Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Sc No. 66/15, State vs . Ravi Sejwal Etc., Fir No. 779/14, Ps ... on 8 June, 2017

     In the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge­02,
               South District, District Court Saket, New Delhi.

Session Case No. 66/2015 
In the matter of :

State 

            Versus

1.          Ravi Sejwal 
            S/o Sh Sunder 
            R/o  F­56, Lado Sarai,
            New Delhi.
2.          Manoj @  Khemu
            S/o Dharampal 
            R/o H.No. F­108, Lado Sarai, 
            New Delhi.                                                                       (In Judicial Custody)


FIR No.                                            :            779/2014 
Police Station                                     :            Mehrauli
Under section.                                     :            302/34 IPC &
                                                                25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

Date of assignment                                 :            01.09.2014
Reserved for judgment                              :            02.06.2017
Date of decision                                   :            08.06.2017


                                                                JUDGMENT

1. Prosecution story as per chargesheet in brief that on receiving the   intimation   regarding   the   lying   of   dead   body   at   spot   i.e. Qutub   Stadium   near   Qutub   Minar   at   around   8   am   on 24.05.2014,   SI   Ramphal,   IO/SHO   Raman   Lamba   and   other SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­1of 62 ) staff  reached  the  spot  and  found  the   dead  body  of  Deepak Sejwal in semi nude condition. Thereafter, on inspection of the body found that deceased suffered gunshot injuries and from the   back   side   pocket   of   the   deceased   one   debit   card,   one driving licence of the deceased and one broken phone make Micromax   and   one   key   of   motorcycle   was   recovered. Thereafter, HC Mukesh was sent to the house of the deceased as per the address found on the driving licence and at around 9 am, PW2 Manjeet, uncle of deceased came on the spot and identified the dead body. 

2. Crime  team  as  well   as  forensic  team  from   CFSL were  also called   at   the   spot.   These   teams   alongwith   the   police thoroughly   searched   the   spot,   photographs   were   taken, exhibits were also lifted. Lateron, statement of Manjeet Singh was recorded in which he alleged that today in the morning at around 4.30­ 4.45 am he had seen the deceased  in the swift car driven by accused Manoj @ Khemu and Ravi Sejwal and at that time he had also seen PW7 Honey getting down from the car. After recording of statement rukka was prepared and dispatched from the spot at around 1.30 pm, thereafter the FIR was recorded at around 2.30 pm.

3.    During investigation,   police recorded the statement of PW Hitesh @ Honey u/s 161 Cr.P.C (Ex.PW7/A) on 03.08.2014 ie almost about after 70 days of the incident in which he alleged that  on the fateful night he was roaming in the car of Manoj @ Khemu driven by him alongwith Ravi Sejwal, however they met deceased Deepak @ Tinku near girls school where accused SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­2of 62 ) Manoj told him to park his motorcycle and asked him to sit in the car to have some fun, thereafter deceased also sat in the car then they had taken beer and liquor lying in the car then when   the   liquor   was   over   they   left   towards   Gurgaon   where they   also   taken   liquor   and   beer   and   came   back   at   around 4.30/4.45 am, he was dropped by accused Manoj  at village Lado Sarai  and at that time Manjeet uncle of the deceased made call from the back but Manoj did not stop the car and they all three went away and in the morning he came to know that accused Manoj  had killed the deceased. 

4.  On the day of incident ie 24.05.2014, on secret information, at around 10.15 pm accused Ravi Sejwal was arrested from Lado Sarai bus stand, thereafter his disclosure statement was also recorded   in   which   he   admitted   his   involvement   in   present crime   with   accused   Manoj   and   stated   that   after   dropping Honey @ Hitesh, accused Manoj took the swift car directly to Gurgaon where they had taken beer and liquor, then accused Manoj  took back the Swift car to Qutub Minar stadium, and they   all   sat   on   the   stairs   of   the   stadium,   however   some altercation   took   place   between   Manoj   and   Deepak   over   the issue of leadership of the area, thereafter he caught hold of deceased Deepak and Manoj taken out the pistol and hit it on his head due to which blood poured and also fell on his shirt. Pursuant to his arrest,  his blood stained shirt worn by him at the time of incident was taken into possession, thereafter at his instance two used cartridges and one one led was recovered from spot.  Further, at his instance the motorcycle of deceased SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­3of 62 ) was also recovered. During investigation, postmortem of the deceased   was   also   conducted   and   as   per   postmortem deceased Deepak died as a result of shock due to gunshot wounds as described in injury no. 1 & 2 and both injuries are individually   and   collectively   sufficient   to   cause   death   in ordinary course of nature. 

5.    Thereafter,  on secret information accused Manoj @ Khemu was   apprehended   on   28.05.2014,   who   on   sustained interrogation   admitted   his   guilt   and   disclosed   that   he committed murder of deceased over the issue of leader of the gang which used to extract money from the builders and after commission of crime he fled to Shimla in his car, the toll slips of the way to Shimla were also recovered from the car. He further disclosed that he had thrown   the country made pistol with   which   he   inflicted   the   gunshot   injuries   at   Himachal Pradesh,   thereafter   on   police   remand,   he   was   taken   to Himachal   Pradesh   and   said   country   made   pistol   was recovered at his instance.

6.   During   further   investigation,   the   CCTV   footage     from   the camera installed at Blue Frog Bar & Restaurant near the place of incident was analysed and found the entry of Swift car at around 5 am and exit at around 6 am. The CCTV footage was taken   in   pen   drive   and     was   sent   to   CFSL   for   extracting relevant data.  During further investigation CDRs of the mobile phones of Ravi Sejwal, Deepak Sejwal and Manoj @ Khemu were   analysed  and  it was revealed  that  all  these  3 mobile phones are of the same location. Deceased is found to have SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­4of 62 ) made 6 calls to Ravi Sejwal.   On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.

7.   On committal, vide order dated 17.04.2015, both the accused charged   or   commission   of   offence   u/s   302/34   IPC. Furthermore,   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu   also   charged   for commission of offence u/s 25/27 Arms act. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 

8.   Prosecution   for   substantiating   its   case,   examined   27 witnesses. The material witnesses are the witnesses of the last seen ie PW2 Manjeet Singh and PW7 Hitesh @ Honey.  The other material witnesses are PW25 Raman Lamba (IO/SHO), PW16   SI   Ramphal,   PW23   HC   Krishan   Kumar,   PW21   Ct. Manoj,   PW10   Ct.   Pawan,   PW6   Ct.   Devender   and   PW9   Ct. Vijender witnesses relating to the spot inspection, arrest and recoveries   at   the   instance   of   accused   persons.   The depositions of the prosecution witnesses in brief reproduced as below.

9. PW2 Manjeet Singh  uncle/ chacha of the deceased testified that at around 4.35 am he had seen  the deceased in the car driven by accused Manoj and accused Ravi was also  sitting in the said car with the deceased Deepak. Hitesh was alighting from the said Swift car, however when he  called deceased, Manoj drove away the swift car. Police came at around 8.30 am   and   informed   him   about   the   dead   body   of   deceased Deepak, thereafter he reached the spot and raised suspicion over Manoj and Ravi. 

10. In cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Sejwal SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­5of 62 ) stated that he reached PS at around 2/3 pm for lodging report and   himself   written   the   report   at   PS,   and   father   of   the deceased was also with him. He denied suggestion that his statement   was   refreshed   to   him   by   his   counsel   outside   the court.   He   further   denied   suggestion   that   main   road   is   not visible due to number of trees in front of his house. He was further confronted with photographs and stated that his house is not visible and denied suggestion that he deliberately not identifying  his house.   He  further denied  suggestion that on 24.05.2014 at around 4.30­4.45 am when he came outside his house, there was no darkness, but again stated that there was light of the car and vehicle was at the chauraha. Thereafter, driven towards central bank. He further stated that he do not know whether any CCTV was installed on the way or not and he noted down the number of car from the rear plate but he had not noted down the number on any paper but given the same out of his own memory. He further stated that he did not call   his   nephew   when   he   was   travelling   in   the   car   and volunteered that he only called his nephew.  He further stated that he do not know the mobile number of accused Ravi at that time. He further stated that he did not know whether Deepak called 6 times on the number of accused Ravi or not.  He also stated that after he came back from morning walk he did not tell   to   the   parents   of   the   deceased   that   he   has   seen   the deceased   in   the   company   of   the   accused   and   on   this   he volunteered that deceased used to roam in the company of the accused. He further stated that police first time recorded his SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­6of 62 ) statement near the dead body. He further stated that he did not see the motorcycle of the deceased on the way to Children park.   He was further confronted from his statement over the sitting   arrangements   of   the   deceased   and   the   accused   and Hitesh in the swift car and also confronted over the fact that he saw the Swift car when he reached Chauraha. He also stated that he do not remember the name of police official who had come to his house with DL of Deepak.  He further stated that he   reached   the   spot   separately   and   several   persons   were already present at the spot and after 2­3 minutes other family members also reached the spot and he do not remember the name of the police officials who were present at that time and also   do   not   remember   the   name   of   police   officials   who recorded his statement. He further stated that his statement was   recorded   at   around   12.30   pm   and   that   statement   was recorded only once and at around 2 pm the dead body was removed from spot to the hospital and during his presence at the spot photographs were taken and he has also signed 3­4 papers at the spot.  He further stated  Manoj, Ravi and Hitesh were persons of criminal nature but not stated this fact for his nephew  Deepak. He further stated that accused  Manoj   was wearing blue shirt but he did not see the colour of accused Ravi   and   also   do   not   remember   the   colour   of   his   nephew Deepak but again stated that he was wearing yellow colour T shirt. He further stated that quarrel took place between Deepak and accused 1.5 years prior to the date of incident and quarrel also took place with Ravi one and half years back on the issue SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­7of 62 ) of pigeons and apart from these two incidents, he did not come across any other incident of quarrel between his nephew and accused persons. He further stated that at the time when he was at the spot, police recovered T shirt of his nephew Deepak and he did not met PCR officials at the spot and further noticed blood stains near the body and also that blood was oozing out of the body.  He further stated that police officer not recorded the statement of any other person who were present at the spot   and   he   also   not   noticed   any   alcoholic   smell   from   the mouth   of   the   deceased   Deepak.   He   also   stated   that   crime team also visited the spot in his presence, measuring the spot and also found that police was taking photographs of the dead body.   And   on   the   second   day   crime   team   took   the measurements of scene of the crime. He also stated that he was standing near car when he saw his nephew in the car of accused, and also volunteered that he was passing through the   car   at   that   time   and   the   house   between   where   the   car stopped and his house is around 15 steps. He further stated that he was called by police for identification of swift car after 4­5 days of the incident and accused Ravi was arrested on the same day, however he was not informed the said fact by the police but came to know this fact in the evening time and in his presence nothing was recovered from accused Ravi. He also stated that he did not disclose to the police when around 8.30 am with DL that he had seen in the company of the accused at around 4.30­4.45 am, however told this fact to the police after reaching at the spot.  He further stated that it is possible that SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­8of 62 ) the deceased was using mobile no. 9266888866 and he might have given wrong mobile number today.  He further denied the inimical relations with the accused prior to the incident and he also denied suggestion that he stopped parents of deceased becoming witnesses in the present case and offered himself to be the witness.   He however denied suggestion that he had not seen the above Swift car or his nephew in the car or Hitesh @ Honey alighting from that car. He also denied suggestion that   he   had   not   visited   the   spot   as   his   signatures   are   not appearing on any seizure memo. He denied suggestion that he reported the matter in PS lateron , however volunteered that his   statement   was   recorded   at   the   spot.   He   also   denied suggestion that as he was not present at the spot, therefore he could not name any public person at the spot.  

