Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1) Ravi @ Tati on 22 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No:211/18
FIR No. : 502/17
U/s : 302/120B/34 IPC
P.S. : Alipur
State Vs. : 1) Ravi @ Tati
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o F-7, W-48/147, Jhuggi
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
2) Jitender @ Vikash @ Allu
S/o Sh. Charan Singh
R/o H.No.1187, Balmiki Mohalla,
Village Alipur, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 302/120B/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused Jitender @ Vikash
@ Allu Convicted
Accused Ravi @ Tati Acquitted
Date of committal : 12.04.2018
Date of Judgment : 22.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On the intervening night of 4 th/5th November, 2017 Ankit @ Gullu along with his friends Ranbir @ Lala, Amit @ Kanahaiya and Sonu was present in the godown of Ranbir State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 1 ::
Singh @ Lala situated at 33 Feet road, Village Bakoli. They were making preparation of taking dinner in the room situated near staircase. At about 11.30 pm, accused Vikas @ Aalu, resident of Alipur whom he was knowing prior to that date, came there along with his friends and said to Ankit, " Tu Aajkal Jitender @ Gogi ka Bada Sath De Raha Hai". In the meantime, three boys who came along with Vikas @ Aalu said to Vikas, "Itana time Nahi hai, Goli Maar Sale Ko". On this Vikas @ Aalu took out a pistol from the right pocket of his wearing pants and fired thrice on Ankit @ Gullu. After sustaining fire injury he fell down from the chair. Accused Vikas @ Aalu fled away along with his companions. Ranbir @ Lala, Amit @ Kanahaiya and Sonu took him to Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital, Narela in car. Statement of Ankit was recorded in Satyawadi Raja Harish Chander Hospital by police. On the basis of which FIR was registered. On now 09.11.2017 Ankit @ Gullu died in LNJP Hospital. Section 302 IPC was added. Accused Ravi @ Tati and Jitender @ Aalu were arrested. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet against accused persons was filed. Ld MM after complying the provision of Section 208 Cr PC committed the case to the Sessions Court as offence punishable u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Ld Sessions Court.
State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 2 ::
2. Both accused were charged for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. To prove its case prosecution examined 25 witnesses.
4. Dr. Niranjar Kanaskar was examined as PW-1. He was deputed by M.S of LNJP Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Faiz Manjar who is not available in the hospital. He had worked with Dr. Faiz Manjar and is conversant with his signature and handwriting. Dr. Faiz Manjar prepared the death summary of Ankit @ Gullu S/o Sh. Daya Chand and opined that the cause of death is follow up case of duroplasty with exploratory laparotomy, gastic perforation (?large with hamoperitonium with bilateral pneumonitis), acute respiratory distress syndrome with spesis. He proved the death summary as Ex.PW1/A. Nothing material came to discredit the witness in cross examination.
5. Dr. Kishor Singh Thakur was examined as PW-2. On 09.11.2017 he and Dr. Dheeraj Buchare started post mortem examination on the dead body of Ankit at 3:35 pm. The post mortem was concluded at 6:00 pm. In the post mortem one bullet was recovered from the body. The cause of death was septicemia shock as a result of ante mortem infection of multiple internal organs subsequent upon ante mortem injury State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 3 ::
to abdomen and head produced by projectile fire arm. Injury No.1 and surgical intervention No.1 and 2 are caused by ammunition of fire arm weapon i.e. bullet. After the post mortem the blood sample of deceased on gauze in sealed envelope and the bullet recovered from the body sealed in bottle along with sample seal were handed over to the police. He proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW2/A. The diagram sheet showing the wound is Ex.PW2/B. The X-ray films prepared at the time of post mortem are collectively Ex.PW2/C.
6. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that the septicemia sat in due to injury sustained by the injured and not during the treatment. He denied the suggestion that patient died due to the reason that he was not properly treated.
7. Sonu was examined as PW-3. He deposed that about 3-4 months ago he was working in hotel namely Palm Green situated near village Bakoli, Delhi. At about 8:30 / 9:00 pm his friend Ankit @ Gullu made telephone call on his mobile phone and requested him to bring dinner for him. He got packed the dinner for three persons and reached the godown situated in village Bakoli where he met Ankit @ Gullu. At about 9:30 pm he delivered the dinner to Ankit @ Gullu. Ankit asked him to bring cigarette packet from the shop. He went State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 4 ::
to the bus stand of village Bakoli on his bike to bring the cigarette. He purchased the cigarette packet and again reached the godown. In the godown two other friends of Gullu whose names he does not know, were present in the godown. He saw Ankit @ Gullu lying on the ground and having fire shot injuries. These two friends of Ankit were weeping. He along with friends of Ankit lifted him and brought him outside the godown where Santro car was found parked. They took Gullu in the Santro car to SRHC hospital. The doctor examined Ankit @ Gullu and thereafter, he was sent to another hospital. The friends of Ankit @ Gullu accompanied him to other hospital from SRHC Hospital and he reached home. After two days of incident he went to the hospital where Ankit was admitted and saw Ankit @ Gullu. Thereafter, he did not visit the hospital. He had not seen who fired on Ankit. After 5-6 days since the incident Ankit expired.
8. He was cross-examined by APP but he did not support the prosecution case at all. He was confronted with his statement Ex.P1, P2, P3, P4 but of no avail. Defence did not put any question to him.
9. ASI Fateh Singh was examined as PW-4. He was the duty officer and he proved the FIR as Ex.P5. The endorsement made on the rukka as P6 and certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act as Ex.P7.
