Delhi High Court
Satinder @ Bawa vs State Thr.C.B.I. on 31 October, 2011
Author: S. Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat, G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON: 18.08.2011
PRONOUNCED ON: 31.10.2011
+ CRL.A. 497/2006, CRL. M.A.3290/2011
SATINDER @ BAWA ..... Appellant
versus
STATE THR.C.B.I. ..... Respondent
+ CRL.A. 317/2006
DILSHAD @ KALE ..... Appellant
versus
STATE THRU C.B.I ..... Respondent
+ CRL.A. 290/2006
ANIL ..... Appellant
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
+ CRL.A. 972/2006
DEVENDER ..... Appellant
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
+ CRL.A. 598/2008
RAVINDER S/O SH. KUMUDI ..... Appellant
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
+ CRL.A. 1020/2008
RAVI KUMAR @ SONU @ CHANDU ..... Appellant
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Presence: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate for appellant in
Crl. A.497/2006.
Ms. Reena Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh and Mr. Ajay Singh,
Advocates for appellant in Crl. A.972/2006.
Ms. Purnima Sethi, Advocate for appellant in Crl.A.598/2008 &
1020/2008.
Mr. Narender Mann, Special P.P. for CBI along with Mr. Manoj
Pant, Advocate for respondent - CBI.
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 1
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers YES
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? YES
3. Whether the judgment should be YES
reported in the Digest?
MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT
% 1. The Appellants Satinder @ Bawa, Devender, Dilshad @ Kale, Ravi Kumar @ Sonu,
Anil and Ravinder, (hereafter referred to by their names) impugn a judgment and order of the
Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Delhi, dated 18.03.2006, in SC No. 79/2005
whereby they were convicted for committing the offences punishable under Sections 396 and
400 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were sentenced to 7 years rigorous
imprisonment with ` 1000/- fine for the offence under Section 201 IPC and in default of
payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one month. Further, for the offence under
Section 450 IPC they were sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ` 1000,
and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. A dacoity was committed at House No.B-98, Lane No.7, Phase-10 Ganga Vihar,
Delhi. The premises belonged to Sh. Devi Saran. The incident occurred in the intervening
night of 22/23.09.1998 during which he was killed. FIR No.703/98 was registered in Police
Station Gokul Puri on 23.09.1998 under Sections 452/307/324/34 IPC against unknown
persons, on the written complaint of his wife. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed U/s 452/323/307/34 IPC against one Narender Gaur, a neighbor of the deceased. The
said accused was discharged on 10.09.1999 by a learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the
meanwhile, in another matter, (which was handed over to CBI by the this Court on 15.03.1999
- in respect of FIR No.606/98 of Police Station Gokul Puri), during investigation, the agency,
i.e. CBI came to know about involvement of a gang led by Satender @ Bawa; at its request,
this Court transferred further investigations in the present case to CBI by its order dated
14.12.1999. The CBI registered the present case under Sections 452/342/307/34 IPC on
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 2
11.01.2000 and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections
450/396/398/400/201/120B IPC and also under Sections 25/27 Arms Act r/w Section 120B
IPC.
3. The present Appellants were charged on 03.05.2001 for committing offences
punishable under Sections 450/396/400/201 IPC on the ground that they along with co-
accused Yusuf (who was declared PO) in the night intervening 22/23.09.1998 committed
house trespass by entering into House No. B-98, Lane No.7, Phase -10, Ganga Vihar, Delhi.
The house belonged to Devi Saran, Constable/ Driver of Delhi Police; it was alleged that they
committed dacoity. During the commission of the offence, they allegedly, murdered Devi
Saran while they were armed with deadly weapons namely knives/ chhuries and Katta. It was
alleged that they were part of to a gang habitually committing dacoity. It was alleged that after
committing the offences, they disposed of their blood stained clothes, bathed and concealed
weapons used in the commission of offence with a view to shield themselves and caused
evidence to disappear. The prosecution examined 88 witnesses, apart from placing reliance on
several exhibits, to bring home the Appellants' guilt. After considering the evidence, and
hearing submissions, the Trial Court convicted the Appellants, and sentenced them to undergo
imprisonment for the terms indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.
4. The Trial Court primarily relied on testimonies of PWs 1 and 4 -to whom extrajudicial
confessions about the incident were allegedly made; PWs 6, 7 and 9 were eyewitnesses to the
incident, who saw the incident and the attack on Devi Sharan. The testimony of injured
eyewitness PW-8 who was attacked during the incident, and was also the complainant, is
important. The IO in the case was PW-87; the Trial Court relied on his testimony too.
Appellants' contentions
5. It is argued, on behalf of Satinder that none of the eyewitnesses, i.e. PWs. 6-9 could
identify that Appellant. In this context, counsel relied on the deposition of PW-6 to the effect
that he had not seen his father's assailant; the witness also expressed inability to say which of
the accused was holding PW-8, who had been inflicted injuries by the attackers. The witness
could not also say who had escaped from Brij Lata's room, on the night of the attack.
Similarly, urged counsel, PW-7 stated that he could not identify specifically the three
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 3
assailants who had over powered Phoolwati, PW-8, caught hold of her legs, gagged her and
also caught hold of her hands. He further could not say who came out from Brijlata's room.
6. Counsel further submitted that PW 8 likewise was unable to identify the assailants who
killed the deceased. She made contradictory statements regarding the identity of Satinder;
earlier she stated that the Surinder, Deepak and Ravi had caught hold of her. However,
subsequently she stated that Satinder came out from Brijlata's room. Counsel submitted that
this witness even identified Deepak as the one who stabbed her when in fact he was not an
accused in the present case. She acknowledged in cross examination that she could not
identify the two or three persons who were involved in the attack. Furthermore, she is alleged
to have seen four assailants; yet the prosecution argued that seven attackers were involved.
Another aspect highlighted by the Appellants was that PW-8 deposed having seen Dilshad
running away with a katta; yet, concededly she did not anywhere mention that it was used.
