Delhi District Court
State vs Gajender @ Golu on 30 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MR. HARGURVARINDER SINGH JAGGI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC- 01), SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.: 157/2017
CNR No.: DLST01-002132-2017
FIR No.: 684/2016
Police Station: Sangam Vihar
u/Section: 302, 34 of IPC 1860
1. STATE )
Complainant
...
Through- Mr. Santosh Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. v. 1. AJENDER ALIAS GOLU G ) S/o Late Ram Niwas ) R/o B - 1042, Sangam Vihar ) New Delhi ) Accused ...
Through- Mr. Gagan Bhatnagar and Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocates. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.1/26 Date of offence: 03.12.2016 Date of FIR: 04.12.2016 Date of chargesheet: 03.03.2017 Date of framing of charge(s): 20.09.2017 Date of commencement of evidence: 25.11.2017 Date of judgment reserved: 24.04.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 30.04.2026 Date of the sentencing order, if any: Nil J U D G M E N T 30.04.2026 1. The accused, Gajender alias Golu, facedtrialbeforethisCourt fortheallegedcommissionoftheoffenceofmurder,punishableunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), arising out of FIR No. 684/2016 registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. acts F 2. As per the prosecution, the criminal justice machinery was set into motion on the intervening night of03/04.12.2016atabout11:50 PM,whenaPCRcallwasmadebyoneAshish(PW-7)reportingthat amanhadbeenbeatenandwaslyinginjurednearTinuPublicSchool, SC No. 157/2017 Page No.2/26 Sangam Vihar. The information was recorded vide DD No. 84B by DD Writer Ct. Narayan Singh (PW-8). 3. Upon receiving DD No. 84B, ASI Dharambir Singh (PW-14) along with HC Laxmi Narayan (PW-11) reached the spot in front of House No.B-539,TinuPublicSchoolRoad.Theyfoundbloodstains on theroad,onemotorcyclebearingregistrationNo.DL-9SZ-7625,a white and black gamchha (towel) stained with blood,andaXylocar bearing No. DL-1YD-1983. Upon inquiry, they learned that the injured had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre byaPCR van. 4. ASI Dharambir Singh proceeded to the hospital where the injured, an unknown male aged about 18-20 years, was declared "brought dead" by the doctor on duty, Dr. Akansha Gautam (PW-9), videMLCNo.598438/16.TheMLCnotedmultiplepuncturewounds overtheneck,chest,abdomen,andback,allegedlyinflictedbyasharp object. Based on the circumstances, ASI Dharambir Singh prepared therukka(Ex.PW14/A)andsentitthroughHCLaxmiNarayanforthe registration of the present FIR under Section 302 IPC. 5. During the investigation, the deceased was identifiedasFeroz, sonofMohd.Hanif(PW-4),throughthemotorcyclefoundatthespot. The prosecution's case primarily rests on the testimonies of two alleged eyewitnesses, Hazi Abdul Salam (PW-1) and Ilyas (PW-3), whoclaimedtohavewitnessedtheincidentwhilepassingbythespot. Accordingtothesewitnesses,theaccusedGajenderaliasGolucaught holdofthedeceased,whilehisassociate,aChildinConflictwithLaw SC No. 157/2017 Page No.3/26 (CCL)SunilaliasGanja,stabbedthedeceasedwithascrewdriver,and other associates (CCL Parvez Alam and CCL Anand alias Bhujji) were also present carrying weapons. 6. Theaccused,GajenderaliasGoluwasarrestedon05.12.2016at AmbedkarPark,Tigri,onthepointingoutofasecretinformer.During the investigation, the alleged weapon of offence (a screwdriver) was recovered attheinstanceofCCLSunilaliasGanja.Uponcompletion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused GajenderaliasGolu,whileseparateproceedingswereinitiatedagainst the CCLs before the Juvenile Justice Board. I nvestigation by Police & Charge Sheet 7. The FIR was registered on 04.12.2016, following a PCR call regarding an assault near Tinu Public School, Sangam Vihar. The deceased was identified as Firoz, a 19-year-old male. Firoz was brought dead to AIIMS Trauma Center.Thepost-mortemreport(PM No.691/16)identifiedthecauseofdeathasshockduetohemorrhage resultingfrommultiplepuncturewoundstotheneck,chest,abdomen, and back. These injuries were deemed fatal intheordinarycourseof nature and caused by a sharp object, specifically a screwdriver. 