State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 5 ::
10. He also deposed that on 05.11.2017 at 12:22 am he received information from wireless operator regarding firing incident at H.No.48, Neemri chowk, Bakoli. He telephonically informed SI Jaibir to take necessary action and also informed Addl. SHO. He recorded DD No.3A in this regard and proved the copy of the same as Ex.P8. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
11. Ct. Paramvir was examined as PW-5. In the intervening night of 4/5 November 2017 he was posted at PS: Alipur and was working as DD writer. At 12:05 am he received information from SRHC Hospital on telephone that Ankit @ Gullu was admitted in the hospital with fire shot injury from Plot No.157 village Bakoli by Sonu @ Nanak Chand. He recorded DD No.2B in this regard and handed over to SI Jaibir to take necessary action. He proved the copy of the DD No.2B as Ex.P9. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
12. Sh. Deepak was examined as PW-6. He identified the dead body of his brother Ankit vide memo Ex.P10 and received the same after post mortem vide memo Ex.P11.
The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
13. HC Mehtab was examined as PW-7. He deposed that on the intervening night of 04 and 05 of November 2017 on State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 6 ::
receipt of DD No.2B Ex.P9 regarding admission of Ankit @ Gullu in SRHC Hospital by Sonu @ Nanak Chand with fire arm injury, he along with SI Jaibir went to SRHC Hospital. IO received DD No.3A Ex.P8 also. Ankit @ Gullu was found admitted in the hospital having injuries but was fit for statement. SI Jaibir recorded the statement of Ankit @ Gullu which was read over and explained to him and Ankit @ Gullu signed at point A on P12. They reached the scene of crime i.e. godown of Raghubir @ Lala at 33 ft. road village Bakoli. There was a room adjacent to stair case of that godown. Three chairs along with one table was lying there. One T.V was lying over the table. Glasses, plastic bottle and eatables were also lying on the table. Two empty cartridges were lying on the floor towards T.V., blood was also lying on the floor to the left side of empty cartridges. Two bullet lead were also lying on the floor to the left side of the blood. IO SI Jaibir made endorsement on the statement of Ankit, prepared the rukka and handed over to him at 2:00 am. Crime team was requested to reach the spot. He reached the police station and handed over the rukka to the duty officer at 2:25 am on 05.11.2017. Duty officer registered the FIR and handed over the computer generated copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He came back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SI Jaibir for further investigation. Crime State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 7 ::
team inspected the scene of crime and also took the photographs of scene of crime from different angles.
14. Two empty cartridges which were lying on the right side of the room and left side of the TV were lifted, put on a plain paper and sketches were prepared. The sketches were proved Ex.P13. Both the empty cartridges were put in an empty container, sealed with the seal of JR and was given sl.no.1.
15. Two bullet leads were also lifted, put on a plain paper and sketch Ex.P14 was prepared. These bullet leads were put in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of JR and was given sl.no.2.
16. Blood lying on the floor was lifted with gauze piece, put in a plastic container, sealed with seal of JR and was given sl.no.3.
17. Blood stained floor was broken, put in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of JR and was given sl.no4. All the parcels were seized vide memo ex.P15.
18. He along with IO went to SRHC Hospital where Dr. Mukesh Bharti handed over one sealed parcel along with sample seal which was seized vide memo Ex.P16. The parcel was containing the clothes of Ankit @ Gullu. Thereafter, they reached LNJP Hospital where injured Ankit @ Gullu was under treatment. In the hospital eye witnesses State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 8 ::
Ranbir @ Lala, Sonu and Kanhaiya met them and IO recorded their statements. Kanhaiya informed that Vikas @ Allu fired shot on Ankit @ Gullu on exhortation of Ravi @ Tati and Bunty who are real brothers and resident of Sultan Puri, F-Block Jhuggi. Thereafter, they along with all the eye witnesses reached the scene of crime where IO prepared site plan at the instance of Kanhaiya. The witness identified the empty shells as Ex.MO1 and the bullet leads lifted from the spot as MO2.
19. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he admitted that in the DD the name of accused is not mentioned. Jitender @ Gogi is a wanted criminal for Delhi Police and many cases are registered against him. He does not know if Ankit @ Gullu was involved in any crime along with Jitender @ Gogi. He has no knowledge if Ankit @ Gullu lodged any complaint in PS: Alipur that he has threat to his life from any person.
20. They reached SRHC Hospital at 12:30 am. First of all they met the doctor but he does not remember the name of the doctor. The doctor told that condition of Ankit is serious. Ankit had not been operated upon when they reached there. IO did not call any Magistrate for recording the statement of Ankit. Ankit was in an emergency ward of the hospital. He does not know who was the doctor on duty in emergency State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 9 ::
ward. Ranbir @ Lala, Kanhaiya and Sonu were present near Ankit when they met him in emergency ward. Ankit was lying on the bed and one mask was also found on the mouth and nose of Ankit. They did not inquire from doctor if Ankit was having any breathing problem. 2-3 doctors were present in the ward at that time. They remained in the hospital for about 30 minutes. IO did not obtain signatures of any doctor on the statement of Ankit. He admitted that in the statement of Ankit only the name of Vikas @ Allu is mentioned but his father's name and address, description and age etc is not mentioned.
IO did not call for the dossier of Vikas @ Allu of any other persons from PS: Alipur at the time of recording statement of Ankit. He admitted that Ankit had not named anybody else or gave description of any other assailant. The wound of Ankit were bandaged. He did not see the hands of Ankit and therefore cannot tell if there was blood on the hands of Ankit. He admitted that there is a gap in the signature of Ankit and where his statement ends. IO did not collect any document that Ankit signs in the manner as appear as Ex.P12. He denied the suggestion that Ankit had not given any statement or that P12 does not bears signature of Ankit.
