Delhi District Court
State vs . (1). Ajay @ Gadhaiya on 13 December, 2014
FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 18/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0015132011 State Vs. (1). Ajay @ Gadhaiya S/o Sh. S. Sharan R/o B1628, Metro Vihar, PhaseII Holambi Kalan, Delhi. (2) Bharat @ Vijay S/o Late Sh. Durga Prashad R/o B1164, Metro Vihar, PhaseII Holambi Kalan, Delhi. FIR No. : 223/10 Police Station : Shahbad Dairy Under Sections : 302/394/397/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 09.02.2011 Date on which judgment was reserved: 04.12.2014 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 13.12.2014 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The law was set into motion on receipt of information in Police Control Room on 12.10.10 at about 8.55 P.M regarding knife incident at Block No. 1, Sector1, Bawana near Subzi Mandi. The information was transmitted State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 1 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 to PCR Van Libra 77 having its base at Bawana JJ Colony. After receipt of said information, HC Sukhbir(PW11) who was incharge of said PCR Van alongwith staff reached the place of information and found one unknown person lying there having knife injury. His cycle was also found lying near him. Accordingly, PCR Van removed said injured to M.V Hospital where he was declared brought dead by concerned doctor.
2. As per the case of prosecution, intimation was also received in PS Shahbad Dairy on 12.10.10 at about 9.05 P.M from wireless operator vide DD no. 19A regarding the said incident on which HC Durvesh Kumar(PW19) alognwith Ct. Rakesh(PW5) reached the place of information. In the meantime, SI Ajay(PW7) alongwith Ct. Ram Avtar(PW15) and Ct. Gulzari Lal(PW16) also reached the said place.
3. It is alleged that one cycle of black colour, one pair of hawai chappal of blue colour and one chappal of dark brown colour were found lying at the spot. Besides that, blood was also lying near the spot towards T point and another chappal/sandle of black colour was also lying near the said Tpoint.
4. It is the case of prosecution that after leaving HC Durvesh and Ct. Rakesh at the spot, SI Ajay alongwith Ct. Ram Avtar and Ct. Gulzari Lal reached M.V Hospital where SI Ajay obtained MLC(Ex PW8/A) of deceased and on inspection of dead body, he found that there was a stab wound on right side on abdomen of deceased. In the meantime, Inspector Dinesh Kumar also reached at the said hospital.
5. It is further case of prosecution that after leaving Ct. Gulzari Lal State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 2 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 at the hospital for supervision of dead body, Inspector Dinesh Kumar alongwith SI Ajay and other staff returned back to the spot; crime team was called there which carried out inspection of the place of occurrence and got the photographs taken through Ct. Karambir(PW10). Thereafter, SI Ajay prepared rukka (PW7/B) and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ram Avtar. The investigation was entrusted to Inspector Dinesh Kumar(PW24).
6. It is further case of prosecution that after registration of FIR, IO Inspector Dinesh Kumar prepared site plan(Ex PW24/A) at the instance of SI Ajay; lifted blood stained earth, earth control from different places and after preparing their separate pullandas, sealed the same with the seal of DK. Not only this, IO also seized cycle of black colour, one pair of Hawai chappal, one plastic sandal of brown colour and one sandal of black colour after preparing their separate pullandas and after sealing them with the seal of DK.
7. It is claimed that during course of investigation, passers by informed the IO that deceased was working at factory no. C73, DSIDC, Bawana on which IO SI Ajay visited said factory and on making enquiry from labourers of the factory, he came to know that name of deceased was Vijay who had been residing at Punjabi Colony, Narela, Delhi. Accordingly, they went to the house of deceased where they met his father and informed him about the incident as well as the factum regarding death of his son namely Vijay.
8. It is further case of prosecution that on 14.10.10, SI Ajay prepared inquest papers and after competing necessary formalities, postmortem examination of dead body of deceased Vijay was got conducted State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 3 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 at BJRM hospital through Dr. Bhim Singh(PW4) and thereafter, dead body was handed over to family members of deceased.
9. It is further case of prosecution that all the relevant exhibits including the pullanda containing clothes of deceased, etc. were deposited in Malkhana and subsequently, those exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini.
10. It is alleged that on 23.10.10, further investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Rakesh Rawat(PW25). On the same day, Inspector Vikram Singh(PW23) who alongwith SI Arun Kumar(PW13) and Ct. Kashmiri Lal(PW10) were carrying out investigation of case FIR no. 230/10 U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC of PS Shahbad Dairy, apprehended both the present accused on the basis of secret information from near canal of village Khera Khurd. During their respective disclosure statements(Ex. PW13/K and Ex PW13/L), both the accused confessed their involvement in the commission of offence involved in the present case on which IO Inspector Rakesh Rawat of this case was informed about the said fact.
11. It is alleged that one mobile phone make Nokia was recovered from possession of accused Ajay @ Gadhiya by Inspector Vikram Singh of case FIR no. 230/10 of PS Shahbad Diary and on dialing his phone no. 9312508197 by Inspector Vikram Singh from the said mobile phone, mobile phone no. 9990537598 appeared on the screen of mobile phone of Inspector Vikram Singh. On enquiry, it was found that said SIM no. 9990537598 was connected with the present case as it was belonging to deceased Vijay. Accordingly, both the accused were also arrested in the present case by IO Inspector Rakesh Rawat(PW25).
