Delhi District Court
State vs Parveen Etc. 4 on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR.YADVENDER SINGH,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-002971-2015
Sessions Case No. 57810/2016
FIR No. 882/2015
PS - Nihal Vihar
Under Section 302/307/120B/34 IPC
State
Vs.
(1) Parveen
S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o H.No. C-5, Chandan Vihar,
Nihal Vihar, Delhi.
(2) Anil
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o H.No. B-329, Ambika Enclave,
Nihal Vihar, Delhi.
(3) Manish
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal
R/o H.No. R-294, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
(4) Nitin @ Parveen
S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam
R/o H.No. B-138, J.J.Colony,
Bakkarwala, Delhi.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 1 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
(5) Rahul @ Hulla
S/o late Manoj Kumar
R/o R-415/416, Mangol Puri,
Delhi.
(6) Manoj @ Judi
S/o Sh. Sardara Ram
R/o L-290, J.J. Colony,
Sawda, Delhi.
Date of Institution 08.12.2015
Date of Committal 04.01.2016
Charge framed Under Section 302/307/34 IPC against all
the accused persons and
Section 174A IPC against
accused Manoj @ Judi.
Date of conclusion of final 18.03.2026
arguments and reserving Judgment
Date of Pronouncement of 30.03.2026
Judgment
Final Judgment Accused persons namely
Parveen, Anil, Manish, Nitin
@ Parveen, Rahul @ Hulla
are convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 302/ 307/ 323/
34 IPC. Accused Manoj @
Judi is acquitted for the
abovesaid offences, however
convicted for the offence
punishable u/s 174A IPC.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 2 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
Index
1. Brief facts : Page No. 4-5
2. Registration of FIR,
statement of the complainant
and investigation conducted : Page No. 5-9
3. Charge : Page No. 9
4. Prosecution Evidence : Page No. 9
5. Statements of accused
persons u/s 351 BNSS : Page No. 9-10
7. Final arguments : Page No. 10-11
8. Appreciation of evidence
and Analysis of deposition
of witnesses : Page No. 11-81
9. Analysis of evidence qua
accused Manoj @ Judi : Page No. 81-85
10. Conclusion : Page No. 85-88
11. Specimen Chart of witnesses
examined : Page No. 89-92
12. Specimen Chart for exhibited
documents : Page No. 92-97
13. Specimen Chart for material
objects/Muddamals : Page No.97-98
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 3 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
JUDGMENT
मैं किसके हाथ पे अपना लहु तलाश करुँ तमाम शहर ने पहने हुए है दस्ताने (Mustafa Zaidi) Brief Facts:
1. Accused persons namely Parveen, Anil, Manish, Nitin @ Parveen and Rahul @ Hulla have been facing trial for Charge under Sections 302/307/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on 09.09.2015 at about 09:00 PM, at Mother Dairy Road, H.No. B-507, Mangal Bazar Road, Chandan Vihar, main gali, Delhi, all the accused persons alongwith their associate/co-accused Manoj @ Judi (not arrested till that day) in furtherance of their common intention caused death of Raju @ Rajinder and thereby committed an offence of murder u/s 302/34 IPC. All the accused persons alongwith their associate/co-accused Manoj @ Judi (not arrested till that day) also caused injuries on the person of Pawan, Anil and Vishal, under such circumstances that if they would have died, they would have been guilty of murder and hence, committed an offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC.
2. Further, at the time of framing of abovesaid Charge, accused Manoj @ Judi was not arrested and after execution of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C., as he had failed to appear before the concerned Court despite several notice and NBWs, he was declared Proclaimed offender vide order dated 18.02.2016 and thereafter, he was arrested Case No. 57810/2016 Page 4 of 99 State v. Parveen & others on 15.09.2020 from Jail No.8, Tihar Jail, in the present case. Hence, accused Manoj @ Judi has also been charge sheeted for the offence punishable u/s 302/307/34/174A IPC on 27.07.2022 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
Registration of FIR, statement of the complainant and investigation conducted:
3. Facts leading to the Prosecution's case are that on 09.09.2015, SI Dinesh received DD no. 34A, upon which he alongwith Ct.
Ramesh went to the spot i.e. Sodhi Nursing Home, Paschim Vihar, Delhi, where they came to know that injured was not admitted in that hospital. In the meanwhile, SI Dinesh received another DD no. 35A, upon which he alongwith Ct. Ramesh went to Sanjay Gandhi hospital and collected the MLC no. 16986 of patient Pawan s/o Sh. Chander Pal, who was declared 'unfit for statement'. He also collected MLC no. 16999 of patient Raju s/o Sh. Jagdish, who was declared 'brought dead' by the doctor.
4. In the hospital, one eye witness namely Vishal S/o Sh. Mukesh was present. His statement was recorded wherein he stated that at the time of recording his statement, he was not doing any work and remained at home. He, Raju, Pawan and Anil were the friends and used to sit together. The sister of Raju namely Pinki had friendship with one boy namely Parveen, who was also residing in the same colony. On the objection of Raju, Parveen did not meet Case No. 57810/2016 Page 5 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Pinki as one year ago, Raju had given beatings to Parveen. Thereafter, a compromise had taken place between Raju and Parveen. At that time, accused Anil, Manish and Nitin @ Chacha were also present. Thereafter, the matter was ended. However, accused Parveen gave threat to kill Raju. He further stated that on 09.09.2015, in the evening time, he alongwith Raju, Pawan and Anil were sitting together. Raju had received a telephone call from Manish, who asked him to come to Park. Thereafter, Manish again called Raju by phone and asked him to come to near Mother Dairy, Shani Bazar Road as he wanted to talk to him.
5. At about 09:00 PM, he alongwith Raju, Pawan and Anil reached near Mother Dairy and found Parveen, Manish, Anil, Nitin @ Chacha, Rahul @ Hulla and one another boy to whom he did not identify to be present there. Accused Parveen was carrying Base ball danda. In the meantime, they started giving beatings to Raju and while giving the said beatings, they reached in front of H.No. B-507, where accused Anil and Manish caught hold Raju and accused Nitin @ Chacha and Rahul @ Hulla stabbed him with knife. When he, Anil and Pawan came to rescue him, then Nitin @ Chacha and Rahul @ Hulla also stabbed Pawan and Anil. Other accused persons caught hold Pawan and Anil. Accused Parveen hit this witness (Vishal) with base ball bat. Victim Raju smeared with blood and fell down. Pawan and Anil had also received knife Case No. 57810/2016 Page 6 of 99 State v. Parveen & others injuries. Thereafter, on raising noise, all the accused persons alongwith other boy namely Manoj @ Judi fled away from the spot.
6. The relatives of all the three victims had reached the spot and they were taken to hospital. Raju was declared 'brought dead' by the doctor.
7. On the statement of Vishal, the present case was registered for the offence punishable u/s 302/307/34 IPC. During investigation, SI Dinesh received DD no. 105B. Thereafter SI Dinesh alongwith Ct. Ramesh went to Action hospital, Paschim Vihar and collected the MLC no. 5587/15 of patient Anil wherein he was declared 'unfit for statement'. During investigation, IO alongwith Vishal reached the spot and took in possession the broken base ball bat alongwith other exhibits. Photographs of the spot were taken. Thereafter, during investigation, accused persons namely Parveen, Anil and Manish were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. The clothes which they were worn up at the time of incident were taken into possession vide seizure memo. Accused Manish got recovered one Mobile phone and disclosed that he had made call from the said mobile phone to Raju. The mobile phone of accused Manish was taken into possession vide seizure memo. Site plan was prepared.
8. On 15.09.2015, accused Nitin @ Praveen was arrested. He got recorded his disclosure statement, in pursuant to which he got produced one knife from his house. Sketch of the knife was Case No. 57810/2016 Page 7 of 99 State v. Parveen & others prepared and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo.
9. On 16.09.2015, accused Rahul @ Hulla was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded. His blood stained clothes, which he had worn up at the time of incident, were taken into possession. He had pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo was prepared. The medical examination of accused Rahul @ Hulla got conducted. The proof of date of birth of accused Rahul @ Hulla had collected from his school. Injured Pawan and Anil got recorded their statements. Statement of Pinki was also recorded to the effect that prior to one year of the incident, accused Parveen who was residing in Chandan Vihar and studying in Amalvas School, used to follow her and pressurize her to become his friend. She told her brother about the activities of accused Parveen, who had given beatings to him (accused Parveen). Thereafter, accused Parveen had given threat to her brother Raju to kill him. She further stated that on 05.09.2015, when she was returning to her house from the school, accused Parveen stopped Pinki and misbehaved with her. She informed about this incident to her brother Rajender.
10. During investigation, on 10.11.2015, NBW had been obtained against accused Manoj @ Juddi. Accused Manoj @ Judi was declared PO by the court of ld. JMFC and section 174A was added. During investigation, CAF and CDR of all the accused persons as well as of the complainant were collected and filed in the judicial Case No. 57810/2016 Page 8 of 99 State v. Parveen & others record. After completion of investigation, Charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court of Ld. JMFC.
Charge:
11. On 14.01.2016, Charges for the offence Punishable U/s 302/307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons except accused Manoj @ Judi (who was not arrested till that date) to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, on 27.07.2022, charge for the offence punishable U/s 302/307/34 IPC and Section 174A IPC were framed against accused Manoj @ Judi, to which he also pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Prosecution evidence:
12. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 29 witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-29.
13. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 23.04.2025 on submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Statements of accused persons Under Section 351 of BNSS (earlier Section 313 Cr.P.C.)
14. All the accused persons submit that PW Pawan had eloped and solemnized marriage with a girl against the wishes of her Case No. 57810/2016 Page 9 of 99 State v. Parveen & others family. The family members of the wife of Pawan were searching for them. The family members of the wife of Pawan had given beatings to Pawan, other injured persons as well as the deceased on the date of incident. Due to the said reason, the injured person and the deceased including their family members did not make PCR call despite having their mobile phones and did not disclose the name of the assailants at the time of their medical examination in the hospital. He was picked from his house on 10.09.2015 and was falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of Pawan. After his arrest, he came to know about the above facts.
15. All the accused persons submit that they were falsely implicated in the present case. They were apprehended from their house. They did not make any disclosure statement. Police obtained their signatures on some blank papers under duress and lateron misused the same. However, all the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
Final Arguments :
16. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Ld. defence Counsels for accused persons and have gone through the entire material available on record including written submissions.
Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution Ld.Addl. P.P. for the State :
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 10 of 99State v. Parveen & others
17. At the thresh-hold, it is argued by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that the present matter is based upon the direct evidence of eye witnesses and the prosecution has been able to prove on record, the connection of accused with the present crime and his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the help of ocular evidence; medical evidence; the scientific evidence in the form of FSL result and electronic evidence in the form of CDRs of the mobile phones used by the accused.
Arguments addressed on behalf of accused persons :
18. It is argued that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; the prosecution has failed to shift the onus upon the defence, there are several doubts in the story of prosecution which clearly showed the picture that the story of the prosecution is based on concocted story. It is further argued that the recovery has been planted and there are several contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses. It is further argued that the statements of witnesses neither trustworthy nor has any sanctity in the eye of law, same may be discarded and accused persons may be acquitted.
Anlaysis of evidence :
19. The accused persons are facing trial for offence u/s 302/307 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. The essential ingredients of offence u/s 302 IPC are as follows :
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 11 of 99State v. Parveen & others
(a) Death of human being was caused ;
(b) Such death was caused by or in consequence of the act of the accused;
(c) Such act was done :
(i) with the intention of causing death; or
(ii)That the accused knew it to be likely to cause death; or
(iii)That the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The prosecution in order to prove offence u/s 302 IPC against the accused persons has to prove:
(i) the presence of the accused persons at the spot at the time of incident;
(ii) their identification by the eye witness;
(iii) The injuries caused to the deceased and the medical opinion as regards to cause of death;
(iv) The motive of the accused in causing death of the deceased.
20. The offence u/s 307 IPC is attempt to murder. Accordingly, in order to prove the charges u/s 307 IPC, the prosecution needs to prove that the accused persons did any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 12 of 9921. As per prosecution story, there are total three eye witnesses of the incident. These are PW-1/complainant Sh. Vishal, PW-2 Sh. Anil and PW-3 Sh. Pawan. In order to see whether the testimony of injured Vishal, Anil and Pawan is reliable or not, a thread bare analysis of their testimonies is done herein as under :
The material facts deposed by these witnesses are highlighted as under while analysing their statements as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 separately:
(I) PW-1 Sh. Vishal is complainant. As per prosecution story, he is also one of the injured in this case. However, during his examination-in-chief, he turned hostile and nowhere supported the prosecution's case. As per his deposition as PW-1, he is not even an eye witness. During his examination, no where mentioned about injuries inflicted upon him by the accused persons. However, he deposed that when he went at the spot, then he saw one boy lying on the road in the injured condition and the boy was known to him as he was residing in his street and his name was Pawan. He further deposed that thereafter, he went to the house of Pawan and informed his family members and he alongwith Pawan's father and brother reached at the spot, where Pawan was lying in injured condition and he and Pawan's brother namely Ravinder took the injured Pawan to Sanjay Gandhi hospital on motorcycle of Ravinder. He further deposed that father of Pawan also reached there and Pawan was having injuries on his neck and abdomen and the injuries were also Case No. 57810/2016 Page 13 of 99 State v. Parveen & others bleeding. He identified his signatures at point A on his statement Ex.PW-1/A. He denied the suggestion that he was the eye witness of the incident.
Probative force of deposition of PW-1 :
A hostile witness's testimony is not automatically rejected. It holds evidentiary value if corroborated by other reliable evidence. While such witness may show bias against the party calling him, Courts can accept parts of their testimony which supports the prosecution/defence and reject that does not, based on judicial scrutiny. In such cases, it is expected that the Court must separate the truth from falsehood and consider the evidence.
