Delhi District Court
State vs Mohan @ Jagmohan on 3 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(FAST TRACK COURT), SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Sharad Gupta
Sessions Case No. 917/2018
CNR No. DLSW010010832015
FIR No. : 177/2015
Police Station : J. P. Kalan
Under Section : 302/34 IPC
In the matter of :
State
versus
1. Mohan @ Jagmohan,
S/o Sh. Balbir Singh,
R/o Village and Post Office Pandrawal,
PS Chatari, District Bulandshahar,
Uttar Pardesh.
2. Jagan Nath @ Raju,
S/o Sh. Soran Singh,
R/o Village and Post Office Pandrawal,
PS Chatari, District Bulandshahar,
Uttar Pardesh.
Date of institution : 27.11.2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 21.11.2024
Date of judgment : 03.12.2024
Decision : Accused Mohan @
Jagmohan and Jagan
Nath @ Raju are
SHARAD
acquitted of the offence GUPTA
punishable U/s 302/34
IPC. Digitally signed
by SHARAD
GUPTA
Date:
State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another 2024.12.03
FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 1 of 53 17:05:06 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons, namely, Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagannath @ Raju have been sent up to face trial in the instant case FIR no. 177/2015 PS Jaffar Pur Kalan on the allegations that on 29.08.2015, at about 12-12.15 am, at Dada Budha Road, VPO Dhansa, New Delhi, they both in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of one Sh. Rajinder S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram by stabbing him with a knife on his neck.
CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. The case of the prosecution as gleaned from the charge-sheet is that on 29.08.2015, on receipt of DD no. 4A, SI Mukesh Kumar alongwith the staff reached at the spot i.e. Dada Budha Road near the plot of Naresh @ Toni where a lot of blood was scattered on the corner of the street. Injured had already been shifted to RTRM Hospital by the PCR staff. Smt. Kanta Devi was interrogated at the spot and she made a statement wherein she alleged that Raju and Jagmohan, who did the work of ghisai (polishing marble),used to reside on rent in front of her house. She stated that at about 12 mid night they were shouting loudly, abusing and quarrelling with each other. She added that due to the loud noise, she peeped down from her terrace and saw that one Rajender S/o Tulsi, who used to work as a mason, went to them to pacify them. She stated that in the meantime, loud noises SHARAD GUPTA of hue and cry were heard and she came out of her house. She Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another Date: 2024.12.03 FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 2 of 53 17:05:14 +0530 added that she saw that Rajender came tumbling ( ladkhadate hue), holding his neck with his hands. Rajender was bleeding from his neck and when Smt. Kanta Devi asked him as to what had happened, he replied that Raju and Jagmohan had stabbed him with knife. She added that in the meantime, Rajender laid down in the street. Public persons had gathered in the street. Smt. Kanta Devi further asserted that she told the public that Raju and Jagmohan were still inside their house and asked them to shut the door of their house. She stated that on this someone latched the door of the house of accused Jagmohan and Raju from outside. She further stated that she tried the stop the bleeding from the neck of Rajinder with the help of a cotton cloth. On her asking, one Lokesh called the police at 100 number. She further averred that when public persons tried to catch Jagmohan and Raju, they came to know that they had already escaped by jumping from the roof of their house.
3. In the meantime, Inspector Sudhir Kumar alongwith other staff also reached at the spot. SI Mukesh reached RTRM Hospital where he collected MLC no. 4961/15, vide which Rajender S/o unknown R/o Dhansa had already been declared 'brought dead'. The dead body was got preserved in the mortuary and SI Mukesh returned back to the spot. Crime Team also reached at the spot and inspected the spot. The crime team photographer clicked photographs of the spot. SI Mukesh prepared rukka and got the present FIR registered through HC Virender. Further investigation was marked to Inspector Sudhir SHARAD GUPTA Kumar, who prepared site plan and lifted the exhibits from the Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 3 of 53 Date:
2024.12.03 17:05:21 +0530 spot, sealed them with the seal of SKG and seized them in the present case. Upon inquiry, the name of the deceased was revealed as Rajendra @ Rambadal S/o Sh. Tulsi Ram, R/o Village and Post Office Dhansa, New Delhi, a permanent resident of Village Ramrakha, Post Office Amouda Khas, District Basti, Uttar Pradesh. Post mortem of the dead body was got conducted at RTRM Hospital and after postmortem, the exhibits were seized in the present case. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to relatives of the deceased.
4. During the course of investigation, on 30.08.2015, on the basis of a secret information, the IO alongwith his team reached at village Dhansa from where Mr. Shankar Dagar, son of the landlord of the accused persons was joined in the investigation and they all proceeded towards the Dhansa Border Bus Stand from where, two persons de-boarding an RTV, identified as accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju were apprehended. Accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju were brought to the police station where they were interrogated and during interrogation, they confessed having murdered the deceased Mr. Rajender and their disclosure statements were reduced into writing. The accused persons got recovered the clothes which were allegedly worn by them at the time of the incident and the said clothes were also seized in the present case. Both the accused persons pointed out the spot as well as the passage (on the terrace) through which they had SHARAD eloped from the spot and while jumping accused Mohan @ GUPTA Jagmohan had also received injury on his leg. During further Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another Date:
FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 4 of 53 2024.12.03 17:05:29 +0530 investigation, at the instance of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan, the weapon of offence i.e. knife was also recovered from near the wall of the Cremation Ground, Village Dhansa. IO also interrogated the person from whom accused Mohan @ Jagmohan had got his injury treated. The IO collected the crime team report, photographs, scaled site plan and post mortem report. IO also obtained the subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence and also sent the exhibits to the FSL for expert opinion and collected the FSL result.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the court.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
6. In light of the police report and the documents filed alongwith the same, cognizance was taken vide order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
7. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.PC, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide order dated 27.11.2015, committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions.
8. Vide order dated 21.12.2015, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath were charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
9. The case was received by way of transfer by this Court on 01.10.2022.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2024.12.03 17:05:36 State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another +0530 FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 5 of 53
10. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as twenty two (22) witnesses.
11. PW-1 Mr. Lokesh Kumar, as per the case of prosecution, is one of the witnesses to the dying declaration made by the deceased to complainant/eye witness Ms. Kanta. He has, however, not supported the case of prosecution in this regard.
12. PW-2 Mr. Pratap Singh Dagar was the landlord of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju and the owner of the room built in a plot at Dada Buda Mandir Road, Near Village Dhansa, Delhi, where the incident took place.
13. PW-3 Smt. Kanta is the complainant in the present case. As per the case of prosecution, she is also a witness to the circumstances leading to the alleged crime and also to the dying declaration made by the deceased.
