Delhi District Court
State vs Dilip Singh Etc on 4 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. POOJA TALWAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)WEST
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
In the matter of:
STATE
Vs.
DILIP SINGH & ANR. FIR No.173/11
Police Station: Punjabi Bagh
JUDGMENT
1. Sl. no. of case Sessions Case No. 57747/16
2. CNR no. DLWT01-000-594-2011
3. Date of Institution 05.10.2011
4. Date of Commission of offence 01.07.2011
5. Name of the accused 1. Dilip Singh
S/o Sh. Uday Mishra
R/o D-180, Laxmi Park, Nangloi,
Delhi.
2. Sultan Singh
S/o Sh. Jagat Singh
R/o 570, Gali no.2,
Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi.
3. Bhola
S/o Jamil
R/o Village Maysur, P.S.
Shahwar, District Kashiram
Nagar, Kashganj, U.P.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 1 of 79
FIR no.173/11
4. Avinash Raghav @ Bittoo
S/o Sh. Rishi Pal
R/o Gram Mayasur, Thana
Sahabar, District Kashiram
Nagar, U.P.
5. Prakash Kumar Chawla @
Praveen
S/o Bhim Ji Lal
R/o C-260, Vandana Vihar,
Nangloi, Delhi.
6. Offence Complained of Section 411 IPC
Section 102 B IPC
Section 394 IPC
Section 302 IPC
Section 25 & 27 Arms Act
7. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of reserving the judgment 18.07.2025 9. Final order Convicted 10 Date of such judgment 04.08.2025 Case of the prosecution
1. Story of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2011 vide DD no.69B an information was received that one unconscious man from the Punjabi Bag Metro Station has been taken to SGM hospital by the PCR van. It was found that said person was declared dead. His name was revealed as Kanhiya Dey. His body was recovered in an injured condition. Besides other injuries there was bullet injury present on his person.
2. During investigation it was found that deceased was working in Scientific Security Management Services P. Ltd. E-1 Mansarovar Garden as Assistant for the last four years and he was supplying uniform and other articles to the Guards.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 2 of 79 FIR no.173/11
3. On 01.07.2011, Manager of Security Management Sh. Sumit Bhutani gave 10 new Samsung Guru mobile sets to deceased Kanhiya Dey to deliver the same to Muradabad U.P. He left alongwith the phones at 8.30 pm from his house and thereafter around 9.47 pm he was found dead. The mobile phones which he was carrying were found missing. IMEI numbers were obtained from Scientific Security Management Services Pvt. and same were put on surveillance. Two mobile phones were found to be in use and were connected with one Girraj Kishore Rathore. Upon interrogation he revealed the names of one Dilip and Sultan. Mobile phones were recovered from these two accused. On their disclosure accused Prakash Kumar was interrogated and two phones were recovered from his possession. Thereafter accused Bhola was arrested and from his possession one phone, one country made pistol & shoes of deceased recovered. One auto which was used in commission of offence was recovered at the instance of accused Dilip. On 12.10.2011 accused Avinash @ Bitto surrendered and at his instance mobile phone was recovered from his house in village Kasganj.
4. On the basis of complaint, FIR under Section 302/394/411/120B/34 IPC and Section 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered against the accused persons.
Charge
5. Charge was framed against accused Bhola under Section 411 IPC and 25 & 27 Arms Act vide order dated 03.10.2012.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 3 of 79 FIR no.173/11
6. Charge was framed against accused Sultan Singh, Dilip Singh, Avinash Raghav @ Bittoo and Prakash Kumar Chawla under Section 411 IPC.
7. Charge was framed against accused Dalip Singh, Sultan Singh, Bhola and Avinash Raghav @ Bittoo under Section 102 B IPC, 394 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC, Section 302 r/w Section 120 B IPC.
Prosecution evidence
8. In order to prove its case prosecution examined forty-one witnesses as under :-
Material witnesses:
i) PW9: Smt. Nanda Dey W/o Kanhiya Dey deposed that:
"My deceased husband was working in Scientific Security Management Services Private Limited at E-1, Mansarovar Garden as Office Assistant. My husband used to go to office at
9.30 AM and used to return at about 6/6.30 PM.
On 01.07.2011, my husband returned back to home at about 5.30/6.00 PM and after taking tea, he told me that he has to go to Moradabad, UP for the purpose of delivery of ten mobile phones of SAMSUNG there. My husband had brought the said mobile phones to home. My husband had kept the said mobile phones in a plastic dubba and then in a bag. After taking dinner, he left the house at about 8.30/8.45 PM alongwith the said mobile phones. At about 10.30 PM, I came to know from my Devar namely Lov Chand that my husband is admitted in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. I also received telephonic call in this regard. I immediately reached at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, where I came to know that my husband had expired. My husband had sustained SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 4 of 79 FIR no.173/11 injuries on his head and chest. I also came to know that one bullet was recovered from the body of my husband. After the postmortem, dead body of my husband was handed over to me and I got him cremated. We were living for the last about 15 years in the said house at the time of incident and there was no quarrel with any person with my husband at any point of time.
I had appeared before the Ld. MM to identify the articles of my husband. On 01.08.2011, I had identified the bag and one pair of shoes of my husband during the TIP proceedings.
At this stage, sealed envelope sealed with the seal of court is opened and TIP proceedings is taken out. Same is Ex.PW/9/A (running into three pages) which bears my signatures at point A & B. I can also identify the shoes and bag if shown to me.
At this stage, MHCM has produced one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of VP (Court). Same is opened and found to contain one bag of green and black color of Adidaas, the same is shown to the witness to which the witness has correctly identified the same of his husband. Same is Ex.P.1.
At this stage, MHCM has produced one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of VP (Court). Same is opened and found to contain one pair of shoes, make SPYCAR of greenish brown color, having tag of Spira Light Weight Jogger, the same are shown to the witness to which the witness has correctly identified the same of his husband. Same are Ex.P.2".
ii) PW13: Mr. Bittoo S/o Lt. Sh. Kanhiya deposed that:
"My father was working as a office supervisior in a Scientific Security Management Service Pvt. Ltd. At E-1 Mansarover Garden, Delhi He was looking after field work. He used to supply the uniform of guard and mobile phones to the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 5 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Incharge of the security services. 01.07.2011 my father had come to home in the evening at 5/5:30 pm. At that time I was sleeping. On arrival of my father I woke up. I alongwith my father had pack 10 mobile phones in a brown colour polythene bag and same was also tapped around and same were kept by my father in a bag which had to deliver by my father at Moradabad. Thereafter, I went for Tution. At about 6:30 pm | returned from Tution and went to my room for studies. Al about 8:00/8:15 pm my father came in my room and he asked about my preparation for exams. Thereafter he left from my room. My father left Ine house at about 8:30/8.45 pm to go to Moradabad U.P. My mother told me in this regard when I came in the other room for taking meals. At about 10:30 pm one Love Chand came to our house who was working in the office of my father and he told my mother to accompany her to hospital as my father met with an accident. Thereafter my mother went to hospital along with Love Chand uncle. My landlord had also gone to hospital On retuming my mother from hospital she told me that she was not permitted to see my father in the hospital by my landlord and other persons My father was admitted in the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital On the next day morning my maternal uncle and my landlord went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. And on that day post mortem upon the deadbody of my father was conducted. On that day I came to know about the death of my father. On receipt of post mortem report I came to know that some one had shoot my father. On receipt of deadbody of my father we cremated the same. The said mobile phones were of make Samsung The said mobile phone were kept in polythene which was wrapped with the help of self sticking brown taken and then kept in black bag having grean strip. My father had also told me that he will take SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 6 of 79 FIR no.173/11 the bus or auto to Anand Vihar and thereafter will take the bus for Moradabad. I can identify the mobile phone as I myself had packed those mobile phones Q Have you seen the bag of your father in which mobile phones were kept. Can you identify the said Bag?
Ans. I cannot identify that bag.
At this stage MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RD, seal broken and from the parcel one mobile phone of samsung Virgin mobile is taken out and shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified to be the same which was taken by his father with him along with other phones. Same is Ex. P1.
MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RD, seal broken and from the parcel one mobile phone of 'Nokai' mobile is taken out and shown to the witness to which witness stated that it is not the same which was packed by him and taken by his father At this stage MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RD, seal broken and from the parcel one mobile phone of samsung having red strip of Model No:GT- E1081T.
The mobile phone of samsung having red strip of Model No GT-E1081T (containing battery, without SIM) of black colour having red strips is taken out from the parcel and shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified to be the same which was packed by him and taken by his father, same is Ex.P-2.
MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RD, seal broken and from the parcel the mobile phone of samsung having red strip of Model No:GT-E1081T SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 7 of 79 FIR no.173/11 (containing battery. without SIM) of black colour having red strips is taken out from the parcel and shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified to be the same which was packed by him and taken by his father, same is Ex.P-3. One white polythene transparent also found containing in the parcel MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RD, seal broken and from the parcel the mobile phone of Tata Indicom is taken out from the parcel and shown to the witness to which witness has stated that it is not the same which was packed by him and kept by his father.
MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RD, seal broken and from the parcel one box of Samsung Guru 1081 of yellow and white colour containing two mobile phone of samsung one having red strip of Model No:GT- E1081T (containing battery, without SIM) and other having blue strip are taken out and shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified to be the same which were packed by him and taken by his father, same are Ex.P-4 and P-5 respectively. Box also found containing one charger and phone manual book and 5 other papers related to mobile phone.
MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of RD, seal broken and from the parcel on box of Samsung Guru 1081 of yellow and white colour containing one mobile phone of samsung having red strip of Model No:GT- E1081T (containing battery, without SIM) is taken out and shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified to be the same which was packed by him and taken by his father same is Ex.P-6".
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 8 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Formal Witnesses:
i) PW6: Vipin Kataria deposed that he was working as a coordinator in Scientific Security Management Services Private Limited. On 27.09.2011, Shri Sumit Bhutani, Manager, handed over him seven sheets to hand over the same to Shri R.D.Pandey.
Accordingly he handed over the same to IO Inspector R.D.Pandey and he seized the same as Ex.PW6/A. The documents which he handed over to Inspector R.D.Pandey are Ex.PW6/B i.e. Covering letter of Mr. Sunil Bhutani and others are photocopies of cash/credit memo (02) and remaining are having the IMEI Number. Same are collectively marked as Mark PW6/PA.
ii) PW8: Giri Raj Kishore Rathore deposed that Smt. Saraswati Devi, aged about 70 years was his tenant in the year 2009 to 2011. Mr. Sultan Singh was his son in law, who was residing in their locality. About one year prior to the Incident of this case on the request of Smt. Saraswati Devi, he got made the Election Identity Card of Saraswati Devi at his address. On the basis of the same, her pension was started and she also got issued one mobile connection of TATA which was being used by her son in law Sultan Singh. He did not remember the complete number, however its initials were 9289. IO of this case met him and interrogated him. He admitted that mobile number was 7289450732.
iii) PW11: Viplav deposed that on 02.07.2011 he identified the dead body of his brother Kanhiya Dey at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital vide his statement Ex.PW3/E. After the postmortem, he also received the same for cremation.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 9 of 79 FIR no.173/11
iv) PW14: Pawan Singh brought the summoned record i.e. customer application form of mobile no.9718935452 which was issued in the name of Smt. Bimlesh wife of Sh. Udai Singh r/o 68 Udaibhaan Berkol, Mursaan. Mahamaya Nagar, UP. Copy of customer application form is Ex.PW14/A. The subscriber also submitted photocopy of election voter I-Card mark A. The call details of abovesaid mobile number w.e.f. 15.06.2011 to 04.07.2011 running into two pages is Ex.PW14/B and call details of said mobile number 04.05.11 to 05.07.11 running into three pages is Ex.PW14/C. He also submitted the certificate under Sec.65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW14/D.
v) PW18: Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 02.07.11 he identified the dead body of his tenant Kanhaya Dey in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital mortuary. IO recorded his statement Ex.PW3/F. After the postmortem dead body was received by the brother of deceased Viplav Dey.
vi) PW20: Dr. Manoj Dhingra deposed that he along with Dr. Deepak Sharma conducted postmortem on the body of Kanhaya Dey on 02.07.11. Body was brought by ASI Prahlad Singh from PS Punjabi Bagh with alleged history of sustained injuries on 01.07.11 and he was brought to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, where he has been declared as brought dead.
"External Examination.
1. Firearm entry wound 0.8cm x 0.8 cm present on front and right side of chest. The entry wound is surrounded by blackening and tattooing and the whole wound including the surrounding stained area measured 9cm x 6 cm. The wound is present 7 cm right to midline, 4.5 cm below right clavicle. The wound is SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 10 of 79 FIR no.173/11 directed backwards and from left to right. The projectile pierced through the underlying chest wall soft tissues fracturing the 2th and 3 th ribs, entering chest cavity lacerating right lung and found a bullet in posterior aspect of right lung and other details mentioned in PM report.
