Delhi District Court
Sc No. 1816/16 State vs . Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 1 Of 116 on 20 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SH. GULSHAN KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE03
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF
SESSIONS CASE NO. 1816 OF 2016
CNR NO. DLSE010000792009
FIR NO. 601/2008
POLICE STATION: NEW FRIENDS COLONY
UNDER SECTION: 302/396/307/397/412/34 IPC & MCOCA
STATE
Versus
(i) Raj Kumar @ Bheema,
S/o Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o Jhuggi No. 24, Priyanka Camp,
Mathura Road, New Delhi.
(ii) Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar,
S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar,
R/o House No. 17, Surya Nagar,
Phase-II, Sector 91, Faridabad, Haryana.
(iii) Jawahar,
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o House No. F146, Gali No. 17,
Pul Prahlad Pur, Mittal Colony,
New Delhi.
(iv) Naeem Khan @ Mota,
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 1 of 116
S/o Sh. Fariyad Khan,
R/o House No. 97, Batla House,
Dhobi Ghat, Okhla, New Delhi.
(v) Ranbir @ Shintu,
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal,
R/o Village Haidal Pur, Post Hasayan,
Tehsil Sikandra Rao,
District Hathras, U. P.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.04.2009
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 11.03.2020
DATE OF DECISION : 12.02.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that FIR No. 601/2008, P.S. New Friends Colony, U/s 394/397/302/307/34 of the IPC 1860 dated 03.11.2008, was registered after receipt of DD No. 27 A dated 0203/11.2008, vide which at about 1:50 AM, in the night Jawa54 wireless operator has informed that in House No. 81 , Sukhdev Vihar, near Escort hospital someone has intruded in the tenanted premise and was beating. DD No. 29A dated 2 3/11/2008, PS New Friends Colony was lodged at 2:00 AM, in the night wherein HC Bhagirah, No. 630/SD has informed on telephone to send SI Sanjeev Solanki to the spot. SI Sanjeev Solanki along with Constable Ashok Kumar reached the spot and informed Additional S.H.O., who was on patrolling duty vide D.D. No. 25A. D.D. No. 4A dated 03.11.2011, P.S. New Friends SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 2 of 116 Colony was registered at 9:30 AM, in the morning in respect of recording of statement of Smt. Indra Prabha, w/o Sh. Madan Mohan Gulati on the basis of which the FIR was registered. DD No. 5A dated 03.11.2011, PS New Friends Colony was lodged at 10:10AM, vide which copy of FIR was sent to the Senior Officers and the area Metropolitan Magistrate. Smt. Indra Prabha aged 73 years (at the time of incident) has stated that she was living on ground floor and her house alongwith her husband (aged 75 years) who had retired from Railway as Executive engineer and on the first floor they are having tenants. On 02.11.2008, between 09:00 PM to 09:30 PM, she alongwith her husband after taking food and closing the house from all corners went for sleep in the rear room. At about 12:30AM in the night, they heard some noise from all the kitchen side. She alongwith her husband went to kitchen. Her Husband went towards kitchen and called as to who was there. On this, 3/4 boys came out from the kitchen. They were having knives, screwdrivers and iron rods in their hands and attacked her husband with knife and rod. They were also asking for handing over the keys of almirah and also to know where cash and jewellery was kept. On that, she pleaded them to leave her husband and she would tell. Her husband was in the pool of blood and had fallen down in the mid of courtyard. After that those boys attacked her with knife and rod due to which she sustained injuries SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 3 of 116 on her head and body and she had also fallen down in the courtyard. They dragged her in her room and broken open the almirah and taken away approximately Rs. 20,000/ and some jewellery. They had also thrown out the articles lying in the almirah. They went away. Those boys were in the age group of 20 25 years and she can identify them.
During the course of investigation, Crime Team has inspected the spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The rough site plan was prepared. The documents for deceased Madan Mohan Gulati were prepared. The blood stained pink dupatta lying under the head of injured Indra Prabha was also seized. In the lobby, the pair of chappal (black) and another pair of chappal (blueblack) of deceased were also sealed in separate parcels. The wooden handle of blood stained mathney (doodh bilone wali) measuring 1 feet 2 inch (1'2") was also sealed separately, lower portion of this was separately sealed. One blood stained knife having black handle was also recovered from the articles lying on bed in the bed room. Its sketch was prepared and dimensions were measured. It was sealed separately. The screwdriver lying in the main gate of kitchen having plastic handle was also sealed in separate parcels. One blood stained knife was in the lobby outside the bed room was also seized and sealed in a separate parcel. Blood lying on the floor of the house was also collected. Earth SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 4 of 116 control was taken. The blood stained comb lying on the left side of dead body of Madan Gulati and one small photograph of Hanumanji were also seized and coins of Rs. 20/ in toto were also found the bed room of Indra Prabha, which was also seized. One white application form blood stained having some foot print was also collected. The case property was deposited in the maalkhana.
On 05.11.2008, deceased Madan Mohan Gulati was identified by Vivek Gulati (his son) and Servesh Gulati i.e. nephew of deceased (younger brother's son). The postmortem of Madan Mohan Gulati was carried. On 21.11.2008, special informer had informed that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema for whom police was in search had gone to visit his relatives in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh. SI Sanjeev Solanki went to Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh wherein he came to know on inquiry that Raj Kumar @ Bheema had gone to Delhi. SI Sanjeev Solanki informed the investigation Officer Inspector S. K. Sharma. The team was constituted and Badar Pur Border was cordoned off. Raj Kumar @ Bheema alighted from the bus and tried to run away on noticing the police party, he was apprehended. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema disclosed his guilt and stated that on the night intervening 2/3.11.2008, he alongwith his gang members Naeem @ Mota, Ranbir @ Sintu, Jawahar and Kastoori had consumed liquor in jhuggi behind factory which was SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 5 of 116 lying vacant and conspired for some robbery (lootpat) in Sukhdev Vihar. For that they came in front of Kothi No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi, at about 12:15AM and stand beneath the tree, which is situated near the boundary wall, in the dark. They went inside the Kothi No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar with help of tree adjacent to boundary wall by breaking open the lock and kundi of the doors of that house and committed dacoity after attacking old couple with knife and iron chheni.
Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was arrested. During investigation, number of passersby were requested to join, but no public witness joined the investigation. Raj Kumar has pointed the Kothi No.81, Sukhdev Vihar where he alongwith his associates committed murder of one old person and injured the old lady. Raj Kumar @ Bheema took the police party to vacant place near Pul Prahlad Pur and got recovered his jeans lying in the pit near the bush having Eagle sticker at the place of belt and at the right back pocket Eagle Jeans were embroidered with Red thread. The jeans was having faded cream colour and some blood stains were found under the right pocket. The jeans was seized.
On 25.11.2008, accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema got recovered one small golden idol having OM and GANESH under the charpai (cot) wrapped in a cloth inside his Jhuggi No. 24, Priyanka Camp, Mathura Road, was also seized. One portable C.D. SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 6 of 116 Player of Panasonic Model bearing No. SLSX388 was also got recovered by accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He had told the investigation Officer that he had taken away the same from House No. 81 in the night intervening 02/03.11.2008, which was also seized. Smt. Kashmira, mother of Raj Kumar @ Bheema was also inquired. Accused Kastoori could not be traced. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema has also identified the place near electricity pole bearing No. 1525/29 bush and got recovered one iron chheni, whose length was 11 inches lying under the bush having rust. He himself taken out that and told that this was a chheni with which he had attacked old couple on their head with the help of his associates in house No. 81 on the night intervening 02/03.11.2008, in which the old man had died and old women had sustained injuries. At the instance of Raj Kumar @ Bheema, finger prints on the water bottles lying in the fridge at the spot were also lifted and bottles were seized.
At the instance of Raj Kumar @ Bheema, accused Jawahar was also apprehended from his house, who has also disclosed his guilt. Accused Jawahar has confessed that he is active members of gang of Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He has also taken part in the preplanned conspiracy for committing dacoity in House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi on the night of intervening of 02 03.11.2008 along with their associates Ranbir @ Sintu, Naeem @ SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 7 of 116 Mota and Kastoori and also disclose about the murder of old man and injuring seriously the old lady. Accused Jawahar was also arrested. Accused Jawahar got recovered one blood stained shirt. During Police custody remand, accused Jawahar got recovered one watch, ring and ear tops lying in a bag in his residential room, these were also seized. Case property was deposited in the maalkhana. At the instance of accused Jawahar and Raj Kumar @ Bheema, accused Ranbir @ Sintu was also apprehended from his house, who has also disclosed about the crime and accepted his involvement in the crime. He was also arrested. Accused Ranbir @ Sintu has got recovered one blood stained TShirt lying in an attaché in his residential room and told that he was wearing that TShirt at the time of committing the crime. It was also seized. A visiting card of Jagdamba Jewellers was found, which was having mobile No. 9213426555 and also having telephone number of shop as 01165943073 and address as Ismail Pur Road, Jaitpur from the possession of Ranbir @ Sintu. He has also identified the house No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar. He has also disclosed that he had taken four gold bangles, one gold chain, one pair of gold tops, three rings and one chain, one gold pendant of Ganesh. He had taken these to Jagdamba Jewellers, Jaitpur and sold out these articles for Rs. 35,000/, he had spent Rs.15,000/ on him and the balance Rs.20,000/, one looted watch he had kept in his house. At SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 8 of 116 the instance of Ranbir @ Sintu from his house, a purse on which Jagdamba Jewellers was written, Rs. 20,000/ and the looted watch were recovered. Thereafter, SI Sanjeev Solanki on the pointing out of accused Ranbir @ Sintu, Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar, owner of Jagdamba Jewellers was arrested. Accused Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar had disclosed his guilt after identifying accused Ranbir @ Sintu that he had received the looted articles, which was recovered from the shop of Ramesh. Some of these articles i.e chain, pendant pieces and melted gold piece and Rs. 15,000/ were recovered. Ramesh Kumar was also arrested.
During investigation, it was found that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was a history sheeter of P.S. New Friends Colony and is continuing his unlawful activity jointly by running and organized crime syndicate and indulge in violence with the only objective of gaining pecuniary benefits. He singly used his present associates as facilitator of crime, thereby collectively organized Crime Syndicate. In furtherance of his activity and terror he along with his associates murdered Madan Mohan Gulati and grievously injured his wife and robbed valuable articles. It is worth mentioning that the above mentioned accused is a habitual criminal and has been involved in various heinous criminal cases since last ten years. He has now become a synonymous of terror and clear and present danger for the society. He has become a very SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 9 of 116 serious threat to the society. The existing legal penal and procedural laws and adjudicatory system has become rather inadequate to curb or control his criminal activities to keep peace and tranquility in the society through some more powerful and deterrent law. Raj Kumar @ bheema was arrested and competent Courts have taken cognizance in (i) case FIR No. 870/06, P.S. Mehrauli dated 06.12.06, U/s 399/402 of IPC, 1860, the charge was framed by the Court of Ms. Anu Malhotra, the then Ld. ASJ., Patiala House Courts against Raj Kumar @ Bhima and others. 2) case FIR No. 506/05, PS. N.F. Colony dated 01.10.2005, u/s. 392/411/34 of the IPC., 1860, charge was framed by the court of Sh. Manish Yaduvanshi, the then Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House court on 03.02.2006 against Raj Kumar @ Bheema and others.
The present case amounts to an organized crime committed by the members/facilitators of organized crime syndicate. The motive behind the crime was to get pecuniary benefit by committing the dacoity. Approval of joint commissioner of police, Southern Range was sought. The joint commissioner of police, Southern Range vide No. 9198/SO/SR dated 27.11.2008 had granted permission for section 3(1) (i), 3 (1)(ii) and 3 (4) of the M.C.O.C Act, 1999 against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Jawahar, Naeem @ Mota, Ranbir @ Sintu and Kastoori.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 10 of 116 During the course of investigation, it was found that charges were framed against Raj Kumar @ Bheema and his associates Naeem Khan @ Mota in case FIR No. 870/06, PS Mehrauli, U/s 399/402 of the IPC., 1860. Raj Kumar @ Bheema and his associate Naeem @ Mota were also arrested in case FIR No. 672/06, PS Mehrauli, U/s 454/380 of the IPC., 1860 and was also arrested in case FIR No. 509/06, PS Mehrauli, U/s 380 of the IPC., 1860 along with Raj Kumar @ Bheema.
On 27.11.2008, the investigation of this case was transferred to A.C.P.G.C. Das. On 01.12.2008, on the basis of information Naeem Khan @ Mota was apprehended at Ashram Chowk who has also confessed the guilt and got his disclosure statement recorded. Naeem @ Mota has also identified the place of incident. He has also taken the police to his room/jhuggi and got recovered on box from the loft (tand) out of which, one black shirt having yellow strips having written the words 'Plus Point' of his room. He has told that he was wearing the shirt at the time of incident. Accused Naeem @ Mota has also got his confessional statement recorded before D.C.P. on 04.12.2008. He was also produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 05.12.2008.
Sh. Vivek Kumar Gulati, son of the deceased and injured Indra Prabha has identified the articles in judicial T.I.P. on SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 11 of 116 17.12.2008, postmortem result was collected. The injured Indra Prabha has sustained grievous injury. The opinion of weapon of offence knife/chheni was also obtained from the doctor. On 24.12.2008, T.I.P. proceedings of accused Ranbir and Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Jawahar, Ranbir @ Sintu and Naeem @ Mota has been conducted, but they had refused to participate in the judicial T.I.P. on 26.12.2008, injured Indra Prabha has identified the accused persons in court as she had visited the court to receive the recovered articles. The finger prints of Jawahar, Ranbir @ Sintu were tallied from the finger prints lifted from the spot. The site plan was got prepared. The exhibits were sent to the F.S.L. on 22.01.2009. Accused Kastoori could not be traced despite best efforts and proceeding U/s 82/83 of the Cr.PC., 1973 was issued against Kastoori for the date 24.02.2009. His name was kept in column no. 2.
2. On completion of the investigation and other formalities, the chargesheet was finally filed against accused namely Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar, Naeem Khan @ Mota, Jawahar and Ranbir @ Sintu in the court of Ld. ACMM. The Ld. ACMM after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 12 of 116
3. After committal proceedings, the trial of this case was assigned to my Ld. Predecessor and vide order dated 03.11.2011 charges under Section 302/396/307/397/34 IPC and 3(1)(i), 3(1)
(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOCA, 1999 were framed against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Naeem Khan @ Mota, Jawahar and Ranbir @ Sintu. Separate charge under Section 3 of MCOCA and 412 IPC was framed against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and separate charge under Section 412 IPC was also framed against accused Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar, Jawahar and Ranbir @ Sinto. All accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 27 (Seventeen) witnesses in all. Before proceeding further, let me state in brief the statements made by the prosecution witnesses.
5. Prosecution Evidence:
(i) PW1 Dr. Arvind Kumar had deposed that in reference to application submitted by IO S. K. Sharma, PS New Friends Colony seeking opinion regarding injuries and alleged weapon sealed in three plastic jars and another alleged weapon covered with white cloth and sealed along with four documents i.e. Road Certificate, SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 13 of 116 Clinical Report of J.P.N.A., Trauma Centre, AIIMS in case FIR No. 601/2008 dated 2/3112008 along with sample seal "SK". Upon opening the exhibits, four knives, one iron chheni measurement and description of which are mentioned in his detailed subsequent opinion which Ex. No. I, II, III, IV, & V in the copy of MLC No. 142343 of the person are labelled by him A (A1, A2, A3, A4), B, C, D. After going through the documents and said detail and examining the alleged weapon, he has given the considered opinion that- Injury No. A (A1, A2, A3, A4) could be possible with Ex. I, II & IV, Injury No. B, C and D could be possible with Ex. III & V. Stab injuries abdomen with two perforation in midilum and two perforation in mid transverse colon could be individually dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature. After opining, all the exhibits were sealed with the seal of Forensic Medicine, J.P.N.A Trauma Centre, AIIMS along with four initials and same were handed over to IO along with sample seal. He proved his detailed report Ex. PW1/A.