State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 4 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014
12. It is further alleged that on 24.10.10, accused Bharat @ Vijay led IO Inspector Rakesh Rawat and Ct. Rajender(PW20) to his house no. B1264, Metro Vihar, Holambi Kalan, PhaseII, Delhi and got recovered one blood stained knife from beneath the bed of room of the said house and confessed that said knife was used by him alongwith co accused Ajay @ Gadhiya and one more associate namely Mangal in the commission of offence of this case. After carrying out relevant proceedings, the said knife was seized by IO in this case.
13. It is further case of prosecution that during the course of investigation, IO Inspector Rakesh Rawat obtained subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence from Dr. Bhim Singh(PW4) of BJRM Hospital; recorded statements of witnesses including Ram Kumar, Jitender, etc. and also collected FSL result. He also collected call details record of SIM no. 9990537598 as well as relevant documents.
14. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS
15. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charges u/s 302/392/34 IPC against the accused persons namely Ajay @ Gadhaiya and Bharat @ Vijay vide order dated 19.04.2011 to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and separate charge in respect of offence U/s 397 IPC was framed against accused Bharat @ Vijay to which also said accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 5 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014
16. In support of its case, prosecution has examined twenty five witnesses namely PW1 Sh Jitender, PW2 Ct. Ram Kishore, PW3 Sh. Surender Kumar, PW4 Dr. Bhim Singh, PW5 Ct. Rakesh Kumar, PW6 SI Mahesh, PW7 SI Ajay Yadav, PW8 Dr. Amit Shokeen, PW9 HC Ishwar Dutt, PW10 HC Karambir, PW11 HC Sukhbir, PW12 Inspector Sanjay Gade, PW13 SI Arun Kumar, PW14 HC Jaibir Singh, PW15 Ct. Ram Avtar, PW16 Ct. Gulzari Lal, PW17 HC Dalbir Singh, PW18 ASI Som Prakash, PW19 HC Durvesh Kumar, PW20 Ct. Rajender, PW21 Sh Ajay, PW22 Ct. Ranbir Singh, PW23 Inspector Vikram Singh, PW24 Inspector Dinesh Kumar and PW25 Inspector Rakesh Rawat during trial.
17. It may be mentioned here that both the accused persons made joint statement during trial on 21.08.14 that they were not disputing the contents of FSL results no. 538/10 and 1420/10 both dt. 23.6.11 as well as the factum regarding recording of statement of caller namely Ram Kumar who had made PCR call at 100 number. Accordingly, both the said FSL results were exhibited as Ex PX and EX PY on 21.08.14 and consequently, Ld Additional PP also dropped PWs namely Sh. Naresh Kumar SSO(Biology) and Sh Ram Kumar from the list of witnesses in view of the said statement.
18. It may also be mentioned here that Ld Additional PP dropped PW Sh. Ganesh from the list of witnesses on 20.08.14 as he was cited as witness who had identified dead body of deceased Vijay in respect of which PW21 namely Ajay had already been examined during trial.
19. Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of both the accused persons namely Bharat @ Vijay and Ajay Gadhayia were recorded during State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 6 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 which all the incriminating evidence which came on record, were put to them which they denied. Both the accused persons claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. However, both the accused persons opted not to lead any evidence towards their defence.
20. I have heard Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Ld. Substitute Additional PP on behalf of State, Ld. counsel Sh. K.K Singh, Advocate on behalf of both the accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record.
21. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
22. PW1 namely Jitender: According to the case of prosecution, SIM of Idea Mobile number 9990537598 was issued in the name of this witness. He deposed that deceased Vijay was his friend as he used to live with him as tenant. He had taken the said SIM connection number on the request of deceased as deceased was not having any identity proof.
He further deposed that the said SIM number was always used by deceased Vijay and subsequently, he came to know that Vijay had been murdered. He exhibited copy of relevant document furnished by him at the time of issuance of said mobile connection as Ex PW1/A and application form as Ex PW1/B. This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 7 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014
23. PW21 namely Ajay: This is a formal witness who had identified dead body of deceased Vijay in mortuary of BJRM hospital being real brother of the deceased.
He deposed that deceased was carrying mobile phone make Ericson bearing SIM no. 9990537598 when he had left for his duty on 12.10.10 at about 8.30 P.M. He further deposed that he had identified dead body of his brother vide identification statement Ex PW7/L and had also received his dead body vide receipt Ex PW7/M. This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
POLICE WITNESSES
24. PW2 namely Ct. Ram Kishore: This witness had deposited exhibits of this case in FSL, Rohini on 13.12.10 vide RC no. 98/21/10. He proved copy of said RC as Ex PW2/A and acknowledgment issued by FSL Rohini as Ex PW2/B. He deposed that there was no tampering with those sealed pullandas during the period of their custody with him.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
25. PW5 Ct. Rakesh and PW19 HC Durvesh Kumar: According to the case of prosecution, both these witnesses had initially gone to the place of information on receipt of DD no. 19A on 12.10.10.
