Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu Singh @ Deva on 20 November, 2019
CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015
FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar
U/s 302 IPC
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE - 03 : NORTH
WEST : ROHINI : DELHI
Session Case No. 52670/2016
CNR No. DLNW010016442015
FIR No. 782/15
PS. Vijay Vihar
Under Section 302/394 IPC
State VERSUS Sonu Singh @ Deva
S/o Shambhu Singh
R/o VPO Valmiki Nagar,
District West Champaran, Bihar
Date of FIR : 04.09.2015
Date of Committal : 11.09.2015
Date of receiving in this Court : 17.09.2015
Date of Argument : 15.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 20.11.2019
Sh. Shiv KumarI, Ld. APP for State
Sh. Harish Kr. Gupta, Ld. Amicus Curie for accused
Order/Judgment: Accused Sonu Singh @ Deva stands acquitted
of offence under Section 302 IPC for which he
faced trial in the present case.
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal justice delivery system was set in motion when one call was received at PCR from mobile No. 9813770930 at about 8:02:22 AM on 12/06/2015 to the effect that a murder has taken place at H. No. 88, Gali No.7, Vijay Vihar. Said information was communicated to Police Station (PS) Vijay Vihar which was recorded vide DD No. 10 A at the PS at 7:59 AM and SI G. R Tanwar (PW30) was informed to visit the place of incident and take appropriate action as per law.
SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 1 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC
2. SI G. R. Tanwar (PW30) along with Ct Rakesh (PW13) reached at the spot i.e. A98, First Floor, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII where they found on bed a dead body whose name on enquiry was revealed as Peter Herald S/o Thomas Peter R/o H. NO. A98, 1st Floor, Vijay Vihar, PhaseII. An ice poker (sua) was found embedded/inserted below the right side armpit of the deceased. Two pillows of blue color were lying near the dead body and door of almirah (store well) was found open in the next room. Crime Team and FSL Team was called at the spot and inspection and photography of the spot was got done besides taking chance prints from the spot.
3. Smt. Prem Lata W/o deceased Peter Herald got her statement recorded to the effect that she along with her family live at A98, Vijay Vihar, as tenant and she live at house No. 10034, Gali Khalil Azad Market which is her old house. At A98, Vijay Vihar her son Gladwin Peter along with his family lived as tenant and he along with his family had gone to Gorakhpur for the last one month. She and her husband had been living at the house of her son for the last 2 3 month. Brotherinlaw of her son Sonu Singh (accused herein) was also living with them. Sonu Singh had been staying with them for the last 15 days and her son had left Sonu Singh 15 days ago saying that he would soon get him employed. On 11/06/2015 at about 7:30 PM she went for her duty after cooking meal. She worked as Nurse in St. Stephen Hospital. On 12.06.2015 when she became free from her duty she received a call from Kalu (PW3) who works with her son at Pitampura parking and asked her to come fast home and when she asked as to what's the matter he only told her that come fast home.
SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 2 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC She reached home by 7:35 AM and found latches were on from outside of door of the house and when she entered the house after opening the latches she found her husband lying on bed. She called him out but he did not get up and then she touched him in order to examine and she found his body cold and an ice poker embedded in him in the right side and almirah was found opened. Sonu Singh was not found at the spot. She further stated that her husband had been murdered and Sonu Singh had role in it. She prayed that action be taken against him. Rs. 50006000/ was also found to be missing and rest her son would tell.
4. On the basis of statement of Prem Lata FIR was got registered under Section 302/394 IPC and investigation was handed over to Inspector Kanchan Lal Meena(PW33). He prepared site plan of the place of incident, got the post mortem done on the body of the deceased, collected the exhibits/case properties and deposited the same in the maalkhana. He collected all the necessary documents and recorded the statements of the witnesses.
5. Witness Kalu (PW3) in his statement under Section 161 Cr PC given to the police had stated that he along with accused Sonu Singh on 11.06.2015 were consuming liquor at about 6:30 PM at the roof of his rented room and thereafter accused Sonu went to house of his brotherinlaw (PW4 Gladwin Peter) and on same night at 9 PM when he (Kalu) went to house of Gladwin Peter for dinner he found the house latched from inside and he called out Sonu many times but door was not opened thereafter he gave call to Gladwin Peter on which he (Gladwin) asked him to go back and sleep. Next day at about 6:30 SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 3 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC AM when he again went to the room of Gladwin Peter, he found the house latched from outside and when he went inside the room, he found Peter Herald dead. He immediately informed Prem Lata w/o the deceased who had gone on night duty. After arrival of Prem Lata, Kalu gave call to 100 to call the police. CDR of mobile phone of Kalu was obtained.
