Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Rudermani @ Rukmani @ on 3 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 85/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0033442012
State Vs. (1) Rudermani @ Rukmani @
Guderia @ Rohit
S/o Ramesh Maderia
R/o Village Bahiyari Bhagel,
PS Bhatpara Rani, Distt. Deoria,
Uttar Pradesh
Local Address:
A681/682, Bairagi Mohalla,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi
(Convicted)
(2) Rohit Kumar @ Rahul
S/o Shakal Dev Mehto
R/o Village Kadna, PS Garkha,
Distt. Chhapra, Bihar
Local Address:
Jhuggi No. 36, Sanjay Camp,
Outer Ring Road No. 28,
Haiderpur, Delhi
(Convicted)
(3) Sunil
S/o Mohan Lal
R/o Village Bahiyari Bhagel,
PS Bhatpara Rani, Distt. Deoria,
Uttar Pradesh
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 1
Local Address:
A681/682, Bairagi Mohalla,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 278/2011
Police Station: Adarsh Nagar
Under Sections: 302/394/397/411/34 IPC and
25/54/59 of Arms Act
Date of committal to Session Court: 7.2.2012
Date on which orders were received: 22.8.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced: 22.8.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations on 15.10.2011 at unknown time, in front of Indira Market, near Footpath, Service Road, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit in furtherance of their common intention robbed Harkesh Meena a Constable in the Delhi Police of his cash, other documents and mobile phone on the point of knife and while committing robbery the accused voluntarily assaulted Harkesh Meena by using a dead weapon i.e. Knife thereby committed the murder of Harkesh Meena. It has also been alleged that on 19.10.2011 the accused all the accused got recovered the robbed articles belonging to the deceased and the accused Rudermani got recovered the knife which was used by him on 15.10.2011 during the incident. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 2 BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of 1516.11.2011 at about 10:25 PM DD No.89B was received at Police Staiton Adarsh Nagar pursuant to which SI Afaque Ahmed along with Ct. Pardeep went to the spot i.e. near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station towards Indira Nagar Market where they met HC Himmat at the spot who informed him that the injured had been shifted to BJRM hospital by the officials of the PCR Van.
Thereafter SI Afaque Ahmed went to BJRM Hospital where he obtained the MLC of the injured from the doctor on which concerned doctor had declared the injured as brought dead at 11:10 PM. On formal examination of the dead body, police found injury on the forehead of the dead body and one stab injury on left side near rib. Duty Head Constable Nanhe Lal Mishra handed over to SI Afaque Ahmed the personal belongings of the deceased in an open condition which included one Noika Mobile phone, black bag make Donex in which there was a cap and uniform, belt and I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena written on the same and brown color shawl, light blue color towel and Thirteen Rupees cash. Duty Head Constable Nanhe Lal Mishra also handed over to SI Afaque Ahmed a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital, J.Puri Delhi containing the shirt of the deceased and a sample seal, on which he seized the said articles. Thereafter the dead boy was preserved in the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital after which SI Afaque Ahmed returned back to the spot where senior officers including Inspector Binod Kumar Singh along with Police Station staff was already St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 3 there. The Crime Team was called who inspected the spot and photographed the same after which the Crime Team Incharge handed over the Crime Team Report to SI Afaque Ahmed. SI Afaque then made his endorsement on DD Entry No.89B and converted the same into a rukka on the basis of which the present FIR was registered after which the investigations were marked to Inspector Binod Kumar who also inspected the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter the various exhibits were lifted from the spot. (3) On 17.10.2011 one Mohd. Moazzam who had made a call on 100 number vide DD No. 90B at 10:32 PM was called to the Police Station and Inspector Binod Kumar interrogated him during which he informed him that he was an eye witness to the incident. According to Moazzam on 16.10.2011 at around 10 PM when he was going towards Mukherjee Nagar side from Adarsh Nagar hospital after meeting one of his relative and reached the red light Adarsh Nagar ahead of the metro station, there was a traffic jam when he saw that three boys were hitting one boy and was trying to push him on the ground and that boy was struggling to himself and out of them one of the boys pulled out a knife and stabbed that boy who then fell on the ground and the same boy then cut his pocket with the same knife and pulled out his purse. Moazzam further informed him that out of the other two boys, one was holding the neck of the victim who had fallen down and the third boy was holding the waist of the victim and thereafter all three of them ran away and since he was very shocked on seeing this incident, he moved along with the traffic, however when he reached near Mukherjee Nagar, his conscious did St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 4 not permit him to proceed further and hence he made a 100 number call about the incident. Moazzam also informed him that he can identify the said boys in case if they come in front of him.
(4) On 19.10.2011 the investigations of the present case were taken over by Inspector Virender Kadyan the then SHO who alongwith Inspector Binod Kumar, ASI Parmod, HC Naresh, HC Ved, HC Sudhir, Ct. Naveen and other staff tried to search for the accused persons but could not trace them. On the same day at about 1:30 PM Inspector Virender Kadyan received a secret information that the accused wanted in the present case would come outside Subzi Mandi out gate towards Majlis Park at about 3:00 PM. Pursuant to the same two raiding parties were constituted one was headed by Inspector Virender Kadyan along with ASI Parmod, HC Naresh and Ct. Naveen took positions towards service lane, Panchwati adjacent to GT road, opposite out gate subzi mandi whereas the police party headed by Inspector Binod comprising of HC Vaid, HC Sudhir and one more official took position near NDPL Power House. At about 3:15 PM at the instance of secret informer the accused Rudermani was apprehended who on interrogation disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Rudermani was arrested, his personal search was conducted in which a mobile make MTS was recovered and his disclosure statement was also recorded. The accused Rudermani was then kept in muffled face. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudaramani led the police party to Bhama Shah park, service lane adjoining GT road near MTNL box and pointed out towards large St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 5 number of broken brick pieces lying on one corner of the service lane and got recovered a knife from under the broken brick pieces on which some dried blood stains and mud found. The said knife was then taken into possession by the Investigating Officer after preparing its sketch. Further, pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudermani then led the police party to Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy to house No. A681682 and at the instance of accused Rudermani, the accused Sunil was apprehended who on interrogation also disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Sunil was arrested, his personal search was conducted in which one mobile make SAMSUNG was found and his disclosure statement was also recorded. The accused Sunil then led the police party inside his house and from the parchati got recovered one brown color purse with the words GUCCI written on the same and informed that it was the purse belonging to the deceased after which the Investigating Officer checked the same which was found to contain the I card of the deceased of his training period, photocopy of the original I card, payslip of April, 2011, receipt of the mobile, two passport size photographs, original marksheet of Rajasthan University and a handwritten slip. The said purse along with its contents was also taken into possession. The accused Rudramani who was the nephew of Sunil also led the police team to the parchati in the same house and got recovered cash to the tune of Rs.280/ and disclosed that it was amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share, after which the cash of Rs.280/ was also taken into possession. The accused Sunil was also put in muffled face after St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 6 which both the accused Rudramani and Sunil led the police party to Haiderpur Jhuggies and while they were crossing Badli Bus Stand, they pointed out towards the third accused Rohit on which ASI Parmod and HC Naresh apprehended Rohit. The accused Rohit also disclosed his involvement in the present case and after which he arrested, his personal search was also conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. From the personal search of the accused Rohit, the original driving licence of the deceased and cash to the tune of Rs.660/ which the accused disclosed was the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share and his personal search also revealed a mobile phone, metro card and one receipt of gym which were taken into possession. The cash and driving licence were put into a separate envelope and taken into possession. Thereafter the police team along with the recovered articles and then returned to the Police Station and all accused persons were kept separately in muffled faces.
(5) On 20.10.2011 the Investigating Officer again interrogated all the accused persons and recorded their supplementary disclosure statements and on the same day all the accused persons were produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in muffled faces and one day Police Custody Remand was obtained. Thereafter the accused Ruderamani and Sunil lead the police to A681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalaswa Dairy but the said house was found locked and the accused Rohit lead the police party to his jhuggi Khadar Wali, Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh which jhuggie was also found locked. On 21.10.2011 all the three accused persons were again taken out from the lock up St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 7 in muffled faces and interrogated and their supplementary disclosure statements were recorded. First of all Sunil and Rudramani took the police party to their house at Bairagi Mohalla from where the accused Sunil produced one white shirt which had been kept on his bed and disclosed that he was wearing the said shirt on the day of the incident and also that the pant which he was already wearing was the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident pursuant to which both the pants and shirt of the accused Sunil were taken into possession. The accused Rudramani then got recovered a shirt hanging on a rope in his room which was of white and brown checks with "wanted" written on the same and disclosed that the pant which he was already wearing was the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident. Pursuant to the same the said clothes of the accused Rudermani was also taken into possession. Thereafter the accused Rohit then took the police team to his house at Khaderwali jhuggie, Haiderpur from where he got recovered a black color TShirt which was hanging on a Khunti behind the door, which was also taken into possession. All the three accused disclosed that they had washed the clothes after the incident but still a few spots were visible on the same and therefore the Investigating Officer had seized the same and recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rudramani and Sunil.
(6) On 24.10.2011 the Investigating Officer moved an application for getting TIP of all the three accused which was fixed for 03.11.2011 but both the accused Rudramani and Rohit refused to participate in the TIP St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 8 proceedings. On 05.11.2011 Inspector Rajesh Sinha the TIP of third accused Sunil was fixed but he also refused to participate in the same. On 18.11.2011 while the accused was being produced in Judicial Custody for extension of the remand, the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam also came to the court and identified all the three accused as the assailants whom he had seen on the date of the incident on which he recorded his statement and relieved him. After completion of investigations chargesheet was filed against the accused. CHARGES:
(7) Charges under Sections 392/34, 394/34, 397/34, 302/34 and 411 Indian Penal Code were settled against all the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charge under Section 25/27 of Arms Act was also settled against the accused Rudermani to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(8) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the documents proved by them and the list of case property are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution Witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
1. PW1 Duli Chand Meena Public Witness - Brother of the deceased
2. PW2 Kirori Lal Meena Public Witness - Brother of the deceased St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 9 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
3. PW3 Modh. Moazzam Public Witness - Eye Witness to the incident
4. PW4 HC B.A. Rao Police Witness - Duty Officer
5. PW5 Ct. Sudhir Kumar Police Witness - Special Messenger
6. PW6 Ct. Sandeep Police Witness - DD Writer
7. PW7 HC Radhey Shyam Police Witness - MHCM
8. PW8 Insp. Manohar Lal Police Witness - Draftsman
9. PW9 Ct. Pradeep Kumar Police Witness who had reached the spot along with SI Afaque Ahmed
10. PW10 HC Praveen Kumar Police Witness - Chitha Munshi of Police Station Narela
11. PW11 Ct. Ramesh Chander Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
12. PW12 HC Nanhe Lal Police Witness - Duty Constable at BJRM Hospital
13. PW13 Ct. Parshu Ram Police Witness who had preserved the dead body of the deceased in Mortuary of BJRM Hospital
14. PW14 SI M.D. Meena Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
15. PW15 Inder Singh Public Witness - Landlord of accused Sunil
16. PW16 Jyotish Moharana Nodal Officer from Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. (MTS)
17. PW17 Vishal Gaurav Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd.
18. PW18 Amar Nath Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd.
19. PW19 Deepak Kumar Public Witness in whose name the SIM No. 8459508549 was allotted
20. PW20 Bimal Kumar Public Witness - Brother of Deepak Kumar and was used the SIM No. 8459508549 which is a subject matter of snatching
21. PW21 SI Narsi Parsad Meena Police Witness - Friend of the deceased
22. PW22 Suresh @ Fauji Public Witness who knew the accused Rohit
23. PW23 HC Himmat Singh Police Witness who had reached the spot St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 10 Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of the witness No.
24. PW24 SI Afaque Ahmed Police Witness who had conducted the initial investigations
25. PW25 Insp. Rajesh Sinha Police Witness who had got conducted the TIP of accused persons
26. PW26 HC Naresh Kumar Police Witness who had joined investigations with Inspector Virender Kadyan
27. PW27 Ct. Vikram Police Witness who had deposited the pullandas at FSL Rohini
28. PW28 Insp. Binod Kumar Police Witness to whom the investigations Singh were marked after registration of FIR
29. PW29 Dr. Bhim Singh Autopsy Surgeon
30. PW30 Dr. Gopal Krishna Witness from BJRM Hospital who has proved the MLC of the deceased
31. PW31 Insp. Virender Kadyan Investigating Officer
32. PW32 Ms. Seema Nain FSL Expert Senior Scientific Officer (Biology)
33. PW33 Sh. A.K. Shrivastava FSL Expert - Deputy Director (DNA Unit)
34. PW34 Sh. V. Lakshmi FSL Expert Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by No. No. 1. PW1/A Dead body identification statement Duli Chand 2. PW1/B Request for Postmortem 3. PW2/A Dead body identification memo Kirori Lal 4. PW2/B Request for Postmortem 5. PW4/A Copy of FIR HC B. A. Rao 6. PW4/B Endorsement on Rukka St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 11 Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by No. No. 7. PW6/A DD No. 89A Ct. Sandeep 8. PW6/B DD No. 90B 9. PW7/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Radhey Shyam HC Radhey Shyam 10. PW7/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3249 11. PW7/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3658 12. PW7/C Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3661 13. PW7/D Copy of RC No. 145/21/11 14. PW7/E Copy of RC No. 146/21/11 15. PW7/F FSL Receipt 16. PW8/1 Affidavit of evidence of Insp. Manohar Lal Inspector Manohar 17. PW8/A Site plan Lal 18. PW9/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Pradeep Kumar Ct. Pradeep Kumar 19. PW9/A Seizure memo of exhibits 20. PW10/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Praveen Kumar HC Praveen Kumar 21. PW10/A Copy of Duty Roaster 22. PW11/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Ramesh Chander Ct. Ramesh Chander 23. PW11/A1 Photographs of Scene of Crime to 17 24. PW12/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Nanhe Lal Mishra HC Nanhe Lal Mishra 25. PW13/1 Affidavit of evidence of Ct. Parshu Ram Ct. Parshu Ram 26. PW14/1 Affidavit of evidence of SI M.D. Meena SI M.D. Meena Manohar Lal 27. PW14/A Crime Team Report 28. PW15/A Seizure memo of copy of ID Card Sh. Inder Singh 29. PW15/B Photocopy of I Card of Soni 30. PW15/C Photocopy of Election I Card 31. PW16/A Customer Application Form in respect of Jyotish Moharana Mobile No. 8459508549 32. PW16/B Copy of ID Card St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 12 Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by No. No. 33. PW16/C Call Detail Record 34. PW16/D Cell ID Chart 35. PW16/E Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act 36. PW17/A Customer Application Form in respect of Vishal Gaurav Mobile No. 9971870929 37. PW17/B Copy of ID Card 38. PW17/C Call Detail Record 39. PW17/D Cell ID Chart 40. PW17/E Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act 41. PW18/A Customer Application Form in respect of Amar Nath Mobile No. 9891370258 42. PW18/B Copy of ID Card 43. PW18/C Call Detail Record 44. PW18/D Customer Application Form in respect of Mobile No. 9718663715 45. PW18/E Copy of ID Card 46. PW18/F Call Detail Record 47. PW18/G Customer Application Form in respect of Mobile No. 9990639518 48. PW18/H Copy of ID Card 49. PW18/I Call Detail Record 50. PW18/J Cell ID Chart 51. PW18/K Certificate U/s 65Bof Evidence Act 52. PW19/A Seizure memo of election and ration card Deepak 53. PW19/B Photocopy of I Card of Deepak 54. PW19/C Copy of ration card 55. PW19/D Seizure memo of mobile phone receipt 56. PW19/E Original receipt St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 13 Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by No. No. 57. PW22/A Seizure memo of ration card Suresh @ Fauji 58. PW22/B Copy of Election Card 59. PW22/C Photocopy of Ration Card 60. PW23/1 Affidavit of evidence of HC Himmat Singh HC Himmat Singh 61. PW23/A Site plan 62. PW24/A DD No. 89B SI Afaque Ahmed 63. PW24/B Seizure memo of articles handed over by the doctor 64. PW24/C Seizure memo of Shirt of the deceased 65. PW24/D Endorsement on the rukka 66. PW24/E Dead body handed over memo 67. PW26/A Arrest memo of accused Rudramani HC Naresh Kumar 68. PW26/B Personal search memo of Rudermani 69. PW26/C Disclosure statement of Rudermani 70. PW26/D Pointing out memo by Rudermani 71. PW26/E Sketch of knife 72. PW26/F Seizure memo knife 73. PW26/G Site plan of place of recovery 74. PW26/H Arrest memo of accused Sunil 75. PW26/I Personal search memo of accused Sunil 76. PW26/J Disclosure Statement of accused Sunil 77. PW26/K Seizure memo of Purse of the deceased 78. PW26/L Seizure memo of Rs.280/ recovered by the accused Rudermani 79. PW26/M Arrest memo of accused Rohit 80. PW26/N Personal search memo of accused Rohit 81. PW26/O Disclosure statement of accused Rohit 82. PW26/P Pointing out memo by accused Sunil 83. PW26/Q Pointing out memo by accused Rohit St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 14 Sr. Exhibit Details of documents Proved by No. No. 84. PW26/R Disclosure statement of accused Sunil 85. PW26/S Disclosure statement of accused Rudermani 86. PW26/T Disclosure statement of accused Rohit 87. PW26/U Seizure memo of Shirt of Pants of the accused Sunil 88. PW26/V Seizure memo of Shirt and Pants of the accused Rudermani
89. PW26/W Seizure memo of Shirt of accused Rohit
90. PW26/X Seizure memo of copy of arrival of deceased Ct.
Harkesh Meena
91. PW28/A Inquest form Insp. Binod Kumar
92. PW29/A Postmortem Report Dr. Bhim Singh
93. PW29/B Subsequent Opinion
94. PW30/A MLC of the deceased Dr. Gopal Krishna
95. PW31/A Site plan from where accused Sunil was Insp. Virender Kadyan apprehended
96. PW31/D Application for Subsequent Opinion
97. PW32/A Biological Report Ms. Seema Nain
98. PW32/B Serological Report
99. PW33/A DNA Report Sh. A.K. Shrivastava
100. PW33/B Genotype Analysis Report
101. PW34/A FSL (Physics) Report Sh. V. Lakshmi St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 15 List of Case Property:
Sr. Details of the case property Exhibit number Exhibit No. put earlier number to be read as such
1. Black Colour Bag with the DONEX written on Collectively the same with mobile phone make Nokia, Ex.P2 uniform of Delhi Police, brown coloured Shawl, one light blue towel, one pair of socks, Rs.13/ cash, one belt of Delhi Police and one I card of Delhi Police with the name Harkesh Meena
2. Black Colour Bag with the DONEX written on Ex.P1A the same
3. Mobile phone make Nokia Ex.P2a
4. Uniform of Delhi Police Ex.P2b
5. Brown coloured Shawl Ex.P2c
6. One light blue towel Ex.P2d
7. One pair of socks Ex.P2e
8. Rs.13/ cash Ex.P2f
9. One belt of Delhi Police Ex.P2g
10. One Cap of Delhi Police Ex.P2h
11. One Brown coloured Purse belonging to the Ex.P1 Ex.P1 deceased
12. Articles which were in the purse i.e. two Collectively photographs of the deceased Harkesh Meena, one Ex.P7 temporary Delhi Police Identity Card in the name of Harkesh Meena, one marksheet of BA Part II University of Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena, one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011, one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena one receipt of mobile of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena and one handwritten receipt
13. Two photographs of Harkesh Meena Ex.P7a St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 16 Sr. Details of the case property Exhibit number Exhibit No. put earlier number to be read as such
14. One temporary Delhi Police Identity Card in the Ex.P7b name of Harkesh Meena
15. One marksheet of BA Part II University of Ex.P7c Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena
16. One pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011 Ex.P7d
17. One photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena Ex.P7e
18. One receipt of mobile of Nokia 7230 in the name Ex.P7f of Harkesh Meena
19. One handwritten receipt Ex.P7g
20. Blood Stained I Card of the deceased Ex.P3 Ex.P3
21. Currency Notes of Rs.280/ got recovered by Ex.P4 Ex.P4 Rudermani
22. Currency Notes of Rs.660/ recovered from Ex.P5 Ex.P5 accused Rohit
23. Driving License of the deceased Ex.P6 Ex.P6
24. Knife recovered by the accused Rudermani Ex.P8 Ex.P8
25. Pant got recovered by Sunil Ex.P9 Ex.P9
26. Shirt got recovered by Sunil Ex.P10 Ex.P10
27. Jeans Pant got recovered by Rudermani Ex.P11 Ex.P11
28. Checkdar Shirt got recovered by Rudermani Ex.P12 Ex.P12
29. One T shirt Black color got recovered by Rohit Ex.P13 Ex.P13
30. Mobile phone make MTS with SIM No. Ex.P14 Ex.P14 8459508549 having Sr. No. OMH 8991031113764371130F M03 recovered from Rudermani
31. Mobile Phone make Samsung with SIM No. Ex.P15 Ex.P15 9718663715 recovered from accused Sunil
32. Mobile phone Nokia with SIM No. 9971870929 Ex.P16 Ex.P16 recovered from accused Rohit St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 17 EVIDENCE:
(9) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Thirty Four Witnesses as under:
Public Witnesses:
(10) PW1 Duli Chand Meena a farmer by profession is the brother of the deceased who has deposed that on 16.10.2011 he received information about the death of his brother Harkesh Meena, who was working in Delhi Police. According to the witness he reached BJRM Hospital and identified the dead body of his brother Harkesh Meena vide his statement Ex.PW1/A. He has proved that he also signed at point A on the request for postmortem which is Ex.PW1/B regarding identification of the dead body. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity being granted in this regard.
(11) PW2 Kirori Lal Meena a farmer by profession is also the brother of the deceased and has deposed that on 16.10.2011 he received information about the death of his brother Harkesh Meena, who was working in Delhi Police. According to the witness he reached BJRM Hospital and identified the dead body of his brother Harkesh Meena vide his statement Ex.PW2/A. He has also proved having signed at point A, on the request for postmortem which is Ex.PW2/B regarding identification of the dead body and after postmortem dead body was handed over to them. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 18 this regard.
(12) PW3 Mohd. Moazzam is an eye witness to the incident. He has deposed that on 15.10.2011 he was doing preparation for the examination conducted by UPSC and was taking coaching from Khan Study Group Institute at Hudson Lane. According to the witness on that day, his classes were over at 8 PM and thereafter he went to GTK Hospital to see the new born baby of his sister. Witness has further deposed that at about 10:00 PM he left the hospital and was going towards Mukherjee Nagar, when he reached ahead to Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, towards Azadpur side, there was a red light and traffic was jam. According to the witness at that time, he was on his motorcycle and he stopped his motorcycle by the side of the road near red light and was present near the exit gate of Adarsh Nagar Metro Station.
Witness has further deposed that he heard some noise on which he turned back to see as to what had happened and he noticed that three boys, in the age group of about 25 years were present there who were catching hold one person and the said person was trying to get releases himself from the clutches of those boys. The witness has testified that one of the boy was catching hold the neck of that person and another boy was catching hold the waist of that person and the third boy was having a knife in his hand after which the said boy inflicted a knife blow on the head of that person and thereafter he stabbed that person on the left side of his chest with the said knife and that person fell down after the injuries were received by St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 19 him. Witness has further deposed that thereafter these boys removed the purse from the pocket of the pants, worn by that person after cutting the same from his pocket and all the three boys ran away from the spot. According to him, in the meantime, the traffic light got green and he moved ahead on his motorcycle and stopped the same nearby after which he made a call to the police at 100 number and then he left the spot. He has also deposed that on 17.10.2011 he noticed the said incident in the newspaper and came to know that the said person who was a constable in the Delhi Police had expired and on the same day, he received information from the police after which he went to Police Station where police recorded his statement. (13) According to the witness, on 24.10.2011 he received a call from the police for identification of the accused persons and they called him on 03.11.2011 and on 05.11.2011. He has testified that on 03.11.2011 he went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar at about 1:00 PM and thereafter he along with Inspector Rajesh Sinha went to Rohini Jail for identification of accused. He has also deposed that he stayed outside the jail, whereas Inspector Rajesh entered inside the jail and after some time, Ld. MM also reached there after which Inspector Rajesh Sinha came outside the jail and he told him that two accused persons had refused to join the Test Identification Parade Proceedings and thereafter Investigating Officer recorded his statement. He has further deposed that on 05.11.2011 he went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar at about 1:30 PM and thereafter he along with Inspector Rajesh Sinha went to Tihar Jail for identification of accused. According to the witness he stayed outside St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 20 the jail, whereas Inspector Rajesh entered inside the jail and after sometime Ld. MM also reached there. Witness has further deposed that thereafter Inspector Rajesh Sinha came outside the jail and informed him that the third accused had also refused to join the Test Identification Parade proceedings after which Investigating Officer recorded his statement. (14) Witness has further testified that on 18.11.2011 he was called at Police Station on which he reached there at about 1:00 PM and thereafter he along with police officials reached Rohini Courts, Room No. 105. According to the witness, when he was present outside the court in the meantime, three accused persons were produced before the court and he identified all the boys as the assailants, who had murdered the Constable of Delhi Police on 15.10.2011. He has also deposed that he pointed out towards the said boys and their names he came to know as accused Rudramani, Sunil and Rohit and he also came to know that the name of deceased was Ct. Harkesh Meena of Delhi police who was present at the time of incident in plain clothes. (15) The witness has pointed out towards accused Rudramani, as the person who had inflicted the injury with knife to the deceased and also removed the purse of deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants. He has pointed out towards accused Rohit as the person had caught hold the neck of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased. The witness has also pointed out towards accused Sunil as the person who had caught hold the waist of the deceased when St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 21 accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased. (16) The witness has clarified that he dialed on 100 number to the police from his mobile number 9990639518.
(17) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he has completed his B.Tech (Civil) from Jamia Milia Islamia College University, Delhi. According to the witness he purchased his mobile SIM in the year 2007, prior to starting of his B.Tech studies and so far as he recollects, he obtained the said SIM on the address of UP i.e. B100, KDA Colony, Jajmau, Kanpur, UP and the same is presently his current address. He has testified that he left the hospital at about 10 PM. The witness has admitted that the above address which is of UP is his permanent address and his family also resides at the said address, along with him and he is residing there since birth. According to him, the address of Hudson Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi was the address of his Coaching Institute, whereas he was residing at Mukherjee Nagar at the time of incident. The witness has testified that he left the hospital at about 10:00 PM and took the straight route, reached the red light in front of exit gate of Metro Station, Adarsh Nagar and it took about ten minutes to reach the exit gate of Metro Station, Adarsh Nagar, from the hospital. Witness has explained that the distance between the red light, where he was standing and the place of occurrence, was hardly about ten to fifteen meters and the distance between the exit gate of Metro Station and the red light was about 15 meters and has voluntarily explained that place was in the shape of triangle i.e. position of his bike, exit gate of Metro Station and St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 22 the place of incident. According to the witness, he was standing behind a truck at the red light, that is why he has no idea about the number of vehicles held up in the traffic jam and has explained that mostly the vehicles were truck in the jam at that time. Witness has further deposed that he was present on the left side of the road, whereas his legs were on the footpath having a height of about twothree feet from the road, therefore, nobody can run the bike from the footpath, at the place, where he was standing. According to the witness he was not sure whether the time was exactly 10:10 PM at that time, when he was present there and has stated that he has given the time by approximation. Witness has further deposed that he stationed his bike, stopped the engine and then heard the noise and turned when he saw the incident which was completed within onetwo minutes maximum and in the meantime, the traffic light turned green. According to the witness accused persons were visible from the place where he was present. He has explained that the accused Rudramani who was stabbing the deceased, was wearing white and brown colored checked shirt and black colored pants; accused Rohit was wearing black shirt and accused Sunil was wearing light colored like whitish pant and shirt. The witness has further deposed that the accused persons after stabbing the deceased, removed his purse at the spot, after he fell down at the spot. Witness has also deposed that the deceased fell down near the street light, which was at the footpath and the deceased was trying to escape and free himself from the clutches of accused persons and scuffling was going on, at the spot i.e. near the street light. According to the witness St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 23 accused Rohit was catching hold the neck of deceased, whereas accused Sunil was gripping the deceased from his waist and accused Rudramani stabbed the deceased with knife. He has also deposed that accused Rudramani did not use full force while inflicting knife blow on the head of deceased and has voluntarily explained that in case if he had used his full force, then the head of deceased might have split into two. Witness has further deposed that the accused Rudramani used full force, while inflicting knife blows on the chest of deceased and it may be possible that at that time on the chest of deceased the blood may be oozed out and may be spread on the clothes of the accused persons. He does not remember where there was any shop near the spot and has stated that he was only paying attention on the incident, which had taken place in his presence. According to him, on seeing the incident he did not raise alarm, as he became scared and hence, he did try to call any person from the said trucks and has voluntarily added that in the meantime, the traffic light turned green and he moved from there and crossing the traffic signal, he made call to the police. According to the witness the place where the deceased fell down, was at a distance of about ten meters from the stairs of exit gate of the Metro Station. Witness has further deposed that after committing the offence, all the accused i.e. Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit (as pointed out by him) immediately ran away from the spot and since the traffic light turned green, therefore he also moved from there. He has testified that he made a call to the police when he reached near the petrol pump, but he cannot tell the distance from the spot till the petrol pump. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 24 He has explained that he made a call to the police within approximately ten minutes after the incident. Witness has further deposed that the mobile number 9990639518 belongs to him and he is still using this number. According to the witness, he narrated the incident at 100 number within two three minutes.
(18) The witness has further testified that he saw the accused persons in front of Court No. 105 and pointed out them to the police being assailants of this case. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never saw the incident, or that if he could have seen the incident and being a literate person, he could has tried to save the deceased and has voluntarily explained that he was afraid as the accused persons were having weapons with them. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness in this case and has voluntarily added that he has photographs of the hospital and also having the photographs of metro line, where there was a fault of guarder. Witness has further deposed that since he is a civil engineer and when he stopped there, he noticed the said fault on which he took the photographs of it from his mobile camera which photographs are still in his mobile phone. Witness has admitted that he did not disclose this fact to the police and has voluntarily explained that he has recollected this by his memory on asking of this question. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is not residing at the address, mentioned above of UP or that he had given his false address to the police and has voluntarily explained that he left his parental house for his education since year 2004. According to the witness presently only his father St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 25 resides there and he visits the said address. He has stated that at the time of obtaining mobile connection on his ID of UP address, the shopkeeper asked him to furnish some local address of Delhi, therefore he gave the address of his friend of D35 Lane No. 1, Batla House, Okhla, New Delhi. Witness has further deposed that later on he also discussed the incident with his elder brother, who is a Cardiac Surgeon. According to him, on 17.10.2011 he went to Police Station and met one police official, namely Vinod Kumar and narrated the incident to him. He does not remember if any police official was also present at that time and his statement was recorded there. The witness has also deposed that his statements were recorded four times in this case but none of the statement was signed by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has been tutored about the incident and has voluntarily added he is an educated person, being engineer, therefore he is telling the truth, as seen by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that his is deposing falsely at the instance of police officials.
(19) PW15 Sh. Inder Singh has deposed that he is residing at house No. 588, Village Badli, Jatav Mohalla Delhi and has another house bearing no. 681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalaswa Dairy and there are 56 rooms in that house which rooms were given on rent basis by him. According to the witness one Sunil was residing in one of the room at the abovesaid house at Bairagi Mohalla with his wife since November 2010 and left the room in the month of April/ May 2011 and he again came at his room in the month of September 2011 and resided there with his wife Soni. Witness has further deposed that St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 26 he (Sunil) used to pay Rs.1000/ per month as rent to him and Sunil gave his ID proof i.e. election ID Card to him while taking the room on rent. According to the witness he handed over the photocopy of said ID cards of Sunil and Soni to police which was seized by he police vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. He has proved that the photocopy of election I card of Soni which is Ex.PW15/B and photocopy of election I card of Sunil which is Ex.PW15/C. He has identified the accused Sunil in the Court. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(20) PW19 Deepak Kumar has deposed that he is doing a private job and in the month of May 2011 he had purchased a mobile phone with SIM Card of MTS Company from a shop at Najafgarh Road with mobile no. 8459508549 for Rs. 950/. According to the witness, he had given his ID Card i.e. election voter card with his photo to the shopkeeper while he purchased the abovesaid mobile phone with SIM and he handed over this mobile phone to his younger brother Bimal who used to do work of vegetables. Witness has further deposed that after one month of purchase of said phone, his brother Bimal had gone to Azadpur Subzi Mandi at night time at about 1.30 AM when an incident took place with his brother in which the abovesaid mobile phone and some money was robbed from him. According to the witness, his brother Bimal was nervous due to incident and hence they did not lodge the FIR with police because they were under fear that the said robbers could cause injury to them. The witness has testified that they made St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 27 call on the said phone upto 1520 days but the mobile was found switched off and hence they thought that the SIM had been broken by the said robbers. According to the witness, on 11.01.2012 police came to them and inquired about the mobile phone on which he informed the above said facts to police. He has testified that he handed over the photocopy of his election card and photocopy of ration card to police and police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/A. He has identified the photocopy of his election I Card which is Ex.PW19/B and photocopy of ration card which is Ex.PW19/B. According to him, on 13.01.2012 he went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar and handed over receipt of purchase of abovesaid mobile phone with SIM and the police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/D and the said original receipt is Ex.PW19/E. (21) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the date of purchase of said mobile phone with SIM and has voluntarily added that it was written in the receipt. According to the witness he handed over the said mobile phone to his brother after one day of purchase of said phone but he did not inform the police that he was having another mobile with him and has voluntarily added that police did not ask him so he did not tell the same to police. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never handed over any mobile phone to his brother or that no mobile phone was ever snatched by anybody from his brother or that is the reason why there is no police record of the same. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness and he has deposed falsely before this St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 28 Court at the instance of Investigating Officer. He has further denied the suggestion that his mobile phone is also planted upon the accused persons for purpose to plant him and his brother as a witness in the present case by Investigating Officer.