8. The main accused, Gajender @Golu(age20-22)wasarrested on 05.12.2016. Three other individuals, children in conflict with law (CCLs)wereapprehended.Oneofthemdisclosedusingascrewdriver to stab the victim. The second CCL identified as being involved in holding the victim down and the third CCL correctly identified by witnesses during test identification parade (TIP) proceedings. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.4/26 9. The accused Gajender @ Golu disclosed the motive was revenge for a physical altercation with the deceased that occurred approximately six months prior. 10. During investigation, the IO managed to make recoveries. A screwdrivermeasuring16.5cm(witha10.5cmblade)wasrecovered basedonthedisclosureofoneoftheCCLs.Theprosecutionrelieson 24witnesses,includingeyewitnessesHaziAbdulSalamandIlias,who witnessed four individuals assaulting the victim with a screwdriver. 11. The scientific evidence gathered during investigation included blood-stainedsoil,ablood-stainedgamchha,thevictim'sclothing,and the murder weapon were seized and sent to FSLRohiniforanalysis. Regarding the accused, Gajender @ Golu, a bone ossification test estimated his age between 20 and 22 years, leading the Court to declare him a major for the purposes of the trial. 12. The investigating officer, Inspector Upender Singh, filed the main charge sheet under Sections 302/34 IPC (Murder and common intention), asserting sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial against Gajender @ Golu. The FSL results were filed subsequently upon receipt by way of a supplementary charge sheet in accordance with law. harge & Points of Determination C 13. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court by order dated 20.09.2017 framed a charge against the accused Gajender alias Golu for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section34IPC.The SC No. 157/2017 Page No.5/26 chargestatedthaton03.12.2016atabout11:50PM,infrontofHouse No. B-539, Tinu Public School Road, Sangam Vihar, the accused,in furtheranceofhiscommonintentionwithhisassociates(CCLsParvez Alam, Anand alias Bhujji, and Sunil alias Ganja), committed the murder of Feroz. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 14. Basedonthechargeframedandtheevidenceadduced,thesole question posed to this Court for determination is as below: (i) hether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable W doubtthaton03.12.2016atabout11:50PM,theaccused Gajender alias Golu, in furtherance of his common intention with his associates, committed the murder of Feroz, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC? rosecution's Evidence P 15. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined twentytwowitnessesintotal.Forthesakeofclarityandconvenience, theprosecutionwitnessesasperthenatureoftheirevidencehavebeen summed upinatabularformat,Appendix,Form-Cenclosedwiththis judgment. 16. The evidence can be broadly classified into direct/eyewitness evidence, medical and forensic evidence, and police/investigation evidence. 17. Direct/Eyewitness Evidence: The prosecution reliesheavilyon the testimonies of Hazi Abdul Salam (PW-1) and Ilyas (PW-3) as eyewitnesses to the incident. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.6/26 17.1. PW-1 Hazi Abdul Salam testified that on 03.12.2016 at about 10:00-10:30 PM, while returning from a wedding near Shree Ram Barat Ghar, he saw a crowd near Tinu Public School. He claimed to have seen CCL Parvez Alam holding a country-made pistol (katta) and CCL AnandBhurjiholdingaknife.Hefurtherdeposedthatthe accused Gajender alias Golucaughtholdofanunknown boy,whileCCLSunilaliasGanjawasstabbinghimwith a screwdriver. PW-1 stated that he didnotintervenedue tothecoldwinternightandquietlywenthome.Thenext morning, he received a call from his brother-in-law, Mohd. Hanif (PW-4), informing him that his son Feroz hadbeenmurdered.Onlythen,accordingtoPW-1,didhe realize that the boy he saw being stabbed the previous night was his nephew, Feroz. 