Delhi District Court
Fir No.90/99, Ps Bawana, U/S 302/307/34 ... vs . on 18 January, 2008
FIR NO.:
PS :
PW-
ON SA
XXXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
R.O.&.A.C.
(BHARAT PARASHAR)
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
.01.2008
FIR NO :326/01
PS : HARI NAGAR.
STATEMENT OF PROCESS SEVER HC BANWARI LAL NO.439W,
PS HARI NAGAR, DELHI.
ON SA
The process u/S 82/83 Cr.PC pertaining to
accused Sandeep @ Rahul, son of Jeet Kumar was marked
to me by SHO, PS Hari Nagar. After that I went to
H.No.A3/91, Janak Puri, Delhi on 12-11-07 & inquired about
the whereabouts of accused Sandeep @ Rahul from the
residents of the locality. However, nothing could be known
about the accused despite my best efforts. I accordingly
pasted a copy of the notice U/S 82 Cr.PC at a conspicuous
place of the locality and another copy of the notice was
pasted at the notice board of the court. My report on the
process u/S 82 Cr.PC is Ex.CW1/A and bears my signatures
at point A. Subsequently, on 13-12-07 I again went to
execute the process U/S 83 Cr.PC but again nothing could
be known about the accused. One Neeraj Vaidh met me
& he told me that at present no person in the name of
Sandeep @ Rahul is residing in the above mentioned
house.
Nothing any movable, nor any immovable
property of accused could be found over there. I
accordingly recorded statement of Neeraj Vaidh and the
same is Ex.CW1/A1. My report on the process u/S 83 Cr.PC is
Ex.CW1/B1 which bears my signatures at point A.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
14-1-08
FIR NO.986/06
PS SULTAN PURI.
PW1-HC MAHAVIR SINGH NO.1403, PS SULTAN PURI.
ON SA
On 26-6-06 I was posted at PS SULTAN PURI and
was working as duty officer from 8am to 4pm. At about
8.15am Ct. Madhusudan came to me and handed over
rukka mark X and it was sent by Si Rajiv Ranjan for
registration of the case. On the basis of it, I recorded
present case FIR U/S 394/34 IPC. I have brought original FIR
which is in my hand and bears my signatures. Carbon copy
of the same is Ex.PW1/A and it bears my signatures at point
A. Original seen and returned. I handed over original rukka
and copy of FIR to same Ct for delivery to the IO.
I also recorded DD No.14A in the roznamcha in
this regard and made an endorsement to that effect in the
rukka. The said endorsement is Ex.PW1/B which bears my
signatures at point /A.
xxxby accused.
Nil. Opp. Given.
RO&AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI/19-9-
07
FIR NO.638/99
PS RAJOURI GARDEN.
STATEMENT OF SH. CL DHAWAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR ALL
ACCUSED PERSONS.
I do not want to lead any other defence
evidence in the present case so, the defence evidence
may kindly be closed.
R.O.&.A.C.
(BHARAT PARASHAR)
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
14-3-2007
PW6-HC KISHORI LAL (RECALLED FOR FURTHER
EXAMINATION
After the arrest of accused Deepa, Gaurav, Sanjay &
Leelu).
ON SA
I adopt my earlier examination dated 3-5-06
deposed by me in this court.
Xxxxxby Ms. Madhu Kaliya and Sh. Naveen Gaur
for all accused persons.
Nil. Opp. Given.
RO&AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI/23-3-
07
FIR NO :998/99
PS : PASCHIM VIHAR.
STATEMENT OF PROCESS SEVER ASI PADMESH TYAGI, PS
PASCHIM VIHAR, DELHI.
ON SA
The process u/S 82/83 Cr.PC pertaining to
accused Rajesh Kumar @ Raju was marked to me by SHO,
PS Paschim Vihar. After that I went to Jhuggi No.614, Indra
Camp, Sector 3, Rohini & inquired about the whereabouts
of accused Rajesh Kumar @ Raju from the residents of the
nearby jhuggies & they told that no persons in the name of
Rajesh @ Raju is residing in the above mentioned jhuggi &
at jhuggi no.614 one lady Vandana is residing with her
family. I recorded the statements of Vanda Ex.CW1/A
which was duly attested by me. I also recorded the
statement of Umesh Kumar Ex.CW2/A which was also
attested by me and both the witnesses signed their
statements. My report U/S 82 Cr.PC is Ex.CW1/B and report
U/S 83 Cr.PC is Ex.CW1/C. As per the witnesses and the
other inquiries made by me no moveable or immovable
property was found in the name of the accused. Therefore,
I prepared report U/S 83 Cr.PC Ex.CW1/D which bears my
signatures.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
29/05/2007
FIR NO.: 294/99
PS : Saraswati Vihar
PW-23 K.C. VARSHNEY, Senior Scientific Officer
(Ballistics), FSL Rohini, Delhi
ON SA
I am M.Sc (Physics) and obtained a diploma in
Forensic Ballistics in the year 1992 from NICFS Govt. of India
New Delhi. I am examining and reporting the cases of
ballistics since 1993. I have examined more than 5000 cases
till date. I am Ex-Officio Chemical Examiner to the
Government of NCT of Delhi.
On 09.09.1999 one sealed parcel sealed with the
seal of RSN was received in my office at Malviya Nagar in
the present case along with forwarding letter and other
papers and the same was marked to me for examination
and opinion. The seals on the parcel were intact and as
per the specimen seal. On opening the parcel one country
made pistol of .315 inch and one cartridge of same bore
were taken out and marked as F1 and A1 respectively by
me. I examined the Exhibits. The country made pistol Mark-
F-1 was in working order and test fire conducted
successfully. The cartridge Mark-A1 was live and was test
fired through the country made pistol Marked-F1. The
country made pistol Marked F1 was a firearm and the
cartridge Marked A1 was ammunition as defined in the
Arms Act. My detailed report dated 31.05.2000 is already
Exhibited as Ex. PW-22/G and it bears my signatures at pt. A
and B. I can identify pistol and cartridge, if shown to me,
which were examined by me.
::-2-::
At this stage, MHC(M) PS Saraswati Vihar
produced one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of court
and same is opened. It is found to be containing one
country made pistol and one test fired cartridge. Witness is
shown the same and witness identifies the same which
were examined by me. Country made pistol is Ex. P2 and
test fired cartridge is Ex. P3. Ex. P3 was alive when and the
same was test fired by me.
XXXXby Sh. S.S. Sangwan, ld. Counsel for all accused
persons.
It is incorrect to suggest that a piston works in a
pistol. It is correct that the revolver has a revolving cylinder.
The action mechanism are different of a firearm and a
'pichkari'. It is incorrect to suggest that the Ex. P2 is a toy
used by children for playing. It is wrong to suggest that I am
deposing falsely.
R.O.&.A.C.
(BHARAT PARASHAR)
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
11-7-07
FIR NO.882/04
PS JAHANGIR PURI.
STATEMENT OF SH. OM PARKASH, LD. COUNSEL FOR
ACCUSED.
I do not want to lead any other defence
evidence in the present case so, the defence evidence
may kindly be closed.
RO & AC (BHARATPARASHAR)
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
2-11-07
FIR NO.467/05
PS ROHINI
PW7 MS. ARCHANA SINHA, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
ON SA
On 14.09.2005 I was posted as Magistrate at Tihar
Court Complex. On that day an application for TIP of
accused Kamta Prasad was assigned to me by ld. MM Sh.
Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Tis Hazari Courts. I thereafter vide
my order Ex. PW-7/A dated 15.09.2005 and bearing my
signatures at pt. A fixed the TIP proceedings for 22.09.2005.
Thereafter on 22.09.2005 the TIP of accused Kamta Prasad
was conducted by me wherein he refused to participate
despite a warning given by me. I recorded statement of
accused and it bears my signatures at pt. A. The TIP
proceedings carried out by me are Ex. PW7/B and the
certificate thereunder is Ex. PW7/C and it bears my
signatures at pt. B & C.
Later on, on an application moved by the IO I
supplied copy of the proceedings to him vide my order Ex.
PW7/D and it bears my signatures at pt. A.
-2-
XXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL SH. B.B. SHARMA FOR ACCUSED
KAMTA PRASAD
Nil. Opportunity Given.