6. On 2.07.2015 at about 1:32 PM ASI Yash Pal (PW31) from Special Crime Team Branch got intimation recorded in PS Vijay Vihar that wanted accused in the present case Sonu Singh S/o Shabhu Singh R/o Valmiki Nagar, West Champaran Bihar, had been arrested under Section 41.1(a) Cr.PC and he had disclosed his guilt in FIR No.782/15 U/s 302 IPC. On receiving intimation IO Insp Kanchan Lal Meena along with Ct. Indraj (PW25) reached Rohini Court where accused Sonu Singh was produced before the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate by ASI Yash Pal and with permission of the Ld. Magistrate accused Sonu was interrogated, formally arrested in the present case and his disclosure statement was recorded. Next day one day PC remand was sought which was allowed and then accused took the police party to the place of incident and pointed out the same and he also pointed out the place i.e. Dhaba at Naraina where he had been working for 10 days after allegedly murdering the Peter Herald. Accused Sonu had left his job with Dhaba at Naraina after 10 days saying his wife was not well thereafter accused was working with Swati Delux Hotel at Karol Bagh. Sonu Singh had kept his mobile phone switched off after the incident. He was using two SIMs. Accused Sonu Singh on 26.06.2015 at about 10:20 PM had called his brotherinlaw Gladwin SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 4 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC Peter on his mobile phone No. 9911021175 and threatened him that he was in Delhi and next day he would murder him. Gladwin Peter (PW4) had informed immediately the IO over phone about the threat. CDR and cell ID chart of mobile phone of accused was taken out and location of accused was found to be in Karol Bagh. He also got his mobile phone recovered from a servant room in the Hotel Swati Delux. Accused Sonu Singh in his disclosure statement had stated that his sister Preeti Singh wanted to sell her land at her native village so as to purchase a house in Delhi whereas accused did not want the same and he did not want his sister to live with Gladwin Peter and his parents.
7. After investigation of the case charge sheet under Section 302 and 394 IPC was filed against accused Sonu Singh @ Devi pending report of the FSL on case property sent for examination and report on chance finger print lifted from crime scene. After complying with the provision of Section 207 CrPC, case was committed to Session Court and was assigned to this Court.
8. Prima facie finding the case having been made out Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame charge only under Section 302 IPC to which accused Sonu Singh pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was asked to lead evidence.
9. In all prosecution examined 41 witness. Inadvertently two witness were given same witness number i.e. PW23. Later on, the later witness examined was given witness number PW23A. Public witness Prem Lata W/o deceased Peter Herald was dropped on SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 5 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC account of her death even before she could be called in the witness box.
10. PW1 Samson Peter, nephew of the deceased sought to prove the dead body handing over memo Ex.PW1/A to the family after conducting postmortem.
11. PW2 Manoj, nephew of the deceased sought to prove his identification statement Ex.PW2/A of the dead body in the hospital mortuary.
12. PW3 Vijay, deposed in her statement that he and the accused were consuming liquor at his house, but sometime later accused went to the house of deceased and when he knocked the door of the house of the deceased and asked Sonu, who was inside, to open the door, he did not open the door. He made call to Boby (Gladwin Peter) son of deceased regarding nonopening of the door, but he (Boby) instead asked him to go back to his house and sleep. On the next morning, when PW3 came to the house of Boby, he found the door bolted from outside and when he went inside, he found the dead body of the deceased lying. He informed about the death of the deceased to the wife of the deceased and called Police.
13. PW4 Gladwin Peter, son of the deceased, sought to prove that he was in livein relationship with Preeti Singh(PW29), the sister of the accused; that he with Preeti Singh had gone to her native village in connection with measurement of land of Preeti Singh; that SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 6 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC his parents were left behind in the house; that he had left behind his brotherinlaw accused Sonu Singh to look after his parents; that he had received a phone call from accused on 26.06.2016 threatening him to kill him. He also sought to prove the statement Ex PW4/A of his mother given to the police on the basis of which present FIR was registered.
14. PW5 Raj Kumar, owner of the Milan Dhaba, where accused allegedly work for 910 days after the incident. PW5 sought to prove seizing of copy of license Ex.PW5/A of his dhaba and that accused had joined his dhaba on next day of the incident i.e. on 12.06.2016.
15. PW6 HC Purshottam who was working as MHC(M) sought to prove the deposit of case property vide entry no. 344/15 as Ex.PW6/A, entry no. 383/15 as Ex.PW6/B. PW6 also sought to prove the acknowledgment receipt as Ex.PW6/D & Ex.PW6/F and the road certificate as Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/E.
16. PW7 Kamlesh Parekh owner of the M/s Swati Deluxe Hotel, Karol Bagh sought to prove the arrest memo of the accused as Ex.PW7/A, personal search memo as Ex.PW7/B and attendance record of their hotel as Ex.PW7/C.
17. PW8 Inspector Manohar Lal, draftsman sought to prove the scaled site plan of the spot as Ex.PW8/A. SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 7 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC
18. PW9 HC Dhirender Singh sought to prove the endorsement on rukka Ex.PW9/A, registration of FIR Ex.PW9/B and certificate u/S 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW9/C.
19. PW10 Ct. Sita Ram deposed that he went to the spot and took the body to the mortuary, BSA Hospital and handed over the same for the postmortem examination. PW10 also sought to prove the seizing of the exhibits which were obtained from Mortuary, BSA Hospital.
20. PW11 Kapil, photographer from Photo Division of FSL Rohini, sought to prove the certificate u/S 65B Evidence Act in respect of CD of the photographs as Ex.PW11/A and the photographs as Ex.PW11/B1 to Ex.PW11/B20 of the place of incident.
21. PW12 HC Kanwar Singh, finger print proficient, lifted the finger prints from the almirah at the spot and he deposed in that regard.
22. PW13 Ct. Rakesh was on emergency duty on 12.06.2015 and sought to prove his joining of investigation pursuant to DD no. 10A and finding of the dead body, recording of the statement of Prem Lata, the complainant.
23. PW14 Ms. Sunita Gupta, Sr. Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL sought to prove the crime scene inspection report Ex.PW14/A.
24. PW15 Dr. Mukesh Kumar, SR Forensic Medicine, SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 8 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC conducted the postmortem upon the body of the deceased and sought to prove the PM report Ex.PW15/A.
