Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1) Vikram @ Lamba on 28 November, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No:182/18
FIR No. : 610/17
U/s : 302/120B/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
P.S. : Prashant Vihar
State Vs. : 1) Vikram @ Lamba
S/o Sh. Hari Prakash
R/o H.No.101, Pana Dallon VPO
Bawana, Delhi
2) Parveen Chahar
S/o Sh. Balwan Singh
r/o HB-136, Sarvab Park
Mundka, Delhi
3) Abdul Khan @ Abdul Jalil
S/o Sh. Nazir Khan
R/o D-234, Camp-2, Nangloi,
Delhi.
4) Naveen Dabas @ Bali
S/o Sh. Narender Dabas
R/o Vill. Sultan Pur Dabas,
Bawana, Delhi.
5) Raj Kumar @ Bomba
S/o Sh. Ranjveer Singh
r/o H.No. 304/14, Kanjhawala
Road, Bawana, Delhi
(Proclaimed Offender)
Offence complained of : 302/120B/34 IPC &|
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Abdul Khan Convicted
Vikram Lamba, Parveen
Chahar & Naveen Dabas @
Bali stands Acquitted.
Date of committal : 27.03.2018
Date of Judgment : 28.11.2018
State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 1 ::
JUDGMENT
1. On 13.11.2017 ASI Balram took under trial prisioner Vinod @ Ballu to court no. 107 on the first floor of Rohini Court Complex. Vinod @ Ballu was produced in case FIR No. 388/10, U/s 420 IPC, PS - South Rohini. When ASI Balram was returning to lockup after producing Vinod @ Ballu in the court and was getting down from the ramp someone fired at Vinod @ Ballu from behind. After sustaining injuries Vinod fell down. ASI Balram caught hold the hand of the assailant. HC Sanjay also reached there. Assailant was over powered alongwith country made pistol. The assailant disclosed his name as Abdul Khan. Vinod @ Ballu was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. FIR was registered. During the investigation it came on record that infact there was a conspiracy hatched, due to previous enmity, to kill Rajesh lodged in Bhondsi Jail. Rajesh was to be produced on 13.11.17 but due to non availabilty of staff he could not be produced and in his place, due to mistaken identity, Vinod @ Ballu was fired at. Abdul Khan disclosed the name of the co-conspirators. Other accused persons were arrested. One juvenile on whose pointing out Abdul Khan fired was also apprehended. The charge sheet against juvenile was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. Accused Raj Kumar @ Bomba could not be State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 2 ::
arrested and was declared PO. Charge sheet against Vikram @ Lamba, Praveen Chahar and Abdul Khan was filed. Supplementary charge sheet was filed against accused Naveen Dabas @ Bali. They were charaged for the offence punishable U/s 120B IPC. Abdul Khan was also charged for the offence punishable U/s 302 IPC R/W 120 B IPC and 25 & 27 Arms Act. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
2. HC Sanjay Kumar was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 13.11.2017 he was posted at Rohini Court Complex on security duty from 9 am to 5 pm near police post Rohini Court near the stair case on the ground floor. He was present near the ramp and managing public persons who were in the corridor of the court complex near police post Rohini. At about 11:15 am he heard a sound of cracker. He saw towards ramp on the ground floor. One police official was shouting jaldi aao - jaldi aao. He reached upto the said police official where one person was lying on the ground/ ramp. The said ASI was shouting isne goli chaladi and had already caught hold the assailant /person who had fired shot. The country made pistol was lying on the ramp and ASI Balram had put his foot on the same. ASI Balram asked him to pick up the country made pistol. Many police personal State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 3 ::
from the side of lockup and other police officials of police post Rohini reached there. Later on he came to know the name of assailant as Abdul Khan. ASI Balram told him that he is taking the injured to the hospital with staff. He along with other police official caught the accused Abdul Khan and took him to the police post Rohini Court Complex. Where SI Narender Incharge police post was present. Many senior police officials also reached there. The country made pistol with which Abdul Khan fired on the person who was in the custody of Balram was handed over to SI Narender. SI Narender opened the country made pistol and found one empty cartridge in it. Sketch of country made pistol and empty cartridge was prepared. Measurement was taken. The country made pistol and empty cartridge were wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/P1. He identified the accused. He also identified the country made pistol and empty cartridge as MO1.
3. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Naveen and Abdul Khan he stated that he does not remember the length of the country made pistol and of the empty cartridge. Shaktiman was found engraved on the bottom. Butt of country made pistol was made of wood. SI Narender used the seal of NK and after use kept the same State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 4 ::
with him. He does not know the name of the officials who were performing duty of court security on 13.11.2017. He was present at his point. He does not recollect if any CCTV Cameras were installed near police post Rohini. He admitted that when he first time saw the accused he was heavily intoxicated. He was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that ASI Balram was shouting "isne goli chala di jaldi aao jaldi aao." He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/D1 where it was not found mentioned that SI Narender opened the country made pistol and found empty cartridge. In his presence no chance prints were lifted by any expert or police official. He remained present in the police post Rohini after apprehending the accused and did not perform his duty at the said point. His statement was recorded at police post but he does not remember the time. In his presence IO did not record the statement of any other witness. He denied the suggestion that accused was under
the influence of liquor and was brought from Japnese park Rohini or falsely implicated in this case.
4. No question was put to the witness by the defence counsels of other accused persons.
5. Sh. Harish Tyagi SDM Karol Bagh was examined as PW-2. He deposed that in the year 2017 he was working as Supdt. Of Jail No.3 Tihar. Inspector Vikram Singh of PS:
State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 5 ::
Prashant Vihar served a notice u/s 91 Cr.PC for providing Mulakat /meeting record of Vinod @ Ballu S/o Sh. Banarsi. Sh. Anjani Kumar, Deputy Supdt. Central Jail No.3 Tihar attested the copies of mulakat register. He identified the signatures of Anjani Kumar with whom he worked during the course of his posting in Jail No.3 Tihar. He provided certified copies of the Mulakat slip dt.03.11.2017, copies of warrants and other documents of under trial prisoner Vinod @ Ballu S/o Sh. Banarsi vide covering letter Ex.PW2/P3.
6. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Vikram Lamba he admitted that these entries were not prepared in his presence and he does not have any personal knowledge in this regard. No question was put to the witness on behalf of other accused persons.