21. ASI Kanwar Singh was examined as PW-8. He was the Incharge of Mobile Crime team. On 05.11.17 on receipt of information from Control Room he along with Ct. Anil and State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 10 ::
other staff reached H.No.45 i.e. House of Ranbir @ Lala on 33 ft road village Bakoli, Delhi. There in the room four plastic chairs, table and bed, two plastic glasses under and near the table and blood were lying, two lead and two empty cartridges were also lying in the room of that godown. Local police including ASI Jaibir met them there. He inspected the scene of crime and photographer took the photographs. He prepared the crime scene report Ex.P17. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
22. Ct. Anil was examined as PW9. He was with the crime team as photographer which visited the scene of crime. He took 21 photographs of the scene of crime from different angles. The photographs are Ex.P18/1 to P18/21. He proved the negatives also as Ex.P19. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
23. Sh. Ranbir was examined as PW10. He stated that he along with Ankit and Kanhaiya were present in the room. Sonu had gone to purchase cigarette. 2-3 persons came at the plot No.157 Khasra No.78 village Bakoli and fired upon Ankit @ Gullu. He made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone No.8285190231. Ankit @ Gullu was taken to SRHC Hospital in the Santro car of Vikas. From there Ankit was referred to other hospital. He met the police officials in the hospital. Police took him to PS: Alipur. In the morning he State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 11 ::
was taken to his plot No.157 Khasra No.78 village Bakoli. Police inspected that room and thereafter he was relieved. He was called to the police station number of times. He stated that no person who fired on Ankit @ Gulu is present in the court today. He does not want to say anything more in this case.
24. Ld. APP for the State cross examined the witness as he resiled from his earlier statement given to the police. He was confronted with his statement Ex.P20, P21, P22, P23. But nothing material came on record to support the prosecution case. No question was put to the witness by the defence.
25. Ct. Sunny Malik was examined as PW-11. He deposed that on 09.11.2017 he along with SI Jaibir reached LNJP Hospital Delhi. SI Jaibir prepared the inquest papers for the post mortem. The dead body was identified by his brothers Pankaj and Deepak. After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo Ex.P11. The doctor handed over plastic container and envelope containing the bullet and blood on gauze piece which were seized by the IO vide memo Ex.P24. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
26. W/Ct. Jyoti was examined as PW-12. On 09.11.2017 she was working as DD writer. She deposed that at 12:13 pm State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 12 ::
information was received from LNJP Hospital that Ankit who was referred from SRHC Hospital and was admitted on 05.11.2017 in the hospital had expired. She telephonically informed SI Jaibir and also the SHO. He recorded DD No.30B Ex.P25. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
27. Sandeep was examined as PW-13. He deposed that he was investigating case FIR No:499/17 u/s 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act PS: Netaji Subhash Place and accused Ravi @ Tati S/o Sh. Raj Kumar was named in the FIR. During investigation he came to know that Ravi @ Tati has been arrested by police officials of PS: Mangol Puri and sent to J/C. On 30.12.2017 he appeared in the court of Ld. CMM and moved application for permission to interrogate and arrest the accused. After taking permission he reached Tihar Jail No.4. He arrested accused Ravi @ Tati vide arrest memo Ex.P26 and thereafter requested Supdt. Jail to produce the accused before Ld. CMM. On 31.12.2017 the accused appeared in the court of Ld. CMM. He moved application for police custody remand of accused. On 01.01.2018 he along with ASI Suresh Kumar interrogated the accused who made the disclosure statement Ex.P27. On 02.01.2018 he informed PS: Alipur regarding the disclosure statement made by the accused. DD No.43B was recorded at PS: Alipur in this State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 13 ::
regard. He identified the accused.
28. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel he denied the suggestion that accused had not made the disclosure statement on 01.01.2018 or that he recorded disclosure statement of his own. He also denied the suggestion that he obtained the signatures of accused on blank papers forcibly and later on converted into disclosure statement.
29. Ms. Jyoti Arora, Asstt. Ahlmad from the court of Sh. Rajesh Malik, Ld. CMM North West was examined as PW14. She brought the record pertaining to case FIR No.499/17 PS:
Netaji Subhash Place u/s 307/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act. The photocopy of FIR is proved as Ex.P28. The supplementary disclosure statement is Ex.P27, the arrest memo Ex.P26 and the disclosure statement dt.30.12.17 Ex.P29 are compared with the original and exhibited. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
30. Ct. Tarun was examined as PW-15. He deposed that on 01.02.2018 he along with Inspector Vishal, Ct. Deepanshu, Ct. Tara Chand reached Rohini Courts Complex. There IO moved application before the court where accused Vikas @ Allu was produced. His police custody remand was taken. Accused led them to the scene of crime i.e. the godown at 33 ft road village Bakoli owned by Ranbir @ Lala.
State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 14 ::
Ranbir @ lala and Sonu were present outside the godown. They identified the accused as the person who fired on Ankit @ Gullu and on the exhortation of his co-accused Javed, Bunty and Ravi. IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex.P29. He identified the accused present in the court.
31. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel he admitted that he was already aware about the place where murder took place in this case. He denied the suggestion that accused did not point out the place of occurrence.
32. Ct. Manish Kumar was examined as PW-16. He deposed that on 31.01.2018 he along with Inspector Vishal reached the court of Ld. CMM. IO moved application for interrogation of accused in the jail which was allowed. He along with IO reached Tihar Jail No.3 where accused Jitender @ Allu was produced. IO interrogated him and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.P30. Accused made the disclosure statement ExP31. He correctly identified the accused.
33. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that signatures of accused were taken on blank papers.
