State vs : on 17 August, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs : on 17 August, 2010

        IN THE COURT OF SH. R.B. SINGH, ASJ 03, (OUTER)
                 ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

SC No.                    : 79/08
FIR No.                   : 136/02
PS                        : Alipur
U/S                       : 302/34 IPC


State Versus:
                1. Anil Kumar
                   S/O Sh. Ram Kishore
                   R/O H.No. 130,
                   Village Bakoli,
                   Delhi-110036.

                2. Parveen Kumar
                   S/O Sh. Ramesh Chander
                   R/O H. No. 411,
                   Village Mukhmelpur,
                   Delhi.

                3. Gulab Singh @ Hathi
                   S/O Sh. Raj Singh @ Raje
                   R/O Balmiki Mohalla,
                   Village Mukhmelpur,
                   Delhi.

                4. Anil Kumar @ Buta
                   S/O Late Hukum Singh
                   R/O H. No. 259, Balmiki Mohalla,
                   Village Mukhmel Pur, Delhi.


Date of Institution of the case : 29.07.2002
Date of Decision of the case    : 17.08.2010



SC No. 79/08                                          Page No. 1 /71
                                JUDGMENT

1. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 06.05.2002 at about 6.45 PM at service road, Gatta Godown, in the Revenue Estate of Village Jindpur, Delhi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, with an intention to kill Rajesh, caused stab injuries as well as injuries by blunt object on his person and thereby caused his death and committed an offence of murder punishable under sections 302/34 IPC and in cognizance to this court. With these allegations, all the accused persons were sent for trial.

2. After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions and after hearing the arguments from the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State, charge U/S 302/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons, to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined 17 prosecution witnesses.

4. PW1-Sh. Sanjay Verma is a private photographer who is running his shop at village Alipur. On night of 6th and 7th May 2002 he took certain photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles on request of SHO, PS Alipur. He has brought the negatives Ex. PW1/1-6 and positives thereof are Ex. PW1/7-13. One of the positives is in duplicate. Ex. PW7/8 and PW7/9 are of the same negative. He has also deposed in his cross examination on behalf of the accused persons SC No. 79/08 Page No. 2 /71 that when he took photographs, SHO reached there later on. It was dark at that time. Photographs were taken under the light (search light). He can not say whether it was Amawasaya on that day or not.

5. PW2-Ct. Sushil Kumar has deposed that on the night of 6th and 7th May, 2002 he had gone to the place of occurrence in the plot near Godown, Jindpur in the area of PS Alipur, Delhi. He took 16 photographs of the place of occurrence at the instance of IO on the basis of which he prepared the positives. He had brought the negatives which are Ex. PW2/1-16 and the positives are Ex. PW2/17 to 32.

6. PW3-Vikas has deposed that he deal in pigery farm/ business.

His pigs graze in the area of Jindpur godown. They are three brothers. Vijay is elder to him and deceased Rajesh was younger to him. Before the incident of this case, 2-4 times his pigs were stolen but he had not reported the matter to the police. The pigs were also not traced. On 6.05.02, he and his brother Rajesh had gone in the area of Jindpur Godown at about 9.00 pm to take back the pigs. Their pigs were grazing there at that time. They took their pigs from there and he and his brother Rajesh sat on the stairs of a shop and they were watching their pigs. At about 9.30 pm, a white coloured Maruti Van came there from G.T.Road and stopped near the pigs. There were four persons in the van. They alighted from the van and started catching their pigs. The pigs started running towards bushes. Seeing this, Rajesh followed those four boys. He was behind Rajesh. Rajesh asked those four boys as to why they were catching their pigs. All the four boys who were catching the pigs were present before the court. Accused Gulab and Anil used to work at their shop. They worked for a long time. Gulab had left their SC No. 79/08 Page No. 3 /71 shop about 1 or 1 ½ year before the incident. Anil had left about 15-20 days before the incident. Accused Anil is the resident of village Bakoli while Gulab is resident of his village. The name of the third accused is also Anil Kumar S/o Hukme. He is resident of his village. Accused Parveen is also resident of his village. Accused Anil resident of village Bakoli and accused Parveen Kumar of his village caught hold of his brother Rajesh. Accused Anil of village Bakoli exhorted as saying "

Aaj inka kaam tamam kar dete hai" while accused Gulab Singh stabbed 6-7 times on the face and head of his brother with the knife and Anil of his village gave 3-4 danda blows on the head of his brother Rajesh. When he tried to save his brother Rajesh, Anil @ Boota of his village exhorted "iska bhi kaam tamam kar do". Due to their fear he ran from there to save himself. He ran towards his village. Accused persons also chased him for some distance. He came home and told the entire incident to his brother Vijay. He and his brother Vijay came back at the spot on two wheeler scooter where the incident had taken place. His brother was not found there. They searched for the brother. His brother was lying in the bushes at a distance of 3-4 paces from the spot in the injured condition. He and his brother Vijay lifted him. His brother Vijay sat with his injured brother on the scooter and he drove towards the police station. On way just before the PS, a PCR van met them. His brother Vijay sat in the PCR van with his injured brother Rajesh and he followed them on his two wheeler scooter to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. After examining his brother Rajesh, the doctor declared him "brought dead". All the four accused persons committed the murder of his brother Rajesh. Local police came to the hospital. He gave his statement Ex.PW3/A which bears his signature at point A. The head lights of the van in which the accused persons had SC No. 79/08 Page No. 4 /71 come were on. Except that there was no other light at the spot. His brother Rajesh was wearing shirt, pajama and chappals. He can identify the clothes and chappals of his brother. He accompanied the police officer to the place of occurrence and IO Prepared the site plan at his instance and he came back at home. Next day at about 9.00 am he, his brother Vijay and others went to the said hospital. They identified the dead body of their brother Rajesh. His statement Ex.PW3/B was recorded to this effect by the police. Later on, he had again shown the place of incident to the police who had taken the notes and measurement at the spot. At the time of incident, I was wearing the shirt. It became blood stained when he lifted his brother Rajesh with elder brother Vijay. Police had seized his shirt which was blood stained. When chappal of right foot Ex. P-1 & of left foot Ex.P-2 was shown to the witness, he correctly identified that it is the same which belonged to his brother Rajesh. Thereafter, one shirt Ex. P-3, one pant Ex. P-4 and one underwear Ex. P-5 were shown to the witness. He correctly identified the same which his brother was wearing at the time of incident. He identified the shirt Ex. P-6 which he was wearing when he lifted his brother Rajesh and shirt Ex. P-7 as the same which his elder brother Vijay was wearing at that time. These shirts were stained with blood of their brother Rajesh.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that Ex. P-4 is a pajama type pant which his brother was wearing at the time of incident. He is not in a position to say whether Ex. P-4 is a jean pant or not. At the time of incident they were owning 250-300 pigs. It is wrong to suggest that their pigs used to roam in the area without being tethered. They used to put identity marks on each and every pig and he was in SC No. 79/08 Page No. 5 /71 position to identify all the pigs. Their pigs were stolen 2-4 times. At the time of lodging the FIR he had narrated in haste that their pigs were stolen one or two times. He can not tell the dates when their pigs were stolen. It is wrong to suggest that on last date of hearing he was tutored by the IO. The incident took place at a distance of 20-25 paces from the stairs where they were sitting. It is correct that there are keekar tree groves in between from the place where they were sitting till the place where the incident took place. It is wrong to suggest that it was pitch dark and there was no visibility even at a distance of 2-4 paces. There were street light on the electric poles near the place they were sitting or near the place where this incident took place. It is wrong to suggest that no electric light was there on that night since it was black out on account of breakage of electric wires. He had identified the accused persons owing to the light of the electric bulbs as well as the head light of the vehicle. The danda weilded on his brother was of the height of 1½ to 2½ feet. The dagger was about 7"- 8" long. He had not raised an alarm for help. Except the accused persons and them there was none around the spot. Maruti van stopped at a distance of 20-25 paces from them. It is correct that the head light of the said van coming towards their faces. Praveeen was driving the van. Gulab also alighted the said van from the left hand side. Accused Gulab was having a trap in his hand alongwith a danda. The danda in the hands of Gulab was used to trap the pigs. Pigs ran towards them and all the accused persons followed the pigs. The accused persons were herding the pigs in the street from the place where they were roaming. None of the pig came in the trap. They questioned the accused persons as to why they were catching their pigs. At that time they were at a distance of 5-7 paces from the accused persons. Accused Anil S/O Hukam Singh was also SC No. 79/08 Page No. 6 /71 having a danda of considerable weight and size in his right hand. Accused Praveen and Accused Anil son of Ram Kishan had caught hold of his brother Rajesh from his hands. Accused Anil s/o Hukam Singh weilded blow on his brother first of all. He gave blow over the head of his brother 5-7 times. He had seen a dagger in the hands of accused Gulab and he weilded dagger blows on the face and head of his brother. They weilded blows on the face and heed of his brother while having pointed object in front. He had weilded 3-4 blows with the dagger on his brother. Accused Anil and Gulab wee standing in front of his brother when they weilded blows on him. His statement to the effect that street light was on at some places is correct and statement to the effect that except the head light of the van. There was no other light at the spot is not correct.

He had seen the accused persons assaulting his brother from a distance of 2-3 paces. It is wrong to suggest that he had seen the accused persons from a distance of 13.40 meters. When they were assaulting his brother he went to rescue his brother and at that juncture Anil son of Hukum Singh uttered that he may be finished. He made efforts to save his brother and when he heard Anil @ Buta exhorting that he be finished, at that juncture he ran away from there. From the spot he had gone to his house and called his brother Vijay there. He had spent 15-20 minutes in calling Vijay and reaching back at the spot. His father, mother and Vijay were present at home. He narrated the incident before Vijay and those facts were heard by his parents also. He told them that his brother was assaulted with dagger and dandas. Maruti van brought by the accused persons was of white colour but he does not recollect its registration number. He and his brother Rajesh SC No. 79/08 Page No. 7 /71 used to sit on the shop and Vijay used to take care of pigs as well as used to purchase pigs. Rajesh was taken to BJRM Hospital. His statement was recorded in the hospital. He had shown the place of incident as well as the place where they were sitting to the police. Next day, he identified the dead body of his brother in BJRM Hospital Mortuary. He made a statement that his brother was killed by four persons. It is wrong to suggest that he had made a statement that he was killed by 4-5 persons. Police came to their house to seize their blood stained shirts. He does not recollect whether they had gone to PS that day again to hand over their blood stained shirts. When he had gone to the alongwith the police from the hospital. There was a feast at the house of Mangal on 05.05.2002. It is wrong to suggest that feast continued upto the morning of 07.05.2002. It is wrong to suggest that on 06.05.2002 he and his brother Vijay were present in the house of Mangal and were arranging the aforesaid feast. It is wrong to suggest that they went to their house at about 10 or 10.30 pm and by that time Rajesh had not returned after taking care of the pigs. It is wrong to suggest that at that time his parents told them that Rajesh had not returned back and they should go in search of him. It is wrong to suggest that later on they searched the dead body of Rajesh and thereafter they had concocted the story. Cloths worn by the accused persons were giving glimpses of white and black colours. It is wrong to suggest that his brother Rajesh was not murdered by the accused persons or that he was murdered by some unknown persons. It is wrong to suggest that later on he implicated the four accused persons in the case. It is wrong to suggest that later on he implicated the four accused persons in the case. It is wrong to suggest that accused Praveen had gone to Sultan Pur Village with his own vehicle on that night. It is SC No. 79/08 Page No. 8 /71 wrong to suggest that he was not present at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that both the accused namely Anil Kumar and Anil @ Buta were not present there. It is correct that their pigs were grazing in the area of 1½ furlong. It is wrong to suggest that pigs which were there in the area of 1 ½ furlong would not collect at one place on a call. Rajesh was younger to him and he was not going to the school. Rajesh was sitting on the stairs along with him. They had gone to stairs and sat on stairs at about 9 pm (night). They left their house at about 8.30 pm. They went there on foot. They were empty handed at that time. Breads were there in their hands at that time to feed the pigs. The aforesaid van came from the side of G.T.Road and its head light came on them. When a vehicle will take a turn from G.T.Road towards them then light could come on their faces. When van reached there his brother Rajesh was sitting with him. When accused persons were catching their pigs, his brother Rajesh questioned them and left for the spot. He also get up from there after about 1-2 minutes. It is wrong to suggest that he along with Rajesh proceeded from the spot simultaneously. There was a distance of 2-3 paces between him and Rajesh when the accused persons were assaulting his brother. It is correct that when Rajesh was over powered by two accused persons, he was at a distance of about 2- 3 paces from him. By that time his brother was over powered by the two accused persons he proceeded further and there was a distance of 4-5 paces between him and his brother. When his brother was assaulted, he tried to rescue and at that juncture accused Anil @ Buta exhorted that he be finished. Neither he can affirm nor deny that he ran away from the spot for his house at 10 pm. Roughly after about 30-45 minutes of their arrival at the spot, this incident took place. The accused persons had collected 150-200 pigs at one place. Those pigs SC No. 79/08 Page No. 9 /71 used to recognise their voice. They had collected the pigs at one place. The incident had not occurred at the time when they were sitting on the stairs. Their pigs were sitting at one place. They were sitting in an open plot at a distance of 20-25 paces from them. Accused Gulab was having a trap in his hands and the other accused persons were herding them. There was only one trap in the hand of accused Gulab and other accused persons were not having the trap. It is correct that when Head light of a vehicle confront them, they can not identify the occupants of the said vehicle. Any of the neighbour was not informed about the incident. Immediately within one minute Vijay started the scooter and they proceeded for the spot. His parents had gone to the hospital. They left their two wheeler scooter in the hospital and had gone to the spot in the police vehicle. They alighted the van and pointed out the place of incident and thereafter, again boarded it and remained sitting in it. They had not previous enmity with the accused persons. One or two days prior to this incident, the accused persons had come to catch their pigs. They could not apprehend them on that day. There are many persons who rear pigs in the village but they had only shop in the village where the pigs are sold. He had seen the accused persons 2-3 days prior to the incident when they came to steal their pigs. There was a trap with the accused persons on that day also. Accused Gulab was having trap in his hands. It is wrong to suggest that he is naming the accused persons since he had seen them 3-4 days prior when they came to steal their pigs. The accused persons had chased him but he can not tell upto what distance.

