Delhi District Court
Fir No. 807/03; State vs . Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 1 Of 42 on 29 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 63/08
FIR No. 807/03
P.S. Punjabi Bagh
U/S: 302/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) RAJBIR SINGH (since dead)
s/o Sh. Mohinder Singh
r/o RZ90A, Gopal Nagar,
New Delhi
(2) KESHAR SINGH
s/o Sh. Tek Ram
r/o A122, Rajiv Nagar,
Begumpur, Delhi
(3) JAI PRAKASH
s/o Sh. Pratap Singh
r/o C27, Aman Colony,
Nangloi, Delhi
(4) ROBIN SINGH
s/o Sh. Rohtas Singh
r/o VPO Sampla,
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana
FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 1 of 42
(5) ROHTAS SINGH
s/o Sh. Chand Ram
r/o VPO Sirsana,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
Date of Institution: 25062004
Date of arguments: 29012013
Date of judgement: 29012013
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 20/21102003 at about 2:45 am DD no. 42 was recorded in PP Madipur regarding admission of one Sushil Kumar in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital after he was given beatings by the police. Sushil Kumar was declared "brought dead" by the hospital. Police was informed and investigation was entrusted to ACP Lal Singh, ACP, DIU, West District. ACP Lal Singh recorded statement of complainant Krishan Kumar, brother of deceased Sushil Kumar. In his statement Krishan Kumar stated that on the intervening night of 20/21102003 at about 11:35 pm, 56 policemen in white clothes in an inebriated state along with three other persons who were not policemen, came at their STD shop situated on the ground floor of their house bearing no. A146, Madipur, JJ Colony, Delhi. Rajbir Singh, Chowki Incharge Madipur, Ct. Robin, Ct. Jai Prakash both FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 2 of 42 from PP Madipur, Ct. Rohtash from PS Punjabi Bagh were among those police persons and they came in Indica car and the three persons came on foot. The police knocked the door of complainant and the wife of Sushil Kumar saw from the window at First Floor. Complainant was residing at Second Floor of the same house. On hearing the knock, the complainant also saw from the window. The Chowki Incharge Rajbir was asking for coming down otherwise he will shoot. When Sushil Kumar opened the door at the ground, the Chowki Incharge and his associates grabbed Sushil Kumar and started beating him. The Chowki Incharge was giving beatings to Sushil Kumar with paya (leg) of cot. The complainant saw all this from above as he was scared. The wife of Sushil Kumar also did not go down and cried from above. The chowkiIncharge also abused the wife of Sushil Kumar. The policemen gave beatings to Sushil Kumar for about 1520 minutes and thereafter took him in Indica car.
2. It is also the case of the prosecution that the elder brother of complainant namely Om Prakash residing at B13, Madipur, was informed by the daughter of complainant through telephone. When brother of complainant went to PP Madipur to inquire about Sushil Kumar, he was also abused and slapped by FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 3 of 42 Chowki Incharge Rajbir Singh and Om Prakash returned back to the house of complainant. At about 1:30 am, when complainant along with his family members were standing on the first floor, Chowki Incharge Rajbir Singh along with his associates came in the same Indica car and threw Sushil Kumar outside the house of complainant. Complainant along with his brother Om Prakash and Chachi Kamla Devi took Sushil Kumar to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital where doctors declared Sushil Kumar as "brought dead". On the statement of complainant, FIR u/s 302/34 IPC was registered at PS Punjabi Bagh. Further investigation was entrusted to Inspector A. S. Bajwa, Antihomicide Section, Crime Branch. Proceedings u/s 176 Cr.P.C. were conducted and exhibits were taken into possession. Accused Keshar Singh, Jai Prakash, Robin Singh, Rohtash Singh and Rajbir Singh were arrested. During investigation, it was revealed that Rajbir Singh had the tip of gambling and when they went to catch the gamblers, deceased Sushil Kumar alerted the gamblers by whistle and the raid was failed. Specimen handwriting of Rajbir Singh was obtained and sent to FSL Rohini. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court u/s 302/34 IPC.
3. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 4 of 42 committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against all accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, Prosecution has examined 35 witnesses. During the course of trial, accused Rajbir Singh expired and proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated 30082011. Statements of remaining accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
5. I have heard Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. APP for State and have perused the entire records.
6. Ld. Defence counsel for accused argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eyewitness in this case. What is stated to the police, it cannot be read in evidence. The prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 are the family members of deceased and PW6 Mangli Devi, PW7 Kamla Devi are the neighbours who have turned hostile. There is no evidence to the identification of the accused persons. There is no name of the accused persons in daily diary. Handwriting of Rajbir is doubtful. The accused persons are not bound to the statement of coaccused FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 5 of 42 who has not come before the court. There is no proof of filing the application for obtaining the writing of the coaccused Rajbir. It has been argued that Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons and therefore they are liable to be acquitted. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there is no evidence against accused persons. The witnesses have not identified the accused persons. It has also been argued that there are contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses and therefore it shall not be safe to convict the accused persons on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies of witnesses.
7. Ld. APP for State argued that even the evidence of the hostile witnesses may not be rejected in totality but may be considered with the other corroborative evidence. The recoveries were made at the instance of accused persons. So far as contradictions in the testimonies of PWs are concerned, they are minor contradictions which may not be touching the core of the case. PW32 has categorically stated the cause of death of Ishwar and also clarified it by the opinion. The accused cannot take benefit of the faulty investigation, if any, conducted by the police. Further, public witnesses generally avoid to come forward to join investigation in such heinous crime.
FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 6 of 42
8. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel and the Ld. APP for the State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused persons had committed the offence as charged u/s 302/34 IPC or whether they have been falsely implicated. PW2 Krishan Kumar, brother of the deceased stated that on the night of 20/21.10.2003 at around 11.00 - 11.30 pm, fourfive police officials came at their house and knocked the door. One of them was in uniform while the remaining officials were in plain dress. His brother Sushil Kumar looked out from the balcony of the first floor and police officials asked him to open the door. When Sushil Kumar opened the door, he was slapped by the police officials and taken to the police chowki on foot. PW2 knew one of the police officials whose name was Rajbir Singh, Chowki In charge (now deceased) but he could not identify the other police officials as they were not known to him. Later, his brother Om Prakash went to the police chowki and brought Sushil to the house from chowki. Sushil was looking normal but suddenly he started feeling unwell. They rushed Sushil to Maharaja Agrasain Hospital where doctor declared him dead. Lot of people gathered at the house of PW2 as also at the hospital. PW2 informed the police at 100 number and gave statement to the police vide Exbt. PW2/A FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 7 of 42 bearing his signatures at point A. After postmortem, the body was handed over to them in the evening. PW2 admitted that he gave the names of the police officials in his statement Exbt. PW2/A as told by the public. PW2 further admitted that police officials who had slapped his brother and took him to police chowki were not present in court. PW2 further admitted that two dandas produced from the Malkhana were not seized by the police in his presence.
9. During crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for State, PW2 also denied that there were 56 police officials and all of them were in plain dress and they were accompanied by three other persons who were not the police officials or that the police official were drunk. PW2 denied that he had told to the police that police official namely Rajbir Singh asked his brother to come down otherwise he would be shot. PW2 also denied that his brother was being beaten by the police officials for 1520 minutes and thereafter he was taken in the Indica car. PW2 denied the suggestion made by Ld. APP for State that accused namely Kesar Singh, Robin Singh, Jai Prakash and Rohtash Singh, present in court, were the same police officials who had beaten his brother and took him to the police chowki and later threw him back. Meaning thereby, PW2 did not identify the accused persons who were present in the court. FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 8 of 42 Even, PW2 could not recall whether police had recorded his any other statement. PW2 denied that statement Mark PW2/1 dated 26.10.2003 was recorded by the police at his instance. PW2 also denied that he had stated to the police that police officials prepared site plan of the place of occurrence at his instance and also recorded his statement in this regard. However, PW2 stated that site plan Exbt. PW2/C bear his signatures at point A but denied that the same was prepared at his instance.
10. PW2 in his crossexamination further denied that he told to the police in his statement that on 13.03.2004 Ct. Robin Singh was beating his brother with a shoe whereas Ct. Jai Prakash was giving beatings to his brother with leg and fist blows and HC Kesar Singh and Ct. Rohtash had surrounded them. PW2 further denied that he had told to the police that Jai Prakash opened the door of the car and threw away his brother on the road from the car. PW2 also denied that he had stated to the police that he was knowing all the five police officials prior to occurrence. PW2 further denied that he made statement to the police station under Section 161 Cr. PC on 25.03.2004 in which he told that police produced two dandas in the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh in presence of his Reader which were used by accused persons in beating his brother. PW2 also FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 9 of 42 denied that both the dandas were measured in his presence. PW2 further denied that he along with his brother Om Prakash went to the office of Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar where they saw HC Kesar Singh and identified him as the person who had accompanied SI Rajbir and gave beatings to his brother Sushil and had lifted him from his baniyan. PW2 also denied that on 03.06.2004, he along with police officials and draftsman went at the place of incident and the draftsman took the notes at his instance and later on prepared the site plan. During crossexamination by the Ld. defence counsel, PW2 admitted that his statement Ex. PW2/A made to the police was not read over to him by the police before his signatures were taken over it. PW2 had not seen any person beating or slapping his brother since he was having his food at that time and he was informed about the same later on by the public persons. PW2 admitted that his signatures were taken by the police on many blank papers.
11. PW3 Rekha, wife of the deceased stated that though the said police persons started beating her husband with fist and leg blows and they dragged her husband from the house and took him with them but she could not tell the name of any police officials who gave beating to her husband. PW3 did not identify the accused FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 10 of 42 persons and stated that accused persons present in the court were not among those police officials who gave beating to his husband and took him with them. Police never met her in connection with this case nor she made any statement to the police. During cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW3 denied that she had made statement to the police on 28.10.2003 vide Mark PW3/A. PW3 deposed that she saw 56 persons in civil clothes outside their house. PW3 also denied that one of those police persons was Chowki Incharge PP Madipur, namely Rajbir Singh. The attention of PW3 was drawn towards all the accused persons namely Kesar Singh, Robin Singh, Jai Parkash and Rohtash Singh, present in the court and she was asked whether accused were the same persons who dragged her husband and gave beatings to him. After seeing the accused persons, PW3 stated that accused persons were not the same persons who gave beating to her husband after dragging him. PW3 denied that death of her husband occurred due to beating given by the police officials or that she knew one of those persons who gave beating to her husband as Rajbir, Chowki In charge, PP Madipur.
12. PW4 Om Parkash, younger brother of the deceased stated that SI Rajbir, Chowki Incharge of PP Madipur was giving FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 11 of 42 beating to his brother in his room and PW4 asked as to why he was beating his brother and SI Rajbir abused him and asked him to stay outside and would spare his brother after making some inquiry. PW4 waited for sometime near the gate of chowki. After about 1520 minutes, his brother Sushil came out the chowki and thereafter they went to house. On reaching house, the condition of Sushil became bad and he was taken to Maharaja Agrasen hospital. Doctor after examining Sushil declared him dead. PW4 admitted that he does not know the accused persons present in court. During cross examination conducted by Ld. APP for State, PW4 stated that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded by the police on 28.10.2003. PW4 could not say whether the police officials namely SI Rajbir Singh, Ct. Rohtash, Ct. Robin and Ct. Jai Parkash along with two other persons came to the house of his brother Sushil and dragged him and took away him after giving beatings. PW4 could not recall whether he stated to the police in his statement that those police officials came to the house of his deceased brother in Indica Car and took away Sushil in the said car. PW4 denied that he had stated to the police that when he reached PP Madipur, he saw some police officials including some constables giving beating to his brother Sushil by laying him on ground or that FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 12 of 42 he knows those police officials. PW4 denied that he had stated to the police that when he made inquiry from SI Rajbir, he slapped him twice on his face and asked him to leave from there otherwise he has to suffer the same fate. PW4 further denied that he returned to the house of Sushil due to fear and presuming that police will spare Sushil after some time.