(22) PW20 Bimal a vegetable seller by profession is the younger brother of Deepak (PW19). He has deposed that in the month of May 2011 his brother Deepak had purchased a mobile phone with SIM but he does not remember its mobile number and he (witness) used the said mobile phone with abovesaid SIM. Witness has further deposed that after one month of purchase of mobile phone, he was present in Azadpur Subzi Mandi when at about 1.00 AM threefour persons committed robbery with him on pointing of knife and took away money Rs.10,000/ and the above said mobile phone with SIM from him. According to the witness, they did not lodge any FIR of incident because they were afraid from assailants as other public persons were saying that they would cause injuries to them. Witness has further deposed that he used to go to Azadpur Mandi and due to fear of abovesaid assailants, he did not make any complaint to police. According to him, they made calls on the said mobile phone for 1520 days but it was found switched off and thereafter they did not try on the same phone.
(23) Witness has further deposed that on 11.01.2012 police came at his house and made inquiries from him and his brother Deepak about the above said mobile phone and mobile number on which and they told all facts to the police. According to the witness police seized the photocopy of election ID St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 29 card of his brother and their ration card vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A copy of which election ID Card is Ex.PW19/B and ration card is Ex.PW19/C. (24) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has admitted that the mobile phone he was using was 8459508549.
(25) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he used to go Sabji Mandi daily to buy vegetables. Witness has further admitted that he did not make any police report regarding snatching of mobile phone and rupees from him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not tell regarding alleged snatching at his home and that is why none of his family members including his brother Deepak lodged any complaint regarding the snatching of mobile phone and money. Witness has also denied the suggestion that no mobile phone or money was snatched from him and that is why no complaint was made by him or his brother Deepak and has voluntarily explained that his brother asked him to make complaint but he refused for the same. He has further has denied the suggestion that no such snatching had ever happened and that is why there is no complaint or that his brother did not give any phone to him. Witness has also denied the suggestion that no mobile phone was purchased for him by his brother Deepak or that he never used the abovesaid mobile number. He has further denied the suggestion that he has been planted as a witness by police in the present case.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 30 (26) PW22 Suresh @ Fauji has deposed that he is residing at Jhuggi No. 36, Sanjay Camp, Haider Pur, Delhi with his two brothers and they all three are unmarried. According to the witness in the year 2012 he used to work in a mutton shop at Haider Pur and in the morning time they used to prepare the samosa, bread pakora, kachori etc. whereas in the evening time they used to prepare chicken soup and mutton etc. Witness has further deposed that he knew accused Rohit whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, who used to come at their shop as a Customer and he know him as a customer who was known to him through their owner Ashok. According to the witness after arrest of Rohit he came to know that he was involved in a murder case. He has also deposed that police did not seize anything in his presence.
(27) With the permission of the court, leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State about recovery of Tshirt and his relationship with accused Rohit. The witness has admitted that accused Rohit used to come at their shop and he took eatable items from there then he came to know him. He has however denied the suggestion that accused Rohit used to come at his jhuggi and usually remain there. He is not aware about recovery of any Tshirt from his jhuggi at the instance of accused Rohit. Witness has admitted that on 07.01.2012 he handed over photocopy of his election ID Card and photocopy of ration card which were seized by police vide Ex.PW22/A photocopy of which election ID Card is Ex.PW22/B and photocopy of ration card is Ex.PW22/C. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 31 (28) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that accused Rohit was not residing with them. Witnesses of Medical Record:
(29) PW29 Dr. Bhim Singh has deposed that on 16.10.2011 he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Harkesh Meena, aged about 27 years male, S/o Dhansaram Meena on the request of Inspector Binod Kumar Singh, Police Station Adarsh Nagar. According to the witness on examination he found one blood stained white baniyan, one blood stained dark blue pant, one underwear and black shoes with socks and there were cut marks in the baniyan measuring about 3.5cm. Witness has further deposed that on examination he found following external injuries on the body of the deceased :
1. Incised stab wound 3.2 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity deep, left side of chest in the seventh intercoastal space, situated 12cm below and lateral from left nipple, lower angle of wound was obtuse, upper angle was acute, wound was obliquely placed.
2. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.2 cm x 20.4 cm was present middle of forehead.
(30) According to the witness, on internal examination of head and neck all organs were intact, brain was pale; on examination of Chest the Chest Wall showed cut mark through and through in the seventh intercoastal space, wound travelled slightly upwards cutting the outer surface of left ventricle of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 32 heart, through and through, total length was approximately 15cm, chest cavity and pericardial was full of blood about 1.5 liters, blood was fluid and clotted and other organs were pale and the Stomach was having semi digested food about 250 gms. The witness has proved having opined that death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon stab injury via injury No. 1, all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and caused by single sharp edged pointed weapon or like object; Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and Time since death was about 1314 hours. He has also deposed that after postmortem examination he handed over the clothes, blood in gauze piece in sealed condition with sample seal of department to the police. He has proved the detailed postmortem examination report which is Ex.PW29/A. (31) According to the witness, on 16.12.2011 he received an application from Inspector Virender Kadiyan SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar along with inquest papers and one sealed packet, sealed with seals of VK for subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence. Witness has further deposed that on opening the packet he found one single edged iron knife having wooden handle as described in figure 1 in his report. He has proved having opined that the Injury No. 1 and 2 mentioned in Postmortem Report No. 958/11 which is Ex.PW29/A could be possible by above examined weapon. The witness has testified that after examination the weapon of offence was again sealed with sample seal of the department and handed over St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 33 to police. He has proved his subsequent opinion which is Ex.PW29/B. (32) It has been observed by this Court that the weapon of offence and the clothes of the deceased has not been produced by the Investigating Officer despite opportunity and hence could not be shown to the witness. On a specific Court Question the witness has explained that the stab injury was inflicted from the front side.
(33) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he has given his opinion with regard to the cause of death, time since death and weapon of offence on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
(34) PW30 Dr. Gopal Krishna has proved the MLC which is Ex.PW30/A prepared by Dr. Ajeet according to which on 15.10.2011 injured Harkesh Meena, aged around 27 years male (as mentioned on the I Card found in the pocket of the patient) was brought to the casualty of the hospital by ASI Ram Kishan, PCR official. According to the witness. Dr. Ajeet examined the said patient under his supervision and declared him brought dead vide MLC Ex.PW30/A and his observations are present at encircled portion X and the said MLC also bears his name at point B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted and opportunity in this regard.
FSL Experts:
(35) PW32 Ms. Seema Nain, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) has St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 34 deposed that on 29.12.2011, thirteen sealed parcels were received at their office FSL Rohini Delhi in case FIR No. 278/11 of Police Station Adarsh Nagar and same were marked to her for examination. According to the witness she found the seal was intact and tallied with sample seal as received in their office and she marked the parcels as Parcel No. 1 to 7 and 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16. According to the witness, on opening parcel no.1 she found the blood stained stones which were marked by her as Ex.1; on opening parcel no.
2 she found the blood stained earth which were marked by her as Ex.2; on opening parcel no. 3 she found the earth control which were marked by her as Ex.3; on opening parcel no. 4 she found one pen which was marked by her as Ex.4; on opening parcel no. 5 she found the blood stained stones which were marked by her as Ex.5; on opening parcel no. 6 she found earth control which were marked by her as Ex.6; on opening parcel no. 7 she found one damp foul smelling cut/ torn shirt which was marked by her as Ex.7; on opening parcel no. 9 she found one dirty pant, one dirty cut torn banyan, one dirty underwear and one pair of shoes with one pair of socks which were marked by her as Ex. 9a, 9b, 9c and 9d respectively; on opening parcel no.10 she found the blood gauze sample which were marked by her as Ex.10; on opening parcel no. 12 she found one knife which was marked by her as Ex.12; on opening parcel no. 14 she found one pant and shirt which were marked by her as Ex.14a and 14b; on opening parcel no.15 she found one dirty jeans pant and one dirty shirt which were marked by her as Ex.15a and 15b; on opening parcel no.16 she found one TShirt which was marked by her as Ex.16. The witness has St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 35 testified that after examining the abovesaid exhibits, she gave the biological report which is Ex.PW32/A (three pages) according to which Blood was detected on Ex.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d, 10, 12, 14a, 14b, 15a, 15b and 16. She has proved that she also examined above said exhibits serologically and gave her detailed serological report which is Ex.PW32/B according to which Human Blood was detected on Ex.1 (blood stained stones), 2 (blood stained earth), 5 (blood stained stones), 6 (earth control), 7 (torn shirt of the deceased), 9a (pant of the deceased), 9b (torn baniyan of the deceased), 9c (underwear of the deceased), 9d (one pair of socks of the deceased), 10 (blood sample of the deceased), 12 (knife), 14a (pants of accused Sunil), 14b (shirt of accused Sunil), 15a (jeans pant of accused Rudermani), 15b (shirt of the accused Rudermani) and 16 (Tshirt of accused Rohit) and Human Blood of 'O' Group was found on the exhibit 9a (pant of the deceased), 9b (torn baniyan of the deceased), 9c (underwear of the deceased) and 10 (blood sample of the deceased). She has further deposed that after examination of abovesaid exhibits, remnant were resealed with seal of S.Nn. FSL Delhi. (36) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (37) PW33 Sh. A. K. Shrivastava, Deputy Director (DNA Unit), FSL Rohini has deposed that on 03.05.2012 five sealed parcels from Biology Division to DNA Unit were received bearing seal of SNn FSL, Delhi containing exhibits 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16 and the seals on the parcels were St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 36 intact which was marked to him for analysis. He has testified that he broke open the seal from the parcels and on opening the parcel no.10 it was found to contain dark brown gauze cloth piece which was kept in a polythene described as blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena; on opening the parcel no.12 it was found to contain one knife with wooden handle; on opening the parcel no.14 it was found to contain one dirty pant and one dirty shirt; on opening the parcel no.15 it was found to contain one jeans pant and one full sleeve shirt and on opening the parcel no.16, it found to contain one T Shirt. According to the witness, he examined the above said articles thoroughly and submit his reports which are Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B both bearing his signatures at point A. He has proved that on conclusion he found that the DNA profiling STR Analysis performed on the exhibit 10 (blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena), exhibit 12 (knife), and exhibit 15b (i.e. one full sleeve shirt of Rudermani) provided are sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile from the source of exhibit 12 (knife) and exhibit 15b (i.e. one full sleeve shirt of Rudermani) is similar with the DNA profile from the source of the exhibits 10 (blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena).
(38) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that he examined the exhibits in a mechanical manner and gave his report at the instance of Investigating Officer. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 37 (39) PW34 Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) has deposed that on 30.07.2012 he has received three parcels duly sealed with the seal of FSL, SNn DELHI through biology division found marked as parcel 7, parcel 9 and parcel 12. According to the witness on opening parcel No. 7 one full sleeves shirt in torn condition was found which was marked exhibit 7, the second parcel on opening was found to contain cloth and shoes i.e. one pant marked Ex 9a, one baniyan marked Ex 9b, one underwear marked Ex 9c and one pair of shoe with socks marked as Ex 9d and third parcel on opening was found to contain one knife marked as Ex.12. The witness has further deposed that after examination he gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW34/A. According to the witness, cut mark Q1 on shirt marked exhibit 7 and Q2 on baniyan marked exhibit 9b were examined physically and under magnification. He has proved that the cut edges were found to be sharp and the knife marked exhibit 12 was also examined and the test cut marks T1 and T2 were marked on shirt using knife marked exhibit 12. According to the witness these cut marks were compared with crime cut marks and he gave his opinion that the cut marks Q1 and Q2 could be caused by the knife marked exhibit 12 and after the examination the exhibits were resealed with the seal of VLN FSL DELHI. (40) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he examined the exhibits in a mechanical manner and gave his report at the instance of Investigating Officer. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 38 Nodal Officers:
(41) PW16 Sh. Jyotish Moharana, Nodal Officer from Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. (MTS) has brought the record pertaining to mobile No. 8459508549 which is issued in the name of Deepak Kumar Sha S/o Shashi Bhushan Sha, R/o 673, A Block, Camp No. 4, Jawalapuri, Nangloi, Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW16/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW16/B. The witness has proved the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW16/C (running into nine pages) and Cell ID chart is which is Ex.PW16/D (running into 62 pages). He has also placed on record the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW16/E. (42) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Delhi itself and he has retrieved the call details from his personal computer set as he has a direct access to the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss or that the above calls details has been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(43) PW17 Sh. Vishal Gaurav Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd.
has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9971870929 which is issued in the name of Naveen Kumar S/o Tinka Ram, R/o T10/169, Gali behind bus stand, Village Bharola, Delhi vide Customer Application St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 39 Form copy of which is Ex.PW17/A and copy of Election ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW17/B. He has proved the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW17/C (running into two pages) and the Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW17/D (running into one page). He has also placed on record the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW17/E. (44) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Noida and he has retrieved the call details from his personal computer set as he has a direct access to the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in their office resulting into a data loss or that the above calls details has been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(45) PW18 Sh. Amar Nath, Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9891370258 which is issued in the name of Harkesh Meena S/o Dhanasya, R/o Delhi Police Training Center, Wazirabad, Delhi permanent resident of 161, near Kendriya Vidhayala, Mahukhurdpur Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/A and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW18/B. He has proved the Call Details from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 are Ex.PW18/C (running into four pages).
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 40 (46) The witness has also proved the record pertaining to mobile No. 9718663715 which is issued in the name of Sunil S/o Mahan Lal, R/o 168, Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi permanent resident of 226, Bahiyari Baghel, Tehsil Bhatapararani, District Dewaria UP, vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/D and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/E. He has placed on record the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW18/F (running into three pages).
(47) Witness has also brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9990639518 which is issued in the name of Moazzam S/o Haseen Ahmed, R/o D35, Lane No. 1, Batala house, Jamia Nagar, Delhi vide Customer Application From copy of which is Ex.PW18/G and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW18/H. He has proved the Call Details from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW18/I (running into 11 pages). He has further proved the Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW18/J (running into 43 pages) and his Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW18/K. (48) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Pune and he had retrieved the call details from his personal computer and given the same to the Investigating Officer after certifying the same as he has a direct access to the main server. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 41 backup in their office resulting into a data loss or that the record regarding the Customer Application Form and ID proof in respect of 9990639518 has been fabricated or it is for this reason that he am deliberately withholding the original documents. Witness has denied the suggestion that the above calls details has been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
Police/ Official witnesses:
(49) PW4 HC BA Rao has deposed that on 05.10.2011 he was posted as Duty Officer at Police Station Adarsh Nagar from 8PM till 8AM and on that day at about 2:30 AM, he received rukka sent by SI Afaque Ahmed through Ct. Pradeep for registration of FIR on the basis of which rukka he got recorded FIR through computer operator which is a correct version of rukka.
He has proved the copy of FIR which is Ex.PW4/A and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW4/B. According to him, after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Pardeep and Inspector Binod Kumar was deputed for further investigation of the case. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(50) PW5 Ct. Sudhir Kumar has deposed that on 13.10.2011 he was posted in Police Station Adarsh Nagar and he joined his duties at 8AM. According to the witness on that day, at about 3:10 AM, the Duty Officer of the Police Station handed over special report to him, which was inside St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 42 separate envelopes. Witness has further deposed that he carried the special report inside envelope and gave one envelope to the Joint Commissioner at Mahadev Road, New Delhi, one envelope to ACP, Model Town and one envelope containing report to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate at Kamla Nagar at his residence. He has deposed that thereafter his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (51) With the permission of the Court leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, wherein the witness has admitted that he took the sealed parcles to Joint CP, DCP, ACP and Ld. MM on 16.10.2011.
(52) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has denied the suggestion that he had not taken the Special Reports to the aforesaid officers and that is why he had not deposed about the correct date. (53) PW6 Ct. Sandeep has proved the DD No. 8B dated 15.10.2011 and DD No. 90B dated 15.10.2011 which are in the handwriting of Lady Ct. Rekha which DDs are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. (54) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that he has no personal knowledge of Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B and the same are not in his handwriting.
(55) PW7 HC Radhey Shyam is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved entry in register no. 19 vide St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 43 S.No. 3249 copy of which is Ex.PW7/A (three pages), S.No. 3658 copy of which is Ex.PW7/B (seven pages), S.No. 3661 copy of which is Ex.PW7/C (three pages), entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 145/21/11 copy of which is Ex.PW7/D bearing his signatures at point A, entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 146/21/11 copy of which is Ex.PW7/E and receipt issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW7/F. (56) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that seals were not intact on the pullandas. (57) PW8 Inspector Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW8/A. (58) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, witness has denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot or that the site plan was prepared while sitting in the Police Station at the instance of Investigating Officer.
(59) PW9 Ct. Pradeep Kumar is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 15.10.2011 Duty Officer handed over to him DD No. 89B for handing over the same to SI Afaque Ahmed and thereafter he along with SI Afaq Ahmed reached the spot i.e. near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station Footpath opposite Indira Market. He has proved St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 44 that at 2:15 AM SI Afaq Ahmed handed over to him a rukka and he took the rukka to the Police Station and got recorded the FIR after which he brought the copy of FIR and original rukka to the spot and handed over the same to Inspector Binod Kumar Singh. He has further proved that the Investigating Officer lifted the exhibits from the spot and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW9/A. (60) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he reached at the spot along with SI Ashfaq Ahmed at about 10:30 PM and no public person was present there. According to the witness he took rukka to Police Station at about 2:15 AM on 16.10.2011 and came back to the spot after registration of the FIR at about 3:45 AM. Witness has further deposed that SI Ashfaq Ahmed came from the BJRM hospital at about 12:15 AM. According to the witness he signed site plan as a witness. He has testified that Inspector Binod Kumar took half an hour for lifting the exhibits from the spot. He has also deposed that he signed all the memos while sitting in the Police Station and his statement was recorded in the Police Station. Witness has denied the suggestion that site plan was not prepared in his presence or that no rukka was taken by him to the Police Station. (61) PW10 HC Praveen Kumar is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 10.1.2012 he was working as Chitha Munshi at Police Station Narela. He has proved having handed over the attested copies of Duty Roaster dated 15.10.2011 and DD entry of arrival St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 45 of Ct. Harkesh Meena which is Ex.PW10/A (two pages) to Inspector Virender Kadyan.
(62) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has admitted that he had not made any entry in the DD register in his own handwriting.
(63) PW11 Ex. Ct. Ramesh Chander is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW11/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the scene of crime and having taken the photographs which are Ex.PW11/A1 to Ex.PW11/A17.
(64) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he reached at the spot at about 12.15 AM in the intervening night of 1516.10.2011 and remained there upto 1:00 AM. He is unable to tell as to how many public persons were present there. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot.
(65) PW12 HC Nanhe Lal Mishra is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW12/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on the intervening night of 1516.10.2011 he was deputed as Duty Constable in BJRM Hospital and on 15.10.2011 at about 10:55 PM ASI Ram Kishan, Incharge of PCR Van brought one injured Harkesh Meena to the hospital who was admitted in the hospital and at 11:10 PM the doctor declared the injured as dead. He has also proved that the doctor handed over him one Nokia mobile phone, one black bag St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 46 'Donex' containing one brown shawl, one light blue towel, uniform of Delhi Police, belt, cap, cash of Rs.13/ and one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital Jpuri, Delhi containing the shirt and one sample seal of MS BJRM Hospital and he handed over all the above articles to SI Afaque Ahmed. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(66) PW13 Ct. Parshu Ram is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW13/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having got preserved the dead body of the deceased to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.
(67) PW14 SI MD Meena is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW14/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having inspected the spot of incident and having prepared the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW14/A. (68) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he alongwith Crime Team Staff reached at the spot at about 12:15 AM in the intervening night of 1516.10.2011 and about 2025 public persons were present outside the Metro Gate and they remained there upto 1.00 AM. He has denied the suggestion that he had not visited the spot or that he prepared his inspection report while sitting in the Police Station at the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 47 instance of Investigating Officer.
(69) PW21 SI Narsi Parsad Meena has deposed that he was posted at Police Station Pul Parhlad Pur, South East District, Delhi. According to the witness he is an original resident of village Maukhurd Police Station Bandi Kui, District Dausa, Rajasthan. Witness has further deposed that in the month of October 2011, he was posted at Police Station Malviya Nagar and used to reside in the barrack of Police Station Malviya Nagar and also used to go to his village. According to the witness Harkesh Meena was known to him since his childhood who was working in Delhi Police as Constable and he also used to live in same barrack where he was residing. He has testified that on 15.10.2011 he had gone for his posting place Police Station Narela at 8.00 AM and he had to return back at about 8.00 PM after completing his duty. The witness has also deposed that at about 11.00 PM on 15.10.2011 he went to Trilok Puri at the house of his uncle and on the next day i.e. 16.10.2011 he received a call from Police Station Adarsh Nagar and inquired about Harkesh Meena after which at the instance of police officials of Police Station Adarsh Nagar he reached at the mortuary of BJRM Hospital. According to the witness he identified the dead body of Harkesh Meena and both brothers and relatives of deceased Harkesh Meena also reached there and they also identified the dead body. He has further deposed that after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to brothers of deceased and they took the dead body to their native place and he also went with them. Witness has also deposed that Harkesh Meena used to keep his ID Card of Delhi police, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 48 driving license in his brown purse while going on duty. He has further deposed that on 07.01.12 he identified the purse of Harkesh Meena during Test Identification Parade proceedings vide Ex.PX3. He has correctly identified the case property i.e. one brown purse as belonging to Harkesh Meena which Purse is Ex.P1.
(70) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has admitted that the word 'Gucci' was written on the purse which fact was not told by him to police in his statement dated 18.10.2011 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not tell the abovesaid word to police as he was not aware about the name or any other detail of said purse. He has also denied the suggestion that the said purse has been planted by the police and that is why no details has been given by him about it in his statements U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he never saw any purse with deceased and that is why he could not give detail about the purse. He has admitted that he had not stated to police how much money was in possession of Harkesh Meena. Witness has denied the suggestion that the deceased was not living with him in the barrack of Police Station Malviya Nagar and that is why he is not aware how much money was in possession of deceased on the day of incident. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Investigating Officer.
(71) PW23 HC Himmat Singh is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW23/1 (as per the provisions of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 49 Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 15.10.2011 at about 10:15 PM he was present at Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar an unknown person informed him that one person was lying unconscious near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station Footpath opposite Indira Nagar Market on which he reached the spot where the injured was lying there and blood was oozing out from his body. The witness has further proved that he informed the PCR through Control Room on which PCR Van C35 reached at the spot and took the injured to the BJRM Hospital. On receipt of information SI Afaque Ahmed and Inspector Binod Kumar Singh reached the spot. He has proved that Inspector Binod Kumar Singh prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW23/A and also lifted the exhibits from the spot which were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/A. (72) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsels, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 1010:15 PM and remained there upto 1111:15 PM. According to the witness, his statement was recorded at the spot and he signed memos at the spot itself. According to the witness when he reached the spot, he did not find any eye witness and has voluntarily explained that he was told by public person was lying at the spot and when he reached there he did not know his identity. Witness has further deposed that it was only after the PCR came to the spot, that they came to know that he was a constable in Delhi Police because on seeing the bag and checking the same they came to know that he was an official of Delhi Police. Witness has denied the suggestion that no site plan was prepared at his St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 50 instance or that nothing was lifted in his presence or that he signed various memos on the asking of the senior officers at a later stage. (73) PW24 SI Afaque Ahmed has deposed that in the intervening night of 1516.11.2011 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and was on emergency duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM. According to the witness on that day at about 10:25 PM he received DD No. 89 B, which is Ex.PW24/A after which he along with Ct. Pardeep went to the spot i.e. near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station towards Indira Nagar Market where he met HC Himmat at the spot who informed him that the injured had been shifted to BJRM hospital by the officials of the PCR van. Witness has further deposed that he left Ct. Pardeep for preservation of the spot on which he along with Ct. Parsu Ram went to BJRM Hospital where he obtained the MLC of the injured from the doctor on which concerned doctor had declared the injured as brought dead at 11:10 PM. According to the witness, he formally examined the dead body and found injury on the forehead of the dead body and one stab injury on left side near rib. He has testified that in the hospital Duty Head constable Nand Lal Mishra handed over to him the personal belongings of the deceased in an open condition which included one Noika Mobile phone, black bag make Donex in which there was a cap and uniform, belt and I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena written on the same and brown color shawl, light blue color towel and Thirteen Rupees cash. Witness has also deposed that he handed over to him a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital, JPuri Delhi and a sample seal informing him that it St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 51 contain the shirt of the deceased. According to the witness he seized the said articles vide memo Ex.PW24/B. He has proved that shirt of the deceased was seized vide memo Ex.PW24/C and he then directed Ct. Parsu Ram to take the body to the mortuary of BJRM hospital where it was got preserved through him after moving a request to CMO mortuary for preserving the body. Witness has further deposed that he then searched for some eye witnesses in the hospital but could not find anybody after which he returned to the spot and found that senior officers including Inspector Binod Kumar Singh along with Police Station staff was already there. According to him, after he reached the spot the Crime Team also came and inspected the spot and photographed the same after which the Crime Team Incharge handed over to him the Crime Team Report and he also tried to search for the eye witness at the spot but could not find anybody. Witness has also deposed that he then made his endorsement on the DD Entry No. 89 B which is Ex.PW24/A which endorsement is Ex.PW24/D and converted the same into a rukka which he handed over the same to Ct. Pardeep and directed him to take the same to the Police Station for getting recording the FIR. According to the witness he handed over the pullanda and the personal belongings which had been given to him in the hospital and also the seizure memo and the MLC to Inspector Binod Kumar. Witness has further deposed that after Ct. Pardeep returned to the spot along with copy of the FIR and original rukka, he handed over the same to Inspector Binod Kumar and he accompanied Inspector Binod Kumar to the mortuary of the BJRM hospital where Inspector Binod Kumar St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 52 inspected the dead body of the deceased and they then returned to the spot where he prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Himmat. The witness has proved that Inspector Binod Kumar then lifted the blood stained earth from the footpath and also from the service road along with the earth control concrete etc. and he also lifted a blue colored pen with the words Natraj written on the same and then converted the same into pullandas by keeping the same into containers and with the help of cloth after which he sealed with the seal of BKS and prepared the seizure memo vide Ex.PW9/A. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they returned to the Police Station where Inspector Binod Kumar Singh deposited the exhibits in the malkhana. (74) Witness has further deposed that thereafter they went to the BJRM Hospital Mortuary where the dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to its relatives. He has proved the dead body identification memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A and the handing over memo Ex.PW24/E after which the last rites of the deceased were conducted and thereafter they returned to the Police Station.
(75) Initially when the case property was put to the witness he identified the Purse as Ex.P1; police uniform i.e. cap, belt, trouser, shirt with name plate, dori and batch and I card as the same as handed over by the doctor in open condition, the cap, belt, trouser and shirt which uniform are collectively Ex.P2 and the Blood Stained I Card is Ex.P3. Since there was serious discrepancy and confusion in the exhibition of the case property and it St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 53 was not clear whether the witness had identified the wallet or the bag as Ex.P1, therefore, the witness SI Afaq Ahmed (PW24) was again recalled by this Court for purposes of clarifications on this case property which was handed over him by the doctor in open condition. A specific Court Question was put to the witness that in his testimony dated 12.08.2013 he had identified a brown purse Ex.P1 as the one which was handed over to him by the doctor at BJRM hospital whereas in his entire testimony he had not mentioned that this purse was also one of the articles handed over to him nor the seizure memo Ex.PW24/A mentions about this purse. The witness was asked to clarify whether the purse Ex.P1 was handed over to him by the doctor and if yes, than why it does not find a mention in the seizure memo prepared by him and also in his testimony. On this the witness has clarified that the brown purse which is a wallet was never handed over to him by the doctor/ Autopsy Surgeon who had only handed over to him a sealed pullanda and the articles which were handed over in open/ unsealed condition were one mobile phone make Nokia, one black bag with the words DONEX written on the same containing one uniform of Delhi police, one brown colored shawl, one light blue towel, one pair of socks, Rs 13 / cash, one belt of Delhi police, one cap of Delhi police and one I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena with PIS No. 28102841. The witness has further clarified that no purse or wallet of brown was present in the bag so handed over to him by HC Nanhe Lal Mishra and it is the blackish/ brownish bag which has been mentioned by mistake as Purse and exhibited as Ex.P1 whereas what he had St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 54 identified is not a wallet but a bag.
(76) The case property was once again put to the witness in which he identified one mobile phone make Nokia, one blackish bag with the words DONEX written on the same containing uniform of Delhi Police, one brown colored shawl, one light blue towel, one pair of socks, Rs.13 / cash, one belt of Delhi police, one cap of Delhi police and one I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena with PIS No. 28102841 which were shown to the witness who correctly identified the same which was initially exhibited in his statement as Ex.P1 (bag) and other articles/ contents of the same as collectively Ex.P2. Therefore, in order to avoid any confusion in future since the purse which was later got recovered by the accused Sunil is also Ex.P1 with which the present witness has no concern, the black bag with the words DONEX has been renumber/ reexhibited as Ex.P1A (to be hence forth read as such); the other items contained in the bag are individually exhibited i.e. the mobile phone make Nokia Ex.P2a, uniform of Delhi Police which is Ex.P2b, one brown colored shawl which is Ex.P2c, one light blue towel which is Ex.P2d, one pair of socks which is Ex.P2e, Rs 13 / cash which is Ex.P2f, one belt of Delhi Police which is Ex.P2g, one cap of Delhi Police which is Ex.P2h and one I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena with PIS No. 28102841 which is Ex.P3.