7. SI Vijay Singh was examined as PW-3. He deposed that on 14.11.2017 Inspector Vikram Singh prepared an application for constituting a medical board in Maulana Azad Medical College and handed over to him the documents. He went to Delhi Secretariat and handed over the application in the department of health and family welfare. The officials of the said department issued an order for constituting a Medical Board for conducting post mortem on the dead body. He handed over the said order to the IO. He received the copy of the order passed by Ld. MM and went to Maulana State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 6 ::
Azad Medical College where the Board was constituted. The dead body was shifted to the Maulana Azad Medical college. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
8. Ct. Maya Ram Khatana was examined as PW-4. He deposed that on 15.11.2017 he took the dead body of Vinod to the mortuary of Maulana Azad Medical College and deposited the same there. On 16.11.2017 the post mortem was conducted on the body. The dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo Ex.PW4/P4. After the post mortem the doctor handed over the exhibits and the sample seal to the IO who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW4/P5. They returned to the police station and deposited the exhibits in the malkhana.
9. Accused Abdul Khan was already in the custody of the police. He along with ASI Dharamvir IO and accused went in search of co-accused. Accused led them to the metro station Mundka. On the pointing out of the accused two persons were apprehended. They disclosed their names as Vikram @ Lamba and Parveen Chahar. Accused Vikram Lamba was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo ExPW4/P6. His personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW4/P7. Accused Parveen Chahar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/P8. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW4/P9. State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 7 ::
They returned to the police station. Accused Vikram @ Lamba made the disclosure statement Ex.PW4/P10. Accused Parveen Chahar made the disclosure statement Ex.PW4/P11. He identified all the three accused persons.
10. During cross-examination for accused Abdul Khan and Naveen he denied the suggestion that Abdul Khan did not point out Mundka Metro Station or that he did not point out co-accused Vikram and Parveen Chahar.
11. During cross-examination for accused Parveen Chahar he deposed that IO did not record his statement on 15.11.2017. He joined the investigation at about 5:30 or 6:00 pm on 16.11.2017. At about 7:00 pm they reached Mundka Metro Station. They were waiting on the road leading from Peera Garhi to Bahadur Garh. There were CCTV cameras at Mundka Metro Station but there is no CCTV camera outside the Mundka Metro Station on the road from Peera Garhi to Bahadurgarh. He does not remember if IO prepared any site plan of place of arrest of accused persons. Accused Parveen was on foot. His signature is not there on the personal search memo Ex.PW4/P9 and he deposed so after seeing the memo.
12. During cross-examination for accused Vikram Lamba he stated that they stayed at Mundka Metro station for about 2 - 2 ½ hours. No senior police official was informed by the State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 8 ::
IO during that period. No public witness was joined at the time of personal search and arrest of the accused persons. No photography or videography was done. He denied the suggestion that Vikram was not arrested in the manner and from the place as deposed by him.
13. Sh. Pawan Singh Nodal Officer Idea Cellular Ltd. Was examined as PW-5. He proved the record of mobile phone number 7065698587. As per the customer application form of this number it was issued in the name of Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Chander R/o H.No.44, Nahra, Tehsil Sonepat.
The copy of customer application form is proved as Ex.PW5/E12. The photocopy of the voter ID card attached with this customer application form is proved as Ex.PW5/P13. The call detail record of this mobile number from 01.11.17 to 15.11.17 is proved as Ex.PW5/P14. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW5/P15. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
14. Israr Babu Alternate Nodal Officer Vodafone was examined as PW-6. He proved the record of mobile phone No:8860828236. As per the customer application form Ex.PW6/P16 it was issued in the name of accused Vikram. The call detail record of this number from 01.11.2017 to 15.11.2017 is proved as Ex.PW6/P17. The certificate u/s 65B State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 9 ::
Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW6/P18. The cell ID chart of vodafone for Delhi NCR is proved as Ex.PW6/P19. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Vikram Lamba. No question was put to the witness on behalf of other accused persons.
15. Sh. Avinash Shrivastava Sr. Scientific Officer Ballistic was examined as PW-7. He examined the exhibits sent to him and proved his report as Ex.PW7/P20. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
16. Ct. Vicky was examined as PW-8. He deposed that on 02.02.2018 he received 14 exhibits duly sealed from MHC(M) for depositing the same at FSL vide road certificate No.28/21/18. He deposited the exhibits in FSL and obtained the acknowledgement. He returned to the police station and handed over the acknowledgement and copy of RC to the MHC(M). During the period exhibits remained in his possession no one tampered with the same.
17. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Vikram @ Lamba he stated that he does not know the time when he collected the exhibits for depositing in FSL. He does not know how many seal impressions were there on the parcels handed over to him. He cannot tell the name and designation of the person to whom he handed over the State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 10 ::
exhibits in FSL. No question was put to the witness on behalf of other accused persons.
18. HC Prahlad Singh was examined as PW-9. On 08.04.2017 he executed the process u/s 82 Cr.PC issued against Raj Kumar @ Bombha S/o Ranbir Singh R/o H.No.396, Ishwar Colony, Bawana. He recorded the statement of Smt. Rajwati and Sh. Attar Singh in this regard.
The process was pasted at the address and one copy was pasted outside the court. The publication also appeared in the newspaper which is Ex.PW9/P93. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
19. ASI Balram was examined as PW PW-10. He deposed that on 13.11.2017 he was posted in 3 rd Batallion DAP, Rohini Lockup. On that day one Vinod @ Ballu S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass was taken out from Rohini Lockup for producing in the court No.107 First Floor Rohini Court Complex in case FIR No. 388/10 PS: South Rohini u/s 420 IPC. Custody of Vinod was with him. He left the lockup with the remand warrant and the accused. He produced the accused in the court No.107 First floor. He left the court and moved towards the ground floor using the ramp. At about 11:15 am when he along with Vinod @ ballu were on the ramp near ground floor in front of police post Rohini Court Complex, suddenly one person came form the back side and State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 11 ::
fired on Vinod @ Ballu with country made pistol. Vinod @ Ballu fell down on the ground. He turned back and saw the person carrying country made pistol in his hand. He caught the said assailant. The country made pistol from his hand fell on the ground. He put his foot on the country made pistol and caught hold the assailant who fired on Vinod @ Ballu. He shouted for help. One police official approached them and he also helped him in catching hold of the assailant. Later on he came to know the name of the said official as HC Sanjay. He handed over the assailant to HC Sanjay. The pistol was also picked up and handed over to HC Sanjay. The assailant was taken to the police post Rohini Court Complex. He identified the accused Abdul Khan as the person who fired upon Vinod @ Ballu. Injured Vinod @ Ballu was taken to BSA hospital in the Govt. Vehicle where he was examined and declared brought dead. SI Narender recorded his statement Ex.PW10/P21.
