Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Krishnamurthy @ Vicky on 4 August, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NOTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 45/2013
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0084502011
State Vs. (1) Krishnamurthy @ Vicky
S/o Ramesh Mohan
R/o H. No. L233, JJ Colony
Shakurpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
(2) Neeraj
S/o Hawa Singh
R/o L45, JJ Colony
Shakurpur, Delhi.
(Convicted)
(3) Srikant @ Appu
S/o Rama Swamy
R/o H. No. G29/186
Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi.
(Convicted)
(4) Surender @ Dheeraj
S/o Suresh Chand
R/o I1165, Mangol Puri
Delhi
(Convicted)
(5) Subramanyam Raja
S/o K Subramanyam
R/o 399/8, EBlock, Inderpuri
Delhi
(Convicted)
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 1 of 430
(6) Amit @ Bunty
S/o Sh. Ram Niwas
R/o H. No. 294/4, Railway Colony
Shakurbasti, Rani Bagh, Delhi.
Permanent Address:
Kabir Basti, near Dadri Gate,
District Bhiwani, Haryana
(Convicted)
(7) Sombir
S/o Ram Gopal
R/o Hanuman Gate, Balmiki Basti,
Bhiwani, Haryana
(Convicted)
(8) Sunil Kumar
S/o Bhoop Singh
R/o Panch Gaon, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri,
Distt.: Bhiwani, Haryana.
(Convicted)
(9) Jaideep
S/o Mahavir Singh,
R/o VPO : Kharkhari, Laharoo,
Distt.: Bhiwani, Haryana.
(Convicted)
(10) Rajender Prasad @ Shalu
S/o Sh. Khajan Singh
R/o D280/281, Shakurpur JJ Colony
Delhi34.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 2 of 430
Also at:
G105, Subzi Market,
Shakurpur, Delhi
(Convicted)
FIR No.: 439/2010
Police Station: Saraswati Vihar
Under Sections: 302/395/396/397/412/468/471 IPC and
25/54/59 of Arms Act
Date of Committal to Sessions Court: 26.03.2011
Date on which orders were reserved: 8.7.2014
Date on which judgment pronounced: 11.7.2014
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 at about 12:30 AM at Road No. 43, Opposite C8/9, Raj Nagar, Pitam Pura, Delhi the accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Prashad committed dacoity upon Prateek Trikha of his Honda City Car bearing No. DL4CNC1115, Mobile phone make Sony Ericson and other documents including ATM Card, Shoppers Card, Driving License and visiting cards. Further, while committing dacoity the accused Srikant @ Appu fired a shot at Prateek Trikha with a country made pistol. It has also been alleged that on 23.3.2011 at about 3:00 PM at Main Market, Rani Bagh, Delhi the accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu was found in possession of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 3 of 430 forged documents of Honda City bearing No. DL4CNC1115 belonging to Prateek Trikha which was a valuable security.
(2) Also, as per the allegations of the prosecution on 28.1.2011 at D413, Ground Floor, Sector1, Avantika, Delhi the accused Surender @ Dheeraj was found in possession of a pistol of 7.65 bore loaded with a live cartridge of 7.65 bore without any valid license or permit. (3) Further, it has been alleged that on 17.3.2011 at about 5:20 PM at TPoint, near M2K Cinema Hall, Rani Bagh, Pitampura the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep were found in possession of Honda City car which was robbed from Prateek Trikha which they kept in their possession knowing well that it was a property looted in dacoity. It has also been alleged that the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep were found driving the robbed vehicle displaying a fake number plate bearing No. HR26AK0728 and intentionally forged the number plate of the said Honda City car knowing it well that the said number plate belong to the said car. Also, at the time of their arrest the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep were found in possession of illegal firearms and ammunitions without valid license or permit. (4) Also, as per the allegations on 3.3.2011 from a drawer of the counter of Shop No. WZ/1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL, Rani Bagh the accused Amit @ Bunty got recovered one mobile phone of white colour make Sony Ericson belonging to the deceased Prateek Trikha which was looted in the dacoity, which he retained in his possession knowing well that it was a property looted in dacoity and thereafter its IMEI number was got St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 4 of 430 changed.
BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(5) The case of the prosecution that on 22.11.2010 at about 1:30 AM an information was received at Police Station Saraswati Vihar regarding firing on Prateek Trikha pursuant to which DD No. 7A was lodged pursuant to which SI Ranbir Singh reached the spot and then reached Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital. In the meantime SHO Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia also reached the hospital where he found the injured Prateek Trikha admitted with alleged history of gunshot at Raj Nagar Colony Gate. Father of the injured namely Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha informed the Investigating Officer that his son was found in front of Raj Nagar Colony gate, Road No.43 in an injured condition. Inspector Vipin Bhatia then reached the spot where he met watchmen Damodar and Virender Kumar Dubey who informed him that at around 12:30 AM the injured had come on foot in injured condition and told to them that he had been fired and requested them to inform at his residence i.e. C67, Raj Nagar. The Investigating Officer found blood trail from main gate Raj Nagar Colony to C89, Raj Nagar, Main Raod No.43 near Ram Mandir where he found Blood on the Road in front of Kothi No.8.
One empty shell of bullet was found lying in front of Kothi No.9 and one motorcycle with number plate DLAS0234 on the backside and HR15A3 on the front with a key inside was also found standing near the spot. Inspector Vipin Bhatia checked the motorcycle and found some documents it was revealed that the actual number of the motorcycle was HR15A3501. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 5 of 430 In the meantime information was received from the hospital by SI Ranbir that the injured had expired. The Investigating Officer then recorded the statement of Sh. Suresh Trikha the father of the deceased after which the present case was registered. The spot of incident was got inspected by the Crime Team. The motorcycle lying at the spot was checked and one RC, Insurance paper, Pollution Certificate and one driving license of the owner of the vehicle Sh. Ashok Kumar and a slip containing the phone number of Ashok Kumar was also found on which the Investigating Officer made a call to Ashok Kumar who informed that his motorcycle was stolen from Rani Bagh on 19.11.2010 at 9:00 AM. On inquiry from Police Station Rani Bagh the Investigating Officer found that a case vide FIR No.377/10 U/s 379 IPC was registered in this regard at Police Station Rani Bagh. The Investigating Officer then lifted the various exhibits from the spot including the empty cartridge/ shell 'KF & 7.65' written at its bottom. Thereafter the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted after which the dead body was handed over to its claimants and the Autopsy Surgeon handed over the blood samples along with the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased, to the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the investigations were handed over to SIT Crime Branch.
(6) On 02.12.2010 pursuant to secret information the members of the SIT Crime Branch headed by Inspector Arti Sharma along with HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Jitender, Ct. Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Vikas conducted investigations of this case. A secret informer met HC St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 6 of 430 Amit Tomar and informed him that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of which three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of which two boys would be coming on Red Color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side via Shamshan Ghat Road and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal quarter to meet somebody there between 56 PM. Pursuant to the said information the police team reached at TPoint Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar and the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy were apprehended while they were coming on a red color pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW 2410 from Mangolpuri side. From the formal search of accused Neeraj one driving licence was recovered from the back side right pocket, which driving licence was of deceased Prateek Tirkha. Both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthry disclosed their involvement in the present case along with their associates S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Krishnamurthy led the police party to the room of his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini from where the accused Krishnamurthy got recovered ATM card of ABN AMRO Bank, Citizen first shoppers stop card and three visiting cards in the name of Prateek Trikha from the right pocket of the pant which was hanging on a Khunti. The pant of the accused Krishnamurthy along with the articles belonging to the deceased were then seized and taken into possession. Both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy took the police party to the house of their associate Srikant @ Appu in Sector 3 Rohini from where the bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461 parked which was used in the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 7 of 430 present incident was seized by the Investigating Officer. (7) On 24.01.2011 the accused Srikant @ Appu surrendered in the court of Ld. MM on which the Investigating Officer along with her team members reached Rohini Court complex and after the accused surrendered before the Court, she took permission from Ld. MM to interrogate him, which permission was granted. Outside the Court, the casual search of the accused Appu was conducted by SI Sharat Kohli and it was revealed that he had inflicted blade injuries on his stomach and head which was superficial in nature which fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Ld. MM who immediately made an incorporation of this fact in the proceeding sheet. The accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed his involvement in the present case and also disclosed that he had taken the pistol with four live cartridges from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru on rent for Rs.2,000/ which Surender @ Dheeraj was a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1 and also disclosed that after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and he could get the same recovered from Surender @ Dheeraj. On 28.01.2011 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Srikant @ Appu took the police party to the house of Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru at House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them. At the instance of accused Srikant @ Appu, the accused Surender @ Dheeraj was apprehended but he initially refused that he had given any pistol to Appu and hence he was taken to Crime Branch Office where the accused was interrogated at St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 8 of 430 length wherein he disclosed that he had kept the pistol in his house. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Surender @ Dheeraj led the police party to his house from where he got recovered a pistol from the clothes kept in the box of the bed and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. On checking the pistol was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening was found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine after which it was taken into possession.
(8) On the same day i.e. 25.2.2011 the Investigating Officer received secret information about accused S. Raja that accused S. Raja would return to his house as his mother was not keeping well. Thereafter a watch was kept in the area and the accused S. Raja was apprehended from near his house i.e. E399, JJ Colony, Inderpuri and on interrogation the accused S. Raja also disclosed his involved in the present case. Pursuant to the disclosure statement the accused S. Raja led the police party to Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the Balmiki Basti as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with Appu on twothree occasions. However, the accused Sombir was not found at his house and thereafter they returned back to Delhi. The accused S. Raja further disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir and it was Sombir who was a friend of Appu who took him and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused S. Raja took the police St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 9 of 430 party to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh but the accused Amit @ Bunty was not found there.
(9) On 02.03.2011 the accused Amit @ Bunty apprehended from his shop at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh, Delhi. The accused Amit @ Bunty led the police party to Hot Spot Spice mobile phone shop at Daryaganj where he had given the robbed mobile phone for repair. One Vishal Atwal who was working in the repair center identified the accused Amit @ Bunty and had stated that the Xperia mobile phone was given to him for repair by Amit @ Bunty through his friend namely Varun who is running shop in Rani Bagh market in the name and style of Nice Communications and after repair he handed over the mobile to Varun. Vishal Atwal also checked his computer records and informed that the IMEI number of the deceased was running with one Vivek Vats, resident of Mumbai, on which SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar were directed to go to Mumbai and to recover the mobile. The accused Amit @ Bunty went to his mobile shop at Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh where Amit took out a key hidden in the drawer and open another drawer and took out the robbed mobile phone of the deceased, which mobile phone was then taken into possession.
(10) On further investigations it was revealed that the IMEI number of recovered mobile number did not match with the repaired phone's IMEI number as intimated by Vishal Atwal and hence the Investigating Officer St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 10 of 430 again went to Hot Spot Spice, Daryaganj where Vishal Atwal informed them that the repaired IMEI was interchanged with the IMEI of one Balram resident of village Bahrampur, Gurgaon. Balram was then joined in the investigations who handed over to the Investigating Officer one black colored Sony Ericson Xperia mobile phone which was having the repaired IMEI number along with two job sheets. The mobile phone was then seized and taken into possession. In the meanwhile SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar traced the IMEI number of the deceased at Mumbai in the mobile phone of one Vivek Vats.
(11) On 17.03.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep were apprehended from Tpoint, Rani Bagh Market on the road going towards M2K Cinema while they were coming in a Honda City Car bearing number plate HR26AK0728. From the casual search of accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep pistols and live cartridges were recovered. SI Sharat Kohli checked the Engine and Chassis numbers of Honda City Car and it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Trikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115 and the forged number plates bearing no. HR26AK0728 found installed on the Honda City Car were seized. The accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep led the police party to a lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border from where they got recovered one Hyundai Accent car bearing fake number plate HR20P5349 which car was taken into possession. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 11 of 430 (12) On 23.03.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Rajender Parshad @ Shalu was apprehended from Rani Bagh Market and from his casual search some forged documents relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle and on interrogation the accused Rajender Parshad disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these documents and handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing No. HR26AK0728 on the basis of the documents. The said documents were thereafter taken into possession. (13) After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused persons i.e. Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, Surender @ Dheeraj, S. Raja, Amit @ Bunty, Sombir, Sunil, Jaideep and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu.
CHARGES:
(14) Charges under Sections 395, 396 and alternatively under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Prashad.
Charge under Section 397 Indian Penal Code was also settled against the accused Srikant @ Appu and charge under Section 467 Indian Penal Code was also settled against the accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu. Further, charges under Section 412/34, 471/34 and 468/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 256/54/59 of Arms Act were settled against the accused Sombir, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 12 of 430 Sunil and Jaideep. Also, charge under Section 412 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Amit @ Bunty and a charge under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was also settled against the accused Surender @ Dheeraj. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (15) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the Witness Details
No.
1. PW1 Suresh Kumar Trikha Public Witness - Father of deceased
2. PW2 Damodar Public Witness - Security Guard of Raj Nagar
Colony who was on duty on the gate on the
date of incident.
3. PW3 Rajesh Trikha Public Witness - Uncle of the deceased who
has identified the dead body of the deceased.
4. PW4 C.M. Sharma Public Witness - Uncle of the deceased who
has identified the dead body of the deceased.
5. PW5 Virender Kumar Dubey Public Witness - Security Guard of Raj Nagar
Colony who was on duty on the gate along
with Damodr on the date of incident.
6. PW6 Ankur Mahajan Public Witness - Friend of deceased who was
dropped home by the deceased (Prateek) just
minutes before the incident.
7. PW7 Pratap Singh Official Witness - Witness from Authority
who has proved the registration record of
motorcycle bearing No. DL 8S AU6461.
8. PW8 HC Sahab Singh Police Witness - Dog Handler
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 13 of 430
Sr. PW No. Name of the Witness Details
No.
9. PW9 SI Satpal Singh Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
10. PW10 SI Ranbir Singh Police Witness who had visited the spot of
incident
11. PW11 HC Kiran Pal Police Witness who had gone to Maharaja
Aggarsen Hospital with SHO
12. PW12 Rupesh kumar Public Witness - Landlord of the accused
Durender @ Dheeru who has proved the
recovery of pistol from his house.
13. PW13 Ghanshyam Public Witness - Landlord of the house where
accused Krishnamurthy was residing and has
proved the recovery of articles
14. PW14 Ashok Kumar Public Witness - Registered owner of
motorcycle bearing No. HR15A3501 stolen
from Kothi No. 1, Anand Vihar, Pitampura,
Delhi on 19.11.2010 and was found abandoned
at spot of incident on 22.11.2010.
15. PW15 Rohit Kakkar Public Witness - neighbour of the deceased
who shifted him to MAS Hospital.
16. PW16 Dr. Ashish Bansal Doctor at MAS Hospital who prepared the
MLC of the deceased.
17. PW17 Dr. Anupam Doctor at MAS Hospital who has proved the
death summary of deceased
18. PW18 SI Mahesh Kumar Police Witness Draftsman
19. PW19 HC Vinod Kumar Police Witness MHCM
20. PW20 Ct. Dabbu Kanwar Police Witness who had deposited the exhibits
with FSL
21. PW21 W/Ct. Sulochna Police Witness - PCR Official
22. PW22 HC Mohan Singh Police Witness - Duty Officer of Police
Station Rani Bagh
23. PW23 Ct. Parvinder Police Witness - Crime Team Photographer
24. PW24 Sh. Chatter Prakash Official Witness - Proved the record of
motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S AU 2410.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 14 of 430
Sr. PW No. Name of the Witness Details
No.
25. PW25 ASI Om Prakash Police Witness - Duty Officer of Police
Station Saraswati Vihar
26. PW26 Ct. Ashok Kumar Police Witness - Special Messenger
27. PW27 HC Ravinder Nath Police Witness MHCM
28. PW28 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel Autopsy Surgeon
29. PW29 Sonu Public Witness - Owner of Motorcycle
bearing No. DL8SAU6461
30. PW30 Ct. Baldev Police Witness who had joined investigations
with Inspector Vipin Bhatia
31. PW31 R Suresh FSL Expert Proved the ballistic report.
32. PW32 HC Narender Kumar Police Witness - Member of SIT, Crime
Branch
33. PW33 Uma Shankar Public Witness - Senior Manager in Run
Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. who has proved the
swapping of motherboard and IMEI number
34. PW34 Ct. Krishan Kumar Police Witness who had handed over DD No.
6B to SI Ranbir Singh
35. PW35 ASI Suresh Kumar Police Witness - Member of SIT Crime
Branch
36. PW36 Varun Public Witness - Friend of accused Amit @
Bunty who is having mobile sale/ repairing
shop at Rani Bagh.
37. PW37 Vishwas Vitthal Public Witness who is having a Service Center
Thakkar of Sony Ericsion at Boriwali West, Mumbai
38. PW38 Vivek Vats Public Witness Customer who had given his
mobile phone make Sony Ericson for repair,
whose mobile phone was sent for repair to
head office Chennai
39. PW39 Balram Public Witness Customer who had given his
mobile phone make Sony Ericson for repair,
whose mobile phone was sent for repair to
head office Chennai
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 15 of 430
Sr. PW No. Name of the Witness Details
No.
40. PW40 Vineet Sharma Public Witnessofficer at Spice HotSpot
branch office at Daryaganj Delhi
41. PW41 Sanjeev Public Witness who is known to the accused
Neeraj and Krishnamurthy
42. PW42 Hemant Banswal Public WitnessOfficer at Spice HotSpot
branch office at Daryaganj Delhi
43. PW43 Vishal Atwal Public WitnessOfficer at Spice HotSpot
branch office at Daryaganj Delhi
44. PW44 HC Amit Tomar Police WitnessMember of Crime Branch
45. PW45 Insp. Vipin Kumar Police WitnessFirst Investigating Officer
46. PW46 SI Sharat Kohli Police WitnessMember of Crime Branch
47. PW47 Insp. Arti Sharma Police WitnessInvestigating Officer
List of documents exhibited:
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
1. PW1/A Statement of Suresh Kumar Suresh Kumar
2. PW3/A Statement of Rajesh Trikha Rajesh Trikha
3. PW3/B Dead body receiving statement
4. PW4/A Statement of C M Sharma C M Sharma
5. PW5/D1 to Photographs of spot of incident Virender Kumar
PW5/D4 Dubey
6. PW7/A Copy of Vehicle Record Pratap Singh
7. PW9/A Crime team report SI Satpal Singh
8. PW10/A DD NO. 7A SI Ranbir Singh
9. PW10/B Seizure memo of parcels and two sample
seal
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 16 of 430
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
10. PW10/C Seizure memo of parcels and two sample
seal
11. PW12/A Site plan of place of recovery of Pistol from Rupesh Kumar
the possession of Surender @ Dhriu
12. PW12/B Confronted statement of Rupesh
13. PW12/C Sketch of cartridge recovered from the
country made pistol
14. PW12/D Pointing outcumSeizure memo of country
made pistol Ex PW 12/1
15. PW12/E Arrest memo /Surender @ Dheeraj
16. PW13/A Pointing outcum Seizure memo of pant, Ghanshyam
ATM Card and one another card and two
three visiting cards of deceased
17. PW13/B Site plan of place of recovery of ATM Card
and one another card and two three visiting
cards of deceased at insistence of
Krishnamurthy
18. PW16/A MLC of deceased Dr. Ashish Bansal
19. PW17/A Death summary of deceased Dr. Anupam
20. PW18/1 Affidavit of witness SI Mahesh Kumar SI Mahesh Kumar
21. PW18/A Scaled Site plan of spot of incident
22. PW19/1 Affidavit of witness HC Vinod Kumar HC Vinod Kumar
23. PW19/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 333/10
24. PW20/1 Affidavit of witness Ct Dabbu Kanwar Ct. Dabbu Kanwar
25. PW20/A Copy of RC 17/21/11
26. PW20/B FSL Receipt
27. PW21/1 Affidavit of witness W Ct. Sulochna W/ Ct. Sulochna
28. PW21/A PCR Form
29. PW22/1 Affidavit of witness HC/DO Mohan Singh HC Mohan Singh
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 17 of 430
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
30. PW22/A FIR No 377/10 ( regrading the theft of
Motorcycle)
31. PW22/B Endorsement on Rukka
32. PW23/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Parvinder Singh Ct. Parvinder Singh
33. PW23/A1 Photographs of spot of incident
to A4
34. PW24/A Particulars of Motorcycle bearing No. Chatter Prakash
DL4SAW2410
35. PW24/B1 Documents of Ownership of Motorcycle
to B11
36. PW25/1 Affidavit of witness of ASI Om Prakash ASI Om Prakash
37. PW25/A DD NO. 7A
38. PW25/B FIR No. 439/10
39. PW25/C Endorsement on Rukka
40. PW26/1 Affidavit of witness Ct. Ashok Kumar Ct. Ashok Kumar
41. PW27/1 Affidavit of witness HC Ravinder (MHCM) HC Ravinder Nath
42. PW27/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3989/10
43. PW27/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 4001/10
44. PW27/C Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3297/10
45. PW27/D Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3258/10
46. PW27/E Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 3370/10
47. PW27/F RC 32/21/10
48. PW27/G RC 174/21/10
49. PW27/H RC 41/21/11
50. PW28/A Postmortem Report of Deceased Dr. Kulbhushan Goel
51. PW29/A Superdarginama of motorcycle bearing No. Sonu
DL8SAU6461
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 18 of 430
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
52. PW30/A Seizure memo of Earth Control Ct. Baldev Raj
53. PW30/B Seizure memo of fired cartridges case from
the spot
54. PW30/C Seizure memo of Key of motorcycle
55. PW30/D Seizure memo of RC of motorcycle
56. PW30/E DL of Ashok Kumar registered owner of
motorcycle
57. PW30/F RC in the name of Ashok Kumar
58. PW30/G Insurance Documents in the name of Ashok
Kumar
59. PW30/H Pollution Certificate
60. PW31/A Ballistics Report R. Suresh
61. PW32/A Sketch of Katta HC Narender Kumar
62. PW32/B Seizure memo of Katta
63. PW32/C Arrest memo of Jaideep
64. PW32/D Personal Search memo
65. PW32/E Disclosure Statement
66. PW32/F Seizure memo of forged number plate
67. PW32/G Seizure memo of Honda City Car
68. PW32/H Seizure memo of Hyundai Assent Car
69. PW32/J1 to Photographs of Honda City Car
J4
70. PW33/A Computerized copy of delivery challan Uma Shankar
cum gate pass with new IMEI Number to
Delhi Customer
71. PW33/B Computerized copy of delivery challan cum
gate pass with IMEI Number number of
mobile phone sent to the Mumbai Customer
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 19 of 430
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
72. PW33/C Job Sheet of mobile phone of Sony
Erricson
73. PW34/A DD No. 34A Ct. Krishan Kumar
74. PW35/A Arrest memo of S Raja ASI Suresh Kumar
75. PW35/B Personal search memo of S Raja
76. PW35/C Disclosure Statement of S Raja
77. PW35/D Pointed out memo of incident at instance of
S Raja where he had committed the murder
of Prateek
78. PW35/E Seizure memo of Mobile Phone of Sony
Erricson vide Ex. No. P1
79. PW35/F Seizure memo of mobile phone of Sony
Erricson and one receipt and two service
job sheet
80. PW35/G Cash Receipt
81. PW35/H & Service Job Sheets
PW35/I
82. PW37/A Job sheets Vishwas Vitthal
83. PW38/A Copy of Cash memo of Sony Ericson Vivek Vats
84. PW38/B Seizure memo of mobile of Sony Erricson
Xperia 10i Vide
85. PW40/A Reply of notice U/s 91 CrPC Vineet Sharma
86. PW40/B Reply of notice U/s 91 CrPC
87. PW41/PX1 Confronted statement of Sanjeev Kumar Sanjeev Kumar
88. PW43/A Job sheets of mobile phone of Amit @ Vishal Atwal
Bunty
89. PW43/B Receipt
90. PW43/C Job Sheet of mobile Phone of Balram
91. PW43/D Receipt detail of Run Service infocare
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 20 of 430
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
92. PW43/E Challan Copy
93. PW43/F Job Sheet of mobile Phone of Balram
94. PW43/G Challan Copy of Mobile Phone
95. PW43/H Job Sheet of Mobile Phone of Balram
96. PW43/I Challan copy of Mobile phone of Sony
Ericson Xperia X10i
97. PW44/A Arrest memo of accused Neeraj Amit Tomar
98. PW44/B Personal search memo of accused Neeraj
99. PW44/C Disclosure statement of Accused Neeraj
100. PW44/D Seizure memo of driving licence of
deceased
101. PW44/E Seizure memo of Motorcycle of Neeraj
102. PW44/F Arrest memo of Krishnamurthy
103. PW44/G Personal search memo of accused
Krishnamurthy
104. PW44/H Disclosure statement of accused
Krishnamurthy
105. PW44/I Pointing out memo of place of incident by
Neeraj
106. PW44/J Pointing out memo of Place of incident by
Krishnamurthy
107. PW44/K Seizure memo of bike bearing No.
DL8SAU6461 belonging to brother in law
of Srikant @ Appu
108. PW44/L Pointing out memo of place of incident by
Srikant @ Appu
109. PW44/M Personal search memo of accused Surender
110. PW44/N Pointing out memo of house of Sombir by S
Raja
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 21 of 430
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
111. PW44/O Disclosure Statement of accused of S Raja
112. PW44/P Pointing out memo of house in basti as the
house of Sombir where he has visited along
with Appu
113. PW44/P1 Arrest memo of accused Amit @ Bunty
114. PW44/P2 Personal search memo of accused Amit @
Bunty
115. PW44/P3 Disclosure statement of accused Amit @
Bunty
116. PW44/Q Sketch of Pistol and cartridges recovered
from possession of accused Sombir
117. PW44/R Seizure memo Pistol and cartridges
recovered from possession of accused
Sombir
118. PW44/S1 Arrest memo of accused Sombir
119. PW44/S2 Personal search memo of accused Sombir
120. PW44/S3 Disclosure statement of accused Sombir
121. PW44/T Seizure memo of documents of Car
No.HR26AK0728
122. PW44/U1 Arrest memo of accused Rajender @ Shalu
123. PW44/U2 Personal search memo of accused Rajender
@ Shalu
124. PW44/V Pointed out memo of place of incident by
accused Rajender @ Shalu
125. PW44/W Disclosure Statement of accused Rajender @
Shalu
126. PW45/A Rukka Insp. Vipin Kumar
127. PW45/B Brief facts of case
128. PW45/C Form 25:35
129. PW45/D Request for Postmortem
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 22 of 430
Sr. Ex. No. Details of document Proved By
No.
130. PW46/A Arrest memo of accused Srikant @ Appu SI Sharat Kohli
131. PW46/B Personal search memo of accused Srikant @
Appu
132. PW46/C Disclosure Statement of accused Srikant @
Appu
133. PW46/D Supplementary disclosure statement of
accused Srikant @ Appu
134. PW47/A Seizure memo of RC from taken into
possession from the father of accused
namley Hawa Singh
135. PW47/B Seizure memo of Documents i.e. original
bill of Sony Ericson Xperia mobile phone
and copy of RC of snatched Honda City car
from taken into possession from the father of
deceased
EVIDENCE:
(16) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many
as Forty Seven Witnesses as under:
Public Witnesses:
(17) PW1 Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha is the father of the deceased
who has deposed that he reside at C67, Raj Nagar, Pitampura, Delhi and is working as Chief Manager with Oriental Bank of Commerce and deceased Prateek Trikha was his only son. He has further deposed that on 21.11.2010, his son Prateek left the house at about 8:00 PM in his Honda City car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 to attend the reception party of the marriage of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 23 of 430 the brother of his friend at Ashok Vihar. According to him, in the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, at about 12:30 AM, the guard of his society came at his residence and informed him that his son Prateek after receiving the fire arm injury was lying on the gate of his society and he was bleeding. Witness has further deposed that he immediately reached at the gate of his society and saw that his son Prateek was sitting on a chair and was unconscious and was bleeding at that time. According to the witness, he called his neighbour Rishi Kakkar and with his help he shifted his son to Maharaja Agarsain Hospital in his I20 car and got him admitted there but during treatment, he expired. The witness has further deposed that the said car of Prateek bearing no. DL4CNC1115, his mobile phone make Sony Ericsson bearing no. 9999904548 were missing. The witness has further deposed that his son used to keep the registration documents and his driving licence and some other important papers in the glove box of his Honda city car, one bag, which was provided to him by his employer company Steria, containing some documents of his company and his coat, which were there in his Honda City car, were also missing with the said Honda City car.
According to the witness the Investigating Officer recorded his statement/ complainant which is Ex.PW1/A. (18) The witness has further deposed that his son Prateek Trikha was not having enmity with anyone and he used to leave to his office at about 8:00 AM and used to return home from office at about 7:00 PM. The witness has further deposed that he was a Software Engineer in Steria St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 24 of 430 Company and on 2122.11.2010 being Saturday and Sunday were his weekly off. According to the witness on that night, about 12:0012:05 AM his wife had telephonically called Prateek and asked him, as to at what time he would return, to which he replied that he was reaching within ten minutes after dropping his friend Ankur Mahajan, but at about 12:30 AM the guard of his Society informed him, regarding receiving of firearm injury by Prateek.
(19) The witness has identified one mobile phone make Sony Ericsson XPERIA alongwith its cover as the same which was being used by his son Prateek Trikha, which mobile phone is Ex.P1; driving license of the deceased Prateek Trikha which he used to keep in the glove box of his Honda City car, which Driving License is Ex.P2; one shoppers stop First Citizen card in the name of Prateek Trikha which is Ex.P3; one ABN Amro Bank's gold debit card in the name of Prateek Trikha which is Ex.P4, three visiting cards of Prateek Trikha of his company namely Steria which are collectively Ex. P5. He has proved that he got released on superdari the Honda City car bearing registration No. DL4CNC1115 which car is Ex.P6.
(20) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has admitted that when he reached the gate, his son was unconscious. He has further admitted that the coat of his son used to remain on a hanger in the car. The witness has further admitted that he used to ply a different car and his son used to ply Honda City car Ex.P6. According to the witness, friend of his son did not come to his house for going to attend the reception and Prateek did not tell him with whom he was going to attend the reception.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 25 of 430 Witness has further deposed that he did not hand over any card of the reception, to which his son had gone to attend, to the police. According to the witness he was knowing that his son had gone to attend the reception near Police Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase3. The witness has further deposed that his son was wearing black suit, when he left home. Witness has denied the suggestion that his son was wearing a jacket when he left home for attending the reception. According to the witness, he did not visit the place of reception or the person who organized the same to find out the persons, who had accompanied his son Prateek to the reception. According to the witness the Honda City car is registered in his name, voluntarily added that I20 car was registered in the name of his son Prateek. Witness has further deposed that a loan of Rs 2,00,000/ was outstanding against the Honda City Car. He has testified that his son was wearing one golden chain, one diamond ear top and one iron ring in his finger. According to the witness he does not remember whether doctor had obtained his signatures on some papers or not. According to him, the chain, eartop and purse were handed over to him by the doctor and the purse was having approximately amount of Rs 2,000/ and in the purse of his son, there was no debit card. He has denied the suggestion that the debit card, driving license and the RC were in the purse of his son, voluntarily explained that he used to keep the same in the glove box of the Honda City car. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never traveled in said Honda City car along with his son. Witness has further deposed that police visited his residence after the incident on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 26 of 430 23.11.2010 and his statement was recorded on 23.11.2010 at his residence. According to the witness Inspector Arti Sharma, Investigating Officer of the case met him after 1012 days of the incident, when he went to her office to find out about the progress of the case but Inspector Arti Sharma did not record his statement and she also did not make any inquiry from him. Witness has admitted that he did not tell Inspector Arti Sharma regarding the purse, gold chain and the ear top. Witness has further deposed that police did not prepare any document regarding return of ear tops, gold chain and purse by the doctor. Witness has admitted that he did not accompany his son on the date of incident. According to the witness he cannot say, whether he kept his DL, ATM card and visiting cars in the glove box of the car and has voluntarily added that but he used to keep the same in the glove box of the car.
(21) The witness is not aware whether the doctor handed over the ATM card, DL and the visiting cards to the police. He has deposed that he was not tutored by Inspector Arti Sharma before his statement. According to him, Inspector Arti Sharma did not inform him about the arrest of the accused persons and has explained that came to know about their arrest through Newspaper. He has testified that on the road leading to Rani Bagh, the police had closed the road and that is why, the traffic leading to Rani Bagh was also moved on the same road, i.e. the road leading to Britannia and the main road was not blocked. According to the witness the road leading to Rani Bagh was open and one has to take "U" turn to come to their society. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 27 of 430 Witness has further deposed that the barrier was at between X and X1 and the police used to block the road at point X2 marked in red in the site plan Ex.PW1/D1. According to him, the police was not present at that time, on that naka on the day of incident. He has also deposed that the gate where guard Damodar was sitting, was about 100 meters from the gate of Ram Mandir.
(22) Witness has further deposed that he did not talk to Ankur Mahajan, the friend of his son Prateek nor did he talk to Ankur Mahajan, to find out, if he had attended the reception. According to the witness his son did not take drinks or smoke nor he took the same by concealing from him and his wife. Witness has further deposed that he told the police everything which went missing, but he is not aware, if the police recorded the same or not.
(23) The witness has further deposed that he and his wife both accompanied Prateek when the mobile phone Ex.P1 was purchased and it was purchased by using credit card of Prateek. According to the witness, police never demanded the box of the mobile phone and he himself did not produce the same before the police. He is not aware as to who prepared the invoice of the mobile phone Ex.P1 and says that the slip might have been given to his son by the shopkeeper when he purchased the mobile phone. Witness has denied the suggestion that neither he nor his wife accompanied Prateek at the time of purchase of mobile phone Ex.P1 or that the bill No. 4427 was got ante dated or that it was prepared after the incident. He has St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 28 of 430 testified that so far as he knew police did not inform the company to stop the services of that mobile phone and has voluntarily added that the bills were coming and they continued to pay. Witness has further deposed that they paid the bills for three or four months of the mobile phone of Prateek Tirkha after his death and whenever, he used to travel in Honda City with his son, he used to keep his mobile in the space provided in the car just near the gear box and the bills were paid in cash and hence no receipt was issued to him. He does not remember the date on which he received the information that the car has been recovered but states that he received the same after about 3 or 3 ½ months of the incident. According to the witness a police officer came from the Police Station Saraswati Vihar to inform him about the recovery of car and next day morning he went to Police Station Saraswati Vihar to see the car. Witness has further deposed that car was in accidental condition and has voluntarily added that photographs of the car were also taken. According to the witness there was no number plate on the car, when he saw it in the Police Station.
(24) PW2 Damodar has deposed that he resides at L81, J.J. Colony, 3rd Floor, Shakur Pur, Delhi and used to work as a Security Guard in a company namely Security. According to the witness in the intervening night of 2122/11/2010, his duty was at the gate of Raj Nagar Colony, situated on Road No. 43, from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM and one more guard was also deputed with him, but he does not remember his name. Witness has further deposed that on that night, he locked the main entrance gate of the Society at St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 29 of 430 about 12:00 midnight and he alongwith other guard sat on the chairs inside the guard room. He has further deposed that at about 12:30 AM one boy knocked the main door, saying "Guard Kholo, Goli Maar Di Hai" on which he immediately opened the gate and a boy, who was bleeding profusely was there on the gate. According to the witness, he made him the said boy to sit on a chair and asked him his number "Babu Tumahara Number Kya Hai", to which he replied 67 and thereafter, he did not speak. He has testified that he immediately rushed to House No. 67 and informed the parents of the boy about the incident on which the parents of that boy and three/ four more persons came there and removed that boy to Hospital in a car. He has testified that police made inquiries from him and recorded his statement.
(25) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State to the witness who has admitted that name of other guard deputed with him on the gate on that night, was Virender Dubey resident of Mirzapur, UP.
(26) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded by some Senior Police official at the guard room of the Society and no lady Police officer recorded his statement. He has further deposed that the video photography was done of the blood, which was lying near the guard room, then the road is not visible. Witness has further deposed that no outsider is permitted to park his vehicle inside the gate of the society and on that night, no vehicle was parked on the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 30 of 430 road outside the gate of that society, where he was on duty but outside the other gate near Ram Mandir, vehicles were parked on the road and second gate was not visible from the gate, where he was on duty. He has testified that the residents of Society entered the Society at about 12:00 midnight before he closed the main gate. According to him, the injured did not tell his name to them. The witness has also deposed that he did not do anything before the arrival of Police. He has further deposed that he had not heard the noise of fire nor he had seen any person following the injured. He has also deposed that he accompanied the Police only around the gate, where he was on duty and not all the places, which were examined by the Police. According to him, when he went outside the Society alongwith the Police, he did not find any motorcycle parked near the gate.
