Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Chandan @ Monu on 26 July, 2014

        IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
         JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Sessions Case No. 192/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0325642013

State          Vs.                    Chandan @ Monu
                                      S/o Naresh
                                      R/o H­788, Mangolpuri, Delhi. 
                                      (Convicted)

FIR No.                :      524/2013
Police Station         :      Mangolpuri
Under Section          :      307/452 Indian Penal Code.

Date of committal to Sessions Court  : 20.11.2013
Date on which orders were reserved  : 11.07.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced :11.07.2014

JUDGMENT:

(1) As per the case of prosecution, on 30.8.2013 at around 1.45 PM at H. No. 4/119, Mangolpuri, Delhi, the accused Chandan @ Monu committed criminal tress pass in the house of complainant Anand Sahni having made preparation for hurt and at that time the accused was in possession of knife and thereafter he assaulted on the person of Gudiya, Laxmi Devi and Anand Sahni with the knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances if he would have caused death of Laxmi, Gudiya and Anand Sahni he would be guilty of murder. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 1 of 87 CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:

(2) The case of prosecution in brief is that on 30.08.2013 after receiving the DD No. 33 B, the IO SI Robin Tyagi along with Ct. Mahesh reached the spot i.e. P4/118­119, Mangolpuri, Delhi, where he met one Arvind who informed that the person who inflicted injuries upon Anand, Laxmi, and Gudiya, was locked in the room drawing room. After opening the drawing room, Chandan @ Monu was apprehended. The injured Anand, Laxmi and Gudiya were already shifted to the SGM Hospital. IO SI Robin Tyagi handed over the custody of Chandan to Ct. Mahesh and he himself went to SGM Hospital and collected the MLCs of the injured. He came to know that the injured had gone to Jaipur Goldan Hospital for further treatment hence IO SI Robin Tyagi also went to Jai Pur Goldan Hospital where the injured were four admitted. IO SI Robin Tyagi recorded the statement of injured Anand Sahni who alleged that 30.8.2013 he was not well and hence stayed at home and at about 12:30 PM he was sleeping when Chandan @ Monu who was his neighbor about 7 to 8 years ago came and was asking about his health and thereafter went away. Anand further informed that Chandan again came to his house at about 1:45 PM and asked for water from Gudiya who was his cousin sister and had come from village for study. At that time he was in his room when Gudiya came with water when Chandan took out a knife from his pocket and started hitting Gudiya on which Gudiya raised an alarm and on hearing this, he (Anand) also came there and saw Chandan inflicting injuries on the neck of Gudiya and State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 2 of 87 thereafter he came to attack him (Anand) and inflicted injuries on various parts of his body including his neck. Anand further informed that on hearing the noise, his mother who was in the adjoining room also came to the spot on which Chandan also inflicted injuries upon his mother Laxmi Devi including her neck. On hearing the noise, his cousin brother Arvind who was residing on the first floor also came to the spot after which they all managed to push Chandan @ Monu in a drawing room and locked him and thereafter, while Arvind remained there, he (Anand) took his sister Guidya and mother Laxmi Devi to the Jaipur Goldan Hospital.

(3) On the basis of the above statement of Anand Sahni, a rukka was prepared and FIR was registered. During investigations, the accused Chandan @ Monu was arrested and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.

CHARGE:

(4) Charge under Section 452/307/34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Chandan @ Monu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

EVIDENCE:

(5) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as Nineteen witnesses.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 3 of 87

Complainant / Public Witnesses:

(6) PW10 Anand Sahni has deposed that he is a student of BBA, Second year and on 30.08.2013 he was not well therefore he was present in his house and was sleeping in his room when at about 12.30 PM Monu came to his house who was residing at H. No. H­788, Mangolpuri, Delhi and Monu came into his room and asked his health and in between ten minutes he left. He has deposed that at about 1.45 PM the accused Chandan @ Monu again came to his house and asked for water from Gudiya who was his cousin sister (Mausi's daughter) and was staying with them after coming from the village and at that time he was present in her separate room. According to the witness as soon as Gudiya went to take water, the accused Monu @ Chandan jumped over Gudiya with sharp weapon i.e knife, as a result Gudiya started crying and on hearing her cry he rushed to her, he found the accused Chandan @ Monu attacking on Gudiya with sharp weapon knife and he had caused injury on the neck of Gudiya. According to the witness, when he intervened in drawing room to save Gudiya, Monu attacked him also. He further deposed that he had given injuries on his neck and other parts of body and he also hit him on his private parts as a result of which he fainted. He further deposed that on hearing this shor­sharaba, his mother who was present in other room and was sleeping, came to him at once and on this Monu started attacking on her neck and his mother received deep injuries on her neck. On hearing their cries his cousin Arvind who was residing at the first floor, came after State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 4 of 87 which they were pushed by Arvind who tried to save them and he also pushed her mother and Gudiya inside the room to save them after which the accused Monu was locked in the drawing room by Arvind and himself.

Thereafter, he took his mother and Gudiya to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital in his private vehicle. He further deposed that there they were given stitches and the first aid and thereafter they were referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi where his statement was recorded vide Ex. PW10/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he and Gudiya were discharged from Jaipur Golden Hospital on 02.09.2013 whereas his mother Smt. Laxmi Devi was discharged from the said hospital on 03.09.2013. (7) Witness has identified the accused Chandan both by pointing out and also by name. Witness has also identified the knife as the one with which the accused Monu had inflicted injuries on him and proved the same as EX.P­1. He also identified the green and blood stained white dotted printed saree as worn by his mother at the time of incident and proved the same as EX.P­2. He further identified one blood stained purple coloured T­shirt which was worn by him at the time of incident and proved the same as EX.P­3 and also the blood stained blue and white colour ladies top as the one which was worn by Gudiya at the time of incident and proved the same as EX.P­4.

(8) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he is a student of Bhartiya Vidhya Peeth, Institute of State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 5 of 87 Management and Research and on the day of the incident he did not go to college as he was not well. According to the witness, they are a joint family and their house is constructed upto five floors and his family comprising of his parents, his younger brother Jagdish and Gudiya are residing on the ground floor. According to the witness Monu was known to him since childhood and there has never been any dispute between them and Monu at any point of time. He has further deposed that he used to study with him till class 6th. He has deposed that on the date of the incident Monu had come at 12.30 PM and hardly stayed for about five minutes after finding out about his well being and health condition. He has explained that there are three room on the ground floor. According to the witness, at the time of the incident he was in the room which was situated at extreme left corner near the entrance. He has stated that Monu had come at about 1:45 PM and he saw him alone. According to the witness, Monu first went to Gudiya and asked for water from her. He is unable to tell how Monu came to know that he was unwell when he came to inquire about his health, voluntarily explained that he must had come to know from somewhere. He denied the suggestion that on the same day he along with Monu had gone to Rohini Sector 3 Mall, Food Bazar in his private car i.e Santro Car of Golden Colour. Witness has admitted that he possesses a Santro Car of Golden Colour but he denied the suggestion that he had gone with Monu in said Santro golden colour car. He further denied the suggestion that before going to the Food Bazar he had gone to Doctor Mohd. Usman and has State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 6 of 87 voluntarily clarified that he had not gone with Monu. Witness has admitted that he had visited Doctor Mohd. Usman on same day but has again stated that he did not go with Monu. He further denied the suggestion that he spent one hour with Monu at M2k mall Food Bazar. Witness has admitted that when the accused had come for the first time, all the four persons i.e he himself Gudiya, his mother and Arvind were present in the building and has voluntarily explained that Arvind was present on the first floor at that time. According to the witness he did not see the accused taking the knife out of his pocket. He has further denied the suggestion that the accused Monu did not take out a knife and attacked Gudiya. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused Monu came to his room directly and had talks with him. He further denied the suggestion that there was a dispute between him and Monu on some girl with whom he was having affairs and has voluntarily explained that the question does not arise as he is not in touch with him. He further denied the suggestion that upon the discussion about the a girl, he started beating the accused Monu and shouted at him on which all his family members came there and attacked Monu. He has denied that on this Monu also tried to defend himself and ran away and locked himself inside the drawing room. He has further denied the suggestion that he was the one who attacked Monu with a knife and when his family members intervened they sustained injuries from him but in order to same him, they have shifted the blame on Monu. He further denied the suggestion that the knife in question was the one which was used State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 7 of 87 in his house as a kitchen knife. Witness has admitted that when all of them went for treatment, the accused was left alone and has voluntarily explained that he was locked in the room and Arvind was present outside the room. He has further denied the suggestion that they locked Monu from outside after he locked himself inside in order to save himself. According to the witness the police had recorded his statement on two occasions. He has explained that he had stitches on his neck, ear and one his head. He further denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely with regard to the stitches on his body. Witness has admitted that when Monu came second time, he was alone. Witness has admitted that large number of public persons including neighbors had also gathered at the time of incident. According to the witness his friend Raj Kumar who was living next to his house, Vikas Thakur and large number of other persons whose name he does not recollect at present had also collected. He further deposed that he did not tell the police that his neighbour Raj Kumar and Vikas Thakur had also reached there.

(9) He further denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded much later or that it was ante timed or that he signed the same on the asking of the Investigating officer to save himself from penal consequences. He further denied the suggestion that the entire incident was his creation or that accused had only tried to save himself after he and his family members attacked him. He further denied the suggestion that the medical evidence had been fabricated on his asking and connivance.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 8 of 87 (10) PW11 Arvind has deposed that he is a student of B. Tech. First year and on 30.08.2013 he was present at his aforesaid house and his Chacha Ji Raj Mangal Saini was residing on the ground floor in H. No. P­4/119, Mangol Puri. According to the witness at about 2.00 PM he heard noises i.e. Shor­Sharaba from the ground floor of the house in which his Chacha ji was residing and he rushed at once on the ground floor and found Gudiya in an injured condition. He further deposed that she was having injuries on her neck and blood was oozing and at the same time and he found the accused Monu having a knife in his hand. He further deposed that he saw accused Monu giving knife blow / slash on the neck of Anand and while he was about to reach to Anand to help him, but before he could reach him, he saw that his Chachi Smt. Laxmi Devi who was the mother of Anand reached out to Anand to help him and the accused Monu gave another slash / knife blow on her neck on which there was a splash of blood which he saw was coming out from her neck and on which he screamed and raised an alarm and simultaneously caught the hand of Monu in which he was holding the knife and Anand also caught him and both of them pushed him into the drawing and locked the room by putting a latch on the door from outside. He further deposed that he immediately told Anand to shift his Chachi and Gudiya to the hospital. While Anand immediately shifted them to the hospital, he remained in the house. He further deposed that at the same time police came there and the accused was handed over to the Police officials and the accused was kept in the custody of one constable State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 9 of 87 whereas SI Robin Tyagi went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital from the spot. He further deposed that he remained at the spot and after SI Robin Tyagi came to the spot, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW11/A at his instance. According to the witness the Crime Team also came to the spot which took the photographs of the spot, which photographs are Ex.PW6/A­1 to Ex.PW6/A­13 and SI Robin Tyagi got the case registered. According to the witness the accused was interrogated by SI Robin Tyagi and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW11/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/C. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Monu was recorded vide Ex.PW11/D and the accused Monu had handed over the blood stained knife to the Investigating officer after taking from behind the LCD TV and Investigating officer prepared the sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW11/E. According to the witness the knife was wrapped in cloth and sealed and the sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/F. He further deposed that he could tell the exact size of the knife which was measured by the Investigating officer in his presence. According to the witness the total length of knife was 28cms, its blade was of 15.2 cms and handle was of 12.8 cms, the width of the blade was 3.4cms. According to him police officials also lifted the blood stains and the earth control from the spot which were kept in a dibbi and the same were also sealed. He deposed that the said parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/G and his statement was recorded by Investigating officer. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 10 of 87 (11) Witness has identified the accused Chandan @ Monu and also the knife which is Ex.P­1. He further identified the green and blood stained white dotted printed Saree as worn by his Chachi at the time of incident which is Ex.P­2 and the blood stained purple colored T­shirt as the one which was worn by Anand at the time of incident which is Ex.P­3 and also the blood stained blue and white color ladies top as the one which was worn by Gudiya at the time of incident which is Ex.P­4. (12) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he was presently a student of B.Tech first year at Rohini sector 17 and at the time of the incident he had just joined the college about a month ago. He further deposed that on that day he did not go to the college because he had taken leave to prepare his first sessions test. He further deposed that they are a joint family and their house is constructed upto four floors including the ground floor and they were residing on the first floor. He further deposed that on that day, he, his sister Dharma were the only persons at the home. According to the witness there are tenants residing on the second and third floor. He further deposed that Monu was his neighbor and was known to him for the last 7­8 years and he never had any dispute with Monu at any point of time. According to the witness Monu used to come to their house and was known to his brother Anand and he was studying at that time when at 2:00 PM he heard the cries and he could not tell who had come to the house prior to that or gone out or whatever had happened since he was in his first floor portion and was State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 11 of 87 studying. He further deposed that when he went to the ground floor, there was no body and has voluntarily explained that the neighbors came later. He further deposed that it hardly took him a few seconds to reach on the ground floor. According to him, he did not receive any injuries and he also did not go to the hospital with his injured cousin and chachi and Gudiya. He further deposed that Anand drove his chachi and Gudiya to the hospital in his Santro car and he does not saw Monu injured when he went to the ground floor. He denied the suggestion that Monu had locked himself in the room and he latched the same from outside later and has voluntarily explained that it was he who locked Monu inside. Witness has admitted that Anand was in a medically fit state and moving and also in a position to drive. Witness has admitted that no finger prints were lifted from the knife in his presence. According to the witness photography had been got conducted by the Investigating officer and he has voluntarily explained that the photographs of the blood spots present on the floor and on the bed were taken. He further denied the suggestion that no photography was done at first instance as claimed by him or that the scene of crime was fabricated only after which the photographs were taken. Witness has admitted that the knife Ex.P­1 is the one which is for common kitchen use and voluntarily explained that it could be used for cutting vegetables as well as non­veg. According to the witness, he did not make a 100 number call. He further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at that time of the incident or that he is a planted witness only to lend authenticity to the State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 12 of 87 version of his cousin Anand. He further denied the suggestion that since he was not present at the spot he did not make any call to the police. He further denied the suggestion that since he was not present at the spot he did not accompany his injured cousin to the hospital. He further denied the suggestion that he did not meet the investigating officer SI Robin Tyagi at the spot or that it was only after he was called that he was shown as an eye witness to the case. He further denied the suggestion that all documents relating to the investigations were prepared in connivance with the local police and he merely signed the same on their asking. He further denied the suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure statement or that the Investigating officer recorded the same of his own only to divert the blame of the incident on the accused and to save his cousin Anand from penal consequences.