11.   In   cross   examination   on   behalf   of   accused   Manoj denied   suggestion   that   there   is   a   dispute   between   him   and deceased   Deepak,   and   further   denied   suggestion   that   he deliberately   concealing   criminal   background   of   Deepak.   He further   stated   that   he   had   no   talk   with   Hitesh   @   Honey regarding the fact from where they were coming, and where the accused persons had taken his nephew. He further denied suggestion that deceased Deepak was murdered by him or at his instance, and he was prime suspect initially.   He further denied   suggestion   that   he   named   accused   Manoj   as   was having transport rivalry with him. He was also confronted with his statement Ex. PW2/A regarding the fact that he was going for morning walk. He further stated that he did not disclose fact SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­9of 62 ) of morning walk to anybody or to the police. 

12. PW7 Hitesh @ Honey   aged around 16 years deposed that accused Manoj and Ravi are his brothers and he do not know anything about the case. On being declared hostile in cross   examination   by   Addl.   PP   denied   suggestion   that   he alongwith Ravi Sejwal and Manoj enjoying and roaming in the Swift car and also denied suggestion that they met deceased Deepak   @Tinku,   and   thereafter   took   the   liquor   and   went  to Gurgaon also for taking liquor. He also denied suggestion that around 4.30 to 4.40 am he was dropped by his brother Khemu near   his   house   at   Lado   Sarai   and   Manjeet   Singh   uncle   of Deepak came there and called Deepak.  He further stated that accused Deepak @ Tinku residing in same gali and he was also   their   friend,   and   also   denied   suggestion   that   deceased Deepak was in their company on the said night.   He further stated that accused Manoj is his elder brother and both the accused are his brothers  being co­villager  and not related to him and their houses are situated about 10 houses from his house and he also do not know   what they do.   He further stated  that he do not know  if deceased  was in company of accused on the night when murdered. He also stated that he do not have visiting terms even with accused persons. 

13. In cross examination on behalf of accused Ravi Sejwal stated that it is correct that on 24.05.2014, he was not in the company of accused persons and sleeping at his house, and the uncle Manjeet also did not met him on that day and house of Manjeet is visible in the photographs and there are several SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­10of 62 ) trees in front of his house. 

PW25 Raman Lamba (IO/SHO), PW16 SI Ramphal, PW23 HC Kishan Kumar, PW21 Ct. Manoj, PW10 Ct. Pawan, PW6 Ct.   Devender   and   PW9   Ct.   Bijender   are   the   witnesses relating to the spot, arrest and recoveries at the instance of the accused.

14.   PW25   Raman   Lamba,   Investigating   officer/SHO conducted   the   investigation   at   the   spot,   thereafter   arrested accused Ravi Sejwal, seized his wearing blood stained shirt, recovered   the   motorcycle   of   the   deceased   as   well   as   the empty   cartridges   and   led   at   his   instance   from   the   spot, thereafter on 28.05.2014 also arrested accused Manoj  and at his instance recovered the alleged swift car and from its dash board   5   toll   plaza   slips   of   Ambala,   Karnal   and   Chandigarh were   recovered,   collected   CDR   details   of   accused   Ravi Sejwal, Manoj @ Khemu and deceased Deepak Sejwal , also seized the CCTV footage of the movement of the white/silver colour car through pen drive. 

15.  In cross examination,   stated that he interrogated one Naveen   who   gave   the   information   of   the   incident   to   PCR, however as he was not aware of any other fact, therefore not made the witness in the case. He further stated that he did not remember if any entry and exit of said Naveen or any other person recorded in the CCTV footage.  He denied suggestion that he did not record the statement of Naveen as statement of SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­11of 62 ) Manjeet was already recorded before his interview, as he was contradicting the statement of Manjeet. He further stated that he did not seize the original DVR of the restaurant and also stated   that   he   had   not   sent   the   pen   drive   containing   the footage   for   analysis   by   expert   and   also   not   collected   any certificate   u/s   65B.   He   further   stated   it   is   correct   that   on 24.05.2014 at around 4.30 AM, there is an outgoing call made by accused Manoj to deceased Deepak, and he also stated it is correct that there is no mobile call between accused Manoj and accused Ravi Sejwal on 24.05.2014 as per Ex. PW12/B. He further denied suggestion that accused Manoj @ Khemu and Ravi Sejwal were not in constant touch. He further stated it is correct that on the day of incident ie 24.05.2014 between 4:40:28   to   05:04:07   deceased   had   made   six   calls   to   Ravi Sejwal.     He   further   stated   it   is   correct   that   inadvertently   he mentioned in the chargesheet that Ravi Sejwal had made 6 calls on the cellphone of deceased Deepak Sejwal, however volunteered they were in constant touch. He further stated that he do not know whether village Lado Sarai and Mehrauli are covered   under   one   cell   tower.     He   further   stated   that   PCR officials did not tell that they had already taken the search of the   deceased   and   denied   the   suggestion   that   PCR   officials had already taken search of the deceased and on the basis of DL,   the   family   of   the   deceased   was   already   informed, thereafter   volunteered   that   the   search   was   taken   by   SI Ramphal   who   sent   HC   Mukesh   on   the   address   of   the deceased.     At   this   stage,   witness   was   also   confronted   with SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­12of 62 ) PCR form in which it is recorded that one DL was found from the deceased in the name of Deepak Sejwal, however witness replied that he alongwith SI Ramphal were also present at that time   at   the   spot.   He   also   denied   suggestion   that   inquest proceedings were completed prior to sending dead body to the hospital. He also denied suggestion that inquest proceedings were conducted on 25.05.2014. He further stated that on the day of incident the scene of crime was thoroughly searched and on that day they could not trace out two used cartridges and a led and body was sent to the hospital at around 12.30 to 12.45   pm   through   Ct.   Virender.     He   further   stated   that   it   is correct that in disclosure statement of accused Ravi Sejwal, it is   not   mentioned   that   he   can   recover   the   shirt   however, volunteered   that   the   accused   himself   wearing   the   said   shirt and he seized the said blood stained shirt as a case property and   not     as   a   personal   search   article   but   through   personal search   memo.   He   further   stated   that   he   did   not   consider   it necessary  to prepare separate seizure memo of the shirt. He further stated that  accused was taken to the spot in banyan as shirt was already seized and he handed over the seal of RL after use to HC Krishan, however he do not remember if the said fact is mentioned in the statement of HC Krishan Kumar and Ct. Pawan Kumar and after going through the statement of both these witnesses recorded by him, he stated that the said fact   was   not   mentioned.   He   further   stated   that   he   or complainant Manjeet did not sign the seizure memo prepared by   SI   Ramphal   and   SI   Ramphal   in   his   presence   requested SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­13of 62 ) some  onlookers to attest the seizure memo but they refused. Exhibits   were   collected   by   FSL   officials   not   by   SI   Ramphal however   the   officers   of   FSL   were   not   made   witness   to   the seizure memo. He further stated that they had not taken any witness from Blue Frog Restaurant. He denied suggestion that there is addition/ alteration regarding "two empty cartridges" in Ex.PW9/D.     He   further   stated   that   he   do   not   remember whether  it was  mentioned   statement  of  HC  Krishan   and  Ct. Dahiya that two used cartridges were recovered beneath dry leaves.     Thereafter   on   confronting   with   their   statements   he stated   it   is   correct   that   this   fact   is   not   mentioned.   He   also stated   that   he   went   to   spot   at   around   6   pm   on   25.05.2014 during which two cartridges and one led was recovered at the instance   of   accused,   however   he   did   not   join   any   public witness nor even called any witness from Blue frog restaurant, however   the   manager   himself   came   to   the   spot   after   the proceedings were over.  

16.  He further stated that on 24.05.2014, they left the PS at around 7­7.35 pm in search of accused Ravi Sejwal and at around   10   pm   they   reached   the   bus   stand   of   Lado   Sarai, however   informer   met   them   at   Lado   Sarai   village   then   they apprehended the accused from the bus stop of Lado Sarai. No public person from the bus stop is made the witness of the proceedings and they stayed there for one and half hour and then   reached   the   place   of   occurrence     at   around   11.30   to 11.45 pm, thereafter recovered the motorcycle at around 12 midnight at the instance of accused Ravi Sejwal however no SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­14of 62 ) chowkidar   was   made   party   to   the   seizure   memo   and motorcycle   was   taken   to   PS   in   tempo   cane   however   not recorded   the   statement   of   the   driver.   He   further   stated   HC Krishan and Ct. Vijender did not sign the sketch prepared in respect of two used cartridges and a led.   He further stated that   on   28.05.2014   at   around   11   pm,   reached   Lado     Sarai where   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   and   SI   Ramphal   were   already there   and   several   persons   were   also   present   in   the   park. Accused   Ravi   Sejwal   pointed   towards   accused   Manoj   from distance of 30­40 ft. ,no videography of the recovery in park was   conducted.   SI   Ramphal   also     not   produced   any videography of seizure of pistol from Himachal Pradesh. He further stated HC Krishan drove car of accused Manoj to PS. He also stated that he had not verified the toll slips from any of toll   plaza   leading   from   Delhi   to   Himachal   and   even   not recorded statement of employee or taken CCTV footage of toll plaza.  He further stated he had not seized CDR call details of accused Manoj @ Khemu. He further denied suggestion that he had not seized the CDR of accused Manoj as the same was contradictory the travel of police party to Narkanda.   He also   denied   suggestion   that   accused   Ravi   Sejwal     was detained in the PS  in the morning of 24.05.2014 itself. 

17.   In   cross   examination  on   behalf  of   accused   Manoj   @ Khemu stated that Manjeet came to spot at around 9 am, and rukka   was   sent   by   SI   Ramphal   at   about   1.15   pm,   however denied suggestion that Manjeet was concocted as last seen witness. He further denied suggestion that RC of motorcycle of SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­15of 62 ) deceased was planted over Manoj. He also denied suggestion that there is an addition regarding the seizing of shirt in Ex. PW10/A.     He   also   denied   suggestion   that   at   the   time   of incident   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu   was   using   mobile   no. 9250928386  however   volunteered   that   he   was  using   mobile no.   xxxxx8551.     He   further   stated   that   it   is   correct   that   the mobile no. 8868 is in the name of Sunder father of accused Ravi   Sejwal.     He   also   denied   suggestion   that   they   have fabricated and planted the toll plaza slips.  It is correct that in CDR   8551,   there   is   no   location   of   Himachal   Pradesh. Volunteered they had not collected the CDR of that day.