17.2. PW-3 Ilyas testified that on 03.12.2016 at about 11:00 PM, while returning from his brother-in-law's house, he saw one boy catch hold of another boy, while a fourth boy stabbedhimwithascrewdriver.Hestatedhemoved on without interfering. He claimed he learned about the murder of Mohd. Hanif's son the next morning at 9:00 AM. PW-3 testified that he later went to Mohd. Hanif's shop,metthepolice,anddisclosedthathehadseenSunil aliasGanjastabbingtheboywhileaccusedGajenderalias Golu had caught hold of him. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.7/26 18. Medical and Forensic Evidence: To prove the guilt of the accused,theprosecutionalsoreliedheavilyuponmedicalandforensic evidence. 18.1. Dr. Akansha Gautam (PW-9) examined the deceased at AIIMS Trauma Centre and prepared the MLC (Ex.PW9/A), declaring him brought dead. 18.2. Dr. Adarsh Kumar (PW-17) proved the Post-Mortem Report(Ex.PW17/A)authoredbyDr.PiyushSharma.He confirmed that the cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage consequent upon the antemortem puncture wounds, which were fatal in the ordinary course of nature. 18.3. Ms. Soni Khampa (PW-21), Junior Forensic Chemical Examiner, FSLRohini,examinedthebiologicalexhibits. She deposed that while the DNA profile generatedfrom the blood on the gamchha (Exhibit 4) matched the deceased's clothes and swabs, no DNA profile could be generatedfromthescrewdriver(Exhibit6).Furthermore, theDNAprofilefromthebloodsamplesoftheCCLsdid not match the crime scene exhibits. 18.4. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Lal (PW-15) was a member of the medical board at Safdarjung Hospital that conductedthe boneossificationtestoftheaccused,GajenderaliasGolu. Thereport(Ex.PW15/A)estimatedhisagetobebetween SC No. 157/2017 Page No.8/26 20to22years,therebyestablishinghimasamajoratthe time of the incident. 19. Police and Investigation Evidence: The charge sheet lists multiple police witnesses, who were examined to prove investigation steps, FIR/DD entries, crime scene inspection, case property handling, and medical, forensic documentation. 19.1. ASI Dharambir Singh (PW-14) was the first IO who reached the spot, found the bloodstains and motorcycle, went to AIIMS, and prepared therukka(Ex.PW14/A). 19.2. Insp. Anil Kumar (PW-20), the main Investigating Officer,deposedaboutpreparingthesiteplan,seizingthe exhibits, arresting the accused Gajender alias Golu on 05.12.2016, and preparing the pointing-out memos. He alsotestifiedabouttherecoveryofthescrewdriveratthe instance of CCL Sunil alias Ganja. 19.3. SI Amarjeet Singh (PW-13) corroborated the arrest and recovery proceedings. tatement of Accused under Section 313 CrPC S 20. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the accused Gajender alias Golu denied all incriminatingevidenceputto him.Hepleadedinnocence,claimingthathewasfalselyimplicatedto solve a blind murder case. He asserted that his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers, which were later converted into pointing-outanddisclosurememos.HecategoricallystatedthatPW-1, SC No. 157/2017 Page No.9/26 PW-3, and PW-5 were planted witnesses who were relatives of the deceased and had falsely deposed against him. efence Evidence D 21. Theaccused,GajenderaliasGoluoptednottoleadanydefence evidence. ubmission by the Counsels S 22. Mr. Santosh Kumar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State, argued that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He submitted that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, PW-1 and PW-3, areconsistentregardingthespecificroleoftheaccusedGajenderalias Golu in catching hold of the deceased while he was being stabbed. The Ld. APP contended that the medical evidence corroborates the ocularversion,andthearrestandpointing-outmemosfurtherestablish the chain of circumstances against the accused. 