7. PW4-Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh has deposed that SC No. 79/08 Page No. 10 /71 they are three brothers. He is the eldest. Next to him is Vikas and the youngest was Rajesh. They used to deal in pigry business. Prior to this incident, their pigs were stolen 2-3 times but the matter was not reported to the police. Their pigs graze in the area of Jindpur Godown. His youngest brother Rajesh used to take the pigs for grazing. He know all the four accused persons present before the court. Gulab @ Hathi, Anil @ Boota are the residents of his village. Accused Parveen also reside in his village. Fourth accused Anil is the resident of village Bakoli. Gulab and Anil of village of Bakoli had worked at their shop. They had left the service before the incident. On 6.05.02, their pigs were grazing in the area of godown of Jindpur village. On that day at about 8.30 pm, he send his brothers Rajesh and Vikas to watch the animals in that area. Rajesh was wearing shirt, pant and chappals. Vikas was wearing shirt and pant. At about 10.00 pm Vikas came home weeping. He told him that accused Parveen, Gulab, Anil and one other Anil of village Bakoli had caused injuries to Rajesh with churri (knife) and Danda when they objected to the accused persons for catching their animals. When Vikas tried to save his brother Rajesh from the accused persons, they also extended threats to him and attempted to attack upon him also. His brother Vikas further told to him that out of fear he had run away from there and reached to him. He and his brother Vikas went to the spot on their two wheeler scooter. When they reached at the spot, they did not find their brother Rajesh. They searched for him in the light of their scooter's head light. They saw Rajesh lying in the bushes in injured condition. His chappals were lying at the spot. He with the support of Vikas lifted his brother Rajesh and sat down on the scooter with his brother Rajesh while Vikas drove towards the police station. On way to the police station, they came across a PCR. They gave signal SC No. 79/08 Page No. 11 /71 to the PCR van to stop. He and his brother Rajesh sat in the PCR van and they took them to BJRM hospital. His brother Vikas followed them on his two wheeler scooter. After examining his brother Rajesh, the doctor declared him "brought dead". Local police also reached the hospital. Police recorded the statement of his brother Vikas. The clothes of his brother Vikas and also his clothes were stained with blood when they lifted Rajesh from the bushes. He and his brother Vikas accompanied the police to the spot. Police prepared the rough site plan at the spot at the instance of Vikas. Both the chappals of his brother Rajesh were also recovered from the spot. At about 3.00 AM, they came back to their home. On the next day at about 2.00 PM, he and his brother Vikas identified the dead body of their brother Rajesh, before the police. His statement Ex.PW4/A to this effect was recorded by the police which bears his signature at point A. After the postmortem, he received the dead body of his brother. He has seen the shirt Ex. P-7. It was the same same shirt which he was wearing when he lifted his brother from the spot and took him to the hospital. Ex. P-7, his shirt was also stained with the blood of his brother Rajesh. It was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. He identified the shirt Ex. P-6 saying that this is the same shirt which his brother Vikas was wearing at the time they took their deceased brother Rajesh tot the hospital. On 09.05.02, he came to know that accused Gulab @ Hathi, Anil @ Boota who were wanted in this case, were roaming in Subzi Mandi near Azadpur Railway Station. He left his house at about 12.30 PM to inform the police about it. He reached at the bus stand of Mukhmailpur, police of PS Alipur met him. He told this fact to those three police officials who met him at bus stand, Mukhmailpur and he went to Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, near Azadpur railway station in search SC No. 79/08 Page No. 12 /71 of accused persons. They searched them in the area and noticed Gulab and Anil @ Buta sitting on a "Phad" with their faces towards railway station. He pointed them out to the police officials. Both of them were over-powered and arrested by the police. The arrest memos Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D were prepared. Their personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. All these memos bear his signatures. Both the accused were interrogated. During interrogation accused Gulab told that he can get recovered Danda and knife. His disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW4/G. Accused Anil @ Buta also disclosed that he can get recovered a Danda. His disclosure statement Ex.PW4/H was recorded. Pursuant to the disclosure statement accused Gulab lead us to the bushes at a place near the place of occurrence and from there he got recovered a Churri. Churri was not measured but its sketch was prepared and roughly the measurement was recorded. It was sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW4/J. Before sealing the sketch of the churri was prepared which is Ex.PW4/K. Thereafter, accused Anil @ Buta lead us to a place near the slope of G. T. Road opposite the water tank of Alipur and from there he got recovered a Danda. It was also sealed in a cloth parcel and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/L. His statement was recorded by the police. The danda got recovered by accused Anil @ Buta was in two pieces. When sealed parcel with the seal of FSL was opened and two pieces of Danda are taken out, he correctly identified the two pieces of danda Ex.P-8/1-2 are the same which were recovered by accused Anil @ Buta. When Churri Ex.P-9 was shown to the witness, he correctly identified the same which was got recovered by accused Gulab. He identify all the four accused persons present in the court. He know them since his childhood.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 13 /71

He has also deposed in his cross examination that the place of occurrence is at a distance of ½ km from his house. One has to spend 20-25 minutes in reaching to the spot if one goes on foot. PS Alipur is ahead of the place of incident if one goes from his house. There are two rooms in his house and one open courtyard is there in front of rooms. He and his wife sleep in the said house while his parents sleep in the other house. The other house is third one from the house referred above and in between a plot of 100 sq. yard is there. His brother came to him at about 10.00 pm on the date of incident. At that time he was sitting and waiting form his brother in his house. His wife, his children and his parents were also present in that house at that time. He does not recollect that it was dark night on that day. His brother took him to the place where altercation took place. The said place was at a distance of 200 meter from the stairs where his brothers were sitting. Straight road is going to the place where altercation took place, from the stairs there my brother was sitting. He had tried to search under the head light of the scooter, since it was not possible to search there without a source of light. Again said, it was possible to see object from a distance of about 10 feet from any source of light. He had taken about half an hour in searching Rajesh. None came at the place when they were searching for Rajesh, from nearby godown. He had not tried to call anyone from the godown. He lifted Rajesh and put him on his shoulder with the help of his brother Vikas and he sat on pillian seat, while Vikas drove the scooter. None met them on the way till they reached in front of PS Alipur, where police gypsy met them. It was a PCR Van. It is wrong to suggest that Sudama Sharma SI was present in the said gypsy. Sudama Sharma was not present in front of the PS. Neither he can affirm or deny that name of the incharge of said PCR Van was Ramesh. He had SC No. 79/08 Page No. 14 /71 not said to the incharge PCR Van that his brother was attacked by 4-5 persons. Volunteered he said to them that his brother was injured and he should be immediately rushed to hospital. He had not stated before the PCR Van incharge that his brother was stabbed with the knife. He boarded PCR Van alongwith his brother Rajesh and Vikas followed the van on his two wheeler scooter. His statement was not recorded in the hospital. His statement was recorded twice in connection with this case. Vikas made his statement for the first time in the hospital and his signatures were obtained there. His statement was also recorded twice. His parents had reached to the hospital along with other persons of the village around 12 or 12.15 in the night. His parents and other persons of the locality were not taken to the spot. He was weeping in the hospital, hence he can not say what proceedings were conducted there besides recording statement of Vikas. He had identified the dead body of his brother in the hospital before autopsy examination. He had not stated before the doctor that his brother was killed by 4-5 persons by stabbing him. It is wrong to suggest that his brother was murdered by some unknown persons at about 11.00 am. Babu Jagjivan Ram hospital is at a distance of 15 km from the spot. Village Alipur is at a distance of about 2 km. From the spot. There are many doctors available in village Alipur. They had not taken Rajesh to Alipur since he would not have been attend on account of criminal case/police case. He was informed by someone that accused Gulab and Buta Singh were present in subzi Mandi, Railway station and he was going to the PS for passing on this information. Someone had passed on this information to him, face to face who was his acquaintance. He told him that the accused persons were roaming in Subzi Mandi near Railway Station. Since he was an illiterate person, hence he can not give the dimension of Subzi SC No. 79/08 Page No. 15 /71 Mandi. The informer had told him that the accused persons were moving/ roaming around on a phad near railway station. Where the goods are loaded or unloaded by the vehicles, that place is known as Phad. There may be 5-7 Phad at railway station, Subji Mandi, Delhi. They had cross the village Bhadola and then reached the aforesaid Phad. Accused Gulab and Anil alias Buta Singh were sitting on the Phad and their legs were handing down towards the railway station. No public person was asked to join the raiding party when the police party was crossing village Badola. They had used public transport bus for reaching Adarsh Nagar/Bhadola. He had never been in any service. Again said he had worked in Haryana Roadways for 5-6 months. It is wrong to suggest that he was the permanent agent of the company. Voltd. He used to get commission of Rs. 10/- on introducing a client and Rs. 3000/- as salary for service being rendered in the pigmy farm. It is wrong to suggest that he had introduced about 100 clients to the aforesaid company. It is wrong to suggest that he had embazzled several lakhs of rupees in the name of the aforesaid company. It is correct that a public transport bus takes 30 minutes from Subzi Mandi to Alipur. Police had spent about 2½ hours at the spot in recovery of the objects from there. The place from where the Danda and knife were recovered are at a distance of 1500-2000 yards from each other. He can not give the specific time of the recovery of Danda. It is wrong to suggest that darkness had fallen down when the aforesaid objects were being searched. Writing work was done regarding recovery of the Danda and Dagger from the spot. He signed many papers there. It is wrong to suggest that he was involved in a theft case of PS S.P.Badli. Voltd. He was involved in a case of altercation which has been settled.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 16 /71

8. PW5-Ct. Surender has deposed that on 07.05.2002 he had taken the special report of this case and delivered the same to senior police officials and the area Magistrate on his motorcycle. He has also deposed in his cross examination that he departed from the PS at about

4. pm. He had gone by a motorcycle. He had handed over the copy of FIR In the court of Ld. MM at about 12.30 or 1.00 pm. It took about one hour to him in reaching to the Tis Hazari Courts. He had replied to the court question that first he went to the office of Joint C.P, againsaid at the house of joint CP on Mandir Marg, Delhi. His motorcycle went out of order at ITO, since he had taken route of outer ring road for reaching Mandir Marg. He had taken that route on account of traffic jams. Since the shops were not opened, he waited there upto 10.30 am. He got his motorcycle repaired at 11.30 am. By that time office of joint CP was opened and copy of FIR was delivered there.

9. PW 6-Dr. B.N. Acharya has deposed that on 07.05.2002 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of one Rajesh which was sent by Inspector Surinder Kumar Dahiya and was identified by the constable Satya Narain of PS Alipur, Delhi. On examination he found following external injuries on the person of the dead body:

a) CLW on middle of scalp 5cm above the bridge of nose, having dimension of 6.5 cm X 1.8 cm X bone deep.

b) CLW on middle scalp on parital area with abraded area.

c) Incised wound on right eye brow lateral side with the dimension of 3.5cm X 1 cm X bone deep. One side of the wound was having acute angles.

d) Incised wound on right maxilla with the dimension of 2cm X 1cm X skin deep. It was situated 2.5 cm below.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 17 /71

e) Incised wound on right side face 6 cm from the angle of right mandibule having dimension of 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm.

f) Incised wound in front of injury no. 5 having a dimension of 1.5 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 cm having acute angle medially.

g) Swelling on right side of face. Right mandible was found fractured.

h) There were bruises on right eye and sub-conjutival hammerhoges were seen.

i) Abrasion on left lateral side of the eye having dimension of 6.5 cm X 5.5 cm which were 3 cm from the left ear.

j) Multiple scratch and abrasion on front and side of the neck in an area of 18 cm X 11 cm above and below the thyroid prominence.