14. PW-4 Sh. Shankar Dagar is the son of the landlord of the accused persons. As per the case of prosecution, he had joined the investigation with the IO and is a witness to the arrest of the accused persons, recording of their disclosure statements, pointing out of place of incident and the place from where they escaped having been made by the accused persons as well as to the recovery of the clothes at the instance of the accused persons and recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan. He has, however, not supported the case of prosecution on any of these aspects.
15. PW-5 Mr. Ram Anchal is the elder brother of the Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 6 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:05:42 +0530 deceased who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the hospital. After PM, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to them.
16. PW-6 Sh. Dashrath Yadav is the friend of brother of deceased, namely, Mr. Ram Achal and he had also identified the dead body of the deceased in the hospital and after PM, the dead body was handed over to them.
17. PW-7 SI Mukesh Kumar is the initial IO of the case, who had initially reached at the spot on receipt of information vide DD no. 4 A, recorded the statement of Smt. Kanta Devi, collected the MLC of the injured, got the spot inspected through the crime team, prepared rukka and got the present case registered. He also joined the further investigation with the IO Inspector Sudhir at the spot.
18. PW-8 SI Kaptan Singh is the Duty Officer who recorded DD no. 4 A dated 29.08.2015 and also registered the present FIR bearing no. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan.
19. PW-9 Mr. Ramesh Kumar is the Assistant Draftsman who had prepared the scaled site plan of the spot.
20. PW-10 Dr. Vaibhav Chaudhary had examined the deceased at RTRM Hospital and prepared his MLC no. 4961.
21. PW-11 HC Deepak and PW-16 Inspector Arvind Kumar joined the investigation of this case with the IO Inspector Sudhir on 30.08.2015 at the time of apprehension of the accused persons, recording of their disclosure statements, recovery of the Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 7 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:05:48 +0530 clothes of the accused persons, the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and the pointing out of the place of occurrence and the place/passage through which they had escaped/eloped from the spot.
22. PW-12 Dr. Parvinder Singh had conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased.
23. PW-13 SI Rakesh was the Crime Team Incharge, who reached at the spot on receipt of information, inspected the spot and gave his report.
24. PW-14 ASI Dharam Singh was the Incharge of the PCR van which reached at the spot on receipt of PCR call and shifted the injured to RTRM Hospital.
25. PW-15 HC Suresh Yadav was the photographer of the mobile crime team, who clicked the photographs of the spot.
26. PW-17 Ct. Unit Rajain, on the directions of the IO collected the exhibits of this case from the MHC(M) and got them deposited at the FSL Rohini for expert analysis.
27. PW-18 HC Pawan Kumar is the concerned malkhana moharrir with whom the case property of this case was deposited on different occasions.
28. PW-19 HC Virender had joined the investigation of this case on 29.08.2015 at the spot alongwith SI Mukesh and Inspector Sudhir Kumar. He took the rukka to the PS and got the present FIR registered.
Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 8 of 53 17:05:55 +0530
29. PW-20 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Gulia is the investigating officer of this case and has been examined to prove the investigation conducted by him.
30. PW-21 Md. Ikrar, as per the case of prosecution, is the person who had given first aid/treatment accused Mohan @ Jagmohan for the injury sustained by him while eloping from the spot. He, however, did not support the case of prosecution in this regard.
31. PW-22 Ms. Manisha Upadhyay is the Assistant Director (Biology), FSL Rohini who had examined the exhibits of this case and gave her expert report.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
32. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju denied all the incriminating evidence against them. They claimed innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They stated they were residing in the tenanted house of Shankar Dagar alongwith two other persons and that they had no relation with deceased Rajinder nor they caused injuries to Rajinder on 28/29.08.2015. It is stated that they were apprehended while they were going to their village on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. The accused persons claimed that the recoveries have been planted upon them. The accused persons examined DW1 Mr. Inderjeet in their defence and closed defence evidence.
Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another GUPTA Date:
FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 9 of 53 2024.12.03 17:06:03 +0530
33. DW 1 has deposed that he was doing the work of cutting and finishing of marble and stone in Delhi for the last about 10-12 years and he had been residing in Delhi for the said period. That earlier he used to reside in the house of Pratap Dagar where the accused persons were also residing. That in the house of Pratap Dagar, there were 10 rooms in two rows having 4 feet wide Gali between them. That while he used to reside in the second room in the right side row, accused persons used to reside in fourth room in the right side row with 1-2 other boys. He was also residing with another boy in his room. The accused persons were doing the work of cutting and finishing of marble and stones. That one day prior to Raksha Bandhan in the year 2015, Rajinder got injured and died. That he and others did not know as to who had caused injury to the deceased. That he used to meet the accused persons being tenants in the same building. That prior to death of Rajinder, he had seen the accused persons in the same building. That on the day of incident, he was present in this tenanted house alongwith 3-4 other persons. Police had interrogated them and taken them to the police station.that they were relieved from the police station one day after the festival of Rakhi. On the day of Rakhi, police officials had taken them to Anand Vihar bus stand from where the accused persons were apprehended at their identification. That in the police station they and the accused persons were detained in the same compound at a distance of about 15-16feet from each other. The deceased was also living in the same vicinity and was working as a mason. That his behaviour was normal but after consuming Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 10 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:06:09 +0530 liquor he used to create ruckus (Halla gulla). Complainant Kanta used to live two houses opposite to their house. Complainant Kanta had two sons and one married daughter who was living in their house. Accused persons used to visit the house of Kanta for some work. Younger son of Kanta was in jail in rape case. Daughter of Complainant Kanta was not having good character and was living with her parents after leaving her husband. That the accused persons were having some relations with daughter of Complainant. That Complainant might have come to know about the relationship of her daughter with the accused persons and might have falsely implicated the accused to take revenge. DW 1 was cross examined by Ld APP for the State and was discharged. The accused persons thereafter closed DE and the matter was posted for final arguments.
34. The record has been carefully perused. The respective submissions of Sh. Girish Kumar Manhas, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. V. S. Chauhan, Ld. Deputy Legal Aid Defence Counsel have been heard and duly considered.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS Charge for offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC
35. In order to prove the charge against the accused in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution was not only required to prove that the deceased Mr. Rajinder was killed on the alleged date, time and place and in the manner as alleged, but also that it was the accused Mohan Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 11 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:06:15 +0530 @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath, who in furtherance of their common intention, who had caused his death by stabbing him with a knife.
36. As per the case of prosecution, the incident of stabbing took place inside the rented room of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and there is no witness to the alleged incident of stabbing the deceased by the accused persons. Prosecution has, however, tried to prove its case on the basis of various circumstances appearing before and after the incident, in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, the case of prosecution is essentially based on circumstantial evidence.
