Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Gupta on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLSE010004422017
Session Case No.84/2017
FIR No.530/2016
Police Station: Jaitpur
State
Versus
1. Rakesh Gupta
2. Mukesh Gupta
Both sons of Baijnath Shah,
Both Resident of B-251,
Madanpur Khadar Extension,
Delhi.
3. Ms. Roshan
Wife of Late Akbar
Resident of B-57
Gali No.5, Near Babloo Dairy,
Madanpur Khadar Extension,
New Delhi
...... proceedings
against her was abated on 22.05.2024
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 1 of 54
Date of Institution : 17.12.2016
Judgment reserved on : 22.09.2025
Date of Decision : 27.09.2025
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer- in-charge of the police station Jaitpur before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused Rakesh Gupta for having committed the said offence and under section 506 of IPC against the accused Mukesh Gupta for having committed the said offence.
2. As per the police report, on 16.09.2016, upon receipt of DD No.61A, SI Arvind Kumar had reached Apollo Hospital, and found HC Haroon present in the hospital, who told that during emergency duty, he had received a DD No.52A regarding quarrel and two ladies injured in the quarrel were brought to the hospital by PCR.
3. It is further reported in the police report that SI Arvind Kumar had obtained the MLC's from Apollo Hospital, and on MLC No. 651/16 qua Molida Begam wife of Sagar Ali resident of Sagar Ali ka Godam Gali no.05, B-Block, Near Bablu Dairy, Madan Pur Khadar Extension, New Delhi-76, Age-30 Yrs, 'brought dead' was opined, and on MLC No. 652/16 qua Akurama wife of Tahir Sheikh FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 2 of 54 resident of Sagar ka Godam Gali no.05, B Block, Near Bablu Dairy, Madanpur Khadar Extn. New Delhi 76, she was found admitted, who had an injury on her forehead.
4. It is further reported in the police report that no visible injury was visible on the body of the deceased Molida Begam, and on the MLC No. 651/16 of the deceased, it was noted, "Alleged History "PT brought Dead to ER & alleged Assault today approx 10 PM at Madan Pur Khadar unconscious since then". It is further reported in the police report that after the discharge of Smt. Akurama from Apollo Hospital, her statement was recorded.
5. As per the police report, it is, inter-alia, stated by Smt. Akurama Begam in her statement as follows:
"I live with the family at the above address and I work as a scrap dealer and I am originally a resident of village Kushnimara, Police Station Mankachar, District Dhubri, Assam. Yesterday on 16/09/16, at around 9-10 p.m., I was filling water at the government tap in B- Block, Gali no. 05, when Sarik, age 14 years, came and placed his vessel on my vessel. I had an argument with her on this matter. Then her mother Ms. Roshan and younger brother Danish, age 10 years, came and started fighting with me and pulled me down by my hair. My sister Anjura saved me. Then I caught hold of Ms. Roshan's sons and slapped them. Then Rakesh Gupta son of Baijnath Gupta, who lives in the same street, caught me from behind, meanwhile Sarik got free from my grip and Sarik picked up a stone and hit me on the forehead, during this my aunt's daughter Molida Begam came forward to save me, then Rakesh pushed Molida Begam due to which Molida Begam fell on the road and became unconscious, Rakesh ran away from the spot, his brother whose name I do not know, came out of his house and after locking Rakesh in the house, started FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 3 of 54 abusing us and started threatening that if you tell my brother's name to the police then he will not leave us alive, meanwhile someone called the police, and officials of the PCR vehicle brought me and my sister Molida to Apollo Hospital where my sister Molida Begam was declared dead by doctor and I was discharged after treatment. Rakesh Gupta suddenly got furious and pushed my sister Molida and made her fall in the street due to which she died. In the scuffle, I got an injury on my forehead and my clothes got torn. Legal action should be taken against him."
6. It is further reported in the police report that from the statement of the complainant, DD No.52A & 61A, perusal of MLC, inspection of the spot and the circumstances, the offences under sections 304/323/506/34 IPC have been made out, therefore, a case under those sections was got registered and further investigation was taken up by Sub-Inspector Arvind Kumar himself.
7. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the in-charge crime-team and FSL Team had inspected the spot, and the report of the crime-team was obtained.
8. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the complainant Smt. Akurama was again joined in the investigation and carried out the inquiry and on the pointing out of the complainant, the investigating officer had prepared the site-plan and statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 4 of 549. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the accused Rakesh Gupta was arrested and the documents regarding his arrest were prepared and personal search of the accused Rakesh Gupta was carried out and his disclosure statement was separately recorded and on pointing out by the accused, the pointing out memo was prepared and on 18/09/16, the accused was produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody.
10. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the postmortem report of the deceased Molida Begam was obtained on which the doctor opined the cause of death as "kept pending till chemical analysis report and histhopathology report made" and MLC result on the MLC No.652/16 of the Akurama was obtained on which the doctor reported, 'As no investigation available/done clinically grievous', hence, after discussing with the senior officers, section 325 IPC was invoked instead of section 323 IPC.
11. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, other accused persons of the case, namely, Ms. Roshan wife of Late Akbar and JCL 'D' age 10 years and 'S' age 14 year old, both sons of Late Akbar were searched a lot but no clue was found, hence, NBW was obtained from the Court against the accused Ms. Roshan and appropriate action was taken separately against JCLs, and a separate supplementary police report against the accused Ms. Roshan and PIR qua the JCLs would be filed separately.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 5 of 5412. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, it has come out that only allegation against the accused Mukesh Gupta was of threatening, hence, after discussing with the senior officer, section 506 IPC was added against him.
13. It is further reported in the police report that the aforesaid acts on the part of the accused Rakesh Gupta, revealed commission of offence punishable under section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by the accused Rakesh Gupta may be taken and he should be tried as per the provisions of law.
14. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the police report before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
15. On the police report, on 20.12.2016, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused Rakesh Gupta was produced from judicial custody and copies of the police report were supplied to him and on the date of taking cognizance, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 304 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 6 of 5416. On 21.12.2016, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken up the file suo moto as it was revealed that another accused, namely, Mukesh Gupta was kept under column No.11 for the offence under section 506 IPC, and issued summons for his appearance. In pursuance to the receipt of summon, the accused Mukesh Gupta appeared in the Court and the copies of the police report and the documents annexed with it were supplied to him and he was directed to appear before the Court of Session as the matter had already been committed.
17. On 13.01.2017, upon considering the police report, and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, charge was framed against the accused Rakesh Gupta for the offences punishable under sections 325/304/34 of Indian Penal Code and charge was framed against the accused Mukesh Gupta for the offence punishable under section 506 (325 mentioned due to inadvertence) of Indian Penal Code.
18. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offences charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
19. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon, PW2 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Kehar Singh, PW3 Ms. Sarifa, PW4 Rustam Ali, PW5 Ms. Anjura, FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 7 of 54 PW6 Dr. Apurva Sharma, Research Fellow, Indraprastha of Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, PW8 Head Constable (HC) Mahesh, PW9 Constable (Ct.) Dinesh, PW10 Constable (Ct.) Sonu, PW11 Head Constable (HC) Kishan Kumar, PW12 Sub-Inspector (SI) Arvind Kumar, PW13 Constable (Ct.) Mahipal, PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy, SR, AIIMS, New Delhi, PW15 Constable (Ct.) Mukesh, PW16 Head Constable (HC) Dara Singh, PW17 Inspector Mukesh, PW18 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Mohd. Haroon,PW19 Women Head Constable (W/HC) Beepti Bhati, PW20 Assistant Sub- Inspector (ASI) Rambir, PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats, Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi, PW22 Jitender Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW11/E, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW12/H, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW22/A and pullandas Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P4 were also tendered in evidence.
20. On 01.02.2019, separate statements of the accused persons Ms. Roshan, Mukesh Gupta and Rakesh Gupta under section 294 Cr.P.C. were recorded whereby genuineness of documents, namely, copy of DD No.52A dated 16.09.2016 (Ex.P1), FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 8 of 54 DD No.61A dated 16.09.2016 (Ex.P2), PCR Form of CPCR DD No.16.09.16-1060475 with certificate under section 65B (Ex.P3) & (Ex.P4) were admitted.
21. During trial, the accused Ms. Roshan died and proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 22.05.2024.
22. On 25.03.2025, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused Rakesh Gupta and Mukesh Gupta under section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statements.
23. On 04.04.2025, this Court has examined the accused persons Rakesh Gupta and Mukesh Gupta under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them. During examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons had taken the defence that the present case is a false one and they have nothing to do with the present case, and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
24. The accused persons expressed their desire to lead evidence in their defence.
25. However, on 13.08.2025 vide joint statement of both the accused persons, they expressed their desire not to lead evidence in FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 9 of 54 their defence and to close their defence evidence. Accordingly, DE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
26. I have heard Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Shivaji Shukla, Advocate for both the accused persons and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
27. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon, PW2 ASI Kehar Singh, PW3 Ms. Sarifa, PW4 Rustam Ali, PW5 Ms. Anjura, PW6 Dr. Apurva Sharma, PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh, PW8 HC Mahesh, PW9 Ct. Dinesh, PW10 Ct. Sonu, PW11 HC Kishan Kumar, PW12 SI Arvind Kumar, PW13 Ct. Mahipal, PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy, PW15 Ct. Mukesh, PW16 HC Dara Singh, PW17 Inspector Mukesh, PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon, PW19 W/HC Beepti Bhati, PW20 ASI Rambir, PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats, PW22 Jitender Kumar, SSO and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW11/E, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW12/H, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW22/A and pullandas Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P4, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that from the evidence led, the prosecution has been successful in proving the case set-up by them. It is further submitted FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 10 of 54 that PW1 is the complainant/injured, who has proved the exhibits. It is further submitted that PW3 Sarifa has corroborated the fact of quarrel. It is further submitted that PW5 Ms. Anjura has identified the accused Rakesh to be one of the offenders and she has proved the incident. It is further submitted that the witness has assigned specific roles to the accused persons. It is further submitted that the injuries on the person of the injured have been proved by PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats. It is further submitted that during the incident, the complainant Akurama was injured and death of the victim Molida Begam was caused. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence which is required. It is further submitted that the MLC has corroborated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that minor contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses should be ignored and the portion in their evidence favouring the prosecution should be read. It is further submitted that there is no reason for the complainant for false implication of the accused persons.
28. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused persons has drawn my attention on the testimonies of Ms. Akurama Khatoon, PW2 ASI Kehar Singh, PW3 Ms. Sarifa, PW4 Rustam Ali, PW5 Ms. Anjura, PW6 Dr. Apurva Sharma, PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh, PW8 HC Mahesh, PW9 Ct. Dinesh, PW10 Ct. Sonu, PW11 HC Kishan Kumar, PW12 SI Arvind Kumar, PW13 Ct. Mahipal, PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy, PW15 Ct. Mukesh, PW16 HC Dara Singh, PW17 Inspector Mukesh, PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon, PW19 W/HC Beepti FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 11 of 54 Bhati, PW20 ASI Rambir, PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats, PW22 Jitender Kumar, SSO and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW11/E, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW12/H, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW22/A and pullandas Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3 & Ex.P4, and submitted that there are contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. It is further submitted that PW1 is not reliable and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons.
29. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
30. The accused Mukesh Gupta was charged for the offence punishable under section 506 of Indian Penal Code. The accused Rakesh Gupta was charged for the offences punishable under sections 325/304/34 of Indian Penal Code.
31. Sections 325, 506 & 34 IPC read as follows:
325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 12 of 54506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.-Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-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.
32. Section 304 IPC provides for punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Whereas, the offence of culpable homicide has been defined under section 299 IPC. Section 299 IPC reads as follows:
299. Culpable Homicide.-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations (a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 13 of 54(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z' death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanations. (1) A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. (2) Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
(3) The causing of the death of a child in the mother' womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
33. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
34. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined twenty-two (22) witnesses.
35. PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has deposed that around 3- 4 months back, she was filling water in the plastic tub from the FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 14 of 54 government water-tap in the colony at around 07.00-08.00 p.m., and was waiting for her turn from about an hour and while she was filling her plastic tub, one boy had come there and had placed his container over mine. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that on her objection, the boy had pushed her back and when she questioned about his wrong act, his mother and his sister along-with other family members had also reached there.
36. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that the mother of said boy had caught hold of her along with other family members and had given beatings to her due to which she fell down, however, she managed to get-up. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that the accused present in the court had also caught hold of her and the elder brother of the boy, who had at first pushed her, had hit her a stone on her head and she fell down. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that due to the injury, she had become unconscious and regained her consciousness at her house.
37. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that one of her relative had called the police and she along with the deceased Molida Begam were taken to the hospital by the police and in the hospital, she was medically examined. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that the police officer had met her in the hospital and told them about the incident, and the investigating officer had recorded her statement (Ex.PW1/A) on which, she had put her thumb impression at point-A. FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 15 of 54
38. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that later on, she had come to know that Molida had died and she had also shown and explained the place of incident to the police. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that she could not tell who had pushed Molida Begam nor she could tell how she had sustained injury. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that she was also threatened by one person not to make any complaint against his brother failing which she would be killed by him. PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has further deposed that she could identify the said person who had threatened her, however, identification of the accused Mukesh Gupta was not disputed and he was also exempted from personal appearance.
39. During cross-examination by learned Addl. P.P. for the State, PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has voluntarily stated that the accused present in the court had caught hold of her and another boy had caused injury on her head with stone and thereafter, she lost her consciousness and further she did not know anything else. PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has admitted that the date of incident was 16.09.2016 and she has studied only upto class IIIrd.
40. During her cross-examination by the defence counsel, PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has, inter-alia, deposed that she had no dispute with Rakesh over the issue of water. It is further deposed that around 20-25 public persons had gathered at the spot at the time of incident. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that her brother-in-law (Behnoi) Mohd. Nalmia had called up PCR and FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 16 of 54 her statement was recorded on the same day of the incident. It is further deposed by PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that she had visited the police station once to make inquiry about the case along with her Behnoi. Ms. Akurama Khatoon had denied the suggestion put to her that the accused Rakesh was only trying to pacify the quarrel. Other formal suggestion have been denied and disputed by PW1.
