Delhi District Court
State vs Bachchan Nagar And Others on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
Karkarduma COURTS: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 44351/15
CNR No. DLNE01-000024-2010
FIR No. 88/2010
P.S.: Sonia Vihar
U/s : 364/302/201/34 of IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) Bachchan Nagar
s/o Sh. Vishnu Nagar
r/o A-183, Gali no. 4, Part-II,
1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(2) Umesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Ram Babu
r/o A-379, Gali no. 7/3,
A-Block, Part-1, 1st Pusta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(3) Yogesh @ Kalli
s/o Sh. Satveer Singh
r/o B-1798, Gali no. 26,
1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(4) Parvinder @ Titu
s/o Sh. Jaikishan
r/o B-1798, Gali no. 26,
1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(5) Parveen Nagar
s/o Vishnu Nagar
r/o A-183, Gali no. 4,
First Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
Date of Institution : 30-11-2010
Date of Argument : 29-01-2025
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 1 of 106
Date of Judgment : 28-02-2025
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 12-07-2010, an information was received at PS Sonia Vihar that some people had abducted the son of caller from Nanaksar Gurudwara, Wazirabad road, out of which, the caller knew some people. After some time, another call was received informing that some people are abducting one boy in a WagonR car bearing no. 9C3229 white colour at Nanaksar Gurudwara, T-point. The above-stated informations were reduced into writing vide DD no. 2A and 3A respectively and the same were marked to SI Mintu Singh. Thereafter, SI Mintu Singh along with Ct. Pawanveer reached at the spot. Meanwhile, Inspector Vijay Bhushan (hereinafter referred to as Investigating officer/IO of this case) also reached at the spot to verify the call vide DD no. 5A. Thereafter, vide DD no. 7A, the IO received information regarding beating of the person at Bhagwati Mandir, Sonia Vihar. Thereafter, IO along with SI Mintu Singh and police staff reached A-Block, Sonia Vihar, where crowd had already gathered. On inquiry, the IO came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB hospital by PCR. Thereafter, they reached at GTB hospital and collected MLC of victim Kamal Singh s/o Balam Singh wherein the doctor concerned had endorsed 'brought dead' and the dead body was referred to GTB hospital mortuary for postmortem. The IO inspected the dead body and noticed that there were injury marks on the head, hands and legs. The marks were sharp and blunt. Eyewitness namely Kanhaiya @ Kanu met in the hospital, whose statement was recorded. Witness Kanhaiya @ FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 2 of 106 Kanu stated that he was residing at H. No. D-2/27, Gali no. 2, 3 rd Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi along with his parents and he was learning computer. He was in the habit of taking stroll everyday in the morning. On 12-07-2010 at about 6 am, he left from his home for morning walk. At about 6:30 am, when he reached near Nanaksar T-point, he saw that his friend Kamal Singh was standing near Nanaksar bus stand, Gurudwara side. At about 7 am, four people arrived in WagonR car. He knew two of them namely Bachchan Nagar and Umesh. One motorcyclist namely Praveen, who is brother of Bachchan Nagar, followed the car of the above-stated persons. The occupants of the car including accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh and their associates started beating Kamal Singh and put him inside the WagonR car while beating him and took him towards Wazirabad flyover. The motorcyclist Parveen also followed them. The above-stated persons kept on beating Kamal inside the car as well. He passed on the information to father of Kamal namely Balam Singh at his house. After some time, he came to know that Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and their companions had killed Kamal who had been taken to GTB hospital. He reached GTB hospital. The deceased Kamal was having dispute with one Jagpat on account of payment of motorcycle about 5-6 months ago. Accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar were residing along with Jagpat Chakkiwala. On the basis of statement of Kanhaiya @ Kanu, the present FIR came to be registered u/s 365/302/34 of IPC. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives. Crime Team was called which inspected the spot and took photographs. No blood stains were found on the spot, FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 3 of 106 which the accused persons had washed off as claimed by the IO. Therefore, section 201 of IPC was added. Site plan was prepared. Thereafter on 14-07-2010, investigation of the present case was assigned to Inspector Safdar Ali.
On 13-07-2010, accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar were arrested on the basis of secret information from the turn of Aggarwal sweets, Chattarpur by police officials of PS Mehrauli. They were interrogated and during interrogation, they had confessed to have committed murder of Kamal along with their associates. They were arrested vide DD no. 76B u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. IO of this case was intimated. A kalandra was prepared and accused persons were produced in Patiala house Court on 14- 07-2010. The IO Inspector Safdar Ali formally arrested the accused persons from Patiala House Courts with the permission of the court. Their PC remands were obtained and during PC remand, slippers of deceased and vehicle i.e. Wagon R bearing registration no. DL9CR-3229 car which was used in the commission of offence were recovered at the instance of accused Bachhan Nagar. One iron rod with which injuries were inflicted upon the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused Umesh Kumar. The aforesaid accused persons were interrogated and arrested. Their respective disclosure statements were recorded wherein they revealed the names of co-accused Yogesh @ Kalli, Parvinder @ Titu, and juvenile Praveen Nagar in the commission of alleged murder. Postmortem report was obtained wherein cause of death of deceased was opined as "haemorrhage shock as a result of antemortem injury to long bones and extravasated blood into the soft tissues spaces produced by blunt force. Certain observed injuries are sufficient to cause death in FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 4 of 106 ordinary course of nature. Subsequent opinion was sought from the autopsy surgeon as to whether the recovered rod at the instance of accused Umesh can be used to cause injuries reported in the postmortem report, wherein the autopsy surgeon concerned had reported, after going through the postmortem report and examining the given weapon, that certain injuries are possible by the given weapon i.e. iron rod and certain injuries are likely to be possible by the given weapon i.e. iron rod or a weapon of similar shape and dimension. Thereafter, the IO started searching the co-accused persons.
On 03-08-2010, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was arrested on the basis of secret information from 2nd pusta, near A-one Dharamkanta. His disclosure statement was recorded. Pointing out memo of the place where the dead body was claimed to have been thrown was prepared at the instance of accused Yogesh @ Kalli.
On 04-08-2010, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was subjected to TIP, however, he refused to participate therein. His PC remand was obtained and during PC remand, one purse containing election I-card, educational I-card and some visiting cards, belonging to the deceased was recovered. TIP of the said purse was got conducted. During TIP proceedings, the said recovered purse was correctly identified by the father of deceased namely Balam Singh. After completion of necessary formalities, chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. Ilaqa MM.
On 19-11-2010, accused Praveen Nagar had surrendered himself before JJB, Kingsway Camp. He was interrogated with the permission of the Board. His two days PC remand was obtained. During interrogation, accused Praveen Nagar disclosed FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 5 of 106 that motor-cycle vehicle which was used in the crime was seized by the officials of PS Khajuri Khas. Thereafter, IO made inquiry from MHCM of PS Khajuri Khas and it was revealed that said motor-cycle was deposited in Malkahna in case FIR no. 181/10. On 13-12-2010, he was declared juvenile after conducting age inquiry. The order was challenged by the father of deceased before the sessions court in an appeal u/s 52 of Juvenile Justice Act. Vide order dated 12-07-2011, Ld. Sessions court directed the JJB concerned to conduct the age enquiry afresh after collecting medical evidence. The accused Praveen Nagar was declared not a juvenile on the date of commission of offence vide order dated 30-04-2012 by the JJB-II. Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet qua accused Praveen Nagar was received. COMMITTAL
2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of Sessions vide order dated 16-11-2010 by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. CHARGE
3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons Bachchan Nagar, Umesh Kumar, Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu for the offence punishable u/s 364/302/201/34 of IPC, charge was framed by ld. Predecessor against the accused persons on 27-07- 2011, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 14- 05-2012, after filing of supplementary chargesheet, charges for the offence punishable u/s 364/302/201/34 of IPC were also framed against accused Praveen Nagar, to which he pleaded not FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 6 of 106 guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 43 witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. (i) PW1 Kanhaiya @ Kanoo is the eye-witness of the incident got examined by the prosecution. He deposed that earlier, he was residing at H. No. D-2/27, Gali No. 2. 3 rd pusta, Sonia Vihar. Delhi. He knew Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Balam Singh. On 12.07.2010 at about 06.00 am, he had gone for his morning walk and at about 06.45-07.00 am, when he reached near T-point Nanaksar towards Sonia Vihar side, one WagonR of white colour came there and stopped near Kamal Singh Rawat who was standing near Gurudwara. Four persons came out from the WagonR. Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were known to him and he did not know the names of two other persons. Parveen, brother of Bachchan Nagar came there on the motorcycle with two other boys. All the above-said started assaulting Kamal Singh and put him in the WagorR while beating him and took him towards Wazirabad side. Praveen also followed the WagonR. Assailants were giving iron rod blows and fist blows to deceased Kamal Singh at the time of incident.
PW1 further deposed that he went to the house of Kamal Singh and informed his father. The father of the Kamal made a call on 100 number and they both went in search of Kamal. When they reached near Nanaksar, one constable met them and he informed them that Kamal was found near the house of Bachchan and he was taken to GTB Hospital. He along with parents of Kamal reached at GTB Hospital. He came to know that Kamal was declared dead by the doctors. He went to the room of Police officials of the GTB Hospital and he informed all FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 7 of 106 the facts to them. Police recorded his statement vide Ex. PW1/A. He correctly identified accused Bachchan and Umesh in the court. He did not know the names of other two accused present in the Court. Witness pointed out towards accused Yogesh and Parvinder and stated that these accused accompanied with accused Bachhan and Umesh in the WagonR and participated in the incident. He deposed that accused Parveen Nagar was not present in the Court on that day.
During cross-examination dated 17-10-2011 by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Yogesh @ Kalli & Parvinder @ Tittu, he affirmed that there is a playground near the Sonia Vihar Water Pump house. He affirmed that other children and Yogesh @ Kalli & Parvinder @ Tittu used to play in that playground. He affirmed that Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu are residents of Sonia Vihar. He also used to play in the same ground and hence he knew these two accused prior to the incident. He affirmed that Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu were not present at the time of incident at Nanaksar, nor he had named them in FIR. He volunteered that had Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu been there, he would have named them in the FIR. He affirmed that he had identified Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu before this court on the last date of hearing on 05.09.2011, on the directions of the police. He volunteered that he was told to identify these accused by the police officials outside the court. He affirmed that Yogesh @ Kalli was shown to him at the police station. However, he did not remember when he was shown to him. He affirmed that police called him at police station and then took him to Tihar jail on 02-11-2010. Police officials told him to identify accused Parvinder @ Tittu, FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 8 of 106 by his looks, features and also told that a tattoo of 'OM' is inscribed on his right hand. He affirmed that he identified accused Parvinder @ Tittu on the directions of the police.
He did not name accused Parvinder @Tittu and Yogesh @ Kalli in any of his statements to the police at any point of time. He volunteered that if the names were mentioned that may be done by the police on its own. He affirmed that he identified the accused Parvinder @Tittu and Yogesh @ Kalli in Tihar Jail and before this court due to the pressure and fear of police.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Bachchan Nagar, he deposed that he is 10th pass from Open School. He was assisting his father in his business since 2007 or 2008. They are three brothers and two sisters. Deceased Kamal was known to him for the last 3 years prior to incident. His family is residing at Delhi for the last 15-20 years. His family and deceased Kamal's family were residing at Sonia Vihar. He volunteered that they are residing at different Pushtas of Sonia Vihar. Accused Bachchan Nagar and his brother Parveen Nagar is known to him for the last 3-4 years from the date of incident, being resident of Sonia Vihar and they used to indulge in criminal activities such as snatching money, quarrel with residents of area and also used to misbehave with girls and used to threaten the people of the area, However, he was not personally victimized by the acts of the accused Bachchan Nagar and Parveen Bagar. He did not know that Bachchan Nagar is a married man. No criminal case is pending against him. He denied that he was dealing in sale purchase of Country made pistols through one Abdul Hamid lodged in Jail No. 5 of Tihar Jail. He denied that he was dealing in Cocaine business through FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 9 of 106 Kausi William lodged in Jail No. 4 of Tihar Jail and supplying the same in the rave-parties of youth in Delhi.
He denied that he was a stock witness of the Police and have been pressurized by the Police to depose against accused Bachchan Nagar in this case because of his involvement in the above mentioned cases. He usually go to his bed between 9 to 11 pm and gets up at 5.30 or 6 am. After getting up, he goes on morning walk towards the Pump House. He wears T-Shirt, lower portion of the track suit and sports shoes. He left his house at about 6-6.15 am on 12.07.2010. He saw deceased Kamal at about 6.45-7 am. Deceased Kamal was at a distance of about 12- 15 paces from him at Nanaksar Gurudwara side. Accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were having iron rods with them at that time. He did not remember the colour of the iron rods. It was iron rods as accused were giving blows by the iron rods to the deceased. The accused persons were hitting hard to the deceased Kamal, had it been a wood, the same would have broken, hence, he was firm that it was only the iron rods with which the accused persons were giving blow to the deceased. He denied that it was not the iron rod used by the accused persons to cause injuries to the deceased Kamal. He volunteered that he was not 100 per cent sure that it was iron rod. Accused Bachchan was driving the Wagon-R and all four assailants stepped down from the Wagon-R and took away deceased Kamal while giving beatings to him. Deceased Kamal was put in the Wagon-R by accused Bachchan Nagar and after putting him, Wagon-R was driven by another assailant. Three assailants namely Bachchan, Umesh and the third assailant were having iron rods in their hands. The iron rods were of different sizes. The iron rod held by FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 10 of 106 Bachchan Nagar was 2½ -3 feet long. There were no gathering of the public persons near the place where the accused persons were giving beatings to deceased Kamal. He volunteered that the people numbering about 15 were standing at distance at separate places from the place of incident, there were also some school children, who were going to school. He did not try to save Kamal by going to other side of the road nor he shouted as he was frightened. About 5-7 boys were present on his side of the road also. The house of Kamal was at about 1-1½ km away from that place. He denied that he was deposing falsely under the pressure of the Police or that he was not present on the spot. He denied that he and Kamal had quarreled with Bachchan Nagar 5-6 months before the incident on some business dispute. He did not know Pradeep Goswami and Dharmender @ Dhamo. He denied that he along with Pradeep Goswami and Dharmender@ Dhamo went to the house of accused Bachchan Nagar and put the house of Bachchan Nagar on fire or that looted goods worth one crore from the house of Bachchan Nagar. He denied that he was deposing falsely to save himself and his friends in that case of arson and looting at the house of Bachchan Nagar. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Umesh Kumar, he affirmed that he had stated that he was working as a Pvt. service on 05-09-2011 before the Court. He denied that he was neither doing any Pvt. service nor he was doing any other work. His statement was recorded by the Police. He had not told in his statement Ex. PW1/A that accused persons were giving beatings to Kamal with iron rods. The road where the first incident took place is about 60 feet 80 feet wide. He FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 11 of 106 affirmed that there were bus stops on both the sides of the road where the incident took place. There were no shops near the place of occurrence. Generally, there are some tambhaku and gutka vendors, who sell the same while sitting on both sides patri. There was a khoka of pan, bidi and cigarette on the side on which he was standing. He did not know any pan or bidi vendor, took who sit there. He had never taken the Police to them. He went on roaming about in the area of Nanaksar for about 5 to 7 minutes. He affirmed that there is no park in the area of Nanaksar Gurudwara. After coming from his house, he went inside the pump house area. The distance between water pump and the place of incident is about less than half km. The water pump is towards inner side of Nanaksar Gurudwara. The water pump comes prior to the place of incident from his house. There are two water pumps. After coming from his house, the water pump he visited was on the right side. It was situated about half km away from the main road. No friend of his is living on water pump, which is on the right side of the road. No persons, who were present near the spot raised any hue and cry at the time of incident. He affirmed that there is a Police Booth at a distance of 5-10 paces, where he was standing. He denied that police officials are available 24 hours on that booth. He volunteered that he had not seen any police official on that booth. Police officials sit on the auto stand which is inside the Nanaksar. The auto stand is about 25-30 paces from the place, where he was standing. He did not inform those police officials by going to auto stand as he was frightened and he straightway went to the house of Kamal after hiring an auto. He did not remember the number of that auto. He had also not disclosed the fact of hiring FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 12 of 106 an auto to the Police in his statement Ex. PW1/A. He had told auto driver to move quickly as his friend had been lifted. He was not having mobile at that time. He had not inquired from auto rickshaw driver whether he was having mobile with him at that time. No telephone booth was available at that time. He had not asked for mobile from anybody for informing the Police or the parents of Kamal. There is no other Police Chowki in between the place of occurrence and the house of Kamal. There is a zero pusta near the place of occurrence. He could not tell the distance between the place of occurrence and zero pusta. He affirmed that after Zero pusta, pusta no.1, 2 and 3 also come afterwards. He affirmed that he was living in 3rd pusta. Bachchan is living in the 1st pusta. Kamal is also living in the first pusta. He could not tell after passing how may streets does the house of Kamal arrive. He had not made any telephone call at the house of Kamal on 12.07.2010. He had not made any phone call to the brother, sisters of Kamal or his father. He could not tell the exact time when he reached the house of Kamal. It was about 7.30 am. He had met parents of Kamal at their house. Father of Kamal had made a call at 100 no. immediately in his presence. He did not know whether father of Kamal had informed the names of assailants. He along with Mahesh, younger brother of Kamal went in search of the Kamal. They hired auto rickshaw from pusta. He could not tell the distance between the pusta from where he hired the auto to the house of Kamal. He did not know whether any blood had fallen on the road where the incident had taken place.
