Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Mr. Manoj on 18 September, 2018

                   IN THE COURT OF Mr. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO,
                            SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), 
                   ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE  NORTH­WEST
                                                         , 
                             ROHINI COURTS, DELHI



New Sessions Case Number                                 :    52403/2016

State
                                                versus

1. Mr. Manoj 
Son of Sh. Chander Shekhar
Resident of C­1526, Gali No.9, 
Jain Nagar, Karala, Delhi.


2. Sh.Anil 
Son of Sh. Chander Shekhar
Resident of C­1526, Gali No.9, 
Jain Nagar, Karala, Delhi.


First Information Report Number : 1210/2014
Police Station                 : Begum Pur
Under section                  : 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 



Date of receiving the file in this court on assignment        :  09.02.2015
Arguments concluded on                                        :  12.09.2018
Date of judgment                                              :  18.09.2018


                                                JUDGMENT

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 1

1.   The brief facts of the case are that DD No. 59 B was lodged  on 31.10.2014 at 6:13 PM, wherein, it is mentioned that an information was received from the PCR that in Gali No. 9, Jain Nagar, Karala opposite Nag Mandir, Sector­20, Rohini, Delhi, a quarrel had taken place and blood was oozing out from the head of the injured.  After lodging of the said DD no. 59 B, the same was assigned to SI Sandeep Tushir, who alongwith Ct. Ravi arrived at the spot and came to understand that injured was already taken to hospital and this SI went to SGM Hospital and it was revealed that patient Vijender Meena was already taken to an unknown hospital by his guardian and on finding the MLC, an offence punishable u/s. 308 IPC was found and FIR was registered. IO had proceeded for the stop and met with Sanjay Singh, who claimed to be an eye witness. IO had recorded the statement Ex.PW2/DA of Sanjay Singh, wherein, he has stated that he lives at the address as mentioned in his statement Ex.PW2/DA and his wife was giving tuition to the son of the deceased namely Piyush, who is about 3 years of age and on dated 31.10.2014. This witness Sanjay was present in his house and his wife was giving tuition to the children and when the time of tuition of Piyush, (who is son of deceased) was going to be overed and it was about 6:00 PM, this witness had heard the noise and he tried to open the door of his house and found that the main gate of his house was bolted from outside and he peeped from the space in the gate and found that accused Anil was having a DANDA in his hand and he had given DANDA blow on the head of Vijender Meena, who fell down on the earth and Vijender was caught and snubbed by Anil and Manoj, who is the brother of accused Anil had given  brick blow on the head of Vijender with New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 2 full brick repeatedly and Vijender was crying with the pain and accused Anil had caught the hands of the Vijender tightly.  He was exhorting that BHAI   YEH   SALA   HAMARE   AUR   VERMA   KE   JHAGADE   ME   JYADA CHAUDHARY BAN RAHA THA, IS SAALE KO TAB TAK MAARO, JAB TAK ISKI JAAN NA NIKAL JAYE and Manoj had given repeated blows on his head and thereafter both the accused fled away from the spot on their motorcycle and while, they were fleeing away from the spot Manoj had thrown away the brick   near the place of occurrence. Whereas, Anil had taken the DANDA used in the alleged commission of offence, with him and accused Manoj was driving the Motorcycle, whereas Anil was sitting on its rear seat. He has also stated that he dialed 100 number and some one opened the bolt of his gate. He found that clothes of Vijender were stained with blood, as the blood was oozing out from his head and he made   to   reach   Vijender   in   the   hospital   and   after   leaving   him   in   the hospital, he returned home at 9.00PM and at about 12 midnight, IO/ SI Sandeep Tushir arrived at the spot and SI Sandeep Tushir had prepared site   plan   of   the   place   of   occurrence,   at   his   instance   and     took   blood stained earth,and also took earth from a bit distance where the blood was lying  and prepared parcels and sealed the parcels with the seal of ST and blood stained brick was also seized and prepared the seizure memo and obtained the signatures of this witness (PW2) thereon and also stated that blood stained brick was also recovered on his pointing out. Parcel thereof was  prepared and sealed with the seal of ST and it was also seized. It is alleged   that   accused   Anil   and   Manoj   in   furtherance   of   their   common intention had done brutal attack on Vijender and he had also stated that New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 3 first IO had taken the sealed parcels with him and on calling, this witness (PW2) had gone to the police station and such statement of this witness is alleged to have been recorded on 01.11.2014 by SI Sandeep Tushir. The FIR was registered on dated 31.10.2014 at 11.20PM under Section 308 of IPC and thereafter, it was converted under Section 307/34 of IPC. IO had obtained the blood stained clothes of the injured from Sh. Chhatar Singh, who   is   the   brother   of   deceased.   Thereafter,   vide   DD   No.   16A   dated 01.11.2014,   it   was   revealed   that   Vijender   was   admitted   in   the   Balaji Hospital, Pashchim Vihar and the Sub Inspector went to the said hospital for   recording   the   statement   injured   Vijender   Meena   and   obtaining   the opinion of the doctor. Injured Vijender Meena was not found fit for making statement and on dated 02.11.2014 an information was received vide DD No.13A  lodged in PS Begumpur that injured Vijender Meena, who was admitted   in   the   Balaji   Action   Hospital,   had   expired.   Accordingly,   the offence was aggravated u/s. 302/34 of IPC. Dead body was got identified by the relatives of the deceased. Inquest papers were also prepared and postmortem was also got conducted. Statement of another eye witness Dayanand Verma   was also recorded.   Exhibits were also seized   and accused   Manoj   was   arrested   on   dated   02.11.2014.   Whereas,   accused Anil was arrested on dated 03.11.2014 and both the accused are behind bars since the days of their arrests.

2.  On the completion of the investigation, the Charge sheet was filed   against   both   the   accused   u/s.   302/34   of   IPC   in   the   Court   of   Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and the copies of Chargesheet were supplied to New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 4 both the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was assigned to the Predecessor of this court. 

3. On finding prima facie case, charges under section 302/34 IPC were framed against accused Manoj and Anil, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.  Accordingly, the accused were put on trial.  

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined   20 witnesses.

5. Sh. Heera Chand Meena has been examined as PW­1.   He was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.

6.  Whereas, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Singh has been examined as PW­

2. He was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. 

7. Whereas, Inspector Manohar Lal has been examined as PW­3 who   has   deposed   that   on  12.12.2014,   he   was   posted   as   draftsman   in North   West   District   and   on   that   day,   on   receipt   of   call   from   Inspector Sudhir   Gulia   of   PS   Begumpur,   he   reached   at   PS   Begumpur   and   he alongwith IO/Inspector Sudhir Gulia and SI Sandeep reached at spot i.e. Gali No.9, near H.No. C­1395, Jain Nagar, Delhi.  He has further deposed that he took measurements and rough notes for the preparation of scaled site plan at the instance of SI Sandeep and on 13.12.2014, he prepared the scaled site plan, handed over the same to the IO and destroyed rough New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 5 notes and measurements.  He has proved the scaled site plan Ex. PW3/A. The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not cross examine this witness, so, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL.

8. Whereas,  Ct.Bhupender   Singh   who   has   been   examined   as PW4,  had   brought   the   attested   copy   of   PCR   Form   dated   31.10.2014 alongwith   certificate   U/s.65B   of   Indian   Evidence   Act   signed   by   SI Devender Kumar, Nodal  Officer, CPCR, PHQ, New  Delhi  and deposed that on 31.10.2014, he was posted as Constable in CPCR, PHQ, New Delhi and on that day at 18:07 hours an information was received from Sh. Sanjay Kumar Singh who made call from his phone no. 9811478433. He has further deposed that it was informed that  "at Jain Nagar, Gali No.9, Nag Mandir, Opposite Sector­22, Rohini, Jhagda, injured Moka Par head Se Jyada Khoon Nikal Raha Hai" and he  filled up the PCR form and sent this   information   to   Console   for   onward   transmission   and   proved   the attested copy of PCR form Ex. PW4/A. He has further deposed that  the portion encircled X in the form Ex. PW4/A was filled by him and he had identified   the   signatures   of   SI   Devender   Kumar,   as   he   had     seen   him writing   and   signing   during   the   official   course   of   his   duty.   He   has   also proved   the   certificate   U/s.65B   of   Indian   Evidence   Act   Ex.PW4/B.   This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross examination   who  has   deposed   that   he    did   not  know   the   name   of  the person who took the print out of Ex. PW4/A. He did not know the date, when the print out of the PCR form was obtained.  He has further deposed New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 6 that the portion Mark X in Ex. PW4/A was the only information, which was conveyed to him by the informant.

9. Whereas, HC Sukhram Pal has been examined as PW5 who has   deposed   that   on   02.11.2014,   he   was   posted   as   DD   Writer   at   PS Begumpur and his duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. At 9.50 AM, an information  was received  from Security Supervisor Sh. F.K. Ojha of Balaji Hospital, Pashchim Vihar regarding death of injured Vijender who was admitted in the said hospital on 31.10.2014 vide MLC No. 21103/14. He has further deposed that the information was recorded by him vide DD No.13A and he had brought original DD register containing DD No.13A and copy of the same is Ex.PW5/A and copy of DD No.13A Ex.PW5/A1. The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL.

10. Whereas, HC Jaiveer Singh has been examined as PW6, who has deposed that on 31.10.2014, he was posted in PS Begumpur as Head Constable   and   was   working   as   Duty   Officer   from   4.00   PM   to   12.00 midnight.  He has further deposed that at 11.20 PM,  he had received the rukka of this case and same was produced by SI Sandeep. He has further deposed that on the basis of said rukka, he got registered FIR No.1210/14 on computer, copy of the same is Ex.PW6/A.  He has further deposed that after   registration   of   FIR,   he   made   endorsement   on   rukka   is   Ex.PW6/B and   after   registration   of   FIR,   the   original   rukka   and   copy   of   FIR   were New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 7 handed   over   to   Ct.   Ravi   for   giving   to   SI   Sandeep   at   the   spot.    The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the   counsel   for   accused   did   not   cross   examine   this   witness.   So,   the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL.

11.  Whereas, HC Anand Kumar has been examined as PW 7, who has   deposed   that   on   01.11.2014,   he   was   posted   as   DD   Writer   at   PS Begumpur and his duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. At 9.30 AM, an information  was received  from Security Supervisor Sh. F.K. Ojha of Balaji Hospital, Pashchim Vihar regarding admission of injured Vijender Meena,   who   was   brought   from   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   Hospital,   vide MLC   No.21103/14.   He   has   further   deposed   that   the   information   was recorded by him vide DD No.16A and he had brought original DD register containing DD No.16A, copy of the same is Ex. PW7/A and copy of DD No.16A is Ex.PW7/A1.  The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not cross examine this   witness.   So,   the   opportunity   of   the   accused   to   cross   examine   this witness was done NIL.

12.  Whereas Ct. Umesh Babu has been examined as PW­8, who has deposed that on 09.12.2013, while, he was posted as constable at PS Begumpur, under directions of IO, he had taken the exhibits of this case for depositing the same in the FSL vide RC No. 124/21/14 and 125/21/14 is   Ex.   PW   8/A   and   Ex   PW   8/B.   He   has   further   deposed   that   after depositing the same he had received the acknowledgement  and the copy New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 8 of the acknowledgement is Ex. PW 8/C and on return to the  PS he had submitted   the   acknowledgement   to   the   malkhana   moharrar.   He   has further deposed that so long as the exhibits of the case remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with by anyone. The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL.   It appears to the court that this witness had forgotten the date of depositing the exhibits in the FSL. He has told the date as 09.12.2013 ie prior to commission of the offence.

13.  Whereas HC Prahlad Singh has been examined as PW­9, who has deposed that on 01.11.2014, he was posted in the malkhana in PS Begum Pur and on that day SI Sandeep Tushir deposited   four parcels sealed with the seal of ST vide entry no. 524/14 Ex.PW9/A. He has further deposed   that   on   02.11.2014,   Inspector   Sudhir   Kumar   deposited   two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary with sample seal, vide   entry   no.   530/24   Ex.PW9/B.   He   has   further   deposed   that   on 03.11.2014, Inspector Sudhir Kumar deposited one pullanda sealed with the   seal   of   SKG   vide   entry   no.   532/14   Ex.   PW   9/C   and   the   sealed pullanda was sent to SGMH Mangol  Puri vide DD No. 18 and the return entry was affected vide DD no. 54B and the endorsement to that effect against entry no. 532/14 is at point X.     He has further deposed that on 09.12.2014,   the   sealed   enveloped/pullanda,   which   was   deposited   vide entry   no.   530/14   was   sent   to   FSL   vide   RC   no.   124/21/14   through   Ct.

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 9 Umesh Babu and the endorsement to that effect against entry no. 530/14 were also sent to FSL vide RC no. 125/21/14 through Ct. Umesh Babu and the endorsement  to that effect is at point X against entry no. 524/14 and the copy of RC 124/21/14 is Ex. PW 9/D and the acknowledgement from the FSL to that effect is Ex. PW9/E, copy of RC no.25/21/14 is Ex. PW 9/F and the acknowledgement is Ex. PW 9/G.  The sealed parcel and the sample seal of SGMH Mortuary were not tampered with till remained in his possession.  This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused  during his cross­examination, he has denied  that the case properties were not handed over to him in sealed condition or that the brick and danda were also not in sealed condition or that blood of the deceased was sprinkled over the brick later on or that he had forged the entries and all entries exhibited were made at the instance of IO to falsely implicate the accused persons or that he has deposed falsely. 

14.  Whereas, Mr. Chattar Singh has been examined as PW­10. He was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.

15. Whereas, Sh. Dayanand Verma has been examined as PW­11. He was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused.

16. Whereas,   Ms.   Pooja   Shrotriya,   Junior   Forensic/Chemical Examiner   has   been   examined   as   PW­12.    The   opportunity   to   cross examine   this   witness   was   given   to   the   accused.   But,   the   counsel   for accused did not cross examine this witness. So, the opportunity of the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 10 accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL.

17.  Whereas, Ct. Chanderpal has been examined as PW 13, who has   deposed   that   on   29.10.2014,   he   was   discharging   the   duty   as   DD writer   from   4:00   PM   to   12:00   midnight   and   at   about   6:53,   one   call regarding quarrel at 40 Futa Road, Gali no. 6, Nag Mandir was received and   said  information   was  recorded   in  roznamcha  register   vide   DD  No. 61B. He has further deposed that on the same day at about 07:00 PM, one more call regarding quarrel by a person with a lady  near Nag Mandir, Jain Nagar was received and said information was recorded in roznamcha register vide DD No. 62B. He has further deposed that on 31.10.2014 at about 6:30 PM one call regarding quarrel at Jain Nagar, Gali No. 9, Nag Mandir   Opposite   Sector   20,   Rohini,   Delhi   and   injured   was   bleeding profusely from his head was received. He has further deposed that said information   was   recorded   in   roznamcha   register   vide   DD   no.   59B   and same is Ex. PW 13/C.  The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not cross examine this   witness.   So,   the   opportunity   of   the   accused   to   cross   examine   this witness was done NIL.

18.   Whereas, Dr. Vipin Dabas, has been examined as PW 14. The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the   counsel   for   accused   did   not   cross   examine   this   witness.   So,   the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL. 

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 11

19.  Whereas,   Dr.   Anil   Kumar,   RMO,   Sri   Balaji   Action   Medical Institute has been examined as PW 15. The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not   cross   examine   this   witness.   So,   the   opportunity   of   the   accused   to cross examine this witness was done NIL. 

20.  Whereas, Prashant Kumar Verma has been examined as PW 16 and he was also cross­examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.

21.  Whereas, SI Sandeep  Tushir has been  examined as PW 17. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.

22. Whereas,   Inspector   Jagminder   Singh   (Retired)   has   been examined   as   PW   18,   who   has   deposed   that   on   02.01.2015,     he   was posted as Inspector Investigation at PS Begumpur and on that day, the file of the present case was entrusted to him for further investigation.  He has   further   deposed   that   he   perused   the   case   file   and   observed   that investigation   has   already   been   completed   by   previous   IO/Inspector Sudhir. He has further deposed that he   prepared the chargesheet and filed   the   same   in   the   Court.     This   witness   was   cross   examined   by   Ld counsel for accused and during his cross­examination, he has denied that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.

23. Whereas,   SI   Rajesh   Kumar   has   been   examined   as   PW   19. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 12

24. Whereas,   Inspector   Sudhir   Kumar   has   been   examined   as PW20.   This   witness   was   also   cross   examined   by   Ld.   Counsel   for   the accused.

25. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused   persons   u/s   313   Cr.PC   were   recorded,   wherein,   both   the accused have denied the correctness of the evidence led against them by the prosecution and both the accused have stated that they have been falsely implicated  in the present case. The accused have examined four witnesses   in   their   defence.   Dr.   Gurdeep   Singh   has   been   examined   as DW­1. He was cross­examined by Ld. Addl.PP for the State. Dr. Rajesh Dalal has been examined as DW 2. He was not cross­examined by the Ld.   Addl.   PP   for   the   State.   So   his   opportunity   to   cross­examine   this witness was done Nil. Dr. Madhur Mahna has been examined as DW 3. He   was   also   cross­examined   by   Ld.   Addl.   PP   for   the   State   and   Sh. Laxman Singh has been examined as DW 4. He was also cross examined by the Ld. APP for State.

26. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties.

27.  The   Ld.   APP   for   the   State   has   submitted   that   on   dated 31.10.2014 at 6.13 pm, a 100 number call was given by the prosecution witness No.2 Sanjay Singh, wherein, he had disclosed that the blood was oozing   out   from   the   head   of   the   injured   and   DD   No.59B   on   dated 31.10.2014   was   registered   in   the   Police   Station   Begumpur   and   further New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 13 submitted   that   the   statement   of   the   Sanjay   Singh   Ex.   PW2/DA   was recorded by the IO on 01.11.2014, wherein, he has levelled categorical allegations against both accused and stated that the son of the Vijender Meena (deceased) was taking tuitions from the wife of this Sanjay Singh and on dated 31.10.2014, he was present in his house and his wife was giving tuitions to the son of the deceased Piyush and the time of tuition of Piyush was likely to be overed. At about 6.00 pm, he heard the noises in the street and when, he tried to open the door, he found that his gate was bolted from outside and he peeped from the gap of the gates  and found that   accused   Anil was having danda in his hands and he gave danda blow on the head of Vijender Meena, (who is the father of the Piyush) and as a result of which, he fell down and accused Anil had caught hold to the Vijender Meena and his brother Manoj (accused) gave brick blows on the head of the Vijender Meena and  Vijender Meena was crying with the pain and this accused Anil was also shouting that  "bhai ye sala hamare aur Verma ke jhagde me jyada Chaudhary ban raha tha, iss saale ko tab tak maaro jab tak iski jaan na nikal jaye"  and Manoj had given 20­25 brick blows on the back side of head of the deceased and thereafter, both the accused had fled away from the spot on their motorcycle and the accused Manoj had thrown the brick near the place of occurrence and accused Anil was   waiving   danda   while   fleeing   away   from   the   spot   and   Manoj   was driving  motorcycle  and  Anil was sitting as pillion  rider  thereon  and this Sanjay Singh had dialled 100 number to call to the police. He has further submitted   that   this   Sanjay   Singh   has   also   stated   in   his   statement Ex.PW2/DA   that   the   clothes   of   Vijender   Meena   were   stained   with   the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 14 blood and blood was oozing out from the head of Vijender Meena and this Sanjay Singh had taken the  Vijender Meena along with Dayanand Verma and wife of deceased to the hospital and this PW2 returned to his house at 9.00 pm after leaving him in the hospital and further submitted that at about   12.00   midnight,   the   IO   had   arrived   at   the   spot   and   on   the identification of Sanjay Singh, the site plan was prepared and earth control was also taken and sealed with the seal of SD and it was given serial No.1 and further submitted that the case properties were seized vide Seizure Memo   and   further   submitted   that   accused   Manoj   was   arrested   on 02.11.2014 and Anil was arrested on 03.11.2014 further submitted that since this Sanjay Singh has been examined as PW2 and his testimony remained   consistent   on   material   point   and   further   submitted   that Dayanand   Verma   is   another   eye­witness,   who   has   been   examined   as PW11 and he has also corroborated the version of Sanjay Singh who has been examined as PW2 and further submitted that testimonies of PW2 and PW11 have been corroborated with the MLC of the deceased and the MLC reveals that blood was there in the nasal of the deceased and further submitted that since, these accused in furtherance of common intention have caused injury on the vital part i.e. head of the deceased. As in view of   the   same,   the   deceased   expired   on   02.11.2014   and   submitted   that since   the   injury   caused   by   the   accused   was   sufficient   in   the   ordinary course of nature to cause death and further submitted that the opinion of the expert regarding the weapons and the injury was also obtained, which is proved on record as Ex.PW20/E and the doctor had opined that there is possibility   of   the   injury   from   the   wooden   cane   and   brick   and   further New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 15 submitted that the postmortem report  of the deceased Ex.PX­1 reveals that   the   cause   of   death   due   to   shock   associated   with   Craniocerebral damage under injury no.1, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and further submitted that since the postmortem report reveals that three injuries are mentioned therein and further submitted that in view of repeated injuries caused on the person of the deceased, it is clear   that   the   accused   were   having   common   intention   to   kill   to   the deceased, as earlier the quarrel had taken place on 29.10.2014 between accused   and   Dayanand   Verma   and   this   deceased   had   intervened   and tried   to   pacify   the   matter   and   in   view   of   the   same,   the   accused   were having   grudge   in   their   minds   and   on   the   date   of   the   occurrence,   this deceased had gone to the house of Sanjay Singh for taking his child back to his house, after tuitions, but, the accused bolted the door of the house of   Sanjay   Singh   and   caused   multiple   injuries   on   the   person   of   the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased expired on 02.11.2014 and submitted   that   little   contradictions   are   there   in   the   testimony   of   Sanjay Singh   regarding   the   maker   of   motorcycle,   on   which   this   accused   fled away, but, the said contradictions are not material nor effect the merit of the case and further submitted that since the report of the FSL reveals that blood has also found on the brick and thus, the testimonies of the PW2 and  PW11  are  well  corroborated  with  the medical   evidence    and submitted that the accused Anil was arrested. He has made disclosure statement   and   disclosed   about   the   danda,   which   is   used   in   the commission   of   crime   and   in   furtherance   thereof,   the   danda   has   been recovered, so the disclosure statement of this accused Anil  Ex.PW19/B is New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 16 admissible   to   the   extent   of   discovery   of   this   danda   and   u/s.   27   of   the evidence Act  and further submitted that from the testimony of PW2 and PW11, MLC  Ex.PW14/A, postmortem  report  Ex.PX1 and  report  of FSL Ex.PW12/B, it is clear that both the accused in furtherance of common intention had murdered the deceased and Dayanand Verma (PW­11) and his son Prashant Verma (PW­16) have also proved that the accused were having grudge in their minds. As deceased had called to the police on 29.10.2014, when, the dispute arose between family of Dayanand Verma and family of this accused and prayed for convicting both the accused u/s 302/34 of IPC.

28.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that DD No.59B was registered on the telephonic call given from phone No.9811478433, but, the prosecution has failed to prove on record that as to who was the caller of the said call and in whose name the   said   connection   stood   and   submitted   that   the   statement   of   Sanjay Singh   u/s   161   Cr.P.C.   Ex.PW2/DA   was   recorded   on   01.11.2014. Whereas, the statement of another alleged eye witness namely Dayanand Verma was recorded on 04.11.2014 and since the PW2, during his cross­ examination had admitted that he has apprised to the IO regarding the names of both the accused on the night of 31.10.2014, but, the police has failed to make the sincere efforts to arrest the accused till 02.11.2014, so the case of the prosecution is doubtful and benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused. He has further submitted that occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 6.00 pm on 31.10.2014, whereas, the FIR New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 17 has been registered on same night i.e. 31.10.2014 at 11.20 pm. But both the accused are not named in the FIR and further submitted that there is a considerable  delay in registration of the FIR. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that the testimony of PW­2 namely Sanjay Kumar Singh   is   not   reliable,   as   there   are   number   of   improvements   in   his testimony   recorded   in   this   court.     He   has   further   submitted   that   the postmortem report of the deceased Ex PX­1 reveals only one injury, on the head of the deceased. Whereas, PW­2  has alleged that accused Anil had caused danda blow and Manoj has caused 20­25 injuries on the head of deceased with the brick and thus, the ocular testimony of PW­2 is not supported or corroborated with the medical evidence, as the postmortem report   of   the   deceased   reveals   only   one   injury   on   the   head.     He   has further submitted that PW­2 when examined in this court, has alleged that after commission of crime, both the accused fled away on Pulsar Bike. Whereas,   the   seizure   memo   Ex.PW17/H   reveals   that   HONDA   Twister motorcycle has been seized.   Thus, the ocular testimony of this PW2 is also not in consonance with Ex.PW17/H.   He has further submitted that since PW­2 has admitted that he did not know the name of the accused Anil and deposed in the court that he knew the name of Manoj and further submitted that even if, both the accused and prosecution witnesses were living  in the  same  vicinity,  it cannot  be  presumed  that  this  prosecution witness No. 2 knew to the accused and further submitted that TIP was also   required   to   be   done   and   further   submitted   that   this   witness   has deposed in the court that his clothes were stained in the blood, but, blood stained clothes of this witness were not seized by the IO, so the presence New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 18 of this witness at the place of alleged occurrence becomes doubtful.  He has further submitted that PCR Form is also not proved as no certificate has   been   given   by   the   proper   witness   under   section   65B   of   Indian Evidence Act and further submitted that it is also not proved on record that on whose call, PCR Van came and further submitted that this prosecution witness has deposed during his cross examination that he had gone to police station for the first time on 02.11.2014, whereas, during his cross­ examination, he has also admitted that he had never told the names of the accused to the police of PCR staff and even at the time of recording his statement   under   section   161   Cr.PC.     Whereas,   the   statement   of   this witness PW­2 allegedly recorded by the police on 01.11.2014, the names are   mentioned   and   there   is   no   explanation   for   non   recording   of   the statement of this witness promptly by the IO.  He has also submitted that the statement of Dayanand Verma, who is also an alleged witness was recorded on 04.11.2014   and that he is also a planted witness. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that PW­2 Sanjay, PW­11 Dayanand have claimed that on the date of alleged occurrence, both of them along with wife of deceased had taken the Vijender Meena (since deceased) to the hospital.   But the MLC of Vijender Meena reveals that Vijender   Meena   was   taken   to     hospital   by   Ms.   Neha   Sharma   of   Cat Ambulance   Staff   and   further   submitted   that   had   Vijender   Meena   been taken  to the  hospital  by  them,  then,  the  MLC  Ex.PW14/A  of deceased could have reveal the name of any of them. He has further submitted that PW­2 has alleged that 20/25 times brick blows were given on the head of the injured, but, the MLC Ex.PW14/A does not reveal that 20/25 injuries New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 19 were  there  on  his head  and  even  postmortem  report  Ex.PX1  does  not reveal that 20/25 injuries were caused on the head of deceased, only one injury is mentioned on the head  of injured in his MLC  Ex.PW14/A  and postmortem report Ex.PX1 and further submitted that statement of Sanjay Singh   (PW2)   was   recorded   by   the   IO   on   01.11.2014,   whereas,   the statement of Dayanand Verma PW­1 was recorded on dated 04.11.2014 and statement of Prashant Verma was recorded on dated 01.11.2014 and in   view   of   delay   in   recording   the   statement   of   these   witnesses   of prosecution,   the   story   of   the   prosecution   becomes   doubtful.   The   Ld. Counsel  for the accused further submitted that PW­11 has alleged that prior   to   this   occurrence,   at   the   time   of   quarrel   between   the   family's members   of   Dayanand   Verma   and   family's   members   of   accused,   100 number was dialed by the deceased and this fact has not been proved by the   prosecution.     He   has   further   submitted   that   in   order   to   prove   the motive,  PW­11 has deposed  that deceased had dialed 100 number  on 29.10.2014, but, this fact is not proved on record and further submitted that PW­16 is son of Dayanand Verma (PW11) and this witness has also been examined to proved the motive behind this occurrence and further submitted that since this prosecution witness No.2 Sanjay Singh did not know to the accused.  So, TIP was required to be conducted and further submitted that TIP has not been conducted and the testimony of Sanjay Kumar Singh is full of improvements and also submitted that PW­2 has deposed that at the time of recording of the evidence in the court, that the son of the deceased also said that his father should be saved from the hands of the accused. Thus, the testimony of PW­2 is full of contradictions New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 20 on the one side, he has deposed that he has seen the accused where they were beating to the deceased from the space between the two gates and when the accused had fled away from the spot, then, someone had opened the bolt of the house and if the bolt of the door of the house is opened after fleeing away of the accused, from the spot, then, how could the son of the deceased Piyush see the accused while beating his father. He   has   also   submitted   that   PW­2   has   deposed   that   accused   after commission   of   the   crime,   fled   away   from   the   spot   on   their   pulsar motorcycle and further submitted that seizure memo Ex.PW17/H reveals that   motorcycle   seized   is   not   pulsar,   but   is   Honda   Twister   and   further submitted that testimony of Dayanand is also suspicious one, as distance between the place of alleged occurrence and house of Dayanand is of about 170 feet and on the date of alleged occurrence, the sun set at 05:35 PM and occurrence had taken place at 6.00PM and further submitted that since, the sun had already set and this is unauthorised (Kachchi) colony, where illumination was there and in the darkness, it was not probable for this  witness  to  see  the  accused  from  such  a  distance   of 170  feet  and further submitted that if the IO had come to understand about the about the accused on the night of 31.10.2014, then, what had prevented him from arresting the accused and since IO has failed to arrest the accused promptly.  So, the version of the prosecution also becomes doubtful and further submitted that even if the prosecution witness No.2 Sanjay Singh is residing in the same vicinity, so, it cannot be presumed that Sanjay also knew to the accused and since during the cross­examination of PW­2, he has   admitted   that   he   was   not   aware   about   the   name   of   the   accused New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 21 Manoj. So, TIP was required to be conducted and since the TIP has not been conducted and ocular testimony of the PWs are not corroborated by the medical evidence, so, story of the prosecution becomes doubtful, so, the   benefit   of   doubts   are   liable   to   be   given   to   the   accused.  The   Ld. Counsel for accused has further submitted that PW­11 has also alleged that he heard the noise, then, he came out from his house and witnessed this occurrence and at the same time, he has also submitted that since the house of the PW­11 is not situated near occurrence, so, he could not see the occurrence. He has also deposed that only 1­2 persons were there and the other ladies were on the roofs.  The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that this witness (PW­11) had concocted the story and   further   submitted   that   occurrence   has   been   taken   place   on   dated 31.10.2014, whereas, the statement of this witness was recorded by the IO on dated 04.11.2014 and there is no explanation of the recording of the statement of this witness at the belated stage. He has further submitted that this witness has deposed that he remained in the hospital on the night of   31.10.2014   and   went   to   his   house   on   dated   01.11.2014   and   this witness remained present in his house and the statement of the witness U/S   161   was   recorded   on   dated   04.11.2014   and   in   view   of   delay   in recording of the statement of this witness and further submitted that PW­ 11   has   deposed   that   this   witness   &   wife   of   deceased  remained  in   the hospital  in  the   night   of  31.10.2014,   whereas,   PW­17,  during   his  cross­ examination,   he   has   deposed   that   he   met   to   the   wife   of   deceased   at 1.00AM near the place of occurrence.  The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that there are material contradiction in the testimonies of New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 22 PW11   &   PW17   and   further   submitted   that   if   the   wife   of   deceased remained in the hospital along with deceased on the night of 31.10.2014, then, how could she be present near the place of occurrence that too in the night of 31.10.2014 at 1.00 AM and submitted that since the PW11 claims   that   he   had   picked   the   deceased   in   injured   condition   and   his clothes were stained with blood.  But, the clothes were not seized by the police. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further submitted that had this witness taken to the deceased in injured condition to the hospital, then, his clothes could be stained with blood and IO could seize his blood stained clothes. So, the presence of this witness is not be established at the spot and further submitted that this witness is a planted witness, he has never seen any occurrence and prosecution has concocted the story and further submitted that in the cross­examination of PW­11 is looked into, he has deposed that "KAHA­ SUNI" has taken place between the accused and the family of this witness on dated 29.10.2014.   Whereas, his son, who has been examined as PW16 has deposed that even the window panes of car were broken and further submitted that testimony of PW11, PW16 & PW17 are found to be inconsistent and full of suspicion.  They cannot be relied upon and benefit of doubts are liable to be given to accused. He has further submitted that the testimony of PW2 who is allegedly an eye witness, is totally inconsistent to the testimony of IO from his statement given   to   the   IO   recorded   under   Section   161   Cr.PC.   He   has   further submitted that the statement of PW­2 allegedly recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC, he has also named both the accused, which was allegedly recorded   on   01.11.2014,   whereas,   at   the   time   of   recording   of   his New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 23 testimony   in   the   court,   PW   2   he   has   deposed   that   he   knew   only   one accused namely Anil and he has also deposed that he went to the police station   for   the   first   time   on   02.11.2014   and   if   this   witness   went   to   the police station   for the first time on 02.11.2014, then how and when, this witness came to know the name of both the accused. It is not explained by the prosecution  and  submitted  that  subsequent opinion  Ex.PX3 reveals that   the   injury   may   be   caused   with   the   blunt   object,   but,   the   brick   of wooden  danda  alleged  to  have   been  used  in the  commission  of  crime have   never   been   sent   to   the   FSL   and   submitted   that   report   of   FSL Ex.PW12/B reveals that human blood was found on the piece of brick but it also reveals "no reaction" in the column of grouping and from the report of FSL, it is not clear, as to whose blood was found thereon either it was of deceased or of any other person. It is the case of prosecution has that the   alleged   danda   blow   and   brick   blows   were   given   on   the   head   of deceased and  the alleged danda has not been sent to FSL and therefore, in the absence of danda, grouping of blood of deceased is not done that the   human   blood   found   on   the   piece   of   brick   and   clothes   was   of   the deceased and in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding grouping of blood of the deceased, the said reports of FSL are of no relevance and on   the   basis   of   such   reports,   no   conviction   can   be   awarded   to   the accused. Since, the occurrence has taken place on 31.10.2014, but the statement of Sanjay Singh, the alleged eye witness was recorded by the IO on 01.11.2014 and if the testimony of PW2 Sanjay Singh is looked into, he   has   deposed   that   his   statement   was   recorded   on   02.11.2014   and further submitted  that the statement of PW11 Dayanand Verma who is New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 24 also allegedly an eye witness was also recorded on 04.11.2014 and if the statement of Prashant Verma s/o Dayanand Verma is looked into then, he has deposed in the court that his father Dayanand Verma also went with him   to   the   police   station   on   01.11.2014.   But,   then   why   the   IO   did   not record statement of Dayanand Verma, who is allegedly an eye witness of the occurrence and also submitted that delay  in recording the statement of these two witnesses by the IO remained unexplained and as such, the testimonies   of   these   two   witnesses   are   also   suspicious   and   cannot   be relied upon. He has also submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31.10.2014 and as per the case of prosecution, IO has arrived at the spot but no effort was made by him to preserve the place of crime and the place of crime remained unattended for the considerable period and submitted that since there are cordial  relations between the Sanjay   Singh   (PW­2)   and   Dayanand   Verma   PW11   and   testimony   of Prashant Kumar (PW16) and Dayanand Verma (PW11) are also found to be   contradictory   on   the   material   points   and   further   submitted   that   the testimony   of   the   alleged   eye   witnesses   namely   Sanjay   Singh   and Dayanand Verma are found to be inconsistent, contradictory, improved, embellished   and   unreliable.   So,   such   testimonies   are   not   sufficient   for awarding conviction to both the accused who have been falsely implicated in the present case and submitted that since testimonies of these material witnesses   are   found   to   be   suspicious   and   doubtful.   So,   the   benefit   of doubts should be given to both the accused.

