Delhi District Court
State vs Manjeet Sehrawat And Ors on 28 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 138/2019)
CNR No. DLNT01-001804-2019
FIR No. 430/2018
Police Station Bawana
Charge sheet filed 302/201/120-B/482/34 IPC
Under Section and 25/27 Arms Act
Charge framed Under 302/120-B/34 IPC against
Section all accused persons.
25/27 Arms Act against
accused Shehzad Saifi @
Kalu and Vishal @ Johny.
25 Arms Act against
accused Dharmender.
Manjeet Sehrawat s/o Rameshwar
Dayal r/o H. No. 553-B, Dada Bhaiya
Wali Gali, Bawana, Delhi.
Angel Gupta d/o Sh. Rajiv Gupta r/o H.
No. 300, Sector- 5, R. K. Puram, New
Delhi.
State Vs. Deepak s/o Sh. Mahender r/o Village
Nanu Fatehpur, P. O. Dholdi, P.S. Janni
District Meerut, U. P.
Dharmender s/o Sh. Mam Chand r/o
H. No. 87, Kasba Bhudana, Canara
Bank Wali Gali, Mohalla Pachalla, P.
S. Bhudana, District Muzafarnagar,
U. P.
Shehzad Saifi @ Kalu s/o Sh.
Hafijullah r/o Village Kharoli, P. S.
Kankar Khera, District Meerut, U. P.
Vishal @ Johny s/o Sh. Raju @ Raj
Singh r/o Village Kharoli, P. S.
Kankar Khera, District Meeru, U. P.
Rajeev Gupta @ Sethi s/o Satya
Prakash Gupta r/o H. No. 300,
Sector-5, R. K. Puram, Delhi (trial
separated vide order dated
26.03.2025)
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 1/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:17:56 +0530
Date of institution 02.03.2019
Arguments concluded on 26.03.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 28.04.2025
All accused persons
stands convicted under
section 120-B and 302
Decision read with section 120-B
IPC.
Accused Vishal @ Johny
and Shehzad are
additionally convicted
under section 25/27 Arms
Act
Accused Dharmender is
additionally convicted
under section 25 Arms
Act.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 Vide this judgment, case against all accused persons except accused Rajeev Gupta shall be decided. Trial of accused Rajeev Gupta stands segregated on 26.03.2025 as he was proclaimed offender for considerable time and by that time he was arrested, final arguments against remaining accused persons were being heard by the court.
1.2 The charge sheet has been filed against accused persons Manjeet Sehrawat (husband of deceased), Angel Gupta (girlfriend of accused Manjeet), Rajeev Gupta (assumed/stepfather of accused Angel Gupta), Deepak (driver of accused Rajeev Gupta), Dharmender (maternal uncle of accused Deepak), Vishal @ Johny (shooter) and Shehzad Saifi (shooter). As alleged, accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta were in illicit relationship which was objected to by deceased Sunita on many occasions. All accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased. Accused Rajeev Gupta @ Sethi hired SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 2/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:03 +0530 shooters Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny through his driver Deepak with the help of his maternal uncle Dharmender. Pursuant to that conspiracy, the innocent school teacher Sunita was shot dead mercilessly by firing three bullets upon her which proved to be fatal.
1.3 A vignette of facts as unveiled from the charge sheet that the prosecution machinery into motion is that on 29.10.2018 vide DD No. 6A, an information was received from number 9871819650 in Police Station Bawana that a lady was shot on her scooty between Dariyapur and Bawana. Said DD was handed over to ASI Rajesh Kumar for appropriate action, who along with Ct. Yashpal reached at the spot i.e., in front of Dayal Vermi Compost on the road from Bawana to Dariyapur. He found that a white colour Activa Scooty No. DL-SP-7044 was lying there, two bags (one Maroon and one Grey colour), one black colour helmet and one light green colour ladies shoes ( jutti) were also lying. Blood was lying there. An empty cartridge was lying there. On enquiry, it was revealed that injured had been shifted to MV Hospital.
1.4 After leaving Ct. Yashpal at the spot, ASI Rajesh Kumar reached at MV Hospital. In the meantime, IO Inspector Rakesh Kumar (hereinafter referred as IO) also reached at the spot alongwith staff. After inspection at the spot, IO also reached at MV Hospital and met ASI Rajesh, who handed over the MLC of patient as she was declared brought dead by the doctor. No eye witness was found present at the hospital. Dead body was inspected and photographed by the crime team and got shifted to BSA Hospital mortuary for postmortem. Thereafter, IO alongwith crime team reached at the spot and inspected the scene of crime and lifted the exhibits from there. On the basis of inspection of dead body and MLC, present FIR under section 302 IPC read SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 3/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:08 +0530 with section 25/27 Arms Act was got registered through Ct. Yashpal. Doctor handed over personal articles of the deceased, her blood stained clothes and bullets extracted from the body of the deceased during preparation of MLC, to the IO. 1.5 Thereafter, IO prepared first site plan at the instance of ASI Rajesh, seized the scooty and sent the same to police station through Ct. Yashpal. IO reached at BSA Hospital mortuary. After identification of dead body, postmortem was got conducted. During postmortem another bullet was recovered from the body of the deceased. Total five wounds were observed on her body out of which two were bullet exit wounds whereas three were bullet entry wounds and were opined to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 1.6 IO met eye witness Deepak Dahiya, who during inquiry alleged that he was passing through the spot of incident and he could identify the culprits. Thereafter, IO, ASI Rajesh and eye witness reached at the spot where at the instance of eye witness Deepak Dahiya, another site plan was prepared by the IO.
1.7 During investigation, on 30.11.2018, Dakshita, daughter of deceased, produced one diary before IO claimed that her deceased mother used to write diary. IO seized the said diary and recorded statement of Dakshita wherein she alleged that her father i.e., accused Manjeet Sehrawat was in illicit relationship with co-accused Angel Gupta due to which altercation used to take place between her mother and father. Her father used to beat her mother. She also alleged that accused Angel Gupta threatened the deceased to get terminated her from her job, to kidnap her kids and to murder her. She further alleged that accused Angel Gupta also threatened the deceased that if she herself could not celebrate karwa chauth with Manjeet Sehrawat then she would SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 4/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:13 +0530 not allow deceased to celebrate karwa chauth also. Statement under section 164 CrPC of Dakshita was got recorded. 1.8 During investigation, diary of deceased was perused by the IO wherein deceased had written about the apprehension of getting murdered by her husband and Angel Gupta. Anil, brother of deceased also disclosed that he had a telephonic conversation with co-accused Rajeev Gupta i.e., assumed/stepfather of accused Angel Gupta in May 2018 over the issue of illicit relationship of accused Angel Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat. Anil handed over his mobile phone to IO having recorded conversation between him, Rajeev Gupta and Angel Gupta. CDRs of mobile phone of Rajeev Gupta, Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta were obtained. IO also collected CCTV footage of the camera installed at police post Dariya Pur and it revealed that Duster car bearing No. DL-8CZ-4306 of accused Rajeev Gupta was seen coming on 25.10.2018 at about 07:33:39, 26.10.2018 at 07:31:14, 26.10.2018 at 08:29:19 and 29.10.2018 at 07:29:39. Another car of accused Rajeev Gupta i.e., Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 was traced on 26.10.2018 at 08:29 AM and 29.10.20218 at 07:19 AM. Mobile location of accused Rajeev Gupta and his driver Deepak was also tracked in Bawana area on 23.10.2018, 25.10.2018, 26.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 in the morning hours. Rajeev Sethi was also found in contact with accused Angel Gupta, Manjeet Sehrawat and Deepak frequently during his location at Bawana on all these days. Accused Manjeet Sehrawat, Rajeev Sethi and Angel Gupta prior and soon after the incident. 1.9 During investigation, when accused Rajeev Gupta was confronted, he admitted his guilt and disclosed about the illicit relationship between accused Angel Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat. He confessed to plan murder of wife of accused SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 5/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:18 +0530 Manjeet Sehrawat. He also disclosed that his driver Deepak informed him that his maternal uncle Dharmender can arrange shooters for the same. He further disclosed that on 18.10.2018, he called Dharmender and finalized the deal for Rs. 10 lakhs and transferred Rs. 45,000/- in the account of Deepak and gave cash of Rs. 5,000/- as token money. It was decided to execute the plan of murder on 26.10.2018.
1.10 As per plan, accused Dharmender, hired shooters namely Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny and they met accused Rajeev Gupta at Mohan Singh Market. Accused Rajeev Gupta provided photograph of deceased and her scooty number to them. Thereafter, Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny took their position whereas accused Deepak and Dharmender took their position in his Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 at Dariyapur Red Light so that accused Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny may flee without any hindrance after the incident.
1.11 He further disclosed that plan could not take place on that day as accused Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny did not come to know about the arrival of deceased. Thereafter, it was decided to execute the plan on 29.10.2018. On 29.10.2018 at about 07:00-07:15 AM accused Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny took their position at Rajeev Gandhi Stadium on their motorcycle, accused Dharmender and Deepak took their position in Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 at Dariyapur Red Light and he (Rajeev Gupta) took his position in his Duster Car bearing No. DL-8CZ-4306 near Rajeev Gandhi Stadium. Shooters shot dead the deceased as per the plan. He further disclosed that thereafter, he telephonically informed accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta about the same. He further disclosed that he came back to his house and when accused Deepak and Dharmender demanded money, he gave Rs.2 lakhs SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 6/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:22 +0530 stating that remaining amount would be given within 10 days. 1.12 Thereafter, accused Rajeev Gupta, Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta were arrested. PC remand of accused Rajeev Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat were obtained and at the instance of accused Rajeev Gupta, accused Deepak was arrested, who confessed his involvement as well as his maternal uncle Dharmender. Accused Deepak also disclosed that he made arrangement for stay of accused Dharmender, Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny in M. L. Guest House, Near Nizamuddin Railway Station with the help of his friend Raju. 1.13 During investigation, CCTV footage revealed that in Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 (starting digit 2 and last digit 3 were missing) was seen coming on 29.10.2018 at 07:19:25 in which two persons were sitting. Accused Rajeev Gupta was also seen sitting alone in his Duster car bearing No. DL-8CZ-4306 at 07:29:39. CCTV footage was seized and sent to FSL. Accused Deepak got recovered Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 from his village and also handed over his mobile phone. At the instance of accused Rajeev Gupta and Deepak, site plans of place of incident were prepared. 1.14 During investigation, IO came to know that accused Dharmender was in JC in FIR No. 494/16 u/sec 302 IPC PS Brahampuri, Meerut. On 07.11.2018, vide DD No. 7B an information was received at police station Bawana that accused Shehzad has been arrested under section 41.1(D) Cr.P.C. by Crime Branch Sector-18, Rohini, who confessed his involvement in the present case. Accused Shehzad was formally arrested in this case and his TIP was got conducted through eye witness Deepak Dahiya and witness Raju. Thereafter, accused Dharmender was also formally arrested in this case. PC remand of accused Shehzad was obtained and he got recovered the SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 7/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:27 +0530 weapon of offence (country made pistol) from his house. 1.15 IO during investigation came to know that accused Vishal @ Johny was in JC in Meerut Jail in FIR No. 1050/17 u/sec 147/323/504/506/294 IPC and he was formally arrested in this case. Accused Vishal @ Johny refused to participate in TIP proceedings. During PC remand, accused Vishal @ Johny got recovered weapon of offence (country made pistol), motorcycle used in the incident with fake number plate from his house i.e., Village Khadoli, District Meerut. Accused Dharmender also got recovered one improvised pistol with one cartridge and cash of Rs. 60,000/- as part payment received from accused Rajeev Gupta.
1.16 Exhibits, seized mobile phones, recovered weapons alongwith cartridges, bullet recovered from the body of the deceased, empty cartridge recovered from the spot, photographs of motorcycle and CCTV footage were sent to FSL. Voice samples of accused Rajeev Gupta, accused Angel Gupta, accused Deepak and witness Raju were obtained. IO also seized admitted handwriting of the deceased from her school and sent to FSL for comparison alonwgith her diary. Cell location of mobile phones of accused were obtained. As fake number plate as D 9 SU 6480 on motorcycle bearing No. UP 15 AQ 6712 was affixed by accused Vishal @ Johny, section 201/482 IPC were added. 1.17 After completion of investigation, charge sheet under section 302/201/120-B/482/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons as they committed a fiendish and flagtious crime after hatching a criminal conspiracy. After receipt of FSL results, sanction under section 39 Arms Act, supplementary charge sheets were filed.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 8/129FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:18:31 +0530
CHARGE
2. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, and vide order dated 07.12.2019, charge under section 120-B and 302 read with section 120-B IPC was framed against accused Manjeet Sehrawat, Angel Gupta, Deepak, Shahzad Saifi @ Kalu, Dharmender and Vishal @ Johny. Accused Shehzad Saifi @ Kalu and Vishal @ Johny were additionally charged under section 25/27 Arms Act and accused Dharmender was additionally charged under section 25 Arms Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 42 witnesses in all.
FORMAL WITNESSES 4.1 PW1 ASI Devanand, being the duty officer, exhibited FIR as Ex. PW1/A, certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/B and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/C. 4.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet, he admitted that there is no date mentioned in certificate under section 65 Indian Evidence Act but he denied that same was not issued by him. He further denied the fact that the computer in which FIR was registered was not under his control and domain.
5.1 PW3 Somdutt Yadav, being teacher in Government Middle School, Firozpur, Bangar, Sonepat, Haryana, proved Quiz Register having handwriting of Late Sunita on portion Page No. 1 to 7 handed over to police which was seized vide seizure memo SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 9/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:36 +0530 which is Ex. PW3/A. He exhibited Register as Ex. PW3/B. Initially he stated that he cannot identify the handwriting and signature of deceased but during cross examination on behalf of State he admitted the portion of his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC wherein it was written that he had identified the handwriting of the deceased and her signature on the Quiz Register. He admitted that every class teacher used to maintain an activity register. He further admitted that deceased was assigned class IV and she used to maintain the said register and used to make entry personally in the register. He admitted that due to lapse of time, he forgot some of the facts.
5.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
6.1 PW7 Sarla Devi, deposed that in the year 2018, she was working as Elementary Head at Government Middle School, Firozpur Bangar, Sonipat, Haryana. She further deposed that deceased Sunita was also working there as JBT Teacher at the said school. She further deposed that deceased used to write daily diary in her course of duty/officials work and she used to check the same daily. She further deposed that deceased used to maintain Quiz Register which she used to check. She further deposed that on 29.11.2018, police officials met her and she handed over the Quiz Register to police.
6.2 In her cross examination done on behalf of all accused persons except accused Manjeet, she denied the suggestion that Quiz Register was provided to PW3 Somdutt Yadav by her or that he had handed over the same to police. She stated that there were 6 JBT teachers in the school including deceased and all of them used to maintain Quiz Register. Those registers used to be kept in the almirah of head of Primary Wing.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 10/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:18:41 +0530
She did not take any permission of head of Primary Wing prior to handing over the register to the police. She denied the suggestion that she did not hand over the register to the police. 6.3 In cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet, she admitted that deceased never wrote the Quiz Register in her presence.
7.1 PW11 Parveen Kumar, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio, exhibited certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW11/A. He exhibited CAF of mobile No. 9625181981 issued in the name of accused Rajeev Kumar as Ex. PW11/B, CDR for the period 01.10.2018 to 29.10.2018 as Ex. PW11/C (due to typographical error same have been mentioned as CW11/B and CW11/C respectively) and cell ID chart as Ex. PW11/D. 7.2 He also exhibited CAF of mobile No. 9625392858 issued in the name of accused Deepak Kumar as Ex. PW11/E and CDR for the period 01.10.2018 to 29.10.2018 as Ex. PW11/F (due to typographical error same have been mentioned as CW11/E and CW11/F respectively).
7.3 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
8.1 PW12 Jairam, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. exhibited covering letter sent by Israr Babu as Ex. PW12/A, certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/B, CDR of mobile No. 9582629775 (accused Shahzad) as Ex. PW12/C. 8.2 He also exhibited certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to mobile numbers 9105846409 (accused Dharmender) and 8475901184 (accused Vishal) as Ex.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 11/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:18:45 +0530
PW12/D, CAF of mobile No. 9105846409 issued in the name of Dharmender as Ex. PW12/E and its CDR as Ex. PW12/F. CAF of mobile No. 8475901184 issued in the name of Vishal Kumar as Ex. PW12/G, its CDR as Ex. PW12/H and Cell ID Chart in respect of mobile No. 9105846409 and 8475901184 as Ex. PW12/I. Cell ID chart of mobile No. 9582629775 is Ex. PW12/J. 8.3 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
9.1 PW13 ASI Sanjeev Kumar, deposed that the record pertaining to PA 100 system has been switched over to ERSS-112 w.e.f., 25.09.2019. He further deposed that while transferring the data, same was inadvertently deleted as the server of PA-100 System became faulty on 07.05.2021 and therefore, neither PA-100 data can be retrieved nor any data is available. He exhibited order No. 5574/HAT (IV)/DCP/Communication dated 06.09.2022 as Ex. PW13/A. He also exhibited PCR form available in judicial file as Ex. PW13/B which shall be read as secondary evidence.
9.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
10.1 PW15 HC Ramesh deposed that on 22.07.2020, he alongwith Ct. Dinesh went to FSL, Rohini Physics Division where accused Deepak was produced from Judicial custody and his voice sample was taken by the concerned official and voice transcript was also made. He further deposed that after retrieving the voice sample, concerned officials made two cassettes of voice sample. i.e., one original and another was its copy. He further deposed that he handed over both the cassettes to IO which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW15/A. SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 12/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana DHIRENDRA Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:18:50 +0530 10.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
11.1 PW16 Rohan Sharma, Junior Forensic Assistant Chemical Examiner, FSL, deposed that on 05.11.2018 on request of IO, he alongwith Amit Kumar, SSA (CFU) and other team members visited at Dariyapur Chowki, PS Bawana. He further deposed that he checked the software system and one LPR (License Plate Recognition) Software System was found installed in a room namely MCS-CCTV room on the top floor of Dariyapur Chowki. The screenshot of the suspected vehicle was taken from the installed system i.e., LPR as per information provided by ASI Rajesh and same was copied in red colour SanDisk cruzer blade pen drive of 16 Gb capacity. He further deposed that he handed over the pen drive to ASI Rajesh and prepared his detailed report which is Ex. PW16/A. He exhibited pen drive as Ex. P1.
11.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
12.1 PW17 Dr. Syed Ahmar Ali Hashmi, Junior Forensic Chemical Examiner, FSL deposed that on 17.12.2018, documents were received in FSL and same were marked to him. He further deposed that he examined the documents i.e., a diary having marking Q1 to Q65 and Q1A and admitted writing and signature of deceased Sunita Marked as A-1 to A-13, A3A, A5A, A6A, A9A, A11A and A13A and prepared his report on 12.12.2019 which is Ex. PW17/A. 12.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 13/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:18:54 +0530
13.1 PW18 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj, Senior Scientific
Officer, FSL, Rohini, deposed that on 21.12.2018, two sealed parcels and on 12.02.2019, one sealed motorcycle and one unsealed car were received in FSL and marked to her. She further deposed that she examined the parcels as well as motorcycle and car and found that image files in Exhibit 2, the requisite image could not be enhanced due to low pixel resolution. The enhanced photograph is given alongwith report. On the basis of front visible portion of T shirt in image file namely capture 5.jpg in Ex. 2 and Ex. 1 appears to be similar in terms of design and colour.
13.2 She further deposed that after examination of motorcycle she found that the screws on the headlight area as new and different. Front registration number plate was missing, however, registration number plate present at the rear side of motorcycle having number as UP-15AQ-6712 in Hindi. She further deposed that the plate was found to be repainted and earlier numbers were written in English. Chassis number of motorcycle was found to be MD2DHDKZZTCD66692 and Engine No. DKGBTD68201.
13.3 She further deposed that after examination of car registration No. DL-2CAG-2383, the number plate of Esteem car having first number i.e., 2 and last number i.e., 3 found to be fixed by a yellowish colour adhesive. She proved her report as Ex. PW18/A. 13.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel, Shehzad Saifi and Vishal @ Johny, she denied the suggestion that t-shirt appearing in the photograph was not similar to the t-shirt provided by the IO for the purpose of comparison.
13.5 Rest of the accused person opted not to cross
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 14/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:18:59 +0530
examine this witness.
14.1 PW22 HC Jitender Singh deposed that on
10.12.2018, he sent exhibits to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Suresh vide RC No. 285/21/18. He further deposed that Ct. Suresh handed over the acknowledgment/receipt to him after depositing the exhibits in FSL, Rohini.
14.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
15.1 PW23 Ct. Sudhir Rana deposed that on 17.12.2018, MHC(R) handed over to him one parcel duly sealed to deposit the same in FSL. He further deposed that he deposited the same vide RC No. 295/21/18 and handed over the acknowledgment to MHC(M).
15.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
16.1 PW24 W/Ct. Manju deposed that on 21.07.2020, she joined the investigation alongwith Inspector Rakesh Kumar. She further deposed that she alongwith Ct. Sukhdev and IO went to FSL Rohini, Physics Department where accused Angel Gupta was brought to FSL Rohini from judicial custody and her voice sample was taken in cassettes which were seized by IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW24/A. She identified the voice of accused Angel Gupta and Ct. Sukhdev in audio and exhibited the cassettes as Ex. P22 and Ex. P23.
16.2 She has been cross examined on behalf of accused Angel, Shehzad and Vishal, but nothing material came out whereas other accused persons opted not to cross examine this witness.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 15/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:19:04 +0530
17.1 PW25 Rajiv Vashistha, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel,
exhibited e-customer application form of mobile No.
9599668996 issued in the name of accused Rajiv Kumar as Ex. PW25/A and CDR as Ex. PW25/B. 17.2 He further exhibited customer application form of mobile No. 9871846560 issued in the name of accused Manjeet Kumar, e-CAF as Ex. PW25/C and CDR as Ex. PW25/D. He exhibited e-CAF of mobile No. 9667825426 issued in the name of accused Deepak Kumar as Ex. PW25/E and CDR as Ex. PW25/F. 17.3 He further exhibited CAF of mobile No. 9557772782 issued in the name of Shehzad Saifi as Ex. PW25/G, his Aadhar Card as identity proof as Ex. PW25/G1 and CDR as Ex. PW25/H. 17.4 He exhibited e-CAF of mobile No. 7303415214 issued in the name of accused Deepak Kumar as Ex. PW25/I and CDR as Ex. PW25/J. E-CAF of mobile No. 9599964680 issued in the name of Shaurya Pratap Singh as Ex. PW25/K and CDR as Ex. PW25/L. He also exhibited location chart/cell ID as Ex. PW25/M, certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW25/N, certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to mobiles e-CAF except mobile No. 9557772782 as Ex. PW25/O and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act of mobile No. 9557772782 as Ex. PW25/P. 17.5 In his cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel, Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny, he admitted that he could not tell the radius of a tower, however, a tower covers 0-3 km.
