Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs 1­ Arun Kumar S/O Sh. Banwari Singh, on 26 February, 2011

         IN THE COURT OF SH. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM, 
          ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE( WEST­02) , DELHI.  



Sessions Case Number:   40/3/2010

Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009

State versus 1­                      Arun Kumar S/o Sh. Banwari Singh,
                                     R/o H. No. 683/2, Gali No. 3,
                                     Subhash Nagar Line Par , 
                                     Bahadur Garh, Haryana.

                        2­           Ram Parkash  @ Guddu, S/o Sh. Shamu,
                                     R/o Village­ Satva, Gurubax Ganj,  
                                     District  Rai Bareli (U.P).  
                                     Also at:  House of Om Parkash
                                     Sharma, Village Tikri Kalan, Delhi.

                        3­           Krishan Kumar @ Krishna S/o Manoj Jha,
                                     R/o Village Bora, P.S. Chariya Bariyarpur,
                                      District­ Begue Sarai, Bihar.  
                                     Also at: House of Phool Singh­ 
                                     Village Tikari Kalan, Delhi.

                        4­           Prathvi Raj S/o Sh. Attar Singh,
                                     R/o Village Okhli Navada, P.S. Misan Purkatra,
                                     P.S. Shahjahanpur, Bihar.
                                     Also at:  House of Om Parkash
                                     Sharma, Village Tikari Kalan, Delhi.

Sessions Case Number:   40/3/2010                                            Page  1 of  55
Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009
State versus  Arun Kumar  Etc.  
                         5­           Ms. Rani W/o Sunil Kumar,
                                     R/o Village  Janakpur, P.S. Dunka,
                                     District­  Dhunka,  Nepal
                                     Also at: House of Vickey, Baba Hari Dass colony,
                                     Tikari Border, Delhi.

FIR Number:     610/2008
Police Station: Nangloi
Under Sections: 302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code

Date of filing of the charge sheet before
the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate                                 : 17.01.2009.

Date of receipt of file in this Court after committal                    : 27.02.2009.

Arguments concluded on                                                   : 23.02.2011

Date of Judgment                                                         :26.02.2011

Appearances:                         Sh. Subhash Chauhan, Additional Public  
                                     Prosecutor for the State.
                                     All  above named accused  persons produced from 
                                     Judicial Custody.
                                     Sh. Harpreet Singh counsel for accused Ram 
                                     Prakash  and Prithivi  Raj and  Amicus Curie for  
                                     accused  Krishan Kumar and Ms. Rani.
                                     Sh. Kundan Kumar Mishra, Counsel for accused  
                                     Arun Kumar. 



Sessions Case Number:   40/3/2010                                              Page  2 of  55
Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009
State versus  Arun Kumar  Etc.  
 JUDGMENT

Brief facts of the case This case has been committed to the court of Sessions against the accused namely Arun Kumar, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan Kumar @ Krishna, Prathvi Raj and Ms. Rani for the offence under section 302/201/120B/34 IPC of P.S. Nangloi vide FIR No. 610/2008.

The accused persons namely Ram Parkash, Krishan, Prithvi Raj and Arun in order to take revenge against Satdev Rathi took the help of accused Rani who lured Satdev Rathi to the fields in the evening of 17.10.2008, as per plan of all the accused and thereafter Satdev Rathi was murdered by all the accused persons in the field as per their pre plan. The accused Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishan and Prithvi Raj were expelled from M/s K.N. Inter Plast Pvt. Ltd. in Bahadur Garh by Sh. Satdev Rathi (Manager/deceased) two three months before the incident as they were found drunk during working hours in the factory. The deceased Satdev Rathi had also seen accused Arun Kumar and accused Rani in compromising position in the factory premises and they were warned for the same and thereafter accused Arun Kumar stopped coming to the factory but accused Rani continued coming to the factory. Charge All the accused persons were arrested on 20.10.2008 and they were charge­sheeted u/s 302/201/120B/34 IPC and later on the accused persons Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 3 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. had conceded for framing of charge and accordingly charges were framed against the accused persons u/s 302/120B/34 IPC on 16.03.2009. Prosecution evidence The prosecution in all examined 24 witnesses and thereafter the statement of the accused persons were recorded and they also examined four defence witnesses.

The whole case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. The dead body of deceased Satdev Rathi was recovered from the road side of road leading to Nizampur Village and connecting Nizampur Village to main Rohtak Road, nearly 45 fit inside of a field of TUR. Out of 24 witnesses 15 witnesses i.e. PW4 HC Narender, PW5 SI Kuldeep, PW6 HC Jaiveer, PW7 Ct. Satish, PW9 HC Nirmala, PW10 HC Dharampal, PW11 W/Ct. Anuradha, PW12 Ram Niwas, PW14 SI Manohar Lal, PW15 Ct. Vinod, PW16, HC Vijay Kumar, PW18 Ct. Mukesh, PW20 Parshuram, PW21 Kavita, PW22 V. Shankar and PW23 R.K. Yadav are the police officials and expert witnesses which were produced by the prosecution to support certain technical and procedural matter relating to investigation in to the present case.

PW16 HC Vijay Kumar, PW19 Insp. Samay Singh and PW24 SI Om Parkash are the main persons involved in investigation of the present case and conducted the whole investigation.

Out of 24 witnesses five witnesses are the public witnesses i.e. PW1 Amit Rathi and PW2 Yudhvir Singh i.e. son and nephew of the Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 4 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. deceased Satdev Rathi, PW17 Parveen, PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal is the last seen witness who claimed to have seen the accused persons as well as deceased in last time and PW18 Ashok Kumar the owner of the field where the dead body was recovered.

In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, while dealing with the circumstantial evidence following requirement were laid down:

(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established.

(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and

(v) 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 show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

In another case titled as Vilas Pandurang Patil Vs. State of Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 5 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. Maharashtra 2004, 6 SCC 158, it was held that " for a crime to be proved it is not necessary that crime must be seen to have been committed and must, in all circumstances, be proved by direct ocular evidence by examining before the court those persons who had seen its commission. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principle fact or factum probandum may be proved in directly by means of certain inferences drawn from factum probans. Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principle fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances."

The prosecution examined PW1 Amit Rathi, who stated that his father Satdev Rathi was working at M/s K.N. Inter Plast Pvt. Ltd. Bahadur Garh, Haryana. On 17.10.2008 he had an off from work as it was a Friday. It was Karwachauth on that day. His mother Ms. Sushil had called his father deceased Satdev Rathi on his mobile No. 9416052814 at about 6 pm inquiring about his return. His father told to her mother that he would return in about half an hours time. Thereafter he went out to play and when he returned around 7.30­7.45 pm his mother told him that his father had still not returned from work. He telephoned Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 6 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. to his father from his mobile phone but his father's mobile phone was switched off. They thought that may be the charging of his father's mobile phone has finished. After waiting for about 30­45 minutes, he went to his father's company to enquire about him. The guard there informed when the company closes all the employees leaves company office and his father also must have left. He inquired from him whether his father had left any message but the guard gave answer in negative. Thereafter he went to his maternal grand father (Nana's) house at Tikri Village at about 9 pm. He through that his father may have gone to his maternal grand father's house as his sister Amita who is presently studying in class 12th is living in his Nanaji's house since the last four years.