Learned counsel argued that PW 9 Brijlata could not identify any of the accused and specify
the roles played by them, even though she was injured in the incident. Therefore from the
statement of the eye witnesses PW6, 7, 8 and 9 it is clear that none of them could specify or
establish the identify the accused and especially of the assailants who killed the deceased or
the role played by the accused; in fact they parroted each other, strongly suggesting that they
had been tutored beforehand to implicate the accused.
7. Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case titled as Akilesh Hajam
Vs. State of Bihar 1995 (Suppl.3) SCC 357, to the effect that
"though it appears that in all probability the appellant may be the culprit but
probabilities and moral convictions have no place or any role to play to
convict a person in the absence of legal evidence. There is a long distance to
be traveled between the expression "may be" and "must be". Howsoever
strong the emotional considerations may be, but the same cannot take the place
of proof."
8. It was submitted next that none of the eye witnesses could identify/specify the
weapons carried by the accused, which considerably weakened the prosecution case. Counsel
highlighted that the evidence and analysis by the Trial Court showed that there is a
contradiction in the number of accused named and charged in the earlier case investigated by
police. In the present case, the number of accused named and charged increased to seven. It
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 4
was urged that the appellants were falsely implicated in the present case, apparent because this
case pertained to the murder of a police official; also there was a property dispute between the
deceased and his brother-in-law PW 41, another police official. The statement of PW 9 (wife
of deceased), PW 38 (sister of deceased) and PW 41 (brother in law of deceased) regarding
the ownership of property, on the part portion of the house where incident took place had been
constructed, demonstrated this motive. Further, the fact that the earlier FIR (FIR703/98) was
recorded on the statement of PW 8 was registered against PW 20 also established the property
dispute. The present appellants were named after a period of over 1 ½ years, which was an
unexplained delay, fatal to the prosecution case.
9. It was submitted that the evidence of PW-87 was that all the accused were arrested
during the investigation of case RC 2 (S) 99/SIUT/SICT and on direction of this Court (in that
case) the investigation - of present case- was handed over to CBI and case no. RC2 (S)
2000/SIUT2/SICI was registered on 11.1.2000. Counsel submitted that PW-87 could not even
mention the date when Satinder, Dilshad and Ravi Kumar were arrested in the other case and
when their disclosure statements were recorded. It was emphasized that the accused were
already in police custody and were arrested in the present case after obtaining the permission
of the court. PW-87, submitted the Appellants' counsel, could not remember the date when for
the first time he came to know about the involvement of accused persons in the present case.
However, he deposed having suspected the accused's involvement, in the case, before
registration of the FIR, on 11-01-2000. The Appellants' counsel argued that the disclosure
statement of Satinder was recorded (in the present case) on 10.03.2000 after two months of
registration of case when they were already in the custody of CBI and the IO had suspicion
about their role; in the crime.
10. It was next urged that the extra judicial confessions before PW-1 and P-4 are
inadmissible and unreliable as the witnesses admitted that PW-1 was part of the gang of
accused persons and thus himself a culprit. The counsel relied on the decision of this court, in
Harish Yadav and Ors. v. CBI, 2007 (1) AD (Del) 703, in which the present accused persons
were arrested, where it observed that the Court has to be satisfied that the extra judicial
confession was made before a person of credibility so as to be safely believed and also that no
time and even the date of occurrence were given by the witness to extra judicial confession.
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 5
The Court in that case disbelieved the extra judicial confession which is in the same terms, in
both cases. It was also emphasized that PW-4 had deposed in Court, that the accused had told
him that they shot the police man whose house they had looted; however, no bullet injuries
were found on the deceased. This threw a doubt on the veracity of the witness' entire
testimony.
11. Dealing next with the refusal of the Appellants to participate in the TIP, it was urged
that the application for Satinder's TIP was moved on 21.3.2000 and he refused TIP on the
same date because he was already seen by the witnesses and his photographs was taken by the
CBI. In fact the TIP of all the four accused persons i.e. Satinder, Devinder, Anil and Dilshad
were done on same date i.e. 21.3.2000, which was two months after the registration of the
present case. This delay was unexplained, and could not be held against the Appellant.
12. Counsel urged that the "pointing out" memo regarding the incident i.e. house of the
deceased (as also the house of eye witnesses) pursuant to the disclosure statement of Satinder
was done on 11.03.2000. This, however, was of no consequence as there was no evidence that
he was taken to the place of incident with a muffled face. It was submitted in this case, the
Appellant was already in the custody of the CBI before the present case was registered in
January, 2000. Therefore no adverse inference could be drawn for refusal of TIP.
13. The recoveries of weapons of offence i.e. four churris/knives alleged to have been
recovered at the instance of Satinder, in the year 1999 in the other case No. RC
2(S)/1999/SIUT/SICT could not have been used to implicate him. The evidence of recoveries
of the churries/knife was inadmissible because they were never shown to the eye witnesses
and were not even shown to the appellant and the same was disbelieved by this court in
Harish Yadav & Ors. - i.e. the case where the statements were recorded. Further, argued
counsel, expert medical expert opinion of PW 15 is against prosecution so far as fatal injuries
No.5, 6 and 7 are concerned which according to the witness were stated to be the cause death
and PW 15 had deposed that injury No.5,6,7,10,11,12,13 are spindle shaped injuries which
can be caused by double edge weapon and thus not by the churris shown to him.
14. It was urged that the prosecution had blatantly sought to implicate the Appellants,
falsely, because they are alleged to have made disclosure statement leading to recovery of
articles, particularly murder weapons, which was highly improbable.
Contentions of the prosecuting agency, the CBI
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 6
15. The CBI submits that there was no occasion for the independent witnesses PW-6, 7, 8
and 9, to see the accused when they were taken for spot identification during the course of the
investigation, as they had already sold the said house to one Shri Sushil, S/o Shri Dev Dutt.
Therefore, an adverse inference may be drawn for refusal of the TIP by the Appellants. The
CBI relies, in this context on the testimony of PW-6 that after performing the last rites of his
father, the witness left the house of occurrence and after some days he had completely left that
house.