34. SI Sachin Mann was examined as PW-17. He State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 15 ::
deposed that on 29.01.2018 he was posted in special staff Rohini. At about 5:15 pm a secret informer came to the office and informed ASI Jagdish that Vikas @ Allu wanted in murder case would come near Japnese Park armed with weapon and can be apprehended. ASI Jagdish informed about the secret information to Inspector Ajay Kumar Incharge Special Staff, Rohini. A raiding team comprising ASI Jagbir, ASI Devener, Ct. Narender and himself was formed. They left the office in two private cars in civil clothes along with the informer and reached near Japnese park. ASI Jagdish requested 4-5 persons to join the raiding team but none agreed. At about 6:20 pm a person was seen coming from the side of sector-11, Rohini, on the pointing out of secret informer that person was apprehended who disclosed his name as Vikas @ Allu. He was carrying one pittoo bag of green and grey colour on his back. In the back pocket of pittoo bag one country made pistol was found. In the magazine of that pistol two live cartridges were found. The sketch of the same was prepared. Pistol was put in a plastic container and sealed with the seal of JS. FSL form was filled and parcel was seized. The pittoo bag was also put in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of JS and seized. ASI Jagdish prepared the rukka and sent through ASI Devender. Further investigation was assigned to HC Pardeep. HC Pardeep State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 16 ::
reached the spot at about 9:00 pm. ASI Jagdish briefed HC Pardeep and handed over the sealed parcels along with documents and accused to HC Pardeep. Accused was arrested at about 10:00 pm vide arrest memo ExP31 and his personal search memo was conducted vide memo Ex.P32. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.P33. He correctly identified the accused.
35. During cross-examination by the defence he denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers which were lateron converted into various documents. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused.
36. HC Pardeep was examined as PW-18. He deposed that on 29.01.2018 he was posted as HC in special staff Rohini. On that day at about 8:30 pm duty officer instructed him to reach gate No.3 Japnese park, Rohini. He reached Gate No.3 Japnese park at about 9:00 pm. SI Sachin Mann, ASI Jagdish, Ct. Narender met him and accused Vikas @ Allu was in their custody. He corroborated the testimony of PW-17 regarding the arrest of the accused and the disclosure statement made by accused. He also correctly identified the accused.
37. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 17 ::
he denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that his signatures were obtained on blank papers which were lateron converted into various incriminating evidence.
38. HC Vinod was examined as PW-20. He was working as MHC(M) in Police Station Alipur. He deposed that on 05.11.2017 SI Jaibir deposited 5 sealed parcels along with copy of seizure memo. He made entry at sl.no.653 in register No.19 and proved the copy of the same as Ex.P36.
39. On 09.11.2017 SI Jaibir deposited with him two sealed parcels along with sample seal. He made entry in register No.18 at sl.no.663 and proved the copy of the same as Ex.P37.
40. On 19.03.2018 on the direction of IO he handed over seven sealed parcels and sample seal to HC Ramesh for depositing the same in FSL vide RC No.95/21/18 Ex.PW20/P38. HC Ramesh deposited the same in FSL and obtained the acknowledgment, copy of which is Ex.P39. He also made entry in this regard in register No.19. During the period case property remained in his possession no one tampered with the same in any manner. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
41. Inspector Suresh Kumar was examined as PW-21. He deposed that on 10.11.2017 he received the present case file State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 18 ::
from SI Jaibir for further investigation. He perused the file and efforts were made to apprehend Vikas @ Rajender @ Allu, Ravi @ Tati and Bunty but no clue was found. He recorded supplementary statements of the witensses. He came to know that accused Ravi @ Tati was arrested in case FIR No:499/17 PS: Netaji Subhash Place. He recorded the statement of witnesses who arrested accused Ravi in that case. On 03.01.18 the investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector Vishal. He handed over the entire file to Inspector Vishal. Nothing material came to discredit the witness during the cross-examination by the defence counsel.
42. SI Jaibir was examined as PW-22. He deposed that on the intervening night of 04/05 of November 2017 he was on emergency duty. On receipt of DD No.2B Ex.P9 regarding admission of Ankit @ Gullu in SRHC Hospital by Sonu @ Nanak Chand with fire arm injury he along with HC Mehtab reached SRHC Hospital. In the hospital he again received DD No.3A Ex.P8. In the hospital Ankit @ Gullu was found admitted. The injured was fit for statement. He recorded the statement of Ankit @ Gullu. He read over and explained the statement to Ankit @ Gullu who signed the same at point A. The statement of Ankit @ Gullu is Ex.P12. Thereafter, They reached the scene of crime i.e. godown of Ranbir @ Lala 33 State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 19 ::
ft. road village Bakoli. There was room adjacent to stair case of godown. In the said room three chairs along with one table were lying. One TV was lying over the table. Glasses, plastic bottle and eatables were also lying on the table. Two empty cartridges were lying on the floor towards T.V. Blood was also lying on the floor to the left side of empty cartridges. Two bullet leads were also lying on the floor to the left side of the blood. He made endorsement Ex.P40 on the statement of Ankit @ Gullu and prepared the rukka. He handed over the rukka to HC Mehtab at 2:00 am for registration of FIR. HC Mehtab came back at the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to him. Crime team official reached the spot and inspected the scene of crime. The photographer took the photographs. He corroborated the testimony of PW7 HC Mehtab regarding seizure of exhibits from the spot. Thereafter, he along with HC Mehtab reached SRHC Hospital where Dr. Mukesh Bharti handed over to him one sealed parcels along with sample seal. He seized the same vide memo Ex.P16. Thereafter, they reached LNJP Hospital where injured Ankit @ Gullu was under treatement. In the hospital eye witnesses Ranbir @ lala, Sonu and Kanhaiya met them. He along with all the eye witnesses reached the scene of crime and prepared site plan ExP41 at the instance of Kanhaiya. Thereafter, he along with HC Mehtab and the State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 20 ::
eye witnesses reached PS where he recorded the statement of the eye witnesses. Efforts were made to search for accused persons but no clue was found.
43. On 09.11.2017 information was received vide DD No.30B Exhibit P25 about death of Ankit. He along with Ct. Sunny went to LNJP hospital. The dead body was identified by the relatives. He prepared inquest papers Ex.P42 collectively and moved application Ex.P43 for post mortem. After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives. After the post mortem doctor handed over two sealed parcels and two sample seals to him which he seized vide memo Ex.P24. He returned to the police station and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
44. On the instructions of SHO he collected the documents regarding arrest of accused Ravi from PS: Netaji Subhash Place and handed over to SHO.
