Delhi District Court
S.C. No. State vs . Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 1 Of 51 on 13 December, 2022
DLNW010005812012
Presented on : 11-05-2012
Registered on : 04-06-2012
Decided on : 13-12-2022
Duration : 10 year 07 months 02
days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL.JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
Exhibits as per Annexure 'A'
SC/52084/2016
FIR No. : 50/2012
Police Station : Mahendra Park
Under Sections : 147/148/149/323/302/307/34 IPC
STATE
Vs.
1. Anil @ Pandit
S/o Late Sh. Anand Sharma
R/o I-1957, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
2. Sunil @ Dal Chand
S/o Late Sh. Anand Sharma
R/o I-1957, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
3. Anju
W/o Sh. Sunil @ Dal Chand
R/o I-1957, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 1 of 51
4. Suman
W/o Anil @ Pandit
R/o I-1957, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
5. Mohit
S/o Sh. Subhash Sharma
R/o I-1958, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
6. Rajesh Devi
W/o Sh. Subhash Sharma
R/o I-1958, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
7. Ajay Kumar @ Chhotu (since expired)
W/o Lt. Sh. Anand Sharma
R/o I-1957, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APP for State : Sh. Kumar Sanjay.
Advocate for accused Anil @ Pandit and Suman Sh. Anwar
Ahmad Khan.
Advocate for accused Sunil, Rajesh Devi, Anju and Mohit Ms.
Astha.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offence punishable under : 147/148/149/323/302/307/34 &
174A IPC
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 13.12.2022)
1. The case of prosecution begins with call, vide DD no. 32A, regarding someone arriving with country made pistol in a quarrel at I-1957, Jahangir Puri and threatening to take life. The call was marked to ASI Satyavir. The IO Insp. Rajesh Kumar also reaches spot and finds blood spread on the road and brick, S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 2 of 51 stone, broken stick and broken slipper lying on the road. IO finds eyewitness at the spot. Meanwhile on DD no. 33 A HC Subhash and Ct. Kannu also arrive at spot. Hence IO after leaving police staff at spot leaves for BJRM Hospital and finds:
a) Kuldeep s/O Jai Nath admitted vide MLC No. 37643,
b) Jainath s/O Kali Prasad referred to LNJP Trauma Centre vide MLC no. 37644,
c) Narender s/O Rambihari brought dead vide MLC no. 37741,
d) Pappu Mishra s/O Bode Lal referred to LNJP Hospital vide MLC no. 37742, and
e) MLC no. 37807 of Vinita w/O Narender who was not there.
2. IO tries to find witnesses and meets Vinita at casualty gate and records her statement.
3. In her statement Vinita states that "she resides at house no. I-1860 with her family. The house is of her brother in law Jainath. Her husband Narender and Jainath were in business of selling clothes in weekly market. There are other neighbours, known to them, who are also in same business. At house no. I- 1957, 58, near her house, lives family of Anil, Sunil and Ajay. Anil is kind of a quarrelsome person against whom there are several case registered in police. There was tussle between Jai Nath and family of Anil. Tonight at about 11-11:15 PM, Sunil shouted at Jainath and her nephew Kuldeep to come out of house and he will see them. On his shouting her family members, Jainath, her husband, sister in law Sneh Lata, nephew Kuldeep S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 3 of 51 and younger brother in law Pappu Mishra came out of house. On seeing them Sunil asked JaiNath "bada izzat wala banta hai jab teri ladki bhagi thi tab teri izzat kahan thi". Sunil pointing knife towards them said "aaj me tum logon ko khatm karke roz roz ki chikchik se nijat pa lunga". And on seeing all the family of complainant Sunil started walking towards his house passing threats to kill them all. Complainant and her family members went to his house to reason with him and the moment they reached there, Anil Pandit, Ajay, Rohit, Mohit, Suman wife of Anil, Anju w/o Sunil and Aunt Rajesh Devi came out of the house, armed with sticks and knives, and all of them attacked complainant and her family. Anil Pandit was the first to inflict knife blow on the chest of her husband Narender and instigated Sunil to kill them all. Thereafter Sunil inflicted knife blow on Kuldeep and Ajay attacked Pappu Mishra with knife. The women also barged on them and Suman attacked complainant with knife and Rohit, Mohit and Rajesh Devi also attacked them with brick, stone and sticks. After severely injuring the complainant side they all fled from spot and meanwhile police came. Vinita stated in her statement that police took them to hospital where her husband Narender and nephew Kuldeep were declared dead and she and her brothers in law Jainath and Pappu Mishra were severely injured."
4. After recording the statement, IO, after leaving Ct. Vikas at Hospital, leaves for spot. At the spot IO meets SHO and other staff members and crime team inspects the spot and gets the spot photo/video-graphed. Thereafter IO prepares the rukka and gets the FIR registered. After that IO seizes the exhibits, records S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 4 of 51 statement of witnesses and gets the dead bodies examined post mortem.
5. Jai Nath and Pappu Mishra were initially unfit for statement who were later on discharged on different dates and IO examined them. The IO arrests accused Anil, Sunil, Suman and Anju on 12.02.2011 and on disclosure of accused Anil and Sunil, recovers blood stained knives and seizes them. IO also seizes the sticks, which were used as weapon, at instance of accused Suman and Anju. IO also seizes PCR forms and collects the CAF and CDR of the phone number mentioned in PCR forms.
6. Later on Rajesh Devi and Mohit Sharma surrendered in court and were arrested. Co accused 'R' was CCL and he surrendered before JJB. Thereafter IO collects the PM report and MLCs of injured and sends the recovered knives and blood stained clothes to FSL. Co accused Ajay @ Chhotu could not be traced therefore applies for proceedings u/S 82/83 CR.P.C against him and gets him declared Proclaimed offender (accused Ajay was later arrested but has expired).
7. After completing the investigation IO files the chargesheet concluding that Anil Pandint who has criminal antecedents is feared by all his neighbours and when Jainath was constructing his new house Anil Pandit demanded protection money (Rangdari) from him. As Jai Nath refused to pay money, Anil Pandit and his family members, to show their strength, first instigated Jainath by commenting on his missing daughter and when Jainath and his family members went to his house to S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 5 of 51 advise, Anil and his family, in a planned manner, to kill Jainath and his family, attacked them with deadly weapons. IO filed the chargesheet against all accused persons u/S 147/148/149/302/307/323/34 IPC.
8. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the charge-sheet was committed to this Court by Ld. MM. Supplementary challan was also filed against accused Ajay Kumar @ Chottu (since expired) and committed to this court.
9. Vide order dated 28.07.2012 charge under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/323 IPC was framed against accused Anil @ Pandit, Sunil @ Dal Chand, Anju, Suman, Mohat and Rajesh Devi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 31.01.2013 charge under Sections 147/148/149/302/307/323 IPC was framed against accused Ajay Kumar @ Chhotu and a separate charge under Section 174-A IPC was also framed against accused Ajay Kumar @ Chhotu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
10. In order to discharge its burden prosecution has examined 45 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES/VICTIMS
11. Pw7 Vinita is complainant. Pw7 deposed in the line of complaint and proved her complaint Ex.Pw7/A. Pw7 also identified all the accused persons and deposed about preparation of site plan of the place of incident on her and at the instance of S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 6 of 51 Jainath, on 03.04.2012. Pw7 also deposed that after incident she had went to Guna (MP) for her treatment.
12. Pw11 Pappu Mishra is the victim in the incident. Pw11 deposed that Jainath was constructing his new house at I-1860. As per Pw11 Jainath had good relations with Anil Pandit. However, Anil Pandit had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from Jainath as he Jainath was constructing his house. As per Pw11 Jainath took the demand on a lighter way but later on Narender had paid Rs. 10000/- to Anil Pandit. About the date of incident Pw11 deposed that Pw11 deposed that when his and Jainath's family were present in huse no. I-1860 Jai Nath told him that Sunil, brother of Anil, had abused him and threatened to kill him and when Narrender Mishra asked for the reason why he was threatened and why he did not inform Anil about the threats by Sunil, Jainath told that he had already talked with Anil and Anil has asked to come to his residence to talk with Sunil and to advise him. Pw11 also deposed that Narender advised that Jinath should not visit house of Anil in night however Jainath was convinced that it will not be harmful to visit house of Anil as they had friendly relation. Pw11 further deposed that at about 11.15 pm Sunil came outside the house no. I-1860 and started shouting at and abusing Jainath saying "bada izzat wala banta hai, jab teri ladki bhagi thi tab teri izzat kahan thi". Pw11 further deposed that at that time Sunil was armed with a knife and passed threats while pointing knife towards them saying "aaj tum logon ko khatm karke roz roz ki chik chik se nijat pa lunga". Pw11 further deposed that on seeing family members of Jainath and pw11 gathered, Sunil started walking towards his house and he and S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 7 of 51 other members except Pankaj Mishra followed Sunil. Pw11 further deposed that when they reached at corner of street all the accused persons suddenly attacked Pw11 and others. Pw11 gave name of all accused who attacked them and deposed that Rajesh Devi and Anju were having Dandas in their hand and other including CCL (R) were armed with knives and accused Sunil was also having Danda beside knife in his hand.
