Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu @ Akash @ Babu on 31 May, 2025
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-008221-2017
Sessions Case No. 542/2017
FIR No. 222/2017
PS: Nangloi
U/s 302/324/174-A/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act
State Vs. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
a) Date of commission of offence : 06/06/2017
b) Name of the complainant : Smt. Shyam Lata
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Kumar
c) Name of accused and address :1. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu
S/o Sh. Pardeep
R/o B-217, Shani Bazar
Road, Nihal Vihar,
New Delhi
2. Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna
S/o Mr. Abdul Razak
R/o Plot No. 92/10, Industrial
Area, Mundka, New Delhi
3. Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana
S/o Mr. Babu Khan
R/o X-241, Camp No.1,
Nangloi, New Delhi
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31
17:40:40 -
0100
FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.1/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 302/324/174-A/34 IPC
& 25 Arms Act
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : CONVICTED
Date of institution of the case : 04/09/2017
Date of committal : 04/09/2017
Date on which judgment was : 09/04/2025
reserved
Date of judgment : 31/05/2025
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 06/06/2017 at about 5:00 PM in MCD Park situated near Sulabh Shauchalya, Y-Block, Camp No. 1, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi, all accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu, Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Rahul by inflicting multiple stab injuries with knives and sword. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the aforesaid date, time and place, when the complainant tried to save Rahul, accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:40:49 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.2/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had caused the injury to the complainant by sword. It is also the case of the prosecution that on 07/06/2017 near CRPF Camp, Sultanpur, Majra Road, Delhi, accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu was found in possession of button actuated knife in contravention of the notification dated 29/10/1980 of Delhi Administration, which was used by him to commit the murder of Rahul on 06/06/2017. It is also the case of the prosecution that accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had absconded and concealed himself and proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him and thereafter, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 15/09/2017 passed by Ld. M.M. REGISTRATION OF FIR, INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE-SHEET
2. In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant Smt. Shyam Lata, FIR bearing No.222/2017 Police Station Nangloi u/s. 302/34 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Nangloi. After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Ld. MM on 04/09/2017 for trial of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, supplementary charge-sheet qua accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana was also Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:40:55 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.3/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
filed before the Ld. MM on 20/12/2017.
SUPPLY OF COPIES AND COMMITTAL
3. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dated 04/09/2017 passed by the Ld. MM, the present case/main charge-sheet was committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 20/12/2017 passed by the Ld. MM, supplementary charge-sheet was also committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
4. Finding a prima-facie case against the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu, Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana, charge for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC was framed against them and charge for the offence u/s. 25 Arms Act was also framed against the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and charge for the offence u/s.324/174-A IPC was also framed against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:00 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.4/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
examined 28 witnesses. The prosecution had examined the following witnesses:-
(1) PW-1 Sh. Mukesh
(2) PW-2 Sh. Karamvir
(3) PW-3 HC Amit
(4) PW-4 SI Harish Chander Pathak
(5) PW-5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Head of Department, Forensic
Medicines, SGM Hospital, Delhi
(6) PW-6 Smt. Shyam Lata
(7) PW-7 Dr. Suruchi, Medical Officer, Department of Obs. &
Gynae, SGM Hospital, Delhi
(8) PW-8 Ct. Subhash
(9) PW-9 ASI Shiv Charan
(10) PW-10 Dr. Sudhir Ranga, CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi (11) PW-11 Ct. Arjun (12) PW-12 Ct. Manohar Lal (13) PW-13 SI Bhagwati Prasad (14) PW-14 Ct. Shailender (15) PW-15 Ct. Manohar Lal (16) PW-15 SI Pankaj Saroha Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:07 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.5/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(17) PW-16 SI Om Prakash (18) PW-17 Ct. Ravi Kant (19) PW-18 HC Sewaram (20) PW-19 Ms. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani, Ld. MM (Mahila Court) North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (21) PW-20 Dr. Monika Shahi, Senior Scientific Officer (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi (22) PW-21 ASI Inder Prakash (23) PW-22 SI Matadeen (24) PW-23 Sh. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Asstt. Director (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi (25) PW-24 SI Arun Kumar (26) PW-25 Ct. Dilip Kumar (27) PW-26 HC Vivek Kumar (28) PW-27 ASI Deepak Kumar (29) PW-28 Inspector Rajesh Kumar It is pertinent to mention here that in the present case, Ct.
Manohar Lal was examined twice as PW-12 and PW-15 and he deposed almost same facts in his both testimonies. In view of the same, hereinafter, PW Ct. Manohar Lal shall be referred as PW-12 and his testimony recorded Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:13 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.6/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
as PW-12 shall be referred/mentioned in this judgment.
It is also pertinent to mention here that in the present case, Ct. Manohar Lal and SI Pankaj Saroha, both were examined as PW-15. In view of the same, hereinafter, PW SI Pankaj Saroha shall be referred as PW-15.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
6. (1) Statement of Sh. Mukesh regarding dead body identification Ex.PW-1/A (2) Dead body handing over memo Ex.PW-1/B (3) Statement of Sh. Karamvir regarding dead body identification Ex.PW-2/A (4) True copy of DD No. 30A Ex.PW-3/A (5) True copy of DD No. 31A Ex.PW-3/B (6) FIR Ex.PW-3/C (7) Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-3/D (8) Certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-3/E (9) DD No. 30A & DD No. 31A Ex.PW-3/A1 (10) Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of PCR Form Ex.PW-4/A Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:18 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.7/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(11) PCR Form Ex.PW-4/B (12) PM report no. 503/2017 dated 07/06/2017 Ex.PW-5/A (13) Subsequent opinion on PM report Ex.PW-5/B (14) Statement/complaint of complainant Smt. Shyam Lata Ex.PW-6/A (15) Site plan Ex.PW-6/B (16) Seizure memo of clothes of Smt. Shyam Lata Ex.PW-6/C (17) MLC No. 09669/2017 of deceased Rahul Ex.PW-7/A (18) 14 photographs of the spot Ex.PW-8/A1 to Ex.PW-8/A14 (19) Certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-8/B (20) Scene of Crime Report Ex.PW-9/A (21) MLC No. 09487 of Smt. Shyam Lata Ex.PW-10/A (22) Endorsement on complaint Ex.PW-13/A (23) Seizure memo of clothes of deceased Ex.PW-13/B (24) Seizure memo of exhibits Ex.PW-13/C (25) Seizure memo of one pair of chappal Ex.PW-13/D (26) Seizure memo of viscera petty, envelope containing blood in gauze and sample seal Ex.PW-14/A (27) Arrest memo of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/A (28) Arrest memo of the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:23 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.8/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Ex.PW-15/B (29) Personal search memo of the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-15/C (30) Personal search memo of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/D (31) Disclosure statement of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/E (32) Disclosure statement of the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-15/F (33) Sketch of knife Ex.PW-15/G (34) Seizure memo of knife Ex.PW-15/H (35) Seizure memo of clothes of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/I (36) Seizure memo of clothes of the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-15/J (37) Pointing out memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/K (38) Pointing out memo of place of occurrence at the instance of accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-15/L (39) Scaled site plan Ex.PW-16/A (40) Arrest memo of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:28 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.9/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Ex.PW-17/A (41) Disclosure statement of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana Ex.PW-17/B (42) Pointing out memo of the place of occurrence at the instance of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana Ex.PW-17/C (43) Report regarding execution of proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C.
against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana Ex.PW-18/A (44) Application for declaring the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana as PO Ex.PW-18/B (45) TIP proceedings of the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-19/A (46) TIP proceedings of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-19/B (47) Application for supply of copy of TIP proceedings Ex.PW-19/C (48) Application of IO for fixing the TIP proceedings Ex.PW-19/D (49) FSL report dated 02/11/2017 Ex.PW-20/A (50) FIR No. 494/2017 PS Farsh Bazar Ex.PW-21/A (51) DD No. 5A Ex.PW-22/A (52) FSL report dated 07/09/2017 Ex.PW-23/A Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:35 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.10/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(53) Arrest memo of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in FIR No. 494/2017 PS Farsh Bazar Ex.PW-24/A (54) Personal search memo of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in FIR No. 494/2017 PS Farsh Bazar Ex.PW-24/B (55) Disclosure statement of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in FIR No. 494/2017 PS Farsh Bazar Ex.PW-24/C (56) Supplementary disclosure statement of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in FIR No. 494/2017 PS Farsh Bazar Ex.PW-24/D (57) Application for post-mortem Ex.PW-28/A (58) Brief facts Ex.PW-28/B (59) Form No. 25.35 Ex.PW-28/C It is pertinent to mention here that pointing out memo of place of occurrence Ex.PW-15/K and Ex.PW-15/L are not separate documents but the same is only one document. In view of the same, hereinafter, the aforesaid document shall be referred as Ex.PW-15/K. Apart from aforesaid documentary evidence, the prosecution has also relied upon the other evidence (case property) i.e. clothes of complainant Smt. Shyam Lata Ex.PW-6/P1 (colly), one pair of chappal of deceased Ex.PW-6/P2, clothes of deceased Ex.PW-6/P3 (colly), knife Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:41 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.11/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Ex.PW-15/P1, clothes of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/P2 (colly), clothes of accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-15/P3 (colly), blood in gauze from the spot Ex.P-28/1 and earthy material lifted from the spot Ex.P-28/2 & Ex.P-28/3.