(27) PW3 Sh. Rajesh Trikha has deposed that he is doing a private job and on 22.11.2010, he went to BJRM Hospital and identified the dead body of his nephew Prateek Trikha vide his statement is Ex. PW3/A. According to the witness, after postmortem, dead body was received by him vide memo Ex. PW3/B. This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted in this regard. (28) PW4 Sh. C.M. Sharma has deposed that on 22.11.2010 he went to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital where he identified the dead body of Prateek Trikha son of his brotherinlaw (sala) and police recorded his statement which is Ex. PW4/A. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused despite opportunity given. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 31 of 430 (29) PW5 Sh. Virender Kumar Dubey has deposed that he is doing private job as Security Guard and in the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, his duty hours were from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM at Raj Nagar Colony, Gate No.1. He has further deposed that another Security Guard namely Damodar was also with him on duty at that gate and on that night at about 12:30 AM while they were sitting on the chairs inside the gate one boy came there on foot and blood was oozing out from his body and they asked him as to what happened to which he told them to open the gate and also told that he had received fire arm injury (goli lagi hai). According to the witness he again asked him of his Kothi number on which the boy told 'C67' and then he fell down on the ground. The witness has testified that thereafter he alongwith Damodar lifted him and made him to sit on the chair and Damodar immediately went to the said Kothi Number (C67) and then returned with his father and twothree other persons who removed the said boy to hospital in a car. He has also deposed that he came to know the name of that boy as Prateek and police recorded his statement. (30) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that they maintain a register to regulate the entry in the colony and record the names of the persons entering and also the vehicles entering, but only for the outsiders and not of the residents of the colony. According to the witness the cleaning of the roads as well as gate of the Society is being carried out in the early morning everyday. He further deposed that Police did not ask from him to hand over the register maintained at the entrance gate of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 32 of 430 colony. He has further deposed that they allow the vehicles of outsiders to enter the colony, after making entry in the register. According to him, the gate, on which he was on duty, remain closed every time and is opened, if a vehicle has to go out or enter the colony from there, however, a small entry for entrance of pedestrian is always kept open. He has also deposed that about 30 minutes before arrival of Prateek, a vehicle entered the colony from the gate, on which he was on duty. He has further deposed that Police arrived at the gate after about 30 minutes of arrival of Prateek and made inquiries from him. He has further deposed that his salary is being paid by the Security Company and not by the residents of Society and he served in that company for three months only and thereafter, as he had to take examination, he left the job. According to the witness police never met him thereafter to inquire about this case. He further deposed that one/ two or three vehicles left the colony, when Prateek was taken to the Hospital. According to the witness he did not notice, if any vehicles was parked outside the gate of the colony, where he was on duty. (31) The witness has also deposed that police recorded his statement on the same gate of Raj Nagar Colony on 22.11.2010, but he did not note the time, when he statement was recorded and states that it was recorded on that day in the morning hours. He further deposed that he showed the blood stained chair to the police, police inspected the same, but it was not taken away by the police in his presence and states that police took the photographs of the blood stained chair. He has also deposed that St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 33 of 430 Videography of the place near the gate was not carried out by the police in his presence. According to the witness, he had not noticed what had happened outside the gate, except what he had deposed. He has further deposed that they both were sitting in the temporary arrangement made at the entrance of the gate. After seeing the photographs Ex.PW5/D1, Ex.PW5/D2 and Ex.PW5/D3 the witness stated that on the right arm of white chair, the blood is seen. He has further deposed that the wall of their room was also stained with blood of Prateek as when he entered from the gate in their room, he and his body touched the wall. According to him, no blood fell on the floor of the room, in which they were sitting. He has also deposed that in his presence, police did not take the photographs of any other place except the chair.
(32) The witness has further testified that he joined his duty in September, 2010 and Damodar - the other watchman was working there for many years and was able to recognize the residents. He has further deposed that no Identity Card was issued to him by the company, with which he was employed. He has also deposed that Prateek was wearing black pant and white shirt, when he came at the gate of the colony. He is unable to tell the make of the car, in which Prateek was removed to the Hospital by his parents. The witness has further deposed that he is not aware of the name of the Security Company, in which he was employed, but states that it was a security company whose office was situated in Maharana Pratap Enclave situated near Raj Nagar Colony. According to him, he had not heard any St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 34 of 430 noise of any quarrel, before Prateek arrived on that gate nor he heard the sound of any gunshot before the arrival of Prateek on the gate nor he had seen Prateek reaching the gate and has voluntarily added that he came to know about him only when he reached the gate and called them. He has also deposed that neither he nor Damodar made a call to the Police. A specific question has been put to the witness, if he asked Prateek as to how he sustained bullet injury, to which the witness replied that he asked Prateek as to how he sustained bullet injury, but he did not respond to his question. Witness has further deposed that crowd did not gather on the gate, after Prateek was removed to the hospital. He is unable to tell if any Honda City Car also went outside of the gate of the colony after Prateek was removed to the hospital. He has specifically deposed that Prateek came from outside the colony. According to the witness, if he was sitting inside that room, his visibility is restricted to some distance to the gate and not beyond that. He has testified that his clothes were not stained with the blood of Prateek. He has further deposed that Damodar told him the name of injured as Prateek Tirkha on the gate itself.
(33) PW6 Sh. Ankur Mahajan has deposed that he is a Software Engineer and presently working with Royal Bank of Scotland and on 21.11.2010, he was working with Steria Software Company. According to the witness on 21.11.2010 at about 9 PM Prateek, who was his colleague, came to him for attending the marriage reception of one common friend Parvesh Tomar. Witness has further deposed that Prateek came to him in St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 35 of 430 his Honda City Car and he along with Prateek went for attending the reception of the marriage in his Honda City car and left the ceremony spot at about 12 midnight for returning their house. According to the witness within ten to twelve minutes, they reached his house and Prateek dropped him and when Prateek was dropping him, his (Prateek's) mother telephoned him and he (Prateek) replied that he would reach within 10 to 15 minutes to his house. Witness has further deposed that he went to his house and Prateek also went for his house in his own car and on the same midnight, at about 33:30 AM he received an information that somebody fired to Prateek and police recorded his statement.
(34) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the reception party was at police colony, Ashok Vihar and he had received the invitation card. Witness has denied the suggestion that no marriage took place in November, 2010 or that no reception was there in Ashok Vihar on that day, as deposed by him. Witness has further deposed that five colleagues of his office were also present in that reception party. According to the witness, police took the address of Parvesh from him, but they did not ask him for the invitation card. According to the witness they reached the party at around 9:00 or 9:15 PM and took dinner in the party at around 11 or 11:15 PM but drinks were not served in the party. Witness has further deposed that he was having the mobile number of Prateek and Prateek was also having his mobile number. He does not remember, how many times, he talked with Prateek on telephone on that day, but states that it St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 36 of 430 might be threefour times. According to the witness, at that time, his mobile number was 9899057759 and the make of his mobile phone was Nokia but he does not remember the mobile number of Prateek on the day of his deposition. Witness has further deposed that Prateek was having only one mobile phone with him which he purchased about 2025 days before the incident and had shown the same to him. According to him, it was Xperia model of Soni Ericson which is a costly phone and was newly launched in the market. He is not aware, if antitheft tracker was installed in that instrument. Witness has admitted that Videography was being conducted by the organizer. According to the witness, Prateek was his office colleague and Prateek never told him that he was having any dispute with any girl friend and has voluntarily added that they used to talk only about their office work. Witness has further deposed that police recorded his statement on 22.11.2010 at about 2 or 3 PM, after the cremation of Prateek. He has testified that he had not shown the place, where the reception party was organized nor he had given the invitation card to the police since it was never demanded from him by the police and police did not ask him the names and addresses of the other colleagues, who were present in the reception party. He is not aware if Prateek received any call on his mobile phone after reaching at reception party. He is also not aware, if any vehicle followed their vehicle from the venue. According to the witness, Prateek had purchased the vehicle on installments and Prateek never sought financial assistance from him, for paying those installments. He has also deposed that St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 37 of 430 police never met him again regarding investigations of this case and he did not sign his statement recorded by the police. According to the witness he received information from Parvesh about the death of Prateek and Pravesh told him that he came to know as police reached in his marriage reception. Witness has further deposed that police did not reach his home on that night and his statement was recorded at his residence by the police. According to the witness he never visited the house of Prateek and therefore he is unable to tell the distance between his house and the house of Prateek and he only knew that he was residing somewhere in Raj Nagar. Witness has denied the suggestion that on that night, he and Prateek were in a party organized in Raj Nagar colony and has voluntarily explained that he never visited Raj Nagar. (35) The witness has testified that Prateek made a call about five minutes before reaching his (witness's) house and he also entered his house after reaching there, which was situated at ground floor. Witness has further deposed that they did not stop anywhere in route to the reception party and Prateek had no quarrel with any person at reception party. According to the witness when Prateek dropped him at his residence, at that time, he received a call and he said "Main 1015 minutes mein ghar pahuch raha hoon". Witness has further deposed that once or twice, he had gone to watch a movie with Prateek but never went for shopping with him. According to him, before this incident, he had met mother of Prateek once and has voluntarily explained that he met her as once while going to office as he (Prateek) dropped his mother on the way. Witness has further deposed that St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 38 of 430 if he had to go early, he used to go along with Prateek in his car. According to the witness it was holiday, when the reception party was organized and he took leave from the office on the date of cremation of Prateek and it was perhaps Saturday or Sunday when they went to reception party and has voluntarily added Saturday and Sunday were his weekly off. (36) He does not remember the mobile number of Prateek and has explained that he had stored the mobile number of Prateek in his mobile set which went out of order. Witness has further deposed that his earlier mobile phone was not switching on and that is why, he lost all his data stored in his mobile phone. Witness has denied the suggestion that he destroyed that mobile phone deliberately as in that mobile phone, entire data was there of the talks which took place on that day and has voluntarily added that mobile phone is still with him and can produce the same. He has also deposed that he was knowing Prateek for the last about two years from the incident. According to the witness in his presence, Prateek never took drinks and he is not aware, if Prateek used to drink. He has also stated that Prateek never used to smoke. Witness has further deposed that after they left the reception party in the car, it was not stopped on the way, till it reached his residence. He has explained that Prateek was wearing a black color suit with jacket. (37) PW12 Rupesh Kumar has deposed that he is running a dhaba at Avantika under the name and style of Sonu Dhaba, near Avantika Subzi Mandi at the corner and the measurement of his house is 32 meters and constructed in 2 ½ story and he is residing at the first floor. According to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 39 of 430 the witness the ground floor was let out at the time of incident to one Dhiru who was residing there with his wife. Witness has correctly identified the accused Surender @ Dhiru in the court. He has also deposed that on 28.01.2011 at about 5:00 PM, he received a telephone call of his sister from his house as he was present in Vijay Nursing Home, near Avantika Bus Stand and she told him that some persons were knocking the door at ground floor and she asked him to reach the home immediately. According to the witness he reached there and saw that one person was catching hold pistol and other were standing there on which he asked them as to who they are? Witness has further deposed that without replying him, the said persons asked him who he was on which replied that he is son of the landlord of the said house and they asked him to whether he knew that person, who was with them. The witness has testified that he identified the said person as Dhiru, who is also known as Surender. According to the witness they told him that the pistol was recovered from the bed of the room of accused Dhiru and told them that he saw the pistol in the hands but he himself did not see the same if it recovered from the bed of accused Dhiru. Witness has further deposed that they showed him the pistol and told that a fish shape is engraved on the pistol and noticed the same on the pistol. According to him the said persons were police personnels, who prepared a cloth pullanda and put the pistol in the said pullanda and got the same sealed and took his signatures on the said pullanda. He has also deposed that they prepared a site plan of the place under the tenancy of accused Surender @ Dhiru and obtained his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 40 of 430 signatures on the same at point A on Ex.PW12/A. Witness has further deposed that no person from the family of Dhiru was present at that time and some neighbors were present there and nothing else recovered from there in his presence. According to the witness, police persons asked the neighbors to join the investigations, but they refused and went away and police had taken away accused Dhiru with them. He has testified that police did not record his statement. The witness has also deposed that he had given the ground floor to accused Dhiru @ Surender prior to about quarter to one month from 28.01.2011. Witness has further deposed that no other person was present there with the police, except accused Dhiru @ Surender. (38) The witness was found no supporting this earlier version on which the Addl. PP for the State was permitted to examine him and in his examination by Ld. Addl. PP the witness has deposed that his telephone number on 28.01.2011 were 9268264559, 9910789283 and 9540104442 which mobile phones were remained with his mother, his sister and also with him. According to the witness mostly he used the mobile number 9268264559, his mother used the mobile number 9910789283 and his sister Ms. Manju Bala used the mobile number 9540104442 and she is unmarried. Witness has further deposed that the mobile numbers 9268264559 and 9540104442 are in his name, whereas the third mobile number 9910789283 may be in the name of his mother or father. Witness has further deposed that he went to Vijay Nursing home as his father Subhash Chand Mehra was not well and his mother was also with him at that time. He has testified that St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 41 of 430 none of the accused present in the court were having any pistol in their hands, when he reached his house. He has also deposed that one person was having pistol in his hand and he (witness) asked him as to who he was, then he told that he was a police official. Witness has denied the suggestion that police recorded his statement and has voluntarily added that police did writing work at the spot, but he is not aware the contents of those documents. Witness has denied the suggestion that on 28.01.2011, he was present at his house at about 5:00 PM. He is unable to tell if police staff came to his house along with one accused Dheeraj @ Dhiru or that police told him and his neighbors about the facts of the case and also told that Dheeraj confined a pistol in his house and he could get the same recovered or that police also asked them to join the investigations. Witness has admitted that police asked him to join the investigations and he agreed to be a witness and has voluntarily explained that after coming from the hospital, he joined the investigations. Witness has admitted that his neighbors refused to join the investigations. He has denied the suggestion that accused Dheeraj @ Dhiru got opened the door of his house through his wife and went inside the inner room of his house, opened the lid/ cap of box of the single bed (diwan) and took out a pistol from the clothes and told them that it was the same pistol, which was given to accused Appu by him and after the commission of crime, he returned the same to him. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW12/B the above facts were found so recorded. The accused Appu has been specifically put to the witness but the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 42 of 430 witness has stated that he was not with the police at that time. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Appu accompanied the police and accused Dheeraj to his house or that after seeing the pistol, accused Appu disclosed that it is the same pistol, which was taken by him from Dheeraj after paying Rs.2000/ or that after committing the crime, it was returned to the accused Dheeraj. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW12/B it is found so recorded. He is unable to tell if the pistol was checked by the police and one live cartridge was recovered from the magazine of the pistol. Witness has denied the suggestion that pistol was checked by the police in his presence or that he was deliberately not admitting this fact. Witness has admitted that police took the measurement of the pistol and also prepared the sketch of the pistol, live cartridge and the magazine, which bears his signatures at point A on Ex.PW12/C and has voluntarily added that the sketch was not prepared in his presence. Witness has further deposed that it was already prepared, when he signed it. He is unable to tell if all the witnesses have already signed the said sketch Ex.PW12/C. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police in his statement that magazine was again inserted in the pistol and the same along with live cartridges were turned into cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of AS. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW12/B where it is so recorded and has voluntarily added that pistol was in the hands of police, which was shown to him, it was taken into a pullanda and sealed. According to the witness police obtained his signatures on the pullanda. Witness has St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 43 of 430 denied the suggestion that police prepared seizure memo of the said pullanda in his presence and it was taken into possession. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW12/B the above facts were found so recorded. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely regarding preparation of seizure memo of the said sealed parcel of pistol by the police. When the pointing out cum seizure memo of the pistol was specifically put to the witness, he identified his signatures at point A, the said seizure memo is Ex.PW12/D. The witness has voluntarily added that the said document was prepared by the police after sometime at the spot and thereafter, obtained his signatures. Witness has admitted that accused Dheeraj was arrested after the recovery proceedings and he signed the arrest memo of the accused Surender @ Dhiru @ Dheeraj at point A which is Ex.PW12/E. Witness has denied the suggestion that police made inquiries from accused Dheeraj or that his disclosure statement was also recorded. When confronted with statement Ex.PW12/B the above facts were found so recorded and has voluntarily added that police was making inquiry from accused Dheeraj at a distance from him.
(39) The witness has identified his signatures on the cut cloth pullanda at point X, which cloth pullanda is Ex.PW12/I. He has identified the pistol along with Magazine as the same which was converted into pullanda and sealed in his presence and taken into possession, which pistol along with magazine is Ex.PW12/2 collectively; cut torn pullanda Ex.PW12/1 as the same which was shown to him by the police and he only noticed the pistol, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 44 of 430 which was in the hands of police officials. Witness has denied the suggestion that it is the same live cartridge/ bullet, which was removed by the police in his presence from the magazine of the pistol Ex.PW12/2 and its sketch was also prepared by the police and subsequently it was sealed. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the cartridge or that he has been won over by accused Appu, that is why he is not identifying him before the court or that accused Appu and Dheeraj led the police party to their house or that from there accused Dheeraj got opened the gate of the premises by his wife and entered in the house, or that in his presence, he took out the pistol from the single bed (diwan) after opening its partition, from the inner room or that it was then handed over to the police. Witness has further denied the suggestion that due to fear of the accused persons, he was deliberately not identifying accused Appu or not narrating the facts related to the accused Appu. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he has introduced a new story regarding the recovery of pistol or that he told the police the correct facts in his statement and now he has introduced a new story to save the accused persons. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the police read over and explained each document and then he signed the same and has voluntarily added that police asked him to sign and he signed the same accordingly. Witness has admitted that he did not complain the senior officers of the police or to the court in respect of obtaining his signatures by the police on the memos. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he did not complain against the police officials St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 45 of 430 who obtained his signatures on the memos, as all the proceedings as mentioned in Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D are correct and now he introduced a new story. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not making the correct statement before the court in respect of the role of accused Srikant @ Appu and Dheeraj.
(40) In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness has admitted that whatever he had stated before the court on 28.03.2012 same facts he had stated to the police at the time of investigations, on the date of recording his statement dated 28.01.2012. Witness has admitted that police did not read over his statement to him, nor it was allowed to read over by him. Witness has further admitted that he was under the impression that whatever facts he had stated to the police, same has been written by the police in his statement. Witness has further admitted that due to this reason he did not complain to any superior police authority or the court, therefore he had not filed any objection or complaint to any senior officers. He has also admitted that accused Dheeraj did not get recover any weapon to the police and that he identified him as he was his tenant.
(41) PW 13 Ghanshyam has deposed that he was dealing with business of Razaai/Gadda handloom and his house is built upto three storeys i.e. ground, first and second floor. According to the witness at second floor his tenant James Lakayil was residing since one year from 02.12.2010 and they paid Rs.10,000/ per month as rent. Witness has further St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 46 of 430 deposed that on 02.12.2010 fiveseven persons came and reached on the second floor through staircase and immediately thereafter, he was called by one police official, who asked him that Madam called him at the roof of second floor where a small room was situated. According to the witness he reached there and James and his son Kapil were also present there. Witness has further deposed that on the room at the roof at second floor, some labour of James was residing and they were living their and the said room was locked and it was opened by the Madam with the help of key. According to the witness from that room, one jeans pants was hanging on a hook (keel) and that pant was lifted by accused Krishnamurthy, who was also present there and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. Witness has pointed out towards the accused Krishnamurthy, present in the court and correctly identified him. Witness has further deposed that accused Krishnamurthy took out ATM card of ABN Amro Bank and one another card and two three more visiting cards in the name of Prateek and Investigating Officer put all the articles including the pants in a transparent polythene and it was turned into a cloth parcel and sealed the same. According to the witness Madam also prepared site plan of the spot and he also signed the parcels. According to the witness in his presence, Kapil told that the accused Krishnamurthy is the elder brother of his school friend and was residing in that room with his consent, for the last one week. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared a St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 47 of 430 pointing out cum seizure memo vide Ex.PW13/A and also prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW13/B and Investigating Officer recorded his statement. (42) The witness has correctly identified one shoppers stop first citizen card in the name of Prateek Trikha, one ABN Amro Bank's gold debit card in the name of Prateek Trikha and three visiting cards of Prateek Trikha of his company namely Steria as the same which were got recovered by the accused Krishnamurthy from the said jeans pant lying in the room at roof which was in his occupation. The shoppers stop card is Ex.P3, ABN Amro Bank's gold debit card is Ex.P4, three visiting cards are collectively Ex.P5 in the name of Prateek Trikha of his company namely Steria and jeans pant which is Ex.PW13/1.
(43) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he went to the Police Station in connection with this case and has voluntarily explained that after the recovery he also accompanied with the police to the Police Station. According to the witness the recovered articles were not shown to him in the Police Station and has voluntarily added that it was recovered from the roof and sealed at the roof. Witness has further deposed that he visited the Police Station once. He does not remember whether he visited the Police Station on the same day or on the next day and Madam/ Investigating Officer met him in the Police Station and she made inquiries from him and no writing work was done in the Police Station. Witness has further deposed that he was dealing in the business of Rajaai/Gadda since childhood and now it is closed for the last about two St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 48 of 430 years from the date of his deposition. According to the witness on the day of occurrence, he was not dealing with the said business and was free and was totally dependent on rent. Witness has further deposed that he was running his business on the shop at the ground floor of his house. He has testified that his residence falls under the jurisdiction of Police Station Rohini, Sector 3 at the time of occurrence. Witness has further deposed that police remained in his house for about 22:30 hours and police reached at about 99:30 PM. He has also deposed that no copy of the seizure memo was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer and he only signed the same, perhaps, he signed three papers and has voluntarily added that he signed two memos and one pullanda. According to the witness the tenants also signed the memos and pullanda and police officials also signed the said memos and pullanda. Witness has further deposed that no police official visited his shop and he closed his business due to old age and due to labor problem. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is an informer of the police or that he is a stock witness. According to the witness he had visited threefour times in the court, but his evidence could not be recorded and that is why he went away. He has testified that he saw the accused Krishnamurthy first time, when he was brought by the Police at his residence and since he closed the business, he remained present in his house on the first floor. He further deposed that he had not conducted the verification of the tenants before letting out the premises to them and has voluntarily added that he had done a rent agreement with them. According to the witness he did not make St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 49 of 430 inquiry about their work and they had informed that they were travel agents but he did not verify about their travel agency. He has also deposed that he did not verify about the whereabouts of the tenants namely James and Kapil and has voluntarily added that the premises was rented out them through a known property dealer and prior to living in his house, they were living nearby. He does not remember the name of said dealer, however, the said tenants namely James and Kapil were residing at House No. 6 and name of the owner of House No. 6 he does not remember. According to the witness presently, James and Kapil are not his tenants and they have vacated his premises about one year back from the day of his deposition in the court. Witness has further deposed that when Police visited his house after three/ four months thereafter they left his premises. According to him, police took James and Kapil to the Police Station but did not take away the labour, who was residing in the room on the roof, as he was not present at that time. He has further deposed that he did not meet the said labour thereafter as he had left after some days and after making inquiries, James and Kapil were discharged from the investigation. He has denied the suggestion that since he did not verify the whereabouts and profession of James and Kapil, he could not say, if they were criminals and has voluntarily added that they were not the criminals. Witness has further deposed that they were religious persons and devotees usually visited them as they performed the Mata Ki Chowki. He is not aware whether there was any criminal case on James and Kapil and has voluntarily added that they were good persons. He does not St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 50 of 430 remember the name of the servant of James and Kapil, who used to reside in the room on the roof and no statement of any person to the effect that the recovered jeans pants belonged to accused Krishnamurthy, was recorded by the Police in his presence and has voluntarily added that accused himself got recovered the jeans pants. According to him, no other clothes were recovered by the Police from that room. Witness has further deposed that Police had not disclosed him about the facts of the present case and police did not visit his residence again after that day, in connection with this case and no local Police Station's official visited his house. He has testified that all the police officials who came to his house were in civil clothes and he did not make any call at 100 number, when lot of persons visited his house and has voluntarily added that they were all police officials. He does not remember the name of the Police official, who introduced himself by showing his identity card. According to the witness, he knocked his house and call him on roof and when he reached at the roof near the room, at that time, all the Police officials were standing outside the room. He has further deposed that the key of the said room was already with the Investigating Officer Madam. He further deposed that Kapil was about 1718 years old and when he was residing in his house, at that time, he was not going to the School. He has also deposed that they were his tenants for a period of about 11¼ years back, from the date of incident. Witness has denied the suggestion that no proceedings were ever conducted in his presence, as deposed by him in his examinationinchief. He is unable to tell as to who St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 51 of 430 was having the custody of accused Krishnamurthy at that time and has voluntarily added that threefour police officials were present near him. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Krishnamurthy was not present at the spot. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of police personnels or that his signatures were obtained in the Office of SIT Crime Branch on the memos or that nothing was got recovered in his presence.
(44) PW14 Ashok Kumar has deposed that in the year 2010, he had been working at Call Center in the name and style of Future on BPO Solution Pvt. Ltd, situated at Rani Bagh, Delhi. According to the witness on 19.11.2010 he had gone to the house of his boss i.e. Kothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi for account files on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR15A3501, make Hero Honda Splendor. Witness has further deposed that on reaching there, at about 9 PM he had parked his above said motorcycle in front of the Kothi/ House of his Boss and when he came out from the house of his boss, he found that his above said motorcycle was missing. According to the witness, he searched his above said motorcycle, but could not trace it out there and thereafter he made a call at 100 number, but no police official reached there and thereafter he again made a call at 100 number call on which one police official came on a motorcycle and asked him about the incident and suggested him to go to the Police Station Rani Bagh. The witness has also deposed that thereafter he went to Police Station Rani Bagh and his statement Ex.PW2/A (in case FIR No. 377/10, Police St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 52 of 430 Station Rani Bagh) was recorded by the police. According to the witness thereafter he came back to his office and on the next night, he left for his native place i.e. for Haryana. Witness has further deposed that on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, SundayMonday he received a call from police of Police Station Saraswati Vihar who inquired about his aforesaid motorcycle and he replied that it was registered in his name and also informed that the said motorcycle had already been stolen on 19.11.2010 and made a complaint in this regard at Police Station Rani Bagh. He has testified that the police official informed him that his said motorcycle had been recovered and asked him to bring the copy of the said FIR registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar on which in the morning, he came to Police Station Saraswati Vihar. He has further deposed that inquiries were made from him and thereafter he was discharged and he got released his above said motorcycle on superdari, which motorcycle is Ex.PX. (45) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he is the owner of the motorcycle bearing No. HR15 A3501, make Hero Honda Splendor. According to the witness in the Police Station, his signatures were obtained on his statement and he did not give any complaint in writing to the police officials at Police Station Rani Bagh on that day nor he had received any photocopy of his above said statement. Witness has further deposed that on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 at about 3:004:00 AM he was informed by the police that his motorcycle had been found at Raj Nagar. He is unable to tell when the FIR was registered St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 53 of 430 regarding theft of his motorcycle. According to the witness he received an information about the recovery of his motorcycle on his mobile No. 9812821194 (of Haryana) and he was also having a number of Delhi and he received the information through a male person. Witness has denied the suggestion that on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 he himself left his above said motorcycle at Raj Nagar or that he had visited the Raj Nagar colony on the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010. Witness has further denied the suggestion that his motorcycle was never stolen by anyone or that he in collusion with the police officials, falsely implicated the accused persons or that he is a stock witness of the police.
(46) The witness has further deposed that his office was situated at 4, 5 and 6, Sagar PlazaI, Rani Bagh, Delhi and his office was located on 1 st and 2nd floor where about 80 persons had been working at that time. According to the witness he joined the above said call center in the year 2009 and left in December, 2011 and at that time, he was in the Administration Branch. His company dealt in sales process (through phones). Witness has further deposed that on the day of incident, he was in the shift duty of 5 PM to 3AM. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such office was ever situated on the aforesaid address. According to the witness, the above said officer bearing No. 4, 5 and 6, Sagar PlazaI, Rani Bagh, Delhi is situated on 1st floor and 2nd floor from the side of Chunmun and if they enter in the said office from the side of Reliance Fresh, therefore it falls on ground floor and 1st floor. According to the witness from both the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 54 of 430 sides i.e. Chunmum side and Reliance fresh side, one can enter the said office at that time and there was paan khokha spectacles shop, Adidas showroom near the said office at that time. Witness has further deposed that he used to visit the house of his boss, as and when required and he visited the house of his boss for about fourfive times in a month. According to the witness there was an HDFC Bank situated opposite to Kothi No.1. He has also admitted that one Guard used to remain for security of the HDFC Bank. He has denied the suggestion that there was no possibility of any theft of motorcycle, as security guard always remains there or that Kothi No. 1 was not of his boss, namely Ujjwal Arora. Witness has further deposed that when he found his above said motorcycle missing, he had also made a call to his boss regarding the same, who was in the office at that time. Witness has denied the suggestion that he along with his other companions fired at Prateek Trikha in the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 and robbed his Honda City car, or that thereafter, they ran away in his Honda City car after leaving his motorcycle there.
(47) PW15 Rohit Kakkar @ Vishi has deposed that he is a cloth merchant and on 22.11.2010, he was present in his house and in the night hours at about 11:00 PM, he heard noise on which he came outside his house where he came to know that his neighbour Prateek Trikha had received injuries and was lying in a pool of blood on the main gate of their society near the guard room on a chair and was unconscious. According to the witness his father Suresh Trikha brought his car and he accompanied him to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 55 of 430 remove Prateek Trikha to Maharaj Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh where he was admitted in Emergency. Witness has further deposed that later on they came to know that someone had fired on Prateek Trikha and he died subsequently on the next day. According to the witness police made inquiries from him and told them the above said facts. (48) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on the date of the incident PCR made inquiries from him and subsequently, he accompanied the father of the deceased to the Police Station. Witness has admitted that the chair was lying outside the guard room of their society, on which deceased was lying. According to the witness the guard room is inside the main gate of their society and there was no party or function that day, in their society and there may be party in any other street, but there was no party in their street. He has admitted that all the residents of their society contribute the payment for sanitation of the streets of the society. Witness has further deposed that the cleaning of drainage is also done by the society within fivesix months and there is no regular cleaning of streets, however, there is a sweeper, who used to take garbage from the houses of the society. Witness has admitted that there is a small gate of their society which is always open for ingress in the society. Witness has further deposed that Prateek Trikha was having a car make Honda City but he did not remember its number. He has further deposed that he was driving the car, in which the father and mother of Prateek Trikha alongwith Prateek Trikha had gone to the Hospital. Witness has admitted at St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 56 of 430 the time of removing the injured to the Hospital, they had no knowledge as to how he received injuries. Witness has further deposed that at the time of shifting the injured to the hospital, even the guards did not disclose them as to how deceased received injuries. According to the witness the parents of injured were very much depressed and doctor did not hand over any belongings of Prateek Trikha to him. He is unable to tell, if they handed handed over the belongings of Prateek Trikha to his parents in the hospital and states that they remained there for about 1520 minutes and in the mean time, many relatives of deceased reached to the Hospital when he left the hospital. He has stated that in his presence, no Police reached the hospital. He has further deposed that there were total six members in the house of Prateek Trikha i.e. two females and four males including Prateek Trikha. According to the witness two females i.e. one was mother and another was aunt of Prateek and son of aunt of Prateek also residing there. Witness has further deposed that the family members of the uncle of Prateek were not present at the main gate, where Prateek was lying and they ever did not come out of the main gate of their house. He has clarified that he did not attend the funeral of Prateek Trikha.
(49) PW29 Sh. Sonu has deposed that he is the owner of motorcycle no. DL 8S AU 6461 make Bajaj Pulsar and police took him and his motorcycle from his house after which he obtained his motorcycle by the order of the Court and on superdarginama Ex.PW29/A. According to the witness, the accused Appu is his brotherinlaw (sala). St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 57 of 430 (50) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he is the owner of this vehicle and he never gave his motorcycle to any other person. He has further deposed that the intervening night of 2122.11.10 the said motorcycle was with him at his home and some Police Officials from Crime Branch took him and his motorcycle to Police Station at Sector 18 and they kept his motorcycle and released him after three days of detention. According to the witness police also called his family members in Police Station and thereafter, he was released but he does not remember the date when he was arrested and released by crime branch and his wife called at 100 number when he was taken by Crime Branch. (51) PW33 Sh. Uma Shankar has deposed that he had worked as a Senior Manager in Run Service, Infocare Pvt. Ltd., A6, Mogapair, Industrial Estate Mogapair West, Chennai. The witness has further deposed that on 13.12.2010 they received one Sony Erricson phone Model X10i bearing IMEI number 012379004668392 from Delhi Sony Erricson Service Center, Hot Spot, Darya Ganj, Delhi due to the reason that the said set was having on/ off problem and turn off randomly and remain in poor network. He has also deposed that they repaired the said mobile phone with changed mother board and sent the said mobile phone to Mumbai Center to be delivered to another customer whereas they sent the mobile phone of Delhi Customer with a changed motherboard as repaired one and due to this reason IMEI number of both mobile phones were changed. He has testified that they provided a new IMEI number to the Delhi Customer which is St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 58 of 430 359419030873086. He has proved the computerized copy of delivery challan cum gate pass with new IMEI number to Delhi Customer which is Ex.PW33/A (two pages); the computerized copy of delivery challan cum gate pass with IMEI number of mobile phone sent to the Mumbai customer which is Ex.PW33/B (three pages); Job sheet of the above said mobile phone with IMEI number received from Delhi is Ex.PW33/C and the job sheet of the Soni Erricson, Hot Spot Service center is Ex.PW33/D which they received from the said office.
(52) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has admitted that Sony Erricson company used computerized billing regarding the repair. He has further deposed that regarding the sale he cannot say whether all the bills issued to the customer are handwritten or computerized. He has also admitted that particular mobile phone make is enriched with a system which is called tracker and if it is stolen or snatched, police can recover it easily by tracking the location of the phone. Witness has further admitted that when any customer comes to them with his mobile phone for the purpose of repair, he has to submit the date of purchase and bill in his name. Witness has also admitted that they received this phone for repair on 13.12.2010. He has admitted that a bill of Rs.27,640/ was the cost of repair and was not received by the company being the mobile phone under the warranty period.
(53) PW36 Sh. Varun has deposed that he is doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones by the name of Nice St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 59 of 430 Communication at 1593, Main Market, Rani Bagh, Delhi. According to the witness, he knew the accused Amit @ Bunty whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, as he was also doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones at Rani Bagh and was having a shop there. He has testified that in the month of December 2010 accused Amit @ Bunty handed over one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i of white colour to him for repair on the pretext that there was a problem in charging and there was a default in IMEI No. with mother board and also told that the mobile phone was in warranty period. According to the witness he asked about the bill etc. of mobile phone from accused Amit @ Bunty but he told him that he kept the bill receipts etc. at his house and the same could not traceable. The witness has explained that accused Amit @ Bunty was regular visitor to him and having the same business, in a good faith he sent his mobile phone for repair to Vishal Atwal who was working at Spice Hot Spot service centre of Sony Ericson at Daryaganj, Delhi. According to him, Vishal Atwal sent the said mobile phone to company for repair work and after got repaired he handed over the same to him. He has further deposed that he checked the mobile phone and found it in working order and its motherboard was changed and its IMEI no. also changed after which he handed over the mobile phone to accused Amit @ Bunty. The witness has also deposed that on 03.03.2011 Inspector Aarti Sharma of Crime Branch called him in her office and recorded his statement. The witness has identified one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of white St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 60 of 430 colour which Ex.P1.
(54) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he knew the accused Amit @ Bunty since one and half years prior to December 2010. He has further deposed that accused Amit @ Bunty never handed over any other expensive mobile phones for repair except the abovesaid mobile phone. According to the witness, no other person was present at his shop while accused Amit @ Bunty handed over the mobile to him. He has also deposed that he never asked the accused Amit @ Bunty for bill and receipt of the above said mobile phone after sending the said mobile phone for repair to Vishal Atwal. He has further deposed that the ownership of mobile phones can be checked online and he generally used to collect the bill and receipt of mobile phone if they want to send the mobile for repair work and has voluntarily added that the same were also checked online. The witness has testified that he used to take ID proof or bill from the persons if they want to sell the mobile phones to him but he did not ask the accused Amit @ Bunty for his ID. He does not remember the exact date when accused Amit @ Bunty handed over the mobile to him and states that he handed over the said mobile phone to Vishal Atwal when he met him in the Rani Bagh market. According to the witness, he did not maintain any register for receiving and handing over mobiles for repair work and Vishal Atwal never informed him about the change of IMEI No. of said mobile phone before handing over mobile phone to him after repair. He has also deposed that he never asked Vishal to mention his name in job sheet. He has St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 61 of 430 admitted that Vishal is his good friend. He does not remember the exact date when Vishal handed over mobile phone to him. He has also deposed that he was not called by Police when the above said mobile phone was recovered. He has denied the suggestion that accused Amit @ Bunty never handed over said mobile phone to him for any repair work or that he received the said mobile phone from some other person or that he was deposing falsely to save himself. The witness has further denied the suggestion that a quarrel took place between him and accused Amit and his brother i.e. why to falsely implicate them in this case he was deposing falsely. The witness has also deposed that during online checking only the warranty period is checked and it does not show the ownership of mobile phone. He has further deposed that he did not check the warranty period of said phone online. He has further deposed that he was called by Inspector Aarti Sharma at about 11.00 AM and within one hour he reached her office. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
(55) PW37 Sh. Vishwas Vitthal Thakkarhas deposed that he has a service center of Sony Ericson at shop no.1, Thakkar Shopping Mall, Second Floor, Opposite Boriwali Railway Station, SV Road, Boriwali West, Mumbai92 and it is a authorized service center of Sony Ericson since 2008. According to the witness they used to prepare jobsheets while receiving mobile phones for repair work. He has further deposed that on 14.12.10, he received a mobile phone of Sony Ericson model no. Xperia X10i bearing IMEI No. 359419037492237 from Vivek Vats for repair work as there was a St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 62 of 430 charging problem in the phone and he prepared the jobsheet no. SE310SGI12639. He has also deposed that he checked the mobile phone and there was PCB motherboard problem on the mobile phone on which he took PCB mother board from mobile phone and sent the same to Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai, the high level repair service centre of Sony Ericson on 15.12.2010. According to him, on 23.12.2010, they received a PCB Motherboard from Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai with IMEI No. 012379004668392 as replacement of their abovesaid PCB Motherboard and he put the replaced PCB Motherboard on the mobile phone of Vivek Vats and repaired the same and handed over the mobile phone to Vivek Vats with new IMEI No. 012379004668392 on 24.12.2010. The witness has testified that he prepared the delivery computerized jobsheets regarding the abovesaid proceedings at the time of delivery phone to Vivek Vats which are Ex.PW37/A. (56) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that his coordinator Aparana put her signature at point A on Ex.PW37/A. He has further deposed that Chennai Center did not inform him about the change of motherboard before changing of the same and has voluntarily added that they received the documents with a new motherboard PCB then they came to know that IMEI No. have been changed. He has further deposed that Vivek Vats handed over bills and receipts to him at the time of delivery of mobile phones to him for repair work. He is not aware whether the IMEI Number has been changed with mobile of Balram of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 63 of 430 Gurgaon. According to the witness one Mr. Kohli from Crime Branch Delhi Police came at his service center on 03.03.11.