41. PW2 ASI Kehar Singh has deposed that on 17.09.2016 he was posted as head constable at police station Jaitpur and his duty hours were 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. as duty officer. It is further deposed by PW2 ASI Kehar Singh that Ct. Dinesh had brought a rukka to him at about 3:00 a.m. sent by SI Arvind Kumar and he had made endorsement on the said rukka (Ex.PW2/A) at point-A and handed over same to the computer operator for recording of FIR, who had recorded the FIR on the basis of said rukka and copy of computerized FIR (Ex.PW2/B) bearing his signature at point-A. It is further deposed by PW2 ASI Kehar Singh that after registration of the FIR, he had handed over computerized FIR and rukka to Ct. Dinesh for delivering the same to the investigating officer.
42. PW3 Ms. Sarifa has deposed that about an year ago, date and month, she did not recollect but it was at about 08.00/09.00 p.m., she was returning to her house after purchasing medicine and when she had reached near his jhuggi, he had seen a quarrel. It is further deposed by PW3 Ms. Sarifa that Akurama was lying on the floor and lady accused who was present in the court, while pointing out towards the lady accused Ms. Roshan, and her son were beating FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 17 of 54 Akurama, and several public persons gathered there and she could not see further about the incident at the spot, thereafter, she had gone to her house as she was not feeling well. It is further deposed by PW3 Ms. Sarifa that on the next morning, she had come to know that one lady has expired in the said incident and she did not know how the said lady had died, and the police officials had never met him in connection with this case for inquiry nor had recorded his statement.
43. PW4 Rustam Ali has deposed that in the year 2016, he had gone to the mortuary of AIIMS where he had identified the body of his sister Molida Begam and thereafter, postmortem was conducted, and after the postmortem, body was handed over to him. It is further deposed by PW4 Rustam Ali that the documents were prepared in this regard but he did not remember if he had signed the same and he did not remember the date and month when he had gone to the Hospital.
44. During his cross-examination by learned Addl. P.P. for the State, he admitted that he had gone to AIIMS Mortuary in 17.09.2016.
45. PW5 Ms. Anjura has deposed that around 1½ years back, at around 08.00-09.00 p.m., she was present at her house and her sister Akurama had gone to get the water from government tap but she did not return even after an hour, therefore, she had gone to the spot to know about her, and at the spot, when the turn of her FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 18 of 54 sister had come, two boys had come there tried to break the queue and had a fight with her sister. It is further deposed by PW5 Ms. Anjura that the smaller boy pushed her sister and on her objection over the conduct of the said boy, her mother had come there and had caught her hairs, in the meantime, sister of the said boy had also arrived there, and all of them had started beating her sister by pulling her hairs. It is further deposed by PW5 Ms. Anjura that she had tried to rescue her sister and the elder boy had caught hold of her sister and the smaller boy had hit stone on the head of her sister, and in all, there were five persons, who had given beatings to her sister, out of five, two of them were present in the court i.e. one who had caught hold of his sister was pointed out by the witness towards the accused Rakesh and his mother as offender. It is further deposed by PW5 Ms. Anjura that after hitting her sister, the boy had run away from the spot and she had gone to her house to fetch dupatta as she had lost her dupatta at the spot during fight and on her return to the spot, she had found her sister lying unconscious at the spot. It is further deposed by PW5 Ms. Anjura that her husband had called the PCR and the PCR had arrived at the spot and had taken her sister to the Hospital, later on, she had come to know that her sister expired in the Hospital and the police officials had met her in connection with this case and had made inquiries from her.
46. During the cross-examination by learned Addl. P.P. for the State, PW5 Ms. Anjura has admitted that the incident had taken place on 16.06.2016. She has further stated that she was illiterate and had never gone to the school.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 19 of 5447. During her cross-examination by learned counsel for accused Ms. Roshan, PW5 Ms. Anjura admitted that when she reached the spot from his house the accused Ms. Roshan was not there and her sister has not caught the smaller boy and did not slap him. PW5 Ms. Anjura has denied the suggestion that the accused Ms. Roshan had not beaten her sister or that the accused Ms. Roshan was not available on the spot or that the accused Ms. Roshan had not committed anything on the spot.
48. During her cross-examination, PW5 Ms. Anjura has deposed that she was present at the spot when quarrel over the issue of water queue took place with his sister. PW5 Ms. Anjura has admitted that at that time, the accused Rakesh was not present. PW5 Ms. Anjura has denied the suggestion that the accused Rakesh has not qurrelled with anybody at the spot or that she has wrongly implicated the accused Rakesh in the present case in connivance with the police.
49. PW6 Dr. Apurva Sharma, Research Fellow, Indraparstha of Apollo Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that on 16.09.2016 she was working as EMO in Apollo Hospital and on that day, a patient, namely, Molda @ Molida wife of Sagar Ali, aged 30 year female, was brought to the hospital at about 10:40 p.m. by HC Dara Singh with alleged history of assault. It is further deposed by PW6 Dr. Apurva Sharma that she had examined the patient and declared her 'brought dead' after trying resuscitation vide MLC (Ex.PW6/A) and bears his signature at point-A. FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 20 of 54
50. PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh, Senior Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi has brought the sealed envelope sealed with the seal of 'FSL DELHI SOC SSA (BIO)' containing report of scene of crime and the said report has not been collected by the investigating officer so he has brought the same in the Court. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh that the seals were intact on the envelope and the envelope was opened and the same was containing original forwarding letter and the original crime scene report from Biology Division bearing number FSL 2016/SOC 222 dated 17.05.2018 and despite his request, the investigating officer had not collected the said report from him after sending official intimation to him.
51. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh that he is Msc. Biology and presently he was pursuing Phd. in Biology and he was working in FSL, Rohini as Senior Scientific Assistant Biology for the past about three years and during his tenure, he had examined about 75 scenes of crime as per the requisitioned from concerned police station and had deposed in various courts of law as expert witness.
52. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh that on 17.09.2016, on the request of the investigating officer of this case, he had visited Gali No.5 near Bablu Dairy Jaitpur and he departed from FSL at 02:30 a.m. and reached at police station Jaitpur and from there, he along with concerned police official had reached at the above spot and thereafter, he had examined the crime scene for FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 21 of 54 the presence of blood and other biological clue materials. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh that he had returned to his office at 07.00 a.m. and at the spot, he had found one bloodstained cloth piece, later during examination, blood was detected on the said cloth piece by him. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh that he had prepared the report (Ex.PW7/A) in the regard which he has brought which bears his signature at point-A. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. V. Kasi Viswanadh that the forwarding letter (Ex.PW7/B) of the said report bears the signatures of Assistant Director Sh. Dhruv Sharma at point-A which he has identified as he has seen him writing and signing during course of his official duties.
53. PW8 HC Mahesh has deposed that on 16.09.2016, he was working as HC at SED, crime team and on that day, on receiving of information, he had reached at B-251, Street No.5, Madanpur Khadar Extension, New Delhi, where he had inspected the spot and clicked four photographs of scene and after developing the photograph, he had handed over negatives (Ex.PW8/A) along with photographs (Mark-A1 to A4) to the investigating officer.