The cause of death is hemorrhage and shock consequent to penetrating injury to the chest caused by a projectile discharged from a firearm weapon capable of discharging such a projectile. All injuries are antemortem, injury number one was caused by a firearm projectile is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature".
His detail report is Ex.PW-20/A. He also received the application from IO for subsequent opinion along with sealed parcel with the seal of RD. After opening the sealed parcel, a gun came out from sealed parcel and the injury mentioned in the PM report no.598/11 is possible by this katta or similar such weapon. Katta is resealed and handed over to IO. His subsequent opinion is Ex.PW20/B.
vii) PW21: Dr. Mahipal Singh deposed that on 01.07.11 at about 10.30 PM Dr. Santosh Jr. Resident examined the patient Kanhaya Dey vide MLC no.10651 with the alleged history of brought by police in unconscious state under his supervision. The MLC Ex.PW21/A was in the handwriting of Dr. Santosh. He was conversant with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Santosh as he had worked with him and he had seen him signing and writing in usual course of his duty. Dr. Santosh had left the services of hospital and his present whereabouts were not available in the official record. Patient was brought dead and dead body was SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 11 of 79 FIR no.173/11 shifted to mortuary for postmortem.
viii) PW24: Rajeev Ranjan Nodal Officer brought the original record of customer application form of mobile no.9212953720 and 9289450732 which were issued in the name of Mukesh Malhotra and Saraswati Dey respectively. The customer application form of Mobile no.9212953720 of Mukesh Malhotra is Ex.PW-24/A enclosed with the copy of Election I card of Mukesh Malhotra as Ex.PW24/B. Customer application form of mobile no.9289450732 of Saraswati Devi is Ex.PW24/C enclosed with copy of election I card, same is Ex.PW24/D. He also brought the call details of mobile no.9212953720 w.e.f. 04.07.11 to 08.07.11 as Ex.PW24/E. He brought Cell ID Chart Ex.PW24/F and Cell ID chart of mobile no.9289450732 we.f. 04.07.11 to 08.07.11 as Ex.PW24/G and call details of the same is Ex.PW24/H. He brought the certificate under Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence Act of both mobile numbers as Ex.PW24/I.
ix) PW28: Sh. Vishal Pahuja, the then MM, West District Tis Hazari Courts Delhi deposed that on 01.08.2011 an application requesting TIP of case property was marked to him being First Link MM of Sh. Lovleen Ld. MM/West District Delhi, same was fixed for 01.08.2011. IO Inspector R.D. Pandey appeared before him along with witness Nanda Dey and he also identified her. IO also produced the mixing material i.e. 5 samples of shoes pair and mix the same with the case property i.e. one pair of shoes and he kept the same at second position from left to right side and fifth position from left to right side. The witness Smt. Nanda Dey has correctly identified the shoe pair and is of her husband.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 12 of 79 FIR no.173/11 On that day IO also produced before him one bag along with six other samples of bag of similar characteristic and same was mixed with the sample bags. Property was put at 6th position from left to right and 2nd position from right to left. Smt. Nanda Dey correctly identified the bag as is of her husband. The TIP proceedings Ex.PW9/A bearing the signatures of PW Nanda Dey at point A and B and his signatures at point C, D and E. He also annexed the certificate regarding true and correctness of the TIP proceedings as Ex.PW28/A. The application of the IO regarding obtaining of copy of TIP proceedings is Ex.PW28/B bearing his endorsement at point A and his signatures at point B. The application of the IO requesting for TIP is Ex.PW28/C.
x) PW30: Sumit Bhutani deposed that he is working as a Manager in Scientific Security Service Management. Deceased Kanhiya Lal was also working in their office as office Asst. and his job was to deliver the uniform and mobile etc. in the area of Delhi and outside Delhi as per demand of the Company. There were about 5000 Security Guards in their Company on all India basis. His Company also used to provide the security guards to ATM of various banks. On 01.07.11 their Company gave 10 mobile phones of Samsung in sealed packed boxes (new sets) to deliver the same to Muradabad supervisor. Mr. Kanhiya Lal left the office in the evening at about 5 PM on that day and he went to his home and from there he had to go to Muradabad. On the said day at night at about 10.30 PM he received a telephonic call and he came to know that Mr. Kanhiya Lal was admitted in the hospital in Sanjay Gandhi. Therefore, he along with his staff reached there where he came to know that he had expired. Later on he gave the IMEI No of phones on the letter head of the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 13 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Company to the SHO which is Ex.PW30/A. He also issued the letter and gave the same to the police as Ex.PW6/B regarding purchase of 40 new set of mobile phones for Company and out of which 10 were given to Mr. Kanhiya Lal to deliver the same at Muradabad. He also enclosed the two receipts along with letter. Photocopy of the same is mark PW-6/PA and mark PW-30/PB. He also gave the details of list IEMI number as mark PW-30/PC. He highlighted the IEMI number of the mobile phones which were given to Mr. Kanhiya Lal for delivery. The original record of the purchase of the said mobile phones has been destroyed as fire took place in their office. He brought the report of Delhi Fire Service in this regard as mark PW-30/PD.
(xi) PW33: Dr. N. P. Waghmare deposed that on 06.09.11 one sealed parcel with the seal of SGMH Mortuary Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 was received in the laboratory for examination in connection with FIR no.173/11 of PS Punjabi Bagh. The said parcel was assigned to him for examination and opinion. On opening the said parcel it was found to contain one country made pistol of 8MM/.315" bore marked exhibit F1 by him in the laboratory. On examination Ex.F1 is a fire arm. It is a country made pistol, capable of chambering and firing standard 8mm/.315" caliber ammunition.
One standard 8mm/.315" cartridge taken from the laboratory stock was chambered and successfully test fired through country made pistol marked Ex.F1. Hence, it is opined that Ex.F1 was in normal working condition. After examination case exhibits/Remnants of Exhibits resealed with the seal of FSL NPW Delhi and sent to the forwarding authority. His detailed report is Ex.PW-33/A. SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 14 of 79 FIR no.173/11
xii) PW34: Dr. Kanak Lata Verma deposed that on 27.07.2011, he was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi. On that day, one sealed wooden box was received in the office of FSL, Rohini Delhi having the specimen seal in connection of the present FIR from the SHO PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi through SI Yogender. Same was marked to him. The wooden box contains exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C. On chemical Microscropic and TLC examination, metallic poisoins, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and pesticides could not be detected in exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C. After examination case exhibits/remnants of exhibits sent to this laboratory for examination have been sealed with the seal of KLV FSL DELHI. His detail report is Ex.PW34/A.
xiii) PW38: Rishi Pal deposed that on 12.12.2011, he was posted as Addi. DCP, West District, Delhi. On that day, after careful perusal of the record of the present case, he granted the sanction under Section 39 of Arms Act to prosecute the accused Bhola S/o Jamil under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. His sanction order is Ex.PW38/A.
xiv) PW39: Sanjeev Kumar deposed that he did not remember the exact date, however, about 5/6 years ago, he along with his friend Deen Dayal were going to Ashok Park Metro Station to receive his relative. When they crossed Punjabi Bagh metro station, he stopped his car Indica bearing No.DL3CW6279 for urinating. He saw that one person was lying on the road and on this he called the police on 100 number from his mobile no.9899878248 and thereafter, they left from there.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 15 of 79 FIR no.173/11
xv) PW40: Indresh Kumar deposed that on 07.09.2011, he was posted as Sr. Scientific Officer in FSL Rohini, Delhi. On that day, two sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini Delhi having specimen seals and same were marked to him for examination. He opened both the parcels and marked them as Ex.1 and Ex.2 and he examined them on the point of biologically and serologically. His detailed report in this regard are Ex.PW40/A and B respectively. Human blood was detected on Ex.1 but blood could not be detected on Ex.2.
Witnesses of Investigation:
i) PW1: SI Jagdish Prasad deposed that on 02.07.2011 at about 6.05 PM, ASI Prahlad Singh handed over rukka prepared by him, to him for the registration of the case, on the basis of which, he got recorded the present FIR on computer through computer operator by dictating the contents of the rukka. Thereafter he took out the print of FIR from the computer and signed the same.
He had brought the original FIR, photocopy of the same is Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the rukka regarding the registration of the present FIR. After the registration of the case, he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to HC Shanti Swaroop to deliver the same to Inspector R.D.Pandey, the then Inspector Investigation posted at PS Punjabi Bagh. He had brought certificate as required u/s 65-B Evidence Act which was prepared and signed by him and the same is Ex.PW1/C.
ii) PW2: ASI Parhlad Singh deposed that on 01.07.2011, he was posted at PS Punjabi Bagh. On that day, DD No. 698, true copy of the same is Ex.PW3/A was marked to him for necessary SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 16 of 79 FIR no.173/11 action. Thereafter he reached at the spot l.e. near Power House, Punjabi Bagh Metro Station, Main Road, alongwith Const. Dharmender, where he came to know that injured had been removed by the PCR to SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. He found blood scattered on the spot. No eye witness met him there at that time. He directed Const. Dharmender to remain present at the spot to guard the spot. He left for SGM Hospital. After reaching there, he collected the MLC of injured Kanhaiya Dey son of Late Khitesh Dey. On the MLC, Doctor declared injured as brought dead. Dead body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary. There were injury marks as well as of burn injury mark on the body of the deceased. Some portion of the blood was also having burnt. Duty constable Vishal posted at SGM Hospital had handed over some articles i.e. PAN Card and some other documents alongwith cash amount of Rs.410/-recovered from the personal search of deceased and these articles were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW.3/B. Duty constable Vishal signed the same at point B. Thereafter he called crime team at the spot after informing on telephone. He reached at the spot from the hospital. In the meantime, crime team reached who inspected the spot. Crime team photographer took photograph of the spot from different angles. Thereafter crime team in-charge handed over crime team report to him. He lifted blood, blood stained earth control from the spot and kept in a plastic pouch. The same were sealed in a pulanda with the seal of PS and was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW.3/C. Thereafter he came back at PS. Next day i.e. on 02.07.2011, he reached at SGM Hospital mortuary. He prepared inquest proceedings which is Ex.PW3/D. Dead body was duly identified by Shri Viplav Dey, brother of the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 17 of 79 FIR no.173/11 deceased and Shri Sandeep, the landlord of the deceased and he recorded their statements in this regard, the statement of Viplav Dey is Ex.PW3/E. Statement of Sandeep is Ex.PW3/F. Thereafter he moved application to the in-charge mortuary Ex.PW3/G to conduct the postmortem. Thereafter the postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted and dead body of the deceased was handed over to his brother. After the postmortem, doctor handed over four sealed pulandas sealed with the seal of SGMH mortuary and two sample seal of same specimen to him and the same were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/H. As no eye witness met him till that time, he prepared rukka on the DD entry and his said rukka is Ex.PW3/J and the rukka was handed over to duty officer by him for the registration of the case. After the registration of the case, further investigation were handed over to Shri R.D. Pandey, the then Inspector Investigation, PS Punjabi Bagh. He prepared site plan of the place of occurrence at his instance. He recorded his statement in this regard.
iii) PW3: Ct. Dharmender deposed that on 01.07.2011 DD no. 698 was marked to Prahlad Singh for necessary action. Hence, he joined the investigation with him and reached the spot ie. Punjabi Bagh Metro Station, Power House and on enquiry they came to know that injured(unconscious) had been taken to SGM hospital, Mangolpuri by PCR. He was directed by ASI Prahlad Singh to remain present at the spot to guard the place of occurrence and ASI left for hospital. After returning from SGM hospital, ASI Prahlad Singh called crime team who reached the spot and inspected the place of occurrence and photographer took photographs of the spot from different angle. ASI Prahlad Singh SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 18 of 79 FIR no.173/11 lifted blood stained earth control from the spot and kept the same in small plastic pouch and sealed it in a pulanda with the seal of PS and pulanda was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. IO also took into possession the personal search articles, sealed with the seal of hospital stated to be recovered from the search of deceased Kanhaiya Dey vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/H. ASI Prahlad Singh signed the same at point B. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
iv) PW4: HC Narender Kumar deposed that on 01.07.11, he was working as MHCM at PS Punjabi Nagh. On that day ASI Prahlad Singh of PS Punjabi Nagh deposited some personal search articles in unsealed condition pertaining to DD NO. 698 dated 01.07.11 PS Punjabi Bagh. He also deposited one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of PS in the malkhana on the same day and he made entry at Sl.No. 3860 in register No.19 in this regard. Photocopy of the said entry is Ex.PW4/A. On 02.07.11, ASI Prehlad Singh deposited 4 pullandas sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangol Puri and two sample seal pertaining to DD No. 69 B in the malkhana and he made entry at Sl. No. 3861. Photocopy of the said entry is Ex.PW4/B. On 09.07.11, Insp. R D Pandey, posted at PS Punjabi Bagh, deposited 7 pullandas sealed with the seal of RD and one auto No. UP-14AB-9080 in the present case i.e. FIR No.173/11 and he made entry at Sl. No. 3884. Photocopy of the said entry is Ex.PW4/C. On 10.07.11, Insp. RD Pandey, IO of the present case deposited 1 pullanda sealed with the seal of RD in the malkhana and he made entry at SI.No. 3887. Photocopy of the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 19 of 79 FIR no.173/11 said entry is Ex.PW4/D. On 14.10.11, Insp. R D Pandey, deposited 2 pullandas sealed with the seal of RD in the malkhana and he made entry at Sl.No. 4186. Photocopy of the said entry is Ex.PW4/E. One pullanda and one auto were sent to FSL. Rohini for opinion in sealed condition through SI Yogender vide RC No. 111/21/11 and 112/21/11.1 made entry in register No.19 in this regard. Photocopy of FIC is Ex.PW4/F. SI Yogender handed over copy of RC and receipt issued by FSL to him on the same day. SI Yogender brought back the said auto from FSL and deposited the same in the malkhana.