37. In AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1184 titled as Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of Maharashtra , it was held that, "It is settled law that an offence can be proved not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence where there is no direct evidence. The Court can draw an inference of guilt when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be totally incompatible with the innocence of the accused. Of course, the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Hanumant Govind Navgundkar Vs. State of MP, AIR 1952 SC 343 , which is one of the earliest decisions on the subject, the Apex Court of land observed as under:- Digitally signed by SHARAD GUPTA SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.03
17:06:21
+0530
State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 12 of 53 " It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
38. In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of AP (1989) Supp (2) SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, the following tests must be satisfied:-
(i). the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(ii). Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(iii). the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(iv). the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 13 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:06:27 +0530 but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
39. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , it was held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused can not be made basis for ignoring serious infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The Court then proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are:-
(i). the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;
(ii). the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that it is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(iii). the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv). they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
(v). there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
40. In State of UP Vs. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992) 2 SCC 86 , it was pointed out that, "great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 14 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:06:35 +0530 relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt."
41. The above noted propositions have been reiterated in Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, V (2002) SLT 111 ; Bharat Vs, State of MP., I (2003) SLT 724; Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab, III (2006) CCR .
42. In Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another Vs. State of AP (Supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while reiterating the settled legal position observed:-
"It is now settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances can not be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, can not be a substitute for a proof and the Courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence."
43. In Reg. Vs. Hodge [1838 2 Lewin 227] , while sounding in note of caution, it was held that "the mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 15 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:06:41 +0530 even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them complete."
44. Based on the above decisions of the Hon'ble Superior Courts, this court is of the view that in order to prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution was required to prove the following chain of circumstances, beyond reasonable doubt:
1. That accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagananath were residing on rent in the house of Mr. Pratap Singh Dagar built on a plot at Dada Buda Mandir Road, Near Dhansa, Delhi.
2. That on the day of incident i.e. the night intervening 28.09.2015 and 29.08.2015 at about 12-12.15 am, complainant Smt. Kanta Devi heard the noises of quarrel and abuses coming out of the room of the accused persons.
3. That on the aforesaid date, time and place, Smt. Kanta also saw deceased Rajender entering the room of the accused persons to pacify them.
4. That after sometime she heard the loud screams and when she got out of Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 16 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:06:49 +0530 her house, she saw Rajender tumbling outside (ladkhadata hua) while holding his bleeding neck with his hands and that on her asking, he told her that he had been stabbed by Raju and Jagmohan with a knife.
5. That on the instructions of Smt. Kanta Devi, the public persons bolted/locked the room of the accused persons, however when the said room was opened, it was found that the accused persons had eloped from the spot.
6. That while eloping from the spot through the terrace, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan received an injury on his leg and he got his injury treated from one pehelwan at Dwarka Mor.
7. That on 30.08.2015, the accused persons were apprehended on the basis of a secret information in the presence of Mr. Shankar Dagar.
8. That on interrogation, the accused persons made disclosure statements regarding commission of the offence and also got recovered their blood stained clothes which they were wearing at the time of the incident which were duly sealed and seized by the IO.
9. That accused Mohan @ Jagmohan also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife from bushes situated on the corner of boundary wall of the cremation ground, which was also sealed and seized in the present case.
Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 17 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:06:56 +0530
10. That the accused persons also pointed out the spot of crime and the passage used by them for eloping from the spot.
11. That on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused persons, the IO took the accused persons to Mr. Mohd. Ikrar, who disclosed to the police that they had come to him on the evening of 29.08.2015 and that he had done malish and kacha plaster on the leg of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and his statement in this regard was recorded by the IO.
12. That during the course of further investigation, the knife, allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan was sent to the doctor who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajinder, who gave subsequent opinion regarding the same, thereby opining that the injury was possible with the knife produced.
13. That the exhibits of this case were sent to the FSL and as per report of the FSL, the genetic material of the deceased was found on the knife as well as the clothes of the accused persons.
Circumstance no. 1
1. Accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagananath were residing on rent in the house of Sh. Pratap Singh Dagar at his plot at Dada Buda Mandir Road, Near Village Dhansa, Delhi.
Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 18 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:02 +0530
45. In order to prove the fact that the accused perused used to reside on rent at the aforesaid house of Mr. Pratap Singh Dagar, the prosecution has examined PW-2 Sh. Pratap Singh Dagar, the landlord himself, who while appearing in the witness box identified accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju as his tenants and stated that they were residing in a room situated at his aforesaid plot, for the last about 2-3 months prior to the incident. He further stated that at the time of letting the room, no rent agreement was executed among them and that his son Shankar used to collect rental amount from them. During the cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-2 Sh.
Pratap Singh Dagar stated that there are 12 rooms in his plot, which is a single storey building. He could not identify the accused persons with their specific names.
46. PW-4 Sh. Shankar Dagar, son of PW-2 Mr. Pratap Singh Dagar also deposed on similar lines. He also identified accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju as his tenants.
47. Therefore, from the testimony of PW-2 Mr. Pratap Singh and PW-4 Sh. Shankar Dagar, the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused persons were tenants in a room situated on a plot at Dada Buda Mandir Road, Near Village Dhansa, Delhi, belonging to PW-2 Mr. Pratap Singh Singh, being looked after and maintained by his son PW-4 Mr. Shankar Dagar.
Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03
17:07:08 +0530
State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 19 of 53
48. It is pertinent to observe that even if it is admitted that the accused persons were residing on rent in the aforesaid house of PW-2, the same by itself would not point to the guilt of the accused persons. Rather the prosecution has to establish all the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence to prove its case. While appreciating the testimonies of PW 2 and PW4 it is also relevant to observe that none of these witnesses have confirmed the presence of accused persons in their room on the date and time of the incident.
Circumstance no. 2, 3, 4 and 5
2. That on the day of incident i.e. the night intervening 28.09.2015 and 29.08.2015 at about 12-12.15 am, complainant Smt. Kanta Devi heard the noises of quarrel and abuses coming out of the room of the accused persons.
3. That on the aforesaid date, time and place, Smt. Kanta also saw deceased Rajender entering the room of the accused persons to pacify them.
4. That after sometime she heard the loud screams and when she got out of her house, she saw Rajender tumbling (ladkhadata hua) holding his bleeding neck from his hands and that on her asking, he told her that he had been stabbed by Raju and Jagmohan by a knife.
5. That on the instructions of Smt. Kanta Devi, the public persons bolted/locked the room of the accused Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 20 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:15 +0530 persons, however when the said room was opened, it was found that the accused persons had eloped from the spot.
49. In order to prove the aforesaid circumstance, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Mr. Lokesh Kumar, who while appearing in the witness box deposed that on the intervening night of 28/29.08.2015 during evening hours, on hearing of some noise, he came out of his house and found that an injured whose name he did not know was lying near the gate of a plot.
