Delhi District Court
State vs Monu on 23 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN :
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT - 01) :
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
STATE Vs MONU & Ors.
SC No. : 2674/2016
FIR No. : 265/2016
U/S : 302/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
PS : JAITPUR
Particulars of the case
a) Date of Offence : 02.06.2016
b) Offence complained of : 302/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
c) Name of the complainant : SI Dinesh Kumar
d) Name of the accused : Monu
His parentage, Sh. Ashok
R/o H. No. B-2/535, JJ
Colony, Madanpur
Khadar, New Delhi
Name of the accused : Deepak @ Goli
His parentage, Sh. Suresh Chand Rawat
R/o H. No. B-1/66, JJ
Colony, Madanpur
Khadar, New Delhi
Name of the accused : Vikram @ Vikku
His parentage, Sh. Vijay Singh
R/o H. No. B-435, Balmiki
Mohalla, Madanpur
Khadar, New Delhi
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 1 of 51
e) Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not
guilty
f) Final order : All accused acquitted
g) Date of Institution : 14.09.2016
h) Date of Judgment reserved for orders : 24.04.2025
i) Date of Judgment : 23.05.2025
j) Ld. Additional PP for the State : Sh. Nischal Singh
k) Ld. Counsel for the accused Deepak
@ Goli and Vikram @ Vikku : Sh. D. S. Chauhan
l) Ld. Counsel for accused Monu : Sh. Alok Bhachawat
JUDGMENT
1. CHARGE-SHEET 1.01 As per main charge-sheet, on 02.06.2016 at 09:00 PM the Duty Officer at PS Jaitpur received information about a PCR call regarding quarrel and DD No.58A was registered regarding the same. Said call was received from 8860315186 and the caller reported quarrel near Nala Road, Goshala Near Jaitpur Police Station. Said call was marked to SI Dinesh Kumar who went to spot along with Ct. Dinesh. Meanwhile, information of another PCR call was received in the PS at 09:10 PM mentioning that H. No.490, Phase-3, Goshala, Near Jaitpur Police Station, Madanpur Khadar one person has been shot. Said call was made from mobile number 7065408301. Even beat staff and ERV staff was dispatched to the spot and SHO was informed.
1.02 SI Dinesh conducted enquiry at the spot and even visited the hospital but no eyewitness was found at either of the place. Accordingly, SI SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 2 of 51 Dinesh prepared tehrir on the basis of DD No.58A. Therein, he reported that at the spot one person stained in blood was found on the road. He was bleeding from his chest. His body was found life less. There were gunshot injuries on his chest on upper right side and on the left side. The left hand of the person was amputated earlier. Said person was wearing nicker and t- shirt. Near the body one live cartridge with marking KF 7.6 was found. Near the body one empty cartridge was also found bearing marking of KF 7.6. The digit after 7.6 was not visible on both ammunition. SI Dinesh called the ERV staff and beat constable Suresh also arrived at the spot and identified the injured as Dilip Kumar s/o Rajkumar r/o B-2/769, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. The spot was little away from the populated area and there were few houses at the spot. The spot was got photographed. The injured was sent to AIIMS Trauma Centre through ERV along with ERV staff ASI Maharaj Singh and Ct. Dinesh. Ct. Suresh and Ct. Ashok were deputed to preserve the spot where as SI Dinesh went to AIIMS Trauma Centre wherein vide MLC No.563549/16 the victim was declared brought dead and the doctor observed fire arm entry wounds on the chest and one punctured wound on the right temporal region. The doctor also observed the old amputated left upper limb. No eyewitness was found at the hospital. Ct. Dinesh was deputed at AIIMS for preservation of dead body and SI Dinesh returned to the spot. Thereafter, on the basis of DD entries 58A, 59A, MLC and the body of deceased he prepared tehrir under section 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Ct. Suresh was sent for registration of FIR. Crime team was also called.
1.03 After registration of FIR, SI Dinesh conducted the
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 3 of 51
investigation. Crime team inspected the spot and took photographs. Blood- stained soil and earth control etc. were lifted from the spot. The live cartridge and the empty cartridge were also seized. On detailed inspection, one mobile phone make Samsung Duos was also recovered from the grass at the spot. Same was shown to the public persons present at the spot. Thereupon Smt. Ramrati w/o Rajkumar identified the phone as the phone of her son Dilip Kumar. She expressed suspicion that sometime before the incident she had seen her son with Monu, Deepak @ Goli and Vikram @ Vikku near Torento school going towards Phase 3, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar. She stated that her son Dilip was having inimical relations for some time with said 3 boys and one Vikas and Sonu and she expressed her suspicion against all of them. The phone recovered from the spot was having SIMs 9718290010 and 999996540. On checking the call logs of both numbers, it was found that prior to the incident deceased had conversation with mobile no. 7291061855. Said phone was seized. Site plan of the spot was prepared.
1.04 On 03.06.2016, the postmortem of deceased was got conducted. The autopsy surgeon handed-over the 3 bullets recovered from the body of deceased along with blood in gauze, sample seal and the clothes of deceased to the police. Same were seized.
1.05 The mobile number 7291061855 with which deceased had call exchanges before the incident was found to be in the name of one Anna Kathryn Libey r/o California, USA. On investigation it was found that said mobile was snatched on 01.06.2016 in the area of PS Lodhi Colony and FIR No.120/16, u/s 356/379/34 IPC was registered at PS Lodhi Colony on SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 4 of 51 the complaint of said lady.
1.06 During investigation, one child eyewitness Master 'X' was found. He stated that on 02.06.2016 he was going to attend nature's call near the Gaushala. He saw that Deepak @ Goli was talking to Dilip. Meanwhile, Monu arrived. Thereupon, there was hot verbal exchange between Dilip and Monu. Monu took out one pistol from his pant and shot Dilip. Dilip fell down. Thereafter, Monu again shot him twice. Meanwhile, Vikram @ Vikku also arrived at the spot and Monu and Deepak @ Goli fled on the motorcycle driven by Vikram @ Vikku. He knew all of them prior to the incident.
1.07 During investigation, the mobile numbers used by suspect Monu i.e. 9899853642, 7042677499 and 9560493848, the mobile number used by Deepak @ Goli i.e. 9540540224 and mobile number used by Vikram @ Vikku i.e. 9560990774 were discovered and their CDRs/details were obtained. Mobile number 9899853642 was registered in the name of one Shivani. On investigation, she was found to be second wife of Monu. Mobile number 9540540224 of suspect Deepak @ Goli was registered in his own name. Mobile number 9560990774 of suspect Vikram was registered in the name of his mother Santosh. All three mobile numbers 9899853642, 9540540224 and 9560990774 had their location at the spot of incident at the time of the incident. Further, the location of mobile numbers 9540540224 and 7042677499 was found in the area of Lodhi Colony on 01.06.2016 at 12:15 PM i.e. the location from where the mobile number 7291061855 was snatched. On the basis of said CDRs and statement of eyewitness it was clear that the crime was committed by Monu, Deepak @ SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 5 of 51 Goli and Vikram @ Vikku.
1.08 Efforts were made to trace the suspects and on 05.06.2016 Vikram @ Vikku was apprehended from the area of Madanpur Khadar. His disclosure was recorded wherein he admitted his role in the incident along with Monu and Deepak @ Goli. Mobile phone make Nokia along with SIM No.954054224 (9650990774 as per seizure memo filed with charge-sheet) was recorded from Vikram @ Vikku. Thereafter, on the basis of secret information and at the instance of Vikram @ Vikku the second suspect Deepak @ Goli was apprehended from the jungle of Madanpur Khadar near Yamuna River. He also disclosed the role of all three accused in the incident. Mobile make Samsung along with SIM number 9560493848 (9540540224 as per seizure memo filed with charge-sheet) was recovered from Deepak @ Goli and same was seized. Thereafter, on the basis of secret information and at the instance of arrested suspects, raid was conducted at Holy Chowk, Sangam Vihar and suspect Monu was apprehended. One loaded pistol and one motorcycle was found from his possession. Monu also disclosed his involvement in the incident. He also disclosed that the mobile number 7291061855 which was used in the commission of the offence and which he had snatched in the Lodhi Colony area, had been thrown by him in the Yamuna River from DND Flyover. Further, his clothes got blood stained during the incident and same were kept at Sangam Vihar. During investigation, mobile phone make Samsung having SIM No. 9560493848 and 7042677499 was recovered from the possession of accused Monu. The pistol and the motorcycle recovered from Monu were also seized. All three accused also pointed out the place of SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 6 of 51 incident. Thereafter, three days police custody of accused was obtained from the Court.