On 01.08.11, two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of RD were received by Ct. Anil Kumar to produce before the court of Ld. MM for TIP vide RC No. 117/21//11 and these pullandas were brought back by same Ct. duly sealed with the seal of VP and he made entry in register No.19 in this regard.
On 19.08.11, one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of RD was sent to Department of Forensic Medicines, SGMH. Mangol Puri for opinion HoD through SI Daljeet Singh vide RC No.128/21/11 and copy of RC is Ex.PW4/G. The said pullanda was received back through Si Daljeet Singh duly sealed with the seal of SGMH Mortuary, Mangol Puri and he made entry in register No.19 in this regard.
On 06.09.11, one sealed parcel along with sample seal was sent to FSL Rohini for opinion through SI Daljeet Singh vide RC No.135/21/11 and photocopy of RC is Ex-PW4/H. He made entry in register No.19 in this regard.
On 07.09.11, three sealed parcel were sent to FSL Rohini for opinion through SI Daljeet Singh vide RC No.156/21/11 and photocopy of RC is Ex-PW4/J. He made entry SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 20 of 79 FIR no.173/11 in register No.19 in this regard.
On different dates case property was received from FSL and he made entries in register No. 19 in this regard. He had brought original register No. 19 and original RC. The entries mentioned above are in his hand. So long the case property remained in his possession, was not tampered with.
v) PW5: Ct. Suresh Kumar deposed that on 01.07.2011 he was posted as DD Writer at PS Punjabi Bagh. On that day at about 9.47 PM, he recorded DD no.69B Ex.PW3/A on the message received from Wireless Operator regarding lying of a person in unconscious condition at near Power House Punjabi Bagh Metro Station. After recording the same, he handed over the same to Ct. Raj Kumar to hand over the same to ASI Prahlad for inquiry. He had brought original record of the said DD.
vi) PW7: SI Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 25.08.2011, on the request of Inspector R.D. Pandey, he reached at PS Punjabi Bagh and from there, he alongwith Inspector R.D.Pandey reached at place of incident at Rohtak Road, Near Punjabi Bagh Metro Station. He inspected the same and prepared rough notes. Thereafter they reached at the place of recovery i.e. Vacant land near Jhuggi Golden Park. He also inspected the same and prepared rough notes. Thereafter on 14.09.2011, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW7/A. Thereafter he destroyed his rough notes after preparation of scaled site plan.
vii) PW10: Ct. Vishal deposed that on 02.07.2011, he was posted as Duty Const. at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. On that day, one Kanhiya was got admitted in the hospital in brought dead SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 21 of 79 FIR no.173/11 condition by the PCR officials and he informed at PS Punjabi Bagh in this regard vide DD no.73-B. Dr. concerned had examined the deceased and handed over him items recovered from the body of the deceased Kanhiya and he handed over the same to SI Prahlad Singh who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW2/B.
viii) PW12: Ct. Raj Kumar deposed that on 01.07.2011 duty officer handed over him copy of DD No. 69-B to hand over the same to the IO SI Parhlad. Accordingly he handed over the same to the IO at near the main gate of the police station, Punjabi Bagh. Copy of the DD No. 69-B is mark PW.12/PA.
ix) PW15: SI Daljeet deposed that in the intervening night of 8/9.7.11 he was called by Inspector R.D. Pandey and on his request he joined the investigation in this case, SI Surender Sandhoo, SI Manohar Lal, SI Sandeep Dabaas, HC Vijender, HC Satbir and Ct.Tasvir also joined the investigation on the request of Inspector R.D. Pandey. IO also discussed the facts of the case with them. Thereafter they all the members of police team reached at C-101, Nangloi, Delhi to know about the owner of user of mobile no. 8010202525 where one Giri Raj Kishore met them. IO interrogated him. IO asked him about mobile nos of TATA Company and IDEA Co. as these two nos of TATA and IDEA no.9718935452 were reflecting in the call details of above said mobile no.8010202525. Mr. Giri Raj Kishore disclosed that mobile no of TATA belongs to one Sultan, who is his tenant and residing in Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi in his house. The other mobile no. of IDEA belongs to one Dilip. who is also residing at Nangloi. Thereafter at the instance of Giri Raj Kishore they SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 22 of 79 FIR no.173/11 apprehended both the said persons from their respective houses and they were brought to PS Punjabi Bagh. IO interrogated both of them on the basis of call details as well as facts of this case. Both the persons namely Sultan and Dilip confessed their involvement in the present case along with other accused persons. IO arrested accused Sultan and Dilip vide their arrest memos Ex.PW15/A and PW15/B and their personal search were also conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/C and Both of them also made their disclosure PW15/D respectively, statement, which are Ex. PW15/E and F respectively. They also disclosed that the mobile phones which were robbed from the deceased were with them and they can get recovered the same. Both the accused persons led the police party to their respective houses. Accused Dilip led them in his house at D block, Nangloi and from his room which was on the first floor of the building and from near the T.V lying on shelf, he took out one mobile phone make Samsung Guru and produced the same to the IO. IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/G. The said mobile phone was containing the sim card of IDEA Company i.e. 9718935452. IO kept the same in a cloth parcel and same was sealed with the seal of RD. He also pointed out towards a TSR which was stationed in the street in front of his house and stated it is the same which was used by them while committing the offence of present case. IO seized the TSR bearing registration no. UP-14AB 9080 vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/H. Thereafter accused Sultan led them to his house at house no.570 gali no.2, Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi. He took out one mobile phone make Samsung lying on the bed in his room and produced the same to the IO and stated that it is the same which was robbed by him along with other accused persons SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 23 of 79 FIR no.173/11 from the deceased. IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/I. He had also mentioned the details of the mobile number and phone in the seizure memo. IO also kept this said mobile in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. He also took out one black bag having green stips from the almirah lying in the room. He took out two mobile phone's containers which found containing mobile phone of Samsung Guru. IO check the mobile phone and kept the same in the same container and thereafter kept the same in the same bag. IO seized the mobile phones and bag vide memo Ex. PW15/J and kept the same in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. IO also mentioned the details of mobile nos in the seizure memo. Thereafter they brought both the accused persons to PS Punjabi Bagh. Both of them also got medically examined from the hospital. Thereafter they were produced before the court and IO obtained there 3 days PC remand.
Accused Dilip also disclosed in his disclosure statement that he sold two mobile phones of Samsung Guru in Friends Communication Mobile Shop at Rao Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi and he can get recovered the same. Thereafter at the instance of accused Dilip they reached at Friends Communication Mobile Shop, Rao Vihar, Nangloi, Delhi and he pointed out the shop and towards the person who was sitting in the shop. IO interrogated him and his name revealed as Prakash and Prakash admitted that he had purchased two mobile phones from accused Dilip of Samsung Guru. IO arrested accused Prakash vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/K and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/L. He also made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW15/M. He also produced two containers of Samsung Guru containing mobile phones and IO checked the same and SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 24 of 79 FIR no.173/11 seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/N and also mentioned details of mobiles in the seizure memo. IO kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same in a seal parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD.
Thereafter accused Dilip and Sultan led the police party at Vishnu Garden in search of accused Bhola and Bittoo and they reached at house no. NA-76, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi and from the second floor of the house at the instance of both the accused persons they apprehended one boy whose name was revealed as Bhola on interrogation. Accused Bhola also confessed his involvement in the present case along with other co- accused persons and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/O and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/P. He also As per his made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW15/Q disclosure statement he took out one bag from the tand of room and he produced one mobile phone containing of Samsung Guru and one desi katta lying in the bag. He disclosed that the katta is the same which was used by him during the commission of offence of this case and hit the katta on the head of deceased while committing robbery and mobile phone is the same which was robbed from deceased. IO prepared the sketch of desi katta which is Ex.PW15/R and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/S and kept the same in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. IO also seized the mobile phone of Samsung Guru vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/T. Same was also kept in the cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. IO had also prepared the site plan of the place of recoveries of the case property separately at the time of seizure of the same. The site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phone from the possession of accused Sultan is Ex.PW15/U, site plan of the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 25 of 79 FIR no.173/11 recovery of mobile phone and auto TSR effected from the possession of accused Dilip is Ex.PW15/V, the site plan of recovery of desi katta and mobile phone is Ex.PW15/W. Thereafter all the accused persons were brought to PS Punjabi Bagh along with the case property. Case property deposited in the malkhana. All the accused persons were got medically examined from the hospital and thereafter they were sent to lock- up. All the accused persons produced before the duty MM. Accused persons namely Sultan, Dilip and Prakash were sent to JC and 2 days PC remand of accused Bhola was obtained by the IO. Accused Bhola had also disclosed that he can get recovered the shoes and other articles of the deceased from the jungle behind Golden Park Jhuggis and he led them there after obtaining the police custody remand. He pointed out towards pair of shoes lying in the jungle behind Golden Park Jhuggis. IO seized the shoes vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/X. He also pointed out the same. IO kept the shoes in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. They also searched the other articles of the deceased as disclosed by the accused but none other articles could be traced out there. IO also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of shoes which is Ex. PW15/Y. Thereafter they returned to the police station. IO deposited the case property in the malkhana and he was discharged from the investigation. His statement was recorded by the IO on dt.09.7.11 and 10.7.11.
Accused Dilip pointed out the place of occurrence on 09.7.11 vide pointing out memo Ex.PW15/Z. Witness has stated so after seeing the pointing out memo. Witness correctly identified all the accused persons namely Sultan, Dilip. Bhola and Prakash in court. On 19.08.11 he received one written request from IO Inspector R.D.Pandey regarding seeking the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 26 of 79 FIR no.173/11 second opinion from the Doctor concerned. He also gave him postmortem report of deceased and according to his instruction he also received sealed parcel of desi katta from the MHC(M) in this regard. He took the same to SGM hospital and produced all the above to Dr. concerned for subsequent opinion. The Dr. concerned had examined the same and prepared subsequent opinion and same was given to him along with the above said documents and parcel which was sealed with the seal of SGM hospital containing desi katta. He re-deposited the parcel in the malkhana and handed over the subsequent opinion along with the PM report and relative documents to IO.
On 06.09.11 he received parcel of desi katta from the MHC(M) vide RC no. 135/21/11 along with sample seal of hospital as well as forwarding letter of IO to deposit the same in the office of FSL, Rohini. Accordingly he deposited the same in the office of FSL, Rohini and thereafter he handed over the receipt of the same to the MHC(M).
Again on 07.09.11 he received exhibits from the MHC(M) duly sealed with the seal of hospital and one envelop of khaki colour sealed with the seal of YK along with the sample seal of hospital and forwarding letter of IO to deposit the same in the office of FSL, Rohini, vide RC no.156/21/11 and accordingly he deposited the said parcel in the office of Rohini and thereafter he handed over the receipt of the same to the MHC(M). So long as the parcels remained in his custody they were not tampered with in any manner and remained intact.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. One pair of shoes taken out to which witness stated that these were the same shoes which were seized and recovered at the instance of accused Bhola. Same are Ex.P-2 (already).
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 27 of 79 FIR no.173/11 MHC(M) also produced one more sealed parcel with the seal of court. One bag of green and black colour of Adidas was taken out to which witness has correctly identified the bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Sultan Singh, same is Ex.P-1.
On opening the bag it found to contain two card board boxes of Samsung Guru 1081, Mobile phone which found to contains mobile phones of black colour of Samsung along with charger and batteries as well as their guarantee cards/user manual. Witness correctly identified the same, which was also recovered from the possession of accused Sultan along with the bag. Mobile Phones bearing IMEI No.357165045479128 and 357165045478583 along with card board boxes, charger, batteries, guarantee card/user manual books are Ex.P-7 and P-8.
MHC(M) also produced one sealed yellow envelop sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi. One country made pistol was taken out to which witness has correctly identified to be the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Bhola. Same is Ex.P-9.