(13) PW12 Laxmi Devi has deposed that she is house wife and on 30.08.2013 she was present in her house and on that day at about 12.30PM the accused Chandan @ Monu came to her house. According to the witness she knew him as he was residing in the same vicinity earlier. She has deposed that her son Anand was not well on that day and he was in his separate room. She further deposed that she was sleeping in her room and Gudiya who is her sister's daughter had come from the village was also available in the house. According to the witness, after asking about the well being of her son, the accused left the house and at about 1.45 PM accused Monu again came to her house and asked for water from Gudiya State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 13 of 87 and when she was about to give water, the accused Monu attacked her with a knife and had given injuries on her neck. She further deposed that her son Anand rushed to Gudiya at once to save her and the accused Monu also attacked her son Anand on his neck and ear. She further deposed that when she heard the cries of Gudiya and Anand, she also rushed to them to save them upon which the accused also attacked her with the same knife and gave a knife blow / slash on her neck. According to the witness, she got deep injuries on her neck and blood oozed out. She has deposed that in that incident when they all were seeking help and raising alarm, Arvind who was the son of her devar came to save them from the first floor of the house which was adjacent to their house. She further deposed that they all pushed the accused Monu in the drawing room and saved themselves after a great struggle. She has further deposed that Arvind shut the door and put the latch from the outside and her son Anand took her and Gudiya to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital first where they were given stitches and first aid and thereafter they were referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital. She further deposed that her son Anand and Gudiya were discharged from the hospital on 02.09.2013 whereas she was discharged from the hospital on the next day. She further deposed that on 04.09.2013 the police came to their house and recorded her statement.

(14) Witness has identified the accused in the court. She also identified the knife Ex.P­1; the green and blood stained white dotted printed Saree as worn by her at the time of incident Ex.P­2; one blood State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 14 of 87 stained purple colored T­shirt worn by Anand at the time of incident Ex.P­3 and one blood stained blue and white color ladies top which was worn by Gudiya at the time of incident which is Ex.P­4.

(15) In her cross­examination, the witness has deposed that she is illiterate and her husband was not present in the house on the day of incident as he had gone to the market. She has further deposed that Anand was available in the house as he was not well. She has stated that besides her and Gudiya, Arvind was also present on the first floor of the adjacent house. She further deposed that she is not aware if other persons were also available on the first floor of Arvind. She has explained that their house was three­four storied. According to the witness, the tenants were residing on the upper floor of their house. She further deposed that she knew Chandan for last about twelve years. She has further deposed that there were no friendly relations between Chandan and her son Anand and has explained that Chandan @ Monu visited her house two times and on both occasions he was alone. She further deposed that on the second time when Monu came, she was sleeping in her room. According to the witness, she got up when Anand came shouting. She denied the suggestion that the accused directly went to the room of Anand and had discussions about a girl with whom Anand was having an affair and started beating Chandan and also shouted and gathered all the people present in the house. She has denied the suggestion that all the persons present there started beating Chandan and also tried to inflict injuries upon him with a kitchen knife on State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 15 of 87 which Chandan ran away to the drawing room in order to save his life and locked the door from inside. According to the witness, Monu did not sustained any injury and has voluntarily explained that she sustained injuries and she was not conscious and therefore she could not tell. According to the witness, she did not notice the injuries on the accused if any, as she herself was injured. She has further denied the suggestion that when she came, all the persons had already caught hold of the accused. She has further denied the suggestion that she had not rushed to save Gudiya and Anand but rather she herself had caught hold the accused and started beating him. She has also further denied the suggestion that the accused was shouting and running for his life and finding an opportunity, saved his life by locking himself in the drawing room. She has further denied the suggestion that the knife Ex.P­1 was already lying in their house. She further denied the suggestion that the accused had locked himself from inside in order to save his life. According to the witness she do not remember as to how many times her statement was recorded by the Investigating officer. She has further denied the suggestion that the statements were recorded by the police in the Police Station. She further denied the suggestion that they did not push the accused in the drawing room or that there was no question of saving their lives as they were four in number and accused was alone. She has denied that the knife Ex.P­1 had been planted on the accused only to connect him with the case or that she was deposing falsely only to save her son from penal consequences. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 16 of 87 (16) PW13 Gudiya has deposed that she was residing with the family of her Mausi in House Number P­4/119, Mangol Puri, Delhi whereas her parents resided in the Village Simorpur, Distt. Motihari, Bihar. She has deposed that she is residing with the family of her Mausi for domestic help and also for taking some technical education like stitching etc. According to the witness, on 30.08.2013 she was present in the house when at about 12.30 PM the accused Monu had come in the house and asked about the well being of Anand and thereafter at about 1.45 PM the accused again came and asked her for water. She has deposed that when she was about to give water, the accused Monu attacked her with a knife and gave her a knife blow on the neck on right side below the ear and lower part of the neck on front side. According to the witness when she raised alarm, her cousin Anand came to her at once and tried to save her but accused Monu also gave a knife blow to him while they were shouting. At the same time, her Mausi namely Smt. Laxmi Devi rushed towards them when the accused Monu gave a knife blow / slash on the neck of her Mausi as a result of which the neck of her mausi was cut. She has further deposed that when the accused was attacking them, Arvind came from nearby house and tried to save them and he pushed them to save them. She further deposed that they all with the help of Arvind pushed accused Monu in the drawing room and Arvind put the latch on the door from outside. According to the witness, Anand took her and her mausi to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where they were given stitches and first aid and thereafter they were taken to State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 17 of 87 Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini where they remained admitted. She further deposed that she and Anand remained admitted till 02.09.2013 whereas her mausi discharged from hospital on 03.09.2013. She has stated that the police officials met her mausi on 04.09.2013 when she narrated the entire incident to him and police recorded her statement.

(17) Initially the witness was unable to identify the accused and when with the permission of the court the accused Monu @ Chandan was specifically put to the witness, then even after taking time she denied that he was not the same person who assaulted her. However, when Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross­examined the witness and the accused was again specifically put to the witness and on being questioned that this is the same person who attacked upon her to which she initially stated that she was unable to recollect i.e. "dhyan nahi aa raha, mai dekhti thee, wo pahle bhi ghar aya tha". On further question, if accused was the same boy who had asked for water on the day of the incident i.e. "Kya ye vahi ladka hai, jisne ghatna wale din apse paani manga tha" the witness then responded by saying that he was the same person i.e. "Haan, ye vahi ladka hai. She further explained that incident took place in quick succession and she was scared and also because at that time the assailant had long hairs i.e "Ghatna itni jaldi main hui thee ki mein ghabra gayee thee. Ghatna wale din marne wale ladke ke baal lambe­lambe thay, aaj mujhe dhyan hi nahi aa raha hai."

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 18 of 87 (18) She has denied the suggestion that she had not identified the accused initially due to fear and thereafter on carefully looking at the accused for a very long time, she stated that she was now convinced that he i.e. Monu was the one who had attacked her. She identified the knife Ex.P­1; the green and blood stained white dotted printed saree as worn by her Mausi at the time of incident Ex.P­2; one blood stained purple colored T­shirt as the one which was worn by Anand at the time of incident Ex.P­3 and also one blood stained blue and white color ladies top one which was worn by her at the time of incident which is Ex.P­4.

(19) In her cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that she was residing in Delhi since two years prior to the incident. She further deposed that she did not know Monu but she had seen him coming to their house on a couple of occasions. She has stated that Monu was not a friend of her brother Anand and has voluntarily explained that he resides in their neighborhood. According to the witness she had seen Monu in their house at 12.30 PM but he left after five minutes and he again came to their house at 1.45 PM. She has stated that she did not go out with Anand at 12.35 PM but left alone. She denied the suggestion that Monu had left with Anand in the Santro car driven by Anand. Witness has stated that Anand had not gone to the college being unwell and was at home. She has denied the suggestion that there was a verbal dispute between Anand and Monu on some girl and on hearing the same she went to that room and found her brother Anand attacking Monu. She has further denied the State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 19 of 87 suggestion that meanwhile her Aunt Smt. Laxmi Devi also came to the room and both she and Laxmi Devi start attacking Monu while her brother Anand brought out a knife in order to attack Monu but she and her Mausi came in between on which both of them received injuries in the hands of Anand. She has further denied the suggestion that the accused Monu did not take out a knife or attack her. She has further denied the suggestion that because they had all attacked Monu on which he in order to defend himself ran away and locked himself inside the drawing room. She has also denied the suggestion that the knife which was used in the incident was a kitchen knife and has voluntarily explained that it was used for cutting vegetables. According to the witness after the incident she was very much conscious and she had told the doctor in the hospital that she was assaulted by Monu but this court has observed that the name of accused is not mentioned in the MLC. According to the witness, her mausi was unconscious at that time. She has denied the suggestion that Arvind was not present at the spot at the time of incident. She further deposed that Arvind did not go to the hospital and the vehicle in which they went to the hospital was driven by Anand. (20) Witness has admitted that when all of them went for treatment, the accused was left alone and has voluntarily explained that he was locked in the room from outside. She has further denied the suggestion that they locked Monu from outside after he locked himself inside in order to save himself. According to the witness the police had recorded her statement on three­four occasions and at her house once. She has admitted that large State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 20 of 87 number of public persons including neighbors had also gathered at the time of the incident but she could not tell their names. She has denied the suggestion that the entire incident was her creation or that the accused had only tried to save himself after her brother Anand and they all attacked him. She has admitted that she could not identify the accused initially in the court on that day and has voluntarily explained that after carefully seeing him she could identified him. She further denied the suggestion that it was only on account of the fact that he was pointed out to her by the Addl. PP that she could identify him and has voluntarily explained that after he was pointed out she again saw him carefully and could identify him. Medical Evidence:

(21) PW7 Dr. Subodh Gupta, has deposed that on 30.08.2013 he was working as Senior consultant (Surgery) in Jaipur Golden hospital and on that day patients Ms. Gudiya, Smt. Laxmi Devi and Mr. Anand were referred to their hospital from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and were admitted in their hospital with alleged history of assault under his supervision.