He added that he made a call at no. 100 in this regard and the PCR reached the spot within 15-20 minutes and the injured was taken to the hospital by the PCR van officials. He stated that he did not know anything else about this case. PW-1 was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-1 deposed that on 29.08.2015, he was examined and his statement was recorded by IO Insp. Sudhir Kumar of PS JP Kalan. He, however stated that he had not stated in his statement to the police that on hearing the noise, when he came from his house, he saw injured Rajinder was lying in a pool of blood in the gali near plot of Om Prakash or that their neighbour Smt. Kanta was trying to speak to Rajinder and he (Rajinder) told her that he had been stabbed by Raju and Mohan. He, however, admitted that on asking of Smt. Kanta Devi, he made a call to the police at no. 100. He denied that he had been won over by both the accused persons or that due to the said reason, he was not supporting the correct version of his statement, which was Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD Page 21 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:20 +0530 recorded by the IO as per his narration. He further denied that due to the said reason, he was deposing falsely to save the accused persons from legal punishment. During his cross- examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-1 stated that he did not know the name of the person who had been murdered and that he knew accused- Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju as they resided in their neighbourhood.
50. From the above recapitulation of the testimony of PW-1 Mr. Lokesh Kumar, this court is of the view that his testimony is of no aid to the case of prosecution to prove circumstances listed at Srl. no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and he is merely the person who had made a call at 100 number regarding the incident. This is more particularly, in view of the fact that the PCR call was recorded at PS Jaffar Pur Kalan vide DD no. 4 A, wherein it is recorded that a person had been stabbed and he is bleeding. Neither the name of the injured nor the assailants has been disclosed in the PCR call.
51. Another witness examined by the prosecution to prove circumstances listed at Srl. no. 2, 3, 4 and 5 is PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi, who is also the complainant and the star witness of the prosecution in the present case. While appearing in the witness box, PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi deposed that she is a housewife and knew both accused-Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju as both of them were residing as tenants in a plot opposite to her house. She also identified both the accused persons in the court. She stated that the accused persons used to Digitally signed by SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan GUPTA Page 22 of 53 Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:27 +0530 do the work of grinding (ghisai). PW-3 was further examined on 08.09.2016, when she deposed that on 29.08.2015 in the night at about 12:00-12:15 AM, she was sleeping on the roof of her house and on hearing a quarrel, she woke up and saw that a quarrel was going on among both accused persons and one Mason- Rajinder, who used to reside in her neighbourhood. She further deposed that after sometime, she saw that Rajinder was coming out from the room of both accused persons, holding his neck himself and blood was oozing out and at that time many persons were with him. She further deposed that on seeing them, she got down the stairs and gave a piece of cotton cloth to Rajinder to stop bleeding. She further deposed that when she asked him as to what had happened, he (deceased Rajinder) muttered which she could not understand as he was talking in Bihari language. She further added that two persons out of the persons gathered at the spot, who were accompanying Rajinder told her that the injuries had been caused to Rajinder by accused - Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju. She further stated that thereafter, the main gate of the plot, where both accused persons used to reside on rent, was locked by public persons, however, they managed to escape by climbing boundary wall of the plot. She stated that she asked public persons to take Rajinder to the hospital but none agreed and thereafter she called her neighbour Mr. Lokesh to take Rajinder to the hospital but he also did not agree as his vehicle was not mechanically fit at that time. She further deposed that Mr. Lokesh made a call at no. 100, whereafter, police reached at the spot at about 1:30 AM and removed Rajinder to the hospital.
Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 23 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:34 +0530 She added that she later on came to know that Rajinder had expired. She stated that police had inquired from her about the incident and recorded her statement Ex. PW-3/A, which bears her signatures at point A. PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as she had resiled from her earlier statement on some material facts. During her cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she stated that she studied upto 5th standard and that she could read and write Hindi language. She stated that she had signed her statement Ex. PW- 3/A without going through it. She denied the suggestion that she had signed her statement Ex. PW-3/A after perusing it or that she was deposing falsely in this regard. She, however, admitted that on 29.8.2015 at about 12:00 Midnight, both accused- Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju were quarreling and abusing each other on some issue and on hearing the noise of their quarrel, Rajinder tried to intervene between them to pacify the matter. She also admitted that on her asking, Rajinder told her that he had been stabbed by both the accused persons. She also admitted that the place of incident was shown to the police by her and a site plan was prepared by the police in this regard at my instance.
52. From the above recapitulation of the testimony of PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi, it is clear that while in her examination in chief, she did not support the case of prosecution and stated that when she asked him as to what had happened, he (deceased Rajinder) muttered which she could not understand as he was talking in Bihari language, on being cross-examined by the Ld. Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 24 of 53 SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:40 +0530 Addl. PP for the State, she admitted the suggestion that on her asking, Rajinder told her that he had been stabbed by both the accused persons.
53. It is interesting to note that during her cross-
examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, she again changed her version and deposed that on hearing of noise of quarrel, she came down from her house. She stated that she had not seen the person, who had killed the deceased but she had seen the injured lying in the street and due to injuries and that the injured was not in a position to clearly disclose the name of the assailant. She further deposed that when she saw the injured lying in a street, there were 20-25 persons, including Mishri Lal, Lokesh and Inderjeet and on her asking as to what had happened with the injured, she was informed by Mishri Lal that he (Mishri Lal) had been told by the injured that the injuries were caused to him (injured/since deceased) by the accused persons. She stated that this fact was told by her to the police at the time of recording her statement, however, she had not gone through the contents of her statement, recorded by police. She also stated that she had not seen the injured while entering in the room of both the accused persons. She also stated that during query by the police from her, she had informed that just prior to the incident in question there was a quarrel going on, which was usual routine of the said tenants, which creates nuisance to the nearby residents. She stated that her statements were recorded by the police twice, on which police had obtained her signatures and out of those, her one signature was obtained on a plain paper whereas her other Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 25 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:47 +0530 signature was obtained on a written document. She further stated that the contents of the said written documents were not narrated to her by the police and therefore, she was not aware about the same.
54. From the above detailed analysis of the testimony of PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi, it is clear that she had changed her version at every given opportunity.