MHC(M) produced sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court and from the parcel one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 was taken out which found contains two mobile phones of Samsung of black colour one of them was having red colour strip and other was having blue colour strip along with one charger and user and manual book & guarantee card. IMEI No. of mobile having red strip is 357165042389445 and mobile phone having blue strip bear No.357165043416387, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Prakash, same are Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 28 of 79 FIR no.173/11 MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, same was opened and from the parcel one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 was taken out which found containing one mobile phone of Samsung of black colour having red colour strip and wrapped with white tape containing battery and SIM Card of Idea along with yellow colour SIM card cover of mobile No.9718935452 having IMEI No. 357165045229580, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Dalip, same is Ex. PW15/A-1.
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, from the parcel one mobile phone make Samsung was taken out having red colour strip, IMEI No. 357165045229440, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Bhola, same is Ex.PW15/A-2.
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, from the parcel one mobile phone make Tata Indicom was taken out having blue colour strip. On opening back cover of mobile photograph on one lady was found lying in the mobile, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from search of accused Sultan.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. One mobile phone of black colour Samsung having the sticker of Virgin Mobile, Model FCCID A3LSCHB279 No.SCH-B279, Bar cell по. А10000090EEA10 DEC 2008 containing sim of TATA Indicom bearing no.A10000008026280 (8028 D038) was taken out, to which witness correctly identified the mobile phone which was recovered from the possession of accused Sultan, same is already Ex.PW-17/P-1. Witness has also SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 29 of 79 FIR no.173/11 stated that with the help of call detail of this phone accused persons were tracked out. Only three mobile phones of Samsung (two samsung Guru and one samsung Virgin) were recovered from the possession of accused Sultan. No mobile phone of TATA was recovered from his possession.
He had also collected subsequent opinion from the forensic department SGM hospital of weapon of offence i.e. katta and he produced the katta containing parcel along with request of IO along with RC no.and postmortem report to the doctor concerned. After collecting the same he deposited the parcels in malkhana and subsequent along with other documents handed over to the IO.
MHC(M) has stated that the auto bearing registration no. UP-14AB-9080 was not in a position to move and lying in the Malkhana in damage/decompose condition. He has produced two photographs showing the auto therein and the witness correctly identified the auto which was seized by the IO in his presence. Photographs are Ex.PW15/PA1 and Ex.PW15/PA2.
Six more photographs of the auto bearing registration no. UP-14AB-9080 which are placed on record were shown to the witness and witness had identified the auto shown therein which was seized by the IO in his presence. The photographs are Ex.PW15/PA3 to Ex.PW15/A8 respectively.
x) PW16: HC Shanti Swaroop deposed that on 02.07.11 Duty officer SI Jagdish Prasad handed over to him a copy of FIR and original rukka to hand over the same to IO Inspector R.D.Pandey and he handed over the same to Inspector R.D.Pandey at the spot at near Power House, Punjabi Bagh, Metro Station.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 30 of 79 FIR no.173/11
xi) PW17: HC Bijender Kumar deposed that on 08.07.11 he along with Inspector R.D.Pandey, IO of this case, SI Surender Sandhu, SI Manohar Lal and SI Sandeep Dabaas, SI Daljeet and HC Satbir, Ct. Tasvir at about 8.30 PM went to the house of Giri Raj Singh at C-101, Nangloi, Shiv Ram Park in a private vehicle to verify the mobile no.8010202525 where Giri Raj Singh met them and IO interrogated him. He told them that the same no.belongs to Sultan Singh and other no having initial four digits as 9718 belongs to Dalip. Thereafter they went to the house of Dalip along with Giri Raj Singh, who was residing in the nearby house of Giri Raj Singh. Dalip met them there and he was also interrogated by the IO. Thereafter they along with Dalip Singh and Giri Raj Singh went to the house of Sultan Singh at Ashoka Mohalla, Nangloi. Sultan Singh met them there. Thereafter they along with Sultan Singh and Dalip returned to PS Punjabi Bagh. Both were interrogated by the IO in their presence. Both They also confessed their involvement in the present case confessed that they along with other accused persons committed murder of deceased of this case and also robbed him. Both were arrested vide their arrest memo Ex.PW15/A(Sultant) and PW15/B (Dalip). Their personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/C and PW15/D respectively. Both the accused also made their disclosure statements which are Ex.PW15/E and F respectively.
Thereafter accused Dalip led them to his house at Laxmi Park, Nangloi and from the first floor of his house he got recovered one mobile phone of Samsung lying near the almirah and T.V.on slab and produced the same to the IO. He stated that this mobile was robbed in the present case. The said mobile containing sim of Idea Co.having initial no.9718. Same was SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 31 of 79 FIR no.173/11 seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW15/B and same was kept in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. He also got recovered one TSR which was stationed out side his house and he disclosed that they used the TSR during commission of offence of present case bearing registration no. UP14AB 9080. Same was also seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW15/H. Thereafter accused Sultan led the police to his house at Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi. He took out one black bag from the room of his house having green strips and he took out two mobile phones of Samsung from the bag and produced the same to the IO and stated that these mobile phone were robbed in the present case. Both the mobile phones and bag were seized by the IO and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW-15/J and kept the same in a cloth parcel and same were sealed with the seal of RD. He also produced one mobile phone make Samsung of black colour which were lying on the bed bearing sim of mobile no.9289450732, same was also seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW15/l and same was also kept in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. With the help of call details of above said mobile no they reached to the accused Sultan. Thereafter they produced both the accused persons produced before the court and IO obtained three days PC remand of both the accused persons. Both the accused were medically examined and thereafter they returned to PS. IO deposited the case property in malkhana.
Thereafter in the search of other co-accused persons they reached Friends Communication Mobile Shop, Rao Vihar, Nangioi and both the accused persons pointed out the shop and they stated that they sold two mobile phones of Samsung Guru at said shop. They also pointed out towards the person, who was SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 32 of 79 FIR no.173/11 sitting in the shop to whom they sold the mobile phones. IO interrogated that person whose name revealed as Prakash Chawla. Prakash admitted that they sold him two mobile phones and he produced them two mobile phones lying in a container. IO seized both the phones vide memo Ex.PW15/N. IO arrested Prakash vide memo Ex.PW15/K and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW15/L. He also made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW15/M. IO kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of RD. Both the accused persons disclosed that these phones were also robbed by them.
Thereafter both the accused persons led them at Vishnu Garden in search of other accused persons and they reached at NA-76, Second floor, Vishnu Garden in search of accused Bhola. Accused Bhola met them and they apprehended him at the instance of both the said accused persons at said address. IO interrogated him and Bhola also confessed his involvement in the present case and disclosed that he along with other accused persons committed the offence of present case. He also took out one bag from the tand of his room which found to contain one desi katta and one mobile phone of Samsung Guru which was also robbed in this case. Bhola also disclosed that he used the desi katta while causing injuries on the head of deceased with the handle of katta. IO prepared the sketch of the desi katta which is Ex.PW15/R and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/S. IO also seized the mobile phone of Samsung Guru vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/T. IO kept them in a separate cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. IO arrested accused Bhola vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/O and his personal search was conducted vide He made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW15/P. Ex.PW15/Q. 10 had also prepared all site SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 33 of 79 FIR no.173/11 plans of place of recovery.
The site plan of the place of recovery of case property from the possession of accused Sultan is Ex.PW15/U (Mobile phone) and site plan of place of recovery of mobile phone and TSR effected at the instance of accused Dalip is Ex.PW15/V and site plan of the case property effected at the instance of accused is Ex. PW15/W. Thereafter all the accused persons was got medically examined and brought to PS Punjabi Bagh and IO deposited the case property in the malkhana.
On next day accused Bhola led them on the back side of Golden Park near Jhugis and from the vacant place he got recovered shoes of gray colour lying there and IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/X. The said shoes belongs to deceased. IO kept the same in a cloth parcel and same was sealed with the seal of RD and IO prepared the site plan of the same which is Ex.PW15/Y. Thereafter they returned to the PS. IO deposited the case property in the malkhana.
Accused Dalip had also pointed out the place of occurrence where they shoot the deceased and thrown him while pointing out memo Ex.PW15/Z. He correctly identified all the accused persons namely Bhola, Dalip, Sultan and Prakash in the court.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel which was sealed with the seal of court. One bag of green and black colour of Adidas was taken out to which witness correctly identified the bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Sultan Singh, same is Ex.P-1 (already).
On opening the bag it found to contain two card board boxes of Samsung Guru 1081, Mobile phone which found SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 34 of 79 FIR no.173/11 to contains mobile phones of black colour of samsung along with charger and batteries as well as their guarantee card/user manual to which witness correctly identified the same, which was also recovered from the possession of accused Sultan along with the bag. Mobile phones bearing IMEI No.357165045479128 and 357165045478583 along with card board boxes, charger, batteries, guarantee card/user manual books are Ex.P-7 and P-8.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. One pair of shoes of dark grey colour, label of Spycar taken out shown to the witness who stated that these are the same shoes which were seized and recovered at the instance of accused Bhola. Same are Ex.P-2 (already).
MHC(M) also produced one sealed yellow envelop sealed with the seal of FSL, Delhi. One country made pistol was taken out to which witness correctly identified to be the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Bhola. Same is Ex.P-9.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the court seal. One mobile phone of Samsung of black colour (Virgin) Mobile containing sim of Tata Indicom having no.A10000090EEA10Dec.2008no.A10000080262B0(8028B038) . bearing sim to which witness has correctly identified the mobile phone which was recovered at the instance of accused Sultan Singh which was lying on the bed in his room. Same is Ex.PW-17/P-1.
MHC(M) produced sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, from the parcel one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 was taken out which found contains two mobile phones of Samsung of black colour one of them was having red colour strip and other was having blue colour strip SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 35 of 79 FIR no.173/11 along with one charger and user and manual book & guarantee card. IMEI No. of mobile having red strip is 357165042389445 and mobile phone having blue strip bear No.357165043416387, to which witness has correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Prakash, same are Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5.
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 was taken out which found containing one mobile phone of Samsung of black colour having red colour strip and wrapped with white tape containing battery and SIM Card of Idea along with yellow colour SIM card cover of mobile No.9718935452 having IMEI No.357165045229580, witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Dalip, same is Ex.PW15/A-1.
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, one mobile phone make Samsung was taken out having red colour strip, IMEI No. 357165045229440, witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Bhola, same is Ex.PW15/A-2.
xii) PW19: Ct. Hemant Kumar deposed that on 02.07.11 duty officer SI Jagdish Pershad had handed over him copy of FIR to hand over the same to area MM and Joint CP and accordingly he took the same and he delivered the copy of FIR in the house of area MM and Joint CP. He went there on government motor cycle wherein registration no.DL1SN 9688.
xiii)PW22: HC Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 01.07.11 he was SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 36 of 79 FIR no.173/11 posted as Incharge on PCR Van No. Pow.91. On that day at about 9.45 PM he received call from control room that one person is lying in unconscious condition near Power House, Punjabi Bagh Metro station. He reached there along with staff where he found one person was lying there in unconscious condition and he took him in PCR van to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and got him admitted there. After examination doctor concern declared him brought dead. He gave message to Control Room. Lateron IO of this case met him and recorded his statement.
xiv)PW23: ASI Jasbir deposed that he had been summoned to bring the record of PCR Call Book. As per record, the call book record for the period from 01.07.11 to 31.12.11 have been destroyed vide office order no.4570-4653/HAR/Br./PCR dated 15.05.15 as per the order of competent authority. The relevant record in this record running into three pages is Ex.PW23/A (colly). Record of the PCR form which is Ex.PW23/B has also been destroyed as per the order of competent authority.
xv)PW25: HC Rohtash brought attested copy of police control room form regarding recording of message in police control room PHO, ITO, Delhi on 01.07.11 at about 21.43.10 hours by the operator on receipt of message from mobile no.9899878246 regarding lying of a person in unconscious condition near Punjabi Bagh metro station in front of Power house, Main Road. The attested copy of police control room form is Ex.PW25/A. xvi) PW26: SI Yogender Kumar deposed that on 27.07.11 he received the sealed parcel of viscera petty from the MHC(M) to deposit the same at FSL, Rohini and accordingly deposited the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 37 of 79 FIR no.173/11 said viscera petty along with sample seal in the office of FSL, Rohini and thereafter he handed over the receipt of the same to the MHC(M). So long as the parcel remained in his custody it was not tampered with in any manner and remained intact.