Hon'ble Apex Court through various Judgments has held that declaration of a witness to be hostile does not Ipso facto reject the evidence. The precedence of cases reflected it is well settled that the portion of evidence, which besides being advantageous to both the parties and helps the Courts in arriving at a Judgment, may be upheld and made admissible.
Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as State of UP v. Ramesh Mishra, 1 has held that :
"It is equally settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused
1. State of UP v. Ramesh Mishra, AIR 1996, SC 2766 Case No. 57810/2016 Page 14 of 99 State v. Parveen & others but it can be subjected to closure scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution of defence may be accepted."
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi), 2 has held that :
If a witness becomes hostile to subvert the judicial process, the Courts shall not stand as a mute spectator and every effort should be made to bring home the truth. Criminal Judicial System cannot be over turn by those gullible witnesses who act under pressure, inducement or intimidation."
Accordingly, the careful scrutiny of evidence of PW-1 atleast shows that the person namely Pawan was lying at the spot in the injured condition and he had injuries on his neck and abdomen and he was taken to Sanjay Gandhi hospital for treatment. However, it need not to be mentioned that even these facts are also required to be corroborated through other independent evidences by the prosecution.
(II) PW-2 Sh. Anil is also allegedly injured by the accused persons during the alleged incident. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that Raju, Vishal and Pawan were his friends as they were residing in his street and in the year 2015,
2. Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 Case No. 57810/2016 Page 15 of 99 State v. Parveen & others he was working as sales man in a cloth shop at a Tank Road and was also pursing his 2nd year of B.A. (Programme). He further deposed that on 09.09.2015, at around 09:30 PM, he was returning from Tank Road and when he reached in his street, Vishal and Raju, who were present in the street called him and they asked him to get the matter compromised with the accused persons. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Raju, Vishal and Pawan went to Shani Bazar Road, near Mother Dairy (spot of the incident), where all the five accused persons, (who were present in the Court that day and correctly identified by the witness) alongwith one more, who was absconding (accused Manoj @ Judi), met them. He further deposed that his friend Raju started talking with Parveen and Raju (deceased) asked him why he teased his sister (meri behan ko kyon cherta hai).
He further deposed that in the meantime, quarrel started in between them and all the six accused persons and accused Parveen, who was having base ball bat in his hand, hit the same on the head of Raju. He further deposed that all the six accused persons also apprehended them and accused Nitin, Anil, Parveen, Hulla (Rahul) and Manish, who were present in the Court that day, took out knives from their possession and they surrounded them and started giving knife blows to them. He further deposed that he sustained two knife blows on his left side below shoulder. He also deposed that his friend Pawan sustained knife injuries on his left side neck and abdomen. He further deposed that his friend Raju expired at the spot as all the Case No. 57810/2016 Page 16 of 99 State v. Parveen & others accused persons gave him multiple knife blows on his abdomen upto neck. Thereafter, further examination-in-chief of the witness on 17.09.2016 was deferred at the request of Ld. Addl. P.P. as he needed the assistance of IO.
However, after a considerable gap of more than eight months i.e. on 24.05.2017, PW-2 was further examined-in-chief by the same Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, even without assistance of the IO. That day, the witness deposed that he did not remember anything else about the incident of this case and thereafter, without making any further effort to examine the witness, Ld. Addl. P.P. straightway cross-examined the witness. However, during his cross- examination by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he accepted all the suggestions put to him except the suggestion that he had stated to the IO in his statement that his family members and family members of Raju and Pawan arrived there and his uncle took him to Balaji hospital and got him admitted there. During his examination-in- chief, he also identified one red colour Sando Vest as a top worn by him at the time of incident and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW-2/P.1. It was also observed by the Court that the red colour Sando Vest was having blood stains on it.
During his cross-examination for accused Anil and Manish, he answered that the accused persons, deceased and he were not friends, however, they all knew each other since 7-8 years. He also answered that his friend Vishal (PW-1) had remained Case No. 57810/2016 Page 17 of 99 State v. Parveen & others present at the spot during the entire incident and Vishal had tried to intervene and get the dispute compromised. He also answered that he did not make any PCR call in respect of the incident. He further answered that his paternal uncle Sh. Mohan Lal and his brother Lokesh had accompanied him to the hospital. He further answered that he had not informed the doctor about the names of persons, who had caused injuries to him. He answered that however, he had told him about the place of incident. He denied the suggestion that since he did not know the person who had caused injuries to him, he had not disclosed their names to the doctor concerned. During his cross- examination, the witness was asked that the place of incident had been shown as Mangal Bazar Road and not Shani Bazar Road as stated by him. On this question, after seeing the site plan Ex.PW-1/A, the witness answered that the incident in question had started on the chowk of Shani Bazar Road and during the course of incident, all the parties involved had gradually shifted towards Mangal Bazar Road. He admitted that he had not stated this fact to the IO in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. but he further answered that he had told to the IO that the incident had taken place near Mother Dairy, Shani Bazar Road.
During his cross-examination for accused Parveen, Nitin and Rahul on 20.07.2017, he answered that on 09.09.2015 (date of incident), he met his friends on way to his house and reached in the vicinity of his house at around 09:30 PM. He further Case No. 57810/2016 Page 18 of 99 State v. Parveen & others answered that Vishal (PW-1) and Raju (deceased) met him in gali no. 28. He further answered that Vishal and he resided in gali no. 28 while Raju resided at about two minutes walking distance from their gali. He also answered that Raju told him that Parveen (accused) used to tease his sister and he requested him to accompany him to Mother Dairy situated at Shani Bazar Road for getting the matter compromised. He denied the suggestion that accused Parveen, Rahul and Nitin never met them nor they had to do anything with PW-6 Pinki (deceased Raju's sister) and were not involved in any dispute with Raju. He denied the suggestion that accused Parveen, Nitin and Rahul were not involved in any incident as stated by him in his examination-in-chief.
(III) PW-3 Sh. Pawan is cousin brother of deceased Raju. During his examination-in-chief dated 20.10.2016, he deposed that accused Parveen, who was present in the Court that day, was known to him as he was residing in their locality and around one year prior to the incident of this case, a quarrel took place between deceased Raju (cousin brother of witness) and accused Parveen and his cousin brother Raju had beaten accused Parveen as accused Parveen had eve teased (chher diya thha) sister of Raju. On that issue, accused Parveen had threatened Raju by stating that "main tujhey dekh lunga main tujhey jaan se maar doonga".
He further deposed that on 09.09.2015, at around 09:00 PM, he and his cousin Raju were present at his house and in the Case No. 57810/2016 Page 19 of 99 State v. Parveen & others meantime, Raju received a telephonic call of Manish on his mobile phone. Raju told him that Manish had called him and asked them to come at DDA Park near S S Mota Singh School for compromise. He further deposed that but due to some reason, they did not visit there and Manish again called to Raju on his phone and he called them near Mother Dairy, Shani Bazar Road, Nihal Vihar. He alongwith Raju, Anil and Vishal reached there as Anil and Vihsal met them outside their house and they took them at Shani Bazar Road, near Mother Dairy.
He further deposed that accused persons namely Parveen, Manish, Nitin, Anil, Rahul @ Hulla and Judi met them there. He further deposed that he and his all friends and Raju talked with them and asked them what was the matter. In the meantime, accused Parveen hold his brother Raju with his caller (girebaan pakad lee) and he started quarreling with him. He further deposed that in the meantime, accused Manish stated "inko maar do", accused Parveen stated "Nitin chaaku nikaal" and all the abovesaid accused persons took out the knives from their possession. In the meantime, accused Parveen hit the base ball bat on the shoulder of his cousin Raju. Thereafter, all the abovesaid accused persons attacked upon Raju with the knives. He further deposed that when he and his friend Anil tried to save Raju, accused persons Nitin, Anil, Judi had attacked upon him with their knives and gave knife blows on his left side neck and abdomen. They also gave knives Case No. 57810/2016 Page 20 of 99 State v. Parveen & others blows to Anil below his left arm on the left side chest. He further deposed that his cousin Raju sustained knife injuries on his legs, eye, near left chest, near heart and two blows on neck. Raju fell down on the road due to the injuries sustained by him. He and Raju were taken to SGM hospital by his family members. Anil was taken to hospital by his family members. He further deposed that all the abovesaid accused persons had committed the murder of his brother Raju by attacking upon him with the knives and gave him multiple knife injuries. He further deposed that he could identify the accused persons if shown to him and he identified all the accused persons present in the Court that day. He also deposed that accused Judi was not present in the court and he could identify the accused Judi if shown to him. He further deposed that all the accused persons were well known to him prior to the incident.
He identified two knives seized separately as the same which were used by accused during the commission of crime while causing injuries to him, Raju and Anil. These were exhibited as Ex.PW-3/P1 and Ex. PW-3/P2. He identified one baniyan of blue colour in torn condition having blood as the same which he was wearing at the time of incident and the same was exhibited as Ex.PW-3/P3. He identified one shoe of left leg make 'Hemka' having blood stains as the same which was wearing by his deceased cousin Raju at the time of incident and it was exhibited as Ex.PW-3//P4.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 21 of 99State v. Parveen & others During his examination-in-chief dated 11.01.2017, he identified a base ball bat as the same which was used by the accused persons while causing injuries to them and it was exhibited as Ex.PW-3/P5.
During his cross-examination conducted for accused Parveen, he denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely that Raju received call from Manish on 09.09.2015 to reach at SS Mohta School or he called again to reach at Mother Dairy, Shani Bazar Road. He answered that Raju received a call from Manish who was asking them to reach at Mother Dairy Shani Bazar Road. He further answered that Vishal was with him when they met Anil while he was coming back from his work. He answered that he could not tell the time when they met Anil, they reached Mother Dairy at around 08:00 to 08:30 PM on the said date and they met six persons. There accused Parveen and Raju talked with each other for around 02 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he could not tell the exact time when they met Anil as well as the time when they reached at Mother Dairy because they were not present at the spot. He further answered that he could not exactly by what time, they left the spot but it could be around 09:30 PM. He answered that no public person had gathered at the spot at the time of incident and police recorded his statement in the hospital after around 3-4 days of the incident. He further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and even at Nihal Vihar on 09.09.2015. He further denied Case No. 57810/2016 Page 22 of 99 State v. Parveen & others the suggestion that accused Parveen had been falsely implicated at his instance as there was dispute between their families.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Anil and Manish, he answered that the incident of eve teasing with the deceased Raju's sister Pinki had taken place about one year prior to the incident (of the present case). He further answered that on 09.09.2015, both the calls were received by Rajender (deceased Raju) in his presence. He voluntarily answered that they did not inform the police or family members or the President of RWA regarding calls received on 09.09.2015 as they were under impression that the matter was likely to be settled. He answered that he remained at the spot for around 20 minutes and his friend Vishal had gone to his (PW-3) house to inform about the incident to his family members. He further answered that first of all, he was taken to SGM hospital by his family members on motorcycle and his cousin Ravinder was driving the motorcycle and he was sitting in the middle and his brother Mahesh was sitting on his back. He also answered that his father reached the hospital directly alongwith the other family members and relatives. He further answered that Shani Bazar Road and Mangal Bazar Road were about 25 feet and 30 feet respectively in width. He admitted the suggestion that the mother dairy was situated at T.point.
He further admitted the suggestion that two days prior to the incident in question, he got married in Arya Smaj Mandir and Case No. 57810/2016 Page 23 of 99 State v. Parveen & others it was a love-marriage. However, he denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not disclosing the names of witnesses and friends who had attended the marriage as the incident dated 09.09.2015 (present case incident) was the repercussion of the marriage and he had not returned to his house after the said marriage. He also denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident dated 09.09.2015 as he alongwith his wife had eloped after the marriage. He further denied the suggestion that he had sustained the injury due to the beatings given by the family members and relatives of his wife and for the same reason, he had not disclosed the names of accused persons to the doctor in the hospital and no PCR call for police assistance was made by them.
Probative value of ocular evidence of victim or the injured :
It is a settled law that ocular evidence of the victim or the injured is considered the best evidence.
In the case titled as "State of U.P. v. Naresh", 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed:-
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely
3. State of U.P. v. Naresh", (2011) 4 SCC 324.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 24 of 99
State v. Parveen & others implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107], Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262])."
In the case titled as "Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharashtra"
4, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India gave observation as to how the testimony of an injured person is to be considered. It was held as under :
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles
4. Balu Sudam Khalde Vs. State of Maharashtra" MANU/SC/0328/2023 .Case No. 57810/2016 Page 25 of 99
State v. Parveen & others enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the Accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, Case No. 57810/2016 Page 26 of 99 State v. Parveen & others in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the Accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the Accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence."
Probative force of deposition of PW-2 :
From the abovesaid deposition of PW-2, it is apparently clear that PW-2 not only deposed about the presence of all the victims as well as accused persons at the spot on 09.09.2015 at around 09:30 PM but he also deposed about the injuries inflicted to them by the accused persons while using weapon of offence i.e. Case No. 57810/2016 Page 27 of 99 State v. Parveen & others knives and baseball bat. During his cross-examination, PW-2 also answered about the eve teasing of deceased Raju's sister by accused Parveen, which shows the motive behind the offence committed by the accused persons. During his examination, he also correctly identified accused Parveen, Anil, Manish, Nitin @ Parveen and Rahul @ Hulla as the persons who inflicted injuries to him as well as to another injured Pawan and deceased Raju. During his cross- examination by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, they failed to shake his credit and his deposition remained trustworthy.