It is pertinent to mention here that on 23/10/2018, counsel for all accused have admitted the FSL report dated 31/07/2017 prepared by Sh. Prem Pal Singh, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Delhi and same was exhibited as Ex.PA.
It is pertinent to mention here that on 08/05/2023, counsel for all accused have admitted the subsequent opinion dated 10/06/2017 given by Dr. Manoj Dhingra in respect of the weapon of offence and same was exhibited as Ex.PX-1.
7. TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES.
(i) PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that on 07/06/2017, he had identified the dead body of his nephew Rahul in Mortuary, SGM Hospital, Delhi vide his statement Ex.PW-1/A and he had also received the said dead body after post-mortem vide receipt Ex.PW-1/B. On 06/06/2017, he had also called the police at 100 number from the mobile phone of his bhabhi Shyam Lata at about 05:45 PM from SGM Hospital. IO met him and recorded his statement. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:46 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.12/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
PW-1 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. Counsel for the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu had adopted the cross-examination conducted by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. PW-1 was not cross-examined by the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna.
(ii) PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that on 07/06/2017, he had identified the dead body of his nephew Rahul in Mortuary, SGM Hospital, Delhi vide his statement Ex.PW-2/A. PW-2 was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana, Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and by the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna, despite opportunity.
(iii) PW-3 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017 at about 04:40 AM, he had recorded DD No.30A Ex.PW-3/A on the basis of message received from Duty Constable Krishan Rathi regarding admission of Rahul in SGM Hospital in brought dead condition. He had sent the copy of the same to ASI Bhagwati Prashad for making inquiry. On the same day at about 05:41 PM, he had also recorded DD No.31A Ex.PW-3/B on the basis of message received from Wireless Operator regarding giving sword blow to the nephew of the informant near Nangloi Railway Phatak and he Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:52 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.13/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
had sent the copy of the same to ASI Bhagwati Prashad through Ct. Ankur for making inquiry. On the same day at about 08:27 pm, he had received rukka from Ct. Manohar sent by ASI Bhagwati Prashad, on the basis of which, he got recorded FIR Ex.PW-3/C. He had made his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW-3/D and had also issued certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-3/E. After registration of FIR, he had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Manohar to hand over the same to Insp. Rajesh for investigation. He had also sent the copies of the FIR to the area Magistrate, ACP, DCP and Joint CP through special messenger Ct. Shailender.
PW-3 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu. PW-3 was not cross- examined by the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna, despite opportunity.
(iv) PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 09/06/2017, he was posted as Nodal Officer at CPCR/PHQ, ITO, Delhi and on that day, he had issued certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-4/A in respect of the PCR Form Ex.PW-4/B. PCR form was filled up by Ct. Arun and remaining part of the same was filled up by SI Harsai Singh.
PW-4 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:41:56 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.14/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
@ Jakir @ Kana. Counsel for the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu had adopted the cross-examination conducted by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. PW-4 was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna, despite opportunity.
(v) PW-5 in his testimony had deposed that on 07/06/2017, he had conducted the post-mortem on the body of Rahul Kumar, 24 years old male, who was brought by Insp. Rajesh Kumar with alleged history of assault and found dead with multiple stab on 06/06/2017 at about 05:00 PM vide PM report no.503/2017 dated 07/06/2017 Ex.PW-5/A. The deceased had sustained seven injuries as mentioned in post-mortem report and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock and all the injuries were ante-
mortem in nature. Time since death was approximately 17-20 hours prior to post-mortem. He had also preserved viscera, blood sample and blood in gauze and handed over the same to the IO in sealed parcels having seal of SGMH MORTUARY MANGOL PURI DELHI-83 alongwith 14 inquest papers. He had also received letter from IO Insp. Rajesh Kumar seeking subsequent opinion on PM report and he had opined the same i.e. the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock on the letter of the IO Ex.PW-5/B. PW-5 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. Counsel for the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu had Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:01 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.15/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
adopted the cross-examination conducted by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. PW-5 was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna.
(vi) PW-6 in her testimony had deposed that she was working as a sweeper (safai karamchari ) at Public Toilet, Y-Block, Nangloi, Delhi from 05:00 AM to 09:00 PM. Deceased Rahul was her son, who used to assist her in the work. Some construction work was going on in her house and therefore, her son could not assist her for about one and half months or so in her work and he had come to the public toilet after a gap of about one and half months on the date of incident i.e. 06/06/2017. On that day, at about 02:00 PM, accused Jakir alongwith two other persons went into the public toilet. She knew the remaining two accused persons by the names of Akash and Babu. She knew accused Jakir as he resides in Nangloi and used to come to the public toilet for using the same. The other two accused persons also used to visit the public toilet frequently in a day. Since the accused persons did not come out till 04:00 PM, she went inside the public toilet and found that all three of them were consuming smack with the help of a paper (panni ) and pipe. She told them to leave the public toilet as they had been occupying the same for quite a long time. She also gave a slap to Jakir.
While leaving the public toilet, accused Jakir extended threats to her to Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:05 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.16/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
come back after two minutes. Within no time, accused Jakir came back alongwith 10-12 boys and in the meantime, her son Rahul also reached there. She told her son about what had transpired earlier with the accused Jakir, Azruddin and Sonu @ Akash. Upon hearing the same, her son advised her to go home, however, she did not go from there. Accused Jakir and his associates including accused Azruddin and Sonu @ Akash and one more boy, surrounded her son Rahul and accused Jakir attacked her son with a sword. Accused Azruddin, Sonu @ Akash and one more boy inflicted injuries with knife on the person of her son Rahul. They all gave multiple stab injuries to her son and blood started oozing from the injuries of her son. She tried to intervene and rescue her son and caught hold of one of the knives as a result of which, she also sustained injury in her palm. Her son fell down on the ground and thereafter, Jakir alongwith the co-accused persons and other associates ran away from the spot. She went to the nearby market and brought one Rickshaw and took her son to SGM Hospital in the said Rickshaw. She had cried for help but nobody came forward. After reaching the hospital, with the help of a person, she made a call at her home from the mobile phone being carried by her and the said call was received by her brother-in-law (devar). After receiving the call, her brother-in-law also came to the hospital. After examining her son, the doctors told her that her son was no more. A call was made to the police by Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:10 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.17/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
her brother-in-law from her mobile phone and police came to the hospital after about 10 to 15 minutes and recorded her statement Ex.PW-6/A. She alongwith the police came back to the spot and at her instance, the site plan Ex.PW-6/B was prepared by the IO. She also gave a call at her residence and asked her family members to bring clothes for her as the clothes which she was wearing, were blood stained. Her brother-in-law (devar) and sister- in-law (nanad) reached at the spot i.e. public toilet with her clothes and she changed her clothes in the public toilet. She had handed over her blood stained clothes to the IO, who sealed the same in a white cloth and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-6/C. On the next day of the date of incident, she again went to public toilet at about 10:00 AM and pointed out the place of occurrence to the draughtsman brought by the police officials, who had taken the measurement of the spot in her presence. On 06/06/2017 i.e. the day on which her son was murdered, she went to PS to know about the progress of the case. IO was making inquiries from two of the assailants and she identified the said assailants as Akash and Chunna and told the IO that they had committed murder of her son alongwith their associates. Later on, on some other day, she had again visited the PS and had identified the accused Jakir, who had been arrested by the police. Accused Sonu @ Akash had inflicted injury with the knife on the lower abdomen on the left side of her son. Thereafter, accused Sahil @ Chunna and Jakir, who were Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:15 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.18/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
also armed with knife and sword respectively, had joined and inflicted multiple injuries on the body of her son alongwith the accused Sonu @ Akash.
PW-6 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(vii) PW-7 in her testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, she was posted as CMO at SGM Hospital, Delhi and on that day at about 05:30 PM, she had examined the patient Rahul S/o Ramesh Kumar, 24 years male with the alleged history of stab injuries vide MLC No.09669/2017 Ex.PW-7/A. The patient was brought dead and the clothes of the deceased were kept in parcel which was sealed with the seal of hospital and handed over to the police.
PW-7 was not cross-examined by counsel for all accused, despite opportunity.