(77) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, the witness has deposed that when he reached the spot, no public person was present there St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 55 and he remained at the spot for about 1015 minutes and thereafter left for BJRM hospital. According to the witness he came back to the spot around 12:15 AM and sent the rukka to the Police Station at about 2:15 AM and he himself had prepared the rukka in his own handwriting. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Binod Kumar took about 45 minutes for lifting the exhibits from the spot and all the seizure memos were prepared by Inspector Binod Kumar in his own handwriting. According to the witness Ct. Pardeep Kumar returned to the spot along with original rukka and copy of FIR at about 3:45 AM. He has testified that the Investigating Officer had brought the plastic jars but he is unable to tell from where he obtained the said jars. Witness has further deposed that his statement was recorded in the Police Station along with other police officials. He has also deposed that all the writing work was done at the spot under the street light but he does not remember at which place. According to the witness he remained at the spot upto 7:00 AM and again he went to BJRM hospital mortuary but he does not remember the exact time when he finally left the hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that nothing was lifted from the spot in his presence or that he only signed the various memos on the directions of the senior officers at a later stage. He has also denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness and that is why he could not given the exact details of the articles in his examination in chief dated 12.08.2013. He has also denied that he has made the clarification on the tutoring by the senior officers. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 56 (78) PW25 Inspector Rajesh Sinha has deposed that on 03.11.2011 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and on that day on the directions of the SHO, he had come to the Rohini Jail along with Moazzam for getting Test Identification Parade of two accused persons conducted. Witness has further deposed that both the accused refused to participate in the TIP and he obtained the copy of the proceedings from the Ld. MM and handed over the same to the SHO after which his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that on 05.11.2011 he went to central jail Tihar along with witness Moazzam for getting Test Identification Parade conducted of third accused who also refused to join the proceedings and he obtained the copy of the proceedings from the Ld. MM and handed over the same to the SHO and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (79) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (80) PW26 HC Naresh Kumar has deposed that on 19.10.12 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and on that day, he alongwith SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan, Inspector Vinod Kumar, ASI Parmod Kumar, HC Ramesh, HC Sudhir, HC Ved and Ct. Naveen reached at Bhalaswa Dairy in search of accused person but accused persons could not be traced out there and thereafter they went to Jahangir Puri, Adarsh Nagar, Azadpur, Bhadola village and thereafter reached at Panchavati Booth area where a secret informer came there and gave secret information to Virender Kadyan that one of the accused involved in this case would be coming from Bhadola village St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 57 area and would go to Majlis Park area. Witness has further deposed that SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan informed higher officials and also briefed them after which SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan also called sixseven public persons to join the investigation but they left the place without informing about their names and addresses on one pretext or other. According to the witness thereafter SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan formed two teams of police officials, one team was consisting of SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan, ASI Parmod and himself whereas the remaining officers were in another team. Witness has further deposed that both team members took position in front of outer gate of Subzi Mandi, Azadpur on the way to Majlis Park and at about 3.15 PM one person came from Bhadola village area from the side of out gate of Subzi Mandi. He has testified that at the instance of secret informer the said person was apprehended by them and he disclosed his name as Rudramani and he was interrogated by SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan and on continuous interrogation he confessed his involvement in this case. Witness has further deposed that thereafter the accused Rudramani was arrested by Investigating Officer vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/A, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW26/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW26/C. Witness has further deposed that the accused Rudermani also pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo Ex.PW26/D and thereafter at the instance of accused, they reached near Bhama Shah Park and at the instance of accused one knife was recovered under brick pieces and sand on the Service Road and the accused disclosed St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 58 that he caused injuries by said knife on the deceased. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of said knife vide Ex.PW26/E and Investigating Officer took measurements of the knife and mentioned the same and description of knife in detail in sketch. According to the witness blood stains were found on the blade of knife after which Investigating Officer wrapped the knife in a paper and sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/F and the seal after use was handed over to ASI Parmod. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide memo Ex.PW26/G. He has also deposed that accused Rudramani was kept in a muffled face after which they reached at Bhalaswa Dairy and the accused pointed out the house of Sunil and at his instance the accused Sunil was apprehended by them. According to the witness Sunil was interrogated by Investigating Officer and he also confessed about his involvement in this case. He has proved that the accused Sunil was arrested by Investigating Officer in this case vide memo Ex.PW26/H, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/I and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/J. Witness has further deposed that at the instance of accused Sunil one purse was recovered from taand of his room and word GUCCI was written on the purse of brown colour which was checked by Investigating Officer and one training ID Card of Ct. Harkesh, pay slip of Ct. Harkesh and photocopy of ID Card of Ct. Harkesh of Delhi Police, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 59 two passport size photographs of Ct. Harkesh, one hand written receipt and one photocopy of marksheet and some documents were found in the purse. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer took out the abovesaid documents and kept the same in an envelope and sealed the same with seal of VK and also sealed the purse in a cloth pullanda with seal of VK and seized the envelope and pullanda vide memo Ex.PW26/K. According to the witness at the instance of accused Rudramani, Rs.280/ were recovered from taand of the same room and Investigating Officer kept the same in an envelope and sealed the same with seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/L. Witness has also deposed that thereafter they alongwith both accused Sunil and Rudramani reached at Badli Bus Stand where at the instance of both the accused, the third accused Rohit was apprehended. According to the witness Rohit was interrogated by Investigating Officer and he also confessed about his involvement in this case after which accused Rohit was also arrested by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW26/M, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW26/N. Witness has further deposed that the original driving license of the deceased Ct. Harkesh Meena was also recovered during personal search of the accused with other articles and Investigating Officer kept Rs. 660/ and original DL of Ct. Harkesh in an envelope and sealed with seal of VK. According to the witness the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/O and thereafter they reached at the place of incident where the accused Sunil and Rohit pointed out the place of incident separately. Witness has further deposed that accused Sunil pointed St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 60 out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW26/P and accused Rohit pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW26/Q. According to the witness thereafter they returned back to Police Station and the Investigating Officer deposited the sealed articles in the Malkhana and Investigating Officer recorded their statements. He has also deposed that on 20.10.2011 he again joined the investigation with Investigating Officer SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan and ASI Parmod Kumar when all three accused were taken out from lockup and Investigating Officer interrogated them separately. According to the witness accused Sunil and Rudramani disclosed that they were wearing the same pants which they had worn on the day of incident and the shirts worn by them on the day of incident which were kept by them at the room of the Sunil at Bhalaswa Dairy. Witness has further deposed that Rohit also disclosed that he had kept the TShirt in the jhuggi which was worn by him on the day of incident. According to the witness Investigating Officer recorded disclosure statement of Sunil vide Ex.PW26/R, disclosure statement of Rudramani was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/S and disclosure statement of Rohit was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/T. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they reached at Bhalaswa Dairy at the house of Sunil which was found locked. According to the witness, at the instance of Rohit they reached the jhuggi of Rohit but it was also found locked and hence thereafter all three accused were produced before the Court in muffled face and one day Police Custody remand was obtained and after medical examination, they returned back to Police Station where the accused were kept in lockup and St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 61 Investigating Officer recorded their statement. (81) Witness has further deposed that on 21.10.2011 he again joined the investigation with Inspector Virender Kadyan and ASI Parmod Kumar and other police officials and they took out the accused persons from lockup in search of clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident. According to the witness, they then reached the house of Sunil at Bhalaswa Dairy in Bairagi Mohalla at the instance of accused Sunil and Rudramani where the wife of accused Sunil met them and at the instance of accused Sunil, his white shirt was taken in possession by Investigating Officer from the cot which the accused disclosed he was wearing at the time of incident. The witness has also deposed that the said shirt and his wearing pant was taken in possession by Investigating Officer and both shirt and pant were kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with seal of VK and seized by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW26/U. According to the witness at the instance of accused Rudramani, one checkdar shirt was taken into possession from the rope/ wire and Rudramani disclosed that he was wearing the said shirt at the time of incident. Witness has further deposed that the Investigating Officer took the possession of said shirt and his wearing pant and kept the same in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/V. Witness has also deposed that both accused Rudramani and Sunil changed other pants and thereafter they reached at Haider Pur Jhuggi at the jhuggi of Fauji at instance of accused Rohit and at his instance one TShirt was recovered from the khunti on the wall. The witness has testified that the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 62 accused disclosed that he was wearing the said Tshirt at the time of incident after which the said TShirt was kept in a cloth pullanda and was sealed with seal of VK and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW26/W. According to the witness thereafter accused persons were produced before the Court in muffled face after their medical examination. He has further deposed that on 03.01.2012 he was present at Police Station and on that day, Inder Singh came at the Police Station and gave his statement to Investigating Officer that accused Sunil and his wife remained on his house on rent basis and also produced the photocopy of election ID Card of Sunil and his wife. According to the witness the Investigating Officer seized both documents vide memo Ex.PW15/A photocopies of which ID Cards are Ex. PW15/B and Ex.PW15/C. According to him, on 07.01.12 while he was present at Police Station, one Suresh @ Fauji came at Police Station who was interrogated by Investigating Officer and recorded his statement. He has testified that Suresh produced the photocopy of his voter ID Card and Ration Card which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW22/A photocopies of which ID Card and ration card are Ex.PW22/B and Ex.PW22/C. The witness has also deposed that on 10.01.12 he was present at Police Station and on that day, HC Parveen came at Police Station from Police Station Narela and produced two photocopies of duty register regarding Ct. Harkesh of Police Station Narela and one copy of arrival DD regarding Ct. Harkesh which were seized by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW26/X which St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 63 Duty Roaster is Ex.PW10/A and DD No. 78B is Ex.PW26/Y. He has further testified that on 13.01.2012 Deepak came at Police Station and produced the original receipt of purchase of MTS Mobile phone with SIM and Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/D which receipt is Ex.PW19/E. (82) The witness has correctly identified the accused Rudramani, Sunil and Rohit in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one purse of brown colour bearing words 'GUCCI' recovered at the instance of the accused Sunil which is Ex.P1; Rs.280/ (one currency note of Rs. 100/ and three currency notes of Rs. 50/ and three currency notes of Rs. 10/) which were recovered at the instance of accused Rudramani which are collectively Ex.P4; Rs. Rs. 660/ (six currency note of Rs. 100/ and six currency notes of Rs. 10/) and one original DL in the name of Harkesh Meena which were recovered during personal search of accused Rohit which currency notes Rs. 660/ are collectively Ex.P5 and the DL is Ex.P6; two photographs of Harkesh Meena one temporary Delhi Police Identity Card in the name of Harkesh Meena, one marksheet of BA Part II University of Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena, one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011, one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena one receipt of mobile of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena and one handwritten receipt as the same were found in the purse Ex.P1 which was recovered at the instance of accused Sunil, which documents are collectively Ex.P7; one knife/ chopper which St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 64 was got recovered by the accused Rudermani from under the stones kept on the side of the road which is Ex.P8; one pant of white color and one white shirt belonging to the accused Sunil which pant is Ex.P9 and shirt is Ex.P10; one jeans pant of black color and one checkdar shirt of white and light green color with the words "Wanted" written on the belonging to accused Rudermani which jeans pant is Ex.P11 and checkdar shirt is Ex.P12; one T shirt of black color which got recovered by the accused Rohit, which is Ex.P13; three mobile phones i.e. one of MTS mobile of black color, model HUAWEI C 2829 having IMEI No. A000002DBF89C6 along with SIM recovered from the possession of accused Rudermani which phone is Ex.P14; another mobile of SAMSUNG of black and red color, Model No. GTE1160 having IMEI No. 356831030511503 having SIM recovered from the possession of accused Sunil which is Ex.P15 and another mobile of Nokia of black color having IMEI No. 354338049967678 along with SIM recovered from the possession of accused Rohit which is Ex.P16. (83) Here, I may observe that the witness HC Naresh Kumar was recalled and the case property was again put to him for clarifications being being a confusion on the exhibit numbers put on the case property. He has identified one purse of brown colour bearing words GUCCI which was recovered at the instance of accused Sunil which purse is Ex.P1 (It has been observed by this Court that the purse with the words GUCCI written on it Ex.P1 is a pocket purse whereas the bag with the words DONEX written on it St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 65 which is Ex.P1A are two separate items); two photographs of Harkesh Meena, one temporary Delhi police Identity card in the name of Harkesh Meena, one mark sheet of BA part II University of Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena, one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011, one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena, one receipt of mobile of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena and one handwritten receipt which were found in the purse which is Ex.P1 which were recovered at the instance of the accused Sunil. All above documents are collectively Ex.P7 and are individually exhibited i.e. two photographs of Harkesh Meena are collectively Ex.P7a, one temporary Delhi Police Identity Card in the name of Harkesh Meena is Ex.P7b, one marksheet of BA Part II University of Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena is Ex.P7c, one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011 is Ex.P7d, one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena is Ex.P7e, one receipt of mobile of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena is Ex.P7f and one handwritten receipt is Ex.P7g in order to avoid any confusion in future; one knife/ chopper recovered by the accused Rudermani from under the stones kept on the side of the road. Same is Ex.P8 (it has been observed by this Court that the knife is tallying with the sketch which is Ex.PW26/E). (84) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that they left Police Station at about 88:30 AM on 19.10.2011 in a government gypsy and Indica car. He does not remember the number of vehicles nor is he aware who made departure entry or log book of the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 66 vehicles. Witness has further deposed that Inspector Vinod and Inspector Virender Kadyan were in uniform whereas other police officials including him were in civil dress. He has also deposed that they reached near Panchwati at about 2:002:30 PM and when secret informer gave information they were standing along with the Investigating Officer but he did not hear the secret information. He has denied the suggestion that he did not hear the secret information because he never joined the investigations or that he was not standing along with Investigating Officer and other police officials. Witness has admitted that no gloves or cloth was used by the Investigating Officer to handle the knife. He has denied the suggestion that the said knife was planted upon the accused Rudermani or that they were aware that no finger prints of Rudermani were found on the knife and that is why no gloves or clothes were used while handling the same. Witness has further deposed that Crime Team was not called by the Investigating Officer at the time of recovery of knife. Witness has denied the suggestion that the knife was not recovered on the pointing out of accused Rudermani and that is why no crime team was called. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Rudermani never pointed out the place of the incident or knife or place where the knife would has been found. The witness has further denied the suggestion that the signatures of the accused persons were obtained on plain papers which were later on converted into seizure memos, pointing out memos and disclosure statements. Witness has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was given by any of the accused person or that he never reached near St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 67 Panchwati Park and never joined the investigations. He has further denied the suggestion that his signatures were obtained on all the seizure memos, arrest memos, pointing out memos and disclosure statements while sitting in the Police Station by the Investigating Officer or that the Investigating Officer had recorded the disclosure statements of his own and not given by the accused persons.
(85) Witness has admitted that the alleged stones under which the knife was got recovered were not seized as a case property by the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that the said knife has never been found under any stone at the place mentioned in the present case in his statement or that is why the said stones were not seized as a case property. Witness has admitted that no witness has been made at the time of recovery of knife and has voluntarily explained that people were asked to join but nobody was ready. He has denied the suggestion that no persons were ever asked to join the investigations at the time of recovery and arrest of accused persons and that is why he has not stated so in his statement. According to the witness they remained at the spot (the place of incident) for about 1520 minutes and it took about 2½ hours in the proceedings of accused Rudermani from arrest till recovery of knife. He has further deposed that the accused Rudermani was arrested at about 4:10 PM whereas the accused Sunil was arrested at about 6:30 PM and accused Rohit was arrested at about 9:20 PM. According to the witness at the time of arrest of accused Rudermani few persons were passingbye but public did not gather at large. Witness has St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 68 denied the suggestion that there was heavy rush at the gate of mandi or that there is no eye witness of arrest of accused Rudermani because he was not arrested in front of mandi out gate. He does not remember the exact time of returning back to the Police Station after the entire investigations. He has denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered in his presence from the accused persons in their personal search memo or that his signatures were obtained at Police Station. Witness has further denied the suggestion that no clothes were got recovered by the accused persons in his presence or that the accused persons has been falsely implicated in the present case. Witness has also denied the suggestion that accused Rudermani was arrested on 17.10.2011 at about 3:30 PM at mother diary, Adarsh Nagar; accused Sunil was arrested on 18.10.2011 at 2:10 PM from Madhuban Chowk and the accused Rohit was arrested on 19.10.2011 at 9:10 PM from jhuggie Subzi Market, Haiderpur. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused were not arrested in the manner as deposed by him and that is why there is no public witness made by the Investigating Officer at the time of arrest. Witness has denied the suggestion that instance of searching the real culprits and in order to solve the blind case the accused persons has been falsely implicated in the present case. (86) PW27 Ct. Vikram has deposed that on 29.12.2011 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and on that day on the directions of the Investigating Officer he took 13 sealed pullandas with three sample seals with forwarding letter to FSL Rohini vide two road certificates No. 145/21/11 and 146/21/11 and he deposited the same in the FSL Rohini Delhi. According to St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 69 the witness copy of the RC No. 145/21/11 is Ex.PW7/D, copy of RC No. 146/21/11 is Ex.PW7/E and copy of receipt of FSL is Ex.PW7/F which was handed over by him to the MHC(M). According to the witness the seal was intact and the case property was not tampered while the same remained in his presence. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity granted.
(87) PW28 Inspector Binod Kumar Singh has deposed that on 15.10.2011 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar as Inspector Investigations and on that day while he was present in the Police Station at about 11:1511:30 PM he received information from SI Afaque about the death of the boy who had been found stabbed. Witness has further deposed that on receipt of the information he reached at the spot i.e. Adarsh Nagar Metro Station Exist Gate No. 2 where he met Ct. Pardeep and HC Himmat Singh and he inspected the spot of the incident and send information to the Crime Team. The witness has also deposed that at about 12:15 AM Crime Team reached the spot and in the meanwhile SI Afaque also returned back to the spot from the hospital. Witness has further deposed that the Crime Team inspected the spot and photographed the same and prepared its report and handed over the same to SI Afaque and in the meanwhile senior officers also reached the spot. He has testified that he also made local inquiries but could not find any eye witness. According to him at about 2:15 AM SI Afaque made his endorsement on DD No. 89B and Ct. Pardeep was sent to the Police Station for getting registered the FIR on the basis of the same. Witness has St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 70 further deposed that at around 3:45 AM Ct. Pardeep returned to the spot along with the copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him after which he went to the BJRM Hospital mortuary along with SI Afaque and inspected the dead body. Witness has further deposed that after the body inspection, he returned to the spot. According to the witness SI Afaque handed over to him one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of the hospital and belongings of the deceased in open condition and sample seal along with MLC and also handed over to him the Crime Team Report. He has further deposed that SI Afaque handed over one pullanda containing the clothes of the deceased and the bag of the deceased containing the personal belonging of the deceased and he then prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Himmat which is Ex.PW23/A. Witness has also deposed that he then lifted the blood stained earth from the footpath and also from the service road along with the earth control concrete etc. after which he lifted a blue colored pen with the words Natraj written on the same and then converted the same into pullandas by keeping the same into containers and with the help of cloth after which he sealed with the seal of BKS and prepared the seizure memo vide Ex.PW9/A. Witness has further deposed that returned to the Police Station where he deposited the exhibits in the malkhana and relatives of the deceased had already reached the Police Station and thereafter they all went to BJRM Hospital Mortuary where the dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to them. He has proved the dead body identification memo which are St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 71 Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A and he filled the inquest form which is Ex.PW28/A and the handing over memo Ex.PW24/E. He has also deposed that he recorded the statement of the Duty Constable of the hospital and thereafter returned back to the Police Station where he deposited the seized articles in the malkhana and recorded the statements of the various witnesses and relieved them. Witness has further deposed that on 17.10.2011 he called one Moazzam who had made a call on 100 number vide DD No. 90B at 10:32 PM and interrogated him and he informed him that he was an eye witness to the incident. Witness has further deposed that according to Moazzam on 16.10.2011 at around 10 PM when he was going towards Mukherjee Nagar from Adarsh Nagar hospital after meeting one of his relative and reached the red light Adarsh Nagar ahead of the Metro Station, there was a traffic jam when he saw that three boys were hitting one boy and was trying to push him on the ground and that boy was struggling to himself and out of them one of the boys pulled out a knife and stabbed that boy who then fell on the ground and the same boy then cut his pocket with the same knife and pulled out his purse. Witness has also deposed Moazzam further informed him that out of the other two boys, one was holding the neck of the victim who had fallen down and the third boy was holding the waist of the victim and thereafter all three of them ran away and since he was very shocked on seeing this incident, he moved along with the traffic, however when he reached near Mukherjee Nagar, his conscious did not permit him to proceed further and hence he made a 100 number call about the incident. According to the witness, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 72 Moazzam also informed him that he can identify the said boys in case if they come in front of him. He has proved having record the statement of Moazzam and thereafter relieved him. He has also deposed that on the same day he collected the Postmortem Report of the deceased. According to the witness on 18.10.2011 he tried to search for the accused persons and the SHO who was on leave during this period, joined duties and further investigations were then handled by him.
(88) He has testified that on 19.10.2011 he went in search of the accused persons along with the SHO but there was no success and later he came to know on the same day that the accused had been apprehended. He has also deposed that on 20.10.2011 on the directions of the SHO he produced the accused persons before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in muffled face and obtained one day Police Custody Remand as the clothes of the accused were to be recovered. According to the witness after coming back to the Police Station he handed over the accused Rohit, Sunil and Rudramani to the SHO while they were still in muffled face. He has also deposed that on 22.12.2011 he went to the spot along with the SHO and the official draftsman and got prepared the scaled site plan.
(89) The witness has correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified case property i.e. police uniform i.e. cap, belt, trouser, shirt with name plate, dori and batch and I card which were handed over by the doctor in open condition, the cap, belt, trouser and shirt which uniform is collectively Ex.P2 and the I Card is Ex.P3 (It has been observed by this Court St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 73 that the I Card is blood stained).
(90) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 11:30 PM. According to the witness the Crime Team reached the spot at about 12:15 AM and remained there till about 1:00 AM. Witness has further deposed that Ct. Pardeep took rukka to the Police Station at about 2:15 AM and came back at the spot at about 3:45 AM and he had plastic container with him in his Investigating Officer bag. Witness has also deposed that he took about 3045 minutes for lifting the exhibits from the spot and all the memos regarding seizures of the articles were prepared by him in his own handwriting. According to the witness immediately after reaching of Ct. Pardeep to the spot he left for the hospital and he came back to the spot at about 4:30 AM. Witness has admitted that no public witness was found there. According to the witness he reached Police Station at about 7AM. He has also deposed that on 17.10.2011 Moazzam came to the Police Station at about 56 PM and remained there for about 1 - 1½ hours and no description of body of the assailants was given to him by Moazzam and has voluntarily explained that he told him that the assailants were of age group of 2025 years and by apparel they looking like lower middle class. According to the witness he recorded only one statement of Moazzam and after 17.10.2011 Moazzam did not meet him. He has denied the suggestion that all the accused persons were shown to the witness on 20.10.2011 when they were taken in police custody remand and it is for this reason that the accused had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 74 Witness has further denied the suggestion that witness Moazzam was planted witness in this case and he was tutored by police officials or that all the accused persons has been falsely implicated in the present case. Witness has further denied the suggestion that crime team report was prepared while sitting in the Police Station at his instance or that the draftsman never visited the spot of the incident or that the scaled site plan was prepared while sitting in the Police Station.
(91) PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 19.10.2011 he was posted as SHO at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and on that day investigations of the present case were taken over by him and he received the case file from Inspector Binod Kumar Singh. Witness has further deposed that on that day he along with Inspector Binod Kumar, ASI Parmod, HC Naresh, HC Vaid, HC Sudhir, Ct. Naveen and other staff tried to search for the accused persons but could not trace them. According to the witness on the same day at about 1:30 PM he received a secret information that the accused wanted in the present case would come outside Subzi Mandi out gate towards Majlis Park at about 3:00 PM. He has also deposed that on receipt of the secret information he shared this information to his senior officers and constituted a raiding party consisting of himself and above said police officials. Witness has further deposed that the said raiding parties were divided by two, one headed by himself and the other was headed by Inspector Binod Kumar Singh and the raiding party headed by him was along with ASI Parmod, HC Naresh and Ct. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 75 Naveen took positions towards service lane, Panchwati adjacent to GT road, opposite out gate subzi mandi whereas the police party headed by Inspector Binod comprising of HC Vaid, HC Sudhir and one more official whose name he does not recollect took position near NDPL power house. He has testified that he requested sixseven passerbys to join the police party after sharing the information to them but they refused and left showing their inability. According to the witness at about 3:15 PM one boy was coming from the out gate Majlis Park side and on pointing out of secret informer the said boy was apprehended by ASI Parmod and HC Naresh and on interrogation he disclosed his name as Rudramani and admitted his involvement in the present case. Witness has further deposed that he arrested the accused Rudermani vide memo Ex.PW26/A and was also personally searched vide memo Ex.PW26/B in which a mobile make MTS was found and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW26/C. According to the witness, he immediately put the accused in muffled face as his TIP was to be conducted. Witness has further deposed that the accused Rudaramani led them to the spot of the incident and pointed out the place of the incident vide memo Ex.PW26/D. He has also deposed that the accused then led them to Bhama Shah Park, service lane adjoining GT road near MTNL box and pointed out towards large number of broken brick pieces lying on one corner of the service lane and got recovered a knife from under the broken brick pieces on which he (witness) found some dried blood stains and mud attached to the same. The witness has proved having prepared the sketch of the knife which St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 76 is Ex.PW26/E and on measuring it was found to be having a total length of 30.9 cm, the handle was of wooden and was measuring about 12.6cm and the blade was of iron measuring 18.3 cms. Witness has further deposed that he converted the said knife into a pullanda with the help of a paper and cloth and sealed the same with the seal of VK and he then seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/F. According to the witness seal after use was handed over to ASI Parmod after which he prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW26/G. Witness has further deposed that thereafter Rudramani disclosed that that he could get the other coaccused apprehended and pursuant to the same the accused Rudermani then led them to Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy to house No. A681682. According to the witness one boy was coming out of the house and the accused Rudermani pointed him as Sunil, the coaccused. He has testified that they overpowered the said boy and interrogated him who confirmed his name as Sunil and disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Sunil was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/H and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/I in which one mobile make SAMSUNG was also found. According to the witness the disclosure statement of the accused Sunil was also recorded vide Ex.PW26/J. Witness has further deposed that the accused Sunil then led them inside his house and from the parchati got recovered one brown color purse with the words GUCCI written on the same and informed that it was the purse belonging to the deceased after which he (witness) took the said purse and searched the same which was found to contain the I card of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 77 the deceased of his training period, photocopy of the original I card, payslip of April, 2011, receipt of the mobile, two passport size photographs, original marksheet of Rajasthan University and a handwritten slip. Witness has proved that he converted the purse into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and the contents of the purse as aforesaid were put in an envelope and thereafter converted into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and both the pullandas were then sealed with the seal of VK which he took from ASI Parmod and after sealing the same returned the same to him after which the case property was then seized vide memo Ex.PW26/K. He has testified that the accused Rudramani who was the nephew of Sunil also led them to the parchati in the same house and got recovered cash to the tune of Rs.280/ and disclosed that it was the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share. According to the witness he put the same into an envelope and sealed the same with the seal of VK which he took from ASI Parmod and returned to him after use and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/L. He has also deposed that the accused Sunil was also put in a muffled face after which he prepared the site plan of the place vide Ex.PW31/A. He has further deposed that both the accused Rudramani and Sunil disclosed that they could get the third accused Rohit apprehended and led them to Haiderpur Jhuggies. According to the witness while they were crossing Badli Bus Stand, one boy was seen standing at Bus Stand and both Rudramani and Sunil pointed out towards him as their third associate Rohit on which ASI Parmod and HC Naresh apprehended Rohit. Witness has further deposed that he interrogated St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 78 the said boy who confirmed his identity as Rohit and disclosed about his involvement in the present case after which he arrested the accused Sunil vide memo Ex.PW26/M, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/N and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/O. According to the witness the personal search of the accused Rohit also revealed the original driving licence of the deceased and cash to the tune of Rs 660/ which the accused disclosed was the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share and his personal search also revealed a mobile phone, metro card and one receipt of gym which were taken into possession. He has proved that the cash and driving licence were put into a separate envelope and duly sealed with the seal of VK after taking the same from ASI Parmod which seal after use was returned to him. Witness has further deposed that the accused Rohit was also put in the muffled face and both the accused Sunil and Rohit led them to the place of incident and pointed out the place of occurrence. According to the witness he prepared the pointing out memo in respect of accused Sunil which is Ex.PW26/P and the pointing out memo in respect of accused Rohit which is Ex.PW26/Q. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they all including the accused persons returned to the Police Station and all accused persons were kept separately in muffled faces and he deposited the case property in the malkhana and recorded the statements of ASI Parmod and HC Naresh. He has also deposed that on 20.10.2011 he again interrogated all the accused persons and recorded their supplementary disclosure statements and on the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 79 same day all the accused persons were produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in muffled faces and obtained one day Police Custody Remand. According to him, all the accused Ruderamani and Sunil lead them to A681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalaswa Dairy for getting the clothes recovered which was worn by them and on that day the said house was found locked. He has further deposed that on the same day the accused Rohit lead them to his jhuggi Khadar Wali, Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh for getting recovered the clothes which he was wearing on the day of incident but his jhuggie was also found locked. According to the witness, they then returned to the Police Station along with the accused and he recorded the statement of ASI Parmod and HC Naresh and the accused were put in the lock up of the Police Station in muffled faces.
(92) The witness has further testified that on 21.10.2011 all the three accused persons were again taken out from the lock up in muffled faces and interrogated and he recorded their supplementary disclosure statements. According to the witness first Sunil and Rudramani took them to their house at Bairagi Mohalla and their house were found open and first Sunil produced one white shirt which had been kept on his bed which he was wearing on the day of the incident. He has further deposed that the accused Sunil disclosed that the pant which he was already wearing were the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident pursuant to which he got him to change his trousers and thereafter converted the shirt and pant into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/R. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 80 Witness has further deposed that Rudramani then got recovered a shirt hanging on a rope in his room which was of white and brown checks with "wanted" written on the same and disclosed that the pant which he was already wearing were the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident. According to the witness, he got him to change his trousers and thereafter converted the shirt and pant into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/S. He has also deposed that accused Rohit then took them to his house at Khaderwali jhuggie, Haiderpur which was open but shut with a latch from outside and he opened the same and got recovered a black color T shirt which was hanging on a Khunti behind the door. Witness has further deposed that he converted the same into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of VK and thereafter seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/T. He has further deposed that all the three accused had disclosed that they had washed the clothes after the incident but still a few spots were visible on the same and therefore he had seized the same and recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rudramani and Sunil vide memo Ex.PW31/B and Ex.PW31/C. According to the witness the accused were then produced in the court in muffled face and got remanded to judicial custody. (93) The witness has further testified that on 24.10.2011 he moved an application for getting TIP of all the three accused which application is Ex.PX9 which application was marked to the link MM. Witness has further deposed that on 03.11.2011 the Ld. Link MM went to District Court Rohini St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 81 but both the accused Rudramani and Rohit refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. According to the witness Inspector Rajesh Sinha who had gone to the jail for purposes of getting the TIP proceedings conducted moved a request to Ld. MM for obtaining the copy of the same which was allowed vide Ex.PX10 and the TIP proceedings are Ex.PX6 and Ex.PX7. Witness has further deposed that on his return to the Police Station, he handed over the copy of the proceedings to him and he recorded his statement and also the statement of eye witness and relieved them. He has further deposed that on 05.11.2011 Inspector Rajesh Sinha took the eye witness to Central Jail Tihar where the TIP of third accused Sunil was fixed but he refused to participate in the same on which Inspector Rajesh moved an application for obtaining moved a request to Ld. MM for obtaining the copy of the same which was allowed vide Ex.PX11 and the TIP proceedings are PX5. Witness has also deposed that on his return to the Police Station, he handed over the copy of the proceedings to him and recorded his statement and also the statement of eye witness and relieved them. According to him, on 18.11.2011 while the accused was being produced in Judicial Custody for extension of the remand, the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam also came to the court and identified all the three accused as the assailants whom he had seen on the date of the incident on which he recorded his statement and relieved him. The witness has proved that on 16.12.2011 he took the pullanda containing the knife to the mortuary BJRM Hospital where he moved a request for subsequent opinion for weapon of offence to the Autopsy Surgeon which application is Ex.PW31/D on which St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 82 the Autopsy Surgeon gave his opinion vide Ex.PW29/B. According to the witness after seeing the weapon of offence, the same was again sealed with the seal of the hospital and he brought back the same to the Police Station and deposited the same in the Malkhana. Witness has further deposed that on 22.12.2011 he along with Inspector Binod Kumar Singh and the draftsman SI Manohar Lal went to the spot where on the pointing out of Inspector Binod Kumar Singh scaled site plan was prepared. According to the witness on return to the Police Station he recorded the statement of SI Manohar Lal and Inspector Binod Kumar and relieved them.
(94) He has testified that on 29.12.2011 he got deposited the various exhibits at FSL through Ct. Vikram and he recorded the statement of Ct. Vikram and the MHC(M) and relieved them. Witness has further deposed that on 03.01.2012 the landlord of house No. A681682 Bairagi Mohalla Bhalswa Dairy came to the Police Station and he interrogated the landlord namely Inder Singh who also handed over the copy of the voter ID card of the accused Sunil and his wife which he seized vide memo Ex.PW15/A and he recorded the statement of Inder Singh and HC Naresh and relieved them. According to him, on 06.01.2012 he moved an application for getting TIP of case property which application is Ex.PX2 and the Ld. Link MM conducted the proceedings on 07.01.2012 vide Ex.PX3 and moved an application for obtaining the copy of the same which application was allowed and is Ex.PX4. According to the witness he recorded the statement of the witness Narsi Parshad in the court itself and relieved him. He has also deposed that on St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 83 09.01.2012 he made a request to the various service providers i.e. Idea, Airtel and MTS for obtaining the records in respect of the telephone numbers of the various mobile phones recovered from the possession of the accused persons and also of the eye witness Moazzam and of the deceased and he obtained the various certified copies and placed the same in the investigation file. The witness has further deposed that on 10.01.2012 he made a request to the PCR and thereafter obtained the PCR forms in respect of the calls made to the PCR regarding the incident which PCR forms are Ex.16/C, Ex.17/C, Ex.18/C, Ex. 18/I and 18/F. Witness has also deposed that on the same day he obtained the details of the deceased regarding his duties on 15.10.2011 from HC Parveen of Narela Police Station and recorded his statement and he seized the documents regarding the details of the duty vide memo Ex.PW26/X and also recorded the statement of HC Parveen in whose presence the said papers were seized. According to the witness, on 11.01.2012 the witnesses Deepak Kumar Shah and his brother Vimal Shah came to the Police Station and provided him the documents of ID and ration card on which the SIM used by the accused Rudramani was obtained. He has proved having prepared the seizure memo of these documents vide Ex.PW19/A and recorded their statements and relieved them. Witness has further deposed that on 13.01.2012 Deepak Kumar Shah came to the Police Station and produced the original bill of the mobile phone and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/D and recorded the supplementary statement of eye witness Mohd. Moazzam. According to the witness on the same day he also made request to service St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 84 provider for providing the service details and after obtaining the same he placed the same on file. The witness has also deposed that he recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigations he submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.
(95) The witness has correctly identified the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one purse of brown colour bearing words 'GUCCI' recovered at the instance of the accused Sunil which is Ex.P1; Rs.280/ (one currency note of Rs. 100/ and three currency notes of Rs. 50/ and three currency notes of Rs. 10/) which were recovered at the instance of accused Rudramani which are collectively Ex.P4; Rs. 660/ (six currency note of Rs. 100/ and six currency notes of Rs. 10/) and one original DL in the name of Harkesh Meena which were recovered during personal search of accused Rohit which currency notes Rs.660/ are collectively Ex.P5 and the DL is Ex.P6; two photographs of Harkesh Meena one temporary Delhi Police Identity Card in the name of Harkesh Meena, one marksheet of BA Part II University of Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena, one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011, one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena one receipt of mobile of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena and one handwritten receipt as the same were found in the purse Ex.P1 which was recovered at the instance of accused Sunil, which documents are collectively Ex.P7; one knife/ chopper which was got recovered by the accused Rudermani from under the stones kept on the side of the road which is Ex.P8; one pant of white color and one white shirt St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 85 belonging to the accused Sunil which pant is Ex.P9 and shirt is Ex.P10; one jeans pant of black color and one checkdar shirt of white and light green color with the words "Wanted" written on the belonging to accused Rudermani which jeans pant is Ex.P11 and checkdar shirt is Ex.P12; one T shirt of black color which got recovered by the accused Rohit, which is Ex.P13; three mobile phones i.e. one of MTS mobile of black color, model HUAWEI C 2829 having IMEI No. A000002DBF89C6 along with SIM recovered from the possession of accused Rudermani which phone is Ex.P14; another mobile of SAMSUNG of black and red color, Model No. GTE1160 having IMEI No. 356831030511503 having SIM recovered from the possession of accused Sunil which is Ex.P15 and another mobile of Nokia of black color having IMEI No. 354338049967678 along with SIM recovered from the possession of accused Rohit which is Ex.P16.