55. To sum up, in her complaint Ex.PW3/A, contentions of PW-3 were that :-
1. She had heard accused quarrelling with each other.
2. She peeped from the roof of her house and saw deceased had gone to counsel them.
3. She heard alarm, came outside and saw deceased in injured condition.
4. On enquiry, deceased told her that he was stabbed by accused persons.
56. In her examination in chief, the assertions of PW-3 were that :-
1. She saw both accused quarrelling with deceased.
2. After sometime, she saw deceased coming out from room of both accused holding his neck.
3. On inquiry, he muttered something in Bihari which she did not understand.
4. Two persons out of the persons who were with the deceased told her that accused persons had injured the deceased. Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 26 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:07:53 +0530
57. Further in her cross-examination by the State, the assertions of PW-3 were that :-
1. She signed Ex.PW3/A without reading it.
2. She admitted that accused persons were quarrelling with each other and deceased tried to pacify them.
3. Deceased told her that he was stabbed by both accused persons.
58. Lastly, in her cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons, the assertions of PW-3 were that :-
1. Quarrel was going on at the roof of the room where accused resided.
2. Mishri Lal told her that deceased told him that accused persons had injured him.
3. She had not seen the injured/deceased while entering in the room of the accused persons.
59. All her versions i.e. her complaint, her examination in chief, her cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as her cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel are contradictory to each other. In view of the aforesaid contradictory statements of PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi, this court is of the opinion that her testimony is not safe to rely upon to reach at any conclusion.
60. It is well settled that conviction can be based even on the uncorroborated testimony of a witness, if he/she is found Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 27 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:00 +0530 to be a sterling witness. The law as to when a witness can be called a sterling witness is well settled and it would be pertinent here to refer to the settled proposition of law on the point.
61. In the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi2012 (8) SCC 21, the Hon'ble Apex court considered who can be said to be a "sterling witness"
In paragraph 22, it is observed and held as under: "22 In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness"
should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness"
whose version can be accepted by the court without any Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 28 of 53 SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:06 +0530 corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
5.4.3 In the case of Krishna Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, it is observed and held by this Court that no doubt, it is true that to hold an accused guilty for commission of an offence of rape, the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and should be of sterling quality.
5.5 With the aforesaid decisions in mind, it is required to be considered, whether is it safe to convict the accused solely on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix? Whether the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and is of sterling quality?
6. Having gone through and considered the deposition of the prosecutrix, we find that there are material contradictions. Not only there are material contradictions, but even the manner in which the alleged incident has taken place as per the version of the prosecutrix is not believable."
62. In Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1979 S.C. 1408 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "Where witness makes two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness." Similar view was also taken in Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 29 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:12 +0530 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
63. In Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 381 it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused. If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Reliance may also be placed upon Ashok Narang Vs. State 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
64. In the facts of the present case, as already observed, PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi has given different versions of the incident at every possible stage and has flip-flopped during the course of trial. Therefore, PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi cannot be held to be sterling witness by any stretch of imagination.
65. There is another aspect of the matter. As per PW-3, she had seen the accused persons from her roof where she was lying on a cot and there was an electricity pole just near to her cot, however, as per PW-15 HC Suresh Yadav, who was part of the crime team, there was no light bulb, electricity pole near the houses at the spot and they had carried out the proceedings as they were carrying light with them.
66. The incident as per the prosecution version had happened at the dead of the night i.e. between about 12.00 -
Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 30 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:18 +0530 12.15 am. In view of testimony of PW-15, it is doubtful that PW-3 was able to see anything in the dark. This fact also destroys the veracity of the prosecution version.
67. It is also relevant to note here that as per PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi many persons had gathered at the spot and in fact as per the version of PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi, disclosed by her during the cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, one Mr. Mishri Lal had told her that he had been informed by the injured that the injuries had been caused by the accused persons. The said Mr. Mishri Lal has, however, not been examined in the present case. In fact, besides PW-1 Mr. Lokesh Kumar, who allegedly made a call to the police at 100 number and PW-3 Smt. Kanta Devi, who is the complainant in the present case, no other public witness has been examined in the present case despite availability. This is more particularly in view of the fact that as per the case of prosecution, the accused persons were locked inside their room by the public witnesses and after sometime, when the room was checked, it was found that the accused persons had eloped from their room. No public witnesses have been examined to ascertain as to whether at the time of locking the door from outside, the accused persons were inside their room or not or whether anyone had seen them eloping from the spot.
68. In view of the above detailed discussion, this court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove that on the day of incident i.e. the night intervening 28.09.2015 and Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 31 of 53 SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:24 +0530 29.08.2015 at about 12-12.15 am, complainant Smt. Kanta Devi heard the noises of quarrel and abuses coming out of the room of the accused persons or that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Smt. Kanta also saw deceased Rajender entering the room of the accused persons to pacify them or that after sometime she heard the loud screams and when she got out of her house, she saw Rajender tumbling ( ladkhadata hua) holding his bleeding neck from his hands and that on her asking, he told her that he had been stabbed by Raju and Jagmohan by a knife or that on the instructions of Smt. Kanta Devi, the public persons bolted/locked the room of the accused persons, however when the said room was opened, it was found that the accused persons had eloped from the spot.
Circumstance no. 6.
6. That while eloping from the spot through the terrace, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan received an injury on his leg and he got his injury treated from one a pehelwan at Dwarka Morh.
69. As per the case of prosecution, while eloping from the spot through terrace, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan had received injury on his leg and had received treatment i.e. Malish and Kacha Plaster from a Pehelwan, namely, Mr. Ikrar at Dwarka Morh, Delhi. The said Mr. Ikrar has been examined in the court, however, while appearing in the witness box as PW- 21, he did not support the case of prosecution and completely turned hostile. He stated that he many persons come to his shop Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 32 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:31 +0530 for massaging and he treats them, however, on being shown the accused persons, he could not identify them and stated that his statement was not recorded by the police. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During his cross-examination by the ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-21 denied that on 29.08.2015, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan had come to his shop for massage or that Mohan @ Jagmohan had told him that while falling from the roof, he had received the injuries on his foot. He also denied that he had massaged the foot of the accused and had put a temporary plaster on his foot. PW-21 also denied that he was deliberately not identifying the accused Mohan @ Jagmohan as he had been won over by him. He also denied that he was concealing the material contents of his statement.
70. From the above recapitulation of the testimony of PW-21 Mr. Ikrar, it is clear that he has not supported the case of prosecution in respect of the fact that accused Mohan @ Jagmohan had received any treatment from him for any injuries having been received by him while eloping from the spot through terrace.