18.   PW16   SI     Ramphal    stated   that   on   24.05.2014   on receiving DD no. 17A he alongwith  Ct. Virender reached the spot where SHO was already there and found the half naked dead body and on checking the wearing pant a debit card of central   bank   of   India,   DL   and   key   of   motorcycle   were recovered. FSL team from CBI and crime team were called. Exhibits   were   lifted.   He   also   directed   during   investigation   to subordinate staff to search the bullets as deceased was having gunshot injuries. After registration of FIR, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Raman Lamba.   On 28.05.2014 on the instructions of IO, he took out Ravi Sejwal   from lock up and was taken to DDA park Lado Sarai alongwith HC Krishan, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Pawan, where Inspector Raman Lamba also reached and accused pointed out the place near the wall and told that at that place he alongwith accused Manoj, deceased Deepak consumed liquor and in the meanwhile one boy who SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­16of 62 ) was running from near wall of park was pointed by accused Ravi   Sejwal   and   told   that   boy   was   Manoj   who   committed murder   of   deceased   Deepak   with   him,   thereafter   he   was apprehended, and his disclosure statement was recorded then at his instance car was seized then three day PC remand was taken of accused Manoj @ Khemu, thereafter he took Manoj @ Khemu to Himachal in private Innova and at his instance of recovery of weapon of offence took place. At his pointing out the search was conducted by Ct. Devender of Narkanda police as well as HC Krishan, Ct. Pawan and by himself. Then local Ct. Devender traced out a pistol found in a pit/gorge of 40 ft deep. The pistol was found empty.  

19.  In cross examination stated that it is correct that he took search of body first and PCR official  did not tell him anything. He  denied  suggestion  that  PCR   has  already  take  search  of deceased   before   his   arrival.   He   also   stated   that   no   seizure memos   were   signed   by   officials   of   FSL   who   picked   up   the exhibits. He also stated that he do not remember at what time Ravi Sejwal was taken out of lock up on 28.05.2014 and they reached Lado Sarai park at around 11.30 pm (appears clerical mistake,   should   be   11.30   am)   and   did   not   join   any   public person on the way and neither any public witness was joined at park as they refused to join the investigation.   Ravi Sejwal signalled   about   Manoj   from   20   yards   and   on   seeing   police, Manoj tried to run away from spot however apprehended by Ct.   Krishan   and     Ct.   Pawan.   SHO   also   reached   after   2­3 minutes. The vehicle was parked outside but he did not not SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­17of 62 ) know whether  the keys were recovered in personal search of Manoj or not however HC took the vehicle from the spot. He also stated that he do not remember number of private Innova car in which they went to Himachal, and also do not remember whether  number   of  the  car   was  mentioned   in  the  departure entry   or   not.     He   further   stated   that   he   do   not   remember whether any copy of entries made in the PP was kept in file or not. He further stated that he do  not remember at what time they left Narkanda Police post and revolver was found to be lying in the bushes about 40 to 50 ft away from the road at the instance of accused Manoj.   He further stated that he do not know whether any toll plaza received or not on their route to Himachal Pradesh.  

20.   PW23 HC Krishan Kumar  stated that on 24.05.2014 he alongwith IO Inspector Raman Lamba, Ct. Pawan left PS in search   of   accused   and   on   receiving   secret   information accused Ravi Sejwal was apprehended. After receiving secret information, IO asked 4­5 public persons but none agreed. IO recorded  disclosure  statement  of Ravi  Sejwal. His shirt  was also taken into custody. Thereafter Ravi Sejwal took them to school   at   Lado   Sarai   village   from   where   motorcycle   was recovered. Thereafter accused was joined in searching of led/ fire   cartridges   but   same   could   not   be   traced,   then   accused alongwith motorcycle brought to PS. He further stated that on 25.05.2014 the three days police custody remand of accused Ravi was taken thereafter he pointed out the place where he caught hold the deceased and that his associate fellow Manoj SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­18of 62 ) @ Khemu shot him down and then made the search of used cartridges,   and   two   fired   cartridges   were   found   under   dry leaves.  And after digging the malba one led of bullet as also recovered.  In the meanwhile, Manager of Blue Frog restaurant came   and   produced   two   pen   drives.     Thereafter   on 28.05.2014, he again joined investigation with Ct. Pawan, SI Ramphal and ct. Manoj. Thereafter he pointed out the place where   he   alongwith   other   associate   used   to   meet   and consume liquor. In the meanwhile, one person started running from park and accused Ravi pointed out that person as Manoj @   khemu.   Then   his   disclosure   statement   was   recorded. Thereafter   at   instance   of   accused   Manoj   swift   car   parked outside   the   park   was   recovered.   After   grant   of   police remand,accused Manoj was taken to Narkanda in Innova car and   on   arrival   one   constable   was   also   joined   in   the investigation   then   at   pointing   out   accused   Ct.   Devender searched the pistol .  

21. In cross examination, stated that on 24.05.2014 they left the PS at around 7­8 pm and informer met them at lado Sarai, and they apprehended the accused from behind the bus stop and he had no chance to escape. He further stated that they could   not   notice   the   blood   stains   on   shirt   from   naked   eye, therefore   no   separate   pulanda   was   prepared,   however   also stated that he do not remember whether it is recorded in his statement that the shirt was seized when he was shown his statement, he stated that that the fact of seizure of shirt is not mentioned.  He further stated that they reached the place from SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­19of 62 ) where the motorcycle was recovered at around 12 am and the accused   pointed   out   place   of   occurrence   which   was   also searched however nothing could be recovered due to night. He further stated that he viewed footages of pen drive and seen the   car   in   question   entering   the   stadium   several   times   and Ct .Pawan arranged the crane for taking away the motorcycle. Two  used  cartridges   were  recovered  from  10  mtrs  from  the location where the deceased was shot.   He further stated he told   in   his   statement   that   two   used   cartridges   were   lying beneath some dry leaves however when confronted it is not found so. He further stated  led was buried about 6 to 8 inches beneath in malba and dry leaves which was dig out. He further stated     he   was   confronted   over   this   fact   with   his   statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.  He further stated that accused Ravi took   the   police   party   around   500­660   mtr   in   the   park   and pointed out accused Manoj as sitting near the bushes and after seeing   the   police   party   tried   to   run   away   thereafter apprehended.   Key   of   the   car   was   recovered   from   his possession   however   no   seizure   memo   was   prepared.   No personal   search   memo   was   also   prepared.     In   cross examination   on   behalf   of   accused   Manoj   state   that   he   had seen the accused Manoj running from the bushes at around 11 am and at that time IO Raman Lamba was also present. He further stated  that during investigation accused told the IO that he   had   not   stayed   anywhere   in   Himachal   Pradesh   when thrown   the   katta   in   Narkanda.   He   further   stated   that   they reached PP Narkanda at around 8 am. 

SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­20of 62 )

22.   PW21   Ct.   Manoj  stated   that   on   28.05.2014   he alongwith   SI   Ramphal,   HC   Kishan,   Ct.   Pawan   as   well   as accused   Manoj   left   for   Shimla   and   reached   Narkanda   at around 8­8.30 am on 29.05.2014.  He also stated that  firstly they   went   to   Narkanda   chowki,   from   there     took   one   Ct. Devender,   thereafter   accused   took   the   police   party   towards thanedar and pointed out the place where he had thrown the weapon of offence  which is around 500 mtrs from Shiv Parvati Mandir near a stone.  Thereafter, on search the weapon was recovered.     In   cross   examination   stated   that   they   went   to Narkanda in private innova however cannot tell the number not even   tell   the   name   of   the   driver.   He   further   stated   that   he directly reached Narkanda and he also do not know the name of Incharge of PP Narkanda. He also stated that IO made the search   on   lower   side,   and   from   there   he   was   having   the custody of the accused at about 30 mtrs.  He further stated his signatures were not obtained on any of the documents. 

23.   PW10 Ct. Pawan is also a witness of arrest of accused Ravi Sejwal on 24.05.2014 and also accompanied SI Rampal and  others  for  arresting  accused  Manoj  @ Khemu.  He also accompanied   SI   Ramphal   to   Narkanda   and   stated   that accused got recovered the pistol from lower side of the road near a tree after searching the place by the police party.

24.  In cross examination stated that  they started from the PS   at around 7­8 pm and around 8­8.15 pm met the secret informer.   Several   persons   were   present   from   where   the accused Ravi Sejwal was arrested. He also stated that he was SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­21of 62 ) standing at bus stop alone and accused did not try to run away after seeing them.  He also stated that he had not stated in his statement that shirt of accused was taken into possession and at   around   11   pm   they   reached   at   the   place   of   occurrence where   the   pointing   out   memo   was   prepared.   Nothing   was recovered from place of occurrence at that time. Motorcycle recovered at the instance of accused was loaded in tempo and brought to PS and tempo hired lateron.  In cross examination on  behalf   of  accused  Manoj   stated   that  on  28.05.2014  they had come to court alongwith accused Manoj and Ravi Sejwal at around 1 pm. He further stated that they had not come to court  alongwith  accused  Ravi  Sejwal  only  and  apprehended Manoj at around 10 am on 28.05.2014. He further stated from park after arrest of accused Manoj left directly towards court. He further stated that he do not know who hired Innova taxi and cannot tell who had paid the toll plaza during journey to PP   Narkanda.   He   also   stated   that   no   public   person   was standing   watching   the   process   of   recovery   of   pistol.   At   that time SI Ramphal or police party were not carrying any laptop or computer. The pistol was mud stained but there was no rust visible   on   pistol.   He   further   stated   that   he   do   not   have knowledge whether any entry was made regarding recovery of pistol.  He further stated that they have not informed the court in Himachal Pradesh regarding recovery of case property no site plan of place of recovery was made nor any photography was conducted.   He further denied suggestion that accused Manoj himself surrendered before police on 27.05.2014.

SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­22of 62 )

25.   PW6 Ct. Devender  from PP Narkanda stated that on 29.05.2014, Delhi police team alongwith Ct. Manoj came to PP and joined the investigation and at the instance of accused, one   country   made   pistol   as   recovered.   The   witness   during deposition identified the accused Manoj wrongly, however on cross examination by Addl. PP, stated that due to confusion he wrongly identified the accused.  

26.  In cross examination stated that no written request was given by Delhi police and the vehicle used by Delhi police is like Tata Sumo but he do not remember its colour.  He further stated that he do not remember whether the number of the vehicle is mentioned in the DD entry. No public person was asked   to   join   the   investigation   when   they   left   the   PP   and further no public person was present near Shiv Mandir.   He also stated that he do not remember the name of police officer who recorded his statement, however statement was recorded in pen.  He further stated that IO was not carrying any laptop or printer with him and pistol has got rust at number of places and seal after use was handed over to him and  then the seal was handed over to other police persons who were from Delhi police but he do not know their names. IO had also taken 3­4 photographs of place of recovery and he was not handed over any photograph or negatives. Site plan was also prepared but no such site plan was found on record.  He further stated that recovered   pistol   was   neither   produced   before   Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrate in their jurisdiction, and also not mentioned in register of malkhana. 

SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­23of 62 )

27.   PW9   Ct.   Bijender    stated   that   on   25.05.2014   after accused Ravi Sejwal produced in the court and three days PC remand was taken, he took police party to scene of crime and got   recovered   two   fired   cartridges   and   one   led   from underneath the garbage.

28.  In cross examination stated that they started from PS at around 1 pm, however do not remember when they reached the court and also do not remember when they started from court towards spot after police custody.  He further stated that accused did not disclose any fact after police custody remand granted by court. He also do not remember when they reached the spot and no public witness was present at the spot and also no public witness was joined from nearby restaurant.  Two empty cartridges were lying adjacent to wall of stadium in open and the distance between place from where empty cartridges were recovered and body was lying was about 3 paces and one led was recovered from the place where the head of body was   lying   underneath   which   was   buried   in   the   garbage   for about   3   to   4   inches.     After   PC   remand,   accused   was   not medically examined but taken away straight to the spot.  Testimony of other Police officials, Doctors, Manager  of the restaurant, Nodal officer and FSL experts

29. PW13   ASI   Mukesh   Kumar  also   reached   the   spot   on receiving   DD   no.   14A.   In   cross   examination   stated   that   the family members of the deceased reached at around 11 am and he did not leave the spot between 8 am to 1.30pm. He further stated that he took rukka to PS on his private motorcycle and SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­24of 62 ) also stated that he did not know if dead body was removed prior to taking rukka. 