1.09 During their police custody, supplementary disclosure statements of accused Monu and Deepak @ Goli were recorded. During investigation, Monu got recovered the phone which was used to call Dilip at the spot of incident. Said phone was got recovered by accused Monu from Yamuna River near DND Flyover. The accused Deepak @ Goli got recovered one t-shirt from his house, which was worn by him at the time of the offence. Likewise, accused Monu got recovered one t-shirt from his house stating that same was worn by him at the time of offence. During police custody accused Monu also got recovered some bags and some mobile phones. Same were seized u/s 102 Cr.P.C. He also disclosed that he had committed various snatching and loots in different areas of Delhi. 1.10 All three accused were remanded to JC. After transfer of Insp. Sunil Kumar investigation was marked to Insp. Mohar Singh on 21.06.2016. He collected the crime team report, photographs, DD entries, PCR calls and postmortem report. As per the postmortem report, the doctor opined that cause of death was hemorrhagic shock as a result of injuries to head and chest produced by projectile of fire arm. Scaled site plan was got prepared through Draftsman. Certified copies of CDR and CAF were obtained. Age verification of accused was done. Ownership documents regarding the motorcycle used in the offence were verified. It was found to be registered in the name of one Ageel s/o Shahid. On enquiry, he said that he had sold the same to Raj Wadhwa on 15.01.2016. The relevant documents were seized. On enquiry, it was found that Raj Wadhwa had SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 7 of 51 sold the motorcycle to Shivani on 18.05.2016. Said Shivani was second wife of accused Monu. Despite efforts, she remained untraceable. The documents furnished by Raj Wadhwa were also seized. Further investigation was done regarding the mobile phone 7291061855 using which accused Monu had called deceased Dilip at the spot. The documents of the connected FIR No.120/16 dated 01.06.2016 u/s 379/356/34 IPC PS Lodhi Colony were seized. During investigation, it was found that there was previous enmity between the family of deceased Dilip and Monu. On the complaint of Pradeep, the younger brother of deceased the FIR No.301/11 dated 29.10.2011 u/s 323/342/452/506/34 IPC PS Jaitpur and the FIR No.891/15 dated 24.12.2015 u/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC PS Jaitpur were registered. Even the deceased Dilip had been injured in the incident of FIR No.891/15. In both the cases, accused Monu was named along with his associates. Both said cases were pending trial. Statement of witnesses were recorded. The previous involvement of accused was obtained from SCRB. The case exhibits were sent to FSL for the expert opinion.
1.11 The mobile phone recovered from accused Monu was having SIMs 9560493848 and 7042677499. During investigation, the mobile number 9560493848 was found registered in the name of Ms. Anshi. On inquiry, she stated that said mobile number has been obtained on her ID. However, her ID was in her bag which was snatched on 02.07.2015 by two motorcycle borne snatchers near Lodhi Road Samshan Ghat and the FIR No.446/15 u/s 356/379/34 IPC PS Hazrat Nizamuddin was got registered regarding the same. The second mobile number 7042677499 was registered SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 8 of 51 in the name of one Salik Ram s/o Raju Prasad. He stated that it has been issued on his ID but he has not signed the documents for the same as same are signed in English but he signs in Hindi.
1.12 During investigation, the mother of deceased had expressed her suspicion on Sonu Kumar and Vikas Singh stating that they too had previous enmity with her son. Both Sonu and Vikas were traced on 02.06.2016 and were interrogated in detail. However, the child witness Master 'X' had not stated anything against them. Nothing incriminating was found against them and hence they were kept in column no.12 of charge- sheet.
1.13 On the basis of investigation, the IO found that the deceased and accused were known to each other. All the accused were criminals. Accused Monu and Deepak @ Goli used to commit snatchings on motorcycle in different areas of Delhi and were wanted criminals. They felt that deceased Dilip used to pass information to police about them and can get them caught. For said reason, Monu was not visiting his house and kept changing his location. Even earlier, Monu had attacked the family of Dilip and Dilip also. Hence, there was enmity between deceased Dilip and accused Monu. Accused Monu used to make phone calls to Dilip using different phones snatched by Monu in different incidents and tried to call him at isolated place to give information about Monu himself. He arranged pistol and cartridges to take revenge from Dilip. He conspired with co accused Deepak @ Goli and Vikram @ Vikku to finish off Dilip. On 01.06.2016 by using the mobile snatched vide FIR No. 120/16 accused Monu called Dilip by using somebody else's name for giving him tip about SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 9 of 51 Monu for getting him apprehended and thereby called Dilip at isolated place. Accordingly, he lured Dilip to come to the spot of incident. As per plan, he suddenly appeared at the spot and there was altercation between both of them. Thereupon, Monu shot Dilip and he fell down. He again shot on his head to make sure that he has died. As per plan, accused Vikram @ Vikku kept moving on the motorcycle near the spot and thereafter he took away Monu and Deepak @ Goli from the spot and they all fled. Accordingly, the IO filed charge-sheet against all three accused u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act.
1.14 Thereafter, supplementary charge-sheet was filed in December, 2017 along with ballistic expert report regarding the case exhibits (However, the recovered pistol did not match with cartridges/bullets recovered from spot/body of deceased). Moreover, sanction u/s 39 Arms Act was obtained and filed with the supplementary charge-sheet. 1.15 Thereafter, another supplementary charge-sheet was filed in 2018 along with the FSL report regarding examination of the mobile phone of deceased. However, no message, audio, video text related to the case was found in the data recovered from the mobile phone. Further, the father of deceased also claimed to be the eyewitness of the incident and his statement was also recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
1.16 In 2024, another supplementary charge-sheet was filed regarding the examination of T-shirts of accused Monu and Deepak recovered during investigation. However, no blood was detected on the same.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 10 of 51
2. CHARGE
2.1 On the basis of charge-sheet, charge u/s 302/34 IPC was
framed against all accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charge under section 25/27 Arms Act was also framed against accused Monu. However, he pleaded not guilty to said charge also and claimed trial. Accordingly, prosecution was directed to lead evidence in support of the charge-sheet.
3. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.01 In support of its case, prosecution has examined 49 witnesses as follows:-
Serial No. Name of the witness Nature of the evidence PW1 ASI Jagdish Duty officer who registered the FIR PW2 ASI Prem Singh Duty officer who recorded DD no.58A and 59A regarding the quarrel and shooting PW3 Smt. Ramrati Mother of deceased/last seen witness PW4 SI Harish Chander Police official who proved PCR Pathak forms of the PCR calls PW5 Master X Child Eye Witness (Hostile) PW6 Sh. Subhankar Friend of deceased who Biswas identified the dead body of deceased at AIIMS Hospital PW7 Pradeep Kanojia Brother of deceased who identified the dead body of deceased at AIIMS Hospital PW8 Raj Wadhwa Shopkeeper who sold the SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 11 of 51 alleged motorcycle to accused Shivani/Monu PW9 Mohd. Shahzad Witness who heard the gun shot and made PCR call PW10 Anshi Joshi Lady on whose ID the mobile number 9560493848 was issued PW11 HC Vinod Kumar Police official at PCR control room who received the first PCR call regarding the incident PW12 HC Ashok Kumar Police official who reached the spot on the basis of DD no.
59A and participated in initial
proceedings
PW13 Mohd. Akil Registered owner of alleged
motorcycle
PW13 WCT Anjali Tomer Police official at PCR control
(wrongly room who received the second
numbered) PCR
call regarding the incident
PW14 Saurabh Agarwal Nodal Officer Vodafone who
proved record regarding mobile
numbers 7291061855and
9899853642
PW15 ASI Rakesh Singh Police officer who recorded
statement of PW Salik Ram
regarding mobile number
PW16 Madan Mohan Record keeper who proved
registration of motorcycle no.
