Delhi District Court
State vs Naveen on 10 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON:ADJ-04:
SW DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
SC No. 440367/16
CNR No. DLSW01-000022-2016
State Vs. (1) Naveen @ Pahalwan
S/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam
R/o H. No. 421, Villag Mitraon,
Najafgarh, Delhi.
(2) Naresh @ Neshi
S/o Late Sh. Mahender Singh
R/o H. No. 549, VPO Mitraon,
New Delhi.
(3) Arvind @ Bindu
S/o Late Sh. Virender Singh,
R/o H. No. 319, VPO Mitraon,
New Delhi.
(4) Vikas @ Medium
S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan,
R/o H.No. RZ-45-C,
New Gopal Nagar,
Dhansa Road, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
(5) Sombir @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar
R/o E-7, Gali no.18,
Vipin Garden, Dwarka,
Delhi.
(6) Narender @ Leelu
S/o Sh. Nain Singh Yadav
R/o H.no. D-39, Shyam Vihar,
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 1 of 94
Phase-I, Najafgarh,
New Delhi.
FIR No. : 412/2010
Police Station : Najafgarh
Under Sections : 302/120B/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 16.05.2011
Date on which judgment was reserved : 18.12.2024
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 10.01.2025
Final order : All accused persons are
acquitted for the offences
u/s 302/120B/34 IPC
&
Accused Naveen@Pahalwan
acquitted for the offence
u/s 25/27/54/59 of the Arms
Act
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case:
1. On the intervening night of 12/13.09.2010, upon receipt of DD entry 43A, SI Ram Niwas, along with other police officers, arrived at Valmiki Chowk near Mitraon Village, where bloodstains were found at the scene. A spade, a baseball bat, and a pair of slippers were also found lying at the spot. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that the injured person had already been taken to RTRM Hospital. Subsequently, SHO Inspector Anand Sagar and Inspector R.R. Khatana also arrived at the scene along with additional police personnel. Later, they proceeded to RTRM Hospital with other members of the police staff. The crime team, along with a government photographer, was called to the scene. At the hospital, Gopal Gahlot @ Pale was found along with his friends Sunil and Sudhir. At the hospital itself, the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 2 of 94 statement of Gopal Gahlot was recorded.
2. In his statement, complainant / eye-witness Sh. Gopal Gahlot stated that on 12.9.2010 at about 07:15 p.m or 07:30 p.m., he was sitting at Dhimani Pond in village Mitrao along with his friend, Pradeep. He further stated that Pradeep gave a call to Naveen, who also resided in the same village, and asked him where he was. Naveen responded that he was at Bharthal, Delhi and mentioned that he was with someone though the name of the person with Naveen could not be heard by him. Pradeep told him to let him talk to that person and Naveen handed over the phone.After about 15-20 minutes later, Naveen again called Pradeep, asking him why Pradeep had inquired about him from the person with Naveen. This led to a verbal altercation between Naveen and Pradeep over the phone, during which they began to abuse each other. After that, Gopal intervened and disconnected the call. Thereafter, he and Pradeep went to Pradeep's house where, Pradeep called his associates, Sudhir and Sunil from Village Mundela, whom Gopal knew through Pradeep. Both of them arrived to Pradeep's house after about half an hour, and they discussed how to resolve the dispute between Pradeep and Naveen. Afterwards, Gopal and Pradeep went to drop Sudhir and Sunil at their Village. Before entering Village Mundela, Pradeep received another phone call from Naveen , who expressed a desire to meet and end the quarrel. Naveen asked Pradeep to meet him at Balmiki Crossing in Village Mitrao. Gopal along with Pradeep, Sunil and Sudhir reached Balmiki Crossing, where they met Naveen, who was accompanied by Naresh, Arvind, and another person, whose name Gopal could not recall at that time. Additionally, three other unknown persons were present with SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 3 of 94 Naveen. Gopal stated that they began talking, and Pradeep asked Naveen why he was abusing him over the phone and shortly after, another verbal altercation started and a fight ensued. Naresh was carrying a baseball bat in his hand, with which he hit Pradeep on the back of his head. As a result, Pradeep knelt forward and held by Arvind and Medium (one of the persons present at the spot) along with Naveen. Naveen then took out a Desi revolver (Katta) and shot Pradeep and the bullet hit Pradeep on his neck and Pradeep fell down. Gopal stated that he, Sudhir and Sunil were standing two paces away from Pradeep and they came forward and lifted Pradeep and took him to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, where he was declared dead by the doctor. The police subsequently arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of Gopal. Based on his statement, an FIR in the present case was registered. After registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was handed over to Inspector Raghuraj Khatana. During the investigation, on 24.01.2011, DD No. 26A was recorded by AEC Crime Branch wherein it was stated that accused Naveen @ Pahalwan, Arvind @ Bindu, Vikas @ Medium and accused Naresh @ Neshi were arrested in FIR No. 207/2010, PS Chhawla, under Section 302 IPC wherein above said accused persons disclosed their involvement in the present case and accordingly, on 31.01.2011, all the four above said accused persons were formally arrested in the present case and their disclosure statement was recorded in the present case, who also disclosed about the involvement of the other accused persons namely Sombir, Narender @ Leelu, Pradeep @ Dahiya.
3. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against accused Naveen, Naresh @ Nishi, Arvind @ Bindu, Vikas @ Medium was filed SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 4 of 94 before the court for the offences under Section 302/120B/34 IPC & Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. After compliance with Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C'), the case was committed to the Sessions Court. It is also on record that proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C were initiated against the accused persons namely Sombir @ Sonu & Narender @ Leelu as well as Manish @ Ganja and on 22.09.2011, accused Sombir@Sonu, Manish@Ganja and Narender were declared PO by the Court of Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka (the then Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Subsequently, another accused, Manish @ Ganja, the brother of accused Naveen, was arrested, and a supplementary charge sheet against him was filed on 28.10.2011. It is also on record that the accused Sombir was later arrested, and a charge sheet against him was filed on 28.08.2017.
Similarly, the co-accused Narender was also arrested, and a charge sheet against him was filed on 31.08.2018. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that during the trial, accused Manish @ Ganja was discharged from the present case.
4. After hearing arguments, charges were framed on 30.05.2011 against four accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC & under Section 120B IPC. A separate charge was framed against accused Naveen for the offences punishable under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. All accused persons pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial, accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 5 of 94 to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused persons. It is a matter of record that on 25.07.2017, accused Sombir who had been declared PO in the present matter, was arrested after approximately 07 years. After hearing arguments, a separate charge was framed against accused Sombir on 11.10.2017 for offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC & 120B IPC, to which he pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. Accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. On 11.10.2017, Court noted that the accused Somvir, had previously absconded and therefore, declared a Proclaimed Offender (PO) and during the said period of absconding, charges were already framed against the co- accused, and most of the prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The Ld. counsel for the accused requested that material witnesses, who had already examined namely Sunil Kumar, Sudhir and Gopal Gahlot, be re- called for their evidence, due to the recent arrest of the accused Somvir. However, Ld. counsel for other accused persons objected, stating that since most of the prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the accused had already been in judicial custody for the past seven years, re- examining these witnesses for the trial of Somvir would take long time, and requested that a denovo trial of accused Somvir be separated from the other co-accused persons. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State opposed this request. Upon consideration, the Court concluded that the trial of the accused Sombir could not be separated from that of the other accused persons and the request for a separate trial was declined, and the supplementary charge sheet was ordered to be tagged with the main case file. All previously examined witnesses were summoned again for re-examination.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 6 of 947. During the denovo trial of accused Sombir, the prosecution examined PW-1 and partly examined PW-6 Sh. Gopal and PW-9 Sh. Sudhir to substantiate the charges against the accused persons. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 28.08.2018, an information was received that the accused Narender@Neelu, who had been declared a Proclaimed Offender in the present matter, had been arrested. Consequently, the matter was listed for arguments on the framing of charges against Narender @ Neelu. After hearing arguments, a separate charge was framed against him on 05.10.2018 for offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial, and the case was accordingly fixed for prosecution evidence.
8. PW-1 is HC Giriraj Prasad, No 2642, PS Naraina. He is the Duty Officer and has proved the FIR as Ex. PW-1/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW-1/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-1 is ASI Giriraj Prasad, No 10931 DAP, Second Battalion NPL Delhi. PS Naraina (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir). He is the Duty Officer and has proved the FIR as already Ex. PW-1/A and endorsement on the rukka as already Ex. PW-1/B. He deposed that as per the instructions of senior officers, the investigation of the case was marked to Inspector R.R. Khatana. This witness was cross- examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Somvir.
PW-1 is ASI Giriraj Prasad, No 1598/ND, PS North Avenue (This SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 7 of 94 witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Narender @ Leelu). He is the Duty Officer and has proved the FIR as already Ex. PW-1/A and endorsement on the rukka as already Ex. PW-1/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu.
9. PW-2 is SI Deepak Kumar, No. D-3624, I/C PP, Dwarka Court. He deposed that on 12.9.2010, he was posted as I/C Crime Team S/W District and on that day at about 11.55 pm, he received a call from control room and was asked to reach at Village Mitrau, Tiraha of Surera Village. He further deposed that on receiving the said information, he along with HC Satpal (photographer), Constable Devender (Finger Print Expert) reached at the spot at 01:10 pm where SHO PS Najafgarh, Inspector R.R. Khatana, SI Ram Niwas and other police officials were already present. He further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and HC Satpal took some photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles, however, no chance print was found at the spot. He further deposed that he prepared the report and handed over the same to SI Ram Niwas as Ex. PW2/A. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-2 is Inspector Deepak Kumar, No. D-1/48, SHO Roop Nagar, New Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 12.09.2010, he was posted as Incharge Crime Team, South-West District and on that day at about 11:55 p.m, he received a call from control room SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 8 of 94 and was asked to reach at village Mitrau, Tiraha of Surera village. He further deposed that on receiving the said information, he along with HC Satpal (photographer), Ct. Devender (Finger Print Expert) reached at the spot at 1:10 p.m where Inspector Anand Sagar, SHO PS Najafgarh, Inspector R.R. Khatana, Addl. SHO PS Najafgarh, SI Ram Niwas and other police officials were already present there. He further deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence and HC Satpal took photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles, however, no chance print was found at the spot. He further deposed that he prepared his report and handed over the same to SI Ram Niwas, which is already Ex. PW2/A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu. Ld. counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu adopted the same cross- examination as led by the Ld. counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu.
10. PW-3 is HC Satpal, No.1111, S/W Crime Team, Sector-9, Dwarka. He deposed that on 13.9.2010, he was posted with Crime Team S/W as IIC and was working as a photographer and on the intervening night of 12/13.9.2010, at about 11:55 p.m, he along with IC crime team SI Deepak, Finger Print Expert Constable Devender left the office for the spot and at about 01:10 a.m, they reached the spot i.e. Balmiki Chowk, Mitrau Village where SHO, Addl. SHO PS Najafgarh, ACP, SI Ram Niwas met them. He further deposed that Sub-Inspector Deepak inspected the spot and he took ten photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles at the instructions of SI Deepak and he brought the negatives of the same. The positives photographs are Ex. PW3/A-1 to PW3/A-10 and the negatives of the same are Ex. PW3/B-1 10 PW3/B-10. This witness was cross-examined SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 9 of 94 by the Ld. defence counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-3 is ASI Satpal, No.158 DW, Crime Team, Sector-9, Dwarka (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 13.09.2010, he was posted as Photographer with Crime Team, South-west District and at about 11:55 p.m in the intervening night of 12/13..09.2010, he along with SI Deepak Kumar, Incharge of Crime Team and Ct. Devender, who was proficient in lifting of finger print, left the office of the South West District and reached the spot of incident i.e. Balmiki Chowk, Mitrau Village where 1O SI Ram Niwas and SHO and Addl. SHO, PS Najafgarh along with ACP met them. He further deposed that he took 10 photographs of the spot from different angles on the instructions of SI Deepak Kumar as already Ex. PW3/Al to Ex. PW3/A10 and said photographs were taken by him at the crime spot on 13.09.2010. He further deposed that he had also seen the negatives already Ex. PW3/B1 to Ex. PW3/B10. This witness was cross- examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu. Ld. counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu adopted the same cross-examination conducted on behalf of the other accused persons on 14.09.2011.
11. PW-4 is Dr. Perminder Singh, Junior Specialist, Department of Forensic Medicine, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi. He deposed that on 13.09.2010, he was Junior Specialist in Department of Forensic Medicine, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi and on that day, he conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Pradeep Kumar and in his opinion, the death of Pradeep Kumar was due to combined effect SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 10 of 94 of spinal shock, haemorrhagic shock along with cranio cerebral damage, consequent to injuries found on his dead body. He further deposed that he also opined that all the injuries were ante mortem and recent in nature. He further deposed that in his opinion, injury No.1 (mentioned in the postmortem report) had been caused by ammunition discharged from a rifled firearm from a close range. He further deposed that injuries No.2, 3 & 4 had been caused by hard blunt force impact and in his opinion, injury nos. 1 & 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death was approximately 16-17 hours at the time of postmortem examination. His detailed postmortem examination is Ex.PW4/A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-4 is Dr. Parvindra Singh, Specialist (Forensic Medicine) RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi 110073 (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 13.09.2010, he was working as Junior Specialist in Department of Forensic Medicine, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi and on that day, he conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of Pradeep Kumar and in his opinion, the death of Pradeep Kumar was due to combined effect of spinal shock, hemorrhagic shock along with cranio-cerebral damage, consequent to injuries found on his dead body and he also opined that all the injuries were ante mortem and recent in nature. He further deposed that in his opinion, injury no.1 (mentioned in the postmortem report) had been caused by ammunition discharged from a rifled firearm from a close range. He further SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 11 of 94 deposed that injuries no.2, 3 & 4 had been caused by hard blunt force impact and in his opinion, injury nos. 1 & 2 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death was approximately 16-17 hours at the time of postmortem examination. His detailed postmortem examination report is already Ex. PW4/A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu.
12. PW-5 is Dr. Sunil Dalal. Medical Officer, Central Jail No.3, Tihar, New Delhi. He deposed that on 12.9.2010, he was posted as Medical Officer in RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi and on that day, a patient named Pradeep was brought to the hospital who was examined by him and he declared him brought dead as he found him unconscious, pulse not pulpable, BP not recordable, pupils dialated and fixed and ECG showed a straight line. He further deposed that he also found an entry wound over left ear lobule approximately 8 cm post interior. Gunshot injury was also seen with black colour induration bleeding positive below the hairline. He further deposed that he prepared MLC as Ex.PW5/A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-5 is Dr. Sunil Dalal, Medical Officer, RTRM hospital, Jaffarpur Kalan, New Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 12.09.2010, he was posted as Chief Medical Officer at RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi and on that day, a patient namely SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 12 of 94 Pradeep was brought to the hospital who was examined by him and he declared him brought dead as he found him unconscious, pulse not palpable, BP not recordable, pupils dilated and fixed and ECG showed a straight line. He further deposed that he also found an entry wound over left ear lobule approximately 8 cm post interior. He further deposed that gunshot injury was also seen with black colour induration bleeding positive below the hairline. He further deposed that he prepared the MLC already Ex.PW5/A. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu. Ld. counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu adopted the same cross-examination as led by the Ld. counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu.
13. PW-6 is Sh. Gopal Gehlot, S/o Sh. Rohtash, R/o Village and P.O. Mitrao, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, Jharoda Kalan. New Delhi. He is the complainant / eye-witness in the present matter. His testimony would be discussed at an appropriate stage.
14. PW-7 is Constable Arvind, No. 1537 SW, P.S. Najafgarh, New Delhi. He deposed that on 13.09.2010, he was posted at PS Najafgarh as a Constable and on that day, Duty Officer handed over to him three copies of FIR to deliver to DCP, Addl. CP, concerned MM and he went to their respective residence and delivered the copies of FIR to them.
