Delhi District Court
State vs Rahul And Appu on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr.
FIR No.: 204/2022
U/s : 302/201/341/34 IPC
PS : Govindpuri
SC No. : 375/2022
Brief Details Of The Case
FIR Number : 204/2022
Offence complained of : U/s 302/201/341/34 IPC
Date of Offence : 20.02.2022
Name of the complainant : Sh. Akash Deep Singh
S/o Late Sh. Harjeet Singh
R/o H.No.1485, Gali No.13
Govindpuri, Delhi
Name of the accused : 1. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Vohra
H.No. 921/A, Gali No.8,
New Delhi
2. Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari
S/o Sh. Heera Lal
H.No.1402/F 2nd Floor, Gali No.13
Govindpuri, New Delhi
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 1 of 102
Date of Institution : 06.06.2022
Date of Arguments : 10.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 22.12.2025
Decision : Both accused stands acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty and Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari, faced trial in this case, for committing offence punishable under Section 302/341/201/34 IPC.
2. Prosecution case, as per charge-sheet is that 20.02.2022, DD No.22A was received at PS Govindpuri, from Apollo Hospital regarding admission of injured Sanjay Kumar. Upon receiving the same SI Shailender Kumar alongwith HC Sanjay reached at Apollo Hospital and he collected the MLC 116/2022 dated 20.02.2022. Further, he came to know that injured Sanjay Kumar has been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. The injured was not fit for statement. In the hospital IO met one relative of injured namely Prasanjeet Kumar who informed regarding the place of incident to be near house no.1424/A, Gali No.13 Govindpuri, Delhi. Thereafter, IO SI Shailender alongwith staff and Prasanjeet came to the aforesaid place of incident where blood was found lying on the floor. SI Shailender informed the mobile crime team who came to the spot and inspected the spot and took the photographs and also lifted the exhibits from the spot. The exhibits were sealed. No FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 2 of 102 eye witness was found and therefore, IO came back from the spot but the injured was found unfit for statement. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of one eye witness namely Akashdeep Singh @ Sunny who informed that he was resident of H.No.1485/13, Govindpuri, New Delhi. Further, that in the intervening night 19/20.02.2022 around 12:00 -12:15 am he went to meet injured Sanjay Kumar (deceased) at Gali No.13 near Manchanda Communication, where he also met Bunty and Jasveer. After sometime, he alongwith Bunty went to some known person to bring some liquor and on their way back they met Appu who said to Bunty "tu kyo dusro ka saman lata hai",. Thereafter, he alongwith Bunty reached Manchanda and thereafter all four of them alongwith deceased Sanjay Kumar went to his old house and started drinking liquor. After sometime, Bunty received a call on his mobile phone from Appu and asked them to come to Manchanda Communication and thereafter, Bunty, deceased Sanjay reached Manchanda Communication and thereafter, Jasveer reached Manchanda Communication, and thereafter, some heated conversation happened between Appu and deceased Sanjay Kumar. At that time, some boy who was accompanying Appu slapped deceased Sanjay Kumar and thereafter, complainant Amandeep and Jasveer intervened and pacified the matter and both Appu and Bunty and other boys accompanying them left. Subsequently, Jasveer called up Vakil to come and all of them were talking. Meanwhile, Bunty came and started hitting Vakil and thereafter, Vakil was saved by deceased Sanjay and Jasveer. However, Bunty did not get pacify, meanwhile, Vakil went FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 3 of 102 back to his house but Bunty followed him and tried to hit him but Vakil entered his house and at that time quarrel took place. At that time, Bunty came back to the spot and started giving beatings to deceased Sanjay Kumar and thereafter, called for Appu. Meanwhile, Jasveer also left the spot. At that time, Appu brought knife from his house and stabbed deceased Sanjay. Complainant got scared and left the spot and after sometime, came back and found that deceased Sanjay in injured condition was sitting outside his house situated at H.No.1424/A. Thereafter, complainant called Vakil by calling on his phone and Vakil brought his car and took the injured alongwith Vakil, Yogesh and Prasanjeet to Apollo Hospital and thereafter injured was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital where he was treated.
3. Upon the statement of aforesaid witness FIR in the present matter was registered. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant. CCTV cameras was found installed at Mahadev Enterprises and the owner of the same namely Sh. Kapil Aghi was served notice u/s 91 Cr.p.C. to provide DVR which was seized by the IO. Subsequently, IO SI Shailender alongwith HC Sanjay reached Safdarjung Hospital and met Prasanjeet Kumar who was the brother in law of deceased Sanjay, who handed over to him the blood stain closed of the deceased i.e. one brown color underwear, black color pant, one towel with multicolor stripes and one blue color sleepers. All the aforesaid articles were having blood stains. Statement of aforesaid witness Prasanjeet was recorded.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 4 of 102 Subsequently, IO also examined eye witness Jasveerr Singh and Vakil Khan in the present matter.
4. On 22.02.2022 at around 6 pm accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari surrendered before the police station. IO recorded his disclosure statement and was produced before Court and two days PC remand was sought and during the custody the accused got recovered the knife used by him for stabbing the deceased.
5. Meanwhile, on 25.02.2022 DD No.31A was received regarding the death of deceased and subsequently, offence u/s 302 IPC was added. Body of the deceased got identified and postmortem got conducted. Exhibits were seized and viscera was preserved.
6. On 25.02.2022 accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty also surrendered before the concerned PS and was arrested in the present matter and IO recorded his disclosure statement.
7. On 27.02.2022, complainant Akashdeep Singh came to PS to know about the status of the present matter and identified both accused persons. At that time, IO also showed the CCTV footage to the complainant who identified both the accused persons in the CCTV footage.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 5 of 102
8. On 03.03.2022 two other persons who were seen in CCTV footage namely Tara and Aman @ Ganja were asked to join investigation and their statement was recorded. Postmortem report of deceased was collected wherein the cause of death was opined as death is due to septicemia in an operated case of stab injury present over right side of abdomen and left side of chest produced by sharp edged weapon. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature" .
9. On 12.04.2022, draughtsman prepared the scaled site plan and exhibits were sent to FSL for opinion. On 19.04.2022, the DVR containing CCTV footage was opened and was played to check and thereafter was again sealed. The aforesaid exhibits and DVR on 28.04.2022 were sent to FSL. The location of witness Vakil Khan, Jasveer @ Jassa and Aakashdeep were found to be at Govindpuri, Delhi and even of the accused persons were of the same place. Exhibits and knife recovered were sent to FSL for opinion.
10.After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. Cognizance of the offence against accused persons was taken and proceeding under Section 207 Cr.P.C were concluded. Charge was framed against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 6 of 102 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
11.Prosecution has examined 26 witnesses in support of its case: -
Serial Name of the Witness Crux of deposition
Number
PW-1 Sh. Akash Deep To prove the material essentials of the Singh (complainant) complaint. He tendered the following documents in evidence :-
a) his statement - Ex.PW1/A This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
The witness did not support the story of prosecution and was declared hostile.
PW-2 Sh. Jasveer Singh To prove the incident.
(Eye witness) This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
The witness did not support the story of
prosecution and was declared hostile.
PW-3 Sh. Vakil Khan To prove the incident.
(Public witness) This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
The witness did not support the story of
prosecution and was declared hostile.
PW-4 Sh. Prasenjit Kumar To prove regarding the injury sustained
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 7 of 102
(Relative/brother in by the deceased and seizure of blood law of deceased) stain clothes of the deceased.
This witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-5 Dr. Apoorva Singh, To prove the medical treatment given to Sr. Resident, the deceased Sanjay Kumar and death Safdarjung Hospital, summary report of deceased Sanjay Delhi (prove the postmortem and Kumar Ex.PW5/A, CPR notes death summary Ex.PW5/B, death report of deceased report of the Sanjay Kumar Ex.PW5/C and deceased) information form for transfer of dead body to mortuary Ex.PW5/D. The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-6 Sh. Aman @ Ganja To prove the incident.
(Friend of This witness has been duly cross-
deceased/eye
examined.
witness)
The witness did not support the story of
prosecution and was declared hostile.
PW-7 Ms. Poonam Rani To prove the material essentials of the
(Wife of deceased) complaint/incident.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-8 Sh. Kapil Aghi Witnes deposed that he handed over
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 8 of 102
(Produced CCTV DVR make hikvision to police
recording) Ex.PW8/P1.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-9 Sh. Tara To prove the incident.
(Friend of the This witness has been duly cross-
deceased/eye
examined.
witness)
The witness did not support the story of
prosecution and was declared hostile.
PW-10 Sh. Hunny To prove the incident.
(Friend of the This witness has been duly cross-
deceased/eye
examined.
witness)
The witness did not support the story of
prosecution and was declared hostile.
PW-11 Sh. Ajay Kumar To prove the CAF and CDR of mobile
(Nodal Officer no.8527576719, 9871087154,
Bharti Airtel)
9818474819 and tender following
documents:-
a) CDR pertaining mobile
no.8527576719 registered in the name of
Akash Deep Singh Ex.PW11/A & CAF
alongwith ID proof Ex.PW11/B
b) CDR pertaining to mobile
no.9871087154 registered in the name of
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 9 of 102
Jasveer Singh Ex.PW11/C and ID proofs
Ex.PW11/D
c) CDR pertaining to mobile
no.9818474819 registered in the name of
Yogesh Pushpa Ex.PW11/E and CAF
Ex.PW11/F
d) Location charge of three mobile
numbers Ex.PW11/G and Certificate u/s
65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW11/H
e) CDR & CAF and certificate u/s 65 of
Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/I (Colly)
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-12 Sh. Satish Verma To prove the CAF and CDR of mobile
(Nodal Officer no.9999879634 registered in the name of
Vodafone)
Vakil Khan and tender the following
documents:-
a) CDR & CAF of mobile number
9999879634 Ex.PW12/A (Colly) &
Ex.PW12/B
b) Certificate u/s 65 of Indian Evidence
Act pertaining to CAF & CDR
Ex.PW12/C & Ex.PW12/D
c) CDR with location cart and CAF
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 10 of 102
Ex.PW12/E (Colly)
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-13 ACP Mukesh Kumar Witness deposed that he prepared scaled
(Draughtsman) site plan which was Ex.PW13/A on the
basis of his rough notes and after
preparation of scaled site plan rough
notes were destroyed.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-14 HC Vipin Malik Witness deposed that he sent the sealed
(Deposited sealed parcels of viscera peti to FSL vide RC
viscera to FSL) No.102/21/22 dated 13.04.2022
Ex.PW14/A. Further he sent 12 sealed
parcels to FSL vide RC No.113/12/22
Ex.PW14/B and vide RC 114/21/22
Ex.PW14/C respectively.
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-15 HC Bhagwan Sahay Witness deposed regarding the different
(Joined the stages of investigation conducted with IO
investigation with IO
and prove the following documents:
at the time of arrest
of accused Kumar a) Arrest memo of accused Appu @
Chakradhari) Kumar Chakradhari Ex.PW15/A
b) Personal search memo of accused
Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 11 of 102
Ex.PW15/B
c) Disclosure statement of accused Appu
@ Kumar Chakradhari Ex.PW15/C
d) Sketch of knife Ex.PW15/D
e) seizure memo of knife Ex.PW15/E
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-16 HC Sanjay Witness deposed regarding the different
(Accompanied IO SI stages of investigation conducted Shailender during alongwith IO and he tender following investigation) documents:
a) Seizure memo of six parcels
Ex.PW16/A
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-17 Ct. Braj Mohan Witness deposed regarding the different
(Got the medical stages of investigation conducted examination of both alongwith IO and he tender following accused conducted) documents:
a) Disclosure statement of Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari and Rahul Vohra @ Bunty Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B respectively
b) Seizure memo of blood sample of both FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 12 of 102 accused persons Ex.PW17/C The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-18 Ct. Sunil Kumar Witness deposed that he had received (Deposited DVR to twelve sealed parcels alongwith four FSL) sample seals and deposited the same to FSL vide RC No.113/21-22 and No.114/21-22 Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-19 Ct. Bintu Witness deposed that being part of crime (Photographer with scene upon the direction of crime team crime team) incharge he had clicked photographs of spot from different angles Ex.PW19/P-1 (Colly).
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-20 ASI Mahinder Singh Witness deposed that he inspected the (was in mobile crime spot at the instance of SI Shailender and team) prepared crime scene report Ex.PW20/A. The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-21 Ct. Rohitash Witness deposed regarding the different FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 13 of 102 (Accompanied IO stages of investigation conducted Inspt. Yogender) alongwith IO and he tender following documents:
a) Seizure memo of pen drive
Ex.PW21/A
b) Arrest memo of accused Rahul Vohra
@ Bunty Ex.PW21/B
c) Personal search of accused Rahul
Vohra @ Bunty Ex.PW21/C
d) Disclosure statement of accused Rahul
Vohra @ Bunty Ex.PW21/D
e) Pen drive Ex.PW21/P1
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-22 SI Shailender Kumar Witness deposed regarding the different
(1st IO) stages of investigation conducted and he
tender following documents:
a) Death report of deceased Ex.PW22/A
b) Rukka Ex.PW22/B
c) Site plan prepared at the instance of
Akash Deep Ex.PW22/C
d) Site plan of recovery of knife
Ex.PW22/D
e) Seizure memo of viscera, nail clipping
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 14 of 102
and blood in gauze Ex.PW22/E
f) CCTV footage recorded by him
Ex.PW22/P1 (Colly)
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-23 Dr. M L Meena Witness deposed that he had received
(FSL officer who one wooden box for chemical
gave report examination and after examination he
pertaining to viscera) prepared is detailed report Ex.PW23/A. The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-24 Sh. Geetesh Patel, Witness deposed that he examined audio
Assistant Chemical video recording Ex.PW24/A for
Examiner (FSL
authentication.
pertaining to
examination of video The witness has been duly cross-
recording) examined.
PW-25 Inspt. Yogindra Witness deposed regarding the different
Kumar stages of investigation conducted
(2nd IO)
The witness has been duly cross-
examined.
PW-26 Dr. Lakhan To prove the postmortem report which
Lalnavlani Assistant was Ex.PW26/A.
Professor,
The witness has been duly cross-
Safdarjung Hospital
examined.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 15 of 102
12.Vide statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. recorded on 11.01.2024 & 02.09.2025, the accused has admitted the genuineness of the following documents : -
S. Documents Admitted
No.
1. FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri (admitted without Ex.A
contents)
2. DD Entry No.31A dated 25.02.2022 Ex.A1
3. DD Entry No.22A dated 20.02.2022 Ex. A2
4. DD Entry No.109A dated 25.02.2022 Ex.A3
5. Identification memo of dead body by Rohit Das Ex. A4
6. Identification memo of dead body by Anil Kumar Ex. A5
7 . Acknowledgment of deposition of visra to FSL Ex. A6
8. FSL report bearing no.SFSL DLH5018/BIO/ Ex.A7
1160/22 dated 30.08.2022 prepared by Dr. Sarabjit (Colly) Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer Biology (running into 3 pages)
9. Subsequent opinion report dated 13.09.2022 Ex.A8 prepared by Dr. S.K. Tandon, Consultant Professor and Head of the Department Dept OF Foreseen Medicine and Texology
10. Report of Cyber Forensic Division bearing Ex.A9 no.SFSL(DLH)/4982/CO/866/22 dated 09.10.2023 prepared by Sh. Kaushlendra Kumar Chaudhari
13.Prosecution witnesses deposed regarding the offence in the present matter as follows:
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 16 of 102 PW-1 Sh. Akashdeep Singh (complainant) deposed that on the intervening night of 19/20.02.2022, he was present at his home, around 11:30 PM. He received telephonic call from his friend Sanjay, who asked him to come down stairs. After coming out of his home, he met Sanjay and he asked him to come with him to his car for drinking liquor. At that time, they were present in Gali No. 13, Near Briyani Shop, where one car was parked. When Sanjay met him, outside his home, he also met Vakeel and Jassi, who were also his friend. All four of them went to a car, parked near Briyani Shop. Then all four of them, sat in the said car and started drinking liquor. After some time, Sanjay received call from his employee, who asked Sanjay to come to factory for celebrating birthday. That car was owned by Vakeel. After hearing the said request of employee of Sanjay, all four of them went on foot to the factory of Sanjay, which was located near the said place and they reached the said factory within 02 minutes, on foot. Then they again started drinking in the factory. Around 1-1:30 AM, all four of them left the said factory. Vakeel left them and rest three of them, including him started talking. Jassi told them that he was not satisfied with the quantity of liquor, he had taken then he called Vakeel and asked him to send liquor bottle through him as he was sending him to the residence of Vakeel. He then took scooty of Sanjay and went to the house of Vakeel. Vakeel came with him on scooty along with liquor bottle, to the place outside factory of Sanjay. Then four of them walked to a place near Gas Agency. They FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 17 of 102 again started drinking there. Till 3-3:30 AM, they continued to drink. Then three boys came on a bike. Their bike touched the body of Vakeel. Then those boys started abusing Vakeel. Thereafter, matter escalated to the stage of physical fight. He don't know the names of three boys who had come on bike. In the said physical fight (hathapai) one of the said boy attacked Sanjay with a knife. Since they were all drunk so they became hopeless and fled away from the spot. After some time, he returned back to the spot and found Sanjay in injured condition. He was sitting below Gas Agency. He asked him as to why he had left the spot. He called Vakeel telephonically and asked him to bring car as Sanjay was severely injured. Then they put Sanjay in the car, brought by Vakeel and took him to Apollo Hospital. Vakeel paid money by swapping his card in the said hospital and medical treatment of Sanjay started. Then friends started coming to the hospital and one of the said friend called elder brother of Sanjay namely Anil. Then after discussion, it was decided that Sanjay had to be shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. When Sanjay was put in ambulance car and was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he was admitted. When all of them came out of the hospital and started talking. After 02 hours, police came in the hospital and inquired from all of them. Then he was also inquired and gave details of said incident to police. He had not told IO as to who had attacked Sanjay. Police recoded his statement which was Ex. PW-1/A. Thereafter witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as the witness was resiling and did not depose regarding material facts of his FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 18 of 102 complaint Ex.PW1/A. The witness did not support the story of prosecution and did not identify both the accused persons in the CCTV footage shown to him during his testimony recorded before the Court and denied the suggestions that the accused persons had stab deceased Sanjay Kumar.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari PW-1 deposed that his mobile phone number was being used by several persons.
PW-2 Sh. Jasveer Singh (eye witness) deposed that he was doing a private job. On 19.02.2022 at about 10-10.30 pm, he left his house and reached at Paan Shop which was situated in Gali No.13, Govind Puri. At that time, he was standing at Paan Shop and was talking to Sanjay (deceased in the present matter). Thereafter, he alongwith deceased Sanjay walked outside Gali No. 13 and met one person namely Vakil Khan. Thereafter, they were conversing and decided to have drinks/ liquor. Thereafter, they decided to consume liquor and sat in the car of Vakil Khan. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay made a call to one person namely Sunny. Thereafter, Sunny alongwith them sat in the car and also consumed liquor. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay received a call from his worker and he asked deceased Sanjay to reach the factory to celebrate the birthday. Thereafter, they all went to the factory of the deceased Sanjay which was also situated in Gali No. 13, Govind Puri, which was just below the house of deceased Sanjay. Thereafter, they FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 19 of 102 again consumed liquor. Thereafter, they all consumed liquor and it was late in night and their friend Vakil Khan left for his house. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay alongwith Sunny and himself were conversing and deceased said that he still wanted to consume more liquor. Thereafter, he made call to their friend Vakil Khan and told him to arrange liquor and also told him that Sunny shall reach his place to collect the liquor bottle. Thereafter, their friend Sunny brought the liquor from Vakil Khan and even Vakil Khan came back there. Thereafter, they all four again sat and started consuming liquor. Around 2.30 am in the night, they all then walked towards the Gas Agency which was not very far away from their houses. They went there till 3.30 am. Around 3.30 am, three persons who were riding a bike passed from their side and brushed against Vakil Khan. Thereafter, we stopped the persons who were riding the bike and Vakil Khan told them to drive carefully. Thereafter, some arguments took place between deceased Sanjay, Vakil Khan and Sunny and the persons who were riding on the bike. Thereafter, he sensed that the arguments may escalate so he left the spot and went back to his house. Thereafter, he came to know on the next day that the deceased Sanjay had been injured. He did not know how deceased Sanjay was injured. He did not know how deceased Sanjay was injured. Police did not enquire about the matter from him. Police never recorded his statement in the present matter.
Thereafter witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 20 of 102 was declared hostile as the witness did not support the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW2/A. PW-3 Sh. Vakil Khan (eye witness) deposed that in the intervening night of 19/20.02.2022, he came down from his house at about 11 pm and reached at Biryani Shop where he met Jasveer and Sanjay and they were planning for taking liquor. Thereafter, they asked him to get the keys of his car since his car was parked in the parking area nearby. Thereafter, he got the keys of his car make Dutson Go. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay gave a call to Akashdeep @ Sunny to reach near his Biryani Shop. After sometime, aforesaid person namely Akashdeep @ Sunny also reached near his Biryani Shop. Thereafter, he alongwith deceased Sanjay, Akashdeep @ Sunny and Jasveer sat in his car and started consuming liquor. After sometime, deceased Sanjay received the call on his mobile phone from one of his worker telling him regarding his birthday celebration. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay told all of them that they should go to his factory to celebrate the birthday of his worker. Thereafter, they all four went to the factory of deceased Sanjay and again consumed liquor for sometime. Thereafter, around 1 am, he 'went back to his house. Therefore, he received a call from Jasveer around 1.30 am who told him that he should give the liquor bottle which was kept in the factory to Akashdeep @ Sunny who was coming on the scooty of deceased Sanjay. Thereafter, he handed over the liquor bottle to Akashdeep @ Sunny and even he accompanied him on the scooty and FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 21 of 102 reached again to the factory of deceased Sanjay. Thereafter, they again consumed liquor and came out of the factory after sometime and started walking towards the main road near the Kain Gas Agency which was also in Gali No.13. Thereafter, they kept on consuming liquor. Around 3.30 am in the night, while he was standing and other were sitting and consuming liquor, thereafter, they saw that three boys who were sitting on a bike came towards them and brushed aside him. Thereafter, he warned the three boys to be careful as they had touched him with their bike. However, at that time, deceased Sanjay got up and started having arguments with three boys who were on bike and thereafter, those three boys said "abhi dekhte hair" and thereafter, being threatened, they all started running away from the spot and he ran back to his house, Thereafter, around 15-20 minutes later, he received a call from Akashdeep @Sunny who told him that deceased Sanjay has suffered injuries. Thereafter, he reached back to the place and found that deceased Sanjay was having injuries and thereafter, he told Akashdeep @ Sunny to bring Sanjay on the main road and meanwhile, he shall get the car to the main road. Thereafter, he took his car and took deceased Sanjay in his car to the hospital alongwith Akashdeep @ Sunny from Kain Gas Agency. They had taken deceased Sanjay to Apollo Hospital and got deceased Sanjay admitted in the hospital and completed the formalities of admission in the hospital. Meanwhile, relatives of the deceased Sanjay and several of his friends reached the spot. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay was got referred to Safdarjung Hospital for treatment as FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 22 of 102 Apollo Hospital was expensive. Police had enquired about the matter from him at Safdarjung Hospital. However, his statement was not recorded by the IO.
Thereafter witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was declared hostile as the witness did not support the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Mark PW3/A. PW-4 Sh. Prasenjit Kumar (brother in law of deceased) deposed that in the month of January, 2022, he used to reside with his sister and her husband namely Sanjay at Govindpuri. On 19.02.2022, he received a call from his sister namely Poonam at around 05:00 am and he was present at his factory. His sister told him that he should immediately reached home since his brother in law namely deceased Sanjay has been stabbed by a knife. When he reached the home of his sister which was around 50-100 meters from his factory, he found that his brother in law namely deceased Sanjay was found injured and was bleeding. Thereafter, he found that one person namely Sunny was already present alongwith his sister and deceased Sanjay and Sunny called up Vakil and thereafter, aforesaid person Vakil got his car and thereafter, he alongwith Sunny and Vakil took his brother in law in the hospital at Apollo Hospital Sarita Vihar. While they were on the way to the hospital, he was informed by deceased Sanjay and he told him " mujhe bunty aur appu ne chaku maar diya". The same thing was told to him by Sunny also that his brother in law has been stabbed by Bunty and Appu. Thereafter, on the way they also met one of the friend of deceased FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 23 of 102 Sanjay namely Yogesh. Yogesh also sat with them in the car and they all went to the hospital. Thereafter, doctor took out the wearable clothes underwear, pant one pair sleepers and one blood stained towel of Sanjay and handed over the same to him which he kept in a polythene bag. Thereafter, deceased Sanjay was given medical treatment and later was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Thereafter they reached at Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, he handed over the aforesaid things in the polythene bag to the police at Safdarjung Hospital. The same were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. Police recorded his statement. During examination, witness was shown one black color pant, one blood stained underwear, one towel with multicolor stripes blood stained, and one sleeper of blue color and the case property was Ex. P-1 (Colly).
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari PW-4 deposed that he had received a call from his sister from her mobile number. He did not remember the mobile number of his sister. He had received call on his mobile no.9654924247. He had told the police that he had received the call from his sister on his mobile phone. He was having the same mobile number. He reached the home of his sister within 5 minutes of receiving the call from her. Neither he nor his sister made a call to the ambulance. Sunny had called Vakil within 2- 3 minutes of his reaching. He did not know the make of the car or model number or car number or color of car of Vakil in which they had taken FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 24 of 102 deceased Sanjay to the hospital. Deceased Sanjay had asked Sunny to call Vakil as he used to live in vicinity to bring the car. Vakil got his car within 10-15 minutes of making the call. The deceased Sanjay was made lay down on the back seat of the car. His sister did not accompany us since there was no one else to look after the house. He did not remember the exact place where they met Yogesh on their way. He did not know who had informed Yogesh about the incident and may be his sister had informed. Nobody had made a call to Yogesh in his presence in the car. They met Yogesh almost half an hour of starting from the house. They had taken deceased Sanjay to Apollo Hospital since it was nearest from our house on the suggestion of Yogesh. They reached hospital within 15-20 minutes after taking Yogesh. When they reached Apollo Hospital no police official met them. The payment for treatment in Apollo hospital was made by Vakil. Meanwhile, several persons had come to the hospital and when they took deceased Sanjay to Safdarjung Hospital alongwith one Doctor in an ambulance and remaining persons came to Safdarjung Hospital in their private vehicles. Wife of deceased Sanjay did not come to Apollo Hospital. Wife of deceased Sanjay did not come to Safdarjung Hospital. Police had reached Safdarjung Hospital and enquired about the matter from him. Police had not recoded his statement in the hospital. Police had recorded his statement at the PS after the death of Sanjay. He did not remember if he had informed the police that deceased Sanjay had informed him that " mujhe bunty aur appu ne chaku maar diya". Was confronted with statement recorded U/s FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 25 of 102 161 Cr.P.C. which was Ex. PW4/D1 wherein it was not so recorded.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW-4 deposed that he had brought his aadhar card and the same was shown to Ld. Counsel for accused. He had come to stay in Delhi 2-3 months prior to the death of deceased Sanjay and he started to stay with his sister and deceased Sanjay. He did not know the exact address of the house of his sister. He resided in the factory having address H.No.E-351, Govindpuri, Gali No.13, Delhi when he came to Delhi. He had never told the police that he came to Delhi 5-7 days prior to the aforesaid incident. Witness was confronted with statement Ex. PW4/D1 from point A to A wherein it was written that since 13-14.01.2022 he came to reside with his sister in Delhi. He did not remember the exact time when they reached at Safdarjung Hospital but it was morning time. When the deceased Sanjay was with him in the car he was not having any mobile phone. His brother in law/deceased Sanjay used to have a mobile phone but he did not remember his exact mobile number. Police had not seized his mobile phone or the SIM. Deceased Sanjay was able to talk when they reached Safdarjung Hospital "bol pa rahe the halka halka". Police had made enquiry to deceased Sanjay at Safdarjung hospital. He voluntarily deposed that he did not know what they had spoken. He remained at Safdarjung Hospital for 05 days till the demise of deceased Sanjay. Deceased Sanjay expired on 25.02.2022. When his statement was recorded by police no other person accompanied with him. He did FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 26 of 102 not know the address of Yogesh. Yogesh had also come to Safdarjung Hospital. He did not know if police had enquired about the matter from Yogesh. He had not been told the name of Bunty and Appu by anyone and he remembered the same prior coming to the Court. He had never seen Appu but he had seen Bunty. He did not remember if his signature was obtained by the police on his statement recorded by them. PW-5 Dr. Apoorva Singh Sr. Resident Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi deposed that on 25.02.2022, he was working as a Senior Resident at Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Patient namely Sanjay Kumar was received in emergency 3 at 08:30 am on 20.02.2022. Patient had alleged history of assault. Exploratory Laparotomy (meaning surgery of abdomen) was done on 20.02.2022 in view of haemoperitoneum (meaning blood inside the abdomen) under general anesthesia and shifted to ICU for further management. Patient was in septic shock and had burst abdomen on 22.02.2022. Patient was on high inotropic support (meaning high end medicines to support blood pressure). Patient had episode of bradycardia (meaning decrease in heard beat) and asystole (meaning absence of heard beat) on 25.02.2022. CPR started according to modified ACLS guidelines. Despite resuscitative efforts patient could not be revived. He had prepared the death summary report of patient Sanjay Kumar. Same was Ex. PW5/A. He had also prepared the CPR notes pertaining to patient Sanjay Ex. PW5/B. He had also prepared a death report of patient Ex. PW5/C. He had also prepared the information form for transfer of dead body to the mortuary. Same was Ex. PW5/D. FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 27 of 102 During cross examination on behalf of both accused persons PW5 deposed that the doctor in Emergency 3 had received the patient. In normal course the history is told to us from the documents received in ward. Today, he did not remember who had given him the history. However, the said report Ex. PW5/A the death summary was prepared by him and his junior doctor under his supervision.