PW1 Amit Rathi has further deposed that he alongwith his cousin ( Mausi's Son) Yudhvir Singh went on motorcycle searching for his father. First of all they went to his house to verify whether or not his father had returned but when they found that he had still not returned. They enquired from hospitals i.e. Civil Hospital, Mission Hospital and Delhi Hospital but none of these hospitals gave any information about his father. Then they went to the police post at Bahadur Garh then MIE police Post but no information was provided even there. Then they went to Tikri Police Post. Even the police at police post Tikri did not provide them any information. They however, took his mobile number assuring that they shall inform him if any information is received. Thereafter he along Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 7 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. with his cousin returned to his house at around 11.30 pm ­12 midnight. As father did not return during the night. Next morning i.e. 18.10.2008 at about 7.15 am, he alongwith his cousin again went in search of his father. They again inquired from hospitals and police post but none of them gave them any information. Then they reached PP Tikri where at about 8.15 pm the police there told him that an information has been received that the dead body has been found at Nizampur Road. When they were leaving the police post they saw that the company's owner Mr. Kuldeep Singh Dalal was coming who accompanied them in his car as he has been told by the guard that his father was missing. They reached to approach Nizampur Road village Tikri where they saw that there was a dead body lying in the field. Two policemen were standing at the spot who gave permission to him to see the dead body. He went forward and found that it was the dead body of his father. He had told him that seeing the injuries on the body, it seems to be a murder. After the postmortem the dead body of his father was handed over to him. His statement regarding identify the body of his father was recorded vide Ex. PW1/1 and after post mortem dead body was handed over to him vide memo Ex. PW1/2.

PW2 Yudhvir Singh is also witnesses of identification of the dead body of deceased Satdev Rathi and incident as narrated by PW1 Amit Rathi.

PW3 Ajit Singh an employee of PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal and Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 8 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. colleague of the deceased. PW3 Ajit Singh stated that on 17.10.2008 he along with Satdev Rathi left the company's office on his bike and he dropped him at Old Bank near MIE at about 5.20 ­5.30 pm. He also told that he had some work at Tikri On the next day he came to know about the murder of Satdev Rathi on road leads towards Nizampur from Tikri On 24.10.2008 police officials visited his office in company and started verifying the facts from him and Investigating Officer ( hereinafter called as IO) asked him what he know about Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishna, Prathviraj, Arun Kumar and Rani and he deposed that all the said accused persons were working in their workshop. About 2­3 months before this incident Ram Parkash, Krishan and Prathvi Raj consumed the liquor in the duty hour and they had misbehaved with Satdev Rathi , Manager. Thereafter they were expelled from the service due to their misbehaviour with Satdev Rathi.

PW3 Ajit Singh has further stated that there was an affairs between accused Arun Kumar and Rani. One day Rani and Tarun ( brother of Arun) started quarrel in the factory in loud voice. They were called in the office. Both of them were asked to have patience. Tarun and Rani were warned not to quarrel in the factory due to the family matters. One Satdev Rathi informed him that he had seen Arun and Rani in objectionable condition in a vacant room. He had informed him this fact about 10­12 days before this incident. Thereafter Arun was expelled from the service due to dereliction of duty and not obeying the order. He further deposed Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 9 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. that there is mistake of time, date and period in his statement. The statement was shown to him int he morning today but he is not agree with the contents of statement and today he have deposed before the court are actual facts. Arun was expelled from the job about 2 month prior to this incident. Initially Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan Kumar and Prithvi Raj were expelled from the job and thereafter Arun was expelled.

PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal is the owner of M/s K.N. Inter Plast Pvt. Ltd. stated that on 17.10.2008 he was going to Bahadur Garh. On that day he was having some work so he adopted Kanjhawala and Nizampur road. At about 7 pm , he was going towards Rohtak Road from Nizampur Village and before Rohtak road he saw Satdev Rath who was going towards Nizampur Road alongwith a lady namely Rani. The four persons namely Arun, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were also behind Satdev Rath and Rani. Accused Arun, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj about 50 meters away from Rani and deceased Satdev. The accused Arun, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were his ex employee. They were expelled from job due to their behaviour and activities. Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were expelled from services because they entered into factory in the influence of liquor. Satdev Rathi had objected all the three but they misbehaved with Satdev Rathi his Manager. Satdev Rathi informed him that he expelled these three persons from the services int he end of June or beginning of July Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 10 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. ­2008 before this incident Arun was seen in obscene condition with Rani by Satdev Rathi in the factory. Satdev Rathi informed about this act of Arun. Both of them were warned. After about one week Arun stop coming to the work by himself as he was under impression that he had been removed from the service. On 18.10.2008 in the morning time, he reached the factory at about 8 am. The guard of the factory informed him that the son of Satdev Rathi had reached the factory in the night time and asked him that Satdev Rathi had not reached the house. It immediately struck in his mind because he had saw the Rani and other four accused persons in the previous evening with Satdev Rathi, he immediately rushed to police post Tikri boarder and found son of Satdev Rathi namely Amit and asked him what had happed on which he told him that police had informed him that the dead body is found in a field situated near Nizampur Road. He reached at the spot along with police officials, Amit and his relative. Where they had identified the dead body of Satdev Rathi. He noticed half cut in the throat of Satdev Rath. He also noticed injury on the above of right eye and few more injuries right side of the face. He has also brought two duty register and computer generated record of salary of four months, wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 in the salary sheet of October­2008 vide Ex. PW13/A and entry about the salary of Mr. Rathi at Serial No. 68 on the next page and on Ex.PW13/B which is document regarding salary sheet of August 2008 wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 and an entry about the salary of Mr. Rathi at Sl no. Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 11 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. 72 on the next page and in salary sheet of July 2008 Ex. PW13/C wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 and an entry about the salary of Arun Kumar at Sl No. 33 and manager Rathi at Serial No. 104. In salary sheet of June 2008 Ex. PW13/D wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 and an entry about the salary of Guddu , Prithvi at Serial No. 27 and 28 and Arun Kumar and Krishna at Sl No. 33 and 37 and manager Rathi at Serial No. 131.

Prosecution has also examined PW8 Dr. V.K. Jha who proved the post mortem report vide Ex. PW8/A and opined the cause of death was due to asphyxia and shock as a result of cut throat injuries inflicted by other party. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. On 25.11.2008 , Investigating Officer also moved an application regarding the opinion of weapon of offence recovered. He examined all the three parcels and opined the injuries mention in the postmortem report could have been caused by knives examined or similar such knife. He also prepared the diagrams of the knife vide Ex. PW8/B to D and his opinion is Ex. PW8/E. The other witnesses PW4 HC Narender, PW5 SI Kuldeep, PW6 HC Jaiveer, PW7 Ct. Satish, PW9 HC Nirmala, PW10 HC Dharampal, PW11 W/Ct. Anuradha, PW12 Ram Niwas, PW14 SI Manohar Lal, PW15 Ct. Vinod, HC Vijay Kumar and PW18 Ct. Mukesh, are the witnesses who participated in the investigation for the purpose of Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 12 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. aforesaid recovery of case property, sending of the samples to FSL and brought the FSL report, preparation of scaled site plan etc and also witnesses of the documents prepared during the course of investigation.

PW17 Parveen Kumar is also an employee of M/s K.N. Interplast Pvt. Ltd. stated that he did the official work with the deceased Satdev Rathi. The deceased Satdev Rathia was the Manager and also Incharge of the labour. Guddu @ Ram Parkash, Krishna @ Krishan , Prithvi Raj were working in their factory as a labour they were expelled from the service before three or three and half months of the incident as they were consuming liquor in the factory. He had also heard that Arun and Rani have love affairs and both the them were also seen alone in a room by Manager Satdev Rathi . Deceased Satdev Rathi also warned them not to behave like this again. On 17.10.2008 he was on leave due to illness. He had telephoned to Satdev Rathi on 17.10.2008 at 4.30 pm and 4.55 pm at that time he was in office.

