Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Etc on 25 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02( NORTH ):
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 77/2018)
FIR No. 401/2017
Police Station Mahendra Park
Charge sheet filed Under Section 302/34 IPC & 25/
27/54/59 Arms
Act
Charge framed Under Section 302/34 IPC & 25/
27/54/59 Arms
Act
State V/s (1) Ravinder
S/o Sh.Amar Pal
R/o H.No. 39/D-305,
Village Bhadola, Delhi.
(2) Raju @ Sonu
S/o Sh.Sarju Prashad
R/o H.No. D-305, Adarsh Nagar,
Bhadola, Delhi.
......Accused persons
Date of institution 05.02.2018
Arguments concluded on 12.09.2024
Judgment Pronounced on 25.10.2024
Decision Acquitted
Digitally signed
by SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25
17:59:00
+0530
SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park
State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 1 of 49
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Events which set the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 11.11.2017, in between 12:00 night to 6:30 am, in front of main street at H. No.138, in front of Harijan Mohalla, Sarai, Pepalthala, Delhi, accused Ravinder and co-accused Raju in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Vishal @ Ganja by causing bullet injuries by pistol (firearm). It is further alleged that on 16.11.2017 at H. No.39/D-305, Village Badola, Delhi, accused Ravinder was found in possession of one pistol along with two live cartridges without having any valid license and permit and used the said weapon in the commission of murder of said Vishal @ Ganja.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.11.2017 a complaint vide DD No.10 PP was received by ASI Naresh Kumar at PS Mahendra Park regarding dead body of deceased.
Eventually during investigation, the IO recorded statement of the various witnesses and after completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was filed in the court against accused Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu. Both the accused persons were charged under Section 302/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
Digitally
signed by
SHEFALI
SHEFALI SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25
17:59:06
+0530
SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 2 of 49 CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide order dated 04.07.2018 charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons. In addition, charge under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was framed against accused Ravinder. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 29 witnesses in all.
PW1 is W/ASI Usha Rani, who deposed that on 11.11.2017, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park as ASI and was working as DO from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm and on that day, at about 10:00 am, Ct. Naval brought a rukka sent by SI Sandeep. That on the basis of said rukka, she registered the present FIR Ex.PW1/A on a computer installed in the police station. That she also made endorsement on rukka at portion X to X1 which is Ex. PW1/B. She further deposed that she also issued certificate u/s 65-B Evidence Act Ex. PW1/C with respect to the present FIR.
She further deposed that after registration of FIR, he handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Naval to be handed over to Inspector Mukesh Kumar for investigation purposes.
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25 17:59:11 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 3 of 49 He further deposed that he had also handed over the copies of FIR to Special Messenger Ct. Jasbir for immediately supplying the same to Ld. Area MM, ACP, DCP and Joint Commissioner of Police. That after supplying the copies of FIR to the aforesaid officials, Ct. Jasbir had informed him regarding the supply of copies of FIR to the aforesaid officials and he had lodged DD in this regard. The copies of DD no.13 & 14 dated 11.11.2017 are exhibited as Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E. PW2 is SI Manzoor Alam, who deposed that on 11.11.2017, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, North-West District as incharge that on that day, at about 7:50 am, a call was received from control room and accordingly, he alongwith his staff consisting of Ct. Amit (photographer) and ASI Surender Saini (finger print expert) reached at the spot i.e. 138, Sarai Peepalthala, Harijan Mohalla, Choti Chaupal, Delhi, where they met police officials.
He further deposed that at the spot, he had inspected the said place of occurrence and on his instructions, photographer Ct. Amit took photographs of place of occurrence from different angles.
He further deposed that after inspection, he had prepared crime team report Ex.PW2/A and handed over the said report to the IO.
PW3 is Ct. Amit, who deposed that on 11.11.2017, he was posted at Mobile Crime Team, North-West District as Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHEFALI Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25
17:59:16
SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park +0530
State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 4 of 49
photographer.
He further deposed that at the spot, crime team incharge had inspected the said place of occurrence and on his instructions, he took 20 photographs of place of occurrence from different angles with digital camera. That after developing, he had handed over the said photographs to the IO.
He had identified the 20 photographs Ex.PW3/A (colly) affixed on 10 sheets in judicial file. He has also identified the CD Ex.PW3/B available in judicial file. He had also produced the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW3/C. PW4 is Sh. Pradeep. He has deposed that on 11.11.2017, he went to BJRM Hospital mortuary alongwith his brother-in-law Sh. Ranjeet and in the said mortuary, they had met IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar. That in the said mortuary, he had identified the dead body of Vishal being son of his brother-in-law and IO had recorded his statement Ex.PW4/A in this regard.
PW5 is Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Documents) FSL Rohini. He has deposed that vide memo no. 16/SHO/Mahendra Park dated 03.01.2018, their lab received two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of MK. That the said parcels were marked to him for examination. That he had opened the said parcels.
That the first parcel found containing one digital video recorder machine, which was marked as DVR 1 alongwith Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 17:59:23 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 5 of 49 one western digital made hard disk drive of 01 TB capacity which was marked as HDD 1.
That the second parcel was found containing one digital video recorder machine marked as DVR 2 alongwith one western digital made hard disk drive of 500 GB capacity which was marked as HDD 2.
He further deposed that the suspected storage media marked as HDD 1 was forensically cloned on a sterile storage media and the cloned storage media was analyzed with the help of digital video recorder machine marked as DVR 1. That the requisite data dated 11.11.2017 from 1:45 am to 11.11.2017 upto 2:30 am were retrieved from the exhibit marked as HDD 1. That the retrieved data was put in a pen drive marked as PD1 with folder name date of HDD 1. That the suspected storage media marked as HDD 2 was forensically cloned on a sterile storage media and the cloned storage media was analyzed with the help of digital video recorder machine marked as DVR 2. He further deposed that the requisite data dated 11.11.2017 from 1:45 am to 11.11.2017 upto 2:30 am were retrieved from the exhibit marked as HDD 2. That the retrieved data was put in a pen drive marked as PD1 with folder name date of HDD 2. That thereafter, one copy of pen drive marked PD1 was sealed with the seal of DOC.FSL and have been internally forwarded to the Physics Department for further examination.
He further deposed that exhibits sent to the lab for Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 17:59:29 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 6 of 49 examination were sealed with the seal of DOC.FSL. That after examination, he had prepared examination report dated 16.04.2018 Ex.PW5/A on both the pages. He further deposed that he had also issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW5/B. PW6 is Sh. B. Laxmi Narasimhan, Assistant Director (Physics) FSL Rohini. He deposed that on 17.04.2018, one parcel sealed with the seal of DOC.FSL was internally forwarded to the Physics Division through Computer Forensic Unit. That the said parcel was marked to him for examination purposes. That he had opened the said parcel which was found containing one pen drive of HP containing CCTV footages, which was found containing CCTV footages in folders namely data of HDD 1 and data of HDD 2.