PW-7 is ASI Arvind, No.4544 SD, South District, Motor Transport Section, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 13.09.2010, he was posted as a Constable at PS SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 13 of 94 Najafgarh and on that day, on the direction of SHO, he handed over the copy of the FIR to the senior officers i.e concerned MM, DCP and Addl. CP at their residence. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu.
15. PW-8 is Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, R/o House No. RZ-120, X-Block, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi. He is also one of the eye-witness in the present case. His testimony would also be discussed at a later stage.
16. PW-9 is Sh. Sudhir, S/o Sh. Sant Kumar, aged 26 years, R/o House No. 268, Mundela Khurd, New Delhi-73. He is also one of the eye-witness in the present case. His testimony would also be discussed at a later stage.
17. PW-10 is Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sholiya Ram, R/o House No. 30/58, Patel Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. He is also one of the public witness / owner of Tata Indica car bearing registration no. HR-63AT-8198. His testimony would also be discussed at a later stage.
18. PW-11 is Sh. Sandeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o House No. 30/58, Patel Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana. He is also one of the public witness / son of the owner of Tata Indica car bearing registration no. HR-63AT-8198 who used to manage the said vehicle. His testimony would also be discussed at a later stage.
19. PW-12 is Constable Ramesh Kumar No. 1706, S/W, PS Sagarpur. He SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 14 of 94 deposed that on 12.09.2010, he was posted as a Constable in PS Najafarh and on that day at about 10.45 pm, he along with SHO Inspector Anand Sagar reached Balmiki Chaurah, Village Mitrau, Najafgarh where SI Ram Niwas had already reached the spot. He further deposed that blood was scatted on the ground and the deceased had already been removed to RTRM Hospital upon which he along with SHO Inspector Anand Sagar and three or four constable reached RTRM Hospital where the doctor declared the deceased Pradeep brought dead. He further deposed that Inspector Anand Sagar handed over to him rukka, prepared by him, which he took to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. He further deposed that after the registration of the FIR at the police station, he along with the original rukka and the copy of FIR reached Balmiki Chaurah, Village Mitrau and handed over the same to Inspector Anand Sagar, who reached the spot in the meanwhile and thereafter he remained near their vehicle and the police officials began conducting their work. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-12 is Constable Ramesh Kumar, No. 11363/DAP, 4 th Batalian, New Police Line, Kingway Camp, Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 12.09.2010, he was posted at PS Najafgarh and on that day he was driver of SHO and at about 10:30-11:00 p.m, one PCR call was received and he along with SHO Inspector Anand Sagar reached at Balmiki Chaurau, Village Mitrau, Najafgarh, Delhi where SI Ram Niwas was already present at the spot and they came to know that injured was already shifted to RTRM hospital. He further deposed that there SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 15 of 94 was blood scattered on the ground at the spot and he along with Inspector Anand Sagar and three four constables reached RTRM Hospital and came to know that Pradeep was declared brought dead. He further deposed that thereafter they returned to the spot and IO handed over to him the rukka which was taken to Police Station by him and after registration of the FIR, he returned to the spot along with original rukka and copy of FIR and the same were handed over to Inspector Anand Sagar and thereafter he returned to his vehicle and the remaining officers remained busy in the investigation. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsels for accused persons namely Narender @ Neelu and Sombir @ Sonu.
20. PW-13 is HC Vedpal Singh No. 878 SW, PS Delhi Cantt. He deposed that on 13.09.2010, he was posted as Head Constable in PS Najafarh and on that day, he along with Inspector R.R. Khatana reached RTRM Hospial where he got the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Pradeep conducted and after postmortem, the doctor handed over one black colour mobile phone (make Micromax) to Inspector Khatana which was recovered from the pocket of the deceased and Inspector Khatana sealed the mobile phone and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. He further deposed that from the hospital, he returned to the Police Station and deposited the mobile phone in the malkhana. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-13 is ASI Ved Pal, No. 1403 PCR, Dwarka Zone, New Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 16 of 94 13.09.2010, he was posted as a Head Constable in PS Najafgarh and on that day, he joined the investigation in present case along with IO/Inspector R.R. Khatana and in the course of investigation, they reached in the mortuary of RTRM Hospital where the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Pradeep was got conducted through doctor concerned. He further deposed that after the post-mortem examination, the doctor concerned handed over a black coloured mobile phone (make Micromax) which was recovered from the wearing clothes of deceased and said mobile phone was sealed and seized in this case by IO vide seizure memo already Ex.PW13/A and thereafter, they came back to PS where the said sealed parcel of said mobile phone was deposited in the Malkhana by the IO in his presence. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu. However, this witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu.
21. PW-14 is Constable Hardeep Singh, 1296 S/W Assistant Draughtsman in Maping Section, South West District, Sector-9, Dwarka. He deposed that on 06.12.2010, he was posted as Assistant Draughtsman in Maping Section, South West District, Sector-9, Dwarka and on that day, he along with Inspector R.R. Khatana reached at Phirni Road, Village Mitrau near vacant plot of Shri Ram Kishan, PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that on the instructions of Inspector R.R. Khatana, he prepared rough notes and measurements of the place of incident and on the basis of rough notes, he prepared scaled site plan on 07.12.2010, which is Ex. PW14/A and the scaled site plan was taken from him by an official from PS Najafgarh later on and after preparing the scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 17 of 94This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW14 is HC Hardeep Singh, No.1296 DW, Mapping Section, Sector 17, Dwarka, New Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Assistant Draftsman in Mapping Section, Sector 9, Dwarka, New Delhi and on 06.12.2010, he along with Inspector R.R.Khatana of PS Najagarh reached at Phirni Road, Village Mitrau near vacant plot of Sh. Ram Kishan, R/o Najafgarh, where he took the rough notes and measurements of the place of incident at the instructions of Inspector R. R. Khatana and thereafter, he returned to his office and on the basis of rough notes and measurements, he prepared the scaled site plan on 07.12.2010, which is already Ex.PW14/A and after preparation of scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes and measurements. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu.
22. PW-15 HC Ramesh Kumar No. 7064, DAP Third Battalion. He deposed that on 18.02.2011, he was posted as Head Constable in PS Najafgarh and on that day, on the directions of Inspector R.R. Khatana, he reached PS Rohtak Sadar Haryana for bringing a Tata Indica car from there which was lying parked in the premises of PS Rohtak Sadar. He further deposed that he was also having a copy of the court order with him in this regard and on reaching PS Rohtak Sadar, he showed the court order to MHC(M) and thereafter the said Tata Indica car bearing registration No. SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 18 of 94 HR-63A-8198 was handed over to him and he got it towed upto PS Najafgarh vide RC NO. 19/11 and handed over the same to Inspector Khatana and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that on 23.03.2011, on the directions of Inspector R.R. Khatana, he reached PS Kalanaur Rohtak, Haryana for bringing a Santro Car from there which was lying parked in the premises of PS Kalanaur Rohtak. He further deposed that he was also having a copy of the court order with him in this regard and on reaching PS Kalanaur Rohtak, he showed the court order to MHC(M) and thereafter the said Santro car bearing registration No. DL8 CF-3027 was handed over to him and he brought it to PS Najafgarh in a tempo vide RC NO.92/11. He further deposed that he handed over the santro car to Inspector Khatana and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-15 is ASI Ramesh Kumar, No. 3194/SW, PS Kapashera (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 18.02.2011, he was posted as Head Constable in PS Najafgarh and on that day, on the directions of Inspector R.R.Khatana, he reached at PS Rohtak Sadar Haryana for bringing a TATA Indica car from there which was parked in the premises of PS Rohtak Sadar. He further deposed that he was also having a copy of the court order with him in this regard and on reaching PS Rohtak Sadar, he showed the court order to MHC(M) and thereafter, the said Tata Indica car bearing registration no. HR- 63A-8198 was handed over to him and he got it towed upto PS Najafgarh vide RC No.19/11 and handed over the same to SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 19 of 94 Inspector Khatana and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW15/A. He further deposed that on 23.03.2011, on the directions of Inspector Khatana, he reached PS Kalanaur Rohtak, Haryana for bringing a Santro Car from there which was parked in the premises of PS Kalanaur Rohtak. He further deposed that he was also having a copy of the court order with him in this regard and on reaching PS Kalanaur Rohtak, he showed the court order to MHC(M). He further deposed that thereafter, the said Santro car bearing registration no.DL-8CF-3027 was handed over to him and he brought it to PS Najafgarh in a tempo vide RC No. 92/11 and he handed over the same to Inspector Khatana and he seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW15/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu. Ld. counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu adopted the same cross-examination as led by the Ld. counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu.
23. PW-16 Retired SI Baljeet Singh, S/o Sh. Kapoor Chand, Village and Post Office Jamuni Khera, District Hissar, Haryana. He deposed that on 17.09.2010, he was posted as SI Moharar Malkhana MHC(M) in PS Sadar Rohtak and on that day SI Surender Singh seized a Tata Indica car bearing registration No. HR63A-8198 under Section 102 Cr.P.C and deposited the same in the malkhana. This witness had brought register no.19 and as per records, on 17.09.2010 ASI Surender handed over a car bearing registration no.HR-63A-8198 for depositing in the Malkhana and he deposited the same in the Malkhana and made an entry at serial no.82 in register no.19. Photocopy of the same is Ex.PW16/A. He further deposed that on 22.02.2011, on the directions of SHO, PS Sadar Rohtak, he handed over the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 20 of 94 aforesaid car to HC Ramesh, PS Najafgarh vide RC no.19 and made an entry at serial no.82 in register no.19. Photocopy of the same is Ex. PW16/B. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-16 Retd. SI Baljeet Singh could not be examined in the denovo trial of accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu as he expired and his name was deleted from the list of witnesses.
24. PW17 is Inspector Virender Singh, No.D3040, SHO, P.S. Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. He deposed that on 23.1.2011, he was posted as Inspector, Anti Extortion Cell, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and at that time, he was investigating a case FIR no.207/10, under Section 302 IPC, PS Chhawla and on that day, he arrested four accused namely Naveen, Vikas @ Medium, Arvind @ Bindu and Naresh @ Nassey in that case from NH-8, Dwarka Link Road, on the basis of a secret information. He further deposed that a 9 mm pistol along with 8 live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Naveen. He further deposed that a 7.65 mm pistol along with 7 cartridges were recovered from accused Vikas. He further deposed that a desi katta .315 bore with one live cartridge recovered from accused Arvind @ Bindu and accused Naresh was driving the vehicle at that time and after their arrest, he recorded their disclosure statements, made sketches of the aforesaid arms recovered from the possession of the accused and seized them vide separate seizure memos, the photocopy of sketch of desi katta and one round recovered from the possession of accused Arvind is Ex.PW17/A (Original seen from the file pertaining to SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 21 of 94 case FIR No.207/10, which was summoned from the court of Sh. Vikas Dhull, Ld. ASJ). He further deposed that the photocopy of the seizure memo of desi katta and one live round is Ex. PW17/B (Original seen from the file pertaining to case FIR No.207/10. which was summoned from the court of Sh. Vikas Dhull, Ld. ASJ). He further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statements of all the four accused and photocopy of the disclosure statement of accused Arvind is Ex.PW17/C and that of accused Vikas is Ex. PW17/D and that of accused Naveen is Ex. PW17/E and that of accused Naresh is Ex. PW17/F (Originals of these disclosure statements seen and compared from the file pertaining to case FIR No.207/10, which was summoned from the court of Sh. Vikas Dhull, Ld. ASJ). He further deposed that since all the four accused had disclosed that they had killed one Pradeep at Balmiki Chowk in Village Mitraon, Najafgarh, pursuant to a well hatched conspiracy, he gave the information about the arrest of the accused to PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that on 25.1.2011 Inspector R.R. Khatana of PS Najafgarh came to him and he handed over the photocopies of the disclosure statements of the accused, seizure memos of the desi katta and its sketch to him. He further deposed that he seized these papers vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/G. He correctly identified accused Naveen, Naresh, Arvind and Vikas in court. This witness was cross- examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-17 is Inspector Virender Dalal, No. D-1/465, SHO, PS- Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 23.01.2011, he was posted as Inspector at Anti Extortion SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 22 of 94 Cell, Crime Branch, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and he was IO of FIR no.207/10, PS Chawla and arrested four accused namely Naveen, Vikas @ Medium, Naresh @ Nassy and Arvind @ Bindu from NH-8, Dwarka, Link road, on the basis of secret information. He further deposed that from accused Naveen a 9 mm pistol along with 8 live cartridges were recovered and from accused Vikas 7.65 mm pistol along with 7 live cartridges were recovered and from accused Arvind @ Bindu, one country made pistol i.e 315 bore with one live cartridge were recovered. He further deposed that the accused Naresh was driving the vehicle and he also recorded the disclosure of the accused persons and the disclosure of the accused persons i.e of accused Arvind is already Ex. PW-17/A, accused Vikas is already Ex. PW-17/B, accused Naveen is already Ex. PW-17/E and accused Naresh is already Ex. PW-17/F. He further deposed that he also made the sketches of the aforesaid arms as above stated and the photocopy of sketch of desi katta and one round recovered from the possession of accused Arvind is already Ex. PW- 17/A. He further deposed that the photocopy of seizure memo of desti katta and live cartridge is already Ex. PW-17/B. He further deposed that during the disclosure statement, the accused had disclosed that they had killed one Pradeep at Balmiki Chowk, Village Mitrao, Najafgarh and thereafter, the information was shared with PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that on 25.01.2011, Inspector R.R. Khatana, met him and he handed over to him the documents of the case who seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-17/G. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 23 of 9425. PW18 is Inspector Anand Sagar. No. DI/347, SHO PS Seelampur. He deposed that on 12.09.2010, he was posted as SHO PS Najafgarh and on that day, in the night at about 11:05 p.m, on receipt of PCR call, vide DD No. 43A at PS Najafgarh, the attested copy of the said DD is on record as Ex PW18/A, he alongwith Ct. Satya Prakash, Const. Ramesh and Const. Hemant, reached at RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur, in a government vehicle i.e police gypsy where SI Ram Niwas along with Ct. Ramesh were also found present. He further deposed that one Pradeep S/o Sh. Kishan Kumar was found admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 3079/10, who was declared brought dead by the doctor and alleged history of gun shot Injury was mentioned on the MLC. He further deposed that on examination of the dead body, one gun shot wound was found present on the back left side of his neck under his left ear and blood was also oozing out. He further deposed that in the hospital, one Gopal Gehlot Palley, S/o Sh. Rohtash was also found present along with his friends Sunil S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh and Sudhir S/o Sh. Sant Kumar. He further deposed that the statement of Gopal Gehlot Palley already exhibited Ex PW6/A was recorded and thereafter, he along with his above staff personnel and complainant Gopal Gehlot @ Palley, Sunil and Sudhir reached at the place of incident i.e. Balmiki Choraha, Village Mitrau, Najafgarh, where Crime Team and Photographer were called at the spot. He further deposed that on the basis of statement of complainant Gopal Gehlot and MLC of said deceased, he prepared a rukka Ex PW18/B and handed over the same to Ct. Ramesh, No. 1706/SW, for registration of the case under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. He further deposed that the investigation of the present case was entrusted to Inspector R.R. Khatana, through the DO SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 24 of 94 concerned and the copy of the FIR of the present case was sent to senior police officials and Ld. MM concerned, through special messenger. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
26. PW-19 is Retired SI Rajender Singh, R/o VPO Gochhi, Distt Jhajhar, Haryana. He deposed that on 31.01.2011, he was posted at PS Najafgarh and on that day, he along with Inspector Raghuraj Khatana, SI Ram Niwas and other police officials reached in the court of Sh N.K. Laka. Ld MM, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi where Inspector Raghuraj Khatana had moved an application before the concerned Court for interrogation of accused Naveen. Naresh. Vikash and Arvind and the said application was allowed and thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons were interrogated by them. Again said, aforesaid accused persons were interrogated by Inspector Raghuraj Khatana, outside the concerned Court and during interrogation, the aforesaid accused persons disclosed that the person namely Pradeep @ PK was killed by them and thereupon, the aforesaid accused persons were arrested by Inspector Raghuraj Khatana, in his presence. He further deposed that the arrest memo of accused Naveen @ Pehlwan is Ex. PW19/A, the arrest memo of accused Arvind @ Bindu is Ex. PW19/B, the arrest memo of accused Naresh @ Neshi is Ex. PW19/C and the arrest memo of accused Vikash @ Medium is Ex. PW19/D This witness correctly identified the above said accused persons in the Court. He further deposed that after arrest of aforesaid four accused persons, they were remanded for four days PC by the Ld MM on the application moved by Inspector Raghuraj Khatana. He SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 25 of 94 further deposed that on 01.02.2013, again said 01.02.2011, he again joined the investigation of this case along with Inspector Raghuraj Khatana and SI Ram Niwas and during investigation, the aforesaid four accused persons were separately interrogated about the incident in question and whatsoever they had disclosed, same were reduced into writing vide their respective disclosure statements, the disclosure statement of accused Arvind Bindu is Ex. PW19/E and that of accused Naveen Pehlwan is Ex. PW19/F and that of accused Naresh Neshi is Ex. PW19/G and that of accused Vikash @ Medium is Ex. PW19/H. He further deposed that in pursuance of the disclosure statements, the aforesaid four accused persons led them at the place of incident i.e. Mitrao Balmik Crossing where they had committed murder of deceased Pradeep @ PK, along with three other associates namely Manish, Narender and Raju and the said place of incident was pointed out by them and a separate pointing out memo Ex. PW19/1 was prepared by Insp. Raghuraj Khatana, in his presence and thereafter, the aforesaid four accused persons were brought at PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that on 02.02.2011, he again joined the investigation of this case along with Inspector Raghuraj Khatana and SI Ram Niwas and they all along with aforesaid four accused persons and other police officials reached at the place near PS Kalanor, Distt. Rohtak, which was at a distance of about 200 yards away from PS Kalanor. He further deposed that Distt Rohtak, leading towards Rohtak road and was pointed out by the accused persons as the place where they had left the vehicle i.e. Santro car having registration No. DL-8CF-3027, which was used for the commission of the offence and a separate pointing out memo was prepared by the IO in his presence as Ex. PW19/J. He further deposed that a site plan in this regard SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 26 of 94 was also prepared by the IO in his presence which is Ex. PW19/K. He further deposed that thereafter, the aforesaid accused persons led them in the area of Village Kiloi, Guhana Road and the place was pointed out by accused Naveen and Praveen, again said, pointed out by accused Naveen and Pradeep, again said, pointed out by accused Naveen and Vikash. as the place where they had left another vehicle i.e. Indica car bearing registration No. HR-63A-8198, original number of which, as disclosed by the accused persons, he did not remember. He further deposed that the accused persons also disclosed that the said Indica car was left by them as its fuel was finished and thereafter. they reached at PS Rohtak Sadar, where the said Indica car was found seized/parked in the said police station. Ld. Addl. PP requested to put a leading question to the witness regarding original number of said Indica car, as disclosed by accused persons namely Vikash @ Medium and Naresh, which was allowed which is reproduced here (in verbatim):-
Ques: Whether the original number of said Indica car was HR-36AT-8198, as disclosed by accused persons namely Vikash @ Medium and Naresh and a separate pointing out memo was prepared?