PW18 Mr. Ashok Kumar has deposed that he was having a plough field at Nizampur Road, Tikri Kalan. On 18.10.2008 crops of Arahar was in the field. On the date some villagers informed him that a dead boy is lying in the field. He reached there and found police as well as the crowd of public. A dead body was also lying in his field. After seeing the condition he become perplexed and returned back to his house.

Prosecution also examined PW20 Mr. Parshuram Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, PW21 Ms. Kavita Goyal, Sr. Scientific Assistant Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 13 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. ( Chemistry) and PW22 Mr. V. Shanker Narayanan, who proved the FSL reports with respect to the exhibits.

PW20 Mr. Parshuram Singh has examined the parcels pertaining to the present case vide his report dated 29.5.2009 while he was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer, Physics FSL Rohini Delhi. His report is Ex. PW20/A. PW21 Ms. Kavita Goyal being Sr. Scientific Officer of Chemistry Devision, has examined the parcels pertaining to the present case vide her report dated 11.6.2009 . Her report is Ex. Pw21/A. PW22 Mr. V. Shankar Narayanan deposed that on 14.1.2009, 17 parcels were received in the office of FSL vide letter No. 13 Nangloi dated 13.1.2009 with respect to present case and he examined these parcel and prepared his report vide Ex. PW22/A and report regarding the serological examination of the parcels is Ex. PW22/B. PW23 Raj Kumar Yadav, Asstt. Nodal Officer, Reliance Company, who have been working in Reliance communication since 1.2.08 and brought the scan copy of two mobile phone numbers 9355732140 and 9355733307 which were in the name of Arun Kumar S/o Banwari R/o 132, Bahadur Garh, Distt. Jhazzar, Haryana alongwith supporting documents, election ID . Form of telephone number 9355733307 is Ex. PW23/A, supporting documents Ex. PW23/B and scan copy of enlarged photographs of Arun is Ex. PW23/C. Form of telephone number 9355732140 is Ex. PW23/D, supporting documents Ex. PW23/E Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 14 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. and scan copy of enlarged photographs of Arun is Ex. PW23/F. Six pages of call details of the aforesaid mobile number exhibited as PW19/H. Prosecution in order to prove the investigation examined PW19 SI Samay Singh and PW24 SI Om Parkash. Both the witnesses have stated from the receiving the DD No. 7 regarding the dead body lying in the field till filing of the challan and manner in which the investigation carried and documents prepared during the course of investigation. Statement of accused persons Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C have been recorded. The accused Arun Kumar in his statement deposed that the allegation is totally wrong, false and he did not work with PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal as stated above in the month of October, Rather he never worked with him and not interacted with him from July onwards with him and the salary sheet and record to this effect is false. He found overwriting on Ex. PW17/C and inherent contradiction relating to time of occurrence of alleged incident between Ex. PW16/DA i.e from No. 25­35 and other evidences. He saw the different statement of Kuldeep Dalal recorded at different points of time i.e. during pretrial ( investigation stage) as well as during the trial stage. His statements are shifting and contradictory and he is stating the he is trying to find out a scape goat for the reasons best know to him. He is falsely implicated in this case and in truth he was picked up by police who came in civil uniform from his house on Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 15 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. 18.10.2008 in evening at about 6.30pm to 7 pm. On the same day they took him to the PS and he was forcibly made to sign on the blank papers which he came to know later on that the same was converted into a disclosure statement. He completely deny whatever mentioned in disclosure statement so far as relates to his informant in alleged crime. In the personal search as alleged to be conducted on him nothing recovered from him. Recovery of mobile from him forcefully is a high handed act of investigating agency because his whole family, apart from him, were using the mobile. He refuted and denied the prosecution evidences and also denied the prosecution version in so far as it relates to connect his informant with the commission of crime and also denied the recovery of case property and exhibits as the same has been implanted to implicate him. He is innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Arun Kumar also preferred to lead defence evidence by examining his neighbour Santosh, Vijay and his mother Smt. Kamlesh and requested for his acquittal.

Accused Ram Parkash in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C denied the deposition of prosecution witnesses and further stated that he never expelled by Mr. Sachdev Rathi nor Mr. Dalal ever expelled him from the company on the allegation of misbehaving with Satdev Rathi. I do not know anything about Arun with the affair with Rani. He left the job on his own in the month of April 2008. A false story is cooked up by Mr. Dalal in order to save himself in the case. The computer generated Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 16 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. record is false and it does not connect him with the alleged offence. He does not know anything about the entries made by the company and denied the factum of computer generated record. He is innocent and have been falsely implicated in his case by the police. Accused Ram Parkash did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.

Accused Prithvi Raj in his deposition u/s 313 Cr.P.C has also made similar type of story and denied that he do not know anything. He has been falsely implicated in this case. However he admitted that he was arrested from the house of Om Parkash at Village Tikri Kalan Delhi on 19.10.2008 at night. He wanted to examine Shyam Lal and Dinesh in his defence.

Accused Krishan Kumar in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C has deposed that he did not work with Kuldeep Dalal in the month of October, 2008. Rather he never worked with him and not interacted with him from Jan­Feb 2008 onwards. The salary sheet and record produced to this effect is false and the same has been fabricated by Kuldeep Dalal to implicate him in the case. He is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the police. He has also preferred to lead defence evidence by examining Ms. Meera and Mr. Rajiv.

Accused Rani in her statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C has admitted that she was arrested from her own house. The mobile phone was taken by the police from her house. There is no love affair between her and Arun. We were just formal friends. She is innocent and have Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 17 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. been falsely implicated in this case by the police. She wanted to lead defence evidence.

Defence evidence Accused persons in their defence has examined DW1 Shyam Lal, who deposed about arrest of accused Ram Parkash and Prithvi from their house and informed this fact to land lord. On 20.10.2008 he went to police station and met police officials and they asked him that they have not beaten Prithvi and Ram Parkash. He further deposed that both the said accused persons are innocent and have not committed any offence.

DW2 Kamlesh is the mother of accused Arun and deposed about the fact that his son Arun was lifted by police from her residence on 18.10.2008. She was aware that Arun and Rani were working together in a factory at Tikri Boarder and Rani had visited her residence once and twice. They had two mobiles. One mobile was with her son Arun and she had given the second mobile to Rani on her request as she had lost her mobile. Her son has not committed any offence.

DW3 Vijay Kumar, have also deposed about the arrest of the accused Arun by police on 18.10.2008 being present at his house and also deposed that police forced him to go with them and on the next day police also came to the house of Arun and seized his bike. Accused Arun has never done any wrong thing in his life.

Argument analysis and discussion Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 18 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. After conclusion of the evidence of both the parties, having heard the arguments at length and also given my thoughtful consideration to the contention raised and also gone through the material on record as well as the relevant provision of law and authority cited.