Injuries present on the dead body were of ante mortem in nature and were of 12 hours old prior to the death of the deceased. Injuries no. 3,4,5 and 6 were caused by sharp edged weapon while the remaining injuries were caused by blunt object. He was of the opinion that death was caused due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon head injury sustained. Time since death was approximately 12 hours. Head injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary SC No. 79/08 Page No. 18 /71 course of nature. His autopsy report is Ex. PW6/A which is in his hand and correct. On 05.06.2002 two parcels sealed with the seal of RKD were placed in his hands. On opening the same a knife was recovered which was single edged and pointed at the top. Total length and breadth of the side knife was described by him in sketch Ex. PW6/B which was prepared by him. He had examined the said knife and considered the matter in the light of the injuries mentioned by him in his report Ex. PW6/A. He was of the opinion that injuries no. 3,4,5 and 6 mentioned in Ex. PW6/A could have been caused by the knife sketch of which was prepared by him as Ex. PW6/B. On opening another parcel a wooden stick was found having total length of 82 cm and circumfrence 15.5 cm at the maximum. The stick was broken irregularly at the handle position. On examination of that stick in detail which fact is mentioned in Ex. PW6/C, he was of the opinion that injuries no. 1,2,7 and 9 could have been caused by the said stick. Opinion Ex. PW6/C was recorded by him in his own hands. He had identified the knife Ex. PG and Danda which is in two pieces Ex. P8/1 to 2 as the same which was examined by him in the case.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that it is correct that he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Rajesh on 07.05.2002 at 12.30 pm. It is correct that he had done post mortem examination on the request of Surinder Kumar Dahiya, SHO Alipur. This request letter is Ex. PW6/DA. It is correct that the dead body of the deceased was identified by Ct. Satya Narain and Vikas and Vijay the brother of the deceased. It is correct that the deceased Rajesh was brought to the hospital with history of stabbing by 4-5 persons. He did not note the margins, edges and direction of the injuries. He can not tell SC No. 79/08 Page No. 19 /71 by looking at the PM report about the upward and downward direction of the injuries. When the victim has been caught by two persons from his Arms and assailant attack him from front, in such a situation injury no. 9 is possible. If the assailant is standing on the side of the victim, then injury no. 9 is also possible by a Danda. The injuries received on the head of the victim were given with such a force that danda Ex. P-1 drove into tow pieces. Injuries no. 1 and 2 had caused craneo cerabral damage. 10-12 blows would have been given on the person of the victim by the assailant, for causing the bruises on his body, besides the other injuries. Injury no. 2 mentioned in his report is possible by brick which is taken out of a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of FSL. The said brick is Ex. P-14. Injury no. 2 mentioned in his autopsy report is not possible by brick Ex. P-14. Injury no. 8 is also possible by brick but injury no. 10 is not possible by the said brick. Injury no. 10 is not possible by Danda and the dagger shown to him in this case. It is wrong to suggest that all these injuries are possible by brick Ex. P-14. He had prepared the sketch in order to depict that a particular weapon was produced before him. It is correct that the cut injuries mentioned in his report are possible by any knife including the kitchen knife.

10. PW7-SI Subhash Chand has deposed that on 07.05.2002 he was summoned by SHO PS Alipur at the spot. There he examined vehicle no. DL-1L-E-0055 but no chance print were available in the said vehicle. No chance prints were available at the spot or in the wheels. He has also deposed in his cross examination that they reached to the spot at about 3.20 am on 7th May, 2002. They left the spot at about 5.00 am. It is correct that that it was a dark night that day. They had used torch light and search light of the vehicle. He is not in a SC No. 79/08 Page No. 20 /71 position to say whether SI Sudama Sharma was with him at that time or not. He is not in a position to say whether SHO Alipur was there or not.

11. PW8-Ct. Satya Narain has deposed that on 06.05.2002 he was posted at PS Alipur. On that day, at about 10 am he alognwith ASI Sudama Sharma had gone to village Bakoli and Hamidpur road since there was information with them that electric wires were lying on the road. At about 12 in the ngiht they returned back to the PS. From the PS he along with ASI Saudama Sharma and ct. Rohtash had gone to BJRM Hospital since one injured had been admitted there with stab injuries. There Vikas S/O Mahabir met them. Rajesh was declared dead by the doctors. Statement of Vikas was recorded. In the meantime, SHO alongwith SI Ram Saran and SI Nitin Kumar reached there in the hospital. Rukka was sent to PS for getting the case registered. Dead body of Rajesh was handed over to him and he took the same to mortuary of BJRM Hospital and got it deposited there. On 07.05.2002 PM examination was performed on the dead body of Rajesh. After the postmortem the dead body was released to legal heirs for cremation. Two parcels one containing the cloths of the deceased and the other containing the hairs of the deceased along with blood sample and sample seal were handed over to him by the doctor. He had given the same to the SHO who had taken the aforesaid packets into possession vide memo Ex. PW8/A. His statement was recorded. He has also deposed in his cross examination that he is a summoned witness but he had not brought the same. It is wrong to suggest that he had been tutored by ASI Sudama Sharma outside the court. It is wrong to suggest that he took notes and the same are in his pocket. (The witness showed his pocket to the counsel and nothing was there in his pocket.) SC No. 79/08 Page No. 21 /71 It is correct that there was no electricity in the area on that night. He had identified the dead body of Rakesh before the doctor. Vikas and Vijay were also present in the mortuary at that time. He had not stated before the doctor that Rajesh was stabbed by 4-5 persons. It is wrong to suggest that he had stated before the doctor that Rajesh was stabbed by 4-5 persons.

12. PW9-HC Rati Ram has deposed that on 07.05.2002 he was working as MHC(M) at PS Alipur. Inspector Surinder Kumar had deposited 10 parcels sealed with the seal of SK with him in the Malkhana on that day. He had also deposited two parcels sealed with the seal of MK. He had further deposited three parcels with him in the Malkhana on that very day which were sealed with the seal of Medical Suptd. BJRM Hospital besides one sample seal. He had also deposited one parcel duly sealed with the seal of SS on that very day. One Maruti van bearing registration no. DL-3C-4195 was also deposited along with its registration documents. Articles taken from personal search of accused Praveen were also deposited with him in the MHC(M).

On 09.05.2002 four parcels sealed with the seal of RKD were deposited in the Malkhana by SI Ram Saran. Articles recovered from the personal search of Gulab and Anil S/O Hukum Singh were also deposited in the MHC(M). On 04.06.2002 two parcels sealed with the seal of RKD were received by ASI Sudama Sharma from him for taking an opinion in the matter from the doctor at BJRM Hospital. On 05.06.2002 those parcels duly sealed with the seal of Medical Suptd. were deposited with him by SI Ram Saran.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 22 /71

On 27.06.2002, twenty one parcels out of which ten parcels were sealed with the seal of SK two were sealed with the seal of NK, three parcels wee sealed with the seal of Medical Superintendent, BJRM Hospital, one parcel sealed with the seal of SS, four parcels sealed with the seal of RKD along with one sample seal were sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar through Ct. Rajinder vide RC No. 95/21 in intact condition. So long as the case property remained in his possession, no one tempered the same in any manner. On 02.01.2003 all the parcels were received back from FSL Malviya Nagar along with the opinion. He recorded entries in register no. 19 to this effect, photo copy of which is Ex. PW9/A & PW9/B respectively.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that he can tell the S.No. of his register no. 19 through which the case property was deposited with him. DD entry is not recorded when the case property is deposited in the Malkhana. He can not tell the time of deposition of the case property on 07.05.2003. It is wrong to suggest that he had recorded bogus entries in register no. 19.

13. PW10-Ct. Yashvir has deposed that on 09.05.2002 he joined the investigation of this case with SI-Ram Saran. ASI Sudam Sharma was also with the IO at that time. They departed from the PS at 10 am. They reached to the bus stand Mukhmelpur at about 12.30 pm while patrolling in the area. There Vijay Kumar-brother of the deceased Rajesh met them. He was also joined in the investigation. He told them that accused Gulab @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta were there in the area of Azadpur Mandi, Delhi. They came to Azadpur Mandi along with Vijay and there Vijay pointed out towards accused Gulab and Anil @ Buta SC No. 79/08 Page No. 23 /71 who were sitting on the last stair of the railway station. The accused persons were over powered by them. Accused Gulab @ Hathi was interrogated and he disclosed that he can get recovered the dagger from the keekar tree grooves of village Jindpur Godown. His disclosure statement Ex. PW4/G was recorded. Accused Anil @ Buta was also interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded Ex. PW4/H where by he disclosed that he had thrown the trap in the bushes which he can get recovered. Again Said he disclosed that the trap was thrown on G.T.Road. Arrest memo of the accused Anil @ Buta is Ex. PW4/D. Their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW4/E and PW4/F. Accused Gulab @ Hathi lead the police to a place near the godown of village Jindpur, Delhi. Accused Gulab Singh @ Hathi lead the police to a place near the godown of village Jindpur, Delhi. He produced a knife from the bushes which were on the southern side from an electric pole. The said knife was converted into a polythene parcel after preparing its sketch which is Ex. PW4/K. The parcel sealed with the seal of RKD and the dagger was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/J. Accused Anil @ Buta lead the police party to a slope and from the bushes he got recovered a bat. The said bat was in two pieces. Both the pieces of the bat were taken into possession, converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of RKD and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/L. Accused Gulab @ Hathi and accused Anil @ Buta were wearing blood stained cloths. He was sent by the SI to the house of the accused persons to bring cloths for them so that their blood stained cloths may be seized. From the spot he left for the houses of the accused persons. At about 8 pm he returned back to the PS along with the cloths for the accused Gulab and Anil @ Buta. Accused Gulab and Anil were wearing pant and shirts. Blood stained pant and shirt of SC No. 79/08 Page No. 24 /71 accused Gulab were seized and converted into a cloth parcel and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW10/A which bears his signature at point A. blood stained shirt and pant of the accused Anil @ Buta were seized, converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of RKD and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW10/D. Thereafter, the accused persons were lodged in the lock up. He identified the Bat pieces Ex. P-8/1-2 as the same which were recovered at the instance of Anil Kumar @ Buta and Dagger Ex. P-9 which was recovered at the instance of accused Gulab, Pant Ex. P-10, Shirt Ex. P-11 which were recovered from the possession of accused Gulab and Shirt Ex. P-12 and Pant Ex. P-13 belonging to the accused Anil @ Buta.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that he can not specify the portion of the shirt worn by the accused persons which were blood stained. Blood was there on the pants worn by the accused persons but he can not specify the relevant portion. Blood was there on the front portion of the shirts as well as pants. Their disclosure statements were recorded by SI Ram Saran while standing at the place where the accused persons were overpowered. Disclosure statement of Gulab was recorded first. 25-30 minutes were taken in recording the disclosure statement of accused Gulab. Accused Gulab made a disclosure statement that he had thrown dagger in the bushes and accused Anil@ Buta had thrown the bat on the slope. His statement was recorded by the IO. They made efforts to join the independent witness in the investigation but none agreed. It is correct that the area surrounding Azad pur Mandi Railway Station is inhabited by people. The dagger was lying at a distance of 2 paces away from the road. It was about 10 paces away from the said electric pole. Accused Gulab SC No. 79/08 Page No. 25 /71 pointed out towards that place and he produced the dagger from there. Bat was lying at a distance of 15-20 paces away from the place from where the dagger was recovered. Place of recovery of bat was pointed out by Anil @ Buta. It is wrong to suggest that dagger and bat were planted upon the accused persons.

14. PW11-SI Manohar Lal has deposed that on 06.06.2002 he was summoned by Inspector Surinder Dahiya at PS Alipur. He reached there and was taken to the spot. Vikas was also summoned there. At the instance of Vikas he inspected the site and took measurements. He prepared the rough notes on the basis of those rough notes scaled site plan Ex. PW11/A was drawn by him on 07.06.2002. Thereafter, the rough notes were destroyed. He has also deposed in his cross examination that it is correct that place 'G' represents the point where Vikas and Rajesh were sitting before the incident. It is correct that place H represents the point where Maruti Van was parked. This place is at a distance of 80.35 mts. from point B. It is correct that width of the road was 8.70 mts. It is correct that a street going towards Vishal Trading Co. was at a distance of 19 mts from point H. The Danda was lying at a distance of 3.20 mts. away from the berm of the road on a slope.