R.O.&.A.C.
(BHARAT PARASHAR)
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
16.11.2007
FIR NO :427/04
PS : SARASWATI VIHAR.
STATEMENT OF PROCESS SERVER- HC GURNAM SINGH
NO.1264 NW, PS SARASWATI VIHAR, DELHI.
ON SA
The process u/S 82/83 Cr.PC pertaining to
accused Harnam Sachumal Sindhi was marked to me by
SHO, PS Saraswati Vihar. After that I went to Jhuggi
No.H.No.13, Nirankari Colony, Kolhapur, Maharashtra where
I met the watchman of the area of accused, namely,
Jawahar and he told that no person in the name of
Harnam Sachumal Sindhi is residing in the above
mentioned house. As per the inquiries made by me no
moveable or immovable property was found in the name
of the accused. My report U/S 82 Cr.PC is Ex.CW1/A, which
bears my signatures at point A and report U/S 83 Cr.PC is
Ex.CW1/B, which bears my signatures at point A.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
17-11-07
FIR NO.168/04
PS KHANJHAWLA
PW13- ASI KANMAL SINGH, PS KHANJHAWLA.
ON SA
on 13-7-04 I was working as Duty Officer PS
Khanjhawla from 4pm till 12 mid night. On that day at
about 4.30pm I received an information from SI Hansraj on
telephone that accused Kuldeep who was wanted in case
FIR No.138/04, U/S 498A/364 IPC has been arrested and has
been produced in the court of ld. MM and his five day
police custody remand has been obtained and that a
police party headed by the SHO and comprising of SI
Hansraj himself, Ct. Ramesh Kumar and SI Ram Kumar have
left for duty along with accused Kuldeep in a private
vehicle and are also carrying a pistol with eight live
cartridges. I accordingly recorded the said information vide
DD No.22A dated 13-7-04. I have brought the original
register containing the DD entry. Photocopy of the same is
Ex.PW13/A. (Original seen and returned).
xxxby ld. Counsel Sh. Pradeep Singh, A/Curiae
for all accused.
Nil. Opp. Given.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
3-1-2008
FIR NO.168/04
PS KHANJHAWLA
PW13- ASI KANMAL SINGH, PS KHANJHAWLA.
ON SA
on 13-7-04 I was working as Duty Officer PS
Khanjhawla from 4pm till 12 mid night. On that day at
about 4.30pm I received an information from SI Hansraj on
telephone that accused Kuldeep who was wanted in case
FIR No.138/04, U/S 498A/364 IPC has been arrested and has
been produced in the court of ld. MM and his five day
police custody remand has been obtained and that a
police party headed by the SHO and comprising of SI
Hansraj himself, Ct. Ramesh Kumar and SI Ram Kumar have
left for duty along with accused Kuldeep in a private
vehicle and are also carrying a pistol with eight live
cartridges. I accordingly recorded the said information vide
DD No.22A dated 13-7-04. I have brought the original
register containing the DD entry. Photocopy of the same is
Ex.PW13/A. (Original seen and returned).
xxxby ld. Counsel Sh. Pradeep Singh, A/Curiae
for all accused.
Nil. Opp. Given.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
3-1-2008
FIR NO.168/04
PS KHANJHAWLA
PW14-PRAMOD KUMAR, SON OF SH. OM PARKASH, AGE-30
YEARS, PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O VILLAGE MADANPUR DABAS,
POST OFFICE RANI KHERA, DELHI-81.
ON SA
Deceased Nidhi was the daughter of my
chacha, namely, late Sh. Balwant Singh. Nidhi was got
married with accused Kuldeep present in the court today
(pointed out correctly).
On 13-7-04 I along with Inspt. Dharampal, SI
Hansraj, SI Ram Kumar & Ct. Ramesh along with one Rajesh,
son of Ajit Singh, a neighbourer of us had gone to Mussorie
accompanied with accused Kuldeep in a private vehicle
i.e M. Van no.1547. On 14-7-04 when we all were going
towards Mussorie from Dehradun then accused asked us to
stop the vehicle about 3 kms prior to Mussorie. There the
accused pointed out to a platform about 400-500 kms
below. He further pointed out towards a Khai which was
about 50-70 feet deep and stated that Nidhi was thrown by
him from the said platform inside the 'khai'
after killing her.
He also pointed out to a pair of slippers and a chunni lying
nearby and stated them to be that of Nidhi. I also identified
them to be belonging to Nidhi. Accused had also stated
that he had killed Nidhi by pressing her neck and thereafter
thrown her from over there. Thereafter, we went to the local
PS Mussorie and along with the police officials from over
/2/
there came back to the spot. One SDM also came along
with us. We went down inside the 'khai'
and found Nidhi
lying over there and she was still bleeding. We accordingly
brought her up and took her to the hospital. However in the
hospital where she was undergoing treatment of one Dr.
Avinash Nidhi expired at around 10pm. We all tried to talk
Nidhi and police also tried to record her statement but
the doctor opined her to be unfit for statement during all
this time till she finally was declared dead and thus Nidhi
could not make any statement during the course of her
treatment. IO took into possession the said pair of slippers
and chunni of Nidhi vide memo Ex.PW9/C and which bears
my signatures at point B. When Nidhi was taken out from
the said 'khai' then photographs were also taken.
At this state witness has identified himself Ex.P1 in
which Nidhi is being shown to be carried off by two police
officials from inside the trees and bushes. Nidhi was
admitted in Trinity Hospital in Mussorie and after her death
her body was sent to Doon Hospital Mortuary for
postmortem examination after carrying the necessary
inquest proceedings by the SDM. The dead body was later
on handed over to us vide memo Ex.PW1/A and it bears my
signatures at point B. I can identify the said chunni and pair
of slippers, if shown to me.
/3/
At this stage, MHCM has produced a sealed
pullanda sealed with the seal of court and from inside it a
chunni and a pair of slippers were taken out and the
witness has correctly identified both of them. The said
chunni of white colour is Ex.P1 and the lady pair of slippers
which are of brown colour are is Ex.P2.
xxxby ld. Counsel Sh. Pradeep Singh, A/Curiae
for all accused.
(deferred at the request of counsel as he states
that he has been engaged today only).
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
3-1-2008
FIR NO.168/04
PS KHANJHAWLA
PW15-INSPT. DHARAMPAL, 10TH BTLN, PITAMPURA, DELHI.
ON SA
On 13-7-04 I was posted as SHO in PS
Khanjhawla. On that day accused Kuldeep, present in the
court today was arrested by SI Hansraj and SI Hansraj also
recorded disclosure statement of accused Kuldeep to the
effect that he had strangulated his wife and thrown her
from the top of the hills in Mussorie. The accused and his
disclosure statement was handed over to me by SI Hansraj. I
thereafter produced accused in the court and took five
days police remand from the concerned court. Then we
formed a team of police officials comprising of myself and
SI Hansraj, SI Ram Kumar, Ct. Ramesh and two public
persons, namely, Rajesh and Parmod. We proceeded to
Mussorie on 13-7-2004 itself and stayed in Dehradun on
13/7/04and reached Mussorie on the morning of 14-7- 2004. When we were going to the Mussorie from Dehradun then accused Kuldeep, who was also with us pointed out a place about 3 kms before Mussorie in the "Ban Suman Estate" area from where he claimed to have thrown his wife in the 'khai'after strangulating her. I accordingly prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW9/D, signed by me at point A. Thereafter, we went to the PS Mussorie. We disclosed the facts of the case to the police official, /2/ namely, SO-Ashok Arora at PS Mussorie. SO Ashok Arora passed this information to the area SDM, who had come at the PS. Then, we all went to the spot and found a body of a female lying in the 'khai'.She was taken out outside the 'khai' and on checking by the SDM it was found that she was still breathing. SDM directed the staff to admit her in a nearest hospital for giving her best treatment. SI Ashok Arora took the photographs by his own camera of the spot. A pair of slippers and chuni were also lying near the spot. When the body was taken out, then the photographs of sequence was also taken. The chunni and the pair of slippers were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW9/C after preparing a pullanda of white cloth and the same was sealed with the seal of DPS. The memo is signed by me at point C. The recovery memo of body of Nidhi was also prepared and the same is Ex.PW4/A signed by me at point C. The memo was prepared in the presence of SDM and local police officials. Nidhi was admitted to Grace Trinity Hospital. She was medically treated there but she expired at around 10pm on the same day. The treatment was given under supervision of SDM in the hospital. We tried to take the statement of Nidhi but doctor did not allow as she was unfit for statement throughout her admission in hospital. Thereafter, SDM conducted the inquest proceedings and /3/ sent the dead body to Doon Hospital, Dehradun for postmortem through police officials of PS Mussorie. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to her relatives. Thereafter, we came back to Delhi and also made arrival entry in the PS and the DD entry No.14A in this regard is Ex.PW15/A. Accused was then sent to JC. At Mussorie the statement of witnesses were also recorded.