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that accused persons namely Ram Parkash, Krishan , Prithivi Raj and Arun in order to take revenge against Satdev Rathi took the help of accused Rani who lured Satdev Rathi to the field in the evening of 17.10.2008 as per plan of all the accused and thereafter Satdev Rathi was murdered by all the accused in the field as per their pre plan. All the accused persons were aggrieved against the conduct of deceased Satdev Rathi in one way or the other and they all wanted to take revenge against him and as such they had a very strong motive to murder the deceased. PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal who knew all the accused and deceased has seen deceased Satdev Rathi and accused Rani walking on Nizampur Road around 7 pm on 17.10.2008 and the said witness had also seen the other four accused following Rani and Satdev at a distance of about 50 meters on the same road. The deceased was not seen by any other known person after PW13 has seen him as he was murdered any time after 7 pm by the accused persons and his dead body was recovered in the morning of 18.10.2008 in the field adjoining the road where he was last seen by PW13 with the accused persons. All the accused persons have made their disclosure statement after arrest and admitted having murdered Satdev Rathi as per Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 19 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. their plan, which have been duly proved and corroborated by sufficient evidence. Accused persons got recovered the weapon of offence, mobile phone, blood stained cloths and purse which belongs to Satdev Rathi. All the knives , wearing cloths by the accused persons and deceased was admitted having human blood. The blood group on the T Shirt of accused Arun, Ram Parkash was matched with the blood group of the deceased. As per the MLC the accused persons does not have received any external injuries therefore, the question of blood stained on their cloths of group of deceased does not arose. The blood of deceased was lying on their cloths at the time of commission of offence of murder committed by the accused persons. The prosecution has established its case against all accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, as all the accused persons had conspired to take revenge against deceased Satdev Rath as per their pre plan they murdered Satdev Rathi in the late evening of 17.10.2008 as such all the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the charge levelled against them.

Per contra Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that PW13 is the person who established the link of crime with the accused persons and who stand out as to " last seen witnesses" and who claimed to have seen the accused persons as well as deceased in last time. PW13 in his statement recorded 24.10.2008 stated that " on 17.10.2008 for his personal work he had gone to Kanjhawala and Nizampur and when he was returning at about 7.30 pm in evening and was coming from Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 20 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. Nizampur to Bahadurgarh, he saw the in charge of the factory of Bahadurgarh deceased Satdev Rathi with Rani, who also worked in his factory, coming from village Tikri and moving towards Nizampur, when he moved little ahead then he saw that on the same road after 50 meters. Arun, Krishna, Prithvi Raj, Guddu were also going, he though they would have been going because of their personal work therefore, he did not think fit to stop them as his wife and two foreign guests were also traveling with him" . It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that it is most unlikely that a person with his two foreign guests and wife can take such circuitous route in darkness of winter night, passing through jungle and lonely and secluded stretch of over 10­12 km leaving the main 6 lane highway i.e. Main Rohtak Road while returning in night from the connought place to home after shopping spree. It is further so submitted that he himself accepted and it is also found support in the prosecution story that the place from where the dead body was recovered and allegedly the accused persons and deceased were seen by the PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal is a secluded place. The map of Delhi downloaded from Internet offers most credible explanation that no reasonable human being is his conscious position will dare to take such unlikely route without any cogent reason especially when he is with his foreign guests and wife and especially when the main express way of 6 lane road is directly available.

The another vital point is that PW3 Ajit Singh is the colleague of Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 21 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. deceased and PW17 Parveen Kumar, field duty employee of PW13 has stated that nearly two to two and half years ago the accused personal namely Ram Prakash, Krishan Kumar, Prithvi Raj, came to factory in drunken condition because of which they were objected and they were also expelled from the employment and factory. They all also stated that Arun Kumar and Rani were seen in the factory in compromising condition nearly 2­3 months back because of which Arun Kumar was terminated from the factory. The above stand of all three witnesses taken to a new shape when they came for chief where in a questionable manner they modified their statement to the fact that the liquor incident took place about 2­3 months before the incident and there after they were expelled from the service due to their misbehaviour with Satdev Rathi. All of them have deposed in different ways and manner regarding their statement of a hearsay nature of there being heard about the fact of Arun and Rani being found by deceased in obscene condition. But no complaint was made against the present accused persons regarding their misbehaviour of taking liquor in the office or obscenity.

PW19 Insp. Samay Singh is most vital witnesses from the side of prosecution who has processed all available informations and filed charge sheet against the accused persons. He stated regarding the version of secret informer who informed him that all accused persons are sitting in some place. So even believing the version of secret informer true and correct it has no relevance in the assessment of present case because Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 22 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. except the factum of being three accused persons at a particular place the secret informer could not state any thing and could not furnish any information to the Investigating Officer of the case and the whole case has been based on the statement of PW13 which is actually the most unreliable piece of the prosecution version.

Further PW16 HC Vijay Kumar remained with the IO on 20.10.2008 stated that on receiving the secret information, he alongwith IO SI Om Prakash, HC Ram Niwas, HC Hattu Ram, Ct. Satish reached at Tikri Boarder at Tea Shop, three boys were taking tea there. On the point out of secret informer they were apprehended. They were interrogated and made disclosure statement. The son of deceased reached at the shop after minutes of our reaching. The mama of Amit informed Amit. Mama of Amit is residence of Tikri. PW SI Om Parkash informed Mr. Kuldeep Singh Dalal and Mama that " I had not seen informer, I can not tell about the informer because the many public present where there at the time of apprehending the accused persons. I can not tell whether IO had requested some public persons to act as a witness or not. In my presence no notice and warning was extended to those public persons who refuse to join the investigation."

The some vital points regarding the place of occurrence and the position of dead body and recovery etc are also worth coating leading to various inconsistencies pointing towards the incompatibility of the facts and circumstances with the guilt of accused persons. The place of Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 23 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. incidence was dark there was no street light. Ten vendor was not inquired nor joined as witness. Nobody has pointed out towards the ditch or any mud where three knives were recovered. Investigating Officer PW19 SI Samay Singh did not show the street light in the site plan. It is still uncertain whether there was street light present at place of occurrence or not, and whether actually the recoveries were made the way it has been shown by the police or not and that the only irresistible conclusion is that the whole recovery etc has been made in complete derogation from section 100 of the Cr.P.C.

Further it is clear from the deposition of PW16, PW19 and PW24 that there was recovered a piece of cloth like Dhoti/Lungi/Saree of red and yellow colour upon which the dead body was put in lying condition . There was no trail of blood found there at or around place of occurrence and that there was absolutely no sign of any struggle upon the place of occurrence which would definitely had if a stubborn and strong person like deceased would have fought with four thin boys of 20­25 years old and a girl. From the above, only irresistible conclusions that at the place of occurrence there would not have had any crime and as it has been suggested by the defense to the various witnesses the deceased must have been killed at factory premises by some other persons and might have thrown there and that the present accused persons have only been made a mere scape goat. There has nothing on record to prove conspiracy and the agreement of commission of crime as alleged is not evidenced by the Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 24 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. prosecution. PW7 Ct. Satish Kumar not supported the version of PW19 SI Samay Singh and did not stated about fact of recovery of shirt of Arun at the place of arrest and stated that all the five accused persons got recovered their cloths which they were wearing at the time of incident from their houses respectively. There is no proof of inter se connection of accused person. The wife of the deceased has not been examined, which could have supplied vital informations relating to the connection of deceased. The tea shop owner from where the accused persons were allegedly arrested was not examined which should have been done. The call log details of the cell number of family members of deceased should have been examined and that the call log details of PW13 should also have been examined. Police could not find out the where about of red and yellow check print Saree/Lungi/dhoti which was found bellow dead body which also apparent in photographs. The factory guard with whom the PW1 met in the evening of 17.10.2008 while he was searching deceased was also not examined. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon Apex Court judgments and prayed that accused persons may please be acquitted in the interest of justice.

In view of the submission made by the Ld. Public Prosecutor and Defence Counsel, as well as the authority cited and material placed on record.

The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 25 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains the criminals are clothed with the protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case, the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get ascot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that parts of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concertized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 26 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.

It may be observed here that it is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses, if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if the speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed with broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind int he sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what the witness was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind, the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone.

Motive/Mensrea of Crime Regarding the mensrea of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 27 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused persons and inconsistent with the hypothesis of their innocence.

The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of man are often subjective, submerged and unnameable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.