18.1 PW26 Ct. Pankaj got deposited one sealed parcel at
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 16/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:19:09 +0530
FSL vide RC No. 249/21 and handed over the
acknowledgment/receipt to MHC(M).
18.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf
of accused persons.
19.1 PW27 Ct. Manish deposed that on 20.07.2020, he
alongwith Ct. Dhiraj and IO went to FSL Rohini for the purpose of recording voice sample of accused Rajiv Gupta, who was in custody. He further deposed that voice sample of accused Rajiv Gupta was recorded in two cassettes i.e., one original and another and both the cassettes were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW27/A. 19.2 He further deposed that on 23.07.2020, he alongwith Ct. Dinesh and IO again went to FSL, Rohini for recording of voice sample of witness Raju. He further deposed that voice sample of Raju was recorded in two cassettes i.e., one original and another copy which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW27/B. 19.3 He further deposed that on 24.07.2020, he alongwith Ct. Dinesh and IO again went to FSL, Rohini for recording of voice sample of witness Anil. He further deposed that voice sample of Anil was recorded in two cassettes i.e., one original and another copy which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW27/C. 19.4 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
20.1 PW30 Dr. Imrana (Former Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL, Rohini) deposed that on 10.12.2018, eight sealed parcels were received in FSL for examination. She further deposed that she examined the same and prepared her detailed SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 17/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:19:13 +0530 report which is Ex. PW30/A supported by allelic data which is Ex. PW30/B. 20.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
21.1 PW31 Pankaj Sharma, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio exhibited CAF of mobile No. 7678650770 issued in the name of accused Rajeev Gupta as Ex. PW31/A and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW31/B. 21.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
22.1 PW32 Maninder Singh, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd. exhibited customer application form of mobile No. 9619745947 issued in the name of accused Angel Gupta as Ex. PW32/A, copy of ID proof as Ex. PW32/B, attested CAF as Ex. PW32/A1 and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW32/C. 22.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
23.1 PW33 Geetesh Patel, Junior Forensic/Assistant Chemical Examiner (Physics), FSL, deposed that on 14.08.2020, six sealed parcels containing one pen drive having questioned voice and five parcels having five audio cassettes of specimen sample voices were received in FSL and marked to him. He further deposed that he examined and found that the specimen sample voice were matching with questioned voice and prepared his detailed report which is Ex. PW33/A. 23.2 In his cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel, Shehzad and Vishal, he stated that voice samples have SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 18/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:19:18 +0530 100% accuracy and it depends upon the quality of voice. He denied the suggestion that specimen voice sample did not match with the questioned voice.
23.3 Rest of the accused persons opted not to cross examine this witness.
24.1 PW34 ASI Surender Kumar exhibited serial No. 526 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/A vide which on 29.10.2018, 11 parcels alongwith sample seal and one scooty with helmet was deposited in malkhana by IO. He exhibited entry at serial No. 528 as Ex. PW34/B vide which two mobile phones were deposited in malkhana on 01.11.2018. He exhibited entry at serial No. 530 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/C vide which on 02.11.2018, deposited one mobile phone in malkhana. 24.2 He exhibited entry at serial No. 531 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/D vide which on 03.11.2018, IO deposited one Duster car, five mobile phones and one parcel containing T shirt in malkhana. He exhibited entry No. 532 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/E vide which IO deposited one Esteem car in malkhana on 04.11.2018. He further exhibited entry No. 541 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/F vide which IO deposited one parcel containing desi katta with one live cartridge/round in malkhana. He exhibited entry No. 549 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/G vide which IO deposited one parcel containing one mobile phone and one pen drive in malkhana on 21.11.2018.
24.3 He further exhibited entry at serial No. 553 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/H vide which on 26.11.2018, IO deposited one motorcycle bearing No. UP-1S-AQ-6712 with one fake number plate, two parcels containing mobile phones, cash of Rs. 60,000/-, one pistol with one round and one desi katta in malkhana.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 19/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:19:23 +0530
24.4 He further exhibited RC No. 285/21/18 as Ex.
PW34/I vide which eight parcels and sample seal were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Suresh and acknowledgment thereof is Ex. PW34/J. He exhibited RC No. 301/21/18 as Ex. PW34/K vide which on 21.12.2018, two sealed parcels containing T-shirt and pen drive were sent to FSL Rohini through ASI Surender Kumar and acknowledgment thereof is Ex. PW34/L. He further exhibited RC No. 308/21/18 as Ex. PW34/M vide which on 28.12.2018, eight parcels having mobile phones were sent to FSL through Ct. Aniket Ram and acknowledgment thereof as Ex. PW34/N. 24.5 He further exhibited RC No. 6/21/19 as Ex. PW34/O vide which three parcels containing weapons and one parcel containing six live cartridges were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Udai Singh and acknowledgment thereof as Ex. PW34/P. He exhibited RC No. 14/21/19 as Ex. PW34/Q vide which one parcel containing two photographs of recovered motorcycle sent to FSL through Ct. Udai Singh on 18.01.2019 and acknowledgment thereof as Ex. PW34/R. He further exhibited RC No. 24/21/19 as Ex. PW34/S vide which one pulsar motorcycle bearing No. UP-15AQ-6712 and one Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 were sent to FSL Rohini through crain by Ct. Ramesh and acknowledgment thereof as Ex. PW34/T. He further exhibited entries made at the time of sending parcels/case property to FSL and receipt of FSL result in register No. 19 as Ex. PW34/1 to Ex. PW34/23.
24.6 During cross examination on behalf of accused persons, he stated that register No. 19 and 21 used to be in his control and cash of Rs. 5 lakhs and one diamond ring were never deposited in malkhana on 30.10.2018 or 31.10.2018. He denied the suggestion that entries in register No. 19 and 21 are SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 20/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:19:28 +0530 manipulated.
25.1 PW35 R. Eniyavan, Forensic Ballistic Expert with Mobile Forensic Team deposed that on 22.02.2019, six sealed parcels were received in the office and same were marked to him. He further deposed that he examined one improvised pistol, two country made pistols, one empty cartridge, one live cartridge and three bullets and prepared his report as Ex. PW35/A. He further deposed that as per opinion the country made pistols and improvised pistol were in working condition and same were covered under Arms Act.
25.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
26.1 PW36 Vikas Kumar, Junior Forensic-cum-Assistant Chemical Examiner, deposed that on 28.12.2018, eight sealed parcels were received in FSL and marked to him. He further deposed that in those eight sealed parcels, there were twelve mobile phones and ten SIM cards. He further deposed that he examined all the exhibits and data from four mobile phones and ten SIM cards was retrieved and provided the same to IO in a pen drive Mark PD1 alongwith certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. He prepared his report which is Ex. PW36/A and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex. PW36/B. He exhibited the pen drive as Ex. P24. 26.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
27.1 PW37 HC Jitender, proved entry at serial No. 479 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW37/A vide which IO deposited sealed exhibits containing cassettes on 21.07.2020. He further exhibited SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 21/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:19:32 +0530 entry No. 482 as Ex. PW37/B vide which IO deposited sealed exhibits containing cassettes on 22.07.2020. 27.2 He also exhibited entry No. 483 as Ex. PW37/C and entry No. 491 as Ex. PW37/D vide which IO deposited sealed exhibits containing cassettes on 23.07.2020 and on 24.07.2020 respectively.
27.3 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
28.1 PW38 SI Rinku Bhakar deposed that on 14.08.2020, he alongwith IO went to FSL, Rohini, Physics Division. He further deposed that on that day, IO collected result which was given in pen drive and after inspecting the same, IO again sealed the pen drive and seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW38/A. 28.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
29.1 PW39 Inspector Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 01.04.2022, further investigation was marked to him. He further deposed that after receipt of FSL result in respect of mobile phone, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court.
29.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
30.1 PW40 Vikram H. M. Meena, Additional DCP-II deposed that on 01.06.2019, the case file was put up before him for the purpose of granting sanction under section 39 Arms Act. He further deposed that FSL result was also put up before him. He gone through the same and as per FSL result, there was a SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 22/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:19:37 +0530 match of recovered weapon with the recovered cartridges. He further deposed that FSL result was sufficient enough to grant sanction under section 39 Arms Act. He further deposed that after satisfying himself about the case file, he granted sanction dated 01.06.2019 as Ex. PW40/A. 30.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused persons, he stated that he went through the FSL result and case file while granting the sanction. He could not tell as to how many other sanctions were granted by him on that day. He denied the suggestion that he granted the sanction in a mechanical manner without applying mind.
31.1 PW41 Inspector Anupam Bhushan deposed that on 26.01.2019, investigation was marked to him as IO Inspector Rakesh Kumar had proceeded on long leave. He further deposed that during investigation, he prepared charge sheet and filed the same before the court.
31.2 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
MATERIAL WITNESSES 32.1 PW2 Dakshita, who happens to be daughter of deceased and accused Manjeet Sehrawat. She deposed that in the year 2016, during school vacations, when she was at home and her mother was sitting on the sofa after doing the household work, all of a sudden message was received on the phone of his father. Her mother picked up the phone and it was revealed that message was of one lady, who was in relation with his father. She further deposed that after going through the message, her mother informed her Dadaji that her father was having relation with another lady, however, her mother came to know that dadaji was SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 23/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:19:42 +0530 already knowing about the said relation. When deceased informed about the same to accused Manjeet, there was a confrontation between them.
32.2 She further deposed that her mother also informed his maternal uncle (mamaji). She further deposed that her father then assured by swearing in the name of children that he would not repeat it again. She further deposed that deceased thereafter called the sender of the said message as she memorized the number and asked about her relation with accused Manjeet Sehrawat to which deceased received the reply that he was her husband and deceased may also asked from accused Manjeet. She further deposed that her mother confronted accused Manjeet, who told that there was no need to call accused Angel again and there was no relation between them.
32.3 She further deposed that her father used to come home late night i.e., 12:00-01:00 AM in drunken condition and used to say that lady was his wife and deceased and her children were nothing for him. She further deposed that her father used to abuse in filthy language and used to spent time with that lady and used to stay overnight with her "6-6 mahine ghar par nahi aate the". She further deposed that one night when her father was with that lady, started abusing her mother on telephone and by pointing out towards her and her brother, he said that they were not his kids and also used to tell his mother that she was not his wife and his wife was that lady to whom he had married. 32.4 She further deposed that her mother used to tell these facts to her maternal uncle Sh. Anil Malik, who told her mother that he would try to solve the matter by discussing the matter with her father and grandfather. She further deposed that her maternal uncle discussed the matter with her grandfather, who assured that no such things would be repeated in future.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 24/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:19:46 +0530
32.5 She further deposed that one day her mother told her
father the either she would stay in the house or he would stay in the house on which his father packed his luggage and went away to stay with that lady and did not return for 1-2 months. She further deposed that after 1-2 months, when her father came back, her mother told him not to repeat such conduct due to 10 th class exam of daughter (PW2). However, her father did not mend his behaviour and there used to be quarrel between her mother and father. She further deposed that her three buaji (sister of father), her dadaji and all other family members were knowing about the extra marital relation of his father and they were supporting him.
32.6 She further deposed that one day, when her father came home after staying with that lady (Angel Gupta), he started quarreling with her mother. Her mother asked accused Manjeet not to quarrel with her and he should stay with that lady, on this her father told his mother that he could not stay with that lady by saying that "ke tu marti bhi to nahi". She further deposed that deceased called that lady (Angel Gupta) and asked that what she wanted to which she replied that "sirf teri barbadi" and also threatened to eliminate her.
32.7 She further deposed that whenever, her mother used to confront accused Manjeet as to why he was doing so, her father used to say "mere papa jindabad" as he was having support of his father. She further deposed that lady (Angel Gupta) also told her mother on phone that all family members of Manjeet were with her and deceased was alone. Accused Angel Gupta threatened her on phone that she would get her eliminated. She further deposed that accused Angel Gupta used to call her dadaji (father of accused Manjeet) by addressing "daddy' and her dadaji (father of accused Manjeet) used to address her " Beti". She SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 25/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:19:56 +0530 further deposed that her elder buaji (sister of accused Manjeet) and younger buaji were also connected with her through Social Media. Her elder buaji also invited her to marriage of her son and introduced here in the marriage as friend of her daughter. 32.8 She further deposed that one day in the morning, mobile phone of her father was left in the car. When she checked the phone, she found personal photos of one lady from unknown number on the phone of her father. She further deposed that she told about the same to her mother and handed over the phone to her. She further deposed that her father quarreled with her mother in a brutal manner. Whenever accused Manjeet used to quarrel and beat the deceased, she noticed bruises, blue marks and swelling on the body of the deceased. She further deposed that she asked deceased that she tried her level best to convince accused Manjeet to mend his behaviour but he did not change. She further deposed that in the late night, when accused Manjeet entered the house and her mother told him that she (PW2 Dakshita) wanted to talk to him, accused Manjeet pushed her mother so badly that she received injuries on her elbow and her hand was not moving properly. She further deposed that her mother again told her uncle about her grievances, who tried to solve the issue and made effort to convince that lady (Angel Gupta), however, accused Manjeet was not agreeable and told that its his life and he would do whatever he wanted. 32.9 She further deposed that in the year 2018, during karwa chauth festival, lady (Angel Gupta) had stated that she would not allow the deceased to celebrate Karwa chauth with accused Manjeet and she claimed herself to be wife of accused Manjeet. She further deposed that during karwa chauth festival, deceased called accused Manjeet, who was staying with accused Angel Gupta, as to when he was coming to which accused SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 26/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:00 +0530 Manjeet replied that he was not coming as he would be staying there with accused Angel Gupta as she was his wife. She further deposed that once her father got issued a new number in the month of October by saying that he had purchased a new number so that Angel Gupta would not call him, however, Angel Gupta used to call on that number also and her father purchased that number just to pretend before her mother that from now she might not call him.
32.10 She further deposed that as her mother was tortured by her father and she was disturbed due to that relation, she used to write a diary. Only she knew about the writing of diary by her mother as she had seen her writing the same. She further deposed that her mother used to say her that if something wrong happens to her then she should hand over the said diary to police. She further deposed that after murder of her mother, she handed over the diary which is Ex. P1 to police on 31.10.2018 which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW2/A. She exhibited proceedings under section 164 CrPC as Ex. PW2/A. 32.11 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Shehzad Saifi, Dharmender, Vishal @ Johny and Deepak, she denied that she had never met accused Angel Gupta prior to incident. She admitted that she was not having any photographs or marriage certificate etc. to show the marriage of her father with accused Angel Gupta. She stated that her father never showed any photograph to her of his marriage with Angel Gupta. She denied that her father had shown the photographs of his marriage with accused Angel Gupta to her and deceased. She further denied that she did not hear any conversation between her mother and accused Angel Gupta.
32.12 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, she stated that she had handed over the diary SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 27/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:04 +0530 of her mother to police at police station and her maternal uncle Rajesh was also with her at that time. She denied that her maternal uncle asked her to hand over the diary to police and there was also another diary of her mother which she and her maternal uncle had not disclosed to the police. She admitted that accused Manjeet used to drink on previous occasion also. She denied that her mother got treated for a prolonged time for the injuries caused by her father due to quarrel on the point of extramarital relationship. She denied that accused Manjeet used to sleep in a separate room. She admitted that fact that in her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC, she had deposed that her papa was having relation with some girl, who was blackmailing him for money and that "some girl" was Angel Gupta. She further admitted that her mother had suggested her father not to create scene due to her 10 th class exams. She admitted that she met her father in jail once or twice at the instance of her tauji and dadaji. She stated that she came to know about the calls being received from Angel Gupta on the new number of her father after checking the call record. She stated that prior to the incident, no accident had ever taken place of her mother while driving the scooty. She denied the suggestion that deceased used to go to her school by driving a car.
33.1 PW4 Rajesh Kumar Malik, who happens to be brother of deceased, deposed that her sister Sunita got married with accused Manjeet in the year 2002 and two children i.e., one daughter and one son were born out of this wedlock. He further deposed that 2-3 years prior to incident, her sister used to remain in tension as accused Manjeet had an extramarital affair with accused Angel Gupta. Thereafter, he visited house of her sister alongwith his wife, his brother and his wife (wife of his brother) SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 28/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:09 +0530 and confronted accused Manjeet about Angel Gupta but he refused that he had any extramarital affair with Angel Gupta. He further deposed that when his sister produced messages of accused Manjeet and accused Angel Gupta, accused Manjeet promised not to indulge in this kind of activity in future, however, her sister kept on informing him time to time that accused Manjeet was still in contact with accused Angel Gupta. Due to this reason, there used to frequent quarrels at her home and accused Manjeet used to beat his sister. 33.2 He further deposed that in the beginning of year 2017, his younger brother Anil met father of accused Manjeet and asked to make accused Manjeet understand not to indulge in these kind of activities but family members of accused Manjeet did not take any action in this regard. He further deposed that his brother also met Rajeev Gupta i.e., father of accused Angel Gupta at R. K. Puram and informed him about the extramarital affair of both accused. He further deposed that Rajeev Gupta i.e., father of accused Angel Gupta had a conversation with her and assured his brother that nothing of that sort would take place in future, however, both the accused (accused Manjeet and Angel) stayed in contact with each other. He further deposed that his sister Sunita also told him that she had altercation/arguments with accused Angel Gupta over telephone, who asked his sister to break the relation with accused Manjeet. He further deposed that accused Angel Gupta also made allegation that both the children of his sister were not born during sustenance of marriage between his sister and accused Manjeet. Accused Angel Gupta claimed that accused Manjeet was her husband and she threatened the deceased "tu jindagi se bhi haath dhoyegi". He further deposed that the conversation between his brother Anil with Rajeev Gupta and accused Angel Gupta got recorded by his SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 29/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:13 +0530 brother Anil in his mobile.
33.3 He further deposed that on 29.10.2018, he received telephonic call from police that somebody had fired on Sunita. Thereafter, he reached at M. V. Hospital, Pooth Khurd and came to know that his sister had died and she was shifted to BSA Hospital for postmortem. He further deposed that he identified the dead body of his sister vide memo which is Ex. PW4/A and received the dead body after postmortem vide memo which is Ex. PW4/B. 33.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Dharmender, Deepak, Shahzad @ Saifi and Vishal @ Johny, he stated that his sister used to go to her school by scooter. He could not tell any date or month of year 2016 when deceased disclosed him about the extramarital affair of accused Manjeet. He denied that his sister did not tell him about the extramarital affair of accused Manjeet in the year 2016. He admitted that he never saw accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta together, however, he saw them in photographs. He could not tell about the profession of accused Angel Gupta. He denied the fact that he was aware that Angel Gupta used to earn Rs. 2 lakhs per month as an actress/model. He denied that accused Angel Gupta never extended any threat to his sister Sunita to leave accused Manjeet otherwise "tu jindagi se bhi haath dhoyegi". He admitted that no report was lodged with regard to threat extended to his sister by accused angel Gupta. He denied the suggestion that there was no extramarital affair between accused Manjeet and Angel.
33.5 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet, he denied that accused Manjeet met him at BSA Hospital alongwith the police when he reached there. He further denied that IO had informed him that he had interrogated accused SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 30/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:18 +0530 Manjeet in the hospital itself or that he had been exonerated by the IO or that he had stated to the IO that there was no quarrel between the deceased and accused Manjeet.
33.6 He admitted that a petition is pending before District Court Sonepat with regard to release of PF, Insurance and other benefits of the deceased in his favour. He stated that said case was filed to provide successor certificate for kids of the deceased. He admitted that he was in regular contact with Dakshita. He admitted that he and his brother never made any complaint against accused Manjeet. He denied that he did not complain to police or to any authority as there was no extramarital affair between both the accused persons.
34.1 PW5 Deepak Dahiya deposed that on 29.10.2018, being taxi driver, started from Kharkhoda with a passenger at around 07:00 AM and when he reached at Auchandi Boarder near Compost making place, he noticed that there was some accident. He further deposed that he stopped his taxi after the cut and got down from his taxi and saw that a motorcycle was parked there and one boy was standing near a scooty. He further deposed that when he got down from the taxi, that person was loading the firearm and he made a gesture towards him to leave from there. He further deposed that when he started from there, he heard the sound of firing and the passengers in his taxi forced him to leave the place. Thereafter, he went to drop the passenger at Bawana. He further deposed that he received a telephone call from police as the deceased was his aunt (mausi) in relation and she had his phone number and documents of his wife in her bag. He further deposed that the police officials also told him about the incident and asked him to reach mortuary of BSA Hospital. He further deposed that he went to hospital where he met IO and came to SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 31/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:23 +0530 know about the incident to which he told that the incident took place in his presence. Thereafter, he accompanied IO to the place of incident for the purpose of pointing out and site plan which is Ex. PW5/A was prepared at his instance. He further deposed that thereafter, he went to police station where enquiries were made from him and he told all the facts to IO which were in his knowledge. He further deposed that he also told the police officials that one of the assailant was stoutly built and another was slim, who was going towards the motorcycle. He exhibited the TIP proceedings of accused Shahzad as Ex. PW5/B and identified him when he was cross examined on behalf of State on the point of identity of accused. He deposed that he could not identify the accused as accused was having beard, however, he was the same person, who was identified by him in TIP proceedings.
34.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Dharmender, Deepak, Shehzad @ Saifi and Vishal @ Johny, he stated that he saw one woman and scooty were lying at the spot, however, he could not identify the deceased. He denied that he was not present at the spot and he came to know about the incident around 08:00 AM after being informed by the police. He stated that the woman was lying across the divider at the distance of around 20-30 paces. He stated that he had not seen the accused persons firing upon deceased Sunita and he only heard the noise of firing. He stated that he had mobile phone having SIM of number 9812240463 at that time but he did not call at number 100. He denied the suggestion that he identified accused Shehzad in TIP as he had already been shown to him by the police in lock up.
34.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, he stated that inquiries were made from him SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 32/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:28 +0530 by the police at BSA Hospital and he reached there between 11:00AM-02:00 PM. He denied that he stated to the IO that he had no knowledge about the incident and he had visited the BSA Hospital as the incident was told to him by his maternal uncle (mama) and for this reason, police did not record his statement at hospital.
35.1 PW6 Anil Kumar, who happens to be brother of deceased, deposed that deceased got married with accused Manjeet Sehrawat in May 2002 and at the time of demise of his sister, she had two children i.e., one daughter, who was in 11 th standard and one son, who was in 5th standard. He further deposed that in July 2016, his sister Sunita told him that accused Manjeet had an extramarital affair with accused Angel and also sent photographs of accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta through e-mail. He further deposed that she also sent messages which were sent by them to each other through WhatsApp. He further deposed that when he came to know about the affair of accused Manjeet with accused Angel Gupta, he alongwith his wife, his elder brother Rajesh and his wife visited the house of accused and had a conversation with Sh. Rameshwar, father of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, who initially, refused to acknowledge existence of affair but later he admitted the same and assured them to look after the same.