On 22-7-04 accused Raghubir & Smt. Krishna were arrested from the house of Balwant Singh at Village Madnpur vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and C, signed by me at point A respectively. Smt. Krishna was arrested in the presence of L.Ct. Kamlesh. Their personal search memos were prepared vide Ex.PW6/D and E, signed by me at point C respectively.
On 24-8-04 we brought the papers of inquest proceedings from Dehradun through Ct. Ramesh. Thereafter, I prepared the challan & sent it to court along with all relevant papers as per law.
At this stage, chunni and a pair of slippers have been shown to the witness and he has correctly identified both of them. The said chunni of white colour is Ex.P1 and the lady pair of slippers which are of brown colour are is Ex.P2/1-2.
/4/ xxxby ld. Counsel Sh. Pradeep Singh, A/Curiae for all accused.
(deferred at the request of counsel as he states that he has been engaged today only).
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
3-1-2008
FIR NO.142/00
PS ADARSH NAGAR.
PW
-DR..S. BANSAL, CHIEF MO, HRH, DELHI. ON SA xxxby ld. Counsel Sh. Pradeep Singh, A/Curiae for all accused.
(deferred at the request of counsel as he states that he has been engaged today only).
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
4-1-2008
FIR NO.369/2005
PS PRASHANT VIHAR
PW2-SMT. SURESH RANI ((RECALLED FOR CROSS
EXAMINATION FROM 18-1-07 ONWARDS)
ON SA
xxxxby Sh. BB Sharma, ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
It is correct that on 27-6-04 I along with my husband went to the police station and lodged a report at the police post regarding missing of Shashi but myself as well as my husband had not mentioned to the police in that report that my daughter inlaws had harassed her for demanding in connection with the dowry demand as well as on 17-6-04 my daughter (deceased) followed her husband and mother-in-law and sister-in-law from our house. I for the first time made a report to the police on 5th May, 2004 regarding the demand of dowry and harassment by her inlaws before CAW Cell. It is correct that on 5-5-04 there was no proceeding in CAW Cell was in progress. It is correct that in August, 2003 a compromise was arrived in CAW Cell and my daughter went to her in- laws house. It is correct that after August, 2003 my deceased daughter did not make any report before CAW Cell regarding committing of any harassment by her inlaws in connection with demand of dowry. It is correct that due to poverty we could not arrange marriage ceremony of my deceased daughter at our house. It was held at the /2/ house of the samdhi of my nanad. It is correct that during the day of my marriage of my daughter my husband was unemployed. Although my son Vijay was working at that time. Vijay was earning at that time Rs.3-4 thousand per month. A girl child was born to Shashi in a private hospital in Avantika. She was not treated at Kalawati Hospital. It is correct that my granddaughter is with Subhash Gulati, accused present in the court today. I am not in a knowledge that at the time of birth of the girl child she was not passing stool in fact this was not told to us by the accused. Even my deceased daughter had not told me in this regard. I had seen my granddaughter in the house of accused present in the court today. I have no knowledge that the said girl child is mentally retarded. It is correct that accused had not celebrated the chuchak ceremony on the birth of child to my deceased daughter. I along with my husband remained at the house of accused for about half an hour or 45 minutes when we visited their house in the occasion of giving chuchak. I was not aware that Sunita the accused was already married prior to the marriage of my daughter with the accused Subhash Gulati. I as well as my husband had never talked with Sunita till the date of misisng of my daughter. Whenever I had visited along with my husband at the house of accused Subhash Gultai I had /3/ never met Sunita @ Neeru, accused in that house. I have no knowledge that accused Sunita @ Neeru is a resident of Rohtak. I have no knowledge that my daughter of Sunita having brain tumor and she used to stay at Rohtak. The complaint which was made before CAW Cell was made by deceased of her own and the facts of that complaint was never discussed by deceased either with me or with my husband.
I did not see any injury on the body of my daughter when she had visited on 16-6-04. My daughter did not visit any doctor for taking any medicine on 16-6-04. I did not inform the police even on 16-6-04 regarding the alleged beating by her inlaws. Even we had not advised our daughter to report in writing to CAW Cell. I did not go to the house of accused to inquire why our daughter was beaten by them, nor we made any telephone call to the accused in this regard. None of the accused persons ever visited our house on 17-6-04. Witness again states that on 17-6-04 the accused persons had come to their house. It is wrong to suggest that accused had not visited on 17-6-04 at our house in the evening time. There was no hot talk taken place on 17-6-04 except the accused had requested my daughter to accompany them. The accused persons had remained at our house for about one hour. On 17-6-04 /4/ we did ask our daughter to go along with the accused persons though she was reluctant to go. After 17-6-04 till 26- 6-04 we neither visit the house of accused persons nor we had any talk with them on telephone asking about our daughter. On 26-6-04 we did not lodge any police report about missing of our daughter. On 27-6-04 accused had come on the morning to our house. On 27-6-04 we did not inform to the police anything about the conduct of accused persons in harassing our daughter for demand of dowry or her having left our house on 17-6-04 along with the accused persons. On 27-6-04 we had not given the said piece of paper Ex.PW1/X to the police. On 27-6-04 I was not aware about the said document lying in our almirah. We came to know about the said paper lying in the almirah for the first time after about one and one and half month on 27-6-04. Prior to tracing out the said paper we had no knowledge about any such paper lying in the almirah. We also never informed police or SDM that we were aware of any such paper lying in the almirah prior to the death of Shashi. On 9-7-04 we had not given the said paper to our son Vijay when he went to the PS. I do not remember when I told for the first time to the police about the conduct of accused persons towards our daughter regarding demand of dowry or about the incident dated /5/ 17-6-04. We did not go to the PS to handover the said letter Ex.PW1/X on the vary date when it was traced by us in the almirah. We were not aware about the death of our daughter till that time the said paper was traced by us. My statement was recorded at the PS Prashant Vihar by the police official. We had come to know about the death of our daughter on 9th July. I do not remember after how many days of 9th July, 2004 my statement was recorded by the police. It is wrong to suggest that document Ex.PW1/X is a forged and fabricated document having so prepared by us after the death of our daughter. It is wrong to suggest that my daughter was never harassed at her inlaws house much less on account of demand of dowry. It is wrong to suggest that on 17-6-04 my daughter had not accompanied the accused persons from her house. It is wrong to suggest that we have made a false case against the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that no demand of any TV or fridge was made from us by the accused persons on any occasion or even at the time of Lohri in the year 2003. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 8.01.2008 FIR NO.: 467/05 PS: Rohini PW-9 SI RAJESH KUMAR, PP SHAKTI VIHAR, PS SARASWATI VIHAR ON SA On 15.05.2005 I was posted as IC-PP Vijay Vihar PS Rohini. On that day duty officer has received a rukka from HC Karan Singh through ct. Anil and after registration of the case he handed over further investigation to me of this case. I along with ct. Anil proceeded to Baba Saheb Amedkar Hospital where HC Karan Singh met me and handed over the MLC of injured Ram Naresh and Pappu along with other documents pertaining to this case. Witness Pappu was present at the hospital and IO HC Karan Singh briefed me about this case also. Thereafter I along with Pappu went to the spot i.e. Near ganda nala, Budh Vihar, near Sector-24, Rohini. At the instance of witness Pappu I prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A and it bears my signatures at pt. A. At the time when I visited BSA Hospital it was reported that the other injured has been transferred from BSA to LNJP Hospital. I searched the accused from the nearby places from the spot but could not find them. I recorded the statement of witnesses i.e. Pappu and other police officials. We also inquired about the other injured Ram Naresh from LNJP Hospital but he remained unfit for statement up to 26.05.2005.