13. PW4 also denied in his crossexamination that he had stated to the police that he along with their family members started waiting for his brother Sushil and at about 1.30 am, police officials came in Indica Car and threw his brother outside STD shop and run away from there. PW4 further denied that he had stated to the police that the death of Sushil had occurred due to beatings given by the police officials. PW4 further denied that he stated to the police that SI Rajbir was having danda in his hand, Jai Parkash was giving fist blows to his brother, Robin Singh was giving kick blows whereas Rohtash and Kesar were surrounding him. PW4 denied that he had stated to the police that he knew and recognize all the aforesaid police officials prior to the incident. PW4 further denied that he stated to the police that at about 1.30 am, one Indica car came outside the house of Sushil being driven by Rajbir Singh. PW4 also denied that he stated to the police that Rohtash was FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 13 of 42 sitting by the side of driver seat, whereas Jai parkash was sitting on the rear seat in the car or that Jai Parkash threw away his brother Sushil from the car by opening rear gate of the car. PW4 could not recall whether he made any statement to the police on 30.4.2004. Statement Mark PW4/C was read over and explained to PW4 and he denied having made such statement to the police. PW4 also denied that he stated to the police that he along with his brother Krishan Kumar went to office of Crime Branch where they saw HC Kesar Singh and identified him being the police official who was involved in the incident of 20.10.2003 in beating Sushil Kumar and also surrounding him in the lockup. PW4 further denied that he made statement to the police on 3.6.2004 Mark PW4/D. PW4 also denied that on 30.6.2004, he accompanied draftsman and pointed out the place of incident to him or that at his instance the draftsman prepared the site plan. PW4 also denied that during intervening night of 20/21.10.2003, he went to PP Madipur and saw accused persons, namely Kesar Singh, Jai Parkash, Robin Singh and Rohtash present in the court and pointed out by APP, gave beating to his deceased brother Sushil Kumar. During crossexamination conducted by Ld. defence counsel PW4 was shown the accused persons present in the court and he stated that he had not seen FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 14 of 42 them on the day of occurrence. PW4 further stated that he did not know them and he saw them for the first time in the Court on that day. PW4 could not recall if his statement was recorded by any authority and further stated that in fact his signatures were taken on many blank papers.
14. PW5 Ms. Ricky, niece of the deceased stated that police never met her nor they recorded her statement. PW5 also stated that she cannot identify those persons who took away her uncle Sushil Kumar as she had not seen their faces. During cross examination, Ld. APP for State pointed out towards the accused persons present in court namely Kesar Singh, Robin Singh, Jai Prakash and Rohtash and asked PW5 to identify whether they were the same persons who came to their house and gave beating to her uncle and took him away with them in the car. PW5 after seeing towards the accused persons stated that she could not tell whether they were the same persons or not as she had not seen the persons who came to their house and given beating to her uncle. PW5 denied that police recorded her statement vide Mark PW5/A at her instance.
15. PW6 Mangli Devi, neighbour of the deceased stated that on the day of incident, at around 12 midnight or 1 am, she was FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 15 of 42 sleeping at her house and she heard noise and came outside the house. Some persons were taking away their neighbour Sushil Kumar. Thereafter, PW6 returned to her house. In the morning, PW6 came to know that Sushil had expired. PW6 was not aware how Sushil had died. PW6 after seeing towards the accused stated that she cannot identify the persons present in court as she noticed the persons who took away her neighbour Sushil Kumar from quite a distance and she cannot say whether they were the same persons or not. During crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for State, PW6 denied that she heard a noise of beating and crying. PW6 further denied that she had told the police that she saw that 5 to 6 persons in plain clothes were beating their neighbour Sushil Kumar in front of STD shop. PW6 also denied that she stated to the police that she came to know that the persons who were giving beatings to Sushil Kumar were from PP Madipur and PS Punjabi Bagh. PW6 further denied that later on she came to know that the person who was beating Sushil Kumar was Chowki Incharge of PP Madipur namely Rajbir Singh and other persons who were accompanying him were several constables. PW6 also denied that statement Mark PW6/A was recorded by the police at her instance.
16. PW7 Kamla Devi also neighbour of the deceased stated FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 16 of 42 that on the day of incident, it was around 12 midnight, she heard noise of quarrel and when she came outside the house, she saw that their neighbour Sushil Kumar was lying dead in the gali, near H. No. 146. PW7 further stated that she did not know who had killed him. During crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for State, PW7 denied that accused persons present in court were the same persons who took away Sushil Kumar with them. PW7 further denied that statement Mark PW7/A was recorded by the police at her instance.