PW-6 Sh. Aman @ Ganja (eye witness) deposed that on the intervening night of 19/20.02.2022, he was present at his house and he had not witnessed any incident. About two years ago 10-15 boys of their lane were arrested by the police and he came to know that they were arrested in a matter of murder of some person. Thereafter, police officials had asked him also to come and depose in the Court. Police officials had taken their name and phone number on a paper. He did not know anything about the present matter. I have not seen any incident of the present matter. He did not know why I have been called in the present case.
Thereafter witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was declared hostile as the witness did not support the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW6/A. PW-7 Ms. Poonam Rani (wife of deceased) deposed that on deceased Sanjay was her husband. In the intervening night of 19-20.02.2022 she FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 28 of 102 was present at her aforesaid house. At around 12:30 am in the night he had seen her husband deceased Sanjay standing outside her house. She had seen him standing from the first floor of her balcony alongwith 3-4 persons. She saw him talking to those 3-4 persons. Thereafter, he went back to his room. Around 01:30-02:00 am door bell of her house rang and she saw from the balcony of her house that her husband deceased Sanjay alongwith one person namely Sunny and Bunty were standing. At that time, her husband deceased Sanjay asked her to hand over the keys of the scooty and she gave him and thereafter, Bunty and Sunny took away the scooty and left. Thereafter my husband deceased Sanjay also went from there. Thereafter, she went back to her room. At around 04:45 am in the morning again door bell rang and upon hearing the same she saw from her balcony her husband was standing in injured condition outside her house. Thereafter, upon seeing him, she went down and opened the gate and saw that her husband was profusely bleeding and was injured. Thereafter, she enquired as to how he had suffered injuries upon which he told her accused Bunty and Appu had stabbed him by knife. Thereafter, Sunny the friend of her husband deceased Sanjay also came and she enquired from him about the matter, who also informed her that accused Bunty and Appu had stabbed her husband. Thereafter, Sunny gave a call to Vakil and asked him to come to their house so that her husband deceased Sanjay could be taken to hospital. Meanwhile, she gave a call to her brother namely Prasanjeet who was sleeping in their old house which has been converted into a factory. Thereafter, her FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 29 of 102 brother namely Prasanjeet also came to her house. Thereafter, her husband deceased Sanjay was taken to hospital in the car of Vakil by Sunny and Vakil and her brother Prasanjeet. Thereafter, around 05:15 am she made a call to her brother to enquire about the health of her husband deceased Sanjay and to find out as to where they were taking him for treatment upon which her brother Prasanjeet told her that she should not worry since he was also accompanied by Yogesh and they shall take my husband to Apollo Hospital. Thereafter, her husband was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital and her husband remained in hospital for about 5 days and thereafter her husband expired on 25.02.2022.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari PW-7 deposed that at around 01:30 am and 04:45 am when her husband had come to the house downstairs only she alongwith her children were present at her house. When her husband came down stairs at around 04:45 am and was in injured condition, she had not taken him inside her house and he remained outside the house. Aforesaid person namely Sunny who was the friend of her husband came at her house of his own and he came within 5 minute of her husband reaching. Vakil also reached their house within 5-7 minutes of Sunny making him the call. Her husband had informed her that he was stabbed by accused persons soon after he came and at that time only she was present. She had not made a call at 100 number. She was under shock and did not have the understanding to give a call to the police. Her husband in FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 30 of 102 injured condition remained outside her house for about 20 minutes and thereafter, he was taken to hospital. She did not call any neighbourer and no neighbourer came during the aforesaid time since it was early morning time. She did not know if her husband had consumed liquor on that night. She did not visit to the hospital during the time her husband was admitted as she was in shock. Police had come to her house to enquire about the matter after 2-3 hours and she had tell them about the same. She did not remember if police officials had taken her statement on that day. Police had not asked her about the entire incident and so she did not have the opportunity to tell them. Thereafter, she had visited the police station where her statement was recorded. She did not remember the date when her statement was recorded by the police. She could not tell as to after how many days police officials had recorded her statement. Her statement was recorded by the police after the demise of her husband. She had visited the police station when she was called by the police and she had received the telephone call from them. She had not stated to the police in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. that person namely Yogesh had taken her husband deceased Sanjay in the car to the hospital alongwith Sunny, Pasanjeet and Vakil. When police had come to her house on the day of incident, she had shown them the place where her husband was present with his injuries and also shown blood stains on the ground.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 31 of 102 PW-7 deposed that she could not tell the phone number on which she had made a call to her brother. The same was saved in her mobile phone. Prasanjeet was her cousin brother and not her real brother. She did not remember as to when she had met the police officials after the demise of her husband. After the demise of her husband she had been residing in Delhi. She did not remember the make model or car number in which her husband was taken to hospital but it was a small car.
PW8 Sh. Kapil Aghi deposed that he was running a business of Hosiery industry. He had his office situated at 1408, Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Delhi, On 20.02.2022, he had received a notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. to provide DVR installed at 11.No. 1408, Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Delhi. On 21.02.2022, he handed over DVR of the CCTV footage containing footage intervening night of 19-20-02.2022. The CCTV camera was installed on the door of his aforesaid office/shop. He handed over the DVR of CCTV camera to the IO and the same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. He had issued the certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence act pertaining to CCTV footage Ex. PW8/B. During examination in chief witness was shown DVR make hikvision and after seeing the same witness deposed that he was not sure if the same was the DVR which he had given to the police and the same was Ex.PW8/P1. Witness deposed that DVRs were similar looking and therefore, he was not able to identified the same today. Subsequently, witness was cross examined on behalf of State and upon being asked he denied that DVR FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 32 of 102 Ex. PW8/P1 was the same DVR which he had handed over to the police during investigation and the same was seized by IO at his instance vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A. During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-8 deposed that Police had enquired about the matter from him only once. They had only taken DVR from him. The police officials had taken the DVR from him. They had taken the same from him on the day when the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. was served upon him. The police officers came and they themselves removed the DVR and took it away. They had taken the DVR from him and the same was not sealed in him presence. The document Ex. PW8/B bears his signature but the same was not prepared by him. He had read the same before signing it. He had signed the same in the police station. The same was in typed format and he had signed it.
PW-9 Sh. Tara (eye witness) deposed that on in the intervene night of 19/20-02-2022, he was present at his house. On that night, he had not gone anywhere. He used to remain at his house in the night time. He had not seen incident of the present case. He knew Aman and Hunny. Both were residing near his house. On that day, he had not seen any quarrel. He did not know anything about this case. Police had not enquired anything about the present matter from him. Police had not recorded his statement. Police had not shown him any CCTV footage regarding any incident in the present matter, for identification of the accused persons.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 33 of 102 He did not know the accused persons Rahul and Appu in the present matter. He did not know the accused persons and therefore, he could not identify the accused persons in any CCTV footage if shown to him. Thereafter witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was declared hostile as the witness did not support the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW9/A. PW-10 Sh. Hunny (eye witness) deposed that in the intervene night of 19/20-02-2022, he was present at his house. On that night, he had not gone anywhere. He was at his house in the night time. He had not seen incident of the present case. He knew Aman and Tara. Both were residing near his house. On that day, he had not seen any quarrel. He did not know anything about this case. Police had enquired about the present from him and he had told the police that he did not know anything about the present matter. Police had not recorded his statement but had made him signed on some paper and had made his video. Police had not shown him any CCTV footage regarding any incident in the present matter, for identification of the accused persons. He did not know the accused persons Rahul and Appu in the present matter. He did not know the accused persons and therefore, he could not identify the accused persons in any CCTV footage if shown to him. I had never seen any CCTV footage pertaining to this matter or regarding murder of any person. No CCTV footage was shown to me by the police. Thereafter witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and was declared hostile as the witness did not support the statement FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 34 of 102 recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW10/A. PW-11 Sh. Ajay Kumar (Nodal Officer Bhati Airtel) deposed that he was working with Bharti Airtel since 2007. He had brought call detail, CAF Location Chart alongwith certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 8527576719 registered in the name of Akash Deep Singh, 9871087154 registered in the name of Jasveer Singh & 9818474819 registered in the name of Yogesh Pusha from the period 19.02.2022 to 20.02.2022. As per the CAF location chart the location of mobile number 8527576719 registered in the name of Akash Deep Singh,on 20.02.2022 at around 4:18 am to 04:59 am is found to be at cell ID 2191_237851659, near H.No.1408/13, Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. As per the CAF location chart the location of mobile number 9818474819 registered in the name of Yogesh Pusha, on 20.02.2022 at around 05:05:26 am was found to be at cell ID 2203_235524866, near Pocket A-10 and A-II, Block A, 12 Kalkaji Extension, Govindpuri, New Delhi. As per the CAF location chart the location of mobile number 9871087154 registered in the name of Jasveer Singh , on 20.02.2022 at around 04:37:56 am was found to be at cell ID 2191_237851660, H.No.645A, Gali No.7, Govindpuri, New Delhi. The CDR pertaining to mobile no.8527576719 registered in the name of Akash Deep Singh is Ex. PW11/A and Customer Application Form alongwith ID proof of said mobile number is Ex. PW11/B (Colly) which bearing my siganture at point A on each page. The CDR FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 35 of 102 pertaining to mobile no.9871087154 registered in the name of Jasveer Singh is Ex. PW11/C and Customer Application Form alongwith ID proof of said mobile number was Ex.PW11/D (Colly). The CDR pertaining to mobile no.9818474819 registered in the name of Yogesh Pusha was Ex. PW11/E and Customer Application Form of said mobile number was Ex. PW11/F. Location chart of above said three mobile numbers was Ex. PW11/G. He had brought certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to CDR of above three mobile numbers was Ex. PW11/H. The above said CDR of the above said three mobile numbers and CAFs which was provided to the IO by Nodal Officer Surinder Kumar and he had also issued certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and the same was given to the IO. The CDRs and above said CAFs and certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act which was handed over by the Nodal Officer Surinder Kumar to the IO which was Ex. PW11/I (Colly - from page no.87 to 103). He had identify the signature of Nodal Officer Surinder Kumar as he had worked with him. During cross examination PW-11 was asked following court questions:
Q1. How do you identify from the record the mobile location of any device/mobile phone?
Ans. We mention the location of the mobile phone as per cell ID in the CDR of the mobile phone.
Q2. In your statement recorded on 23.07.2024, you have categorically mentioned the place and time of the location, how is it different from tower location?
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 36 of 102 Ans. In my documents Ex.PW11/A to Ex.PW11/H, I have given call detail record, customer application form and cell ID chart. The cell ID chart is pertaining to the tower near which the mobile phone is located shall be reflected.
Q3. What is the difference between tower location and mobile location?
Ans. The Gali No. that I have mentioned in my examination in chief is pertaining to the tower near which the mobile phone was functional and does not mentioned the exact location of the mobile phone.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-11 deposed that the actual location of the mobile phone cannot be ascertained from the tower location and in the CDR we are only showing the tower location. The normal range of any tower is from 0 to 3 km depending upon each tower site. He could not tell the exact radius of the tower from which the location was being shown.
PW-12 Sh. Satish Verma, Nodal Officer Vodafone Idea Ltd. deposed that he was working with Vodafone Idea Ltd. since 2014. He had brought call detail, CAF Location Chart alongwith certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile number 9999879634 which was registered in the name of Vakil Khan and CDR from 19.02.2022 to 20.02.2022. As per location chart of mobile number 9999879634 which was registered in the name of Vakil Khan was found at about 04:34:54 FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 37 of 102 am at Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Delhi and at about 04:37 am the location of the above said mobile number was found to be near 1422, Gali No.13 Govind Puri, Delhi till 05:07:32 am. The location chart and CDR was Ex. PW12/A (Colly). CAF of the above said mobile number was Ex.PW12/B and the said mobile phone was registered in the name of Vakil Khan and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to CDR and CAF was Ex. PW12/C and Ex. PW12/D. On 16.05.2022, the CDR of the above said mobile phone and customer application form with location chart and certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to above said mobile phone and CAF were handed over to IO by their nodal officer namely Mr. Shashank Tyagi with forwarding letter. He could identify his signature as he was working with him.
Certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and CDR with location chart and CAF were Ex. PW12/E (Colly from page no. 75-85).
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW12 deposed that the location which he had statement in his statement of Gali No. 13, Govind Puri and 1422, Gali No. 13, Govind Puri, were the locations of the Tower and not of the mobile phone. The actual location of the mobile phone cannot be ascertained from the tower location and in the CDR we are only showing the tower location. He could not tell the radius/range of the tower as mentioned in my examination in chief.
PW-13 ACP Mukesh Kumar Jain (Draughtsman) deposed that on FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 38 of 102 12.04.2022, he was working as Inspt. Draughtsman. On that day, at the request of IO Inspt. Yoginder Kumar, he had reached at PS Govindpuri and from where he alongwith IO/Inspt.. Yoginder Kumar, SI Shailender and two other police officials reached at the spot i.e. Gali No.13 Near H.No.1424A, Govindpuri, New Delhi. There he had inspected the spot, took measurements and prepared rough notes on the pointing of SI Shailender. On 13.04.2022, on the basis of said rough notes and measurements, he prepared scaled site plan which was Ex. PW13/A. After preparation of scaled site plan rough notes were destroyed.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW13 deposed that the rough notes which was prepared by her was in her own hand writing. He had prepared the same upon the assistance of SI Shailender. He must have shown the references, as mentioned the scale site plan from A to F in the destroyed rough notes.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari PW13 deposed that he had not noticed any blood as mentioned in his reference point E & F in the scaled site plan. It was correct that he had mentioned the blood in his reference at point E & F in the scaled site plan on the asking of the IO.