16. It is next urged that PW-87 in his statement deposed that the accused Ravinder himself
offered to point out the place of incident and led him (the IO) to crime scene. The witness did
not prepare any document to the effect that accused himself offered to point out the place of
incident. The owner of house at the place of incident or his son was present and he permitted
ingress in the house of place of incident. There were two other witnesses present there at that
time. The house, i.e. place of incident had been sold by the widow of deceased and she had
left for her village.
17. In the pointing out memo dated 15.01.2000 of accused Anil and Dilshad, exhibited as
EXPW34/D, it is argued that on reaching house of Devisharan situated in Gali No. 7, one Shri
Shushil, s/o Shri Dev Dutt met the police; he said that he had purchased the house of deceased
Devi Sharan few months previous to his date of deposition.
18. Learned counsel urged that the testimony of eye witnesses PW 8 Smt. Phool Wati,
PW 6 Ajay Kumar, PW 7 Jitender Kumar and PW 9 Brij Lata clearly identified the accused.
PW 8 Smt. Phool Wati had identified accused Dilshad @ Kale, Satender @ Bawa and Ravi as
part of the group of gang along with Deepak, who had gone and conducted the attack, with the
motive of robbery. Deepak, argued counsel for CBI, is not accused in the present case but was
present in Court because he was an accused in the connected case. Due to passage of time and
the trauma experienced by PW-8 due to loss of her husband in the incident and according to
deposition of PW 23 Neeraj, her condition had deteriorated after the death of Devi Sharan,
the initial mistake in identification was explainable; yet she correctly identified accused
Dilshad @ Kale, Satender @ Bawa and Ravi Kumar later.
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 7
19. It was argued that PW -8 had named seven accused persons before the police but the
IO had instead told her to name only four accused persons. As far as the remaining accused
were concerned, her explanation is that due to passage of time, she was unable to identify
them. Next, it was submitted that PW 6 Ajay Kumar, son of the deceased had also furnished
particulars regarding the incident and even correctly identified all the accused. His detailed
cross-examination by learned counsel for the accused could not shake his testimony. He also
dismissed the theory of involvement of their neighbor Narender Gaur in the murder of his
father. He was unsure about Harish and had identified him as being an accused in the present
case although he is an accused in case No. RC2 (S)/99/SIC.I/New Delhi. It might have
happened due to joint trial of case as long time had elapsed between the date of incident and
the date of his deposition in Court. These, however, could not result in discarding his
testimony. Next, it was urged that PW 7, the deceased's nephew was also present in the
house on the day of the incident. He correctly identified all the accused, involved in the case
and he did not identify Deepak and Harish Yadav, who were facing trial in the connected
matter. Since evidence was being recorded in both the cases together, therefore, the two
accused were also present in Court but he was specific in not identifying those two accused
persons as assailants in this case. As regards the discrepancy between his testimony and that
of PW-8, it is submitted that besides identifying all accused, the latter witness claimed to have
seen Harish at the time of the incident but as per the version of the prosecution, he is not an
accused in this case. The other accused were correctly identified by PW 7 and PW 6. PW 8
was able to identify accused Dilshad @ Kale, Satender @ Bawa and Ravi Kumar. PW 8 was
under trauma and was not able to come to terms with reality as she had lost her husband and
she had suffered a lot and such loss of memory was natural. Yet, in view of her identification
in clear terms about the other accused, the court should consider her deposition, along with
that of PW-6 and PW-7.
20. Counsel for CBI further submitted that the extra judicial confessions deposed to by
PW-1 and PW-4, have a ring of truth, and should not be discarded. These witnesses would
have had no occasion to go to the court and get their statements recorded U/s 164 Cr. PC in
which they had stated that the accused had confessed before them to having looted the house
of a police officer (deceased in this case), stabbed him and his wife and when the noise was
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 8
raised, they ran away from the spot without carrying anything. No motive could be attributed
for false implication.
21. It was further argued that all witnesses to the disclosures were independent public
witnesses like Shri A.S. Mann, a Government servant, at the relevant time (examined as PW
30); Suraj Prakash (PW 32) and Pritam Singh (PW 34). The Appellants could not elicit
anything from them, during cross examination to point to any motive to depose falsely. The
CBI also joined the local witnesses at the time of search to evidence it; the search list was also
signed by them. The initial version of Delhi Police as spoken to by SI Kanchan Lal was that
PW 20 Narender Gaur, who was involved in this crime, was acquitted by the Court.
According to PW 17 Dr. Sudhir, the portion of statement of Devi Saran Ex. P.17/B marked X
to XI was written later, implicating PW 20 Narender Gaur. It was urged that PW 8 stuck to her
version that she had told that there were 7 -8 assailants but the police recorded only about 4
assailants to dilute the case. Other witnesses have also supported her version. Under these
circumstances, it is quite clear that local police did not conduct the investigation fairly,
perhaps to shield the real offenders. Having regard to all the conspectus of circumstances, this
court, submitted counsel, should affirm the findings of conviction recorded in the impugned
judgment.
The Evidence
22. As noticed earlier, PW-20 Narender Gaur was implicated for the offence, as an
accused, and made to stand trial. However, the prosecution could not, in that case, prove his
guilt. In the meanwhile another Sessions case, involving dacoity was pending; the CBI, which
was in charge of the investigation, was directed by this court, in another proceeding, to take
over investigations in this case. PW-72 deposed having received information while on duty in
the PCR, around 03-29 AM in the morning of 23-09-1998, about the incident. A wireless
message was flashed; it was received by ASI Dineshwar Prasad PW-78, at 03:30 AM; this
was recorded as Ex. PW-78/A and B. PW-71, a constable posted in the GTB hospital,
mentioned receiving information that the deceased and his wife were taken to the hospital at
around 04:00 AM; they were brought by their neighbours. He deposed that the deceased's
wife, PW-8 told him that 6-7 people had trespassed into their house, and attacked her husband,
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 9
as well as herself. PW-73 deposed to receiving a report (PW-43/C) from the Police Station,
and having gone to the hospital to deliver it to HC Ram Kishen, along with Constable
Subhash. He says that Ram Kishen handed over the rukka containing her statement, which
was taken to the hospital, and registered as FIR. This document (Ex. PW-75/B) was recorded
by HC Jagdish Prasad. PW-82 deposed that he received the wireless message at 03:36 AM
about the trespass incident and attack, having gone to the spot, learnt that the injured were
taken to GTB hospital, where he went to. The deceased was in the emergency ward; his wife
too was injured in the attack; she said that the knife used in the attack was lying on the bed
where she had slept. The witness mentioned that the knife was seized by him, after he went to
the crime scene. PW-85 Rakesh deposed that he photographed the scene on the directions of
SI Kanchan Lal. At a later stage, after the investigation was handed over to CBI, he went
along with the CBI team to Pradeep's house, and interrogated him. The latter disclosed that a
desi katta was given by Devender, which he lent to his cousin Sandeep. The CBI team went to
Sanauli, conducted a search and recovered a katta; the seizure memo was produced as Ex.