(viii) PW-8 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, he was posted as Constable/photographer in Mobile Crime Team, Outer District, Delhi and on that day, on receipt of call, he alongwith ASI Shiv Charan, In- charge, Mobile Crime Team and Ct. Sanjay, Fingerprint Proficient had visited the spot i.e. Y-Block, MCD Park, near Railway Track, near Sulabh Shauchalya Camp No.1, Nangloi, Delhi, where IO ASI Bhagwati Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:20 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.19/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
alongwith police staff met them. In-charge of the Crime Team had inspected the spot and one footwear of FLITE of white colour and blood stains were lying at the spot. As per the instructions of IO and In-charge, Mobile Crime Team, he took 14 photographs Ex.PW-8/A1 to Ex.PW-8/A14 of the spot from digital camera and he had also issued certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-8/B. PW-8 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(ix) PW-9 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, he was posted as ASI/In-charge, Mobile Crime Team, Outer District, Delhi and on that day, on receipt of wireless message, he alongwith Ct. Subhash, Photographer and Ct. Sanjay, Fingerprint Proficient had visited the spot i.e. Y-Block, MCD Park, near Railway Track, near Sulabh Shauchalya Camp No.1, Nangloi, Delhi in Govt. vehicle, where IO ASI Bhagwati alongwith police staff met them. He had inspected the spot and one footwear of FLITE of white colour and the blood stains were lying at the spot. Ct. Subhash took 14 photographs of the spot from digital camera. He had prepared scene of crime report Ex.PW-9/A and handed over the same to the IO.
PW-9 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(x) PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, he
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31
17:42:24 -0100
FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.20/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
was posted as CMO in SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. On that day at about 21:51 hours, Dr. Vishal Kant, JR had medically examined the patient Smt. Shyam Lata vide MLC No.09487 Ex.PW-10/A with the alleged history of assault under his supervision. He had opined the nature of injury as 'simple'.
PW-10 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(xi) PW-11 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, he was posted as Channel Operator in Police Control Room, PHQ, ITO, Delhi. On that day at about 17:41 hours, he had received call from mobile no.9210780926, on the basis of which, he had filled up the Delhi Police Control Room Form Ex.PW-4/B and dispatched the message to net for onward transmission to District Control Room.
PW-11 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu. PW-11 was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna, despite opportunity.
(xii) PW-12 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, he had joined the investigation of this case alongwith ASI Bhagwati Prasad.
Addl. PP for the State was permitted to cross-examine PW-12.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31
17:42:29 -
0100
FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.21/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
PW-12 was cross-examined by Addl. PP for the State. PW-12 was cross- examined by counsel for all accused.
(xiii) PW-13 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017 upon receipt of DD No.30A Ex.PW-3/A, he alongwith Ct. Manohar reached at SGM Hospital, where he came to know that the injured, who was admitted in the hospital vide MLC No.9669, had been declared brought dead. He had inspected the dead body of the deceased Rahul. Mother of deceased namely Smt. Shyam Lata met him in the hospital and he recorded her statement Ex.PW-6/A and endorsed the same vide endorsement Ex.PW-13/A and handed over the same to Ct. Manohar for getting the FIR registered from PS Nangloi and he took the same to PS Nangloi. The doctor concerned, who examined the deceased, had handed over him one parcel containing the clothes of deceased having the seal of SGM Hospital Mangol Puri, Delhi alongwith sample seal. Thereafter, he had visited the spot i.e. Y-Block, Camp No.1 near Sulabh Shauchalya, Nangloi, Delhi and in the mean time, IO Insp. Rajesh alongwith Ct. Manohar and police staff reached there. He had handed over all the documents and parcel containing the clothes of deceased, which were received from the hospital to the IO, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-13/B. IO had called the crime team at the spot. IO Insp. Rajesh had lifted the exhibits i.e. blood sample, earth Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:34 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.22/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
control and blood stained earth control from the spot and kept the same in separate plastic containers, which were taped with the doctor tape and sealed the same with the seal of RK. Thereafter, IO had seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-13/C. IO had also lifted one pair of chappal lying at the spot having the blood stains and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-13/D and also kept the same in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with the seal of RK. The complainant had also produced her blood stained clothes i.e. salwar and kameej to the IO and IO had seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-6/C and kept the same in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with the seal of RK. Thereafter, he had left the spot and later on, IO had recorded his statement on the same day in the PS. PW-13 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(xiv) PW-14 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017 he had received four copies of FIR from the DO and he had delivered the copy of the FIR at the office of DCP, at the residence of Ld. MM, DCP and Addl.
DCP. Thereafter, he had returned back to PS. On 07/06/2017, he had joined the investigation of this case with IO and SI Pankaj. On 12/06/2017, he had received about 12-13 sealed parcels from the MHC(M) and he had deposited the same in the office of FSL, Rohini and thereafter, he had handed over the receipt and acknowledgement to the IO. So long as the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:39 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.23/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
parcels remained in his custody, those were not tampered with in any manner and remained intact. IO had recorded his statement.
PW-14 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(xv) PW-15 in his testimony had deposed that on 07/06/2016 he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO Insp. Rajesh Kumar and Ct. Shailender.
PW-15 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna. PW-15 was not cross- examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana, despite opportunity.
(xvi) PW-16 in his testimony had deposed that on 04/07/2017 at the request of Insp. Rajesh, he had visited PS Nangloi and from there, he alongwith IO Insp. Rajesh reached the spot i.e. MCD Park, Y-Block near Jain Dharamshala, Camp No.1, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, Delhi, where Smt. Shyam Lata met them and at her instance, he had inspected the spot and prepared rough notes and took measurement. On 12/07/2017, he had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW-16/A and handed over the same to the IO. Rough notes were destroyed after the preparation of scaled site plan.
PW-16 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31
17:42:45 -
0100
FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.24/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(xvii) PW-17 in his testimony had deposed that on 14/11/2017 and
on the next day, he had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO Insp. Rajesh.
PW-17 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(xviii) PW-18 in his testimony had deposed that on 14/08/2017, in compliance of the process issued u/s 82 Cr.P.C., he had visited the house of accused Zakir @ Kahna at H. No X-241, Camp no.1, Nangloi, Delhi but he did not meet him there. He had pasted the copy of process at the main gate of house and another copy of the same at notice board of Tis Hazari Courts. IO also got published about the absconding of accused in Newspaper. He had also got munadi of the accused through drum beating in the locality, where the accused was residing but his whereabouts could not be traceable. He had prepared his report Ex.PW-18/A in this regard. On 15/09/2017, he had moved an application Ex.PW-18/B before the Court to get the accused declared PO and on his application, Court did the same.
PW-18 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(xix) PW-19 in her testimony had deposed that on 08/06/2017, IO of the present case had moved an application for TIP of accused Sonu @ Akash and Sahil @ Azruddin Ex.PW-19/D before the Ld. MM Sh. Manoj Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:50 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.25/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Kumar and being the first Link, same was marked to her for conducting the TIP. On the same day, both the abovesaid accused persons were produced before her and were identified by the IO/Insp. Rajesh Kumar. On her asking, both the accused persons namely Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu had submitted that they do not want to participate in the TIP proceedings as the complainant has already seen them and their photographs have been taken and shown to the complainant. She had warned them that their refusal in not taking part in judicial TIP can be read against them and adverse inference can be drawn against them during trial but despite statutory warning, they insisted that they do not want to participate in TIP proceedings and TIP proceedings of accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu are Ex. PW-19/A and Ex.PW-19/B respectively. IO had moved application Ex.PW-19/C for supplying the copy of TIP proceedings and application Ex. PW-19/D for fixing the TIP proceedings.
PW-19 was not cross-examined by counsel for the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and by the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana, despite opportunity.
(xx) PW-20 in her testimony had deposed that on 25/08/2017, she had received two sealed parcels having specimen seal i.e. FSL IKM DELHI Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:42:55 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.26/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
from Biology division, FSL, Delhi and same were marked to her for examination. On opening the parcels, parcel no.1 found to contain articles i.e. one T-shirt, one lower and underwear and she marked them as exhibits 1a, 1b and 1c and parcel no.10 found to contain one knife. After the examination of the said parcels, she opined that cut marks Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 on lower in exhibit 1b, cut marks Q6 and Q7 on t-shirt in exhibit 1a and cut marks Q8, Q9 and Q10 on underwear in exhibit 1c were examined physical and using measuring tools in respect of shape, size, texture and it was found that cut mark Q3 and Q4 on exhibit 1b and cut mark Q9 on exhibit 1c were corresponding to each other due to overlapping. Test cut marks T1 on exhibit 1a and test cut mark T2 on exhibit 1b were made with the help of knife (exhibit 10) and these test cut marks were compared with the crime cut marks. On the basis of cut shape and morphology, it was found that cut marks Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 on exhibit 1b, cut marks Q6 and Q7 on exhibit 1a, cut marks Q8, Q9 and Q10 on exhibit 1c could be caused by the sharp weapon like exhibit 10 (knife). Thereafter, exhibits sent to the laboratory for examination were re-sealed with the seal of FSL Dr. M.S DELHI. Her detailed report is Ex.PW-20/A. PW-20 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(xxi) PW-21 in his testimony had deposed that in the intervening Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:00 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.27/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
night of 16-17/10/2017, he had received rukka from Ct. Vivek sent by SI Arun Kumar, on the basis of which, he got recorded FIR No.494/2017 dated 17/02/2017 u/s 411 IPC and 25 Arms Act, PS Farsh Bazar Ex.PW-21/A through computer operator.