35.2 He further deposed that his sister used to tell him that accused Manjeet was in regular touch with accused Angel Gupta and due to this reason there used to be frequent quarrel between them. He further deposed that when his sister conveyed this again, he visited house of accused Manjeet in the year 2017 alongwith his cousin brothers namely Anil and Krishan Kumar. He further deposed that they took Rameshwar Dayal with them SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 33/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana DHIRENDRA Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:34 +0530 and went to house of accused Angel Gupta. He further deposed that they met father of accused Angel Gupta and told him about the whole situation, who assured them to look into the matter and nothing of that kind would happen again in future. He further deposed that they also met accused Manjeet, who was at Pitampura at that time and he too assured that he would discontinue his relation with accused Angel Gupta. 35.3 He further deposed that after few days, his sister again told him that accused used to talk with accused Angel Gupta and also used to exchange messages with her. She also told him that she had a conversation with accused Angel Gupta, who alleged that both children were not of accused Manjeet and she also threatened her to kill. He further deposed that accused Angel Gupta used to use unparliamentary language for his sister and also sent phone number of accused Rajeev Gupta. 35.4 He further deposed that on 24-25-26.05.2018, he called Rajeev Gupta, initially, he had a conversation with Rajeev Gupta but later the phone was taken by accused Angel Gupta. He further deposed that he recorded the whole conversation wherein accused Angel Gupta could be heard saying agar mujhe Manjeet nahi mila to yaa to me mar jaungi yaa usko maar dungi, uske toh do bacche hai vo unke sahare reh sakti hai, me kiske sahare rahu. He further deposed that he submitted the audio cassette of recording and transcript of conversation between him and accused Angel Gupta.
35.5 He further deposed that he again visited the house of accused Manjeet in the month of June 2018 and had a talk with accused Manjeet and his father and tried to make them understand not to continue with Angel Gupta and they again assured him. He further deposed that his sister was sure that accused Manjeet was in relation with accused Angel Gupta as he SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 34/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:20:38 +0530 did not come to house on the occasion of Karwa chauth in the year 2016 and 2017.
35.6 He further deposed that on 29.10.2018, he received a telephonic call from Delhi Police official, who told him that somebody fired upon Sunita and she had been killed. He further deposed that he came to Delhi from Chandigarh and reached BSA Hospital where he met his brother Rajesh Kumar and saw his deceased sister. He further deposed that he was sure about the involvement of accused Manjeet, Angel Gupta and her father Rajeev Gupta as his sister used to write a diary in which she had written that if some mis-happening took place with her that would be due to accused Manjeet, Angel Gupta and her father Rajeev Gupta.
35.7 He further deposed that in December 2018, he handed over his mobile phone to police which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW6/A and transcript (running into 18 pages) to the police which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW6/B. 35.8 He exhibited his mobile phone as Ex. P1, Pen Drive as Ex. P2 and Pen drive received from FSL as Ex. P2(A). He identified his voice, voice of accused Angel Gupta and voice of accused Rajeev Gupta in pen drive Ex. P2.
35.9 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Deepak, Shehzad Saifi, Dharmender and Vishal @ Johny, he could not admit or deny the fact whether or not accused Manjeet was an associate of accused Angel Gupta. He stated that he came to know about the fact when he visited house of accused Rajeev Gupta that neither he was biological father of accused Angel nor he had adopted her. He stated that his sister told him that accused Angel Gupta was a model. He stated that he knew that accused Angel Gupta was unmarried at the time of incident.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 35/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:21:45 +0530
He stated that he did not remember whether accused Angel Gupta had told him that deceased Sunita misbehaved with her and if she did not mend her way, she would commit suicide. He denied that when he met Rajeev Gupta, he stated that he was planning to fix marriage of Angel Gupta with an NRI. He stated that neither he nor any other family member lodged any police complaint against Angel Gupta prior to death of his sister though they had visited the police station but no formal complaint was filed to save the matrimonial life of his sister. He denied the suggestion that deceased was short tempered and was in habit of getting angry on small things. He stated that he did not know whether his sister had a road accident with Vishal and Shehzad and had an altercation with them and resultantly, she was shot dead by them. He denied that voice recording handed over to the police by him was manipulated by him in connivance with police officials to falsely implicate accused Angel Gupta in this case. 35.10 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, he stated that he does not remember exactly whether he stated to the police that his sister had sent photographs of accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta through e- mail. He denied that his sister does not send the photographs to him through e-mail and that is why he did not hand over print out of those e-mails to police. He stated that he did not remember whether he had stated to the police that he had a conversation with accused Manjeet and he assured him that he would discontinue his relationship with accused Angel Gupta. He denied that he had a plot located in Sonipat in joint ownership with accused Manjeet. He stated that the said plot was in the name of deceased Sunita. He stated that when they purchased that plot, 25% of the consideration amount was arranged by him whereas 75% was paid by his sister and the documents were SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 36/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:21:51 +0530 executed in the name of his sister. He admitted that when he reached BSA Hospital, police officials alongwith his elder brother Rajesh Kumar were present at hospital. He could not tell whether or not deceased had celebrated the festival of karwa chauth with accused Manjeet on 26.10.2018. He denied that accused Manjeet was also present at hospital as he did not see him over there. He stated that no police complaint was lodged by him, his sister or his family members prior to death of his sister regarding alleged affair of accused Manjeet and accused Angel Gupta. He denied that no such complaint was made as there was no extramarital affair between accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta. He denied that alleged transcript was prepared by police and he signed the same without going through the contents. He denied that accused Manjeet has been falsely implicated in this case as he wanted to grab all the properties in the name of his sister. 35.11 He was again recalled for further examination under section 311 CrPC. During examination he stated that on 24.02.2020, he was called by IO in police station where IO played pen drive which was received from FSL. He further deposed that he identified voice of accused Rajeev Gupta when he was in conversation with accused Deepak. He further deposed that on 24.07.2020, his sample voice was also got recorded at FSL Rohini. He exhibited pen drive as Ex. P25 and audio cassette as Ex. P26 in which voice sample was recorded at FSL. 35.12 This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons.
36.1 PW8 Raju deposed that on 28.10.2018 at around 09:00 PM when he was present at Okhla Mandi, accused Deepak called him on his mobile phone and asked him to arrange a room as his 2-3 friends were coming. He further deposed that he got a SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 37/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:21:57 +0530 passenger at around 11:00 PM for Kale Khan as he used to drive/ply auto in night time and he also knew that rooms were available at Kale Khan. He further deposed that when he dropped passenger at Kale Khan, accused Deepak alongwith three other boys met him there. He had shown them a room and accused Deepak made payment of Rs. 500/- for the room and thereafter, he left from there. He further deposed that the guest house was either by the name of M.L. Guest House or R.M.L Guest House. 36.2 He further deposed that after 2-3 days of 28.10.2018, he received a phone call from police official in morning hours at about 09:00 AM and they called him at police station Nizamuddin. He further deposed that he went to police station where police officials asked him about the room which he got arranged for accused Deepak and his friends. Accordingly, he took police to the guest house and shown the place where accused Deepak alongwith 2-3 friends stayed on 28.10.2018. He further deposed that when he visited PS Nizamuddin, accused Deepak was present in police station. He also identified one more accused, whom he had seen with accused Deepak in the night of 28.10.2018. He identified accused Deepak and Shahzad Saifi during his deposition.
36.3 He was cross examined on behalf of State wherein he admitted that he visited Tihar Jail on 16.11.2018 and identified accused Shahzad Saifi during judicial TIP and also told to police that he was introduced to him by accused Deepak as Kaalu. He denied that he identified accused Dharmender and Vishal @ Johny in police lock up at PS Bawana and he stated to the police that accused Deepak was addressing accused Dharmender as his maternal uncle (mama) and he also identified accused Vishal @ Johny and stated that two accused also accompanied accused Deepak on 28.10.2018 and they met him alongwith accused SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 38/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:01 +0530 Deepak beneath Nizamuddin Flyover. Therefore, this witness has turned hostile qua the identity of accused Dharmender and Vishal but has supported the case of the prosecution against accused Deepak and Shehzad.
36.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Deepak, Shehzad Saifi, Dharmender and Vishal, he denied that when he received phone call of accused Deepak, he asked him to wait for some time and told him that he would also join him or enjoy with him for 2-3 hours. He further denied that on 28.10.2018, accused Deepak and Shehzad Saifi could not get any room and they could not get the room as accused Shehzad Saifi was not having any identification proof. Accused Deepak told him that they were going back to their house and asked him to return back.
36.5 This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat.
36.6 PW8 Raju was again recalled for further examination under section 311 CrPC, he identified his telephonic conversation with accused Deepak, who was saying 1.) phone chori ho gaya, 2.) Jio ka number hai, 3.) baat kar raha tha 4.) mere teen dost aarahe hai ek kamra chahiye and his voice as 1.) main bol raha hoon, 2.) Deepak ye kaun sa number hai, 3.) pehla number band ho gya kya 4.) phone kaise busy kar deta hai 5.) maal chahiye kya in pen drive Ex. P25. He exhibited audio cassette as Ex. P27 in which his sample voice was recorded at FSL.
36.7 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Dharmender and Deepak, he denied the suggestion that he has wrongly identified the voice of accused Deepak at the instance of IO.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 39/129FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:22:05 +0530
37.1 PW9 Sarvjeet Kumar Das deposed that on
28.10.2018 at around 12:00-12:30 AM, one auto driver namely Raju came to the guest house accompanied with 2-3 passengers. He further deposed that all stayed there in room No. 5 till 12:30- 04:30 AM but he did not make entry in register of the guest house as they stayed there for 4-5 hours and he charged Rs. 500/- for the same. He correctly identified accused Dharmender and Shehzad, who stayed in the guest house, however, he could not tell their purpose to stay in the guest house. 37.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel, Deepak, Shehzad, Dharmender and Vishal, he stated that there were 9 rooms in the guest house and room No. 5 was at ground floor. He stated that if guest used to stay for 2-3 hours, he used to not to mention their names in the register. He admitted that he had been directed by the owner Vishal not to allow the guest to occupy the room without making the relevant entry in the register. He denied the suggestion that accused Dharmender and Shehzad did not stay in the said guest house in room No. 5. 37.3 This witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION 38.1 PW10 ASI Subhash deposed that on 01.11.2018, he joined the investigation with IO. He further deposed that during interrogation, accused Rajeev Gupta and accused Manjeet on the basis of call details and CCTV footage when were shown CCTV footage and audio was played to them, they got perplexed and they admitted their guilt. He further deposed that accused Rajeev Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW10/A, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW10/C and his disclosure statement was recorded which SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 40/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:10 +0530 is Ex. PW10/E. He further deposed that accused Manjeet Sehrawat was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW10/B, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW10/D and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW10/F. 38.2 He further deposed that accused Deepak was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW10/G from Village Nanu, Fatehpur, U.P. at the instance of co-accused Rajeev Gupta (since PO), his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW10/H and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW10/J. He further deposed that accused Deepak disclosed that on the day of incident i.e., 29.10.2018, he was present at T-Point, Red Light Dariyapur alongwith his maternal uncle (mama) Dharmender. He further deposed that accused Deepak got recovered one Esteem car which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/Z and one mobile phone which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/A1.
38.3 He further deposed that when accused Dharmender came to know about the progress of investigation, he surrendered himself in a case already pending against him in U. P. and at that time, he was lodged in Meerut Jail. He further deposed that accused Dharmender was brought to Delhi on production. He was arrested in present case and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed about the involvement of accused Shehzad @ Kalu and Vishal @ Johny. He further deposed that one pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Dharmender which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/W after preparing its sketch which is Ex. PW10/V. He further deposed that he also got recovered Rs. 60,000/- cash which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/X and one mobile phone SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 41/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:16 +0530 black in colour.
38.4 He further deposed that accused Shahzad @ Kalu was formally arrested in this case vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW10/K, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW10/L and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW10/M. He further deposed that accused Shahzad also got recovered desi katta from his house which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/O after preparing its sketch which is Ex. PW10/N. He further deposed that accused Shahzad also got recovered one mobile phone which is Ex. PW10/P. 38.5 He further deposed that accused Vishal @ Johny was arrested on 20.11.2018 from Rohini Courts as he was brought on production from Meerut Jail. He further deposed that accused Vishal got recovered a desi katta which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/R after preparing its sketch which is Ex. PW10/Q. He also got recovered one mobile phone make Samsung which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/S, fake number plate of motorcycle used at the time of incident which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/T. He further deposed that he also got recovered motorcycle bearing registration No. UP 15 AQ 6712 used in the incident which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/U. 38.6 He exhibited number plate i.e., D-9 SU 6480 recovered by accused Vishal @ Johny from roof of his house as Ex. P1 and number plate affixed on Esteem car i.e., DL-2CAG-2383 as Ex. P2. He also exhibited pistol and empty cartridge recovered from accused Dharmender as Ex. P3 (colly) and desi katta recovered from accused Vishal as Ex. P4. He also exhibited desi katta with one empty cartridge and one led SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 42/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana DHIRENDRA Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:20 +0530 recovered from accused Shehzad as Ex. P5 (colly) and one empty cartridge as Ex. P6. He also exhibited black colour phone of make XOLO with two Airtel SIM cards recovered from possession of accused Shahzad as Ex. P7 and one black and golden colour keypad mobile phone of Samsung recovered from possession of accused Vishal @ Johny as Ex. P8. He exhibited two mobile phones make Apple one of black and pink colour and other of black and white colour and one small polypack having SIM of Airtel recovered from possession of accused Manjeet Sehrawat as Ex. P9 (Colly). He also exhibited one black colour keypad mobile phone of make G'FIVE recovered from the possession of accused Dharmender as Ex. P10 and three mobile phones i.e., one of golden colour of Apple having SIM of JIO, black colour keypad mobile phone make Jio with SIM of Jio and another mobile phone make Apple of black colour with SIM of Airtel recovered from possession of accused Rajeev as Ex. P11 (colly). He exhibited two mobile phones make Apple with SIM of 4G recovered from accused Angel Gupta as Ex. P13 (colly) and one silver colour mobile phone make MI with SIM of Jio recovered from possession of accused Deepak as Ex. P14. He also exhibited money recovered from house of accused Dharmender as Ex. P15 (colly), T-shirt of accused Rajiv Gupta as Ex. P16 and photographs of motorcycle bearing No. UP 15AQ-6192 (motorcycle recovered at the instance of accused Vishal) as Ex. P17 (colly). He exhibited photographs of Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 (esteem car recovered at the instance of accused Deepak) as Ex. P18 (colly). 38.7 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Deepak, Shehzad Saifi, Dharmender and Vishal, he stated that he had seen CCTV footage where cars i.e., Duster and Esteem were seen coming and going at Auchandi Road Bawana, SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 43/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:27 +0530 near Rajeev Gandhi Stadium. He could not tell the exact time of arrest of accused Deepak but it was evening time. He stated that accused Shehzad got recovered desi katta from the first floor in his house from the slab (taand). He stated that when they reached there, the house was closed and it was got opened by accused Shehzad as he had led them to his house. He stated that accused Vishal @ Johny got recovered desi katta from behind the photograph of Deity (bhagwan ki photo ke peeche se). He stated that the house was also got opened by accused Vishal @ Johny. He stated that accused Dharmender got recovered pistol, Rs. 60,000/- and mobile phone from almirah in his house wherein clothes of his wife were kept. He stated that they met the concerned SHO at police station Budhana, Mujjafar Nagar, U. P. and local police accompanied them for the purpose of recovery. He could not tell whether IO had produced the accused before the concerned judicial officer at Mujjafar Nagar. 38.8 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, he stated that he did not accompany the IO to the hospital as he had gone to see CCTV footage. He admitted that he did not meet family members of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he met the family members and accused Manjeet in the police station in the evening of 29.10.2018. He denied that IO told him that he had made enquiries from accused Manjeet and he had no role in the present case.
39.1 PW14 ASI Vinod, deposed on the lines of PW10 ASI Subhash in his examination in chief.
39.2 In addition he deposed that on 27.11.2018, he again joined the investigation with Inspector Rakesh Kumar, ASI Subhash and on that day, accused Vishal and Dharmender led them to place of incident and on their pointing out, site plan was SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 44/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:31 +0530 prepared which is Ex. PW14/A. He further deposed that IO had also prepared site plan of place of recovery of motorcycle, mobile phone made at the instance of accused Vishal which is Ex. PW14/B. He further deposed that IO also prepared site plan of place of recovery of mobile phone, cash of Rs. 60,000/- and pistol made at the instance of accused Dharmender which is Ex. PW14/C. 39.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Deepak, Shehzad Saifi, Dharmender and Vishal stated that initially, they went to police station Kankar Khera and from there, they went to house of accused Shehzad. He stated that two officials from PS Kankar Khera also accompanied them to the house of accused on their motorcycle. He stated that initially, IO entered the house of accused Shehzad, thereafter, accused was taken inside by Constable and then they all entered one by one in the house. He stated that at the instance of accused Shehzad, he lifted the desi katta from the slab/tand and handed over the same to IO. He stated that no public witness was present during the recovery made at the instance of accused Shehzad. He stated that they did not conduct house search of accused Shehzad and only katta was recovered on 18.11.2018. He stated that on 21.11.2018, one mobile phone was recovered at the instance of accused Shehzad from his house.
39.4 He stated that police team reached at the house of accused Vishal at around 02:00-03:00 PM and no public witness was present during the recovery made at the instance of accused Vishal. He stated that no public witness was present during the recovery made at the instance of accused Dharmender. He stated that ASI Subhash picked up the cash and after counting the same, he handed over the cash to IO. He admitted that neither the accused persons nor case property i.e., pistols, cash and mobile SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 45/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:36 +0530 phones were produced before the local Magistrate. He admitted that signature of local police officials were not taken by the IO on any of the memo.
40.1 PW19 ASI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 29.10.2018, a call was received regarding fire upon a female which was recorded vide DD no. 6A and marked to him for investigation. He further deposed that he went to the spot ie. Road going towards Bawana to Dariyapur in front of Dayal Vermi Compost alongwith Ct. Yashpal where he found one Activa scooty bearing registration no. DI-11SP-7044 lying at the spot. He further deposed that two bags and one helmet were lying near the scooty, an empty fired cartridge, a pair of ladies shoes (jutti) and blood were also found lying at the spot. He further deposed that on enquiry at the spot, he came to know that the injured / deceased had already been shifted to M.V. Hospital. He further deposed that after leaving Ct. Yashpal at the spot, he reached M. V. Hospital, obtained MLC of the deceased Sunita, who was declared brought dead by the doctors. He further deposed that during this period, senior officers i.e., the then SHO Inspector Dharamdev and Inspector Rakesh Kumar alongwith other senior officers also came to the hospital. Inspector Rakesh Kumar inspected the body and called crime team at M. V. Hospital.
40.2 He further deposed that worn clothes of the deceased, blood sample of deceased in gauze and sample seal were handed over to Inspector Rakesh Kumar which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/A. He further deposed that dead body was sent to Mortuary, BSA Hospital through Ct. Aniket and he came back to the spot alongwith IO and crime team. He further deposed that spot was got inspected and SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 46/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:41 +0530 photographed by the crime team and exhibits were lifted and seized i.e. one empty fired cartridge vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/B, bag and lady shoes vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/C, scooty bearing registration no. DL-11SP-7044 vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/D, blood in gauze lifted from the spot vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/E, blood stained concrete vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/F, earth control vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/G. 40.3 He further deposed that IO prepared a rukka on the basis of DD entry No. 6A and handed over the same to Ct. Yashpal, who went to police station for registration of FIR. He further deposed that in the meantime, IO prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW-19/H. He further deposed that Ct. Yashpal came back to the spot alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO, who had written the FIR on all the memos prepared by him and sent the scooty to PS Bawana through Ct. Yashpal. He further deposed that IO also prepared sketch of the empty cartridge lifted from the spot which is Ex. PW-19/I. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Inspector Rakesh went to BSA Hospital, where IO completed inquest papers and got done the postmortem examination. He further deposed that at that time, eye witness Deepak Dahiya and brother of the deceased Anil also reached the hospital. After conducting postmortem examination, exhibits were handed over to the IO by the doctor which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/J and dead body was handed over to Rajesh i.e., brother of deceased.
40.4 He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith IO and Deepak Dahiya again came back to the spot and at the instance of Deepak Dahiya, site plan was prepared which is Ex.
PW19/K. SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 47/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:46 +0530 40.5 He further deposed that on 05.11.2018, he again
joined investigation of the present case and CCTV footage were collected by the FSL Team from near the spot and same were handed over to him in pen drive which was seized by IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-19/L. 40.6 He exhibited helmet as Ex. P19, one pair of light green colour shoes (jutti) as Ex. P20, red colour purse as Ex. P21, black colour lunch bag as Ex. P22 and photographs of scooty as Ex. P23.
40.7 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Shehzad Saifi and Vishal, he could not tell whether the scooty was lying horizontally or vertically on the road. He denied the suggestion that deceased met with an accident and that is why her scooty was lying diagonally on the road ( road per tedi padi hui thi).
40.8 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat he admitted that he met accused Manjeet and brother of deceased namely Rajesh at MV Hospital and IO had inquired the matter from both of them.
41.1 PW20 SI Dhirender Singh deposed that on 31.10.2018, investigation of the present case was marked to him and he moved an application which is Ex. PW20/A before the Hon'ble Court for recording of statement of daughter of the deceased u/s 164 CrPC namely 'D'. He further deposed that statement of 'D' was recorded by Ld. MM and he moved an application for supplying copy of statement which is Ex. PW-20/B. He further deposed that custody of minor girl 'D' was handed over to relatives i.e., her maternal uncle and maternal grandparents.
41.2 He further deposed that on 01.11.2018, he again
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 48/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:22:51 +0530
joined investigation of the present case alongwith ASI Subhash. IO Inspector Rakesh Kumar had already served notice to accused Rajeev Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat, who came to police station. He further deposed that IO made enquiries from accused Rajeev Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat and during interrogation, they admitted their guilt. They were arrested by the IO. 41.3 He further deposed that on next day i.e., 02.11.2018, he alongwith IO Inspector Rakesh Kumar went to Village Nanu Fatehpur, Meerut alongwith accused Rajeev Gupta where at instance of accused Rajeev Gupta, accused Deepak was arrested, his personal search was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. He further deposed that accused Deepak produced one mobile phone as the mobile which was used for contacting co-accused Manjeet and Rajeev.