(96) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that the description of accused Rudermani was given by secret informer but he does not remember whether the description told by the secret informer is mentioned by him in the charge sheet of present case anywhere or not. Witness has denied the suggestion that no description of accused Rudermani was told and that is why he does not remember whether the said description has been mentioned in the present case or not or that is why the same has not mentioned by him in his examination in chief. Witness has further deposed that only he heard the information given by secret informer. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never went for investigations along St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 86 with Inspector Vinod Kumar, ASI Parmod, HC Naresh, HC Ved(Vaid), HC Sudhir, Ct. Naveen and other staff and that is why nobody except him has heard the secret information given by the secret informer and has voluntarily added that he had shared the secret information along with his team. Witness has denied the suggestion that no secret information was given by any secret informer. According to him, on 19.10.2011 he left the Police Station at about 8:00 AM. Witness has admitted that he has not mentioned in his examination in chief the name of places where they searched the accused persons and has voluntarily added that he had mentioned these places in the charge sheet. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has falsely mentioned in the charge sheet that he search at some places or that in fact he never search the accused persons at any place. According to the witness he did not give notice to any passerby for refusal of joining the police party during investigations, arrest of accused persons and other proceedings. Witness has further deposed that he explained them that action could be taken against them for refusing to join the police party. He has also admitted that the fact of explaining to public persons of taking action against them is not mentioned any where in the charge sheet. He has denied the suggestion that the same has not been mentioned because he never explained the action contemplated to them. According to the witness, they returned back at Police Station after conducting whole proceedings at about 11:3011:45 PM. He has denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not put in muffled faces or that the accused persons were shown to the complainant and other witnesses in the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 87 police lock up. Witness has also denied the suggestion that mobile alleged to be recovered from accused persons has been planted upon the accused persons to falsely implicate them in the present case. Witness has further admitted that he never visited the house of deceased in Rajasthan during investigations to investigate whether there was any enmity of the deceased or the family of deceased with someone or not and has voluntarily added that he had made oral interrogations from the family of the deceased. Witness has admitted that he had not recorded the statements of family members of the deceased of whom he is saying that he made oral interrogations. He has denied the suggestion that no oral interrogations was made from the family of the deceased and that is why nothing has been recorded nor any DD has been placed about such investigations on record. Witness has further denied the suggestion that no mobile phones were recovered from the possession of accused persons or that the same were planted upon them. The witness has further admitted that no gloves or any cloth were used by him to handle the knife. He has denied the suggestion that the said knife was planted upon the accused Rudermani or that they were aware that no finger prints of Rudermani were found on the knife and and that is why no gloves or clothes were used while handling the same. He has further denied the suggestion that the said knife was planted upon the accused Rudermani or that the clothes allegedly recovered from accused persons do not belong to the accused persons and they have been planted upon the accused persons to falsely implicate them and that is why the size of clothes has not been mentioned in St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 88 the charge sheet. Witness has denied the suggestion that the size of the clothes are not of the size of accused persons. He has admitted that the clothes has not been measured. He has denied the suggestion that the clothes has not been measured because he was aware that they do not belong to accused persons or that Maozzam is a planted witness. Witness has denied the suggestion that Deepak and Vimal are planted witnesses just to implicate the accused persons falsely in the present case in order to solve the blind case and to save the real culprits. He has further denied the suggestion that accused Rudermani never pointed out the place of incident or knife or place where the knife would has been found or that no pointing out memos were prepared at the instance of accused persons. He has also denied the suggestion that the signatures of accused persons were obtained on plain papers and later on they were converted into seizure memos, pointing out memos and disclosure statements. Witness has also denied the suggestion that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case or that accused Rudermani was arrested on 17.10.2011 at about 3:30 PM at mother diary, Adarsh Nagar; the accused Sunil on 18.10.2011 at 2:10 PM from Madhuban Chowk and accused Rohit was arrested on 19.10.2011 at 9:10 PM from jhuggie Subzi Market, Haiderpur. Witness has denied the suggestion that the accused were not arrested in the manner as deposed by him and that is why there is no public witness made by him at the time of arrest or that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the Police Station. The witness has denied the suggestion that he did not conduct free and fair investigations or that in order St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 89 to solve the blind case the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(97) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them whey they have denied.
(98) The accused Rudermani has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police after lifting from Madan Dairy Park, Adarsh Nagar on 17.10.2011 at 3:30 PM. According to the accused, nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance nor he made any disclosure statement as alleged. He has further stated that all the allegations against him are incorrect.
(99) The accused Rohit Kumar @ Rahul has similarly stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police after lifting him from Subzi Mandi Market, Haiderpur on 19.10.2011. According to the accused, nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance nor he made any disclosure statement as alleged. He has further stated that all the allegations against him are incorrect.
(100) The accused Sunil has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police after lifting him from Madhuban Chowk on 18.10.2011. According to the accused, nothing was recovered from his St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 90 possession or at his instance nor he made any disclosure statement as alleged. He has further stated that all the allegations against him are incorrect. (101) However, the accused have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence.
FINDINGS:
(102) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition No. witness Public witnesses:
1. Duli Chand Meena He is the brother of the deceased who has proved having (PW1) identified the dead body of deceased Harkesh Meena vide his statement Ex.PW1/A and also signed at point A on the request for postmortem which is Ex.PW1/B regarding identification of the dead body.
2. Kirori Lal Meena He is also the brother of the deceased who has proved (PW2) having identified the dead body of his brother Harkesh Meena vide his statement Ex.PW2/A and also proved having signed at point A, on the request for postmortem which is Ex.PW2/B regarding identification of the dead body and after postmortem dead body was handed over to them. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 91
3. Mohd. Moazzam He is an eye witness to the incident who has deposed on the (PW3) following aspects:
1. That on 15.10.2011 he was doing preparation for the examination conducted by UPSC and was taking coaching from Khan Study Group Institute at Hudson Lane.
2. That on that day, his classes were over at 8 PM and thereafter he went to GTK Hospital to see the new born baby of his sister.
3. That at about 10:00 PM he left the hospital and was going towards Mukherjee Nagar, when he reached ahead to Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, towards Azadpur side, there was a red light and a traffic jam.
4. That at that time, he was on his motorcycle and he stopped his motorcycle by the side of the road near red light and was present near the exit gate of Adarsh Nagar Metro Station.
5. That he heard some noise on which he turned back to see as to what had happened and he noticed that three boys, in the age group of about 25 years were present there who were catching hold one person and the said person was trying to get himself released from the clutches of those boys.
6. That one of the boy had caught hold the neck of that person, second boy had caught hold the waist of that person and the third boy who was having a knife in his hand and inflicted a knife blow on the head of that person and thereafter he stabbed that person on the left side of his chest with the said knife and that person fell down after the injuries were received by him.
7. That thereafter these boys removed the purse from the pocket of the pants, worn by that person after cutting the same from his pocket and all the three boys ran away from the spot.
8. That in the meantime, the traffic light got green and he moved ahead on his motorcycle and stopped the same nearby after which he made a call to the police at 100 number from his mobile No. 9990639518 and St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 92 then he left the spot.
9. That on 17.10.2011 he noticed the said incident in the newspaper and came to know that the said person who was a constable in the Delhi Police had expired and on the same day, he received information from the police after which he went to Police Station where police recorded his statement.
10. That on 24.10.2011 he received a call from the police for identification of the accused persons and they called him on 03.11.2011 and on 05.11.2011.
11. That on 03.11.2011 he went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar at about 1:00 PM and thereafter he along with Inspector Rajesh Sinha went to Rohini Jail for identification of accused.
12. That he stayed outside the jail, whereas Inspector Rajesh entered inside the jail and after some time, Ld. MM also reached there after which Inspector Rajesh Sinha came outside the jail and he told him that two accused persons had refused to join the Test Identification Parade Proceedings and thereafter Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
13. That on 05.11.2011 he went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar at about 1:30 PM and thereafter he along with Inspector Rajesh Sinha went to Tihar Jail for identification of accused.
14. That he stayed outside the jail, whereas Inspector Rajesh entered inside the jail and after sometime Ld. MM also reached there
15. That thereafter Inspector Rajesh Sinha came outside the jail and informed him that the third accused had also refused to join the Test Identification Parade proceedings after which Investigating Officer recorded his statement.
16. That on 18.11.2011 he was called at Police Station on which he reached there at about 1:00 PM and thereafter he along with police officials reached Rohini Courts, Room No. 105.
17. That when he was present outside the court in the meantime, three accused persons were produced St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 93 before the court and he identified all the boys as the assailants, who had murdered the Constable of Delhi Police on 15.10.2011.
18. That he pointed out towards the said boys and their names he came to know as accused Rudramani, Sunil and Rohit and he also came to know that the name of deceased was Ct. Harkesh Meena of Delhi police who was present at the time of incident in plain clothes.
This witness has not only identified the accused persons in the Court but also attributed specific roles to them. He has pointed out towards accused Rudramani, as the person who had inflicted the injury with knife to the deceased and also removed the purse of deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants. He has also pointed out towards accused Rohit as the person had caught hold the neck of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased. The witness has also pointed out towards accused Sunil as the person who had caught hold the waist of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased.
4. Inder Singh He is the landlord of the accused Sunil. He has deposed on (PW15) the following lines:
1. That he is residing at house No. 588, Village Badli, Jatav Mohalla Delhi and has another house bearing no. 681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalaswa Dairy and there are 56 rooms in that house which rooms were given on rent basis by him.
2. That one Sunil was residing in one of the room at the abovesaid house at Bairagi Mohalla with his wife since November 2010 and left the room in the month of April/ May 2011 and he again came at his room in the month of September 2011 and resided there with his wife Soni.
3. That Sunil used to pay Rs.1000/ per month as rent to him and Sunil gave his ID proof i.e. election ID Card to him while taking the room on rent.St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 94
4. That he handed over the photocopy of said ID cards of Sunil and Soni to police which was seized by he police vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. He has proved that the photocopy of election I card of Soni which is Ex.PW15/B and photocopy of election I card of Sunil which is Ex.PW15/C. He has identified the accused Sunil in the Court.
5. Deepak Kumar This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW19) 1. That in the month of May 2011 he had purchased a mobile phone with SIM Card of MTS Company from a shop at Najafgarh Road with mobile no.
8459508549 for Rs. 950/.
2. That he had given his ID Card i.e. election voter card with his photo to the shopkeeper while he purchased the abovesaid mobile phone with SIM and he handed over this mobile phone to his younger brother Bimal who used to do the work of vegetables.
3. That after one month of purchase of said phone, his brother Bimal had gone to Azadpur Subzi Mandi at night time at about 1.30 AM when an incident took place with his brother in which the abovesaid mobile phone and some money was robbed from him.
4. That his brother Bimal was scared and nervous due to incident and hence they did not lodge the FIR with police because they were under fear that the said robbers could cause injury to them.
5. That they made call on the said phone upto 1520 days but the mobile was found switched off and hence they thought that the SIM had been broken by the said robbers.
6. That on 11.01.2012 police came to them and inquired about the mobile phone on which he informed the above said facts to police.
7. That he handed over the photocopy of his election card and photocopy of ration card to police and police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/A.
8. That the photocopy of his election I Card which is Ex.PW19/B and photocopy of ration card which is St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 95 Ex.PW19/B.
9. That on 13.01.2012 he went to Police Station Adarsh Nagar and handed over receipt of purchase of abovesaid mobile phone with SIM and the police seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/D and the said original receipt is Ex.PW19/E.
6. Bimal Kumar He is the brother of Deepak Kumar (PW19) and has deposed (PW20) on the following aspects:
1. That in the month of May 2011 his younger brother Deepak had purchased a mobile phone with SIM bearing No. 8459508549 and he (witness) used the said mobile phone with abovesaid SIM.
2. That after one month of purchase of mobile phone, he was present in Azadpur Subzi Mandi when at about 1.00 AM threefour persons committed robbery with him on pointing of knife and took away money Rs.10,000/ and the above said mobile phone with SIM from him.
3. That they did not lodge any FIR of incident because they were afraid of the assailants as other public persons were saying that they would cause injuries to them.
4. That he used to go to Azadpur Mandi and due to fear of abovesaid assailants, he did not make any complaint to police.
5. That they made calls on the said mobile phone for 1520 days but it was found switched off and thereafter they did not try to call again on the same phone.
6. That on 11.01.2012 police came at his house and made inquiries from him and his brother Deepak about the abovesaid mobile phone and mobile number on which and they told all facts to the police.
7. That police seized the photocopy of election ID card of his brother and their ration card vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/A copy of which election ID Card is Ex.PW19/B and ration card is Ex.PW19/C. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 96
7. Suresh @ Fauji This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW22) 1. That he is residing at Jhuggi No. 36, Sanjay Camp, Haider Pur, Delhi with his two brothers.
2. That in the year 2012 he used to work in a mutton shop at Haider Pur and in the morning time they used to prepare samosas, bread pakoras, kachori etc. whereas in the evening time they used to prepare chicken soup and mutton etc.
3. That he knew accused Rohit whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, who used to come at their shop as a Customer and he know him as a customer who was known to him through their owner Ashok.
4. That accused Rohit used to come at their shop and he took eatable items from there then he came to know him.
5. That after arrest of Rohit he came to know that he was involved in a murder case.
6. That on 07.01.2012 he handed over photocopy of his election ID Card and photocopy of ration card which were seized by police vide Ex.PW22/A photocopy of which election ID Card is Ex.PW22/B and photocopy of ration card is Ex.PW22/C. He has, however, turned hostile on the aspect that accused Rohit used to come at his jhuggi and usually remain there and that any Tshirt was recovered from his jhuggi at the instance of accused Rohit.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
8. Dr. Bhim Singh He is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved having conducted (PW29) the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 16.10.2011 vide Postmortem Report Ex.PW29/A according to which there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased :
1. Incised stab wound 3.2 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity deep, left side of chest in the seventh intercoastal space, situated 12cm below and lateral from left nipple, lower angle of wound was obtuse, upper angle was acute, wound was obliquely placed.St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 97
2. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.2 cm x 20.4 cm was present middle of forehead.
The witness has also proved the following aspects:
1. That on internal examination of head and neck all organs were intact, brain was pale; on examination of Chest the Chest Wall showed cut mark through and through in the seventh intercoastal space, wound travelled slightly upwards cutting the outer surface of left ventricle of heart, through and through, total length was approximately 15cm, chest cavity and pericardial was full of blood about 1.5 liters, blood was fluid and clotted and other organs were pale and the Stomach was having semi digested food about 250 gms.
2. That death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon stab injury via injury No. 1, all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and caused by single sharp edged pointed weapon or like object; Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and Time since death was about 1314 hours.
3. That after postmortem examination he handed over the clothes, blood in gauze piece in sealed condition with sample seal of department to the police.
4. That on 16.12.2011 he received an application from Inspector Virender Kadiyan SHO Police Station Adarsh Nagar along with inquest papers and one sealed packet, sealed with seals of VK for subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence.
5. That on opening the packet he found one single edged iron knife having wooden handle as described in figure 1 in his report.
6. That he opined that the Injury No. 1 and 2 mentioned in Postmortem Report No. 958/11 which is Ex.PW29/A could be possible by above examined weapon which opinion is Ex.PW29/B.
7. That after examination the weapon of offence was again sealed with sample seal of the department and St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 98 handed over to the police.
8. That the stab injury was inflicted from the front side.
9. Dr. Gopal Krishna This witness has proved the MLC of the deceased which is (PW30) Ex.PW30/A prepared by Dr. Ajeet according to which on 15.10.2011 injured Harkesh Meena, aged around 27 years male (as mentioned on the I Card found in the pocket of the patient) was brought to the casualty of the hospital by ASI Ram Kishan, PCR official. He has also proved that Dr. Ajeet examined the said patient under his supervision and declared him brought dead vide MLC Ex.PW30/A. FSL Experts:
10. Ms. Seema Nain She is the Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) who has proved (PW32) the Biological and Serological Reports which are Ex.PW32/A and Ex.PW32/B respectively. She has proved Human Blood was detected on Ex.1 (blood stained stones), 2 (blood stained earth), 5 (blood stained stones), 6 (earth control), 7 (torn shirt of the deceased), 9a (pant of the deceased), 9b (torn baniyan of the deceased), 9c (underwear of the deceased), 9d (one pair of socks of the deceased), 10 (blood sample of the deceased), 12 (knife), 14a (pants of accused Sunil), 14b (shirt of accused Sunil), 15a (jeans pant of accused Rudermani), 15b (shirt of the accused Rudermani) and 16 (Tshirt of accused Rohit) and Human Blood of 'O' Group was found on the exhibit 9a (pant of the deceased), 9b (torn baniyan of the deceased), 9c (underwear of the deceased) and 10 (blood sample of the deceased).
11. Sh. A. K. He is the Deputy Director (DNA Unit), FSL Rohini who has Srivastava (PW33) proved the following aspects:
1. That on 03.05.2012 five sealed parcels from Biology Division to DNA Unit were received bearing seal of SNn FSL, Delhi containing exhibits 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16 and the seals on the parcels were intact which was marked to him for analysis.
2. That he broke open the seal from the parcels and on opening the parcel no.10 it was found to contain dark brown gauze cloth piece which was kept in a polythene described as blood gauze sample of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 99 deceased Harkesh Meena.
3. That on opening the parcel no.12 it was found to contain one knife with wooden handle.
4. That on opening the parcel no.14 it was found to contain one dirty pant and one dirty shirt.
5. That on opening the parcel no.15 it was found to contain one jeans pant and one full sleeve shirt and on opening the parcel no.16, it found to contain one T Shirt.
6. That exhibits 10, 12, 14a, 15a, 15b and 16 were subjected to DNA isolation and the DNA was isolated from the source of exhibits 10, 12, 14a, 14b, 15a and 15b.
7. That DNA could not be isolated from the source of exhibit 16.
8. That the DNA Fingerprinting Profile was generated for exhibits 10, 12 & 15b by using AmpFl STR Identiflier PCR Plus Amplification Kit.
9. That DNA could not be amplified of the source of exhibit 14a, 14b & 15a due to degradation of sample.
10. That STR Analysis was used for each of the samples and data was analyzed by using Genemapper IDX Software.
11. That the alleles from the source of exhibit 10 (blood gauze of the deceased Harkesh Meena) were accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit 12 (knife) and exhibit 15b (shirt of accused Rudermani).
12. That after examining the above said articles he prepared his reports which are Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B.
13. That he found that the DNA profiling STR Analysis performed on the exhibit 10 (blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena), exhibit 12 (knife), and exhibit 15b (i.e. one full sleeve shirt of Rudermani) provided are sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile from the source of exhibit 12 (knife) and exhibit 15b (i.e. one full sleeve shirt of Rudermani) St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 100 is similar with the DNA profile from the source of the exhibits 10 (blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena).
12. Sh. V. Lakshmi He is the Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) who has proved Narasimhan the following aspects:
(PW34) 1. That on 30.07.2012 he has received three parcels duly sealed with the seal of FSL, SNn DELHI through biology division found marked as parcel 7, parcel 9 and parcel 12.
2. That on opening parcel No. 7 one full sleeves shirt in torn condition was found which was marked exhibit 7, the second parcel on opening was found to contain cloth and shoes i.e. one pant marked Ex 9a, one baniyan marked Ex 9b, one underwear marked Ex 9c and one pair of shoe with socks marked as Ex 9d and third parcel on opening was found to contain one knife marked as Ex.12.
3. That after examination he gave his detailed report which is Ex.PW34/A.
4. That cut mark Q1 on shirt marked exhibit 7 and Q2 on baniyan marked exhibit 9b were examined physically and under magnification.
5. That the cut edges were found to be sharp and the knife marked exhibit 12 was also examined and the test cut marks T1 and T2 were marked on shirt using knife marked exhibit 12.
6. That these cut marks were compared with crime cut marks and he gave his opinion that the cut marks Q1 and Q2 could be caused by the knife marked exhibit 12.
7. That after examination the exhibits were resealed with the seal of VLN FSL DELHI.
Nodal Officers:
13. Sh. Jyotish He is Nodal Officer from Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.
Mohrara (PW16) (MTS) who has proved that mobile No. 8459508549 has been issued in the name of Deepak Kumar Sha S/o Shashi Bhushan Sha, R/o 673, A Block, Camp No. 4, Jawalapuri, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 101 Nangloi, Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW16/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW16/B. The witness has also proved the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW16/C (running into nine pages); Cell ID chart is which is Ex.PW16/D (running into 62 pages) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW16/E.
14. Sh. Vishal Gaurav He is the Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. who has (PW17) proved that mobile No. 9971870929 has been issued in the name of Naveen Kumar S/o Tinka Ram, R/o T10/169, Gali behind bus stand, Village Bharola, Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW17/A and copy of Election ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW17/B. He has also proved the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW17/C (running into two pages); the Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW17/D (running into one page) and Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW17/E.
15. Sh. Amar Nath He is the Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. who has (PW18) proved the following aspects:
1. That mobile No. 9891370258 has been issued in the name of Harkesh Meena S/o Dhanasya, R/o Delhi Police Training Center, Wazirabad, Delhi permanent resident of 161, near Kendriya Vidhayala, Mahukhurdpur Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/A and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW18/B.
2. That the Call Details from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 are Ex.PW18/C (running into four pages).
3. That mobile No. 9718663715 has been issued in the name of Sunil S/o Mahan Lal, R/o 168, Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi permanent resident of 226, Bahiyari Baghel, Tehsil Bhatapararani, District Dewaria UP, vide Customer Application Form copy of which is St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 102 Ex.PW18/D and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/E.
4. That the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW18/F (running into three pages).
5. That mobile No. 9990639518 has been issued in the name of Moazzam S/o Haseen Ahmed, R/o D35, Lane No. 1, Batala house, Jamia Nagar, Delhi vide Customer Application From copy of which is Ex.PW18/G and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW18/H.
6. That the Call Details from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW18/I (running into 11 pages); Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW18/J (running into 43 pages) and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW18/K. Police/ Official Witnesses:
16. HC B.A. Rao He is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has (PW4) proved that on 05.10.2011 at about 2:30 AM, he received rukka sent by SI Afaque Ahmed through Ct. Pradeep for registration of FIR on the basis of which rukka he got recorded FIR copy of FIR which is Ex.PW4/A. He has proved having made his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW4/B.
17. Ct. Sudhir Kumar He is a formal witness being the Special Messenger who has (PW5) proved that 13.10.2011 he delivered the special report to the Joint Commissioner at Mahadev Road, New Delhi; ACP, Model Town and to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate at Kamla Nagar at his residence.
18. Ct. Sandeep (PW6) He is a formal witness who has proved the DD No. 8B dated 15.10.2011 and DD No. 90B dated 15.10.2011 which are in the handwriting of Lady Ct. Rekha which DDs are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.
19. HC Radhey Shyam He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved (PW7) entry in register no. 19 vide S.No. 3249 copy of which is Ex.PW7/A (three pages), S.No. 3658 copy of which is Ex.PW7/B (seven pages), S.No. 3661 copy of which is St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 103 Ex.PW7/C (three pages), entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 145/21/11 copy of which is Ex.PW7/D bearing his signatures at point A, entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 146/21/11 copy of which is Ex.PW7/E and receipt issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW7/F.
20. Inspector Manohar He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has proved Lal (PW8) having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW8/A.
21. Ct. Pradeep Kumar He is a formal witness who has proved the following (PW9) aspects:
1. That on 15.10.2011 Duty Officer handed over to him DD No. 89B for handing over the same to SI Afaque Ahmed and thereafter he along with SI Afaq Ahmed reached the spot i.e. near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station Footpath opposite Indira Market.
2. That at 2:15 AM SI Afaq Ahmed handed over to him a rukka and he took the rukka to the Police Station and got recorded the FIR after which he brought the copy of FIR and original rukka to the spot and handed over the same to Inspector Binod Kumar Singh.
3. That the Investigating Officer lifted the exhibits from the spot and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW9/A.
22. HC Praveen He is a formal witness who has proved that on 10.1.2012 he Kumar (PW10) was working as Chitha Munshi at Police Station Narela and he handed over the attested copies of Duty Roaster dated 15.10.2011 and DD entry of arrival of Ct. Harkesh Meena which is Ex.PW10/A (two pages) to Inspector Virender Kadyan.
23. Ex. Ct. Ramesh He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer Chander (PW11) who has proved having visited the scene of crime and having taken the photographs which are Ex.PW11/A1 to Ex.PW11/A17.
24. Nanhe Lal Mishra He is a formal witness who has proved the following (PW12) aspects:
1. That on the intervening night of 1516.10.2011 he was deputed as Duty Constable in BJRM Hospital and on 15.10.2011 at about 10:55 PM ASI Ram St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 104 Kishan, Incharge of PCR Van brought one injured Harkesh Meena to the hospital who was admitted in the hospital and at 11:10 PM the doctor declared the injured as dead.
2. That the doctor handed over him one Nokia mobile phone, one black bag 'Donex' containing one brown shawl, one light blue towel, uniform of Delhi Police, belt, cap, cash of Rs.13/ and one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital Jpuri, Delhi containing the shirt and one sample seal of MS BJRM Hospital.
3. That he handed over all the above articles to SI Afaque Ahmed.
25. Ct. Parshu Ram He is a formal witness who has proved having got preserved (PW13) the dead body of the deceased to the Mortuary of BJRM Hospital.
26. SI M.D. Meena He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Incharge who (PW14) has proved having inspected the spot of incident and having prepared the Crime Team Report which is Ex.PW14/A.
27. SI Narsi Prasad He is a friend of the deceased Harkesh Meena and has Meena (PW21) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is an original resident of village Maukhurd Police Station Bandi Kui, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
2. That in the month of October 2011, he was posted at Police Station Malviya Nagar and used to reside in the barrack of Police Station Malviya Nagar and also used to go to his village.
3. That Harkesh Meena was known to him since his childhood who was working in Delhi Police as Constable and he also used to live in same barrack where he was residing.
4. That on 15.10.2011 he had gone for his posting place Police Station Narela at 8.00 AM and he had to return back at about 8.00 PM after completing his duty.
5. That at about 11.00 PM on 15.10.2011 he went to Trilok Puri at the house of his uncle and on the next day i.e. 16.10.2011 he received a call from Police St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 105 Station Adarsh Nagar and inquired about Harkesh Meena after which at the instance of police officials of Police Station Adarsh Nagar he reached at the mortuary of BJRM Hospital.
6. That he identified the dead body of Harkesh Meena and both brothers and relatives of deceased Harkesh Meena also reached there and they also identified the dead body.
7. That after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to brothers of deceased and they took the dead body to their native place and he also went with them.
8. That Harkesh Meena used to keep his ID Card of Delhi police, driving license in his brown purse while going on duty.
9. That on 07.01.12 he identified the purse of Harkesh Meena during Test Identification Parade proceedings vide Ex.PX3.
He has correctly identified the case property i.e. one brown purse as belonging to Harkesh Meena which Purse is Ex.P1.
28. HC Himmat Singh He is a formal witness who has proved the following (PW23) aspects:
1. That on 15.10.2011 at about 10:15 PM he was present at Rajan Babu Road, Adarsh Nagar an unknown person informed him that one person was lying unconscious near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station Footpath opposite Indira Nagar Market.
2. That on this he reached the spot where the injured was lying there and blood was oozing out from his body.
3. That he informed the PCR through Control Room on which PCR Van C35 reached at the spot and took the injured to the BJRM Hospital.
4. That on receipt of information SI Afaque Ahmed and Inspector Binod Kumar Singh reached the spot.
5. That Inspector Binod Kumar Singh prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW23/A and also lifted the exhibits from the spot which were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/A. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 106
29. SI Afaque Ahmed This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW24) 1. That in the intervening night of 1516.11.2011 he was posted at Police Station Adarsh Nagar and was on emergency duty from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM.
2. That at about 10:25 PM he received DD No. 89 B, which is Ex.PW24/A after which he along with Ct.
Pardeep went to the spot i.e. near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station towards Indira Nagar Market where he met HC Himmat at the spot who informed him that the injured had been shifted to BJRM hospital by the officials of the PCR van.
3. That he left Ct. Pardeep for preservation of the spot on which he along with Ct. Parsu Ram went to BJRM Hospital where he obtained the MLC of the injured from the doctor on which concerned doctor had declared the injured as brought dead at 11:10 PM.
4. That he formally examined the dead body and found injury on the forehead of the dead body and one stab injury on left side near rib.
5. That in the hospital Duty Head constable Nand Lal Mishra handed over to him the personal belongings of the deceased in an open condition which included one Noika Mobile phone, black bag make Donex in which there was a cap and uniform, belt and I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena written on the same and brown coloured shawl, light blue coloured towel and Thirteen Rupees cash.
6. That he handed over to him a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital, JPuri Delhi and a sample seal informing him that it contained the shirt of the deceased.
7. That he seized the said articles vide memo Ex.PW24/B.
8. That the shirt of the deceased was seized vide memo Ex.PW24/C and he then directed Ct. Parsu Ram to take the body to the mortuary of BJRM hospital where it was got preserved through him after moving a request to CMO mortuary for preserving the body.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 107
9. That he then searched for some eye witnesses in the hospital but could not find anybody after which he returned to the spot and found that senior officers including Inspector Binod Kumar Singh along with Police Station staff was already there.
10. That after he reached the spot the Crime Team also came and inspected the spot and photographed the same after which the Crime Team Incharge handed over to him the Crime Team Report and he also tried to search for the eye witness at the spot but could not find anybody.
11. That he then made his endorsement on the DD Entry No. 89 B which is Ex.PW24/A which endorsement is Ex.PW24/D and converted the same into a rukka which he handed over the same to Ct. Pardeep and directed him to take the same to the Police Station for getting recording the FIR.
12. That he handed over the pullanda and the personal belongings which had been given to him in the hospital and also the seizure memo and the MLC to Inspector Binod Kumar.
13. That after Ct. Pardeep returned to the spot along with copy of the FIR and original rukka, he handed over the same to Inspector Binod Kumar.
14. That he accompanied Inspector Binod Kumar to the mortuary of the BJRM hospital where Inspector Binod Kumar inspected the dead body of the deceased and they then returned to the spot where he prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Himmat.
15. That Inspector Binod Kumar then lifted the blood stained earth from the footpath and also from the service road along with the earth control concrete etc. and he also lifted a blue colored pen with the words Natraj written on the same and then converted the same into pullandas by keeping the same into containers and with the help of cloth after which he sealed with the seal of BKS and prepared the seizure memo vide Ex.PW9/A. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 108
16. That thereafter they returned to the Police Station where Inspector Binod Kumar Singh deposited the exhibits in the malkhana.
17. That thereafter they went to the BJRM Hospital Mortuary where the dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over to its relatives.
18. That the dead body identification memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A and the handing over memo Ex.PW24/E were prepared after which the last rites of the deceased were conducted and thereafter they returned to the Police Station.
30. Inspector Rajesh He is a formal witness who has proved the following Sinha (PW25) aspects:
1. That on 03.11.2011 on the directions of the SHO, he had come to the Rohini Jail along with Moazzam for getting Test Identification Parade of two accused persons conducted.
2. That both the accused refused to participate in the TIP after which he obtained the copy of the proceedings from the Ld. MM and handed over the same to the SHO.
3. That on 05.11.2011 he went to central jail Tihar along with witness Moazzam for getting Test Identification Parade conducted of third accused who also refused to join the proceedings and he obtained the copy of the proceedings from the Ld. MM and handed over the same to the SHO.
31. HC Naresh Kumar This witness has joined investigations with Inspector (PW26) Virender Kadyan. He has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 19.10.12 he alongwith SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan, Inspector Vinod Kumar, ASI Parmod Kumar, HC Ramesh, HC Sudhir, HC Ved and Ct. Naveen reached at Bhalaswa Dairy in search of accused person but accused persons could not be traced out there.
2. That they went to Jahangir Puri, Adarsh Nagar, Azadpur, Bhadola village and thereafter reached at St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 109 Panchavati Booth area where a secret informer came there and gave secret information to Virender Kadyan that one of the accused involved in this case would be coming from Bhadola village area and would go to Majlis Park area.
3. That SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan informed higher officials and also briefed them after which SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan also called six seven public persons to join the investigation but they left the place without informing about their names and addresses on one pretext or other.
4. That SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan then formed two teams of police officials, one team was consisting of SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan, ASI Parmod and himself whereas the remaining officers were in another team.
5. That both team members took position in front of outer gate of Subzi Mandi, Azadpur on the way to Majlis Park.
6. That at about 3.15 PM one person came from Bhadola village area from the side of out gate of Subzi Mandi.
7. That at the instance of secret informer the said person was apprehended by them and he disclosed his name as Rudramani and he was interrogated by SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan and on continuous interrogation he confessed his involvement in this case.
8. That thereafter the accused Rudramani was arrested by Investigating Officer vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/A, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW26/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW26/C.
9. That the accused Rudermani also pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo Ex.PW26/D.
10. That thereafter at the instance of accused, they reached near Bhama Shah Park and at the instance of accused one knife was recovered under brick St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 110 pieces and sand on the Service Road and the accused disclosed that he caused injuries by said knife on the deceased.
11. That the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of said knife vide Ex.PW26/E and Investigating Officer took measurements of the knife and mentioned the same and description of knife in detail in sketch.
12. That blood stains were found on the blade of knife after which Investigating Officer wrapped the knife in a paper and sealed the same in a cloth pullanda with seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/F and the seal after use was handed over to ASI Parmod.
13. That the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide memo Ex.PW26/G.
14. That the accused Rudramani was kept in a muffled face after which they reached at Bhalaswa Dairy where the accused pointed out the house of Sunil.
15. That at the instance of Rudermani, the accused Sunil was apprehended.
16. That the witness Sunil was interrogated by Investigating Officer and he also confessed about his involvement in this case.
17. That the accused Sunil was arrested by Investigating Officer in this case vide memo Ex.PW26/H, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/I and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/J.
18. That at the instance of accused Sunil one purse was recovered from taand of his room and word GUCCI was written on the purse of brown colour which was checked by Investigating Officer and one training ID Card of Ct. Harkesh, pay slip of Ct. Harkesh and photocopy of ID Card of Ct. Harkesh of Delhi Police, two passport size photographs of Ct. Harkesh, one hand written receipt and one photocopy of mark sheet and some documents were found in the purse.
19. That Investigating Officer took out the abovesaid documents and kept the same in an envelope and St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 111 sealed the same with seal of VK and also sealed the purse in a cloth pullanda with seal of VK and seized the envelope and pullanda vide memo Ex.PW26/K.
20. That at the instance of accused Rudramani, Rs.280/ were recovered from taand of the same room and Investigating Officer kept the same in an envelope and sealed the same with seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/L.
21. That thereafter they alongwith both accused Sunil and Rudramani reached at Badli Bus Stand where at the instance of both the accused, the third accused Rohit was apprehended.
22. That Rohit was interrogated by Investigating Officer and he also confessed about his involvement in this case after which accused Rohit was also arrested by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW26/M, his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW26/N.
23. That the original driving license of the deceased Ct.
Harkesh Meena was also recovered during personal search of the accused with other articles and Investigating Officer kept Rs. 660/ and original DL of Ct. Harkesh in an envelope and sealed with seal of VK.
24. That the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/O and thereafter they reached at the place of incident where the accused Sunil and Rohit pointed out the place of incident separately.
25. That accused Sunil pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW26/P and accused Rohit pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW26/Q.
26. That thereafter they returned back to Police Station and the Investigating Officer deposited the sealed articles in the Malkhana and Investigating Officer recorded their statements.
27. That on 20.10.2011 he again joined the investigation with Investigating Officer SHO Inspector Virender Kadyan and ASI Parmod Kumar when all three accused were taken out from lockup and Investigating St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 112 Officer interrogated them separately.
28. That accused Sunil and Rudramani disclosed that they were wearing the same pants which they had worn on the day of incident and the shirts worn by them on the day of incident which were kept by them at the room of the Sunil at Bhalaswa Dairy.