PW-37/B. The accused Ravinder was arrested from NOIDA, on 18-01-2001. This was sought
to be supported by PW-37 Anis. The arrest of Ravinder was also spoken to by PW-30, A.S.
Mann. He is also witness to the disclosure statement allegedly made on 27-01-2001, and the
"pointing out" by that accused, of various places, as well as the crime scene. PW-34 deposed
about Satinder's disclosure statement, on 03-03-2000.
Eyewitnesses
23. PW-6: Ajay Kumar, the deceased's son was present in the house at the time of the
incident. He stated that at 2.30- 2.45 A.M, when he was sleeping, in a room near the kitchen,
he heard his mother shrieking. He, and his cousin Jitender, (who was also sleeping near the
kitchen), woke up and looked out of the window; they saw his mother with three accused. All
of them had knives. Two of them were holding her leg, one struck her on her hips with the
knife and did not remove it. On hearing their cries the accused ran, leaving the knife thrust in
his mother's hip. When they ran towards the room (where his sister and his brother were
sleeping), they saw three others run away with blood stained knives. Then they went to the
room where his father was sleeping. They saw him standing by the side of the room, next to
the wall. He was covered in multiple stab wounds. Another accused came out of this room,
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 10
with a katta in his hand and he warned them that if they raised an alarm, he would kill them.
PW-6 then tried to staunch a bleeding wound on his father's stomach, using his father's lungi
which lay on the floor. They made him rest on the charpai and then went outside and raised an
alarm. His phupa and the two tenants of his phupha's house came first to their help, then two
neighbours Visheshar and Jail Singh arrived, and moved Devi Sharan on to a charpai and
took him to Kanti Nagar Bus Stand, from where to they took him to Guru Tegh Bahadur
Hospital, Shahdara, in a three-wheeler. His sister, one Shri Karanpal, and he went to the
hospital in an auto rickshaw. On 23.9.1998, when he came back to his house, he discovered
that the local police had recovered a knife, an iron rod, one bed sheet, and broken pair of
Hawaii chappals. His mother had pulled out the knife from her hips and thrown it in the room,
which was recovered later by the police.
24. The witness further deposed that his father expired on 3.10.1998, and a post mortem
was conducted on his body. He identified all the accused but made an error in stating that
Deepak had also been a part of the attack, whereas Deepak had been present in Court, for a
connected Trial, and was not an accused in this case. He stated that during the time of the
incident, his house was lit by a bulb. He also stated that his cousin Jitender's house was
adjacent to his house and that he had not seen those who had attacked his father. He also
stated that he could not specify which of the accused had held his mother, due to passage of
time, neither could he specifically identify which of the accused he had seen running away
from Brij Lata's room. Harish was shown to the witness, and he was asked whether he too was
there in the house with the other accused; he replied in the affirmative. He could not identify
which weapons had been held by each of the accused due to passage of time. He denied that
his family had a dispute with his uncle regarding the plot adjacent to his house. He denied that
he had been called from his village to identify the accused. He identified them for the first
time in Court.
25. PW-7 Jitender Kumar was the deceased's nephew and was in the latter's house at the
time of the incident. He deposed that he was sleeping near the kitchen where his cousin Ajay
was sleeping as well. At about 2.30/2.35 AM, he heard his aunt screaming. He and Ajay
woke up and knocked the door to the gallery (where she was sleeping); they looked through
the window, and he saw that three persons had overpowered his aunt, and all three had knives.
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 11
One man had gagged her mouth, another was holding down her feet, and a third was holding
her hands. The man who was holding her hands was stabbing her on her hips with his knife.
When they raised an alarm, all three ran towards the staircase. He and Ajay then entered the
room where Brij Lata, Bunty and Lalit were sleeping. They saw the three other accused run
out towards the staircase, with blood stained knives. Then they went to Devi Sharan's room,
from where he saw another accused with a Katta, who threatened to kill them if they raised an
alarm. He ran towards the staircase leading to the roof. He followed his cousin into the room
and saw his uncle bleeding with multiple stab injuries, by wall. His cousin tried to staunch the
stomach injury using a lungi that was lying on the floor. They took him out to the gallery and
made him rest on the charpai. On hearing their cries, the tenants from the neighbouring house,
came in to help. Another neighbour Jail Singh also came. His uncle told them to take him to
the hospital. They took him on the charpai to Shanti Nagar Bus Stand, from where they took
him to Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital in a three-wheeler. He came back home from the bus
stand, but Ajay, Brij Lata, Phoolwati, Karan Pal, and one Masterji accompanied them to the
hospital. He said he could see all the accused since the lights were on at the time of
commission of the offence. In cross examination, he stated that his aunt had removed the knife
from her hips. There were two bulbs that switched on at the time of the incident; one in Devi
Sharan's room, and the other in the gallery where his aunt had been sleeping. He says that the
CBI recorded his statement twice. He also deposed that he could not attribute specific
weapons to each of the accused but could remember that most of them had knives and one had
a katta, and that he could not specifically identify which one of them had attacked his aunt.
26. PW-8 Phoolwati, is the deceased's wife. She deposed to sleeping in the gallery, and
that her husband was sleeping in a room adjacent to her room. At about 2.30 AM, three
accused persons entered the house; one of them stabbed her on the hips, another gagged her
mouth, and a third had held her legs. On being stabbed she screamed, and Ajay and Jitender
came towards her. On seeing them, the three accused ran away and left the knife thrust into
her hips. She pulled it away and threw it on the floor and they went to her husband's room.
