Delhi District Court
State vs Ved Pal Etc on 13 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 44804/2015 (earlier SC No. 70/2011)
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011
FIR No. 592/2010
PS Bhajanpura
U/s 436/323/34 IPC, 1860
STATE VERSUS VED PAL & ORS
Date of committal : 01.10.2011
Date of arguments : 30.01.2025
Date of judgment : 13.02.2025
Table of contents
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. Brief details of the case & memo of parties 2
2. Brief Case of the Prosecution 4
3. Prosecution Evidence 8
4. Plea of Accused Persons 35
5. Submissions made on behalf of the State 38
6. Submissions made on behalf of the Accused 40
Persons
7. Relevant Law & the Case Laws 45
8. Appreciation of Evidence 52
9. Conclusion & Findings 65
Digitally
signed by
(ATUL AHLAWAT) ATUL
ATUL
AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
ASJ (FTC)/North- 2025.02.13
10:42:17
+0530
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/13.02.2025
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 1/68
IN THE COURT OF SH ATUL AHLAWAT
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), NORTH-EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
IN RE:
SC No. 44804/2015 (earlier SC No. 70/2011)
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011
FIR No. 592/2010
PS Bhajanpura
U/s 436/323/34 IPC, 1860
Brief details of the case and memo of parties
STATE VERSUS VED PAL & ORS
Date of committal : 01.10.2011
Date of arguments : 30.01.2025
Date of judgment : 13.02.2025
Brief details of the case
A) Case FIR No. : 592/2010
B) Charges framed under section : 436/342/324 R/w
section 34 of IPC,
1860.
C) Name of the complainant : Mehkar Singh
S/o Sh Balle Singh
R/o Gali No.11, near
PWD Office, Village
Gamri, Delhi.
D) Name of the accused persons : (1) Ved Pal Digitally
S/o Sh. Raghuwar
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:42:23
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 2/68
Singh
(Proceedings qua him
stood abated vide
order dated
10.04.2013).
(2) Aman
S/o Sh. Raghuwar
Singh
(3) Vijay @ Vijay
Kumar
S/o Sh. Raghuwar
Singh
(4) Mangal Singh
S/o Sh. Raghuwar
Singh
(5) Rajender
S/o Sh. Leela Dhar @
Lilu
(Proceedings qua him
have stood abated
vide order dated
18.04.2024)
(6) Leela Dhar @
Lilu
S/o Sh. Raghuwar
Singh
(Proceedings qua him
have stood abated
vide order dated
18.04.2024)
E) Plea of the accused persons : Not guilty
Digitally
F) Final Order : Acquittal
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:42:31
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 3/68
G) Date of Order : 13.02.2025
JUDGMENT
(Pronounced on the 13th day of February, 2025) Brief Case of the Prosecution:
1. The criminal law machinery was set into motion on 13.12.2010, when DD no. 22A, Ex. PW12/A was registered at PS Bhajanpura, upon the information received from W/Ct. Kiran Lakra, 8037/PCR/Operator that "House No. 13/1, B-Block Bhajanpura Gamri jhuggiyo mein aag"
The said call was received by the operator of 100 number at PCR-HQ from mobile no. 999347277.
2. On 13.12.2010, yet another call was made on 100 number to the police and the same was registered as DD No. 23A, Ex. PW12/B registered at PS Bhajanpura, upon the information received from Ct. Yashveer Singh, 7636/PCR/Operator that "Panchwa Pushta Gamri PWD Office ke samne ghar me aag".
3. After registration of the DD no. 22A, Ex. PW12/A and DD No. 23/A, Ex. PW12/B was registered at PS Bhajanpura, the inquiry was marked to ASI Raghuraj and the said inquiry officer reached the spot alongwith Ct. Billu and Ct. Amit.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:42:38
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 4/68
4. After receiving the information of the said calls made on 100 number, Inspector Hans Raj Thakran alongwith Ct. Jaswant Singh reached the spot near PWD Office, Gamri Village and met ASI Raghuraj Singh and Ct. Amit. The IO Inspector Hans Raj Thakran found that the jhuggies situated in the plot there, had caught fire and they were rapidly being consumed by the said fire. Upon inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the IO that one person had been burnt by the said fire and 3-4 other persons have received injuries. The injured persons were already taken to GTB Hospital by the PCR van.
5. In the meanwhile, the SHO PS Bhajanpura and HC Balbir Singh with other beat staff also reached the spot. Thereafter, IO Inspector Hans Raj Thakran left ASI Raghuraj and other staff at the spot, for guarding the same and he himself proceeded to GTB Hospital. At the said hospital, the IO procured the MLC no. 5674/2010, Ex. PW8/A of injured Mohseen Sheikh. The IO also got to know that the accused Ved Pal Singh, Vijay, Aman and Rajender were also medically examined at the said hospital and their MLCs were got prepared by the concerned doctor. The injured and the accused persons were admitted in the said hospital.
6. The IO returned back to the spot and met the complainant Mehkar Singh and recorded his statement, Ex. PW6/A. In his statement, the complainant had stated that he was residing in gali no.11, near PWD Office, Village Gamri, with his family and was plying the trade of selling the milk of buffaloes. His family was owning a plot admeasuring about 2700 yards, which was situated in Khasra No. 227 to 230, Village Gamri Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:42:44 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 5/68 +0530 Extension and his father Balle Singh got constructed around 15-20 jhuggies in the said plot around 15-20 years back and they had given the said jhuggies on rent.
7. In his statement Ex. PW6/A, the complainant Mehkar Singh had further stated that regarding the said plot, his uncle (tau) Raghuwar and the sons of his uncle were having a dispute with him and his family members. On 13.12.2010, when the complainant alongwith his brother Satpal and Narender were sitting on the said plot of land and were putting mitti on the roof of the room situated in the said plot, where the buffaloes used to be used to be tied, at around 04:40 PM, the son of his tau, namely Ved Pal came there and started hurling abuses upon the complainant and his brothers and also objected to the complainant and his brothers putting mitti on the roof of the said house by saying that the said plot belonged to him. Thereafter, a scuffle ensued between the complainant and his brothers on one side and accused Ved Pal on the other side. Thereafter, accused Ved Pal called his brothers accused persons Vijay, Aman, Leelu @ Leela Dhar, Mangal and his nephew namely accused Rajender to the said plot.
8. In his statement Ex. PW6/A, the complainant Mehkar Singh had further stated that when the brothers and nephew of accused Ved Pal reached there, Ved Pal told them that they would end the daily skirmishes and disputes, once and for all and called upon his family members to put the jhuggies situated in the said plot on fire. Within no time, the said jhuggies were set ablaze and the inhabitants of the said Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:42:49 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 6/68 +0530 jhuggies, who were the tenants of the complainant started running out to save their lives. After seeing their jhuggies being consumed by the fire, the said inhabitants of the jhuggies started pelting stones upon the assailants and due to which the assailants has also received injuries.
9. In his statement Ex. PW6/A, the complainant Mehkar Singh had further stated that in the incident of fire, one senior citizen Mohseen Sheikh's hand and abdomen got burnt. Furthermore, due to the said fire, many jhuggies and the stuff lying in the said jhuggies were destroyed. Accused Ved Pal, Aman, Vijay, Leelu @ Leela Dhar and Rajender had purposely set the said jhuggies ablaze and had caused immense loss and destruction.
10. Upon the statement of the complainant Ex. PW6/A, the IO prepared the rukka, Ex. PW15/P-1 and the Duty Officer ASI Shri Ram made an endorsement, Ex. PW1/B on the said rukka, after registration of the present case FIR, Ex. PW1/A u/s 436/323/34 IPC, 1860.
11. After the registration of the present case FIR, the investigation was conducted by the IO and after completion of the same the chargesheet was filed before the court of Ld. MM. After compliance of section 207/208 Cr.PC, 1973 the case was committed by the Court of Ld. MM before this court on 06.07.2011. Thereafter, the charges were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 04.08.2012 U/s 436/342/324 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and they had claimed trial. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:42:54 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 7/68
12. During the trial, accused Ved Pal, Rajender and Leela Dhar @ Leelu had expired and the proceedings qua them stood abated vide order dated 10.04.2013 and 18.04.2024, respectively.
Prosecution Evidence:
13. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Fifteen (15) witnesses, including six public witnesses; two medical witnesses; seven formal witnesses including two Investigating Officers.
(13.1.1) PW-6 is Mehkar Singh, who is the Complainant of the present case. He had deposed that he had been doing the business of selling milk and he had a plot admeasuring 2700 sq. yards in Khasra No. 227,228,229,230 at Village Gamri Extension, Delhi. In the said plot, around 20-25 rooms/jhuggies were built by his father around 15-20 years back and they had given the said jhuggies on rent.
(13.1.2) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had deposed that the accused persons were his cousin brothers and there were several litigations pending between him and the accused persons.
(13.1.3) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed that on 13.12.2010, at about 04:30 PM, while he was present at their said plot alongwith his brothers Narender and Satpal and they were getting the roof of a room Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 8/68 10:43:02 +0530 repaired, in which buffaloes used to be tied by them. In the meantime, accused Ved Pal (since deceased) came there and started hurling abuses upon them and also confronted them regarding the repair of the roof of the room. He had further deposed that to avoid any quarrel, they moved away from there, however, accused Ved Pal called the co-accused persons namely Vijay, Leelu @ Leeladhar, Aman, Mangal Singh and Rajender over the telephone.