20. SI Narender opened the pistol and found one empty cartridge. Sketch of the country made pistol and the cartridge was prepared. The country made pistol and the empty cartridge were wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/P1. He identified the empty cartridge and the country made pistol as Ex.MO1. He also correctly identified the accused. State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 12 ::
21. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Abdul Khan he was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that the pistol of the accused fell down on the ground and he put his foot on the same and handed over that pistol to HC Sanjay. He is not able to recollect what was found written on the country made pistol and the cartridge.
22. Accused Vinod @ Ballu was produced in the court of ld. MM Sh. Sushil Kumar. He does not know what proceedings were conducted in the court room No.107 where he produced Vinod. Neither he realized nor Vinod @ Ballu informed him that he is under threat to his life. He was catching hold of left hand of Ballu with his right hand. SI Narender did not call him in the investigation of this case. His statement was recorded on 13.11.2017 at about 2:15 pm in the police post. At the time when country made pistol was seized he along with IO/SI Narender, HC Sanjay and other police officials were present in the police post. He does not know to whom SI Narender handed over the seal after use. He does not remember if he handed over the remand document of Vinod @ Ballu to the IO. He cannot say if accused was under influence of any drug or liquor. He denied the suggestion that accused did not fire upon Vinod @ Ballu. No question was put to the witness on behalf of other State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 13 ::
accused persons.
23. ASI Dharambir was examined as PW-11. He deposed that on 16.11.2017 he joined the investigation of this case with Inspector Vikram Singh Chauhan and Ct. Maya Ram. He corroborated the testimony of PW-4 with respect to the arrest of accused Vikram @ Lamba and accused Parveen Chahar. He further deposed that on 17.11.2017 he along with SI Pukhraj, IO and the accused persons i.e. Abdul Khan, Vikram @ Lamba and Parveen Chahar went to Stadium Auchandi Bawana, Delhi. The accused persons pointed out one boy riding on a scooty. The boy was apprehended who disclosed his name as Himanshu @ Chela. He was found to be a juvenile. JW SI Pukhraj was called. Himanshu @ Chela was apprehended, the scooty was seized. Himanshu was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. All the accused were produced in the court and Vikram @ Lamba was taken on police custody remand.
24. Accused Vikram @ Lamba led them to his house No.101, Auchandi Road Bawana and pointed out one white colour Santro car No.DL 8C AF 8646. The car was seized vide memo Ex.PW11/P22. He identified the car in the photograph Ex.PW11/P23. The Santro car is Ex.MO2. He also identified all the three accused persons.
25. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 14 ::
accused Vikram @ Lamba he deposed that they all left the police station in a private vehicle on 16.11.17. They reached at Mundka metro station within 40 minutes. They remained at the metro station for about 1 hour or for 1½ hour. No public person was joined at the time of arrest, interrogation or at the time of recording of disclosure statement. However, efforts were made to join the public persons. No CCTV footage was collected by the IO form metro station Mundka. They were standing outside the Metro Station.
26. They left the police station for reaching Auchandi road, stadium Bawana in a private vehicle. They left police station at about 8:00 am on 17.11.2017 and reached there at about 9:00 am. Public person was not joined. They remained there for about 1½ hour.
27. He cannot tell the description and location of house of accused Vikram or as to how many rooms were there in that house. The photographs of place of recovery of Santro Car were not taken. No public person was joined. He denied the suggestion that all the writing work was fabricated while sitting in the police station or that no such car was recovered as deposed by him.
28. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Naveen and Abdul Khan he denied the suggestion that Abdul Khan had not pointed out any of the accused on 16.11.2017 State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 15 ::
and 17.11.2017.
29. During cross-examination for accused Parveen Chahar he deposed that on 16.11.2017 they were in uniform. Before leaving the police station IO informed him that they are going to Mundka. IO did not tell him the names of accused persons to be arrested. No site plan of the place of arrest was prepared. They remained at Mundka Metro Station for about 1½ hours. No pointing out memo was prepared when accused Abdul Khan pointed out the accused persons.
30. ASI Sheela Wati was examined as PW-12. On 13.11.2017 she was working as duty officer. She registered the FIR on the basis of the rukka brought by Ct. Anil. She proved the computer generated copy of FIR as Ex.PW12/P24. She proved her endorsement made on the rukka regarding registration of FIR as Ex.PW12/P25. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW12/P26. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel.
31. SI Aakash Deep was examined as PW-13. He deposed that on 13.11.2017 at 11:30 am an information was received from Control room. He along with his team comprising Ct. Arvind photographer, SI Manish finger print expert reached police post Rohini court. He found lot of blood State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 16 ::
lying in between lawyers chambers and Rohini Court complex. HC Arvind took the photographs of the scene of crime. On the spot one black colour hawai chappal was lying. He inspected the scene of crime and prepared the report Ex.PW13/P27. On the spot SI Narender Inspector Vikram Chauhan and senior police officials met him. They remained on the spot from 11:45 am to 1:45 pm.
32. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Naveen and Abdul Khan he stated that he did not take hand wash sample of the accused. Accused was not produced before him. He cannot tell if ASI Balram and Ct. Sanjay met him on the spot. No question was put to the witness on behalf of other accused persons.
33. HC Arvind was examined as PW-14. He was the photographer in the crime team which visited the spot. He clicked 23 photograph of scene of crime from different angles. He proved the photographs as Ex.PW14/P28 to P50. He proved the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW14/P51.
34. On 16.11.2017 at about 11:00 am he reached Maulana Azad Medical College along with HC Manoj Videographer and IO. In the mortuary of the college post mortem was conducted. He clicked 134 photographs. He proved the SD Card make Sandisk containing the State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 17 ::
photographs as Ex.PW14/MO3. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsels.
