Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Mohd. Kasim Etc. on 5 September, 2012

                                   1

         IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
  ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS  (NORTH) 
                         DELHI

SC NO.  38/10

STATE 

versus

1.  Mohd. Kasim @ Khan Saheb,
S/o Allarakha,
R/o Mohalla­Darbar Kalan,
 Panipat Road, Kairana, 
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

2.  Abdul Rehman @ Chairman,
S/o Mohd. Idris,
R/o Mohalla­Pachhala, 
Budhana Distt., Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

3.  Sarafat Ali @ Mama,
S/o Islam,
R/o Mohalla­Peerjadgan,
Kairana, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

4.  Sajid @ Sahil,
S/o Tahir Hussain,
R/o Mohalla­Nayabans (near Chhoti Nahar)
Kandhla, Teh­Kairana, 
Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.
                                                      FIR No. : 103/07
                                        Offence U/S : 302/394/34 IPC
                                       Police Station : Sri Niwas Puri


S.C. No. 38/10                                       Page 1 of 59 pages
State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc.
                                                  2

                     DATE OF INSTITUTION :  04.07.2007
                    CASE TRANSFERED TO THIS COURT ON : 24.09.2010 
                     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :  01.08.2012 
                     DATE OF JUDGMENT :  14.08.2012                                               

 J U D G M E N T   

1. The incident of the present case is dated 11.03.2007, whereby deceased Vinay Kumar Jain was shot dead while he was parking his Santro car no. DL­3CP­8382 at 08.30 p.m near his house. The assailants, four in number struck on two motorcycles and after killing the deceased, took away his bag containing gold jewelery. Deceased Vinay Kumar Jain used to run a jewelery shop at Madanpur Khadar. The incident was seen by Kishan Chand Jain, cousin brother of the deceased, while he was passing through that place on his two wheeler scooter but as soon as he reached near the car, one of the assailants threatened him to run away by showing the pistol. Immediately thereafter, Kishan Chand Jain rushed to the house of deceased and informed his family members about the incident but by the time the family members reached the spot, the deceased Vinay Kumar Jain was lying dead and assailants had escaped from the spot. Vinay Kumar Jain was immediately removed to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. The first information report was recorded on the statement of Kishan Chand Jain. The investigation of the case started and crime scene was inspected. From the spot, two fired cartridges, one iron rod as well S.C. No. 38/10 Page 2 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 3 as indicator glass of motorcycle were lifted and seized on the same night itself. On the next morning, again the inspection of spot was conducted and three fired cartridges and one fired bullet head were found and seized from the spot. The car of deceased was examined at CBI CFSL on 12.03.2007 and two pieces of pallet head were embedded and recovered from the back seat of the Santro car.

2. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 12.03.2007, special team, crime branch organized a raid on the basis of secret information within the jurisdiction of PS Civil Lines, headed by Inspector Bhagwati Prasad and the accused persons namely, Mohd. Kasim @ Khan Saheb, Abdul Rehman @ Chairman, Sarafat Ali @ Mama and Sajid @ Sahil were apprehended with arms and ammunitions and recovery of gold jewelery in huge quantity were effected from each accused. The accused disclosed about their involvement in the killing of Vinay Kumar Jain (deceased) and thereafter at the instance of accused the recovery of two motorcycles and other stolen items including bag containing keys of shop of deceased were effected. The information was sent to PS Sri Niwas Puri and accordingly accused persons were arrested in the present case FIR No. 103/07. The arms and ammunitions recovered from the accused were sent to CFSL for ballistic examination and also the exhibits of ammunitions lifted from the spot. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that motorcycles recovered at the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 3 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 4 instance of Mohd. Kasim were stolen. The case property i.e. gold jewelery was put to identification through the witnesses (relatives and worker of the deceased) and it was identified as belonging to the deceased. Also during the investigation, the bag of the deceased containing bunch of keys of his shop, recovered at the instance of accused, could match properly and locks of the shop of deceased could be opened through the same. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against all the above mentioned four accused persons u/s 302/394 IPC read with section 34 IPC.

3. The case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.

4. On 08.04.2008, all the four accused were charged for having committed offences punishable u/s 302/392/472 IPC read with section 34 IPC and accused Mohd. Kasim, Abdul Rehman and Sharafat Ali were also charged for the offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act, 1959 for having been found in possession of one pistol with ammunition, one pistol with ammunition and one katta with ammunition, respectively without any license. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5. The evidence led by the prosecution during the trial of the case is as follows :­

6. PW­1 Nutan, is the wife of deceased Vinay Kumar Jain. She deposed that on 11.03.2008, the information was given by her brother­in­law Kishan that 3­4 armed persons were fighting with her S.C. No. 38/10 Page 4 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 5 husband. They came out of the house and on reaching the place, she found her husband bleeding and lying near Santro car. She took her husband to the hospital, where he was declared dead. PW­1 deposed that her husband was dealing in gold and silver jewelery and precious stones and used to carry the same in a bag everyday from his shop to the house. The jewelery used to weigh about 1 ­ 1½ kg. The jewelery brought by her husband on that day was robbed and also some papers and keys of the locker and shop. Her statement was recorded by the police. After about 6­7 days, she accompanied the police to the shop and the locks of the shop were opened with keys available with the police. She also identified the jewelery in the court premises and her brother­in­law Ashwani Jain and workman Asgar Ali also identified the jewelery vide EX PW­1/A. She also identified stones and pearls in the test identification proceedings vide EX PW­1/B. The memo of unlocking of locks is proved as EX PW­1/C, bearing the signatures of this witness. She clerified that incident was dated 11.03.2007. PW­1 also identified the jewelery articles in the court recovered from accused Abdul Rehman consisted of 17 rings, 2 karas (one big and one small), 35 tops + jhumka, 10 lockets, 18 ballies, one mang tika,one mangal sutra and also little gold items. Before identifying the jewelery in the court, the witness stated that some of the jewelery was having mark of RP and also some jewelery articles bear the mark of BJA. The S.C. No. 38/10 Page 5 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 6 jewelery opened in the court and found containing those marks and was identified as EX P­1. The jewelery articles recovered from accused Sharafat Ali consisted of 23 rings, 2 necklaces, 4 gold chains, 6 karas, 13 lockets, 9 balis, 32 tops, one mang tika and some little items have been identified by the witness as EX P­2. The jewelery articles recovered from accused Sajid consisted of 14 rings, 14 chains, 6 big lockets, 10 small lockets, 19 kundals, 35 tops, 5 mang tikas and some little items have been identified by the witness as EX P­3. The jewelery articles recovered from accused Mohd. Kasim consisted of 21 rings, 23 ear rings, 1 hasli, 3 karas, 31 jhumkas + tops, one gold piece, 4 gold chains and some little items have been identified by the witness as EX P­4. Gold Hasli specifically identified as belonging to the witness herself since she had given it to the deceased for repairs 2­3 days prior to the incident. The witness also identified loose pearls, moongas and stones, necklaces, silver and artificial jewelery, American diamonds, polythene bag containing one small silver idol of Laxmi goddess and gold powder, collectively as EX P­5. The witness stated that her husband used to keep the idol of Laxmi for good luck. The witness identified her signatures on TIP proceedings EX PW­1/D. The keys were taken by her on superdari and photographs of the same identified as EX P­6 and other photographs, showing the shop and showing unlocking of safe with the help of keys as EX P­7 to P­11. She also identified the bag in S.C. No. 38/10 Page 6 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 7 which the deceased used to carry the jewelery as EX P­12. The witness has been cross­examined on behalf of accused, during which she denied that her statement was not recorded by the police. In between her house and place of occurrence, there were four houses and place of occurrence was not visible from her house. She was confronted with her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. on some points. She denied the suggestion that she cannot tell exact number of articles which were with her husband on 11.03.2007. She admitted that she did not disclose to the magistrate that jewelery contained specific mark of RP and BJA. She denied the suggestion that case property was shown to her by the police before TIP. She further denied the suggestion that IO told her to identify the genuine gold jewelery and the other jewelery brought for mixing was artificial.

7. PW­2 Ashwani Jain, is the brother of the deceased. He was at his house at the time of incident and on receiving the information he rushed to the spot and found his brother Vinay Kumar Jain lying dead on the road and assailants had already fled. He removed his brother to Jiwan Nursing Home. PW­2 further deposed that deceased was running a jewelery shop under the name of Arihant Jewelers at Madan Pur Khadar and he used to carry jewelery articles worth Rs 15 lakhs - 20 lakhs in his car daily. The witness is also jeweler by profession, having his shop at Bhagwan Nagar. The S.C. No. 38/10 Page 7 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 8 witness also identified the recovered jewelry articles in TIP proceedings before the magistrate vide EX PW­1/A. The witness also identified the jewelery articles produced in the court. The witness also identified the keys of the shop of deceased and stated that they were shown to him at PS vide EX PW­1/E and keys were taken to the shop of deceased at Madan Pur Khadar and locks of the shop and safe were opened with the keys. The photographs in this regard are EX P­6 to P­11. The bunch of the keys is identified as EX P­6A. The witness has also proved recovery of mobile of deceased vide EX PW­ 2/A and seizure memo of unlocking of lock as EX PW­1/C. During cross­examination, witness stated that his statement was recorded by the police on 12.03.2007. He admitted that he had not accompanied deceased brother to the Jiwan hospital but denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he is a false witness in this case.