DL3SCH6892 in name of PW
Ageel
PW17 Surender Kumar Nodal Officer Airtel who
proved record regarding mobile
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 12 of 51
numbers 7042677499,
9560493848 and 9560990774
PW18 Salikram Pandey PW in whose name mobile
number 7042677499 was
issued
PW19 Raj Kumar Father of deceased/purported
Eye Witness
PW20 Ct. Ashwini Crime team photographer
PW21 ASI Ranbir Singh Special messenger who
conveyed the FIRs to senior
officers
PW22 Pawan Singh Nodal Officer Vodafone who
proved record regarding mobile
numbers 9718290010,
9999965409 and 9540540224
PW23 ASI Maharaj Singh Police officer posted on ERV
who shifted deceased from spot
to hospital
PW24 Bhunesh Kumar Medical Record Clerk who
Sharma proved the MLC of
deceased
PW25 Dr. Adarsh Kumar Professor from AIIMS Trauma
Centre who proved the
postmortem report of
deceased
PW26 Ct. Dinesh Police official who was part of
initial proceedings at the spot
and who also took case
property to FSL later on
PW27 Retd. SI Kishan Lal Duty Officer who registered the
FIR No.120/16 u/s 379/356/34
IPC, PS Lodhi Colony
PW28 Avinash Srivastav Ballistic Expert from FSL who
examined the exhibits/fire
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 13 of 51
arms/ammunition
PW29 Retd. ACP S. K. IO/SHO, PS Jaitpur who was
Sharma part of investigation conducted
on 06.06.2016 wherein the
alleged mobile phone was
recovered at the instance of
accused Monu from Yamuna
river
PW30 ACP Mukesh Kumar Draftsman who prepared scaled
Jain site plan of the spot of murder
PW31 Retd. Insp. Anwar IO who filed supplementary
Khan charge-sheet regarding ballistic
report, FSL report of the phone
of deceased and the statement
of father of deceased u/s 161
Cr.P.C.
PW32 ASI Nirdesh Kumar Police official who recorded
the statement of Ms. Anshi
Joshi regarding phone number
9560493848
PW33 HC Ishrat Beg Witness regarding arrest of all
three accused and recoveries at
their instance
PW34 ASI K. K. Pandey Police official who deposited
the case exhibits at FSL
PW35 HC Praveen Kumar MHC(R) from PS Jaitpur who
produced the record of FIR
No.301/2011 and FIR
No.891/2015 of PS Jaitpur
PW36 HC Kalu Ram Police official who deposited
the case exhibits at FSL
PW37 ASI Umesh Kumar The then MHC(M) who
received the case properties
from the IO and made relevant
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 14 of 51
entries in register no.19
PW38 Insp. Prakash Chand The then SI from PS Lodhi
Colony who handed over the
documents of FIR No.120/16,
PS Lodhi Colony to the IO of
this case
PW39 Insp. Mohar Singh IO who compiled the
documents of the case and filed
charge-sheet
PW40 HC Purshottam Witness regarding recoveries
dated 06.06.2016 and
07.06.2016 at the instance of
accused persons
PW41 Insp. Satish Kumar In-charge, Crime Team who
prepared crime scene
inspection report
PW42 HC Suresh Beat constable who reached at
the spot on 02.06.2016 and
identified the deceased and was
part of the proceedings
conducted at the spot and got
the FIR registered
PW43 HC Mukhtar Ahmed Witness regarding arrest of all
three accused and recoveries at
their instance
PW44 Ajay Kumar Sharma FSL expert who examined the
mobile phone of the deceased
along with its SIM cards and
memory card and retrieved the
data from the same (except
mobile phone itself)
PW45 Insp. Sanjay Rawat Police official in whose
presence the IO obtained the
documents of FIR No.120/16,
PS Lodhi Colony from said
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 15 of 51
police station
PW46 Ms. Amita Raghav FSL expert who conducted the
DNA/biological examination of
the case exhibits
PW47 SI Vijay Kumar Police officer who filed the
supplementary charge-sheet
regarding FSL report wherein
the clothes of accused were
examined
PW48 SI Dinesh Kumar Main IO of the case
3.02 Though 49 witnesses have been examined by prosecution but
the main witnesses of the case are:-
I) PW - 3 Smt. Ramrati / Mother of deceased / purported last
seen witness;
II) PW - 5 Master X / child witness / purported eye-
witness;
III) PW - 9 Mohammad Shahzad / PCR caller regarding the gun
shot;
IV) PW - 19 Raj Kumar / purported eye-witness / Father of
deceased;
V) PW - 29 Retd. ACP S. K. Sharma / the then SHO, PS Jaitpur;
VI) PW - 31 Retd. Insp. Anwar Khan / IO who filed
supplementary charge-sheet;
VII) PW - 39 Insp. Mohar Singh / IO who filed the main charge-
sheet;
VIII) PW - 48 SI Dinesh Kumar / Main IO who conducted the
substantial investigation of the case.
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 16 of 51
3.04 PW - 3 Smt. Ramrati deposed that Dilip Kumar Kanojia was
her son. On 02.06.2016, she is not aware of the time, it was evening time, when she had gone to take vegetables, Monu and her son Dilip were talking and Goli and Vikram came on a motorcycle and they started talking. They were present near the school which is near the nala in the area. She was buying vegetables. Her son Dilip told her that she should go home and he would come after some time i.e. 5-7 minutes. She came back to her house. After about half an hour, she was informed by somebody who came at her house that Dilip/her son was shot. She went to the spot in Kachchi Colony near the nala and there was a hut also. She identified her son who was lying dead there. The PCR van had removed the dead body of her son from there. She does not remember what was the time then. Her son was wearing t- shirt blue light colour and a nicker. She had stated to the police that her son was killed by Monu, Goli and Vikram. During her testimony, she identified all three accused. She further deposed that she had spoken with her son Dilip on telephone before his death on the same day. She does not remember her number and her son's number. It must be in the call details. Her son had told her that there were five persons with him namely Sonu, Vikas apart from Monu, Goli and Vikram and they wanted to kill him and she should come fast. She also knows Sonu and Vikas. Dead body of her son was obtained by her son Pradeep after postmortem . Her son was using Blackberry mobile phone which was of light colour.
She identified the case property i.e. clothes of her son Dilip i.e. half pant Ex.P1 and t-shirt Ex.P2.
PW - 3 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 17 of 51
3.05 PW - 5 Master X deposed that he has been residing in
Madanpur Khadar for last around 2-3 years. The school, where he was studying, is situated in Khadar behind Jaitpur Police Station. He does not remember the date, however, on a particular day at about 6 PM, he had gone to purchase vegetables from Jalebi Chowk. When he was returning home after purchasing vegetables, at around 7-7:30 PM, he saw that number of persons were gathered. He inquired from them as to what had happened. Then he came to know that some one had fired and thereafter, fled away. He does not know who suffered gun shot injuries. He did not see the person who had suffered gun shot injury. The police came at the spot by that time. He did not come to know as to who had fired. He went to his home and slept. Next morning, police came and took him to Police Station. Police made inquiry from him in respect of incident. However, police did not record his statement. During his testimony, the witness was shown the accused persons through audio video linkage and was asked whether he knows them and can identify them or not. After looking at accused persons, he deposed that he does not know any of them. He further deposed that he never saw them before today.
As the witness turned hostile to the case of prosecution, Ld. Additional PP for State cross-examined him u/s 154 of Indian Evidence Act.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP, he deposed that he did not tell the police that on 02.06.16 when he was going for latrine at about 8:30 PM, he had seen Deepak @ Goli and Dalip talking to each other. He never told the police that while Deepak @ Goli and Dalip SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 18 of 51 were talking, Vikram @ Vikku came on motorcycle and after that Monu Bhangi also came there. He did not tell the police that Deepak @ Goli, Vikram Vikku and Monu Bhangi had quarrel with Dalip and Monu Bhangi had fired upon Dalip and due to which he fell down. He did not tell the police that after firing, all three of them fled on motorcycle. He never told the police that Deepak @ Goli, Vikram @ Vikku and Monu Bhangi were known to him earlier and they were vagabond of his area. The statement of witness Ex. PW-5/A from point X to X was read over and explained to witness in vernacular in Hindi but he denied having made such statement to police. He denied that he is deposing falsely under pressure and duress from the family members of the accused persons. He denied that on
04.06.16, he had told true facts of the case to the police. He deposed that he never made such statement.
3.06 PW - 9 Shri Mohd. Shahzad deposed that he was working as an electrician in a mobile shop in Gaddha Colony, Jaitpur. On 02.06.2016, he was present in his house. He heard some noise of the neighbours and he came to know that some firing incident had taken place near Nala near Gaushala Road. It was dark there. With the torch of his mobile, he saw a boy lying dead there. The said boy was not having one of his hands. He called in police station in Jaitpur as well as on number 100 from his mobile phone number 8860315786. After about 5 minutes, local police arrived at the spot. The dead body was removed from the spot. He further deposed that he does not know name of the deceased and who caused his death.