35. HC Manoj was examined as PW-15. He deposed that on 16.11.2017 he along with HC Arvind and IO went to Maulana Azad Medical College where the post mortem was conducted on the dead body. He conducted the videography and recorded the same on the SD card of the camera. He identified the SD card as Ex.MO4. No question was put to the witness on behalf of defence.
36. Ct. Anil was examined as PW-16. He deposed that on 13.11.2017 at about 11:15 am he along with SI Narender was present at police post Rohini Court. HC Sanjay brought one person in the police post along with one country made pistol and informed that the person brought by him had shot one under trial prisoner who was in the custody of ASI Balram at the ramp near the police post Rohini. That person revealed his name as Abdul Khan. SI Narender recorded the information given by HC Sanjay in DD No.16. Abdul Khan was given in the custody of HC Sanjay. He along with SI Narender and Ct. Kamal reached the spot. Information was also sent to the senior officers. Crime team and FSL team were called on the spot. On the ramp near the toilet there was huge quantity of blood and one black colour chappal State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 18 ::
having strips of blue and black colour and word Sultan found written was found. He was deputed on the scene of crime to guard the same. SI Narender along with Ct. Kamal left for BSA hospital. After some time SI Narender along with ASI Balram reached the spot. Crime team also reached the spot and inspected the scene of crime. Photographer took the photographs. FSL team lifted the exhibits from the scene of crime in four envelopes and handed over to SI Narender. SI Narender sealed the envelopes with the seal of NK and seized vide memo Ex.PW16/P52. The hand wash and controlled hand wash of accused Abdul Khan was taken in 5 polythene's by FSL team. The same were put in envelope and sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide memo Ex.PW16/P53. The chappal was wrapped in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide memo Ex.PW16/P54. The sketch of country made pistol and cartridge was prepared which is Ex.PW16/P55. The country made pistol and cartridge were wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of NK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/P1.
37. SI Narender recorded the statement of ASI Balram, prepared the rukka and handed over to him for registration of FIR at about 3:30 pm. He went to the police station Prashant Vihar, got the FIR registered. Duty officer handed over the State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 19 ::
original rukka and copy of FIR which he delivered to Inspector Vikram. The blood, blood stained concrete and plain concrete were lifted from the spot, ramp and the parking space put in different plastic containers marked A, A1, B, B1 and C, C1, those were sealed with the seal of VSC and seized vide memo Ex.PW16/P56. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW16/P57 and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW16/P58. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW16/P59. He identified the case property i.e. the pistol and the cartridge as Ex.MO1 and the chappal as Ex.MO5.
38. During cross-examination for accused Naveen and Abdul Khan he deposed that before registration of FIR, country made pistol, cartridge, four envelopes, five polythenes and chappal were seized by SI Narender. It was not mentioned in the seizure memo that chappal belongs to the accused or deceased. Seal after use was handed over to him. He returned to the spot at about 4:45 pm after registration of the case.
39. Inspector Vikram seized the exhibits from the spot after registration of FIR. He does not know if Inspector Vikram had done some other writing work with respect to the exhibits already seized by SI Narender. He does not remember what was disclosed by the accused as to from State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 20 ::
where he obtained the weapon. Accused was arrested at about 7:10 pm. He admitted that the Advocates, litigants and public persons were present near the scene of crime. IO requested them to join the investigation but they refused.
40. During cross-examination for accused Parveen the witness denied the suggestion that accused did not make any disclosure statement in his presence. No question was put to the witness on behalf of accused Vikram.
41. Dr. A. Arthy Sr. Resident Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College was examined as PW-17. He along with Dr. Monisha Pradhan, Dr. Sreenivas M. conducted the post mortem on the dead body on 16.11.17. The post mortem started at 11:30 am and concluded at 5:30 pm. They opined that the death in this case occurred as a result of exsaguination consequent upon penetrating trauma to the chest produced by ammunition of a fire arm which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
42. The fire arm ammunition wounds are ante mortem in nature, fresh in duration (prior to death). From the fragments of ammunition recovered, it appears to be a type of slug.
43. The track of the projectile is directed from back to front, downwards and from left to right.
44. The presence of entry wound on the back of the chest and the circumstantial evidence rules out the possibility of State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 21 ::
suicide and points to homicide.
45. After the post mortem examination the plastic jar containing the metallic fragment found outside the body.
Plastic jar containing the two metallic fragment and the plastic contraction found outside the body. Parcel containing the clothes of deceased for GSR analysis. Envelope containing the specimens collected for GSR analysis. Envelope containing a sample of dried blood on gauze, of the deceased. Plastic jars containing blood preserved for chemical analysis were sealed and handed over to the IO along with sample seal. He proved the post mortem report Ex.PW17/P60.
46. He had also seen the ballistic expert report Ex.PW17/P20 and also the biological and DNA finger printing report. After perusing the reports and considering the post mortem report Ex.PW17/P60 he stated that their opinion with respect to the cause of death remains the same as mentioned in the post mortem report. No question was put to the witness on behalf of defence counsels.
47. Dr. Satish Kumar Singh was examined as PW-18. He deposed that on 13.11.2017 at 12:07 pm Vinod, 31 years male was brought to the casualty by the police in a state of unresponsive and unconscious. Patient was examined and declared brought dead. He proved the MLC as State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 22 ::
Ex.PW18/P61. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
48. SI Narender was examined as PW-19. He corroborated the testimony of PW-16. He deposed that he recorded the information given by HC Sanjay vide DD No.16 Ex.PW19/P62. He recorded the statement of ASI Balram Ex.PW10/P21. He made endorsement Ex.PW19/P63 and handed over the rukka to Ct. Anil for registration of FIR. Ct. Anil came back on the spot after registration of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Vikram who conducted further investigation. He identified the case property i.e. the pistol and the cartridge as Ex.MO1 and the chappal as Ex.MO5.
49. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Parveen Chahar he denied the suggestion that Abdul Khan did not make any disclosure statement.
50. During cross-examination for accused Abdul Khan and Naveen he stated that he does not remember the names of all the persons on duty in the police post Rohini Court on 13.11.2017 and their respective duties. He remained Incharge of PP Rohini Courts complex from 21.11.16 to 13.11.17. He denied the suggestion that on all the entry points there were metal detectors. He denied the suggestion that all the entry gates were manned by Delhi Police officials. State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 23 ::
He deposed that on that day he did not receive the force from the District Line. He admitted that as per record public persons entry is allowed only form gate No.5. Ld. Counsel asked question:
Q. Do you receive any complaint on 13.11.17 that any person entered Rohin Court Complex from entry gate forcefully?
Ans. I was not having any staff deployed on the gates hence, I does not know if any such incident had taken place at any entry gate at Rohini Courts Complex.