PW-21 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(xxii) PW-22 in his testimony had deposed that on 23/10/2017 at about 12:35 AM, he had recorded DD no. 5A Ex.PW-22/A on the basis of message received from SI Arun Ahlawat of PS Farsh Bazar regarding arrest of accused Zakir @ Kala (PO), who was wanted in present case and arrest of accused Husan @ Salman @ Mama and Gulzar in case FIR no. 400/2017 u/s 394/397/411/34 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act and regarding their production before the Court of concerned Ld. MM of Karkardooma and to intimate the concerned IO. After recording the same, he had handed over the copy of the same to MHC(R) to intimate the concerned IO. He had also conveyed this message to the SHO concerned.
PW-22 was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and by the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana, despite opportunity.
(xxiii) PW-23 in his testimony had deposed that on 12/06/2017, ten
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31
17:43:05 -
0100
FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.28/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
sealed parcels having specimen seal were received in the office of FSL and same were marked to him for examination. On opening, the parcels found to contain exhibits i.e. 1a, 1b, 1c, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8, 10, 12a, 12b, 13a and 13b. The blood was detected on all the exhibits except Ex.5. On DNA examination, DNA profile (STR analysis) generated from the source of exhibit 3 (i.e. blood in gauze from spot), 6 (i.e. a pair of chappals), 7a, 7b & 7c (i.e. clothes of complainant), 10 (i.e. knife), 12a (i.e. t-shirt of accused Sonu) and 13a & 13b (i.e. clothes of accused Sahil) were found to be similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 8 (i.e. blood in gauze of deceased). However, DNA profile could not be generated from the source of exhibits 1a, 1b, 1c, 4 and 12b. After examination, remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of IKM FSL DELHI. His detailed FSL report is Ex.PW-23/A. PW-23 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna. Accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had adopted the cross-examination conducted by counsel for the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna.
(xxiv) PW-24 in his testimony had deposed that on 17/10/2017, he had arrested accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in case FIR No. 494/2017 u/s 411 IPC and 25 Arms Act PS Farsh Vihar, Delhi vide arrest memo Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:10 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.29/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Ex.PW-24/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-24/B and accused had made his disclosure statement Ex.PW-24/C, wherein he confessed his involvement in the present case also. Thereafter, he had obtained the PC remand of said accused and during the PC remand, accused again gave his supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW-24/D and gave details of incident i.e. murder in the present case. He had informed the DO of PS Nangloi about the said involvement of accused in the present case and his arrest in the above-mentioned case made by him vide DD no. 5A Ex.PW-22/A. Later on, IO of this case met him and collected the documents from him and recorded his statement.
PW-24 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. PW-24 was not cross-examined by proxy counsel for counsel for the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu.
(xxv) PW-25 in his testimony had deposed that on 07/06/2017, he had joined the investigation of the present case with SI Kamlesh, SI Rajbir, HC Hanuman, Ct. Sandeep, informer and Ct. Parmjeet.
PW-25 was not cross-examined by counsel for all accused, despite opportunity.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:15 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.30/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(xxvi) PW-26 and PW-27 in their testimonies have deposed regarding apprehending the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in case FIR No. 494/2017 PS Farsh Bazar. They have also deposed that during investigation, IO of the present case met them and recorded their statements in this regard.
PW-26 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. PW-26 was not cross-examined by the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and by counsel for the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna, despite opportunity.
PW-27 was cross-examined by counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna. PW-27 was not cross-examined by the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu, despite opportunity.
(xxvii) PW-28 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, after registration of FIR of the present case, the investigation was marked to him and on that day, on the instruction of SHO, PS Nangloi, he went to the spot i.e. Y-Block, Camp No.1, in a park near Sulabh Shauchalya and met ASI Bhagwati and crime team officials. In the meantime, Ct. Manohar had also reached at the spot and handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka. At the spot, he had lifted the exhibits i.e. blood sample, earth control and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:22 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.31/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
blood stained earth control and kept the said exhibits in separate plastic containers and the said containers were taped with the doctor's tape and were sealed with the seal of RK and after sealing, the said exhibits were seized vide memo Ex.PW-13/C. He had also lifted one pair of chappal lying at the spot having blood stains and kept the said pair of chappal in a cloth pullanda and said pullanda was sealed with the seal of SK and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/D. At the spot, he had also met complainant Smt. Shyam Lata, who had produced her blood stained clothes i.e. salwar, kameej and chunni. He kept the said clothes in a cloth pullanda and said pullanda was sealed with the seal of SK and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-6/C. Thereafter, he had prepared rough site plan Ex.PW-6/B at the instance of Smt. Shyam Lata. At the spot, ASI Bhagwati had also produced sealed pullandas containing the clothes of deceased and one sample seal, which he had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-13/B. He had recorded the statement of witnesses and deposited the case property in Malkhana. On 07/06/2017, he alongwith SI Pankaj and Ct. Shailender left PS for the search of accused persons and when they reached at CRPF camp, Sultanpur Majra road, Delhi, they found the Special staff of Outer District present there i.e. SI Kamlesh, ASI Rajbir, Ct. Dalip and Ct. Sandeep and they were interrogating two boys i.e. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Sahil @ Azharuddin. Both the said boys i.e. accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:26 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.32/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Sahil @ Azharuddin confessed their involvement in the commission of offence of the present case. Thereafter, both the said accused persons were interrogated by him and during interrogation, they disclosed that on 06/06/2017 on or about 5:00 PM they both alongwith their associate Zakir @ Kana had caused the knife injuries to Rahul at near Sulabh Shauchalya Y-Block, Camp no.1. Thereafter, on his instructions, SI Pankaj took the formal search of accused Sonu @ Akash and one buttondar knife was recovered from the right side pocket of pant worn by accused Sonu @ Akash. He had opened the said knife and prepared its sketch Ex.PW-15/G and also measured the said knife and thereafter, kept the said knife in a cloth pullanda and sealed the said knife (blood stained) with the seal of RK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-15/H. Thereafter, he had effected the arrest of accused Sahil @ Azruddin and Sonu @ Akash vide arrest memos Ex.PW-15/B and Ex.PW-15/A respectively and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW-15/C and Ex.PW-15/D respectively and also recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW-15/F and Ex.PW-15/E respectively. Both the accused persons were kept in muffled face and thereafter, brought to police station. Thereafter, the custody of both the aforesaid accused persons were handed over to SI Pankaj and Ct. Dalip. Thereafter, he went to the Mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. In the hospital, he had moved an application Ex.PW-28/A for post-mortem Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:31 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.33/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
and he had also prepared brief facts Ex.PW-28/B. He had also filled form no.25.35 Ex.PW-28/C and had also recorded the statement of Mukesh and Karamvir Ex. PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A respectively, thereby identifying the dead body of Rahul. The concerned doctor had conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased Rahul and after post-mortem, the body of Rahul was handed over to the aforesaid relatives vide receipts Ex.PW-1/B. After post- mortem, the concerned doctors had also handed over him the sealed pulandas containing viscera, blood in gauze and two sample seals, which he had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-14/A. Thereafter, he returned back to PS and deposited the aforesaid pullandas in Malkhana. Thereafter, the wearing blood stained clothes of accused Sahil @ Azruddin and Sonu @ Akash were taken off and kept in separate cloth pullandas and were sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW-15/J & Ex.PW-15/I respectively. He had deposited the said pullandas in malkhana. Thereafter, both the said accused persons in muffled face led them to the place of occurrence and pointed out the place of commission of offence and he had prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW-15/K at the instance of accused Sonu @ Akash and Sahil @ Azruddin. Thereafter, both the accused persons were got medically examined. On 08/06/2017, accused Sonu @ Akash and Sahil @ Azruddin were produced before the concerned Court in muffled face and he had moved an application for judicial TIP of both the accused Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:37 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.34/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
persons but both the accused persons refused to participate in judicial TIP. He had obtained the copy of said TIP proceedings. Thereafter, he had obtained one day PC remand of both the accused persons and during PC remand, efforts were made to recover the weapon i.e. knife at the instance of accused Sahil @ Azruddin and to apprehend third accused namely Saleem @ Jakir but in vain. During investigation, on 09/06/2017, complainant Shyam Lata came to PS and identified both the abovesaid accused persons and also specified their roles in the commission of offence. He had recorded her supplementary statement. After PC, both the aforesaid accused persons were sent to judicial custody. During investigation, he had obtained PCR form as well as post-mortem report. On 10/06/2017, he had obtained the subsequent opinion from the autopsy surgeon in respect of the weapon of offence i.e. knife recovered from the possession of the accused Sonu @ Akash. Thereafter, during investigation, the exhibits were sent to FSL on 12/06/2017 through one constable vide Road Certificate. During investigation, he had also accompanied the draftsman to the place of occurrence, who prepared rough notes and took measurements of the place of occurrence. He had obtained the result on the MLC of Shyam Lata. He had recorded the statements of witnesses and made efforts for the arrest of accused Saleem @ Zakir. Initially, he had obtained NBW and thereafter, process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. He had also obtained the photographs from crime Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:42 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.35/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