Pw11 narrated the incident that Anil caught hold of Narender Mishra and stabbed with a knife on his chest saying that "meri baat na manane walon ko mai aise hi saja deta hu, unki saat pushtey bhi bhool nahi payengi" Accused Anil asked accused Sunil to kill all parties from complainant side after which Sunil stabbed Kuldeep with a knife and accused Ajay stabbed twice, with knife, on the abdominal area of Pw11 and Mohit stabbed Jainath with a knife while he was caught by CCL (R). Complainant Vinita was caught by accused Rajesh Devi and Anju and accused Suman inflicted injuries on Vinita with knife and danda.
Pw11 deposed that they did not get any chance to defend themselves due to sudden attack however they tried to save themselves by throwing stones at accused persons. Pw11 further deposed that after beating them accused persons fled from spot and he saw that Kuldeep was bleeding from his chest and head and was crying for help in pain and after noticing condition of Kuldeep he fainted and regained his consciousness at JPN Hospital where he came to know about death of his brother Narender and nephew Kuldeep. Pw11 also deposed that after S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 8 of 51 getting discharge he went to his native village at Kanpur and and on 09.03.2012 gave his statement to police.
13. Pw12 Sneh Lata is wife of Jai Nath who was present in the house at the time when Jainath told about threats passed by Sunil and was part of that conversation regarding visiting the house of Anil. She is also witness to the fact when Sunil came outside their house and threatened and provoked Jainath by insulting him questioning his pride quoting his missing daughter. She had also accompanied her family while visiting the house of Anil to complain about Sunil and is a victim as well as witness of the sudden attack by accused persons.
Towards the incident Pw12 deposed in the line of Pw11 and also deposed about the presence of all the accused persons armed with knives and dandas and how each accused played role in inflicting injuries on family members. Pw12 deposed that on seeing the incident and condition of her family members she lost her consciousness. Pw12 is unaware who shifted her to home. Pw12 also deposed about friendly relation between Anil and her husband Jainath and the demand of Rs. 50,000/-. Pw12 also deposed that Narender had given Rs.10000/- to Accused Anil but he was not satisfied and has demanded 40,000/- more. On a leading question, with permission of court, on behalf of State, Pw12 admitted that Pankaj Mishra who had stayed at home had also arrived at spot after hearing the noise of quarrel.
14. Pw13 Jainath is one of the victim and father of deceased Kuldeep. He deposed that in January 2012 when he started S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 9 of 51 construction of his house accused Anil Pandit had demanded Rs.50000/- as protection money, otherwise he would not be allowed to construct the house. Therefore he gave Rs. 10,000/- to Anil Pandit through his brother in law Narender. Pw13 deposed about the incident that on 11.02.2012 at about 10.30 pm when he was standing near Parchun khokha in front of his house Sunil and his wife Anju reached there and they started abusing him. Pw13 requested them not to abuse but they did not listen and after purchasing eggs they went away from there. Therefore Pw13 called his brother in law Narender who came there with Pappu Mishra and Pankaj Mishra and they all went to their house at I- 1860. Pw13 deposed that when he and his family members were talking accused Sunil came to his house armed with a knife and started abusing them and asked them to come outside. Pw13 also deposed that accused Sunil insulted Pw13 by questioning his pride asking about his missing daughter and threatened that he will finish this everyday haggle (chikchik) by finishing them all. After that Pw13 and family members decided to to complain about conduct of Sunil to his brother Anil and all the family members went towards the house of Anil Pandit. Pw13 further deposed that when his family came out of house he noticed presence of accused persons, armed with knives and sticks and on seeing Pw13 and his family members accused Anil Shouted "Maro Salon ko, jo hamari baat nahi mante aur hame paise unki saat peedion tak yaad rehna chahiye, aaj inko aisa sabak sikhao". Pw13 also deposed about the incident in the line of Pw7, 11 and 12. Pw13 also deposed that one lady Pushpa Gupta called her son Ashish and asked him to take Kuldeep to hospital after which Kuldeep was taken into a car and he also sit in that S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 10 of 51 car. Pw13 further deposed that when the car reached near 500 wali gali PCR met them and then Kuldeep and he were shifted into PCR and on the way to hospital he became unconscious. Pw13 further deposed that he regained consciousness at LNJP hospital where Pappu Mishra was also admitted and on his inquiry he came to know that his son Kuldeep and brother in law Narender have died. Pw13 was discharged after 3-4 days but he could not give statement to police till 09.03.2012 as was under
shock and on 09.03.2012 he gave his statement after which police had prepared site plan at his instance. Pw13 proved site plan Ex.Pw13/A and identified all accused persons as well as weapons of offence Ex.P1 to P3, P9 and P10. He also identified the clothes of Kuldeep Ex.P4 and P5, T-shirt, Shoes and track pants of Narender Ex.P6, 7 and 8 respectively. Pw13 also identified the blood stained clothes, worn by him on the date of incident, Ex.P11 to P15. Pw13 also deposed that before going to his house, after he was abused by accused Sunil, Pw13 had met with accused Anil and complained about the conduct of Sunil on which Anil had asked Pw13 to come to his house. Pw13 also deposed that on 3.4.2012 the IO along with SI Manohar lal had come to spot where at his and Vinita's instance SI Manohar lal took measurements and notes of the spot.
15. Pw14 Sohan Kant Mishra and Pw15 Kailash Mishra proved dead body identification memo and handing over memo of deceased Kuldeep and Narender, Ex.Pw14/A and Ex.Pw14/B respectively.
16. Pw21 is Ashish and he deposed that on 11.02.2012 at S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 11 of 51 about 11.30 pm his mother informed him that Kuldeep has sustained injuries and he is bleeding and since police has not arrived despite call at 100 number he should shift Kuldeep to hospital. Pw21 further deposed that on call of his mother he reached at spot where he found Kuldeep and Jainath lying on road in injured condition and were bleeding therefore he laid both of them in his vehicle and drove towards hospital and at 500 wali gali, as he met PCR, injured Kuldeep and Jainath were shifted in PCR Van.
17. Pw22 Pushpa is resident of J-1828 and runs a kiosk near J-1820. She deposed that on 11.02.2012 at around 11-11.30 she heard some loud noises so she came out of his house and saw that Kuldeep was lying on the ground near her kiosk and he was bleeding therefore she called her son Ashish to shift Kuldeep to hospital. Pw22 also deposed that when Ashish was putting Kuldeep in the Jeep Jainath also came running in injured condition and he also sat on that jeep. Pw22 deposed that Jainath told her that Sunil and Anil had caused injuries to him and his other family members. As Pw22 did not deposed about the facts prior to incident, Ld. APP, with permission of court, put some leading questions to Pw22 and she admitted that at about 10.30 pm on that day accused Sunil had come with his wife, in his car, and stopped near her kiosk and was purchasing eggs and when Jainath came there accused Sunil had abused Jainath to which Jainath had objected. Pw22 also admitted that after sometime accused Anil had also come there and Jainath had complained to him regarding the conduct of Sunil on which Anil had asked Jainath to come to his house.
S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 12 of 51
18. Pw26 Pankaj Mishra is brother in Law of Jainath who was residing with him. Pw26 deposed about the relationship between Jainath and Anil being cordial initially but strained after Anil demanded 50000 to allow him to construct his house. To the incident Pw26 deposed that as accused Sunil had threatened Jainath, family of Janath and Pappu Mishra had went towards house of Sunil to advise him and after sometime when he heard screams and cries he rushed towards the house of Anil and in Gali 2000 wali he saw the accused persons beating the families of Papu Mishra and Jainath. Pw23 narrated what he saw which is in the line of other injured witnesses. Pw26 also deposed that after seeing the neighbours gathering the accused persons fled in a TATA Indigo car. Pw23 had gone to hospital with injured and accompanied Pappu Mishra and Jainath to LNJP hospital on referral from BJRM Hospital. Pw26 proved the dead body identification memos of deceased Kuldeep and Narender as Ex.Pw26/A and he is also witness to handing over memo Ex.Pw14/B. Pw26 also deposed that mobile no. 9891744692 was purchased on the ID of Indervesh s/o Chani Lal who hales from his village and used to work with Jainath and he was using that SIM in his mobile phone through which Pw26 had made call at 100 number. This fact was told by Pw26 to IO on 10.04.2012 when IO had inquired about Indervesh.