On same day he had also taken the TSR bearing registration no. UP14 AB9080 to FSL, Rohini for examination from the malkhana of PS Punjabi Bagh as per instructions of IO. On the same day examination of the same was conducted by Sr.Scientific officer Ms. Babita and she lifted the exhibits from inside the TSR and kept the same in envelop which was sealed by him with the seal of YK and he deposited the envelop in the malkhana with TSR. So long as the exhibits and TSR remained in his custody those were not tampered with in any manner and remained intact.
xvii)PW27: Ct. Praveen Kumar deposed that On 02.07.11 he was posted as Chat PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. On that day he was working as computer operator and as per instructions of the Duty officer, he recorded FIR of this case on computer which is Ex.PW-1/A. xviii)PW28: SI Azad Singh deposed that On 02.07.2011 he was posted in mobile crime team West District. On that day on receiving information from Control room west district he along with his team comprising HC Devender Photographer, HC Udham Singh, Finger Print Proficient reached main Rohtak Road opposite Power House at about 1:15 am. He inspected the scene of Crime, there was small blood spot on scene of crime. He prepared his report same is Ex.PW28/A. SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 38 of 79 FIR no.173/11 (xix) PW28: ASI Devender deposed that on 01/02.07.2011 he was posted as HC in Mobile Crime Team, West Delhi. On that day, on receipt of message he along with ASI Azad, Incharge of mobile team and HC Udham Singh proficient visited the spot at Main Rohtak Road, near Power House, Near Metro Station Punjabi Bagh, near bus stop where IO along with staff met them. Blood was lying on the spot. As per the instructions of IO, he took five photographs of the spot and the blood lying there. Same are Ex. PW28/A1 to A5 and negatives of the same are Ex. PW28/B1 to B5.
xx)PW29: Ct. Sukarmpal deposed that on 09.07.11 he was posted as Ct.in Mobile Crime Team, West Dist. Delhi. On that day he along with Incharge of Crime Team SI Kuldeep Singh visited the police station Punjabi Bagh where IO of this case met them and on the request of IO he took six photographs of TSR bearing UP14 AN9080 from different angles and he had brought the photographs, same are Ex.PW-29/A1 to A6 and the negatives of the same are Ex.PW-29/B1 to B6.
xxi) PW31: HC Satbir Singh deposed that on 08/09.07.11 he joined the investigation of this case and he along with police staff i.e. IO, SI Sandeep Dabaas, SI Manohar Lal, SI Surender Sandhu, HC Bijender and Ct. Tasvir left the police station and reached at C-101, Shiv Park, Nangloi, Delhi where IO met with Mr. Giriraj Kishore, subscriber of mobile no.8010202525 and interrogated him. IO showed him two mobile nos.i.e. 9289450732 and 9718935452 and asked him about the user and on this Mr.Giriraj told to the IO that one was being used by Sultan Singh and other was used by Dilip Kumar respectively. Thereafter at the instance SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 39 of 79 FIR no.173/11 of Giriraj Kishore, Sultan Singh and Dilip Singh, who were residing in the neighborhood of Giriraj Kishore were taken to police station and IO interrogated both of them at the police station. They were interrogated by the IO on the basis of the call details. Both the accused persons namely Sultan Singh and Dilip Singh disclosed that they robbed a passenger who was taken from Nangloi in their auto and on his objection they shoot him and caused gun injuries on his head and they robbed one mobile phone from him along with other two accused persons namely Bittoo and Bhola. IO arrested both of them vide their arrest memos Ex.PW15/A and PW-15/B and their personal search was also conducted vide memos Ex.PW15/C and PW-15/D respectively. Both of them also made their disclosure statement to the IO and IO recorded the same which are Ex.PW15/E and PW-15/F respectively. Both the accused persons also confessed that they can get recovered robbed mobiles phone and auto and in pursuance of disclosure statement both of them led them to their respective houses. First of all accused Dilip led them to his house at D-180, Laxmi Park, Nangloi and from the second floor of his rented house, he got recovered one mobile phone Samsung Guru which was lying near the almirah and T.V. and produced the same to the IO and stated that it is the same mobile which was robbed from a person at Punjabi Bagh. IO seized the mobile phone through seizure memo Ex.PW-15/G and kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. Accused Dilip also pointed out the TSR which was stationed in the street near his house and stated it is the same which was used during the commission of crime of this case. IO seized the TSR bearing no. UP14AB 9080 through seizure memo Ex.PW15/H. Thereaffer accused Sultan led them to his house at house no.570, SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 40 of 79 FIR no.173/11 gali no.2, Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi and from the room at ground floor of his house, he took out one bag of black and green colour containing two mobile phones of Samsung Guru and produced the same to the IO and stated that the bag and the mobile phones were robbed from the person in this case. seized the bag and mobile phones Brough memo Ex.PW15/J. IO kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. Both the mobile phones were lang in boxes of Samsung Guru.
Thereafter both the accused persons were got medically examined and thereafter produced before the court and IO took their two days PC remand and thereafter they returned to the police station.
Again in the evening time they along with police staff and both the accused persons left the police station for the recovery of case property. Both the accused persons led them to Rao Vihar, Nangloi and reached at shop Friends Tele Communication where young boy was sitting and accused Dilip pointed out towards him and stated that they sold him two mobile phones about 5-6 days back. IO interrogated that boy whose name revealed as Prakash Chawla and he produced two mobile phones of Samsung-Guru-lying in boxes of Samsung, IO seized both the mobile phones with boxes through memo Ex.PW15/N and kept the same in a cloth parcel with the seal of RD. IO arrested accused Prakash Kumar Chawla vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/K and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/L. He also made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW15/M. Thereafter both the accused persons namely Sultan and Dilip led them to Raghubir Nagar and reached near H.No.NA-76 Vishnu Garden and stated that their associates namely Bhola and Bittoo were residing there and also working SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 41 of 79 FIR no.173/11 there in a factory of sewing machine. They reached at the second floor where accused Bhola was pointed out by both the accused persons and they apprehended him and IO made interrogation from him and he confessed that one robbed mobile phone and katta which was used during commission of offence lying in a bag and he can get recovered the same. Thereafter, from the tand of second floor of the said factory, he took out one bag of black colour which was found containing one katta and one mobile phone of samsung guru and produced the same to the IO. He also stated that katta was the same which was used during the commission of offence of this case and mobile phone was the same which was robbed in this case. IO seized the mobile phone through seizure memo Ex.PW-15/T and kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. IO also prepared the sketch of katta which is Ex.PW-15/R and seized the same through memo Ex.PW15/S and kept the same in a cloth parcel and same was also sealed with the seal of RD. IO also arrested accused Bhola vide memo Ex.PW15/0 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/P. IO also recorded the disclosure statement which is Ex.PW15/Q. IO also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of mobile phone recovered at the instance of accused Bhola which is Ex.PW15/W. IO had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of auto effected at the instance of accused Dilip which is Ex.PW15/V. Thereafter all the accused persons were medically examined and thereafter sent to lock up.
On next day i.e. on 10.07.11 accused persons produced before the court and IO look PC remand of accused Bhola for two days and remaining accused persons were sent to JC. During the PC remand accused Bhola also made disclosure SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 42 of 79 FIR no.173/11 statement that they had thrown the shoes of deceased in a vacant plot behind Golden Park Jhugis, Punjabi Bagh and he led them there and from the vacant plot in a abandoned area and from the mud (kichar) he took out one pair of shoes of brown (matiala) colour of Spira Joggar Shoes and produced the same to the IO, who seized the same through seizure memo Ex PW15/X and sealed the same in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. IO also prepared site plan of the place of recovery of shoes which is Ex.PW-15/Y. Thereafter they returned to the PS and accused got medically examined and sent to the lock up.
On 12.10.11 accused Bittoo surrendered before the court of concerned MM and IO with the permission of court interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-31/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-31/B and accused Bittoo also made his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW-31/C. IO obtained PC remand of accused Bittoo upto 15.10.11 and thereafter during the PC remand on 14.10.11 they reached along with accused Bittoo at village Mysore, Kashipur (UP) at the instance of accused Bittoo. Accused Bittoo took out one mobile phone of Samsung Guru from the wall of bricks of inner room of his house which was hidden behind the brick and produced the same to the IO. He also took out one more mobile phone of make Nokia 1208 from the taand of room which he was using and produced the same to the IO. IO seized the mobile phone make Samsung Guru through memo Ex.PW-31/D and kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with seal of RD. IO also seized mobile phone make Nokia through memo Ex.PW-31/E. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW-31/F. Thereafter they returned to Delhi. Accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 43 of 79 FIR no.173/11 memo Ex.PW-31G on 12.10.11. IO recorded his statement. Witness has correctly identified all the accused persons in court.
MHC(M) also produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. One bag of green and black colour of Adidas was taken out to which witness correctly identified the bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Sultan Singh, same is Ex.P-1.
On opening the bag it found to contain two card board boxes of Samsung Guru 1081, Mobile phone which found to contains mobile phones of black colour of samsung along with charger and batteries as well as their guarantee card/user manual. Witness correctly identified the same, which was also recovered from the possession of accused Sultan along with the bag. Mobile phones bearing IMEI No.357165045479128 and 357165045478583 along with card board boxes, charger, batteries, guarantee card/user manual books are Ex.P-7 and P-8.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. One pair of shoes of dark grey colois, label of Spycar taken out and witness stated that these were the same shoes which were seized and recovered at the instance of accused Bhola. Same are Ex.P-2.
MHC(M) also produced one sealed yellow envelop sealed with the seal of court. One country made pistol was taken out and witness correctly identified to be the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Bhola. Same is Ex.P-9.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel sealed with the court seal. One mobile phone of Samsung of black colour (Virgin) Mobile containing sim of Tata Indicom having no A10000090EEA10 Dec.2008 bearing sim no.
A10000080262B0(8028B038). Witness correctly identified the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 44 of 79 FIR no.173/11 mobile phone which was recovered at the instance of accused Sultan Singh which was lying on the bed in his room. Same is Ex.PW-17/P-1.
MHC(M) produced sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 which found contains two mobile phones of Samsung of black colour one of them was having red colour strip and other was having blue colour strip along with one charger and user and manual book & guarantee card. IMEI No. of mobile having red strip is 357165042389445 and mobile phone having blue strip bear No.357165043416387, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Prakash, same are Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5.
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court and from the parcel one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 was taken out which found containing one mobile phone of Samsung of black colour having red colour strip and wrapped with white tape containing battery and SIM Card of Idea along with yellow colour SIM card cover of mobile No.9718935452 having IMEI No.357165045229580, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Dalip, same is Ex.PW15/A-1.
MHC(M) produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court and from the parcel one mobile phone make Samsung was taken out having red colour strip, IMEI No. 357165045229440, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which were recovered from the possession of accused Bhola, same is Ex.PW-15/A-2.
MHC(M) produced one sealed parcel having seal of SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 45 of 79 FIR no.173/11 court. One mobile phone of Samsung Guru of black colour having red strip containing battery and IMEI No.357165045229473, to which witness correctly identified to be the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Bittoo from his house. Same is Ex.PW-31/A-1.
MHC(M) also produced another sealed parcel which also having the seal of court. One mobile phone make Nokia 1208 containing battery and sim of Idea was taken out and witness correctly identified the phone which was also recovered from the possession of accused Bittoo @ Avinash Raghav. Same is Ex.PW-31/A-2.
xxii) PW32: Ct. Anil Kumar deposed that on 01.08.11 he was posted as Constable at PS Punjabi Bagh. Delhi. On that day as per the instructions of the IO he received two sealed parcels from the MHC(M) of PS Punjabi Bagh and came to Tis Hazari Court in the concerned court of Ld.MM of PS Punjabi Bagh for the purpose of getting conducted the TIP of case property. After the TIP he received back both the parcels which were sealed with the seal of court and he re-deposited the same in the malkhana. IO was also with him in the court at the time of getting conducted the TIP proceedings. IO recorded his statement.
xxiii)PW35: Ct. Hemant deposed that on 02.07.11, he was posted as Constable at PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. On that day, Duty Officer of PS Punjabi Bagh had handed over him three copies of FIR to deliver the same Area Magistrate, Joint CP and DCP West and accordingly, he took the same on Govt. Motorcycle and delivered the same at the residence of above said officers. IO recorded by statement.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 46 of 79 FIR no.173/11 xxiv)PW36: HC Harjiwan Singh Dhillion deposed that on 13.10.2011, he was posted as Ct. P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. On that day, he alongwith Insp. R. D. Pandey, IO of this case and HC, Sabir alongwith accused Avnish Raghav Bittu on private vehicle left the PS to go to Kashganj. They got medically examined the accused from Safdarjung Hospital. They reached at Kashganj in the midnight. On the way, IO interrogated the accused. Accused had disclosed on the way that he had thrown the katta in the river but he did not specify the same. They made arrival in the local PS from where took one Ct. and thereafter they reached the village of the accused Avnish Raghav Bittu. Accused Avnish Bittu led them to his house in the village. Accused took out one polythene which was lying in between the bricks of wall of bricks and he produced the same to the IO which found to contain one mobile phone make Samsung and stated that it is the same mobile which was robbed by him alongwith other accused persons from Punjabi Bagh near Metro Station. He kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. IO also seized the same vide memo Ex.PW31/D. He also took out one mobile phone make Nokia from the taand in the same room and same was also produced to the IO. kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. IO also seized the same vide memo Ex.PW31/E. Accused was also got medically examined from the Govt. Hospital of Kashganj. Thereafter they retumed back to PS Punjabi Bagh, Delhi in the evening of 14.10.2011. Witness correctly identified the Avnish. Witness has wrongly identified the accused Bhola as accused Avnish Raghav @ Bittu.
MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel having SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 47 of 79 FIR no.173/11 seal of court. Seal broken and from the parcel one mobile phone of Samsung of black colour having red strip containing battery and IMEI No.357165045229473, witness correctly identified to be the same which was recovered from the possession of accused Bittoo from his house. Same is Ex.PW-31/A-1.
MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel which also having the seal of court. Seal broken and from the parcel one mobile phone make Nokia 1208 containing battery and sim of Idea having IMEI No. 454868022099388 was taken out to which witness has correctly identified the phone which was also recovered from the possession of accused Bittoo @ Avinash Raghav. Same is Ex.PW-31/A-2.
He admitted that they had gone to the village of accused Avnish Raghav @ Bittoo at Mysore P.S. Sahawar, District Kashganj, Kashiram Nagar, U. P. Ld. Addl. PP pointed out towards the accused Avnish Raghav @ Bittoo who was in custody and on seeing the same the witness had correctly identified the accused Avnish Raghav Bittoo who got recovered the above said mobile phones from his house at Mysore P.S. Sahawar, District Kashganj, Kashiram Nagar, U. P. He admitted that due to the lapse of time, he could not identify the accused properly.
xxv)PW37: SI Kuldeep deposed that on 09.07.2011, he as posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, West District, Delhi. On that day, on receipt of information from Control Room. West District, Delhi, he alongwith photographer Ct. Sukhram Pal and finger print proficient ASI Dharambir Singh went PS Punjabi Bangh where IO met them and at his instance he mechanically examined the Auto bearing registration No. UP14-AB-9080. The Ct.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 48 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Sukhram Pal took the photographs of the auto. Thereafter he prepared SOC/inspection report which is Ex.PW37/A. xxvi)PW41: Insp. R. D. Pandey deposed that on 02.07. 2011, he was posted as Insp. Investigation at P.S. Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. On that day, after registration of FIR of this case. Investigation of the same was marked to him. Thereafter, he visited the spot alongwith ASI Prahlad and he inspected the spot. In the mean time, H. Ct. Shanti Swaroop reached there and he handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka. At the instance of ASI Prahlad, he prepared site plan which is Ex.PW41/A. Thereafter, they returned to the PS. He recorded the statements of PWS ASI Prahlad and Constable who visited the spot alongwith Ct. Prahlad and members of the Crime Team as well as PCR officials.
On 04.07.2011, Mr. Sumit Bhutani had handed over him a letter which is Ex.PW30/A containing the IMEI numbers of the mobile phones which were given to the deceased and the same were carrying by the deceased at the time of incident. He put all the 10 IMEI numbers on the surveillance as given by Mr. Sumit Bhutani. He came to know that two mobile phones having IMEI numbers of three robbed mobile phones of deceased (as mentioned in letter Ex.30/A at sl. no.1 to 3) were being used in the area of Nangloi by using the sim of TATA and Idea and were in contact of one Giriraj Kishore. On 08.07.2011, they contacted Giriraj Kishore and reached to his residence at C-101, Shiv Park, Nangloi. He made inquiry from him regarding the two IMEI numbers which were in his contact. He told that the said mobile phones having the said IMEI number Belonged to accused Dilip and Sultan. Giriraj Kishore also told that accused Dilip and Sultan are his neighbourers. Thereafter, he alongwith the police SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 49 of 79 FIR no.173/11 team and Giriraj Kishore went to the house of Dilip first which was in the same locality and they apprehended him from his house at the instance of Giriraj Kishore. Thereafter, they alongwith Giriraj Kishore and accused Dilip went to the house of accused Sultan which was also in the same vicinity and he was also apprehended from his house and thereafter, they took them to the PS Punjabi Bagh. They interrogated both the accused persons Dilip and Sultan on the basis of the call details of their mobile phones having the two IMEI numbers of robbed mobile phones of deceased. Both the accused persons confessed their guilt and their involvement in the present case and disclosed that they have robbed 10 mobile phones from the possession of deceased Kanhiya Dey at Punjabi Bagh underpass alongwith their co-accused Bhola and Bittoo and they had also committed his murder by causing gun shot injury. He arrested both the accused persons namely Dilip and Sultan vide arrest memos Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15/A respectively and their personal search were also conducted vide memos Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/C respectively. Both the accused persons made their disclosure statement which are Ex.PW15/F and Ex.PW15/E respectively. Both the accused persons had confessed that they can get arrested the co-accused persons & get recovered the robbed mobile phones and the TSR which was used by them during the commission of crime of this case. Thereafter, they alongwith both the accused persons reached at the house of accused Dilip at House No.D-180, Laxmi Park, Nangloi, Delhi and he took out one mobile phone of Samsung Guru of black and red colour, Model No.1081 containing sim of Idea from his rented room at first floor which was lying near the TV and stated that it was the same mobile phone which was robbed from the SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 50 of 79 FIR no.173/11 deceased alongwith other mobile phones. He also produced one dabba of white and yellow colour of the said mobile phone and one cover of sim card. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/G and kept the said mobile in the same dabba and kept the said article in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. Thereafter, accused Dilip also pointed out towards the TSR bearing registration No.UP14-AB-9080 which was stationed in front of his house and stated that it is the same TSR which was used by them during the commission of crime of this case. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/H. Thereafter, they reached at the house of accused Sultan i.e. House No.570, Gali No.2. Ashok Mohalla, Nangloi, Delhi and he took out one mobile phone make Samsung Virgin of black colour, Model No.SCH- B279 containing two sims from his rented room, which was lying on the bed in his room. The same mobile phone was of accused Sultan. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/l alongwith the sims and kept the same in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. Accused Sultan Singh had also produced one black and green colour bag from his room which found to contain two boxes of white and yellow colour of Samsung Guru 1081 and both the boxes found to contain one mobile phone each which were robbed from the deceased. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/J and kept the said mobile phones in the said dabbas and same kept in the bag and bag was sealed with the seal of RD. Thereafter, he produced both the accused persons before the court and he obtained their three days PC remand.
The accused Dilip Singh had used his sim bearing no.9718935452 in the robbed mobile of complainant bearing IMEI No.357165045229580 on 02.07.2011 and due to the call detail record, they came to know that accused Dilip Singh used to SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 51 of 79 FIR no.173/11 talk with one Giriraj on his mobile bearing по 8010202525 and therefore, they had reached to Giriraj Kishore and had made inquiry from him about the accused Dilip Singh and he took them to accused Dilip and Sultan. They kept all the ten IMEI numbers of the robbed mobile phones on the surveillance. He had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the mobile phone which was recovered at the instance of accused Sultan which is Ex.PW15/U. He had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the mobile phones and TSR which were recovered at the instance of accused Dilip which is Ex.PW15/B. During the PC remand, the accused Dilip had also pointed out the place of occurrence and he prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW15/Z and at the instance of both the accused persons namely Dilip and Sultan, they reached at Rao Vihar, Friends Communication, Mobile Shop where accused Dilip pointed out towards a person namely Prakash Chawla, who was sitting in the above shop to whom they had sold two robbed mobile phones. They apprehended Prakash Chawla and he interrogated him and he confessed that he had purchased two mobile phones of make Samsung Guru 1081 from accused Dilip Singh in the sum of Rs.400/- each, he arrested the accused Prakash Chawla vide arrested memo Ex.PW15/K and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/L and he also made his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW15/M. The accused Prakash Chawla took out two boxes of Samsung Mobile Phone make Guru 1081 of white and yellow colour containing one mobile phone in each box from his shop. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/N and he noted their IMEI numbers therein and kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 52 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Thereafter, at the instance of Dilip and Sultan, they reached at factory of Sewing Machine at NA-76, Vishnu Garden, Raghubeer Nagar, Delhi in the search of other accused persons namely Bhola and Bittoo. Accused Bhola met them there and he interrogated him and he also confessed his involvement in the present case and disclosed that he alongwith the other co-accused persons robbed 10 mobiles phones from one person and committed his murder. Accused Bhola was also residing in the same factory from where he was apprehended. He arrested the accused Bhola vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/0 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW15/P and he made his disclosure statement and he recorded the same vide memo Ex.PW15/Q. Thereafter, accused Bhola took out one mobile phone make Samsung Gugu 1081 of black and red colour from the taand of second floor of the said godown/factory which was kept by him in a bag and produced the same to him and stated that it is one of the mobile phones which was robbed from the deceased of this case at underpass Panjabi Bagh. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/T and kept the same in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. He had mentioned the IMEI of the same in the seizure memo. He had also produced one dessi katta which was also kept in the same bag and I seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/S. He prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW15/R and measured its length and width. He kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seat of RD Accused Bhola had also disclosed that he had used the said katta at the time of robbery and hit the but of the same on the forehead of deceased. He had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of dessi katta which is Ex.PW15/W. He had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of shoes of SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 53 of 79 FIR no.173/11 deceased which is Ex. PW15/X. Thereafter, he produced accused Bhola, Prakash and Dilip before the court and he took two days PC remand of Bhola and accused Dilip and Prakash were sent to JC. They brought accused Bhola to the PS. Thereafter, on the same day, accused Bhola led them to Golden Park, Ram Pura, Panjabi Bagh, Delhi in the evening and from the bushes inside the park at the lonely place, he took out one pair of shoe having label of Spira Light Weight Jogger and stated that it is the same shoes which were wearing by the deceased at the time of incident and they were came out from the legs of the deceased during the scuffle at the time of incident and he took the same from the TSR and thrown the same there. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW15/X and kept the same in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of RD. Thereafter, they returned to PS. He deposited all the case properties in the Malkhana and recorded the statements of PWs, who remained with him during the said investigation.
On 01.08.2011, he moved an application before the court of concerned Ld. M.M. for the TIP of recovered bag and shoes of deceased and on the same day in the afternoon, the TIP was conducted and witness Nanda Dey wife of deceased had correctly identified the bag and shoes. He collected the copy of the same.
On 25.08.2011, he got inspected the spot from the draftsman Sl Mahesh and he prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW7/A and he obtained the same from him and placed the same on record.
On 27.09.2011, Sh. Vipin Kataria, Incharge of Security Agency where the deceased was working came to him in the PS and he produced the photocopy of bills of 40 mobile SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 54 of 79 FIR no.173/11 phones including the 10 robbed mobile phones, photocopy of bills of 110 pieces of other mobile phones of Samsung Guru, paper containing the IMEI numbers of the said mobile phones (running into six pages) before him and he kept the same on record and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. The photocopy of the bills of 40 mobile phones is Mark PW6/PA and photocopy of other bills of other mobile phones of Samsung Guru 1081 is Mark PW30/PB. The paper containing the IMEI numbers of Samsung produced by Vipin Kataria is Ex.PW13/PC. He recorded his statement.
During the investigation, he had also collected the postmortem report and all inquest papers, DD No.69B which is Ex.PW12/PA, DD No.73B which is Ex.PW41/PX, DD No.35A which is Ex.PW41/PX1, DD No.36A which is Ex.PW41/PX2 and scene of crime reports which are Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW37/A. He had also collected the subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW20/B and PCR form which is Ex.PW23/B. He had also collected the call details record of mobile phones of Giriraj Kishore (running into four pages Ex.PW41/PX3) and accused Dilip (running into six pages Ex.PW41/PX4). He had also collected documents regarding the employment of the deceased Kanhiya Dey from his Security Company including the documents of his identity proof (running into 8 pages). After the completion of investigation, he prepared charge sheet and sent the same to court through SHO. During the investigation, he had collected the process under Section 82 Cr. P. C. of accused Bittoo @ Avnish Raghav.
On 12.10.2011, accused Bittoo @ Avnish Raghav had surrendered before the court. He with the permission of the court, interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 55 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Ex.PW31/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW31/B. He also made his disclosure statement and he recorded the same vide memo Ex.PW31/C. He obtained his three days PC remand and during the police custody i.e. on 12.10.2011. he led them at the place of occurrence and pointed out the same and he prepared pointing out memo which is Ex.PW31/G. On 14.10.2011, accused led them to his house at Village Mayasur, Kashi Ram Nagar, U.P. and from the taand of room of his house, he got recovered his personal mobile phone and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW31/E. He also got recovered one mobile phone of make Samsung of black and red colour from inside room of his house which he kept in between the bricks of the wall of his room in a polythene and produced the same to him and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW31/D and he disclosed that it is the same phone which was robbed from the deceased from the underpass of Panjabi Bagh. He kept the same in a cloth parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RD. He had also mentioned the IMEI numbers of both the mobile phones in their seizure memos. He had also prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the mobile phones which is Ex.PW31/F. Thereafter, they returned back to the PS. He deposited the case property in the Malkhana and recorded the statements of PWs, who remained with him during the investigation. On the next date, he produced the accused before the court and he was remanded to JC. The supplementary charge sheet of accused Avnish Raghav was prepared and filed in the court.