17. PW9 Dr. T. Millo, Addl. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS deposed that on 22.10.2003, he along with his colleagues Dr. Alexander Khakha and Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Sushil Kumar, 32 year male vide postmortem report Ex. PW9/A. PW9 deposed that in reference to letter No. ADM/C/2003/412 dated 22.11.2003, some queries were raised by the office of ADM and they had given reply to the said queries vide their letter dated 29.11.2003 Ex. PW9/B and bearing his signature at point A. PW9 stated that the Board of doctors was of the opinion that cause of death in this case was due to acute myocardial insufficiency. PW9 admitted that the external injuries found on the body were not sufficient to cause FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 17 of 42 death in ordinary circumstances. PW9 stated that the left anterior descending coronary artery revealed 90% block by organised canalized thrombus. Secondly, the septum of the heart, on its upper third, showed streaks of fibrosis indicating healed ischaemic changes. This meant that Sushil Kumar had already survived from a previous myocardial infarction and because of 90% blockage of his left anterior descending coronary artery, he was also under the risk of having another myocardial infarction, in case his heart could not be received adequate blood supply when the demand would increase. PW9 further stated that there is increase in demand of blood when the heart pumps faster than in normal circumstances. This increase demand in this case resulted from increase physical and mental trauma alleged to have been caused to Sushil Kumar on 20.10.2003. As the supply of blood to the heart was already compromised due to the blockage of coronary artery, adequate blood required by the heart at the time of trauma could not be supplied. This resulted in acute myocardial insufficiency, which was the cause of death. In view of the above, they were of the considered opinion that the external injuries found on the body of Sushil Kumar could have precipitated the cause of death.
18. PW11 Dr. Alexander F Khakha, Sr. Specialist, FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 18 of 42 Safdarjang Hospital and PW22 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS were also members of Board who conducted postmortem examination vide PM report Ex. PW9/A on the body of deceased Sushil and they deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW9. PW11 also proved the photographs taken during the postmortem vide Ex. PW11/A1 to Ex. PW11/A41. PW23 Dr. Anil Jindal, Casualty Incharge, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Kshiteej Gaur on the MLC Ex. PW23/A of Sushil Kumar S/o Suraj Bhan, age 32 years.
19. PW8 Niranjan stated that he did not click any photograph on the asking of police. PW8 further stated that he only used to take photographs in marriages / functions. PW8 never met the police nor he made any statement. During crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for State, statement Mark PW8/A was read over and explained to PW8 who denied having made such statement to the police. PW8 denied that on 20.03.2004, he was called by the police official of PS Punjabi Bagh at property No. A146, JJ Colony, Madipur, Delhi, where he took certain photographs of a vacant plot. PW8 further denied that he also took certain photographs of H. No. A146 from outside, of stairs and FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 19 of 42 balcony as well as also took photograph of PP Madipur Reporting room. PW8 further denied that he stated to the police that he will produce the photographs and negatives during trial of the case. PW8 also denied that statement Mark PW8/A was recorded by the police as per his dictation.
20. PW27 Sh. Krishan Kumar, Addl. Secretary (Personal & Home), Daman & Diu & Dadra Nagar Haweli (UTS) stated in his examination in chief that on 21.10.2003, he was posted as Addl. District Magistrate, Central District, Delhi and on that day he received a call from the Dy. Commissioner (West Distt.) as the ADM (West) was on leave that day, so an inquest u/s 176 Cr.PC. was marked to him for conducting inquest proceeding in the death case of Sh. Sushil Kumar of Madipur Area, Delhi allegedly expired due to beating by police in Madipur Police Post in P.S. Punjabi Bagh area. At around 2 pm, PW27 along with the reader of SDM, Punjabi Bagh reached the spot i.e. residence of late Sushil Kumar i.e. 146, J.J. Colony, Madipur, Delhi where a large crowd was there in very agitated state and PW27 learnt that since morning they were rioting and even they had put the police post Madipur on fire. The elder brother of deceased Sushil Kumar namely Krishan Kumar told PW27 that on the previous night of 20/21.10.2003, five police FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 20 of 42 persons had beaten his brother outside their home and then taken to the police post Madipur and after few hours around 1.00/1.30 am those police persons threw him before their house. Later Sushil Kumar expired. At that time, his body was kept in Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh and from there the body was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. PW27 further stated that on 21.10.2003, he passed an order Ex. PW27/PX to get conducted the postmortem through a board constituted for the purpose at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi vide office order no. F. 1/SDM/PB/inquest/03/11619 dated 21.10.2003. The postmortem was to be conducted by the board of doctors on 22.10.2003 at 11.30 am at Mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi. Due to law and order situation, the postmortem was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital vide request Ex. PW27/A to Incharge doctors/Forensic Experts namely Dr. Alexander Khaka of Sardarjung Hospital, Dr. Sanjeev Malwani of AIIMS and Dr. T. Millo of AIIMS to conduct the postmortem on the body of deceased Sushil Kumar and to opine the cause of death. PW27 also recorded statement of brother of deceased Sushil Kumar namely Krishan Kumar on 21.10.2003 vide Ex.PW27/PY. PW27 prepared brief facts of the case vide Ex. PW27/B and also filled up form 25.35 Ex. FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 21 of 42 PW27/C in his own handwriting and annexed these documents for the information of the board with the request for postmortem. On the postmortem report while concluding the inquest proceedings, PW27 put certain questions to the Head of the Medical Board Dr. Alexander Khaka and received reply to his queries vide Ex. PW27/D.
21. PW13 Shri C. Raman, UDC, Registrar Office of Co operative Societies, Parliament Street, New Delhi deposed that on 21.10.2003, he was posted in the office of SDM, Punjabi Bagh as UDC and was working as Reader to SDM Shri Krishan Kumar who was also looking after the work of ADM Central. On that day, PW13 accompanied Shri Krishan Kumar, SDM to Madipur Police Chowki and from the room of SI Rajbir two wooden dandas were recovered and the said dandas were brought to SDM Office at Punjabi Bagh. On 25.3.2004, the said dandas were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. PW13 identified the danda (made of baint) as Ex. P1 and one wooden danda (sota) as Ex P2 and stated that same appears to be similar like which were seized by the IO in his presence from the room of SI Rajbir. In response to leading questions put up by Ld. APP for State, PW13 could not recall exactly as to whether Krishan Kumar had identified the danda FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 22 of 42 (sota) in his presence and told that it was the same danda by which Rajbir gave beatings to Sunil Kumar. PW13 was shown statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC Mark X where the said fact was mentioned but PW13 denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not deposing this fact.