19. Pw39 Sanjeev Dhawan was declared hostile by state and was subjected to cross examination by Ld. Addl PP but nothing material came out in his cross examination except the admission that arrest memos of accused Suman, Anju and Sunil, S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 13 of 51 Ex.Pw28/A, Ex.Pw28/B and Ex.Pw39/A bear his signatures.
POLICE WITNESSES
20. Pw1 HC Mahender is the duty officer who in the intervening night of 11/12.02.2012 recorded DD no. 32A at about 11.40 pm, DD no. 33 A at about 11.42 pm and DD no. 02A at 12.10 am and proved the copies of same as Ex.Pw1/A, Ex.Pw1/B and Ex.Pw1/C respectively. At about 3.15 pm on same date the FIR of this case was also recorded by Pw1 and he proved the same as Ex.Pw1/D of which Pw1 had made endorsement on Rukka Ex.Pw1/E. After registration of FIR Pw1 also recorded DD no. 8A regarding sending of copies of FIR to higher police official and area magistrate and proved the same as Ex.Pw1/F.
21. Pw2 HC Jitender deposed that on 24.04.2012, on instructions IO, he had collected 17 sealed parcels from MHC(M) vide RC No. 38/21/12 and deposited those parcels alongwith forwarding letter with FSL Rohini, against receipts and handed over those receipts to HC Chander Bhan. Pw2 also deposed that parcels were not tempered, till the time they remained in his possession.
22. PW3 Wct. Rashmi Kandpal was on night duty at PCR Control room in the night of 11/12.02.2012 and she deposed about receipt of a call, at 23.36.33 hrs, from mobile no. 8745863210, regarding misbehavior by one Jainath, in quarrel, at I-1957 Jahangirpuri. She also deposed that call was communicated to concerned PCR zone for necessary action. Pw3 proved the copy of PCR form Ex.Pw3/A. S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 14 of 51
23. Pw4 Wct. Sonika Yadav was also on night duty at PCR Control room in the night of 11/12.02.2012 and she deposed about receipt of a call, at 23.38.33 hrs, from mobile no. 8745863210, regarding intimidation by showing country made gun and threats to take life in quarrel, at I-1957 Jahangirpuri. She also deposed that call was communicated to concerned PCR zone for necessary action. Pw3 proved the copy of PCR form Ex.Pw4/A.
24. Pw5 HC Sudhir was posted at mobile crime team on 12.02.2012. He deposed that on information he along with finger print expert ASI Sajid went to spot with Mobile Crime Team Incharge, SI Satpal. Pw5 also deposed that he was having a digital camera and at the spot he took 15 photographs at the instructions of IO and proved those photographs as Ex.Pw5/A1 to Pw5/A15. Pw5 also proved the compact disc through which the photographs were printed as Ex.Pw5/B.
25. Pw6 HC Ram Avtar was incharge PCR Van in the night of 11/12.02.2012 in PCR Van Commander 43, with Ct. Bijender and Driver Ct. Rakesh. Pw6 deposed that the Van was at Jahangirpuri T Point at 11.47 pm when he received the information regarding brawl near house no. I-1957 and 1860 Jahangirpuri, therefore the van drove towards spot. Pw6 deposed that when the Van reached Gali 500 wali it was signaled to stop by private car in which there were two injured. Pw6 deposed that injured were shifted from private car to PCR Van where in which it was revealed that they sustained injuries in brawl at I-1957 S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 15 of 51 Jahangirpuri. Pw6 also deposed that he found that injured were father and son and their name were Jainath and Kuldeep and they were admitted in BJRM Hospital in unconscious position. Pw6 also deposed that in hospital two more injured Pappu Mishra and Narender Mishra were also brought in a private car and SHO alongwith other staff including ASI Satbir from local police had also arrived.
26. Pw8 Ct. Atul was posted at CPCR and on 11.02.12 at about 23.49 hrs, being Duty Officer he received information regarding call via channel no. 113 and recorded the same vide Ex.Pw8/A and after filing the information he forwarded the same. (IMP)
27. Pw9 Ct. Mahipal was also posted at CPCR who at about 23.39 received information regarding call via channel no. 103 and recorded the same vide Ex.Pw9/A and after filing the information he forwarded the same.
28. Pw10 SI Manohar Lal is the draftsman. Pw10 deposed that on the 03.04.2012 he was called by IO and he reached at spot where at the instance of witness Jainath he took the rough notes and measurement of spot and after returning to office prepared scaled site plan. Pw10 proved the site plan Ex.Pw10/A.
29. Pw16 Retd SI Satpal was incharge crime team on 12.02.2012 who had reached at the spot with other members of crime team. He deposed that he inspected the spot and got the spot photographed through HC Sudhir. Pw16 proved his report S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 16 of 51 Ex.Pw16/A.
30. Pw23 HC Chander Bhan was MHCM PS Mahendra Park on 12.02.2012. he proved the relevant entries of deposit of seized case properties, its departure to FSL and return as Ex.Pw23/A. Pw23 also proved the road certificate Ex.Pw23/B and acknowledgment of FSL Ex.Pw23/C.
31. Pw25 HC Vijay Singh was posted in CPCR on 11.02.2012 who attended call at 23.35.21 on channel no.109 from mobile no. 9891744693 regarding quarrel at I-1860 Jahangirpuri and he proved the PCR form Ex.Pw25.A with certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.Pw23/B.
32. Pw27 W/Ct Rukmani proved the arrest memo and disclosure statement of accused Rajesh Devi Ex.Pw27/A and Ex.Pw27/B respectively. She also proved the spot pointing out memo of Rajesh Devi Ex.Pw27/C. Pw27 further proved the seizure memo of weapon of offence i.e. Danda at the instance of accused Anju, Ex.Pw27/B.
33. Pw28 W/Ct Geeta had joined the investigation with IO on 12.02.2012 and proved the arrest memo of accused Suman and Anju Ex.Pw28/A and B respectively. She also proved personal search memos Ex.Pw28/C and D respectively. Pw28 also deposed that Car Make Tata Indigo bearing registration no. DL 3CAF 9994 was seized by IO from near the house no. F- 6/128 in her presence.
S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 17 of 51
34. Pw29 HC Sudesh Yadav was with IO and other police officials on 12.02.2012 when accused Anil, Sunil, Suman and Anju were arrested and car Tata Indigo was seized. Pw29 deposed that after bringing the accused persons to PS Mahendra Park IO had seized blood stained clothes and shoes of Accused Anil and Blood stained clothes of accused Sunil. Pw29 also deposed about recovery of knives at the instance of accused Anil and Sunil from dry portion of a lake which were photographed and also deposed about presence of blood and dust on knives and their measurements. Pw29 was also present at the time of measurement of spot by SI Manohar Lal on 03.04.2012. Pw29 identified the blood stained sweat jacket and jeans pants of accused Sunil Ex.P-29/1 and P-29/2 respectively. Pw29 also identified half sleeved T- shirt, Track pants and shoes of accused Anil Ex.P-29/3, P-29/4 and P-29/5 respectively. Pw29 also identified the knife recovered at instance of accused Sunil Ex.P- 29/6 and the knife at the instance of accused Anil Ex.P-29/7.
35. Pw31 SI Satyavir Singh had went to spot on DD no. 32A where he found blood on the road of 2000 wali gali I Block Jahangirpuri and as higher police officials reached he was instructed to stay at the spot to preserve the crime scene. Later in his presence crime team inspected the spot.
36. Pw32 HC Subash alongwith Ct. Kannu had visisted the spot on DD no. 33A where he met other police officials and on instruction he accompanied IO to BJRM Hospital. Pw32 deposed that in the hospital IO collected the MLCs and kept the dead bodies of Narender and Kuldeep in mortuary under supervision S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 18 of 51 of Ct. Vikas. Pw332 also deposed that at the gate of casualty IO met Vinita and after recording her statement he accompanied IO to spot.
37. Pw33 Ct. Manish Dev deposed that on 13.02.2012 CT. Vikas arrived at PS with two Pullandas containing clothes of deceased with two sample seals, from BJRM Hospital which were seized by the IO. Pw33 proved the seizure memo of those pullandas as Ex.Pw33/A.
38. Pw34 Ct. Kannu had went to spot on DD no.33 A with HC Subash who was left at spot by IO. Pw34 deposed that at about 3.00 am IO returned to spot and handed him Rukka to get the FIR registered and accordingly he got the same done and returned to spot with copy of FIR and Rukka and handed the same to IO.