Ans. It is correct.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-19 is Retired SI Rajender Singh, R/o VPO Gochhi, district Jhajjar, Haryana (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 31.01.2011, he was posted at PS Najafgarh and on that day, he along SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 27 of 94 with SI Ram Niwas and IO R.R. Khatana and other police officials reached at Dwarka Courts, where after taking permission from the Court, accused Naveen, Naresh, Vikas and Arvind were interrogated and during interrogation, the accused persons admitted their guilt about killing one Pradeep @ PK and then IO arrested them, the arrest memo of Naveen @ Pehlwan is already Ex. PW-19/A, Arvind @Bindu is already Ex. PW-19/B, Naresh @ Neshi is already Ex. PW- 19/C and accused Vikas @ Medium is already Ex. PW-19/D. He further deposed that during PC their detailed disclosure statement was recorded which are already Ex. PW-19/E, Ex. PW-19/F, Ex. PW-19/G and Ex. PW-19/H. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused led them to the place of incident i.e Mitrao, Balmiki Crossing, where they have committed murder of deceased Pradeep @ PK with other associates and the pointing out memo is Ex. PW-19/I. He further deposed that on 02.02.2011, he along with Inspector Raghuraj and SI Ram Niwas and accused persons reached near PS Kalanour, District Rohtak i.e 200 km away from PS Kalanour leading towards Rohtak Road where the accused pointed out the place where they had left the Santro car bearing no.
DL-8CF-3027 which was used for commission of offence. He further deposed that a separate pointing out memo was prepared which is already Ex. PW-19/J and a site plan was also prepared which is already Ex. PW-19/K. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused led them to Village Kiloi, Guhana Road, where accused Vikas and Naresh pointed towards a place where they left Indica car bearing no. HR-63A-8198 (the original number of the same was HR-63AT-8198) as the fuel in the said car got finished. He further deposed that thereafter, they reached at PS Rohtak, Sadar, where the said Indica car was found there. This witness was not SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 28 of 94 cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused Narender @ Leelu and Sombir @ Sonu.
27. PW-20 is SI Ram Niwas No. D-760, PS Naraina. New Delhi. He deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13.9.2010, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Najafgarh and during that night, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 p.m to 08:00 a.m (next day) along with Ct Ramesh and at about 10:45 p.m, again said 11:05 pm, he received DD No. 43A, already Ex. PW18/A, he along with Ct Ramesh reached at the place of incident I.e Balmiki Chowk. Mitrao Village, where blood was found lying. He further deposed that the wooden handle of spade (fawda), one base ball bat and one pair of slippers, were found lying at the spot and after sometime SHO concerned Insp. Anand Sagar and Insp. R.R. Khatana came at the spot along with other police officials and on query from the public, it was revealed that injured was already removed to RTRM Hospital and thereafter, Insp. R.R. Khatana and SHO Insp. Anand Sagar went to RTRM hospital, along with their staff officials and after about one and a half hour, the said officials came at the spot from RTRM hospital and thereafter, Crime Team along with government photographer were called at the spot and rukka already Ex. PW18/B was prepared by Insp. R.R. Khatana and it was handed over to Ct. Ramesh for registration of the present case and after the registration of the present case, Ct Ramesh returned back at the spot along with copy of FIR with its original rukka and and handed over the same to Insp. R.R. Khatana. He further deposed that during investigation, Insp. R.R. Khatana prepared site plan, at the instance of Sh. Pradeep Pale. He further deposed that the blood lying at the spot, earth control, wooden handle of spade, base SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 29 of 94 ball bat and pair of slippers were taken into police possession from the spot and converted into separate pullandas and sealed with the seal of RRK and seized vide seizure memo of slippers as Ex. PW20/A, the seizure memo of base ball bat and wooden handle of spade as Ex. PW20/B, the seizure memo of blood and earth control as Ex. PW20/C. He further deposed that thereafter, statement of Pradeep Pale was recorded and thereafter, search was made for tracing the accused persons but they could not be traced and they came at police station, where his statement was recorded. He further deposed that on 2.2.2011, he again joined the investigation of the present case, along with IO of this case and on that day, accused Naresh. Arvind. Naveen and Vikash. present in the court (correctly identified) were already in custody and aforesaid accused persons led them to PS Kalanor, where a Santro car bearing No. DL-8CF-3027 was found deposited in the malkhana of that PS and thereafter, aforesaid accused persons led them to the place i.e crossing, 200 meters away from PS Kalanor, where they left the aforesaid Santro car, and a separate pointing out memo already Ex. PW19/J was prepared in this regard. He further deposed that they reached at PS Sadar Rohtak where the other vehicle i.e Indica car bearing registration No. HR-63A-8198, was found deposited in the malkhana of that PS and thereafter, all aforesaid accused persons led them on the way leading towards Gumana Road from Sheetal Engineering College, Village Kalai. and said place was pointed out by them as the place where they left the aforesaid Indica car. He further deposed that a separate pointing out memo Ex. PW20/D was prepared in this regard. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness was partly resiling from his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C on some material facts. This SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 30 of 94 witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
28. PW-21 is Inspector Satish Kumar, No. D-1156, EOW, Mandir Marg. New Delhi. He is the second Investigating Officer of the case and has deposed that on 01.04.2011, he was posted as Inspector ATO at PS Najafgarh and on that day, further investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by the then SHO, PS Najagarh, as the previous IO of the present case i.e Inspector R.R. Khatana was transferred from PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that on perusal of the case file, it was revealed that accused Naveen, Naresh, Arvind and Vikas were arrested in this case and their associates namely Manish, Narender, Sombir and Pradeep Dahiya were absconding and had to be arrested in this case. He further deposed that the whereabouts of accused Manish, Narender and Sombir were verified and whereabouts of accused Pradeep Dahiya was not verified. He further deposed that on 06.04.2011, an application Ex. PW21/A for issuance of NBW against accused Manish, Sombir and Narender was moved before the court of Ld MM concerned and the said application was allowed and NBW were issued against accused Manish. Sombir and Narender. The charge sheet was filed against accused Naveen, Naresh, Arvind and Vikas before the court of Ld M.M concerned. He further deposed that sincere efforts were made for arresting accused Manish. Sombir and Narender but they could not be arrested in this case and thereafter, on the basis of process issued under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C against accused Manish, Sombir and Narender by Ld MM concerned, they were declared Proclaimed Offenders SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 31 of 94 in this case and supplementary charge sheet in this regard was also filed against them. This witness correctly identified accused Naveen. Naresh, Arvind and Vikas in the Court as their JC was extended by Ld MM concerned on 15.04.2011 on his application Ex.PW21/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
29. PW-22 is Inspector Raghu Raj Khatana. No.DI/762. SHO (Vigilance), PS Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. He is the Investigating Officer of the case and deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13.09.2010, he was posted as Inspector (Investigation) at PS Najafgarh and during that time, at about 01:30 am, when he was present in PS Najafgarh, he was informed by DO concerned that investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. He further deposed that thereafter, he reached at the spot i.e. Balmiki Crossing (Chauraha), Village Mitrau, along with his official operator HC Ved Pal on a motorcycle. He further deposed that the then SHO of PS Najafgarh, Inspector Anand Sagar was found present at the spot along with other police officials and three public persons namely Gopal Gahlot Pale, Sunil Kumar and Sudhir Kumar Kumar. He further deposed that the officials of Crime Team were also found present at the spot which was headed by SI Deepak Kumar and accompanied by Govt. photographer Satpal. He further deposed that thereafter, during investigation, place of incident was got inspected through officials of Crime Team and photographs were also got clicked by Govt. Photographer, the report of Crime Team already Ex.PW2/A was handed over to him by Incharge of Crime Team, South-West District i.e. SI Deepak Kumar. He SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 32 of 94 further deposed that thereafter, place of incident was inspected and a site plan already Ex.PW19/D1 was prepared at his own instance. He further deposed that in the meantime, Ct. Ramesh reached at the spot along with copy of FIR, already Ex.PW1/A and original rukka already Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW18/B, which were handed over to him by Ct. Ramesh. He further deposed that thereafter, one pair of smoke grey coloured Hawai slippers make of 'Sparx' lying at the spot were kept in a white polythene which was kept in a piece of cloth, pullanda was prepared and it was sealed with the seal of RRP and same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo as Ex.PW20/A. He further deposed that one Base Ball bat, length about 32 and a half inches, and one wooden handle of spade (fawda), length about 34 and a half inches, lying at the spot, were separately kept in the pieces of cloth and were sealed with the seal of RRK vide seizure already Ex.PW20/B. He further deposed that blood was found spilled over at the spot and some blood was lifted by using cotton bud and was kept in a small plastic container which he sealed with the seal of RRK. He further deposed that thereafter, earth control was also lifted from the spot and it was kept in the separate small plastic container which he sealed with the same seal and aforesaid two sealed plastic containers were taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW20/C. He further deposed that thereafter, he had recorded statements of Crime Team Incharge and Govt. Photographer. He further deposed that thereafter, present public persons namely Sunil and Sudhir were also examined about the incident in question and their statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded at the spot and thereafter. they had tried their best to trace the offenders namely Naveen. Naresh. Arvind and Vikas @ Medium. He further deposed that thereafter, SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 33 of 94 dead body of deceased Pradeep was got identified by his relatives namely Satpal and Harvinder Singh and their statements were recorded by him vide statement of Satpal as Ex.PW22/A and statement of Harvinder Singh as Ex.PW22/B. He further deposed that thereafter, post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Pradeep was got done at the Mortuary of RTRM Hospital, after preparing inquest documents, i.e. Inquest Form no.2535 (1)(b) Ex.PW22/C. request letter, addressed to HOD. Forensic Medicine. RTRM Hospital. Jaffarpur Kalan as Ex.PW22/D, brief facts of the incident as Ex.PW22/E and initial information about the incident i.e DD No.43-A already Ex. PW18/A, the copy of FIR already Ex.PW1/A and during post mortem examination, one black coloured mobile phone make of 'Micromax' with red lining, having two IMEI Nos. 910001047383770 and 910001049383778 were handed over to him by the concerned doctor and it was informed to him by said doctor that the said mobile phone instrument was recovered from the pocket of trouser, of the deceased Pradeep and thereafter, the said mobile phone instrument was kept in a small plastic container, which was sealed with the seal of RRK and which was taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW13/A. He further deposed that thereafter, dead body of deceased Pradeep was handed over to the aforesaid relatives / guardians of the deceased for cremation vide receipt of dead body Ex.PW22/F. He further deposed that thereafter, they came at PS Najafgarh, where he deposited the aforesaid sealed case properties in the office of MHC(M) concerned. He further deposed that he had recorded the statements of relevant police witnesses and one public witness namely Sandeep, who was the owner of Indica Car bearing registration no. HR 63 AT 8198. He further deposed that on 14.9.2010, the investigation team led SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 34 of 94 by him conducted raid at different places in search of accused persons. He further deposed that on 17.09.2010, SI Ram Niwas produced to him the exhibits collected from RTRM Hospital, J.P.Kalan, which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-20/PX1 and he deposited the same to MHC(M) PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that he recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of SI Ram Niwas to this effect. He further deposed that due to Commonwealth games, he handed over the file to MHC(R) on 20.09.2010 and the investigation of the present case was again handed over to him on 21.10.2010 after Commonwealth games. He further deposed that he conducted raids in search of the accused persons on the basis of CDR and secret information but he could not arrest anyone in the present case. He further deposed that on 06.12.2010, he got prepared scaled site plan already Ex.PW-14/A through Hardeep Singh, Asstt. Draughtsman, Crime Branch. South-West District, Sector-9, Dwarka, Delhi and recorded his statement under Section 161 CrPC to this effect. He further deposed that on 24.12.2010, a DD entry was got registered by police officials of PS Crime Branch, R.K.Puram regarding arrest of Naresh. Naveen Pehalwan. Arvind Bindu and Vikas@ Medium in a case of double murder registered at P.S. Chhawla. The Information was given that the accused wanted in the present case were arrested by them. He further deposed that on 25.01.2011, he collected the related documents of the above said accused persons from Inspector Virender Singh. He further deposed that Crime Branch R.K. Puram vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/G. He further deposed that he recorded his statement under Section161 Cr.P.C to this effect. He further deposed that on 28.01.2011, he moved an application before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. N.K. Laka, Ld. MM, Dwarka Courts for production of the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 35 of 94 accused persons namely Naresh, Naveen @ Pehalwan, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Medium. He further deposed that on 31.1.2011, all the four accused persons were produced from JC in the Court of Sh. N.K.Laka, Ld. MM. Dwarka Courts and he interrogated all the four accused persons in his case with the permission of the Court and formally arrested the above said accused persons in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW-19/A, Ex.PW-19/B, Ex.PW-19/C and Ex.PW-19/D and all the accused persons present in the court (correctly pointed out). He further deposed that he moved an application for PC remand of the accused persons which was allowed for four days by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. N.K.Laka, Ld. MM. He further deposed that on 01.2.2011, all the four accused persons made disclosure statement, same are Ex.PW-19/F, Ex.PW-19/G, Ex.PW-19/E and Ex.PW-19/H. He further deposed that all the four accused persons led the police party to the spot and pointed out the spot vide memo Ex.PW-19/1 and thereafter, the accused persons were sent to lock up after medical examination. He further deposed that on 02.2.2011, in pursuance of the disclosure statements of the accused persons, he along with police team and accused persons went to PS Kalanaur, Distt Rohtak, Haryana and on verification from the police record of PS Kalanaur. it was revealed that the Santro Car bearing registration no.DL 8CF 3027 was seized by the police officials of P.S. Kalanaur under Section 102 Cr.P.C on 17.09.2010 vide DD No.36 from near the police station. He further deposed that the police official of PS Kalanaur did not hand over him the said vehicle on his request and asked him to obtain the order of the concerned Court for handing over the vehicle. He further deposed that thereafter, the accused persons pointed out the spot near PS Kalanaur where they had left the said SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 36 of 94 car abandoned vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-19/J. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan of the spot Ex.PW-19/K. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with his police team and accused persons left for Rohtak Court. He further deposed that he moved an application before the concerned Court for handing over of Santro Car DL 8CF 3027, as the same was wanted in the present case but his application was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court and thereafter, he along with his police team and accused persons went to PS Sadar, Rohtak where one car bearing registration no. HR 63A 8198 was found deposited with MHC(M) and on verification, it was revealed that the said car was deposited with MHC(M) on 17.9.2010 vide DD entry no.58 under Section 102 Cr.P.C and the said car was deposited by ASI Surender Singh of PS Sadar, Rohtak and he collected the copy of the seizure memo Ex.PW-22/G. He further deposed that accused Vikas and Naresh pointed out the spot near Sheetal Engineering College where they had left the Indica Car no.HR 63A 8198 vide pointing out memo Ex.PW-20/B and he also prepared the site plan of the spot, at the instance of the accused persons which is Ex.PW-22/H. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with accused persons and police team came back at PS Najafgarh and accused persons were sent to lock up after medical examination. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of SI Ram Niwas and SI Rajender Singh, who were in his team during the investigation on that day. He further deposed that on 03.02.2011, he along with his team and accused persons went to Gurgaon in search of other accused persons namely Manish. Somvir, Narender and Pradeep but none of them could be traced out and on 04.02.2011, all the four accused persons were produced before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. N.K.Laka and sent to JC. He SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 37 of 94 further deposed that on 18.2.2011, he moved an application before the Court of Sh. N.K. Laka, Ld. MM regarding release of vehicle impounded by Haryana Police, mentioning therein the details of vehicles, carbon copy of his application is on record, same is Ex.PW-22/1, which was allowed by the Ld. MM. He further deposed that thereafter, on 22.2.2011 Indica Car no.HR 63AT 8198 was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-22/J and on inspection of the car, it was found that there was no number plate on the front side of the car and when the rear number plate was checked, it was found bearing no.HR 63AT 8198 on the back side of the number plate. He further deposed that on the front side of the number plate, the number was mentioned as HR 63A 8198, the said number plate was taken into police possession vide separate seizure memo already Ex.PW-15/A. He further deposed that he recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C of HC Ramesh, who got the said vehicle and number plate and produced the same to him. He further deposed that on 23.03.2011, HC Ramesh Kumar collected Santro Car no. DL 8CF 3027 from PS Kalanaur in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble MM Sh. N.K.Laka and produced the same to him at police station and the said car was taken into police possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW-15/B. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of HC Ramesh to this effect also. He further deposed that on 24.03.2011, he handed over the case file to MHC(R) as he was transferred as SHO, I.P.Estate. This witness was cross-examined at length by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
PW-22 is Sh. Raghu Raj Khatana (Retired ACP), S/o. Late Sh. Khazan Singh, Rio Flat no. 704, Tower-B, ASF Gawali Pahari, Gurgaon, SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 38 of 94 Haryana (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). The witness adopted the examination in chief recorded on 16.01.2014, 27.08.2014 & 28.08.2014. Court Observation: Adoption of previous examination-in-chief by the witness is not opposed by the Ld. counsel for accused Sombir and Narender.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsels for accused Sombir and Narender. PW-22 was also further cross-examined by the Ld. counsels for accused Naresh @ Neshi, Vikas @ Medium and Arvind @ Bindu as well as accused Naveen.