During his cross-examination dated 20-10-2011 on behalf of accused Umesh Kumar, he further deposed that his house is FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 13 of 106 situated at pusta no.3. It takes about 2/3 minutes for him to reach on main pusta road from his house. The main Wazirabad road is about 3½ km from his house. There is a railing in the middle of the main Wazirabad road. He could not say whether plants are also present along with the grill. He volunteered that perhaps only wild shrubs are there. He did not know whether there are some plants of six feet height in between the road. He affirmed that Nanaksar Gurudwara is situated on the other side of the road from our side. There is a cut in between the railing and vehicle can pass through that. He denied that Wazirabad road is 400-500 feet wide. He affirmed that the road of pusta leads to Tronica City. He volunteered that on the other side, it leads to Gurudwara Nanaksar. He affirmed that after coming to the main Wazirabad road if one wants to go to Bhajan Pura and Khajuri, he would have to go to the left side on the main road. He affirmed that there is a bus stop. He could not say the distance between the bus stop and the point from where they reached to main road is about 30 meter. He could not tell even the approximate distance. He affirmed that bus stop leading to Wazirabad side comes after crossing the main highway towards the right side. The distance between the cut on the road and the bus stop towards Wazirabad is about 8 to 10 meter and not 40 to 50 meter. He could not tell the length of the bus stop towards Wazirabad. Vehicle in which accused persons came was coming from the wrong side on the way towards Khajuri Khas. He had seen the vehicle i.e Wagon-R from the front side and was being driven at a very slow speed. He had not seen the no. plate of the vehicle. The vehicle was not having black window panes. He volunteered that it was having black sun shades fitted from inside FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 14 of 106 of the vehicle. He affirmed that the persons sitting inside could not be identified through the sun shades. The vehicle stopped only for about two minutes. Kamal had cried on receiving iron rod blow. He volunteered that he had cried only once and then he saw towards that side. He denied that one cannot see anything and hear anything from the place where he was standing and at the place, where the incident took place. He volunteered that he was not standing near the bus stop. The incident took place at some distance from the bus stand for going to Wazirabad. He had no talked with Kamal on that day. He was standing near the T- point for about 1-2 minutes and then he saw the incident. He was just standing there after his walk. He was not standing there for any specific purpose. He did not know whether he had mentioned in his statement regarding the shouting and crying of Kamal.
During his cross-examination dated 15-11-2011, he affirmed that there is a well maintained park at pusta no. 2½. They went in search of Kamal towards Nanaksar Gurudwara and pontoon bridge and it took about 30 to 45 minutes in searching Kamal. He along with mother and father of Kamal went to hospital in auto and father of Kamal handed over his cycle to Mahesh. No other relatives and friend were present in the hospital when they reached there. They found Kamal in emergency ward. Police had not recorded statement of father of Kamal in his presence nor any inquiry was made from him in his presence. He might have stayed in the hospital for about one hour. Vijay Bhushan had obtained only one signature from him only on one document. No copy was provided to him by Vijay Bhushan. No identification parade was conducted in respect of accused Umesh in his presence. He had never visited any place FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 15 of 106 where Kamal died. He did not know the names of any friend of Kamal except his friends of Sonia Vihar namely Yogi and Chotu.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State as the witness was resiling from his earlier statement in respect of identification of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto.
During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he deposed that he did not state to the Magistrate that he identified accused Parvinder @ Titto at the instance of police on 02-02- 2011. He did not make any complaint against the police official for pressurizing him to identify accused Parvinder @ Titto before the MM and before the Court. He did not make any complaint before this court on 05-09-2011 and before 17-10-2011 about pressure of the police to identify accused Parvinder @ Titto and accused Yogesh @ Kalli. He denied that he had been won over by the accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto and due to their pressure, he had given a wrong statement regarding identification of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto on 17-10-2011.
During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused Parvinder @ Titto and Yogesh @ Kalli, he affirmed that due to the fear of the police, he did not make the complaint against the police before MM and before the court. He gave a correct deposition on 17-10-2011 during cross-examination on behalf of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto.
PW1 Kahnahiya was recalled after filing of supplementary chargesheet against accused Praveen Nagar. During his examination dated 17-07-2012 after framing of charge against accused Praveen Nagar, he deposed that he saw one WagonR wherein four boys came there. Out of those four boys, two boys FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 16 of 106 were accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh (correctly identified by witness). One motor-cycle also came there driven by accused Praveen Nagar (correctly identified by witness) and two pillion riders. Thereafter, accused persons along with their associates put Kamal in the WagonR while giving beating to him and took him towards Wazirabad Bridge. Accused Praveen Nagar along with his associates on his motor-cycle also followed the WagonR. On this, he went to the house of Kamal and informed about this incident to father of Kamal. He knew accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu (correctly identified by witness) as he used to play cricket with them, both of them were not present at the time of occurrence in this case.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he volunteered that he had stated regarding participation of accused Yogesh and accused Parvinder in the commission of offence in the present case due to pressure by the police. He did not make any complaint or protest application to any authority that he had named accused Yogesh and Parvinder regarding their involvement in the commission of offence of the present case due to pressure mounted by the police. He could not give any explanation to this effect. He denied that he was won over by the accused persons Yogesh and Parvinder.
During cross-examination dated 09-08-2012 by Ld. Defence counsel, he affirmed that he had not seen accused Praveen Nagar before his evidence recorded in court on 17-07- 2012. He did not know accused Praveen Nagar before 17-02- 2012. Ex. PW1/A was a plain blank paper when he was made to sign the same and as such, there is no question of same having read over to him. He affirmed that he saw that a crowd had FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 17 of 106 gathered at red light near Gurudwara Nanaksar. He affirmed that he was told by someone in the crowd that one car came there and its occupants had quarrel with deceased Kamal and they had taken Kamal with them in car. He signed Ex. PW1/A at his residence. He affirmed that during the period when his statement was recorded in the court in the year 2011, one Mahesh, brother of deceased, Surjeet, Chhottu, Sandeep Kalu had given him beatings, so that he should depose according to their version. He affirmed that PCR van had come and taken him to GTB hospital for treatment. He affirmed that he ran from hospital out of fear of these people. He volunteered that those boys had reached GTB hospital. He affirmed that he did not tell names of assailants to the father of Kamal as he had not seen the incident. He affirmed that he was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh, Surjeet and Sandeep and due to their beatings, he had deposed in the court against accused persons. He affirmed that earlier he had deposed against the accused persons because he was threatened by the police to depose against the accused persons and police had further threatened to implicate him in false case. He affirmed that on 02-11-2010, he was taken to Tihar Jail by the police and he was told by the police to identify accused Parvinder and he identified accused Parvinder due to fear and pressure of police. He affirmed that he was not knowing accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh before he appeared as a witness in the witness box in this case.
During re-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he did not lodge any complaint or protest application to any authority to the effect that he was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh, Sujreet and Sandeep and due to their beatings, he had deposed in the FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 18 of 106 court against accused persons. He could not give any explanation to this effect. He could not produce any medical document with regard to alleged beatings given by accused persons. He also did not lodge any complaint or protest application to any authority to the effect that earlier he had deposed against the accused persons because he was threatened by the police to depose against the accused persons and police had further threatened to implicate him in false case. He could not give any explanation to this effect. He did not lodge any complaint or protest application to any authority to the effect that he was told by the police to identify accused Parvinder and he had identified accused Parvinder due to fear and pressure of police. He could not give any explanation to this effect.
PW2 Rajbala is another eye-witness of the incident got examined by the prosecution. She deposed that she knew Vishnu Nagar and his son Bachchan Nagar being her neighbours. She correctly identified accused Bachchan Nagar in the court. She did not remember exact date, but it was 1½ years ago, in the month of June/ July on 12th day of month at about 8 am, she was present at her house. She heard some noise and came out of her house and saw that many persons had gathered. There were about 30-40 persons gathered. Thereafter, she again returned back inside her house. She had not seen any person causing injuries to anybody. She did not know anyone namely Kamal.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State as she was resiling from her earlier statements.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she deposed that she is illiterate. Police inquired her about the facts of this case. Police did not record her statement. She denied that FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 19 of 106 on 12.07.2010 at about 7.30 am, she was sweeping outside her house in the lane, she saw that her neighbours Bachchan Nagar, S/o Vishnu Nagar came there in a car along with his associates including Umesh and two other persons grandsons of Bhagat Ji R/o B- Block, Near Bhagatji Mandir. She denied that she knows those persons by faces, but she did not know their names. She denied that one person was brought by these persons in the car and they took him inside the house after while giving beatings to him. She denied that meanwhile Praveen Nagar, brother of Bachchan Nagar also reached there on motorcycle and he also joined the above said persons. She denied that after some time, the above said persons brought that victim outside from the house in the gali and again gave beatings to him. She denied that she saw the above said incident from outside of her house and due to fear she and other persons did not rescue that victim from the assailants. She denied that PCR vehicle also reached there and took victim from there. She affirmed that she came to know from the public persons that the name of victim was Kamal who was resident of A-Block, Sonia Vihar and had expired in the hospital later on. Statement Mark X was read over to the witness, but witness denied having stated so to the police.
She further stated that she remained standing outside her house for about 2-3 minutes only. House of Praveen Nagar and Bachchan Nagar is situated after one house from her house. She closed the doors of her house and thereafter, she did not go outside. She did not open the gates of her house for whole day. She saw police officials in their street on the next day at about 11.00 AM. Police came to her and made inquiries from her about the occurrence. She did not remember whether police came to her FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 20 of 106 on 16/07/2010 i.e. after four days from the incident. She denied that police met her on 16.07.2010 and after making inquiries, recorded her statements U/s 161 Cr.PC. She had not seen the victim when she came outside her house. Bachchan Nagar owns a car of white colour. She could not tell the make of the car. She deposed that Praveen Nagar i.e. brother of Bachchan Nagar was not present in the court on that day. She denied that she was not deposing the true facts before the court as accused Bachchan Nagar is her neighbour. She did not know other accused persons present in the court except accused Bachchan Nagar. She did not see the other accused persons on the day of occurrence when she came out of her house. She denied that she was deposing falsely as she had been won over by the family of Bachchan Nagar.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, she affirmed that besides the car of Bachchan Nagar, other neighbours were also having white colour cars.
PW3 Yadvendra Singh deposed that on 12-07-2007, on hearing about the death of his nephew Kamal Singh, he had gone to mortuary of GTB hospital and identified the dead body of Kamal Singh vide identification Ex. PW3/A. The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW4 Babu is another eye-witness of the incident got examined by the prosecution. He deposed that he has been residing at A-155, Gali no. 3, 1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi since last about 20 years and he is doing private job. He did not know anything about this case. One day but he did not recollect the date, month and year, police had met him and made enquiry from him and he had told to the police that he did not know anything FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 21 of 106 about this case. He did not want to say anything more about this case.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he was resiling from his earlier statement.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he denied that on 12.07.2010 at about 8 AM, a lot of persons had assembled outside his lane no. 4 and when he went there, he saw that one boy was lying in injured condition in the lane in front of house Bachchan Nagar S/o Bisnu Nagar and public persons had assembled there. He did not state so before the police. He denied that after a short time, PCR van came there and took away the injured from there. He did not state so before the police. He denied that later on, it was learnt that said boy was also resident of A-Block, Sonia Vihar, Delhi and his name was Kamal, who died in GTB Hospital. He did not state so before the police. He denied that he was won over by the accused persons and deposing falsely to save them in this case.
The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW5 Sh. V. S. Chauhan deposed that he has been practicing in Delhi as an advocate since 1995. On 12-07-2010 at about 6.30 a.m., he was coming from Tronica City towards Delhi. When he reached at Nanaksar T-Point, he stopped his vehicle at red light and in the meantime, he heard noise of 'PAKDO-PAKDO' and saying that one boy was being taken after lifting him. When he crossed the road after green light, he saw the crowd assembled there, who told him that some boys after lifting forcibly one boy had been taken away in white colour WagonR. Number of the vehicle was told by one person as FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 22 of 106 DL9CR but he did not remember complete number of the vehicle. He made a telephone call on 100 number about this information.
To a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for State regarding remaining number of the said vehicle, he deposed that due to lapse of time, he was not confirmed that remaining number of the said vehicle was 3229.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel for accused Umesh, he affirmed that he had not seen the vehicle in question. He affirmed that he had not seen any person carrying away the boy. He had also not seen the boy who was being carried. He affirmed that he deposed on the basis of hearsay.
During cross-examination Ld. Defence counsel for accused Bachchan Nagar, he affirmed that mobile no. 9810401964 is his mobile number. He affirmed that from the same mobile number he had dialed 100 number but he did not recollect that he had made this telephone call at about 7.04 a.m. He had the SIM card of the said mobile phone and the same was in his name.
PW6 Sh. Ravinder deposed that he was the registered owner of WagonR car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 of white colour. He had given said car in gift to his niece Meenakshi w/o Bachchan Nagar in her marriage in the year 2007 but said car was got financed and the installments was being paid by him and said car was not got transferred in her name. The said car was being used by Bachchan Nagar husband of Meenakshi since 2007 and was with him. He volunteered that on 12-07-2010, the said car was with him. He did not know anything more about this case. He correctly identified accused Bachchan Nagar in the court.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 23 of 106The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he was resiling from his earlier statement recorded by the police.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he denied that on 12-07-2010 aforesaid car was with Bachchan Nagar and he had given in writing on notice u/s 133 MV Act in this connection. He did not state so before the police. He denied that he was deposing falsely on confronted portion in order to save the accused as he was won over by them being his relative.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons despite having given the opportunity.
PW6 was recalled for further examination u/s 311 Cr.P.C wherein he affirmed that the IO of the case had given notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to him. He deposed that reply to the notice Ex.PW37/O was not in his handwriting, however it bears his signature at point A. He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State on some points.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he denied that reply to notice u/s 133 M.V. Act dated 06.10.2010 Ex.PW37/O was in his handwriting. He affirmed that the WagonR Car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 was given by him to his niece Meenakshi wife of accused Bachchan Nagar and that accused Bachchan Nagar used to drive the said car. However, he denied that the said WagonR car was with Meenakshi and her husband accused Bachchan Nagar and was used by him since 2007 or that it was with him on 12.07.2010. He denied that he had stated these facts to the IO in reply to the notice u/s 133 M. V. Act. He had signed the same without knowing the contents of FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 24 of 106 the reply. He denied that he was deposing falsely or that the facts stated in the reply were told by him to the IO. He volunteered that 3-4 days prior to 12.07.2010, he had brought back the said WagonR Car from the house of Meenakshi as he could not pay some of the installments (EMI) of the said car. He affirmed that he continued to have the car in his possession. He denied that the car was not in his possession or that the car was in possession and use of accused Bachchan Nagar.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW7 Mahesh Rawat deposed that on 12-07-2010, he had gone to mortuary of GTB hospital where he identified the dead body of his brother Kamal vide statement Ex. PW7/A. After postmortem, the dead body of Kamal was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex. PW7/B. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW8 Balam Singh deposed that he has been residing at A- 157, Gali no. 1, Part-1, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi with his family members since 1986. He has been doing the work of supply of spare parts of electric goods since 1995. On 12.07.2010 at about 6.40 am, Kanhaiya @ Kalu, who was friend of Kamlesh @ Kamal, had come at his house and told him that at about 6.30 AM, accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh, Praveen and their associates Kalli, Titu, Dickey and Ajay Dogra had forcibly taken away Kamal from Nanaksar Bus Stand in WagonR car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 towards Yamuna Khadar while giving beating to Kamal. On receiving this information, he made telephone call on 100 number. He had also made telephone call FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 25 of 106 to duty officer of PS Khajuri Khas at about 7.00 am. While he was searching for his son Kamal, he received information from police that his son Kamal was removed in injured condition from gali no. 4 by PCR van for treatment to GTB hospital. On this, he along with his relatives reached GTB hospital where they found his son Kamal who had already died. At the time when his son had left the house, he was having one wallet of black color containing his identity cards i.e. school as well as his election card and Rs. 300/- or 400/-, two mobile phones make Samsung and Tata Indicom and some visiting cards. At the time of identification of dead body of his son Kamal none of the aforesaid articles were found.
He identified accused Bachchan Nagar, accused Parveen Nagar, accused Umesh, accused Yogesh @ Kalli correctly in the court. Accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Parveen Nagar were having grudge with his son Kamal on the issue of motorcycle. He volunteered that there was no issue between them earlier to that. Accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Parveen Nagar had also given threat to Kamal and his family members saying that they would eliminate his son Kamal.
On 03.9.2010, he had come to the KKD court for identification of the wallet of his son Kamal before the concerned court but he did not recollect the court room number where he had identified the purse of his son Kamal mixed with 11 purses during judicial TIP. He had identified the purse of his son Kamal in TIP proceeding because he used to see the purse of his son Kamal in his house.