PW-14 HC Vipin Malik deposed that as per direction of IO, he had sent sealed parcel of viscera peti to the FSL vide RC No.102/21/22 dated FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 39 of 102 13.04.2022 with sample seal through Constable Praveen, and he had deposited the above said parcel in the FSL and after depositing the same one copy of the road certificate was handed over to him. As long as above said case property remained with him no body had tempered the above said parcel. Copy of the road certificate was Ex.PW14/A. On 28.04.2022, he had sent the twelve sealed parcel alongwith four sample seal to FSL through Ct. Sunil Kumar vide RC no.113/21/22 dated 28.04.2022 and one sealed parcel of DVR also sent to FSL vide RC No.114/21/22 dated 28.04.2022 through Ct. Sunil Kumar who had deposited the above said sealed parcel to FSL and copy of RC were handed over to me. As long as above said case property remained with him no body had tempered the above said parcel. Copy of the RC No.113/21/22 was Ex.PW14/B and copy of RC No.114/21/22 dated 28.04.2022 was Ex.PW14/C. During cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons PW-14 deposed that he had received the parcel detailed in exhibit PW14/B and PW14/C from the IO. It was correct that the copy of the register no.19 containing the entry of parcels has not been placed on record. He had handed over the parcels vide Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C at about 9:30/10 am on 28.04.2022 to Ct. Sunil Kumar. He had word with the investigating officer who informed him that Ct. Sunil Kumar would come to him to pick up the parcel. He did not speak to Ct. Sunil Kumar personal before he came to collect the parcels. He had FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 40 of 102 handed over the aforesaid twelve parcels of Ex.PW14/B in a cloth bag to Ct. Sunil Kumar. The bag was chained in which the sealed parcels put into the same bag. He had prepared the road certificate in the presence of Ct. Sunil Kumar. All the parcels having seal were mentioned in the road certificate alongwith their respective sample seal. The sample seal and road certificate were not kept in the cloth bag but handed over physically to Ct. Sunil Kumar. The sample seal of 'SJH' on a piece of paper were already lying deposited in the malkhana with the sealed parcel. It was correct that apart from the seal mentioned in Ex.PW14/B and Ex.PW14/C no other sample seal was available with him except for the one mentioned in Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14B and Ex.PW14/C. The parcel of Ex.PW14/C was handed over to Ct. Sunil Kumar in a separate chain cloth bag. The parcel of Ex.PW14/C was in a plastic bag. The seal on parcel Ex.PW14/C was same at the time of deposition and handing over of the said parcel.
PW-15 HC Bhagwan Sahay deposed that he had joined the investigation of this case alongwith IO in the police station. Accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari was arrested by IO in the police station in his presence vide memo Ex.PW15/A. Personal search of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari conducted by IO vide memo Ex.PW15/B. Disclosure statement of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari was recorded by IO vide memo Ex.PW15/C. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari had reached at Okhla Estate near bushes of FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 41 of 102 Police Booth. Accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari had pointed the place where he had threw the knife that is weapon of offence in the bushes. Accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari took out the knife from the bushes and handed over to IO in my presence. Knife was measured by IO and sketch of knife was prepared by IO which was Ex.PW15/D and the said knife was sealed in the transparent plastic box and seized in this case vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/E. Witness correctly identify accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari. Witness correctly identify the knife and the same was Ex.PW15/P1.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-15 deposed that he did not remember as to what time, he joined the duty on 22.02.2022. He was present in the police station on that time. None of the witness of the present case were present in the police station on that day. He did not know, as to whether the accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari was called by IO or he came of his own. He could not tell the time when accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari remained in the police station before proceeding to the recovery of weapon of offence. No enquiry/investigation was made from the accused. Again said, the enquiry conducted in his presence has already been mentioned in his examination in chief. He remained with the IO throughout after the arrest of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari till the time of their departure from the police station. He did not know as to whether any departure entry was made by the IO. He alongwith accused Appu @ FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 42 of 102 Kumar Chakradhari and the IO went to the place of recovery by a vehicle. However, he did not remember the make, model or color of the vehicle. He did not know whether the aforesaid vehicle was private or government. He did not know who had driven the aforesaid vehicle. He did not remember the exact time of reaching the police station after conducting the proceeding. They had straightway after doing the proceeding, come back to the police station. From the police station we had directly gone to the place of recovery. They had proceeded to the place of recovery once it was disclosed by the accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari in his disclosure statement. At the time of recovery, IO had requested public persons to join the investigation but all went and did not join. He did not remember how many public persons were stopped by the IO for the same. The place of recovery also falls under PS Govindpuri. The place of recovery was around 1- 1½ km from the police station. He did not remember, if any site plan of the place of recovery was made by the IO. He did not remember the exact time for which they remained at the place of recovery.
PW-16 HC Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 20.02.2022, he was posted as HC at PS Govindpuri and he was on emergency duty alongwith SI Shailender. At about 08:15 pm DO had informed to the SI Surinder regarding DD No.22A regarding admission of injured in Apollo Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Shailender reached Apollo Hospital, Delhi, where they came to know that patient referred to FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 43 of 102 Safdarjung Hospital. They reached at Safdarjung Hospital where IO contact to concern doctor and request for recording the statement of injured persons and doctor advised that patient was not fit for statement. One person was also met at Safdarjung Hospital. He did not know the name of that person. They reached at Apollo Hospital on the day of incident and collected the MLC of deceased Sanjay. IO interrogated to the doctor who was medically examined the deceased and doctor advised that patient should be referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. After collecting MLC of injured, they went to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. Injured Sanjay also got admitted in Safdarjung Hospital where on the request of IO, the doctor concerned medically examined the injured and IO tried to record the statement of injured. But doctor advised that patient was not fit for statement. They search the eye witness in the Safdarjung Hospital, where one witness Prasanjit met them, who was the brother in law (saala of Sanjay), who disclosed that incident took place at H.No.1412/A, Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Delhi. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and witness Prasanjit reached at above said spot and they observed that blood was spreading in the street. Thereafter, IO called the crime team at spot and crime team also reached at spot. Crime team reached at spot and collected exhibits from the spot and advised IO to collect the exhibits from the spot. Thereafter, exhibits in six parcels duly sealed with the seal of SK and seized in this case vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. Thereafter, IO tried to search the eye witnesses at spot. But at that time, no eye witness was found at spot. Thereafter, we again FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 44 of 102 reached at Safdarjung Hospital. IO had requested to the doctor concerned for recording statement of Sanjay but doctor advised that injured was not fit for statement. In the meantime, eye witness Aakash Deep met in the hospital who disclosed that he was the eye witness of the case. The statement of Akash Deep was recorded by IO in the hospital. Thereafter, rukka was prepared by the IO on the statement of the eye witness Aakash Deep. Thereafter, he alongwith IO, eye witness Aakash Deep and with rukka reached at PS Govindpuri, Delhi. IO handed over rukka to duty officer and got registered the FIR. He was remained present in the police station but IO reached at spot alongwith eye witness Akash Deep. After collecting the FIR from duty officer he also went to spot and he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO at spot. On 21.02.2022, he again visited at place of incident and they checked the CCTV footage of locality near about the place of occurrence. IO issued notice to owner of Mahadev Enterprises to check and provide CCTV footage. Thereafter, DVR of CCTV footage collected from the Mahadev Enterprises and DVR was sealed with the seal of SK and seized in this case vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/A. Thereafter, they went to Safdarjung Hospital and IO had also request to the concerned doctor for recording statement of injured but advised that patient was not fit for statement. The brother in law of Sanjay namely Prasanjit handed over the blood stained cloth and sleeper of injured to the IO which was worn by injured at the time of incident and the same was seized by IO vide seizure memo already Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter they FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 45 of 102 came back to police station and above said case property deposited in malkhana. His statement was recorded by IO. Witness correctly identify the clothes and sleeper of deceased which were seized by IO already Ex.P1 (Colly) in the statement of PW-4. The above said DVR was already Ex.PW8/P1 in the statement of PW8.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW-16 deposed that the Prasanjit met them at around 10-10:30 am in the hospital. Prasanjit was aged about 30-35 years of age. They reached the spot around 12-12:30 pm. They went to the spot in a private vehicle which was owned by IO. He did do not know the said vehicle number. He could not say if the IO enquired Prasanjit about the details of the incident. He could not say if Prasanjit informed to the IO about the happening of the incident. Prasanjit told to the IO that the incident happened in the intervening night of 19/20.02.2022. Prasanjit was telling some names to the IO about the persons with whom the quarrel took place. However, he did not know the name which were told by Prasanjit to the IO. Aakash met the IO at about 4 pm. Aakash must be aged about 25-30 years. Aakash himself told that he was the eye witness. He did not know if Aakash told about any other person who have been involved in the quarrel as it was the IO who has recorded his statement. Aakash was not taken to any other place from the hospital. IO did not take any photograph of place of incident. However, some photographs were taken by the crime team. IO tried to enquire from the neighbourers at the crime FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 46 of 102 spot, however, no body stated to have witnessed any incident as alleged.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari PW-16 deposed that Prasanjit was not present at Apollo Hospital, Delhi. The notice was given by the IO to the owner of Mahadev Enterprises at the premises of Mahadev Enterprises i.e. ground floor. He did not know the name of person to whom the notice was issued. The IO had made enquiry from the neighbours to find about as to who was the owner of Mahadev Enterprise. The owner of Mahadev Enterprise had himself removed and handed over the DVR to the IO. The owner was aged about 40 years. The DVR was seized and sealed inside the premises. Except for the seizure memo Ex.PW8/A no other document was prepared at Mahadev Enterprise. The owner of Mahadev Enterprise did not accompany us to police station. The footage was not played in his presence till the time they were at Mahadev Enterprise.
PW-17 Ct. Braj Mohan deposed that on 26.02.2022, he was posted at PS Govindpuri, Delhi. On that day, he had joined the investigation of this case with Inspt. Yoginder Kumar. On that day accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty were taken out from lock-up for their medical examination. Accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was in his custody and accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari was in custody of Ct. Ravi Kant. IO got conducted the medical examination of above said both accused persons. Thereafter, the exhibits collected during medical FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 47 of 102 examination of accused persons were sealed and seized by IO. The disclosure statement of Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari and Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was recorded by IO which are Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B respectively seizure memo of blood sample of both accused persons are Ex.PW17/C. As per disclosure statement of accused they reached at spot where both accused persons threw their clothes but clothes of accused persons were not found there. Witness correctly identify both accused persons. His statement was recorded by IO.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari PW-17 deposed that they reached the hospital at around 11 am. They remained at the hospital for about 30 minutes to one hour. He and Ct. Ravi Kant reached Safdarjung Hospital in police Gypsy and only two of us only there. He did not remember who was driving the above gypsy. The seizure memo Ex.PW17/C was prepared in the hospital itself. He had read document Ex.PW17/C. The Ex.PW17/C prepared by the doctor.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW-17 deposed that they went alongwith accused in search of the clothes at Okhla Estate Road. No statement of any neighbour or witness of the said place was recorded. No site plan was prepared of the said place in my presence.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 48 of 102 PW-18 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposed that on 28.04.2022, he was posted as Ct at PS Govindpuri, Delhi. On that day, as per direction of MHC(M) he had received twelve sealed parcel alongwith four sample seal vide RC No.113/21-22 dated 28.04.2022 and one sealed parcel of DVR vide RC No.114/21-22 and same were deposited in FSL. After depositing the aforesaid parcel in sealed condition in FSL he had received one copy of acknowledgment from FSL regarding depositing of above said parcel and he came back to police station and copy of the same was handed over the MHC(M) and one copy also handed over to IO. As long as above said parcel remained in my custody no body has tempered the same. Copy of RC No.113/21-22 and copy of RC No.114/21-22 were Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B. PW-19 Ct. Bintu deposed that on 20.02.2022, he was working as photographer crime team South East District, Delhi. On that day, he alongwith HC Mahinder Singh, Crime Team Incharge, Delhi reached at H.No.1424A, Gali No.13 Govindpuri, Delhi. They met with SI Shailender. As per crime team incharge, he had taken the photographs of spot from different angle. The photographs attached with judicial file from page no.70 to 75 Ex.PW19/P-1 (Colly). He had handed over the above said photographs in a pen drive to the IO. He had seen the above said photographs and the same are correct which were taken by him. His statement was recorded by the IO.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 49 of 102 During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW-19 deposed that SI Shailender was present alongwith other police official at the spot. He did not remember the name and number of other police officials. It was not crowded place however some passersby were there. He did not know whether any relative of the injured was present at the spot or not.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Chakardhari PW-19 deposed that he could not tell the exact date as to when he handed over the photographs in a pen drive to the IO. He had taken the photographs at about 02:30 pm. He remained at the spot about 45-50 minutes. On 28.03.2022, his statement was recorded by the IO. He did not remember whether the above said premises number of the spot mentioned in his statement or not.
PW-20 ASI Mahinder Singh deposed that on 20.02.2022, he was posted as HC at Mobile Crime Team South East, Delhi. On that day, he received an information to visit at the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith photographer Ct. Bintu and other forensic staff reached in front of H.No.1424A, Gali No.13 Govindpuri, Delhi where SI Shailender met him with staff. He had inspected the above said scene of crime at the instance of SI Shailender. Ct. Bintu photographer had taken the photographs of above said scene of crime from the different angles. During the inspection of scene of crime no object/item for taking finger FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 50 of 102 print was found. He had prepared the crime scene report same was Ex.PW20/A and same was handed over to IO. My statement was recorded by IO on 28.03.2022.
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-20 deposed that he did not mention the house number No.1424A, in his statement. He reached at spot at about 02:30 pm. First of all he had inspected the area and got taken the photographs and thereafter he had prepared the scene of crime report. He did not remember public person were present at the spot or not. No public person was asked to join the proceeding in my presence.