30. It is a matter of record that on 14.02.2020, Ld. Addl. PP for the State moved an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C for calling upon the accused to admit or deny certain documents. Neither the Ld. counsel for accused persons disputed the genuineness of the said documents nor raised any objections to the application. Consequently, separate statements under Section 294 Cr.P.C were recorded for the accused persons. Additionally, a separate statement was recorded from Sh. Anirudh Yadav, Advocate on behalf of accused Naveen (who was produced through Video Conferencing on that day). In view of the admissions, the application was allowed, relevant witnesses were dropped and formal proof of such documents exhibited as Ex.Al to Ex.A6, Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B, were dispensed with.
31. It is a matter of record that joint statement of accused Sombir @ Sonu and Narender @ Leelu under Section 294 Cr.P.C was recorded SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 39 of 94 wherein the above said accused persons admitted certain documents i.e copy of FIR no.412/10, PS Najafgarh, dated 13.09.2010 as already Ex.PWI/A, DD No.43A, dated 12.09.2010, PS Najafgarh as already Ex.PW18/A, DD No.27B, dated 23.07.2017, PS Najafgarh as Ex.Al, TIP proceedings dated 25.07.2017 conducted by Dr. Jagminder Singh, Ld. MM of accused Sombir as Ex.A2, TIP proceedings dated 20.08.2018, of accused Narender as recorded by Sh.Rohit Gulia, Ld. MM as Ex.A3, FSL report no.FSL2011/F-4641, dated 21.11.2011 as Ex.A4, FSL report no. FSL2011/B-2727, dated 31.10.2011 as Ex.A5 (colly), FSL report no.FSL2011/F-4641, dated 31.10.2011 as Ex.A6 (colly), copies of Malkhana register of PS Sadar, Rohtak which are already Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B. However, they did not admit the allegations, if any, contained in these documents. They further stated that they have no objection if these documents were read in evidence and the concerned witnesses were dropped.
32. It is also a matter of record that on the same day i.e 14.02.2020, a joint statement of accused persons namely Naresh @ Neshi, Vikas @ Suraj Bhan and Arvind @ Bindu under Section 294 Cr.P.C was also recorded wherein above said accused persons admitted certain documents i.e FSL report no.FSL2011/F-4641, dated 21.11.2011 as Ex.A4, FSL report no.FSL2011/B-2727, dated 31.10.2011 as Ex.A5 (colly), FSL report no.FSL2011/F-4641, dated 31.10.2011 as Ex.A6 (colly). However, they also did not admit the allegations, if any, contained in these documents. They further stated that they have no objection, if these documents were read in evidence and the concerned witnesses were dropped.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 40 of 9433. It is also a matter of record that on the same day i.e 14.02.2020, a statement of Sh.Anirudh Yadav, Advocate for accused Naveen (who was produced through Video Conferencing on that day), under Section 294 Cr.P.C was also recorded wherein he admitted certain documents i.e FSL report no.FSL2011/F-4641, dated 21.11.2011 as Ex.A4, FSL report no.FSL2011/B-2727, dated 31.10.2011 as Ex.A5 (colly), FSL report no.FSL2011/F-4641, dated 31.10.2011 as Ex.A6 (colly). However, he also did not admit the allegations, if any, contained in these documents. He further stated that he has no objection, if these documents were read in evidence and the concerned witnesses were dropped.
34. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 15.07.2022, the prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for recording the statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 24.02.2023, Ld. substitute Addl. PP for the State stated that certain witnesses related to the kalandra were yet to be examined. He further submitted that his aforesaid submissions be treated as an oral application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Ld. counsels for the accused persons raised no objection to this request. Accordingly, the oral application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the State was allowed, and PW-Inspector Tulsi Ram, ASI Kuldeep and Ct. Chuttan Lal were ordered to be summoned for the same day i.e 23.03.2024 (whose testimonies will be discussed in the proceeding paragraphs).
35. PW-23 is HC Chhuttan Lal, No.774/DW, PS Mohan Garden, Delhi.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 41 of 94He deposed that on 25.07.2017, he was posted at PS Najafgarh and on that day, he along with IO reached at Dwarka where accused Sombir @ Sonu was produced. He further deposed that IO interrogated the accused after taking the permission from the Court and IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW23/A. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused was recorded as Ex. PW23/B and one day PC remand was taken. He further deposed that the accused lead them to the spot where the incident took place and IO prepared the site identification memo, same is Ex. PW23/C. Accused was correctly identified by the witness. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Sombir. However, this witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Vikas @ Medium, Narender and Naveen.
36. PW-24 is ASI Kuldeep Singh no.1076/Metro, PS Crime Branch, Sector-9, Dwarka, Delhi. He deposed that on 22.07.2017, he was posted at PS Crime Branch, SW District, Dwarka, Delhi and at about 04:00 p.m, he was present in the office, one secret informer came in the office and told that accused Sombir @ Sonu who is wanted in the present case would come at Vipin Garden in his home and if raided can be caught. He further deposed that thereafter, information was shared with Inspector who after satisfying himself with the information ordered them to do the needful and thereafter the raiding party was constituted which was comprised of himself, HC Gangadhar, ASI Satender, ASI Sriom and after making the entry in the register and obtaining the ammunition. they left the office situated at Dwarka and proceeded for Vipin Garden and in the midway, they requested few passerby to join the raiding party but all of them left the spot without SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 42 of 94 telling their name and address. He further deposed that thereafter, they reached Vipin Garden near the house of accused, took their positions and thereafter, secret informer pointed out towards one person who was standing outside the house and they apprehended him and his name was found to be Sombir @ Sonu. He further deposed that the accused was interrogated and he admitted his involvement in the present case and thereafter he was arrested under Section 41.1 (c) Cr.P.C vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-24/B, recorded his disclosure statement as Ex. PW24/C. He further deposed that thereafter, he prepared kalandra after annexing the DD entry 16, 17, 18, 19 dated 22.07.2017 and same were marked as Mark 24/1 (colly). He further deposed that Kalandra is Ex. PW24/D. He further deposed that IO of the present case was informed and accused was sent to JC for two days and he had also given the document/kalandra to the IO. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Sombir. However, this witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Vikas @ Medium, Narender and Naveen.
37. PW-25 is Retd. Inspector Tulsi Ram S/o Sh. Chandu Lal R/o VPO Jamalpur, Gurugram Haryana. He deposed that on 23.07.2017, he was posted as ATO in PS Najafgarh and on that day, an information was received regarding the apprehension of Sombir by the Crime Branch and thereafter, on 25.07.2017, he along with police official reached Dwarka Court where the accused Sombir was produced and thereafter, he interrogated the accused after taking the permission from the Court and thereafter, the accused admitted his involvement in the present case and he SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 43 of 94 arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW23/A, recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW23/B and thereafter, accused was taken for TIP proceedings but accused refused to undergo for TIP proceedings. He further deposed that after that, he collected the TIP proceedings i.e. A-2. He further deposed that thereafter, the PC of the accused was recorded and during investigation, the accused led them to the spot in Village Mitraon and at the instance of accused Sombir, site identification memo was prepared, same is already Ex. PW23/C. He further deposed that he collected the kalandra from Crime Branch. He further deposed that on 09.08.2017, he came to the Court in order to extend the JC of the accused. He further deposed that the witness Sudhir Kumar came in the Court and identified him being the person involved in the crime and he recorded his statement. He further deposed that after completion of the investigation qua him, he filed the supplementary charge sheet in the Court. He further deposed that on 17.08.2018, one information was received from crime branch regarding the apprehension of accused Narender @ Leelu and thereafter, on 18.08.2018, he along with police staff reached at the Court where the accused Narender @ Leelu was produced and after that, he interrogated the accused Narender @ Leelu after taking the permission of the Court. He further deposed that thereafter, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW25/A, recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex. PW25/B. He further deposed that the accused was sent to JC and produced on 20.08.2018 and the accused was taken for TIP proceedings but the accused did not join the same vide Ex. A-3. He further deposed that thereafter, accused led them to the spot i.e village Mitraon where site identification memo was prepared at his instance vide memo Ex. PW25/C. He further SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 44 of 94 deposed that on 20.08.2018, the witness Sudhir Kumar identified the accused and the statement was recorded. He further deposed that he collected the document of kalandra and thereafter, he filed the charge sheet in the Court. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsels for accused Sombir & Narender. However, this witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Vikas @ Medium and Naveen.
38. Further, on the same day i.e 23.03.2023, a separate statement of accused Narender @ Leelu (in the presence of Ld. Legal Aid counsel for the accused) was recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C. In this statement, the accused submitted that, without admitting the case of the prosecution and without prejudice to the defence, which may be raised during the course of trial, he did not dispute the factum of arrest by ASI Mahesh in Kalandra under Section 41.1(c) Cr.P.C dated 17.08.2018 marked as A-1, though he did not admit the manner and place of arrest. However, he did not admit the allegations, if any, contained in these documents, and had no objection if the documents were read in evidence and the concerned witnesses were dropped. In view of the statement of the accused Narender, ASI Mahesh, who was mentioned as PW1 in the supplementary charge sheet of Narender @ Leelu, was dropped from the list of witnesses. Thereafter, upon the submission by the Ld. Sub. Addl. PP for State, PE was closed, and matter was again posted for recording the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
39. Pursuant to the order dated 28.03.2023, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the accused SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 45 of 94 persons stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. They all opted not to lead any defence evidence, except accused Sombir, who stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He further stated that on the day of incident, he was on duty as he had been working with MCD since 2011 until his arrest. He also mentioned that he was returning from his duty when the police arrested him. Additionally, he stated that he was falsely declared a proclaimed offender. Accused Sombir opted to lead defence evidence, and accordingly, the matter was posted for defence evidence in relation to accused Sombir.
40. Vide order dated 15.09.2023, an application under Section 315 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of accused Sombir, seeking permission to examine himself as a defence witness and to also examine his mother in his defence evidence. The said application was not opposed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and same was accordingly allowed. Consequently, both witnesses were examined as DW-1 and DW-2, respectively.
41. DW-1 is Sh. Sombir Singh, S/o Sh. Kishan Kumar, aged about 40 years, R/o- Village Mithrau, Balmiki Mohalla, Pillar no.179, Najafgarh, New Delhi. (under Section 315 Cr.P.C). He deposed that he was living in Village Mitrau since 1990 at the above mentioned address along with his mother, wife and two brothers. He further deposed that in the year 2015- 2016, he had a daughter of 3 years and one boy was born to him on 04.08.2017, again said, 04.08.2016. He further deposed that he was working in MCD from the year 2007 to 2016 and police officials took him from his house in the year 2017 and on that day, he was on leave. The SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 46 of 94 witness gave electricity bill of BSES in the name of his mother Kamla Devi, same are Ex. DW- 1/1 (colly) and the photocopy of SMDC office order dated 25.11.2012 is Marked as DW-1/2 and the document, when his son was born at RTRM hospital, Jafarpur is Ex. DW-1/3 (colly). This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
42. DW-2 is Smt. Kamla, W/o Sh. Kishan Kumar, aged about 53 years, R/o Village Mithrau, Balmiki Mohalla, Pillar no. 179, Najafgarh, ND. Presently residing at Gali no. 38, Vipin Garden, Harsh Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. (under Section 315 Cr.P.C). She deposed that she has come from Harsh Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and was living at Village Mitraun since 1991 along-with his 3 sons and wife of his son Sombir. She further deposed that no police came at her house ever. She further deposed that no neighbor ever told him that police came to inquire about Sombir. She further deposed that her son Sombir was blessed with a baby girl and his wife used to remain at home and nobody asked wife of Sombir about the whereabouts of the Sombir. She further deposed that her son was arrested from the house of Vipin Garden. She further deposed that her son Sombir was on duty on those days when he was arrested. (Again said, her son Sombir was sleeping at home when he was arrested). This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
43. Since no further witnesses were to be examined by the Ld. defence counsel, defence evidence in respect of accused Sombir was closed on 10.11.2023, and the matter was subsequently, posted for final arguments.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 47 of 9444. Vide order dated 12.02.2024, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was moved by the State for recalling PW-18 Inspector Anand Sagar, PW-20 SI Ramniwas & PW-21 Inspector Satish for denovo trial in relation to accused Narender @ Leelu and Sombir @ Sonu. Both the accused persons did not raise any objection to the application. Moreover, the record shows that the aforementioned witnesses had not been examined during the denovo trial of accused Narender @ Leelu and Sombir @ Sonu. Accordingly, the application was allowed, and PW-18 Retired ACP Anand Sagar, PW-20 Inspector Ramniwas & PW-21 Inspector Satish Kumar were examined (in the denovo trial qua accused Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu) (whose testimonies will be discussed in the proceeding paragraphs).
