Delhi District Court
State vs Vijay on 12 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE010077232017
Session Case No.430/2017
FIR No.250/2017
Police Station: Govind Puri
State
Versus
1. Vijay
Son of Bittoo
Resident of House No.24, Rampuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
2. Aman Poddar
Son of Dharmender Poddar,
Resident of House No.1408/13,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
(Proceedings against him abated on 05.06.2025)
..........Accused persons
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 1 of 92
Date of Institution : 23.09.2017
Judgment reserved on : 05.06.2025
Date of Decision : 12.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Govind Puri before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Vijay and Aman Poddar for having committed the said offence.
2. As per the police report, on 27.06.2017, this case FIR was registered against the accused persons, namely, Vijay and Aman in police station Govind Puri for the offence punishable under sections 307/34 IPC.
3. As per the police report, on 26.06.2017, upon reecipt of DD No.55A regarding stabbing of brother of the caller at H.No.1196/13, Govind Puri, Sub-Inspector Rajender along with Constable Jaivir had reached the spot where blood was spread inside the shop and broken glass bottle of soft drink was found and in the meantime, Head Constable Rajender had arrived at the spot, who was left at the spot to preserve it, and Sub-Inspector Rajender informed the control-room to send the crime-team to the spot.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 2 of 924. It is further reported in the police report that Sub- Inspector Rajender along with Constable Jaivir had left for AIIMS Trauma Center, where the injured Deepak was found under treatment; that after some time, Sub-Inspector Rajender collected the MLC No.500031484/17 of the injured Deepak, and as per the MLC, the injured was declared 'unfit for statement'; Ronak, brother of the injured, was present with the injured, and Sub-Inspector Rajender got his statement recorded.
5. It is further reported in the police report that it is, inter-alia, stated by the complainant in his statement that he lived with his family at the above-mentioned address and ran a grocery shop; that his brother Deepak used to run a shop in the name of Deepak Store at Shop No.1196/13 Govind Puri; that his brother Deepak was having an argument with his friend Aman Poddar who lives in gali no.13, Govind Puri and Vijay Bhange, who is son of Battu, regarding taking goods on credit from the shop for the past few days.
6. It is further stated by the complainant that on 26.06.2017 at about quarter to ten O'clock in the night, Aman and Vijay had come to the shop and at that time, he (complainant) was standing outside the shop in the gali and after 5-7 minutes, Aman and Vijay had come out of the shop and run towards the Transit Camp; that he had seen that the clothes of both of them were soaked in blood; that on his asking them as to what happened, they had told him to go inside the shop and take care FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 3 of 92 of his brother as they had killed his brother that day; that he immediately had gone inside the shop and saw that there was blood all over the shop and his brother Deepak was lying unconscious inside the shop.
7. It is further stated by the complainant that in the meanwhile, his neighbour Pankaj had arrived and had taken his brother to AIIMS Trauma Center and he had gone to his home and then he also along with his mother had reached at Trauma Center; that after some time, he had seen that Vijay and Aman had also come to Trauma Center and after some time you (SI Rajender) had also come to Trauma Center. It is further stated by the complainant that he had pointed out towards Aman and Vijay and told that those were the persons who had, in furtherance of their common intention, tried to kill his brother, therefore, appropriate action as per law be taken against them.
8. It is further reported in the police report that from the statement of the complainant and the circumstances and perusal of MLC, the offence under section 307 read with section 34 IPC has been made out and SI Rajender had prepared rukka, sent it through Constable Jaivir, got a case registered under those sections, and further investigation was taken up by SI Rajender himself.
9. It is further reported in the police report that SI Rajender had got the bloodstained clothes of the accused persons FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 4 of 92 Aman and Vijay changed at the AIIMS Trauma Centre and seized the bloodstained clothes worn at the time of the incident.
10. It is further reported in the police report that at AIIMS Trauma Centre, the doctor had handed over a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND and a sample seal to Sub-Inspector Rajender and told that in that bundle there were bloodstained clothes of the injured Deepak @ Pankaj @ Gandhi; SI Rajender had seized the pullanda and sample seal.
11. It is further reported in the police report that the accused persons involved in the commission of the offence, as informed by the complainant, whose names and addresses were revealed to be Vijay son of Bittu resident of H.No.24 Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi and Aman son of Dharmender resident of H.No.1408/13, Govinapuri, New Delhi were kept under the surveillance of constable Rajjo Singh.
12. It is further reported in the police report that during the investigation, SI Rajender Kumar had inspected the spot at the instance of the complainant, and prepared the site-plan.
13. It is further reported in the police report that upon interrogation by SI Rajender Kumar, the age of the accused Aman was revealed to be less than 18 years, on which SI Rajender Kumar had called CWPO SI Ajit Singh and father of CCL to the spot, and in the presence of CWPO SI Ajit Singh and FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 5 of 92 Dharmender, father of CCL, CCL Aman and the accused Vijay were interrogated, who had admitted to have committed the the offence in the present case.
14. It is further reported in the police report that Sub- Inspector Rajender had apprehended CCL Aman in the present case, and completed the documents and arrested the accused Vijay and completed the documents related to the arrest.
15. It is further reported in the police report that during the investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender had prepared separate memos of the blood-soaked clothes of each of the accused persons and seized them.
16. It is further reported in the police report that during investigation, the accused Vijay had pointed out the place of incident and disclosed that it was the same place where they had a fight and Aman had stabbed Deepak in the neck with a Pepsi bottle kept in the shop, and separate pointing out memo of the spot of incident was prepared.
17. It is further reported in the police report that during investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender found broken glass bottles of Pepsi and Slice and some broken pieces of glass bottles inside the shop which had blood on them, and he put the broken glass bottles of Pepsi and Slice and the pieces in a plastic box and closed the lid of the plastic box and sealed the box with doctor FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 6 of 92 tape and sealed it with the seal of 'RK', and taken the sealed box into police custody as evidence in the case.
18. It is further reported in the police report during investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender had collected the blood on the stairs with the help of white cotton and put the blood soaked cotton in an empty envelope and blood was also found inside the shop as well which was collected on a stick covered with cotton and put it into a khaki envelope and both the envelopes were sealed with the seal of 'RK' and the envelope containing blood picked up from the stairs was given Mark A and the envelope containing blood picked up from inside the shop was given Mark B and both the envelopes were seized.
19. It is further reported in the police report that during the investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender had enquired about the CCTV camera installed around the spot and there was a Gupta Mobile Store located next to the shop of the injured Deepak, whose house number was 1197/13, Govind Puri which has a camera installed on the opposite side of its shop, towards Sony Jewellers; that Sub-Inspector Rajender had called the shopkeeper of Gupta Mobile Store to the spot and the owner of Gupta Mobile Store, Sanju Gupta had come to the spot, and Sub-Inspector Rajender had joined him in the investigation of the present case and checked the CCTV footage of the camera installed in his shop and in the footage, the gate of the shop of the injured could be seen opening and closing; that first, two boys could be seen FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 7 of 92 coming out of the shop of the injured and after some time, another boy had come out who had fallen down near the stairs, who appears to be the injured in the present case; that the counter and goods inside the shop were kept in such a way that entry and exit inside the shop was possible only from the right side, which was covered by the CCTV camera.
20. It is further reported in the police report that Sub- Inspector Rajender had asked the owner of the mobile shop, Sanju Gupta to provide the DVR installed in his shop, who while presenting the DVR-UC-AHD 404N installed in his shop to Sub- Inspector Rajender, told that he had not tampered with whatever data was inside it, and Sub-Inspector Rajender had seized the aforesaid DVR as evidence in the case and a certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in this regard was also collected by Sub-Inspector Rajender, which was attached filed and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
21. It is further reported in the police report that the accused Vijay was produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody, and CCL Aman was produced before the JJB-II, Delhi Gate and sent to Observation Home and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.
22. It is further reported in the police report that Krishan had admitted the injured Deepak Gandhi in AIIMS Trauma Centre, and in haste and panic, he had written the name of the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 8 of 92 injured as Pankaj Gandhi, whereas, the name of the injured was Deepak Gandhi.
23. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, on 28.06.2017, an information was received from AIIMS Trauma Centre vide DD No.15A at the police station concerned that the injured Deepak, who was admitted vide MLC No.50031484/17, had died during treatment; upon receiving such information, Sub-Inspector Rajender had reached AIIMS Trauma, and got the dead-body preserved in the mortuary of AIIMS Hospital and added section 302 IPC in the present case and further investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj.
24. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer along with his staff had reached Mortuary, AIIMS Hospital, where brother of the deceased, Raunak and his cousin, Manoj Kumar had met them at the mortuary; later, the investigating officer had got the dead body of the deceased identified by his family members, whose statements regarding identification was recorded separately and inquest papers were prepared and the circumstances of the case were explained to the autopsy surgeon/doctor, and a request for conducting the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased Deepak @ Gandhi was made.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 9 of 9225. It is further reported in the police report that the doctor had conducted the postmortem of the deceased Deepak @ Gandhi vide PM No.TC-333/17 and after postmortem of the dead body, the doctor handed over the exhibits, namely, one plastic bottle sealed with the seal of JPNATC AIIMS, Forensic Medicine New Delhi containing nail clippings of both hands, one paper envelope sealed with the seal of JPNATC AIIMS, forensic Medicine, New Delhi containing blood in gauze and two sample seals were also taken into possession as per the procedure, and the above exhibits were seized and on postmortem report, the doctor has given his opinion which is in the form of "Hemorrhagic shock via injury no. (1) cause by sharp edge weapon/object which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury no.(2) (3) are caused by blunt force/impact all injuries are ante-mortem in nature."
26. It is further reported in the police report that the investigating officer had handed over the dead-body to the family members of the deceased for last rites vide handing over receipt and exhibits were deposited in malkhana and statement of the witnesses were recorded.
27. It is further reported in the police report that during the investigation, the investigating officer along with staff reached JJB where the Court declared CCL Aman @ Toshant Poddar as Major, thereafter, Aman @ Toshant Poddar has been apprehended in FIR No.377/16, u/s 395/412/34 IPC, PS-O.L.A. FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 10 of 92 New Delhi and his date of birth was 12.06.1999; that the JJB ordered to produce the Aman @ Toshant Poddar in the Court on 29.06.2017; the investigating officer obtained the copy of such order.
28. It is further reported in the police report that on 29.06.2017, the investigating officer along with his staff had reached Saket Courts, where the accused Aman @ Toshant Poddar was being produced before the Court and the investigating officer, after taking permission from the Court, for interrogation and formal arrest of the accused, interrogated the accused Aman and recorded his separate disclosure statement and arrested the accused Aman in the present case and after producing the accused Aman in the Court, production warrant was obtained for 03.07.2017 for taking fingerprints of the accused Aman and after producing the accused in the Court, he was sent to judicial custody and statement of the witnesses were recorded.
29. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer had collected the date of birth certificate of the accused Vijay and got it verified by Sub-Registrar birth & death, Central Zone, Lajpat Nagar, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi, which was found correct.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 11 of 9230. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, on 02.08.2017, the investigating officer had collected one sealed plastic container containing broken bottle of cold drink (Pepsi & Slice) and some pieces of glass having blood stains sealed with the seal of "RK" and deposited in the malkhana of the police station vide RC No. 126/21/17 from MHCM (CP) and got the exhibits submitted along with the R/C and MLC in the AIIMS Trauma Centre Mortuary, New Delhi for opinion.
31. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the mother of the deceased Smt. Manju Devi leveled allegations under SC/ST Act against the accused Aman and his brother Deepak and lodged a complaint at the police station; an enquiry was conducted in this regard and the statement of Smt. Manju Devi was obtained, and the caste certificate given by Smt. Manju Devi was verified and found to be correct; the statement given by Smt. Manju Devi was different from the facts of the present FIR, hence, its verification was being done.
32. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer had made inquiries from the accused Deepak and his friends and on interrogation, Deepak told that he lived at the above mentioned address with his family and on 26.06.2016 was Meethi Eid; that on that day, he had left his house at around 12.00 noon and FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 12 of 92 reached the house of his friend Intaff S/o Jamen Khan R/o H. No. 1620, 2nd Floor, Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi and from there, he had gone to Subway Restaurant Kalkaji at about 01.00 p.m. on the same day with his friend Intaff; that they ate biryani there and thereafter that they stayed at Giani Ice Cream Kalkaji, 2nd Gol Chakkar from 2.00 p.m. to 3-3:30 p.m. and from there, he came to Intaff's house and ate Khor Biryani; that after that he and Intaff stayed at the house of their friend Shom Rawat S/o Kirath Singh R/o 261, Bal Mukund Khurd, Giri Nagar, Delhi and their friend Nitin S/o Rajender R/o H. No. 1334A, Gali No. 8, Govind Puri. New Delhi, who was studying BBA in Ballabhgarh had also come there; that from there they had gone to Laziz Dhaba Amar Colony at around 08.00 p.m. and stayed there till around 10:30 p.m. and after that, he had come to his home; that on coming there, they had come to know that Gandhi had been murdered; that the accused Deepak had told that he was not connected with that murder, neither he had gone to Gandhi's house on the day of murder on Eid; that he was falsely implicated and neither had he used caste-related words against Deepak @ Gandhi." It is further reported in the police report that after giving appropriate warning to Deepak, he was relieved from the investigation and the facts told by Deepak were verified and were being checked and corroborated with the CDR of Deepak and his friends.
33. It is further reported in the police report that Bitto, the father of the accused Vijay had come to the police station and FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 13 of 92 presented his caste certificate to the investigating officer, and according to the caste certificate, the accused Vijay belonged to Balmiki (SC/ST) caste, which was attached and the caste certificate was verified which was found to be correct.
34. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, on 22.08.2017, the investigating officer had obtained the result of fingerprints from SCRB, Kamla Market, New Delhi on which it was opined "1. Chance print market Q1 is partial print, hence this cannot be searched on the record of the Bureau. 2. Chance print marked Q2 is partial & smudged and does not disclose sufficient number of ridge detail in their relative positions for comparison, hence it is Unfit for comparison/search", which result was attached with file, and the fingerprints of the accused persons Aman Poddar and Vijay were sent separately to the fingerprint bureau for tallying.
35. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation on 06.09.2017, the investigating officer got the scaled site-plan of the spot prepared from the draughtsman, and after obtaining the scaled site-plan, he had attached with the file.
36. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer had received the opinion along with exhibits, MLC and postmortem report from mortuary, AIIMS Trauma Centre and the opinion given by FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 14 of 92 doctor was noted as "On perusal of the above documents, I am of the considered opinion that injuries mentioned in MLC 500031484/2017, dated 26.06.2017 could be possible by submitted weapon of offence."
37. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the accused Vijay and Aman had disclosed in the disclosure statements that they had attacked the deceased Deepak Gandhi with a cold drinks bottle i.e. fact of disclosure has been corroborated by the opinion regarding weapon of offence by the autopsy surgeon now, and hence, the fact was re-prospectively established discovered subsequent to disclosure, and the investigating officer deposited the case property in the Malkhana.
38. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the exhibits collected in the present case by the investigating officer were submitted vide R/C No.145/21/17 to FSL Rohini on 21.09.2017 and the DVR seized in the present case was being sent to FSL which would be sent after the inquiry of SC/ST Act and investigation about Pankaj would be completed and based on the outcome of the inquiry, a separate supplementary police report would be filed in the Court.
39. It is further reported in the police report that the aforesaid acts on the part of the accused persons, Vijay and Aman Poddar revealed commission of offences punishable under FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 15 of 92 sections 307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offence committed by accused persons, Vijay and Aman Poddar may be taken and they should be tried as per the provisions of law.
40. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the police report before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
41. On 19.09.2018, when this case was at the stage of prosecution evidence, a supplementary police report was put up by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station Govindpuri.
42. It is reported in the supplementary police report that in continuation of the main police report, the following exhibits were sent to the FSL, Rohini for expert opinion;
Parcel 1: One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibits 'la' and "1b' described as clothes of accused/ injured Vijay.
Exhibit 1a: One Jeans pant's having brown stains. Exhibit 1b: One T-shirt having brown stains.
Parcel 2: One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibits "2a' and '2b' described as clothes of accused/ injured Aman.
Exhibit 2a: One pant's having brown stains.
Exhibit 2: One Cut/ torn shirt having brown stains. Parcel 3: One sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of "FORENSIC MEDICINE JPNATC AIIMS NEW DELHI" containing exhibit '3".
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 16 of 92Exhibit 3: Broken pieces of glass bottle having brown stains described as broken bottle of cold drink (Pepsi and slice) and some pieces of glass having brown stains.
Parcel 4: Sealed brown envelope sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibit "4".
Exhibit 4: Cotton wool swab having brown stains described as blood in gauze as marked 'A' blood lift from the stairs.
Parcel 5: One sealed brown envelope sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibit '5'.
Exhibit 5: Cotton wool swah.on a stick described as blood in gauze as marked 'B' blood lift from inside the shop.
Parcel 6: One sealed plastic bag sealed with the seal of "CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND" containing exhibit '6'. Exhibit 6: One cut/ torn damp T-shirt having foul smelling having brown stains described as clothes of injured Deepak @ Pankaj Gandhi.
Parcel 7: One sealed vial sealed with the seal of "CMO AIIMS HOPT ND" containing exhibit '7".
Exhibit 7: One blood vial having dark brown liquid described as blood in gauze of injured CCL Aman.
43. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that FSL Result/opinion had been received in that regard from FSL, Rohini and the same was attached therewith.
44. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that Ms. Soni Khampa, Jr. Forensic/ Chemical Examiner (Biology) Forensic Science Laboratory Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, New Delhi has given the following result of DNA examination:
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 17 of 921. Male DNA profile were generated from the source of exhibit 'la', 'b', '2a', '2b', '3', '4', '5' and '7'.
2. DNA profile could not be generated from the source of exhibit '6' which may be due to degradation of sample.
45. It is further reported in the supplementary police report that Ms. Soni Khampa has given the conclusion that:
DNA Profile STR analysis were performed on exhibits 'la', 'lb', '2', '26', '3', '4', '5' and '7' were sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit "la' and 'Ib' is found to be similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit '3', '4' and '5'. DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit "2a', '26" and '7' is found be similar with each other.
46. On the police report, on 23.09.2017, the Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence.
47. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused persons were also produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Copies of police report and other documents were supplied to the accused persons.
48. On 07.10.2017, the Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
49. On 03.01.2018, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 18 of 92 accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused persons, namely, Vijay and Aman Poddar for their having committed offence punishable under section 302/34, the Indian Penal Code.
50. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offence charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claim trial.
51. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Roop Singh, PW2 Ronak (complainant), PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Inderjit Singh, PW4 Sanju Gupta, PW5 Smt. Manju, PW6 Dr. Om Prakash, Senior Resident, General Surgery, AIIMS, New Delhi, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, SR, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Devanand, PW9 Head Constable (HC) Madan, PW10 Constable (Ct.) Dharmender, PW11 Constable (Ct.) Deep Ram, PW12 Head Constable (HC) Ajit, PW13 Head Constable (HC) Soran Singh, PW14 Sub-Inspector (SI) Chetram, PW15 Sub-Inspector (SI) Ajit Singh, PW16 Constable (Ct.) Jaibir, PW17 Constable (Ct.) Puneet Singh, PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, PW19 Sub-Inspector (SI) Raju, PW20 Sub- Inspector (SI) Rajendra Kumar, PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj, PW22 Ms. Soni Khampha, Jr. Forensic/Chemical Examiner, Biology, FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, PW23 Assistant FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 19 of 92 Sub-Inspector (ASI) Rajender Prasad, PW24 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, PW25 Head Constable (HC) Ajay, PW26 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Yadvir, PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, PW28 Dr. Mehul K, Senior Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi, PW29 Head Constable (HC) Shish Ram and PW30 Head Constable (HC) Dharamvir Yadav. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B-1 to Ex.PW17/B-7, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C, Ex.PW29/A Ex.PW30/A; and 'Pullanda' Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were also tendered in evidence.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 20 of 9252. On 07.04.2025 prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C and for their statement.
53. On 08.05.2025, this Court examined the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons, namely, Vijay and Aman Poddar denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. During the examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Vijay took the defence that that he has been falsely implicated in the present case since deceased and his family were owing money to him which they had to pay. It is further stated that after the death of the deceased, his family members falsely implicated him in order to avoid paying his money back and he did not commit any offence.
54. During the examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Aman took the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the present case since the deceased and his family were owing money to Vijay which they Vijay had to pay. It is further stated that since he was with Vijay on the intervening night of 26/27.06.2017, he was made a scapegoat in this case and he did not commit any such offence as charged.
55. Both the accused persons expressed their desire not to lead evidence in their defence.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 21 of 9256. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, Advocate for the accused Vijay and Mr. Anunay Sahay, Advocate for the accused Aman and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
57. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 ASI Roop Singh, PW2 Ronak, PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh, PW4 Sanju Gupta, PW5 Smt. Manju, PW6 Dr. Om Prakash, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, PW8 ASI Devanand, PW9 HC Madan, PW10 Ct. Dharmender, PW11 Ct. Deep Ram, PW12 HC Ajit, PW13 HC Soran Singh, PW14 SI Chetram, PW15 SI Ajit Singh, PW16 Ct. Jaibir, PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh, PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, PW19 SI Raju, PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar, PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj, PW22 Ms. Soni Khampha, PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad, PW24 Rajender Singh, PW25 HC Ajay, PW26 ASI Yadvir, PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, PW28 Dr. Mehul K, PW29 HC Shish Ram and PW30 HC Dharamvir Yadav, and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B-1 to Ex.PW17/B-7, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 22 of 92 Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C, Ex.PW29/A Ex.PW30/A, and 'Pullanda' Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of the offence by the accused persons. It is further submitted that PW5 Smt. Manju has been successful in proving that on 26.06.2017 at about 07.30 p.m., the accused persons had taken the deceased along with them by calling him from their house. It is further submitted that CCTV camera was installed in the adjoining shop of PW5 Sanju Gupta which was partially covering the shop of the deceased, where the incident had happened, and footage seized by the investigating officer shows that two persons were going in the shop at 09.17 p.m., and coming out at 09.53 p.m., followed by one person seems to be in injured condition. It is further submitted that the present case was registered on the complaint of one Raunak, brother of the deceased, who had seen the accused persons with bloodstained clothes in the hospital and his such testimony has remained intact during cross-examination. It is further submitted that the bloodstained clothes of accused persons have been identified by the investigating officer and the said clothes were sent to FSL for matching the blood found on the clothes of the accused with the blood of the deceased. It is further submitted that the FSL result FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 23 of 92 has been proved by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa, and according to the FSL result blood of the deceased was found on the clothes of the accused Vijay. It is further submitted that the cumulative circumstances indicate the guilt of the accused.
58. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused Vijay has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 ASI Roop Singh, PW2 Ronak, PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh, PW4 Sanju Gupta, PW5 Smt. Manju, PW6 Dr. Om Prakash, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, PW8 ASI Devanand, PW9 HC Madan, PW10 Ct. Dharmender, PW11 Ct. Deep Ram, PW12 HC Ajit, PW13 HC Soran Singh, PW14 SI Chetram, PW15 SI Ajit Singh, PW16 Ct. Jaibir, PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh, PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, PW19 SI Raju, PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar, PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj, PW22 Ms. Soni Khampha, PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad, PW24 Rajender Singh, PW25 HC Ajay, PW26 ASI Yadvir, PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, PW28 Dr. Mehul K, PW29 HC Shish Ram and PW30 HC Dharamvir Yadav, and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B-1 to Ex.PW17/B-7, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 24 of 92 Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C, Ex.PW29/A Ex.PW30/A, and 'Pullanda' Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, and the law laid down the judgments Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 145, Jasbir Singh v. State (2022) 291 DLT 232, Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657, Geeta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2010) 13 SCC 678, Birappa and Another v. State of Karnataka (2010) 12 SCC 182 and submitted that the spot where the incident had happened is thickly populated area, however, the prosecution has not produced any eye-witness. It is further submitted that PW Raunak is an interesting witness being brother of the deceased. It is further submitted that the cctv footage shows the feet only of the assailants. It is further submitted that as per the testimonies of PW5, his mother had not gone with Raunak. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the material witnesses. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that infact, the accused Vijay had lent money to the deceased.
59. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 25 of 9260. The accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 I.P.C. Section 302 IPC provides for punishment of murder. Whereas, the offence of murder has been defined under section 300 IPC. Sections 300 and 34 IPC read as follows: -
"300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, if-
Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offence knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-
Fourthly.- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
61. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
62. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined thirty (30) witnesses.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 26 of 9263. PW1 ASI Roop Singh has deposed that in the intervening night of 26/27.06.2017, he was working as ASI and was on duty at police station Govind Puri as duty officer from 12:00 a.m to 08:00 a.m. and at around 12:45 a.m., Ct. Jaibir had produced one rukka sent by SI Rajender for registration of the FIR. It is further deposed by PW1 ASI Roop Singh that on the basis of said rukka, he had registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A) bearing his name at point A, through Computer Operator. During his evidence, PW1 ASI Roop Singh has brought the original FIR register. It is further deposed by PW1 ASI Roop Singh that he had also made the endoresment to that effect along with his signature at point A on the rukka (Ex.PW1/B). It is further deposed by PW1 ASI Roop Singh that the further investigation was handed over to SI Rajender.
64. PW2 Ronak has deposed that on 26.06.2017, at around 09:45 p.m., he was present in the street near his shop at 1196/13, Govind Puri in the name and style of Deepak Store which was run by him and his brother Deepak (deceased). It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that Aman and Vijay used to visit their shop to purchase goods and they had some quarrel on the issue of payment pending with them quite often prior to the date of incident. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that in that night, he had seen the accused persons Vijay and Aman going towards Transit Camp and on his query, they had told him that they had killed his brother and their clothes were having bloodstains. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that he had immediately reached FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 27 of 92 his shop, and found his brother lying in pool of blood on the floor. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that his neighbours had taken his brother to Trauma Center, and he had gone to his house and reached at Trauma Center along with his mother as he was under the trauma. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that police officials were present in the hospital, and both the accused persons were also there, and he had pointed out and identified them and police officials had apprehended them. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that police officials had recorded his statement (Ex.PW2/A). It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that his brother had passed away in the hospital on the next day. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that he had identified the dead- body of his brother Deepak in the mortuary of the hospital vide memo (Ex.PW2/B). It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that after the postmortem, body was handed over to his family members vide handing over memo (Ex.PW2/C). PW2 Ronak has correctly identified both the accused Vijay and Aman during his evidence.
65. During his cross-examination, PW2 Ronak has, inter-alia, deposed that on the day of incident, he had not seen the accused Vijay while entering the shop and there was no servant in the shop and the shop used to open at 06.00 a.m. and close at 11.00 p.m. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that Pankaj has taken his brother to Hospital and he did not meet Pankaj on the day of incident, and he has again stated that he could not recollect whether he met Pankaj on the day of incident or not. It FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 28 of 92 is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that the incident had not taken place in his presence. It is admitted by PW2 Ronak that five persons had come to his house on the day of incident as that was told to him by his mother and he was not at home. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that Aman, Vijay and Sunny had come to his house on that day.
66. PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh has deposed that on 28.06.2017, he was working as ASI and was on duty at police station Govind Puri as duty officer from 08:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m. It is further deposed by PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh that at around 08:30 a.m., one call was received from Trauma Center, AIIMS which he had recorded vide DD No.15A dated 28.06.2017 (Ex.PW3/A).
67. PW4 Sanju Gupta has deposed that on 26.06.2017, he was present in his shop at 1197/13, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, New Delhi and he was taking a walk due to gas in his stomach at around 9:00 p.m. near his shop and after the walk, he had gone back to the shop. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that at around 9:15-9:20 p.m., he had heard the noise of commotion, and come out of the shop and found people were standing in front of shop of Deepak. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that the shutter of the shop of Deepak was closed when he was having the walk. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that he had installed CCTV at his shop and also towards outside on the road. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that on the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 29 of 92 next morning, police officials had come to his shop, and taken his DVR with them and they had not displayed the DVR in his presence at his shop. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that the DVR was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW4/A) bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that he had also given a certificate (Ex.PW4/B) under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that he had not tampered with the DVR or its contents. During his deposition, PW4 Sanju Gupta correctly identified the case property i.e. DVR (Ex.P-1).
68. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that Deepak had come out from his shop and started abusing unparliamentary language. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that he had put his counter inside the shop and pulled down the shutter. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that one DVR sealed with the Court seal has been opened, however, it could not be played as there was no lead available to connect it with the laptop brought by the MHC(M) and since, this DVR has not been sent to FSL for its scientific examination, hence, the Court was of the considered opinion that no more efforts were required for playing it. No DVD or pendrive was placed on record regarding the said footage.
69. PW4 Sanju Gupta was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 30 of 9270. PW5 Smt. Manju has deposed that Deepak @ Gandhi (since deceased) was her son and on 26.06.2017, at about 07:30 pm, she was present in her house and preparing meals, and her son Deepak @ Gandhi was taking dinner. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that at that time, Aman (accused), Vijay (accused), Deepak, Pankaj and one another boy, the name of whom she did not know, had come to her house and they all asked her son Deepak @ Gandhi to accompany them saying that they would be coming back in five minutes. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that after one and a half hour, she had come to know that a quarrel had taken place between her son Deepak @ Gandhi and both the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that she had also come to know that her son was bleeding and on hearing this, she had gone to street No.13, Govind Puri where the above quarrel had taken place, and come to know at the said spot that her son Deepak @ Gandhi had been taken to Trauma Center by Pankaj. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that her son had died due to the injuries received by him in the above quarrel and the neck of her son was cut. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that she belonged to Khatik Caste which falls under SC/ST and the accused Aman used to call her son by "Gandi Khatik sudhar ja and chuda chamaar". It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that Deepak, the brother of the accused Aman, also used to pass such caste related derogatory remarks to her son Deepak @ Gandhi about which he used to tell her. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that on FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 31 of 92 29.06.2017, she had given a complaint (Ex.PW5/A) to SHO regarding the aforesaid incident. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that during the course of investigation, she had also given an affidavit (Ex.PW5/B) to prove her caste as 'Khatik'. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that she had also gone to the AIIMS Trauma Center, where she had seen the accused persons Vijay and Aman were also present. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that she had found her son Deepak was admitted in the hospital and his condition was not good and after seeing the condition of her son, she had lost consciousness. PW5 Smt. Manju has correctly identified both the accused persons Vijay and Aman.
71. During leading questions put on behalf of the State, PW5 Smt. Manju has admitted that in the night of 26.06.2017, her son Ronak had come to the house and told her that the accused persons Vijay and Aman had assaulted Deepak Gandhi with the bottle of pepsi and slice at shop No.1196/13 Govind Puri, New Delhi, and run away from the spot.
72. PW6 Dr. Om Prakash, Senior Resident, General Surgery, AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed that he has been authorized by Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi to appear and depose on behalf of Dr. Madhvi Verma, JR, AIIMS Hospital, who has left the services of Hospital and whose present whereabouts are not known to the hospital. Having seen the MLC No.5523/17 (Ex.PW6/A) with UHID No.102944727 of the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 32 of 92 patient Vijay son of Bittu, PW6 Dr. Om Prakash has deposed that as per the MLC, the patient was brought to the hospital for medical examination on 27.01.2017 at 02:31 p.m., and the said patient was examined by Dr. Madhvi vide above MLC. PW6 Dr. Om Prakash has identified the signatures of Dr. Madhvi on the MLC No.5523/17 (Ex.PW6/A) as she had worked with him and he had seen her signing during course of his official duties. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
73. PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, Senior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS Truama Center, New Delhi has deposed that on 28.06.2017, upon receipt of inquest papers at about 12:05 p.m., he had started conducting the autopsy on the body of Deepak @ Gandhi at 12:30 p.m., and concluded it at 01:30 p.m. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that the body of the deceased was brought and identified by Inspector Sanjay, the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that he had conducted the autopsy on the basis of an application (Ex.PW7/A) made by the investigating officer in that regard, which was also received along with the inquest papers and along with the inquest papers, Form 25.35, information of MLC cases etc. were enclosed.
74. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that as per the record, the alleged history was of assault with broken glass bottle on 26.06.2017 at 09:30 p.m., and the patient was taken to JPNATC where he had died during the course of FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 33 of 92 treatment on 28.06.2017 at 02:00 a.m. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that the patient was admitted there vide MLC No. 500031484/17 and on examination of the deceased, he had found three injuries which were mentioned in the postmortem report No. TC-333/17 dated 28.06.2017 prepared by him and he had also found effusion of blood in righ temporal region of scalp.
75. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that in his opinion, the cause of death in the present case was 'hemorrhagic shock via injury No.1 and injury No.1 caused by sharp edged weapon/object which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, injury No.2 and 3 were caused by blunt force/impact and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature'. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that the time of death was consistent with the hospital record and after the postmortem, the blood in gauze, nail clipping of both hands were taken as sample which were sealed, signed and handed over to investigating officer along with the sample seal. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that he had prepared his detailed postmortem report (Ex.PW7/B) in respect of examination of the deceased.
76. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that he had also received the letter of the investigating officer regarding opinion about weapon of offence in the present case on 02.08.2017 along with the application of the investigating officer.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 34 of 92It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that the original copy of MLC No. 500031484/17 dated 26.06.2017, original postmortem report No. TC-333/17 dated 28.06.2017, road certificate 126/21/17 dated 02.08.2017 and a sealed weapon of offence were also received, which sealed transparent jar was sealed with the seal of 'RK' and on opening the seal, he had found pieces of broken glass bottle in it as were mentioned by him in his subsequent opinion dated 02.08.2017 at Serial No.1 to 4 vide opinion no.221/17 (Ex.PW7/C) and after the perusal of the above documents and the weapon of offence, in his opinion, the injuries mentioned in MLC No.500031484/17 dated 26.06.2017 Mark A could be possible by the submitted weapon of offence. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that after examination, the weapon of offence was sealed, signed and handed over to investigating officer along with the sample seal and he had also advised that the weapon of offence be sent to FSL for biological and chemical analysis.
