him.
Both the witnesses Shri Ram and Anil Kumar Tiwari have appeared in the Court and supported the prosecution case. Shri Ram has identified the accused Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini as the boys who had repeatedly hit Dheeraj with iron rods on his head and committed his murder on the exhortation of accused Manoj @ Monu. He has also identified the accused Manoj @ Monu as the boy who was also carrying an iron rod and after committing robbery was carrying away the drawer stolen from Shop No.17, DDA Market, Sandesh Vihar. Anil Kumar Tiwari has identified all the accused St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 241 namely Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini, Manoj @ Monu and Nar Bahadur as the boys who were sitting in Esteem car bearing No. DL8CK2765 while one of them was trying to break open the locks of another Esteem car No. DL9CP8957. On the basis of the testimonies of both these witnesses and also on the basis of medical, forensic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this Court vide its judgment dated 20.7.2012 held the accused Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu guilty of the offence under Section 302/458/460/411/34 and 379 read with 511 IPC for which they have been accordingly convicted. The accused Nar Bahadur has however been acquitted of the charges under Section 302/458/460 IPC and only held guilty of the offence under Section 411 and 379 read with 511 IPC and accordingly convicted.
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the convicts submit that all the convicts are young boys and belong to poor families. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict Nar Bahadur has vehemently argued that he is not convicted in any other case so far. He has pointed out that the convict Nar Bahadur was previously involved in another case bearing FIR No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram, under Sections 379/411/34 IPC but he has been acquitted in the said case. It is argued that keeping in view the young age of the convicts, a lenient view be St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 242 taken against them.
The convict Pramod @ Langra claims himself to be 22 years, having a family comprising of widow mother, one elder and one younger sister. He is 7th class pass and a labour by profession.
The convict Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental claims himself to be 24 years old, having a family comprising of father, mother, one elder and two younger sisters. He is totally illiterate and a driver by profession.
The convict Manoj @ Monu claims himself to be 22 years old, having a family comprising of father, mother, one younger brother and one younger sister. He is 7th class pass and is a Motor Mechanic by profession at Goldy Motors, Rani Bagh.
The convict Nar Bahadur @ Dhan Bahadur claims himself to be 21 years old, having a family comprising of father, three elder brothers, one elder and one younger sister. He is totally illiterate and a Sweeper by profession.
The Ld. Public Prosecutor has on the other hand, placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of the fact that the convicts Pramod @ Langra and Mini @ A. Mini have been convicted in other cases, the case falls within St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 243 the category of Rarest of Rare there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convicts. It is also stated that the convicts have not been able to show any mitigating circumstances in their favour which could make out a case for imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life. He has also argued that if this Court is of the view that the present case do not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare, the present case would certainly fall within the category of Rare case. He has pointed out that the convicts are involved in other cases details of which are as under:
Criminal involvements of convict Pramod @ Langra:
1. FIR No. 07/2010, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 392/427/34 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted).
2. FIR No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram, under Sections 379/411/34 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted).
3. FIR No. 174/2008, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, under Sections 399/402 IPC & 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been acquitted).
4. FIR No. 454/2007, Police Station Samaypur Badli, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been convicted).
5. FIR No.1043/2007, Police Station Subhash Place, under Section 379 IPC (wherein he has been convicted).
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 244
6. FIR No.412/2007, Police Station Prashant Vihar, under Sections 379 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted).
7. FIR No. 1110/2006, Police Station Samaypur Badli, under Sections 399/402 IPC & 25/54/59 of Arms Act (which is still pending trial).
8. FIR No.75/2006, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, under Sections 380/34 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted) Criminal involvements of convict Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental:
1. FIR No. 327/2009, Police Station Maurya Enclave, under Sections 380/411/34 IPC (which is pending trial).
2. FIR No. 253/2007, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been convicted).
3. FIR No. 415/2006, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been convicted).
4. FIR No. 954/2005, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been convicted).
5. FIR No. 587/2005, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been convicted).
6. FIR No. 1144/2004, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been acquitted).
7. FIR No. 81/2010, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 457/380 IPC (wherein is still pending trial). St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 245
8. FIR No. 87/2010, Police Station Maurya Enclave, under Sections 457/380 IPC (which is still pending trial).
9. FIR No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram, under Sections 379/34 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted). Criminal involvements of convict Manoj @ Monu:
1. FIR No. 75/2010, Police Station Rani Bagh, under Sections 411/482 IPC (which FIR has been cancelled).
2. FIR No. 07/2010, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 392/427/34 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted).
3. FIR No. 81/2010, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 457/380/411/34 IPC (which is still pending trial).
4. FIR No. 82/2010, Police Station Keshav Puram, under Sections 379/411/34 IPC (wherein he has been acquitted).
5. FIR No. 607/2009, Police Station Subhash Place, under Sections 379/411/34 IPC (which is still pending trial).
6. FIR No. 174/2008, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, under Sections 399/402 IPC & 25/54/59 of Arms Act (wherein he has been acquitted).
I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset, I may state that there is no dispute with regard to the applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 246 Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case.
The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], wherein it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:
(a) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) Where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:
(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 247
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or domination of another person; and
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of
persons of a particular caste, community, or
locality is committed.
(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a
helpless woman is committed.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 248
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.
Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I would like to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors is that the murder of Dheeraj was committed in cold blood without any instigation while the deceased was sleeping. The deceased Dheeraj himself was aged about 30 years. The mitigating factor is that the convicts Pramod @ Langra, Mini @ A. Mini and Manoj @ Monu are young boys and at the time of commission of offence they were in their early twenties. The convictions of the accused are all in cases which are punishable upto maximum imprisonment of three years. The present case cannot be put on the same pedestal as other ordinary murder case but at the same time it also does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare Case or Rare Case. The crime chart of the convicts show how from petty offenders they have graduated to professional criminals who would not hesitate to take the life of another. In view of the above, I St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 249 award the following punishments to the convict Pramod @ Langra:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The entire fine amount, if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased (Dheeraj) as compensation under Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. For the offence under Section 458 read with 460 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. For the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days.
4. For the offence under Section 379 read with 511 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 250
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
In so far as the convict Mini @ A. Mini @ Mental, is concerned, I hereby award the following punishments to him:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The entire fine amount, if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased (Dheeraj) as compensation under Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. For the offence under Section 458 read with 460 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. For the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days. St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 251
4. For the offence under Section 379 read with 511 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Further, I award the following punishment to the convict Manoj @ Monu:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.50,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. The entire fine amount, if recovered, shall be given to the family of the deceased (Dheeraj) as compensation under Section 357 Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. For the offence under Section 458 read with 460 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. For the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/. In default of St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 252 payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days.
4. For the offence under Section 379 read with 511 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
In so far as the convict Nar Bahadur @ Dhan Bahadur is concerned, he is not involved in any other case and he has been acquitted in the only case pending against him. Therefore, a lenient view is taken against him and I award the following punishment to the convict Nar Bahadur @ Dhan Bahadur:
1. For the offence under Section 411 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two Years and fine to the tune of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Fifteen days.
2. For the offence under Section 379 read with 511 Indian Penal Code, the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 253
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial in the present case, as per rules.
The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another be attached along with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 21.08.2012 ASJ (NW)II: ROHINI
St. Vs. Pramod @ Langra Etc., FIR No. 80/2010, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 254