45. PW-18 Retired ACP Anand Sagar, S/o Late Sh. Vidya Sagar Singh, R/o- D-96, Sec-26, NOIDA, UP (denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on 12.09.2010, he was posted as SHO PS Najafgarh and on that day, in the night at about 11:05 p.m. on receipt of PCR call, vide DD No. 43A at PS Najafgarh, the attested copy of the said DD is on record as Ex PW18/A, he along with Ct. Satya Prakash, Ct. Ramesh and Ct. Hemant, reached at RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur, in a government vehicle i.e. police gypsy where SI Ram Niwas along with Ct. Ramesh were also found present. He further deposed that one Pradeep, S/o Kishan Kumar was found admitted in the hospital, vide MLC No. 3079/10, who was declared brought dead by the doctor and alleged history of gun shot Injury was mentioned on the MLC. He further deposed that on examination of the dead body, one gun shot wound was found present on the back left side of his neck under his left ear and blood was also oozing SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 48 of 94 out. He further deposed that in the hospital, one Gopal Gehlot Palley S/o Sh. Rohtash was also found present along with his friends Sunil S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh and Sudhir S/o Sh. Sant Kumar, the statement of Gopal Gehlot Palley already exhibited Ex. PW6/A was recorded. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with his above staff personnel and complainant Gopal Gehlot Palley, Sunil and Sudhir reached at the place of incident i.e Balmiki Choraha, Village Mitrau. Najafgarh, where Crime Team and photographer were called at the spot and on the basis of statement of complainant Gopal Gehlot and MLC of said deceased, he prepared a rukka Ex PW18/B and it was handed over to Ct. Ramesh for registration of the case under Section 302/120B/34 IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and the investigation of the present case was entrusted to Inspector R.R. Khatana, through the DO concerned and the copy of the FIR of the present case was sent to senior police officials and Ld. MM concerned, through special messenger. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu.
46. PW-20 is Inspector Ram Niwas No. DI-119, 8th Battalion, DAP (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He deposed that on the intervening night of 12/13.9.2010, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Najafgarh and during that night, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 pm to 08:00 am (next day) along with Ct Ramesh and at about 10:45 pm, again said 11.05 pm, he received DD No. 43A, already Ex.PW18/A, he along with Ct Ramesh reached at the place of incident i.e Balmiki Chowk. Mitrao Village, where blood was found lying. He further deposed that the wooden handle of SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 49 of 94 spade (fawda), one base ball bat and one pair of slippers, were found lying at the spot and after sometime SHO concerned Insp. Anand Sagar and Insp. R.R. Khatana came at the spot along with other police officials and on query from the public, it was revealed that injured was already removed to RTRM hospital and thereafter, Insp. R.R. Khatana and SHO Insp. Anand Sagar went to RTRM hospital, along with their staff officials and after about one and a half hour, the said officials came at the spot from RTRM hospital. He further deposed that thereafter. Crime Team along with government photographer were called at the spot and rukka, already Ex. PW18/B, was prepared by Insp. R.R. Khatana and it was handed over to Ct. Ramesh for the registration of the present case and after registration of the present case, Ct. Ramesh returned back at the spot along with copy of FIR with its original rukka which was handed over to Insp. R.R. Khatana. He further deposed that during investigation, Insp. R.R. Khatana prepared site plan, at the instance of Sh. Pradeep Pale. He further deposed that the blood lying at the spot, earth control, wooden handle of spade, base ball bat and pair of slippers were taken into police possession from the spot and converted into separate pullandas and sealed with the seal of RRK and seized vide seizure memo of slippers as Ex. PW20/A, the seizure memo of base ball bat and wooden handle of spade as Ex. PW20/B, the seizure memo of blood and earth control as Ex. PW20/C. He further deposed that thereafter, statement of Pradeep Pale was recorded and thereafter, search was made for tracing the accused persons but they could not be traced and they came at police station, where his statement was recorded. He further deposed that on 2.2.2011, he again joined the investigation of the present case, along with IO of this case and on that day, accused Naresh, Arvind.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 50 of 94Naveen and Vikash, present in the court (correctly identified) were already in custody and aforesaid accused persons led them to PS Kalanor, where a Santro car bearing No. DL-8CF-3027 was found deposited in the malkhana of that PS and thereafter, aforesaid accused persons led them to the place i.e crossing, 200 meters away from PS Kalanor, where they left the aforesaid Santro car, and a separate pointing out memo already Ex. PW19/J was prepared in this regard. He further deposed that they reached at PS Sadar Rohtak where the other vehicle i.e. Indica car bearing registration No. 11R-63A-8198, was found deposited in the malkhana of that PS and thereafter, all aforesaid accused persons led them on the way leading towards Gumana Road from Sheetal Engineering College, Village Kalai. and said place was pointed out by them as the place where they left the aforesaid Indica car. He further deposed that a separate pointing out memo Ex. PW20/D was prepared in this regard. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness was partly resiling from his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C on some material facts. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Legal Aid counsels for accused persons namely Sombir and Narender.
47. PW-21 is Inspector Satish Kumar, No. D-1/913, 6 th Battalion, DAP, Kingsway Camp, Delhi (This witness was again examined in denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu). He is the second Investigating Officer and has deposed that on 01.04.2011, he was posted as Inspector ATO at P'S Najafgarh and on that day, further investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by the then SHO, PS Najagarh, as the previous IO of the present case i.e. Inspector R.R. Khatana SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 51 of 94 was transferred from PS Najafgarh. He further deposed that on perusal of the case file, it was revealed that accused Naveen, Naresh. Arvind and Vikas were arrested in this case and their associates namely Manish, Narender, Sombir and Pradeep Dahiya were absconding and had to be arrested in this case. He further deposed that the whereabouts of accused Manish. Narender and Sombir were verified and whereabouts of accused Pradeep Dahiya was not verified. He further deposed that on 06.04.2011, an application already Ex. PW21/A for issuance of NBW's against accused Manish. Sombir and Narender was moved before the court of Ld. MΜ Concerned which was allowed and NBW were issued against accused Manish. Sobir and Narender. He further deposed that the charge sheet was filed against accused Naveen, Naresh. Arvind and Vikas before the court of Ld. MM concerned. He further deposed that sincere efforts were made for arresting accused Manish. Sombir and Narender but they could not be arrested in this case. He further deposed that thereafter, on the basis of process issued under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C against accused Manish, Sombir and Narender by Ld. MM concerned, they were declared Proclaimed Offenders in this case and supplementary charge sheet in this regard was also filed against them. This witness correctly identified accused Naveen, Naresh, Arvind in the court and Vikas (not present in the court, identity not disputed) as their JC was extended by Ld MM concerned on 15.04.2011 on his application already Ex. PW21/B. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Legal Aid counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu and Narender @ Leelu.
48. Thereafter, the Ld. Addl PP for the State submitted that all the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 52 of 94 witnesses qua denovo trial of accused persons namely Sombir @ Sonu & Narender @ Leelu had been examined and accordingly, PE was closed. The matter was then posted for recording the additional statements of accused person, Sombir @ Sonu & Narender @ Leelu.
49. Accordingly, additional statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C of accused persons namely Sombir @ Sonu and Narender @ Leelu were recorded, wherein both the accused stated that they were innocent and had not committed any offence. They further opted not to lead any defence evidence. The matter was then posted for final arguments.
50. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the Ld. counsels for the accused persons and have perused the entire record.
51. The accused persons are facing trial before this Court for offences under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC, based on allegations that on 12.09.2010, they, entered into a criminal conspiracy and agreed to do an illegal act namely murder of Pradeep and also acted in pursuance of your criminal conspiracy. It is alleged that in furtherance of their common intention, they committed the murder of Pradeep, S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar. Additionally, accused Naveen @ Pahalwan is facing trial for offences under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act on the allegation that on 12.09.2010, he was found in possession of a katta without a valid license from the Delhi Administration, which was used in the commission of the offence.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 53 of 9452. The trial primarily hinged on the testimony of the complainant and eyewitnesses. On 14.10.2011, the complainant / eyewitness, PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gahlot deposed in the Court that on 12.09.2010 at about 07:15 p.m. or 07:30 p.m., he was sitting at Dhimani Pond in the village Mitrao and his friend Pradeep was also sitting with him. He further deposed that Pradeep gave a call to one Naveen, who also resides in the same village, and asked him where he was to which Naveen told him that he was at Bharthal, Delhi and Naveen also told Pradeep that he is sitting with somebody but the name of the person with whom Naveen was at that time could not be heard by him. He further deposed that Pradeep told him to let him talk to that person to which Naveen let Pradeep talk to that person and after 15/20 minutes, Naveen again gave a call to Pradeep and asked him why he was making inquiries about him (Naveen) from that person, who was with Naveen upon this, a verbal altercations started between Naveen and Pradeep on phone itself and they also started abusing each other. He further deposed that he intervened and got the phone call disconnected and thereafter, he and Pradeep went to Pradeep's house where Pradeep called his associates Sudhir and Sunil of Village Mundela, whom he knew through Pradeep only, to his house and both of them reached Pradeep's house after about half an hour and they were discussing how to end the dispute between Pradeep and Naveen and thereafter, he and Pradeep went to drop Sudhir and Sunil in their Village before entering Village Mundela, Pradeep received a call on his mobile phone from Naveen and Naveen told Pradeep that he wants to meet him and does not want to quarrel any further. He further deposed that Naveen asked Pradeep to meet him at Balmiki Crossing in Village Mitrao SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 54 of 94 upon which he along with Pradeep, Sunil and Sudhir reached Balmiki Crossing where they met Naveen, who was accompanied by Naresh, Arvind, and one other person, whose name he did not remember and besides them, there were three other persons also present along with Naveen, whom he did not know. He further deposed that they started talking to each other and Pradeep asked Naveen why he was abusing him on phone and immediately thereafter, verbal altercations started again and a fight ensued and Naresh was carrying a baseball bat in his hand, with which he hit Pradeep on the back side of his head. He further deposed that on sustaining injury, Pradeep knelt forward and he was caught by Arvind and Medium. He further deposed that Medium was one of the persons present at the spot along with Naveen, whose name he recollected then and thereafter, Naveen took out a Desi revolver (Katta) and fired upon Pradeep and the bullet hit Pradeep on his neck and Pradeep fell down. He further deposed that he, Sudhir and Sunil were two paces away from Pradeep and they came forward and lifted Pradeep and took him to RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, where he was declared dead by the doctor. He further deposed that police reached the hospital and recorded his statement as Ex.PW6/A. He correctly identified the accused persons i.e. Naveen, Arvind, Medium and Naresh in the court. PW-6 correctly identified accused Naveen, Naresh and Arvind. He pointed to accused Vikas and identified him as Medium. The further examination-in-chief of this witness was deferred for want of case property.
On 02.06.2012, this witness was further examined-in-chief and then, cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium. During his testimony, he stated that he knew Pradeep since SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 55 of 94 childhood and both he and Pradeep were farmers. He admitted that there are two groups in their Village and there is rivalry between these two groups, one of the groups is led by his uncle Balraj and another group is headed by Sh. Bharat Singh, the MLA of the area. He also admitted that on account of such rivalry, there was a police security around their Village. He admitted as correct that there was security around their Village on 12.9.2010 also and the security personnel were present on the main road immediately on the outskirt of the village and the distance between his house and the house of accused Naveen would be around 100 meters. He admitted as correct that there was no enmity between himself, Pradeep etc. and accused Naveen. He denied the suggestion that criminal cases were pending against deceased Pradeep. He admitted as correct that he was involved in certain criminal cases. He further deposed that on 12.09.2010, he met deceased Pradeep for the first time at about 08:30 a.m in front of his house and they both went towards fields and he remained with him for about one and a half hours and in the evening, he met him at about 07:00 p.m and they met randomly in the village. He admitted as correct people used to come to Dhimani-pond in the Village and on that day, he was having his mobile phone with him. He further deposed that when he was sitting with Pradeep at the pond, there was nobody else present there. He further deposed that he heard deceased Pradeep talking to somebody on phone, but he did not hear the voice of the person, on the other side of the call and he did not know who was that person and he could not tell with whom Pradeep talked and how many times, however, they sat at the pond for about 30 or 45 minutes. He further deposed that after leaving the pond, they went to the house of Pradeep and everything was peaceful at the house of Pradeep. He admitted as correct SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 56 of 94 that no talk about the quarrel took place at the house of Pradeep and he remained in the house of Pradeep for about half an hour and thereafter he left. He further deposed that Sunil and Sudhir came to the house of Pradeep in his presence. He further deposed that he and Pradeep left the house of Pradeep together and they were discussing that they would not indulge in any quarrel and they had gone to the Village of Sudhir to drop him at his house, but before they could reach the village, Pradeep again had a talk with somebody on phone and they returned to their village and they stopped at Balmiki Mohalla in their village and he did not know with whom Pradeep had talked on phone and he did not know who was on the other side of the call, who had called Pradeep to that place, but Pradeep had told him that it was Naveen, with whom he talked and who had called him to that place and after reaching Balmiki Mohalla, he, Sudhir and Sunil remained in the car whereas Pradeep got out of the car and started walking. He denied the suggestion that the place where dead body of Pradeep was lying, was not visible from the place, where the car was parked. He further deposed that he had also got down from the car, later on and was watching Pradeep, Naveen and other persons, so that no quarrel would take place. Further cross examination of the witness was deferred upon the request of Ld. counsel for the accused persons, who stated that one of his close acquaintance is in serious condition in the hospital pursuant to gun shot injury.