The accused persons are aggrieved with the conduct of the deceased Satdev Rathi for one reason or for other and all of them were in remorseful mood they wanted to take revenge since deceased Satdev Rathi being their Supervisor and Manager of M/s K.N. Inter Plast Pvt. Ltd. in Bahadur Garh, where all the accused persons were employee and the accused Ram Parkash, Prithivi Raj and Krishna were expelled from the company two three months before the incident as they were found Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 28 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. taking liquor in the factory premises and deceased Satdev Rathi being Supervisor and Manager have got them red handed while they were consuming liquor and they have been expelled out from the employment. PW3 Ajit Singh Supervisor in the said company, PW17 Parveen Kumar another employee of the company have disclosed the said facts. PW3 Ajit Singh in his deposition before the court has stated that "all the five accused persons were working in their workshop. About 2­3 months before this incident Ram Parkash, Krishan and Prathvi Raj consumed the liquor in the duty hour and they had misbehaved with Satdev Rathi , Manager. Thereafter they were expelled from the service due to their misbehaviour with Satdev Rathi...... There was an affairs between accused Arun Kumar and Rani. One day Rani and Tarun ( brother of Arun) started quarrel in the factory in loud voice. They were called in the office. Both of them were asked to have patience. Tarun and Rani were warned not to quarrel in the factory due to the family matters. One Satdev Rathi informed him that he had seen Arun and Rani in objectionable condition in a vacant room. He had informed him this fact about 10­12 days before this incident. Thereafter Arun was expelled from the service due to dereliction of duty and not obeying the order. He further deposed that there is mistake of time, date and period in his statement. The statement was shown to him in the morning today but he is not agree with the contents of statement and today he have deposed before the court are actual facts. Arun was expelled from the job about two month prior to Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 29 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. this incident. Initially Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan Kumar and Prithvi Raj were expelled from the job and thereafter Arun was expelled".

PW13 Sh. Kuldeep Singh Dalal has also corroborated the deposition of PW3 Ajit Singh while stating that "Arun, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were his ex employee. They were expelled from job due to their behaviour and activities. Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were expelled from services because they entered into factory in the influence of liquor. Satdev Rathi had objected all the three but they misbehaved with Manager Satdev Rathi. Deceased Satdev Rathi informed him that he expelled these three persons from the services int he end of June or beginning of July ­2008. Before this incident Arun was seen in obscene condition with Rani by Satdev Rathi in the factory. Satdev Rathi informed about this act of Arun. Both of them were warned. After about one week Arun stop coming to the work by himself as he was under impression that he had been removed from the service".

PW17 Parveen Kumar is also an employee of K.N. Inter Plast and testified the deposition of PW3 Ajit Singh and PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal regarding misbehaviour of the accused persons and their expulsion. PW17 has stated that " he did the official work with the deceased Satdev Rathi. The Satdev Rathia was the Manager and also Incharge of the labour. Guddu @ Ram Parkash, Krishna @ Krishan , Prithvi Raj were working in their factory as a labour they ere expelled from the service Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 30 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. before three or three and half months of the incident as they were consuming liquor in the factory. He had also heard that Arun and Rani have love affairs and both the them were also seen alone in a room by Manager Satdev Rathi . Satdev Rathi also warned them not to behave like this again. On 17.10.2008 he was on leave due to illness. He had telephoned to Satdev Rathi on 17.10.2008 at 4.30 pm and 4.55 pm at that time he was in office".

Therefore, in view of the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses and above discussion it is proved by prosecution that the accused persons have the motive/mensrea in the commission of murder of deceased Satdev Rathi.

Last seen evidence To prove the last seen evidence, the prosecution examined PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal , who knew all the accused and deceased as had seen all the five accused persons alongwith deceased in the evening of 17.10.2008. PW13 has deposed that " on 17.10.2008 he was going to Bahadur Garh. On that day he was having some work so he adopted Kanjhawala and Nizampur road. At about 7am , he was going towards Rohtak Road from Nizampur Village and before Rohtak road he saw Satdev Rath who was going towards Nizampur Road alongwith a lady namely Rani. The four persons namely Arun, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were also behind Satdev Rath and Rani, Arun, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 31 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. about 50 meters away from the deceased Satdev Rathi. Arun, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were his ex employee. They were expelled from job due to their behaviour and activities. Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan @ Krishna and Prithvi Raj were expelled from services because they entered into factory in the influence of liquor. Satdev Rathi had objected all the three but they misbehaved with Satdev Rathi his Manager. Satdev Rathi informed him that he expelled these three persons from the services int he end of June or beginning of July ­2008. Before this incident Arun was seen in obscene condition with Rani by Satdev Rathi in the factory. Satdev Rathi informed about this act of Arun. Both of them were warned. After about one week Arun stop coming to the work by himself as he was under

impression that he had been removed from the service. On 18.10.2008 in the morning time, he reached the factory at about 8 am. The guard of the factory informed him that the son of Satdev Rathi had reached the factory in the night time and asked him that Satdev Rathi had not reached the house. It immediately struck in his mind because he had saw the Rani and other four accused persons in the previous evening with Satdev Rathi, he immediately rushed to police post Tikri boarder and found son of Satdev Rathi namely Amit and asked him what had happed on which he told him that police had informed him that the dead body is found in a field situated near Nizampur Road. He reached at the spot along with police officials, Amit and his relative. Where they had identified the dead body Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 32 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. of Satdev Rathi. He noticed half cut in the throat of Satdev Rath. He also noticed injury on the above of right eye and few more injuries right side of the face. He has also brought two duty register and computer generated record of salary of four months, wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 in the salary sheet of October­2008 vide Ex. PW13/A and entry about the salary of Mr. Rathi at Serial No. 68 on the next page and on Ex.PW13/B which is document regarding salary sheet of August 2008 wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 and an entry about the salary of Mr. Rathi at Sl no. 72 on the next page and in salary sheet of July 2008 Ex. PW13/C wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 and an entry about the salary of Arun Kumar at Sl No. 33 and manager Rathi at Serial No. 104. In salary sheet of June 2008 Ex. PW13/D wherein name of Rani is enrolled at Sl. No. 18 and an entry about the salary of Guddu , Prithvi and Serial No. 27 and 28 and Arun Kumar and Krishna at Sl No. 33 and 37 and manager Rathi at Serial No. 131".

PW17 Parveen Kumar has stated that he had telephoned to Satdev Rathi on 17.10.2008 at 4.30 pm and 4.55 pm at that time he was in office and he came to know about the death of Satdev Rathi on

18.10.2008 when received a called from PW3 Ajit Singh. He has taken leave from 11.10.08 to 17.10.08 as he was not well due to chickenpox. He did not go to the factory on 18.10.2008, he had gone only the place where the body of the Rathi had been found. When he reached there he Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 33 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. found some public, police that Mr. Dalal and Mr. Ajit were already there. Police has inquired from him on 24.10.2008 after inquiry from the Dalal and Mr. Ajit. It is denied that he alongwith Mr. Dalal, Ajit, and Sunder have murdered Mr. Rathi as the Mr. Rathi was of loose moral character, Mr. Dalal wanted to get rid of him as he wanted a promotion for which they conspired and killed him.

PW23 R.K. Yadav, Nodal Officer , Reliance Communication proved the call details of accused Arun Kumar and Rani but there is no cross examination of this witness for verification of the conversation on the date of incident between accused Arun and Rani.

Accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C on the question No. 9 to 15 have not specifically denied the alleged incriminating evidence against them. They also admitted their arrest.