team photographer. Upon receipt of FSL report, he had also obtained the subsequent opinion regarding cause of death of Rahul from autopsy surgeon. Thereafter, he had prepared charge-sheet against accused Sonu @ Akash, Sahil @ Azruddin and Saleem @ Jakir. During further investigation, he had obtained the FSL report from biology department. Accused Saleem @ Jakir was got declared proclaimed offender by Ld. MM vide order dated 15/09/2017. On 23/10/2017, SI Arun Ahlawat got lodged DD No. 5A at PS Nangloi regarding the arrest of accused Jakir @ Kana in case FIR No. 494/2017 u/s 411 IPC and 25 Arms Act and it was also informed that accused Jakir @ Kana disclosed his involvement in the commission of offence of the present case. Accordingly, on the same day, he went to PS Farsh Bazar and met SI Arun Ahlawat and collected the copy of FIR No. 494/2017, disclosure statement, arrest memo, personal search memo and other relevant memos of accused Jakir @ Kana and also recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, he had moved an application for issuance of production warrants of accused Jakir @ Kana. On 14/11/2017, accused Jakir @ Kana was produced in the Court of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. MM. He had moved an application for interrogation of accused Jakir @ Kana and after interrogation, he had effected the arrest of accused Salim @ Zakir @ Kana vide arrest memo Ex.PW-17/A and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-17/B. He had also obtained one Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:47 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.36/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
day PC remand of accused and during PC remand, efforts were made for the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused but in vain. During investigation, accused Jakir @ Kana had pointed out the place of commission of offence vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-17/C. He had recorded the statements of witnesses. He had also obtained FSL report from the Physics department and also added offence u/s 174-A IPC in the investigation and upon completion of further investigation, he had prepared supplementary charge-sheet.
PW-28 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
STATEMENTS OF ALL ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
8. Separate statements of all accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu, Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the allegations against them and rebutted the prosecution evidence against them and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and they have no connection with the commission of the offence of the present case. It was also stated that no recovery was effected at their instance. It was also stated by the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu that they do not want to lead evidence in their defence. It was also stated by the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana that he want to lead evidenceDigitally in his signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:53 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.37/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
9. In the present case, all accused had not led defence evidence. On 19/10/2023, it was submitted by the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana that he does not wish to lead defence evidence in the present case. Accordingly, at the request of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana, defence evidence was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. This Court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for all accused and carefully perused the entire record including the testimonies on record.
During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution witnesses have duly supported the case of the prosecution and from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against all accused beyond reasonable doubt and all accused be convicted for the offences as mentioned in the charge. On the other hand, during the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that all Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:43:58 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.38/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
accused have been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no incriminating evidence on record against all accused and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against all accused beyond reasonable doubt and all accused be acquitted in the present case.
Counsel for all accused in support of their contentions have relied upon the following case laws:-
(1) Hemraj & Ors. V. State of Haryana {2005 [2] JCC 857 } (2) State of Haryana V. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. {(2024) 3 SCC 180} (3) Ram Bilas V. The State (Delhi Admn.) {2010 [4] JCC 2902} (4) Mohd. Akhtar Gujjar V. State NCT of Delhi {2024 SCC OnLine Del 756} (5) Saddak Hussain V. State (NCT of Delhi) {AIR OnLine 2019 DEL 723} In order to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to show on record an unbroken chain of events leading to commission of actual offence. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case in such a manner so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable doubt.
11. Law relating to appreciation of evidence of the witnesses has been elaborated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:44:04 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.39/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
"Satish @ Bombaiya V. State" { 44 (1991) DLT 561} and it was held that :-
"........ While appreciating the evidence of a witness approach must be whether the evidence of the witness, read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:44:09 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.40/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defense may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
12. Law relating to appreciation of ocular evidence has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Shahaja @ Shahjahan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh V. State of Maharashtra"
{Crl. Appeal No. 739/2017 decided on 14/07/2022} and it was held that :-
"27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under :- I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. OnceDigitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:44:45 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.41/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:44:51 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.42/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31
17:44:57 -
0100
FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.43/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person. XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:04 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.44/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:08 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.45/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
13. FINDINGS
(i) Testimony of the complainant/ injured/eye-witness In the present case, charge for the offence u/s. 302/34 IPC was framed against all accused and charge for the offence u/s. 25 Arms Act was also framed against the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and charge for the offence u/s.324/174-A IPC was also framed against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana.
PW-6 is the complainant in the present case. PW-6 is stated to be the eye-witness of the murder of Rahul (deceased). It is also the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time, date and place, accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had caused the injury to the complainant by sword. PW-6 is also injured in the present case.
The sanctity of testimony of injured witness has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Abdul Sayeed V. State of MP" {(2010) 10 SCC 259} and it was held that:-
"26. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:13 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.46/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.......
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein".
Law relating to appreciation of evidence of injured eye- witness has been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. V. The State of Maharashtra" {(2023) 13 SCC 365} and it was held that:-
" When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:-
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:19 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.47/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded".
PW-6 is the mother of the deceased Rahul. PW-6 in her testimony had categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence of murder of the deceased Rahul was committed by all Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:23 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.48/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
accused persons at the relevant time, date and place. Complainant/PW-6 in her testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017 at the relevant time and place of incident, all accused had committed the murder of her son Rahul by inflicting multiple stab injuries with knives and sword. PW-6 in her testimony had also deposed as to how she sustained the injury on her hand at the time of incident. Complainant/PW-6 in her testimony had duly proved on record her complaint Ex.PW-6/A, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PW-3/C of the present case was got registered. Complainant/PW-6 in her complaint Ex.PW-6/A has specifically mentioned the name of one of the assailants namely Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana. Name of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana has also been specifically mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW-3/C. The contents of Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-3/C have been duly proved and corroborated by PW-6 and other prosecution witnesses.
During the course of her testimony, complainant/PW-6 had duly identified all accused persons. PW-6 in her testimony had also specified the identification marks of all accused persons. During the course of her testimony, the complainant/PW-6 had duly identified the case properties i.e. Ex.PW-6/P1, Ex.PW-6/P2 & Ex.PW-6/P3.
During the course of her testimony, complainant/PW-6 had duly proved on record the documentary evidence i.e. statement/complaint Ex.PW-6/A, site plan Ex.PW-6/B and seizure memo of her clothes Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:28 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.49/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Ex.PW-6/C. Factum regarding murder of Rahul (deceased) and injury sustained by complainant/PW-6 has been duly proved and corroborated from the testimonies of complainant/eye-witness/PW-6 as well as other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
PW-6 has duly supported the case of prosecution. Testimony of complainant/ PW-6 is found to be credible and reliable. The testimony of PW-6 is also corroborated with the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimony/version of complainant/eye-witness/PW-6. In the cross-examination of PW-6, no material contradiction/ inconsistency has been surfaced or pointed out except some minor ones, which are but natural.
(ii) Testimonies of other public witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 are the other public witnesses examined by the prosecution in the present case.
PW-1 and PW-2 in their testimony had deposed regarding Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:32 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.50/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
identification of dead body of deceased Rahul. PW-1 in his testimony had also deposed that on 06/06/2017, he had called the police at 100 number from the mobile phone of his bhabhi Shyam Lata from SGM hospital.
Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are corroborated with the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-2 was not cross-examined by counsel for accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and by the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna.
(iii) Identity of the deceased PW-1 and PW-2 in their testimonies had deposed regarding identification of dead body of deceased Rahul and they identified the dead body of Rahul vide memos/statements Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A respectively. All accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses to dispute the identity of the deceased. Hence, identity of the deceased Rahul is duly established by the prosecution.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:40 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.51/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(iv) Identity of all accused PW-6 and PW-28 during the course of their testimonies had duly identified all accused persons. PW-14, PW-15 and PW-25, during the course of their testimonies had duly identified the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu and Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna. PW-17, PW-24, PW-26 and PW-27 during the course of their testimonies had duly identified the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana.