39. Pw36 W/Ct. Rekha was having custody of accused Suman on 13.02.2012. Pw36 deposed that on her disclosure accused Suman led the police to a room on the ground floor of house no. I-1957 Jahangirpuri and got recovered a danda which was seized by IO. Pw36 proved the seizure memo of Danda Ex.Pw36/A and identified the Danda Ex.P-36/1.
40. Pw37 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 19.10.2012 he alongwith SI Anoop and HC Sudesh went for search of accused Ajay @ Chhotu and on secret information apprehended accused Ajay at Sanjay Enclave and as he was declared proclaimed offender he was arrested u/S 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. Pw37 proved the S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 19 of 51 arrest memo Ex.Pw37/A and personal search Ex.Pw37/B who was later, in the PS, formally arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.Pw37/C. Pw37 also proved the disclosure statement of accused Ajay Ex.Pw37/D on which he led police to I Block Jahangirpuri and pointed out the spot of crime vide memo Ex.Pw37/D.
41. Pw38 ACP Laxmi Dubey was the IO after 20.09.2012 who had applied for declaring accused Ajay @Chhotu a proclaimed offender and proved application for same filed before MM concerned, Ex.Pw38/A, on which vide order dated 21.09.2012 accused was declared proclaimed offender. Pw38 had collected the FSL result in this case on 16.10.2012 and he had formally arrested and recorded disclosure statement of accused Ajay after he was brought in PS by Pw37. It was Pw38 who was led to spot and pointed out by accused Ajay on which pointing out memo Ex.Pw37/E was prepared by Pw38.
42. Pw41 Inspt Shyam Sunder was SHO PS Mahendra Park of 07.06.2012 who remained IO of this case till he was transferred on 27.02.2012. No material investigation was conducted during his tenure.
43. Pw42 ASI Rajpal Singh had collected 18 envelops, on 16.10.2012 from FSL Rohini containing Exhibits and result and deposited the same in malkhana.
44. Pw43 SI Anoop Singh Yadav was posted at PS Mahendra Park, who on instruction of duty officer reached at spot where IO S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 20 of 51 prepared site plan Ex.Pw43/A in his presence and lifted the blood and blood stained soil from in front of house no. I-1963, 1966 and across the road of house no. I-1966 and sealed them and seized vide memo Ex.Pw43/B. Pw43 also deposed about seizure of two pieces of wooden stick (one stained with blood) vide memo Ex.Pw43/C and brick pieces, stones, one white towel(gamchha) and one left foot plastic slipper vide memo Ex.Pw43/D. Pw43 deposed that all those exhibits were kept in plastic sack and sealed and after coming to PS were deposited in malkhana. Pw43 had also joined investigation on 12.02.2012 and accompanied the IO to hospital where the deceased were examined post mortem and after that went in search of accused persons. Pw43 deposed that when they reached GTK Depot Mukarba Bypass they found accused Anil who was arrested there. He proved the arrest memo of Anil Ex.Pw43/E and his personal search Ex.Pw43/F. Pw43 also proved the disclosure statement of Anil Ex.Pw43G. Pw43 deposed that after recording disclosure, accused Anil led the police team to House of Sanjiv Dewan at F-6/128 sector 16 Rohini where accused Sunil, Anju and Suman were found. Pw43 was also a witness to arrest memos of accused Sunil, Anju and Suman Ex.Pw28/A, Ex.Pw28/B and Ex.Pw39/A respectively and also to personal search Ex.Pw28/C, Ex.Pw28/D and Ex.Pw43/H. Pw43 also deposed about presence of on Tata Indigo car bearing registration no. DL 3CAF 9994 and proved its seizure memo Ex.Pw43/J. Pw43 also proved disclosure statements of accused Sunil, Anju and Suman Ex.Pw43/K, K1 and K2 respectively and deposed about recovery of knives at the instance of accused Anil and Sunil from a place near the lake in front of I block Jahangirpuri. Pw43 proved the S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 21 of 51 sketches of knives Ex.Pw43/L and L1 and narrated its measurement and deposed that the knives were sealed in a transparent plastic container. Pw43 also deposed that the IO lifted the earth control from the place where knives were found and sealed them in containers and proved the seizure memo of knives and earth control vide memos Ex.Pw43/M and M1. Pw43 also deposed that after bringing the accused persons to PS IO seized the blood stained clothes and shoes of accused Anil and blood stained clothes of accused Sunil vide memo Ex./Pw43/N and N1, and sealed the same in a pullanda. On instructions of IO Pw43 had taken all four accused to BJRM Hospital for medical examination and after examination returned to PS and handed the MLCs and blood samples of accused Anil and Sunil to IO which were seized vide memo Ex.Pw43/P. Pw43 had also joined investigation on 19.10.2012 when he alongwith HC Anil Kumar and HC Sudesh had arrested accused Ajay Kumar who was brought to PS and was arrested and on his disclosure accused led to the spot and pointed out the place of crime on which pointing out memo was prepared. Pw43 identified the clothes and shoes of accused Anil and Sunil which were already Exhibited. Pw43 also identified the recovered knives which were already exhibited. Pw43 also identified pieces of bricks and stones lifted from spot EX.P43/1, plastic slipper Ex.P43/2 and white colour towel (ganchha) Ex.P43/3 as the same which were sealed at the spot of crime. Pw43 also identified two pieces of danda Ex.P43/4.
45. Pw44 W/HC Parvesh was posted in CPCR on 11.02.2012 S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 22 of 51 and was at channel no. 134 who received call from mobile no. 9891744692 regarding quarrel at I-2000. She proved the PCR form Ex.Pw44/A.
46. Pw45 Inspt. Rajesh Kumar is the first IO who conducted all the investigation and filed the chargesheet qua all accused persons except Ajay against whom proceedings u/S 82/83 Cr.P.C were initiated. Beside documents already proved by other witnesses, Pw45 proved Rukka Ex.Pw45/A, inquest proceedings of deceased Narender and Kuldeep Ex.Pw45/B and C respectively, disclosure statement and formal arrest memo of accused Amit Ex.Pw45/D and E respectively, pointing out memo of accused Mohit Ex.Pw45/F, application for subsequent opinion on knives recovered Ex.Pw45/G and certificate u/S 65B IEA regarding copy of FIR Ex.Pw45/H. FORENSIC WITNESS
47. Pw40 Ms Manisha Upadyaya Astt. Director Biology FSL Rohini deposed that on 24.04.2012, 17 parcels were received in FSL Rohini which were intact and were matching with sample seals. She further deposed that as per forwarding letter she opened the parcels and took out the exhibits for examination. She proved her biological report Ex.Pw40/A and serological report Ex.Pw40/B. Pw40 also deposed that after examination the Exhibits/remnant were resealed and sent back to forwarding authority with the report on sealed cover.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
48. Pw17 Dr. Yogesh Tekwani was CMO at BJRM. He S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 23 of 51 deposed about admission of injured Jainath and Pappu Mishra and their referral to LNJP hospital and proved their MLC Ex.Pw17/A and Ex.Pw17/B respectively. Pw17 also proved the MLC of injured Vinita Ex.Pw17/C who was examined by Dr. Pankaj under his supervision. Pw17 also proved the MLCs of deceased Narender and Kuldeep Ex.Pw17/D and E respectively.
49. Pw18 Dr. Nishchal Anand proved the opinion on MLC of Jainath, Ex.Pw17/A as dangerous and his discharge summery Ex.Pw18/A. Pw18 also proved the opinion on MLC of Pappu Mishra, Ex.Pw17/B, as dangerous and his discharge summery Ex.Pw18/B.
50. Pw24 Dr. Rahul Jain was deputed by MS LNJP to prove the record of examination of patient Pappu Mishra and opinion on injury by Dr. Nishchal in MLC Ex.Pw17/B.
51. Pw30 Dr. Rachit Singhal Medical Officer BJRM Hospital proved the MLCs of accused Anil and Sunil dated 12.02.2012 as Ex.Pw30/A and B respectively.
52. Pw35 Dr. V K Jha MO BJRM Hospital had conducted post mortem examination on dead bodies of Narender and kuldeep. Pw35 proved the PM report of deceased Narender Ex.Pw35/A and of Kuldeep Ex.Pw35/B. Pw 35 deposed that after PM examination he sealed the blood of deceased on gauze and clothes and handed over the same to IO alongwith PM report and inquest papers. AS per his report all the injuries on deceased were ante mortem and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 24 of 51 cause death. Pw35 also deposed that on 12.04.2012on receipt of letter of IO with two sealed packets containing knives, after examination of same with clothes of deceased and PM report, he gave subsequent opinion on the back side of letter itself and proved said opinion Ex.Pw35/C. Pw35 also proved the sketches of knives, prepared by him, Ex.Pw35/D and Ex.Pw35/E and after resealing handed over all the exhibits to IO.