He deposed that he had identified the parcels of his son Kamal vide TIP proceedings Ex. PW8/A. On 15/07/2010, the FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 26 of 106 police had joined him in the investigation of this case and he was in the Police Station. Accused Bachchan and Umesh were in the custody of the police. They were interrogated by them and they disclosed that they can got recovered the chappal of the deceased and the rod with which they had given beatings/ committed murder of his son Kamlesh @ Kamal. They had also disclosed that they can also got recovered the car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 WagonR of white colour. Thereafter, both the accused persons were made to sit in a police Zypsy. He and the police party were also in that Zypsy. The accused persons led them to near pontoon Pul, Wazirabad and at some distance from that Pul got recovered the chappal of his son from a play ground. He identified those chappal as of his deceased son. The police had sealed the chappal in a parcel but he did not remember the seal impressions. The same was sealed by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/B. Thereafter, the accused took them to Third Pushta, Sonia Vihar. In the Yamuna Pushta Khadar there is a free parking and the accused Bachchan Nagar pointed at the Maruti WagonR car bearing registration no. DL9CR-3229. He also disclosed that this car was used by him while kidnapping deceased Kamlesh @ Kamal. The said car was taken into possession by the police officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Accused Bachchan Nagar also disclosed that he had also made a phone call on no.100 after committing murder of Kamlesh @ Kamal. Thereafter, all of them, the accused persons came back to first Pushta. Near bricks, the First Pushta, accused Umesh got recovered an iron rod and disclosed that this rod was used by them to commit murder of deceased Kamlesh @ Kamal. The said iron rod was also seized and sealed in a parcel by the police FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 27 of 106 officials vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. The accused persons namely Bachchan Nagar and Umesh had further disclosed that when they had committed murder of Kamlesh @ Kamal, accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittoo were also with them. He volunteered that during his earlier depositions in the court, he had disclosed the name of accused Parvinder @ Tittoo, but instead of writing the name as Parvinder @ Tittoo, his name has been recorded as Parveen Nagar. Disclosure statements of accused Bachchan and Umesh were also recorded in this regard. He volunteered that witness Rajbala had also disclosed to him that she had seen all the accused persons with his son Kamlesh @ Kamal in the Maruti WagonR car and she had seen the accused persons taking his son Kamlesh @ Kamal to the residence of accused Bachchan Nagar where his son was killed by the accused persons. She further disclosed to him that his son was unable to walk properly. She further disclosed that after committing his murder, the accused persons had thrown his dead body in Gali No. 4. She further disclosed that when PCR van came to the spot, all the accused persons along with one Vishnu Nagar put the dead body in the PCR van. All these facts were disclosed to him by Rajbala after about 2/3 months of the incident.
To a court question as to whether he had disclosed all these facts to the police officials, he answered that he had disclosed these facts to the police officials, but they had refused to record these facts in his supplementary statement on the pretext that he had already given his statement to them.
On 12/07/2010, he had made phone call to police on phone no.100 from his landline phone number and he had also lodged complaint regarding missing of his son Kamlesh @ Kamal.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 28 of 106When he along with his younger son Mahesh were trying to trace Kamlesh @ Kamal, his younger son Mahesh made phone call from his mobile phone, on the mobile phone no. 9899665524 of Kamlesh @ Kamal and he heard some noises of ' Maro-Maro' in the phone call.
The witness correctly identified all the accused persons present in the court with their names by pointing out at them.
He identified one I-card in the name of Kamlesh Rawat from the school of Open Learning, another I-card in the name of Kamlesh Rawat in the name of Election Commission of India, three visiting cards, one small pamphlet of Samsung Fun Club and a black colour empty purse with marking and logo of Reebok on the front side stating that the purse Ex. P-1 belonging to his son Kamlesh @ Kamal; the election I-card and I-card of School of Open Learning of his son Kamlesh are Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and stated that three visiting cards Ex. P-4 are of the concerned customers from whom he was having business dealings.
He also identified one red and black sleeper ( hawai chappal) as the same belonging to his son Kamlesh which was seized by the IO at the instance of the accused persons as Ex.P5; an iron rod/pipe Ex. P-6 as the same rod/pipe which was got recovered by accused Umesh; Maruti WagonR bearing registration no. DL-9CR-3229 as Ex.P7 as the same which was recovered in his presence.
He volunteered that on 12/09/2010, one Ajay Dogra along with 4/5 other persons came to his house and threatened him that if he depose in the court against the accused persons then they will kill him and his family members. Thereafter, he went to the police station Sonia Vihar and gave a complaint in writing in this FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 29 of 106 regard but no action was taken by the police officials. A copy of the said complaint was also sent to the Hon'ble High Court. The accused persons had also threatened the public persons gathered in gali no. 4 when they murdered his son and threw his body in gali no. 4 that if anybody depose against them in the court, then he would also meet the same fate. The accused persons are known bad characters of the area and they used to roam around in the area with dandas and iron rods and used to threaten the residents of the locality. The accused persons also used to level false allegations against his son and due to false complaints, the police also visited their house on several occasions, prior to the incident. There was also a dispute between his son and one Manoj, the agency owner of motorcycle regarding the delivery of their motorcycle. The said Manoj was neither returning their money nor handing over the motorcycle and accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Pravin Nagar came to the agency of Manoj and threatened his son.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that Nanaksar T-point is situated at a distance of about one km from his house. On 12-07-2010, Kamal left the house at about 6:15 am. He did not know the duration for which Kanhaiya @ Kalu was a friend of Kamal, prior to the incident. He made phone call to the police from his landline phone. He had not disclosed the number of Maruti WagonR car to the police. He had already told the police officials that his son Kamal was wearing chappals when he had left the house on 12- 07-2010. He went to PS on 15-07-2010 at about 10 am and remained with the police officials till evening. The chappals were recovered from the playground at about 11-11:30 am and at FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 30 of 106 that time, no public persons were present there. There were no public person in the free parking at that time. He did not remember whether the Maruti WagonR no. DL9CR-3229 was open or in locked condition. The front number plate of car was in twisted condition whereas it was not having any rear number plate. The purse of his son Kamal was not shown by the police officials to him in the PS. He hd not disclosed the names of the accused persons to the police when he made phone call for the first time on 12-07-2010, in the morning due to fear/ nervousness. He had disclosed the names of Kalli, Titu, Dicky, and Ajay Dogran to the police officials in his statement dated 12- 07-2010. He did not remember whether the police officials prepared any site plan of the spot regarding recovery of chappal from the playground. The spot from where the iron rod was recovered, was vacant and was not habited place, however, public persons used to pass through that space. He had disclosed the fact that his son Mahesh had called Kamal on his mobile phone no. 9899665524 and he heard some noises of "Maro- maro' to the police in his statements.
PW9 Ct. Pawan Veer deposed that during the intervening night of 11/12.07.2010, he was posted as Constable at PS Sonia Vihar and was on emergency duty in the PS from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am and during that night, SI Minto Singh had received copies of DD No. 2A and DD No. 3A, regarding a quarrel on Wazirabad Road. On receipt of DD, SI Minto Singh joined him for the verification of the contents of the DD and they both went to Wazirabad Road near Nanaksar Bus Stop but nobody met them there. It is further deposed that nobody had disclosed about the quarrel at that place and again said, from the local inquiry at FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 31 of 106 that place, it was revealed that a quarrel had taken place at Bhagatji Mandir, A Block, Sonia Vihar which is situated in front of Nanaksar Bus Stop. They both went there and from there it was revealed that the PCR had removed the injured to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, they both went to GTB Hospital where it was revealed that the injured had died. Thereafter, the dead body was got shifted to the mortuary of the hospital. Statement of one public person namely Kanhaiya @ Kalu met them in the hospital. The IO of the case had recorded his statement and the IO of the case Inspector Bhushan had also reached at the spot and the hospital. He recorded the statement of Kanhaiya @ Kalu and made the endorsement thereon and handed over the same to Ct. Prakash who took the same to the police station for registration of the FIR. The dead boy was identified by the close relatives of the deceased and after post-mortem the dead body was handed over to them.
During the cross-examination by Sh. Rakesh Kochar, Advocate for all the accused persons, the witness stated that they had not found any evidence about the quarrel at Nanaksar Bus Stand or Bhagatji Mandir. They had not found any eye witness of the occurrence at Bus Stop Nanaksar or Bhagatji Mandir, Sonia Vihar about the occurrence. They had not found public gathering at Bhagatji Mandir and the public persons had told them that the injured had already removed to GTB Hospital. No proceedings were conducted by SI Minto by SI Minto Singh at Nanaksar Bus Stop or Bhagatji Mandir, Sonia Vihar. In his presence, IO did not prepare any sketch of knife at the hospital or at the spot. Balam Singh, father of the injured had not met him at the spot and he met him in the hospital at about 09:00 am.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 32 of 106PW10 Ct. Prakash Meena deposed that on 12.07.2010, he was posted as Constable at PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi and on that day, Inspector Vijay Bhushan had joined the investigation of this case. They went on the Bus Stop Nanaksar, Wazirabad Road as a call was received from there where SI Minto Singh and Ct. Pawan Veer met them. From where it was revealed that a quarrel had taken place at Bhagatji Mandir in Sonia Vihar, B-Block. They went there and from there it was revealed that the injured had been recovered to GTB Hospital by the police of PCR. The IO of the case had received the MLC of the injured who was declared as brought dead by the concerned doctor. Inspector Vihar Bhushan had handed over him a rukka. He took the same to the Police Station. He produced the same before duty officer who had got recorded FIR No. 88/10. He received copy of FIR and original rukka and went to the GTB Hospital and handed over the same to the IO. He remained in the hospital. The post- mortem on the dead body was conducted by the concerned doctor. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the close relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, they went at the place of occurrence. Crime Team also reached there and took the photographs of the scene of the crime. He does not know what was present on the scene of crime. Thereafter, they returned to the police station and his statement was recorded there.
During the cross-examination by Ld. Chief Prosecutor of the State, the witness admitted that one eyewitness Kanhaiya @ Kalu was present in the hospital and his statement was recorded by the IO and he also admitted that IO had prepared the rukka on his statement. He admitted that at the scene of crime, soil was put with a view to deface the scene of crime.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 33 of 106During the cross-examination by Sh. Rakesh Kochar, Advocate for all the accused persons, the witness stated that SI Minto Singh and Ct. Pawanvir were already present at Bus Stand Nanaksar and they told them that the incident had taken place at A-Block, Gali No. 4, Sonia Vihar. He had not seen any knife in possession of Inspector Vijay Bhushan, SI Minto Singh and Ct. Pawan Veer, in the hospital. The statement of Kanhaiya was recorded in the duty room at GTB Hospital. He did not remember the time when his statement was recorded. IO had not obtained signatures of Kanhaiya on any document in his presence. Crime Team had reached the spot at about 06:00-07:00 pm in the evening. He had not seen the blood at the spot.
PW11 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 11.07.2010, he was posted at PS Soniya Vihar and was working as duty officer w.e.f. 12:00 mid night to 08:00 am on 12.07.2010. At about 07:02 am, he received a call from the Control Room regarding the kidnapping of a boy from H. No. 157, Gali No. 1, First Pusta, Sonia Vihar. On which, he recorded DD No. 2A, which is Ex. PW11/A. On the same day at about 07:04 am from the Control Room regarding kidnapping of a boy from Nanaksar Gurudwara, T-point, on which he recorded DD No. 3A Ex. PW11/B. On 24.07.2010, he was working as duty officer and his duty hours were 08:00 am to 04:00 pm and at about 04:00 -04:15 pm, Ct. Raj Narayan brought three sealed pulandas from mortuary of the GTB Hospital and handed over the same to him. All the three pullandas were sealed with the seal fo MK. He made a memo regarding the receipt of the pulandas and handed over the pulandas along with the memo to the MHCM. The original seizure memo dated 24.07.2010 is in his handwriting and FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 34 of 106 is Ex. PW11/C. His statement was recorded by HC Puran in this regard.
The witness was cross-examined but nothing material came therein.
PW12 Ct. Sanjay deposed on the same lines on which Inspector Safdar Ali (PW37) has deposed whose testimony shall be dealt with later on regarding proceedings conducted on 14/07/2010 at the time of arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh.
The witness was cross-examined but nothing material came therein.
PW13 Ct. Raj Narayan, was the investigating police officer, who went to mortuary of the GTB Hospital on 27.07.2010 and collected three sealed pullandas from there. He proved the seizure memo thereof as Ex. PW11/A. The witness was cross-examined but nothing material came therefrom.
PW14 Lady SI Hiloria was the Duty Officer posted at PS Sonia Vihar at the relevant time. She has proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW14/A; endorsement made by her on the rukka as Ex. PW14/B. The witness was cross-examined but nothing material came out therein.
PW15 Dr. Meghali Kelkar deposed that on dated 12.07.2010, she was posted as Senior Demonstrator in department of Forensic Medicines, at UCMS & GTB Hospital, Delhi and she conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Kamal Singh Rawat S/o Ballam Singh Rawat, 21 years, Male at 2.15 p.m. She had made following observations:
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 35 of 106General Observations: It was a dead body of adult Male of average built. Eyes partially open. Cornea Hazy, left black eye present, sub-conjunctival hemorrhages present in both eyes. Mouth close. All other natural orifices NAD. Postmortem staining present over the back and fixed. Rigor Mortis was present in developing stage. No signs of decomposition were seen.
External Antemortem Injuries:
1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep with reddish blue contused margins present over right temporal region of head horizontally placed 4 cm above right ear and 9 cm above right eyebrow.
2. Reddish blue contusion 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm present on forehead above glabella and just lateral to midline on right side 4 cm
3. Reddish abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on lateral end of right eyebrow.
4. Reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm present on right face. 1.5 cm below right eye and 5 cm from midline.
5. Reddish abrasion 3.5 cm x 1 cm present on right face. 4.5 cm. medial to right ear and 9 cm above right angle of mandible.
6. Reddish blue contusion 13 cm x 11 cm present on left face and upper neck. 4 cm below left eyebrow and 8.5 cm from midline.
7. Reddish scratch abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm present over left side of upper lip. 2 cm from midline.
8. Reddish blue contusion 6.4 cm. X 1.5 cm present on mucocutaneous surface of upper lip in midline.
9. Lacerated wound 2.1 cm x 0.6 cm present on mucosal surface of lower lip in midline surrounded by reddish blue contusion in an area of 5 cm x 2.5 cm.
10. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on left half of upper lip 4 cm from midline.
11. Reddish blue contusion 4 cm x 2 cm present on posterolateral aspect of left arm 20 cm below shoulder tip.
12. Reddish abrasion 1 cm X 1 cm present on right shoulder top. 18 cm from midline.
13. Reddish blue contusion 10 cm x 7 cm present on right lower face and neck region. 7 cm below right eyebrow and 8 cm from midline.
14. Reddish blue contusion 6 cm x 8 cm present on right ear pinna and mastoid process and right upper neck.
15. Reddish abrasion 4 cm x 1.5 cm present on lateral aspect of FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 36 of 106 left arm surrounded by reddish blue contusion. 5 cm x 4 cm, 19 cm below shoulder tip.
16. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 7 cm x 2 cm with intervening non contused area of width 1.3 cm present horizontally on posterior aspect of right arm, 14 cm below right shoulder tip.
17. Reddish scratch abrasion 1 cm x 0.2 cm present on posterior aspect of right arm, 21 cm below right shoulder tip.
18. Reddish blue contusion 3 cm x 2 cm present on posterior aspect of right arm, 17 cm below right shoulder tip.
19. Lacerated stab wound measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 9.5 cm deep present on posterolateral aspect of right arm obliquely with centre 1.5 cm above right elbow joint and 3 cm lateral to olecranon process with direction of the wound downwards lateral and forwards. The wound margins are reddish blue contused with contusion surrounding wound in an area of 7 cm x 4 cm.
20. Reddish grazed abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm present on medial aspect of right forearm, 3 cm below right elbow joint.
21. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 7 cm x 2 cm with intervening non contused area 1.2 cm wide, horizontally placed present on front of left cubital fossa.
22. Reddish blue contusion 14 cm x 3 cm obliquely present on right cubital fossa on medial aspect.
23. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 8 cm x 2.5 cm with intervening non contused area 0.5 cm wide, obliquely placed present on lateral aspect of right elbow joint.
24. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 7 cm x 2 cm with intervening non-contused aren 0.5 cm wide, horizontally placed present on left upper forearm, 1.5 cm below cubital fossa.
25.Lacerated wound measuring 2.2 cm x 0.1 cm x 2 cm bone deep present on olecranon process of left elbow joint surrounded by reddish blue contusion in an area of 4 cm x 5 cm.
26.Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on left upper forearm, 3 cm below left elbow joint.
27. Lacerated stab wound measuring 1.1 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm deep present on postromedial aspect of left forearm 6 cm below left elbow joint with direction downwards medial and backwards and margins reddish blue contused.
28. Reddish blue contusion 6 cm x 3 cm present on posterolateral aspect of left forearm, 5 cm below left elbow joint.
29. Reddish blue contusion 6 cm x 1.5 cm present on posteromedial aspect left forearm 15 cm below left elbow joint FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 37 of 106 obliquely placed.
30. Reddish blue contusion 3 cm x 2 cm present on posterior aspect of right forearm and olecranon process.
31. Reddish blue contusion 9 cm x 6 cm present on dorsomedial aspect of right forearm 12 cm below right elbow joint.
32. Reddish blue contusion 20 cm x 9 cm present circumferentially around right wrist joint.
33. Reddish blue contusion 8 cm x 10 cm present on the dorsum of the right hand, 2 cm behind metacarpophalangeal joints.
34. Reddish blue contusion 17 cm x 9 cm present circumferentially around left lower forearm and wrist joint, 20 cm below left elbow joint.
35. Lacerated stab wound measuring 1 cm x 0.2 cm x 2.5 cm deep with reddish blue contused margins and direction downwards, medially and forwards present on dorsum of left hand, 4 cm above second metacarpophalangeal joints.
36. Reddish grazed abrasion 9 cm x 1 cm present vertically on dorsolateral aspect of left forearm and hand 20 cm below left cubital fossa.
37. Reddish blue contusion 13 cm x 5 cm present on knuckles of left hand.
38. Reddish blue contusion 4 cm x 2 cm present over the palm of left hand horizontally 3 cm below metacarpophalangeal joints.
39. Lacerated wound measuring 2.8 cm x 0.3 cm muscle deep present on fourth web space of right hand palm obliquely margins reddish blue contused.
40. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on right little finger tip.
41. Reddish scratch abrasion 4.5 cm x 0.2 cm vertically placed on left lower abdomen just above left anterior superior iliac spine with non contused intervening area 1 cm wide present obliquely on lateral aspect of right leg, 2 cm above right lateral malleolus.