29. He has further submitted that the area of Nag Temple is about New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 25 1135 sq. yards and draftsman has been examined by the accused as DW­ 4 Laxman Singh, who has proved the site plan prepared by him Ex.DW4/A and he has not been cross examined by the Ld. APP for State regarding the   area   of   the   said   temple   and   submitted   that   the   testimony   of   the prosecution witnesses 19 and 20 are contradictory. PW 19 has deposed that in his cross­examination that the area of the said temple is 50 square yards, whereas, PW 20 in his cross­examination has deposed that area of the said temple 20­25 square yards.   In view of unrebutted testimony of DW 4, it is proved is on record that the area of said temple was about 1133 square yards.   It is further submitted that on dated 29.10.2014, a quarrel   had   taken   place   between   the   family   of   Dayanand   Verma   and Prashant Kumar Verma with the mother of accused. Wherein this accused Manoj, his father Chandershekhar, his mother Rita and his brother Guddu were injured by the family of these prosecution witnesses, when they tried to rescue Ms. Rita, mother of accused from PW­11 and further submitted that Dayanand Verma during his cross­examination has deposed that only KAHASUNI  was  heLd.   Further  submitted  that  son   of  Dayanand  Verma (PW11) namely Prashant Kumar Verma, who has been examined as PW 16, has alleged that bricks were pelted and also  window panes of his car were broken by the family of the accused and thus, testimony of PW 11 Dayanand   Verma   and   PW   16   PrashandKumar   Verma   are   inconsistent and   further   submitted   that   accused   Manoj   was   brutally   beaten   by   the family of Dayanand Verma, wherein, bone of his shoulder of Manoj was dislocated and he was medically examined vide MLC Ex. DW1/C. DW 1 Dr. Gurdeep has proved that this accused Manoj had suffered grievous New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 26 injuries and MLC of this accused also reveals the offence of assault and further submitted that discharge summary of this accused Manoj is proved on   record   Ex.DW3/A   which   reveals   that   this   accused   was   admitted   in Sanjay Gandhi  Memorial  hospital  on 29.10.2014,     discharged  on dated 30.10.2016. Further submitted that as per the advise of the doctor, this accused   was   suppose   to   visit   the   hospital   after   a   week   on   dated 02.11.2014 for follow up treatment. This accused Manoj was arrested on dated   02.11.2014,   so,   he   could   not   get   further   treatment   and   further submitted that  the alleged danda Ex.P­4 is planted on the accused Anil. As   his   signature   was   obtained   on   blank   paper   and   his   disclosure statement   Ex.PW19/B   was   made   thereon.   Since,   the   recovery   of   the alleged danda has been effected from the place accessible to the public and in the absence of the public witness, so, the alleged recovery of the danda becomes doubtful. It is further submitted that PW 19 and PW20 never   went   to   the   place   of   the   alleged   recovery   of   the   danda,   as   the testimony of PW 19 and PW 20 are contradictory as PW 19 has deposed that there was no school near the Nag Mandir (place of alleged recovery of   danda)   said   temple.   Whereas,   one   photograph   of   Ex.DW4/B   (colly.) reveals that there is a school near the said mandir. It is further submitted that on dated 29.10.2014, brother, mother, father and this accused Manoj were injured and MLC of this accused Manoj has been proved on record as   Ex.DW1/C   and   MLC   of   mother   of   accused   namely,   Rita   has   been proved on record Ex. DW 2/A by Dr. Rajesh who has been examined as DW2 and further submitted that MLC of father of this accused Manoj has been proved on record as Ex.DW1/B by Dr. Gurdeep Singh (DW1) and New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 27 MLC of brother of accused Guddu is also proved on record as Ex.DW1/A. Further   submitted   that   blood   group   of   the   deceased   is   not   proved   on record as not grouping of blood was done. Further submitted that accused are poor persons and despite of giving beatings to the accused and his other   family   members   on   29.10.2014   by   PW11   and   his   other   family members. No FIR was registered against the Dayanand Verma (PW11) and his other family members for assault committed on Manoj, his brother, his father and mother. Further submitted that in view of the same quarrel, Dayanand Verma (PW11)  and his son Prashant  Kumar Verma (PW16) have   deposed   against   the  accused   and   Dayanand   Verma   (PW11)   and Prashant Verma (PW­16) are the planted witnesses  and further submitted that on dated 29.10.2014, when the family members of Dayanand Verma (PW11) were beating to the mother of the accused Rita. Rita had dialed 100 number from her phone and DD no. 62B Ex.PW13/B was registered and   submitted   that   in   the   case   in   hand   Prashant   Kumar   Verma   and Dayanand Verma   have deposed against the accused only for the same reason and further submitted that accused Manoj had suffered grievous injuries   of   dislocation   of   his   shoulder.   So,   he   could   not   drive   the motorcycle nor he could cause brick blows, as alleged by the accused persons.  Further submitted that in order to prove the injury on the person of   accused   Manoj   Accused   has   been   examined   as   DW­1.   It   is   further submitted that FIR has been registered on 31.10.2014 at 11:20PM and name   of   both   the   accused   are   not   mentioned   in   the   FIR   and   further submitted that if the testimony of PW 2 is looked into, he has deposed that he   went   to   the   police   station   at   first   time   on   02.11.2014   and   further New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 28 submitted   that   PW17   has   alleged   that   he   arrived   at   the   place   of occurrence   for   the   first   time   on   the   intervening   night   31.10.2014   at 11.45PM. But, he did not record the statement of Sanjay at the spot. It is further submitted that if the testimony of PW­2 is looked into, then, he has deposed that he went to the Police Station for the first time on 02.11.2014 and submitted that the statement of Sanjay Singh recorded u/s. 161 of CrPC   reveals   the   date   of   it's   recording   as   01.11.2014   and   thus,   the testimony   of   the   prosecution   witnesses   i.e   PW­2   and   PW­17   becomes doubtful in view of inconsistency therein. As the same are inconsistent to each other and also to the statement of Sanjay singh u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.   It is   further   deposed   that   Dayanand   Verma   has   deposed   that   he   had accompanied the deceased to the hospital on the date of occurrence and PW 2 Sanjay Singh and PW 11 Dayanand Verma have deposed that their clothes were blood stained, but IO had failed to seize the alleged blood stained clothes of Sanjay Singh and Dayanand Verma which creates the doubt in the version of the prosecution.   It is further submitted that the testimony of Dayanand Verma (PW­11) is looked into, that the wife of the deceased has also accompanied them to the hospital from the place of occurrence and she remained in the hospital on the night. But police has failed to record the statement of wife of deceased, PCR staff and also of the staff of CAT Ambulance, wherein, the deceased was allegedly taken to the hospital. Further submitted that had the testimonies of PCR staff and  staff of CAT ambulance been recorded, truth could be brought before the court and further submitted that PW2 Sanjay Singh, PW 11 Dayanand Verma   and   PW­16   Prashant   Kumar   Verma   are   the   planted   witnesses, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 29 their   testimonies   are   full   of   contradictions.   In   view   of   the   quarrel   held between   the   family   of   the   accused   and   family   of   Dayanand   Verma   on 29.10.2014, Dayanand and Prashant Kumar Verma have deposed against the accused.  Further submitted that case of the prosecution is that in view of   the   quarrel   between   the   family   of   the   accused   with   Dayanand,   the deceased has been killed by the accused, but Ld. Counsel for accused has   submitted   that   it   is   absolutely   improbable   accused   would   kill   the deceased,   who   was   neither   friend   nor   relative   of   Dayanand   Verma. Further   submitted   that   Dayanand   Verma   has   deposed   that   the   wife   of deceased remained in the hospital on the night of 31.10.2014, whereas PW 17 has deposed that he met to the wife of the deceased in the said night, when he had   gone at the spot at 11:45PM and remained at the spot 12:45 AM and thus, the testimonies of PW 17 and PW11 Dayanand Verma   are   contradictory   to   each   other.   So   the   same   are   doubtful   and further submitted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW­11   and   PW­16   and   further   submitted   that   the   testimony   of   PW­16 Prashant Kumar Verma is also found to be improved and embellished and also contradictory to the testimony of his father, who has been examined in   the   court   as   PW­11.   He   has   also   submitted   that   since   the   age   of Dayanand Verma was about 61 years at the time of alleged occurrence, so he could not see the alleged occurrence from the distance of about 170 feet   as   the   distance   between   the   place   of   alleged   occurrence   and   his house was of about 170 feet and it was not probable for PW11 to see the occurrence, which allegedly took place on dated 31.10.2014 at about 6:00 PM that too after setting the sun.   He has submitted that PW­2, PW­11 New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 30 and PW­16 are planted witnesses and further submitted that PW­16 has deposed that he did not know Sanjay (PW2) till the date of occurrence and further   submitted   that   even   his   father   was   not   acquainted   with   Sanjay Singh (PW2) at the time of occurrence. Whereas, PW­11 has deposed that Sanjay Singh is his neighbor. He used to meet him on regular basis almost everyday and further submitted that the testimony of PW­2, PW­11 and   PW­16   are   found   to   be   contradictory   as   there   are   three   versions regarding the same. He has further submitted that PW­11 has deposed during   his   cross   examination   that   he   had   returned   to   his   house   on 01.11.2014  from  the  Balaji  Action Hospital  and in the  morning,  he  had again   went   to   the   said   hospital   and   remained   there   till   11:00   PM   and submitted that if this witness Dayanand Verma remained in Balaji Action hospital from the morning to 11:00 PM on 01.11.2014, then at what time, he   had   gone   to   the   police   station   on   01.11.2014,   as   his   statement   is alleged to have been recorded by the IO on 01.11.2014. Whereas, PW 2 has   deposed   that   he   went   to   the   police   station   for   the   first   time   on 02.11.2014.   He has further submitted that PW­16 has deposed that he had   received   the   information   regarding   the   occurrence   from   his   wife Pooja,   but,   no   statement   of   Pooja   was   recorded   by   the   IO   during investigation   nor   she   has   been   examined   in   the   court.   He   has   further submitted   that   if   the   testimony   of   PW­11   is   looked   into,   then   he   has deposed that on the night of 31.10.2014, he and the wife of the deceased stayed in the hospital, but, his testimony is found to be contradictory to the testimony of PW­17 as PW­17 has deposed in the court that he went to the   spot   at   11:45   PM   on   31.10.2014   and   he   found   the   wife   of   the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 31 deceased in the street and further submitted that the statement of Ct. Ravi Hooda recorded under section 161 Cr PC Ex. PW­17/DA reveals that he has deposed therein that a call of JHAGDA was received at 6:15 PM and he went to the spot alongwith PW­17 SI Sandeep Tushir and arrived in the house   of   Vijender   Meena   (since   deceased)   and   met   to   his   wife   and Sandeep   Tushir   had   also   enquired   from   her   and   also   recorded   her statement, but,   no statement of wife of the deceased has been brought on record.  He has further submitted that such statement of Ravi Hooda is found to be contradictory to the statement of PW­11, who has deposed that   his   wife   stayed   on   the   hospital   in   the   night   of   31.10.2014   and submitted that if the wife of the deceased was there in the Balaji Action Hospital   then   how   could,   she   present   in   the   house.   He   has   further submitted that at the time of recording of the statement of PW­17, he has admitted that statement of Ravi Hooda was incorrect and tried to rectify the same that wife of the deceased was found in the street and further submitted   that   if   the   husband   of   this   lady   was   hospitalized   in   serious condition, then how could she roam in the street, that too in the midnight and   submitted   that   for   the   best   reasons   known   must   be   known   to IO/Inspector   Sudhir   for   withholding   the   statement   of   the   wife   of   this deceased. She is not named in the list of witnesses nor examined in the court.  He has further submitted that had there been any enmity between the family of Dayanand Verma (PW11) and the family of the accused, how could the accused cause any harm to Vijender with whom they had no relation   of  any  kind.   He  has   further   submitted   that   since  there   was  no enmity between the deceased and the accused or their family members, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 32 so it was not probable to kill to the deceased without having any motive and further submitted that PW­17 has tried to prove the photographs Ex. PW­17/K­1 to Ex. PW­17/K­4 which were allegedly taken  by him from his mobile phone and he has submitted that the said photographs were not proved  on  record,   neither  the  said  mobile   phone,  from   which,  the  said photographs were clicked has been seized nor produced in the court and nor certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act has been filed by this PW­ 17, so in the absence of any cogent and admissible evidence, the said photographs  cannot  be held  to be proved  one  and also submitted  that report of FSL Ex. PW­12/A reveals that the blood was detected on the alleged clothes of the deceased, but no blood was detected from the earth control and similarly, the report of forensic Ex. PW­12/C reveals about the presence of blood group 'O' on the T­shirt and baniyan but "no reaction"

on the jean,  piece of brick and gauze  of blood  are written  therein  and further submitted that grouping of blood of the deceased was not done, so in the absence of any blood group of deceased, it cannot be inferred that the blood found on the alleged shirt and baniyan was of the deceased. He has further submitted that PW­17 has admitted that he did not record the statement   of   Sanjay   on   the   intervening   night   of   31.10.2014   and 01.11.2014.     He   has   deposed   that   he   had   recorded   the   statement   of Sanjay on 01.11.2014. But,if the testimony of PW­2 Sanjay is looked into, he   has   deposed,   during   his   cross   examination   that   his   statement   was recorded on dated 02.11.2014 and has further submitted that PW­2 has also admitted in his cross examination that at the time of making the call to PCR or in his statement  recorded  by the  IO, he  had  never  told the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 33 names of the accused and submitted that this PW­17 has admitted that for the first time, he went to the spot at 11:45 PM on 31.10.2014.   He has further   submitted   that   since   the   testimony   of   PW­2   who   is   the   alleged witness is found to be improved,   embellished and contradictory, so his testimony cannot be relied upon.  He has further submitted that the MLC of  the   deceased  prepared   in  Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   Hospital   reveals that   the   deceased   Vijender   Kumar   Meena   was   admitted   in   the   said hospital   on   31.10.2017   at   7:10   PM   and   he   was   taken   from   the   said hospital at 7:30 PM and the death summary of the deceased prepared by Sri Action Balaji Medical Institute reveals that he was admitted in the said hospital   on   31.10.2014   at   9:15   PM   and   submitted   that   the   distance between Sri Action Balaji Medical Institute and Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital is of 3 / 3.5 KM and it could not take such huge time in taking Vijender to the said   hospital and submitted that the time gap of taking Vijender from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and arrival in Shri Action Balaji Medical Institute is large one, which is not explained. He has further submitted   that   the   testimony   of   PW­19   is   also   not   reliable   who   has deposed   that   he   had   arrested   the   accused   Anil   from   Pratap   Nagar   in Rajasthan from his hostel and this accused Anil got recovered danda and also submitted that at the time of evidence, the Predecessor of this court had seen the said danda and given the observation that no blood stains were found thereon. He has further submitted that the alleged eye witness namely PW­2 Sanjay has alleged that accused had given repeated brick blows on the head of the deceased, but, the same is not corroborated with the medical evidence, so the testimony of the eye witness is found to be New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 34 doubtful and it cannot be relied upon.  So, the benefit of doubts are liable to be given to the accused and it appears to be blind murder and false case   has   been   planted   on   these   accused   who   are   poor   persons   and accused Anil was a student of Engineering. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted   that   PCR   Form   is   also   not   duly   proved   as   the   PCR   Form Ex.PW4/A reveals that call was received by the police, a phone number but it is not proved on the record as to who was the owner of the said mobile   phone.    The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   applicant/accused   has   further submitted that PW­2 Sanjay Singh, PW­11 Dayanand Verma claim that on the   date   of   alleged   occurrence,   they   had   taken   the   Vijender   (since deceased) to the hospital.  But the at the same time, he has admitted that MLC of Vijender reveals that Vijender was brought by Neha Sharma CAT Staff and further submitted that they had taken Vijender to the hospital, but the  MLC  Ex.PW14/A  and  it is mentioned  therein  that  Vijender  was brought  to hospital  by Neha.   He has further  submitted  that PW­2 has alleged that 20/25 times brick blows were given on the head of the injured, but,   the   MLC   does   not   reveal   that   20/25   injuries   on   his   person   even postmortem   report   Ex.PX1   does   not   reveal   that   20/25   injuries   on   the person of deceased and further submitted that statement of Sanjay Singh was   recorded   by   the   IO   on   01.11.2014,   whereas,   the   statement   of Dayanand Verma was recorded on dated 04.11.2014 and in view of delay in   recording   the   statement   of   these   eye­witnesses,   the   story   of   the prosecution   becomes   doubtful.     The   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused  has further   submitted   that   PW­11   has   alleged   that   at   the   time   of   quarrel between the family's members of Dayanand Verma and family's members New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 35 of accused, 100 number was dialed by the deceased and this fact has not been proved by the prosecution.  He has further submitted that in order to prove the motive, the PW­11 has deposed that deceased had dialed 100 number on 29.10.2014, but, this fact is not proved on record and further submitted that PW­16 is son of Dayanand Verma and this witness has also   been   examined   to   proved   the   motive   behind   this   occurrence   and further submitted that since this witness Sanjay Singh did not know to the accused.   So, TIP was required to be conducted and further submitted that   TIP   has   not   been   conducted   and   the   testimony   of   Sanjay   Kumar Singh (PW 2) is full of improvements. As, he has deposed that at the time of recording of the evidence in the court, the son of the deceased also came out of his and  said that his father should be saved from the hands of the accused and the testimony of PW­2 is full of contradictions, as on the one side, he has deposed that he has seen the accused beating to the deceased from the space between the two doors and when the accused had fled away from the spot,  then, someone had opened the bolt of the door of his   house and if the bolt of the door of the house was opened after fleeing away of the accused from the spot, then, how could the son of the deceased Piyush see the accused while beating his father and how could he say that his father should be save from the accused. He has also submitted that PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh has deposed that accused after commission of the crime, the accused fled away from the spot on their pulsar motorcycle and further submitted that seizure memo Ex.PW17/H reveals  that  motorcycle  seized  is not  pulsar,  but  is Honda   Twister  and further submitted that testimony of Dayanand PW­11 is also suspicious New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 36 one, as distance between the place of alleged occurrence and house of Dayanand is of about 170 feet and on the date of alleged occurrence, the sun set at 05:35 PM and occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 6.00PM and further submitted that  this is unauthorized colony, where the street light were not  available and in the darkness, it was not probable for this witness to see the accused from such a distant place i.e 170 feet and further submitted that if the IO had come to understand about the about the accused on the night of 31.10.2014 then what was prevented him from arresting the accused on 31.10.2014 and since IO has failed to arrest the accused   promptly.     So,   the   version   of   the   prosecution   also   becomes doubtful and further submitted that the ocular testimony of the PWs are not corroborated by the medical evidence, testimonies of the alleged eye witnesses are contradictory and improved and suspected. So, story of the prosecution becomes doubtful and submitted that since the prosecution has   failed   to   prove   it's   case   beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   thus,   the testimonies of these material prosecution witnesses are doubtful. So, the benefit of doubts are liable to be given to the accused. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that in view of inconsistency in the occular testimony and medical evidence, the testimonies of PW2 and PW11 has become suspicious.  He has relied upon many judgments to be discussed hereinafter:

1.   State   of   NCT   of   Delhi   V.   Taj   Mohd.   @   Taju   and   Anr.,   Criminal L.P. No.8/12 MANU/DE/3448/2013,

2. Dalip @ Pappu Vs. State Crl. MANU/DE/3149/2012,

3. Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla Vs. State of  New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 37 Maharashtra MANU/DE/3149/2012. 

4. Smt. Bimla Devi Vs. State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal   No.1026/2002, MANU/SC/0306/2003,

5. State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Mohan Mulji and another  MANU/SC/0069/1994 and

6. Bhikhwa @ Prakash Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal   Appeal No.274/1998, MANU/DE/4064/2006 

30. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record. 

31. It is the case of the prosecution that  DD No.59 B was lodged on 31.10.2014 at 6:13 PM, wherein it is mentioned that an information was received from the PCR that in Gali No. 9, Jain Nagar, Karala opposite Nag Mandir, Sector 20, Rohini, Delhi, a quarrel had taken place and blood was oozing out from the head of the injured.  After lodging of the said DD no.

59 B, the same was assigned to SI Sandeep Tushir, who alongwith Ct. Ravi arrived at the spot and came to understand that injured was already taken to hospital and this SI went to SGM Hospital and it was revealed that patient Vijender Meena was already taken to an unknown hospital by his guardian and on finding the MLC, an offence punishable u/s. 308 of IPC was found and FIR was registered. IO is alleged to have met with the complainant Sanjay Singh (PW­2) who claimed to be an eye witness on dated  31.10.2014  and IO is alleged  to have recorded  the  statement  of Sanjay Singh Ex.PW4/DA  on dated 01.11.2014, wherein, it is stated that New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 38 his wife was giving tuition to the son of the deceased namely Piyush, who is about  3  years  of  age  and  on  dated  31.10.2014  witness  Sanjay  was present in his house and his wife was giving tuition to the children and when the time of tuition of Piyush, (who is son of deceased) was going to be overed and it was about 6:00 PM, this witness had heard the noise and he tried to open the door of his house and found that the main gate of his house was bolted from outside and he peeped from the space in the gate and found that accused Anil was having a DANDA in his hand and he had given DANDA blow on the head of Vijender Meena, who fell down on the earth and Vijender was caught and snubbed by Anil and Manoj who is the brother of accused Anil had given  brick blow on the head of Vijender with full brick repeatedly and Vijender was crying with the pain and accused Anil had caught the hands of the Vijender tightly.  He was exhorting that BHAI  YEH  SALA  HAMARE  AUR  VERMA  KE  JHAGADE  MAI JAYADA CHOUDHARY BAN RAHA THA ISS SALE KO TAB TAK MARO JAB TAK ISKI JAAN NA NIKAL JAYE and Manoj had given repeated blows on his head and thereafter both the accused fled away from the spot on their motorcycle and while, they were fleeing away from the spot Manoj had thrown away the brick   near the place of occurrence. Whereas, Anil had taken the DANDA used in the alleged commission of offence, with him and accused Manoj was driving the Motorcycle, whereas Anil was sitting on its rear seat. He has also stated that he dialed 100 number and some one opened the bolt of his gate. He found that clothes of Vijender were stained  with  blood  as the  blood  was oozing  out  from  his head  and  he made   to   reach   Vijender   in   the   hospital   and   after   leaving   him   in   the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 39 hospital, he returned home at 9.00PM and at about 12 midnight, IO/ SI Sandeep Tushir arrived at the spot and SI Sandeep Tushir had prepared site   plan   of   the   place   of   occurrence,   at   his   instance   and     took   blood stained earth,and also taken earth from a bit distance where the blood was lying   and prepared parcels and sealed the parcels with the seal of ST   and   blood   stained   brick   was   also   seized   and   prepared   the   seizure memo and obtained the signatures of this witness thereon and also stated that blood stained brick was also recovered on his pointing out. Parcel thereof was   prepared and sealed  with the seal of ST and it was also seized. It is alleged that accused Anil and Manoj in furtherance of their common  intention  had done  brutal  attack  on  Vijender  and  he  had  also stated that first IO had taken the sealed parcels with him and on calling, this  witness   had   gone  to  the   police   station  and   such   statement   of  this witness is alleged to have been recorded on 01.11.2014 by SI Sandeep Tushir.

32. Whereas,   Sh.   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh,   has   been   examined   as PW­2. He is alleged eye witness of the occurrence. He has deposed that his wife gave tuitions to the children in his house and Piyush is son of deceased Vijender Kumar Meena and he also used to come to take tuition in his house and he was 3­4 years old and a student of nursery.  He has further deposed that on dated 31.10.2014, he came to his house from his business at 05:15 to 05:30 PM and at that time, his wife along with his two children and Piyush were present in his house. He has further deposed that since parents of Piyush used to come to take Piyush and on that day, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 40 they had not come to take back Piyush, therefore, he was present.  Other children, who had come to take tuition had already gone by that time and at about 05:45 PM or 06:00 PM, he heard noise from outside of his house and at that time, he was busy with his mobile and when, he tried to go out of the house, after hearing the noise, he found that the door of his house was bolted   from  outside.    He has  further   deposed  that  he saw  from  a window   opening   in   his   door,   that   in   the   gali   that   one   person   namely Vijender   Kumar   Meena   was   lying   on   the   road   and   one   person   by   the name of Anil hit one danda on the head of Vijender Kumar Meena and also   caught   the   hands   of   Vijender   Kumar   Meena.     He   has   correctly identified accused Anil in the Court. He has also deposed that Manoj took a full brick and repeatedly hitting that brick on the back side of head of Vijender Kumar Meena for about 20­25 times and Vijender was shouting and this witness was also shouting from inside of his house by saying that CHHOD CHHOD MAR JAYEGA WOH and he kept on banging his door, so that someone  could open  the door.  This witness has also identified accused Manoj in the court.   He has further deposed that accused Anil was saying "BHAI ISKO TAB TAK MARO JAB TAK YE SALA MAR NA JAYE, VERMA KE JHAGDE MEIN YE CHAUDHARY BAN RAHA THA"

and many neighbourers gathered in the gali and then, both the accused had fled away from the spot on black colour Pulsar motorcycle on the left side of his office and someone from the public opened the door of his house   and   he   came   out   of   his   house   and   Piyush   had   also   came   and started shouting and Piyush said "UNCLE YEH MERE PAPA KO MAAR RAHE HAIN, MERE PAPA KO BACHA LO, YE MERE PAPA HAIN" and New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 41 since Piyush was also crying, so,  he sent Piyush inside of his house with his wife.  He has further deposed that Vijender was lying with his face and front side towards the ground and he tried to pick him and a lot of blood was oozing out of head of Vijender and he got nervous and he tried to search his mobile in his pocket, but, it was not there at that time, so, he ran inside his house and brought his mobile and made a call to PCR at 100 number.  He has further deposed that the police official, who attended the said call on PCR enquired from him whether ambulance should be sent first or police and he told that person that ambulance be sent first and meanwhile,   this   witness   and   others   tried   to   lift   Vijender   and   after   2­3 minutes, some PCR van official called him on his mobile, that person was enquiring the address stating that he was at Nag Mandir and was unable to locate his address and he then, went to Nag Mandir on his bike and brought the PCR van on the spot.  The PCR van could not reach his gali, since it was narrow and it was parked in the main gali.  Then, this witness, Vermaji and PCR officials   picked Vijender Meena by "kandhey pe hath laga ke" and he means that one hand of Vijender was kept on his shoulder and   another   hand   of   Vijender   was   kept   on   the   shoulder   of   Dayanand Verma.  Vijender was made to lie in the PCR Van and the wife of Vijender also arrived. When they reached at main road, they saw ambulance was coming and Vijender was shifted in the ambulance and wife of Vijender and Dayanand Verma and Vijender Meena were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital(SGM).  He has also deposed that doctor shaved hairs of Vijender and he was given "Patti Vagarah" and Vijender was shouting at   that   time   and   Vijender   was   being   treated   and   in   the   meanwhile, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 42 relatives of Vijender also came to hospital at about 08:30 or 09:00 PM, he returned to his house.  He has further deposed that when, he arrived his house, his wife had told him that police from local police station had come. Thereafter, at 12:00 midnight, local police again came and enquired from him and local police collected blood, blood stained earth and sample of earth.  He has further deposed that police also asked him, if, he had seen, where the brick etc. were thrown, on which, he told the police that the brick was thrown towards bushes and police searched the brick and the brick was found from the bushes.  The brick was kept in a parcel of cloth and was sealed but, he did not remember the impression of seal.  He had signed the seizure memo of brick vide memo Ex.PW2/A.  He has further deposed   that   sample   of   earth   and   the   blood   stained   earth   were   also similarly sealed after keeping the same in plastic boxes and they were also   taken   into   possession.   The   blood   stained   earth   and   sample   earth were   taken   into   possession   vide   seizure   memos   vide   Ex.PW2/B   & Ex.PW2/C and his statement was recorded by the police. This witness has further deposed that both the accused are real brothers and reside in the same   Gali,   in   which,   he   resides   but,   he   had   seen   Anil   prior   to   the occurrence.   He had not seen Manoj prior to the occurrence and again said that he had seen Manoj prior to the occurrence by face and he did not know his name at that time.   This witness has further deposed that after 2­3 days of the occurrence either on second or third of November, 2014, he was called by the police to the police station.  His statement was recorded in the police station on 02.11.2014 and his signature was taken on the statement.   He had identified Manoj in the police station on that New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 43 day, as he was sitting in a room in the police station and he was asked to identify him.  He has further deposed that after 4­5 days from 02.11.2014, he was again called to the police station and was asked to identify Anil and   he   had   also   identified   Anil   in   the   police   station.   On   that   day,   his statement   was   not   recorded,   but,   his   signatures   on   the   documents   of arrest were taken.  He has identified his signature at point A on the  memo of arrest Ex.PW2/D of accused Anil.  Similarly, he had also signed memo of arrest of accused Manoj Ex.PW2/E. This witness has identified the brick Ex.P1,   earth   control   Ex.P2   &   Danda   Ex.P4.   This   witness   was   cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross­examination, he has deposed that he has told to the police in his statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. that on 31.10.2014, he came to his house from his business at 5:15 to 5:30 PM. This witness was confronted with his statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.PC. of the witness Ex.PW2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he did not remember whether or not, he had told the police that since parents of Piyush used to come to take Piyush and on that  day, they had not come to take   Piyush,  however  he was present.   He has further deposed that other children, who had come to take tuition had already left by that time. This witness was confronted with his statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. of the witness, Ex.PW2/DA, where, it was not so recorded.   He has further deposed that he had told to the police that he was busy with his mobile. This witness was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told to the police that he saw in the gali one person was lying on the road and initially, he had not New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 44 told name of the said person and later on told to the police that the name of the said person was Vijender Kumar Meena. He was confronted with his statement u/s.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told to the police that he was also shouting from inside of his house by stating "CHHOD DO­ CHHOD DO, MAR JAEGA WOH," and he kept on banging his door, so that someone could open the door. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.  Ex.PW 2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told to the police that Piyush also came out of the house and started shouting and Piyush said "UNCLE YEH MERE PAPA KO MAAR RAHE HAI, MERE PAPA KO BACHA LO, YEH MERE PAPA HAI." However, since Piyush was also crying so he sent Piyush inside his house with his wife. He was confronted with statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC.   Ex.PW2/DA,   where   it   was   not   so   recorded.     He   has   further deposed   that   he   had   told   to   the   police   that   at   that   time,   Vijender   was laying with his face and front side towards the ground and he tried to pick him up. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. Ex. PW 2/DA, where it was not so recorded.  He has further deposed that he had told to the police that he got nervous and he tried to locate his mobile in his pocket, but, it was not there at that time, so, he ran and  went inside his house and brought his mobile and made a call to PCR at 100 number.   He   was   confronted   with   his   statement   recorded   u/s   161   of Cr.P.C.   Ex.PW2/DA,   where   it   was   not   so   recorded.   He   has   further deposed   that   he   had   told   to   the   police   that   the   police   official,   who attending   the   said   call   on   PCR   inquired   from   him,   whether   ambulance New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 45 should   be   sent   first   or   police   and   on   which,   he   told   that   person   that ambulance be sent first.  He was confronted with his statement u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C.   Ex.PW2/DA,   where   it   was   not   so   recorded.   He   has   further deposed that he had told to the police that meanwhile, this witness and others tried to lift Vijender and after 2­3 minutes, some PCR van official called him on his mobile and that person was inquiring about the address stating that he was at Nag Mandir and was unable to locate his address. He   was   confronted   with   his   statement   recorded   u/s.161   of   Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told to the police that  then he went to Nag Mandir on his bike and brought the PCR van on the spot and the PCR van could not reach  in his gali, since it was narrow and it was parked in the main gali. He has further deposed that then, he himself, Vermaji and PCR officials by "KANDHEY PE HATH LAGA KE" took to the injured to PCR van, by words "KANDHEY PE HATH LAGE KE", he meant that one hand of Vijender was kept on his shoulder   and   another   hand   of   Vijender   was   kept   on   the   shoulder   of Dayanand Verma and Vijender was made to lie in the PCR van.  He has further deposed that by the time, wife of Vijender had also arrived, then this witness, wife of Vijender and Dayanand Verma accompanied injured in the PCR van and when the PCR van reached at the main road, they saw   ambulance   was   coming   and   then,   Vijender   was   shifted     in   the ambulance, wife of Vijender and Dayanand Verma had taken the Vijender to   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial     Hospital.   He   was   confronted   with   his statement recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.PC. Ex. PW 2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told to the police that when New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 46 he reached his house, his wife told him that police from local police station had  come.  He was confronted  with his  statement  recorded  u/s.  161  of Cr.P.C.   Ex.   PW   2/DA,   where   it   was   not   so   recorded.   He   has   further deposed that he had told to the police that police also asked him, if he had seen, where the  brick etc were thrown, on which, he told the police that brick was thrown towards bushes. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s.161 of Cr.P.C.   Ex.PW2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   told   to   the   police   that   both   the accused   are   real   brothers   and   resided   in   the   same   gali,   in   which,   he resides, but, he had seen Anil prior to the occurrence and he had not seen Manoj prior to occurrence. He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s.161 Cr.PC. Ex.PW2/DA, where it was not so recorded.  He has further deposed that he had told to the police that he had seen Manoj prior to occurrence by face and he did not know his name, at that time. He was confronted with his statement u/s.161 of Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/DA, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he has been residing in this locality, since the year 2011, in his own house and he was in the business of fire safety appliances, which he was doing from his house and he alone was doing the field job i.e. marketing of equipments and he did not have any fix routine regarding his work in the year 2014 and there was no fix time   of his returning home from his work. He has further deposed that generally, he used to return around 5:00 pm. But sometimes he used to return late and voluntarily deposed that on 31.10.2014, he had returned home at about 5:15 - 5:30 PM and he did not remember whether he had told   to   the   police   in   his   statement   recorded   u/s.161   of   Cr.P.C.   that   on New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 47 31.10.2014,   he   had   returned   home   at   about   5:15   ­   5:30   PM.   He   was confronted with his statement recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.PC.  Ex. PW 2/DA, where  it was not so recorded.  He has  further  deposed  that he did not know whether there was a resident's welfare association in his locality, during   October   2014   and   again   said,   it   might   be   in  existence.   He   has further deposed that he has seen board of Resident's Welfare Association (RWA) on   a street  and  he was not  member  of RWA, during   the said period.   He has further deposed that the tuition center might have been opened by his wife later on, but, he failed to tell exactly as to when it was opened and 7­8 children  of the locality from one or two streets adjacent to his street, used to come for tuition, during October, 2014.  He and his wife were   acquainted   with   the   parents   of   the   said   students.   He   has   further deposed that he knew Mr. Dayanand Verma, since the year 2011 and at that time i.e. on 31.10.2014, grand children of Mr. Verma were also taking tuitions from his wife. He has denied that being neighbourers, he was on regular day to day visiting terms with Mr. Verma, as well as, his sons and also used to take drinks with them and deposed that occasionally on the holidays, he and Mr. Verma used to meet sometimes, whenever they were on the street outside their houses. He has further deposed that he had come to know Mr. Vijender Meena about two months prior to the incident, when his son Piyush started visiting his house for taking tuitions and at that time he did not know his address, as well as, gali number and since when,   he   was   staying   there.   He   has   further   deposed   that   as   on 31.10.2014 he was aware that Mr. Vijender Meena was working in the Air Force, but, he did not know the designation and he was not on visiting New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 48 terms with Mr. Meena prior to the incident and he did not know whether Mr. Meena had started residing in the locality since about beginning of year 2013.  He has further deposed that the distance between his house and house of Mr. Dayanand Verma is about 170 feet as there are five plots of 100 sq. yards and a road no. 6 which is 20 feet wide between their house and out these five plots, houses are constructed on 2/3  plots and he could not say whether or not, on 31.10.2014, the sun set was at 5:37 PM. He has further deposed that he had made all to the PCR at about 06:05 ­6:10 PM. He has denied that at the time when he made call to the PCR, there was darkness and nothing was visible or when the incident took place there was darkness and nothing was visible. He has further deposed that prior to the incident he had never met the accused persons.