30.   PW14   Ct.   Virender    stated   that   he   alongwith   SI Ramphal on receiving DD no. 17 A reached the spot and there HC   Ravinder,   HC   Ramphal   conducted   formal   search   of   the dead   body   and   HC   Mukesh   was   sent   to   the   house   of   the deceased (PW13 HC Mukesh not stated the said fact). 

31.  In cross examination stated that they reached the spot at around 8.10 am and at that time SHO was already there and PCR officials did not take the personal search in his presence. The entire area of the spot was thoroughly searched, however except   the   articles   seized   nothing   was   recovered.     He   also denied suggestion that HC Mukesh did not leave the spot to the house of deceased with DL and the driving licence, Debit card  and   key  of  motorcycle   were  recovered  from  right  back side   pocket   of   wearing   jeans   of   the   deceased   and   CFSL officials had signed the seizure memo vide which exhibits were picked up. 

32.    PW1   Dr.   Devanshu   Bansal  Jr.   Resident,   AIIMS exhibited   the   MLC   of   the   deceased.  PW3   U.S.   Thakur, Scientific Assistant, CFSL, CBI visited the spot alongwith Lab Assistant Dr. Kamal Chauhan, there found the dead body then inspected  the  spot,   lifted  the  blood   stains,  taken  the  control sample,   found   blood   stains   on   lower   stairs   of   stadium,   also seen blood stains near the dead body and taken control dry leaves from near dead body and handed over the same to the IO. Photography  was also done through local  photographer.

SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­25of 62 ) He further stated that he prepared report Ex. PW3/A. In cross examination stated that it is correct that he had not submitted the report till date to police and volunteered as no request in this regard was made by police till date. He further stated that he had not signed seizure memo although handed over the exhibits to the police.  He also stated that in his presence no seal   of   RPS   was   affixed   on   the   exhibits.   The   private photographer   was   brought   by   the   local   police   and   he   was present when they reached the spot. 

33. PW4   Sidharth   Chadha  Sr.   Manager   of   Blue   Frog Restaurant stated that   on 25.05.2014   received a notice u/s 91   Cr.P.C   from   the   police   to   produce   CCTV   footage   of 24.05.2014,   thereafter   he   uploaded   the   footage/   video recording on two pen drives and handed over to the IO. Out of two one pen drive containing footage was put in plastic box and then it was sealed with seal of RL. He further stated that other   pen   drive   was   kept   by   IO   and   both   pen   drives   were containing same footage. In cross examination stated that it is correct that he transferred the contents of DVR /footage in two pen drives and he did not see the footage before transferring in pen drive and also subsequently before handing over to the police. He further stated that he had not given the certificate of correctness and that certificate was also not demanded by the police, and the seal of RL was not handed over to him after use. He further stated that he do not remember as to who had fixed   the   seal   of   RL.     He   also   stated   that   the   pen   drives containing the footages were collected by the police from him SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­26of 62 ) subsequently. He further stated that police never demanded original DVR from him. 

34. PW5 Dr. Asit Kumar Sikri, Sr. Resident, Department of Forensic Medicine from AIIMS   conducted the postmortem of deceased   alongwith   Jr.   Resident   Rajesh   Kumar.     In   cross examination   stated   that   there   were   25   papers   alongwith request of postmortem which  was received by him and all the inquest papers are not on file, only 8 inquest papers are on file.   He   further   stated   that   there   is   no   date   regarding   the preparation of report mentioned in postmortem report, however prepared   on   same   day   or   the   next   day.   Videography   of postmortem was also conducted through police and he did not notice   any   smell   of   alcohol   before   commencing   the postmortem, however alcohol can be deducted during viscera analysis. He further stated that there cannot be any remnants of explosives around entry wound if the gunshot is from point blank. 

35. PW8   Ct.   Jaiveer   Singh  photographer   of   the   mobile crime   team   stated   to   have   taken   12   photographs   on   the direction   of   SI   Ram   pal   Singh   on   24.05.2014.   In   cross examination stated that he alongwith proficient ASI Raj Singh remained   at   the   spot   for   half   an   hour,   and   in   his   presence CFSL team also came at spot and when they came, they left the spot. He also stated that it is correct that no police official and any public person visible in the photograph and when they left, dead body was still lying there. 

36.  PW12 Sh Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­27of 62 ) exhibited the CDR of mobile no. 9818248551 and 9717858868 in   the   name   of   Khem   Chand   and   Sunder   Singh.     He   also exhibited the CDR of mobile no. 9266888866 registered in the name of Deepak Sejwal. In cross examination, stated that the certificate   regarding   the   mobile   no.   9818248551   and 9717858868   were   issued   by   Vishal   Gaurav   not   by   him.   He further stated it is correct that call made at 4.55.30 was of 170 seconds. 

37.   PW15   Inspector   Mukesh   Jain,   draftsman   who prepared   the   scaled   site   plan   in   presence   of   PW   Manjeet. PW17   Santosh   Tripathi  Sr.  Scientific   officer,   FSL  exhibited the viscera report Ex.PW17/A. In cross examination stated that it is correct that no alcohol was found in the viscera analysis of the deceased. PW18 Pramod Singh Kushwaha, DCP Special Cell exhibited the sanction report (Ex.PW18/A) for prosecution of accused Manoj.

38.  PW19 Ms. Babita Gulia Sr. Scientific officer­II (Ballistic) CFSL   CBI   exhibited   the   ballistic   report   (Ex.PW19/A).  PW20 HC Vedpal Malkhana mohrar  exhibited the malkhana register. In cross examination,   stated that on 24.05.2014 IO had not deposited any separate seizure memo of shirt of accused Ravi Sejwal  and  denied suggestion  that the pulanda of shirt  was deposited   lateron   by   the   IO.   This   witness   also   denied suggestion   that   as   no   separate   seizure   memo   of   shirt   was prepared,   so   lateron   item   at   sl.no.   3   was   inserted subsequently.  He also stated it is correct that time regarding SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­28of 62 ) the   deposit   of   seal   pulanda   of   country   made   pistol   is   not mentioned in the register.  

39.  PW22 Dr. B.K. Mohpatra, SSO­I, Biology CFSL, Lodhi Road exhibited the biological report (Ex.PW22/A) and also the serological report (Ex.PW22/B). In cross examination  stated it is correct that as per Ex. PW22/B, 7 exhibits did not give any reaction   to   the   grouping   of   blood   and   no   reason   has   been specified. Also volunteered that it is not possible to specify why exhibits did not give the blood group.  

40. PW24 lady Ct. Suman Gautam exhibited the PCR form.

PW11 Ct. Ritesh Kumar stated that on 24.05.2014 at around 2.30pm DO handed over him 5 envelopes containing copy of FIR which he delivered to the higher police officials as well as to   the   concerned   MM.   In   cross   examination   stated   that   he returned back to PS at around 6­6.30 pm.   PW26 ASI Satish Kumar  DO registered FIR. In cross examination after seeing roznamcha   of   28.05.2014   stated   that   there   is   no   departure entry of Inspector SHO Raman Lamba to DD park, Lado Sarai alongwith other staff members namely ASI Ramphal and Ct. Manoj. PW27 HC Hetram exhibited the criminal record report of the accused Manoj @ Khemu and Ravi Sejwal. 

41.   Both   the   accused   in   their   statement   u/s   313   Cr.P.C denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them however not opted to led any defence evidence. Accused Ravi Sejwal stated that he was picked up from his house on 24.05.2014 during the day time and in morning at around 4­4.30 he was at SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­29of 62 ) his   house   and   sleeping.   He   also   stated   that   he   was   not   in touch with accused Manoj @ Khemu on 24.05.2014, however deceased Deepak Sejwal called him between 4.40 am to 5.02 am on mobile no. 9717858868 which was in name of his father Sunder Singh and at that time he was sleeping.   He further stated that he was not involved any other case except one in which he was acquitted. The photographs alleged to be taken by the mobile crime team placed on file were also of some other   case.     As   per   viscera   report,   deceased   had   not consumed alcohol contrary to claim of prosecution case, and even in his MLC no alcohol was detected.   He further stated that he has no concern with this case and he was detained by police on 24.05.2014 itself and all recoveries are planted over him. Accused Manoj   stated that at around 4.30 to 5 am on 24.05.2014 he  was present  in his house at  Lado Sarai  and sleeping   there.     He   further   stated   that   mobile   phone   no. ....8551   was   used   by   his   younger   brother   whereas   he   was using another phone no. 9250928386. He further stated that he was not in touch with co­accused Ravi on 24.05.2014.    Material Exhibits

42.  Ex.PW2/A   is statement of Manjeet Singh uncle of the deceased pursuant to  rukka  Ex.PW16/A    prepared  and  FIR Ex.PW26/B  registered.  Ex.PW13/DA and Ex.PW26/D  is DD no.   14   A   dated   24.05.2014.  Ex.PW26/C    is   DD   no.   17/A. Ex.PW25/G  is DD no. 69B dated 28.05.2014. Ex.PW25/A is site   plan   of   place   of   occurrence.  Ex.PW1/A    is  MLC   of   the SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­30of 62 ) deceased. Ex.PW14/A  is the seizure memo of DL, debit card, key   of   motorcycle   from   pant   pocket   of   the   deceased. Ex.PW14/C  is seizure memo of hawai chappal lying near the dead body. Ex.PW14/P  is seizure memo of T shirt and pant of dead body. Ex.PW14/B  is micromax broken phone recovered from   deceased.  Ex.PW14/E  ,  Ex.PW14/I,   Ex.PW14/F, Ex.PW14/J,   Ex.PW14/G,   Ex.PW14/H,   Ex.PW14/K,    are seizure   memo   of   blood   stain   stones,   earth   control,   leaves, blood swab seized from the spot. Ex.PW10/F, Ex.PW10/G  are seizure memos of swab, earth control from the hospital as well as   seizure   memo   of   hand   swab,   nail   clippings,,   vegetation found over the body. Ex.PW10/H  is the seizure memo of the viscera.    Ex.PW10/I    is   the   seizure   memo   of   blood   gauze. Ex.PW9/B    is   the   seizure   memo   of   2   empty   cartridges recovered   from   the   dry   leaves   at   the   instance   of   accused. Ex.PW9/C    is the seizure memo of the led   found below the malba   where   the   head   of   the   deceased   was   found   lying. Ex.PW9/A    is   the   sketch   of   empty   cartridges   and   the   led. Ex.PW14/L    is   the   seizure   memo   of   video   cassette   of   the videography conducted during postmortem.  Ex.PW4/A  is the seizure memo of   pen drives submitted by Sidharth Chadha. Ex.PW6/B    is   the   seizure   memo   of   desi   pistol,   500   meters away from one Shiv Parvati Mandir and towards 40­50 ft depth on   left   side   at   the   instance   of   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu. Ex.PW6/C    is   the   pointation   memo   of   the   place   where   the weapon was kept by the accused Manoj.  Ex.PW6/A    is the SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­31of 62 ) sketch of the desi katta.  Ex.P­4  are toll receipts.  Ex.PW10/M is seizure memo of toll receipts.  Ex.PW14/M    is the seizure memo of clothes of the deceased.  Ex.PW5/A  is postmortem report of the deceased. Ex.PW15/B  is the death report of the deceased.  Ex.PW25/C    and  Ex.PW2/B    are the identification memos of the dead body of the deceased.  Ex.PW5/A    is the scaled site plan of spot.   Ex.PW10/B    is the arrest memo of accused   Ravi   Sejwal.  Ex.PW10/K    is   the   arrest   memo   of accused Manoj @ Khemu.  Ex.PW10/L  is the personal search memo   of   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu.  Ex.PW10/C    is   the personal search memo of accused Ravi Sejwal also showing one shirt pulanda sealed with the seal of RL.  Ex.PW10/A    is the disclosure statement of accused Ravi Sejwal.  Ex.PW10/J is   disclosure   statements   of   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu. Ex.PW10/D is the pointation memo of place of occurrence by accused   Ravi Sejwal.  Ex. PW19/A  is a fire arm examination report.  Ex.PW17/A  is   the   viscera   report.  Ex.PW22/A   & Ex.PW22/B  are   the   biological   and   serological   reports.  Mark PW2/DX,   Mark   PW2/DX1,   Mark   PW2/DX2   and   Mark PW2/DX3 are the photographs depicting the front road and the house of PW2 Manjeet. 