On 06.09.2012, this witness was further cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium wherein he admitted as correct that he did not hear the voice of the person, with whom Pradeep was talking on phone and he did not talk to that person. He further deposed that SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 57 of 94 his statement was recorded by the police for the first time on the date of incident in the police station and his statement was recorded only once. He further deposed that thereafter, police did not contact him in connection with this case and he had left the police station on the date of incident at 04:00 a.m, however, he did not go to any place except the police station on that day. He admitted as correct that the incident took place in a dark night. He further deposed that the distance between the spot of incident and the spot where Pradeep was dropped from our car was about 50 to 60 feet and they had dropped Pradeep in a gali. He admitted as correct that the house of Pradeep was not visible from that place. He denied the suggestion that Pradeep was lying in front of his house, however, he was lying near the crossing in the village and the crossing was visible from the spot where we had dropped Pradeep, but the people present at the crossing could not be seen. He further deposed that only Pradeep was lying at the crossing when they lifted him from there and nobody else was present there and Pradeep was conscious at that time. He further deposed that he had stated in his examination-in-chief, at the instance of father of Pradeep that he saw Naveen taking out a desi katta and firing upon Pradeep. He further deposed that he had also stated at the instance of father of Pradeep that Naresh was carrying a baseball bat in his hand, with which he hit Pradeep on the back side of his head. He admitted as correct that he met the father of Pradeep before his statement was recorded by the police and he gave statement to the police also at the instance of Pradeep's father. He admitted as correct that he had not seen the incident in which Pradeep sustained injuries. He admitted as correct that on the date of incident, he had not met any of the accused. He also admitted as correct that no scuffle had taken place in his SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 58 of 94 presence. He also admitted as correct that he along with Sudhir and Sunil ran towards the spot of incident, after hearing the sound of gunfire. He further deposed that his statement was not recorded in the hospital. He further deposed that he did not make any call on telephone number 100. He further deposed that he did not know who made call at telephone no.100. He further deposed that he had not come to the Court along with Sudhir and Sunil on 28.01.2012. He further deposed that Sudhir and Sunil had come to the Court along with him on the date when his examination-in-chief was recorded. He denied the suggestion that on the day, when his examination- in-chief was recorded, he was asked by a police person to depose on the lines of his statement recorded by the police and on that day, Pradeep's father was with him and for this reason, he gave statement before the Court. He further deposed that whatever he had spoken about the incident that day is true and whatever he had spoken on the last date of hearing about the same is false. He admitted as correct that he is not under any influence or pressure. He further deposed that he had not tutored Sudhir and Sunil about what they should depose before the Court. He admitted as correct that no quarrel had taken place between Pradeep and Naveen in his presence. He further deposed that he knew accused Naveen, Naresh and Arvind as they are his co-villagers and he knew accused Vikas @Medium as he is a friend of other three accused and he knew them for the last 4/5 years. This witness was re-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he made inconsistent statement in his cross examination. In his re-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he admitted as correct that on the date of incident, he was with Pradeep from 07.15 p.m. till the happening of the incident. He also admitted as correct that Sudhir and Sunil also joined them on being called by SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 59 of 94 Pradeep. He also admitted as correct that he never told the Court before today that he had given a false statement at the instance of Pradeep's father. He also admitted as correct that the FIR has been registered in this case on the basis of his statement and he did not tell police also that he was giving a false statement at the instance of Pradeep's father. He denied the suggestion that he had seen the accused firing upon Pradeep. He also denied the suggestion that his statement dated 14.10.2011 is true and whatever he has stated that day is false. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely as he was under the influence and pressure of the accused.
It is a matter of record that in the denovo trial of accused Sombir @ Sonu, PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gehlot was again examined on 17.07.2018 wherein he deposed that on 17.07.2018, PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gehlot deposed that on 14th October, but he did not remember the year, on that day he along with his friend Pradeep (since deceased) went on the side of pond outside the Village Mitrau at about 08:00 p.m and they were sitting there till 10:30-11:00 p.m and thereafter, he left Pradeep at his house at about 10:45 p.m and when he reached at a distance of 3-4 houses from the house of Pradeep, he heard the noise of firing and he turned back and reached the place where he found that Pradeep was lying on the road and his father known as Master ji was present there. He further deposed that he also noticed that Pradeep had sustained fire injuries. He further deposed that father of Pradeep told him that after he left the house of Pradeep, one person came there and took Pradeep with him from his house and thereafter, some one had fired upon Pradeep. He further deposed that he also stated that there were 7-8 persons who were involved in the commission of crime. He further deposed that one person namely Sudhir along with and one other SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 60 of 94 person, whose name he did not remember that day, came there and took Pradeep to the hospital. He further deposed that he along with father of Pradeep came back to the house of Pradeep from the place of incident. He further deposed that next morning at about 4:00-5:00 a.m, police officials from PS Najafgarh came at his house and took him to PS and at the PS, police officials took his signatures on some blank papers and father of Pradeep stated to him that in the said blank papers. it was reduced into writing by the police that he had seen the accused persons committing the murder of Pradeep and he also stated the names of the said accused persons. He further deposed that the said facts were not correct. He further deposed that he had also stated that if he would not depose the said facts in the court, he would be falsely implicated in a case, as his signatures are on the blank papers with the police officials. He further deposed that since, he was under
the pressure of the father of the deceased Pradeep, he deposed in the Court at his instance. He further deposed that he had not seen any of the accused persons firing upon Pradeep. He apologized for providing false statement in the Court. Further examination-in-chief was deferred at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, as the assistance of IO was required for further evidence in the matter.
On 25.03.2019, this witness was further examined. However, Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that since the IO had not recorded the statement of Gopal Gahlot under Section 161 Cr.P.C, after the arrest of Sombir @Sonu, the witness could not be confronted with anything (any prior statement). This witness was then cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu during which, he admitted that accused Sombir @ Sonu was a resident of his village and he knew him prior to the incident.SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 61 of 94
He further confirmed that accused Sombir @ Sonu used to work with MCD. In the meanwhile, accused Narender was also arrested and charge was also framed against him.
Again on 01.06.2019, this witness was recalled for further cross-examination on behalf of accused Narender @ Leelu following his initial examination on 25.03.2019. During cross-examination, he deposed that he had not seen anyone firing or shooting the deceased and when he reached the place, father of the deceased was there who stated him that some unknown person had called the deceased from the house and thereafter, shot him. He further deposed that he never came to know that who assaulted the deceased. He further deposed that on 14.10.2011, he was accompanied to the Court with the father of the deceased and, under his pressure gave a false statement on 14.10.2011 at the instance of the father of the deceased.
The Ld. Addl. PP re-examined the witness due to contradictory statements giving by him during his cross examination and his examination- in-chief recorded on 14.11.2010. During re-examination, he denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2010, he was with the deceased Pardeep or that he saw accused Naveen firing at the deceased along with other accused persons. He also denied that the father of the deceased had not accompanied him to the PS or to the Court on 14.11.2010 or that he had stated true facts in his examination-in-chief or that, he had retracted from his examination- in-chief deliberately as he had won over the accused persons.
53. PW-8 is Sh. Sunil Kumar, S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, R/o H.No. RZ-120, X-Block, New Roshanpura, Najafgarh, New Delhi (who was examined on SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 62 of 94 28.01.2012). He deposed that on 12.09.2010 at about 08:30 p.m, he was present in his house and his friend Sudhir Kumar was also sitting with him and he received a call from another friend Pradeep (since deceased) saying that he had an altercation with a person named Naveen and he asked him to come to his house in Mitraon Village upon which he along with Sudhir reached the house of Pradeep at Mitraon Village at about 9.15 p.m and a person named Gopal was also present with Pradeep at that time and they prevailed upon Pradeep and advised him not to quarrel with anybody and the matter would be set right in the morning and thereafter, he along with Pradeep and Gopal went to drop Sudhir at his house in Village Mundela and on the way, Pradeep received various calls from Naveen and they talked to each other. He further deposed that they had almost reached Mundela Village when Pradeep told that they should go and meet Naveen as he has now pacified and there was no dispute and accordingly, they returned to Village Mitraon to meet Naveen at Balmiki Chauraha and they reached Balmiki Chauraha at about 10:30 or 10:40 p.m. He further deposed that they were in Maruti Swift car being driven by him. He further deposed that accused Naveen, accused Medium, accused Arvind, accused Naresh, present in court that day (correctly identified) along with two to four associates were present at Balimiki Chauraha and when they stopped the car, Pradeep got down and went near the aforesaid accused persons and as soon as Pradeep went near them, accused Naresh hit him on the back of his head with a baseball bat and accused Medium and accused Arvind held Pradeep by embracing him in their arms. He further deposed that accused Naveen was having a country made revolver (Katta) in his hand and he put the revolver at the temple of Pradeep and fired at him at point blank range SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 63 of 94 and Pradeep fell on the ground and as soon as they reached near that place, the accused and their associates fled from the spot and while running away from the spot, accused Naveen told Gopal @ Pale that he has fired upon Pradeep from a Katta and let him save Pradeep, if he can and thereafter, the accused and their associates boarded two cars Santro and Indica and left. He further deposed that he called PCR on telephone no.100 and they removed Pradeep to RTR Hospital, Jaffarpur, in the Swift Car where the doctor declared Pradeep brought dead. He further deposed that police also reached the hospital. His further examination-in-chief was deferred on 28.01.2012 for want of case property.
On 06.09.2012, he was further examined-in-chief, where he stated that he could not identify the desi katta with which Pradeep was fired upon. During cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel for accused Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium, he admitted that he did not know from whom Pradeep received phone calls on the date of incident and about what they were talking, however, Gopal had told him that Pradeep had been receiving calls from Naveen. He admitted as correct that the house of Pradeep or the spot where he was lying afterwards was not visible from the spot where they had dropped him from the car. He further deposed that it was a dark night and the street light was far away but, he did not remember whether the street light was on or off at that time. He further deposed that they had run towards Pradeep after hearing the sound of gun fire. He admitted as correct that they could not see at that time, who fired upon Pradeep. He further deposed that he, Sudhir and Gopal ran towards Pradeep together. He admitted as correct that from the spot, where he was reversing his car, SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 64 of 94 Pradeep could not be seen. He further deposed that whatever he had stated in this regard on 28.01.2012, in his examination-in-chief was false and whatever he had stated that day is true and correct. He further deposed that as Gopal had told him that Naveen must have killed Pradeep, he gave such statement to the Police. He further deposed that on 28.01.2012, he was asked by Police to depose on the lines of his statement given by him to them and that day, he was not deposing under the influence or pressure of anybody. He further deposed that he has deposed that day truthfully, as his conscience pricked him to tell the truth. He further deposed that he had seen the accused for the first time on 28.01.2012 and Gopal told him their names and identified them to him. He further deposed that on that day, a policeman read over a statement to him saying that he has to depose on these lines and also told him that if he would say anything contrary, he would be prosecuted. He admitted as correct that on that day, he had come to the Court along with Gopal and Sudhir and police had not made any inquiries from him regarding the incident and never recorded his statement. He further deposed that he knew deceased Pradeep, however, he did not know whether he was involved in any criminal case.
This witness was re-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State due to the inconsistencies in his examination-in-chief and cross- examination. He admitted that he did not lodge any complaint with any authority regarding the threats issued to him by the policemen on 28.01.2012. He denied the suggestion that there was no darkness at the spot of incident. He denied the suggestion that he, Sudhir and Gopal were present when Pradeep was shot by accused Naveen and they saw Naveen firing upon Pradeep. He also denied the suggestion that on 28.01.2012, the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 65 of 94 accused had quarreled with him outside the court and threatened him. He admitted as correct that he had not lodged any complaint against Bhopal also as he had exerted pressure upon him to give false statements in Court. He also denied that whatever he had deposed on 28.01.2012 were truthful and stated that his current testimony was not influenced by the accused. He denied that he was deposing falsely that day as he had been won over by the accused persons.
It is a matter of record that PW-8 Sh. Sunil Kumar was again examined in denovo trial of accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu which was recorded on 08.03.2019 wherein he deposed that on 12.09.2010 at about 08:30 pm., he visited Village Mitrau, where he met his friends Pradeep (since deceased) and Gopal and after some time, his friend Sudhir also joined them. He further deposed that in the meantime, Pradeep (since deceased) received a call on his mobile phone and he started exchanging vulgar abuses with the caller and when he inquired about the caller from Gopal, he told him that Pradeep might have been talking to Naveen. He further deposed that after some time, Pradeep left them and he, Gopal and Sudhir kept sitting in a car for quite a long duration and while they were sitting in the car, they heard a noise of gun shot and thereupon, Gopal rushed towards the Balmiki crossing (chauraha) and subsequently, called them at the crossing and they noticed that Pradeep received gun shot injury and was lying on the ground. He further deposed that his father was also present there and father of Pradeep told them that someone had visited their house and Pradeep left the house with him. He further deposed that they took Pradeep to the hospital and made a call at 100 number. He further deposed that in the hospital, the doctors told them that Pradeep had SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 66 of 94 succumbed to the injuries. He further deposed that thereafter, he returned to his home. He further deposed that in the morning, he was called at the police station, where the police officials obtained his signatures on various documents and besides this, he claimed to have no further knowledge of the incident.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. During cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2010, he had visited Village Mitrau with Pradeep in his Maruti Swift Car. He voluntarily stated that he had alone visited Village Mitrau in his Maruti Swift Car and upon reaching, Pradeep had met him. Further cross-examination of the witness was deferred at the request of the Addl. PP for the State.
On 01.06.2019, this witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2010 in the night, they were going to drop Sudhir to his house at Mundela or that deceased Pardeep has received the call of accused Naveen many times. He also denied the suggestion that on the way they told Pardeep to go and meet Naveen and solve the matter amicably or that then they reached at Valmiki Chouraha, where all accused Naveen, Medium, Arvind and Naresh were present there along with their 2-4 associates. He denied the suggestion that deceased Pardeep went to Naveen but altercation again ensued between them. He also denied the suggestion that accused Naresh hit Pardeep on the back of his head by the base ball bat or that accused Naveen fired at Pardeep from a close range upon which Pardeep fell down on the ground. He further deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police on that day neither on any other day and his signatures were only obtained by the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 67 of 94 IO on some papers. The statement Mark PW8/PX1 was read over the witness and witness stated that he had not given any such statement. He denied the suggestion that statement Mark PW8/PX1 was recorded by the IO in his presence. He deposed that on 28.01.2012, Gopal and father of deceased had accompanied him in the Court and he was under their influence on that day. He admitted as correct that he had not stated the court that he had deposed on that day in the influence of Gopal and father of Pardeep who was present with Gopal. He denied the suggestion that what he had deposed on 28.01.2012 was his true statement which corroborated his statement recorded by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over the accused persons afterwards. This witness did not identify accused Narender and Sombir in the Court, however, he deposed that he had seen them for the first time that day. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identified accused Narender and Sombir or that they were involved in the murder of Pardeep or that he had been won over by all accused persons and that is why, he had retracted from his earlier statement given to the IO and in his examination-in-chief.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for all accused except accused Sombir wherein he deposed that he had not heard the conversation between Pardeep and the other person while Pardeep was talking on phone with him and as such, he could not say with whom Pardeep was talking. He deposed that he had not seen incident and he was not the eye witness.
Ld. counsel for accused Sombir @ Sonu adopted the same cross-examination led by Ld. counsel for the other accused persons.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 68 of 9454. PW-9 is Sh. Sudhir, S/o Sh. Sant Kumar, R/o H.No.268, Mundela Khurd, New Delhi-73 (recorded on 28.01.2012). He deposed that on 12.9.2010 at about 08:30 p.m. he was present in his house and he received a call from his friend Sunil saying that their another friend Pradeep had a quarrel with somebody and they need to go there and he came to take him and they both reached the house of Pradeep in Mitraon village at about 09:15 p.m. in a Maruti Swift car of Sunil being driven by Sunil himself. He further deposed that they advised Pradeep not to quarrel, however, he acceded to their advise and then Sunil and Pradeep came to drop him at his house. He further deposed that in the way, Pradeep again received a call from Naveen and they exchanged abuses on the phone and then, he along with Pradeep, Gopal and Sunil went to Balmiki Chowk in Mitraon Village to meet Naveen. He further deposed that accused Naveen, accused Naresh, accused Medium and the fourth accused present in court that day (correctly identified) along with two to four associates were already present there and as soon as Sunil stopped the car, Pradeep got down and went towards the accused persons and at the same time, accused Naresh hit Pradeep on the back of his head with the baseball bat. He further deposed that accused Medium and the fourth accused held the hands of Pradeep and accused Naveen was having a Katta in his hand however, he was not sure about the nature of weapon held by Naveen and put the same on the neck of Pradeep and fired upon him and Pradeep fell down. He further deposed that they came out of the car, but the accused and their associates left in a Santro and in Indica car. He further deposed that accused Naveen declared that he has fired upon Pradeep by a Katta and they may save him, if they can. He further deposed that they lifted Pradeep and took him to RTR Hospital, SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 69 of 94 Jaffarpur, in the Swift Car and Sunil called PCR at number 100, however, Pradeep was declared brought dead by the doctor in the hospital. He further deposed that police reached hospital and made inquiries from him. Further examination-in-chief of the witness was deferred for want of case property.