8. PW­3 Mohit Chopra, has been the registered owner of motorcycle bearing no. DL­3S­AY­0345 make Bajaj Pulsar and deposed that it was stolen on 06.02.07 and accordingly he lodged FIR no.127/07, PS Amar Colony. On receiving information from PS Sri Niwas Puri, the witness reached police station and identified his motorcycle. The number plate on motorcycle was of DL7S AJ 5682. The witness proved registration certificate of the vehicle Ex. PW­ 3/D, insurance Ex. PW­3/E and copy of the FIR Ex. PW­3/F. During S.C. No. 38/10 Page 8 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 9 cross examination, witness stated that he identified this motorcycle on the basis of scratches on front mudguard and since two or three digits of chesis were same. He admitted that in his statement Ex. PW­3/DA, he did not mention the colour and chesis number of the motorcycle.

9. PW­4 Sh. Krishan Kumar, is the resident/owner of H. No.65, Nangli Raza Pur, Sarai Kale Khan, Nizamuddin, Delhi wherein there were six rooms meant for letting out to tenants. According to this witness, a person resident of H. No. 52, inquired from his wife about any vacant room and also brought accused (identified as Sharafat Ali) for this purpose but he (PW­4) asked for photograph for police verification. On the same day, accused Sharafat Ali was brought by the police to his house. Accused Sharafat Ali opened the door of his room and got recovered bedding, one plastic dabbi containing mala of beads and the same was seized by the police. The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP during which he was confronted with his statement recorded by the police Ex. PW­4/A. The witness could not tell whether the room was let out to Abdul Rehman and not to accused Sharafat Ali. PW­4 voluntarily stated that letting out job was looked after by his wife. He denied that room was let out to accused Abdul Rehman. The witness also had no knowledge with respect to accused Kasim and denied the suggestion that accused Kasim got recovered gold and silver S.C. No. 38/10 Page 9 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 10 jewelery from his rented room. The witness identified the articles of seizure memo Ex. PW­4/B but stated that he signed the same at PS Prashant Vihar. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW­4/B was signed by him at the spot at the time of seizure of articles recovered at the instance of accused Kasim. The witness also admitted that police prepared some documents at the time of seizure of articles. During cross examination on behalf of accused witness denied that he signed the documents under the pressure of police.

10. PW­5 Sh. Praduman Kumar Jain, identified the dead body of deceased Vinay Kumar Jain on 12.03.07 at AIIMS vide Ex. PW­5/A and received the dead body vide EX PW­5/B.

11. PW­6 Sh. D. K. Jain, also identified the dead body of the deceased vide Ex. PW­6/A and received the same vide Ex. PW­5/A being the relative.

12. PW­7 Sh. Kishan Chand Jain, deposed that on 11.03.07 at about 08:00/08:30 pm, he was going from his residence towards Jaya Ram Ashram to attend a function on his scooter bearing no. DL 3SL 6651. As he reached the corner of the gali, he found that some persons were hitting the window panes of the car with iron rods. When he reached there, he was threatened to go back or otherwise will be shot. The witness stated that car was green colour Santro, belonging to his cousin Vinay Kumar Jain and he was inside the car. The witness rushed to the house of Vinay Kumar Jain, situated near S.C. No. 38/10 Page 10 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 11 by and called his family members. When the witness alongwith family members came back to the spot, they found Vinay Kumar Jain lying near his car but the boys who were hitting the car were not present. Vinay Kumar Jain was removed to the hospital. The witness had heard the noise of fire arms and found that blood was coming out from the chest and leg of Vinay Kumar Jain. The witness gave his statement to the police Ex. PW­7/A. PW7 further joined the investigation when the exhibits were lifted from the spot such as blood, earth control, indicator of motorcycle, two fired cartridges from the car and iron rod. The witness proved memos prepared in this regard Ex. PW­7/B to Ex. PW­7/I. The site plan was also prepared by the police. The car was also seized vide Ex. PW­7/G. During cross examination witness stated that his statement was thrice recorded by the police. The witness signed his statement Ex. PW­7/A at his house which is at a distance of 50­60 steps from the spot. He admitted that spot of occurrence was not visible from his house as well as from the house of deceased. He had read all the documents before signing. He had also seen police interrogating the public persons but could not tell whether any statements were recorded or not. He denied the suggestions that statement Ex. PW­ 7/A has been recorded by the police on its own or that no seizure memo was prepared in his presence or that he is a false witness or that he signed documents at the instance of police.

S.C. No. 38/10                                                     Page 11 of 59 pages
State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc.
                                          12

13. PW­8 HC Om Prakash, posted as MHC(M) at PS Sri Niwas Puri deposed about the deposition of exhibits of this case and proved the relevant entries Ex. PW­8/A on 12.03.2007. Five sealed pulandas were handed over by ASI Bengali Babu to this witness on 20.03.2007 and he made relevant entries vide Ex. PW­8/B. On 22.03.07, Inspector Mahender Singh handed over one memo of unlocking and seizure of locks, entered vide Ex. PW­8/C and on 25.03.2007 one pulanda containing glass of indicator of motorcycle was deposited vide Ex. PW­8/D. The witness was again examined on 04.03.11 as PW­33 and deposed about deposition of exhibits as above and added that 15 pulandas were sent on 28.03.2007 through SI Sunil Kumar to CFSL Lodhi Road and on 07.06.2007 above exhibits were deposited by SI Sunil Kumar with CFSL result. The relevant entries proved as Ex. PW­33/A.

14. PW­9 HC Manoj Kumar, accompanied the crime team to the place of occurrence and took photographs and proved the same vide Ex. PW­9/A1 to PW­9/A8.

15. PW­10 Sh. Ashok Kumar, resident of Panipat (Haryana) stated that he bought one motorcycle make Bajaj Pulsar in the year 2005 and applied for registration number at Panipat. The witness could not recollect the engine and chesis number of the motorcycle. The motorcycle was however stolen from outside his house but no FIR was registered despite efforts as there was no registration S.C. No. 38/10 Page 12 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 13 number allotted to the motorcycle. The witness got the information about the recovery of the motorcycle in the month of April/May 2007 and identified the same at PS Sri Niwas Puri. He identified the same due to the welding done at the bottom of chesis and proved the identification memo Ex. PW­10/A. The receipt of purchase of the motorcycle is proved as Ex. PW­10/B. The motorcycle having registration no. HR­51S­5331 was produced and identified by the witness in the court. During cross examination, PW­10 stated that his statement was recorded by Delhi police on 31.05.07. The motorcycle was stolen in the first week of August 2006. The witness further stated that he had not paid installments and he had given papers of the vehicle to an advocate for applying registration number who asked to wait and assured that he would get smaller number and for this reason the registration number got delayed. Witness denied the suggestion that no registration number was applied by him. The police official did not register FIR despite his request as there was no registration number of the motorcycle. The witness also could not tell the exact chesis and engine number of motorcycle and could not tell whether the same matched with the receipt Ex.PW10/B. The witness denied the suggestion that he identified the motorcycle at the instance of police.

16. PW­11 Ct. Devender Singh, of Special team, Crime Branch, S.C. No. 38/10 Page 13 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 14 New Delhi has been examined but his testimony cannot be read in evidence since it could not be completed.

17. PW­12 Sh. Naresh Chand Jain, is related to the deceased and he has been running departmental store near the place of occurrence. He deposed that on 11.03.07 while he was putting down the shutter of his departmental store, he heard the noise of firing and found that deceased Vinay Jain had fallen down after receiving bullet injuries and it was at a distance of about 50 feet from his shop under the bridge. The witness also saw four persons on two motorcycles running away having jewelery bag of deceased on one of the motorcycle. PW­12 stated that he is in a position to identify the bag as he had seen deceased carrying that bag. The witness also joined the investigation on 12.03.07 when SI K. P. Shah came to the spot and lifted exhibits, 3 fired cartridges and one pallet from inside the car. The sketch was prepared vide Ex. PW­12/A and exhibits were sealed and seized vide Ex. PW­12/B. The witness deposed that all the four assailants were wearing helmets so he is not in a position to identify them. The witness identified the exhibits of the case so produced in the court, particularly the fired cartridges and pallet Ex. P17 to Ex. P19 and bag of the deceased Ex. P­21.

18. PW­13 Sh. Raj Kumar Jain, knew the deceased being his friend. The witness has been running jewelery shop at Hari Nagar Ashram, Delhi. The witness also joined the investigation and S.C. No. 38/10 Page 14 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 15 deposed about lifting of exhibits from the spot.