43.  Ld. counsel for the accused Ravi Sejwal  submitted that the   entire   case   of   the   prosecution   is   based   on   the circumstantial evidence,however prosecution not able to prove even a single circumstance conclusively.  Ld. Counsel submits that first and foremost circumstance is the last seen evidence SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­32of 62 ) and   in   this   regard   prosecution   relied   upon   the   statement   of PW7 Hitesh @ Honey and PW2 Manjeet Singh. PW7 Hitesh @   Honey   has   not   supported   the   prosecution   case   whereas PW2 Manjeet Singh Uncle of the deceased on the face of it do not appear to be reliable and his statement is contradictory to the CDR of the mobile phones of accused Ravi Sejwal and deceased  Deepak  Sejwal   as  relied  by  the     prosecution.   Ld. Counsel submits that the next circumstance is the recovery of blood   stained   shirt   of   the   deceased   from   the   accused   Ravi Sejwal,   however   the   said   fact   is   not   mentioned   in   the disclosure statement of the accused, nor any separate seizure memo was prepared. The factum of the recovery of one shirt is mentioned   in   the   personal   search   memo   which   is   written subsequently   in   different   ink   and   pen.   Furthermore,   HC Krishan and Ct. Pawan witness to the seizure memo  are silent about the blood stained shirt in their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ld.   Counsel   submits   that   the   witness   also   stated   that   they have not seen the blood at the time of the recovery, however when   the   said   shirt   produced   in   the   court   it   was   containing blood. Ld. Counsel further submits that it is unnatural that a person will keep wearing blood stained shirt even after more than 12 hours of the incident.    Ld. Counsel submits that  even there is no evidence to establish who sealed the said shirt with the seal of RL and to whom the seal was handed over. Ld. Counsel submits that  there is contradiction in the statements of   witnesses   regarding   the   place   of   arrest   of   accused   Ravi Sejwal. 

SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­33of 62 )

44.   Ld.   Counsel   further   submitted   that   another circumstance against the accused is the recovery to two empty cartridges   and   one   led   from   the   spot   on   25.05.2014.   Ld. Counsel submits that this recovery is false and fabricated and planted because as per the case of the prosecution,  the spot was duly searched by the crime team as well as the CFSL CBI team alongwith the local police officials but nothing was found. Ld.   Counsel   further   submits   that   as   per   PW9   the   empty cartridges were recovered from 3 paces  where the body was lying, however he had not stated that the cartridges were lying below   the   dry   leaves.   Ld.   Counsel   submits   that     no   public witnesses were also joined at any point of time. Ld. Counsel submits that   the recovery of motorcycle of deceased at the instance of accused also do not appear to be at all reliable. Ld. Counsel submits that  CDR details also suggest that accused persons do not appear to be in the company of deceased at the   time   of   offence.   Ld.   Counsel   submits   that     the   CCTV footage  even  do   not  suggest  any  movement  of  car.  It  even could   not   be   played   in   court   during   trial.   Furthermore,   no expert opinion was obtained from CFSL and even original DVR and   camera   or   the   certificate   u/s   65B   was   taken   from   the owner.     Ld.   Counsel   submits   that   there   are   other inconsistencies regarding the colour of shirt, place of arrest of accused Ravi Sejwal, the intimation given to the family of the deceased,   delay   in   FIR   etc.   Ld.   Counsel   submits   that prosecution miserably failed to prove any circumstance against accused Ravi Sejwal, hence accused is entitled to be acquitted SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­34of 62 ) of all charges. 

45. Ld. counsel for the accused Manoj @ Khemu submitted that   the   present   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu   alleged   to   be apprehended on 28.05.2014 after 3 days of the incident at the instance   of   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   in   a   manner   having   no credibility on the face of it. Ld. Counsel submits that after his arrest, the alleged swift car was also seized from parking of that park and from that swift car, toll plaza receipt of places from Delhi to shimla were also recovered. Ld. Counsel submits that     prosecution   has   not   tried   to   verify   those   toll   plaza receipts. Ld. Counsel submits that   as per prosecution case accused Manoj @ Khemu went to Shimla to throw the weapon of   offence,   however   investigating   agency   not   filed   the   CDR record of the accused from 24.05.2014 to 28.05.2014 which itself suggest that accused has not left Delhi, and it is also not the case of the prosecution that accused has not taken the mobile with him to Shimla. Ld. Counsel submits that  if as per prosecution case accused reached Shimla on 25.05.2014 and came back to Delhi on 28.05.2014, then on the way he must have stayed somewhere but no such investigation have been conducted.   Ld.   Counsel   submits   that     at   the   instance   of accused one desi pistol was recovered alleged to be used in the   crime   from   Narkanda.   However,     prosecution   has   not placed anything on record like toll plaza receipts etc. that they had taken the accused from Delhi to Narkanda or vice versa. Ld.   Counsel   submits   that   recovery   of   katta   is   also   doubtful. PW6   Devender   even   could   not   identify   the   accused   in   his SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­35of 62 ) examination in chief and identified some other accused in the court as the present accused. Ld. Counsel further submits that police did not tried to collect any CCTV footage of Swift car when it went from Delhi to Narkanda. Ld. Counsel submits that entire   case   of   the   prosecution   is   manufactured   and prosecution   unable   to   prove   even   a   single   circumstance against   the   accused   persons.   Ld.   Counsel   submits   that prosecution not able to prove any motive for commission of this  crime.   Besides   oral  arguments,   both   the   counsels   have also filed the written arguments.

46. Ld.   defence   counsel   further   submits   that   in   a   case   of circumstance   evidence   all   the   circumstances   must   be   firmly established and must be consistence only with the hyposthesis of guilt (Kirti Pal Vs. State of West Bengal 2015(3) JCC 1559). Ld. Counsel further submits the recovery of blood stained shirt at the instance of the accused is doubtful therefore cannot be relief upon (Vikram Vs. State of Maharashtra 2014 IV AD (Crl.) Bombay 470). Ld. counsel for the accused persons relied upon the judgment of apex court in 'Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Crl. Appeal No. 462/2016 dated 12.05.2016', for   the   proposition   that   if   a   recovery   is  not   pursuant   to   any disclosure   of   the   accused   then   the   said   recovery   is   not incriminating.   Furthermore,   conviction   cannot   be   recorded merely   on   the   ground   that   accused   was   last   seen   with   the deceased. 

47.   Ld.   Addl.   PP   and   the   counsel   for   the   complainant submitted that PW2 Manjeet Singh the last seen witness is a SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­36of 62 ) reliable witness and he had seen accused and the deceased together at around 4.35 am whereas the murder is committed between   5   to   6   am.   It   is   further   submitted   that   the   blood stained shirt of accused Ravi Sejwal also found to be having blood   stains  of   deceased   showing   the  presence   of   accused with deceased at the time of murder. It is further submitted that mobile tower locations of the accused as well as the deceased are   of   the   same   area,   therefore   suggest   that   they   all   are together. It is also submitted that at the instance of Ravi Sejwal the empty cartridges and the bullet were recovered which were also   found   to   the   matched   with   desi   katta   recovered   from Narkanda at the instance of accused Manoj @ Khemu. It is further submitted that accused offered no explanation over the circumstances proved against them. It is also submitted that toll plaza receipts also suggest that accused Manoj @ Khemu had   gone   to   throw   the   pistol   near   Narkanda,   Himachal Pradesh.   It   is   also   submitted   that   minor   inconsistencies   are bound to occur in the prosecution case, however prosecution able   to   prove   all   the   material   circumstances   beyond reasonable   doubt,   hence   accused   persons   are   liable   to   be convicted for commission of offences as charged. 

48.  Arguments heard. Record perused.

49.  The sequence of events as per prosecution case is that on   the   intervening   night   of   23/24.05.2014,   accused   Ravi Sejwal,   Manoj   @   Khemu   and   PW7   Hitesh   @   Honey   were roaming  in  the  swift  car  driven  by  accused  Manoj,  and  met deceased Deepak Sejwal @ Tinku in front of school at Lado SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­37of 62 ) Sarai at around 11.30 pm, then also offered him to enjoy ride with them, thereafter leaving the motorcycle near the school, the   deceased   also   sat   in   the   said   swift   car,   and   thereafter enjoyed the ride and took the beer and liquor in car. As per the statement of PW7 Hitesh @ Honey recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW7/A, as the liquor was finished, therefore they went to Gurgaon where they had taken liquor and beer and came back to village Lado Sarai at around 4.30/ 4.45 am, thereafter he was dropped at the village, and both accused accompanying Deepak Sejwal left in the Swift car. PW2 Manjeet also noticed this fact. However, on the contrary as per disclosure statement of accused persons, after dropping Hitesh @ Honey accused persons alongwith the deceased went to take beer and liquor at Gurgaon, thereafter came back to the Qutub Minar Stadium ie   the   spot   where   some   altercation   took   place   between   the accused Manoj @ Khemu and the deceased over the issue of gang   leader,   then   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   caught   hold   of deceased   Deepak and then the accused Manoj took out the revolver   from   his   bag   and   fired   at   Deepak,   consequent   to which he died.

50.  In the morning, the dead body at the spot was noticed by   one   Naresh   who   informed   the   PCR,   thereafter   PCR reached the spot and found the licence etc of the deceased and communicated the said fact to the local police pursuant to which   local   police   came   at   the   spot,   thereafter   HC   Mukesh alongwith   driving   licence   of   the   deceased   found   from   his wearing clothes went to his house at Lado Sarai where he met SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­38of 62 ) his   uncle   Manjeet,   thereafter   Uncle   Manjeet   came   to   spot accompanying other family members and identified the dead body. CFSL CBI team and the local crime team were called at the   spot.   CFSL   CBI   team   lifted   the   exhibits   from   the   spot, however do not found any empty cartridges and the led at the spot and photographs were also taken. 