He further deposed that upon examination of the relevant CCTV video files in the pen drive marked Ex. PD1, it was observed that each CCTV video files contained one identified video shot. He further deposed that the CCTV footages of CH-3 contained in folder namely data of HDD 2 was found in discorded condition, hence no opinion was found regarding continuity of the same. He further deposed that he had prepared examination report dated 09.05.2018 Ex.PW6/A. He further deposed that after examination, the said pen drive was sealed with the seal of VLN FSL DELHI.
PW7 is Ct. Amit. He further deposed that on Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 17:59:34 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 7 of 49 11.11.2017, on the instruction of IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar, he had collected the sealed exhibits i.e. five sealed exhibits of Biology Division, three sealed exhibits of Ballistics Division and two sealed exhibits of Physics Division alongwith FSL form of the present case from MHC (M) ASI Brij Mohan vide RC No. 168/21/17, 169/21/17 & 170/21/17 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini.
He further deposed that he deposited the exhibits of Biology Division vide FSL No. 2017/810-9389 vide acknowledgment acceptance and deposited the exhibits of Ballistic Division by 2017/F9396 vide acknowledgment acceptance. That the concerned official from the FSL demanded four cartridges of 7.65. He further deposed that on that day, the exhibits pertaining to Physics Division had not been deposited due to unavailability of Hard Disk and pen drive.
He further deposed that after depositing the same, he came back to PS and the acknowledgment of acceptance was handed over to the MHCM.
PW8 is SI Naresh Kumar. He had deposed that on 11.11.2017, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park, Delhi and working as a DD writer from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am. That on that day, at about 7:00 AM, he received a call from control room and received information that one dead body is lying in Chhoti Chaupal wali gali, Sarai Peepalthala. That he telephonically informed to ASI Suryakant to reach at the spot and take Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 17:59:40 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 8 of 49 necessary action at his hand. He further deposed that he entered the said information in DD register vide DD No. 10PP Ex.PW8/A. PW9 is W/Ct. Monika. She had deposed that on 11.11.2017, she was posted at CPCR PHQ and on that day, he was working at Channel no. 139. That on that day, at about 6:51:58, an information was received from mobile no. 7291866436 that "Raat ko koi admi injured tha, jiski dead body padi hui hai" at Chhoti Chaupal wali gali, Sarai Peepal Thala, Mahendra Park. She further deposed that she fed the said information on a computer and dispatched the same at 6:45:08. She further deposed that she filled PCR form no. 1 Ex. PW9/A. PW10 is Paramveer Singh, Assistant Ahlmad, Juvenile Justice Board-1, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. He had brought the summoned record pertaining to case FIR No. 809/15 u/s 302/34 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act of PS Mahendra Park against CCL Vishal @ Ganja S/o Ranjeet Singh having registration no. 1471/02 dated 17.12.2015. He further deposed that the the proceedings in the abovesaid case i.e. FIR No. 809/15 has been abated vide order dated 16.04.2018. That the photocopy of the apprehension memo and version of CCL Vishal @ Ganja are collectively Ex.PW10/A. PW11 SI George Abrahim furnished certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to authentic the PCR form dated 11.11.2017 Ex. PW9/A. PCR form annexed with the judicial file Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 17:59:46 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 9 of 49 with respect to the said call Ex.PW9/A duly attested by ACP concerned at point A and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by him is Ex.PW11/A. PW-12 is Sh.Ranjeet, who is the father of deceased. His deposition is as under:
I am driving tempo in Azadpur Mandi. Since 1982, I alongwith my family members consisting of four children are residing in Delhi. Vishal @ Ganja was my third child.
On 10.11.2017, my son Vishal @ Ganja had left our house at about 5:00 pm with someone. My son did not return till late night hours.
On 11.11.2017, at about 6:45 am, my daughter Neelam Singh made a call to me informing that my son Vishal @ Ganja had been shot dead in Harijan wali gali by someone. At that time, I was present in Azadpur Mandi, where I usually work. I reached in front of H. No. 138, Harijan Mohalla, Sarai Peepalthala, Delhi, in the gali, where I found the dead body of my son Vishal @ Ganja and many police officials were present over there.
Police conducted investigation at the spot. After some time, police removed the dead body from the said place to the hospital. On 11.11.2017, I alongwith my relative Sh. Pradeep Singh and others reached at BJRM Hospital, where I identified the dead body of my son Vishal @ Ganja. My statement in this regard is Ex. PW12/A bearing my signature at point A. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to us. We performed the last rites. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25 17:59:51 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 10 of 49 The accused persons namely Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). I used to meet them outside court premises as they used to pursue the murder case hearings of Sanjay @ Pehlwan. My son Vishal @ Ganja was facing trial of the murder of Sanjay @ Pehlwan.
Except this I do not know anything else in this case and except this I do not want to say anything else in this case.
He was duly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement.
It is correct that police made inquiries from me.
It is wrong to say that accused Ravinder and Sonu both resident of Village Bhadola and associates of Sanjay @ Pehlwan, used to threaten my son Vishal @ Ganja by saying that they would send my son to the place, where Snjay @ Pehlwan had gone or that my son hiding himself from them or that due to this revenge, my son also started moving with bad company / elements or that I narrated these facts to Inspector Mukesh on 11.11.2017 in statement Ex. PW12/B. (Witness is confronted with the statement Ex. PW12/B from portion A to A1 where it is so recorded).
It is wrong to say that at about 12:00- 12:30 midnight, both the accused persons came to my house and inquired about my son or that on my asking, as to why they followed my son or that accused Ravinder told me that I would soon came to know why we are following Vishal or that thereafter both the accused persons left Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25 17:59:56 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 11 of 49 my house or that I have full faith that my son Vishal @ Ganja had been murdered by accused Ravinder and Sonu, who were threatening my son from last some days or that on 10.11.2017, they came to my house for the same purpose or that I narrated these facts to Inspector Mukesh on 11.11.2017 in statement Ex. PW12/B. (Witness is confronted with the statement Ex. PW12/B from portion B to B1 where it is so recorded).
It is wrong to say that on 11.11.2017, I was shown CCTV footage of Mahi Electronic and Khurana Electronic or that I saw my son Vishal was running in speed or that my son was followed by Ravinder and Sonu or that Ravinder was carrying pistol like weapon in his hand or that after some time Ravinder and Sonu were seen returning from the same way or that footage containing in camera no. 3 dated 11.11.2017 from 2:00 to 2:30 am were shown to me or that my statement in this regard was recorded by the IO or that I narrated these facts to Inspector Mukesh on 11.11.2017 in statement Ex. PW12/C (Witness is confronted with the statement Ex. PW12/C from portion C to C1 where it is so recorded).