NODAL OFFICERS
53. Pw19 Shishir Malhotra is Nodal officer from Aircell ltd., who had forwarded the CAF and CDR of mobile no. 91750351978 to IO. He proved the forwarding letter Ex.Pw19/A, certified copy of CDR Ex.Pw19/B and the CAF as per which the SIM was issued in the name of Pankaj, Ex.Pw19/C. Pw19 also proved the copy of ID of Pankaj which was furnished at the time of issuing SIM in his name as Ex.Pw19/D and cell ID Chart Ex.Pw19/F. Pw19 also proved the certificate u/S 65B IEA qua Ex.Pw19/B as Ex.Pw19/E.
54. Pw20 Pawan Singh is nodal officer from Idea cellular. He proved the certified copies of CDR of mobile no. 8745863210 and 9891744692 Ex.Pw20/A and Ex.Pw20/B respectively and also filed certificate u/S 65B IEA qua them Ex.Pw19/E. Pw19 also proved the CAF of above mobile phone, Ex.Pw20/C and Ex.Pw20/D respectively, as per which they belonged to Anju Sharma and Indravesh respectively.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
55. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C all the S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 25 of 51 accused persons claimed that allegations are false as the witnesses have not deposed the true event in the court. It is stated on behalf of accused Sunil, Anil, Anju and Suman that Anil was having dinner in their house when Jainath and his family members barged in their house and started abusing them and when accused Anil requested them not to create scene Jainath gave rod blow on his head and bolted the door and when accused Sunil tried to intervene Jainath took out a Katta and aimed at Sunil therefore Anju made calls at 100 number. As per accused Anil, Sunil, Anju and Suman when Jainath pointed the Katta towards Sunil, Jainath was pushed on which Pappu Mishra attacked Sunil with a chopper after which both side got into scuffle and he is not sure who hit whom with which weapon. It is the claim of accused persons that the scuffle did not take place in the Gali but in house of accused Anil and the witnesses have deposed falsely.
56. Accused Anil denied any demand of extortion/protection money of Rs. 50000/- or receipt of Rs. 10,000/- and also denied that he had called Jainath to his house as he was not aware about any quarrel between Sunil and Jainath. Similarly accused Sunil and Anju denied any any quarrel with Jainath at kiosk. Sunil also denied the allegation of calling Jainath from outside his house and insulting and intimidating him.
57. The accused persons also claimed that accused Ajay was not residing in Jahangirpuri since 2003 and was not present with them and that no female accused were armed with any weapon. It is the claim of defence that they have been falsely implicated S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 26 of 51 just because two of the members of complainant's family died in the scuffle in which no one knew who attacked with what and the act of accused persons, excluding Ajay, was not premeditated but in self defence. To the evidences collected during investigation accused persons have claimed that police have planted the case property upon them and all the memos and documents are prepared by police to make them fit in its false story where their signatures were taken forcibly.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE AS WELL AS PROSECUTION.
58. I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for state, Sh. Anwar Ahmad Khan and Ms. Astha Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
59. It is submitted by Ld defence counsel the prosecution has portrayed the image of accused Anil and his family as local goons and claimed that accused Anil and his family attacked the family of complainant for not fulfilling the demands of Rs. 50,000/- but the same is a false pretext to impute motive behind the crime. Ld. Defence counsel submits that there is no complainant from the side of complainant before date of incident to even suggest that accused Anil was demanding money from Pw13. Ld defence Counsel has referred to cross examination of Pw7/Complainant where she admitted that she had no prior enmity with one of the accused namely Suman against whom she had deposed that Suman attacked her with knife, which shows absence of motive.
60. Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed to the fact that it was the S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 27 of 51 complainant party who had come to house of accused persons and they were misbehaving and threatening the accused persons of which there are two PCR calls from side of complainant, immediately before incident, which corroborates that they were not the aggressor. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed to the fact that complainant side are two families residing at different houses and they have not explained why they had gathered in one house. Ld. Defence Counsel therefore submits that the fact that families from complainant side gather in one house and going to the house of accused persons itself shows that they had planned something sinister against accused persons. To this Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out to the admission of Pw26 where he admitted that there were many criminal cases pending against him and deceased Narender, including under Gunda Act. It is submitted that the deceased Narender was a history sheeter and it was not new for complainant side to get into quarrel. Ld. Defence Counsel also pointed towards the injuries on the body of accused Anil and Sunil, recorded in MLC after their arrest, for which prosecution has not afforded any explanation nor inquired the reason of those injuries. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused Anil and Sunil were attacked by complainant side therefore they had to defend themselves.
61. In the written synopsis in support of arguments Ld. Defence Counsel has raised certain points for consideration to negate the theory of prosecution of a planned attack and formation of unlawful assembly. These points are:
1. Three PCR call in this case were made from Mobile no.
8745863210 belonging to accused Anju as proved vide S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 28 of 51 Ex.Pw20/A and the first call was at 11.32 pm. The PCR Form shows that Jainath was misbehaving (Ex.Pw3/A), Jainath threatening to kill by showing Katta [(country made gun) Ex.Pw4/A and Ex.Pw8/A]. However the prosecution has claimed that first call at 100 number was made from complainant side which is incorrect.
2. Prosecutions claims that none of accused had received injuries which is contrary to MLCs of accused Anil and Sunil.
3. There is no evidence except the statements of witnesses from family of complainant that accused Anil demanded Rs. 50,000/- and was paid Rs. 10,000.
4. It is the complainant side who had come to house of accused persons not vice versa and although it is claimed that they had gone to advise accused Sunil no prior intimation was given to police despite the alleged claim that accused Sunil had threatened to kill them all.
5. The alleged recoveries of weapon are not admissible and reliable because the article seized are commonly used and easily available in market. The knives were allegedly recovered from dried portion of a lake but there is no site plan of place of recovery nor the recoveries were effected in presence of any public witness.
6. Accused Mohit and Rajesh Devi are not the resident of I-
1957 and there is nothing in the investigation to show that they were not present in their house on the date and time of incident and they weren't even arrested with other accused persons on 12.02.2012 which makes it improbable that they were with other accused on the date and time of S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 29 of 51 incident. It is the case that all accused had fled from spot in an Indigo car which was allegedly recovered from the place where accused Sunil, Suman and Anju were arrested but these two accused were not with them.
7. Accused Anju is differently able having a dysfunctional hand to involve in stone pelting or hitting with danda or catching hold of Pw7.
8. Recovery of a Danda is shown from house of accused and it is improbable if the accused persons had fled from spot immediately after the incident. There is no occasion to hide the danda in the house which shows it was planted on accused persons.
9. MLC of Vinita Ex.Pw17/C records only two stab injuries below the buttock on thigh and the nature of injury is simple and it is possibly a self inflicted injury.
10. The statements of injured, except complainant, were not recorded promptly despite they were discharged from hospital.
62. In conclusion it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is nothing on record to show any kind of unlawful assembly as the female accused persons and accused Mohit as well as CCL 'R' had no role in the incident and accused Rajesh Devi and Mohit were not even present there and it was complainant party who had attacked the family of accused by visiting their house and the accuse persons acted in self defence and in melee it is difficult to say who attacked who.
63. Ld. Defence Counsel place reliance on following S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 30 of 51 judgments:
a) Bhagwan Sahai Vs. State of Rajasthan,
b) Brij Nandan Rai Vs. State of Bihar 1991 (39) BLJR 1284,
64. Per contra, Ld. Addl PP for State and Ld. Counsel for complainant submitted that the case of prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubts against all accused persons as defence has, except for natural contradictions/variations in the testimonies of prosecutions witnesses, failed to to bring out any circumstance to not accept the testimonies of witnesses or doubt them and, to the plea raised in cross examination and statement u/S 313 CR.P.C, not produced any evidence or substance on record.
65. The points for consideration raised from the side of prosecution and complainant are:
1. Presence of human blood from knives recovered at the instance of accused persons which matched with the blood of deceased Kuldeep,
2. Similar version of eye witnesses about conduct of accused Anil demanding money and correct identification of accused persons by injured and victims during their examination in witness box.
3. The death of Narender and Kuldeep was cause due to injuries caused by accused persons which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and they had multiple stab wounds which shows that accused persons had stabbed them with knife with intention to kill.
S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 31 of 51
4. None of accused persons had received any serious injuries which shows that the complainant party was not the aggressor.