He has again said that he had once or twice seen Anil, but, there was no talk   between   them   on   any   occasion.   He   has   further   deposed   that   the house   of   accused   persons   was   about   2­3   plots   ahead   of   Mr.   Verma's house and he was not aware, as to how many family members of accused persons were residing in the said house. He has further deposed that the family of Mr. Verma consisted of he, his wife, two sons and their wives and two grand daughters and one grand son. At that time parents of Mr. Verma were not residing with him and he had heard from the residents of the locality that one or two days prior to 31.10.2014, there was a quarrel between Mr. Verma and his family members and accused persons and their family members. He has denied that he had not merely heard about the quarrel or that he had actively participated in the quarrel on behalf of Mr. Verma and his family and had  also given beating to the accused and New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 49 their family members. He has denied that in view of said enmity he had falsely named accused Manoj and Anil before the police in conspiracy with Mr. Verma, taking advantage of the fact that some unknown persons had assaulted Mr. Meena   near his house. He has denied that at the time of incident, there was darkness and visibility was very low or that it was not possible   for   him   to   identify   or   recognize,   as   to   which   persons   had assaulted Mr. Meena.  He has admitted that he had never told names of the   accused   to   the   police   and   he   had   neither   told   the   names   of   the accused persons in his PCR call nor to the police in his statement u/s 161 CrPC.  Again said he had told name of one accused person to the police and he had told the name of the said accused to the police at about 12:00 in the night. He has further deposed that he had not mentioned name of the said accused in the medical record of Mr. Meena, which was prepared in SGM Hospital and Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute.  He has admitted that   he   had   not   told   name   of   the   said   accused   either   to   the   police personnels who arrived at the spot in the PCR or the police personnels who were present in the hospital. He has denied that on 31.10.2014, he did not come to his house from his business at 5:15 ­5:30 PM or parents of   Piyush   did   not   use   to   come   to   take   Piyush   or   that   Piyush   was   not present in his home, on the said day. He has denied that he was not at home, however no occasion had arisen for him to busy with his mobile or that he did not see in the gali one person was lying on the road or he did not tell to the police that the name of the said person was Vijender Kumar Meena. He has denied that he was not shouting from inside his house by stating "CHHOD DO CHHOD DO, MAR JAEGA WOH,". He has denied New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 50 that Piyush did not come out of his house and had not shouted "UNCLE YEH MERE PAPA KO MAAR RAHE HAI, MERE PAPA KO BACHA LO, YEH MERE PAPA HAI" or that he did not cry or that he had not send Piyush inside his house with his wife. He has denied that at that time, he did not try to pick Vijender,   who was laying with his face towards the ground or that he had not seen the incident.  He has denied that he had concocted the story with regard to Police Official who attending the said call on PCR inquired from him, whether ambulance should be sent first or police and upon which he told that person that ambulance be sent first. Meanwhile,   him   and   others   tried   to   lift   Vijender   and   after   2­3   minutes, some   PCR   van   official   called   him   on   his   mobile   and   that   person   was inquiring the address stating that he was at Nag Mandir and was unable to locate   his   address.   He  has   further   deposed   that   he   was   called   by   the police to PS Begumpur for the first time on 02.11.2014, and prior to that, he had not gone to the PS and no document except arrest memo of Manoj was prepared in his presence on 02.11.2014 in the PS. He has further deposed that on 31.10.2014, his wife was taking tuitions of approximately 7­8 students of class V and VI and those students were staying about 5­6 streets away from his house.   He has further deposed that few parents used to come to take their children from their house   and few students used to go on their own. He has further deposed that on 31.10.2014, the tuition   was   overed   at   about   5.30­5.45   pm   and   at   the   time   of   incident except his children, there was one more student present in his house.  He has denied that at the time of incident, his wife was giving  tuition to the children,  who  were   all  inside  his  house   and  their  parents  were  waiting New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 51 outside his house and voluntarily stated that   at that time only one child namely Piyush was in his house, although his tuition was overed and the other children had left. He has further deposed that he had told the police that at the time of incident only Piyush was in his house, as his tuition was overed, but, his parents had not reached at his house to pick him, while the other children had already left.  He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW2/DA, where it is not so recorded and then this witness was made to read his statement Ex.PW2/DA and after reading the same.   He has admitted it to be correct that he had  stated to the police in his statement Ex.PW2/DA, the portion A to A that his wife was giving tuition and at that time, tuition of Piyush was going to be overed. He has denied that  he has deposed falsely that the tuition of Piyush was overed or that   the other children had left his home, as he has   fabricated a story in connivance with Mr. Dayanand Verma in order to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.   He is denied that the parents of the other children were waiting outside his house for the tuition to be overed, when, the alleged incident had occurred.  He has further deposed that when, he came out of his house, the crowd had already gathered, as the incident had already occurred and voluntarily stated that he had seen the incident occurring from inside of his house.   He has denied that he has not seen the incident or that he has deposed falsely  or that  accused Manoj did not struck brick on the back side of the head of Vijender Kumar Meena 20­25 times as alleged   or   that     he   was   not   present   at   the   spot.   He   has   denied   that Vijender Kumar Meena was not shouting or that he was also not shouting from   inside   his  house  or  stating   that  "CHHOD  DO,   CHHOD  DO,   MAR New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 52 JAYEGA WOH" and he kept on banging his door so that someone can open the door) He has denied that at the time of alleged incident accused Anil did not say "BHAI ISKO TAB TAK MAARO JAB TAK YE SALA MAR NA   JAYE   VERMA   KE   JHAGDE   MEIN   YE   CHAUDHARY   BAN   RAHA THA" as he was not present at the spot.  He has denied that Manoj and Anil did not leave the spot on any pulsar of Black colour or they did not flee on that bike  He has denied that  no one had opened his door or that he did not come out of his house or that  Piyush did not come out of the house or that Piyush had   not shouted "UNCLE YEH MERE PAPA KO MAAR   RAHE   HAIN,MERE   PAPA   KO   BACHO   LO,   YEH   MERE   PAPA HAIN' or that he had not sent Piyush inside his house with his wife.   He has denied that he has concocted a false story or levelled false allegations against the accused persons or that he had not seen Vijender lying with his face towards the ground or that he had not picked Vijender.  He has further deposed that while picking up the deceased his clothes were also stained with blood and he had not given those clothes to the police and had   also   not   told   the   police   about   his   blood   stained   clothes.     He   has denied that he had not told the police the said fact, as his clothes were not stained  with blood and he reached SGM hospital  at about 6.30 pm on dated   31.10.2014 and he did not know as to who other persons were present in the hospital, as he was not acquainted with the other persons accompanying   the   deceased.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   left SGM hospital after about half hour of reaching there, when relatives of the deceased had reached the hospital.  He has further deposed that he had returned to his house from SGM hospital at about 8.30 pm and the police New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 53 officials   came   to   his   house   at   about   9.30­10.00   pm.   He   has   further deposed that the police stayed there for about half hour and during this period the police prepared site plan,   lifted the blood stained earth and picked brick at his instance and took it  away with them.  He has further deposed that he also told them about the incident and the police left the spot   at   about   10.30   pm.   This   witness   was   shown   a   photograph Ex.PW11/DB and after seeing, he has admitted it  to be correct that  in the photograph   Ex.PW11/DB,   blood   is   at   point   X.   Points   X1   and   X2   in photograph   Ex.PW11/DB   are   depicting   the   position   of   vacant   plot   and point X is in gali which is adjacent to vacant plot and the witness was also shown a photograph  Ex.PW11/DX1 and after seeing, he has  admitted it to be  correct  that  point  Y1 is depicting   position  of his house.     He  has admitted to be correct that   there is a vacant plot in between his house mark Y1 and another house mark Y2. He has admitted it to be correct that mark Y3 is reflecting position of the grass on the vacant plot.     He has denied  that  no  such   incident  took  place  or  that  accused  persons  were neither present at the spot nor fled away from there or that he did not see accused persons either coming to the spot or fleeing away from there.  He has denied that the shoulder of accused Manoj was dislocated on the date on 29.10.2014 when this witness (PW2), Mr. Dayanad Verma   and his sons  had   given  beatings  to him.  He did not  know   whether  or  not  the shoulder   of   accused   Manoj   was   in   dislocated   connection     as   on 31.10.2014 or that he remained admitted in hospital on 29.10.2014 and 30.10.2014.   He   had   no   knowledge   about   accused   Anil   (prior   to   the incident or he) was studying out of Delhi in October, 2014. He also did not New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 54 know   whether   or   not   accused   Anil   was   studying   in   B.Tech   (II   year)   in Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jaipur in October, 2014.   He has denied that accused Anil was not in Delhi and was in his hostel at Jaipur from 30.10.2014   till   03.11.2014   or   that   he   had   not   seen   accused   Anil committing the offence on 31.10.2014 or he was not even conversant with the accused persons.   He has denied that he has wrongly identified the case property at the instance of the police or that no brick was recovered by the police at his instance or that no proceedings   were conducted by police  in his presence. He has denied that  he had not seen the incident or that   he is a planted witness and due to the said reason he had not participated in any proceedings in SGM hospital or signed  any document or given his name to the hospital's authority. He has denied that he has deposed   falsely   in   collusion   with   Mr.   Dayanand   Verma,   his   sons   and police.   Thus,   this   witness   has   claimed   to   be   an   eye   witness   of   the occurrence   and   he   has   claimed   that   on   dated   31.10.2014,   at   about 5.45PM / 6.00PM, he heard the noise and when he tried to open the door of his house, he found that it was bolted from outside and he peeped from the gap of the door and found that accused Anil hit one danda on the head   of   Vijender   Kumar   Meena   and   caught   his   hands   and   Manoj   had given 20­25 brick blows on the backside of his head, when he was lying on the road abutting his face towards the road and he shouted from inside of his house and after such beatings, the accused had fled away from the spot and someone had opened the bolt of his door and went out of his house. At the time of recording of his examination in chief in the court, he had improved his testimony and thus, this court finds that his testimony is New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 55 full of improvements and contradictions. This PW2 claims to have taken the deceased to the hospital along with PW11 Dayanand Verma. But, the perusal of the MLC of deceased Ex.PW14/A reveals that neither the name of   this   witness   nor   of   Dayanand   Verma   is   mentioned   therein   and   it   is mentioned in the MLC that the deceased Vijender Verma was taken in the said   hospital   in   injured   condition   by   some   Neha   Sharma   of   CAT Ambulance   staff.   Had   this   witness   taken   Vijender   Meena   in   injured condition   in   the   said   hospital   alongwith   Dayanand   Verma   (PW11)   their names   could   be   reflected   in   the   MLC   EX.PW14/A.   This   witness   has claimed   that   he   had   made   call   to   the   police   at   about   6:00PM   on 31.10.2014  about  the present  occurrence  and  DD no. 59B  Ex­PW13/C reveals that it is no where mentioned therein that injuries were caused to the Vijender Meena by the accused Manoj and Anil and if the injuries were caused to the Vijender Meena by these accused then what has prevented this   witness   to   name   the   accused   at   the   time   of   dialling   100   number. Perusal   of   DD   No.59B   reveals   that   it   is   regarding   a   Jhagda   and   DD No.59B was lodged at 6.13PM. Whereas, the FIR in the case in hand has been   registered   on   31.10.2014   at   11.20PM.   If,   the   information   was received by the local police at 6.13PM from the PCR staff and DD No.59B was assigned to the police officer Sandeep Tushir. So, it was his duty to inquire into from the caller of the said call promptly. But, if the testimony of this witness is looked into, then, on receiving of PCR call made by this witness (PW2), PCR staff had arrived at the spot promptly and as per the testimony of this witness, initially, the injured was made to lie in the PCR Van   for   taking   him   to   the   hospital   by   this   witness   (PW2)   and   Shri New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 56 Dayanand Verma (PW11). This witness when examined in the court has claimed that the wife of deceased Vijender Meena had also arrived at the spot and this witness (PW2) along with Dayanand Verma (PW11) and the wife of the Vijender Meena took the Vijender Meena in injured condition in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital in the Ambulance and wherein, the injured was shifted from PCR which also arrived, when, they were going to the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital. But, if the statement of this witness allegedly recorded by the first IO Sandeep Tushir on dated 01.11.2014, is looked into, then, it reveals that this witness has nowhere stated therein that the wife of Vijender Meena and Dayanand Verma had also come at the spot or that they accompanied him to the Sanjay Gandhi  Memorial hospital. If the testimony of   the first IO Sandeep Tushir, who has been examined as PW­ is looked into, he has claimed that he had recorded the statement of wife of Vijender Meena. Whereas, the perusal of the record reveals that the wife of the Vijender is neither impleaded as witness in the list of witnesses nor her statement is filed with the chargesheet for the best   reason   known   to   Inspector   Jagminder   Singh,   who   had   filed   the charge sheet and who has been examined in the court as PW­18 and in view of withholding of the statement of wife of deceased, (best evidence available to the prosecution), an adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution. If the statement of this witness (PW­2) Ex.PW2/DA is looked into, then, he has nowhere mentioned therein that Dayanand Verma had also helped him in taking the Vijender in the hospital in injured condition and this witness even not named Shri Dayanand Verma or the wife of the injured Vijender. This witness during his cross­examination has deposed New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 57 that he went to the police station for the first time on 02.11.2014 and since this witness has deposed that IO had recorded his statement in the police station and this witness has also claimed that he returned to his home from   the   hospital   on   31.10.2014   at   8.30­9.00PM,   the   local   police   had come and inquired from him on the same night and he had told about the occurrence to the police. But, if this witness had told to the police about the occurrence, then what had prevented to PW­17 Sandeep Tushir to record   the   statement   of   this   witness   at   the   spot   on   the   same   night   of occurrence. Since the perusal of the record reveals that the statement of this witness u/s.161 of CrPC Ex.PW2/DA, bear the date 01.11.2014 of its recording. But, this witness during his cross­examination has deposed that he went to the police station for the first time for recording of his statement on   02.11.2014   and   PW­17   Sandeep   Tushir   claims   to   have   recorded statement of this PW2 Ex.PW2/DA, on dated 01.11.2014. So there are material   contradictions   in   the   statements   of   PW2   Sanjay   Kumar   and PW17 Sandeep Tushir. This witness has also deposed during his cross­ examination that this witness did not tell the names of the accused to the police. This witness has also deposed during his cross­examination that he did not know the name of accused. He has also stated that he knew the name of Anil only on the date of alleged  occurrence.  But, it is the mystery as to when this witness had come to understand the names of both the accused or of accused Manoj and if the name of accused Manoj was not known to this witness on dated 31.10.2014 or 01.11.2014, then, how the name of Manoj is mentioned in his alleged statement Ex.PW2/DA recorded by the IO on 01.11.2014. This witness has deposed in the court New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 58 that his clothes were also stained with the blood when he picked Vijender Meena   in   injured   condition.   But,   admittedly,   the   clothes   of   this   witness were  not   seized  by  the  IO  during   the  investigation   for  the  best  reason known to the IO. If the clothes of this witness were really stained with the blood allegedly oozing out from the wound of the Vijender Meena, then, it was   the   duty   of   the   IO   to   seize   the   same.   But,   as   the   alleged   blood stained clothes of Sanjay Kumar Singh (PW2) were not seized by the IO. Had the IO seized  the blood stained  clothes of this witness and made efforts   for   matching   the   blood   of   the   deceased   with   the   same,   the presence   of   this   witness   at   the   time   of   alleged   occurrence   could   be established. But, in the absence of such material evidence, it cannot be assumed or presumed that this witness was present at the time and place of alleged  occurrence  and thus presence of this witness at the time of occurrence   is   doubtful.   This   witness   during   his   cross­examination   has deposed that he had seen accused Anil prior to this occurrence and he had not seen accused Manoj prior to this occurrence. Then, how could he reveal   the   name   of   accused   Manoj   in   his   statement   recorded   by   the police.   Since,   the   occurrence   is   alleged   to   have   taken   place   at 5.45/6.00pm   on   31.10.2014   and   DD   No.59B   is   alleged   to   have   been lodged on the basis of the PCR call allegedly made by PW2. But, in the PCR   form   Ex.PW4/A,   DD   No.59B   Ex.PW13/C   lodged   at   6.13PM   on 31.10.2014   and   FIR   Ex.PW6/A   lodged   on   31.10.2014   at   11.20PM,   the names   of   the   accused   are   not   mentioned.   If   the   PW­2   had   seen   the accused, prior to this occurrence, he could tell the names of the accused to the police at the time of making call at 100   number. But he did not New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 59 name the accused and since the statement of this witness u/s.161 CrPC Ex.PW2/DA was allegedly  recorded  on dated  01.11.2014  and it is also suspicious, doubtful and found to improved. DD No.59B does not reveal the names of the accused, which was lodged on that day at 6.13pm and admittedly, this witness met IO SI Sandeep Tushir (PW­17) on the same day of the occurrence. But, SI Sandeep Tushir did not choose to record the statement of this witness on the day of occurrence and if this witness was aware about the names of accused, even on dated 31.10.2014 at the time of dailling the 100 number at about 6.00pm, then, why did he not name the accused at the time of making call at 100 number and since there is delay in recording the statement of this witness, so, the testimony of this witness becomes suspicious and since the testimony of this witness is also not consistent to the testimony of PW­11 Dayanand Verma, PW­16 Prashant   Kumar   Verma   and   PW17   SI   Sandeep   Tushir.  Since   the testimony   of   this   witness   is   found   to   be   improved,   embellished, contradictory and inconsistent, so, it is suspicious, so it does not inspire any confidence.