(ii) PW2 Sh. Naresh Kumar had deposed that on
06.11.2008 as per the instructions of Director Finger Print Bureau, he along with police photographer reached at the spot i.e. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi where he inspected the scene of crime and all the developed chance prints which were suspected to be SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 14 of 116 handled by the culprits and all the developed chance prints were got photographed. He prepared detailed report to this effect which was Ex. PW2/A and submitted the same to IO. On 25.11.2008, he inspected the scene of crime and one plastic bottle which was kept in the refrigerator was examined by him. He developed six chance prints from the bottle and got photographed from the police photographer. He prepared detailed report to this effect Ex. PW2/B and handed over the same to the IO.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema he stated that no neighbour was present at the spot. He admitted that no public witness was joined at the time of lifting the chance prints. The police constable who took the photographs of the chance prints, his name was Ct. R. Pillai. Ct. R. Pillai took the photographs at his instance. He did not recollect the exact number of photographs clicked by Ct. R. Pillai. He did not tell the factum of taking photographs to SI Solanki. He lifted the chance prints from the bottle at the instance of SHO. He did not know whether the SHO called the neighbours to become witness to the proceedings at the spot. He did not notice if the higher police officer also reached at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he visited the spot and had not taken any chance prints. He denied the suggestion that he prepared Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B at the instance of IO of this case.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 15 of 116
(iii) PW3 Sh. Naveen Arora, the then Ld. ACJ/JSCC/ARC had deposed that as per the record the confessional statement of accused Naeem Khan was recorded on 04.12.2008 by the concerned DCP and same was put up before him which was ordered to be put before Special Court.
(iv) PW4 W/ASI Adreena had deposed that on 03.11.2008, upon receipt of rukka mark X through SI Sanjeev Solanki, he recorded formal FIR. He proved the computerized print out of the FIR Ex. PW4/A and his endorsement on rukka Ex. PW4/B.
(v) PW5 Ct. Dinesh Kumar had deposed that on 03.11.2008 Duty Officer handed over to him copies of FIR for delivering the same to MM and the higher police officers in hierarchy. He delivered the same.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar, he stated that he did not recollect as to who was present while his statement was recorded. The copies of FIR in envelopes was entrusted to him by the Duty Officer at about 12:30AM. He denied the suggestion that he did not take the copy of FIR from the Duty Officer on 03.11.2008 or that he did not deliver the same to Ld. MM or senior police officials. He denied the suggestion that he was SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 16 of 116 deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
(vi) PW6 ASI Chet Ram had deposed that on 02.12.2008, scene of crime examination report dated 03.11.2008 from South District Crime Team, scene of crime examination report vide serial no. 36 and 37 dated 06.11.2008 and 25.11.2008 respectively from the finger print expert, photographs of chance prints developed on 03.11.2008 and 06.11.2008, specimen fingerprints and palm prints of accused Ranvir @ Chintu, Jawahar and Raj Kumar @ Bheem a were received in their office for comparison with the chance prints lifted from the spot on 03.11.2008, 06.11.2008 and 25.11.2008 of the accused persons. Same were entrusted to him by the Director from the officer of Director, Print Expert. He duly examined and compared the same and prepared his detailed report Ex. PW6/A. During the course of examination and comparison, he found that chance prints mark Q2, Q3, Q4 lifted from 06.11.2008 were identical with right thumb, right ring and right palm portion marked S1, S2 and S3 respectively on specimen finger/palm prints slip of Jawahar S/o Mahender. He also found that chance prints marked Q1 and Q3 lifted on 25.11.2008 were identical interse as well as were further identical with left thumb impression marked S4 on the specimen finger prints slip of Ranvir @ Chintu. The marked enlargement qua accused Jawahar consisting of two pages SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 17 of 116 was Ex. PW6/B. The marked enlargement qua acused Ranvir @ Chintu consisting of two pages was Ex. PW6/C. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ranvir, he stated that he received material for comparison in unsealed condition from the office of their Director. He admitted that he personally did not visit the spot. The specimen finger/plam prints were deposited by the IO on 26.11.2008 qua accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Ranvir and Jawahar. He denied the suggestion that no such chance print or specimen finger prints were received in their office or that same were manipulated by the IO.
(vii) PW7 ASI Bhagirath Prasad had deposed that on 03.11.2008, on receipt of DD No. 27A, he along with Ct. Ravinder reached at the spot i.e. House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar where the PCR was already present. On the first floor of the house one Sh. Ajay Dhagday met them in a very scared condition. He informed him about the incident and he accordingly informed the police. Pursuant to which SI Sanjeev Solanki along with staff members reached at the spot. ATO S. K. Sharma also arrived at the spot and thereafter, SHO and other higher police officials reached there. One lady who was badly injured was somehow breathing and she was immediately removed to the hospital in the PCR Van and one person was lying dead in the house and the blood in huge quantity SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 18 of 116 was also lying. The household articles were lying scattered and the front gate was removed and kept aside. As per the instructions, he removed the dead body to the mortuary of AIIMS hospital.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar, he stated that he did not remember if any other person was present at the time of recording of his statement. They had gone by the motorcycle but he did not remember the registration number of the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that he did not reach the spot or that he did not join investigation or that he did not inform at police station about the incident or that he did not remove the dead body from mortuary. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
(viii) PW8 SI Nafe Singh had deposed that on the intervening night of 02/03112008, at about 1:00AM, upon receipt of information from control room, he along with staff members reached at House No. 81A, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi and inspected the scene of crime. He saw that a male body of an aged person was lying in the lobby in the pool of blood and the rooms of the house was ransacked and the belongings were lying scattered. Ct. Anand took the photographs of the spot from different angles. HC Ram Sahay inspected the spot from the point of view of finger prints/chance prints. He prepared his detailed report Ex. PW8/A SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 19 of 116 and handed over the same to IO.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, he denied the suggestion that they did not visit the place of occurrence or that prepared the report subsequently at the instance of IO or that he was deposing falsely.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar, he stated that he did not remember if the neighbours were present at the spot. He did not remember if the ACP or the DCP had come to the spot during his stay. He was not aware if the SHO inquired from neighbours about the incident. He admitted that the photographs were taken at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he visited the spot with Ct. Anand and other staff of police. He further denied the suggestion that Ct. Anand had not taken photographs on his instructions.
(ix) PW9 Ct. Ashok Kumar had deposed that on 03.11.2008, upon receipt of DD No. 29A, he along with SI Sanjeev Solanki reached at the spot i.e. House No. 81, Sukh Dev Vihar where HC Bhagirath along with one constable met them. They entered the said house and found that sliding door of the drawing room was broken and the glass/screen of the door was also broken. The articles kept in the side board of the drawing room were lying scattered. The handle of inner door of the drawing room was also SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 20 of 116 lying broken. When they reached the lobby of the house, the dead body of a person aged about 85 years was lying on the ground in the pool of blood. He came to know that the name of that person as Madan Mohan Gulati. The slippers of the dead body were lying towards the feet and two kitchen knives were also lying on the right side. There were blood impression of dragging of the dead body on the ground in the lobby. One screw driver was lying in the kitchen. One coin was lying outside the door of the kitchen. The wash basin of the lobby was blood stained. The articles of the Almirah in the bedroom were lying scattered on the bed. One kitchen knife was lying on the bed. The handle of rai/baloni was completely blood stained and was lying in the bed room whereas the below portion of the rai/baloni was found in the lobby. The back door of the bedroom was also found opened and some coins were lying there and there was staircase for going upstairs. The SHO, PS N.F.C., ATO Inspector Sunil Sharma, the ACP and the Crime Team members also arrived at the spot.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, he stated that DD No. 29A was received by SI Sanjeev Solanki in the police station at about 2:00AM. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot with SI Sanjeev Solanki or that DD No. 29A was received by SI Sanjeev Solanki.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 21 of 116 (x) PW10 HC Rajinder Singh had deposed that on
03.11.2008, he received a wireless call at about 1:45AM in the night. The call was regarding quarrel at House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar and accordingly, they reached at the said place where they found that sliding door of the drawing room of the house was kept by the side of aangan/lobby and the dead body of one aged person was lying in the pool of blood in the lobby. The household articles were lying scattered in the room. With the help of local police, they removed the injured old lady to Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital and got her hospitalized.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, he admitted that nobody was present at Kothi No. 81. He entered into the said premises along with Ct. Ram Bhaj. He did not call the police from police station. He did not inquire the matter from the neighbours. He denied the suggestion that he did not receive the call or that he had not visited Kothi No. 81 along with Ct. Ram Bhaj.
(xi) PW11 HC Pramod Kumar had deposed that on 03.11.2008, at about 12:30/1:00AM, the Duty Officer informed him about the incident at House No. 81, Mathura Road, Sukhdev Vihar. SI Sanjeev Solanki, Ct. Ashok and HC Bhagirath were already present there and by that time, Inspector S. K. Sharma also SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 22 of 116 reached at the spot. He went inside the House No. 81 and saw that one dead body of aged person was lying in the pool of blood in the lobby. One old lady was badly injured. The old injured lady was sent to hospital by PCR Van. On the left side of the dead body, one pair blood stained slipper/chappal of black colour was lying and one pair blood stained slipper of black and blue colour was lying under the legs of the dead body. One brown colour comb meant for keeping in pocket, one picture/calender of God were also lying in the lobby near the dead body. Two blood stained kitchen knives were also lying near the dead body. Out of said two knives, the handle of one knife was yellow and the blade was bent. The handle of other knife was of black colour. One more blood stained knife having black handle was lying in front of gate of kitchen. "Stainless Steel China" was engraved on the blade of knife. IO collected the blood sample lying in the lobby of the house and prepared pullanda of the same and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/A. IO also collected the earth control and blood stained earth from the room of complainant and separately kept the same in plastic jar and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/B. IO also collected one blood stained pink colour duppatta from under the head of Ms. Indra Prabha and prepared the pullanda of the same and sealed SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 23 of 116 the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/C. IO also collected one more blood stained duppatta from in front of bedroom gate and prepared the pullanda of the same and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/D. One mathani was lying in the body, IO prepared the pullanda of the same and sealed with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/E. The handle of said mathani which was blood stained was lying on the bed, IO prepared pullanda of the same and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/F. One more knife having teeth on the blade was lying upon the bed. IO prepared sketches of all the four knives recovered from the spot. The sketches were Ex. PW11/G, Ex. PW11/H and Ex. PW11/I. IO prepared separate pullandas of said knives and sealed same with the seal of "SK". IO took into possession the knife recovered from the bed vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/J. IO also took into possession the knife engraved with "Stainless Steel China" upon the blade, vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/K and also took into possession two knives recovered from the lobby vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/L. One application form bearing impression of foot print was lying in the bedroom. IO kept the same in jar and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/M. IO lifted one hair SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 24 of 116 which was lying upon the application like paper. IO kept the same in a jar and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/N. One screwdriver with the bent blade having green handle was lying near the kitchen gate. The front side of the blade of the screwdriver was having the stains of paint. IO prepared the pullanda of the same and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/O. IO also prepared pullanda of two pair of chappal and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/P. IO also collected the blood sample, the earth control and blood stained earth control from the lobby and kept the same separately in jars and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/Q. IO also prepared the pullanda of brown colour comb and the picture of Lord Hanuman Ji and sealed the same with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/R. IO had also taken into possession the glass of sliding door which was broken from a corner and was bearing the fingerprints. The coins comprising twenty of Rs.1/, two of Rs.5/ and two of Rs.2/ were lying in the corner between the staircase. IO collected the same and prepared pullanda which was sealed with the seal of "SK" and took into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/S. IO prepared site plan SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 25 of 116 at the spot.
The witness had correctly identified the case property i.e. one pink colour blood stained Chunni Ex. P1, one blood stained handle of mathani Ex. P2, one jar containing blood stained knife Ex. P3, one jar containing blood stained knife Ex. P4, one jar containing two knives (one having teethes) having brown stains Ex. P5 and Ex. P6, one jar having pocket comb and picture of Lord Hanuman Ji Ex. P7 and Ex. P8, one pair of black colour chappal Ex. P9, pair of black and blue colour chappal Ex. P10, screwdriver Ex. P11 and wooden mathani Ex. P12.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, he admitted that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not in handwriting of IO. In the police station, SI Sanjeev Solanki was present but he was not present in the room where his statement was recorded by the IO. He admitted that all the seizure memo Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW11/S were prepared in drawing room of Kothi No. 81 situated at Sukhdev Vihar. IO had not joined any neighbour or tenants in preparation of memos. IO had not issued any notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to any neighbour or any tenant to join investigation in his presence. He did not know if IO had made any inquiries with regard to the posting of a watchman in the said Kothi from the neighbours and the tenants. He could not tell at whose instance, the site plan was SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 26 of 116 prepared by the IO nor he could tell which pen or scale was used for preparing the site plan. He admitted that IO had not seized the said pen or scale by which the site plan was prepared. He admitted that in his presence IO had not made any document mentioning the place from where jars and tapes were procured or the name of the person who brought the jars and tapes. He denied the suggestion that he was not involved in the investigation of this case or that he did not visit Kothi No. 81 along with IO. He further denied the suggestion that none of the memos Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW11/S was prepared in the drawing room of Kothi No. 81 or that he had signed all these memos in the police station at the instance of IO. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Naeem Khan @ Mota, he stated that Crime Team reached at Kothi No. 81 at around 9:00/10:00AM. IO did not record the statement of any other person at the spot in his presence.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ranbir, he stated that the seal of IO was made up of brass. He did not remember the time when he reached the spot or when he left the spot.
(xii) PW12 Ms. Surya Malik Grover, the then Ld. ACJ had SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 27 of 116 deposed that on 23.12.2008, the application of the IO for conducting Test Identification Parade of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, accused Ranbir @ Shintu, accused Jawahar and accused Naeem Khan was marked to her. The application was Ex. PW12/A. On 24.12.2008, IO/Inspector Jagbir Singh was present along with police file and all the four accused were also produced in muffled face. All accused persons refused to join TIP proceedings. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and accused Ranbir @ Shintu stated the reason that they have already been shown to the witness whereas accused Naeem Khan and Jawahar gave the reasons that their photographs were taken at police station. She prepared TIP proceedings qua each accused separately. TIP proceedings qua accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema consisting of two pages was Ex. PW12/B and certificate regarding correctness of TIP proceedings Ex. PW12/C. The TIP proceedings qua accused Ranbir @ Shintu consisting of two pages was Ex. PW12/D and certificate regarding correctness of TIP proceedings Ex. PW12/E. The TIP proceedings qua accused Jawahar consisting of two pages was Ex. PW12/F and certificate regarding correctness of TIP proceedings Ex. PW12/G. TIP proceedings qua accused Naeem Khan consisting of two pages was Ex. PW12/H and certificate regarding correctness of TIP proceedings was Ex. PW12/I. The copy of TIP proceedings supplied to IO on his application was Ex. PW12/J. SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 28 of 116
(xiii) PW13 Sh. H. G. S. Dhariwal had deposed that on 04.12.2008, he was posted as Deputy Commission of Police, South District. Accused Naeem Khan @ Mota was already arrested in the present case. On that day, he was produced before him in muffled face by IO/ACP Sh. Gurcharan Dass Police Station New Friends Colony for recording Confessional Statement of accused Naeem Khan @ Mota under Section 18 of MCOC Act. Thereafter, IO asked to leave the room. In his room, only he, accused and his staff SI Prabha were present. Accused was also warned and explained that he was not bound to make any confessional statement and if he did so it can be used against him. Despite his warning accused stated that he was willing to make confessional statement voluntarily. Accused was inquired and he was satisfied that accused was not under any compulsion, threat, inducement of promise to make the confessional statement. As desired by accused Naeem Khan @ Mota, his confessional statement was recorded in Hindi. The aforesaid proceedings which was running into three pages was Ex.PW13/A. His certificate to the effect that the aforesaid statement was taken in his presence and was recorded by SI Prabha under his supervision.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Ranbir, he stated that he was not aware who SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 29 of 116 prepared rukka of the present case. He denied the suggestion that accused Naeem was compelled to make his confession statement. He further denied the suggestion that confessional statement was not made by accused Naeem Khan @ Mota voluntarily. He further denied the suggestion that accused Naeem Khan @ Mota did not disclose the name of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema.