41.4 He further deposed that on 04.11.2018, on the instructions of IO, he alongwith HC Jitender and accused Deepak went to Village Nanu Fatehpur, Meerut and at the instance of accused Deepak, Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 was seized which was used in the incident by accused Deepak. 41.5 He further deposed that on 05.11.2018, he moved an application before Manager, Axis Bank, Bawana to provide copy of bank statement of accused Rajeev which is Ex. PW20/C. 41.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Dharmender and Deepak he admitted that some public persons had gathered near the house of accused Deepak at the time of conducting proceedings but none of them agreed to join the same and no written notice was served upon them by the IO. He stated that no local police official accompanied them to the village of accused Deepak despite information given by the IO. 41.7 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, he stated that he met 'D' outside the police SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 49/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:55 +0530 station accompanied by her maternal uncle Rajesh Kumar. He stated that he alongwith 'D', her maternal uncle Rajesh and ASI Phoolwati came to court and he alongwith 'D' and ASI Phoolwati were in separate vehicle and uncle of 'D' was in his separate vehicle. He stated that maternal uncle of 'D' met them outside the court complex. He stated that he had no conversation with witness 'D' and he did not inquire from her about any force, coercion or pressure during transit. He denied the suggestion that witness 'D' was tutored by her maternal uncle or that accused Manjeet was illegally detained in PS on 28.10.2018 and subsequently shown to be arrested on 01.11.2018.
42.1 PW21 HC Manjeet deposed that on 03.11.2018, he joined the investigation alongwith IO Inspector Rakesh Kumar, who interrogated accused Manjeet. He further deposed that accused Manjeet led them to his house i.e., No. 353 B, Dada Bhaiya Wali Gali, Bawana, Delhi and from his house, he handed over two mobile phones to IO which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW21/A. He further deposed that three days PC remand of accused Deepak was obtained and during PC remand, accused Deepak provided mobile phone number of Raju. He further deposed that IO called Raju to police station by making call on the said number. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith IO and accused Rajeev Gupta, reached at his residential house i.e., H. No. 300, Sector-5, R. K. Puram, Delhi from where accused Rajeev Gupta had produced one T- shirt, three mobile phones and one car make Duster bearing No. DL-8CZ-4306 which was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW21/B, three mobile phones were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW21/C and T-shirt was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW21/D. He further deposed that accused Rajeev SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 50/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:22:59 +0530 Gupta disclosed that said mobile phones were being used by him and his daughter Angel Gupta.
42.2 He further deposed that thereafter, they all came back to police station and Raju had also reached at police station, who was interrogated by IO. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith IO, accused Deepak and Raju reached at M. L. Guest House near Gate No. 2, Nijamuddin Railway Station where accused Deepak had pointed out towards Room No. 5 of that Guest House. He further deposed that IO had recorded statement of staff of M. L. Guest House and thereafter, they all came back to police station. He exhibited Duster car through its photographs as Ex. PW21/P1.
42.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Deepak, Dharmender and Manjeet, he denied all the suggestions that he never joined the investigation in this case. 42.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Shehzad and Vishal, he stated that they reached at the house of accused Rajeev Gupta at 05:00-06:00 PM but he could not tell the number of floors in the said house. Accused got recovered the case property from the ground floor of the said house. He could not admit or deny the fact that house of accused was situated at first floor. He stated that it was a flat but he could not specify whether it was a government accommodation or a private flat. He stated that accused Rajeev Gupta handed over the mobile phones to the IO in his presence just outside his house. The recovered Duster car was of brown colour (bhura). He could not tell as to by whom the said car was being driven to the police station.
43.1 PW28 SI Puneet Kumar deposed that on 01.11.2018, investigation of present case was marked to him and he SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 51/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:06 +0530 alongwith W/ASI Phoolwati and HC Charan Singh went to the house of accused Angel Gupta i.e., H. No. 300, Sector-5, R. K. Puram. He further deposed that he made enquiries from accused Angel Gupta and arrested her vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW28/A and conducted her personal search by W/ASI Phoolwati vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW28/B. 43.2 He further deposed that accused Angel Gupta produced two mobile phones i.e., one I phone of black colour and one of golden colour belonging to accused Angel Gupta and accused Rajiv Gupta. He further deposed that he produced the mobile phones before Inspector Rakesh Kumar which were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW28/C. 43.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny, he could not tell whether house of accused Angel Gupta was a government accommodation or a private accommodation. They reached at the house of accused around 02:00 PM. He stated that it was situated on ground floor. He could not admit or deny that the accused Angel was living on first floor. He denied that accused Angel Gupta was called in police station on 29.10.2018 and at that time he was present in police station. He could not admit or deny that accused Angel Gupta was detained in police station illegally on 30.10.2018 and 31.10.2018. He denied that when Angel Gupta visited police station on 30.10.2018, she was carrying Rs. 5 lakhs in cash and one diamond ring which were taken by him and W/ASI Phoolwati in presence of IO.
44.1 PW29 W/ASI Phoolwati deposed on the lines of PW28 SI Puneet Kumar in her examination in chief, being the member of team, which arrested accused Angel Gupta. She exhibited disclosure statement of accused Angel Gupta as Ex.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 52/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:23:11 +0530
PW29/A.
44.2 During cross examination done on behalf of
accused Angel Gupta, Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny, she could not tell whether house of accused Angel Gupta was a government accommodation or a private flat. She stated that the flat was located at ground floor. She denied that accused Angel Gupta was called at police station on 29.10.2018 and she was present in the police station. She further denied that accused Angel Gupta was called at police station on 30.10.2018 and she was carrying a diamond ring and Rs. 5 lacs which were taken by the police officials and she was illegally detained in the police station.
45.1 PW42 Inspector Rakesh Kumar being the IO of this case deposed about the investigation done by him and on the lines of PW10, PW19, PW20, PW21, PW28.
45.2 He exhibited rukka as Ex. PW42/A (inadvertently rukka exhibited as Ex. PW42/B also), application for conducting postmortem as Ex. PW42/C and dead body identification memo as Ex. PW42/D. He also exhibited seizure memo of diary produced by PW2 as Ex. PW42/E, pointing out memo of place of incident prepared at the instance of accused Rajeev Gupta as Ex. PW42/F and site plan as Ex. PW42/G. He also exhibited pointing out memo of place of incident prepared at the instance of accused Deepak as Ex. PW42/H, supplementary disclosure statement of accused Shehzad as Ex. PW42/I, site plan of the place of recovery of desi katta at the instance accused Shehzad as Ex. PW42/IA and supplementary disclosure statement of accused Shehzad as Ex. PW42/J. He also exhibited arrest memo of accused Dharmender as Ex. PW42/K, personal search memo of accused Dharmender as Ex. PW42/L, disclosure statement of accused Dharmender as Ex. PW42/M and supplementary SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 53/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:16 +0530 disclosure statement of accused Dharmender as Ex. PW42/N. He also exhibited arrest memo of accused Vishal @ Johny as Ex. PW42/O, personal search memo of accused Vishal @ Johny as Ex. PW42/P, disclosure statement of accused Vishal @ Johny as Ex. PW42/Q and supplementary disclosure statement of accused Vishal as Ex.PW42/R. He also exhibited transcript prepared at the instance of PW Anil and PW Raju as Ex. PW42/S (colly). 45.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Angel Gupta, Vishal @ Johny and Shehzad, he stated that scooty of the deceased was not damaged and he did not get conduct the mechanical inspection of the scooty. He denied the suggestion that scooty got damaged from front portion. He stated that eye witness Deepak Dahiya met him at BSA Hospital around 03:00- 03:30 PM and after postmortem, he took Deepak Dahiya to the spot for the purpose of preparation of site plan at his instance. He stated that he came to know about the existence of diary of deceased on 31.10.2018. He stated that he did not serve any notice upon daughter of deceased and he called her telephonically. He stated that he seized mobile phone of PW Anil and it contained recorded conversation between Anil, Rajeev Gupta and Angel Gupta. He could not tell whether there was any conversation pertaining to year 2017 but he affirmed that conversations took place prior to the incident and most probably of May 2017. He stated that he instructed SI Puneet to arrest accused Angel Gupta on 01.11.2018 at about 01:00-01:30 PM. He admitted that he seized the mobile phones after lapse of about two hours, which were recovered by SI Puneet at the instance of accused Angel Gupta. He denied that accused Angel Gupta was in illegal detention since 30.10.2018 and he called accused Angel Gupta to police station on 29.10.2018 and she was allowed to go back from police station on 29.10.2018. He denied that he again SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 54/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:21 +0530 called accused Angel Gupta on 30.10.2018 and she was in possession of Rs. 5 lakhs and one diamond ring when she was taken into illegal detention by him. He further denied that accused Angel Gupta was kept in illegal confinement till 01.11.2018.
45.4 He denied that accused Shehzad gave disclosure statement and stated that he had a road accident on 29.10.2018 with the scooty of deceased at the spot and he had a quarrel with deceased and accused Vishal @ Johny shot dead the deceased during the quarrel. He admitted that recovered country made pistol at the instance of accused Shehzad from his house on 18.11.2018 after 02:00 PM. He stated that there were four rooms in the house of accused and he did not conduct the search of entire house on 18.11.2018. He stated that accused Shehzad gave a supplementary statement that mobile phone used by him during the commission of offence was kept by him at his residence and thereafter, ASI Subhash was sent to recover the same on 21.11.2018.
45.5 He denied that accused Vishal @ Johny stated to him that he was accompanying accused Shehzad on the date of incident and they met with a road accident with the scooty of deceased and they had a quarrel with deceased and he fired upon the deceased during the incident. He stated that he did not conduct any particular investigation whether accused Dharmender had given Rs. 30,000/- each to accused Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny for committing the murder. He stated that no amount of cash was recovered from accused Shehzad or Vishal as they had already spent the same. He admitted that he did not inform the local concerned Magistrate of the place from where recovery of case property was effected during investigation. He stated that he did not collect the admitted signature of deceased SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 55/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:27 +0530 from any bank or post office. He stated that Cell ID of accused Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny suggest that they had visited the house of accused Rajeev Gupta and Angel Gupta at R. K. Puram. He stated that he did not check whether accused Angel Gupta was married or not but she was in an illicit relationship with co- accused Manjeet. He denied the suggestion that there is no evidence qua that relationship pertaining to year 2018. He admitted that co-accused Rajeev Gupta is not a biological father of accused Angel Gupta. He stated that he did not come across any complaint filed by family of the deceased against Angel Gupta prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that he got deleted CCTV footage of the police station dated 29.10.2018, 30.10.2018, 31.10.2018 and 01.11.2018. He denied the suggestion that he converted an accident case into a murder case and cooked up a false story of criminal conspiracy. 45.6 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Deepak and Dharmender, he admitted that he came to know during investigation that accused Deepak used to work as a driver of accused Rajeev Gupta. He denied that amount of Rs. 45,000/- was transferred by accused Rajeev Gupta in the account of accused Deepak towards arrear of his salary. He stated that he took accused Rajeev Gupta to Village Nanu during PC remand on 02.11.2018 and many villagers were gathered during the police proceedings. He could not tell the name of any local police official, who accompanied them at the time of recovery at the instance of accused Deepak. He admitted that he did not cite any local police official as a witness in the charge sheet. He stated that he did not call the village Pradhan for the proceedings. He denied that accused Deepak has been falsely implicated in this case as he was driver of accused Rajeev Gupta. He denied that he came to know during investigation that accused Deepak had gone SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 56/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:32 +0530 to see a property location alongwith co-accused Rajeev Gupta being his driver and he had not hatched any conspiracy to murder the deceased in this case.
45.7 He denied that accused Dharmender had also gone to see a property location alongwith co-accused Rajeev Gupta and Deepak. He further denied that amount of Rs. 60,000/- recovered from accused Dharmender was of his own money and it was not received by him from accused Rajeev Gupta. 45.8 During cross examination done on behalf of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, he stated that he reached at the spot at about 08:38 AM and after 15-20 minutes he reached at M. V. Hospital. He stated that when he reached hospital, he met ASI Rajesh. He stated that husband and other family members of deceased i.e., brother of Manjeet and father of Manjeet were also present there, however, brother of deceased reached the hospital later. He denied that PW5 Deepak met him in the hospital around 11:00 AM. He denied that PW Rajesh had stated to him that accused Manjeet had no role in the incident.
45.9 He stated that he made inquiries from accused Manjeet in M. V. Hospital. He denied that he did not call Dakshita, daughter of deceased and she had visited police station alongwith her maternal uncle and produced fabricated diary.
46. Vide statement under section 294 CrPC recorded on 08.06.2023, accused persons admitted genuineness of following documents:
1. Inquest form which is Ex. PA1.
2. Statement under section 164 CrPC of PW2 Dakshita which is Ex. PA2.
3. TIP proceedings of accused Shahzad Saifi and Dharmender which are Ex. PA3 (colly).SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 57/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:41 +0530
4. TIP of accused Vishal which is Ex. PA4.
5. MLC No. 5372/18 dated 29.10.2018 which is Ex. PA5.
6. PM Report 1217/18 dated 29.10.2018 which is Ex.
PA6.
7. Statement of account of account No. 918020047660104 of Angel Enterprises which is Ex. PA7.
8. Crime scene report No. 1160/18 dated 29.10.2018 which is Ex. PA8.
9. 30 Photographs of the crime scene which is Ex. PA9 (colly).
10. Scaled site plan which is Ex. PA10.
11. Kalandara DD No. 16 dated 06.11.2018 which is Ex.
PA11.
12. Record of motorcycle No. UP 15 AQ6712 which is Ex.
PA12.
13. Record of vehicle No. DL8CZ4306 which is Ex. PA13.
14. Record of vehicle No. DL2CAG2383 which is Ex.PA14.
15. Road certificate No. 301/21/18 dated 21.12.2018 which is is Ex. PA15.
16 Register No. 19 which is Ex. PA16.In view of statement of accused persons under section 294 CrPC, witnesses namely Sanjeet, Ms. Richa Manchanda (Ld. MM), Ms. Kadambari Awasthi (Ld. MM), Ms. Sadika Jalan (Ld. MM), Parveen Kumar, Satya Narayan, Dr. Vikas More, Dr. Vijay Dhankar, Kanchan Tomar, Dealing Clerk, ASI Satyadev, HC Sukhbir, Ct. Naveen, Ct. Aniket, Ct. Yashpal, Ahlmad of Ld. MM, ASI Mahesh Kumar, Ct. Sanjay, HC Charan Singh, dealing clerks, HC Jitender and ASI Surender were not examined.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 58/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:46 +0530 47.1 After closure of PE, statement of accused persons under section 313 CrPC were recorded.
47.2 Statement of accused Dharmender was recorded on 16.10.2024 wherein he denied all the evidences put to him. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He opted not to lead defence evidence.
47.3 Statement of accused Deepak was recorded on 16.10.2024 wherein he denied all the evidences put to him. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He was only the driver of co-accused Rajeev Gupta and due to that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He opted not to lead defence evidence.
47.4 Statement of accused Angel Gupta was recorded on 18.10.2024 wherein she denied all the incriminating evidences put to her and stated that she has been falsely implicated in this case by the IO with an ulterior motive to have media attention and out of turn promotion. She stated that she is an actress/model since 2013 and she has fan following over 10 lakhs. She never had any relationship with co-accused Manjeet Sehrawat at any time. Rajeev Gupta is not her biological father. He is her assumed father. She was earning lakhs of rupees per month from her acting and she had done films in Germany and had earned sufficient money to take care of herself. She had no motive to conspire with the co-accused persons to eliminate deceased, who was wife of co-accused Manjeet Sehrawat. She was 25 years old at the time of incident and she was unmarried whereas co- accused Manjeet Sehrawat was 35 years of old and had one 15 years old daughter and 10 years old son. She opted to lead defence evidence.
47.5 Statement of accused Vishal @ Johny was recorded on 18.10.2024 wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 59/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:52 +0530 put to him. He stated that their motorcycle, which was rode by co-accused Shehzad and he was pillion rider, had met with an accident with the scooty of deceased. He had stated to the IO that he alongwith co-accused Shehzad had met with an accident with deceased, who was driving scooty, on 29.10.2018 in the morning time and during the quarrel, he fired on the deceased. The IO has planted witnesses against him to convert this case of road rage of section 304 IPC to conspiracy 120-B read with section 302 IPC with ulterior motive. He opted to lead defence evidence.
47.6 Statement of accused Shehzad Saifi @ Kalu was recorded on 18.10.2024 was recorded wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that co-accused Vishal used to reside in his neighbourhood and he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police being known to Vishal. He opted not to lead defence evidence. 47.7 Statement of accused Manjeet Sehrawat was recorded on 18.10.2024 wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He is innocent. He had no relationship with co- accused Angel Gupta. He opted not to lead defence evidence. DEFENCE EVIDENCE 48.1 During defence evidence, accused Vishal examined, his father Raju as DW1, who deposed that on 29.10.2018, his son alongwith co-accused Shehzad left home around 04:00 AM and when he asked as to where he was going he stated that he was going to Delhi for some tile work. He further deposed that he came back home around 09:00-10:00 PM on the same day. He observed that accused Vishal was perturbed/disturbed for next 2- 3 days and when he asked from Vishal about his problem he stated that he got collided with a scooty which was being driven SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 60/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:23:57 +0530 by a lady. He further deposed that accused Vishal informed that when he alongwith co-accused Shehzad tried to help that lady, she gave two blows to his son with her sandal. On this his son got agitated and he fired upon that lady by the country made pistol carried by him. He further deposed that he could not believe this and he rechecked this fact from co-accused Shehzad and he also affirmed the incident of firing upon the lady and committing her murder. He further deposed that he got furious and asked accused Vishal to leave the house. After 20-25 days he received a phone call from his son Vishal, who stated that he was in Tihar Jail. 48.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he stated that he was not present at the spot where the incident had occurred. He denied that his son Vishal @ Johny and his friend Shehzad Saifi had told him that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Rajeev Kumar Sethi, Manjeet Sehrawat, Angel Gupta, Dharmender and Deepak to commit murder of Sunita w/o Manjeet Sehrawat and they received Rs. 2 lakhs from the co-accused persons for the same and accordingly, they committed murder of Sunita on 29.10.2018. 48.3 Thereafter, defence evidence on behalf of accused Vishal @ Johny was closed vide order dated 21.10.2024 as he did not want to lead any further evidence in his defence. 48.4 In her defence, accused Angel Gupta examined her mother Bimla Devi as DW2, who deposed that on 29.10.2018 in evening time her daughter received a phone call from police station and her daughter went to police station. She further deposed that her daughter came to home in night at around 12 midnight-01:00 AM. She further deposed that on 30.10.2018, her daughter again received a call in the afternoon from the police station then her daughter went to police station and at that time she was carrying Rs. 5 lakhs and a diamond ring and thereafter, SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 61/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:01 +0530 she was not allowed to return back. She exhibited original electricity bill as Ex. DW2/A to prove her residential address as H. No. 300, First Floor, Sector-5, R. K. Puram, Delhi, copy of magazine namely 'La Mode' of September 2017 wherein her daughter featured on front page as Ex. DW2/B, pen drive having clipping of movie Bhuri in which her daughter was an actress as Ex. D1 and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. DW2/C. 48.5 During cross examination done on behalf of State, she stated that Rajeev Gupta is her so called brother and maternal uncle of accused Angel Gupta. She stated that she did not give any complaint to any police station/higher authorities/before the court regarding the fact that her daughter Angel Gupta went to police station on 30.10.2018 and she had taken cash of Rs. 5 lakhs and a diamond ring with her. She denied that her daughter Angel Gupta did not go to police station on 30.10.2018 with cash of Rs. 5 lakhs and diamond ring and that is why she did not give any complaint before any authority. She further denied that accused Angel Gupta was arrested on 01.11.2018 at about 04:00 PM from her house No. 300, Sector-5, R. K. Puram, New Delhi and information regarding her arrest was given to her uncle Kamal, whose phone number was 9711927926. She denied that her daughter i.e., accused Angel Gupta had an affair/illicit relation with accused Manjeet Sehrawat.
48.6 Defence evidence on behalf of accused Angel Gupta was closed vide order dated 08.11.2024 as she did not want to examine any other witness in her defence.
49. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 62/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:24:06 +0530
50. I have heard Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for State, Sh. C. M. Sangwan (Ld. Counsel for complainant), Sh. Ramesh Gupta and Sh. Tarun Gahlot (Ld. Counsels for accused Manjeet Sehrawat), Sh. Joginder Tuli (Ld. Counsel for accused Angel Gupta, Shahzad Saifi and Vishal @ Johny) and Sh. Anil Sharma (Ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and Dharmender).
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE AND COMPLAINANT 51.1 It was argued by Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP and Sh.
C. M. Sangwan (Ld. Counsel for complainant) that the allegations levelled against accused persons are of serious nature. Accused Manjeet Sehrawat was the husband of deceased Sunita and he was in an extramarital relationship with co-accused Angel Gupta. When deceased objected to their relationship, both accused persons hatched the criminal conspiracy to eliminate her in connivance with co-accused Rajeev Gupta, who is assumed/ step father of accused Angel Gupta. Accused Rajeev Gupta took assistance of co-accused Deepak, who was working as a driver with him. Co-accused Deepak introduced co-accused Dharmender, who is maternal uncle of accused Deepak. Through, accused Dharmender, two shooters were arranged i.e., co-accused Vishal @ Johny and Shehzad Saifi. This conspiracy was hatched and it was agreed that Rs. 10 lacs shall be paid to accused Dharmender, Deepak, Shehzad and Vishal @ Johny by accused Rajeev Gupta. Pursuant to that accused Rajeev Gupta, made a payment of Rs. 45,000/- in the account of accused Deepak on 18.10.2018 alongwith cash Rs. 5,000/-. Initially, Rs. 2 lacs were paid by accused Rajeev Gupta and it was agreed upon that remaining Rs. 8 lacs shall be paid after the murder. Out of Rs. 2 lacs, Rs. 30,000/- each were given to accused Vishal and SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 63/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:12 +0530 Shehzad. Necessary information about the deceased and his route from home to her school was gathered on 23.10.2018 and 25.10.2018. The deceased was supposed to be killed one day prior to the date of karwa chauth i.e., 26.10.2018 but same could not be done due to unforeseen circumstances despite efforts made by the accused persons. Finally, she was shot dead around 07:45 AM on 29.10.2018 at a secluded place near Dayal Vermi Compost on Bawana Road by accused Vishal and Shehzad. 51.2 The prosecution has proved the motive against accused Angel Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat on the basis of oral testimony of PW2 Dakshita, PW4 Rajesh and PW6 Anil. The deceased used to write a diary wherein she had expressed her apprehension for life and had written that she would be killed at any time by her husband Manjeet Sehrawat, Angel Gupta and Rajeev Gupta. The contents of this diary and her handwriting are duly proved by the prosecution. The presence of accused Manjeet Sehrawat, Rajeev Gupta, Dharmender and Deepak around the spot and other relevant places on 23.10.2018, 25.10.2018, 26.10.2018, 28.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 have been proved on the basis of their CDRs. All accused persons were in contact with each other which is apparent proof of their active participation in the criminal conspiracy. There is CCTV footage reflecting commutation by the accused persons in Bawana area at relevant times and the footage has been duly proved by the experts. 51.3 Accused Vishal and Shehzad got recovered the weapons of offences used by them during the incident and as per FSL report, deceased was shot dead from these weapons only. Accused Shehzad and Vishal have admitted their presence at the spot and the fact that they had killed the deceased by firing gun shots. Presence of accused Shehzad and the occurrence of incident has also been proved by eye witness PW5 Deepak SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 64/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:16 +0530 Dahiya. The vehicles used in the offence have also been proved. Accused Dharmender and Deepak got recovered Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively from their residences as part of payment received by them from accused Rajeev Gupta. As per postmortem report, deceased had suffered three gunshots and those injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The investigation process has been duly proved by the police witnesses beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons to the hilt and they are liable to be convicted under sections 120-B/302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC. Accused Shehzad Saifi @ Kalu and Vishal Johny are additionally liable to be convicted under section 27 and 25 Arms Act whereas accused Dharmender is additionally liable to be convicted under section 25 Arms Act.