33.   Whereas, Dayanand Verma has been examined as PW 11, who has deposed that on 31.10.2014 at about 5:45 ­6:00 PM, he was at home and heard some commotion from the lane and out of curiosity, he went outside and saw in the lane that two boys of same locality were beating Vijender Meena, and he know Mr. Vijender Meena ,as he is his neighbour and he was wearing jeans and shirt, but, he did not remember their colour. He has further  deposed that he could identify those  two boys, as they New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 60 lived in his locality and they are Manoj and Anil. He has further deposed that when, he stepped forward to the spot, he saw Anil was hitting danda on the back side of the head of Vijender Meena, which was of square shape   and   Vijender   fell   on   ground,   Anil   caught   hold   of   the   arms   of Vijender from behind and accused Manoj was holding a brick and he was hitting Vijender Meena with the said brick repeatedly and he went about 15   steps   forward   and   when,   he   was   near   the   spot,   both   the   accused Manoj  and Anil escaped on a motorcycle. He has further deposed that accused Manoj had thrown the brick away and the same was lying at the spot  and   accused   Anil   was   waiving   the   danda,  when   he   escaped   with Manoj on the motorcycle.  He has further deposed that the danda was of square shape and it  was of about one and a half feet in length.   He has further   deposed   that   when   he   went   near   Vijender   Meena,   the   other persons had also gathered there and Mr. Sanjay Singh who had made call to   the   police   at   100   number   had   also   come   there.   However,   the   PCR vehicle   came   to   the   spot.   Sanjay   Singh   and   this   witness   had     lifted Vijender   Meena   put   him   in   the   PCR   vehicle   and   this   witness   Vijender Meena, his wife, Mr. Sanjay Singh and he went to the SGM Hospital   in the PCR vehicle. He has again said that on the way, the CAT ambulance met the PCR vehicle and and Mr. Vijender Meena was shifted therein. He has further deposed that after about half an hour of remaining in SGM Hospital,  they  shifted  Mr.  Vijender  Meena  to Shri  Balaji  Action  Medical Institute and he stayed in the hospital at night. He has further deposed that   later   on   the   police   had   enquired   from   him   and   his   statement   was recorded, on seeing the DANDA Ex.P4, he has deposed that he can say New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 61 that it may be same danda which was used in the commission of crime and deposed he was at a distance of 20­25 feet, when the incident had occurred due to which he has now deposed that the danda shown in the court may be the same danda used in the crime.  This witness was also cross   examined   by   Ld.   Counsel   for   accused   and   during   his   cross­ examination he has deposed that he used to work in a Kerela Transport Company, as Deputy  Manager, marketing  and retired in the year 2011 and he shifted at on his present address in the year 2007 and the width of street in front of his house is about 17­18 feet   and accused Manoj and Anil were residing  together in a house about 60 feet away from his house, in   the   same   street.     He   has   further   deposed   that   his   house   is   in   the corner, whereas the house of the accused person's in the street and the house of the accused persons and his house are situated in street no. 9 and the address of the house of accused may be house no. 1526 B, Gali no. 9, Durga Block, Jain Nagar, Delhi 85 and the road on the other side of his house is Road No. 6 and it is 20 feet wide and it's distance is of about 150   meters   from   his   house   and   he   thought   that   Vijender   Meena   was working in the Air Force and he was residing with his wife whose name is Sona,  son  namely  Piyush  and   his father  Heera  Chand  Meena  and  his father   resided   sometimes   in   the   village   and   sometimes   with   Vijender Meena.  He  has  further   deposed  that   Vijender  Meena   was posted  near Dhaula  Kuan and  father  of Vijender  Meena  was not living with him  on dated 31.10.2014 and Sanjay Singh was his neighbour and was residing in Gali no. 9. He has further deposed that his house is double storied and he is in possession of both the floors and at the time of alleged incident, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 62 his parents aged about 87 and 79 years were residing with him, his wife Ms. Mohini, his elder son Mr. Prashant Kumar Verma and his wife Mrs. Pooja, his son Master Vaibhav, his daughter   Ms. Kirti and his younger son Mr. Parveen Verma, his wife Ms. Archana, his daughter Ms. Hansika. He has further deposed that the incident occurred on 31.10.2014 and it was during winter season and all his family member except his two sons were in the house.  He has further deposed that he was in the lawn of his house with all his grand children, whereas, all the other family members were inside the house and the lawn of his house is on the plot itself and not outside his house.  The area of the plot on which his house is situated is of 90 sq. meters. i.e., 30 feet by 27 feet. He has further deposed that he has covered the entire plot with construction and by lawn, he meant the covered area which is between the entry gate and stair case and it did not have any grass. He has further deposed that  on the date of incident, the cooler and fans in his house were not being used and he was putting the chain on the cycle of his grand children. He did not have any radio in the house and the TV was not being used and the kitchen was not being used as the food was usually prepared at about 8:00 PM in his house.  He has further deposed that  there is one main gate in the house which opens into the street no. 9 and there is a side gate which opens into street No.6.  He has further deposed that   there are five plots (areas of some are 50 sq yards and of others are 100 sq. yards) between his house and the house of the Mr. Sanjay Singh and the total distance may be about 170 feet. He has further  deposed  that  on 31.10.2014,  four  houses  were  constructed and   three   plots   were   without   construction   between   his   house   and   the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 63 house of Mr. Sanjay Singh and on the opposite side of his house, only two houses were constructed and rest of the plots were without construction. He has also deposed that  one can reach Gali no. 9 from main roads no. 5 and 6 main road no. 5 is towards the house of Mr. Sanjay Singh. He has also deposed that on 31.10.2014 at about 6:00 PM, there was sufficient light so everything was visible and it was not dark at that time and he cannot say whether  on dated 31.10.2014, the sun set at 5:37 pm or not. He has denied that he has deposed falsely that on 31.10.2014, at about 6:00 PM, there was sufficient light or that everything was visible or it was not dark at that time. He has further deposed that the house of Mr. Sanjay Singh is not at the corner, but it is in between and is in street no. 9 and his house   is   single   storied.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   traded   in   fire fighting   equipment   and   he   did   not   know   whether   he   was   having   any shop/office or not and he met him on regularly basis almost every day, as he is his neighbour. He has further deposed that Mr. Vijender Meena used to attend his office and he did not meet him everyday and he was not as close to him as he was to Mr. Sanjay Singh and Mr. Vijender Meena used to leave his house early ad returned late, but, he did not know the exact timing. He has denied that on 31.10.2014 it was winter and he cannot say whether   or   not   the   maximum   temp   on   31.10.2014   was   between   33­35 degree   Celsius   and   he   did   not   remember   whether   he   and   his   family members were wearing any woolen clothes on 31.10.2014 or not. He has denied that the cooler and fans were not being used on 31.10.2014. He has further deposed  that first of all, he had heard noise  and shouts  of many persons from all direction and he could hear people saying "REHNE New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 64 DE, REHNE DE" "CHHOD DO". He has further deposed that he was in the lawn of that house, at that time and he immediately came out of his house on hearing the noise and shouts and there were just one or two people (IKKA DUKKA LOG) in the street no. 9 and some ladies were on the terrace of their houses and there was a crowd outside the house of Mr. Sanjay Singh, but, he could not tell the exact number of persons, who were there. He has further deposed that he cannot say whether or not there were 5,7,10 or 15 persons and his focus was not on the crowd or on the people standing there, but, his focus was on the reason for the noise and  shouts.  He  has  further  deposed  that  he  cannot   admit  or  deny  the suggestion   that   as   it   was   dark,   so,   he   could   not   see   the   faces   of   the people who were standing there as his focus was on the reason for the noise and shouts. He has further deposed that his grand children and his family had come out of the house later on, but, he could not tell after how much time. Thereafter, he had  come out immediately out of his house. He has further deposed that it   took about 7­8 minutes, as, he was empty handed and did not have any weapon and  he did not want to go empty handed, as he was apprehending that he might be  involved in fight, which might occurred. He has further deposed that   he had not told the above fact of his taking 7­8 minutes to reach, the house of Mr. Sanjay Singh due to   his   apprehension   to   the   police   in   his   statement   recorded   u/s.   161 Cr.PC. He has further deposed that he was not wearing his sleepers since he was with his grand   children and he had gone barefooted out of his house and after coming out of his house and walking about 4 steps, he returned to his house, wore his sleepers. He did not take any weapon like New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 65 wooden stick, rod, knife and pistol and when, he went again out of the house and he did not take any family member or any neighbour with him to go the spot. He has further deposed that he did not observe the number of persons, who had gathered at the spot, when, he had reached there and he cannot say whether there were 2, 5, 7,10, 15 persons and initially, there   were   10­15   persons   and   subsequently   everybody   had   gathered there and there was no one at the spot, when, he reached and people were watching from their respective houses. He has further deposed that 20­25 people had come later and they were standing at the distance of about 10,20,40 feet from the spot. He has further deposed that Mr. Sanjay Singh reached at the spot after one minute of his reaching there and his family members did not come to the spot and remained inside the gate of his house. He has further deposed that no one else had come with Mr. Sanjay Singh to the spot and voluntarily stated that Master Piyush aged 04 years,  who is son of deceased  Mr.  Vijender  Meena  came  after  Mr. Sanjay Singh reached the spot and he had not told the above facts to the police in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He has further deposed that  Mr. Sanjay Singh had telephoned the police immediately on reaching the spot and only Mr. Sanjay Singh and this witness were at the spot. Whereas, the others were standing in their respective houses. He has denied that a crowd had gathered at the spot. He has further deposed that police came to the spot after about 10­15 minutes of Mr. Sanjay Singh making the call and first of all, Mr. Sanjay Singh and this witness had lifted Mr. Vijender Meena and then, a police official had helped them to put him in the PCR vehicle.   He   has   further   deposed   that     they   had   lifted   him   from   his New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 66 shoulders and police did not seize the clothes, which were worn by Mr. Sanjay Singh and this witness and his clothes had blood stains. He has further   deposed   that     Mr.   Vijender   Meena   was   shifted   into   the   CAT ambulance at Som Bazar Road and he did not tell the doctor that he had brought Mr. Vijender Meena to the hospital and after about 30­45 minutes of starting from the spot, they had reached SGM Hospital, but, he could not tell the exact time.  He has further deposed that they remained in the hospital for about 01 hour and Mr. Vijender Meena's wife had taken the decision to shift him from SGM Hospital to Balaji Action Medical  Institute and permission in writing from the doctors was taken before shifting him to another hospital.   He has further deposed that Mr. Vijender Meena was shifted in another ambulance, hired by them   from SGM Hospital to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute. He has further deposed that it took about half hour to travel and they had decided to shift Mr. Vijender Meena to Sri Balaji   Action   Medical   Institute   in   the   presence   of   the   doctors   in   SGM Hospital and they had also told them verbally.   He has further deposed that the other members of family of Mr. Vijender Meena had reached at Shri Balaji Action Medical Institute at about 2:30 ­3:00 AM and he was there for the entire night and had returned home on the next morning i.e. on 01.11.2014 and was available in his house thereafter. He has further deposed that on 20.02.2016, after the evidence of Mr. Sanjay Singh was recorded in the court and deferred for that day, he had met him outside the court room and had talked with him. He has also admitted it to be correct that they were coming together to  the court. He has denied that Mr.   Sanjay   Singh   had   told   him   prior   to   his   evidence   that   the   wooden New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 67 stick/danda produced by the police in the present case is of square shape and about 1½ feet in length. He has also deposed that  he had described the  wooden  stick/danda  to  the  police  as  "wooden   danda   which  was of square shape" or "the DANDA was of square shape and was about 1 ½ feet in length". He was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C. Ex. PW 11/DA, where it is not so recorded.  He has admitted that he had not told the police that accused Anil was waiving the wooden danda, while escaping on the motorcycle. He has further deposed that he had told the police that PCR vehicle came to the spot and Sanjay Singh and he lifted Vijender Meena and put him in the PCR vehicle and these witnesses Vijender Meena, his wife and Mr. Sanjay Singh went to the SGM Hospital in the PCR vehicle and on the way, the CAT ambulance had met and Mr. Vijender Meena was shifted in the same, this witness was confronted with his   statement   recorded   u/s   161   Cr.P.C.   of   the   witness   Ex.PW11/DA, where it is not so recorded.  He has admitted that he had not told to the police that after about half an hour of remaining in SGM Hospital, they shifted Mr. Vijender Meena to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute and he stayed in the hospital at night.   He has admitted it to be correct that he had told to the police in his statement  recorded u/s. 161 Cr.P.C dated 04.11.2014   that   "VIJENDER   KO   SANJAY   AUR   VIJENDER   KI   PATNI HOSPITAL LE GAI." He has denied that he had not told the police, the description of the wooden stick/danda as "wooden danda, which was of square shape" or that " the danda was of about 1 ½ feet in length" or that accused Anil was not waiving the wooden danda while allegedly escaping on the motorcycle.  He has denied that the PCR vehicle did not come to New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 68 the spot or that Sanjay Singh and he had not lifted Vijender Meena and put him in the PCR vehicle or that they i.e. Vijender Meena, his wife, Mr. Sanjay   Singh   and   he   had   not   gone   to   the   SGM   Hospital   in   the   PCR vehicle.  He has denied that on the way the CAT ambulance had not met, the PCR vehicle or that Mr. Vijender Meena was not shifted in the same. He has denied that after about half an hour of remaining in SGM Hospital, they shifted Mr. Vijender Meena to Shri Bala Ji Action Medical Institute or that   he   stayed   in   the   hospital   at   night.     He   has   denied   that   he   has deposed falsely in his examination in chief recorded on 20.02.2016 that on 31.10.2014 at about 5:45 ­6:00 PM, he was at home or that he had heard some   commotion   from   the   lane.   He   has   denied   that   he   had   not   gone outside or that he had not seen in the lane that two boys of the same locality were beating Vijender  Meena or that he had not seen that he was wearing jeans and shirt.  He has denied that after coming out of his house he had not identified accused Manoj and Anil to be the culprits.  He has denied that as there is a distance of 60 meters approx. between his house and the house of Mr. Sanjay Singh or that as it was dark, so, he could not see the incident. He has denied that he had not seen the accused Manoj and   Anil   at   the   spot.   He  has   denied   that     he   did   not   see   Anil     hitting Vijender Meena on the back side of his head with wooden danda, which was of square shape or that no such incident took place.  He has denied that Vijender did not fall on ground or that no such incident took place. He has denied that Anil did not catch the arms of Vijender from behind or that no such incident took place or that accused Manoj was not holding a brick or that he did not hit Vijender Meena with the said brick or that no such New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 69 incident took place. He has denied that he did not see any incident and accused Manoj and Anil escaping from the spot on a motorcycle.  He has denied that he did not see accused Manoj throwing the brick away or that no such brick was lying at the spot. He has denied that he did not see accused Anil was waiving the danda or  that both accused persons were not present at the spot or that because of the said reason, both accused did not escape on the motorcycle or that no danda was in the hand of accused Anil. He has denied that no such incident took place or that he has deposed falsely to that effect in collusion with Sanjay Singh, as he and Sanjay Singh had enmity against accused persons and their family. He has admitted it to be correct that there was a quarrel between him, his family and accused persons and their family members on the dispute of parking of motorcycle by them in the street. He has further deposed that he did not know whether the injuries were caused to accused Manoj, his mother Rita, his father Chander Shekhar and younger brother Guddu @ Abhishek   or   that   their   MLCs   were   also   prepared.   He   has   denied   that because   of   said   reason,   this   witness   and   Sanjay   Singh   were   enimical against   him   and   voluntarily   deposed   that   as   Vijender   Meena   had intervened in the incident, the incident of 31.10.2014 which had occurred and even on 31.10.2014, the accused were saying that "ISKO TAB TAK MAARO JAB TAK YEH MAR NO JAE, YEH SAALA VERMA KE JHAGDE ME CHOUDHRY BAN RAHA THA" and voluntarily deposed that he also wanted to say that about one month prior to 31.10.2014, accused Manoj and   Mr.   Naresh   Mittal   with   his   son   Rishu   had   a   fight   and   he   had intervened   to   pacify   them   and   due   to   this   reason,   accused   Manoj   had New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 70 fought   with   him   on   29.10.2014.   He   has   further   deposed   that   all   the members  of   family  of  accused   Manoj  had   come   together   and  accused Manoj had started the fight with him and even on that day, accused Manoj had   acted   in   a   similar   manner,   as   that   on   31.10.2014   by   lifting   and throwing a stone.  He has admitted that he had not stated in his statement to   the   police   recorded   u/s.161   Cr.P.C.   Ex.PW11/DA,   which   he   has deposed   during   his   cross­examination   that   on   22.02.2016,     he   has deposed that about one month prior to 31.10.2014, accused Manoj and Mr. Naresh Mittal with his son Rishu had a fight and he had intervened  to pacify them   and due to this reason, accused Manoj had come together and accused Manoj had started the fight with him and even on that day accused Manoj had acted in a similar manner as on 31.10.2014 by lifting and throwing a stone. He has admitted that he had not stated to the police in   his   statement   that   he   was   present   at   distance   of   about   20­25   feet, when,   the   incident   had   occurred   due   to   which,   he  had   identified   the DANDA used in the commission of offence and voluntarily stated that he was not asked by the police about the distance. He has denied that he had not seen the incident or that he was not present at  a distance of 20­ 25 feet from the place of incident or that he had not witnessed the incident or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case due to his enmity with them and their family. He has denied that no fight took place between accused Manoj  with Mr. Naresh Mittal and his son Rishu,   one   month   prior   to   the   present   incident   or   that   he   had   not intervened   to   pacify   them.   He   has   denied   that   due   to   alleged   reasons accused Manoj had not fought with him on 29.10.2014 and denied that New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 71 this witness, his sons and Sanjay Singh(PW2) had given severe beatings to accused Manoj and his family members on 29.10.2014. He has denied that on 29.10.2014 accused Manoj had not lifted and thrown stones on them and he   reached in SGM hospital at about 6.30 pm on 31.10.2014 and   that   after   sometime     the   relatives   and   friends   of   injured   Vijender Meena also reached in SGM hospital.   He has further deposed that the wife of injured Vijender Meena was also present in the hospital and he left SGM hospital at about 7.30 pm on 31.10.2014.  He has further deposed that this witness along with Ms. Sona wife of injured, his son Prashant and 3­4 friends of injured took the injured  Vijender Meena to the Balaji Action Hospital from SGM hospital and reached there at about 8.00pm. He has further deposed that the relatives of the injured  were  not accompanied them, as they had not reached the SGM hospital and he  and wife of the injured stayed in Balaji Action hospital during whole night, however, his son Prashant left the hospital at about 12.30 am. He has further deposed that this witness did not get his name mention on any document prepared in the  Balaji Action hospital that he had brought the injured to this hospital and voluntarily stated that all the proceedings pertaining to preparation of documents for admission of injured in the said hospital were got done by his  son  Prashant.  He  has  further  deposed  that  he  did  not  state  to  the police in his statement that his son got done all the paper works in Balaji hospital at the time of admitting injured in the hospital.   He has further deposed that after the incident the injured Vijender Meena was conscious and he was also conscious in SGM hospital.   He has further deposed that the police did not record the statement of injured Vijender Meena either in New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 72 SGM hospital or in Balaji Action hospital in his presence.  He has further deposed   that   the   blood   was   lying   at   the   place,   where   injured   Vijender Meena was lying and some blood was also lying at the nearby place.  He cannot tell the distance between both the places where blood was lying at the spot and he even cannot tell whether that distance was of 1 feet, 2 feet, 4 feet or so on and on seeing the photograph, he said that blood and bricks are lying on the road in the encircled portion X in the photograph Ex.PW11/DB. He has further deposed that there is a vacant plot by the side of this road and bushes are also there in the plot and  on  seeing the photograph Ex.PW11/DX1,  he said that this photograph reflects the same street where the incident took place on 31.10.2014   and on asking the question that could you tell the place in the photograph Ex.PW11/DX1 as to   where   the   blood   and   bricks   were   appearing   in   the   photograph Ex.PW11/DB. This witness had replied that the place encircled Y in the photograph Ex. PW11/DX1 is the same place as appeared in photograph Ex.PW11/DB.  He   has   further   deposed   that   the   house   of   Sanjay   is appearing   in   the   encircled   portion  Y1   in  the  photograph   Ex.PW11/DX1 and there is a vacant plot in between the house of Sanjay and the house in the encircled portion Y2 as reflected in the photograph Ex.PW11/DX1. When   the   attention   of   the   witness   was   drawn   towards   the   photograph Ex.PW11/DB,   he   has   deposed   that   he     cannot   admit   or   deny   as   to whether the encircled portion X1 in this photograph is a Kuchcha road or cemented road.  He has further deposed that he cannot tell as to whether the encircled portion X in the photograph Ex.PW11/DB is the side of the road towards vacant plot or it is the middle of the road. He cannot tell as to New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 73 whether   the   portion   encircled   X2   in   the   photograph   Ex.PW11/DB   is reflecting the grass or not on the vacant plot. He has admitted it to be correct   that   the   said   portion   is   part   of   the   vacant   plot   and   the   portion encircled Y3 in the photograph Ex.PW11/DX1 is reflecting the grass on the vacant plot. He is denied that the place, where blood was lying as reflected in the encircled portion Y was near to the vacant plot encircled Y3 in the photograph Ex.PW11/DX1. He has denied that he has  deposed falsely in this regard to falsely implicate both the accused persons, as he had   previous   enmity   with   both   the   accused   persons.   He   has   further deposed that he cannot tell from which direction both the accused persons came   at   the   spot   on   31.10.2014   and   accused   Manoj   was   driving   the motorcycle.   He   has   denied   that   no   such   incident   took   place   or   that accused  persons  were  neither  present  on  the  spot  nor  fled  away  from there. He has further deposed that he cannot say whether left shoulder of accused Manoj was dislocated during the beatings given to him by them on 29.10.2014. He has denied that accused Manoj was hospitalized on 29.10. 2014 and 30.10.2014, and he  had not stated to the police that the accused Manoj was never beaten by him or others or that there was only arguments.   He has denied that on 29.10.2014, accused Manoj and his family   members,   excluding   accused   Anil,   were   severely   beaten   by   this witness, his sons and PW­2 Sanjay Singh. He has admitted it to be correct that accused Anil was studying out of Delhi in October, 2014 and he did not know whether or not he was studying in B.Tech (II Year) in Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jaipur in October 2014.   He has denied that since 30.10.2014 till 03.11.2014 accused Anil was staying in the hostel in his New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 74 University at Jaipur and he did not know whether or not accused Anil was arrested on 03.11.2014 from the hostel of his University at Jaipur. He has denied that he had not seen accused Manoj and Anil at the spot or that he did not step forward to the spot or that he did not see Anil hitting Vijender Meena on the back side of his head with wooden DANDA which was of square shape or that no such incident took place.   He has denied that Vijender  had not fallen on ground or that no such incident took place or that Anil did not catch the arms of Vijender from behind or that no such incident took place. He did not know whether any injuries were caused to accused Manoj, his mother Ms. Reeta, his father Mr. Chander Shekhar and  younger  brother  Guddu  @  Abhishek  or that  their  MLCs  were also prepared.     He   has   denied   that   he   is   planted   witness   and   due   to   said reason   his   statement   u/s   161   Cr.PC   was   recorded   belatedly   on 04.11.2014 or that due to the said reason his name is not reflected in any medical documents or memos prepared by the police. He has denied that he has made lot of improvements in his testimony due to his enmity with accused persons and their family members. He has denied that he has deposed against the accused persons to take revenge from them and he had stated to the police in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC that Mr. Vijender Meena  had   intervened   in the  incident  of  29.10.2014.  This  witness  was confronted with his statement recorded u/s.161 CrPC Ex.PW11/DB, where it   was   not   so   recorded.   He   has   denied   that   Vijender   Meena   had   not intervened in the incident of 29.10.2014  and he had wrongly deposed in this   regard   or   that   he   has   deposed   falsely.  Since,   this   witness   has admitted that the distance between his house and house of the Sanjay New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 75 Singh (PW2) is of about 170 feet. Since, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 6.00PM on dated 31.10.2014 and at the time of his examination in chief, he failed to identify the danda Ex.P4 and stated that it may be the same danda, which was used in the commission of crime and  stated  that  he was at the  distance  of about  20­25 feet.  Thus,  this witness has failed to identify the alleged danda Ex.P4 beyond reasonable doubt   that   it   is   the   same   danda   which   was   allegedly   used   in   the commission   of   crime.   Since,   this   witness   has   deposed   in   his   cross­ examination that it took about 7­8 minutes in arriving at the spot and thus, the testimony of this witness is also found to be contradictory, as, in his examination in chief, he has stated that he was at the distance of about 20­25 feet, when the occurrence had taken place. Whereas, at the time of his cross­examination, he has deposed that his house is situated at the distance   of   170   feet.   Then,   how   could   he   listen   the   noise   that   as   this witness has alleged that people were saying, Rehne do, Rehne do and Chhor do"  and this witness did not tell, as to who were those people who were saying so. During his cross­examination, this witness has deposed that only 1­2 persons were there in the street no.9, at the time of alleged occurrence. Whereas, PW2 has alleged that the crowd had gathered at the spot. But the IO did not bother to examine any neighbor of Sanjay Singh. This witness has deposed during his cross­examination that it took about 7­8 minutes in arriving at the spot from his house and also deposed that Sanjay Singh had arrived at the spot one minute after his arrival at the spot and if the testimony of this witness is looked into, then, he arrived at the spot where, the deceased was lying in injured condition prior to the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 76 arrival   of   PW2   Sanjay   Singh.   But,   the   statement   of   Sanjay   Singh Ex.PW2/DA does not reveal the name of this witness nor he had stated therein that this witness Dayanand Verma had arrived at the  spot prior to his arrival. This witness has alleged that at the time of alleged occurrence, accused   Anil   was   hitting   wooden   danda   of   square   in   shape   on   the backside of the head of Vijender Meena and Vijender Meena fell down on the ground and accused Anil caught the arms of Vijender Meena from his behind and accused Manoj had given brick blows repeatedly. But, such testimony of this witness is not corroborated with the medical evidence. As postmortem report Ex.PX1 of the deceased reveals that there was only one injury on the head of the deceased. This witness has also deposed during   his   cross­examination   that   there   was   sufficient   light.   But, occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31.10.2014 at about 6.00PM and during the month of October, the sun sets bit earlier and and had there been sufficient light, this witness could identify the danda ExP4. But this  witness   has   failed   to  identify   the   danda  beyond   reasonable   doubt. Since,   this   witness   has   deposed   that   he   cannot   admit   or   deny   the suggestion   that  it   was  dark   at  the   time   of   alleged  occurrence   and   this witness could not see the faces of the people who were standing there. Since, this witness has also deposed that the police had arrived at the spot within 10­15 minutes from the time of making call by Sanjay Singh. Then why the police had not recorded the statement of this witness, is not explained by the prosecution. This witness has claimed that his clothes were stained with the blood, when he is allegedly picked Vijender Meena in injured condition. But for the best reason known to the IO, he failed to New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 77 seize the alleged blood stained clothes of this witness. Had the IO seized such blood stained clothes of this witness, the presence of this witness could be established at the spot. But, as the clothes have not been seized by the IO, so the presence of this witness also becomes doubtful. This witness  has  deposed  in the   court  that   he  had  taken   the  injured  to  the hospital   along   with   Sanjay   and   wife   of   Vijender   Meena.   Whereas,   the perusal of the statement of this witness Ex.PW11/DA recorded u/s.161 of CrPC reveals that he has nowhere mentioned therein, that he had also accompanied Sanjay, when, the injured was taken to the hospital. Thus the testimony of this witness is improved one. This witness has deposed during his cross­examination that this witness and wife of Vijender Meena remained   in   Shri   Balaji   Action   Hospital   on   the   night   of   31.10.2014. Whereas, PW­17 has deposed that he met to the wife of Vijender Meena in the street on the night of 31.10.2014. Thus the testimony of this witness is also contradictory to the testimony of PW­17 SI Sandeep Tushir. Since the PW­16 Prashant Verma claims that he was called by the Police on 01.11.2014, in the police station by way of making telephonic call to Shri Dayanand Verma, who is the father of Prashant Verma. But, why the IO did not record the statement of this witness soon after the occurrence and even, on 01.11.2014. If, the police had made telephonic call on the phone of   this   witness   on   01.11.2014   to   call   the   son   of   this   witness   namely Prashant Verma in the police station, then, police could also record the statement of this witness on 01.11.2014 and why the statement of this witness was recorded on 04.11.2014 and delay in recording the statement of  this   witness  is  also   not  explained.  This   witness   has  admitted  that  a New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 78 quarrel  had  held  between  this  witness,   his family  on  the   one  side  and accused   and   their   family   members   on   the   other   side,   prior   to   this occurrence on the dispute of parking of motorcycle by this witness and his family members and deposed that he did not know whether injuries were caused to Manoj, his mother Rita, his father Chandershekhar and brother Guddu or their MLC were prepared. No doubt, that he has denied that this witness   along   with   Sanjay   Singh   (PW2)   were   on   enimical   term   with accused and their family. This witness has alleged in the court that at the time of that quarrel which took place between this witness, his family with accused and their family, Vijender Meena (deceased) had informed to the police, but, this fact is not proved on the record that on dated 29.10.2014, when the quarrel had held between family of this witness and family of the accused. The deceased Vijender Meena had phoned to the police. Even otherwise,   the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   found   to   be   improved   and embellished as DD No.62B dated 29.10.2014, reveals that the information regarding the quarrel by a male with a lady was allegedly received by the police from phone No. 7840060311 and the Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that this is mobile number of mother of deceased from which, it was informed regarding the quarrel done by Dayanand Verma with Rita, who   is   the   mother   of   accused.   Ld.   Counsel   for   accused   has   also submitted that Dayanand Verma had quarelled with mother of accused on 29.10.2014   and   when   this   accused   Manoj,   his   brother   Guddu   and   his father tried to save his mother from the hands of Dayanand Verma, then, accused Manoj, his brother Guddu and his father namely Chandershekhar were also beaten by this witness, his son Prashant Verma and Sanjay New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 79 Kumar   Singh  (PW2)  and  further   submitted  that   MLC   of Manoj,  Guddu, Rita and Chandershekhar, father of accused have been proved on record and further submitted that Dr. Gurdeep Singh DW1 has proved the MLC dated   29.10.2014   of   Guddu,   (who   is   brother   of   both   the   accused) Ex.DW1/A, MLC dated 29.10.2014 of Chandershekhar (who is father of both the accused) Ex.DW1/B, MLC dated 29.10.2014 of accused Manoj, Ex.DW1/C,   who   has   deposed   that   he   had   medically   examined   to   the injured Manoj on 29.10.2014, he was having tenderness, deformity in the left   shoulder   and   he   referred   to   the   Orthopedics   and   Dr.   Manon, Orthopedics, after examination, opined that the injury suffered by Manoj on his left shoulder was grievous in nature  and also deposed that this Manoj  was discharged on   30.10.2014. Thus, the MLC of this accused Manoj   and   his   other   family   members   as   mentioned   above   fortifies   the case  of  the  accused  and   from  the  discharge  summary  Ex.PW3/A,  it is proved that Manoj was admitted in  Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital on 29.10.2014   and   discharged   on   30.10.2014   and   his   shoulder   was dislocated.     Since,   the   prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   on   record   any cogent   evidence   that   there   was   any   bad   blood   or   enmity   between   the deceased and accused and thus prosecution has failed to prove on record any motive of the accused to commit the murder of Vijender Meena by the accused. Since, the present occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31.10.2014 at about 6.00PM and statement of this witness was recorded on 04.11.2014, delay in recording of the statement of this witness is not explained   and   since   the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   found   to   be contradictory, improved, and embellished. So it is found to be suspicious New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 80 and since it is proved on the record that prior to this occurrence, on dated 29.10.2014, a quarrel had taken place between this witness, his family on one side and accused Manoj and their family member on the other side and since, Sanjay Singh is also alleged to have sided this witness in the said quarrel, so the possibility of planting of this witness (PW­11) cannot be ruled out and in view of the contradictory, improved, embellished and suspicious testimony of this witness, it does not inspire any confidence.

34. Mr. Prashant   Kumar Verma, PW16 has deposed that he was working in a company at Jhajjar for 12 years and his duty hours were from 8.30 am to 5.00 pm. He has further deposed that  on 31.10.2014, he left his office at about 5.00 pm and was returning to his house. He has further deposed   that   when,   he   was   on   the   way   near   Mundka,   he   received   a telephonic call of Ms. Pooja Verma his wife at about 6.15 pm. He has further   deposed   that   she   informed   him   that   accused   Manoj   and   Anil residing in their neighbourhood had beaten Vijender Meena and thereby attempted to kill him. He has further deposed that he reached his house and by that time Vijender Meena was already  taken to the SGM hospital. He has further deposed that he saw the blood was lying at the place of incident i.e. near house no. C­1395, Gali no. 9, Jain Nagar and the son of Vijender Meena used to go to attend the tuition classes in house no. C­ 1395.   He has further deposed that he   went to SGM hospital and Mr. Vijender   Meena   was   in   unconscious   condition   at   that   time   and   was seriously   injured.   He   has   further   deposed   that   before   two   days   of   this incident   accused   Manoj   and   his   brother   Guddu   raised   quarrel   with   his New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 81 father   and   attacked   on   him   and   during   that   quarrel   accused   Anil   also joined their brothers namely accused Manoj and Guddu. He has further deposed that Mr. Vijender Meena (since deceased) had intervened in that quarrel to pacify the matter and on that day both the accused and their brother Guddu also pelted bricks towards their house due to which the glasses of the windows of their house were broken and the glasses of windows   of   his   car   were   also   broken.   He   has   further   deposed   that accused Guddu, Manoj and their father  also gave beatings to him during the   quarrel   took   place   on   29.10.2014.   He   has   further   deposed   that Vijender Meena (since deceased) made PCR Call and before one month of the said incident (quarrel between both  the accused with the father of this witness) accused Manoj pelted bricks on the grocery shop situated near his house and at that time his father had intervened in that matter. He has correctly identified to   accused Manoj and Anil in the Court. He has further deposed that on 31.10.2014 itself, this witness, his father and wife   of   injured   shifted   injured   Vijender   Meena   to   Balaji   Action   Hospital from SGM hospital. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross­examination, he has deposed that  he has not stated in his statement that his duty hours are from 8.30 a.m to 5.00 pm and on 31.10.2014 and he  left his office at about 5.00 p.m. and he had stated to the police in his statement that son of Mr. Vijender Meena used to go to attend the tuition classes in C­1395. This witness was confronted with   his   statement   statement   Ex.   PW   16/DA   recorded   U/s   161   Cr.PC, where, it was not so recorded. He has admitted that he had not stated to the police in his statement that before two days of this incident, accused New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 82 Manoj and his brother Guddu  quarrel with his father and attacked on him and   during   that   quarrel   accused   Anil   also   joined   their   brothers   namely accused   Manoj   and   Guddu.   He   has   further   admitted   that   he   had   not stated to the police that on that day both the accused and their brother Guddu also pelted bricks towards their house, due to which, the glasses of the windows of their house and car were broken. He has further admitted that he had not stated to the police that accused Guddu, Manoj and their father   also   gave   beatings   to   him   during   the   quarrel   took   place   on 29.10.2014 and so, Vijender Meena made a PCR call.   He has further admitted that he had not stated to the police that before one month of  the said incident (quarrel between both the accused with his father) accused Manoj pelted bricks on the grocery shop situated near his house and at that time his father had intervened in that matter and he had not stated to the police that his father and wife of injured also accompanied him, when, injured  Vijender  Meena  was shifted to Balaji Action hospital  from SGM hospital. He has further admitted that his wife did not make any statement before the police during investigation of this case. He has further admitted that he did not hand over the call details record of his mobile phone, as well as, mobile phone of his wife  to the police. He has denied that he did not receive any phone call of his wife on 31.10.2014 or that for this reason he did not hand over the call details record of his mobile phone, as well as, mobile phone of his wife used on dated 31.10.2014 to the police or that   his   wife   did   not   give   any   statement   to   the   police.   He   has   further deposed that the distance between Mundka and his house is about 10­11 kilometers and on 31.10.2014, he reached his house at about 6.40 pm New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 83 from Mundka and at that time, his wife, his children and his mother were present   and   he   stayed   in   his   house   for   about   10­15   minutes   and thereafter, he went to the SGM hospital and he reached SGM hospital at about 7.35 pm.  He has further deposed that at that time, he did not know Mr. Sanjay Singh and however, his son used to attend tuition classes from the wife of Mr. Sanjay Singh at that time. He has further deposed that even his father was not acquainted with Mr. Sanjay Singh at that time and he stayed at SGM hospital for about 45 minutes on 31.10.2014. He has further deposed that when, he reached there, injured Vijender Meena was in   unconscious   state   however   during   his   stay   of   45   minutes,   Vijender Meena   was   screaming   with   pain     on   2­3   occasions.   He   has   further deposed   that   they   left   SGM   hospital   at   about   8.20   pm   for   shifting   the injured to Balaji Action hospital and reached there at about 8.50 pm.  He has further deposed that he stayed at Balaji Action hospital till 11.30­12.00 midnight  and  on the next day,  in the morning  hours,  he  again  went  to Balaji hospital and stayed there till night perhaps upto 11.00 pm.  He has further deposed that the police met him first time on 01.11.2014, in Balaji Action hospital in the noon hours and he did not know the name / rank of that police official, who met him on 01.11.2014. He has further deposed that he had come to record the statement of injured Vijender Meena and on the same day i.e. on 01.11.2014 in evening hours, police called him at PS and his statement was recorded there. He has further deposed that his father received a phone call from police and his father informed him that police was calling him at PS.  He did not know at which place his father was present, when he received the phone call from police. He has further New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 84 deposed that   his father also went to PS along with him on 01.11.2014 and enquiries were made by the police from him on 01.11.2014 and then, his   statement   was   recorded.   He   has   admitted   that   his   wife   did   not accompany him, when he went in PS on 01.11.2014. He has denied that on 31.10.2014, he had not left his office at about 5.00 pm or that he had not received telephonic call from his wife at 6.15 pm.  He has denied that his wife did not inform him that accused Manoj and Anil residing in their neighbourhood, had beaten Vijender Meena  or that attempted to kill him. He   has   denied   that   he   has   concocted   the   above   said   story   to   falsely implicate the accused persons or  that on 31.10.2014, he had not reached at his house or that he had not seen the blood at the place of incident near house no. C­1395, Gali no. 9, Jain Nagar.  He has denied that  son of Vijender Meena was not taking tuition classes in house no. C­1395 or that in the hospital, Vijender Meena was not in unconscious condition or that he had not screamed.   He has denied that accused Manoj and his brother Guddu did not quarrel with his father or that accused Anil also did not join their brothers namely accused Manoj and Guddu in the quarrel or that they had not attacked on   his father. He has denied  that  Vijender Meena had not intervened in that quarrel to pacify the matter or that  on that day, both the accused and their brother Guddu had not pelted bricks towards their house or that glasses of windows of his house and car were not broken. He has denied that accused Guddu, Manoj and their father did not give beating to this witness during the quarrel on 29.10.2014. He has also   denied   that   Vijender   Meena   had   not   made   call   to   PCR   or   that accused Manoj had not pelted bricks on the grocery's shop situated near New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 85 his house one month prior to this incident or that at that time, his father had not intervened in that matter or  that he and  his father had not shifted injured Vijender Meena to Balaji hospital from SGM hospital along with wife   of   Vijender   Meena.     He   has   denied   that   he   has   made   lot   of improvements   in   his   testimony,   due   to   his     enmity   with   the   accused persons and their family members.  He has denied that he has deposed against   the   accused   persons   to   take   revenge   from   them   or   that   on 29.10.2014, this witness, his brother, his father and PW­2  Sanjay Singh gave beatings to the accused persons and their family members or that because  of  said  enmity  between  him  and  his  family,  on  one  side,  and accused persons and their family members, on the other side,   he has falsely deposed against the accused persons after hatching a conspiracy with his father (PW11) and PW2 Sanjay Kumar Singh taking advantage of the fact that some unknown persons had assaulted Vijender Meena. He has denied that  on 29.10.2014, this witness and his family members and (PW­2) Sanjay Singh gave beatings to Manoj and his family members. He did not know, if the left shoulder of accused Manoj was got dislocated on 29.10.2014. He has denied that  accused Manoj remained hospitalized  on 29.10.2014 and  30.10.2014 or that accused Anil was not present in Delhi on   29.10.2014   or   that     he   was     present   in   his   college   at   Jaipur   from 28.10.2014 to 03.11.2014. He has denied that  whatever he has deposed in his examination in chief is false and motivated or that he has deposed falsely. Thus the testimony of this witness reveals that he is not an eye witness   of   the   alleged   occurrence.   His   testimony   is   found   to   be contradictory to the testimony of PW­11, as PW­11 Dayanand Verma has New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 86 deposed   that   prior   to   this   incident   which   occurred   on   29.11.2014,   only "KAHA SUNI" was held between his family  and accused and their family. Whereas, this witness has alleged that the accused and his other family members had also broken the window panes of his house and his car and the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   also   found   to   be   improved   and embellished,   as   this   witness   has   nowhere   mentioned   in   his   statement Ex/PW16/DA, recorded u/s.161 CrPC that Vijender Meena had intervened in the quarrel earlier held between the family of this witness and accused and their family members. Whereas, at the time of his examination in the court, he has improved his testimony. This witness claims that his wife had informed him telephonically about the occurrence, but no call Detail record of this witness and his wife have been proved on the record. Since, it is admitted by this witness that Vijender Meena, Deceased was friend of this witness and earlier, quarrels were also held between the family of this witness and accused and their family members. Since, this witness claims that   he   went   to   the   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital   soon   after   the alleged occurrence. Then what has prevented him to give the statement to the police immediately. Nor the IO had recorded his statement promptly. His   statement   Ex.PW16/DA   reveals   that   it   is   alleged   to   have   been recorded   on   01.11.2014.   Delay   in   recording   of   the   statement   of   this witness   is   not   explained.   This   witness   has   claimed   that   he   was telephonically called by the police on 01.11.2014 in the police station and such telephonic call was given by the police on the phone of his father. Whereas, the statement of father of this witness, who has been examined as PW11, reveals that it was recorded on 04.11.2014.  This witness has New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 87 deposed that Vijender Meena was unconscious in the SGM hospital. He has   also   deposed   that   he   was   screaming.   If   Vijender   Meena   was unconscious, then how could he scream and MLC of the Vijender Meena reveals that he was conscious and oriented. Since the statement of this witness   found   to   be   improved,   embellished   and   contradictory   to   the statement   of   other   witnesses   and   in   view   of   delay   in   recording   of   the statement,   his   testimony   also   appears   to  be  suspicious  and   in  view   of such delay in recording his statement, the planting of this witness cannot be   ruled   out   and   since   the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   found   to   be suspicious, so it does not inspire any confidence. 

35. Sh.   Heera  Chand   Meena  has  been   examined   as  PW1,   who has deposed that he had a son namely Vijender Kumar Meena, who died in a fight and he had identified dead body of his son Vijender in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital in the last year on second day of month, but he did   not   remember   the   month.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had identified  the dead body of Vijender's before postmortem in the hospital and after postmortem his dead  body  was handed  over to him. He has proved his statement Ex.PW1/A vide which, he had identified the dead body of his son Vijender Kumar Meena and also proved the receipt  Ex. PW 1/B vide which dead body of deceased was handed over to him.  He has further deposed that Mr. Nand Lal, who is  relative of this witness had also identified the   body of his son vide his identification statement and, then, the Addl. PP had requested for asking some leading question to this witness as to month of identification and after hearing, he was allowed to New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 88 ask   the   leading   question   and   then   this   witness   has   admitted   it   to   be correct   that   he   had   identified   the   body   of   his   son   in   the   month   of November, last year. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsels for accused and during his cross examination, he has admitted it to be correct   that   in   his   statement   Ex.PW1/A,   the   house   number   and   gali number disclosed by him was A­829, Gali No.9, Jain Nagar, Karala, Delhi and he never resided in house no. 829, Gali no.9 and also deposed that his deceased son used to reside in house no. 824, Gali no.5. Thus, from the testimony of this witness, it is clear that he had not uttered even single word against the accused. He did not depose that any enemical relation were   there   between   the   accused   and   deceased.   Had   there   been   any enmity between the accused and the deceased, this witness could depose about the same. This witness had deposed in his examination in chief that his son Vijender Kumar Meena had died in a fight, but, he did not depose that with whom, the said fight of Vijender took place. Had there been any fight between the accused and the deceased this witness could depose about the same.  But he did not depose about the same. This witness also did not depose that the son of Vijender used to go for tuition in the house of PW2 Sanjay Singh or that the wife of PW2 used to tutor Piyush who is the son of Vijender. Had, the son of Vijender Meena got tuition from the wife of Sanjay Kumar Singh, this witness could depose about the same. Thus,   the   testimony   of   PW­2   and   PW­11   are   not   corroborated   by   this witness. 

36.  Whereas,   Mr.   Chattar   Singh   has   been   examined   as   PW­10, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 89 who   has   deposed   that   on   dated   31.10.2014,   he   was   informed  that   his brother Vijender Meena had sustained injuries,   he went to Balaji Action Hospital. Where, he saw his brother, who was not in position to speak and the doctor handed over to him jeans, shirt and vest of his brother. Since, they were blood stained. He has further deposed that the clothes were lying beside the bed of his brother Vijender Meena and he handed over the said clothes to police officials and a document was prepared by the police to that effect and he signed the same.  Attention  of witness  was drawn towards the seizure memo Ex.PW10/A bearing signature of witness at point A. He has correctly identified one shirt, jeans and vest as of his brother. Same are Ex. P3 (colly.) and the Predecessor of this court had given its observation that there were no blood stain marks on the shirt, jeans or vest except few stains on the arm of shirt.   The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused   did   not   cross   examine   this   witness   so,   the   opportunity   of   the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL. But   perusal   of   the testimony  of  this  witness  reveals  that  this  witness  being  brother  of  the deceased   did   not   utter   even   single   word   about   any   enmity   between deceased and accused. Had there been any enmity or bad blood between the accused and the deceased this witness could depose about the same but this witness did not utter even single word against the accused.  This witness   has   deposed   that   he   was   informed   that   his   brother   Vijender Meena had sustained injuries, but, this witness did not disclose as to who had told him and as to how Vijender Meena had sustained injuries. 