51. Reddish blue contusion 10 cm x 2 cm present on right lateral malleolus and dorsolateral aspect of right foot obliquely.
52.Lacerated stab wound 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm x 4 cm deep and reddish blue contused margins present on right upper quadrant of right knee joint horizontally placed and directed medially downwards and backwards.
53. Lacerated stab wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm deep of shape, as shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused margins present on lower half of right knee joint directed upwards laterally and backwards with underlying communited fracture of right patella.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 38 of 10654. Lacerated stab wound 2.5 cm x 0.9 cm x 6 cm deep of shape, as shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused margins present on right upper leg directed downwards medially and backwards horizontally placed with underlying communited fracture of right tibia bone, 41 cm above heel.
55. Lacerated stab wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x 6.5 cm deep of shape, as shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused margins present on right upper leg directed downwards medially and backwards and obliquely placed with underlying communited fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 38 cm above heel.
56. Lacerated stab wound 2.8 cm x 0.5 cm x 5.5 cm deep of shape, as shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused margins present on right upper leg directed downwards medially and backwards with underlying communited fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 35 cm above heel.
57. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm deep of circular shape, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of right leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 33 cm above heel.
58. Lacerated stab wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 10 cm deep of oval shape, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of right leg vertically placed directed upwards, backwards and laterally with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 31 cm above heel.
59. Lacerated stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 13 cm deep of oval shape, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of right leg vertically placed directed upwards, backwards and laterally with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 28 cm above heel.
60. Lacerated stab wound 1 cm x 0.6 cm x 7 cm deep, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of right leg vertically placed directed upwards, backwards and medially with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 29 cm above heel.
61. Lacerated stab wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm x 5.5 cm deep, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of right leg vertically placed directed downwards, backwards and medially with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 27 cm above heel.
62. Lacerated stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 11.5 cm deep of shape as shown in PM report, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg vertically placed directed upwards, backwards and laterally with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 36 cm above heel with extravasation of blood in soft FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 39 of 106 tissues.
63. Lacerated stab wound 2 cm x 1,5 cm x 5 cm deep, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed downwards, backwards and medially with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 33 cm above heel.
64. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm deep, circular in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 32 cm above heel.
65. Lacerated stab wound 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm x 3 cm deep, circular in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 30 cm above heel.
66. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2.5 cm deep, circular in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 33 cm above heel.
67. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm deep, circular in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 26 cm above heel.
68. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm deep, circular in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 0.5 cm above injury No. 67.
69. Lacerated stab wound 1 cm x 0.6 cm x 7 cm deep, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed downwards, backwards and medially with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 24 cm above heel. 70. Lacerated stab wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm x 5 cm deep and reddish blue contused margins present vertically on front of left leg directed downwards laterally and backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 23 cm above heel. 71. Lacerated stab wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm deep and reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 22 cm above heel.
72. Reddish grazed abrasion 8 cm x 2 cm obliquely present on posterolateral aspect of left thigh 27 cm below iliac crest.
73. Reddish blue contusion 11 cm x 7 cm present on anterolateral and posterior aspect of left lower thigh just above knee joint.
74. Reddish blue contusion 10 cm x 4 cm present on posterolateral aspect of left leg just below left knee joint.
75. Multiple reddish abrasions in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm present FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 40 of 106 on posterolateral aspect of left leg, 1 cm above injury No. 74 surrounded by reddish blue contusion in an area of 9 cm x 8 cm,
76. Lacerated stab wound 1.2 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm bone deep, present on left ankle joint just above lateral malleolus directed upwards forwards and laterally with reddish blue contused margins.
Internal Examination:
Scalp: Extravasation of blood seen under the scalp over left temporal left parietal right temporal and bilateral occipital region. Scull: NAD Brain: 1200 gram congested with patchy sub arachnoid hemorrhage present on bilateral frontal and left parietal region. Neck: NAD Ribcage: NAD Lungs: Right 300 gram and left 250 gram, multiple contusions present on anterolateral aspect of both lungs with rest region pale.
Heart: 250 gram NAD Stomach: Contained 200 ML brownish fluid with walls NAD Intestines: contained fluid walls NAD 1200 gram pale Spleen: 150 gram pale Kidneys: 110 gram each pale Pelvis and Vertebrae: NAD Urinary Bladder: Empty and NAD Time since death: About 6 hours.
Cause of death. Hemorrhagic shock, as a result of antemortem injuries to long bones and extravasated blood into the soft tissues spaces produced by blunt force. Injuries No. 6, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21 to 24, 31 to 34, 37, 43 to 49, 52 to 71 and 73 to 76 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature collectively. Articles preserved:
1. Sealed envelope containing blood on gauge of deceased.
2. Sealed pulanda containing clothes of the deceased.
3. Sample seal.
She proved her detailed postmortem report bearing No. 968/10 dated 12.07.2010 running in 11 pages as Ex.PW15/A. On 06.09.2010, she received a request for subsequent opinion of weapon of offence along with two pulandas said to be FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 41 of 106 containing the weapon of offences from IO, SHO, Safdar Ali, PS Sonia Vihar On opening the pulanda No. 1 labelled as case FIR No. 88/10 dated 12.07.2010 signed by Inspector Vijay Bhucha dated 12.07.2010 bearing nine intact seals of VB. A knife with a silver colour metallic handle and black plastic like material handle. The blade fitted by three metallic fixes, as shown in the figure of subsequent opinion and show a print as written in the subsequent opinion report on one side of the blade. The edge of the blade was sharp and other is blunt. Thickness of the blade 2 mm, maximum width near handle 4 cm, length of the blade 20.5 cm and total length of the knife 32.2 cm.
Reddish brown stains present on the blade. After examining the weapon knife and PM report, she was of the opinion that no injury caused by the the given weapon knife.
Pulanda No. 2 said to be containing iron road (pipe) bearing 8 seals of SA. On opening the pulanda a white colour metallic hollow rod was recovered covered with whitish and brownish stains and both ends were frayed. The diagram of the rod (not to scale) is in Subsequent Opinion report.
After going through the PM report and examining the rod, she was of the opinion that injuries No. 1 to 18, 22 to 25, 26, 28 to 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 73 & 74 are possible by the given weapon rod. Injuries No. 21, 23, 24, 43, 46 to 50 are likely to be possible by the given rod or a weapon of similar shape and dimensions.
After examining the weapons, knife and rod were signed and labelled by her and sealed in respective pulanda No. 1 & 2 by seal of MK and labelled. The original copy of the subsequent FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 42 of 106 opinion along with the two pulandas were handed over to the IO and sample seal of MK given.
Her subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence knife is EX PW15/B. Her subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence i.e. rod is Ex PW15/C. She identified the knife Ex. P-1 as the same which was produced before her for giving the opinion. The witness also identified her signatures on the knife at point A. The two cloth pieces bearing particulars of the case are Ex.P-2 (Colly.).
She also identified the rod Ex. P-3 as the same hollow pipe which was produced before her for giving opinion. The hollow pipe bears the signatures of the witness at point A. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW16 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 15.07.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as HC and on that day, he participated the investigation of the present case with Inspector Safdar Ali, IO of the present case, HC Puran Singh and HC Lakhvinder. They accompanied the IO to PS Bhajan Pura and from there, accused persons Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were taken out from the lockup and they were brought back to PS Sonia Vihar. He identified both the accused person, who were present in the court. Accused Umesh was kept sitting separate and he took the accused Bachchan Nagar in the room of the SHO. The SHO, Inspector Safdar Ali interrogated the accused Bachchan Nagar and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW16/A. At the time of interrogation of the accused Bachchan Nagar, the father of the deceased and HC Puran were also present there. The accused admitted to have committed the murder of FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 43 of 106 Kamal Singh, S/o Balam Singh. The accused also disclosed that they have parked the car bearing registration no. DL 9CR 3229, WagonR white colour in free parking, third pusta, Sonia Vihar. The IO also interrogated the accused Umesh separately and he was in custody of HC Lakhvinder at that time. He did not sign the disclosure statement of accused Umesh. Thereafter, both the accused persons were made to sit in vehicle and thereafter, they reached to third pusta, Sonia Vihar, in pursuance to the disclosure statement and the aforesaid car was recovered at the pointing out of Bachchan Nagar. The IO seized the car, while preparing the seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Thereafter, the aforesaid WagonR car was sent to PS Sonia Vihar while toeing the same with crane. Thereafter, they along with accused persons went to first Pusta, Sonia Vihar and he kept sitting in the car along with accused Bachchan while IO along with accused Umesh and other police officials went towards heap of bricks. After some time, they came back with an iron rod, which was in open condition. Thereafter, they left first pusta for Yamuna Khadar near Wazirabad Bridge and there, on the pointing out of Bachchan Nagar one slipper, red colour was recovered. The slipper was converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of SA and seized through seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. After completion of the proceedings, they came back to the PS. IO deposited the case property in the Malkhana. In the evening, the accused persons were lodged in the lockup at PS Bhajanpura. IO recorded his statement.
The witness correctly identified the case property i.e. WagonR car bearing registration no. DL9CR-3229.
The witness was cross-examined by Sh. P.K. Dham, FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 44 of 106 Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar and during his cross-examination the witness admitted that no statement of accused was recorded about the second slipper. IO did not interrogate the accused and not recorded the statement of accused regarding the key of the WagonR Car. The car was recovered at about 01:00 pm -02:00 pm and slipper was recovered at about 03:00 pm -04:00 pm and they returned to PS Bhajanpura at about 08:00 pm. He affirmed that in his presence, the owner of car was not interrogated.
During cross-examination by Sh. K. C. Maini, advocate for accused Umesh, he affirmed that iron rod Ex. P-6 was not got recovered by accused Umesh in his presence. When the disclosure statement was being recorded, he was standing near the accused Umesh while holding him.
PW17 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 16.07.2010, he was posted at PS Mehrauli as Head Constable and on that day, he participated in investigation of the present with Inspector Safdar Ali, who recorded his statement in the present case. Prior to that, on 13.07.2010, he along with SI Ashok, SI Om Prakash and Ct. Sanjeev were present at about 8.30 p.m. at the turn of Aggarwal Sweets. Chhatarpur, Delhi, when one secret informer came and informed to SI Ashok Kumar that two boys, who along with their associates had committed murder of Kamal on 12.07.2010, would come at about 9.00 p.m. at Andheriya More, Bus Stop Mahrauli to meet their relative and they can be apprehended there. On this information, SI Ashok Kumar made request to 3-4 passersby to join the investigations, but none of them came forward to join and left without disclosing their names and addresses while seeking their personal excuses. Without wasting FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 45 of 106 time, SI Ashok Kumar prepared raiding team with them and informer and they left for the Andheriya More, Chhatarpur, Delhi, near Aggarwal Sweets and reached there at about 8.45 p.m. On reaching there, SI Ashok Kumar again asked 4-5 passersby to join the investigations, but none of them came forward to join and left without disclosing their names and addresses while seeking their personal excuses. SI Ashok Kumar gave instructions to the raiding party staff and Nakabandi was made. At about 9.00 p.m., two boys came on foot and stood at Bus Stand and they started looking around. The secret informer pointed out towards those persons and thereafter, on the pointing out and identification of informer, they overpowered those boys. SI Ashok Kumar made enquiries from those boys and their names were revealed as Bachchan Nagar, S/o Vishnu Nagar and Umesh Kumar, S/o Babu Ram. The IO took cursory search of the accused persons, but nothing objectionable recovered. The IO arrested accused Bachchan Singh Nagar and Umesh Kumar vide arrest memos Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B and their personal search memos Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D were prepared. IO interrogated the accused persons and the accused persons confessed to have committing the murder of Kamal with their associates i.e. the disclosure statement about the present case FIR No. 88/10 of PS Sonia Vihar. The disclosure statements of accused Bachchan Singh Nagar and Umesh are Ex.PW17/E and Ex.PW17/F. The IO verified telephonically from PS Sonia Vihar about the facts disclosed by the accused persons regarding murder of Kamal and thereafter, the facts of the FIR No. 88/10 were revealed to the IO. Both the accused persons were then taken for their medical examination and thereafter, both of them FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 46 of 106 were locked in the lock up of PS Mehrauli.
The witness correctly identified the accused persons Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar in the court.
During cross-examination by counsel for accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, the witness deposed that there were no residential houses near Andheria Mor however, there were certain shops at distance of 100 meters from bus stop. The shop-keepers were not asked to join the raiding party. He did not make any departure entry before leaving PS. The servants or the owner of Aggarwal Sweets were not asked to join the police team. The bus stand was situated at a distance of 100/150 meters from Aggarwal Sweets. Two-three persons were standing at the bus stand.
PW18 HC Rajesh Kumar was the Investigating Officer, who accompanied IO at PS Mehrauli and thereafter went to Patiala House Court on 14.047.2010. Thereafter, he deposed on the same lines on which Inspector Safdar Ali (PW37) deposed, whose testimony shall dealt with later on.
During cross-examination, he deposed that they reached at Nanaksar bus stand in the evening at around 6 pm. He was not having any knowledge if the place of occurrence was already within the knowledge of IO. They remained at Nanaksar Bus stand for about 5-7 minutes. None of the public persons were joined in investigation at Nanaksar bus stand. From Nanaksar bu stand, they went to first pushta, gali no. 4, Sonia Vihar, the place where the dead body was recovered. He did not know the date of recovery of the dead body. They remained there for about 10 minutes. He affirmed that place of recovery of dead body was within the knowledge of the IO. It took about 5-7 minutes in FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 47 of 106 preparation of pointing out memo. He and HC Puran signed the fard.
PW19 Ct. Sanjeev was the Investigating police official involved in the arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh on 13.07.2010 on the basis of secret information. He deposed on the same lines on which PW17 HC Ashok has deposed.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that there were residential houses behind Andheria Mor at a distance which he could not tell. No one was called from residential houses to join the investigation proceedings.
PW20 HC Lakhender Roy deposed that on 15/07/2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as Constable. On that day, he participated in the investigation with the IO Inspector Safdar Ali. Accused Umesh S/o. Ram Babu was arrested from his house and thereafter, he was taken to PS Sonia Vihar. Accused was under
interrogation at the PS and thereafter, he was sent to JC. He did not remember what proceedings were carried out by the IO before sending the accused to JC.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he did not depose certain facts.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, he affirmed that IO recorded his statement in the present case. He denied that accused Umesh was not arrested on 15/07/2010 or that he was arrested in the present on 14/07/2010. He did not remember if he had told the IO in his statement that accused Umesh was arrested on 15/07/2010. He affirmed that IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Umesh, wherein, accused had disclosed that he can get recovered the iron rod, which was used in commission of crime and thereafter, he got FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 48 of 106 recovered the iron rod and the IO seized the iron rod through seizure memo. The seizure memo of iron rod (plash type) Ex. PW8/D was shown to the witness, who identified his signatures on the seizure memo at point B. He affirmed that accused Umesh got recovered the plash type iron rod from near the heap of bricks towards Yamuna Khadar First Pushta Side and the said iron rod plash type was converted into pulanda which was sealed with the seal of 'SA'.
He correctly identified the case property i.e. plash type iron rod recovered by accused Umesh as Ex P-3 (also exhibited as Ex.P-6).
In his cross examination done by Sh. K.C. Maini, Advocate for the accused Umesh Kumar, he affirmed that such type of iron rod are easily available in market. It is affirmed that presently there was no blood stain on the rod. It is correct that iron rod does not bear the particulars of the FIR.
He signed the seizure memo Ex. PW8/D at the spot of recovery Iron rod was recovered from 1st Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. At that place, a heap of bricks (Chatta) was lying. The "Chatta" was on the side of the Pushta road where several persons used to pass. He did not state in his statement to the police about the measurements of the recovered iron rod.
In his cross examination done by Chaudhary Rajender Singh, Advocate for accused Yogesh @ Kali and Parvinder @ Titu, he stated that he did not remember as to whether he had signed the said disclosure statements. He did not know in which disclosure statement of Umesh, the name of Yogesh @ Kali and Parvinder @ Titu were given by Umesh.
In his cross examination done by Sh. S.K. Ahluwalia, FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 49 of 106 Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar, he deposed that he took Umesh Kumar in custody on 15.07.2010 at 9.30 a.m.-10.00 a.m. from lockup of PS Bhajanpura, no public person accompanied them. He did not remember as to any public person was associated at the time of interrogation of accused Umesh Kumar. Accused Umesh Kumar was interrogated for 4-5 hours.
PW21 HC Sandeep was the MHC (M) posted at PS Sonia Vihar at the relevant time. He has proved the entries made in the register No. 19 with regard to the deposit and dispatch of exhibits from the Malkhana PS Sonia Vihar during the investigation of the present case, acknowledgment receipt from FSL regarding deposit of case properties. The official records proved by him are Ex.PW21/A to Ex. PW21/O. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, he affirmed that entry was concealed by applying fluid at page no. 135, just below the entry Ex. PW21/H. He volunteered that the said entry was never made or removed / deleted by him.