45. On 03.01.18 he along with the file reached Rohini Courts Complex and handed over the file to Inspector Vishal. Inspector Vishal took the permission from the court to interrogate accused Ravi. He along with Inspector Vishal reached Jail No.4 Tihar. Ravi was produced by the Jail staff. Inspector Vishal interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.P43. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.P44. He correctly identified the accused.
State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 21 ::
46. On 04.01.2018 accused was produced in the court. Two days police custody remand of accused was taken. Accused pointed out the scene of crime vide pointing out memo Ex.P45. Eye witnesses also identified Ravi on the spot at the time of pointing out. The witness has also correctly identified the exhibits.
47. During cross-examination by the defence he admitted that the name of accused persons were not mentioned in DD No.2B. He joined the investigation of this case on the intervening night of 04/05 November 2017 and thereafter on 09.11.17, 03.01.18 and 04.01.18. He admitted that Jitender @ Gogi is booked criminal of PS: Alipur and is wanted. He does not know if Ankit @ Gullu was also involved in any crime with Jitender @ Gogi. He does not know if Ankit filed any complaint in PS:Alipur that he is having threat to his life. He did not try to find out the qualification and work of Ankit @ Gullu. There were 2-3 cases against Ankit @ Gullu and he used to remain at home. Out of those cases one case was of robbery. He does not know if there was any case against the other public persons whose statement he had recorded. In the DD No.2B itself it was mentioned that Ankit was admitted in the hospital. DD No.3A was given by PCR that Ankit is in hospital. He reached LNJP Hospital at about 11:00 am. Brother of Ankit and wife of Ankit met him in LNJP Hospital, State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 22 ::
but he does not know their names.
48. He did not meet the doctor before recording the statement of Ankit. Doctor was treating Ankit at that time but he had not talked with the doctor. Dr. Mukesh Bharti was treating Ankit who told that there are chances of survival of Ankit. He remained in the hospital for about 50 minutes.
When he saw Ankit for the first time he was in operation theater at SRHC Hospital, Narela. Ankit was not operated upon when he reached SRHC Hospital and the doctors were making preparation for referral. Ankit was bleeding when he saw him, and the doctors were treating him. He had not noticed the hands of Ankit carefully and hence cannot tell if there was blood on his hands or not. He does not know if Ankit was having any problem in breathing however, he was in pain. Ankit was speaking. When he saw Ankit there was no mask on his face put by the doctors for breathing. CMO declared the patient fit for statement on MLC. Doctor has not specified any time or the period, till which he will be fit for statement. He admitted that Ankit had not told the father's name, age and description of Vikas @ Allu. He only disclosed that Vikas @ Allu r/o Alipur. He cannot tell the approximate population of village Alipur. He tried to find out as to how many persons by the name of Vikas @ Allu are residing in the village Alipur and he came to know only about State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 23 ::
the accused facing trial.
49. On 22.11.2017 they got the information that Ankit had died. He had not shown dossier of Vikas @ Allu for identification of accused. Ankit had not given description of any other accused. He was not in a position to get prepared the sketches of other assailants. He denied the suggestion that there is a gap in between the statement of injured and his signatures. The witness was in severe pain and put his signatures as he was slightly lifted from the bed. One eye of the Ankit was not working at that time. As the same was damaged due to bullet injury. Team of doctors was available in the OT when his statement was recorded but he did not obtain signature of any doctor. He did not record the statement of doctor or any other staff that he recorded the statement of Ankit. Till the investigation remained with him he did not collect any evidence to show that Ankit put his signatures in the manner as appear on Ex.P12. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P12 does not bear the signatures of Ankit. He denied the suggestion that Ranbir @ Lala, Amit and Sonu did not make any statement before him.
50. Amit was examined as PW-23. He deposed that on 05.11.2017 he along with Ankit, Lala and Sonu was present in the house of Lala. They were on the ground floor near the stair case. At about 11:30 pm 4-5 persons came and fired State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 24 ::
upon Ankit and fled away. At the time they were making preparation to take dinner. They bolted the room so that the assailants cannot come back. He and Sonu went to the balcony and saw that those assailants fled away in Ecco car. They removed Ankit to SRHC in Santro Car. Ankit was admitted in the hospital. Lala made a call at 100 number. After 2- 2½ hours Ankit was referred to LNJP Hospital. He Sonu and Lal also went to LNJP Hospital. SI Jaibir reached LNJP Hospital and recorded the statement of Ankit in his presence. Sonu and Lala were also present in the same room. Ankit died in the hospital on 08.11.17. They all remained in the hospital till 08.11.17. His statement was recorded by SI Jaibir. He cannot identify the assailant as they were wearing caps having their faces covered and also wearing jackets.
51. He was cross-examined by Ld. APP as he resiled from his earlier statement wherein he did not support the prosecution case. Accused persons were also pointed out to him but he failed to identify them. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
52. Inspector Vishal was examined as PW24. He deposed that on 03.01.2018 the file was assigned to him for further investigation. He along with SI Jaivir PW22 reached Rohini Courts complex and obtained permission to interrogate State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 25 ::
accused Ravi @ Tati. Thereafter, he along with SI Jaivir- PW22 reached Tihar Jail and interrogated the accused Ravi @ Tati. He corroborated the testimony of PW22 regarding arrest of accused Ravi @ Tati, the disclosure statement made by accused Ravi @ Tati and pointing out of the place of occurrence.
53. On 30.01.2018 he received DD no.79B regarding arrest of accused Vikas @ Aalu by Special Staff. He collected the documents regarding arrest of accused Vikas @ Aalu and also recorded statement of witnesses. On 31.01.2018, he obtained permission from Ld CMM to interrogate the accused Jitender @ Vikas @ Aalu.