77. PW8 ASI Devanand has deposed that on 26.06.2017, he was posted as ASI/DD writer in police station Govind Puri from 04:00 p.m. to 12 midnight and on that day, at about 10:09 p.m., an information from control room operator J-63 had informed in the duty officer room that House No.1196/Gali No.13, Govind Puri "jhagade mai chaku maar diya" and that call was received from mobile phone number 7982948489. It is further deposed by PW8 ASI Devanand that he had recorded the information vide DD No.55 (Ex.PW8/A) which was marked to SI FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 35 of 92 Rajender and he was informed about the same telephonically, and he had left for the spot. It is further deposed by PW8 ASI Devanand that on the same day, at about 11:05 p.m., he had received an information from duty constable Jasbir from AIIMS Trauma Center about the admission of Pankaj Gandhi in Hospital by some passersby which he had recorded vide DD No. 65A (Ex.PW8/B) and the information in this regard was given to SI Rajender. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
78. PW9 HC Madan has deposed that on 28.06.2017, he was posted as Constable in police station Govind Puri and on that day, he along with the investigating officer/Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj had reached the mortuary of the Trauma Center, AIIMS, where after the identification of the body of the deceased Deepak @ Gandhi by his relatives, postmortem on his body was conducted, thereafter, the dead-body of the deceased was handed over to its relative. It is further deposed by PW9 HC Madan that the doctor had handed over one sealed pullanda containing the exhibits of the deceased and one sample seal which were seized by the investigating officer vide memo (Ex.PW9/A). This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
79. PW10 Ct. Dharmender has deposed that on 02.08.2017, he was posted as constable in police station Govind Puri and on that day, on the directions of the investigating officer, he had taken one sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 36 of 92 'RK' from MHC(M) vide RC No.126/21/17 and one MLC, which were to be given in Trauma Center, AIIMS for seeking opinion. It is further deposed by PW10 Ct. Dharmender that he had deposited the abovesaid sealed container in the FSL and the MLC in AIIMS Trauma Center, and handed over the receipt to the MHC(M) vide RC No.126/21/17 (Ex.PW10/A). It is further deposed by PW9 HC Madan that the case property remained intact till it remained in his possession. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
80. PW11 Ct. Deep Ram has deposed that on the directions of the investigating officer, he had taken seven sealed exhibits and three sample seals from MHC(M) vide RC No.145/21/17 (Ex.PW11/A) on 21.09.2017 to the FSL, Rohini, and deposited the abovesaid sealed exhibits and sample seals in FSL, obtained the receipt, and handed over the receipt to the MHC(M). It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Deep Ram that the case property remained intact till it remained in his possession. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.
81. PW12 HC Ajit has deposed that on 11.09.2017, on the direction of SHO Sanjay Bhardwaj, he had gone to Fatehbad, Agra (UP) at the office of Tehsildar for the verification of caste certificate of Raunak as he was handed over the copy of the caste certificate of Raunak alongwith covering letter. It is further deposed by PW12 HC Ajit that he had made inquiries from dealing clerk who made endorsement on the said covering letter FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 37 of 92 regarding the issuing of said certificate and after verification of the said certificate, he had returned to Delhi and handed over the said covering letter to SHO.
82. PW13 HC Soran Singh has deposed that on 26.06.2017, he was posted as fingerprint proficient at crime- team, SED and on that day, upon receipt of the call from Control Room, SED, he alongwith Ct.Puneet (Photographer) had reached at the spot i.e. Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and met the investigating officer and his staff there. It is further deposed by PW13 HC Soran Singh that they had inspected the spot and Ct.Puneet had taken the photographs of the spot and he had lifted two chanceprint from broken pieces of glass bottle of slice cold drink with the help of RUVIS (Reflected Ultraviolet Images System) instrument and two chanceprints, and prepared the report at the spot and the said report was handed over to investigating officer. Fingerprint report (Ex.PW13/A) placed on judicial file was shown to the witness and the witness has correctly identified the same.
83. PW14 SI Chetram has deposed that on 28.06.2017, he was posted as SI (Fingerprint Expert) at Fingerprint Bureau, police station Kamla Market, Delhi and on that day, he had received scene of crime examination report bearing Sl. No. 772/17 from fingerprint proficient HC Soran Singh, SED Mobile Crime Team mentioning two chanceprints developed and photographed under RUVIS method. It is further deposed by FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 38 of 92 PW14 SI Chetram that he had examined the photographs of the chanceprints Mark Q-1 & Q-2 and found that chanceprint Mark Q-1 is partial print and hence, it cannot be searched on the record of the Bureau. It is further deposed by PW14 SI Chetram that he had also found that chanceprint Mark Q-2 was partial and smudged and was unfit for comparison and his detailed report dated 22.08.2017 (Ex.PW14/A) bears his signatures at point A.
84. It is further deposed by PW14 SI Chetram that on 11.09.2017 he had received specimen fingerprints of Aman son of Dharmender and Vijay son of Bittoo for comparison and experts opinion on the chanceprint Mark as Q-1. It is further deposed by PW14 SI Chetram that he had tried to compare the same and found that chanceprint Mark Q-1 was not able to be compared with available specimen fingerprints due to non- availability of clear corresponding area in specimen print and his report dated 21.09.2017 (Ex.PW14/B) bears his signatures at point A.
85. PW15 SI Ajit Singh has deposed that on 27.6.2017 he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Govind Puri and was working as Juvenile Welfare Officer and on that day, he had received call from the investigating officer and thereafter, he had reached the spot, i.e. House No.1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and met the investigating officer/SI Rajinder Kumar there with two boys, namely, the accused Vijay and CCL and Dharmender, father of CCL. It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 39 of 92 investigating officer had made inquiries in his presence from the accused and CCL, who admitted their complicity in the present case. It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that he had conducted proceedings regarding CCL and apprehended him vide memo (Ex.PW15/A) and conducted further proceedings. It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that the investigating officer had seized the broken pieces of cold drink bottles of pepsi and slice brand (glass bottles), containing bloodstains in a plastic box sealed with the seal of 'RK' and seized vide memo (Ex.PW15/B). It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that the investigating officer had recorded version of examination of CCL. It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that later on, the investigating officer had recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. PW15 SI Ajit Singh has correctly identified broken glass pieces of pepsi and slice bottles (Ex.P1 collectively).
86. PW16 Ct. Jaibir has deposed that he had joined the investigation along with the investigating officer/SI Rajender Kumar on 26.06.2017, and upon receipt of DD No.55A regarding stabbing by brother at 1196/13, Govind Puri, he alongwith the investigating officer had reached at the spot, which was a shop and inside the shop blood was spilling on the road and a broken glass bottle of cold-drinks was also lying inside the shop. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that in the meantime, HC Rajender had also reached there, and the investigating officer had called at 100 number to requisition of crime-team. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that on coming to know that injured FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 40 of 92 had already been taken to AIIMS Trauma Center, he along with the investigating officer had reached at Trauma Center and found the deceased Deepak was admitted and undergoing treatment there, and the investigating officer had collected his MLC. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that Raunak, brother of injured met them in the hospital, and he had pointed out towards two persons present in the Trauma Center, and identified them as the accused Aman and the accused Vijay and told the investigating officer that they had inflicted injuries on Deepak. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the wearing cloths of Aman and Vijay were having bloodstains and they had apprehended the accused persons Vijay and Aman. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the investigating officer had recorded statement (Ex.PW2/A) of Raunak, endorsed the same, prepared rukka and handed over same to him for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that in the hospital, concerned doctor had handed over wearing cloths of the injured Deepak having bloodstains in the sealed pullanda with the seal of hospital alongwith with one sample seal to him, which he handed over to the investigating officer, who had taken it into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that he had taken tehrir to police station Govind Puri, got FIR registered, and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to SI Rajender on his return to the spot. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that during inquiry, upon coming to know that the accused Aman was minor, he had called CWPO SI Ajit Singh and father of the Aman at the spot and in his presence, FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 41 of 92 Aman was interrogated and his version was recorded and his apprehension memo was prepared. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the accused Vijay was also interrogated and was arrested in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW16/B), his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW16/C) and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo (Ex.PW16/D). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the wearing cloths of both the accused persons were taken into possession by the investigating officer after converting into separate pullandas sealed with seal of 'RK' vide memo (Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the accused Vijay had pointed out the place of occurrence and the investigating officer had prepared pointing out memo (Ex.PW16/G). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the investigating officer had also sealed the broken pieces of the glass bottle of Pepsi and Slice some of which were having bloodstains in a plastic box sealed with seal of 'RK', and taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PW15/B). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the investigating officer had also lifted the blood spilled on the floor and on the staircase with the help of separate gauzes and sealed them in separate envelopes with the seal of 'RK', and taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PW16/H). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that they had returned to the police station with the accused persons and case property and the investigating officer had deposited the case property in malkhana and recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that he could FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 42 of 92 not identify the accused Vijay and Aman due to lapse of time and he could not identify the case property due to lapse of time.
87. During leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the attention of PW16 Ct. Jaibir was drawn towards the accused persons who were present in the Court and the witness submits that he was not able to identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. The witness was shown the case property i.e. one jeans pant having brown stains and T-shirt having brown stains of the accused Vijay (Ex.P3 colly.) and after seeing the same, the witness has stated that the same was recovered from the accused Vijay and the case property i.e. one pant having brown stains and one torn/cut shirt having brown stains of the accused Aman (Ex.P4 colly.) were also shown to the witness and after seeing the same, witness stated that the same was recovered from accused Aman, thereafter, the case property i.e. broken pieces of the pepsi and slice bottles (Ex.P1 colly.) were taken out and shown to the witness, after seeing the same witness stated that the same was recovered from the spot.
88. During his cross-examination, PW16 Ct. Jaibir has deposed that on 27.06.2017 at about 04.00 a.m., the shop where the alleged incident had taken place was open and the adjoining shops were closed. It was admitted by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that he or the investigating officer had not taken the photographs of the blood split at the stairs or on the road. During his cross- examination, he has further deposed that he cannot say whether FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 43 of 92 the investigating officer had made public person as witness at the time of arrest of the accused persons.
89. PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh has deposed that on 26.06.2017 he was posted as Constable (Photographer) in Mobile Crime Team/SED, New Delhi and on that day upon receipt information from control room, he alongwith HC Soran Singh (Fingerprint Proficient) and SI Satish (in-charge) had reached at the spot i.e. Shop No.1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi. It is further deposed by PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh that they had inspected the spot, and he had taken seven (7) photographs of the spot from different angles, and later on, he had handed over negatives of the photographs, who got the photographs developed and returned the negatives. It is further deposed by PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh that he had brought the seven (7) negatives (Ex.PW17/A Colly.) of the photographs (Ex.PW17/B-1 to Ex.PW17/B-7) clicked by him at the spot and the corresponding to negatives (Ex.PW17/A Colly) and the investigating officer had recorded his statement to the above said effect.
90. PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain has deposed that on 06.09.2017, he was posted as draughtsman having office at police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi and on that day, on the request of the investigating officer/SHO Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, he had gone to police station Govind Puri, from where he alongwith the investigating officer and few other police officials had gone to the spot i.e. Deepak Store, 1196/13, FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 44 of 92 Govinde Puri, New Delhi. It is further deposed by PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain that he had inspected the spot, taken measurements, and prepared the rough-notes with the help of the investigating officer of the case, thereafter, he had come back to his office and on 07.09.2017 he had prepared the scaled site-plan (Ex.PW18/A) on the basis of abovesaid rough notes and measurements and handed over the same to the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain that after the preparation of scaled site-plans, the rough notes etc. were destroyed.
91. PW19 SI Raju has deposed that on 29.06.2017, he had joined investigation with Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, the investigating officer of the present case, and they reached Saket Court where the accused Aman @ Toshant Poddar present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) was produced. It is further deposed by PW19 SI Raju that with due permission from the Court, the investigating officer had interrogated the accused and had recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW19/A), thereafter, the investigating officer had formally arrested the accused vide arrest memo (Ex.PW19/B) and the investigating officer had recorded his statement to the abovesaid effect.
92. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has deposed that in the intervening night of 26th and 27th June, 2017, he was posted as SI at police station Govind Puri and was on emergency duty at about 10.00-10.15 p.m., and upon receipt of DD No.55A dated FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 45 of 92 26.06.2017 police station Govind Puri regarding stabbing of a person at Building No.1196, Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, he alongwith Ct. Jaivir had reached at the spot i.e. Building No.1196, Gali No.13, Govind Puri, which was a shop. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that public persons/passerby were present there and he had inquired and inspected the spot. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the blood was lying spilled inside the shop, which was a small grocery shop and broken glass bottles of soft drink were lying inside the shop, and in the meantime, HC Rajinder had also reached at the spot, who called crime-team at the spot. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that in the meantime, upon receipt of another DD No.65A police station Govind Puri regarding intimation from AIIMS Trauma Centre of admission of the injured Deepak Gandhi and the accused Aman Poddar, leaving HC Rajinder for the preservation of spot, he along with Ct. Jaivir had gone to Trauma Centre, AIIMS and found the injured Deepak son of late Mewa Ram admitted in the hospital. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had collected his MLC, on which concerned doctor had declared him 'unfit for statement'. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had met brother of injured/deceased namely Ronak in the hospital, inquired him, recorded his statement/complainant (Ex.PW2/A), endorsed the complaint and prepared rukka (Ex.PW20/A) under section 307/34 IPC, and sent the same with Ct. Jaivir for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that in the hospital, he had FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 46 of 92 also met the accused persons Aman Poddar and Vijay, and he alongwith the accused Aman Poddar and Vijay left for the spot. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the crime team had visited the spot, which inspected the spot and taken its photographs, thereafter, Ct. Jaivir had returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him as investigation was marked to him. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that fingerprint proficient from the crime-team had lifted chanceprint from broken piece of glass bottles found lying inside the shop of the deceased and he had seized the broken piece of glass bottles of Pepsi and Slice found lying inside the shop in a plastic box sealed with the help of doctor tape with his seal of 'RK' and had seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW15/B). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had found blood being spilled inside the shop and stairs of the shop and he lifted the blood which spilled on the stairs of the shop with the help of cotton gauze and sealed it in an envelop marked as Mark A by him. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had lifted the blood which spilled on the floor inside shop with the help of cotton gauze and sealed it in an envelop marked as Mark B by him and he had sealed both the envelops with his seal of 'RK' and seized them vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/H).
93. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that on 27.06.2017 when the accused Vijay had met him in the hospital, his wearing clothes were having bloodstains, therefore, FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 47 of 92 he got changed his clothes and seized his clothes i.e. one jeans pant having white and light black colour and his wearing t-shirt having blue, white and slaty colour both containing bloodstains and he converted them into a cloth pullanda with his seal of 'RK' and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/F). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that when the accused Aman Poddar had met him in Trauma Centre. AIIMS, his wearing clothes were also having bloodstains, therefore, he got changed his clothes and seized his clothes i.e. one pant of cream colour (checkdaar) and a t-shirt of red and black colour on the collar of which 'Garments, spl.garments.com' was inscribed. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that both the said clothes were containing bloodstains and he converted them into a cloth pullanda with his seal of 'RK' and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/E).
94. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that on the same day, Ct. Jaivir had handed over him a sealed pullanda with the seal of 'CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND' handed over to them by the concerned doctor, containing bloodstained clothes of Deepak @ Pankaj Gandhi alongwith sample seal, which he seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A) and on the same day, he had also got collected the blood sample of the accused Aman Poddar in AIIMS Hospital and seized his blood sample sealed with the seal of CMO AIIMS HOPT ND along with sample seal on its production to him by Ct. Ajay vide seizure memo (Ex.PW20/B).
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 48 of 9295. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that during investigation, he had met PW Sanju Gupta, who was owner of the adjoining shop of the shop of the deceased and he had inquired him and recorded his statement. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had also come to know that PW Sanju Gupta had installed CCTV cameras covering his shop bearing No.1197, Gali No.13, Govind Puri and partially the shop of the deceased and on requisition by him, PW Sanju Gupta had handed over him DVR bearing No.UCAHD-404N in which CCTV footage of the relevant time was saved, and he had checked the CCTV footage and seized the said DVR/hardrive vide seizure memo (Ex.PW4/A). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that during checking, he had found that two persons were seen going inside the shop of the deceased at 09.17 p.m. on 26.06.2017 and two persons were seen coming out of the said shop at about 09.53 p.m. on the same day shortly followed by one person coming out of the shop while sitting seemingly to be in injured condition but face of none of the abovesaid person was clear. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that PW Sanju Gupta had also handed over him certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW4/B) regarding the aforesaid DVR/storage of CCTV footage and regarding proper functioning of the CCTV installation which he kept on record.
96. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that on that day during investigation, he had also met PW FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 49 of 92 Krishan @ Sunny, who told him that he had taken the deceased to hospital where due to mistake, name of the deceased was mentioned as Pankaj Gandhi instead of Deepak Gandhi and he had recorded his statement.
97. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had prepared site-plan (Ex.PW20/C). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had interrogated both the accused and initially, the accused Aman Poddar had told that he was a minor, therefore, he recorded version of Aman Poddar (Ex.PW20/D) and repared his apprehension memo (Ex.PW15/A). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had also interrogated the accused Vijay, recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/D), arrested him and conducted his personal search vide (Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the accused Vijay had pointed out the spot i.e. shop of the deceased, and he had prepared pointing out memo (Ex.PW16/G). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that during the aforesaid investigation proceedings, PW Ronak was with him and he had recorded his supplementary statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had also examined and recorded statement of mother of the deceased, namely, Manju and also recorded statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 50 of 9298. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the case property was deposited in the malkhana, and he had sent the accused Aman Poddar with JCO SI Ajit to be produced before concerned JJB, and produced the accused Vijay before the Court after due medical examination and the accused Vijay was sent to judicial custody.
99. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that on the next day i.e. 28.06.2017 in the morning, upon receiving of DD No.15A police station Govind Puri regarding intimation of death of the injured Pankaj Gandhi from AIIMS Trauma Centre, section 302 IPC was added, and he had handed over case file to Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj/the then SHO, police station Govind Puri, who had taken up the further investigation.
100. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he alongwith the investigating officer and staff had reached at AIIMS Trauma Centre where after due identification of the dead-body, its postmortem was got conducted by the investigating officer and thereafter, the dead-body was handed over to its relatives and the investigating officer had recorded his statement. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
101. During examination-in-chief of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar, the DVR having No.UCAHD-404N was shown to him and he has correctly identified the same to be seized by him in FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 51 of 92 the present case and the DVR (Ex.P1) was played on the system brought by the investigating officer and there was auto recording in the DVR showing contemporaneous date and time of the recording. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the focus of camera was largely covering shop of PW Sanju Gupta, slightly covering small portion of the shop of the deceased and the recording was carefully perused in which at about 09.17 p.m. on 26.06.2017 and two persons were seen entering in the shop of deceased but their faces were not shown in the video and one of the said person was wearing a t-shirt having dark and light stripes and the colour of cloth of other person was not clearly identifiable. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that at about 09.53 p.m., said persons who entered inside were shown coming out of the shop but at this time also, their faces were not visible and after about one minute, a person was seen coming out of the shop while dragging his body in sitting posture but face was not visible.
102. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has correctly identified broken pieces of Pepsi and Slice bottles (Ex.P1 colly.) stating that the same were seized by him from the spot.
103. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has also correctly identified one jeans pant having brown stains and one T shirt having brown stains (Ex.P3 colly.) as the clothes of the accused Vijay seized by him and he has also correctly identified one pant FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 52 of 92 having brown stains and one torn/cut shirt having brown stains (Ex.P4 colly.) as clothes of the accused Aman seized by him.
104. PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj has deposed that on 28.06.2017 upon reciept of an information regarding death of injured Deepak in police station vide DD No.15A, he had undertaken the investigation of the case himself from SI Rajender. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that he along with SI Rajender and Ct. Madan Lal had gone to JPN Trauma Center, and met Ronak and Manoj, brothers of deceased, and had prepared inquest papers (Ex.PW7/A) and also filled Form No.25.35 (1)B (Ex.PW21/A). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that he had recorded dead-body identification statements of Ronak (Ex.PW2/A) and Manoj (Ex.PW21/3) and dead-body was handed over to Ronak vide receipt (Ex.PW2/C). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that after postmortem of the deceased, duty constable had handed over the exhibits, namely, nail clippings of the deceased and blood in gauge along with sample seals, taken the same into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/A), and deposited the case property in malkhana.
105. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that on 29.06.2017, he had gone to concerned Saket Court where the accused Aman had been produced from JWB as he had been declared major, thereafter, he had made an application (Ex.PW21/C) for interrogation and formal arrest of FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 53 of 92 the accused. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that with the permission of the Court, he had formally arrested him vide arrest memo (Ex.PW19/B) and he had also recorded the disclosure statement (Ex.PW19/A) of the accused.
106. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that on 02.08.2017, he had sent the weapon of offence through Ct. Dharmender to FSL for its examination vide application (Ex.PW21/D). It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that during investigation, he had collected the opinion (Ex.PW7/C) of the same.
107. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that on his calling, Inspector Mukesh Jain, Draughtsman had visited the place of occurrence i.e. scene of crime on 06.09.2017, and prepared scaled site-plan. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that it was later on collected by him.
108. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that DVR was sent to FSL for forensic analysis on 21.09.2017.
109. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that after completion of the investigation, he had filed the charge-sheet before the Court, and during investigation, he had collected the PCR Form pertaining to the call and the FSL FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 54 of 92 result and filed the supplementary charge-sheet before the Court. PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj has correctly identified the accused Aman in the Court.
110. The scaled site-plan of the place of incident was got prepared by the investigating officer from PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, the draughtsman.
111. As per the testimonies of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj, the investigating officer of this case that on 06.09.2017, upon his calling, Inspector Mukesh Jain, Draughtsman had visited the place of occurrence i.e. scene of crime, and had prepared scaled site-plan.
112. PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa, Jr. Forensic/Chemical Examiner, Biology, FSL Rohini, New Delhi has deposed that she was working as mentioned above since August 2011 and she has reported more than 1000 cases related to biological and DNA examination. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that on 21.09.2017, seven sealed parcels were received in DNA unit of the FSL Rohini and same were marked to him for examination. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that seals on all the parcels were intact and tallying with the specimen seal provided which she opened and examined all the parcels. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that on biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the exhibits no. la, lb, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6 FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 55 of 92 and 7 were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated from the exhibit no.la, lb, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that DNA profile was generated from the source of exhibit la and 1b was found to be similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 3, 4 and 5. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 2a, 2b and 7 is found to be similar with each other and after examination of the exhibits, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of SKH FSL DELHI, and her detailed report Ex.PW20/A (running into 3 pages) (colly) bears her signature at Point 'A' on each page.
113. PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad has deposed that on 26.06.2017, on the direction of duty officer, he had gone to House No.1196, gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and met Ct. Jaiveer and SI Rajender there. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that SI Rajender had left him at the spot, and gone to the hospital. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that after some time, crime-team officials had come and inspected the spot, and handed over their report to him and, in the meanwhile, Ct. Rajjo Singh, SI Rajender, the accused Vijay and CCL 'A' had also come at the spot, and he had handed over the crime-team report to SI Rajender.
114. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that Ct. Jaiveer had also come there and after registration of the FIR, he had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 56 of 92 Rajender. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that SI Rajender had interrogated the accused persons, and they had confessed their involvement in the present case and they had also shown the place of occurrence i.e. inside the shop No.1196, to the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that they had also recovered some broken glasses, bottle of slice and pepsi, which were used in commission of crime from the spot. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also lifted the blood sample from the spot, and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/H).
115. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also checked the CCTV footage of the shop no.1197, and prepared site-plan (Ex.PW20/C).
116. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had arrested the accused Vijay vide arrest memo (Ex.PW16/B) and conducted his personal search vide memo (Ex.PW16/C) and also recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/D).
117. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also seized the broken bottle and glasses vide seizure memo (Ex.PW15/B).
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 57 of 92118. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also taken the DVR into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW4/A) bearing my signature at Point 'C'.
119. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that JWO SI Ajeet had apprehended the JCL 'A' in presence of his father and recorded his version (Ex.PW20/B) bearing his signature at Point 'B'. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also prepared pointing out memo (Ex.PW16/G) of the place of occurrence at their instance, bearing his signature at Point 'C'.
120. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also seized clothes of the accused Vijay and CCL 'A' vide seizure memos (Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F) bearing his signatures at Point 'C', respectively, and they had returned to the police station, and the case property was deposited in the malkhana. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that after medical examination, the accused Vijay was sent to police lock-up. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had recorded his statement in police station. PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad has correctly identified both accused persons in the Court.
121. PW24 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi has deposed that he was posted as FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 58 of 92 Record Clerk in AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi and he has been deputed by Faculty In-charge, Dr. Adarsh Kumar to produce the record pertaining to the MLC No.500031484 dated 26.06.2017 of the deceased Pankaj Gandhi @ Deepak, prepared by Dr. Piyush Mishra, vide the authority letter dated 27.07.2024 (Ex.PW24/A) bearing the signature of the Faculty In-charge, Dr. Adarsh Kumar at Point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW24 Mr. Rajender Singh that he has seen the signature and handwriting of Faculty In-charge, Dr. Adarsh Kumar during the course of his duty.
122. It is further deposed by PW24 Rajender Singh that Dr. Piyush Mishra had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not known to the hospital and he had seen the signatures and handwriting of the above-said doctor during the course of his duty.
123. During his examination-in-chief, MLC No.500031484 dated 26.06.2017 of the deceased Pankaj Gandhi @ Deepak was shown to PW24 Rajender Singh, who has identified the signature of Dr. Piyush Mishra at point 'A' on the said MLC (Ex.PW24/B).
124. PW24 Mr. Rajender Singh has brought the certified copy of the death summary (Ex.PW24/C running into two pages) of the deceased Pankaj Gandhi @Deepak, bearing the signature of Mr. Radhey Shyam, Junior Medical Record Officer at Point FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 59 of 92 'A'. It is further deposed by PW24 Rajender Singh that he has seen the signature and handwriting of Mr. Radhey Shyam, JMRT during the course of his duties. This witness was not cross- examined by the accused persons.
125. PW25 HC Ajay has deposed that on 26.06.2017, he was posted as Constable at police station Govind Puri and was present in his beat, when the investigating officer had called him at AIIMS hospital. It is further deposed by PW25 HC Ajay that he had reached at AIIMS hospital and met the investigating officer and his staff members and the concerned doctor had handed over sealed exhibits (blood-in-gauze) of CCL Aman along with sample seal to him. It is further deposed by PW25 HC Ajay that he had handed over the said exhibits along with sample seal to the investigating officer, who had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW20/B). It is further deposed by PW25 HC that during his custody, the seals of the said exhibits had remained intact and the invesetigating officer had recorded his statement.
126. PW26 ASI Yadvir has deposed that on 27.06.2017, he was posted as MHC(M) at police station Govind Puri. PW26 ASI Yadvir has brought register no.19 and 21 pertaining to the year 2017-18. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that on 27.06.2017, the investigating officer SI Rajender Kumar had deposited the sealed pullanda containing the clothes of the accused Vijay (the details of the same is mentioned in seizure FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 60 of 92 memo Ex.PW16/F), sealed pullanda containing the clothes of the accused Aman (the details of the same was mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW16/E), sealed pullanda containing the blood-in- gauze lifted from Shop no.1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi (the details of the same is mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW16/H), sealed pullanda containing the blood-in-gauze of CCL Aman along with sample seal (the details of the same was mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW20/B), sealed pullanda containing the broken pieces of Pepsi and Slice bottle (the details of the same was mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW15/B), one DVR model no. UCAHDHD404N (the details of the same is mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW4/A) and sealed pullanda containing the blood-in-gauze of deceased Deepak @ Pankaj along with sample seal (the details of the same mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW16/A). It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that in the malkhana, he had made an entry (Ex.PW26/A) to that effect at Sr. No.2592 dated 27.06.2017. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that on 28.06.2017, Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj had deposited two sealed pullandas containing one plastic bottle and one paper envelope along with two sample seals in the malkhana. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that he had made an entry (Ex.PW26/B) to that effect at Sr. No.2593 dated 28.06.2017.
127. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that on 02.08.2017, on the instructions of the investigating officer, he had handed over one sealed parcel containing the broken bottle FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 61 of 92 of cold-drink (Pepsi and Slice) and some pieces of glass having blood stains, duly sealed with the seal of 'RK' to Ct. Dharmender, for depositing the same at AIIMS Hospital vide RC no.126/21/17 (Ex.PW10/A) dated 02.08.2017. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI that on 21.09.2017, on the instructions of the investigating officer, he had handed over seven sealed exhibits along with three sample seals to Ct. Deepram vide RC No.145/21/17 dated 21.09.2017 (Ex.PW11/A) for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that Ct. Deepram had deposited the said articles at FSL Rohini against the acknowledgement (Ex.PW26/C) and the same was deposited in the malkhana.
128. PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi has deposed that he has been authorized by Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha, Faculty in-charge, Medical Record Section, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi to bring office record of MLC No.500031485/26June, 2017 of the injured Aman prepared by Dr. Jyothi Nandanan, JR Surgery, Trauma Centre, AIIIMS and deposed with regard to said MLC. It is further deposed by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma that his authorization letter (Ex.PW27/A) showed signature of Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha at Point 'A'. Having seen the aforesaid original MLC kept on judicial record (Mark A), It is deposed by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma that it showed signature of Dr. Jyothi Nandanan at point 'A' and the original MLC was exhibited as (Ex.PW27/B). It is further deposed by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 62 of 92 Sharma that Dr. Jyothi Nandanan had then left services of AIIMS Trauma Centre and his present whereabouts were not known. It is further deposed by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma that he has been working in Medical Record Section of AIIMS Trauma Centre since January 2015 and during the course of his duties, he has seen Dr. Jyothi Nandanan writing and signing, therefore, he has identified his signature and handwriting. The office copy of aforesaid MLC with discharge summary of patient Aman was exhibited as (Ex.PW27/C colly).
129. PW28 Dr. Mehul K, Senior Resident, Department of Emergency Medicine, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi has deposed that he has been authorized by Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha, Faculty in-charge, Medical Record Section, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi to depose on behalf of Dr. Jyothi Nandanan, JR Surgery, Trauma Centre, AIIIMS with respect to MLC No. 500031485/26June2017 of the patient Aman vide authorization letter (Ex.PW27/A) bearing the signature of Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha at Point 'A'. Having seen the MLC (Ex.PW27/B) kept on judicial record, it is deposed by PW28 Dr. Mehul K that as per which, the patient had suffered injuries i.e. laceration 4x2x1cm on occipital region of right scalp and abrasion on right arm.
130. PW29 HC Shish Ram has deposed that he was on patrolling duty in the intervening night of 26/27.06.2017, when SI Rajender Kumar had called him up and instructed to reach at 1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and he had reached there and FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 63 of 92 met SI Rajender Kumar along with staff, who had apprehended the accused persons Vijay and Aman. It is further deposed by PW29 HC Shish Ram that as the accused Aman had told that he was a minor, SI Rajender Kumar had called Juvenile Welfare Officer, SI Ajit, who reached at the spot. It is further deposed by PW29 HC Shish Ram that the father of Aman was also called at the spot and the investigating officer had inquired from the accused persons and the accused Vijay was duly arrested in the present case, while apprehension memo of Aman was prepared.
131. It is further deposed by PW29 HC Shish Ram that the investigating officer had taken wearing clothes of both the accused persons, which were bloodstained in possession, by separately seizing them and on the pointing of the accused Vijay, investigating officer had prepared the pointing out memo of spot vide memo (Ex.PW29/A), thereafter, investigating officer had recorded his statement to the aforesaid facts. PW29 HC Shish Ram has correctly identified both the accused persons Aman and Vijay in the Court.
132. PW30 HC Dharamvir Yadav has deposed that he was working in the police control room for last two and half months and in the present case, summons were received in police control room to bring office record and certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding CPCR DD No.26JUN171130535 pertaining to present case. It is further deposed by PW30 HC Dharamvir Yadav that in the year 2021, FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 64 of 92 the PCR calls made at 100 number were changed to be called at 112 number and at that time, due to some technical problem in the mother board of their computer system, old PCR data of the calls made at 100 number got deleted from their system and could not be retrieved, therefore, the required PCR Form and certificate cannot be brought and the copy of the order of DCP concerned in this regard was exhibited as Ex.PW30/A.
133. In the light of the charge framed against accused persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are the points for determination:
1. Whether the accused persons have caused death of the deceased Deepak Gandhi, with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom harm is caused., or with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death., or with the knowledge that the fact is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 65 of 92
2. Whether the accused persons had acted in furtherance of the common intention in committing the above offence.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
134. In the present case, the criminal justice system was set into motion on receiving of an information regarding ' jhagde me chaku maar diya' from Control Room Operator J-63 in the duty room of the police station Govind Puri on 26.06.2017 at about 10.09 p.m., which was recorded vide DD No.55.
135. PW8 ASI Devanand has proved the DD No.55 (Ex.PW8/A). As per the testimonies of PW8 ASI Devanand, he was working as DD writer in the police station Govind Puri on the relevant date, and the above information from the police control room was recorded by him vide DD No.55 (Ex.PW8/A), which was marked to SI Rajender, and he was informed about the same on phone, who had left for the spot.
136. It is also in the evidence of PW8 ASI Devanand that on the same day, at about 11:05 p.m., he had received another information from duty constable Jasbir from the Trauma Center, AIIMS about the admission of Pankaj Gandhi in Hospital by some passersby, which information was recorded vide DD No.65A (Ex.PW8/B), and the information in that regard was given to SI Rajender.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 66 of 92137. It is important to note here that PW8 ASI Devanand was not cross-examined by the accused persons, therefore, his above testimonies regarding receiving of the information from police control room regarding the incident and from Trauma Center, AIIMS regarding admission of the deceased to the hospital, and recording of those two information vide DD No.55 (Ex.PW8/A) and DD No.65A (Ex.PW8/B) remained unrebutted.
138. As per the testimonies of PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20 SI Rajender Kumar, in the intervening night of 26 th & 27th June, 2017 at about 10.15 p.m., upon receipt of a DD No.55 (Ex.PW8/A) regarding stabbing of a person at Building No.1196, Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, they had reached at the spot, which was a shop.
139. It is in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that public persons/passerby were present there and he had inquired and inspected the spot. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the blood was lying spilled inside the shop, which was a small grocery shop and broken glass bottles of soft drink were lying inside the shop.
140. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that in the meantime, HC Rajinder, who had also reached at the spot called crime-team at the spot.
141. As per the testimonies of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar, in the meantime, upon receipt of another DD No.65A police FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 67 of 92 station Govind Puri from the Trauma Centre, AIIMS regarding intimation of admission of the injured Deepak Gandhi and the accused Aman Poddar, leaving HC Rajinder for the preservation of spot, he along with Ct. Jaivir had gone to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, where the injured Deepak son of late Mewa Ram was found admitted in the hospital.
142. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had collected the MLC of the injured, in which the concerned doctor had declared him 'unfit for statement'.
143. The above-said testimonies of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar have been duly corroborated by PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW23 ASI Rajener Prasad.
144. Regarding registration of FIR, testimonies of PW1 ASI Roop Singh, PW2 Raunak, PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar are relevant.
145. It is in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had met and inquired brother of the deceased, namely, Raunak in the hospital, and recorded his statement/complaint (Ex.PW2/A) and in the hospital, thereafter, he had endorsed the complaint and prepared rukka (Ex.PW20/A), and sent it through Ct. Jaivir for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that Ct. Jaivir had returned to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him as investigation was assigned to him.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 68 of 92146. The above-said testimonies of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar have also been duly corroborated by the PW16 Ct. Jaibir.
147. PW2 Raunak, the complainant had proved his statement (Ex.PW2/A) recorded by the police officials.
148. PW1 ASI Roop Singh was working as duty officer on the date of incident, when as per his testimonies, Ct. Jaibir had presented the rukka sent by SI Rajender to him for registration of the FIR. It is also in the evidence of PW1 ASI Roop Singh that he had registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A), bearing his name at point A, through Computer Operator on the basis of said rukka. PW1 ASI Roop Singh has brought the original FIR register, and he has also proved the endorsement to that effect as well as his signature at point A on the rukka (Ex.PW1/B).
149. PW16 Ct. Jaibir has duly corroborated the above- testimonies also of PW1 ASI Roop Singh.
150. From the testimonies of PW1 ASI Roop Singh, PW2 Raunak, PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR against the accused persons. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused persons have not been disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 69 of 92151. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the crime-team had visited and inspected the spot, and taken its photographs. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that fingerprint proficient from the crime-team had lifted chance-prints from broken piece of glass bottles found lying inside the shop of the deceased, and he had seized the broken piece of glass bottles of Pepsi and Slice found lying inside the shop in a plastic box sealed with the doctor tape with his seal of 'RK' and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW15/B).
152. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had found blood being spilled inside the shop and stairs of the shop, and he had lifted the blood, which was spilled on the stairs of the shop with the cotton gauze and sealed it in an envelop Mark A. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had lifted the blood, which was spilled on the floor inside shop with the help of cotton gauze and sealed it in an envelop Mark B and he had sealed both the envelops with his seal of 'RK' and seized them vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/H).
153. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that when the accused Aman Poddar had met him in Trauma Centre AIIMS, his wearing clothes were also having bloodstains and therefore, he had got his clothes changed and seized his clothes viz., one pant of cream colour (checkdaar) and a t-shirt of red and black colour on the collar of which 'Garments, spl.garments.com' was inscribed. It is also in the evidence of FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 70 of 92 PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that both the said clothes were containing bloodstains and he had prepared a cloth pullanda of the above clothes of the accused Aman, sealed it with the eal of RK, and seized it vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/E).
154. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that on the same day, Ct. Jaivir had handed over a pullanda sealed with the seal of 'CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND', which was handed over to them by the concerned doctor in the Trauma Center containing bloodstained clothes of Deepak @ Pankaj Gandhi along with sample seal to him, which were seized by him vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A).
155. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the case property was deposited in the malkhana.
156. Regarding arrest of the accused Vijay, it is in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had interrogated both the accused persons and during interrogation, recorded disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/D) of the accused Vijay and arrested him and conducted his personal search vide (Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C). It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the accused Vijay had pointed out the spot of incident i.e. shop of the deceased and he had prepared pointing out memo (Ex.PW16/G).
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 71 of 92157. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that on the morning of next day i.e. 28.06.2017, upon receipt of an information regarding intimation of death of the injured Pankaj Gandhi from Trauma Centre, AIIMS vide DD No.15A, police station Govind Puri, section 302 IPC was added, and he had handed over case file to Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj/the then SHO, police station Govind Puri, who himself had taken up the further investigation of the present case. The said testimony of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has been corroborated by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, who was posted as SHO of the police station Govind Puri at the relevant time, and as per his testimony, upon receipt of information about death of the injured, he along with SI Rajender Kumar and other staff had reached the Trauma Center, AIIMS.
158. For proving the commission of offence by the accused persons, testimonies of PW2 Ronak, brother of the deceased and PW5 Smt. Manju, mother of the deceased are relevant.
159. It is in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that on 26.06.2017 at around 09:45 p.m., he was present in the street near his shop at 1196/13, Govind Puri in the name and style of Deepak Store, which was run by him and his brother Deepak (deceased). It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that Aman and Vijay used to visit their shop to purchase goods and they had some quarrel on the issue of payment pending with them quite FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 72 of 92 often prior to the date of incident. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that in that night, he had seen the accused persons Vijay and Aman going towards Transit Camp and on his asking, they had told him that they had killed his brother and their clothes were having bloodstains. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that he had immediately reached his shop, and found his brother lying in the pool of blood on the floor. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that his neighbours had taken his brother to Trauma Center, and he had gone to his house and reached at Trauma Center along with his mother as he was under the trauma. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that police officials were present in the hospital, and both the accused persons were also there, and he had pointed out and identified them and police officials had apprehended them.
160. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that his brother had passed away in the hospital on the next day.
161. PW2 Ronak has correctly identified both the accused persons Vijay and Aman during his evidence.
162. During final arguments, learned counsel for the accused Vijay has contended that PW Ronak is an interested witness being brother of the deceased. Such contention raised by learned counsel for the accused Vijay is not sustainable for the reason that in examination-in-chief, as noted above, it is clear that the place of incident i.e., shop in the name and style of FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 73 of 92 Deepak Store was run by PW Ronak and his brother Deepak (deceased). As per cross-examination of PW2 Ronak, the said shop was opened at 6:00 a.m. and closed at 11:00 p.m., and there was no servant in the shop. The said testimonies of PW2 Ronak has remained intact. Therefore, the presence of PW2 Ronak in the street near his shop was quite natural and obvious.
163. The prosecution has also set up the present case on the basis of last seen together theory against the accused persons.
164. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120 has analysed various judgments on last seen theory and held as follows:
6. It may be noted that once the theory of "last seen together"
was established by the prosecution, the accused was expected to offer some explanation as to when and under what circumstances he had parted the company of the deceased. It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the part of the accused may be used against the accused as it may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances required to be proved against him. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact, when the theory of "last seen together" as propounded by the prosecution was proved against him.FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 74 of 92
In case of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi), it was observed as under:
"12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to note that the reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused as to how and when he/she parted company with the deceased has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a case, Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an explanation that appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged. Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. This, however, does not mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his/her knowledge and which cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances."
In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, this Court observed as under: -
"6. We have considered the respective submissions and the evidence on record. There is no eyewitness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 75 of 92 corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes- a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine."
In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible that though the last seen theory as propounded by the prosecution in a case based on circumstantial evidence may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base conviction solely on such theory, when the said theory is proved coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused does owe an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death might have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established and some other corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the conviction could be based on such evidence.
165. For establishing and proving the last seen together theory, testimonies of PW5 Smt. Manju are relevant.
166. It is in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that Deepak @ Gandhi (the deceased) was her son and on 26.06.2017, at about 07:30 pm, she was present in her house, and when her son Deepak @ Gandhi was taking dinner, Aman (accused), Vijay (accused), Deepak, Pankaj and one another boy (name not FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 76 of 92 known) had come to her house and they all asked her son Deepak @ Gandhi to accompany them by saying that they would be coming back in five minutes. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that after one and a half hour, she had come to know that a quarrel had taken place between her son Deepak @ Gandhi and both the accused persons. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that she had also come to know that her son was bleeding and on hearing that, she had gone to street No.13, Govind Puri, where the above quarrel had taken place, and come to know that her son Deepak @ Gandhi had been taken to Trauma Center by Pankaj. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that her son had died due to the injuries received by him in the above quarrel and the neck of her son was cut.
167. The above testimonies of PW5 Smt. Manju to prove the last seen together theory and the accused persons along with other persons calling the deceased from his house and taking away with them, have not been rebutted on behalf of the accused during evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju and she was not cross- examined by the defence on this point. Even, the suggestion that the accused persons had not called the deceased from their house and taken him along is not given to PW5 Smt. Manju during her cross-examination.
168. It is well settled law that cross-examination is a matter of substance and not of procedure, one is required to put one's version in the cross-examination of an opponent. The effect FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 77 of 92 of non-cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has not been disputed.
169. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. State (Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658 as under: -
"175. It is settled law that where a witness is not cross- examined on any relevant aspect, the correctness of the statement made by a witness cannot be disputed. (See the decisions of Supreme Court reported as State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1328 and Rajinder Prasad v. Darshana Devi AIR 2001 SC 3207)."
170. Further, the Hon'ble MP High Court in Moti Lal and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Crl.L.J (NOC) 125 has held that it is a well settled principle of law that when the accused does not challenge a prosecution witness in his cross- examination on certain facts, it leads to inference of admission of that fact. In Moti Lal's case (supra), the Hon'ble MP High Court observed as follows:-
"In Velu Pillai Padikalingam v. Paramandam it was ob- served; "every cross-examiner should and can if he is careful indicate in cross-examination whichever part of the evidence given in examination-in-chief is challenged and an omission to do so would lead to the inference that the evidence is accepted subject of course to its being assailed as inherently improbably." Again in Sayed Aleem v. State of Karnataka it was observed that non-cross-examination of prosecution witnesses of certain facts leds to admission of that fact, circumstances could be taken for considera- tion. Thus, non-consideration, particularly P.W3 Achhelal and P.W.4 Bhajna, on what is being projected in the de- fence has been rightly held by the trial as sheer after- thought."FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 78 of 92
171. Similarly, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) 471 held as follows:
"It is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in cross-examination it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted. A decision of the Calcutta High Court lends support to the observation as above. (See in this context AEG Carapiet v. AY Derderian : AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 (P.B. Mukherjee, J. as he then was)]."
172. In view of the above discussion and in the light of judgments in Rakesh Kumar's case (supra), Moti Lal's case (supra) and Sarwan Singh's case (supra), the statement made by PW5 Smt. Manju, I hold that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused persons had called the deceased from his house at 07:30 p.m., and taken him along.
173. It is also important to note here that PW6 Dr. Om Prakash, PW8 ASI Devanand, PW9 HC Madan, PW10 Ct. Dharmender and PW11 Ct. Deep Ram were also not cross- examined by the accused persons and the testimonies made during their examination-in-chief stand proved.
174. The incident, as per the testimonies of PW2 Ronak, had happened at about 09:45 p.m. On the same day, at noted above, the deceased was called from his house and taken along by the accused persons at about 07:30 p.m. FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 79 of 92
175. To prove the fact that earlier also there were some disputes between the deceased and the accused persons, it is in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that she belonged to Khatik Caste which falls under SC/ST and the accused Aman used to call her son by "Gandi Khatik sudhar ja and chuda chamaar". It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that Deepak, the brother of the accused Aman, also used to pass such caste related derogatory remarks to her son Deepak @ Gandhi about which he used to tell her. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that on 29.06.2017, she had given a complaint (Ex.PW5/A) to SHO regarding the aforesaid incident. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that during the course of investigation, she had also given an affidavit (Ex.PW5/B) to prove her caste as 'Khatik'.
176. As per the unrebutted testimony of PW2 Ronak also, the accused persons used to visit the shop of the deceased to purchase goods and they had disputes regarding pending payment. Even otherwise, the accused Vijay has, during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that the deceased and his family were owing some money to the accused Vijay, and after death of the deceased, his family members have falsely implicated him in order to avoid repayment. During the arguments also, learned counsel for the accused Vijay has also contended that infact, the accused had lent money to the deceased.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 80 of 92177. From the above, is has been established that there were some disputes between the deceased and the accused persons, which trigerred the quarrel between them, due to which, the life of the deceased was lost.