Accused Rani admitted that she had worked with PW13 Kuldeep Singh and deceased Satdev Rathi up to October, 2008 and further admitted that the mobile phone was seized by the police from her house and there are friendly relationship with the accused Arun. DW2 Kamlesh also admitted the relationship of the Arun with the accused Rani and deposed that accused Rani used to visit her residence. It shows that there are close relationship and intimacy between the accused Arun and Rani. Naturally when two opposite sex have so closely to each other, there can be possibility of illicit relationship which cannot be rule out by any ocular evidence. Since all the accused persons are residing near the Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 34 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. vicinity of the factory and used to come together to the factory and also used to go together after finishing their work. PW13 Kuldeep Singh has consistently testified in his deposition that he had seen accused persons at the Nizampur road where from 50 meters distance from the deceased and Rani and the other accused persons. The accused Rani has lured to the deceased Satdev Rathi with the ulterior motive to commit the murder. PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal in his cross examination has not bent his version as stated in the examination in chief and his deposition has been corroborated by the other public witnesses including deposition of PW3 Ajit Singh and PW17 Parveen Kumar. Therefore, the prosecution is also able to prove that the deceased lastly in the company of the accused persons.

Recovery of weapon and other incriminating articles PW2 Yudhvir, PW16 HC Vijay Kumar, PW19 Insp. Samay Singh, PW24 SI Om Parkash proved the arrest memo, personal search memo and the disclosure statements of all the accused persons. PW16 has also proved the one pair of shoes, one underwear, one belt, one empty plastic bottle, one torn piece of saree and one pant from the spot on 18.10.2008 in the morning and further earth control and blood stained earth were also seized from the spot and and all these articles were sealed and seized as per memo Ex. PW2/1. As per the statement of PW16 accused Arun got recovered knife with blood stains Ex. P­1 used for committing the murder of deceased Satdev Rathi and accused Arun has also handed Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 35 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. over the shirt P­5 and Pajama Ex. P­4 which was wearing at the time of commission of offence. One Bajaj Kawashaki motorcycle used to leave accused Rani at her home after the commission of offence by accused Arun was also seized. Accused Arun also got recovered his mobile phone of reliance/LG bearing No. 9355733307 Ex. P­13. PW16 also proved the paper Ex. P­23 and pen Ex. P­24 recovered from the spot. Accused Arun got recovered purse of red colour of deceased Satdev Rathi from his house , which was found containing cash, visiting cards of K.N. Interplast Pvt. Ltd. and one slip of letter head Ex. P23 collectively and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/F. Accused Arun in his disclosure statement also deposed that he had removed the purse from the pocket of Satdev Rathi after commission of the crime. Similarly co accused Krishna got recovered a knife Ex. P­2 used in commission of crime from the nearby field and his clothes including half pant, shirt which was wearing by the accused Krishna at the time of commission of crime from his room in Tikri Kalan which were seized vide memo Ex. PW16/22. Accused Ram Parkash also got recovered a blood stained knife Ex. P­3 used in murder of the deceased Satdev Rathi from the nearby field and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW16/21. Accused Ram Parkash has also got recovered his clothes including T­shirt Ex. P­8, handkerchief Ex. P­9 and jeans Ex. P­10 which he was wearing at the time of commission of offence and same were seized vide memo Ex. PW16/23. Accused Prithivi Raj also got recovered his clothes including pant Ex. P­11 and T Shirt Ex. P­12, which Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 36 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. he was wearing at the time of commission of offence as per seizure memo Ex. PW16/24. Accused Rani got recovered her mobile phone of reliance of sky blue colour bearing No. 9355732140 Ex. P­14 and seized vide memo Ex.PW16/26.

PW22 Mr. V. Shankar Naryana SSA(BIO), FSL, Rohini has proved his report Ex. PW22/A and his serological examination vide Ex. Pw22/B as per the report following observation has been made :

1­ Human blood was detected on the knives Ex. P­1, P­2 and P­3, got recovered by accused Arun, Krishna and Ram Parkash.

2­ Human blood was detected on the Pajama Ex. P­4 and T­ Shirt Ex. P­5 which was got recovered by accused Arun.

3­ Human blood was detected on the Nikkar Ex. P­6 and Shirt Ex. P­7 which pertains to accused Krishna.

4­ Human blood of B­Group was detected on the T­shirt Ex. P­8 and pant Ex. P­10 which belongs to accused Ram Parkash.

5­ Human blood was detected on shirt Ex. P­26, vest Ex. P­26, Shocks Ex. P­26 belonging to deceased Satdev Rathi.

6­ Human blood was also detected on the cloth piece of saree/dhoti Ex. P­22, piece of paper Ex. P­23, blood stained earth control Ex. P­21 and plastic bottle Ex. P­19, which were recovered at the spot.

Detection of human blood on the knives got recovered by three accused persons namely Arun, Krishna and Ram Parkash and further detection of blood on the clothes of these accused specifically human Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 37 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. blood B­group on he T­shirt of Arun and Ram Parkash which matches with the B­Group of deceased Satdev Rathi as establishes from the blood from his vest confirms beyond doubt that these three accused persons namely Arun, Krishna and Ram Prakash were involved int he actual physical murder of deceased Satdev Rathi. Accused Rani played a role in the commission of plan as she has lured the deceased Satdev Rathi to nearby field and both of them have been followed by accused persons as and when they found that the field is a lonely place they have executed their plan by committing murder with the help of weapon of offence as recovered from their possession. Accused Prithvi Raj was keeping a watch on the road side when the murder was being committed as no blood has been detected on his pant and T­shirt.

Ld. Counsel for the accused persons alleged that there was no trail of blood found at the place of occurrence and that there was no sign of any struggle upon the place of occurrence which would definitely had if a stubborn and strong person like deceased would have fought with four thin boys of 20­25 years old and a girl. From the above, only irresistible conclusion is that at the place of occurrence there would not have had any crime and as it has been suggested by the defense to the various witnesses the deceased must have been killed at factory premises by some other persons and might have thrown there and that the present accused persons have only been made a mere scape goat. FSL report except some of the recovery articles did not match with the blood of the deceased. Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 38 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. With respect to the aforesaid submission, facts and circumstances, it is matter of record that accused persons have not sustained any injury and if there is no struggle by all the accused persons with the deceased there must be some abrasions or struggle mark on the person of deceased as well as to the accused persons there was no such abrasion , scar and mark of injury found on their person rather deceased has sustained injury on his face, eye etc as per MLC Ex. PW8/A, which shows that there was no free fight, only the accused persons are spontaneously surrounded the deceased and caused all these injuries with their weapon and by leg and fist blows. The accused persons have not explained regarding the definite blood found on their wearing cloths in absence of any injures sustained by them. The scientific evidence with respect to the examination of wearing cloths and the incriminating articles, is also clear and cogent. The accused persons stabbed the deceased with a dagger, wounds are severe and on the vital part of the body, which was considered to be dangerous and penetrated to the length around the neck.

In case titled as Fellix V State 1998 Cr.LJ 2479 (Karn.), wherein it has been observed that " The accused in a murder case made a voluntary statement and then brought out shoe lace used in murder from inside his shoe gave it to the Investigating officer and the Investigating Officer seized it. The Statement made would be admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act.