/2/ On 26.05.2005 injured Ram Naresh was declared fit for statement by the concerned doctor and so his statement was recorded in the hospital. All my efforts in searching the accused persons were in vain.
During the proceedings in anticipatory bail in the Sessions Courts accused Kanta Prasad produced a medical certificate on the basis of which he was given interim anticipatory bail. The verification of the medical certificate was conducted by HC Sri Niwas and a report was submitted to the court and as per report his anticipatory bail was rejected.
Accused Kanta Prasad surrendered in the court and he was formally arrested on 14.09.2005 vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/B signed by me at pt. A. He also made a disclosure statement and same is Ex.PW9/C signed by me at pt. A. Pursuant to the disclosure statement I tried to trace out one other accomplice of the accused namely Pintoo but I could not succeed in arresting him.
Thereafter, TIP proceedings of accused Kanta Prasad was got conducted but he refused to take part in TIP. Thereafter, I also collected the result about the nature of injury sustained by injured Ram Naresh. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court for trial of accused. Accused Kanta Prasad is present in the court /3/ today (correctly identified).
xxxxby Sh. BB Sharma, ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
It was in the morning hour when the copy of FIR and rukka was handed over by the DO but, I do not remember the exact time. It was probably 10am. I have gone through the statement of Papu Ex.PW5/A. That statement does not contain the description of the assailants nor the name of assailant is mentioned. Papu Singh was not present at the PS when the investigation was taken by me. MLC of the injured was not handed over to me in the PS. I reached hospital at about 10.30am and there I met Papu Singh along with IO/HC Karan Singh. In the hospital the MLC of the injured was handed over to me by HC Karan Singh. It is correct that in the MLC disclosed the name of Kripa Shanker, who had got admitted the injured in the hospital. It is correct that in statement Ex.PW5/A it is stated by Papu Singh that he had got admitted injured Ram Naresh in the hospital but in the MLC it is the name of Kripa Shanker which is mentioned as the person who brought the injured to the hospital. In my presence the injured was not admitted in the hospital. Vol. I had come to know that all the persons had together come to the hospital along with the injured. I have also not recorded any supplementary /4/ statement of Papu Singh that he had got admitted Ram Naresh in the hospital. It was at about 11.30am I visited the place of occurrence. I had not seen any blood or cycle on the place of occurrence at that time. I had not taken into possession the cycle in question on which the injured and Papu Singh were plying at the time of incident. I had seen the injured Ram Naresh for the first time in LNJP Hospital. I have seen the blood stained clothes of the injured in LNJP Hospital which he was wearing. I had not taken into possession the blood stained clothes of the injured nor the injured Ram Naresh had produced the same. Kripa Shanker has not specifically told the person who has informed about the incident to him. I had recorded for the first time the statement of Ram Naresh on 26-5-05. During these days the accused Kanta Prasad had not visited at the police station or police post. During the course of hearing of bail application accused had taken a plea of alibi and had produced certain tickets and medical certificates and which documents were ordered to be verified by the court. However during the course of verification it was found that the medical certificate was not genuine and as regards the train tickets the concerned authority informed that as to who actually travel on the said tickets. The three train tickets are Ex.PW9/DA1-3. The medical certificate is /5/ Ex.PW9/DA4. It is wrong to suggest that I have not done a fair investigation in this case. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely implicated the accused in this case or I am deposing falsely.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 8.01.2008 FIR NO.
PS PW2-SMT. SURESH RANI ((RECALLED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION FROM 18-1-07 ONWARDS) ON SA xxxxby Sh. BB Sharma, ld. Counsel for all accused persons.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 14.01.2008 FIR NO :326/01 PS : HARI NAGAR.
STATEMENT OF PROCESS SEVER HC BANWARI LAL NO.439W, PS HARI NAGAR, DELHI.
ON SA The process u/S 82/83 Cr.PC pertaining to accused Sandeep @ Rahul, son of Jeet Kumar was marked to me by SHO, PS Hari Nagar. After that I went to H.No.A3/91, Janak Puri, Delhi on 12-11-07 & inquired about the whereabouts of accused Sandeep @ Rahul from the residents of the locality. However, nothing could be known about the accused despite my best efforts. I accordingly pasted a copy of the notice U/S 82 Cr.PC at a conspicuous place of the locality and another copy of the notice was pasted at the notice board of the court. My report on the process u/S 82 Cr.PC is Ex.CW1/A and bears my signatures at point A. Subsequently, on 13-12-07 I again went to execute the process U/S 83 Cr.PC but again nothing could be known about the accused. One Neeraj Vaidh met me & he told me that at present no person in the name of Sandeep @ Rahul is residing in the above mentioned house.
Nothing any movable, nor any immovable property of accused could be found over there. I accordingly recorded statement of Neeraj Vaidh and the same is Ex.CW1/A1. My report on the process u/S 83 Cr.PC is Ex.CW1/B1 which bears my signatures at point A. RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 14-1-08 FIR NO :769/06 PS : SHALIMAR BAGH.
PW8-DR. ANJALI GUPTA, SR. RESIDENT, OBS & GYNAE, BJRM HOSPITAL, JAHANGIR PURI, DELHI.
ON SA I was working as Sr. Resident in BJRM Hospital since 24th May, 2006. Patient Anjani, daughter of Vikram was arrived in the hospital on 19-10-06 at about 2.50pm as per MLC, in the casualty ward of the hospital. The doctor from casualty ward was referred patient to Gynae Deptt. I had examined the patient brought by her mausi Munni Devi and according to her patient was raped by her neighnourer on 19-10-06. I have examined the patient and as per examination:
On per abdomen examination it was soft NAD. On Local Examination - No fresh external injury was found. Hymen was intact.
Patient was advised for vaginal smear examination for semen analysis.
X-ray of long for age determination. The patient vaginal smear was sealed in pullanda and undergarments was also sealed in separate pullanda and handed over to the lady constable Veena Yadav.
The MLC is Ex.PW8/A and the portion mark B was in my handwriting and signed by me at point C. /2/ xxxby Ms. Dhaneshari-A/Curiae for accused. It is correct that the patient was examined even prior to in the emergency ward. The patient hymen was intact at the time of examination.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
15-1-08
FIR NO :142/00
PS : ADARSH NAGAR.
PW-9-ATTAR SINGH, SON OF SH.RAM SWAROOP, AGE-70 YEARS, R/O H.NO.193, GAON BAROLA, DAYA BASTI, DELHI. ON SA In the year 2000, month and date I do not remember in my adjoining plot accused Shivraj Jindal, present in the court today was constructing a building for the last 2-3 months. He has constructed the wall upto the third floor. We have cautioned his servant to not to raise the structure so high but no heed was paid to our request and in the meantime the structure came down on a jhuggi beneath it & one child died and a number of persons sustained injuries. We have taken out the child/injured from the dewberries and taken him to the hospital. My statement was also recorded. I had not seen any other person besides Jindal at the said plot but the said plot was owned by 2/3 persons. I am not aware as to who the said other persons were.
At this stage, witness has identified accused Rajesh Gupta stating him to be the Jindal.
At this stage, accused Shivraj Jindal present in the court has been pointed out to the witness but he states that he has not seen him ever.
Court observation:
Witness has wrongly identified accused Rajesh Gupta as /2/ Shivraj Jindal.
Witness states that accused Rajesh Gupta used to tell his name as Jindal.
Xxxxby ld. Counsel Sh. Sandeep Rana for accused Shivraj Jindal.
Nil. Opp. Given.
Xxxxby accused Rajesh Gupta.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of IO or that no such structure was being constructed over there. It is wrong to suggest that I did not state to anyone to not to raise any structure or that no such structure fell down on anyone.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
15-1-08
FIR NO :142/00
PS : ADARSH NAGAR.