22. PW31 Laxman Singh Rawat stated in his examination in chief that on 24.03.2004, he was working as UDC in the office of ADM Central, Daryaganj, New Delhi. On that day, on the instructions of ADM Central Sh. Krishan Kumar, he handed over certain documents to the IO Inspector A.S. Bajwa vide seizure memo already Ex. PW16/B which was prepared by the IO. PW31 handed over to the IO Ex.PW27/A, 27/B, 27/C, photocopy of FIR No. 87/03, P.S. Punjabi Bagh duly stamped with the stamp of P.S. Punjabi Bagh (running into 3 pages) Ex.PW31/A, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PX, copy of death certificate of Sushil Kumar as marked as PW31/PA, Ex.PW23/A, Ex.PW27/PY, identification statement of Jagmohan as Ex.PW31/B, identification statement of Krishan Kumar as Ex.PW31/C, Ex.PW27/D, 41 photographs of the deceased already Ex.PW11/A1 to A41.
23. PW24 Sh. D. S. Chakoutra, Retired Sr. Scientific Officer GRI, CFSL, CBI stated in his examination in chief that he received FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 23 of 42 a portion of exhibit sent by Dr. B.K. Mahapatra, SSOII, Biology for serological examination and he proved his report as Ex. PW24/A. PW26 Dr. B.K. Mahapatra, Sr. Scientific Officer GRI, CFSL, CBI, CGO Complex stated in his examination in chief that on 30.10.2003, he received one sealed parcel i.e. parcel no. 6 from Chemistry Division. He examined the exhibits and gave his report Ex. PW26/A to the effect that blood was detected on Ex.6. PW35 Sh. Dewak Ram, Asstt. Director (Documents), FSL, Rohini stated in his examination in chief that on 28.05.2004, certain documents were received in the laboratory vide memo no. 370 dated 28.05.2004 along with specimen signature for comparison and opinion. The questioned documents were marked as Q1 on CD (running into four pages) Ex.PW35/A, specimen signatures on five pages were marked as S1 to S5 as Ex.PW16/E, the admitted signatures sent along with the documents Ex. PW31/A to 31/C. PW35 gave his opinion that the person who wrote the documents S1 to S5 and A1 to A3 also wrote the questioned documents Q1 on Ex. PW35/A. PW35 gave detailed reason of his conclusion of the opinion Ex.PW35/B. Ld. APP for State tendered the report prepared by Sh. P. Nath, Sr. Scientific Officer, GrII (Chemistry)cum Asstt. Chemical Examiner, Govt. of India, CBI, CGO Complex, Delhi. The FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 24 of 42 report no. CFSL203/C578 dated 17112003 u/s 294 Cr.P.C. for admission/ denial to the defence/ accused persons. The Ld. defence counsel did not dispute the genuineness of the aforesaid document.
24. PW1 ASI Rajbala, Duty Officer proved the FIR as Ex. PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW1/B. PW12 HC Ram Rattan proved the entry vide Sl. No. 1 in DD Register of PP Madipur, Delhi as Ex. PW12/A, DD No. 20A dated 20.10.2003 vide relevant entry Ex. PW12/B, DD No. 40 and DD No. 41 vide relevant entry Ex. PW12/C; DD no. 42 vide the relevant entry as Ex. PW12/D; DD No. 43 as Ex. PW12/E; DD No. 45 vide DD Ex. PW12/F; DD No. 3 dated 21.10.2003 and DD No. 4 vide Ex. PW12/G; the entry at serial No.10 of DD register of PP Madipur vide Ex. PW12/H and DD No. 11 Ex. PW12/I. PW12 stated that duty roaster of PP Madipur upto 31.12.2006 was destroyed vide order No.168/SHO/Punjabi Bagh dated 15.1.2011 vide Mark PW12/X. PW12 also brought FIR Book of the year 2003 and FIR No. 753/03 was recorded at PS Punjabi Bagh u/s. 506/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Ram Kishan and he proved the FIR as Ex. PW12/L. PW14 Retired ACP Lal Singh and In charge, DIU Cell West District, Delhi stated that on 21102003, FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 25 of 42 DCP West at PS Punjabi Bagh ordered him to inquire in this matter. Krishan Kumar, brother of deceased was already present there in the PS Punjabi Bagh and he recorded his statement vide Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, PW14 prepared rukka Ex. PW14/A and got the FIR no. 807/03 registered u/s. 302/34 IPC and thereafter, DO handed over rukka and carbon copy of FIR Ex. PW1/A to him. PW14 prepared site plan Ex. PW2/C. PW14 also recorded statement of Kamla Devi, Rekha and Mangli Devi and statement of one Rikki was also recorded by him on 30.10.2003. A parallel inquiry in this case was also conducted by the ADM (central) Shri Krishan Kumar who completed the inquest proceedings. On 05.01.2004, PW14 collected the copy of PM report from Shri Krishan Kumar, ADM and the original post mortem report Ex. PW9/A was collected from ADM through ASI Sita Ram. Thereafter, the investigation of this case was marked to Crime Branch and PW14 handed over the case file to concerned police official of Crime Branch.