5. No evidence led by accused persons to prove that complainant party had come to their place equipped with fire arm as claimed in PCR Call, nor any fire arm was recovered from spot, which itself proves that the calls were made as per plan in advance to make it a case of self defence after killing the members of complainant party.
Ld. Counsel for complainant placed reliance on.
a) 2019 (6) Scale 104
b) Karamvir Vs. State ( Criminal Appeal no.213 of 1998).
FINDINGS of THE COURT
66. All the accused persons are facing trial for offence u/S 147/148/149/323/203/307/34 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly with object of causing death and hurt to the family members of Jainath and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly the accused persons committed riots in which some of them were armed with deadly weapon and attacked the family members of Jainath causing death of Narender and Kuldeep, simple hurt on Vinita (complainant) and dangerous injuries on Jainath and Pappu Mishra.
67. The MLC Ex.Pw17/E of Kuldeep records that he had
a)lacerated wound 4x205x2 cm over left side of chest below nipple,
b) lacerated wound over back below left scapular region of S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 32 of 51 size 2x2x2 cm.
68. As per PM report, Ex.Pw35/B, the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock as a result of stab wounds and the injury is sufficient is ordinary course of nature to cause death. At this point in PM report the injury number which is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death is left blank. However the dissection summary of injury no.1 i.e. the wound on left front chest below nipple, records that it has entered the chest cavity piercing the wall of left ventricle and about 2.5 liters of liquid and clotted blood was present. Therefore it is obvious that hemorrhagic shock was caused by injury no.1 which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
69. Narender, as per MLC Ex.Pw17/D was brought dead. His PM report Ex.Pw35/A records there were 5 external injuries. These are;
1) incised wound on sternum region in the middle 2cm x 1cm x chest cavity deep one angle is acute other obtuse,
2) incised wound 2cm x 1 cm placed 10 cm below left nipple and is abdominal cavity deep,
3) incised wound 2cm x 1cm placed 8 am below injury no.2 muscle deep,
4) incised wound on left gluteal region 2 cm x 1cm x muscle deep and,
5) bruise of size 3cm x 2cm on right forehead above right eyebrow.
70. As per report, cause of death is hemorrhagic shock as a S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 33 of 51 result of stab wound, all injuries were ante mortem and injury no.2 was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
71. As per MLC Ex.Pw17/A Pw13, Jainath, had suffered, 1) two lacerations of 2x.5x.5 cm on left side of chest, 2) 2x.5x.5 cm laceration on left thigh, lateral aspect, 3) 3cm through and through laceration on lower lip, 4) 3x.5x.5 cm laceration on dorsal aspect of left forearm and, 5) 4x.5x.5 cm laceration on parietal region on scalp, and the nature of injuries was dangerous.
72. The injuries on Pappu Mishra (Pw11), as per MLC Ex.Pw17/B, are; 1) lacerated wound over right side of chest below nipple of 3x2x2 cm and 2) lacerated wound over abdomen left side 2x2.5x2 cm and as per medical opinion the nature of injury is dangerous. Pw7 Vinita has suffered simple injuries on her thigh and buttocks.
73. From the injuries of Pw11 and 13 it is clear that it was a murderous assault and Pw11 and 13 could have died if not for medical intervention. The MLC of Pappu Mishra shows that he became fit to give statement only on 18.02.2012. Therefore from the nature of injuries alone it is clear that it was murder of Narender and Kuldeep and an attempted murder of Pappu Mishra and Jainath.
74. Defence has however claimed that it is not a pre meditated attack and accused Anil and Sunil had acted in self defence and rest of accused had played no role. For this defence accused persons have relied on PCR calls made from mobile phone of S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 34 of 51 accused Anju that they were the first to call police when Jainath had threatened them with Desi Katta. It is contended that the complainant side was the aggressor and accused Anil and Sunil acted in self defence and presence of accused Anju and Suman at the spot was because of the fact that they are the family members. As against accused Mohit and Rajesh Devi defence is that they were not present at the spot.
75. Out of of 9 public witnesses examined in this case Pw7, Pw11 and Pw13 are the victims of assault and Pw12 and Pw26 are the family members of Pw13, who were present and witnessed the incident. These witnesses were not examined in one day but they all have similar account of incident in their testimony. The defence would want this court to discard their testimony being interested witnesses citing some variations brought out in cross examination. However, there is no fact brought in cross examination which would bring any such contradiction, among witnesses inter-se, to doubt their presence at the spot. Rather the defence has not disputed the incident in totality.
76. The chargesheet was filed for various offences including those u/s 147/149 IPC. It is a case of rioting. Under Section 149 IPC every member of the unlawful assembly is held responsible for any offence(s) committed in prosecution of the common object by any of the members. This section creates vicarious liability in criminal law.
Section 149 of IPC reads as follows:
S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 35 of 51 "149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object --
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence."
77. Before prosecution can bring home the guilt with aid of Sec. 149 IPC, it has to establish the following facts:
a) that there was an unlawful assembly i.e. an assembly of five or more persons which had any of purposes as specified in section 141 IPC as its common object;
b) that any member(s) of the said unlawful assembly committed any offence in prosecution of the common object or which they knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object; and
c) that the person charged under this section was a member of the said unlawful assembly at the time of committing the offence.
78. It was observed in (2013) 12 SCC 76 titled "State of Rajasthan vs. Shic Charan & Ors." as under:
"19. The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua non for its application. It contains essentially only two ingredients, namely, (I) offence committed by any member of any unlawful assembly consisting five or more members and; (II) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object (Section 141 IPC) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. It is not necessary that for common object there should be a prior concert as the common object may be formed on spur of the moment. Common object would mean the purpose or design shared by all members of such assembly and it may be formed at any stage. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it is established that the offence was such, as the members knew, was likely to be committed. For instance, if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 36 of 51 the land, it may be presumed that someone is likely to be killed, and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and, thus, each of them can be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC . The court must keep in mind the distinction between the two parts of Section 149 IPC , and, once it is established that unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act, rather they can be convicted for vicarious liability. However, it may be relevant to determine whether the assembly consist of some persons which were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of ideal curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly. However, it is only the rule of caution and not the rule of law. Thus, a mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold everyone of them criminally liable for the offence committed by the others unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act, being a member of unlawful assembly as provided for under Section 142 IPC . It may also not be a case of group rivalry or sudden or free fight or an act of the member of unlawful assembly beyond the common object.
(Vide: Baladin & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 181; Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202; Chandra Bihari Gautam & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 1836; Ramesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana AIR 2011 SC 169; Ramachandran & Ors. Etc. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC 3581; Onkar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 273; Roy Farnandez vs. State of Goa & Ors, AIR 2012 SC 1030; and Krishnappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2946).
79. Thus, for resorting to the provisions of Section 141 IPC , the prosecution has to establish that (i) there was an assembly of five persons; (ii) the assembly had a common object; and (iii) the said common object was to consist one or more of the five illegal objects specified in Section 141 IPC."
80. From the testimony of witnesses, specially of Pw7, it appears to be a case of premeditated attack on complainant party.
S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 37 of 51 Pw7 was the first victim examined by the police in the hospital itself. Her presence at the spot is established from the very fact that she also is a victim of assault. She has suffered two stab injuries on her person. Her husband had died in the assault and his dead body was in hospital. Under such grief when she met the police she narrated the entire incident and in her complaint Ex.Pw7/A she not only stated how Sunil provoked Jainath by insulting him about his missing daughter and threatened to finish them all by showing knife but also stated in what manner the accused persons attacked them. Pw7 has categorically deposed that when she and her family reached near house of Sunil, his brother Anil, cousin Rohit, Mohit, Anil's wife Suman, Sunil's wife Anju and aunt Rajesh Devi were present there, armed with knives and sticks, and attacked on them. She also narrated that Anil was the first to attack on her husband with knife and asked others to kill them all and all of them attacked on other members of complainant side. Pw7 named each accused in her deposition and the role played by them.
81. The defence have claimed that the prosecution witnesses have concocted false story but Ex.Pw7/A, which was recorded somewhere before 3 AM on 12.02.2012, do not appear to be tainted with any concoction, afterthought or tutoring because it was recorded within 4 hours of incident and there was no one present near Pw7 to whom she would have consulted before giving her statement.
82. Of-course there are some minor contradictions brought in cross examinations of Pw11 and Pw13 but these are not grave S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 38 of 51 enough to doubt their truthfulness. In case of A.Shankar Vs. State of Karnataka (2011) 6 SCC 279 the Supreme Court held:
"The court has not form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaboration of the statements made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions." The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited."