51.4 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 disbelieved and for this reliance is placed on the case of Girija Prasad Vs. State of M.P. (2007) 7 SCC 625. 51.5 Ld. Counsel for complainant has relied upon Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) decided on 03.08.1988, Ajay Agarwal Vs. Union of India and Ors. decided on 05.05.1993, E. K. Chandrasenan Vs. The State of Kerala decided on 17.01.1995, Gade Lakshmi Mangraju @ Ramesh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 10.07.2001, State of Maharashtra etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa etc. decided on 12.04.1996 and Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra decided on 17.07.1984 in support of his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED MANJEET SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 65/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:24 +0530 SEHRAWAT 52.1 Per contra, Sh. Ramesh Gupta and Sh. Tarun Gahlot,
ld. Counsels for accused Manjeet Sehrawat argued that prosecution has miserably failed to prove any evidence against accused Manjeet Sehrawat. It is stated that prosecution has failed to prove the date when the alleged criminal conspiracy came in existence. It is further pointed out that prosecution has heavily relied upon the diary of the deceased to prove the motive against the accused but this diary is not admissible under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act as it pertains to year 2017. The alleged apprehension expressed by the deceased in the said diary was much prior to her murder and the last writing is of 22.03.2017. Therefore, her apprehension has become insignificant as on the date of her expressing the apprehension, there was no criminal conspiracy in existence. She died on 29.10.2018 and in absence of any writing in the said diary, it cannot be presumed that accused Manjeet and Angel were continuing with their relationship. When the relationship has not been proved in the year 2018, then there is no chance that accused Manjeet had any motive to commit her murder. It is further argued that there is no overt act proved against accused Manjeet in pursuance of alleged criminal conspiracy. It is forcefully argued by Mr. Gupta that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon disclosure statements which are of no consequence in a criminal trial until and unless any recovery gets effected in pursuance of those disclosure statements.
52.2 It is argued that as per deposition of PW2 Dakshita, accused Manjeet was blackmailed by accused Angel Gupta and if that was the case then it is highly improbable that both these accused persons would share the motive to wipe out the life of deceased Sunita. It was further stated that as per charge sheet, SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 66/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:29 +0530 accused Manjeet broken his SIM after the incident but there is no evidence in this regard and moreover, charge under section 201 IPC has not been framed against him. It is prayed that accused Manjeet is entitled to be acquitted as prosecution has failed to prove its case against him beyond reasonable doubt. 52.3 Ld. Counsel for accused Manjeet Sehrawat has relied upon Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973 SCC (Cri) 1048), Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam (2013 12 SCC 406), Mohan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (SLP (Crl) 10460/2019), Baliya Vs. State of M. P. (2012 9 SCC 696), Saju Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2001 SC 175) and Main Pal Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 2010 SC 3292) in support of his arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED ANGEL, VISHAL AND SHEHZAD ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSED ANGEL GUPTA 53.1 It was argued by Sh. Joginder Tuli, Ld. Counsel for accused Angel Gupta that no role has been assigned to accused Angel Gupta by the prosecution and she did not do any overt act which reflects her involvement in this murder. Prosecution has failed to prove that she was continuing her relationship with accused Manjeet in the year 2018. The diary pertains to year 2016 whereas the incident took place in the year 2018 and in this scenario writings of deceased have become irrelevant in this case. Moreover, PW2 Dakshita did not name accused Angel Gupta in her statement recorded under section 161 CrPC and 164 CrPC. There was no police complaint filed by any family member of the deceased prior to her death despite the alleged threat extended by accused Angel Gupta to the deceased. It is stated that deposition of PW2 is a hearsay evidence and hence, SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 67/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:33 +0530 not admissible. Whatever she deposed before the court is based upon her knowledge given to her by the deceased and no incident or threat ever took place in her presence. Even if this version is believed then merely having a relationship with co-accused is not a concrete ground to assign motive to accused Angel Gupta to participate in the alleged criminal conspiracy. It is pointed out that PW2 Dakshita has deposed that the matter was sorted out by her grandfather and maternal uncle and if that was the case then accused Angel Gupta had no occasion or motive to plan murder of deceased.
53.2 It is further stated that prosecution has proved the conversation between accused Angel Gupta, accused Rajeev Gupta and PW6 Anil Kumar which took place on 24.05.2018 and 26.05.2018. In the said conversation, accused Angel Gupta can be heard saying that 'ya to mein mar jaungi', she has nowhere state that she would kill the deceased or get her killed through someone else. This conversation took place five months prior to the murder of the deceased and hence, having no relevance in this case. Accused Angel Gupta cannot be said to share motive with other accused persons merely on the basis of her CDR connectivity. She is a successful model and was earning handsomely at the time of incident and it is highly improbable that she would participate in any criminal conspiracy of murder. 53.3 It is further pointed out Mr. Tuli that the arrest proceedings of accused Angel are also tainted. She was called to the police station on 29.10.2018, 30.10.2018, 31.10.2018 and finally she was arrested on 01.11.2018. Her arrest has been shown from her residence at R. K. Puram but the police officials involved in her alleged arrest have failed to clarify whether her residence was on ground floor or first floor. DW2 Bimla Devi has clarified that the government accommodation is allotted in SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 68/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:38 +0530 her name and same is at first floor. In fact, she was carrying Rs. 5 lakhs and a diamond ring with her on 01.11.2018 which was illegally retained by PW28 SI Puneet. If she had been arrested from R. K. Puram then information qua her arrest should have been given to her mother and not to Mr. Kamal (brother of accused Rajeev Gupta). It is argued that the theory of motive behind the murder stands unproved against accused Angel Gupta and investigation is also tainted with regard to seizure of admitted handwriting, arrest and collection of evidence. 53.4 It is further pointed by Mr. Tuli that prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of admitted handwriting of the deceased in a proper manner. PW3 Somdutt Yadav has failed to identify the handwriting and signature of deceased. PW7 Sarla Devi has not corroborated the testimony of PW3 Somdutt qua the seizure of admitted handwriting by the IO. PW3 and PW7 never saw the deceased filling the Quiz Activity Register and their deposition is of no consequence in this case. In fact, IO should have collected the admitted handwriting of the deceased from any bank or any other government institution. In nutshell, prosecution has miserably failed to prove anything against accused Angel Gupta and she is entitled to be acquitted in this case.
53.5 Ld. Counsel has relied upon CBI Vs. V. C. Shukla &Ors. Crl. Appeal No. 274-256 of 1998 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1716-1725 of 1997, Mahila Roomabai Jatav Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 1989/2010, Deepak Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Crl. A. 811/2013, Crl. A. 1485/2013, Crl. A. 1501/2013, Crl. A. 1570/2013 and Crl. A. 88/2014, Kirti Pal and Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal Crl. A. No. 50, 1725/2014 and 1841/2012, Ramanand Vs. State of U. P. Crl. Appeal No. 64-65/2022, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 69/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:43 +0530 Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1983, Deepak Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Crl. A. 811/2013, Crl. A. 1485/2013, Crl. A. 1501/2013, Crl. A. 1570/2013 and Crl. A. 88/2014, John Pandian Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police T. Nadu, Crl. Appeal No. 452 of 2007, Baliya Vs. State of M. P. Crl. Appeal No. 2001 and 2002 of 2008, State of Arjun Ekka & Ors. Crl. L. P. 294/2022, Anwar Ali & Ors. Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh Crl. Appeal No. 1121 of 2016 and D. K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, W. P. (Crl.) No. 539 of 1986 with regard to his arguments qua accused Angel Gupta.
ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSED VISHAL AND SHEHZAD 54.1 It was argued by Sh. Joginder Tuli that it is a simple case of road rage which has been converted into to a heinous crime of murder by the IO for the reasons best known to him. Accused Shehzad and Vishal were travelling on a motorcycle for their work as they used to work as tile labours and they collided with the scooty of the deceased. Deceased got furious and she gave two sandal blows to accused Vishal and out of anger, he fired upon the deceased with the pistol, he was carrying with him. PW5 Deepak Dahiya is a planted witness but he has also deposed that there was an accident at the spot which corroborates the version of accused persons. The scooty of the deceased was lying in accidental condition at the spot. There was no pre- meditation or criminal conspiracy which culminated in to the said incident. The incident occurred at the spur of the moment and this fact has been admitted by the accused persons throughout the proceedings. At the most, this case may be treated under section 304 IPC instead of 302/120-B IPC.
54.2 It is further argued that the alleged payment of Rs. 30,000/- each to both the accused persons is not proved by any SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 70/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:47 +0530 oral or documentary evidence. The alleged recovery of weapons at the behest of accused persons is a tainted one as IO did not join any public person or local police officials during the recovery proceedings. As per law IO was duty bound to produce the accused persons and recovered articles before the local Judicial Magistrate in U. P. but nothing of that sort was done by him. It reflects that weapons have been planted upon the accused persons by the IO. The story of the prosecution that accused persons visit Delhi on 25.10.2018 and 28.10.2018 to eliminate the deceased has been falsified by DW1 Raju who had stated that his son Vishal and accused Shehzad left for Delhi at about 04:00 AM on 29.10.2018. Prosecution has examined PW9 Saravjeet Kumar Das to prove the fact that both accused persons stayed at M.L. Guest House in the intervening night of 28-29.10.2018 but there is no documentary proof in this regard. PW8 Raju, who allegedly got arranged in M.L. Guest House has failed to identify accused Vishal in the court. It is argued that the story of criminal conspiracy remained unproved in this case and at the best accused Vishal and Shehzad may be convicted under section 304 IPC.
54.3 Ld. Counsel has relied upon Rahul Vs. V. C. State Govt of NCT Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 498 of 2023, Prakash Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 830/2004 with regard to his arguments against accused Shehzad Saifi and Vishal @ Johny.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED DEEPAK AND DHARMENDER 55.1 Ld. Counsel Sh. Anil Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and Dharmender has argued that accused Deepak has been roped in merely on the basis of his CDR SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 71/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:51 +0530 location. Accused Deepak used to work as driver of co-accused Rajeev Gupta and he had to travel alongwith his employer as and when directed to do so. Therefore, his location in Bawana area at the time of incident is insignificant as he had gone in that area to verify a property which was contemplated to be purchased by accused Rajeev Gupta.
55.2 The alleged payment of Rs. 45,000/- received by accused Deepak in his account on 18.10.2018 was on account of his monthly salary and it cannot be treated as part payment in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy of the murder. It is stated that recovery of Esteem car at the instance of accused Deepak is a tainted recovery in absence of any local police official and public witness in the seizure proceedings. IO did not inform local Pradhan or local Magistrate about the arrest recovery. Prosecution has tried to prove the presence of accused Deepak at M. L. Guest House on the basis of oral testimony of PW8 Raju and PW9 Saravjeet Kumar Dass but there is no documentary evidence in this regard. No CCTV footage of the said guest house has been seized by the IO during the investigation. In fact, PW8 Raju failed to identify accused Dharmender and Vishal. The alleged conversation between PW8 Raju and accused Deepak is a normal conversation without any inference of criminal conspiracy. Rs. 60,000/- allegedly recovered from accused Dharmender cannot be presumed to be part of the payment made by accused Rajeev Gupta as there is no evidence that any such payment was ever made to accused Dharmender. 55.3 It is further argued that the pistol has been planted upon accused Dharmender by the IO. Accused Deepak has been charge sheeted merely on the fact that he used to work as driver of accused Rajeev Gupta and accused Dharmender has been charge sheeted being relative of accused Deepak. The SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 72/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:24:57 +0530 prosecution has miserably failed to prove anything against both the accused persons and they deserve com-purgation by giving them benefit of doubt.
56. I have cogitated over the arguments heard at length and perused the entire record. I have also gone through the case laws relied upon by Ld. Counsels for accused persons as well as complainant.
FINDINGS
57. The accused Manjeet Sehrawat, Angel Gupta, Deepak, Shehzad Saifi @ Kalu, Dharmender and Vishal @ Johny have been charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 120-B IPC and 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC. Accused Shehzad Saifi @ Kalu and Vishal are additionally charged under section 25 and 27 Arms Act. Accused Dharmender is additionally charged under section 25 Arms Act.
58. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
SECTION 120-B IPC Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 73/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:25:02 +0530 punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.] SECTION 300 IPC "Section 300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or--
2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or--
3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
SECTION 302 IPC Punishment for murder.--Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 25 ARMS ACT Punishment for certain offences.- Whoever(a)[manufactures, obtains, procures,] sells, transfers, converts, SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 74/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:25:09 +0530 repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair, test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5; or
(b)shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an imitation firearm into a firearm [or convert from any category of firearms mentioned in the Arms Rules, 2016 into any other category of firearms] [Inserted by Act No. 48 of 2019, dated 13.12.2019.] in contravention of section 6; or
(d)brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or ammunition of any class or description in contravention of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life] [Substituted 'three years but which may extend to seven years' by Act No. 48 of 2019, dated 13.12.2019.] and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 27 ARMS ACT
27. Punishment for using arms, etc.--(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses 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 seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 75/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:25:14 +0530 arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, 2[shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.]
59. 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.
Presumption of Innocence is a re-statement of the rule that in criminal matters the prosecution has the burden of 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.........."
60. Thus, the inference which is culled out from the above is that it is for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Ram Gopal in "India of Vedic Kalpsutras" has stated that even under the ancient system of Administration of Criminal Justice, the benefit of doubt was always be given to the accused. So, Apasthamba laid down that SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 76/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:25:23 +0530 the king should not punish any person in case of doubt.
61. It appears seemly to trace the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt as evolved by Superior Law Courts of England and India. In Miller Vs. Minister of Pensions, (1947) all England law reports 372 Volume 2 Lord Denning J. observed, "I ..... prove beyond reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond the shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to lead only to a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence, "of course, it is possible, but not in the least probable" the case is proved beyond doubt......"
62. The concept of benefit of doubt has been explained in numerous decisions which are being followed in catena of cases. A stream of rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court commencing with the M. G. Aggarwal, Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1963 2 SCR 405,491; AIR 1963 SC 200 and Climax by Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam 2013 (82) ACC 467 (SC) has settled the law wherein it was held that prove beyond reasonable doubt is not imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt. It is a fair doubt based upon reason or common sense.
63. This court cannot be oblivious that in a criminal trial suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is quite large and divides vagues conjectures from sure conclusions.
64. In Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 7 SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 77/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:25:33 +0530 SCC 171, it has been held that the prosecution has to prove its own case beyond reasonable doubts and cannot take support from the weakness of the defence and hence, there must be proper and legal evidence to record the conviction of the accused.
65. In this backdrop, I shall proceed to delve upon and evaluate the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
66. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta were involved in an extra marital affair and this fact came into the knowledge of deceased Sunita in the year 2016. She objected qua their relationship and certain family meetings also took place so that the relationship of Manjeet and Angel Gupta could be stopped. Due to intervention of family members they stayed away from each other for some time but they resumed their love affair which was the bone of contention between accused Manjeet Sehrawat and his wife Sunita. There were exchange of unpleasant messages and telephonic conversation between deceased Sunita and Angel Gupta. In the year 2018, Manjeet Sehrawat informed Angel Gupta that he would celebrate karwa chauth with his wife Sunita under compulsion. Accused Angel Gupta threatened to end her life in case, Manjeet Sehrawat did not join her on karwa chauth. Co- accused Rajeev Gupta asked accused Manjeet Sehrawat to get divorce from deceased Sunita and to marry accused Angel Gupta. Accused Manjeet Sehrawat stated that divorce was not possible and there was no option but to kill Sunita to get rid of her. A conspiracy was hatched by accused Rajeev Gupta, Angel Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat to murder deceased Sunita one day prior of karwa chauth which happened to be on 27.10.2018. Co- accused Rajeev Gupta informed his driver Deepak about their SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 78/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:25:38 +0530 plan, who introduced co-accused Dharmender (mama of accused Deepak). Co-accused Dharmender arranged two killers Seahzad Saifi @ Kalu and Vishal @ Johny. It was agreed that Rs. 10 lakhs would be paid by accused Rajeev Gupta to them. Co-accused Manjeet provided photograph of the deceased and details of her route to her school to other conspirators. On 26.10.2018, deceased could not be killed as she could not be traced by the hired shooters. On 29.10.2018, she was shot dead by accused Vishal and Shehzad by firing three gun shots. Co-accused Rajeev Gupta was present near the spot in his Duster car bearing No. DL-8CZ-4306 whereas co-accused Dharmender and Deepak were also present in Esteem car bearing No. DL-2CAG-2383 near the spot. Therefore, murder was committed in pursuance of a well planned criminal conspiracy which was actively participated by all the accused persons.
MOTIVE 67.1 Prosecution has projected a case that the motive behind the murder was the extra marital love affair of accused Manjeet Sehrawat and accused Angel Gupta. Motive assumes a great significance in a crime as mostly crimes are done in pursuance of a motive and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the motive behind the crime to prove the culpable intent of any accused.
67.2 In Ravi Sharma Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi AIR 2022 SC 4810, it has been held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance. Though, the motive may pale into significance in a case of involving eye witnesses, it may not be so, when an accused is implicated based upon the circumstantial evidence.
67.3 In Indrajeet Das Vs. State of Tripura Criminal
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 79/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:25:42 +0530
Appeal No. 609/2015 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.02.2023, it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role. Motive may also have a role to play in a case based upon direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in case of circumstantial evidence then a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances.
67.4 In Prem Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2023 SC 193, it was held that motive, when proved, supplies additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence but, absence thereof cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject the prosecution case. However, absence of motive, in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramanand @ Nand Lal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2022 SC 5273 to the effect that failure to prove motive in case of circumstantial evidence is not fatal to the prosecution but it could be a missing link in the chain of incriminating circumstances. Once the prosecution has established the other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to the accused.
67.5 In the present case there is an eye witness PW5 Deepak Dahiya, who has been examined by the prosecution but other evidence sought to be proved by the prosecution are based upon circumstances. Therefore, this case is partially dependent upon the testimony of PW5 Deepak Dahiya and partially upon the circumstantial evidence placed on record. Hence, motive has attained a great significance in this case. 67.6 Prosecution has examined PW2 Dakshita, who happens to be daughter of deceased and accused Manjeet Sehrawat. She deposed that in the year 2016, she used to study in SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 80/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana DHIRENDRA Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:28:42 +0530 Class IX and during school vacations, she was at home. A message received on his father's phone which was seen by her mother. The message was sent by a lady, who was in relationship with her father. Deceased informed about the message to the father of accused Manjeet Sehrawat but he was already aware about this relationship. Deceased also informed her brother. Accused Manjeet Sehrawat assured the family by swearing in the name of his kids that he will not repeat it again. PW2 deposed that deceased had memorized the number of the sender of the said message. She called on the number and asked about the relationship with Manjeet Sehrawat. The lady on the other side replied that deceased may ask about her from Manjeet Sehrawat only. When deceased again confronted accused Manjeet, he said there is no need to call her again as there was no relation of that sort between them. PW2 further deposed that accused Manjeet used to say that lady was his wife and deceased and his kids were nothing for him. He used to use filthy language. He used to spend his time with that lady overnight. PW2 stated that 6-6 mahine ghar par nahi aate the.
67.7 She further deposed that one night Manjeet Sehrawat was with that lady and he started abusing the deceased on telephone. Deceased used to share all these facts with her brother Anil Malik, who discussed the matter with her grandfather and it was assured that nothing of that sort would happen again. One day deceased told accused Manjeet that either she would stay in the house or he will stay in the house and on this, accused Manjeet Sehrawat left the home to stay with that lady and did not return back for 1-2 months.
67.8 PW2 further deposed that all other family members were supporting accused Manjeet and they were aware about his extra marital affair. She deposed that one day accused starting SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 81/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:28:47 +0530 fighting with deceased and stated that he could not stay with that lady by saying that ke tu marti bhi toh nahi. Deceased again called that lady and asked as to what she wants. The lady stated sirf teri barbadi and she also threatened that she would eliminate the deceased.
67.9 She deposed that lady used to address her grandfather as daddy and her grandfather used to address her as beti. She stated that lady had attended a marriage function in their family invited by her bua. PW2 further deposed that one day in the morning she had gone to pick up the phone of his father left in the car and she found personal photograph of one lady from unknown number received by her father. She handed over the phone to her mother. She stated that whenever his father used to quarrel with the deceased, she had noticed bruises, blue marks and swelling on her body. One day accused Manjeet came back and deceased stated that PW2 Dakshita wanted to have a conversation with him. Accused pushed the deceased so badly so that she received injuries on her elbow and thereafter, she could not move her hand properly.
67.10 PW2 further deposed that in the year 2018 during karwa chauth festival, that lady stated to her father telephonically that she would not allow her father to celebrate karwa chauth with deceased and she claimed herself to be the wife of accused Manjeet. She disclosed the name of that lady as accused Angel Gupta, who used to reside at R. K. Puram, Delhi and she had seen her at the time of marriage function organized by her bua. She deposed that karwa chauth and birthday of her father fell on the same day and when the deceased called her father to inquire as to when he would be coming home, he stated that he would stay there with Angel Gupta as she was his wife.
67.11 She deposed that her father got issued a new mobile SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 82/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:28:52 +0530
number in the month of October so that Angel Gupta may not call him on that number but she used to call on that number. PW2 deposed that deceased used to write diary on regular basis and this fact was in the knowledge of PW2 only as she had seen writing her mother in the said diary. She was instructed to hand over the diary to the police, if something wrong happens to her. She deposed that she handed over the diary of her mother to the police on 31.10.2018.
67.12 The entire testimony of PW2 is revolving around the existence of extra marital affair between accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta came into the knowledge of the family in the year 2016. The affair continued till 2018 till the festival of karwa chauth. Although, she could not tell the exact year but she had stated that in that year karwa chauth and birthday of her father were on the same day. This witness has been cross examined on the aspect that in her statement under section 164 CrPC, she had not stated the name of accused Angel Gupta and terms her as 'lady'. The witness has given a clarification that nobody asked her about the name and when it was asked during her deposition in the court, she has revealed name of that lady.