71. Further, after his apprehension, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan was taken for medical examination vide MLC no. 5000 dated 30.08.2015. The said MLC has, however, not been proved on record by the prosecution. In fact the name of the examining doctor has not been mentioned in the list of witnesses sought to be examined by the prosecution. A perusal Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 33 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:37 +0530 of the said MLC no. 5000 reveals that an X-Ray of leg of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan was advised, however, there is nothing on record to show whether the said X-Ray was ever got conducted and if such x-ray was ever got conducted, the report thereof is not part of judicial record. In fact, from a bare perusal, the MLC no. 5000 of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan appears to be incomplete. The same is in the handwriting of two different persons/doctors. The first handwriting appears to be of Dr. S. Das, whose signatures, name and stamp is affixed on the MLC. Dr. S. Das had referred the patient to the SR Ortho. The patient i.e. accused Mohan @ Jagmohan had thereafter been examined by S. R. Ortho, however, the name, signatures or stamp of the examining doctor in the Ortho Department is not mentioned on the MLC. In fact, after mentioning of general observations, the 'Adv' i.e. advise has been left blank. Neither the patient i.e. accused Mohan @ Jagmohan was given any treatment nor suggested any other tests to confirm the injury, if any, on his left leg. It is also relevant to note that as per the alleged history noted in the MLC no. 5000 of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan, he had received injury on his left leg while jumping from the roof. However, neither the date of the said fall/jump has been mentioned on the MLC nor it is clear as to whether the alleged history was given by the accused or the person who had brought him to the hospital for his medical examination.
72. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that neither by way of ocular evidence of PW-21 Mr. Ikrar nor by way of documents i.e. MLC, the prosecution has Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 34 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:44 +0530 been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that while eloping from the spot through the terrace, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan received an injury on his leg and he got his injury treated from one a pehelwan at Dwarka Morh.
Circumstance no. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 .
7. That on 30.08.2015, the accused persons were apprehended on the basis of a secret information in the presence of Mr. Shankar Dagar.
8. That on interrogation, the accused persons made disclosure statements regarding commission of the offence and also got recovered their blood stained clothes which they were wearing at the time of the incident which were duly sealed and seized by the IO.
9. That accused Mohan @ Jagmohan also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife from bushes situated on the corner of boundary wall of the cremation ground, which was also sealed and seized in the present case.
10. That the accused persons also pointed out the spot and the passage used by them for eloping from the spot.
11. That on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused persons, the IO took the accused persons to Mr. Mohd. Ikrar, who disclosed to the police that they had come to him on the evening of 29.08.2015 and that he had done malish and kacha plaster on Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 35 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:51 +0530 the leg of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and his statement in this regard was recorded by the IO.
73. In order to prove that on 30.08.2015, the accused persons, namely, Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju were apprehended on the basis of a secret information, while getting down from an RTV at Dhansa Border, in the presence of Mr. Shankar Dagar or that on interrogation, the accused persons made disclosure statements regarding commission of the offence and also got recovered their blood stained clothes which they were wearing at the time of the incident which were duly sealed and seized by the IO, or that accused Mohan @ Jagmohan also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife from bushes situated on the corner of boundary wall of the cremation ground, which was also sealed and seized in the present case or that the accused persons also pointed out the spot and the passage used by them for eloping from the spot, the prosecution has examined PW-4 Mr. Shankar Dagar, PW-11 HC Deepak, PW-16 Inspector Arvind Kumar, PW-19 HC Virender and PW-20 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Gulia, in whose presence, as per the case of prosecution, the accused persons were apprehended and recoveries were effected.
74. So far as PW-4 Mr. Shankar Dagar is concerned, he has not supported the case of prosecution on this aspect and stated that the police did not conduct any proceedings in his presence. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During his cross-examination by Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 36 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:08:57 +0530 the Ld. Addl. PP for the state, PW-4 Mr. Shankar Dagar denied that on 30.08.2015, the IO alongwith other police staff had taken him to Dhansa Border for the search of accused persons where the police started checking the vehicles or that at about 1:00 pm, the accused persons alighted from an RTV coming from Najafgarh side having their bags with them or that they were apprehended by police at his instance or that thereafter, they were brought to PS. He further denied that the accused persons namely Mohan and Jagan were arrested by the IO in his presence vide Ex. PW-11/A and Ex. PW-11/B or that personal search of accused persons were also conducted vide Ex. PW-11/C and Ex. PW-11/D. He also denied that their disclosure statements were also recorded vide Ex. PW-11/E and Ex. PW-11/F or that in his presence, accused Mohan took out one light purple colour check shirt having blood-stains on it and handed over the same to police stating it to be the same shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident or that it was seized by police vide Ex. PW-11/G or that similarly accused Jagan Nath also took out one cream colour half sleeve shirt having blood-stain on it and handed over the same to police stating it to be the same shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident or that it was seized by police vide Ex. PW-11/H. On being shown the aforesaid clothes, which were allegedly got recovered by the accused persons in his presence, as per the case of prosecution, he could not identify the same. He denied the suggestion that he was under any threat or coercion imparted upon him by the accused persons or their associates or that he was deliberately not revealing the true facts of the incident. He Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 37 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:03 +0530 also denied that he was present with the police party when the accused persons were apprehended and arrested and the recovery of blood- stained clothes were effected in his presence. He denied that he was deliberately not identifying the clothes of accused persons or that he wanted to protect the accused persons from the due process of law.
75. In view of the aforesaid recapitulation of the testimony of PW-4 Mr. Shankar Dagar, it is clear that he has not supported the case of prosecution with regard to the apprehension of the accused persons in his presence or the recoveries of the clothes of the accused persons, in his presence. As per the case of prosecution, PW-4 Mr. Shankar Dagar is not a witness to the recovery of the knife at the instance of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and the pointing out of the spot from where the accused persons eloped from the spot, by the accused persons. Therefore, the testimony of PW-4 Mr. Shankar Dagar is of no aid to the case of prosecution to prove the aforesaid circumstances.
76. In order to prove the aforesaid facts, the other relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-11 HC Deepak, PW-16 SI Arvind, PW-19 HC Virender and PW-20 Inspector Sudhir Kumar Gulia. In their examination in chief, they all deposed almost on similar lines to the effect that on 30.08.2015, Inspector Sudhir Kumar Gulia received information that the accused persons wanted in the present case would pass via Dhansa Border and on receipt of this information, he formed a team comprising of SI Arvind, Ct. Deepak and HC Virender Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 38 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:11 +0530 and they all proceeded towards Dhansa Border. As per their testimonies, PW Shankar Dagar was joined in the investigation and thereafter, they all reached Dhansa Border from where accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju were apprehended while getting down from an RTV and they were brought to the police station where they were interrogated and they made their disclosure statement, Ex.PW11/E and Ex.PW11/F. Further, as per these witnesses, both the accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B and their personal searches were carried out vide memos Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D. Further, as per them, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju got recovered their blood stain clothes i.e. shirts from their respective bags which were seized in the present case vide memos Ex.PW11/G and Ex.PW11/H and thereafter, the accused persons pointed out the place of incident as well as the place from where they had eloped from the spot vide memos Ex.PW11/K and Ex.PW11/L. That thereafter, accused Mohan Jagmohan got recovered a knife from the boundary wall of the corner of cremation ground and the knife was seized in the present case vide memo Ex.PW11/J. Thereafter the accused persons were produced before the concerned court. All these witnesses also identified their signatures on the aforesaid memos and also identified the case property i.e. the clothes/shirts of the accused persons, which were got recovered by them as well as the knife which was got recovered by accused Mohan @ Jagmohan.