There, she saw him lying on the floor with multiple stab injuries. The wall and the floor were
covered in blood. When she was entering the room, another accused came out with a Katta
and threatened that if they raised an alarm, he would kill them. They went to the room where
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 12
Brijlata, Lalit and Bunty were sleeping; three accused ran away with blood stained knives
towards the staircase. The witness identified Dilshad@ Bawa as the accused armed with the
katta, and also identified Satinder @ Bawa, Deepak and Ravi. She deposed that Ravi and
Deepak had stabbed her, and she had seen Satinder come out of Brijlata's room. She
supported PW-7 and PW-6 about taking Devi Sharan to the hospital, and stated that she, along
with her daughter, son, Karanpal and Masterji went to the hospital; she was given first aid,
after which she came back home on 23. 9.1998. Her husband died after ten days. She said that
in her statement to the IO she categorically mentioned about involvement of seven people, but
the IO had insisted that she should only mention about four accused. She also deposed to
never implicating Narender Gaur in the crime. However, she stated that on the night of
occurrence, he had been sitting on her staircase. She also deposed that she was unable to
indentify two-three of the accused due to the passage of time and also as she was shocked and
disturbed by the event. She was cross examined by the CBI where she admitted that the knife
taken out by her from her hips, was taken away by the police officials of PS Gokul Puri and
she also admitted to have stated to CBI that she was told by her nephew that one iron rod and
one Hawai Chappal were left behind on the roof of the house by the assailants which were
handed over to the local police. She did not remember whether her thumb impressions were
taken on certain blank papers by local police but she was sure that local police did not read
over the contents of her statement to her and it was the IO who had pressurized her to name
only four persons as offenders; she did not name Narender Gaur as the offender or he was
sitting on their staircase on the night of occurrence. She admits that due lapse of time, she
could not identify 2/ 3 remaining persons who had assaulted them as because of occurrence,
she was in great shock and disturbed state of mind.
27. PW-9, Brij Lata, the deceased's daughter deposed that she was sleeping in a room with
her younger brother Lalit and her cousin Bunty. Her father was sleeping in the adjacent room
and an electric bulb was switched on in her father's room. At about 2.30 AM, she heard some
people enter her house and she heard her mother's screams. She tried to get out of her charpai,
but one of the assailants grabbed her mouth and held a knife to her throat. She says that on
hearing her mother's screams, Ajay and Jitender went to her, and the three assailants who
were in that room, ran towards the staircase leading to the roof of the house. She saw that her
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 13
mother had been stabbed on her hips, and the wound was bleeding. She saw her mother pull
out the knife and throw it on the floor. They then went to her father's room. Another assailant
carrying a katta was coming out of his room and he threatened them that if they raised an
alarm, he would kill them, and then, ran towards the staircase. They went inside her father's
room, and saw him sitting on the floor, bleeding. Her brother had tied a lungi around his
wounds. Her father was crying, asking to be taken to the hospital. He had multiple stab
wounds, the floor around him and his clothes were soaked in blood. Her brothers, her
neighbor's tenants and her mother took him to Shanti nagar Bus Stand on a charpai, and then
her mother, her elder brother Ajay, Bisheshar and Karan Pal took him in a two wheeler to
GTB Hospital, Shahdara. After her father was admitted and her mother had received first aid,
she and her mother were taken to the house of Khushi Ram in Shiv Vihar. Her mother had
stated that there were seven assailants, but the police pressurized her into saying that there
were only four assailants as otherwise the case would become too complicated.
28. PW-1 deposed to being approached by Satender to be a member of his gang; he
claimed to have met the accused. He gave details of the modus operandi of the accused. They
used to assemble at the bank of a canal, and commit crimes in the locality of Mohalla No. 2.
Satinder had given him a katta. During the looting of a person, he was commanded to point
the katta at the person's neck. If the person used to raise an alarm, Satinder and Kale used to
stab them. He says he had seen them stab people on three or four occasions. He deposed about
two looting incidents that this gang had perpetrated and had been told about. In the first, he
was told that they had looted a house in Ganga Vihar, which they had entered, in which lived
a family of three, a couple and their son; all three persons were attacked, the man died and his
wife and son sustained injuries. They looted an amount of about Rs. 20,000/- in cash,
jewellery and bidi cigarettes. They told him that they escaped using the nala to put the police
and dogs were put off trail. This loot was done with another person named Harish. Some of
the accused had absconded to Vaishno Devi. After coming back from Vaishnodevi, ` 10, 000
of the loot was given by Satinder to Harish. After some days, they came back to his house, and
told him about another house that they had looted the previous night from which they had had
a narrow escape. He says that they had told him that they had gone to the house of a police
man, and in the course of the looting they had stabbed the police man and his wife, and that
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 14
some members of the family had woken up, raised an alarm in the street, and they had had to
make their escape without taking anything from the house. Satinder had also told them that
while they were escaping PW-1 jeeja Shaym had seen them, and they had threatened to kill
him if he raised an alarm. One of the accused, Chandu, told him that during the commission of
the crime, some blood had fallen on his shoes and clothes which he had thrown into the nala
while escaping from the spot. He identified accused Dilshad as the secret informer who
would tell the gang about where to loot next.