(13.1.4) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed that all the accused persons started giving beatings to the tenants of the PW6, after they were called by accused Ved Pal. Thereafter, accused Ved Pal told the co- accused persons that they should eliminate the reasons for the daily quarrels and while uttering the said words, he took a matchbox from one lady tenant of the PW6 and set the jhuggies situated in the plot of PW6 on fire. Thereafter, the fire spread in all the jhuggies and the tenants residing therein started collecting their belongings and other domestic articles, to save them from the fire.
(13.1.5) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed that after the jhuggies were set ablaze, all the tenants started pelting stones upon the accused persons, due to which the accused persons received injuries on their bodies.
(13.1.6) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed that in the incident one Digitally old person namely Mosin Shekh had received burn injuries on his hands ATUL signed by ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:43:08 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 9/68 +0530 and feet. All the jhuggies and the articles of the tenants were burnt to ground and the accused persons had intentionally set the said jhuggies on fire.
(13.1.7) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed that the police officials had reached the spot and the injured persons were removed to the hospital. His statement, Ex. PW6/A was recorded on the spot by the IO. The IO had also prepared the site plan, Ex. PW6/B at his instance, on the spot. The IO had also taken sample of burnt wooden piece of chhokhat from one jhuggi and one burnt steel bowl from the other jhuggi, after putting the same in separate plastic containers. The said articles were seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex.PW5/A in the presence of PW6. PW6 also correctly identified the case properties, Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. He had also correctly identified all the accused persons at the time of his examination in chief, except accused Ved Pal, since, the proceedings qua accused Ved Pal have already stood abated vide order dated 10.04.2013.
(13.1.8) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that neither him nor his family members who were present on the spot, had called the police on 100 number. He admitted the suggestion that they had filed a civil suit regarding the possession of the plot situated at Khasra No. 227,228,229,230/2 at Gamri Extension against one Dharampal.
Digitally (13.1.9) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed during his cross signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:43:15 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 10/68 +0530 examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that he had not gone to the hospital with the injured persons in the PCR. He had further deposed that the PCR van reached at the spot at around 04:30 PM and police officials of PS Bhajanpura had reached there at about 04:45 PM and stayed there for about one hour. He further categorically deposed that accused Ved Pal, Vijay Pal, Aman and Rajender were taken to the hospital by the police officials from the spot in his presence.
(13.1.10) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that accused Ved Pal had taken the matchbox from one Sunita, however, he had not mentioned the name of the said person at the time of recording of his statement, Ex.PW6/A. He further categorically deposed that in his presence, police had not recorded the statement of the said lady.
(13.1.11) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that on the day of the incident, the police officials had taken him and his brother Narender to the police station and they reached there at about 07:30 PM and stayed there for about one and a half days. The police officials got his signatures on 3-4 documents, however, he could not tell as to what was written on them. His signature on statement, Ex. PW6/A was taken at the PS. While the signature on site plan, Ex. PW6/B was taken on the spot itself, however, he had signed the seizure memo, Ex. PW5/A at the PS only.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:43:20
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 11/68 (13.1.12) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that the police officials did not blame any tenant of theirs, whose jhuggies were burnt, to the PS for questioning.
(13.1.13) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that accused persons had lodged an FIR against him on earlier occasions as well. He was convicted in one of the said cases filed by the accused persons, however, he was not aware if any case was filed by the accused persons against his family members.
(13.1.14) PW-6 Mehkar Singh had further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that one Charta Singh was the owner of Khasra No. 227,228,229 and 230 situated at Gamri Extension and the said person died without leaving any issue behind. He also admitted that one Dharampal was the nephew of Charta Singh, however, he did not have any knowledge as to whether the said Charta Singh had executed any will in favour of his nephew Dharampal during his lifetime or not. He further categorically deposed that he was not having any knowledge as to whether the said Dharampal had sold the said property to accused Mangal and one Bhanwar Singh. He further deposed that he was not aware whether the possession of the said property was handed over to accused Mangal and the said Bhanwar Singh or not. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:43:27 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 12/68 (13.2.1) PW-7 is Vijay Pal and he is the father of the caller, who had made the call on 100 number. As per the case of the prosecution, he is one of the ocular witness. He had deposed that the mobile no. 9999347277 belonged to his son Akash Choudhary. He categorically deposed that he had not seen any incident and he came to know about the incident, after his son Akash Choudhary had called the police from his mobile phone. He also deposed that during the incident, the jhuggies were burnt and as far as his memory served him, the said incident occurred at about 05:00 PM. He categorically deposed that police made no inquiries from him.
(13.2.2) PW-7 Vijay Pal was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and was subjected to detailed cross examination, however, nothing material came out from his testimony to aid or support the case of the prosecution. PW7 denied making any statement before the police and he was confronted with his statement, Ex. PW7/A qua the facts stated therein.
(13.3.1) PW-9 is Satpal Singh and he is also one of the ocular witnesses and he is the cousin brother of the complainant. He had deposed that his uncle Balle Singh was having a plot bearing Khasra No. 227, 228, 229 and 230 situated at village Gamri, and around 20-25 years ago, his uncle had constructed around 15-20 jhuggies on the said plot and the same were given on the rent to the tenants.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:43:33
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 13/68 (13.3.2) PW-9 Satpal Singh further deposed that on 13.12.2010, while he was present on the same plot where the jhuggies were situated, alongwith his cousin brothers Mehkar Singh and Narender, since, Mehkar Singh was putting mitti on the roof of one room situated in the said plot, at about 04:30 to 04:45 PM, accused Ved Pal came there and started hurling abuses upon them on the pretext that how was Mehkar Singh putting mitti on the roof.
(13.3.2) PW-9 Satpal Singh further deposed that thereafter, accused Ved Pal started scuffling with them and later on he called his brothers namely accused Vijay Pal, Leelu, Aman, Mangal and Rajender. When the said accused persons reached there, accused Ved Pal told them "Aaj inka roj- roj ka jhagda khatam kar dete hai aur jhuggiyo ko aag laga dete hai." Thereafter, accused Ved Pal set the said jhuggies on fire and while the tenants started running out from their jhuggies, they also pelted stones upon the accused persons. Someone called the police on 100 number and the PCR van reached the spot. Thereafter, 4-5 vehicles from the fire brigade also reached there and extinguished the said fire. The police officials then took the accused persons to the police station.
(13.3.3) PW-9 Satpal Singh further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that he had not visited the police station on 13.12.2010 or any time thereafter, nor did the police officials took him there. He further categorically deposed that he had not called Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:43:37 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 14/68 the police on 100 number. Furthermore, he had not received any injury during the incident and no medical examination of his was conducted.
(13.3.4) PW-9 Satpal Singh further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that he had seen the injuries which were received by accused Ved Pal, Vijay, Aman and Rajender at the time of the incident in question. He further categorically admitted that there was a cross case registered upon the complaint of the accused persons against Mehkar Singh (complainant of the present case), father of Mehkar Singh namely Balle Singh and other accused persons and the said case was also clubbed with the present case.
(13.3.5) PW-9 Satpal Singh further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that the police officials had met him at around 04:30 to 05:00 PM on 13.12.2010, at the spot itself. His statement was not recorded by the IO at that time and he was never called in the PS by the SHO. He further categorically deposed that he had seen the IO of the present case at the time of recording of his examination-in-chief for the first time and no article was seized by the police in his presence.
(13.3.6) PW-9 Satpal Singh further deposed during the cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that initially he had left the spot at about 06:00 PM and at that time, Mehkar Singh, Narender and Balle Digitally signed by ATUL Singh were not present at the spot, since police had already taken them ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:43:42 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 15/68 to the PS. He was confronted from his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC, Ex. PW9/DA, wherein, he had not told the IO that his uncle Balle Singh constructed the said jhuggies about 20-25 years prior to the incident, wherein, it was mentioned that the said jhuggies were constructed around 15-20 years prior to the incident.
(13.4.1) PW-11 is Narender and he is also the ocular witness and the cousin brother of the complainant. He had deposed that his uncle Balle Singh was the owner of a plot admeasuring around 2700 sq. yards in village Gamri and in the said plot his uncle had got the jhuggies constructed and the said jhuggies were given on rent. He further deposed that he used to also keep his cattle there.
(13.4.2) PW-11 Narender further deposed that there was a civil litigation pending between his uncle Balle Singh and one Raghuwar (father of accused persons).
(13.4.3) PW-11 Narender further deposed that on 13.12.2010, while he was present on the same plot where the jhuggies were situated, alongwith his cousin brothers Mehkar Singh and Satpal, since, Mehkar Singh was putting mitti on the roof of one room situated in the said plot, at about 04:30 to 04:45 PM, accused Ved Pal came there and started hurling abuses upon them on the pretext that how was Mehkar Singh putting mitti on the roof. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:43:47 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 16/68 (13.4.4) PW-11 Narender further deposed that thereafter, accused Ved Pal started scuffling with them and later on he called his brothers namely accused Vijay Pal, Leelu, Aman, Mangal and Rajender. When the said accused persons reached there, they all set the jhuggies on fire and while the tenants started running out from their jhuggies, they also pelted stones upon the accused persons. The police reached there and during the incident on person namely Mosin Shekh had received burn injuries. Thereafter, the police officials took them and the accused persons to the police station.
(13.4.5) PW-11 Narender further deposed that all the accused persons had set the said jhuggies on fire, while identifying them during his examination-in-chief, however, he went on to voluntarily depose that it was accused Ved Pal (since deceased), who had set the said jhuggies on fire.
(13.4.6) PW-11 Narender further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that he reached the PS at about 05:30 PM and Satpal came there later on. The accused persons had also reached the PS and they remained there till the morning hours of the next day. He further deposed that he might have signed on his statement, however, the statement of Satpal was not recorded in his presence and nor did Satpal signed any document in his presence. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:43:54 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 17/68 (13.4.7) PW-11 Narender further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that he had not gone to the hospital on that day and he did not remember whether he was carrying the mobile phone on the day of the incident, however, he had not informed the police on 100 number, and neither did Satpal make any such call in his presence.