19. PW­14 ASI Bengali Babu, was posted as ASI at PS Sri Niwas Puri. He deposed that on 20.03.2007 he took the case property from PS Civil Lines to PS Sri Niwas Puri and again on 25.03.2007 he brought the case property from PS Civil Lines to PS Sri Niwas Puri concerning this case. During cross examination, the witness gave the details that on 20.03.07 he deposited 5 pulandas containing jewelery items and 2 motorcycles and 4 helmets and one blue coloured bag containing keys and on 25.03.07 he had taken 5 sealed jars sealed with the seal of BPT containing arms and ammunitions. He denied that no such exhibits were so deposited or that he did not join the investigation of the present case. He also denied that pulandas were not intact. The witness thereafter deposed about his role in the investigation of this case. On 11.03.07, on receipt of DD No. 15/A Ex. PW­20/A regarding firing, he reached the spot alongwith Ct. Ilias Mohd. PCR was already stationed there and injured had already been removed to the hospital. Inspector Mahender Singh (SHO) also reached there with staff. PW­14 himself remained at the spot and he lifted blood samples with the help of cotton. The crime team and photographer also reached there. Thereafter, Inspector Mahender Singh reached the spot alongwith dead body of deceased and the witness was asked to go to AIIMS mortuary for getting the dead body preserved. PW­14 handed over S.C. No. 38/10 Page 15 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 16 blood samples lifted from the spot to Inspector Mahender Singh and thereafter went to AIIMS. He again returned to the spot where site plan was prepared and other exhibits like earth control, fired cartridges and indicator glass of motorcycle were lifted from the spot and were seized. The witness has proved various memos prepared with respect to the seizure of articles. On 12.03.07, PW­14 went to AIIMS and got the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased and thereafter dead body was handed over to the relatives. The doctor handed over blood stained clothes of the deceased and blood gauze with sample seal and they were seized by the IO vide Ex. PW­14/A. ASI Bengali Babu thereafter took the Santro car of the deceased and mobile phone of the deceased to CBI CFSL, Lodhi Road and got the same examined through ballistic expert vide RC no. 23/21. PW­14 further deposed that ballistic expert examined the car and recovered part of pallets made of brass and aluminum lying embedded inside the back seat of the car and both the parts of pallet were put inside the jar sealed with the seal of BB and seized vide memo Ex. PW­14/B. The witness brought the car and mobile phone back and again deposited with the MHC(M) in intact condition. On 23.03.2007 the witness again joined the investigation. The indicator glass of motorcycle bearing no. DL 7S AJ 5682 of back side was found missing and the indicator glass of the other back side was taken out for comparison and sealed with the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 16 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 17 seal of MS and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW­14/C. The witness identified the case property produced in the court. During cross examination, PW­14 admitted that no finger prints were lifted from the iron rod, used cartridges and indicator of motorcycle. He could not recollect to whom the seal was handed over after use. No sketch of indicator or iron rod was prepared by the IO. No statement of any public person was recorded by the IO in his presence. Registration number, model number of the bikes allegedly used by the assailants was not disclosed by the public but the colour of the bikes was stated as black. No finger prints from the Santro were lifted. The witness could not tell the registration number of Santro car, although he stated that car was of green colour. The witness had the knowledge of the articles kept in pulandas as he was told by the MHC(M). He denied the suggestion that he has been a false witness or that no proceedings were conducted in his presence. He denied that no articles were got deposited by him in the malkhana of PS Sri Niwas Puri.

20. PW­15 HC Nihal Singh, proved the FIR no. 127/07 PS Lajpat Nagar vide Ex. PW­15/A.

21. PW­16 SI Mahesh Kumar, prepared the scaled site plan of the place of occurrence vide Ex. PW­16/A.

22. PW­17 Dhanpal Singh, is a public witness and he had gone to S.C. No. 38/10 Page 17 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 18 Madan Pur Khadar market where police requested him to join the proceedings. The witness deposed that 2­3 persons were in the custody of police officials but witness could not identify them. Police had prepared 3/4 papers and he signed the same and accordingly admitted his signatures on Ex. PW­17/A to Ex. PW­17/E. No statement was recorded of this witness by the police. The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. APP during which he denied having made statement mark PW­17/A. He, however, admitted that accused told their names as Mohd. Kasim, Abdul Rehman, Sharafat Ali and Sajid and they have pointed out the shop of deceased Vinay Kumar Jain. During cross examination on behalf of accused, witness admitted that he was not familiar with the contents of Ex. PW­17/A. He admitted that he put his signatures on the memos on the directions of the police. He also admitted that only the police was naming accused and not the accused themselves.

23. PW­18 Sh. N. B. Bardhan, Principal Scientific Officer (Ballistic), CFSL, New Delhi received 14 parcels of this case on 28.03.07 which were marked as 1 to 7 and 9 to 15. The parcels mark 1 to 4 were forwarded for examination in the biology division and parcels mark 13 and 14 were forwarded to physics division. The remaining parcels containing arms and ammunitions were examined and the detailed report was submitted vide Ex. PW­18/A. S.C. No. 38/10 Page 18 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 19 The witness also gave opinion about the entry holes on the rear left side of the Santro car and also about the hole observed on the mobile phone of the deceased. The witness has been cross examined in detail on behalf of accused during which he denied the suggestion that he prepared a false report at the instance of IO. According to the witness cartridge of 7.62 mm/7.63 mm can be loaded into and fired from a 7.62 mm / 7.63 mm pistol. According to the witness on each firing, the country made fire arm will produce same marking. He specifically denied the suggestion that on each firing a different marking appears on the bullet. The timing of last firing from a particular fire arm cannot be determined with scientific accuracy. The witness further stated that in his report, he has interlinked the crime cartridge case with the fire arm in question on the basis of similarity in firing pin marks and chamber marks observed both on test fire and crime cartridge cases after comparison under the microscope in the laboratory and accordingly, he mentioned the report that on the basis of test firing and microscopic examination, the result is prepared. The opinion given in the report is that fired cartridges contained in parcel no. 5 and 10 had been fired from 7.62 mm and 7.63 mm pistol contained in parcel no. 10. The witness further stated that he has interlinked the 7.62 mm cartridges case contained in parcel no. 12 with the 07.62 mm parcel pistol contained in parcel no.9 and similar is the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 19 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 20 answer with respect to the cartridge case contained in parcel no.5 and 11 as fired from pistol contained in parcel no.11. The witness denied that there has been no specific mention about comparison of pin marks in his report. The witness further denied to be deposing falsely or that false report has been prepared by him at the instance of his seniors. The witness stated that on the basis of similarity of individual characteristic barrel striation marks observed on the crime bullet contained in parcel no. 6 and test fired bullet fired from pistol contained in parcel no. 10 during microscopic examination under the microscope in the laboratory, he has concluded his opinion that bullet contained in parcel no. 6 was fired from pistol contained in parcel no. 10. The witness stated that his report Ex. PW­18/A is self explanatory about the hole caused in the mobile phone and also about the entry holes caused on the rear left side of the car. The witness stated that in the event of two fire arms of same caliber it cannot be said as to which hole has been caused by which particular fire arm. According to the witness, marking can be altered only in case of tampering of the exhibits. The witness denied that he has filed a false report with false opinion.

24. PW­19 Dr. Chintranjan Behera, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 12.03.2007 and gave his detailed report Ex. PW­19/A. He also gave his opinion with respect to the arms recovered in this case and the injuries resulted S.C. No. 38/10 Page 20 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 21 to the deceased vide Ex. PW­19/C on 08.06.07.

25. PW­19 Sh. Surender Panda, (public witness) had informed the police about the incident by dialing 100.

26. PW­20 HC Rajesh Chauhan, was duty officer at PS Sri Niwas Puri. He recorded the information received in this case vide DD entries Ex. PW­20/A and Ex. PW­20/B and also thereafter recorded FIR vide Ex. PW­20/C and relevant DD entry Ex. PW­20/D.

27. PW­21 Bir Sain, posted with PCR, recorded the information about the incident and proved the relevant record vide EX PW­21/A.

28. PW­22 Ct. Ilyas Mohammad, joined the investigation of the present case on receipt of information about the incident and accompanied ASI Bangali Babu to the spot. The witness also went to Jeevan Nursing Hospital alongwith Inspector Mahender Singh, where deceased was declared dead and mobile phone of deceased was recovered from the pocket of his pant and seized vide EX PW­ 2/A. The witness also carried rukka to the PS for registration of FIR and after registration came back with the copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SHO. PW­22 was also deputed at mortuary to guard the dead body and the same was handed over to the relatives after postmortem. The dead body remained under supervision of this witness and he stated that it was not tampered with. During cross­examination, witness denied the suggestion that no rukka was prepared in his presence or that he never visited the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 21 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 22 spot of occurrence from the hospital.