PW - 9 was briefly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
3.07 PW - 19 Sh. Raj Kumar deposed that he is working as a
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 19 of 51
washer man near Mandakini Apartments, Alaknanda near Don Bosco School. Deceased Dilip was his son. Vikas, Sonu and Monu were already having two cases in Court no. 512 in which he is the complainant. On 02.06.2016, at around 07:30-07:45 PM, his wife informed him on telephone that accused Deepak had called his son Dilip near Toranto Public School, which is near his residence. As his wife suspected something wrong, she told him to reach there and find out what is happening. He reached near Toranto Public School, where he came to know that deceased had gone towards Gaushala Nala road. He slowly went towards Nala and reached there, where accused persons Deepak, Monu and Vikram alongwith his deceased son Dilip were present there and accused persons were abusing his son. After seeing him, accused Monu immediately took out a pistol and fired upon his son and his son fell down on the floor and he cried saying "Maa". Thereafter, accused Vikram started his black colour motorcycle and he alongwith other accused persons namely Deepak and Monu sat on the motorcycle and fled away from the spot. There was one shop of Kabari and Perchun run by one Mulla Ji who informed the police on telephone and he also closed his shop and fled away. Thereafter, his wife and another son Pradeep reached at spot. After some time, police reached at the spot. Police had shifted his deceased son Dilip to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. He also reached there with his wife and came to know that his Dilip had died. After her arrival, he and his wife immediately left for Hospital in OLA Cab and his son Pradeep reached at Trauma Centre on motorcycle. Police official told him that his son Dilip is undergoing surgery and he will get fine and they did not allow him to meet him.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 20 of 51 During his testimony, PW-19 identified all three accused. PW - 19 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. 3.08 PW - 29 Retd. ACP S. K. Sharma deposed that on 06.06.2016, he was posted as SHO at PS Jaitpur. On same day, he along with SI Dinesh, Ct. Mukhtiyar, Ct. Purshottam and Ct. Ishrat went for further investigation. Accused Monu was arrested and remanded for three days. He interrogated accused Monu and recorded his supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW29/A in which he had confessed about the snatching of purse, mobile phone and that same can be recovered at his instance. Thereafter, he along with other police officials and accused reached at Sarai Kale Khan forest where accused identified the spot where he had thrown the snatched ladies bags (pouch) and same was recovered from the said spot at his instance. The site plan of the spot of recovery is Ex.PW29/B and the ladies bag was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/C. Thereafter, he alongwith other police officials and accused reached at middle of DND Flyover where accused pointed out towards the spot where he had thrown the snatched mobile phone in Yamuna river. The site plan of said spot was prepared vide Ex.PW29/D. Thereafter, police officials searched the said mobile phone in Yamuna and after efforts, SI Dinesh had got recovered the said mobile phone make Samsung. He has mentioned the details of make, colour, model and IMEI number in the seizure memo vide Ex.PW29/E vide which it was taken into possession. Thereafter, he along with above said police officials and accused returned to PS where the case property was deposited in the malkhana. He had recorded statement of witnesses. Thereafter, he handed-over the case file to SHO as he was transferred.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 21 of 51 During his testimony, PW-29 identified the accused Monu and two bags/pouches Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and mobile phone Ex.MO1 recovered at the instance of accused Monu.
PW - 29 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
3.09 PW - 31 Retd. Inspector Anwar Khan deposed that in the year 2017, he was posted as Inspector in police station Jaitpur. The further investigation of present case was marked to him on 01.05.2017. Thereafter, he had applied for obtaining the CDR of one Samsung mobile phone having dual SIM, from the service provider IDEA. Said phone pertained to girl friend of accused Monu. However, the number was inactive and no CDR could be obtained. The FSL result was received regarding the ballistics examination of the fire arms. He obtained the sanction u/s 39 of Arms Act from the concerned DCP. He also sent one mobile phone for examination at the FSL but the result of the same was not received till the time he remained the IO of the case. He does not remember the complete number of said mobile phone but it started with 98 and ended with 42. He recorded the statement of the MHC(M). He filed the supplementary charge- sheet containing above said documents. Further, he also recorded the statement of father of deceased namely Raj Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and obtained the FSL report of the mobile phone. He also recorded the statement of the police officials who took the case property to the FSL. Thereafter, he prepared supplementary charge-sheet and filed the same before the Court.
PW - 31 was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 22 of 51
3.10 PW - 39 Inspector Mohar Singh deposed that he was posted as
Inspector/SHO Jaipur. On that day, at the direction of the senior officer the present case was marked to him for investigation on transfer of first IO/Inspector Sunil Kumar. On perusing the case file, it was found that the investigation of the present case was almost over. He has got extended the JC of the accused persons. He obtained the PM report, PCR calls were got verified. He has also examined the PCR caller namely Sajid and recorded his statement. He has obtained the scaled site plan from the draftsman/Insp. Mukesh Jain. He also sent notice to the Nodal Officers of different companies in order to provide the CDRs and CAFs of the mobile number revealed in the investigation. He has also got sent the case property to the FSL. He also got verified the ownership of the motorcycle used by the accused persons from different persons and he has collected the documents which he has seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW13/A. He had also sent a request to the MLO Sheikh Sarai to provide him the ownership of the motorcycle. The said letter is Ex.PW39/A and the authority had supplied him the documents. He has also collected the documents relating to arrest and disclosure and other documents prepared by IO of PS Lodhi Colony and prepared a seizure memo of the same already Ex.PW38/I. Notice to Vodafone is Ex.PW39/B regarding the number 7291061855 and 9899853642. Notice to Bharti Airtel is Ex.PW39/C regarding the number 7042677499, 9560493848 and 9560990774. He has also recorded the statement of all the witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.
PW - 39 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence
SC No.2674/2016
FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 23 of 51
counsel.
3.11 PW - 48 SI Dinesh Kumar deposed that on 02.06.2016, he was
posted at PS Jaitpur as SI. On that day he was on emergency duty from 8PM to 8AM. At about 9PM he received a PCR call vide DD no. 58A regarding quarrel at Nala Road, Kachi Colony, Madanpur Khadar Phase III, Near Gushala, Delhi. In the meantime before reaching the spot he received another call DD no. 59A regarding a gun shot ( ek admi ko goli mardi). He along with Ct. Dinesh reached at the spot and on reaching they saw that one person was lying over the ground with his head was towards Nala and feet towards Kacha Road. The person was not having his left arm. No public person was found at the spot. They could see the blood was oozing out from his forehead as well as from the chest. The injured was having black coloured T-shirt with Puma written over the same and one blue and white check nikkar / shorts. There was one white towel on his left shoulder with blood on the same. He was having slipper in one foot and another slipper was lying nearby. On the right side of the body there was one live cartridge and on the left side of the body there was one empty cartridge. He had called the beat staff namely Ct. Suresh and Ct. Ashok and also the ERV Staff ASI Maharaj at the spot. Ct. Suresh identified the injured as Dilip who was resident of the area. He sent the body with Ct. Dinesh and ASI Maharaj through ERV to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He called the crime team at the spot. He got the crime scene photographed. He lifted the exhibits from the spot i.e. one live cartridge in a plastic jar and sealed it with the seal of DK. The same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW 12/C. Likewise empty cartridge was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW 12/B. He also lifted the SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 24 of 51 blood and the blood stained earth etc. grass, earth control, etc from the spot and sealed the same with the seal of DK. Said exhibits were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/D. He left Ct. Ashok and Ct. Suresh at the spot. He then went to AIIMS Trauma Centre. He obtained the MLC of the injured wherein doctor had declared him as brought dead. Then he returned at the spot. When the area near the crime scene was checked a mobile phone was found at a distance of about 12-13 meters from the body. It was of make Samsung. Many public persons had gathered at the spot. One lady came there and told that phone is of her son. They had shown the photo of the deceased taken in their phones to the lady and she identified him as her son Dilip. He kept the phone with him so as to look into its call history. Then he prepared the Tehrir vide Ex.PW48/P1 on the basis of DD entry and the facts of the case. He sent Ct. Suresh to the PS with the Tehrir for registration of case. The mother of deceased named two persons i.e. Sonu and Vikas. Said persons were called in the PS and were interrogated. But their role was not found in the murder of deceased, though there were previous disputes between them and the deceased. Then the mother of the deceased told that her deceased son was seen yesterday with one Monu. They went to the house of Monu but he was not found there. Many boys were called for interrogation of the case.