According to the witness after their medical examination Ms. Gudiya and Mr. Anand were discharged on 02.09.2013 and Mrs. Laxmi Devi was discharged on 03.09.2013 and the discharge summary of the aforesaid patients are Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C respectively, all running into two pages each and bearing his signatures at point A on each exhibit.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 21 of 87 (22) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he was supervising the full team of doctors on the aforesaid dates in the hospital and the treatment was given to the aforesaid patients by the full team of the doctor but he could not tell the exact name of doctor who had given treatment at every step. He has further deposed that he supervises the treatments given to the patients and he does not give the medicines or dressing etc. as he is only supervising. He further deposed that he had mentioned regarding the injuries to have beeen inflicted by sharp edged weapon and that he gathered from records of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and as per the history given by the patients. (23) PW8 Dr. Ajai Dubey, has deposed that on 30.08.2013 he was working as PG Student in the Jaipur Golden hospital and on that day patients Gudiya, Smt. Laxmi Devi and Anand were referred to their hospital from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and were admitted in their hospital with alleged history of assault under the supervision of Dr. Subodh Gupta. According to the witness after their medical examination Gudiya and Mr. Anand were discharged on 02.09.2013 and Laxmi Devi was discharged on 03.09.2013. The discharge summary of the aforesaid patients are Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B running into two pages each and Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B bearing his signatures at point B. (24) This witness was not cross­examine by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 22 of 87 (25) PW9 Dr. Ravi Kumar, has deposed that on 30.08.2013 he was working as PG Student in Jaipur Golden hospital and on that day patients Ms. Gudiya, Smt. Laxmi Devi and Mr. Anand were referred to their hospital from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and were admitted in their hospital with alleged history of assault under the supervision of Dr. Subodh Gupta. According to the witness after their medical examination Ms. Gudiya and Mr. Anand were discharged on 02.09.2013 and Mrs. Laxmi Devi was discharged on 03.09.2013. The discharge summary of the aforesaid patients are Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C respectively, all running into two pages each and Ex.PW7/C bears his signatures at point B. (26) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted.

(27) PW15 Dr. Deep Bhardwaj has deposed that on 30.08.2013 at about 2:05 PM patient namely Laxmi Devi was brought in the casualty of their hospital by her son Anand Kumar with alleged history of physical assault by a sharp weapon as told by her son. He further deposed that after initial examination in the casualty patient was referred to SR ENT where he examined the above said patient vide MLC No. 15891 which is Ex.PW15/A bearing his observations at encircled portion X to X1 bearing his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that he had given stitches to the patient Laxmi Devi on bialateral sternocleidomastoid muscles, Strape muscles, thyroid cartilage, anterior jugular vein.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 23 of 87 (28) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness had admitted that the patient did not gave history herself and has voluntarily explained that she was in critical condition and her son has given the history. According to the witness all these body parts to which the stitches had been given were the parts of the neck only and it appeared to him that the patient was referred to their hospital directly and there was no primary treatment given.

(29) PW16 Dr. Munish has deposed that on 21.10.2013 he was working as Junior Specialist, Forensic Department, SGM Hospital and the MLC was deposited in the hospital by the police officials seeking nature of injuries. According to the witness, on examination of scar causing disfigurement of left neck and ear, hence, the nature of injury was opined as grievous. He further deposed that his observations in this regard was at point A bearing his signatures at point­B. He has further deposed that on the same day Dr. Deep Bhardwaj, SR ENT has examined the patient and referred to him for forensic opinion and his signatures were at Point C which he identified. He further deposed that he is well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Deep Bhardwaj as he had seen him while writing and signing during course of his official duties. (30) In his cross­examination he has denied the suggestion that he had opined the nature of injury on the asking of the Investigating officer. (31) PW18 Dr. Binay Kumar has deposed that on 30.08.2013 he was working as CMO at SGM hospital and on that day three patient namely State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 24 of 87 Gudiya D/o Bacha Shahni, Laxmi Devi W/o Sh. Jai Narain Shahni and Anand Sahni S/o Jai Nrain Shahni were brought in the casualty of their hospital and he examined them vide MLCs Ex..PW18/A, Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW18/B. (32) He has further deposed that he examined the patient Gudiya and found the injuries as under:­

1. Fresh incised wounds of 3cm x 3cm x 1 cm over left angle of mandible, 3 cm x 3 cm x 1cm over right angle of mandible, 3 cm x 1cm x 1cm over right side of chin, 2 cm x .5cm x.2cm over upper part of flexor aspect of left forearm.

2. Fresh incised wound of 8 cm x .2cm x .2cm and 8 cm x .2cm x .2cm over lower part of front of neck (wound was horizontally placed and tapering towards left lateral side).

(33) According to the witness, as per the aforesaid injuries he opined the nature of injury as Grievous. His signatures on the aforesaid MLC was at point A, B and C. (34) He has further deposed that he examined the patient Laxmi Devi and found the injuries i.e. fresh incised wound of 15cm x 2cm x trachea and thyroid cartilage exposed (wound is anterio­laterally placed over the neck and horizontal in direction and tapering towards right lateral side. According to him, the patient Laxmi was referred to ENT department and he examined the ENT report and on examination he had State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 25 of 87 given the opinion of nature of injury as Grievous.

(35) The witness has further deposed that on examination of patient Anand Sahni, he found following injuries :­

1. Fresh incised wound of 10 cm x 1cm x 1cm over left lateral side of neck below left side of body of mandible (wound is obliquely placed and tapering towards backward and upward).

2. Fresh incised wound of 6cm x 1cm x through cut over left pinna and tapering towards upward.

3. Fresh incised wound of 3cm x .5cm x .5cm over flexor aspect of upper part of left forearm and 2.5cm x .5cm x .5cm over left temporo occipital region.

(36) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he had given his opinion regarding nature of injuries at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (37) PW19 Dr. Manoj Dhingra has deposed that on 21.09.2013 he was working as Incharge, Forensic Department, SGM Hospital and on that day Investigating officer SI Robin Tyagi had moved an application seeking subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. He further deposed that he had also produced a sealed parcel containing the weapon of offence during sealed with the seal of RT. He further deposed that he opened the said parcel and one knife was taken out and he examined the said knife and prepared its sketch and the said sketch including his opinion is Ex.PW19/A State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 26 of 87 bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Dr. Munish at point B which he identified. He further deposed that on examination and after going through the injuries he opined that injuries mentioned in the MLCs No. 15891/13, 15892/13 and 15893/13 were possible with weapon examined by them or similar such weapon. According to the witness, the weapon re­ sealed and handed over to the Investigating officer and that he could identify the knife if shown to him. Witness has also correctly identified the knife as the same as examined by him. The same is Ex.P­1. (38) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he did not examine the aforesaid weapon properly or that he had given his opinion on the asking of the Investigating officer in a routine manner.

Official / Police Witnesses:

(39) PW1 SI Anil Kumar has tendered his examination­in­chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 bearing his signatures at points 'A' and 'B' and he rely upon crime team report which is Ex.PW1/A. In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on dated 30.08.2013, he was on duty as an In­ charge and during his duty he received a call from Control Room, Outer Distt. regarding an incident of assault with knife in H.No. P­4/120, Mangolpuri, Delhi which was lodged vide DD No. 33B Dt. 30.08.13 in police station Mangolpuri. He further deposed that after getting call he along with Photographer Ct. Harish 837/OD PIS No. 28030538 reached to State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 27 of 87 Scene of Crime, i.e., in H.No. P­4/119­120 and found blood in the rooms of House. He further deposed that Photographer Ct. Harish, 837/OD took the photographs of the scene of crime as per the instructions of Investigating officer SI Robin Tyagi. He further deposed that he prepared a Crime Scene inspection report and handed over to SI Robin Tyagi Police Station Mangolpuri.

(40) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had received the call at around 3:30 PM on 30.08.2013 and he was accompanied by Ct. Harish, Ct. Manish, Ct. Ravi and Ct. Deepak.

According to him the distance from his office to the place of crime was approximately five km. He has further deposed that he had found blood in three rooms. He has stated that the blood samples were not collected in his presence as they were busy in their work. He has further deposed that besides the police staff there were two public persons present and the blood stains were found on the bed and on the floor. He further deposed that he could not say as to how many photographs were taken as same were taken by the photographer. He has further deposed that he left the place at about 5:45 PM.

(41) PW2 HC Satinder has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 bearing his signatures at point 'A' and 'B' and he relied upon the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/B. In his affidavit witness has deposed that on 30.08.13 he was working as Duty officer from 4:00 PM to State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 28 of 87 12:00 PM and on that day at about 05.45 PM, he received a Rukka through Ct. Mahesh from SI Robin Tyagi just after that after making entry of the lodging of FIR in Daily Diary register, he got registered an FIR No. 524/13 U/S 307/452 IPC and there were his signatures on Rukka. He further deposed that after registration of Case FIR original Rukka and copy of FIR bearing no. 524/13 was sent to SI Robin Tyagi by Ct. Mahesh for further action. He was not cross­examined on behalf of the accused despite being granted an opportunity.

(42) PW3 HC Vijender Singh has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW3/1 and relied upon entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 5974/13, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A. He also relied upon entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 168/21/13, copy of which is Ex.PW3/B and FSL receipt of the same, copy of which is Ex.PW3/C. In his affidavit, witness has deposed that on 30.08.13 he received 10 sealed parcels along with three sample seal and three seizure memo from SI Robin Tyagi in case FIR No. 524/13, U/S 307/452 IPC and after that he duly deposited the same in the Malkhana. According to him on 27.09.13 he issued all the 10 Parcels and four sample seal to Ct. Sonpal to deposit the same in the FSL, Rohini vide Road Certificate. He has further deposed that all the parcels were remained safe in his custody and during his custody they were not tampered. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity granted.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 29 of 87 (43) PW4 W/Ct. Sanjeet has tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW4/1 bearing her signatures at point 'A' and 'B' and she rely upon DD No. 33B, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A bearing her signatures at point A. In her affidavit, witness has deposed that on 30.08.13 she was working as DD writer in police station Mangolpuri from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm and on that day at about 2.00 PM, she received a call from W/Operator that in H. No. P­120 Gali No. 4, Mangolpuri someone has stabbed knife in quarrel and same call was lodged by her in Roznamcha (Daily Diary) vide DD No. 33B dated 30.08.13. According to her after lodging of call after order of SHO Mangolpuri she gave the information to SI Robin Tyagi who was on an emergency duty at that time. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted.

(44) PW5 Ct. Sonpal has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW5/1 and he rely upon entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 168/21/13, copy of which is Ex.PW3/B and copy of FSL receipt which is Ex.PW3/C. In his affidavit witness has deposed that on 27.09.13 he after taking FSL Form on the instructions of SI Robin Tyagi, Investigating Officer of Case FIR No. 524/13 u/s 307/452 IPC got issued 10 sealed parcels along with four Sample Seal from the Malkhana of Police Station Mangolpuri vide Road Certificate. He further deposed that after taking Parcels, Sample Seal, FSL Form and Road Certificate he duly State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 30 of 87 deposited the same in FSL Rohini. According to him, during his custody case property was remained intact and not tampered. According to him, after submitting the parcels he handed over the acknowledgment of deposit Parcels to Malkhana of Police Station Mangolpuri. This witness was not cross examine on behalf of the accused despite being granted an opportunity.