51.   PW2 Manjeet Uncle of the deceased told to the police about the factum of seeing the deceased in the company of the   accused   persons   at   around   4.35   am   when   they   were dropping Hitesh @ Honey. On  the basis of his statement, FIR was registered.

52.   Consequent to secret information on the same day at night at around 10.15 pm, accused Ravi Sejwal was arrested from   the   bus   stop   Lado   Sarai   and   after   apprehension   his disclosure statement was recorded in which he disclosed that he caught hold of the deceased and Manoj @ Khemu fired at him and some blood stains also dropped on his wearing shirt. Thereafter, his wearing shirt was seized, then at his instance the   motorcycle   of   deceased   was   recovered   and   he   also pointed out the place of occurrence. On the next day in the morning his PC remand was taken and he was taken to the spot where at his instance two empty cartridges and one led was recovered.  He also disclosed that he used to meet Manoj @ Khemu in the Lado Sarai park, thereafter on 28.05.2014 at his instance, accused Manoj @ Khemu was apprehended from said   park   who   after   apprehension   disclosed   that   after committing murder, he went to Shimla in his car,   toll plaza SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­39of 62 ) slips were also recovered at his instance, thereafter on police remand he was taken to Shimla from where at his instance country made pistol was recovered.  

53.   Besides this, the police during investigation seized the CCTV   footage   of   the   camera   installed   at   Blue   Frog   Bar   & Restaurant which is situated near the spot and found the entry of Swift car at that place at around 5 am, exit at around 6 am and police furthermore seized the CDRs of the accused Ravi Sejwal, Manoj @ Khemu and Deepak Sejwal. 

54.   Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the incident. The entire   case   of   the   prosecution   is   based   on   circumstantial evidence.   The   material   circumstances   as   relied   by   the prosecution are as under.

(i) statement of PW2 Manjeet and PW7 Hitesh @ Honey being the witness of last seen 

(ii) CDR records of the mobile phones of the accused Manoj @ Khemu,   Ravi   Sejwal   and   deceased  Deepak  Sejwal  showing the same tower location at the time of incident.

(iii) CCTV footage regarding the factum of entering the alleged swift car at spot ie in the Qutub Minar Stadium at around 5 am and leaving the said spot at around 6 am. 

(iv) recovery of wearing blood stained shirt from the body of Ravi   Sejwal   alleged   to   be   having   blood   stains   of   deceased over it, thereafter recovery of the motorcycle of the deceased at the instance of accused Ravi Sejwal.

(v)   arrest   of   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu   at   the   instance   of accused   Ravi   Sejwal   and   thereafter  consequent  recovery   of SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­40of 62 ) swift car, toll plaza receipts from the said car at the instance of accused Manoj @ Khemu. 

(vi) the recovery of  country made pistol used for commission of murder of the deceased at the instance of accused Manoj @ Khemu from Narkanda, H.P.

55.     The   first   material   circumstance   found   during investigation is the statement of   PW7 Hitesh @ Honey and PW2   Manjeet   over   the   fact   that   deceased   was   lastly   in   the company of the accused persons till around 4.35 am and the murder   committed   between   5   to   6   am.     However,   before appreciating   this   circumstance   let   me   appreciate   the circumstance of mobile phone record of the accused persons. During   evidence   it   has   come   on   record   that   accused   Ravi Sejwal was using mobile no. 9717858868, accused Manoj @ Khemu   was   using   mobile   no.   9818248551   and   deceased Deepak   Sejwal   using   mobile   no.   9266888866.   The   CDR details   of   these   mobile   numbers     are   exhibited   by   PW12 Chandra   Shekhar   Nodal   officer   of   Bharti   Airtel   Ltd.   vide Ex.PW12/A,   Ex.PW12/B   and   Ex.PW12/C.       As   per   these exhibits, the cell location tower  of all the three mobiles  is the same,   therefore   it   suggests   that   accused   persons   and deceased   were   together   on   the   said   intervening   night. However, PW12 in cross examination stated that normally the range   of   the   tower   is   between   300   meters   to   3   kms   which depends   upon   various   factors.   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused during arguments stated that mentioning of same mobile tower in present case do not suggest that accused and deceased SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­41of 62 ) were   together   because   both   the   accused   as   well   deceased resides in adjoining or nearby streets, and at that time accused were at their house.  Ld. Counsel submits that from the CDR's detail  it is clear that both the accused as well as deceased were not together on the said night, and this fact is clear from the fact that the deceased Deepak Sejwal has called six times accused Ravi Sejwal   on the said night between 4:40:28   to 5:04:08   and   that   too   for   the   durations,   36   seconds,   50 seconds,   138   seconds,   170   seconds,   8   seconds   and   9 seconds.     Ld.   Counsel   submits   that   it   is   natural   if   in   this durations the deceased is calling Ravi Sejwal then it clearly suggest   that   the   deceased   was   not   with   the   accused.   Ld. Counsel for the accused Ravi Sejwal also stated that accused Manoj and deceased also can't be together because there is a call at around 4.33:04 am for 221 seconds between the mobile phone of Manoj and deceased Deepak. Ld. Counsel submits if both these persons are together, it appears unnatural that they will talk on mobile phone for such a long duration. Ld. Counsel submits that CDR details as relied by prosecution thus itself suggest   that   accused   persons   can't   be   together   on   the relevant  time i.e 4.35 am onwards.

56.  These submissions of Ld. Defence counsel have force.

It appears unnatural that accused Ravi Sejwal and deceased Deepak Sejwal will talk to each for such a long duration of time if   they   are   together.   Furthermore,   accused   Manoj   had   also talked   with   deceased   at   4:33:04   am   for   more   than   221 seconds. This also suggests that both the accused can't be SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­42of 62 ) together with accused at that time. Surprisingly, the IO has not bothered   to   investigate   on   this   aspect.   Prosecution   neither during   investigation   nor   during   the   evidence   tried   to   explain under what circumstances these calls are made between the accused   and   the   deceased.   This   circumstance   of   talks between accused and the  deceased  creates  doubt over the factum that deceased and accused persons were together on the   said   night   specially   prior   to   the   time   of   murder   i.e.   at around 4.35 am when alleged to be last seen by PW2 Manjeet Singh.

57.  The prosecution case heavily relied upon the last seen evidence of PW2 Manjeet Singh and PW7 Hitesh @ Honey. Before appreciating the testimony of PW2, let me look at the statement   of   PW7   Hitesh   @   Honey   u/s   161   Cr.P.C (Ex.PW7/A) recorded by the police during investigation. As per the   statement   of   Hitesh   recorded   during   investigation,   he stated that he alongwith accused Manoj @ Khemu and Ravi Sejwal were roaming in the alleged swift car, thereafter they met deceased Deepak @ Tinku near girls school  at  around 11.25  pm, then  deceased also sat in  the car and they took liquor and beer, however in the night when the liquor and beer were over, they went to Gurgaon for taking liquor and beer and he was dropped by them at around 4.30­4.45 am.   From the statement of this witness, police also came to know  that all accused and deceased also went to Gurgaon, however police do not try to corroborate this fact of movement of accused and deceased to Gurgaon through the mobile tower location. This SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­43of 62 ) also  dented   the   prosecution   story  that  the  accused  persons alongwith   the   deceased   roamed   entire   night   in   the   alleged swift   car.   Furthermore,   this   witness   has   not   supported   the prosecution case in his testimony before the court.

58.  In these circumstances, the prosecution case remained dependent   upon   the   testimony   of   PW2   Manjeet   Singh   as   a witness   of   last   seen.     PW2   Manjeet   Singh   in   his   testimony stated that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused   at   around   4.35   am   and   has   seen   PW7   Hitesh   @ Honey alighting from the said car.  The said factum though not supported   by   PW7   in   his   testimony.   Furthermore,   the testimony of PW2 that he had seen the accused persons and deceased at that time also dented from the fact that there are six mobile calls between 4:40:28 am to 5:04:08 am between Ravi   Sejwal   and   the   deceased   and   one   221   seconds   call between   Manoj   @   Khemu   and   the   deceased   at   around 4:33:04   am.       This   circumstance   also   becomes   important because PW2 Manjeet Singh is the uncle of deceased and not only  found   to  be  related  witness  but  also  a  chance  witness therefore his testimony is to be appreciated with extra caution. This   witness   in   his   statement   before   the   police   not   stated anything why he was present on the road at around 4.35 am and   also   not   stated   this   fact   in   his   examination   in   chief, however in cross examination stated that he was on morning walk.   There is nothing came on record that he used to do morning   walk   daily   at   that   time.   Therefore,   keeping   in   view other   facts   and   circumstances,   this   explanation   of   morning SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­44of 62 ) walk also appears to be somewhat suspicious. 

59.   The     rukka   (Ex.PW16/A)   was   prepared   after   his statement at around 1.30 pm. Though as per the evidence on record PW2 was informed about the incident at around 8.30 am and he reached the spot at around 9 am. It is natural that if he had seen the deceased in the company of accused persons then he must have told this fact at first place at around 9 am to the   IO   or   other   police   officials   present   at   the   spot   and immediately the FIR should have been registered at that point of   time,   however   the   rukka   was   not   prepared   till   1.30   pm. Furthermore, this witness in his cross examination stated  that he went to PS at around 2­3 pm for lodging the report and thereafter given the report at PS, this also somewhat creates doubt over the preparing the rukka in the manner alleged by the prosecution on his statement.  The delay in recording of his statement remained unexplained. This witness in his statement before the police Ex. PW2/A not   mentioned the registration number of the alleged swift car, however in his examination in chief mentioned about the number of the swift car , but in cross examination   stated   that   he   had   not   noted   any   number   and remember the number only on the basis of memory. It appears unnatural that a person will remember the number if he had a glimpse of the car that too without any suspicion even after more than one year of the incident.   This somehow creates suspicion whether infact he was present at that time or not. This witness in his statement Ex.PW2/A not given any sitting arrangements in the car, however in his examination in chief SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­45of 62 ) also  given   the   arrangement   how  the   accused  persons   were sitting   in   the   car.   This   witness   in   cross   examination   again stated   that   his   statement   is   recorded   at   the   spot   at   around 12.30 pm. If this aspect of his statement is trusted then what is the need of this witness to give the written complaint at around 2­3   pm.   This   circumstance   is   also   not   explained   by   this witness. However, even if the circumstance of  the delay in FIR is ignored then also it is very difficult to reconcile the mobile call talks of accused and deceased with the testimony of this witness   that   he   had   seen   all   the   three   together   in   the   car. Therefore, the testimony of PW2 as a last seen witness cannot be   relied   upon   without   corroboration   with   other   concrete circumstances. 