77. However, a careful perusal of their testimonies Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 39 of 53 SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:17 +0530 reveal that there are various contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of these witnesses.
78. At the outset, it is also interesting to note here that as per the prosecution story and the testimony of PW-20 Inspector Sudhir Kumar, on 30.08.2015, on receipt of secret information, he constituted a raiding party comprising of SI Arvind, Ct. Deepak and HC Virender and they all left for Dhansa Border to apprehend the accused persons, PW Shankar Dagar was joined in the investigation and the accused persons were apprehended from the Dhansa Border and brought to the police station, where they were interrogated and they made their disclosure statements which were reduced into writing and the accused persons also got recovered their blood stained clothes which they were wearing at the time of incident. However, one of the members of the raiding team and a witness to the aforesaid proceedings i.e. HC Virender while appearing in the witness box has remained silent with regard the aforesaid proceedings conducted on 30.08.2015. Interestingly, this witness has also not been cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on this aspect.
79. Further, PW-11 HC Deepak who was also a member of the raiding team which apprehended the accused persons deposed that he had signed 6-7 papers, however, he could not tell if anyone else had also signed those papers. However, in the later part of his cross-examination, he contradicted his own version by stating that he and SI Arvind had signed all the documents, Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 40 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:23 +0530 however, he did not remember, if HC Virender had signed these documents or not. It is relevant to note here that at the time of preparation of documents, the signatures of witnesses are obtained in order to authenticate the veracity of the said documents and their genuineness and it is expected that the author of the said documents, the other signatories and the witnesses all are signing in the presence of each other. It is not that all the witnesses sign a document at different time and if it is so, the document looses its veracity.
80. As per PW-16 Inspector Arvind Kumar, no independent public person was made witness at the time of recording of the disclosure statements of the accused persons.
This is, however, contrary to the record as per which the disclosure statements of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju were witnessed by PW Shankar Dagar. It is also relevant to note that PW Shankar Dagar has turned hostile on this aspect and has stated that no proceedings were conducted in his presence. The aforesaid excerpts from the testimony of PW-16 Inspector Arvind Kumar corroborate the version of PW-Shankar Dagar and leads to a presumption that signatures of PW Mr. Shankar Dagar might have been obtained on the documents regarding apprehension, disclosure and recovery of clothes from the accused persons to lend support of an independent public witness to the prosecution story.
81. It is also relevant to note that while as per the case of prosecution, PW Mr. Shankar Dagar was made to join the Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 41 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:30 +0530 investigation at the time of apprehension of the accused persons, their disclosure statements and the recovery of the clothes of the accused persons, there is no explanation on record as to why he was not requested to join the proceedings at the time of recovery of the weapon of offence from near the wall of the cremation ground and the pointing out of the spot i.e. his own house. No efforts appear to have been made by the IO to join other public witnesses in the investigation at the time of recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. knife at the instance of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and the pointing out of the spot by the accused persons. This is more particularly in view of the fact that it is not the case of prosecution that public persons were not available at the aforesaid places. It is a well settled proposition that non- joining of public witness casts a shadow of doubt over the fairness of the investigation by police. Section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting search to join two respectable persons of the society. Same has, however, not been done in the present case. This casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation. Reliance is placed on paragraph 6 of the judgment in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri.L.J. 127, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
" ... According to Jagbir Singh, he did not join any public witness in the case while according to Kalam Singh, no public person was present there. It hardly stands to reason that at a place like a bus stop near Subhas Bazar, there would be no person present at a crucial time like 07.30 p.m. when there is a lot Digitally signed by SHARAD State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 42 of 53 GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:36 +0530 of rush of commuters for boarding the buses to their respective destinations. Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they refused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest effort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direction appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
82. This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat , AIR 1988 SC 696. However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution version but there are other circumstances too, some Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 43 of 53 SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:44 +0530 of which have been discussed hereinabove and some of which are being discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version.
83. As per PW-11 HC Deepak, IO clicked the photographs at the time of recovery of knife, he is however, contradicted by PW SI Arvind who deposed that no photographs were taken by the IO at the time of recovery of knife. Be that as it may, no such photographs have been proved on record by the prosecution. This fact also goes against the veracity of the prosecution version.
84. Further, as per the case of prosecution, after the recovery of the knife, its sketch was prepared by the IO, however, on the said sketch, the place where the knife was allegedly having blood stains has not been shown.
85. It is also pertinent to observe here that the knife was allegedly recovered from bushes situated on the corner of boundary wall of the cremation ground on the next to next day of the incident. As per the case of prosecution, the knife was also having blood stains. However, at the time of preparation of the knife by the IO, by putting the knife on a plain white paper, neither the stains of blood nor the dust have appeared on the white paper on which the sketch was prepared and the sketch Ex.PW11/I is stainless.
86. It is also relevant to note that the knife was also examined by the doctor who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajender and he gave the subsequent Digitally signed State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another by SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 44 of 53 SHARAD Date:
GUPTA 2024.12.03
17:09:50
+0530
opinion Ex.PW12/C regarding the weapon of offence. However, the said subsequent opinion is silent regarding any blood stains on the weapon of offence i.e. knife.
87. Another crucial glitch in the story of the prosecution is that no efforts were made by the IO to lift the chance prints from the weapon of offence. These facts when taken together damage the veracity of the prosecution version.
88. It is also not out of place to mention here that as per the case of prosecution, on 30.08.2015, the IO received a secret information regarding the expected arrival of the accused persons at Dhansa Border and on the basis of this information, he constituted a raiding team and also joined PW Shankar Dagar in the investigation. The said team allegedly apprehended the accused persons and returned to the police station where the accused persons made disclosure statements and got recovered their clothes, which they were allegedly wearing at the time of incident. The present case rests on circumstantial evidence and the aforesaid circumstances are important links in the chain of circumstances, which the prosecution seeks to rely. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
Digitally "22.49 Matters to be entered in signed by SHARAD Register No. II - The following SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA matters shall, amongst others, be Date:
2024.12.03 17:09:57 +0530 State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 45 of 53 entered:
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty.
This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
89. In Rattan Lal v. State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 , the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that if the investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of the Act the Courts will have to approach their action with reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique motive. The failure to bring on record the DD entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution.