(45) PW6 Ct. Harish has tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is Ex.PW6/1 bearing his signatures at point 'A' and 'B' and he rely upon photographs which are Ex.PW6/A­1 to Ex.PW6/A­13 and negatives of the same which are collectively Ex.PW6/B. In his affidavit witness has deposed that on 30.08.13 he was on duty as a Photographer and during his duty In­charge Crime Team SI Anil Kumar D­3609 PIS No. 16960212 received a call from Control Room, Outer Distt. regarding an incident of assault with knife in H.No. P­4/120, Mangolpuri Delhi which was lodged vide DD No. 33B dated 30.08.13 in police station Mangolpuri. According to him that after getting call he along with In­charge Crime Team SI Anil Kumar D­3609 reached to Scene of Crime i.e., in H. NO. P­4/119­120 and found blood in the rooms of House. He further deposed that after that he took the photographs of the scene of crime as per the instructions of Investigating officer SI Robin Tyagi D­5191 police station Mangolpuri.

(46) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that on 30.08.2013, he had received the call at 3:30 PM and he State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 31 of 87 examined the site between 4:30 PM to 5:45 PM. According to him the distance between his office and place of occurrence was about 3­4 km. He further deposed that he was accompanied by Incharge, (Criem Team) SI Anil Kumar, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Manish and Ct. Ravi. He further deposed that he noticed that there were drops of blood in three rooms on the ground floor and he had taken 13 photographs of the scene of crime. He further deposed that during the investigations about 20­25 persons of the public had gathered outside the house. He denied the suggestion that he had taken only a selected version of photographs which favors the victims and deliberately avoided taking photographs which were favoring the accused. (47) PW14 Ct. Mahesh Chand has deposed that on 30.08.2013 he was posted at police station Mangolpuri and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8AM to 8 PM. He further deposed that on receipt of DD No. 33B at about 2 PM he along with SI Robin Tyagi reached P­4/119, Mangolpuri. He further deposed that when they reached there, there were large number of persons and blood splattered all over the varanada. He further deposed that they met one Arvind, S/o Shiv Mangal Sahni who informed that his chachi Laxmi, her son Anand and Gudiya had been sent to the hospital being injured. According to the witness he also informed that the person who had inflicted stab injuries had been caught and locked inside the drawing room and on this they opened the drawing room and found one boy inside the room. According to the witness, on inquiry the said person disclosed his name as Chandan @ Monu S/o Naresh, R/o State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 32 of 87 H­788, Mangolpuri. He has deposed that the Investigating Officer SI Robin Tyagi then went to SGM hospital and left him at the spot along with Chandan and Arvind and after he returned at 5:00 PM, he (IO) prepared a tehrir and handed over the same to him with the directions to take the same to the police station and get the FIR registered. He has further deposed that he then went to the Police Station, handed over the tehrir to duty officer and after the registration of the FIR the Duty Officer handed over to him the copy of FIR and the original rukka which he brought back to the spot and handed over the same to SI Robin Tyagi. He has further deposed that at that time SI Robin Tyagi was prepared the site plan at the instance of Arvind. According to the witness thereafter he interrogated the accused Chandan @ Monu after which the Investigating Officer also interrogated the accused at length and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW11/D. According to the witness, the accused then led the Investigating officer inside the drawing room and from behind the TV set he got recovered a knife which knife was blood stained. The Investigating Officer also prepared the sketch of the same which sketch is Ex.PW11/E. The total length of the knife was 28 cm, the handle was 12.8cm, blade was 15.2cm and width was 3.4 cm. According to the witness, there were three nails on the handle of the knife after which the knife was converted into pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of RT and Investigating officer then prepared the seizure memo of the same which is Ex.PW11/F. He has further deposed that thereafter with the help of State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 33 of 87 Chenni and hammer the blood stained earth was broken and with the help of a gauze the blood was lifted and put in a container. Thereafter, the said container was sealed with the seal of RT after putting the surgical tape on the same. He has further deposed that the seizure memo of the same was prepared vide memo Ex.PW11/G and Investigating officer then conducted the personal search of the accused and prepared the personal search memo which is Ex.PW11/C. (48) On leading question put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was not giving the complete details, witness has admitted that the arrest memo of the accused was also prepared which is Ex.PW11/B or that on the same day he had accompanied the Investigating officer to Jaipur Golden Hospital where the doctor on duty had handed over three sealed pullandas containing the blood samples in the gauze and sample seal which the Investigating Officer seized vide memo Ex.PW14/A. (49) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that the drawing room where the accused was present was not locked from inside. He has further denied the suggestion that he had knocked the door and called the accused to open the door. Witness has admitted that when he saw the accused after opening the door, the accused was injured and has voluntarily explained that public persons had beaten the accused. According to the witness he does not recollect whether the blood was oozing out from his head or his clothes had also become blood State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 34 of 87 stained. He is also not aware if the Investigating Officer had interrogated the neighbors and states that he had seen large number of persons outside and has explained that while he was inside the room with the accused, IO was outside talking with the neighbors. He further deposed that he is not aware if the Investigating officer had recorded the statements of any of the neighbors of the area and states that he did not pay attention to the status of the things lying in the drawing room as to whether they were in order or disturbed. Witness has admitted that when the accused was in the drawing room after which he caught him, he did not offer any resistance nor he appeared to be violent. The witness has explained that some force had also come from the police station and has voluntarily added that it was because large number of persons had collected outside. He is however unable to give their details and explained that he was outside. The witness is also unable to tell whether those persons from the Police Station were made witnesses in this case and has admitted that when they reached the spot, there were no injured present there. According to the witness, he also did not see any injured thereafter. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer did not get any photography done either of the place of incident or of the place where the knife was allegedly pointed out by the accused. He has stated that the Investigating Officer had prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of knife in his presence. He further denied the suggestion that no site plan of the place of recovery of knife was prepared and has voluntarily explained that he had seen the Investigating officer preparing State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 35 of 87 some site plan. He further deposed that Investigating Officer did not get any finger prints lifted from the knife in his presence. He has admitted that the knife has not produced in the court and is unable to tell why it has been withheld. He is also unable to tell if the knife which was recovered was a kitchen knife and has voluntarily explained that it appeared to be a bigger than a kitchen knife. Witness has admitted that the knife which was allegedly recovered was an item of common domestic use and was easily available in the market. He further deposed that he cannot tell if that knife had been sent to FSL for expert opinion regard finger prints, etc. He further denied the suggestion that the blood stains were deliberately planted on the clothes of the accused and the knife only to connect him with the offence. He has further denied the suggestion that the knife was not recovered at the instance of the accused or that the accused was compelled to sign blank documents which were converted into various memos at a later stage. He has further denied the suggestion that all documentations was done while sitting in the police station or that he merely signed the same on the asking of the senior officers. He further denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement or that the same was recorded by the Investigating officer of his own in connivance with the complainant. Witness has also correctly identified the knife as the one which was seized by the investigating officer. The knife is Ex.P­1. (50) In his cross examination the witness has admitted that knife Ex.P1 is commonly used in kitchen for cutting vegetables and also non­veg. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 36 of 87 Witness has denied the suggestion that the knife Ex.P­1 has been planted upon the accused at the instance of the complainant only to connect him with the offence or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the investigating officer.

(51) PW17 SI Robin Tyagi has deposed that on 30.08.2013 he was posted at police station Mangol Puri and on that day on receipt of DD No. 33B which is Ex.PW4/A he along with Ct. Mahesh reached the place of the incident i.e. P­1/118­119, Mangol Puri, Delhi where one person namely Arvind met them and informed him that the injured had already been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and the accused had been apprehended by them in the house itself. He has further deposed that he apprehended accused from the said house and handed him over to Ct. Mahesh. According to the witness, public witness Arvind was also left at the spot and he went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and collected the MLC of injured namely Smt. Laxmi Devi, Anand Sahni and Gudiya from the doctors. According to the witness, in the hospital he made inquiries about the aforesaid injured persons and came to know that they had already been referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Jaipur Golden Hospital where he found the aforesaid injured persons admitted. According to the witness, one of the injured namely Anand Sahni was fit for statement and therefore he recorded his statement which is Ex.PW10/A bearing signatures of Anand at point A, which is attested by him and bearing his signatures at point B. According to the witness, thereafter he came back to the spot State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 37 of 87 prepared a rukka Ex.PW17/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he sent Ct. Mahesh to the police station for getting the case registered and he also called the crime team and the photographer of crime team took photographs of the scene of crime vide Ex.PW6/A­1 to Ex.PW6/A­13. According to the witness the crime team inspected the spot and handed over to him the Inspection report / Crime team report which is Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that he recorded the statements of the members of the Crime Team and at the instance of Arvind Sahni he prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW11/A and Ct. Mahesh brought the copy of FIR Ex.PW2/A and original rukka and same were handed over to him. According to the witness the accused Chandan Kumar @ Monu was interrogated and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW11/B and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/C and his disclosure statement was recorded separately vide Ex.PW11/D. According to the witness the accused got recovered one knife from behind the LCD TV in the same drawing room where he was confined. He has further deposed that he measured the knife and prepared the sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW11/E and the total length of the knife was 28cms. Its blade was of 15.2 cms and handle was of 12.8cms and the width of the blade was of 3.4cms. According to the witness he converted the aforesaid knife into parcel and sealed the same with the seal of RT and seized the aforesaid parcels vide memo Ex.PW11/F. He then lifted the blood stains from the State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 38 of 87 spot and kept the same in separate plastic jars and sealed the same with the seal of RT. He further deposed that he also lifted the earth control and blood stained earth control from the spot and kept the same in separate plastic jar and sealed them with the same seal and all exhibits were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/G. According to the witness he then recorded statement of Arvind. He has further deposed that he also got the medical examination of the accused conducted form SGM Hospital and thereafter returned to Police Station Mangol Puri and put him in the lock up. He has further deposed that he then went to Jaipur Golden Hospital and collected the pullandas containing blood samples of the victims duly sealed with the seal of hospital along with the hospital seal after which he took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that he then returned to the police station and deposited the pullandas in the malkhana, recorded statement of Ct. Mahesh and relieved him.

(52) He has further deposed that on 04.09.2013 he recorded the statements of all the three victims namely Laxmi, Anand and Gudiya. He has further deposed that he also collected their discharge summary from the Jaipur Golden Hospital and submitted the same in SGM Hospital for final opinion. He has further deposed that he took the opinion on the weapon of offence from SGM Hospital which opinion on his application Ex.PW17/B is Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that he then deposited the pullanda in the FSL and he also collected the final opinion from SGM Hospital on the State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 39 of 87 MLCs of the victims and prepared the charge sheet which he filed in the court. According to the witness he can identify the accused and the case property. He has identified the accused and also correctly identified the knife which the accused got recovered from behind the LCD TV which is Ex.P­1.

(53) In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that Crime team had taken the photographs in his presence at around 5.00­5.30 PM. He has denied the suggestion that the scene of crime had been fabricated in connivance with the complainant only after which the photographs were taken. He has further deposed that he did not prepare the site plan of the place of recovery of knife and also did not get the finger prints lifted from the knife. He has further denied the suggestion that the accused had told him that it was a kitchen knife which was already available in the house of the complainant or that he deliberately did not send the knife to the Finger Print Expert as it could have revealed that the complainant had in fact attacked the accused. According to the witness he had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused at the place of incident and has denied that the accused did not made any disclosure statement to him or that he repeatedly told him that he was innocent and it was complainant Anand who had attacked him with the knife after there was a dispute between him and Anand over a girl. He further denied the suggestion that accused Monu told him that the mother and sister of Anand had tried to intervene when they saw Anand attacking him and received State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 40 of 87 injuries at his hands. He has further denied the suggestion that Monu also told him that in order to save himself from Anand and his family, he locked himself in the drawing room and came out only after the police came. According to the witness, when the accused Monu was unlocked from the drawing room he did not offer any resistance nor he was violent. He has further stated that there were large number of public persons outside the house and has voluntarily explained that there must be around 100 persons. According to the witness, none of the public persons joined the investigation and has voluntarily explained that he tried but they refused. According to the witness he could not tell the names and details of the public persons who had refused to join the investigations and has explained that none of the public persons standing outside were the eye witnesses. He has further denied the suggestion that he did not join any public persons or that he has deliberately not cited them as a witnesses because they were not supporting the version given by the complainant and were rather supporting the version of the accused Monu. Witness has admitted that the 100 number call was not made by any family member of the complainant and has voluntarily explained that it was probably made by some public person. According to the witness, he did not conduct any inquiry to find out the details of the public persons who had made the 100 number call and has stated that he made no inquiries either from Anand or from Arvind or even from the accused Monu about the details of mobile phone which they were using at that time or their numbers.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 41 of 87 (54) He has further denied the suggestion that he had deliberately withheld the mobile number being used by Anand or by Monu as the CDRs and Location Chart of the same would have confirmed the frequent calls between the two and also the fact that they were together at M2K mall and various other locations. According to the witness he could not tell if at the time of incident the complainant Anand was using mobile phone bearing 9716758208 and 9136170005 at that time time, one phone was make of Samsung and other was of Apple. He is also unable to tell if Arvind was using mobile no. 08802566252 at the time of incident or if accused Monu was using mobile no. 9210222677. He further denied the suggestion that he had not conducted free and fair investigations. He further denied the suggestion that the opinion from the doctors and experts had been obtained on his asking and tutoring. He further denied the suggestion that he had deliberately not lifted the finger prints from the knife as it would have confirmed its use by Anand. He further denied the suggestion that he obtained blank signatures of the accused on various papers which he converted into various memos at a later stage only to implicated the accused in this case. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not investigate the aspect of accused and Anand going together to M2K mall and also does not obtain the CCTV footage as it would had expose the lies of the complainant.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 42 of 87 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED & DEFENCE EVIDENCE:

(55) After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of accused Chandan @ Monu under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded wherein the entire material / evidence against the accused persons were put to him which he has denied. In his defence, the accused has examined as many as five witnesses, as under:

(56) DW1 Chandan @ Monu (accused examined himself under Section 315 Cr.PC) has deposed that he and Anand Sahni are close friends since childhood and there has never been any dispute of any kind between them. According to him, on 30.8.2013, he went to meet Anand at 11:20 AM and he did not know that he was sick. He deposed that he reached there at 11:30 AM and as soon as he entered inside he saw that Laxmi and Gudiya were present in the drawing room. According to him, he straight away went in Anand's room which is at left hand side and he saw that Anand was watching TV and upon his asking, Anand told him that he was having slight fever on which he advised him to take rest and started to leave the premises but Anand's mother came to him and requested him to take Anand to some doctor. The witness has deposed that at about 12 - 12:15 PM, he along with Anand went to the doctor in his Golden Coloured Santro Car and remained there for about 15 to 20 minutes and took some medicines after which Anand told him to visit M2K Rohini for which he agreed and they both went to Food Bazar near M2K Mall Rohini wherea Anand parked his car in front of IDBI Bank. The witness has deposed that State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 43 of 87 in the midway Anand told him that he had forgotten something in the car and hence they went again in the car from where Anand took his purse after which they went to Food Bazar from where they purchased two Wild Stone Deo amounting to Rs.350/­ and thereafter they went to Anand's house at about 1:10 PM. According to the witness, they soon entered the house and took the water bottle from the fridge and after taking the water they went to Anand's room and started watching TV. At that time, Anand's mother was sleeping. He has deposed that he asked Anand as to who was that girl whom he had left near his (accused's) house at Thana Road to which Anand replied none. Witness has deposed that he started joking with Anand stating that he had an affair with that girl and hence he was hiding this fact from him (accused). According to the witness, hearing this affair talk, Anand got annoyed and started abusing him. The witness has deposed that he also abused Anand and his girl friend but does not know what happened to Anand since all of a sudden he gave big blow on his face and a scuffle started on which Anand's mother and Gudiya also reached there and they all started beating him. According to the witness, all these three persons were beating him very badly and he was not able to come out of this scuffle. He has deposed that since, the mother and sister of Anand were ladies, he repeatedly asked them to remain away from him and only because of their being ladies, he did not raise his hand on them. He has deposed that in the meantime Anand ran and brought a kitchen knife and then the scuffle started with a kitchen knife. In that process Gudiya was hurt by the State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 44 of 87 knife which was in the hand of Anand. He has deposed that Gudiya soon ran away and called Arvind and thereafter, Arvind and Anand started beating him and they pushed him on the floor and said that they would kill him and he would not be able to escape from their house. The witness has deposed that Anand's father is fish seller and therefore they have all types knives at their residence. The witness has deposed that he with a great difficulty stood up and in order to save his life ran towards drawing room which room has two gates. According to the witness, he locked the door which was entering Anand's room and thereafter he locked the main entry door of the drawing room after which a lot many people gathered there and all of them present in front of the main entry of drawing room. Witness has deposed that he was scared and he thought that he would definitely be killed on that day. Witness has deposed that the people who had gathered there were having sticks and weapons in their hands and were shouting that they came to kill him as they all were furious. The said persons were even trying to break the entrance on which he got extremely scared and was sweating very badly as he was confirmed that on that day he would be definitely killed. According to the witness, all the people were shouting upon him to open the door but he did not open the door due to fear. He has deposed that after some time some police officials came and asked him to open the door from the main entry and as soon as he opened the door, some people came inside to beat him. At that time, Anand's brother Jagdish was also there after which the police officials took him to the Police Station. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 45 of 87 (57) The witness has further deposed that he had not inflicted any injuries to anybody with a knife or with anything else and the knife was in the hand of Anand. It was only when Anand was inflicting injuries upon him with a knife and he was defending himself that in this process Anand also got hurt. He has deposed that all of them were given beatings to him very badly and he sustained injuries on his head, shoulder, face and left hand where a swelling occurred. According to him, the doctor did not properly examine him and gave a report on instructions of the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on 30.8.2013 at night, the police officials got blue and cream coloured papers signed from him forcibly and out of those papers some were bank whereas some were printed. He has deposed that he did not know where Anand threw the knife and when.

(58) According to the witness, neither the knife was in his hand nor he used it at any point of time nor the same was recovered at his instance.

He has further deposed that the police has intentionally connected him with the crime whereas he himself is the victim and had suffered injuries. He has further deposed that he had to run for his life because all these four persons were about to kill him on that day. He has further deposed that had he not gone to the drawing room and locked himself, all of them would have killed him with the knives in their hands and he had simply saved his life. He has deposed that he had never gone to Anand's place with the intention as stated by the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that he never knew that this small talk would lead to such a grave scuffle. He State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 46 of 87 has deposed that all the things which had happened all of a sudden. He has further deposed that he had stated all these facts to the IO and had asked him to gather the relevant records of CCTV footage and bills etc. from Food Bazar and parking area and the location of mobiles but nothing was done by the IO at his end.

(59) In his cross examination, the witness / accused Chandan @ Monu has stated that he is unable to produce any document or receipt of parking showing that Anand had parked his car in front of IDBI Bank nor he is able to tell the exact number of car of Anand but states that it may be 3563 or 6335. He has stated that he did not purchase any articles from Food Bazar and only Anand had purchased two Wild Stone Deodrant but he is unable to produce any bills or receipts in this regard. He has stated that he also sustained injuries but he was not treated for the same. He has stated that neither he nor his parents have made any complaint to the police regarding his falsely implication. He has stated that he is creating a story of going to M2K Mall with Anand falsely in order to save himself from the legal consequences. He has denied the suggestion that he had produced the knife before the police after taking out from the behind LCD TV which knife he used in this incident. He admits that the aforesaid injured were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and that he was apprehended at the spot by police.

(60) DW2 Ct. Naresh Kumar has deposed that on 30.8.2013 he was maintaining the CCTV cameras installed in front of IDBI Bank, Mangalam State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 47 of 87 Place, Sector­3, Rohini. He has further deposed that in routine the said recordings are automatically done and get overwrite after seven days automatically. According to him, he still tried to trace out the recording of the said place dated 30.8.2013 but the same are not available. He has deposed that the IO of the case has never made a request to preserve the said recordings. He was not cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. (61) DW3 Prince Mudgil has deposed that he is the Store Manager at Food Bazar. According to him, usually he is the Incharge of CCTV Cameras installed at Food Bazar under his supervision by maintenance staff. He has deposed that in routine the said recordings are done and gets overwrite after seven days automatically. According to him, still, he tried to find out if the recording of the said place dated 30.8.2013 was available but the same are not available being overwritten. According to the witness, he cannot produce the bills / receipts issued to the various customers on 30.8.3013 as the same are deleted after every 45 days. He has deposed that the IO of the case has never made a request to preserve the said recordings or bills / receipts. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the prosecution.

(62) DW4 Jyotish Chandra Moharana has brought the record pertaining to mobile no. 9136170005 which is issued in the name of Anand Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Mangal Sahni R/o 119, P4 Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi. The copy of the customer application form is Ex.DW4/A and the copy of voter card in support of residence proof is Ex.DW4/B, call detail record State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 48 of 87 from 29.8.2013 to 31.8.2013 is Ex.DW4/C. According to the witness, since the said number was not in use, the call details are nil. He has further deposed that the aforesaid number has been disconnected on 26.4.2014. He has also brought the certificate under Section 65­B of Evidence Act which is Ex.PW4/D. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the prosecution.

(63) DW5 Shishir Malhotra has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile no. 9716758208 which is issued in the name of Anand Kumar S/o Ram Mangal Sahni R/o 119, P4 Block, Mangolpuri, Delhi given as a prepaid connection. The customer application for is Ex.DW5/A and the copy of voter ID Card is Ex.DW5/B. he has also brought the certified copies of CDR of the aforesaid connection for 30.8.2013 copy of which is Ex.DW5/C. The Cell ID Chart is Ex.DW5/D. He has also brought the certificate under Section 65­B of Evidence Act is Ex.DW5/E. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the prosecution.

FINDINGS:

(64) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel, considered the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution and the memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of accused and prosecution. My findings are as under:

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 49 of 87

Identity of the Accused:

(65) In so far as the identity of the accused Chandan @ Monu is concerned, there is no dispute as he was known to the complainant and his family prior to the incident. He has been named in the FIR and identified by the witnesses in the court. Even otherwise, the accused has even not disputed his identity.

Medical Evidence:

(66) The case of the prosecution is that during the incident, the accused Chandan @ Monu inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant Anand, his mother Laxmi Devi and cousin sister Gudiya, by a knife. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Dr. Subodh Gupta (PW7), Dr. Ajai Dubey (PW8), Dr. Ravi Kant (PW9), Dr. Deep Bhardwaj (PW15), Dr. Munish (PW16), Dr. Binay Tyagi (PW18) and Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW19).

(67) Coming first to the testimony of Dr. Deep Bhardwaj (PW15) from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, he has proved that on 30.08.2013 at about 2:05 PM patient Laxmi Devi was brought in the casualty of by her son Anand Kumar with alleged history of physical assault by sharp weapon as told by her son Anand. He further proved that after initial examination in the casualty, patient Laxmi was referred to SR ENT where he examined the above said patient vide MLC Ex.PW15/A and had given stitches to the patient Laxmi Devi as she had suffered injuries on bialateral State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 50 of 87 sternocleidomastoid muscles, Strape muscles, thyroid cartilage, anterior jugular vein. Further, Dr. Binay Kumar (PW18) has proved that on 30.08.2013 patients Gudiya, Laxmi Devi and Anand Sahni were brought in the casualty of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and he examined them vide MLCs Ex..PW18/A, Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW18/B. He has proved that he examined the patient Gudiya and found the following injuries which he opined as Grievous in nature :

1. Fresh incised wounds of 3cm x 3cm x 1 cm over left angle of mandible, 3 cm x 3 cm x 1cm over right angle of mandible, 3 cm x 1cm x 1cm over right side of chin, 2 cm x .5cm x.2cm over upper part of flexor aspect of left forearm.

2. Fresh incised wound of 8 cm x .2cm x .2cm and 8 cm x .2cm x .2cm over lower part of front of neck (wound was horizontally placed and tapering towards left lateral side).

(68) Coming next to the testimony of Dr. Binay Kumar. He has proved that he had examined the patient Laxmi Devi and found the injuries i.e. fresh incised wound of 15cm x 2cm x trachea and thyroid cartilage exposed (wound is anterio­laterally placed over the neck and horizontal in direction and tapering towards right lateral side which injuries he opined as Grievous. Similarly, Dr. Binay Kumar has proved that on examination of patient Anand Sahni, he found following injuries : State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 51 of 87

1. Fresh incised wound of 10 cm x 1cm x 1cm over left lateral side of neck below left side of body of mandible (wound is obliquely placed and tapering towards backward and upward).