MHC(M) has also produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court. Seal was broken and from the parcel one bag of green and black colour of Adidas taken out was shown to SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 56 of 79 FIR no.173/11 the witness to which witness has correctly identified the bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Sultan Singh. Bag is already Ex.P-1. The bag also found to contain two card board boxes of Samsung Guru 1081 containing one mobile phone in each box alongwith charger and batteries as well as their guarantee card/user manual. Same were shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the same, which were recovered from the possession of accused Sultan. Mobile phones bearing IMEI No.357165045479128 and 357165045478583 are Ex.P-7 and P-8.
MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel which is sealed with the seal of court. Seal was broken and from the parcel one pair of shoes of dark grey colour having label of Spycar was taken out and the same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the shoes which were seized by him and recovered at the instance of accused Bhola. Same are Ex.P-2.
MHC(M) has also produced one sealed yellow envelop which was sealed with the seal of court. Seal was broken and from the parcel one country made pistol was taken out and same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the pistol which was recovered from the possession of accused Bhola. Same is Ex.P-9.
MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel which was sealed with the court seal. Seal was broken and from the parcel, one mobile phone of Samsung of black colour (Virgin) Mobile containing sim of Tata Indicom having no.A10000090EEA10 Dec.2008 bearing no.A1000008026280(80288038) was taken out and the same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the mobile phone belongs to accused Sultan SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 57 of 79 FIR no.173/11 which was recovered at his instance from his room. Same is Ex.PW-17/P-1.
MHC(M) has also produced sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, same was opened and from the parcel one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 was taken out which found to contain two mobile phones of Samsung of black colour one of them was having red colour strip and other was having blue colour strip along with one charger and user and manual book & guarantee card. IMEI No. of mobile having red strip was 357165042389445 and mobile phone having blue strip was 357165043416387 and the same were shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the mobile phones which were recovered from the possession of accused Prakash, same are already Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5.
MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, same was opened and from the parcel one cardboard box of mobile phone Samsung Guru 1081 was taken out which found to contain one mobile phone of Samsung of black colour having red colour strip and wrapped with white tape containing battery and SIM Card of Idea alongwith yellow colour SIM card cover of mobile No.9718935452 having IMEI No.357165045229580 and the same were shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the mobile phone and the box which were produced by the accused Dalip to him and were recovered from his house. Same is Ex.PW15/A-1.
MHC(M) has produced another sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of court, same was opened and from the parcel one mobile phone make Samsung Guru 1081 of black and red colour and IMEI No. 357165045229440 was taken out and SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 58 of 79 FIR no.173/11 the same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the mobile phone which was recovered from the possession of accused Bhola. Mobile phone is already Ex.PW-15/A-2.
MHC(M) has produced one sealed parcel having seal of court. Seal was opened and from the parcel one mobile phone of Samsung Guru 1081 of black colour having red strip containing battery and IMEI No.357165045229473 and the same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the mobile phone which was recovered from the possession of accused Avnish Raghav @ Bittoo from his house. Same is Ex.PW-31/A-1.
MHC(M) has also produced another sealed parcel which also having the seal of court. Seal was opened and from the parcel one mobile phone make Nokia 1208 containing battery and sim of Idea was taken out and same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the phone which belongs to accused Avnish Raghav @ Bittoo and was recovered from his possession. Same is Ex.PW-31/A-2.
MHC (M) has brought the TSR bearing registration No.UP-14AB-9080 in the court complex and the same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the TSR which was seized by him during the investigation at the instance of accused Dilip. TSR is Ex.PW41/P1. The photographs Ex. PW15/PA-1 and Ex.PW15/PA-2 are also found placed on record and the same was shown to the witness to which witness has correctly identified the TSR in the photographs. Witness has correctly identified all the five accused persons.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 59 of 79 FIR no.173/11
9. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, all the accused persons namely Dilip, Sultan Singh, Avinash Raghav, Bhola and Prakash Kumar Chawla stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in the present case.
10. In defence, accused persons examined three witnesses as DW1, DW2 and DW3.
(i) DW-1 Smt Vimla Devi deposed that she was mother of accused Dalip. On 07.07.2011 at about 12:00-12:30 AM, she was sleeping in her room with her grandson. Sh. Gririraj suddenly knocked the door of her room and asked about her son Dalip. He told her that some police officials were also with him. Then, she opened the door and told them that her son Dalip was sleeping on the roof. Sh. Giriraj alongwith 7-8 police officials, who were in civil dress, went to the roof and brought her son. When they were about to leave the house alongwith her son, she asked them as to why they were taking him with them. The police officials snubbed her and took away Dalip with them. For about four days. she was not told anything about her son despite visiting the police station repeatedly. Thereafter, she came to know that her son was lodged in Tihar Jail.
(ii) DW-2 Achay Lal deposed that he was also a tenant in the same premises in front of the room of Dilip. On 07.07.2011, he was sleeping in his room with his wife. At about 12:00-12:30 AM, suddenly the main gate of the premises was knocked by somebody. When he opened the door, 5-6 persons, who were in civil dress and claimed themselves to be the police officials, were found present. After opening the door, the said persons had SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 60 of 79 FIR no.173/11 entered the premises and he had gone back to his room.
(iii) DW-3 Udaya Pal deposed that he remained Village Pradhan of Village Mayasur w.e.f. 2010 to 2015. As and when the local police or police of any other PS is visited in their Village, they informed Village Pradhan in this regard. Police never informed him about the involvement of the accused Avnish Raghav in this case. Police never visited in his Village in his presence. There is a Chowkidar in their Village deployed by local police. He never informed by the Chowkidar about the involvement of accused Avnish Raghav in this case. He also not informed him about the visit of Delhi Police and local police in our village for the search of house of accused Avnish Raghav.
Arguments on behalf of the State
11. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the complete chain of events go on to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Prosecution through testimony of witnesses has been able to prove the conspiracy between the accused persons. Guilt of accused persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt. They deserve to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of accused
12. It is argued on behalf of accused Dilip Singh that he has been falsely implicated. No auto was recovered at his instance. Mobile phones have been planted. He does not know any of the co-accused. Prosecution failed to prove the recovery as no independent witnesses have been examined at the time of alleged recovery. He deserves to be acquitted.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 61 of 79 FIR no.173/11
13. It is argued on behalf of accused Bhola that he has been falsely implicated. He was arrested on disclosure of co- accused which is inadmissible in evidence. The alleged recovery of mobile phone is not proved as no independent witness was present at the time of recovery. The country-made pistol too is unconnected with the case as the bullet which was fired at the deceased was not shot from the pistol in question. Prosecution miserably failed to prove connection between accused Bhola and other co-accused persons. No evidence has been brought on record to prove the alleged conspiracy. He deserves acquittal.
14. It is argued on behalf of accused Avinash Raghav @ Bitto that he has been falsely implicated on the disclosure statement of the co-accused which is inadmissible in evidence. The alleged recovery was not effected from his instance. Prosecution failed to prove any connect with the accused Bitto with any other co-accused persons.
15. It is further argued on behalf of accused Prakash Kumar that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of co- accused Dilip and Sultan. He is unconnected with any of the accused persons. No recovery was effected from his shop and the mobile phones allegedly shown recovered from him are planted. He deserves to be acquitted.
16. I have heard the arguments advanced by all concerned and have perused the records including documents relied upon by the prosecution carefully.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 62 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Observation of the Court
17. Proceedings in the present case were initiated on receipt of PCR call at 9.47 pm with regard to person lying unconscious near metro station Punjabi Bagh. Upon further investigation it was revealed that the deceased was named Kanhiya Dey. His body was recovered in injured condition. Besides other injuries there was bullet injury present on his person. Upon further investigation it was revealed that deceased was working with Scientific Security Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and on the day of incident i.e. 01.07.2011 he was assigned the task of delivering 10 samsung sets to Muradabad. He left his home around 8.30 pm and thereafter around 9.47 pm he was found dead. The mobile phones which he was carrying were found missing. IMEI numbers were obtained from Scientific Security Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and same were put on surveillance. Two mobile phones were found to be in use and were connected with one Girraj Kishore Rathore. Upon interrogation he revealed the names of one Dilip and Sultan. Mobile phones were recovered from these two accused. On their disclosure accused Prakash Kumar was interrogated and two phones were recovered from his possession. Thereafter accused Bhola was arrested and from his possession one phone and one country made pistol was recovered. One auto which was used for commission of offence was recovered at the instance of accused Dilip. On 12.10.2011 accused Avinash @ Bitto surrendered and at his instance mobile phone was recovered from his house in village Kasganj.
18. On the complaint, charge under Section 411 IPC was framed against the accused Bhola, Sultan, Prakash Kumar SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 63 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Chawla, Dilip and Avinash Raghav. Charge under Section 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Bhola and Charge under Section 120B, Section 394 r/w Section 120B and Section 302 r/w Section 120B IPC was framed against accused Dilip Singh, Sultan Bhola and Avinash Raghav @ Bittu. It would be pertinent to mention here that accused Sultan Singhdied during the pendency of trial hence proceedings qua him stood abated.
19. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined PW6 Vipin Kataria who was working as coordinator in Scientific Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and PW30 Sumit Bhutani who was working as Manager in the same company. Both these witnesses were examined to prove that the deceased was working in the company and was handed over 10 mobile phones of Samsung in sealed boxes to deliver the same at Muradabad. These two witnesses provided IMEI number of the mobile phones on the letter head of the company.
20. PW9 Smt. Mamta Dey wife of deceased was examined to prove that on the day of incident the accused left home with 10 mobile phones in the bag which was identified by her alongwith the shoes of the deceased.
21. Prosecution also examined PW13 Bitto son of the deceased who identified the recovered mobile phones as the ones his father carried on the day of incident as he was the one who had packed the same in the bag of his father.
22. PW14 Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal officer from Idea Cellular produced the CAF of mobile phone which was issued in SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 64 of 79 FIR no.173/11 the name of Smt. Vimlesh, mother of accused Dilip Singh. Name of mother of Dilip Singh is mentioned in the arrest memo Ex.PW15/B as Vimlesh. The said fact is undisputed as this witness has not been cross-examined by any of the accused persons.
23. Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW20 who conducted the postmortem opined that the injury sustained by the deceased is possible by the katta recovered from accused Bhola.
24. PW24 Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer Tata produced the CAF of mobile phone which was issued in the name of Saraswati Devi mother-in-law of accused Sultan. The address mentioned in the CAF is that of house of Girraj and it is deposed by Girraj that on request of Saraswati Devi he got her election ID card prepared at his address and on the basis of which she got one mobile connection of Tata and the same was used by her son- in-law Sultan Singh. The said fact is not denied by counsel for Sultan as no suggestion is given to PW8 Girraj on the said aspect and his testimony qua accused Sultan remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
25. Admittedly there is no eye witness to the incident hence the prosecution had to prove its case against the accused persons through circumstantial evidence. It has been held in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra 1984 AIR 1622 The Hon'ble Court has introduced the Panchsheel Test for the relevance and evaluation of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is not available. The five principles of the Panchsheel Test are:
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 65 of 79 FIR no.173/11
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established.
2. The facts established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that within all human consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
26. The story of the prosecution is that upon recovering the body of deceased investigation commenced, IMEI numbers were put under surveillance and three robbed mobiles were being used in the area of Nangloi and were in contact with one Giri Raj Kishore. When this Giri Raj was contacted he revealed that the two IMEI numbers were being used by accused Dilip and Sultan who were his neighbours.
27. This Giri Raj led the investigation team to house of Dilip and Sultan. Two mobile phones having sim no.7289450732 and 9718935452 were recovered from possession of Sultan and Dilip respectively. The sim used by Sultan was in the name of his mother-in-law and the other used by Dilip was in the name of his mother.
28. Nodal Officers from Tata and Idea were called with CDR and CAF to prove the aforesaid fact as Ex.PW14/A, SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 66 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Ex.PW14/B ,Ex.PW14/C, Ex.PW24/C to PW24/H.
29. Giri Raj when stepped into the witness box deposed with respect to mobile no. 7289450732 which he had got issued in the name of Saraswati Devi at his address who is mother-in- law of accused Sultan. Mobile with sim no. 9718935452 recovered from accused Dilip was issued in the name of his mother Vimlesh whose name is mentioned in the arrest memo Ex.PW15/B.
30. Upto this point prosecution succeeded in proving the recovery of two mobile phones in possession of accused Dilip and Sultan bearing the same IMEI number which were given to deceased for delivery.