23. Per contra, Mr. Gagan Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the accusedGajenderaliasGolu,strenuouslychallengedtheprosecution's case. He submitted that the entire case is fabricated, and the alleged eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) are planted, interested witnesses closely related to the deceased. 24. Mr. Bhatnagar pointed out glaring contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3. He highlighted the highly unnatural and improbable conduct of these witnesses, whoallegedlywatcheda brutalmurderunfoldbutquietlywenthometosleepwithoutraisingan alarmorcallingthepolice.Thedefencecounselfurtherarguedthatthe SC No. 157/2017 Page No.10/26 weaponofoffencementionedintheinitialPCRcallwasa"b arftodne wala sua" (iceprick),whichthepolicelaterconvenientlyalteredtoa pechkas(screwdriver)tosuittheirnarrative.Healsoreliedheavilyon the FSL report (Ex.PW21/A), which proved that no DNA could be generated from the alleged screwdriver, thus breaking any forensic link between the weapon and the crime. 25. Finally, Mr. Bhatnagar stressed the complete absence of independent public witnesses and the lack of CCTV footage, despite the incident occurring in a densely populated market area. egal Provision & Legal Principles L 26. The relevant legal provisionsfortheproperadjudicationofthe case are Section 302 and 34, IPC. 27. Section 302, IPC punishes murder. Therefore, its key ingredients are the ingredients of murder under Section300,plusthe fact of causing death (homicide), which are stated as below: 27.1. Causingdeathofahumanbeing(homicidaldeath)-The act/omission of the accused must have caused the death of a person. 27.2. The act amounts to murder (as per Section 300) 28. Tobringthecasewithinmurder,theprosecutionmustshowthat theaccusedcauseddeathwithoneofthementalstates,conditionsthat makeculpablehomicideamounttomurder,typicallywithanintention tocausedeathorintentiontocausesuchbodilyinjuryastheoffender knows is likely to cause death or intention to cause bodily injury SC No. 157/2017 Page No.11/26 sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or knowledge that theactissoimminentlydangerousthatitmust,inall probability, cause death (or such bodily injury likely to cause death). 29. Even if the act fits Section300,IPC,itwillnotbemurderand hence not punishable under Section 302, IPC, if it iscoveredbyany exception to Section300forexample,graveandsuddenprovocation, private defence exceeding limits, act of public servant exceeding powers in good faith, sudden fight without premeditation, consentof person above 18 years. 30. Section 34, IPC reads as under: "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of c ommon intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance ofthecommonintentionof all, each of such persons isliableforthatactinthesame manner as if it were done by him alone." 31. The ingredients of Section 34 are thattheaccusedpersonshad acted in furtherance of their common intention is required to be provedspecificallyorbyinference-SeeHamletaliasSasi&Ors.v. State of Kerala.1 32. Section34IPCcarvesoutanexceptionfromgenerallawthata person is responsible for hisownact,asitprovidesthatapersoncan also be held vicariously responsiblefortheactofothersifhehasthe "common intention" to commit the offence. The phrase "common intention" implies a pre-arranged plan and acting inconcertpursuant to the plan. Thus, the common intention must be there prior to the 1 (2003) 10 SCC 108 SC No. 157/2017 Page No.12/26 commission oftheoffenceinpointoftime.Thecommonintentionto bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of thecase and circumstances existing thereto. The common intention under Section34IPCistobeunderstoodinadifferentsensefromthe"same intention" or "similar intention" or "common object". The persons having similar intention which is not the result of the pre-arranged plan cannot be held guilty of the criminal actwiththeaidofSection 34IPC-SeeMohanSingh&Anr.v.StateofPunjab,AIR1963SC 174. 