PW-10-BHONDA RAM, SON OF SH. MANGERAM, AGE-65 YEARS, R/O H.NO.137, GAON BAROLA, DAYA BASTI, DELHI. ON SA In the year 2000, in the incident somebody was constructing a building in the same locality. I was selling clothes etc. by way of ferry. I came to know about 2/3 years back that a wall of the constructed building has fell down and caused injuries to number of persons. I do not know, who was constructing the building. I have not seen the accused persons present in the court today at the site where incident was going on.
At this stage, ld. APP requested to cross examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement.
Heard. Perused. Allowed.
XXXXXby APP.
I have not given any statement to the police on 12-3-00 and also I have not stated in my statement mark A from portion A to A that on the plot no.137, house was beginning to construct about three months prior to my statement and once accused Suraj Jindal put a door in a wall at the time of construction then the locality people has raised objection and accused Shivraj Jindal has closed the door after he was got understand by the locality /2/ people. (Confronted from portion A to A). It is wrong to suggest that the accused Shivraj Jindal was the person under whose direction the construction was going on and he visited the site number of time. I do not know about the accused Shivraj Jindal. The accused was pointed out towards accused Shivraj Jindal but he stated that he is not the person who visited the site and on whose supervision construction work was going on in the said site. It is wrong to suggest that I was won over by the accused persons or I am deposing falsely.
Xxxxby ld. Counsel Sh. Sandeep Rana for accused Shivraj Jindal.
Nil. Opp. Given.
Xxxxby accused Rajesh Gupta.
Nil. Opp. Given.
RO & AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
15-1-08
FIR NO.769/06
PS SHALIMAR BAGH.
PW9-HC GOVIND SINGH, NO. 9154 DAP.8TH BTLN. ON SA On 19-10-06 I was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh and was working as duty officer from 4pm till 12 mid night. On that day upon receipt of rukka Ex.PW7/A through Ct. Pradeep having been sent by WSI Shashi lata. I recorded FIR No.769/06. I have brought the register containing the original FIR. Carbon copy of the same is Ex.PW9/A and bears my signatures at point A. Original seen and returned.
I also recorded DD No.16A in the roznamcha in this regard and made entry to that effect on the rukka and the said endorsement is Ex.PW9/B. xxxby A/Curiae Ms. Dhaneshwari for accused. I recorded FIR at about 4.45pm. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of IO. RO&AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI/15-1-08 FIR NO.769/06 PS SHALIMAR BAGH.
PW10-CT. RAJ KUMAR NO. 505 NW, PS SHALIMAR BAGH. ON SA On 29-11-06 on the direction of IO, I took 4 pullandas sealed with the seal of BJRM and two sample seals from MHC(M), PS Shalimar Bagh to FSL, Rohini vide RC No.150/21/06. After depositing the pullandas and the sample seal in the FSL I obtained the receipt and deposited the copy of RC with MHC(M). No one tempered with the case property as long as it remained in my possession.
xxxby A/Curiae Ms. Dhaneshwari for accused. I had signed on the RC while receiving the case property from MHC(M).
RO&AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI/15-1-08 FIR NO.769/06 PS SHALIMAR BAGH.
PW11-HC LALARAM NO. 1396, NW, PS SHALIMAR BAGH. ON SA On 19-10-06 I was working as MHC(M), PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day WSI Shashi Lata deposited two pullandas sealed with the seal of BJRM along with a sample seal and I deposited them vide entry No. 3356 in R.No.19. Subsequently on 20-10-06 WSI Shashi Lata also deposited two other pullandas sealed with the seal of BJRM along with sample seal and I deposited them vide entry No.3357. I have brought register no.19. Copy of the relevant two entries is Ex.PW11/A and B. On 29-11-06 I sent four pullandas with sample seal to FSL through Ct. Raj Kumar vide RC No.150/21/06 vide endorsement Ex.PW11/C. I have also brought original RC vide which the case property articles were sent to FSL. Copy of the same is Ex.PW11/D. Original seen and returned. No one tempered with the case property as long as it remained in my possession.
xxxby A/Curiae Ms. Dhaneshwari for accused. WSI Shashi Lata did not sign R.No.19. It is wrong to suggest that nothing was deposited with me. RO&AC ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI/15-1-08 FIR NO :
PS :FIR NO. 117/03
PS JAHANGIR PURI.
PW22 SH. SK GAUTAM, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI ON SA At this stage, a sealed envelope sealed with the seal of SKG has been opened and TIP proceedings are taken out.
On 24-2-03 I was posted as MM at Tis Hazari Courts. IO inspected Mahender Singh produced two accused persons, namely, Vijay Sharma @ Pinto & Ravinder Pal @ Sonu in muffled faces as their TIP was marked to me by the link MM Sh. SK Aggarwal. IO inquired from both the accused persons that if they want to participate in the TIP proceedings or not. Both accused refused to participate in TIP proceedings on the ground that the victim parties knows them very well. Both the accused persons were produced from police custody. As the offence was serious I fixed the TIP proceedings to be conducted at Central Jail Tihar on 27-2-2003 and had sent both the accused to judicial custody with the instructions to them to rethink freely during judicial custody to participate or not to participate in TIP proceedings. I instructed the IO to secure the attendance of witnesses, namely, Suraj Pal and Rattan Lal.
On 27-2-2003 I reached central jail no.5, Tihar for the above said purpose. Asstt. Suptd. Jail Sh. Ranvir Singh produced both the accused persons namely, Vijay Sharma @ Pinto and Ravinder Pal @ Sonu and identified them by writing the same at point A. I inquired from both the accused persons that if they want to participate in TIP proceedings or not. Both the accused persons had stated that they do not wish to participate in TIP proceedings. I warned both the accused persons that their refusal to join in TIP will draw an adverse inference against them during trial but still both the accused persons stated that they do not want to join the TIP. I recorded their statements on the proceedings which I signed at point-X and Y. Accused Vijay Sharma @ Pintoo signed his statement at pt. AA and accused Ravinder Pal signed his statement at pt. BB. I concluded the TIP proceedings Ex. PW-22/A and signed the same at pt. C after giving a certificate to the effect of genuineness and truthfulness of the TIP proceedings. Certificate is Ex. PW-22/B. The IO had moved an application for copy of the TIP proceedings and I accordingly allowed the same. Application of IO is Ex. PW-22/C. XXXXX BY ALL ACCUSED Nil. Opportunity given.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 17.01.2008 FIR NO :427/04 PS : HARI NAGAR.
STATEMENT OF PROCESS SEVER HC BANWARI LAL NO.439W, PS HARI NAGAR, DELHI.
ON SA Application of IO is Ex. PW-22/C. XXXXX BY ALL ACCUSED Nil. Opportunity given.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 18.01.2008 -1- FIR NO.: 117/2003 PS : Jahangir Puri PW-23 SI DINESH PAL, NO. 3734-SPECIAL CELL, NEW FRIENDS COLONY ON SA On 19.02.2003 I was posted at PS Jahangir Puri. On that day at about 10:56pm on the receipt of DD No.21A Ex.PW19/A I along with ct. Jugal Kishore, Satbir, ct. Brijesh Pant reached near A-block bus stand, the corner of I-Block, tempo stand, Main Road, Jahangir Puri where some broken pieces of bottle were lying. At the corner near Jai Juice Corner blood was lying. Ct. Jugal Kishore was left for the safety of the spot where blood was lying and ct. Brijesh pant was left at the spot where broken pieces of cold drink bottle were lying. From the spot we came to know that injured had already been removed to BJRM Hospital. After leaving both the constables for the safety of the spots I along with ct. Satbir reached BJRM Hospital where Rattan Lal @ Pappu s/o Khub Ram, Suraj Pal s/o Mohan Lal and Hari Prasad s/o Khunde Lal met me. Injured Rakesh Kumar was already declared as brought dead by the doctor. I obtained the MLC of deceased and recorded statement of Rattan Lal Ex.PW1/A which was read over to him and he signed at pt. A and I attested the same at pt. B. I prepared rukka Ex.PW23/A signed by me at pt. C and endorsed for registration of a case U/S 302/34 IPC and sent the same to -2- PS Jahangir Puri through ct. Satbir. In the meantime SHO also reached the hospital along with ct. Suresh Kumar and ct. Gurpreet. Further investigation was taken up by the SHO. MLC Ex. PW-20/A of the deceased was handed over to the SHO. I also handed over Rs.350/- and the wrist watch of the deceased to SHO which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW17/A and it bears my signatures at pt. A. Dead body was sent to BJRM Mortuary by the SHO and I along with SHO-Inspector Mahender Singh, ct. Suresh Kumar and complainant Rattan Lal, Suraj Pal reached the spot at the corner I-Block where Hari Prasad was also asked to join us but he went away to console the wife of Rakesh Kumar, deceased. Hari Prasad was asked to remain present at BJRM Mortuary at about 11:00am at the time of the postmortem of body of deceased. Photographer HC Sajjan Singh had reached the spot and took the photographs of the spot from different angles. Crime Team also reached at the spot and inspected the spot. IO recorded statement of witnesses. At the instance of complainant Rattan Lal SHO prepared the site plan. From the spot blood, blood stained earth and earth control were taken into possession after the same were kept in a plastic bottle sealed with seal of 'MS' vide memo Ex.PW1/B which bears my signatures at pt. C. The blood stained pieces of -3- broken bottle were taken into possession and were kept in plastic jar and same was sealed with seal of 'MS' and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/C bearing my signatures at pt. C. Rattan Lal was also got medically examined through ct. Suresh. Rehri of the deceased was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/D bears my signatures at pt. C. My statement was recorded. We remained in search of the accused persons Devender.