At this stage, MHC (M) has produced one sealed envelope, parcel no. 1 FSL 2018/CFU-70/Phy-180/18 sealed with the seal of VLN FSL DELHI bearing the particulars of the present case. The same is opened and found containing open cut envelope having seal impression of DOC FSL containing a pen drive with cover written on it "PD1" "DATA OF HDD1" "DATA OF HDD2".
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25 18:00:01 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 12 of 49 IO has arranged a laptop for playing the CCTV footage of above pen drive. The pen drive is not properly running in the laptop and it is suggested by the IO it will be better if the same will be played in the DVR and for which certain data cables will be required, which will be brought by him on the next date of hearing.
At this stage, MHC (M) has produced one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of court having parcel no. 1 FSL 2018/CFU-17/PHY-180/18 bearing the particulars of the present case. The same is opened and found containing open cut envelope having seal impression of DOC FSL containing a pen drive with cover written on it "PD1" "DATA OF HDD1" "DATA OF HDD2". Pen drive is Ex. P1.
MHC (M) has also produced one another envelope having seal of DOC FSL. Seal is broken and envelope is found containing DVR having description DVR 1 (HDD1) on the envelope. DVR is taken out and played on the computer arranged by the IO.
The DVR is Ex. P2.
At this stage, witness is shown the CCTV footage and after watching the same, witness states that his son Vishal is seen running, however, he did not identify the two persons who are chasing his son. The timing of the footage is 2:03:42 hours.
It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement Ex. PW12/C that I had identified my son Vishal (deceased) and both the accused persons chasing him in the footage. It is wrong to suggest that I had stated in my statement that after seeing the footage, it is clear that both the Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:00:06 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 13 of 49 accused persons namely Ravinder and Sonu are running after to my son to catch and kill him and seen returning from the same way after committing the murder of my son. Confronted with the statement Ex. PW12/C from portion D to D1 where it is so recorded. Court Question: Whether you are deliberately not identifying the accused persons in the CCTV footage or you cannot identify them?
A. Mai inko pehchan nahi pa raha hun. At this stage, MHC (M) has also produced one another envelope having seal of DOC FSL. Seal is broken and envelope is found containing DVR having description DVR 2 (HDD2) on the envelope. DVR is taken out and played on the computer arranged by the IO. The DVR is Ex. P3.
Witness again did not identify the person in the CCTV footage as the accused person, who is seen returning after the incident. The timing of the footage is 2:10:58 hours having his half face covered with cloth having some pistol / katta like object in his right hand.
Court observation: At 2:03:21 hours, two persons are seen running / chasing one person only their back side is visible and thereafter at 2:10:58 hours, one person is seen having his half face covered with cloth having some pistol / katta like object in his right hand.
It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons are seen in the CCTV footage. It is wrong to suggest that I deliberately suppressed the true facts as I have been won over by the Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2024.10.25 18:00:12 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 14 of 49 accused persons or that I am under threat at the behest of accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I deposed falsely.
PW13 is Inspector Manohar Lal. He deposed that on 21.12.2017, he visited the spot i.e. near H. No. 251, Road Sarai Peepalthala, Delhi as well as at gali near H. No. 138, Harijan Mohalla, Sarai Peepalthala, Delhi along with IO, Inspector Mukesh, where on the pointing out of IO, Sh.Mahipal and SI Sandeep, he took the measurements and prepared rough notes.
He further deposed that on the basis of measurements and rough notes, he prepared scaled site plans Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B bearing my signatures at point A and handed over to IO. That thereafter, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements and during the course of investigation.
PW-14 is Ct. Jasbir. He had deposed that on 11.11.2017, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park and on that day duty officer W/ASI Usha Rani after registration of FIR handed over him copies of said FIR with directions to deliver the same to Ld. Area MM and senior police officers. He further deposed that he left the PS on a government motorcycle DL1SAA-1607 and delivered the copies of FIR to the office of Joint Commissioner of Police, Northern Region, thereafter, at the office of DCP concerned and thereafter, also delivered the copy of FIR to Ld. MM. He further deposed that thereafter, he returned back to the police station. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 18:00:17 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 15 of 49 PW-15 is ASI Brij Mohan, who deposed that on 11.11.2017, he was posted at PS Mahendra Park and was working as MHC(M). That on that day, SI Sandeep Kumar had deposited seven sealed pulandas alongwith sample seals in malkhana with copy of seizure memos. He had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 1785/17 Ex.PW15/A (running in two pages).
He further deposed that on 13.11.2017, Inspector Mukesh Kumar had deposited the personal search articles i.e. Rs.540/- alongwith copy of personal search memo in malkhana. That he had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 1787/17 Ex. PW15/B. He further deposed that on 16.11.2017, Inspector Mukesh Kumar had deposited two sealed pulandas duly sealed with the seal of MK alongwith copy of seizure memos in malkhana. That he had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 1796/17 Ex. PW15/C. He further deposed that on 19.11.2017, Inspector Mukesh Kumar had deposited one sealed pulanda duly sealed with the seal of MK alongwith copy of seizure memo in malkhana. That he had made entry in this regard in register no. 19 at serial no. 1801/17 Ex. PW15/D. That thereafter, on 07.12.2017, he had handed over eight sealed pulandas with Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 18:00:22 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 16 of 49 sample seals to Ct. Amit Kumar vide RC No. 168/21/17 and RC No. 170/21/17 Ex.PW15/E and Ex.PW15/F for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. That after deposit, Ct. Amit Kumar had handed over the acknowledgments Ex.PW15/G and Ex. PW15/H. He further deposed that thereafter, on 03.01.2018, had handed over two sealed pulandas to Ct. Uttam vide RC No. 4/21/18 Ex.PW15/J for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. That after deposit, Ct. Uttam had handed over the acknowledgment Ex.PW15/K. PW-16 is Dr.R.P. Singh, Specialist (Forensic Medicine), BJRM Hospital. He had deposed that on 11.11.2017, he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Vishal @ Ganja S/o Sh.Ranjeet Singh. He further deposed that after conducting the postmortem, he opined the cause of death in case is cranio cerebral injuries by firearm projectile. That the injuries are antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. That the time since death 12 hours before preservation in the mortuary. That the blood on gauze piece, clothes and two bullets no.1 & 2 were sealed and handed over to the IO/police. He further deposed that the detailed postmortem report no. 1108/17 Ex.PW16/A bears his signature at point A on each page and that he also signed the inquest papers.
PW-17 is Sh.Pankaj. He had deposed that he is having shop at his house on the ground floor. That he had installed CCTV camera connected with DVR. That he had Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:00:27 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 17 of 49 installed camera outside the shop and house. He further deposed that in the last month of 2017, police came to his house and requested him for providing DVR containing the footage of intervening night of 10-11.12.2017. He further deposed that police gave notice Ex.PW-17/A to him. That he gave DVR containing the relevant footage. That police wrapped the same in piece of clothes and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/B. He further deposed that he was having HIKVISION DVR.