Probative force of deposition of PW-3:
From the abovesaid deposition of PW-3 also, it is apparently clear that PW-3 not only deposed about the presence of all the victims as well as accused persons at the spot on 09.09.2015 at around 09:00 PM, but he also deposed about the injuries inflicted to them by the accused persons while using weapon of offence i.e. knives and base ball bat. During his cross-examination, PW-3 also answered about the eve teasing of deceased Raju's sister by accused Parveen, which shows the motive behind the offence committed by the accused persons. During his examination, he also correctly identified accused Parveen, Anil, Manish, Nitin @ Parveen and Rahul @ Hulla as the persons, who inflicted injuries to him as well as to another injured Anil and deceased Raju. He also correctly identified the weapon of offences i.e. both the recovered knives and Case No. 57810/2016 Page 28 of 99 State v. Parveen & others the base ball bat as a weapon of offence used by the accused persons in the present case incident. He also identified one blood stained Baniyan as the same which was wearing by him at the time of incident. He also identified one shoe of deceased Raju, having blood stains as the same shoe, which was wearing by Raju at the time of incident and which was left at the spot. During his cross- examination by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, they failed to shake his credit and his deposition also remained trustworthy.
(4) Prosecution's evidence through PW-6 Pinki (deceased Raju's sister) to prove the motive behind the incident :
During final arguments, ld. Counsels for the accused persons argued regarding absence of motive on the part of the accused persons. It is no more res-integra that the importance of motive arises where no ocular evidence exists i.e. where the case based on circumstantial evidence. The relevance of proving the motive looses its importance in a case where well established ocular evidence is available. (Reliance placed on Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 SC 3638).
However, in the present case, the prosecution has also proved the motive to the testimony of PW-6 Pinki, who is sister of deceased Raju. In her testimony, she deposed that in the year 2015, she was studying in 12th Class in GSKV, Jwala Puri, Delhi, as and when she used to go to school, accused Parveen, who was present in Case No. 57810/2016 Page 29 of 99 State v. Parveen & others the Court that day used to follow her on her way and he also used to compel her to make friendship with him but she was not interested in such friendship with the accused. She further deposed that she disclosed this fact to his elder brother Rajender (now deceased) and his brother Rajender (deceased Raju) had beaten the accused Parveen on this issue and accused Parveen had threatened her brother to kill him. She further deposed that on 08.09.2015, while she was returning from school to home, accused Parveen met her on the way near the school, he stalked her and misbehaved with her. She further deposed that she again disclosed this fact to her brother Rajender and he told that he would make the understand accused Parveen. She also deposed that on 09.09.2015, accused Parveen and his friends had called her brother at a distance from their house and they committed murder of her brother.
During her cross-examination on behalf of accused Anil and Mahesh, she answered that she had only told her brother Rajender about the fact that accused Parveen used to follow her on her way to the school. She answered that neither she made any complaint to the police nor she told her parents or to any other sibling except deceased Rajender, her friends, class-teacher and Principal that the accused used to follow her. She also answered that Rajender (deceased Raju) alone had given beatings to accused Parveen. She further answered that her cousin brother Pawan and friend of her brother had accompanied her brother Rajender only on Case No. 57810/2016 Page 30 of 99 State v. Parveen & others 09.09.2015 (date of present case incident). She denied the suggestion that the story of eve teasing by accused Parveen had been concocted by them only to furnish motive to the incident dated 09.09.2015 and that no such incident of eve teasing was ever committed against her by the accused Parveen.
During her cross-examination on behalf of accused Parveen, she answered that accused Parveen had not extended threats to kill her brother Rajender in her presence. She further answered that her brother Rajender had later on told her about the same.
Probative force of deposition of PW-6 Pinki :
The abovesaid deposition of PW-6 is sufficient to prove motive on the part of accused persons to commit alleged incident of the present case. So far as the point raised by Ld. Defence counsels that she did not make any complaint to police, her friends, school teacher and her family members other than deceased Raju cannot be the only criteria to discredit her deposition because being a school going girl of young age in the year 2015, she was not supposed to be so mature to take police action or to tell everybody about the incident of eve teasing against her by accused Parveen. Considering that the said crime against her was a sensitive matter being crime against woman and she could be in mental trauma due to this and also considering the mind set of the society, where such incident is Case No. 57810/2016 Page 31 of 99 State v. Parveen & others considered as a social stigma on the female herself, merely the reason that the said eve teasing incident was not disclosed by her to the abovesaid persons does not create any suspicion over trustworthiness of her deposition as PW-6. The Court also must bear in mind that victims to such kind of offence may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror striken victims may react differently. Their course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court therefore cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or acted in an unusual manner. Everyone reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard of the evidence of victim on the ground that she did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.
Accordingly, during her cross-examination by Ld. defence Counsels, they failed to shake her credit and her deposition remained trustworthy. So the prosecution remains successful in proving the motive also behind the present case incident.
(5) Witnesses of recovery of weapons of offence as recovered from accused persons at their instance and also from the spot, recovery of one mobile phone recovered from accused Manish and blood stained clothes of accused and injured persons :Case No. 57810/2016 Page 32 of 99
State v. Parveen & others During investigation, the IO recovered weapons of offence i.e. two knives and one broken base ball bat as well as blood stained clothes of accused persons, which were allegedly wore by them at the time of incident. In order to prove these recoveries, prosecution examined PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh; PW-12 SI Dinesh Kumar/1st IO, PW-13 Ct. Siya Ram, PW-14 Ct. Bahadur Singh and PW-27 Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh/IO.
The material facts deposed by these witnesses are highlighted as under while analysing their statements as PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh; PW-12 SI Dinesh Kumar/1st IO, PW-13 Ct. Siya Ram, PW-14 Ct. Bahadur Singh and PW-27 Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh/IO separately:
(I) PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh has deposed that on 09.09.2015, at around 10:00 PM, he alongwith police staff of the beat reached near Mother Dairy, Chander Vihar, where blood was lying on the road in front of Mother Dairy and also on huge quantity in front of H.No. B-507, which was at a distance of around 70-80 steps from the Mother dairy and he also found blood stained one shoe of brown colour lying in front of H.No. B-507 and also one broken baseball danda there. He further deposed that he went to PS alongwith rukka and came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh and thereafter, they reached at DDA park in search of accused persons on the basis of secret information. There at the instance of secret informer, they Case No. 57810/2016 Page 33 of 99 State v. Parveen & others overpowered three boys, who were sitting in the park and on interrogation, they revealed their names as Praveen, Anil and Manish and they also confessed about their involvement in the present case. He further deposed that the clothes, which the accused persons were wearing at that time having blood stains. He further deposed that the accused persons were taken to PS after their arrest and meanwhile, the family members of the accused persons were also informed to provide clothes and clothes of the accused persons were got changed in the PS. IO seized the blood stained clothes of accused persons vide seizure memo Ex.PW-11/J, Ex.PW-11/K and Ex.PW-11/L respectively and prepared separate parcels of the clothes of accused persons and sealed them with the seal of MS and the seal after use was handed over to him. He identified his signatures at point A on these memos.
He further deposed that on 16.09.2015, he again joined the investigation and on the information of secret informer, they reached at H.No. 415/16, R Block, where they found accused Rahul present in the house. Accused Rahul was apprehended and interrogated and on confessing his guilty, he was arrested. He further deposed that accused Rahul also produced his clothes and one pair of sandle which he was wearing at the time of incident, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/P. IO kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of MS and after use, the seal was handed over to him.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 34 of 99State v. Parveen & others He further deposed that accused Rahul ha also produced one blood stained knife, used in the commission of crime of this case, which he kept in almirah in his room. IO prepared the sketch Ex.PW-11/Q and seized the knife vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/R and kept the same in a cloth parcel and also sealed with the seal of MS. IO deposited the case property in the malkhana.
During his examination-in-chief, he also identified accused Parveen, Anil, Manish and Rahul. He deposed that he could identify the case property if shown to him and on production of the case property by the MHC(M), he identified the knife as the same, which was recovered from accused Rahul. Knife was exhibited as Ex.PW-11/P.1.
He also identified clothes of accused Manish, Parveen and Anil and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW-11/A1 (colly.), Ex.PW-11/A2 (colly.) and Ex. PW-11/A3 (colly.). He also identified clothes of accused Rahul as Ex.PW-11/A4 (colly.).
(II) PW-12 SI Dinesh Kumar is first IO of the present case, who deposed that on 09.09.2015, he received DD no. 34A, Ex.PW-5/A and DD no. 35A,Ex.PW-5/B and on DD no. 35A, he alongwith Ct. Ramesh/PW-10 reached at SGM hospital and from there, he collected MLCs of injured Pawan and deceased Raju and also received one sealed parcel containing the clothes of injured Pawan alongwith sample sea of hospital and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-10/A. He further deposed that on receiving Case No. 57810/2016 Page 35 of 99 State v. Parveen & others DD no. 105B, he went to Balaji Action hospital and there he collected the MLC of injured Anil and also received one sealed parcel containing the clothes of injured Anil alongwith sample seal of hospital and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-12/A. He is also witness of the seizure memo Ex.PW-12/C and Ex.PW-12/D vide which one shoe of left leg from the spot and one base ball broken danda in two pieces from the spot were seized by Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh/2nd IO. During his examination-in-chief, he identified the said shoe/Ex.PW-3/P4 and broken base ball danda Ex.PW-3/P5.
(III) PW-13 Ct. Siya Ram deposed during his examination-in-chief that on 10.09.2015, he joined the investigation in this case and he alongwith IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh, HC Sugan and other police staff left the police station in govt. vehicle in search of accused persons of this case and at the instance of information of secret informer, they reached at DDA Park, near Shamshan Ghaat, where three boys were found to be present in the park and apprehended these three boys at the instance of secret informer. They revealed their names as Parveen, Anil and Manish and on interrogation, they confessed their guilt and they were arrested by the IO. The wearing clothes of accused were having blood stains. Thereafter, all the three accused persons were taken to police station. All these three accused persons got changed their wearing clothes with the clothes which were got brought from their Case No. 57810/2016 Page 36 of 99 State v. Parveen & others respective houses. IO seized their wearing clothes separately vide seizure memo Ex.PW-11/J to Ex.PW-11/L respectively and kept the same in separate parcels and sealed the same with the seal of MS. He identified clothes of accused Manish, Parveen and Anil during his examination-in-chief as Ex. PW-11/A1 to Ex. PW-11/A3 (colly.).
During his cross-examination, he answered that at the time of arrest of accused Parveen, his father was called at the park by the IO and he had also signed the arrest memo of accused Parveen.
(IV)PW-14 Ct. Bahadur Singh deposed during his examination-in-chief that on 15.09.2015, he joined the investigation in this case and reached at J.J.Colony, Bakkarwala in govt. vehicle alongwith IO and his staff, where secret informer met them and informed them that accused Nitin was present in his home. On reaching at B-138, J.J.Colony, Bakkarwala, accused was found to be present in his house and at the instance of secret informer, they apprehended him. IO interrogated him on which he revealed his name as Nitin and confessed his guilt. Thereafter, IO arrested him. Accused took out one blood stained knife from the right side of Diwan (bed) which was lying in his room at ground floor of the said house and handed over the same to the IO. Accused stated that it is the same knife, which was used in the commission of crime of this case. He also took out one pair of shoes of black colour and his clothes i.e. blood stained pant & shirt from the same diwan and Case No. 57810/2016 Page 37 of 99 State v. Parveen & others stated that these were the same which he was wearing at the time of incident. IO seized the knife, shoes and clothes separately through separate seizure memos Ex.PW-14/D to Ex.PW-14/F (colly.). IO prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW-14/G. IO kept the knife and shoes as well as clothes of accused in separate parcel and sealed the same with the seal of MS and after used, seal was handed over to him. He also identified the said clothes of accused Nitin, Ex.PW-14/P.1 (colly.) and said knife Ex.PW-3/P.1 during his examination-in-chief after production of the same by MHC(M).
During his cross-examination, he answered that accused Nitin and his mother met them at the house of accused Nitin. He further answered that house of the accused was small in size. He denied the suggestion that no recovery of knife was effected at the instance of accused from his house and the same was planted upon him. He further denied the suggestion that there was no blood stains on the knife.
(V)PW-27 Insp.Mukhtiyar Singh deposed during his examination-in-chief that in the intervening night of 09.09.2015 & 10.09.2015, he was patrolling in the area of Nihal Vihar vide DD no. 21A and during the patrolling, he received information from DO regarding stabbing of a person and the DO directed him to reach the spot i.e. near Mother Dairy Road, near H.No. B-507, Mangal Bazar road, Chander Vihar, Nihal Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, he reached there and at the spot, SI Dinesh alongwith police staff was found Case No. 57810/2016 Page 38 of 99 State v. Parveen & others present. He also found blood lying at the spot and at different places near the spot. He came to know from SI Dinesh about the stab injuries to two -three boys who had already been taken to different hospitals. He directed SI Dinesh to go to hospital and collect their MLCs. Ct. Ramesh was left at the spot to safe guard the same. Thereafter, he left the spot for patrolling and he again came back at the spot at around 02:00 AM, where ASI Dinesh met him and informed that one of the injured person namely Rajender @ Raju was admitted in the hospital as 'brought dead'. SI Dinesh informed him about rukka on the statement of Vishal and about sending HC Sugan alongwith rukka to get the FIR registered. HC Sugan also reached there and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him for further investigation. SI Dinesh handed over to him documents of this case alongwith MLCs of injured memo, seizure memo of clothes of injured Anil and Pawan alongwith their parcels sealed by the doctor with the sample seal. SI Dinesh was directed to deposit these parcels alongwith sample seals in the malkhana.