2. Fresh incised wound of 6cm x 1cm x through cut over left pinna and tapering towards upward.

3. Fresh incised wound of 3cm x .5cm x .5cm over flexor aspect of upper part of left forearm and 2.5cm x .5cm x .5cm over left temporo occipital region.

(69) I may further observe that Dr. Munish (PW16) from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital has proved the opinion regarding nature of injury received by Laxmi Devi as 'Grievous' in nature. Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW19) has proved the subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence and also confirmed that injuries mentioned in the MLCs No. 15891/13, 15892/13 and 15893/13 were possible with weapon examined by him or similar such weapon i.e knife Ex.P­1.

(70) Further, Dr. Subodh Gupta (PW7), Dr. Ajai Dubey (PW8) and Dr. Ravi Kumar (PW9) have proved that on 30.08.2013 patients Gudiya, Laxmi Devi and Anand were referred to Jaipur Goldan hospital from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital with alleged history of assault. They have proved that after medical examination, Gudiya and Anand were discharged on 02.09.2013 whereas Laxmi Devi was discharged on 03.09.2013 vide discharge summary Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 52 of 87 (71) The medical evidence as aforesaid confirm the incident and the fact that Anand, Laxmi and Gudiya had sustained injuries in the same which injuries have been caused by weapon in question i.e. kitchen knife Ex.P1 which was got recovered by accused and was handed over to police. Arrest of the accused:

(72) The case of the prosecution is that during the incident the accused Chandan who had inflicted knife injuries upon Anand, his mother Laxmi and his sister Gudiya, was apprehended and pushed in a room where he was locked after which the police was called and he was handed over to them. It is further case of the prosecution that thereafter when the accused Chandan was interrogated he admitted his involvement in the case and also got recovered a kitchen knife from behind the LCD TV installed in the room where he had but under the same.

(73) This entire version has been controverted by the accused who claims that there was a quarrel / verbal altercation between him and Anand over a girl when they were abusing each other when Anand became violent and got a knife from his kitchen. However, the mother and sister of Anand came in between to separate them and in the process received injuries in the hand of Anand but in order to save Anand, they shifted the blame on the accused. He has also informed that the family of Anand is into sale of fish and these knives are available in their house. He also claims that the knife was planted upon him.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 53 of 87

(74) It is evident from the above that the accused does not dispute the incident which he says took place at the spur of the moment and he also does not dispute his presence at the spot. Two versions clearly emerge. One that the accused had come to the house of the complainant as is the prosecution case and inflicted injuries and was locked up and Second which is equally probable that after accused came to the house of victims, there was a verbal altercation between Chandan and Anand in which Laxmi and Gudiya received injuries when they came in between to separate them.

The weapon of offence is a kitchen knife and the place of incident is room near the kitchen. There is no evidence of pre­meditation and for this sudden behaviour, no previous dispute etc. and hence the second version is more convincing. In so far as the recovery of the knife is concerned, the recovery has been witnesses by the independent witnesses i.e. Arvind (PW11) who is residing on the first floor and was present in the house when the police came and opened the lock of the drawing room where the accused had been locked after which the accused brought out the knife from behind the LCD TV, which cannot be doubted. I hold that not only the formal arrest of the accused Chandan (after he was confined in the room whether by others or by himself) and also the recovery of the kitchen knife Ex.P1 stands established.

Ocular Evidence:

(75) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 54 of 87 required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.

(76) In the present case, the entire case rests upon the testimonies of the injured Anand, Laxmi and Gudia. According to the prosecution, on the date of incident, the accused Chandan came to the house of Anand to inquiry about his health but in the meanwhile his cousin sister who was staying with them at that time came to the said room and was asked for water and while she was going to bring water she was given knife injuries by the accused and on hearing of her crises, when Anand came there, he was also attacked by the accused and was given injuries on various parts of his body including his neck. On hearing the noise, Laxmi Devi the mother of Anand who was in the adjoining room also came to the spot, who was similarly attacked by the accused with knife and inflicted injuries on neck.

Thereafter, on hearing the noise, Arvind who was residing on the first floor, came to the spot and thereafter they all managed to push Chandan @ Monu in a drawing room and locked him and thereafter Anand took Guidya and Laxmi Devi Hospital.

(77) In this regard, the Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that the version given by the prosecution is incorrect. According to the defence, the accused Chandan and the complainant Anand were good friends since State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 55 of 87 childhood and on the date of incident i.e. 30.8.2013 he went to meet Anand as he was sick and also took Anand to doctor Usman and thereafter they went to M2K Mall Rohini and then to Food Bazar and returned back when there was a verbal altercation between them on the issue of a girl when Anand became aggressive and tried to inflict injuries upon Chandan but the mother and sister of Anand came in between and in that process they too sustained injuries but finding himself cornered and surrounded and in order to save himself, Chandan confined and locked himself in the drawing room and opened the door only when police reached the spot. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the family of the complainant locked the accused inside much later finding that he was not opening the door and then in order to give a twist to entire case and to save Anand, they made a call to the police and informed them that it was he (i.e. accused Chandan) who inflicted injuries upon them (victims).

(78) Before coming to the rival claims, I may observe that since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimonies of Anand, Laxmi Devi and Gudiya, hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 56 of 87 State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit­worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness­box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).

(79) It is a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily witnesses are either not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons and one of the reasons is that they do not have courage to depose against habitual criminal apprehending threats to their life. A rustic or an illiterate witness may not be able to State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 57 of 87 withstand the test of cross­ examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful cross­examiner and at times under the stress of cross­ examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When such a person is faced with an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, hence minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Instances are not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. (Ref. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965).

(80) Applying the settled principle of law to the facts of present case, I may observe that all the witnesses have supported each other in so far as the identity of the accused is concerned and the manner in which the incident transpired. In so far as the witness Anand and his mother Laxmi are concerned, the accused Chandan being a resident of same area had been visiting terms with Anand and hence they have identified him. However, Gudiya had seen him previously only one couple of occasions and in the court she had to make an effort to identify him and then after she did identification, she explained that at the time of incident Chandan had long hair and hence she was finding it difficult at the first instance to identify the accused but then confirmed that he was the same person who inflicted injuries upon her.

(81) Coming first to the testimony of Anand Sahni (PW10) relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 58 of 87

"I am student of BBA, Second year. On 30.08.2013 I was not well therefore I was present in my house and was sleeping in my room. At about 12.30PM Monu came to my house who was residing at H. No. H­788, Mangol Puri, Delhi. Monu came into my room and asked about my health. In between ten minutes he left. At about 1.45PM the accused Chandan @ Monu again came to my house and asked for water from Gudiya who was my cousin sister (Mausi's daughter) and was staying with us after coming from the village. At that time I was present in my separate room. As soon as Gudiya went to take water, the accused Monu @ Chadan jumped over Gudiya with a sharp weapon i.e. knife. As a result Gudiya started crying. On hearing her cries I rushed to her, I found the accused Chandan @ Monu attacking Gudiya with sharp weapon knife. Accused Chandan had given injury on the neck of Gudiya, when I intervened in drawing room to save Gudiya, Monu attacked me also. He had given injuries on my neck and other parts of body. He also hit me on my private part and I fainted. On hearing this shor­ sharaba, my mother who was present in the other room and was sleeping, came to me at once and on this Monu started attacking her on her neck. My mother received deep injuries on her neck. On hearing our cries my cousin Arvind who was residing at the first floor, came and we were pushed by Arvind in order to save us. I also pushed my mother and Gudiya inside the room to save them. The accused Monu was locked in the drawing room by Arvind and myself. I took my private vehicle and then took my mother and Gudiya to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. There we got stitches and first aid and State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 59 of 87 thereafter we were referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi. Police came at Jaipur Golden Hospital where my statement was recorded vide Ex.PW10/A bearing my signatures at point A. I and Gudiya were discharged from Jaipur Golden Hospital on 02.09.2013 whereas my mother Smt. Laxmi Devi was discharged from the said hospital on

03.09.2013 At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed pullanda duly sealed with the seal of FSLMCH DELHI. The same is opened after breaking the seal and one knife is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same as the one with which the accused Monu had inflicted injuries on him. The same is Ex.P­1.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. A, duly sealed with the seal of FSLMCH DELHI.

The same is open after breaking the seal and the green and blood stained white dotted printed Saree is taken out and shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same as worn by his mother at the time of incident. Same is Ex.P­2.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. B, duly sealed with the seal of FSL MCH DELHI. Same is opened after breaking the seal and one blood stained purple colored T­shirt is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the one which was worn by him at the time of incident. Same is Ex.P­3.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. C, duly sealed with the seal of FSL MCH DELHI. Same is opened after breaking the seal and State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 60 of 87 one blood stained blue and white color ladies top is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the one which was worn by Gudiya at the time of incident. Same is Ex.P­4."

(82) Witness Anand has identified the knife Ex.P1 as the same by which the accused inflicted injuries upon them, the blood stained saree Ex.P2 as the same which was worn by his mother Laxmi at that time of incident, the blood stained T­shirt Ex.P3 as the same which he was wearing at the time of incident and the blood stained ladies top Ex.P4 as the same which Gudiya was wearing at the time of incident.

(83) In his cross examination, he has admitted that at the time of the incident he was student of Bartiya Vidhya Peeth, Institute of Management and Research. He has confirmed that they are a joint family and his house is constructed upto to five floors. He has further confirmed that accused Monu was known to him since his childhood and there has never been any dispute between them prior to this incident. According to him, Monu had come to him at 12:30 PM and hardly stayed for five minutes when the incident took place. He has stated that there are three rooms in the ground floor and at that time he was present in the extreme left room after which Monu again came after 15 minutes and first he went to Gudiya and asked for water. He has stated that he cannot tell why Monu came again and has denied that he had got with Monu to Dr. Usman and then to Sector 3, State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 61 of 87 Rohini and Mall and then M2K Mall at Food Bazar where he and Monu spent about one hour. He has further denied that he and Monu were having a discussion about a girl when suddenly he started beating Monu and attacked Monu on which Monu tried to defend himself. He has denied that he was the one who attacked Monu but he shifted the blame on Monu. (84) Coming next to the testimony of Laxmi Devi (PW12), the relevant portion of her testimony is reproduced as under:

"I am house wife. On 30.08.2013 I was present in my house. On that day st about 12.30PM the accused Chandan @ Monu came to my house. I know him as he was residing in the same vicinity earlier. My son Anand was not well on that day and he was in his separate room. I was sleeping in my room and Gudiya who had come from village and is my sister's daughter was also available in the house. After asking about the wellness of my son the accused left the house. At about 1.45PM accused Monu again came to my house and asked for water from Gudiya and when she was about to take water, the accused Monu attacked her with a knife and had given injuries on her neck. My son Anand rushed to Gudiya at once to save her. The accused Monu also attacked my son Anand on his neck and ear. When I heard the cries of Gudiya and Anand, I rushed to them to save them and the accused also attacked upon me with the same knife and had given the knife blow / slash on my neck. I got deep injuries on my neck and blood was oozing out. In this incident when we all were seeking help and raising alarm, when Arvind who is the son of State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 62 of 87 my devar came to save us from the first floor of the house which is adjacent to our house. We all pushed the accused Monu in the drawing room and saved ourselves after a great struggle. Arvind shut the door and put the latch from the outside. My son Anand took me and Gudiya to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital first where we were given stitches and first aid and thereafter we were referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital. My son Anand and Gudiya were discharged from the hospital on 02.09.2013 where I was discharged from the hospital on the next day. On 04.09.2013 the police came to our house and recorded my statement.

I can identify the accused if shown to me.

At this stage witness seen towards the accused present in the court and correctly identified him as accused Chandan @ Monu.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one pullanda in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one knife is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same. The same is already Ex.P­1.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. A, in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and the green and blood stained white dotted printed Saree is taken out and shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same as worn by her at the time of incident. Same is already Ex.P­2.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. B, in open condition which was already State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 63 of 87 opened during the testimony of previous witness and one blood stained purple colored T­shirt is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the one which was worn by Anand at the time of incident. Same is already Ex. P­3.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. C, in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one blood stained blue and white color ladies top is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the one which was worn by Gudiya at the time of incident. Same is already Ex.P­4."