33. To secure a conviction underSection302readwithSection34 IPC,theprosecutionmustestablishtwofundamentalelements,firstly, that the death was homicidal and caused by theactsoftheassailants with the requisite intention or knowledge. Secondly, thattheaccused shareda"commonintention"withhisco-assailantstocommitthesaid act. 34. Under Section 34 IPC, common intention implies a pre-arrangedplanandactinginconcertpursuanttothatplan.Whileit istruethatcommonintentioncandeveloponthespot,theprosecution must leadcogentandunimpeachableevidencetoprovetheconscious participation of the accused in the criminal act. 35. It is a golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecutionmustproveitscasebeyondareasonabledoubt.Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. When the SC No. 157/2017 Page No.13/26 prosecution's case rests on the testimoniesofeyewitnesses,theCourt must carefully scrutinize their reliability, particularly when the defence alleges that they are interested or planted witnesses. The conductofthewitnesses,theirpresenceatthespot,andthealignment of theirocularversionwithmedicalandforensicevidencearecritical touchstones for evaluating their credibility. nalysis & Findings A 36. Having carefully sifted through theevidenceonrecordandthe argumentsadvanced,thisCourtfindsthatwhilethehomicidaldeathof thedeceasedFerozisindisputablyestablishedbythemedicalevidence (MLC Ex.PW9/A and PM Report Ex.PW17/A), the prosecution has miserably failed to link the accused Gajender alias Golu to the said crime. The prosecution's narrative suffers from fatal infirmities, material contradictions, and highly unnatural witness conduct. nnatural Conduct and Unreliability of Eyewitnesses U (PW-1 and PW-3) 37. The entire edifice of the prosecution's case rests on the ocular testimoniesofPW-1(HaziAbdulSalam)andPW-3(Ilyas).However, a careful scrutiny of their cross-examinations reveals that their testimonies are riddled with inherent improbabilities. 38. PW-1 testified that he witnessed a brutal stabbing by multiple assailants, one armed with a pistol and another with a knife. Yet, by his own admission, he did not stop his motorcycle, did notraiseany alarm, did not call the police at 100, and simply went hometosleep because"itwaswinterseasonandquitecold".Thisconductiswholly unnatural and contrary to ordinary human behavior. A person SC No. 157/2017 Page No.14/26 witnessing a gruesome murderinapublicstreetwouldreasonablybe expectedtoalerttheauthoritiesorseekhelp.Hisfailuretodosocasts a massive shadow of doubt on his presence at the spot. 39. Furthermore, PW-1 attempted to conceal his relationship with thedeceased.Inhisexamination-in-chief,heclaimedhedidnotknow thevictim.However,helateradmittedthathereceivedacallthenext morningfromhisbrother-in-law,Mohd.Hanif(PW-4),informinghim thathisson(thedeceased)hadbeenmurdered.Itishighlyimprobable that PW-1, who claimed to be familiar with his nephew's face, appearance, build, and voice, failed to recognize him at the spot, especially when he admitted the victim was crying "bachao, bachao". 40. Similarly, the testimony of PW-3 (Ilyas) suffers from similar fatal defects. PW-3 also claimed to have witnessed the stabbing but walked away without intervening, raising an alarm, or informing the police. PW-3 adamantly denied anyrelationshipwiththedeceasedor with PW-1. 