83. In a chaotic situation like this where 7 persons have attacked 5 persons it is natural to have variance in perceiving the facts. A ditto testimony of witnesses would have been more problematic because that would be unnatural.
84. The contention of defence as to alibi of accused Rajesh and Mohit for they are not the resident of house no. I-1957 do not hold any weight because all the witnesses i.e. Pw7, Pw11, Pw12, Pw13 and Pw26 have deposed about their presence and participation and again Ex.Pw7/A corroborates that. The accused persons had fled from spot and on next day when accused Anil and Sunil were arrested and examined in hospital, vide MLC Ex.Pw30/A and B respectively, the doctor had noticed 2 cm S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 39 of 51 lacerated wound over the forehead of Anil and 6 cm stitched wound on the left side of the forehead of Sunil. This shows that after the incident when accused persons fled from spot they did not just went into hiding but also took medical assistance for injuries they received. There was sufficient time with accused persons to disperse and go separate. Therefore accused Rajesh Devi and Mohit could not be arrested initially as they went hiding. The fact that accused Rajesh Devi and Mohit are not the residents of I-1957 does not in itself establish their alibi. Injured witnesses have categorically deposed about their presence and participation and in absence of any positive evidence, the plea of alibi of accused Rajesh Devi and Mohit cannot be accepted.
85. Still the question remains if the complainant side was aggressor or not and if the accused persons acted in self defence?
86. To the question of motive the prosecution have submitted that accused Anil, who is a local goon, was infuriated on denial of Jainath to pay 50000/-. He had his reputation at stake therefore he planned to kill family members of Jainath therefore deliberately instigated Jainath, through accused Sunil, by abusing him in public and Jainath, considering his previous relation with Anil will definitely come to talk with him and in fact Anil asked him to come to his house where the accused persons were ready with their plan.
87. This demand of Rs. 50,000/- is disputed by defence claiming that there was no complaint. However, Ex. PW 8/A which is PCR form which records the details of event initially S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 40 of 51 collected by PCR officials. It records that while victim were being shifted to hospital one of the victim told the PCR officials that Anil had done this for dispute of Rs. 50,000/-. The exact words of Ex PW 8/A are, "Dono behosh hai dono ko chest wa pet me chaku lage hai kitne lage hai iske baare me abhi doctor nahi bata rahe hai raste me Jainath thoda thoda bol rahe the. Jinhone bataya ki Anil Pandit was Sunil R/o I-1957, 1958 ne chaku mare hai. Bataya kisi ko 50,000/- Rs. Dene the. Anil wa Sunil ne chaku mare wa paise loot liye."
88. This information in PCR form was recorded even before the IO met with complainant, therefore, it is a relevant and admissible fact being brought so early to the knowledge of PCR officials and even got documented. This information without doubt corroborates the testimony of Pw11, 12 and 13 that there was dispute of Rs. 50,000/- involved. If it was not a protection money as claimed by prosecution witnesses, it was for to defence to explain what was the dispute of Rs. 50,000/-. Defence has, however, preferred to deny any money dispute not only in cross examination of witnesses but also in statements u/S 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore it is not acceptable that the money was not the motive behind the crime.
89. The charge against accused persons is of forming unlawful assembly with object of committing an offence. Although there is no evidence that it was planned to murder two members of complainant side but the way the offence is committed and as deposed by witnesses that accused Anil after attacking Narender called the other accused to kill other members of complainant S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 41 of 51 side and said that he would show what happens if anyone refuses to obey him, itself shows that there was a plan to kill. Anil picked the one (Narender) who was the strongest and fearsome, for his criminal record, and immediately attacked with knife on his chest to take out the strongest man first. The testimony of witnesses shows that immediately after the call of accused Anil to kill all, Sunil targeted Kuldeep, Ajay (since deceased) picked Pappu Mishra, accused Mohit picked Jainath while CCL 'R' helped Mohit by holding Jainath and accused Suman picked complainant Vinita where accused Rajesh Devi and Anju helped her by catching complainant while Suman inflicted knife blows. This in itself shows that it was premeditated to pick the targets.
90. Further, as deposed by Pw13 Jainath that after the altercation with accused Sunil at the kiosk he had met accused Anil and complained him about behavior of Snil on which complainant was asked by Anil to visit his house as he will advise Sunil. This fact is corroborated by Pw 22 that Sunil had abused Jainath and when Jainath complained to Anil, Anil asked Jainath to visit his house. Sunil again goes to house of Jainath to shame him and threaten him. This conduct shows that accused Anil had apprehension that Jainath might not visit his house so he sent Sunil to force him to come to his house by hurting the pride of Jainath. Thus in my opinion there was a design and plan among accused person to instigate Jainath and his family members to visit house of accused Anil where they would be prepared with knives and sticks to teach a lesson to Jainath and his family.
S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 42 of 51
91. The contention that accused Anil @ Pandit also received injuries are already explained by the witness that they had tried to save themselves by throwing stones on them. The contention that it was accused Anju only who had made call at 100 number is not correct because there were two more calls on the same date from mobile number 9891744692 the CAF of which is in name of Inderesh and from this mobile number two calls regarding quarrel were made at 11:32 and 11:33 pm. It was PW-26 Pankaj Mishra who was using this mobile number. Therefore, it was not Anju who made all to police but PW-26 Pankaj Mishra who deposed that SIM number was in his possession and he made call at 100 number as he had went to the spot after hearing cries. That means when Pankaj made call, Anju also made call regarding quarrel and somebody threatening with weapon, but the incident was already happening. Therefore, calls made by accused Anju were just to cover the offence and make the defence. The defence also claimed that the incident had not occurred out side in the gali but inside the house of accused Anil @ Pandit. But crime team report Ex PW 16/A shows otherwise. The blood on the road, stones an blood stained piece of stick were lying on the road. Had it been a case of incident in home at least accused would have told these facts to the police and while they were taken to house police would have witnessed something inside the house. Therefore, I am of the view the plea of defence raised by accused persons is false to reduce the liability and save themselves.
92. Therefore, in view of the discussion above held, I am of the view that prosecution is fairly to prove that on 12.10.2012 somewhere around10:30 pm accused persons with object to S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 43 of 51 kill/injured the family of Jainath by forming unlawful assembly made preparations for their arrival and when, as instigated by accused Sunil, they arrived at the spot and all the accused persons committed riots on them, picked victims selectively and gave beatings to them, where accused Anil and Sunil intentionally gave fatal knives blows on victim Narender and Kuldeep respectively and accused Mohit, Suman, Rajesh and Anju also participated in riots in which victim Jainath and Pappu Mishra suffered dangerous injuries which could have killed them and Vinita suffered simple hurt at the hands of accused Suman while she was held by accused Rajesh and Anju.
ORDER
93. From the discussion above held, I am of the view that prosecution has successfully proved charges against the accused persons. Accused persons are convicted as follows:
Accused Anil is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147/148 & 302 IPC for rioting and murder of Narender, under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC for murder of Kuldeep, under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC for attempt to murder of victim Jainath and Pappu Mishra & 323 r/w 149 IPC for causing simple hurt to Vinita.
Accused Sunil is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147/148 & 302 IPC for rioting and murder of Kuldeep, under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC for murder of Narender, under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC for attempt to murder of victim Jainath and Pappu Mishra & 323 r/w 149 IPC for causing simple hurt to S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 44 of 51 Vinita.
Accused Mohit is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147/148/307 IPC for rioting and attempt to murder of Jainath, under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC for attempt to murder of Pappu Mishra, under Section 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC for murder of Narender and Kuldeep and 323 r/w 149 IPC for causing simple hurt to Vinita.