15. PW12-SI Ram Saran has deposed that on 09.05.2002 on the directions of the SHO he alongwith ASI-Sudama Sharma had gone in search of accused persons. They had left the PS at about 10.30 am. At about 12.30 pm they reached to village Mukhmelpur, Delhi. Vijay who was brother of the deceased met them while coming from the side of the village. They informed them that accused Gulab @ Hathi, Anil @ SC No. 79/08 Page No. 26 /71 Buta were seen in the area of Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, Delhi. In case that place would be raided, they can be overpowered. Vijay was joined in the investigation. They reached Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur at about 1.30 pm. Accused Gulab @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta were spotted sitting underneath the last shed by the side of the railway line. Vijay pointed out towards them. They came into action and overpowered the accused persons. Accused Anil @ Buta was interrogated and he made disclosure statement that he had thrown the bat in the bushes near GT Road, which he can get recovered. His disclosure statement is Ex. PW4/H. Accused Gulab also made disclosure statement Ex. PW4/G to the effect that he had thrown the knife near the place of incident in the bushes and he can get it recovered. Accused persons were arrested and their arrest memos Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D were prepared. Their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/E and PW4/F. The accused persons led the the police to a place near godown of Village Jind Pur. Accused Gulab pointed out the place in the bushes which was a distance of roughly 10 paces away from the electric pole. He produced a dagger from there and the sketch of the said dagger was prepared Ex. PW4/K. It was converted into a cloth parcel sealed with the seal of RKD and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/J. Accused Anil @ Buta led the police party to the corner of G.T. Road which goes towards the godown. He pointed out towards the bushes and frmt here a bat which was broken in two pieces were produced by him. Bat was converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of RKD and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/L. Seal after used was given to Ct. Yashvir. From the spot they came back to the PS and case property was deposited in the malkhana. Accused persons were lodged in the lock up. The documents such as seizure memo, disclosure SC No. 79/08 Page No. 27 /71 statement, arrest memo and personal search memo etc. were handed over to the SHO. He recorded the case diary in respect of arrest and recovery etc. On 05.06.2002 the dagger and the bat duly sealed with the seal of RKD were taken by him from the MHC(M). He had taken those objects to Dr. Acharya in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital who gave opinion at the point whether the injuries present on the dead body of Rajesh were possible by these objects or not after opening the parcels. He again sealed the aforesaid articles with his own seal and, thereafter, the exhibits were brought back to the PS by him and deposited in the malkhana. He handed over the opinion and sketch prepared by Dr. Acharya to SHO. So long as the case property remained in his possession, no one tempered the same in any manner. He identified the bat Ex. P8/1 to 2 as the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Anil @ Buta and the Dagger Ex. P-9 recovered at the instance of accused Gulab.

On 09.05.2002 at the time of arrest of accused persons, he noticed blood on their cloths. Ct. Yashvir was sent to the house of accused Gulab @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta to bring cloths for them. When cloths were brought the wearing pan and shirt of accused Gulab and Anil @ Buta were taken into possession and converted into cloth parcels, sealed with the seal of RKD and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW10/A and PW10/B. He identified the pant Ex. P-10 and shirt Ex. P-11 which were taken into possession from the body of the accused Gulab @ Hathi and pant Ex. P-13 and Shirt Ex. P-12 which were taken into possession from the possession of the accused Gulab @ Hathi.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that departure SC No. 79/08 Page No. 28 /71 entry was recorded at the PS when they left in search of accused persons. They had gone to village Bakoli, Hamidpur and Mukhmel Pur by bus. They had gone to village Bakoli in search of accused persons. He does not recollect the name of mohalla where house of accused Praveen was situated although it was on the left side residential locality of the village. He interrogated the people for the search of accused persons. In village Bakoli they had gone to the house of accused Praveen and one lady met them there who told them that the accused persons had not come there. As soon as they alighted the bus at Mukhmelpur village witness Ajay met them. From there they went to Subzi Mandi Azad Pur along with the witness Ajay who informed them that the accused Anil @ Buta and Gulab @ Hathi had been seen in Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, Delhi. It is wrong to suggest that Vijay was not present with the police party when accused Gulab and Anil @ Buta were arrested in the case. Accused persons were arrested from railway shed of Naya Azad Pur Railway Station. He had gone to the last shed by the side of the railway line. He can not tell the distance of the railway station from the shed from where the accused persons were arrested. He is not in a position to affirm or deny that one shed had the dimension of 80 feet length and about 50 feet width. The shed was empty and vacant from where the accused persons were arrested. Public persons were at a distance of 200-250 yards from the place of arrest. The accused persons were sitting on a cemented platform. Disclosure statement of the accused Gulab was recorded first and after his arrest disclosure statement of Anil @ Buta was recorded. Accused Anil @ Buta was interrogated first, his disclosure statement was recorded thereafter and thereafter, he was arrested in the case. It is wrong to suggest that bat Ex. P8/1 to 2 was not recovered at the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 29 /71 instance of accused Anil @ Buta. It is wrong to suggest that Dagger Ex. P-9 was not recovered at the instance of accused Gulab. No public witness was available at the deserted place. It is wrong to suggest that weapon of offence was not taken by him to the doctor seeking his opinion. No written instructions were given to him by the SHO to conduct investigation. It is wrong to suggest that he had not made efforts to call independent witness.

16. PW13-Ct. Rohtash Singh has been given up by Ld. Addl. P. P. for the State being unnecessary.

17. PW14-Ct. Rajender Singh has deposed that on 27.06.2002 he had received 21 sealed parcels and sample seal from the MHC(M) of PS Alipur vide RC no. 95/21 and deposited the same to the FSL, Malviya Nagar. So long as the case property remained in his possession, no one tempered the same in any manner.

18. PW15-ASI Sudama Sharma has deposed that on 6.05.2002 he was deputed on Emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am. On that night he came back to PS at about 12.10 am after making investigation in some other matter. He was present at the place outside the gate of the PS, Ct. Rohtash had handed over DD no. 28-A Ex. PW15/A. He went to BJRM Hospital along with Ct. Satya Narain and Rohtash. He obtained the MLC of Rajesh. He was declared brought dead by the doctor in the said MLC. Brother of the deceased namely Vikas met him in the hospital. He got his statement recorded which is Ex. PW3/A. When he was in process of recording the aforesaid statement Inspector Surinder Dahiya, SHO PS Alipur, SI Ram Saran and SI Nitin Kumar reached the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 30 /71 hospital. DD NO. 30-A Ex. PW15/A was produced before him by SI Nitin Kumar. He recorded rukka Ex. PW15/C and handed over the same to Constable Rohtash for getting a case registered. Investigation was taken over by the SHO. He had handed over the documents to the SHO. Inspector Surinder Dahiya alongwith him, Vikas and the aforesaid officials went to the spot at about 3 am. They had gone to the godown area. Official photographer reached there who took the photographs of the scene of occurrence. Crime team also reached there. Private photographer also reached there. Site plan was prepared by the IO at the instance of Vikas. Hair of the deceased which were stained with blood were lifted, converted into parcel, sealed with the seal of SK. Earth control sample from the aforesaid two places were lifted, converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. Blood was lying at the spot, hence blood stained soil was lifted, converted into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. Again said, the aforesaid parcels were made of polythene bag and not of cloth. Earth control sample was also lifted from the place from where blood stained soil was lifted and it was converted into polythene bag parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. A pair of chappal was lying at the spot at two places. The said pair of chappal was lifted, converted into two parcel of polythene and sealed with the seal of SK. Blood stained soil was lying in the weeds, which was lifted, converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. Earth control sample were lifted from there, converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. A brick stained with the blood was lying at a pace away which was also lifted, converted into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. All the parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/D which bears his signature. After lifting the exhibits the police party went to BJRM Hospital.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 31 /71

At about 5.30 pm he was present along with SHO at bus stand village Budhpur, Delhi. There secret information was received that two of the boys who had committed murder were concealing themselves in a room constructed in a Farm House near Fishery farm of village Budh Pur, Delhi. These contents were told to him by the SHO, since he had received the information. Immediately, they went to the said fishery farm aongwith the staff. They went inside the room where two boys were sitting. At the pointing of the informer one of the boys was overpowered by him and the other boy was overpowered by Ct. Rohtash. Accused Praveen present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) was over powered by him and Accused Anil present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) was overpowered by the Ct. Rohtash. Accused Anil was interrogated by the SHO and was arrested in the case. His arrest memo Ex. PW15/E was prepared. Accused Praveen was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/F. Accused Praveen made disclosure statement Ex. PW15/G that he had concealed his cloths in his house from where he can get the same recovered. Accused Anil also made disclosure statement Ex. PW15/H saying that he had concealed his cloths in his house. A maruti van bearing no. DL-3CL-4195 was parked outside the said room, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/J. Their personal search memo Ex. PW15/K and PW15/L. From the said fishery farm they had gone to spot and from there the police party went to the house accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan. Accused Praveen produced cloths kept in a bag which was hidden underneath a bag. There was one shirt and one pant in the said bag which were converted into a polythene bag parcel, sealed with the seal of NK and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/M. Accused Anil also produced cloths kept in other SC No. 79/08 Page No. 32 /71 bag, concealed underneath the same bag. There was a pant and shirt in the other bag also which were converted into a polythene bag parcel sealed with the seal of NK and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/N. The seal after use was given to him. Thereafter, the police reached to the PS. On 09.05.2002 he joined the investigation of this case. They had gone to the Village Mukhmailpur bus stand and Ct. Yashvir and SI Ram Chand were with him at that time. There Vijay, elder brother of the deceased met them at about 12.30 pm. He told the SI Ram Saran within his hearing that accused Gulab @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta were seen at Subzi Mandi Azad Pur, Delhi and can be arrested from there. Police party alongwith Vijay reached there. Accused Gulab @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta both present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) were sitting in last PHAD of Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, Delhi. They were overpowered. Accused Gulab @ Hathi was interrogated and disclosed that he was wearing the very cloths which he was wearing on the night intervening 6-7 May, 2002 and had thrown the knife in the bushes from where he can get it recovered. His disclosure statement Ex. PW4/G was recorded. Accused Anil @ Buta was also interrogated and disclosed that he was wearing the very cloths which he was wearing on the night intervening 6-7 May, 2002 and had thrown the Danda in the bushes on the slope of G.T. Karnal Road from where he can get it recovered. and his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/H was recorded. They were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D and personal search memo Ex. PW4/E and PW4/F. The accused persons led them to a place near godown area of village Jindpur, Delhi. Accused Gulab @ Hathi had taken out a knife from the bushes and SC No. 79/08 Page No. 33 /71 produced before the SI Ram Saran. Sketch of the knife was prepared which is Ex. PW4/K. Knife was converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of RKD and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/J. Accused Anil @ Buta had produced one club broken from upper side from the bushes on the slope of GT Karnal Road. Again said the broken piece of the said club was also produced by him before Ram Singh SI. The club pieces were converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of RKD and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/M. Public witnesses were allowed to go and thereafter, they came to the PS. His statement was recorded in the PS. On 04.06.2002 he took the parcels of the knife and club duly sealed to the BJRM Hospital for obtaining the opinion of the doctor. He had handed over the objects to the Doctor B.N. Acharya and came back to the PS. He had the objected there by RC NO. 93/21. So long as the case property remained in his possession, no one tempered the same in any manner.

He has identified the Club pieces Ex. P8/1 to 2 as the same which were recovered at the instance of accused Anil @ Buta, Dagger Ex. P-9 as the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Gulab, pant Ex. P-12 and shirt Ex. P-13 which accused Anil @ Buta was wearing at that time, Pant Ex. P-10, and Shirt Ex. P-11 which accused Gulab was wearing at that time, Pant Ex. P-14, shirt Ex. P-15 which were recovered at the instance of accused Praveen, Pant Ex. P- 18, shirt Ex. P-19 which were recovered at the instance of accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan, chappal Ex. P-1 and P-2 as the same which were lifted from the spot. He also identified the Maruti van Ex. P-20 as the same which was seized from the possession of accused Praveen.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that It is correct SC No. 79/08 Page No. 34 /71 that in statement Ex. PW3/A it is not mentioned as to what was the source of light in which witness had seen the accused persons. In his statement he had not mentioned that there was tube light at the spot since there was not arrangement of light at the spot. It is correct that at the spot there was not natural source of light or installed light. Spot was inspected under the lights of the vehicle as well as torch lights. It is wrong to suggest that no torch light was used when spot was inspected. It is correct that there is no mention of the fact that the shirt Ex. P-14 and pant Ex. P-15 were blood stained in recovery memo Ex PW14/M. He had seen the deceased Rajesh in the hospital. He had seen the injuries on the face and head of the dead body and wearing cloths were found smeared with blood. SHO had taken over the charge of the investigation after rukka was sent by him. Report Ex. PW15/DA was not filled in by the SHO in his presence. It is wrong to suggest that there were public persons in the hospital besides Vijay. He left for the spot at about 2.30 am. They reached at about 3 am at the spot along with complainant and Vijay. At that time no person of the village was there. There is no shop around the place of occurrence. There is only one godown of Vishal Trading company near the place of occurrence. First of all blood stained hairs were lifted. It is correct that road shown in the site plan, in front of the shop does not lead straight to the place of incident. They had tried to search the weapon of offence in a circumference of 50 paces from the place of incident. They had searched the weapon of offence upto a distance of 30-40 paces from the electric pole. It is correct that there are groves of keekar trees, bushes of keekar tree on all the directions or side at the place of incident. Complainant Vikas and his brother Vijay remained a the spot upto 5.30 am. They had spent about 1½ hours in search, seizure of the articles SC No. 79/08 Page No. 35 /71 and completion of proceedings. He had not noted any public person who came there to deficate. They had summoned police photographer as well as a private photographer. It is wrong to suggest that Ramesh, father of the accused Praveen was taken to police station and was tortured there. Witnesses Vikas and Vijay were present outside the mortuary at that time. He had not noticed whether there was any legature mark or legature around the neck of the dead body. It is wrong to suggest that he along with other police officials and the witnesses hatched a criminal conspiracy and framed the accused persons in this case. Except the brothers of the victim no other independent witness had witnessed the recovery as well as seizure memos. From the mortuary they had gone to the village Mukhmailpur. There statements of the witnesses were recorded. At bus stand of village Boodpur SHO made efforts to join the independent witnesses but none became ready. Accused Praveen was overpowered by him first of all. Accused Anil was also overpowered there. Disclosure statement of accused Anil was recorded first which was not recorded in his hearing. It is wrong to suggest that Ramesh had brought one pant and shirt from his house on their dictation. He had prepared the site plan, recorded disclosure statement of accused Praveen Kumar @ Buta and recorded personal search memos of Gulab Singh @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta. Other than these documents and statements, remaining proceedings were conducted by SI Ram Saran and Inspector Surinder Kumar Dahiya. Disclosure statement of Accused Gulab was recorded first. Thereafter, disclosure statement of accused Anil @ Buta was recorded. The PHAD from where the accused persons were over powered was towards the station side of Azadpur Subzi Mandi Railway Station. The said PHAD was at a distance of 30-40 yds from the wall of the railway station. No SC No. 79/08 Page No. 36 /71 other person were present on the PHAD from where the accused persons were overpowered. It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons were not sitting there on the PHAD and he had fabricated a story on that count. Statement of Vikas and Vijay was recorded by the SHO at about 4 pm on 07.05.2002 at their house. It is wrong to suggest that the actual page bearing S.No. 7 has been removed and another leaf with the number 17 has been inserted after making interpolations of the number reading it was 07. It is wrong to suggest that rukka of this case was sent after conducting the autopsy on the dead body. It is wrong to suggest that contents of the FIR were also changed on the interpolated leaf bearing no. 07. SI Nitin Kumar was helping the SHO in recording statements etc. Site plan was prepared by him at the directions of the SHO. It is correct that SHO had not recorded any statement in his own hand. It is wrong to suggest that the original FIR registered on 06.05.2002 was torn off and the second leaf of the said FIR was substituted in order to frame the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons were lifted from their respective cases and framed in the case, after change of second leaf of the aforesaid FIR.