On 13.08.2012, this witness was recalled for further examination wherein he deposed that he could not identify the desi katta with which Pradeep was fired upon. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium wherein he admitted as correct that he did not know with whom Pradeep had verbal altercation on phone or that with whom Pradeep was talking on phone. He deposed that when they reached Village Mitraon, they dropped Pradeep outside the gali near his house. He admitted as correct that it was dark at that time and the place where Pradeep had fallen after getting bullet injury was not visible from the place where we had dropped him. He further deposed that he heard the sound of gunfire. He admitted as correct that he along with Sunil and Gopal came out of the Swift car, after hearing the sound of gunfire. He admitted as correct that when they reached near Pradeep, the assailants ran away. He further deposed that Gopal had told him that the assailants would be Naveen, Naresh, Arvind and Vikas and he should take their names. He admitted as correct that he did not know any of the accused before that day. He further deposed that on the last date, when his examination in chief was recorded, he had identified the accused as they were pointed out to him by Gopal outside the court room. He admitted as correct that he did not see any of the accused at the spot of incident. He also admitted as correct that Pradeep had fell down near his house. He admitted as correct that on the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 70 of 94 last date of hearing, Gopal and one policeman read over to him, his statement recorded by police, outside the court room and he deposed on the basis of the same. He further deposed that Sunil's statement recorded by the police was also read over to him by Gopal and a policeman in his presence. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in the police station and he had not stated anything against any of the accused to the police in his statement. He admitted as correct that Pradeep is a rouge person and has enmity with many persons of the area. He admitted as correct that whatever he has deposed that day is true and that he has deposed without any fear or pressure. He admitted as correct that he had deposed on the last date of hearing under the influence and at the instance of Gopal and Sunil.
This witness was re-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State in view of the inconsistencies in his examination-in-chief and cross- examination wherein he deposed that he knew and understand the sanctity of oath. He admitted as correct that he had deposed before this Court on 28.01.2012 on oath. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed on that day without any fear and voluntarily. He also denied the suggestion that he was not under any pressure on that day. He further deposed that he had given the statement to the police also at the instance of Gopal and he stated to the police whatever was told to him by Gopal. He further deposed that he had not lodged any complaint against Gopal for his threat either in the police station or in any Court. He denied the suggestion that his deposition dated 28.01.2012 is true and correct. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed on account of pressure exerted upon him on behalf of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was the eye witness to the incident in SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 71 of 94 which Pradeep suffered gunshot injury. He admitted as correct that he had also accompanied Pradeep to the hospital from the spot of incident and had gone there in Santro vehicle which was being driven by Sunil and Sunil had brought that vehicle to the spot. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely that day.
Reply to Court Question:
He deposed that the pressure of Gopal has vanished now as he had stopped talking to him.
It is a matter of record that that witness was again examined in denovo trial which was recorded on 18.04.2018 wherein he deposed that he did not remember the date perhaps, it was the 10 th month of the year 2010 and on that day, at about 08:00 or 09:00 p.m, he along with his friend Sunil was going to his house from Mitrau Village in his vehicle make Swift, the number of which he did not remember now, due to lapse of time and also because he had sold the said vehicle. He further deposed that at that time, he heard the noise of firing, at this, he stopped his car and reached at the said spot in Mitrau Village and found a dead body lying there and the dead body was of Pradeep who was a friend of Sunil and Sunil was his friend and as such, he knew Pradeep also. He further deposed that the father of Pradeep was also present there who told him that somebody had fired a gun shot on his son. He further deposed that he did not see any assailant or offender at the said spot and thereafter, he and Sunil took the body of Pradeep to RTRM Hospital, Jafarpur Kalan where Pradeep was declared dead. He further deposed that he did not know anything else. He further deposed that he also could not identify any of the accused or the case property. He further deposed that he did not want to say anything else.SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 72 of 94
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement and was suppressing the truth wherein he deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police in this case. He denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police in this case. The statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C written under the name of witness Sudhir Kumar dated 13.09.2010 was read over and explained to him properly to which the witness stated that he had never given any such statement to the police and the said statement is now Marked PW9/A. He denied the suggestion that statement Mark PW9/A was recorded by police on his narration regarding the sequence and manner in which the murder of Pradeep took place. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to police in his statement Mark PW9/A that on 12.09.2010, he was telephoned by his friend Sunil stating that a quarrel had taken place between his friend Pradeep and one another villager Naveen and that they had to go to Mitrau or that he knew Pradeep and Naveen through his friend Sunil or that on receipt of the said information from Sunil, he along with Sunil in a Swift car reached in front of house of Pradeep at Chauraha at Mitrau Village at about 09:15 p.m or that there Gopal @ Pale and Pradeep were already present or that they talked about the quarrel took place with Naveen or that it was decided there that they will not have any further quarrel and the matter was pacified or that they made Pradeep also understand or that thereafter, they all accompanied him to drop him at his Village Mundela Khurd or that as soon as they reached near his village Mundela Khurd, Naveen made a call to Pradeep and asked him to reach at Valmiki Chauraha or that at this they all at about 10:30 p.m reached at Valmiki Chauraha or that there Naveen, Naresh, Arvind all resident of SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 73 of 94 Mitrau and their fourth associate namely Medium resident of Najafgarh and who generally used to remain with Naveen, Naresh and Arvind were present there along with their other three associates or that at the chauraha itself two cars, one of make Santro and another of Make Indica was also there or that Naresh was having a base ball bat or that Medium was having a stick of 'fawda' in his hand or that Pradeep got down from the car and reached near Naveen and questioned him as to why he was abusing him on phone or that at this Naresh assaulted on the neck of Pradeep with base ball bat and as a result of which Pradeep bent down or that seeing opportunity Arvind and Medium caught hold of Pradeep or that accused Naveen took out the pistol and fired a gun shot on the neck of Pradeep or that as a result of which Pradeep fell down on the road and he started bleeding from his neck or that he, Gopal and Sunil rushed towards Pradeep or that they tried to make him move but Pradeep was unable to move or speak anything and he felt unconscious or that thereafter, Naveen and his other associates rushed towards their cars and while running, Naveen shouted by saying "maine ise goli mari hai bachega nahi bacha sako to bachalo" or that thereafter, they removed Pradeep to RTRM Hospital, or that Naveen, Naresh, Arvind, Medium and his three other associates had committed the murder of Pradeep in a plannned manner or that and for that reason they had called him at Valmiki Chauraha and then fired a gun shot and had committed the murder of Pradeep by gun shot in a planned manner or that he knew Naveen, Naresh, Arvind and Medium because of Pradeep (deceased) or that he could identify the other three associates of these above accused persons if shown to him. One another statement U/s. 161 Cr.PC dated 09.05.2017 written under the name of witness was read over and SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 74 of 94 explained to him to which he denies of having given any such statement to the police, the said statement was marked as PW9/B. He denied the suggestion that statement Marked PW9/B was correctly recorded by police on his narration. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police in his statement PW9/B that on 09.05.2017, he had visited Dwarka Court for some work or that in the afternoon while he was standing near Advocate Block and was waiting for his Advocate at that time he saw that one Constable was coming holding hands of one accused or that at that time, IO Inspector Tulsi Ram also reached there or that on seeing that person who was in custody of the Constable, he identified him and informed the IO that he was the same person who on 12.09.2010 was along with Naveen, Naresh, Arvind, Vikas, Manish and Narender and was present at Valmiki Chawk, Mitrau Village where Naveen had fired a gun shot on Pradeep and had committed his murder and thereafter they had run away from there or that he came to know the name of said person who was in custody in the said Constable as stated above as Sombir R/o Village Mitrau or that Sombir, Manish and Narender did not allow him, Sunil and Gopal @ Pale to come out and get out from the car of Pradeep on the day of incident or that all other persons had committed the murder of Pradeep in a planned manner. Accused Sombir (present in court that day) was specifically shown to witness and on seeing him he states that he has never seen Sombir before that day and did not know him. He denied the suggestion that statement Marked PW9/A and Marked PW9/B were correctly recorded by police on his narration. Further statement of witness was deferred.
On 18.04.2019, this witness was not cross-examined by any of the Ld. counsels for the accused persons.SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 75 of 94
55. PW-10 is Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sholiya Ram, R/o House No. 30/58, Patel Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana (recorded on 08.11.2012). He deposed that he was the owner of Tata Indica car bearing registration no.
HR-63AT-8198 and the said vehicle was being driven by a driver who was engaged by his son but he did not know the name of the driver. He further deposed that about two years before, on one day, the driver did not bring back the said car and accordingly, they reported the matter to the police and about five or six months thereafter, when he visited the PS Najafgarh to inquire about the progress of his complaint, he was told that the car has been found and lying in the police station at that time. He further deposed that thereafter, he got the said car on superdari by the orders of the Court.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was declared hostile and partly resiling from his previous statement and was suppressing the truth wherein he admitted as correct that police made inquiries from him in connection with this case and also recorded his statement, however, he had not stated in his statement that on 22.02.2011, he had gone to PS Sadar, Rohtak along with HC Ramesh and he also had not stated that the vehicle was got by him from PS Sadar, Rohtak. He further deposed that he had not stated to the police that a number plate having different registration number as HR63A8198 was on the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the car and its number plate were seized by the Police at PS Sadar, Rohtak (confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it is so mentioned). He admitted as correct that signature appearing at point A on the seizure memo of Tata Indica Car marked A and the seizure memo of number plates of the car marked B were SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 76 of 94 his. He further deposed that he could not say whether accused Naresh, (present in court) used to drive his Tata Indica car as he had not seen the driver of the car as he was engaged by his son. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he had been won over by the accused.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. defence counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium wherein he admitted as correct that the driver of the car himself had told his son that the car had been stolen and about two or three weeks, after the lodging the report in the Police Station, his son was told by the police that the car has been found and about two and a half months after the lodging of the report, when he also had visited the police station to take the delivery of the car, he was told that the car has not come to the police station as yet. He admitted as correct that his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was not read over to him and he had also not gone through the same. He admitted as correct that his signatures were obtained on blank papers.
In denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu which was recorded on 15.03.2019, PW10 is Sh. Om Parkash deposed that he was the owner of the Tata Indica car bearing registration No. HR-63A 8198 and the said car was managed by his son, Sandeep and the same was being driven by one driver. He further deposed that he did not recollect whether he had made any complaint to Police Station Najafgarh, however, his signatures were obtained on some paper in the PS. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was partly resiling from his previous statement wherein he SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 77 of 94 denied the suggestion that IO had made inquiries from him in connection with the present case and recorded his statement on 22.02.2011. He also denied the suggestion that he had gone to PS Sadar, Rohtak along with HC Ramesh. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons on the material aspects or that he has concealed true facts.
This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsels for accused persons namely Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu.
56. PW-11 is Sh. Sandeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash, R/o House No. 30/58, Patel Nagar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana (recorded on 08.11.2012). He deposed that his father owns a Tata Indica car bearing Registration no. HR-63AT-8198 and the said vehicle was being driven by himself and Naresh and the said vehicle was lost at the hands of Naresh on 12.09.2010. He further deposed that he reported the matter to PS Najafgarh on 13.09.2010 and when he used to visit the Police Station in connection with the complaint, he was sometime told that the car has been found and sometimes that it would be found very soon. He further deposed that about fifteen to twenty days after the lodging of complaint, he was told for the first time that the car has been found and the police told them that the car has been found in Rohtak and ultimately his father got the car after about six to seven months. He identified accused Naresh (who was driving the said car). (The witness pointed towards accused Naresh present in court that day saying that he used to drive the said car). He further deposed that Naresh was driving the said vehicle for HCL Company in Gurgaon who told him that the car has been stolen from his house during the day on 12.09.2010 and he told him so in the evening of 12.9.2010. He further SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 78 of 94 deposed that Naresh had driven the car for the company on the night intervening between 11.09.10 and 12.09.10.
This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was declared hostile and partly resiling from his previous statement and was suppressing the truth wherein he deposed that police never met him in connection with this case. He denied the suggestion that police had made inquiries from him in connection with this case and also recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that when he handed over the car to Naresh on 12.09.2010, he had not gone to the office of HCL Gurgaon and he had also not called him on phone and when he inquired from his house, he came to know that he had not reached the house. (Confronted from the portion A to A of statement u/s 161 Cr.P.V. wherein it was so mentioned). Vol. he and Naresh together had gone to the police station for lodging the report on 13.09.2010 at about 03:00 pm. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused. This witness was not cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arvind @ Bindu and Vikas @ Suraj Bhan @ Medium.
In denovo trial qua accused Sombir @ Sonu and accused Narender @ Leelu which was recorded on 15.03.2019, PW-11 Sh. Sandeep deposed that his father was having a Tata Indica car bearing registration No. HR-63A 8198 and he used to manage the said car. He further deposed that in the year 2010, he had employed accused Naresh, (present in the court that day) as a driver in respect of the said car and the said car was being hired by M/s HCL, Gurgaon. He further deposed that on 12.09.2010, at about 11:00 p.m., he and accused Naresh returned home after dropping the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 79 of 94 passengers of M/s HCL in the said car. He further deposed that on 13.09.2010, accused Naresh told him that the said car had been stolen from outside his house in the intervening night of 12/13.09.2010 upon which he and Naresh made efforts to search the said car but the same could not be found. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with Naresh went to the police station Najafgarh and informed about the same. He further deposed that about after 15-20 days, he was informed by the police officials that his car had been recovered from Najafgarh. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. counsels for the accused persons namely Narender @ Leelu & Sombir @ Sonu.
57. Upon meticulous scrutiny of the testimonies of PW-6, PW-8 & PW-9, it becomes apparent that all the witnesses denied having seen the incident. Among these witnesses, the testimony of PW-6, Sh. Gopal Gahlot holds particular significance because as per the prosecution story, he was with the deceased Pardeep from the beginning to the end of the incident. A careful perusal of his testimony recorded on 14.10.2011 shows that PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gahlot initially deposed the case of the prosecution and clearly deposed about the roles and actions of the accused persons, however, his further examination was deferred. Again on 02.06.2012, during cross- examination, PW-6 deposed some facts of the case of the prosecution and matter was subsequently adjourned at the request of Ld. counsel for the accused. However, on 06.12.2012, when PW-6 re-appeared in the witness box, he unexpectedly altered his testimony, taking a complete U-turn. He admitted that he had not heard the voice of the person with whom Pradeep was speaking on the phone. He stated that his statement was recorded by SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 80 of 94 the police only once, on the date of the incident, at the police station. He specifically deposed that he had not gone anywhere except the police station on that day, and his statement was not recorded in the hospital. He further admitted that the house of Pradeep was not visible from that place. He explicitly stated that his the statement to the police was made at the behest of Pradeep's father, but, he had not witnessed the incident in which Pradeep sustained injuries. He also admitted that no scuffle had taken place in his presence. Additionally, he stated that, he along with Sudhir and Sunil, he ran towards the spot, after hearing the sound of gunfire. He emphasized that whatever he had deposed on 06.09.2012 was true and that his previous testimony was false. He affirmed that he was not under any influence or pressure. Furthermore, he confirmed that no quarrel between Pradeep and Naveen occurred in his presence. PW-6 acknowledged knowing the accused, Naveen, Naresh and Arvind, as they were from his village, and he knew accused Vikas @ Medium as a friend of the other three accused for the last 4/5 years. He admitted that accused Sombir @ Sonu is a resident of his village, who worked with MCD, and that he knew him prior to the incident. He further deposed that he did not witness anyone firing or shooting the deceased and never came to know who assaulted the deceased. He also stated that on 14.10.2011, he was accompanied to the Court with the father of the deceased and was under his pressure, which is why he gave a false statement on 14.10.2011 at the behest of the father of deceased.
This witness was re-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State due to the contradictory statements, he made during cross-examination, which differed from his examination-in-chief recorded on 14.11.2010. During re-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that on SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 81 of 94 12.09.2010, he was with deceased Pradeep, or that he saw accused Naveen firing at the deceased along with the other accused persons. Further, on 13.09.2012, witness Gopal Gehlot stated that he no longer required police protection and had no objection to its withdrawal. Accordingly, his statement was recorded separately, and based on this request, the police protection provided to him on 28.01.2012 was withdrawn. It is therefore clear that when PW-6, Sh. Gopal Gehlot, gave testimony that significantly deviated from his original complaint, he was neither under duress nor facing any external pressure, as he was under full police protection, as ordered by the Court on 28.01.2012.