(xiv) PW14 Head Constable Ravinder Kumar had deposed that on 21.11.2008, he had joined the investigation of the case. He along with IO/Inspector S.K. Sharma, Ct. Ram Prakash started checking of vehicles coming from the side of Badarpur and going towards Sarita Vihar near Badarpur Border as Inspector S.K. Sharma was having a secret information regarding coming of accused Bheema etc., from Aligarh to Delhi. During the checking of the bus, one person got down from the bus and he was apprehended, interrogated and during interrogation, he revealed his identity as Raj Kumar @ Bheema. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema made his disclosure statement which was Ex.PW14/A. Thereafter, accused took them to Kothi No. 81 Sukhdev Vihar where accused pointed out towards Kothi and disclosed that he along with his associate Naeem Mota, Jawahar, Ranbir @ Shintu and Kasturi had entered in the said Kothi by break open the sliding door and committed murder of old man and also caused injuries to SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 30 of 116 old lady and also robbed valuable articles from there. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW14/B and Ex. PW14/C respectively, Rs.35/ were recovered from the personal search of the accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. Accused also stated in his disclosure statement that at the time of incident, he was wearing a jeans and after the incident, the said blood stained jeans was thrown by him in the area of Pul Prahladpur. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema took them to an open place where accused got recovered one faded jeans upon which the word 'Eagle' was mentioned in English language on the right side of the back. Jeans was kept in a white cloth pullanda and it was sealed with the seal of "SK". Thereafter, said pullanda was taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/D. On 22.11.2008, accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was produced before the court where IO obtained his seven days police custody remand. Thereafter, they went to House No. 146, Gali No.17, Mittal Colony, Pul Prahlad Pur with the accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and he pointed out the said house belonging to accused Jawahar. The said person was available at the house and was apprehended at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. Accused Jawahar also got recovered a cream colour shirt upon which word 'Eastern Vertigo' was mentioned from a room of his aforesaid SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 31 of 116 house. Shirt having blood stains was also kept in a cloth parcel and it was also sealed with the seal of "SK". The said shirt having blood stains was taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/E. Accused Jawahar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/F. Accused was interrogated and during his interrogation he made his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW14/G. Thereafter, both the accused persons took them to the house of accused Ranbir @ Sintu in the area of Jaitpur where accused Ranbir @ Sintu was apprehended on the pointing out of both the accused persons. Accused Ranbir @ Sintu got recovered one blood stained Tshirt from his House No. 556, Khadda Colony, Jaitpur which was also kept in a cloth parcel and it was sealed with the seal of 'SK'. The said blood stained Tshirt was taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/H. Accused Ranbir @ Sintu was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/I. His personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/J. On the next day i.e. 23.11.2008, accused Jawahar and Ranbir @ Sintu were produced before the court and IO obtained five days police custody remand of accused Jawahar and Rabir @ Sintu. Thereafter, they came back to police station New Friends Colony where accused Jawahar was interrogated. During his interrogation, he made his supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW14/K. Accused Jawahar disclosed that the robbed articles i.e. pair of earrings, ring, wrist watch are lying at his house and he can got SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 32 of 116 recover the same. In pursuance of his said disclosure statement, accused Jawahar took them at his House No. 146, Gali no.17, Mittal Colony, Pul Prahlad Pur and got recovered pair of earrings, one ring and wrist watch. Recovered articles i.e. pair of earrings, one ring and wrist watch were kept in a white cloth pullanda and it was sealed with the seal of 'SK'. Thereafter, said pullanda was taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/L. Accused Ranbir @ Sintu was again interrogated in the police station and accused again made a supplementary disclosure statement which was also reduced into writing and the same is Ex.PW14/M. In his supplementary statement, accused Ranbir @ Sintu disclosed that share of his robbed articles has already been sold by him to Jagdamba Jewellers for a sum of Rs.35,000/ and he had already spent Rs.15,000/ out of Rs.35,000/ and he can got recover the remaining amount i.e. Rs.20,000/ and one wrist watch. In pursuance of his supplementary disclosure statement, accused took them to his house situated at House No. 556, Khadda Colony, Jaitpur and got recovered Rs.20,000/ and one wrist watch.
On 25.11.2008, accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was again interrogated and made supplementary disclosure statement which was reduced into writing and was Ex.PW14/N. In pursuance to the aforesaid disclosure statement accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema got recover one idol and CD Player make Panasonic from his Jhuggi 24, SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 33 of 116 Priyanka Camp, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The same were kept in a white colour parcel and was sealed with the seal of 'SK' and was taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/O. Accused also got recover iron chheni behind his jhuggi from the bushes of railway track near pole no.1525/29 which was kept in a white colour parcel and was sealed with the seal of "SK" and was taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/P. On 01.12.2008, accused Naeem @ Mota was arrested from Ashram Chowk vide memo Ex.PW14/Q, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/R. The witness had correctly identified all accused persons.
The witness had correctly identified the case property i.e. jeans recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex.P1, tshirt which was recovered at the instance of accused Ranbir @ Sintu Ex.P2, one shirt having printing mark of 'Eastern Vertigo' which was recovered at the instance of accused Jawahar Ex.P3, iron chhaini recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex.P4, one walkman make panasonic recovered from accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex.P5, one Idol of Lord Ganesha recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex. P6, two wrist watch (one golden colour wrist watch make Maxima and one black colour wrist watch make Pulsar), one golden colour chain with locket, one golden colour ring with green colour stone and one golden colour SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 34 of 116 earring stone. The black colour wrist watch make Pulsar Ex.P7, one golden colour ring with green colour stone Ex.P8 and one golden colour earring Ex.P9. The golden colour wrist watch make Maxima was Ex.P10 and the golden colour chain with locket Ex.P11. The transparent small plastic box Ex. P12.
During the course of investigation, on 27.11.2008, hair samples of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, accused Jawahar, accused Ranvir @ Shintu and on 04.12.2008, hair sample of accused Naeem @ Mota were obtained by the IO. Same were kept in separate envelope and the same were sealed with the seal of 'SK'. Same were taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW14/S to Ex.PW14/V respectively.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, he stated that no entry in the daily dairy register about the formation of raiding party and leaving the police station was entered in his presence. It was told to him in the noon time when they started from the police station. IO/Inspector S.K.Sharma, Ct. Ram Pratap and he went to Badarpur border in uniform. He did not know whether entry regarding use of government gypsy was entered into the register or not. He could not tell the registration number of that vehicle. They made the raiding point at the bus stop of Badarpur on the road which was coming towards Delhi from Faridabad. He denied the suggestion that that time there was no bus stop at the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 35 of 116 spot. The bus in which accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was travelling came at the spot after 20 minutes of our reaching. He did not remember which was the bus depot to which the bus was related. He did not remember who was driving the government gypsy at that time. He did not remember about the clothes worn by accused on that day. He admitted that they both were knowing accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema prior to that day. He denied the suggestion that he was knowing Raj Kumar @ Bheema being beat constable of the area. He admitted that Raj Kumar @ Bheema had already been declared B.C. He did not know whether the information of declaration of person as BC was sent to every police station. He did not know whether Inspector S.K. Sharma knowing Raj Kumar @ Bheema or not. He did not tell him that he know Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He admitted that no bus ticket was recovered from the search of Raj Kumar @ Bheema. 67 persons were present at the bus stop at the time of apprehension of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. No public person was joined investigation neither any written notice was served by the IO upon them. After writing the disclosure he got the signature of Ct. Ram Pratap and IO on the same. He admitted that his statement was recorded while sitting on the footpath. The disclosure statement was written by him on the dictation of Inspector S. K. Sharma. The fact of arrest of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was conveyed to his mother from House No. 81 Sukhdev Vihar. SI SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 36 of 116 Sanjeev Solanki did not visit the spot where accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was apprehended till the time they remained there. He admitted that statement of Ct. Ram Pratap was recorded in his presence in the same room. He admitted that in the recovery memo Ex.PW14/P the circumference of chheni and breadth of its end was not mentioned. The chheni was recovered from the bushes near railway lines. The memo of recovery of chheni was prepared at the place of its recovery. He could not tell at how much distance the nearest jhuggi was situated from the place where chheni was recovered. He denied the suggestion that chheni was planted upon the accused or that it was not recovered from the place shown in the memo. He denied the suggestion that his signatures on Ex.PW14/S were procured by IO or that it was not prepared in his presence. He did not remember the colour of the cloth and its size in which Ex. P6 was wrapped. The cloth was not taken into possession by the IO in his presence. He denied the suggestion that no article was recovered from the jhuggi of Raj Kumar @ Bheema at his instance or that the recovery shown from there planted upon him. On 21.11.2008 he along with Ct. Ram Pratap, IO and accused Bheema went to Pul Prahladpur to recover the Jeans of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. No photography was done at the place of recovery of jeans. The jeans was recovered from a open place which was a gaddha of the measurement of about 2/2½ feet deep. At that time, that place was SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 37 of 116 not surrounded by residential houses. No public witness was joined in the recovery proceedings. In his presence, the concerned police station was not intimated about the apprehension of accused or the recoveries at his instance nor any efforts were made to join the police officials posted at police station. He could not tell the colour and registration number of the bus by which accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema arrived at the place of his arrest. He denied the suggestion that no pant was recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He further denied the suggestion that the pant as shown recovered at his instance does not belong to accused. He further denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was ever made by accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema or that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema or at his instance. He further denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation of this case at any point of time.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Jawahar, he admitted that accused Jawahar was arrested at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema had not disclosed that he can get apprehend coaccused Jawahar from his house. He had not disclosed the place from where he can get apprehend coaccused Jawahar. He did not make inquiry from accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. IO made inquiries and IO dictate him the disclosure and he wrote the same. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheem SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 38 of 116 had disclosed about the apprehension of accused Jawahar in his disclosure made on 21.11.2008. He could not tell about the location of the room in the house of accused Jawahar from where he was arrested. Public person gathered there and IO asked them to join the investigation but non has joined the investigation. The IO asked the name of the person gathered there but they without disclosing their name left the spot. He could not tell whose houses are situated in east, west, south north direction of the house from where the accused arrested. Accused Jawahar was apprehended by Ct. Ram Pratap. The personal search of accused Jawahar was conducted by him after his apprehension. The memo of personal search was prepared by the IO. He did not remember whether he disclosed about his educational qualification in his disclosure statement or not. He did not remember whether the disclosure after its writing was read over to accused Jawahar or it was given to him to read by him. A note was given on the disclosure but he did not know what was written on the same whether it was given to him or it was read over to him. He denied the suggestion that accused Jawahar had not made any disclosure statement. He further denied the suggestion that he had got signature of accused on the disclosure statement written by him. He denied the suggestion that accused Jawahar was not arrested in the manner or from the place as disclosed by him. He did not remember whether accused were taken to the place where SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 39 of 116 they put the mobile phone on the railway line and drop and threw it as disclosed by them. He did not remember what articles came to the share of accused Jawahar from the robbed articles but he had told in his disclosure about the same. He denied the suggestion that second disclosure statement was also not made by accused Jawahar. Memo of pointing out of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Jawahar was also prepared. He could not tell the date and time of pointing out of place of occurrence by accused. He denied the suggestion that no pointing out of place of occurrence was made by accused Jawahar. He further denied the suggestion that he never joined investigation carried out qua accused Jawahar. Shirt was recovered at the instance of accused Jawahar from his house on 22.11.2008 between 07.30PM and 08.00PM. He did not remember whether the site plan of place of recovery was prepared. The process of recovery was not photographed. No site plan of this recovery was prepared nor the process was photographed. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered at his instance. He further denied the suggestion that all the memos were prepared with regard to accused Jawahar at police station. Intimation regarding arrest of accused was given to his father personally. He did not know if IO has taken accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema to Mathura between 21.11.2008 to 25.11. 2008 for recovery of robbed articles as per his disclosure. He denied the suggestion that he had made no statement SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 40 of 116 to IO qua accused Jawahar and Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He further denied the suggestion that accused Jawahar had already been apprehended by the police of their police station on 20.11.2008. He further denied the suggestion that arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure memo statement and seizure memo with regard to shirt and other articles had been prepared and antetime and ante date while sitting in police station. He further denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the accused Jawahar or his the instance or that the alleged recovered articles have been planted upon him illegally.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ranvir @ Shintu, he stated that he could not tell the exact distance between house of accused and Jawahar and Ranvir @ Shintu. He was not aware whether it was a rented premises or owned by the accused. Accused met them in the first room of his house. There were several residential houses situated near the house of the accused. Several documents were prepared there mostly in his handwriting. 56 neighbours gathered there and they were also asked to join the proceedings but they left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. All the documents were prepared while sitting in the room of the IO. IO prepared the pullanda himself. IO did not prepare site plan of the place of recovery. He did not remember regarding remaining household article kept in the room from where the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 41 of 116 aforesaid Tshirt was recovered. He was not aware whether he made arrival entry in the police station or not. Serial number of the currency notes worth Rs.20,000/ were not mentioned in the seizure memo of the currency notes. Owner of the "Jagdamba Jewellers" was not called by the IO nor he was examined in his presence. The currency notes were kept in a parcel and it was sealed by the IO in his presence. He did not remember impression of the seal and whether the same was made of iron or brass. He did not remember the impression of the seal and to whom the same was belongs. He denied the suggestion that no disclosure statements was given by the accused Ranvir to the IO at any point of time. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Ranvir or at his instance in pursuance of the disclosure statement. He further denied the suggestion that all the articles have been planted upon the accused. He further denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Naeem @ Mota, he admitted that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C pertaining to seizure memo Ex.PW14/V was not recorded by the IO. The document Ex.PW14/V was in the handwriting of the IO and the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 42 of 116 same was prepared in the police station. He could not tell the colour of comb which was given to the accused by the IO. Accused was apprehended around 05.30PM. He had not met witness from the public pertaining to arrest of accused Naeem. He admitted that IO had not recorded his statement regarding of arrest of accused Naeem however, he admitted that arrest memo Ex.PW14/Q of accused Naeem bears his signature at point A as a witness. He denied the suggestion that he was not the member of the raiding party made for the apprehension of the accused Naeem. He further denied the suggestion that IO obtained his signature on the said document in the police station later on. He further denied the suggestion that the seizure memo Ex.PW14/V was not prepared in his presence or that neither he had seen the comb. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO of this case.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ramesh Kumar, he stated that accused Ranvir had disclosed the name of the articles which had come into his share from the robbed articles. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered and no such disclosure was given by accused. The accused Ranvir had disclosed the title of Jewellers as "Jagdamba Jewellers" in his disclosure statement. He denied the suggestion that accused Ranvir had not disclosed the name, address and title of the jewellery to whom he had sold the robbed articles. He further denied the suggestion that SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 43 of 116 accused Ranvir had not disclosed any statement against the accused Ramesh Kumar. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that he had signed the disclosure statement while sitting in the police station at the instance of the IO.