25. PW16 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, SR Forensic Medicine, conducted the postmortem upon the body of the deceased and sought to prove the postmortem report Ex.PW15/A.
26. PW17 Parshuram Ram Singh, Asst. Director (Physics), FSL deposed that there were signs of forcible opening of the lockers of the almirah and that he had inspected the spot and sought to prove the inspection report Ex.PW17/A.
27. PW18 ASI Mohan Chand, sought to prove the PCR form Ex.PW18/A.
28. PW19 Ct. Abhishek, photographer of mobile crime team, sought to prove the negatives Ex.PW19/A1 to Ex.PW19/A6 of the photographs clicked by him at the spot and the photographs Ex.PW19/B1 to Ex.PW19/B6.
29. PW20 HC Shiv Om, deposed that under his supervision Ct. Abhishek PW19 clicked the photographs of the spot.
30. PW21 Ct. Ajay deposed that he delivered the copies of the FIR to the Ilaka Magistrate, CP, DCPI, II & III.
31. PW22 HC Virender, on 30.06.2015 had collected the sealed viscera alongwith sample seal and deposited the same with FSL vide SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 9 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC RC No. 86/21/15 Ex.PW6/C and handed over the acknowledgment Ex.PW6/D back to the MHC(M). On 01.06.2015 he had collected exhibits from the MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL vide RC no. 87/21/15 Ex.PW6/E and handed over the acknowledgment Ex.PW6/F back to the MHC(M). His testimony is in that respect.
32. PW23 SI Harish Chander Pathak sought to prove the certificate u/S 65B Evidence Act Ex PW23/1 regarding the PCR form dated 12.06.2015.
33. PW23A Israr Babu, Nodal Officer, Vodafone, sought to prove copy of prepaid customer application form (CAF) Ex PW23A/1 of mobile no. 9813770930 of Chet Ram, CDR Ex PW23A/2 for the said number w.e.f. 01.05.2015 to 02.07.2015, copy of vodafone Cell ID chart Ex.PW23A/3 and certificate u/S 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW23A/4 in respect of CDR.
34. PW24 Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer, Aircel, sought to prove copy of prepaid customer application form(CAF) Ex.PW24/1 of mobile no. 9716814708 of Ajay Kumar, CDR Ex.PW24/2 for the said number w.e.f. 01.05.2015 to 02.07.2015, copy of Aircel Cell ID chart Ex.PW24/3 and certificate u/S 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW24/4 in respect of CDR.
35. PW25 Ct. Indraj sought to prove the formal arrest memo Ex.PW25/1 of accused dated 02.07.2015 in the court, accused's disclosure statement Ex.PW25/2, seizure memo Ex.PW25/3 of white and black mobile phone produced by the accused and pointing out SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 10 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC memo Ex.PW25/4 of the spot.
36. PW26 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea, sought to prove copy of customer application form (CAF) Ex.PW26/1 of mobile no. 9911021175 of Gladwin Peter, CDR Ex.PW26/2 for the said number w.e.f. 01.05.2015 to 02.07.2015 and certificate u/S 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW26/3 in respect of CDR.
37. PW27 Ct. Deepesh deposed that he alongwith ASI Yashpal and HC Anil had gone to M/s Swati Delux Hotel, Karol Bagh and apprehended the accused Sonu from there. He sought to prove the arrest memo Ex.PW7/A and personal search memo Ex.PW7/B.
38. PW28 HC Anil Kumar deposed that he was a part of raiding party to M/s Swati Delux Hotel, Karol Bagh and sought to prove the arrest memo of accused Ex.PW7/A, personal search memo Ex.PW7/B and his disclosure statement as Ex.PW28/1.
39. PW29 Preeti Singh, sister of the accused had not supported the case of the prosecution but did depose that accused Sonu Singh was left behind in the house of Gladwin Peter and that she and Gladwin Peter were living in livein relationship.
40. PW30 SI G.R. Tanwar deposed that on receipt of DD no. 10A he reached at the spot and found the dead body of a male lying on the bed in pool of blood with one ice poker embedded towards right side of his armpit. He sought to prove the statement of complainant Premlata Ex.PW4/A and his endorsement Ex.PW30/1 on the rukka. SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 11 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC
41. PW31 ASI Yashpal Singh deposed that he was part of the raiding party at M/s Swati Delux Hotel, Karol Bagh and sought to prove formal arrest memo Ex.PW7/A, personal search memo Ex.PW7/B and disclosure statement Ex.PW28/1 of the accused. He also sought to prove the kalandra regarding the arrest of accused Ex.PW31/1.
42. PW32 Dr. Garima Chaudhary, Sr. Forensic Examiner (Bio/DNA), sought to prove her report Ex.PW32/1 and serological report Ex.PW32/2.
43. PW33 Inspector Kanchan Lal, deposed that he was assigned the investigation pursuant to the registration of the FIR and sought to prove the site plan Ex.PW33/A, seizure memo Ex.PW30/2 of the blood stained exhibits, letter to Mortuary BSA Hospital regarding preservation of the dead body Ex.PW33/B, inquest papers Ex.PW33/C, identification statements of dead body Ex.PW33/D and Ex.PW33/E, letter for conducting postmortem upon the body of the deceased Ex.PW33/F, the admitted finger prints of accused as Ex.PW33/G, crime team Inspection report Ex.PW33/H, application Ex.PW33/I for one day PC remand, application Ex.PW33/J regarding interrogation of accused, statement Ex.PW33/K of Preeti Singh the sister of the accused and application Ex PW33/L for filing FSL result in the court.