29. PW­23 Raj Kumar Saini, was passing through the spot in his car bearing no. DL­2C­AG­1440 and he had taken the deceased to hospital at the request of wife of the deceased. The witness deposed that on reaching the hospital the doctors declared the deceased brought dead. During cross­examination, the witness denied that he had not taken deceased Vinay Kumar Jain to the hospital in his car.

30. PW­24 Ct. Ravinder, had delivered the copies of FIR of this case at the residence of concerned magistrate, Joint CP and concerned DCP.

31. PW­25 ASI Ravinder, was posted with special team, crime branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on 12.03.2007, a secret informer came and disclosed to SI Bhagwati Prasad that the dacoits of Kasim group would come in Indica car No. DL­8C­RB­ 8231 in the night on ring road near Kashmere Gate, having possession of robbed articles, arms and ammunitions. The raiding party was organized consisting of HC Rajeev Mohan, HC Ravinder, HC Pavitran, Ct. Devender, Ct. Bhagat Singh, Ct. Sanjay Saini, ASI Ravinder, Inspector K.P. Singh and SI Bhagwati Prasad. The public persons were requested at Mukarba Chowk to join the raiding party but no one came forward. The raiding party took positions at the ring road and at that time secret informer was with SI Bhagwati S.C. No. 38/10 Page 22 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 23 Prasad. At about 11.45 p.m. Indica car No. DL­8C­RB­8231 was seen coming from the side of Hanuman Mandir and signal was given to stop the car but it did not stop. Thereafter, they chased the car and near Trauma Center, the Indica car was intercepted and the vehicles used by raiding party were stopped in front and at the back of the Indica car. There were cross exchange of fires from both the sides. Four persons were inside Indica car and they started running away but were chased. One of them was apprehended by this witness alongwith Ct. Bijender, who was accused Sharafat Ali. The witness stated that Sharafat had fired upon him, but he was overpowered. The remaining three were also overpowered by other members of the raiding party. PW­25 further deposed that on taking search of accused Sharafat, one katta was recovered from his hand and two live cartridges from his right pocket. A tied polythene of blue colour was also recovered, which was found containing gold ornaments and on weighing the gold came out to be 400 grams, the jewelery was sealed into pulanda and seized vide memo EX PW­25/A. The recovered cartridges and katta were measured and sketched vide EX PW­25/B. The fired cartridge was recovered from the barrel of katta and also the fired cartridge from the service pistol of the witness was produced to the investigating officer. The sketch was prepared vide Ex.PW25/C. The cartridges and katta so recovered were seized vide memos EX PW­25/D and E. The witness further stated that SI S.C. No. 38/10 Page 23 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 24 Bhagwati Prasad apprehended accused Kasim and one pistol and two cartridges were recovered from him. Also from the right pocket of his pant, gold articles were recovered. The witness proved sketch of the pistol and cartridges EX PW­30/C and thereafter they were put into plastic jar and sealed with the seal of BPT and seized vide EX PW­32/D. The jewelery was separately sealed and seized vide memo EX PW­32/E. Another accused Abdul Rehman was apprehended by HC Rajeev Mohan and HC Pavitran, whereas accused Sajid was apprehended by HC Ragender and Ct. Devender. From the possession of accused Abdul Rehman, pistol and cartridges were recovered vide memo EX PW­4/C, whereas from the possession of accused Sajid, one knife was recovered and seized. The tehrir was prepared by SI Bhagwati Prasad and FIR was registered through HC Pavitran at PS Civil Lines. The accused persons were got medically examined. The witness further deposed about visit to H. No. 52, Sarai Kale Khan, Delhi and recovery of four helmets, mobile phones, bag containing keys and two motorcycles from there and also recovery of silver jewelery, loose beads and one idol from H. No. 65. The case property was produced and properly identified by the witness in the court. During cross­examination, the witness admitted that no photographs were taken of the recovered case property in his presence. He did not notice any specific writing or stamp on the gold jewelery articles. The witness could not recollect S.C. No. 38/10 Page 24 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 25 the exact number of documents signed by him. He denied the suggestion that statement of any witness was not recorded in his presence and stated that statement of HC Rajeev Mohan was recorded in his presence. The witness admitted that he cannot recollect the exact weight of recoveries effected from the accused nor he recollects exact measurement of arms and ammunitions recovered in this case. The witness also could not tell the colour of the bag recovered in this case and also the number of keys so recovered. He further denied the suggestion that SI Bhagwati Prasad apprehended accused Abdul Rehman alongwith his wife, brother Nasir and driver of the car and later they were allowed to leave. He denied the suggestions that no raiding party was constituted or that entire proceedings were conducted at crime branch office. He also denied the suggestions that recoveries have been planted upon the accused persons or that nothing was recovered from them.

32. PW­26 Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, record keeper, Transport Authority, Mayur Vihar, Delhi, brought the registration file of motorcycle Bajaj Pulsar bearing no. DL­7S­AJ­5682, which has been in the name of Dinesh Kumar s/o Avinash Sharma. The registration certificate is proved as EX PW­26/A.

33. PW­27 ASI Dharampal, was posted as duty officer at PS Sri Niwas Puri on 13.03.2007. This witness recorded information S.C. No. 38/10 Page 25 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 26 revealed by ASI Bhagwati Prasad with respect to arrest of the accused and disclosure made by them with respect to this case of PS Sri Niwas Puri. The information has been recorded vide DD No.11­A EX PW­27/A.

34. PW­28 Deepak Sagar, has been running photo studio at Sri Niwas Puri. He sent his employee Sunil on 25.03.2007 for taking photographs EX PW­3/A to C and EX PW­28/1 to 20.

35. PW­29 Ravi Dutt, LDC, Transport Department, Wazirpur, deposed that Tata Indica No. DL­8C­RP­8231 has not been registered in their zonal office.

36. PW­30 SI K.P. Shah, joined the investigation of this case on 12.03.07 and accompanied Inspector Mahender Singh to the place of incident. He remained at the spot and inspected the same and found three empty cartridges and one fired bullet head at the spot and also took photographs from his camera. He lifted the cartridges and bullet head and prepared their sketch vide EX PW­12/A and thereafter sealed them into a plastic container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide memo EX PW­12/B. On 17.03.2007, he again joined the investigation when police custody remand of all four accused was obtained. The accused were medically examined and their disclosure statements were recorded vide EX PW­30/A to 30/D. The witness again joined the investigation on 18.03.2007 alongwith Inspector Mahender Singh and they went to the shop of S.C. No. 38/10 Page 26 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 27 deceased and pointing out memos were prepared vide EX PW­17/A to D. Thereafter, accused led the police to the place of occurrence and pointed out the same vide EX PW­30/E to H. During cross examination, the witness was confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. EX PW­30/DA. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot on 12.03.2007 or that nothing was recovered from there. He denied the suggestion that fired arms and fired cartridges were planted. He also denied the suggestions that accused have not pointed out place of occurrence or that he is a false witness and deposing falsely.

37. PW­31 Inspector Sunil Kumar, took 14 sealed parcels containing arms and ammunitions, clothes and jewelery with five sample seals to CFSL, Lodhi Colony on 28.03.2007 from PS Sri Niwas Puri vide RC No. 36/21/7 alongwith CFSL form and deposited the same with CFSL, Lodhi Colony. According to this witness, the case property remained intact in his custody. During cross­examination, witness stated that he did not give any statement to the police officials of PS Civil Lines in connection with this case. He also could not tell the specifications of seal impression on 14 sealed parcels. He denied the suggestion to be a false witness and deposing falsely.