They deposed that when they reached at the spot, one cycle of State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 8 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 black colour, one pair of hawai chappal of blue colour, one chappal of brown colour and blood was found lying on the ground. In the meantime, SI Ajay, Ct Ram Avtar and Ct. Gulzari Lal had also reached there. On enquiry, it was revealed that injured had already been removed to M.V Hospital by PCR Van on which SI Ajay left both of them to guard the spot and he alongwith Ct. Ram Avtar and Ct. Gulzari Lal went to M.V Hospital.
They further deposed that crime team had visited the spot and carried out inspection thereof and also took photographs. SI Ajay Kumar prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ram Avtar.
They further deposed that IO Inspector Dinesh Kumar had also reached the spot and prepared site plan at the instance of SI Ajay and also lifted the relevant exhibits from the spot.
During his cross examination, PW5 deposed that no eye witness was found at the spot.
During his cross examination, PW19 also deposed that there was no public person present at the spot when they reached there at about 9.15 /9.30 P.M. No mobile was recovered from the spot in his presence. There was no street light near the spot but there was no darkness as such over there.
26. PW6 namely SI Mahesh: This witness had prepared scaled site plan Ex PW6/A on the basis of inspection of the spot carried out on 03.11.10.
He deposed that at the time of carrying out inspection, he had prepared rough notes and also took measurements at the instance of SI Ajay Kumar and after preparing scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes. State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 9 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
27. PW7 namely SI Ajay, PW15 namely Ct. Ram Avtar and PW16 namely Ct. Gulzari Lal: According to the case of prosecution, these three witnesses had also visited the place of occurrence on receipt of copy of DD No. 19A Ex.PW7/A and met HC Durvesh (PW19) and Ct. Rakesh (PW5).
All these three witnesses deposed consistently that one cycle of black colour, one pair of hawai chappal of blue colour, one chappal of dark brown colour and blood was lying at the spot. Besides that, blood and another chappal of black colour were also lying at Tpoint. After leaving HC Durvesh and Ct. Rakesh at the spot, they all went to M.V. Hospital where Inspector Dinesh Kumar also reached. The injured was declared brought dead. PW7 collected MLC of said unknown male aged about 25 years and inspected the dead body. After leaving PW16 Ct. Gulzari Lal at the hospital for preservation of dead body, all of them alongwith Inspector Dinesh went to the spot where crime team was called which inspected the site.
They further deposed that PW7 prepared rukka Ex.PW7/B and got the FIR registered through PW15 Ct. Ram Avtar and investigation was entrusted to Inspector Dinesh Kumar who prepared site plan at the instance of PW7.
They further deposed that relevant exhibits including blood stained earth, earth control, cycle, chappals, etc. were lifted by Inspector Dinesh Kumar from the spot and same were seized after preparing their separate pullandas which were sealed with the seal of DK, vide memos State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 10 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 Ex.PW7/C to Ex.PW7/G. They further deposed that after carrying out inquest proceedings, postmortem examination of dead body of deceased was also got conducted at BJRM Hospital and concerned doctor handed over two sealed pullandas containing clothes of deceased and sample seal, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/N and another pullanda containing blood sample of deceased was also seized vide memo Ex.PW7/O. PW7 further deposed that on 03.11.2010, he had reached the spot where SI Mahesh Kumar (PW6) took rough notes and measurements of the spot at his instance for preparing the site plan.
During cross examination, PW7 deposed that relevant exhibits including cycle, chappal, sandle, etc. were seized by Inspector Dinesh Kumar after coming from the hospital. He further deposed that name of deceased was revealed in the morning of 13.10.2010 when they had come back to the spot from the hospital and IO had made enquiries from the nearby areas. He also deposed that deceased was wearing blue colour jeans and white baniyan.
In his cross examination, PW15 deposed that no mobile phone was found at the spot in his presence and SHO was already present in the hospital when they reached there.
In his cross examination, PW16 deposed that they had reached the spot at about 9.30 pm and no public person was found present there at that time. The postmortem was conducted on 14.10.2010.
28. PW9 namely HC Ishwar Dutt: He is the MHC(M) of PS Shahbad Dairy who has proved factum regarding deposition of case property State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 11 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 of this case in Malkhana on various dates.
He deposed that on 13.10.10, SI Ajay had deposited two pullandas sealed with the seal of MS MB HOSPITAL and Inspector Dinesh Kumar deposited four sealed pullandas which were sealed with the seal of DK, in Malkaha vide entry at Serial no. 543 of register no. 19 and proved copy thereof as Ex. PW9/B. He further deposed that on 24.10.10, Inspector Rakesh Rawat had deposited sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of RR vide entry at serial no. 552 of register no. 19 and proved copy thereof as Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that on 01.12.10, pullanda of knife was sent to BJRM Hospital for subsequent opinion vide RC no. 94/21 and said pullanda of knife which was sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM HOSPITAL, was redeposited in Malkhana by Ct. Ranbir on 06.12.10.