During investigation, he seized one blood stained shoe of left leg lying at the spot and seized the same. He also seized blood stained broken base ball bat in two pieces, which was lying at the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW-12/D and kept the same in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with the seal of MS.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 39 of 99State v. Parveen & others On 10.09.2015, at around 08:00 AM, he reached at SGM hospital for conducting postmortem on the dead body of Rajender @ Raju where he recorded statements Ex. PW-27/D and Ex. PW-27/E respectively of Sh. Ravinder and Sh. Raj Kumar for identification of dead body.
He further deposed that after the postmortem, the doctor concerned handed over to him the parcel of clothes of deceased, blood sample of deceased and sample seal of hospital. He seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-27/G and he deposited the parcel in the malkhana alongwith the sample seal.
He further deposed that at around 02:30 AM, he again left the PS alongwith the police staff and reached at Police Picket Sayyed Nala, Nihal Vihar, where one secret informer met them and informed about presence of accused Parveen, anil and Manish in DDA park, near Kabristan, Nihal Vihar, Delhi and at the instance of secret informer, they overpowered them. These accused persons were arrested after interrogation. He further deposed that on inspection of clothes of accused persons which they were wearing at that time, he found blood stains on them and therefore, he got brought separate clothes of accused persons from their respective houses through their relatives to whom he informed about the arrest of accused persons. He seized the wearing clothes of accused persons vide separate seizure memos and kept the same in separate Case No. 57810/2016 Page 40 of 99 State v. Parveen & others cloth parcels, which were sealed with the seal of MS and deposited the parcels in the malkhana.
He further deposed that on 11.09.2015, accused Manish led them to his house at Mangolpuri and from one almirah of his house, he took out one mobile phone of make Samsung of white colour containing Sim no. 8130034259 and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-27/H and it was deposited in the malkhana.
He further deposed that on 15.09.2015, he alongwith the police team left the PS in search of accused Nitin and reached at Bakkarwala, where secret informer met them and informed them about presence of accused Nitin @ Parveen @ Chacha in his house at Bakkarwala. Thereafter, they immediately reached at house of Nitin i.e. B-158, J.J.Colony, Bakkarwala, Delhi and accused Nitin was found present in his house and at the instance of secret informer, he was apprehended. On interrogation, he confessed his guilt in the present case and thereafter, he was arrested.
Accused Nitin got recovered his blood stained clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident alongwith shoes from under the Diwan lying in his room. The same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-14/E and put in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with the seal of MS.
Accused Nitin also took out one blood stained knife, which he used in the present incident from the same Diwan. He prepared sketch of knife as Ex.PW-14/G and sealed the same in a Case No. 57810/2016 Page 41 of 99 State v. Parveen & others cloth parcel and sealed it with the seal of MS and also seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-14/D. He further deposed that they found some cut marks on the palm of accused Nitin and the same was also mentioned by the doctor on his MLC.
He further deposed that on 16.09.2015, he alongwith police staff left the police station and reached at Mangolpuri in search of Rahul @ Hulla, where he received information from secret informer that he was present in his house at R-415/416, Mangolpuri, Delhi. On this, they immediately reached there, where accused Rahul @ Hulla was present and at the instance of secret informer, he was overpowered and interrogated, wherein he confessed his guilt. He further deposed that he found there were stitches on both the palms of the accused.
Accused Rahul took out clothes, which he was wearing at the time of incident from the almirah which was lying in his room alongwith the sandle and produced the same. Blood stains were found on the clothes as well as on the sandle. These were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/P and kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed it with the seal of MS.
He further deposed that from the same almirah, accused Rahul also took out one blood stained knife, made of iron which he used during crime of this case as disclosed by him. Sketch of the knife was prepared as Ex. PW-11/Q and it was seized while putting Case No. 57810/2016 Page 42 of 99 State v. Parveen & others in a cloth parcel and after sealing it with the seal of MS, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-11/R. During his examination-in-chief, he identified one knife Ex.PW-3/P.1 recovered from accused Nitin, one knife Ex.PW-11/P.1 recovered from accused Rahul, one broken base ball danda Ex.PW-3/5, one mobile phone Ex.PW-27/P.1 make Samsung white colour containing Sim of Airtel, and battery having IMEI Number 358500055406869 and 358576055406869 as recovered from accused Manish from his house.
He also identified one shoe of left leg Ex.PW-3/P.4, lying at the spot, clothes of accused Parveen Ex.PW-11/A2 (colly.), Manish Ex.PW-11/A (colly.), Anil Ex.PW-11/A3 (colly.), Rahul Ex.PW-11/A4 (colly.) and Nitin Ex.PW-14/P.1 (colly.).
During his cross-examination, he answered that on 11.10.2015, the said mobile phone was got recovered by accused Manish from his house. He voluntarily answered that recovery was effected from the ground floor of his house. Recovery was effected from the first room in which the main gate was opened. He also answered that area of the house of accused Nitin was around 30 sq.yds and it was single storey house and recovery from accused Nitin was made from the ground floor. Mother of the accused was present there. All the accused persons were able to read and write. He further answered that the house of accused Rahul @ Hulla was built upto two storyies. The uncle (Tauji) was present in his house at Case No. 57810/2016 Page 43 of 99 State v. Parveen & others the time of his arrest. He denied the suggestion that knives which were recovered from the possession of accused persons were kitchen knives. He also denied the suggestion that since PW Pawan had solemnized marriage with his wife after eloping from the house, the family members of wife of Pawan were searching for them and the incident had taken place as the family members of Pawan had beaten the injured persons and the deceased.
(6) Probative force of testimony of these witnesses of recovery and pointing out memos of the spot prepared at the instance of accused persons:
The recovery of blood stained clothes Ex.PW-11/A1 to Ex.PW-11/A3 (colly) respectively of accused Manish, Parveen and Anil, which they were wearing at the time of incident is duly proved from the depositions of PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW-13 Ct. Siya Ram, PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
Recovery of blood stained clothes and shoe Ex.PW-14/P1 (colly) of accused Nitin, which he was wearing at the time of incident is duly proved from the deposition of PW-14 Ct. Bahadur Singh and PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
Recovery of blood stained clothes and sandle Ex.PW-11/A4 (colly) of accused Rahul, which he was wearing at the time of incident is duly proved from the deposition of PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh and PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 44 of 99
State v. Parveen & others Recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.PW-11/P.1 from possession of accused Rahul, is duly proved from the deposition of PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh and PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
Recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.PW-3/P.1 from possession of accused Nitin, is duly proved from the deposition of PW-14 Ct.Bahadur Singh and PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
Recovery of weapon of offence i.e. broken base ball bat Ex.PW-3/P.1, which was found lying at the spot is duly proved from the deposition of PW-12 SI Dinesh Kumar and PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
Recovery of Mobile phone Ex.PW-27/P.1 recovered from possession of accused Manish is duly proved from the deposition of PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
Recovery of left leg shoe Ex.PW-3/P.4 of the deceased, lying at the spot is duly proved from the deposition of PW-12 ASI Sugan Singh and PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
The pointing out memos of the spot prepared at the instance of accused persons namely Parveen, Anil and Manish were duly proved and exhibited as Ex.PW-11/S to Ex.PW-11/U by ASI Sugan Singh (PW-11), Ct. Siya Ram (PW-13) and IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh (PW-27).Case No. 57810/2016 Page 45 of 99
State v. Parveen & others Pointing out memo of the spot at the instance of accused Rahul @ Hulla was duly proved by PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh and IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh (PW-27).
Pointing out memo of the spot at the instance of accused Nitin @ Parveen was duly proved by PW-14 Ct. Bahadur Singh and IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh/PW-27.
Effect of Non joining of public or independent witnesses during recovery proceedings:
During final arguments, Ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons took objection pertaining to recoveries from the possession of accused persons on the ground that no public person was joined the investigation or the recovery proceedings by the IO and accordingly, these recoveries cannot be relied upon.
It is a well settled Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence of India that non joining of public or independent witnesses during recovery proceedings is not fatal to the prosecution's case, provided the testimony of police officials is trustworthy, credible and reliable. The law does not mandate that police actions are inherently unreliable simply because they lack independent witnesses and accordingly, conviction can be based solely on police testimony if it inspires confidence. The absence of public witnesses does not automatically vitiate the recovery or render the entire case against the accused doubtful. There is no rule of law that police officials are Case No. 57810/2016 Page 46 of 99 State v. Parveen & others not 'independent' in the legal sense or that their evidence cannot be accepted without independent corroboration. If the police witnesses are deemed reliable and their presence on the spot is natural, the prosecution can succeed on their evidence alone. It may not be denied that members of public are often reluctant to involve in police investigation as witnesses. However, non joining of the public witnesses is not fatal, it requires a more careful scrutiny of police evidence by the Court to ensure no fabrication has occurred.
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Appabhai Vs. State of Gujrat" 5, has held as under:
"..........it is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the murder that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this
5. Appabhai Vs. State of Gujrat, (AIR 1988 SC 696) Case No. 57810/2016 Page 47 of 99 State v. Parveen & others handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the spectrum or the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused."
In the present case, all the recoveries were made from the accused persons after receiving information about their presence at the given places from secret informers and accordingly, the present case recoveries are based on a chance recovery and it is also possible that investigating agency did not get sufficient time to prepare for joining the independent witnesses.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court has consistently held that non joining of public witnesses at the time of recovery is not a sufficient ground to doubt the truthfulness of police witnesses. Hon'ble Apex Court also in catena of Judgments has held that recovery and pointing out memo which directly links the accused persons with the commission of alleged offence is relevant and admissible in the eyes of law.
I am of the considered opinion that in the instant case non joining of public witnesses at the time of recovery is not the sufficient ground to doubt the truthfulness of the police witnesses on the abovesaid aspect or discard their evidence completely as the Case No. 57810/2016 Page 48 of 99 State v. Parveen & others testimonies of police witnesses inspires confidence. Keeping in view the fact of the present case and on the basis of corroborative testimonies of material police witnesses, I found no cogent reason to disbelieve the recovery made by the investigating team at the instance of accused persons. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in relation to the recovery made pursuant to the disclosure statement are consistent, trustworthy and corroborative. Accordingly, the objection raised by ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons in relations to inadmissibility of the recovery of weapon of offence, clothes and the mobile phone at the instance of accused persons holds no ground.
(7) Medical Evidences :
In order to prove medical evidences i.e. MLCs of accused Nitin @ Parveen and Rahul as well as MLCs of deceased Raju, injured Pawan/PW-3, Vishal/PW-1 and injured Anil/PW-2 as well as postmortem report of deceased Raju and subsequent opinion of doctor after going through postmortem of deceased Raju, MLCs of injured Anil and Pawan and examining the weapon of offence i.e. knives, the prosecution examined PW-16, PW-17, PW-18, PW-20 and PW-21.
The material facts deposed by these witnesses are highlighted as under while analysing their statements as PW-16, PW-17, PW-18, PW-20 and PW-21 separately:Case No. 57810/2016 Page 49 of 99
State v. Parveen & others (I) PW-16 Dr.Ajay Kumar from SGM hospital deposed that he had medically examined patient namely Nitin @ Parveen S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam vide MLC Ex.PW-16/A. He also deposed that Dr. Rajesh Kumar had also examined the patient Rahul s/o late Sh.
Manoj Kumar vide MLC Ex.PW-16/B. PW-16 identified signatures of Dr. Rajesh Kumar on Ex.PW-16/B on the ground that he was well conversant with the handwriting and signatures as he had worked with him and seen him while writing and signing during his official course of duty. The cross-examination of PW-16 remained Nil despite opportunity given to the accused persons.
Injuries on the palms of accused Nitin and Rahul suggests their participation in the present case incident in the alleged manner.
PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh during his examination-in-chief deposed that he arrested accused Nitin @ Parveen on 15.09.2015 from his house and he found that there were cut marks on the palms of accused Nitin and same was also mentioned by the doctor concerned on his MLC. The MLC ex. PW-16/A of accused Nitin was put to him in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. at question no. 57. He answered that the police officials had given beatings to him on 14.09.2015 and as a result thereof, he had sustained the above injuries.
Perusal of arrest memo Ex.PW-14/A of accused Nitin @ Parveen shows his arrest on 15.09.2015 at 04:30 PM from his Case No. 57810/2016 Page 50 of 99 State v. Parveen & others house and his mother was informed about the arrest. During the cross-examination of PW-27/IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh as well as the arrest witness PW-14/Ct. Bahadur, neither these witnesses were disputed regarding date of arrest of accused Nitin nor any suggestion was given them regarding arrest or apprehension of the accused Nitin by the police officials on 14.09.2015. Even during their cross-examinations by Ld. Counsel for accused Nitin, nothing was asked or suggested to them pertaining to beating of accused Nitin by the police officials on 14.09.2015 or even on any date. Moreover, despite opportunity, no witness to prove the beatings to accused Nitin by the police officials on 14.09.2015 was examined in defence on behalf of accused Nitin. Accordingly, the explanation given by accused Nitin in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the police officials had given beatings to him on 14.09.2015 and as a result of which, he had sustained the abovesaid injuries is not acceptable. Accordingly, the prosecution remained successful in proving the abovesaid injuries on the palms of accused Nitin through MLC Ex.PW-16/A and through the evidence of PW-27/IO Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh. These injuries further strengthens the possibility of using the knife by accused Nitin at the time of incident and participation in the present case incident.
PW-27 IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh during his examination-in-chief also deposed that he arrested accused Rahul @ Hulla on 16.09.2015 from his house and he found that there were Case No. 57810/2016 Page 51 of 99 State v. Parveen & others stitches on both the palms of the accused and same was also mentioned by the doctor concerned on his MLC. The MLC Ex. PW-16/B of accused Rahul was put to him in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. at question no. 64. He answered that he had met with an accident 2-3 days prior to 16.09.2015 and had sustained injuries in his hand and due to the said reason, there were stitches in his palms.