44. PW34 ASI Narender Kumar sought to prove DD No. 9A regarding murder at H No. A98, Gali no. 7, Vijay Vihar II, Ex.PW34/B. SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 12 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC
45. PW35 Ct. Parveen sought to prove the DD No. 61B Ex.PW35/A vide which he received the information regarding arrest of accused in kalandra u/S 41.1 (a) Cr.P.C was forwarded to police station.
46. PW36 Dr. Bhavana Jain, SMO/Tutor, BSA Medical College and Hospital sought to prove the MLC Ex.PW36/A of the accused prepared by Dr. Swapnil.
47. PW37 Kavita Goyal, Asst. Director, Chemistry, FSL, sought to prove her examination report Ex.PW37/A.
48. PW38 ASI Ashok, sought to prove the attested copy of DD No. 4 Ex.PW38/A.
49. PW39 Retd. InspectorcumSr. Finger Print Expert Sheoraj Singh sought to prove the enlarged photographs of the finger prints Mark Q4 and Mark S1 Ex.PW39/A and Ex.PW39/B, the description thereof Ex.PW38/C and his detailed report Ex.PW39/D.
50. PW40 R.K. Vajypayee, Director, Finger Print Bureau sought to prove the report Ex.PW39/D of PW 39 Sheoraj Singh and sending of report to the SHO vide memo Ex.PW40/A.
51. After completion of the prosecution evidence, entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his response u/S SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 13 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Defense did not wish to lead DE. Accordingly, matter went up for final arguments.
52. Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for defence were heard at length.
53. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. He submitted that there is no dispute that accused was living in the house of his brotherinlaw Gladwin Peter in whose house deceased was found murdered in the morning of 12.06.2015. He submitted that it is also not disputed that since the day of murder accused has been absconding and had kept his mobile phone switched off to avoid being traced. He has further submitted that PW3 Kalu specifically deposed that he and the accused were taking drink together where after accused had gone to the house of his brotherinlaw and when Kalu went to the said house for diner the house was found locked from inside and Sonu did not respond from inside despite repeatedly being called out. He further deposed that when he again went to the said house in the morning of 12.06.2015 he found the door of the house of Gladwin Peter bolted from outside and when he went inside he found Peter Herald dead and an ice poker embedded in his right side. He further argued that accused did not attend the last rites of deceased Peter Herald which is very unnatural behavior considering the fact that he was living with parents of Gladwin Peter till the murder of the deceased Peter Herald and that too when he was in Delhi. He further deposed that later on 26.06.2015 accused had called Gladwin Peter SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 14 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC and threatened him that he would kill him as punishment for one murder and that of 10 murder is same. He submitted that chain of all circumstances was proved by the prosecution and said circumstances leads to only one conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the murder of Peter Herald.
54. On the contrary, Sh. Harish Kumar Gupta, Ld. Amicus curie for the accused has argued that there are many lapses in the evidence led on the part of the prosecution to return finding of guilt against accused. He has submitted that firstly PW3 Kalu had not seen the accused going to the house of the accused as the house of the Kalu and that of Gladwin Peter are in two different lane i.e to say one cannot see the house of other. He has further submitted that first call to the police was made wherein it was reported that murder has taken place at house No. 88, Vijay Vihar whereas body of Peter Herald was found at A98 Vijay Vihar and prosecution has not explained this dichotomy. He has further submitted that though prosecution alleges to have recovered a mobile phone with two SIMs from accused at his instance but has failed to prove which numbers accused was using and which numbers were active in the said mobile phone and in whose name it stood. Prosecution, he contended, has also failed to examine those persons in whose name the alleged phone numbers were active, as no CAF has come in the name of the accused. He has further submitted that no motive has been assigned for the alleged murder. He has further submitted that if accused did not want his sister to live with Gladwin Peter then he would have killed him and not his father. He further submitted that it is also not the case of the prosecution SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 15 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC that accused although had gone to kill Gladwin Peter but mistakenly or accidentally killed his father. It has been further argued by him that if he wanted to prevent his sister from selling land then killing Peter Herald would not have solved his problem. Hence, he has contended that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any of the circumstances as alleged and these circumstances are not consistent only with the guilt of the accused. Hence, he has prayed that accused be acquitted.
Analysis
55. Having heard rival submission, this Court finds that there is no dispute that deceased was Peter Herald, the husband of complainant Prem Lata and father of witness PW4 Gladwin Peter. It is also not in dispute that deceased Peter Herald was murdered in the intervening night of 11/12.06.2015. Even otherwise PW15 Dr Mukesh Kumar and PW16 Dr. Vijay Dhankar proved the postmortem report Ex PW15/A wherein it was reported that deceased peter Herald died due to 'asphyxia consequent upon throttling". Thus, deceased Peter Herald was murdered and did not die due to natural cause or in ordinary course of nature.
56. It is further noticed that calling of PCR, recording of DD No.4A, arrival of police following the call, registration of FIR, calling of crime team and FSL team at the spot, lifting of blood stained pillows and pillow cover, sending the body of Peter Herald for postmortem, postmortem etc. are not much in dispute. Even otherwise prosecution examined all relevant witnesses to prove the said aspects SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 16 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC of investigation.