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 90

37. Whereas,   Ms.   Pooja   Shrotriya,   Junior   Forensic/Chemical Examiner   has   been   examined   as   PW   12,   who   has   deposed   that   on 09.12.2014, four sealed parcels were received vide letter no. 3742 dated 09.12.2014 in  connection with the FIR no. 1210/14 dated 31.10.2014 u/s. 302/34   IPC   PS   Begumpur   duly   received   in   the   office.   She   has   further deposed   that   the   exhibits   were   examined   by   her   biologically   and serologically   and   after   examination   remnants   of   the   exhibits   were   re­ sealed with the seal of FSL P.SHRO Delhi and his detailed reports are Ex. PW12/A   and   Ex.PW12/B,   which   bear   her   signature   at   points   A.  The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the counsel for accused,   but,   she   was   not   cross   examined   by   Ld.   Counsel   for   the accused, so, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL.  No doubt that as per the report of the FSL Ex.PW12/A, blood   was   detected   on   the   piece   of   brick   and   another   report   of   FSL Ex.PW12/B  reveals  that blood  of the human  on the piece of brick was found. But, the blood group of human on the piece of brick could not be ascertained. As the column of grouping of this report reveals "no reaction"

and in view of the presence of human blood on the piece of brick, it cannot be   held   that   it   was   the   blood   of   the   deceased   thereon.   No   doubt   that human blood group 'O' is detected on the shirt and baniyan of deceased. Since, it is not proved on record as to what was the group of blood of the deceased, so in view of the mere presence of the human blood on the piece of brick or shirt or baniyan of the deceased, the testimony of this PW12   or   her   reports   Ex.PW12/A   and   Ex.PW12/B   cannot   be   used   for convicting the accused.

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 91

38. Whereas Dr. Vipin Dabas has been examined as PW 14, who has deposed that Dr. Jatin, JR has left the services of the hospital and he could identify the writing and signatures of Dr. Jatin, JR as he has seen him writing and signing in the ordinary course of his work.  He has further deposed   that   on   31.10.2014   at   7:10   PM   Dr.   Jatin   medically   examined patient Vijender Meena under his supervision vide MLC NO. 21103, SGM No. 152929 and the MLC is Ex. PW 14/A. The writing from points X1 to X2 was not written in his presence and Dr. Jatin had referred the patient to the surgery department, where, he was advised admission, but his friend and the person accompanying him had and  had taken the patient from SGM Hospital.  The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not cross examine this witness  so, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL. Thus from the testimony of this witness also, it is not clear as to who had told to Dr. Jatin (who had  medically  examined  Vijender Meena) that Vijender Meena was assaulted, either Dr. Jatin was told by Vijender Meena who was conscious and oriented or by Neha Sharma of CAT   Ambulance   Staff,   it   remained   a   mystery.   As   neither   first   IO   SI Sandeep Tushir bother to arrive in the hospital promptly nor second IO Inspector Sudhir Kumar chose to record the statement of Neha Sharma and Dr. Jatin.

39. Whereas,   Dr.   Anil   Kumar,   RMO,   Sri   Balaji   Action   Medical Institute   has   been   examined   as   PW   15,   who   has   deposed   that   on New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 92 02.11.2014 he gave death summary of patient Vijender Singh, who was admitted on 31.10.2014 vide MLC No. 21103 and death summary is Ex.

PW 15/A. He has further deposed that the cause of death of severe head injury.    The opportunity to cross examine this witness was given to the accused. But, the counsel for accused did not cross examine this witness so, the opportunity of the accused to cross examine this witness was done NIL.   Thus,   from   the   testimony   of   this   witness   also,   it   is   clear   that   this witness had also opined in the death summary Ex.PW15/A that the head injury was the cause of the death of deceased.

40. Whereas SI Sandeep Tushir has been examined as PW17, who has deposed that on 31.10.2014, he was posted as SI at PS Begumpur and on that day he and Ct. Ravi were on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00   pm.     He   has   further   deposed   that     at   about   6.15   pm   a   call   was received and it was informed that near Nag Mandir, Gali no. 9, Jain Nagar, there was one injured person, who had sustained head injury, which was bleeding profusely. He has further deposed that he along with Ct. Ravi reached at the spot and they came to know that injured was already taken to hospital and he and Ct. Ravi went to SGM hospital, which is in the area of   Mangolpuri   and   they   found   the   injured   Vijender   Kumar   Meena   was admitted there and thereafter, he was shifted to some unknown private hospital by his relatives / attendant and he collected the MLC of injured Vijender   Kumar   Meena.   He   has   further   deposed   that   in   the   MLC   of Vijender Kumar Meena, head injury was reflected and he and Ct. Ravi returned to PS and he made his endorsement Ex.PW17/A on the copy of New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 93 DD no.  59  and  recommended  registration  of  FIR.  Thereafter,  he  again went to the spot and made inquiry from the persons residing nearby. He has further deposed that one person namely Sanjay told him that he had witnessed the incident and he  had shown him the place of incident, where blood   was   lying.   He   informed   that   this   blood   was   of   injured   Vijender Kumar Meena and at that place he was beaten by Manoj and Anil (both brothers).   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   prepared   the   site   plan which   is   Ex.PW17/B   at   the   instance   of   eye   witness   Sanjay   and   in   the meantime, Ct. Ravi came to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He has further deposed that he had  mentioned the FIR no. on the site plan and he lifted blood stained soil and  earth control from the spot. He has further deposed that these were kept in separate plastic containers and sealed with the seal of ST and both these exhibits were   taken   into   police   possession   vide   seizure   memo   Ex.PW2/B   and Ex.PW2/C.   He   has   further   deposed   that   PW­2   Sanjay   Singh   pointed towards brick lying about 15­20 steps away from the place, where blood was lying and informed that accused Manoj and Anil had thrown that brick at the time of fleeing away from the spot. He has further deposed that this brick was lifted from the spot and blood stains were there on that brick and he had prepared parcel of that brick and sealed it with the seal of ST and seized the same, vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He has further deposed that before lifting the above said three exhibits, he took the photographs of the scene of crime with his mobile phone and he had handed over the seal to Ct. Ravi, after its use. He has further deposed that thereafter he and   Ct.   Ravi   returned   to   PS   and   PW­2   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh   was New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 94 instructed to reach at the police station. He has further deposed  that he had deposited the abovesaid case property with MHCM and obtained his seal   from   Ct.   Ravi.   He   has   further   deposed   that   PW­2   Sanjay   Kumar Singh came to police station and he inquired from him in detail about the incident and then recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He has further deposed   that   he   also   made   inquiries   from   Ct.   Ravi   and   recorded   his statement   and   this   investigation   continued   during   intervening   night   of 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014. He has further deposed that on 01.11.2014 at about 9.00 am an information was received by duty officer which was sent from Balaji Action hospital and it was informed that injured Vijender Kumar Meena was shifted there from SGM hospital and this information was recorded by duty officer vide DD No.16 Ex.PW7/A. He has further deposed that he went to Balaji Action hospital and moved an application for   seeking   opinion   about   the   condition   of   the   patient   Vijender   Kumar Meena and the doctor on duty declared the injured as not fit for statement on   his   application   Ex.PW17/C     and   endorsement   of   concerned   doctor regarding   fitness   of   injured   in   the   encircled   portion   X.   He   has   further deposed that thereafter, they returned to PS and briefed to the SHO about this case and the FIR of this case was registered u/s 308/34 IPC however he altered the offence u/s 307/34 IPC after recording the statement of eye witness   Sanjay.   He   has   further   deposed   that   on   the   same   day,   Mr. Chhatar Singh, brother of injured came to PS and produced the clothes of injured Vijender Kumar Meena, which were worn up by him at the time of incident and handed over to him by the doctor in Balaji action hospital. He has further deposed that the clothes were containing of one vest, shirt and New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 95 jeans and he  prepared parcels of these clothes and sealed the same with the seal of ST and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW10/A  and he deposited this sealed exhibits in malkhana. He had recorded the statement of Mr. Chhatar Singh. He has further deposed that on 02.11.2014, at about 9.50 am   an   information   was   received   from   Balaji   Action   hospital   regarding death of injured Vijender Kumar Meena, which was recorded by the duty officer vide DD no.13A Ex.PW5/A and he had added section 302/34 IPC in  the  case  file   and  further   investigation   of  this  case  was   taken   up   by Inspector   Sudhir.  He   has   further   deposed   that   he     along   with   IO   / Inspector Sudhir went to Balaji Action hospital and shifted the dead body of   injured   in   SGM   hospital   from   Balaji   Action   hospital.   He   has   further deposed   that   thereafter,   they   went   to   mortuary   SGM   hospital   and   IO conducted   the   inquest   proceeding   and   got   conducted   the   postmortem examination on the body of deceased Vijender Kumar Meena and then his dead body was handed over to his relatives. He has further deposed that after the postmortem examination, the doctor had handed over the sealed exhibits  along  with sample  seal, which were  seized  by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/D and in the SGM hospital   itself, IO had received the secret  information  regarding  one of the accused Manoj. He has further deposed   that   it   was   informed   that   accused   Manoj   would   come   near Sector­17, Rohini and then, he along with IO reached near G 3S cinema hall and there secret informer pointed towards one person standing there and identified him, as a accused Manoj and then the informer left the spot. At that time accused Manoj was on motorcycle and they apprehended him and brought him with the motorcycle to PS Begumpur. He has correctly New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 96 identified   accused   Manoj.   He   has   further   deposed   that   IO   interrogated accused   Manoj  in   PS   and   arrested   him   in   this   case.   He   has   further deposed that again said IO called eye witness Sanjay in PS and the eye witness  Sanjay  identified  accused  Manoj   in PS  as  one  of  the  accused involved in the offence. He has further deposed that then accused Manoj was   arrested   by   IO   vide   memo   of   arrest   Ex.PW2/E   and   his   personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW17/E. He has further deposed that IO recorded the supplementary statement of eye witness Sanjay and IO   interrogated   accused   Manoj   and   recorded   his   disclosure   statement Ex.PW17/F. He has further deposed that accused Manoj disclosed that he could identify the place of incident and then he led them to the place of incident and he pointed the place of incident. He has further deposed that IO prepared the pointing out memo is Ex.PW17/G and thereafter, accused Manoj was taken to SGM hospital and his medical examination was got done and then he was brought to PS. He was sent to lock up. He has proved  one shirt, one jeans and one vest   of deceased Vijender Kumar Meena   as  Ex.P­3  (collectively),  brick   Ex.P­1,  the   loose   pieces   of  earth control Ex.P­2, loose pieces of earth control Ex.P­5. He has also proved the seizure memo   Ex.PW17/H of motorcycle, on which accused Manoj was apprehended. He has also proved the six photographs of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 11 SH 2286 Ex.PW17­A to Ex.PW17­I and the CD containing the photographs of the motorcycle Ex. PW17/J and the four photographs Ex.PW17/K1 to Ex.PW17/K4. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and during his cross examination, he has deposed that for the first time, he had reached at the spot at about New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 97 11.45 pm on 31.10.2014 and no public person was present at the spot at that time.  He has further deposed that he did not visit the house of injured Vijender Kumar Meena, at any point of time during investigation of this case.  He has further deposed that he talked to the wife of injured Vijender Kumar   Meena   during   investigation   however   he   did   not   recollect   as   to whether, he had recorded her statement or not.  He has further deposed that he met with the wife of injured at about 1.00 am during the intervening night of 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014 and he talked with her in the street, which was in the mid of place of incident and house of injured.   He has further deposed that he  remained at the spot i.e. place of incident   from 11.45   pm     till   12.45   am   and   thereafter,   he   remained   present   near   the place of incident for further one hour. He has further deposed that after leaving the place of incident at 12.45 am, he met to the wife of Vijender Kumar   Meena   and   secret   informer   and   the   house   of   Vijender   Kumar Meena is about 150 meters from place of incident.  He did not remember the address of house of injured / deceased and the house of injured was about 2­3 streets away from the place of incident and when, he met to the wife   of   injured   /   deceased,   she   was   alone   in   the   street   and   no   public person was present with her. He has further deposed that he cannot admit or deny the fact that he had recorded the statement of wife of deceased and that he could state about this fact only after perusing the record. On seeing the police file, he has deposed that he has perused the case diary and it is mentioned therein about recording of the statement of wife of the deceased   in   the   same.   He   has   denied   that   the   statement   of   wife   of deceased was recorded at her house. Then, on drawing the attention of New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 98 this witness towards statement of Constable Ravi Hooda recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC  recorded  on   01.11.2014,    he has further  deposed  that  it is the same statement of Ct. Ravi Hooda, which was recorded by him u/s.161 CrPC which is Ex.PW17/DA.   He has admitted it to be correct that it is mentioned in the statement of Ct. Ravi Hooda from point A to A1 that they went to the house of deceased and recorded statement of his wife and voluntarily stated that there is a mistake in the statement of Ct.Ravi Hooda recorded by him that they had gone to the house of deceased, as actually they  had not gone the house  and he had made inquiry from the wife of deceased, Vijender Kumar Meena in the street. He has admitted it to be correct that the statement of Ct.Ravi Hooda is not correctly recorded.  He is denied that he has   fabricated and tampered with the evidence of the witness.  He has admitted that  he  talked to the wife of the deceased for about 15­20 minutes and then they met with secret informers.   He has further deposed that thereafter, they proceeded for PS and he inquired from the other residents of area besides Sanjay, but, none of them could give detail about the incident except Sanjay.  He has further deposed that after the date of incident, he had again visited the spot on 02.11.2014, when accused Manoj took them to the place of incident for pointing out. He has denied that on 02.11.2014, they did not take accused Manoj to the place of incident, as it was already known to them.  He has denied that he was not  present at the place of incident between 11.45 pm and 12.45 am, on the intervening night of 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014.   He has denied that he had not met any of the secret informer near the place of incident after 12.45 am or that during that period, he was present in the police New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 99 station.   He   has   admitted   that   he   did   not   seize   his   mobile   phone,   with which,   he   clicked   the   photographs   of   the   spot   of   crime   and   he   got developed   the   photographs   clicked   with   his   mobile   phone   and   then handed over the same to the IO. He has admitted that he had not given any certificate u/s. 65B of Evidence Act to the investigating officer with regard   to   photographs.   He   has   denied   that   he   had   not   clicked   any photograph   of   the   crime   spot   with   his   mobile   phone   or   that   the photographs   placed   on   record   are   fabricated   or   that   due   to   the   said reason, he has  not given a certificate u/s. 65B of Evidence Act.  He has further deposed that he did not remember, whether he had stated to the IO   in   his   statement   u/s   161   Cr.PC   that   in   the   SGM   hospital   that   IO received the secret information regarding one of the accused Manoj and when   the   attention   of   the   witness   was   drawn   towards   his   statement recorded   u/s   161   Cr.PC,   then   after   reading   the   same,   he   has   further admitted that the statement Ex.PW17/DB was made by him to the IO. He was   confronted   with   his   statement   Ex.PW17/DB,   where   it   was   not   so specifically recorded that the secret informer had met the IO in the SGM hospital.   He   has   further   admitted   that   he   had   not   stated   to   the investigating officer in his statement Ex.PW17/DB that it was informed that accused Manoj would come near Sector­7 Rohini. He has further deposed that he had not stated to the IO in his statement Ex.PW17/DB that the secret informer near G3S cinema hall had pointed out towards one person standing there and identified him as accused Manoj and then informer left the spot. He has denied that no secret information was received by IO from   anyone   or   that   the   accused   Manoj   was   not   arrested   near   G3S New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 100 cinema hall or that no informer had pointed out towards accused at that place or that had concocted story to shield illegal investigation carried out by him  and by Inspector Sudhir.  He has further deposed that he did not remember the time, when, he went to Balaji action hospital on 01.11.2014 and he had not recorded statement of any doctor, official and attendant of injured at the hospital. He has further admitted that the doctor with whom, he met in the  Balaji Action hospital, did not inform him about the clothes of Vijender Kumar Meena and  PW­10 Chhatar Singh came to him at PS in the evening of 01.11.2014.   He has further deposed that he had not called   Mr.   Chhatar   Singh   by   giving   notice,   he   had   come   in   the   police station on his own had come to the PS.  He has denied that Mr. Chhatar Singh did not produce the clothes Ex.P­3 before him or that said clothes were falsely planted in this case or that his statement was fabricated by him at the instance of the IO. He has admitted it to be correct that he had not recorded the statement of PW­2 Sanjay   at the spot in the night of 31.10.2014 and he did not remember at what time he had recorded the statement   of   PW­2   Sanjay.   He   has   voluntarily   deposed   that   his   said statement was recorded on 01.11.2014.  He has denied that PW2 Sanjay Singh did not tell him the names of the accused persons on 31.10.2014 at the spot or on 01.11.2014.  He has denied that   PW­2 Sanjay Singh did not  inform  him  that  the   blood  was  lying  at  the  spot  of  Vijender   Kumar Meena.   He has denied that   neither on 31.10.2014 nor on 01.11.2014, PW2  Sanjay   Singh   had   informed  him   that   Vijender   Kumar   Meena   was beaten up by accused Manoj and Anil at the spot. He has denied that PW­ 2 Sanjay Singh did not visit the PS or met him on the intervening night of New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 101 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014.  He has denied that  PW­2 Sanjay Singh did not visit to the PS or met him during the morning, afternoon, evening and night   of   01.11.2014.   He   has   further   deposed   that   the   proceedings conducted by him are regarding his going to the spot on receipt of call, going to the SGM hospital and collecting MLC of the injured, endorsing on the     rukka,   going   to   the   spot,   preparing   site   plan,   preparing   seizure memos,   arrest   of   the   accused   Manoj,   recording   of   statements   of   the witnesses etc. have been   deposed   by him in   his examination in chief. He   has   admitted   it  to   be   correct   that   he   has   not   conducted   any   other investigation except for whatever he has deposed in his examination in chief.   He has denied that he has wrongly and falsely   stated that 'PW2 Sanjay Singh' pointed out towards brick lying at the spot, i.e.  about 15­20 steps   away   from   the   place,   where   blood   was   lying   and   informed   that accused Manoj had thrown this brick (weapon of offence) at the time of fleeing away from the spot in order to falsely implicate accused persons in this case. He has admitted that the clothes of Mr. Sanjay Singh were not blood stained, when he had met him and he did not seize his clothes. He has further deposed that  PW2 Mr. Sanjay Singh did not offer his clothes before him for seizure. He has denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of IO to falsely implicate the accused persons or   that no brick was seized from the spot and it was planted later on to falsely implicate the   accused   persons   or   that   no   proceedings   /   investigation   were conducted by him at the spot and he has fabricated the same at PS or that he had also fabricated the statements u/s 161Cr.PC. He has denied that the accused persons are not involved in the present case or that he New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 102 has fabricated the statements of witnesses to falsely implicate them or that investigating officer has directed him to record fabricated statements of the witnesses belatedly to falsely implicate the accused persons.  This witness  was   re­examined   by  Ld.   Addl.  PP  for  the   State   and  in   his  re­ examination   by   Ld.   Addl.PP   for   State   he   has   deposed   that   after   the receipt of the call at 6.15 pm on 31.10.2014, he along with Ct. Ravi had gone to the spot i.e Gali no.9, Near Nag Mandir, Jain Nagar, Delhi, where, they   had   reached   after   about   20­25   minutes   of   receipt   of   the   call. Thereafter, he had gone to the spot i.e Gali no.9, Near Nag Mandir, Jain Nagar, Delhi for the second time at about 11.45 pm - 12.00 midnight on 31.10.2014.  This witness was again cross examined by counsel for both the accused. During his cross­examination he has admitted that he had visited the exact spot, where, the blood of the injured/deceased was lying for the first time at night of 31.10.2014 at about 11.45 pm - 12.00 midnight and it was in the same gali i.e gali no.9 and he cannot tell the length of gali no. 9, as it has several by­lanes. He has voluntarily stated that the distance between the place where the blood of the injured was lying and the   place,   where,   he   had   visited   on   receipt   of   call   at   6.15   pm   on 31.10.2014 was about 150­200 meters. He has further deposed that he did not record the statements of the public persons who were at the spot, when, he had reached on receipt of the call of 6.15 pm on 31.10.2014 ad he did not know the names of the persons who had informed him that injured was already removed to the hospital.  He has denied that he had not visited the spot on 31.10.2014 after the receipt of call at 6.15 pm on 31.10.2014 or that he has deposed falsely. This PW17 had received the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 103 information   at   6.15PM   on   dated   31.10.2014   and   during   his   cross­ examination, he has deposed that for the first time, he had arrived at the spot at 11.45PM on dated 31.10.2014 and also deposed that no public person   met   him   there.   Whereas,   in   his   examination   in   chief,   he   has deposed that Sanjay Singh (PW2) met him and he has also deposed in his   examination   in  chief   that   he   had   made   enquiries   from   the   persons residing nearby. But, this witness has failed to bring on record the name of any   of   said   persons,   from   whom,   he   is   alleged   to   have   enquired.   His testimony   is   self   contradictory.   This   witness   has   deposed   that   PW­2 Sanjay Singh met him on the night of 31.10.2014. But, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why PW17 had not recorded the statement of Sanjay Kumar Singh on dated 31.10.2014 at the spot. This witness has deposed that Ct. Ravi accompanied him to the spot on dated 31.10.2014. This witness has deposed that the FIR was registered u/s. 308/34 of IPC. Whereas, the perusal of the FIR Ex.PW6/A reveals that it was registered on dated 31.10.2014 at 11.20PM u/s. 308 and Section 34 of IPC was not written therein. This witness has also deposed that he had recorded the disclosure   statement   Ex.PW17/F   of   accused   Manoj.   But,   as   on   dated 02.11.2014, the disclosure statement Ex.PW17/F is alleged to have been written by Inspector Sudhir (PW20) when this accused was in the custody of the police and nothing has been recovered in furtherance thereof. So, the   disclosure   statement   of   accused   Manoj   is   held   to   be   inadmissible under the law of evidence. This witness has denied that during his cross­ examination he met and talked with the wife of the deceased at 1.00AM, on the intervening night of 31.10.2014 and 01.11.2014 in the street, which New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 104 was in the mid of the place of occurrence and house of the injured. But, (PW11) Dayanand Verma has deposed that he and the wife of Vijender Meena stayed in the Balaji Action hospital on the night of 31.10.2014 and if the wife of the deceased Vijender Meena stayed in the Balaji hospital. Then, how could she meet to PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir in the street in the night at 1.00AM. Thus, there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW­11 and PW­17. This PW­17 has deposed that he did not go to the house of the deceased. Whereas, the statement of constable Ravi Hooda recorded   u/s.161   of   Cr.PC   Ex.PW17/DA   reveals   that   he   had   deposed therein that he along with PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir went to the house of Vijender Meena and enquiries were made from her and her statement was also   recorded   and   this   witness   PW­17   (IO/SI)   Sandeep   Tushir   after consulting with the case diary has admitted that the statement of wife of Vijender   Meena   was   also   recorded   by   him.   But   for   the   best   reasons known   to   the   Inspector   Jagminder   Singh   (PW18),   he   did   not   file   the statement of wife of deceased with the report u/s.173 of CrPC nor the wife of the deceased has been impleaded as witness of the prosecution nor she is examined in the court. Since, the statement of Ct. Ravi Hooda was recorded by PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir and for the best reasons known to this PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir, he had spoken that he had not gone to the house of the deceased Vijender Meena. No doubt that Ct. Ravi Hooda was   impleaded   in   the   list   of   witnesses   of   the   prosecution.   But   the prosecution   chose   to   drop   this   witness   and   at   the   time   of   filing   of   the charge  sheet  and  it  is not  explained  by the  prosecution  as  to why the statement   of   wife   of   the   deceased   is   withheld   by   Inspector   Jagminder New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 105 Singh (PW18) who had filed the charge sheet. The wife of the deceased could   depose   about   the   enmity   if   any,   between   the   deceased   and   the accused. But, the statement of wife of the deceased is withheLd. So, an adverse inference  is drawn against the prosecution for withholding of the statement of the wife of the deceased and also for non­examination of Ct. Ravi Hooda and wife of deceased. This PW17 has deposed that he had talked with the wife of the deceased. But he did not disclose any fact as to what   was   told   by   the   wife   of   the   deceased   to   this   witness   about   the occurrence. This witness (PW17) has admitted that he had not recorded the   statement   of   PW2   Sanjay   Singh   at   the   spot   on   the   night   of 31.10.2014. But, he failed to explain what had prevented him to record the statement of PW2 at the spot on the night of 31.10.2014. This PW17 has deposed  that he had  recorded  the  statement  of PW2 Sanjay Singh  on dated 01.11.2014. Whereas, PW2 Sanjay Singh has deposed in his cross­ examination that he went to the police station for the first time on dated 02.11.2014.  Thus,  there  are  material   contradictions   in  the statement   of PW2 Sanjay Singh and PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir. Since, Shri Vijender Meena died on 02.11.2014 in the Balaji Action hospital and since PW­2 Sanjay Singh has deposed that for the first time, he went to the police station on 02.11.2014. So, the possibility of recording of statement of PW2 Sanjay Singh by PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir on dated 02.11.2014 after the demise   of   Vijender   Meena   after   due   deliberations   and   colouring   the version, cannot be ruled out. PW­2 Sanjay Singh and PW­11 Dayanand Verma have deposed  in their cross­examination  that their clothes were stained with blood, when, they took Vijender Meena to the Sanjay Gandhi New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 106 Memorial hospital in injured condition. But, presence of PW2 Sanjay Singh and   PW11   Dayanand   Verma   at   the   time   and   place   of   occurrence   is doubtful   and   this   PW17   SI   Sandeep   Tushir,   who   was   assigned   initial investigation could seize the alleged blood stained clothes of PW2 and PW11.  But   PW­2  Sanjay  Singh   and   PW11  Dayanand  Verma  have  not stated   in   their   statements   recorded   u/s.161   of   CrPC,   that   their   clothes were   ever   stained   with   blood   and   it   appears   to   the   court   that   these prosecution witnesses No.2 and 11 have introduced new facts at the time of their cross­examination and since, their blood stained clothes are also not   seized,   so,   it   cannot   be   assumed   or   presumed   that   the   clothes   of these   prosecution   witnesses   were   either  stained   with  the   blood   or  that they   were   present   at   the   spot   or   in   the   hospital.   Since,   the   MLC   of deceased Vijender Meena Ex.PW14/A reveals that Vijender Meena was conscious and oriented on 31.10.2014 at 7.10PM, when, he was admitted in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital and as per the MLC Ex.PW14/A of the deceased, he was brought in the hospital by Ms. Neha Sharma from the   CAT   Staff   of   Ambulance   and   this   witness   has   deposed   that   after receiving information, he went to the spot and it was told that the injured was taken to the hospital. But, this witness has failed to tell that who had told him that injured was taken to the hospital. As, it is mentioned in the MLC of injured Vijender Meena that he was conscious and oriented. So, this PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir could go to the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital immediately and could inquire from Vijender Meena or Ms. Neha Sharma of CAT Ambulance Staff, who had taken to Vijender Meena in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital. But, this PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir did New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 107 not bother to arrive in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital immediately. Had he arrived in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital immediately, he could   enquire   from   the   Vijender   Meena   or   Ms.   Neha   Sharma   of   CAT Ambulance Staff or from Dr. Jatin who had medico legally examined to Vijender   Meena   vide   his   MLC   Ex.PW14/A,   as   to   who   had   told   to   that doctor   that   Vijender   Meena   was   assaulted.   But,   SI   Sandeep   Tushir (PW17) did not enqiure from Ms. Neha Sharma, of CAT Ambulance Staff and Dr. Jatin, who had medico legally examined to the Vijender Meena in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital. Since the PCR form Ex.PW4/A reveals the phone number of the caller Sanjay Kumar Singh. But, this PW17 SI Sandeep   Tushir   did   not   bother   to   contact   with   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh immediately and if the cross­examination of this PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir is   looked   into,   then,   for   the   first   time,   he   had   arrived   at   the   spot   on 31.10.2014 at 11.45PM and in his examination in chief, he has stated that he met with Sanjay Singh. But in his cross­examination, he has stated that no public person met him and this witness even admitted that he did not record the statement of Sanjay Singh on the spot on 31.10.2014. Such conduct of SI Sandeep Tushir (PW17) shows his negligent conduct and lackadaisical   approach   and   in   view     of   contradictory   testimony   of   this witness, it does not inspire any confidence therein.