58. Likewise PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gahlot, PW-8 Sh. Sunil Kumar initially supported the case of the prosecution during his examination-in-chief recorded on 28.01.2012. However, to much surprise, this witness also took a U-turn during his cross-examination conducted on 06.09.2012. He admitted that he did not know from whom had Pradeep received phone calls on the date of incident or what they were discussing, although, Gopal had told him that Pradeep has been receiving calls from Naveen. He further admitted that it was a dark night, the street light was far away but he did not remember whether the street lights was on or off at that time. He further deposed that after hearing the sound of gunfire, they ran towards Pradeep. He admitted that they could not see at that time, who fired at Pradeep. However, he alongwith Sudhir and Gopal, ran towards Pradeep together. He also admitted that from the spot where he was reversing his car, Pradeep could not be seen. He explicitly deposed that whatever he had stated in his examination-in-chief on 28.01.2012 was false, and that his testimony on SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 82 of 94 06.09.2012 was true and correct. He further stated that Gopal had told him that Naveen must have killed Pradeep, which led him to give such a statement to the police. On 28.01.2012, he was instructed by the police to depose in line with the statement he had previously given to them and was warned if he would say anything contrary, he would be prosecuted.
Upon re-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness denied the suggestion that Sudhir, Gopal and he were present when Pradeep was shot at by accused, Naveen or that they saw Naveen firing at Pradeep. He also denied the suggestion that whatever he has deposed on 28.01.2012 was true and that his statement on 06.09.2012 was false. He denied the suggestion that on 12.09.2010, he visited Village Mitrau with Pradeep in his Maruti Swift car. However, he voluntarily stated that he had visited Village Mitrau alone in his Maruti Swift car and upon reaching the Village, Pradeep met him there. He denied giving statement Marked PW8/PX1 or that it was recorded by the IO in his presence. He further deposed that on 28.01.2012, both Gopal and father of deceased accompanied him to the Court and he was under their influence on that day. However, he admitted that he did not state in the Court that he was under
their influence on that day. He denied the suggestion that his testimony on 28.01.2012 was his true statement, which corroborated his statement recorded by the IO. Thr witness did not identify the accused Narender and Sombir @ Sonu in Court rather, he stated that he had seen them for the first time.
In his cross-examination he deposed that he had not heard the conversation between Pradeep and the other person while Pradeep was talking on the phone and therefore, he could not confirm with whom SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 83 of 94 Pradeep was speaking. He explicitly stated that he had not witnessed the incident and was not an eye-witness. He further denied various suggestions put by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
59. Another witness whose testimony is beneficial for the prosecution is PW-9, Sh. Sudhir, who is also an eye-witness in the present case. Similar to PW-6 and PW-8, PW-9 initially supported the case of the prosecution on 28.01.2012, however, on the same day, his further examination was deferred. On 13.08.2012, this witness clearly deposed that he could not identify the desi katta used to fire at Pradeep. He admitted that he did not know with whom Pradeep had verbal altercation on the phone or whom Pradeep was talking to. He further admitted that it was dark at that time of the incident and the place where Pradeep fell after being shot was not visible from the place where they had dropped him off. He stated that he heard the sound of gunfire and he along with Sunil and Gopal got out of the Swift car, after hearing the sound of gunfire. He admitted that when they reached near Pradeep, the assailants had fled. He further stated that Gopal had told him that the assailants would be Naveen, Naresh, Arvind and Vikas and he should name them. He admitted that he did not know any of the accused before that day. He also stated that on the last date, when his examination-in-chief was recorded, he identified the accused after Gopal had pointed them out to him outside the court room. He admitted that he did not see any of the accused at the place of incident. He further admitted that on the last date of hearing, Gopal and one policeman had read his statement, recorded by the police, to him outside the court room and he deposed based on that statement. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the police SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 84 of 94 in the police station, and he had not stated anything against any of the accused to the police in his statement. He also admitted that Pradeep was a rouge person and had enmity with many people of the area. He affirmed that his testimony on that day was true and that he deposed without any fear or pressure. He admitted that on the previous date of hearing, he had deposed under the influence and at the instance of Gopal and Sunil.
This witness was re-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State in view of the inconsistencies in his examination-in-chief and cross- examination wherein he denied the suggestion that he had deposed on that day without any fear and voluntarily. He also denied the suggestion that he was not under any pressure on that day. He further deposed that he had given the statement to the police also at the instance of Gopal and he stated to the police whatever was told to him by Gopal. He denied the suggestion that his deposition dated 28.01.2012 is true and correct. He admitted as correct that he had also accompanied Pradeep to the hospital from the spot of incident and had gone there in Santro vehicle which was being driven by Sunil and Sunil had brought that vehicle to the spot.
This witness was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his earlier statement and suppressing the truth. He denied the suggestion that statements Marked PW9/A & PW-9/B were recorded by the police. Despite rigorous cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the witness denied all leading questions related to the sequence and manner in which the murder of Pradeep took place as well as identification of the accused persons and the weapon used. As regards, accused persons, this witness explicitly denied the suggestion that he knew Naveen, Naresh, Arvind & Medium because of Pradeep (the deceased) or SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 85 of 94 that he could identify the other three associates of these accused persons, if shown to him. When specifically shown the accused Sombir (who was present in the Court), the witness stated that he had never seen Sombir before that day and did not know him. As for the accused Narender, neither the witness identified him nor did he attribute any role to him in the commission of the alleged offence.
60. Upon thorough scrutiny of the testimonies of all three witnesses, PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gahlot, PW-8 Sh. Sunil Kumar and PW-9 Sh. Sudhir, initially supported the case of the prosecution during their examination-in- chief. PW-6 partially deposed in detail on 14.10.2011 while PW-8 & PW-9 have partially did so on 28.01.2012. However, during cross-examination, all three witnesses resiled from their initial statements and they admitted that the testimonies provided during their initial examinations were notably influenced by Gopal and Pradeep's father. PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gahlot explicitly stated that he gave the statement to the police at the instance of Pradeep's father while PW-8 Sh. Sunil Kumar and PW-9 Sh. Sudhir each admitted that their earlier statements were influenced by Gopal and the father of the deceased. PW-6 stated that he was influenced by the father of Pradeep when he deposed in Court, however, PW-8 specifically stated that he was under police pressure during his initial examination while PW-9 admitted that Gopal and one policeman had read his statement to him outside the courtroom, and he had identified the accused persons only because they were pointed out to him by Gopal. When the above said witnesses i.e PW-6, PW-8 & PW-9 were examined in denovo trial, they totally demolished the case of the prosecution and even did not support the SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 86 of 94 case of the prosecution in examination-in-chief and given the version which they have given in cross-examination and hence, they did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, it creates a serious doubt in the story of the prosecution and it is fatal to the prosecution.
61. Each witnesses explicitly denied being an eye-witness to the incident. They admitted that they did not see who fired the shot that killed Pradeep. PW-6 stated that he did not witness the incident in which Pradeep sustained injuries and has not seen any persons firing or shooting the deceased, despite initially indicating otherwise. PW-8 and PW-9 similarly admitted that they did not see the assailants due to the darkness at the time of the incident and the fact that they were at a distance when the gunfire was heard.
62. During re-examination, PW-6, PW-8, and PW-9 either failed to identify or denied knowing the accused persons at the time of the incident. PW-6 admitted knowing the accused Naveen, Naresh, Arvind & Sombir @ Sonu because they were from his village, and accused Vikas @ Medium as he was a friend of other three accused but clarified that he did not see them at the scene of the crime. PW-8 denied identifying the accused persons in Court, even when PW-8 was specifically shown accused Narender and Sombir, who were present in the courtroom, he stated that he had seen them for the first time that day (in the Court). PW-9 also denied identifying the accused persons in Court as he specifically stated that when they reached near Pradeep, the assailants had run away and he had not stated anything against any of the accused to the police in his statement.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 87 of 9463. All the three witnesses admitted to giving wrong facts earlier in the trial. PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9, all affirmed that their earlier their testimonies were untrue and made under pressure or influence while they admitted that their statements they made later on were the true and correct. These common elements in the testimonies of PW-6, PW-8, and PW-9 significantly weaken the case of the prosecution, casting doubt on the reliability of their earlier statements and supporting the defence argument of external influence and false testimony. As a result, the case of the prosecution lacks substantial evidence to support its claims.
64. Before proceeding further, a question arises in the mind of the Court regarding the testimony of the aforementioned witnesses, which casts doubt on the presence of the father of the deceased at the scene of the incident. According to PW-6 & PW-8, the father of the deceased, Pradeep, was present during the incident. IO of the case i.e PW-22 Inspector R.R. Khatana admitted that the PCR form states that the deceased was called out of his residence by someone and was shot outside the house. He further deposed that he did not record the statement of any family member of the deceased to clarify the facts mentioned in the PCR form. In his cross- examination, PW-22 stated that while the details of family members present at the time of the incident were obtained, he did not remember who was present in the house at that time. He also could not confirm whether the father of the deceased was at home during the incident. He explicitly admitted during cross-examination that the father of the deceased visited the police station the next morning, yet his statement was not recorded.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 88 of 94Similarly, PW-20 SI Ram Niwas, during his cross-examination, deposed that he did not visit the house of the injured, despite admitting that he remained at the scene for approximately 4½ hours. He further stated that he could not confirm whether the house of the injured was near the place of occurrence or whether any family members of the injured came to the scene during the time he was present there.
It is indeed surprising that, despite the alleged presence of the father of the deceased or other family members, they were neither made witnesses in the present case nor were their signatures obtained on any document to substantiate their presence. Furthermore, the testimony of PW-22 indicates that the deceased was called out of his residence by someone and subsequently shot outside the house. Had the statements of certain family members been recorded in this regard and they been made witnesses, it could have been instrumental in uncovering the truth and strengthening the case of the prosecution. It is also surprising fact that the person who made the PCR call was also not made witness in the present case.
65. Further, PW-2 Inspector Deepak Kumar deposed in his cross- examination that he, along with the Crime Team, left the spot at about 2:00 p.m. He admitted that, until he left the spot, the names of the accused persons were not known. Similarly, PW-3 HC Satpal, the Photographer, deposed that he left the crime scene at 1:30 a.m. and confirmed that the names of the assailants were unknown at that time. PW-18 Inspector Anand Sagar, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that the rukka Ex. PW-18/B was prepared based on the statement of complainant Gopal Gehlot and the MLC SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 89 of 94 of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that, as per the prosecution's case, the statement of Gopal Gehlot was recorded at the hospital. Notably, the FIR Ex. PW-1/A identifies Gopal Gehlot as the complainant and explicitly mentions the roles and names of the accused persons. However, according to PW-18 Inspector Anand Sagar, the names of the accused persons did not surface while he was at the police station / spot. This inconsistency casts doubt on the authenticity of the FIR, as it explicitly names the accused persons and further the presence of the complainant / eye-witnesses at the hospital / spot. Further, PW-20 SI Ram Niwas deposed in his cross- examination that he could only identify the injured person and did not surface the names of the assailants until the morning. He further stated that he left the spot at about 5:00 p.m., and even then, the names of the assailants were still unknown. The prosecution claims that the FIR was registered based on the statement of Gopal Gehlot recorded at the hospital (i.e definitely before 01:30 p.m), wherein he narrated the incident and disclosed the names of the accused persons. However, most of the police witnesses, during their cross-examinations, deposed that the names of the accused persons were unknown while they were present at the spot. This contradiction raises significant doubt regarding the sequence of events narrated in the FIR. Adding to the confusion, PW-22 Inspector Raghu Raj Khatana deposed in his cross-examination that the complainant and his two associates were already present at the spot with the SHO. However, their focus was on identifying an eyewitness. This raises serious questions as to whether the complainant and his associates were actual eyewitnesses to the incident or were falsely presented as such in the case. It is also a matter of record that various documents were prepared at the spot / hospital, but none SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 90 of 94 of the documents bear the signatures of complainant / eye-witnesses. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the depositions of the purported eyewitnesses and the complainant turning hostile, combined with their admissions that they did not witness the incident or identify the accused persons, create the possibility that their statements may have been influenced by the father of the deceased or the police. These inconsistencies and contradictions create a serious doubt regarding the prosecution's version of events, significantly undermining the credibility of the case.
66. Additionally, as per the case of the prosecution, the dispute between Pradeep and accused Naveen allegedly arose during a phone call, which ultimately led to the present incident. However, a careful examination of the testimonies of PW-6, PW-8, and PW-9 reveals significant gaps. All three witnesses admitted that they did not know the identity of the person Pradeep was speaking to on the phone prior to the incident. PW-6 specifically stated that he did not hear the voice of the individual on the other end of the call. Similarly, PW-8 and PW-9 confirmed that they had no knowledge of the identity of the person Pradeep was conversing with during the phone call preceding the incident. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that no investigation was conducted on the mobile phone recovered from the deceased, which was handed over by PW-4, Dr. Parvindra Singh, to the IO. This failure to examine the call details missed an opportunity to uncover the truth and establish the motive behind the incident. The theory of prosecution regarding the motive is therefore significantly weakened due to the absence of strong, consistent, and corroborated testimony from these witnesses.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 91 of 9467. The records of the present case indicates/reveals that the accused Naveen @ Pahalwan is also charged with the offence under Section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
68. Regarding offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, neither the complainant nor the eye-witnesses identified accused Naveen @ Pahalwan as the person who used the firearm i.e. katta. Admittedly, nothing was recovered from accused Naveen in the present case and recovery, if any was effected in FIR no.217/2010 where accused Naveen @ Pahalwan, Arvind @ Bindu, Vikas @ Medium and accused Naresh @ Neshi were arrested wherein above said accused persons disclosed their involvement in the present case and accordingly, on 31.01.2011, all the four above said accused persons were formally arrested in the present case and who disclosed their involvement in the present case. It is a matter of record that in FIR no. 207/2010, PS Chhawla, under Section 302/120B/506/212/34 IPC & 25 Arms Act, all the accused persons have already been acquitted on 08.05.2018 by the Court of Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh, the then Ld. ASJ-05, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Consequently, the Court finds that accused Naveen @ Pahalwan cannot be convicted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Hence, accused Naveen @ Pahalwan cannot be convicted of the charge under section 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
69. The mere examination of the deposition of PW-6 Sh. Gopal Gahlot, PW-8 Sh. Sunil Kumar and PW-9 Sh. Sudhir reveals that the prime witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 92 of 94Additionally, they failed to identify the accused persons in Court despite being specifically pointed out by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Notably, all the above witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution resulting in the collapse of the case of the prosecution and prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
70. Now turning to the remaining witnesses, comprised of police officials and medical professionals associated with the investigation, their testimony largely details the procedural aspects of the case from recording the FIR to filing the charge sheet, as well as the medical assessments of the deceased. However, these statements do not provide any incriminating evidence related to the actual commission of the alleged offence and, therefore, bear no impact on the charges framed against the accused persons.
71. The record reveals a glaring absence of evidence to establish the culpability of the accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arivnd @ Bindu, Vikas @ Suraj Bhan, Sombir @ Sonu & Narender @ Leelu in the commission of the charged offence. The prosecution has unequivocally failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and benefit of doubt is required to be given to all the accused persons. Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present and given the above observations, accused persons namely Naveen, Naresh @ Neshi, Arivnd @ Bindu, Vikas @ Suraj Bhan, Sombir @ Sonu & Narender @ Leelu are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt. Accused Naveen @ Pahalwan is SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 93 of 94 also acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act.
72. The accused persons are directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each. At the request of the accused persons, their previous bail bonds are extended in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C and shall remain in force for six months from today.
73. File be consigned to Record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK WASON
WASON Date:
2025.01.10
21:23:01 +0530
Announced in open Court today (Deepak Wason)
on 10th January, 2025 Additional Sessions Judge-04:
SW District: Dwarka Courts:
New Delhi
SC No. 440367/16 State Vs Naveen @ Pahalwan & Ors. Page 94 of 94