57. It is further noticed that there is no eye witness to the incident and prosecution is attempting to prove its case against accused on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances upon which prosecution relies to prove the guilt of the accused are as follows:
a) Accused Sonu Singh was brought and left at his house No. A98, Vijay Vihar, Delhi by PW4 Gladwin Peter, just few days before the incident of murder, to stay with his parents till he (PW4) arrange an employment for him;
b) That accused had consumed liquor with PW3 Vijay @ Kalu in the evening of 11.06.2015 on the roof of rented room of PW3 Vijay @ Kalu.
c) That thereafter Vijay @ Kalu received a phone call from his native place and while he was busy attending the call accused had gone to the house of the Gladwin Peter where his father was found murdered in the morning;
d) That when PW3 Vijay @ Kalu came to the house of Gladwin Peter at night on 11.06.2015 for diner, he had found the door of the house bolted from inside and Sonu did not respond despite PW3 Vijay @ Kalu calling him again and again.
e) PW3 Vijay @ Kalu then gave call to PW4 Gladwin Peter and informed him that accused Sonu was not opening the door on SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 17 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC which Gladwin Peter had asked him to go back and sleep.
f) On 12.06.2015 at about 6:30 AM when PW3 Vijay @ Kalu again came to the house of Gladwin Peter he found that door of the house was bolted from outside and when he went inside he found Peter Herald dead and ice poker embedded in right side of his body. PW3 Vijay @ Kalu immediately gave call to Prem Lata wife of the deceased who was at night duty at St. Stephen Hospital. He also gave call to 100;
g) Accused was missing since morning of 12.06.2015 and his mobile phone was switched off;
h) That finger prints of accused Sonu Singh were found at the almirah kept in the house of the Gladwin Peter and which almirah was found forced open;
i) That on 26.06.2015 accused gave phone call to Gladwin Peter and threatened him that he would kill him;
j) That accused Sonu Singh did not want his sister who was in livein relationship with Gladwin Peter, to sell her land in Kushinagar and in order to prevent her from selling the said land he killed the father of Gladwin Peter;
58. By now law regarding circumstantial evidence has been well settled and in nutshell gets expressed in the words of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Shaji v. State of Kerala; AIR 2013 SC 651 SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 18 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC that "prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, and cannot derive any strength from the weakness in the defense put up by the accused. However, a false defense may be brought to notice, only to lend assurance to the Court as regards the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which are in themselves complete. The circumstance on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established. The same must be of a conclusive nature, and must exclude all possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and the chain of evidence must be complete, so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion with the innocence of the accused, and must further show, that in all probability, the said offence must have been committed by the accused."
59. Keeping the above principle of circumstantial evidence in mind, it has to be seen whether prosecution has conclusively proved all the circumstances it relies upon and whether the proved circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused leaving no room for a conclusion with the innocence of the accused.
Circumstance Number (a)
60. Just few days prior to the incident, Gladwin Peter who was having livein relationship with sister of the accused, had brought the accused to Delhi and had left him at his house to live with his parents to look after his parents and till a suitable job is found for him.
SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 19 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC
61. Accused in his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that he was not supposed to look after the parents of Gladwin Peter @ Boby except as and when need arises and he had not visited the house of Gladwin Peter on the day of incident. Meaning thereby that accused has denied that he was staying in the house of Gladwin Peter, just prior to the incident. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW3 Vijay @ Kalu, PW4 Gladwin Peter and PW29 Preeti Singh, sister of the accused.
62. PW3 Vijay @ Kalu in his examination in chief had deposed that in the absence of Gladwin Peter @ Bobby who had gone to inlaws house, his parents along with accused Sonu had been residing in H No. 98A, Vijay Vihar, Delhi. PW3 Vijay @ Kalu was not cross examined by defense on this point nor any suggestion to the contrary was given.
63. PW4 Gladwin Peter in his examinationinchief deposed that he had left accused Sonu in his flat on 30.05.2015 where his parents were also residing and had asked him to stay with his parents in his flat and also look after his house and he had also asked his mother Prem Lata to make efforts to get a job for Sonu in the hospital. Even PW4 was not cross examined on this aspect of his testimony nor was a contrary suggestion given to this witness by the defense.
64. PW29 Preetin Sngh, who is the sister of the accused and who did not support the prosecution in its entirety, admitted in the SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 20 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC cross examination by ld. APP for the State that on 23.05.2015 Gladwin had come to Vijay Vihar for leaving his brother accused Sonu there. She also admitted that Gladwin's parents also used to stay there and she also admitted that accused Sonu was left behind for looking after the parking work along with Kalu. PW29 was also not cross examined on this aspect of her testimony nor was even a contrary suggestion given to the PW29 by defense.
65. Thus, from the testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW29, which remained unrebutted/unchallenged, prosecution successfully proved that immediately before the incident accused Sonu Singh was living in the Flat No. A98, Vijay Vihar, where parents of Gladwin Peter were also residing. Otherwise also accused has not disclosed as to where he was residing in Delhi, if he was not residing at H No. A98, Vijay Vihar. Hence, it is hereby concluded that prosecution has successfully proved the Circumstance no. (a).
Circumstance no. (b)
66. Whether the accused had consumed liquor with PW3 Vijay @ Kalu at about 6:30 pm on 11.06.2015?
67. PW3 in his examinationinchief deposed that on 11.06.2015 he along with accused Sonu had consumed liquor at about 6:30 pm on the roof of his (PW3) room. PW3 was not cross examined by defense on this aspect of his testimony nor any contrary suggestion was given. Rather in the statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that he had consumed liquor with Vijay @ Kalu till 6:30 pm on SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 21 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC 11.06.2015. Thus, so far as consumption of liquor by accused Sonu with PW3 Vijay @ Kalu on 11.06.2015 at 6:30 pm is concerned, it stands proved.