31. Further the story of the prosecution is that both Dilip and Sultan led them to shop of Prakash and two mobile phones in sealed condition were recovered from his shop.
32. Further accused Bhola is arrested on disclosure statement of accused Dilip and Sultan and allegedly recovery of phone, one country made pistol and shoes of the deceased is made at his instance.
33. Lastly accused Avinash Raghav surrendered himself on 12.10.2011 and at his instance one mobile phone was recovered.
34. With this backdrop I proceed to decide the charges levelled against the accused persons.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 67 of 79 FIR no.173/11
35. All the accused persons have firstly been charged under Section 411 IPC for being in possession of stolen property. Stolen property is defined under Section 410 IPC and punishment for receiving the same is defined under Section 411 IPC. Section 411 IPC is reproduced herein under:.
411: Dishonestly receiving stolen property- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
36. Accused Dilip has been charged with the offence under Section 411 IPC for being in possession of stolen property i.e. mobile phone bearing IMEI number of one of the phones stolen from Kanhiya Dey.
37. Prosecution examined PW14 Pawan Singh Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular who produced the CAF of sim recovered from the mobile phone used by accused Dilip Singh. The said sim was issued in the name of Vimlesh mother of Dilip Singh. The fact of sim got issued in the name of mother of Dilip Singh is not disputed as PW14 Pawan Singh has not been cross- examined on this point by the counsel for accused Dilip Singh.
38. The incident in question occurred on 01.07.2011 IMEI numbers were furnished by the Manager Sumit Bhutani on 04.07.2011 which were put under surveillance and soon thereafter the stolen mobile was recovered from the possession of Dilip Singh who was using the same with a sim issued in the name of his mother.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 68 of 79 FIR no.173/11
39. Prosecution has also relied upon the call details of PW8 Gir Raj on whose phone calls were made by accused Dilip. Even DW1 mother of Dilip when entered the witness box, deposed that Girraj came with police to their house. Therefore it proves the prosecution story that Girraj led them to house of Dilip and recovery was made from his house.
40. There is sufficient evidence on record to prove recovery of stolen mobile from possession of Dilip. hence he is liable under Section 411 IPC.
41. It would be pertinent to mention here that accused Sultan Singh died during trial and proceedings qua him stood abated.
42. Accused Prakash Kumar Chawla has been charged for being in possession of two stolen mobile phones make Samsung 108 being purchased from co-accused Dilip Singh.
43. As per the prosecution story at instance of Dilip Singh IO alongwith other witnesses in investigation team PW15 Si Daljit, PW17 HC Bijender, PW31 HC Satveer Singh reached Friends Communication Mobile Phone Nangloi where accused Dilip had sold two phones to Prakash Chawla. Both the mobile phones were seized from his mobile shop vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/H in sealed condition.
44. Alleged recovery is denied by accused Prakash Chand, however prosecution has examined PW15 SI Daljeet, PW17 HC Bijender, PW31 HC Satbir alongwith IO PW41 to SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 69 of 79 FIR no.173/11 prove the said recovery. Simple denial of recovery from the shop of accused Prakash is given in the form of suggestion to PW15, PW31 and PW41. PW17 HC Bijender has not at all been cross- examined. His testimony remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
45. It is not denied that accused Dilip was present with the investigating team at the time of recovery of mobile phones from the shop of accused Prakash by him.
46. Prosecution through the testimony of aforesaid witnesses has been successful in proving the recovery of two stolen mobile phones from the shop of accused Avinash.
47. Further, accused Bhola has been charged with the offence u/s 411 IPC for being in possession of mobile phone robbed from deceased Kanhiya Dey and u/s 25 & 27 Arms Act for being in possession of one country made pistol which was used for committing murder of Kanhiya Dey.
48. It is alleged by the IO as well as the other witnesses PW15 SI Daljit, PW17 HC Bijender, PW31 HC Satveer Singh that recovery of one mobile phone make Samsung Guru was recovered from the second floor of the factory. The same was kept in a bag alongwith the phone. He also got recovered one desi katta alongwith shoes of the deceased which the deceased was allegedly wearing at the time of offence.
49. This recovery was effected at the instance of accused Bhola, though it is vehemently denied by him. In cross-
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 70 of 79 FIR no.173/11 examination by the defence counsel on behalf of accused Bhola PW15 SI Gurjeet Singh categorically deposed that they went to second floor of the house where there was a wall and the recovery was effected at the instance of accused Bhola. One bag containing katta and mobile were recovered.
50. The bag recovered at the instance of accused Bhola was identified by wife of the deceased as the same bag in which he carried the mobile phones on the day of incident.
51. PW17 HC Gajender categorically deposed with respect to recovery made at the instance of accused Bhola, however this witness was not cross-examined and his testimony remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Testimony of PW15 and PW17 is duly corroborated with the testimony of PW31 HC Satbir Singh.
52. PW14 IO Inspector R.D. Pandey too corroborated testimony of aforesaid recovery witnesses. He deposed that he tried to join the employees of the factory of accused but they refused to join. IO prepared the site plan Ex.PW15/W of the place from where the recovery was effected from accused Bhola. The same is duly signed by the other witnesses present at the time of recovery.
53. Prosecution thus succeeded in proving recovery of mobile phones and desi katta from accused Bhola.
54. The katta recovered at the instance of Bhola was sent to FSL. The same was received with the report Ex.PW33/A SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 71 of 79 FIR no.173/11 that it is a country made pistol and was in normal working condition. Bhola did not have the requisite license for being in possession of this country made pistol hence he is held guilty under Section 25 Arms Act.
55. In so far as Section 27 Arms Act is concerned, prosecution failed to prove that Bhola used the said pistol in commission of offence.
56. The cartridge which was found in the body of the body of deceased was not sent for forensic opinion, hence it cannot be said that the aforesaid pistol was used by Bhola for giving gun shot to the deceased.
57. Accused Avinash Raghav @ Bittoo is also charged for commission of offence under Section 411 IPC for being in possession of stolen mobile phone.
58. It is alleged by the IO as well as PW31 HC Satbir Singh, PW36 HC Harjeevan Singh that on 12.10.2011 accused Bittoo surrendered before the court. He was arrested. The accused alongwith IO and other recovery witnesses reached Village Mysoore Kashipur. Accused Bittoo took out one mobile phone make Samsung Guru from the wall of bricks on a room in his house which was hidden behind the brick and handed over the same to IO.
59. All these aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined extensively but their testimony could not be impeached. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW31/F. SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 72 of 79 FIR no.173/11
60. Accused examined one Uday Pal who was the Pradhan of the village in order to prove that the police did not visit the village of accused Avinash and no recovery was effected from his house. The said witness deposed that " Police never visited my village in my presence." This witness would be of no consequence to the accused as he only stated that police did not visit in his presence. It is not humanly possible to keep a constant watch on each house of the village at all times.
61. Prosecution thus succeeded in proving recovery of mobile phone from accused Avinash Raghav @ Bittoo.
62. Accused Dilip Singh, Sultan, Bhola and Avinash Raghav have been charged with the offence u/s 120B IPC for conspiring with each other to commit robbery and murder of Kanhiya Dey.
63. In order to prove offence u/s 120B IPC prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons agreed to commit an offence. Section 120B is reproduced herein under:
A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.
For an offence to fall under this section, bare engagement and association to break the law is the requirement. SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 73 of 79 FIR no.173/11 The methods employed should be illegal. All parties should agree to do a single illegal act.
The onus is on the prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy by cogent evidence, direct or circumstantial.- State v. V. C. Shukla, 1980 CrLJ 965 (SC).
64. In the present case it is alleged against the aforesaid four accused that they conspired with each other in order to commit robbery and murder of Kanhiya Dey and in the said process they made him sit in an auto, robbed 20 mobile phones from his bag and when he tried to resist he was shot dead.
65. On the basis of IMEI number the IO was given to apprehend accused Dilip and Sultan and their disclosure statement was recorded. Two mobile phones were recovered from their possession alongwith one auto which was allegedly used in the commission of crime. During investigation, the auto was found to be registered in the name of one Pappu Singh of Gaziabad. No connect could be established between auto and Dilip. No witness of the prosecution deposed as to how the auto was parked outside the house of the Dilip or that the same was used in the commission of crime. At the instance of both Dilip and Sultan, accused Bhola was arrested and one Avinash Raghav later surrendered. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record as to where the accused persons met and plotted the offence.
66. There is absolutely no evidence to show any prior meeting of minds of the accused persons. No call records have been brought on record to show that they had any conversation SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 74 of 79 FIR no.173/11 before the commission of offence. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the accused persons engaged together to execute the commission of offence.
67. Prosecution failed to bring any evidence to prove the presence of accused persons at the place of incident or their specific role in facilitation of crime.
68. It is undisputed that direct evidence of conspiracy is seldom available, however, the circumstantial evidence led to prove the guilt of the accused should be of such sterling nature which only tilts towards the fact of commission of offence by the accused.
69. However, in the instant case through the evidence brought on record, prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons entered into an agreement to commit the offence.
70. All the aforesaid accused persons have been charged for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 120B IPC for conspiring to commit murder of Kanhiya Dey.
71. As per the prosecution story accused Bhola shot Kanhiya Dey with a country made pistol in conspiracy with the other accused persons to commit robbery of mobile phones which the deceased was allegedly carrying.
72. There is no eye witness to the commission of offence. Story of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 75 of 79 FIR no.173/11 collected during investigation. How this evidence is to be evaluated as already been discussed in Sharad Berdimal's case Supra.
73. Prosecution firstly failed to prove that the auto which was recovered at the instance of Dilip was used in the commission of offence. Connect of Dilip with the auto has also not been proved as the registered owner of the same is one Pappu who has not been brought in witness box to prove as how the auto was in possession of accused Dilip.
74. Presence of all the accused persons at the alleged place of incident also could not be proved. No blood was detected on the seat of the auto which was sent to FSL to prove that accused was shot dead inside the auto.
75. The country made pistol (Desi Katta) allegedly recovered from accused Bhola too when sent to FSL was received back only with the report that it was in normal working condition. Bullet was not sent to FSL for reasons best known to IO.
76. The only evidence which led the IO to the accused persons is the recovery of mobile phones which the deceased was carrying. No cogent evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to complete the chain of sequence of events to connect the accused persons with the death of Kanhiya Dey.
77. Prosecution not only failed to prove the presence of the accused at the alleged place of incident but also failed to SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 76 of 79 FIR no.173/11 bring any other substantive evidence besides the disclosure statement of the accused persons to connect them with the offence.
78. Cases of circumstantial evidence need strict proof and a complete link to connect the accused persons with the offence.
79. Absolutely no evidence has been led to prove that when and where the accused persons met to plot robbery and murder.
80. Only on the basis of of recovery of of mobile phones from the accused persons does not prove that they conspired to commit an offence. Recovery of shoes at the instance of accused Bhola too does not complete the chain. Shoes were allegedly recovered from open place surrounded within jhuggies. They are recovered after a week from an open place, which surely is suspicious.
81. Prosecution miserably failed to complete the chain to prove the guilt of accused persons and connect them with murder of Kanhaiya Dey.
82. It is a settled proposition of law that the guilt of the accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Flaws or gaps if any in the prosecution story leads to exoneration and benefit of the accused.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 77 of 79 FIR no.173/11
83. Further, accused persons have been charged with the offence u/s 394 read with Section 120B IPC for committing robbery of mobile phones and cash etc from the possession of Kanhiya Dey.
84. Prosecution examined number of witnesses in order to prove that deceased Kanhaiya Dey was robbed off mobile phones by the accused persons, however prosecution miserably failed to prove the presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence. No evidence was brought on record to connect the accused persons with the alleged robbery.
85. No CCTV footage or eye witness was examined by the prosecution who could depose against the accused persons. The circumstantial evidence brought on record was not sufficient to complete the chain of events to connect the accused with alleged robbery. The desi katta recovered from accused Bhola was returned back from the FSL only with the report that it was in normal working condition.
86. No blood stains of the deceased could also be recovered from the auto in order to complete the alleged story of prosecution.
87. In absence of any cogent or substantive evidence brought on record by the prosecution, the accused persons cannot be held liable under Section 394 r/w Section 120B IPC. Moreover, it has already been discussed in preceding paragraphs, the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy between the accused persons to commit the offence.
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 78 of 79 FIR no.173/11 Conclusion
93. In the light of my discussion above, the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt under Section 411 IPC. Accused Bhola is also convicted for being in possession of country made pistol under Section 25 Arms Act. However accused persons, Bhola, Dilip Singh and Avinash Raghav @ Bittoo are acquitted Section 102 B IPC, 394 IPC r/w Section 120 B IPC, Section 302 r/w Section 120 B IPC.
Announced in the open court (POOJA TALWAR)
on 04.08.2025 ASJ-01(FTC) West District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
SC No. 57747/16 State. Vs. Dilip Singh & anr. Page : 79 of 79
FIR no.173/11