38. PW­32 Inspector Bhagwati Prasad, was posted as SI with special team, crime branch, Prashant Vihar. On 12.03.07, the secret information with respect to accused Kasim and his associates was received by him regarding which he lodged DD EX PW­32/A and S.C. No. 38/10 Page 27 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 28 transmitted the same to senior officers. The witness organized raiding team under the supervision of Inspector K.P. Singh consisting of ASI Ravinder Singh, HC Rajeev Mohan, HC N.K. Pavitran, HC Ragender, Ct. Bijender, Ct. Devender, Ct. Bhagat and Ct. Sanjay Sen. The raiding party left vide departure entry EX PW­ 32/B and they took two Qualis vehicles, one Government and one private. The witness has further given the details as to how the trap was laid by the raiding party and about the manner, whereby all the accused while traveling in car no. DL­8C­RB­8231 were intercepted and apprehended. SI Bhagwati Prasad stated that occupants of the car on seeing the police team fired two rounds and he and ASI Ravinder also fired at Indica but ultimately they managed to intercept the car. Three persons alighted from the car and ran in different directions but they were overpowered. All the four accused persons were apprehended by the different raiding team members. PW­32 alongwith Inspector KP Singh apprehended accused Mohd. Kasim but before that Mohd. Kasim fired at them despite the warning to surrender. The weapon recovered from accused Kasim was 7.62 mm pistol loaded with two live cartridges and sketch of the same was prepared vide EX PW­32/C, it was then sealed into plastic container with the seal of BPT and seized vide EX PW­32/D. The search of accused Kasim also led to the recovery of gold jewelery weighing about 400 grams consisting of different jewelery items like S.C. No. 38/10 Page 28 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 29 rings, ear rings, chains and bangles etc. The gold jewelery articles were also sealed and seized vide memo EX PW­32/E. The witness further deposed that weapon found in possession of Abdul Rehman was 7.62 mm bore black colour pistol with one fired cartridge struck in the chamber and four live cartridges in its magazine. The sketch of the same was prepared vide EX PW­4/A and thereafter sealed into plastic container with the seal of BPT and sealed and seized vide memo EX PW­4/C. The jewelery articles weighing about 430 grams were also recovered from accused Abdul Rehman which were sealed and seized vide memo EX PW­4/B. Accused Sharafat Ali was found in possession of country made pistol of .315 bore (8mm) with one fired cartridge in its chamber. The accused was also found carrying two live cartridges in his right side pocket of pant. The sketch of the arms and ammunitions was prepared vide EX PW­25/B and they were sealed and seized vide memo EX PW­25/D. The recovery of 400 grams of gold was also effected from accused Sharafat, which were different jewelery items and they were sealed and seized vide memo EX PW­25/A. According to this witness, fourth accused Sajid Ali was also found in possession of 400 grams of gold jewelery which were sealed and seized vide memo EX PW­11/A. Knife was also recovered from him and was also sketched vide EX PW­32/A and seized vide memo EX PW­32/B. The Indica car, wherein the accused were travelling, was also seized vide memo EX PW­32/C. One fired S.C. No. 38/10 Page 29 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 30 cartridge of 7.62 mm bore was recovered from the spot vide memo EX PW­25/E. The witness further deposed about the proceedings conducted by him with respect to FIR No. 56/07, whereby disclosure statements of accused were recorded vide EX PW­4/L, K and M and further their arrest proceedings. The case property was deposited in the malkahana. SI Bhagwati Prasad further deposed that accused Mohd. Kasim led the police party to his tenanted premises at Sarai Kale Khan and got recovered four helmets vide EX PW­4/N, three mobile phones vide EX PW­32/L, raxin bag containing several keys vide memo EX PW­32/M and motorcycles vide memo EX PW­32/N and O. From another room, accused Kasim got recovered silver jewelery items and Laxmiji idol vide memo EX PW­4/B. The witness further deposed about the complaint of ACP u/s 195 Cr. P.C. and sanction of DCP u/s 39 Arms Act taken with respect to the case FIR No. 56/07. The case property was produced and correctly identified by the witness in the court. The witness has not been cross­ examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity afforded.

39. PW­33 Sh. Sanjay Bansal, Ld. ACMM, North, conducted TIP proceedings of the case property but the examination of this witness has not been completed.

40. PW­34 ACP Mahender Singh, was posted as SHO Sri Niwas Puri on 11.03.2007. He reached the place of occurrence on receipt of information and conducted the entire investigation. In his S.C. No. 38/10 Page 30 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 31 testimony, the witness has given various details about the proceedings conducted by him with respect to the present case. He proved the statement given by first informant EX PW­7/A, tehrir EX PW­34/A and further deposed about lifting of various exhibits from the spot. The witness has further proved site plan EX PW­34/B, inquest proceedings EX PW­34/C and D, application for preserving the dead body of deceased vide EX PW­34/F and certificate from Jeevan Hospital about the deceased having been brought dead vide EX PW­34/G. On 13.03.2007, PW­34 came to know about the arrest of the accused in case FIR No. 56/07, PS Civil Lines and disclosure statements made by them. The accused were arrested in this case on 14.03.2007 vide arrest memos EX PW­34/H to L and accused were taken on PC remand on 17.03.2007. The disclosure statements of accused were recorded vide EX PW­32/A to D and the shop of the deceased and place of occurrence were pointed out with respect to which PW­34 prepared site plan EX PW­34/M and N. The case property was got transfered from PS Civil Lines and thereafter test identification of recovered jewelery was got conducted vide EX PW­ 34/O, P, Q and EX PW­11/B. The witness has deposed about the proceedings, whereby the locks of the shop of the deceased were opened with the help of keys recovered from the accused and thereafter about seizure of other indicator of the motorcycle EX PW­ 14/C and thereafter about tracing the owners of the stolen S.C. No. 38/10 Page 31 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 32 motorcycles. The witness filed the charge sheet in this case on completion of investigation. The case property was produced and identified by the witness. He has not been cross­examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity afforded.

41. PW­35 Madhup Kumar Tewari, posted as DCP Crime and Railways on 24.09.2007, accorded sanction u/s 39 Arms Act vide EX PW­35/A. During cross­examination, the witness stated that arms and ammunitions were not produced before him, although relevant documents were produced with the case file. He denied the suggestion that sanction has been granted by him without application of mind.

42. PW­36 Sanjay Bhatia, Additional DCP was posted as ACP, special team on 09.05.2007. He issued complaint u/s 195 Cr. P.C. in case FIR NO. 56/07 vide EX PW­32/P.

43. PW­37 Heera Adhikari, Administrative Manager, Jeevan Hospital, proved the card prepared by Dr. Dharmender Singh on 11.03.2007 vide EX PW­34/G.

44. PW­38 Deepak Kumar Tanwar, Senior Scientific Officer, Grade­I (physics), CFSL, CBI, is the expert witness and he has examined parcels containing glass indicators, one recovered from the spot EX P­13 and one taken out from the motorcycle recovered at the instance of accused Mohd. Kasim EX P­14. The result of examination revealed that both the indicator glasses have been S.C. No. 38/10 Page 32 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 33 similar in shape, size, design, colour, make and other physical characteristics. He proved the report EX PW­38/A.

45. HC N.K. Pavitran has been named as PW­34 (examined as PW­1 in case FIR No. 56/07). He has been the member of the raiding party, special team crime branch, whereby the accused were apprehended and recovery of arms and ammunitions and gold jewelery were effected from them. The witness has given the details of entire proceedings conducted at the spot and he also took tehrir to police station for getting the FIR No. 56/07 registered at PS Civil Lines. During cross­examination, the witness deposed that secret informer was present in the room of investigating officer when he was called by the investigating officer. The public persons were requested to join the raiding party at Mukarba Chowk but none came forward and from there they straight went away to ISBT. The arms were carried by SI Bhagwati Prasad, ASI Ravinder Singh, Inspector K.P. Singh and by this witness but he could not recollect whether other police officers were carrying any arms or not. Informer was standing with the investigating officer. N.K.Pavitran saw Indica car when it passed from their front. He also heard the sound of firing and at that time their vehicle was behind the vehicle of accused. He had apprehended accused Abdul Rehman alongwith HC Rajeev Mohan. The witness was thereafter not cross­examined.

46. Harish Chand Sharma, has been named as PW­35 (examined S.C. No. 38/10 Page 33 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 34 as PW­2 in case FIR No. 56/07). He has been the care taker of H. No. 52, Nangli Raja Pur, Sarai Kale Khan. He rented out one room in March, 2006 to Mohd. Kasim and other three accused also used to reside with him in that room. He also got the police verification done with the particulars and photograph of Shahid. The witness was cross­examined by Ld. Addl. P.P., during which he admitted that his statement was recorded by police on 15.03.2007. He denied having stated to the police that Mohd. Shahid came and started living on fourth floor as tenant. He was confronted with the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He denied the suggestion that room was in fact let out to Mohd. Shahid. The witness was also cross­examined on behalf of accused during which he denied the suggestions that police had not made any inquiries from him or that police never recorded his statement. Only rough slip used to be prepared with respect to rent and electricity bill. He denied the suggestion that there was no tenancy with respect to accused Mohd. Kasim or Shahid and therefore he is unable to produce any rent agreement.

47. HC Rajeev Mohan has been named as PW­36 (examined as PW­4 in case FIR No. 56/07). He has also been the member of the raiding party of special team crime branch, whereby the accused were apprehended. The witness has given the details of occurrence as well as recoveries effected from the accused. During cross­ S.C. No. 38/10 Page 34 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 35 examination, the witness stated that his two statements were recorded at the office of special team, Prashant Vihar. He is able to tell about the recovery of jewelery from the possession of accused Abdul Rehman since apprehended by him but he could not tell about the recovery of jewelery items from other accused. Accused Abdul Rehman was apprehended by him alongwith HC N.K. Pavitran, whereas Kasim was apprehended by Inspector K.P. Singh and SI Bhagwati Prasad, accused Sharafat was arrested by ASI Ramdev and Ct. Bijender Singh and accused Sajid was apprehended by HC Ragender and Ct. Devender. He could not recollect the exact number of memos prepared in this case. He denied the suggestions that no encounter took place or that no secret information was received or that no raiding party was formed. He further denied the suggestions that no recovery was effected from the accused or that he put his signatures on all the memos at police station.