41. Whereas SI Rajesh Kumar has been examined as PW 19, who has deposed that  on 02.11.2014, he was posted as SI at PS Begumpur and on that day, IO/Inspector Sudhir Kumar called him in his room and briefed him about the facts of this case. He had informed him that one of New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 108 the wanted accused in this case namely, Anil was studying in Gyan Vihar University,   Partap   Nagar,   Jaipur   and   he   directed   him   (PW19)   to   go   to Jaipur in above named university and to bring accused Anil at Delhi.  He has further deposed that on the same day, he along with Ct. Ravi Huda went to Jaipur and they went to local police station i.e Partap Nagar and took the help of local staff and then, they along with police went to Gyan Vihar   university.     He   has   further   deposed   that   he   made   inquiry   about accused Anil from the guards at university and on checking, the guard informed him that Anil was not picking up the phone, so, it appeared that at that time, he was not available in his room and after about half hour, accused Anil was found in the university and then, they brought him to Delhi. He had correctly identified accused Anil in the Court. He has further deposed that they reached PS Begumpur at about 6.30 am on 03.11.2014 and he  produced accused Anil before IO/Inspector Sudhir. He has further deposed   that   IO   called   PW   Sanjay   at   police   station.   PW­2   Sanjay identified accused Anil and then IO interrogated accused Anil and arrested him in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/D   and his  personal search was taken vide personal search memo Ex.PW19/A. He has further deposed that accused Anil made disclosure statement, during which, he had   disclosed   that   he   could   get   recovered   the   weapon   of   offence   i.e DANDA from Gali no. 6 Jain Nagar, Begumpur, Delhi and the disclosure statement   of   accused   Anil   is  Ex.PW19/B.   He   has   further   deposed   that accused   Anil   led   the   police   party   comprising   of   himself,   IO/Inspector Sudhir   and   his   staff   to   street   no.   6   Jain   Nagar,   Begumpur,   near   Nag mandir  (temple) boundary  wall. He has further deposed that there  was New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 109 heap of stones lying on the north eastern side of the temple and accused Anil got the weapon of offence i.e DANDA recovered from the base under the pile of stones. He has further deposed that IO took the measurements of that DANDA and then prepared a cloth parcel of the same and sealed the parcel with the seal of SKG and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/C and accused Anil also led the police party to the place of incident situated in street no. 9 and pointed out the place of incident. He has further deposed that   IO   prepared   pointing   out   memo   Ex.PW19/D.   After   his   medical examination in SGM hospital, accused Anil was produced in the Court. His statement was recorded by the IO in this case and the DANDA was 17 ¾ inch in the length and its circumference was 4 X 3.5 cm and on seeing the DANDA Ex.P­4, he had stated that it is the same DANDA which was recovered   at   the   instance   of   accused   Anil.   This   witness   was   cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. During his cross­examination, he has   admitted   it  to   be   correct   that   there   were  no  blood   stains  over   the DANDA   Ex.P­4.     This   witness   was   made   to   see   his   statement   u/s 161Cr.PC dated 03.11.2014 and after reading the same, he has deposed that he   had stated in his   statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C recorded by the IO that Inspector Sudhir informed him that one of the wanted accused in this case namely Anil was studying in Gyan Vihar University, Partap Nagar, Jaipur. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW19/DA recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC on dated 03.11.2014, where it was not so recorded. He has further   deposed   that   he   had   stated   to   the   police   in   his   statement Ex.PW19/DA recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC that they went to local police station i.e Partap Nagar and took the help of local staff and then,they along with New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 110 local   police   went   to   Gyan   Vihar   university   and   he   made   inquiry   about accused Anil from the guards at university. He was confronted with his statement  Ex.PW19/DA  recorded  u/s.  161  Cr.PC  on  dated  03.11.2014, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he had stated to the police in his statement Ex.PW19/DA recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC that on   checking,   the   guard   informed   him   that   Anil   was   not   picking   up   the phone, so it appeared that at that time, he was not available in his room and after about half an hour, accused Anil was found in the university and then,  they brought  him to Delhi.  He was confronted  with his statement Ex.PW19/DA recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC dated 03.11.2014, where it was not so recorded. He has further deposed that he and Ct. Ravi had gone to Jaipur in his car bearing registration no. HR 36 V 9301 and they had left PS Begumpur at about 2.30 pm and reached at Jaipur at about 8.30 ­9.00 pm, he had not made any DD entry regarding his departure from the PS for going to Jaipur.  He has further deposed that he had made the entry regarding his arrival along with Ct Ravi at Jaipur in the rough register of PS Partap Nagar, Jaipur and he had personally not made the entry and he had only verbally informed the police at PS Partap Nagar, Jaipur. He has further   deposed   that   four   police   officials   from   PS   Partap  Nagar,   Jaipur thereafter,   accompanied   them   in   their   official   vehicle   to   Gyan   Vihar university and the  four police officials may have been one SI, one driver and   two   constables,   but,   he   did   not   remember   exactly.   He   has   further deposed that he did not remember whether  or not any entry regarding their arrival was made in the visitor's register of  Gyan Vihar university and they had inquired from the guard posted at the gate regarding accused New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 111 Anil and no inquiry was made from any official, officers and Principal. He has further deposed that he did not inquire about the name of the guard, from whom, he had made inquiry regarding accused Anil. He has further deposed that he also did not record the statement of the guard and the distance between the gate, where the guard was posted and the hostel of accused Anil was about 500 meters. He has further deposed that he did not remember the exact number of the blocks, but, there were several blocks and voluntarily stated that they were told about the room number and block number of the hostel of accused Anil by Inspector Sudhir before they had left the PS. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW19/DA recorded u/s.161 CrPC dated 03.11.2014, where it is not so recorded. He has further deposed that the guard had called on the intercom and talked to someone and thereafter he had told them that accused Anil was not available in the hostel. He has further deposed that he did not remember on  which  floor,   the  room   of accused  Anil   was situated.   He had   further deposed that the hostel of accused Anil was triple or four storeyed but he did not remember. He has further deposed that he cannot tell the size of the room of accused Anil in the hostel as he did not go inside his room. He has admitted that he did not give any information in writing to the hostel warden nor sought any permission from him regarding the apprehension of accused Anil and he was brought to Delhi and voluntarily stated that they had verbally informed the guards posted at gate of university. He was was confronted with his statement Ex.PW19/DA recorded u/s.161 CrPC dated 31.10.2014, where it is not so recorded. He has further deposed that   he   had   not   made   any   DD   entry   at   PS   Partap   Nagar,   Jaipur   with New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 112 regard   to   taking   of   accused   Anil   to   Delhi   and   he   did   not   remember whether or not he had taken any reimbursement from his office for using his private car for going to Jaipur for apprehension of accused Anil. He has denied that he has not gone to Jaipur at Gyan Vihar university and due to said reasons, he has given evasive replies. He has further deposed that  he did not remember, whether he had made any entry regarding his arrival in PS Begumpur, after returning from Jaipur with accused Anil or not and he did not remember at what time, PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh had come to PS Begumpur, as, he was called by Inspector Sudhir. He has further deposed that when accused Anil was arrested around 9.00AM, Mr. Sanjay   was   in   the   PS   with   Inspector   Sudhir   and   the   interrogation   of accused Anil had commenced at about 8.30 am. He has further deposed that   when,   he   had   seen   Mr.   Sanjay   for   the   first   time   in   the   PS,   no document   was   prepared   by   them   and   the   documents   were   prepared simultaneously as per the investigation, which was being conducted.  He has further deposed that accused Anil was interrogated, arrested and his personal search was conducted in the presence of Sanjay Kumar Singh and the documents pertaining to his arrest  and personal  search memo were prepared at that time. He has further deposed that Sanjay Kumar Singh had signed on arrest memo, but, he does not know whether or not Sanjay had signed on the other documents.  He has further deposed that he along with Inspector Sudhir, accused Anil and the support staff of the SHO,   whose   names,   he   did   not   remember,   had   left   the   PS   between 10.00­10.30 am on 03.11.2014 and the support staff were the driver and operator and the operator had the custody of accused Anil at that time. He New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 113 had denied that an operator is staff of communication wing of Delhi police. First of all, they had gone to the place of incident and then, the place from where the weapon of offence was recovered, then to SGM hospital for the medical   examination   of   accused   Anil   and   thereafter   to   Rohini   Courts where accused Anil was produced before the Court of Ld. Area MM and remanded   in   judicial   custody.   He   has   further   deposed   that   they   had reached the place of incident after about 15 minutes of their leaving the PS in government vehicle and all the police officials were in uniform. He has further deposed that the public had not gathered at the spot when they reached at the spot and no public persons were present at the spot. He has further deposed that they had not made any efforts to inquire from the neighbours about the present case nor they made any efforts to join them during investigation at that time. He has further deposed that they came to know that deceased was a resident of Alwar and all the residents of that area had gone to Alwar for condolence.  He has denied that he and police team did not go to the place of incident along with accused Anil on 03.11.2014 or any other day or that he has concocted false story. He has further deposed that he had prepared pointing out memo at the spot and voluntarily stated that the investigation and writing work was done at the instance of the IO. He has denied that now writing work was carried out by him at the spot and pointing out memo was later on prepared in PS to falsely implicate the accused persons. The official gypsy was also parked near the spot.   He has further deposed that the distance between Gali No.9 and nag mandir in Gali No. 6 is about 400­500 meters and they went to nag mandir from spot by official gypsy and reached there within 7­8 New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 114 minutes. He has further deposed that the Nag mandir was closed at that time and the door of the temple was bolted from outside and not locked. He has further deposed that the width of the street no. 6 is about 15­20 feet   and   there   are   no   houses   near   the   Nag   mandir.   He   has   further deposed that no public person was present at the temple and   near the temple at that time. He has further deposed that when they left PS for the spot number of public persons were going   here  and there during  that time. He has further deposed that IO asked about 4­5 persons to join the investigation   at   Jain   Nagar,   40   feet   road,   however,   they   left   without disclosing their identify. He has further deposed that no notice was served on those public persons, who refused to join the proceedings and the area of Mandir is 50 square yards. He has further deposed that the main gate of the Nag Mandir was made of iron is of 5 x 7 feet and no shops are there near the temple and there is no school near the temple. The level of street no.   6  is same  as   of  Nag  mandir.  However,   there   is  some   other  street adjacent   to   Nag   mandir   and   the   level   of   that   street   is   lower   than   the temple.   He has denied that   on 03.11.2014, number of houses, school and factory were situated near the Nag mandir and the gate of the Nag mandir is situated in gali no. 6. He has further deposed that he cannot tell the   dimensions   of   height   of   the   building   of   Nag   mandir   and   to   his knowledge, there is no basement in the temple as he did not conduct any inspection there.   He has denied that priest (pujari) and his family were residing   in   the   temple   as   on   03.11.2014   and   they   remained   near   Nag mandir for about 10­15 minutes but he cannot tell the exact time. He has admitted to be correct that  it was in the morning and prior to 12.00 noon New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 115 and   they   were   there   between   10.00   am   to   11.30   am   for   about   10­15 minutes. He has further deposed that they were four policemen present at that time and as no public person was present at Nag mandir, no public person was associated in the investigation. He has denied that he had deposed falsely that no public person was available at and around Nag mandir as they had never gone there and the road of street no. 6 was made of bricks, the adjacent street to the Nag temple was a kuccha road at that time. He has admitted it to be correct that  both kuccha and pucca road are adjacent to the building of mandir and the Nag mandir is situated at the corner of street no. 6. He is not aware about the width of adjacent street   to   the   Nag   temple.   He   has   voluntarily   stated   that   there   was   no boundary wall of the plot near Nag temple in that other adjacent street. He has denied that   DANDA was not recovered at the instance of accused Anil or that they had planted the same on him at PS to falsely implicate accused persons in the present case. He has denied that priest of the temple was available at that time or that number of public persons were also living in the vicinity of the mandir and he did not know whether or not the Nag mandir used to open at about 5.00 am and closed at 12.00 noon and voluntarily deposed that on 03.11.2014, the main door of the temple was  bolted   from  outside  at  the  time  when   they  reached  there.   He has further deposed that he has not stated in his statement to the IO that on 03.11.2014, the main door of the temple was bolted from outside at the time when they reached there, as the IO was with them at that time. He had denied that on 03.11.2014, the Nag Mandir was opened from 5.00 am to   12.00   noon   or   that   he   has     concocted   a   story,   as   no   DANDA   was New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 116 recovered at the instance of accused Anil. He had denied that recovery memo of DANDA Ex.P­4 has been fabricated by him at PS at the instance of IO to falsely implicate accused persons. He has further deposed that Mr. Sanjay Singh (PW2) did not accompany them when they had left the PS with accused Anil, as Mr. Sanjay had already left the PS and he did not know the exact time, when Mr. Sanjay had left the PS. He has further deposed that  he has  no personal knowledge, whether PW­2 Mr. Sanjay Singh was asked to join investigation by the IO or not when they left the PS along with accused Anil.  He has further deposed that on 03.11.2014, he along with IO and with his supporting staff and with accused Anil went to the place of incident from PS, then, they went to street no. 6 near Nag mandir. Then, they went to SGM hospital and thereafter accused Anil was produced in the Court. He has further deposed that during this period they did not go to any other place, except, the places mentioned above. He has admitted it to be correct that  alleged place of recovery is accessible to   public   at   large   and   anybody   can   go   to   the   said   place   without   any hindrance. He has voluntarily deposed that the DANDA was got recovered by accused under the pile of stones which is not accessible to general public. He has further deposed that he did not specifically mention in his statement u/s161Cr.PC that the pile of stones is not accessible to general public. He has denied that no DANDA was recovered under the pile of stones near Nag Mandir or that they had planted the same on accused Anil at PS or that due to the said reason no public person had witnessed the alleged recovery memo. He has denied that  no public person joined in the   investigation,   as   they   had   fabricated   the   alleged   incriminating New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 117 evidence against  the accused  at the instance of Inspector  Sudhir,  who was his senior.  He had denied that  accused Anil did not lead the police party comprising of him, IO/Inspector Sudhir and his staff to street no. 6 Jain Nagar, Begumpur near Nag Mandir (temple) boundary wall  or that he remained at PS. He has denied that no DANDA was recovered under the heap / piles of stones lying on the north eastern side of the temple or  that IO   did   not   take   the   measurements   of   that   DANDA   or   that   he   did   not prepare  a cloth parcel of the same or that accused Anil did not lead the police party to the place of incident situated in street no. 9 or pointed out the place of incident or that IO  did not prepare pointing out memo. He has further denied that he had not gone to Jaipur and due to the said reasons he   had   given   evasive   replies   with   regard   to   the   alleged   proceedings conducted   at   Jaipur.   He   had   further   deposed   that   he   went   along   with accused Anil when he was taken to SGM hospital by IO for his medical examination and no other accused of this case was present at the hospital during medical examination of accused Anil. He had further deposed that he   did   not   come   to   the   Court   room   when   accused   Anil   was   produced before Ld. MM by the IO and he  remained present near the official vehicle outside the Court building. He had further deposed that only accused Anil accompanied   them   from   hospital   to   the   Court   and   no   other   accused person of this case accompanied them to the Court at that time. He had denied that he had signed on various memos in the present case at the instance of IO, who had fabricated the said memos to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case.   He had denied that he had not witnessed any proceedings mentioned by him in his examination in chief New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 118 and   he   had   concocted   and   fabricated   a   story   at   the   instance   of   IO   to falsely   implicate   the   accused   persons.     He   had   denied   that   he   has deposed falsely.  Thus, the testimony of this witness reveals that he has claimed that he had gone at Jaipur along with Ct. Ravi Hooda to arrest accused Anil and he has also claimed that accused Anil was apprehended by him in Rajasthan, where, he was studying in Gyan Vihar University. But, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any documentary proof to prove that this witness had gone at Jaipur. This witness has claimed that he had gone to the local police of police station Pratap Nagar, but, no DD entry regarding the same has been proved on the record. He has also deposed   that   four   police   personnels   from   police   station   Pratap   Nagar (Jaipur) also accompanied in the Gyan Vihar University, but prosecution has failed to bring on record the statement of any police official  of PS Pratap Nagar (jaipur) to prove this fact.  Since, this witness has failed to tell   details   regarding   the   hostel   of   accused   Anil,   whether   it   was   triple storey building or four storey building. So it is doubtful that this witness had gone to Jaipur for apprehending the accused Anil. Since, the accused Anil   was   residing   in   the   hostel   in   Gyan   Vihar   University   and   the   Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that since the parents of the accused were detained in the police station and the accused Anil was forced to come at Delhi and since this witness has failed to bring on record any documentary proof regarding his going in the Rajasthan and apprehension of   accused   Anil   at   Rajasthan.   So,   in   the   absence   of   any   documentary proof   regarding   the   going   of   this   witness   in   Rajasthan   in   Gyan   Vihar University, it is probable that the accused Anil would have come at Delhi New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 119 in view of the pressure created by the police after detaining to the parents of this accused. This witness has deposed during his cross­examination that IO had asked 4­5 persons to join the investigation at Jain Nagar. But, they did not join and left the place without disclosing their identity. But the testimony of this witness is found to be contradictory to the testimony of PW­20   IO   SI   Sudhir   Kumar,   who   has   not   stated   so.   This   witness   has deposed  during his cross­examination that area of Nag Mandir is 50 sq. yards.   Whereas,   PW­20   has   failed   to   tell   the   area   of   Nag   Mandir. Whereas, the accused has examined Shri Laxman Singh, draftsman, who has deposed in the court that the exact area of the said Mandir is 1133 sq. yds., and he has also proved the site plan Ex.DW4/A of the said Mandir and   the   testimony   of   DW4   has   gone   unrebutted,   uncontroverted, unchallenged and unimpeached. Thus, it is doubted that this witness had seen the said Nag Mandir. Had he seen the said Nag Mandir, he could depose about the correct area of the said Mandir. This witness has also deposed during his cross­examination that the place of alleged recovery of danda is not accessible to public. Whereas, PW20 has admitted that the said place is accessible to the public.   Thus, the alleged recovery of danda Ex.P­4 is doubted. Even otherwise, the place of alleged recovery of danda is easily accessible to the public and since PW­20 during his cross­ examination has admitted that public person were available at the spot but he had not requested to the public persons available, at the spot to join the investigation and he had not requested to the residents of the locality to join the investigation and thus, the arbitrary conduct of this investigating officer Inspector Sudhir Kumar shows that he deliberately did not join the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 120 public   witness   in   the   investigation.   So,   the   alleged   recovery   of   danda Ex.P­4 from   an open  place,  which  was easily accessible  to the  public, becomes   doubtful.   No   doubt   that   the   danda   is   alleged   to   have   been recovered in furtherance of the disclosure statement Ex.PW19/B, alleged to have been made by the accused Anil. But, as the investigating officer did not request to the people present at the spot to join the investigation deliberately. So in the absence of public witness, the recovery of alleged danda Ex.P­4, becomes doubtful, as, the same is alleged to have been recovered   from   the   place   which   was   easily   accessible   to   the   public   at large and functioning  of this IO also creates clouds of suspicion in the version   of   the   prosecution.   Thus,   the   testimony   of   this   witness   is   also found   to   be   contradictory   to   the   testimony   of   PW20   Inspector   Sudhir Kumar   and   also   found   to   be   suspicious,   so,   it   does   not   inspire   any confidence. 

42. Whereas   Inspector   Sudhir   Kumar   has   been   examined   as PW20, who has deposed that on 02.11.2014, he was posted as Inspector at PS Begumpur and on that day, further investigation of this case was taken up by him. He has further deposed that the FIR of the present case was already registered in PS Begumpur on 31.10.2014 u/s 308 IPC and subsequently, the offence u/s 307 IPC was added, the injured Mr. Vijender Meena   expired due to injuries in Balaji hospital on 02.11.2014. So, the offence u/s 302/34 IPC was added in the case file. Thereafter,   he took further investigation of this case. He has further deposed that he directed SI Sandeep Tushir to shift the dead body of deceased Vijender Meena to New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 121 the mortuary of SGM hospital from Balaji hospital. He has further deposed that he along with Ct. Prempal went to the mortuary SGM hospital and the dead body of Mr. Vijender Meena was got identified through his relatives and   he   had   recorded   their   statements   in   this   regard   and   proved   the statement   of   Mr.   Nandlal   regarding   identification   of   the   dead   body   as Ex.PW20/A.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   conducted   inquest proceeding and filled up the form no. 25.35, which is Ex.PW20/B bearing his   signature   at   point   A   and   he   had   prepared   a   request   letter   for conducting   the   postmortem   examination   on   the   body   of   deceased   Mr. Vijender Meena, which is   Ex.PW20/C. He has further deposed that he also   prepared   statement   of   brief   facts,   which   is   Ex.PW20/D.   He   has further deposed that after the postmortem examination the dead body of Mr.   Vijender   Meena   was   handed   over   to   his   relatives   vide   receipt Ex.PW1/B.   He   has   further   deposed   that   the   doctor   handed   over   two sealed parcels along with one sample seal of SGM mortuary, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He has further deposed that on the same day i.e on 02.11.2014, he had received secret information that one of the wanted   accused   in   this   case   was   present   near   G3S   Mall,   Sector­11, Rohini   and   he     along  with   his   staff   and  informer   went   near   G3S   mall, Sector­11,   Rohini.   He   has   further   deposed   that   there   secret   informer pointed out towards one person, who was present   near one motorcycle and on the pointing out of secret informer, he apprehended that person, who disclosed his name as Manoj Kumar and accused Manoj Kumar was correctly identified by this witness in the Court. He has further deposed that accused Manoj disclosed that the motorcycle bearing registration no.

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 122 DL 2286 was used by him and his associate while running away from the spot   after   committing   the   offence.   He   has   further   deposed   that   this motorcycle   was   seized   by   him   vide   seizure   memo,   Ex.PW17/H   and thereafter,   he   along   with   his   staff   and   accused   Manoj   and   with   case property came to PS and the case property was deposited with MHC(M). He has further deposed that  he had interrogated accused Manoj and he called   Mr.   Sanjay   (eye   witness)   in   police   station   who   had   identified accused Manoj and he arrested accused Manoj in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/E and he had conducted the personal search of accused Manoj   vide   personal   search   memo     Ex.PW17/E   and   accused   Manoj confessed his crime,  vide his  disclosure statement  Ex.PW17/F. He has further deposed that   accused Manoj led the police team to the place of incident i.e gali no. 9, Jain Nagar and there, he pointed out the spot and the   pointing   out   memo   is   exhibited   as   Ex.PW17/G.   He   has   further deposed that  in the meantime, he instructed SI Rajesh to go to Jaipur for bringing other accused namely Anil and he  had briefed SI Rajesh about the case and sent him to Partap Garh university, Jaipur. Where, accused Anil was studying. Again said, the university was situated in Partap Garh, Rajasthan. He has further deposed that accused Manoj was brought to PS and put in lock up and on 03.11.2014, SI Rajesh along with accused Anil returned to Delhi from Rajasthan and he produced accused Anil before him. He had correctly identified accused Anil in the Court. He has further deposed that he had interrogated accused Anil and he  called Mr. Sanjay (eye witness) in PS, who identified accused Anil. He has further deposed that   he   had   arrested   accused   Anil   in   this   case   vide   arrest   memo New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 123 Ex.PW2/D. He has further deposed that  he had conducted the personal search of accused Anil vide personal search memo Ex.PW19/A . He has further deposed that accused Anil confessed his crime vide his  disclosure statement Ex.PW19/B. He has further deposed that accused Anil led the police team to the place of incident i.e street no.9, Jain Nagar and there he   pointed   out   the   crime   spot   and   he   prepared   pointing   out   memo Ex.PW19/D. He has further deposed that accused Anil disclosed that he could get recovered the DANDA, which was used in the   commission of offence, under the  pile of stones near Nag Mandir situated in street no. 6 Jain Nagar. He has further deposed that then accused Anil led them near Nag Mandir, street no. 6 and he got recovered one DANDA which was lying under the pile of stones at the north east direction of Nag Mandir. He has further deposed that he took measurements of that DANDA and it was 17¾   inch   in   length   and   he     prepared   cloth   parcel   of   this   DANDA   and sealed  with  the   seal   of  SKG  and  seized  the   same   vide   seizure   memo Ex.PW19/C. He has further deposed that then he along with his staff and accused   Anil   came   to   PS   and   the   case   property   was   deposited   with MHC(M).   He   has   further   deposed   that   then   both   the   accused   namely Manoj and Anil were brought to SGM hospital in separate vehicles. He has further deposed that their medical examination was got conducted in SGM hospital and then, they were produced in the Court and both the accused persons were remanded in judicial custody and he had recorded the   statements   of   the   witnesses.   He   has   further   deposed   that   during investigation,   he   had   collected   PCR   form   and   he   also   obtained subsequent opinion from the concerned doctor in SGM hospital regarding New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 124 two   weapons   of   offence   viz.   brick   and   wooden   stick.   He   has   further deposed that   he had produced both these weapons in sealed condition before the concerned doctor with an application for seeking opinion. He has   further   deposed   that   his   application   is   Ex.PW20/E   and   after examination both the weapons, doctor gave his opinion which is Ex. PX­2, on his application itself. He has further deposed that he returned to PS and deposited both the re­sealed parcels with MHC(M). He has further deposed that he got deposited all the sealed exhibits in FSL and he had recorded   the   statement   of   the   witnesses.   He   has   further   deposed   that thereafter, he was transferred from PS Begumpur, so he had deposited the   case   file   with   MHC(M).   He   has   identified  three   photographs Ex.PW17/I­1 to Ex.PW17/I­3 after seeing the same from judicial file and deposed   that  the  motorcycle  bearing  registration  no.   DL11  SH  2286  is visible in the same and it is the same motorcycle which was got recovered from accused Manoj. On seeing  the DANDA Ex.P­4, he said  that it is the same DANDA which was recovered at the instance of accused Anil. This witness was also cross­examined by Ld.Counsel for accused and during his cross­examination, he has deposed that he was assigned investigation of   the   present   case   in   the   morning   of   02.11.2014,   but   he   did   not remember   the   exact   time   and   however,   it   was   after   the   death   of   the deceased. He has further deposed that he sent SI Sandeep Tushir to shift the dead body of Mr. Vijender Meena to the mortuary of the SGM hospital from Balaji Action hospital. He has further deposed that he did not make any   DD   entry   in   this   regard   and   he   did   not   know,   who   accompany   SI Sandeep Tushir to Balaji Action hospital for shifting the dead body of Mr. New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 125 Vijender Meena to SGM hospital and he cannot  tell the time took by SI Sandeep Tushir in the shifting of the dead body of Mr. Vijender Meena to the SGM of mortuary hospital from  Balaji Action hospital. He did not know about the documents prepared / formalities done by SI Sandeep Tushir in the  Balaji  Action  hospital   for  shifting  the   dead  body  to  the  mortuary   of SGM hospital. He has further deposed that at about 11.00­11.30AM of 02.11.2014, he had received information from SI Sandip Tushir that he had left the Balaji hospital for shifting the dead body to SGM mortuary and thereafter, he also started from police station for Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   stayed   in   Sanjay   Gandhi Memorial hospital  for about one hour and at SGM hospital, he met father of   the   deceased,   whose   name,   he   did   not   remember   and   one   more relative of deceased also met him. He has further deposed that he got identified the dead body of Mr. Vijender Meena from his father and other relative and it took about one hour to completed the formalities including the postmortem on the body of the deceased and after the postmortem was conducted, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased simultaneously. He has further deposed that he left the SGM hospital at about 12.30 pm and voluntarily deposed that he had received secret information at SGM hospital and left for   investigation and he did not   remember   whether  or   not,   he  had   recorded   in the   statement   of  SI Sandip Tushir that he had received secret information in the SGM hospital and   he   did   not   make   any   DD   entry   regarding   the   receiving   of   secret information by him in the SGM hospital. He has further deposed that SI Sandip Tushir, a constable, whose name, he did not remember today and New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 126 his   driver,   whose   name,   he   did   not   remember,   had   accompanied   him, when, he had left SGM hospital for investigation and had gone to G3S Mall. He has further deposed that  they reached G3S mall within half an hour and the public persons were present near G3S mall. He has further deposed that  they all were in police uniform and he  had requested 3­4 public persons to join the investigation, but none joined. He has further deposed that   he   had not recorded their names and addresses and he did not serve any notice on those public persons, who refused to join the investigation.  He  has  further  deposed  that  the  accused  Manoj  was  not present   on   the   main   road   outside   of   G3S   mall   and   he   did   not   know, whether or not the CCTV cameras were installed at the gate of G3S mall. He has further deposed that there were one electricity office and college in front of G3S mall and there are multi storeyed buildings on the right side and left side of G3S mall and the main road outside, the mall is about 40­ 50   meters   wide.   He   has   further   deposed   that   traffic   light   is   installed opposite the G3S mall and there is a petrol pump adjoining the G3S mall. He has denied that  they  had illegally detained the accused Manoj after lifting him from his house or that he was not apprehended near G3S mall. He has denied that no public person was joined in the investigation during the arrest of accused Manoj, as he was not apprehended from outside the G3S mall. He has further deposed that they remained near G3S mall for about 10­15 minutes and he seized the motorcycle from accused Manoj vide   seizure   memo   is   Ex.PW17/H,   which   was   prepared   by   SI   Sandip Tushir   on   his   instructions.   He   has   further   deposed   that   his   wireless operator, whose name, he did not remember, brought the motorcycle from New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 127 G3S mall to PS. He has denied that motorcycle was not seized at the spot or that he had directed the father of accused persons to bring motorcycle in the police station or that thereafter he illegally seized said motorcycle to create   false   evidence.   He   has   further   deposed   that   thereafter,   they alongwith accused Manoj left the G3S mall and came to the PS Begumpur at about 02:00 pm. He has further deposed that he did not make any DD entry regarding their arrival at the PS with accused Manoj or that he was apprehended from outside the G3S mall. He did not inform the family of accused Manoj regarding his apprehension and after their arrival in PS Begumpur, he had interrogated accused Manoj  which continued for about 3­4 hours. He has further deposed that thereafter, he was arrested in the present case and accused Manoj was taken to the spot at about 05:30 pm by   him   and   SI   Sandip   Tushir,   driver,   wireless   operator   and   some constable, in official gypsy. He has further deposed that accused Manoj was in the custody and held by the constable. He has further deposed that he   did   not   remember   the   names   of   the   driver,   wireless   operator   and constable. He has further deposed that before leaving the PS for going to the spot, he had not asked any public person to join the investigation and on the way from the PS to the spot, at one place,  he had requested 4­5 public persons to join the investigation, but, they had declined. He has further deposed that he had not taken any legal action against those 4­5 public   persons,   who   had   declined   to   join   the   investigation   and   they reached the spot within 10­15 minutes   in official gypsy. He has further deposed that all the police officials were in uniform and public persons were   available   at   the   spot.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   not New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 128 requested the public persons available at the spot to join the investigation. He has further deposed that he had not requested the residents of the locality to join the investigation and however, the residents of the locality and other public persons were watching the proceedings. He has further deposed that they remained at the spot for about 30­45 minutes and he did not ask the family members of accused Manoj to come to the spot to join the investigation. He has further deposed that  he also did not go to the house of accused Manoj which is situated about 20­30 metres from the spot. He has further deposed that there are some vacant plots and some built houses in the vicinity of the spot of incident and the spot is on the road, which is about 15­20 feet wide. He has further deposed that it is kuccha (unmetalled) road and he had prepared pointing out memo at the spot and thereafter, they came back to PS. He has further deposed that then,   accused   Manoj   was   sent   to   SGM   hospital   for   his   medical examination. He has denied that he had carried out illegal investigation in the present case or that he had wrongly recorded the disclosure statement of accused Manoj or that the accused Manoj did not lead the police team to the place of incident or at any other place or that he had not pointed out the spot. He has denied that  documents with regard to pointing out memo were prepared  by him   at PS and due  to the said reason,  he had not joined any public person in the investigation. He has further deposed that on 02.11.2014 besides abovesaid investigation, he had not conducted any other investigation in this case on 02.11.2014. He has further deposed that   he     had   arrested   accused   Anil   on   03.11.2014   at   09:00   am   at   PS Begumpur and he had interrogated accused Anil in the PS for about 1­ 1½ New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 129 hours. He has further deposed that arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure   statement   of   accused   were   prepared   by   SI   Rajesh   on   his instructions. He has further deposed that SI Rajesh had himself written the above   stated   documents.   During   investigation,   he   had   recorded   the statements u/s 161 Cr.PC of the witnesses at the relevant time and the statements   recorded   at   mortuary   are   hand   written   and   the   other statements were got typed on his personal laptop. He has further deposed that the typing was done by other police officials namely SI Sandip Tushir and SI Rajesh on his directions and he did not remember the name of the witnesses   whose   statements   u/s   161   Cr.PC   were   recorded   during   the investigation qua accused Anil in the PS and voluntarily stated that one public witness namely Mr.Sanjay was also examined on the same day of arrest of accused Anil. He has further deposed that  Mr. Sanjay was called in the PS by the sending beat constable and when he had come to the PS, he had recorded his statement and he had not made any DD entry regarding sending the beat constable to the house of Mr. Sanjay to call him   in  the   PS.   He  did   not  remember   the   name   of   that   beat  constable whom, he had sent to the house of Mr. Sanjay at about 07:00­07:15 am. He has further deposed that  Mr. Sanjay reached in the PS at about 07:45 pm and remained there for about two hours. Mr. Sanjay was not present during interrogation of accused Anil. He has further deposed that  he had not requested Mr. Sanjay to join the investigation during the interrogation of   accused   Anil.   He   has   denied   that   he   had   wrongly   recorded   the disclosure statement of accused Anil   or that he had not carried out any proceedings   during   the   abovesaid   period   and   wrongly   recorded   the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 130 statement of PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh.  He has denied that Mr. Sanjay had   not   visited   the   PS   on   03.11.2014   and   he   had   manipulated   his statement with regard to identification of accused persons. He has further deposed that at about 09:30 am, he along with SI Rajesh, one constable, wireless operator and driver, whose names he did not remember, as well as   accused   Anil   went   to   the   spot.   He   has   admitted   that     he   had   not requested Mr. Sanjay to join investigation, when they were leaving  the PS along with accused Anil, for the spot. He has further deposed that public persons were available on the way, as well as, at the spot and he asked public persons on the way to join the investigation, but none joined. He has further deposed that no notice was served upon those public persons who refused to join investigation. He has admitted that he did not make any   request   to   any   public   person   available   at   the   spot   to   join   the proceedings.   He   has   further   deposed   that   about   10­15   public   persons gathered at the spot on seeing the police i.e driver, operator, SI Rajesh and himself. He has further deposed that they remained at the spot for about 30­45 minutes and he had prepared pointing out memo at the spot. He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   not   requested   above   said   10­15 persons   to   join   the   investigation   and   he   had   not   issued   notice   to abovesaid  10­15 persons.  He has further  deposed  that  thereafter,  they proceeded near Nag mandir situated at the corner of street no.6 on foot from the spot and voluntarily stated that they went there for recovery  of DANDA. He has further deposed that no public person met them, when, they proceeded from the spot towards Nag mandir and it took about 4­5 minutes to them in reaching at Nag mandir and they reached at about New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 131 10:15   am.   He   has   further   deposed   that   Public   persons   were   passing through the place near Nag mandir and he did not know if public persons were available inside the Nag Mandir. He has further deposed that as per his knowledge there is only one gate of the Nag mandir and the gate was of normal  size and was iron gate. He cannot tell the measurements of gate of Nag mandir and neither himself nor any member of his team went inside the Nag mandir to request the priest of the temple for joining the investigation. He has further deposed that there are number of houses in the   vicinity   of   Nag   mandir   and   no   public   person   gathered   near   Nag mandir, when they reached there. He has further deposed that the public persons were passing through the road in front of Nag mandir and he had not requested those public persons to join the investigation. He has further deposed that he had also not requested the residents near the vicinity of Nag   mandir   to   join   the   investigation.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he cannot   tell   the   area   in   which   the   Nag   mandir   is   constructed   is   of   25 sq.yards, 50 sq. yards and so on. He has further deposed that  he cannot tell the height of the wall of Nag mandir and he did not know, whether there is a school in front of Nag mandir. He has further deposed that the width of the road in front of Nag mandir is of about 20­25 feet and they remained near Nag mandir for about half an hour. He has further deposed that there are premises  on the right and left sides, as well as, front and rear sides of Nag mandir but he cannot tell whether or not those premises are factories or schools. He has further deposed that Nag mandir is single storeyed and the houses situated near Nag mandir are single or double storeyed and he cannot tell the number of storeys of the building, which New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 132 was opposite the Nag mandir. He did not know whether or not there was any building or construction on the other side of the road, which is in front of nag mandir. He cannot say whether or not road in front of nag mandir was   concrete,   metaled   or   unmetalled   or   made   with   bricks.   He   did   not know whether or not there is a basement in the Nag mandir and he did not remember whether or not there are any trees in the Nag mandir and the Nag   Mandir   has   been   constructed   at   the   level   of   road.   He   did   not remember, who had written the documents, which were   prayed on his instructions near Nag mandir, SI Sandip Tushir and SI Rajesh were with him and they must have prepared the documents on his instructions. He has admitted it to be correct that the alleged place of recovery of DANDA is accessible to public at large and anybody could go to said place without any hindrance. He has further deposed that they left Nag mandir at about 10:45 a.m and came to Rohini Courts, where accused Anil was produced before the Court of Ld. MM and again said, on the way, they had stopped at   PS   Begumpur   from   where   accused   Manoj   was   also   taken   and thereafter, with both the accused persons they had come to Rohini Courts and   produced   both   the   accused   persons   before   the   Court   of   Ld.   MM, where they were remanded to J.C. He has denied that no DANDA was recovered   under   the   pile   of   stones   near   Nag   mandir   or   that   they   had planted the same on accused Anil at PS or that due to said reason no public person was made to join at the time of alleged recovery.   He has denied that   no public persons was joined in the investigation during the pointed   out   proceedings   of   accused   Manoj   and   Anil,   as   no   such proceedings   had   happened   and   they   had   fabricated   the   documents   / New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 133 memos in this regard at PS. He has denied that he had fabricated the seizure memo of alleged DANDA at PS or due to the said reason only police officials were made witnesses in the alleged proceedings. He has denied that neither Manoj nor Anil pointed out the place of occurrence or that they had fabricated documents to falsely implicate them in the present case. He has denied that accused Anil did not lead the police party to the Nag mandir or that no DANDA was recovered at his instance. He has denied that he had given evasive replies with regard to vicinity near Nag mandir   and   place   of   occurrence   as   he   had   not   visited   said   places   on 02.11.2014 or 03.11.2014 or on any other day.   He has further deposed that he was transferred from PS Begumpur in December,2014 and so he had handed over the case file to MHC(R). He has further deposed that he got deposited the exhibits in FSL in the month of November,2014 and he did   not   remember   the   number   of   witnesses,   whose   statement   were recorded   by   him.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   had   recorded   the statement   of   Mr.   Sanjay   and   police   witnesses   and   also   recorded   the statements of some more persons, whose names he did not remember. He has denied that he had wrongly and belatedly recorded the statements of witnesses to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case and   he     had   not  collected   any   medical   documents   related   to   accused Manoj and his family members from any hospital regarding the incident dated 29.10.2014. He has further deposed that on 03.11.2014 SI Rajesh had brought the accused Anil from Jaipur from his college and he cannot tell by which mode of transport SI Rajesh went to Jaipur and he  had given instructions   to   SI   Rajesh   on   02.11.2014   after   noon   hours   for   going   to New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 134 Jaipur.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   did   not   make   any   DD   entry regarding   giving   instructions   to   SI   Rajesh   for   going   to   Jaipur   and   he cannot tell the exact time when such instructions were given by him to SI Rajesh on 02.11.2014.He has further deposed that even approximately, he cannot tell whether it was between 02:00 - 03:00 pm or between 3.00­ 4.00 pm. He has denied that no DD entry was made by SI Rajesh prior to leaving   for   Jaipur.   SI   Rajesh   was   accompanied   by   some   other   police officials, but, he did not know their names and he, himself had not made any   departure   entry   of   those   police   officials.   He   has   denied   that   no measurements   of   DANDA   was   done   at   the   spot   or   no   DANDA   was recovered at the instance of accused Anil or seized near Nag mandir or that he had planted the same on accused Anil at PS. He has denied that he has  fabricated various documents, memos and statement of witnesses to falsely implicate the accused persons. He has denied that he  had not interrogated   accused   Manoj   on   02.11.2014   or   that   had   fabricated   his disclosure statement or that had not called Mr. Sanjay, eye witness to the PS.  He has denied that Mr. Sanjay had not identified the accused Manoj on 02.11.2014 at PS   or that he had wrongly recorded his statement on record.     He   has   denied   that   he   had   not   interrogated   accused   Anil   on 03.11.2014 or that had fabricated his disclosure statement. He has denied that Mr. Sanjay, eye witness had not come to PS on 03.11.2014 or that had   not   identified   accused   Anil.     He   has   denied   that   he   had   wrongly recorded   the   statement   of   Mr.   Sanjay   in   order   to   create   incriminating evidence against both the accused. He has denied that he had carried out illegal   investigation     and   had   planted   false   evidence   on   the   accused New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 135 persons to falsely implicate them in the present case. He has denied that he had deposed falsely.  This witness has deposed that accused Manoj was   apprehended   on   receiving   of   the   secret   information   and   further deposed   that   he   had   seized   the   motorcycle   vide   seizure   memo Ex.PW17/H, which was allegedly used by the accused while running away from the spot. The testimony of PW2 reveals that he has alleged in the court   that   the   accused   had   fled   away   on   the   Pulsar   motorcycle   after commission of the crime and the same was driven by accused Manoj and the accused Anil was sitting thereon as pillion rider. Whereas, the perusal of seizure memo Ex.PW17/H reveals that the motorcycle seized vide this seizure memo is of make HONDA Twister and not Pulsar, as alleged by PW2   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh.   Since   the   PW2   Sanjay   Singh,   who   is   an alleged eye witness has deposed in the court that he had never told the names of accused persons to the police and also to the PCR and if the MLC Ex.PW14/A of deceased is looked into, it reveals the name of one Ms. Neha Sharma, who is allegedly working in CAT Ambulance had taken Vijender   Meena   to   the   SGM   hospital.  Since,   the   MLC   Ex.PW14/A   of deceased Vijender Meena reveals that he was conscious and oriented on 31.10.2014   at   7.10PM,   when,   he   was   admitted   in   the   Sanjay   Gandhi Memorial hospital and PW­17 SI Sandeep Tushir has deposed that after receiving the information, he went to the spot and he was told that the injured   was   taken   to   the   hospital.   But,   PW­17   SI   Sandeep   Tushir   had failed to tell that who had told him that injured was taken to the hospital. As, it  is mentioned  in the  MLC  of injured  Vijender  Meena  that  he was conscious   and oriented.  So, PW17 SI Sandeep  Tushir  could  go to  the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 136 Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital   immediately   and   could   inquire   from Vijender Meena or Ms. Neha Sharma of CAT Ambulance Staff who had taken to Vijender Meena in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital that too in conscious and oriented condition, as to who had assaulted to Vijender Meena. But, the PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir did not bother to arrive in the Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital   immediately.   Had   he   arrived   in   the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital immediately, he could enquire from the Vijender Meena or from Ms. Neha Sharma of CAT Ambulance Staff or from the Dr. Jatin  (who had already left the services of the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital after the occurrence) who had medico legally examined to   Vijender   Meena,   on   dated   31.10.2014   at   7.10   PM,   vide   MLC Ex.PW14/A, as to who had told to that doctor that Vijender Meena was assaulted. But, SI Sandeep Tushir (PW17) did not enqiure from Ms. Neha Sharma, of CAT Ambulance Staff and Dr. Jatin, who had medico legally examined   to   the   Vijender   Meena   in   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital. Since, the PCR form Ex.PW4/A reveals the phone number of the caller Sanjay   Kumar   Singh.   But,   PW17   SI   Sandeep   Tushir   did   not   bother   to contact   with   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh   (PW2)   immediately   and   PW17   SI Sandeep  Tushir  has  deposed  during   his  cross­examination   that for  the first time, he had arrived at the spot on 31.10.2014 at 11.45PM. Thus, this court finds that SI Sandeep Tushir remained negligent and his approach was   lackadaisical.   But,   after   the   demise   of   Vijender   Meena,   when   the investigation was assigned to this PW­20 Inspector Sudhir, he also did not bother to examine Neha Sharma who is alleged to have taken Vijender Meena in injured condition in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital. This New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 137 PW20 also did not bother to record the statement of Dr. Jatin, who has written on the MLC Ex.PW14/A, "history of assault". Had this investigating officer   written   the   statement   of   Neha   Sharma   or   Dr.   Jatin,   they   could inform him as to who had told to Dr. Jatin that it was the case of assault and   as   to   on   what   basis   the   said   doctor   incorporated   in   the   MLC   of Vijender Meena that it was the case of assault. Similarly, this PW20 IO Inspector Sudhir Kumar also did not bother to examine any member from the PCR Van who are alleged to have arrived at the spot on receiving of call of 100 number. Had this investigating officer examined the members of   PCR   Van   who   are   alleged   to   have   arrived   at   the   spot   soon   after receiving of the 100 number call, it could be cleared as to who had taken the   Vijender   Meena   to   the   hospital.   But,   this   investigating   officer   also appears to be a negligent officer  who did not bother  to investigate the present matter in better manner. This witness   has deposed in the court that he had sent to SI Rajesh at Pratap Garh University, Jaipur, but no cogent/ written evidence has been brought on the record to prove this fact that SI Rajesh had gone at Jaipur for bringing accused Anil at Delhi. This witness has also deposed that he did not remember about the documents prepared by the SI Sandeep Tushir in the Balaji Action hospital for shifting the dead body of the deceased in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital. He has denied that he had illegally detained accused Manoj by lifting him from his house. He has admitted that he did not inform the family member of accused Manoj regarding his apprehension. He has admitted that public persons were available at the spot but he did not request to the public persons to join the investigation. He has also admitted that he had not New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 138 requested to the residents of locality to join the investigation. This witness has also deposed during his   cross­examination that he had arrested to the accused  Anil  on  03.11.2014  at 9.00AM  at police station  Begumpur and he had interrogated to this accused for 1­ 1½ hours and arrest memo, personal   search   memo   and   disclosure   statement   of   the   accused   were prepared by SI Rajesh. This witness has deposed that he did not make any request to any public persons to join the proceedings and he claims that   the   disclosure   statement   was   made   by   accused   Anil   and   in furtherance thereof, the danda Ex.P­4 which is alleged to have been used in the commission of crime, was recovered under the heap of stones near the Nag Mandir. But he failed to tell the size of the gate of Nag Mandir. He has failed to tell the area of said Nag Mandir. Whereas, PW17 has stated that   the   area   of  Nag   Mandir   was  50   sq.  yds.   Thus,   the   testimonies   of PW17 and PW20 are inconsistent to each other. Whereas, the accused has examined Shri Laxman Singh (DW4), draftsman, who has deposed in the court that the exact area of the said Mandir is 1133 sq. yds., and he has   also   proved   the   site   plan   Ex.DW4/A   of   the   said   Mandir   and   the testimony   of   DW4   has   gone   unrebutted,   uncontroverted,   unchallenged and  unimpeached.  Thus,   it is doubted  that  this  witness  had  ever  gone near  the the said Nag Mandir,  where  danda  Ex.P­4 is alleged  to have been recovered. Had he seen the said place, he could depose about the correct area of the said Nag Mandir. This witness has admitted that he did not request to any public person to join the investigation at the time of alleged recovery of the danda, so, the possibility of planting of danda on accused   Anil   cannot   be   ruled   out.   This   witness   has   admitted   that   the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 139 alleged place of recovery of danda is accessible to the public at large and anybody   could   go   to   the   said   place   without   any   hindrance.   Since,   the place of alleged  recovery  of danda  is an open place and it was easily accessible to the public at large. So, the recovery of danda Ex.P­4 on the basis of alleged disclosure statement of accused Anil is doubted. Thus, the testimony of this witness is not only found to be contradictory to the testimony of PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir. But his way of investigation also appears to be arbitrary as despite of availability of public witnesses, he did not join them in the investigation and the investigation of this IO is also found to be faulty and doubts are created with the way, this Investigating Officer had investigated the present case. So, his testimony is not reliable.