29. That Rohit also disclosed that he had kept the TShirt in the jhuggi which was worn by him on the day of incident.
30. That Investigating Officer recorded disclosure statement of Sunil vide Ex.PW26/R, disclosure statement of Rudramani was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/S and disclosure statement of Rohit was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/T.
31. That thereafter they reached at Bhalaswa Dairy at the house of Sunil which was found locked.
32. That at the instance of Rohit they reached the jhuggi of Rohit but it was also found locked and hence thereafter all three accused were produced before the Court in muffled face and one day Police Custody remand was obtained.
33. That after medical examination, they returned back to Police Station where the accused were kept in lockup.
34. That on 21.10.2011 he again joined the investigation with Inspector Virender Kadyan and ASI Parmod Kumar and other police officials and they took out the accused persons from lockup in search of clothes worn by the accused at the time of the incident.
35. That they then reached the house of Sunil at Bhalaswa Dairy in Bairagi Mohalla at the instance of accused Sunil and Rudramani where the wife of accused Sunil met them.
36. That at the instance of accused Sunil, his white shirt was taken in possession by Investigating Officer from the cot which the accused disclosed he was wearing at the time of incident.
37. That the said shirt and his wearing pant was taken in possession by Investigating Officer and both shirt St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 113 and pant were kept in a cloth pullanda and sealed with seal of VK and seized by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW26/U.
38. That at the instance of accused Rudramani, one checkdar shirt was taken into possession from the rope/ wire and Rudramani disclosed that he was wearing the said shirt at the time of incident.
39. That the Investigating Officer took the possession of said shirt and his wearing pant and kept the same in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/V.
40. That both accused Rudramani and Sunil changed other pants and thereafter they reached at Haider Pur Jhuggi at the jhuggi of Fauji at instance of accused Rohit and at his instance one TShirt was recovered from the khunti on the wall.
41. That the accused disclosed that he was wearing the said Tshirt at the time of incident after which the said TShirt was kept in a cloth pullanda and was sealed with seal of VK and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW26/W.
42. That thereafter accused persons were produced before the Court in muffled face after their medical examination.
43. That on 03.01.2012 he was present at Police Station and on that day, Inder Singh came at the Police Station and gave his statement to Investigating Officer that accused Sunil and his wife remained on his house on rent basis and also produced the photocopy of election ID Card of Sunil and his wife.
44. That the Investigating Officer seized both documents vide memo Ex.PW15/A photocopies of which ID Cards are Ex. PW15/B and Ex.PW15/C.
45. That on 07.01.12 while he was present at Police Station, one Suresh @ Fauji came at Police Station who was interrogated by Investigating Officer.
46. That Suresh produced the photocopy of his voter ID Card and Ration Card which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW22/A St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 114 photocopies of which ID Card and ration card are Ex.PW22/B and Ex.PW22/C.
47. That on 10.01.12 he was present at Police Station and on that day, HC Parveen came at Police Station from Police Station Narela and produced two photocopies of duty register regarding Ct. Harkesh of Police Station Narela and one copy of arrival DD regarding Ct. Harkesh which were seized by Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW26/X which Duty Roaster is Ex.PW10/A and DD No. 78B is Ex.PW26/Y.
48. That on 13.01.2012 Deepak came at Police Station and produced the original receipt of purchase of MTS Mobile phone with SIM and Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW19/D which receipt is Ex.PW19/E.
32. Ct. Vikram (PW27) He is a formal witness who has proved that on 29.12.2011 on the directions of the Investigating Officer he took 13 sealed pullandas with three sample seals with forwarding letter to FSL Rohini vide two road certificates No. 145/21/11 and 146/21/11 and he deposited the same in the FSL Rohini Delhi. He has proved the copy of RC No. 145/21/11 which is Ex.PW7/D, copy of RC No. 146/21/11 which is Ex.PW7/E and copy of receipt of FSL which is Ex.PW7/F which was handed over by him to the MHC(M).
33. Inspector Binod This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
Kumar Singh 1. That on 15.10.2011 at about 11:1511:30 PM he (PW28) received information from SI Afaque about the death of the boy who had been found stabbed.
2. That on receipt of the information he reached at the spot i.e. Adarsh Nagar Metro Station Exist Gate No. 2 where he met Ct. Pardeep and HC Himmat Singh and he inspected the spot of the incident and send information to the Crime Team.
3. That at about 12:15 AM Crime Team reached the spot and in the meanwhile SI Afaque also returned back to the spot from the hospital.
4. That the Crime Team inspected the spot and photographed the same and prepared its report and St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 115 handed over the same to SI Afaque and in the meanwhile senior officers also reached the spot.
5. That he made local inquiries but could not find any eye witness.
6. That at about 2:15 AM SI Afaque made his endorsement on DD No. 89B and Ct. Pardeep was sent to the Police Station for getting registered the FIR on the basis of the same.
7. That at around 3:45 AM Ct. Pardeep returned to the spot along with the copy of the FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him.
8. That he went to the BJRM Hospital mortuary along with SI Afaque and inspected the dead body after which he returned to the spot.
9. That SI Afaque handed over to him one sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of the hospital and belongings of the deceased in open condition and sample seal along with MLC and also handed over to him the Crime Team Report.
10. That SI Afaque handed over one pullanda containing the clothes of the deceased and the bag of the deceased containing the personal belonging of the deceased and he then prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Himmat which is Ex.PW23/A.
11. That he then lifted the blood stained earth from the footpath and also from the service road along with the earth control concrete etc. after which he lifted a blue colored pen with the words Natraj written on the same and then converted the same into pullandas by keeping the same into containers and with the help of cloth after which he sealed with the seal of BKS and prepared the seizure memo vide Ex.PW9/A.
12. That he returned to the Police Station where he deposited the exhibits in the malkhana and relatives of the deceased had already reached the Police Station.
13. That thereafter they all went to BJRM Hospital Mortuary where the dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased and after the postmortem St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 116 the dead body was handed over to them.
14. That the dead body identification memo which are Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/A were prepared and he filled the inquest form which is Ex.PW28/A and the handing over memo Ex.PW24/E.
15. That he recorded the statement of the Duty Constable of the hospital and thereafter returned back to the Police Station where he deposited the seized articles in the malkhana.
16. That on 17.10.2011 he called one Moazzam who had made a call on 100 number vide DD No. 90B at 10:32 PM and interrogated him.
17. That Mohd. Moazzam informed him that he was an eye witness to the incident dated 15.10.2011 when at around 10 PM when he was going towards Mukherjee Nagar from Adarsh Nagar hospital after meeting one of his relative and reached the red light Adarsh Nagar ahead of the Metro Station, there was a traffic jam when he saw that three boys were hitting one boy and was trying to push him on the ground and that boy was struggling to himself and out of them one of the boys pulled out a knife and stabbed that boy who then fell on the ground and the same boy then cut his pocket with the same knife and pulled out his purse.
18. That Moazzam further informed him that out of the other two boys, one was holding the neck of the victim who had fallen down and the third boy was holding the waist of the victim and thereafter all three of them ran away and since he was very shocked on seeing this incident, he moved along with the traffic, however when he reached near Mukherjee Nagar, his conscious did not permit him to proceed further and hence he made a 100 number call about the incident.
19. That Moazzam also informed him that he can identify the said boys in case if they come in front of him.
20. That he recorded the statement of Moazzam and thereafter relieved him.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 117
21. That on the same day he collected the Postmortem Report of the deceased.
22. That on 19.10.2011 he went in search of the accused persons along with the SHO but there was no success and later he came to know on the same day that the accused had been apprehended.
23. That on 20.10.2011 on the directions of the SHO he produced the accused persons before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in muffled face and obtained one day Police Custody Remand as the clothes of the accused were to be recovered.
24. That after coming back to the Police Station he handed over the accused Rohit, Sunil and Rudramani to the SHO while they were still in muffled face.
25. That on 22.12.2011 he went to the spot along with the SHO and the official draftsman and got prepared the scaled site plan.
34. Inspector Virender He is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has Kadyan (PW31) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 19.10.2011 investigations of the present case were taken over by him and he received the case file from Inspector Binod Kumar Singh.
2. That he along with Inspector Binod Kumar, ASI Parmod, HC Naresh, HC Ved, HC Sudhir, Ct. Naveen and other staff tried to search for the accused persons but could not trace them.
3. That at about 1:30 PM he received a secret information that the accused wanted in the present case would come outside Subzi Mandi out gate towards Majlis Park at about 3:00 PM.
4. That on receipt of the secret information he shared this information to his senior officers and constituted a raiding party consisting of himself and above said police officials.
5. That the said raiding parties were divided by two, one headed by himself and the other was headed by Inspector Binod Kumar Singh and the raiding party headed by him was along with ASI Parmod, HC Naresh and Ct. Naveen took positions towards St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 118 service lane, Panchwati adjacent to GT road, opposite out gate subzi mandi whereas the police party headed by Inspector Binod comprising of HC Vaid, HC Sudhir and one more official took position near NDPL power house.
6. That he requested sixseven passerbys to join the police party after sharing the information to them but they refused and left showing their inability.
7. That at about 3:15 PM one boy was coming from the out gate Majlis Park side and on pointing out of secret informer the said boy was apprehended by ASI Parmod and HC Naresh and on interrogation he disclosed his name as Rudramani and admitted his involvement in the present case.
8. That he arrested the accused Rudermani vide memo Ex.PW26/A and also personally searched him vide memo Ex.PW26/B in which a mobile make MTS was found and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW26/C.
9. That he immediately put the accused in muffled face as his TIP was to be conducted.
10. That the accused Rudaramani led them to the spot of the incident and pointed out the place of the incident vide memo Ex.PW26/D.
11. That the accused then led them to Bhama Shah Park, service lane adjoining GT road near MTNL box and pointed out towards large number of broken brick pieces lying on one corner of the service lane and got recovered a knife from under the broken brick pieces on which he (witness) found some dried blood stains and mud attached to the same.
12. That he prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW26/E and on measuring it was found to be having a total length of 30.9 cm, the handle was of wooden and was measuring about 12.6cm and the blade was of iron measuring 18.3 cms.
13. That he converted the said knife into a pullanda with the help of a paper and cloth and sealed the same with the seal of VK and he then seized the same vide St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 119 memo Ex.PW26/F.
14. That the seal after use was handed over to ASI Parmod after which he prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW26/G.
15. That Rudramani disclosed that he could get the other coaccused apprehended and pursuant to the same the accused Rudermani then led them to Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy to house No. A681682.
16. That one boy was coming out of the house and the accused Rudermani pointed him as Sunil, the co accused.
17. That they overpowered the said boy and interrogated him who confirmed his name as Sunil and disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Sunil was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/H and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/I in which one mobile make SAMSUNG was also found.
18. That the disclosure statement of the accused Sunil was also recorded vide Ex.PW26/J.
19. That the accused Sunil then led them inside his house and from the parchati got recovered one brown color purse with the words GUCCI written on the same and informed that it was the purse belonging to the deceased.
20. That he took the said purse and searched the same which was found to contain the I card of the deceased of his training period, photocopy of the original I card, payslip of April, 2011, receipt of the mobile, two passport size photographs, original marksheet of Rajasthan University and a handwritten slip.
21. That he converted the purse into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and the contents of the purse as aforesaid were put in an envelope and thereafter converted into a pullanda with the help of a cloth and both the pullandas were then sealed with the seal of VK which he took from ASI Parmod and after sealing the same returned the same to him after which the case property was then seized vide memo St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 120 Ex.PW26/K.
22. That the accused Rudramani who was the nephew of Sunil also led them to the parchati in the same house and got recovered cash to the tune of Rs.280/ and disclosed that it was the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share.
23. That he put the same into an envelope and sealed the same with the seal of VK which he took from ASI Parmod and returned to him after use and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/L.
24. That the accused Sunil was also put in a muffled face after which he prepared the site plan of the place vide Ex.PW31/A.
25. That both the accused Rudramani and Sunil disclosed that they could get the third accused Rohit apprehended and led them to Haiderpur Jhuggies.
26. That while they were crossing Badli Bus Stand, one boy was seen standing at Bus Stand and both Rudramani and Sunil pointed out towards him as their third associate Rohit on which ASI Parmod and HC Naresh apprehended Rohit.
27. That he interrogated the said boy who confirmed his identity as Rohit and disclosed about his involvement in the present case after which he arrested the accused Sunil vide memo Ex.PW26/M, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/N and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/O.
28. That the personal search of the accused Rohit also revealed the original driving licence of the deceased and cash to the tune of Rs 660/ which the accused disclosed was the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share and his personal search also revealed a mobile phone, metro card and one receipt of gym which were taken into possession.
29. That the cash and driving licence were put into a separate envelope and duly sealed with the seal of VK after taking the same from ASI Parmod which seal after use was returned to him.St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 121
30. That the accused Rohit was also put in the muffled face and both the accused Sunil and Rohit led them to the place of incident and pointed out the place of occurrence.
31. That he prepared the pointing out memo in respect of accused Sunil which is Ex.PW26/P and the pointing out memo in respect of accused Rohit which is Ex.PW26/Q.
32. That thereafter they all including the accused persons returned to the Police Station and all accused persons were kept separately in muffled faces and he deposited the case property in the malkhana.
33. That on 20.10.2011 he again interrogated all the accused persons and recorded their supplementary disclosure statements and on the same day all the accused persons were produced before the Ld. Illaka Magistrate in muffled faces and obtained one day Police Custody Remand.
34. That the accused Ruderamani and Sunil lead them to A681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalaswa Dairy for getting the clothes recovered which was worn by them and on that day the said house was found locked.
35. That thereafter the accused Rohit lead them to his jhuggi Khadar Wali, Haiderpur, Shalimar Bagh for getting recovered the clothes which he was wearing on the day of incident but his jhuggie was also found locked.
36. That they then returned to the Police Station along with the accused and he recorded the statement of ASI Parmod and HC Naresh and the accused were put in the lock up of the Police Station in muffled faces.
37. That on 21.10.2011 all the three accused persons were again taken out from the lock up in muffled faces and interrogated and he recorded their supplementary disclosure statements.
38. That first Sunil and Rudramani took them to their house at Bairagi Mohalla and their house were found St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 122 open.
39. That first Sunil produced one white shirt which had been kept on his bed which he was wearing on the day of the incident.
40. That the accused Sunil disclosed that the pant which he was wearing were the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident pursuant to which he got him to change his trousers and thereafter converted the shirt and pant into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/R.
41. That Rudramani then got recovered a shirt hanging on a rope in his room which was of white and brown checks with "wanted" written on the same and disclosed that the pant which he was wearing were the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident.
42. That he got him (Rudermani) to change his trousers and thereafter converted the shirt and pant into pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of VK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/S.
43. That accused Rohit then took them to his house at Khaderwali jhuggie, Haiderpur which was open but shut with a latch from outside and he opened the same and got recovered a black color T shirt which was hanging on a Khunti behind the door.
44. That he converted the same into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of VK and thereafter seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW26/T.
45. That all the three accused had disclosed that they had washed the clothes after the incident but still a few spots were visible on the same and therefore he had seized the same and recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of accused Rudramani and Sunil vide memo Ex.PW31/B and Ex.PW31/C.
46. That the accused were then produced in the court in muffled face and got remanded to judicial custody.
47. That on 24.10.2011 he moved an application for getting TIP of all the three accused which application St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 123 is Ex.PX9 which application was marked to the link MM.
48. That on 03.11.2011 the Ld. Link MM went to District Court Rohini but both the accused Rudramani and Rohit refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.
49. That Inspector Rajesh Sinha who had gone to the jail for purposes of getting the TIP proceedings conducted moved a request to Ld. MM for obtaining the copy of the same which was allowed vide Ex.PX10 and the TIP proceedings are Ex.PX6 and Ex.PX7.
50. That on his return to the Police Station, he handed over the copy of the proceedings to him and he recorded his statement and also the statement of eye witness and relieved them.
51. That on 05.11.2011 Inspector Rajesh Sinha took the eye witness to Central Jail Tihar where the TIP of third accused Sunil was fixed but he refused to participate in the same on which Inspector Rajesh moved an application for obtaining moved a request to Ld. MM for obtaining the copy of the same which was allowed vide Ex.PX11 and the TIP proceedings are PX5.
52. That on his return to the Police Station, he handed over the copy of the proceedings to him and recorded his statement and also the statement of eye witness and relieved them.
53. That on 18.11.2011 while the accused was being produced in Judicial Custody for extension of the remand, the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam also came to the court and identified all the three accused as the assailants whom he had seen on the date of the incident on which he recorded his statement and relieved him.
54. That on 16.12.2011 he took the pullanda containing the knife to the mortuary BJRM Hospital where he moved a request for subsequent opinion for weapon of offence to the Autopsy Surgeon which application is Ex.PW31/D on which the Autopsy Surgeon gave St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 124 his opinion vide Ex.PW29/B.
55. That after examining the weapon of offence, the same was again sealed with the seal of the hospital and he brought back the same to the Police Station and deposited the same in the Malkhana.
56. That on 22.12.2011 he along with Inspector Binod Kumar Singh and the draftsman SI Manohar Lal went to the spot where on the pointing out of Inspector Binod Kumar Singh scaled site plan was prepared.
57. That on return to the Police Station he recorded the statement of SI Manohar Lal and Inspector Binod Kumar and relieved them.
58. That on 29.12.2011 he got deposited the various exhibits at FSL through Ct. Vikram and he recorded the statement of Ct. Vikram and the MHC(M) and relieved them.
59. That on 03.01.2012 the landlord of house No. A681682 Bairagi Mohalla Bhalswa Dairy came to the Police Station and he interrogated the landlord namely Inder Singh who also handed over the copy of the voter ID card of the accused Sunil and his wife which he seized vide memo Ex.PW15/A and he recorded the statement of Inder Singh and HC Naresh and relieved them.
60. That on 06.01.2012 he moved an application for getting TIP of case property which application is Ex.PX2 and the Ld. Link MM conducted the proceedings on 07.01.2012 vide Ex.PX3 and moved an application for obtaining the copy of the same which application was allowed and is Ex.PX4.
61. That he recorded the statement of the witness Narsi Parshad in the court itself and relieved him.
62. That on 09.01.2012 he made a request to the various service providers i.e. Idea, Airtel and MTS for obtaining the records in respect of the telephone numbers of the various mobile phones recovered from the possession of the accused persons and also of the eye witness Moazzam and of the deceased and he St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 125 obtained the various certified copies and placed the same in the investigation file.
63. That on 10.01.2012 he made a request to the PCR and thereafter obtained the PCR forms in respect of the calls made to the PCR regarding the incident which PCR forms are Ex.16/C, Ex.17/C, Ex.18/C, Ex.18/I and 18/F.
64. That on the same day he obtained the details of the deceased regarding his duties on 15.10.2011 from HC Parveen of Narela Police Station and recorded his statement and he seized the documents regarding the details of the duty vide memo Ex.PW26/X and also recorded the statement of HC Parveen in whose presence the said papers were seized.
65. That on 11.01.2012 the witnesses Deepak Kumar Shah and his brother Vimal Shah came to the Police Station and provided him the documents of ID and ration card on which the SIM used by the accused Rudramani was obtained.
66. That he prepared the seizure memo of these documents vide Ex.PW19/A and recorded their statements and relieved them.
67. That on 13.01.2012 Deepak Kumar Shah came to the Police Station and produced the original bill of the mobile phone and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/D and recorded the supplementary statement of eye witness Mohd. Moazzam.
68. That on the same day he also made request to service provider for providing the service details and after obtaining the same he placed the same on file.
69. That he recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigations he submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.
(103) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused persons.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 126 Medical Evidence:
(104) The case of the prosecution is that while Ct. Harkesh Meena was returning from his duty, the accused persons waylaid him and committed robbery upon him by use of dangerous weapon i.e. knife. The deceased resisted the robbery on account of which he was stabbed repeatedly on his head and chest by the assailants thereby injuring and killing him almost within minutes. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Dr. Gopal Krishna (PW30) and Dr. Bhim Singh (PW29).
(105) Coming first to the testimony of Dr. Gopal Krishna (PW30), he has proved the MLC of the deceased which is Ex.PW30/A according to which on 15.10.2011 injured Harkesh Meena, aged around 27 years male (as mentioned on the ICard found in the pocket of the patient) was brought to the casualty of the hospital by PCR Official ASI Ram Kishan. Dr. Ajeet examined the injured under the supervision of Dr. Gopal Krishna and declared him brought dead vide MLC Ex.PW30/A. (106) Coming next to the testimony of Dr. Bhim Singh (PW29) who has proved the postmortem report of the deceased Harkesh Meena which is Ex.PW29/A according to which there were following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Incised stab wound 3.2 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity deep, left side of chest in the seventh intercoastal space, situated 12cm below and lateral from left nipple, lower angle of wound was obtuse, upper angle was acute, wound was obliquely placed.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 127
2. Incised wound 3 cm x 0.2 cm x 20.4 cm was present middle of forehead.
(107) According to the witness, on internal examination of head and neck all organs were intact, brain was pale; on examination of Chest the Chest Wall showed cut mark through and through in the seventh intercoastal space with wound travelling slightly upwards cutting the outer surface of left ventricle of heart, through and through, total length was approximately 15cm, chest cavity and pericardial was full of blood about 1.5 liters, blood was fluid and clotted and other organs were pale and the Stomach was having semi digested food about 250 gms. The witness has proved having opined that death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon stab injury via injury No. 1, all the injuries were antemortem, fresh in duration and caused by single sharp edged pointed weapon or like object; Injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and Time since death was about 1314 hours.
(108) Dr. Bhim Singh (PW29) has also proved the subsequent opinion in respect of the weapon of offence which is Ex.PW29/B according to which opinion the Injury No. 1 and 2 mentioned in Postmortem Report could be possible by the said weapon examined by him. He has also proved the seizure and handing over of the clothes of the deceased to the Investigating Officer. Here, I may observe that while the witness Dr. Bhim Singh was being examined in the Court, the Investigating Officer failed to produce the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 128 clothes of the deceased and the weapon of offence due to which these articles could not be put to the witness though the detail specifications of the same have been mentioned in the report. This conduct of the Investigating Officer has already been taken on record and placed before his senior officers. (109) The postmortem report establishes that both the injuries i.e. on the middle portion of the forehead and left side of the chest, are on vital organs and the fact that the knife blow on the Chest Wall showed cut mark through and through in the seventh intercoastal space confirms the intent of the assailants to cause the death of the victim by hitting him at his vital organ and the manner in which the wound travelled slightly upwards cutting the outer surface of left ventricle of heart, establishes the extent of brutal force which was used by the assailant upon the victim which injury he inflicted with full force. Hence, I hereby hold that the Medical Evidence as aforesaid is compatible to ocular evidence and the version given by Mohd. Maozzam (PW3) to the extent that the three assailants had inflicted knife injuries on the head and chest of the deceased after which they cut the pocket of the victim with the same knife, removed his purse and ran away. Forensic Evidence:
(110) The case of the prosecution is that various exhibits including the blood stained earth, earth control, blood in gauze, one pen etc. were lifted from the spot of the incident and the clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession after the postmortem of the deceased. Further, pursuant to the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 129 arrest of the accused Rudermani he got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. knife (Ex.P8) and also got recovered his clothes i.e. jeans pant of black colour (Ex.P11) and one checkdar shirt of white and light green colour with the words "Wanted" written on the same (Ex.P12), which were also taken into possession. The accused Sunil got recovered one pant (Ex.P9) of white colour and one white shirt (Ex.P10) and the accused Rohit got recovered his T shirt of black colour (Ex.P13). All these exhibits were sent to the the FSL for expert opinion and the forensic reports connect the accused with the offence and the blood of the same group as that of the deceased was found on the clothes and knife got recovered by the accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that the DNA Fingerprinting Examination report establishes that the blood present on the knife Ex.P8 and the shirt got recovered by the accused Rudermani belongs to that of the deceased. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Ms. Seema Nain (PW32), Sh. A.K. Srivastava (PW33) and Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan (PW34) and the reports proved by them.
Biological/ Serological Examination Report:
(111) Coming first to the testimony of Ms. Seema Nain (PW33) Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) who has proved the Biological and Serological Reports in respect of the exhibits sent to her for examination which reports are Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B respectively according to which human blood was detected on Ex.1 (blood stained stones), 2 (blood stained earth), 5 St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 130 (blood stained stones), 6 (earth control), 7 (torn shirt of the deceased), 9a (pant of the deceased), 9b (torn baniyan of the deceased), 9c (underwear of the deceased), 9d (one pair of socks of the deceased), 10 (blood sample of the deceased), 12 (knife), 14a (pants of accused Sunil), 14b (shirt of accused Sunil), 15a (jeans pant of accused Rudermani), 15b (shirt of the accused Rudermani) and 16 (Tshirt of accused Rohit) and Human Blood of 'O' Group was found on the exhibit 9a (pant of the deceased), 9b (torn baniyan of the deceased), 9c (underwear of the deceased) and 10 (blood sample of the deceased).
(112) It stands established from the aforesaid that the blood group of the deceased Harkesh Meena was 'O' Group. The presence of Human Blood on the clothes of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit and the knife allegedly got recovered by the accused Rudermani which the accused have not been able to successfully controvert, connects them with the offence and is a strong pointer towards their guilt.
DNA Fingerprinting Report:
(113) The case of the prosecution is that after the biological and serological examination the weapon of offence and the clothes which the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were wearing at the time of incident were subjected to DNA Fingerprinting Examination. Sh. A.K. Srivastava (PW33) Deputy Director (DNA Unit), FSL Rohini has proved that on 03.05.2012 five sealed parcels from Biology Division to DNA Unit were St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 131 received bearing seal of SNn FSL, Delhi containing exhibits 10, 12, 14, 15 and 16 and the seals on the parcels were intact which was marked to him for analysis. He has further proved that he broke open the seals from the parcels and on opening the parcel no.10 it was found to contain dark brown gauze cloth piece which was kept in a polythene described as blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena; on opening the parcel no.12 it was found to contain one knife with wooden handle; on opening the parcel no.14 it was found to contain one dirty pant and one dirty shirt; on opening the parcel no.15 it was found to contain one jeans pant and one full sleeve shirt and on opening the parcel no.16, it found to contain one T Shirt. The witness has proved examined the above said articles thoroughly vide his report which is Ex.PW33/A and also prepared the Genotype Analysis Report which is Ex.PW33/B. The exhibits 10, 12, 14a, 15a, 15b and 16 were subjected to DNA isolation and the DNA was isolated from the source of exhibits 10, 12, 14a, 14b, 15a and 15b. However, DNA could not be isolated from the source of exhibit 16. The DNA Fingerprinting Profile was generated for exhibits 10, 12 & 15b by using AmpFl STR Identiflier PCR Plus Amplification Kit.
However, DNA could not be amplified of the source of exhibit 14a, 14b & 15a due to degradation of sample. STR Analysis was used for each of the samples and data was analyzed by using Genemapper IDX Software. As per the report Ex.PW33/A the alleles from the source of exhibit 10 (blood gauze of the deceased Harkesh Meena) were accounted in the alleles from the source of exhibit 12 (knife) and exhibit 15b (shirt of accused Rudermani). He has St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 132 proved having opined that the DNA profiling STR Analysis performed on the exhibit 10 (blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena), exhibit 12 (knife), and exhibit 15b (i.e. one full sleeve shirt of Rudermani) are sufficient to conclude that the DNA profile from the source of exhibit 12 (knife) and exhibit 15b (i.e. one full sleeve shirt of Rudermani) is similar with the DNA profile from the source of the exhibits 10 (blood gauze sample of deceased Harkesh Meena).
(114) The above DNA Fingerprinting report conclusively establishes that the DNA profile of the knife (Ex.P8) and on the shirt of the accused Rudermani (Ex.P10) are similar to the DNA profile of the source of blood of the deceased Harkesh Meena. This conclusively connects the accused Rudermani to the actual crime in question of having inflicted fatal injuries upon the deceased. Here, I may observe that the knife (Ex.P8) allegedly got recovered by the accused Rudermani tallies with the sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.PW26/E and also the sketch prepared by the Autopsy Surgeon on the subsequent opinion Ex.PW29/B. Physical Analysis Report:
(115) Further, the clothes of the deceased and the weapon of offence i.e. knife were also sent to the Physics Division to confirm whether the cut marks present on the clothes of the deceased could be caused by the said weapon of offence or not. In this regard Sh. V. Lakshmi Narasimhan St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 133 (PW34) Senior Scientific Officer (Physics) has proved his report Ex.PW34/A according to which cut mark Q1 on shirt of the deceased marked exhibit 7 and Q2 on baniyan of the deceased marked exhibit 9b were examined physically and under magnification and the cut edges were found to be sharp and the knife marked exhibit 12 was also examined and the test cut marks T1 and T2 were marked on shirt using knife marked exhibit 12. The witness has proved that the cut marks were compared with crime cut marks and he opined that the cut marks Q1 and Q2 on the baniyan of the deceased he was wearing at the time of the incident could be caused by the knife marked Ex. 12 (i.e. Ex.P8 in the Court).
(116) It, therefore, stands established that the Forensic Evidence (Physics) is compatible to the prosecution version and conclusively establishes that the knife Ex.P8 was used in causing the fatal injuries on the chest of the deceased which cut marks present on the Baniyan of the deceased Harkesh Meena correspond to the injury on the body as well as tallies with the specifications of the weapon of offence i.e. Knife Ex.P8.
Motive of the offence/ Common Intention:
(117) The case of the prosecution is that the sole motive for the offence in question was Robbery with an intent to kill and silence the victim in case of any resistance. Both the sides i.e. the victim as well as the accused persons were not known to each other. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit are local criminals and on the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 134 night of 15.10.2011 they committed robbery upon the victim Harkesh Meena a Constable in Delhi Police and when the victim tried to resist, they inflicted knife injuries on his vital organs in order to silence him. In this regard the prosecution is placing its reliance on the testimonies of Deepak Kumar (PW19), his brother Vimal Kumar (PW30) who had been similarly robbed in the area and also on the testimony of Mohd. Moazzam (PW3).
(118) Before coming to the evidence on merits, I may observe that the Motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence.
The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(119) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 135 prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. (120) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257].
(121) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428].
(122) In so far as the aspect of common intention shared by the accused is concerned, I may observe that Section 34 Indian Penal Code has been enacted on the principal of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 136 offence. The distinctive feature of the section is the element of participation in action. The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of criminal act perpetrated by several persons arises under Section 34 if such criminal act is done in furtherance of common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances. In order to bring home the charge of common intention, the prosecution has to establish by evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, that there was plan or meeting of minds of all the accused persons to commit the offence for which they are charged with the aid of Section 34, be if pre arranged or on the spur of the moment, but it must necessarily be before the commission of the crime. The true concept of the Section is that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position in law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. As observed in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1997 (1) SCC 746 the existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential elements for application of this section. It is not necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must have been actuated by one and the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The Section does not say "the common intentions of all" nor does it say "an intention common to all". St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 137 Under the provisions of Section 34 the essence of the liability is to be found in the existence of a common intention animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention. As a result of the application of principles enunciated in section 34, when an accused is convicted under section 302 read with section 34, in law it means that the accused is liable for the act which caused death of the deceased in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. The provision is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish between acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common intention of all or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them. As was observed in Chinta Pulla Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 134. Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the particular accused himself. For applying section 34, it is not necessary to show some over act on the part of the accused. The above position was highlighted in Girija Shankar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004(3) SCC 793 and reference in this regard is also being made to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Mohd. Saleem Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 484/2011 decided on 31.5.2013 by the Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna. (123) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that as per the Ocular Evidence on record in the form of testimony of Mohd. Maozzam - PW3 (being discussed separately and not being repeated for the sake of brevity) confirms that after inflicting injuries on the victim, the assailants cut the pocket of the deceased with the same St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 138 knife and had taken away his purse which purse I may observe was recovered from the possession of the accused persons which confirms the motive of the offence. The eye witness Mohd. Maozzam (PW3) has in this testimony specifically explained that three assailants had inflicted injures upon the victim and in the Court he has identified the accused Rudramani as the person who had inflicted the injury with knife to the deceased and also removed the purse of deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants; accused Rohit as the person had caught hold the neck of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife injuries to the deceased and the accused Sunil as the person who had caught hold the waist of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased. The manner in which all the three assailants acted in consortium and pinned the deceased to the ground in order to commit the armed robbery upon the deceased confirms the existence of their common intention.