67.13 Ld. Counsel for accused Manjeet has relied upon Kali Ram's case (discussed supra) but this judgment is not applicable to the present case as in Kali Ram's case, accused got written a letter by giving his confession through a school teacher and posted the same to the Deputy Commission. Later on, he detracted from his confession. Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed the scope of section 162 CrPC and held that it is not possible to circumvent the prohibition contain in section 162 by the Investigation Officer obtaining a written consent of a person instead of the investigating officer himself recording that SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 83/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:28:56 +0530 statement. It is held that wrongful acquittal are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system and much worse would be the wrongful conviction of an innocent man.
67.14 In the present case there is no application of section 162 CrPC as no confessional statement is being given by the accused or recorded by the IO. However, there is no denial to the observation of Hon'ble Supreme court that in case of two alternative, court has to accept the view favouring the accused. Therefore, Kali Ram's case (discussed supra) has no bearing on the present set of facts.
67.15 On one hand, accused Angel and Manjeet are denying this fact that they were continuing with their relationship soon prior to the murder of the deceased and they were not involved in any extra marital affair at any point of time. But on the other hand, the suggestions given to PW2 are contradictory to their version of non existence of their relationship. She has been cross examined as under:
"It is correct that I am not having any photograph or marriage certificate etc. to show the marriage of my father with Angel Gupta. My father had never shown me photographs of his marriage with Angel Gupta. It is wrong to suggest that my father had shown me and my mother the photograph of marriage of my father with accused Angel Gupta."
67.16 Prosecution has tried to prove the factum of extra marital affair but Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Angel Gupta has not only admitted their relationship but he suggested PW2 that accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta were already married and photographs were shown to the deceased as well as PW2 by accused Manjeet. Although, prosecution is not dependent upon any defence or suggestion put forth to any witness in his cross examination but if any defence or suggestion is corroborating the allegation of the prosecution then it is of SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 84/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:02 +0530 great value to the prosecution. By cross examining PW2 in the above stated fashion, the relationship of accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta stands proved and rather admitted by the defence. It is surprising to observe that there is no suggestion to PW2 that accused Angel Gupta never extended any threat to the deceased to eliminate her or that she never stated to accused Manjeet telephonically that she would not allow him to celebrate karwa chauth festival with deceased or that she did not state to the deceased telephonically words "sirf teri barbadi". Ld. Counsel for accused Angel Gupta has termed the testimony of PW2 as hearsay evidence on the pretext that whatever she has deposed before the court, was told to her by the deceased and nothing happened in her presence. This argument lacks substantiation from the cross examination of this witness. There is no suggestion given to this witness that whatever she has deposed, did not happen in her presence. PW2 has not stated anywhere that the facts deposed by her were disclosed to her by the deceased. The situations, incidences and circumstances appeared to be occurred in her presence and in absence of any specific denial on the part of accused, her testimony is beyond the ambit of hearsay evidence. Hence, there is no hesitation to say that defence has failed to rebut the material allegations of PW2 Dakshita levelled against accused Angel Gupta. 67.17 PW2 has also been cross examined by accused Manjeet Sehrawat and she categorically stated that "some girl"
was Angel Gupta. She admitted the suggestion that deceased had suggestive accused Manjeet not to create scene due to her Xth class exams. This suggestion is reiteration and reaffirmation of the fact that such request was made by the deceased to the accused so that board exams of PW2 Dakshita may not get disturbed. There is not even a single suggestion that accused SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 85/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:17 +0530 Manjeet Sehrawat never said that Angel Gupta was his wife or that he had not abused the deceased on telephone when she called him on the even of karwa chauth or that he did not push deceased when she tried to convenience him to talk to PW2 Dakshita or that accused never received any message from accused Angel Gupta in the year 2016 and thereafter also or that accused Angel and Manjeet were not involved in a love affair which was the bone of contention in the family or that deceased used to object on the said relation. Meaning thereby, all the allegations levelled by PW2 against her father have not been denied and deemed to be admitted and proved against accused Manjeet Sehrawat. 67.18 Another important witness to prove the existence of extra marital affair is PW6 Anil Kumar, who happens to be brother of deceased. He was informed about the affair of accused Manjeet by the deceased in July 2016 and he took up the matter with the father of accused Manjeet. He also brought the matter into the knowledge of co-accused Rajeev Gupta, who is "so called" father of accused Angel Gupta. It is matter of record that he is neither biological father nor step father of accused Angel Gupta but there is no denial of the fact that he claims himself to be father of accused Angel Gupta. PW6 Anil had telephonic conversation many times and lastly on 24/25/26.05.2018. 67.19 He had conversation with co-accused Rajeev Sethi @ Gupta and co-accused Angel Gupta and this entire conversation was got recorded by him. This recorded conversation was seized by the police and was sent to the FSL. As per FSL result which is Ex. PW33/A, audio recording contains voice of PW6 Anil, accused Angel Gupta and co- accused Rajeev Gupta. Therefore, there is no denial of the fact that this conversation took place between these persons on 24/25/26.05.2018 as claimed by PW6. PW6 deposed that during SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 86/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:25 +0530 that conversation, accused Angel Gupta stated agar mujhe Manjeet Nahi mila toh ya to main mar jaungi, uske toh do bacche hain, vo unke sahare reh sakti hain, main kiske sahare rahu. PW6 has proved his mobile phone and the pen drive containing the audio recording. This audio recording is in three files of 1 minutes 29 seconds, 2 minutes 3 seconds and 21 minutes 14 seconds.
67.20 In his cross examination, it is being put to him that accused Angel Gupta and accused Rajeev Gupta met him in a Government accommodation. Meaning thereby, it is admitted by the defence that PW6 had met Angel Gupta and Rajeev Gupta to sort out the aspect of love affair of accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta. The defence has failed to shake the veracity of the testimony of this witness, who has been examined to prove the fact that accused Angel and Manjeet were in continuing extra marital affair which was the cause of disturbance and fight between accused Manjeet, Angel Gupta and deceased Sunita. 67.21 Another important evidence to prove the motive in this case is the diary written by the deceased herself. The diary had been handed over to police by PW2 Dakshita and has been duly proved. This diary was sent to FSL to handwriting expert alongwith admitted handwriting of the deceased in the form of Quiz Register maintained by the deceased in her school as a teacher. At serial No. 21 of this diary which was written on 19.10.2016 Wednesday, deceased wrote as under :
"main Sunita joh kuch bhi likh rahi hun pure hosh main aakar likh rahi hun. Mere pati (Manjeet) ka affair Angel Gupta naam ki model ke sath kaafi dino se chal raha hai. Isne isse shaadi bhi kar rakhi hai. In sab baato ka pata mujhe 24.07.2016 ko Manjeet ke phone ke message se pata chala aur dheere dheere sabhi baato ka khulasa ho gaya. 21.10.2015 ko Manjeet ki behen Guddi ke ladke ki shaadi me inhone us ladki ko bulaya hua tha lekin mujhe bataya ki yeh Shweta (guddi ki ladki) ki saheli hai."
67.22 This excerpt of the diary of the deceased is in SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 87/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:31 +0530 corroboration of the testimony of PW2 that deceased came to know about the extra marital affair of accused Manjeet and accused Angel Gupta had attended a family function in October 2015. She further wrote on 05.12.2016 at serial No. 35 of the said diary as under:
"Manjeet jeewan ko narak bana diya hain aapne. Aap apne kiye hue karam ke karan pareshan ho aur main thathaa bacche aapke ke karan pareshan hain. Mein abhi tak soch rahi thi ki karwa chauth per tum sach much me Haridwar gaye the lekin app usske sath ye tyohar mana kar aaye."
This portion of the diary reflects that accused Manjeet was with accused Angel Gupta on the eve of karwa chauth in the year 2016 also.
67.23 On 19.10.2016 at serial No. 22-23 of the diary she wrote as under:
"Manjeet ne mujhe ek din kaha tha ki kisi din tera accident hoga aur us ladki ke pass maine 26.07.2016 ko phone kiya tha tab usne mujhse kaha tha ki apne parivar ki jindagi ki salamti ki dua karna.
------------
aaj 19 october ko karwa chauth hai aur vahe aaj bhi us ladki ke pass gaya hai. Manjeet mujhse aur mere baccho se chutkara chahta hai aur iske liye vah kuch bhi kar sakta. Aur vah ladki isko baar baar uksati rehti hai ki apne biwi baccho ko kinare kar. Agar mujhe aur mere baccho ko kuch ho gaya toh uske jimmedar Manjeet aur vah model thathaa uska pura parivar hoga jo itne saalo se iska saath deta aa raha hai, sab honge. Angel Gupta Saket Delhi ki hai. Iski mataji ki mrityu ho gayi hai thatha papa ne doosri shaadi kar li hai. Is ladki ki naam Manjeet 200 crore rupaye ki property bata raha tha. Ye uske peeche kis karan se hai yeh baat toh manjeet hi bata sakta hai. Agar mujhe aur mere baccho ko kuch ho jata hai to please insaniyat ke waaste mujhe nayay dilwaya jaye.
Angel Gupta - 7506628597 7506638597"
67.24 At page No. 48 of her diary she further expressed her apprehension that she could be murdered by her husband. Although, there is no date appended on this page but the last date available in this diary is of 22.03.2017 which is at page No.45. Therefore, it can be assumed that page No. 48 was written by her SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 88/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:35 +0530 after 22.03.2017. She wrote as under:
"do din se apne baccho se baat bhi nahi ki hai v. good. Tumhe hum teeno main se kisi ki bhi yaad nahi aati hai. Mujhe chup karne ka ek hi tarika hai, mera murder karna, aur tum yahi karoge aaj nahi to kal, aur uske baad bilkul free, ab bhi apni dharampatni ke paas gaye ho kya aur usne pehle ki tarah mana kar diya ho ki apne biwi baccho se baat nahi karoge."
67.25 The portion of page No. 48 and 22-23 reflects that deceased was apprehending her murder. In fact, she was informed by accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta that some untoward incident may happen to her. On the basis of her diary, it can be safely concluded that she had grave suspicion on accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta and her family in case any untoward incident occurs with her and her kids. She has expressed her fear twice that she could be murdered by them. Usually a person would not perceive such kind of thought because normal wear and tear of matrimonial life of any couple is part of their life but if one of the partner feels so strongly that he/she could be murdered by her/his partner then there has to be very strong reason and conduct of his/her partner for reaching such conclusion.
67.26 Deceased came to know about the extra marital affair of her husband in July 2016 and as per contents of her diary, the affair continued upto March 2017. It's not that affair came to an end in March 2017 as nothing has been written by the deceased in this regard in her diary. Prosecution has proved the telephonic conversation of PW6 Anil, co-accused Rajeev Gupta and accused Angel Gupta which took place on 24/25/26.05.2018 which is reflective of the fact that extra marital affair of the accused persons continued in full force till May 2018 and that is why that conversation took place between the parties. 67.27 Ld. Defence counsel of accused Angel Gupta Sh. Joginder Tuli, has argued that the conversation is of May 2018 SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 89/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:40 +0530 whereas the murder was committed on 29.10.2018. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused Angel Gupta and Manjeet were continuing with their relationship till October 2018. The conversation of May 2018 has no significance and relevance with the murder of the deceased.
67.28 Similar kind of argument is put forth by Sh. Ramesh Gupta ld. Senior counsel for accused Manjeet Sehrawat that the contents of the diary of the deceased has no significance qua the alleged role of accused Manjeet in her murder. He argued that deceased lastly wrote her diary on 22.03.2017 and she was murdered on 29.10.2018 and therefore, the fear expressed by her in the said diary has no connection with her murder due to long duration between these two dates and it's not a dying declaration. 67.29 Prosecution has proved the fact that accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta were continuing their relationship till 24/25/26.05.2018 by way of the audio recorded conversation involving accused Angel Gupta. PW2 Dakshita has categorically deposed that accused Angel Gupta had threatened that in 2018 during the karwa chauth festival accused Angel Gupta had telephonically asked her father as she would not allow to celebrate karwa chauth with her mother and she claimed herself to be wife of her father. This deposition reflects that relationship of accused Angel Gupta and Manjeet was a continuing one in October 2018 also and accused Angel Gupta was hell bent upon to celebrate karwa chauth with accused Manjeet Sehrawat at any cost. The oral testimony of PW2 is sufficient enough to prove the fact that the extra marital affair continued till last of October 2018. As far as time gap between the last written diary of the deceased and date of incident, same is of no consequence as this diary is an evidence of fear felt by the deceased to be murdered by the accused persons which ultimately turned out to be true on SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 90/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:47 +0530 29.10.2018. The oral testimony of PW2 Dakshita has proved the factum of continuing relationship of the accused persons. 67.30 The diary of the deceased has been duly proved by PW2. It is proved on record that it was written by the deceased herself in her own handwriting. IO had seized the admitted handwriting of the deceased in the form of Quiz register from her school. The seizure of the Quiz Register has been proved by PW3 Somdutt Yadav, who produced the Quiz Register before the IO, on the instructions of the Head of the School. He deposed that Quiz Register was of class of the deceased having her handwriting on page No. 1 to 7. He proved the seizure memo of the register as Ex. PW3/A and correctly exhibited the register as Ex. PW3/B. Although, this witness failed to identify the handwriting of deceased but he has proved that this register was seized by the police in his presence. PW7 Ms. Sarla Devi, who happens to be Elementary Head at Government Middle School, Firozpur Banger Sonepat, identified the handwriting of the deceased in the Quiz Register. The oral testimony of PW7 qua identification of handwriting of deceased in Quiz register stands corroborated from the report of Handwriting expert which has been exhibited as Ex. PW17/A. As per this report, questioned handwriting i.e., diary of the deceased and admitted handwriting i.e., Quiz Register seized by the IO were in the same handwriting and that is of deceased Sunita. Therefore, defence has failed to raise any doubt over the seizure proceedings of diary and quiz register as well as the report of handwriting expert. 67.31 Ld. Defence counsel has argued that IO should have collected admitted handwriting of the deceased from any bank or any other government office and Quiz Register cannot be treated as a valid document in the category of admitted handwriting. I do not find any substance in this argument as there is no straight SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 91/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:53 +0530 jacket formula that admitted handwriting can only be taken from any bank or any other government office. Admitted handwriting can be collected from any place where deceased used to work, write and sign on daily basis. It may be any government office or any work place. In the present case, deceased used to work as a teacher in government school and therefore, IO rightly seized the quiz register maintained by her as her admitted handwriting. 67.32 Although, PW5 Deepak Dahiya is an eye witness of the murder. But this case is not solely dependent upon the testimony of PW5 Deepak Dahiya. It is the case where testimony of PW5 has to be read in the light of other circumstantial evidence collected by the police during investigation. The motive to commit murder was with accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta but the firing was done by co-accused Vishal and Shehzad. Therefore, despite the fact that this case is not solely based upon circumstantial evidence, motive is of utmost significance. Keeping in view the testimony of PW2 Dakshita, PW6 Anil Kumar, excerpts of diary written by deceased and audio recorded conversation, I am of the considered view the prosecution has successfully proved the motive against accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta. They were not ready to part ways at any cost and deceased Sunita was not ready to allow them to continue with their relationship and that is why accused persons had a strong motive to eliminate her.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 68.1 Prosecution has put up a case that this murder is the outcome of a well thought out criminal conspiracy wherein all the accused persons played their part. Initially, the murder was to be committed one day prior of karwa chauth i.e., 27.10.2018 but later on deceased was murdered on 29.10.2018. On the other SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 92/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:29:57 +0530 hand, all defence counsels have objected the existence of criminal conspiracy in this case.
68.2 Accused Shehzad and Vishal have pleaded that they shot down the deceased in a road rage whereas accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta have pleaded that their relationship was no more in existence in October 2018 and they had no reason to get themselves involved in the murder. Accused Deepak has pleaded innocence as he was just accompanying co- accused Rajeev Gupta as his driver and he had no purpose to participate in any alleged criminal conspiracy. 68.3 The fact of criminal conspiracy in this case is the basic foundation based on which the entire investigation was done and charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The concept of criminal conspiracy fix the liability of all the accused persons involved in any criminal incident irrespective of the fact that whether they were physically present at the spot or not. 68.4 In Rakesh Kumar and Others Vs. State 2009 (163) DLT 658 Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to a plethora of Supreme Court judgments on criminal conspiracy and eloquently summarized the law that exists with regards criminal conspiracy. It is held that when two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and everyone, who joins in the agreement. The agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. It is not a part of crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators should agree SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 93/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:30:14 +0530 to play the same or an active role. It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment which is the gist of the crime of conspiracy.
68.5 Unlawful agreement is the graham of the crime of conspiracy. The agreement need not be formal or express but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances specially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. Conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy and it would quite often happen that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the conspirators to do or cause to be done the illegal act. The prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do an illegal act. The agreement may be proved by necessary implication.
68.6 The offence can only be proved largely from the inference drawn from acts committed by the conspirators. It is not necessary to prove actual meeting of conspirators nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient. Surrounding circumstances, antecedents and subsequent conduct of accused persons constitute relevant material to prove charge of conspiracy.
68.7 Recently, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajeev @ Monu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 192/17 decided on 08.10.2018 again reiterated the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar's case. 68.8 Applying the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court to the present set of facts, prosecution has tried to prove the theory of criminal conspiracy to murder Sunita on the basis of call detail record of accused persons, audio recorded conversations, money transfers, CCTV footage and oral testimonies. As stated above, prosecution has proved the fact that SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 94/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:30:32 +0530 accused Manjeet and Angel were continuing their extra marital affair and deceased Sunita was not ready to accept their relationship at any cost. Accused Angel Gupta was hell bent upon to celebrate the festival of karwa chauth falling on 27.10.2018 with accused Manjeet Sehrawat. Accused Manjeet Sehrawat had expressed his inability in this regard to accused Angel Gupta and both these facts have been proved by PW2 Dakshita. Having no other option left, they decided to eliminate deceased Sunita on 26.10.2018 and only then accused persons could have celebrated karwa chauth together on 27.10.2018.
68.9 For that purpose co-accused Rajeev Sethi came to their guidance and he roped his driver Deepak in the conspiracy. Accused Deepak introduced his maternal uncle Dharmender in the plan. It is a matter of record that accused Dharmender was involved in other criminal cases prior to the present case and had criminal antecedents. Co-accused Rajeev Gupta transferred Rs. 45,000/- in the account of co-accused Deepak and also gave Rs. 5,000/- in cash on 18.10.2018. Meaning thereby, criminal conspiracy came into existence from this day. There is no proof that Rs. 5,000/- were paid in cash to accused Deepak but prosecution has proved the bank account statement of Angel Enterprises from where Rs. 45,000/- was transferred in the account of accused Deepak. This bank statement has been admitted by accused persons under section 294 CrPC and there is no doubt about the transfer of money in the account of accused Deepak on 18.10.2018.
68.10 Sh. Anil Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused Deepak has argued that this payment was for salary of accused Deepak and it cannot be treated as part payment for the murder of deceased Sunita. I am not in agreement with Mr. Sharma in this regard as had it been the case accused Deepak could have easily SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 95/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:30:37 +0530 proved his bank statement to corroborate his defence that he used to receive salary in his account on previous occasion also. This document was in his possession and he could have easily proved this fact to falsify the case of the prosecution that Rs. 45,000/- were not transferred as part payment of the murder of deceased Sunita.
68.11 As per the case of the prosecution, accused Deepak, Dharmender and Rajeev Sethi were present at R. K. Puram on the basis of their CDR on 18.10.2018. The mobile number of accused Deepak is 9667825426 and mobile number of Dharmender is 9105846409. They had conversated with each other with these number at 11:14 AM, 11:16 AM and 11:59 AM. Their cell ID is reflected as 4041871741, 4041871742 and 4041871743. As per cell ID chart proved by the prosecution these cell ID locations are of District Park, R. K. Puram. The number of co-accused Rajeev Sethi is 9667825426 and his location as per Cell ID chart is reflected at 2048231462145 which is at Gurudwara Shri Gurunanak Sabha Sector-5, R. K. Puram, Delhi. Co-accused Rajev Sethi had two calls at 11:44 AM and 11:45 AM with co-accused Deepak.
68.12 It is argued on behalf of defence that there is no objectionable fact observed in the CDR as accused Deepak happens to be the driver of co-accused Rajeev and their location is bound to be in the same area. I am in agreement with Ld. Defence counsel in this regard but the alarming factor is presence of accused Dharmender at R. K. Puram. It is a matter of record that accused Dharmender was not associated with any of the accused on account of any work or purpose and if that is the case then he had no occasion to be present in the area of R. K. Puram on 18.10.2018. He was found talking to co-accused Deepak in the same time slot from 11:00 AM to 12:00 noon. It is also SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 96/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:30:42 +0530 matter of record that accused Dharmender is a resident of Village Budhana, U. P. Accused Dharmender had not explained his presence at R. K. Puram on 18.10.2018. He could have easily disclosed the reason of his presence at R. K. Puram, if he was not involved in the conspiracy. Therefore, the presence of accused Deepak, Dharmander and Rajeev Sethi at R. K. Puram on the basis of their CDR and payment of Rs. 45,000/- in the account of Deepak is a clear indication that the conspiracy came into existence and executed partially on 18.10.2018. 68.13 The next important date in this case is 23.10.2018 when accused Manjeet Sehrawat, Rajeev Sethi, Angel Gupta, Dharmender and Deepak had a meeting at Rohini. As per disclosure statements of accused persons accused Manjeet Sehrawat provided the photograph of the deceased and he also shared the relevant information about her route on daily basis for going to her school. There is no testimony or evidence that accused Manjeet Sehrawat had provided these details to the other accused persons except disclosure statement but as per their CDRs all these accused persons were present together at Sector 13 and 15, Rohini at a particular point of time. The onus was upon the accused persons to clarify as to for what purpose they all were present in Sector 13 and 15, Rohini on 23.10.2018, if they had not met in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. 68.14 As per their mobile phone locations, co-accused Rajeev Sethi (from 07:45 AM till 09:00 AM in Bawana and at Rohini Sector-13 and 15 at 10:00 AM till 02:00 PM), Angel Gupta (Rohini Sector-13 and 15 around 01:00-02:00 PM), Manjeet Sehrawat (at 10:00 AM in Bawana and Rohini Sector-13 and 15 around 01:00-02:00 PM) and Deepak (from 07:30 AM till 09:00 AM in Bawana and at Rohini Sector-13 and 15 at 11:45 AM till 12:45 PM), they had visited the area of Bawana in the SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 97/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:30:47 +0530 early morning hours and for which they have not offered any good reason during the trial. It is not their case that their mobile phones were not with them. It is a matter of record that co- accused Rajeev Sethi, accused Angel Gupta were residents of R. K. Puram and that is why their locations alongwith co-accused Deepak is of R. K. Puram at 06:00 AM on 23.10.2018. They could have easily gave an explanation for their presence at Sector-13 & 15 Rohini and for what purpose they were there. Similar is the status of accused Deepak. Therefore, the silence of accused persons qua their presence at Sector 13 and 15, Rohini reflects that all of them had a meeting in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy.