48. Ct. Duli Chand, has been named as PW­37 (examined as PW­5 in case FIR No. 56/07). He brought the FSL form and sample seal from special team, crime branch on 27.03.2007 and handed over the same to Inspector Mahender Singh.

49. ASI Hira Lal has been named as PW­38 (examined as PW­6 in case FIR No. 56/07). He recorded the FIR No. 56/07 on the basis of rukka sent by SI Bhagwati Prasad at PS Civil Lines vide EX PW­6/A.

50. HC Surender Kumar has been named as PW­39 (examined as S.C. No. 38/10 Page 35 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 36 PW­7 in case FIR No. 56/07). He has been the MHC(M) PS Civil Lines and deposed about receiving of 12 sealed parcels, 2 motorcycles and one car in the malkhana on 13.03.2007. The six pulandas were handed over to ASI Bangali Babu on 20.03.2007 at PS Sri Niwas Puri and on 25.03.2007, six pulandas were again handed over to SI Bangali Babu at PS Sri Niwas Puri. The relevant entries have been proved as EX PW­37/A to C. The witness has been cross­ examined but denied that he made false entries at the instance of investigating officer.

51. Naresh Kumar has been named as PW­40 (examined as PW­8 in case FIR No. 56/07). He is from Ashok Vihar Authority and deposed with respect to Tata Indica car used by accused.

52. Ct. Devender Singh has been named as PW­41 (examined as PW­11 in case FIR No. 56/07). He has also been the member of the raiding party but his testimony could not be completed and therefore cannot be read in evidence.

Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.

53. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C., wherein entire incriminating evidence have been read over and explained to each accused to which they pleaded innocence and false implication.

According to accused Mohd. Kasim, he is contractor by profession. There used to be confrontation with the police on the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 36 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 37 issue of demands raised by them and for this reason he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police. The recovery is stated to be planted.

According to accused Sharafat Ali, he was lifted from Irvin hospital by the police on 10.03.2007, where he had come to see his cousin, who was hospitalized. He has been falsely implicated on account of property dispute with his native villagers. He also stated that recovery has been planted by the police.

According to accused Abdul Rehman, he was going to Ajmer Sharif alongwith his wife Phool Jahan, son Anas and younger brother Nasim Ahmed. He was arrested from Barot before entering Delhi and his car was seized. His wife, son and brother were let off by taking bribe but he has been falsely implicated as he refused to withdraw his name from elections of Nagar Panchayat despite the directions of the police. He also stated that recovery has been planted upon him.

According to accused Sajid, on 13.03.2007 he had come to Delhi for shopping for the marriage of his two brothers­in­law and he was carrying cash Rs. 16,000/­. While he was going out of ISBT, police checked the bag and told that Rs. 3000/­ were counterfeit. On inquiry, he told the police that he had earned the amount by sale of clothes but he was not believed by the police. He has been falsely implicated in this case and recovery has been planted by the police.

S.C. No. 38/10                                                      Page 37 of 59 pages
State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc.
                                             38

All the accused, however preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.

54. I have heard Sh. G.S. Guraya Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, Sh. R.P. Tyagi, Ld. counsel as well as Amicus Curiae on behalf of all accused persons and given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and the record.

55. During the course of arguments, Ld. Addl .P.P. asserted that prosecution has succeeded in proving each of the circumstances forming complete chain that unerringly points out towards the guilt of accused persons. The accused were arrested next day of the occurrence and recovery of robbed jewelery from their possession and mode of distribution of looted properties, prove joint participation of all the accused. The recovery of various weapons including arms and ammunitions from accused further led to the discovery on ballistic analysis that they were used while committing the offences. Ld. Addl. P.P. also referred to the scientific/FSL evidence brought on record with respect to the weapons and other articles lifted from the spot.

56. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel attempted to demolish the case of prosecution by asserting that no direct evidence has come on record against the accused and in proceedings of FIR No. 56/07, no independent witness joined at the time of apprehension and effecting recoveries from the accused despite the fact that S.C. No. 38/10 Page 38 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 39 police was having secret information in advance. Ld. counsel also pointed out certain discrepancies among the statements of prosecution witnesses about the secret information recorded in case FIR NO. 56/07 and also with respect to the number of Indica car allegedly used by the accused. It is also pointed out that while issuing complaint u/s 195 Cr. P.C., concerned ACP has noted the measurement of bullets contrary to the recovered bullets. It is stressed that prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances leading to the conclusion of guilt as against the accused persons and therefore their acquittal be recorded forthwith.

57. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record.

58. All the four accused were put up for trial to answer charges u/s 302/34, 392/34, 472/34 IPC and u/s 25/27 Arms Act. The sequence of events as evident is as follows:­ The occurrence in question took place at about 8.30 p.m. on 11.03.2007. Deceased Vinay Kumar Jain was attacked by four persons while he was in the process of parking his car and he was shot at and his bag containing gold jewelery was robbed. The occurrence took place near the house of the deceased and he was taken by his family members to the hospital, where he was declared brought dead at about 8.45 p.m. The rukka was sent at about 11.40 p.m. and FIR was recorded at PS Sri Niwas Puri. Prior to S.C. No. 38/10 Page 39 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 40 this, DD No. 15­A regarding the incident was recorded at 8.50 p.m. The investigation started immediately thereafter and exhibits were lifted in the night of 11.03.2007, which were, two fired cartridges, one iron rod, indicator glass of motorcycle and Santro car of the deceased. The spot was again inspected on the next morning and three empty cartridges and one fired bullet were lifted from the spot. The car of the deceased was taken for ballistic examination on 12.03.2007 and part of pallets head (brass and aluminum) were taken out as embedded in the rear seat of the car. All the exhibits were sealed and deposited with the malkhana. The postmortem on the dead body was conducted on 12.03.2007 at about 12.00 noon and it was found that cause of death has been shock and hemorrhage as a result of fire arm injuries. The accused were apprehended in the night of 12.03.2007, on the basis of secret information by special team, crime branch and recovery of robbed jewelery and weapons were effected from them.

59. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. The principles governing the appreciation of evidence in such cases are well settled. It has been held in Dilavar Husain & Ors. Vs State of Gujrat & Anr. (1991) 1 SCC 253 as under :­ "Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which S.C. No. 38/10 Page 40 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 41 invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each knot of the chain has to be proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link, must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is guilty.

Although guilty should not escape, the conviction must be based on reliable evidence, truthful witnesses and honest and fair investigation."

It has been recently held in Gagan Kanojia & Anr. Vs State of Punjab (2006) 13 SCC 516 as under :­ "Indisputably, charges can be proved on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is not available. It is well settled that in a case based on a circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove that within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. It is, however, necessary for the courts to remember that there is a long gap between "may be true" and "must be true". Prosecution case is required to be covered by leading cogent, S.C. No. 38/10 Page 41 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 42 believable and credible evidence. Whereas the court must raise a presumption that the accused is innocent and in the event two views are possible, one indicating to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the defence available to the accused should be accepted, but at the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution, proceeding on the basis that they are false, not trustworthy, unreliable and made on flimsy grounds or only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The prosecution case, thus, must be judged in its entirely having regard to the totality of the circumstances. The approach of the court should be an integrated one and not truncated or isolated. The court should use the yardstick of probability and appreciate the intrinsic value of the evidence brought on record and analyse and assess the same objectively.

60. In the present case, there is no direct eye­witness to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence and accordingly prosecution has rested its case on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances projected against the accused are :

S.C. No. 38/10                                                      Page 42 of 59 pages
State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc.
                                               43

   (i)          Recovery of robbed jewelery from all the accused next day of 

the occurrence in FIR No. 56/07, PS Civil Lines.

(ii) Recovery of weapons from the possession of accused next day of the occurrence in case FIR No. 56/07, PS Civil Lines.

(iii) Recovery of motorcycles and bag containing keys of the shop of the deceased at the instance of accused Mohd. Kasim.

(iv) The scientific evidence in the form of ballistic report and CFSL reports matching the weapons recovered from the accused to the offence in question and also matching of the indicators (glass) recovered from the spot to the one recovered from the motorcycle at the instance of accused.

(v) Motive.

61. In the background of sequence of events and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is to be examined whether the circumstances projected by the prosecution are clearly established and whether they form a complete chain and unerringly point out towards the guilt of accused persons.

62. It is evident in clear terms that the incident was caused by four persons. It is categorically stated by Naresh Chand Jain (PW­12) that he found four persons on two motorcycles, running away with the bag of deceased from the spot. The testimony of this witness has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted. It is also stated by Kishan Chand Jain (PW­7) that he found some persons hitting the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 43 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 44 car of deceased with iron rod and when he reached there, he was threatened. PW­7 immediately left the spot and rushed to the house of deceased and shortly thereafter found the deceased lying injured near his car. The PCR record EX PW­21/A also confirms that four persons had come to cause the incident. It is clear from these depositions that there were four persons, who caused the incident. It is also effectively proved on record that deceased Vinay Kumar Jain was jeweller by profession and used to carry bulk jewelery daily from his shop to his house and even on the day of occurrence he was carrying his bag containing jewelery.