PW-6, who is stated to be the complainant/ eye-witness of the incident, in her testimony had specifically mentioned the names of all accused persons as assailants. Complainant/PW-6 in her complaint Ex.PW-6/A had specifically mentioned the name of the accused Jakir (Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana) as one of the assailants. Name of the accused Jakir (Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana) had also been specifically mentioned in the FIR Ex.PW-3/C. All accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross- examination of aforesaid witnesses to dispute the identity of the accused persons. Hence, identity of accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu, Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana is duly established by the prosecution.
(v) Presence of all accused PW-6 in her testimony had specifically deposed that all Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:45 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.52/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
accused were present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. PW-6 in her testimony had categorically, elaborately and graphically described as to how the offence of murder of the deceased Rahul was committed by all accused at the relevant time, date and place. PW-6 in her testimony had also deposed as to how she sustained the injury on her hand at the time of incident. Complainant/PW-6 in her testimony had specifically deposed that she, her son Rahul and all accused persons were present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. All accused had not led any defence evidence to rebut the case of the prosecution and to prove the fact that they were not present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. On the other hand, prosecution has been able to prove the fact that all accused were present at the place of incident at the relevant time and date. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence and other evidence, it is clear that all accused were present at the time of incident at the relevant time and date. Hence, presence of all accused at the place of the incident at the relevant time and date is duly established by the prosecution.
(vi) Identity of case property During the course of examination of PW-6, case property i.e. clothes of complainant Smt. Shyam Lata Ex.PW-6/P1 (colly), one pair of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:49 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.53/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
chappal of deceased Ex.PW-6/P2 and clothes of deceased Ex.PW-6/P3 (colly) were produced in the Court and she had duly identified the same.
During the course of examination of PW-13, case property i.e. clothes of complainant Smt. Shyam Lata Ex.PW-6/P1 (colly) and one pair of chappal of deceased Ex.PW-6/P2 were produced in the Court and he had duly identified the same.
During the course of examination of PW-15 and PW-25, case property i.e. knife Ex.PW-15/P1, clothes of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/P2 (colly) and clothes of accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-15/P3 (colly) were produced in the Court and they had duly identified the same.
During the course of examination of PW-28, case property i.e. clothes of complainant Smt. Shyam Lata Ex.PW-6/P1 (colly), one pair of chappal of deceased Ex.PW-6/P2, knife Ex.PW-15/P1, clothes of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-15/P2 (colly), clothes of accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna Ex.PW-15/P3 (colly), blood in gauze from the spot Ex.P-28/1 and earthy material lifted from the spot Ex.P-28/2 & Ex.P-28/3 were produced in the Court and he had duly identified the same.
All accused/counsel had not put any question in the cross- examination of PW-6, PW-13, PW-15, PW-25 and PW-28 to dispute the identity of the aforesaid case properties. Hence, identity of the aforesaid Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:45:54 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.54/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
case properties is duly established/proved by the prosecution.
(vii) Recovery of weapon of offence It is the case of the prosecution that all accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Rahul (deceased) at the relevant time, date and place by inflicting multiple stab injuries with knives and sword and on 07/06/2017 near CRPF Camp, Sultanpur, Majra Road, Delhi, accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu was found in possession of weapon of offence i.e. button actuated knife.
PW-14, PW-15 and PW-28 in their testimonies had specifically deposed that weapon of offence i.e. button actuated knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu at the relevant time, date and place. Sketch of knife Ex.PW-15/G and seizure memo of knife Ex.PW-15/H have been duly proved on record by the prosecution. Factum regarding recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife from the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu has been duly proved on record by the prosecution. No evidence had been led by the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu in support of his defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the prosecution in this regard.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31
17:45:59 -
0100
FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.55/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(viii) Medical witnesses
PW-5, PW-7 and PW-10 are the medical witnesses, examined by the prosecution in the present case.
PW-5 is the medical witness, who conducted the post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased Rahul and prepared post-mortem report Ex.PW-5/A and subsequent opinion Ex.PW-5/B. PW-5 in his testimony had deposed that on 07/06/2017, he had conducted the post- mortem on the body of Rahul Kumar and prepared post-mortem report no.503/2017 Ex.PW-5/A. PW-5 in his testimony had also deposed that the deceased had sustained seven injuries as mentioned in post-mortem report and the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and time since death was approximately 17-20 hours prior to post-mortem and he had given subsequent opinion on PM report Ex.PW-5/B and opined that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock.
PW-7 is the medical witness, who examined the deceased Rahul and prepared his MLC Ex.PW-7/A. PW-7 in her testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, she had examined the patient Rahul with the alleged history of stab injuries vide MLC No.09669/2017 Ex.PW-7/A. PW-7 in her testimony had also deposed that the patient was brought dead.
PW-10 is the medical witness, who examined the complainant/injured Shyam Lata and prepared her MLC Ex.PW-10/A. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:04 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.56/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
PW-10 in his testimony had deposed that on 06/06/2017, Dr. Vishal Kant had medically examined the patient Smt. Shyam Lata vide MLC No.09487 Ex.PW-10/A with the alleged history of assault, under his supervision and he had opined the nature of injury as 'simple'.
Testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7 are corroborated with the post-mortem report Ex.PW-5/A, subsequent opinion Ex.PW-5/B and MLC Ex.PW-7/A of deceased Rahul.
Testimony of PW-10 is corroborated with the MLC of complainant/injured Shyam Lata Ex.PW-10/A. Medical documents of the deceased Rahul and complainant/injured Shyam Lata have been duly proved on record by the aforesaid medical witnesses. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/ versions/ opinions of the aforesaid medical witnesses. No evidence had been led by all accused in support of their defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the prosecution in this regard.
(ix) Forensic witnesses PW-20 and PW-23 are the forensic witnesses, examined by the prosecution in the present case. PW-20 and PW-23 in their testimonies had duly proved on record the FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-23/A. PW-20 in her testimony had deposed that on 25/08/2017, she Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:09 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.57/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
had received two sealed parcels and same were marked to her for examination and on opening of parcels, parcel no.1 found to contain articles i.e. one T-shirt, one lower and underwear and she marked them as exhibits 1a, 1b and 1c and parcel no.10 found to contain one knife and after the examination of the said parcels, she had opined that cut marks Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 on lower in exhibit 1b, cut marks Q6 and Q7 on t-shirt in exhibit 1a and cut marks Q8, Q9 and Q10 on underwear in exhibit 1c were examined physical and using measuring tools in respect of shape, size, texture and it was found that cut mark Q3 and Q4 on exhibit 1b and cut mark Q9 on exhibit 1c were corresponding to each other due to overlapping and test cut marks T1 on exhibit 1a and test cut mark T2 on exhibit 1b were made with the help of knife (exhibit 10) and these test cut marks were compared with the crime cut marks. PW-20 in her testimony had also deposed that on the basis of cut shape and morphology, it was found that cut marks Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q5 on exhibit 1b, cut marks Q6 and Q7 on exhibit 1a, cut marks Q8, Q9 and Q10 on exhibit 1c could be caused by the sharp weapon like exhibit 10 (knife).
PW-23 in his testimony had deposed that on 12/06/2017, ten sealed parcels were marked to him for examination and on opening, the parcels found to contain exhibits i.e. 1a, 1b, 1c, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7a, 7b, 7c, 8, 10, 12a, 12b, 13a and 13b and the blood was detected on all the exhibits except Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:13 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.58/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
Ex.5. PW-23 in his testimony had also deposed that on DNA examination, DNA profile (STR analysis) generated from the source of exhibit 3 (i.e. blood in gauze from spot), 6 (i.e. a pair of chappals), 7a, 7b & 7c (i.e. clothes of complainant), 10 (i.e. knife), 12a (i.e. t-shirt of accused Sonu) and 13a & 13b (i.e. clothes of accused Sahil) were found to be similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 8 (i.e. blood in gauze of deceased), however, DNA profile could not be generated from the source of exhibits 1a, 1b, 1c, 4 and 12b.
FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-23/A have been duly proved on record by PW-20 and PW-23. FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-23/A are corroborated with the testimonies of PW-20 and PW-23. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions/opinions of PW-20 and PW-23. In the cross- examination of PW-20 and PW-23, counsel for all accused had not put any question in respect of credibility of the FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-23/A. No evidence had been led by all accused in support of their defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the prosecution in this regard. Even otherwise, the FSL result is per se admissible u/s. 293 Cr.P.C.
(x) Admitted documents It is pertinent to mention here that on 23/10/2018, counsel for Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:18 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.59/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
all accused have admitted the FSL report dated 31/07/2017 prepared by Sh. Prem Pal Singh, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Delhi and same was exhibited as Ex.PA.