(xv) PW15 Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma had deposed that on 03.11.2008, he was on patrolling duty and came to know regarding DD No. 29A which was mark B1. Thereafter, he reached at house No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, Delhi where SI Sanjeev Solanki along with staff were already present. During inquiry he came to know that the House no. 81 belonging to victim Mrs. Indra Prabha Gulati W/o Madan Mohan Gulati. They were residing on the ground floor of the aforesaid house. When they entered into the house, he found sliding door of the drawing room has already been removed and same was lying in the courtyard of the said house. Glass of the aforesaid door has already been removed and it was found partly broken. They saw that articles which were kept in the drawing room were found scattered. There was another door in the drawing room which opens towards lobby. Grill door of the lobby was also found broken and it appears that it was forcibly broken. Dead body of a old person was lying in the lobby. Blood was lying in huge quantity on the floor. Pair of sleepers was also found lying on the floor. Blood stained lower portion of Madhani SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 44 of 116 was also found near the dead body and handle of the Madhani was also found lying in the drawing room. One image of Lord Hanuman, one small comb, three vegetable knives out of which one was twisted, one screwdriver which was also in twisted condition were also found lying near the body. Blood stain was also found on the vase of the courtyard. One lady was also found in an injured condition as she sustained stabbed injuries and one blood stained knife was also lying there. She told that 45 young persons came there and gave beatings to her as well as her husband. She was immediately sent to Trauma Center through PCR Van as PCR Van just arrived there. She was given treatment in the Trauma Center and her MLC was also prepared. Doctor declared injured Indra Prabha Gulati "fit for statement". Thereafter, Sanjeev Solanki recorded her statement in his presence in the hospital which was marked as Mark B2. He prepared rukka Ex. PW15/A on the statement of injured Indra Prabha Gulati. Broken glass of the door was kept in a wooden frame and thereafter, taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW15/B. He also prepared sketch of all the aforesaid four knives and measurement of the same was also done. The aforesaid sketches are already Ex.PW11/G, Ex.PW11/H and Ex.PW11/I. Thereafter, all the aforesaid four blood stained knife were kept in separate three transparent plastic jar (one plastic jar containing SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 45 of 116 two knives and remaining two jars having one knife each). Prior to that all the knives were kept in cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of "SK" belong to him. Thereafter, same was taken into possession and seized vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW11/J, Ex.PW11/K and Ex.PW11/L. Further, witness deposed on the lines of PW11 Head Constable Pramod Kumar.
In addition, this witness deposed that he inspected the spot and prepared site plan (without scale) Ex.PW15/C. Body of deceased Madan Mohan Gulati was sent to Mortuary of AIIMS for postmortem through constable Ravinder Singh with the request for preservation of the dead body for 24 hours vide his application. He instructed in this regard HC Bhagirath Prasad of PS NFC and who got sent the dead body through Ct. Ravinder Singh vide application marked as Mark B3. One footprint was also found on a blood stained printed form which was also kept in a plastic Jar and sealed with the seal of "SK" and taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/M. On 05.11.2008, postmortem on the body of deceased Madan Mohan Gulati was conducted in mortuary of AIIMS. His application for postmortem of deceased was Ex.PW15/D. Death report form was Ex.PW15/E. Body of the deceased was identified by Vivek Gulati and Sarvesh Gulati. In this regard, he recorded their statements which were Ex.PW15/F and Ex.PW15/G. On 06.11.2008, finger print expert was called at the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 46 of 116 spot for inspection. The finger print expert lifted the finger prints from the spot and later on submitted their report which was already exhibited as Ex.PW6/A. On 21.11.2008, he got a secret information that one person namely Raj Kumar @ Bheema who was involved in this crime would come at Badarpur border by bus and thereafter, he will go to his house on foot. On this secret information he formed a raiding team comprising of himself, SI Sanjeev Solanki, HC Ravinder and Ct. Ram Pratap. Thereafter, they reached Badarpur Bus stand. They took their position on the road coming from the side of Faridabad towards Delhi at Badarpur Bus stop. One person got down from the bus and he was overpowered by them. Accused was interrogated and he revealed his identity as Raj Kumar @ Bheema. Accused was arrested vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW14/B. Personal search of accused conducted vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW14/C. Accused was again interrogated thoroughly and he confessed his guilt and told that he along with his associate Jawahar, Ranvir @ Shintu, Naeem @ Mota and Kasturi had committed murder and robbed the jewellery. Disclosure statement in this regard which was made by the accused was reduced into writing. The same was already exhibited as Ex.PW14/A. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema took them to an open area near bushes which was situated near Pul Prahlad Pur where SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 47 of 116 accused got recovered one blood stained jeans of Eagle brand from a pit and told that the aforesaid pant was worn by him at the time of incident. The cream colour jeans was kept in a white colour parcel and it was sealed with the seal of "SK". Thereafter taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW14/D. Thereafter, accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema took them to House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar where accused pointed out the place where he along with his associates committed murder of old man and also robbed valuable articles along with his associates. Pointing out memo in this regard was prepared which was Ex.PW15/H. On 22.11.2008 accused Raj Kumar was produced before the court in muffled face and seven days police custody remand was obtained. Thereafter, accused took them at the house of his associates namely Jawahar situated at 146, Pul Prahladpur, New Delhi. Accused Jawahar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/F. Personal search of accused Jawahar was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/I. Disclosure statement of accused Jawahar was also recorded which was Ex.PW14/G. Accused Jawahar got recovered one blood stained cream colour shirt with strips from his aforesaid house. Shirt was also kept in white cloth parcel and it was sealed with the seal of 'SK' and seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW14/E. Thereafter, they were taken to House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar where accused pointed out place of incident vide pointing out memo SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 48 of 116 Ex.PW15/J. Thereafter, accused Jawahar and Raj Kumar @ Bheema took them to the house of Ranvir @ Shintu at house No. 556 Khadda Colony, Jaitpur, Delhi. Accused Ranvir@ Shintu was apprehended from his house at the instance of Jawahar and Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He was interrogated and arrested vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW14/I. His personal search was conducted vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW14/J. On interrogation, accused made disclosure statement which was reduced into writing Ex.PW15/K. Accused Ranvir @ Shintu got recovered one blood stained Tshirt of offwhite colour from his house which was also kept in cloth parcel which was also sealed with the seal of "SK" and thereafter taken into possession and seized vide memo already Ex.PW14/H. Thereafter, accused Ranvir @ Shintu also took them to House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar where he pointed out place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW15/L. Accused Jawahar and Ranvir @Shintu were again interrogated and they made supplementary disclosure statements which were reduced into writing separately and were already exhibited as Ex.PW14/K and Ex.PW14/M. Accused Jawahar got recovered one wrist watch, one golden colour ring and one golden colour tops from his house. Recovered articles were kept in cloth parcel and it was sealed with the seal of "SK". Thereafter, taken into possession and seized vide memo already Ex.PW14/L. On 25.11.2008, SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 49 of 116 accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and accused made supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW14/N. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema got recovered one iron chheni which was found lying in the bushes near Railway track behind Priyanka Camp. Recovered iron chheni was kept in a white cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of "SK". Thereafter, taken into possession and seized vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW14/P. Accused also got recovered robbed articles i.e., one Idol of Lord Ganesha and one small CD Player of Panasonic from his jhuggi no.24, Priyanka Camp, Mathura Road, Delhi. Both were kept in separate cloth parcels and sealed with the seal of 'SK'. Thereafter taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/O. On 22.11.2008 at the time of arrest of accused Ranvir @ Shintu one visiting card in the name of 'Jagdamba Jewellers' Proprietor Ramesh Kumar Verma with phone number, was found which was taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW15/M. Visiting card was Ex.PW15/N. After postmortem body of deceased M. M. Gulati was handed over to its relatives on 05.11.2008 vide memo Ex.PW15/O. On 01.12.2008, further investigation of this case was assigned to ACP Gurucharan Dass, NFC SubDivision after adding the relevant provisions of MCOCA. On 01.12.2008 on the basis of secret information received by ACP Gurucharan Dass, accused Naeem was apprehended from Ashram Chowk and arrested vide memo already Ex.PW14/Q and SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 50 of 116 his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/R. On interrogation accused Naeem made disclosure statement Ex.PW15/P. Accused Naeem @ Mota also pointed out place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW15/Q. Accused Naeem @ Mota also got recovered one blood stained shirt from his Jhuggi situated at 97/10, Dhobi Ghaat Colony which was kept in a white cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of "SK" and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/R. During the course of investigation, son of deceased also handed over to him list of stolen articles Ex.PW15/S. All the exhibits were also deposited in FSL, Rohini. He also sought subsequent opinion from the doctor. Carbon copy of his letter in this regard was Ex.PW15/T. Subsequent opinion of the doctor was already Ex.PW1/A. All accused persons were correctly identified by the witness.
The witness had correctly identified the case property i.e. jeans recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex.P1, tshirt recovered at the instance of accused Ranbir @ Sintu Ex.P2, one shirt having printing mark of 'Eastern Vertigo' recovered at the instance of accused Jawahar Ex.P3, iron chheni recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex.P4, one walkman make panasonic recovered from accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex.P 5, one Idol of Lord Ganesha recovered at the instance of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema Ex. P6, two wrist watch (one golden colour wrist SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 51 of 116 watch make Maxima and one black colour wrist watch make Pulsar), one golden colour chain with locket, one golden colour ring with green colour stone and one golden colour earring stone. The black colour wrist watch make Pulsar Ex.P7, one golden colour ring with green colour stone Ex.P8 and one golden colour earring Ex.P9. The transparent small plastic box Ex. P12. One black colour shirt with yellow colour stripes having several holes recovered at the instance of accused Naeem Ex. P13. One pink colour blood stained dupatta already Ex.P1, handle of blood stained Madhani Ex. P2, one jar containing blood stained knife Ex. P3, one jar containing blood stained knife Ex. P4, one jar containing two knives (one having teethes) having brown stains Ex. P5 and Ex. P6, one jar having pocket comb Ex. P7 and picture of Lord Hanuman Ji Ex. P8, one pair of black colour chappal Ex. P9, pair of black and blue colour chappal Ex. P10, screwdriver Ex. P11 and wooden mathani Ex. P12, coins collectively Ex. P13 and one partly broken glass without wooden frame Ex. P14.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota, he admitted that HC Ravinder and SI Sanjiv Solanki were already posted at PS NFC but he did not remember whether he was in beat staff or division officer. He admitted that he had not made the list of acquittal/conviction of Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He also admitted that accused Raj Kumar @ SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 52 of 116 Bheema was involved in several cases registered at PS NFC. He also admitted that accused Raj Kumar was the Bad Character of PS NFC. He did not remember the particulars of the cases registered against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema during his tenure at PS NFC. He admitted that photographs along with dossier of every B.C was available in the Police Station. He admitted that DD No.9A was prepared in the police station. He admitted that the photocopy of Roznamcha was not filed with the chargesheet. No relative of complainant was present at that time nor any police official was present. He did not know the name of the tenant residing at first floor of House no. 81, Sukhdev Vihar. He had not recorded his statement as he was frightened. He did not collect the form submitted by the tenant/landlord in the police station as required under Section 188 Cr.P.C. He admitted that the document D2 was written by SI Sanjiv Solanki. Rukka was prepared in AIIMS in the same night. He did not remember the mode of transportation used by SI Sanjay Solanki for PS NFC with rukka from AIIMS. He remained at the spot for about 45 hours. ACP Gurcharan Das and DCP Ajay Chaudhary also visited the spot during his stay there. SI Sanjay Solanki also came at the spot after about 2 hours and handed over to him the original rukka and copy of FIR. No specific directions were given to him by DCP Ajay Chaudhary. ACP Gurcharan Das came at the spot after about one hour of his reaching there. ACP Gurcharan SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 53 of 116 Das also did not give any specific directions /instructions to him. He admitted that IO had not made DCP Ajay Chaudhary a witness in this case. Neighbours were not called at the spot by him till the time he remained there to join the investigation. He did not remember whether any spectacles were found by him at the spot or not. No mobile phone was found at the spot when he visited. SI Sanjay Solanki remained with him at the spot and during investigation upto 9:30 pm on 03.11.2008. He denied the suggestion that there were only two cases registered against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema under Section 25/54/59 IPC. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was found involved in the criminal cases pertaining to PS Mehrauli. The proposal regarding involvement of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema in several cases was prepared by ACP Gurcharan Das. They were not told by SI Sanjay Solanki that in all the aforesaid cases against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema at PS Mehrauli goes in acquittal. He admitted that he had not mentioned in his case diary regarding sources of involvement of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema in various cases. He admitted that no order declaring the accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema as history sheeter was filed in the present case. The fact of preparation of raiding team was entered in the register but the name of the team members was not mentioned. No weapons were collected for the raiding team. He admitted that he had not given any information to SHO Badarpur regarding raid to arrest of accused Raj SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 54 of 116 Kumar @ Bheema. He admitted that only Raj Kumar @ Bheema got down from the bus at that time and no other person deboarded. The place of recovery of jeans was an open place. No public witness has joined the proceedings of recovery of jeans. He denied the suggestion that the disclosure statement and arrest memo were prepared by HC Ravinder. He admitted that accused and his mother were brought by them from District Aligarh and the arrest memo was prepared while sitting in PS NFC. He admitted that no weapon or bus ticket was recovered from the personal search of accused. He admitted that the denomination and the number of currency notes recovered from the personal search of the accused was not mentioned in the memo. He denied the suggestion that accused has not pointed out any place to him or that the pointing out memo was prepared by him in the police station itself. The height of the bushes was about one and a half feet to two feet and anything lying in the bushes was not visible from a distance. No person from the nearby jhuggis was called to join the investigation qua the recovery of chenni. The process was not photographed. He denied the suggestion that no chenni was recovered at the alleged site at the instance of accused. He denied the suggestion that chenni was planted. He did not recover the bills of the articles recovered at the instance of the accused vide seizure memo Ex PW14/O. No public person was joined in the recovery of articles as per seizure memo Ex PW14/O. He denied the suggestion SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 55 of 116 that this recovery was also planted upon accused. He denied the suggestion that accused did not make supplementary disclosure statement. He denied the suggestion that all the documents pertaining to Raj Kumar @ Bheema have been prepared while sitting in the PS or that his signatures were taken on blank papers to be used during the investigation implicating him. He further denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the accused Raj Kumar or at his instance or that they alleged articles have been planted upon him illegally. He admitted that Ashram Chowk was thickly populated area. He also admitted that he had not made any witness from the public pertains to arrest. The arrest memo of accused Naeem was prepared at Ashram Chowk by sitting at the corner towards N.F.C. public persons had not gathered there. He admitted that ACP Gurcharan Das obtained the thump impression of mother of accused on arrest memo at the spot itself. He admitted that the document Ex.PW13/A was not prepared in his presence. He admitted that no arms and ammunition was recovered from the possession of accused Naeem. He denied the suggestion that accused Naeem was lifted from his house. He further denied the suggestion that accused Naeem @ Mota had not given any disclosure statement to the ACP on 01.12.2008. He further denied the suggestion that accused Naeem also not given confessional statement to DCP on 04.12.2008. He further denied the suggestion that the signature of SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 56 of 116 accused Naeem were obtained on confessional statement forcefully by the police officers. He further denied the suggestion that arrest memo, personal search memo, seizure memo with regard to shirt, pointing memo and other articles had been prepared an antetime and antedate while sitting in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused Naeem @ Mota or at his instance or that alleged recovered articles have been planted upon him illegally. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot along with ACP and other police officers. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were signed by him while sitting in the police station.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar, he stated that the visiting card in the name of Jagdamba Jewellers was recovered from the house of accused Shintu on 23.11.2008. Many family members of accused were also present at the spot. Signature of family member of accused was not obtained on the seizure memo of visiting card Ex.PW15/N. No site plan was prepared. He denied the suggestion that no visiting card in the name of Jagdamba Jewellers was recovered at the instance of Ranvir in his presence from his house. He further denied the suggestion that the said visiting card has been planted by him to implicate the accused Ramesh Kumar in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that visiting cards were generally available in the market and local SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 57 of 116 dwellers. He further denied the suggestion that he never visited the house of accused Ranvir and that is why he had not obtained the signature of any neighbour or family member of accused on seizure memo.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ranvir @ Sintu, he stated that on 22.11.2008 when they visited the house of accused Ranvir, his wife was also present there. He did not remember whether any other family member of accused was also present there at that time or not. He admitted that there were several other residential houses around the house of accused. Both the documents i.e. Ex.PW15/K and Ex.PW14/H were prepared at the house of accused. No site plan of the house of accused was prepared by him. He admitted that the place of incident i.e. House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar was already in their knowledge before pointing out by the accused vide memo Ex.PW15/L. He denied the suggestion that accused Ranvir @ Sintu did not make any disclosure statement to him. He further denied the suggestion that signature of accused Ranvir were possibility obtained on some blank paper and thereafter false disclosure statement was recorded by him on his own. After obtaining police custody remand of accused Ranvir his custody was handed over to SI Sanjeev Solanki. He denied the suggestion that all the proceedings qua accused Ranvir @ Sintu was carried out while sitting in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 58 of 116 nothing was recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused Ranvir @ Sintu. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of senior officers. He further denied the suggestion that accused Ranvir @ Sintu has been falsely implicated in this case.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Jawahar, he stated that he did not find any person at the place of occurrence at that time who could told him about the happening of occurrence. Crime team reached at the spot at about 05.00/05.30AM on 03.11.2008 and at that time he was present at the spot. He admitted that the crime team had inspected the spot in his presence and at his instance. Crime team stayed at place of occurrence for about two hours. He admitted that the complainant Smt. Indra Prabha did not give details of articles in her statement allegedly looted from her house, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. He also admitted that Smt. Indra Prabha told in her statement that 34 persons were there who had committed the incident. He admitted that Sh. N. K. Sharma, fingerprint expert inspected the spot at his instance but he could not tell the date on which the said inspection was done and even he could not tell on which date he prepared his report Ex.PW2/A in this regard. One Naresh Kumar fingerprint expert again inspected the place of occurrence at his instance but he could not tell the date but he could not tell the date on which the said inspection SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 59 of 116 was done. He admitted that crime team comprised of fingerprint expert namely HC Ram Sahai on 03.11.2008 but he could not tell the reason why the said fingerprint expert did not lift the fingerprint from the articles i.e. two glass of windows, kitchen rack, rack of bedroom table and plastic bottle. He also admitted that the fingerprint from these articles were lifted vide report dated 06.11.2008 Ex.PW2/A and 25.11.2008 Ex.PW2/B. He denied the suggestion that fingerprint expert report dated 06.11.2008 Ex.PW2/A and 25.11.2008 Ex.PW2/B were manipulated and no such fingerprints were lifted from the said articles. He denied the suggestion that these reports were manipulated after arrest of accused persons. He admitted that fingerprint expert report dated 06.11.2008 Ex.PW2/A and 25.11.2008 Ex.PW2/B were handed over to him after their preparation but he could not tell the date when the said report was handed over to him. He admitted that he deposited in malkhana the fingerprint expert report dated 06.11.2008 Ex.PW2/A and 25.11.2008 Ex.PW2/B along with articles from which the said fingerprints were lifted but he could not tell the date on which he deposited the same in the malkhana. He did not make the site plan of the place from where accused Jawahar was arrested. He denied the suggestion that the disclosure statement of accused Jawahar was written by him on his own. He further denied the suggestion that accused Jawahar has not disclosed with regard to SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 60 of 116 commission of the present offence and recovery of any alleged looted articles. He admitted that he could not tell whether the articles allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Jawahar were made of gold or brass or of any other metal. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered either from the possession of accused Jawahar or at his instance. He further denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the present case fairly, properly and transparently. He further denied the suggestion that accused Jawahar was innocent and he has committed no offence and nothing has been recovered from his possession at his instance. He further denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated accused Jawahar in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that he had shown accused Jawahar to complainant at police station before the proceedings of TIP.