(13.4.8) PW-11 Narender further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that he did not take the injured Mosin to the hospital nor did he provide any medial aid/facility to him. He further categorically deposed that the police reached the spot at about 05:00 PM.
(13.4.9) PW-11 Narender further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that he was the accused in the cross case filed by the accused persons and he also admitted the suggestion that accused Ved Pal had received the injuries on his person after he had reached the spot at about 04:30 PM. He further categorically admitted that prior to the incident in question, there was a litigation pending between them and the accused persons and in the said case, all the persons from their side, except him were convicted in a criminal case.
(13.4.10) PW-11 Narender further deposed during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defense Counsel that the real owner of the plot where the said jhuggies were constructed was one Chatra Singh and the said Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 18/68 10:44:04 +0530 person died without leaving any children and one Dharampal was the nephew of the said Chatra Singh, however, he did not have any knowledge, as to whether any will was executed by Chatra Singh in favour of Dharampal or that Dharampal had thereafter, sold the said plot to accused Mangal and one Bhanwar Singh or the possession of the said plot was also handed over to them.
(13.5.1) PW-13 is Balle Singh and he is the father of the complainant and also one of the ocular witnesses. He had deposed that they were having a plot bearing Khasra No. 227 to 230, measuring 2000 sq. yards at Gamri Extension, Delhi and about 20-25 jhuggies were constructed on the said plot. He further categorically deposed that all the said jhuggies were occupied by them and the said jhuggies were also given on rent. He further categorically deposed that he was residing in one of the jhuggies/room situated on the said plot itself.
(13.5.2) PW-13 Balle Singh further deposed that on 13.12.2010 at about 05:00 PM, accused persons namely Ved Pal, Mangal, Leelu, Vijay and Aman alongwith 2-4 other persons came to the said plot and accused Ved Pal took a matchbox from one tenant and set the jhuggies on fire. Thereafter, a call was made to the police on 100 number by him through someone else and the fire brigade vehicles started arriving at the spot.
(13.5.3) PW-13 Balle Singh further deposed that after setting the Digitally jhuggies ablaze, all the accused persons started attacking him, Mehkar, ATUL signed by ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:44:10 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 19/68 +0530 Narende, Raju, Sansar and Shaukeen, since they were all present there at that time. While the jhuggies were burning, the tenants/jhuggies dwellers started pelting stones upon the accused persons. In the said fire, all the jhuggies except 2-3 were burnt to ground.
(13.5.4) PW-13 Balle Singh further deposed that the said plot belonged to his uncle (tau) Charta, who had already expired and the said uncle of his died without leaving any children behind. He further admitted the suggestion put to him by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that during his lifetime, his uncle Charta had executed one will in favour of him and his brother namely Bhoop Singh, Pratap Singh, Seeshram and Kharga on 13.07.1971 and he had handed over the copy of the said will, Mark A, to the IO and the IO had seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex.PW13/A. (13.5.5) PW-13 Balle Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he did not remember as to whether his statement was recorded by the police or not.
He categorically deposed that on the day of the incident or even thereafter, he had not gone to the PS regarding the present case. He had further deposed that he had sustained injuries during the incident and he was also taken to the hospital by the police officials and the other injured persons namely Mehkar, Narender, Shoukeen, Raju and Sansar had also gone to the hospital with him on that day at about 07:00 PM and they all returned back at about 09:00 to 10:00 PM. Furthermore, the police officials had accompanied them back to their homes. He although did not Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:44:16 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 20/68 +0530 remember, if his MLC was prepared in the hospital or not.
(13.5.6) PW-13 Balle Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that all the injured persons returned back to their respective homes, besides complainant Mehkar Singh and Narender, since they were taken into custody by the police officials. He further deposed that he did not knew whether accused Ved Pal, Vijay, Aman and Rajender had also sustained injuries or that the said injuries were caused to the accused persons by them or that the accused persons were also taken to the hospital by the police officials.
(13.5.7) PW-13 Balle Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that a cross case bearing FIR no. 593/2010 was also registered regarding the incident in question upon the complaint of accused Ved Pal. He further deposed that he was not aware if FIR no. 178/88 was registered at PS Seelampur against him and Pratap Singh. However, he categorically deposed that he might have been convicted by the Court of the then Ld. MM in the said case vide judgment dated 24.09.1996. Thereafter, they had filed an appeal before the Court of Ld. ASJ on 20.04.1997 and he did not remember whether the said appeal was dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court or that he was sent to the jail for execution of the sentence in question.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:44:21
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 21/68 (13.5.8) PW-13 Balle Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he was not aware if he alongwith others were convicted in case FIR no. 379/92, PS Bhajanpura by the Court of Ld. MM on 17.12.2003.
(13.5.9) PW-13 Balle Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had categorically deposed that he alongwith others were convicted in case FIR no. 391/91, PS Bhanapura, by the Court of Ld. ASJ on 31.07.2000.
(13.5.10) PW-13 Balle Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had categorically deposed that there was a civil suit pertaining to the same plot of land on which the jhuggies were constructed and the same was decided against them by the Court of Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, vide order dated 09.03.2016. He further categorically deposed that he was not aware if the registered will was executed by Charta in favour of Dharampal on 09.07.1971.
(13.5.11) PW-13 Balle Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had categorically deposed that he was aware that on 11.04.1988, Dharampal had sold the said property through registered sale-deed to accused Mangal Singh and Bhanwar Singh, however, he had voluntarily deposed that he was in the possession of the said land. He further categorically deposed that he was not aware Digitally signed by of any kalandra u/s 145 Cr.PC, filed by the SHO PS Bhajanpura against ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:44:27 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 22/68 both the parties or that on 29.09.1999, the Ld. SDM had passed an order in the favour of the opposite party or that he had filed a revision petition before the Court of Ld. ASJ and the same was also dismissed. He further categorically deposed that even the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had dismissed his challenge to the said order, on 17.12.2004.
(13.6.1) PW-14 is Raju and he is the brother of the complainant and one of the ocular witnesses. He had deposed that his grand father's brother namely Charta had executed a will in favour of his father namely Pratap Singh, his tau Balle Singh, his other tau Bhoop Singh, his other tau Khadag and his other tau Shish Ram regarding three bighas and few biswas of land owned by him, since the said Charta was not having any children of his own. He had further deposed that his tau Khadag Singh had constructed 22 rooms on the said land and had given the same on rent.
(13.6.2) PW-14 Raju had further deposed that after the death of his tau Khadag Singh, the sons of his tau started collecting the rents from the tenants. On the same land, his tau Balle Singh had also constructed three rooms and the same were occupied by his tau Balle Singh.
(13.6.3) PW-14 Raju had further deposed that his father Pratap alongwith his taus Balle Singh, Bhoop Singh, Shish Ram and Khadag Singh were in possession of the said land and there was civil dispute pending Digitally signed by ATUL between them and the accused persons regarding the said land in ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:44:33 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 23/68 question.
(13.6.4) PW-14 Raju had further deposed that on 13.12.2010, at about 05:00 PM, his younger brothers Mehkar and Narender were beaten by the accused persons, after the accused persons had gone to the said land to illegally take over the possession and when his brothers objected to the same, they were given beatings by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons had set the jhuggies situated on the said plot ablaze.
(13.6.5) PW-14 Raju during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he had neither called the police on 100 number nor did he go to the police station to lodged any complaint. However, he had visited the PS alongwith the complainant and the father of the complainant on the next day at about 03:00 PM and the police officials had obtained the signature of complainant Mehkar and his father Balle in the PS itself. He categorically deposed that his statement was never recorded by the police in the present case at any point of time.
(13.6.6) PW-14 Raju during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he had not gone to the hospital. He admitted the suggestion that there was a cross case registered against them, in which he alongwith Mehkar and Balle were the accused persons. He further deposed that he was not aware of any Digitally signed by ATUL civil case being filed by them against the accused persons. ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:44:38 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 24/68 (13.6.7) PW-14 Raju during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he did not remember whether accused Ved Pal, Vijay, Aman and Rajender were taken to the hospital by the police officials or not. He categorically deposed that the police official had taken the jhuggie dwellers/tenants to the police station and they were taken by the PCR and the local police, from the spot itself at about 06:00 PM in his presence. However, he could not tell the names of the said persons/jhuggie dwellers.
14. Medical Witnesses:
(14.1.1) PW-8 is Dr. Sushma and she had deposed on behalf of Dr. Vijay Tomar, the then JR, GTB Hospital. She had deposed that MLC No. C5674/2010 of patient Mohsin Seth aged about 60 years, male, was prepared by Dr. Vinay Tomar on 13.12.2010 and the said MLC was exhibited as Ex. PW8/A. (14.1.2) PW-8 Dr. Sushma had deposed that as per the MLC, Ex PW8/A, the patient was brought to their hospital with the alleged history of burn at about 05:00 PM on 13.12.2010. On examination, the patient was found to be conscious, oriented and fit for statement.
(14.1.3) PW-8 Dr. Sushma had deposed that as per the MLC, Ex.
PW8/A, it was recorded by the concerned doctor, upon local examination Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 25/68
2025.02.13
10:44:43
+0530
that the patient had 5%-7% burns, on his bilateral hands and face. The patient was referred for further management to Surgery Emergency Department.
(14.2.1) PW-1 is Girish Chander and he is the Medical Record Attendant, GTB Hospital and he has deposed on behalf of Dr. Triveni Dhaka. He had deposed that upon the MLC, Ex. PW8/A, Dr. Triveni Dhaka had given the subsequent opinion as to the nature of injury as "Simple".