During the cross-examination of PW-27/IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh, nothing was asked or suggested to him pertaining to any alleged accident of accused Rahul 2-3 days prior to 16.09.2015, due to which allegedly there were stitches in his palms. Moreover, despite opportunity, no witness to prove such accident and the treatment thereafter was examined in defence on behalf of accused Rahul. Accordingly, the explanation given by accused Rahul in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he had met with an accident 2-3 days prior to 16.09.2015 and had sustained injuries in his hand and due to the said accident, there were stitches in his palms is not acceptable. Accordingly, the prosecution remained successful in proving the abovesaid injuries on the palms of accused Nitin through MLC Ex.PW-16/B and through the evidence of PW-27/IO Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh. The said injuries further strengthens the possibility of using the knife by accused Rahul at the time of incident and participation in the present case incident.
(II) PW-17 Dr. Varun Garg deposed that on 10.09.2015, he had conducted the postmortem on the body of Case No. 57810/2016 Page 52 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Rajender @ Raju, 20 years male at request of IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh PS Nihal Vihar vide Postmortem report no. 860/2015, running into four pages, Ex.PW-17/A and there were five external injuries on the body of deceased as mentioned on page no. 2 on the postmortem report Ex.PW-17/A. The cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to lung injuries, all injuries were antemortem in nature and caused by sharp double edged weapon. The injuries no. 4 & 5 were independently and collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He further deposed that he handed over the postmortem report in original alongwith the dead body, inquest papers, clothes in sealed parcel, dry blood gauge and seal of the department to the IO.
Perusal of postmortem report Ex. PW-17/A mentions details of injury no. 4 & 5 as follows :
(4) Stab wound 3 x 1.5 x ?, spindle shaped, obliquely placed on front and lateral aspect of left chest 10 cm below left axilla & 11 cm lateral to left nipple; with both angles acute. On exploration underlying skin, s/c tissues, muscles cleanly cut injury track running above downwards with extensive blood extravasation, passing b/w 5 & 6 left ribs piercing upper lobe of left lung, injury is chest cavity deep about 7 cm in depth. About 2 litre of fluid and clotted blood in left pleural cavity.
(5) Stab wound 3 x 1.5 cm x ?, spindle shaped, obliquely placed on front and lateral aspect of left abdomen 14 cm Case No. 57810/2016 Page 53 of 99 State v. Parveen & others from midline & 8 cm above left anterior superior iliac spine; with both angles acute. On exploration, underlying skin, s/c tissues, muscles cleanly cut injury track running upwards and medially with extensive blood extravasation and piercing diaphragm, pleural cavity and lower lobe of left lung. Injury is chest cavity deep about 8 cm in depth.
This witness was also re-examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. because he had also given subsequent opinion. During his re- examination, he deposed that on 09.11.2015, he received an application from the IO Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh for subsequent opinion alongwith postmortem report and two sealed parcels having seal of MS. On opening the sealed parcels, they found to contain two knives having the dimension as mentioned by him in his subsequent opinion Ex.PW-17/B. He identified his signatures at point A and dimension of knives as portion X & Y on the report. He further deposed that he had opined that injuries mentioned in the postmortem report were possible with these knives examined or similar one. Thereafter, knives were re-sealed in separate parcels with the seal of VG and thereafter, handed over to the IO alongwith subsequent opinion and sample seal.
Probative force of deposition of PW-17 :
The abovesaid deposition of PW-17 shows that the prosecution successfully proved not only the postmortem report Ex.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 54 of 99
State v. Parveen & others PW-17/A of deceased Raju but also the subsequent opinion Ex.PW-17/B regarding two knives pertaining to possibility of injuries to the deceased with these knives. Even during his cross- examination by Ld. defence Counsels, they failed to shake credit of PW-17 and his deposition remained trustworthy and reliable.
(III) PW-18 Dr. Brijesh Singh during his examination-
in-chief proved MLC Ex. PW-18/A of patient Raju as prepared by him. The witness deposed that the patient was brought dead and thereafter, the dead body was shifted to mortuary.
During his examination-in-chief, he also proved MLC Ex.PW-18/B of patient Pawan. He deposed that on 09.09.2015, he had also examined the patient Pawan with the alleged history of physical assault by some sharp weapon. He further deposed that the patient had sustained two stab injuries as mentioned in the MLC at point X and after examination, the patient was referred to surgery department for further management. He had sealed the clothes and blood sample of the injured in a cloth parcel and handed over the same to police with the sample seal of the hospital. He further deposed that he had opined the nature of injury as dangerous at portion Y of MLC Ex. PW-18/B, which bears his signatures at point C. Perusal of MLC Ex. PW-18/B mentions the injuries to patient at point X as follows :
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 55 of 99State v. Parveen & others
(i) Stab injuries over left lumber region, exposed omentum intestine and
(ii) Incised wound of 5 x .5 x .5 cm over left side of neck extending from left angle of mandible.
During his examination-in-chief, he also proved MLC Ex. PW-18/C of patient Vishal by stating that the same was prepared by Dr. Raghvendra under his supervision in the casualty. He identified the signatures of Dr. Raghvendra on the MLC by stating that Dr. Raghvendra had left the services of the hospital and his whereabout were not available in the hospital record. He further deposed that he was well conversant with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Raghvendra as he had worked with him and seen him while writing and signing in casual course of his duty.
Perusal of MLC of injured Vishal shows no fresh bold injury seen.
Probative force of deposition of PW-18 :
The abovesaid deposition of PW-18 shows that the prosecution successfully proved the MLCs of deceased Raju as well as MLC Ex. PW-18/B of injured Pawan and nature of injury as 'dangerous'. Even during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, they failed to shake credit of PW-18 and his deposition remained trustworthy and reliable.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 56 of 99
State v. Parveen & others (IV) PW-20 Dr. Munish Wadhwan deposed that on 13.11.2015, he received two sealed parcels having the seal of VG alongwith written request of IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh and MLCs of injured anil and Pawan seeking subsequent opinion. He further deposed that he opened the parcels and each parcel found to contain knife.
He further deposed that after going through the MLC of injured Anil and examining the weapon of offence, he opined that incised wound on back of right side of chest, two in number mentioned in MLC were possible with sharp weapon or weapon examined. His detailed subsequent opinion having the diagram of knife was exhibited as Ex. PW-20/A, having his signatures at point A. He further deposed that after going through the MLC of injured Pawan and examining the weapon of offence, he opined that stab injury over left lumber region with exposed intestine perforation and incised wound of size 5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm over left side of neck extending from left angle of mandible mentioned in MLC were possible with sharp weapon or weapon examined. The subsequent opinion having the diagram of knife was exhibited as Ex. PW-20/B and he identified his signatures at point A on the same.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 57 of 99State v. Parveen & others Probative force of deposition of PW-20:
The abovesaid deposition of PW-20 shows that the prosecution successfully proved the subsequent opinion Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-20/B, pertaining to possibility of injuries inflicted to injured Anil and Parveen with recovered knives. Even during his cross-examination by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, they failed to shake credit of PW-20 and his deposition remained trustworthy and reliable.
(V) PW-21 Dr. Virender Kumar from Balaji Action Medical Institute appeared on behalf of Dr. Kuljeet Singh to identify his signatures and handwriting as he had left the services of the hospital and his whereabout were not available in the official record.
He deposed that he was well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Kuljeet Singh as he had worked with him and seen him while writing and signing in usual course of his duty. He identified the signatures of Dr. Kuljeet Singh on MLC Ex. PW-21/A of patient Anil. After seeing the MLC, he further deposed that the patient had sustained open incised wound on back right side of chest, two in number and Dr. Kuljeet Singh had opined the nature of injury as 'grievous'.
Probative force of deposition of PW-21:
PW-21 deposed that as per MLC of injured Anil, Dr. Kuljeet Singh had opined the nature of injury as grievous, however, Case No. 57810/2016 Page 58 of 99 State v. Parveen & others he did not depose anything about reasons for declaring the injury 'grievous'.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its Judgment titled as Swaran Singh v. State in 6, observed as under :
"11.......... According to the prosecution story Panna Lal sustained injuries including fracture which were declared to be grievous by the doctor. It is, however, pertinent to note that MLC Ext. PW-8/A of Panna Lal prepared by Dr. P.K. Jain has been proved only one record Clerk Devinder Kumar, PW-8. Opinion about the injuries being grievous was recorded by Dr. Madhu Kant. This endorsement has also been proved by the same record clerk. It is pertinent to note that Panna Lal PW-4 has no where stated that he sustained some fracture and for how long he remained admitted in the hospital. All that has been stated by him was that he sustained injuries in this accident and his mother-in- law also sustained injuries on account of which she died. The law is well settled that in order to hold injuries to be grievous reliance can be placed on the statement of doctor giving reasons for coming to the conclusion as to how the injuries were grievous or by considering the evidence of the injured that he sustained fracture which would amount to the injury being grievous. In the instant case however, this evidence is conspicuous by its absence and so it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved on record that Panna Lal sustained grievous injuries in this accident. In this way
6. Swaran Singh v. State in Crl.Rev. No. 105 of 1989 as decided on 07.11.1990 Case No. 57810/2016 Page 59 of 99 State v. Parveen & others the injuries of Panna Lal have to be held to be proved as simple only which would fall under Section 337, I.P.C.
In the present case also, the MLC was not proved by the examining doctor and the PW-21 also did not depose anything about the reasons for coming to the conclusion as to how the injuries were grievous as per MLC. Moreover, no other medical treatment documents of injured were also filed by the prosecution.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, in the present case the evidence regarding grievous injury to injured Anil/PW-2 is absent and so it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved on record that PW-2 Anil sustained grievous injuries in the alleged incident. In this way, the injuries of PW-2 Anil are hereby held to be proved as 'simple' only.
(8) Scientific Evidences :
In order to prove the FSL results and scientific expert opinions, prosecution has examined total two witnesses i.e. PW-28 and PW-29.
The material facts deposed by these witnesses are highlighted as under while analysing their statements as PW-28, PW-29 separately:
(I) PW-28 Ms. L.Babyto Devi, Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 20.11.2015, 15 sealed parcels having specimen seals were received in the FSL, Case No. 57810/2016 Page 60 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Rohini and same were marked to her for examination. On opening the parcels, the parcels found to contain the articles as mentioned in her detailed FSL report no. FSL-2015/B-7484 dated 10.03.2016 and marked the articles as Exs.1, 3a, 3b, 5,6,7,8,9a, 9b, 10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, 12a, 12b, 12c, 13, 15a, 15b, 15c, 15d, 16, 18, 20a, 20b and 20c.
She further deposed that after examination, she found blood was detected on Exs. 1, 3a, 3b, 6,7,8,9a, 9b, 10a, 10b,11a, 11b, 12a, 12b, 12c, 13, 15a, 15b, 15c, 15d, 16, 18, 20a, 20b and 20c. Amp FI STR identifier plus PCR amplification kit was used for each of the samples and data was analysed by Gene - Mapper Idx software.
She further deposed that male DNA profile was generated from the source of exhibits 3a, 3b, 9a, 9b, 10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, 12a, 12b, 12c and 13. Profile could not be generated from source of exhibits 1,6, 15a, 15b, 15d, 16, 18, 20a, 20b, 20c which might be due to degradation of the sample. Partial male DNA profile was generated from the source of Ex. 7, 8 which might be due to degradation of the sample.
She further deposed that DNA profile (STR) analysis were performed on the exhibits 3a, 3b, 9a, 9b, 10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, 12a, 12b, 12c & 13 was sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 13 was matching with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 9a, 9b, 10a, 10b,11a, Case No. 57810/2016 Page 61 of 99 State v. Parveen & others 11b, 12a, 12b & 12c. After examination, remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of BD FSL DELHI.
During her examination-in-chief, her detailed FSL report running into three pages was exhibited as Ex.PW-28/A and she identified her signatures on it at point A of each page.
Probative force of deposition of PW-28:
The abovesaid deposition of PW-28 shows that the prosecution successfully proved the FSL report Ex.PW-28/A. Even during her cross-examination by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, they failed to shake credit of PW-28 and her deposition remained trustworthy and reliable.
Analysis of FSL report Ex. PW-28/A :
Perusal of the FSL report shows that Exhibit 13 is gauge cloth piece having brown stains and the same was taken out from parcel no. 13 which was sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOLPURI DELHI-83" containing Exhibit 13 described as blood gauge of deceased Rajender. Exhibit 9a and 9b are T.shirt and Jeans Pants respectively having brown stains and these exhibits were contained in parcel 9, which was a sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of MS containing the exhibits 9a & 9b described as clothes of accused Manish.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 62 of 99
State v. Parveen & others Exhibit 10a and 10b are one shirt and one Jeans Pants respectively having brown stains and these exhibits were contained in parcel 10, which was a sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of MS containing the exhibits 10a & 10b described as clothes of accused Parveen.
Exhibit 11a and 11b are one shirt, having brown stains and one Capri respectively and these exhibits were contained in parcel 11, which was a sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of MS containing the exhibits 11a & 11b described as clothes of accused Anil.
Exhibits 12a, 12b & 12c are one cut/torn Jeans Pants alongwith belt, one cut/torn shirt having brownish stains and one underwear having brownish stains respectively and these exhibits were contained in parcel 12, which was a sealed polythene sealed with the seal of "SGMH MORTUARY MANGOLPURI DELHI-83" containing the exhibits 12a, 12b & 12c described as clothes of deceased Rajender.
As per conclusion part of the FSL report, the DNA Profile (STR) analysis is sufficient to conclude that the DNA Profile generated from the source of exhibit 13 (blood gauge of deceased Rajender) is matching with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 9a,9b, 10a,10b, 11a, 11b, 12a, 12b & 12c. Ex. 9A and 9b are clothes of accused Manish. Ex.10a & 10b are clothes of Parveen, Case No. 57810/2016 Page 63 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Exhibit 11a & 11b are clothes of accused Anil and Ex.12a, 12b & 12c are clothes of deceased Rajender.