PW-21 Ct. Rohitash deposed that he had joined the investigation alongwith SI Shailender. Duty officer received an information from Safdarjung Hospital vide DD No.31A regarding death of injured Sanjay Kumar in the hospital during treatment. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Shailender reached at Safdarjung Hospital, where IO Inspt. Yoginder Met them. IO got conducted the postmortem of deceased and statement of the family members of injured present in the hospital was recorded. After getting postmortem the dead body was handed over to the family members of deceased. Doctor had given the sealed exhibits and same was handed over to IO. The CCTV footage already in the mobile phone of Shailender regarding incident handed over to the IO in a pen drive and the said pen drive seized in this case vide seizure memo FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 51 of 102 Ex.PW21/A. On that day at about 10 pm, accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty produced in the police station by his brother. IO made enquiry from accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty. Accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty disclosed about the incident. Accused Rahul Vohra was arrested by the IO and IO prepared the arrest memo of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty and personal search of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was conducted by the IO. Arrest memo of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty is Ex.PW21/B. Personal search of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty is Ex.PW21/C. Disclosure statement of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty is Ex.PW21/D . Witness correctly identify the accused. The pen drive was Ex.PW21/P1.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW-21 deposed that his statement was recorded on 25.02.2022 in the police station. It was correct that he got recorded in his statement that accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty confessed about his involvement in the incident. During examination witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW21/DA wherein it was not written that accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty has never confessed about his involvement. However, that the disclosure statement about the incident is mentioned. IO recorded the statement of two family members of deceased in the hospital. IO write down the statement of those persons. The same were also signed by the IO from above two persons. He did not remember that IO recorded the statement regarding identification of dead body of above two persons. No recording was done by SI Shailender in his mobile from anywhere.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 52 of 102 He did not know as to from where the above said pen drive was procured by SI Shailender. SI Shailender uploaded the footage in pen drive with the help of laptop. The said laptop belong to SI Shailender. The above said pen drive handed over to IO in the police station. The footage was uploaded in the pen drive in the police station through laptop on 25.02.2022 at about 6 pm. The disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW21/D was recorded at police station around 11 pm. At that time, IO/Inspt. Yoginder and SI Shailender were also present. The disclosure statement was written by the IO/Inspt. Yoginder in his own handwriting. No other disclosure statement was recorded of accused Rahul Vohra in his presence. The accused Rahul Vohra was produced in police station around 10 pm. The disclosure statement was signed by him and the IO/Inspt. Yoginder and the accused Rahul Vohra.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Chakardhari PW-21 deposed that on 25.02.2022, he left the police station with SI Shailender in the private vehicle of SI Shailender at about 11 am. He was not aware if any departure entry was made regarding the leaving for Safdarjung Hospital. He did not know whose statement of relative of deceased was recorded by the IO. The doctor had given three parcels at about 3 pm to the IO which were handed over to him by him and he had taken the same to the police station. The pen drive was handed over by SI Shailender to the IO around 05:00 pm after they reached the police station from the hospital. It was correct that he was not aware about the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 53 of 102 contents of the pen drive. He had not seen the DVR in the present case. IO/Inspt. Yoginder Singh prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW21/A in his own hand writing. After preparing the seizure memo Inspt. Yoginder Singh had signed, and thereafter, he had signed. Apart from him and Inspt. Yoginder & accused was present.
PW-22 SI Shailender Singh (1st IO) deposed that on 20.02.2022, he was posted as SI at PS Govindpuri, Delhi. On that day, he received an information vide DD No.22A from the Apollo Hospital, Delhi regarding admission of injured in Apollo Hospital who had received stab injury. The above said DD entry already and admitted as Ex.A2. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Sanjay reached at Apollo Hospital, Delhi. He collected the MCL of injured Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Darbari Lal. He came to know from the doctors of Apollo Hospital that injured was referred to Safdarjung hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Sanjay reached at Safdarjung Hospital. The above said injured was found under treatment at Safdarjung Hospital. He made a request from the doctor at Safdarjung Hospital for recording of statement of injured Sanjay Kumar but the doctor concerned advised that the injured was not fit for statement. He collected the death report from the hospital was Ex.PW22/A. One relative of the injured Sanjay namely Prasanjeet met him in the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Prasanjeet and HC Sanjay reached at the place of occurrence i.e. H.No.1424, Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Delhi. At the spot, blood was spreading and he called the crime team at spot. Crime FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 54 of 102 team lifted the exhibits from the spot and same was handed over to him and he sealed the above said exhibits with the seal of SK and sealed in this case vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/A. Thereafter, he alongwith Prasanjeet and HC Sanjay again visited at Safdarjung Hospital and they came to know that injured was shifted to the ICU. He enquired about the incident from the relatives present in the hospital and one Akash Deep Singh @ Sunny met him in the hospital and who stated that he is the eye witness and he had seen the incident. He recorded the statement of Akash Deep @ Sunny which was already Ex.PW1/A which were deposed by him and same statement was attested by him and statement signed by Akash Deep Singh. He alongwith HC Sanjay reached at police station and he advised Akash Deep Singh @ Sunny to reach at police station. He prepared the rukka at police station on the basis of statement of Akash Deep Singh @ Sunny. Rukka was Ex.PW22/B. He handed over rukka to duty officer for registration of case. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Sanjay reached at spot and as per my direction Akash Deep Singh @ Sunny met him at the spot. Akash Deep Singh shown the place of occurrence. The beat Ct. Bhagwan Sahai also reached at there. He prepared the site plan at the instance of Akash Deep Singh which was Ex.PW22/C. Before collecting the DVR, eye witness Akash Deep Singh disclosed the name of accused persons as Rahul Vohra @ Bunty and Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari and their addresses. They visited the house of above said accused persons but they were not present at their respective houses. They had checked the near about FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 55 of 102 CCTV of the area and they found that one CCTV camera was installed at a shop namely Mahadev Enterprises. He had checked the CCTV footage in which some portion of incident was captured. He had issued notice to the owner of the premises where CCTV was installed and name of the owner was revealed as Kapil Aghi. He recorded the CCTV footage in his mobile phone. Thereafter, the DVR of the above said CCTV footage was sealed with the seal of SK and seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/A. The make of the DVR was Hike Vision. On 21.02.2022, he had again visited at the Safdarjung Hospital where Prasanjeet met him and blood stained clothes of injured i.e. underwear, towel, pant and one piece of sleeper were handed over to him and the same were sealed by him with the seal of SK and seized in this case vide seizure memo already Ex.PW4/A. He had seen the clothes i.e. black color pant, self check design with a white strip, blood stain underwear of light brow color with a sticker on which written frontline yeah aaram ka mamla hai, blood stain tower with multi color and one sleeper blue color of the injured Sanjay sealed with the seal fo SK and seized in this case vide seizure memo already Ex.PW4/A. He came back to the police station and sealed parcels were deposited in the malkhana. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 22.02.2022, he called the complainant Akashdeep Singh andf witness Vakil and Jasveer in the police station. He made enquiry from them about the incident and he recorded their statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. On the same day at about 6 pm accused Kumar Chakradhari came at the police station and he confessed FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 56 of 102 about the incident that he alongwith accused Rahul Vohra stabbed the injured Sanjay by knife. He made enquiry from him arrested in this case. He prepared the arrest memo of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari already Ex.PW15/A. He conducted personal search memo of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari vide memo already Ex.PW15/B. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari vide memo already Ex.PW15/C. As per disclosure statement of Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari he can get recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife. He alongwith accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari and Ct Bhagwan Sahai reached at Okhla Easte Road opposite Police booth as per disclosure statement of accused, where he alongwith accused and Ct. Bhatwan Sahai went inside the park and accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari, took out one blood stain knife from the bushes and accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari confessed that same knife was used by him and he had threw the knife after committal of the offence. He had prepared the sketch of knife. The sketch of knife is already Ex.PW15/D. The small knife usually use for cutting vegetable and having wooden handle. He sealed the above said knife with the seal in a transparent plastic box with the seal of SK and seized in this case. He prepared the pointing out memo and seizure memo of above said blood stain knife and same is already Ex.PW15/E. He also prepared the site plan of recovery of knife recovered at the instance of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari which was Ex.PW22/D. Thereafter, they produced the accused in hospital for his FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 57 of 102 medical examination. After medical examination of accused we came back to police station. Thereafter above said sealed parcels deposited in malkhana. On 23.02.2022, accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari was produced before the court and sent to JC for one day and next day on 24.02.2022, he had moved an application before the court for obtaining police custody of accused and court has allowed two days police custody of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari. Thereafter, they went to search the co-accused Bunty @ Rahul Vohra. But on that day, accused Bunty @ Rahul Vohra was not traced. On 25.02.2022, when they were searching the accused Bunty @ Rahul Vohra about 11 am, in the meantime, he had received an information regarding death of injured Sanjay Kumar from Safdarjung Hospital vide DD No. 31A. He had informed the SHO about the death of injured Sanjay Kumar. Thereafter, sent back the accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari to lock up of PS Govindpuri. He alongwith Ct. Rohitash went to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi. After death of the injured Sanjay Kumar further investigation was marked to Inspt. Yoginder who also reached at Safdarjung Hospital. The dead body was identified by Rohit Das and Anil Kumar brother of the deceased. Thereafter, Inspt. Yoginder Kumar prepared the death report and got conducted the postmortem of deceased. The concerned doctor handed over viscera, nail clipping and blood in gauze. The same was sealed by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW22/E. Dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, they came back to police station. His statement was also recorded by the IO. On FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 58 of 102 25.02.2022, accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was produced by his brother before the IO at police station. IO made the enquiry from the accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty and arrested in this case vide arrest memo already Ex.PW21/B. Personal search of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was conducted by the IO vide memo already Ex.PW21/C. Disclosure statement of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was recorded by IO vide memo already Ex.PW21/D. Witness correctly identify accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty. On 26.02.2022, he had provided the CCTV footage to the IO in a pen drive make Sandisk containing CCTV footage of incident which was taken by him by his mobile phone after playing the CCTV footage from the DVR on the display screen of witness Kapil Aghi. The above said pen drive of CCTV was seized by the IO. The seizure memo of the above said pen drive was prepared by IO same was already Ex.PW21/A. He had also given the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act alognwith the aforesaid Pen Drive to the IO which was Ex.PW22/F. He could can identify the pen drive annexed with judicial file which was Ex.PW21/P1. The case property/blood stain clothes of the deceased already exhibited during the testimony of witness PW-4 and already exhibited as Ex.P1 (Colly). The knife was already Ex.PW15/P1 in the statement of PW15 HC Bhagwan Sahai. The DVR which was seized by him in this case and produced by Kapil Aghi already Ex.PW8/P1 in the statement of PW8. The pen drive was already exhibited in the statement of PW-21 as Ex.PW21/P1. The CCTV footage of the incident which was recorded by him in his mobile phone and the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 59 of 102 same handed over to IO in pen drive. During examination the pen drive Ex.PW21/P1 was opened from white color envelope having seal of YK (already opened from one side during the examination of PW21) which was on judicial record and was played in the court. The same was of red and black color make SanDisk 16 GB. The aforesaid pen drive was played in the court in the presence of both accused persons, the counsel for both accused persons, Ld. Addl. PP for State and the witness. The same was containing two video recording. The first recording was of 1 minute and 11 second and the second recording is of 14 seconds. The aforesaid two video recordings were taken by him in his phone after seeing the same from the DVR which was provided by the owner of the shop namely Kapil Aghi in whose shop the CCTV camera was installed. The aforesaid video shows that the deceased namely Sanjay was not wearing clothes on the upper body and was slightly bald. The injured /deceased Sanjay can be seen being stabbed by accused Appu @ Kumar Chakardhari who is wearing clothes on his body and carrying a knife accompanied by another accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty whose not wearing clothes on the upper body. The aforesaid accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty also can be seen beating the deceased. In the aforesaid video accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari can be seen stabbing the deceased. The CCTV footage shown to him was the same which was recorded by him and the same was Ex.PW22/P1 (Colly). Witness correctly identify both accused persons.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 60 of 102 During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakardhari PW-22 deposed that on 20.02.2022, he had reached Apollo Hospital at about 08:30 am. He had not spoken to the concerned Doctor who was treating the injured regarding the fitness of the injured at that time. From Apollo Hospital injured was taken to Safdarjung Hospital on the same time and he remained at Safdarjung Hospital for about 1½ hours with the injured. He alongwith HC Sanjay from Safdarjung Hospital had gone to the spot by the private car of some person. He was driving the car. At Safdarjung Hospital and before leaving for the spot, he had met Prasanjeet the family member of the deceased but he had not recorded his statement. There were some more family members of the deceased at the hospital but their name he did not remember today. During the presence at the hospital the family of the deceased were mentioning that deceased had been stabbed by two persons. He had not recorded the statement of any these persons or family members of deceased at the hospital. The distance between Safdarjung Hospital and the spot about 8-10 km and it takes 1½ hours by vehicle. While returning back from the spot also only two of us i.e. HC Sanjay and himself were there and they returned by same vehicle. They stayed at the spot for about 3-4 hours. At the spot he did not meet any of the other family members however he met one person namely Prasanjeet. They did not enter the house of deceased Sanjay nor tried to call anyone from his house during the entire period of our stay at the spot. No neighbour or any public person was asked to join the proceeding at the spot. Many FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 61 of 102 officials from PS Govindpuri had reached the spot. After reaching the spot, he had informed the control room and requesting them to call the crime team. The crime team reached at the spot at about 1 pm. There were public persons passing from the spot and the local police officials were also present, whose name he did not remember. The blood was present on the concrete road in front of house no.1424 Gali No.13, Govindpuri, Delhi. The blood was also present at multiple places within the radius of approximately 200 meters of the said house. The crime team left the spot at about 3:30 pm. They remained in the area near the spot about 6 pm, and thereafter, left for police station. Between 3:30 to 6 pm they made enquiries from the nearby areas and examined the availability of any CCTV camera for the footage. During this period we tried to look for the owner of Mahadev Enterprise namely Kapil Aghi. However, he was not available at his office. One of the neighbour provided us with the number of Kapil Aghi who was informed to provide the CCTV footage from the camera installed at his office. Except for Mahadev Enterprise we did not find any other CCTV camera for the footage. I did not make any DD entry or inform regarding the fact of finding the CCTV camera at Mahadev Enterprises or calling Kapil Aghi for providing CCTV footage. He had issued a notice to Kapil Aghi at his office while he was present at his office. Immediately after issuing notice, the DVR was checked and was played. While playing CCTV footage in DVR he was present alongwith HC Sanjay and other police officials. He did not record the statement of other police officials. The FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 62 of 102 CCTV cameras installed outside of the shop of Kapil Aghi which covered the street. He had called one person, acquainted with usage of DVRs, to assist us in taking out the DVR. He had called the said person for assistance by calling him on his mobile number from his mobile number. Again said, he might have called him personally or would have asked one of my colleague to call. He could not tell the name of that person. However, he is one of two or three persons whom we call for assistance during our investigation. The DVR was seized between 11 am to 1 pm. He had prepared the seizure memo of the DVR at the office of Mahadev Enterprises in my own handwriting. He did not remember the model and make of his mobile phone from which he had recorded CCTV footage recording. The CCTV footage was recorded in his mobile prior to removing the DVR. He had never produced his said mobile before the IO. It was around 11 am to 1 pm. The recorded CCTV footage was