68.15 The mobile numbers of accused Deepak are 7303415214, 9667825426 and 9625392858, mobile number of Dharmender is 9105846409, number of co-accused Rajeev Sethi is 9667825426. The mobile number of accused Angel Gupta 9582629775 and mobile number of accused Manjeet Sehrawat is 9871846560. On 23.10.2018, accused Manjeet Sehrawat provided the photograph and route details of the deceased to co- accused Rajeev Sethi and Angel Gupta.
68.16 It is argued on behalf of defence that Sector-13 and 15, Jung Apartment is the residence of brother of accused Rajeev Sethi and presence of accused Angel Gupta might be on account of some family exigencies. This court understand that family members may meet each other but these meetings become significant in case if they are relevant in a heinous case like murder. Needless to say, evidence of criminal conspiracy is very hard to be collected and proved and some times it is hidden in the circumstances and act/behaviour of accused persons. If accused Angel Gupta and co-accused Rajeev Sethi had gone to the residence of brother of accused Rajeev Sethi then this fact could SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 98/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:30:51 +0530 have easily disclosed by them in the trial. They could have stated as to what was the purpose of their visit at Rohini Sector- 13 and 15 on that day.
68.17 Even for the sake of arguments, it is believed that accused Angel Gupta and co-accused Rajeev Sethi had gone to meet Kamal Sethi at Sector-13 and 15 then accused Manjeet Sehrawat had no occasion to be present with them at the same time in the same area because Manjeet Sehrawat is not a relative of Kamal Sethi. It is not a sheer coincidence that mobile location of accused Manjeet, Rajeev Sethi and Deepak is at Bawana from 07:30 AM till 10:00 AM and thereafter, they were present at Sector-13 and 15, Rohini at the same time. There had to be some explanation on their part but they have failed to do so. 68.18 In fact, Manjeet Sehrawat had an extra marital affair with accused Angel Gupta and as stated above the criminal conspiracy came into existence on 18.10.2018 itself. In that scenario their presence at Bawana and Sector-13 and 15, Rohini on 23.10.2018 has become very significant and the accused persons have failed to explain any good reason to falsify the case of the prosecution.
68.19 The next important date in this case is 25.10.2018 as Sunita was to be murdered on 26.10.2018 when she would go to her school in the morning time. The job of assassinating the deceased was assigned to co-accused Vishal and co-accused Shehzad. Co-accused Rajeev Sethi visited Bawana at 07:33:39 in his Duster car bearing No. DL8CZ 4306. Accused Vishal and Shehzad are residents of Uttar Pradesh but they came to Delhi in the evening on 25.10.2018. As per mobile location of accused Vishal, he was present at R. K. Puram from 05:25 PM to 07:36 PM and thereafter, his location was detected at South Ex. At 11:13 PM. The location of accused Shehzad is also at R. K. SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 99/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:30:56 +0530 Puram from 05:32 PM to 09:23 PM. Meaning thereby, both shooters were present in the area of R. K. Puram at the same time and on the same day and they have failed to clarify their presence on that day at R. K. Puram. The location of accused Dharmender is also in the same area i.e., South Ex. from 06:00 PM to 11:32 PM. Similar is the status of accused Deepak (7303415214) as he was present at R. K. Puram from 07:00 PM till 10:23 PM. The location of accused Angel is also of R. K. Puram from 05:31 PM to 10:40 PM. Co-accused Rajeev is also found to be present at R. K. Purma from 06:00 PM to 10:08 PM and found to be conversating with accused Deepak and Angel. 68.20 The presence of all accused persons in the area of R. K. Puram and South Ex. on the same day and during same hours is suggestive of their participation in the criminal conspiracy. It can be said that location of accused Angel, Deepak and Rajeev Sethi could be easily of R. K. Puram as they used to be present their on routine basis but accused Shehzad, Vishal and Dharmender had no purpose to be present in the same area, if they were not part of the criminal conspiracy. 68.21 The day decided by the conspirators to eliminate deceased Sunita was of 26.10.2018 and presence of all accused persons on the basis of their CDR is very important aspect in this case. The location of accused Shehzad, Dharmender, Deepak, Rajeev Gupta was traced in the area of Bawana. The location of accused Shehzad from 09:58AM till 12:23 PM in the areas of Bawana. The location of accused Dharmender from 09:04 AM is in Bawana whereas at 10:23 AM, he stated to be in Sector-13, Rohini and reached R. K. Puram at 11:20 AM. Accused Deepak left R. K Puram at 05:58 AM and reached Kirti Nagar at 06:30 AM and thereafter, he switched off his mobile phone. Accused Rajeev Gupta was found to be present at Bawana from 07:45 AM SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 100/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
DHIRENDRA RANA RANA 2025.04.28 Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA Date: 2025.04.28 15:31:03 +0530 15:31:09 +0530 till 08:55 AM. He reached R. K. Puram at 10:45 AM. As per CCTV footage of Dariypur Chowki, duster car of co-accused Rajeev Sethi was seen at 07:31:14 and 08:29:19 AM and Esteem car was captured at about 08:29:23 in the footage. The plan could not be executed on that day as shooters could not identify the deceased and the conspirators had to plan it again. At the cost of repetition, all accused persons have failed to explain their presence in the area of Bawana and both the cars at the same time. It is not their case that all of them had visited Bawana for any purpose or assignment apart from execution of criminal conspiracy.
68.22 Another evidence is conversation which took place between accused Rajeev Gupta and Accused Deepak is on 27.10.2018. Accused Rajeev Gupta called accused Deepak at 02:14 PM, the transcript of this call has been proved as Ex.
PW42/S wherein accused Deepak stated that " maine mama se baat ki thi, ki uss programme ka kya hua? Usne kaha somvar ki bajaye mangal me kar lenge, maine kaha ki somvar ko hi hona hai yeh kaam." Accused Rajeev Gupta relied that "hmm, aa ja baat kar lenge phir". This conversation reflects that the "programme/ kaam" was to be completed on Monday which happened to be 29.10.2018.
68.23 As decided by the conspirators, deceased was planned to be murdered on 29.10.2018 and therefore, date of 28.10.2018 has assumed significance. Accused Deepak went to Village Budhana, U. P. to bring accused Dharmender to Delhi. Prosecution has proved Ex. PW33/A which is an expert opinion based on the evaluation of voice recordings collected by the IO during investigation. Accused Rajeev Gupta called accused Deepak at 08:01 AM and accused Rajeev Gupta stated "namshkar, kahan hai", Accused Deepak relied that "wahi abhi SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 101/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:31:15 +0530 Bhudhana main hi, nikalne ki taiyari kar rahe hain" and he further stated "Shaam tak aaunga". There is another call between accused Rajeev Gupta and Deepak at 02:17 PM wherein accused Deepak stated "haan aa raha hun, mama theek hai" and he stated "saath hi lekar aa raha hun inhe". This voice note is clear indication of the fact that accused Deepak and Dharemender were coming to Delhi together on 28.10.2018. Accused Rajeev Gupta again called accused Deepak at 02:19 PM and Rajeev Gupta stated "sone ka programe kaha ho raha hai" Deepak replied that "sone ka programme batao kahan karna hai". Rajeev Gupta stated "voh dekh na tu." Deepak stated "kahan le kar aaun yaa to gaadi me hi soyenge". Rajeev Gupta stated "theek hai, flat per mat le kar jaaio". Accused Rajeev Gupta again called Deepak at 04:15 PM and stated "5 minute ke liye ghar par chakkar laga kar jao" and he also stated that "apne mama ko mat le kar aaio".
68.24 As per Ex. PW33/A, exhibit Q3 is stated to be in the voice of accused Deepak when he stated that "hello.... Sath me mama hai". Exhibit Q1 which is an audio message of accused Rajeev Gupta when he stated "sath main koi hai, alag hatt kar baat kar". Both these voice notes were exchanged between accused persons on 28.10.2018 and it reflects that accused Deepak was accompanied by his mama i.e., accused Dharmender. Another exhibit is in the voice of accused Deepak when he said "hello....haan mama...uska photo hai na tumhare pass" and accused Rajeev Gupta replied "haan hai....haan kya hua". Accused Deepak stated that "mere mobile par bhej do". Accused Rajeev Gupta replied that " theek hai...tu kahan hain". These messages reflect that accused Deepak was inquiring from accused Rajeev about the photograph of the deceased. The manner in which these conversations took place between the SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 102/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:31:33 +0530 accused persons is clear reflection that they were pursuing the criminal conspiracy and were taking necessary precautions. 68.25 On 28.10.2018, accused Deepak called PW8 Raju at 08:55 PM and asked him to arrange a room. The transcript of this call record has also been proved and duly analyzed by the expert which is suggestive of the fact that the voice involved in this conversation were of accused Deepak and PW8 Raju. PW8 Raju has correctly identified his voice in the court as well as of accused Deepak after hearing the audio recorded conversation. PW8 Raju deposed that he met accused Deepak alongwith three other boys at Kale Khan around 11:00 PM and he got arranged a room for them at M. L. Guest House. He correctly identified accused Deepak and Shehzad Saifi as the persons, who had stayed at M. L. Guest House in the night of 28.10.2018. 68.26 PW9 Saravjeet Kumar Dass corroborated the version of PW8 Raju that the room was arranged by him at the said guest house. PW8 could not identify accused Vishal and Dharmender but PW9 Saravjeet identified accused Dharmender. Meaning thereby, with the joint reading of depositions of PW8 and PW9, it stands proved that accused Deepak, Dharmender and Shehzad stayed in M. L. Guest House in a room arranged by PW8 Raju. 68.27 As far as presence of accused Vishal is concerned, same stands proved on the basis of his CDR. As per his mobile location 8475901184, his location was at Jungpura at 12:33 AM. Needless to say that Jungpura is in the vicinity of Nizamuddin and cell towers of different service providers have different names to same location. Meaning thereby, the overall conduct of the all accused persons on 28.10.2018 is indicative of the fact that they all were acting, conversating and moving as per the criminal conspiracy which was to be executed on 29.10.2018. 68.28 The penultimate day in this case was of 29.10.2018.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 103/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:31:38 +0530
On the basis of CDR of accused persons, accused Rajeev Gupta was at R. K. Puram at 06:04 AM. He used his second number on that day i.e., 9625181981 which reflects that he reached at Pooth Khurd at 07:20 AM when he called accused Angel Gupta. The location of accused Shehzad was at Nizamuddin till 05:04 AM and thereafter, he switched off his mobile phone. Similar is the conduct of accused Vishal @ Johny and he switched on his phone at 09:58 AM and his location was found to be of Baghpat, U. P. The unavailability of their location, has become insignificant as they have admitted their presence at the spot and murdering the deceased.
68.29 Accused Dharmender also kept his mobile phone switched off and switched on the same at 10:28 AM in R. K. Puram. The location of accused Deepak with his mobile No. 9625392858 is of Bawana at 07:39 AM. Therefore, accused Rajeev, Deepak, Vishal, Dharmender and Shehzad were present in Bawana area exactly at the time of the murder. The conduct of accused Dharmender by switching off his phone is indication of his involvement in the incident else he had no reason to switch off his mobile.
68.30 Accused Dharmender and Deepak have put up a plea that they had gone with co-accused Rajeev Sethi for inquiry about a property deal in the area of Bawana on 29.10.2018 and that is why their presence is being recorded in that area as per their CDR.
68.31 This argument is baseless as accused persons never disclosed details of any property transaction qua which they had gone to Bawana on 26.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 and that too in early hours of the morning. They could not explain as to why they were in company of accused Shehzad and Vishal at M.L. Guest house in the night of 28.10.2018.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 104/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:31:43 +0530
68.32 Another important aspect qua the existence of
criminal conspiracy is that accused Rajeev Sethi went to Bawana in his Duster car whereas co-accused Dharmender and Deepak went there in Esteem car of accused Rajeev Sethi. If they had gone in respect of any property deal then there was no reason for them to go in separate cars. The presence of both these cars were duly recorded in the CCTV footage of Dariyapur Chowki. 68.33 PW18 Dr. Bharti Bhardwaj has proved that she had examined the Esteem car, got recovered by accused Deepak. The number of the Esteem car was found to be DL 2CAG 2383 but first number i.e., 2 and last number i.e., 3 found to be fixed by a yellowish colour adhesive. The CCTV footage of Dariyapur chowki of 29.10.2018 at 07:19:25 has been duly proved wherein it is clearly visible that the number appearing on Esteem car was DL 2CAG -38-. Meaning thereby, two digits were missing on the said car on 29.10.2018 when it passed through Dariyapur chowki just prior to the murder, which were subsequently affixed by the accused persons on the said car. It is also interesting to observe that a red colour motorcycle without having front number plate is also captured in the CCTV footage with the said Esteem car at 07:19:25 hours. Therefore, both these vehicles were travelling in the said directions at the same time. If accused persons were not involved in the criminal conspiracy then they had no reason to remove two digits from the registration number of the Esteem car and to remove the front number plate of the motorcycle. It is a matter of record that the Esteem car is registered in the name of co-accused Rajeev Sethi and the correct number is DL 4CAG 2383. Subsequently, the missing numbers on the number plate of the car were affixed after the murder. The purpose behind tampering with number plate is the conceal the identity of the esteem car.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 105/129FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:31:49 +0530
68.34 Similar is the status of motorcycle used by accused
Shehzad and Vishal. PW18 Bharti Bhardwaj has examined the said motorcycle and she reported that screws of the headlight area were found to be new and different. Front registration plate was found missing. On the rear side the registration was written in Hindi as UP 15AQ 6712. She opined that the rear number plate was found to be repainted and the earlier numbers were in English. Why the number plate of the motorcycle was re-painted and why number was written in Hindi, has not been explained by accused Vishal. Reason is obvious that it was done to conceal the identity of motorcycle and another illustration of their mens rea. 68.35 If accused Shehzad and Vishal had gunned down the deceased in a road rage then they should have explained the change in the number plate of the motorcycle. Why the front number plate was missing and why the rear number plate was repainted in Hindi whereas it was in English earlier. This motorcycle was got recovered by accused Vishal from his house and he also got recovered one fake number plate bearing No. D 9SU 6480 which was affixed by them on the said motorcycle while committing the murder on 29.10.2018. The genuineness of the theory of road rage has fallen flat in view of tampering and repainting of number plate of the motorcycle. Therefore, the defence of accused Dharmender and Deepak that they visited Bawana on account of a property transaction and theory of road rage weaved by accused Vishal and Shehzad, are found to be baseless and without any iota of truth.
68.36 As per the contents of DD No. 6A and oral testimony of PW5 Deepak Dahiya, the incident occurred around 07:45 AM. As stated above, accused Rajeev called Angel Gupta at 07:20AM. He again called her at 07:53 AM. Accused Manjeet also talked to accused Angel at 07:53 AM. Accused Manjeet SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 106/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:31:54 +0530 talked to accused Rajeev at 08:08 AM. Manjeet again called accused Angel at 08:11 AM and to accused Rajeev at 08:25 AM and 08:27 AM. Thereafter, phone of accused Manjeet Sehrawat was switched off and he subsequently destroyed the SIM of his mobile No. 9871846560.
68.37 The frequent calling between accused Rajeev, Angel and Manjeet post the firing incident, is alarming in nature and there is strong possibility that they were informing each other that Sunita has been shot dead by accused Vishal and Shehzad. They have not explained the reason of calling each other so frequently in the early hours. If accused Manjeet was not participating in the criminal conspiracy then he had no reason for switching off his mobile phone. A person, whose wife was shot dead at around 07:45AM, had switched off his mobile phone at 08:27 AM is highly suspicious and improbable human conduct. 68.38 Ld. Counsel for accused Angel Gupta has tried to diminish the importance of CDR while relying upon the judgment of Kirti Pal's case (discussed supra) but the facts are different in the present case. Kirti Pal's case was based upon circumstantial evidence and accused was acquitted as there was possibility of involvement of some other person after last seen alive of the deceased in the company of the accused and therefore, call records of the accused with deceased was not found sufficient to complete the chain of circumstance which is mandatory in the case dependent upon circumstantial evidence. In the present case, prosecution has examined eye witness PW5 Deepak Dahiya and same is found to be a reliable one. The CDR of accused persons alongwith their locations are being proved to prove the existence of criminal conspiracy. 68.39 In Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2013 9 SCC 293, it has been held that evidence of mobile phone call SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 107/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:31:59 +0530 detail is conclusive in nature for all intents and purposes. In that decision, the court relied upon Gajraj Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 1 SCC wherein it was held that existence of even serious discrepancy in oral evidence has to yield to conclusive scientific evidence (call detail record). Therefore, the reliance on Kirti Pal's case raised by Mr. Tuli is misplaced and no significance to the present case.
68.40 Mr. Tuli has also drawn by attention towards Deepak Vs. State wherein it was held that conspiracy cannot be inferred without knowing the contents of the phone calls. This case is again of no avail to accused Angel Gupta as PW6 has proved the telephonic conversation between him, co-accused Rajeev Gupta and co-accused Angel Gupta. The messages retrieved from the phones of accused Rajeev Gupta and co-accused Deepak are self speaking as to what accused were upto. Therefore, the contents of the phone calls are duly proved in this case and Deepak's case is differentiated on the basis of facts.
68.41 Mr. Joginder Tuli has also stressed upon the fact that the writing of deceased in her diary is insignificant in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI Vs. V. C. Shukla and Ors. I do not find any merit in this argument as the contents of the diary of the deceased stands duly corroborated by the testimony of PW2, PW4 and PW6 that accused Angel Gupta and Manjeet Sehrawat were in an extramarital affair. In fact, this relationship stands admitted by them when suggestions given to PW2 are being considered by the court. Therefore, V. C. Shukla's case is again not applicable to the present case. 68.42 Similar is the status of Mahila Roomabai Jatav's case as in that case, the case of the prosecution was based upon last seen theory which is not the case projected by the prosecution before this court. Ramanand's case (discussed supra) SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 108/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:32:05 +0530 was based upon circumstantial evidence whereas the present case is based upon oral testimony of PW5 Deepak Dahiya and other circumstantial factors. Hence, this case is also not going to help the accused.
68.43 Sh. Ramesh Gupta, Ld. Senior Counsel for accused Manjeet Sehrawat has relied upon Parveen @ Sonu's case (discussed supra) but at the cost of repetition this argument has been accepted to be rejected. In Parveen @ Sonu's case the case was based upon the disclosure statement of co-accused which is not the case herein. The prosecution has not tried to prove its case on the basis of disclosure statement but the existence of criminal conspiracy is duly proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, Parveen @ Sonu's case is of no avail to accused Manjeet Sehrawat.
68.44 Mr. Gupta and Mr. Tuli also relied upon Baliya Vs. State of M. P. (discussed supra) to fortify their argument that accused Manjeet and Angel Gupta cannot be said to had motive merely because deceased had expressed her apprehension in this regard or accused Manjeet said, "tu marti bhi nahi" and "ek din tera accident hoga". Similar is the case with accused Angel Gupta. In Baliya's case the testimony of witnesses were not found reliable by the court as there were discrepancies in their testimonies. There was no reliable evidence found about the response of accused Manish and Gopal to the statement made by Baliya to the affect that the author of the pamphlet must be done away with. This judgment is also of no consequence on the merits of this case as the motive has been proved by the prosecution not only basis of diary of the deceased but there are oral testimonies of PW2, PW4 and PW6, who have deposed in an unequivocal truthful manner about the intent and conduct of the accused persons. The conspiracy is duly proved with SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 109/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:32:18 +0530 interconnection of all accused persons and most importantly accused Shehzad and Vishal have admitted to kill the deceased. Their theory of road rage regarding the incident is found to be baseless. Ld. Defence counsel have failed to bring out any material contradiction in the testimonies of PW2, PW4, PW6, PW8 and PW9 and therefore, I am of the view that Baliya's case is not applicable in the present case.
68.45 Similar is the status of Saju's case and Mainpal's case (discussed supra) relied upon on behalf of accused Manjeet as Saju's case was based upon circumstantial evidence whereas the present case involves reliable testimony of PW5 Deepak Dahiya alongwith circumstantial evidence and admission of accused persons Shehzad and Vishal regarding their involvement. Mainpal's case is related to defect in framing of charge which is not the case herein.
68.46 Ld. Counsel for accused Vishal and Shehzad has also relied upon Rahul Vs. State and Prakash Chand Vs. State. In Rahul's case the conviction of 302 IPC was converted in 304(II) IPC as there was no element of criminal conspiracy and prior enmity. But in the present case the element of criminal conspiracy is duly proved. Accused persons killed the deceased in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy and tried to take shelter under their cooked up story of road rage which is not found to be reliable and trustworthy. Similar is the status of Prakash Chand's case as in that case, the death occurred on account of sudden fight or quarrel and the accused did not have undue advantage during the incident. In the present case, it is a preplanned murder and three gun shots were fired upon the deceased which is self speaking about the intent of the accused persons. Therefore, Rahul' case and Prakash Chand's case have no bearing on the present case.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 110/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:32:22 +0530
68.47 Therefore, considering the conversations took place
between the accused persons, financial transactions, tampering of number plate of the Esteem car and motorcycle, unexplained presence of accused persons in the area of Bawana on 25.10.2018 and 29.10.2018 in early hours, presence of motive to murder deceased Sunita, CCTV footage of Dariyapur Chowki, it is crystal clear that the offence was committed in pursuance of a well thought out criminal conspiracy. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsels that no overact was done by accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta because criminal conspiracy stands proved by the prosecution and they are equally liable for the act of other accused persons irrespective of absence of any physical act on their part. The theory of road rage and property transaction is also found to be useless in the light of glaring evidence proved by the prosecution.