This witness was recalled for further examination in terms of order dated 31.01.2018 wherein the witness had deposed that he collected DD No. 27A dated 2/3.11.2008, PS NFC, which was marked to HC Bhagirath. He obtained copy of the same from Duty Officer PS NFC. Copy of the same was Ex. PW 15/X1. He had also collected DD No. 29A dated 2/3.11.2008, PS NFC, copy of which was already Marked as Mark B1 and exhibited as Ex. PW 15/X2. He also collected DD No. 4A dated 03.11.2008 PS NFC, copy of which is Ex. PW 15/X3. He also collected DD No. 5A dated 03.11.2008, PS NFC, SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 61 of 116 copy of which is Ex. PW 15/X4. He also collected DD No. 40B dated 2/3.11.2008, PS NFC, copy of which is Ex. PW 15/X5.
On 05.11.2008, the sealed parcel of the exhibits brought by Ct. Ravinder Singh from the AIIMS Hospital and same were produced before him. He seized the above said exhibits pertaining to the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/X. On 25.11.2008, he had seized one water bottle which was lying in the fridge at the place of occurrence i.e., House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar. He had seized the above said bottle vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/X7 and sealed the same with the seal of "SK". The witness had correctly identified two empty water bottles Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Finger Print Expert of crime team was called at spot who had been already examined who reported that no finger prints was found on the said exhibits.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota, he stated that DD No. 27A was recorded by DO ASI Adrina. He admitted that the said DD was not verified by ACP or DCP of the concerned district. The DD Ex. PW15/X1 was not handed over to HC Bhagirath by DO in his presence. He could not tell about date and time, when the copy of above said DD entries were written. He admitted that DDs were not verified by the Senior Officers. He also admitted that DDs were not signed by the Duty Officer. He denied the suggestion that the above said DD entries were original. He denied the suggestion that DD SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 62 of 116 entries were marked to him. He admitted that his signatures were not mentioned on the copy of above said DD entries. He did not remember whether statement of Ct. Prabhu Deva was recorded by him or not. He admitted that present charge sheet was not filed by him. He denied the suggestion that DD No. 40B was sent to him through Ct. Prabhu Deva. He further denied the suggestion that he was not authorized person to prove the copy of above said DDs.
The seizure memo of water bottles was prepared by him at the spot in presence of police official and other witnesses. He denied the suggestion that seizure memo of bottles was prepared in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot or that he called finger print expert at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that at the time of preparation bottle seizure memo in the police station, no cited witness was present there.
(xvi) PW16 Sh. Devender Kumar Jangala, Ld. ADJ had deposed that as per the proceedings, five white cloth pullandas in which three pullandas sealed with the seal of "SK" two pullandas were sealed with the seal of "SS". IO had also brought other items i.e. four wrist watches, two golden chains, two CD player, three Ganesh Idol, four rings and six tops/earrings to be mixed with the case property. One application dated 02.12.2008 for Test SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 63 of 116 Identification Parade of recovered articles was moved by the of the IO/ACP Gurcharan Dass before Sh. Naveen Arora, Ld. ACMM, Patiala House Courts which was marked to him on 06.12.2008 which was Ex.PW16/A. On 06.12.2008, witness Mr. Vivek Gulati was brought by the IO before him who was identified by the IO. The case property along with the property brought by the IO was mixed with the similar properties brought by the IO. Thereafter, the entire property was displayed on the table. The witness Vivek Gulati came inside the chamber and he was asked to identify the case property, if he can. The witness took a look on all the case properties and items displayed on the table and he identified ring, eartops, gold Om, CD player make Panasonic, wrist watch make Rado and Maxima and gold chain correctly from the items mixed with them. He prepared the TIP proceedings of the case property consisting of four pages. The TIP proceedings on record were Ex.PW16/B1 to Ex.PW16/B4 along with my certificate regarding correctness of the TIP proceedings. The copy of the TIP proceedings was supplied to the IO on his application Ex.PW16/C. (xvii) PW17 Inspector Sanjiv Solanki had deposed that on 03.11.2008, duty officer handed over to him DD no. 29A which was already marked as Mark B1. He alongwith Ct. Ashok reached SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 64 of 116 at the spot and after sometime the then Additional SHO Inspector Anil Kumar Sharma also came there. The sliding door of drawing room was found broken. The side grill was also found bend. The pieces of glass were also found lying in front of wall of lawn. They entered in the drawing room and found some articles slightly disturbed. Blood in huge quantity was lying on the floor of lobby along with some articles i.e. two knives, chappal, lower part of mathani (churner) which was of wooden was also lying there. One screwdriver in bend condition was lying by the side of kitchen door. One person was lying in injured condition in the lobby but he was not responding and it appeared that he had already been died. They heard noise of slow cry from the bedroom. One old lady whose identity later on revealed as Inder Prabha Gulati was found in the bedroom. She was immediately rushed to hospital by the PCR which was already present there. Articles in the bedroom was found in scattered condition. Blood in huge quantity was also lying on the floor of the bedroom. Thereafter, they went towards backside of house from the door of the bedroom. Several coins in the denomination of Rs.1/, Rs.2/ & Rs.5/ were lying in the staircase. Senior officers also came at the spot. Thereafter, he along with Inspector S. K. Sharma reached at Trauma Center AIIMS. They deputed Ct. Ashok on the spot for keeping watch there. The injured Inder Prabha was found under treatment at SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 65 of 116 Trauma Center AIIMS. She was declared 'fit for statement' by the doctor after sometime. She was inquired by Inspector S. K. Sharma and he recorded her statement as per dictation of Inspector S. K. Sharma which was Ex.PW17/A. Inspector S. K. Sharma prepared rukka and handed it over to him for registration of the case. He reached P.S. N.F.C and handed over the rukka to duty officer. After registration of the FIR duty officer handed over to him original rukka and computerized print out of FIR. Thereafter, he reached at the spot and handed over the same to Inspector S. K. Sharma. Dead body of deceased Manmohan Gulati was sealed and was shifted to AIIMS mortuary through staff. Inspector S. K. Sharma also inspected the spot and prepared the site plan. Inspector S. K. Sharma also lifted the blood, earth control and also sealed and seized four knives including peeler, screwdriver, two duppattas, handle of the mathani (churner), two pairs of chappal. Two duppattas were kept in separate transparent plastic containers and they were sealed with the seal of "SK". Seizure memo of the same was already Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D. Both pairs of chappal were kept in another transparent plastic container. It was also sealed with the seal of "SK" and thereafter, taken into possession vide memo already Ex.PW11/P. The handle of Mathani (churner) was kept in a cloth parcel and it was also sealed with the said seal and seized vide seizure memo vide memo already exhibited as SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 66 of 116 Ex.PW11/F. Total four recovered knives were kept in three separate plastic containers (two knives in one plastic container and remaining two knives in separate plastic containers) which were sealed with the said seal and were taken into possession and seized vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW11/J, Ex.PW11/K and Ex.PW11/L. Before the seizure of knives IO also prepared sketch of the knives which were already exhibited as Ex.PW11/G, Ex.PW11/H & Ex.PW11/I. Lower portion of Mathani (churner) was also kept in a transparent plastic container and it was also sealed with the said seal and thereafter taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/E. The recovered screwdriver was also kept in another plastic container and it was also sealed with the seal of "SK" and thereafter taken into possession and seized vide memo already Ex.PW11/O. The earth control was lifted from the lobby where the dead body of deceased and from the bed room, IO also lifted the blood sample and blood stained earth. All the six transparent plastic containers were also sealed and thereafter taken into possession and seized vide memo already Ex.PW11/Q, Ex.PW11/B. IO also collected blood sample of the blood which was lying on the floor between bedroom and lobby which was kept in a separate small transparent plastic container. It was also sealed with the seal of "SK" and thereafter taken into possession and seized vide memo already Ex.PW11/A. One comb along with one SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 67 of 116 small photo of Lord Hanuman were also lying near dead body were also kept in the cloth parcel and it was also sealed with the seal of "SK" and thereafter taken into possession vide memo already Ex.PW11/R. The recovered coins were also kept in a small transparent plastic container which was also sealed with the seal of "SK" and was taken into possession and seized vide memo already Ex.PW11/S. One black colour hair strain which was lying in the bedroom was also kept in a glass slide and was sealed with the seal of "SK" and thereafter, taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/N. One paper having blood stained foot print was also seized from the spot. It was kept in a transparent plastic container and it was seized vide seizure memo of the same is already Ex.PW11/M. The broken glass which was lying in the lobby was also taken into possession and seized vide memo already exhibited as Ex.PW15/B. Thereafter, he went to AIIMS where duty constable Jageshwar handed over to him sealed parcels stated to be blood stained clothes of injured Inder Prabha which was taken into possession and seized by him vide memo Ex.PW17/B. The aforesaid parcel was handed over to him by the duty constable when he visited AIIMS Trauma Center first time. On 21.11.2008, he along with staff went to Aligarh in search of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema as per the instructions of IO of this case. Accused could not be found there and they came to know that he has already left SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 68 of 116 Aligarh for Delhi. On 23.11.2008, IO/Inspector S. K. Sharma handed over to him the custody of accused Ravinder @ Shintu. He along with HC Ram Prasad, Ct. Arun and Ct. Yamin along with accused Ravinder @ Shintu reached at Jaitpur. Accused Ravinder @ Shintu took them to Shop No. 2 Gyan Mandir Chowk situated on Ismilepur Road, Jaitpur Extension which was under the name and style "Jagdamba Jewellers" where accused pointed out towards a person who was sitting on a shop to whom he sold the robbed jewellery articles. The said person who was sitting in the shop was interrogated and he revealed his identity as Ramesh Accused Ramesh was arrested after interrogation as he confessed his guilt vide memo Ex.PW17/C, personal search of accused Ramesh was conducted vide memo Ex.PW17/D and on interrogation, accused Ramesh made disclosure statement which was reduced into writing and same was Ex.PW17/E. In pursuance of his disclosure statement accused got recovered one chain with locket of Lord Ganeshji and one melted piece of gold and stones used in jewellery. Accused also got recovered Rs.50,000/ cash and told that after receiving robbed jewellery articles he melted the same and thereafter, got prepared jewellery articles and sold the same to unknown customers. The recovered currency notes were kept in a cloth parcel it was sealed with the seal of "SS" (seal belongs to him). The seizure memo of the pullanda was SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 69 of 116 Ex.PW17/D. The recovered chain with locket of Lord Ganesh were kept in cloth parcel and it was also sealed with the seal of "SS". The seizure memo of the pullanda was Ex.PW17/E. The small stones were kept in a white paper and thereafter piece of gold and aforesaid white paper were kept in a small transparent plastic container which was also seized with the seal of "SS". Thereafter, same was taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW17/F. Thereafter, accused Ranvir @ Shintu took them at his rented house at G556, Khadda Colony PartII, Jaitpur where accused got recovered one wrist watch make Maxima Quartz, which was kept in an attachi. One pouch in the name of Jagdamba Jewellers was also recovered from the said attachi which was checked and Rs.20,000/ were found in the said pouch. Recovered wrist watch was kept in a white cloth parcel and said recovered currency notes with pouch were kept in another cloth parcel. Both the parcels were sealed with the seal of "SS". Same were taken into possession and seized vide separate memos Ex.PW17/G and Ex.PW17/H. Both the accused persons were brought to the police station along with recovered articles and handed over to the IO with case property and memos.