Thereafter, he reached Tihar Jail. He interrogated the accused Jitender @ Vikas @ Aalu and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex P30. Accused made his disclosure statement Ex P-31.
54. On 01.02.2018, accused Vikas @ Aalu was produced in the court. He obtained police custody remand of accused. Accused pointed out scene of crime vide pointing out memo Ex P-29.
55. On 15.02.2018, Ct Naveen, Assistant Draftsman came to the police station. He accompanied Ct Naveen to the scene of Crime. Ct Naveen prepared rough notes and took measurements on the scene of crime at the instance of State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 26 ::
Ranbir. He collected the postmortem report, PCR Form. Exhibits were sent to FSL. He also correctly identified both the accused.
56. During cross examination by Ld Defence Counsel, he stated that he did not collect any document or evidence during investigation that Ankit @ Gullu was known to or friend of Jitender @ Gogi. He was already knowing the place of occurrence before it was pointed out by accused. He denied the suggestion that accused did not point out the scene of crime or that he did not make any disclosure statement or that the signatures of accused persons were obtained on blank papers which were later on converted into incriminating evidence.
57. Ld Defence Counsel has admitted the FSL results i.e. Ballistic Division result as Ex PX1 and Biological and DNA examination result as Ex PX2.
58. Dr.Mukesh Bharti, Medical Officer, SRHC hospital, Narela was examined as PW25. He deposed that on 05.11.2017 at 12.05 am Ankit @ Gullu S/o Shri Daya Chand, aged 26 years, male was brought by Sonu with alleged history of fire Arm injury as told by patient and brought by police staff. He deposed that patient was conscious and oriented. On medical examination, one punctured wound in epigastic region with paripheral blackening (?entry wound), State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 27 ::
one punctured(rounded) wound in right lumber region (?entry wound) and punctured wound with fracture of skull bone (rounded) on right side of forehead, protuding right eye ball.
The patient was fit for statement at the time of examination. He opined nature of injury as grievous. The patient was sent to SR Surgery for opinion and further management. He prepared MLC Ex P47.
59. During examination by Ld Defence Counsel he admitted that patient did not tell him the name of assailants. He did not mention the exact time when he was declared fit for statement. IO did not call him at the time of recording of statement of injured. However, statement of injured was recorded in his presence. Name of assailant is not in his knowledge and also what was recorded by IO. IO was asking the patient as to who caused him injury and how it happened. He admitted that IO did not record his statement u/s 161 Cr PC and also did not obtain his signatures on the statement of injured. The oxygen mask was put on mouth of patient. He denied the suggestion that patient has not given any statement in his presence or that he was not fit for statement. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
60. Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr PC wherein they denied entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. They did not wish to lead State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 28 ::
any evidence in their defence. Thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments.
61. I have heard arguments of Ld APP for State and Ld Defence Counsels for accused persons and have perused the record.
62. The present case is based upon the direct evidence and the dying declaration. Firstly I take up the evidence of the eye witnesses. In this case there were three eye witnesses as per the prosecution case i.e. Sonu son of Nanak Chand examined as PW-3, Ranbir @ Lala examined as PW-10 and Amit @ Kanhaya examined as PW-23. As per the story of prosecution on the intervening night of 04/05.11.17 all these three persons along with Ankit @ Gullu were present in the godown of Ranbir @ Lala situated on 33 wide road vill Bakoli, Delhi. They were preparing to take dinner. At about 11.30 PM four persons came there and on the exhortation of the other three, accused Vikas @ Allu fired on Ankit @ Gullu. These three witnesses immediately removed Ankit @ Gullu to SRHC hospital. From SRHC hospital Ankit @ Gullu referred to LNJP hospital. During treatment on 09.11.17 Ankit @ Gullu died. As mentioned above these three witnesses were examined as PW-3, PW- 10 and PW-23. PW-3 stated that at that time he was not in that room and had gone to purchase cigarettes. Ranbir @ State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 29 ::
Lala also stated that Sonu was not there and had gone to purchase cigarettes. Ranbir PW-10 and PW-23 Amit @ Kanhaya as well as Sonu PW-3 did not support the prosecution case. They failed to identify the assailants. They were cross examined by Ld.APP at length and were also confronted with their previous statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.PC by the police but still they did not support the prosecution case. Accused persons were also pointed out to the witnesses but they still did not identify them. There is no other eye witness of the incident, who can link the accused persons with the commission of offence or identify the assailants.
63. Keeping in view the testimonies of PW-3, PW-10 and PW-23 in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused or link them with the commission of offence on the basis of the direct evidence i.e. the eye witnesses.