Accordingly, as per this FSL report, the DNA profile of blood of deceased Rajender was matched with DNA profile generated from the clothes of accused Manish, Parveen as well as Anil.
Exhibits 16 & 18 are two separate rusted knives and as per the result of DNA analysis as mentioned in the report, the DNA Profile could not be generated from the source of exhibits 16 & 18 due to degradation of the sample.
(II) PW-29 Ms. Bharti Bhardwaj, Senior Scientific Officer (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 01.02.2016, five sealed parcels having specimen seal were received in the office of FSL, Rohini in the present case from PS Nihal Vihar, Delhi and same were marked to her for examination. On opening the parcels, the parcels found to contain the articles as mentioned in her detailed FSL report no. FSL 2015/B-7484/Phy-30/16 dated 11.03.2016 and she marked the articles as Exhibits 1, 3a, 3b, 12a, 12b, 12c, 16 & 18.
She further deposed that the Exhibit 1,3a & 12b were examined physically and under magnification. The cut edges of cut marks Q1 to Q5 on exhibits 1, 3a and 12b were sharp. She further deposed that she also examined knives which were in Exhibits 16 &
18. Test cut marks T.1 & T.2 and T.3 & T.4 were made with the help Case No. 57810/2016 Page 64 of 99 State v. Parveen & others of Exhibit 16 & 18 respectively on Exhibit 12b. The test cut marks T.1 & T.2 and T.3 & T.4 were compared with the crime cut marks Q.1 to Q.5.
She further deposed that the crime cut marks Q.1, Q.3 & Q.4 on exhibits 1, 3a & 12b could have been caused by exhibit
18. The crime cut marks Q.2 & Q.5 on exhibits 3a & 12b could have been caused by exhibit 16.
She further deposed that after examination, remnants of the exhibits were resealed with the seal of Dr. BB, FSL, DELHI.
During her examination-in-chief, her detailed FSL report running into two pages (back to back) was exhibited as Ex.PW-29/A and she identified her signatures at point A on both the pages.
During her cross-examination, she voluntarily answered that she had given her report on the basis of knives sent for the purpose of examination alongwith other exhibits.
Probative force of deposition of PW-29:
The abovesaid deposition of PW-29 shows that the prosecution successfully proved the FSL report Ex.PW-29/A. Even during her cross-examination by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, they failed to shake credit of PW-29 and her deposition remained trustworthy and reliable.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 65 of 99
State v. Parveen & others Analysis of FSL report Ex. PW-29/A :
Perusal of FSL report Ex.PW-29/A shows that in its opinion part, it has been opined by the expert that the crime cut marks Q1, Q3 and Q4 on exhibit 1, 3a & 12b could have been caused by Exhibit 18. It has been further opined that crime cut marks Q.2 & Q.5 on exhibit 3a and 12b could have been caused by exhibit 16.
As per copy of Road Certificate, running into two pages, Ex.PW-19/B (colly.)(OS&R), parcel no. 16 was containing blood stained knife recovered at the instance of accused Nitin @ Chacha on 15.09.2015 and parcel no. 18 was containing blood stained knife recovered at the instance of accused Rahul @ Hulla on 16.09.2015.
The crime cut marks Q1 is on Exhibit 1, which is a cut/torn baniyan with dark brown stains, having one cut mark in front left portion and as per relevant entries of register no.19, running into 12 pages Ex.PW-19/A (colly.)(OSR), Road Certificate Ex.PW-19/B, it belongs to injured Pawan. The said baniyan was also shown to injured Pawan when he was examined as PW-3 and he identified the same, which he was wearing at the time of incident and it was exhibited as Ex.PW-3/P.3.
The crime cut marks Q2 and Q3 is on Exhibit 3a, which is one cut/torn T.shirt with dark brown stains, having two cut marks in the front portion and the said cloth was also shown to injured Anil Case No. 57810/2016 Page 66 of 99 State v. Parveen & others when he was examined as PW-2 and he identified the same (one red colour Sando vest), which he was wearing at the time of incident and it was exhibited as Ex.PW-2/P.1.
The crime cut marks Q4 & Q5 is on Exhibit 12b, which is one full sleeves T.shirt with dark brown stains, having two cut marks at the back left portion and the said cloth was also found to be mentioned in Exhibit 12b of parcel 12 of the FSL report Ex.PW-28/A and in entry of register no.19, Ex.PW-19/A (colly.) (OSR), where it is mentioned that the same are clothes of deceased Rajender.
Accordingly, as per the opinion part of this FSL report, the crime cut marks Q1, Q3 & Q4 on the clothes of injured Pawan, Anil and deceased Raju could have been caused by knife recovered at the instance of accused Rahul @ Hulla.
As per the opinion part of this FSL report, the crime cut marks Q2 & Q5 on the clothes of injured Anil and deceased Raju could have been caused by knife recovered at the instance of accused Nitin.
(9) CDR Calls and Location Map of certain mobile numbers :
In order to prove that accused Manish called deceased Raju telephonically before the incident on 09.09.2015 in order to call him at the spot and also to prove presence of the accused persons at the spot by showing their mobile phone locations at the spot, Case No. 57810/2016 Page 67 of 99 State v. Parveen & others prosecution examined PW-23, PW-24 and PW-26. PW-25 Insp. Pawan Sharma was also examined in capacity of IO, who collected the CDR, customer application form and other documents pertaining to the given mobile numbers.
The material facts deposed by these witnesses are highlighted as under while analysing their statements as PW-23, PW-24, PW-25 and PW-26 separately:
(I) PW-23 Ajay Kumar was examined being Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd., who brought the original record of customer application form pertaining to mobile number 8130034259, which was issued in the name of Manish S/o Sh.
Manohar Lal, R/o 249, R Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi. The certified copies of the same alongwith their enclosure i.e. ID proof bearing the seal of the company and initials of the witness at point A were exhibited as Ex. PW-23/A and Ex. PW-23/B. He also brought the certified copy of call details of the said mobile phone w.e.f. 08.09.2015 to 11.09.2015 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-23/C. The location chart of this mobile number was exhibited as Ex.PW-23/D. The certificate issued u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to these documents was exhibited as Ex.PW-23/E. Even during the cross-examination of this witness, the veracity of these documents was not disputed.
(II) PW-24 Sh. Israr Babu, was examined being Alternate Nodal officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd., who brought the Case No. 57810/2016 Page 68 of 99 State v. Parveen & others original record of customer application form pertaining to mobile number 9643599761, which was issued in the name of Chhotu Ram S/o Sh. Bodu Ram, R/o C-354, J.J.Colony, Bakkarwala, Delhi. The certified copies of the same alongwith their enclosure i.e. ID proof bearing the seal of the company and initials of the witness at point A were exhibited as Ex. PW-24/A and Ex. PW-24/B. He also brought the certified copy of call details of the said mobile phone w.e.f. 08.09.2015 to 11.09.2015 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-24/C. The location chart of this mobile number was exhibited as Ex.PW-24/D. The certificate issued u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to these documents was exhibited as Ex.PW-24/E. Even during the cross-examination of this witness, the veracity of these documents was not disputed.
(II) PW-26 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, was examined being Nodal officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd., who brought the original record of customer application form pertaining to mobile number 9210174023, which was issued in the name of Kanta D/o Sh. Ram Avtar, R/o R-34, Camp No. 5, Jwala Puri, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. The certified copies of the same alongwith their enclosure i.e. ID proof bearing the seal of the company and initials of the witness at point A were exhibited as Ex. PW-26/A and Ex. PW-26/B. He also brought the certified copy of call details of the said mobile phone w.e.f. 08.09.2015 to 11.09.2015 and the same was exhibited as Ex. PW-26/C. The location chart of this mobile number was exhibited as Case No. 57810/2016 Page 69 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Ex.PW-26/D. The certificate issued u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to these documents was exhibited as Ex.PW-26/E. Even during the cross-examination of this witness, the veracity of these documents was not disputed.
(IV) PW-25 Insp. Pawan Sharma deposed during his examination that on 10.04.2016, the present case file received by him for further investigation and he collected the call details of accused Manish and on examination of the same, he found that accused Manish had made two calls to deceased Rajender @ Raju on the date of incident at around 07:54 PM & 07:55 PM. He further deposed on 14.04.2016, he collected the CDR, Customer application form and other documents pertaining to the mobile number of deceased i.e. 9278611643. He further deposed that during the investigation, he also collected the CDR and other relevant documents of mobile phones of accused persons namely Anil, & Parveen and placed the same on record and on examination of the call details, he found that the location of the mobile phones of both the accused persons were at the spot at the time of incident.
(10) Relevancy and Evidentiary value of the documents brought by PW-23, PW-24, PW-25 and PW-26 :
Considering the abovesaid deposition of PW-23, there is no doubt that the abovesaid mobile number 8130034259 belongs to accused Manish. However, in order to show that accused Manish Case No. 57810/2016 Page 70 of 99 State v. Parveen & others called deceased Raju telephonically before the incident and asked him to reach at the spot, prosecution also needs to prove that the called number at the alleged time belongs to deceased Raju. Despite the fact that PW-25/IO Insp. Pawan Sharma deposed that on 14.06.2016, he collected the CDR, customer application form and other documents pertaining to mobile number (9278611643) of deceased, neither these documents were identified by PW-25 or any other prosecution witness from the record nor any other cogent evidence was led to prove that alleged mobile number 9278611643 belongs to deceased Raju. Accordingly, even if the abovesaid mobile number 8130034259 belongs to accused Manish, then also it is of no help to prove the fact that accused Manish called deceased Raju at the alleged time and for the alleged purpose.
Perusal of statement of accused Parveen recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. shows that question no. 72 of the statement was put to him with respect to mobile no. 9643599761 as issued in the name of Chhotu Ram, to which he replied that the said mobile number in the name of his grand father but it was not used by him and CDR, Location chart and certificate were false and manipulated documents.
Perusal of statement of accused Anil recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. shows that question no. 71 of the statement was put to him with respect to mobile no. 9210174023 as issued in the name of Smt. Kanta, to which he replied that the said mobile number is in Case No. 57810/2016 Page 71 of 99 State v. Parveen & others the name of his mother but it was not used by him and CDR, Location chart and certificate were false and manipulated documents.
The CDRs of the abovesaid mobile numbers 9210174023 and 9643599761 were not explained by the prosecution that how these CDRs are relevant to prove the prosecution story about presence of accused Anil and Parveen at the spot. The location charts of the abovesaid mobile numbers of accused Manish, Anil and Parveen were also not explained by the prosecution that how these mobile location charts are helpful to prove the prosecution story about presence of the concerned persons including accused persons and the deceased and injured at the spot at the relevant date, time and place.
Accordingly, the documents pertaining to the abovesaid mobile numbers are of no help to prove the prosecution story and accordingly discarded.
(11) Deposition of PW-19 and PW-15 in order to prove receiving of the case property in malkhana PS Nihal Vihar and deposition of parcels at FSL, Rohini :
(I) PW-19 HC Harish Chander deposed that on
09.09.2015, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Nihal Vihar, Delhi. He further deposed regarding receiving of two sealed parcels alongwith the sample seals of hospital from the IO/SI Dinesh in this Case No. 57810/2016 Page 72 of 99 State v. Parveen & others case, which were received by him vide entry at srl.no. 1429 in register no. 19. he further deposed that on 10.09.2015, he received seven parcels, having the seal of MS, one broken baseball danda, two sealed parcels, having the seal of SGMH alongwith sample seal of hospital and items recovered from the personal searh of accused persons namely Anil, Parveen and Manish from the IO/insp. Mukhtiyar Singh and made the entry of the same at srl.no. 1420 in register no. 19. he further deposed that on the same day, he also received three sealed parcels having the seal of MS from the IO and made its entry at the same serial number.
As per his further deposition, he received one mobile phone of make Samsung from the IO on 11.09.2015 vide entry at srl.no. 1432 in register no. 19. He receive two sealed parcels having the seal of MS from the IO alongwith the items of personal search as recovered from accused Nitin on 15.09.2015 vide entry at srl.no. 1434 in register no. 19. On 16.09.2015, he received two parcels having seal of MS from the IO vide entry at srl.no. 1439 in register no. 19.
Thereafter, on 09.11.2015, IO took two sealed parcels having the seal of MS from him, to seek subsequent opinion from the hospital and on the same day, he redeposited the parcels, having seal of VG, in the malkhana.
On 13.11.2015, IO again received same parcels from the malkhana and redeposited the parcels having seal of SGMH Case No. 57810/2016 Page 73 of 99 State v. Parveen & others alongwith the sample seal of hospital in the malkhana on the same day.
On 20.11.2015, he sent all the abovesaid parcels alongwith five sample seals of the hospital to the office of FSL, Rohini, vide RC no. 206/21/15 through Ct. Krishan, who after depositing the same in the office of FSL, handed over him the receipt of the same.
On 14.03.2016, he received FSL result alongwith the parcels sent to the FSL, Rohini and he handed over the FSL result to the IO.
He further deposed that so long as the parcels remained in his custody, those were not tampered with in any manner and remained intact. The relevant entries of register no. 19, running into 12 pages, copy of RC running into two pages and copy of acknowledgment were exhibited as Ex.PW-19/A (colly) (OSR), Ex.PW-19/B (colly.) (OSR) and Ex.PW-19/C (OSR) respectively.
During his cross-examination, he denied all the suggestions put to him.
(II) PW-15 HC Krishan has deposed that on 20.11.2015, as per the instructions of IO, he received 15 parcels and five sample seals from the MHC(M) to deposit the same at FSL,Rohini and thereafter, he handed over the receipt of the same to MHC(M). He further deposed that so long as the parcels remained Case No. 57810/2016 Page 74 of 99 State v. Parveen & others in his custody, those were not tampered with in any manner and remained intact.