He has identified the DVR-1 (HDD-1) HIKVISION made DVR model, bearing no.683490519 Ex.P-2.
PW-18 is Sh. Mahipal. He had deposed that he along with his elder brother Mukesh used to earn their livelihood by beating drums in parties/ functions. That in the intervening night of 10-11.12.2017, he along with his brother were counting the money which they received in the function. That at about 02.00 - 02.30a.m., they were near their house in front of Mandir, counting the money, which they were lying in their bag. He further deposed that at the same time, two boys came on a scooty.
That one of the boy get down from the said scooty and asked him as to what they are doing. He replied that they are counting the money as they earned this money from the party. He further deposed that at the same time, one boy came there by covering his face and he was followed by another. That thereafter, he heard the sound of fire shot. He further deposed that he had not seen Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 18:00:33 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 18 of 49 who had fired because he along with his brother were counting the money which were lying on the ground. He further deposed that one boy who was riding a scooty took and turn, and went towards main road. That one another boy went to towards Sarai Thala and two boys followed those two boys i.e. who were on scooty and other boy who went towards Sarai Thala. He further deposed that due to fear, they went inside their house, which is situated near the Mandir, Sarai Thala Jhuggi, Delhi. He further deposed that he had not seen the face of those two boys who covered their faces.
He was thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl PP for the State as he was reslied from his earlier statement made to the police.
PW-19 is ASI Anil Kumar, who deposed that on 13.11.2017, he alongwith Inspector Mukesh, SI Sandeep, Ct.Pradeep, Ct.Naval and Ct.Ajeet went to ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. That as per the direction of the IO, they took position near the out gate of ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, for apprehending the accused and started waiting for accused persons. That at about 05:10/05:15 PM at the out gate of ISBT, IO gave indication to them for apprehending the two boys, who were coming out of the said gate. He further deposed that at the indication of IO, they apprehended both the boys who were taken to QRT vehicle and interrogated by the IO. That both the boys revealed their name Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu. That accused Ravinder was Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 18:00:38 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 19 of 49 interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW19/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW19/B. He further deposed that accused Raju @ Sonu was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/C and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW19/D. He further deposed that accused Ravinder made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/E and accused Raju @ Sonu made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/F. He further deposed that both the accused led them to the scene of crime i.e. in the gali, in front of H. No. 138, Harijan Basti, Sarai Pipal Thala and they pointed out the same. That the pointing out memo of the scene of crime by accused Ravinder is Ex.PW19/G and the pointing out memo of the scene of crime by accused Raju @ Sonu is Ex.PW19/H. PW-20 is HC Sachin, who deposed that in the intervening night of 10/11.11.2017, on receipt of an information that one person was lying injured at chotti chopal wali gali, Sarai Pipal Thala, he alongwith ASI Suryakant went to the said place where one person was lying injured and blood was oozing out of his head. That the said body was found wearing one shoe in his feet. He further deposed that at the same time SI Sandeep also reached with police staff and made inquiry from public persons regarding the injured person. That at the same time Ranjeet identified the said injured person as his son Vishal @ Ganja who is missing from last night.
He further deposed that SI Sandeep called the crime team. That Crime team inspected the scene of crime and Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:00:43 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 20 of 49 photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime. That SI Sandeep took in possession blood sample of gauze piece, blood stain concrete and earth control concrete which were put in different plastic container and wrapped with a piece of clothe and given No. 1, 2 and 3. He further deposed that all the plastic container were sealed with the seal of SK and taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/A. He further deposed that the seal after use was handed over to him. That no eyewitness found at the spot. That SI Sandeep prepared an application for preserving the dead body in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital. He further deposed that he took the dead body to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and got preserved the mortuary.
He further deposed that on the same day, Inspector Mukesh Kumar alongwith relative of deceased reached at BJRM Hospital mortuary where they identified the dead body. That IO prepared inquest documents for conducting postmortem of the body of Vishal @ Ganja. That postmortem was conducted of the dead body and after postmortem doctor/hospital staff handed over four exhibits/pullandas duly sealed alongwith sample seals to Inspector Mukesh, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/B. PW-21 is HC Pardeep, who deposed that on 13.11.2017, he alongwith Inspector Mukesh, SI Sandeep, HC Anil, Ct. Naval and Ct. Ajeet went to ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. That as per the direction of the IO they took position near Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 18:00:49 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 21 of 49 the out gate of ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, for apprehending the accused and started waiting for accused persons. That at about 05:10/05:15 PM at the out gate of ISBT, IO gave indication to them for apprehending the two boys who were coming out of the said gate. That at the indication of IO, they apprehended both the boys who were taken to QRT vehicle and interrogated by the IO. That both the boys revealed their name Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu. That accused Ravinder was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW19/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW19/B. That accused Raju @ Sonu was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/C and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW19/D. He further deposed that accused Ravinder made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/E and accused Raju @ Sonu made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/F. He further deposed that both the accused led them to the scene of crime i.e. in the gali, in front of H. No. 138, Harijan Basti, Sarai Pipal Thala and they pointed out the same. That the pointing out memo of the scene of crime by accused Ravinder is Ex.PW19/G and the pointing out memo of the scene of crime by accused Raju @ Sonu is Ex.PW19/H. He further deposed that both the accused were produced in the court and IO moved an application for PC remand of the accused which was allowed by the Ld. MM and both the accused were taken on PC remand.
Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHEFALI Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25
18:00:54
+0530
SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 22 of 49 He further deposed that on 16.11.2017, accused persons were taken out of lock up of PS Shalimar Bagh. That he alongwith SI Sandeep and both the accused went to PP Sabji Mandi PS Mahindra Park where both the accused were interrogated by the IO. That accused Raju @ Sonu made supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW21/A and accused Ravinder made supplementary disclosure statement Ex. PW21/B. He further deposed that accused Ravinder revealed that he was carrying two pistols on the date of incident which were loaded with 6 & 2 rounds each respectively. That accused admitted that he fired upon Vishal @ Ganja and killed him by firing shots. That accused Ravinder led them to N-39/B-305 Village Bharola, Delhi at the 3rd floor of the said house from there he produced one pistol.
PW-21 further deposed that IO opened the pistol and found two live cartridges in it. That the pistol and cartridges were put on a plain paper and sketches of the same were prepared and the same was measured. That the sketch of pistol and cartridges is Ex.PW21/C. That the description and measurement of pistol and cartridges are mentioned in the sketch and seizure memo. He further deposed that the pistol and two cartridges were put in a plastic container which was wrapped with a tape converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of MK. That IO fill up FSL form and the said pullanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/D. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 18:00:59 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 23 of 49 He further deposed that IO made inquiries from witness Mukesh near his jhuggi and recorded his statement. That Ct. Naval was called through telephone at the said place, thereafter, Ct. Naval and IO went to the shop of CCTV and after some time they returned to the said place with DVR. That thereafter, they all alongwith both accused and case property reached at PS Mahindra Park and IO deposited the case property with the MHC(M). That both the accused were got medically examined and sent to lock up of PS Shalimar Bagh.