(57) PW38 Sh. Vivek Vats has deposed that in the year 201011 he was working in Panasonic as Area Sales Manager and during that period he was residing at Building no. 20, Flat no. 208, Sanskar Cooperative Housing Society, Ekta Nagar, Kandiwali West, Mumbai. He has further deposed that in the month of September he purchased a mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia10i, copy of cash memo of said mobile phone is Ex.PW38/A. He has further deposed that he purchased the said mobile phone for Rs.16,500/ and the cash memo was issued on the same day on 10.09.2010 and the shop owner also mentioned IMEI No. of mobile phone in cash memo Ex. PW38/A which is 359419037492237. The witness has testified that he was already having a SIM of mobile number which he put in the mobile and used the same but there was a problem in charging of mobile phone. He has also deposed that he handed over the above said mobile phone to authorized service center of Sony Ericson which was situated at Thakkar Shopping Mall Boriwali Mumbai in the second week of month of December 2010 for repair work and his SIM was given to him. According to the witness, in the last week of December 2010, the above said service center returned his mobile phone and he was informed that motherboard of his mobile phone was changed so IMEI number of his mobile phone also changed. He has proved the delivery jobsheet prepared by service center which is Ex.PW37/A. According to the witness new IMEI No. 012379004668392 was given to his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 64 of 430 mobile phone. He has further deposed that on 03.03.11 Delhi Police contacted him at Mumbai and he told all facts to police officer Mr. Kohli on which police sealed his mobile in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with seal of SK. The witness has proved that he handed over the cash memo Ex.PW38/A and delivery jobsheet Ex.PW37/A to the Investigating Officer. Witness has further deposed that police seized the above said pullanda of mobile along with two documents vide Ex. PW38/B. The witness has correctly identified his mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of black colour bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 belonging to him with changed IMEI No. which mobile is Ex.P14.
(58) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has admitted that cash memo Ex.PW38/A does not bear his name as customer. He has further deposed that he paid amount of Rs.16,500/ in cash. Witness has denied the suggestion, that he did not purchase any mobile phone on 10.09.10 or that on 10.09.10 that the shop of Mahadev Telecom was closed. He has further deposed that he did not make any application for release of his above said mobile phone. He has also deposed that Police seized his mobile at the day time on 03.03.11 and recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. (59) PW39 Sh. Balram has deposed that he is residing at Village Behrampur, District Gurgaon, Haryana alongwith his family. According to the witness, on 03.03.2011, Police had come to his house and made inquiries regarding his mobile phone and checked his mobile phone bearing no. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 65 of 430 9999474098 make SONY ERICSON X10 I, IMEI number he does not recollect. The witness has also deposed that after checking the phone, they had noted down some numbers which was written inside the phone which number he does not recollect but can tell after refreshing memory. According to the witness, they (police) asked him to hand over the documents regarding the purchase of the said mobile phone, on which he handed over to them the cash memo/ receipt of the same dated month of May, 2010 but exact date he does not recollect. He has further deposed that he had purchased this phone from Sahara Mall, Second Floor, Spice Retail Ltd. vide same cash memo receipt which is Ex.PW35/G. According to the witness the said phone was not working properly and hence he had given the same to the same person i.e. Spice retail Ltd and after some days, again this phone was not working properly so he had to return the same to them (Spice retail Ltd.) for repair on 20.12.2010 and again on 28.01.2011 and the job sheets of same are Ex.PW35/H and Ex.PW35/I. The witness has also deposed that he handed over both the sheet/ job sheet to the Police with regard to the same on which IMEI number was written which he does not recollect the same but can tell after seeing the same. He has also deposed that it was only the Police reached to his house he came to know that the IMEI number on his phone belonged to some other person. The witness has further deposed that he was told by the Investigating Officer that the IMEI number which had been given on his mobile phone which was handed over to him by the company after its repair after second occasion was belong to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 66 of 430 some deceased whose murder had been committed. He has also deposed that the police had seized the various documents and his mobile phone which mobile phone was converted into a pullanda with the help of a white cloth and sealed the same but he does not recollect the details of the seal. He has further deposed that thereafter some document regarding the phone being taken into possession was prepared vide Ex.PW35/F. He has also deposed that at the time of purchase of mobile phone its IMEI number was mentioned in the cash memo which is 359419030947138. He has identified one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i of black color with IMEI No. 359419030873086 which was received by him after the repairing of the SIM and which was seized by the Police which is Ex.P13. (60) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that whatever he has stated in the Court, the same thing he has told to the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer had only told him that the motherboard present on his mobile phone belonged to the phone of one victim who was no more but she did not tell her the details of the case. According to the witness he cannot tell the name of the victim nor can he tell from whom the mobile phone was recovered. He has also deposed that he had not handed over the original cash receipt to the Spice Retail Ltd. and has voluntarily added that he has only showed them the original cash receipt and after seeing the same and noting down the details, the same was returned to him. Witness has admitted that his mobile was working at the time when the Police had come to him for inquiries. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 67 of 430 (61) PW40 Sh. Vineet Sharma has deposed that he is residing at 682, Prem Nagar, Loni, Ghaziabad, UP with his family and he is presently self employed. He has further deposed that on 04.03.2011 he was employed in Spice Hot Spot in Noida 63 which is presently in Sector 12, Noida while he used to operate from Daryaganj and on that day, Delhi Police had approached to his office where he was employed as Engineer. According to the witness they showed his white coloured mobile phone Make Sony Ericson X10i and made inquiries from him regarding the motherboard of said phone and he informed them that this mobile phone had come to him for repair and he had sent it to Chennai at L4 level. On a Court Question the witness has explained about L4 level that in case mobile phone is not repairable or any of its part requires a replacement then it is sent to main head office at Chennai for replacing the same.
(62) He has further deposed that they also made inquiries about the motherboard/ PCB of the phone and informed them that the said motherboard of the above said phone has been put in another mobile phone of Balram. The witness has deposed that he communicated the documents to them in this regard i.e. jobsheet in response to their notice U/s. 91 of Cr. P.C. given by them which reply is Ex.PW40/A. The witness has also deposed that they received a phone of Sony Ericson Xperia10Xi bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 from Varun which was sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086. He has testified that they also received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 68 of 430 same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 from Balram for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067. According to the witness, Balram was excited and wanted to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram so to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Varun in the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Varun with prior approval from their head office. He has correctly identified one mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as belonging to Balram with changed IMEI number which is Ex.P13 and also identified one mobile phone of white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same received from Varun with changed IMEI number which is Ex.P1.
(63) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has denied the suggestion that no notice had been received by him under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on the date mentioned on Ex.PW40/A or that no response was given by him by Ex.PW40/B. He has also denied the suggestion that both the above said documents have been antidated in connivance with Investigating Officer only to save Vishal Atwal one of the employee at their service center. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer had never recorded his statement.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 69 of 430 (64) PW41 Sh. Sanjeev has deposed that he is residing at J1207, Mangol Puri, Delhi with his family and he is into business of property dealing. He has further deposed that he had met accused Neeraj whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court, twothree years ago i.e. year, 2010. He has also deposed that first time he had met Neeraj in the year, 2010 on the road.
(65) It has been observed by this Court that the witness appeared to be a mischievous person, his demeanor in the Court showed that perhaps he was a regular Court bird. He had looked into the eye of the lady Investigating Officer in the presence of the Court in a manner which was threatening. The witness was informed about the legal consequences of his making an incorrect and false statement in the Court and warned. Court had to stop the further examination of this witness who was directed to be removed from the Court because of his behaviour and told that in case if he had some Counsel, he could seek the assistance of the said Counsel. The Court was also informed by Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma informed this Court that there is one case pending against the witness relating to Police Station Mangol Puri, under Section 323/341/506 IPC in case FIR No.12/2008. (66) After sometime when the examination is resumed the witness has deposed that he was not known to any person namely Krishnamurthy @ Vicky. According to the witness in the year, 2010, the marriage of accused Neeraj took place at Shakurpur and accused Neeraj also invited him in the marriage but he could not attend his marriage as he was not known to him St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 70 of 430 well. He has also deposed that he had not met any person Krishnamurthy @ Vicky.
(67) With the permission of the Court leading questions were put to the witness by the Learned Addl. PP for the State wherein he has admitted that he met accused Neeraj in the month of September, 2010. He has denied the suggestion that Neeraj told him that he was residing at L-Block, Shakurpur, Delhi where a quarrel took place and that the Police was harassing him and thereafter, he arranged to him and his family a house to him at J - Block on the rent basis. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj introduced him with his friends Srikant @ Appu and Krishnamurthy @ Vicky who were also residents of Shakurpur. He has further deposed that the marriage of Neeraj took place on 17.11.2010 and the barat went to Rohtak from Shakurpur. He has also denied the suggestion that on 19.11.2010 at about 10:30 PM Krishnamurthy @ Vicky met him at J- Block, Mangol Puri near a piyau while he was having motorcycle make Splendor of black color and he asked him about the reasons of his not participating in the marriage of Neeraj when he told him that due to family work, he could not attend the same.
(68) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has admitted that Police called him at Crime Branch Office on 24.05.2011 and has voluntarily added that they asked him some questions and he gave reply of the same. He has denied the suggestion that police recorded his statement on 24.05.2011 or that he has stated to the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 71 of 430 Police that Neeraj told him that he was residing at L - Block, Shakurpur, Delhi and a quarrel took place there and Police was harassing him and thereafter, he arranged to him and his family a house to him at J - Block on the rent basis. He has also denied the suggestion that he had stated to the Police that the accused Neeraj introduced him with his friends Srikant @ Appu and Krishnamurthy @ Vicky who were also residents of Shakurpur. The witness has further denied the suggestion that he had stated to the Police that on 19.11.2010 at about 10:30 PM Krishnamurthy @ Vicky met him at J - Block, Mangol Puri near a piyau while he was having a motorcycle make Splendor of black color and he asked him about the reasons of his not participating in the marriage of Neeraj then he told him that due to family work, he could not attend the same. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW41/PX1 the above facts were found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy @ Vicky that is why he is not deposing true facts before the Court.
(69) The accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky has been specifically put to the witness on which the witness has stated that he knew Krishnamurthy as the coaccused Neeraj introduced Krishnamurthy with him. He has denied the suggestion that he is deliberately deviating from statement that accused Krishnamurthy was introduced to him by accused Neeraj. He does not remember the exact last date of this case but states that it was two months before the summer vacations of the Court. He has also denied the suggestion St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 72 of 430 that he was deposing falsely as he was won over by the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy and has voluntarily added that his case of Mangol Puri has been compromised. He has also denied the suggestion that he is a ruffian of the area or that he is involved with large number of criminals of the area and a regular visitor to the Police Station or that he is a regular Court bird and has stood sureties for a number of accused on regular basis and it is for this reason that he is trying to protect Neeraj and Krishnamurthy. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite opportunity given.
(70) PW42 Sh. Hemant Banswal has deposed that he is residing at 4/2830 Gali No.1, Bihari colony, Shahdara, Delhi with his family and is presently unemployed. He has further deposed that previously he was working with Manager Service Operation with Spice Hot Spot in Noida 63 which is presently in Sector 12, Noida while he used to operate from Daryaganj. According to the witness, police had approached at his office and showed him a white colour mobile phone Make Sony Ericson X10i and made inquiries from him regarding the motherboard of said phone because they came to know that the same has been replaced. He further deposed that he informed them that this mobile phone had come to their office for repair and the same was handled by Vineet Sharma who had sent it to Chennai at L4 level. The witness has testified that he was served with notice U/s. 91 of Cr.P.C. pursuant to which he and Vineet gave their reply vide Ex.PW40/A. According to him, they received a phone of Sony Ericson Xperia 10Xi St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 73 of 430 bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 from Varun which was sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086. The witness has also deposed that they received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 from Balram for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067. According to him, Balram was in a hurry to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram so to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Varun to the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Varun with prior approval from their head office.
(71) He has correctly identified one mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as the same as belonging to Balram with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P13 and one mobile phone of white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same as received from Varun with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex. P1. (72) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that no notice had been received by him under Section 91 Cr.P.C. on the date mentioned on Ex.PW40/A or that no response was given by him by Ex.PW40/B or that both the abovesaid documents have been antedated in connivance with Investigating Officer only to save Vishal St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 74 of 430 Atwal one of the employee at their service center. According to the witness Investigating Officer had never recorded his statement. (73) PW43 Sh. Vishal Atwal has deposed that in the year 201011 he had been working as Deputy Service Executive in Spice Hot Spot at 19, Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi which is also a service center for Sony Ericson. According to the witness he knew Varun who is having business of mobile and have a shop at Rani Bagh by the name of Nice Communication. He has further deposed that in the month of December 2010, Varun handed over one mobile phone of Sony Ericson X10i Xperia for repair work as there was problem of charging. The witness has testified that Bunty handed over the said mobile phone to Varun. According to the witness he knew Bunty @ Amit (whom he has correctly identified in the Court) through Varun who was also having business of mobile in Rani Bagh market. He further deposed that he prepared the jobsheet of said mobile phone having IMEI No. 012379004668892 and they sent the PCB Motherboard of mobile phone to Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai, Authorized High Service Center of Sony Ericson. He has also deposed that after some days they received back the another PCB Motherboard from the said service center of Chennai with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086. He has also deposed that they also received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 of Balram from Hot Spot, Lajpat Nagar for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067. According to the witness, Balram St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 75 of 430 was in hurry to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram so to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Amit @ Bunty to the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Amit @ Bunty with prior approval from their head office. He has also deposed that they received a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. from police and they gave reply to the same vide Ex.PW40/A. He has further deposed that he handed over the jobsheets of mobile phone of Amit @ Bunty which is Ex.PW43/A (3 pages), receipt details of Run Service Inforcare Pvt. Ltd which is Ex.PW43/B (two pages), jobsheet of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/C, receipt detail of Run Service Infocare which is Ex.PW43/D (2 pages), the challan receipt of Lajpat Nagar of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/E, jobsheet of Mobile phone of Balram prepared at Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/F (two pages), challan prepared at Lajpat Nagar in respect of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/G, jobsheet of mobile phone at Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/H and challan of mobile phone of Balram of Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/I to the Police alongwith their reply Ex.PW40/A. (74) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as the same as belonging to Balram with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P13 and one mobile phone of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 76 of 430 white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same received by him from Varun for repair which belonging to accused Amit @ Bunty with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P1.
(75) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that they did not receive the cash receipt in the name of Balram and has voluntarily added that they received only challan and service jobsheet from Lajpat Nagar with records from Gurgaon Service Center. He is not aware from where Balram purchased the said mobile phone. Witness has admitted that when any mobile phone comes to them they check the warranty period of mobile with IMEI No. and has voluntarily added that they conduct this check online. Witness has further admitted that all mobile sets of Sony Ericson which are sold have their details entered into the official site. He has also deposed that the details of the cash receipt regarding sale are not entered into the site and has voluntarily added that only the details of mobile are entered in the site. He has testified that they also mention the name of person who had returned the set for purposes of repair when the job work is done and normally, the mobile set which is received by them from the distributors but the mobile of Sony Ericson X10i Xperia IMEI No. 012379004668392 had been received by him directly from Varun who is his friend. He has also deposed that he had also made his entry regarding the said mobile set in his official record. He has admitted St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 77 of 430 that his name is written in Ex.PW43/A at the place mentioned for the details of customer and has voluntarily added that Varun is his friend and hence, he made this entry in his name in good faith. According to the witness, Varun is also residing at Rani Bagh where he (witness) is staying and Varun is engaged in sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones. Witness has admitted that IMEI number of mobile phones were changed in Chennai. He has further deposed that he is conversant with job of repair of mobile phones. According to him, the mobile set handed over to him was not working on the day on which it was handed over to him and he was told that there was charging issue but that was not the problem. Witness has admitted that whatsoever problem with the mobile set he has mentioned in job sheet after checking the mobile phone. According to the witness, he is directly authorized to send the mobile phones to Chennai and has voluntarily added that he does it after a report from engineers. He is unable to tell the date when the mobile phone was handed over to him by Varun without seeing the record. He has also deposed that Varun did not tell him how many days back he had purchased the phone. Witness has admitted that it was totally a dead phone and was not showing any details. He has further deposed that whenever any phone is received back from Chennai the details of the same are mentioned in the challan received back alongwith the phone and he had handed over the challan to the Police. According to him, he made no separate entry in their official record with regard to receiving of phone. He has explained that after the phone was received back from Chennai in a St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 78 of 430 working condition the Police came to their office after about one month. He has also deposed that he had told Varun that phone has been received back and he should pick it up and the said mobile set was taken by Varun after about second day of its receipt by them from Chennai. He has again claimed that it was after Varun picked up the phone that the Police came approximately after one month of the same and has further stated that he did not have any conversation with Varun during this period. (76) This witness has further deposed that he worked with Hot Spot Company for about one year only and presently he is unemployed and even prior to that he was working with Hot Spot company but there was a gap of one year during this period when he was trying for a job. He further deposed that he used to make his entries only on the standardized option provided in the form. He has further deposed that the problem had been mentioned at Ex.PW43/A at point A to A1. He has denied the suggestion that he had handed over this phone to police official on 27.01.11 or that he had been knowingly a part of false proceedings conducted by Investigating Officer or that no proceeding was conducted by Police on 03.03.11 in his presence. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he was not known to the accused Amit @ Bunty or that at the instance of Varun and Investigating Officer of the case, he is wrongly identifying the accused Amit @ Bunty. He has further denied that at the instance of Varun and Investigating Officer of the case, he has falsely prepared the documents regarding the service of mobile in connivance with his service center or with St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 79 of 430 Chennai Service center.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
(77) PW16 Dr. Ashish Bansal has deposed that on 22.11.2010, he was on emergency duty in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi. He further deposed that at about 12:45 AM, patient Prateek Trikha was brought to the Hospital by W/Constable Sulochana of PCR with the alleged history of gun shot history at Raj Nagar colony gate. According to the witness the injured was attended by him vide MLC No. 221 which is Ex.PW16/A. According to the witness the patient was admitted under CTVS on call under ICU.
(78) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that the patient was brought in the Hospital in gasping condition. He has further deposed that the MLC is in his handwriting and he is unable to tell how many doctors were on duty.
(79) PW17 Dr. Anupam, has deposed that on 22.11.2010, patient Prateek Trikha was referred to ICU from Casualty in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Delhi and the patient was admitted in the casualty on that date at about 1:20 AM. According to the witness prior to preparing the admission document they started the treatment of the patient. Witness has further deposed that when the patient was referred to casualty from ICU, the BP and heart rate of the patient was not recordable and there was no signs of respiration. According to him, they made their efforts to resuscitate the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 80 of 430 patient but he could not be revived and the patient was declared dead at about 2:07 AM. He has proved having prepared the death summary of the patient vide Ex.PW17/A. (80) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that when he observed the patient, the clothes and belongings of the deceased were changed in the Casualty. He has further deposed that when he examined the patient, he did not notice the exit wound of the bullet and has voluntarily added that however, there was a gun shot injury on the right deltoid region (shoulder) and it was an entry wound on the shoulder.
According to the witness the XRay of the patient was done but he does not having any finding with him regarding the XRay.
(81) PW28 Dr. Kulbhushan Goel, CMO, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 22.11.2010 he was posted at BJRM Hospital, Delhi in the Department of Mortuary and on that day, at about 12 noon, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Prateek Trikha S/o SK Trikha, male, 25 years old on the request of Inspector Vipin Kumar of Police Station Saraswati Vihar with the alleged history of sustained firearm injuries and was taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital on 22.11.2010 at 12:45 AM and expired on 22.11.2010 at 2:07 AM. The witness has proved that on external examination, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:
1. Lacerated punctured wound 1.2 x 1 cm with inverted margins over upper lateral front of right arm about 9.5 cm below right shoulder tip St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 81 of 430 and 4 cm away from axilliary tip. No blackening or tattooing were seen. Fine abrated collar was seen around the wound (entry wound of firearm).
2. Abrasion 2 x 0.5cm over right molar region and 1 x 1 cm over back of left wrist.
(82) He has further deposed that on exploration, Injury No.1 was running medially, slightly downwards and backwards, entered into chest cavity through right third inter coastal space, purported upper lobe of right lung through and through, exit root of right lung, Vessels in the root of right lung were ruptured. Further the injury track ended at antero lateral aspect of fifth inter vertebral disc where a bullet was found embedded in fifth inter vertebral disc, Right chest cavity was full of blood and clots. (83) According to the witness all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and Injury No.1 was caused by firearm whereas Injury No.2 was caused by friction against rough blunt surface. The witness has proved having opined that the cause of death was combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and respiratory failure consequent upon chest and lung injuries, Firearm injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and time since death was 10 hours. He has also deposed that following articles were preserved, sealed and handed over to the police with sample seal.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 82 of 430
1. Clothes of the deceased.
2. Bullet recovered from the body,
3. Blood samples in gauze piece.
(84) He has proved his detailed Postmortem Report which is Ex.PW28/A. (85) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he cannot tell the position of the deceased when he was hit with bullet whether he was sitting or not. He has further deposed that Injury No.2 is ante mortem in nature and cannot be caused after rubbing the body after the death of the deceased.
FSL Experts:
(86) PW31 Sh. R. Suresh Assistant Director (Ballistics), Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkatta has deposed that on 18.02.2011, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) at FSLRohini, Delhi.
According to the witness on 18.02.2011, three parcels in sealed condition were received at office at FSL Rohini, Delhi in case FIR No. 439/10, Police Station Saraswati Vihar through Ct. Dabbu Kanwar and the same were marked to him for examination. The witness has further deposed that he found the seal intact and tallied the same with the sample seal after which he marked the parcels 1, 2 and 3. He has also deposed that he found the number and seal impression on the parcel no. 1 as 08 and AS and opening the same St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 83 of 430 he found one improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber and one 7.65 mm cartridge which he marked the pistol as F1 and cartridge as A1. The witness has also deposed that he found the number and seal impression on the parcel no. 2 as 04 and VKB and opening the same he found one 7.65 mm empty cartridge case which was marked by him as EC1. The witness has also deposed that he found the number and seal impression on the parcel no. 3 as 01 and KG BJRM HOSPITAL MORTUARY and opening the same he found one deformed bullet which was marked by him EB1. The witness has further testified that after examination he found that the improvised pistol marked as F1 is designed to fire 7.65 mm cartridge and in working order and test fire conducted successfully. According to the witness 7.65 mm cartridge marked Ex.A1 was a live one and 7.65 mm cartridge case marked as Ex.EC1 was a fired empty cartridge case. He has further deposed that the deformed bullet marked as EB1 corresponds to the bullet of standard 7.65 mm cartridge. According to him, one cartridge marked A1 and two 7.65 mm cartridges taken from laboratory stock were test fired through the improvised pistol marked F1 and the test fired cartridges cases were marked by him as TC1, TC2 & TC3 and the recovered test fired bullets were marked by him as TB1, TB2 & TB3 respectively. He has proved that the individual characteristics of the firing pin marks and the breach face marks present on the fired cartridge case marked EC1 and on the test fired cartridge cases marked as TC1 to TC3 were examined St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 84 of 430 and compared under the comparison microscope model LEICA DMC and were found identical. He has also deposed that hence the cartridge case marked EC1 had been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked F1. According to the witness the individual characteristics of striation present on the deformed bullet marked EB1 are insufficient for examination and comparison to opine whether it has been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked F1 or not. He has further proved that the exhibits marked F1 is the firearm and cartridges A1, EC1 & EB1 are ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. He has proved his detailed Ballistic Report which is Ex.PW31/A. According to him after examination, he sealed the exhibits and remnants with the seal of FSLRS Delhi.
(87) He has identified one empty cartridge case which has been marked as EC1 which is Ex.P8; the pistol examined by him as F1 which is Ex.PW12/2; fired empty cartridge case TC1 and the bullet TB1 are exhibited as Ex.PW12/1 (colly.); deformed bullet marked EB1 which is Ex.P9.
(88) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the opinion given by him with regard to the matching of the bullet has been given on the asking and the dictation of the Investigating Officer.
Police/ Official witnesses:
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 85 of 430 (89) PW7 Sh. Pratap Singh Dealing Asstt., MLO, NorthWest Zone-
I, Wazir Pur, Delhi has brought the summoned record i.e. Registration record of motorcycle no. DL8SAU6461. According to the witness as per their record, the above motorcycle is registered in the name of Sonu S/o Sunder R/o G133, Wazir Pur, J.J. Colony. He has further deposed that vehicle is Bajaj Pulsar - 220 SF ES, Wine Red Colour. The witness has further deposed that Sonu is the first owner and vehicle is still in his name. He has proved the photocopy of the record which is Ex.PW7/A. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity given. (90) PW8 HC Sahab Singh has deposed that on 22.11.2010, he alongwith Dog Squad and the Crime Team reached at the scene of crime i.e. Raj Nagar, Road No. 43, Near Ram Mandir, Pitam Pura, Delhi where the dog 'Madhubala' was handled by him for taking the smell of the assailants but no clue was found by dog 'Madhubala'. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused despite opportunity given. (91) PW9 SI Satpal Singh has deposed that on 22.11.2010 he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, North West District and on that day, on receiving information, he along with Photographer Ct. Parvinder and Finger Print proficient Ct. Ram Kishan along with Dog Squad, handled by HC Sahab Singh reached at the spot, i.e. Raj Nagar, in front of Ram Mandir, Main road. According to the witness they inspected the scene of crime and one empty shell was lying on the road and blood droplets were found leading from spot i.e. from in front of Ram Mandir till the gate of Raj Nagar society. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 86 of 430 Witness has further deposed that one splendor motorcycle bearing No. DLAS0234 on the back side and on the front side also, a defective number plate bearing No. HR15A3, was also found parked in front of Ram Mandir. According to the witness inside the gate of the society, two chairs were lying and both were blood stained and he prepared his detailed report and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and his report is Ex.PW9/A. Witness has further deposed that dog could not pick up any clue from the scene of crime. He has testified that the photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime and no chance prints were found. (92) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels witness has deposed that SHO Inspector Vipin Kumar was already present at the spot, with staff and in his presence SHO did not flash any message on wireless network regarding the robbery of any vehicle and has voluntarily added that he was busy in his work. According to the witness in his presence the Investigating Officer did not send any message to the transport authority to find out the actual owner and original registration number of the motorcycle. Witness has further deposed that he did not check the register maintained at the entry gate of that society as to how many vehicles/people entered the society, prior to the incident and he did not try to find out, as to who removed the injured to the hospital and has voluntarily added that he was only told that injured had already been removed to the hospital. Witness has further deposed that Finger Print proficient attempted to lift the chance prints from the entire gate of society and no chance prints were found on the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 87 of 430 chairs, which were in the booth. According to the witness he did not measure the distance between Ram Mandir and the entry gate of the society and same is his answer regarding blood trail, which were in front of Ram Mandir till the entry gate of society. Witness has further deposed that he did not try to find out, if any function was being held in that society that night and he also did not try to find out if the injured reached the gate from inside the society or from outside the society. According to the witness the photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime on his instructions and he did not issue any directions to the dog squad and has voluntarily added that they knew their job. He has testified that his statement was recorded by Inspector Vipin Kumar on the spot on 22.11.2010 before 3:45 AM. Witness has admitted that in his statement, he had not mentioned that there was blood trail on the spot and has voluntarily added that he had mentioned this fact in his report. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned in his statement to the Investigating Officer that one empty shell was found on the spot and has voluntarily added that he mentioned this fact also in his report Ex.PW9/A. Witness has denied the suggestion that he prepared his report Ex.PW9/A later on at the instance of the Investigating Officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that during inspection, he could not find any empty shell or blood trail at the spot. He has also deposed that he received wireless message at about 2:45 AM regarding the incident and thereafter, they immediately left their office by mobile crime van. According to the witness in the mobile crime team van, the members of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 88 of 430 mobile crime team and the driver were there and on that day his duty hours were from 8PM to 8AM. Witness has further deposed that he took about 15 minutes in reaching the spot.
(93) PW10 SI Ranbir Singh has deposed that on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that night, he was already present at Kohat Enclave for the investigation of DD No. 40. According to the witness at about 1:30 AM on 22.11.2010, Constable Baldev Raj brought DD No. 7A Ex.PW10/A regarding firing on Prateek Trikha and handed over the same to him. Witness has further deposed that this information was received from Agrasain Hospital. According to the witness, he alongwith Constable Baldev Raj reached at the spot i.e. Raj Nagar but nobody met him there and then they went to Agrasen Hospital where SHO alongwith staff were already present and injured was unconscious at that time. He has testified that the SHO left him in the Hospital and he alongwith Constable Baldev Raj left the Hospital. The witness has further deposed that after sometime, the injured namely Prateek Trikha was declared dead by the Doctor and he informed the SHO about the death of Prateek Trikha. He has also deposed that SHO directed him that if the Doctor handed over any parcel to him then he may receive the same. According to the witness doctor prepared three sealed parcels and handed over the same to him and SHO reached Agrasain Hospital alongwith HC Karan Pal. Witness has further deposed that dead body was received from Agrasain Hospital and was sent to Mortuary, BJRM Hospital through St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 89 of 430 HC Karan Pal. According to the witness, he handed over the sealed parcel and two sample seals to the SHO which were seized by SHO vide memo Ex.PW10/B. He has further deposed that during the day hours, he also went to Mortuary, BJRM Hospital where SHO prepared inquest papers for conducting the postmortem and after postmortem, Doctor handed over to him three sealed parcels and two sample seals which he handed over to the SHO who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/C. He further deposed that dead body was handed over to its claimants and then they went to Crime Branch Office at Maurya Enclave where the SHO made inquiries form the Crime Team Incharge and during inquiries, they came to know that one person namely Ankur Mahajan was also with the deceased. He has testified that thereafter he alongwith SHO went to Ashok Vihar, Phase - III where Investigating Officer recorded statement of Ankur Mahajan.
(94) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that when the SHO visited second time to Agrasen Hospital Prateek Trikha had already expired by that time and has voluntarily added that he had sent the message to the SHO in this respect. According to the witness the doctor declared the injured dead at 4:00 AM and he reached Hospital at about 2:00 AM. The witness has also deposed that nobody was allowed to enter the room, where Prateek Trikha was under treatment and therefore, he could not meet the deceased. He is not aware if SHO met Prateek Trikha or not, as SHO was already in the Hospital, when he reached. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 90 of 430 He is not aware if deceased was on life saving instruments, as he was not allowed to enter that room. He has deposed that deceased was unconscious, as Doctors and SHO were saying that injured was unconscious. According to the witness, he has no personal knowledge whether deceased was conscious or unconscious, while he was under treatment in that room of the Hospital. He is not aware of the contents of the pullandas, which were delivered to him by the Doctor after postmortem. He has further deposed that he had not seen the injured alive at any point of time and 4050 relatives of injured were present in the Hospital, when he reached the Hospital. According to him, Doctor did not hand over any belongings of deceased to his father. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the Hospital or that he had not received any pullanda from the Doctor, when the injured was under treatment or that DD No. 40B was regarding quarrel at Raj Nagar, voluntarily added that it was about the quarrel at Kohat Enclave. (95) PW11 HC Kiran Pal has deposed that on 22.11.2010 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day as per instructions of SHO, he got recorded the departure entry at about 8:45 AM, vide DD No. 17A, for reaching Maharaja Agarsain hospital. According to the witness he reached Maharaja Agarsain hospital where SI Ranbir Singh was already present there and SI Ranbir Singh told him the facts of the case. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he removed the dead body of Prateek Trikha to BJRM Hospital and the dead body was deposited vide token No.8 in the mortuary and SHO also reached BJRM hospital who prepared inquest papers St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 91 of 430 there for postmortem of the deceased. According to the witness postmortem on the body of deceased Prateek Trikha was got conducted there and three sealed parcels and two sample seals were given to him by the doctor and he handed over the same to SHO in the presence of SI Ranbir and SHO/Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/C. Witness has also deposed that after postmortem, dead body was handed over to its claimants and then he along with SHO, SI Ranbir reached at Maurya Enclave in the office of Crime Team where SHO recorded statement of the members of crime team and then they all reached at Shakurpur. Witness has further deposed that SHO made inquiries there and then they went to Ashok Vihar at the house of Ankur Mahajan, resident of H.No. 18A. According to the witness SHO recorded the statement of Ankur Mahajan there, after making inquiries and thereafter they returned to the Police Station and SHO recorded his statement.
(96) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that in his statement, he told the SHO about the place, where he visited. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit any place along with SHO in the investigations of this case. He is not aware the exact time, when the dead body was delivered to the relatives of Prateek Trikha, but states that it was in the afternoon and the dead body was removed to Mortuary of BJRM hospital in the vehicle of the Agarsain Hospital. He does not remember the exact time of his visiting Ashok Vihar and Maurya Enclave and also Shakurpur, but it was in the afternoon, after delivering the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 92 of 430 dead body to the relatives of Prateek Trikha. According to the witness in Shakur Pur, they firstly met, Sushil, BC of the area and in Ashok Vihar they also met the relatives of Ankur Mahajan, besides Ankur Mahajan, but statement of only Ankur Mahajan was recorded. Witness has further deposed that he did not note the time of recording the statement of Ankur Mahajan. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not visit the hospital, or that he did not join the investigations of this case or that no statement of Ankur Mahajan was recorded by the SHO on that day. According to him, SI Ranbir and one relative of Prateek Trikha were with him in the same vehicle, when the dead body was removed from Agarsain Hospital to the mortuary of BJRM hospital and the SHO also arrived mortuary of BJRM Hospital, after about 1½ hours of his reaching there. The witness has also deposed that from BJRM hospital, he along with SHO, SI Ranbir, wireless operator and driver went to Maurya Enclave in government gypsy. Witness has further deposed that they remained at Maurya Enclave for about one hour where one Sushil a BC of the area was interrogated for about 1520 minutes and the same team reached the house of Ankur Mahajan from Shakurpur where they remained for about 3035 minutes, interrogated Ankur Mahajan and recorded his statement. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that he had not visited the Maurya Enclave, Ashok Vihar or Shakurpur.
(97) PW18 SI Mahesh Kumar is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW18/1 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 93 of 430 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having prepared the scaled site plan of the spot of incident which is Ex.PW18/A. (98) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels witness has admitted that the site plan was prepared by him in his office and has voluntarily added that he had only taken rough notes on the spot on the basis of which he prepared the site plan later on. Witness has admitted that the said rough notes were not handed over to the Investigating Officer and has voluntarily added that they were destroyed by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that the scaled site plan is not correct as per the site. (99) PW19 HC Vinod Kumar is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW19/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 30/11/2010, HC Yagya Dutt had deposited one motorcycle Splendor bearing no. HR15A3501 vide RC No. 174/21/10 from Police Station Saraswati Vihar and he made entry in this regard in Register No. 19 at Serial No. 333/10 copy of which is Ex.PW19/A. He has further proved that on 15.01.2011, the said motorcycle was released on Superdari to Ashok Kumar. (100) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the entries in the Register No. 19 aforesaid have been fabricated on the directions of the senior officers or have been ante dated and ante time.
(101) PW20 Constable Dabbu Kanwar is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which Ex.PW20/1 (as per the provisions St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 94 of 430 of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has deposed that on 18.02.2011 on the directions of Inspector Arti Sharma, he went to Police Station Saraswati Vihar and obtained three sealed pullindas with one sample seal vide RC No. 17/21/11 which is Ex.PW20/A from MHC(M) (CP) Ravinder Nath with FSL Form and he deposited all three sealed pullandas with sample seal vide acknowledgment receipt no. FSL 2011/F0766, dated 18/02/2011 which is Ex.PW20/B alongwith FSL Form. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite opportunity given in this regard. (102) PW21 W/Constable Sulochna is also a formal witness being the PCR Official who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW21/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved that on 22.11.2010 at 12:50 AM, Dr. Ashish Bansal has informed through telephone number 40777555 in Police Control Room that injured Prateek Trikha S/o S. K. Trikha, Age - 25 years, R/o C67, Raj Nagar, Pitam Pura had received gunshot injury and admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital vide MLC No. 965/10. She has also proved that the said information was delivered to Police Station Saraswati Vihar and she filled up the PCR form which is Ex.PW21/A. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite opportunity given. (103) PW22 HC Mohan Singh is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer of Police Station Rani Bagh who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW22/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 21.11.2010, at 10:00 PM SI Kuldeep Bhoriya produced St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 95 of 430 one rukka regarding theft of motorcycle No. HR15A3501 for registration of case on the basis of which rukka he registered the FIR No.377/10 u/s 379 IPC, Police Station Rani Bagh through computer operator W/Constable Anita copy of which FIR is Ex.PW22/A and his endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW22/B. (104) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the above FIR was registered by him ante dately and was antetimed on the directions of the senior officers of the department.
(105) PW23 Constable Parvinder Singh is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW23/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken the photographs of the Scene of Crime which is Ex.PW23/A1 to Ex.23/A16 (Ex.PW23/A1 to Ex.PW23/A4 were previously exhibited as Ex.PW5/D1 to Ex.PW5/D4 and have been given the fresh exhibit No. as above). Though the witness claimed that he also handed over the CD of the photographs to the Investigating Officer yet it has been observed by this Court that the CD is not on record. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused despite being given an opportunity in this regard.
(106) PW24 Sh. Chatter Prakash, LDC, Transport Authority, Janak Puri, Delhi has brought the registration document of vehicle Motorcycle No. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 96 of 430 DL 4S AW 2410 in the name of Hawa Singh S/o. Sh. Ghasi Ram. He has further deposed that the particulars of the same is mentioned in Ex.PW24/A. He has proved all the relating documents about the ownership of above said vehicle which are Ex.PW24/B1 to Ex.PW24/B11. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite being given an opportunity in this regard.
(107) PW25 ASI Om Prakash is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer of Police Station Saraswati Vihar who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW25/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 22.11.2010, at 1:24 AM Wireless Operator O54 informed through intercom that an information has been received from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital through telephone number 40777555 that Prateek Trikha S/o S.K. Trikha, Age 25 years has been shot at C67, Raj Nagar, Pitam Pura, Delhi. He has proved that this information was lodged by him vide DD No. 7A dated 22.11.2010 which is Ex.PW25/A which was entrusted to SI Ranbir Singh for taking further necessary action. He has further proved that on 22.11.2010 at 4:50 AM, Constable Baldev Raj produced a rukka prepared by Inspector Vipin Kumar for registration of case on the basis of which he recorded the FIR No. 439/10 u/s 302/397/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station - Saraswati Vihar, copy of which is Ex.PW25/B. The witness has also proved his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW25/C. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 97 of 430 any of the accused persons despite opportunity given. (108) PW26 Constable Ashok Kumar is a formal witness being the Special Messenger who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW26/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that he delivered the copies of FIR to concerned MM and Senior Officers. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons despite opportunity given.