54. PW9 Ct. Dinesh has deposed that on 17.09.2016, he was working as Constable and on that day, at about 09.00 p.m., HC Haroon had received the call of quarrel at Madanpur Khadar Extension, then he along with HC Haroon had reached at Street No.5, near Bablu Dairy, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, where they had come to know that the injured has been shifted to the Hospital. It is further deposed by PW9 Ct. Dinesh that the investigating officer FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 22 of 54 had recorded the statement of complainant at the spot and sent him to police station for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW9 Ct. Dinesh that he had gone to police station got the FIR registered and had come back at the spot along with computer copy of FIR and original rukka then, the investigating officer had prepared site-plan at the instance of complainant. It is further deposed by PW9 Ct. Dinesh that the complainant had also produced her torn suit to the investigating officer and the investigating officer had taken into possession the same through seizure memo (Ex.PW9/A), bearing his signatures at point-A. It is further deposed by PW9 Ct. Dinesh that FSL Team had also arrived at the spot and handed over the exhibits of this case to the investigating officer and the investigating officer had seized the same vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/B) bearing his signatures at point-A. It is further deposed by PW9 Ct. Dinesh that the investigating officer had also recorded the statement of one lady namely Sharifa then, they had come back to police station. It is further deposed by PW9 Ct. Dinesh that he could identify the case property, if shown to him. PW9 Ct. Dinesh has correctly identified torn suit (Ex.P-1).
55. PW10 Ct. Sonu has deposed that on 16.09.2016, he was posted as constable at police control room at Extension No.132 and on that day, at about 11:18 p.m., he had received a call from Dr. Apoorva of Apollo Hospital, Sarita Vihar on his Extension No.132 while informing about admission of the injured Molida wife of Sagar Ali and Akurama wife of Tahir Sheikh vide MLC No.651 & 652 of 2016. It is further deposed by PW10 Ct. Sonu that he had recorded FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 23 of 54 the same in the PCR system vide PCR Form (Ex.PW10/A) and dispatched for further action.
56. PW11 HC Kishan Kumar has deposed that on 17.09.2016, he had joined the investigation of the present case with the investigating officer/SI Arvind Kumar and they had reached at AIIMS Hospital mortuary where postmortem on the dead body of deceased Molida Begam was got performed by the investigating officer, and the dead body after postmortem was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. It is further deposed by PW11 HC Kishan Kumar that the doctor has handed over the sealed pullanda of viscera and sample seal sealed with the seal of Hospital to the investigating officer which was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PW11/A), bearing his signatures at point-A and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer.
57. It is further deposed by PW11 HC Kishan Kumar that on 18.09.2016, he was again associated in the investigation by the investigating officer and they had gone to Gali No.5, Madanpur Khadar, where Rakesh and his brother had met them. It is further deposed by PW11 HC Kishan Kumar that the accused Rakesh was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW11/B), his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW11/C), and his disclosure statement (Ex.PW11/D) was recorded. It is further deposed by PW11 HC Kishan Kumar that pointing out memo (Fard nishan dehi) (Ex.PW11/E) of the place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of the accused and the accused was taken to hospital for medical FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 24 of 54 examination. It is further deposed by PW11 HC Kishan Kumar that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer. PW11 HC Kishan Kumar has correctly identified the accused in the court.
58. PW12 SI Arvind Kumar has deposed that on 16.09.2016 he was posted as SI at police station Jaitpur and on that day, upon receipt of DD No.61A regarding admission of the injured at Apollo Hospital, he had reached Apollo Hospital where he had met HC Harun and Ct. KK Pandey. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that HC Harun had told him that he had received DD No.52A regarding scuffle at Gali No.5, near Babloo Dairy, Madanpur Khadar and two ladies injured in the said incident were admitted in the hospital. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that on inquiry, he had found that Molida Begam (deceased) vide MLC No.651/16 and Akurama Begam vide MLC No.652/16 were admitted in Apollo Hospital and he had collected their MLCs. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that after discharge of Akurama from hospital, he had recorded her statement (Ex.PW1/A) in the hospital, thereafter, he along with staff had reached at the spot i.e. Gali No.5, B Block, Madanpur Khadar, near Bablu Dairy, New Delhi where Ct. Dinesh had met them and after sometime, the injured Akurama had also reached there and at her instance, he had inspected the place of occurrence and he had also called the crime- team which reached at the spot and inspected the spot, thereafter, he had endorsed the complaint and prepared rukka (Ex.PW12/A) bearing his signature at point A and got FIR registered through Ct. Dinesh. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that after FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 25 of 54 sometime, Ct. Dinesh had come back to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him, in the meantime, Mobile FSL team had also reached at the spot and inspected the crime scene. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that after registration of the FIR, he had prepared site-plan (Ex.PW12/B) at the instance of complainant, bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that the Mobile FSL Team expert Mr. V. Kashivishvanath had lifted one chunni of chocolati colour on which flower design was imprinted, which was containing bloodstain and cut down two pieces from the said chunni, one piece having bloodstain and handed over to him both the pieces and remaining chunni and he had seized the chunni after keeping it in a polythene bag and sealing with seal of 'AK' and both the pieces of chunni were separately kept in two different transparent plastic boxes, each duly sealed with seal of 'AK'. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had seized them vide memo (Ex.PW9/B) bearing his signature at point B, in the meantime, complainant had produced him one suit (cloth) which was torn on the right arm side which he seized after sealing in a pullanda with seal of 'AK' vide memo (Ex.PW9/A), bearing his signature at point B and RTI of complainant at point C, and seal after use was handed over to Ct. Dinesh. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had sent HC Jawahar to shift the dead body of Molida Begam to AIIMS hospital for postmortem, thereafter from the spot, he along with Ct. K.K. Pandey had gone to AIIMS hospital where he had requested for conducting the postmortem of deceased vide his letter (Ex.PW12/C) bearing his signature at point A and after FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 26 of 54 postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her relative Rustam Ali vide receipt (Ex.PW12/D) bearing his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that the dead body identification memo (Ex.PW12/E & Ex.PW12/F) of the deceased bearing his signature at point A and he had also seized viscera and sample seal of AIIMS hospital handed over to him by concerned doctor through Ct. K.K. Pandey, vide seizure memo (Ex.PW11/A), bearing his signature at point B and he had recorded the statement of witnesses.
59. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that on 18.09.2016, the accused Rakesh Kumar was arrested from Gali No.5, B Block, Madanpur Khadar Extention vide arrest and personal search memo (Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C), bearing his signature at point B. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had recorded disclosure statement of the accused Rakesh Kumar (Ex.PW11/D), bearing his signature at point B. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that the accused had led them to the place of occurrence and at his instance, he had prepared the pointing out memo (Ex.PW11/E), bearing his signature at point B and he had also seized the wearing clothes of the deceased upon its produced by Ct. Mukesh Kumar, sealed with the seal of Apollo hospital along with sample seal vide seizure memo (Ex.PW12/G), bearing his signature at point A and he had recorded statement of the witnesses including Sarifa.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 27 of 5460. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had sent the viscera to FSL for examination and report and during the course of investigation, he had collected relevant PCR Form, Crime Team Report along with photographs, postmortem report and he had got prepared the scaled site-plan through Inspector Mukesh Jain. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that during investigation, he had also interrogated the accused Mukesh Gupta and he had tried to search the accused Smt. Roshan but in vain. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had obtained NBW against her and he had filed the challan against both the accused i.e. Rakesh and Mukesh Gupta, who were present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
61. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that Smt. Roshan was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 31.03.2017 by the Court and later on, she was arrested by ASI Rambir Singh, police station Jaitpur vide kalandara dated 09.04.2017. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had formally arrested her in this case from the Saket Court after due permission and filed the supplementary charge-sheet against her, the arrest memo of the accused Ms. Roshan (Ex.PW12/H), bearing his signature at point A and he had also obtained the FSL result regarding the viscera and filed the same in the Court. PW12 SI Arvind Kumar has correctly identified all the accused persons in the Court.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 28 of 5462. It is further deposed by PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he can identify the case property, if shown to him. The case property is not brought by the MHC/M, hence, further examination in chief of the witness is deferred on the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State. I can identify the case property. At this stage, the MHC/M has produced one cloth pullanda having court seal. The seal is broken and pullanda is found containing one torn ladies kurta. The witness correctly identifies the same is already Ex. P1.At this stage, the MHC/M has produced another cloth pullanda having seal of AK. The seal is broken and pullanda is found containing one torn chunni kept in polythene. The witness correctly identifies the same is already Ex. P2. MHC/M has also produced to plastic transparent boxes duly sealed with seal of AK. Seals are broken and pieces of chunni. The same are shown to the witness who correctly identifies the same which are Ex. P3 & P4.
63. PW13 Ct. Mahipal has deposed that on 28.11.2016, he was posted as constable at police station Jaitpur and on that day, on the instructions of the investigating officer, he had taken one sealed petti of viscrea along with sample seal and forwarding letter from MHC(M) police station Jaitpur vide RC No.204/21/16 and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini against acknowledgement receipt and after return to police station, he had handed over the original acknowledgement receipt to the MHC(M) and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer in this regard.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 29 of 5464. PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy, SR, AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed that on 17.09.2016 he was working as SR in the department of Forensic Medicines and Toxicology, AIIMS New Delhi and on that day after receiving inquest papers, he had conducted postmortem of Molida Begam, female 30 years from 3-4p.m. and the injuries found on the body of the deceased was haematoma present over the occipital area over the mid line measuring 3cm x 3cm. and the reasons for death was kept pending till chemical analysis report and histopathology report made available.
65. It is further deposed by PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy that on 17.09.2016, he was posted as Sr. Resident in Department of Forensic Medicine AIIMS Hospital and on that day, IO/Inspector Arvind Kumar had moved a request dated 17.09.2016 for conducting the postmortem of Molida Begam and he had conducted the Autopsy on the same day from 03.00 p.m. to 04.00 p.m. and he had prepared the detailed postmortem report (Ex.PW14/A) (running into 4 pages). It is further deposed by PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy that the cause of death was kept pending for the availability of FSL report and histopathology report, and the subsequent opinion qua final cause of death was given by him vide his report bearing no.1267/2016 (Ex.PW14/B) which bears his signature at point 'A'. It is further deposed by PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy that the cause of death in this case is myocardial insufficiency as a result of coronary artery disease which could have been aggravated by the assault.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 30 of 5466. PW15 Ct. Mukesh has deposed that on 18.09.2016 he was posted as constable at Jaitpur and on that day, on the instructions of the investigating officer/SI Arvind Kumar, he had gone to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and obtained from the concerned doctor sealed packet containing cloths of deceased Molida Begam duly sealed with the seal of Apollo Hospital, New Delhi with sample seal, which he had brought to the police station and handed over to IO/SI Arvind Kumar who had seized it vide seizure memo (Ex.PW12/G) bearing his signature at point B. It is further deposed by PW15 Ct. Mukesh that so long as the sealed packet and sample seal remained with it was not tampered with and the investigating officer had recorded his statement to this effect.
67. PW16 HC Dara Singh has deposed that on 16.09.2016 he was posted as HC and was on duty as In-charge at PCR Van No. Kite 73 along with driver Subhash and he was on duty on his aforesaid PCR van from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. next day i.e. 17.09.2016. It is further deposed by PW16 HC Dara Singh that at about 10.10 p.m. on 16.09.2016 he had received information on wireless set from Control Room regarding scuffle at Madanpur Khadar, Babloo Dairy Gali No.05 and he was informed that caller was saying that a severe scuffle was going on at the spot in which two ladies got injured and the number of the caller as provided to him was 9910134205. It is further deposed by PW16 HC Dara Singh that he had noted the call and thereafter, they had reached at the spot where in gali No.5 of Madanpur Khadar Ext. at H.No.B-251 crowd had gathered and at the spot, he had found two ladies one of which FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 31 of 54 was having injuries on her head and other lady was unconscious. It is further deposed by PW16 HC Dara Singh that he had taken both the ladies to nearby Apollo Hospital for medical treatment where he had reached at about 10.28 p.m., and he got admitted both the ladies whose name were revealed as Akurama, wife of late Tahir Sheikh, aged about 25 years and Molida Begam wife of Sagar Ali, aged about 30 years. It is further deposed by PW16 HC Dara Singh that Molida Begam was declared 'brought dead' by the doctor concerned, in the meantime, HC Haroon had reached in Apollo Hospital whom he had told about the incident and thereafter, he had left. It is further deposed by PW16 HC Dara Singh that later on, the investigating officer had inquired and had recorded his statement on the above- said effect.
68. PW16 HC Dara Singh has brought original call book of above-said PCR Van Kite 73 for the period between 08.08.16 to 23.09.16 (Ex.PW16/A, running into 3 pages) which contains record of relevant case of his receiving the call and his intimation to the control room.
69. PW17 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, Draughtsman, Southern Range, office police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi has deposed that on 01.12.2016, he was posted as Draughtsman at Office at police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi and on that day, on the request of IO/SI Arvind Kumar, he had gone to police station Jaitpur, from where he along with the investigating officer had gone to the spot i.e. Gali No.5, Block-B, Near Babloo Dairy, Madan Pur Khadar, FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 32 of 54 Jaitpur New Delhi, and he had inspected the spot and taken measurements and prepared the rough notes with the help of the investigating officer of the case, thereafter, he had come back to his office and on 02.12.2016, he had prepared the scaled site-plan (Ex.PW17/A) on the basis of above-said rough notes and measurements and handed over the same to the investigating officer, and after the preparation of scaled site-plans, the rough notes etc. were destroyed.
70. PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon has deposed that on 16.09.2016 he was posted as Head Constable at police station Jaitpur and on that day at about 10.15 p.m., he had received DD No.52-A regarding scuffle at Gali No.5, Near, Babloo Diary, Madanpur, Khadar, New Delhi, thereafter, he along with Ct. K.K.Pandey of concerned beat, reached at the spot, where two ladies had met them in injured conditions. It is further deposed by PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon that PCR Van had also reached there and both the injured ladies were sent to Apollo Hospital by PCR Van and he along with Ct. K.K.Pandey had followed them on motorcycle. It is further deposed by PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon that both the ladies were admitted in Apollo hospital on MLC No.651 & 652 of 2016 and the injured Molida Begam was declared 'brought dead' vide MLC No.651. It is further deposed by PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon that he had intimated about the facts of the incident to the police staion vide DD no.61-A and after some time, SI Arvind Kumar had reached in Apollo Hospital. It is further deposed by PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon that SI Arvind Kumar had inquired the other lady admitted vide FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 33 of 54 MLC No.652 of 2016, namely, Akurama and recorded her complaint (Ex.PW1/A), thereafter, they all had reached at the spot. It is further deposed by PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon that first investigating officer, SI Arvind Kumar had reached at the spot at the instance of informant and crime team had also reached at the spot and inspected the spot, thereafter, SI Arvind had prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Dinesh, later on the investigating officer had inquired him and recorded his statement.
71. PW19 W/HC Beepti Bhati has deposed that on 12.04.2017, he had accompanied the investigating officer/SI Arvind Kumar to Saket Court and the investigating officer had moved a request before concerned MM qua interrogation of the accused Smt. Roshan, who was duly interrogated by the investigating officer/SI Arvind Kumar and she was formally arrested in this case by the investigating officer vide arrest memo (Ex.PW10/H).
72. PW20 ASI Rambir has deposed that on 09.04.2017, he along with W/Ct. Deepti was present at Samosa Chowk, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi and one secret informer had met them and informed about the whereabouts of the accused Ms. Roshan (who was declared PO in this case), thereafter, at the instance of the secret informer, they had apprehended the accused Ms. Roshan and after preliminary interrogation, she was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW20/A) and W/constable had conducted her personal search vide memo (Ex.PW20/B). It is further deposed by PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon that after medical examination, she was produced before the FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 34 of 54 Court and sent to JC, and they had come in the police station and prepared the kalandara vide DD No.21A (Ex.PW20/C) and submitted before the court. It is further deposed by PW18 ASI Mohd. Haroon that he could identify the accused Ms. Roshan, if shown to him, however, identity of accused was not disputed by Id. Counsel)
73. PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats, Indraprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that on 16.09.2016, he was working as Emergency In-charge, when the patient namely Akurna was brought to the emergency and the doctor Ankit had examined him and prepared his MLC No.652/16 (Ex.PW21/A) bearing signatures of Dr. Ankit at point 'A'. PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats has identified his signatures as he had worked under him and he had seen him writing and signing, and the opinion on MLC given by Dr. Ankit was at portion encircled at Point 'X'. It is further deposed by PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats that his authority letter (Ex.PW21/B) issued by hospital bearing signatures of their Deputy Director Brig. Dr. Amit Roy, whose signatures he has identified at point 'A'.
74. PW22 Jitendra Kumar, SSO (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that he was working in Chemistry Division of FSL, Rohini since 1999 and on 28.11.2016, the case property of present case i.e. one sealed parcel with forwarding letter was received in the office of FSL Rohini and the case was marked to him for examination, and he had tallied the seals from the impression seal given on forwarding letter and found them correct and intact.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 35 of 5475. It is further deposed by PW22 Jitendra Kumar that on examination, the parcel was found containing four exhibits marked as Exhibit 1A to 1D and he had conducted chemical examination on the exhibits and found that Exhibit 1A, 1B and 1C were found to contain ethyl alcohol, and Exhibit 1C was found containing ethyl alcohol to the tune of 52.3 mg/100 ml of blood and no poisonous substance could be detected in Exhibit 1D. It is further deposed by PW22 Jitendra Kumar that his detailed report (Ex.PW22/A) bearing his seal and signature at point A & B. PW22 Jitendra Kumar has further deposed that the remnants were sealed with the seal of 'JK FSL, DELHI' and were returned.
76. On 01.02.2019, vide separate statements of the accused persons, they have admitted the copy of DD No.52A dated 16.9.16, PS Jaitpur (Ex.P1), DD No. 61A dated 16.9.16, PS Jaitpur (Ex.P2), PCR form of CPCR DD No.16.9.16-1060475 with certificate under section 65B (Ex.P3 & Ex.P4), (except genuineness of contents) under section 294 Cr.P.C.
77. In the light of the charge framed against accused persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are the points for determination:
1. Whether the accused Rakesh Gupta, in furtherance of the common intention with CCL (Child in conflict with Law) assumed name as 'S' of both of them, had caused death of the deceased Molida Begam, with the FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 36 of 54 intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by that act to cause death.
2. Whether the accused Rakesh Gupta, in furtherance of the common intention with CCL (Child in conflict with Law) assumed name as 'S' of both of them, had caught hold of the injured Akurama Begam, and the CCL 'S' had inflicted grievous injury.
3. Whether the accused Mukesh Gupta had threatened to kill if the complainant dare to make a complaint to the police against his brother/accused Rakesh Gupta.
4. Whether the accused persons had acted in concert.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
78. In the present case, the information regarding the incident was given to the police station Jaitpur which was recorded vide DD No.61A (Ex.P2). The accused persons Rakesh Gupta and Mukesh Gupta have admitted the DD No.61A dated 16.09.2016 police station Jaitpur vide their separate statements under section 294 Cr.P.C.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 37 of 5479. The DD No.61A (Ex.P2), as per the testimonies of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar, was assigned to him for necessary action. It is in the evidence of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that on inquiry, he had found that Molida Begam (deceased) vide MLC No.651/16 and Akurama Begam vide MLC No.652/16 were admitted in Apollo Hospital and he had collected their MLCs.
80. Regarding registration of FIR, testimonies of PW1 Ms. Akurama, PW2 ASI Kehar Singh and PW12 SI Arvind Kumar are relevant.
81. As per the testimonies of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar after discharge of Ms. Akurama from the hospital, he had recorded her statement (Ex.PW1/A) in the hospital.
82. PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has also corroborated the testimonies of the investigating officer regarding recording of her statement and she has proved her thumb impression at point A on her statement.
83. It is in the evidence of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had endorsed the complaint, prepared rukka (Ex.PW12/A) and got the FIR registered through Ct. Dinesh. PW9 Ct. Dinesh has also duly corroborated the testimonies of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar regarding taking the rukka to the police station and getting the FIR registered.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 38 of 5484. As per the testimonies of PW2 ASI Kehar Singh, he was working as Duty Officer at the police station Jaitpur on 17.09.2016 and at about 03.00 a.m., Ct. Dinesh had presented a rukka sent by SI Arvind Kumar to him. It is also in the evidence of PW2 ASI Kehar Singh that he had made endorsement (Ex.PW2/A) on the 'rukka' and got the FIR (Ex.PW2/B) registered and handed it over to Ct. Dinesh (PW9) to hand over copy of FIR and original 'rukka' to SI Arvind Kumar.