He has identified the case property i.e. one pistol and cartridges/round collectively as Ex. P4.
PW-22 is Inspector Sandeep Kumar, who deposed that on 11.11.2017 he was posted as a Incharge at Police Post Sabzi Mandi, PS Mahindra Park and on that day on receipt of DD No. 10PP dated 11.11.2017 Ex. PW8/A regarding a dead body lying in choti chopal wali gali, Sarai Peepal Thala, he alongwith ASI Suryakant and Ct. Sachin reached there and found one dead body of young boy was lying in front of H. No. 138, Harijan Mauhalla, Sarai Peepal Thala, Delhi. He further deposed that deceased had worn black colour track pant, blue colour shirt and there was one shoe of Campus brand in his only one leg. That there were injury marks under the ear and back side of the deceased. That no eyewitness met him at that time. He further deposed that in the meanwhile Ranjit Singh/father of the deceased reached there and identified the dead body as his son Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 18:01:04 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 24 of 49 namely Vishal @ Ganja. That Ranjit Singh also told him that in the previous night accused Ravinder alongwith his one friend came to his house and accused Ravinder was asking about his deceased son Vishal @ Ganja. He further deposed that he immediately called the crime team. That Crime team immediately came to the spot and inspected the scene of crime and clicked the photographs of the spot from various angles. He further deposed that he lifted the blood lying on the spot in a gauze piece and blood stained concrete and earth control of the spot. That all these exhibits were kept in a separate small plastic container and sealed with the seal of SK. That the same were taken in possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A. That thereafter, dead body was sent to mortuary through Ct. Sachin. That he prepared rukka Ex. PW22/A on the DD No. 10PP. That he sent the rukka through Ct. Naval to PS for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Mukesh Kumar who reached at the spot. He further deposed that he handed over the abovesaid exhibits to Inspector Mukesh Kumar. He further deposed that at his instance IO prepared site plan Ex. PW22/B. He further deposed that on 13.11.2017, he joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar, HC Anil, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Ajit and Ct. Naval and they all the officials went to ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi as Inspector Mukesh had received information that accused persons could be Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:01:10 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 25 of 49 apprehended at ISBT Kashmere Gate. That as per the directions of the IO, they took position near the out gate of ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi for apprehending the accused and started waiting for accused persons. That at about 05:00 PM at the out gate of ISBT, IO gave indication to them for apprehending the two boys who were coming out of the said gate. That at the indication of IO, they apprehended both the boys who were taken to QRT vehicle and interrogated by the IO. That both the boys revealed their name Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu. That accused Ravinder was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/A and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW19/B. That accused Raju @ Sonu was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/C and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW19/D. That accused Ravinder made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/E and accused Raju @ Sonu made disclosure statement Ex.PW19/F. He further deposed that both the accused led them to the scene of crime i.e. in the gali, in front of H. No. 138, Harijan Basti, Sarai Pipal Thala and they pointed out the same. That the pointing out memo of the scene of crime by accused Ravinder is Ex. PW19/G and the pointing out memo of the scene of crime by accused Raju @ Sonu is Ex.PW19/H. That both the accused were medically examined and sent to lock up. That both the accused were produced in the court and IO moved an application for PC remand of the accused which was allowed by the Ld. MM and both the accused were taken on PC remand. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25 18:01:15 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 26 of 49 He further deposed that on 16.11.2017 accused were taken out of lock up of PS Shalimar Bagh and he alongwith Ct. Pradeep and both the accused went to PP Sabji Mandi PS Mahindra Park where both the accused were interrogated by the IO. He further deposed that accused Raju @ Sonu made supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW21/A and accused Ravinder made supplementary disclosure statement Ex.PW21/B. He further deposed that accused admitted that he fired upon Vishal @ Ganja and killed him by firing shots. That accused Ravinder revealed that he was carrying two pistols on the date of incident which were loaded with 6 & 2 rounds each respectively. That accused Ravinder also disclosed that he used the pistol for murder of Vishal @ Ganja in which there were 6 round cartridges and he disclosed that after the murder of Vishal @ Ganja, he had thrown the said pistol in river Yamuna. That accused also disclosed that he could get recovered the other pistol with 2 live cartridges from his house. That thereafter, accused Ravinder led them to his house at N-39/B-305 Village Bharola, Delhi and from the 3rd floor of the said house he took out one pistol and produced before the IO. That IO opened the pistol and found two live cartridges in it. That the pistol and cartridges were put on a plain paper and sketches of the same were prepared and the same was measured. That the sketch of pistol and cartridges is Ex.PW21/C. He further deposed that the description and measurement of pistol and cartridges are Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHEFALI Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25
18:01:20
+0530
SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 27 of 49 mentioned in the sketch and seizure memo. That the pistol and two cartridges were put in a plastic container which was wrapped with a tape converted into pullanda and sealed with the seal of MK. That the IO fill up FSL form and the said pullanda was taken in possession vide seizure memo is Ex.PW21/D. He further deposed that IO made inquiries from eyewitness Mukesh near his jhuggi and recorded his statement. That thereafter, they all alongwith both accused and case property reached at PS Mahindra Park and IO deposited the case property with the MHC(M).
He had identified the case property i.e. the pistol and cartridges/round collectively as Ex. P4.
PW-23 is Mr. Aftab. His deposition is as under:
I along with my late brother Shenshah were running a mobile shop by the name of Mirza Telecome. Deceased Vishal @ Ganja was my childhood friend.
On 10.11.2017 at about 10.00 am deceased Vishal @ Ganja met me in front of Peer Baba dargah. I along with Vishal @ Ganja went to J Block Jahangir Puri, Delhi. One of the friend of Vishal @ Ganja met us, we went to the house of the said friend of Vishal where we drink liquor. The friend of Vishal left his house and I along with Vishal @ Ganja started drinking liquor. We remained in the said house for the late hours. At the same time, father of Vishal @ Ganja made a call on my mobile phone and asked me as to when Vishal would reach home. Vishal @ Ganja replied that he would come soon. Thereafter, I along with Vishal @ Ganja left the said house on my white colour scooty. Vishal @ Ganja demanded more liquor for drink, therefore, we went to the side of jhuggi Jahangir Puri for Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 18:01:30 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 28 of 49 purchasing liquor at about 1.30 a.m. Vishal @ Ganja got down from my scooty and he was talking with Nathu. I was sitting on the white colour scooty. I suddenly heard a firing shot "goli ki awaz aayi'. I ran away on the scooty by taking a turn to the back side. I had not seen the person who fired upon Vishal @ Ganja. I was in fear, therefore, I went to my house. Later on, I came to know that Vishal @ Ganja had been killed as I received a telephone call of the sister of Vishal in the morning hour at about 6-6.30 a.m. I do not want to say anything else.