He further deposed that on 13.12.10, the aforesaid exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini vide RC no. 98/21 and proved copy thereof as Ex PW9/C and acknowledgment issued by FSL Authority as Ex. PW2/B. The said witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
29. PW10 namely HC Karambir: This witness was one of the members of Mobile Crime Team which visited the spot on 12.10.10.
He deposed that he had taken 10 photographs Ex. PW10/A1 to Ex PW10/A10 of the spot on the instructions of IO. This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
30. PW11 namely HC Sukhbir: This witness was posted as State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 12 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 Incharge of PCR Van Libra 77 during the intervening night of 12/131010.
He deposed that on receipt of call at 8.57 PM on 12.10.10 from Control Room regarding knife incident, he alongwith other staff of PCR reached the place of information and removed injured to M.V Hospital where injured was declared brought dead by the concerned doctor. He proved copy of relevant entry made in the call book as Ex PW11/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
31. PW12 namely Inspector Sanjay Gade: This witness was Incharge of Mobile Crime Team Outer District which had visited the scene of crime on 12.10.10 at about 9.55 P.M. He deposed that after carrying out inspection of the spot, he prepared his report Ex PW12/A and handed over the same to the IO.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
32. PW13 SI Arun Kumar , PW23 Inspector Vikram Singh and PW20 Ct. Rajender: As per the case of prosecution, these three witnesses alongwith Ct. Kashmiri Lal were carrying out investigation of case FIR No. 230/10 U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC at PS Shahbad Dairy and had arrested both the accused herein on the basis of secret information from near Canal of Village Khera Khurd.
All these three witnesses deposed that from the search of accused Ajay @ Gadhaiya, one knife, one mobile phone make Nokia of black State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 13 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 colour, Rs. 200/ and some pieces of artificial jewellery were recovered. Both the said accused had made disclosure statements Ex.PW13/K and Ex.PW13/L whereby they had confessed their involvement in the commission of offence of this case. Not only this, the SIM number available in recovered Nokia mobile phone from accused Ajay @ Gadhaiya, was also found to be 9990537598 which was belonging to deceased Vijay and accordingly, IO Inspector Rakesh Rawat of this case, was informed about the said fact.
They further deposed that aforesaid recovered mobile phone containing SIM card of IDEA was seized after preparing its sealed pullanda vide memo Ex.PW13/M. PW13 and PW20 further deposed that both the accused were formally arrested in this case by Inspector Rakesh Rawat vide memos Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B and their personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW13/D. They further deposed that both the said accused made disclosure statements Ex.PW13/E and Ex.PW13/F and since there was contradiction regarding possession of knife, accused Ajay @ Gadhaiya was again interrogated on 24.10.2010 when he made disclosure statement Ex.PW13/G. They also deposed that accused Bharat @ Vijay led him as well as Inspector Rakesh Rawat and Ct. Rajender to his house and got recovered one blood stained knife from beneath bed of the room. After carrying out relevant proceedings, said knife was seized vide memo Ex.PW13/H. During cross examination, PW13 deposed that the recovered knife had dried blood stains but he did not remember in case said knife was State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 14 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 sent to FSL for chemical examination or not.
In his cross examination, PW20 could not disclose DD entry vide which he alongwith Ct. Rajesh had left PS for their beat duty on that day. He deposed that blood stains appearing on recovered knife of case FIR no. 230/10 were in dried condition. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused persons.
In his cross examination, PW23 could not disclose the time when he had dialed his mobile phone number from the recovered mobile make Nokia from accused Ajay @ Gadhaiya. He admitted that he was well aware of the fact that FIR No. 223/10 had been registered at PS Shahbad Dairy. Although, he claimed to have come across several cases in which robbed/snatched mobiles have been thrown after retaining their SIM cards but he could not disclose FIR number of even single such case.
33. PW14 namely HC Jaibir Singh: He is the formal witness who had recorded information received from Wireless Operator at about 9.05 P.M on 12.10.10 in PS Shahbad Dairy regarding the incident in question vide DD no. 19A and proved copy thereof as Ex PW14/A. He deposed that copy of DD No. 19A was handed over to SI Ajay for further action.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
34. PW17 namely HC Dalbir Singh: He is the Duty Officer who proved factum regarding recording of FIR No.223/10 U/s 302 IPC in PS Shahbad Dairy. He proved copy of said FIR as Ex.PW17/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW17/B made on the rukka.
State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 15 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 Nothing material has come on record during cross examination of this witness.
35. PW18 namely ASI Som Prakash: This witness produced relevant document concerning PCR form dt. 12.10.10 through which information regarding the incident was recorded in Police Control Room and thereafter, same was transmitted to PS Shahbad Dairy as also to PCR Van for appropriate action. Copy of said PCR form is Ex PW18/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
36. PW22 Ct. Ranbir Singh: This witness had collected pullanda containing knife from MHC(M) on 01.12.10 vide RC no. 94/21/10 and submitted the same in BJRM hospital for subsequent opinion.