51. On 13.11.17 he reached Rohini Court Complex at 9.15 am. He lodged the DD entry and also sent the message to control room that he had not received the staff from District Line on 13.11.17. IO never inquired from him about the DD entry and therefore he could not tell him in this regard. He admitted that on all the entry gates of Rohini Court Complex there are CCTV Cameras installed. He did not inspect the CCTV footage of 13.11.17 of the cameras installed at the entry gates as he was suspended on 13.11.17 itself. Only I.O. can tell if he inspected the CCTV footage of the cameras installed at the entry gates of Rohini Court Complex. He did not inquire about the educational qualification of accused Adbul Khan. The accused on inquiry told that he entered the Rohini Court Complex from the gate situated towards the State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 24 ::
chamber of the Advocates. He denied the suggestion that accused Abdul Khan was not apprehended from Rohini Court Complex or that he was apprehended from Japanese park or that he was under intoxication at that time. No question was put to the witness on behalf of accused Vikram Lamba.
52. HC Anil Kumar was examined as PW-20. He was working as MHC(M). He proved the entries in register No.19 as Ex.PW20/P64 to Ex.PW20/P70. He proved the entries in register No.21 as Ex.PW20/P71 and the acknowledgement of FSL has been proved as Ex.PW20/P72. He also deposed that during the period exhibits remained in his possession no one tampered with the same in any manner. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
53. Rajesh was examined as PW-21. He deposed that he was having rivalry with Neeraj Bawania. Since 2012 Neeraj Bawania was with Neetu Dabodia. Neetu Dabodia escaped from the police custody and he along with his associates killed Sonu Dada. Thereafter, Neetu Dabodia and Neeraj Bawania developed rivalry. Neetu Dabodia was killed in an encounter with the police. Neeraj Bawania got killed Rajesh Durmoot outside the Rohini Court Complex. Ashok Pradhan who was on parole killed Rajiv @ Kale in Jhajjar Court. Rajiv @ Kale is maternal uncle of Neeraj Bawania. Neeraj Bawania and his associates killed Paras and Bhola. There State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 25 ::
are criminal cases registered against him and Neeraj Bawania and his associates. They are still in rivalry with each other. On 13.11.2017 he was to be produced in Rohini Court Complex in court No.206 in case registered in Delhi in FIR No.209/11 P.S: S.P. Badli. Due to some reason he was not taken out from Bhondsi Jail for production in Rohini Court Complex on 13.11.2017. On the next day morning in Bhondsi Jail, he came to know from the newspaper that one person has been killed in his place. Police officails of PS: Prashant Vihar met him in Bhondsi Jail and recorded his statement. Witness has identified accused Naveen Dabas @ Bali and Vikram @ Lamba.
54. During cross-examination by the Ld. APP he denied the suggestion that accused Parveen Chahar is present in the court today or that he knew him or deliberately not identifying him.
55. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Abdul Khan, Naveen Dabas and Vikram @ Lamba he stated that he did not mention in his statement to the police that Neeraj Bawania got killed Rajesh Durmoot outside the Rohini Courts Complex. He did not mention the name of accused Naveen Dabas @ Bali and Vikram in his statement to the IO. He has named Vikram @ Lamba for the first time before the court. He knew accused Vikram because he is State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 26 ::
resident of village Bawana. He is in judicial custody since 2014. He has not given any complaint against accused Naveen Dabas @ Bali regarding threat to his life. His statement was recorded by the police in the present case after 2-3 months since the present incident. He himself had not lodged any complaint before any police official when he came to know about the present incident. He denied the suggestion that accused Naveen Dabas and Vikram has no concerned with the present incident or that has no concern with Neeraj. No question was put to the witness on behalf of accused Parveen Chahar.
56. Sh. Gaurav Sharma Addl. DCP Rohini District, New Delhi was examined as PW-22. He proved the sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution of accused Abdul Khan @ Abdul Jalil for offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act as Ex.PW22/P73. Nothing material came on record during the cross-examination by the Ld. Counsels to discredit the witness.
57. Sh. Vikram Ld. MM was examined as PW-23. On 09.04.2018 he conducted the inquest proceedings arising out of death of Under Trial Prisoner Vinod @ Ballu. He observed that under trial prisoner Vinod @ Ballu was murdered by shooting at point blank range from behind while he was being taken to lock up in custody of ASI Balram on 13.11.2017.
State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 27 ::
After conducting the proceedings he forwarded the same to Ld. CMM for further action. He proved the entire inquest proceedings as Ex.PW23/P74 and the order dt. 09.04.2018 vide which the proceedings were concluded is proved as Ex.PW23/P75. No question was put to the witness by the Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons.
58. Sh. Jai Kishan Chhillar Supdt. Bhondsi Jail Haryana was examined as PW-24. He proved the record pertaining to under trial prisoner Rajesh @ Bawania S/o Sh. Anoop Singh.
Rajesh @ Karambir @ Bawania S/o Sh. Anoop Singh was to be produced in the court of Sh. Ramesh Kumar-1, Ld. ASJ/Rohini Courts in case FIR No:209/11 u/s 302/201/34 IPC, PS: S.P. Badli as per the production warrant on 13.11.17. Due to non availability of police escort guard from police line, Gurugram, UTI Rajesh @ Karambir @ Bawania could not be produced in the Rohini Court on 13.11.17. The desired documents and information was provided to SHO PS: Prashant Vihar vide reference No.518 dt. 05.01.18 Ex.PW24/P76. The copy of the production warrant issued by the court of Sh. Ramesh Kumar -1 is proved as Ex.PW24/P77. The request for police escort required for 13.11.17 is proved as Ex.PW24/P78. The copy of Adalat Peshi register from 23.10.17 to 20.11.2017 is proved as Ex.PW24/P79 wherein it is mentioned that "Gard nahi aayi"
State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 28 ::
for producing UTI Rajesh Bawania, Rohini Court on 13.11.2017. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
59. Ct. Naveen was examined as PW-25. He prepared the scaled site plan at the instance of Inspector Vikram and proved the same as Ex.PW25/P80. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during the cross-
examination by the Ld. Defence counsels.