On 03.06.2016, he went to the hospital for postmortem of the deceased. The postmortem was got conducted and the dead body after identification was handed over to its relatives. The identification memo of the body is Ex.PW7/A. The dead body handing over memo after the postmortem is Ex.PW6/B. In the postmortem three bullets were found from SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 25 of 51 the body of the deceased. The doctor handed over the said bullets in sealed condition along with sample seal. Same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/E. The doctor also handed over the blood gauze of the deceased in sealed condition in sample seal. Same was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/F. Ct. Dinesh handed over him the clothes of deceased, one Tabiz in sealed condition along with sample seal which were handed over by the doctor during the MLC. Same were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/A. Then he returned to the PS and at the PS he deposited all the exhibits and from the PS he again went the spot. There was jungle near the nala at the spot of occurrence and there were some scattered houses in the area. One boy Master 'X' aged about 14-15 years was found in one of the houses in the jungle. Said boy was the eyewitness to the incident but he was too scared to give statement. After persuasion he told that when he had gone to attend his natural call, he saw that deceased was having arguments with Monu and one Deepak was standing by whereas another boy was nearby with the motorcycle. (The said boy with the motorcycle was later on revealed as Vikram). Monu and Deepak were the bad characters of the area and were known to the local people and were named by Master 'X'. Master 'X' further told that in the arguments Monu took out pistol and fired on the deceased. Being afraid Master 'X' fled to his home. PW-48 recorded the statement of Master 'X' u/s 161 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.PW5/A. During investigation when the call details from the mobile phone of Dilip were checked, one number was found with which there was call exchange. Said number was of one foreigner Lady from California namely Ana. When the investigation was made regarding the IMEI number SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 26 of 51 of said number it was found that the mobile used with the said number was purchased from Delhi Airport. Further the location of the said number of the lady was found at Lodhi colony on 01.06.2016. When inquiry was made from the PS Lodhi Colony, it was found that said phone was snatched from the area of PS Lodhi Colony and one FIR was registered regarding the said snatching. The foreigner lady was on tourist visa and had left the country. The location of number of the said lady was found at the spot at the time of the offence of the present case. They had received inputs that accused Monu, Deepak and Vikram were involved in the incident. People were telling about their role but not coming forward to be witness. They were searching for them but without success. However, they were able to get the phone numbers of the said area (accused). Earlier when they had called various boys for investigation, said boys included Deepak and Vikram but at that time they did not have intel/ information against them and they were let off. Monu was using three mobile numbers, one of the foreigner lady, one in the name of girl Shivani, who was girlfriend of Monu and 3rd phone number was issued in the name of a person at Faridabad by fraudulent means. Secret informers were activated and they got information about Vikram in the night of 04.06.2016.
On 05.06.2016, he, Ct. Ashok, Ct.Mukhtiyar, Ct. Ishrat Beg, Ct. Purushotam, Ct. Suresh went to the house of accused Vikram at Madanpur Khadar Village, Delhi. Accused Vikram was found there. He was interrogated and he accepted his role in the incident. He disclosed that he can get accused Deepak apprehended. His arrest memo Ex.PW33/A, personal search memo Ex.PW33/B and disclosure statement Ex.PW33/C SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 27 of 51 and conviction slip were prepared. They took accused Vikram with them and reached at Yamuna Khadar in the area of Madanpur Khadar. It was jungle area. They found accused Deepak at the instance of Vikram therein. He tried to run but they apprehended him. He was interrogated. He also accepted his role in the incident. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW33/D, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW33/E and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW33/F. The accused disclosed that gun was fired by accused Monu and they can get him apprehended. Then they went for search of accused Monu and when they were at Holy Chowk, Sangam Vihar a boy was coming on a motorcycle and accused Deepak and Vikram pointed out towards him. They apprehended him and his search was conducted and one pistol along with Magazine was found along with belt line of his pant. Further one another empty magazine was found in his pocket's pant. One live cartridge was found in the magazine loaded in the pistol. PW-48 prepared the sketches of the pistol, empty magazine and the cartridge vide Ex.PW33/N, Ex.PW33/O and Ex.PW33/P. All the said articles were seized after sealing them vide separate memos Ex.PW33/J, Ex.PW33/K and Ex.PW33/L. He recorded the disclosure statement of the accused and he was arrested. The arrest memo of accused Monu is Ex.PW33/G. His personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW33/H and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo already Ex.PW33/I. In his disclosure statement accused Monu disclosed that he was involved in crime and has various cases against him whereas deceased Dilip was working as police informer and was blackmailing him for not informing the police about his activities and for SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 28 of 51 said reason accused Monu committed the murder of deceased.
When the accused Monu was arrested he was driving one pulsar motorcycle which had been used at the time of crime of present case and same was seized vide memo already Ex.PW33/M. Accused had also disclosed that on the date of incident he had come on the motorcycle from Sangam Vihar to Madanpur Khadar to the house of Vikram and took accused Vikram with him with Vikram now driving the motorcycle. Monu made phone call to accused Deepak @ Goli and then Deepak met them at Shriram Chowk of Madanpur khadar. Then they reached at the spot of crime. Then Monu called Dilip using the phone of foreigner lady and impersonated himself as somebody else and told Dilip that he can get Monu caught. Monu called Dilip at the crime scene but Dilip refused to come there. Dilip said he can come at the pullia of Madanpur Khadar. Then Deepak @ Goli who was stranger for Dilip went to said pullia and told Dilip that he can get Monu apprehended. Meanwhile Monu sent Vikram with the motorcycle and told him to come when called. Dilip and Deepak walked together to the spot and it was dark at that time. Therein Monu had altercation with Dilip. Vikram was also called at the spot. After the altercation, Monu shot Dilip. Then all 3 accused fled away on the bike. They dropped Deepak on Sriram Chowk Madanpur Khadar. Vikram was dropped at his house by Monu and Monu left away with the motorcycle. Monu went to Sangam Vihar. There he had rented accommodation and from there he took Shivani and went to a guest house at Sarai Kale Khan. Next day Monu and Shivani left on motorcycle to NOIDA and on the way Monu destroyed the SIM and threw the phone of foreigner lady in Yamuna.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 29 of 51 Monu also disclosed that Monu and Deepak @ Goli had snatched the said phone from the foreigner lady on 01.06.2016.
PW-48 checked the route map according to the phone locations of the accused persons and same was found corresponding to the disclosure statements given by the accused persons. The locations of the phones were found corresponding to crime scene, Madanpur Khadar, Sangam Vihar and Sarai Kale Khan as disclosed by accused. The accused persons were brought in the PS and lodged in the lockup and case property was deposited in the malkhana. Since the seriousness of the case was high, therefore the investigation was handed over to SHO PS Jaitpur. PW-48 further joined the investigation with the 1O/Inspector Sunil Sharma on 06.06.2016. On that day, all three accused persons were taken out from the lock up in the presence of Ct. Mukhtiyar, Ct. Ishrat and Ct. Purushottam and thereafter they were re-interrogated by the IO. IO recorded supplementary disclosure statements of accused Monu and Deepak. They disclosed that they had snatched the mobile phone from the lady at Lodhi Colony along with her bag and they had thrown the bag in the jungle area behind the Petrol Pump at Sarai Kale Khan. PW-48 had signed the said supplementary disclosure statements. The supplementary disclosure statement of accused Monu is Ex.PW48/P2. The supplementary disclosure statement of accused Deepak @ Goli is Ex.PW48/P3. In his supplementary disclosure statement, accused Monu disclosed that after snatching the mobile phone from the lady, he threw the said mobile into Yamuna across the DND Flyover. Both the accused Deepak and Monu also disclosed that the clothes worn by them at the time of offence were kept at their home. All the three accused persons SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 30 of 51 were produced in the Court and their police custody was obtained from the Court for three days. Thereupon IO, PW-48, all the three accused, Ct. Mukhtiyar, Ct. Purushottam and Ct. Ishrat went to the jungle area behind the Petrol Pump at Sarai Kale Khan. From there one bag of brown colour with two stripes of dark brown colour was recovered at the instance of accused Monu and Deepak. In the said bag, ladies items i.e. lipstick etc. were recovered. The said bag was sealed after converting into a cloth pullinda vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/C. The IO prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW29/B of spot of recovery. Then they went to the DND Fly over wherein the accused Monu was asked to throw a stone of the size of the mobile phone into the Yamuna River and then all of them went to the spot where the stone fell and PW-48, Ct Mukhtiyar and Ct. Ishrat went inside the water of Yamuna and he found the mobile phone immediately almost at the same spot where Monu had thrown the stone. It was Samsung mobile phone of white colour along with brown colour cover. It was a touch screen phone. It was opened but no SIM was found inside the same. Then IO kept it in the cloth pullanda and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW29/E. The site plan of the spot of recovery was prepared vide Ex.PW29/D by the IO. Then they returned to the police station. On 07.06.2016 at the instructions of SHO, he took out accused Monu and Deepak from the lock up. He along with Ct. Purushottam, Ct. Ishrat and Ct. Mukhtiyar along with said two accused reached at the house of accused Monu at JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar. Therein he got recovered one T Shirt which he had worn at the time of incident. PW-48 further deposed that he does not remember the colour of T-Shirt. It was kept in cloth pullanda and seized vide seizure SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 31 of 51 memo Ex.PW33/U. Further, 18 mobile phones and 7 bags(one laptop bag and rest ladies purse/bags) were recovered from the house of accused Monu which he had robbed/snatched during various incidents. Same were seized under Section 102 Cr.P.C. vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/T. Then they reached at the house of accused Deepak at JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar. Therein he got recovered one T-shirt which he had worn at the time of incident. Same was kept in cloth pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/V. Then, they returned to the police station and accused was lodged in the lock up. He got extended the JC remand of the accused persons and he collected the CDR of the mobile numbers. Efforts were made to trace Shivani as one mobile phone was in her name. She was the wife of accused Monu.