(109) PW27 HC Ravinder Nath is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW27/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entry in register no. 19 vide S. No. 3989/10, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A; entry at S.No. 4001/10 copy of which is Ex.PW27/B; entry at S.No. 3297/11, copy of which is Ex.PW27/C; entry at S.No. 3258/11, copy of which is Ex.PW27/D; entry at S. No. 3370/11, copy of which is Ex.PW27/E; entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 17/21/11 which is Ex.PW20/A; RC No. 32/21/11 which is Ex.PW27/F; vide RC No. 174/21/10 which is Ex.PW27/G; entry in register no. 21 vide RC No.41/21/11 which is Ex.PW27/H and the FSL receipts which are Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW27/I. (110) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defnece Counsel the witness has deposed that he does not remember the time when the abovesaid case properties were deposited in the Malkhana as the time is not mentioned in the entries.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 98 of 430 (111) PW30 Constable Baldev Raj has deposed that on 22.11.2010, he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day, at about 1.30 AM Duty Officer ASI Om Prakash handed over DD No. 7A to him and directed him to hand over to SI Ranveer Singh near Kohat Metro Station. He further deposed that when he was going to there SI Ranveer Singh met him at Rohit Kunj Market where he (witness) handed over DD No. 7A to him and thereafter he alongwith SI Ranveer Singh went to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital. Witness has further deposed that SHO Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia met them there and they came to know that the one injured Parteek Trika was admitted in hospital having received gun shot injuries and his vehicle had been robbed. He has testified that thereafter he alongwith Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia reached at road no. 43 near Ram Mandir and at the gate of Raj Nagar Inspector made inquiries from guard and some blood was also found near the gate of Raj Nagar. He has also deposed that they followed the blood trail which was going from the road no. 43 to Raj Nagar area and by following the blood trail, in front of kothi no. C8 and 9 of road no. 43 of Raj Nagar they found blood spots there. He has testified that they found one empty fired cartridges case in front of Kothi no. 9 on which SHO called the Crime Team Officers at the spot who reached at the spot alongwith photographer. According to him, one motorcycle Hero Honda bearing Delhi no. 0234 at the back side and Haryana No. HR 15A 3 at the front side was also found at the spot. He has further deposed that Crime Team inspected the scene and photographer took photographs and also tried St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 99 of 430 to lift the finger chance print from motorcycle. He has also deposed that meanwhile Inspector Vipin Bhatia received information from SI Ranveer that injured Parteek was declared dead by doctor and thereafter Inspector Vipin went to house of Parteek Trika and he remained at the spot and after 30 minutes he returned back at the spot and handed over a rukka to him for registration of FIR. The witness has proved that he went to Police Station Saraswati Vihar and FIR No. 439/10 was got registered on the basis of rukka and the Duty Officer handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him after which he returned back at the spot and handed over the same to Inspector Vipin Bhatia.
(112) He has proved that Inspector Vipin Bhatia lifted blood from the spot with the help of cotton and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB. He further deposed that Investigating Officer also lifted blood stained Road Pieces after breaking the same and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer also lifted road pieces as earth control from spot and kept the same in plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A. According to the witness Investigating Officer also lifted empty fired cartridges case from the spot and kept the same in an empty match box and sealed the same with the seal of VKB and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B. He has proved that the motorcycle was also seized by Investigating Officer with the key of motorcycle vide seizure St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 100 of 430 memo Ex.PW30/C. He has further deposed that tool box of motorcycle was opened with the help of key and one RC, DL, Pollution certificate and insurance document were found in tool box of motorcycle. According to the witness, the Driving License and RC were found in the name of Ashok and the same were also seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they returned back to Police Station and Investigating Officer deposited all seized articles in malkhana.
(113) The witness has also deposed that on 22.11.10 at about 9.00 AM he alongwith Inspector Vipin Bhatia went to mortuary of BJRM Hospital where SI Ranveer and HC Kiran Pal met them there. He has further deposed that thereafter inspector Vipin Bhatia conducted the inquest proceedings and at his request postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Parteek Trika and after postmortem dead body was handed over to relative of deceased. He has testified that thereafter he alongwith Investigating Officer reached at the Crime Team Office at Maurya Enclave where Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Crime Team Officers after which he along with Investigating Officer reached at H. No. 18, Pocket A, Phase III, Ashok Vihar where Ankur Mahajan met them and Investigating Officer made inquiries from him and thereafter, they returned back at Police Station. He has identified the Driving License of Ashok Kumar which is Ex.PW30/E, RC of Ashok Kumar which is Ex.PW30/F, Insurance documents which are Ex.PW30/G and pollution certificate which is Ex.PW30/H which were St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 101 of 430 found in the tool box of above motorcycle.
(114) He has also identified the motorcycle with two number plates bearing no. HR 15A 3 and DL AS 0234 as the same which were found on the above said recovered motorcycle, which number plates are Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and the empty cartridges case recovered from the spot which is Ex.P8.
(115) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has admitted that no public person was included during above said recovery and has voluntarily added that it was early morning time. According to the witness, the guard was present on the gate of Raj Nagar but they were not asked to join the investigations. He has further deposed that Crime Team reached at the spot in his presence and only one empty cartridge Ex.P8 was found at the spot which was seized by SHO in his presence. He has further deposed that prior to seizure of this empty cartridges Crime Team had already reached there. Witness has admitted that that all contents of Ex.PW30/B were prepared in his presence and the particulars of the cartridges case also mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW30/B by Investigating Officer. According to the witness he could not say whether the crime team has observed the empty cartridges case as .32 bore. It has been observed by this Court that KF and 7.65 is written on the bottom of empty cartridges case which are visible only by a high powered magnifying glass. (116) The witness has testified that he returned back at the spot St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 102 of 430 alongwith copy of FIR at about 6.00 AM thereafter he disclosed the FIR number to Crime Team. He has further deposed that he attended the briefing at the Police Station at about 5.00 PM on 21.11.10 and he was not assigned any specific work at about 5.00 PM. The witness has also deposed that SHO Vipin Bhatia was not with him when he went from Police Station with DD No. 7A to hand over to SI Ranveer. He has also deposed that he put his signatures on Ex.PW30/A, Ex.PW30/B, Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/D were prepared by Investigating Officer after registration of FIR No. 439/10. He has further deposed that they remained at the spot till 8.00 AM and reached at spot first time at about 3:003:30 AM alongwith SHO. The witness has further deposed that the distance between the place of incident and gate of Raj Nagar is about 600700 yards and there was a street light at the spot. He has also deposed that Site Plan was not prepared in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot so he did not put his signatures on site plan or that he did not join the investigation or nothing was recovered in his presence. According to the witness he did not make arrival DD on 22.11.10 and has voluntarily added that the SHO might have made an arrival DD. He has further deposed that when he reached at hospital, Prateek Trikha was admitted in hospital in an injured condition and was receiving medical treatment. He is not aware as to whom the doctor had handed over the purse, golden chain etc. and Driving License and ATM of deceased.
(117) PW32 HC Narender Kumar has deposed that on 17.03.2011, he St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 103 of 430 was posted in Special Investigations Team, Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi. According to the witness on that day, he along with HC Amit Tomar, Constable Dabbu, Constable Sunny and Constable Vikas went to Tikri Border near Bahadurgarh in the investigations of this case. He further deposed that one secret informer met HC Amit Tomar and informed him that the Honda City car looted in this case was to be brought by Sompal along with his associates at M2K near Rani Bagh to commit another incident of robbery and they were having fire arms with them. He has testified that HC Amit Tomar informed the same to SI Sharat Kohli who briefed them about the secret information after which SI Sharat Kohli asked fourfive public persons to join the raiding party after disclosing secret information to them but none agreed and left the place without informing their names and addresses on one pretext or the other. He has also deposed that thereafter SI Sharat Kohli formed a raiding party and they reached at the above said place near Rani Bagh in two vehicles with secret informer and reached there at about 4:20 PM. He has further deposed that SI Sharat Kohli again asked fourfive public persons to join the raiding party but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses. According to the witness their both vehicles were parked at the corner of the road and thereafter, they were waiting for the vehicles coming from Rani Bagh area. Witness has further deposed that at about 5:20 PM one Honda City car came from Rani Bagh market area and secret informer pointed out the said car after which the secret informer left the place. He has also deposed that the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 104 of 430 said Honda City car was directed to stop by SI Sharat Kohli and gave their introductions to the occupants of the car who were directed to come out from the car. He has further deposed that three persons were sitting in the car who came out from the car and started running to different directions. He has testified that he (witness) apprehended one of the person who disclosed his name as Jaideep and other two persons who were apprehended by other members disclosed their names as Somvir and Sunil. According to the witness he produced the accused Jaideep before SI Sharat Kohli and on formal search one loaded katta was recovered from his possession from the left side dub and one more live cartridge was also recovered from his possession. He has further deposed that SI Sharat Kohli unloaded the katta and one live cartridge was recovered from the katta after which SI Sharat Kohli prepared the sketch of the katta and live cartridge vide Ex.PW32/A. He has proved that the same were kept in a plastic container and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/B. According to the witness, one pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused Sombir whereas another pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Sunil. The witness has also deposed that accused Jaideep was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/C, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW32/D his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW32/E. He has also deposed that SI Sharat Kohli conducted the proceedings in respect of accused Sombir and Sunil separately St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 105 of 430 regarding the recoveries from their possession. He has testified that the forged number plate bearing no. HR 26 AK0728 was found the Honda City car which number plate was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F and Honda City was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/G. According to the witness, accused persons also disclosed about the theft of another Hyundai Accent car from the Rani Bagh area which was kept in a lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border. The witness has also deposed that thereafter they reached at the above said place alongwith the above said persons and at the instance of the accused Sombir one Hyundai Accent car bearing fake number plate HR 20 P 5349 was recovered. He has proved that SI Sharat Kohli seized the Hyudai car vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H and the forged number plate was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I. He has also deposed that at the time of recovery of the firearms from the possession of accused Jaideep, SI Sharat Kohli filled the FSL form and thereafter they returned to their Office and the seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana and Investigating Officer recorded their statements.
(118) The witness has further testified that on 08.04.2011 on the direction of the Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, he took the exhibits of this case from Malkhana of the Police Station Saraswati Vihar in sealed condition vide RC No. 32/21/11 along with the FSL form and the same was deposited in the FSL Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that the case property was not tampered, seals were intact while the same were in his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 106 of 430 possession.
(119) The witness has correctly identified the accused Jaideep, Sombir and Sunil in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. two number plates bearing No. HR 26 AK 0728 and both fake number plates as the same which were found with the recovered Honda City car and both fake number plates are collectively as Ex.P10; one country made pistol, one live cartridge and one test fired empty cartridge as recovered from the possession of accused Jaideep, which pistol is Ex.P11 and the cartridges are collectively Ex.P12. He has further identified the Honda City car bearing number plate DL 4C NC 1115 from the photographs Ex.PW32/J1 to Ex.PW32/J4, which Honda City car is Ex.P6.
(120) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that Investigating Officer did not take the photographs of the Honda City car with fake number plate in his presence. Witness has denied the suggestion that the fake number plates collectively Ex.P10 were got prepared by the Investigating Officer from the market and the same has never been used by any person on any of the vehicle as the there are no nut bolts has ever been affixed on the said number plates. Witness has further deposed that original number plate of the Honda City car were not found in the said Honda City car and accused persons did not disclose where they had thrown the original number plate. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such Honda City car bearing the fake number plate collectively as Ex.P10 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 107 of 430 was recovered in his presence. Witness has admitted that the Honda City car was in working order and there was no damage on the vehicle at the time of recovery. He further deposed that no site plan was prepared by the Investigating Officer in his presence about the recovery of Honda City car and recovery of the fire arms from the accused persons. He does not remember whether from 14.03.2011 to 16.03.2011 upto 4.30 PM he was present in the area of Police Station Kalanaur, Distt. Bhiwari, Haryana and has voluntarily explained that they conducted the raid at many places. He also does not remember whether he was with SI Sharat Kohli between 14.03.2011 to 16.03.2011 nor does he remember where he was on 16.03.2011 and whether he alongwith SI Sharat Kohli and other team members were present at Jaat Dharamshala at BTM Road, Bhiwani. He has denied the suggestion that the above said accused persons were with them on 16.03.2011 and stayed at the Jaat Dharamshala Sabha, Bhiwani or that he made a false statement regarding the arrest of the accused persons at Rani Bagh Delhi on 17.03.2011.
(121) The witness has testified that he is an original resident of Village Kubza Nagar, Police Station Badra, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana. He does not remember whether he along with above said accused persons was present at his native place on 14.03.2011 and 15.03.2011. He also does not remember whether he was present in Haryana State or in Delhi State from 14.03.2011 to 16.03.2011. He has denied the suggestion that on 14.03.2011 at about 5.30 PM he alongwith Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 108 of 430 HC Shyam Lal and ASI Suresh apprehended accused Sombir at Dadri Bus stand and they were having Xylo and Innova vehicles or that on 14.03.2011 at about 9.30PM he alongwith his team members apprehended accused Jaideep from Village Kharkhari, Tehsil Loharoo, Distt. Bhiwani or that the above said three accused persons were taken into custody by them earlier to 17.03.2011 from Haryana or that the same have been falsely implicated in this case as arrested on 17.03.2011 at Rani Bagh. He does not remember the registration number of private vehicles and their make which were with them at the time of raid on 17.03.2011. According to the witness SI Sharat Kohli recorded his statement on 17.03.2011 at the night time and the accused persons were kept in their barrack in their office under their custody and were not produced before any Magistrate on 17.03.2011. he is not aware whether any entry was made regarding the presence of the accused persons in their custody in their office and has voluntarily added that Senior officer might have made the same entry. He has further deposed that complainant was not called by the Investigating Officer at the spot in his presence. He has also deposed that PCR officials and local police officials and other public persons were not included in their proceedings. The witness has testified that the above said accused were apprehended with the Honda City car on the road in front of M2K, Rani Bagh. He further deposed that Rani Bagh Market is situated at a distance of about one to one and a half kilometers from M2K Market. He has denied the suggestion that cars are not allowed in the Rani Bagh Market. Witness has admitted that no shopkeeper St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 109 of 430 or resident was called during the above said proceedings. He has further deposed that he was a part of investigation before 17.03.2011 but no effective proceeding was conducted. He does not remember whether any mobile phone was recovered from any of the above accused persons nor does he remember whether SI Sharat Kohli asked from accused persons about their whereabouts and from where they were coming and where they were going and has voluntarily added that SI Sharat Kohli recorded disclosure statement of accused Jai Deep only. According to him, he apprehended the accused Jaideep at a distance of tenfifteen paces and they remained at the spot up to 8.00PM and he was not having the photographs of the above said accused persons. He has testified that their team was in civil dress and Investigating Officer mentioned the engine and chassis number of the Honda in the seizure memo. He has denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case or that nothing was recovered from their possession or that he was deposing falsely.
(122) PW34 Constable Krishan Kumar has deposed that on 22.11.2010, he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar and on that day at about 4.00PM Duty officer handed over DD No.6B Ex.PW34/A regarding the death of Prateek Trikha to be handed over to SI Ranbir Singh. He further deposed that he went to the Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital where he handed over DD No.6B to SI Ranbir Singh. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused despite opportunity given. (123) PW35 ASI Suresh Kumar has deposed that on 25.02.2011, he St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 110 of 430 was posted at SIT Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi and on that day at about 3:50 PM a secret information was received by HC Shyam Lal from a secret informer that the accused wanted in this case S. Raja was coming at his house to take care of his mother which information was transferred to Inspector Arti Sharma. He has further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Shyam Lal and two other Constables with secret informer reached at JJ Colony Inderpuri where Inspector Arti Sharma asked fourfive public persons to join the police proceedings but none agreed and left the place without telling their names and address on one pretext or other. According to the witness, on the direction of the Inspector Arti Sharma they took positions near the house of accused S Raja situated at the JJ Colony, Inderpuri. He has further deposed that at about 5:25 PM one person was coming from the gali and the secret informer pointed out towards the said person and left the place after which they apprehended the said boy who disclosed his name as S Raja. According to him, the said boy was interrogated by the Investigating Officer who disclosed about his involvement in this case after which the accused S Raja was arrested by the Investigating Officer at about 6:20PM vide memo Ex.PW35/A, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW25/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer. According to the witness, accused S. Raja also pointed out the place of incident where he had committed the murder of Prateek Trikha alongwith his associates Appu, Shalu, Neeraj and Vicky on which the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 111 of 430 which is Ex.PW35/D. He has further deposed that thereafter they returned back to their office where Investigating Officer recorded his statement. (124) The witness has further testified that he again joined the investigations with Inspector Arti Sharma and other Constables on 03.03.2011 when accused Amit @ Bunty was already in the custody of Inspector Arti Sharma. According to him, they alongwith accused Amit @ Bunty reached at the shop of Hot Spot of Spice, Darya Ganj, Delhi where the shopkeeper Amit met them who was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and he called Vishal Atwal and Hemant Banswal at the shop. The witness has further deposed that Vishal Atwal identified the accused Amit @ Bunty as the person who had given his mobile phone of Sony Erricson for repair through Varun proprietor of Nice Communication, Rani Bagh. He has further deposed that thereafter they alongwith accused Amit @ Bunty reached at his shop at Rani Bagh where his brother Sumit was present and at the instance of accused Amit @ Bunty, one mobile phone of Sony Erricson of white colour was recovered from the drawer of the shop. He has proved that the said mobile phone was sealed by the Investigating Officer in a cloth pullanda with the seal of AS and seized vide memo Ex.PW35/E. He does not remember the IMEI number of the said phone but states that the Investigating Officer mentioned the IMEI number and all the description of the said phone in the seizure memo. He has further deposed that thereafter Investigating Officer checked the IMEI number of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 112 of 430 the mobile phone and then they came to know from Vishal Atwal that the IMEI number of the said mobile phone of victim was interchanged with the Balram of Village Behrampur, Gurgaon, Haryana. He has also deposed that thereafter the accused persons were kept in their office. (125) According to the witness, he alongwith Investigating Officer and one Constable reached at Village Behrampur where Balram met them and his mobile phone of Sony Erricson was checked by the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that Balram disclosed that he had sent his mobile phone to Chennai for repair work and Investigating Officer after checking the IMEI number of the said phone, sealed the same with the seal of AS. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer also seized the said pullanda of mobile phone and one receipt and two service job sheet from the Balram vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/F, the said cash receipt is Ex.PW35/G and the service job sheets are Ex.PW35/H and Ex.PW35/I. He does not remember the IMEI number of the said phone but states that the Investigating Officer mentioned the IMEI number and other description of the mobile phone in the seizure memo. He further deposed that thereafter they returned back to SIT Office and Investigating Officer recorded his statement. (126) The witness has correctly identified the accused S. Raja and Amit @ Bunty in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia with cover bearing the IMEI number 3594190305283067 as was recovered at the instance of the accused Amit @ Bunty, which mobile phone is Ex.P1; one mobile phone Sony Erricson St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 113 of 430 Experia of black colour bearing IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from Balram which is Ex.P13.
(127) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that on 25.02.2011, he joined the investigation of this case on the direction of Inspector Arti Sharma. According to the witness, DD entry was lodged by the Investigating Officer while they departed from their office. He has further deposed that they were four police officials including the Investigating Officer alongwith the informer. The witness has testified that he did not see the house of S. Raja as he took position in the gali and his house was not visible from there. Witness has admitted that the house of S. Raja is situated in a residential area. According to the witness Investigating Officer did not serve any notice to the public persons who refused to join the police proceedings. He has further deposed that they did not enter in the house of S. Raja and was apprehended in the gali. He is not aware whether the secret information was written down in any DD or not. He also does not remember whether the gali was Kachhi or pucci road where the accused S. Raja was apprehended by them nor does he remember the colour of the clothes of S. Raja but states that was wearing the Pantshirt at that time. He has denied the suggestion that accused S. Raja did not make any disclosure statement or that the same was fabricated by the Investigating Officer after obtaining signatures of the accused S. Raja on a blank paper. He further deposed that brother of the accused S. Raja was informed about his arrest. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 114 of 430 Witness has denied the suggestion that accused did not point out any place of incident or that the pointing out memo was falsely prepared by the Investigating Officer by herself or that S Raja came at SIT Crime branch office, for surrender and he was arrested there at the office of SIT Crime Branch or that all the documents were prepared by the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that he did not make his arrival DD entry in his office and has voluntarily added that Investigating Officer might have made the same.
(128) He further deposed that one Constable Dabbu and another Constable whose name he does not remember joined the investigation with Inspector Arti Sharma on 03.03.2011 and they departed from the Police Station in two private vehicle alongwith accused Amit @ Bunty. He does not remember the registration number, make and ownership of the said vehicles. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer did not obtain signatures of driver of the said vehicles and also did not record their statements in his presence. He has testified that they remained at the shop of Amit at Hot Spot Spice, Darya Ganj for about twothree hours and no documents pertaining to the deposit of the mobile phones was seized by the Investigating Officer from the witness Amit, Vishal Atwal and Hemant in his presence. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer recorded statement of Vishal Atwal in his presence and at the time of recovery of mobile phone of Sony Erricson Ex.P1 at the instance of accused Amit @ Bunty, Vishal was not presence at that time. He has denied the suggestion that no mobile St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 115 of 430 phone was recovered at the instance of accused Amit @ Bunty. He does not remember whether signatures of Sumit, brother of accused Amit @ Bunty were obtained on the seizure memo or not. He has also deposed that no document was prepared at Darya Ganj Hot Spot Spice at the shop. He is not aware the shop number of said shop of Amit at Darya Ganj. He has further deposed that the other shopkeepers near the shop of Sumit were asked to become the witness of the proceedings but none agreed, however, no notice was served upon them. The witness has also deposed that they did not take any photograph of the drawer of the shop from where the mobile phone was recovered at the instance of the accused Amit @ Bunty. He does not remember whether the said mobile phone was having any SIM or not which was recovered at the instance of the accused Amit @ Bunty. He has admitted that it was only the secret informer who disclosed to HC Shyam about the whereabouts of accused S. Raja and prior to that they were not aware about the whereabouts of S. Raja. According to the witness no mobile was recovered from the possession of accused S. Raja in his presence. He has also deposed that no sketch of the drawer or table was prepared by the Investigating Officer in his presence from where the mobile was recovered at the instance of accused Amit @ Bunty. He also does not remember about the make and colour of the said table or drawer. He is unable to tell whether any sign board was affixed on the shop and also does not remember the area of the shop. According to the witness they reached at the house of Balram after afternoon time. He has further deposed that he has not checked the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 116 of 430 mobile phone but it was checked by the Investigating Officer. The witness is not aware whether the said mobile phone was having battery or SIM card or not. He has also deposed that he did not put his signatures on the pullanda of the above said mobile phone. He has denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation on 25.02.2011 and 03.03.2011 or that nothing was recovered in his presence or that the above said recovered articles have been falsely implanted upon the accused. He has also denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared at their office or that he put his signatures on the documents at the instance of the Investigating Officer. (129) PW44 HC Amit Tomar has deposed that on 02.12.2010 he was posted as a Head constable at SIT, Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi and on that day he had joined the investigations in the present case. According to the witness Inspector Arti Sharma had prepared a police team comprising of himself, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Jitender, Ct. Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Vikas and gave briefing with regard to the facts of the present case. The witness has further deposed that he informed Inspector Arti that he was already working on the present case and that his source would contact him at around 3:30 PM at M2K Cinema, Sector 3, Rohini. He has also deposed that thereafter their team left the office at about 1:30 PM and reached Road No. 43, Raj Nagar near Ram Mandir where the incident had taken place where the Investigating Officer inspected the spot and they also made local inquiry but since the incident had taken place at night so nobody give them much details about the same. According to the witness at St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 117 of 430 about 3:30 PM they reached at M2K Cinema Rohini where at about 3:45 PM a secret informer met him and informed them that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of which three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of which two boys would be coming on red color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal Quarters between 56 PM. He has testified that thereafter he produced the informer before the Investigating Officer who spoke to the secret informer and conveyed the secret information to the senior officers who directed her to take appropriate action. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer had tried to join fourfive passerby to join the police party but none agreed to join and thereafter they reached T point Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar at around 5 PM and parked the vehicles on one side. He has further deposed that there he himself, Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu and secret informer took their positions near their vehicles and concealed themselves whereas rest of the team members took their positions on the other side of the road. According to the witness, at around 5:25 PM two boys came on a red colored pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side on which the secret informer pointed out towards them as the boys who were involved in the incident and thereafter the secret informer went away. According to the witness the said road was damaged and therefore the bike was not moving at a speed, on which they came in front of the same and tried to stop it but the said boys then turned around and tried to flee when the bike slipped. He has testified that the said boys then tried to run away on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 118 of 430 foot but he and Ct. Dabbu apprehended one of the boys whereas the other one was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny. According to the witness, the name of the boy apprehended by him and Ct. Dabbu was later on revealed as Neeraj and the other boy who was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny revealed his name as Krishnamurthy. He has further deposed both these boys were produced before Inspector Arti who interrogated them and during the formal search of Neeraj from the pant of blue color which he was wearing one driving licence was recovered from the back side right pocket which driving licence was of Prateek Tirkha and on inquiry Neeraj informed them that they were five boys involved in the incident of the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 i.e. himself, Krishnamurthy, Appu, Raja and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu. The witness has testified that the accused Neeraj further disclosed that on the said day while they were in the area of Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir they found one boy smoking a cigarette while standing outside his car on which they tried to snatch his Honda city car but the said boy resisted to the same on which Appu shot this boy on the asking of Raja. According to the witness, the accused also disclosed that thereafter they i.e. Appu, Shalu and Raja took the vehicle and went away and some documents including driving licence, ATM card of ABN Amro, Debit gold card, Shoppers card and three visiting cards, kept inside the vehicle on the dash board which were removed by Krishnamurthy. The witness has also deposed that the accused Neeraj disclosed that in the said documents, there was a driving licence of the said St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 119 of 430 boy and since he i.e. Neeraj did not have any driving licence therefore Krishnamurthy @ Vicky handed over the said driving licence to him for use which he retained. He has proved that the accused Neeraj was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/A, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/C. According to the witness Investigating Officer also kept the driving licence in a polythene and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/D and she also seized the red color Pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW2410 vide memo Ex.PW44/E. The witness has further testified that accused Krishnamurthy was also interrogated by the Investigating Officer who disclosed to her that on the date of incident i.e. intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 they i.e. he himself, Appu, S. Raja, Neeraj and Shalu were on three motorcycles, one was driven by Appu and Raja was sitting on him, second was driven by himself i.e. Krishnamurthy which was a stolen motorcycle and third was driven by Neeraj with Shalu sitting with him. According to the witness, apart from disclosing about the incident as disclosed by Neeraj, the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that he had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot whereas he took the motorcycle of Appu to flee away from the spot and the stolen car was driven by Appu with Raja and Shalu with him and he similarly disclosed that they removed the various documents from the dash board which included the driving licence, ATM card, shoppers card, visiting St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 120 of 430 cards etc. The witness has testified that the personal search of accused Krishnamurthy was conducted but it did not reveal anything and thereafter the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/F, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/G and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/H. He has also deposed that both the accused then led them to Road No. 43 where the incident had taken place and pointed out the spot to them on which Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memos. He has proved the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Neeraj which is Ex.PW44/I and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Krishnamurthy which is Ex.PW44/J. The witness has also deposed that the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that after the incident he was residing with his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor where he led the police party. According to the witness, at the said house they met the landlord on the ground floor who was joined him in the investigations after which they went to the first floor where they met James and Kapil and Investigating Officer informed them about their purpose of visit. He has further deposed that on seeing Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Kapil informed that Krishnamurthy was the elder brother of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room claiming that there was renovation going on in his house and that is why he had requested his father James and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 121 of 430 permitted them to stay in the room on the top floor. The witness has also deposed that they then went to the top floor along with the landlord James and Kapil where the accused Krishnamurthy opened the lock on the door with the help of the key which was recovered in his jamatalashi and then entered the room and they found a light black colored pant hanging on the wall on a khunti. He has further deposed that Krishnamurthy removed his pant and took out a ATM card from the right pocket of the same and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer who then converted the pant and ATM card into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of AS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/A. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW13/B and the statements of public witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer who were then relieved. He has further deposed that both the accused then took them to the house of Appu in Sector 3 Rohini itself where outside his house there was a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461. He has also deposed that thereafter they went inside the house of Appu where they met his sister Sona. According to the witness, the accused Krishnamurthy had disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona on which the Investigating Officer asked for keys from Sona on which she handed over the keys to the Investigating Officer and also informed that St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 122 of 430 Appu had not come home for the last fourfive days. He has proved that the Investigating Officer then seized the bike vide memo Ex.PW44/K. He has also deposed that they went to the Police Station Saraswati Vihar where the case property was deposited in the malkhana and they returned to their Office.
(130) The witness HC Amit Tomar has further deposed that on 25.01.2011 he again joined the investigations in the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender. He has testified that Appu was already on Police Custody Remand and he took them to the spot of incident i.e, road No. 43, Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir where he pointed out the place of incident on which Investigating Officer Prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/L and thereafter they returned to their office and he was relived.
(131) According to the witness, on 28.01.2011 he again joined the investigations with Inspector Arti Sharma, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender and the accused Appu had in his disclosure to the Investigating Officer disclosed that he had taken the pistol from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru for Rs.2,000/ which Surender @ Dheeraj was a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1. He has also deposed that after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and stated that he could get the same recovered St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 123 of 430 from Surender @ Dheeraj. The witness has also deposed that this disclosure was made by Appu to the Investigating Officer who informed them about the same and thereafter Appu took them to the above address i.e. House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them. He has testified that when they rang the bell of the house, one boy aged around 2425 years opened the door and Appu pointed out towards him as Surender @ Dheeraj on which Investigating Officer interrogated Surender @ Dheeraj but he initially refused that he had given any pistol by Appu and therefore they returned to their office along with Surender @ Dheeraj. According to him, the accused Surender @ Dheeraj was then interrogated at length during which he disclosed that he had kept the pistol in his house and after his interrogation and disclosure again Surender @ Dheeraj took them to his house. The witness has testified that the Investigating Officer asked two three public persons to join the police party but they refused, however, the son of the landlord Bhupesh consented to be a part of police team and joined the investigations. He has further deposed that Surender @ Dheeraj then took them to a room on the ground floor which was situated inside the premises and was the last room in the row. He has also deposed that there was a single bed in the room, which was box shape bed, he opened the same and from there got recovered a pistol wrapped in a cloth and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 124 of 430 handed over the same to Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma. On checking by the Investigating Officer, it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine. He has proved that the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW12/C. He has further deposed that the pistol was then measured and its total length was found to be 19cm, with a barrel of 15 cm and butt of 9cm and the magazine had the words 111 inscribed on the same and the pistol was of steel numa metal and the butt had plastic design on the same. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer then converted both the pistol and cartridge into a pullanda with the help of plastic cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo vide memo Ex.PW12/D after which the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW12/A. He has proved that the Investigating Officer thereafter arrested the accused Surender @ Dheeraj vide memo Ex.PW12/E, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/M and thereafter they returned to their office and he was relived after which his statement was recorded.
(132) According to the witness, on 27.02.2011 he again joined the investigations of the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender and on that day the accused S. Raja was on police custody remand and they were briefed by the Investigating Officer that pursuant to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 125 of 430 his disclosure they were to go to Bhiwani in search of one Sombir. He has further deposed that thereafter they all went to Bhiwani along with the accused S. Raja and from Bhiwani Police Station the SHO also joined in the investigations after which S. Raja took them to Balmiki Basti at Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the basti as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with Appu on twothree occasions. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo of the said house which is Ex.PW44/N but Sombir could not found and only his father met them who disclosed that Sombir did not return home for the last fourfive days and thereafter, they returned to their office. The witness has testified that the accused S. Raja was again interrogated in the office by the Investigating Officer who disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir and it was Sombir who took him to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it. According to the witness, the accused S. Raja also disclosed that at that time when this mobile was handed over accused Shalu was also present. He has proved that the said disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in his presence which is Ex.PW44/O. He has also deposed that accused S. Raja then took them to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh and pointed out the shop to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 126 of 430 them on which the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/P. He has further deposed that there they could not meet Amit @ Bunty but his younger brother Sumeet was sitting in the shop who disclosed that Amit was his elder brother and both of them used to sit on this shop. According to the witness Sumit further informed them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last about twothree days but not returned and thereafter Sumit took them to his house at his house at railway colony, Shakurbasti where they met his father and he also disclosed them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last twothree days. He has further deposed that thereafter they returned to their office where his statement was recorded and he was relieved.
(133) According to witness HC Amit Tomar, on 02.03.2011 he along with SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Narender, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal went to the house of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL office, Rani Bagh, Delhi where the accused Amit @ Bunty was found present and he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW44/P1, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/P2 and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/P3. He has testified that on 02.03.2011 he joined the investigations along with SI Sharat Kohli and on the directions of the Investigating Officer they reached Mumbai where they went to the house of one Vivek Vats who was a St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 127 of 430 resident of Kandhiwali gali and met him. He has further deposed that SI Sharat Kohli checked his mobile phone and also checked his IMEI number which was matching with the IMEI number of the phone of the deceased. According to the witness, the said boy Vivek Vats also handed over to them Job sheet card and one bill of the mobile phone. He has further deposed that SI Sharat Kohli took the mobile into possession and converted the mobile into pullanda with the help of a white cloth and thereafter sealed the same with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW38/B. According to the witness the job sheet and the purchase bill were also taken into possession by SI Sharat Kohli as handed by Vivek Vats and his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after which he was relieved. He has testified that thereafter they went to Boriwali at Thakar complex where they met Vishwas Thakar who was interrogated by SI Sharat Kohli and his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he was relived and they then returned to Delhi where his statement was recorded and he was relived. (134) He has also deposed that on 17.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Sudesh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Narender, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Vikas and Ct. Sunny and on that day, they reached the Tikri Border for investigations of the present case and for the search of Sombir. He has further deposed that there he met secret informer who informed him that the vehicle which had been robbed in the present case i.e. Honda City bearing No. DL4CNC1115 was with one Sombir who along with his associates would be coming from Haryana towards Rani Bagh for St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 128 of 430 committing some incident/vardat between 56 PM. He has testified that the secret informer also informed that a fake number plate of HR26AK0728 would be placed on the vehicle in place of actual number plate after which he produced the secret informer before SI Sharat Kohli who questioned him in detail and thereafter the police team was briefed. According to the witness he also stopped fourfive passerby and informed them about the secret informer and requested them to join the police party but they refused to join and thereafter without wasting any further time, they reached Rani Bagh at about 4:40 PM and constituted a trap at T point Rani Bagh market on the road going towards M2K Cinema. He has also deposed that thereafter SI Sharat Kohli again tried to join fourfive public persons in the police party but they refused and at about 5:20 PM one car make Honda City of golden color bearing number plate HR26AK0728 was found coming from Rani Bagh market side and on pointing out of secret informer they stopped the car. According to the witness there were three persons in the car and SI Sharat Kohli informed the occupants of the car that they were police officers on which occupants came out and started running in different directions. He further deposed that he along with SI Sharat Kohli chased one boy who was driving the vehicle and was trying to escape and apprehended him whose name was later disclosed as Sombir; the boy sitting along with him next to the driver seat was chased by HC Shyam Lal and apprehended whose name later on disclosed as Sunil and the third boy who was sitting on the back seat was chased by Ct. Narender and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 129 of 430 apprehended whose name was later on disclosed as Jaideep. He has further deposed that a casual search of Sombir revealed a pistol of 7.65mm from the left side of his dub which pistol on checking was found to contain three live cartridges and it was unloaded and thereafter the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW44/Q. He has further deposed that on measuring the pistol it was found to be having total length of 20 cm, barrel of same was 15 cm and butt of same was 10 cm and the total length of the magazine was 10.5cm. According to the witness Investigating Officer then converted the same into pullanda by putting the pistol, magazine and round into plastic container and closed the same with the doctor's tape and sealed the same with the seal of SK after which he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW44/R. He has testified that SI Sharat Kohli then arrested accused Sombir vide memo Ex.PW44/S1, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW44/S2 and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW44/S3. According to him, SI Sharat Kohli checked the engine and chassis number of Honda City Car and it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Tikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115. The witness has proved that the forged number plate bearing no. HR 26 AK0728 was found installed on the Honda City car and was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F and the Honda City car was also seized vide memo Ex.PW32/G. According to the witness, accused Sombir also disclosed about the theft of another St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 130 of 430 Hyundai Accent car from the Rani Bagh area which was kept in the lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border and thereafter they reached at the above said place along with the accused Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil. He has further deposed that at the instance of the accused Sombir one Hyundai Accent Car bearing fake number plate HR20P5349 was recovered which was seized by SI Sharat Kohli vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H and the forged number plate was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I. According to the witness SI Sharat Kohli also filled up the FSL Forms after which they returned to Police Station Saraswati Vihar where the case property was deposited in the malkhana.
(135) The witness has further testified that on 23.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, Ct. Narender, HC Shyam Lal, HC Rajender and they reached Rani Bagh Main Market for investigations of the present case where the secret informer met Inspector Arti Sharma and informed that one person wanted in the present case i.e. Rajender Parshad had been seen roaming around in the market. He has further deposed that thereafter on the pointing out of secret informer, one boy who was roaming around in the market was apprehended and his name was confirmed as Rajender Parshad @ Shalu. According to him, Rajender Prashad was casually searched by SI Sharat Kohli and from the lower which the accused St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 131 of 430 was wearing some documents were found which documents on checking was found to relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26 AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle. He has further deposed that when inquired about the said documents, the accused Rajender Prashad disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these documents and handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing No. HR26AK0728 on the basis of the documents. He has proved that thereafter Inspector Arti Sharma took these documents into possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/T. According to the witness Investigating Officer then arrested accused Rajender Parshad vide memo Ex.PW44/U1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/U2 and the accused then led them to the spot of incident at road No. 43, Raj Nagar in front of Raj Mandir and pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW44/V. He has also deposed that they then returned to the office where Rajender Parshad was interrogated at length and the accused made his disclosure to the Investigating Officer regarding his involvement in the present case as well as in other incidents of robberies. He has proved that the disclosure statement of the accused Rajender Prashad was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW44/W wherein the accused Rajender Parshad disclosed that the various gold chains which he had robbed in the different incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosures Ex.PW44/W had been sold by him to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 132 of 430 one Sanjay, who is running a shop under the name and style of Soni Jewelers at Avantika, Rohini. The witness has also deposed that the accused Rajender Prashad then led them to the shop of Soni Jewelers Avantika Rohini, where they found Sanjay Soni in the shop as pointed out by the accused Rajender Parshad. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma interrogated Sanjay Soni who admitted that Rajender Parshad sold five chains to him at different times after which he went to the room inside the shop and brought five gold chains and handed over the same to Investigating Officer on which the accused Rajender Parshad identified all the five chains as the one which he had sold to Sanjay Soni after committing robbery in the various incidents. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer then took the same into possession U/s 41.1(D) Cr. P.C. and converted the same into different pullandas with the help of polythene and white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and took the same into possession U/s. 102 Cr.P.C. after Sanjay Soni was arrested. According to the witness they then returned to their office where his statement was recorded by Inspector Arti Sharma and he was relieved.