(85) Witness Laxmi Devi has also identified the knife Ex.P1 and the clothes they were wearing at the time of incident which are Ex.P2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. According to her, on the date of incident her son Anand was available in the house and only she (Laxmi), Gudiya and Anand present in the house whereas Arvind was present at his house on the first floor. She admits that she knew Chandan for about 12 years and states that on the date of incident Chandan came to her house on two occasions alone. She has stated that she was sleeping but on hearing the shouting of Anand, she got up. She has denied the suggestion that Chandan had gone to the room of Anand and they were discussing about a girl with whom Anand was having an affair and started beating Chandan and on hearing the noise all the members present in the house gathered there and started giving beatings to State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 64 of 87 Chandan and also tried to inflict injuries upon him with a kitchen knife after which Chandan ran towards the drawing room and locked himself inside in order to save himself. She has also denied that when she came out of her room, Arvind and others had already caught hold of Chandan and Arvind was abusing him.

(86) Coming next to the testimony of Gudiya (PW13). She has deposed on similar lines as the other two witnesses. The relevant portion of her testimony is reproduced as under:

"...... Presently I am residing with the family of my Mausi in H.No. P­4/119, Mangol Puri, Delhi. My parents reside in the Village Simorpur, Distt. Motihari, Bihar. I am residing with the family of my Mausi for domestic help and also to take some technical education like stitching etc. On 30.08.2013 I was present in the house, when at about 12.30 PM accused Monu came inside the house and asked about the wellness of Anand. Thereafter at about 1.45 PM the accused again came and asked me for water. When I was about to take water, the accused Monu attacked me with a knife and gave a knife blow on my neck on the right side below the ear and lower part of the neck on front side. When I raised alarm, my cousin Anand came to me at once and tried to save me but accused Monu gave a knife blow to him also. We were shouting and at the same time my mausi namely Smt. Laxmi Devi rushed to us and the accused Monu also gave knife blow / slash on the neck of my mausi as a result of which the neck of my mausi was cut. When the accused was attacking State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 65 of 87 us, Arvind also came from nearby house and tried to save us. He pushed us to save us. We all with the help of Arvind pushed accused Monu in the drawing room and Arvind put the latch on the door from outside. Anand took me and my mausi to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where we were given stitches and first aid and thereafter we were taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini where we remained admitted. I and Anand remained admitted till 02.09.2013 whereas my mausi was discharged from hospital on 03.09.2013. Police official recorded statement of my mausi on 04.09.2013 and I narrated the entire incident to him. Police recorded my statement.

I can identify the accused if shown to me.

At this stage witness is uanble to identify the accused. Now with the permission of the court the accused Monu @ Chandan is specifically put to the witness but the witness Gudiya, after taking time, has denied that he is not the same person who attacked her.

At this stage Ld. Addl. PP seeks permission to cross examine the witness on the point of identity of the accused.

Heard. Permission is granted.

XXXXX by Ld. Addl. PP for the state.

The accused has been specifically put to the witness and on being questioned that this is the same person who attacked upon her to which she stated that "Dhyan nahi aa raha. Mai dekhti thee, wo pahle bhi ghar aya tha. "

Ques: Kya ye vahi ladka hai, jisne ghatna wale din apse paani manga tha?

Ans. Haan, ye vahi ladka hai. Ghatna itni jaldi State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 66 of 87 main hui thee ki mein ghabra gayee thee. Ghatna wale din marne wale ladke ke baal lambe­lambe thay, aaj mujhe dhyan hi nahi aa raha hai."

It is wrong to suggest that I had not identified the accused initially due to fear.

Now at this stage after carefully looking at the accused for a very long time, the witness states that she is now convinced that he i.e. Monu was the one who had attacked her.

I can identify knife if shown to me.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one pullanda in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one knife is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same. The same is already Ex.P­1.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. A, in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and the green and blood stained white dotted printed saree is taken out and shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same as worn by her Mausi at the time of incident. Same is already Ex.P­2.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. B, in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one blood stained purple colored T­shirt is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the one which was worn by Anand at the time of incident. Same is already Ex.P­3.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. C, in open condition which was already opened State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 67 of 87 during the testimony of previous witness and one blood stained blue and white color ladies top is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the one which was worn by her at the time of incident. Same is already Ex.P­4. ........"

(87) Witness Gudiya has identified the case property and the clothes which they were wearing at the time of incident. In her cross­examination, Gudiya has clarified that she is residing at Delhi two years prior to the incident and did not know Chandan previously but had seen him coming to the house on a couple of occasions. According to her, on the date of incident initially Chandan came to their house at 12:30 PM and again came at 1:45 PM. She has stated that Arvind and Anand had not gone with Chandan. She has also denied that there was verbal altercation between Anand and Monu on some girl and hearing the same, she went to the said room and found Anand attacking Monu. She has further denied that in the meanwhile Laxmi Devi also came to the room and both she (Gudia) and Laxmi Devi started attacking Monu while Anand brought out a knife to attack Monu but she (Gudia) and Laxmi came in between and in that process they (Gudia and Laxmi) received injury in the hands of Anand. She has also denied that the accused Monu did not take a knife to attack her or that they had all attacked Monu on which in order save himself, Monu locked himself inside the drawing room.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 68 of 87 (88) I may further observe that Arvind is the first cousin of Chandan being son of his Chacha. Arvind was also present at the relevant time on first floor and on hearing the cries on the ground floor, he saw his cousin Anand, Gudiya and aunt Laxmi in injured condition after which he made a call at 100 number. The relevant portion of the testimony of Arvind is reproduced as under:

"......... I am student of B. Tech. First year. On 30.08.2013 I was present at my aforesaid house. My Chacha Ji Raj Mangal Saini is residing on the ground floor in H.No. P­4/119, Mangol Puri, At about 2.00PM I heard the shor­Sharaba from the ground floor of the house in which my chacha ji is residing. I rushed at once on the ground floor and found Gudiya in an injured condition. She was having injuries on her neck and blood was oozing. At the same time I found the accused Monu having a knife in his hand. I saw accused Monu giving a knife blow / slash on the neck of Anand. While I was about to reach to Anand to help him, but before I could reach him, I saw that my chachi Smt. Laxmi Devi who is the mother of Anand reach out to Anand to help him and the accused Monu gave another slash / knife blow on her neck on which there was a splash of blood which I saw was coming out from her neck and on which I screamed and raised an alarm and simultaneously caught hand of Monu in which he was holding the knife and Anand also caught him and both of us pushed him into the drawing and locked the room by putting a latch on the door from outside. I immediately told Anand to Shift Chachi and State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 69 of 87 Gudiya to the hospital. While Anand immediately shift them to the hospital and I remained in the house. At the same time police came there and the accused was handed over to "Sir"(police official). The accused was kept hold in the custody of one constable and SI Robin Tyagi went to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital from the spot. I remained at the spot. SI Robin Tyagi came to the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW11/A at my instance bearing my signatures at point A. The crime team also came to the spot which took the photographs of the spot. Which photographs are already Ex.PW6/A­1 to Ex.PW6/A­13. SI Robin Tyagi got the case registered. The accused was interrogated by SI Robin Tyagi and arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW11/B bearing my signatures at point A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW11/C bearing my signatures at point A. The disclosure statement of accused Monu was recorded vide Ex.PW11/D bearing my signatures at point A. The accused Monu had handed over the blood stained knife to the IO after taking from behind the LCD TV and IO prepared the sketch of the knife vide Ex.PW11/E bearing my signatures at point A. The knife was wrapped in cloth and sealed. The sealed parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/F bearing my signatures at point A. I can tell the exact size of the knife which was measured by the IO in my presence. The total length of knife was 28cms. Its blade was of 15.2 cms and handle was of 12.8cms, the width of the blade was 3.4cms. The police officials also lifted the blood stains and the earth State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 70 of 87 control from the spot which were kept in a dibbi. The same were also sealed. The said parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW11/G bearing my signatures at point A. My statement was recorded by the IO.

I can identify the accused if shown to me.

At this stage witness seen towards the accused present in the court and correctly identified him as accused Chandan @ Monu.

I can identify the case property if shown to me.

At this stage, MHC(M) has not produced the case property.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one pullanda in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one knife is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same. The same is already Ex.P­1.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. A, in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and the green and blood stained white dotted printed Saree is taken out and shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same as worn by his chachi at the time of incident. Same is already Ex.P­2.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. B, in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one blood stained purple colored T­shirt is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identified the same as the one which was worn by Anand at the time of incident. Same is already State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 71 of 87 Ex.P­3.

At this stage, MHC(M) has produced parcel No. C, in open condition which was already opened during the testimony of previous witness and one blood stained blue and white color ladies top is taken out and same is shown to the witness who has correctly identifies the same as the one which was worn by Gudiya at the time of incident. Same is already Ex.P­4."

(89) Arvind has been exhaustively cross examined wherein he confirmed what he stated in his examination­in­chief. He has stated that crime team reached the spot and took the photographs of blood spots present on the floors and the knife was recovered from behind the LCD screen whose measurement was taken after which it was seized. (90) The accused in order to controvert the version put forwarded by the complainant and his family, has examined himself as his own witness under Section 315 Cr.PC wherein he has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 30.8.2013, he went to meet Anand at 11:30 AM but he did not know that he was sick and on the asking of Anand's mother, he took Anand to the doctor and thereafter Anand asked him to visit M2K Rohini and then went to Food Bazar near M2K Mall Rohini where Anand parked his car in front of IDBI Bank and from Food Bazar they purchased two Wild Stone Deo and thereafter came back to Anand's house. According to Chandan, he took water and went to Anand's and asked Anand about a girl on which Anand got annoyed and started abusing him. Accused Chandan further stated that State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 72 of 87 he also abused Anand and his girl friend on which Anand became aggressive all of a sudden he gave a big blow on his face and a scuffle started when Anand's mother Laxmi Devi and Gudiya also reached there and they all started beating him. Since the mother and sister of Anand were ladies, he kept on asking them to remain away but in the meantime Anand brought kitchen knife and thereafter a scuffle started with kitchen knife i the hand of Anand and in that process both Gudiya and Laxmi Devi were hurt by the knife which was in the hand of Anand. Thereafter, Gudiya called Arvind on which Arvind and Anand both started beating him and pushed him on the floor but with a great difficulty he stood up and in order to save his life and ran towards drawing room and confined and locked himself inside. According to him, it was the mother of Anand who had come in between and received injuries. According to Chandan when he locked himself inside the drawing room, the family of Anand locked him from outside and also called the police. According to Chandan, he had neither got any weapon recovered nor had made any disclosure to the police.

(91) The accused Chandan has not been able to produce any document or receipt of parking showing that Anand had parked his car in front of IDBI Bank nor any prescription slip of the doctor to whom he had allegedly taken Anand nor any bills regarding alleged purchase of Deo by Anand from Food Bazar and naturally so because the vehicle in question belonged to Anand and also because the purchases were made by Anand State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 73 of 87 and it is only natural that it is Anand who would be having the same. (92) The accused on his part has also examined DW2 Ct. Naresh Kumar who has not been able to produce the CCTV visuals of IDBI as the same were automatically overwritten after seven days and also Prince Mudgil (PW3) Store Manager, Food Bazar, but unfortunately the CCTV footage dated 30.8.2013 was not available nor the bills / receipt issued to the various customers were available as the same is deleted after every 45 days. It was necessary for the Investigating Officer to have investigated these aspects and got the visuals as well as electronic details examined and preserved so as to bring out the truth, which he did not do. (93) Jyotish Chandra Moharana (DW4) who has produced the electronic record pertaining to mobile no. 9136170005 issued in the name of Anand has proved the call details record of Anand dated 29.8.2013 to 31.8.2013 after which the number was not in use. Also, Shishir Malhotra (PW5) has proved the call detail record of the second number of Anand i.e. 9716758208 and the call detail record of the same dated 30.8.2013 which is Ex.DW5/C and the cell ID Chart vide Ex.DW5/D and it is this electronic record relating to the mobile phone of Anand (as produced in defence by the accused) which defeats the version given by the victim regarding Chandan having come to the spot and inflicting injuries upon the victims and rather confirms the version of the accused Chandan confirming that during the period 11:28 and 1:06 Anand had moved out of his house and his location was found to be at other places.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 74 of 87 (94) The electronic evidence confirms the version given by the accused and defeats the version given by Anand, Laxmi and Gudia. This evidence conclusively established that Anand had moved out of the house and was in the area adjoining area thereby confirming the version given by the accused that both of them had first gone to the doctor and then to M2K i.e. Food Bazar after which they returned home when the altercation took place between Anand and Chandan.