He was thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement.
PW-24 Mukesh had deposed that he is working as a drum beater (dhol bajane ka kaam) by the name of M.S. Dhol Group. That in the intervening night of 10/11.11.2017 at about 2.00 a.m. he reached outside his house as he returned from performing his duties as a drum beater. He further deposed that he reached at his house after attending a party and was counting the money which he received in the party, outside his house. He further deposed that his younger brother Mahipal was also present there. That at the same time, he heard a noise of firing a shot and he saw Vishal @ Ganja was running towards the jhuggi of Sarai Peepal Thala. That Vishal @ Ganja was followed by two boys, out of which one boy was carrying a pistol in his hand and the faces of both the said boys were covered with the cloth. He further deposed that all the public of the locality woke up and asked as to what happened and thereafter, he do not know what had happened. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25 18:01:37 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 29 of 49 He further deposed that in the morning hour, he came to know that Vishal @ Ganja has been killed. That police came to the area of their locality and made inquiries from him. He further deposed that he had not seen the faces of both the boys who chased Vishal @ Ganja and killed him. That he cannot identify both the boys as he had not seen them.
He was thoroughly cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and in his cross-examination and was confronted with his earlier statement Ex. PW24/A, but nothing incriminating could be culled out against the accused persons.
He had also correctly identified the scene of crime and dead body of Vishal @ Ganja visible in the photographs collectively Ex. PW3/A. PW-25 is Sh. Manoj Kumar, Junior Forensic/ Chemical Examiner (Biological Department), FSL Rohini. He had deposed that on 07.12.2017 he was working in the FSL as a Junior Forensic Chemical Examiner and on that day, office of FSL received 05 parcel duly sealed with seal as tally with sample seal. That he examined the exhibits and gave report dated 06.02.2018 Ex. PW25/A bearing his signature and stamp at point A. PW-26 is R.Eniyavan, Forensic Ballistic Expert, Chandigarh Police, UT Chandigarh. He had deposed that on 29.06.2018, he was posted at FSL Rohini as Assistant Chemical Examiner (Ballistics) and on that day, 01 plastic box sealed with Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:01:42 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 30 of 49 the seal of M.K. and 02 sealed glass bottle with the seal of B.J.P.M HOSPITAL + FMT+AS and 04 7.65 cartridges received for test firing pertaining to the present case were received in FSL through Ct. Amit Kumar alongwith FSL forms and the same were marked to him for examination and opinion. He further deposed that the seals on the parcels were intact and as per the specimen seal provided with the FSL form.
He further deposed that on opening the parcel no. 1, one 7.65 improvised pistol marked as F1 with 02 bullets stuck inside the barrel which are recovered and marked as EBR1 and EBR2, one 7.65 misfired cartridge with a dent mark on the percussion cap marked as Mark A1, one 7.65 cartridge marked as Mark A2. He further deposed that on opening the parcel no. 2, one bullet marked as EB1 was found. That on opening the parcel no. 3, one bullet marked as EB2 was found.
He further deposed that after examination of all the above weapons and ammunitions, he prepared his detailed report Ex.PW26/A running into three pages. He further deposed that after examination, the exhibits were resealed with the seal of FSL R:E DELHI.
PW-27 is Inspector Mukesh Kumar. He had deposed that on 11.11.2017, after registration of FIR, the present case had been marked to him for further investigation. He further deposed that he went to the spot i.e. opposite H.No. 138, Sarai Peepal Thala, Azadpur Mandi, Delhi where he met SI Sandeep, SHEFALI Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA 18:01:47 +0530 Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 31 of 49 IC PP Sabzi Mandi, Dog Squad Official, Crime Team police official and staff of PP. That father of the deceased Ranjit Singh was also present there. He made enquiry from SI Sandeep, IC PP Sabzi Mandi and prepared site plan Ex.PW22/B. That he recorded the statement of father of deceased Ranjit Singh U/s 161 CrPC. That SI Sandeep handed over the lifted exhibits to him which were duly sealed with the seal of SK as the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of photographer and crime team official at the spot. That he, SI Sandeep and Ranjit Singh went to the mortuary of BJRM Hospital and Ranjit Singh identified the dead body of his son and he (PW27) recorded his statement Ex.PW12/A in this regard. He further deposed that one Pardeep Singh relative of the deceased also identified the dead body of Vishal @ Ganja and he recorded his statement Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he received the exhibits which had given to him by the doctor after conducting the postmortem. That he had further handed over the exhibits to Ct. Sachin vide memo Ex.PW20/B, who was accompanied him. That after postmortem, he handed over the dead body of deceased to his relatives.
He has identified 20 photographs Ex.PW3/A (colly), CD Ex.PW3/B, DVR Make HIKVISION Ex.P2, DVR make CPPLUS Ex.P3 and the pistol and cartridges/round Ex.P4 (Colly).
Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHEFALI Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25
18:01:52
+0530
SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 32 of 49 PW-28 is Sh. Arun Kharana, who deposed that he has been residing at H. No. 239, Sarai Peepal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi since birth. He further deposed that he had his electrical goods shop at H. No. 251/1, Sarai Peepal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi and running the said shop since 2002 till 2019.
He further deposed that on 16.11.2017, the IO of the present case alongwith police staff had visited his shop and requested him to show the CCTV footage of the cameras installed at his shop. That they had seen the CCTV footage of the intervening night of 10/11.11.2017 and IO had given notice to him to hand over the DVR of his CCTV camera.
He further deposed that a notice U/s 91 CrPC Ex.PW28/A was given to him by IO on 16.11.2017 and upon the said notice he had handed over the DVR of the cameras having model No. CPURV. That he do not remember the exact particulars of the same. That the said DVR was of black and silver colour. That IO had put the said DVR in clothes. He further deposed that he does not remember whether IO had sealed the said DVR in his presence. He further deposed that IO had seized his DVR vide seizure memo Ex. PW28/B. He has identified the DVR CP PLUS Model bearing No. CP-UVR-0401E1-S having Sl.No. CP3F042BCPBQ06985 Ex. P-3.
PW-29 is HC Nawal, who has deposed that on 16.11.2017, he was on patrolling duty. That Inspector Mukesh SHEFALI Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park SHARMA 18:01:58 +0530 Date: 2024.10.25 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 33 of 49 Kumar called him at Sarai Peepal Thala. That he reached there and IO seized the DVR of CCTV camera installed at shop of Sh.Arun Khurana R/o H.No. 251/1, Sarai Peepal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that IO prepared the seizure memo of the DVR Ex.PW28/A. He further deposed that on 19.11.2017, he received the message to report to Inspector Mukesh Kumar and he reached at H.No. 32, Sarai Peepal Thala, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi i.e. house of Sh.Pankaj. He further deposed that IO served notice to Pankaj regarding production of DVR in respect of CCTV camera installed at his shop ground floor. He further deposed that Pankaj had given DVR of CCTV camera installed to Inspector Mukesh Kumar, who seized the same with the seal of MK and seal after use was handed over to him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C
4. After closure of PE, the statement of the accused Ravinder was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 10.07.2024 and that of accused Raju @ Sonu was recorded on 06.08.2024, wherein they denied all the evidence put to them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence.
5. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
Digitally signed bySHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:02:03 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 34 of 49 ARGUMENTS
6. I have heard Ms. Promila Singh, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh.Tarun Gahlot, Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
7. It was argued by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State that the allegations levelled against the accused are of serious nature and through the testimonies of material witnesses PW12 Ranjeet, PW18 Mahipal, PW23 Aftab and PW24 Mukesh the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It was further argued that all the police officials have clearly proved the chain and the manner of investigation and merely because the witnesses are police officials their testimony cannot be disbelived.
8. On the contrary, Sh. Tarun Gahlot, Ld. counsel for the accused persons has argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated. That the material prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have failed to identify the accused persons. That even, in the CCTV footage the accused persons could not be identified. That the recovery of the weapon of offence is tainted and falsely planted and there is no incriminating evidence which could link the accused persons with the commission of the offence and hence, accused persons deserve acquittal.
Digitally signed by SHEFALISHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 18:02:07 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 35 of 49
9. I have heard the arguments at length and perused the entire record.
FINDINGS
10. Vide order dated 04.07.2018 charge under Section 302/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons. In addition, charge under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act was framed against accused Ravinder.
11. Briefly stated, on 11.11.2017, in between 12:00 night to 6:30 am, in front of main street at H. No.138, in front of Harijan Mohalla, Sarai, Pepalthala, Delhi, accused Ravinder and co-accused Raju in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Vishal @ Ganja by causing bullet injuries by pistol (firearm). It is further alleged that on 16.11.2017 at H. No.39/D-305, Village Badola, Delhi, accused Ravinder was found in possession of one pistol along with two live cartridges without having any valid license and permit and used the said weapon in the commission of murder of said Vishal @ Ganja.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.11.2017 a complaint vide DD No.10 PP was received by ASI Naresh Kumar at PS Mahendra Park regarding dead body of deceased.
12. At the very outset, it is relevant to quote the law. The relevant Section is reproduced as under: Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25 18:02:13 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 36 of 49 SECTION 302 IPC "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine".
SECTION 25 ARMS ACT "....... Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine".
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
13. It is a settled law of criminal jurisprudence that a person is believed to be innocent till the guilt is proved against him. This principle is called The Presumption of Innocence. In another words, the accused is entitled to take advantage of reasonable doubt in respect of his crime. The principle finds its genesis in the Declaration of Human Rights under Article 11 Section 1 incorporated by the United Nations in 1948. It is also mentioned in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights in Article 6 Section 2 and United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14, Section 2.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:02:18 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 37 of 49 proving guilt of the accused in order to be convicted of the crime of which he is charged.
In Chandrashekhar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 06.07.2018 relying on judgment of Data Ram Singh Vs. State of UP passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 06.02.2018, it was held that:
"the freedom of an individual is utmost important and cannot be curtailed specially when guilt if any, is yet to be proved. It is settled law that till such time guilt of a person is proved, he is deemed to be innocent........ A fundamental postulate of criminal juris prudence is a presumption of innocence meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty..........
Thus, it is a settled law that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
14. In this backdrop, I proceed to delve upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
MATERIAL WITNESS
15. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the testimony of PW12 Ranjeet (father of the deceased).
But PW12 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Although he identified both the accused persons as he used to meet them outside the court premises in hearings of a murder case of one Sanjay @ Pahlwan as his son Vishal @ Ganja Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 18:02:25 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 38 of 49 was facing trial in the said case but he completely denied if the accused persons had murdered his son. Despite his lengthy cross- examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, no incriminating evidence could be culled out. The said witness was also shown the CCTV footage during his testimony recorded on 24.12.2019. However, he failed to identify the two persons who were seen in the footage chasing his son.
At this stage, it is also relevant to note the Court observation regarding CCTV footage made during the course of recording testimony of PW12 on 24.12.2019. The same is reproduced as under:
"At 2:03:21 hours, two persons are seen running/chasing one person only their back side is visible and thereafter at 2:10:58 hours, one person is seeing having his half face covered with cloth having some pistol/katta like object in his right hand."
Thus, from the testimony of the said material witness, it could not be established that it was the accused persons who were seen in the CCTV footage and faces were not visible.
The next and most important material witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW-18 Mahipal, PW-23 Aftab and PW-24 Mukesh.
PW18 Mahipal and PW-24 Mukesh have deposed on similar lines and stated that on the date of incident i.e. the Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:02:30 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 39 of 49 intervening night of 10/11 December 2017 at about 2.00 a.m. they were counting money received in a function after beating drums, which is their source of livelihood, they saw two boys come on a scooty and one boy got down from the scooty and asked PW18 Mahipal as to what he was doing, to which he answered that he is counting money earned from the function and then another boy came by covering his face. Both PW18 and PW24 deposed that after sometime they heard a fire shot but both the witnesses stated that they had not seen the face of the two boys who had made the fire shot as their faces were covered. Despite being lengthy cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and pointing out at the accused persons, PW18 failed to identify the accused persons as those whom he had seen on the night of the incident and he completely resiled from his earlier statements Ex.PW18/A & B. Even PW24 deposed that the deceased Vishal @ Ganja was the person who had got down from the scooty but even he denied that accused Ravinder and Raju who were chasing the deceased Vishal @ Ganja or that both of them had fired upon the deceased and he completely resiled from his earlier statement Ex.PW24/A. PW-23 Aftab also filed to identify both the accused persons and also resiled from his earlier statement given to the police Ex.PW23/A. Thus, despite the lengthy cross-examination by Ld. Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:02:37 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 40 of 49 Addl. PP for the State, no incriminating evidence could be culled out against the accused persons from the testimony of the aforesaid material witnesses.