(136) The witness has correctly identified the accused Rajender Parshad, Appu @ Srikant, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Sombir, Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru, Neeraj, Amit @ Bunty, Jaideep and Sunil in the Court. He has also identified the Driving License bearing No. P08122004416486 of deceased Prateek Trika as recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj which is Ex.P2; Honda City car bearing St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 133 of 430 number plate DL4CNC1115 which car is Ex.P6 from the photographs Ex.PW32/J1 to Ex.PW32/J4; two number plates bearing number HR26AK0728 found with the recovered Honda City car which fake number plates are collectively Ex.P10; one desi katta and two cartridges as recovered from the possession of accused Jaideep which desi katta is Ex.P11 and cartridges as Ex.P12; one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of black color having IMEI No. 012379004668392 as produced by Vivek Vats which is Ex.P14; one pistol and one empty cartridge case as recovered from possession of accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru which pistol with magazine is Ex.P15; bullet and cartridges case Ex.P16; one pistol and two live cartridges and one live cartridge with the details of the FSL mentioned on the same as FSL 2011/F1754/F2 mentioned on the same and the words auto pistol 16S1 round - VI 06 number 66600 inscribed on one side and the words AUTO NATIC PISTAL MADE IN CHINA inscribed on the other side as recovered from the possession of accused Sunil, which pistol is Ex.P17; the live cartridges are collectively Ex.P18 and cartridge case is Ex.P19; one pistol and two live cartridges and one empty cartridge case as recovered from the possession of accused Sombir, which pistol is Ex.P20, two live cartridges are collectively Ex.P21 and empty cartridge case which is Ex.P22.
(137) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he did not record statement of any person nor St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 134 of 430 recorded any Jimni and has voluntarily explained that he was working on the secret information only. He has denied the suggestion that he lifted the accused Neeraj from his house on 30.11.2010 in respect of which there was a PCR call or that he had also recovered a motorcycle from his house on the same intervening night or that he has given a statement to SI Naresh Rana that he had lifted the accused Neeraj from his house on 30.11.2010. According to the witness, he personally did not make any DD entry with regard to the secret information nor he made any departure entry of his own nor he record any preraid proceedings nor did not give any written information to the senior officers. He has further deposed that on 23.03.2011 his statement was recorded at SIT office and he heard his statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C. and the same was correct. He has denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation on 23.03.2011 therefore he is not aware the names of the actual team members. According to the witness the documents recovered from accused Rajender was not sealed by the Investigating Officer. He has further deposed that they did not conduct any raid at the shop of Sanjay Kumar with the name of style of Soni Jewellers, at Sector 3, Rohini on 22.03.2013. He has also denied the suggestion that on 22.03.2013 Rajender was with him when the shop of Sanjay was raided and has voluntarily added that no raid was conducted on 22.03.2013. He has further denied the suggestion that he destroyed the CCTV camera installed at the shop of Soni Jewellers or that one person namely Sanjay Kumar and his worker namely Amit Kumar @ Rinku were also present there when they St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 135 of 430 conducted raid on Soni Jewellers. He does not remember whether any complaint was made by the owner of Soni Jewellers. He has denied the suggestion that they demanded Rs.5 lacs for release of accused Sanjay. He is not aware whether the court of Sh. Kishore Kumar, Ld. MM had directed legal action to be taken against him as he had given false evidence to implicate accused Rajender in a previous case. He does not remember the exact spot where all the documents were prepared at Rani Bagh Market and has voluntarily added that the documents were prepared in the Rani Bagh market.
(138) According to the witness, the information given by the informer to Investigating Officer Inspector Arti. Sharma on 23.03.2011 was specific and by name but he is not aware if the Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma had shared this information to the senior officers or not or she incorporated the same into writing. He has further deposed that prior to reaching at Rani Bagh Market they did not have any information regarding presence of accused Rajender. He did not remember whether their team offered personal search to any public person prior to taking search of accused Rajender. He has denied the suggestion that he does not remember the same as he never visited the spot to apprehend the accused Rajender. Witness has admitted that spot of arrest is a thickly populated area where the shops and houses are situated. He does not remember whether the Investigating Officer gave any notice to the public persons who refused to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 136 of 430 join the investigation or whether the Investigating Officer asked to join any member of the registered society of shoppers to join the investigation. He has also deposed that when they had gone to the house of Dheeraj for his search, they had made entry in their office details of which he could not tell. He has further deposed that when they had gone to Bhiwani for the search of accused Sombir, they made departure entry in their office but he is unable to tell its details. He does not remember as to how many times he visited Bhiwani for the investigation of this case an has voluntarily added that he went there for more than one time. He also does not remember the exact date when he visited Bhiwani for the investigation of this case and has voluntarily added that it was in the month of March. He has testified that he had visited District Bhiwani area more than one time but he does not remember as to how many times. He also does not remember whether they had made any DD entry in this regard. He has further deposed that once they accompanied the concerned SHO of local Police Station for the purpose of arrest of accused Sombir and on that day Sombir was not found present at his house. He does not remember the name of father of accused Sombir nor is he aware in which areas they had searched for the accused Sombir. He has denied the suggestion that they had apprehended the accused Sombir from Bus Stand Bhiwani or that thereafter they proceeded for Village Kharkhari or that accused Jaideep was arrested from his village in presence of his family members and neighbours. He has further deposed that one Ct. Narender was the member of their team. He is not aware whether their team St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 137 of 430 asked from neighbor and other family members as to whether the accused Sombir was having any car specifically a Honda City car at any point of time. He has admitted that Ct. Narender, a member of their team hails from the same village near to the village of accused Sombir. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sombir was implicated in this case at the instance of Ct. Narender. He does not remember whether in the morning of 15.03.2011 they stayed at Hotel Azad , Dadri Road, Badra where they took their food there. He has denied the suggestion that at Badra, near Dadari the accused Jaideep, Sombir and Sunil were lifted and thereafter brought to Delhi where they were kept in illegal detention from 14.05.2011 to 17.05.2011 and implicated them in the present case. He has admitted that they did not receive any information regarding Sombir despite visiting Bhiwani more than one time. He does not remember whether they had taken any mobile number of Sombir from his friends or relatives and whether Sombir was having any address in Delhi and the said was verified by their team or not. He further deposed that they reached at Rani Bagh Market at about 4.00PM but they had not made any DD entry in the concerned area Police Station nor called any PCR van. He does not remember how many road leads to Rani Bagh Market or by which road they leads to the Rani Bagh Market. He has denied the suggestion that they have falsely implicated the accused Sombir and other accused posing them as arrested at Rani Bagh Market on the road going towards M2K Market. He does not remember at what point of time they had arrested accused Sombir and other accused persons. He has denied St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 138 of 430 the suggestion that car Honda had already been recovered by the local police with its original number plate or that they had wrongly shown the same to have been recovered from M2K Cinema Rani Bagh with a fake number plate. He is unable to tell whether the car was having any damage, but states that the same was in its original colour. He does not recollect the details of the seat covers of this vehicle at the time when the same was recovered. He does not remember whether the Investigating Officer had collected the CDR of phones of accused Amit @ Bunty and Sombir. According to the witness, he was not present at the time of arrest of accused Amit @ Bunty. He has admitted that prior to 3.30PM on dated 02.12.2010 he had no information from his sources which they had deployed already. He has denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj was already in their custody since 30.11.2010. He is not aware whether from the date of arrest of the accused Neeraj and upto 27.02.2011 they had not taken step to get any coercive order i.e. any bailable warrants/ non bailable warrants/ attachment orders from any court. He is not aware whether the Investigating Officer had put the relatives of the accused on technical surveillance. He does not remember when they met the father of the deceased and is unable to tell about any investigations relating to collection of electronic data by the Investigating Officer in respect of the phone used at the time of the incident. He does not remember whether this incident was being aired by the local TV channels or it was found mentioned in all the local newspapers. He also does not remember what was disclosed by the accused persons regarding the possession of the vehicles and whether St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 139 of 430 any of the accused charge sheeted in the first charge sheet till the date of filing of the charge sheet had disclosed the place where they left the vehicle. Witness has admitted that firstly on 17.3.2011 he received the information from secret informer that the Honda City Car bearing No. DL1C1115 would be with one Sombir at Rani Bagh. He is unable to tell whether the Investigating Officer has tried to inquire about the financer of the robbed vehicle and has voluntarily added that only the Investigating Officer can tell. He has further deposed that the five gold chains which were recovered from Sony Jewelers were found to be the case properties of different cases details of which he does not remember. He has admitted that at the time of arrest of accused Amit @ Bunty he was not involved in the investigations. (139) He has denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in their office and most of the documents were in the handwriting of Inspector Arti Sharma but same were prepared by some other team members or that accused Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Amit @ Bunty, Rajender Parshad @ Shalu, Dheeraj @ Dhiru were pressurized to sign on blank documents which were converted into the above memos and other documents later on. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused Rajender Prashad was lifted from Toll Tax point at Haryana by officer of Police Station Saraswati Vihar and handed over to them after his illegal detention of four days and falsely implicated in the present case by planting documents of RC, pollution certificate and insurance of some other vehicle on him. The witness has further denied the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 140 of 430 suggestion that accused S.Raja had surrendered in the Police Station but they wrongly showed his arrest from Inderpuri or that accused Krishnamurthy was also lifted from his house at L Block, Shakurpur and was wrongly shown as being lifted from Shamshan Ghat Road. The witness has further denied the suggestion that the pistol had been planted upon Dheeraj, copies of the DL were planted upon Neeraj and photocopies of RC, Insurance and pollution papers were planted upon Rajender only to fabricate evidence against them to connect them with the present case for working out the same or that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons as claimed by him or that the recoveries has been planted against them. Witness has admitted that all the documents are not having signatures of any public witnesses and has voluntarily explained that persons were joined only during the proceedings relating to the recovery by the accused Krishnamurthy and Dheeraj. He is unable to tell the details of the public persons who had refused to join the proceeding relating to the apprehension/ arrest and recording of disclosure statement of accused. He does not recollect if Investigating Officer had given any notice to the person who refused to join the proceedings. He has denied the suggestion that and the proceedings were conducted while sitting in their office or that Disclosure statement Neeraj, Krishnamurthy, Rajender Prashad, Srikant, S Raja, Amit and Dheeraj were recorded by the Investigating Officer of her own and he merely signed the same on the asking of his senior officers.
(140) PW45 Inspector Vipin Kumar has deposed that in the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 141 of 430 intervening night of 21/22112010 he was posted at Police Station Saraswati Vihar as SHO and on that day, he was on night patrolling. He has further deposed that at about 1:30 AM on date 22.11.2010 he received message on wireless set that one person by the name of Prateek Trikha has been admitted in injured conditions from a fire shot at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. He further deposed that he along with driver Ct. Yudhvir of Gypsy bearing No. DL1CJ3203 reached the said hospital where injured was under treatment vide MLC No.965/10 with alleged history of gunshot at Raj Nagar Colony Gate and the patient was in serious conditions. According to the witness at the same time, SI Ranbir Singh and Ct. Baldev reached at the hospital with father of the injured namely Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha who informed that his son was found in front of Raj Nagar Colony gate, Road No.43 in a pool of blood but Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha was unable to give any statement. He has further deposed that he left SI Ranbir in the hospital whereas he alongwith Ct. Yudhbir, Ct. Baldev reached at Raj Nagar where he met watchmen Damodar and Virender Kumar Dubey who told him that at around 12:30 AM the injured had come on foot in stain of blood and told that he had been fired and told them to inform at his residence i.e. C67, Raj Nagar. He has further deposed that he found blood trail from main gate Raj Nagar Colony to C89, Raj Nagar, Main Raod No.43 near Ram Mandir where he found Blood on the Road in front of Kothi No.8. According to the witness, he also found one empty shell of the bullet lying in front of Kothi No.9, one motorcycle with number plate DLAS0234 on the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 142 of 430 backside and HR15A3 on the front with a key inside. He has further deposed that he checked the motorcycle and found some documents in it which revealed that the actual number of the motorcycle was HR15A3501 and in the meantime, he requested through wireless set to the Crime Team for reaching at the spot. According to the witness at the same time, one information was received from the hospital by SI Ranbir that the injured had expired and SI Ranbir along with Sh. Suresh Trikha had reached at the house of deceased. The witness has also deposed that he went there and recorded the statement of Sh. Suresh Trikha vide Ex.PW1/A and thereafter made endorsement Ex.PW45/A after which he handed over the ruqqa to Ct. Baldev at about 4:40 AM for registration of the case on which Ct. Baldev went to Police Station. According to the witness, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/D1 at the instance of Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha and in the meantime the Crime Team headed by SI Satpal with Photographer, Dog Handler and fingerprint expert inspected the site but the fingerprint expert could not find any fingerprints on the motorcycle found at the spot, however, the Photographer took photographs of the scene of crimes from different angles on his directions and on the directions of SI Satpal. He has further deposed that the Dog could not find any material and SI Satpal handed over him mobile Crime Team report. According to the witness the motorcycle lying on the spot was checked and found one RC, Insurance paper, Pollution Certificate and one driving license of the owner of the vehicle Sh. Ashok Kumar and he also found the phone number of Ashok Kumar on a slip on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 143 of 430 which he made a call to him (Ashok Kumar) who told that his motorcycle was stolen from Rani Bagh on 19.11.2010 at 9:00 AM and that he had made a PCR call on that very date. He has further deposed that he inquired about the same from Police Station Rani Bagh and found that a case vide FIR No. 377/10 U/s 379 IPC was registered in this regard at Police Station Rani Bagh. According to him, Ct. Baldev Raj came with a copy of FIR and original ruqqa and handed over the same to him for further investigation after which he mentioned the FIR No. on the site plan. Witness has further deposed that he lifted blood sample with the help of cotton swab and put it into a plastic container and he also lifted blood stained pieces of Road and put the same in a plastic container and he also lifted earth control from the road and put the same in the plastic container. He has proved that all the three containers were wrapped in pieces of clothes and converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of VKB and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A. He has further deposed that one empty cartridge/ shell 'KF & 7.65' written at its bottom which was lying at the spot in front of H. No.C9, Raj Nagar was taken into possession after putting said empty cartridge in a matchbox which was wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of VKB and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B. He has further deposed that the said motorcycle along with key was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW30/C. According to the witness, the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 144 of 430 documents found in the motorcycle were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D, which driving license is Ex.PW30/E, RC is Ex.PW30/F, Insurance Paper is Ex.PW30/G and Pollution Certificate is Ex.PW30/H. He has further deposed that he recorded statements of Watchmen Damodar and Virender Kumar Dubey under Section 161 Cr.P.C. According to the witness, SI Mahesh along with HC Somdev came to him and informed him that the deceased had gone to attend a marriage of his friend Pravesh at Ashok Vihar with his friends Ankur Mahajan with whom he had left the marriage venue at around 12:00 midnight after which the deceased had dropped Ankur Mahajan at his home and left for Raj Nagar. The witness has deposed that thereafter he deposited the case property in the Malkhana and with staff reached at BJRM Hospital where SI Ranbir Singh and HC Kiran Pal were present and SI Ranbir handed over him one pulanda duly sealed with the seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital with sample seal. He has also deposed that he took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B. He has proved having prepared the inquest papers i.e. brief facts Ex.PW45/B, recorded the statement of CM Sharma and Rajesh Trikha vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW3/A. He has also proved having filled up form 25.35(1) (B) which Ex.PW45/C and he moved an application for conducting the postmortem on the body of the deceased which is Ex.PW45/D and the postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased. According to the witness HC Kiran Pal collected the clothes, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 145 of 430 bullet, blood in gauze piece duly sealed with the seal of the KG BJRM Hospital Mortuary and sample seal and all these sealed pulandas and envelopes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C. He has further deposed that he recorded statements of Incharge Crime Team, Photographer, Dog Handler, SI Ranbir Singh, HC Kiran Pal and Ct. Baldev under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has also deposed that he also flashed wireless message for tracing robbed vehicle of deceased i.e. Honda City car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 and deposited the case property with the MHC(M). (141) The witness has testified that during the course of investigation, he searched for accused and the case property and also recorded supplementary statement of Sh. Suresh Trikha, father of the deceased on 23.11.2010 who told him about the missing articles of his son i.e., his coat, his bag, his mobile phone and driving licence (D/L). He has also deposed that on 01.12.2010, he received an information from SIT Crime Branch regarding transfer of this case after which the same was handed over to SIT Crime Branch on 02.12.2010 and he sent the case file to SIT Crime Branch, Rohini vide RC No.613/21. He has also deposed that the sixteen photographs are on the record showing the place of occurrence, the stolen motorcycle and where the injured reached after being shot and informed the Watchmen which photographs are Ex.PW23/A1 to Ex.PW23/A16. According to the witness, the motorcycle found at the spot was released to Superdar Ashok Kumar (PW14) who produced the same in the Court which is Ex.PX. The witness has also identified empty cartridge case as taken in possession lying St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 146 of 430 at the spot which is Ex.P8.
(142) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that in his investigation it was found that except watchman Damodar and Virender no other person was present in the entry gate of Raj Nagar Colony, Road No. 43. He has further deposed that he had checked the register retained by the watchman for entry and exit of the vehicles, but he does not remember the last entry made in the said register and at what time. He has denied the suggestion that that the first call received by the Police was of a quarrel. He has further deposed that it is not in his knowledge if there was any function in the Raj Nagar Colony in that particular day. Witness has admitted that the photographs of the place of occurrence were taken in his presence by the Crime Team. He has also deposed that he had not inquired from the watchman about the disposal dinner plates lying on the gate as shown in the photographs Ex.PW23/A14 and PW23/A/D (which is also Ex.P5/D4) and has explained that both these photographs are of area which is close vicinity of Ram Mandir and regular lunger or Prashad is distributed there. He has further deposed that the plates shown on these two photographs are left out of that lunger or prashad. He has admitted that the motorcycle shown in Ex.P5/D4 is the same motorcycle which was seized by him. He has further deposed that on the back side of the motorcycle number was DLAS0234 and on the front side, it was HR 15A3. Witness has admitted that photograph Ex.PW23/A12 shows the blood splattered at the middle of the road. He has also deposed that he went St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 147 of 430 to the Maharaja Agrasen Hospital after the admission of the injured in the Hospital and in his presence no belongings of the injured were handed over to relative of the injured. He does not remember if he visited the Hospital Second Time after expiry of the injured. According to the witness, the gold chain, purse and diamond ring were not handed over to the parents of the deceased in his presence. He has testified that he had not taken any document of the deceased for identification purposes and says that he came to know later that the above mentioned articles were handed over to the parents of the deceased by the Hospital Authorities. He has further deposed that in his opinion it was a case of loot of car and not of the ornaments. He has also deposed that he did not try to find out if the car has been taken away by the financiers. He has further deposed that he had tried and interrogated suspected persons of the locality during the course of investigations. He has stated that till the investigations remained with him, he had interrogated the accused Neeraj twice. He has further deposed that during his investigations Neeraj was sick and he did not reveal his involvement by the time he was interrogated by him. According to the witness, the investigation was handed over to Crime Branch on 02.12.2010. He has also deposed that he had not recovered any documents, purse or ornaments of the deceased till 2.12.2010 for purposes of investigations. He does not remember if father of Neeraj had made any PCR call regarding taking away of the motorcycle of Neeraj and raid in the house of Neeraj by SIT. He is also unable to tell if he had put the mobile of the deceased on tracking. He has denied the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 148 of 430 suggestion that the accused Dheeraj, S. Raja, Sombir, Amit @ Bunty, Rajinder, Srikant @ Appu, Jai Deep, Krishnamurthi and Sunil have been falsely implicated in this case or that the recovery has been planted upon them or that all the memos were prepared while sitting in the Police Station or that he has not carried out the investigations in fair and proper manner. (143) PW46 SI Sharat Kohli has deposed that on 02.12.2010, he was posted SIT, Crime Branch as Sub Inspector and on that day, he was called by Inspector Aarti Sharma/ Investigating Officer of this case at 1:00 PM. The witness has testified that Inspector Arti Sharma prepared a Police Team comprising of herself, HC Jitender, Ct. Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Vikas and himself and gave briefing them with regard to the facts of the present case. He has further deposed that HC Amit Tomar informed Inspector Arti that he was already working on the present case and his source would contact him at around 3:30 PM at M2K Cinema, Sector 3, Rohini and thereafter their team left the office at about 1:30 PM and reached road No. 43, Raj Nagar near Ram Mandir where the incident had taken place where the Investigating Officer inspected the spot and they also made local inquiry but since the incident had taken place at night so therefore no body give them much details about the same. He further deposed that at about 3:30 PM they reached at M2K cinema Rohini where at about 3:45 PM secret informer met him and informed him that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of whom three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of whom, two boys would be coming on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 149 of 430 red coloured pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side Shamshan Ghat Road and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal Quarters between 56 PM. He further deposed that thereafter he produced the informer before the Investigating Officer, after the Investigating Officer spoke to the secret informer, she conveyed the secret information to the senior officers who directed her to take appropriate action. He has further deposed that thereafter Investigating Officer tried to join 45 passerby to join the police party but none agreed to join and thereafter they reached T point Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar at around 5 PM and parked the vehicles on one side. According to the witness there HC Amit Tomar, Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu and secret informer took their positions near their vehicles and concealed themselves and he along with the rest of the team members took their positions on the other side of the Road. He further deposed that at around 5:25 PM two boys came on a Red Color pulsar motorcycle from Mangolpuri side on which the secret informer pointed out towards them as the boys who were involved in the incident, after which the secret informer went away. According to him, since the road was damaged therefore the bike was not moving at a speed and hence they came in front of the same and tried to stop the same but the boys then turned around and tried to flee but the bike slipped and these boys then tried to run away on foot. He has testified that HC Amit Tomar and Ct. Dabbu apprehended one person whose name was later on revealed as Neeraj whereas the other boy was apprehended by him and Ct. Sunny whose name was later on revealed as St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 150 of 430 Krishnamurthy. According to him, after these boys were apprehended, they were produced before Inspector Arti who interrogated them. He has testified that search of accused Neeraj was conducted by him on the directions of the Investigating Officer and from the back right side pocket of his blue colour wearing pant, one driving licence was recovered which license was of deceased Prateek Trikha and on inquiry, accused Neeraj informed that they were five boys involved in the incident of the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 i.e. himself, Krishnamurthy, Appu, Raja and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu. According to the witness the accused Neeraj further disclosed that on the said day while they were in the area of Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir they found one boy smoking a cigarette while standing outside his car on which they tried to snatch his Honda City Car but the said boy resisted to the same on which Appu shot that boy on the asking of Raja. The witness has also deposed that the accused Neeraj further disclosed that thereafter they i.e. Appu, Shalu and Raja took the Honda City Car and went away and some documents including driving licence, ATM card of ABN AMRO, Debit Gold card, Shoppers Card and three Visiting Cards, kept inside the vehicle on the dash board which were removed by accused Krishnamurthy. He has testified that the accused Neeraj also disclosed in these documents, there was a driving licence of the said boy and since he (i.e. Neeraj) did not have any driving licence therefore Krishnamurthy @ Vicky handed over the said driving St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 151 of 430 licence for his use which he retained. According to the witness, the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed that he had left one stolen motorcycle at the place of occurrence and the said motorcycle was stolen by him from the area of Rani Bagh. He has proved that the accused Neeraj was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/A, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/C. The witness has further testified that Investigating Officer also kept the driving licence in a polythene and thereafter seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/D and also seized the Red Coloured Pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW2410 vide memo Ex.PW44/E. He has also deposed that thereafter accused Krishnamurthy was interrogated by the Investigating Officer who disclosed that on the date of incident i.e. intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 they i.e. he himself, Appu, S. Raja, Neeraj and Shalu were on three motorcycles, one was driven by Appu and Raja was sitting on him, second was driven by him (i.e. Krishnamurthy) which was stolen motorcycle and third was driven by Neeraj with Shalu sitting with him. According to the witness, apart from disclosing about the incident as disclosed by Neeraj, the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that he had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot whereas he took the motorcycle of Appu to flee away from the spot and the stolen car was driven by Appu with Raja and Shalu with him. According to the witness, the accused Krishnamurthy similarly St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 152 of 430 disclosed that they removed the various documents from the dash board which included the driving licence, ATM card, shoppers card, visiting cards etc. According to the witness the personal search of accused Krishnamurthy was conducted from which Rs.350/, one mobile phone of Dual SIM, one key were recovered after which the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/F, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/G and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/H. He has stated that during this period both the accused were kept in muffled face. He has testified that both the accused then led them to road No. 43 where the incident had taken place and pointed out the spot to them on which Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo pursuant to which pointing out memos were prepared which are Ex.PW44/I and Ex.PW44/J. The witness has also deposed that the accused Krishnamurthy had also disclosed that after the incident, he was residing with his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor. He has testified that he led them to the room at the aforementioned address where they met the landlord Sh. Ghanshyam Singh on the ground floor and was joined him in the investigations. He has further deposed that when they went to the first floor, they met James and his son Kapil and on seeing accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Kapil informed that accused Krishnamurthy was the elder brother of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 153 of 430 claiming that there was renovation going on in his house and that is why he had requested his father James and permitted them to stay in the room on the top floor. He has also deposed that they then went to the top floor along with the landlord James and Kapil where Krishnamurthy opened the lock on the door with the help of the key which was recovered in his jamatalashi and thereafter he entered the room and found a light black colored pant hanging on the wall on a khunti. He has testified that the accused Krishnamurthy removed that pant which was hanging on the khunti and took out an ATM card of ABN AMRO Bank, one Shoppers Stop Card and three visiting cards in the name of deceased Prateek Trikha from the right pocket of the same and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. According to the witness the Investigating Officer then put AMRO Bank ATM Card, one Shoppers Stop Card and Visiting cards in a polythene which along with the pant was wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda and sealed the same with the seal of AS and then Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/A. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW13/B and the statements of public witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer who were relieved. According to him, both the accused then took them to the house of Appu in G29/186, Sector3, Rohini itself where outside his house there was a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461 after which they St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 154 of 430 went inside Appu's house where they met his sister Sona and the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona on which the Investigating Officer asked for keys from Sona on which she handed over the keys to the Investigating Officer and also informed that Appu had not come home for the last fourfive days. He has further deposed that the Investigating Officer then seized the bike vide memo Ex.PW44/K after which they went to the Police Station Saraswati Vihar where the case property were deposited in the Malkhana and they returned to their Office.
(144) The witness has also deposed that on 24.01.2011, he joined the investigation of the present case with the Investigating Officer and other staff when they reached at Rohini Court in the Court of Sh. Dheeraj Mor, Ld. MM where accused Srikant @ Appu surrendered before the Court. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer moved an application for interrogation and arrest and accused Shirkant @ Appu was having fresh sharp injuries on his stomach and head. According to the witness, the accused Srikant @ Appu was produced before the Ld. MM after which the accused was interrogated and was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW46/A, his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo Ex.PW46/B and the disclosure statement of the said accused was recorded vide Ex.PW46/C. According to the witness Investigating Officer moved an St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 155 of 430 application for Police Custody Remand of the accused which was allowed by the Ld. MM and the accused was medically examined. (145) The witness SI Sharat Kohli has further deposed that on 25.01.2011 he again joined the investigations in the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender and the accused Appu was already on police custody remand who took them to the spot of incident i.e. Road No. 43, Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir and pointed out the place of incident on which Investigating Officer Prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/L and thereafter they returned to their Office. He has also deposed that on 27.01.2011 he joined the investigations with the Investigating Officer and other staff and the accused Srikant @ Appu was interrogated by the Investigating Officer wherein he disclosed that he had taken a Pistol of 7.65 bore pistol with four live cartridges from his friend Dheeraj @ Dhiru and paid him Rs.2000/ in the second week of November, 2010. According to the witness he further disclosed that after using the pistol, he returned the same to Dheeraj and asked him to clean the barrel of the pistol since it was used by him in the commission of the present offence. He has proved that the Investigating Officer recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW46/D. (146) He has testified that on 28.01.2011 at around 12:20 AM he joined the investigations with Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, HC St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 156 of 430 Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender and thereafter, the accused Appu took them to the above address i.e. House No. D413, Sector1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them. According to the witness when they rang the bell of the house when one boy aged around 2425 years opened the door and Appu pointed out towards him as Surender @ Dheeraj. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer interrogated Surender @ Dheeraj but he initially refused that he had given any pistol to Appu and therefore they returned to their office along with Surender @ Dheeraj. He has further deposed that at about 4:00 PM, the accused disclosed that he had kept the said pistol in his house and had cleaned the barrel of the said pistol as told to him by co accused Srikant @ Appu. The witness has testified that after his interrogation and disclosure, the Surender @ Dheeraj again took them to his house and the Investigating Officer asked twothree public persons to join the police party but they refused, however, the son of the landlord Rupesh consented to be a part of police team and joined the investigations. He has also deposed that accused Surender @ Dheeraj then took them to a room on the ground floor which was situated inside the premises and was the last room in the row and there was single bed in the room, which was box shape bed, from where the accused got recovered a pistol wrapped in a cloth and handed over the same to Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma. According to the witness on checking by the Investigating Officer, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 157 of 430 it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening was found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine after which the Investigating Officer Prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW12/C. He further deposed that the pistol was then measured and its total length was found to be 19cm, with a barrel of 15 cm and butt of 9cm and the magazine had the words 111 inscribed on the same and the pistol was of steel numa metal and the butt had plastic design on the same. He has also deposed that thereafter the Investigating Officer converted the pistol and the cartridge into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and prepared the pointing outcum seizure memo vide Ex.PW12/D. According to the witness the seal after use was handed over to HC Amit Tomar and Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW12/A. He has proved that the Investigating Officer thereafter arrested the accused Surender @ Dheeraj vide memo Ex.PW12/E, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/M and thereafter they returned to their office and he was relived after his statement was recorded.
(147) The witness has further deposed on 27.02.2011 he again joined the investigations of the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender. According to him, on that day accused S. Raja was on police custody remand and they were briefed by the Investigating Officer that pursuant to his disclosure they were to go to Bhiwani in St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 158 of 430 search of one Sombir and thereafter, they all went to Bhiwani along with the accused S. Raja. He has testified that from Bhiwani Police Station, the SHO was joined in the investigations and thereafter the accused S. Raja took them to Hanuman Gate, Balmiki Colony at Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the Colony as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with accused Appu on twothree occasions. The witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo of the said house which is Ex.PW44/N and in that house accused Sombir was not found but his father disclosed that Sombir did not return home for the last fourfive days and thereafter they returned to their office. (148) According to the witness, on 28.02.2011, accused S. Raja was again interrogated in the office by the Investigating Officer and he disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir. He has further deposed that the accused S. Raja disclosed that it was Sombir who took him to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it and at that time accused Shalu was also present. He has proved that the said disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in his presence which is Ex.PW44/O. According to the witness, the accused S. Raja then took them to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 159 of 430 Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh where he pointed out the shop to them on which the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/P. He further deposed that there they could not meet Amit @ Bunty but his younger brother Sumeet was sitting in the shop who disclosed that Amit was his elder brother and both of them used to sit on this shop and that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last about twothree days but not returned. He has also deposed that Sumit then took them to his house at Railway Colony, Shakurbasti where they met his father and also disclosed to them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last twothree days. He has further deposed that thereafter they returned to their office where his statement was recorded and he was relieved.
(149) The witness has testified that on 02.03.2011 he along with HC Amit Tomar, Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Narender, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal went to the house of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL office, Rani Bagh, Delhi where the accused Amit @ Bunty was found present and was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW44/P1, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/P2 and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/P3. He has further deposed that accused Amit @ Bunty led the Investigating Officer with team to Hotspot, Daryaganj where he had given the said mobile Make Sony Ericson for replacing its IMEI Number. According to the witness on 02.03.2011 he joined the investigations along with HC Amit Tomar and on the directions of the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 160 of 430 Investigating Officer they reached Mumbai on 03.03.2011 where they went to the house of one Vivek Vats who was a resident of Kandivali, Mumbai and met him. He has also deposed that he informed him about the case on which Vivek Vats produced one mobile Make Sony Xperia which he checked its IMEI number which was matching with the IMEI number 012379004668392 i.e. of the phone of the deceased. He has further deposed that the said boy Vivek Vats also handed over to them Job Sheet card Ex.PW37/A and one bill of the mobile phone Ex.PW38/A. According to the witness, he took the said mobile into possession and converted the same into pullanda with the help of a white cloth and thereafter sealed the same with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW38/B. He has further deposed that the Job Sheet and the purchase bill as handed over to them by Vivek Vats were also taken into possession by him and Sh. Vivek Vats informed him that since the said mobile was not charging, he went to Borivali, Mumbai at the Sony Ericsson Workshop who had taken the said mobile and sent the same to their Chennai Workshop for repairing and thereafter Chennai Workshop had returned the said mobile to him and its IMEI number was replaced by the company. According to the witness, he recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. and was relieved after which they went to Boriwali at Thakkar complex and met Vishwas Thakkar who was interrogated by him and his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr. P.C. and was relived after which they returned to Delhi and deposited the case property with the MHC(M) Police Station Saraswati Vihar.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 161 of 430 (150) According to the witness SI Sharat Kohli on 17.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with HC Amit Tomar, ASI Sudesh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Narender, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Vikas and Ct. Sunny and on that day, he reached the Tikri Border for investigations of the present case and for the search of Sombir. He has testified that HC Amit Tomar met secret informer at around 3:00 PM, who informed him that the vehicle which had been robbed in the present case i.e. Honda City bearing No. DL4CNC1115 was with one Sombir who along with his associates would be coming from Haryana towards Rani Bagh for committing some incident/vardat between 56 PM and they would be carrying arms and ammunitions with them. He has further deposed that the secret informer also informed that a fake number plate of HR26AK0728 would be present on the vehicle in place of actual number plate and produced the secret informer before him and also questioned him in detail. He has also deposed that thereafter the police team was briefed and he also stopped fourfive passersby and informed them about the secret information and requested them to join the police party but they refused to join and thereafter without wasting any further time, they reached Rani Bagh at about 4:40 PM and constituted a raiding party and laid a trap at Tpoint, Rani Bagh Market on the road going towards M2K Cinema. According to the witness thereafter, he again tried to join fourfive public persons in the police party but they refused. The witness has testified that at about 5:20 PM one car make Honda City of golden color bearing number plate HR26AK0728 was found coming from Rani Bagh market side and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 162 of 430 on pointing out of secret informer they stopped the car in which three persons sitting. He has testified that the occupants came out and started running in different directions but he along with HC Amit Tomar chased one boy who was driving the vehicle and was trying to escape and apprehended him whose name was later revealed as Sombir. He has further deposed that the boy sitting along with him next to the driver seat was chased by HC Shyam Lal and apprehended him whose name later on disclosed as Sunil whereas the third boy who was sitting on the back seat was chased by Ct. Narender and apprehended whose name was later on disclosed as Jaideep. According to the witness, on casual search of accused Sombir revealed a pistol of 7.65mm from the left side of his dub which pistol on checking found to contain three live cartridges and it was unloaded and thereafter he prepared the sketch of the same which sketch is Ex.PW44/Q and the measurement of the pistol was taken. He further deposed that the pistol was found to be having total length of 20 cm, barrel of same was 15 cm and butt of same was 10 cm and the total length of the magazine was 10.5 cm. He has proved that he then converted the same into pullanda by putting the pistol, magazine and round into plastic container and closed the same with the doctor's tape and sealed the same with the seal of SK after which he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW44/R. The witness has testified that he then arrested accused Sombir vide memo Ex.PW44/S1, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW44/S2 and his disclosure statement was recorded St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 163 of 430 vide Ex.PW44/S3. According to the witness, he checked the Engine and Chassis numbers of Honda City Car and it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Trikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115 and the forged number plates bearing no. HR 26 AK0728 found installed on the Honda City car were seized by the him vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F. According to the witness the Honda City was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/G. He has further deposed that thereafter, HC Shyam Lal produced accused Sunil before him who was found in possession of one 7.65 bore pistol with three live cartridges and magazine and Ct. Narender produced accused Jaideep before him and he was found in possession of one 315 bore country made pistol with two live cartridges and all these pistols and cartridges were separately measured and seized vide seizure memos. The witness has testified that the accused Sombir also disclosed about the theft of another Hyundai Accent car from the Rani Bagh area which was kept in the lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border. According to him, thereafter they reached at the above said place along with the accused Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil and at the instance of accused Sombir one Hyundai Accent car bearing fake number plate HR 20 P 5349 was recovered and he seized the Hyundai car vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H and the forged number plates were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I. He has further deposed that he also filed up the FSL Forms after which they returned to Police St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 164 of 430 Station Saraswati Vihar where the case properties i.e., Honda City car and weapons were deposited in the Malkhana.