MLC, Postmortem report and FSL report Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 39 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. PW8 Dr. V.K. Jha of B.J.R.M. Hospital, proved the post mortem on the deceased Satdev Rathi on dated 18.10.2008 vide Ex. PW8/A. The cause of death was opined due to asphyxia and shock as a result of cut throat injuries inflicted by other party. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. PW8 has also testified that Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the times since death was 22 hours. PW8 Dr. V.K. Jha has also stated that as per his report Ex. PW8/E the injuries mentioned in the post mortem report could have been caused by knives examined or similar such knife. It is further testified by PW8 that all the injuries were found on the dead body of deceased of single edged weapon and the date of incident was written on 16.10.2008, 5 pm to 17.10.2008 7am in Ex. PW8/DA. It is denied that he has prepared opinion as per the wish of the Investigating Officer. The date of incident given by PW8 Dr. V.K. Jha is approximate as the duration of the death was 22 hours. However, PW1 Amit Rathi, PW2 Yudhbir Singh and PW13 Kuldeep Dalal has testified that the date of incident was of 17.10.2008 in the evening hours. PW17 Parveen Kumar has also talked with the deceased on 17.10.2008 at about 4.30 pm and 4.55 pm at that time the deceased was in the office.

PW21 Ms. Kavita Goyal. Senior Scientific Assistant, Chemistry Devision, FSL, Rohini proved her report Ex. PW21/A. PW22 Sh. V. Shankar Narayanan, Senior Scientific Assistant, Biology Division has proved the serological examination vide report Ex. PW22/A and B. He Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 40 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. also detected human blood on the knife Ex. P­1, P­2 and P­3 as recovered from accused Arun, Krishna and Ram Parkash. Blood group B was detected on the T Shirt of Arun, T shirt of accused Ram Parkash and vest of deceased Satdev Rathi. The human blood was also detected on the Pajama/lower i.e Ex. P­4 of accused Arun, on the shirt of accused Krishna Ex. P­6, pant of accused Ram Parkash and on the shirt of deceased Satdev Rathi. Human blood was also detected on the cloth piece of saree/dhoti Ex. P­22 and also on the piece of paper Ex. P­23 found at the spot.

The detection of human blood on the knives got recovered from the accused persons Krishna, Arun and Ram Parkash and blood stained on the cloth of these accused was found to be of B­group which is matched with the blood group of the deceased Satdev Rathi, which also swing the needle of the guilt towards the accused persons and established from the blood group and human blood that these accused persons involved in the actual physical murder of Satdev Rathi. The other accused Rani fully cooperated and assisted in the execution of the plan and she lured the deceased Satdev Rathi to field. She was instigator to the co­accused to commit the murder of deceased Satdev Rathi. Accused Prithvi Raj was keeping a watch on the road side when the said crime was being committed. Therefore, no blood has been detected on the wearing cloths of accused Rani and Prithvi Raj. Both of them hatched a criminal conspiracy in connivance of the other associate accused persons. Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 41 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. It is well settled preposition of the law that positive evidence in a case is of the eye witnesses who had seen and narrated the entire occurrence. The evidence of the doctor or medical expert is merely an opinion which lends corroboration to the direct evidence in the case. Where there is glaring inconsistency between the direct evidence and the medical evidence in respect of the entire prosecution story, it is undoubtedly a manifest defect in the prosecution case. But where the prosecution evidence is otherwise trustworthy and reliable and medical evidence have been given the strength to the prosecution story without which can sought to the case of the prosecution mere to prove the crime against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and there is no inconsistency or contradiction in the case of the prosecution and oral deposition of the prosecution witnesses as well as in the medical and expert evidence. The Autopsy Surgeon opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of the cut on throat injuries and the doctor also examined the weapon of offence and gave definite opinion that the injuries on the person of deceased can be caused by this weapon, this opinion is definite and conviction of the accused persons can be held sustainable on this ground too.

It is trite law that minor variations between medical evidence and oral evidence do not take away the privacy of the later. Unless medical evidence in its terms goes so far as to completely rule out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner stated by the eye Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 42 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. witness and other circumstantial evidence which cannot be thrown away. The generalized statement as regards the injuries would be more credible than the particularized statement of location of injuries on the body when the injuries were caused in quick succession and in short time. The expert opinion which lends to the corroboration of other evidence in the case. When two experts differ in their opinion, the opinion of that expert should be accepted or held to be more reliable who has examined the weapon with blood stained, cloths, earth control and other incriminating articles as seized by the crime team from the place of incident. The medical and expert evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly shows that the deceased was died due to injuries shown in the post mortem report which has been caused by the weapon as recovered and sent for expert opinion and also lends to the corroboration by the serological and biological reports with respect to the other incriminating articles seized during the investigation.

Investigation It can be seen from the evidence of the police witnesses that the investigation has been conducted fairly and impartially in this case. There is also nothing shown that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the Investigating Officer in ulterior motive. All the details of the investigation as well as the documents prepared have been proved in accordance with law by the police official as already elaborated in the preceding paras of the judgment.

Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 43 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. The First Information Report, as is well known is not an encyclopedia of the entire case. Where broad features of the case in which the incident was took place, non mentioning of name of the witnesses in FIR is not fatal. The question is to be considered as to whether accused persons were implicated by way of afterthought which must be judged having regard to the entire factual scenario obtaining in the case. The full proof narration is given by the prosecution witnesses which given the impressions that the story put forward is live and testified on the preponderance of probabilities having regard to the human behaviour. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of court to accept the stated evidence. The court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance.

Contradiction & Improvements Ld. Counsel for the accused persons have pointed out some contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses like recovery of weapon , number of weapon of offence used, last seen evidence where it has been used by PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal is improbable. The police came at the spot after the commission of offence etc submitting that the same are fatal to the prosecution case.

Improvements made by the witnesses and variations made by them Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 44 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. in earlier and later statements are not themselves sufficient to hold their testimony untrustworthy or infirm. Where deposition made by witnesses are proved that all the assailants with common intention hatched with conspiracy to finish the deceased Satdev Rathi as he has been created hindrance in their smooth illegal affairs of the accused Rani with Arun and doing illegal activity in the factory premises. PW13 have seen all the accused persons together at Nizampur Road. Improvement and variation as pointed out are not much at the higher degree which proved that the testimony are unreliable or fatal to the prosecution case.

In case titled as Chittarmal 92003) 2 SCC 266 wherein it has been observed that where on the testimony of an injured witness, the participation of the assailants in the commission of the crime must be held to have been proved and where both the courts have concurrently found him to be a reliable witness, the High court was held justified in ignoring the part of his evidence which appeared to be in the nature of embellishment. Minor inconsistencies and discrepancies regarding the exact place or the point at which the incident took place or as to who landed the blows is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of witnesses. It is not necessary that all eye witnesses should specifically refer to the distinct acts of each member of an unlawful assembly, in fact, it is difficult, if not impossible. Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 45 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case. Minor discrepancies on the trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences, torn out of context here or there from the evidence attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. In the instant case the improvement and contradictions are not as such which effect the case of the prosecution, nor as such on any trivial issue. The same are normal and do not co­relate the credibility of the prosecution evidence.

Mobile call details The attendance record of dated 15.10.2008, 16.10.2008 and 17.10.2008 of deceased Satdev Rathi, Ajit (PW3) and PW17 Parveen has been proved by PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal who also proved that the deceased Satdev was present in the factory on 17.10.2008 up to 5 pm. PW1 Amit Rathi has also proved that his father was alive up to the evening of 17.10.2008 and PW3 Ajit Singh has deposed that Satdev Rathi was alive during the day time on 17.10.2008. PW13 Kuldeep Singh Dalal & PW17 Parveen Kumar has also proved that he had spoken to deceased Satdev Rathi on 17.10.08 during day time Dr. V.K. Jha PW8 has also stated that time since death was 22 hours , for which accused cannot take advantage of an inadvertent mistake or irrelevant writing in inquest paper Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 46 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. Ex. PW8/DA that date of incident 16.10.2008 5.00 to 17.10.2008 7 am. The clerical mistake of the Investigating officer is writ large which is evident from the fact that in the death report Ex. PW16/DA, the Investigating Officer has wrongly mentioned date and hour of discovery of the death as 17.10.2008 at 17.20 am which is actually in morning of 18.10.2008 as the dead body was seen for the first time in the fields.