Moving forward, I shall delve upon other evidence MEDICAL/FORENSIC/SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
16. From the testimony of PW26, the FSL result and the ballistic report Ex.PW26/A had been placed on record, however, it is pertinent to mention that the same regarding the alleged pistol which was not used in the offence and thus, the entire report is of no help to the prosecution.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE & 25/27 ARMS ACT
17. PW-22 proved that accused Ravinder revealed that he was carrying two pistols on the date of incident which were loaded with 6 & 2 rounds each respectively. That accused Ravinder also disclosed that he used the pistol for murder of Vishal @ Ganja in which there were 6 round cartridges and he disclosed that after the murder of Vishal @ Ganja, he had thrown the said pistol in river Yamuna. That accused also disclosed that he could get recovered the other pistol with 2 live cartridges from his house. That thereafter, accused Ravinder led them to his house at N-39/B-305 Village Bharola, Delhi and from the 3 rd Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:02:44 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 41 of 49 floor of the said house he took out one pistol and produced before the IO. That IO opened the pistol and found two live cartridges in it. That the pistol and cartridges were put on a plain paper and sketches of the same were prepared and the same was measured. That the sketch of pistol and cartridges is Ex.PW21/C. In the present case two guns were recovered at the instance of accused Ravinder. From the testimony of PW22, it transpires that accused Ravinder had made a disclosure statement regarding carrying two pistols on the date of incident loaded with six and two round cartridges each respectively. The pistol having six round cartridges was supposedly used in the commission of offence and that after the commission of the offence, he had thrown the said pistol in river Yamuna.
The other pistol having two live cartridges were got recovered from his house and it is said pistol with two cartridges which had been seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/D. Thus, the weapon of offence as per the version of prosecution story (the pistol with six cartridges) had already been thrown by the accused in river Yamuna and was never recovered and thus the entire ballistic report Ex.PW26/A regarding the bullets comes under cloud, as it was not the offending weapon used in the commission of the crime.
Even otherwise, on perusal of the recovery memo Ex.PW21/D of the other pistol (with two cartridges) which was recovered from the house of accused Ravinder, as deposed by SHEFALI Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:02:49 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 42 of 49 PW22 & PW27 does not bear the signature of any public witness and no efforts seem to have been made by the IO to procure the presence of any public witness during the time of recovery. There is no videography of the procedure and the argument raised by the ld. Counsel for the accused that the recovery is tainted and planted does not seem to be unfounded.
At this stage reliance is placed on the following landmark judgments by the Hon'ble Superior Courts on this point.
In the landmark judgment of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sunil 2001 SCC, (Cri) 248, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"when discovery is made pursuant to any facts deposed by the accused, the discovery memo prepared by the IO is necessarily attested by the independent witnesses but if no witness is present, it is difficult to lay down as a proposition that the recovery must be tainted or that or unreliable. But in such a situation, the court has to consider the report of the IO on its own merits".
In Mani Vs. State of Tamilnadu decided on 08.01.2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that:
"Discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon discovery".
In the case of Naveen kumar Verma Vs. State (Govt.
Digitally signedSHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:02:55 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 43 of 49 of NCT of Delhi) decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 03.07.2013 relying on the landmark judgment of Mohd. Jabbar Vs. State decision 21.05.2010 Crl. A. 1022/18, it has been reiterated that:
"The courts have to be cautioned and to vigilant against the non practice of the police to plaint ordinary objects on the accused persons to prove access by the accused to the place where the crime was allegedly committed".
In Prabhu Vs. State AIR 1963, Supreme Court 1113, recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti as also on an axe on which human blood was detected was held to be a weak evidence as was also held in the case of Narsinghbhai Prajapati Etc. Vs. Chatrasingh & Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1753, where recovery of a blood stained shirt and a dhoti and also a dharia (weapon of offence) were held to be a weak evidence.
In the case of Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1994 Supreme Court 110, the watch of the deceased and a dagger stained with the blood of the same group as that of the deceased was held to be weak evidence.
Thus, even the essential ingredients as provided under Section 25/27 Arms Act, of possession and use of the alleged pistol by the accused persons could not be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHEFALI Date:
SHARMA 2024.10.25
18:03:00
+0530
SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 44 of 49 MOTIVE
18. It was the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident at about 12-12.30, the accused Ravinder along with his associate had come to the house of deceased and was asking from his father regarding whereabouts of Vishal @ Ganja. The father Ranjeet Singh had stated that there was some previous enmity. But there is no specific motive which has been culled out in the prosecution story for the accused persons to commit the offence. In fact, the father Ranjeet Singh failed to identify the assailants in his testimony as PW12.
The prosecution story is based on hypothesis and surmises without cogent evidence or established motive Reliance has been placed on in the case titled Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the decision in Anwar Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1 (2020) 10 SCC 1665 and observed as under:-
"27.Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances."
NO INDEPENDENT PUBLIC WITNESS
19. There appears to be no sincere efforts were made by police officials concerned to join independent public witnesses in the concerned police proceedings at any of the available stages especially at the time of recovery of alleged the pistol or at the time of arrest of accused persons. In this regard reliance is being SHEFALI Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA 18:03:05 +0530 Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 45 of 49 placed on the following judgments:-
In case law reported as "Anoop Joshi Vs. State"
1992(2) C.C. Cases 314(HC), High Court of Delhi had observed as under:-
"18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evidence that no such sincere efforts have been made, particularly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC".
In a case law reported as "Roop Chand Vs. The State of Haryana" 1999 (1) C.L.R. 69, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
"3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence with their help. The recovery of illicit liquor was effected from the possession of the petitioner during noon time and it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that some witnesses form the public were available and they were asked to join the investigation. The explanation furnished by the prosecution Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.10.25 18:03:11 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 46 of 49 is that the independent witnesses were asked to join the investigation but they refused to do so on the ground that their joining will result into enmity between them and the petitioner". "4. It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This explanation does not inspire confidence because the police officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to join it is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the public refused to join the investigation. A police officer conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person under the law. Had it been a fact that the witnesses from the public had refused to join the investigation, the Investigating Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution case highly doubtful".
20. The remaining prosecution witnesses were formal Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:03:17 +0530 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 47 of 49 police witnesses who merely deposed regarding the manner of investigation.
CONCLUSION
21. The prime prosecution witnesses PW18 Mahipal, PW23 Aftab and PW24 Mukesh have completely resiled from their statements and nothing could be culled out from their testimonies against accused Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu.
Further, the material witnesses could not bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Even vide the forensic evidence, no incriminating evidence could be proved against the accused persons, as discussed above. The recovery of case property as discussed above, was a weak piece of evidence and no conclusive evidence exclusively pointing out towards the guilt of accused Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu could be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid detailed findings, there is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused Ravinder and Raju @ Sonu deserve a benefit of doubt and hence stands acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
22. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Needless to say, that in view of Section 357A Cr.P.C.
Digitally signedSHEFALI by SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park 18:03:23 +0530 State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 48 of 49 the victim/LRs of deceased would be entitled to compensation even though the accused has been acquitted, if not awarded so far by the Delhi State Legal Authority, as may be permissible, as per subsisting rules and in accordance with law.
Digitally signed bySHEFALI SHEFALI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.10.25 18:03:28 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Shefali Sharma) Court on 25.10.2024 Addl. Session Judge-02 (running in 49 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 77/18, FIR No. 401/17 PS Mahendra Park State Vs. Ravinder Etc. Page No. 49 of 49