60. Inspector Vikram Singh was examined as PW-26. He deposed that on 13.11.2017 he was posted as ATO in PS:
Prashant Vihar. On receipt of information that firing has taken place in Rohini Court Complex near Police post, he along with staff reached there. He came to know that HC Sanjay had brought one person in the chowki with one country made pistol. HC Sanjay informed that, that person had shot one under trial prisoner who was in the custody of ASI Balram. The assailant revealed his name as Abdul Khan. Crime team and FSL team were called at the spot. He corroborated the testimony of PW-16 regarding the lifting of exhibits from the spot and seizure of the same. The FIR was got registered and Ct. Anil handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He prepared site plan Ex.PW26/P81. He lifted the exhibits from the spot and seized the same. He corroborated the testimony of PW-16 in this regard.
State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 29 ::
61. On 14.11.2017 accused Abdul Khan was produced before the court and his police custody remand was taken. He also moved application before the Ld. CMM for conducting the proceedings u/s 176 Cr.PC. Ld.MM Sh. Vikram conducted the proceedings. On 14.11.2017 SI Vijay was sent to Delhi Govt. Ministry requesting to constitute the Medical Board for conducting post mortem.
62. On 15.11.2017 accused was taken out of the lockup and he led them to different places to trace out the conspirators but no clue was found. The dead body was shifted from Dr. BSA Hospital to Maulana Azad Medical College for post mortem.
63. On 16.11.2017 he along with Ct. Maya Ram, photographer and videographer went to Maulana Azad Medical College. He prepared inquest papers Ex.PW26/P82 the dead body was identified by Smt. Darshna and Sh. Kamal vide their statements Ex.PW26/P83 and Ex.PW26/P84. He moved application Ex.PW26/P85 for post mortem. Post mortem was conducted on the body. After the post mortem dead body was handed over to the relatives vide memo Ex.PW4/P4. After post mortem the doctor handed over the sealed exhibits along with sample seal to him which he seized vide memo Ex.PW4/P5.
64. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-4 with State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 30 ::
respect to the arrest of accused Vikram Lamba and Parveen Chahar and the disclosure statements made by them. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-11 with respect to the arrest of the Juvenile Himanshu and the seizure of the Santro car DL 8CAF 8646.
65. On 15.12.2107 he served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC on the Supdt. Jail regarding the persons who met the deceased under trial prisoner Vinod. He also served notice on the Nodal officers of the service providers of the mobile services. He received the reply of Jail Supdt. Tihar and also collected the customer application forms and the CDR's of the mobile phones of accused persons. He prepared the charge sheet and sent the same to the court. He also sent the exhibits to FSL through Ct. Vicky.
66. On 24.02.1018 he moved application Ex.PW26/P87 for issuing production warrants of accused Naveen @ Bali. On 26.02.2018 accused Naveen @ Bali was produced in the court. He arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW26/P88. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW26/P89. He identified all the accused persons. He also recorded the statements of Kishan Dabas, Sunny and Rajesh @ Karambir from Bhondsi Jail. He obtained the jail record of Rajesh @ Karambir. He collected the FSL results Ex.PW26/P70 & Ex.PW7/P20. He obtained the sanction for prosecution u/s State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 31 ::
39 Arms Act with respect to accused Abdul Khan Ex.PW22/P73.
67. On 15.09.2017 Ct. Naveen visited the scene of crime and prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW25/P80. He prepared the supplementary charge sheet and filed the same. He also filed the supplementary charge sheet having the evidence with respect to the conspiracy hatched. He also identified the Santro car as Ex.MO2.
68. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for Abdul Khan and Naveen, he stated that he checked as to who were on duty at the entry gates of Rohini Court Complex on the date of incident. There was no police official on the gate from which accused Abdul Khan entered the court complex. He admitted that some police officials in civil dress remain present in the court complex and keep watch on the activities of the accused persons. He did not make any enquiry from any police official who was in civil dress on duty to keep wathch on the activities of the persons as to whether they had noticed Abdul Khan on the day of incident. The CCTV cameras installed at the entrance meant for lawyers situated near the Chamber block was not functional on the day of incident. He did not find any complaint made by Rajesh to Jail Authority at Bhondsi Jail that he is having threat to his life. He denied the suggestion that Abdul Khan was not State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 32 ::
apprehended at the spot or that he was apprehended from Japanese park. He denied the suggestion that accused Abdul and Naveen did not make any disclosure statement.
69. During cross-examination for accused Parveen Chahar he stated that he came to know on 14.11.2017 that one person named Parveen is involved in this crime from the disclosure of Abdul Khan. He does not come to know about the residence of Parveen from the disclosure. He admitted that there was no other evidence against accused Parveen except disclosure statement dt. 16.11.2017. He admitted that nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Parveen Chahar.
70. Druing cross-examination for accused Vikram he admitted that no public person was joined at the time of arrest and recording disclosure. No photography or videography was conducted at the time of seizure of Santro car. He admitted that nothing incriminating article was recovered from the possession of accused Vikram at the time of his arrest. He denied the suggestion that Vikram did not make any disclosure statement.
71. Sunny was examined as PW-27. He is running a shop in the name and style of Sunrising Sports at H.No.22, Auchandi Bawana. He sells clothes and shoes. He does not know any person by the name of Vikram @ Lamba. Earlier State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 33 ::
he had employed Rohit to work on his shop. Whenever Rohit used to be on duty he never used to go to his shop. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police. He did not support the prosecution case even during cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW27/P91. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
72. Krishan Dabas was examined as PW-28. He deposed that he is owner of shop No.3 in front of Maharshi Balmiki Hospital, Pooth Khurd being run under the name of Sh. Krishnan Medical store. Customers used to purchase medicines from his shop. He does not know any person by the name of Vikram @ Lamba. He cannot tell the name of the customer who used to purchase medicines from his shop.
73. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police that he does not support the prosecution case he was confronted with his statement Ex.PW28/P92. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
74. Kamal Singh Nagar was examined as PW-29. He deposed that on 14.11.2017 he along with his relative Darshana went to the mortuary. He identified the dead body State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 34 ::
of Vinod vide memo Ex.PW26/P84. After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to them. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
75. HC Nitesh was examined as PW-30. He has brought the record of FIR No.375/14 and 410/12 and proved the copies of the same as Ex.PW30/P94 and Ex.PW30/P95 respectively. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross-examination.