ROLE OF EYE WITNESS 69.1 All defence counsels vehemently argued that PW5 Deepak Dahiya is a planted witness in this case. It is pointed out that Deepak Dahiya happens to be relative of the deceased. Had it been the case that he was an eye witness to the incident then he should have tried to save the deceased being a relative. This witness did not inform the police and he entered the investigation at a belated stage in the afternoon of 29.10.2018. It is further pointed out that PW5 Deepak Dahiya is an unreliable witness as he has failed to identify accused Vishal in the court. 69.2 It is a matter of record that PW5 Deepak Dahiya has admitted that deceased Sunita was his aunt. He further admitted that he was having mobile No. 9812240463 with him at the time of incident but he did not inform the police at number 100. He deposed that on 29.10.2018 he took a passenger in his taxi SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 111/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:32:27 +0530 around 07:00 AM from Kharkhoda. When he reached at Auchandi Border, he noticed an accident over there. He stopped his taxi, got down and saw that a motorcycle was parked there and one boy was standing near a scooty. One person was loading the fire arm and he made a gesture towards him to leave the spot. When he left the spot, he heard sound of firing and the passenger in his taxi forced him to leave from there. Later on he received a telephone call from police as deceased had his number and police also found documents of his wife in bag of the deceased. When PW5 went to BSA Hospital and came to know about the incident then he described the incident to the police. He deposed that one of the assailant was stoutly built and another was slim, who was going towards the motorcycle. He identified accused Shehzad in TIP proceedings and he again identified him during cross examination done by Ld. Addl. PP for the State with a rider that he could not identify accused Shehzad in his examination in chief as accused was having beard at the time of TIP. 69.3 During his cross examination done on behalf of all accused persons except accused Manjeet, he deposed that he saw one woman lying at the spot. Meaning thereby, when PW5 Deepak Dahiya reached at the spot, one gun shot has already been fired upon the deceased and she was lying on the ground. She was lying across the divider and witness saw her from a distance of around 20-30 paces. Therefore, there is every possibility that Deepak Dahiya could not see the face of the lady and he did not intervene.
69.4 It is quite understandable that if a person threatens someone to leave the spot and that too at gun point then the probable human conduct is to leave the spot immediately. It is highly natural human conduct that the person, who is put under fear would try to involve himself in such an incident. The fear SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 112/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:32:31 +0530 caused by the accused persons in the mind of PW5 Deepak Dahiya is a valid reason for not informing the police. He has explained as to how he was contacted by the police as his number was found with the deceased and documents of his wife were also in her bag. Therefore, the entry of PW5 Deepak Dahiya in the investigation at BSA Hospital appears to be quite natural. Had it been the case that he is a planted witness then he could have easily identified accused Vishal also, who was admittedly accompanying accused Shehzad during the incident. 69.5 Even for the sake of argument, if it is believed that PW5 is a planted witness and his testimony is unreliable even then it would not cause any prejudice to the case of the prosecution. Accused Vishal and Shehzad have put up a theory that they had an accident with the scooty of the deceased and they fired upon her in road rage. It is not the case of the defence that these accused persons were not present at the spot. The testimony of PW5 Deepak Dahiya is relevant to prove the incident as well as presence of accused Shehzad at the spot which his admitted case of accused Vishal and Shehzad. The doubt raised by Ld. Defence counsel upon the credibility of PW5 Deepak Dahiya has become redundant in view of admission of accused Vishal and Shehzad that they were present at the spot and had fired upon the deceased. Therefore, arguments qua planting of PW5 Deepak Dahiya as an eye witness are found to be baseless and I am of the considered view that testimony of PW5 inspires confidence of this court and his testimony is duly corroborated by the story of road rage projected by accused persons.
CAUSE OF DEATH
70.1 It is a matter of record that gun shots were fired
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 113/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:32:36
+0530
upon the deceased by accused Vishal and Shehzad and she was shifted to Maharishi Valmiki Hospital at 08:15 AM. She was examined by Dr. Vikas More and he observed five wounds on her body as bullets were extremely visible near wound No. 1 and 2, Dr. Vikas More extracted those bullets and handed over to the IO in sealed condition. Deceased Sunita was declared brought dead. Her postmortem was got conducted by Dr. Vijay Dhankar on 29.10.2018. The postmortem has been admitted under section 294 CrPC by the accused persons. As per this report there were six injuries on her body. Injury No. 1 is a fire arm entry wound over the left upper part of front of chest whereas injury No. 2 is over right breast about 2 cm from the right nipple. Injury No. 2 is an exit wound. Injury No. 3 is again an entry wound over the lower part of front of chest whereas injury No. 4 is again an exit wound caused by the fire arm over the right lower outer part of front of chest. Injury No. 5 is an entry wound present over the middle lower part of back of chest. Injury No. 6 is an abrasion over the left angle of mouth.
70.2 As per postmortem report total three bullets were fired upon her and out of those three bullets, two bullets pierced through her body and the bullet led were extracted by Dr. Vikas Mor at the time of preparation of MLC. The third bullet was recovered during her postmortem as bullet was found lodged in the sub cutaneous tissues on the left side of chest wall about 7 cm above and outer to the left nipple. The sternum was fractured in the middle with surrounding effusion of blood. As per Dr. Vijay Dhankar track of injuries have been described in Xth (g) of the postmortem report. The bullet entered through injury No. 1 impacted on the sternum by fracturing it travelled further through the soft tissues and exited through injury injury No. 2.
70.3 The projectile pierced the skin through injury No. 3
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 114/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:32:42 +0530
penetrated the intercostal muscles of the fifth intercostal space, entered the pleural cavity passed through the pericardium, perforated the ventricles of heart, entered the right pleural cavity, passed through the right lungs, exited the right thoracic cavity through the fifth intercostal space and travelled further through the soft tissues and exited through injury No. 4. The projectile entered the skin through injury No. 5 from back of chest and penetrated the intercostal muscles of the 6 th intercostal space, entered the left pleural cavity, passed through the right lung parenchyma, exited the right thoracic cavity through the 4 th intercostal space and travelled further through the soft tissues and lodged itself in the left side of front of chest. 70.4 As per opinion of Dr. Dhankar, death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent to multiple fire arm injury on the body. All the injuries were ante mortem, fresh at the time of death, caused by projectile discharged through some fire arm. Injury No. 1 to 5 alongwith corresponding internal injury were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 70.5 As stated above, the gun shots were fired by accused Shehzad and Vishal, weapons recovered from them were duly matched with the bullets extracted from the body of the deceased, the empty cartridge recovered from the spot was found to be fired from the country made pistol got recovered by accused Shehzad and hence, it is has been duly proved by the prosecution that deceased succumbed to injuries caused by gun shots fired by accused Vishal and Shehzad.
INVESTIGATION 71.1 Sh. Joginder Tuli, Ld. Defence counsel has raised concern over the investigation process on the pretext that no public witness were joined in the recovery of weapon, esteem SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 115/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:32:47 +0530 car, motorcycle of the accused persons, fake number plate and mobile phones of the accused persons. It is argued that the recoveries are not witnessed by any independent witness despite the fact that weapons were allegedly recovered from the residence of accused persons. IO did not inform the local Magistrate after the recovery and he straightaway brought the alleged recovered weapons to Delhi which is utter violation of provisions of CrPC and police manual. IO did not join any local police official as a witness in any of the seizure memo. 71.2 It is also matter of concern that PW 28 SI Puneet and PW29 W/ASI Phoolwati could not tell the exact floor of the Government flat located at R. K. Puram from where they had arrested accused Angel Gupta. PW28 and PW29 could not tell whether it was a private or government accommodation. It is also pointed out that if phones were recovered by PW28 SI Puneet from Angel Gupta then the seizure memo should have been prepared by him and not by IO Inspector Rakesh Kumar. It is stated that Angel Gupta was called to police station for three days continuously and she was arrested on 01.11.2018 illegally and a diamond ring and cash of Rs. 5 lakhs were taken away by the police officials from her illegally.
71.3 Mr. Tuli further argued that if Angel Gupta was arrested from her residence at R. K. Puram then intimation of her arrest ought to have been given to her mother whereas in the arrest memo name of one person namely Kamal, i.e., brother of co-accused Rajeev Gupta has been mentioned. It is further claimed that IO has failed to prove the fact that any amount was received by accused Dharmender, Deepak, Vishal and Shehzad for murdering the deceased. Similar kind of concerned are being raised by Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused Deepak and Dharmender.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 116/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.04.28
15:32:52 +0530
71.4 Mr. Sharma and Mr. Tuli have tried to puncture the
investigation process by pointing out these aspects. The issue of defective investigation, if any, has been discussed on numerous occasions by the higher courts.
71.5 As stated above there are some irregularities in the investigation of this case but the million dollar question needs to be answered is whether entire case of the prosecution can be brushed aside due to some flaws in investigation done by the investigating officer. This point has been deliberated over by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab Appeal (Crl.) 941 of 2003 decided on 10.03.2004 wherein it is held as under:
"5. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. (See Karnel Singh vs State of M.P. :
1995CriLJ4173 ).
6. In Paras Yadav and Ors. V. State of Bihar: 1999CriLJ1122 it was held that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party.
7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav V. State of Bihar and Ors. : 1998CriLJ2515 if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The view as again re-
iterated in Amar Singh V. Balwinder Singh and Ors., :
2003CriLJ1282 . As noted in Amar Singh's case (supra) it would have been certainly better if the fire arms were sent to the forensic test laboratory for comparison. But the report of the ballistic expert would be in the nature of an expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached to it. When the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 117/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:32:56 +0530 omission of negligence on part of the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version."
71.5 Applying the ratio of Dhanaj Singh's case (discussed supra) to the present set of facts, it is apparent that there are some irregularities in the investigation process. Ideally, IO could have informed the local Magistrate about the recovery proceedings conducted at U. P. but if that is not done then it can be treated as an irregularity and not illegality.
71.6 It is correct that PW28 SI Puneet and PW29 W/ASI Phoolwati could not tell the exact floor and the nature of accommodation from where they had arrested accused Angel Gupta. At the cost of repetition this minor abrasion in the testimony of PW28 and PW29 is not so significant that the arrest proceedings of accused Angel Gupta can be presumed to be tainted. In Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2000 (40) ACC 34 (SC) and in Sukhdev Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 2001 SCC (Crl.) 1416 it was observed that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggerations or embellishment. Some times there is a deliberate attempts to offer the exaggerated evidence and sometime the witness in their over anxiety to do better from the witness box, detail out an exaggerated account. Minor variation in the prosecution evidence are of no value if the evidence in it entity appears to be trustworthy.
71.7 In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kanda Gopaludu 2005 (53) ACC 772 (SC) it was observed that every discrepancy in statement of witness cannot be treated as fatal. In State of U. P. Vs. Krishna Master 2010 CrlJ. 3889 SC it has been held that discrepancies normally exist. They are due to errors of observation, mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of incident. Unless they go to the root of matter, such discrepancy SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 118/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:02 +0530 do not make evidence unreliable. In Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajashtan AIR 2012 SC 2986, it was held that if variation in statement of witnesses is not material to affect the prosecution's case then it has to be ignored.
71.8 No person is supposed to have a mirror image like memory and there would be impact on the memory of one person due to the passage of time, health condition and other circumstances. The court is duty bound to see whether the contradiction present in the testimony of the witness falls in the category of major contradiction or it is a minor one. If the contradiction is such that it tends to shake the credibility of the witness then such contradiction has to be treated as a major one otherwise minor contradictions need to be ignored provided the testimony inspires confidence of the court to be truthful, reliable and of impeachable quality.
71.9 As far as mentioning of name of Mr. Kamal in the arrest memo of accused Angel Gupta is concerned, it cannot be treated as a lacuna in the investigation process. The police officers arresting an accused may inform any family member of the accused about his or her arrest and there is no hard and fast rule that any particular member of the family needs to be informed. It is not in dispute that Sh. Kamal, happens to be the brother of co-accused Rajeev Gupta and he is so called father of accused Angel Gupta.
71.10 Ld. Defence Counsel has stressed upon that Smt. Bimla Devi, mother of accused Angel Gupta should have been informed about her arrest, if accused was arrested from her residence. This argument stands defeated from the testimony DW2 Smt. Bimla herself. She has claimed that her daughter went to the police station on 30.10.2018 and she was carrying Rs. 5 lakhs and a diamond ring with her at that time. She had nowhere SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 119/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:08 +0530 stated as to for what purpose accused Angel Gupta was allegedly carrying Rs. 5 lakhs to the police station. She has not stated specifically that accused Angel Gupta was not arrested from her government accommodation at R. K. Puram. Accused had the opportunity to prove her theory of her illegal detention through DW2 Bimla Devi but her testimony is of no impact. 71.11 Issue of no documentary proof of payment of Rs. 2 lakhs by co-accused Rajeev Sethi @ Gupta to other accused persons, it is again of no consequence on the merits of this case. In Collector of Customs Vs. D. Bhoormall (1972) 2 SCC 544 it was held, "Prosecution/ or the department is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision to a demonstrable degree; for, in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth and Professor Brett felicitously puts it- "all exactness is a fake." Since, it is extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove fact which are especially with the knowledge of the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of his primary burden. The same view has been reiterated in Mohd. Amir Kasab @ Abu Muzahid Vs. State of Maharashtra 2012 9 SCC-1.
71.12 Generally, if any payment is being done involving a crime then nobody would pay it by way of cheque or by some other mode which may be used as an evidence in future against him. Transactions are being made in cash with the purpose of not leaving any evidence against them. It is not the case that no documentary proof of payment has been collected by the IO. Prosecution has proved the bank account statement of Angel Enterprises and it is a matter of record that payment of Rs. 45,000/- was done from that account to the account of accused Deepak on 18.10.2018. This payment has not been denied by accused Deepak on the pretext that this payment was being done as a salary in his account as he used to serve co-accused Rajeev SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 120/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:13 +0530 Gupta as a driver. This defence is apparently baseless. 71.13 It is not the case that accused Deepak used to receive his salary in his account on earlier occasions also. This payment is in fact in corroboration of the disclosure statement of accused persons that accused Deepak and Dharmender met accused Rajeev Gupta on 18.10.2018 and they agreed to murder the deceased. Co-accused Rajeev Gupta made a part payment to them by transferring Rs. 45,000/- in the account of accused Deepak whereas Rs. 5,000/- in cash to accused Deepak. It is also duly proved that Rs. 1 lakh were recovered at the instance of accused Dharmender after his arrest as co-accused Rajeev Gupta had given Rs. 2 lakhs after the murder. He distributed the amount by giving Rs. 30,000/- each to accused Vishal and Shehzad whereas he utilized the remaining amount Rs. 40,000/-. It is also proved that Rs. 30,000/- each were recovered at the behest of accused Vishal and Shehzad. If the recovered money was not related to the assassination of the deceased then accused could have furnish an explanation about the source of the money. All accused are absolutely mum on this aspect. Therefore, I find no strength in the arguments that IO has not investigated the matter on the aspect of payment of blood money by co-accused Rajeev Gupta to other accused persons namely Deepak, Dharmender, Vishal and Shehzad.
71.14 The concern raised by ld. Defence counsels in recovery proceedings are matter of record but the court has to see whether the follies done by the IO are deliberate or it occurred due to negligence. Law is settled that the entire case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved merely on the basis of some irregularities/follies done by the IO during investigation. It is correct that charge sheet are being filed by the State but the miseries of the victims and their families are of great significance SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 121/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:18 +0530 for the court. If the errors committed by the IO are such that they entirely demolish the case then the benefit would go to the accused persons but if the errors are such that are mere irregularities then the court has to segregate chaff from the grain while evaluating the evidence collected by the IO. 71.15 The issue of absence of public witness during investigation has been deliberated over many a times by higher courts. In State Vs. Sunil and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It need hardly be said that in order to lend assurance that the investigation has been proceeding in fair and honest manner, it would be necessary for the Investigating Officer to take independent witnesses to the discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and without taking independent witnesses and taking highly interested persons and the police officers as the witnesses to the discovery would render the discovery, at least, not free from doubt.
In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find out a thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter-skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. vs. S. Sardar Ali & ors. (1983 SC 1225). Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. can be used to support the said legal proposition:SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 122/129
FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:24 +0530 Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of the vehicle itself.
Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.
71.16 In Rizwan Khan Vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4297, Hon'ble Supreme SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 123/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:31 +0530 Court held as under:
"It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, [see "Pardeep Kumar (supra)]. In the recent decision in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, while considering somewhat similar submission of non-examination of independent witnesses, while dealing with the offence under the NDPS Act, in paragraphs 15 and 16, this Court observed and held as under:
"15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521, relied on by the counsel for the respondent State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status.
As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature."
71.17 After arrest of accused persons they made disclosure statements that they may get recovered the weapon from their residence and accordingly recoveries were effected by the IO. These recoveries are squarely covered under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the limited portion of their disclosure statements has to be read against he accused persons as it was in their special knowledge as to where they had kept the weapons. Applying the ratio of Sunil Kumar's case (discussed supra) and Rizwan's case (discussed supra) to the present case, the absence of public witness during the recovery and seizure proceedings of the weapon is not detrimental to the case on its merits. Therefore, I find no merit in the argument that absence of public witness and non informing the local Magistrate about the recovery are sufficient grounds to disbelieve the recovery proceedings.
SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 124/129FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana DHIRENDRA Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:36 +0530 WEAPON OF OFFENCE 72.1 It is a matter of record that accused Vishal and
Shehzad shot down the deceased and they got recovered the weapons during their police remand. These weapons were sent to FSL. The ballistic report of the recovered weapons is crucial piece of evidence in this case. Same has been proved as Ex. PW35/A. Accused Dharmender got recovered one improvised pistol with the live cartridge from an almirah kept at his residence which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/W. This improvised pistol has been marked as Ex. F1 and cartridge has been marked as Ex. A1 by the expert. The improvised pistol was found to be in working condition and A1 was also a live ammunition. The improvised pistol and cartridge are squarely covered under Arms Act.
72.2 Accused Shehzad got recovered one country made pistol alongwith a live cartridge from his residence in his village Khadoli. The weapon and cartridge was kept by him on a tand (storage space near the ceiling). Same was seized by the IO vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/O. This country made pistol has been marked as Ex. F3 by the Ballistic expert in his report and the live cartridge has been marked as A2. Soon after the incident police got recovered one fired empty cartridge from the spot. This cartridge has been marked as Ex. EC1 by the expert. As per para 9 of the ballistic report, EC1 has been fired through Exhibit 8mm bore country made pistol marked as Mark F3. Meaning thereby, the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused Shehzad was used in the incident for firing the bullet and the empty cartridge (EC1) recovered from the spot was fired from F3.
72.3 Although, it is admitted by accused Shehzad that he had fired upon the deceased but this fact has been proved by the SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 125/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:42 +0530 prosecution by way of ballistic report that he fired gun shot upon the deceased with country made pistol. Another circumstance which proves the use of country made pistol got recovered by accused Shehzad, is the recovered bullet from the body of the deceased during her postmortem examination. This bullet has been marked as Mark EB3 by the expert and as per point 11 this bullet was fired from Exhibit F3.
72.4 Accused Vishal got recovered the weapon of offence from a residence located at Village Diwana, Baghpat. He had hidden the county made revolver behind deity idol. This weapon was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW10/R and was marked as exhibit F2 by the Ballistic Expert. When the deceased was shifted to Maharishi Valmiki Hospital from the place of occurrence, she was examined vide MLC No. 5372/18 and at that time Dr. Vikas Mor recovered two bullets from her body and same were handed over to the IO in sealed condition. These two bullets have been marked as exhibit EB1 and EB2 by the Ballistic Expert. As per point 10 of the Ballistic Report EB1 and EB2 have been fired by F2. Therefore, he country made revolver got recovered by accused Vishal has been duly connected by the prosecution without any iota of doubt.
72.5 Considering the above discussion and mainly the ballistic report which is Ex. PW35/A, it has been duly proved that country made pistols got recovered by accused Vishal and Shehzad were used in the murder of the deceased. The absence of public witness in the recovery proceedings of the weapon have become insignificant in view of ballistic report. The recovery of weapons by accused Dharmender, Vishal and Shehzad is found to be reliable and duly proved by the prosecution. Accordingly, prosecution has proved its case against accused Dharmender under section 25 Arms Act. Allegations stand proved against SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 126/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:49 +0530 accused Vishal and Shehzad under section 25 and 27 Arms Act.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE 73.1 Accused Vishal has examined his father as a defence witness, who has deposed that accused Vishal left home in early hours of 29.10.2018 alongwith co-accused Shehzad for tile work. When he came back, he remained disturbed for 2-3 days and when he inquired from both of them, he came to know that they had shot down the deceased in a alleged road rage case. This defence witness has tried to corroborate the theory of road rage pleaded by both the accused person but this defence is found to be hollow and moonshine in view of clear and cogent evidence in the form of CDR and oral testimonies of PW5 Deepak Dahiya, PW8 Raju and PW9 Saravjeet.
73.2 Co-accused Angel Gupta has examined her mother Bimla Devi as a defence witness and she has tried to target the arrest proceedings of the accused but at the cost of repetition, her testimony is of no consequence as the arrest proceedings are duly proved in the trustworthy manner by the prosecution. In State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2002 SC 620, it has been held that credibility of defence witnesses stand on the same footing on which prosecution witnesses stand and there is no distinction between the two. The defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with the witnesses of prosecution. The defence witnesses examined in this case do not inspire confidence of this court and their testimonies have become insignificant in the light of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution.
CONCLUSION 74.1 Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, I am of the SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 127/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:33:55 +0530
considered view that prosecution has successfully proved its case against all accused persons i.e., Manjeet Sehrawat, Angel Gupta, Dharmender, Deepak, Vishal @ Johny and Shehzad Saifi. PW2 Dakshita, PW6 Anil and diary of the deceased has proved the fact that accused Manjeet Sehrawat and Angel Gupta were entangled in an extramarital affair. Deceased Sunita was relentlessly objecting to their relationship. There was no scope of divorce between Manjeet Sehrawat and Sunita. Accused Angel Gupta wanted to celebrate Karwa Chauth with accused Manjeet Sehrawat on 27.10.2018 and both these accused persons had the motive to commit the murder of the deceased for fulfillment of their desire and continuance of their relationship. 74.2 The criminal conspiracy was hatched by accused Manjeet Sehrawat, Angel Gupta and Rajeev Sethi @ Gupta. Accused Deepak introduced accused Dharmender in the conspiracy, who arranged the shooters i.e., accused Vishal and Shehzad. The conspiracy is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of bank transaction, mobile locations, CCTV footage, FSL reports, highly improbable human conduct, recovery of cars, motorcycle and weapons. All the accused persons actively participated while pursuing the criminal conspiracy. The weapons recovered from accused Shehzad and Vishal were found to be used in the murder of the deceased and the cause of death is found to be injuries suffered by the deceased due to gun shot injuries. Therefore, all accused persons namely Manjeet Sehrawat, Angel Gupta, Dharmender, Deepak, Vishal and Shehzad stands convicted for committing offences under sections 120-B and 302 read with section 120-B IPC. Accused Shehzad Saifi and Vishal @ Johny additionally convicted for committing offences under section 25/27 Arms Act and accused Dharmender additionally convicted for committing an offence SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 128/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:34:00 +0530 under section 25 Arms Act.
75. Matter be listed for arguments on sentence.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.04.28 15:34:06 +0530 Dictated and announced in the open (Dhirendra Rana) Court on 28.04.2025 ASJ:Special Judge (NDPS) (running in 129 pages) (North), Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 138/2019 State Vs. Manjeet Sehrawat & Ors. Page No. 129/129 FIR No. 430/2018 PS Bawana