The witness had correctly identified the case property i.e. two wrist watch make maxima and black colour wrist watch make Pulsar, one ring with green colour stone, one golden tops and SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 70 of 116 golden chain with locket of Lord Ganesh. The wrist watch which was got recovered by accused Ranvir @ Shintu from his house which Ex.P15, golden chain with locket which was got recovered by accused Ramesh from his shop collectively Ex.P16. The Pouch containing Rs.20,000/ (40 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/ each) which were recovered by accused Ranvir @ Shintu from his house. The pouch was Ex.P17 and currency notes were collectively Ex.P18. One folded white paper, one small box of silver colour having different colour small stones and one piece of melted gold are taken out. The folded papers was also checked and it found containing small stones. They were same which was got recovered by accused Ramesh from his shop. The folded papers having stones and small silver colour container with stones and piece of gold were collectively Ex.P19. Currency notes of Rs.50,000/ were correctly identified by the witness which were got recovered by accused Ramesh from his shop. The currency notes were collectively Ex.P20.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Jawahar, he stated that they remained at the spot for about 2/3 hours. When he left the police station after the registration of the FIR before reaching to the spot DD was entered by the duty officer. All the recovery memos were prepared in his presence by Inspector S. K. Sharma. He was not aware in whose handwriting the same were SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 71 of 116 prepared. He reached to Trauma Center AIIMS in between 05.30AM to 06.00AM. No written application was given to doctor seeking his certificate regarding the status of the injured for statement as the doctor had mentioned his opinion on the MLC itself. Inspector S.K. Sharma conducted inquiries from the injured and at that time he was also present. Inspector S. K. Sharma dictated the statement and he wrote the same. The rukka was prepared simultaneously of the completion of the statement. He denied the suggestion that statement was written by him on his own and at that time Inspector S.K. Sharma was not present in the hospital. Site plan was prepared by the IO in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He further denied the suggestion that investigation was not carried out in the manner as he stated in his statement. He further denied the suggestion that no investigation was carried out in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that he had signed the seizure memos in the police station which were already prepared and the same were not prepared in his presence.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem Khan, he stated that he did not remember whether his statement was recorded by the IO in his own handwriting or the same was got recorded by him through any other official. His statement was got recorded by the IO Inspector SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 72 of 116 S.K. Sharma to some other official. He did not not remember the name of the duty officer who handed over to him DD No. 29A. He admitted that after receiving DD he along with Ct. Ashok reached at House No. 81 Sukhdev Vihar. He denied the suggestion that Mr. Ajay Chaudhary was not posted as DCP SouthEast at that time. In his presence Inspector S. K. Sharma also inspected the spot and also made local inquiry including tenants of the complainant. No watchman, maidservant and sweeper were present at the spot. He admitted that tenant of the complainant had not met them in the hospital. IO Inspector S.K. Sharma collected MLC of injured and also met with the doctors and inquired regarding condition of injured. He wrote statement of injured Inder Prabha on the dictation of IO/Inspector S.K. Sharma. He admitted that DCP concerned had also visited AIIMS Trauma Center in his presence. He did not remember whether DCP and SHO had visited Trauma Center AIIMS before recording the statement of the complainant or thereafter. He admitted that Inspector S. K. Sharma remained in the hospital when he left AIIMS Trauma Center. He handed over rukka to Duty officer. Duty officer handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him at about 10.10AM. Inspector S. K. Sharma prepared several memos, he also inspected the spot and he also inquired public persons. He also recorded the statement of public persons. The statements of tenants were not recorded by Inspector SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 73 of 116 S.K. Sharma in his presence. He visited Aligarh at the instructions of S. K. Sharma and S.H.O concerned. The permission was given in writing. He denied the suggestion that he visited Aligarh with the written permission of ACP. They reached Aligarh by a private vehicle but he did not remember make and registration number of the vehicle. He left Delhi for Aligarh after making departure entry but he did not remember the DD number. He did not remember the exact time when he left police station N.F.C. for Aligarh however, it was morning time. He did not mention exact place of district Aligarh which has to be visited by them. They visited three/four different places in district Aligarh but, he did not remember the name of the places which was visited by them. He denied the suggestion that Inspector S. K. Sharma never instructed him to visit District Aligarh. He further denied the suggestion that he never visited District Aligarh. He admitted that he was the complainant in case FIR No.870/06 dated 06.12.2006 PS Mehrauli under Section 399/402 IPC in which accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota were also arrested along with some other person. He admitted that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was also arrested on the same day in case FIR no.874/06 dated 06.12.2006 PS Mehrauli under Section 25 Arms Act on the same day. He was not aware whether accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was acquitted on 30.04.2013 by Sh. Sandeep Garg, Ld. MM. He SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 74 of 116 admitted that another FIR was also registered against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema vide FIR No.832/2006 under Section 412 IPC PS Mehrauli. He was also not aware whether accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was discharged on 26.05.2007 by Sh. S.P Garg, Ld. ASJ Patiala House Courts. He admitted that another FIR was also registered against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and his brother vide FIR No.509/2006 under Section 380 IPC PS Mehrauli. He was not aware whether accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was discharged by the concerned court. He denied the suggestion that in case FIR No. 509/2006 brother of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was not arrested. He admitted that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and accused Naeem was apprehended by him and team from Jamali Kamali park situated at Mehrauli, New Delhi on 06.12.2006 and later on they were arrested by SI Umesh. He did not not remember as to when Mr. Vivek Gulati, the son of the complainant had joined investigation of this case with IO/S. K. Sharma. He was not aware who had informed Mr. Vivek Gulati regarding murder of his father. IO/Inspector S. K. Sharma might have informed. He was not aware as to when complainant Mrs. Inder Prabha Gulati had left India for U.S.A after this incident along with his son Vivek Gulati. He did not inform IO/Inspector S. K. Sharma regarding involvement of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema in the cases at police station Mehrauli. He was not aware as to whether accused Raj Kumar @ SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 75 of 116 Bheema has been acquitted/discharged in all the cases registered at different police stations except P.S Mehrauli. Rukka was prepared by Inspector S.K. Sharma in Trauma Center AIIMS around 08.45A.M on 03.11.2008. He admitted that dossier/B.C role of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was already available at PS N.F.C as he was the B.C. of PS N.F.C. He was not aware whether dossier of accused Naeem @ Mota was prepared by the IO of PS Mehrauli when he was arrested in the case pertaining to PS Mehrauli. He admitted that he had not prepared his dossier at PS Mehrauli. He admitted that as per list of document IO has not filed any B.C certificate of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema with the chargesheet. He denied the suggestion that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem have been falsely implicated in this case in collusion with IO/Inspector S.K.Sharma. He further denied the suggestion that IO knowingly had not joined watchman, maid servant and tenants in this case. He further denied the suggestion that IO/Inspector S.K. Sharma had not made aforesaid persons to be witnesses in the present case voluntarily. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot along with Ct. Ashok Kumar. He further denied the suggestion that duty officer has not handed over DD no.29A to him.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ramesh SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 76 of 116 Kumar, he stated that he had visited house of accused Ranvir @ Shintu only once. He had made departure entry in police station before leaving the police station at the spot. He did not remember the number of said DD. The said vehicle belongs to one of the member of the raiding party but he did not remember the name of the said staff. They reached at the shop of accused Ramesh at about 06:30/07:00PM. He did not remember the number of the house where the said shop was situated. He admitted that Gyan Mandir Chowk was a busy area. He had asked one or two persons to join in the investigation but they refused. He did not serve any notice to them in writing to join the investigation. He had also asked shopkeepers and vendors of nearby shops of accused shop but they also refused to join the investigation. He did not record the name and address of those shopkeepers and vendors nor he got served any notice in writing to them. He did not make any site plan of the spot i.e. shop of the accused. He had weighted the gold chain along with locket and melted piece of gold on the spot. The weight machine was already on the shop of the accused. He had mentioned the weight of the gold items in seizure memo. No public persons or customer came on the spot in his presence during the said period. He had not taken the signature of accused Ranvir @ Shintu on the memos prepared at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the shop of the accused. He further denied the suggestion that no gold articles SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 77 of 116 were recovered from the shop of the accused. He further denied the suggestion that a sum of Rs.50,000/ was brought by the wife of the accused in the police station and the said Rs.50,000/ were planted upon him along with said gold chain locket and melted gold and stones upon the accused to implicate him in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot that is why he did not make any public person or salesman as witness on the memos. He further denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by the accused Ramesh to him. He further denied the suggestion that he obtained the signature of the accused on the blank papers and made false documents while sitting in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Ranvir @ Shintu, he stated that neighbours were asked to join the investigation but they refused. Landlord of accused was not called. No notice in writing was given to neighbours who refused to join the investigations. Wife of the accused and his children were present at his house when they visited the rented premises of accused Ranvir @ Shintu. He admitted that no independent public witness had joined the recovery proceedings there. He was not aware whether recovered wrist watch was easily available in the open market. He had not seen ownership proof of aforesaid recovered wrist watch during his SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 78 of 116 investigation. HC Ram Prasad and Ct. Arun were with him at the time of recovery of wrist watch. Only two seizure memos were prepared at the house of accused Ranvir @ Shintu. The statement of HC Ram Prasad was recorded by Inspector S. K. Sharma. He did not tell the IO in his statement that the seizure memo Ex.PW17/G and Ex.PW17/H were prepared by HC Ram Prasad on his dictation. HC Ram Prasad returned back the seal to him after about one/two months. No handing over memo was prepared. He admitted that no handing over memo and written back memo was prepared. Serial number of the recovered currency note were not mentioned in the seizure memo. They made their arrival entry in the roznamcha but he did not remember number of DD entry. It was a single storey building in which accused Ranveer @ Shintu was residing. No other tenant was residing in the said premises at that time. He admitted that document Ex.PW17/A was in his handwriting. He admitted that no date was mentioned under the signature of complainant or the same had also not been mentioned by Inspector S. K. Sharma. He handed over seal of "SS" to HC Ram Prasad when he sealed the case property at the shop of accused Ramesh. He admitted that no handing over memo of seizure was prepared there. He had taken seal from HC Ram Prasad for sealing pullandas at the house of accused Ranvir @ Shintu. He admitted that no return back memo of seal was prepared there. He denied the suggestion that he never handed his SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 79 of 116 seal to HC Ram Prasad at any point of time that is why he did not prepare handing over memo and return back memo. He further denied the suggestion that the said pouch was planted to connect the accused in the present case. He further denied the suggestion that nothing has been recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused Ranvir @ Shintu. He further denied the suggestion that recovery was planted upon the accused. He further denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by accused. He further denied the suggestion that the signature of the accused was forcibly obtained during the police custody. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation that is why he had not prepared Ex.PW17/G and Ex.PW17/H with his own handwriting. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO/SHO being the police official.
(xviii) PW18 Smt. Indraprabha Gulati had deposed that on 03.11.2008, he was present in his House No. 81 Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. It was the intervening night of 2 nd & 3rd November, 2008 and time was 11:30/11:45PM. She and her husband heard the noise of falling of utensils. Her husband went to see the same. She also followed him and they saw five persons had entered into their house SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 80 of 116 from the door of drawing room. Out of those, one/two persons were in the kitchen and four persons came through door of drawing room. They were having chheni, screwdriver and knives in their hands. They asked for keys from her husband. They told them to wait and one boy who came from drawing room and having iron rod and chheni in his hands, gave the blow from the iron blow on the head of her husband. He fell down. She was also given blow and became unconscious. She remained in the hospital for about two months. Someone called the police and she was taken by the police to the hospital. She was having 8 inches cut on her stomach. She was also having bandage on her head and it might be possible that blow was given on the head also. She made statement to the police in the hospital itself. It was given orally whatever was in her memory as she was on hospital bed. She remained in Moolchand Hospital for one month and ten days. She never met with the police for this case after her discharge from the hospital. She had never seen those boys who came into her house thereafter. Scanned image of signatures on statement was shown to the witness through videolink and after seeing it the witness states that the same pertains to her which are at point A. Accused persons who are facing charges in this case, are shown through audiovideo link one by one. After seeing accused Raj Kumar, the witness states that he is the same boy who was having SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 81 of 116 chheni and rod and was giving blows to her husband. Accused Ranvir was shown to the witness and she stated that she does not remember complete and she remembered the face of only one as she became unconscious. Accused Jawahar was shown to the witness and after seeing him the witness states that she does not know anything about him. Accused Naeem Khan was shown and after seeing him the witness states that she remembered somehow and it was 12.00 Midnight and 8 years have been passed she did not remember. She further states that she cannot say whether he was among those persons or not. Accused Ramesh Kumar was shown and after seeing him the witness states that the boy shown first be stand with him so that she may identify again. The accused Raj Kumar was shown with this accused to the witness. After seeing the accused Raj Kumar the witness states that he was one among those boys but she was not sure about second boy.
This witness was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for State wherein the witness admitted that when her husband fell down after blows given to him, she was also given rod blows and knife blows. She did not remember that she fell down in Angan as she was unconscious. She did not know that they after breaking open the almirah in the room took away Rs.20,000/ and the jewellery articles. She did not remember whether she raised noise or not or that she remained lied on the floor of the room. She denied the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 82 of 116 suggestion that the number of boys who entered into the house was 34. She did not go to Patiala House Court on 26.12.2008. She denied the suggestion that in Patiala House Court she identified four boys as Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Ranbir @ Shintu, Jawahar and Naeem @ Mota and stated to the police that they were the boys who gave blows to her and her husband in her house and took away cash and jewellery from her house.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Naeem, Ramesh Kumar and Ranvir, she stated that she did not remember the date when police met her for the first time and the last time. She could not tell the name of the police official by whom her statement was recorded. It was recorded in the hospital. The signatures were taken in the hospital and she did not remember whether it was in Trauma Center or Moolchand. She did not remember the date when they came to her in the Trauma Center. She did not not remember about the colour of the screwdriver. She did not remember what was the length of the iron rod. The accused Raj Kumar was worn black shirt. She did not remember about the clothes of remaining boys. She did not remember whether the verification of the tenant was got conducted from police or not. They were not having permanent servant or chowkidar at that time but, Kamla was parttime domestic helper. She was working for the last 15 years. She was residing in a room taken on rent in the Sukhdev SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 83 of 116 Vihar. She admitted that Kamla was residing in the jhuggi of Sukhdev Vihar. She admitted that in her presence no inquiries were made from Kamla and her husband not their statement was recorded in her presence. The tenant has vacated the premises before she discharged from hospital. She did not know whether inquiries were made by the police from her tenant in her presence. She admitted that she did not receive injury on her head and she received injury on her right side of forehead. She denied the suggestion that police did not take any statement from her and her signatures were taken on a blank paper. She never visited police station in respect of this case. She was shifted from Trauma Center to Moolchand after 20 days. She did not go to police after 25.12.2008. She did not remember how many times police met her while she was in Trauma Center. She did not remember the date when she regained her consciousness. She denied the suggestion that the boy who has been identified by her i.e. Raj Kumar was not involved in the incident or that have been shown the photographs by the police.
The coassailants were calling him "Bheema aur maar, Bheema aur maar to him". She denied the suggestion that her counsel has sent photograph of Bheema to her and after seeing her she was identifying him. She further denied the suggestion that her counsel had tutored her on telephone and upon tutoring she was deposing today or that copy of the statements have been sent to her SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 84 of 116 and after going through the same she had deposed. She further denied the suggestion that the dossier of Bheema with the police had been sent to her by the counsel. She further denied the suggestion that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema was not involved in the incident occurred in the intervening night of 2nd/3rd November, 2008 or that she was naming him at the instance of police.