He deposed that he collected the subsequent opinion from Dr. Bhim Singh of BJRM Hospital alongwith sealed pullanda now sealed with the seal of BJRM hospital alongwith sample seal on 06.12.10 and handed over the same to IO Inspector Rakesh Rawat. He also deposed that no one tampered the sealed pullanda in any manner during the period of custody with him.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
37. PW 24 namely Inspector Dinesh Kumar: This witness was initial IO in this case after registration of FIR till 23.10.10. He deposed about the relevant proceedings carried out by him at the spot regarding lifting of exhibits including cycle, blood stained earth, earth control, chappal, etc. on State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 16 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 12.10.10. He also deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW7 SI Ajay Kumar.
He deposed that deceased was found wearing orange colour T shirt, blue colour jeans pant and white colour baniyan at the time of inspection of his dead body in M.V hospital. He also deposed that he had prepared rough site plan Ex PW24/A at the instance of SI Ajay Kumar.
He further deposed that while he was conducting investigation at the spot, passersby had informed him that the person who got injured at the spot, was working in Factory no. C73, DSIDC Bawana on which he went to the said factory and came to know about the name of deceased as Vijay from the labourers who met him in the factory at that time.
In his cross examination, PW24 deposed that exhibits P1 to P4 were seized by him after coming back from the hospital, at about 10.00 P.M. He did not record statement of father of deceased on that night when he alongwith SI Ajay had visited the house of deceased. The photographs taken by photographer of Crime Team, were not handed over to him during the period investigation remained with him.
38. PW25 namely Inspector Rakesh Rawat: This witness had carried out investigation in this case from 23.10.10 till filing of the charge sheet. He deposed about the relevant facts regarding arrest of both the accused herein in case FIR no. 230/10 of PS Shahbad Dairy by Inspector Vikram Singh and recovery of mobile phone make Nokia black colour from possession of accused Ajay @ Gadhiya and also about the disclosure statements made by them in said other case.
He further deposed that the recovered SIM was found connected State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 17 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 with this case and after interrogation of both the accused, they were also formally arrested by him in this case vide memos Ex. PW13/A and Ex PW13/B. He also deposed about the further investigation carried out by him on 24.10.10 on similar lines as deposed by PW13 SI Arun Kumar and PW20 Ct. Rajender regarding recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of accused Bharat @ Vijay from beneath the bed of room of his house situated at Holambi Kalan. He also deposed about the subsequent investigation regarding deposit of relevant exhibits in FSL and obtaining subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence vide his application Ex PW25/A. In his cross examination, PW25 deposed that they had reached the house of accused Bharat @ Vijay at about 8.00 A.M and had met his family members including his father. He admitted that the house of said accused is surrounded by many houses but he did not request nearby residents to join the investigation. Although, he claimed to have requested passers by for joining the investigation but conceded that he neither served any notice upon them nor took any legal action against those passers by who refused to join the investigation. He also admitted that he had not sent the recovered knife alongwith any exhibit for DNA matching despite the fact that date of occurrence was 12.10.10 and weapon of offence i.e knife had been recovered on 24.10.10.
MEDICAL WITNESSES
39. PW4 namely Dr Bhim Singh: This witness had conducted postmortem examination of dead body of deceased Vijay on 14.10.10. He State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 18 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 proved his detailed postmortem examination report dt. 14.10.10 as Ex. PW4/A during trial. According to said report, following External injuries were found on the dead body of deceased Vijay:
1. Incised stab wound, horizontally placed, right side of abdomen, size 3.8 cm x 1.8 cm x abdominal cavity deep situated 8 cm lateral to umbilicus, outer angle of wound was acute and inner was obtuse.
2. Constused abrasion 2.5 cm x 1 cm right forearm outer surface.
3. Reddish abrasion 5.5 cm x 0.5 cm left shin of leg.
4. 4 cm x 3 cm over left shoulder.
He further deposed that on 03.12.10, he had examined the weapon of offence i.e knife and gave his subsequent opinion Ex PW4/B and also prepared diagram Ex PW4/C of the said knife and thereafter, handed over the said weapon after sealing the same with the seal of BJRM Hospital.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
40. PW8 namely Dr. Amit Shokeen: This witness appeared to deposed on behalf of Dr. Ajay Kesari who had declared injured Vijay as brought dead vide MLC Ex PW8/A and identified the signature of Dr. Ajay Kesari on said MLC at point A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused despite grant of opportunity.
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
41. PW3 namely Surender Kumar: He produced call details State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 19 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 record of SIM number 9990537598 for the period between 12.01.10 to 04.01.11. He deposed that said number was issued to Sh. Jitender S/o Singheshwar. He proved copy of Customer Application Form (CAF) & copy of Customer Declaration Form as Ex. PW1/A, copy of ID proof as Ex PW1/B, copy of Cell ID Location Chart as Ex PW3/B, copy of call details record for the aforesaid period as Ex.PW3/A and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW3/C. This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
42. Ld Additional PP vehemently argued that prosecution has been able to establish the offence U/s 302/34 IPC as also the offence of robbery U/s 392/34 IPC against both the accused persons. He further admitted that since accused Bharat @ Vijay had used knife at the time of committing robbery of mobile phone of deceased Vijay, he should also be convicted in respect of offence U/s 397 IPC. In support of his submissions, he referred to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial and the documentary evidence available on record. He heavily relied upon the testimonies of relevant police witnesses i.e PW23 Inspector Vikram Singh and PW13 SI Arun kumar & PW20 Ct. Rajender who had arrested both the accused initially in case FIR no. 230/10 of PS Shahbad Dairy and recovered mobile phone make Nokia black colour Ex. PX1 from which SIM no. 9990537598 belonging to deceased Vijay had been recovered. He also relied upon the testimonies of relevant police witnesses in whose presence, accused State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 20 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 Bharat @ Vijay is claimed to have got recovered knife Ex. P20/1 used in the commission of offence involved in this case.