PW18 Ct. Mukesh Kumar obtained the called details of mobile phones used by accused Arun and Rani. PW23 Raj Kumar Yadav, Assistant Nodal Officer Reliance proved that both the mobile phones bearing no. 9355732140 recovered from the accused Rani Ex. P­14 and mobile No. 9355733307 recovered from the accused Arun Ex. P­13 were in the name of accused Arun Kumar and the said witnesses also furnished the call details of aforesaid mobile numbers. The accused Rani has also admitted in her statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C that she was using mobile phone bearing number 9355732140 and the said mobile was seized from her by the police and she was talking to the accused Arun on mobile No. 9355733307. Further the call record reveals that on 17.10.2008 accused Arun had made 17 calls to Rani and Rani had made 2 calls to Arun and on 18.10.2008 Arun had made two calls to Rani and Rani had made one call to Arun. As such the aforesaid call record between accused Arun and Rani shows the frequency of calls made by Arun to Rani increased regularly from 12.10.2008 onwards and maximum calls were made on 17th October, 2008 which is the day when the plan was Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 47 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. executed and Satdev Rathi was murdered by the accused persons. The location of both the phones of accused Rani and Arun further confirms that they were in the same area at the relevant time when the deceased was being murdered.

Criminal Conspiracy & Common Intention The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be accomplished a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons where by they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement , or by any effectual means in the jurisdiction where the law required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is compete when the combination is framed. From this it necessarily follows that unless the statue so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Therefore the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence.

Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 48 of 55

Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This part of the prosecution has not been establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any lawful use.

Direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore circumstances proved before, during and after occurrence has to be considered to decide on each complicity of the accused. The conspiracies are proved by the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and it objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the parties/accused. In a joint trial, care must be taken to separate the admissible evidence against each accused and the judicial mind should not be allowed to be influenced by evidence admissible only against other . Cumulative effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of the accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstances. Of course , each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt as observed in a case titled as State V Navjot Sandhu 2005 Cri LJ 3950 (SC).

In Parliament attack case, appellant Afzal was proved to be a partner in the conspired crime of enormous gravity. The circumstance clearly established that he was associated with the deceased terrorist in Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 49 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. almost every act done by them in order to achieve the objective of attacking the Parliament House. His conduct and actions antecedent contemporaneous and subsequent, all pointed to his guilt and were only consistent with his involvement in the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts. The conspiracy to commit the offence of murder in the course of execution of conspiracy was well within the scope of conspiracy to which appellant Afzal was a party. Therefore, he was held liable to be punished under section 120B IPC read with section 302 IPC with sentence of death. Criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred from literature and correspondence which advocate anti social activities unless such writings establish a ink between accused and accused so as to involve the entire group in a charge of criminal conspiracy.

In case of assassination of former Prime Minister of India Rajiv Gandhi, wireless message showing that only main accused, conspirator were knowing about the object of conspiracy. Co accused in his confession said that he has a strong suspicion that the target of the accused persons was Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. The court held that it would not make him a member of conspiracy. Mere fact that the main accused sent message about arrest of accused persons held not sufficient to draw an inference of conspiracy against them as observed in a case titled as State Vs Nalini AIR 1999 SC 2640.

The liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 50 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. animating the accused persons leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in Section 34, when an accused is convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34, in law it means that the accused persons are liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. In case Chinta Pulla Reddy vs. State of A.P., 1993 Supp.(3) 134, Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying Section 34 it is not necessary to show some overact on the part of the accused. The existence of common intention amongst the participants in a crime is essential element for application of Section 34 IPC.

In a case titled as Gupteshwar Nath Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1986 SC 1649: 1986 Cr.LJ 1242 it was observed that "when several persons surrounded the deceased and beat him to death, common intention of all of them for murder can be inferred.".

In another case titled Bhola Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1995 CrLJ 1830 (P&H) (DB) it has been observed that " The fact that both the accused came to the spot together and after committing the murder Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 51 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. left the place together would be sufficient to hold that both of them shared the common intention to commit the murder.

Under section 34 when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone. The words "in furtherance of the common of all" are a most essential part of section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is common intention to commit the crime actually committed. This common intention is anterior in time to the commission of the crime. Common intention means a pre­arranged plan. In case titled as Bengali Mandal @ Bengal Mandal Vs State of Bihar, JT 2010 (1) SC 49, the court observed "the position with regard to section 34 IPC is crystal clear. The existence of common intention is a question of fact. Since intention is a state of mind, it is therefore, very difficult, if not impossible, to get or procure direct proof of common intention. Therefore courts, in most cases, have to infer the intention from the act(s) or conduct of the accused or other relevant circumstances of the case.

In the instant case, all the accused persons are working at same place where the deceased was Supervisor/Manager. The deceased Satdev Rathi being supervisor of the factory caught red handed one point of time to having physical relation of accused Arun with Rani and also apprehended to the accused Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan Kumar and Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 52 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. Prthivi Raj while consuming the liquor and misbehaving with the deceased in factory premises and they were expelled from the service. The all the accused persons have strong motive to take revenge from the deceased, as such they in full mood to take the advantage of the weakness deceased , and allured him through accused Rani, who took him in the lonely place in the field and carry lite their mission after committing the murder of Satdev Rathi. There cannot be required that all the accused persons sit together at one place and making planing to commit crime. There can be gesture through the conduct of the accused persons as they all coming and going together, work together at one place and living in same locality and native place. The accused persons also made a voluntary disclosure statement which led to recovery of weapon of offence, blood stain cloth and same has been proved by medical and scientific evidence. The conspiracy have to be intended from the criminal act and the conduct of the accused persons. The existence of the common motive inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused persons. All the circumstances, oral and documentary evidence proved the case of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt that all the accused persons hatched conspiracy with their common intention committed the murder of Satdev Rathi. The accused Arun, Ram Parkash and Krishan got recovered blood stained knife and wearing cloths which detected the human blood and blood group of deceased, draw inference of guilt against the accused persons.

Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 53 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. Conclusion It can be seen from the facts and circumstances and aforesaid discussion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses does appear to be reliable. The prosecution story inspires confidence and is worthy of credence. The role of the accused persons as the culprit in the prosecution story has been successfully proved.

The prosecution has been able to prove all the four accused persons namely Ram Parkash, Krishan, Prithvi Raj and Arun in order to take revenge against Satdev Rathi took the help of accused Rani who lured Satdev Rathi to the fields in the evening of 17.10.2008 as per plan and thereafter they all have committed murder of Satdev Rathi.

The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and established the identity of the accused persons as the real culprit, the manner in which the offence was committed, the investigation, weapon of offence, blood stained cloths smeared with blood control proved the case of the prosecution. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have meticulously supported the prosecution case and have assigned a clear and specific role of all the accused persons. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and their deposition are consistent natural and corroborative. The conscience of this court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has been able to bring home the Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 54 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc. charge against all the accused persons namely Arun Kumar, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan Kumar, Prathvi Raj and Rani.

Consequently, all the accused persons namely Arun Kumar, Ram Parkash @ Guddu, Krishan Kumar, Prathvi Raj and Rani are hereby convicted for having committed offence under section 302/34 read with section 120 B of the IPC for committing murder of deceased Satdev Rathi. Let all be heard on the point of sentence.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 26.02.2011 (SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE(WEST­04) DELHI Sessions Case Number: 40/3/2010 Page 55 of 55 Unique ID Number: 0240IR0085072009 State versus Arun Kumar Etc.