41. However,thisdenialisthoroughlydemolishedbythetestimony of his own son,AshuMalik(PW-5).PW-5explicitlydeposedthathe identified the dead body of the deceased at themortuarybecausethe deceased was his cousin (maternal uncle's son). PW-5 also admitted thatPW-1(AbdulSalam)waspresentwiththematthemortuary.This glaring contradiction proves that PW-1, PW-3, and PW-5 are closely related to the deceased's family. The deliberate concealment of this relationship by PW-1 and PW-3 strongly suggests that they were SC No. 157/2017 Page No.15/26 planted as eyewitnesses as an afterthought to solve a blind murder case. 42. Furthermore, there is an unexplained delay in recording the statements of these alleged eyewitnesses. Insp. Anil Kumar (PW-20) admitted thatherecordedtheirstatementsbetween2:00PMand2:30 PM on 04.12.2016. If PW-1 and PW-3 had truly informed the deceased's father and the police early in the morning, as claimed by PW-1andPW-5,thereisabsolutelynojustificationfortheIOtowait until the afternoon to record their statements. This delay provides ampletimefordeliberation,consultation,andtheconcoctionofafalse narrative. omplete Absence of Independent Public Witnesses C 43. The incident allegedly took place in a densely populated area nearTinuPublicSchoolandamarket.PW-7(Ashish),thePCRcaller, categoricallystatedthat20-25publicpersonshadgatheredatthespot. EvenPW-1andPW-3admittedtothepresenceof7-8to15-20public persons. 44. Shockingly, the Investigating Officer (PW-20) failed to join or examine even a single independent public witness. The IO also admitted that he did not examine the occupants of the adjoining houses or shops. The deliberate reliance solely on interested, related witnesses whose conduct is highly suspicious, to the exclusion of available independent witnesses, operates as a fatal blow to the prosecution's case. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.16/26 orensic Disconnect and the "Sua" v. "Screwdriver" F Discrepancy 45. TheinitialPCRcallrecordedvideDD84B(Ex.PW8/A)andthe PCRForm(Ex.PW19/G)clearlymentionedthattheinjuredhad15-20 marks inflicted by a "barf todne wala sua" (ice prick). However, during the investigation, the police allegedly recovered a "pechkas" (screwdriver) at the instance of CCL _____. The prosecution has failed to explain this material shift in the nature of the weapon. 46. Moreimportantly,thescientificevidencecompletelyexonerates the accused. The FSL Biology Report (Ex.PW21/A) proved by Ms. SoniKhampa(PW-21)categoricallystatesthatnoDNAprofilecould be generated from the screwdriver (Exhibit 6). Thus, the alleged weapon of offence is not forensically linked to the crime or the deceased. 47. Moreover, no blood-stained clothes or any other incriminating forensic material was recovered from the accused Gajender alias Golu. efective Investigation D 48. The investigation conducted by the police, Insp. Anil Kumar (PW-20)isfraughtwithglaringloopholes.TheIOadmittedthathedid notrecordthestatementofHCSatyavir,thePCRofficialwhoshifted thedeceasedtothehospital.Hedidnotprocurethecalldetailrecords (CDR) or location charts of the accusedtoestablishtheirpresenceat the spot. 49. Furthermore,thepointing-outmemos(Ex.PW13/F)donoteven bearthedateofpreparation,lendingcredencetothedefenceargument SC No. 157/2017 Page No.17/26 that signatures of the accused were obtained on blank papers in the police station. 50. ThisCourtisinfullagreementwiththeargumentsadvancedby Mr. Gagan Bhatnagar learned defence counsel that the prosecution's case is a classic example of a blind murder being pinned on the accused based on the concocted testimonies of interested relatives posing as chance witnesses. 51. Criminal jurisprudence dictates that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof. The evidence adduced by the prosecution must be clear, cogent, and unimpeachable.Inthepresent case, the testimonies of the star eyewitnesses are wholly unreliable, unnatural, and fraught with material improvements. The lack of independent corroboration,thefailureofforensicevidencetolinkthe weapon to the crime, and the highly defective investigation leave gaping holes in the prosecution's narrative. 52. Consequently, theprosecutionhasfailedtoestablishthecharge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The benefit of the doubt must inevitably flow to the accused. ecision D 53. In view of the above observations and findings, the final decisionoftheCourtisthattheaccusedperson,GajenderaliasGoluis acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.18/26 54. All pending interim applications are dismissed. 