60.   The next circumstance as relied by the prosecution is the arrest of the accused Ravi Sejwal at around 10.15 pm in the night on the same day ie 24.05.2017 on the basis of secret information and consequent recovery of wearing blood stained shirt from his body having blood stains of deceased. The arrest memo Ex.PW10/B of accused Ravi Sejwal witnessed by HC Krishan   Kumar   (PW23)   and   Ct.Pawan   (PW10).     PW10   Ct. Pawan in his cross examination stated that on that day they left the PS at 7­8 pm and at around 8­8.15 pm, they met the secret informer. As per  secret information  the accused  Ravi Sejwal is planning to leave Delhi and could be apprehended from   bus   stand   Lado   Sarai.   Lado   Sarai   bus   stand   is   in   the vicinity   of   his   house.   It   is   also   pertinent   to   mention   as   per testimony of PW7 both the accused and deceased resides in SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­46of 62 ) Lado Sarai village in the adjoining streets. Firstly, it appears a bit unnatural that if accused Ravi Sejwal is involved in the said incident then he will remain in the Lado Sarai area after the incident and will not try to leave the said area. Secondly, as per the testimony of this witness the secret information was received at around 8­8.15 pm regarding his presence at the Lado Sarai   bus stop, then it appears unnatural that the said witness will remain at the bus stop till 10.15 pm waiting for the police to apprehend him.  PW25 IO Raman Lamba also stated in cross examination that they left the PS at around 7­7.30 pm and apprehended the accused at 10 pm after secret informer met   them   in   Lado   Sarai.     This   all   creates   doubt   over   the manner of the arrest of the accused Ravi Sejwal. 

61.   Next material circumstance after the arrest of accused Ravi Sejwal is the recovery of blood stained wearing shirt from him after arrest. The blood stains are found to be matched with the blood group of the deceased.  It is pertinent to notice that this blood stained shirt is found to be recovered from the body of accused Ravi Sejwal after his arrest, however no seizure memo of this shirt was made. This shirt is shown as a part of personal   search   memo.   Even   on   examination   of   personal search memo (Ex.PW10/C) it appears that the factum of shirt pulanda added lateron. Furthermore,PW25 IO Raman Lamba admitted that no separate seizure memo was prepared and the factum   of   recovered   of   shirt   is   also   not   mentioned   in   the statement   u/s   161   Cr.P.C   of   HC   Krishan   Kumar   and   Ct. Pawan.  PW10 Ct. Pawan also confronted with their statement SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­47of 62 ) u/s 161 Cr.P.C where also the factum of recovery of the shirt is also   not   mentioned.   The   shirt   is   sealed   with   seal   of   RL, however there is nothing on record to show to whom the seal was handed over. PW23 HC Krishan Kumar also stated that they  could  not  notice  any  blood  stains  from   the  naked   eye. Then   it   appears   somewhat   unnatural   how   the   blood   stains came over it and what prompts the police to seize that shirt especially   when   nothing   is   recorded   in   disclosure   statement over   this   shirt.   Furthermore,     PW10   Ct.   Pawan   stated   that accused Ravi Sejwal was arrested from Lado Sarai bus stand leading towards Mehrauli at Mehrauli Gurgaon road, whereas PW23 HC Krishan Kumar stated that accued Ravi sejwal was arrested   from   Lado   Sarai   bus   stand   leading   towards   Qutub Minar. Therefore, on appreciation of the evidence on record the factum of arrest of accused Ravi Sejwal and consequent recovery of shirt at his instance in manner suggested  appears not reliable.  

62.  PW25  IO stated that after arrest and recovery of shirt, accused   first   taken   them   to   the   place   of   incident   ie   Qutub stadium   and   thereafter   at   his   instance   motorcycle   was recovered   from the girls school Lado Sarai at his instance. Whereas,   PW23   HC   Krishan   Kumar   stated   that   after apprehension accused Ravi Sejwal was taken for recovery of motorcycle thereafter he was taken for search of led and fired cartridges   at   the   spot.     There   is   inconsistency   in   the statements of both these witnesses regarding the sequence of taking   of   the   accused.   Furthermore,   there   was   no   public SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­48of 62 ) witness joined at the time of recovery of the motorcycle. No photographs or site plan was prepared to show that the said motorcycle   was   lying   there.   PW10   Ct.   Pawan   stated   that several   cars   were   also   parked   at   some   distance   near   the motorcycle whereas PW25 IO stated that there was no other vehicle near the said motorcycle.  PW25 IO Inspector Raman lamba stated that motorcycle was taken in tempo crane, PW10 Ct.Pawan stated that the private tempo was hired and PW23 HC   Krishan   Kumar   also   stated   that   this   motorcycle   was brought   in   a   crane.   However,   nothing   is   placed   on   record regarding   the   particulars   of   the   said   crane   or   the   tempo. Furthermore, it appears unnecessary to hire the tempo crane when the key of the motorcycle was already with the police stated to be recovered from the dead body of the deceased. Furthermore, no arrival or departure entry in this regard placed on record. This circumstance of recovery of the motorcycle at the instance of the accused Ravi Sejwal also do not appear to be credible. 

63. The   next   important   circumstance   is   the   recovery   of empty cartridges and the led from the spot at the instance of accused   on   25.05.2014.   As   per   prosecution   case,   after   the arrest in the night on 24.05.2014 accused was taken to the spot   and   a   pointing   out   memo   (Ex.PW10/D)   was   prepared. However,   PW10   in   his   cross   examination   stated   that   the accused   has   pointed   out   the   place   but   nothing   could   be recovered   from   that   place   at   that   time.   PW23   HC   Krishan Kumar   also   stated   that   search   was   made   at   the   place   of SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­49of 62 ) occurrence however nothing could be recovered on that night. Both these witness stated that the spot was searched in the night   also.   PW25   IO   nowhere   stated   that   the   place   was searched at the time of pointing out neither it is mentioned in the   pointing   out   memo   that   the   palce   was   searched   for recovery of empty cartridges and the bullet.   On 25.05.2014, the empty cartridge, led was recovered from the spot at the instance   of   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   and   seized     vide   seizure memo Ex.PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C. The empty cartridges as per seizure memo are found near the wall under the dry leaves and the led  was found to be below  the head of the deceased after   searching   from   the   mud   below   that   point.   Now   it   is pertinent to notice  that after the incident as  per prosecution case CFSL, CBI team as well as crime team reached at the spot and both these teams alongwith the police officials have thoroughly searched the spot in the broad day light however not   able   to   find   any   empty   cartridge   or   the   led.   The   empty cartridges stated to be recovered from the dry leaves near the body, however the dry leaves having blood stains were also seized at the instance of CFSL but no such empty cartridges were found by them.   As per seizure memo Ex. PW9/B   two empty cartridges were found beneath the dry leaves, however the said fact is missing in the statements of HC Krishan Kumar and  Ct. Manoj  recorded  u/s  161 Cr.P.C   on that day.  These witnesses were also confronted on this factum. PW23 stated that empty cartridges were recovered at around 10 mtrs from the place where deceased was shot whereas PW9 Bijender SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­50of 62 ) another witness to the seizure memo stated that it was around 3   paces   from   where   the   body   was   lying.   Furthermore,   no public witness was joined during the said recovery. In these overall facts and circumstances, this circumstance of recovery of empty cartridges and the led at the instance of the accused Ravi Sejwal also do not appear reliable. 

64.  There is another important circumstance is the seizure of CCTV footage. PW4 Sidharth Chadha, Sr. Manager of Blue Frog Restaurant stated that on receiving notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C, he uploaded the CCTV footage in two pen drives and handed over   to   the   IO   and   both   pen   drives   have   the   same   CCTV footage, however in cross examination stated that he had not seen   the   footage   before   transferring   in   the   pen   drives   and before handing over to the police. He further stated that he has not   given   any   certificate   of   correctness   to   the   police   nor demanded   by   the   police.   This   witness   in   his   statement nowhere stated that he had seen the alleged swift car going in front   of   his   restaurant   between   5   to   6   am.   PW25   in   his examination   in   chief   stated   that   he   had   seized   the   CCTV footage for  movement of white /silver colour car however, not even stated that he had seen the alleged swift car in the CCTV footage.   The   said   CCTV   footage     is   seized   through   a   pen drive, however when the pen drive was played in court during his testimony, the said data could not be read on laptop.  Once the said CCTV footage  could not be played in the court then it cannot be assumed that the alleged swift car passed through the   said   restaurant   at   the   relevant   time.     PW25   in   cross SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­51of 62 ) examination categorically stated that he had not sent the said CCTV footage to the FSL. Though in the body of chargesheet mentioned   that   it   was   sent   to   FSL.   Furthermore,   there   is nothing on record which could show the said pen drive was sent   to   FSL   for   examination   even   no   efforts   were   made   to seize   the   original   DVR.   PW25   has   also   not   taken   any certificate   u/s   65B   of   Evidence   Act   from   PW4   Sidharth Chadha,   therefore   prosecution   miserably   failed   to   prove   the movement of the alleged swift car through CCTV footage at the relevant time at the place of incident. 

65.   The   next   circumstance   is   the   arrest   of   the   accused Manoj @ Khemu on 28.05.2014.  PW25  IO Raman Lamba  in examination   in   chief     stated   that   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   was interrogated and he revealed before his subordinate staff that he   used   to   meet   Manoj   @   Khemu   frequently   at   DDA   park, Lado   Sarai.     And   at   that   time   he   was   in   the   Saket   court complex , therefore he instructed the subordinate staff to reach Lado Sarai and then at around 11 am subordinate staff also brought   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   to   DDA   park,   Lado   sarai   and thereafter   at   his   instance   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu   was arrested from DDA park, Lado Sarai on 28.05.2014. PW16 SI Ramphal   stated   that   on   28.05.2014   IO   directed   him telephonically   to   take   out   Ravi   Sejwal   to   join   investigation, thereafter he was taken out and HC Krishan, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Pawan were also joined, then the accused was taken to Lado Sarai where they met IO Raman Lamba.  He further stated that Inspector   Raman   Lamba   also   reached   there   and   accused SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­52of 62 ) pointed out the place near the wall and told that he alongwith accused Manoj and deceased Deepak consumed liquor before crime. This witness nowhere stated that first the accused Ravi Sejwal had told him in the PS about the supposed presence of accused  Manoj  @ Khemu  in the  park  which contradicts  the statement of PW25 who stated that accused told this fact to subordinate staff.   It is pertinent to notice that in the body of the chargesheet PW25 had written that on secret information the accused Manoj  @ Khemu was arrested, however in the testimonies they have not stated about any secret information but       stated   that   accused   in   custody   on   last   day   of   police remand told  that  he  alongwith  co­accused  Manoj   @  Khemu used   to   drink   liquor   in   the   Lado   sarai   park   and   he   can   be apprehended   from   that   place.     This   kind   of   circumstance  in itself   is   incredible.   Furthermore,   even   no   such   disclosure statement over this fact is recorded on 28.05.2014. 