25. PW21 Ct. Nirmal Singh was working as DD Writer at PS Punjabi Bagh during the intervening night of 20/21.10.2003 and he proved DD No. 42B as Ex. PW21/A and the call made from mobile no. 9868178685 and DD No. 43B as Ex. PW21/B was recorded. FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 26 of 42 During crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for State, statement MarkPW21/A was read over and explained to PW21 but he denied having made any such statement to Inspector A.S. Bajwa. PW21 further denied that he stated to the IO in his statement that he joined his duty at around 12.15 am and SI Rajbir, Chowki Incharge of P.P. Madipur along with other police officials namely HC Keshar Singh, Const. Robin, Const. Jai Prakash and Const. Rohtas brought one Sushil Kumar in the Reporting Room and said person was sitting on the floor and given beating by the aforesaid police officials. PW21 also denied that he stated to the IO in his statement that one person by the name of Om Prakash came there and requested SI Rajbir to release Sushil Kumar and SI Rajbir scolded him and ask him to leave and after sometime the condition of said Sushil Kumar started deteriorating and he was feeling suffocation during his breathing. PW21 further denied that he stated to the IO in his statement that thereafter SI Rajbir along with aforesaid police officials took him outside the police chowki and he remained in the police chowki and he does not know what happened with that person.
26. PW25 HC Vinod Kumar stated in his examination in chief that on 20/21.10.2003, he was working as HC in Police Control FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 27 of 42 Room at PHQ between 8 pm to 8 am. At around 2.46 am, he received a call from a person namely Om Prakash from mobile no. 9868178685 informing that his brother Sushil Kumar was taken away by police officials of PP Madhi Pur. When he had gone to bring back his brother, his brother was given beatings by them. He had brought his brother to the house and his condition started deteriorating. He was taken to Agrasen Hospital where the doctor declared him brought dead. The police officials were in drunken condition. The said information was recorded by PW25 vide Form No.1637 dated 20.10.2003 as Mark PW25/A and thereafter, the said information was passed on to wireless operator in PHQ. PW29 HC Nirmal Singh stated in his examination in chief that on 21.10.2003, he delivered the copies of the FIR of the present case to Ld. Jurisdictional Magistrate and senior police officers on being asked by Duty Officer ASI Rajbala by Govt. motorcycle. PW30 ASI Ram Chander posted as HC in PCR was Incharge of PCR van power 93 on 20/21102003 could not produce the original log book in which condition of the deceased Sushil Kumar at page no. 73 to 75 was mentioned and stated that the original log book was destroyed as per order Ex. PW30/A of senior officers. PW30 also saw copy of the log book already marked PW28/PX which was in his FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 28 of 42 handwriting.
27. PW15 ASI Ram Niwas deposed that call book record of period 1.7.2003 to 30.6.2004 related to CPCR was destroyed vide order of Deputy Commissioner of Police, PCR, Delhi vide office order No. 2554/record branch/PCR dated 1.9.2006 vide Mark PW15/X. Therefore, record of vehicle No. Power 93, Power 85, Power 83 and call book record of aforesaid vehicles at Page No. 73, 75, 371, 373 dated 2021.10.2003 and 163, 165 of Power 83 dated 2021.10.2003 and PCR form DD No.1637 dated 20/10/2003 were destroyed and hence could not be produced. PW17 HC Ram Niwas proved entry serial No. 3823 of register No.19 dated 16122003 vide Ex.PW17/A. On the same day, HC Devi Lal also deposited one jar with the seal of Forensic Medicine SDH. On 25.3.2004, Inspector A.S. Bajwa deposited two sealed pulandas sealed with the seal of ASB vide serial No. 3195 vide Ex.PW17/B. PW10 ASI Sita Ram stated that on 19.01.2004, he was posted as ASI in DIU West District, Delhi and on the directions of ACP Lal Singh, he collected some documents in sealed envelope of this case from the office of ADM Central District, Darya Ganj, Delhi and handed over the same to IO. So long the said envelope remained in his custody, it was not tampered and seals remained intact. FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 29 of 42
28. PW16 Retd. ACP Amarjeet Singh Bajwa stated that on 26.02.2004, he was posted as Inspector Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi and on that day, investigation of this case was marked to him. On 28.02.2004, he went to PS Punjabi Bagh for investigation of this case and met record keeper of PS and collected some documents and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. PW16 also met ADM krishan Kumar who was making inquiry in the matter. PW16 also stated that he visited the spot and collected the photographs from private photographer. PW16 recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Krishan Kumar on 13.3.2004. PW16 also went to the office of ADM and collected several documents (14 pages) from there and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/B. On 20.3.2004, PW16 prepared the site plan Ex. PW16/C of PP Madipur where deceased was confined and beaten. On 25.3.2004, PW16 again visited the office of SDM Punjabi Bagh who handed over him two wooden dandas which were measured. PW16 prepared sealed pulanda of both the dandas and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. PW16 also seized case diary of case FIR No. 753/03 u/s. 25 Arms Act and 506 IPC vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/D in which deceased was picked up by SI Rajveer for interrogation and later on released on request of FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 30 of 42 his brother. The said case diary was handed over to him by HC Surender Kumar, Reader of ACP Punjabi Bagh. IO also collected the specimen handwriting of SI Rajveer vide Ex. PW16/E (five pages) for comparison with the signature of SI Rajveer on documents collected by PW16 from SIP Branch West District through seizure memo Ex.PW16/F. PW16 arrested accused Kesar Singh on 3.4.2004 vide arrest memo Ex. PW16/F; accused Jai Parkash and Robin Singh vide arrest memos Ex. PW16/G and PW16/H. PW16 also arrested accused Rohtash Singh on 11.5.2004 vide memo Ex. PW16/I. PW16 prepared personal search memo of accused persons vide Ex. PW16/J, PW16/K, PW16/L and PW16/M. PW16 got prepared scaled site plan of the place from where deceased was lifted and confined, through Inspector Devender Singh of Crime Branch. The exhibits were sent to FSL along with specimen handwriting of accused Rajbir along with collected documents by PW16. PW16 also identified accused Kesar Singh, Robin Singh, Jai Parkash and Rohtash in the court and deposed that accused Rajveer has expired. PW16 prepared challan and filed the same in the court. PW16 identified the two dandas as Ex.P1 and P2.