PW22 Ct. Ishtekar was the investigating police official who was assigned the task of depositing sealed exhibits to FSL on 28.09.2010. He has proved the road certificate in that regard as Ex. PW21/L and acknowledgment obtained from FSL as Ex. PW21/M. He was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
PW23 SI Mintu Singh deposed that on 11.07.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SL. On that day, from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m., he was on emergency duty at police station. On 12.07.2010 at about 7.05 a.m., he received DD No. 2-A and 3-A FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 50 of 106 and thereafter, he along with Ct. Pawanveer reached at Bus Stop near Nanaksar Gurudwara. There, nothing was ascertained during enquiry and in the meantime, Inspector Vijay Bhushan along with Ct. Prakash also reached there as there was another call regarding the matter. Thereafter, they had reached Gali No. 4 near Bhagatji Mandir in Block-A. There, it was informed that injured was taken by PCR to GTB Hospital and hence, they had gone to GTB Hospital. There, Inspector Vijay Bhushan obtained MLC of one Kamal Singh Rawat at which he was endorsed brought dead. One eye witness of the occurrence namely Kanhaiya met. Inspector Vijay Bhushan got recorded the statement of Kanhaiya through him. Inspector Vijay Bhushan made endorsement on the statement of Kanhaiya and sent rukka to PS through Ct. Prakash for registration of the FIR. Inspector Vijay Bhushan recorded statement of PWs about the identification of the dead body of Kamal and thereafter, postmortem of Kamal was got conducted and dead body was handed over to his relatives. Ct. Prakash had produced rukka and copy of FIR to the IO prior to that after returning from police station.
Thereafter, they along with Kanhaiya had reached the spot and IO prepared the site plan. Spot was got inspected through crime team. IO recorded the statement of members of the crime team. PCR Officers was also taken to A-Block, Gali No. 4 where injured was found. Said place was also inspected by crime team and IO. IO prepared site plan. PCR In-charge informed that chhuri which was found there by him was given to DO of PS Khajuri Khas. IO recorded statement of In-charge PCR Van. Thereafter, they had gone to PS Khajuri Khas where duty officer FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 51 of 106 ASI Vijay produced chhuri/knife before the IO. IO prepared sketch Ex. PW23/A of the chhuri/knife and after keeping the knife in a pulanda sealed with the seal of 'VB' and taken into police possession through seizure memo Ex. PW23/B. His statement was recorded by the ΙΟ.
On 03.08.2010, he had joined investigation of this case along with Inspector Safdar Ali and HC Puran Singh had gone in search of accused persons. At about 3.00 p.m., one secret informer met them at Second Pushta and informed that accused Kalli@ Yogesh wanted in this case would come to meet his friend in B-Block near Bhagatji Mandır. IO asked 2-3 passersby to join the raiding party but no one agreed and left the spot without telling their names and addresses and thereafter, they had reached in gali Bhagatji Mandir and at about 3.40 p.m., secret informer pointed out towards a person who was seen coming from the side of Pushta. Said person was apprehended and he disclosed his name as Kalli @ Yogesh. He was arrested in this case and his arrest memo Ex.PW23/C and personal search memo Ex.PW23/D were prepared. Information about this arrest was given to his father Sh. Satbir Singh. His disclosure statement Ex.PW23/E was recorded by IO. He had pointed out the places of occurrence i.e. Gali No. 4, A-Block, Sonia Vihar and Bus Stand, Nanaksar Gurudwara. IO prepared pointing out memos Ex.PW23/F and Ex.PW23/G in this regard. Accused was kept in muffled face and notice in this regard was also given to him vide Ex.PW23/G1. His statement was recorded by IO.
On 04.08.2010, he had joined the investigation of this case with Inspector Vijay Bhushan, HC Puran Singh, Ct. Sajjan Singh. Accused Kalli @ Yogesh was interrogated as he was on police FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 52 of 106 remand. He made second disclosure statement Ex.PW23/H and he confessed to get recovered the purse of deceased Kamal. Thereafter, he led them near Bhagatji Mandir and there from a space between bricks, he had taken out a black colour purse and produced the same before IO. On being checked, one election I- card of Kamlesh Rawat, School photo I-card of Kamlesh and few visiting cards were found. The same purse along with the articles was kept in the pulanda which was sealed with the seal of 'VB' and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/I. Copy of DD No. 2-A is Ex.PW23/J and copy of DD No.3-A dated 12.07.2010 is Ex.PW23/K. His statement was recorded by IO.
On 06.02.2011, he had again joined investigation of this case along with Inspector Vijay Bhushan and HC Puran Singh. Accused Parvinder @ Titu was on police remand. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Parvinder as Ex.23/L. Thereafter, accused Parvinder had pointed out the places of occurrence i.e. Gali No. 4, A-Block, Sonia Vihar and Yumuna Khadar, Jungle Usmanpur. Pointing out memos are Ex. PW23/M and Ex.PW23/N. He identified accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu in the Court.
He identified the case property i.e. chhuri/knife Ex.P-1 re- exhibited as Ex.P-1A the same as seized in his presence; black colour purse Ex.P-1 containing one election I-card of Kamlesh Rawat Ex.P-2, School photo I-card of Kamlesh Ex.P-3 and few visiting cards Ex.P-4 collectively as the same as recovered by accused Yogesh @ Kalli.
During his cross examination done by Sh. K.C Maini, Ld. FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 53 of 106 Counsel for accused Umesh, he stated that he did not recollect whether father of deceased met them before eyewitness or later on. The name of accused persons was not mentioned in DD entries No, 2A and 3A. There were 40-50 persons present at bus stand. Statement of none of the persons from bus stand was recorded. He did not know whether any PCR gypsy was stationed near the bus stand. There is no taxi stand or scooter stand near bus stand. No relative of deceased met them in the hospital. Eyewitness Kanhaiya met them in the hospital at 9:10 am. There was no demonstration in the hospital. He volunteered however, a gathering collected there. They returned to PS at around 07:00 PM from the spot. He denied the suggestion that no churi was produced in his presence. The churi was produced in open condition. On the sharp edge of Churi, Lord stainless steel was written.
During his cross-examination done by Sh. Rajender Choudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu, he was not able to recall as to whether the name of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu was not mentioned by the complainant Kanhaiya Lal in his complaint on the basis of which the present FIR was registered (FIR Ex. PW- 1/A was shown to the witness ). He affirmed that in spite of fact that accused Yogesh @ Kalli disclosed that he had concealed a mobile phone belonging to deceased at Kasba Gulawthi but the IO did not go at Kasba Gulawthi to recover the said mobile. He affirmed that the recovery of the articles from Yogesh @ Kalli and his arrest is the same place. The informer had left the raiding party about 400-500 meters away from Bhagatji Temple. He did not know Yogesh @ Kalli prior to his arrest. He did not know at FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 54 of 106 whose identification, the IO apprehended the accused Yogesh @ Kalli. On 04.08.2010, the accused Yogesh @ Kalli had made his supplementary disclosure statement in the police station in the noon time at about 11.00/12.00. He did not notice any atmospheric change on alleged recovered purse. IO had given the notice Ex. PW28/A to accused Yogesh @ Kalli before his arrest at about 03:30 pm from identification of eyewitness Kanhaiya. IO did not produce the accused for the TIP by the eye witness. He denied the suggestion that IO had produced the accused for the TIP before the court and he deposed falsely. IO did not take any mark of identification before sealing the case property allegedly recovered from Yogesh @ Kalli.
PW24 ASI Satya Prakash deposed that on 12.07.2010, he was posted in North-East Zone, PCR, Bhajanpura. On that day, he was on duty and having base of their vehicle, Backer-45 at Chowk Near Traffic Post, Khajuri Khas. He had reported on his duty at about 7.50 a.m. At about 7.54 a.m., he received a call about a quarrel in Gali No. 4, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. After receiving the call, they had reached there. He found one boy in injured condition was lying there. He was semi- unconscious condition. One knife was also lying near the boy. He took the said boy by his PCR Van to GTB Hospital. He also took the knife from there and kept with him at that time. Injured was admitted in the hospital by them. Later on, he had handed over the knife to ASI Vijay Kumar who was Duty Officer at PS Khajuri Khas. Thereafter, he had returned to his base. IO of this case, Inspector Vijay Bhusan came to him at his base and made enquiries from him. He had inspected the site at his instance and prepared the site plan Ex.PW24/A. His statement was recorded FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 55 of 106 by IO. Thereafter, he returned to his base.
He identified the case property i.e. chhuri/knife Ex. P-1A as same knife which was found by him near the injured boy and handed over by him to the Duty Officer of PS Khajuri Khas.
In his cross-examination by Sh. S.K Ahluwalia, Ld. counsel for the accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar PW24 stated that the knife was lying at a distance of 2 foot from the left hand of the said boy. During that period knife was kept on a paper in the PCR Van. That paper might have been stained with slight blood. Said paper was not handed over to Duty officer. Site plan Ex. PW-24 /A was prepared between 05:00 P.M -06:00 pm at his instance on the same day and at that time his statement was recorded by IO. Site plan Ex. PW-24 A was prepared between 5.00-06:00 PM.
In his cross examination by Sh. Chaudhary Rajender Singh, Ld. counsel for the accused Yogesh @ Kali and Parvinder @ Titu, PW-24 affirmed that SI Mintu Singh had not shown him the spot where the injured Kamal Suffered injuries and therefore, he has not shown the same in his scaled site plan He had also not shown him the points /spot where the blood stains were found or lifted.
PW25 Mukesh Kumar Jain was the police official who had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW25/A at the instance of SI Mintu Singh Gautam.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he affirmed that SI Mintu Singh had not shown him the spot where the injured Kamal suffered injuries and therefore, he had not shown the same in scaled site plan. He had also not shown him the points/ spot where the blood stains were found or lifted.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 56 of 106PW26 Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, Ld. CMM, Dwarka Courts was the judicial officer who conducted TIP of recovered purse on the application moved by Inspector Safdar Ali on 17.08.2010. The record pertaining to TIP proceedings proved by him are Ex.PW26/B to Ex.PW26/C and Ex. PW8/A whereby the said purse was correctly identified by the father of deceased namely Balam Singh.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
PW27 ASI Puran Singh deposed that on 14.07.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as HC. On that day, he along with HC Rajesh, Ct. Sanjay, Inspector Safdar Ali had gone to PS Mahroli where accused Bachchan Nagar was apprehended. IO obtained documents from SI Ashok Kumar and thereafter, they had come to Patiala House Court there accused Bachchan Nagar and accused Umesh Kumar (correctly identified by witness) were arrested after the permission of the Court. Disclosure statement of both the accused persons were recorded by Inspector Safdar Ali. Thereafter, both the accused persons were brought to Karkarduma Court and there, police remand of both the accused persons were taken. Accused persons were taken to the area of PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi. They had pointed out the place of incidents ie Nanaksar Gurudwara, Wazirabad Road and A-183, Gali No. 4, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi IO prepared pointing out memo in this regard which were signed by him.
On 15.07.2010, he again joined the investigation of this case along with IO, HC Ashok, HC Lakhender and Balam Singh. Further disclosure statement of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar were recorded wherein they had confessed about FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 57 of 106 killing deceased Kamal. They had also disclosed to get recover the car, slippers and rod. They had gone to Pushta Road. Accused Umesh got recovered one iron rod from near heap of bricks, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar towards Yamuna Side. Road was kept a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of 'SA' and taken into police possession through seizure memo which was signed by him.
Thereafter, accused Bachchan Nagar got recovered one car bearing registration No. DL9CR-3229 from free parking, Third Pushta, Sonia Vihar. Car was taken into police possession through seizure memo. Thereafter, they had gone to Yamuna Khadar where accused Bachchan Nagar got recorded slippers of deceased which was taken into police possession after keeping in a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of 'SA' through seizure memo which were signed by him Seal after use was handed over to him. His statement was recorded by IO. On 16.07.2010, he along with IO had gone to PS Mehroli where IO recorded statement of witnesses.
On 03.08.2010, he along with SI Mintu Singh, Inspector Safdar Ali were present at Second Pushta, Sonia Vihar at about 3.00 p.m. In the meantime, a secret information was received to IO about arriving of co-accused Yogesh @ Kalli at Baghatji Mandir, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi to meet his friend. On this information, IO asked 4-5 passer-by to join the raiding party but no one has agreed to join the investigation and left without telling their names and addresses. Thereafter, at about 3.25 p.m., they had taken position in the gali. At about 3.40 p.m., accused Yogesh @ Kalli present in the Court today, came there. He was stopped and interrogated. He was arrested in this case. On FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 58 of 106 interrogation, he made disclosure statement. Accused Yogesh @ Kalli had appointed out both the places from where deceased was lifted and the place at which deceased was killed. Accused was sent to lock-up.
On 04.08.2010, he along with SI Mintu Singh, Inspector Vijay Bhushan joined the investigation of this case. Disclosure statement of accused Yogesh was recorded. He had confessed that he had kept documents of the deceased at B-Block, Bhagatji Mandir in a space near bricks. They had gone to there with accused Yogesh @ Kalli. There, accused Yogesh produced one Election I-Card and one Education Card of deceased besides some visiting cards and a purse to IO. Same were taken into police possession through seizure memo after keeping in a pulanda which were sealed with the seal of IO. Seal after use was handed over to SI Mintu Singh.
On 03.09.2010, he had again joined the investigation of this case. He along with Inspector Safdar Ali and Balam Singh came to Karkarduma Courts and reached in the Court of Sh. Satish Kumar, Ld. MM. TIP of case property was conducted.
On 19.11.2010, accused Praveen Nagar (correctly identified by witness) surrendered before JJB Board. He was formally arrested in this case and documents were prepared by IO.
On 27.01.2011, he along with Ct. Sajjan, Inspector Safdar Ali came to Karkarduma Courts where accused Parvender @ Titu (correctly identified by witness), had surrendered before the Court. After permission of the Court, he was interrogated and arrested by IO. His disclosure statement was recorded. Documents of his arrest and disclosure statement were signed by FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 59 of 106 him. Accused was asked to keep his face muffled. Accused was sent to JC in this case.
On 06.02.2011, police remand of accused Parvinder @ Titu was taken from the Court. He was taken to police station. He was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. He had pointed out both the places. IO prepared memos in this regard.
He identified the case property i.e. one black purse Ex.P-1, Election ID Card of Kamal Ex.P-2, College I Card of Kamal Ex.P-3, and few visiting cards Ex.P-4 as the same as got recovered by accused Yogesh @ Kali; one slipper Ex. P-5 as the same recovered at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar; one iron rod Ex.P-6 as the same as got recovered by accused Umesh.
In his cross-examination done by Sh. Satish Verma, Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar and Parveen Nagar and Sh. P.K. Dham, Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar PW27 affirmed that IO did not interrogate the accused persons and or any other person about the key of the car and second slipper. He affirmed that car was parked in the open parking, meant for public besides the other vehicles. The iron rod about which he has deposed was recovered at about 12.00 mid night.
In his cross-examination done by Sh. K.C. Maini, Advocate for accused Umesh, PW-27 deposed that father of deceased Balam Singh had reached there i.e. police station at his own. Signatures of Balam Singh were not obtained on any document/paper on 14.07.2010. He did not remember as to whether any entry was made by him in this regard or not. He did not remember as to whether he got lodged any DD entry FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 60 of 106 regarding his leaving the police station on that day. He affirmed that on 12.07.2010 the investigation of the present case was going on. No site plan was prepared at that time. No photograph was taken at that time. The place from where the rod was recovered was an open place. No site plan of the place of recovery of the rod was prepared. He could not say as to such rod is easily available in the market. He did not remember as to whether any of the accused had disclosed during their interrogation that they had used dandas and knives while committing the offence in the present case. He denied the suggestion that accused Umesh was booked as an accused in the present case due to political pressure. He denied the suggestion that IO had told in his presence that accused Umesh was not involved / linked with the present case. He was not aware as to whether public had looted the domestic articles from the house of Umesh after setting his house on fire.
During his cross examination done by Sh. Chaudhary Rajender Singh, advocate for accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu, he was not aware as to whether departure entry was made by his senior or not. However, he personally not made the same. Secret informer left them before 500 meters at B-Block from Bhagatji Mandir after pointing out towards the accused. After pointing out towards the accused by the secret informer, they did not ask any public person to join the investigation. In his presence, no notice was served to those public persons who refused to join the investigation. Accused was apprehended when he came near to them in the said gali. Inspector Safdar Ali asked him to stop and accordingly, he stopped.
He affirmed that in pursuance of first disclosure statement FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 61 of 106 of accused Yogesh @ Kalli, no recovery was effected. He affirmed that in his presence, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was not taken to Gulawti for the purpose of recovery of the said mobile phone. He affirmed that accused Umesh and Bachchan were arrested in his presence. He affirmed that their disclosure statements were recorded. He affirmed that accused Umesh and Bachchan did not disclose the name of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder and their involvement, in their disclosure statements. He affirmed that in the second disclosure statement of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh the names of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder had come. IO did not ask any public persons to join investigation at the time of recovery of purse. He affirmed that the purse was got recovered from open place. He had visited the house of deceased but he could not tell the complete address of the deceased. The place of recovery of dead body was about less than half kilometer away from the house of the deceased. The distance between house of deceased and Nanaksar is about less than one kilometer. He affirmed that the complainant of the present case is Kanhaiya. He affirmed that Kanhaiya did not mention the name of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder in the FIR.
PW28 Sh. Ankur Jain, Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge, was the Metropolitan Magistrate, who had conducted TIP proceedings of accused Yogesh @Kali on 04.08.2010. He has proved record pertaining to TIP proceedings Ex. PW25/A to PW28/C whereby the accused Yogegsh @ Kalli had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 62 of 106PW29 Dr. Naresh Damesha, Neuro Surgery was the Doctor who had examined the victim at GTB hospital on 12.07.2010 and declared the victim as brought dead. He has proved MLC prepared by him as Ex. PW29/A. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW30 SI Ashok was investigating official who was the member of the raiding team constituted at the time of arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh on the basis of secret informer. He deposed on the same on lines on which PW16 HC Ashok has deposed.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he did not ask any shopkeeper to join the raiding party including any employee of Aggarwal Sweets. No notice was served on the public persons who refused to join the raiding team due to shortage of time.