(xix) PW19 Sh. Ajay Kashyap had deposed that on 27.11.2008, he was posted as Joint Commissioner of Police Southern Range, New Delhi and during the course of his official duty ACP New Friends Colony submitted his report, copy of the same was marked as Mark PW19/A which was running into ten pages, along with case file of FIR no.601/2008 dated 03.11.2008 under Section 394/397/302/307/34 IPC P.S. New Friends Colony for according sanction to prosecute the accused persons namely Raj Kumar @ Bheema @ Raju S/o Om Prakash @ Phool Singh, Naeem @ Mota S/o Fariyad, Ranbir @ Shintu S/o Madan Lal and Jawahar S/o Mahender Singh in requirement of the law. He after going through the report and the case file and the approval order no.9198/SOSR dated 27.11.2008 accorded the sanction to prosecute aforesaid accused persons for taking cognizance by the designated court constituted for trying the offences under Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (as extended to N.C.T of Delhi) vide his order bearing SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 85 of 116 no.4160/SO/SR dated 20.04.2010. He had seen order dated 27.11.2008 Ex.PW19/A. On 06.03.2009 ACP New Friends Colony has submitted his report dated 20.02.2009 along with case file of the present case for according sanction to prosecute aforesaid accused persons under Section 23 (2) of MCOCA. He had gone through the report and accorded sanction which was Ex.PW19/B. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem, he admitted that sanction was given on 27.11.2008. ACP Gurcharan Das was also present in his office at that time. He admitted that case file was produced before him by ACP Gurcharan Das. He admitted that he had also gone through the case file. The sanction was accorded after going through the case file and report of ACP Gurcharan Das. Accused persons and case property were not produced before him by ACP Gurcharan Das. He did not remember whether IO had orally informed him regarding criminal cases which were pending against the accused persons. He admitted that date of FIR is not mentioned in sanction order Ex.PW19/A. Copy of the chargesheet was not placed before him at that time when application mark PW19/A was placed. He had also gone through the copy of FIR of this case before according sanction. He admitted that name of the accused persons was not mentioned in the FIR. She did not remember the exact date when he came to know the name of the accused persons. He had also gone through the involvement list of SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 86 of 116 accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema which was the part of document Mark PW19/A. He had also admitted that the aforesaid list was placed before him by ACP Gurcharan Das. He did not remember whether copies of FIR mentioned in the list from serial number 1 to 10 were also placed before him or not. He admitted that he was not informed the present status of the cases mentioned in the list at serial number 1 to 10. Birth certificate of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and register no.10, PartII of police station N.F.C was also not placed before him. He denied the suggestion that at the time of filing of application for grant of sanction no documents placed before him to show that all the aforesaid accused persons namely Naeem @ Mota, Ranbir @ Shintu and Jawahar were involved in committing along with accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He did not remember the date as to when the application was made to him by the IO/ACP Gurcharan Das. The document showing the status of the cases in which Naeem was involved was not made part of the application moved before him on the day of application. He further denied the suggestion that the IO of the case did not produce case file before him at the time of the application for according sanction. He further denied the suggestion that he did not verify the involvement of all the accused persons in the cases mentioned in the application or that he accorded the sanction and passed approval order in a mechanical way only on the application moved by his subordinate.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 87 of 116 (xx) PW20 Sh. Gurcharan Das had deposed that on
03.11.2008, he was posted as ACP, New Friends Colony. The present case was registered in PS NFC and Inspector S. K. Sharma was investigating the present case. He had perused the case file and involvement of the accused persons. Thereafter, he had sent the file to the Joint Commissioner, Southern Range for invoking the relevant section of the MCOCA. Joint Commissioner had given permission to add the relevant Section of MCOCA in this case and he was appointed as an investigating officer of this case. He added Section 3 of MCOCA in this case. He had sent the application for grant of approval Section 3 of MCOCA to Joint Commissioner same was already Mark PW19/A. He had moved an application for granting of approval of sanction under Section 23 (2) of MCOCA Act 1999 for prosecuting the accused persons in case FIR No. 601/08, under Section 397/302/307/412/34 IPC and 3 (i), (ii) and (iv) MCOCA, PS NFC. Original application for approval of sanction and original order dated 27.11.2008 regarding adding MCOCA sanction under Section 23 (ii) MCOCA, 1999 produced by ASI Manoj Kumar from office of Joint Commissioner of Police. Photocopy of above said application for grant of approval of the sanction was Ex. PW20/A. The order of Sh. Ajay Kashyap, the then Joint Commissioner of Police Southern Range Delhi dated 27.11.2008 regarding grant of approval of the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 88 of 116 above said provisions of the MCOCA, the photocopy of said order was Ex. PW20/B. I received the sanction under Section 23(ii) MCOCA, 1999 which was given by Joint Commissioner of police Ajay Kashyap, same was Ex. PW20/C. After receiving sanction, the further investigation was marked to him and he added the relevant sections of MCOCA in the present case against the accused persons.
On 01.12.2008, accused Naeem @ Mota was arrested by him vide arrest memo already exhibited Ex. PW14/Q. He conducted the personal search of accused Naeem @ Mota vide memo already Ex. PW14/R. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Naeem @ Mota vide memo already Ex. PW14/P. On 01.12.2008, accused had pointed out the place of occurrence where in the intervening night of 2/3.11.2008 committed incident of this case along with his associates. He prepared the pointing out memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Naeem @ Mota already Ex. PW15/Q. On 03.12.2008 accused Naeem @ Mota got recovered his blood stained shirt from his residential Jhuggi, the same was worn by the accused at the time of incident. He seized the abovesaid shirt with the seal of "SK" and after use the seal was handed over to Ct. Harish. He prepared the seizure memo of abovesaid blood stained shirt in this case vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/R. On 04.12.2008, he produced the accused Naeem @ Mota before the then DCP South, ND who recorded the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 89 of 116 confession statement of the accused accordingly provisions of MCOCA, same was already Ex. PW13/A. On 02.12.2008, he moved an application before the Court regarding identification of recovered article, same was already Ex. PW16/A. On 06.12.2008, the TIP of recovered article got conducted and he had received the copy of TIP of the case property from the Court. Same was Ex. PW20/B. On 24.12.2008, he along with Inspector Jagbir Singh went to Tihar Jail for conducting TIP proceedings of all accused persons. The application for TIP proceeding was moved by inspector Jagbir Singh Ex. PW20/E. On 24.12.2008, all accused persons have refused to their TIP proceedings. Inspector Jagbir had received the copy of TIP proceedings of all the accused persons.
One black colour shirt with yellow colour strips having several holes as few pieces of cloth of the shirt have taken for examination by the FSL, same was shown to the witness and correctly identified the witness which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/R and same was got recovered by accused Naeem which was worn by him at the time of incident. Same shirt was already Ex. P13.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar and Naeem @ Mota, he denied the suggestion that he had not filed application Ex. PW20/A before the then Joint Commissioner. He admitted that original documents of Ex.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 90 of 116 PW20/A, B and C were produced by ASI Manoj Kumar posted at PS NFC. He admitted that documents Ex. PW20/A running into 4 pages. He admitted that document Ex. PW20/B and Ex. PW20/C were running into 2 pages. He admitted that date of filing was not mentioned in document Ex. PW20/A. He admitted that date of FIR of present case was not mentioned in his application which was already Ex. PW20/A. He admitted that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema, accused Naeem @ Mota, Ranbir @ Shintu, Kasturi were not produced before the DCP or the joint commissioner on the above said date and time. He admitted that ammunition/arms were not produced before the DCP by him on the said date. He admitted that he had not prepared the list of involvement of accused persons that is why he could not tell about the list of involvement of accused Raj Kumar and accused Naeem @ Mota. He admitted that he could not know in how many cases accused Rajkumar @ Bheema was acquitted. He also admitted that he could not tell about the cases of accused Naeem @ Mota at the time of invoking the MCOCA how many cases were pending against the accused Naeem @ Mota. He admitted that he could not tell about the conviction of the accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota. He also admitted that he had not made the list of cases about the acquittal and conviction of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. He admitted that list of cases were handed over to him by SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 91 of 116 the SHO PS NFC. He admitted that he had not prepared the charge sheet when he got sanction regarding MCOCA. He admitted that Ashram Chowk was thickly populated area. He admitted that accused Naeem @ Mota were already detained by Inspector S K Sharma at Ashram Chowk. He interrogated accused Naeem @ Mota personally and he prepared the documents i.e. arrest memo, disclosure statement and personal search memo of accused Naeem @ Mota. He could not tell the number of gypsy but the colour of gypsy was white. He denied the suggestion that all the gypsies allotted to ACP were white in the year 2008. He admitted that there were many shops situated at Ashram Chowk. He also admitted that he had not made any witness from public pertaining to the arrest of accused Naeem @ Mota. He admitted that he had not given any notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the shopkeepers and public persons who refused to join the investigation. The arrest memo of accused Naeem @ Mota was prepared at police booth. He admitted that arrest memo of accused Naeem @ Mota was prepared by him at Ashram Chowk. He also admitted that the document Ex.PW14/Q was not in my handwriting. He cannot tell about the thumb impression which was on the document Ex.PW14/Q. He admitted that he did not obtain the thumb impression on the document Ex.PW14/Q. He did not inform the parents of the accused regarding his arrest. He also admitted that SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 92 of 116 document Ex. PW14/R personal search memo was not prepared by him and same was not in his handwriting. He admitted that he could not tell regarding the memos which were Ex.PW14/Q and Ex.PW14/R. He denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW15/P i.e. the disclosure statement of accused Naeem @ Mota was not written by Inspector S K Sharma in his presence. He denied the suggestion that document Ex.PW15/P was in the writing of HC Ravinder. He admitted that HC Ravinder was not the witness of disclosure statement Ex.PW15/P. He admitted that no arms and ammunition were recovered from the possession of accused Naeem @ Mota. He admitted that no travelling ticket was recovered from accused Naeem @ Mota. He denied the suggestion that accused Naeem @ Mota was lifted from his house. He further denied the suggestion that accused Naeem @ Mota had not given any disclosure statement to him on 01.12.2008. He further denied the suggestion that accused Naeem @ Mota also not given confessional statement to DCP on 04.12.2008 in his presence. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of accused Naeem @ Mota were obtained on confessional statement forcefully by him or other police officials. He further denied the suggestion that arrest memo, personal search memo, seizure memo with regard to shirt pointing memo and other articles had been prepared and anti time and anti date while sitting in the police station. He denied the SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 93 of 116 suggestion that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused Naeem @ Mota or at his instance or that alleged recovered articles have been planted upon him illegally. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of superior police officials of his department. He admitted that he had not recorded the statement under section 161 Cr PC in his handwriting. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot alongwith driver and operator. He further denied the suggestion that all the documents were signed by him while sitting in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that he had not moved application regarding sanction personally before DCP. He admitted that the document Ex. PW20/A and Ex. PW20/B were not filed alongwith main charge sheet. He admitted that he had not personally verified regarding cases against accused Rajkumar @ Bheema. He denied the suggestion that on 02.12.2008 he had not moved an application before the concerned court regarding identification of recovered articles same has already been Ex. PW16/A. He denied the suggestion that he signed the same in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that on 06.12.2008 he had not received the copy of TIP regarding case property of this case, same has already been Ex PW20/B. He further denied the suggestion that on 24.12.2008, he never visited the Tihar Jail alongwith Inspector Jagbir Singh for conducting TIP proceedings of SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 94 of 116 all the accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that applications regarding TIP, Ex. PW20/E was not moved by him before concerned court. He denied the suggestion that accused was not in muffled face when they went to police Station New Friends Colony from Ashram Chowk. He denied the suggestion that he had not shown the accused Naeem @ Mota to the complainant. He admitted that he detained him in the police station NFC. He denied the suggestion that he took photographs of accused Naeem @ Mota during the detention remand period and shown to the complainant in the police station. He further denied the suggestion that alleged recovery has been shown by him and the same was planted upon accused Raj Kumar @ Bheem and accused Naeem @ Mota. He further denied the suggestion that all the recovery memos were false and not prepared by him. He denied the suggestion that he is not competent police officer to investigate the MCOCA case. He further denied the suggestion that Inspector S K Sharma handed over the MCOCA file to him regarding investigation of this case. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely against accused Naeem @ Mota being a police official and at the instance of superior police officers. He further denied the suggestion that the document Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW20/B were fabricated and manipulated documents.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Jawahar, SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 95 of 116 he stated that the present case was his first case of MCOCA which he investigated. He denied the suggestion that he had wrongly and illegally added the Sections of MCOCA against accused Jawahar. He further denied the suggestion that accused Jawahar was innocent and he has committed no offence at all in the present matter.
(xxi) PW21 Dr. Inderjeet had deposed that proved MLC of injured Inder Prabha Ex. PW21/A bearing signatures of Dr. Sharwan at Point A. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota, he admitted that he was deposing on the basis of medical record and same was handed over to him by Record Department. He admitted that he could not identify the writing and initial signature of Dr. Sharwan.
(xxii) PW22 ASI Mohd. Naseem Khan had deposed that on 03.11.2008, IO had deposited the case property of this case in the malkhana in sealed condition. He made the entry in Register No. 19 regarding the same at Sr. No. 2308 and he also mentioned the Sr. No. 2311, 2333, 2334, 2335, 2339, 2342, 2350, 2353. Copy of the above said entry in Register No. 19 was collectively exhibited as Ex. PW 22/A (colly.). On 22.01.2009, he handed over 28 sealed parcels of the case property in sealed condition to the IO/Inspector S. K. SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 96 of 116 Sharma to deposit the same in FSL. The above said sealed parcels were handed over to him vide RC No. 10/21/09. Copy of the same running into two pages Ex. PW 22/B. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota, he stated that he did not remember whether ACP Gur Charan Dass had deposited the case property in malkhana or not. He denied the suggestion that till the case property remained in his possession, he tampered the case property at the instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that parcels were opened by him at the instance of IO Inspector S. K. Sharma. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely IO/Inspector S. K. Sharma.
(xxiii) PW23 Sh. Dinesh Kumar had deposed that he had been deputed by M.S., AIIMS to prove the Post Mortem Report No. 1120/08 of deceased Madan Mohan Lal Gulati, prepared by Dr. Shiva Prasad, who has left the hospital. The abovesaid Post Mortem Report No. 1120/08 was prepared by Dr. Shiva Prasad of deceased Madan Mohan Lal Gulati was in his hand writing. The Post Mortem Report was Ex. PW 23/A. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota, he admitted that P. M. Report was not prepared in his presence. He admitted that he did not tell about SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 97 of 116 the injuries mentioned in P. M. Report. He denied the suggestion that he did identify the signature and handwriting of Dr. Shiva Prasad as he never worked with him.
(xxiv) PW24 Dr. Rajender Kumar had deposed that on 22.01.2009, 28 sealed parcels as per forwarding letter were received in the FSL from the SHO, PS New Friends Colony in connection with abovementioned case. All the parcels were opened and examined by him. After examination the abovesaid parcels, he prepared report dated 20.10.2009 Ex. PW24/A (running into two pages). He also prepared serological report dated 20.10.2009 Ex. PW24/B. Remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of "RK" FSL, Delhi and same were sent to SHO PS New Friends Colony along with above mentioned FSL reports.
In his cross examination on behalf of all accused, he stated that parcels remained with him from 22.01.2009 to 20.10.2009. The said parcels were examined by him independently with the help of other staff. He denied the suggestion that he had not examined the parcels properly and same were examined in mechanical manner.
(xxv) PW25 Inspector Mahesh Kumar had deposed that on 02.01.2009, at the request of Inspector S.K. Sharma of PS New SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 98 of 116 Friends Colony, he visited the place of incident i.e. House No. 81, Sukhdev Vihar, New Friends Colony, New Delhi alongwith Inspector S.K. Sharma. At the spot, he took measurements and prepared rough notes. On 29.01.2009, on the basis of those rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan and handed over the same to the IO. Scaled site plan was Ex.PW25/A. The date of visiting the occurrence site inadvertently mentioned as 02.01.2008 instead of 02.01.2009. After preparing the scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem @ Mota, he denied the suggestion that he was not qualified draftsman. He further denied the suggestion that he was only 12th pass. He further denied the suggestion that he had no knowledge regarding sketch of draftsman ship. He admitted that he took rough notes at the instance of Inspector S. K. Sharma. He destroyed the rough notes which was in his possession after preparing the scaled site plan on 29.01.2009. He admitted that the date of visiting of the occurrence site of Ex.PW25/A was 02.01.2008. He denied the suggestion that the date of visiting of place of occurrence was written on Ex.PW25/A 02.02.2008 and he was intentionally making wrong statement in this regard. He further denied the suggestion that he was not a qualified draftsman to prepare a scaled site plan. He denied the suggestion that he SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 99 of 116 prepared scaled site plan at the instance of IO while sitting in the police station.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Jawahar, he admitted that when he left for place of occurrence, he did not make any Departure DD entry. When he visited the place of occurrence IO/Inspector S.K. Sharma was present with him at the place of occurrence. When he alongwith Inspector S.K. Sharma reached at place of occurrence, the place of occurrence i.e. House No. 81 was already opened and it was not locked. It took around an hour to inspect the place of occurrence to him. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the place of occurrence or that never prepared the rough notes of place of occurrence. He further denied the suggestion that he had prepared the scaled site plan at the instance of IO while sitting at police station that is why he could not hand over the alleged rough notes to IO.