29. PW-1 then deposed that the accused Satinder had given him a country made pistol to
dispose of/to sell as this katta had been used by him in several dacoities in and around Ganga
Vihar. He refused, but Satinder threatened to kill him if he did not do so. He even identified
the katta in Court. He said he came to the Court on his own and got his statement recorded
under Section 164 CrPC in the year 2000 during the festival of Holi. He says that after he
became a witness in this matter, the accused persons had threatened to kill him. Even
Satinder's brother had threatened him. He further stated that in 2000, Satinder had brought
CBI officials to his house and identified him as the man to whom he had given the katta. He
(PW-1) then took the police to the house of the person to whom he had sold the gun , a person
named Amit. The Katta was recovered from Amit's house. It was identified by the witness in
court. He says that when the accused Satinder met him the second time, to tell him about the
commission of the second dacoity, Harish was not with them, but a person named Ishu was
with them. He claimed to have remained with Satinder's gang because of the threat extended
by him. He said that on those occasions when they had stabbed people, accused Kale and
Chandu had also been present. The Katta used to be with him on all the occasions. He stated
that on the 20/25 occasions the accused persons had committed these crimes, but had never
given him a share. PW-4 Kapil is the PW-1's brother. He reiterated his brother's account of
the events with respect to the latter's involvement with the gang, the modus operandi of the
gang, the extrajudicial confession made by Satinder to them about the attack on the house of a
police man, about their uncle Shyam having seen them. He also said that after the attack, Kale
and Satinder had hidden themselves in his house for two/ three days. He deposed that later, 4-
5 CBI personnel had gone to his house, when he was alone and he was questioned about his
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 15
brother Pramod. They searched his house and found one iron rod (15 inches) and a vegetable
cutting knife. He says that they used to use the iron rod for earthing.
Analysis & Reasoning
30. As may be seen from the previous discussion, the prosecution has relied on eyewitness
testimony, identification in court, recoveries and extra judicial confessions allegedly made by
the appellants, to PW-1 and PW-4.
31. Satender, Ravi Kumar, Ravinder and Dilshad are said to have been identified by PW-
6, 7 and 8. Devender and Anil were seen by PW-6 and PW-7. It is noteworthy that all accused
had not participated in the TIP. Though the three eyewitnesses, who claimed to have
witnessed the incident (one of whom, PW-8, was seriously injured during it), deposed in their
examination in chief, about the role(s) played by the accused, and even identified most of
them in court, yet, in cross examination, they made damaging admissions.
32. PW 6 deposed that
"it is correct that I had not seen the person who had stabbed my father".
Later she said:
"I cannot tell which three of them were catching hold of my mother as with the
passage of time I am unable to tell this. Similarly I cannot tell which of the three
accused person came out and were escaping from the room of Brij Lata."
Further PW 6 wrongly identified Harish when in fact he was not an accused in the present
case. The prosecution assertion that PW6 identified the accused properly or was able to
identify each of the assailants who killed the deceased therefore, stands falsified.
33. PW 7 also could not identify the assailant who killed the deceased and failed to
identify any of the accused and the roles played by them. The relevant portion of the
statement of PW7 hereinbelow in cross examination is
"I cannot identify specifically and precisely those three assailants who had over
powered my Mami Phoolwati, caught hold of her legs, gagged her mouth and also
caught hold of her hands......nor I can say as to who were those who came out from
the room of Kumari Brijlata and others."
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 16
A careful reading of the deposition of PW-8 reveals that she too, was unable to identify the
assailants who had killed her husband. She made contradictory statements regarding the
accused's identity. In the first instance, she deposed that Surinder, Deepak and Ravi as the
persons who caught hold of her and subsequently contrary to same she stated that Satinder as
the person coming out from the room of Brijlata (PW9). Furthermore, PW-8 identified Deepak
as the assailant who stabbed her, when in fact he (Deepak) was not even arrayed as an
accused, in this case. In cross examination she said that:
"...due to lapse of time I could not identify 2/3 persons who had assaulted..."
PW-8, had only seen four assailants, and therefore the prosecution story that there were seven
assailants is doubtful. Though PW-8 had deposed to having seen Dilshad running away with a
katta, the fact that she says that she had seen only four assailants destroys the credibility of her
story. Trial Court, in our opinion, overlooked the fact that according to PW-8's testimony, she
had been stabbed and her husband had also been stabbed. This clearly showed that a Katta had
not been used. Significantly, PW-15 who had conducted the postmortem had deposed that
injuries 5,6 and 7 were sufficient in the ordinary course, to cause the death of a person; yet, on
being shown the alleged weapon of offence in court, he had stated that the injuries could not
have been caused by that weapon. As regards Brijlata (PW 9) the evidence shows that she
could not identify any of the accused and specify the roles played by them. Therefore, from
the statement of the eye witnesses PW6, 7, 8 and 9 it is clear that none of the eye witnesses
could specify or establish the identify the accused and specifically of the assailant who killed
the deceased or the role played by the accused.
34. Another aspect which the court has to take into consideration is that the two witnesses,
who claimed to have seen the assailants, were sleeping; they were woken up by the screams of
PW-8; PW-6 and PW-7 deposed seeing who were the attackers, because the room was lit.
Now, the materials on record show that the premises were very small; the probability its being
lit, as is deposed by the latter two witnesses, is very remote. The incident occurred in the early
hours of the morning. The witnesses' deposition that two bulbs were lit, seems improbable,
because it would not have been possible for anyone to sleep with a light - or at least a
powerful one, switched on, since it would have lit up the entire room (the entire premises in
this case measured about 500 square feet). Even if there was a light, it would have been
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 17
extremely weak. If such were the position, again, the CBI case of the possibility of identifying
any assailant would have been slim. In any case, the assailants would not have switched on the
light, or left it on, after entering the premises.
35. The court, in this case, is alive to the fact that the incident occurred quite some time, in
September 1998, before the accused were arrested, and made to face trial, after 2000. All the
accused refused TIP; two of them were identified by PW-8. As to the value of such
identification, the Supreme Court, in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1995 Supp (1)
SCC 80), said that it is well settled that substantive evidence of the witness is his evidence in
the Court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then
identification of the accused by the witness soon after his arrest is of great importance because
it furnishes an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to
furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in Court at the trial.
In the decision reported as Malkhansingh and Others v. State of M.P. [(2003) 5 SCC 746] the
Supreme Court stated that:
"It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court
and the test identification parade provides corroboration to the identification of the
witness in court, if required. However, what weight must be attached to the evidence of
identification in court, which is not preceded by a test identification parade is a matter
for the courts of fact to determine."