55. LetthecasepropertybeconfiscatedbytheStateafterexpiryof the period of appeal/revision, if any. The bail bond and surety bond already submitted by the accused person, Gajender alias Golu in compliancewithSection437A,CrPCbekeptaliveforafurtherperiod of six months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. 56. File be consigned to Record Room only after due compliance and necessary action. Digitally signed by Hargurvarinder Hargurvarinder Singh jaggi Singh jaggi Date: 2026.04.30 16:11:31 +0530 ronouncedintheopenCourt P ( Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi) on April 30, 2026 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC-01) South District Saket Courts, New Delhi EB ote: This judgment comprises of 26 pages in total.Theelectronicsignaturecertificate(digital N signature)ofthePresidingOfficerhasbeenappendedonpageNo.19oftheelectronicordigital copy (PDF) of this document. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.19/26 Appendix Form-B S.No. Rank of Name of the Date Date of Offences Whether entence S Period of the Accused of elease R harged C cquitted A Imposed etention d Accused Arrest on Bail or undergone Convicted during Trial for purpose of Section 428 CrPC :: 468 BNSS A1 ajendra G 0 5.12. 302, 34 Acquitted N.A. i. alias Golu 2016 IPC SC No. 157/2017 Page No.20/26 Form-C ist of Prosecution / Defence / Court Witnesses L A.Prosecution ank R ame of Witness N ature of Evidence N PW-1 Sh. Hazi Abdul Salam Eye witness to the incident; identified the accused and co-accused at the scene. PW-2 ASI Sheikh Safiuddin Duty Officer who registered the IR. F PW-3 Sh. Ilyas n eye witness to the incident A identifiedtheaccusedandstatedhe saw the stabbing. PW-4 Sh. Mohd. Hanif he father of the deceased T identified the body and motorcycle. PW-5 Sh. Ashu Malik Identified the dead body of the eceased at the mortuary. d PW-6 Sh. Bhagwan Babu he previous owner of the T motorcycle found at the scene confirmed the sale to Mohd. Hanif. PW-7 Sh. Ashish ocalresidentandPCRcallerwho L found the injured boy at the spot. PW-8 Ct. Narayan Singh DD writerwhorecordedtheinitial CR call regarding the incident. P PW-9 Dr. Akansha Gautam repared the MLC; confirmed the P patient was brought dead with sharp object injuries. PW-10 SI Chet Ram ingerprint expert from the Crime F Team who inspected the scene of crime. PW-11 HC Laxmi Narayan olice official, who first reached P the spot with ASI Dharambir and SC No. 157/2017 Page No.21/26 Rank Name of Witness ature of Evidence N assisted in the investigation. PW-12 Ct. Puneet hotographer for the Crime Team P who took photos of the scene of crime. PW-13 Ex-SI Amarjeet ssisted the IO in investigation, A arrest of accused, and recovery of weapon. PW-14 ASI Dharambir Singh irst Investigating Officer (IO) to F reach the spot; prepared theinitial tehrir. PW-15 Dr. Mahesh Kumar Lal emberoftheMedicalBoardthat M conductedtheageestimationofthe accused. PW-16 SI Kamal Singh J uvenile WelfareOfficer;collected exhibits/viscera and joined apprehension of co-accused. PW-17 Dr. Adarsh Kumar roved the postmortem report and P the cause of deathasshockdueto hemorrhage. PW-18 Ms. Neeraj Siwas choolPrincipalwhoproducedthe S school records regarding the accused's date of birth. PW-19 Insp. Upender Singh I nvestigating Officer (IO) who conducted further investigation, including ossification tests. PW-20 h. Anil Kumar S I nvestigating Officer (IO) who (Retd. ACP) inspected the spot, arrested the accused, and recovered the weapon. PW-21 Ms. Soni Khampa orensic expert who conducted F DNA and biological examination of exhibits. SC No. 157/2017 Page No.22/26 Rank Name of Witness Nature of Evidence PW-22 Inspector Saurabh Kumar repared P the supplementary chargesheet after receiving FSL results. B. Defence Witnesses, if any Nil C.Court Witnesses, if any Nil SC No. 157/2017 Page No.23/26 ist of Prosecution / Defence / Court Exhibits L A.Prosecution Exhibits S.No. xhibit