63. The first circumstance of recovery of robbed jewelery stands clearly proved on the record against the accused. The witnesses of special team, crime branch, who formed the raiding party, have been consistent and cogent in their depositions and no discrepancies have emerged their testimony. SI Bhagwati Prasad, who received the secret information and organized the raiding party has been confident and categorical while narrating the events of the case FIR No. 56/07. There is no justification to discredit, disbelieve or reject the testimony of SI Bhagwati Prasad, who handled the case from its inception till submission of the final report. The secret information was reduced into writing vide EX PW­32/A and even the name of accused Mohd. Kasim and number of Indica car has been mentioned therein. PW­32 SI Bhagwati Prasad has not been cross­ S.C. No. 38/10 Page 44 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 45 examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity afforded, leading to the conclusion that accused have not to dispute the version put forth by SI Bhagwati Prasad. Similarly, other significant witness like HC Pavitran (PW­34), ASI Ravinder (PW­25) and HC Rajiv Mohan (PW­36) have come out with consistent and convincing statements against the accused. It is established with sufficient oral and documentary evidence that at the time of apprehension, all the accused were found in possession of gold jewelery consisting of various jewelery items. The seizure memos have been duly proved on record with respect to the recovery of jewelery. Accused Mohd. Kasim, Sharafat Ali and Sajid were found in possession of 400 grams of gold jewelery each, whereas accused Abdul Rehman was found in possession of 430 grams of gold jewelery. I find no ground to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses on the aspect of recovery of jewelery. Although, it has been pleaded by all the accused that jewelery has been planted upon them but their pleas have no merit or force. It is not believable that police was able to plant bulk gold jewelery upon the accused persons for the reason to falsely implicate them. No motive has been attributed to the police officials for such false implication that too in such serious offences.

64. During the course of investigation, identification proceedings with respect to the articles recovered from the accused S.C. No. 38/10 Page 45 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 46 were conducted by Sh. Sanjay Bansal, Ld. M.M. (PW­33) and these articles were correctly identified by the wife of deceased Nutan Jain (PW­1) and brother of deceased Ashwani Jain (PW­2). It is clear on perusal of testimony of PW­1 that she was competent witness to identify the jewelery articles. She even pointed out to the court that some of the jewelery items were having specified marks of RP and BJA. On opening the jewelery pulandas, the assertion of PW­1 was found to be correct and specific marks of RP and BJA were observed/noted by the court. The jewelery items have also been identified by the brother of the deceased as well as by worker Asgar Ali, who was working at the shop of the deceased. There is no ground to doubt the identification proceedings as the same has been conducted in a proper and legal manner.

65. Another circumstance, which proves joint participation of all the accused in commission of the crime was the manner in which looted properties were distributed between them. All the accused were having almost equal proportion of the robbed jewelery and this clearly points out the complicity of all the accused in causing the incident. The recovery of jewelery articles belonging to deceased from possession of accused persons is very much proximate in point of time to the occurrence/death of deceased. The occurrence in the present case took place in the night of 11.03.2007 and the very next day accused were apprehended with the robbed jewelery. In such S.C. No. 38/10 Page 46 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 47 circumstances, the reasonable inference can be drawn u/s 106 and illustration (a) to section 114 of the Evidence Act. The possession of robbed jewelery is so much connected with the murder of the deceased that whole thing constituted an integrated affair. In view of the time gap between the murder of the deceased and recovery of robbed jewelery, presumption can be drawn against the accused not only of the fact that they were in possession of stolen articles after committing robbery but also that they have committed the murder of deceased. (Relied upon Ezhil & Ors. Vs State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2002 SC 2017).

66. The accused have not been able to properly or reasonably explain as to the legitimation or origin of their possession of gold jewelery and the pleas taken by them to the effect that police has planted the jewelery upon him, has no logic. The recovery of robbed jewelery is therefore strongest circumstance going against the accused.

67. The next important circumstance in the chain of circumstantial evidence is the recovery of weapons including arms and ammunitions from the accused. It is duly proved with the testimony of PW­32 SI Bhagwati Prasad and other prosecution witnesses, who were members of the raiding party that while the accused were intercepted near Trauma Center, within the area of PS Civil Lines, they fired at the police party and tried to escape from the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 47 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 48 spot. All the four accused were however, overpowered and apprehended. Accused Mohd. Kasim was found in possession of one pistol (7.62 mm) and two live cartridges, which were seized vide memo EX PW­32/D. Accused Abdul Rehman was found in possession of one pistol and one fired cartridge stuck in chamber and four live cartridges in its magazine, which were of 7.62 mm and seized vide memo EX PW­4/C. Accused Sharafat Ali was found in possession of one country made pistol having one fired cartridge therein and two live cartridges carried by him in his pocket and they were of 8 mm and seized vide memo EX PW­25/D. Accused Sajid was found in possession of knife, which was seized vide memo EX PW­32/B. The weapons were sent for ballistic examination in intact condition and they were also matched with the exhibits, lifted from the spot of occurrence. It is also established with the testimony of PW­7 Kishan Chand Jain, PW­12 Naresh Chand Jain, PW­14 ASI Bangali Babu, PW­30 SI K.P. Shah and PW­34 ACP Mahender Singh that in the night of 11.03.2007, two fired cartridges of .315 bore were lifted from the spot. In the next morning, the crime spot was again inspected (as it was raining in the night of 11.03.2007) and three empty/fired cartridges and one fire bullet from the spot were seized vide memo EX PW­12/B. It is further clear that Santro car of the deceased was taken to CFSL CBI on 12.03.2007 and on examination two parts of pallets head were taken out from the rear seat and S.C. No. 38/10 Page 48 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 49 seized vide memo EX PW­14/B.

68. All the exhibits so lifted were sent for ballistic examination alongwith recovered arms and ammunitions and the same were properly examined by PW­18 Sh. N. B. Bardhan, Principal Scientific Officer (Ballistic), CFSL, New Delhi. The witness carried out examination of exhibits and weapons with scientific aids, test firing and microscopic examination and came to the conclusion vide EX PW­18/A that the weapons recovered from the accused completely matched with the exhibits lifted from the spot. During cross­ examination, N.B. Bardhan (PW­18) went on to clarify that he had inter linked the crime cartridge cases with the fire arms in question on the basis of similarity in firing pin marks and chamber marks observed on both test fire and crime cartridge cases after comparison under the comparison microscope in the laboratory. His opinion has been formed on the basis of comparison of firing pin marks observed on the test and crime cartridge case and found the inter­se similarities. The witness has spelled out specifically that the fired cartridges and pallets lifted from the spot of occurrence were fired from the weapons recovered from the accused. Despite lengthy cross­examination, defence has not been able to demolish the confident findings of this expert witness with respect to the exhibits and the weapons. The depositions of witnesses and the documentary evidence is inter­se consistent with respect to the S.C. No. 38/10 Page 49 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 50 recovery of weapons from the accused and there is no ground to discredit the same. The postmortem report EX PW­19/A is also consistent with the recovered weapons and all these facts provide strong link in the chain of evidence. The recovery of weapons of offence read with scientific evidence is the most vital circumstance and there is no escape from the conclusion that all the four accused robbed and killed the deceased on 11.03.2007.

69. Another significant circumstance in the chain of circumstantial evidence is the recovery of motorcycles, bag of deceased containing keys and other robbed articles from the tenanted premises of accused Mohd. Kasim. Accused Mohd. Kasim, after his apprehension in case FIR No. 56/07 led the police party to his tenanted rooms, situated at Sarai Kale Khan and led to the recovery of bag containing keys vide EX PW­32/M. This part of his disclosure statement is admissible u/s 27 of Evidence Act, as the discovery of some facts on information, furnished by accused is a relevant fact u/s 27 of Evidence Act, 1872 and it can be taken into consideration as a corroborative piece of evidence. The bag was duly identified by the witnesses and the bunch of keys found therein was taken to the shop of the deceased and various locks were opened/unlocked. The proceedings in this respect are reflected vide memos EX PW­1/C and EX P­6 to EX P­11 and it has been duly supported by PW­2 Ashwani Jain, brother of the deceased in his S.C. No. 38/10 Page 50 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 51 testimony.