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and others (1979 (1) SCC 31), the Supreme Court
observed that the evidence of identification becomes stronger if the witness had an
opportunity of seeing the accused not for a few minutes but for some length of time, in broad
daylight, when he would be able to note the features of the accused more carefully than on
seeing the accused in a dark night for a few minutes. In Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and
others v. State of Gujarat (2000 (1) SCC 358) after considering the earlier decisions the Court
observed:-
"It becomes at once clear that the aforesaid observations were made in the light of the
peculiar facts and circumstances wherein the police is said to have given the names of
the accused to the witnesses. Under these circumstances, identification of such a
named accused only in the Court when the accused was not known earlier to the
witness had to be treated as valueless. The said decision, in turn, relied upon an
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 18
earlier decision of this Court in the case of State (Delhi Admn.) v. V. C. Shukla (AIR
1980 SC 1382) wherein also Fazal Ali, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench made
similar observations in this regard. In that case the evidence of the witness in the
Court and his identifying the accused only in the Court without previous identification
parade was found to be a valueless exercise. The observations made therein were
confined to the nature of the evidence deposed to by the said eye-witnesses. It,
therefore, cannot be held, as tried to be submitted by learned Counsel for the
appellants, that in the absence of a test identification parade, the evidence of an eye-
witness identifying the accused would become inadmissible or totally useless; whether
the evidence deserves any credence or not would always depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. "
In the present case, the length of time which occurred, before the accused were arrested, and
sent for TIP, and the nature of their identification in court, renders that circumstance to be a
weak link, and not strong enough to implicate them, for the offence they were charged with.
Furthermore, the incident occurred in the early hours of the morning, and in what can be
termed, at best at a dimly lit place, when the eyewitnesses were bleary eyed, and jolted out of
sleep. They could at best have formed a blurred impression about the attack, and the sequence
of events which unfolded in front of them. The circumstances were insufficient to enable them
to form a lasting impression about the identity of the assailants.
36. Now, as far as the extra judicial confessions made allegedly to PW-1 and PW-4 is
concerned, it is apparent that the main witness (PW-1), by the prosecution's showing, was a
partner in crime, with some of the accused. Before a court bases its findings, particularly on
the testimony of such a witness, it would be useful to see that evidence by self confessed
accomplices stands on a weak footing. In Shamsher Khan v Govt of NCT of Delhi 2000 (8)
SCC 568, it was held that:
"If the testimony of PW 2 is believable, there can be little doubt that the appellant had
caused explosive bombs to be manufactured and stored them in his house. But PW 2
Shahabudin, on the showing of the prosecution itself, is an accomplice and therefore
we would seek corroborative materials to give assurance to us that the testimony is
true, despite the inherent drawback of that witness."
A similar approach had been spelt out in a previous decision of the Supreme Court, reported
as M.O. Shamsuddin v State of Kerala 1995 (3) SCC 351, in the following words:
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 19
" the courts in India have held that while it is not illegal to act upon the
uncorroborated testimony of the accomplice the rule of prudence so universally
followed has to amount to rule of law that it is unsafe to act on the evidence of an
accomplice unless it is corroborated in material aspects so as to implicate the
accused. The reasons for requiring corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice
are that an accomplice is likely to swear falsely in order to shift the guilt from himself
and that he is an immoral person being a particular in the crime who may not have
any regard to any section of the oath and in the case of an approver, on his own
admission, he is a criminal who gives evidence under a promise of pardon and
supports the prosecution with the hope of getting his own freedom."
In this case, PW-1 claims to have been a party to the previous offences committed by the
appellants, and therefore, a confidant of Satender, (one of the Appellants), who supposedly
approached him. This Court, in the other case titled as Harish Yadav and Ors. v. CBI, 2007 I
AD (Delhi) 703, in which the present accused were arrested, observed that the Court have to
be satisfied that the extra judicial confessions are made before a credible witness, who can be
safely believed. Commenting on the confession used in that case, said to have been made to
the very same witnesses, the court noted that no time date and even the date of occurrence
were given by the witness to extra judicial confession. The relevant portion of the said
judgment below:
"13. On a careful examination of the evidence of PW-3 Pramod we are of the view
that this witness cannot be said to be an independent and reliable at all. He himself
was an associate of accused persons. His brother has claimed that he (PW-3) was also
a member of a gang of dacoits headed by accused Satender. Both the brothers have
claimed that the accused persons had threatened Pramod with his life. So, these
witnesses can be said to be having a motive to falsely implicate the appellants. For this
reason alone the evidence about extra judicial confession needs to be discarded.
However, there are other reasons also for not placing any reliance on the evidence of
PW-3. He has not given any date when the confession was made to him. An extra
judicial confession in order to inspire confidence should be shown to have been made
by an accused soon after the particular incident for which that accused is tried. PW-3
has also not specified as to what was stated to him by a particular accused. He has
given a general statement that all the accused had confessed before him about the
incident in question. All the accused could not state at the same time the same words.
It is highly improbable. So, no reliance can be placed in these circumstances on the so
called extra judicial confession relied upon by the CBI....................
14. In fact, same evidence of extra judicial confession before PW-3 has not been
accepted by the trial Court in respect of two accused who have been acquitted. But no
reasons have been stated in the judgment as to why that evidence was sufficient in
respect of the present appellants and not for the acquitted accused. There is yet
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 20
another reason for discarding the evidence of extra judicial confession. As noticed
already, PW-3 in his cross-examination admitted that he had not made any complaint
to the police that the accused persons had made the confession before him. That
conduct of this witness also makes his evidence unreliable. It appears that so long as
everything was well between him and his co-gangsters he did not bother to report to
the police about the activities of his gang and the moment his relations became
strained with them, he chose to side with the police. Learned trial Judge has also
observed in para no. 45 of the judgment that this witness had claimed that he was with
the gang of Satender because of the threats extended by Satender. This kind of a
witness can hardly be relied upon for convicting an accused."