29. PW20 ASI Jagdish Prasad posted as HC in Anti FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 31 of 42 Homicide Section, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi on 28022004 and proved photocopy of Roznamcha (A) dated 20/21.10.2003, photocopy of duty roster of the aforesaid date and photocopy of DD entry dated 20.10.2003 to 22.10.2003 of P.P. Madipur from MHC(R) which were seized by Inspector Bajwa vide seizure memo Ex. PW16/A. PW28 Inspector Sudhir Singh stated in his examination in chief that on 23.03.2004, he was posted as SI at AntiHomicide Section, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi and he seized the photocopy of the call book of PCR Van P93 vide mark PW28/PX (running into two pages), photocopy of the call book of PCR Van P85 vide mark PW28/PY (running into two pages), photocopy of the call book of PCR Van P83 vide mark PW28/PZ (running into two pages) and photocopy of the PCR form vide Mark PW25/A from HC Ram Niwas, Incharge Record, PCR, Mangolpuri through seizure memo Ex.PW28/A. PW18 ASI Surender Kumar stated in his examination in chief that on 29.03.2004, he was posted as HC in the office of ACP, Punjabi Bagh and was working as reader. On that day, Inspector A.S. Bajwa visited the office in connection with investigation of this case and he obtained CD No. 5 of case FIR No. 753/03 u/s. 506/34 IPC PS Punjabi Bagh. The said CD was prepared by SI Rajveer Singh. PW18 handed over the FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 32 of 42 same to IO who seized the same through seizure memo and PW18 put his signatures on the same. However, PW18 stated that seizure memo was not available on record.
30. PW33 Inspector Anand Singh stated in his examination in chief that on 26.04.2004, he was posted as SI at Anti Homicide Section, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi and on that day, he was present in the investigation of this case with IO Inspector A.S. Bajwa. On the same day Inspector A.S. Bajwa had arrested accused Rajbir Singh and conducted his personal search in his presence vide arrest memo and personal search memos Ex. PW16/H & 16/J respectively. Accused Robin Singh and Jai Prakash were also arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW33/A & 16/G respectively and their personal search was also conducted vide memos Ex.PW16/L and 16/M respectively in this case by Inspector A.S. Bajwa. IO also recorded the disclosure statements of accused Rajbir, Robin & Jai Prakash vide Ex. PW33/B to PW33/D respectively. On the same day on being asked by the IO, accused Rajbir had given his specimen signatures on 5 sheets in his presence vide Ex. PW16/E. PW19 Retd. ASI Kanwar Singh stated in his examination in chief that on 21.05.2004, he was posted as ASI in PCR West Zone. During intervening night of 2021/10/2003, he FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 33 of 42 was performing duty at PCR Vehicle No. P85, as Incharge and vehicle was parked at Madipur chowk. At about 3.00 am, PW19 received a PCR call from control room to reach at H. No. A46, J.J. Colony, Madipur, Delhi. PW19 found local police as well as HC Babu Lal at the spot and came to know that some police officials took one person with them and after beating, he was dropped at the house and later on his family members took him to Maharaja Agrasen hospital and he was declared brought dead. PW19 recorded the said information on log book page no. 371373. However, PW19 did not produce the said log book. PW32 SI Rajbir Singh stated in his examination in chief that on 27.05.2004 he was posted in SIP Branch, DCP Office (West Distt.) and on that day, Inspector A.S. Bajwa came to his office and on his request, PW32 handed over him the applications Ex. PW32/A to PW32/C bearing the signatures of Rajbeer Singh, the then SI, No. D3573 (i.e. the accused against whom the proceedings have been abated since he expired) and all bearing the signatures of Rajbeer Singh at pointA and the said documents were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/D. PW34 Retd. Inspector Devender Singh proved the scaled site plans Ex. PW34/A and Ex. PW34/B.
31. It has emerged from the evidence discussed above that FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 34 of 42 PW2, brother of the deceased, knew the name of Rajbir Singh, the Chowki Incharge but he could not identify the other police officials. PW2 gave the names of the police officials in his statement Ex. PW2/A 'as told by the public' and even the police officials who had slapped his brother and took him to Police Chowki were not present in the court. Meaning thereby, PW2 did not identify the accused persons who were present in the court at the time of recording of his statement as the same person who slapped his brother (deceased) and took him to the Police Chowki. PW2 also denied during his crossexamination that the accused namely Kesar Singh, Robin Singh, Jai Prakash and Rohtash Singh who were present in the court were the same police officials who had beaten his brother and took him to the Police Chowki and later threw him back. PW2 also denied in his crossexamination statement Mark PW2/1 dated 26102003 was recorded by the police at his instance. Even PW2 volunteered in his crossexamination that his signatures were taken on many blank papers by the police.
32. PW3, wife of the deceased, also did not identify the accused persons present in the court and admitted that they were not among those police officials who gave beating to her husband and took him with them. Even, PW3 denied during her cross FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 35 of 42 examination that death of her husband occurred due to beating given by the police officials or that she knew one of those persons who gave beatings to her husband who was Rajbir Singh, Chowki Incharge, PP Madipur.
33. PW4, the younger brother of the deceased, also did not identify the accused persons. PW4 also denied in his cross examination that he had stated to the police that death of Sushil had occurred due to beatings given by the police officials. PW4 also denied that he stated to the police that SI Rajbir was having danda in his hand, Jai Prakash was giving fist blows to his brother, Robin Singh was giving kick blows whereas Rohtash and Kesar were surrounding him. PW4 further denied that he had stated to the police that at about 1:30 am, one Indica car came outside the house of Sushil being driven by Rajbir Singh. PW4 also denied that he had stated to the police that Rohtash was sitting by the side of driver seat, whereas Jai Prakash was sitting on the rear seat in the car or that Jai Prakash threw away his brother Sushil (deceased) from the car by opening rear gate of the car. PW4 did not remember whether he made any statement to the police on 30042004. Even, statement Mark PW4/C was read over and explained to PW4 but he denied having made such statement to the police. PW4 further FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 36 of 42 denied that he made statement to the police on 03062004 vide Mark PW4/D. PW4 also denied that during intervening night of 20/21102003, he went to PP Madipur and saw accused persons namely Kesar Singh, Jai Prakash, Robin Singh and Rohtash and gave beatings to his deceased brother Sushil Kumar. PW4 was shown the accused persons present in the court but he stated that he had not seen the accused persons on the day of occurrence and he did not know them and was seeing them for the first time in the court. PW4 also stated that he did not remember if his statement was recorded by any authority and in fact, his signatures were taken on many blank papers.