Accused Suman, Anju and Rajesh Devi are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147/148/149/323 IPC for rioting and causing simple hurt to Vinita, under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC for murder of Narender and Kuldeep and under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC for attempt to murder of Jainath and Pappu Mishra.Digitally signed by VIKRAM
VIKRAM Date: 2022.12.13 18:10:47 +0530 Date : 13.12.2022 (VIKRAM) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/13.12.2022 Dictated on : 13.12.2022 Transcribed on : 13.12.2022 Digitally signed checked on : 13.12.2022 by VIKRAM Signed on : 13.12.2022 VIKRAM Date: 2022.12.13 18:10:55 +0530 (VIKRAM) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/13.12.2022 S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 45 of 51 ANNEXURE 'A' Sr. No. Exhibits Nature of document Remarks 1. Ex. PW1/A DD No. 32A dated 11.02.2012 2. Ex. PW 1/B DD No. 33A dated 11.02.2012 3. Ex. PW 1/C DD No. 2A dated 12.02.2012 4. Ex. PW 1/D Copy of FIR 5. Ex. PW 1/E Endorsement of ruqqa 6. Ex. PW 1/F Photocopy of relevant entry (OSR) with respect to special messenger 7. Ex. PW 1/DA Photocopy of original FIR Taken on record at request of ld. Defence counsel during cross examination of witness. 8. Ex. PW 3/A Delhi Police Control Room, Form No. 1 9. Ex. PW 4/A Delhi Police Control Room, Form No. 1
10. Ex PW 5/A1 to 15 photographs of the spot 5/A15 clicked by Mobile Crime Team
11. Ex PW 5/B CD through which photographs were developed
12. Ex. PW 7/A Statement of Smt. Vinita
13. Ex. PW 8/A Delhi Police Control Room, Form No. 1
14. Ex. PW 9/A Delhi Police Control Room, Form No. 1
15. Ex. PW 10/A Scaled Site Plan
16. Ex. PW 13/A Site Plan of the spot
17. Ex. PW 14/A Dead body identification memo
18. Ex. PW 14/B Dead body handing over memo
19. Ex. PW 15/A Dead body identification memo S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 46 of 51
20. Ex. PW 16/A Crime Team Report
21. Ex. PW 17/A MLC of Jainath
22. Ex. PW 17/B MLC of Pappu Mishra
23. Ex. PW 17/C MLC of Vinita
24. Ex. PW 17/D MLC of Narender
25. Ex. PW 17/E MLC of Kuldeep
26. Mark PW Discharge slip of Pappu 18/A Mishra
27. Mark PW 18/B Discharge slip of Jainath
28. Ex. PW 19/A Forwarding letter for supplying CDR of mobile number 917503519138, certified copy of CAF and Cell ID
29. Ex. PW 19/B Certified copy of CDR of mobile no. 917503519138
30. Ex. PW 19/C Certified copy of CAF of mobile no. 917503519138
31. Ex PW 19/D Photocopy of Id proof submitted at the time of purchasing SIM card
32. Ex. PW 19/E Certificate under Section 65- B of IEA
33. Ex. PW 19/F Cell ID Chart
34. Ex. PW 20/A CDR of mobile number 8745863210
35. Ex. PW 20/B CDR of mobile number 9891744692
36. Ex. PW 20/C Certified copy of CAF and Id proof of Anju Sharma
37. Ex. PW 20/D Certified copy of CAF and Id prof of Indravesh
38. Ex. PW 20/E Certificate under Section 65- B of IEA
39. Ex. PW 23/A Entries no. 455/456 & 458 in register no. 19
40. Ex. PW 23/B Copy of road certificate
41. Ex. PW 23/C Copy of acknowledgment of FSL
42. Ex. PW 25/A Delhi Police Control Room, Form No. 1 S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 47 of 51
43. Ex. PW 25/B Certificate under Section 65- B of IEA
44. Ex. PW 26/A Dead body identification memo
45. Ex. PW 27/A Arrest memo of accused Rajesh Devi
46. Ex. PW 27/B Disclosure statement of accused Rajesh Devi
47. Ex. PW 27/C Spot pointing out memo
48. Ex. PW 27/D Pointing out memo & seizure memo of danda (accused Anju)
49. Ex. PW 28/A Arrest memo of accused Suman
50. Ex. PW 28/B Arrest memo of accused Anju
51. Ex. PW 28/C Personal search memo of accused Suman
52. Ex. PW 28/D Personal search memo of accused Anju
53. Ex. P-29/1 Sweat jacket
54. Ex. P-29/2 Jeans pants
55. Ex. P-29/3 Half sleeves T-shirt
56. Ex. P-29/4 Track suit pants
57. Ex. P-29/5 Pair of shoes
58. Ex. P-29/6 Knife recovered at the instance of accused Sunil @ Dal Chand
59. Ex. P-29/7 Knife recovered at the instance of accused Anil @ Pandit
60. Ex. PW 30/A MLC of accused Anil @ Pandit
61. Ex. PW 30/B MLC of accused Sunil @ Dal Chand
62. Ex. PW 33/A Seizure memo of pullandas of clothes of deceased
63. Ex. PW 35/A PM report of deceased Narender
64. Ex. PW 35/B PM report of deceased Kuldeep
65. Ex. PW 35/C Opinion of Dr. V K Jha with S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 48 of 51 respect of weapon of offence, on the letter of IO Insp.
Rajesh Kumar
66. Ex. PW 35/D Sketch of knives prepared by & PW 35/E Dr. V K Jha
67. Ex. PW 36/A Pointing out memo and seizure memo of danda (accused Suman)
68. Ex. P-36/1 Danda
69. Ex. PW 37/A Arrest memo of accused Ajay Kumar in Kalandra DD no. 13 A dated 19.10.2012
70. Ex. PW 37/B Personal search memo of accused Ajay Kumar in Kalandra DD no. 13 A dated 19.10.2012
71. Ex. PW 37/C Arrest of accused Ajay Kumar in present FIR
72. Ex. PW 37/D Disclosure statement of accused Ajay Kumar
73. Ex. PW 37/E Spot pointing out memo
74. Ex. PW 38/A Request letter of IO to declare accused Ajay Kumar PO
75. Mark PW Copy of order dated 38/X 21.09.2012
76. Ex. PW 39/A Arrest memo of accused Sunil @ Dal Chand
77. Mark PW Statement of Sanjeev Dhawan 39/A @ Bitto recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
78. Ex PW 40/A FSL biological report
79. Ex. PW 40/B FSL Serological report
80. Ex. PW 43/A Site plan of the spot
81. Ex. PW 43/B Seizure memo of blood and blood stained soil
82. Ex. PW 43/C Seizure memo of two pieces of wooden stick/danda
83. Ex. PW 43/D Seizure memo of gamcha, one plastic slipper of left foot lying at the spot
84. Ex. PW 43/E Arrest memo of accused Anil @ Pandit S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 49 of 51
85. Ex. PW 43/F Personal search memo of accused Anil @ Pandit
86. Ex. PW 43/G Disclosure statement of accused Anil @ Pandit
87. Ex. PW 43/H Personal search memo of No document is accused Sunil @ Dal Chand exhibited as Ex.
PW 43/I.
88. Ex. PW 43/J Seizure memo of car bearing registration no. DL 3C AF 9994
89. Ex. PW 43/K, Disclosure statement of 43/K1 & accused Sunil, Anju and 43/K2 Suman
90. Ex. PW 43/L Sketch of knife pertaining to accused Sunil
91. Ex. PW 43/L1 Sketch of knife pertaining to accused Anil @ Pandit
92. Ex. PW 43/M Seizure memo of knives and earth control (accused Anil @ Pandit)
93. Ex. PW 43/M1 Seizure memo of knives and earth control (accused Sunil)
94. Ex. PW 43/N Seizure memo of blood stained clothes and shoes of accused Anil @ Pandit
95. Ex. PW 43/N1 Seizure memo of blood No document is stained clothes of accused exhibited as Ex Sunil PW 43/O
96. Ex. PW 43/P Blood samples of accused persons
97. Ex. P-43/1 Pieces of bricks and stones lifted from the spot
98. Ex. P-43/2 Slipper of left foot
99. Ex. P-43/3 Gamcha
100. Ex. P-43/4 Two pieces of danda (colly)
101. Ex. PW 44/A Delhi Police Control Room, Form No. 1
102. Ex. PW 45/A Endorsement on statement of complainant
103. Ex. PW 45/B Inquest proceedings of deceased Narender S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 50 of 51
104. Ex. PW 45/C Inquest proceedings of deceased Kuldeep
105. Ex. PW 45/D Disclosure statement of accused Mohit
106. Ex. PW 45/E Arrest memo of accused Mohit
107. Ex. PW 45/F Pointing out memos
108. Ex. PW 45/G Letter of Insp. Rajesh Kumar to Dr. V K Jha
109. Ex. PW 45/H Certificate under Section 65B of IEA
110. Ex. PW 45/X Previous involvement of accused Sunil Kumar
111. Ex. PW 45/Y Previous involvement of accused Anil @ Pandit
112. Ex. PW 45/1 Danda (4.5 feet in length)
113. Ex. P-1, P-2 & Lathi P-3
114. Ex. P-4 & P-5 Jeans pants
115. Ex. P-6 T-shirt
116. Ex. P-7 Pair of shoes
117. Ex. P-8 Track Pants
118. Ex. P-9 Knife
119. Ex. P-10 Knife
120. Ex. P-11 Baniyan
121. Ex. P-12 Track suit lower
122. Ex. P-13 T-shirt
123. Ex. P-14 One inner paijama
124. Ex. P-15 One underwear S.C. No. State Vs. Anil @ Pandit & Ors. Page No. 51 of 51