transferred in his laptop, and thereafter, it was saved in a pen drive Ex.PW21/P1 within 3-4 days of its recording. He did not remember the time gap between the saving of footage in his laptop and transferring the same in pen drive Ex.PW21/P1. He did not make any DD entry nor did he give any information regarding recording/transferring the CCTV footage in his mobile phone, laptop and in pen drive. During the testimony the pen drive Ex.PW21/P1 was again opened and played and upon seeing it was verified that the aforesaid recording made in pen drive was made by him on Friday 29 April 2022 01∶38∶44 AM. During cross examination witness was FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 63 of 102 shown alleged notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. given to Kapil Aghi and upon seeing the witness deposed that it was the same which was given by him to Kapil Aghi was Ex.PW22/DA. During the investigation, IO Yoginder Kumar recorded his statement on 25.02.2022. On that day, he had not disclose to the IO regarding the recording of footage from his mobile or the transfer of data from his mobile to the laptop or the transfer of data from the laptop to the pen drive Ex.PW21/P1. Again said, he might have disclosed him about the recording in his mobile. However, he did not give him the pen drive or got the same seized before recording of my said statement. He had not stated in his statement recorded by the IO on 25.02.2022 that he given the footage recorded in his mobile, in a pen drive, and got it seized in an envelope. During cross examination witness was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. from portion A to A wherein it was so recorded. The seizure memo Ex.PW21/1 was prepared by IO Yoginder Kumar in his office at PS. The mobile in which the CCTV footage was recorded was his personal mobile phone and was having his personal sim. No official sim/mobile number was given to him by his department. The certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW22/F was prepared by the IO and he was asked to sign the same, which he had signed. He could not say as to whether he had read the contents of aforesaid certificate before signing the same. On 22.02.2022, he reached the police station at about 10-11 am at his usual time. After reaching the police station and arrival of accused Appu he had examined witness Vakil and Jasveer, who came to the police station in some time FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 64 of 102 after my arrival in the police station. He had asked Vakil and Jasveer to be present in the police station on 21.02.2022. No written notice or intimation was given to Vakil and Jasveer for attending the police station on 22.02.2022. After reaching the police station at about 10-11 am, I stayed in the police station till 11:00 pm -12:00 am at mid night. On 22.02.2022, Ct. Bhagwan Sahai reached the police station at about 4-5 pm and stayed with him at the police station through out from 4-5 pm till 12 mid night. He could not tell the exact time as to when he had recorded the statement of witness Vakil and Jasveer. Though Aakash Deep was also present in the PS, and he made enquiry from him about the incident but did not record his statement. They went to the spot of recovery of knife in a private car belonging to some HC. He and Ct. Bhagwan Sahai was present in the said car. He did not remember as to who was driving the said car. The spot was approximately 1 km away from the police station. He did not remember if he had made any departure or arrival entry at the police station. Generally the departure and arrival entry was done by them. The spot of recovery was adjacent to the road and there were many public persons at the spot. He had requested one or two public persons to join the proceeding but they refused to join the proceeding. He did not enquire the name and details of the said public persons and not served them with any notice. There were 1-2 stalls/khokha near the spot. However, he did not ask any occupant of the said stalls/khokha to join the proceeding. They remained at the spot for about 1½ hours. They were already aware of the place of FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 65 of 102 recovery before starting from police station. He did not took any photographer or videographer to record or capture the recovery proceeding. He did not remember if he had prepared any video or captured photographs of the recovery proceedings. He had presumed that the knife used for committing the offence would be blood stains. Before the recovery of knife, the knife was searched by them for about 10-15 minutes. The knife was recovered from the soil under the bushes. The knife was having soil (miti lagi hui thi). The knife was picked by me with the help of handkerchief so as to preserve the finger prints and blood. The handkerchief was not seized. The sketch of knife Ex.PW15/D, and recovery memo of the knife Ex.PW15/E were prepared by keeping the paper on the bonat of their private car at the spot of recovery. Before preparing the memo Ex.PW15/D, site plan Ex.PW22/D and Ex.PW15/E he did not ask any public person to join the proceeding or become a witness to the said documents. From the spot he directly went to police station. However, he did not remember as to by what mode he had travelled back to police station. On 25.02.2022, he had informed IO Yoginder Kumar about the disclosure of accused Appu, recovery and seizure of knife and preparation of disclosure statement Ex.PW15/C, preparation of sketch Ex.PW15/D, preparation of recovery site plan Ex.PW22/D and seizure memo Ex.PW15/E. During cross examination witness was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 25.02.2022 wherein the aforesaid fact of recovery and seizure and preparation of documents were not found recorded. The site FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 66 of 102 plan Ex.PW22/C was prepared at the instance of PW Aakash Deep. He had not given any notice to PW Aakash Deep for the same.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW-22 deposed that accused Rahul Vohra was arrested on 25.02.2022 at around 10:00 pm -11:00 pm and was brought to the police station by his brother. He did not remember the name of the brother of accused Rahul Vohra. The disclosure statement of accused Rahul Vohra was recorded at police station at the same day. He did not know if after arrest of the accused he was taken by the IO to any other place.
PW-23 Dr. L M Meena Sr. Scientific Officer deposed that on 13.04.2022, he was posted as above. On that day, one sealed wooden box, sealed with the six seals of FMT V.M.M.C. and S.J.H. received in laboratory and same was marked to him for chemical examination. He opened the sealed wooden box and it was found containing exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D. The sealed wooden box containing viscera of deceased Sanjay Kumar. The seals of the parcels were found intact and tallied with specimen sealed impression forwarded. After examination he prepared the detailed report which was Ex.PW23/A. As per result, on chemical, microscopic & TLC examination, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in Ex.1A, 1B, 1C and 1D. After examination the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 67 of 102 impression of M.L.M. F.S.L. DELHI and returned to the forwarding authority.
PW-24 Sh. Geetesh Patel, Assistant Chemical Examiner deposed that on 13.12.2023, he was posted as above. On that day, one sealed envelope, sealed with the seal of YK received in laboratory and same was marked to him for audio video authentication. The seal of the envelope was found intact and tallied with specimen sealed impression forwarded. After examination he prepared the detailed report which was Ex.PW24/A. As per his opinion, the laboratory examination of audio video recording in video files in Ex.1, it was observed that the video files are post production of original recording having indication of capturing through a display monitor, hence further examination could not be possible. After examining the same, the exhibit was sealed with the seal of FSL x G.P. x DELHI and forwarded to the concerned authority.
PW-25 Inspt. Yogindra Kumar (2nd IO) deposed that on 25.02.2022, he was posted as Inspt. PS Govindpuri. On that day, he received the information from Safdarjung Hospital regarding death of injured Sanjay, and thereafter, the present case file was marked to him for further investigation. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Shailender and Ct. Rohtash reached at the mortuary of Safdarjung Hospital, where the family member of deceased met them. The family member of deceased FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 68 of 102 identified the dead body of deceased Sanjay and according he recorded their statement regarding identification of dead body which was already admitted vide Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. The postmortem of deceased got conducted. After postmortem of dead body the same was handed over to family member of deceased. Doctor handed over me the exhibits i.e. nail clipping, viscera etc. and he took the same through seizure memo vide memo already Ex.PW22/E. Thereafter, they came back to police station and exhibits was deposited in malkhana of PS Govindpuri. On the same day, at about 10 pm, accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty came to police station. He interrogated accused accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty. Accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was arrested vide arrest memo already Ex.PW21/B. Personal search of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty was also got conducted vide memo already Ex.PW21/C. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty vide memo already Ex.PW21/D. Thereafter, accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty sent to lock up of PS Govindpuri. Accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari was already in the police custody and in the lock up of PS Govindpuri. He was arrested by SI Shailender. On next day, i.e. 26.02.2022, he again interrogated the accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty and accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari and recorded their supplementary statement disclosure statement vide supplementary disclosure statement of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari which is already Ex.PW17/A and supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty already Ex.PW17/B. Both accused persons were taken to the office of FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 69 of 102 Dozier Cell Badarpur and their dozier were prepared. Thereafter, both accused persons produced in the court. He moved an application for seeking three days PC of both accused persons. The concerned court had granted only one day PC with respect to both accused persons. Both accused persons were taken to Safdarjung Hospital and their blood sample were taken by concerned doctor and the same was handed over to him. The same was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW17/C. Thereafter, they came back to PS alongwith accused persons and exhibits. Thereafter, exhibits were deposited in the malkhana of PS Govindpuri. On the same day, he alongwith Ct. Brij Mohan, Ct. Ravi had joined the investigation and both accused persons led them to Okhla Estate Road, Govindpuri for recovery of clothes which was worn by accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari at the time of incident but no clothes was got recovered. Thereafter, both accused persons led them to Ganda Nala, Fateh Singh Marg, Govindpuri, Delhi for recovery of wearing pant at the time of incident of accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty but the same was not got recovered. Thereafter, they all alongwith accused persons returned to PS and sent the accused persons to lock up PS Govindpuri. On 26.02.2022, SI Shailender had handed over him one pen drive 16 GB containing CCTV footage of incident. The same pen drive was seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW21/A. On 27.02.2022, both accused persons again led them to the above mentioned place for recovery of wearing clothes of accused persons at time of incident but no clothes was got recovered. Thereafter, both accused FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 70 of 102 persons produced before the court and remanded for JC. On 03.03.2022, he played the said pen drive containing CCTV footage of the incident in his office. Three persons were seen in the said CCTV footage. Thereafter, he alongwith other police officials including the Beat Official of Nav Jeevan Camp reached at Navjeevan Camp Govindpuri. He made enquiry from the public person present there, and then the same of said persons who were seen in the CCTV revealed as Tara, Hunny and Aman @ Ganja. Thereafter, he instructed the beat staff of that area to trace out the said three persons and he came back to police station. On the same day, in the evening time all the three persons namely Tara, Hunny and Aman @ Ganja came to the police station. He enquired from them regarding the incident and he showed the CCTV footage to them. He recorded their statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, they left the police station. During the investigation of the case he collected PM report from the hospital. He also collected the crime scene report and photographs from the concerned officials. Scaled site plan was also got prepared from ACP Mukesh Jain. Thereafter, exhibits of the case was sent to FSL through police officials. During the investigation he got recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court. He had filed supplementary chargesheet qua DVR after obtaining the result from FSL. He moved an application before court concerned for obtaining the pen drive which was seized during the investigation of this case for sending the same for FSL as the DVR no data was retrieved. The said application was allowed FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 71 of 102 by the court. The pen drive was sent to FSL for its genuineness. During the investigation, he sent the weapon of offence i.e. knife to, Forensic Department, Safdarjung Hospital for obtaining subsequent opinion regarding the fact that injury of deceased was caused by weapon. After receiving the subsequent opinion, he filed supplementary chargesheet.
During cross examination on behalf of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari PW25 deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari at the police station at about 10 am. He along-with Ct. Brij Mohan and Ct. Rohtas took accused person for the Dozier Cell at Badarpur in government Gypsy. He have made DD Entry before going to Dozier Cell. On 26.02.2022, accused persons were produced in the Saket Court at about 2 pm. Both the Constable Brijmohan and Ct. Rohtas were with him. The court proceedings had took time for about 15-20 minutes. Thereafter, they went to Safdarjung Hospital and reached there at about 3.30 pm. He personally along-with Ct. Brij Mohan and Ct. Rohtas met the doctor at Safdarjung Hospital. The doctor had taken the blood sample of the accused on his request and doctor had recorded the details i.e. name, address and other particulars of the accused on his information. Doctor had not asked any ID Proofs of the accused persons when their blood samples were taken by the doctors. He did not show any ID proof of the accused persons to the doctors. He reached the police station from the Safdarjung Hospital at about 6 pm. He prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW17/C on his Laptop at the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 72 of 102 Safdarjung Hospital. He had taken the printout of the seizure memo Ex.PW17/C through a pendrive at a nearby shop outside the hospital. He had got the seizure memo Ex.PW17/C signed from the witnesses at the shop where he had taken the printout, he went to the said shop on the Gypsy and from there, they went straightaway to the police station. He did not place/prepare any certificate U/Sec. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the said seizure memo Ex.PW17/C. He deposited the seized blood sample in the Malkhana on the same day after reaching the police station from the hospital. He handed over the same to Incharge Malkhana. However, he did not remember his name. The deposit entry regarding the same has been done in the register no. 19. It was correct that no copy of the Register No. 19 of Malkhana showing the said entry has been placed on record. He met SI Shailender after returning from Okhla Estate Road at about 11 pm on 26.02.2022 at the police station when he handed over the pen drive and he seized the same vide seizure memo already exhibit as Ex.PW21/P1. The make of said pen drive was Sendisk. He did not play/check said pendrive. He played the said pendrive in the later on. He did not seal the said pendrive and it was kept in an open condition in an envelope. The said pendrive was kept by him and remained with him till the filing of the charge-sheet. All throughout the pendrive was in an unsealed condition. He verbally told SHO regarding keeping pendrive with him in an unsealed manner. He had made an investigation regarding the pendrive from SI Shailender on 26.02.2022, who informed that he had taken the footage from Kapil FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 73 of 102 Aaghi. He had seen the footage after 3-4 days of the seizure of pendrive, alone. He did not remember the name of the police officials who accompanied him to Navjeevan Camp on 03.03.2022. He cannot name the persons, who identified Tara, Hunny and Aman @ Ganja. He had called public persons, with the help of beat staff, to identify these three persons after examining the cctv footage from the pendrive. No Notice was served upon Tara, Hunny and Aman @ Ganja to appear at the police station and join investigation. He collected the pendrive Ex.PW21/P1 from the Court on the same day when he moved an application for obtaining the same. When he collected the said pendrive from the Court, it was an unsealed condition. He did not remember the date and time when he sent the said pendrive to FSL after receiving from the Court. He sent the said pendrive after 15-20 days. During the said period, the said pendrive remained with him in an unsealed condition. When the pendrive was sent to FSL, it was sealed by him. The pendrive was sent to FSL through Road Certificate. He did not know the name of said official who had taken the said pendrive to FSL. He verbally told SHO regarding keeping pendrive with him in an unsealed manner which was obtained from the Court. It was correct that he have not placed the road certificate and acknowledgement of the said pendrive, on record. On 28.03.2022, he sent the weapon i.e. knife to the FSL for its examination. He did not remember the name of the said official through whom the said exhibits were sent to the FSL. At the time when the knife was sent to FSL, it was sealed with the seal of SI Shailender.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 74 of 102 During cross examination on behalf of Rahul Vohra @ Bunty PW-25 deposed that he saw the accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty for the first time in the police station Govind Puri on 25.02.2022. He was not aware any particulars of Rahul Vohra and he had not seen the Rahul Vohra before 25.02.2022. He heard the name of Rahul Vohra for the first time when the FIR was registered. He was not aware the address and father's name of accused Rahul before 25.02.2022. SI Shailender did not inform me the father's name and address of Rahul prior to 25.02.2022. He did not know whether St Shailender had made any efforts to apprehend/trace the accused Rahul. Before 25.02.2022, he did not make any effort to trace out accused Rahul. Accused Rahul was arrested at 11.15 pm on 25.02.2022. Accused Rahul came to the police station around 10 pm on 25.02.2022. The TIP of accused Rahul was not conducted. He had got verified the identity of the accused Rahul when witness Akash Deep visited the police station on 26.02.2022 in the morning. He had recorded the statement of witness Akash Deep in this regard. He did not visit the house of accused Rahul till filing of the charge-sheet. He recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW21/D of accused Rahul in the police station and the same was typed by him on his Laptop. He typed the same in the night time. The second disclosure statement Ex.PW17/B was typed by him in the morning of 26.02.2022. It was correct that both disclosure statements were recorded Ex.PW21/D was typed after 12 pm in the night. Accused Rahul was never taken to Punjab for investigation. They FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 75 of 102 reached at Ganda Naala with the accused at 7-7.30 pm. He did not prepare any site plan of Ganda Naala. He did not mention in the statement of SI Shailender that accused Rahul and Rahul @ Bunty are the same person.
Accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty adopted the cross-examination done above for the accused Appu @Kumar Chakradhari.
PW-26 Dr. Lakhan Lal Navlani Assistant Professor deposed that on 25.02.2022, he was posted as Junior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicines, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi. On that day, Inspector Yogendra Kumar had given a request of post-mortem examination of the deceased Sanjay Kumar, Male 35 Years. On receiving the request, he had conducted the post- mortem examination on that day. He prepared the detailed PM Report Ex.PW26/A. The cause of Death as mentioned in the postmortem report was "death is due to septicemia in an operated case of stab injury present over right side of abdomen and left side of chest produced by sharp edged weapon. All injuries are antemortem in nature. Viscera has been preserved to rule out concomitant poisoning."
During cross examination on behalf of accused persons PW-26 deposed that he did not know as to why the deceased was shifted from Apollo Hospital to Safdarjung Hospital. He could not comment whether "septicemia" can occur due to lack of "proper wound care" and or "prompt medical care". He could not comment whether the patient FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 76 of 102 would have recovered if septicemia would not have occurred or that septicemia would have been promptly and carefully treated.
14.After examination of all prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence was put to accused persons. Both accused persons Rahul Vohra @ Bunty and Kumar Chakradhari @ Appu denied allegations against them. Accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty claimed that he was innocent and have not committed any offence. He had never been known by the alias name of Bunty. His only name was Rahul Vohra. He was falsely arrested in the above matter as police left a message at his home that he was required to visit police station for some enquiry so he himself went to police station and told the police that he was not involved in any such incident and he also told the police that he was not known by the name of Bunty despite that police illegally arrested him. He was having his aadhar no.274827283317 and in that his name was only mentioned as Rahul Vohra S/o Sh. Ramesh Vohra and his address mentioned as H.No.921-A, Street No.8, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, South Delhi, Delhi 110019. Copy of the same was placed on record by him. Accused Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari deposed that was innocent and had not committed any offence. He had never been known by the alias name of Appu. His only name was Kumar Chakardhari. He further stated that he was never known by the name of Appu as his only name was Kumar Chakradhari. He was having his FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 77 of 102 aadhar card no.620717896711 and in that his name was only mentioned as Kumar Chakardhari S/o Sh. Heera Lal and his address mentioned as H.No.C-255, A Nehru Camp, Govindpuri, Kalkaji South Delhi 110019. Copy of the same was placed on record by him. He further deposed that there was no evidence against him of his involvement in any of the incident, as alleged. He was falsely arrested in the above matter despite his telling the police that he was not involved in any such incident and he also told the police that he was not known by the name of Appu despite that police illegally arrested him. Police could not find and trace the real culprit, who had assaulted the deceased, therefore, he alongwith co-accused have been falsely implicated in the present case.
15.Accused did not lead DE and matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS
16.It has been argued on behalf of accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in the present matter and they had never committed the offence in question. It has been argued that in the present matter all the prosecution witnesses who have been mentioned as eye witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the story of prosecution. It has been argued that complainant Aakashdeep Singh, upon whose complaint the FIR in the present matter was registered, did not support the story of the prosecution. It has been argued that apart from him PW2 Jasveer Singh, PW3 Vakil Khan, PW6 Aman @ Ganja, PW Tara and FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 78 of 102 PW Hunny who were allegedly the eye witnesses in the present matter did not support the version of the complainant and therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. It has further been argued that none of the aforesaid alleged eye witnesses identified the accused persons to have committed the offence. It has been argued that PW4 Prasanjit who was the relative of the deceased is a planted witness and was not present when the incident occurred and did not take the deceased to the hospital. It has been argued that PW4 in his statement has himself admitted that he had shifted to Delhi few days before the incident and on the date of incident was present at the factory. It has been argued that the presence of PW4 has not been established at the place where the deceased was lying allegedly after being stabbed. It has also been argued that the aforesaid witness did not accompany the injured to the hospital since he was never aware about the incident and had not handed over the clothes of the deceased to the IO. It has also been argued that the IO in the present matter surprisingly did not record the statement of Prasanjit at the hospital when he met him for the first time and his statement was subsequently by the IO u/s 161 Cr.P.C. only on 21.02.2022 that is when he had met the IO allegedly in the hospital on 20.02.2022. It has been argued that PW4 in his statement has stated that injured had disclosed to him while being taking to hospital that he was stabbed by the accused persons and mentioned to him mujhe Bunty aur Appu ne chaku maar diya" while he deposed before the Court but was confronted with regard FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 79 of 102 to the aforesaid fact as he had never stated the same to the police in his statement Ex.PW4/D1. It has also been argued that apart from the testimony of aforesaid public witnesses, the prosecution has examined only the wife of the accused as PW7 and even the aforesaid witness is a hearsay witness as she was not present when the alleged incident occurred. It is argued that surprisingly PW7 did not inform the police by making a call at 100 number when she found her husband in pool of blood and did not even accompany him to the hospital. It has been argued that the aforesaid PW7 being the wife of the deceased was an interested witness and her statement was improved by her when she deposed before the Court. It has been argued that the testimony of aforesaid witnesses is not trust worthy and is liable to be discarded.
17.It has further been argued on behalf of accused persons that in present matter even the investigation conducted in the present matter is not done fairly. It has been argued that as per the chargesheet the CCTV footage from the alleged place of incident was recovered by the IO on 21.02.2022 from PW8 Kapil Aghi who was the owner of the shop Mahadev Enterprises and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A, however, the same was not sent to FSL and remained in the custody of the IO till 28.04.2022 in an unsealed condition and was opened by the IO on 27.02.2022 when the complainant visited the police station and IO to clarify the identify of the accused showed the same to the witness. Further the aforesaid CCTV footage seized by the IO was FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 80 of 102 again placed on 03.03.2022 to identify the other two boys being seen in the video who were mentioned as one Tara and Aman @ Ganja and thereafter, the aforesaid CCTV footage alongwith DVR remained in the custody of IO in an unsealed condition and was sent to FSL only on 28.04.2022. It has been argued that the aforesaid fact only shows that the CCTV footage was tempered with as the final report received from FSL Ex.A9 dated 09.10.2023, stated that "the exhibit hard disk drive marked as Ex.HDD1, was not responding with the forensic hardware and software tools present in the laboratory. Hence, no data could be retrieved from Ex.HDD1 in the laboratory . It has been argued that subsequently IO again moved an application before concerned court on 27.10.2023 to obtain the pen drive from the judicial record which contained a video recording taken by the IO from his mobile phone and converted into a pen drive regarding the CCTV footage and the same was prepared at the time of investigation. In the aforesaid application, IO had sought time to send the same for seeking opinion from FSL. The aforesaid application was allowed on 27.10.2023 and IO was granted permission for the aforesaid purpose, but even then when the final FSL report was filed which was Ex.PW24/A, it opined, " the laboratory examination of audio video recordings in video files in exhibit 1, it was observed that the video files are post production of original recordings having indication of capturing through a display monitor, hence, further examination could not be possible". It has been argued that the aforesaid CCTV footage allegedly relied upon by the prosecution was forged and FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 81 of 102 fabricated and was inconsequential.
18.It has further been argued that the identity of accused persons has also not been established as no TIP proceeding in the present matter were ever conducted and all the alleged eye witnesses were made to identify the accused persons from the alleged CCTV footage which was seized by the IO. It has also been argued that the seizure memo Ex.PW16/A is also forged and fabricated and the same is evident since there was cutting on the date mentioned by the IO in the aforesaid seizure memo.
19.It has further been argued that the remaining prosecution witnesses were the police officials and being formal in nature were not able to prove the offence against the accused persons and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
20.On the other hand it has been argued on behalf of Prosecution that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/201/341/34 IPC. It has been argued that on the day of incident all the accused persons were present at the place of incident and the same has been verified from the CDR /CAF placed on record. It has been argued that the accused persons were clearly visible in the video footage placed on record by the IO and PW8 has categorically FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 82 of 102 mentioned that he had handed over the DVR from his shop and the same contained the time when the incident occurred. It has also been argued that the identify of accused persons was not required to be established by way of a TIP proceedings, since the name of the accused persons was mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
21.Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that vide order dated 30.11.2022 summons were served to the PW-1 (complainant) namely Akash deep to appear for PE on 07.02.2023. Meanwhile vide order dated 30.12.22, accused Appu was granted interim bail and consequently PW-1 complainant namely Akash Deep did not appear before the court on 07.02.23 as accused Appu influenced the complainant with his muscle power and the same is evident from the fact that the complainant turned hostile subsequently. It has further been argued that on the date of hearing i.e 26.05.23, 20 stout male person came to meet both accused, with intention to demonstrate their muscle power inside the court room to influence complainant PW-1 and other eye witnesses and the Court observed the same in the order dated 26.05.2023 and had mentioned that the same shall be considered at the time of judgment. It is argued that both the accused were constantly influencing eye witnesses. Consequent, they all turned hostile under fear of the muscle power of the accused. That the PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that he has signed his statement recorded before IO on 20.02.22 which is Ex PW1/A. FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 83 of 102 Moreover, it is an admitted fact that PW-1 also engaged the lawyer in this case and if the statement of PW-1 recorded by IO forcibly then why he engaged a lawyer along with the victim (wife of the deceased). It is clear from the above facts that the PW-1 and other eyewitness in this case turned hostile under fear and threat to their life from both the accused as they influenced witnesses by their muscle power with was mention even by the Court. It has been argued that the statement of PW-4 Prasenjit Kumar who is cousin brother of the victim (wife of the deceased) had stated that he picked the deceased from the house of the deceased where the deceased was sitting injured as he was stabbed by knife. PW-4 also stated that that the complainant (PW-1) was also present at that time, thereafter it is the complainant who called PW-3 namely vakil who came with his car and then the deceased was taken to the hospital and PW-4 also accompanied them. It has been further argued that PW-4 stated that while they were in the car on the way to the hospital it is the deceased told him that "Mujhe bunty aur appu ne chaku maar diya" and PW-4 further stated that the same thing was stated by the PW-1 that his brother-in-law was stabbed by the accused Bunty and Appu.
22.It has been argued that the presence of the PW-4 was confirmed from that fact that it is the PW-4 who handed over the blood stained clothes of the deceased in the polyethene bag and the same was seized by the IO vide Seizure Memo Ex PW4/A and the same also bears signature of the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 84 of 102 PW-4 and the same has been identified in the court by PW-4. That even the PW-22 (SI Shailendra Kumar) in his statement before the Court deposed that when he reached at the hospital he met PW-4 i.e Prasanjit. That bare reading from the above statement of PW-22 that PW-4 was telling truth and it further fortify that the deceased was taken to hospital from the gate of his house by the PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 and same also proves that the statement given by the eyewitness before the court are false and under influence and pressure of both the accused herein. That the defence in the cross examination failed to proof any discrepancy or inconsistency in the statement of the PW-4. It has been argued that PW-7 namely Poonam Rani, who is wife of the deceased stated in her statement that around 1.30-2.00 AM on 19-20.02.2022, her husband(deceased) asked her to hand over scooty keys and the same was taken away by sunny (PW-1) and accused Bunty. Thereafter, her husband (deceased) again rang the door bell at around 4.45 A.M. and when she saw deceased, he was sitting in injured condition in a pool of blood outside their house and when she asked about the incident then deceased told her that accused Bunty and Appu has stabbed him by knife. PW-7 further stated that PW-1 Akash deep (Sunny is also nick name of PW-1 Akash deep) came on the spot and when PW-7 inquired about the incident from him PW-1 also said that Bunty and Appu had stabbed the deceased, then PW-1 called Vakil i.e PW-3, meanwhile she gave a call to the his brother PW-4 namely Prasanjit and the deceased was taken to the hospital. It has been argued that there is no discrepancy FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 85 of 102 in the statement of PW-4 and PW-7 and the same substantiate the evidence produced by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. That the photographs taken by during the investigation shows that the blood was there before the house of the deceased which is sufficient to prove the statement of PW-4 and PW-7 are true. Moreover, defence failed to prove any inconsistency among the statements of Prosecution witnesses.