PW31 ASI Vijay Kumar deposed that on 12.07.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as HC. On that day, he was on duty as Duty Officer from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On that day, at about 9.45 a.m. HC Satya Prakash, In-charge Baker-45, PCR came to him and produced one chhuri which was stained with blood. He had informed him that said chhuri was recovered from Gali No. 4, A-Block, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, HC Satya Prakash had left the police station. He kept the said chhuri in his box.
On the same day at about 3.00 p.m.-4.00 p.m., Inspector Vijay Bhushan came to him. He had produced the said chhuri before him. He took measurements of the said chhuri and prepared a sketch thereof on a white paper which is already exhibited as Ex.PW23/A. Thereafter, Inspector Vijay Bhushan FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 63 of 106 kept the chhuri in a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of 'VB' and taken into police possession vide seizure memo which is already exhibited as Ex.PW23/B. He identified the case property i.e. chhuri Ex. P-LA.
He was not cross-examined by Sh. P.K Dham, Ld. defence counsel for accused Bachchan Nagar and Parveen Nagar despite given opportunity.
In his cross examination done by Sh. K.C. Mani, Advocate for accused Umesh he stated that Churi was produced before him in opened condition and it was not wrapped in anything.
He was not cross-examined by Sh. R.K. Chaudhary, Advocate for accused Parvinder and Yogesh despite given opportunity.
PW32 Inspector Vijay Bhushan, deposed that on 12.07.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as inspector Investigation. On that day, while he was present in the PS, DD Nos. 2A and 3A about kidnapping was received to SI Mintu Singh. He was also apprised about the same by duty officer. Vide DD No. 5A, he had gone for the verification of DD No. 2A and 3A by Govt. Zypsy and reached Nanaksar along with Ct. Prakash and driver Ct. Jitender. At bus stand Nanaksar SI Mintu Singh met him. No information about kidnapping was found there. He received information about DD No. 7A from Duty Officer regarding beating of a person at Bhagatji Mandir, Sonia Vihar. Thereafter, he along with SI Mintu and staff had reached A- block, Sonia Vihar. There they found a crowd. He was informed that injured taken to GTB hospital by PCR vehicle. Thereafter they had reached at GTB Hospital. There he obtained MLC of injured Kamal who was endorsed brought dead and dead body FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 64 of 106 was referred to mortuary for postmortem. He inspected the dead body of deceased Kamal. There was injury marks on the head, hands and legs. The marks were sharp and blunt. Eye witness of the incident namely Kanhaiya @ Kanu met him in the hospital who had informed him in this regard. He recorded his statement already Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement on his statement and prepared rukka Ex.PW32/A. He had send rukka to PS for registration of FIR through Ct. Prakash, Ct. Prakash had returned back after registration of FIR and produced rukka and copy of FIR before him. Dead body was got identified. He recorded statement of the witnesses in this regard which are already Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW7/A. He had prepared inquest papers which are Ex.PW32/B (colly.). Thereafter postmortem on the body of the deceased was got conducted. After postmortem dead body was handed over to father of deceased vide receipt already Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, he along with Kanhaiya had reached the spot at Nanaksar. At his instance, he inspected the site and prepared site plan Ex.PW32/C. Spot was also got inspected through crime team. He recorded statement of Kanhaiya and relieved him. Thereafter they along with members of the crime team had reached at Khazoori Chowk where PCR Vehicle Baker 45 was found along with incharge HC Satya Prakash. After taking him with them, they had reached A-block, Sonia Vihar. There HC Satya Prakash pointed out the place from where he had lifted the body of injured and the place from where he had found the Chura. He prepared site plan Ex.PW24/A of the said place. Photographs of the said place was also taken through mobile. The said spot was washed to remove the blood. HC Satya Prakash FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 65 of 106 informed him that he had handed over the said chura to the duty officer ASI Vijay Kumar of PS Khazuri. He recorded his statement and relieved him. Crime team also inspected the site. He recorded statement of crime team officials and also relieved them. Thereafter they had reached at PS Khazuri. He met ASI Vijay Kumar. He produced chura before him which was blood stained. He prepared sketch of the chura as Ex.PW23/A. Chura was kept in a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of VB and taken into police possession through seizure memo Ex.PW23/B. He recorded statement of ASI Vijay Kumar. Thereafter, they had returned to PS Sonia Vihar. He recorded statement of witnesses and deposited case property in malkhana.
Thereafter on 14.07.2010, he handed over the case file to SHO Inspector Safdar Ali as investigation was assigned to him on the directions of senior officers.
On 04.08.2010, since Inspector Safdar Ali was on leave, therefore file of this case was received to him. He had produced accused Yogesh @ Kalli who was already arrested and in muffled face before the Court. He moved application for his TIP. Accused had refused to join TIP. He obtained one day police remand of accused Yogesh @ Kalli. He had interrogated accused Yogesh @ Kalli and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW23/H. Thereafter at the instance of accused Yogesh purse of deceased Kamal was recovered from a wall behind Bhagatji Mandir. On being checked, one election I-card of Kamlesh Rawat one I-card of school and some visiting cards were found in the said purse Purse along with articles were kept in a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of VB and taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW23/I. Thereafter they had returned FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 66 of 106 to PS. He deposited pulanda in Malkhana and recorded statements of witnesses.
On 05.08.2010, accused Yogesh sent to JC after producing him before the Court. Case file was again handed over to Inspector Safdar Ali. On 05.02.2011, since SHO had proceeded on leave, therefore he again received the file. He had gone to the concerned Court where accused Parvinder @ Titu was produced on production warrant. He had interrogated him after obtaining instruction from the Court. He obtained one day police remand of accused Parvinder @ Titu. Accused was taken at Nanaksar. He had pointed out the spot vide pointing out memo Ex.PW32/D. Thereafter they had returned to PS. He recorded statement of witnesses. Accused Parvinder @ Titu was sent to lock up of Bhajanpura.
On 06.02.2011, Accused was brought from the lock up and interrogated. His disclosure statement was recorded by him which vide Ex.PW23/L. He had also pointed out the place in A- block, Sonia Vihar vide pointing out memo Ex.PW23/M and Yamuna Khadar, Usmanpur vide pointing out memo Ex.PW23/N. He was produced before the Court and sent to JC. He had recorded statement of witnesses. He had returned the case file to Inspector Safdar Ali, SHO, PS Sonia Vihar.
He identified the case property i.e. one black colour purse as Ex.P-1 containing one Election I-Card of Kamlesh Rawat as Ex.P-2, one School I-Card of Kamlesh Rawat as Ex.P-3 and few visiting cards as Ex.P-4 as the same as got recovered by accused Yogesh; one chhura as Ex.P-1A as the same as produced before him by ASI Vijay Kumar and seized by him.
In his cross examination by Sh. P.K. Dham, Advocate for FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 67 of 106 accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, PW32 affirmed that position of Kanhaiya Lal from where he had seen the occurrence has not been shown and marked in the site plan by him. It is affirmed that when the dead body was seen by him in the hospital, it was bare feet and not wearing any shoes or skippers. It is affirmed that he did not make any enquiry from the father of the deceased as to what was deceased wearing on his feet when he left the house.
In his cross examination by Sh. K.C Maini, Advocate for accused Umesh, he affirmed that said police booth and temple were not shown in the site plan. He had not left any police official to guard the place of incident from where injured was removed. Initially, he did not reach up to the said place due to crowd and also due to the fact that he was informed about the fact that injured has been removed to the hospital, hence he cannot say whether blood was lying there or not. At that time he did not enquire from any person from the crowd about the incident. When he saw the dead body some sharp and blunt injuries were appeared to him on the head, chest, hand and legs. Father of the deceased me him in the hospital at about 11:00 am or 12:00 noon i.e. after recording statement of Kanhaiya. He also did not enquire from him as to whom he had made the calls prior recording his statement. Blood was washed from the spot by the accused persons. It was not washed in his presence. When he prepared the site plan at about 4.45 p.m., 7-8 persons were present there including police officials and Kanhaiya. Kanhaiya was with him since making his statement. He had not left him throughout.
Father of deceased namely Balam Singh had stated in his FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 68 of 106 statement that Kalli, Tillu, Diggi and Ajay Dogra have taken forcibly his son and murdered him. Statement of Balam Singh recorded U/s 161Cr.P.C. He volunteered that associates of accused persons along with them had taken deceased. He had not recorded the details of the associates in any other statement of Balam Singh as case file was assigned to Inspector Safdar Ali on 14.07.2010. He was aware that copy of FIR was sent to concerned Magistrate after registration of FIR on 12.07.2010. This fact is evident from the last para of FIR itself. It is correct that column No. 15 is blank. It is affirmed that public persons had attacked on the house of accused Umesh after 12.07.2010.
In his cross examination by Sh. Chaudhary Rajender Singh, Advocate for accused Parvinder and Yogesh, PW-32 affirmed that Yogesh and his brother Parvinder @ Titu were not named in FIR. Accused Yogesh got recovered the purse etc. at about 05:00 PM on 04.08.2010. They had reached at the place of recovery along with accused Yogesh directly from police station. It is affirmed that place of recovery was open place. He did not move any application for TIP of accused Parvinder.
PW33 SI Om Prakash was the member of the raiding party formed at the time of arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh on the basis of secret information. He deposed on the same lines on which PW30 HC Ashok has deposed.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that no notice was given to public persons who had refused to join the raid. He could not tell as to how many public persons had gathered there.
PW34 HC Virender Singh deposed that on 20.11.2010, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as HC. On that day, he was FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 69 of 106 working as MHC (M). Inspector Safdar Ali, SHO, PS Sonia Vihar came to him and made enquiries about a motor-cycle CBZ having chassis No. 07768 which was impounded in case FIR No. 181/10 PS Khajuri Khas. He had confirmed to him about the deposition of said motor-cycle in the malkhana of PS Khajuri Khas. Said motor-cycle was deposited in the malkhana on 13.07.2010. The registration number of the said motor-cycle was not legible. His statement was recorded by IO.
He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW35 SI Teg Bahadur (Retired) deposed that on 19.11.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SI. On that day, he along with Inspector Safdar Ali and HC Puran Singh had gone to Juvenile Justice Board, Kings Way Camp, Delhi. There, IO Inspector Safdar Ali formally interrogated accused Parveen Nagar after obtaining permission from the Board. Thereafter, he was detained in this case. His father was informed in this regard. He had signed the documents prepared by IO. The version of accused Parveen Nagar is Ex.PW35/A. He identified accused Parveen Nagar in the Court.
He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW36 Ms. Suchi Laler, Ld. MM who conducted TIP proceedings of accused Parvinder @ Titu, claimed that during TIP proceedings, held on 02.02.2011 at Tihar Jail, witness Kanhaiya had correctly identified accused Parvinder @ Titu. She has proved record pertaining to TIP proceedings as Ex. PW36/A and PW36/B. He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 70 of 106 nothing material came out therein.
PW37 ACP Safdar Ali is the second IO. He deposed that on 14-07-2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SHO. The investigation of this case was taken over by him from Inspector Vijay Bhushan, Inspector Investigation of PS Sonia Vihar. An information was received from PS Mehrauli on 13.07.2010 vide DD no. 13A about arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar, who were wanted in this case. He along with HC Puran Singh, HC Rajesh and Ct. Sanjay had reached at PS Mehrauli on 14.07.2010. He had met SI Ashok Kumar of PS Mehrauli and obtained copies of arrest papers of the accused persons. Thereafter, SI Ashok Kumar had produced accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar before the concerned court. He obtained permission from the court and interrogated both the accused persons. Accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Nagar were arrested in this case vide arrest memos Ex. PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B. Their disclosure statements were recorded by him. Disclosure statement of accused Bachchan Nagar is Ex. PW18/C and of accused Umesh Nagar is Ex. PW18/D. Thereafter, he moved an application before the court for obtaining permission to produce the accused persons before the court of PS Sonia Vihar.
Thereafter accused persons were produced before the concerned Court of Shri Sonu Agnihotri, Ld. MM of PS Sonia Vihar. He had moved an application for taking police remand of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh and obtained two days police remand. Thereafter, accused persons were got medically examined at GTB Hospital. Accused persons had pointed out the place of incident at Nanaksar vide memos Ex. PW18/F, Ex. PW18/E and of the place in gali no. 4 in front of house no.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 71 of 106A/183, Sonia Vihar vide memos Ex. PW18/G and Ex. PW18/H. Thereafter accused persons were taken to PS and they were interrogated. He had recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter they were sent to lock up of PS Bhajanpura.
On 15.07.2010, accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were taken out from the lock up of PS Bhajanpura and brought to PS Sonia Vihar. They were again interrogated in this case. He had recorded their supplementary disclosure statements vide memos Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW37/A. Thereafter he along with HC Ashok, HC Lakender Singh, HC Puran Singh and father of the deceased namely Balam Singh along with both the accused persons had gone to IIIrd Pusta Sonia Vihar. There at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar a Wagon Car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 was recovered from a parking. Car was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Thereafter accused Umesh led them to Ist Pusta, Sonia Vihar. There from a heap of bricks accused Umesh taken out a rod/pipe and produced the same before him stating the same to have been used in the incident. Said rod/pipe was about 3 foot and few cm in length. It was kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of S.A. and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D. Thereafter accused Bachchan Nagar led them near Paltoon Pool, Yamuna Khadar and from there he had got recovered a slipper/chappal of Spark which was lying on the ground stating the same belonging to the deceased. Father of the deceased, namely Balam Singh identified the slipper belonging to his deceased son namely Kamal. Slipper was kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of S.A. and taken into police FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 72 of 106 possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. Seal after use was handed over to HC Puran Singh. They had returned to PS and deposited case property in the malkhana. He had recorded statements of witnesses. Accused persons were sent to the lock up of PS Bhajanpura. On 16.07.2010, accused persons were produced before the Court and were sent to J/C. He had recorded statements of PW Smt. Rajbala, and police officials of PS Mehrauli namely SI Ashok Kumar, SI Om Prakash, HC Ashok Kumar and Ct. Sanjeev. He had also made searched for the remaining accused persons but they were not found.
On 24.07.2010, Ct. Raj Narayan had brought sealed parcels from GTB Hospital relating to the postmortem of deceased Kamal and handed over the same to the duty officer HC Anil, who had deposited the same in the malkhana. He recorded statement of Ct. Raj Narayan and HC Anil.
On 03.08.2010, he along with SI Mintoo Singh and HC Puran Singh had gone in search of remaining accused persons. At about 3.00 pm, at IInd Pusta near A-One Dharam Kanta a secret information was received that accused Yogesh @ Kalli would come at Ist Pusta, B Block. Hence, they had reached there. At about 4.10 pm, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was apprehended at the pointing out by secret informer. He was interrogated and arrested in this case. His arrest memo and personal search memos were prepared by him vide Ex. PW23/C and Ex. PW23/D. His disclosure statement is Ex. PW23/E. A notice was given to him to cover his face vide Ex. PW23/G-1.
Thereafter accused Yogesh @ Kalli had pointed out the place where dead body of Kamal was thrown vide memo Ex.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 73 of 106PW23/G, had also pointed out the place from where Kamal was lifted at Nanaksar vide memo Ex. PW23/F. Thereafter accused Yogesh was taken to PS. He had recorded statements of witnesses.
Due to illness, he had proceeded on medical rest therefore, file was given to Inspector Vijay Bhushan for further investigation on 03.08.2010. On 18.08.2010, WagonR car was released on supardari by the Court Order. On 03.09.2010, TIP of purse which was got recovered by accused Yogesh @ Kalli was got conducted through father of the deceased namely Balam Singh. During TIP, Balam Singh had identified the said purse belonging to his deceased son namely Kamal. His application for TIP is Ex. PW26/A. On 06.09.2010, he had taken sealed pullanda of Iron Pipe and of Churri from malkhana and had gone to GTB Hospital and moved an application before Autopsy Surgeon for obtaining subsequent opinion. His application in this regard is Ex. PW37/B. After handing over the said parcels to Dr. Meghali Kelkar, he had returned from GTB Hospital.
On 16.09.2010, he took SI Mukesh Jain, Draftsman to Gali No. Sonia Vihar, Delhi where Kamal was thrown. SI Mukesh Jain had taken ugh notes and measurements on the instance of SI Mintu Singh who was also with us. He had recorded their statements. On 28.09.2010, three exhibits i.e. one sealed parcel of the clothes of deceased, one sealed parcel having blood gauze of deceased and one sealed parcel of knife along with the sample seal were sent to the FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 36/21 through Ct. Istkhar. He had also recorded the statement of Ct. Istkhar and HC/MHC(M) Sandeep Kumar.
On 06.10.2010, a notice under Section 133 of the MV Act FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 74 of 106 was given to the owner namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar of WagonR car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 Ex. PW37/N and he had replied on the notice that the said car was gifted by him to his niece namely Smt. Meenakshi in the year 2007 in her marriage and the car was being financed therefore, the ownership was not transferred in her name and the said car was being used by her husband namely Sh. Bachchan Nagar and on 12.07.2010, the said car was being used by him. Reply is Ex.PW37/O. He had also recorded the statement of Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
On 19.11.2010, he along with SI Teg Bahadur and HC Puran Singh reached JJB, Kingsway Camp where accused Praveen Nagar had surrendered before JJB Court. After getting permission from the JJB, he was interrogated and his version was recorded vide Ex.PW35/A. He was detained vide memo Ex.PW37/C. His personal search was also conducted vide PW37/D. His request for interrogation of accused Praveen Nagar is Ex.PW37/E. Request was also made for two days' custody. Request is Ex. PW37/F. Request was not allowed. Thereafter, he was sent to observation home. He had recorded statements of SI Teg Bahadur and HC Puran singh.