34. PW5 Ms. Ricky, niece of the deceased, stated that during intervening night of 20/21102003 around 11 pm, she was present in her house but she could not identify those persons who took away her uncle Sushil Kumar as she had not seen their faces. During crossexamination of PW5, Ld. APP for State pointed out towards the accused persons present in the court namely Kesar Singh, Robin Singh, Jai Prakash, and Rohtash and asked her whether they were the same persons who came to their house and given beatings to her uncle and took him away with them in the car. PW5 after seeing the accused persons could not tell whether they FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 37 of 42 were the same persons or not as she had not seen the persons who came to their house and gave beatings to her uncle. PW5 denied that police recorded her statement Mark PW5/A at her instance or that she was deposing falsely to save the accused persons.
35. PW6 Mangli Devi, neighbour of the deceased, stated that on that day at around 12 midnight or 1 am, she was sleeping in her house and she heard noise and came outside the house. Some persons were taking away their neighbour Sushil Kumar and PW6 returned to her house. In the morning, PW6 came to know that Sushil had expired. PW6 did not know how Sushil died. After seeing the accused persons in the court, PW6 could not identify the accused persons present in the court. Even, during cross examination by Ld. APP for State, PW6 denied that she heard a noise of beating and crying. PW6 also denied that she had told the police that she saw that 5 to 6 persons in plain clothes were beating their neighbour Sushil Kumar in front of STD shop. PW6 further denied that she stated to the police that she came to know that the persons who were giving beatings to Sushil Kumar were from PP Madipur and PS Punjabi Bagh. PW6 also denied that later on, she came to know that the person who was beating Sushil Kumar was Chowki Incharge of PP Madipur namely Rajbir Singh and other FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 38 of 42 persons who were accompanying him were several constables. PW6 also denied that statement Mark PW6/A was recorded by the police at her instance. PW7 Kamla Devi, neighbour of the deceased, also stated that when she came outside the house, she saw that their neighbour Sushil Kumar was lying dead in the gali, near H. No. 146 and she did not know who killed him. Even, during crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, PW7 denied that accused persons present in court were the same persons who took away Sushil Kumar with them.
36. PW8 Niranjan, photographer stated that he only used to take photographs in marriages/ functions and he never met the police nor he had made any statement. Even, statement Mark PW8/A was read over and explained to PW8 but he denied having made such statement to the police. PW8 further denied that he also took certain photographs of H. No. A146 from outside, of stairs and balcony and also took photograph of PP Madipur Reporting Room. PW8 further denied that he had stated to the police that he will produce the photographs and negatives during trial of the case. PW8 denied that statement Mark PW8/A was recorded by the police as per his dictation. PW9 Dr. T. Millo, who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Sushil Kumar opined the FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 39 of 42 cause of death as acute myocardial insufficiency and stated that external injuries found on the body of the deceased were not sufficient to cause death in ordinary circumstances.
37. PW16 Retd. ACP Amarjeet Singh Bajwa during cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel stated that in none of the daily diary pertaining to 20/21102003, it was mentioned that accused persons present in court had accompanied SI Rajbir Singh either in case FIR no. 753/02 of PS Punjabi Bagh or for the purpose of present case. PW16 admitted that he did not seek any written permission from ACP Punjabi Bagh prior to seizure of said case diary. PW16 further admitted that seizure of the case diary could not be made without the permission of concerned ACP. The specimen signatures Ex. PW16/E were not obtained after permission from the Magistrate. No independent witness was joined prior to obtaining the said signatures. PW16 did not seize the relevant entry with regard to the documents submitted with SIP, DCP West Office which were seized by him vide Ex. PW16/F. PW16 could not tell if any entry was made with regard to the documents submitted by SI Rajbir Singh at the office of DCP or any other department which was seized vide memo Ex. PW16/F. PW16 admitted that he also did not make any inquiry in this regard. PW16 FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 40 of 42 further admitted that there is no mention of sending of any admitted handwriting of SI Rajbir Singh. No independent witness was joined at the time of arrest of accused. PW16 also admitted that there are no special mark of identification on danda Ex. P1 and P2. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for State, statement Mark PW21/A was read over and explained to PW21 Ct. Nirmal Singh who denied having made any such statement to Inspector A. S. Bajwa. PW23 in his crossexamination by defence counsel admitted that no visible external injury was found apparently on the body of the deceased. During crossexamination by Ld. defefnce counsel, PW33 Inspector Anand Singh admitted that in his presence, no recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons.
38. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances as well as the evidence discussed above in detail that the material witnesses have not supported the case of the Prosecution against the accused persons. In my considered opinion, the Prosecution has failed to prove any incriminating fact or circumstance against accused persons which may lead to the inference of the guilt of accused persons. The evidence brought on record against accused persons is of extremely doubtful in nature. Prosecution has thus failed to prove the case against accused persons beyond FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 41 of 42 reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all accused persons namely Kesar Singh, Jai Prakash, Robin Singh and Rohtash Singh are therefore acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Documents of sureties, if any, be released against proper acknowledgement. File be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 29012013 FIR No. 807/03; State Vs. Rajbir Singh Etc. Page 42 of 42