23.It has further argued that the Investigation officer recovered the weapon of murder i.e knife on the information given by accused Appu. That it is evident from the bare reading from the statement of PW-22 that the murder weapon was recovered on the basis of information provided by the accused. That the prosecution produced forensic examination of the murder weapon and it was opined that the injury on the deceased was cause by this weapon. It has further argued that the CCTV camera which captured video of both accused murdering the deceased with knife placed in the office of Kapil Aghi i.e PW-8 which is situated at 1408, Gali no.13, Govind Puri, Delhi. That it is evident from the statement of PW-20 that all the photographs were taken by the investigation team were from house no.1424/A and nearby, which sufficient to prove the spot of crime.
FINDINGS
24.In order decide present case, I have to appreciate evidence brought on record by prosecution. How that appreciation of evidence has to be done, FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 86 of 102 was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, wherein it was observed that :-
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases" .
25.So, above mentioned observation, clearly indicates that evidence has to be read as a whole and not in piecemeal. It is the impression of the court, of whole of the evidence, which is to be borne in mind, while deciding a case. Minor discrepancies should not weigh much, while deciding a FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 87 of 102 case. The inconsistencies, which go to the root of the matter, as such are to be appreciated, for deciding a case.
26.It has been consistently laid down by Apex Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances, are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Hukam Singh Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 1063 & Eradu & Ors Versus State of Hyderabad, AIR 1996 SC 316.
27.Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sharda Versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 SC 1622 held that, onus was on prosecution to prove that chain is complete and infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in the words of this court, before conviction could be made on circumstantial evidence must be fully established. Those conditions are :-
(a) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established.
(b) The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and there should not be any other hypothesis except the guilt of accused.
(c) The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency.
FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 88 of 102
(d) The circumstances should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
(e) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to lead any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.
28.So, in the wake of above law, it is clear that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court has to see that circumstances from which and inference as to the guilt of accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principle facts sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The cumulative facts of circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of accused and bring the offences home beyond reasonable doubt.
THE OFFENCE
29.The offence of murder is defined in Sec. 300 IPC, which states as under :-
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 FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 89 of 102 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 it 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.
30.Further, the section 300 IPC also provides exceptions to the offence and states the following exceptions :-
Exception 1. Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of another person who gave the provocation or causes of death of any other person by mistake of accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:
Provisos
1. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
3. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanations
1. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2 Culpable homicide is not murder if the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 90 of 102 offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence or person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3 Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4 Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender' having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5 Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
31.Therefore, if the action does not come within the exception provided under Section 300 IPC, then it would be punished according to Section 302 IPC.
32.The punishment for murder is provided u/sec. 302 IPC which provides FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 91 of 102 "Punishment for murder ; whoever commits murder shall be punished for death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine".
33.Section 302 of the IPC doesn't clarify when these three above- mentioned punishments shall be imposed. However, Section 300 of the IPC mentions three instances if fulfilled, shall be termed as murder. They are: Firstly, the act must be done with the intention to kill someone and cause death. An intentional omission is also included here. Secondly, the act is done with the intention to cause bodily injury and such bodily injury is likely to result in death. Thirdly, if the act is done having proper knowledge that it will cause death, such an act shall be termed as murder.
34.It also provides exceptions to situations where the culpable homicide shall not be considered as murder, and therefore the accused was required to prove that he fell in any of the exceptions provided.
THE LAW
35.The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. that mental attitude of the agent towards the consequences of his conduct, is one of the intention or knowledge. There are three species of mens-rea in culpable homicide (1) an intention to cause death (2) an intention to cause dangerous injury (3) FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 92 of 102 knowledge that that is likely to happen. The intention or knowledge necessary in order to render killing culpable homicide must be clearly proved by the prosecution, which can usually be done by proof of the circumstances which proved the act or omission in question for the presumption is that a man knows that probable result of his conduct. The mental element in culpable homicide is one of the intention or knowledge. By intention is meant, the expectation of the consequence and it does not necessarily involve pre mediation. A man would expect that natural consequence of his act and therefore, in law, is presumed to intend them. Thus, intention has been proved by the prosecution in the present matter and can be inferred from the conduct of the accused and the circumstances of the present matter.
36.What is required to be seen is whether the act is one where the offender must be deemed to have had the knowledge, that he was likely by such as to cause death. In the case of Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :-
"...... where the accused did thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased which resulted in his death and in the opinion of the docutor, the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, it was held that even if the intention of the accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and did not extend to the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 93 of 102 intention of causing death, the offence would be murder....."
37.It has also been laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "to bring a case u/sec. 300 Clause thirdly, first, it must establish, quite objectively that a bodily injury is present, secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was nor accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended......"
38.Keeping in mind above law I am proceeding further and appreciating evidence brought on record by prosecution.
APPRECIATION OF TESTIMONY OF PUBLIC WITNESSES :-
39.The prosecution witnesses are categorized into three categories viz., public witnesses, experts and police witnesses.
40.In the present matter, the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the intervening night of 19.02.2022-20.02.2022. the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons caught hold the deceased Sanjay and it was accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty who inflicted stab injuries upon the accused and because of the aforesaid injuries deceased succumbed to his injuries. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution cited as many as 36 witnesses in the present matter. Out of FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 94 of 102 the aforesaid 36 witnesses, prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. Among the aforesaid witnesses some of the witnesses were cited as eye witnesses.
APPRECIATION OF TESTIMONY OF EYE WITNESSES
41.PW1 Aakashdeep Singh was the star witness of the prosecution as he was the complainant and eye witness of the present matter and upon his complaint the criminal law was set to motion. Further, the aforesaid witness was alleged to have been present on the day of incident alongwith accused persons, as well as the deceased and the other eye witnesses. The aforesaid witness in his testimony recorded before the Court stated that on the date of incident, all of them were consuming liquor and during that time three persons on the motor cycle were passing by and their bike touched witness PW3 Vakil Ahmad and due to the same quarrel took place and at that time, the persons on the bike gave beatings to the deceased and stabbed him by using a knife and since all of them were drunk, he ran away from the spot and after sometime came back to the spot and found deceased in injured condition and thereafter, injured was taken to hospital, and subsequently, the injured died. The aforesaid witness did not support the story of prosecution and was declared hostile. The aforesaid witness did not identify the accused persons to be the same person who had given stab injury to the deceased. Upon being shown the CCTV footage which was of the alleged incident, the witness did not identity the accused persons and stated that they were not present when the incident occurred, and FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 95 of 102 therefore, the testimony of aforesaid witness was unreliable and not trust worthy and hence discarded.
42.PW2 Jasveer singh deposed on the lines of PW1 and stated that the deceased was given injuries by three unknown persons who had came on a bike and that he left the spot when the quarrel began and had not witnessed the incident. Even the aforesaid witness did not identify the accused persons in the present matter and did not support the story of prosecution, and therefore, the testimony of aforesaid witness was unreliable and not trust worthy and hence discarded.
43.PW3 Vakil Khan also deposed on the lines of PW1 and PW2 and stated that the deceased was given injuries by three unknown persons who had came on a bike and the bike touched him because of which the quarrel began and anticipating threat he fled from the spot and did not witnessed the incident. Even the aforesaid witness did not identify the accused persons in the present matter and did not support the story of prosecution, and therefore, the testimony of aforesaid witness was unreliable and not trust worthy and hence discarded.
44.PW4 Prasanjit Kumar was the relative of the deceased who stated in his testimony before the Court that he was informed by the deceased that it was the accused persons namely Bunty and Appu who had stabbed him, but the aforesaid witness was confronted as he had not stated so in his FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 96 of 102 statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. with regard to the aforesaid fact. Further, the aforesaid witness did not prove the identity of accused persons as he stated during his cross examination that he had never seen accused Appu but had seen accused Bunty. He further improved his statement during his cross examination that the deceased Sanjay Kumar was enquired by the police while he was in Safdarjung Hospital, that is when the IO in the present matter had stated that the deceased was never fit for statement and therefore being the relative of the deceased was an interested witness and the testimony of PW4 was not corroborative and hence discarded.
45.PW6 Aman @ Ganja, PW9 Tara and PW10 Hunny were also alleged to be the eye witnesses in the present matter but did not support the story of prosecution and did not identify the accused persons and was declared hostile. The testimony of aforesaid witnesses was contradictory to the story of prosecution and hence, discarded.
46.PW7 Poonam Rani was the wife of the deceased who first time saw her husband sitting outside the house in injured condition and stated that she was informed by her deceased husband regarding the incident and that he was stabbed by the accused persons. However, the statement of aforesaid witness with regard to the aforesaid fact was not recorded by the IO soon after the incident when the IO reached the spot after receiving information but was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. only on FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 97 of 102 12.04.2022 i.e. almost after 2 months of the incident. The testimony of aforesaid witness is of a hearsay nature and therefore, did not prove the guilt of the accused persons and was not corroborative with the testimony of other witnesses.
47.PW8 Kapil Aghi was the witness who had provided the CCTV footage to the IO of the date of incident and was not the witness who had seen the incident. The testimony of aforesaid witness only proved regarding handing over of the DVR to the IO.
TESTIMONY OF EXPERT WITNESSES
48.PW5 Dr. Apoorva Singh proved the death summary report of the deceased which was Ex.PW5/A and the CPR notes prepared vide Ex.PW5/B and the death report Ex.PW5/C. The aforesaid witness proved regarding the death of the deceased and was formal in nature.
49. PW11 Ajay Kumar and PW12 Satish Verma were the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel and Vodafone who proved the CDR and CAF forms of the witness Vakil Khan and pertaining to witness Aakashdeep, Jasveer Singh, Yogesh Pusha in the present matter. The presence of aforesaid witnesses at the spot has been admitted by the aforesaid witnesses and therefore, their testimony was formal in nature.
50.PW13 ACP Mukesh Kumar Jain was a draughtsman who prepared the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 98 of 102 scaled site plan.
51.PW23 Dr. M L Meena and PW24 Gitesh Patel were the senior scientific officer from FSL who proved the FSL report filed in the present matter.
52.PW26 Dr. Lakhan Lal Navlani proved regarding the postmortem report Ex.PW26/A. TESTIMONY OF POLICE WITNESSES
53.PW14 HC Vipin Malik, PW15 HC Bhagwan Sahai, PW16 Sanjay Kumar, PW17 Braj Mohan being the persons who accompany the IO during investigation in the present matter proved the manner of investigation. Further, PW18 Ct. Sunil Kumar deposited the case property for FSL and PW19 Ct. Bintu was the photographer alognwith crime team who had taken the photographs and PW20 ASI Mahinder Singh also was part of the mobile crime team and therefore, were the links in the investigation conducted by the IO, and therefore, their testimony was formal in nature.
54.PW21 Ct. Rohitash accompanied the IO during the investigation and was present at the time of surrender of the accused Rahul Vohra @ Bunty at the police station and his testimony was formal in nature. PW22 SI Shailender Kumar and PW25 Inspt. Yoginder Kumar were the IO in the present matter. The aforeasaid witnesses, being the FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 99 of 102 investigating officer were burdened to conduct the investigation fairly and with due diligence. However, the IO in the present matter in a casual manner handled the case property and did not preserve the CCTV footage as per law due to which the investigation suffered from technical infirmities and made the trial full of lacuna. The CCTV footage in the present matter could not be proved as the same was unavailable in the DVR seized by the IO. Moreso the IO did not preserve the CCTV footage property and therefore, the identify of accused persons could not be proved and the same was fetal to the case of prosecution. The aforesaid witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature and did not fall in the category of witnesses which completed the chain of circumstances.
55.The prosecution in the present matter has shown the accused persons, to have committed the murder of the deceased since the deceased had quarreled with them, however, none of the witnesses supported the story of prosecution and were unable to explain the motive for commission of offence. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses did not corroborate each other in material aspect and therefore, the testimony of aforesaid witnesses was unreliable. The aforesaid witnesses lacked veracity and the testimony of all the above witnesses was doubtful.
56.So, in the wake of above mentioned law, evidence brought on record, has to be read as a whole and has to be appreciated as a whole. Minor FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 100 of 102 discrepancies over trivial matters and hyper technical approach while appreciating evidence, has to be avoided. It has to be seen whether shortcomings highlighted by accused persons, go to the root of the matter and if it so goes, then in that eventuality evidence has to be discarded.
57.Reverting back to the evidence brought on record by prosecution, in this case, I find that none of the alleged eye-witnesses supported the story of prosecution and did not identify the presence of accused persons at the time of commission of offence. In fact all the witnesses stated that when the quarrel began, all of them ran away from the spot and later came back to the spot and found that deceased in injured condition. I discarded their testimonies, being un-corroborative in nature.
58.PW22 and PW25 were the investigating officer and other police witnesses examined by the prosecution, in this case qua the offence charged against the accused. Their unrebutted testimony, qua the manner of investigation, in the present matter could not prove the ingredient of offence, against the accused persons for which they were charged. Those police officers had investigated the matter, in their official capacities and had not seen the alleged incident.
59.This case was based on direct evidence as the prosecution cited several eye witnesses, however, none of the eye witnesses examined by prosecution supported the story of prosecution and there was no FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 101 of 102 substantial evidence against the accused persons to have committed the offence. The prosecution failed to lead any cogent evidence against the accused persons, as none of the eye witnesses supported the story of prosecution and were declared hostile.
60.Once testimonies of the public witnesses did not corroborate with the story of prosecution including the offences with which accused persons were charged, testimonies of the above police witnesses and expect witnesses was inconsequential. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, testimonies of the above eye witnesses being contradictory in nature with regard to offence punishable U/s 302/201/341/34 IPC, the aforesaid offences have not been proved by the prosecution.
61.The net result is that, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence it had led during trial for the offence punishable U/s 302/201/341/34 IPC. Accused persons were able to raise probable defence of them being falsely implicated. Accordingly, both accused persons namely Rahul Vohra @ Bunty and Appu @ Kumar Chakradhari are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec.
302/201/341/34 IPC. Digitally signed by Sheetal Sheetal chaudhary Announced In The chaudhary Date: 2025.12.22 Open Court Today 14:37:48 +0530 [Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan] ASJ-02, South-East/Saket/Delhi 22.12.2025 FIR No.204/2022 PS Govindpuri State Vs. Rahul Vohra @ Bunty & Anr. Page no. 102 of 102