Probative force value of deposition of PW-19 & PW-15 :
Testimonies of these witnesses is important to prove the integrity of case property. Through their respective depositions, both the witnesses proved the chain of property custody of the case property from the time of receiving the case property in the malkhana till deposition of the parcels alongwith sample seals at FSL, Rohini and also till receiving the FSL result from FSL Rohini alongwith the parcels sent there. Even during their cross- examination by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons, they failed to shake credit of PW-19 and PW-15 and their deposition remained trustworthy and reliable.
(12) Witnesses of Crime team :
Prosecution examined PW-4 and PW-9 as witnesses of mobile crime team reached at the spot. Their material depositions are as follows :
(I) PW-4 Ct. Naveen deposed that on 10.09.2015, he was posted as Constable photographer, Mobile Crime team, West, District, Delhi and on that day, he alongwith Incharge Mobile Crime team SI Kalyan Singh, HC Lalit (finger prints proficient) visited the spot i.e. H.No. B-507, Chander Vihar, Nihal Vihar, Delhi and also Case No. 57810/2016 Page 75 of 99 State v. Parveen & others near mother dairy, Chander Vihar, Nihal Vihar, Delhi. He further deposed that IO alongwith police staff met them near mother dairy and Incharge of the crime team inspected the spot. He deposed that he found blood was lying near the mother dairy and near H.No. 507 and one broken danda (fancy type) was also lying at the spot i.e. near H.No. B-507 and he took 13 photographs of both the spot from different angles. During his examination, the photographs were exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A.1 to Ex. PW-4/A.13 and negatives of the said photographs were exhibited as Ex. PW-4/B.1 to Ex. PW-4/B.13.
During his cross-examination, he answered that they reached there in the intervening night of 09/10.09.2015 at around 12 mid night and remained upto 12:45 AM. During his examination- in-chief and cross-examination, the photographs remained undisputed.
Probative value of deposition of PW-4 :
One shoe is seen in photographs no. Ex.PW-4/A6, A9 & A11. One broken danda is seen in photograph no. Ex.PW-4/A8 and A13. Remaining photographs show the spot and the blood stains at the spot. As these photographs remained undisputed so prosecution successfully proved the presence of blood stains and the fact of lying weapon of offence i.e. broken danda (baseball bat) and one shoe (allegedly of deceased Raju) at the spot.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 76 of 99
State v. Parveen & others (II) PW-9 SI Kalyan Singh has deposed that in the intervening night of 09/10.09.2015, upon receiving message from District Control Room, he alongwith Ct. Naveen (photographer) and HC Lalit (finger print proficient) visited the spot i.e. in front of Mother Dairy Chowk no. 16608 and in front of H.No. 507B, in gali Chander Vihar, Nihal Vihar, Delhi, where IO alongwith police staff met them. He further deposed that blood was lying at the spot and baseball danda in two pieces and one brown colour left leg shoe having blood stains were also lying at the spot and he prepared crime scene report Ex.PW-9/A and thereafter, it was handed over to the IO.
The crime scene report was neither objected to during his examination-in-chief nor any objections on the veracity of the same during his cross-examination. Accordingly, PW-9 successfully proved the crime scene report prepared by him.
Testimonies of PW-4 and PW-9 also corroborate the prosecution's story that blood stains were present at the spot and a broken baseball bat into two pieces and one shoe of the deceased, which was wearing by him at the time of incident remained lying at the spot.
(13) Witnesses of DD entries, FIR and scaled site plan :
Prosecution examined PW-5 ASI Bablu Ram, PW-8 ASI Mahesh Kumar and PW-7 ASI Om Prakash to prove DD Case No. 57810/2016 Page 77 of 99 State v. Parveen & others entries, recording of FIR and scaled site plan. PW-5 proved DD no. 34A, Ex.PW-5/A to prove the message received from wireless operator regarding stab injury and thereafter, the message of the same was sent to SI Dinesh for making inquiry. PW-5 also proved DD no. 35A Ex. PW-5/B regarding message received from duty Ct.Ankur from SGM hospital regarding admission of Pawan vide MLC No. 16986 and declaring brought dead of deceased Raju vide MLC no. 16999 and sending the message of the same to SI Dinesh. The recording of DD No. 34A and 35B remained undisputed. Accordingly, prosecution successfully proved the information received by SI Dinesh in the abovesaid manner.
PW-8 ASI Mahesh Kumar proved the recording of FIR, Ex.PW-8/A and endorsement Ex.PW-8/B of the same on rukka and certificate u/s 65B of Indian evidence Act as Ex.PW-8/C with respect to the registration of present FIR and thereafter, handing over the same alongwith original rukka to HC Sugan Singh to handover the same to Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh, ATO of PS Nihal Vihar for investigation. During his examination and cross- examination, these documents and facts also remained undisputed. Accordingly, prosecution successfully proved the registration of FIR and handing over the further investigation after registration of FIR to PW-27/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh.
PW-7 ASI Om Prakash proved scaled site plan Ex. PW-7/A as prepared on 28.09.2015 after visiting the spot alongwith Case No. 57810/2016 Page 78 of 99 State v. Parveen & others IO on 14.09.2015 and taking rough notes and measurement of the spot on the same day.
During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot and prepared the site plan while sitting in the police station at the instance of IO. Careful perusal of deposition of PW-7 does not show anything which may negate the veracity of scaled site plan Ex.PW-7/A. Accordingly, prosecution successfully proved the prepared of scaled site plan by PW-7.
(14) Identification of the dead body of deceased Raju and handing over his dead body to his family members:
During his examination as PW-27, IO/Insp. Mukhtiyar Singh proved the statements of Sh. Ravinder and Sh. Raj Kumar as Ex.PW-27/D and Ex.PW-27/E, pertaining to identification of the dead body of Rajender @ Raju in the mortuary, Sanjay Gandhi hospital. He also proved the handing over of the dead body to these two persons after concluding postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased Rajender @ Raju vide handing over memo Ex. PW-27/E. Neither these documents were objected by Ld. Defence counsels during the examination of IO/PW-27 nor anything pertaining to the same while disputing the identity of the dead body of deceased Rajender @ Raju, was asked in his cross-examination. Accordingly, prosecution successfully proved that the dead body of Case No. 57810/2016 Page 79 of 99 State v. Parveen & others which postmortem was conducted was of deceased Rajender @ Raju.
(15) Minor discrepancies in witness testimony :
During final arguments, Ld. Defence counsels pointed out certain minor discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and argued that on the basis of discrepancies, these testimonies cannot be relied upon.
However, it is settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of witnesses, minor discrepancies, inconsistencies and embellishments in witness testimony that do not effect the core of the prosecution's case should not lead to the rejection of the evidence in its entirety.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Bharvada Bhogin Bhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 7, has held as under :
" .......Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies ........... ..... Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses therefore cannot be annexed with undue importance. Moreso, when the all important "probabilities- factor", echous in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses".
7. Bharvada Bhogin Bhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, 1983, AIR, 753.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 80 of 99State v. Parveen & others Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar 8 observed as under :
"If a whole body of the testimony is to be rejected because the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspects, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stage. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true is the main........... The evidence has to be satisfied with care. One hardly comes across a witness, whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroidery or embellishments. An attempt has to be made to separate the grain from the chaff."
In view of the abovesaid settled legal position, I am of the considered view that like any other case in the present case also, the infirmities pointed out by Ld. Defence counsels in the testimony of witnesses is bound to be there, however, these inconsistencies are not such which go to the root of the matter and affect the truthfulness of the witnesses. Accordingly, the minor discrepancies in testimony of prosecution witnesses are not sufficient to discredit, otherwise the trustworthiness testimony of the witnesses, which also
8. Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar (2002), 6 SCC 81.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 81 of 99State v. Parveen & others finds corroboration from abovesaid medical record and scientific examination.
Analysis of evidence qua accused Manoj @ Judi :
Nothing was stated to be recovered from the possession of accused Manoj @ Judi as per prosecution witnesses. Moreover, none of the eye witness of the incident or injured in this case identified accused Manoj @ Judi as an assailant in the present case. No medical, scientific evidence or electronic evidence has also come against him to link him with the present case incident.
Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove offence u/s 302/307/34 IPC against accused Manoj Kumar @ Judi for committing murder of Raju @ Rajender and for committing attempt to murder of injured Pawan, Anil and Vishal.
However, accused Manoj @ Judi was also charged u/s 174A IPC on 27.07.2022 by the Ld. Predecessor Court after receiving the supplementary charge sheet on 06.01.2021 against him, as he failed to appear before the Court despite several notices and NBWs and thereafter, proceeding u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated against him and he was declared Proclaimed offender vide order dated 18.02.2016 of the then Ld. MM-03, THC, West, Delhi.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 82 of 99
State v. Parveen & others Analysis of evidence deposed by Prosecution witnesses to prove charge u/s 174A IPC against accused Manoj @ Judi :
Accused Manoj @ Judi was declared PO vide order dated 18.02.2016 passed by the then Ld.MM-03, THC,West, Delhi. Thereafter, on arrest of the accused Manoj @ Judi, the supplementary charge against him was received by way of assignment on 06.01.2021 by Ld. Predecessor Court and charge for the offence u/s 174A IPC was framed against accused Manoj @ Judi on 27.07.2022.
In order to prove charges u/s 174A IPC, prosecution examined PW-22 ASI Sugan Singh on 22.03.2025. During his examination in chief, he deposed that on 08.01.2016, he was posted at PS Nihal Vihar as head constable. That day warrants issued u/s 82 Cr.P.C. dated 04.01.2016 against the accused Manoj @ Judi was marked to him for execution. In pursuant to the said warrant, he visited at the given address of the warrant i.e. L-290, J.J. Colony, Savda, Delhi, where he tried to find out the accused Manoj @ Judi but he remained untraceable. Thereafter, he made inquiries from the neighbourhood and also did the work of Mundadi in the said area and affixed the copy of warrant at the gate of the house of the accused Manoj @ Judi. He further deposed that he also affixed the second copy of warrants at the notice board of the Court and on 18.02.2016, he appeared before the Court of Ld. MM,where his statement with respect to execution of warrants u/s 82 Cr.P.C.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 83 of 99
State v. Parveen & others against accused Manoj @ Judi was recorded. During his examination in chief, he identified his signatures at point A on the warrant u/s 82 Cr.P.C., order of declaration of PO against accused Manoj @ Judi. He also identified his signatures at point A on statement, Ex.PW-22/C given before the concerned Court.
During his cross-examination, only one question in the form of suggestion was asked from him by Ld. Defence counsel which he denied by answering that it was wrong to suggest that he had not properly executed the warrants u/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued against the accused Manoj @ Judi as he did not visit at the given address and prepared his report without verifying the address of the accused.
Statement of accused u/s 351 BNSS (corresponding section 313 Cr.P.C.) was recorded on oath and question no. 79 and 80 were put to him with respect to charge u/s 174A IPC. The incriminating evidences in both of these questions put to him were denied by him by stating that it was wrong and denied.
Accused did not lead any DE in his favour against charge u/s 174A IPC.
During final arguments, it was argued on behalf of Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State that there was sufficient material on record that accused had failed to appear before the Court despite proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. issued against him and the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 84 of 99State v. Parveen & others Per contra, it was argued on behalf of accused that accused was falsely implicated in the present case and no summons or bailable warrants were served upon the accused.
Section 174A IPC reads as : "Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has been made under sub- section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 82 (3) Cr.P.C. declares the order of proclamation as the inclusive evidence and therefore, once the accused declared as proclaimed offender, the process issued against him is presumed to have been duly executed. The onus lies upon the accused to rebut the case of the prosecution by bringing on record the cogent evidences in support of his assertions that no summons or bailable warrants were served upon him and he was not aware about issuance of any process against him. However, no such evidence has been brought on record by the accused. The oral assertions made by the accused that the default in his appearance during the proceedings of the present case was not deliberate is not sufficient to exonerate him from liability for the offence in question.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 85 of 99State v. Parveen & others On the other hand, prosecution through evidence of PW-22 has proved the charge u/s 174A IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In view of the abovesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the case u/s 174A IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, accused Manoj @ Judi is hereby held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 174A IPC.
Conclusion:
22. In view of abovesaid discussions & findings, prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case against all the accused persons except accused Manoj Kumar @ Judi for charges u/s 302/34 IPC; 307/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt on following grounds :
(1) through the testimonies of eye witnesses as well as injured persons i.e. PW-2/Anil and PW-3/Pawan by proving the incident; presence of accused persons and the victims of the case at the spot at the alleged date and time; the identification of the accused persons and weapons used by them in committing the offence; and (2) by proving the motive of the accused persons behind the incident through the testimony of PW-6 Pinki (sister of deceased Raju); and Case No. 57810/2016 Page 86 of 99 State v. Parveen & others (3) by proving the recovery of knives used in the commission of offence and the blood stained clothes wore by accused Nitin and Rahul at the time of incident as recovered at their instance; and (4) by proving the recovery of blood stained clothes wore by accused Parveen, Anil and Manish at the time of incident and recovered at the time of their arrest ; and (5) by proving the recovery of one baseball bat from the spot, which was used at the time of incident by accused Parveen; and (6) by proving the injuries caused to injured Pawan as dangerous and to Anil as simple, through their respective MLCs; and (7) by proving the subsequent opinion of PW-20, whereby he opined that the injuries to PW-2 Anil and PW-3 Pawan as mentioned in their MLCs were possible with weapon examined; and (8) through scientific evidences by proving the FSL result and expert's opinion and thereby proving that the DNA profile of blood of deceased Rajender @ Raju was matched with DNA profile generated from the clothes of accused Manish, Parveen as well as Anil;
and Case No. 57810/2016 Page 87 of 99 State v. Parveen & others (9) through scientific evidences by proving the FSL result and expert's opinion and thereby proving that crime cut marks on the clothes of injured Anil, Pawan and deceased Raju could have been caused by knife recovered at the instance of accused Rahul @ Hulla and crime cut marks on the clothes of injured Anil and deceased Raju could have been caused by knife recovered at the instance of accused Nitin.