On 23.02.2003 secret informer informed the SHO about the presence of the accused persons near GTK Depot bus stand. On this information Inspector Mahender Singh joined me HC Vijay Pal, ct. Sanjeev and Hari Prasad, relative of the deceased was also joined and we reached GTK Bus Depot at bus stand. Informer was also with us. At about 4:15pm at the instance of informer both the accused persons present in the court namely Vijay Sharma and Ravinder Pal (both pointed out correctly by the witness) were apprehended. They were interrogated by the SHO and their disclosure statement Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C were recorded (objected to). They were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-12/A and B and their personal search was also taken vide memo Ex. PW12/C and Ex. PW12/D. Both were kept in muffled face. They also pointed out the place vide memo Ex.PW2/D and E (objected to). IO -4- recorded my statement.
At this stage, three parcels sealed with seal of court opened. Witness identifies blood stained earth Ex. P-1, earth control Ex. P-2 and blood stained gauge Ex. P-3, broken pieces of broken bottle Ex. P-4.
After medical examination of Ratan Lal, ct. Suresh Kumar produced the sealed parcel containing shirt of Rattan Lal and sample seal. Shirt of Rattan Lal is Ex. P-5. XXXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL SH. R.P. DANIYA FOR ACCUSED VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA I do not remember whether the departure entry with regard to ct. Jugal and Ct. Brijesh was recorded. It is incorrect to suggest that these constables did not go with me at the spot. I was handed over DD No.21A by the duty officer and I myself did not make any inquiry as to who had got the same recorded nor I made any inquiry thereafter about the informer. It is correct that information was that one injured person is lying near Hum Tempo Stand. Hum Tempo Stand is on the left side when we go towards Jahangir Puri from main GTK Road. No injured met me at me at Hum Tempo Stand. No blood stains were found at Hum Tempo stand. The distance between the Hum Tempo Stand and the place where the pieces of broken bottle were lying was about 40-50 yards. No one met me at Hum -5- Tempo Stand. The spot was on the left if we proceed from GT Karnal Road. Broken bottle pieces were lying separately from the rehri at a distance of about 50 yards. Some person informed us about the removal of injured to BJRM Hospital. I did not ask his name. I did not make any inquiry at the spot and immediately proceeded to hospital.
I reached the hospital at about 11:20pm. In the hospital I came to know that Rattan Lal brought injured to hospital and got him admitted over there. I had seen the MLC but I do not remember if the name of Rattan Lal finds mention in the MLC. It is wrong to suggest that Rattan Lal did not get the injured admitted in the hospital VOL. Rattan Lal, Suraj Pal and Hari Prasad met me in the hospital itself. I do not know as to who was the owner of Jai Juice corner. I myself did not carry out any inquiry as to who was the owner of Jai Juice corner. At that time the said juice shop was lying closed.
Rattan Lal, Hari Prasad and Suraj Pal met met in emergency in the hospital. Statement of Rattan Lal was recorded in the hospital and it took me about 40-45 minutes in recording his statement. I did not record statement of Hari Prasad and Suraj Pal in the hospital. SHO reached in the hospital before my sending the rukka. After reaching of SHO in the hospital we remained there for -6- about 10 minutes. It is wrong to suggest that Rattan Lal, Suraj Pal or Hari Prasad did not meet me in the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that statement of Rattan lal was not recorded in the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that nor ukka was sent to PS from hospital.
Deferred as it is lunch time.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 18.01.2008 FIR NO.: 484/96 PS : HARI NAGAR PW-22 INSPT. RAJENDER SINGH NANKU (RECALLED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION FROM 5-11-07 ONWARDS) ON SA XXXXXBY SH. NAVEEN KUMAR FOR BOTH ACCUSED PERSONS, NAMELY, BRIJESH PANDEY AND INDERVEER.
On 29-6-1996 FIR was registered at about 12.05am. I gained the knowledge of the case after the registration of the FIR. During my tenure no missing report was lodged by Milkiram. It is correct that accused persons were arrested pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Sonu Babbar. When I went to Agra I had left after making DD entry and similarly on returned I made arrival entry. The number of the wrist watch was mentioned in the seizure memo. All accused persons were apprehended pursuant to the disclosure statement of Sonu Babbar. I did not make any inquiry from the doctors as to the presence marks of contusion on the body of deceased. No weapon was recovered from the accused persons which is later to contusion mark on the body of deceased. Ms. Chottey, sister of accused Brijesh Pandey was not available during the time of investigation. No public witness was joined in the proceedings at the time of apprehension of accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I did not carry out proper and fair investigation or that nothing was recovered from /2/ the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons has been falsely implicated in this case or that no disclosure statement was recorded. It is wrong to suggest that wrist watch has been falsely planted upon the accused persons.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 18.01.2008 -1- FIR NO.: 117/2003 PS : Jahangir Puri PW-23 SI DINESH PAL (RECALLED AFTER LUNCH) ON SA XXXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL SH. R.P. DANIYA FOR ACCUSED VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA It is wrong to suggest that Rattan Lal did not give any statement. It is incorrect to suggest that Rattan Lal was called in PS after 3-4 days of the incident and his signatures were obtained on blank papers. It is incorrect to suggest that SHO did not reach the hospital for investigation of this case. SHO did not make his initials on the rukka.
Blood was not present where broken pieces of bottle were lying but some pieces were blood stained. Rehri was not there where broken pieces of broken bottle were lying. I do not remember whether Suraj Pal was asked to sign the seizure of the rehri of deceased. I have seen the seizure memo Ex.PW1/D, the same does not bear the signarures of PW-Suraj Pal. I do not recollect if Suraj pal was present when the rehri was taken into possession. Exact number of the pieces of broken bottle were not mentioned in the memo. The broken pieces were not counted so, the same were not mentioned in the memo. Similarly the blood stained pieces of broken bottle were not counted. There was only one seizure memo of broken pieces of bottle. I do not remember whether trail of blood was there or not from -2- the rehri to the place where broken pieces of bottle were lying or upto the place of the juice corner. It is wrong to suggest that no blood stains were there. Site plan was prepared in my presence. The place where the rehri of deceased was parked is not shown in the site plan. It is incorrect to suggest that no rehri was there. It is incorrect to suggest that Rattan Lal and Suraj Pal have not witnessed or were not present at the time of the proceedings. Some of the bottle lying in the carets on the rehri of the deceased were filled. I do not recollect if in the seizure memo the number of full bottles were mentioned or not. It is incorrect to suggest that there were no full bottles at all.
Seal after use was handed over to Rattan Lal. I do not remember if any handing over memo was prepared in this regard. It might have been mentioned about the handing over of the seal to Rattan Lal in the statement of Rattan Lal.