Circumstance no. c
68. That after consumption of liquor accused had gone to the house of the Gladwin Peter where his father was found murdered in the morning.
69. It is the case of the prosecution that after consumption of liquor PW3 received a phone call and while he was busy in attending the said phone call, accused Sonu had gone to the house of Gladwin Peter.
70. Prosecution has already successfully proved that accused and PW3 Vijay @ Kalu both had together consumed liquor on the roof of the tenanted room of PW3 Vijay @ Kalu. PW3 Vijay @ Kalu in his examinationinchief had further deposed that when he and accused Sonu had consumed liquor at about 6:30 pm, he had received a telephonic call on his mobile phone from his native village and he (PW3) started talking on his phone, during which Sonu had gone to the flat of Gladwin Peter @ Bobby. In cross examination he deposed that there are 1012 streets in between his house and that of Gladwin Peter @ Bobby. It is not the testimony of PW3 Vijay @ Kalu that he while attending phone call he had come along with accused up to the house of Gladwin Peter. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C also he had stated that while he was attending call accused Sonu had SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 22 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC gone to the house of Gladwin Peter. House of Gladwin Peter was not visible from the room of witness PW3 Vijay @ Kalu as both were 1012 streets apart. Thus, from the testimony of PW3 Vijay @ Kalu it clear that that he himself had not seen the accused going to the house of Gladwin Peter.
71. Accused in his statement u/S 313 Cr.P.C. had stated that after taking liquor he had left the area of Vijay Vihar around 7:30 pm in order to join his duty at dhaba near Naraina, but due to taking of overdose of alcohol he could not reach and fell on the road and had awaken in the morning on the next day. Though defense has not led any evidence to prove this but it is settled law that prosecution has to prove its case and failure of the accused to prove its defense would not prove the case of the prosecution.
72. Further, Prem Lata in her complaint/statement Ex PW4/A had stated she had left for her night duty at about 7:30 PM on 11.06.2015. She in her complaint/statement had not stated that when she left for her night duty accused Sonu was there at home. PW3 Vijay @ Kalu had deposed that while he was talking over phone at about 6:30 PM accused had gone to the house of the Gladwin Peter but Prem Lata, the mother of Gladwin Peter, who had left for night duty at about 7:30 PM did not utter a word about she leaving behind accused Sonu and deceased at home. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sonu was seen going in the house of Gladwin Peter by PW3 Vijay @ Kalu nor does the said fact get corroboration from the statement of Prem Lata. Thus, prosecution failed to prove that SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 23 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC accused was seen gone to the house of Gladwin Peter. In other words, deceased was not last seen alive in the company or presence of accused Sonu.
Circumstance no. (d), (e) and (f)
73. That when PW3 Vijay @ Kalu came to the house of Gladwin Peter at 9:00 PM on 11.06.2015 for diner, he had found the door of the house bolted from inside and Sonu did not respond despite PW3 Vijay @ Kalu calling him again and again. Thereafter PW3 had given call to Gladwin Peter telling him about the none opening of the door by accused Sonu on which Gladwin Peter had asked him to go and sleep. Next day in the morning when he went to the house Gladwin Peter he found the door bolted from out side and when he went inside he found dead body of deceased Peter Herald and then he gave call to Prem Lata and also dialed 100.
74. PW3 Vijay @ Kalu in his examinationinchief deposed to the same effect but PW4 Gladwin Peter did not corroborate about the same in his testimony. Gladwin Peter did not depose that he had received phone call from PW3 Vijay @ Kalu on 11.06.2015 at about 9:00 PM about none opening of the door of his house by accused Sonu.
75. Further, no evidence has come on record as to which mobile number PW3 Vijay @ Kalu was using. PW3 Vijay @ Kalu in his testimony had deposed that he had called at 100 to call the police. PCR form Ex PW18/A shows that PCR call was made from mobile number 9813770930. Prosecution has also proved on record Consumer SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 24 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC Application Form (CAF) Ex PW23/1 and CDR (Call Detail Record) Ex PW23/2 of mobile phone No. 9813770930. As per CAF Ex PW23/1 mobile number 9813770930 stand in the name of Chet Ram S/o Roop Chand R/o 488, VPOBhogipur, Ganaur, Sonepat, Haryana. Said Chet Ram has not been examined and thus it is not proved on record that PW3 Vijay @ Kalu was using this number.
76. Further, perusal of CDR Ex PW23/2 shows that no outgoing call from 9813770930 was made after 27.05.2015 till the call to 100 on 12.06.2015. Further it also shows that said mobile number had not received any phone call after 16:34:35 on 11.06.2015. Thus, if at all PW3 Vijay @ Kalu was using mobile No. 9813770930 then his both claims that he had received a phone call from his native place at about 6:30 PM on 11.06.2015 during conversation of which accused Sonu had gone to the house of Gladwin Peter and that he had made call to Gladwin Peter at about 9:00 PM on 11.06.2015 when accused Sonu was not opening the door of house of Gladwin Peter, are not sustainable. His claim that in the morning when he found dead body of Peter Herald he informed Prem Lata but perusal of CDR Ex PW23/2 does not show any outgoing call on 12.06.2015 except call to
100. Thus, his claim that he informed or called Prem Lata is also not sustainable. Thus, PW3 Vijay @ Kalu is not helpful for the prosecution and cannot be relied upon for proving anything except that both he and accused Sonu had consumed liquor at about 6:30 PM on 11.06.2015 on the roof of the tenanted room of PW3 Vijay @ Kalu. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove circumstance No. (d), (e) and
(f).
SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 25 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC Circumstance No. (g)
77. Accused was missing since morning of 12.06.2015 and his mobile phone was switched off.
78. Accused Sonu Singh in his statement under Section 313 CrPC had denied staying with parents of Gladwin Peter in his house A98, Vijay Vihar but it has been noted above that prosecution has successfully proved that accused Sonu was staying with parents of Gladwin Peter in his house. Accused Sonu Singh in his statement under Section 313 CrPC further had stated that he had taken liquor with PW3 Vijay @ Kalu on 11.06.2015 at about 6:30 PM thereafter he had left area of Vijay Vihar at about 7:30 PM for his job with Dhaba at Naraina but on account of consumption of alcohol he fell on road only to gain consciousness next morning. Defense had not led any evidence but the fact that accused had consumed liquor at about 6:30 PM on 11.06.2015 has been proved by the prosecution and also admitted by accused.
79. During the course of argument it has been conceded by accused that on 12.06.2015 when he gained consciousness and when he came to know from his sister Preeti Singh (PW29) that he was being suspected of having killed Peter Herald he did not come to the house of Gladwin Peter but strongly denied that he had absconded or that he switched off his mobile phone in order to prevent his detection. It was further submitted on his behalf that he had been working with SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 26 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC Milan Dhaba at Naraina and had not run away.
80. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was arrested by Special Crime Branch and thereafter was formally arrested in the present case and his police remand was taken where after accused Sonu got recovered his mobile phone from servant room of M/s Swati Delux Hotel. Recovery of mobile phone make SHINO with two SIMs have not been disputed by accused also. Prosecution has also proved the recovery memo Ex PW25/3 by examining PW25 Ct Inderaj and PW33 Insp Kanchan Lal Meena. Testimonies of these witness qua getting recovered mobile phone by accused Sonu has not been questioned at all.
81. As per prosecution said mobile phone had two SIMs one of Airtel and other was of Idea but consumer/connection numbers have not been mentioned at all that is to say which two mobile numbers accused was using has not been revealed by prosecution. Neither in charge sheet nor in the testimony of any witnesses said numbers used by accused have been revealed. Further, the CDRs placed on record are of mobile number 9813770930, 9911021175, 9560847445 and 9716814708. Mobile consumer number 9911021175 is in the name of Gladwin Peter vide CAF Ex. PW26/1, mobile number 9560847445 is in the name of Preeti Singh (PW29), mobile number 9716814708 is in the name of Ajay Kumar s/o Sukhbir Singh R/o H.No. 174, VPO Daryapur, Delhi vide CAF Ex. PW24/1, mobile number 9813770930 is in the name of Chet Ram vide CAF Ex. PW23/1. Thus, none of the aforesaid four numbers are in the name of accused. PW4 Gladwin SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 27 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC Peter and PW29 Ms. Preeti Singh did not depose that the mobile number 9911021175 and mobile number 9560847445 were obtained in the respective name and were given to accused Sonu for his use. Similarly, neither Chet Ram in whose name mobile number 9813770930 nor Ajay Kumar in whose name mobile number 9716814708 stood were ever examined to the effect that said two numbers were obtained by them and being used by accused Sonu. Prosecution is completely silent in leading evidence as to which phone number accused was using. Further, perusal of these CDRs does not show that abovesaid mobile numbers were switched off from 12.06.2015 so as to show that if any of the two numbers were being used by accused Sonu were switched off. Thus, prosecution has partly failed to proof the circumstance No. (g) that accused had kept his mobile phone switched off.
Circumstance no. (h).
82. That finger print of accused Sonu Singh was found on the Almirah kept in the house of Gladwin Peter and which Almirah was found forced open. It is the case of the prosecution that investigating agency had lifter chance finger print from the scene of crime particularly from almirah which was found forced open and chance finger print taken from the almirah was sent to finger print examiner bureau to compare with the finger prints of the accused. PW12 HC Kanwar Singh deposed that on 12.06.2015 he had inspected the spot and had lifted finger prints from the almirah. His cross examination did not bring out anything which could make this witness SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 28 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC untrustworthy. PW33 HC Kanchan Lal Meena deposed that finger prints of accused Sonu were obtained on one page Ex. PW33/G and he had sent the finger prints to finger print bureau, Kamla Market.
83. PW39 Retd. Inspector Senior Finger Print Expert Shiv Raj Singh proved his finger print examination expert report Ex. PW39/D and all other necessary documents such as photograph Ex. PW39/A and PW39/B, description of points Ex. PW39/C, specimen finger impression of the accused Ex. PW33/G in his report and reported that chance finger print mark Q4 was identical with left index finger impression Mark S1 on the finger impression slip of Sonu Singh. Chance finger prints Mark Q1, Q2 and Q3 were partial and smudged and did not disclose sufficient number of ridged details in their relative position for comparison. Hence, they were unfit for comparison. Thus, as per this report the impression of left index finger of the accused was found matching with the impression/ chance print taken from almirah.
84. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C stated that since he had been visiting the house his finger impression in the object/article lying in the house is the old one and prosecution is using the same against the accused. Ld. Amicus Curie of the accused has contended that since accused as per prosecution was living in the said house, therefore, finding finger impression on any of the article lying in the house is not unnatural. He further submitted that it is not the case of prosecution that movement of the accused in the house of Gladwin Peter was restricted to a particular area and the almirah was SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 29 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC beyond that particular area. He has further submitted that had he been the culprit then chance finger print must have come in the sua/poker also but admittedly no chance finger print has been found on the said sua/poker. He further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that there was no forcible entry in the house then the latches must have finger impression of the person who might have opened and closed the latches of the main door but no finger print has been lifted from the said latches. He has submitted that no inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of finger impression of the index finger of the accused having matched with the chance print taken from the almirah.
85. Irrespective of the submission of the Ld. Amicus Curie the fact of the matter is that prosecution has successfully proved that impression of the index finger of the accused matched with one of the chance print taken from almirah lying in the house of the Gladwin Peter where deceased Peter Herald was found murdered. Hence, circumstance number (h) stands proved.
Circumstance number (i)
86. That on 26.06.2015, accused gave phone call to Gladwin Peter and threatened him that he would kill him.
87. It has already been noted herein before that prosecution has failed to prove which mobile number accused was using. Further, it is noticed that PW4 Gladwin Peter deposed that on 26.06.2015 at SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 30 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC about 10:30 pm a call was received on the phone of Preeti Singh from Sonu Singh threating him to kill him stating that he would get the same punishment for one murder as would be given to him after committing 10 murders.
88. PW29 Preeti Singh denied of having received any phone call on 26.06.2015 at about 10:30 pm from Sonu Singh. Surprisingly, prosecution to this witness has suggested that accused Sonu Singh had called Gladwin Peter on his mobile phone whereas Gladwin Peter in his testimony deposed that Sonu had called on the mobile phone of Preeti Singh.
89. Gladwin Peter in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C had stated that he had informed over phone the IO about the threatening call which he has allegedly received from accused Sonu Singh on 26.06.2015 at about 10:30 pm but he did not depose to this effect in his own testimony recorded before the court nor did the IO Kanchan Lal Meena deposed having received such intimation over phone from Gladwin Peter about the threating call received by Gladwin Peter either on his own mobile phone or on the mobile phone of Preeti Singh.
90. Thus, it is seen that prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sonu Singh gave threatening call to Gladwin Peter on 26.06.201 at about 10:30 pm. Hence, circumstance number (i) stands not proved.
Circumstance number (j) SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 31 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC
91. Accused Sonu Singh did not want his sister Preeti Singh who was in livein relationship with Gladwin Peter, to sell her land in native place and in order to prevent her from selling the land he killed the father of the Gladwin Peter as he was thinking that sale proceeds could be appropriated by Gladwin Peter and his family members.
92. PW29 Preeti Singh in her testimony testified that she had purchased a piece of land in village Badona Kushi Nagar and deposed that the said land belonged to her father. She also admitted that on 12.05.2015 she had gone to Kushi Nagar for measurement of the said land but she denied that accused Sonu Singh used to objected her selling of land of her father.
93. PW4 Gladwin Peter deposed that he along with Preeti Singh had gone to native village of Preeti Singh in Bihar as Preeti Singh was interested to sell the land in Bihar in order to purchase a house in Delhi to which Sonu Singh object to.
94. As per testimony of PW29 Preeti Singh the land was in village Badona, KushiNagar, UP which land belong to her father whereas PW4 Gladwin Peter talking about the land in Bihar. Further, PW29 Preeti Singh deposed that she had gone to Kushi Nagar on 12.05.2015 in connection with measurement of land, whereas Gladwin Peter deposed that he had gone to Bihar with PW 29 Preeti Singh in connection with measurement of land. If land belonged to father of Preeti Singh then she could not have sold the property, though it has not come on record if her father was alive or not but even if her father SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 32 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC was dead she could not have sold the land alone. Thus, the motive which prosecution is bringing forth as a reason of commission of crime by the accused is not getting established satisfactorily. There is no evidence on record which could show that PW29 Preeti Singh was interested in selling the land and accused was willing to prevent the same due to his apprehension that Gladwin Peter and his family will appropriate the money or that they were misusing Preeti Singh and her income. Thus, the circumstance number (j) is also not proved.
95. Thus, it is seen that prosecution has failed to prove many of the circumstances which it relies to prove the guilt of the accused. It is settled law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution has first to prove all the circumstances which it relies upon and then it has to be seen if the circumstances so proved must point out to the accused and none other as guilty and said circumstances are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. This court is not going into the question whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, if proved, would have been inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and would have unerringly pointed out towards the guilt of the accused.
96. Since prosecution has not been successful in proving all the circumstances against the accused which might have been consistent with the guilt of the accused and which might have been inconsistent with the innocence of the accused Sonu Singh @ Deva, therefore, in view of the above discussion and reasoning accused is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC for which he SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 33 of 34 CNR No. DLNW01-001644-2015 FIR No. 782/15 PS Vijay Vihar U/s 302 IPC faced trial in the present case.
97. In terms of Section 437 A CrPC, accused Sonu Singh @ Deva is required to furnish bond of Rs 25,000/ with one surety of like amount, which shall remain valid for a period of six months.
Digitally signed by HARISH HARISH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2019.11.20
14:14:50 +0530
(HARISH KUMAR)
Announced in open court ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE -3,
(Judgment contains 34 pages) NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS
NEW DELHI, 20.11.2019
SC No. 52670/2016 State vs. Sonu Singh @ Deva Page No. 34 of 34