(151) He has also deposed that on 23.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh, Ct. Narender, HC Shyam Lal, HC Rajender and they all reached Rani Bagh, Main Market for investigations of the present case where a secret informer met Inspector Arti Sharma and informed that one person wanted in the present case i.e. Rajender Parshad had been seen roaming around in the market. According to the witness on the pointing out of secret informer at about 3:20 PM, accused Rajender Prasad @ Shalu who was roaming around in the market was apprehended and his name was confirmed as Rajender Parshad @ Shalu. According to the witness he was casually searched by him and from the wearing lower, some documents were found and the said documents on checking were found to relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle. He has also deposed that when inquired about the said documents, the accused Rajender Prashad disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these forged documents and handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing No. HR26AK0728 on the basis of the these fake documents. He has proved that thereafter Inspector Arti Sharma took these documents into possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/T. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 165 of 430 According to the witness Investigating Officer then arrested accused Rajender Parshad vide memo Ex.PW44/U1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/U2. He has testified that the accused then led them to the spot of incident at road No. 43, Raj Nagar in front of Raj Mandir and pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW44/V. He has further deposed that thereafter they returned to the office where Rajender Parshad was interrogated at length and he made his disclosure to the Investigating Officer regarding his involvement in the present case as well as in other incidents of robberies. According to the witness, disclosure statement of the accused Rajender Prashad was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW44/W wherein the accused Rajender Parshad had in his disclosure stated that the various gold chains which he had robbed in the different incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosures Ex.PW44/W had been sold by him to one Sanjay, who is running a shop under the name and style of Soni Jewelers at Avantika, Rohini. He has further deposed that he then led them to the shop of Soni Jewelers Avantika Rohini, where they found Sanjay Soni in the shop as pointed out by the accused Rajender Parshad. According to the witness Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma interrogated Sanjay Soni who admitted that Rajender Parshad sold five chains to him at different times after which he went to the room inside the shop and brought five gold chains and handed over the same to Investigating Officer. According to the witness, the accused Rajender St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 166 of 430 Parshad identified all the five chains as the one's which he had sold to Sanjay Soni after committing robbery in the various incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosure statement. He has further deposed that Investigating Officer then took the same into possession under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and converted the same into different pullandas with the help of polythene and white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and took the same into possession U/s 102 Cr. P.C. after Sanjay Soni was arrested. He has also deposed that they then returned to their Office where they statement was recorded by Inspector Arti Sharma and he was relived. (152) The witness has correctly identified the accused Rajender Parshad, Appu @ Srikant, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Sombir, Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru, Neeraj, Amit @ Bunty, Jaideep and Sunil in the Court. He has also identified the Driving License bearing No. P08122004416486 of Prateek Trikha/ deceased as recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj which is Ex.P2; Honda City car bearing Number plate DL4CNC1115 which is Ex.P6 from the photographs Ex.PW32/J1 to Ex.PW32/J4; two number plates bearing number HR26AK0728 found with the recovered Honda City car which fake number plates are collectively Ex.P10; one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of black color having IMEI No. 012379004668392 as produced by Vivek Vats which is Ex.P14; one pistol and one empty cartridge case as recovered from St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 167 of 430 possession of accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru which pistol with magazine is Ex.P15; bullet and cartridges case Ex.P16; one pistol and two live cartridges and one live cartridge with the details of the FSL mentioned on the same as FSL 2011/F1754/F2 mentioned on the same and the words auto pistol 16S1 round - VI 06 number 66600 inscribed on one side and the words AUTO NATIC PISTAL MADE IN CHINA inscribed on the other side as recovered from the possession of accused Sunil, which pistol is Ex.P17; the live cartridges are collectively Ex.P18 and cartridge case is Ex.P19; one pistol and two live cartridges and one empty cartridge case as recovered from the possession of accused Sombir, which pistol is Ex.P20, two live cartridges are collectively Ex.P21 and empty cartridge case which is Ex.P22.
(153) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that on 27.2.2011 he joined the investigations from the morning along with Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma and HC Amit Tomar and at the time when accused S. Raja made his disclosure, Investigating Officer and HC Tomar signed the same. He has further deposed that the disclosure statement was recorded in SIT Crime Branch, Office and on the same day, he along with Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma and accused S. Raja went to Bhiwani regarding the search of accused Sombir but he was not present at his house and thereafter they prepared the pointing out memo of his house at the instance of accused S. Raja. He has further deposed that they tried to join public persons in the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 168 of 430 investigations while preparing the pointing out memo of the house of Sombir but none agreed to join the same and the father of accused Sombir was present but he refused to sign the pointing out memo. He has testified that Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma made the arrival entry in the local Police Station at Bhiwani but he does not remember the said DD number. He has further deposed that Police Officials of local Police Station Bhiwani had accompanied them but they did not sign any document. According to the witness on the next day, the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo of the shop of Amit @ Bunty but Investigating Officer did not obtain the signatures of Sumit on the same nor any photographs of the said shop were taken by the Investigating Officer. He further deposed that it was a mobile shop but he does not remember the name of the shop and says that the Investigating Officer did not search the said shop. He has also deposed that they again visited the said shop on 2.3.2011 and on that day the accused Amit @ Bunty met them at the shop but he does not remember that whether accused S. Raja was also present with them or not on 2.3.2011. According to the witness, only the Investigating Officer can tell as to who identified the accused Amit when they went to the shop on 2.3.2011. He has further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Amit was recorded at the shop itself and on the same day, the mobile phone was recovered from the shop of the accused Amit @ Bunty. He has also deposed that the recovery memo of the mobile phone was prepared on the same day at the shop itself but the recovery St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 169 of 430 memo prepared on 3.3.2011 does not bear his signatures and has voluntarily explained that the recovery of the mobile phone was not effected in his presence since he along with HC Amit Tomar had left left for Mumbai on 2.3.2011 itself. He has denied the suggestion that no mobile phone was recovered from the shop of accused Amit @ Bunty or that the signatures of the accused Amit were obtained on certain blank papers and later on converted into various documents i.e. disclosure, personal search etc. (154) The witness has further deposed that even before the Investigating Officer received the case file in this case, HC Amit Tomar was working on the case. He is not aware if the Investigating Officer had also obtained the inquest proceedings of the present case from the previous Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that he had illegally lifted Neeraj from his house along with HC Amit Tomar on 30.11.2010 in respect of which his family had lodged a PCR call and has voluntarily explained that they had apprehended him on 2.12.2010 and he cannot say anything about the PCR call. He has denied the suggestion that on the intervening night i.e. 30.11.2010 and 1.12.2010 they lifted a motorcycle from the house of Neeraj in respect of which they made a PCR call or that the officials of Police Station Saraswati Vihar had also made inquiry from him pursuant to the above PCR calls or that SI Rakesh Rana had inquired from him and HC Amit Tomar regarding the arrest of the Neeraj and recovery of motorcycle from the house of Neeraj. He is not aware if the Investigating Officer had put the robbed mobile phone on tracking after the investigations St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 170 of 430 was marked to them. Witness has denied the suggestion that after the investigations were marked to them they unofficially obtained the articles belonging to the deceased i.e. gold chain, purse, diamond ring, documents and cash etc. He is not aware whatever interrogation was done by the Investigating Officer with the father of deceased and therefore cannot tell the details. He has further deposed that in his presence, the Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma did not obtain any detail from the previous Investigating Officer in respect of the investigations already conducted. He has also deposed that he had obtained the bill of the robbed phone and has voluntarily added that this bill was recovered on 3.3.2011 from Mumbai along with the robbed phone from Vivek Vats. He has denied the suggestion that Neeraj had already been kept in illegal detention and in order to regularize/ legalize the same as PCR calls had been made by his family, he was falsely implicated in this case by planting the driving license of the deceased. He has further deposed it was on sustain interrogation of Neeraj that he had disclosed his involvement with other accused, but apart from his disclosure the call details of accused Appu to confirm his association with them. He has denied the suggestion that the electronic record does not reflect the user or that it does not show any connection between them. Witness has admitted that Neeraj did not point out the place where the robbed car was kept and has voluntarily added that they had only disclosed that it was Appu, Raja and Shalu who were aware of the whereabouts. He has denied the suggestion that Neeraj did not make any such disclosure or St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 171 of 430 that car had been recovered from the financer or that till the date of filing of charge sheet Appu, Raja and Shalu did not disclose the place where the car was kept and has voluntarily added that it was Raja who took them to Bhiwani for recovery of the car. He has further deposed that on 28.1.2011 when they reached the house of Dheeraj, apart from Dheeraj his wife was also present but he could not give her name. According to him, none of the neighbors agreed to join the police party and he could not give the names and addresses of the persons who had refused. He has also deposed that before they left the office, they made departure entry, but he is unable to tell the details. He has further testified that the pistol was sealed with the seal of AS which seal after use was handed over to him. He has denied the suggestion that pistol had been planted upon Dheeraj. According to the witness, he visited Haryana regarding investigations of this case three four times i.e. 27.2.2011, the other dates he does not remember but it was once in March 2011 and it might be between 14 to 16 March, 2011. He has further deposed that he did not arrest anybody during his investigations from Haryana. He does not remember if he informed the local police at Haryana whenever he went there for investigations. According to the witness on 27.2.2011 they returned back on the same day and during his second visit in the month of March, he stayed at Jaat Dharamshala, Bhiwani along with police team i.e. ASI Suresh, HC Amit Tomar, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Narender, Ct. Vikas and Ct. Sunny. He has denied the suggestion that on the said day accused Sombir and Jaideep were also with them during their stay St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 172 of 430 at Jaat Dharamshala Bhiwani or that accused Sombir was arrested on 15.3.2011 from bus stand Bhiwani or that on the same day the accused Jaideep was arrested from his native place village Khakari, Tehsil Loharu, Bhiwani. He has further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of Sombir but he does not remember if the accused Sombir has ever talked about someone by the name of Vikram in his disclosure statement. The attention of the witness was drawn to Ex.PW44/S3 i.e. the disclosure statement of accused Sombir where the name of Vikram R/o village Khakari, Tehsil Loharu, Bhiwani is found mentioned. Witness has denied the suggestion that on 15.3.2011 they had gone to village Khakari, Tehsil Loharu, Bhiwani to apprehend the said Vikram. According to the witness, they were trying to trace the accused Sombir through his associates but he does not remember if one of his associates was Vikram and has clarified that probably he conducted raid for Vikram in search of Sombir. He has denied the suggestion that during the raid for Vikram, the accused Jaideep was lifted or that the accused Sombir was arrested by their team prior to 17.3.2011 and the news in this regard was also published in the local newspapers at Bhiwani. The witness has also deposed that he prepared the arrest memo of accused Jaideep, Sombir and Sunil. He has admitted that the time mentioned in the arrest memos is correct time when the accused were actually arrested. He has also deposed that on 17.3.2011 they reached near M2K Cinema Rani Bagh at 4:40 PM along with the informer but he does not remember the DD number by which they departed from the Police Station on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 173 of 430 that day. He has also deposed that they took position near the TPoint near the M2K Cinema but he does not remember the exact location. According to the witness the accused persons came from the side of Rani Bagh main market towards T point. He has admitted that the Rani Bagh market is thickly populated place. He has denied the suggestion that they deliberately did not join the public persons at Rani Bagh Market as they never arrested and recovered the car from Rani Bagh. He does not remember if they had taken food at Azad Hotel, Dadri Road, Badra on 16.3.2011. Witness has further deposed that on 17.3.2011 they left SIT Crime Branch and reached Tikri Border at 3:00 PM and while leaving the office he had lodged the DD entry but he does not remember its number. He has also deposed that on 23.3.2011 Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma recorded his statement at the office of SIT Crime Branch but he does not remember the time and has clarified that it was night time. He has further deposed that in his statement he had disclosed the names of all the team members. However, when confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC where names of only Inspector Arti Sharma and HC Amit Tomar are found mentioned. According to the witness Investigating Officer did not prepare any memo of the said secret information. He has further deposed that they reached at Rani Bagh main market between 2:30 to 2:40 PM and they left the spot at about 4:45 PM to 5 PM. He is unable to tell the exact location where they waited for 20 minutes prior apprehension of accused and has voluntarily added that during those 20 minutes they were searching for the accused Rajinder @ St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 174 of 430 Shalu in the main market Rani Bagh. He does not remember if the Investigating Officer had tried to join any public person in the investigations. He is not aware if Investigating Officer had given any notice to any public person for non joining the investigations nor is he aware the names and address of any such public persons. He has further deposed that they did not have any prior information about presence of one of the accused being present at Rani Bagh market. He has denied the suggestion that they never visited the Rani Bagh Market during investigations of this case. He has admitted that none of them offered their search prior to the search of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that they deliberately did not offer their search as they were having false or forged documents with them which were planted upon the accused. He has also denied that the accused Rajinder was arrested from Gurgaon by the officials of Police Station Saraswati Vihar. The witness has further deposed that the secret informer met the Investigating Officer at about 2:30 PM and the secret informer remained with them for about 25 minutes. He is unable to tell whether Investigating Officer of the case had recorded the preraid proceedings or any DD with regard to the raid after receiving the secret information. The witness is also unable to tell if the Investigating Officer has informed the senior officers about the secret information and raid. He has testified that at the time of their raid, the Investigating Officer first prepared the seizure memo of documents while sitting in the car at about 3:003:20 PM at the spot i.e. Rani Bagh Market but he is unable to tell the exact point. He has denied the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 175 of 430 suggestion that they conducted raid at the shop of one goldsmith namely Sanjay Kumar at Sector 3 Rohini by the name and style of Sony Jewelers on 22.3.2011 or that on that day accused Rajinder was with the team of SIT or that on that day one person namely Amit @ Rinku was also present at the Sony Jewelers where their team had gone. He is not aware if any complaint was filed against their team by Sanjay, owner of Sony jewelers. He has denied the suggestion that previously he has been making false allegations against the accused Rajinder who had been acquitted on account of the same or that court dealing with the cases of Rajinder had made observations against him on the judicial side. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the documents allegedly recovered from accused Rajinder were planted upon him to falsely implicate him or that accused Rajinder was not apprehended in his presence. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer had sealed the pullandas of the documents recovered from Rajinder by the seal of AS but he is unable to tell if he had signed the said pullanda as a witness. He does not remember whether the Investigating Officer had supplied the copy of seizure memo to the accused. Witness has admitted that personal search memo of accused Rajinder was prepared in his presence and he conducted his search. He has denied the suggestion that all documents pertaining to Rajinder including his personal search memo were prepared at the Police Station. The witness has further admitted that whatsoever information was received by HC Amit Tomar on 2.12.2010 was verbal. He does not remember if Investigating Officer had recorded this St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 176 of 430 information into writing. He has denied the suggestion that when they arrested Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep from their parental places at Haryana, some passerby and the local residents also seen the arrest proceedings. He has also denied that the accused Dheeraj, S. Raja, Sombir, Amit @ Bunty, Rajinder, Srikant @ Appu, Jai Deep, Krishnamurthy and Sunil have been falsely implicated in this case. The witness has further denied the suggestion that the recovery has been planted upon them or that all the memos were prepared while sitting in the Police Station or that he has not carried out the investigations in fair and proper manner.
(155) PW47 Inspector Arti Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 02.12.2010 she was posted at SIT Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi and on that day, Additional DCP Dr. Joy Tirki had called her in his office and handed over to her the investigations of the present case. She has further deposed that she studied the case file and discussed the facts of the case with her team members. According to the witness, HC Amit Tomar informed her that he was already working on this case and on 02.12.2010 she prepared a police team comprising of SI Sharat Kohli, HC Amit Tomar, HC Jitender, Ct. Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Vikas and herself and gave briefing with regard to the facts of the present case. She has testified that HC Amit Tomar informed her that his source would contact him at around 3:30 PM at M2K cinema, Sector 3, Rohini after which their team left the office at about 1:30 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 177 of 430 PM and reached road No. 43, Raj Nagar near Ram Mandir where the incident had taken place where she inspected the spot and they also made local inquiry but since the incident had taken place at night therefore nobody give them much details about the same. She has further deposed that at about 3:30 PM they reached at M2K cinema Rohini where at about 3:45 PM secret informer met HC Amit Tomar and informed him that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of which three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of which two boys would be coming on red color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side via Shamshan Ghat Road and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal quarter to meet somebody there between 56 PM. She has testified that thereafter HC Amit Tomar produced the informer before her and she verified the information from the secret informer and thereafter she conveyed the secret information to the senior officers who directed her to take appropriate action. The witness has also deposed that thereafter she tried to join fourfive passerby and requested them to join the police party but none agreed to join and thereafter they reached T point Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar at around 5 PM and parked the vehicles on one side. According to the witness she along with HC Amit Tomar, Ct. Dabbu and secret informer took their positions near their vehicles and concealed themselves and the rest of the team members took their positions on the other side of the road. Witness has further deposed that at around 5:25 PM two boys came on a red color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side on which the secret informer pointed out towards them as St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 178 of 430 the boys which were involved in the incident, after which the secret informer went away. She has also deposed that the said road was damaged and therefore the bike was not moving at a speed, on which they came in front of the same and tried to stop them. She has further deposed that the said boys then turned around and tried to flee but the bike slipped and both the boys fell down on the road. According to her, they both immediately got up and then tried to run away on foot but HC Amit Tomar and Ct. Dabbu apprehended the boy who was driving the motorcycle and pillion rider was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny. She has testified that HC Amit Tomar and Ct. Dabbu apprehended one boy whose name was later on revealed as Neeraj, R/o JJ Colony, Shakurbasti whereas the other boy whose name later on revealed as Krishnamurthy @ Vicky R/o JJ colony, Shakurbasti was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny. According to the witness after these boys were apprehended, they were produced before her and she interrogated them and it was then that their names were revealed as Neeraj and Krishnamurthy. She has also deposed that formal search of Neeraj was conducted by SI Sharat Kohli and from the pant of blue color which he was wearing one driving licence was recovered from the back side right pocket, which driving licence was of deceased Prateek Tirkha and on inquiry the accused Neeraj informed that they were five boys involved in the incident of the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 i.e. himself, Krishnamurthy, Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 179 of 430 and while they were in the area of Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir they found one boy smoking a cigarette while standing outside his car on which they tried to snatch his Honda city car but the said boy resisted to the same on which Appu shot this boy on the asking of S. Raja. According to the witness, the accused Neeraj also disclosed that thereafter they i.e. Appu, Shalu and Raja took the vehicle and went away and he followed them on his motorcycle whereas Krishnamurthy @ Vicky followed on Appu's motorcycle and some documents including driving licence, ATM card of ABN Amro, Debit gold card, Shoppers Card and three visiting cards, were kept inside the vehicle on the dash board which were removed by Krishnamurthy at Avantika. She has further deposed that the accused Neeraj also disclosed that he i.e. Neeraj did not have any driving licence therefore Krishnamurthy @ Vicky handed over the driving licence of deceased to him for use which he retained. She has proved that the accused Neeraj was arrested by vide memo Ex.PW44/A, his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/C and she also kept the driving licence in a polythene and thereafter seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/D. The witness has also deposed that she then seized the red color Pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW 2410 vide memo Ex.PW44/E. According to the witness, thereafter Krishnamurthy was also interrogated by her who disclosed to him that on the date of incident i.e. intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 they i.e. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 180 of 430 he, Appu, S. Raja, Neeraj and Shalu were on three motorcycles, one was driven by Appu and Raja was sitting on him, second was driven by himself i.e. Krishnamurthy which was stolen motorcycle and third was driven by Neeraj with Shalu sitting with him. She further deposed that apart from disclosing about the incident as disclosed by Neeraj, the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that on the directions of Appu he had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot whereas took the motorcycle of Appu to flee away from the spot and the stolen car was driven by Raja and Appu and Shalu with him. According to the witness, the accused Krishnamurthy similarly disclosed that they removed the various documents from the dash board which included the driving licence, ATM card, shoppers card, visiting cards etc. and further disclosed that Appu had directed him that he left his motorcycle to his residence at Sector 3 Rohini and would give the keys of the same to his sister Sona. She has further deposed that the personal search of accused Krishnamurthy was conducted but it did not reveal anything after which the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested by vide memo Ex.PW44/F, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/G and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/H. She has testified that both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy one by one led them to road No. 43 where the incident had taken place and pointed out the spot to them on which she prepared the pointing out memos which are Ex.PW44/I and Ex.PW44/J St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 181 of 430 respectively.
(156) The witness has further testified that the accused Krishnamurthy had also disclosed that after the incident he was residing with his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor and he then led them to the said room at the aforementioned address where they met the landlord Ghanshyam on the ground floor and when they went to the first floor, they met James Lakyal and Kapil Nayyar. She has further deposed that on seeing Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Kapil informed that Krishnamurthy was the elder brother of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room claiming that there was renovation going on in his house as his elder brother's marriage was held in the month of January 2011 and that is why he had requested his father James and permitted them to stay in the room on the top floor. She has further deposed that they then went to the top floor along with the landlord James and Kapil where Krishnamurthy opened the lock on the door with the help of the key which was recovered in his Jamatalashi. She has further deposed that he then entered the room where they found a light black colored pant hanging on the right side wall on a keel/nail. According to the witness, accused Krishnamurthy removed that pant and took out a ATM card of ABN AMRO Bank, Citizen first shoppers stop card and three visiting cards all in the name of Prateek Trikha from the right pocket of the same and handed over the same to her. The witness has proved that she St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 182 of 430 then converted the pant and ATM card into a pullanda after putting the same in a transparent polythene after keeping the same into the pant and sealed the same with the seal of AS and handed over the seal to SI Sharat Kohli after use. She further deposed that she then seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/A and prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW13/B. According to the witness, the statements of public witnesses were recorded by her and she relieved them after which both the accused then took them to the house of Appu in Sector 3 Rohini where outside his house there was a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461 and thereafter they went inside Appu's house where they met his sister Sona. She has testified that the accused Krishnamurthy had disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona on which she asked for keys from Sona who thereafter handed over the keys to her and also informed that Appu had not come home for the last fourfive days. She has proved that she then seized the bike vide memo Ex.PW44/K. According to her, thereafter they went to the Police Station Saraswati Vihar where the case property were deposited in the malkhana and they returned to their Office.
(157) The witness has also deposed that on 24.01.2011 accused Appu surrendered in the court of Sh. Dheeraj Mor, Ld. MM on which she along with SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal and other team members reached Rohini Court complex and after the accused surrendered before the Court, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 183 of 430 she took permission from Ld. MM to interrogate him, which permission was granted. She has further deposed that outside the Court, first casual search of the accused Appu was conducted by SI Sharat Kohli and it was revealed that he had inflicted blade injuries on his stomach and head which was superficial in nature which fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Ld. MM who immediately made an incorporation of this fact in the proceeding sheet. She has testified that thereafter the accused Appu was interrogated outside the court and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW46/A, his personal search memo was prepared vide memo Ex.PW46/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW46/C. The witness has further deposed that thereafter she moved an application before Ld. MM and obtained a five day Police Custody Remand of accused Appu and they then took him to BSA hospital where he was provided treatment for self inflicted injuries on his stomach and head which took about four hours and thereafter they returned to SIT Office. According to the witness, on 25.01.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted consisting of herself, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Amit Tomar, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender. She has testified that the accused Appu who was already on Police Custody Remand took them to the spot of incident i.e, road No. 43, Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir and pointed out the place of incident on which she prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/L after which they St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 184 of 430 returned to their Office. She has proved that on 27.01.2011 she recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused Srikant @ Appu which is Ex.PW46/D. The witness has further deposed that on 28.01.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted comprising of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender. She further deposed that the accused Appu had in his disclosure to her disclosed that he had taken the pistol with four live cartridges from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru on rent for Rs.2,000/ which Surender @ Dheeraj was a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1. According to the witness the accused Appu further disclosed that after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and he could get the same recovered from Surender @ Dheeraj. According to her, she briefed the other members of the police team about the same and thereafter Appu took them to the above address i.e. House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them. She has further deposed that when they rang the bell of the house, one boy aged around 2425 years opened the door and Appu pointed out towards him as Surender @ Dheeraj and wife of Surender @ Dheeraj was also present there. The witness has also deposed that she interrogated Surender @ Dheeraj but he initially refused that he had given any pistol by Appu and therefore they returned to their Office along with Surender @ Dheeraj. She St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 185 of 430 has also deposed that there Surender @ Dheeraj was interrogated at length and he disclosed that he had kept the pistol in his house and after his interrogation and disclosure, the accused Surender @ Dheeraj again took them to his house. The witness has testified that she asked twothree neighbors to join the police party but they refused, however, the son of the landlord Rupesh consented to be a part of police team and joined the investigations. She has further deposed that Surender @ Dheeraj then took them to the room on the ground floor which was situated inside the premises and was the last room in the row and there was single bed in the room, which was box shape bed. The witness has also deposed that the accused Surender @ Dheeraj opened the same and from there got recovered a pistol from the clothes kept in the box and handed over the same to her. She has also deposed that on checking by her, it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening was found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine and she prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW12/C. She further deposed that the pistol was then measured and its total length was found to be 19cm, with a barrel of 15 cm and butt of 9cm and the magazine had the words 111 inscribed on the same, the pistol was of steel numa metal and the butt had plastic design on the same. She has proved that thereafter she converted both the pistol and cartridge into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo vide memo Ex.PW12/D and handed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 186 of 430 over the seal after use to HC Amit Tomar. She has proved that having prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW12/A. She has further deposed that she thereafter arrested the accused Surender @ Dheeraj vide memo Ex.PW12/E, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/M and thereafter they returned to their Office. The witness has further deposed that on 16.02.2011 she deposited the exhibits through Ct. Dabbu in FSL, Rohini. According to her, on 23.02.2011 she got prepared the scaled site plan by Draftsman SI Mahesh at the instance of Inspector Vipin Kumar which site plan is Ex.PW18/A. The witness has testified that on 25.02.2011 father of accused Neeraj namely Hawa Singh joined the investigations and handed over to her RC of the recovered motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW2410 and she took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW47/A. According to the witness, on the same day father of the deceased Prateek Trikha namely S.K. Trika joined the investigations and handed over to her the original bill of Sony Ericson Xperia mobile phone which was in the name of deceased Prateek Tirkha and also handed over to him photocopy of RC of snatched Honda City car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 which she took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW47/B. (158) She further deposed that on the same day i.e. 25.2.2011 she received secret information about accused S. Raja through HC Shyam Lal on which she constituted police team comprising of herself, SI Sharat Kohli, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 187 of 430 HC Shyam Lal and other police team members and they went to Inderpuri where secret informer met HC Shyam Lal who informed that accused S. Raja had left his house and would return as his mother was not keeping well and he was taking care of her. She has also deposed that accordingly, they laid a trap by covering his house i.e. E399, JJ Colony, Inderpuri and after some time secret informer pointed out towards a person who was entering in a gali as accused S. Raja. The witness has further deposed that with the help of her team members the accused S. Raja was apprehended and arrested vide memo Ex.PW35/A, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW35/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW35/C after which the accused S. Raja was produced before the illaka magistrate and was taken on seven days Police Custody Remand. (159) According to Inspector Aarti Sharma, on 27.02.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted consisting of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender. She has deposed that on that day accused S. Raja was on police custody remand and she briefed the raiding party that pursuant to his disclosure they had to go to Bhiwani in search of one Sombir and thereafter they all went to Bhiwani along with the accused S. Raja. The witness has also deposed that from Police Station City Bhiwani the SHO was joined in the investigations and thereafter S. Raja took them to Balmiki Basti at Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the Basti as the house of Sombir where he had St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 188 of 430 visited along with Appu on twothree occasions. According to her, she prepared the pointing out memo of the said house which is Ex.PW44/N and in his house Sombir she could not find him but his father met them who informed that Sombir did not return to home for the last fourfive days, after which they returned to their Office. She has further deposed that S. Raja was again interrogated in the Office by her and further disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir. According to the witness, the accused S. Raja disclosed that it was Sombir who was a friend of Appu who took him and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it. She has also deposed that the accused S. Raja also disclosed that at that time when this mobile was handed over accused Shalu was also present and the said disclosure statement was recorded by her which is Ex.PW44/O. According to the witness the accused S. Raja then took them to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh and pointed out the shop to them on which the she prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/P. She has also deposed that there they could not meet Amit @ Bunty but his younger brother Sumeet was sitting in the shop who disclosed that Amit was his elder brother and both of them used to sit on this shop. The witness has testified that Sumit further informed that Amit had St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 189 of 430 gone to Rohtak for the last about twothree days but not returned after which Sumit took them to his house at railway colony, Shakurbasti where they met his father who also disclosed them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last twothree days and thereafter they returned to their office. (160) She has further deposed that on 02.03.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted consisting of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Narender, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal went to the shop of Amit @ Bunnty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh, Delhi where the accused Amit @ Bunty was found present and was interrogated by her and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW44/P1, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/P2 and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/P3. The witness has also deposed that at the instance of Amit @ Bunty they went to Hot Spot Spice mobile phone shop at Daryaganj as Amit @ Bunty had disclosed that he had given the robbed mobile phone for repair over there. She has testified that one Vishal Atwal who was working in the repair center identified the accused Amit @ Bunty and had stated that the Xperia mobile phone was given to him for repair by Amit @ Bunty through his friend namely Varun who is running shop in Rani Bagh market in the name and style of Nice Communications and after repair he handed over the mobile to Varun. She has further deposed that Vishal Atwal also checked his computer St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 190 of 430 records and informed that the IMEI number of the deceased was running with one Vivek Vats, resident of Mumbai, on which she immediately spoke to her senior officers and on their directions SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar were directed to go to Mumbai and to recover the mobile. According to her, thereafter they returned back to SIT Office where they called Varun who informed that after receiving the mobile phone he handed over the same to Amit @ Bunty and thereafter she along with her team members and accused Amit @ Bunty went to his mobile shop at Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh where Amit took out a key hidden in the drawer and open another drawer and took out the robbed mobile phone of the deceased and handed over the same to her. She has proved that she converted the same into pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with the seal of AS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/E and thereafter they returned to SIT Office. According to the witness, on further investigations it was revealed that the IMEI number of recovered mobile number did not match with the repaired phone's IMEI number as intimated by Vishal Atwal and immediately she again went to Hot Spot Spice, Daryaganj where Vishal Atwal informed them that the repaired IMEI was interchanged with the IMEI of one Balram resident of village Bahrampur, Gurgaon. The witness has testified that from there she went to village Bahrampur, Gurgaon where Balram joined the investigations and he handed over to her one black colored Sony Ericson Xyperia mobile phone St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 191 of 430 which was having the repaired IMEI number along with two job sheets. She has proved that the mobile phone was converted into pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/F and seal after use was handed over to ASI Suresh. (161) According to Inspector Aarti Sharma, on 23.03.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted comprising of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, Ct. Narender, HC Shyam Lal, HC Rajender and they reached Rani Bagh Main Market for investigations of the present case where the secret informer met her and informed that one person wanted in the present case i.e. Rajender Parshad had been seen roaming around in the market. She has further deposed that thereafter on the pointing out of secret informer one boy who was roaming around in the market was apprehended and his name was confirmed as Rajender Parshad @ Shalu and he was casually searched by SI Sharat Kohli and from the lower which he was wearing some documents were found. She has also deposed that the said documents on checking were found to relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle and when inquired about the said documents, he disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these documents and handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing No. HR26AK0728 on the basis of the documents. She has also St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 192 of 430 deposed that thereafter she took these documents into possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/T and she then arrested the accused Rajender Parshad vide memo Ex.PW44/U1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/U2. According to her, the accused then led them to the spot of incident at road No. 43, Raj Nagar in front of Raj Mandir and pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW44/V and they then returned to the office where Rajender Parshad was interrogated at length and he made his disclosure to her regarding his involvement in the present case as well as in other incidents of robberies, which disclosure statement is Ex.PW44/W. She has testified that the accused Rajender Parshad had in his disclosure stated that the various gold chains which he had robbed in the different incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosures Ex.PW44/W had been sold by him to one Sanjay, who is running a shop under the name and style of Soni Jewelers at Avantika, Rohini. According to the witness, the accused then led them to the shop of Soni Jewelers Avantika Rohini, where they found Sanjay Soni in the shop as pointed out by the accused Rajender Parshad and she interrogated Sanjay Soni who admitted that Rajender Parshad sold five chain to him at different times. She has further deposed that he then went to the room inside the shop and brought five gold chains and handed over the same to her and Rajender Parshad identified all the five chains as the one which he had sold to Sanjay Soni after committing robbery in the various incidents as St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 193 of 430 disclosed by him in his disclosure statement. She has further deposed that she then took the same into possession U/s 41.1(D) Cr. P.C. and converted the same into different pullandas with the help of polythene and white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and took the same into possession U/s 102 Cr. P.C. and thereafter arrested Sanjay Soni after which they then returned to their Office.
(162) The witness has further deposed that she prepared the first charge sheet on 27.02.2011 against accused Neeraj, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Srikant @ Appu and accused Surender @ Dheeraj and on 08.04.2011 she sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through Ct. Narender. According to her, on 04.05.2011 she obtained the result from FSL Rohini through Ct. Vikas and thereafter, she prepared the supplementary charge sheet and filed the same in the Court.
(163) She has identified the accused Rajender Parshad, Appu @ Srikant, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Sombir, Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru, Neeraj, Amit @ Bunty, Jaideep and Sunil in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone of Sony Experia of white colour bearing IMEI number 3594190305283067 as the same as recovered at the instance of Amit @ Bunty and belonging to the deceased which is Ex.P1; Driving License bearing No. P08122004416486 of Prateek Trika/ deceased as the same as recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj which is Ex.P2; shoppers stop card, ATM Gold Debit Card of ABN Amro Bank and three visiting cards as the same having been got St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 194 of 430 recovered by the accused Krishnamurthy which are Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively; Honda City car bearing Number plate DL4C NC1115 which is Ex.P6 from the photographs Ex.PW32/J1 to Ex.PW32/J4 as that recovered from Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil; one mobile phone of Sony Experia of black colour bearing IMEI number 359419030873086 as the same as recovered from Balram which is Ex.P13; one pistol and one empty cartridge as recovered from possession of accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru at the instance of Srikant @ Appu which pistol with magazine is Ex.P15 and bullet and cartridges case is Ex.P16.
(164) In her crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that when she received the case file from the previous Investigating Officer, the proceedings under Section 172 Cr.P.C. were not handed over to her by him. She further deposed that she had not discussed the matter with the previous Investigating Officer but has scrutinize the case file only. Witness has denied the suggestion that she did not consult the previous Investigating Officer and therefore there is no question of his telling her that this was not a case relating to dacoity or robbery. According to the witness, after receiving the case file from previous Investigating Officer she met the father of the deceased after about 1520 days. She has further deposed that she had only received the case file alongwith seizure memos etc. and has voluntarily added that the case property was in the malkhana. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 195 of 430 She has denied the suggestion that she had met the father of the deceased on 30.11.2010. According to her, it was mentioned on the MLC of the deceased that the gold chain of the deceased, his purse containing his other documents had been given to his father. She has denied the suggestion that the purse of the deceased also contained his DL, cash and visiting cards. Witness has admitted that it was mentioned in the case file that the mobile of the deceased had been robbed. She has testified that she did not apply for tracking of the mobile though she had tried to connect/ make a call on the robbed phone. Witness has admitted that HC Amit Tomar was already working on the case previously but there were no written proceedings carried out by him in this regard. She has denied the suggestion that that SHO Police Station - Saraswati Vihar had contacted her and made inquiries about lifting of Neeraj from his house in the evening on 30.11.2010 or that her team had given the information to SI Rakesh Rana of Police Station Saraswati Vihar of lifting of Neeraj and Neeraj being in their custody. According to the witness, she did not prepare her preraid proceedings of the raid conducted at M2K cinema on 02.12.2010 and had passed on the oral information to the senior officers regarding the raid. She has denied the suggestion that no raid was carried out on 02.12.2010 at M2K or that this raid has been fabricated only to justify the arrest of Neeraj. Witness has admitted that when she received the case file, she came to know from the same that there were two chowkidars on duty at the relevant time who was aware of the incident. She has further deposed that in her subsequent St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 196 of 430 investigations she could not find any other person as eye witness. The witness has also deposed that she did not take any photographs at the spot and has voluntarily added that the same had already been taken by the Crime Branch. She has testified that both the chowkidars had already been interrogated by the previous Investigating Officer and therefore she did not interrogate them again. The witness has also deposed that the local inquiries did not reveal that there was any function in the area where the incident had taken place. According to her, she did not interrogate the father of the deceased and therefore there is no question of his having inform whether the vehicle had been taken by the financier or had been robbed. She has further deposed that she had checked the ZIP NET with regard to the details of the robbed vehicle and since the information had already been circulated on the ZIP NET with regard to the details of the robbed vehicle, she did not issue any fresh directions in this regard. The witness has testified that Neeraj did not point out the place where they had kept the stolen vehicle and has voluntarily explained that he only pointed out the place where he had kept the vehicle and had informed that the vehicle had been taken away by Appu, Raja and Shalu from the spot. Witness has admitted that none of the accused had pointed out the place where the vehicle had been parked after having being robbed and has voluntarily added that Krishnamurthy had taken them to large number of places but did not point out any specific place to them. According to her, first of all it was Neeraj who was arrested. She has denied the suggestion that they have arrested Neeraj from his house on 30.10.2011. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 197 of 430 She has further deposed that apart from disclosure of Neeraj there is no other document to show that he was in contact of the other accused and has voluntarily added that Neeraj and the other accused are the residents of the same locality. The witness has also deposed that when Neeraj was produced in the court, it was then she came to know that he had suffered with a head injury. She has also deposed that while the bail application of Neeraj came up for hearing, it was then that his medical record was got verified from Balaji Action Hospital. Witness has admitted that medical documents of Neeraj were also presented by his Counsel at the stage of remand. She has further deposed that she had verified that Neeraj remained admitted in the Hospital and has voluntarily added that she does not recollect the date but his admission in the Hospital was prior to the incident. She admits that around the time of the incident he was newly married. She is unable to tell the date of marriage of Neeraj not does she recollect the same but states that it was around 17th or 18th. She denied the suggestion that on 30.11.2010 Neeraj had returned from his honeymoon. According to her, she had obtained bills of the robbed mobile from the father of the deceased. Witness has admitted that when the initial chargesheet was filed, the said mobile phone was not recovered and has voluntarily added that it was recovered later. She has also admitted that the arrest memo of all the accused do not bear the signatures of any public witness and has voluntarily added that the signatures of public witness is present on the recovery effected at the instance of Srikant @ Appu and from Dheeraj @ Dhiru as public witness St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 198 of 430 was present at that time but she is not sure about the signatures on arrest and personal search. She has denied the suggestion that no public witness was joined at the time of apprehension of any of the accused nor at the time of their personal search or at the time of recording their disclosure or that the disclosure statements of accused Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Amit @ Bunty, Rajender Parshad @ Shalu, Dheeraj @ Dhiru were recorded by her of her own only to connect them with the offence and to work out the present blind case and has voluntarily added that whatever they had stated she had recorded. She has further testified that all the documents are not in her handwriting and has voluntarily added that some are in her handwriting and others are in the handwriting of her team members. She has denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in their office by her and her team and were signed by the officers on her directions or that the accused Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Amit @ Bunty, Rajender Parshad @ Shalu, Dheeraj @ Dhiru were pressurized to sign blank documents which were converted into the above memos and documents later on. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the accused Rajender was lifted from Toll Tax point at Haryana by officers of Police Station Saraswati Vihar and handed over to them after his illegal detention of four days and falsely implicated in the present case by planting documents of RC, pollution certificate and insurance of some other vehicle on him. She has also denied the suggestion that accused S. Raja had surrendered in the Police Station but St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 199 of 430 she wrongly showed his arrest from Inderpuri or that accused Krishnamurthy was also lifted form his house at L - Block, Shakarpur and was wrongly shown as being lifted from Shamshan Ghat Road. The witness has also denied the suggestion that the pistol had been planted upon Dheeraj only to fabricate evidence against him relating the present case for working out the same. She has also denied the suggestion that she prepared the chargesheet without any application of mind on the dictation of senior officers only to work out the blind case by fabricating material against the accused or that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons as claimed by her or that the recoveries have been planted against them. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(165) After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on.