64. Now I take up the dying declaration. In this case as per the story of prosecution Ankit @ Gullu was taken to SRHC hospital. The police got information vide DD no.2B dt.05.11.17 Ex.P-9 that Ankit @ Gullu admitted in the hospital by Sonu after sustaining fire arm injury. On this information SI Jaibir PW-22 along with HC Mehtab PW-7 reached SRHC hospital. They found Ankit @ Gullu admitted State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 30 ::
in the hospital. Ld.APP submitted that Ankit @ Gullu was fit to make statement as declared by Dr. Mukesh Bharti PW-25. He proved the MLC as Ex.PW-25/P-47. On the MLC also the doctor has mentioned against the column fit for statement- fit. As patient was fit for statement, therefore SI Jaibir Singh recorded the statement of Ankit @ Gullu which is Ex.P-12. PW-7 also corroborated the testimony of PW-22 in this regard. Both the witnesses stated that his statement was read over and explained to him i.e. Ankit @ Gullu and thereafter Ankit @ Gullu signed the same. Ld.APP submitted that they also identified the signature of Ankit @ Gullu on his statement at point A. There is nothing on record to disprove that the signature at point A on Ex.P-12 is not of Ankit @ Gullu but of some other person. Ld. APP submitted that according to PW-25 the patient was also fit when he was examined and when IO questioned him. The questioning of the patient was done by the IO in presence of the doctor as deposed by PW-22 as well as PW-25. The injured Ankit @ Gullu named the accused Vikas @ Allu as the person, who came there along with his three companions and said, "Tu aaaj kal Jitender @ Gogi ka bada saath they raha hai". In the mean while the companion of accused Vikas @ Allu said, "Itna time nahi hai goli maar sale ko". On this Vikas @ Allu fired thrice on Ankit @ Gullu. Ld. APP submitted that the State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 31 ::
statement of Ankit @ Gullu recorded by SI Jaibir PW-22 is also corroborated by the medical evidence and post mortem report Ex.PW-2/A. According to the MLC as well as post mortem report there were three entry wounds. Bullet was also recovered from the body and two bullet heads were found on the spot. Ld. APP submitted that there is no law that the dying declaration recorded by the police official can not be relied upon. SI Jaibir was fully competent to record the same. The circumstances referred in the statement of Ankit @ Gullu lead to the death of Ankit @ Gullu, therefore, the statement is admissible in evidence under Sec.32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872. Ld.APP submitted that as per the law the conviction can be founded solely on the basis of dying declaration if the same inspires full confidence as held by the Supreme Court in the case titled as Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22. There is no requirement of trying to find out any corroboration to the same. Ld. APP submitted that the dying declaration does not even require any corroboration as long as it inspires confidence in the mind of the court that it is free from any form of tutoring. Ld. APP in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Uma Kant Vs. State of Chattisgarh AIR 2014 SC 2943. Ld. APP further submitted that there is no such law that only a Magistrate can record a dying declaration. Any State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 32 ::
person can record dying declaration if the maker of the same is fit for statement and is capable of making such statement. Ld. APP in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Daal Singh AIR 2013 SC 2059. Ld. APP submitted that in this case there is no evidence on record that it is a result of any tutoring. The dying declaration has been recorded by a police officer and merely because it is not recorded by a magistrate or any question answer form does not take away the evidentiary value of the same as held by the Supreme Court in the case cited as Khushal Rao Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 22. Ld. APP submitted that the dying declaration Ex.P-12 in this case inspires confidence, reliable, trust worthy and recorded immediately after the question. The doctor PW-25 in whose presence the statement was recorded specifically deposed before the court that patient was fit for statement which clearly shows that Ankit @ Gullu was competent to make such statement. The dying declaration also found corroboration from the MLC Ex.PW- 25/P-47 and also the post mortem report Ex.PW-2/A. Ankit has specifically named that it was Vikas @ Allu r/o Village Alipur, who came along with his three friends. Ld. APP submitted that it has specifically came in the testimony of PW-2 that during investigation he came to know that only State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 33 ::
accused facing trial i.e. Jitender @ Vikas @ Allu r/o Alipur is known as Vikas @ Allu and there is no other person residing in village Alipur, who is known as Vikas @ Allu. Ld. APP submitted that keeping in view this testimony of PW-22 the identity of accused is also established. Ld. APP submitted that keeping in view all these facts and the settled law accused be held guilty and convicted on the basis of dying declaration.
65. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that no statement was made by Ankit @ Gullu. It is a false and concocted statement prepared by PW-22 only to falsely implicate the accused.
Ankit @ Gullu was not in a fit state of mind to make such statement. He had sustained injury to his head as has come in the evidence and his one eye was also protruding. Under the circumstances it was not possible for Ankit @ Gullu to make any such statement.
66. Ld. Counsel further submitted that even there is no evidence on record that the signature at point A on Ex.P-12 is of Ankit only. No such documents or evidence has been collected by the IO that Ankit used to put his signature as appearing at point A on Ex.P-12. Ex.P-12 also does not bear the signature of the doctor or the certificate of the doctor that Ankit was fit for statement. There is no endorsement of doctor on the Ex.P-12.
State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 34 ::
67. Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that the description of the assailant is also not given in the alleged dying declaration. Even the father name and address is not mentioned. Ld. Counsel submitted that there can be so many other persons known as Vikas @ Allu residing in village Alipur. Merely on the basis that there is reference of Vikas @ Allu in the statement of Ankit @ Gullu it can not be inferred that it is only the accused facing trial, who committed this offence. Ld. Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution is that Ankit @ Gullu is murdered as he was close to Jitender @ Gogi but no such evidence has been brought on record that Ankit @ Gullu was known to Jitender @ Gogi or was associate of Jitender @ Gogi. Jitender @ Gogi is wanted criminal. There is no evidence that Ankit @ Gullu was co accused in any case against Jitender @ Gogi. Ld.Counsel submitted that in fact it is only a concocted story made by the police to frame the accused persons. The allegedly dying declaration is shrouded with doubt. It does not inspire confidence. Ld. Counsel submitted that the incident of firing took place on the intervening night of 04 and 05th November 2017. Ankit died on 09.11.17. There were 4 days in between. The police could have got recorded the statement of Ankit @ Gullu from Magistrate but no such effort was made. Under the circumstances, statement recorded by State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 35 ::
PW-22 SI Jaibir can not be relied upon. It is also not in the question answer form as to what was asked and what he answered. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of all these facts it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove and establish that Ankit @ Gullu made any disclosure statement. It also does not inspire confidence. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove the dying declaration. The benefit be given to the accused and he be acquitted.