It is pertinent to mention here that on 08/05/2023, counsel for all accused have admitted the subsequent opinion dated 10/06/2017 given by Dr. Manoj Dhingra in respect of the weapon of offence and same was exhibited as Ex.PX-1.
Hence, FSL report Ex.PA and subsequent opinion Ex.PX-1 have been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
(xi) Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana It is also the case of the prosecution that after the incident, accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had absconded and concealed himself and proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him and thereafter, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 15/09/2017 passed by Ld. M.M. PW-18 in his testimony had deposed regarding the execution of proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana.
PW-18 had also duly proved on record his report in this regard Ex.PW-18/A. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:22 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.60/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
PW-28 in his testimony had deposed that he had made efforts for the arrest of the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana and he had obtained the NBW and proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana.
There is nothing in the testimony of PW-18 and PW-28 to show that the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana was not executed in accordance with law. In the cross examination of PW-18 and PW-28, counsel for the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had not put any question regarding not executing the proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. Hence, factum regarding execution of proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana has been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
(xii) TIP proceedings In the present case, TIP proceedings of accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu were conducted by the Ld. Concerned MM/PW-19. Aforesaid both accused had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. PW-19 in her testimony had duly proved on record the TIP proceedings of accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Sonu @ Akash @ Babu Ex.PW-19/A and Ex.PW-19/B respectively. Even otherwise, the concerned prosecution witnesses during the course of their Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:27 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.61/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
testimonies had duly identified the aforesaid both accused persons.
(xiii) Testimonies of police witnesses In the present case, PW-3, PW-4, PW-8, PW-9, PW-11, PW-12, PW-13, PW-14, PW-15, PW-16, PW-17, PW-18, PW-21, PW-22, PW-24, PW-25, PW-26, PW-27 and PW-28 are the police officials examined by the prosecution. From the testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, it is evident that investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case during the course of investigation have been substantially proved by the aforesaid police witnesses.
PW-28 is the IO in the present case, who deposed regarding investigation conducted by him and he duly proved on record the documents relating to the investigation conducted by him.
14. CONTENTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR ALL ACCUSED
(a) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that all accused have not committed the murder of Rahul (deceased) as they were not having any motive to murder Rahul and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused.
For the purpose of any offence, motive, intention and Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:32 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.62/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
knowledge are relevant factors.
The terms motive, intention and knowledge have been elaborated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Basdev V. The State of PEPSU" { AIR 1956 SC 488} and it was held that :-
"..........of course, we have to distinguish between motive, intention and knowledge. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they cannote different things......."
It is well settled law that motive looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witness is available.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " State of Uttar Pradesh V. Kishan Pal & Ors." { (2008) 16 SCC 73 } that :-
"..........the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused themselves and it is not possible for the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:38 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.63/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
prosecution to explain what actually promoted or excited them to commit the particular crime. The motive may be considered as circumstance which is relevant for assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law that the motive looses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of eye-witnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot be convicted if the evidence of eye-witnesses is not convincing. In the same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence of eye- witnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of motive cannot stand in the way of conviction........."
It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Sanjeev V. State of Haryana" { 2015 (4) SCC 387} that :- Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:44 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.64/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
"It is settled principle of law that, to establish commission of murder by an accused, motive is not required to be proved. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention. The intention can be formed even at the place of incident at the time of commission of crime. It is only either intention or knowledge on the part of the accused which is required to be seen in respect of the offence of culpable homicide. In order to read either intention or knowledge, the courts have to examine the circumstances, as there cannot be any direct evidence as to the state of mind of the accused."
In view of the law laid in Kishan Pal and Sanjeev cases (supra), it is held that the motive was not required to be proved by the prosecution as there is a direct evidence of the complainant/ eye-witness/PW-6 in the present case. In the present case, motive of the accused to murder the Rahul (deceased) was not required to be proved as the prosecution has duly proved its case against all accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:49 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.65/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
(b) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that complainant/PW-6 is the mother of the deceased Rahul and being the mother of the deceased, she has falsely deposed against all accused to falsely implicate all accused in the present case. It was also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused. It is well settled law that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Waman & Ors. V. State of Maharastra" {Criminal Appeal No. 364/2009 decided on 29/06/2011} that :-
"It is clear that merely because the witnesses are related to the complainant or the deceased, their evidence cannot be thrown out. If their evidence is found to be consistent and true, the fact of being a relative cannot by itself discredit their evidence. In other words, the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness and the courts have to scrutinize their evidence meticulously with a little care."
There is nothing on the record to show that the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:54 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.66/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
complainant/eye-witness/PW-6 was having any previous enmity with all accused. In view of the specific testimonies of PW-6 and other concerned prosecution witnesses regarding commission of offence of the murder of Rahul (deceased) by all accused, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(c) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that PW-6 in her testimony had deposed that public persons were present at the spot but no independent public witness was joined in the investigation of the present case by the IO nor cited/examined in the present case. It was also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused.
It is well settled law that non-examination of any witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution and it depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its importance.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Rajesh Yadav & Anr. V. State of UP" {Criminal Appeal No.339- 340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} that:-
"A mere non-examination of the witness per se will not vitiate the case of the prosecution. It depends upon the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses and its Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:46:59 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.67/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
importance. If the court is satisfied with the explanation given by the prosecution along with the adequacy of the materials sufficient enough to proceed with the trial and convict the accused, there cannot be any prejudice. Similarly, if the court is of the view that the evidence is not screened and could well be produced by the other side in support of its case, no adverse inference can be drawn. Onus is on the part of the party who alleges that a witness has not been produced deliberately to prove it...."
It is well settled law that non-joining of public witness in the investigation is not fatal in every case. In the present case, complainant/ eye-witness/PW-6, PW-1 and PW-2 were joined in the investigation of the present case. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(d) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that conduct of complainant/PW-6, who is the mother of the deceased, become doubtful as she admittedly, kept on watching her son being attacked by accused persons and she had not Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:04 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.68/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
attempted to save him. It was further submitted that clothes were handed over by PW-6 on the next day. It was further submitted that in view of the same, the conduct and testimony of the complainant/PW-6 have become doubtful. It was also submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused. PW-6 in her testimony had deposed that all accused persons gave multiple stab injuries to her son Rahul and she tried to intervene and rescue her son and she caught hold of one of the knives as a result of which, she sustained injury in her palm. As per complaint of the complainant Ex.PW-6/A, she made the efforts to save her son Rahul. There is nothing in the testimony of PW-6 as well as in the complaint Ex.PW-6/A to show that the complainant/PW-6 had not made any effort to save her son Rahul from the accused persons. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(e) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that as per case of the prosecution, all accused were consuming smack in the public toilet but in the present case, smack was not recovered and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused.
Non-recovery of smack is not fatal to the case of the prosecution and case of the prosecution cannot be completely thrown/wash out only on the basis of non-recovery of smack as case of the prosecution is duly supported with Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:08 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.69/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
the testimonies of PW-6 and other prosecution witnesses and also corroborated with the documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Factum regarding presence of all accused at the place of incident at the relevant time and date has been duly proved by the prosecution. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(f) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that in the present case, FSL results in respect of case property does not support the case of the prosecution and makes the entire case doubtful and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused. In the present case, PW-20 and PW-23 are the forensic witnesses examined by the prosecution. FSL reports Ex.PW-20/A and Ex.PW-23/A have been duly proved on record by PW-20 and PW-23. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/versions/opinions of PW-20 and PW-23. Even otherwise, the FSL result is per se admissible u/s. 293 Cr.P.C.
Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(g) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that in the present case, post-mortem report does not Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:12 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.70/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
support the case of the prosecution as in the post-mortem report, size of injuries has been mentioned different from the size of weapon recovered from the accused persons. It was also submitted that police has also not been able to do the corresponding cut marks on the clothes of the deceased with the injury marks upon the body of the deceased. It was further submitted that in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused. It is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant, time, date and place, all accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Rahul by inflicting multiple stab injuries with knives and sword and on 07/06/2017, accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu was found in possession of weapon of offence i.e. button actuated knife.