I do not remember whether Rattan Lal had sustained some injuries. Rattan Lal was sent to medical examination to the hospital and I myself have not seized his shirt before sending him to the hospital. Rattan lal might have told the IO that he has sustained injuries and there was also blood on his shirt so he was sent for medical examination. It is incorrect to suggest that Rattan lal was -3- called from his house or at that time he was in drunk condition. It is incorrect to suggest that we had any doubt on Rattan Lal. It is incorrect to suggest that Rattan lal or Suraj pal had not witnessed the incident. It is wrong to suggest that it was a blind murder case and in order to show as worked out accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.
Secret information was received by the IO. I do not know whether IO reduced the same into writing. Hari Prasad met us on 23.02.2003 outside the police station on the day of arrest of accused per chance. I do not want to disclose the description of informer. Despite efforts no independent witness joined the proceedings. Rattan Lal and Suraj Pal were not called to join us. We police officials were in uniform. The raid was conducted towards the side of GTK road bus depot. We were on Government vehicle which was parked in some factory in a side. Name of factory owner is not known to me. 2/4 persons were standing over there. None of them agreed to join the proceedings. We were standing separately. Informer and Hari Prasad were standing with the SHO. I do not remember as to from which side both the accused persons came there. I have not seen them coming. The informer pointed from a distance of about 15 steps towards both the -4- accused persons. When informer pointed out both the accused persons were in standing position. Interrogation was done at that place only. Briefcase or spare clothes were not with the accused persons. IO had arranged the cloth for making the accused persons muffled from the spot with handkerchief. It is wrong to suggest that IO had not arranged any cloths or handkerchief for keeping the face of accused muffled. It is wrong to suggest that no secret information was received or that we never went to the spot, as stated by me above or that the accused persons were not arrested from there, as stated by me. It is wrong to suggest that accused Vijay Kumar Sharma was brought from the house of his sister in Subzi Mandi, Ghanta Ghar. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. XXXXX BY LD. COUSNEL SH. ARUN SHARMA FOR ACCUSED DEVENDER AND RAVINDER PAL It is correct that at the spot neither the name of deceased nor the names of assailants were revealed. It is also correct that name of eye witnesses were not revealed at the spot. We had not come to know as to where the deceased Rakesh Kumar used to install his rehri. Usually around 5-7 rehris used to ply there at the spot. The spot where from where we have lifted the glass pieces of the bottle is a metallic road and is not muddy. We reached at the hospital at around 11:20pm. It is correct that it was -5- revealed to me by Rattan Lal that no quarrel took place with him and only the assailants while running struck against him. Statement of Rattan Lal was recorded by me. It is correct that there is no mention of such incident in the statement of Rattan Lal. In fact the medical of Rattan lal was got conducted because his shirt was blood stained. He did not disclose any injury on his person to me. Rattan lal had not disclosed me that his utensils were thrown or that any quarrel took place with him or whether any separate incident had taken place with him. It is wrong to suggest that accused Ravinder Pal was picked up from his house to inquire the incident meted out with Rattan Lal. It is wrong to suggest that accused Ravinder Pal was falsely implicated in this case to workout the blind murder case under the pressure of senior police officers.
Rehri of deceased was taken into custody on the same day. Rattan lal had identified the rehri to be of deceased. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing in this respect as none of the witnesses or person present had identified the rehri of deceased or its belongings. It is wrong to suggest that rehri with its belongings have been planted.
It is correct that in my presence no neck portion of the broken bottle was seized. The statement of Suraj Pal was not recorded in my presence though it was recorded -6- by IO at the spot. The statement of Hari Prasad was recorded in my presence at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that Hari prasad or Suraj Pal did not meet me in the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that statements of Suraj Pal and Hari Parasd were not recorded in the hospital for the reason they have not met us in the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that Suraj pal is a planted witness being a rehri plyer. It is wrong to suggest that Suraj Pal was made a witness because the police used to extend unusual help as his being unlicenced rehri wala. It is incorrect to suggest that Suraj Pal used to ply rehri without licence at mercy of the police. It is incorrect to suggest that Suraj Pal was not an eye witness. I do not know as to who has called Hari Prasad to the hospital. Hari Prasad was maternal uncle of deceased. I do not know as to what Hari Prasad used to do. When we came from the hospital to the spot on the day of incident Hari Prasad was not with us. It is correct that Hari Prasad was not joined in any proceedings after coming from hospital. Rattan Lal, Suraj Pal and Hari Parsad are the only witnesses in the case. Except them no other other witness was joined in the proceedings at any point of time as public witness. We remained in the hospital till about 12:45am. We reached within five minutes to spot and remained there till about 4:30/5:00am. -7-
I did not meet wife of deceased on the day of incident. It is wrong to suggest that Suraj Pal had bitter relations with Ravinder Pal before the incident. It is wrong to suggest that Ravinder Pal was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case. No site plan was prepared of the spot from where accused persons were arrested. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons were never kept in muffled face. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons were shown to the witnesses or that their photographs were also taken which were shown to the witnesses.
I did not make any DD entry in the PS after the arrest of the accused. I mentioned in my statement that accused persons were kept in muffled face at the spot of arrest itself. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of the IO.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 18.01.2008 FIR NO.90/99, PS BAWANA, U/S 302/307/34 IPC, STATE VS. SURENDER.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF PROSECUTOR-SH. VISHNU SARAN WITHOUT OATH The present case qua four other co-accused Baljit Singh, Rajesh, Devender and Umed Singh has already been decided by the court of ld. A.S.J Sh. Narender Kumar vide his judgment dated 28-4-07 and have since been acquitted of all the charges. The case qua accused Surender who was earlier a Proclaimed Offender and has since been apprehended now thus ought to be decided by the same earlier court in order to avoid a conflict of decision. Complainant as well as accused also desires that their case be decided by the same earlier court.
RO&AC (BHARAT
PARASHAR)
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:
DELHI
22-1-08
FIR NO.90/99, PS BAWANA, U/S 302/307/34 IPC, STATE VS. SURENDER.
JOINT STATEMENT OF DAYA NANAD, THE COMPLAINANT, SUKHBIR, JAI PARKASH AND KAWAL SINGH. ON SA We pray that the present case qua accused Surender be also tried by the same earlier court of ld. .A.SJ Sh. Narender Kumar where the case qua the earlier four accused persons was tried and where our evidence in the present case was earlier recorded. We have submitted an application in this regard and the same is Ex.P1 and bear our signatures and thumb impressions at point A, B, C and D. RO&AC (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:
DELHI 22-1-08 FIR NO.90/99, PS BAWANA, U/S 302/307/34 IPC, STATE VS. SURENDER.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED SURENDER, SON OF BALJIT SINGH I request that my case be transferred to the court of Sh. Narender Kumar, ld. A.S.J Rohini where the case qua my other four accused persons was tried.
RO&AC (BHARAT
PARASHAR)
ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:
DELHI
22-1-08
FIR NO.: 44/00
PS : SP BADLI
PW13- SH. SS MALHOTRA, MM, ROHINI, DELHI. ON SA On 8-4-00 pursuant to an application for TIP of case property as was marked to me by the then ld. link MM Sh. SS Handa I carried out the TIP of case property viz jewellery articles contained in white leather purse as detailed in my proceedings. However, as the IO had not brought sufficient identical material for the purposes of mixing up so, he was directed to bring the identical materials on the next day and the proceedings were accordingly adjourned for 18-4-00. However, on 18-4-00 IO did not bring identical materials of all the articles but he did bring identical materials for mixing up with some of the jewellery articles. Accordingly, TIP of only those articles could be carried out of which IO had got identical materials. All the detailed proceedings carried out by me on 18-4-00 have been clearly stated by me in my proceedings of the said date.
The proceedings conducted by me on 8-4-00 is Ex.PW13/A and bears my signatures at point A. The proceedings conducted by me on 18-4-00 is Ex.PW13/B and bears my signatures at point A, B, C, D, E and F. The proceedings were sent to the concerned court in a sealed envelope through ld. CMM.
On 17-7-00 upon being marked with an application for TIP of accused Mukesh, son of Parkash by the then ld. Link MM Ms. Seema Maini I conducted the TIP proceedings qua him but accused Mukesh refused to participate therein. The said proceedings conducted by me are mark PW13/C. /2/ Court Observation The original TIP is not available. However, accused Mukesh has been shown his signatures on the said photocopy of the proceedings as is available in judicial file and he has identified his signatures at point A. XXXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL SH. SS JANGRA FOR ALL ACCUSED PERSONS.