23. Accordingly, accused persons namely Parveen, Anil, Manish, Nitin @ Parveen and Rahul @ Hulla are hereby held guilty and convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC for committing the murder of deceased Raju @ Rajinder and Section 307/34 IPC for attempt to murder of injured Pawan. They are also held guilty and convicted u/s 323/34 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to injured Anil.
24. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution is not able to prove the offence punishable u/s 302/307/323/34 IPC against accused Manoj @ Judi. Accordingly, accused Manoj @ Judi is hereby acquitted for the abovesaid offences. However, he is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 174A IPC.
25. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convicts free of cost against due endorsement. The judgment be also uploaded on the official website during course of the day.
26. Let they be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 88 of 9927. In view of the Judgment titled as Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, 9 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the specimen chart of witnesses examined, specimen chart of exhibited documents and Specimen Chart for material objects/Muddamals are as follows :
Specimen Chart of witnesses examined
9. Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v. State of Gujarat, in Criminal Appeal No. 2973 of 2023, decided on 15.12.2025.Case No. 57810/2016 Page 89 of 99
State v. Parveen & others Prosecution witnesses No. Name of witnesses Description PW-1 Sh. Vishal Injured and eye witness.
PW-2 Sh. Anil Injured and eye witness.
PW-3 Sh. Pawan Injured and eye witness.
PW-4 Ct. Navin Photographer, Mobile Crime Team.
PW-5 ASI Badlu Ram Duty officer
PW-6 Pinki Sister of deceased Raju.
PW-7 ASI Om Prakash Prepared Site Plan Ex.
PW-7/A.
PW-8 ASI Mahesh Kumar He got registered the FIR through
computer operator.
PW-9 SI Kalyan Singh He is Incharge of Mobile Crime
team and prepared Crime report
Ex.PW-9/A.
PW-10 Ct. Ramesh Initially joined the investigation with
the IO and took the injured to
hospital.
PW-11 ASI Sugan Singh Joined investigation
PW-12 SI Dinesh Kumar Joined investigation.
PW-13 Ct. Siya Ram Joined investigation alongwith IO.
PW-14 Ct. Bahadur Singh Joined investigation with IO.
PW-15 HC Krishan Deposited exhibits in FSL, Rohini.
PW-16 Dr. Ajay Kumar Examined the patient Nitin @
Praveen vide MLC Ex. PW-16/A and
Rahul @ Chuha vide MLC
Ex.PW-16/B.
PW-17 Dr. Varun Garg Conducted postmortem examination
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 90 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
on the body of Rajender @ Raju vide
P.M. report Ex. PW-17/A.
PW-18 Dr. Brijesh Singh Examined patient Raju, Pawan and
Vishal vide their MLCs Ex.PW-18/A
to Ex. PW-18/C.
PW-19 H/Ct. Harish MHC(M)
Chander
PW-20 Dr. Munish Gave subsequent opinion qua knife
Wadhawan Ex.PW-20/B.
PW-21 Dr. Virender Kumar Identified the handwriting and
signatures of Dr. Kuljeet Singh, who
had examined the patient Anil vide
MLC Ex. PW-21/A.
PW-22 SI Sugan Singh Executed the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C.
qua accused Manoj @ Judi and
proved his report Ex.PW-22/A.
PW-23 Sh. Ajay Kumar Produced the Customer application
Nodal officer form and Call detail report qua Mobile number 8130034259, issued in the name of Manish.
PW-24 Sh. Israr babu Nodal Produced the Customer application officer form and Call detail report qua Mobile number 9643599761, issued in the name of Chotu Ram. PW-25 Insp. Pawan Sharma Case file was received by him for further investigation. He prepared charge sheet and filed before the concerned Court. PW-26 Rajeev Ranjan Produced the Customer application Nodal officer form and Call detail report qua Mobile number 9210174023, issued in the name of Kanta. PW-27 Insp. Mukhtiyar IO of the case. Singh PW-28 Ms. L.Babyto Devi, Examined the exhibits. Assistant Director (Biology), FSL, Case No. 57810/2016 Page 91 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Rohini, Delhi. PW-29 Ms. Bharti Bhardwaj Examined the exhibits. Sr. Scientific Officer(Physics) FSL, Rohini, Delhi Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents Case No. 57810/2016 Page 92 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by/attested by Exhibit Ex. PW1/A Statement of eye PW-1 Vishal witness Ex. PW2/A Statement of PW-2 Anil injured Ex. PW5/A DD No. 34A PW5 ASI Badlu Ram, PW12 SI Dinesh Kumar Ex. PW5/B DD No. 35A PW5 ASI Badlu Ram, PW12 SI Dinesh Kumar Ex. PW7/A Scaled site plan PW7 ASI Om Prakash, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh Ex. PW8/A Copy of FIR PW8 ASI Mahesh Kumar Ex. PW8/B Endorsement on PW8 ASI Mahesh Kumar rukka Ex. PW8/C Certificate u/s 65B PW8 ASI Mahesh Kumar of IEA Ex. PW9/A Scene of crime PW9 SI Kalyan Singh, PW27 ACP report Mukhtiar Singh Ex. PW11/A Arrest memo of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
accused Parveen Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh Ex. PW11/B Arrest memo of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
accused Anil Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh Ex. PW11/C Arrest memo of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
Manish Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW11/D Personal search of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 93 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
accused Parveen Siya Ram
Ex. PW11/E Personal search of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
accused Anil Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW11/F Personal search of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
accused Manish Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW11/G Disclosure PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP
statement of Mukhtiar Singh
accused Parveen
Ex. PW11/H Disclosure PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP
statement of Mukhtiar Singh
accused Anil
Ex. PW11/I Disclosure PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP
statement of Mukhtiar Singh
accused Manish
Ex. PW11/J Seizure of blood PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
stained clothes of Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh accused Parveen Ex. PW11/K Seizure of blood PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
stained clothes of Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh accused Anil Ex. PW11/L Seizure of blood PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
stained clothes of Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh accused Manish Ex. PW11/M Arrest memo of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP accused Rahul Mukhtiar Singh Ex. PW11/N Personal search of PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP accused Rahul Mukhtiar Singh Ex. PW11/O Disclosure PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP statement of Mukhtiar Singh accused Rahul Ex. PW11/P Seizure of clothes PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP and one pair of Mukhtiar Singh sandal Ex. PW11/Q Sketch of knife PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh Case No. 57810/2016 Page 94 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Ex. PW11/R Seizure of knife PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh Ex. PW11/S Pointing out memo PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
of place of Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
occurrence by
accused Parveen
Ex. PW11/T Pointing out memo PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
of place of Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
occurrence by
accused Manish
Ex. PW11/U Pointing out memo PW11 ASI Sugan Singh, PW13 Ct.
of place of Siya Ram, PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
occurrence by
accused Rahul
Ex. PW11/V Pointing out memo PW11 ASI Sugan Singh
of place of
occurrence by
accused Nitin
Ex. PW1/B Statement of Vishal PW12 SI Dinesh Kumar
Ex.PW12/A Seizure of parcel PW12 SI Dinesh Kumar
containing clothes
of injured Anil
Ex. PW12/B Rukka on statement PW12 SI Dinesh Kumar
of Vishal
Ex. PW14/A Arrest memo of PW14 Ct. Bahadur Singh, PW27 ACP
accused Nitin Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW14/B Personal search of PW14 Ct. Bahadur Singh, PW27 ACP
accused Nitin Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW14/C Disclosure PW14 Ct. Bahadur Singh, PW27 ACP
statement of Mukhtiar Singh
accused Nitin
Ex. PW14/G Sketch of knife PW14 Ct. Bahadur Singh, PW27 ACP
Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW14/H Pointing out memo PW14 Ct. Bahadur Singh, PW27 ACP
of place of Mukhtiar Singh
occurrence by
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 95 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
accused Nitin
Ex. PW16/B MLC of Rahul PW16 Dr. Ajay Kumar
Ex. PW17/A PM report of PW16 Dr. Ajay Kumar and PW17 Dr.
deceased Varun Garg
Ex. PW17/B Subsequent opinion PW17 Dr. Varun Garg, PW27 ACP
Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW18/A MLC of injured PW18 Dr. Brijesh Singh
Raju
Ex. PW18/B MLC No. 16986 PW18 Dr. Brijesh Singh
Ex. PW18/C MLC of patient PW18 Dr. Brijesh Singh
Vishal
Ex. PW19/A Relevant entry in PW19 HC Harish Chandra
Register No. 19
Ex. PW19/B Copy of RC PW19 HC Harish Chandra
Ex. PW19/C Copy of PW19 HC Harish Chandra
acknowledgment
Ex. PW20/A Subsequent opinion PW20 Dr. Manish Wadhwan, PW27
on knife ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW20/B Subsequent opinion PW20 Dr. Manish Wadhwan, PW27
on knife ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW21/A MLC of patient PW21 Dr. Virender Kumar
Anil
Ex. PW22/A Detailed report of PW22 ASI Sugan Singh
process server qua
accused Manoj
Ex. PW22/B Order of PO of PW22 ASI Sugan Singh
accuse Manoj @
Judi
Ex. PW22/C Statement of PW22 ASI Sugan Singh
process server
Ex. PW23/A Certified copy of PW23 Sh. Ajay Kumar
CAF report
alongwith ID proof
Ex. PW23/B Certified copy of PW23 Sh. Ajay Kumar
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 96 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
CAF report
alongwith ID proof
Ex. PW23/C Certified copy of PW23 Sh. Ajay Kumar
CDR
Ex. PW23/D Location chart PW23 Sh. Ajay Kumar
Ex. PW23/E Certificate u/s 65B PW23 Ajay Kumar
IE Act
Ex. PW24/A Certified copy of PW24 Sh. Israr Babu
CAF
Ex. PW24/B Certified copy of PW24 Sh. Israr Babu
CAF
Ex. PW24/C Certified copy of PW24 Sh. Israr Babu
CDR
Ex. PW24/D Certified copy of PW24 Sh. Israr Babu
location chart
Ex. PW24/E Certificate u/s 65B PW24 Sh. Israr Babu
IE Act
Ex. PW26/A Certified copy of PW26 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan
CAF
Ex. PW26/B Certified copy of PW26 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan
CAF
Ex. PW26/C Certified copy of PW26 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan
CDR
Ex. PW26/D Location chart PW26 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan
Ex. PW26/E Certificate u/s 65B PW26 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan
IE Act
Ex. PW27/A Site plan PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW27/B Request for PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
postmortem
Ex. PW27/C Form No. 25 PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW27/D Statement of PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ravinder
Ex. PW27/E Statement of Raj PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Kumar
Case No. 57810/2016 Page 97 of 99
State v. Parveen & others
Ex. PW27/F Handing over of PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
dead body
Ex. PW27/G Seizure of parcel PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
containing clothes
Ex. PW27/H Seizure of mobile PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW27/I Request letter PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW27/J Written request PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW27/P1 Mobile recovered PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
from accused
Manish
Ex. PW27/H Seizure of mobile PW27 ACP Mukhtiar Singh
Ex. PW28/A FSL report PW28 Ms. L. Babyto Devi
Ex. PW29/A FSL report PW29 Ms. Bharti Bhardwaj
Specimen Chart for material objects/Muddamals Material Object Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by No. Ex. PW3/P.5 Baseball bat PW1, PW3, PW12 and PW27 Ex. PW2/P1 Red colour sando vest and one PW2 orange colour T-shirt Ex. PW3/P.1 Knife PW3, PW14, PW27 Ex. PW3/P.2 Another knife PW3 Ex. PW3/P.3 One baniyan of Blue colour PW3 Ex. PW3/P.4 One shoe of left leg worn by PW3 and PW12 deceased Raju Ex. PW4/A1 to Photographs of spot PW4 Ex. PW4/A13 Ex. PW4/B1 to Negatives of the photographs PW4 Ex. PW13/B13 Ex. PW10/A Seizure of one parcel PW10 and PW12 Ex. PW11/P1 Knife recovered from accused PW11 and PW27 Case No. 57810/2016 Page 98 of 99 State v. Parveen & others Rahul Ex. PW11/A1 Clothes of accused Manish PW11, PW13, PW27 Ex. PW11/A2 Clothes of accused Parveen PW11, PW13, PW27 Ex. PW11/A3 Clothes of accused Anil PW11, PW13, PW27 Ex. PW11/A4 Clothes of accused Rahul PW11, PW27 Ex. PW12/C Seizure of exhibits PW12 and PW27 Ex. PW12/D One baseball broken danda PW12 and PW27 Ex. PW14/D to Seizure of knife, shoes and PW14 and PW27 Ex. PW14/F clothes Ex. PW14/P1 Seizure of clothes of accused PW14 and PW27 Nitin Ex. PW19/A Relevant entry in Register No. PW19 19 Digitally signed by Pronounced in the open YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH (Dr. Yadvender Singh) SINGH Date:
Court on 30.03.2026 Additional Sessions Judge -05, 2026.03.30 18:59:04 +0530 (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi (It is to certify that all 98 Pages of the judgment are duly signed.) Digitally signed by (Dr. Yadvender Singh) YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH Additional Sessions Judge -05, SINGH Date:
2026.03.30 (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi 18:59:15 +0530 Case No. 57810/2016 Page 99 of 99 State v. Parveen & others