(14.2.2) PW-1 Girish Chander had deposed during his cross examination that although he did not have any personal knowledge of the present case, yet the endorsement as to the nature of injury was made by Dr. Triveni Dhaka in his presence. However, the same did not bear his own signatures and he did not have any documentary evidence to show that the said endorsement was made in his presence by the concerned doctor.
15. Formal Police Witnesses:
(15.1.1) PW-1 is Retd. ASI Shree Ram and he was the Duty Officer. He had deposed that during the intervening night of 13/14.12.2010, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Bhajanpura and at about 09:05 PM on 13.12.2010, HC Balbir had produced the rukka sent to him by IO Inspector Hans Raj Thakran. Upon receiving the said rukka, he had got the FIR, Ex. PW1/A registered, after making an endorsement, Ex.
PW1/B upon the rukka. Thereafter, he had handed over the original Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 26/68 10:44:48 +0530 rukka and the copy of the FIR to HC Balbir, so as to hand over the same to IO Inspector Hans Raj Thakran for further investigation.
(15.2.1) PW-2 is HC Bhupender Kumar and he was the PCR Official, who had first arrived at the spot. He had deposed that on 13.12.2010, he was posted in PCR as Incharge of PCR van backer 45 at Khajuri Chowk. At about 06:00 PM, he received a call regarding fire in the jhuggies situated at Pusta, near the PWD Office. He reached the spot and found that the jhuggies were on fire and one blind man was found in injured condition, since he had received burn injuries. He immediately removed the said person to GTB Hospital and got him admitted there.
(15.3.1) PW-3 is Suresh Singh, ADO, Delhi Fire Service. He had deposed that on 13.12.2010, he was posted as ADO at DFS, HQ, Connaught Place, Delhi, and on that day, he had received a fire call regarding the jhuggie clusters at 5th Pusta, Bhajanpura, being on fire. He attended to the said call and upon reaching there, found flames and debris. The officials from the fire department were dousing the fire and he had instructed them to immediately douse the fire and to look for any casualties. He was informed by the officers that five persons were injured and they had been already shifted to the hospital by the PCR van. Thereafter, he got the said fire under control and left the spot.
(15.3.2) PW-3 Suresh Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that upon reaching the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:44:54 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 27/68 +0530 spot, he did not meet any person, who could explain him the reason of the said fire breaking out. He had not recorded the statement of any person at the spot. He could not tell as to who had set the jhuggies on fire. He never met the jhuggie dwellers.
(15.3.3) PW-3 Suresh Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he had reached the spot at about 07:00 PM and remained there for 2 hours and the local police officials were already present, when he had reached there. He further categorically deposed that the police officials never prepared any document in his presence, nor his signatures were ever obtained on any document. He had never visited the PS regarding the present case, nor did any police official approached him at any point of time. He further deposed that he had not prepared any document at the spot.
(15.4.1) PW-4 is Ct. Shyam Lal and he is the Photographer of the Crime Team. He had deposed that on 13.12.2010, he was posted as Photographer in the Crime Team, North East District, and on the said date, a call was received by SI U. Balashankara, Incharge of the Crime Team and in pursuance of the said call they had reached the spot near PWD Office, Gamri Extension. They found IO Inspector Hans Raj and his staff members were already present there and the fire in the jhuggies had been already doused.
Digitally
(15.4.2) PW-4 Ct. Shyam Lal further deposed that upon the directions of signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 28/68 10:44:59
+0530
the IO, he had taken 36 photographs of the spot with his official camera and had also made the video of the spot. After developing the photographs, he had handed over the said photographs, Ex. PW4/A-1 to Ex. PW4/A-36 and their negatives, Ex. PW4/B-1 to Ex. PW4/B-36 alongwith the CD of the photography, Ex. PW4/C to the IO. The Incharge Crime Team inspected the spot and the Crime Team Report was handed over to the IO.
(15.5.1) PW-5 is HC Balbir Singh and he is the recovery witness. He had deposed that on 13.12.2010, he was on patrolling duty in the area of PS Bhajanpura and he was directed by the DO to reach in front of PWD Office, Gamri Extension, Bhajanpura. After reaching the spot, he met ASI Raghuraj and IO Inspector Hans Raj Thakran and found that the jhuggies were burning with fire. He also got to know 4-5 injured persons had already been removed to the hospital. In the meanwhile, the SHO PS Bhajanpura and his staff had also reached there. After leaving ASI Raghuraj, himself and other staff at the spot, the IO and the SHO had left for the hospital and subsequently the IO came back to the spot at about 07:45 PM. IO recorded the statement of the complainant and on the basis of the same, the IO had prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him to registration of the present case FIR, Ex. PW1/A. He got the FIR registered and thereafter, upon the directions of the DO, handed over the copy of the FIR to the IO.
(15.5.2) PW-5 HC Balbir Singh further deposed that the spot was got Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:45:03
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 29/68 photographed and videographed through a private photographer. Thereafter, the IO had seized one sample of burnt wooden piece from the chhokhat and one burnt steel bowl, Ex. P-1 (colly) vide seizure memo, Ex. PW5/A in his presence. He had correctly identified the case properties.
(15.5.3) PW-5 HC Balbir Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he left the PS at about 05:00 PM on 13.12.2010 and met the IO Inspector Hans Raj at about 05:30 PM on the spot. He remained there for about 2 hours and the IO had not recorded the statement of the jhuggie dwellers in his presence.
(15.5.4) PW-5 HC Balbir Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that the jhuggie dwellers had not produced any proof regarding their occupancy/ownership of their jhuggies to the IO, in his presence. He had categorically deposed that the complainant had not given any proof regarding the ownership of the land, upon which the said jhuggies were situated.
(15.5.5) PW-5 HC Balbir Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he did not have any knowledge about any other litigation between the parties, except the Digitally cross case registered by the accused persons against the complainant signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:45:08 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 30/68 +0530 party. He further categorically deposed that he knew the accused persons prior to the incident, however, he was not related to them or was in any visiting terms with the accused persons.
(15.5.6) PW-5 HC Balbir Singh during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he did not knew as to how many accused persons had sustained injuries on that day. He further deposed that the IO had not prepared the site plan of the place of arrest of the accused persons, in his presence. He categorically admitted that public persons were coming and going through from the place where the accused persons were arrested. He did not remember whether any public person was called to join the investigation at that time by the IO.
(16.1.1) PW-15 is IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran and he is the Main IO of the present case. He had deposed that on 13.12.2010, he was posted as Inspector Investigation, PS Bhajanpura and upon receiving of DD No. 22A and 23A, Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW12/B respectively, he proceeded to the spot and met the Inquiry Officer ASI Raghu Raj and Ct. Amit. He saw that jhuggies in an open plot were burning with fire and many public persons were gathered there. They got to know that one person had been burnt and some 4-5 persons had sustained injuries.
(16.1.2) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran further deposed that in the meantime SHO PS Bhajanpura and HC Balbir also arrived at Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 31/68 2025.02.13 10:45:14 +0530 the spot. He left ASI Raghu Raj and other staff to guard the spot and left for GTB Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Mohsin Khan. He also came to know that accused Ved Pal, Aman, Vijay and Rajender were also admitted in the hospital and their MLCs were being prepared.
(16.1.3) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran further deposed that he returned back to the spot and met the complainant Mehkar Singh and recorded his statement, Ex. PW6/A. He prepared the rukka, Ex. PW15/P-1 and got the FIR, Ex. PW1/A registered through HC Balbir. He then prepared the site plan, Ex. PW6/B at the instance of the complainant. He got the photography and videography of the crime scene conducted from the Crime Team Expert.
(16.1.4) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran further deposed that he seized sample of burnt wooden piece of the chhokhat from the door of one jhuggie and burnt steel bowl from another jhuggie vide seizure memo, Ex. PW5/A. He then recorded the statement of the witnesses and returned back to the PS and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
(16.1.5) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran further deposed that on 14.12.2010, he alongwith HC Balbir went to Gamri Village, in order to search accused Rajender and Leela Dhar. The said accused persons were arrested by him vide arrest memos, Ex. PW5/B and Ex.
Digitally PW5/C respectively. He conducted their personal search vide memos, ATUL signed by ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:45:18 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 32/68 +0530 Ex. PW5/B-1 and Ex. PW5/C-1 respectively.
(16.1.6) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran further deposed that on 18.01.2011, accused Ved Pal, Aman, Vijay and Mangal Singh were granted anticipatory bail by the concerned Court. Thereafter, he collected the fire report and obtained the final result and the MLC of injured Mohsin Khan.
(16.1.7) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran further deposed that on 06.03.2011, he formally arrested accused Ved Pal, Aman, Vijay and Mangal Singh vide arrest memos, Ex. PW15/P-2, Ex. PW15/P-3, Ex. PW15/P-3A (the arrest memo of accused Vijay was inadvertently exhibited as Ex. PW13/P-3 by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, in spite of the fact that, the arrest memo of accused Aman was already exhibited as Ex. PW13/P-3, therefore, henceforth, it shall be read as Ex. PW15/P-3A) and Ex. PW15/P-4 respectively.
(16.1.8) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran further deposed that he collected the copy of the will from Balle Singh, father of the complainant and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/A. He obtained the Online Fire Report from the ADO Fire Officer and recorded his statement to this effect. He obtained the report from the Sub Registrar Office regarding the will produced by the father of the complainant.