19. PW16-HC Hargobind Singh has proved the FIR no. 136/02 Ex. PW16/A recorded by him on the basis of rukka Ex. PW15/C sent by ASI Sudama Sharma through Ct. Rohtas. He also made endorsement Ex. PW16/B on rukka and the investigation was assigned to the SHO.

On 06.05.2002 he was working as D.D. Writer at PS Alipur. He had recorded DD no. 28-A Ex. PW15/A. He recorded the copy of DD no. 30-A also Ex. PW 15/B. He had also brought the DD register containing DD No. 23-A dated 06.05.2002 which was recorded by HC SC No. 79/08 Page No. 37 /71 Jai Bhagwan. Copy of the same is Ex. PW16/D. He had also brought the DD register containing DD No. 7-A dated 07.05.2002 which was recorded by ASI Kailash. Copy of the same is Ex. PW16/E. He has also deposed in his cross examination that it is correct that S.No. On the second page of the FIR was printed as 17 but actual S.No. is 07 as mentioned on the first page of the FIR so s.no. 17 was made by hand as 07 on page no. 2 of the FIR. Such a correction has also been made on the copy of the FIR Ex. PW16/A. FIR copy of which is Ex. PW16/A has been recorded by him. It is wrong to suggest that two pages of the said FIR are in different hand writing. It is wrong to suggest that initially the FIR was recorded against the unknown persons on the basis of DD No. 28-A.

20. PW17-Inspector Surinder Kumar has deposed that on intervening night of 06.05.2002-07.05.2002 at 12.05 am an information was received that one Rajesh was being removed to hospital in injured condition by PCR Van. A DD Entry Ex. PW15/A was recorded on that information. At 12.25 am another information was received that Rajesh was declared dead in the hospital. DD Entry Ex. PW15/B was recorded to this effect. He left for BJRM Hospital and reached there around 1 am. ASI Sudama Sharma was recording the statement of PW Vikas at that time. Vijay-brother of the deceased was also present there. After recording the statement rukka was recorded by ASI Sudama and it was sent to the PS for registration of FIR through Ct. Rohtash. At about 2 am in the night MLC of the deceased and copies of the DD entries were handed over to him by ASI Sudama Sharma. He conducted the inquest proceedings and form 15-A was filled in. Again said the form Ex. PW15/A was filled in later on and first they had gone to the spot.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 38 /71

Before leaving for the spot Ex. PW6/DA was recorded by him. Around 3 am he, ASI Sudama Sharma, SI Ram Saran, SI Nitin Kumar, driver of the vehicle, Vikas and Vijay reached to the spot. His operator was also with him whose name he does not recollect. Crime team was called at the spot. With the help of search light site was inspected. Spot was got photographed. He prepared rough site plan on inspection of the site, at the instance of Vikash which is Ex. PW12/DB. In the meantime, Ct. Rohtash had handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. Blood stained hairs were lifted from the spot, which were kept in a polythene, blood stained soil was lifted from the spot which were kept in a polythene paper and all these three packets were sealed with the seal of SK. Weed, earth which were stained with blood were also lifted from there and it were kept in a polythene paper. A pair of chappal lying at different place was lifted kept in a polythene, one brick which was stained with blood was also lifted from there, kept in a polythene and all these parcels were also sealed with the seal of SK. All these parcels which were ten in number were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/D. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter came back to the hospital.

Accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan led the police party to their house in village Bakoli, Delhi. First the police party went to the house of Accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan. From a bed accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan and accused Praveen had produced their cloths. Those cloths were stained with blood. Cloths were converted into separated parcels, sealed with the seal of NK and were seized vide memo Ex. PW15/N and Ex. PW15/M. Thereafter, they came back to the PS at about 10 pm. The case property was deposited with the MHC(M).

Vijay reached to the PS and produced his blood stained cloths as well as blood stained cloths of his brother. Those cloths were converted into a parcel, sealed with the seal of SS and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/B. Ct. Satya Narain had given three parcels to him which he had received from the autopsy surgeon. Again said he had handed over four parcels to him which were sealed with the seal of autopsy surgeon and he had taken the same into possession vide SC No. 79/08 Page No. 40 /71 memo Ex. PW8/A. A Maruti Van was also seized from the fishery farm from where accused Praveen and Anil S/O Ram Kishan were arrested vide memo Ex. PW15/J. On 04.06.2002 weapons of offence in intact condition were sent to autopsy surgeon through SI Sudama Sharma for his opinion. On 05.06.2002 SI Ram Saran brought those weapons of offence duly sealed with the seal of autopsy surgeon alongwith the opinion of the doctor. SI Ram Saran had accompanied SI Manohar Lal to the spot for inspection. Exhibits were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar alongwith priority letter.

He had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Ex. PW17/C. He identified the chappal Ex. P-1 & Ex. P-2 which was taken from the spot, grass/debris Ex. PX-1 which were taken into possession from the spot, samples of grass/debris which are blood stained Ex. PX-2 which were seized from the spot, brick Ex. PX-3 which was seized from the spot, Pant, shirt and under wear Ex. P-3, P-4 and P-5 which were produced by PW Satyawan and belonging to the deceased, Shirt Ex. P-6 and Shirt Ex P-7 which were produced by PW Vijay Kumar, pant of gray colour and cheqe shirt Ex. P-14 and P-15 which were recovered from the accused Praveen, gray colour pant and shirt of check Ex. P-18 and P-19 which were got recovered by the accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan. He identified the exhibits as the same which were seized. He recorded the statement of the witnesses.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that he received information abut the incident of this case at about 12.30 am. When he was in his retiring room at the PS. At about 1.00 am, he reached BJRM hospital and found ASI Sudama Sharma busy in recording the statement of Vikas. Duty Officer had assigned call to ASI Sudama SC No. 79/08 Page No. 41 /71 Sharma accordingly he had gone to the BJRM Hospital. Vikas and his brother Vijay were present in the hospital, who were the brother of the deceased. Father of the deceased was also present in the hospital. After recording rukka ASI Sudama Sharma had assigned DD entry etc. to him for further action in the matter. They left the hospital at about 2.15 am for the spot, and reached at about 3 am. It is correct that it was pitch dark at the spot. They had conducted the proceedings at the spot with the help of search light and torch search light. Head lights of the vehicle were also on. Independent witnesses had accompanied them from the hospital to the spot. First of all the spot was got photographed and thereafter, it was inspected by him. Ct. Sushil was the official photographer and Sanjay was the private photographer who had taken the photographs of the spot. Photographs were taken from all the directions. But he can not say how many snaps were taken by Sanjay and how many were taken by the police photographer. He had inspected the spot in the diameter of the 100 mts. Photographs of the spot were taken at his instance. He had arrested accused Praveen and Anil and had verified their antecedents also. Praveen is a driver by profession. Anil was not doing any job/occupation when he was arrested in this case. He recorded statement of Vijay and Vikas during inquest proceedings, who joined the same as punch witness. In Ex. PW15/A he had mentioned that death was caused by ta sharp edged object. In Ex. PW15/A he had mentioned that there was legature mark around the neck of the deceased. NO legature mark was there around the neck of the dead body. There were injuries on dead body caused by sharp edged object as well as caused by blunt object (Danda). In col. NO. 10 of the Ex. PW15/A it is mentioned that injuries present on the dead body were caused by sharp edged object as well as by blunt SC No. 79/08 Page No. 42 /71 object. By blunt impact mentioned in Col. No. 10 of Ex. PW15/A, he mean that the injuries were caused by a Danda. It is correct that in col no. 12 and 20 of Ex. PW15/A, he had not mentioned the use of a danda statement Ex. PW3/A and Ex PW17/DA were correctly recorded by him. He had gone to the place of occurrence on 07.05.2002 and thereafter, he had gone again along with the draftsman. Witness Vijay had pointed out electric poles when draftsman inspected the place of occurrence. Again said it was witness Vikas who had pointed out the electric pole to the draftsman. The statement of Vikas as Ex. PW3/A was not recorded by him, it was recorded by ASI Sudama Sharma. It is also not stated that the head lights of the van in which the accused persons had come were on. It is true that there is no mention about the street lights on electric poles near the place where they were sitting. It is wrong to suggest that the father of the accused Praveen was lifted from his house and tortured between 3.00 am to 4.00 am on 07.05.2002. The recovery memo of cloths pertaining to the accused Praveen at Ex. PW15/M does not show that the cloths recovered are blood stained. It is correct that no public witness was joined for recording the disclosure statement of Praveen and for the recovery memo.

21. All the accused persons were examined U/S 313 of Cr.PC and all the material evidences against them were put to all the accused persons and they have denied the same as false and submitted that they are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case. Three accused persons namely Anil Kumar @ Buta S/O Sh. Hukum Singh, Praveen and Gulab Singh have also chosen to lead evidence in their defence and examined four witnesses in their defence.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 43 /71

22. DW1-Ramesh Chand had deposed that the incident pertains to 06.05.2002. Accused Praveen is his son. Around 4-5 pm on that day he had sent his son Praveen to village Sultan Pur alongwith the van. There was a Jagran of Mata in the village Sultan Pur, where his sister also lives, and she was celebrating the Jagran. At around 9 pm after having the meals, he laid down for sleep at his house alongwith his family members at his house. Around 3-4 am i.e. in the night on the same day, somebody had knocked at his door, when he opened the door he found 3-4 police men along with Sudama Sharma at his door step. Sudama Sharma is an ASI In the police and he asked him to go to the police station. When he asked him as to why he had been called he told him that he is called into the PS and he could be knowing the reason. When he protested Sudama Sharma started assaulting him at his door step itself, he took him forcibly to the police station by putting him into the police vehicle. In the PS he was again assaulted and he was questioned as to who murdered Rajesh. He told him that he is not the culprit and asked him to find out the real culprit. The next day, at around 9.30 am, also he was again questioned in the station itself and pleaded his innocence. He also questioned the whereabout of his son Praveen, he replied him that he did send his son to Sultan Pur to attend the Jagran at his sister's house. Sudama Sharma ran up the number of his sister from the PS after taking no. from him. He spoke from the said telephone and intimated his sister that he was detained in the PS and asked her to send Praveen along with the Maruti Van to the PS. After one and half hours his sister Bala, Memwati, his son Praveen along with Maruti Van and driver Jagbir had come to the Alipur PS where he was detained. After the arrival of these persons, Sudama Sharma beat his son. He protested the same telling him that his son was sent to Jagaran and his protest SC No. 79/08 Page No. 44 /71 were of no avail. He told me that his son would now go to the Jail. He asked him to bring a pair of cloths of Praveen from his house for his son. The shirt had the lebel of Lovely Tailor and the pant of slaity colour. The cloths that he procured were neatly washed and he got it from the house. After this Sudama Sharma told him that his son would go to jail and he may go back to the house.