During his testimony PW - 48 identified all 3 accused. He also identified the case property/photographs thereof.
PW - 48 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C.
4.1 After conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s 313 CrPC. They denied all the allegations. 4.2 Accused Monu denied that he was present at the spot. He stated that he resides near PW - 3's house and therefore she has identified him. He admitted that one case is pending where PW-19 is the complainant. He denied the recoveries at his instance. He stated that his phone number was 7042677499. He does not know about other phone numbers. He had SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 32 of 51 gone to purchase the aforesaid motorcycle but he had gone with his father and not with Shivani. He stated that he had purchased a second hand motorcycle. Mobile number 7042677499 was being used by him. He had applied for mobile phone number and Sadik Ram may had applied for his number but when the numbers were issued, accused was issued the number applied on Sadik Ram's ID and Sadik Ram was issued the number applied on accused's ID. He further stated that he does not know why the witnesses have deposed against him. However, he claimed that the family of victim had dispute with his friends Sonu and Vikas and for the said reason they have deposed against him. He had gone to police station on 4 th of June but police has shown his arrest on 05th June. He had gone to the police station after he received call from police on his number and same can be checked in his CDR. Since, the police could not find anybody else for the crime, the police picked him up and blamed him on the premise that he had a previous dispute with family of deceased along with Sonu and Vikas. He was arrested in the present case and thereafter his name was added in the said previous dispute case.
4.3 Accused Deepak @ Goli stated that he was not present the alleged spot of incident. He further stated that he does not know why the parents of deceased have named him. He denied all the allegations. 4.4 Accused Vikram @ Vikku stated that he was not present at the spot. He denied all the allegations.
5. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 5.1 Accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 33 of 51
6. ARGUMENTS
6.1 Arguments were heard on behalf of the accused as well as Ld.
Additional PP for the State.
6.2 Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that in the main
charge-sheet the prosecution cited one eye-witness of the incident i.e. child witness Master 'X'. However, he has not supported the case of prosecution at all. Further, the father of the deceased has also claimed himself be the eyewitness. However, he was never mentioned as an eye-witness in the main charge-sheet and out of blue his name was added 2 years later as an eyewitness which shows that he is a bogus witness. It is argued that mother of deceased had been cited as a circumstantial witness. However, there are serious contradictions in her statement. As far as the circumstantial evidence of the case is concerned, the alleged gun recovered at the instance of the accused did not match with the bullets/cartridges recovered from the body of the deceased/from the spot. Hence, the same was never the murder weapon and was rather planted by the police on accused. Moreover, no trace of blood was found on the clothes of any accused thereby further showing that the case of prosecution is false qua the accused. Ld. Counsel has argued that prosecution has relied on the recovery of one phone claiming that same was used to make phone call to deceased and lure him to arrive at the spot. However, there are serious contradictions in the statements of recovery witnesses of said phone. Hence, it is argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.
6.3 On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP for the State has argued that the child eyewitness has turned hostile to the case of prosecution due to SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 34 of 51 fear of accused persons as they are dreaded criminals of the area. The phone calls record show the presence of accused persons at the spot and also at the spot from where the phone used to lure the deceased was recovered. There is evidence of previous enmity between the accused Monu and the deceased Dilip/his family. Further, both parents of deceased have deposed against all the accused. Accordingly, there is sufficient evidence against the accused persons to convict them for alleged offences.
7. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 7.1 I have considered the arguments of the parties and have perused the record.
7.2 The relevant provisions applicable in present case are reproduced herewith:-
Section 302 IPC - "Punishment for murder --
Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 300 IPC defines murder - It provides -
"Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- (Secondly) - if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
(Thirdly)- if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or -SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 35 of 51 (Fourthly)- if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."
Section 34 IPC - "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
Section 25(1B) (a) Arms Act - "Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any fire arm or ammunition in contravention of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine".
Section 27 of Arms Act - (1) "Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine".
7.3 After considering the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties, following points for determination arise: -
1. Whether there is any eye-witness account against the accused regarding the alleged murder and whether same is reliable?
2. Whether there is circumstantial evidence against the accused regarding the alleged murder and whether same is reliable and complete?
3. Whether the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 36 of 51 under section 302 IPC?
4. Whether the accused Monu is liable to be convicted for the offence u/s 25/27 Arms Act?
8. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND APPLICATION OF LAW 8.1 Eye-witnesses and their reliability:-
8.1 (a) The prosecution relied on one eye-witness regarding the alleged murder i.e. Master 'X'. He was examined as PW-5. However, he did not depose a word against any of the accused. Rather, he did not claim himself to be the eye-witness of the incident. Though he was cross-
examined by Ld. Additional PP but he denied that he has given any statement to police claiming himself to be the eyewitness. It is to be noted that even during investigation itself, said Master 'X' was examined by Ld. MM u/s 164 Cr.P.C. However, in his said statement Ex.PW5/D1 also he stated that he did not see the alleged incident and rather went to the spot after seeing the crowd and the police. Even otherwise, nothing substantial has come in his cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP to conclude that he has deposed falsely in the Court and before Ld. MM.
8.1 (b) The father of the deceased i.e. PW-19 Raj Kumar has deposed against accused persons as an eyewitness to the alleged murder. However, his introduction into case as an eye-witness itself is doubtful. As per the main charge-sheet, it is the case of prosecution that there was no eyewitness to the incident except the Master 'X'. Rather as per the main charge-sheet even the identity of the deceased could not be ascertained during the initial proceedings at the spot and same was verified only when SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 37 of 51 police officials from the local beat area came and identified the deceased. Same is totally inconsistent with the father of deceased being an eye- witness and being present at the spot after murder also.
Secondly, it was only in the year 2018 i.e. two years after the murder that the supplementary charge-sheet was filed mentioning that PW-19 was under trauma earlier and could not get his statement recorded. The IO who filed the said supplementary charge-sheet i.e. PW - 31 Insp. Anwar Khan was cross-examined regarding the recording of statement of Sh. Raj Kumar. Therein PW - 31 deposed that PW-19 Raj Kumar did not make a statement earlier as he was scared of the accused persons. However, neither the fact of trauma nor the fear of accused have been stated by PW - 19 Raj Kumar during his testimony for explaining delayed recording of his statement by the police as an eyewitness. Further, during his cross- examination he has deposed that he met the police officials on the date of incident and even thereafter for 15 days he kept visiting the police station and kept meeting the SHO and other officials. In such scenario it appears highly unlikely that PW-19 did not come forward as an eyewitness, if he was one.
Thirdly, his claim to be an eyewitness goes against the testimony of all the police witnesses who reached the spot immediately after the incident and also to the hospital but found no eyewitness of the incident at either of the places. During his cross-examination PW-19 even deposed that he had informed the police officials namely Suresh, Sunil Sharma, SHO PS Jaitpur who came to the spot regarding the incident and the name of the accused persons and the police did not make the enquiry SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 38 of 51 and immediately rushed injured to the hospital. He further deposed that he again informed about the incident and the name of the accused persons to the said official but they did not record his statement at that time. However, none of said police officials i.e. PW-29 ACP S. K. Sharma (the then SHO) and PW-42 HC Suresh have deposed that the father of deceased claimed to be an eyewitness or even joined the investigation naming the accused as the murderers. Rather, the case was a blind murder case till registration of FIR.