Thereafter, after completing the investigation, he filed the chargesheet. Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:45:24
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 33/68 (16.1.8) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that he reached the spot at about 05:30 PM on 13.12.2010 and remained there till about 11:45 PM. He reached GTB Hospital at about 06:30 PM and met accused Ved Pal, Aman, Vijay and Rajender at the said hospital and that the concerned doctor had prepared their MLCs. Thereafter, however, he had not collected their MLCs. He further categorically deposed that he did not record the statement of the injured persons/accused at the hospital. During his testimony the MLC of accused Rajender was brought on record as Mark PW15/DA. The MLC of accused Ved Pal was marked as Mark PW15/DB. The MLC of accused Vijay was marked as Mark PW15/DC and the MLC of accused Aman Singh was marked as Mark PW15/DD. He categorically admitted that the accused Rajender, Ved Pal and Vijay were declared fit for statement by the concerned doctor.
(16.1.9) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that it was correct that the concerned doctor had opined that the injured received by the accused Ved Pal and Vijay was opined to be grievous in nature. He admitted the suggestion that the cross case bearing FIR no. 593/2010 was registered against the complainant party by accused Ved Pal Singh u/s 308/323/324/34 IPC, 1860.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:45:28
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 34/68 (16.1.10) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that PW Sunita was not examined before this Court. He also categorically admitted that PW Mural Hussain and Mohsin Sheikh were also not examined in the present case. He categorically admitted that the inmates of the jhuggies had not produced any documentary proof to show their residence therein and he had voluntarily deposed that in spite of repeated requests the said documents were never submitted before him. He also admitted that the alleged jhuggie owners/tenants had not signed the site plant, Ex. PW6/B. (16.1.11) PW-15 IO Retd. Inspector Hans Raj Thakran during his cross examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons had deposed that the crime team had arrived at about 07:38 PM and the scene of crime report was not handed over to them on that day. He then voluntarily deposed that the SOC report was subsequently handed over to him, however, later on, he went on to again depose that no SOC report was ever handed over to him during the investigation of the present case.
Plea of Accused Persons:
16. After completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed. The statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 1973, in which they had pleaded innocence.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:45:34
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 35/68
17. The accused persons chose to lead Defense Evidence and they had examined 2 (two) witnesses.
(17.1.1) DW-1 is Dr. Amit Srivastava, Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, GTB Hospital and he had deposed on behalf of Dr. Jaswinder Singh, Dr. D. N. Borah and Dr. Saumyadip. The original judicial file of case FIR no. 593/10, PS Bhajanpura was produced by the concerned Ahlmad and the photocopy of the MLC no. C5671/2010 of injured Ved Pal Singh (accused in the present case/since deceased) was exhibited as Ex. DW1/A (OSR). The opinion on the said MLC was marked from Mark X to Y, wherein, Dr. Jaswinder Singh has given an opinion about nature of injury as "Grievous".
(17.1.2) During the deposition of DW-1 Dr. Amit Srivastava, the original judicial file of case FIR no. 593/10, PS Bhajanpura was produced by the concerned Ahlmad and the photocopy of the MLC no. A5598/2010 of injured Aman Singh (accused in the present case) was exhibited as Ex. DW1/B (OSR). The opinion on the said MLC was marked from Mark X to Y, wherein, Dr. D. N. Borah has given an opinion about nature of injury as "Grievous".
(17.1.3) During the deposition of DW-1 Dr. Amit Srivastava, the original judicial file of case FIR no. 593/10, PS Bhajanpura was produced by the concerned Ahlmad and the photocopy of the MLC no. B5608/2010 of injured Rajender (accused in the present case) was exhibited as Ex.
DW1/B (OSR). The opinion on the said MLC was marked from Mark X Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:45:50
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 36/68 +0530
to Y, wherein, Dr. Soumyadip has given an opinion about nature of injury as "Simple".
(17.2.1) DW-2 is Dr. Banarsi, Additional Medical Superintendent, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals and he had deposed on behalf of Dr. Vinay Tomar, Dr. Amit Rajesh and Dr. Piyali Poddar. The original judicial file of case FIR no. 593/10, PS Bhajanpura was produced by the concerned Ahlmad and the photocopy of the MLC no. C5667/2010 of injured Ved Pal Singh (accused in the present case/since deceased) was exhibited as Ex. DW2/A (OSR) by Dr. Vinay Tomar, in his presence.
(17.2.2) During the deposition of DW-2 Dr. Banarsi, the original judicial file of case FIR no. 593/10, PS Bhajanpura was produced by the concerned Ahlmad and the photocopy of the MLC no. A5598/2010 of injured Aman Singh (accused in the present case) was exhibited as Ex. DW2/B (OSR) by Dr. Vinay Tomar, in his presence.
(17.2.3) During the deposition of DW-2 Dr. Banarsi, the original judicial file of case FIR no. 593/10, PS Bhajanpura was produced by the concerned Ahlmad and the photocopy of the MLC no. C5672/2010 of injured Vijay (accused in the present case) was exhibited as Ex. DW2/C (OSR) by Dr. Vinay Tomar, in his presence.
(17.2.4) During the deposition of DW-2 Dr. Banarsi, the original judicial file of case FIR no. 593/10, PS Bhajanpura was produced by the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:45:55 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 37/68 +0530 concerned Ahlmad and the photocopy of the MLC no. B5608/2010 of injured Rajender Singh (accused in the present case) was exhibited as Ex. DW2/D (OSR) by Dr. Piyali Poddar, in his presence.
18. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Kamal Akhter, Ld. Additional PP for the State and from Sh. R. K. Kochar, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. I have also minutely gone through the evidence brought on record and the material aspects of the case.
Submissions made on behalf of the State:
19. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 13.12.2010 at about 04:45 PM, near Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension, Bhajanpura, Delhi, the accused persons namely Aman, Vijay and Mangal Singh in furtherance of their common intention shared with co- accused persons namely Ved Pal, Rajender and Leela Dhar (who had all expired during the trial), had intentionally set the jhuggies situated on the said plot on fire and they had committed mischief by fire, since, the said jhuggies were used for human dwelling by the tenants of the complainant Mehak Singh, with the intention to cause destruction. Therefore, they had all committed the offence punishable u/s 436/34 IPC, 1860.
20. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the accused persons namely Aman, Vijay and Mangal Singh in furtherance of their common intention shared with co-accused persons namely Ved Pal, Rajender and Leela Dhar (who had all expired during the trial), in Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 38/68 10:46:08 +0530 furtherance of their common intention shared with each other had confined one tenant of the complainant, namely Mohsin Sheikh not allowing him to come out of his jhuggie and thereby they had all committed the offence punishable u/s 342/34 IPC, 1860.
21. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the accused persons namely Aman, Vijay and Mangal Singh in furtherance of their common intention shared with co-accused persons namely Ved Pal, Rajender and Leela Dhar (who had all expired during the trial), in furtherance of their common intention shared with each other had caused injuries on the person of the said Mohsin Sheikh by means of fire and thereby they had all committed the offence punishable u/s 342/34 IPC, 1860.
22. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the testimony of the complainant PW-6 Mehak Singh is categorical in nature and he is fully supported by ocular witnesses namely PW9 Satpal Singh and PW11 Narender. Their testimonies were further corroborated by the depositions of other public witnesses namely PW13 Balle Singh and PW14 Raju.
23. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the testimony of the complainant and other ocular witnesse was also fully corroborated with the medical evidence, i.e. the MLC Ex. PW8/A of injured Mohsin Sheikh.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:46:14
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 39/68
24. It is further submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state that the identity of the accused persons were fully established in the present case as they were duly identified by all the prosecution witnesses, at the time of their examination-in-chief before this Court.
Submissions made on behalf of the Accused Persons:
25. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the present case FIR was registered upon a false and frivolous complaint filed by the complainant, as a counter blast of another case bearing FIR no. 593/2010, which was filed upon the complaint of accused Ved Pal (since deceased), against the complainant party. The present case FIR was merely filed by the complainant, in order to save himself and his family members from the prosecution of the said cross case bearing FIR No. 593/2010.
26. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there are material contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh and the testimonies of other public witnesses, thereby, rendering their depositions highly unbelievable and untrustworthy.
27. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the alleged injured witness namely Mohsin Sheikh was never examined before this Court and even other alleged eye witnesses namely Nural Hussain or other inhabitants/dwellers of the jhuggies were never Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:19 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 40/68 +0530 examined before this Court.
28. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the IO had not conducted the investigation properly and in spite of the fact of the accused persons receiving injuries during the incident in question and they being admitted in GTB Hospital and their MLCs being prepared, he purposely chose not to record their statements or to place the said MLCs on the record of the present case. Even though the IO was aware of the case FIR no. 593/2010 being registered against the complainant party, u/s 308/323/324/34 IPC, 1860, upon the complaint of Ved Pal (accused in the present case/since deceased), he had not investigated the present case fairly.
29. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the IO made no efforts to satisfy himself regarding the incident in question by verifying the documents of ownership/possession of the jhuggie dwellers.
30. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the IO had not placed the SOC Report of the Crime Team on the record and nor did he cite the Crime Team Incharge SI U. Balashankara as the witness of the present case. Furthermore, the IO also chose not to cite Ct. Amit, who had joined the investigation of the present case as one of the witness.
31. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:24 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 41/68 +0530 from the testimonies of the DW1 Dr. Amit Srivastava and DW2 Dr. Banarsi, the defense had brought on record the MLCs of accused Ved Pal, Aman Singh, Vijay and Rajender and also the subsequent opinion as to the nature of injuries suffered by them, wherein, the concerned doctors had duly recorded that accused Ved Pal (since deceased), accused Aman Singh and accused Vijay had all received grievous injuries and they were admitted in the GTB Hospital, therefore, how could they have committed the offence in question.
32. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that as per the case of the prosecution, DD No. 22A, Ex. PW12/A was registered at 05:12 PM and DD No. 23 was registered at 05:13 PM on 13.12.2010. The initial call was made from the phone number belonging to one Akash Chaudhary, who was never made a prosecution witness. To prove the said call, the prosecution has produced his father, PW7 Vijay Pal, however, the said witness had turned completely hostile.
33. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that as per their own case, the prosecution has sought to prove the genesis of their case to registration of DD no. 22A, Ex. PW12/A, which was registered at 05:12 PM on 13.12.2010, however, strangely PW5 HC Balbir Singh left from the PS at about 05:00 PM, that is even prior to the call being registered. Furthermore, as per the IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran and PW5 HC Balbir Singh that the IO reached the spot at about 05:30 PM, however, the complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh had categorically deposed at the time of his cross examination that he Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:28 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 42/68 reached the PS alongwith his brother Narender at about 05:30 to 06:00 PM. Similarly, PW11 Narender deposed about him reaching the PS at about 05:30 PM. Therefore, the testimonies of the formal police witnesses are running counter to the testimony of the complainant and other alleged ocular witness, as far as the timeline is concerned. Hence, the entire prosecution story is shrouded in shadow of doubts.
34. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that it was deposed by PW5 HC Balbir Singh that the IO had procured the services of a private photographer, who had in turn clicked the photographs and prepared the video on the spot. However, it was deposed by PW4 Ct. Shyam Lal that he had taken the said photographs and the video, and he was performing his duties as member of the Crime Team, North East District and he had reached the spot alongwith the Crime Team, after they were called by the IO. The doubts upon the prosecution case is further accentuated, since, there are two sets of photographs filed alongwith the chargesheet. The first set being 12 photographs which were clicked by one Prakash Digital Studio and the remaining 36 photographs, which were allegedly clicked by the Crime Team Photographer.
35. Even if, the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the photographs of crime scene being clicked is being ignored for a minute, the fact that there was no certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ever produced by the prosecution, the prosecution cannot take aid of the said photographs, since, the same had Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:33 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 43/68 not been proved in accordance with law.
36. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the testimony of PW5 HC Balbir Singh and IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran regarding the time of recording of the statement of the complainant, is running counter to the testimony of PW3 Suresh Singh, ADO Delhi Fire Service, since he had categorically deposed that he had reached the spot at about 07:00 PM and remained there for around 2 hours and during that time no document was prepared by the local police officials and he had not met any jhuggie dwellers on the spot. Furthermore, no one met him at the spot, who could tell the reason of the said fire breaking out.
37. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that in the absence of the testimony of the alleged injured witness namely Mohsin Sheikh being recorded before this Court, the prosecution cannot take the aid of the MLC, Ex. PW8/A and it had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons had committed the offence of wrongful confinement or voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the said person. The prosecution could not even prove that the said place where the fire had broken out was a place of human dwelling or that the said jhuggies were occupied by tenants, since, no such tenant was examined before this Court on this aspect or qua the incident of fire in question.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:46:38
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 44/68 Relevant Law & the Case Laws:
38. In the background of the above before appreciating the evidence brought on record, I deem it fit to discuss the relevant law and the case laws. It is trite law that the accused persons can be convicted on the basis of credible evidence brought on record and the appreciation of the said evidence must be done in correct and true perspective manner and in the natural course of events, what would have been occurred. Appreciation of evidence beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that it should be assessed beyond any iota of doubt. Beyond Reasonable Doubt means that the prosecution is required to place evidence at a higher degree of preponderance of probabilities compared to what is degree of preponderance of probability in civil cases. The theory of Beyond Reasonable Doubt means expecting higher degree of preponderance of probabilities and the natural conduct of human beings, as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in " State of Karnataka Vs Venkatesh @ Venkappa & Anr" , Criminal Appeal No. 100492 of 2021, decided on 18.12.2023.
39. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act defines "evidence". The evidence can be broadly divided into oral and documentary. "Evidence" under the Act can be said to include the means, factor or material, lending a degree of probability through a logical inference to the existence of a fact. It is an adjective law highlighting and aiding the substantive law. Thus, it is neither wholly procedural nor substantive, Digitally though trappings of both could be felt. ATUL signed by ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:43 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 45/68
40. The definition of the word "proved" though gives an impression of a mere interpretation, in effect, is the heart and soul of the entire Act. This clause, consciously speaks of proving a fact by considering the "matters before it". The importance is attached to the degree of probability in proving a fact through the consideration of the matters before the court. What is required for a court to decipher is the existence of a fact and its proof by a degree of probability, through a logical inference.
41. Matters are necessary, concomitant material factors to prove a fact. All "evidence" would be "matters" but not vice versa. In other words, matters could be termed as a genus of which evidence would be a species. Matters also adds strength to the evidence giving adequate ammunition in the Court's sojourn in deciphering the truth. Thus, the definition of "matters" is exhaustive, and therefore, much wider than that of "evidence". However, there is a caveat, as the court is not supposed to consider a matter which acquires the form of an evidence when it is barred in law. Matters are required for a court to believe in the existence of a fact.
42. Matters, do give more discretion and flexibility to the court in deciding the existence of a fact. They also include all the classification of evidence such as circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, derivative evidence, direct evidence, documentary evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:49 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 46/68 presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.
43. In addition, they supplement the evidence in proving the existence of a fact by enhancing the degree of probability. As an exhaustive interpretation has to be given to the word "matter", and for that purpose, the definition of the expression of the words "means and includes", meant to be applied for evidence, has to be imported to that of a "matter" as well. Thus, a matter might include such of those which do not fall within the definition of Section 3, in the absence of any express bar.
44. What is important for the court is the conclusion on the basis of existence of a fact by analyzing the matters before it on the degree of probability. The entire enactment is meant to facilitate the court to come to an appropriate conclusion in proving a fact. There are two methods by which the court is expected to come to such a decision. The court can come to a conclusion on the existence of a fact by merely considering the matters before it, in forming an opinion that it does exist. This belief of the court is based upon the assessment of the matters before it. Alternatively, the court can consider the said existence as probable from the perspective of a prudent man who might act on the supposition that it exists. The question as to the choice of the options is best left to the court to decide. The said decision might impinge upon the quality of the matters before it.
45. The word "prudent" has not been defined under the Act. When the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:53 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 47/68 court wants to consider the second part of the definition clause instead of believing the existence of a fact by itself, it is expected to take the role of a prudent man. Such a prudent man has to be understood from the point of view of a common man. Therefore, a judge has to transform into a prudent man and assess the existence of a fact after considering the matters through that lens instead of a judge. It is only after undertaking the said exercise can he resume his role as a judge to proceed further in the case.
46. The aforesaid provision also indicates that the court is concerned with the existence of a fact both in issue and relevant, as against a whole testimony. Thus, the concentration is on the proof of a fact for which a witness is required. Therefore, a court can appreciate and accept the testimony of a witness on a particular issue while rejecting it on others since it focuses on an issue of fact to be proved. However, the evidence of a witness as whole is a matter for the court to decide on the probability of proving a fact which is inclusive of the credibility of the witness. Whether an issue is concluded or not is also a court's domain.
47. While appreciating the evidence as aforesaid along with the matters attached to it, evidence can be divided into three categories broadly namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. If evidence, along with matters surrounding it, makes the court believe it is wholly reliable qua an issue, it can decide its existence on a degree of probability. Similar is the case where evidence is not believable. When evidence produced is neither Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:46:58 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 48/68 wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, it might require corroboration, and in such a case, court can also take note of the contradictions available in other matters. The aforesaid principle of law has been enunciated in the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras", 1957 SCR 981 wherein it is held as under:
"In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case, be required for the proof of any fact". The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence -- 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s.134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well-recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:02 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 49/68 are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:07 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 50/68 acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:12 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 51/68 evidence in support of the prosecution."
Appreciation of Evidence:
48. In the background of the abovesaid decisions, I shall now appraise the evidence brought on record. The prosecution case was hinging upon the testimonies of three star witnesses, namely Mohd. Sheikh S/o Late Sh. Gani Sheikh, who had allegedly received burn injuries in the incident in question; and one Nural Sheikh S/o Noor Mohammad Sheikh and one Shanti Devi, who were allegedly the tenants of the complainant and all three of them were residing as tenants in the jhuggies constructed upon the plot of the complainant. However, the testimonies of both PW Mohd. Sheikh and PW Nural Sheikh were not recorded before this Court, since, they could not be traced. Furthermore, the testimony of PW Shanti could also not be recorded, since she had already expired. Therefore, none of the alleged tenants of the complainant, whose jhuggies were allegedly burnt by the accused persons, were examined before this Court and the same had struck a fatal blow on the case of the prosecution.
49. The genesis of the prosecutions case could be trace back to 2 DD entries, namely DD No. 22A, Ex. PW12/A and DD No. 23A, Ex. PW12/B and the said DD entries clearly reflects that they were recorded at 05:15 during the day time. However, there is no clarity whether it was recorded at 05:15 AM or 05:15 PM, since, it was mentioned in the said DDs that "Samay 05:15 baje din". The said discrepancy is further Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:16 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 52/68 +0530 accentuated with the fact that the IO failed to procure the PCR Form-I regarding the said calls and the said forms were never filed alongwith the chargesheet.
50. The caller had made the call on 100 number from mobile number 9999347277 and IO made no efforts to record the statement of the said caller or to procure the CAF and CDRs of the said mobile number. Instead of examining the caller before this Court, the prosecution had instead examined PW7 Vijay Pal, who had deposed that the said mobile number belonged to his son Akash Choudhary. The said witness had turned hostile and nothing material came out during his cross examination conducted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Therefore, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the genesis of their case.