He has stated that he was lifted from his house by the police and then falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery was effected from his possession or at his instance. According to him, the alleged recovery has been planted on him by the police to falsely implicate him. He has further stated that he is not known to other coaccused and has nothing to do with St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 200 of 430 the alleged offence.
(166) The accused Neeraj has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has stated that the police officials have implicated him in various false cases in which he has been acquitted. According to him, on 4.11.2010 he had met with an accident when he was going to distribute the cards of his own marriage and suffered head injuries pursuant to which he remained admitted in Action Balaji Hospital and since his marriage was fixed on 17.11.2010, he left the hospital against the advise of the doctor. He has also stated that his marriage was solemnized on 17.11.2010 and in the morning of 18.11.2010 he returned back to Delhi and again visited his inlaws at Rohtak with his wife on 19.11.2010 and returned back to Delhi on 20.11.2010. According to the accused, for two days he was detained by the SHO Saraswati Vihar and thereafter in the midnight of 30.11.2010 he was kidnapped from his house by some persons in civil dress and later on they disclosed that they are the members of Special Staff. He has stated that at that time he was with his wife and family and his father had made a call at 100 number. He has further stated that he is not known to other coaccused and has nothing to do with the alleged offence.
(167) The accused Srikant @ Appu has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he did not make any disclosure statement and he was made to sign on blank papers which were St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 201 of 430 converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has further stated that the police officials have implicated him in various false cases in which he has already been acquitted. The accused has also stated that at the relevant time he was not residing in Delhi and was in his native village and he used to come Delhi just to attend court dates in the cases which had been falsely planted upon him by the police. He has further stated that he is not known to other coaccused and has nothing to do with the alleged offence. (168) The accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he did not make any disclosure statement and he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has further stated that he was lifted from his house at Avantika and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has also stated that nothing was recovered from his possession or at his instance and the alleged weapon has been planted upon him to connect him to the alleged offence. (169) The accused S. Raja has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he did not make any disclosure statement and he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has further stated that an intimation was sent to his house and he was called to the Crime Branch Office for inquiry and he surrendered before the Crime Branch Officials after which the police falsely implicated him in the present case. (170) The accused Amit @ Bunty has stated that he is innocent and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 202 of 430 has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he did not make any disclosure statement and he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has further stated that he was called to the Police Station for inquiry and then falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, the mobile phone has been planted upon him by the police to connect him with the alleged offence. (171) The accused Sombir has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he did not make any disclosure statement and he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has further stated that he was lifted from his house at Charkhi Dadri Haryana and has been falsely implicated in the present case. According to him, nothing was recovered from his possession and the alleged weapon and the car have been planted upon him to connect him with the alleged offence. (172) The accused Sunil has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he did not make any disclosure statement and he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has further stated that he was lifted from Badara and was kept in illegal detention for two to three days and thereafter his arrest has been shown in the present case. According to the accused, he is not known to any of the coaccused persons. (173) The accused Jaideep has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he did not make any disclosure St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 203 of 430 statement and he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. He has further stated that he was lifted from his house from VPO Kharkari, District Bhiwani and was kept in illegal detention for threefour days and thereafter his arrest has been shown in the present case. According to the accused, he is not known to any of the coaccused persons.
(174) The accused Rajender Prashad has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. According to the accused, he is a shopkeeper and has nothing to do with any criminal activity. He has stated that he was lifted from Toll Plaza, Gurgaon, Haryana on the intervening night of 1819.3.2011 by the police officials of PS Saraswati Vihar and was kept in illegal detention for four days and thereafter he was handed over to SIT on 22.3.2011 after which he was falsely implicated in this case. According to him, the alleged recovery has been planted upon him by the police and he did not make any disclosure statement. He has alleged that he was made to sign on blank papers which were converted into various memos/ documents later on. According to the accused, the police officials have implicated him in various false cases in which he has been acquitted and the concerned courts have also recommended the matter against erring police officials to proceed against them. He has further stated that he is not known to any of the coaccused persons.
(175) The accused have examined as many as Six Witnesses in their defence.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 204 of 430 (176) DW1 Dinesh Kumar has brought the entry/visited register of Jat Dharamshala, near Vaishya College, BRM Road, Bhiwani, Haryana sowing that on 15.03.2011 at 11 PM nine persons including six police personals and three accused namely Somvir, Jaideep and Sunil came to the Dharamshala in vehicle No. DL1VC1700. According to the witness, the accused persons were in handcuffs and these police persons remained in Dharamshala till 3:50 AM on 16.03.2011. Witness has further deposed that they were alloted dormitory room No. 13 and 14 and one of police official namely SI Sharad Kohli made entry in the visiting register in his own handwriting. The copy of the relevant entry i.e. entry No. 1402 is Ex.DW1/A (running into two pages). According to the witness SI Sharad Kohli on behalf of all guest ha signed the register at point A after showing his identity proof.
(177) During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, witness has deposed that the Dharamshala is being run by Jat Samaj and is registered with the government and has voluntarily added that it is having registration No. 819 dated 20.01.1989 with administration of district Bhiwani. According to the witness they do not enter the details of the customers in the soft copy and has voluntarily added that he is only maintaining this hard copy. Witness has further deposed that this register is regularly checked by the management of the Dharamshala and some times by the local police under the laws. Witness has admitted that he has only mentioned the total number of persons who had come but not their details. Witness has denied St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 205 of 430 the suggestion that Sharad Kohli had come alone and room No. 14 has been added later after fabricating the details of one as nine in the column where the details of the total number of persons find mentioned. Witness has denied the suggestion that the record in question is a fabricated record. (178) DW2 Azad Singh has deposed that he is running a hotel in the name and style of Azad Hotel, Dadri Road, Badhra, District Bhiwani, Haryana. According to the witness on 15.03.2011 in the morning more than eight persons including some police officials and two persons were brought to his hotel by some police officials. Witness has identified the accused Jaideep and Sombir by pointing out towards them. According to the witness, all above said persons again visited his hotel in the evening on the same day for the lunch purpose in his hotel and at that time one more accused was with them. At this stage, witness has identified the accused Sunil who was also in handcuff at that time. Witness has further deposed that he has no previous relationship or knowledge of above said three persons and he can also identify the police officials who were present at that time if shown to him.
(179) During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, witness has deposed that his hotel is not registered with the government, voluntarily added that it is a Road side Dhaba and he was not aware that if it is required to be registered. According to the witness they do not maintain any register with regard to the details of the customers and about 5060 and some times even 70 customers come in a day. Witness has further deposed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 206 of 430 that his dhaba is situated on the main road. Witness has admitted that large number of officials of the state police, i.e. Haryana police and also police of Rajasthan, Delhi and other states stop at his dhaba, voluntarily added that he could recollect the details of the officials because they had come even previously. According to the witness he cannot tell whether on previous occasions they used to be with other persons and has voluntarily added that one senior police official was come amongst. Witness has denied the suggestion that no officers of Delhi police had even stopped at his dhaba along with the accused persons whom he has identified. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was identifying the accused on the asking of the family of the accused persons. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness. He has voluntarily added that one Sunil Kumar was also implicated along with the accused and he had told him that he has falsely implicated so he told him that there was no issue. Witness has further deposed that this Sunil Kumar is a resident of a village which is 1015 km away from his dhaba. Witness has admitted that on the day of his deposition he has come to the court on the asking of Sunil Kumar, voluntarily added that Sunil Kumar had come to him and requested him to come and depose on his behalf. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing on his behalf.
(180) DW3 Ct. Atul, has brought the summoned record i.e. Rojnamcha for the period from 19.03.2011 till 23.03.2011. The relevant entries made on the said dates are collectively Ex.DW3/A (running into 14 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 207 of 430 pages). Original record seen and returned.
(181) This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state, despite opportunity granted.
(182) DW4 Rajender Parshad (accused examined himself under Section 315 Cr.PC) has tendered the certified copies of the statements of Sh. Hari Krishan and Amit Soni recorded in FIR No. 341/10, police station K.N. Katju Marg before the court of Sh. Kishore Kumar Ld. MM, which certified copies are Ex.DW4/A1 and Ex.DW4/A2, respectively. He also tendered the certified copies of the statements of Sh. Hari Krishan and Amit Soni recorded in FIR No. 269/10, PS Paschim Vihar before the court of Sh. Rajender Kumar Ld. MM, which certified copies are Ex.DW4/B1 and Ex.DW4/B2 respectively. He has deposed that he has been falsely implicated in various cases and he has been acquitted in all the cases deposed off so far. According to him he shall be filing the certified copies of the judgment in the said cases at the time of final arguments. (183) During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, witness has denied the suggestion that he has been acquitted only because of the failure to prove the case against him beyond reasonable doubt and not because he was innocent. He has denied the suggestion that Hari Krishan and Amit Soni has deposed falsely at his instance in FIR No. 341/10, Police Station K.N. Katju Marg and FIR No. 269/10, PS Paschim Vihar and that is why they had not appeared before this court to depose. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to save himself from penal St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 208 of 430 consequences.
(184) DW5 Malika has deposed that in the middle of the month of January, date she does not recollect, some police persons came to her house at about 78 PM and they locked the door from inside and picked up all the mobile phones in the house and sat inside and after some time her daughter return home and it was then they made inquiry about his son Appu but since she was not at home being at Madras, on which they started harassing her daughter. Witness has further deposed that they caught hold of her hairs and one police man took her with him while the other remained sitting there and they had also brought the accused Krishnamurthy (correctly identified by the witness) with them and they kept sitting in his house and thereafter they left her house in the morning at 6 AM. Witness has further deposed that on the next day they also picked up her soninlaw and took him to the Police Station on which he contacted a lawyer. According to the witness, thereafter they picked up her second son in law Sonu and also took away his motorcycle and keys and thereafter on the next day they also took her third daughter and son in law and after three days all her three daughters and son in laws were left after their illegal detention. Witness has further deposed that it was in the month of January that her son Appu surrendered in the court after she called him from Madras. According to the witness, his son has been acquitted in the other cases in which he is involved and the judgments of the various cases are collectively Ex.DW5/A. Witness has further deposed that he is falsely implicated by the police. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 209 of 430 (185) During her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, witness has deposed that the persons who had come to her house whom she claimed to the police officers were in civil dress. According to the witness she did not know that they were police officials but they told her that they were police officials from Sector 18, Rohini and then she came to know. Witness has admitted that even prior to this the police officials used to regularly visit her house as her son was involved in many criminal cases. Witness has further deposed that she did not make any PCR call when her daughters and son in laws were lifted and has voluntarily added that her daughter Balli had made a call which was on the next day but she cannot tell the details of the same and she had made complaints to the senior officers regarding the illegal detention but she cannot produce the copies of the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was making false allegations of illegal detention of her daughters and her sons in law only on legal advise and tutoring to save her son from penal consequences. (186) DW6 Hawa Singh has deposed that he had made an application under the RTI act which application is Ex.DW6/A and reply to the same is Ex.DW6/B. Witness has also placed on record the date of birth of his son Neeraj as shown in the Polio drop card, copy of which is Ex.DW6/C. (187) According to the witness his son Neeraj had met with an accident on 05.11.2010 and he was admitted into Balaji Action hospital for treatment and on 17.11.2010 he was married. Witness has further deposed that on 20.11.2010 they went to village Kahni near Rohtak and on 26.11.2010 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 210 of 430 they returned to Delhi. According to the witness, on 30.11.2010 the police lifted his son Neeraj from his house, on which he made a 100 number call and he also went to the police station but he was not permitted to enter the police station. According to the witness he then engaged an lawyer and moved an application which was listed for 03.12.2010. (188) During his crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, witness has deposed that they have a house in the village Khani but no body stays there and he has his other family members i.e. his cousin etc still stays in the village. According to the witness his chacha Balmat had also come to attend the weeding of his son Neeraj but they did not stay in his house at village and has voluntarily added that they stayed in their own house. Witness has further deposed that he maintains a mobile with him but he cannot tell the number, voluntarily added that he is illiterate person and can only dial the number. Witness has denied the suggestion that his son was available in Delhi through out the period and they never went to their native village. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had made a preemptive call to the police on 100 number. Witness has admitted that his son is involved in other criminal cases and has voluntarily added that he has been acquitted in all the cases. Witness has further deposed that they did not tell the in laws of his son regarding his previous involvement before marriage and has voluntarily added that there were small cases of jhagra/marpitai etc which normally take place. According to the witness his son was privately employed, voluntarily added that he used to do safai work with the private St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 211 of 430 thekedar/contractor. According to the witness he cannot tell the name of the thekedar/contractor.
(189) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the written memorandum of arguments filed by the parties and the evidence on record. I first propose to deal with all the averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
Public Witnesses:
1. Suresh Kumar He is the father of the deceased who has deposed on the
Trikha (PW1) following aspects:
1. That he reside at C67, Raj Nagar, Pitampura, Delhi and deceased Prateek Trikha was his only son.
2. That on 21.11.2010, his son Prateek left the house at about 8:00 PM in his Honda City car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 to attend the reception party of the marriage of the brother of his friend at Ashok Vihar.
3. That in the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, at about 12:30 AM, the guard of his society came at his residence and informed him that his son Prateek after receiving the fire arm injury was lying on the gate of his society and he was bleeding.
4. That he immediately reached at the gate of his society and saw that his son Prateek was sitting on a chair and was unconscious and was bleeding at that time.
5. That he called his neighbour Rishi Kakkar and with his help he shifted his son to Maharaja Agarsain St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 212 of 430 Hospital in his I20 car and got him admitted there but during treatment, he expired.
6. That the said car of Prateek bearing no. DL4C NC1115, his mobile phone make Sony Ericsson bearing no. 9999904548 were missing.
7. That his son Prateek Trikha used to keep the registration documents and his driving licence and some other important papers in the glove box of his Honda city car, one bag, which was provided to him by his employer company Steria, containing some documents of his company and his coat, which were there in his Honda City Car, were also missing with the said Honda City Car.
8. That the Investigating Officer recorded his statement/ complainant which is Ex.PW1/A.
9. That Prateek Trikha was not having enmity with anyone and he used to leave to his office at about 8:00 AM and used to return home from office at about 7:00 PM.
10. That deceased Prateek Trikha was a Software Engineer in Steria Company and on 2122.11.2010 being Saturday and Sunday were his weekly off.
11. That on that night, about 12:0012:05 AM his wife had telephonically called Prateek and asked him, as to at what time he would return, to which he replied that he was reaching within ten minutes after dropping his friend Ankur Mahajan, but at about 12:30 AM the guard of his Society informed him, regarding receiving of firearm injury by Prateek. He has identified the articles belonging to the deceased i.e. one mobile phone make Sony Ericsson XPERIA alongwith its cover as the same which was being used by his son Prateek Trikha, which mobile phone is Ex.P1 (recovered from the possession of accused Amit @ Bunty); driving license of the deceased Prateek Trikha which he used to keep in the glove box of his Honda City car, which Driving License is Ex.P2 (recovered from the possession of accused St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 213 of 430 Neeraj); one shoppers stop First Citizen card in the name of Prateek Trikha which is Ex.P3 (got recovered by the accused Krishnamurthy); one ABN Amro Bank's gold debit card in the name of Prateek Trikha which is Ex.P4 got recovered by the accused Krishnamurthy), three visiting cards of Prateek Trikha of his company namely Steria which are collectively Ex.P5 got recovered by the accused Krishnamurthy). He has proved that he got released on superdari the Honda City car bearing registration No. DL 4CNC1115 which car is Ex.P6 (recovered from the possession of accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep).
2. Damodar (PW2) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he used to work as a Security Guard in a company namely Security and in the intervening night of 2122/11/2010, his duty was at the gate of Raj Nagar Colony, situated on Road No. 43, from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM and one more guard namely Virender Dubey was also deputed with him.
2. That on that night, he locked the main entrance gate of the Society at about 12:00 midnight and he alongwith other guard sat on the chairs inside the guard room.
3. That at about 12:30 AM one boy knocked the main door, saying "Guard Kholo, Goli Maar Di Hai" on which he immediately opened the gate and a boy, who was bleeding profusely was there on the gate.
4. That he made him the said boy to sit on a chair and asked him his number "Babu Tumahara Number Kya Hai", to which he replied 67 and thereafter, he did not speak.
5. That he immediately rushed to House No. 67 and informed the parents of the boy about the incident on which the parents of that boy and three/ four more persons came there and removed that boy to Hospital in a car.
3. Sh. Rajesh Trikha He is the uncle of the deceased who has proved that on (PW3) 22.11.2010, he went to BJRM Hospital where he identified St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 214 of 430 the dead body of his nephew Prateek Trikha vide Ex.PW3/A and after postmortem, dead body was received by him vide memo Ex.PW3/B.
4. Sh. C.M. Sharma He is a formal witness has proved that on 22.11.2010 he (PW4) went to Babu Jagjeevan Ram Hospital where he identified the dead body of Prateek Trikha son of his brotherinlaw (sala) vide his statement Ex. PW4/A.
5. Sh. Virender This witness is the second guard of the colony who was on Kumar Dubey duty and has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW5) 1. That he is doing private job as Security Guard and in the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, his duty hours were from 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM at Raj Nagar Colony, Gate No.1.
2. That another Security Guard namely Damodar was also with him on duty at that gate and on that night at about 12:30 AM while they were sitting on the chairs inside the gate one boy came there on foot and blood was oozing out from his body and they asked him as to what happened to which he told them to open the gate and also told that he had received fire arm injury (goli lagi hai).
3. That he again asked him of his Kothi number on which the boy told 'C67' and then he fell down on the ground.
4. That thereafter he alongwith Damodar lifted him and made him to sit on the chair and Damodar immediately went to the said Kothi Number (C67) and then returned with his father and twothree other persons who removed the said boy to hospital in a car.
5. That he came to know the name of that boy as Prateek.
6. Sh. Ankur He is a friend of the deceased Prateek Trikha whom the Mahajan (PW6) deceased had dropped home a few minutes before the incident after they were coming back home on attending a reception party of a colleague and has deposed on the following aspects:
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 215 of 430
1. That on 21.11.2010 at about 9 PM Prateek, who was his colleague, came to him for attending the marriage reception of one common friend Parvesh Tomar.
2. That Prateek came to him in his Honda City Car and he along with Prateek went for attending the reception of the marriage in his Honda City car and left the ceremony spot at about 12 midnight for returning their houses.
3. That within ten to twelve minutes, they reached his house and Prateek dropped him and when Prateek was dropping him, his (Prateek's) mother telephoned him and he (Prateek) informed her that he would reach back home within 10 to 15 minutes.
4. That he went to his house and Prateek also went for his house in his own car.
5. That on the same midnight, at about 33:30 AM he received an information that somebody fired to Prateek.
7. Rupesh Kumar He is the landlord of the accused Surender @ Dhiru and (PW12) has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is residing on the first floor portion of this house whereas the ground floor was let out to the accused Surender @ Dhiru about quarter to one month from 28.01.2011.
2. That on 28.01.2011 at about 5:00 PM, he received a telephone call of his sister from his house as he was present in Vijay Nursing Home, near Avantika Bus Stand and she told him that some persons were knocking the door at ground floor and she asked him to reach the home immediately.
3. That he reached there and saw that one person was catching hold pistol and other were standing there on which he asked them as to who they are?
4. That without replying him, the said persons asked him who he was on which replied that he is son of the landlord of the said house and they asked him to whether he knew that person, who was with them.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 216 of 430
5. That the said persons told him that the pistol was recovered from the bed of the room of accused Dhiru.
6. That they showed him the pistol and told that a fish shape is engraved on the pistol and noticed the same on the pistol.
7. That the said persons were police personnels, who prepared a cloth pullanda and put the pistol in the said pullanda and got the same sealed and took his signatures on the said pullanda.
8. That they prepared a site plan of the place under the tenancy of accused Surender @ Dhiru and obtained his signatures on the same at point A on Ex.PW12/A.
9. That police persons asked the neighbors to join the investigations, but they refused and went away and police had taken away accused Dhiru with them.
10. Witness has further deposed that no other person was present there with the police, except accused Dhiru @ Surender.
This witness has not supported his earlier version on the aspect of recovery of the pistol at the instance of accused Surender @ Dhiru and on the following aspects:
1. That police recorded his statement Ex.PW12/B.
2. That accused Dheeraj @ Dhiru got opened the door of his house through his wife and went inside the inner room of his house, opened the lid/ cap of box of the single bed (diwan) and took out a pistol from the clothes and told them that it was the same pistol, which was given to accused Appu by him and after the commission of crime, he returned the same to him.
3. That the accused Appu accompanied the police and accused Dheeraj to his house or that after seeing the pistol, accused Appu disclosed that it is the same pistol, which was taken by him from Dheeraj after St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 217 of 430 paying Rs.2000/ or that after committing the crime, it was returned to the accused Dheeraj.
Witness has, however, admitted:
➢ That police took the measurement of the pistol and also prepared the sketch of the pistol, live cartridge and the magazine, which bears his signatures at point A on Ex.PW12/C. ➢ That Seizure memo Ex.PW12/D bear his signatures at point A and has explained that the said document was prepared by the police after sometime at the spot and thereafter, obtained his signatures. ➢ That accused Dheeraj was arrested after the recovery proceedings and he signed the arrest memo of the accused Surender @ Dhiru @ Dheeraj at point A which is Ex.PW12/E. ➢ That police was making inquiry from accused Dheeraj but has explained that it was at a distance from him.
➢ Witness has also identified his signatures on the cut cloth pullanda at point X, which cloth pullanda is Ex.PW12/I and has identified the pistol along with Magazine as the same which was converted into pullanda and sealed in his presence and taken into possession, which pistol along with magazine is Ex.PW12/2 collectively. He has also identified the cut torn pullanda Ex.PW12/1 as the same which was shown to him by the police.
8. Ghanshyam This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW13) 1. That he was dealing with business of Razaai/Gadda handloom and his house is built upto three storeys i.e. ground, first and second floor.
2. That at second floor his tenant James Lakayil was residing since one year from 02.12.2010 at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/.
3. That on 02.12.2010 fiveseven persons came and reached on the second floor through staircase and immediately thereafter, he was called by one police St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 218 of 430 official, who asked him that Madam called him at the roof of second floor where a small room was situated.
4. That he reached there and James and his son Kapil were also present there.
5. That on the room at the roof at second floor, some labour of James was residing and they were living their and the said room was locked and it was opened with the help of key.
6. That in the room, one jeans pants was hanging on a hook (keel) and that pant was lifted by accused Krishnamurthy, who was also present there and he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.
7. That the accused Krishnamurthy took out ATM card of ABN Amro Bank and one another card and two three more visiting cards in the name of Prateek and Investigating Officer put all the articles including the pants in a transparent polythene and it was turned into a cloth parcel and sealed the same.
8. That the Investigating Officer also prepared site plan of the spot and he also signed the parcels.
9. That in his presence, Kapil told that the accused Krishnamurthy is the elder brother of his school friend and was residing in that room with his consent, for the last one week.
10. That Investigating Officer prepared a pointing out cum seizure memo vide Ex.PW13/A and also prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW13/B. This witness has correctly identified one shoppers stop first citizen card in the name of Prateek Trikha, one ABN Amro Bank's gold debit card in the name of Prateek Trikha and three visiting cards of Prateek Trikha of his company namely Steria as the same which were got recovered by the accused Krishnamurthy from the said jeans pant lying in the room at roof which was in his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 219 of 430 occupation. The shoppers stop card is Ex.P3, ABN Amro Bank's gold debit card is Ex.P4, three visiting cards are collectively Ex.P5 in the name of Prateek Trikha of his company namely Steria and jeans pant which is Ex.PW13/1.
9. Ashok Kumar This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW14) 1. That in the year 2010, he had been working at Call Center in the name and style of Future on BPO Solution Pvt. Ltd, situated at Rani Bagh, Delhi.
2. That on 19.11.2010 he had gone to the house of his boss i.e. Kothi No.1, Anand Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi for account files on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR15A3501, make Hero Honda Splendor.
3. That on reaching there, at about 9 PM he had parked his above said motorcycle in front of the Kothi/ House of his Boss and when he came out from the house of his boss, he found that his above said motorcycle was missing.
4. That he searched for his above said motorcycle, but could not trace it out there and thereafter he made a call at 100 number, but no police official reached there and thereafter he again made a call at 100 number call on which one police official came on a motorcycle and asked him about the incident and suggested him to go to the Police Station Rani Bagh.
5. That thereafter he went to Police Station Rani Bagh and his statement Ex.PW2/A (in case FIR No. 377/10, Police Station Rani Bagh) was recorded by the police.
6. That he came back to his office and on the next night, he left for his native place i.e. for Haryana.
7. That on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, SundayMonday he received a call from police of Police Station Saraswati Vihar who inquired about his aforesaid motorcycle and he informed him that it was registered in his name and also informed that the said motorcycle had already been stolen on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 220 of 430 19.11.2010 and made a complaint in this regard at Police Station Rani Bagh.
8. That the police official informed him that his said motorcycle had been recovered and asked him to bring the copy of the said FIR registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar on which in the morning, he came to Police Station Saraswati Vihar.
9. That inquiries were made from him and thereafter he was discharged and he got released his above said motorcycle on superdari, which motorcycle is Ex.PX.
10. Rohit Kakkar @ He is a neighbour of the deceased Prateek Trikha who has Vishi (PW15) deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 22.11.2010, he was present in his house and in the night hours at about 11:00 PM, he heard noise on which he came outside his house where he came to know that his neighbour Prateek Trikha had received injuries and was lying in a pool of blood on the main gate of their society near the guard room on a chair and was unconscious.
2. That the father of Prateek Trikha brought his car and he accompanied him to remove Prateek Trikha to Maharaj Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh where he was admitted in Emergency.
3. That later on they came to know that someone had fired on Prateek Trikha and he died subsequently on the next day.
11. Sonu (PW29) This witness is the brother in law (Jija) of the accused Srikant @ Appu who has proved that he is the owner of motorcycle no. DL 8S AU 6461 make Bajaj Pulsar and police took him and his motorcycle from his house after which he obtained his motorcycle by the order of the Court and on superdarginama Ex.PW29/A.
12. Uma Shankar This witness was working as a Senior Manager in Run (PW33) Service, Infocare Pvt. Ltd. A6, Mogapair, Industrial Estate Mogapair West, Chennai. He has proved the following aspects:
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 221 of 430
1. That on 13.12.2010 they received one Sony Erricson phone Model X10i bearing IMEI number 012379004668392 from Delhi Sony Erricson Service Center, Hot Spot, Darya Ganj, Delhi due to the reason that the said set was having on/ off problem and turn off randomly and remain in poor network.
2. That they repaired the said mobile phone with changed motherboard and sent the said mobile phone to Mumbai Center to be delivered to another customer whereas they sent the mobile phone of Delhi Customer with a changed motherboard as repaired one and due to this reason IMEI number of both mobile phones were changed.
3. That the Head Office provided a new IMEI number to the Delhi Customer which is 359419030873086.
4. He has proved the computerized copy of delivery challan cum gate pass with new IMEI number to Delhi Customer which is Ex.PW33/A (two pages);
the computerized copy of delivery challan cum gate pass with IMEI number of mobile phone sent to the Mumbai customer which is Ex.PW33/B (three pages); Job sheet of the above said mobile phone with IMEI number received from Delhi is Ex.PW33/C and the job sheet of the Soni Erricson, Hot Spot Service center is Ex.PW33/D which they received from the said office.
13. Varn (PW36) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones by the name of Nice Communication at 1593, Main Market, Rani Bagh, Delhi.
2. That he knew the accused Amit @ Bunty as he was also doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones at Rani Bagh and was having a shop there.
3. That in the month of December 2010 accused Amit St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 222 of 430 @ Bunty handed over one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i of white colour to him for repair on the pretext that there was a problem in charging and there was a default in IMEI No. with mother board and also told that the mobile phone was in warranty period.
4. That he asked about the bill etc. of mobile phone from accused Amit @ Bunty but he told him that he had kept the bill receipts etc. at his house and the same could not traceable.
5. That accused Amit @ Bunty was regular visitor to him and having the same business, in a good faith he sent his mobile phone for repair to Vishal Atwal who was working at Spice Hot Spot service centre of Sony Ericson at Daryaganj, Delhi.
6. That Vishal Atwal sent the said mobile phone to company for repair work and after got repaired he handed over the same to him.
7. That he checked the mobile phone and found it in working order and its motherboard was changed and its IMEI number also changed after which he handed over the mobile phone to accused Amit @ Bunty.
8. That on 03.03.2011 Inspector Aarti Sharma of Crime Branch called him in her office and recorded his statement.
He has identified the said mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of white colour which Ex.P1 (belonging to the deceased and got recovered by accused accused Amit @ Bunty).
14. Sh. Vishwas This witness has a service center of Sony Ericson at shop Vitthal Thakkar no.1, Thakkar Shopping Mall, Second Floor, Opposite (PW37) Boriwali Railway Station, SV Road, Boriwali West, Mumbai92 which is a authorized service center of Sony Ericson since 2008. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 14.12.10, he received a mobile phone of Sony Ericson model no. Xperia X10i bearing IMEI St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 223 of 430 No. 359419037492237 from Vivek Vats for repair work as there was a charging problem in the phone and he prepared the jobsheet no. SE310SGI12639.
2. That he checked the mobile phone and there was PCB motherboard problem on the mobile phone on which he took PCB mother board from mobile phone and sent the same to Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd.
Chennai, the high level repair service centre of Sony Ericson on 15.12.2010.
3. That on 23.12.2010, they received a PCB Motherboard from Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd.
Chennai with IMEI No. 012379004668392 as replacement of their abovesaid PCB Motherboard.
4. That he put the replaced PCB Motherboard on the mobile phone of Vivek Vats and repaired the same and handed over the mobile phone to Vivek Vats with new IMEI No. 012379004668392 on 24.12.2010.
5. That he prepared the delivery computerized job sheets regarding the abovesaid proceedings at the time of delivery phone to Vivek Vats which are Ex.PW37/A.
15. Sh. Vivek Vats This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW38)
1. That in the year 201011 he was working in Panasonic as Area Sales Manager and during that period he was residing at Building no. 20, Flat no.
208, Sanskar Cooperative Housing Society, Ekta Nagar, Kandiwali West, Mumbai.
2. That in the month of September he purchased a mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia10i, copy of cash memo of said mobile phone is Ex.PW38/A.
3. That he purchased the said mobile phone for Rs.
16,500/ and the cash memo was issued on the same day on 10.09.2010 and the shop owner also mentioned IMEI No. of mobile phone in cash memo Ex.PW38/A which is 359419037492237.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 224 of 430
4. That he was already having a SIM of mobile number which he put in the mobile and used the same but there was a problem in charging of mobile phone.
5. That he handed over the above said mobile phone to authorized service center of Sony Ericson which was situated at Thakkar Shoping Mall Boriwali Mumbai in the second week of month of December 2010 for repair work and his SIM was given to him.
6. That in the last week of December 2010, the above said service center returned his mobile phone and he was informed that motherboard of his mobile phone was changed so IMEI number of his mobile phone also changed.
7. That the delivery jobsheet prepared by service center is Ex.PW37/A.
8. That new IMEI No. 012379004668392 was given to his mobile phone.
9. That on 03.03.11 Delhi Police contacted him at Mumbai and he informed all facts to police officer Mr. Kohli on which police sealed his mobile in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with seal of SK.
10. That he handed over the cash memo Ex.PW38/A and delivery jobsheet Ex.PW37/A to the Investigating Officer.
11. That police seized the above said pullanda of mobile along with two documents vide Ex. PW38/B. He has identified his mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of black colour bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 belonging to him with changed IMEI No. which mobile is Ex.P14.
16. Sh. Balram This witness is a resident of Village Behrampur, District (PW39) Gurgaon, Haryana. He has deposed on the following aspects:
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 225 of 430
1. That on 03.03.2011, Police had come to his house and made inquiries regarding his mobile phone and checked his mobile phone bearing no. 9999474098 make SONY ERICSON X10 I.
2. That after checking the phone, they had noted down some numbers which was written inside the phone which number.
3. That police asked him to hand over the documents regarding the purchase of the said mobile phone, on which he handed over to them the cash memo/ receipt of the same dated month of May, 2010.
4. That he had purchased this phone from Sahara Mall, Second Floor, Spice Retail Ltd. vide same cash memo receipt which is Ex.PW35/G.
5. That the said phone was not working properly and hence he had given the same to the same person i.e. Spice Retail Ltd and after some days, again this phone was not working properly so he had to return the same to them (Spice Retail Ltd.) for repair on 20.12.2010 and again on 28.01.2011 and the job sheets of same are Ex.PW35/H and Ex.PW35/I.
6. That he handed over both the sheet/ job sheet to the Police with regard to the same on which IMEI number was written.
7. That it was only the Police reached to his house he came to know that the IMEI number on his phone belonged to some other person.
8. That he was told by the Investigating Officer that the IMEI number which had been given on his mobile phone which was handed over to him by the company after its repair after second occasion was belong to some deceased whose murder had been committed.
9. That the police had seized the various documents and his mobile phone which mobile phone was converted into a pullanda with the help of a white cloth and sealed the same but he does not recollect the details of the seal.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 226 of 430
10. That thereafter some document regarding the phone being taken into possession was prepared vide Ex.PW35/F.
11. That at the time of purchase of mobile phone its IMEI number was mentioned in the cash memo which is 359419030947138.
He has identified one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i of black color with IMEI No. 359419030873086 which was received by him after the repairing of the SIM and which was seized by the Police which is Ex.P13.
17. Sh. Vineet Sharma This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW40) 1. That on 04.03.2011 he was employed in Spice Hot Spot in Noida 63 which is presently in Sector 12, Noida while he used to operate from Daryaganj.
2. That on that day Delhi Police had approached to his office where he was employed as Engineer.
3. That the police showed him a white coloured mobile phone Make Sony Ericson X10i and made inquiries from him regarding the motherboard of said phone and he informed them that this mobile phone had come to him for repair and he had sent it to Chennai at L4 level i.e. in case mobile phone is not repairable or any of its part requires a replacement then it is sent to main head office at Chennai for replacing the same.
4. That the police also made inquiries about the motherboard/ PCB of the phone and informed them that the said motherboard of the above said phone has been put in another mobile phone of Balram.
5. That he communicated the documents to them in this regard i.e. jobsheet in response to their notice U/s. 91 of Cr. P.C. given by them which reply is Ex.PW40/A.
6. That they received a phone of Sony Ericson Xperia10Xi bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 from Varun which was sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 227 of 430 359419030873086.
7. That they also received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 from Balram for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067.
8. That Balram was excited and wanted to receive his mobile phone after repair but they had not received the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram and hence in order to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Varun in the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Varun with prior approval from their head office.
He has identified one mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as belonging to Balram with changed IMEI number which is Ex.P13 and also identified one mobile phone of white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same received from Varun with changed IMEI number which is Ex.P1.
18. Sanjeev (PW41) This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he is residing at J1207, Mangol Puri, Delhi along with his family and he is into business of property dealing.
2. That he had met accused Neeraj twothree years ago i.e. year 2010.
3. That the marriage of accused Neeraj had taken place on 17.11.2010 and he was also invited.
4. That he already knew accused Krishnamurthy as the coaccused Neeraj introduced Krishnamurthy with him.
5. That police called him at Crime Branch Office on 24.05.2011 and made inquiries from him.
This witness has identified Krishnamurthy and Neeraj in the Court but has not supported his earlier version on the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 228 of 430 aspect that on 19.11.2010 at about 10:30 PM Krishnamurthy @ Vicky met him at J-Block, Mangol Puri near a piyau while he was having motorcycle make Splendor of black color and he (witness) asked him about the reasons of his not participating in the marriage of Neeraj on which Krishnamurthy told him that due to family work, he could not attend the same.
19. Sh. Hemant This witness was previously working with Service Operation Banswal (PW42) with Spice Hot Spot in Noida 63 which is presently in Sector 12, Noida while he used to operate from Daryaganj. He has proved the following aspects:
1. That police had approached at his office and showed him a white colour mobile phone Make Sony Ericson X10i and made inquiries from him regarding the motherboard of said phone because they came to know that the same has been replaced.
2. That he informed the police that this mobile phone had come to their office for repair and the same was handled by Vineet Sharma who had sent it to Chennai at L4 level.
3. That he was served with notice U/s. 91 of Cr.P.C.
pursuant to which he and Vineet gave their reply vide Ex.PW40/A.
4. That they received a phone of Sony Ericson Xperia 10Xi bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 from Varun which was sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086.
5. That they received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 from Balram for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067.
6. That Balram was in a hurry to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram hence in order to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Varun to the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 229 of 430 359419035283067 in the mobile of Varun with prior approval from their Head Office.
He has correctly identified one mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as the same as belonging to Balram with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P13 and one mobile phone of white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same as received from Varun with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex. P1.
20. Vishal Atwal This witness has been working as Deputy Service Executive (PW43) in Spice Hot Spot at 19, Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi which is also a service center for Sony Ericson. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That he knew Varun who is having business of mobile and have a shop at Rani Bagh by the name of Nice Communication.
2. That in the month of December 2010, Varun handed over one mobile phone of Sony Ericson X10i Xperia for repair work as there was problem of charging.
3. That Bunty handed over the said mobile phone to Varun.
4. That he also knew Bunty @ Amit through Varun who was also having business of mobile in Rani Bagh market.
5. That he prepared the jobsheet of said mobile phone having IMEI No. 012379004668892 and they sent the PCB Motherboard of mobile phone to Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai, Authorized High Service Center of Sony Ericson.
6. That after some days they received back the another PCB Motherboard from the said service center of Chennai with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086.
7. That they also received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 of Balram from Hot Spot, Lajpat Nagar for repair work which was also sent to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 230 of 430 Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067.
8. That Balram was in hurry to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram so to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Amit @ Bunty to the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Amit @ Bunty with prior approval from their head office.