Fourthly, even the PCR caller i.e. PW-9 Mohd. Shahzad who went to spot after knowing about firing has not mentioned the presence of any family member of deceased at the spot. Rather, in his cross- examination he deposed that he was first one to reach the spot where dead body was lying and he remained there for about half an hour. He deposed that till that time neither dead body could be identified nor the assailants. More importantly, he deposed that till the time he was at spot, none of the family members of deceased had come.
Fifthly, there are serious contradictions in the statement of PW-19 Raj Kumar. He has deposed that on 02.06.2016 at around 07:30/07:40 PM his wife informed him on telephone that accused Deepak had called his son Dilip near Toranto Public School which is near his residence. He deposed that as his wife suspected something wrong, she told him to reach there and find what is happening there. However, in her entire examination-in-chief, his wife i.e. PW - 3 Smt. Ramrati has not mentioned a word about calling her husband to go and check on their son. She has not even mentioned about any phone conversation with her husband. Rather in her cross-examination she has deposed about the events after she reached SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 39 of 51 the spot of offence. Therein she deposed that she did not call anyone from her phone on that day as she was not in her proper senses except she informed her husband from her telephone regarding the incident. Thereby she has implied that she had called her husband after the incident had occurred. Rather, she again deposed that it was her who 'received' the call from her husband and it was then she had informed him. She even specifically deposed that she did not call her husband. Further, though he claimed to be an eyewitness but during his cross-examination PW-19 failed to tell as to how many times accused fired upon his son. He failed to tell what type of clothes were worn by accused Monu at the time of incident. He even deposed that after the shot was fired he got scared and became unconscious. However, no such fact has been mentioned in his examination-in-chief. Moreover, he has deposed that he remained at spot for about 35-40 minutes after his son was shot. At the same time, he also deposed that he did not inform his wife and his other son Pradeep regarding the incident but somebody called his wife but he does not know said person's name. The said claims of PW-19 go against the whole prosecution story mentioned in main charge-sheet and even natural conduct of a person whose son was allegedly murdered in his presence. Therefore, the testimony of PW-19 as an eyewitness is not reliable at all. 8.2 Circumstantial evidence:-
8.2 (a) Ocular evidence: The prosecution has cited PW-3 Smt. Ramrati, the mother of deceased as a witness of last seen evidence.
However, even her testimony suffers from serious infirmities.
She has deposed that on 02.06.2016 when she was going to SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 40 of 51 take vegetables, Monu and her son Dilip was talking and Goli and Vikram came on a motorcycle and they started talking. They were present near the school which is near the nala in the area. Her son Dilip told her that she shall go home and he will come after sometime i.e. 5-7 minutes. She returned to her house and after about half an hour she was informed by someone who came at her house that Dilip was shot. Firstly, said assertion of PW-3 Ramrati goes against the prosecution's case that Monu was calling the deceased using a phone number unknown to deceased so as to conceal his identity and lure the deceased to come at a secluded spot. Moreover, as per the case of prosecution, there was ongoing enmity between Monu and Dilip and there were previous disputes between the families also. In the given scenario, said state of things mentioned by PW-3 do not sync with the prosecution case. Secondly and more importantly, PW-48 SI Dinesh has deposed that during initial proceedings at spot the mother of deceased came and identified his phone. He has categorically stated that the mother of deceased named two persons i.e. Sonu and Vikas. Said persons were called in PS and were interrogated but their role was not found in the murder of deceased. It was then that the mother of deceased told IO/PW-48 that her deceased son was seen yesterday with one Monu. Thus, it is crystal clear the PW-3 Smt. Ramrati did not state the role of accused persons at the first instance.
PW-3 Smt. Ramrati has deposed that she had spoken with her son Dilip on telephone before his death on the same day and he told her that there were 5 persons with him namely Sonu, Vikas apart from Monu, Goli and Vikram and they wanted to kill him and she shall come fast.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 41 of 51 However, there are serious doubts about such claim of PW-3 Smt. Ramrati. Her husband i.e. PW-19 Raj Kumar has deposed in his cross-examination that his wife was using mobile number 9540962506 on the date of incident. The prosecution has filed the CDR of two mobile numbers stating them to be of deceased Dilip i.e. mobile number 9999965409 and 9718290010. The CDR of 9999965409 has been exhibited by prosecution as Ex.PW22/F. However, no call exchange with mobile number 9540962506 is reflected in the said CDR in the calls dated 02.06.2016 in the evening or otherwise. Likewise, the CDR of mobile number 9718290010 have been exhibited by prosecution as Ex.PW22/E. Even in the said CDR no call exchange with mobile number 9540962506 is reflected in the calls dated 02.06.2016 in the evening or otherwise. Further, as per the charge-sheet itself, no incriminating material was found against the alleged Sonu and Vikas. Hence, the testimony of PW-3 does not get any corroboration from the circumstantial evidence or even the investigation.
Further, during her cross-examination PW-3 Smt. Ramrati has deposed that she had stated the names of Monu, Deepak and Vikram to the police on 06.06.2016. However, the incident was of 02.06.2016 and if such telephone conversation took place between PW-3 Ramrati and the deceased wherein her son expressed his apprehension about being killed by alleged persons, such statement would have been given by PW-3 on the date of incident itself or on the very next date. Further, during her cross- examination she deposed that when her son Dilip called her on telephone and asked her to come soon, she reached at the spot by taking somebody's help on motorcycle and reached at the spot. However, she did not reveal the SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 42 of 51 name of such person stating that said person shall not come to Court due to fear of accused persons. Be that as it may, she further deposed that when she reached at the spot she had seen all the three accused persons fleeing on the motorcycle. She even deposed that she found some police official present at the spot when accused persons were fleeing. She deposed that those police officials were namely Suresh and other were PCR officials. However, said claim of PW-3 Ramrati goes against the testimony of police officials who reached at the spot and found no family member of deceased for a long time after coming to the spot. None of the said police officials have deposed that the mother of deceased arrived at the spot and stated anything about seeing the accused persons fleeing on the motorcycle. Moreover, said fact was not even mentioned in the examination-in-chief of PW-3. It may be noted that during her cross-examination PW-3 Smt. Ramrati even deposed that she had stated to the police that her son Dilip was shot in her presence by the accused persons! Therefore, she has even gone to the extent of deposing as an eyewitness without being projected so by the prosecution and without deposing as an eyewitness in her examination-in-chief. Further, on one hand, she has deposed that she had seen all three accused persons fleeing on the motorcycle but in the last part of her cross-examination she has also deposed that she could not see if there were 3 or 4 persons on the said bike, due to darkness and that she had seen them from behind. Thus, her statement is highly inconsistent and does not inspire any confidence and does not get any support from circumstantial evidence or even the case of prosecution in general.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 43 of 51
8.2 (b) Forensic evidence:
The murder was committed by a fire arm and as per the case of prosecution one fire arm and ammunition thereof was recovered from the possession of accused Monu and he disclosed the same to be the weapon used for commission of the offence. The three bullets recovered from the body of deceased Dilip and the empty fired cartridge recovered from the spot were sent for comparison with the said fire arm. However, as per the FSL report Ex.PW28/A the ballistic expert gave an opinion that the fired empty cartridge EC1 (recovered from the spot) was not fired from the fire arm Ex.F1 (allegedly recovered from accused Monu). As per said report, the ballistic expert also gave an opinion that the characteristics of striations present over the bullets EB1 to EB3 (recovered from the body of deceased) were found insufficient for comparison and for giving opinion whether same were fired from the said fired arm Ex.F1. Accordingly, there is no definite evidence that the said weapon was used to murder the deceased. Rather, the negative opinion regarding the fired empty cartridge found at the spot goes against the case of prosecution regarding the said fire arm being the murder weapon.
During investigation, the IO also seized the t-shirt of accused Monu and Deepak @ Goli vide seizure memo Ex.PW33/U and Ex.PW33/V at their instance. Said t-shirts are stated to be the t-shirts worn by said accused during the murder. Said t-shirts were sent to the FSL for biological/DNA examination to link them to the place of offence. However, as per the FSL report Ex.PW46/P2, blood could not be detected on any of the said t-shirts.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 44 of 51 Accordingly, there is no forensic evidence connecting any of the accused to the spot of murder or the murder weapon. 8.2 (c) Electronic evidence The prosecution has heavily relied upon the call detail records to show that the deceased Dilip was called using a phone which was snatched by the accused Monu and Deepak from a foreigner lady within the jurisdiction of PS Lodhi Colony. The prosecution has referred the CDRs of the phones of the deceased to show that one phone number i.e. 7291061855 was in constant touch with the deceased soon before the incident. However, there is no evidence of said foreigner lady to prove that any of the accused were snatchers (presumably since the lady was a foreigner and had left the country). To show the connection of said phone number with the accused, the prosecution has relied on the recovery of said mobile phone (Ex.PW43/MO3) at the instance of accused Monu. However, the defence has vehemently challenged the said recovery. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there is no public witness regarding said recovery and there are number of contradictions in the testimonies of recovery witnesses regarding such recovery.