In the present case, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-10 are the medical witnesses examined by the prosecution. Post-mortem report of the deceased Ex.PW-5/A, subsequent opinion Ex.PW-5/B and MLC of the deceased Ex.PW-7/A have been duly proved on record by PW-5 and PW-7. It is pertinent to mention here that on 08/05/2023, counsel for all accused have admitted the subsequent opinion dated 10/06/2017 given by Dr. Manoj Dhingra in respect of the weapon of offence and same was exhibited as Ex.PX-1. Hence, subsequent opinion Ex.PX-1 has also been duly proved on record by the prosecution. In the present case, one of the weapon of offence i.e. button actuated knife was recovered from the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:18 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.71/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
possession of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu. In the present case, other weapons of offence i.e. knife and sword were not recovered. In the present case, subsequent opinion Ex.PX-1 was given by Dr. Manoj Dhingra on the basis of recovered weapon of offence i.e. knife. In subsequent opinion Ex.PX-1, it is mentioned that " injury mention in PM report is possible by this weapon or similar which I have received from I/O in seal condition with the seal of R.K." On the one hand, all accused have admitted subsequent opinion Ex.PX-1 and on the other hand, they are challenging the opinion made in subsequent opinion Ex.PX-1. No reasonable explanation has been furnished by all accused for the same. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimonies/ versions/opinions of PW-5 and PW-7. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(h) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that in the present case, other weapons of offence have not been recovered and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused. It is the case of the prosecution is that at the relevant, time, date and place, all accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Rahul by inflicting multiple stab injuries with knives and sword and accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had also caused the Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:23 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.72/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
injury to the complainant by sword and on 07/06/2017, accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu was found in possession of weapon of offence i.e. button actuated knife.
In the present case, one of the weapon of offence i.e. button actuated knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu. In the present case, other weapons of offence i.e. knife and sword were not recovered. There is nothing in the testimony of PW-28/IO to show that he had not made any effort to recover the other weapons of offence. PW-28/IO in his testimony had deposed that during PC remand, efforts were made to recover weapons of offence at the instance of the accused Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana but in vain. Even otherwise, non-recovery of other weapons of offence is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as case of the prosecution is duly supported with the testimonies of PW-6 and other prosecution witnesses and also corroborated with the documentary evidence as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(i) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that the place where the accused persons were consuming smack, place where complainant was standing at the time of Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:28 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.73/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
attack and place from where the tempo had removed the injured to the hospital have not been shown in the site plan and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused. In the present case, site plans Ex.PW-6/B and Ex.PW-16/A have been duly proved on record by the prosecution. In the site plans Ex.PW-6/B and Ex.PW-16/A, all the relevant points/places of the spot have been shown. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(j) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that in the present case, prosecution and complainant have not placed/proved on record any document to show that the complainant was working as sweeper in Sulabh Shauchalya, which was situated near the place of incident and in view of the same, the presence of the complainant at the spot at the relevant time and date has become doubtful and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused.
Complainant/PW-6 in her testimony nowhere stated that she was the regular/temporary employee of the Sulabh Shauchalya. Complainant/PW-6 in her testimony had deposed that nobody was taking care of the aforesaid Sulabh Shauchalya and she started maintaining the same for the last about 10 to 12 years and the public persons, who used to visit and use the public toilet, used to pay her. Employment of the complainant/PW-6 is not Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:33 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.74/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
material fact in issue in the present case. Presence of complainant/PW-6, Rahul (deceased) and all accused persons at the relevant time, date and place of incident is material/relevant fact. Factum regarding presence of all accused as well as complainant and Rahul (deceased) at the relevant time, date and place of incident has been duly proved by the prosecution. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(k) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that IO had not investigated the present matter properly and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused.
On the other hand, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that IO had properly investigated the present matter. There is nothing on the record to show that IO had not investigated the present matter properly and investigation was defective.
Even otherwise, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Ambika Prasad & Anr. V. State (Delhi Administration)" (AIR 2000 SC 718) that :-
.....Dealing with a case of negligence on the part of the investigating officer, this Court in Karnel Singh v. State of MP {(1995) 5 SCC 518} observed that in a case of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:38 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.75/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of erring investigating officer..."
Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
(l) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and in view of the same, benefit of doubt to be given to all accused. On the other hand, during the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that there is no material contradiction in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta V. State of Maharashtra" { (2010) 13 SCC 657} that:-
" While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/ omissions had been of such magnitude that they may Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:43 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.76/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate Court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons."
In the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, no material contradiction and inconsistency has been surfaced except some minor ones, which are but natural. Hence, the contention of counsel for all accused in this regard is not tenable.
15. In the present case, PW-2, PW-7, PW-19, PW-22 and PW-25 were not cross-examined by all accused/counsel. The testimonies of PW-2, PW-7, PW-19, PW-22 and PW-25 have gone un-rebutted, un-challenged and un-controverted.
In the present case, no defence evidence had been led by all Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:48 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.77/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
accused in support of their defence and to rebut and contradict the case of the prosecution.
16. In the present case, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and injured, mode & manner of assault, weapons of offence, motive, intention and knowledge are relevant factors. The aforesaid factors have been duly proved on record by the prosecution.
In the present case, complainant/eye-witness/PW-6 in her testimony had specifically deposed regarding the mode and manner in which all accused had caused the injuries to Rahul (deceased) and to her. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses as well as documentary and other evidence, it is clear that all accused had caused the injuries to Rahul (deceased) by stabbing him with weapons of offence i.e. knives and sword repeatedly on the vital parts of his body as mentioned in the post-mortem report and accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had also caused the injury to complainant/PW-6. The said factum has also been duly proved on record by the prosecution witnesses including the medical and forensic witnesses. The prosecution has duly proved on record the MLCs, post-mortem report, subsequent opinion and FSL reports. The prosecution has also proved on record the documentary evidence as well as all case properties.
Testimony of PW-6 is duly corroborated with the testimonies Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:47:52 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.78/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
of other public witnesses, medical, forensic and police witnesses as well as medical, forensic and other documents and case properties relied upon by the prosecution.
Testimonies of PW-6, medical and forensic witnesses as well as medical and forensic reports clearly shows the nature of injuries sustained by Rahul (deceased) and complainant/PW-6 and mode & manner in which all accused had committed the murder of Rahul (deceased) and the same also shows the intention and knowledge of all accused to kill/ murder Rahul (deceased).
17. In the present case, the prosecution has also successfully proved its case against all accused beyond reasonable doubt from the testimonies of eye-witness, public witnesses, medical, forensic and police witnesses as well as medical, forensic and other documents and case properties relied upon by the prosecution. All the evidence on record proved the fact that all accused in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Rahul (deceased) and accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had also caused the injury to complainant/injured/PW-6 Shyam Lata.
18. All the essential ingredients of the offence Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:48:00 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.79/82 State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
u/s. 302/324/174-A/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act have been duly proved on record from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the prosecution.
The factum regarding un-natural death of Rahul (deceased) is not disputed by all accused. The prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that death of Rahul (deceased) was caused by or in consequence of the act of all accused. The prosecution has also been able to prove that such act was done by all accused in furtherance of their common intention with the intention of causing death of Rahul (deceased) and all accused knew it to be likely to cause death and the injuries caused by all accused to Rahul (deceased) were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the Rahul (deceased). Prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had caused the injury to complainant/injured/PW-6. Prosecution has also been able to prove the fact that at the relevant time, date and place, weapon of offence i.e. knife was recovered from the possession of the accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu. Prosecution has also been able to prove the fact accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had absconded and concealed himself and proclamation u/s. 82 Cr.P.C. was duly executed against him and consequently, he was declared proclaimed offender in the present case vide order dated 15/09/2017 passed by Ld. M.M. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:48:05 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.80/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
19. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the case laws relied upon by counsel for all accused, however, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
20. CONCLUSION Applying priori and posteriori reasonings, this Court is held that on 06/06/2017 at about 5:00 PM in MCD Park situated near Sulabh Shauchalya, Y-Block, Camp No. 1, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi, all accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu, Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Rahul by inflicting multiple stab injuries with knives and sword. This Court is also held that on the aforesaid date, time and place, when the complainant tried to save Rahul, accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana had caused the injury to the complainant by sword. This Court is also held that on 07/06/2017 near CRPF Camp, Sultanpur, Majra Road, Delhi, accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu was found in possession of weapon of offence i.e. button actuated knife in contravention of the notification dated 29/10/1980 of Delhi Administration, which was used by him to commit the murder of Rahul on 06/06/2017. This Court is also held that accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
2025.05.31 17:48:10 -0100 FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.81/82
State V. Sonu @ Akash @ Babu & Ors.
had absconded and concealed himself and proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was issued/executed against him and thereafter, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 15/09/2017 passed by Ld. M.M. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful to prove its case against all accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu, Sahil @ Azruddin @ Chunna and Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 302/324/174-A/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act. This Court is held that all accused have committed the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana has also committed the offence punishable u/s 324/174-A IPC and accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu has also committed the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act.
Accordingly, all accused are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and accused Saleem @ Jakir @ Kana is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324/174-A IPC and accused Sonu @ Akash @ Babu is also convicted for the offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act. Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR SHANKAR Date:
Announced in the open Court 2025.05.31 17:48:15 -0100 on 31/05/2025 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 222/2017 PS Nangloi Page No.82/82