43. Whereas,   Dr.   Gurdeep   Singh   who   has   been   examined   as DW1, has deposed that he has brought MLC of Guddu bearing no. 20917, MLC of Chander Shekhar bearing no. 20918 and MLC of Manoj bearing no. 21011 same is Ex.DW1/A to C.  He has further deposed that Chander Shekhar and Guddu were examined by Dr. Danish, Junior Resident and the   MLCs     and   he   is     familiar   with   the   signature   of   Dr.   Danish   as   he worked along with him and seen him writing and signing.    He has further deposed   that  the  injured  Manoj  was  examined  by  him  and  at  the  time when he examined injured Manoj, he was having tenderness deformity left shoulder, therefore he had referred him to Orthopedics Dr. Mannan. Dr. Mannan after examining Manoj had opined that nature of injuries received by injured Manoj on his left shoulder are grevious in nature. He has further deposed that the above said opinion has been mentioned at point B of the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 140 MLC  Ex.DW1/C  and he  identify the signatures of Dr. Mannan as he had also worked with him and seen him writing and signing.  He has further deposed   that   at   this   stage,   the   witness   has   been   shown   discharge summary dated 30.10.2014 issued by Ortho Department, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi and same is   Mark A and he can not identify the signatures on the discharge summary Mark A as the same pertains   to   doctors   of   Ortho   Department.     This   witness   was   cross examined   by   ld   APP   for   state,   during   his   cross­examination   he   has deposed that he can not give any opinion whether the patient Manoj could cause   injury   with   the   brick   to   any   person   even   in   the   condition   as mentioned in his MLC.   He has admitted to be correct that he   does not know whether this patient Manoj was left handed or right handed or  in the Discharge Summary mark A the time of discharge of patient Manoj is not mentioned.  

44. Whereas, Dr. Rajesh Dalal, CMO has been examined as DW2, who   has   deposed   that   he   has   brought   MLC   bearing   no.   21010   dated 29.10.2014 of Ms. Reeta wife of Mr. Chander Shekhar, same is Ex.DW2/A and the patient was examined by Dr. Nitin, Junior Resident and bears his signatures   at   point   A.   He   has   further   deposed   that   he   identify   the signatures of Dr. Nitin as he had worked under his supervision and he has seen him writing and signing.  

45. Whereas, Dr. Madhur Mahna, Sr. Resident has been examined as DW­3, who has deposed that he has   seen MLC of accused Manoj New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 141 Ex.DW1/C and the endorsement at point B is in the handwriting of Dr. Manan Ahmad, who had left the services of the Hospital. He has further deposed that  he has worked with said doctor and seen him handwriting and signing, so, he identify his handwriting on MLC of patient Manoj is Ex.DW1/C. He has further deposed that he also identify his signatures on MLC   at   point   C   and   as   per   discharge   summary,   injured   Manoj   was diagnosed with dislocation of left shoulder. He has further deposed that dislocation was reduced under anesthesia and the copy of the discharge summary is Ex.DW3/A.   He has further deposed that   the injured Manoj due to dislocation of his left shoulder could not drive motorcycle on next day of his treatment as stated above.  He has further deposed that he is clarifying that prior to the treatment given to the patient, he could not drive motorcycle,   but   after   treatment,   he   can   drive   the   motorcycle.     He   has further deposed that in discharge summary of the injured Manoj, the rest was not advised, but generally after reducing the shoulder, they advise rest   for   two­three   weeks.     He   has   further   deposed   that     they   also   tie bandage on shoulder of every patient after reduction of his shoulder. He has further deposed that in the case of injured Manoj, his shoulder would have been tied, but it is not mentioned in the MLC of this patient or his discharge summary and generally it is mentioned in discharge summary of the patient. He has further deposed that if the shoulder of the patient is tied, then, he cannot ride motorcycle and they advise patient to tie the bandage for two/three weeks.  This witness was cross examined by Ld. Additional  Public Prosecutor for State.  During  his cross­examination  he has   admitted   to   be   correct   that  after   such   treatment   of   this   patient   he New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 142 could pick a brick and could cause brick blow on a person.  He has denied that  since in the discharge summary of the patient the bandage was not applied to this patient, so it can be inferred that bandage was not applied to   this   patient.   He   has   further   deposed   that   after   seen   the   document Ex.DW1/C & Ex.DW3/A, he cannot tell as to whether this patient was left or right handed . He has admitted to be correct that this patient Manoj could drive the motorcycle after getting the treatment.

46. Whereas,   Sh.   Laxman   Singh   (private   draftsman)   has   been examined as DW 4, who has deposed that he is draftsman since 1998 and practicing at Tis Hazari Court and he had a diploma of Draftsman.  He has further deposed that till date   he had appeared as a witness about 100/150  cases in Delhi  Courts  and  he    had  also drafted  about  25000­ 30000 site plans/maps for his clients for filing in various courts.   He has further  deposed  that  on 23.07.2017,  he  had  gone  to  Nag  Mandir,  Jain Nagar Colony, Karala, Delhi. There  he had measured the dimensions of the Nag Mandir as well as the dimensions of nearby roads and also gone inside the Temple. He has further deposed that the site plan of the Nag Mandir and its vicinity is exhibited as DW­4/A and as per site plan and measurements carried out by him at the spot, the exact area of Mandir is 1133  Sq. Yards.    Three sides of this Mandir  are roads/Gali,  which are measuring 16 feet of West Side, 20 feet on the south and 26 feet on the East side.  On the north side, there is others property.  He has seen the 08(Eight) photographs Ex.DW4/B(colly.) of the Mandir and showing three sides of the Nag Mandir.  He has further deposed that as per condition of New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 143 the   Mandir   and   its   walls,   the   Mandir   must   be   constructed   somewhere about   15­20   years   ago   from   today.     He   had   prepared   the   site   plan Ex.DW1/A exactly the positions and dimensions noted by him at the time of the inspection of said Mandir.   He had not carried out any addition or alteration   in   his   site   plan   and   it   is   true   replica   of   the   dimensions   and measurements of the Nag Mandir. The negative of the site plan prepared by him Ex. DW1/C.  This witness was cross examined by Ld.   Additional Public Prosecutor for State during his cross­examination he has deposed that the basic Qualification for doing diploma for post of Draftsman is 12th class and diploma of Draftsman is of two years.   He had measured and prepared the site plan of said Nag Mandir at the instance of Mr. Chander Shekhar, who availed his services, who resides at Jain Nagar Colony.  He does not know  whether Mr. Chander Shekhar  is the father  of both the accused and he does not know both the accused.  He has  not pasted any board of Draftsman on the door of his   house.   He has further deposed that he   was appointed as Local Commissioner thrice by various courts. He has admitted to be correct that   08 photographs Ex.DW4/B were not taken   by   him.     He   does   not   know   as   to   who   had   snapped   these photographs.  He has denied that  the 08 photographs  Ex.DW4/B  are not of Nag Mandir,  Jain Nagar  Colony, Karala,  Delhi  and voluntarily stated that  he know that these photographs are of Nag Mandir situated in Jain Nagar   Colony,   Karala,   Delhi.   He   has   further   deposed   that   the   basic Qualification  for doing  diploma  for  post of Draftsman  is 12th  class and diploma of Draftsman is of two years.  He has further deposed that he had measured and prepared the site plan of said Nag Mandir at the instance of New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 144 Mr.   Chander   Shekhar,   who   availed   his   services,   who   resides   at   Jain Nagar Colony. He has further deposed that he does not know whether Mr. Chander Shekhar is the father of both the accused.  He did not know both the accused and he has not pasted any board of Draftsman on the door of his house and he was appointed as Local Commissioner thrice by various courts.  He has admitted to be correct that the 08 photographs Ex.DW4/B were not taken by him. He has further deposed that he did not know as to who   had   snapped   these   photographs.   He   has   denied   that   the   08 photographs     Ex.DW4/B   are   not   of   Nag   Mandir,   Jain   Nagar   Colony, Karala,   Delhi.   He   has   voluntarily   stated   that   he   knew   that   these photographs  are  of  Nag  Mandir  situated  in  Jain  Nagar   Colony,  Karala, Delhi.

47. Since their Lordship of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Taj Mohd. @ Taju and Anr. in Criminal L.P. No.8/12 MANU/DE/3448/2013, was pleased to observe that     "In our view, the circumstances of the recovery of the razor, the scooter and the bloodstains on the shirt of the accused ­Taj Mohd. also do not inspire confidence and the reasoning given by the Trial Court in   paragraph   31   to   33   of   the   judgment   is   free   from   any   perversity   or illegality.   The   said   paragraphs   are   reproduced   for   ready   reference   as under:­"

 "Next are the circumstances of the recovery of the razor, the scooter   and the  bloodstained  shirt  of the  accused  Taj  Mohd.  The  said recoveries   were   effected   pursuant   to   the   disclosure   statement.     The New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 145 recording of the disclosure statement in the manner as deposed in the examination in chief by PW 14 and PW 15 and PW 21 becomes doubtful in view  of  the  fact  that  there  is  a material  contradiction   with regard  to recording of th disclosure statement in the respective deposition of said three witnesses.   For PW 14, the disclosure statement was recorded by the   IO   i.e.   PW21   while   standing   on   the   bonnet   of   the   vehicle   but   for PW15, the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by him at the dictation of the IO and same was recorded while sitting at the Mangol Puri Bus Terminal whereas for PW 21, it was not in his memory as to whether the disclosure statement was recorded by him or at his dictation by some other staff member."

"The recovery of the shaving razor (ustra) is admittedly from an open   place   accessible   to   all   and   no   public   witness   was   joined   in   the investigation   at   the   time   of   recovery   of   the   said   razor   despite   their admittedly availability by PW 14, PW15 and PW 21. For PW 15, it was recovered from kuccha ground, 20 to 25 Sq. yards away from the main road which was lying in a pit and for PW 21, there was no pit at the place from   where   the   said   having   razor   was   recovered.   NO   site   plan   of   the recovery of the shaving razor was prepared.  The said razor was allegedly bloodstained but the blood detected on the same could not be linked with the blood group of the deceased which was of "B" group as per FSL result Ex. PW 17/B."

"The recovery of the alleged bloodstained shirt of the accused Taj Mohd. which he was wearing at the time of the incident was again deposed with material contradiction by said three witnesses.  For PW 14, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 146 the shirt was recovered by the IO when they started from the house of the accused and the same was seized at the time of reaching the PS.   For PW 15, the said shirt of the accused was recovered from the house of the accused whereas for PW 21 the shirt of the accused was seized reaching the PS and its seizure memo was also prepared at the PS and he did not remember if other shirt was arranged for the accused or not. Further joit to the deposition with regard to said shirt having bloodstains is given by the FSL result Ex. PW 17/B which mentioned that no blood was detected on the said shirt. The recovery of the scooter is not very material because it is   a   thing   having   specific   registration   number   and   the   accused   has admitted the same to be in his name but it could not be linked otherwise by any other evidence on the record, as discussed above."

        "It   is   a   cardinal   principle   of   criminal   jurisprudence   that   every accused person is innocent unless proved guilty and this presumption of innocence gets strengthened when such an accused is acquitted by the Trial  Court  after  passing  a  well­reasoned   order.  Finding  no illegality  or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 7th August 2010, the present petition deserves to be rejected being devoid of any merit.  Therefore, the same stands dismissed. It is ordered accordingly."

48. Since in the case in hand, the prosecution has alleged that the danda Ex.P4 has been recovered in furtherance of disclosure statement of accused Anil Ex.PW19/B and since on dated 03.11.2014, at the time of recording of the alleged disclosure statement of accused Anil, he was in the custody of police and since this disclosure statement Ex.PW19/B is New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 147 alleged to have been recorded by IO/Inspector Sudhir Kumar (PW­20) and during his cross­examination, this PW­20 has admitted that the place of alleged recovery of the danda Ex.P4 was easily accessible to the public and   since   at   the   time   of   alleged   recovery   of   alleged   danda,   no   public witness was made to join by this Investigating Officer. Since, PW­20 has failed to tell the area of the Nag Mandir. Whereas, PW17 has disclosed the   area   of   Nag   Mandir   as   50   sq.   yards.   Whereas,   accused   have examined   DW4   namely   Shri   Laxman   Singh,   draftsman   who   from   his unrebutted and unimpeached testimony has successfully proved on the record that the area of said mandir is 1133 sq. yards. So, the testimony of PW17 and PW20 become doubtful and presence of these witnesses at the time and place of alleged recovery of Danda is doubtful and since the place of alleged recovery of said danda was accessible to the public at large. So, the alleged recovery of danda also becomes suspicious. 

49. Since their Lordship of High Court of Delhi in case Dalip @ Pappu   Vs.   State   Crl.   MANU/DE/3149/2012   was   pleased   to   observe that    "The prosecution relied upon the circumstance of recovery of the country made pistol used in the commission of the offence pursuant to the disclosure statement of public witness was joined at the time of the alleged recovery. Moreover, the alleged recovery took place from an open place accessible to the public at large. The place of  recovery is alleged to be at a distance of 100 meters from the place of occurrence. It is highly improbable that the accused would conceal the country made pistol under New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 148 the   stones   near   a   tree   at   a   distance   of   100   meters   from   the   place   of occurrence.   No   such   recovery   was   effected   by   the   police   prior   to   the arrest of the accused. The manner in which the accused was arrested is suspicious. The investigating officer was not aware about the name and description of the accused and only up on the features given by the secret informer, he is alleged to have been arrested during the night intervening 13/14.06.2003. The weapon of offence allegedly recovered pursuant to his   disclosure   statement   was   never   shown   to   the   material   prosecution witnesses   to   investigating   officer   did   not   investigate   from   where   the accused had procured the weapon."

 50. Their lordship of Supreme Court of India in case Sattatiya @   Satish   Rajanna   Kartalla   Vs.   State   of   Maharashtra MANU/DE/3149/2012 was pleased to observe that   "The next thing which is to be seen is whether the evidence relating   to  the   recovery  of   clothes   of  the   appellant   and   the  half   blade, allegedly used for commission of crime, is credible and could be relied on for proving the charge of culpable homicide against the appellant.  In this context, it is important to note that the prosecution did not produce any document  containing the recording of statement allegedly made  by the appellant expressing his desire to facilitate recovery of the clothes and half blade.   The prosecution case that the accused volunteered to give information and took the police for recovery of the clothes, half blade and purchase of handkerchief is highly suspect. It has not been explained as to why the appellant gave information in piecemeal  on three dates i.e. New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 149 03.10.1994,   05.10.1994   and   06.10.1994   .   Room   No.   45   of   'Ganesh Bhuvan'from   which   the   clothes   are   said   to   have   been   recovered   was found to be unlocked premises which could be accessed by any one. The prosecution could not explain a to how the room allegedly belonging to the appellant could be without any lock. The absence of any habitation in the room also cast serious doubt on the genuineness and bonafides of recovery of clothes. The recovery of half blade from the road side beneath the   wooden   board   in   front   of   'Ganesh   Bhuvan'   s   also   not   convincing. Undisputely,   the   place   from   which   half   blade   is   said   to   have   been recovered is an open place and everybody had access to the site from where the blade is said to have been recovered. It is, therefore, difficult to believe the prosecution theory regarding recovery of the half blade. The credibility of the evidence relating to recovery is substantially dented by the   fact   that   even   though   as   per   the   Chemical   Examiner's   Report   the blood stains found on the shirt, pant and half blade were those of human blood,   the   same   could   not   be   linked   with   the   blood   of   the   deceased. Unfortunately,   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge   and   High   Court overlooked this serious lacuna in the prosecution story and concluded that the presence of human blood stains on the cloths of the accused and half blade were sufficient to link him with the murder."

51. Since,   PW­2   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh   has   alleged   that   accused Anil hit danda on the head of Vijender Kumar Meena and accused Manoj gave 20­25 brick blows on the head of the Vijender Kumar Meena at the time of alleged occurrence.   PW11 Dayanand Verma also claimed to be New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 150 another eye witness of the occurrence. PW­11 has claimed that he had heard the noise while he was sitting in his house and came out of his house and saw that the accused Anil had given danda blow on the head of the deceased and  he caught the hands of the deceased and accused Manoj had given number of brick blows on the rear portion of the head of the deceased.   Whereas, Dr. Vipin Dabas (PW14) has proved the MLC Ex.PW14/A of the deceased Vijender Kumar Meena which reveals only injury ie lacerated wound on the rear portion of the head and similarly, Dr. Anil Kumar has proved the death summary Ex.PW15/A of the deceased, who   has   also   deposed   that   the   cause   of   death   of   the   deceased   was severe  head injury and similarly the postmortem report Ex.PX1 reveals that there were only three external injuries: 1. stitched wound 4cm long over posterior end of mid parietal scalp area. 2. Abrasion brown scalped 3x1cm over mid nasal septum.  3. Abrasion brown scalped 9 x 2 cm over mid of lumbosacral area.

52. Thus, the testimonies of these two alleged eye witnesses is not corroborated   with   the   medical   evidence.   As,   the   postmortem   report Ex.PX1 reveals only one external injury on the parietal scalp area. Had the accused Anil given one danda blow and Manoj 20­25 brick blows and danda blows on the head of deceased, more injuries could be found on the head of the deceased.

52. Since their Lordship of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case   Smt.   Bimla   Devi   Vs.   State   of   Haryana   in   Criminal   Appeal New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 151 No.1026/2002, MANU/SC/0306/2003 was pleased to observe that  "If we believe the oral evidence, then it shows according to the two eye­witnesses the appellant assaulted the deceased on the left car lobe with the blunt side of the Bankri. If we compare this oral evidence with medical  evidence,  we find there  is no injury on the left ear which could be attributed to a blunt weapon. On the contrary, there is an incised wound on the left ear lobe. Therefore, the medical evidence and the oral evidence do not tally."

"Apart   from   the   above   discrepancy   in   the   oral   and   medical evidence, we also notice from the inquest proceedings the use of a Bankri has not been mentioned while other weapons like lathi, Jaily, and Kalhari have   been   mentioned.   Then,   it   is   to   be   noticed   that   even   thought   the Bankri   was   recovered   within   four   days   after   the   incident   and   sent   for chemical   examination   the   report   of   the   Chemical   Examiner   shows   the absence of any blood stain. This coupled with the fact that even in the FIR PW­1 the eye witness has not attributed any overt act to the appellant further creates very serious doubt in the case of the prosecution as to the involvement of the appellant."

53. Their Lordship of Supreme Court of India in case State of Gujarat Vs. Patel Mohan Mulji and another MANU/SC/0069/1994 was pleased to observe. 

 "The whole case rests only on the evidence of PWs 5 and 8. PW5 is none other than the wife of the deceased and she is an injured witness. No doubt the occurrence had taken place in the day light. The New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 152 accused are none other than the brothers and sister of the deceased. In spite of the close relationship and in spite of the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the broad day light as rightly pointed out by the High Court,   the   entire   case   of   the   prosecution   suffers   from   many   infirmities which compel this Court to affirm the judgment of the High Court. P.W. 5 states   that   she   was  assaulted   by  the   second   respondent   with  a  sharp edged pointed weapon on her leg but we do not find any corresponding injury   on   her   person.   P.W.   5   has   not   mentioned   the   names   of   the assailants either to P.W. 3 or the Police or to any other person till 4­30 p.m. surprisingly the inquest took place at about 2­15p.m.   Even before the registration of the case. In the inquest report also none of the names of the assailants find a place.  The first information was recorded only at about 5 p.m. which is by a delay of nearly nine hours.  It was under these circumstances the High Court was not inclined to place much reliance on the testimony of P.W. 5. Now we come to the evidence of P.W.8. The name of P.W.8 does not find a place in Ex. 25. P.W. 8 was not examined by the police till the next day. On both the grounds the High Court rejected the testimony of P.W.8. We are in full agreement with the reasons given by the High Court for discarding the testimony of P.W.8. It may be also pointed out here that the medical  evidence as rightly held by the High Court is irreconcilably in conflict with the oral evidence given by PWs. 5 and  8. Thus,  it is seen  that  there  are  many  infirmities   surrounding   the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, we do not like to interfere with   the   order   of   acquittal   passed   by   the   High   Court   and   in   fact   the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any manifest illegality or New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 153 perversity.   In   the   result,   the   appeal   is   dismissed.   Bail   bonds   are discharged."

54. Since their Lordship of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Bhikhwa @ Prakash Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Criminal Appeal No.274/1998, MANU/DE/4064/2006 was pleased to observe that  "His statement was recorded by the police on the next day. To the contrary as per the statement of ASI Gautam (PW12), IO of the case, he   had   reached   the   spot   at   8.00/8.15AM   and   had   met   PW   Kapil. According to Ram Parkash (PW­3) when he reached the spot, Kapil was not there but Biltu had accompanied him to the spot. According to ASI Gautam, Biltu had not accompanied him to the spot from the hospital. If Kapil   was   present   at   the   spot,   when   ASI   Gautam   visited   the   place   of occurrence from hospital, it is not explained as to why  he did not  record the statement of Kapil at the spot and why his statement was recorded on the next day in the Police Station. Therefore, in these circumstances we find   force   in   the   submission   of   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   that presence of Kapil at the spot at the time of alleged incident has become doubtful." 

"Kapil (PW­2) in his cross­examination and Ram Prakash (PW­

3) and Biltu (PW­4) have stated that accused had gagged the mouth of Krishna while sitting on her right side and was giving blows with a brick from his right hand on her face and forehead. According to Biltu and Ram Parkash,   Krishna   had   started   bleeding  from   her  injuries.   Dr.   Rani   Jain (PW­6) saw blood oozing out from the nose, ear and mouth of Krishna New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 154 when she examined her on 10.03.1933 at about 6.00AM. She did not see mark of any external injuries, as per her report Ex.PW6/A. This belies the statement of PW Ram Parkash and Biltu that Krishna was bleeding from her   injury,   which   she   received   on   her   face   and   forehead   due   to   brick blows given by appellant. Even the postmortem report does not support the oral testimony of these two witnesses."

"Obviously,   we   find   complete   contradiction   in   the   medical evidence   and   the   statements   of   prosecution   witnesses   Kapil,   Ram Parkash and Biltu as to the nature of injuries. The injuries found on the person  of the  deceased  Krishna  could  not  have  been  caused  by brick blows given on the face and forehead while she was sleeping. She would have received injuries on her face and forehead instead of on the base of her skull. Medico evidence is generally of corroborative nature unless it completely rules out the possibilities of the injuries having been inflicted in the   manner   in   which   as   is   deposed   by   the   witnesses.   In   Solanki Chimanbhai   Ukabhai   V.   State   of   Gujarat   MANU/SC/0150/1983:   AIR 1983SC 484, it was observed as under:"

"Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries: taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 155 thrown   out   on   the   ground   of   alleged   inconsistency   between   it   and   the medical evidence.

55. In   the   light   of   above   said   judgments,   the   testimonies   of   the PW2 and PW11 who claims, to be eye witnesses become suspicious, as their testimonies are not supported by the medical evidence and since it is proved   on   the   record   that   on   29.10.2014,   a   quarrel   had   taken   place between the family of PW11 and his other family members with the family members of the accused and since the testimonies of PW2, PW11 and PW16 are found to be improved, embellished and contradictory, so, the same are also held to be suspicious. So, the possibility of false implication of the accused in order to take revenge by the PW11 cannot be ruled out. As, PW­11 has admitted that he used to meet with PW2 regularly and from   such   testimony,it   is   proved   on   the   record   that   there   were   cordial relations   between   PW11   and   PW2.   Whereas,   there   were   strained relations   between   the   family   of   the   accused   and   PW­11   and   his   other family members and on dated 29.10.2014, a quarrel had held wherein, the accused Manoj, his father Chander shekhar, his brother Guddu and his mother Rita had suffered injuries and they were medically examined in Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital   and   the   MLC   of   accused   Manoj Ex.DW1/C has been proved by DW­1 Dr.Gurdeep Singh and discharge summary Ex.DW3/A  of accused  Manoj  has been proved  on Record by DW­3 Dr. Madhur Mahana. Whereas MLC of Guddu Ex.DW1/A, brother of accused   Manoj   and   MLC   of   his   father   Chandershekhar   Ex.DW1/B   has been   proved   on   record   by   DW­1   Dr.   Gurdeep   Singh   and   MLC   of   his New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 156 mother Rita Ex.DW2/A has been proved by DW­2 Dr.Rajesh Dalal. Since this occurrence  is alleged  to have  taken  place  on  31.10.2014  at about 6.00pm and if the PCR form Ex.PW4/A is looked into then, the police had received the information on dated 31.10.2014 at 6.13PM and the DD no. 59B was lodged at 6:13 PM on 31.10.2014 whereas, the FIR has been registered   on   dated   31.10.2014   at   11:20   PM   and   the   accused   are   not named in the PCR form Ex.PW4/A, DD­59B Ex.PW13/C FIR Ex.PW6/A. The first IO SI Sandeep Tushir who has been examined as PW­17 has admitted in his cross­examination that he had arrived at the spot for the first time at 11:45 PM and he met to PW­2 Sanjay kumar Singh, but, he did not record his statement and called him in the police station, where, his statement Ex.PW2/DA was recorded on 01.11.2014. The perusal of the   statement   Ex.PW2/DA   reveals   that   it   was   recorded   on   dated 01.11.2014. Whereas, PW2 during his cross­examination has deposed in the court that he went to police station for the first time in this case on 02.11.2014. Whereas, statement of another alleged eye witness namely Dayanand Verma who has been examined as PW11 is alleged to have recorded on dated 04.11.2014 and the statement of Prashant Verma who has been examined as PW16 is alleged to have recorded by the IO on dated   01.11.2014.   The   delay   in   recording   of   the   statements   of   these witnesses of the prosecution has not been explained. Since the delay in recording of the statements of these material witnesses of the prosecution have not been explained. So, the possibility of planting of these witnesses cannot   be   ruled   out.   Since,   the   testimonies   of   these   witnesses   of   the prosecution   are   found   to   be   improved,   embellished,   contradictory   and New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 157 inconsistent to each other, so the testimonies of these witnesses become doubtful.   Since   the   PW2   and   PW11   have   deposed   during   their   cross­ examination   that   their   clothes   were   also   stained   with   blood   when   they picked the Vijender Meena in injured condition, but, the IO has not seized the alleged blood stained clothes of PW2 and PW11.