It is wrong to suggest that I did not carry out the TIP proceedings properly.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 23.01.2008 FIR NO.: 44/00 PS : SP BADLI STATEMENT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED SURENDER.
WITHOUT OATH Under instructions from my client I state that I have no objection if the TIP of accused Surender as was conducted by the then ld. MM Sh. LK Gaur on 20-7-00 is taken on record as correct and proved without the formal examination of the concerned ld. MM Sh. LK Gaur. R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 23.01.2008 COURT OBSERVATION In view of the aforesaid statement made by ld. Counsel for accused Surender, a sealed envelope sealed with the seal of LKG has been opened & from inside it TIP proceedings of accused Surender as conducted by the then ld. MM Sh. LK Gaur on 20-7-00 have been taken out and the same are taken on record as proved and is exhibited as Ex.PX1.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 23.01.2008 FIR NO.: 44/00 PS : SP BADLI PW13- SH. SS MALHOTRA, MM, ROHINI, DELHI. ON SA R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 23.01.2008 FIR NO.:
PS :
PW-
ON SA XXXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 25.01.2008 FIR NO.: 473/92 PS : SP BADLI.
PW-14-SI NAND KISHORE, PS DARYA GANJ. DELHI. ON SA On 2-12-92 I was posted at PS SP Badli. On the receipt of DD No.13B mark B I along with ASI Ramesh Singh, ASI Kawarlal, Ct. Jagdish, Ct. Niranjan, Ct Chand Singh and Ct. Arvind along with SHO and SI Madanjit Singh reached the spot at jamidariwala kuan, Khera Road. On the way, HC Krishan Kumar and Ct. Rajender were also joined. At the spot SI Ramesh Narang, Ct. Mir Singh, Ct. Bal Kishan, Ct. Rohtash, Ct. Pawan, Ct. Jasbir, Ct. Fiaz Ahmed were already present where the other persons, namely, Balbir Singh, Devender, Jaswant Singh, Daya Nand, Sultan Singh, Dharmender, Jai Narain and wife of Jagdish along with 5/6 other persons were present along with Bimla, Kamla, Pholo and other were pelting stones along with other ladies while the other persons male were armed with jelly, lathi, iron rod etc. were attacking the police party, which was present there. Under the supervision of SHO, proper force was used to disburse the crowd and the persons, namely, Jaswant Singh, Balbir Singh, Sultan Singh, Devender, Dharmender and ladies, namely, Smt. Bimla, Kamla, Shanti and Phoolo were overpowered. From the possession of Jaswant Singh one twosangi jelly (two prong jelly) and from the possession of Sultan Singh one kasola, from the possession of Ravinder, one iron rod and from the possession of Dayanand and Dharmender lathies were recovered. During the disbursal of the crowed the aforesaid persons, who were overpowered were also sustained injuries and from the action of the accused persons police officials, namely, Ramesh Narang, SI, Ct. Arvind, Ct. Satpal and other constables including Duli Chand and Jasbir had sustained injuries. At the spot SI Ramesh Narang made his statement Ex.PW9/A which was read over to him and he signed at point A and which was attested by me and on the basis of the statement SI Ramesh Narang and the facts and circumstances of the spot I prepared rukka Ex.PW14/A for registration of the case for the offence U/S 147/148/149/186/307/332/353 IPC and sent the rukka through Ct. Niranjan Singh and I remained present at the spot and also requested the DO to send the photographer of the spot and to send the special report to the senior officer. Rukka is signed by me at point X1 and statement of SI Ramesh Narang is attested by me and sent by me at point X. I remained at the spot. In the meantime L. Ct. Suman Lata, Home Guard and Ct. Chander Phool etc also reached the spot and I took up the investigation. The lathie from the possession of accused Dayanand was recovered vide memo Ex.PW2/A and from the possession of Jaswant Singh a two sangi jelly was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/D. From the possession of Devender, the iron rod was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW2/B. Kasola was taken into possession from Sultan Singh vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Accused persons, namely, Devender, Dharmender, Balbir, Satbir, Inderjit, Smt. Kamla, Smt. Bimla & Smt. Roshani are present in the court and witness has correctly identify all of them. The other accused persons namely, Jaswant Singh, Sultan Singh, Jai Narain, Dayanand, Shanti Devi and Pholo have since expired. In the meantime copy of the FIR was received through Ct. Niranjan along with the rukka with the endorsement of the duty officer and I put up the FIR number on the memos. I prepared site plan Ex.PW14/B with correct marginal notes. The same is signed by me at point A. The original FIR is Ex.PW12/B. During investigation, DD No.11B was also collected which is mark A. I also took into possession the uniform of Ct. Jasbir Singh vide memo Ex.PW13/A and of SI Ramesh Narang vide memo Ex.PW9/B. From the spot brick and stones and the ladies and gents slippers were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/B. I recorded the statement of witnesses correctly and the injured persons and accused persons were sent to hospital for medical examination. Jamatalashi of Smt. Pholo is Ex.PW13/F and of Smt. Shanti is Ex.PW13/J and of Smt. Kamla is Ex.PW13/F and of Smt. Bimla is Ex.PW13/K. Jamatalashi of accused Devender is Ex.PW13/C, Dayanand is Ex.PW13/D, Balbir Singh is Ex.PW13/E, Dharmender is Ex.PW13/F and Sultan Singh, Ex.PW13/G. The application for medical examination of accused Dayanand is Ex.PW14/C and of Balbir is Ex.PW14/D and Devender is Ex.PW14/E, Pholo is Ex.PW14/F. MLC of Ct. Arvind Kumar is Ex.PW3/A and of Duli Chand-(Ct.) is Ex.PW3/B and of Jaswant Singh is Ex.PW11/A regarding which separate case is pending trial. MLC of Ct. Satpal is Ex.PW10/A and of Ct. Balkishan is Ex.PW10/B and of accused Sultan is Ex.PW7/A. I also collected the MLC of accused Balbir is Ex.PW7/B and of Dharmender is Ex.PW8/D, of Shanti is Ex.PW7/C and of Ct. Jasbir Singh is Ex.PW10/C. MLC of SI Ramesh Narang is Ex.PW3/C. I recorded the statement of witnesses pertaining to the investigation correctly. Accused persons were produced before the court.
On 3-12-04 accused Satbir Singh present in the court was arrested and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW14/C. He was interrogated. His disclosure statement was recorded (objected to) and his house search was made vide memo Ex.PW14/D (objected to). Satbir was also got medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW14/E. House of Satbir was earlier searched on 5-12-92 vide memo Ex.PW14/F. The memo Ex.PW14/D was prepared regarding the search of places at the instance of accused Satbir (objected to) and nothing has been recovered. At this stage two sealed parcels sealed with the seal of court are produced, seal intact opened and witness has identified a shirt Ex.P3, banyan Ex.P4 and handkerchief Ex.P5 which have been taken out from one pullanda to be that of SI Ramesh Narang. The banyan is torn from front and is having blood stains upon it. The handkerchief is also having blood stains. The shirt of SI Ramesh Narang is torn from near the left front pocket and is having blood stains. (At this stage, Ld. DC states that the said marks on the shirt are not blood stains as they are appearing to be white in colour and blood stains would have turned blackish brown with the course of time. The said blood stains is on the strip having the holes for buttons on the shirt which is to the right side on the torn portion).
At this stage, the other sealed parcel has been opened and the witness has identified banyan Ex.P1 and shirt Ex.P2 to be that of Ct. Jasbir Singh. The banyan of Ct. Jasbir is also torn from front and is having some blood stains marks. The shirt of Ct. Jasbir Singh is torn from near left shoulder and the buttons are also broken. The shirt is also torn from bottom.
XXXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 25.01.2008 FIR NO.: 655/04 PS : MANGOL PURI.
PW-14 DR. VK JHA, (RECALLED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION FROM 3-9-07 ONWARDS) ON SA XXXXXX BY LD. COUNSEL SH. S. TARBEZ FOR ACCUSED.
R.O.&.A.C. (BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 25.01.2008