(xxvi) PW26 Inspector Jagbir Singh had deposed that On 23.12.2008, he moved an application for TIP of all accused persons which was Ex.PW20/E. On 24.12.2008, he alongwith ACP Sh. Gurcharan Dass and witness Ms. Inder Prabha Gulati went to Tihar Jail for test identification parade of accused persons, where the Ld. MM Ms. Surya Malik Grover was also present but the accused persons refused to undergo TIP proceedings. On the same day, he SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 100 of 116 collected the copy of TIP proceedings of the all accused persons and above said copy was handed over to the IO Inspector Sunil Kumar Sharma.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Raj Kumar Bheema and Naeem @ Mota, he stated that he had taken judicial remands of the accused persons on several dates but he did not remember the exact dates of judicial remand. He received the copy of TIP proceedings on 24.12.2008 from Patiala House Courts. He did not remember the date of admission and discharge of witness/ injured Ms. Inder Prabha Gulati in the Hospital as he had never been the investigating officer of the present case. He denied the suggestion that on 24.12.2008, he alongwith ACP Sh. Gurcharan Dass and witness Ms. Inder Prabha Gulati did not visit Tihar Jail for test identification parade of accused persons. He further denied the suggestion that on 24.12.2008, witness Ms. Inder Prabha was admitted in the Hospital. He did not know on which date complainant Ms. Inder Prabha left India for USA. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO/Inspector S.K. Sharma.
In his cross examination on behalf of accused Jawahar, he admitted that he was never authorized by IO/Inspector S. K. Sharma vide any written letter to move application for TIP proceedings of the accused persons. He admitted that except SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 101 of 116 23.12.2008 and 24.12.2008, he never join the investigation of the present case. He admitted that he came to know about the exact name of the accused persons for the first time on 24.12.2008 in Tihar Jail. He admitted that he did not know the exact name of the accused persons when he took judicial remand of the accused persons on several dates. He did not remember whether he had made any departure or arrival entry on 24.12.2008 for visiting Tihar Jail for TIP proceedings of the accused persons. Complainant Ms. Inder Prabha never came to Court on the dates of judicial remands of the accused persons as per his knowledge.
(xxvii) PW27 Ex. Constable Sh. Prabhu Deva had deposed that on 03.11.2008, he received the copy of FIR from the duty officer and as per direction of IO he handed over the copy of FIR to concerned ACP, DCP, area Magistrate being a special messenger.
6. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused namely Raj Kumar @ Bheema, Ramesh @ Shankar, Jawahar, Naeem Khan @ Mota and Ranbir @ Shintu in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the truthfulness and correctness of the case and pleaded innocence. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema and Naeem Khan had SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 102 of 116 stated that witnesses have deposed falsely against them and they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. PW17 Inspector Sanjeev Solanki was known to him prior to the present case and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Ramesh @ Shankar and Jawahar had stated that this is a false and fabricated case and witnesses have deposed falsely. They are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Ranbir @ Shintu had stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and nothing has been recovered from his possession or at his instance. The articles, cash and fingerprints were planted upon him to prove the case against him and police took him from his house and falsely implicated him in this case. Accused Ramesh @ Shankar opted to lead defence evidence and one witness was examined in his defence evidence.
7. Defence Evidence DW1 Sh. Sheikh Ali Hussain had deposed that he had been working as an ornaments maker at the shop of Jagdama Jewellers of accused Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar in the year 2008. he remained there upto 2010. On 23.11.2008, at about 7:00PM, he was present at the shop with accused Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar. Five police officials came at the shop and one police official entered the shop and asked from the accused about identity. Police took accused SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 103 of 116 Ramesh Kumar along with Rs.50,000/ in cash, visiting card of shop and one blank purse/pouch of shop. Police remained at the shop for about five minutes. Police took accused with them to the police and he informed the wife of accused at his house. Accused Ramesh Kumar had been falsely implicated in the present case and he had stated whatever he had seen on 23.11.2008 at the aforesaid shop.
In his cross examination on behalf of Ld. Additional PP for State, he stated that there was no public person accompanied the police to the shop. He denied the suggestion that Rs.50,000/ got recovered by accused Ramesh Kumar pertaining to the jewellery items which were purchased by him and sold out the same later on by melting the same in different shapes. He had worked with Ramesh Kumar from 2005 to 2010. He denied the suggestion that at the time of recovery of said Rs.50,000/ one accused Jawahar was accompanied with the police at the shop. He did not know as to where the police took away accused Ramesh Kumar from his shop. He did not know if police took accused Ramesh Kumar to his house for the purpose of recovery from his house at his instance. He denied the suggestion that he never worked with accused Ramesh Kumar at his shop. He further denied the suggestion that he being the friend of accused and the resident of same locality deposing a concocted story. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in this regard.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 104 of 116
8. It has been vehemently argued by Ld. Additional PP for State that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema has been correctly identified by the injured/eyewitness PW18 Ms. Indraprabha Gulati in her examinationinchief as well as in her cross examination as the person who was was having chheni and rod in his hand and given blows to her and her deceased husband due to which her husband had died. Furthermore, the said weapons/objects were recovered from accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema in pursuant to his disclosure statement and connected with the crime. As regards accused Jawahar and Ranbir @ Shintu, it is submitted that both accused persons were established to be present at the spot at the time of offence and their involvement. The chanceprints were developed from the spot on 06.11.2008 and 25.11.2008 and the said chanceprints were matched with the sample finger/ palmprints of accused Jawahar and Ranbir @ Shintu respectively. It shows the presence of both the accused persons at the spot and their involvement in the offence. Furthermore, some incriminating material and case property recovered at the instance of accused Jawahar and Ranbir @ Shintu which has been connected with the present offence which establish their involvement in this case.
9. Ld. Additional PP for State has further argued that as regards accused Naeem Khan @ Mota, some incriminating material SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 105 of 116 and case property recovered at the instance of accused Naeem @ Mota which has been connected with the present offence which establish the involvement of accused in this case. Moreover, his confessional statement regarding his involvement in the offence was recorded which is already Ex. PW13/A. The said confessional statement is admissible in evidence and even the same admissible against all the accused persons. In view of the said material the accused against accused Naeem @ Mota is proved beyond doubt. As regards Ramesh, the case property i.e. robbed property was got recovered from his possession at the instance of coaccused persons and the same is identified by the son of deceased and further the accused had not shown any account of the said property for having possession thereof. Therefore, the case under Section 412 IPC has been proved beyond doubt against accused Ramesh. It is further argued that PW18 Smt. Indraprabha Gulati is the injured witness and wife of the deceased. She categorically stated that accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema had inflicted the injuries upon the deceased and identified him during the trial. Thus, the case under Section 302 IPC clearly proved against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema. Therefore, the case of murder under Section 302 IPC and other Section which the charges framed against the accused persons proved beyond doubt against the accused persons.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 106 of 116
10. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Ramesh Kumar has argued that accused was running a jewellary shop in the name and style of Jagdama Jewellars at Gyan Mandir Road, Jaitpur Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044 and only allegation against the accused is that he purchased the looted jewellary articles from one of the accused Ranvir @ Shintu. Accused was arrested on the false discloser of the coaccused Ranvir @ Shintu. The recovery of one piece of gold and jarken stone and chain with locket from the shop of the accused Ramesh Kumar was highly doubtful as no photograph were taken of the shop while getting recovery of the said articles from the shop of the accused. IO did not ask any public person to join the investigation while recovery proceedings although the shop of the accused was located in the market and in a residential area. IO did not take the signatures of any of the worker or salesman of the shop on any seizure memo while it was prepared on the spot by the IO. It is further argued that prosecution did not examine Ct. Ram Prasad and Ct. Arun as they were the important witnesses to prove the recovery of the said articles from the shop of the accused. The recovery of visiting card of the shop of accused Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar is highly doubtful and does not inspire conspire confidence as the IO has stated in his cross examination that the visiting card i.e. Ex.PW15/N was recovered from the house of accused Ranvir @ Shintu on 23.11.2018. He deposed that the said visiting card with SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 107 of 116 some other documents were lying at the corner of the house of accused Ranvir @ Shintu while the seizure memo clearly shows that the visiting card was recovered from the right pocket of the accused Ranvir @ Shintu during Jamatalashi. Such contradiction in the recovery of the said visiting card of the shop of accused creates doubt on the prosecution story. It is further argued that IO did not prepare site plan of the recovery of looted articles as well as visiting card of the shop of the accused. This conduct also shows that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that during cross examination of PW17 witness clearly states that he had not taken the signatures of accused Ranvir @ Shintu on the memos at the spot it creates a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. The looted articles have been planted upon the accused to implicate him in the present case and the looted articles have not been identified by any of the witness during trial. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Ramesh Kumar beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Ld. Defence Counsel for other accused persons have argued that the incident had occurred on 03.11.2008 and various chanceprints were collected from various objects, but none of the chanceprints collected on 03.11.2008 had matched with the sample of finger/palm prints of any of the accused. There is no explanation given by the IO as to why the said chanceprints did not match with SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 108 of 116 any of the accused. It is further argued that none of the claimant or on behalf of the owner had turned up for examination in Court and to identify the case property recovered at the instance of accused persons namely Ramesh and Naeem Khan @ Mota. Thus, the case property remained unidentified and it cannot be connected with the alleged offence unless the same identified by the claimant. Therefore, the recovery of the case property cannot be connected with the alleged offence.
12. It has been further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that on perusal of the disclosure statement made before Deputy Commissioner of Police by virtue of Section 18 of MCOC Act, it transpires that the questions were drafted by the investigating agency with the sole aim to bring the crime under Section 3(5) of MCOC Act and also to invoke the definition of organized crime. It has been argued that prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons were involved in various criminal cases. It is submitted that since the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was a member of an organized crime syndicate and was indulging in continuing unlawful activity, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 109 of 116
13. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons have referred to the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA and laid special emphasis on the expression "continuing". He urged that "continuing unlawful activity" would necessarily mean continuous engagement in unlawful activity where there would be a live link between all the different offences alleged. Isolated incidents spread over a period of ten years, involving different types of offences, would not attract the provisions of MCOCA. Such activity must be such as to have a link from the first to the last offence alleged to have been undertaken in an organized manner by an organized crime syndicate. It was contended that there was nothing on record to indicate the existence of any organized crime syndicate for the purpose of carrying on any continuing unlawful activity as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) and (f) of MCOCA.
14. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of Ld. Additional PP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons.
15. Before proceeding further, I deemed it fit to reproduce Section 3 (1) and Section 3(2) of MCOCA 1999 which read as follows:
Section 3(1) of MCOCA, 1999 SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 110 of 116 "(1) Whoever commits an offence of organised crime shall:
(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable wit h the death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees one lac;
(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs."
Section 3(2) of MCOCA 1999 "(2) Whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets or knowingly facilitates the commission of an organised crime or any act preparatory to organised crime, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to a fine, subject to a minimum fine of rupees five lacs."
16. In the present matter, as regards the matching chance prints/palm prints, the incident had occurred on 03.11.2008 and on the same day, the crime team had collected chanceprints from SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 111 of 116 various objects from the spot, but none of the chanceprints collected on 03.11.2008 had been matched with the sample of finger/palm prints of any accused. It is the only chanceprints collected on 06.11.2008 and 25.11.2008 have been matched with accused Jawahar and Ranbir @ Shintu. There is no explanation on the part of prosecution or given by the IO as to why the chance prints collected on 03.11.2008 had not been matched with any of the accused. Moreover, there is no evidence of preservation of the spot till 25.11.2008 and in the absence of which the collection of chanceprints on 06.11.2008 and 25.11.2008 are come within the clouds of doubt and on the basis of which the accused cannot connected with the alleged offence in absence of any corroborating and independent evidence.
17. Furthermore, as regards the recovery of case property effected at the instance of accused persons from Ramesh and Naeem Khan @ Mota. None of the claimant or on behalf of the owner i.e. the son of deceased had turned up for examination in Court and to identify the case property. Thus, the case property remained unidentified and it cannot be connected with the alleged offence unless the same identified by the claimant. Therefore, the recovery of the case property cannot be connected with the alleged offence.
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 112 of 116
18. In the leading case of "Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793" the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that-
"even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matter more than quantity in human affairs."
19. In "Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993)3 SCC 282: JT 1993 (2) SC 290" the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that-
"Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is wholly SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 113 of 116 unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect."
20. In "Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614: JT 1995 (8) SC 425" the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that-
"On a conspectus of these decisions, it clearly comes out that there has been no departure from the principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar case and therefore, conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of a single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstances appearing on the record against him and the court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The court will not then insist on corroboration by any other eyewitness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of any other eye witness being present. Indeed, the courts insist on the quality, and, not on the quantity of evidence."
21. In "Chittar Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC 397: JT 2003 (7) SC 270" the sole testimony of a young boy of 15 years was relied upon for recording an order of conviction.
22. During the trial the injured i.e. PW18 Smt. Indraprabha Gulati wife of deceased has been examined and she categorically SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 114 of 116 identified the accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema only and she failed to identify any other accused. The recovery of weapons on the accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema is corroborating evidence against him apart from the testimony of eyewitness i.e. PW18 Smt. Indraprabha Gulati. The said witness i.e. PW18 has categorically deposed that the accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema had inflicted the fatal injuries upon the person of deceased at the time of robbery in the house. In view of the testimony of eyewitness PW18 Smt. Indraprabha and the recovery of weapons the case is proved under Section 302 IPC against accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema.
23. There is nothing on record to indicate the existence of any organized crime syndicate for the purpose of carrying on any continuing unlawful activity. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused were members of an organized crime syndicate and were indulging in continuing unlawful activity because no any criminal record of any of the accused has been proved on the file even no witness has been cited to prove such previous criminal record of any of the accused. Therefore, the provision of MCOCA does not attract against any of the accused person.
24. In view of the above discussion, no reliable evidence has come on record against accused persons namely Ramesh Kumar @ SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 115 of 116 Shankar, Jawahar, Naeem Khan @ Mota and Ranbir @ Shintu as whatever the evidence has come on record against the aforesaid accused persons is not conclusive and cannot be relied upon without independent source of corroboration.
25. Accordingly, accused persons namely Ramesh Kumar @ Shankar, Jawahar, Naeem Khan @ Mota and Ranbir @ Shintu stand acquitted for the offences under Section 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 3(1)(ii) MCOCA, 3(2) MCOCA, 3(4) MCOCA, and 302/396/307/397/412/ 34 IPC.
26. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema stands acquitted for the offences under Section 3 MCOCA, 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 3(1)(ii) MCOCA 3(2) MCOCA, 3(4) MCOCA & 396/307/397/412/34 IPC. However, accused Raj Kumar @ Bheema held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (GULSHAN KUMAR)
ON 12.02.2021 ASJ03, SouthEast District,
Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC NO. 1816/16 State Vs. Raj Kumar Bheema & Other Page No. 116 of 116