90. In the instant case, which is a murder trial case entirely based on circumstantial evidence, the IO who is an officer of Inspector rank, has not placed the departure entry, if any, made by him while leaving the police station with his team to apprehend the wanted criminals of a murder case. Even while appearing in the witness box, on being specifically asked by the Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 46 of 53 SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:04 +0530 Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that he did not remember the arrival and departure DD number and the time on 30.08.2015. No such DD entries dated 30.08.2015 have been made part of the police report. Not only the IO but the other witnesses who were part of the raiding team i.e. PW-11 HC Deepak and PW-16 Inspector Arvind Kumar were asked about the departure/arrival entries, if any, made by them on 30.08.2015 before and after apprehending the accused persons, however, none of them could provide details of any such departure/arrival entries having been made by the IO or any other member of the raiding team. The reasons for not recording the departure/arrival entries is unexplained. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court Delhi, failure of the prosecution to bring on record and prove the departure and arrival entries of the aforesaid police officials create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
91. In view of the aforesaid detailed circumstances, this court is of the view that the aforesaid circumstance when kept in juxtaposition to each other, cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution version and the possibility of the blood stained clothes and the knife having been planted upon the accused persons cannot be ruled out. This is more particularly in view of the fact that the blood samples of the deceased were very well available at the spot and even the room of the accused persons was broke open by the public persons where their clothes must have been available in all possibilities.
92. With regard to the disclosure statement of the Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD Page 47 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:10 +0530 accused persons regarding accused Mohan @ Jagmohan having received treatment from Mohd. Ikrar, it has already been discussed hereinabove that PW Mohd. Ikrar has not supported the case of prosecution in this regard.
93. Therefore, the prosecution has not even been able to prove circumstance no. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Circumstance no. 12 and 13 .
12. That during the course of further investigation, the knife, allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Mohan @ Jagmohan was sent to the doctor who had conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajinder, who gave subsequent opinion regarding the same.
13. That the exhibits of this case were sent to the FSL and as per report of the FSL, the genetic material of the deceased was found on the knife as well as the clothes of the accused persons.
94. In this regard, it is relevant to note that this court has already opined above that the recovery of the weapon of offence and the clothes at the instance of the accused persons is not free from the shadow of doubt and therefore, the above circumstances are of no help to the prosecution in the facts of the present case. To my mind detailed discussion on these circumstances is also not required when the recovery itself is doubtful and the star prosecution witnesses has changed her Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 48 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:16 +0530 stand at the drop of a hat.
95. After giving due thought to the aforesaid rival submissions and perusing the entire material placed on record and keeping in view the aforesaid law points, I have come to the considered opinion that there are gaping holes in the whole story of the prosecution and the prosecution has been failed to form an unbreakable chain of evidence against the accused so as to connect him with the offence alleged against him. The case in hand, is a case where there is no direct evidence and the entire case rests only on circumstantial evidence. In such cases, it is now well settled that the court has to first see whether the evidence of the circumstances is true and then see whether the circumstances which are found to be true lead to the sole and certain inference of the accused being guilty and whether they are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused. In examination the evidentiary effect of the circumstances, the Court has to guard itself against the tendency to substitute suspicion and supply links, which are missing to constitute the necessary chain of guilt. As pointed out by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Hanumant Vs. State of M.P AIR 1952 SC 343 in such cases there is always the danger that conjuncture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and therefore, it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron Alderson to the Jury in Reg Vs. Hodge in (1838) 2 Levin 227, where he said "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adopting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected hole; and the more Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 49 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:24 +0530 ingenious the mind of individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters to over reach and mislead itself, to supply some little link i.e. wanting to take for granted some fact consistent with its previous theories and necessary to render them completely."
96. Now, the defence version can be considered. The accused persons have taken the defence that they had left for their village on occassion of Raksha Bandhan but they were apprehended by police officials from Anand Vihar Bus stand thereafter, they were falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons have examined DW-1 Inderjeet in their defence who has deposed that he was co-tenant of the accused persons. That one day, he came to know that Rajender had been injured and had died. That he alongwith three-four persons were taken to the police station where they were interrogated and were relieved from the police station one day after Raksha Bandhan. That on the day of Raksha Bandhan, police had taken them to Anand Vihar Bus stand, where both the accused persons were apprehended. He has also deposed that one married daughter of complainant Ms. Kanta was living with her with whom accused persons had some relations. He also deposed that Kanta might have named the accused persons as she might have come to know the relationship between her daughter and accused persons. In this context, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the testimony of DW-1 is of no help to the accused persons. It is argued that the accused persons have not been able to provide on record any cogent reason for which they Digitally State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another signed by FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 50 of 53 SHARAD SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:31 +0530 might have been falsely named by PW3. In this context, it is pertinent to observe that merely because the accused could not bring on record any reason for which they were falsely implicated would not imply that the prosecution version is correct. It is well settled that the prosecution case has to stand on its own two legs and the failure of the accused to substantiate his defense would not imply that the prosecution version is true and correct. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the pronouncement in Narender Kumar v. State 2012 7 SCC 171 wherein it was held as under:
"29. ....It is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Vide: Tukaram & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra,, AIR 1979 SC 185; and Uday v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2003 SC 1639).
30. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. There must be proper legal Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 51 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:37 +0530 evidence and material on record to record the conviction of the accused...."
97. Similarly, in Biri Singh vs. State of UP and others, 1992 Crl. LJ, 1510 it was observed that even if the defence version was highly exaggerated one, the prosecution version cannot be held to be true. It was further observed that prosecution was required to firstly prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, even if the accused have not been able to give any reason for which they were falsely implicated, the same would not imply that the prosecution version has been proved as a necessary corollary.
98. In Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637], it has been held that "it is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considered as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the wheel of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted."
99. Applying the aforesaid principles of law, I have examined the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in its mission of proving its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused persons are entitled for an order of acquittal in their Digitally signed by State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another SHARAD FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 52 of 53 SHARAD GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:43 +0530 favour by giving them benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION
100. In view of the foregoing discussion, since the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons, accused Mohan @ Jagmohan and Jagan Nath @ Raju are hereby, acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 302/34 IPC.
101. Bail bonds U/s 437 A Cr.P.C. have already been furnished and accepted as per rules.
102. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHARADAnnounced in the open Court on SHARAD GUPTA 3rd day of December, 2024. GUPTA Date:
2024.12.03 17:10:50 +0530 (SHARAD GUPTA) Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts/New Delhi.
It is certified that this Judgment contains fifty three (53) pages and each page bears my initials / signatures.
SHARAD Digitally signed by SHARAD
GUPTA
GUPTA Date: 2024.12.03 17:10:55
+0530
(SHARAD GUPTA)
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) South West District, Dwarka Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Mohan @ Jagmohan and another FIR No. 177/2015 PS J. P. Kalan Page 53 of 53