I have considered the submissions and I have analyzed the testimonies of recovery witnesses.
Indeed, there are certain contradictions regarding the recovery of alleged mobile phone. PW29 Retd. ACP S. K. Sharma, the then SHO who was the IO leading the recovery team has deposed in his cross- examination that recovered phone was having SIM in the same. However, as per the main IO/PW-48 SI Dinesh Kumar and as per the seizure memo SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 45 of 51 Ex.PW29/E, no SIM was found in the said mobile phone. Secondly, the main IO/PW-48 SI Dinesh Kumar has deposed that they went to DND flyover wherein the accused Monu was asked to throw a stone of the size of the mobile phone into the Yamuna river and then all of the police officials went to the spot where the stone fell. However, no such mode of tracing the phone has been described by other recovery witnesses i.e. PW-29 Retd. ACP S. K. Sharma, PW43 HC Mukhtar Ahmed and PW40 HC Purushottam. Thirdly, during his cross-examination IO/PW48 SI Dinesh Kumar deposed that the phone was found within 5-7 minutes in the first attempt as the water was shallow as it was summer time. He has specifically deposed that he and Ct. Mukhtar had entered in water first and other police officials entered the water after them. However, PW-33 HC Ishrat Beg has deposed in his cross-examination that it would have taken about half an hour to search the phone by the IO. He deposed that only IO entered the river to recover the phone. Further, PW40 HC Purushottam deposed in his cross-examination that none of the police officers entered the water of the river. In regard to the searching of phone, he deposed that there were 3-4 divers during the search and they searched for the mobile as pointed out by the accused. Even PW43 HC Mukhtar Ahmed deposed that no police officers entered the water. He also deposed that there were no public persons present at the time of recovery of mobile phone. Thus, his version goes against the version of PW40 about use or presence of divers. Even IO/PW-48 SI Dinesh Kumar has not deposed about any divers. Rather, he has deposed that some boys were catching fish at Yamuna river and they were also asked to join the proceedings but none agreed.
SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 46 of 51 Accordingly, the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the recovery of alleged mobile phone suffer from various inconsistencies and cannot be termed as reliable by any means.
Proceeding further, the prosecution has relied on the call/location data of other phone numbers stating that said phone numbers were being used by accused and show their presence at the spot of incident and the route taken by them as per their disclosure. As per main charge- sheet when accused Vikram, Deepak and Monu were arrested the mobile phones make Nokia (with SIM No. 9650990774), make Samsung (with SIM No.9540540224) and make Samsung (with SIM No.9560493848 and 7042677499) respectively were recovered from them. However, interestingly, none of the witnesses to their arrest i.e. PW-33 HC Ishrat Beg, PW-43 HC Mukhtar Ahmed and IO/PW-48 SI Dinesh Kumar have uttered a word about recovery of said phones during their entire examination-in- chief. To the surprise of the Court, the seizure memos of said phones filed with the charge-sheet have remained un-exhibited till the end of the trial. Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to link the physical connection of accused with alleged phones. Moreover, the alleged phone numbers relied upon by the prosecution are not subscribed in the name of accused themselves.
As per the charge-sheet, the mobile numbers 9899853642, 9560493848 and 7042677499 were being used by accused Monu. As per Ex.PW14/E i.e. the CAF of mobile number 9899853642, it was subscribed in the name of one Shivani. As per the case of prosecution, said Shivani was the second wife of accused Monu. However, there is no evidence SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 47 of 51 regarding the same. Moreover, there is no evidence that said number was being used by accused Monu and not its registered subscriber. The second mobile number being used by accused Monu is stated to be 9560493848. However, the subscriber of said phone is one Anshi w/o Vijay. The prosecution has examined said subscriber as PW10. She has deposed that she had never used such number. Rather she deposed that her ID and other documents were stolen from her and an FIR was registered regarding the same on 02.07.2015. However, in the absence of the evidence regarding recovery of said phone from accused Monu, there is no definite evidence that accused Monu was the user of said SIM number on the given date and time. Though the accused Monu has admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he was using mobile number 7042677499, however, as per its CDR Ex.PW17/A no calls/SMS were made to/from said mobile number from 14:13:50 hours to 22:40:27 hours on 02.06.2016. In short, said number was not used around the time of the murder of the deceased Dilip.
The prosecution has mentioned the phone number of accused Vikram as 9560990774. As per its CDR Ex.PW17/F the same was in the name of Santosh w/o Vijay Singh. As per the case of prosecution, she is the mother of accused Vikram. However, there is no independent evidence that said phone was being used by accused Vikram only.
The prosecution has mentioned the phone number of accused Deepak as 9540540224. However, as per CAF Mark PW22/C of said number, its subscriber was one Janak Dev Prasad and not accused Deepak.
Further, the IO/PW-48 SI Dinesh has deposed that he had obtained the CDR of the relevant mobile numbers unofficially before the SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 48 of 51 accused were apprehended. Therefore, the subsequent disclosure statements regarding the route taken by the accused do not fall within the ambit of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act vis-a-vis the alleged route reflected in the CDRs as same was already known to police. Secondly, the prosecution has relied on the CDRs to show the location of accused persons at the spot of murder around the time of murder. It may be noted that the CDRs of alleged phone numbers show the locations of the said phone numbers with the tower/cell ID being at Madanpur Khadar in the evening of 02.06.2016. However, as per charge-sheet, all the three accused are residents of Madanpur Khadar only. As PW-17 Surender Kumar, the Nodal Officer of Airtel, the mobile tower may have range of 0-5 kms. Accordingly, said mobile phone locations can be of any place in Madanpur Khadar and cannot be pinned down to the murder spot only.
Even otherwise, in the absence of any eye-witness account, any strong circumstantial evidence and any forensic evidence, the CDRs do not prove much against the accused persons. It may also be noted here that the mobile phone of deceased Dilip was sent for FSL examination. However, as per the supplementary charge-sheet filed by IO Insp. Anwar Khan no message, audio, video or text regarding the case could be obtained through such examination.
8.3 As far as the offence u/s 25 Arms Act is concerned, there is no public witness regarding the recovery of alleged pistol at the instance of accused Monu. Further, the police officials who were involved in the said recovery have not been found to be credible in regard to the recovery of alleged mobile phone (used to lure deceased) at the instance of accused SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 49 of 51 Monu. The police officials even failed to depose a word about the recovery of other mobile phones (alleged individual phones of accused) though same is specifically mentioned in the main charge-sheet. Further, PW-33 HC Ishrat Beg has deposed in his cross-examination that accused Monu was apprehended from ground floor of his house situated at Holi Chowk, Sangam Vihar. However, his arrest memo Ex.PW33/G shows the place of arrest as Holi Chowk, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi and his address is mentioned as B-2/535, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. PW-33 also deposed that family members of accused Monu were informed about his arrest and IO made inquiries from neighbors. As per him, they stayed at the house of accused Monu for about half an hour. However, during his cross-examination PW-43 HC Mukhtar Ahmed deposed that accused Deepak @ Goli identified accused Monu while standing at Holi Chowk, Sangam Vihar and 'immediately' after his apprehension, he was made to sit in the gypsy and thereafter he was straightaway taken to AIIMS hospital for his medical examination. Thus, even the evidence regarding the recovery of alleged pistol from the possession of accused Monu is not free from doubts.
9. CONCLUSION:
9.1 In view of above said discussion, none of the points of determination can be decided in favor of prosecution. Accordingly, all accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Hence, accused Monu, Deepak @ Goli and Vikram @ Vikku are acquitted of all the offences charged against them.SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016
State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 50 of 51
(Announced in the Open Court on
23rd May, 2025) SACHIN
Digitally signed by
SACHIN SANGWAN
SANGWAN Date: 2025.05.23
16:35:26 +0530
(SACHIN SANGWAN)
Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-01,
South-East District, Saket Courts/ND/23.05.2025 (AR) SC No.2674/2016 FIR No.265/2016 State vs Monu & Ors. Page no. 51 of 51