178. It is also important to note here that from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has successfully proved that both the accused persons Vijay and Aman were present in the hospital, where the deceased was under
treatment before his death. It is in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that she had gone to the AIIMS Trauma Center, where she had seen the accused persons Vijay and Aman were also present. As per the testimony of PW2 Ronak also, both the accused persons were also there in the hospital, and upon his pointing out and identification, the police officials had apprehanded them. The testimonies of PW2 Ronak have been duly corroborated by PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar.
179. As per the statement (Ex.PW2/A) of the complainant Ronak also, which formed basis of registration of FIR, the complainant has specifally named the accused persons, who had visited the shop of the deceased and the complainant was present in the street and the accused persons had told the complainant that they had killed his brother.
180. Further, the presence of the accused persons at the hospital has also been proved by the MLC (Ex. PW27/B) of the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 81 of 92 accused Aman, which has been proved by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma and PW28 Dr. Mehul K. As per the MLC C (Ex. PW27/B, on the date of incident, the accused Aman had also gone to Trauma Center, AIIMS with alleged history of assault, and was examined there on June 26, 2017 at 22:43:59 hours.
181. MLC (Ex. PW24/A) of the deceased has been proved by PW24 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk from the Trauma Center, AIIMS. As per the MLC (Ex. PW24/A), the deceased was brought to Trauma Center, AIIMS on June 26, 2017 at 22:27:52 hours with alleged history of assault.
182. The postmortem of the deceased was got conducted by the investigating officer, Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj.
183. It is in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj that upon receipt of information regarding death of injured Deepak, further investigation of the present case was undertaken by him, and he along with SI Rajender and Ct. Madan Lal had gone to JPN Trauma Center, where he had met Ronak and Manoj, brothers of the deceased. It is also in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj that he had prepared inquest papers (Ex.PW7/A) and also filled Form No.25.35 (1)B (Ex.PW21/A).
184. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has duly corroborated the above-said testimonies of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 82 of 92185. For proving the injury on the person of the deceased, testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal are relevant.
186. As per the testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, he was working as Senior Resident in JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi, and on 28.06.2017, upon receipt of inquest papers, he had conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased brought and identified by Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj/IO on the basis of an application (Ex. PW7/A) and his detailed postmortem report is Ex. PW7/B; upon examination, he had opined the cause of death in the present case was, "hemorrhagic shock via injury No.1 and injury No.1 caused by sharp edged weapon/object which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, injury No.2 and 3 were caused by blunt force/impact" and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal has duly proved the postmortem report and his signature on it.
187. As per postmortem report (Ex.PW7/B), the cause of death of the deceased was "hemorrhagic shock via injury No.1 and injury No.1 caused by sharp edged weapon/object which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, injury No.2 and 3 were caused by blunt force/impact" and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
188. Regarding nature of injury on the person of deceased, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal has opined that injury No.1 caused FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 83 of 92 by sharp edged weapon/object which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
189. From the testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar and PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, it has been duly proved that postmortem of the deceased was conducted by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal.
190. From the testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, the nature of injury present on the person/deceased has also been duly proved to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
191. Regarding identification of the dead body of the deceased, it is in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that he had recorded dead-body identification statements (Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW21/3) of Ronak and Manoj. The said testimony has been corroborated by PW2 Ronak, and as per his testimonies, he had identified the dead-body of his brother Deepak in the mortuary of the hospital vide memo (Ex.PW2/B). It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that after the postmortem, body was handed over to his family members vide handing over memo (Ex.PW2/C). the said testimonies have been duly corroborated by PW20 Rajender Kumar.
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 84 of 92192. Dead-body of the deceased, as per testimonies of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, was handed over to Ronak vide receipt (Ex.PW2/C).
193. It is also in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that after postmortem of the deceased, duty constable had handed over the exhibits viz., nail clippings of the deceased and blood in gauge along with sample seals, which he had seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/A), and deposited the case property in malkhana.
194. It is also in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that on 02.08.2017, he had sent the weapon of offence to FSL for its examination through Ct. Dharmender vide application (Ex.PW21/D) and during investigation, he had collected the opinion (Ex.PW7/C) of the same. PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal proved the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW7/C).
195. As per the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW7/C), on perusal of the above documents, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal was of the considered opinion that injuries mentioned in MLC 500031484/2017, dated 26.06.2017 could be possible by submitted weapon of offence.
196. Regarding completion of investigation, it is in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that after FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 85 of 92 completion of the investigation, he had filed the police report in the Court.
197. It is also in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that during investigation, he had collected the PCR Form pertaining to the call and the FSL result and filed the supplementary police report in the Court.
198. Regarding identification of the accused persons, PW2 Raunak, PW5 Smt. Manju & PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
199. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has correctly identified broken pieces of Pepsi and Slice bottles (Ex.P1 colly.) stating that the same were seized by him from the spot. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has also correctly identified one jeans pant having brown stains and one T shirt having brown stains (Ex.P3 colly.) as the clothes of the accused Vijay seized by him. He has also correctly identified one pant having brown stains and one torn/cut shirt having brown stains (Ex.P4 colly.) as clothes of the accused Aman seized by him.
200. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies have remained FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 86 of 92 consistent. All the prosecution witnesses, who had joined the investigation, have duly corroborated and proved the said fact.
201. The most important piece of evidence against the accused Vijay is the recovery of his blood-stained clothes which matched with the blood of the deceased during forensic examination.
202. As per the testimonies of PW20 Sub-Inspector Rajendra Kumar, on 27.06.2017, when the accused Vijay had met him in the hospital, his wearing clothes were having bloodstains and therefore, he had got his clothes changed and seized his clothes viz., one jeans pant having white and light black colour and his wearing t-shirt having blue, white and slaty colour both containing bloodstains, and he had prepared a cloth pullanda of the above clothes and sealed it with the seal of 'RK' and seized it vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/F).
203. The blood-stained clothes along with other exhibits were deposited by PW11 Ct. Deep Ram to FSL Rohini. It is in the evidence of PW11 Ct. Deep Ram that on 21.09.2017, on the directions of the investigating officer, he had taken seven sealed exhibits and three sample seals from MHC(M) vide RC No.145/21/17 (Ex.PW11/A). It is also in the evidence of PW11 Ct. Deep Ram that he had deposited the above-said sealed exhibits and sample seals in FSL, and obtained the receipt and FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 87 of 92 handed over the receipt to the MHC(M). It is also in the evidence of PW11 Ct. Deep Ram that the case property had remained intact till it remained in his possession. PW11 Ct. Deep Ram was not cross-examined by the accused persons, therefore, his testimonies stand proved.
204. As per road certificate (Ex.PW11/A), the blood- stained clothes of the accused persons along with other exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini.
205. During the examination-in-chief of PW20 SI Rajender, he has correctly identified the clothes i.e. Ex.P3 of the accused Vijay and Ex.P4 of the accused Aman in the Court when produced by the MHC(M).
206. As per the FSL report (Ex.PW22/A), in the description of parcel(s)/exhibit(s), blood-stained clothes of the accused Vijay, which he was wearing at the time of incident are, inter-alia, mentioned at serial number 1 (Parcel No.1) as follows:
Parcel-'1': One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibits '1a' and '1b' described as clothes of accused/injured Vijay.
Exhibit '1a': One jeans pant;s having brown stains.
Exhibit '1b': One T-shirt having brown stains. Parcel '2': One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibits 2a'and '2b'described as clothes of accused/injured Aman.
Exhibit '2a': One pant's having brown stains.FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 88 of 92
Exhibit '2b': One Cut/torn shirt having brown stains.
Parcel '3' : One sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of "FORENSIC MEDICINE JPNATC AIIMS NEW DELHI "
containing exhibit '3'.
Exhibit '3' : Broken pieces of glass bottle having brown stains described as broken bottle of cold drink (Pepsi and slice) and some pieces of glass having brown stains.
Parcel '4' : One sealed brown envelope sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibit 4".
Exhibit '4' : Cotton wool swab having brown stains described as Blood in gauze as marked 'A' Blood lift from the stairs.
Parcel '5' : One sealed brown envelope sealed with the seal of "RK" containing exhibit 5'.
Exhibit '5' : Cotton wool swab on a stick described as Blood in gauze as marked 'B' Blood lift from inside the shop.
Parcel '6' : One sealed plastic bag sealed with the seal of "CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND" containing exhibit'6'.
Exhibit '6': One cut/torn damp Tshirt having foul smelling having brown stains described as clothes of injured Deepak@Pankaj Gandhi.
Parcel '7' : One sealed vial sealed with the seal of "CMO AIIMS HOPT ND" containing exhibit '7'.
Exhibit '7' : One blood vial having dark brown liquid described as Bloodin gauze of injured CCL Aman.
207. The FSL result has been proved by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa, Jr. Forensic/Chemical Examiner, FSL, Rohini, New Delhi. The result of examination in the FSL report (Ex.PW22/A) is reproduced as follows:
FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 89 of 92"Result of Examination:
1. Male DNA profile were generated from the source of exhibits 'la', 'Ib', '2a', '2b', '3', '4', '5' and '7'.
2. DNA profile could not be generated from the source of exhibit '6' which may be due to degradation of sample.
CONCLUSION DNA profile (STR) analysis were performed on the exhibits 'la', 'lb', '2a', '26', '3', '4', '5' and '7' were sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 'la' and '1b' is found to be similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits '3', '4' and '5'. DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits '2a', '26' and '7' is found to be similar with each other."
208. In the light of the FSL report (Ex.PW22/A), it is established that the DNA profile (STR) analysis were performed on the exhibits '1a'(one jeans pant having brown stains of the accused Vijay) and '1b'(one t-shirt having brown stains of the accused Vijay), were sufficient to conclude the DNA profile generated from the source of the exhibit '1a' and '1b' (clothes of the accused Vijay) was found to be similar with the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits '3' (Broken pieces of glass bottle having brown stains described as broken bottle of cold drink (Pepsi and slice) and some pieces of glass having brown stains.), '4' (Cotton wool swab having brown stains described as Blood in gauze as marked 'A' Blood lift from the stairs.) and '5' (Cotton wool swab on a stick described as Blood in gauze as marked 'B' Blood lift from inside the shop.) FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 90 of 92
209. Blood-stained clothes of the accused Vijay had matched with the blood which was found on the blood-stained glass bottle and blood-in-gauze lifted from the stairs of the spot of incident and this fact has been duly proved by FSL expert (PW22 Soni Khampa) by way of her FSL report (Ex.PW22/A).
210. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been successful in proving that on the date of incident, (i) at about 07:30 p.m., the accused persons along with other persons had called the deceased from his house and taken him along, (ii) at about 09:45 p.m., the accused persons were seen coming out of the shop of the deceased i.e. the spot of incident, (iii) during the course of investigation of the present case, blood-stained clothes of accused Vijay were recovered by the investigating officer, (iv) the blood-stained clothes of the accused Vijay along with other exhibits including the blood lifted from the spot of incident was sent to FSL for forensic examination, and (v) the DNA of the blood found on the clothes of the accused Vijay matched with the blood of the deceased lifted from the spot of incident.
211. It is important to note here that after the case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment, the accused Aman died and the present proceedings against him stood abated.
212. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 91 of 92 accused Vijay, so the accused Vijay is found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
213. Let the convict be heard on the question of sentence.
Digitally signed by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2025.07.12
17:20:19 +0530
Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR) on 12thof July, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South-East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 92 of 92