68. After hearing arguments and going through the record, I find that as per evidence brought on record injured Ankit @ Gullu was removed to SRHC hospital immediately after the incident. After getting this information vide DD no.2B SI Jagbir PW22 along with Ct Mehtab-PW7 reached at SRHC Hospital. They found Ankit @ Gullu admitted in the hospital. He was under treatment. Dr Mukesh Bharti was treating Ankit @ Gullu. MLC of Ankit is proved on record as Ex PW25/P47. According to this MLC and according to statement of the doctor patient was fit for statement. Dr. Mukesh Bharti stated that IO questioned the injured in his presence and PW22 also stated this fact that doctor was present when he made inquiries from Ankit @ Gullu. From the testimony of PW25 it is clear that Ankit @ Gullu was fit for statement when IO examined him and recorded his statement Ex P12. There is no such requirement of law that State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 36 ::
doctor shall certify on the statement of patient itself that he is fit for statement. Keeping in view the endorsement on the MLC that he is fit and then his statement before the Court that patient was fit for statement is sufficient to show that Ankit @ Gullu was in fit state of mind and was competent to make statement when PW22 reached hospital and recorded his statement Ex P12. PW7 and PW22 corroborated each other and PW25 further strengthened their testimony that IO i.e. PW22 inquired from injured as to what had happened who caused injuries to him and that is what is written in Ex P22. Both PW7 and PW12 stated that he was under treatment. PW25 also stated that mask was put on the face of the injured. There is nothing on record to show that patient was not able to speak. Ld Defence counsel has taken plea that as Ankit @ Gullu has sustained injuries on the head and his one eye was also protruding out, he was not in position to make statement but PW25 denied the same that Ankit was not fit for statement. Keeping in view testimony of PW25 I do not find any force in this contention of Ld Defence counsel.
69. Both witnesses specifically stated that after statement of Ankit was recorded it was read over to him and also explained thereafter Ankit signed signed his statement at point A. Defence has taken plea that signature at point A of Ex P12 is not of Ankit but no such evidence is brought on State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 37 ::
record.
70. On the other hand PW22 and PW7 specifically stated that signature at point A is only of Ankit @ Gullu. They have also explained reason of gap between the signature of at point A and statement. The explanation given is that Ankit was lying in the bed and while lying on the bed he put his signature after he was slightly lifted. Keeping in view this fact and the testimony of PW22 and PW7 corroborated PW25 also, in my opinion, this argument of the Ld Defence counsel does not inspire any confidence that the signature at Point A on Ex P12 is not of Ankit. Defence has not been able bring on record any evidence to disbelieve the testimony of PW7 and PW22 on this point.
71. The next defence taken is that there are so many other persons of the name of Vikas in the village Alipur but no such evidence is brought on record. This question was also put to SI Jaivir PW22 who stated that he made inquiry in the village Alipur and came to know that only the accused is known as Vikas @ Aalu, there is no other person known as Vikas @ Aalu in the entire village Alipur. Keeping in view this specific statement of PW22 and in the absence of any such evidence brought on record that any other person residing in village Alipur is also known as Vikas @ Aalu, I do not find any force in this contention of the Ld defence counsel.
State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 38 ::
72. In this case the dying declaration has been recorded by PW22. He is the sub inspector the police. There is no such law which prohibits a police officer from recording dying declaration. The law also does not prescribe any format for recording dying declaration. The only requirement of law is that the dying declaration shall not be a result of tutoring. The dying declaration must be referring to the circumstances leading to the death. If the dying declaration inspires confidence a person can be held guilty and convicted solely on the basis of dying declaration. In the present case as discussed above, there are three witnesses i.e. PW7 in whose presence the dying declaration was recorded, PW22 who recorded the dying declaration and PW25 is the doctor who declared the patient fit for statement and was also present when the dying declaration was recorded. All the three witnesses are consistent and fully corroborated each other. According to the evidence Ankit @ Gullu was fit to make statement. He made the statement that accused Vikas @ Aalu came along with his three companions and on the exhortation of companions Vikas @ Aalu took out the pistol from right pocket of his pants and fired thrice on Ankit @ Gullu. The witnesses also stated that the statement was read over and explained to Ankit @ Gullu who put his signatures at point A on EX P12. There is nothing on record to discredit State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 39 ::
or disbelieve PW7, PW22 and PW25. The dying declaration also finds corroboration of medical evidence. In the dying declaration Ankit told that Vikas @ Aalu fired three time on him. In the MLC as well as in the postmortem report the doctors found three entry wounds. Keeping in view the testimony of PW7, PW22 and PW25 I am of the view that Ankit @ Gullu made dying declaration which is Ex P12. This dying declaration inspires confidence, is unblamished and is not a result of tutoring, therefore, the reliance on the same can be placed. The onus which was on the prosecution has been discharged.
73. In this case, according to the postmortem report Ex PW2/A the cause of death is septicemia Shock as a result of ante mortem infection. The defence taken is that septicemia sat in for not giving proper treatment but this is declined by doctor Kishore Singh Thakur-PW2. He has specifically stated that septicemia sat in due to injury sustained by the injured and not during the treatment. Keeping in view the testimony of this witness, it is clear Ankit @ Gullu died due to gun shot injury and not due to any lapse in treatment. The death is homicidal.
74. Keeping in view the above discussion and the finding that the dying declaration inspires confidence in my opinion prosecution has successfully proved and established that it is State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 40 ::
accused Jitender @ Vikas @ Aalu who fired on Ankit @ Gullu on the exhortation of his co accused persons resulting into death of Ankit @ Gullu. So far as Accused Ravi @ Tati is concerned there is no evidence on record to link him with the commission of offence. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused Ravi @ Tati.
75. Keeping in view of the above discussion accused Jitender @ Vikas @ Allu is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Accused Ravi @ Tati is acquitted of the charge. He be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in like amount u/s 437A Cr PC for a period of 6 months.
Let convict Jitender @ Vikas @ Allu be heard on quantum of sentence on 24.09.2018.
VIRENDER Digitally signed by
VIRENDER KUMAR
Announced in the open court KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2018.09.22
today on 22.09.2018 BANSAL 17:04:55 +0530
(VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL)
ASJ/Pilot Court/North District
Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Ravi @ Tati SC No.211/18 :: 41 ::