As the accused Praveen Nagar had disclosed that motorcycle which was used in the crime was seized by the officials of PS Khajuri Khas. Therefore, he along with HC Puran Singh reached PS Khajuri Khas and where MHC(M) had inquired about the motorcycle and it revealed that the said motorcycle was deposited in malkhana in case FIR No. 181/2010. He had recorded the statement of HC Birender, MHC(M) Khajuri Khas.
On 27.01.2011, accused Parvinder @ Titu has filed an FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 75 of 106 application for surrender in the Court of Sh. Sonu Agnihotri, Ld. MM. He along with HC Puran Singh and Ct. Sajjan reached the Court. Application for interrogation of formal arrest of accused Parvinder @ Titu was filed before the Court vide Ex.PW37/G. He was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW37/H. A notice was also given to accused Parvinder @ Titu to keep himself in muffled face vide Ex.PW37/I. After interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW37/J and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW37/K. On 27.01.2011, an application for TIP of the accused Parvinder @ Titu was also filed vide Ex.PW37/L in the Court of Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Ld. ACMM and the Ld. ACMM had given directions to put up the same before the concerned Magistrate and after putting the application before the concerned Magistrate, the application was marked for the Ld. Link Magistrate for 28.01.2011. He had recorded statement of HC Puran Singh and Ct. Sajjan.
On 28.01.2011, the Ld. Link Magistrate had given the date for TIP on 02.02.2011. On 02.02.2011, TIP of the accused Parvinder @ Titu was conducted at Tihar Jail. He had filed an application for supplying the copy of TIP Proceedings vide Ex.PW37/M. In the TIP Proceedings, complainant Kanhaiya @ Kanu had identified the accused Parvinder @ Titu.
During investigation, he had collected scaled site plan, subsequent opinion and recorded statement of witnesses. Copy of application moved before the Court of PS Mehroli for obtaining permission for interrogating the accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar is Ex.PW37/X. Carbon copy of application for obtaining police remand of both the accused persons moved FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 76 of 106 before the Court of Sh. Sonu Agnihotri is Ex.PW37/Y. Superdarinama for releasing the car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 is Ex.PW37/X1. Copy of DD no. 7A dated 12.07.2010 is Ex.PW37/X2 and copy of DD no. 13A is Ex.PW37/X3. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. On receipt of FSL result was also submitted in the Court through his application Ex.PW37/Z. He tender FSL result in evidence. Same are Ex.PX and Ex.PY.
He identified that accused persons in the Court. He stated that he can identify the case property if shown to him.
The WagonR car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 Ex. P-7 was on superdari and its identity was not disputed; the identity of slipper / chappal Ex. P-5, which was recovered at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar, was not disputed; and identity of iron rod Ex. P-6 got recovered by accused Umesh Kumar was not disputed.
In his cross examination by Sh. P.K. Dham, Advocate for the accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, PW-37 affirmed that he did not find any blood stains in WagonR car in question. He did not prepare any document regarding the enquiry about the second chappal from the accused Bachchan Nagar and this fact was not recorded anywhere by him. He did not get recovered the keys of the WagonR car. He denied that he did not question about it from the accused. He did not remember the size of the recovered chappal. It appeared that the witness was avoiding the answer. Chappal and iron rod were deposited in the malkhana at the same time after reaching the police station at about 03:00-04:00 PM.
In his cross examination by Sh. K.C Maini, Advocate for FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 77 of 106 the accused Umesh, PW-37 stated that the police officials of PS Mehroli did not enquire about registration of case prior apprehension of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused Umesh did not make any disclosure statement on 14.07.2010. He affirmed that place of incident was known to the police prior to the arrest of accused Umesh. The heap of bricks was about 15-20 meters away from the road. He did not prepare site plan of the place of recovery of iron pipe. He also do not prepare sketch of iron pipe. No public persons had joined the investigation. He did not give any notice to any public person. Chappal was recovered from Yamuna Khadar. He denied the suggestion that he did not record statement of Rajbala. In his presence, sketch of the rod was not prepared. Subsequent opinion was taken by deposing the rod on 06.09.2010. He did not notice blood on the rod at the time of recovery. There was no specific identity mark on iron pipe/rod.
In his cross-examination by Sh. C. R. Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto, he affirmed that name of accused Yogesh and Parvinder was not there in FIR. He affirmed that in first disclosure statement of accused Bachchan and Umesh, there was no mention of their names. He affirmed that he had mentioned the name of Smt. Raj Bala as one of the witness in this case, who named accused Parvinder in her statement. He affirmed that he did not get TIP conducted through Smt. Raj Bala. He did not record supplementary statement of Kanhaiya. Accused Yogesh @ Kalli was not known to him. He denied that he was not kept in muffled face. He denied that he was shown to both the witnesses and then put to TIP. No recovery was effected from accused Yogesh by him.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 78 of 106PW38 Ms. Arti Rawat deposed that deceased Kamal was her brother. A mobile no. 9899665524 was issued on her ID proof i.e. Pan card and same was used by her deceased brother Kamal. Photocopy of CAF on judicial record was marked as Mark PW38/A and photocopy of Pan card was exhibited as Ex. PW38/A. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she denied that she was intentionally stating that she was not confirmed about voter ID of her brother Kamal though I-card was issued.
PW39 Sh. V. Shankaranarayanan, Sr. Scientific Officer from FSL examined the exhibits at FSL Rohini. On biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1, 2a to 2d and 3. he proved the detailed biological report as Ex. P-X. The exhibits were also examined by him serologically. On serological examination, exhibits, 1, 2a to 2d and 3 gave reaction for human origin of blood. Exhibits 2a to 2d and 3 showed reaction for human blood group 'A'. He proved the detailed serological report as Ex. P-Y. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW40 Surender Kumar is Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. He deposed that mobile phone no. 9650502250 was issued to Parvinder vide CAF no. 6399698 Ex. PW40/A. He proved that subscriber details i.e. Pan card as Ex. PW40/B and Ex. PW40/C; photocopy of electricity bill as Ex. PW40/D and CDR of the said mobile number for the period 12-07-2010 to 13-07- 2010 as Ex. PW40/E. He also proved the CDR of the mobile number FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 79 of 106 9650502350 for the period 12-07-2010 to 13-07-2010 vide Ex. PW40/F. The mobile phone no. 9650502350 was issued to Parvinder vide CAF no. 6811 as Ex. PW40/G; photocopy of Pan card as Ex. PW40/H and Ex. PW40/I. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
PW41 Sh. Yogesh Tripathi is Nodal Officer from Reliance Communication Ltd. He has proved the CDR no. 6922042852 of the mobile number 9350369633 for one day i.e. 12-07-2010 vide Ex. PW41/A, photocopy of election I-card as Ex. PW41/B. The said mobile phone number was issued to Bachchan Singh Nagar. The call details with Cell ID charge of said mobile number is Ex. PW41/C and Ex. PW41/D and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. 41/E. The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW42 Anuj Bhatia is Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. He has proved the CAF of mobile no. 9899265263 in the name of Umesh Kumar as Ex. PW42/A; copy of election I-card as Ex. PW42/B and CDR dated 12-07-2010 as Ex. PW42/C. He has also proved the CAF of mobile no. 9899665524 in the name of Arti Rawat as Ex. PW42/D; copy of MTNL bill as Ex. PW42/E; CDR of said number for 12-07-2010 as Ex. PW42/F. He has also proved the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act for the above-said numbers as Ex. PW42/G and Ex. PW42/H. The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 80 of 106SI Vijay Kumar was also examined as PW42 on an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. moved by ld. Spl. Addl. PP for State. He deposed that on 11/12-07-2010, he was posted as PS Khajuri Khas as ASI. On 12-07-2010 at about 7:55 am, he received a call from PCR W/Ct. Seema stating that, "quarrel and beating, mobile no. 9350369633, H. No. 183, A Block, gali no. 4, 1 st Pushta Sonia Vihar". He recorded DD no. 2A Ex. PW42/A. in this regard and marked the same to ASI Dayanand.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing material came out therein.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused persons, which were denied by them. Accused Bachchan Nagar stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated. Nothing was recovered at his instance and police has planted the alleged recovery. He had surrendered before the police as the police, in connivance with father of deceased, were pressurizing and terrorizing his family members and they had also set his house on fire, regarding which FIR was registered. He was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. PW Kanhaiya was a false witness, who deposed under pressure and due to beatings given to him by Goswami, Mahesh, Surjit and Sandeep and he was threatened by police to depose against him otherwise, he would be falsely implicated.
Accused Umesh stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered at his instance FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 81 of 106 but the police planted the alleged recovery upon him. On 12-07- 2010, two policemen came to his house between 2-3 pm and told that SHO had called him and he went to PS with them, where several personal were already present. Police officials told him that his name was appearing in FIR, he told them that he was not present at the spot and he was taking tuition at his house. He was a student of BCA and preparing for his exams, scheduled after one week. Later on, he was arrested in this case. He did not know the deceased as well as PW1 Kanhaiya but his name has been falsely dragged in this case.
Praveen Kumar Nagar stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. At the time of alleged incident, he was juvenile and did not know driving motorcycle and other vehicles. He went to Haridwar on the day prior to the date of alleged incident and was at Haridwar on the date of incident and returned back to Delhi in the evening on the date of alleged incident.
Accused Yogesh @ Kalli stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case by the IO in view of second disclosure statement of accused persons Bachchan Nagar and Umesh.
Accused Parvinder @ Tittu stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Praveen Kumar Nagar opted to lead defence evidence and examined DW1 Kapil. Accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu did not opt to lead defence evidence.
6. DEFENCE EVIDENCE DW-1 Kapil deposed that he used to take coaching from FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 82 of 106 accused Umesh from Class 6th to 9th. In July 2010, he was in 9th Class and rejoined the coaching with accused Umesh. Accused Umesh used to take test on 2 nd and 4th Monday of month. In July 2010, on 2nd Monday, he gave test in the coaching before accused Umesh. The batch was from period 6:30 am to 8:30 am and test was also held between this period. This was his last day of coaching before accused Umesh.
During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he could not tell the complete address of the coaching center where he used to take classes from accused Umesh. He was not having any documentary evidence to prove that he paid the said tuition fee to accused Umesh during the said period of three years. He was not having any documentary evidence i.e. test papers or any other record to show that he used to take coaching from accused Umesh during the said period of three years. He was not having any documentary evidence to show that accused Umesh used to take tests on 2nd and 4th Monday of every month or that on 2 nd Monday of July 2010, accused had taken test between 6:30 am to 8:30 am. He had not brought any documentary proof to show that H. No. A-582, Street no. 13, Pocket-A, Zero Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi is registered in the name of his mother. He never gave any complaint or representation before the police or any other govt. authority stating therein that accused had taken his test in coaching class on 2nd Monday of July 2010, accused had taken their test between 6:30 am to 8:30 am.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record.
Sh. R. K. Satyarthi, Ld. Spl. Addl. PP for the State FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 83 of 106 submitted that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s 364/302/201/34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts. There is no major discrepancy or contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Despite the fact that PW2 Rajbala and PW4 Babu have not supported the case of the Prosecution, nevertheless, the case of the Prosecution stands on strong footing. It is submitted by ld. Spl. PP for State that case of the prosecution is based on direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. PW1 Kanhaiya is the eyewitness got examined by the prosecution. His testimony dated 05-09-2011 is consistent with his statement made by him at the time of registration of FIR. He has correctly identified all the accused persons in the court. On 17-07-2012, PW1 again supported the case of the prosecution when he was recalled upon framing of charge against the accused Praveen following conclusion of his age inquiry. However, it is conceded that qua accused Yogesh and Parvinder, he remained hostile. On 17-02-2011, PW1 Kanhaiya got one FIR lodged for receiving threats. Reliance is placed upon DD no. 2A dated 12-07-2010 pursuant to PCR call made by accused Bachchan and after this call, the accused fled from the spot. This shows subsequent conduct of accused Bachchan Nagar. There was a false claim of juvenility by accused Praveen Nagar, which proves his subsequent conduct. Apart from the direct evidence, the prosecution has also led circumstantial evidence. The vehicle used in the commission of offence i.e. one WagonR car was recovered at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar. Iron rod was recovered at the instance of accused Umesh. The chappal of deceased was recovered at FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 84 of 106 the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar. All these recoveries of incriminating articles have been carried out in the presence of public witness i.e. PW8 Balam, who is father of deceased. The purse of deceased was recovered at the instance of accused Yogesh which was duly identified by the father of deceased Balam Singh during TIP proceedings. PW6 Ravinder proves the fact that vehicle i.e. WagonR car was with accused Bachchan Nagar. Accused Yogesh refused to participate in TIP proceedings, which also proves his subsequent conduct. The postmortem report Ex. PW15/A indicates 76 injuries on the person of deceased which is reflection of intention of accused persons to commit murder. During investigation, one blood- stained knife was also recovered along with the dead body. The recovery thereof is proved by PW24 ASI Satya Prakash. As per FSL report, blood upon the said knife was found to be that of deceased. The recovery pursuant to disclosure of accused persons carries significant evidentiary value as the same were carried out in the presence of PW8 Balam Singh. As per subsequent opinion of autopsy surgeon, the recovered weapon of offence i.e. iron rod at the instance of accused Umesh is found to be compatible with the injuries inflicted upon the deceased. In support of his arguments, Ld. Addl. PP for State has relied upon the following authorities:
1. Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal no. 413/1982: (1991) 3 SCC 627;
2. Harendra Pal Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Crl. Appal no.
1726/15; 2023/INSC/738.
Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that PW1 Kanhaiya @ Kanu was eyewitness of the incident. He was called FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 85 of 106 on different dates and finally on 17-07-2012, he resiled from his earlier statements. It is further submitted that PW1 had identified the accused Parvinder @ Titu in TIP proceedings on 27-01-2011. The accused Parveen Nagar came before this court when Juvenile Justice Board declined to declare him as juvenile on 30-04-2012. PW1 correctly identified accused Parvinder @ Titu and corroborated his role with respect to assault and murder of Kamal Singh near Nanaksar T-point. PW1 filed complaint upon which FIR No. 16/2011 dated 17-07-2011 u/s 323/341/504/506/34 of IPC was registered on 17-02-2011 when he was threatened by the accused persons. PW1 filed written complaint in the court of Sh. R.P.S. Teji, the then Ld. ASJ, KKD through Ld. APP. Letter was written by Sh. Mohan Singh Bisht dated 09-09-2011 to O/O DCP, East District, Delhi. In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon the following authorities:-
1. Babu Ram Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Ors, 1998 CRI.L.J 835;
2. Valson and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 208;
3. Smt. Kastura Devi and Anr. Vs. State of UP, 2000 Cri.L.J. 2851;
4. Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao Vs. Ponna Satyanarayana and Anr., 2000 Crl.L.J. 3175;
5. Munna and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Crl.L.J. 4127;
6. Manohar Lal alias Munna and Anr. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2000 Supreme Court 420.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has submitted that only one eye-witness got examined by the prosecution i.e. PW1 Kanhaiya and his testimony is doubtful on FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 86 of 106 following grounds:-
1. DD no. 2A was got recorded at 7:02 am by the father of deceased. He did not disclose the name of assailant and make of the car.
2. DD no. 3A was got recorded at 7:04 am by PW6. He did not disclose the number of assailants and the fact if said car was followed by bike. As per DD no. 7A, reference of accused Umesh was not there.
3. IO did not mention in the site plan Ex. PW24/C as to on whose instance it was prepared. The position of PW1 Kanhaiya is not shown in the site plan. The IO did not mention in the sketch of knife Ex. PW23/A as to which edge of knife was sharp and which was blunt.
The attention of the court was drawn towards testimony of PW1 wherein he stated that on 05-09-2011, 4 persons came out from WagonR car, Praveen Nagar came on motorcycle with two other boys, thus, he is alleging involvement of 7 persons. He deposed on 17-10-2011 in cross-examination that Yogesh and Praveen were not present at the time of incident at Nanaksar. He further deposed that accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were having iron rod with them at that time, however, only one rod was alleged to be used and recovered. He deposed that three persons used the rod. He did not try to save Kamal by going other side of road which is highly unnatural conduct of the witness. No person were present near the spot raised any hue and cry at the time of incident. He did not inform those police officials by going to auto stand and he was frightened and straightway went to the house of Kamal after hiring auto. He deposed that he was not having mobile at that time, however, a FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 87 of 106 mobile no. 9899425119 is specifically mentioned in the FIR. It was about 7:30, he had met parents of Kamal at their house and father of Kamal had made a 100 number call, however, PW8 deposed that PW1 came at his house at 7 am. He deposed on 15- 11-2011, that there was well maintained park at pushta no. 2½ which is 708 minutes walking distance from the house and there is no footpath for pedestrian on any side of road, thus he was introduced subsequently. There was permanent constructed police booth with telephone numbers of police on it on the road which leads to Sonia Vihar. Even then, he did not inform to police. It is highly improbable that accused persons took the victim from front of his house. On 09-08-2012, he deposed that Ex. PW1/A was a plain blank paper which he was made to sign the same and there was no question of having read over the same. He deposed on 18-08-2012 that he did not tell the names of assailants to the father of Kamal as he had not seen the incident. He deposed that he was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh, Surjeet and Sandeep and due to their beatings, he had deposed in the court against the accused persons. Earlier, he had deposed against the accused persons because he was threatened by the police to depose against the accused persons and police further threatened to implicate him in false case. He was not knowing accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh before he appeared as witness in the witness box in this case.
PW2 and PW4 were alleged to be eyewitnesses of 2nd incident but both of them had turned hostile.
PW5 V.S. Chauhan who had made 100 number call is also a hearsay witness. The registered owner of WagonR car PW6 Ravinder deposed that on 12-07-2010 that the said car was with FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 88 of 106 him. On 01-02-2017, he deposed that Ex. PW37/O was not in his handwriting.