(124) It is also alleged that the accused are robbers who active in the area and even previously has indulged into acts of snatching which have gone unreported and in this regard reliance is placed on the testimonies of Deepak Kumar (PW19) and Bimal Kumar (PW20) users of mobile Phone with SIM Card of MTS Company bearing No. 8459508549 (in the name of Deepak Kumar) which had been robbed in the same area i.e. Azadpur Subzi Mandi by twothree boys much prior to this incident, which number was being used by the accused Rudermani at the time of the incident. Coming first to the testimony of Deepak Kumar (PW19), he has proved having purchased a St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 139 mobile phone with SIM Card of MTS Company bearing No. 8459508549 for a sum of Rs.950/ receipt of which is Ex.PW19/E which was seized by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW19/A. He has proved that he had given this mobile phone to his brother Bimal Kumar a vegetable seller and after one month of purchase of the said phone, when his brother Bimal had gone to Azadpur Mandi at night at about 1:30 AM his mobile phone and some money was robbed on the point of knife and he was too scared that they did not inform the police about the said robbery. The testimony of Deepak Kumar finds due corroboration from the testimony of his brother Bimal Kumar (PW20) who has confirmed that he was using the mobile phone bearing No. 8459508549 which was in the name of his brother Deepak Kumar which mobile phone along with Rs.10,000/ was robbed from him by threefour persons on the point of knife but no FIR was lodged as he was scared. It also stands established from the evidence on record that the SIM bearing No. 8459508549 having Sr. No. OMH 8991031113764371130F M03 belonging to Deepak Kumar (PW18) was recovered from the possession of accused Rudermani vide personal search memo Ex.PW26/B which confirms the background of the accused as robbers operating in the area. Also, the electronic evidence on record in the form of Customer Application Form in respect of mobile No. 8459508549 issued in the name of Deepak Kumar Sha S/o Shashi Bhushan Sha, R/o 673, A Block, Camp No. 4, Jawalapuri, Nangloi, Delhi which is Ex.PW16/A has been duly proved by Sh. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 140 Jyotish Moharana (PW16), Nodal Officer from Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. (MTS) who has also proved the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW16/C. A careful analysis of these Call Detail Records reveal the use of this SIM No. by the accused Rudermani. (125) Further, recovery of the robbed articles belonging to the victim i.e. a brown coloured purse (Ex.P1) of victim Harkesh Meena containing two photographs of the victim (Ex.P7a); one temporary Delhi Police Identity Card (Ex.P7b); one marksheet of BA Part II, University of Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7c); one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011 (Ex.P7d); one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7e); one receipt of mobile phone of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7f) and one handwritten receipt (Ex.P7g) at the instance of the accused Sunil from his premises where he was residing on rent; the recovery of Rs.660/ (six currency note of Rs.100/ and six currency notes of Rs.10/ which are collectively Ex.P5) and one Driving License in the name the deceased which is Ex.P6 from the accused Rohit and recovery of Rs.280/ (one currency note of Rs.100/ and three currency notes of Rs.50/ and three currency notes of Rs.10/ which are collectively Ex.P4) and the weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P8 (confirmed to be used in the offence) at the instance of accused Rudermani collectively connects all three of them to the crime. (126) I may observe that neither it is the case of the accused nor of the prosecution that the deceased Harkesh Meena was known to any of the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 141 accused previously or had any kind of animosity with him. The deceased Harkesh Meena was an official of Delhi Police who had joined his duty as Constable and initially was temporary but had become permanent having PIS No. 28102841 and was returning from his duty, an aspect which is evident from the fact that he was carrying his official dress, official shawl, cap, belt and Identity Card at the time of the incident and the accused taking advantage of the fact that he was alone and passing through the area i.e. near Footpath, Service Road, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station and finding him a potential target the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit collectively accosted him and committed an armed robbery upon him and killed him on his resistance. The manner in which the crime was committed i.e. while the accused Rohit was holding the neck and the accused Sunil was holding the waist of the victim, the accused Rudermani inflicted knife blows on the head and chest (both vital organs) of the deceased confirms and establishes the Common Intention shared by the accused and the prosecution has also been able to successfully establish that the Motive of Crime was to commit an Armed Robbery with an intent to Silence the victim in case of any resistance offered by him. Ocular Evidence:
(127) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 142 in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
(128) The case of the prosecution is that Mohd. Moazzam a young boy of 23 years is an eye witness to the incident. On the day of incident after seeing the new born baby of his sister he was going towards Mukherjee Nagar on his motorcycle and when he reached ahead to Adarsh Nagar Metro Station towards Azadpur side there was a traffic jam on account of red light where he heard some noise and voices and his attention was attracted towards the direction from where the noise was coming and he saw that three boys in the age group of 2025 years had caught hold one person. While one of the boys had caught hold the neck of the said person, another was catching hold of the waist of that person while the third boy who was having a knife in his hand had inflicted injuries on the head and chest of the victim after which they removed the purse of the victim after cutting the pocket of the victim with the same knife. Mohd. Moazzam was shocked on seeing this incident and after moving a little ahead he stood on one side of the road and made a call to the police at 100 number. The relevant portion of his testimony is as under:
"......... On 15.10.2011 I was doing preparation for the examination conducted by UPSC and I was taking coaching from Khan Study Group Institute at Hudson Lane. On that day, my classes were over at 8.00 PM thereafter I went to GTK Hospital to see the new born baby of my sister. At about 10.00 PM I left the hospital and was going towards Mukherjee Nagar. When I St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 143 reached ahead to Adarsh Nagar Metro Station towards Azadpur side there was red light and traffic was jam. At that time I was on my motorcycle I stopped my motorcycle by the side of the road near red and was present near the exit gate of Adarsh Nagar Metro. I heard some noise and I turned back to see as to what had happened. I noticed that three boys in the age group of about 25 years were present there and they were catching hold one person and the said person was trying to release himself from the clutches of those boys. One of the boy was catching hold the neck of the person. The other boy was catching hold the waist of the person and the third boy was having a knife in his hand and the said boy inflicted knife blow on the head of the person and thereafter he stabbed that person on the left side of his chest with the said knife. That person got fell down after the injuries received by him Thereafter those boys removed the purse from the pocket of the pants worn by the person after cutting the same from his pocket. All the three boys ran away from the spot. In the meantime the traffic light got green and I moved ahead my motorcycle and stopped the same nearby. Thereafter I made a call to the police at 100 number and then I left the spot.
On 17.10.2011 I noticed the said incident in the newspaper and came to know that the said person has expired and that person was a Constable in the Delhi Police department. On the same day I received information from the police and I went to the Police Station where the police recorded my statement.
On 24.10.2011 I received a call from the police for identification of the accused person and they called me on 3.11.11 and 5.11.11.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 144
On 3.11.11 I went to PS Adarsh Nagar at about 1.00 PM. Thereafter I alongwith Inspector Rajesh Sinha went to Rohini Jail for identification of accused I stayed outside the jail whereas Inspector Rajesh entered inside the jail. After some time Ld. MM also reached there Thereafter Inspector Rajesh Sinha came outside the jail and he told me that two accused persons had refused to join the TIP proceeding IO recorded my statement.
On 5.11.11 I went to PS Adarsh Nagar at about 1.30 PM Thereafter I alongwith inspector Rajesh Sinha went to Tihar jail for identification of accused I stayed outside the jail whereas inspector Rajesh entered inside the jail. After some time Ld. MM also reached there. Thereafter Inspector Rajesh Sinha came outside the jail and he told me that the third accused has also refused to join the TIP proceedings. IO recorded my statement.
On 18.11.11 I was called at PS. I reached there at about 1.00PM. Thereafter I alongwith police officials reached Rohini Courts Room No.105. I was present outside the court. In the meantime three accused persons were produced before the court. I identified all the boys as the assailants, who murdered the Constable of Delhi Police department on 15.102011 I pointed out towards the persons and their names I came to know were accused Rudramani, Sunil and Rohit and I also came to know that the name of deceased was Ct. Harkesh Meena of Delhi Police who at the time of incident was in plain clothes.
At this stage witness pointed out towards accused Rudramani correctly identified and stated that he as inflicted the injury with knife to the deceased and also removed the purse the deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants At this stage witness pointed out towards accused St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 145 Rohit correctly identified and stated that he had caught hold the neck of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased.
At this stage witness pointed out towards accused Sunil correctly identified and stated that he had caught hold the waist of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased.
I may mention that I dialed no.100 to the police from my mobile number 9990639518......"
(129) Mohd. Moazzam (PW3) has not only identified all the three accused in the Court but also attributed specific roles to them. He has identified the accused Rudramani as the person who had inflicted the injury with knife to the deceased and also removed the purse of deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants; accused Rohit as the person had caught hold the neck of the deceased and accused Sunil as the person who had caught hold the waist of the deceased.
(130) He has been exhaustively crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels wherein he has admitted that he did not raise any alarm and has explained that he was extremely scared on seeing the incident and was in a state of shock. He has further explained that the accused were armed which was one of the reason why he did not raise any alarm. According to the witness, the distance between the red light where he was standing and the place of occurrence was hardly about ten to fifteen meters and the distance between the exit gate of Metro Station and the red light was about 15 meters St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 146 and has voluntarily explained that the place was in the shape of a Triangle. The witness has also explained that he belongs to an educated family. He himself is B. Tech. and his elder brother is a Cardiac Surgeon. When cross examined on the aspect of his presence at the spot he has explained that at the relevant time he had completed his Civil Engineering and has explained that while going back he had noticed a fault of guarder and hence on noticing the same he took photographs of the same from his mobile camera which he can produce if directed which will establish his presence at the spot. (131) Since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the Sole Testimony of Mohd. Moazzam (PW3), therefore, it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether what he has deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court (Courts of Act). It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 147 would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
(132) It is a matter of common knowledge that ordinarily witnesses are either not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons and one of the reasons is that they do not have courage to depose against habitual criminal apprehending threats to their life. A rustic or an illiterate witness may not be able to withstand the test of cross examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of crossexamination, certain answers are snatched from him. When such a person is faced with an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, hence minor discrepancies have to be ignored. Instances are not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. (Ref. Krishna Mochi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965). St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 148 (133) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case at the very Outset I may observe that Mohd. Moazzam has no history of dispute with the accused persons and there is no reason why he would falsely implicate the accused persons. There is nothing to indicate that the eye witness was having any animosity to speak falsehood against the accused and the reading of the deposition makes it clear that the witness is natural and reliable. Reliance is placed on the observations made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat in the case of Vijay Kumar Vs. State by Inspector of Police reported in 2009 (4) AD (Crl.) SC 171 wherein under similar circumstances it was observed that in a case where there is no animosity between the eye witness and the accused there is nothing to indicate why he would speak falsehood against the accused thereby making his deposition reliable. (134) Secondly the place of incident is adjoining the main road with a heavy traffic near the footpath which is hardly fifteen meters from the exit gate of metro Station and the place of incident was a well lit area the ten to fifteen meters away from the exit gate of Metro Station and the eye witness could have easily identify the assailants. The question relating to visibility at the scene of crime is not an issue nor any suggestion in this regard has been made to the witness by the Ld. Defence Counsel. The witness Mohd. Moazzam has explained that the position of his bike, exit gate of Metro Station and the place of incident is in a shape of Triangle which fact is evident from the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW8/A which also shows the existence of an electricity pole near the place of incident.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 149 (135) Thirdly the accused themselves had refused to submit for Test Identification Parade on 3.11.2011 and 5.11.2011 (as admitted by the accused) and when a specific suggestion was made to the witness Mohd. Moazzam that he has been tutored about the incident, he denied the same. Rather, he has explained that he is an educated person being a Civil Engineer and there is no reason for him to speak the lie. It is writ large that as a responsible citizen of the Country being aware of his social obligations he had come to the Court and deposed on the basis of what he has seen.
(136) Fourthly the witness Mohd. Moazzam has in his cross examination also explained that the accused Rudermani who was stabbing the deceased, was wearing white and brown coloured checked shirt and black coloured pants; whereas the accused Rohit was wearing black shirt and accused Sunil was wearing light coloured like whitish pants and shirt. I may observe that the clothes of similar description were got recovered by the accused persons pursuant to their disclosure statements (FSL Result i.e. DNA Fingerprinting Report confirms the blood stains on the clothes of the accused Rudermani to be of the deceased Harkesh Meena whereas the blood stains on the clothes of the accused Sunil and Rohit were of human origin), thereby lending independent credence to the testimony of Mohd. Moazzam. (137) Fifthly the recovery of the robbed articles belonging to the victim i.e. a brown coloured purse (Ex.P1) of victim Harkesh Meena containing two photographs of the victim (Ex.P7a); one temporary Delhi Police Identity Card (Ex.P7b); one marksheet of BA Part II, University of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 150 Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7c); one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011 (Ex.P7d); one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7e); one receipt of mobile phone of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7f) and one handwritten receipt (Ex.P7g) at the instance of the accused Sunil from his premises where he was residing on rent; the recovery of Rs.660/ (six currency note of Rs.100/ and six currency notes of Rs.10/ which are collectively Ex.P5) and one Driving License in the name the deceased which is Ex.P6 from the accused Rohit and recovery of Rs.280/ (one currency note of Rs.100/ and three currency notes of Rs.50/ and three currency notes of Rs.10/ which are collectively Ex.P4) and the weapon of offence i.e. knife Ex.P8 (confirmed to be used in the offence) at the instance of accused Rudermani, independently lends credence to the oral version of Mohd. Moazzam (PW3).
(138) Sixthly the Electronic Evidence independently supports the oral version of the witness Mohd. Moazzam. The Call Detail Records in respect of his mobile No. 9990639518 used by the witness Mohd. Moazzam which is Ex.PW18/I establishes that he was the person who had made a call at 100 number on 15.10.2011 at 10:24:02 PM which call lasted for 107 Seconds while his location was in the area of North Campus i.e. around the spot of the incident and the MLC of the victim which is Ex.PW30/A independently confirms that he had been brought to the Hospital by PCR Officials. Further, the Call Detail Records of the numbers of the mobile sets recovered from the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 151 possession of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit (i.e. 849508549, 9718663715 and 9971870929) not only confirm the location of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit at the spot of the incident but also of the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam (9990639518) who had made a 100 number call to the police. The electronic evidence on record also establishes that the SIM No. 849508549 issued in the name of Deepak Kumar was being used by the accused Rudermani and a careful analysis of the said record establish that all the accused namely Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were known to each other and had been communicating with each other. This scientific evidence again lends credibility to the testimony of Mohd. Moazzam. (139) Seventhly the Medical Evidence also independently confirms the case put forth by the eye witness to the extent that both the injuries i.e. on the middle portion of the forehead and left side of the chest, are on vital organs and the fact that the knife blow on the Chest Wall showed cut mark through and through in the seventh intercoastal space confirms the intent of the assailants to cause the death of the victim by hitting him at his vital organ and the manner in which the wound travelled slightly upwards cutting the outer surface of left ventricle of heart, establishes the extent of brutal force which was used by the assailant upon the victim which injury he inflicted with full force. It is this Medical Evidence which independently lends credence to the oral version given by Mohd. Maozzam (PW3) to the extent that the three assailants had inflicted knife injuries on the head and chest of the deceased after which they cut the pocket of the victim with the same St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 152 knife, removed his purse and ran away.
(140) Lastly even the Forensic Evidence i.e. the Biological/ Serological and DNA Fingerprinting examination reports lends confirmation to the version of the eye witness. The Biological Report confirms the presence of Human Blood on the clothes of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit and the knife allegedly got recovered by the accused Rudermani and the DNA Fingerprinting Report confirms the presence of the alleles of the deceased on the knife and clothes of accused Rudermani and the Physics Report confirms that the cut marks on the baniyan of the deceased which is corresponding to the injury on his body tally with the specifications of the knife Ex.P8. It is this which not only connects the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit with the offence but independently confirms the oral version of Mohd. Moazzam.
(141) This being the background, I hereby hold that Mohd. Moazzam is a reliable, credible and truthful witness and there is a no reason to disbelieve his testimony. This Ocular Evidence on record conclusively connects the accused with the alleged crime and establishes that the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit in furtherance of their common intention had committed robbery upon the victim Harkesh Meena. While the accused Rohit had caught hold the neck of the deceased and accused Sunil had caught hold the waist of the deceased, it was the accused Rudramani who had inflicted knife injuries on the vital parts of the deceased and also removed the purse of deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 153 Arrest of the accused - Disclosure Statements - Recoveries:
(142) It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the incident in question was a blind robbery killing and there was no description available to the Investigating Agency except to the fact that the assailants were young boys in the age group of 2025 years. On 19.10.2011, on the basis of secret information first of all the accused Rudermani was apprehended from the Subzi Mandi out gate towards Majlis Park and during interrogation he admitted his involvement in the present case, after which the accused Rudermani was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/A and was also personally searched vide memo Ex.PW26/B in which a mobile make MTS was found and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide Ex.PW26/C. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudermani led the police party to Bhama Shah Park, service lane adjoining GT road near MTNL box and pointed out towards large number of broken brick pieces lying on one corner of the service lane and got recovered a knife from under the broken brick pieces on which some dried blood stains and mud were found. Thereafter the sketch of the knife was prepared which is Ex.PW26/E and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW26/F. Further, pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudermani led the police party to Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy to house No. A681682 and got apprehended his coaccused Sunil who also disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Sunil was arrested vide memo Ex.PW26/H and his personal search was conducted vide memo St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 154 Ex.PW26/I in which one mobile make SAMSUNG was also found and then the disclosure statement of the accused Sunil was also recorded vide Ex.PW26/J. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Sunil led the police party inside his house and from the parchati got recovered one brown color purse with the words GUCCI written on the same, as the same belonging to the deceased which purse was checked and it found to contain the Identity Card of the deceased of his training period, photocopy of the original I card, payslip of April, 2011, receipt of the mobile, two passport size photographs, original marksheet of Rajasthan University and a handwritten slip. The said purse along with its contents was then seized and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/K. During interrogations it came to be known that the accused Rudramani was the nephew of Sunil. The accused Rudermani then got recovered cash to the tune of Rs.280/ from the parchati in the same house and disclosed that it was amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share, which amount was then taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/L. Further, pursuant to the disclosure statements and at the instance of accused Rudramani and Sunil, the third accused Rohit apprehended from Badli Bus Stand after which he vide memo Ex.PW26/M, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW26/N and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW26/O. From the the personal search of the accused Rohit the original driving licence of the deceased and cash to the tune of Rs.660/ which the accused disclosed was St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 155 the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share, were recovered which were taken into possession.
(143) Further, on 21.10.2011 the accused Sunil and Rudramani led the police team to their house at Bairagi Mohalla from where the accused Sunil produced one white shirt which had been kept on his bed as the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident and also disclosed that the pant which he was already wearing were the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident, pursuant to which the said clothes of the accused Sunil were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/R. The accused Rudramani then got recovered a shirt hanging on a rope in his room which was of white and brown checks with "wanted" written on the same and disclosed that the pant which he was already wearing were the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident, on which the clothes of the accused were seized vide memo Ex.PW26/S. Thereafter the accused Rohit then took the police party to his house at Khaderwali jhuggie, Haiderpur from where got recovered a black colour T shirt which was hanging on a Khunti behind the door, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/T. (144) In this regard the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimonies of Inder Singh (PW15), Suresh Fauji (PW22), HC Naresh Kumar (PW26) and Inspector Virender Kadyan (PW31).
(145) However, before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 156 when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer.
(146) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(147) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
1. That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
2. That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
3. That a man said certain words, is a fact.
4. That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
5. That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(148) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 157 fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles".
(149) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 158 "......Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 159 the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
(150) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 160 the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence. ..."St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 161
(151) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
"....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence....."
(152) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that:
"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 162 the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(153) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 163 The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. (154) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I may observe that the purse of the deceased Harkesh Meena (Ex.P1) has been duly identified by SI Narsi Parsad Meena (PW21) who has proved that the deceased Harkesh Meena was known to him since his childhood who was working in Delhi Police as Constable who used to live in same barrack where he was residing. He has also proved having identified the dead body of Harkesh Meena. He has further proved that Harkesh Meena used to keep his ID Card of Delhi police, driving license in his brown purse while going on duty and on 07.01.2012 he identified the purse of Harkesh Meena during Test Identification Parade proceedings vide Ex.PX3. I may observe that SI Narsi Prasad is the best witness who could have identified the purse of the deceased being staying in the same barrack in which the deceased was staying. (155) Further, Inder Singh (PW15) an independent public witness has proved that he is having a house bearing no. 681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalaswa Dairy in which fivesix rooms are constructed which rooms were given on rent basis by him. He has proved that the accused Sunil was residing in one of the room at the abovesaid house at Bairagi Mohalla with his wife since November 2010 and left the room in the month of April/ May 2011 and again came at his room in the month of September 2011 where he resided there with his wife Soni (Note: This is the same house from where the recovery as discussed was effected). According to him, Sunil used to pay Rs. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 164 1000/ per month as rent to him and at the time of tenancy Sunil had given his ID proof election ID Card to him, which he handed over to police and were seized by he police vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. He has also identified the accused Sunil in the Court.
(156) However, in so far as the witness Suresh @ Fauji (PW22) is concerned, he has proved having known to the accused Rohit being his regular Customer but has not supported his earlier version that on 7.1.2012 the accused Rohit came to his jhuggi along with the police and got recovered his Tshirt, though he admits having handing over his ID proof to the police and his signatures on its seizure memo.
(157) Now coming to the disclosure made by individual accused and the recoveries pursuant to their disclosure or from their possession, for the sake of convenience I am putting the allegations against the individual accused in a tabulated form as under:
S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act
1. Rudermani ➢ That in the year 2004 he ➢ One mobile phone make @ Rukmani along with Babloo, Julie MTS of black color, model S/o Ramesh and Rajesh was involved HUAWEI C 2829 having Maderia in small incidents of IMEI No. robbery but they were not A000002DBF89C6 along giving him his share. with SIM bearing No. ➢ That in the year 2009 he 8459508549 recovered from along with his uncle Sunil the possession of accused and Rohit started Rudermani which phone was committing small robbed from Bimal Kumar St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 165 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act incidents of robbery near PW20. (Note: Call Detail the area of Azadpur Records confirms the Mandi. presence of Rudermani at ➢ That on 15.10.2011 his the spot at the time of uncle informed him that he incident).
was in need of money ➢ Pursuant to his disclosure since he had to pay the statement the accused rent of his house and they Rudermani led the police had to commit some team to Bhama Shah Park incident.
and from under the broken ➢ That Rohit also met them pieces of bricks he got at Azadpur Subzi Mandi recovered the weapon of and then they all planned offence i.e. knife Ex.P8.
that Rohit would catch
(Note: The DNA Report
hold of the neck of the
victim, Sunil would catch confirms the presence of
hold of the victim from DNA of victim Harkesh
backside and he Meena on the knife got
(Rudermani) would recovered by the accused).
commit the robbery on the ➢ Pursuant to his disclosure
point of knife. statement the accused
➢ That at about 10:00 PM in Rudermani led the police
search of the victim they team to House No.
reached near Exit Gate of A681682, Bairagi Mohalla,
Adarsh Nagar Metro Bhalswa Dairy and got his
Station where they found a uncle Sunil arrested from
boy coming from opposite there.
side. ➢ The accused Rudermani also
➢ That when the said boy got recovered Rs.280/ from
passed near them, accused the Parchati of the room and
Rohit caught the neck of disclosed the same to be a
said boy from behind, part of the robbed amount.
accused Sunil caught hold ➢ The accused Rudermani also
of him from his waist got recovered a shirt of
whereas he (Rudermani) white and brown checks with
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 166
S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and
No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same
evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence
Act and not hit by Section 25
of Evidence Act
tried to commit robbery on 'wanted' written on the same
the point of knife. (Ex.P12) hanging on a rope
➢ That the said boy put a in the room of house No.
stiff resistance on account A681682, Bairagi Mohalla,
of which on the Bhalswa Dairy and also the
exhortation of Sunil, he Jeans pants (Ex.P11) which
gave a blow on the he was wearing. (Note: The
forehead of the victim DNA Report confirms the
from the rough surface of
presence of blood of victim
the knife.
Harkesh Meena on the
➢ That despite the same the
shirt got recovered by the
victim continued to resist,
on which he gave a knife accused).
blow on the chest of ➢ The above recoveries have
victim who then fell from been duly proved by HC
the footpath. Naresh Kumar (PW26) and
➢ That thereafter he Inspector Virender Kadyan
removed the purse of the (PW31) and have not been victim by cutting the duly controverted.
pocket of his pants and ran away.
➢ That they reached at Bhama Shah Park where they checked the purse which found to contain Rs.
4,600/ and he gave Rs.
1,000/ to his uncle Sunil whereas he and Rohit got Rs.1,800/ each as their shares.
➢ That Sunil retained the purse of the victim whereas Rohit retained the Driving License of the victim.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 167 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act ➢ That he threw the knife in the park which he could get recovered.
➢ That he could also get recover the articles of the deceased and could arrest the accused Sunil and Rohit.
➢ That he could get recover his clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident.
2. Sunil S/o ➢ That he used to commit ➢ One mobile of SAMSUNG Mohan Lal small incidents of robbery of black and red color, and snatching since he Model No. GTE1160 could not get work having IMEI No. anywhere he even could 356831030511503 and SIM not pay the rent of his was recovered from the house. possession of accused Sunil ➢ That on 15.10.2011 he which phone is Ex.P15.
informed his nephew (Note: Call Detail Records Rudermani that he was in confirms the presence of need of money since he Sunil at the spot at the had to pay the rent of his time of incident).
house and they had to ➢ Pursuant to his disclosure commit some incident.
statement the accused Sunil ➢ That Rohit also met them got recovered a purse of at Azadpur Subzi Mandi brown colour with words and then they all planned 'GUCCI' written on the same that Rohit would catch from his House at hold of the neck of the A681682, Bairagi Mohalla, victim, he (Sunil) would Bhalswa Dairy, which purse catch hold of the victim was containing two from backside and photographs of Harkesh (Rudermani) would St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 168 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act commit the robbery on the Meena (Ex.P7a), one point of knife. temporary Delhi Police ➢ That at about 10:00 PM in Identity Card in the name of search of the victim they Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7b), reached near Exit Gate of one marksheet of BA Part II Adarsh Nagar Metro University of Rajasthan in Station where they found a the name of Harkesh Meena boy coming from opposite (Ex.P7c), one pay slip of side, who was carrying a Harkesh Meena of April bag. 2011 (Ex.P7d), one ➢ That when the said boy photocopy of ID Card of passed near them, accused Harkesh Meena is (Ex.P7e), Rohit caught the neck of one receipt of mobile of said boy from behind, he Nokia 7230 in the name of (Sunil) caught hold of him Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7f) from his waist whereas he and one handwritten receipt (Rudermani) tried to (Ex.P7g).
commit robbery on the ➢ The accused Sunil also got point of knife.
recovered a shirt of white
➢ That the said boy put a
stiff resistance on account colour (Ex.P10) and his
of which on his pant (Ex.P9) which he was
exhortation and of Rohit, wearing at the time of the
Rudermani gave a blow on incident. (Note: FSL Report
the forehead of the victim confirms the presence of
from the rough surface of Human Blood on the said
the knife. clothes).
➢ That despite the same the ➢ The above recoveries have victim continued to resist, been duly proved by HC on which Rudermani gave Naresh Kumar (PW26) and a knife blow on the chest Inspector Virender Kadyan of victim who then fell (PW31) and have not been from the footpath. duly controverted.
➢ That thereafter Rudermani removed the purse of the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 169 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act victim by cutting the pocket of his pants and ran away.
➢ That they reached at Bhama Shah Park where they checked the purse which found to contain Rs.
4,600/ and Rs.1,000/ fell in his share whereas Rudermani and Rohit got Rs.1,800/ each as their shares.
➢ That he (Sunil) retained the purse of the victim whereas Rohit retained the Driving License of the victim.
➢ That Rudermani threw the knife in the park which he could get recover.
➢ That he could get recover the articles of the deceased and could get arrest the coaccused Rohit.
➢ That he could get recover his clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident.
3. Rohit ➢ He being illiterate he ➢ Another mobile of Nokia of Kumar S/o could not get work black color having IMEI No. Shakal Dev anywhere and he came 354338049967678 along Mehto into contacts with bad with SIM was recovered elements and he fell into from the possession of the bad habits of drinking, accused Rohit which mobile gambling and also became St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 170 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act a womanizer for which he phone is Ex.P16. (Note:
need a lot of money. Call Detail Records
➢ That he came into contact confirms his association
with Rudermani and his with Rudermani and also
uncle Sunil after which
establishes his presence at
they used to commit small
the spot at the time of the
incidents of robbery and
incident).
snatching near the area of
➢ From the personal search of
Azadpur Mandi.
accused Rohit, the original
➢ That on 15.10.2011 he met
Driving License of the
Rudermani and Sunil at
Azadpur Subzi Mandi and deceased (Ex.P6) and Rs.
he was informed that he 660/ i.e. part robbed amount
(Rohit) would catch hold was recovered.
of the neck of the victim, ➢ Pursuant to his disclosure Sunil would catch hold of statement the accused Rohit the victim from backside got recovered a black and (Rudermani) would coloured Tshirt (Ex.P13) commit the robbery on the from his house at point of knife. Khaderwali Jhuggi, ➢ That at about 10:00 PM in Haiderpur which TShirt he search of the victim they was wearing at the time of reached near Exit Gate of the incident. (Note: the FSL Adarsh Nagar Metro Report confirms the Station where they found a presence of Human Blood boy coming from opposite on the said clothes).
side, who was carrying a bag.
➢ That when the said boy passed near them, accused he (Rohit) caught the neck of said boy from behind, he (Sunil) caught hold of him from his waist whereas Rudermani tried St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 171 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act to commit robbery on the point of knife.
➢ That the said boy put a stiff resistance on account of which on his exhortation and of Sunil, Rudermani gave a blow on the forehead of the victim from the rough surface of the knife.
➢ That despite the same the victim continued to resist, on which Rudermani gave a knife blow on the chest of victim who then fell from the footpath.
➢ That thereafter Rudermani removed the purse of the victim by cutting the pocket of his pants and ran away.
➢ That they reached at Bhama Shah Park where they checked the purse which found to contain Rs.
4,600/ and Rs.1,000/ fell in the share of Sunil whereas he (Rohit) and Rudermani got Rs.1,800/ each as their shares.
➢ That Sunil retained the purse of the victim whereas he (Rohit) retained the Driving License of the victim.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 172 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries and No. Accused accused admissible in witnesses to the same evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act ➢ That Rudermani threw the knife in the park which he could get recover.
➢ That he could get recover the articles of the deceased.
➢ That he could get recover his clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident.
(158) It is evident from the evidence on record that Firstly the Investigating Agency was aware of the involvement of three persons in the incident but as to who were those persons was not known. What turns on the fact that it was the accused Rudermani who led them to the accused Sunil and Rohit and pointed them out which was not in the knowledge of the police unless and until it was the accused Rudermani who after his apprehension disclosed that it was Sunil and Rohit who were the coparticipants in the crime, a fact finding independent confirmation from the ocular evidence in the form of testimony of Mohd. Moazzam (PW3) an eye witness to the incident who had seen the incident while he was on his motorcycle. (159) Secondly the Investigating Agency was not aware of the acts committed by each of the assailants. What turns on the fact that it was the accused Rudermani who disclosed to the Investigating Agency that it was the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 173 accused Rohit who caught hold the neck of the victim and the accused Sunil caught hold the waist of the victim while it was the accused Rudermani who inflicted injuries on the victim and removed the purse by cutting the pocket of the pants of the victim, which fact find independent corroboration and confirmation from the ocular evidence in the form of testimony of Mohd. Moazzam (PW3) an eye witness to the incident who has identified the accused persons in the Court and attributed these specific roles to them. (160) Thirdly it was known to the Investigating Agency that a knife had been used in the crime but where the knife was concealed was not known to the police. What turns on the fact that it was the accused Rudermani who disclosed that he had hidden the same at Bhama Shah Park and then led the police team to Bhama Shah Park and from the stack of pieces of bricks he got recovered a knife (Ex.P8) stained with blood and mud concealed under the bricks which was used in the present offence. The DNA report Ex.PW33/A duly proved by Sh. A.K. Srivastava (PW33) independently confirms the presence of blood of the deceased on the knife got recovered by the accused Rudermani.
(161) Fourthly the clothes which the accused Rudermani was wearing at the time of the incident and where they had been concealed were not within the knowledge of the police. What turns on the fact that it was the accused Rudermani got recovered his checkdar shirt of white and light green check color with the words "Wanted" written on the same (Ex.P12) from the tenanted room of Sunil (who is also his uncle/ chacha) from the rope hanging St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 174 in the room and also the jeans pants (Ex.P11) worn by him which was the same pants which he was wearing at the time of the incident. The DNA report Ex.PW33/A duly proved by Sh. A.K. Srivastava (PW33) confirms the presence of blood of the deceased on the full sleeve shirt got recovered by the accused Rudermani. Further, the clothes which the accused Sunil was wearing at the time of the incident and where they had been concealed were not within the knowledge of the police. What turns on the fact that it was the accused Sunil got recovered his shirt of white color (Ex.P10) from this tenanted room and also his pants (Ex.P9) worn by him which he was also wearing at the time of the incident and the Biological Report independently confirms the presence of Human Blood on the same. Similarly, the clothes which the accused Rohit was wearing at the time of the incident and where they had been concealed were not within the knowledge of the police. What turns on the fact that it was the accused Rohit got recovered his Tshirt of black color (Ex.P13) which he was also wearing at the time of the incident, from the Khunti of Jhuggi at Haiderpur and the Biological Report independently confirms the presence of Human Blood on the same. I may note that in so far as the clothes of the accused Sunil and Rohit are concerned, DNA could not be amplified on account of degradation of samples but that does not affect the prosecution case since the Serological Report confirms the presence of Human Blood on the same and when this material was put to the accused Sunil and Rohit in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have not been able to offer any explanation for the same. They were the best St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 175 persons who could have explain how Human Blood came on the clothes which they were wearing on the date of incident being a fact with their Special Knowledge (Section 106 of Evidence Act) but having failed to do so the inference is that this Human Blood belongs to deceased (as confirmed by the DNA Fingerprinting Report in so far as clothes of the accused Rudermani is concerned).
(162) Fifthly it was also not known within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency as to where the purse/ wallet of the deceased which the assailants had robbed, was concealed and it was the accused Sunil who led the police party to his house and got recovered the purse/ wallet Ex.P1 along with the contents i.e. two photographs of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7a), one temporary Delhi Police Identity Card in the name of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7b), one marksheet of BA Part II University of Rajasthan in the name of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7c), one pay slip of Harkesh Meena of April 2011 (Ex.P7d), one photocopy of ID Card of Harkesh Meena is (Ex.P7e), one receipt of mobile of Nokia 7230 in the name of Harkesh Meena (Ex.P7f) and one handwritten receipt (Ex.P7g) belonging to the deceased, which purse has been identified by Narsi Prasad Meena (PW21) in the Judicial Test Identification Parade Ex.PX3 (proceedings not disputed by the accused). (163) Lastly though it was known to the Investigating Agency that the belongings of Harkesh Meena including his Driving License had been robbed in the incident, but where it had been concealed and the location of same after St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 176 the robbery was not known. What turns on the fact that it was only after the apprehension and interrogation of the accused Rohit that the Driving License of the deceased Harkesh Meena was recovered from his possession which possession he has failed to explain, which connects the accused Rohit with the offence.
(164) It has been argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the alleged recoveries of weapon of offence i.e. knife (Ex.P8) at the instance of the accused Rudermani, recovery of the purse of the deceased and the recovery of clothes allegedly worn by the accused persons at the time of the incident is doubtful since no public witness was joined at the time of recovery proceedings despite the availability of the public witnesses. In this regard I may observe that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in numerous cases observed that police officers are competent witnesses. It is common experience that public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. There is general apathy and indifference on the part of public to join such proceedings. This position of law was reiterated in the case of Aslam and Ors. (Mohd.) Vs. State reported in 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133. Further, it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that reluctance of the citizens to join police proceedings is well known and needs to be recognized. It cannot be disputed that public does not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases and wants to avoid them, because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment. Similar view was taken in Manish Vs. State, reported in 2000 VIII AD (Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) 29 and in the case St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 177 of A. Bhai vs. State reported in AIR 1989 SC 696, where it was held that we cannot be oblivious to the reluctance of the common man to join such raiding parties organized by the police, least they are compelled to attend police station and Courts umpteen times at the cost of considerable inconvenience to them, without any commensurate benefit.