Number E escription D 1 Ex.PW2/A Print out of FIR No. 684/16 2 Ex.PW2/B Endorsement on therukkaby the Duty Officer 3 Ex.PW2/C Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 4 Ex.PW4/A Identification memo of the deceased's body by Mohd. Hanif 5 Ex.PW5/A Identification memo of the deceased's body by Ashu Malik 6 Ex.PW6/A Supardaginama (release document) for the motorcycle 7 Ex.PW6/P1 Photograph of the motorcycle (Splendor DL-9SZ-7625) 8 Ex.PW6/P2 The physical motorcycle produced in court 9 Ex.PW8/A Copy of DD No. 84B regarding the initial PCR call 10 Ex.PW9/A MLC No. 598438 of the deceased prepared at JPNATC AIIMS 11 Ex.PW10/A Crime Team report prepared by the fingerprint expert 1 2 x.PW13/A E Seizure memo of the motorcycle 13 Ex.PW13/B Seizure memo of the blood-stained gamcha (towel) 14 Ex.PW13/C Arrest memo of the accused Gajender @ Golu 15 Ex.PW13/D Personal search memo of the accused Gajender @ Golu 16 Ex.PW13/E Disclosure statement of the accused Gajender @ Golu 17 Ex.PW13/F Pointing out memo of the scene of crime by the accused 18 Ex.PW13/G Sketch of the weapon of offence (screwdriver) 1 9 x.PW13/H E Seizure memo of the screwdriver 20 Ex.PW13/P2 The recovered screwdriver (weapon of offence) 2 1 x.PW13/P3 E Blood-stained clothes/cloth piece 22 Ex.PW14/A Detailedtehrir(complaint) prepared by SC No. 157/2017 Page No.24/26 S.No. Exhibit Number escription D ASI Dharambir Singh 2 3 x.PW14/B E Site plan of the place of occurrence 24 Ex.PW14/P-1 The physical blood-stained gamcha identified in court 25 Ex.PW15/A Age estimation report of the accused (Medical Board report) 26 Ex.PW16/A Seizure memo of exhibits (viscera) of the deceased 2 7 x.PW16/B E Seizure memo of sample seal 28 Ex.PW16/C Seizure memo of blood sample of CCL 'A @ B' 29 Ex.PW16/D Seizure memo of blood sample of CCL 'S @ G' 30 Ex.PW16/E Seizure memo of blood sample of CCL 'PA' 3 1 x.PW17/A E Postmortem report of deceased Firoz 32 Ex.PW17/B Application for postmortem 33 Ex.PW19/A Age verification documents from SS Public School 3 4 x.PW19/B E Scaled site plan prepared by the draftsman 35 Ex.PW19/C Road Certificate (RC) for sending exhibits to FSL Rohini 3 6 x.PW19/D E Road Certificate (RC) for FSL exhibits 37 Ex.PW19/E Pointing out memo prepared at the instance of CCL 'A @ B' 38 Ex.PW19/F Panchnama regarding the release of the motorcycle 3 9 x.PW19/G E PCR call form 40 Ex.PW20/A Statement of Mohd. Hanif recorded by the IO 4 1 x.PW20/B E Inquest form No. 25.35 (1) (B) 42 Ex.PW20/C Age memo of the accused Gajender @ Golu 43 Ex.PW20/P1 The green handle screwdriver identified as the weapon 44 Ex.PW21/A FSL Biology and DNA examination report 45 Ex.PW22/A Supplementary chargesheet based on Biology FSL results 4 6 x.PW22/B E Submission of FSL viscera report 47 Ex. A1 FSL Chemistry report dated 09.03.2017 SC No. 157/2017 Page No.25/26 B. Defence Exhibits Nil C.Court Exhibits Nil D.Material Objects S.No. Material Object Description Number 1 Ex.PW6/P2 he physical motorcycle (make Hero T Honda Splendor, bearing registration No. DL-9SZ-7625) produced in court. 2 Ex.PW13/P2 One green handle screwdriver (weapon of offence) having the mark 'FOCUS'. 3 Ex.PW13/P3 One dirty white cloth piece (gamcha) having black/grey stripes and brown/blood stains. 4 Ex.PW14/P-1 A blood-stained piece of cloth (gamcha) identified as being found at the scene. 5 Parcel No. 6 A yellow color sealed pullanda containing the recovered screwdriver. 6 Parcel No. 5 A yellow color sealed pullanda containing the blood-stained cloth/gamcha. 7 Exhibit 1a Shirt of the deceased (subjected to DNA isolation). 8 Exhibit 1b Sweater of the deceased (subjected to DNA isolation). 9 Exhibit 1d Baniyan (undershirt) of the deceased (subjected to DNA isolation). 10 Exhibit 1e Jeans pants of the deceased (subjected to DNA isolation). 1 1 xhibit 2 E Left hand swab of the deceased. 12 Exhibit 3 Right hand swab of the deceased. 13 Exhibit 4 Blood in gauze of the deceased. ***** ***** ***** SC No. 157/2017 Page No.26/26