43. On the other hand, Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. He argued that the entire case of prosecution was based upon circumstantial evidence and prosecution has failed to prove the complete chain of evidence leading to the guilt of accused persons. He further argued that recovery of knife from the house of accused Bharat @ Vijay, is doubtful as no independent public witness including neighbourers of the locality were joined during alleged recovery proceedings. He further argued that knife Ex.P20/1 was never sent to FSL for its chemical examination and thus, prosecution has failed to prove that said knife was used in committing murder of deceased Vijay as alleged by the prosecution. He also submitted that whenever two views are possible then the view which goes in favour of accused, should be adopted and therefore, both the accused should be acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt.
44. Firstly, I shall take the offence U/s 392/34 IPC charged against both the accused. It is an undisputed fact that none of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial, had witnessed the incident in question. Considering the fact that death of deceased is shown to have taken place somewhere around 8.00 P.M on 12.10.10 in view of postmortem report Ex PW4/A, one can infer that the incident of robbery would have taken place prior to 8.00 P.M. One public person namely Ram Kumar made PCR call at 100 number at about 8.55 P.M on that day which shows that he would have State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 21 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 passed through the place of occurrence at that time and might had seen the deceased lying in injured condition on which he had made the PCR call.
45. There is no iota of evidence, direct or indirect, available on record which may show that these two accused persons had committed robbery of mobile phone having SIM card from deceased Vijay.
46. There is no recovery of robbed mobile phone either from the possession of any of the accused or at their instance. Although, Ld Substitute Additional PP vehemently argued that there has been recovery of SIM card no. 9990537598 from the possession of accused Ajay @ Gadhaiya at the time of his arrest in case FIR no. 230/10 of PS Shahbad Dairy but recovery of said SIM is not free from doubt. The reason is quite obvious. It has been claimed by relevant prosecution witnesses namely PW23 Inspector Vikram Singh, PW13 SI Arun Kumar and PW20 Ct. Rajender that SIM number 9990537598 was found present inside recovered mobile phone make Nokia from the possession of accused Ajay @ Gadhayia, at the time of his arrest on 23.10.10 in case FIR no. 230/10 of PS Shahbad Dairy. The date of occurrence in the present case is 12.10.10. It is an undisputed fact that recovered mobile phone make Nokia of black colour was not found connected either with this case or with case FIR no. 230/10 supra. The disclosure statements Ex PW13/K and Ex. PW13/L of both the accused would show that they claimed to have thrown mobile set of deceased Vijay in the area of Metro Vihar bushes after committing robbery of said mobile phone whereas SIM available in robbed mobile phone, was kept by accused Ajay @ Gadhayia who inserted the same in his own mobile handset. Same is highly improbable and does not stand State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 22 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 judicial scrutiny by applying the test of reasonable and prudent person. It is not believable that the offender would throw away the robbed mobile phone but would keep SIM of robbed mobile for his own use and would afford to take the risk of being apprehended by the police by using the said SIM.
47. Moreover, the perusal of CDRs Ex PW3/A relied by prosecution, would show that last out going call from SIM number 9990537598 is at about 8.49 P.M on 12.10.10 for a duration of 32 seconds. Thereafter, there was one incoming call to this number from 7654930325 at about 8.52 P.M on 12.10.10 having duration of 24 seconds. The said CDRs further shows that there was one incoming call on the same number from one another number at about 11.46:05 PM on 13.10.10 of zero second duration meaning thereby that said phone was not picked up and thereafter, the next incoming call as shown therein is of 23.10.10 at about 4.10:56 P.M to 100 number having duration of four seconds. Then there are several outgoing calls made to different numbers from SIM number 9990537598 between 5.07:13 P.M of 5.18:18 P.M on 23.10.10. It has come on record during cross examination of PW20 Ct. Rajender that they had reached the place of arrest of these two accused at about 7.30 P.M and subsequently, they arrested both the said accused and recovered mobile phone containing SIM number 9990537598. In this backdrop, the prosecution story as propounded in the charge sheet that mobile phone make Nokia containing SIM number 9990537598 was recovered from the possession of accused Ajay @ Gadhaiya and said SIM was found connected with this case only when PW23 Inspector Vikram Singh dialled his number 9312508197 from the recovered mobile phone make Nokia, becomes State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 23 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 highly doubtful. This is more so when his phone No. 9312508197 also does not get reflected in the relevant call details dated 23.10.10 of CDRs Ex. PW3/A.
48. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussion made in the preceding paras, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to establish the charge in respect of offence U/s 392/34 IPC against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt.
49. This bring me down to the offence U/s 397 IPC charged against accused Bharat @ Vijay. Although, the prosecution has alleged that said accused had used knife in the offence of robbery but the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence, oral or documentary, during trial in order to show that said accused was involved in the commission of robbery as already discussed by the Court in the aforesaid paras. Not only this, there is nothing on record to show that said accused was even present at the scene of crime as none of the prosecution witnesses examined during trial, has whispered even a single word on the said aspect.
50. I disagree with the contention of Ld Substitute Additional PP that merely because knife is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of said accused, offence U/s 397 IPC stands proved against him. It may be noted here that there is no cogent evidence available on record to show that said knife was actually used in the commission of robbery as alleged. That being so, it is held that the prosecution has also failed to prove the said offence against accused Bharat @ Vijay beyond reasonable doubt.
51. Now, I shall deal with the offence U/s 302/34 IPC charged State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 24 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 against the accused persons. It is an undisputed fact that the entire case of prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence even relied by prosecution. It is well settled law that in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must not only be fully established but the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and also that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of that accused is to be inferred, should be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused and same should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of accused and all the circumstances cumulatively taken together must lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the accused alone is the perpetrator of the crime.
52. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra"reported at (1984) 4 SCC 116, has laid down the following five golden principles constituting the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved as was held by this Court in State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 25 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 ShivajiSahebraoBobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1973 CriLJ 1783 where the following observations were made:
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(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 a 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.
53. According to the submissions made by Ld Substitute Additional PP, following are the circumstantial evidence proved during trial against the accused persons:
(i) Recovery of SIM No. 9990537598 belonging to deceased Vijay from mobile phone make Nokia of black colour from accused Ajay @ Gadhaiya at the time of his arrest in case FIR no. 230/10 of PS Shahbad Dairy; State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 26 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014
(ii) Pointing out memos Ex. PW13/I and PW13/J prepared at the instance of both the accused vide which they themselves had pointed out the place of commission of offence of this case;
(iii) Recovery of blood stained knife from the house of accused Bharat @ Vijay on 24.10.10;
(iii) Postmortem Report Ex. PW4/A coupled with the ocular evidence of PW4 Dr. Bhim Singh and his subsequent opinion Ex PW4/B that injury of the type sustained by deceased Vijay, could have been caused by said knife; and
(iv) The death of deceased Vijay is homicidal in nature.
54. No doubt, the testimony of PW4 Dr. Bhim Singh coupled with postmortem report dt. 14.10.10 Ex PW4/A leaves no scope of doubt that death of deceased Vijay was homicidal in nature. Time since death as mentioned in PM report Ex PW4/A is 40 hours which shows that death of deceased had taken place somewhere at about 8.00 P.M on 12.10.10 as postmortem examination is shown to have been conducted on 14.10.10 at about 1.00 P.M. Same correspondences with the prosecution story which proved that information was received in Police Control Room somewhere around 8.55 P.M on 12.10.10 regarding knife incident.
55. However, the moot question which arises for consideration before the Court is whether the prosecution has been able to produce cogent and sufficient evidence, oral as well as documentary, on record which unerringly establish the guilt of both the accused herein for the offence of murder of deceased Vijay beyond shadow of doubt or not. The answer is in negative.
56. So far as the recovery of SIM no. 9990537598 from the State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 27 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 possession of accused Ajay @ Gadiaya is concerned, it has already been discussed above that same is highly doubtful. The prosecution cannot be allowed to derive any mileage out of pointing out memos Ex PW13/I and Ex. PW13/J claimed to have been prepared at the instance of both the accused for the simple reason that place of occurrence was already in the knowledge of investigating agency prior to arrest of accused herein in this case as also in case FIR no. 230/10 with PS Shahbad Dairy. In this backdrop, the relevant portion of testimony of PW23 Inspector Vikram Singh that he was already knowing that FIR no. 223/10 i.e this case, had been registered at PS Shahbad Diary regarding murder prior to apprehension of both the accused herein, assumes significance.
57. The circumstantial evidence in the form of recovery of blood stained knife at the instance of accused Bharat @ Vijay from his house on 24.10.10 also does not indict either of the accused for the offence of murder in as much as said knife Ex. PW20/1 was never sent to FSL alongwith blood sample of deceased to FSL for DNA profiling. Had it been so done, it would have clarified as to whether blood stains, if any, appearing on said knife were matching with the blood group of deceased Vijay or not. In this regard, specific question was put to IO of the case namely PW25 Inspector Rakesh Rawat who conceded during cross examination that he had not sent the said knife alongwith any exhibit for DNA matching. Moreover, the recovery of said knife from the house of accused Bharat @ Vijay is also doubtful in the light of the fact that IO did not make any effort to join nearby residents of the locality, at the time of alleged recovery of said knife from the house of said State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 28 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 accused, despite their availability. PW25 Inspector Rakesh Rawat admitted the fact that he had not requested nearby residents for joining the investigation. However, he did not furnish any explanation for not doing so. Although, he claimed to have requested several passersby to join the proceedings at that time but same is nothing but mechanical excuse given by him in order to cover up the lacuna in the case of prosecution as he neither noted down the names or addresses of those passersby who were allegedly requested to join the proceedings nor any written notice was served upon any of them for doing so. It is also relevant to note that family members of accused Bharat @ Vijay were claimed to be present in the house at the time of visit of police officials but still, none of the family members of said accused is shown to have been requested for joining the proceedings or to sign on the seizure memo Ex. PW13/H. For this, PW25 tried to explain that family members of said accused refused to sign the relevant memos. Again, the said explanation does not seem to be plausible as he nowhere made any endorsement on the relevant memos including seizure memo Ex PW3/H of knife that family members of said accused refused to sign on the said memos.