He has also deposed in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. P. P. for the State that he had sent his son Praveen on maruti van bearing no. DL-3-CL/4195 which is in the name of Anil Kumar. He had purchased the said van from Anil Kumar. He had not brought any documentary proof to prove the purchasing of the said van. No invitation cards were printed by his sister for the Jagran. He had not brought any other proof to prove the jagran at the house of his sister Bala. It is wrong to suggest that there was no Jagran on 06.05.2002 at the house of his sister. He can not tel the name of the police officials who had come to his house with ASI Sudama Sharma. Sudama Sharma was not known to him prior to this incident. They had taken him to the PS in the Zypsy of police. He can not tell the number and colour of the Zypsy. He did not give any alarm when he was taken to the PS. He was only weeping loudly and nobody came at his house after hearing his voice of weeping. He was taken to the PS at about 3-4 am. The SHO was not present in the PS when he reached there. He was kept in the PS for the whole night. He does not have any telephone connection at his house. The telephone number of his sister is 7759406 which is landline. He can not tell the exact time when the telephone call was made to his sister. He talked to his sister for 15 minutes. The house of his sister is situated at a distance of 35 km from his house. His sister had met the SHO in the PS. At about 1-1.10 pm he was told by the police to bring SC No. 79/08 Page No. 45 /71 cloths of his son Praveen. It is wrong to suggest that he is not the father of Praveen and claiming himself as his father. His statement was not recorded by the police. He had also not moved any application to any senior police official. It is wrong to suggest that his son and other accused persons had murdered one Rajesh after giving him beating. It is wrong to suggest that he has deposed falsely.

23. DW2-Jagbir has deposed that the incident pertains to 06.05.2002. He went to Village Sultan Pur, at the house of Smt. Bala at around 6 pm. When he went there, he found accused Praveen present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) in the house of Smt. Bala. He also found the Maruti van there. The said Maruti Van bearing no. 4195 was of white colour. There was a function of Mata Ka Jagran. He had taken his dinner and remained in the same place throughout the night on that day. The Jagran ended by 5 am on next day. Around 9 am one telephone call came there which was attended by Smt. Bala. She told him that the call was made by Ramesh from the PS where he was detained. She further told him that Ramesh was detained in the PS by the police and he was asking to bring the Maruti van. Upon this, he drove the Maruti Van alongwith accused Praveen, Memvati and Bala to the PS Alipur, Delhi. They reached there at around 10-11 am. On reaching the PS the police took accused Praveen in their custody and he was assaulted. It was also imputed against him that he committed the murder of Rajesh. To this accused Praveen was repeatedly repudiating. Then he was put in the lock up. Ramesh-father of accused Praveen was also found sitting in the PS. Police were telling his father that now Praveen would go to the jail. The police thereafter, asked Ramesh to procure cloths for the accused Praveen. Then, his father brought a pant SC No. 79/08 Page No. 46 /71 of slaity colour and a shirt of chek. They were neatly washed when brought to the PS. Then, they returned to their house.

He has also deposed in his cross examination that he does not have any identity card or any ration card to show that he is Jabgir. It is wrong to suggest that he is not Jagbir and he is not the resident of village Qutubgarh. This is the first case in which he is deposing as a witness. He is deposing voluntarily. The incident that he had spoken to concerning 06.05.2002 is with regard to the murder of Rajesh, which he came to know. He does not know the details of the FIR No. of that murder case. He left around 5.30 pm by bus to village Sultan Pur by bus route no. 106 which was a DTC but, he does not have any ticket or any pass. He reached Sultan Pur within half an house. He can not tell the house number of Smt. Bala. He also can not tell the Mohalla or street no. It is wrong to suggest that he had not visited the house of Smt. Bala at Sultan Pur and that is why he is unable to say her house number and details thereof. Jagran is to remain awake throughout the night. He can not tell how many persons had assembled there in the Jagaran. Smt. Bala is the convener of the Jagaran. It started by 8. pm. He can not tell what are the rituals done at first and who had done it. But there were Bhajans of Mata. He was present when the telephone was received by Smt. Bala on the landline phone. He can not tell the phone no. of Bala. It is wrong to suggest that there is no phone in the house of Smt. Bala. He was not knowing Memwati, nor she is related to him. He did not meet the SHO at the PS. He can not tell the name of the police official who had taken the accused praveen in custody. It is wrong to suggest that he is giving a false statement. He had not made any statement before the police nor he did anything in writing. It is wrong to suggest that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 47 /71 accused Praveen to save him.

24. DW3-Dharam Pal has deposed that accused Gulab Singh is his nephew. Accused Anil @ Buta is also related to him. He know other accused Anil also. About 3 years back, he was coming from his fields to his home at around 2 pm, he came to know that the son of Mahavir was murdered. On that day, i.e. on 6th May between 2 to 2.15 pm accused Anil @ Buta and accused Gulab were in the gali which is next to their house. He does not have anything else to say in this case.

He has also deposed in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. P. P. for the State that he is doing the agriculture work since his childhood. He can not tell the full name of deceased, in the village he was known as Sethi. It is wrong to suggest that deceased was murdered by all the accused persons present in the court. It is wrong to suggest that he had not returned to his house on the date of occurrence. He can not tell the day of incident. It is wrong to suggest that accused Anil and Praveen were also present in the gali alongwith the other two accused persons. He had not given any statement to the police. He did not make any statement to the police even after coming to know that they were arrested in this case on 8th May, 2002. He also did not give anything in writing to any of the Senior Officers. It is wrong to suggest that he was not doing the work of any agriculture. He is ploughing agriculture land on contract. It is wrong to suggest that he was not present at any time and deposing to save the accused persons. He remember the date of occurrence orally. He can not tell the date of Diwali or Dushehra festival in the year 2002. It is wrong to suggest that he had been tutored by the defence counsel.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 48 /71

25. DW4-Raj Singh has deposed that he know the accused Gulab Singh and Anil @ Buta who are related to him. The incident of this case pertains to 06.05.2002. At around 2-2.30, he came to know that the son of Mahavir was murdered. He had brought the photocopy at mark D-1 which is the complaint lodged by the villagers this is concerning the slaughter of pigs in the street. The Mahavir named in the mark D-1 is the same person whose son was murdered. He has also deposed in his cross examination that It is correct that he is not eye witness of the occurrence and nothing happened in his presence. It is correct that accused Gulab is his son. It is wrong to suggest that he has deposed falsely today to save his son Gulab from punishment. He is illiterate. He can not read and write Hindi or any other language. He can not tell who has signed these documents. The villagers have signed in his presence. He can not tell which of the villagers has signed first of all. The photographs were taken by one Rai Singh. It is wrong to suggest that he is deposing falsely.

26. Ld. Counsels for the accused persons have submitted that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case as there is no independent public witness in this case. The public witnesses have made material improvement in their testimonies in the Court which is fatal to the Prosecution case. Non disclosure of the names of the assailants at the first possible instance give rise to the false implication and the circumstances become doubtful. The material discrepancies and contradictions are fatal to the Prosecution case which create doubt in the Prosecution case and the benefit of doubt is always right of the accused persons. Therefore, it is, prayed that since the Prosecution could not establish its case against the accused persons U/S 302/34 IPC SC No. 79/08 Page No. 49 /71 beyond shadow of doubt the accused persons may be acquitted of the alleged offences by giving benefit of doubt, as the benefit of doubt is the right of the accused persons.

27. On the contrary, Ld. Addl.P.P. for the State has submitted that it is a well established principle of Law that the every discrepancy in witness statements can not be fatal to the Prosecution case. The discrepancies which does not effect the Prosecution case materially does not create infirmity and there is no material discrepancies/ contradictions in the Prosecution case. The mere submission on behalf of the accused persons that the deposition of the brothers of the deceased, who has been examined as PW-3 & PW-4 is not trustworthy and being the brothers of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused persons can not a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise coherent and probable. The evidence, circumstances and the facts, if cumulatively taken together leads to the only conclusion that the accused persons are the perpetrators of crime. Medical evidence on the record is also supporting to the case of Prosecution to the effect that the injuries caused were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The Prosecution has successfully established its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt and the lacunae, if any, is not fatal to the case of the Prosecution. Hence, it is, prayed that the accused persons may be convicted for the alleged offences.

28. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, Ld. Addl. P. P. for the State and have perused the entire material on record carefully.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 50 /71

29. On the careful scrutiny of the testimony of the witnesses revealed that PW3-Vikas deal in pigery farm/ business. His pigs graze in the area of Jindpur godown. They are three brothers. Vijay is elder to him and deceased Rajesh was younger to him. Before the incident of this case, 2-4 times his pigs were stolen but he had not reported the matter to the police. The pigs were also not traced. On 6.05.02, he and his brother Rajesh had gone in the area of Jindpur Godown at about 9.00 pm to take back the pigs. His pigs were grazing there at that time. They took their pigs from there and he and his brother Rajesh sat on the stairs of a shop and they were watching their pigs. At about 9.30 pm, a white coloured Maruti Van came there from G.T.Road and stopped near the pigs. There were four persons in the van. They alighted from the van and started catching their pigs. The pigs started running towards bushes. Seeing this, Rajesh followed those four boys. He was behind Rajesh. Rajesh asked those four boys as to why they were catching their pigs. All the four boys who were catching the pigs were present before the court. Accused Gulab and Anil used to work at their shop. They worked for a long time. Gulab had left their shop about 1 or 1 ½ year before the incident. Anil had left about 15-20 days before the incident. Accused Anil is the resident of village Bakoli while Gulab is resident of his village. The name of the third accused is also Anil Kumar S/o Hukme. He is resident of his village. Accused Parveen is also resident of his village. Accused Anil resident of village Bakoli and accused Parveen Kumar of his village caught hold of his brother Rajesh. Accused Anil of village Bakoli exhorted as saying " Aaj inka kaam tamam kar dete hai" while accused Gulab Singh stabbed 6-7 times on the face and head of his brother with the knife. While Anil of his village gave 3-4 danda blows on the head of his brother Rajesh.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 51 /71

When he tried to save his brother Rajesh, Anil @ Boota of his village exhorted "iska bhi kaam tamam kar do". Due to their fear he ran from there to save himself. He ran towards his village. Accused persons also chased him for some distance. He came home and told the entire incident to his brother Vijay. He and his brother Vijay came back at the spot on two wheeler scooter where the incident had taken place. His brother was not found there. They searched for the brother. His brother was lying in the bushes at a distance of 3-4 paces from the spot in the injured condition. He and his brother Vijay lifted him. His brother Vijay sat with his injured brother on the scooter and he drove towards the police station. On way just before the PS, a PCR van met them. His brother Vijay sat in the PCR van with his injured brother Rajesh and he followed them on his two wheeler scooter to Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. After examining his brother Rajesh, the doctor declared him "brought dead". All the four accused persons committed the murder of his brother Rajesh. Local police came to the hospital. He gave his statement Ex.PW3/A which bears his signature at point A. The head lights of the van in which the accused persons had come were on. Except that there was no other light at the spot. His brother Rajesh was wearing shirt, pajama and chappals. He can identify the clothes and chappals of his brother. He accompanied the police officer to the place of occurrence and IO Prepared the site plan at his instance and he came back at home. Next day at about 9.00 am he, his brother Vijay and others went to the said hospital. They identified the dead body of his brother Rajesh. His statement Ex.PW3/B was recorded to this effect by the police. Later on, he had again shown the place of incident to the police who had taken the notes and measurement at the spot. At the time of incident, I was wearing the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 52 /71 shirt. It became blood stained when he lifted his brother Rajesh with elder brother Vijay. Police had seized his shirt which was blood stained. When chappal of right foot Ex. P-1 & of left foot Ex.P-2 was shown to the witness, he correctly identified that it is the same which belonged to his brother Rajesh. Thereafter, one shirt Ex. P-3, one pant Ex. P-4 and one underwear Ex. P-5 were shown to the witness. He correctly identified the same which his brother was wearing at the time of incident. He identified the shirt Ex. P-6 which he was wearing when he lifted his brother Rajesh and shirt Ex. P-7 as the same which his elder brother Vijay was wearing at that time. These shirts were stained with blood of their brother Rajesh.