66.   The witness to the arrest of accused Manoj @ Khemu are PW16 SI Ramphal, PW23 HC Krishan kumar, PW10 Ct. Pawan and PW25 IO Inspector Raman Lamba. PW16 in his examination   in   chief     stated   that   on   28.05.2014   he   took accused Ravi Sejwal alongwith HC Krishan, Ct. Manoj and Ct. Pawan   to   DDA   park   Lado   Sarai   where   Inspector   Raman Lamba also reached, then pointed out he alongwith Manoj and deceased Deepak used to consume liquor, in the meanwhile, they saw one boy running near the wall and at his instance, that boy as apprehended. PW23 HC Krishan Kumar, PW10 Ct. Pawan   and   PW25   IO   also   stated   that   the   accused   was SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­53of 62 ) arrested   from   Lado   Sarai,   however   PW21   Ct.   Manoj   who accompanied   the   raiding   party   to   the   Lado   Sarai   nowhere stated in his deposition that he accompanied the raiding party for apprehension of accused Manoj @ Khemu. Furthermore, PW16   in cross examination stated that they did not join any public   person   on   the   way,   however   IO   asked   some   public person in the park to join but none agreed and accused Ravi Sejwal signalled about Manoj from about 20 yards.  He further stated that the alleged vehicle (Swift car) was parked outside park, however he do not know whether in personal search the keys   of   car   was   recovered   from   accused   or   not.   PW23   HC Krishan Kumar stated that accused took police party to 500­ 600 yards inside the park in bushes and accused was found sitting in bushes and car was found parked outside the parking gate and the keys were recovered from the accused but no seizure memo or personal search memo was prepared.  PW10 Ct. Pawan   stated that accused Manoj was caught inside the park and there was a distance about 15 mtrs between both the places whereas HC Krishan stated that accused has taken the party   500­600   mtr.   deep   inside   the   park.     PW25     in   cross examination stated that accused pointed out Manoj from 30 to 40 ft , however not stated that he was taken deep inside to the bushes and further stated that no public person was ready to witness and he had not given notice to them. PW10 Ct. Pawan stated that they reached the park at around 10 am whereas PW25   stated   that   they   reached   the   park   at   around   11   am however, PW16 stated that he has taken out the accused from SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­54of 62 ) the lock up at around 11.30 am. This inconsistency in the time also   appears   relevant   in   this   case   because   the   manner   of arrest do not appear to be at all reliable. 

67.   After   the   apprehension   of   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu from his maruti swift car, toll plaza slips were recovered which suggest that the accused has gone to Himachal Pradesh after committing the offence. However, the said toll plaza slips were not   verified   during   investigation.   There   is   no   seizure   of   toll plaza   footages   regarding   the   movement   of   said   swift   car through   the   said   toll   plaza.   In   these   circumstances,   mere recovery of toll plaza slips without verification of their genuinity cannot be relied upon to infer that the accused went to Shimla.

68. However,   on   the   basis   of   disclosure   that   the   accused went to Shimla for throwing the pistol  the police party took the accused Manoj @ Khemu to Shimla for recovery of the same. On   28.05.2014,   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu   was   taken   to Shimla   by   raiding   party   headed   by   PW16   SI   Ramphal alongwith   PW21   Ct.   Manoj,   PW10   Ct.   Pawan,   PW23   HC Krishan  Kumar.   PW16  SI  Ramphal  stated  that  they  went  to Shimla in the private Innova car, however could not tell  the particulars   of   the   said   car   nor   able   to   tell   the   name   of   the driver.   He   further   stated   that   it   was   arranged   by   the   IO, however   nothing   came   on   record   that   IO   arranged   the   said Innova car.  The said party went to Narkanda beyond Shimla in the Innova   car however not produced any toll slips etc to substantiate that they went to Narkanda. From police chowki Narkanda one police official PW Ct. Devender was joined in SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­55of 62 ) the investigation who stated that  the police party alongwith the accused went around 5 kms from PP and accused pointed out the Shiv Mandir and took them to a distance of 40­50 ft from where country made pistol was recovered.   This witness also stated that 3­4 photographs were also taken at the place of recovery,   however   PW10   Ct.   Pawan   stated   that   no photography   was   conducted,   furthermore,   no   such photographs were found on record. This witness stated that police   prepared   the   site   plan   of   place   of   recovery   of   katta however PW10   Ct. Pawan stated that no such site plan of place of recovery of katta was prepared. There is no such site plan   on   the   record.   PW6   stated   that   recovered   pistol   was neither produced before Duty Magistrate and its recovery was not mentioned in the register of the malkhana.  He also stated that he do not know whether said pistol was shown to police post   Incharge   or   not.     This   witness   in   examination   in   chief wrongly   identified   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu,   however   on cross  examination  on   the   point   of  identification   he  identified accused Manoj. No public witness at any point was also joined during identification of pistol. No record from PP Narkanda is exhibited to suggest that the recovery of the pistol was made from Narkanda. There is also inconsistencies in the statement of   the   witnesses   how   the   katta   was   searched   and   located. Witnesses stated that their statements were also recorded at the   spot   written   by   hand,   however   no   such   handwritten statement   is   found   on   record.     In   these   facts   and circumstances,   the   recovery   of   katta   at   the   instance   of SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­56of 62 ) accused Manoj do not appear to be credible. 

69. As   per   the   disclosure   statements   of   the   accused,   the motive for murder was that there was an issue of becoming of gang leader between accused Manoj @ Khemu and deceased Deepak Sejwal, however the prosecution had not tried to prove the said motive through any witness. During investigation, IO also   not   tried   to   investigate   what   kind   of   gang   was   being operated by the accused and deceased. The proof of motive is conspicuously absent in the present case. 

70.   On   overall   consideration   of   the   record,   the   police investigation not only appears to be defective but also suggest that police has no Will to present  the credible case, however appears to have completed the ritual by filing the chargesheet. The   primary   evidence   before   the   investigating   officer   is   the CDR details of the accused as well as the deceased, however the investigating officer not tried to investigate   over the calls made   between   the   accused   and   deceased   as   already discussed.   This omission is very material because from this the actual circumstances could be revealed.  Second material circumstance is the movement of the swift car at the place of incident.   The   investigating   officer   did   not   tried   to   seize   the original DVR, even not sent the pen drives having the CCTV footage to FSL. Leave aside all this, the investigating officer even not taken the certificate u/s 65B of evidence Act from the PW4   Manager   of   restaurant.   These   omissions   are   very material   because   in   absence   of   compliance   of   these formalities,   the   CCTV   footage   is   inadmissible,   even   if   could SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­57of 62 ) able to show the movement of the car. Apex court in case titled 'Harpal Singh @ Chota Vs. State of Punjab, 2017(1) JCC 296', after   relying   upon   the   judgment   'Anvar   P.V.   Vs.   Basheer   & Ors., 2014 (10) SCC 473', held that any electronic record in the   form   of   secondary   evidence   cannot   be   admitted   in evidence unless the requirement of section 65B are satisfied. Thirdly,   documentary   evidence   regarding   the   factum   that accused Manoj @ Khemu went to throw the weapon of offence to   Narkanda   is   the   seizure   of   toll   plaza   slips   from   his   car, however   those   toll   plaza   slips   were   not   verified   by   the   IO. Fourthly, the most important witness of prosecution case over the   last   seen   evidence   is   PW7   Hitesh   @   Honey,   however investigating   agency   during   investigation   not   found   it   fit   to record his statement on the day of incident but recorded it on 03.08.2014   ie   after   70   days   of   the   incident.     There   is   no explanation why the statement of this witness was recorded so late.     On   the   other   hand,     the   investigating   agency   tried   to develop   the  case  what  transpired   in the  said  night  between accused and deceased on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused and statement of PW7 Hitesh @ Honey recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C that too after 70 days that they all took liquor beer   on   the   said   night   and   also   went   to   Gurgaon   for purchasing   the   same   but   not   tried   to   corroborate   this   fact through mobile call locations.  

71.   RC of the motorcycle of the deceased is shown to be recovered   from   accused   Manoj,   when   the   manner   of   arrest and   the   consequent   recoveries   are   found   doubtful   at   the SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­58of 62 ) instance of accused Manoj, the circumstance of recovery of the said RC also cannot be relied upon.  Even otherwise, it is unnatural when all the personal belongings of the deceased including   debit   card,   licence   etc   were   found   on   the   body   of deceased   then   why   the   accused   will   keep   the   RC   of   the motorcycle of deceased. This kind of recovery not only make the recovery of RC from accused Manoj incredible, however also create suspicion over the other recoveries made through the accused. The manner of the arrest of the accused persons and   consequent   incriminating   recoveries   is   all   patchwork, appears to have been made by the Investigating Officer just to present a triable case before the Court.

72.   Ld.   Addl.   PP   submitted   that   as   per   FSL   report,   the recovered   fired   cartridges   and   the   led   from   the   spot   at   the instance of accused Ravi Sejwal are found to have been fired from the katta recovered at the instance of accused Manoj @ Khemu.   However,   in   present   facts   and   circumstances   when the recovery of the fired cartridges and the led at the instance of accused Ravi Sejwal and further the recoveries of the katta at   the   instance   of   accused   Manoj   @   Khemu   are   found doubtful,   then   in   these   circumstances,   no   benefit   could   be given to the prosecution over the factum that in FSL report it is found that the said cartridges are found to be fired from the katta recovered. 

73.  Furthermore, the accused Ravi Sejwal suggested to be apprehended on 28.05.2014, however, investigating officer did not   tried   to   corroborate   the   said   circumstance   through   his SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­59of 62 ) mobile call record which could throw light over the movement of   accused   to   Shimla,   Narkanda.   The   manner   of   arrest   of accused Manoj at the instance of accused Ravi Sejwal when his police custody remand was expiring on third day not at all appears credible on the face of it. It is incomprehensible that the   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   in   police   remand   could   state   that accused Manoj could be present at Lado Sarai park with his car and it also appears unnatural that the accused Manoj will alone go the park without any purpose when he very much know that the entire police is behind him. Even the arrest of Ravi Sejwal on the day of incident in the night do not appear to be credible on the face of it. It is unnatural that the accused will remain   in  the   area   after   15   to16   hours   of   the   incident.   The investigating   agency   appears   to   have   made   the   mockery   of investigation in present case and not tried to develop the case through   the   concrete   circumstances   of   mobile   phone   talks between   the   accused   and   deceased,   admissible   CCTV footages,   movements   of   accused   Manoj   through   phone   call records, verification of toll plaza slips etc. 

74. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence, but prosecution not able to prove any circumstances against accused conclusively.   Apex court   in  Anjan Kumar Sarma & Ors.   Vs.   State   of   Assam,   Crl.   Appeal   no.   560/2014   dated 23.05.2017 in para 13 observed as under: 

   13. Admittedly, this is a case of circumstantial evidence.

Factors to be taken into account in adjudication of   cases of circumstantial evidence laid down by this Court are:

SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­60of 62 ) (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be   drawn   should   be   fully   established.   The   circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis   of   the   guilt   of   the   accused,   that   is   to   say,   they should not the explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(3)   The   circumstances   should   be   of   a   conclusive   nature   of tendency;

(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and  (5) There must be  a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave   any   reasonable   ground   for   the   conclusion   consistent with the innocence of the accused and must shown that in all human   probability   the   act   must   have   been   done   by   the accused   (See:   Sharad   Birdhichand   Sarda   V.   State   of Mahrashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 153: M.G. Agarwal V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200 18).

75.     Leave   aside   the   factum   of   proving   the   chain   of circumstances,   prosecution   not   able   to   prove   even   a   single circumstance   conclusively,   thus   on   overall   appreciation   of evidence,   prosecution   miserably   failed   to   prove   its   case beyond   reasonable   doubt,   hence   accused   Ravi   Sejwal   and Manoj @ Khemu are acquitted of all charges framed against them. Accused Ravi Sejwal and Manoj @ Khemu are directed to execute bail bonds under section 437A Cr.P.C. in the sum SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­61of 62 ) of Rs.50,000/­. After compliance of section 437A Cr.P.C, file be consigned to record room.

            Announced in the open court               (Ajay Kumar Jain)
            On 08th day of June, 2017       Additional Sessions Judge­02
                                             South District, Saket Courts
                                                         New Delhi

SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­62of 62 ) SC No. 66/15, State Vs. Ravi Sejwal etc., FIR No. 779/14, PS Mehrauli   dated: 08.06.2017 (pg­63of 62 )