(165) Moreover, there is no reason to disbelieve testimony of police officials regarding recovery of knife at the instance of accused Rudermani, purse of the deceased at the instance of accused Sunil and the clothes worn by the accused persons at the time of the incident. Their testimonies cannot be rejected merely because they happen to be police officers. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir Vs. State, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 338, no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to the police force. It was observed in Aner Raja Khima Vs. The State of Saurashtra, reported in AIR 1956 SC 217 that the presumption that a person acts honestly and legally applies as much in favour of police officers as of others. It is not proper and permissible to doubt the evidence of police officers. Judicial approach must not be to distrust and suspect their evidence on oath without good and sufficient ground thereof. (166) I may observe that the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit are desperate criminal who do not hesitate even for a moment to use force and there is hence a normal hesitance of the public persons to join the investigations particularly the residents of the area who do not want to get themselves involved in the police proceedings. Therefore, the non joining of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 178 public witnesses shall not be fatal to the prosecution case, more so when the DNA Report Ex.PW33/A establishes the use of this weapon of offence (Ex.P83) so got recovered by the accused Rudermani in the present crime. (167) I may further observe that the electronic evidence on record confirms the presence of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit at the spot of incident and independently confirms the disclosure statements of the accused. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the disclosures made by the accused leading to the discovery of persons involved in the offence, recovery of weapon of offence, recovery of clothes worn by them at the time of the incident, the manner in which the crime was executed and also the destination of looted articles are admissible in evidence and is incriminating qua the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit and conclusively connects them with the crime.
Electronic Evidence:
(168) The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2011 at about 10:00 PM while the deceased Harkesh Meena a Constable in Delhi Police was returning to his barrack after completing his duty, the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit who are robbers operating in the area and finding him alone caught hold of him and robbed him of his purse on the point of knife and stabbed him on account of the resistance offered by him. This entire incident had been witnessed by Mohd. Moazzam who was the person who had made 100 number call from his mobile phone and had also identified the accused St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 179 Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit as the assailants. In order to substantiate their case the prosecution placed their reliance on the electronic evidence in the from of Call Detail Records of the mobile phone bearing No. 9990639518 used by Mohd. Moazzam showing his location at the time of the incident.
The prosecution is also placing its reliance on the Call Detail Records of the mobile phones used by the accused persons (which were recovered from his possession) to prove their close contact and their locations at the time of the incident.
(169) Sh. Jyotish Moharana (PW16) Nodal Officer from Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. (MTS) has proved the record in respect of mobile No. 8459508549 (recovered from the possession of accused Rudermani) issued in the name of Deepak Kumar Sha S/o Shashi Bhushan Sha, R/o 673, A Block, Camp No. 4, Jawalapuri, Nangloi, Delhi vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW16/A, copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW16/B. He has also proved the Call Detail Records from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW16/C; Cell ID Chart which is Ex.PW16/D and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW16/E. (170) Sh. Vishal Gaurav (PW17) Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved the record pertaining to mobile No. 9971870929 (recovered from the possession of accused Rohit) issued in the name of Naveen Kumar S/o Tinka Ram, R/o T10/169, Gali behind bus stand, Village Bharola, Delhi vide St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 180 Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW17/A and copy of Election ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW17/B. He has also proved the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW17/C, Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW17/D and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW17/E. (171) Sh. Amar Nath (PW18), Nodal Officer from Idea Cellular Ltd. has proved the record pertaining to mobile No. 9891370258 issued in the name of Harkesh Meena S/o Dhanasya, R/o Delhi Police Training Center, Wazirabad, Delhi permanent resident of 161, near Kendriya Vidhayala, Mahukhurdpur Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/A and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW18/B. He has also proved the Call Details from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 are Ex.PW18/C (running into four pages).
(172) The witness has further proved the record pertaining to mobile No. 9718663715 which is issued in the name of accused Sunil S/o Mohan Lal, R/o 168, Sarai Pipal Thala, Delhi permanent resident of 226, Bahiyari Baghel, Tehsil Bhatapararani, District Dewaria UP, vide Customer Application Form copy of which is Ex.PW18/D and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof is Ex.PW18/E. He has also proved the Call Detail Record from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW18/F. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 181 (173) The witness has also proved the record in respect of pertaining to mobile No. 9990639518 which is issued in the name of Moazzam S/o Haseen Ahmed, R/o D35, Lane No. 1, Batala house, Jamia Nagar, Delhi vide Customer Application From copy of which is Ex.PW18/G and copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW18/H. He has proved the Call Details from the period 01.10.2011 to 15.10.2011 which are Ex.PW18/I; Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW18/J and Certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW18/K. (174) The case of the prosecution is that at the time of his arrest the accused Rudermani was found in possession of mobile phone make MTS of black color, model HUAWEI C 2829 having IMEI No. A000002DBF89C6 along with SIM No. 8459508549 which SIM was bearing No. OMH 8991031113764371130F M03 was belonging to one Deepak Kumar (PW19) who had handed over the same to his brother Bimal Kumar (PW20) and was robbed in the month of May 2011. Further, a mobile phone of SAMSUNG of black and red color Model No. GTE1160 having IMEI No. 356831030511503 with SIM No. 9718663715 was recovered from the possession of accused Sunil, which was issued in his (accused) name. Also, a mobile phone of Nokia of black color having IMEI No. 354338049967678 along with SIM No. 9971870929 was recovered from the possession of accused Rohit. It is also the case of the prosecution that the Call Details Record not only show their complicity in the crime but also prove that all the accused were together on St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 182 the date of the incident and were in touch with each other on their mobile phones which they were using on that day and were recovered from their possession. From a careful analysis of the Call Details Record of the these mobile phones it is evident that all the accused were regularly in touch with each other.
(175) Further, the Call Detail Records of the mobile phone bearing No. 9990639518 issued in the name of witness Mohd. Maozzam for 15.10.2011 establishes the route taken by him and his presence at the spot of the incident and also reflects the call made by him at 100 number and lends scientific confirmation to his oral testimony as correct. The relevant entries are as under:
Sr. Calling No. Called No. Time Seconds Location No.
1. 9990639518 7838844158 7:59:38 PM 136 Vijay Nagar
2. 9990639518 7838844158 8:28:30 PM 26 Sanjay Nagar near Azadpur (the tower covering the area of GTK Hospital)
3. 8860613885 9990639518 09.43.25 PM 25 Sanjay Nagar
4. 9990985656 9990639518 10.12.10 PM 0 Gujrawala Town
5. 9990639518 100 10.24.02 PM 107 North Campus
6. 9990639518 9566051150 10.58.07 PM 115 Okhla Vihar
7. 9990639518 9868655811 11.01.02 PM 98 Okhla Vihar
8. 9990639518 9582794224 11.04.02 PM 203 Okhla Vihar
9. 9990639518 9899398286 11.38.45 PM 16 Okhla Village (near Jamia)
10. 9990639518 9582794224 11.55.48 PM 22 Batla House St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 183 (176) The aforesaid call details record of the mobile phone No. 9990639518 which has been issued in the name of Mohd. Moazzam and was used by him, lends credence to his testimony to the extent that at about 10:00 PM he left the GTK Hospital where he had gone to see the new born baby of his sister and that it was he who had made the PCR Call at 100 number after seeing the incident. The following facts emerge from the analysis of the same:
➢ On 15.10.2011 at 9:43:25 PM the witness Mohd. Mauzzam was present in the area covered by the tower installed at Sanjay Nagar (near Azadpur) which also covers the area of GTK Hospital. ➢ At 10:24:02 PM the witness Mohd. Mauzzam was present in the area covered by the tower installed at North Campus when he made a call at 100 number which call lasted for 107 Seconds.
(177) The aforesaid call detail records and the location chart of the witness Mohd. Moazzam also confirms the route taken by him to reach his house from GTK Hospital. At 9:43 PM he was present in the area of GTK Hospital; at 10:12 PM he was in the area of Gujranwala Town; at 10:24 PM he was in the area of North Campus (near the spot of incident) from where he made a call to the PCR at 100 number, till 11:04 PM he was in the area of Okhla Vihar and at 11:38 PM he was in the area of Okhla Village (near Jamia).
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 184 (178) I now proceed to analyze the call details record of each of the accused individually. Coming first to the accused Rudermani @ Rukmani who was using SIM No. 8459508549 having No. OMH 8991031113764371130F M03 which is in the name of Deepak Kumar (PW19) and had been a subject matter of robbery, which SIM was recovered from the mobile set found in personal search of the accused Rudermani the time of his arrest which set he was using at the relevant time. The relevant entries of the Call Detail Records of the said mobile No. are as under:
S. Calling No. Called No. Date Time Seconds Location No.
1. 9334886595 8459508549 7.10.11 20.10.13 273 Azadpur
2. 9334886595 8459508549 7.10.11 23.03.32 192 Azadpur
3. 9334886595 8459508549 8.10.11 19.53.00 13 Azadpur
4. 7250658515 8459508549 8.10.11 19.54.01 242 Azadpur
5. 8459508549 9918516141 9.10.11 19.41.39 361 Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar
6. 9918516141 8459508549 10.10.11 21.54.18 86 Shalimar Bagh
7. 9718663715 8459508549 11.10.11 19.54.58 49 Azadpur (Sunil) (Rudermani)
8. 8459508549 9670277031 11.10.11 21.00.44 75 Shalimar Bagh
9. 9718663715 8459508549 11.10.11 22.13.30 64 Shalimar Bagh (Sunil) (Rudermani)
10. 8860489509 8459508549 12.10.11 20.58.55 35 Azadpur
11. 8459508549 9911816430 12.10.11 20.58.55 16 Majlis Park
12. 8459508549 9811816430 13.10.11 00.37.01 41 Azadpur
13. 8459508549 9334886595 13.10.11 20.43.48 1217 Majlis Park
14. 992641202 8459508549 13.10.11 22.20.37 1532 Majlis Park St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 185
15. 9718663715 8459508549 14.10.11 00.14.59 7 Majlis Park (Sunil) (Rudermani)
16. 8860989509 8459508549 14.10.11 1.29.46 43 Bhalaswa Dairy
17. 8459508549 9971870929 14.10.11 20.58.34 32 Adarsh Nagar (Rudermani) (Rohit)
18. 8459508549 9971870929 14.10.11 21.44.46 30 Majlis Park (Rudermani) (Rohit)
19. 8459508549 9718663715 15.10.11 00.03.43 16 Majlis Park (Rudermani) (Sunil)
20. 9958149139 8459508549 15.10.11 00.47.09 89 Bhalaswa Dairy
21. 8459508549 9918516141 15.10.11 21.33.40 22 Majlis Park
22. 9718663715 8459508549 15.10.11 21.50.37 14 Majlis Park (Sunil) (Rudermani)
23. 8459508549 9718663715 15.10.11 22.24.03 25 Azadpur (Rudermani) (Sunil)
24. 9811326005 8459508549 15.10.11 22.35.53 27 Majlis Park (179) The aforesaid call details record of the mobile phone No. 8459508549 which has been issued in name of Deepak Kumar (PW19) but actually used by the accused Rudermani, conclusively establishes that he was in regular touch with the coaccused Sunil (who is also related to Rudermani being his uncle/ Chacha) and Rohit not only on the date of incident but even earlier to that. It is also evident from the Call Detail Records of the above mobile phone that the accused Rudermani used to roam around the area of Azadpur Mandi during night hours in search of soft and vulnerable targets.
The following facts emerge from the analysis of the Call Detail Records: St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 186
➢ The fact that Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit used to communicate each other frequently and particularly during the night hours when their location was in and around the area of Azadpur Subzi Mandi is reflected from the calls reflected in the Call Detail Record dated 7.10.2011 at 23:03:32, 11.10.2011 at 22:13:30, 1213.10.2011 at 00:37:01, 1314.10.2011 at 00:14:59, 1415.10.2011 at 00:03:43.
➢ The fact that on the date of the incident the location of the accused Rudermani is in and around the area of Adarsh Nagar (covered by the tower at Majlis Park, Shalimar Bagh and Azadpur) is reflected from the call made on 15.10.2011 (i.e. date of the incident) at 21:50:37 (before the incident) and at 22:24:03 to his uncle accused Sunil (after the incident).
(180) Coming next to the accused Sunil who was using the mobile No. 9718663715 which has been issued in his name. At the time of his arrest he was found in possession of mobile make SAMSUNG of black and red color, Model No. GTE1160 having IMEI No. 356831030511503 having SIM No. 9718663715. The relevant entries of the Call Detail Records of the above mobile are as under:
S. Calling No. Called No. Date Time Seconds Location No.
1. 9718663715 9899306983 7.10.11 22.28 139 Bhalswa Dairy
2. 9718663715 8459508549 11.10.11 19.53 49 Bhalswa Dairy (Sunil) (Rudermani) St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 187
3. 9718663715 8459508549 11.10.11 22.12 64 Bhalswa Dairy (Sunil) (Rudermani)
4. 9911940971 9718663715 12.10.11 21.25 7 Bhalswa Dairy
5. 8459508549 9718663715 12.10.11 23.13 28 Bhalswa Dairy (Rudermani) (Sunil)
6. 9718663715 8459508549 13.10.11 21.21 16 Subzi mandi (Sunil) (Rudermani) Azadpur
7. 9718663715 8459508549 13.10.11 22.46 24 Sarai Pipal (Sunil) (Rudermani) Thala
8. 9718663715 9334886595 14.10.11 01.37 241 Bhalswa Dairy (Sunil) (Rudermani)
9. 9811749744 9718663715 14.10.11 21.00 100 Sarai Thala
10. 8459508549 9718663715 14.10.11 23.49 55 Subzi Mandi (Rudermani) (Sunil) Azadpur
11. 8459508549 9718663715 15.10.11 08.58.24 170 Bhalswa Dairy (Rudermani) (Sunil)
12. 9718663715 8459508549 15.10.11 09.09.53 72 Bhalswa Dairy (Sunil) (Rudermani)
13. 9718663715 8459508549 15.10.11 09.49.26 14 Sarai Pipa (Sunil) (Rudermani) Thala
14. 8459508549 9718663715 15.10.11 10:22:50 25 Subzi Mandi, (Rudermani) (Sunil) PM Azad Pur (181) The aforesaid call details record of the mobile phone No. 9718663715 which has been issued in name of the accused Sunil, conclusively establishes that he was regularly communicating with his nephew Rudermani the coaccused not only on the date of incident but even earlier to that. The analysis of the Call Detail Records of the above mobile phone of Sunil confirm his location in and around the area of Azadpur Mandi St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 188 during night hours particularly in the area where the incident had taken place.
The following facts emerge from the analysis of the Call Detail Records:
➢ The fact that Sunil and Rudermani used to communicate each other frequently and particularly during the night hours when their location was in and around the area of Azadpur Subzi Mandi is reflected from the calls reflected in the Call Detail Record dated 7.10.2011 at 22:28, 11.10.2011 at 22:12, 12.10.2011 at 23:13, 1314.10.2011 at 01:37, 14.10.2011 at 23:49 and 15.10.2011 at 8:58 PM.
➢ The fact that on the date of the incident the location of the accused Sunil is in and around the area of Adarsh Nagar (covered by the tower at Bhalswa Dairy, Sarai Pepal Thala and Subzi Mandi Azadpur) is reflected from the call made on 15.10.2011 (i.e. date of the incident) at 09:09 PM, 9:49 PM and at 10:22 PM (before the incident) to his uncle accused Sunil.
(182) Coming now to the accused Rohit who was using the mobile No. 9971870929 which was issued in the name of one Naveen Kumar, but was actually used by the accused Rohit. It has been established that a mobile phone of Nokia of black color having IMEI No. 354338049967678 along with SIM bearing No. 9971870929 was recovered from the possession of accused Rohit. The relevant entries of the Call Detail Records of the above phone are as under:
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 189
S. Calling No. Called No. Date Time Seconds Location No.
1. 9911003255 9971870929 7.10.11 18.11.19 210 Haider Pur
2. 9971870929 9911003255 12.10.11 18.43.19 27 Haider Pur
3. 9971870929 8459508549 13.10.11 20.01.26 54 Paharganj
4. 8459508549 9971870929 13.10.11 21.16.20 36 Bharola (Rudermani) (Rohit)
5. 9971870929 8459508549 14.10.11 01.07.02 17 Haiderpur (Rohit) (Rudermani)
6. 9971870929 8459508549 14.10.11 21.06.01 32 Shalimar Bagh (Rohit) (Rudermani)
7. 9971870929 8459508549 15.10.11 01.08.57 33 Haider Pur (Rohit) (Rudermani)
8. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 01.09.43 28 Haiderpur (Rudermani) (Rohit)
9. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 11.01.03 32 Haiderpur (Rudermani) (Rohit)
10. 9971870929 8459508549 15.10.11 12:33:20 77 Haiderpur (Rohit) (Rudermani)
11. 9971870929 8459508549 15.10.11 17:00:39 15 Shalimar Bagh (Rohit) (Rudermani)
12. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 18.23.57 91 Shalimar Bagh (Rudermani) (Rohit)
13. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 18.42.09 80 Shalimar Bagh (Rudermani) (Rohit)
14. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 18.54.42 40 Shalimar Bagh (Rudermani) (Rohit)
15. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 19.00.54 42 Shalimar Bagh (Rudermani) (Rohit)
16. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 19.05.44 48 Village Bharola (Rudermani) (Rohit) St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 190
17. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 20.45.34 2 Village Bharola (Rudermani) (Rohit)
18. 9971870929 8459508549 15.10.11 20:49:09 49 Village Bharola (Rohit) (Rudermani)
19. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 20.51.34 45 Village Bharola, (Rudermani) (Rohit) Azadpur
20. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 21.16.33 16 Village Bhaorla, (Rudermani) (Rohit) Azadpur
21. 8459508549 9971870929 15.10.11 21.17.33 16 Bharola (Rudermani) (Rohit)
22. 9971870929 9718562487 15.10.11 23.25.15 130 Sanjay Nagar (183) The aforesaid call details record of the mobile phone No. 9971870929 which has been issued in name of one Naveen Kumar but actually used by the accused Rohit, conclusively establishes that he was regularly communicating with the coaccused Rudermani not only on the date of incident but even earlier to that. It is also evident from the Call Detail Records of the above mobile phone that the accused Rohit used to roam in and around the area of Azadpur Mandi (tower of village Bharola) during night hours. The following facts emerge from the analysis of the Call Detail Records:
➢ The fact that Rohit and Rudermani used to communicate each other frequently and particularly during the night hours when their location was in and around the area of Azadpur Subzi Mandi is reflected from the calls reflected in the Call Detail Record dated 1415.10.2011 at 1:08:57 and at 1:09:43.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 191 ➢ The fact that on the date of the incident the location of the accused Rohit is in and around the area of Adarsh Nagar (covered by the tower at Village Bharola, Azadpur) is reflected from the call made on 15.10.2011 (i.e. date of the incident) at 23:17:33 (before the incident) by the accused Rudermani.
(184) A combined reading and analysis of the Call Detail Records of the above mobile numbers used by the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit lends an independent confirmation to the disclosure statements made by the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit that on the date of incident i.e. 15.10.2011 they all got together at gate Azadpur Subzi Mandi and planned out the incident of armed robbery as they were in dire need of money for meeting their day to day expenses particularly Sunil and as per the planning whenever they would see a target it is Sunil and Rohit who would catch hold of him while Rudermani would commit snatching by threat of knife to the victim. Thereafter they kept on moving in the area and when they found the victim Harkesh Meena coming from the side of Exist Gate of Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, finding him alone and the time opportune they executed their plan being unaware that the victim was a Constable in Delhi Police who resisted their move. The electronic record confirms that it was Rudermani who had made the calls on the mobiles of Sunil and Rohit after which all of them collected and got together at around 9:15 PM - 9:20 PM after which they started moving in the area.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 192 (185) The Ld. Defence Counsels have disputed the aspect of user of mobile phones as herein above by the accused Rudermani and Rohit SIMs of which are not in their name and it argued that the mobile phones have been planted upon them only to work out the present case. (186) I have considered the rival contentions and at the very Outset I may observe that the mobile sets containing the SIMs in question as herein above were recovered from the personal search of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit at the time of their arrest. The objection with regard to the user of the phone is devoid of merit and the controversy is set to rest by a joint reading and analysis of the aforesaid call details of the numbers recovered from the possession of the accused confirming that they have been in regular communication with each other. In so far as Sunil is concerned there is no dispute, the SIM bearing No. OMH 8991031113764371130F M03 has been allotted in his name and Rudermani is his nephew from whose possession the mobile phone containing the robbed SIM belonging to Deepak (PW19) as also proved by Service Provider Sh. Jyotish Mohrana (PW16) has been recovered which incident of robbery (unreported) has been duly proved by both Deepak and his brother Bimal. In so far as Rohit is concerned the SIM No. 9971870929 recovered from the mobile set in his possession is reflected in Call Detail Records of the SIM of Deepak being used by Rudermani. (187) When the aforesaid material was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have simply denied the same. In case if the mobile phone was not recovered from the possession of the accused then it became St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 193 all the more necessary for the accused to explain how the number used by them find reflected in the Call Detail Records particularly those whose Customer Application Form has been confirmed i.e. of accused Sunil and from witness Deepak whose mobile set had been robbed from his brother Bimal. Further, the analysis of the location chart of the various mobile phones allegedly recovered from the possession of the various accused establish their location at the place of incident and also at the places where they reside (Sunil and Rudermani are residing on rent in Bhalswa Dairy whereas Rohit is residing at Haiderpur).
(188) The electronic evidence as discussed herein above not only confirms the location of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit at the spot of the incident but also of the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam who had made a 100 number call to the police. The electronic evidence on record also establishes that the SIM No. 849508549 issued in the name of Deepak Kumar (which was a subject matter of theft) was being used by the accused Rudermani. It also stands established that all the accused namely Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were in constant communication with each other and at the time of the incident were at the same location/ spot of the incident. (189) In view of the above I hereby hold that the electronic evidence independently corroborates and connects the accused with the offence and is also compatible with the eye witness count in the form of testimony of Mohd. Maozzam.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 194 Contradictions and Discrepancies:
(190) Ld. Defence Counsels have pointed out various contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses with regard to the time at which the Investigating Officer had first reached the spot on receipt of information and at which time he went to the hospital. It has been argued that initially SI Afaq Ahmed (PW24) had identified the brown coloured purse of the deceased which is Ex.P1 and had claimed that it was handed over to him by the doctor at the hospital, showing that the purse in question was planted upon the accused. Further, the Ld. Counsels have pointed out the discrepancies with regard to the time, place and the manner of apprehension of the accused persons and contradictions in the cross examination of the witness. It is argued that the clothes of the deceased which had been sealed by the Autopsy Surgeon has not been put to him. It is also argued that the above contradictions and discrepancies are material benefit of which should be given to the accused.
(191) On the other hand the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has vehemently argued that the contradictions as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are immaterial and would not be fatal to the prosecution case.
(192) I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in the case of State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43 it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: "......In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 195 be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like.........
.......The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial." (193) Further, in the case of Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under : ".......It is wellestablished principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity...."
(194) As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the witnesses it is held in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish v.State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has held that when the discrepancies are comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981)2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 196 witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.
(195) Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non discrepant. Courts have to bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. (196) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. The observations made in the case of Tehsildar Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1959 SC 1012 were later on reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1) and Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 19997 SC 3717, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 197 Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses:
(a) While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
(b) If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
(c) When eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
(d) Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 198 committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
(e) Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
(f) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(g) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
(h) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
(i) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
(j) In regard to exact time of an incident or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make their St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 199 estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation and one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again it depends on the timesense of individuals which varies from person to person.
(k) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
(l) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment.
(m) A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contraction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.
(197) It should be remembered that human behaviour varies from person to person and different people react and behaved differently in a different situation. How person can behave in a particular situation cannot be St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 200 predicted. (Ref.: State of UP Vs. Devender Singh reported in AIR 2009 SC 3690).
(198) Further, in so far as the aspect of faulty investigations, the Hon'ble Apex Court has in the case of State of U. P. Vs. Jagdeo & Others.
reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 456, observed that:
"...... Mere faulty investigations cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scotfree. The testimony of eyewitnesses in the present case, completely proved the prosecution case - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 159, 161 and 164........"
(199) It has been further observed that :
"........Coming to the aspect of the investigation being allegedly faulty, we would like to say that we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court. We would rather like to say that assuming the investigation was faulty, for that reason alone the accused persons cannot be let off or acquitted. For the fault of the prosecution, the perpetrators of such a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scotfree. All the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and they attacked the members of the victims' family who were totally unarmed and were sleeping at night in the open. The High Court has expressed a doubt about the FIR being lodged at the time alleged by the prosecution and the manner in which it is so stated by the prosecution. The question however is : is it sufficient to acquit all the persons ? The trial court had discussed all the elements leading to the brutal murder in this case and found them against the accused persons.St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 201
Unfortunately, the High Court remained on the periphery and never attempted to grapple with the substance of the evidence on record. This peripheral approach of the High Court led to the impugned judgment of acquittal being passed. In presence of such a strong evidence on record implicating the accused persons, things like alleged improper recording of time of lodging of FIR are not sufficient to dislodge the verdict of convictions passed by the Sessions Court. In our considered view the evidence of eye witnesses in the present case completely proves the prosecution case. The doubt thrown by the High Court on the presence of the eye witnesses at the time of occurrence is totally unacceptable. The impugned judgment of the High Court whereby all the accused persons have been acquitted is hereby set aside. .....
(200) A similar view was again expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Rabinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India reported in AIR 2011 SC 1436.
(201) In the case of Ram Bali v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2004) 10 SCC 598, the judgment in Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 518 was reiterated and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that "......in case of defective investigation the court has to be circumspect while 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 investigation officer if the investigation is designedly defective....."St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 202
(202) It is writ large from the aforesaid that with the passage of time, the law also developed and the dictum of the Court emphasized that in a criminal case, the fate of proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties. Crime is a public wrong, in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affects the community as a whole and is harmful to the society in general.
(203) The Hon'ble Apex Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar) in the case of Dayal Singh & Ors. vs State Of Uttaranchal in Criminal Appeal No.529 of 2010 decided on 3.8.2012 reaffirmed the above principle while placing its reliance on the case of National Human Rights Commission Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 6 SCC 767 wherein it was observed that:
"......The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interest of society is not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. The courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of Justice often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the majesty of the law. Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a court of law in the future as in the case before it. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial evincing intelligence, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 203 active interest and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and administer justice with fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to the community it serves. The courts administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair name and standing of the judges as impartial and independent adjudicators...".
(204) Reliance was also placed on the case of State of Karnataka Vs. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in 2000 SCC (Crl.) 61 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court occasioned to consider the similar question of defective investigation as to whether any manipulation in the station house diary by the Investigating Officer could be put against the prosecution case and observed in Paragraph 19 that:
"......... But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the Investigating Officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously? It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the Court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinised independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 204 the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and preeminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigation officers. Criminal Justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case...."
(205) In the case of Dayal Singh Vs. State of Uttranchal (Supra) it was observed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatantra Kumar that where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The Courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties of the judge. During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective. Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not sub served. For truly attaining this object of a fair trial, the Court should leave no stone unturned to do justice and protect the interest of the society as well. St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 205 (206) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case I may observe that the it is the duty of the Court that the guilty should not escape and in case there is a ring around the prosecution case, the same cannot be rejected. Further, the prosecution is not required to meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. In the present case the manner in which the Investigating Officer had conducted himself was also noted down by this Court previously and the conduct of Investigating Officer was brought on record and also communicated to his senior officer but under no circumstances the benefit of the same can be given to the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit more so when proceedings have already been initiated against the Investigating Officer.
(207) In so far as SI Afaque Ahmed (PW24) is concerned this Court had reexamined him wherein he has clarified that he had only identified the black bag make Donex in which there was a cap and uniform, belt and Identity card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena written on the same, brown coloured shawl, light blue color towel and Thirteen Rupees cash were found and not the purse. In fact he has not stated in his examination in chief that any purse was handed over to him by the doctor. I find merit in the same because there is no mentioning of any purse in the seizure memo nor it has been mentioned by the doctor that any purse of the deceased was handed over to the police. It is writ large that this confusion had arisen only on account of wrong mentioning of the case property wherein the bag has been shown as purse while exhibiting the same. Therefore, I find no merit in the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 206 objection so far by the Ld. Defence Counsels in view of the specific clarification offered by the witness.
(208) Further, in respect of contradictions as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsels in the testimonies of police witnesses with regard to the timings, presence of a particular police official at a particular time, details of constructions of the house of the accused etc. I am of the considered view that the same are too immaterial and irrelevant as it is the evidence of the witnesses regarding the commission of the offence by the accused which is more important than the investigation conducted. Even otherwise, the alleged contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner as the same relate to the investigation including going of the police officials to the house of the accused etc. Merely due to the contradictions in the evidence regarding investigation or even if there is faulty investigation, the same do not absolve the accused of his liability as it is the evidence of the material and star witnesses which is more important than the evidence of the witnesses of the investigation.
(209) This being the background, I hereby hold that the contradictions and discrepancies so pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsels are immaterial and would not be fatal to the prosecution case.
Plea of Juvenility raised by the accused Rudermani Rejected:
(210) During the course of trial the accused Rudermani raised a plea that on the date of the incident i.e. 15.10.2011 he was a juvenile and in this St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 207 regard he has placed his reliance on the Date of Birth Certificate showing his date of birth as 27.5.1994. Pursuant to the same, a detail inquiry has been conducted by this Court and vide order dated 22.11.2013 this Court has held that the date of birth of the accused Rudermani is 21.2.1992 and on the date of incident i.e. on 15.10.2011 the accused Rudermani was a major above 18 years i.e. 19 years, 7 months and 24 days old. However, at the stage of arguments the accused Rudermani has again raised the issue of juvenility before this Court on the basis of the same grounds which he had earlier raised. I may observe that vide a detail order dated 22.11.2013 this Court had brought this controversy at rest by observing that:
"......... Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the School Record of the accused Rudermani in the form of Admission Form Ex.CW1/A, affidavit submitted by the father of the affidavit which is Ex.CW1/B and Admission Register Ex.CW1/C confirm the date of birth of the accused Rudermani as 21.2.1992 which finds due corroboration from the ossification report showing his age as on 6.11.2103 between 22 - 23 years. Merely because the applicant / accused finds it convenient to rely upon the Birth Certificate issued on the basis of Parviar Register, it does not become obligatory for this Court to go by the same. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in order to render this document (entries made in the Parivar Register) admissible under Section 35 of Evidence Act the material on the basis of which this age so mentioned in the Parivar Register has been recorded, must be proved which incidentally has not been done in the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 208 present case. Rather on the contrary the school record of the applicant/ accused duly proved by Sh. Sohan Lal (CW1) witness from the school, confirms that the date of birth in the admission register was mentioned on the basis of the affidavit filed by the father of the accused Rudermani. None can be permitted to abuse the provisions of Benevolent Legislation and this plea of juvenility cannot be applied lightly by the Courts of Law specially in those cases where the accused is being tried of heinous offences. [Ref.: Birad Mal Singhvi Vs. Anand Purohit reported in 1988 Supp. SCC 604: AIR 1988 SC 1796 and Gurwinder Singh @ Ginder Vs. CBI reported in 2009 Crl. L.J. 835]. It is in this background that I conclude that the date of birth certificate issued on 21.9.2013 does not appear to be authentic whereas on the other hand the entries made in the School Record are more authentic and credible also finding due corroboration / confirmation from the ossification report of the applicant / accused Rudermani. I hereby hold that the date of birth of the applicant accused Rudermani is 21.2.1992 and hence on the date of incident i.e. on 15.10.2011 the accused Rudermani was a major above 18 years i.e. 19 years, 7 months and 24 days old.
At this stage, I am informed by the Investigating Officer that the applicant / accused Rudermani has moved similar applications before the other Courts where his cases are pending trial claiming benefit of juvenility. In order to avoid conflicting opinion he requests for a copy of this order to enable him to file the same before the said courts and further prays that one copy may be sent to Superintendent Jail for information and record purposes. On request of the Investigating Officer one copy of this order be given to St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 209 him dasti and one copy is directed to be sent to Superintendent Jail for information and record purposes....."
(211) Therefore, the accused Rudermani @ Rukmani cannot be permitted to abuse the provisions of Benevolent Legislation and this plea of juvenility cannot be applied lightly by the Courts of Law specially in those cases where the accused is being tried of a heinous offence of murder and as observed by the Court, is fully aware of the consequences of his illegal act and equally, rather more aware of the defence which he is required to take under the given circumstances (of Juvenility) so as to enable him to escape a harsher punishment. I fail to understand how the accused Rudermani a habitual repeat offender, legally informed be permitted to use the ploy of Juvenilty as an escape route for his illegal and despicable acts? FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(212) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 210 to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(213) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. On the basis of the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:
➢ That the deceased Harkesh Meena a young boy of was a Constable in Delhi Police and was posted at Police Station Narela (duly proved by HC Pramod Kumar - PW10).
➢ That on the date of incident i.e. 15.10.2011 Ct. Harkesh Meena after completing his duty was returning to his barrack and was passing through Adarsh Nagar Metro Station in front of Indira Market, near Footpath when in civil dress and three assailants committed robbery upon him and while he resisted, he was stabbed.
➢ That on 15.10.2011 Mohd. Moazzam had gone to GTK hospital to see the new born baby of his sister (proved by Mohd. Moazzam - PW3).St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 211
➢ That at about 10:00 PM Mohd. Moazzam left the hospital and was going towards Mukherjee Nagar, when he reached ahead to Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, towards Azadpur side, there was a red light and traffic was jam (proved by Mohd. Moazzam - PW3).