30. PW4-Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Mahavir Singh has deposed that they are three brothers. He is the eldest. Next to him is Vikas and the youngest was Rajesh. They used to deal in pigry business. Prior to this incident, their pigs were stolen 2-3 times but the matter was not reported to the police. Their pigs graze in the area of Jindpur Godown. His youngest brother Rajesh used to take the pigs for grazing. He know all the four accused persons present before the court. Gulab @ Hathi, Anil @ Boota are the residents of his village. Accused Parveen also reside in his village. Fourth accused Anil is the resident of village Bakoli. Gulab and Anil of village of Bakoli had worked at their shop. They had left the service before the incident. On 6.05.02, their pigs were grazing in the area of godown of Jindpur village. On that day at about 8.30 pm, he send his brothers Rajesh and Vikas to watch the animals in that area. Rajesh was wearing shirt, pant and chappals. Vikas was wearing shirt and pant. At about 10.00 pm Vikas came home SC No. 79/08 Page No. 53 /71 weeping. He told him that accused Parveen, Gulab, Anil and one other Anil of village Bakoli had caused injuries to Rajesh with churri (knife) and Danda when they objected to the accused persons for catching their animals. When Vikas tried to save his brother Rajesh from the accused persons, they also extended threats to him and attempted to attack upon him also. His brother Vikas further told to him that out of fear he had run away from there and reached to him. He and his brother Vikas went to the spot on their two wheeler scooter. When they reached at the spot, they did not find their brother Rajesh. They searched for him in the light of their scooter's head light. They saw Rajesh lying in the bushes in injured condition. His chappals were lying at the spot. He with the support of Vikas lifted his brother Rajesh and sat down on the scooter with his brother Rajesh while Vikas drove towards the police station. On way to the police station, they came across a PCR. They gave signal to the PCR van to stop. He and his brother Rajesh sat in the PCR van and they took them to BJRM hospital. His brother Vikas followed them on his two wheeler scooter. After examining his brother Rajesh, the doctor declared him "brought dead". Local police also reached the hospital. Police recorded the statement of his brother Vikas. The clothes of his brother Vikas and also his clothes were stained with blood when they lifted Rajesh from the bushes. He and his brother Vikas accompanied the police to the spot. Police prepared the rough site plan at the spot at the instance of Vikas. Both the chappals of his brother Rajesh were also recovered from the spot. At about 3.00 AM, they came back to their home. On the next day at about 2.00 PM, he and his brother Vikas identified the dead body of their brother Rajesh, before the police. His statement Ex.PW4/A to this effect was recorded by the police which bears his signature at point A. After the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 54 /71 postmortem, he received the dead body of his brother. He has seen the shirt Ex. P-7. It was the same same shirt which he was wearing when he lifted his brother from the spot and took him to the hospital. Ex. P-7, his shirt was also stained with the blood of his brother Rajesh. It was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/B. He identified the shirt Ex. P-6 saying that this is the same shirt which his brother Vikas was wearing at the time they took their deceased brother Rajesh tot the hospital. On 09.05.02, he came to know that accused Gulab @ Hathi, Anil @ Boota who were wanted in this case, were roaming in Subzi Mandi near Azadpur Railway Station. He left his house at about 12.30 PM to inform the police about it. He reached at the bus stand of Mukhmailpur, police of PS Alipur met him. He told this fact to those three police officials who met him at bus stand, Mukhmailpur and he went to Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, near Azadpur railway station in search of accused persons. They searched them in the area and noticed Gulab and Anil @ Buta sitting on a Phad with their faces towards railway station. He pointed them out to the police officials. Both of them were over-powered and arrested by the police. The arrest memos Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D were prepared. Their personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. All these memos bear his signatures. Both the accused were interrogated. During interrogation accused Gulab told that he can get recovered Danda and knife. His disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW4/G. Accused Anil @ Buta also disclosed that he can get recovered a Danda. His disclosure statement Ex.PW4/H was recorded. Pursuant to the disclosure statement accused Gulab lead us to the bushes at a place near the place of occurrence and from there he got recovered a Churri. Churri was not measured but its sketch was prepared and roughly the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 55 /71 measurement was recorded. It was sealed and seized vide memo Ex.PW4/J. Before sealing the sketch of the churri was prepared which is Ex.PW4/K. Thereafter, accused Anil @ Buta lead us to a place near the slope of G. T. Road opposite the water tank of Alipur and from there he got recovered a Danda. It was also sealed in a cloth parcel and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/L. His statement was recorded by the police. The danda got recovered by accused Anil @ Buta was in two pieces. When sealed parcel with the seal of FSL was opened and two pieces of Danda are taken out, he correctly identified the two pieces of danda Ex.P-8/1-2 are the same which were recovered by accused Anil @ Buta. When Churri Ex.P-9 was shown to the witness, he correctly identified the same which was got recovered by accused Gulab. He identify all the four accused persons present in the court. He know them since his childhood.

31. PW17-Inspector Surinder Kumar has deposed that on intervening night of 06.05.2002-07.05.2002 at 12.05 am an information was received that one Rajesh was being removed to hospital in injured condition by PCR Van. A DD Entry Ex. PW15/A was recorded on that information. At 12.25 am another information was received that Rajesh was declared dead in the hospital. DD Entry Ex. PW15/B was recorded to this effect. He left for BJRM Hospital and reached there around 1 am. ASI Sudama Sharma was recording the statement of PW Vikas at that time. Vijay-brother of the deceased was also present there. After recording the statement rukka was recorded by ASI Sudama and it was sent to the PS for registration of FIR through Ct. Rohtash. At about 2 am in the night MLC of the deceased and copies of the DD entries were handed over to him by ASI Sudama Sharma. He conducted the inquest SC No. 79/08 Page No. 56 /71 proceedings and form 15-A was filled in. Againsaid the form Ex. PW15/A was filled in later on and first they had gone to the spot. Before leaving for the spot Ex. PW6/DA was recorded by him. Around 3 am he, ASI Sudama Sharma, SI Ram Saran, SI Nitin Kumar, driver of the vehicle, Vikas and Vijay reached to the spot. His operator was also with him whose name he does not recollect. Crime team was called at the spot. With the help of search light site was inspected. Spot was got photographed. He prepared rough site plan on inspection of the site, at the instance of Vikas which is Ex. PW12/DB. In the meantime, Ct. Rohtash had handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. Blood stained hairs were lifted from the spot, which were kept in a polythene, blood stained soil was lifted from the spot which were kept in a polythene paper and all these three packets were sealed with the seal of SK. Weed, earth which were stained with blood were also lifted from there and it were kept in a polythene paper. A pair of chappal lying at different place was lifted kept in a polythene, one brick which was stained with blood was also lifted from there, kept in a polythene and all these parcels were also sealed with the seal of SK. All these parcels which were ten in number were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/D. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and thereafter came back to the hospital.

He recorded the brief facts Ex. PW17/A. Statement of Vijay Kumar and Vikas identifying the dead body were recorded which are Ex. PW4/A and Ex PW3/B respectively. Application Ex. PW17/B was written requesting autopsy examination on the dead body of Rajesh. After autopsy examination the dead body was released to legal heirs for cremation. They went in search of the accused persons. At about 4 pm they reached the house of the deceased. Statement of the Vijay was SC No. 79/08 Page No. 57 /71 recorded there. Supplementary statement of Vikas was also recorded. At about 5.30pm they reached to Bhoodpur, Delhi. There a secret information was received that Praveen and Anil were there in a room at a Fishery Farm in Alipur, Delhi. This information was about Anil S/O Ram Kishan. They reached there along with the informer. At the instance of the informer accused Praveen and Anil S/O Ram Kishan were apprehended. Accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan was interrogated. Arrest memo Ex. PW15/E of Anil S/O Ram Kishan was prepared. Arrest memo Ex. PW15/F of the accused Praveen was also prepared. Accused Praveen was also interrogated. Accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan made disclosure statement that knife was in possession of Accused Gulab @ Hathi and Danda was in possession of Anil @ Buta. His disclosure statement is Ex. PW15/H. Accused persons were personally searched and their personal search memos Ex. PW15/N and PW15/K were prepared. Accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan led the police party to their house in village Bakoli, Delhi. First the police party went to the house of Accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan. From a bed accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan and accused Praveen had produced their cloths. Those cloths were stained with blood. Cloths were converted into separated parcels, sealed with the seal of NK and were seized vide memo Ex. PW15/N and Ex. PW15/M. Thereafter, they came back to the PS at about 10 pm. The case property was deposited with the MHC(M). Vijay reached to the PS and produced his blood stained cloths as well as blood stained cloths of his brother. Those cloths were converted into a parcel, sealed with the seal of SS and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/B. Ct. Satya Narain had given three parcels to him which he had received from the autopsy surgeon. Again said he had handed over four parcels to him which were sealed with the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 58 /71 seal of autopsy surgeon and he had taken the same into possession vide memo Ex. PW8/A. A Maruti Van was also seized from the fishery farm from where accused Praveen and Anil S/O Ram Kishan were arrested vide memo Ex. PW15/J. On 04.06.2002 weapons of offence in intact condition were sent to autopsy surgeon through SI Sudama Sharma for his opinion. On 05.06.2002 SI Ram Saran brought those weapons of offence duly sealed with the seal of autopsy surgeon alongwith the opinion of the doctor. SI Ram Saran had accompanied SI Manohar Lal to the spot for inspection. Exhibits were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar alongwith priority letter.

32. PW15-ASI Sudama Sharma has deposed that on 6.05.2002 he was deputed on Emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am. On that night he came back to PS at about 12.10 am after making investigation in some other matter. He was present at the place outside the gate of the PS, Ct.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 59 /71

Rohtash had handed over DD no. 28-A Ex. PW15/A. He went to BJRM Hospital along with Ct. Satya Narain and Rohtash. He obtained the MLC of Rajesh. He was declared brought dead by the doctor in the said MLC. Brother of the deceased namely Vikas met him in the hospital. He got his statement recorded which is Ex. PW3/A. When he was in process of recording the aforesaid statement Inspector Surinder Dahiya, SHO PS Alipur, SI Ram Saran and SI Nitin Kumar reached the hospital. DD NO. 30-A Ex. PW15/A was produced before him by SI Nitin Kumar. He recorded rukka Ex. PW15/C and handed over the same to Constable Rohtash for getting a case registered. Investigation was taken over by the SHO. He had handed over the documents to the SHO. Inspector Surinder Dahiya alongwith him, Vikas and the aforesaid officials went to the spot at about 3 am. They had gone to the godown area. Official photographer reached there who took the photographs of the scene of occurrence. Crime team also reached there. Private photographer also reached there. Site plan was prepared by the IO at the instance of Vikas. Hair of the deceased which were stained with blood were lifted, converted into parcel, sealed with the seal of SK. Earth control sample from the aforesaid two places were lifted, converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. Blood was lying at the spot, hence blood stained soil was lifted, converted into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. Again said, the aforesaid parcels were made of polythene bag and not of cloth. Earth control sample was also lifted from the place from where blood stained soil was lifted and it was converted into polythene bag parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. A pair of chappal was lying at the spot at two places. The said pair of chappal was lifted, converted into two parcel of polythene and sealed with the seal of SK. Blood stained soil was lying in the weeds, SC No. 79/08 Page No. 60 /71 which was lifted, converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. Earth control sample were lifted from there, converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. A brick stained with the blood was lying at a pace away which was also lifted, converted into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of SK. All the parcels were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/D which bears his signature. After lifting the exhibits the police party went to BJRM Hospital.

At about 5.30 pm he was present along with SHO at bus stand village Budhpur, Delhi. There secret information was received that two of the boys who had committed murder were concealing themselves in a room constructed in a Farm House near Fishery farm of village Budh Pur, Delhi. These contents were told to him by the SHO, since he had received the information. Immediately, they went to the said fishery farm aongwith the staff. They went inside the room where two boys were sitting. At the pointing of the informer one of the boys was overpowered by him and the other boy was overpowered by Ct. Rohtash. Accused Praveen present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) was over powered by him and Accused Anil present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) was overpowered by the Ct. Rohtash. Accused Anil was interrogated by the SHO and was arrested in the case. His arrest memo Ex. PW15/E was prepared. Accused Praveen was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW15/F. Accused Praveen made disclosure statement Ex. PW15/G that he had concealed his cloths in his house from where he can get the same recovered. Accused Anil also made disclosure statement Ex. PW15/H saying that he had concealed his cloths in his house. A maruti van bearing no. DL-3CL-4195 was parked outside the said room, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/J. Their personal SC No. 79/08 Page No. 61 /71 search memo Ex. PW15/K and PW15/L. From the said fishery farm they had gone to spot and from there the police party went to the house accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan. Accused Praveen produced cloths kept in a bag which was hidden underneath a bag. There was one shirt and one pant in the said bag which were converted into a polythene bag parcel, sealed with the seal of NK and were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/M. Accused Anil also produced cloths kept in other bag, concealed underneath the same bag. There was a pant and shirt in the other bag also which were converted into a polythene bag parcel sealed with the seal of NK and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW15/N. The seal after use was given to him. Thereafter, the police reached to the PS. On 09.05.2002 he joined the investigation of this case. They had gone to the Village Mukhmailpur bus stand and Ct. Yashvir and SI Ram Chand were with him at that time. There Vijay, elder brother of the deceased met them at about 12.30 pm. He told the SI Ram Saran within his hearing that accused Gulab @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta were seen at Subzi Mandi Azad Pur, Delhi and can be arrested from there. Police party alongwith Vijay reached there. Accused Gulab @ Hathi and Anil @ Buta both present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) were sitting in last PHAD of Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, Delhi. They were overpowered. Accused Gulab @ Hathi was interrogated and disclosed that he was wearing the very cloths which he was wearing on the night intervening 6-7 May, 2002 and had thrown the knife in the bushes from where he can get it recovered. His disclosure statement Ex. PW4/G was recorded. Accused Anil @ Buta was also interrogated and disclosed that he was wearing the very cloths which he was wearing on the night intervening 6-7 May, 2002 and had thrown the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 62 /71 Danda in the bushes on the slope of G.T. Karnal Road from where he can get it recovered. and his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/H was recorded. They were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D and personal search memo Ex. PW4/E and PW4/F. The accused persons led them to a place near godown area of village Jindpur, Delhi. Accused Gulab @ Hathi had taken out a knife from the bushes and produced before the SI Ram Saran. Sketch of the knife was prepared which is Ex. PW4/K. Knife was converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of RKD and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/J. Accused Anil @ Buta had produced one club broken from upper side from the bushes on the slope of GT Karnal Road. Again said the broken piece of the said club was also produced by him before Ram Singh SI. The club pieces were converted into a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of RKD and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW4/M. Public witnesses were allowed to go and thereafter, they came to the PS. His statement was recorded in the PS. On 04.06.2002 he took the parcels of the knife and club duly sealed to the BJRM Hospital for obtaining the opinion of the doctor. He had handed over the objects to the Doctor B.N. Acharya and came back to the PS. He had the objected there by RC NO. 93/21. So long as the case property remained in his possession, no one tempered the same in any manner. He has identified the Club pieces Ex. P8/1 to 2 as the same which were recovered at the instance of accused Anil @ Buta, Dagger Ex. P-9 as the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Gulab, pant Ex. P-12 and shirt Ex. P-13 which accused Anil @ Buta was wearing at that time, Pant Ex. P-10, and Shirt Ex. P-11 which accused Gulab was wearing at that time, Pant Ex. P-14, shirt Ex. P-15 which were recovered at the instance of accused Praveen, Pant Ex. P-

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 63 /71

18, shirt Ex. P-19 which were recovered at the instance of accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan, chappal Ex. P-1 and P-2 as the same which were lifted from the spot. He also identified the Maruti van Ex. P-20 as the same which was seized from the possession of accused Praveen.