56.   No doubt that as per the report of the FSL Ex.PW12/A, blood was detected on the piece of brick and another report of FSL Ex.PW12/B reveals that blood of the human on the piece of brick was found. But, the blood group of human on the piece of brick could not be ascertained. As the column of grouping of this report reveals (no reaction) and in view of the presence of human blood on the piece of brick, the conviction of the accused cannot be recorded, as it is not proved on record that what was the blood group of the deceased. No doubt that human blood group 'O' is detected on the alleged shirt and baniyan of deceased. Since, it is not proved on record as to what was the group of blood of the deceased, so in view of the mere presence  of the human blood on the piece of brick, shirt and baniyan, the testimony of this PW12 is of not much relevance and the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of such reports.

 57. Since their Lordship of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in   case   Debapriya   Pal   Vs.   State   of   West   Bengal,   Criminal   Appeal 623/2013  was pleased to observe that  "What is material is the reliance on these blood stained clothes for   the   culpability   of   the   appellant   herein.   As   per   the   prosecution,   the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 158 blood group on these blood stained clothes matched with the blood on the bed sheet on which the body of one of the deceased person is found. The record   reveals   that   though   blood   of   both   the   deceased   persons   was drawn and sent for examination, it is not known as to what was the report thereupon and what was the blood group of the deceased persons. No such blood report has been produced. So much so, blood group of the accused persons was also not ascertained. Even if we presume that the blood on the bed sheet was that of the deceased, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the same blood group as of the accused appellant thereof. Therefore,   mere   matching   of   the   blood   group   on   the   blood   stained clothes,   which   was   even   on   the   bed   sheet,   would   not   lead   to   the conclusion that it is the appellant who had committed the crime."

58. Since their Lordship in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in   case   State   of   A.P.   Vs.   V.V.   Panduranga   Rao,   Criminal   Appeal 815/2003  was pleased to observe that  "Interestingly,   there   was   no   effort   made   to   match   the   blood group of the deceased with the blood found on the M.O.1. If the aforesaid aspects   are   considered,   the   inevitable   conclusion   is  that   the   appeal   is without merit, deserves dismissal which we direct."

59. Since their Lordship of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Govindaraju @ Govinda Vs. State of Sriramapuram P.S. and Anr., Criminal Appeal 984/2007  was pleased to observe that  "Ex.Mo1 was the knife recovered from Govindaraju while Mo2 New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 159 and Mo3 were the knife and the blood­stained shirt recovered from the accused, Goverdhan. Ex.Mo1, the weapon of offence, did not contain any blood stain. Ex.Mo2, the knife that was recovered from the conservancy at the  behest  of  the accused,  Goverdhan  was blood­stained.  Ex.P15,  the report   of   FSL,   shows   that   item   No.7   'one   chaku'   was   blood­stained. However,   the  prosecution   has  taken   no  steps   to  prove   whether  it  was human   blood,   and   if   so,   then   was   it   of   the   same   blood   group   as   the deceased or not. Certainly, we should not be understood to have stated that a police officer by himself cannot prove a recovery, which he was affected during the course of an investigation and in accordance with law. However,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   in   such   cases,   the   statement   of   the investigating officer has to be reliable and so trustworthy that even if the attesting witnesses to the seizure turns hostile, the same can still be relied upon,   more   so,   when   it   is   otherwise   corroborated   by   the   prosecution evidence, which is certainly not there in the present case."

60. Since their Lordship of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case Ram Das and Anr. Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), Criminal Appeal 124/1997  was pleased to observe that  "Once the testimony of PW2 Vijender is found unreliable, we are left with only one incriminating circumstance ie the recovery of churi Ex.P3 recovered at the instance of appellant Ram Das. As per the case of prosecution, the recovered churi Ex.P3 was sent to CFSL for chemical analysis. Though some traces of human blood were found on the churi but it gave nil in the reaction for the blood group. The result is that blood New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 160 group on the churi has not been connected with the blood group of the deceased   which   was   found   to   be   "O"   group.   This   circumstance,   in absence   of   any   other   cogent   incriminating   evidence   against   the appellants, is not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty."

61. Since the perusal of the record reveals that the statement of PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh was recorded u/s.161 of CrPC Ex.PW2/DA, bear   the   date   01.11.2014   of   its   recording.   But,   this   witness   during   his cross­examination has deposed that he went to the police station for the first   time   for   recording   of   his   statement   on   02.11.2014   and   PW­17 Sandeep   Tushir   claims   to   have   recorded   statement   of   this   PW2 Ex.PW2/DA, on dated 01.11.2014. So, there are material contradictions in the statements of PW2 Sanjay Kumar and PW­17 Sandeep Tushir. PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh has also deposed during his cross­examination that PW­2 (Sanjay Kumar Singh) did not tell the names of the accused to the police. This witness has also deposed during his cross­examination that he did not know the name of accused. But, it is the mystery as to when PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh had come to understand the names of both the accused.   Since,   the   occurrence   is   alleged   to   have   taken   place   at 5.45/6.00pm   on   31.10.2014   and   DD   No.59B   is   alleged   to   have   been lodged on the basis of the PCR call allegedly made by PW2. But, in the PCR   form   Ex.PW4/A,   DD   No.59B   Ex.PW13/C   lodged   at   6.13PM   on 31.10.2014   and   FIR   Ex.PW6/A   lodged   on   31.10.2014   at   11.20PM,   the names   of   the   accused   are   not   mentioned.   If   the   PW­2   had   seen   the accused, prior to this occurrence, he could give the names of the accused New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 161 to the police at the time of making call at 100   number. But he did not name the accused and since the statement of this witness u/s.161 CrPC Ex.PW2/DA was allegedly recorded on dated 01.11.2014. Whereas, first IO PW­17 SI Sandeep Tushir had met to the PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh on 31.10.2014, it is not explained as to what had prevented PW­17 SI Sandeep     Tushir   from   recording  the   statement   of  PW­2  Sanjay   Kumar Singh on dated 31.10.2014 at the spot. The statement of PW17 claims that   he   had   recorded   the   statement   of   PW2   Sanjay   Singh   on   dated 01.11.2014.   Whereas,   PW2   Sanjay   Singh   has   deposed   in   his   cross­ examination that he went to the police station for the first time on dated 02.11.2014.  Thus,  there  are  material   contradictions   in  the statement   of PW2 Sanjay Singh and PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir. So, the possibility of planting of this witness after the demise of Vijender Kumar Meena cannot be ruled out and thus, the testimonies of PW2 and PW17 become doubtful being contradictory to each other. Statement of PW11 Dayanand Verma u/s.161 of CrPC Ex.PW11/DA was recorded on 04.11.2014. Whereas, the statement of PW16 Prashant Verma u/s. 161 of Cr.PC  Ex.PW16/DA was recorded   on   01.11.2014   and   the   delay   has   not   been   explained   by   the prosecution.

62. Since, their Lordship of  High Court of Delhi in case Sonu  Arora Vs. State.,  Crl. A. No.241/1997 was pleased to observe   "In his cross­examination, Lalu Prasad stated that he had put Zaheer in PCR van and blood stains had come on his shirt. He also stated that the blood stains were shown by him to the police but his clothes were New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 162 not   seized   by   the   police.   There   is   no   explanation   for   not   seizing   the bloodstained clothes of Lalu Prasad despite his having shown them to the police. The failure of the Investigation Officer to seize the clothes of Lalu Prasad   is   an   indication   that,   in   fact,   he   had   not   witnessed   the   actual stabbing and had not put Zaheer in PCR van, as claimed by him. Had he done   so,   the   Investigating   Officer   would   definitely   have   seized   his bloodstained shirt."

  "It   would   also   be   pertinent   to   note   here   that   though   Lalu Prasad claims to be a friend of deceased Zaheer and also claims to have accompanied him to AIIMS in PCR van, his name does not find mention in the   MLC   of   the   deceased   against   the   name   of   relative/friend   and   it   is name   of   HC   Virender   Singh   which   has   been   shown   against   the relative/friend   column   of   the   MLC.   If   Lalu   Prasad   had   accompanied deceased Zaheer to the hospital, as claimed by him, his name and not the name of the police Official would have been recorded against the column of 'relative or friend' of the injured   brought to the hospital.   These facts and circumstances lead to a strong inference that either Lalu Prasad had not witnessed this incident at all or he had left when the quarrel intensified and that is why, he did not meet the police officer either on the spot or in the hospital and his shirt was not seized by the police." 

"Also, had Lalu Prasad witnessed the stabbing of Zaheer and Nizam, there would have been no contradiction, in the statement given by him to the police on th one hand, and his deposition during trial on the other  hand,  with respect  to the  core part  of his testimony  i.e who had stabbed Zaheer and who had stabbed Nizam."  

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 163   "According to the Investigating Officer, though Lalu Prasad had met   him   on   the   spot   at   about   1:30   am   and   he   had   also   obtained signatures   of   the   witness   on   the   memos   prepared   on   the   spot,   his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded by him only at 5:30 PM.   There   is   absolutely   no   explanation   from   the   prosecution   for   his abnormal delay in recording the statement of Lalu Prasad."

"Ex. PW 17/A is the site plan stated to have bee prepared by the IO in the nigh of 18/19 October, 1993 at the instance of Lalu Prasad. The site plan indicates point 'G' as the place where Lalu Prasad had fight with accused persons and was beaten in front of Paan shop of Raj Karan by Mahmood and Anis @ Munna @ Nanhey. It has also been noted in the plan that Lalu Prasad and Raj Karan saw the incident from the rear point 'G'. These nothings on the site plan show that the Investigating Officer had already examined Lalu Prasad in respect of the incident in question. Without questioning him, the Investigating Officer could not have known the point where Lalu Prasad had fight with the accused persons and was beaten in front of the Paan Shop of Raj Karan. Similarly, without talking to him the Investigating Officer could not have known the place from where he had seen the incident taking place. No explanation, however, has been given by the prosecution for recording the statement of Lalu Prasad at 5:30   pm,   i.e.,   after   a   gap   of   abut   16   hours   from   the   time   he   met   the Investigating Officer. The unexplained delay in recording the statement of lalu Prasad need to be viewed in the light of the fact that he did not meet the police officer, SI Raj Singh, either on the spot when he reached there on   receipt   of   information   from   Police   Control   Room   or   in   the   hospital, New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 164 despite his claim that he had accompanied PCR Officials to the hospital in their van and had returned to spot with them in the same van and no official on duty in PCR van has been produced to prove that Lalu Prasad had met them on the spot,  had accompanied  them to AIIMS  and then returned to spot with them in their van. The delay also needs to be viewed in the light of the fact that there is material contradiction in the statement given   by   Lalu   Prasad   to   the   police   and   his   statement   in   the   court   as regards who stabbed whom Raj Karan."

63.  As held by the  Supreme Court in State of UP V. Mundrika and   Ors.   MANU/SC/0786/2000:   (2001)   9   SCC   346,  "the   unexplained delay in recording of statement of material eye­witness throws a serious doubt as to whether he was really an eye­witness or not . If the delay in recording   the   statement   of   eye­witness   remains   unexplained,   the inference is that either he was not an eye witness or the version of the incident given by him was a fabricated version. In Maruti Rama Naik v. State   of     Maharashtra   MANU/SC/0684/2003:(2003)   10   SCC   670,   a witness examined as PW ­3 was examined by police after one day of the incident. The explanation given by the Investigating Officer with regard to the delay in recording his statement was that the witness was injured and had to be taken to Bombay  and  brought  back to Palwal  for treatment. Considering the nature of his injury and the opportunity available to the Investigating Officer to record his statement, Supreme Court  rejected the explanation and disbelieved the witness."

"In the present case, no attempt at all has been made by the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 165 Investigating   Officer   to   explain   the   abnormal   delay   of   16   hours   in recording the statement of Lalu Prasad despite his being available to the police  and  his signatures  having  been  taken  on  the  memos  alleged  to have   been   prepared   on   the   spot.   The   delay   on   the   part   of   the Investigating   Officer   in   recording   the   statement   of   Lalu   Prasad   when considered in the light of the fact that there is material contradiction in his statement to the police and his deposition in the court as to who had a stabbed whom, there was no visible injury on the person of Lalu Prasad despite the incident having started on account of an altercation between him an accused Mahmood, the version of the incident given by him as regards the role attributed to the appellant Sonu is contradictory to the version recorded in the brief facts prepared by the Investigating Officer on 20th October, 1993.  He did not meet the investigating Officer either in the hospital   or   at   the   spot,   his   clothes   were   not   been   seized   despite   his assertion   that   he   had   shown   bloodstained   clothes   to   the   Investigating Officer and Raj Karan, Paanwala, has not supported his claim regarding his (Raj Karan's) being present at his sop creates, serious doubt on the truthfulness of the deposition of this witness. There is a strong probability of Lalu Prasad having left the spot before the stabbing took place. That also   explains   his   not   having   met   the   Investigating   Officer   either   in   the hospital   or   at   the   spot,   no   bloodstained   clothes   of   this   witness   having been seized, contradiction being found in his statement, as to who had stabbed whom and absence of any role attributed to the appellant Sonu in the   brief   facts   recorded   by   the   Investigating   Officer   on   20th   October, 1993."

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 166

64. Their Lordship of Supreme Court of India in case Harbeer Singh & Ors. Vs. Sheeshpal & Ors. MANU/SC /1348/2016 was pleased to observe    "We have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and we are inclined to agree with the observations of the High   Court   that   PW   3   and   PW   9   were   not   witnesses   to   the   alleged conspiracy between the accused persons since not only the details of the conversation given by these two prosecution witnesses were different but also   their   presence   at   the   alleged   spot   at   the   relevant   time   seems unnatural  in view of the physical condition of PW9 and the distance of Sheeshpal's Dhani from Sikar road.  Besides, it appears that there have been   improvements   in   the   statements   of   PW3.     The   Explanation   to section   162   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure   provides   that   an   omission   to state a fat or circumstance in the statement recorded by a police officer Under   Section   161   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   may   amount   to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission  amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. Thus, while it is true that every improvement is not fatal to   the   prosecution   case,   in   cases   where   an   improvement   creates   a serious doubt abut the truthfulness or credibility of a witness, the defence may take advantage of the same. [See Ashok Vishnu Davare v. State of Maharashtra  MANU/SC/0126/2004:(2004)9 SCC 431;  Radha Kumar v. State   of   Bihar   (now   Jharkhand)  (2005)   10   SCC   216;  Sunil   Kumar New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 167 Sambhudayal   Gupta   (Dr.)   and   Ors.   v.   State   of   Maharashtra MANU/SC/0947/2010: (2010) 13 SCC 657 and Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0170/2014 : (2014) 12 SCC 473]. In our view, the High Court   had   rightly   considered   these   omissions   as   material   omissions amounting to contradictions covered by the Explanation to Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, it has also come in evidence that there was a delay of 15­16 days from the date of the incident in recording the   statements   of   PW   3   and   PW   9   and   the   same   was   sought   to   be unconvincingly explained by reference  to the fact that the family had to sit for   shock   meetings   for   12   to   13   days.   Needless   to   say,   we   are   not impressed by this explanation and feel that the High Court was right in entertaining doubt in this regard."

  "As   regards   the   incident   of   murder   of   the   deceased,   the prosecution has produced six eye­witnesses to the same. The argument raised against the reliance upon the testimony of these witnesses pertains to   the   delay   in   the   recording   of   their   statements   by   the   police   Under Section 161 of code of Criminal Procedure. In  the present case, the date of  occurrence  was  21.12.1993  but   the  statements  of PW  1  and  PW  5 were   recorded   after   two   days   of   incident,   i.e.,   on   23.12.1993.   The evidence of PW 6 was recorded on 26.12.1993 while the evidence of PW 11 was recorded after 10 days of incident , i.e., on 31.12.1993. Further,  it is well­settled law that delay in recording the statement of the witnesses does   not   necessarily   discredit   their   testimony.   The   court   may   relay   on such testimony if they are cogent and credible and the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court." [See  Ganesh v. State of Maharashtra New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 168 MANU/SC/0506/1992 : (1992) 3 SCC 106; Mohd. Khalid v. State of W. B. MANU/SC/0722/2002: (2002) 7 SCC 334;Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj and   Ors.  MANU/SC/0143/2004:   (2004)   13   SCC   279   and  Sidhartha Vashishth   @   Manu   Sharma   v.   State   (NCT   of   Delhi) MANU/SC/0268/2010 : (2010) 6 SCC1]"

65. However,  Ganesh   Bhavan   Patel   v.   State   of   Maharashtra MANU/SC/0083/1978:   (1978)   4   SCC   371,  "is   an   authority   for   the proposition   that   delay   in   recording   of   statements   of   the   prosecution witnesses Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, although those witnesses   were   or   could   be   available   for   examination   when   the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, would cast a doubt  upon the prosecution  case [See also  Balakrushna Swain   v.   State   of   Orissa  MANU/SC/0075/1971:   (1971)   3SCC   192; Maruti   Rama   Naik   v.   State   of   Maharashtra  MANU/SC/0684/2003:

(2003)   10   SCC   670   and  Jagjit   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab MANU/SC/0044/2005: (2005) 3 SCC 681].   Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the observations of the High Court on the point of delay and its corresponding impact on the prosecution case." 

66. Since, Shri Vijender Meena died on 02.11.2014 in the Balaji Action hospital and since PW­2 Sanjay Singh has deposed that for the first time, he went to the police station on 02.11.2014. So, the possibility of recording of statement of PW2 Sanjay Singh by PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir on dated 02.11.2014 that too after the demise of Vijender Meena after due New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 169 deliberations and colouring the version, cannot be ruled out. PW­2 Sanjay Singh   and   PW­11   Dayanand   Verma   have   deposed   in   their   cross­ examination that their clothes were stained with blood, when, they took Vijender   Meena   to   the   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital   in   injured condition.   But,   presence   of   PW2   Sanjay   Singh   and   PW11   Dayanand Verma at the time and place of occurrence and also in the SGM hospital and the time of taking of Vijender Meena in the said hospital, is doubtful and the PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir, who was assigned initial investigation could seize the alleged blood stained clothes of PW2 and PW11. But PW­ 2   Sanjay   Singh   and   PW11   Dayanand   Verma   have   not   stated   in   their statements that their clothes were ever stained with blood and it appears to the court that these prosecution witnesses No.2 and 11 have introduced new facts at the time of their cross­examination and since, their alleged blood stained clothes are also not seized, so, it cannot be assumed or presumed   that   the   clothes   of   these   prosecution   witnesses   were   either stained with the blood or that they were present at the spot or in the SGM hospital. Since, the MLC of deceased Vijender Meena Ex.PW14/A reveal that he was conscious and oriented on 31.10.2014 at 7.10PM, when, he was taken in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital and as per the MLC Ex.PW14/A of the deceased, he was taken in the hospital by Ms. Neha Sharma   from   the   CAT  Staff  of   Ambulance   and   the   SI  Sandeep   Tushir (PW17) has deposed that after receiving information, he went to the spot and it was told that the injured was taken to the hospital. But, this witness has   failed   to   tell   that   who   had   told   him   that   injured   was   taken   to   the hospital.   As,   it   is   mentioned   in   the   MLC   of   injured   Vijender   Meena New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 170 Ex.PW14/A   that   he   was   conscious   and   oriented.   So,   this   PW17   SI Sandeep   Tushir   could   go   to   the   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital immediately and could inquire from Vijender Meena or Ms. Neha Sharma of CAT Ambulance Staff who had taken to Vijender Meena in the Sanjay Gandhi   Memorial   hospital.   But,   this   PW17   SI   Sandeep   Tushir   did   not bother to arrive in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital immediately. Had he arrived in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital immediately, he could enquire   from   the   Vijender   Meena   or   from   Ms.   Neha   Sharma   of   CAT Ambulance Staff or from the Dr. Jatin who had medico legally examined to Vijender   Meena   vide   his   MLC   Ex.PW14/A,   as   to   who   had   told   to   that doctor   that   Vijender   Meena   was   assaulted.   But,   SI   Sandeep   Tushir (PW17) did not inquire from Vijender Meena, Ms. Neha Sharma, of CAT Ambulance Staff and Dr. Jatin, who had medico legally examined to the Vijender Meena in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital. Since the PCR form Ex.PW4/A reveals the phone number of the caller Sanjay Kumar Singh. But, this PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir did not bother to contact with Sanjay Kumar Singh immediately and if the cross­examination of this PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir is looked into, then, for the first time, he had arrived at the spot on 31.10.2014 at 11.45PM and in his examination in chief, he has stated that he met with Sanjay Singh. But in his cross­examination, he has stated that no public person met him and this witness even admitted that he   did   not   record   the   statement   of   Sanjay   Singh   on   the   spot   on 31.10.2014.   Such   conduct   of   SI   Sandeep   Tushir   (PW17)   shows   his negligent conduct and lackadaisical approach and in view  of contradictory testimony of this witness, it does not inspire any confidence therein.

New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 171

67.   Since, the MLC Ex.PW14/A of Vijender Meena   reveals that patient  was conscious  and oriented  at the time of his arrival  in Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital and this MLC also reveals that Vijender Meena was brought to the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital  by Ms. Neha Sharma of   CAT   Ambulance   Staff   and   if,   Vijender   Meena   was   conscious   and oriented,   he   would   have   told   to  Ms.  Neha   Sharma   of   CAT   Ambulance Staff as to who had caused him injuries. But, IO has failed to record the statement of Ms. Neha Sharma of CAT Ambulance Staff who had taken Vijender   Meena   to   the   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital   (in   injured condition) for the best reasons known to the IO. Since the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on dated 31.10.2014 at about 6.00PM, the accused were not named in the FIR. PW7 SI Sandeep Tushir claims to have   recorded   the   statement   of   (PW2)   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh   on   dated 01.11.2014 in the police station. Whereas, PW2 has deposed that he went to   the   police   station   for   the   first   time   on   dated   02.11.2014.   The prosecution has failed to explain as to why the statement of PW2 Sanjay Kumar   Singh   was   not   recorded   promptly   on   31.10.2014.   Statement   of another alleged eye witness PW11 namely Dayanand Verma is alleged to have  recorded  by the  IO on 04.11.2014.  The  prosecution  has failed to explain any cogent reason for non­recording of the statement of PW­2 and PW11   promptly.   The   perusal   of   the   statement   of   PW2   Sanjay   Kumar Singh Ex.PW2/DA allegedly recorded on 01.11.2014 by the IO does not reveal the name of Dayanand Verma. Had PW2 Sanjay Kumar Singh and PW­11  Dayanand Verma taken to Vijender Meena in the injured condition New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 172 to the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital soon after the alleged occurrence, PW­2 could name PW11 and their names could be found in the record of the   hospital.   But,   the   MLC   of   Vijender   Meena   Ex.PW14/A   reveals   that Vijender   Meena   was   taken   to   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital   on 31.10.2014 at 7.10PM, by Ms. Neha Sharma of CAT Ambulance Staff and it also reveals that Vijender Meena was conscious and oriented at the time when   he  was   taken   in  the  Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial  hospital.   It  is  also mentioned   in   the   MLC   Ex.PW14/A   that   patient   came   in   casualty   with history of assault, history of nasal bleeding and vomiting and his pulse was recorded as 90, blood pressure was 120/80. It is not mentioned as to who   had   assaulted   to   Vijender   Meena   since   lacerated   wound   on   the occipital region was there, so surgical opinion was sought. Thus, the MLC Ex.PW14/A of the deceased Vijender Meena reveals that one injury on the rear portion of head of the deceased. IO could record the statement of Ms. Neha Sharma of CAT Ambulance Staff who had taken Vijender Meena in injured   condition   in   the   Sanjay   Gandhi   Memorial   hospital.   As   Vijender Meena would have told her as to who had assaulted him. But IO, did not bother to examine Ms. Neha Sharma. Police had recorded information in the case in hand at 6.13PM, PCR form Ex.PW4/A reveals that "a call of JHAGDA" was given. The name of the accused and injured are also not mentioned therein. It is probable that the caller was not aware of the name of injured and assailant. If the caller was PW­2, then, why he did not name injured and accused at the time of making of calls at 100 number. It is not mentioned   therein   as   to   who   were   the   parties   to   the   said   JHAGDA (quarrel). It is also not mentioned therein that who had assaulted to the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 173 injured.   Since   in   the   PCR   form,   phone   number   of   the   caller   was   also mentioned.   So,   IO   could   contact   with   the   caller   promptly   to   record   his statement   regarding   the   occurrence.   But,   the   police   did   not   bother   to contact with the caller of the said call promptly. Intimation to the police regarding the JHAGDA was received at 6.13PM on 31.10.2014 but if the cross­examination of PW17 SI Sandeep Tushir is looked into, he went at the spot at 11.45PM in the night of 31.10.2014. Thus, it also shows the negligent conduct and lackadaisical approach of the police who had left the alleged place of occurrence unattended for hours together, even then, the   statement   of   alleged   eye   witness   was   not   recorded   by   the   IO   on 31.10.2014, for the best reasons known to this IO.

68.  Since, the charges under Section 302/34 of IPC were framed against   both   the   accused,   so,   it   was   incumbent   on   the   part   of   the prosecution  to  prove  it's case  beyond   reasonable  doubt's  that  both   the accused   in   furtherance   of   their   common   intention   have   committed   the murder of the deceased Vijender Kumar Meena. But, as the testimonies of the alleged eye witnesses viz. (PW2) Sanjay Kumar Singh and (PW11) Dayanand   Verma   are   improved,   embellished,   contradictory   and inconsistent to each other and inconsistent to the other witnesses of the prosecution,   as   discussed   hereinabove   paras.   So,   the   same   are suspicious, so the same are not relied upon. Since, it is proved on the record that prior to this occurrence on dated 29.10.2014, a quarrel had taken place between the family member of the accused and Dayanand Verma   and   his   other   family   members.   Wherein,   accused   Manoj,   his New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 174 mother, father and brother Guddu were injured and they got treatment in the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital. Documents of treatment of accused Manoj and his other family member have been proved on the record by DW1 to DW3. Thus, on the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities, PW­11 Dayanand Verma  and his son Prashant Verma (PW16) may have motive   to   depose   against   the   accused   in   view   of   previous   enmity   and since   it   is   also   admitted   by   PW11   Dayanand   Verma   and   PW2   Sanjay Kumar Singh that they were on the good terms. So, it is probable that PW­ 2 would have deposed against the accused at the instance of PW­11 and PW16.   The   prosecution   witnesses   through   their   improved   testimonies have tried to establish the motive of the accused to commit the murder of the   deceased.   But,   as   the   testimonies   of   these   prosecution   witnesses were found to be improved, embellished and suspicious and no cogent evidence has been brought forth on the record by the prosecution to prove that the deceased had any role to play in the quarrel of Dayanand Verma and   his   family   members   with   the   accused   Manoj   and   his   other   family members and in the absence of any cogent evidence, this court does not find any motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. Since,   the   testimonies   of   the   material   prosecution   witnesses   are suspicious, so, they are not relied upon. Since, there is inordinate delay in recording of the statements of the prosecution witnesses by the IO and in the     registration   of   the   FIR   and   despite   of   considerable   delay   in   the registration of the FIR, the accused are not named in the FIR. Since, the testimonies   of   the   alleged   eye   witnesses   PW­2   and   PW11   are inconsistent to the medical evidence, which also renders the case of the New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 175 prosecution to be doubtful. Since, the injuries inflicted on the head of the deceased is proved to be fatal and in view of the same, it is mentioned in the   postmortem   report   Ex.PX­1,   "the   cause   of   death   is   due   to   shock associated   with   Craniocerebral   damage   under   injury   No.1   which   is sufficient   to   cause   death   in   ordinary   course   of   nature."   Since,   the testimonies of PW2 and PW11 are suspicious. So, the same are not relied upon. It is probable that the deceased was assaulted by some persons, other than the accused and when, he would have been lying unattended, the   CAT   Ambulance   would   have   taken   Vijender   Meena   in   an   injured condition and in view of the same, the name of Ms. Neha Sharma, in the MLC (Ex.PW14/A) of Vijender Meena is written therein and the name of any eye witness or the wife of deceased are not written therein and PW2, PW11   and   PW16   appear   to   be   planted   witnesses.   Shri   Heera   Chand Meena (PW1) who is father of deceased and Shri Chhatar Singh (PW10) who is brother of deceased have not uttered even single word against the accused.   Had   there   been   any   kind   of   strained   relations   between   the deceased and the accused, the father and brother of the deceased could throw   some   light   thereon.   But,   they   did   not   utter   any   word  against  the accused.  It shows that  there  was no enmity  or bad blood  between  the accused and the deceased. The father and brother of the deceased even did not utter that the son of the deceased was taking any tuition from the wife   of   PW­2   Sanjay   Kumar   Singh.   PW­2   IO   SI   Sandeep   Tushir   has admitted during his cross­examination that he had recorded the statement of the wife of deceased. But, it is withheld, so, the adverse inference is drawn against the prosecution. Since, there are many lacuna and infirmity New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 176 in   the   case   of   the   prosecution,   from   which,   the   possibility   of   false implication of both the accused cannot be ruled out. 

69. As   their   lordship   of   Supreme   Court   in   case  State   of Rajasthan   V.   Raja   Ram,   V   (2003)   SLT   45­III   (2003)   CCR   198 (SC)=(2003) 8 SCC 180 was pleased to hold that:

"There   is   no   embargo   on   the   appellate   Court   reviewing   the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of   acquittal   shall   not   be   interfered   with   because   the   presumption   of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case,   one   pointing   to   the   guilt   of   the   accused   and   the   other   to   his innocence,   the   view   which   is   favourable   to   the   accused   should   be adopted.   The   paramount   consideration   of   the   Court   is   to   ensure   that miscarriage  of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case, where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate Court to re­appreciate the evidence in a case where the   accused  has  been   acquitted,   for   the   purpose   of   ascertaining   as  to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not (see Bhagwan Singh v. State of M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85). The principle to be followed by appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing   so.   If   the   impugned   judgment     is   clearly   unreasonable,   it   is   a New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 177 compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Badade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793; Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225 and Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, (2000) 4 SCC 484."

70. Since in the case of  State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 73, "it was held that Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law. In the case of Mohan Singh and anr. v. State of M.P. (1999) 1 Supreme Court Reports 276, it was held that the courts have been   removing   chaff   from   the   grain.   It   has   to   disperse   the   suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of   the   courts,   not   to   merely   conclude   and   leave   the   case   the   moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be   punished   but   on   the   other   hand   to   see   no   person   committing   an offence   should   get   scot   free.   If   in   spite   of   such   effort   suspicion   is   not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused."

71. In the case of Mohan Singh and anr. v. State of M.P. (1999) 1 Supreme Court Reports  276,  it   was held that "the courts have  been New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 178 removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust  out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff,   cloud   and   dust   remains,   the   criminals   are   clothed   with   this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the   courts,   not   to   merely   conclude   and   leave   the   case   the   moment suspicions are created. It is onerous duty of the court, within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on one hand no innocent man should be   punished   but   on   the   other   hand   to   see   no   person   committing   an offence  should  get  scott  free.  If  in spite  of  such  effort  suspicion  is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused."

72. Cumulative  effect  of the  above  discussion,  is  that   since  the testimonies of the PW­2 Sanjay Kumar Singh, PW­11 Dayanand Verma and   PW16   Prashant   Verma   are   found   to   be   improved,   embellished, inconsistent,   contradictory   and   suspicious,   so   they   do   not   inspire   any confidence and benefits of doubt are given to the accused.  

73. In view of the above discussion,  I am of the considered opinion that   it  will   be   unsafe   to   convict   to   the   accused,   as   there   are   so   many infirmities,   holes   and   lacunae   in   the   version   of   the   prosecution   as discussed   hereinabove.   Since   doubts   are   also   there   in   the   version   of witnesses   of   the   prosecution   and   benefits   of   doubts   are   given   to   the accused. Therefore,I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Manoj and New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16 FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur Under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code State v. Manoj & anr. Page 179 Anil. Accordingly, accused Manoj  and Anil are acquitted of the charges framed against them. They are directed to be released on furnishing bail bonds in a sum of Rs.10,000/­ with one surety of like amount each for a period of six months to ensure their attendance and appearance before the Ld. Appellate Court, as per provision of Section 437A of Cr.PC.  The case properties  are  ordered  to  be  disposed  off  after  expiry  of statutory period   of   filing   of   the   appeal,   as   per   law.   (and   after   verifying   from   the Hon'ble Appellate forum regarding the pendency of appeal, if any.)  

74. File be consigned to the Record Room on furnishing of the bail bonds / surety bonds under Section 437A of CrPC.

                                                              PAWAN           Digitally signed
                                                                              by PAWAN
                                                              KUMAR           KUMAR MATTO

Announced in the Open Court on                                MATTO
                                                                              Date: 2018.09.18
                                                                              16:15:13 +0530

18th September, 2018                                    (Pawan Kumar Matto)        
                                                       Special Judge (NDPS),
                                                    Additional Sessions Judge, N/W
                                                        Rohini Courts, Delhi. 




New Sessions Case Number : 52403/16
FIR No.1210/14, Police Station: Begum Pur
Under section 302/ of the Indian Penal Code
State v. Manoj & anr.                                                       Page 180