70. Ld. defence counsel pointed out that there are discrepancies in the prosecution case on this aspect as the respective landlords have not been clear in their statements and they have contradicted the statements given by them u/s 161 Cr. P.C. It is also pointed out that PW­17 Dhanpal Singh has also failed to give categorical evidence in favour of prosecution with respect to the unlocking of locks at the shop of the deceased. On giving due consideration to the contentions of ld. defence counsel on this aspect, I am of the opinion that prosecution evidence do not suffer from any patent infirmities or illegalities so as to vitiate the merits of the case. No importance can be attached to the testimony of concerned landlords and the public witness since there is strong evidence emerging on the record as given by other prosecution witnesses, particularly PW­2 Ashwani Jain (brother of the deceased) and PW­32 SI Bhagwati Prasad. The recovery of two motorcycles, at the instance of accused Mohd. Kasim has added advantage to the prosecution case as both the motorcycles were found to be stolen. It is clear with the testimony of PW­10 Ashok Kumar and PW­3 Mohit Chopra and the documents produced on record that motorcycles so recovered were in fact stolen and were used at the time of commission of the offence. On the day of occurrence, one indicator glass was found lying at the spot and seized vide EX PW­7/F. The S.C. No. 38/10 Page 51 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 52 indicator glass of motorcycle, recovered from the possession of accused was found missing and the indicator glass of the other side of this motorcycle was seized vide EX PW­14/C. Both these indicator glasses were sent for CFSL analysis. The colour, design and physical quality of both the indicator glasses were similar and report is proved on record vide EX PW­38/A. This also goes to prove that motorcycles, used by the accused persons at the time of commission of offence were possessed by the accused persons and recovered during investigation. The recovery of other articles like jewelery items, beads and Laxmi idol at the instance of accused Mohd. Kasim from tenanted premises is another important link to prove the guilt of the accused. These articles were also properly identified by the witnesses in the court. The ld. defence counsel attempted to discredit the evidence by pointing out some minor contradictions and variations in the statements of witnesses but in my view they are not material and do not go to the root of the prosecution case.

71. Coming to the defence taken by the accused persons, it is pleaded by them in their respective statements u/s 313 Cr. P.C. that they have been falsely implicated. Each accused has put forth his own reasons for false implication but no such questions or suggestions were put during the cross­examination of prosecution witnesses. The important witnesses, particularly investigating S.C. No. 38/10 Page 52 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 53 officer ACP Mahender Singh of the present case and investigating officer SI Bhagwati Prasad of case FIR No. 56/07, have not been cross­examined despite opportunities afforded. The accused have failed to attribute any reason or motive for their false implication to any of the prosecution witness. They also failed to examine witness to support their defence pleas. It is clear that accused have no strong pleas in their defence to show their innocence. It is not probable that police planted bulk jewelery and arms and ammunitions upon the accused without any reason. No such evidence is brought on record by the accused and therefore conclusion is clear that accused have no justifiable defence to controvert the prosecution version.

72. The motive for committing the murder is clear from the incident itself that accused committed the heinous crime for the purposes of enriching themselves.

73. It is strongly contended by ld. defence counsel that no public witness joined the raiding party in case FIR No. 56/07, although they had secret information in advance. It is stated by all the prosecution witnesses of case FIR No. 56/07, that public persons were requested at Mukarba Chowk to join the proceedings but none came forward. There is no suggestion during cross­examination that no such effort was made. Otherwise also, it is not uncommon that public persons are reluctant to join such proceedings as they do not want to get into S.C. No. 38/10 Page 53 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 54 controversy relating to police and courts. The law is well settled on this point and merely for non­joining of public witness, the official witnesses cannot be disbelieved. The status of police officials is no reason to reject their testimony. On careful examination of testimony of prosecution witnesses, I find no infirmity or contradictions and it is clearly established that accused were apprehended by the raiding party on 12/13­03­2007 within the area of PS Civil Lines with incriminating articles. The evidence of witnesses of the raiding party is consistent and inconformity with the documentary evidence prepared at the spot. The evidence of all the members of the raiding party is credible and trustworthy and I find no reason to discard the same.

74. The recoveries effected by the raiding party is a strong evidence and leads to the only conclusion that the accused have committed the offences in question. The evidence and circumstances are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and it is clearly established that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed the offences of robbery and murder and therefore I hold that prosecution has been able to establish the charge u/s 392/302 IPC read with section 34 IPC against the accused.

75. So far as the offence punishable u/s 472 IPC is concerned, the prosecution is required to prove that accused have made or S.C. No. 38/10 Page 54 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 55 counterfeited any seal, plate or other instrument intending that same shall be used for the purposes of any forgery or with such intent, had in their possession any such seal, plate or other instrument. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged recovery of motorcycles at the instance of accused Mohd. Kasim on which another number plate was affixed, whereas original number of the motorcycle was DL­3SAY­0345. However, there is no evidence as to it has been done by whom and also no evidence is brought to show as to which of accused had used said motorcycle or whether the false number plate was in the knowledge of accused. So the evidence is not sufficient as against any of the accused as u/s 472 IPC, hence no ground to record conviction under this offence.

76. Accused Kasim, Sharafat and Abdul Rehman have also been charged for the offence punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act, 1959. The recovery of weapons, in fact were effected in case FIR No. 56/07, wherein the accused persons have been separately charged and tried. In the present case, no recovery has been effected nor any direct evidence has come on record as to which accused had used which weapon. The sanction u/s 39 Arms Act has also not been taken with regard to the present case. Since, the charge under Arms Act is separately dealt with in case FIR No. 56/07, there is no requirement to record separate conviction in this case.

77. Keeping in view the circumstantial evidence, which have S.C. No. 38/10 Page 55 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 56 been brought on record thereby forming a complete chain, I am convinced that all links in the chain are complete and the evidence led by prosecution point out only to one conclusion, that the accused are guilty. I, therefore, convict accused namely, Mohd. Kasim @ Khan Saheb, Abdul Rehman @ Chairman, Sarfat Ali @ Mama and Sajid @ Sahil for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 392 IPC read with section 34 IPC.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14th August, 2012 (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH) DELHI S.C. No. 38/10 Page 56 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 57 IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (NORTH) DELHI SC No. 38/10 STATE versus

1. Mohd. Kasim @ Khan Saheb, S/o Allarakha, R/o Mohalla­Darbar Kalan, Panipat Road, Kairana, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

2. Abdul Rehman @ Chairman, S/o Mohd. Idris, R/o Mohalla­Pachhala, Budhana Distt., Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

3. Sarafat Ali @ Mama, S/o Islam, R/o Mohalla­Peerjadgan, Kairana, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P.

4. Sajid @ Sahil, S/o Tahir Hussain, R/o Mohalla­Nayabans (near Chhoti Nahar) Kandhla, Teh­Kairana, Distt. Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. FIR No. : 103/07 Offence U/S : 302/392/34 IPC Police Station : Sri Niwas Puri S.C. No. 38/10 Page 57 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 58 ORDER ON SENTENCE 05.09.2012 Present: Ms. Promila Singh, Ld. Substituted Addl. P.P. for the State.

Sh. R.P. Tyagi, Ld. counsel as well as Amicus Curiae for all convicts.

All convicts are in J.C. IO ACP Mahender Singh in person. He has filed report about antecedents of all convicts.

I have heard submissions on the point of sentence. It is submitted on behalf of convict Kasim @ Khan Saheb that he is 56 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife, five children and two marriageable daughters and lenient view is prayed for.

It is submitted on behalf of convict Abdul Rehman @ Chairman that he is 57 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife, five minor children, aged mother and aged father (mentally retarded) and lenient view is prayed for.

It is submitted on behalf of convict Sarafat Ali @ Mama that he is 32 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife and five minor daughters and lenient view is prayed for.

It is submitted on behalf of convict Sajid @ Sahil that he is 33 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife, four minor children, aged parents and two unmarried younger sisters and lenient view is prayed for.

As per report, all the four convicts are previously convicted in case FIR No. 296/06, PS Nand Nagri, u/s 394/397/452/34 IPC. Convict S.C. No. 38/10 Page 58 of 59 pages State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc. 59 Mohd. Kasim and Sajid @ Sahil have also been convicted in case FIR No. 127/07, PS Lajpat Nagar, u/s 379/411/34 IPC. Besides this, they are also involved in other criminal cases.

Ld. Addl. P.P. has sought maximum punishment for all the convicts stating that they have committed gravest offences only for gain.

In the present case, the conviction has been recorded for the offence of robbery and murder and it is clear that convicts have committed heinous offences only for the purposes of enriching themselves. They have also various criminal involvements to their credit. The convicts cannot make any positive contribution to the society and deserve to remain behind bars for the rest of life. In view of these facts and circumstances, I sentence all convicts to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/­each u/s 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months each.

All convicts are further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/­each u/s 392/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonments for three months each.

Both the sentences shall not run concurrently and convicts would serve the substantive imprisonment one after another.

Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. be given to each convict. Copy of the judgment and copy of order on the point of sentence be given to all the convicts free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 5th September, 2012.                                (ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA)        
                                                    ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
                                                               DELHI                               

S.C. No. 38/10                                                             Page 59 of 59 pages
State Vs Mohd. Kasim etc.