➢ That Mohd. Moazzam was on his motorcycle and stopped his motorcycle by the side of the road near red light and was present near the exit gate of Adarsh Nagar Metro Station (proved by Mohd.
Moazzam - PW3).
➢ That Mohd. Moazzam heard some noise on which he turned back to see as to what had happened and he noticed that three boys, in the age group of about 25 years who had caught hold of one person who was trying to get himself released from the clutches of those boys (proved by Mohd. Moazzam - PW3).
➢ That Mohd. Moazzam saw that one of the boy had caught hold of the neck of that person, while the second boy had caught hold of the waist of that person and the third boy who was having a knife in his hand first inflicted a knife blow on the head of that person and thereafter, he stabbed that person on the left side of his chest with the said knife on which the said person fell down after the injuries were received by him (proved by Mohd. Moazzam - PW3).
➢ That thereafter the said boys removed the purse from the pocket of the pants, worn by the victim (Harkesh Meena), after cutting the same from his pocket and all the three boys ran away from the spot (proved by St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 212 Mohd. Moazzam - PW3).
➢ That in the meantime, the traffic light got green and Mohd. Moazzam moved ahead on his motorcycle and stopped after some distance and then made a call to the police at 100 number from his mobile No. 9990639518 (proved by Mohd. Moazzam - PW3 and the call made at 10:24 PM is reflected in Call Detail Records Ex.PW18/I).
➢ That at about 10:25 PM DD No.89B was received at Police Staiton Adarsh Nagar pursuant to which SI Afaque Ahmed along with Ct.
Pardeep went to the spot i.e. near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station towards Indira Nagar Market where they met HC Himmat at the spot who informed him that the injured had been shifted to BJRM hospital by the officials of the PCR Van (proved by SI Afaque Ahmed - PW24).
➢ That SI Afaque Ahmed then went to BJRM Hospital where he obtained the MLC of the injured from the doctor on which concerned doctor had declared the injured as brought dead at 11:10 PM (proved by PW24 SI Afaque Ahmed and PW30 Dr. Gopal Krishna).
➢ That Duty Head constable Nanhe Lal Mishra handed over to SI Afaque Ahmed the personal belongings of the deceased in an open condition which included one Noika Mobile phone, black bag make Donex in which there was a cap and uniform, belt and I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena written on the same and brown color shawl, light blue color towel and Thirteen Rupees cash (proved by PW24 SI Afaque Ahmed and PW12 HC Nanhe Lal Mishra).St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 213
➢ That Duty Head Constable Nanhe Lal Mishra also handed over to SI Afaque Ahmed a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital, J.Puri Delhi containing the shirt of the deceased and a sample seal which were taken into possession (proved by PW24 SI Afaque Ahmed and PW12 HC Nanhe Lal Mishra).
➢ That Crime Team was called at the spot who inspected the spot and photographed the same after which the Crime Team Incharge handed over the Crime Team Report to SI Afaque Ahmed (proved by PW24 SI Afaque Ahmed, PW14 SI M.D. Meena and PW11 Ct. Ramesh Chander).
➢ That SI Afaque then made his endorsement on DD Entry No.89B and prepared a rukka on the basis of which the present FIR was registered (proved by PW24 SI Afaque Ahmed, PW4 HC B.A. Rao and PW9 Ct.
Pradeep Kumar).
➢ That on 17.10.2011 Mohd. Moazzam who had made a call on 100 number which was recorded vide DD No. 90B at 10:32 PM, was called to the Police Station and Inspector Binod Kumar interrogated him during which he informed him that he was an eye witness to the incident, after which the statement of Mohd. Moazzam was recorded (proved by PW28 Inspector Binod Kumar).
➢ That on 19.10.2011 the investigations of the present case were taken over by Inspector Virender Kadyan the then SHO who alongwith Inspector Binod Kumar, ASI Parmod, HC Naresh, HC Ved, HC Sudhir, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 214 Ct. Naveen and other staff tried to search for the accused persons but could not trace them (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That on the same day i.e. 19.10.2011 at about 1:30 PM Inspector Virender Kadyan received a secret information that the accused wanted in the present case would come outside Subzi Mandi out gate towards Majlis Park at about 3:00 PM (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That pursuant to the same two raiding parties were constituted one was headed by Inspector Virender Kadyan along with ASI Parmod, HC Naresh and Ct. Naveen took positions towards service lane, Panchwati adjacent to GT Road, opposite out gate Subzi Mandi whereas the police party headed by Inspector Binod comprising of HC Ved, HC Sudhir and one more official took position near NDPL Power House (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That at about 3:15 PM at the instance and pointing out of secret informer the accused Rudermani was apprehended who on interrogation disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Rudermani was arrested, his personal search was conducted in which a mobile phone make MTS with SIM No. OMH 8991031113764371130F M03 and Mobile No. 8459508549 was recovered and his disclosure statement was also recorded wherein he disclosed that his uncle/ chacha Sunil and friend Rohit were involved in St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 215 the incident with him and he could lead the police to them and also get the knife used in the offence recovered (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudaramani led the police party to Bhama Shah Park, service lane adjoining GT road near MTNL box and pointed out towards large number of broken brick pieces lying on one corner of the service lane and got recovered a knife from under the broken brick pieces on which some dried blood stains and mud was found (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That the said knife was then taken into possession by the Investigating Officer after preparing its sketch (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudermani then led the police party to Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy to house No. A681682 and at the instance of accused Rudermani, the accused Sunil was apprehended who on interrogation also disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Sunil was arrested, his personal search was conducted in which one mobile make SAMSUNG bearing No. 9718663715 was found and his disclosure statement was also recorded (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 216
➢ That the accused Sunil then led the police party inside his house and from the parchati got recovered one brown color purse with the words GUCCI written on the same and informed that it was the purse belonging to the deceased after which the Investigating Officer checked the same and it was found to contain the I card of the deceased of his training period, photocopy of the original I card, payslip of April, 2011, receipt of the mobile, two passport size photographs, original marksheet of Rajasthan University and a handwritten slip (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That the said purse along with its contents was also taken into possession (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That the accused Rudramani who was the nephew of Sunil also led the police team to the parchati in the same house and got recovered cash to the tune of Rs.280/ and disclosed that it was amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share, after which the cash of Rs.280/ was also taken into possession (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That the accused Rudramani and Sunil then led the police party to Haiderpur Jhuggies and while they were crossing Badli Bus Stand, they pointed out towards the third accused Rohit on which ASI Parmod and HC Naresh apprehended Rohit (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 217
➢ That the accused Rohit also disclosed his involvement in the present case and after which he was arrested, his personal search was also conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That from the personal search of the accused Rohit, the original driving licence of the deceased and cash to the tune of Rs.660/ which the accused disclosed was the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share and a mobile phone with SIM bearing No. 9971870929, metro card and one receipt of gym were found which were taken into possession whereas the cash and the driving licence were put into a separate envelope and taken into possession (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were kept in muffled faces (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That on 21.10.2011 all the three accused persons were again taken out from the lock up in muffled faces and interrogated and their supplementary disclosure statements were recorded (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That first of all Sunil and Rudramani took the police party to their house at Bairagi Mohalla from where the accused Sunil produced one white shirt which had been kept on his bed and disclosed that he was wearing the said shirt on the day of the incident and also that the pant St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 218 worn by him was the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident pursuant to which both the pants and shirt of the accused Sunil were taken into possession (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That the accused Rudramani then got recovered a shirt hanging on a rope in his room which was of white and brown checks with "wanted"
written on the same and disclosed that the pant worn by him was the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That pursuant to the same the said clothes of the accused Rudermani was also taken into possession (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That the accused Rohit then took the police team to his house at Khaderwali jhuggie, Haiderpur from where he got recovered a black color TShirt which was hanging on a Khunti behind the door, which was also taken into possession (proved by PW26 HC Naresh Kumar and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
➢ That on 03.11.2011 during Test Identification Parade both the accused Rudramani and Rohit refused to participate in the TIP proceedings (proved by PW3 Mohd. Moazzam and PW25 Inspector Rajesh Sinha).
➢ That on 05.11.2011 during the Test Identification Parade the accused Sunil also refused to participate in the same (proved by PW3 Mohd.
Moazzam and PW25 Inspector Rajesh Sinha).St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 219
➢ That on 18.11.2011 while the accused was being produced in Judicial Custody for extension of the remand, the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam also came to the court and identified all the three accused as the assailants whom he had seen on the date of the incident (proved by PW3 Mohd. Moazzam and PW31 Inspector Virender Kadyan).
(214) The Ocular Evidence in the form of testimony of Mohd.
Moazzam conclusively connects all the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit with the alleged offence. Mohd. Moazzam has identified the accused Rudramani, as the person who had inflicted the injury with knife to the deceased and also removed the purse of deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants; the accused Rohit as the person had caught hold the neck of the deceased and the accused Sunil as the person who had caught hold the waist of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting knife blow injuries to the deceased.
(215) The prosecution has been able to prove and establish that the Motive of Crime was to commit an Armed Robbery with an intent to Silence the victim in case of any resistance offered by him. Further the manner in which the crime was committed i.e. while the accused Rohit was holding the neck and the accused Sunil was holding the waist of the victim and the accused Rudermani inflicted knife blows on the head and chest (both vital organs) of the deceased confirms and establishes the Common Intention shared by the accused.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 220 (216) The Medical Evidence on record establishes that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon stab injury via injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The Medical Evidence is compatible to ocular evidence and the version given by Mohd. Maozzam (PW3) to the extent that the three assailants had inflicted knife injuries on the head and chest of the deceased after which they cut the pocket of the victim with the same knife, removed his purse and ran away. The postmortem report establishes that both the injuries i.e. on the middle portion of the forehead and left side of the chest, are on vital organs and the force with which the knife blow was given on the chest thereby cutting the left ventricle of the heart through and through, confirms the intent of the assailants to cause the death of the victim.
(217) The DNA Fingerprinting report establishes that the DNA profile of the knife and on the shirt of the accused Rudermani are similar to the DNA profile of the source of blood of the deceased Harkesh Meena which conclusively connects the accused Rudermani to the crime in question. Further, the clothes got recovered by the accused Sunil and Rohit showed the presence of Human Blood on the same. The Forensic Evidence (Physics) is compatible to the prosecution version and conclusively establishes that the knife was used in causing the fatal injuries on the chest of the deceased which cut marks present on the Baniyan of the deceased Harkesh Meena corresponds to the injury on the body as well as tallies with the specifications of the weapon of offence i.e. Knife. It also stands established that the St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 221 measurements of this knife (Ex.P8) so got recovered by the accused Rudermani which was used in causing fatal injuries upon the deceased was beyond the prescribed notified limits as provided in the Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 bearing No.F.13/203/78Home (C). (218) The electronic evidence not only confirms the location of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit at the spot of the incident but also of the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam who had made a 100 number call to the police. The electronic evidence on record also establishes that the SIM No. 849508549 issued in the name of Deepak Kumar (which was a subject matter of theft) was being used by the accused Rudermani. It also stands established that all the accused namely Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were constantly communication with each other and at the time of the incident were at the same location/ spot of the incident.
(219) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
(220) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 222 report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(221) This being the background, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that on 15.10.2011 at about 10:00 PM in front of Indira Market, near Footpath, Service Road, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit in furtherance of their common intention robbed Harkesh Meena a Constable in the Delhi Police of his cash, other documents and mobile phone on the point of knife and while committing robbery the accused inflicted injuries on the victim Harkesh Meena by using a dead weapon i.e. Knife thereby committed the murder of Harkesh Meena for which the accused Sunil and Rohit are hereby held guilty of the offence under Section 392/34 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Rudermani is held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. All the accused are accordingly convicted. (222) However, since the injured Harkesh Meena had expired and charges under Section 302 Indian Penal Code have been invoked, therefore St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 223 technically the provisions of Section 394 Indian Penal Code would not apply and hence the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit are hereby acquitted of the charges under Sections 394/34 Indian Penal Code. In so far as the charge under Section 411 Indian Penal Code is concerned, since the accused have been identified as the same persons who who had committed robbery upon the victim, hence technically the provisions of Section 411 Indian Penal Code are not separately made out as the ingredients of Section 411 Indian Penal Code are covered within the offence of Robbery as defined under Section 390 Indian Penal Code.
(223) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 28.8.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 22.8.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 224
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 85/2013 Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0033442012 State Vs. (1) Rudermani @ Rukmani @ Guderia @ Rohit S/o Ramesh Maderia R/o Village Bahiyari Bhagel, PS Bhatpara Rani, Distt. Deoria, Uttar Pradesh Local Address:
A681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi (Convicted) (2) Rohit Kumar @ Rahul S/o Shakal Dev Mehto R/o Village Kadna, PS Garkha, Distt. Chhapra, Bihar Local Address:
Jhuggi No. 36, Sanjay Camp, Outer Ring Road No. 28, Haiderpur, Delhi (Convicted) (3) Sunil S/o Mohan Lal R/o Village Bahiyari Bhagel, PS Bhatpara Rani, Distt. Deoria, Uttar Pradesh St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 225 Local Address:
A681/682, Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi (Convicted) FIR No.: 278/2011 Police Station: Adarsh Nagar Under Sections: 302/394/397/411/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act Date of Conviction: 22.8.2014 Arguments heard on: 28.8.2014 Date of sentence: 3.9.2014 APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Tofeeq Ahmed, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convicts Rudermani @ Rukmani, Rohit Kumar @ Rahul and Sunil in Judicial Custody with Ms. Sadhna Bhatia and Ms. Neelam Singh Advocates/ Amicus Curiae.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
As per allegations on 15.10.2011 at unknown time, in front of Indira Market, near Footpath, Service Road, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit in furtherance of their common intention robbed Harkesh Meena a Constable in the Delhi Police of his cash, other documents and mobile phone on the point of knife and while committing robbery the accused voluntarily assaulted Harkesh Meena by using a dead St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 226 weapon i.e. Knife thereby committed the murder of Harkesh Meena. It has also been alleged that on 19.10.2011 the accused all the accused got recovered the robbed articles belonging to the deceased and the accused Rudermani got recovered the knife which was used by him on 15.10.2011 during the incident.
On the basis of the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses particularly the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam and also on the basis of the medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence on record, this Court vide a detail judgment dated 22.8.2014 held the accused Rohit and Sunil guilty of the offence under Section 392 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Rudermani has also been held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397/34 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act.
Vide the detail judgment this Court has observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that the deceased Harkesh Meena a young boy of was a Constable in Delhi Police and was posted at Police Station Narela; that on the date of incident i.e. 15.10.2011 Ct. Harkesh Meena after completing his duty was returning to his barrack and was passing through Adarsh Nagar Metro Station in front of Indira Market, near Footpath when in civil dress and three assailants committed robbery upon him and while he resisted, he was stabbed; that on 15.10.2011 Mohd. Moazzam had gone to GTK hospital to see the new born baby of his sister; that at about 10:00 PM Mohd. Moazzam left the hospital and was going towards Mukherjee Nagar, when he reached ahead to Adarsh Nagar Metro Station, St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 227 towards Azadpur side, there was a red light and traffic was jam; that Mohd. Moazzam was on his motorcycle and stopped his motorcycle by the side of the road near red light and was present near the exit gate of Adarsh Nagar Metro Station; that Mohd. Moazzam heard some noise on which he turned back to see as to what had happened and he noticed that three boys, in the age group of about 25 years who had caught hold of one person who was trying to get himself released from the clutches of those boys; that Mohd. Moazzam saw that one of the boy had caught hold of the neck of that person, while the second boy had caught hold of the waist of that person and the third boy who was having a knife in his hand first inflicted a knife blow on the head of that person and thereafter, he stabbed that person on the left side of his chest with the said knife on which the said person fell down after the injuries were received by him; that thereafter the said boys removed the purse from the pocket of the pants, worn by the victim (Harkesh Meena), after cutting the same from his pocket and all the three boys ran away from the spot; that in the meantime, the traffic light got green and Mohd. Moazzam moved ahead on his motorcycle and stopped after some distance and then made a call to the police at 100 number from his mobile No. 9990639518.
This Court has also observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that at about 10:25 PM DD No.89B was received at Police Station Adarsh Nagar pursuant to which SI Afaque Ahmed along with Ct. Pardeep went to the spot i.e. near Adarsh Nagar Metro Station towards Indira Nagar Market where they met HC Himmat at the spot who informed St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 228 him that the injured had been shifted to BJRM hospital by the officials of the PCR Van; that SI Afaque Ahmed then went to BJRM Hospital where he obtained the MLC of the injured from the doctor on which concerned doctor had declared the injured as brought dead at 11:10 PM; that Duty Head constable Nanhe Lal Mishra handed over to SI Afaque Ahmed the personal belongings of the deceased in an open condition which included one Noika Mobile phone, black bag make Donex in which there was a cap and uniform, belt and I card of Delhi police with the name Ct. Harkesh Meena written on the same and brown color shawl, light blue color towel and Thirteen Rupees cash; that Duty Head Constable Nanhe Lal Mishra also handed over to SI Afaque Ahmed a sealed parcel duly sealed with the seal of MS BJRM Hospital, J.Puri Delhi containing the shirt of the deceased and a sample seal which were taken into possession; that Crime Team was called at the spot who inspected the spot and photographed the same after which the Crime Team Incharge handed over the Crime Team Report to SI Afaque Ahmed; that SI Afaque then made his endorsement on DD Entry No.89B and prepared a rukka on the basis of which the present FIR was registered.
It has also been established that on 17.10.2011 Mohd. Moazzam who had made a call on 100 number which was recorded vide DD No. 90B at 10:32 PM, was called to the Police Station and Inspector Binod Kumar interrogated him during which he informed him that he was an eye witness to the incident, after which the statement of Mohd. Moazzam was recorded; that on 19.10.2011 the investigations of the present case were taken over by St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 229 Inspector Virender Kadyan the then SHO who alongwith Inspector Binod Kumar, ASI Parmod, HC Naresh, HC Ved, HC Sudhir, Ct. Naveen and other staff tried to search for the accused persons but could not trace them; that on the same day i.e. 19.10.2011 at about 1:30 PM Inspector Virender Kadyan received a secret information that the accused wanted in the present case would come outside Subzi Mandi out gate towards Majlis Park at about 3:00 PM; that pursuant to the same two raiding parties were constituted one was headed by Inspector Virender Kadyan along with ASI Parmod, HC Naresh and Ct. Naveen took positions towards service lane, Panchwati adjacent to GT Road, opposite out gate Subzi Mandi whereas the police party headed by Inspector Binod comprising of HC Ved, HC Sudhir and one more official took position near NDPL Power House; that at about 3:15 PM at the instance and pointing out of secret informer the accused Rudermani was apprehended who on interrogation disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Rudermani was arrested, his personal search was conducted in which a mobile phone make MTS with SIM No. OMH 8991031113764371130F M03 and Mobile No. 8459508549 was recovered and his disclosure statement was also recorded wherein he disclosed that his uncle/ chacha Sunil and friend Rohit were involved in the incident with him and he could lead the police to them and also get the knife used in the offence recovered; that pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudaramani led the police party to Bhama Shah Park, service lane adjoining GT road near MTNL box and pointed out towards large number of broken brick pieces St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 230 lying on one corner of the service lane and got recovered a knife from under the broken brick pieces on which some dried blood stains and mud was found; that the said knife was then taken into possession by the Investigating Officer after preparing its sketch; that pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Rudermani then led the police party to Bairagi Mohalla, Bhalswa Dairy to house No. A681682 and at the instance of accused Rudermani, the accused Sunil was apprehended who on interrogation also disclosed his involvement in the present case after which the accused Sunil was arrested, his personal search was conducted in which one mobile make SAMSUNG bearing No. 9718663715 was found and his disclosure statement was also recorded; that the accused Sunil then led the police party inside his house and from the parchati got recovered one brown color purse with the words GUCCI written on the same and informed that it was the purse belonging to the deceased after which the Investigating Officer checked the same and it was found to contain the I card of the deceased of his training period, photocopy of the original I card, payslip of April, 2011, receipt of the mobile, two passport size photographs, original marksheet of Rajasthan University and a handwritten slip; that the said purse along with its contents was also taken into possession; that the accused Rudramani who was the nephew of Sunil also led the police team to the parchati in the same house and got recovered cash to the tune of Rs.280/ and disclosed that it was amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share, after which the cash of Rs. 280/ was also taken into possession; that the accused Rudramani and Sunil St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 231 then led the police party to Haiderpur Jhuggies and while they were crossing Badli Bus Stand, they pointed out towards the third accused Rohit on which ASI Parmod and HC Naresh apprehended Rohit; that the accused Rohit also disclosed his involvement in the present case and after which he was arrested, his personal search was also conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded; that from the personal search of the accused Rohit, the original driving licence of the deceased and cash to the tune of Rs.660/ which the accused disclosed was the amount robbed from the deceased which fell into his share and a mobile phone with SIM bearing No. 9971870929, metro card and one receipt of gym were found which were taken into possession whereas the cash and the driving licence were put into a separate envelope and taken into possession; that the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were kept in muffled faces.
It has also been observed that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that on 21.10.2011 all the three accused persons were again taken out from the lock up in muffled faces and interrogated and their supplementary disclosure statements were recorded; that first of all Sunil and Rudramani took the police party to their house at Bairagi Mohalla from where the accused Sunil produced one white shirt which had been kept on his bed and disclosed that he was wearing the said shirt on the day of the incident and also that the pant which he was already wearing as the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident pursuant to which both the pants and shirt of the accused Sunil were taken into possession; that the accused Rudramani St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 232 then got recovered a shirt hanging on a rope in his room which was of white and brown checks with "wanted" written on the same and disclosed that the pant which he was already wearing was the same which he was wearing on the day of the incident; that pursuant to the same the said clothes of the accused Rudermani was also taken into possession; that the accused Rohit then took the police team to his house at Khaderwali jhuggie, Haiderpur from where he got recovered a black color TShirt which was hanging on a Khunti behind the door, which was also taken into possession; that on 03.11.2011 during Test Identification Parade both the accused Rudramani and Rohit refused to participate in the TIP proceedings; that on 05.11.2011 during the Test Identification Parade the accused Sunil also refused to participate in the same; that on 18.11.2011 while the accused was being produced in Judicial Custody for extension of the remand, the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam also came to the court and identified all the three accused as the assailants whom he had seen on the date of the incident.
This Court has further observed that the Ocular Evidence in the form of testimony of Mohd. Moazzam conclusively connects all the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit with the alleged offence. Mohd. Moazzam has identified the accused Rudramani, as the person who had inflicted the injury with knife to the deceased and also removed the purse of deceased after cutting the pocket of his pants; the accused Rohit as the person had caught hold the neck of the deceased and the accused Sunil as the person who had caught hold the waist of the deceased when accused Rudramani was inflicting St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 233 knife blow injuries to the deceased. Further, the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that the Motive of Crime was to commit an Armed Robbery with an intent to Silence the victim in case of any resistance offered by him. The manner in which the crime was committed i.e. while the accused Rohit was holding the neck and the accused Sunil was holding the waist of the victim and the accused Rudermani inflicted knife blows on the head and chest (both vital organs) of the deceased confirms and establishes the Common Intention shared by the accused.
The Medical Evidence on record establishes that the death was due to hemorrhagic shock consequent upon stab injury via injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The Medical Evidence is found to be compatible to ocular evidence and the version given by Mohd. Maozzam (PW3) to the extent that the three assailants had inflicted knife injuries on the head and chest of the deceased after which they cut the pocket of the victim with the same knife, removed his purse and ran away. The postmortem report established that both the injuries i.e. on the middle portion of the forehead and left side of the chest, are on vital organs and the force with which the knife blow was given on the chest thereby cutting the left ventricle of the heart through and through, confirms the intent of the assailants to cause the death of the victim.
The DNA Fingerprinting report established that the DNA profile St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 234 of the knife and on the shirt of the accused Rudermani are similar to the DNA profile of the source of blood of the deceased Harkesh Meena which conclusively connects the accused Rudermani to the crime in question. Further, the clothes got recovered by the accused Sunil and Rohit showed the presence of Human Blood on the same. The Forensic Evidence (Physics) is held to be compatible to the prosecution version and conclusively establishes that the knife was used in causing the fatal injuries on the chest of the deceased which cut marks present on the Baniyan of the deceased Harkesh Meena corresponds to the injury on the body as well as tallies with the specifications of the weapon of offence i.e. Knife. It has also been established that the measurements of this knife so got recovered by the accused Rudermani which was used in causing fatal injuries upon the deceased was beyond the prescribed notified limits as provided in the Gazette Notification dated 17.2.1979 bearing No.F.13/203/78Home (C).
Further, the electronic evidence not only confirms the location of the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit at the spot of the incident but also of the eye witness Mohd. Moazzam who had made a 100 number call to the police. The electronic evidence on record also established that the SIM No. 849508549 issued in the name of Deepak Kumar (which was a subject matter of theft) was being used by the accused Rudermani. It has also been established that all the accused namely Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit were in constant touch with each other and at the time of the incident were at the same location/ spot of the incident.
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 235
This being the background, this Court has held that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish that on 15.10.2011 at about 10:00 PM in front of Indira Market, near Footpath, Service Road, Adarsh Nagar Metro Station the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit in furtherance of their common intention robbed Harkesh Meena a Constable in the Delhi Police of his cash, other documents and mobile phone on the point of knife and while committing robbery the accused voluntarily assaulted Harkesh Meena by using a dead weapon i.e. Knife thereby committed the murder of Harkesh Meena for which the accused Sunil and Rohit have been held guilty of the offence under Section 392/34 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused Rudermani has been held guilty of the offence under Section 392 read with 397 and 302/34 Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
However, since the injured Harkesh Meena had expired and charges under Section 302 Indian Penal Code have been invoked, therefore technically the provisions of Section 394 Indian Penal Code would not apply and hence the accused Rudermani, Sunil and Rohit have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 394/34 Indian Penal Code. In so far as the charge under Section 411 Indian Penal Code is concerned, since the accused have been identified as the same persons who who had committed robbery upon the victim, hence technically the provisions of Section 411 Indian Penal Code are not separately made out as the ingredients of Section 411 Indian Penal St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 236 Code are covered within the offence of Robbery as defined under Section 390 Indian Penal Code.
I may observe that during the trial the convict Rudermani desperately tried to invoke the plea of juvenility apparently in order to evade harsher punishment. The Age Inquiry, however, confirmed that at the time of incident the convict Rudermani was a major (above 18 years) i.e. 19 years, 7 months and 24 days old and this court observed that Rudermani @ Rukmani cannot be permitted to abuse the provisions of Benevolent Legislation and this plea of juvenility cannot be applied lightly by the Courts of Law specially in those cases where the accused is being tried of a heinous offence of murder. It was observed by this Court that Rudermani was fully aware of the consequences of his illegal act and equally, rather more aware and conscious of the defence which he was required to take under the given circumstances (of Juvenility) so as to enable him to escape a harsher punishment. How then could such a legally informed repeat offender, be permitted to use the ploy of Juvenility as an escape route for his illegal and despicable acts?
Heard arguments on the point of sentence. The convict Rudermani @ Rukmani is stated to be a young boy aged about 23 years having a family comprising of aged father, five younger brothers and one younger sister. He is 5th class pass and was doing the packing work of Visiting Cards.
The convict Rohit Kumar @ Rahul is stated to be a young boy aged about 25 years having a family comprising of aged parents, six brothers St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 237 and one sister. He is 3rd class pass and is a labour by profession.
The convict Sunil who is the uncle/ chacha of convict Rudermani is stated to be aged about 30 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother, wife and one son aged three years. He is 8 th class pass and was running a Tea Stall.
Ld. Amicus Curiae have vehemently argued that all the convicts are young boys and keeping in view their family background a lenient view be taken against them. It is argued that the convict Rohit is a first time offender having no criminal involvements and the convict Sunil is the sole bread earner of his family.
On the other hand the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor has placed his reliance on the judgments of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC (Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681 and has argued that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no alternative before this court but to impose death sentence upon the convicts. It is also stated that the convicts have not been able to show any mitigating circumstances in their favour which could make out a case for imposition of sentence of imprisonment for life.
I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the applicability of the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan Singh (Supra) St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 238 which are required to be keep in mind before awarding a death sentence in any given case.
The law is well settled in the decision in Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898], wherein it was held that the death penalty can be inflicted only in the gravest of the grave cases. It was also held that such death penalty can be imposed only when the life imprisonment appears to be inadequate punishment. Again it was cautioned that while imposing the death sentence, there must be balance between circumstances regarding the accused and the mitigating circumstances and that there has to be overall consideration of the circumstances regarding the accused as also the offence. Some aggravating circumstances were also culled out, they being:
(a) Where the murder has been committed after previous planning and involves extreme brutality; or
(b) Where the murder involves exceptional depravity.
The mitigating circumstances which were mentioned in that judgment were:
(a) That the offence was committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance;
(b) The age of the accused. If the accused is young or old, he shall not be sentenced to death;
(c) The probability that the accused would not commit criminal acts of violence as would constitute a continuing threat to society;
(d) The probability that the accused can be reformed St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 239 and rehabilitated. The State shall by evidence prove that the accused does not satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above;
(e) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the offence;
(f) That the accused acted under the duress or
domination of another person; and
(g) That the condition of the accused showed that he
was mentally defective and that the said defect impaired his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.
The law was further settled in the decision in Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 957], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court insisted upon the mitigating circumstances being balanced against the aggravating circumstances. The aggravating circumstances were described as under:
(a) When the murder is in extremely brutal manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.
(b) When the murder of a large number of persons of a particular caste, community, or locality is committed.
(c) When the murder of an innocent child, a helpless woman is committed.
It was also observed by the Hon'ble Court that at the same time it must be kept in mind that the principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 240 render the laws subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for crimes.
Now, coming to the case in hand, I would like to draw a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors in the present case are that all the convicts are young boys in their twenties, belonging to poor families and are helping hands to their respective families. In so far as the convict Rohit Kumar @ Rahul is concerned he has no criminal background and is a first time offender.
The aggravating factors are firstly that the victim in the present case namely Harkesh Meena was a young boy 27 years and was a Constable in Delhi Police who was returning from duty. He belonged to a poor family with agrarian background from Rajasthan. Secondly the offence of robbery had been committed after Sunset and before Sunrise which in itself is an aggravating factor in cases of robbery for which higher degree of punishment is contemplated. Thirdly there was no history of any dispute or enmity between the victim and the assailants and the murder of Harkesh Meena had been committed only because of monetary gains since the convicts wanted to rob him which was resisted by the victim. Lastly the convicts Rudermani and Sunil are repeat offenders and professionals being involved in other cases, the details and status of which cases are as under:
The convict Rudermani @ Rukmani is involved in two other St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 241 cases details of which are as under:
S. FIR No. Section Police Station Status of Case No.
1. 152/2011 24/54/59 of Arms Act Adarsh Nagar Acquitted
2. 276/2011 382/34 IPC Punjabi Bagh Convicted The convict Sunil is involved in another case bearing FIR No. 276/2011, under Sections 382/34 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Punjabi Bagh wherein he has been Convicted.
I may observe that in the recent past Delhi is experiencing a spurt and rise in the incidents of snatching, robbery, dacoity, murder and other kinds of crime. There has been a 43.6 percent increase in Delhi's crime graph in 2013 over 2012. A staggering 73,958 cases were registered under the Indian Penal Code in 2013 up from 51,479 in the previous year.
The deteriorating law and order problem of the City is a matter of serious concern and immediate steps are required to be taken at all levels for ensuring security and safety of the citizens. Instances of young persons getting involved in criminal activities of robbing innocent persons by putting them under threat of death, are also on rise. Criminals are unhesitatingly and indiscriminately using dangerous weapons on helpless victims who may or not offer any resistance thereby spreading terror in the society and adversely affecting social order and the faith of people in the system. These young offenders appear to be graduating in crime with every passing incident St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 242 throwing a challenge upon the Law Enforcement Agencies. The courts are required to find answers to the new challenges facing the society and to mould the sentencing system to meet these challenges. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again stressed upon the need for awarding the punishment for a crime which should not be irrelevant but should be conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and the brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence of the crime and responding to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. (Ref. Ravji Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1996 (II) SCC 175). Punishment ought to fit the crime and sometime it is desirability to keep the offender out of circulation.
The convicts are professional criminals operating in area who move around undeterred looking for vulnerable victims. Undue sympathy, under these circumstances, to impose inadequate sentence upon the convicts who are habitual and repeat offenders would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of this court to award a sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed.
After having considered the submissions made before me and the various aggravating and mitigating factors and particularly the fact that the convicts who are young boys belong to extremely poor families and the offence in question was committed in lure for easy money. The convict Rohit St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 243 Kumar @ Rahul has no previous background of crime and in so far as Rudermani @ Rukmani and Sunil are concerned the chances of their reformation cannot be ruled out and hence, I hold that the case in hand certainly does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare or least even in category of Rare Case and I, therefore, award the following sentences to the convicts:
Convict Rudermani @ Rukmani:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac). The entire fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac) if deposited by the convict shall be given to the family of the deceased Harkesh Meena as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months.
2. For the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
3. For the offence under Section 25 r/w 27 of Arms Act the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five (5) Years St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 244 and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
All the sentences shall run CONCURRENTLY.
Convict Rohit Kumar @ Rahul:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac). The entire fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac) if deposited by the convict shall be given to the family of the deceased Harkesh Meena as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months.
2. For the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Both the sentences shall run CONCURRENTLY.
Convict Sunil:
1. For the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code the convict is St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 245 sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac). The entire fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lac) if deposited by the convict shall be given to the family of the deceased Harkesh Meena as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. In default of payment of fine the convict shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months.
2. For the offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code the convict is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Ten (10) Years and fine to the tune of Rs.5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand). In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Both the sentences shall run CONCURRENTLY.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period undergone by them during the trial as per rules.
IT IS CLARIFIED THAT THE SENTENCE IN THE PRESENT FIR SHALL RUN CONSECUTIVELY TO THE SENTENCE AWARDED TO THE CONVICTS IN ANY OTHER CASE.
The convicts have been informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against the judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 246 Services Committee, 3437, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi.
One copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to all the convicts free of costs and one copy of order on sentence be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 3.9.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
St. Vs. Rudermani Etc., FIR No. 278/11, PS Adarsh Nagar Page No. 247