58. Moreover, the call details record Ex PW3/B as relied by prosecution, cannot be looked into for the benefit of prosecution in view of the fact that said document is not shown to have been proved in accordance with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in the light of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4226/12 in the matter titled as "
Anwar P.V Vs. P.K Basheer & Ors." decided on 18.09.14 wherein it has been held that certificate U/s 65B (2) of Evidence Act must accompanying State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 29 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 the electronic record like computer print out, compact disc, (CD) etc. pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. In the present case, call details record Ex PW3/B had been generated during the course of investigation whereas the certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW3/C is shown to have been issued only on 08.10.14.
59. Furthermore, the FSL results Ex. PX and PY would show that knife which is alleged to be weapon of offence used for committing murder of deceased Vijay, was found having blood on it but during the course of its serology examination, no particular blood group could be ascertained on the said knife. As already discussed above, it has not been explained as to why investigating officer did not send the said knife alongwith blood sample of deceased Vijay, to FSL for DNA profiling when date of occurrence was 12.10.10 and date of recovery of blood stained knife is claimed to be 24.10.10.
60. There is another aspect involved in the matter. In their respective disclosure statements Ex PW13/K and Ex. PW13/L, both the accused claimed that knife was used by accused Ajay @ Gadiaya. In his disclosure statement Ex. PW13/E recorded on 23.10.10 in this case, accused Ajay claimed to have kept the said knife in his house and also that he could get the same recovered. The other accused namely Bharat @ Vijay also made similar disclosure statement (Ex. PW13/F) on 23.10.10 wherein he claimed that the said knife was handed over to him after use by accused Ajay @ Gadiaya and same was lying in the room of his house situated at Holambi Kalan. It was only thereafter, another supplementary disclosure statement (Ex. PW13/G) of State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 30 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 accused Ajay was recorded on 24.10.10 and in pursuance of said supplementary disclosure statement, knife Ex.PW20/1 is alleged to have been recovered from the house of accused Bharat @ Vijay.
61. First of all, it has not been explained as to why investigating officer did not try to seek explanation from the accused persons on 23.10.10 itself when discrepancy was found in their respective disclosure statements on the aspect of availability of weapon of offence i.e knife.
Secondly, it is highly improbable that accused Ajay @ Gadaiya handed over knife to co accused Bharat @ Vijay after committing murder of deceased, without any purpose or reason behind it. This is more so when accused Ajay @ Gadiaya is alleged to be found in possession of another knife and at the time of his apprehension by IO of case FIR no. 230/10 of PS Shahbad Dairy i.e PW23 Inspector Vikram Singh on 23.10.10.
62. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that both the accused in their respective disclosure statements also disclosed the name of their third associate namely Mangal. Not only this, they also disclosed the complete particulars including parentage and address of said Mangal in the said disclosure statements but no effort is shown to have been made by investigating agency either to apprehend said Mangal or to get him declared Proclaimed Offender in this case. There is nothing on record to show that IO even moved any application for obtaining NBW of said Mangal.
63. There is one more discrepancy which also creates doubt in the case of prosecution. PW24 Inspector Dinesh Kumar claimed during chief examination that deceased Vijay was found wearing orange colour Tshirt, State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 31 of 32 FIR No. 223/10; U/s 302/394/397/34 IPC; PS Shahbad Dairy D.O.D. 13.12.2014 blue colour jeans pant and white colour baniyan when he reached the spot on 12.10.10. As contrary thereto, PW7 SI Ajay Kumar who had initially reached the spot on receipt of copy of DD no. 19A Ex. PW7/A, testified during cross examination conducted on 03.12.12 that deceased was wearing blue colour jeans pant and white baniyan.
64. In the light of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to produce cogent and sufficient evidence during trial which may form complete chain of evidence leading to the guilt of accused persons in respect of offence of murder, beyond reasonable doubt.
65. Resultantly, both the accused namely Ajay @ Gadaiya and Bharat @ Vijay stand acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. However, case property be confiscated to the State after expiry of period of appeal or subject to decision of appeal in case any appeal is preferred by State against the judgment passed by this Court, as per rules. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C, as per the rules.
Announced in open Court today
dt. 13.12.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi
State V/s Ajay @ Gadhaiya etc. ("Acquitted") Page 32 of 32