85. From the testimonies of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon, PW2 ASI Kehar Singh, PW9 Ct. Dinesh and PW12 SI Arvind Kumar, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR against the accused persons. During the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused persons have not been disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
86. It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that in the meantime, Mobile FSL team had also reached at the spot and inspected the crime scene and he had prepared site-plan (Ex.PW12/B) at the instance of the complainant.
87. It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that the Mobile FSL Team expert Mr. V. Kashivishvanath had lifted one chunni of chocolati colour on which flower design was imprinted, which was containing bloodstain and cut down two pieces from the FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 39 of 54 said chunni, one piece having bloodstain and handed over to him both the pieces and remaining chunni and he had seized the chunni after keeping it in a polythene bag and sealing with seal of 'AK' and both the pieces of chunni were separately kept in two different transparent plastic boxes, each duly sealed with seal of 'AK' and seized them vide memo (Ex.PW9/B) bearing his signature at point B.
88. It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that in the meantime, the complainant had also produced to him one suit (cloth) which was torn on the right arm side which he had seized after sealing in a pullanda with seal of 'AK' vide memo (Ex.PW9/A), bearing his signature at point B and RTI of complainant at point C, and seal after use was handed over to Ct. Dinesh.
89. It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that he had sent HC Jawahar to shift the dead body of Molida Begam to AIIMS hospital for postmortem, thereafter from the spot, he along with Ct. K.K. Pandey had gone to AIIMS hospital where he had made an application for conducting the postmortem of the deceased vide his letter (Ex.PW12/C) bearing his signature at point A and after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to her relative Rustam Ali vide receipt (Ex.PW12/D) bearing his signature at point A.
90. It is also in the evidence of PW12 SI Arvind Kumar that the dead body identification memo (Ex.PW12/E & Ex.PW12/F) of FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 40 of 54 the deceased bearing his signature at point A and he had also seized viscera and sample seal of AIIMS hospital handed over to him by concerned doctor through Ct. K.K. Pandey, vide seizure memo (Ex.PW11/A), bearing his signature at point B and he had recorded the statement of witnesses.
91. For proving the incident, the testimonies of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon, PW2 Ms. Sarifa, PW5 Ms. Anjura are relevant.
92. The present case FIR was registered on the complaint of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon. It is in the evidence of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that on the date of incident, she had gone to the government water tap to fetch water and was waiting for her turn, and in the meantime, one boy had come there and placed his container over her container and over that issue, mother, sister and other family members had also reached there and mother of the boy had caught hold of her along with other family members and had given beatings to her.
93. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that she had fallen down and managed to get up. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that the accused present that day in the Court caught hold of her and the elder brother of the boy, who had first pushed her, had hit her with the stone on her head and she had fallen down due to the injury and lost consciousness and regained it at her house.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 41 of 5494. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that she along with the deceased Molida Begam was taken to the hospital and later on, she had come to know that Molida had died.
95. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that she could not tell who had pushed Molida Begam nor she could tell how she had sustained injury.
96. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon that she had also been threatened by one person not to make any complaint against her brother failing which, she would be killed by him.
97. Another eye-witness of the incident examined by the prosecution is PW3 Ms. Sarifa. It is in the evidence of PW3 Ms. Sarifa that on the day of incident when she had been returning to her house after purchasing medicine and reached near her jhuggi, she had seen a quarrel. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Ms. Sarifa that Akurama was lying on the floor and the lady accused present in the Court that day (witness has pointed out towards the lady accused Ms. Roshan) and her son were beating Akurama. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Ms. Sarifa that several public persons had gathered there and she could not have seen further about the incident at the spot.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 42 of 5498. It is also in the evidence of PW3 Ms. Sarifa that thereafter, she had gone to her house as she was not feeling well and on the next morning, she had come to know that one lady had died in the said incident.
99. The above testimonies of PW3 Ms. Sarifa are also of much importance and relevance as she is an independent public eye- witness. PW3 Ms. Sarifa has proved the fact that there was a quarrel and during the quarrel, the injured Akurama was lying on the floor and the accused Ms. Roshan and her son were beating Akurama. The said testimonies of PW3 Ms. Sarifa have remained consistent during her cross-examination.
100. Another important witness the prosecution has examined is PW5 Ms. Anjura. It is in the evidence of PW5 Ms. Anjura that on the day of incident she was present at her house when her sister Akurama had gone to fetch water from government water- tap. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Ms. Anjura that her sister had not returned even after one hour, therefore, she had gone to the spot to know about her and at the spot when turn of her sister had come, two boys had come there and tried to break the queue and they had a fight with her sister.
101. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Ms. Anjura that the smaller boy had pushed her sister and on her objection to the conduct of the said boy, her mother had come there and caught her hair and in the meantime, his sister had also arrived there.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 43 of 54102. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Ms. Anjura that all of them had started beating her sister by pulling her hairs and when she tried to rescue her sister, the elder boy had caught hold of her sister and the smaller boy had hit stone on the head of her sister, and in all, there were five persons, who had given beatings to her sister, out of five, two of them were present in the Court i.e. one who had caught hold of his sister was pointed out by PW5 Ms. Anjura towards the accused Rakesh and his mother as offender.
103. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Ms. Anjura that after hitting her sister, the boy had run away from the spot and she had gone to her house to fetch dupatta as she had lost her dupatta at the spot during fight and on her return to the spot, she had found her sister lying unconscious at the spot.
104. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Ms. Anjura that her husband had called the PCR and the PCR had arrived at the spot and had taken her sister to the Hospital, later on, she had come to know that her sister died in the Hospital and the police officials had met her in connection with this case and had made inquiries from her.
105. PW5 Ms. Anjura has from her testimonies proved the incident of a fight between her sister at the accused Rakesh and her mother Ms. Roshan and the fact that the smaller boy had hit her sister with a stone on her head. PW5 Ms. Anjura has also proved the fact that there were total five persons on the accused side and she FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 44 of 54 has correctly identified the accused Rakesh and his mother as the offenders.
106. Regarding identification of dead-body of the deceased, as per the testimonies of PW4 Rustam Ali, brother of the deceased Molida Begam, he had gone to AIIMS Mortuary and identified the dead body of his sister Molida Begam vide statement and he received the dead body of his sister.
107. PW10 Ct. Sonu was posted at Police Control Room at Extension number 132 and on that day, he had received the information from Dr. Apoorva of Apollo Hospital Sarita Vihar regarding admission of the injured Molida and Akurama. As per the testimonies of PW10 Ct. Sonu, he had recorded the said information in PCR system vide PCR Form (Ex.PW10/A) and dispatched for further action.
108. PW8 HC Mahesh had accompanied the crime-team in- charge. As per his testimonies, he had clicked four photographs of the scene of crime and handed over the photographs to the investigating officer. PW8 HC Mahesh has also proved the four photographs Mark A to A-4 and the negatives (Ex.PW8/A).
109. For proving the injury on the person of the deceased, testimonies of PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy are relevant.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 45 of 54110. As per the testimonies of PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy, he was working as Senior Resident in the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi on 17.09.2016 and upon receipt of inquest papers, he had conducted the postmortem of Molida Begam, female 30 years and the injuries found on the body of the deceased was haematoma present over the occipital area over the mid line measuring 3cm x 3cm., and the reasons for death was kept pending till chemical analysis report and histopathology report made available. It is also in the evidence of PW14 Dr. Shintu Devassy that subsequent opinion qua final cause of death was given by him vide his report bearing no.1267/2016 (Ex.PW14/B), bearing his signature at point 'A'. It is also in the evidence of PW14 Dr. Shinto Devassy that the cause of death in the present case was "myocardial insufficiency as a result of coronary artery disease which could have been aggravated by the assault."