We are of the opinion that the credibility of PW-1 and PW-4 is suspect for the same reasons,
articulated in the above manner. Here too, no time, date or venue when the extra judicial
confessions were made, has been deposed. Furthermore, the precise substance, if not the exact
phraseology of the extra judicial confession, has not been deposed; to compound these
infirmities, the CBI would have the court believe that these witnesses kept silent, and
approached it, more than a year later. PW-1 had allegedly known of the activities of the gang
(such as looting, dacoity), had even been given, Katta by one of the accused, and had
witnessed the gang members stab a few persons; yet he did not report these to the police. Kale
and Satender @ Bawa had, as per these witnesses' testimony lived in Anil's house for two
days, and from this it could not be inferred that he had been associated with each other.
Another significant aspect is that PW-1 and PW-4 identified the accused in an omnibus
manner and had not specifically identified each of them. The last aspect which highlights the
doubtful credibility of the two witnesses is that PW-4 had deposed in Court, that the accused
told him that they had shot the police man whose house they had looted. However, no bullet
injuries were found on the deceased. We are therefore, of the opinion that the Trial Court
could not have relied on the testimony of PW-1and PW-4 to conclude that the accused had
made extra judicial confessions implicating themselves for the crime.
37. The opinion of PW-15 Dr. Anil Kohli, who had conducted the post mortem of the
deceased, was that the cause of death was Septicemia and Peritonitis due ante-mortem injuries
on the abdominal region caused by a sharp edged weapon. Injuries no. 5, 6, 7 were sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature, to both independently and collectively causes death. This
witness stated that the recovered weapons shown to him such as dagger (Ex.P1) could have
cause injuries 4, 8, 9; Ex. P5 could have also caused injuries 8 and 9. Importantly, PW-15
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 21
stated that injuries 5, 6, 7 could not have been caused by the recovered weapons shown to him
in Court. This immediately puts a question mark on the credibility of the prosecution story
about recovery of the murder weapon, at the instance of the accused.
38. The recoveries of four churris/knifes allegedly at the instance of Satinder, in the year
1999 in the other case No. RC 2(S)/1999/SIUT/SICT is unreliable. In fact the evidence of
recoveries of said churries was inadmissible because they were not shown to the eye
witnesses and were not shown to Devender. It was also disbelieved by this court in the case of
Harish Yadav & Ors. in which the recoveries were said to have been made. Moreover, as
noted in the previous paragraph, PW 15's deposition does not support the prosecution so far as
fatal injuries No.5,6&7 are concerned; PW 15 has stated that injury No.5,6,7,10,11,12,13 are
spindle shape which can be caused by a double edged weapon. The churris shown to PW 15
were not double edged.
39. The IO in the present case, PW-87, deposed that all the accused were arrested during
the investigation of case RC 2 (S) 99/SIUT/SICT and on direction of this Court in that case
the investigation of the present case was handed over to CBI; case no. RC2 (S)
2000/SIUT2/SICI was registered on 11.1.2000. PW-87 could not tell the date when Satinder,
Dilshad and Ravi Kumar were arrested in the other case and their disclosure statements were
recorded. These accused persons were already in custody and were arrested in present case
after obtaining the permission of the court. The witness did not remember the date when for
the first time he came to know about the involvement of accused persons in the present case.
PW 87 stated that he suspected the involvement of the accused in this case before registration
of the FIR on 11.1.2000. We also notice that Satender's disclosure statement was recorded in
the present case on 10.3.2000 after two months of registration of the case when they were
already in custody of CBI and IO had suspicion about their involvement.
40. The Supreme Court, in Sanwat Khan v State of Rajasthan AIR 1956 SC 54, held that:
"Beaumont, C.J. and Sen, J. in Bhikha Gober v. Emperor 2 rightly held that the mere
fact that an accused produced shortly after the murder ornaments which were on the
murdered person is not enough to justify the inference that the accused must have
committed the murder. There must be some further material to connect the accused
with the murder in order to hold him guilty of that offence. Our attention was drawn to
a number of decisions which have been summed up in a Bench decision of the
Allahabad High Court in State v. Shankar Prasad 3 in some of which a presumption
was drawn of guilt from the circumstance of possession of stolen articles soon after a
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 22
murder. We have examined these cases and it appears to us that each one of these
decisions was given on the evidence and circumstances established in that particular
case, and no general proposition of law can be deduced from them. In our judgment,
no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to what inference should be drawn from a
certain circumstance. Where, however, the only evidence against an accused person is
the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances may indicate that the
theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw
the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer.
Suspicion cannot take the place of proof."
In the present case, the recoveries allegedly made at the behest of one or the other Appellants,
cannot, -in view of the medical evidence (that the churries or other weapons, relied on by the
prosecution, were not the cause of injuries), be said to incriminate them, or constitute
incriminating circumstances.
41. A ghastly crime was committed, in this case. What started as a burglary or dacoity,
instead turned into a murder. There is every probability that the perpetrators were aware about
the activities of the residents, of the place they had set about to commit the offence; they
appear to have marked it. However, their plans went awry, resulting in the death of Devi
Saran. The police alleged involvement of someone else, and prosecuted him; he was
discharged by the court. The CBI was entrusted with investigation of the case, because it
claimed to have secured leads about this case, during the investigation and prosecution of
another case. PW-1 and PW-4 were, like in the present case, star witnesses in those
proceedings; their credibility was seriously doubted by this court in Harish Yadav's case, and
the present Appellants were acquitted. The witnesses, who were relied on in this case, by the
Trial Court to convict the Appellants, have serious credibility issues. Taking into account the
entire conspectus of facts, and in view of the previous discussion, we are of the opinion that
the findings and conviction recorded by the Trial Court are unsustainable. The impugned
judgment is accordingly, set aside. The Appeals are therefore, allowed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
G. P. MITTAL
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 31, 2011
Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 23
$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 497/2006, CRL. M.A.3290/2011
SATINDER @ BAWA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
STATE THR.C.B.I. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Spl. PP for CBI along
with Mr. Manoj Pant, Advocate for respondent - CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. P. MITTAL
ORDER
% 31.10.2011 Vide separate judgment of the even date, the Appeal has been allowed.
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee shall remit ` 10,000/- as fee to Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae in the present case by this Court.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J G. P. MITTAL, J OCTOBER 31, 2011 Crl. A.290, 317, 972 & 497/2006, 598 & 1020/2008 Page 24