33. PW6-Dr. B.N. Acharya has deposed that on 07.05.2002 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of one Rajesh which was sent by Inspector Surinder Kumar Dahiya and was identified by the constable Satya Narain of PS Alipur, Delhi. On examination he found following external injuries on the person of the dead body:

a) CLW on middle of scalp 5cm above the bridge of nose, having dimension of 6.5 cm X 1.8 cm X bone deep.

b) CLW on middle scalp on parital area with abraded area.

c) Incised wound on right eye brow lateral side with the dimension of 3.5cm X 1 cm X bone deep. One side of the wound was having acute angles.

d) Incised wound on right maxilla with the dimension of 2cm X 1cm X skin deep. It was situated 2.5 cm below.

]

e) Incised wound on right side face 6 cm from the angle of right mandibule having dimension of 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm.

f) Incised wound in front of injury no. 5 having a dimension of 1.5 cm X 1 cm X 0.1 cm having acute angle medially.

g) Swelling on right side of face. Right mandible was found fractured.

h) There were bruises on right eye and sub-conjutival hammerhoges were seen.

i) Abrasion on left lateral side of the eye having dimension of 6.5 cm X 5.5 cm which were 3 cm from the left ear.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 64 /71

j) Multiple scratch and abrasion on front and side of the neck in an area of 18 cm X 11 cm above and below the thyroid prominence.

On opening of the body he noted extensive bruises all over the scalp at places with clotted blood. The skull bone had fractured in pieces. Brain matter had fractured having irregular contuised and lacerated/situation at fractured side. Hylid bone was intact. The brain matter as referred above was covered by subdural haemorrhages and sub-archnoid hamerrhages. There were bruises on neck muscles with clot. Injuries present on the dead body were of ante mortem in nature and were of 12 hours old prior to the death of the deceased. Injuries no. 3,4,5 and 6 were caused by sharp edged weapon while the remaining injuries were caused by blunt object. He was of the opinion that death was caused due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon head injury sustained. Time since death was approximately 12 hours. Head injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. His autopsy report is Ex. PW6/A which is in his hand and correct. On 05.06.2002 two parcels sealed with the seal of RKD were placed in his hands. On opening the same a knife was recovered which was single edged and pointed at the top. Total length and breadth of the said knife was described by him in sketch Ex. PW6/B which was prepared by him. He had examined the said knife and considered the matter in the light of the injuries mentioned by him in his report Ex. PW6/A. He was of the opinion that injuries no. 3,4,5 and 6 mentioned in Ex. PW6/A could have been caused by the knife sketch of which was prepared by him as Ex. PW6/B. On opening another parcel a wooden stick was found having total length of 82 cm and circumfrence 15.5 cm at the maximum. The stick was broken irregularly at the SC No. 79/08 Page No. 65 /71 handle position. On examination of that stick in detail which fact is mentioned in Ex. PW6/C, he was of the opinion that injuries no. 1,2,7 and 9 could have been caused by the said stick. Opinion Ex. PW6/C was recorded by him in his own hands. He had identified the knife Ex. PG and Danda which is in two pieces Ex. P8/1 to 2 as the same which was examined by him in the case.

34. PW1-Sh. Sanjay Verma is a private photographer who had taken certain photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles on request of SHO on night of 6th and 7th May 2002. He has brought the negatives Ex. PW1/1-6 and positives thereof are Ex. PW1/7-13. Ex. PW7/8 and PW7/9 are of the same negative. PW2-Ct. Sushil Kumar is the official photographer and on the night of 6th and 7th May, 2002 he had gone to the place of occurrence. He took 16 photographs of the place of occurrence at the instance of IO on the basis of which he prepared the positives. He had brought the negatives which are Ex. PW2/1-16 and the positives are Ex. PW2/17 to 32. PW5-Ct. Surender had taken the special report on this case and delivered the same to the senior police officer and area magistrate on his motorcycle. PW7-SI Subhash Chand is a finger print expert, FSL Malviya Nagar and on 07.05.2002 he was summoned by SHO PS Alipur at the spot. There he examined vehicle no. DL-1L-E-0055 but no chance print were available in the said vehicle. No chance prints were available at the spot or in the wheels. PW8-Ct. Satya Narain has joined the investigation with ASI Sudama Sharma and has deposed almost the same sequence of happening as deposed by ASI Sudama Sharma. PW9-HC Rati Ram is the MHC(M). PW10-Ct. Yashvir joined the investigation of this case with SI-Ram Saran and ASI Sudama SC No. 79/08 Page No. 66 /71 Sharma. He has deposed almost same sequence of happeing as deposed by ASI Sudama Sharma and SI Ram Saran. PW11-SI Manohar Lal is the draftsman who had prepared rough notes of the site plan and on the basis of the same he prepared the scaled site plan. PW12-SI Ram Saran has also deposed almost the same sequence as deposed by ASI Sudama Sharma and Ct. Yashvir. PW14-Ct. Rajender Singh has deposited 21 sealed parcels and sample seal to FSL, Malviya Nagar vide RC no. 95/21 after taking the same from the custody of MHC(M). So long as the case property remained in his possession, no one tempered the same in any manner. PW16-HC Har Govind is the duty officer and he has proved the FIR no. 136/02, Ex. PW16/A recorded by him on the basis of rukka Ex. PW15/C sent by ASI Sudama Sharma through Ct. Rohtas. He also made endorsement Ex. PW16/B on rukka and the investigation was assigned to the SHO. On 06.05.2002 he was working as D.D. Writer at PS Alipur. He had recorded DD no. 28-A Ex. PW15/A. He recorded the copy of DD no. 30-A also Ex. PW 15/B. He had also brought the DD register containing DD No. 23-A dated 06.05.2002 which was recorded by HC Jai Bhagwan. Copy of the same is Ex. PW16/D. He had also brought the DD register containing DD No. 7-A dated 07.05.2002 which was recorded by ASI Kailash. Copy of the same is Ex. PW16/E.

35. After hearing arguments, on careful scrutiny of the testimony of the witnesses and on the perusal of the entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Prosecution has successfully established a case against all the accused persons to the effect that on 06.05.2002 at about 6.45 PM at service road, Gatta Godown, Village Jindpur, Delhi, all the accused persons namely Anil Kumar, Gulab SC No. 79/08 Page No. 67 /71 Singh @ Hathi, Praveen Kumar and Anil Kumar @ Buta in furtherance of their common intention with an intention to kill Rajesh, caused stab injuries as well as injuries by blunt object on his person and thereby committed his death. The testimony of PW3-Vikas is quiet coherent, probable, trustworthy and inspire the confidence of court. The testimony of PW4-Sh. Vijay is also quiet coherent, probable, trustworthy and inspire the confidence of court. Though the PW4 has not witnessed the incident, yet his statement is an act forming part of the same transaction. PW4-Vijay has accompanied PW3-Vikas who is the eye witness of the incident. The testimony of PW4-Sh. Vijay is quiet natural and free from any exaggeration or concoction.

36. The testimony of PW6-Dr.B.N.Acharya is also quiet coherent, probable and trustworthy and inspire the confidence of the court to the effect that on 07.05.2002 he conducted autopsy on the dead body of one Rajesh which was sent by Inspector Surinder Kumar Dahiya and was identified by the constable Satya Narain of PS Alipur, Delhi. His Autopsy report is Ex. PW6/A which is in his hand and is correct. He was of the opinion that death was caused due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon head injury sustained. Head injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He was also of the opinion that injuries no. 3,4,5 and 6 mentioned in Ex. PW6/A could have been caused by the knife, sketch of which was prepared by him as Ex. PW6/B. Opinion Ex. PW6/C was recorded by him in his own hands. He has also deposed even to the extent in his cross examination that the injuries received on the head of the victim were given with such a force that danda Ex. P-1 drove into tow pieces.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 68 /71

37. The testimony of PW15-SI Sudama Sharma is also quiet coherent, probable and trustworthy. He has identified the Club pieces Ex. P8/1 to 2 as the same which were recovered at the instance of accused Anil @ Buta, Dagger Ex. P-9 as the same which was recovered at the instance of accused Gulab, pant Ex. P-12 and shirt Ex. P-13 which accused Anil @ Buta was wearing at that time, Pant Ex. P- 10, and Shirt Ex. P-11 which accused Gulab was wearing at that time, Pant Ex. P-14, shirt Ex. P-15 which were recovered at the instance of accused Praveen, Pant Ex. P-18, shirt Ex. P-19 which were recovered at the instance of accused Anil S/O Ram Kishan, chappal Ex. P-1 and P-2 as the same which were lifted from the spot. He also identified the Maruti van Ex. P-20 as the same which was seized from the possession of accused Praveen. He recorded statement of witnesses. Againsaid the statement of witnesses were not recorded by him. The dead body of Rajesh has been duly identified by PW3-Vikas and PW4-Vijay and the same been identified by Ct. Satya Narain also before the Autopsy Surgeon PW6-Dr. B.N. Acharya. The weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex. P-9 and danda Ex. P-9 have also been recovered in presence of the public witnesses namely PW3-Vikas and PW4-Vijay as is evident by their respective testimonies before the court to the effect that during interrogation accused Gulab revealed that he can get recovered the knife. Accused Anil @ Buta also disclosed that he can get recovered a Danda. In pursuant to the disclosure statement accused Gulab led to the bushes at a place near the place of occurrence and from there he got recovered a Churri. Thereafter, accused Anil @ Buta led them to a place near the slope of G.T.Road opposite the water tank of Alipur and from there he got recovered a Danda.

SC No. 79/08 Page No. 69 /71

38. The testimony of the IO PW17-Inspector Surender Kumar and other official witnesses are also quiet coherent, probable, trustworthy and inspire the confidence of the court. The chain of evidence is also complete. The testimony of DW1-Ramesh Chand, DW2-Jagbir, DW3- Dharam Pal and DW4-Raj Singh are not convincing and they have deposed just to save the accused persons only. DW1-Ramesh Chand is the father of the accused Praveen, DW2-Jagbir was not having any identity like Ration Card, Voter I-Card etc. to prove that he is in fact Jagbir, DW3-Dharam Pal is uncle of the accused Gulab Singh and the accused Anil @ Buta is also related to him. DW4-Raj Singh has deposed that it is correct that he is not an eye witness of the occurrence and nothing had happened in his presence. Hence, the testimony of the defence witnesses do not inspire the confidence of the court as they have deposed just to save the accused persons only. The submissions on behalf of the accused persons to the effect that the testimony of PW3-Vikas and PW4-Vijay may not be believed as both of them are the real brothers of the deceased is not convincing as both the aforesaid witnesses have narrated trustworthy version of the happening. The minor discrepancy, if any, or minor contradictions, if any, are not fatal to the Prosecution case. There is also nothing on the record to the effect that what may be the probable motive etc. of the public witnesses or of the police to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case. Nothing substantial and convincing has come in the cross examination of the testimony of the witnesses which can falsify or create any dent in the Prosecution story.

39. Since, the Prosecution has successfully established a case against all the accused persons for the offences U/S 302/34 IPC, I am SC No. 79/08 Page No. 70 /71 left with no other option but to hold all the accused persons guilty of the offence U/S 302/34 IPC. Consequently, all the four accused persons namely Anil Kumar S/O Sh. Ram Kishore, Parveen Kumar S/O Sh. Ramesh Chander, Gulab Singh @ Hathi S/O Sh. Raj Singh @ Raje and Anil Kumar @ Buta S/O Late Hukum Singh are convicted for the offence U/S 302/34 IPC.

40. Case property, if any, be destroyed in accordance with rules on expiry of period of Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.

Announced and dictated in the open court today on 17.08.2010.

R.B. SINGH ASJ, 03-Outer, Rohini Courts, Delhi/17.08.2010 SC No. 79/08 Page No. 71 /71

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs : on 17 August, 2010