76. HC Vinay Kumar was examined as PW-31. He brought the record pertaining to FIR No.221/17 PS: Prashant Vihar registered on 29.04.2017 u/s 302 r/w 34 of IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. He proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW30/P96.
77. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel he stated that he does not know the contents of the FIR. He also does not know if Rajesh s/o Anoop is complainant or witness in this FIR.
78. HC Yogesh Kumar was examined as PW-32. He brought the record pertaining to FIR No.168/15 PS: Mangol Puri registered on 25.08.2015 u/s 302/120/34 IPC. He proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW32/P97.
79. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel he stated that he does not know the contents of the FIR. He also does not know if Rajesh S/o Sh. Anoop is complainant State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 35 ::
or witness in this FIR.
80. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC wherein they denied the entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. They did not wish to lead evidence in defence except accused Vikram Lamba. Therefore, the case was fixed for defence evidence.
81. Sh. Hari Parkash S/o Late Sh. Surajmal father of accused Vikram lamba appeared in the witness box as DW1. He deposed that on 15.11.2017 at about 09:15 pm two police officials came to his home and took his son Vikram @ Lamba with them for the purpose of inquiry. SI Baljeet and one more police official assured him that he would be released. He proved the photographs of both the police officials who took his son with them as Ex.DW1/1, DW1/2 and Ex.DW1/3.
82. On 18.11.2017 at 12:20:57 hours the Santro Car bearing No. DL 43AF 8640 was taken by the police from his residence. His son Vikram @ Lamba does not know how to drive a car. His son is not having any driving licence. The photographs of 18.11.2017 is Ex.DW1/D-4. He met Inspector Ajay to know about his son and he was told that police is making inquiries from his son. He was not allowed to meet ACP.
83. During cross-examination by Ld. APP he stated that State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 36 ::
he had not made any complaint in writing to any authority or police about the incident dt. 15.11.17 and 18.11.17. He denied the suggestion that the photographs are manipulated in anticipation of apprehension of his son. He denied the suggestion that his son was caught on 16.11.17 at 8:30 pm near Mundka Metro Station by Inspector Vikram Singh. He denied the suggestion that Santro car was taken in possession on 17.11.17. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being interested witness and father of Vikram @ Lamba. Thereafter, the defence evidence was closed. The case was fixed for final arguments.
84. I have heard Ld. APP for the State, Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons and perused the record.
85. Ld. APP for the State submitted that the present case is based upon eye witness account with respect to the murder of Vinod @ Ballu and circumstantial evidence for establishing the conspiracy hatched in pursuance to which Vinod @ Ballu was murdered.
86. Ld. APP submitted that on 13.11.2017 ASI Balram PW-10 took Vinod @ Ballu to court Room No.107, First Floor, Rohini Court Complex in case FIR No.388/10 PS:
South Rohini. When ASI Balram was coming back after producing Vinod @ Ballu in the court and reached near ground floor on the ramp at about 11:15 am one person fired State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 37 ::
on the back of Vinod @ Ballu. Vinod @ Ballu fell down. ASI Balram when turned around he saw the accused standing with country made pistol in his hand. He over powered the accused. The pistol from the hand of accused fell down, on which he put his foot. HC Sanday PW-1 came there to assist him and took the accused to the police post Rohini Court Complex along with the country made pistol. ASI Balram has correctly identified the accused as the person whom he had seen standing behind Vinod with country made pistol in his hand, when PW-10 turn around. He also identified the country made pistol. When the country made pistol was checked one empty cartridge was found in it. Ld. APP submitted that this fact clearly shows that country made pistol was fired and there was empty cartridge in it. The sketch of the country made pistol and the empty cartridge has been proved on record as Ex.PW16/P-55. It was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/P1. Ld. APP submitted that firing was done from back side is also evident from the post mortem report Ex.PW17/P60 which shows that the track of the projectile within the body is from back to front downwards and from left to right. This also shows that the assailant was on the ramp and that is why it was going downward as the assailant was standing on the high than the deceased. Ld. APP submitted that there is no other eye witness of the State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 38 ::
incident. The only eye witness PW-10 has fully supported the prosecution case. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-10. Sanjay Kumar PW-1 corroborates the testimony of PW-10 when he stated that at about 11:15 am he heard the sound of cracker, he saw in the direction and found one police official shouting "Jaldi Aao - Jaldi Aao" that police officials was ASI Balram who was catching hold of the assailant who had fired shot and country made pistol was lying on the ramp on which ASI Balram has put his foot. The accused was apprehended on the spot. The pistol has been recovered from his possession. The medical evidence also supports the testimony of PW-10. The witness has stood through the test of cross-examination. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-10. Ld. APP submitted that by examining PW-10 prosecution has discharged its onus and proved that it was accused who fired upon deceased Vinod @ Ballu resulting into his death. Ld. APP submitted that as the witness is reliable and trust worthy and therefore the accused be held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC as well as under section 25 Arms Act.
87. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that according to the prosecution case the incident has taken place in Rohini Court Complex. There were many public persons, police officials State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 39 ::
and Advocates but no independent witness has been examined. Only one police official PW-10 ASI Balram has been examined. According to ASI Balram he produced Vinod @ Ballu in the court and thereafter was taking him back but that warrant or copy of that warrant has not been placed on record to show that he was produced in the court. Infact even the court order of that date, that he was produced in the court has also not been produced which creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of story of prosecution. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact some other persons committed this offence but accused was later on apprehended from Japnese Park who was under intoxication and falsely implicated in the present case to solve the case.
88. Ld. Counsel submitted that infact all the entry gates of Rohini are manned and there was no possibility of any person entering complex with an arm. Ld. Counsel submitted that it was some conspiracy in pursuance to which police had allowed some persons to sneak in with arm and committed the offence. No CCTV footage has been placed on record to show that from which gate the accused entered. Ld. Counsel submitted that admittedly CCTV cameras are installed in the court complex. Ld. Counsel submitted that CCTV footage has been deliberately with held by the investigating agencies as that would have shown the truth that the accused has not State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 40 ::
infact entered the complex at all, and therefore he could not have been implicated in this case.
89. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view the fact that no public witness has been joined, the CCTV footage has not been placed on record, the benefit be given to the accused. Ld. Counsel further submitted that even otherwise in this case the case property was sent to FSL. The ballistic expert report has been placed on record as Ex.P-98 to find out the fire arm discharge residue. But the expert opined that no opinion can be given due to insufficient data. Ld. Counsel submitted that this report clearly shows that fire arm discharged residue could not be detected on the hand of the accused which shows that he had not used the fire arm. There is also no report to show that fire arm was fired or that metallic fragments found during post mortem were fired through country made pistol MO1. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view all these facts onus which was on prosecution has not been discharged the benefit of the same be given to the accused and he be acquitted.
90. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that the murder has taken place in the Rohini Court Complex when Under Trial Prisoner Vinod @ Ballu was being taken back by PW-10 towards lockup. Vinod @ Ballu was fired from backside. ASI Balram immediately State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 41 ::
turned back and saw the accused standing with pistol in his hand. The accused was apprehended by PW-10. The country made pistol fell from the hand of accused on which ASI Balram put his foot. HC Sanjay PW-1 reached there. ASI Balram handed over the custody of accused who lateron disclosed his name as Abdul Khan to HC Sanjay along with the country made pistol. From the testimony of ASI Balram it is clear that the shot was fired from the backside therefore, ASI Balram had not seen accused actually firing on deceased but when he turned around he saw the accused standing there with the country made pistol in his hand. There is no such cross-examination or evidence on record that some other person was seen fleeing from there. The fact that shot was fired from behind is corroborated by the post mortem report Ex.PW17/P60 and there is no cross- examination of the doctor who conducted the post mortem. PW-10 has stood to the test of cross-examination. There is nothing on record that he has any reason to depose falsely against the accused.
91. No doubt the incident has taken place in the court complex where there were many public persons and advocates but none came forward to depose. So far as the argument regarding non placing of record of warrant of deceased I found that certified copy of warrant of deceased State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 42 ::
has been placed on record and is part of documents collectively proved as PW2/P2. This warrants clearly shows that accused was produced before the court on 13.11.17 and the next date was given as 30.11.17 with rehnumai 27.11.17. Keeping in view this fact I do not find any merit in this contention.
92. The only eye witness i.e. PW10 has fully supported and corroborated the story. The statement of eye witness finds corroboration from the medical evidence i.e. PW17/P60. So far as the security is concerned. SI Narender PW-19 specifically stated that on that day he did not receive the force from the district line and therefore, the staff could not be deployed on all the entry gates. Keeping in view this statement of PW-19 it is clear that on that day all the entry gates were not properly manned by the police for the purpose of security. Keeping in view the above discussion, the testimony of PW-10 finding support from statement of PW-1 and finding corroboration from the post mortem report Ex.PW17/P60 in my opinion the onus which was on prosecution has been fully discharged. Therefore, accused Abdul Khan is held guilty and convicted u/s 302 IPC. He was also found in possession of country made pistol MO1 in which one empty cartridge was found as deposed by PW-1, PW-10 and was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/P1. Keeping in State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 43 ::
view their testimony it is clear that accused was found in possession of country made pistol which he used in commission of offence. The sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution u/s 25 Arms Act has been proved as Ex.PW22/P73. Therefore, he is also held guilty and convicted u/s 25 Arms Act.
93. So far as the conspiracy is concerned, it is known fact that conspiracies are hatched in secrecy and it is very difficult to have direct evidence of conspiracy. However, there has to be some evidence to draw an inference of conspiracy showing that they have a meeting of mind and an agreement to commit the offence. The onus was heavy upon the prosecution to prove the same. Prosecution examined Sunny as PW27, Krishan Dabas as PW28 to prove the existence of conspiracy. They both did not support the prosecution case. The story of the prosecution is that they wanted to kill Rajesh examined as PW21. The record has been produced according to which he was to be produced on 13.11.17 in Rohini Courts Complex but could not be produced for want of staff. PW21 has not identified Praveen Chahar. He was cross examined by Ld. APP but still he was not able to identify Praveen Chahar. During the cross examination by the Ld. defence counsel he was confronted with his statement where name of Naveen @ Bali and State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 44 ::
Vikram @ Lamba are not mentioned. He stated that he named accused Vinod @ Lamba for first time before the court. He knew Vikram @ Lamba being resident of his village Bawana. From his evidence it is clear that Rajesh himself has not stated anything against accused persons.
94. There is also no evidence on record to show that Naveen @ Bali was having any knowledge or for that reason any other accused had the knowledge that Rajesh was to be produced in the court on 13.11.17.
95. For proving conspiracy onus was on the prosecution to prove and establish that the other accused or anyone of the other accused had met Naveen @ Bali in Jail. Record of the meeting of Naveen @ Bali has been produced in court but there is no such evidence that Vikram @ Lamba or Praveen Chaha or Abdul Khan met Naveen Dabas @ Bali in the jail. There is also no evidence that anyone of them was in jail with Naveen Dabas @ Bali. PW21 also does not say that he had any animosity with any of the accused. There is no call detail record showing that they were in touch with each other. The only evidence is the disclosure statement of the co accused which is not admissible under law. There is no record of any incriminating evidence from any of the accused.
96. Prosecution has seized one Santro Car bearing No. State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 45 ::
DL 8C AF 8646 Ex. MO2 at the instance of VIkram @ Lamba. According to the prosecution case accused Vikram @ Lamba dropped accused Abdul at Rohini Court Complex in this car. There is no such evidence either oral or in the form of CCTV footage that this car was seen near Rohini Court complex on 13.11.17. The onus was upon the prosecution to prove this fact which the prosecution has failed. Keeping in view all these facts and the above discussion in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove the conspiracy allegedly hatched between the accused persons.
97. Keeping in view the above discussion accused Abdul Khan is held guilty and convicted U/s 302 IPC and U/s 25 Arms Act. So far as other accused persons i.e. Vikram Lamba, Parveen Chahar and Naveen Dabas @ Bali are concerned they are acquitted of the charge. They be released on furnishing Personal Bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each of like amount u/s 437A Cr.PC for the period of six months.Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2018.11.28 Announced in the open court BANSAL 14:19:31 +0530 today on 28.11.2018 (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ASJ/Pilot Court/North District Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Vikram Lamba SC No. 182/18 FIR No.610/17 :: 46 ::