51. It had categorically come in the testimony of the IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran that when he had reached GTB Hospital for the first time on the day of the incident, he met accused persons Ved Pal (since deceased), Aman, Vijay and Rajender (since deceased) and the said accused persons had received injuries and their MLCs were prepared. Yet, the IO chose not to record their statements and their MLCs were never taken on record by the IO. The conduct of the IO is further confounded by the fact that there was already a cross case registered upon the complaint filed by accused Ved Pal (since deceased) against the complainant party. It had categorically come during the cross examination of the IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran that he was aware of the cross case, in which 10-11 persons were arraigned as Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 53/68 10:47:20 +0530 accused persons and during that time he was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Bhanapura itself. The conduct of the IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran also raises doubts upon whether the fair investigation was conducted by him in the present case.
52. There are material contradictions regarding the timeline of the prosecution's story, as deposed by its witnesses. As per the prosecution case, the calls on 100 number were received at 05:12 PM and 05:15 PM and as per DD No. 25A, which was registered at PS Bhajanpura, regarding the departure entries of IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran that the said DD No. 22A and DD No. 23A were marked to IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran and he had left the PS at 05:22 PM. Furthermore, it had come in his cross examination conducted on 07.08.2023, that he had reached the spot at about 05:30 PM. Similarly, it was deposed that PW5 HC Balbir Singh in his cross examination that IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran met him at the spot at about 05:30 PM. However, PW5 HC Balbir Singh had also deposed that he left the PS for the spot at about 05:00 PM, therefore, even prior to the two calls on 100 number being made or the DD Nos. 22A and 23A being even recorded. The said testimonies of IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran and PW5 HC Balbir Singh assumes importance, since, it had come in the testimony of the PW6 Mehkar Singh that the PCR van had reached the spot at about 04:30 PM. He had further deposed that the police officials from PS Bhajanpura reached the spot at about 04:45 PM. Therefore, as per the complainant, the PCR van reached the spot around 45 minutes prior to the call being made on 100 number, and the police officials of Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:25 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 54/68 PS Bhanapura reaching around half an hour prior to the said calls. Therefore, it has cast serious doubts upon the veracity of the entire prosecutions case.
53. There are also serious contradictions between the testimony of PW4 Ct. Shyam Lal and PW5 HC Balbir Singh regarding the photographs and the video of the crime scene being taken. It was deposed by PW5 HC Balbir Singh that the spot was got photographed and videographed by the IO through a private photographer and in his cross examination he had deposed that he did not knew as to how much money was paid to the said private photographer. However, PW4 Ct. Shyam Lal had deposed that he was part of the Crime Team, North East District and he had reached the spot alongwith the other members of the Crime Team headed by Incharge SI U. Balashankara. He had further deposed that he had taken 36 photographs of the spot, at the directions of the IO and had also videographed the spot. Therefore, his testimony is running counter to the deposition of PW5 HC Balbir Singh.
54. What makes the matter even worse for the case of the prosecution is that no certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was given alongwith the photographs, Ex. PW4/A-1 to Ex. PW4/A-36 and the negatives, Ex. PW4/B-1 to Ex. PW4/B-36 and the video CD, Ex.PW4/C. Therefore, the prosecution could not prove the said photographs in accordance with law.
55. The lapses on the part of the IO were further accentuated by the fact Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 55/68 10:47:32 +0530 that he never procured the SOC report from the Crime Team Incharge and same was never filed alongwith the chargesheet. The Crime Team Incharge namely SI U. Balashankara was never made the prosecution witness by the IO. It had categorically come in the cross of IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran that "The Crime Team had arrived at the spot on 13.12.2010 at about 07:30 to 08:00 PM and on that day, they had not handed over SOC report to me. Vol.- They had subsequently handed over the same to me. Again said, the Crime Team Officials did not hand over the SOC report to me during investigation of this case." Therefore, a serious doubt is created as to whether the Crime Team had ever reached the spot or not, or whether any proceedings were carried out by the said Crime Team or not.
56. The curious case of the injured Mohd. Sheikh, being untraceable before this Court and the fact that his testimony could not be recorded, was not helped with the fact that there were discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the name of the said injured witness. As per the complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh, during the incident one old man namely "Mosin Shekh" received burn injuries on his hands and feet. As per the testimony of PW8 Dr. Sushma, the MLC No. C-5674/10 was prepared by Dr. Vinay Tomar of patient "Mohsin Seth". The concerned doctor who had prepared the MLC was never examined before this Court, since, his whereabouts were not known and PW8 Dr. Sushma had merely identified his hand writing and signatures.
Lastly, the IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran had referred the injured person to be one "Mohsin Khan" in his testimony recorded before this Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:37 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 56/68 +0530 Court.
57. The accused persons in the present case are facing a trial for committing the offence of wrongful confinement of the said person namely Mohsin Shekh and also for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means i.e. by fire upon the body of the said Mohsin Shekh.
The fact that there is no document on record to show that the said person ever resided in the jhuggies which were situated on the plot situated at Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension, is not helping the case of the prosecution. There is not even a single testimony to this effect that the said person was wrongfully confined by the accused person in his rented jhuggie. Even in the MLC, Ex. PW8/A, there is no mention of the address of the said patient being situated at Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension, since, it is merely mentioned in the column next to the residential address as"Jhuggi 5th Pusta Gamri Delhi" .
58. The MLC, Ex. PW8/A is not substantive piece of evidence and the same is merely corroborative in the nature, however, since, the testimony of the alleged injured witness was never recorded before this Court, the accused persons cannot be held guilty only on the basis of the said MLC.
59. Since, the alleged injured person namely Mohsin Shekh was never examined before this Court, the accused persons cannot be convicted for committed the offences punishable u/s 342/34 IPC, 1860 and u/s 324/34 IPC, 1860, since, none of the other prosecution witnesses have deposed regarding the said offences being committed against the said person Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:42 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 57/68 +0530 namely Mohsin Shekh.
60. Now coming to the offence of mischief by fire, with an intent to destroy a house etc., which is punishable u/s 436 of IPC, 1860, the necessary ingredient which needs to be first satisfied is that the place where the accused had allegedly committed mischief by setting it on fire alongwith an intention to cause or knowing it likely to cause destruction of the building by such act, is that the said building was used in the following ways:
(a)- As a place of worship; or
(b)- As a human dwelling; or
(c)- As a place for the custody of property.
61. Before proceeding ahead with appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it is essential to keep in mind that as per the case of the prosecution and the charges framed against the accused persons, that there were jhuggies/huts constructed near Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension, Bhajanpura, Delhi and the said place was used for human dwelling.
62. It had come in the testimony of the complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh that about 20-25 rooms/jhuggies had been built by his father Balle Singh around 15-20 years back and they had given the said jhuggies on rent. He had further categorically deposed that all the said jhuggies were occupied by the tenants. However, when his father Balle Singh stepped into the witness box as PW13, he had categorically deposed that about Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:46 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 58/68 20-25 jhuggies being constructed on the said plot and all the said jhuggies were occupied by them and the said jhuggies had also been given on rent. He further categorically deposed that even he was residing in one of the said jhuggies/room situated on the said plot. However, his son PW6 Mehkar Singh never deposed that his own father was also residing in one of the said jhuggies, which were burnt down to the ground during the incident in question. Similarly, none of the other family members of the complainant, namely PW9 Satpal Singh, PW11 Narender, PW14 Raju had deposed that the father of the complainant Balle Singh was residing in one of the jhuggies, which were allegedly burnt down in the incident in question. The testimony of PW13 Balle Singh assumes more importance, when his address mentioned in the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and at the time of examination-in-chief is concerned, wherein, he had stated that he was residing in H. No. 3, Gali No. 12, A-Block, Gamri Extension, Delhi and not on any plot/ jhuggie situated at Khasra No. 227 to 230.
63. As per the case of the prosecution, the IO had recorded the statement of one Mohsin Shekh, one Nurul Sheikh and one Shanti, who were allegedly residing as tenants in the jhuggies situated at Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension. PW Mohsin Shekh and Nurul Sheikh were ever traced, since all the processes issued by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, seeking their appearance before this Court were received back unserved. PW Shanti had already expired, prior to recording of her testimony. Therefore, the most essential link of the prosecution case that there were independent public witnesses who were residing in the said jhuggies or Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 59/68 10:47:51 +0530 that they had received injuries or their properties being destroyed, could not be proved.
64. What makes the matter even more suspicious is the seizure memo, Ex. PW5/A, which was prepared by IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran in the presence of the complainant Mehkar Singh. As per the case of the prosecution, there were several jhuggies occupied by tenants and the said jhuggies were burnt during the incident in question and the IO has seized the burnt pieces of wood from the chhokhat and also burnt piece of steal bowl from at least two different jhuggies, yet the same were not seized in the presence of the person who was residing in the said jhuggie or the person who was owner of the said burnt steal bowl.