111. MLC of the injured Akurama has been proved by PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats of Inderprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. As per the testimonies of PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats, on 16.09.2016, he was working as Emergency in-charge, when the patient, namely, Akurama was brought to the emergency and the doctor Ankit had examined her and prepared her MLC No.652/16 (Ex.PW21/A) bearing signatures of Dr. Ankit at point 'A'. PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats has identified his signatures as he had worked under him and he had seen him writing and signing, and the opinion on MLC given by Dr. Ankit was at portion encircled at Point 'X'. PW21 Dr. Deepak Vats has proved his authority letter (Ex.PW21/B) issued by hospital FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 46 of 54 bearing signatures of their Deputy Director Brig. Dr. Amit Roy, whose signatures he has identified at point 'A'.
112. A perusal of MLC (Ex.PW21/A) of the injured Akurama reveals that the injured Akurama had sustained grievous injury.
113. A perusal of postmortem report (Ex.PW14/A) reveals that the cause of death of the deceased Molida Begam was "myocardial insufficiency as a result of coronary artery disease which could have been aggravated by the assault."
114. Regarding arrest of the accused persons, from their testimonies, PW1 SI Arvind Kumar, PW19 W/Ct. Beepti Bhati, PW20 ASI Rambir Singh have proved that the accused persons Rakesh Gupta and Smt. Roshan were arrested in the present case by SI Arvind Kumar, the investigating officer of the case and he had also interrogated the accused Mukesh Gupta. PW12 SI Arvind Kumar has also proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW11/B) and personal search memo (Ex.PW11/C), his disclosure statement (Ex.PW11/D) and the pointing out memo (Ex.PW11/E) of the place of occurrence.
115. Regarding identity of the accused persons, PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has correctly identified the accused Rakesh Gupta in the Court to be the person who had caught hold of him during the incident. It is also in the testimonies of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 47 of 54 that she was also threatened by one person not to make any complaint against his brother failing which, she would be killed by him and she could identify the said person, who had threatened her. On the date of her testimonies, the identity of the accused Mukesh Gupta was not disputed as he was exempted from personal appearance for that day. PW3 Ms. Sarifa, an independent eye- witness has also correctly identified the accused Ms. Roshan and her son to be the persons, who were giving beatings to Akurama seen lying on the floor. PW5 Ms. Anjura has also correctly identified the accused persons in the Court. As per the testimonies of PW5 Ms. Anjura in all there were five persons, who had given beatings to his sister and out of them, two were present in the Court. PW5 Ms. Anjura has pointed out towards the accused Rakesh and his mother as offenders who had caught hold of his sister.
116. From the testimonies of PW1 Ms. Akurama, PW3 Ms. Sarita and PW5 Ms. Anjura, identification of the accused persons who along with other offenders/assailants had assaulted the injured Ms. Akurama and the deceased Molida Begam has been duly proved.
117. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies have remained consistent to prove the fact of causing death of the deceased Molida Begam by FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 48 of 54 causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and causing grievous hurt to the complainant Ms. Akurama Khatoon.
118. During cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, an attempt has been made to establish that the accused Rakesh Gupta was not present at the spot at the time of incident which has been denied by all the main witnesses, namely, PW1 Ms. Akurama and PW5 Ms. Anjura.
119. It is important to note here that during the cross- examination of PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon, a suggestion was given to her that the accused Rakesh was only trying to pacifying the quarrel, which was denied by the witness. From the giving of such suggestion to PW1 Akurama Khatoon itself, the accused persons and their counsel have themselves admitted the presence of the accused Rakesh Gupta on the spot at the time of incident.
120. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been successful in proving that on the date of incident, there was some altercation of the accused Ms. Roshan and her sons with the complainant Ms. Akurama Khatoon. The accused Rakesh Gupta was also present there. A quarrel started over the issue of putting vessel over the vessel of the complainant at the government water tap. It is also proved that during the quarrel, the accused Ms. Roshan and her sons had given beatings to Akurama Khatoon after pushing her on the floor. It is also proved that during the incident, the deceased FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 49 of 54 Molida Khatoon had sustained injury on her head due to which she had died; she was declared 'brought dead' at the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital.
121. There are three eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon (the complainant), PW3 Ms. Sarifa, an independent public eye-witness and PW5 Anjura, who have given their ocular account of this case. All the three witnesses did not have animus or grudge against the accused persons. The manner of the incident as described by them is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows the presence of injury on the person of the deceased Molida Begam and the injured Akurama Khatoon.
122. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye witness, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yogender Singh v. State, Criminal Appeal number 265/2001, as follows:
"28. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind.
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of an injured witness is always of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(d) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 50 of 54 not the whole evidence. (e) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
123. PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon is the injured eye-witness in the present case and she had suffered injury during the incident, therefore, her testimonies are trustworthy.
124. PW5 Ms. Anjura Khatoon has also assigned specific roles to the accused Rakesh Gupta and his mother Ms. Roshan (deceased) about their involvement in the commission of offence in the present case.
125. PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon has specifically deposed against the accused Mukesh Gupta to be the person, who had threatened her to kill if any complaint would be made against his brother.
126. It has been held in Raja v. State, (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del) that it is well known principal of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness in the Court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the prosecution.
127. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act says, "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 51 of 54128. It has also been held in Raja's case (supra) that the Courts are concerned with the merits of the statement of a particular witness. They are not concerned with the number of witnesses examined by the prosecution.
129. It has also been held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kishanpal, 2008 (11) SCALE 233 that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement.
130. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon, PW3 Ms. Sarifa and PW5 Ms. Anjura, the prosecution has been successful in proving that there was an altercation between Ms. Akurama Khatoon (PW1) and the accused side following by a quarrel and in the said quarrel, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, caused grievous injury to PW1 Ms. Akurama Khatoon and also caused death of the deceased Molida Begam by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that they are likely by such act to cause death.
131. Further, the accused persons have not been able to spell out any plausible reason for their false implications.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 52 of 54132. Furthermore, the accused have also not tendered any reasonable explanation for their conduct and have simply stated that they have been falsely implicated and have raised no defence.
133. The accused persons had expressed their desire to lead evidence in their defence but could produce none.
134. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge under section 325/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Rakesh Gupta, so the accused Rakesh Gupta is found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under sections 325/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
135. The prosecution has also proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Mukesh Gupta, so the accused Mukesh Gupta is found guilty of having committed the said offence and hence, he is convicted of offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 53 of 54136. Let both the convicts be heard on the question of Digitally signed sentence. by RAKESH RAKESH KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2025.09.27 18:18:20 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR) th on 27 September, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02, South-East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi FIR No.530/2016 PS Jaitpur State v Rakesh Gupta & Ors Page 54 of 54