(95) Even otherwise the manner in which the entire incident has unfolded as per the prosecution, does not inspire confidence. For every act of aggression there has to be some explanation or reason. There has to be reason why simply out of the blue, the accused Chandan would wake up one fine day and come to the house of Anand and start inflicting injuries upon Anand and his family members. It is not the case of the prosecution that Chandan was suffering from psychiatric ailment which was a cause of this abnormal behaviour. Then what was the reason for the incident ? It is here that the version put forwarded by the defence i.e. the oral testimony of the accused who has examined himself under Section 315 Cr.PC, coupled with the electronic record of the mobile of the complainant Anand which provides some explanation to the same. This second version put forth by the defence that after Chandan and Anand returned home, they entered into a verbal altercation on the issue of a girl culminating into a physical altercation between Chandan and Anand in which the mother and sister of Anand also intervened and received injuries, appears to be more possible State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 75 of 87 and probable.

(96) I may further note that the weapon of offence used in the incident is a kitchen knife. Had Chandan @ Monu come prepared for an assault, I am sure that the weapon of offence would have been different. The possibility of either Anand getting knife from the kitchen or even Chandan getting the knife from the adjoining kitchen, cannot be ruled out and equal is the possibility that the knife was kept in the room of Anand where they were sitting which was picked up by one of them during the altercation in which process injuries were received by the ladies i.e. Laxmi and Gudiya who intervene between them to separate them. (97) I may further note that if it been Anand who had held the knife and inflicted injuries, I am sure that Chandan too would have received similar injuries, which is not the case. Rather, the injuries have been found present in the bodies of ladies and also on the body of Anand which shows that it was Chandan who held the knife and the injuries were received by the victims in his hands. However, whether it was when he wanted to save himself from other persons or when others intervened in the free fight between him and Anand, is an aspect which is not clearly established but the possibility could be either ways and hence it is this which brings the case of prosecution out of the ambit of Section 307 Indian Penal Code and brings it within the ambit of Section 308 Indian Penal Code. (98) On the basis of the evidence on record, I hold that the prosecution has successfully proved that on the date of incident i.e. State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 76 of 87 30.8.2013 the accused Chandan @ Monu had come to the house of Anand and remained with him for some time when there was a verbal altercation between him and Anand resulting into physical altercation pursuant to which he (accused) caused Grievous Injuries upon Laxmi and Gudiya and Simple Injuries upon Anand. In this background, the accused Chandan @ Monu is liable for offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 IPC).

(99) In so far as the provisions of Section 452 Indian Penal Code are concerned, the element of criminal intent i.e. to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of property, has not been established beyond doubt and he is therefore acquitted of the same. FINAL CONCLUSION (100) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda­vs­State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:

1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 77 of 87 except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

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 in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

(101) Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the Investigating Officer. On the basis of the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:

➢ That the identity of the accused Chandan @ Monu stands established.

➢ That the accused Chandan @ Monu and the complainant Anand Sahni were friends and previously known to each other since childhood.

➢ That on the date of incident i.e. 30.08.2013 the accused Chandan @ Monu went to the house of the complainant Anand.

➢ That the accused Chandan @ Monu first inquired about the wellness of Anand as he was not well.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 78 of 87

➢ That thereafter there was a verbal altercation between Anand and Chandan @ Monu.

➢ That thereafter there was a physical altercation between Anand and Chandan @ Monu in which Anand, Laxmi and Gudiya sustained injuries.

➢ That thereafter Chandan @ Monu was confined to drawing room and was brought out only after the police reached the spot after which he was taken to the Police Station and arrested.

➢ That after his apprehension, the accused Chandan @ Monu had got recovered the kitchen knife Ex.P1 from behind the LCD TV installed in the room.

(102) The medical evidence has confirmed that in the incident Laxmi and Gudiya sustained Grievous Injuries while Anand sustained Simple Injuries. The weapon of offence used in the incident is a kitchen knife. Had Chandan @ Monu come prepared for an assault, I am sure that the weapon of offence would have been different. The possibility of either Anand getting knife from the kitchen or even Chandan getting the knife from the adjoining kitchen, cannot be ruled out and equal is the possibility that the knife was kept in the room of Anand where they were sitting which was picked up by one of them during the altercation in which process injuries were received by the ladies i.e. Laxmi and Gudiya who intervene State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 79 of 87 between them to separate them. As observed here in above, that if it been Anand who had held the knife and inflicted injuries, I am sure that Chandan too would have received similar injuries, which is not the case.

The injuries have been found present in the bodies of ladies and also on the body of Anand confirm that it was Chandan who held the knife and the injuries were received by the victims in his hands. Whether it was when he wanted to save himself from other persons or when others intervened in the free fight between him and Anand, is an aspect which is not clearly established but the possibility could be either ways and hence it is this which brings the case of prosecution out of the ambit of Section 307 Indian Penal Code and brings it within the ambit of Section 308 Indian Penal Code.

(103) Further, in so far as the provisions of Section 452 Indian Penal Code are concerned, the element of criminal intent i.e. to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of property, has not been established beyond doubt and he is therefore acquitted of the same.

(104) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 80 of 87 the investigation does not negate the offence.

(105) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.

(106) In view of the above, the accused Chandan @ Monu is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 452 Indian Penal Coed but is held guilty for the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 IPC).

(107) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 16.7.2014.

Announced in the open Court                                      (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 11.07.2014                                               ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI




State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri                   Page 81 of 87
         IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS 
         JUDGE­II (NORTH­WEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI


Sessions Case No. 192/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0325642013

State          Vs.                   Chandan @ Monu
                                     S/o Naresh
                                     R/o H­788, Mangolpuri, Delhi. 
                                     (Convicted)

FIR No.               :       524/2013
Police Station        :       Mangolpuri
Under Section         :       307/452 Indian Penal Code.

Date of conviction     : 11.07.2014
Arguments concluded on : 23.07.2014
Date of Sentence       : 26.07.2014


APPEARANCE:

Present:       Sh. Taufeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

Convict Chandan @ Monu in Judicial Custody along with Ms. Deepika, Advocate.

ORDER ON SENTENCE:

(1) As per the case of prosecution, on 30.8.2013 at around 1.45 PM at House No. 4/119, Mangolpuri, Delhi, the accused Chandan @ Monu committed criminal tress pass in the house of complainant Anand Sahni having made preparation to hurt and at that time the accused was in State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 82 of 87 possession of knife and thereafter he assaulted on the person of Gudiya, Laxmi Devi and Anand Sahni with the knife with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances if he would have caused death of Laxmi, Gudiya and Anand Sahni he would be guilty of murder.

(2) However, on the basis of the testimonies of various witnesses examined by the prosecution, particularly Anand Sahni, Laxmi Devi, Gudiya and Arvind, this court vide a detailed judgment dated 11.07.2014 has acquitted the accused Chandan @ Monu of the charge under Section 452 Indian Penal Code but held him guilty for the offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code (not under Section 307 IPC).

(3) Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Chandan @ Monu is a young boy of 22 years of age, unmarried, a student of Bachelor of Arts at Satyawati College, Delhi, having a family comprising of father, mother, one brother and one sister (married). He is first time offender having no other involvement and has remained in Judicial Custody since the date of his arrest.

(4) Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the convict has vehemently argued that the convict is a young boy, a first time offender having no previous involvements and any harsh view would be detrimental for the entire family of the convict and hence it is prayed that a lenient view be taken against the convict. Ld. Addl. PP for the State does not oppose the same.

State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 83 of 87 (5) Pursuant to the request of the Ld. Defence Counsel, the Social Investigation Report in respect of the convict Chandan @ Monu has been received wherein it is reported that the convict is pursuing B.A. From Satyawati Collage of Delhi University as a regular student and always tried to be a responsible person in social life. It is also reported that the report from the neighbours is also in favour of the convict and his family and there is no complaint for last more than five years and the role of the family of the convict reflected a positive, cordial and with healthy feeling in the community. His neighbours have also given a positive report and it is apparent that the convict has healthy relations with his neighbours and is helpful towards them. It is further reported that the convict is in mental agony and suffering from neurotic problem of depressions and is in hopeless stage to think over the possible punishment and is recently reflecting depressive tendency due to involvement in this case. It is submitted that there is scope of rehabilitation for convict and is required to be provided an opportunity for self rectification in open society. His family background is reported to be healthy and none of the family members is involved in any other antisocial activities. The Probation Officer has also reported that there is full scope of improvement in the behaviour as well in way of social life of the convict and in case if the convict gets rehabilitated he can lead a healthy social life. He had shown rectified behaviour in open society and always observed disciplined norms of the society. According to the report, keeping in view the above collected facts and observations, the State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 84 of 87 convict is seemed to be a fit case of probation benefit under Section 4 (3) of Probation of Offenders' Act 1958.

(6) I have considered the report of the Probation Officer and also the submissions made before me. I may observe that the convict is a student of B.A. 2nd year and has already wasted his one year on account of his long judicial incarceration. He is not involved in any other offence and has no history of any violent background. He belongs to a good family who have been reported to be law abiding. The report of the Probation Officer shows that on account of his long incarceration the convict is reflecting a depressive tendency and is worried about his future. (7) Seneca a Roman Philosopher of the Mid first Century AD had observed that there is no person so severely punished, as those who subject themselves to the whip of their own remorse. Remorse is the punishment of crime: Repentance its expiation. The former appertains to the tormented conscious: the latter to a soul changed for the better (Ref: Quote by Joseph Joubert).

(8) In the present case the incident in question is a chance happening which occurred when the convict had gone to the house of his friend Anand and indulged into informal gossips with him relating to a girl and what started as a verbal argument ended up as a physical altercation in which Anand sustained simply injuries whereas his mother and sister who intervened between them have received grievous injuries. The convict had been apprehended at the spot of incident itself and was cooperative with the State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 85 of 87 Investigating Agency and showed no signs of violence. (9) In the Court I have spoken to the convict Chandan @ Monu and I am satisfied that he genuinely regrets his acts. The regrets offered by the convict for his acts may be because of remorse or could even be a response to the fear of consequences of his act including the fear of being punished for such an act. It is this perception of remorse of the convict which this court is required to be assess at the stage of sentencing in order to impart Restorative Justice. This being the background, I hereby hold that any harsh view taken by this court at this stage will take away the chances of reformation and the interest of justice require that the convict Chandan @ Monu should be given an opportunity to reform himself. (10) I accordingly direct that the convict Chandan @ Monu be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of Two Years with Supervision on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/­ with one local surety of the like amount and compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/­ to the victim Anand Sahni and Rs.40,000/­ each to the victims Laxmi Devi and Gudiya (i.e. total compensation amount Rs.1,00,000/­) under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act to which the convict has duly agreed. Further, the convict Chandan @ Monu is directed to render services to the Old Age Home so specified by the District Probation Officer (under intimation to this Court), for a period of two years on every Sunday for State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri Page 86 of 87 Two Hours each. The Probation Officer shall ensure that the convict Chandan @ Monu effectively discharges the duties assigned to him by the Old Age Home and shall forward a monthly report in respect of the convict to the Court. In case of any absenteeism/ default or breach of condition of probation on the part of the convict, the same shall be brought to the notice to the court. It is clarified that in case of such default or repetition of offence, the convict shall have to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years.

(11) The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of offence, the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Two Years. The Probation Officer is present in the Court and informed about the same. (12) Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of costs.

(13) Copy of this order is also directed to be placed before the Probation Officer for purposes of compliance under intimation to this court as directed herein above.

(14)         File be consigned to Record Room.



Announced in the open Court                                       (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 26.07.2014                                                ASJ (NW)­II: ROHINI


State Vs. Chandan @ Monu, FIR No. 524/13, PS Mangolpuri                      Page 87 of 87