65. There are further material inconsistencies in the testimony of complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh, wherein, on the one hand he had stated that they had given all the said jhuggies on rent to tenants, yet at about 04:30 PM, he alongwith his brothers Narender and Satpal were present at the said plot, getting repaired the roof of a room, in which they used to tie buffaloes. Similar depositions were given by PW9 Satpal and PW11 Narender. Therefore, the version of PW6 Mehkar Singh of using one of the room to tie the buffaloes, in spite of all the jhuggies being occupied by the tenants, coupled with the deposition of his father PW13 Balle Singh, that he was residing in one of the rooms/ jhuggies, has cast serious shadows of doubt upon their credibility as witnesses and the veracity of the entire prosecution story as whole. Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:47:55 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 60/68
66. All the public witnesses examined before this Court were the relatives of the complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh. PW13 Balle Singh is the father of the complainant. PW9 Satpal Singh, PW11 Narender Singh and PW14 Raju are cousin brothers of the complainant. There are inconsistencies and contradictions in their inter-se testimonies, since it was deposed by PW6 Mehkar Singh, PW9 Satpal, PW11 Narender and PW13 Balle Singh that the said jhuggies were constructed on Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension, by PW13 Balle Singh, however, PW14 Raju had deposed that it was Khadak Singh, brother of Balle Singh, who had constructed 22 rooms/jhuggies on the said land and the same rooms were given on rent by his tau Khadak Singh. After the death of Khadak Singh, the sons of Khadak Singh started collecting the rents. He had further deposed that his tau Balle Singh had constructed only 3 rooms on the said land and Balle Singh started using the said rooms. Therefore, there are serious contradictions in their testimonies as to who had constructed the jhuggies/rooms and also as to who had given the said rooms on rent or that whether all the jhuggies were occupied by the tenants or a few of them were in the exclusive possession of Balle Singh.
67. It is pertinent to point out here that the complainant party i.e. PW6 Mehkar Singh and other prosecution witnesses namely PW13 Balle Singh, PW9 Satpal, PW11 Narender and PW14 Raju are all related to the accused persons. It was not disputed by any of the said witnesses in their cross examination that the said plot of land was originally owned by one Charta Singh who was the common ancestor of both the complainant and the accused persons. All the aforementioned prosecution witnesses had Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 61/68 10:48:00 +0530 admitted in their cross examinations that the original owner of the land situated at Khasra Nos. 227 to 230 was one Charta Singh and the said person was not having any issue/child. They had also admitted that one Dharampal, who was the common ancestor of the accused persons in the descending line from Charta Singh being the nephew of Charta Singh. To the specific suggestion that during his lifetime, on 09.07.1971, the said Charta Singh had executed a will in favour of his nephew Dharampal, they had all feigned ignorance. They had also shown their ignorance regarding the fact that the said property was sold by Dharampal to accused Mangal Singh and one Bhanwar Singh or that the exclusive possession of the said property was also transferred.
68. There are number of litigations, both civil and criminal pending between the complainant party on the one hand and the accused persons on the other hand. PW6 Mehkar Singh, PW9 Satpal Singh, PW11 Narender and PW13 Balle Singh and PW14 Raju Singh had all categorically deposed that there was a civil dispute pending between them and the accused persons. PW13 Balle Singh had categorically deposed that the civil suit qua the said plot of land was filed by them before the Court of Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, and the said civil suit was decided against them and in favour of the accused persons. He had further categorically admitted that he was aware of the fact that on 11.04.1988, one Dharampal had sold the said property through registered sale-deed to accused Mangal Singh and one Bhanwar Singh.
69. PW13 Balle Singh during his cross examination had deposed that he Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:48:05 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 62/68 was not aware whether SHO PS Bhajanpura had filed a kalandra u/s 145 Cr.PC, 1973 against both the parties including him or that on 29.09.1999, the Ld. SDM had passed an order in favour of the opposite party/accused persons or that he had filed a revision petition against the said order, which was dismissed by the Court of Ld. ASJ or that he had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2004.
70. The father of the complainant, PW13 Balle Singh had provided a photocopy of a will dated 13.07.1971, Mark A, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo, Ex. PW13/A. The IO had written a request to the Sub Registrar, Seelampur, Shahdra to provide the certified copy of the alleged will dated 13.07.1971 and the same was filed alongwith the chargesheet, however, the said certified copy of the will was never brought on record through the testimony of any of the prosecution witnesses. The IO had not even included the name of the concerned Sub Registrar in the list of prosecution witnesses.
71. During the investigation, the father of the complainant, PW13 Balle Singh had provided certain documents to the IO and same were seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW15/P-5. The said documents pertained to the appeal filed before the Court of Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Delhi against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2006 passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi, wherein, the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the suit filed by the complainant party including PW13 Balle Singh and PW14 Raju against one Dharampal S/o Shri Lekho. It is pertinent to mention here that the Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:48:09 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 63/68 copy of the judgment passed by the Ld. Trial Court in the said civil suit or the copy of the judgment passed by the Ld. Appellate Court was never handed over to the IO, or produced before this Court. There is no document on record to show that the complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh or his father PW13 Balle Singh were the owner or were in possession of the said piece of land situated at Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension.
72. It is not disputed that there was cross FIR filed upon the complaint of accused Ved Pal (since deceased), which was registered as FIR no. 593/2010 u/s 308/323/324/34 IPC, 1860 and the said case was disposed off by the Court of Ld. ASJ-02, NE, KKD, Delhi vide judgment dated 26.11.2021, wherein, the accused persons were acquitted for committing the offences punishable u/s 308/34 IPC, 1860. The certified copy of the said judgment dated 26.11.2021, was filed by the Ld. Defense Counsel at the time of final arguments.
73. Through the testimony of the defense witnesses namely DW1 Dr. Amit Srivastava and DW2 Dr. Banarsi, the Defense has brought on record the MLCs and subsequent opinion as to the nature of injuries received by accused Ved Pal (since deceased), accused Aman Singh, accused Vijay and accused Rajender. Through the testimonies of the defense witnesses and the said documents, the Defense has been able to raise reasonable doubt against the veracity of the prosecution story, since, there was a long standing dispute between the parties regarding the ownership and possession of land situated at Khasra No. 227 to 230 Gamri Extension, and since, the accused persons had received multiple Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 64/68 10:48:14 +0530 injuries on 13.12.2010 and the fact that none from the complainant party received any injury, coupled with the fact that the IO PW15 Inspector Hans Raj Thakran chose not to examine the accused persons at GTB Hospital, where they were admitted and he chose not to take their MLCs on record, raises reasonable doubt of the accused persons being falsely implicated in the present case, especially when the alleged injured witness Mohsin Shekh and other eye witnesses/inhabitants of the jhuggies namely Nurul Sheikh and Shanti were never examined before this Court, since they were not traceable/already expired.
Conclusion & Findings:
74. In the background of the facts and circumstances of the present case, which is further accentuated by the serious lapses in the investigation, in view of the improvements and glaring contradictions in the testimony of the complainant PW6 Mehkar Singh and the testimonies of other interested public witnesses, namely PW9 Satpal, PW11 Narender, PW13 Balle Singh and PW14 Raju Singh, the version put forth by the prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy.
75. In the light of the fact that there was a previous enmity between the parties and there being cross cases/FIRs registered for the incident which took place on the same day i.e. 13.12.2010, coupled with the fact that there were numerous other litigations pending between the parties regarding the ownership and possession of the said plot of land situated at Khasra No. 227 to 230, Gamri Extension, Delhi and neither there Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:48:19 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 65/68 +0530 being any independent public witnesses, nor there being any corroborating evidence, have all led to only one conclusion i.e. the prosecution case as placed before this court is full of doubts and as such the accused persons are entitled for the said benefit of doubt.
76. The non examination of the injured Mohsin Shekh had struck fatal blow on the case of the prosecution and since the other independent public witnesses namely Nurul Sheikh and Shanti Devi were untraceable/expired had put the final nail in the coffin of the prosecution's case.
77. The improvements and the inherent contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses had certainly raised doubts in the mind of the Court and the effort of the Criminal Court is not to be prowl for imaginative doubts, unless is doubt is of a reasonable dimension and is what judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity, otherwise no benefit can be claimed by the accused. In the present case the doubts raised from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses cannot be set to be merely imaginative and the same has been borne from the record of the present case. The said doubts are not merely imaginary or trivial in nature and it has dented the entire case of the prosecution. The burden of proof cast upon the accused persons is governed by the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" and in light of the discussion above, the accused persons in the present case have been able to raise reasonable doubts against the prosecution version of events and the hypothesis as propounded by the accused persons that due to prior Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL AHLAWAT AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13 10:48:24 +0530 CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 66/68 enmity and as a counter blast of their complaint filed against the complainant party, they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant. With the evidence brought on record, it cannot be said that the chain of prosecution witnesses and the evidence brought on record was so complete, so as to not leave any reasonable ground consistent with the innocence of the accused persons.
78. When the entire evidence of the present case is cumulatively read and appreciated in the background of the settled principle of law and in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not worthy of acceptance and there is a serious shadow of doubt cast upon it and not worthy of inspiring any confidence. Hence, they strike at the very root of the prosecution story rendering it to be improbable and unbelievable. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, there is no doubt that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, accused Aman S/o Sh. Raghuwar Singh, Vijay @ Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Raghuwar Singh and Mangal Singh S/o Sh. Raghuwar Singh are acquitted of the charges for committing the offences punishable u/s 436/342/324 R/w 34 IPC, 1860 and they shall be set at liberty.
79. The accused persons have already filed their bail bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC and the same shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. All the other bail bonds/surety bonds stands canceled and the earlier surety except for surety given u/s 437A Cr.PC stands discharged.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:48:30
+0530
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 67/68
80. The case property, if any, be released to the rightful owner as per the law and the applicable rules, subject to the orders of the Hon'ble Appellate Court(s).
81. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 13.02.2025.
This judgment consists of 68 pages and all of them have been digitally signed by me.
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
ATUL AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.02.13
10:48:36
+0530
(ATUL AHLAWAT)
ASJ (FTC)/North-
East/KKD Courts/
Delhi/13.02.2025
CNR No. DLNE01-000228-2011 FIR No. 592/2010 State Vs. Ved Pal & Ors. Page no. 68/68