PW8 deposed on 24-03-2012 that PW1 came to his house at 6:40 am whereas, PW1 deposed that he visited the house of PW8 at around 7:30. PW8 deposed that accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh, Praveen and their associates Kalli, Tillu, Dickey and Ajay Dogra had taken away Kamal forcibly at around 6:30 am, however as per prosecution case, the time of offence is 7 am. No investigation was conducted on Dicky and Ajay Dogra. He deposed that accused Bachchan Nagar, Praveen Nagar, Umesh, Yogesh @ Kalli were present in the court. He deposed on 14-02- 2013 that PW2 disclosed that when PCR van came to the spot, all the accused persons along with one Vishnu Nagar put the dead body in PCR van, which is highly improbable conduct of assailant. He further deposed on 14-02-2013 that when he along with his younger son Mahesh were trying to trace Kamlesh @ Kamal, he went in search with Mahesh. He deposed on 05-03- 2013 that there was also a dispute between his son and one Manoj, the agency owner of motorcycle regarding delivery of motorcycle. There is every possibility that deceased had quarrel with some other person. He deposed on 05-10-2013 that his statement was recorded by police on the same day after about 2 pm and statement of any other person was not recorded by the police in his presence. Kanhaiya was also with him when police made enquiries from him, however PW1 specifically deposed that he left the hospital at 9 am. He deposed on 05-10-2013 that his son Kamal was having no friendship or any business relationship with Umesh.
PW9 deposed on 05-03-2013 that they both went to FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 89 of 106 Wazirabad road near Nanaksar bus stop but nobody met them. Nobody had disclosed about the quarrel at that place. Thus, there was no evidence of kidnapping available with the prosecution. They had not found any evidence about the quarrel at Nanaksar bus stop or Bhagatji Mandir. He had not seen any knife at the spot or at the hospital with IO, thus, the knife was planted in this case.
PW10 deposed on 05-03-2013 that IO had not obtained the signatures of Kanhaiya on any document in his presence, which corroborates the version of PW1 that he was not aware of the content of PW1/A. PW20 deposed on 18-01-2014 Umesh was arrested from his house and taken to PS Sonia Vihar. Thus, it damages the prosecution story about arrest and recovery from accused Umesh.
PW37 admitted in his cross-examination on 17-10-2014 that he did not find any blood stains in WagonR car. He did not find any signs of struggle in the car and he did not get lifted any finger prints from the car. The Prosecution failed to prove the use of said WagonR in the crime. He did not notice blood on the rod at the time of recovery and there was no specific identity mark on iron rod/ pipe. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of iron rod in the crime.
There are contradictions in the testimony of PW8, PW16, PW27 and PW37 regarding evidence with regard to order in which recoveries of incriminating articles were effected.
The prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW8 and only these are made public witnesses but except PW8, all of them turned hostile which put a question mark on the prosecution version and it shows that investigation FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 90 of 106 was not fair. The prosecution could not have established any such cause or motive on the part of accused persons to have committed the offence, which is indicative of the fact that deceased was assaulted by some other person, who might be a rival or enemy of the deceased and accused persons have intentionally been implicated in the present case in order to safeguard the real culprits. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt.
It is submitted that accused persons have been acquitted in case FIR no. 16/11, which has not been made part of record, for reasons best known to the prosecution. Thus, there is no evidence led by the Prosecution to show that PW1 Kanhaiya has taken contrary stand as he was under threat.
In support of their arguments arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused persons have relied upon the following authorities:-
1. Amar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 AIR (SC) 4894;
2. Baby @ Sebastian & Anr. Vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly, 2016 AIR (SC) 3671;
3. State Vs. Mohd. Iqbal, (2013) 6 ILR (Delhi) 4289;
4. Sri. M.S. Chaluvaiah Vs. M.C. Krishna & Ors., Crl. L. J. 219 (2008);
5. Jagir Singh Vs. State of Delhi, 1975 Crl.L.J. 1009;
6. Harkirat Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 AIR (SC) 3231;
7. State of Rajasthan Vs. Hazi Khan, 2017 AIR (SC) 4001;
8. Manjunath & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (SC) (2023) 4 Crimes 202;
9. Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) (SC) AIR 695;
10. Wadla Bheemaraidu Vs. State of Telangana, (SC) 2024 INSC FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 91 of 106 923; and
11. Kishore & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2024) AIR (SC) 1080.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Sections 364/302/201/34 of IPC read as under:-
300. Murder--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -
Secondly--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-- Thirdly--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
Fourthly--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that is must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.--Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 92 of 106 persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
9. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that:-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
10. In Harendera Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 S.C. 1842, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reiterated the well-known principle of the criminal jurisprudence as:
"....... The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter view favourable to the accused....."
10. In Data Xiva Naique Desai and Another vs. The State, AIR 1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the well-known principles of the criminal jurisprudence which are reproduced as under:
"The learned Judge would be advised to observe the following general rules when he is dealing with the serious question of the guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime: (i) The onus of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against the accused lies on the prosecution; (ii) The evidence must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; (iii) In matter of doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn; for it is between several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person suffer; and (iv) the hypothesis of delinquency should be consistent with all the facts proved."
11. In Swarn Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 93 of 106 "in criminal cases mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take the place of proof. The Court must also take into consideration that an accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion, however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof."
12. Moreover, in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Apex Court had observed as follows:-
"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.
The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record. Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is more apparent than real.
It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. All this highlights the importance of ensuring as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 94 of 106 the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimized but not ruled out altogether."
13. As per the postmortem report Ex. PW15/A, the deceased Kamal had received 76 injury mark on his body. Thus, it is manifest that the deceased Kamal had been murdered. In order to connect the accused persons with the commission of alleged murder, the prosecution has led direct as well as circumstantial evidence. As far as direct evidence is concerned, three eyewitnesses are cited in the chargesheet namely PW1 Kanhaiya, PW2 Rajbala and PW4 Babu. Out of these three eye-witnesses, PW2 Rajbala and PW4 Babu had completely disowned the case of the prosecution. They have categorically denied all the suggestions put by Ld. Addl. PP for State on the basis of incriminating facts emerging from their respective statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Mark X and Ex. PW4/A. As far as testimony of PW1 Kanhaiya @ Kanu is concerned, it is noticed that he had blown hot and cold at different stages in his deposition. In his deposition dated 05-09-2011, he has identified all the five accused persons namely Bachchan Nagar, Praveen Nagar, Umesh, Yogesh and Parvinder @ Titu along with two more boys (not arrested) as the assailants who had assaulted the deceased Kamal Singh and put the deceased in WagonR car while beating him and took him towards Wazirabad side. However, in his cross-examination dated 17-10-2011, he claimed that accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu were not present at the time of incident at Nanaksar, nor he had named them in FIR. He volunteered that he was told to identify these accused by the police officials outside the court. Thus, it is apparent that PW1 Kanhaiya was deposing under the influence of police. PW1 FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 95 of 106 Kahnaiya @ Kanu was recalled after the filing of supplementary charge-sheet against accused Praveen Nagar, who was declared major by the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subsequently. In his examination-in-chief dated 17-07-2012, he has named only accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Praveen Nagar as the assailants. However, in his cross-examination dated 09-08-2012, he has taken a somersault and claimed that he was made to sign his statement Ex. PW1/A on a plain blank paper. He admitted the suggestion of Ld. Defence counsel that a crowd had gathered at red light near Gurudwara Nanaksar (place of incident). He was told by someone in the crowd that one car came there and its occupants had quarrel with deceased Kamal and they had taken Kamal with them in the car. He further admitted the suggestion that during the period when his statement was recorded in the court in the year 2011, one Mahesh, brother of deceased, Surjit, Chotu, Sandeep Kalu had given him beatings so that he should depose according to their version. Further, in his cross- examination dated 18-08-2012, he admitted the suggestion that he did not tell the names of assailants to the father of deceased Kamal as he had not seen the incident. He maintained that he was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh, Surjit and Sandeep and due to their beatings, he had deposed in the court against the accused persons. He was permitted to be re-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State wherein he denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the accused persons.
14. During the course of final arguments, it has been vehemently argued that PW1 Kanhaiya was being threatened for dire consequences and in this regard, FIR no. 16/11 u/s 323/341/504/506/34 of IPC was got lodged. A written complaint FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 96 of 106 was also sent to Sh. R. P. S. Teji, Ld. ASJ, Karkarduma Courts, through Ld. APP for State and a written letter dated 09-09-2011 was also sent to the office of DCP by one Mohan Kumar Bisht.
15. In rebuttal thereto, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused persons named in FIR no. 16/11 have already been acquitted and therefore, there is no substance in the claim of Ld. Counsel for the complainant that PW1 Kanhaiya was under any threat or influence. The factum of acquittal of accused persons in FIR no. 16/11 is not denied by ld. Counsel for complainant. Be that as it may, this court deems it proper to analyze the deposition of PW1 Kanhaiya dated 05-09-2011 and 17-07-2012 de hors his cross-examination dated 09-08-2012 and 18-08-2012 in light of the contentions raised by the Ld. Defence counsel in his written arguments as well as oral submissions. Certain discrepancies are observed in the testimony of PW1 Kanhaiya dated 05-09-2011 when the same is read in conjunction with testimony of other prosecution witnesses, which are enumerated herein below:-
1. No specific role of accused persons was attributed by him in his examination in chief dated 05-09-2011 and 17-07-2012 in inflicting injuries upon the deceased. Nor there is any mention of the body part on which the victim had received injury when he saw the incident. Nor he has revealed as to which of the accused was giving iron rod blows and who were giving fist blows to the deceased.
2. PW8 Balam Singh contradicts the version of PW1 Kanhaiya regarding the timing of incident as revealed by him in his deposition dated 05-09-2011. PW8 claims that PW1 came to him at about 6:40 am for reporting about the incident whereas as per the version of PW1, the incident took place at about 6:45 to 7 am.FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 97 of 106
3. PW1 Kanhaiya claimed that after reporting the incident to father of deceased, he went to GTB hospital along with parents of deceased. However, PW8 Balam Singh claimed that he went to GTB hospital along with his relatives. Had Kanhaiya been accompanying him, PW8 would have specifically named him.
4. Neither in the site plan nor in the scaled site plan, the position of PW1 Kanhaiya is reflected.
5. PW32 Inspector Vijay Bhushan had admitted in his cross-
examination dated 15-10-2014 that PW1 Kanhaiya had revealed his mobile number to him. At the same time, he stated that he did not obtain call details of his mobile number. No cogent explanation is furnished by the prosecution as to why the location details of the mobile phone of PW1 Kanhaiya were not collected during investigation.
6. There is no mention of introductory facts in the deposition of PW1 Kanhaiya as to how he was aware of identity of deceased as well as of accused persons.
7. There is no explanation in the deposition of PW1 Kanhaiya as to why he has not reported the incident to police on 100 number call when he was carrying the mobile phone with him.
8. There is no explanation as to why PW1 Kanhaiya did not intervene in the incident of assault when he claimed that deceased Kamal was his friend for about three years prior to the date of incident.
9. PW1 Kanhaiya did not even reveal the registration number of the WagonR car on which he claimed that the accused persons took the deceased while beating him despite the fact that the said WagonR car remained stationed at the spot for a considerable time.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 98 of 10610. PW8 Balam Singh in his deposition dated 24-03-2012 claimed that Kanhaiya @ Kanu had reported the name of accused Dicky and Ajay Dogra as well apart from the other accused persons in committing the alleged offence. However, there is no mention of name of accused Dicky and Ajay Dogra in the testimony of PW1 Kanhaiya @ Kanu.
16. In view of the above-stated findings, this court is of the opinion that testimony of PW1 Kanhaiya is not of sterling quality which the prosecution is supposed to present and his presence at the spot is under cloud.
17. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the case of Rai Sandeep Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 2486/09 decided on 07-08-2012, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. In can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 99 of 106 chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such test to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
18. Now, let this court analyze the circumstantial evidence led by the Prosecution.
As per the prosecution case, following incriminating articles have been recovered at the instance of accused persons during investigation of the case:-
1. One chappal (slipper seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B) belonging to the deceased Kamal and one WagonR car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C used by the accused persons in commission of alleged offence has been claimed to have been recovered at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar.
2. One iron rod/ pipe was recovered at the instance of accused Umesh seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D. The said rod has been opined to be a weapon used in inflicting certain injuries vide subsequent opinion of autopsy surgeon i.e. Ex. PW15/C.
3. One purse belonging to the deceased Kamal containing election I-card, school photo I-card and few visiting I-cards was got recovered at the instance of accused Yogesh @ Kalli seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/I, which was duly identified by PW8 Balam Singh during TIP proceedings held on 03-09-2010.FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 100 of 106
19. A grave doubt is raised in the manner and the order in which the above-stated recoveries have been effected. All the above-stated recoveries have been effected from open place, yet no efforts have been made to join any independent witness. No photograph of the places from where the recoveries have been effected has been placed on record. No DD entries regarding the departure and arrival of police official from police station at the time of effecting above-stated recoveries have been placed on record. PW8 Balam Singh, PW16 HC Ashok Kumar, PW27 ASI Puran Singh and PW37 ACP Safdar Ali are the recovery witnesses got examined by the prosecution. There is a huge variation in the timing and order in which the recovery of chappal/ slipper, car and iron rod have been effected. As per version of PW8 Balam Singh, first of all, chappal of his deceased son was effected from a playground near pontoon pul, Wazirabad at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh. Thereafter, a Maruti WagonR car was recovered from a free parking lot in the Yamuna pushta khadar at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar. Thereafter, accused Umesh got recovered an iron rod from first pusta, near bricks. In his cross- examination dated 05-10-2013, he claimed that the chappals were got recovered at about 11 to 11:30 am. Contrary to the claim of PW8, PW16 HC Ashok Kumar claimed that the aforesaid car was recovered first and then iron rod and then chappal. As per his version, the car was recovered at about 1 to 2 pm. Another recovery witness i.e. PW27 ASI Puran Singh revealed another sequence in which the recovery was effected. As per his version, first of all, iron rod was recovered and that too at 12 midnight (as per his cross-examination dated 04-08-2014), thereafter, car and FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 101 of 106 then chappal were recovered.
20. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, is reproduced as under:-
''22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note :- The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained.
21. The relevant entry regarding departure of police official at the time of arrest of accused persons, recovery of incriminating articles i.e. chappal, WarongR car, iron rod, purse have not been proved on record. Even the DD Writer was not examined and no explanation is given as to why the said DD Writer is not made the witness in the present case. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court "wherein it has been observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution."
In the present case, the above said provision appears to have not been complied with by prosecution.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 102 of 10622. No cogent explanation is furnished as to why no independent public person was joined in the investigation particularly at the time of alleged recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused persons despite their availability. PW32 Inspector Vijay Bhushan has admitted in his cross-examination dated 15-10-2014 that place of recovery was populated area. No resident was called to join the proceedings before entering the place of recovery. PW37 ACP Safdar Ali had also stated in his cross-examination dated 04-03-2015 in reference to recovery of incriminating articles that no public person had joined the investigation and he did not give any notice to public person. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
''18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC''.
23. In Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 103 of 106 officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful''.
24. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 49 that, "It would have been a different matter altogether had there been no public witness available or none was willing to associate. Here, as said before, public witnesses were available but no explanation on these lines is forthcoming. Thus, we got to the view that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged. We, therefore, order his acquittal"
25. Further, it is observed that no efforts have been made by the IO to send the incriminating articles i.e. chappal and iron rod for forensic examination to determine as to whether the said articles had any blood stains or not, which in the opinion of this court is a serious lapse in the investigation. Nor he has got the recovered WagonR car examined through FSL expert to determine as to whether the same bears blood stains or not. The IO ACP Safdar Ali himself formed the opinion that there is no blood on the rod at the time of recovery thereof as reflected from his cross-examination dated 04-03-2015. Nor there is anything on record to indicate as to what the deceased was wearing when he left his home on the date of incident. No sketch of the alleged recovered weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe/ rod was prepared. In these circumstances, the recovery of incriminating articles i.e. FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 104 of 106 chappal, WagonR car, iron rod and purse is doubtful. No efforts have been made by the investigating agency to lift the finger prints from the knife recovered along side the dead body of deceased Kamal.
26. It is further claimed by the prosecution that blood from the spot was washed by the accused persons. However, no evidence either documentary or oral, in this regard has been placed on record. No efforts have been made to lift earth control from the spot in order to determine as to whether the blood was washed from the spot or not. Since the recovery of incriminating articles is doubtful, the subsequent opinion of the autopsy surgeon whereby it has been opined that the recovered iron rod was used in inflicting injuries upon the deceased, which is a corroborative piece of evidence, loses its significance. DD no. 2A (Ex. PW42/A) whereby it is claimed that accused Bachchan Nagar had made PCR call at the time of incident to show the subsequent conduct of accused and the call details records of mobile phones of accused persons are only corroborative piece of evidence. The citations relied upon by ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld. Special PP for State are not applicable in view of peculiar facts of the present case.
DECISION OF THE COURT
27. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record, the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused persons. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 105 of 106 doubts against the accused persons. Accordingly, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused persons namely Bachchan Nagar, Umesh Kumar, Yogesh @ Kalli, Parvinder @ Titu and Praveen Nagar are hereby acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 302/364/201/34 of IPC. File be consigned to record room after compliance of section 437A of Cr.P.C.
Copy of this judgment be sent to Commissioner of Police for information regarding serious lapses in investigation of the present case noted herein-above and necessary action.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 28-02-2025
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ ARORA
ARORA Date: 2025.03.01
17:12:04 +0530
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
Karkarduma/ 28-02-2025
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 106 of 106