9. That they received a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
from police and they gave reply to the same vide Ex.PW40/A.
10. That he handed over the jobsheets of mobile phone of Amit @ Bunty which is Ex.PW43/A (3 pages), receipt details of Run Service Inforcare Pvt. Ltd which is Ex.PW43/B (two pages), jobsheet of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/C, receipt detail of Run Service Infocare which is Ex.PW43/D (2 pages), the challan receipt of Lajpat Nagar of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/E, jobsheet of Mobile phone of Balram prepared at Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/F (two pages), challan prepared at Lajpat Nagar in respect of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/G, jobsheet of mobile phone at Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/H and challan of mobile phone of Balram of Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/I to the Police alongwith their reply Ex.PW40/A. He has correctly identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as the same as belonging to Balram with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P13 and one mobile phone of white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same received by him from Varun for repair which belonging to accused Amit @ Bunty with St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 231 of 430 changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P1.
Witnesses of Medical Record:
21. Dr. Ashish Bansal This witness has proved that on 22.11.2010 at about 12:45 (PW16) AM, patient Prateek Trikha was brought to the Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi by W/Constable Sulochana of PCR with the alleged history of gun shot history at Raj Nagar colony gate after which the injured was attended by him vide MLC No. 221 which is Ex.PW16/A according to which the patient was admitted under CTVS on call under ICU.
22. Dr. Anupam This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW17) 1. That on 22.11.2010, patient Prateek Trikha was referred to ICU from Casualty in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Delhi and the patient was admitted in the casualty on that date at about 1:20 AM.
2. That prior to preparing the admission document they started the treatment of the patient.
3. That when the patient was referred to casualty from ICU, the BP and heart rate of the patient was not recordable and there was no signs of respiration.
4. That they made their efforts to resuscitate the patient but he could not be revived and the patient was declared dead at about 2:07 AM.
5. That he prepared the death summary of the patient vide Ex.PW17/A.
23. Dr. Kulbhushan He is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved having Goel (PW28) conducted the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW28/A according to which there were following injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Lacerated punctured wound 1.2 x 1 cm with inverted margins over upper lateral front of right arm about 9.5 cm below right shoulder tip and 4 cm away from axilliary tip. No blackening or tattooing were seen.
Fine abrated collar was seen around the wound (entry wound of firearm).
2. Abrasion 2 x 0.5cm over right molar region and 1 x St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 232 of 430 1 cm over back of left wrist.
He has proved that on exploration, Injury No.1 was running medially, slightly downwards and backwards, entered into chest cavity through right third inter coastal space, purported upper lobe of right lung through and through, exit root of right lung, Vessels in the root of right lung were ruptured. Further the injury track ended at anterolateral aspect of fifth inter vertebral disc where a bullet was found embedded in fifth inter vertebral disc, Right chest cavity was full of blood and clots.
He has proved having opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and Injury No.1 was caused by firearm whereas Injury No.2 was caused by friction against rough blunt surface; the cause of death was combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and respiratory failure consequent upon chest and lung injuries, Firearm injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and time since death was 10 hours. He has also proved that that following articles were preserved, sealed and handed over to the police with sample seal.
1. Clothes of the deceased.
2. Bullet recovered from the body,
3. Blood samples in gauze piece.
FSL Expert:
24. Sh. R. Suresh He is the Assistant Director (Ballistics), Central Forensic (PW31) Science Laboratory, Kolkatta who has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 18.02.2011, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics) at FSLRohini, Delhi.
2. That on 18.02.2011, three parcels in sealed condition were received at office at FSL Rohini, Delhi in case FIR No. 439/10, Police Station Saraswati Vihar through Ct. Dabbu Kanwar and the same were marked to him for examination.
3. That he found the seal intact and tallied the same with the sample seal after which he marked the parcels 1, 2 and 3.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 233 of 430
4. That he found the number and seal impression on the parcel no. 1 as 08 and AS and opening the same he found one improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber and one 7.65 mm cartridge which he marked the pistol as F1 and cartridge as A1.
5. That he found the number and seal impression on the parcel no. 2 as 04 and VKB and opening the same he found one 7.65 mm empty cartridge case which was marked by him as EC1.
6. That he found the number and seal impression on the parcel no. 3 as 01 and KG BJRM HOSPITAL MORTUARY and opening the same he found one deformed bullet which was marked by him EB1.
7. That after examination he found that the improvised pistol marked as F1 is designed to fire 7.65 mm cartridge and in working order and test fire conducted successfully.
8. That 7.65 mm cartridge marked Ex.A1 was a live one and 7.65 mm cartridge case marked as Ex.EC1 was a fired empty cartridge case.
9. That the deformed bullet marked as EB1 corresponds to the bullet of standard 7.65 mm cartridge.
10. That one cartridge marked A1 and two 7.65 mm cartridges taken from laboratory stock were test fired through the improvised pistol marked F1 and the test fired cartridges cases were marked by him as TC1, TC2 & TC3 and the recovered test fired bullets were marked by him as TB1, TB2 & TB3 respectively.
11. That the individual characteristics of the firing pin marks and the breach face marks present on the fired cartridge case marked EC1 and on the test fired cartridge cases marked as TC1 to TC3 were examined and compared under the comparison microscope model LEICA DMC and were found identical and hence the cartridge case marked St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 234 of 430 EC1 had been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked F1.
12. That the individual characteristics of striation present on the deformed bullet marked EB1 are insufficient for examination and comparison to opine whether it has been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked F1 or not.
13. That the exhibits marked F1 is the firearm and cartridges A1, EC1 & EB1 are ammunition as defined in the Arms Act.
14. That the detailed Ballistic Report in this regard is Ex.PW31/A. Police/ Official witnesses:
25. Sh. Pratap Singh He is the Dealing Assistant with MLO, NorthWest Zone-I, (PW7) Wazir Pur, Delhi who has proved that the motorcycle no.
DL8SAU6461 make Bajaj Pulsor is registered in the name of Sonu S/o Sunder R/o G133, Wazir Pur, J.J. Colony and the record in this regard is Ex.PW7/A.
26. HC Sahab Singh He is a formal witness being the Dog Handler and has (PW8) proved that on 22.11.2010, he alongwith Dog Squad and the Crime Team reached at the scene of crime i.e. Raj Nagar, Road No. 43, Near Ram Mandir, Pitam Pura, Delhi where the dog 'Madhubala' was handled by him for taking the smell of the assailants but no clue was found by dog 'Madhubala'.
27. SI Satpal Singh He is a formal witness being the Incharge of Mobile Crime (PW9) Team, North West District who has proved the following aspects:
1. That he along with Photographer Ct. Parvinder and Finger Print proficient Ct. Ram Kishan along with Dog Squad, handled by HC Sahab Singh reached at the spot, i.e. Raj Nagar, in front of Ram Mandir, Main Road.
2. That they inspected the scene of crime and one empty shell was lying on the road and blood droplets St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 235 of 430 were found leading from spot i.e. from in front of Ram Mandir till the gate of Raj Nagar society.
3. That one splendor motorcycle bearing No. DLAS0234 on the back side and on the front side also, a defective number plate bearing No. HR15A3, was also found parked in front of Ram Mandir.
4. That inside the gate of the society, two chairs were lying and both were blood stained and he prepared his detailed report and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer which report is Ex.PW9/A.
5. That dog could not pick up any clue from the scene of crime.
6. That the photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime and no chance prints were found.
28. SI Ranbir Singh This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW10) 1. That on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 at about 1:30 AM Constable Baldev Raj brought DD No. 7A Ex.PW10/A regarding firing on Prateek Trikha and handed over the same to him.
2. That he alongwith Constable Baldev Raj reached at the spot i.e. Raj Nagar but nobody met him there and then they went to Agrasen Hospital where SHO alongwith staff were already present and injured was unconscious at that time.
3. That after sometime, the injured namely Prateek Trikha was declared dead by the Doctor and he informed the SHO about the death of Prateek Trikha.
4. That SHO directed him that if the Doctor handed over any parcel to him then he may receive the same.
5. That doctor prepared three sealed parcels and handed over the same to him and SHO reached Agrasain Hospital alongwith HC Karan Pal.
6. That the hat dead body was received from Agrasain Hospital and was sent to Mortuary, BJRM Hospital through HC Karan Pal.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 236 of 430
7. That he handed over the sealed parcel and two sample seals to the SHO which were seized by SHO vide memo Ex.PW10/B.
8. That during the day hours, he also went to Mortuary, BJRM Hospital where SHO prepared the inquest papers for conducting the postmortem and after postmortem, Doctor handed over to him three sealed parcels and two sample seals which he handed over to the SHO who took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW10/C.
29. HC Kiran Pal This witness has proved the following aspects:
(PW11) 1. That on 22.11.2010 as per instructions of SHO, he got recorded the departure entry at about 8:45 AM, vide DD No. 17A, for reaching Maharaja Agarsain hospital.
2. That he reached Maharaja Agarsain hospital where SI Ranbir Singh was already present there and SI Ranbir Singh told him the facts of the case.
3. That thereafter he removed the dead body of Prateek Trikha to BJRM Hospital and the dead body was deposited vide token No.8 in the mortuary and SHO also reached BJRM hospital who prepared inquest papers there for postmortem of the deceased.
4. That postmortem on the body of deceased Prateek Trikha was got conducted there and three sealed parcels and two sample seals were given to him by the doctor and he handed over the same to SHO in the presence of SI Ranbir and SHO/Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/C.
5. That after postmortem, dead body was handed over to its claimants and then he along with SHO, SI Ranbir reached at Maurya Enclave in the office of Crime Team where SHO recorded statement of the members of crime team and then they all reached at Shakurpur.
6. That SHO made inquiries there and then they went to Ashok Vihar at the house of Ankur Mahajan, resident of H.No. 18A.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 237 of 430
7. That SHO recorded the statement of Ankur Mahajan there, after making inquiries and thereafter they returned to the Police Station.
30. SI Mahesh Kumar He is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has proved (PW18) having prepared the scaled site plan of the spot of incident which is Ex.PW18/A.
31. HC Vinod Kumar He is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has (PW19) proved that on 30/11/2010, HC Yagya Dutt had deposited one motorcycle Splendor bearing no. HR15A3501 vide RC No. 174/21/10 from Police Station Saraswati Vihar and he made entry in this regard in Register No. 19 at Serial No. 333/10 copy of which is Ex.PW19/A and on 15.01.2011, the said motorcycle was released on Superdari to Ashok Kumar.
32. Ct. Dabbu Kanwar He is a formal witness who has proved that on 18.02.2011 (PW20) on the directions of Inspector Arti Sharma, he went to Police Station Saraswati Vihar and obtained three sealed pullindas with one sample seal vide RC No. 17/21/11 which is Ex.PW20/A from MHC(M) (CP) Ravinder Nath with FSL Form and he deposited all three sealed pullandas with sample seal vide acknowledgment receipt no. FSL 2011/F0766, dated 18/02/2011 which is Ex.PW20/B alongwith FSL Form.
33. W/Ct. Sulochna He is also a formal witness being the PCR Official who has (PW21) proved that on 22.11.2010 at 12:50 AM, Dr. Ashish Bansal has informed through telephone number 40777555 in Police Control Room that injured Prateek Trikha S/o S. K. Trikha, Age - 25 years, R/o C67, Raj Nagar, Pitam Pura had received gunshot injury and admitted in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital vide MLC No. 965/10 on which she filled up the PCR form which is Ex.PW21/A.
34. HC Mohan singh He is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer of Police (PW22) Station Rani Bagh who has proved that on 21.11.2010, at 10:00 PM SI Kuldeep Bhoriya produced one rukka regarding theft of motorcycle No. HR15A3501 for registration of case on the basis of which rukka he registered the FIR No.377/10 u/s 379 IPC, Police Station St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 238 of 430 Rani Bagh through computer operator W/Constable Anita copy of which FIR is Ex.PW22/A and his endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW22/B.
35. Ct. Parvinder He is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer Singh (PW23) who has proved having taken the photographs of the Scene of Crime which is Ex.PW23/A1 to Ex.23/A16 (Ex.PW23/A1 to Ex.PW23/A4 were previously exhibited as Ex.PW5/D1 to Ex.PW5/D4 and have been given the fresh exhibit No. as above). Though the witness claimed that he also handed over the CD of the photographs to the Investigating Officer yet it has been observed by this Court that the CD is not on record.
36. Sh. Chatter He is the LDC from Transport Authority, Janak Puri, Prakash (PW24) Delhi who has proved that the Motorcycle No. DL 4S AW 2410 is registered in the name of Hawa Singh S/o. Sh. Ghasi Ram and the record in this regard is Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B1 to Ex.PW24/B11.
37. ASI Om Prakash He is also a formal witness being the Duty Officer of Police (PW25) Station Saraswati Vihar who has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 22.11.2010, at 1:24 AM Wireless Operator O54 informed through intercom that an information has been received from Maharaja Agrasen Hospital through telephone number 40777555 that Prateek Trikha S/o S.K. Trikha, Age 25 years has been shot at C67, Raj Nagar, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
2. That this information was lodged by him vide DD No. 7A dated 22.11.2010 which is Ex.PW25/A which was entrusted to SI Ranbir Singh for taking further necessary action.
3. That on 22.11.2010 at 4:50 AM, Constable Baldev Raj produced a rukka prepared by Inspector Vipin Kumar for registration of case on the basis of which he recorded the FIR No. 439/10 u/s 302/397/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station - Saraswati Vihar, copy of which is Ex.PW25/B.
4. That he made his endorsement on the rukka which is St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 239 of 430 Ex.PW25/C.
38. Ct. Ashok Kumar He is a formal witness being the Special Messenger who (PW26) has proved that he delivered the copies of FIR to concerned MM and Senior Officers.
39. HC Ravinder Nath He is a formal witness being the MHCM who has proved the (PW27) entry in register no. 19 vide S. No. 3989/10, copy of which is Ex.PW27/A; entry at S.No. 4001/10 copy of which is Ex.PW27/B; entry at S.No. 3297/11, copy of which is Ex.PW27/C; entry at S.No. 3258/11, copy of which is Ex.PW27/D; entry at S. No. 3370/11, copy of which is Ex.PW27/E; entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 17/21/11 which is Ex.PW20/A; RC No. 32/21/11 which is Ex.PW27/F; vide RC No. 174/21/10 which is Ex.PW27/G; entry in register no. 21 vide RC No.41/21/11 which is Ex.PW27/H and the FSL receipts which are Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW27/I.
40. Ct. Baldev Raj This witness has joined investigations with Inspector Vipin (PW30) Bhatia and has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 22.11.2010, at about 1.30 AM Duty Officer ASI Om Prakash handed over DD No. 7A to him and directed him to hand over to SI Ranveer Singh near Kohat Metro Station.
2. That when he was going there SI Ranveer Singh met him at Rohit Kunj Market where he (witness) handed over DD No. 7A to him and thereafter he alongwith SI Ranveer Singh went to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital.
3. That SHO Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia met them there and they came to know that the one injured Parteek Trika was admitted in hospital having received gun shot injuries and his vehicle had been robbed.
4. That thereafter he alongwith Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia reached at road no. 43 near Ram Mandir and at the gate of Raj Nagar Inspector made inquiries from guard and some blood was also found near the gate of Raj Nagar.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 240 of 430
5. That they followed the blood trail which was going from the road no. 43 to Raj Nagar area and by following the blood trail, in front of kothi no. C8 and 9 of road no. 43 of Raj Nagar they found blood spots there.
6. That they found one empty fired cartridges case in front of Kothi no. 9.
7. That SHO called the Crime Team Officers at the spot who reached at the spot alongwith photographer.
8. That one motorcycle Hero Honda bearing Delhi no.0234 at the back side and Haryana No. HR 15A 3
at the front side was also found at the spot.
9. That Crime Team inspected the scene and photographer took photographs and also tried to lift the finger chance print from motorcycle.
10. That meanwhile Inspector Vipin Bhatia received information from SI Ranveer that injured Parteek was declared dead by doctor.
11. That Inspector Vipin went to house of Parteek Trika whereas he (witness) remained at the spot and after 30 minutes Inspector Vipin Bhatia returned back at the spot and handed over a rukka to him for registration of FIR.
12. That he went to Police Station Saraswati Vihar and FIR No. 439/10 was got registered on the basis of rukka and the Duty Officer handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him after which he returned back at the spot and handed over the same to Inspector Vipin Bhatia.
13. That Inspector Vipin Bhatia lifted blood from the spot with the help of cotton and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB.
14. That Investigating Officer also lifted blood stained Road Pieces after breaking the same and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 241 of 430
15. That Investigating Officer also lifted road pieces as earth control from spot and kept the same in plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of VKB and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A.
16. That the Investigating Officer also lifted empty fired cartridges case from the spot and kept the same in an empty match box and sealed the same with the seal of VKB and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B.
17. That the motorcycle was also seized by Investigating Officer with the key of motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/C.
18. That tool box of motorcycle was opened with the help of key and one RC, DL, Pollution certificate and insurance document were found in tool box of motorcycle.
19. That the Driving License and RC were found in the name of Ashok and the same were also seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D.
20. That they returned back to Police Station and Investigating Officer deposited all seized articles in malkhana.
21. That on 22.11.10 at about 9.00 AM he alongwith Inspector Vipin Bhatia went to mortuary of BJRM Hospital where SI Ranveer and HC Kiran Pal met them.
22. That thereafter Inspector Vipin Bhatia conducted the inquest proceedings and at his request postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Parteek Trika and after postmortem dead body was handed over to relative of deceased.
23. That thereafter he alongwith Investigating Officer reached at the Crime Team Office at Maurya Enclave where Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Crime Team Officers.
24. That he along with Investigating Officer reached at St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 242 of 430 H. No. 18, Pocket A, Phase III, Ashok Vihar where Ankur Mahajan met them and Investigating Officer made inquiries from him and thereafter, they returned back at Police Station.
The witness has identified the Driving License of Ashok Kumar which is Ex.PW30/E, RC of Ashok Kumar which is Ex.PW30/F, Insurance documents which are Ex.PW30/G and pollution certificate which is Ex.PW30/H which were found in the tool box of the motorcycle Ex.P6 with two number plates bearing no. HR 15A 3 and DL AS 0234.
41. HC Narender He is the Member of Special Investigations Team, Crime Kumar (PW32) Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi and has proved the following aspects;
1. That on 17.3.2011 he along with HC Amit Tomar, Constable Dabbu, Constable Sunny and Constable Vikas went to Tikri Border near Bahadurgarh in the investigations of this case.
2. That one secret informer met HC Amit Tomar and informed him that the Honda City car looted in this case was to be brought by Sompal along with his associates at M2K near Rani Bagh to commit another incident of robbery and they were having fire arms with them.
3. That HC Amit Tomar informed the same to SI Sharat Kohli who briefed them about the secret information after which SI Sharat Kohli asked fourfive public persons to join the raiding party after disclosing secret information to them but none agreed and left the place without informing their names and addresses on one pretext or the other.
4. That thereafter SI Sharat Kohli formed a raiding party and they reached at the above said place near Rani Bagh in two vehicles with secret informer and reached there at about 4:20 PM.
5. That SI Sharat Kohli again asked fourfive public persons to join the raiding party but none agreed and left the place without disclosing their names and addresses.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 243 of 430
6. That they parked their vehicles at the corner of the road and thereafter, they were waiting for the vehicles coming from Rani Bagh area.
7. That at about 5:20 PM one Honda City car came from Rani Bagh market area and secret informer pointed out the said car after which the secret informer left the place.
8. He has also deposed that the said Honda City car was directed to stop by SI Sharat Kohli and gave their introductions to the occupants of the car who were directed to come out from the car.
9. That three persons were sitting in the car who came out from the car and started running to different directions.
10. That he (witness) apprehended one of the person who disclosed his name as Jaideep and other two persons who were apprehended by other members disclosed their names as Somvir and Sunil.
11. That he produced the accused Jaideep before SI Sharat Kohli and on formal search one loaded katta was recovered from his possession from the left side dub and one more live cartridge was also recovered from his possession.
12. That SI Sharat Kohli unloaded the katta and one live cartridge was recovered from the katta after which SI Sharat Kohli prepared the sketch of the katta and live cartridge vide Ex.PW32/A.
13. That the same were kept in a plastic container and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/B.
14. That one pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of the accused Sombir whereas another pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Sunil.
15. That accused Jaideep was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide arrest memo Ex.PW32/C, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW32/D St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 244 of 430 his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW32/E.
16. That SI Sharat Kohli conducted the proceedings in respect of accused Sombir and Sunil separately regarding the recoveries from their possession.
17. That the forged number plate bearing no. HR 26 AK0728 was found the Honda City car which number plate was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F and Honda City was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/G.
18. That accused persons also disclosed about the theft of another Hyundai Accent car from the Rani Bagh area which was kept in a lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border.
19. That they reached at the above said place alongwith the above said persons and at the instance of the accused Sombir one Hyundai Accent car bearing fake number plate HR 20 P 5349 was recovered.
20. That SI Sharat Kohli seized the Hyudai car vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H and the forged number plate was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I.
21. That at the time of recovery of the firearms from the possession of accused Jaideep, SI Sharat Kohli filled the FSL form and thereafter they returned to their Office and the seized articles were deposited in the Malkhana and Investigating Officer recorded their statements.
22. That on 08.04.2011 on the direction of the Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, he took the exhibits of this case from Malkhana of the Police Station Saraswati Vihar in sealed condition vide RC No. 32/21/11 along with the FSL form and the same was deposited in the FSL Rohini, Delhi.
The witness has correctly identified the accused Jaideep, Sombir and Sunil in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. two number plates bearing No. HR 26 AK 0728 and both fake number plates as the same which were found with the recovered Honda City car and both fake St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 245 of 430 number plates are collectively as Ex.P10; one country made pistol, one live cartridge and one test fired empty cartridge as recovered from the possession of accused Jaideep, which pistol is Ex.P11 and the cartridges are collectively Ex.P12. He has further identified the Honda City car bearing number plate DL 4C NC 1115 from the photographs Ex.PW32/J1 to Ex.PW32/J4, which Honda City car is Ex.P6.
42. Ct. Krishan Kumar He is a formal witness who has proved that on 22.11.2010 at (PW34) about 4.00PM Duty officer handed over DD No.6B Ex.PW34/A regarding the death of Prateek Trikha on which he went to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital where he handed over DD No.6B to SI Ranbir Singh.
43. ASI Suresh Kumar He is also a member of SIT Crime Branch who has proved (PW35) the following aspects:
1. That on 25.02.2011, he was posted at SIT Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi and on that day at about 3:50 PM a secret information was received by HC Shyam Lal from a secret informer that the accused wanted in this case S. Raja was coming at his house to take care of his mother which information was transferred to Inspector Arti Sharma.
2. That he alongwith Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Shyam Lal and two other Constables with secret informer reached at JJ Colony Inderpuri where Inspector Arti Sharma asked fourfive public persons to join the police proceedings but none agreed and left the place without telling their names and address on one pretext or other.
3. That on the direction of the Inspector Arti Sharma they took positions near the house of accused S. Raja situated at the JJ Colony, Inderpuri.
4. That at about 5:25 PM one person was found coming from the gali and the secret informer pointed out towards the said person and left the place after which they apprehended the said boy who disclosed his name as S. Raja.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 246 of 430
5. That the accused S. Raja disclosed about his involvement in this case after which the accused S Raja was arrested by the Investigating Officer at about 6:20PM vide memo Ex.PW35/A, his personal search was taken vide Ex.PW25/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer.
6. That accused S. Raja pointed out the place of incident where he had committed the murder of Prateek Trikha alongwith his associates Appu, Shalu, Neeraj and Vicky on which the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW35/D.
7. That on 03.03.2011 accused Amit @ Bunty was already in the custody of Inspector Arti Sharma.
8. That they alongwith accused Amit @ Bunty reached at the shop of Hot Spot of Spice, Darya Ganj, Delhi where the shopkeeper Amit met them who was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and he called Vishal Atwal and Hemant Bansal at the shop.
9. That Vishal Atwal identified the accused Amit @ Bunty as the person who had given his mobile phone of Sony Erricson for repair through Varun proprietor of Nice Communication, Rani Bagh.
10. That thereafter they alongwith accused Amit @ Bunty reached at his shop at Rani Bagh where his brother Sumit was present and at the instance of accused Amit @ Bunty, one mobile phone of Sony Erricson of white colour was recovered from the drawer of the shop.
11. That the said mobile phone was sealed by the Investigating Officer in a cloth pullanda with the seal of AS and seized vide memo Ex.PW35/E. \
12. That Investigating Officer checked the IMEI number of the mobile phone and then they came to know from Vishal Atwal that the IMEI number of the said mobile phone of victim was interchanged with the Balram of Village Behrampur, Gurgaon, Haryana.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 247 of 430
13. That he alongwith Investigating Officer and one Constable reached at Village Behrampur where Balram met them and his mobile phone of Sony Erricson was checked by the Investigating Officer.
14. That Balram disclosed that he had sent his mobile phone to Chennai for repair work and Investigating Officer after checking the IMEI number of the said phone, sealed the same with the seal of AS.
15. That the Investigating Officer also seized the said pullanda of mobile phone and one receipt and two service job sheet from the Balram vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/F, the said cash receipt is Ex.PW35/G and the service job sheets are Ex.PW35/H and Ex.PW35/I. The witness has correctly identified the accused S. Raja and Amit @ Bunty in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia with cover bearing the IMEI number 3594190305283067 as was recovered at the instance of the accused Amit @ Bunty, which mobile phone is Ex.P1; one mobile phone Sony Erricson Experia of black colour bearing IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from Balram which is Ex.P13.
44. HC Amit Tomar This witness is the member of the police party and had (PW44) joined investigations with Inspector Arti Sharma and other members of SIT, Crime Branch. He has proved the following aspects:
1. That on 02.12.2010 Inspector Arti Sharma had prepared a police team comprising of himself, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Jitender, Ct. Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Vikas and gave briefing with regard to the facts of the present case.
2. That he informed Inspector Arti that he was already working on the present case and that his source would contact him at around 3:30 PM at M2K Cinema, Sector 3, Rohini.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 248 of 430
3. That thereafter their team left the office at about 1:30 PM and reached Road No. 43, Raj Nagar near Ram Mandir where the incident had taken place where the Investigating Officer inspected the spot and they also made local inquiry but since the incident had taken place at night so nobody give them much details about the same.
4. That at about 3:30 PM they reached at M2K Cinema Rohini where at about 3:45 PM a secret informer met him and informed them that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of which three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of which two boys would be coming on red color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal Quarters between 56 PM.
5. That thereafter he produced the informer before the Investigating Officer who spoke to the secret informer and conveyed the secret information to the senior officers who directed her to take appropriate action.
6. That the Investigating Officer had tried to join four five passerbye's to join the police party but none agreed to join them and thereafter they reached T point Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar at around 5 PM and parked the vehicles on one side.
7. That there he himself, Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu and secret informer took their positions near their vehicles and concealed themselves whereas rest of the team members took their positions on the other side of the road.
8. That at around 5:25 PM two boys came on a red colored pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side on which the secret informer pointed out towards them as the boys who were involved in the incident and thereafter the secret informer went away.
9. That the said road was damaged and therefore the bike was not moving at a speed, on which they came St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 249 of 430 in front of the same and tried to stop it but the said boys then turned around and tried to flee away when the bike slipped.
10. That the said boys then tried to run away on foot but he and Ct. Dabbu apprehended one of the boys whereas the other one was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny.
11. That the name of the boy apprehended by him and Ct. Dabbu was later on revealed as Neeraj and the other boy who was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny revealed his name as Krishnamurthy.
12. That both these boys were produced before Inspector Arti who interrogated them and during the formal search of Neeraj from the pant of blue color which he was wearing one driving licence was recovered from the back side right pocket which driving licence was of Prateek Tirkha (the deceased in the present case) and on inquiry Neeraj informed them that they were five boys involved in the incident of the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 i.e. himself, Krishnamurthy, Appu, Raja and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu.
13. That the accused Neeraj further disclosed that on the said day while they were in the area of Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir they found one boy smoking a cigarette while standing outside his car on which they tried to snatch his Honda city car but the said boy resisted to the same on which Appu shot this boy on the asking of Raja.
14. That the accused Neeraj also disclosed that thereafter they i.e. Appu, Shalu and Raja took the vehicle and went away and some documents including driving licence, ATM card of ABN Amro, Debit gold card, Shoppers card and three visiting cards, kept inside the vehicle on the dash board which were removed by Krishnamurthy.
15. That the accused Neeraj disclosed that in the said St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 250 of 430 documents, there was a driving licence of the said boy and since he i.e. Neeraj did not have any driving licence therefore Krishnamurthy @ Vicky handed over the said driving licence to him for use which he retained.
16. That the accused Neeraj was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/A, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/C.
17. That the Investigating Officer also kept the driving licence in a polythene and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/D and she also seized the red color Pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW2410 vide memo Ex.PW44/E.
18. That accused Krishnamurthy was also interrogated by the Investigating Officer who disclosed to her that on the date of incident i.e. intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 they i.e. he himself, Appu, S. Raja, Neeraj and Shalu were on three motorcycles, one was driven by Appu and Raja was sitting on him, second was driven by himself i.e. Krishnamurthy which was a stolen motorcycle and third was driven by Neeraj with Shalu sitting with him.
19. That apart from disclosing about the incident as disclosed by Neeraj, the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that he had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot whereas he took the motorcycle of Appu to flee away from the spot and the stolen car was driven by Appu with Raja and Shalu with him and he similarly disclosed that they removed the various documents from the dash board which included the driving licence, ATM card, shoppers card, visiting cards etc.
20. That the personal search of accused Krishnamurthy was conducted but it did not reveal anything and thereafter the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 251 of 430 by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/F, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/G and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/H.
21. That both the accused then led them to Road No. 43 where the incident had taken place and pointed out the spot to them on which Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memos.
22. That the Investigating prepared the pointing out memo on the pointing out of accused Neeraj which is Ex.PW44/I and the pointing out memo prepared on the pointing out of accused Krishnamurthy is Ex.PW44/J.
23. That the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that after the incident he was residing with his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor where he led the police party.
24.That at the said house they met the landlord on the ground floor who was joined him in the investigations after which they went to the first floor where they met James and Kapil and Investigating Officer informed them about their purpose of visit.
25. That on seeing Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Kapil informed that Krishnamurthy was the elder brother of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room claiming that there was renovation going on in his house and that is why he had requested his father James and permitted them to stay in the room on the top floor.
26. That they then went to the top floor along with the landlord James and Kapil where the accused Krishnamurthy opened the lock on the door with the help of the key which was recovered in his Jamatalashi and then entered the room and they found a light black colored pant hanging on the wall on a khunti.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 252 of 430
27. That Krishnamurthy removed his pant and took out a ATM card from the right pocket of the same and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer who then converted the pant and ATM card into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of AS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/A.
28. That the Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW13/B and the statements of public witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer who were then relieved.
29. That both the accused then took them to the house of Appu in Sector 3 Rohini itself where outside his house there was a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461.
30. That thereafter they went inside the house of Appu where they met his sister Sona.
31. That the accused Krishnamurthy had disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona on which the Investigating Officer asked for keys from Sona on which she handed over the keys to the Investigating Officer and also informed that Appu had not come home for the last fourfive days.
32. That the Investigating Officer then seized the bike vide memo Ex.PW44/K.
33. That on 25.01.2011 he again joined the investigations in the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender.
34. That accused Appu was already on Police Custody Remand and he took them to the spot of incident i.e. Road No. 43, Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir where he pointed out the place of incident on which Investigating Officer Prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/L.
35. That on 28.01.2011 the accused Appu had in his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 253 of 430 disclosure to the Investigating Officer disclosed that he had taken the pistol from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru for Rs.2,000/ which Surender @ Dheeraj was a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1.
36. That after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and stated that he could get the same recovered from Surender @ Dheeraj.
37. That this disclosure was made by Appu to the Investigating Officer who informed them about the same and thereafter Appu took them to the above address i.e. House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them.
38. That when they rang the bell of the house, one boy aged around 2425 years opened the door and Appu pointed out towards him as Surender @ Dheeraj on which Investigating Officer interrogated Surender @ Dheeraj but he initially refused that he had given any pistol by Appu and therefore they returned to their office along with Surender @ Dheeraj.
39. That the accused Surender @ Dheeraj was then interrogated at length during which he disclosed that he had kept the pistol in his house and after his interrogation and disclosure again Surender @ Dheeraj took them to his house.
40. That the Investigating Officer asked twothree public persons to join the police party but they refused, however, the son of the landlord Bhupesh consented to be a part of police team and joined the investigations.
41. That Surender @ Dheeraj then took them to a room on the ground floor which was situated inside the premises and was the last room in the row.
42. That there was a single bed in the room, which was box shape bed, he opened the same and from there St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 254 of 430 got recovered a pistol wrapped in a cloth and handed over the same to Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma.
43. That on checking by the Investigating Officer, it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine.
44.That the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW12/C.
45. That the pistol was then measured and its total length was found to be 19cm, with a barrel of 15 cm and butt of 9cm and the magazine had the words 111 inscribed on the same and the pistol was of steel numa metal and the butt had plastic design on the same.
46. That the Investigating Officer then converted both the pistol and cartridge into a pullanda with the help of plastic cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo vide memo Ex.PW12/D after which the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW12/A.
47. That the Investigating Officer thereafter arrested the accused Surender @ Dheeraj vide memo Ex.PW12/E, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/M.
48. That on 27.02.2011 he again joined the investigations of the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender and on that day the accused S. Raja was on police custody remand and they were briefed by the Investigating Officer that pursuant to his disclosure they were to go to Bhiwani in search of one Sombir.
49. That thereafter they all went to Bhiwani along with the accused S. Raja and from Bhiwani Police Station the SHO also joined in the investigations St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 255 of 430 after which S. Raja took them to Balmiki Basti at Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the basti as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with Appu on twothree occasions.
50. That the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo of the said house which is Ex.PW44/N but Sombir could not found and only his father met them who disclosed that Sombir did not return home for the last fourfive days and thereafter, they returned to their office.
51. That the accused S. Raja was again interrogated in the office by the Investigating Officer who disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir and it was Sombir who took him to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it.
52. That the accused S. Raja also disclosed that at that time when this mobile was handed over accused Shalu was also present.
53. That the said disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in his presence which is Ex.PW44/O.
54. That accused S. Raja then took them to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh and pointed out the shop to them on which the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/P.
55. That they could not meet Amit @ Bunty but his younger brother Sumeet was sitting in the shop who disclosed that Amit was his elder brother and both of them used to sit on this shop.
56. That Sumit further informed them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last about twothree days but not returned and thereafter Sumit took them to his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 256 of 430 house at his house at railway colony, Shakurbasti where they met his father and he also disclosed them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last twothree days.
57. That on 02.03.2011 he along with SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Narender, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal went to the house of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL office, Rani Bagh, Delhi where the accused Amit @ Bunty was found present and he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW44/P1, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/P2 and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/P3.
58. That on 02.03.2011 he joined the investigations along with SI Sharat Kohli and on the directions of the Investigating Officer they reached Mumbai where they went to the house of one Vivek Vats who was a resident of Kandhiwali gali and met him.
59. That SI Sharat Kohli checked his mobile phone and also checked his IMEI number which was matching with the IMEI number of the phone of the deceased.
60. That the said boy Vivek Vats also handed over to them Job sheet card and one bill of the mobile phone.
61. That SI Sharat Kohli took the mobile into possession and converted the mobile into pullanda with the help of a white cloth and thereafter sealed the same with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW38/B.
62. That the job sheet and the purchase bill were also taken into possession by SI Sharat Kohli as handed by Vivek Vats and his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after which he was relieved.
63. That thereafter they went to Boriwali at Thakar complex where they met Vishwas Thakar who was St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 257 of 430 interrogated by SI Sharat Kohli and his statement was recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he was relived and they then returned to Delhi.
64.That on 17.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Sudesh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Narender, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Vikas and Ct. Sunny and on that day, they reached the Tikri Border for investigations of the present case and for the search of Sombir.
65. That there he met secret informer who informed him that the vehicle which had been robbed in the present case i.e. Honda City bearing No. DL4CNC1115 was with one Sombir who along with his associates would be coming from Haryana towards Rani Bagh for committing some incident/vardat between 56 PM.
66. That the secret informer also informed that a fake number plate of HR26AK0728 would be placed on the vehicle in place of actual number plate after which he produced the secret informer before SI Sharat Kohli who questioned him in detail and thereafter the police team was briefed.
67. That he also stopped fourfive passerby and informed them about the secret informer and requested them to join the police party but they refused to join and thereafter without wasting any further time, they reached Rani Bagh at about 4:40 PM and constituted a trap at T point Rani Bagh market on the road going towards M2K Cinema.
68. That thereafter SI Sharat Kohli again tried to join fourfive public persons in the police party but they refused and at about 5:20 PM one car make Honda City of golden color bearing number plate HR26 AK0728 was found coming from Rani Bagh market side and on pointing out of secret informer they stopped the car.
69. That there were three persons in the car and SI Sharat Kohli informed the occupants of the car that St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 258 of 430 they were police officers on which occupants came out and started running in different directions.
70. That he along with SI Sharat Kohli chased one boy who was driving the vehicle and was trying to escape and apprehended him whose name was later disclosed as Sombir; the boy sitting along with him next to the driver seat was chased by HC Shyam Lal and apprehended whose name later on disclosed as Sunil and the third boy who was sitting on the back seat was chased by Ct. Narender and apprehended whose name was later on disclosed as Jaideep.
71. That a casual search of Sombir revealed a pistol of 7.65mm from the left side of his dub which pistol on checking was found to contain three live cartridges and it was unloaded and thereafter the Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW44/Q.
72. That on measuring the pistol it was found to be having total length of 20 cm, barrel of same was 15 cm and butt of same was 10 cm and the total length of the magazine was 10.5cm.
73. That the Investigating Officer then converted the same into pullanda by putting the pistol, magazine and round into plastic container and closed the same with the doctor's tape and sealed the same with the seal of SK after which he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW44/R.
74. That SI Sharat Kohli then arrested accused Sombir vide memo Ex.PW44/S1, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW44/S2 and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW44/S3.
75. That SI Sharat Kohli checked the engine and chassis number of Honda City Car and it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Tikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115.
76. That the forged number plate bearing no. HR 26 AK0728 was found installed on the Honda City car St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 259 of 430 and was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F and the Honda City car was also seized vide memo Ex.PW32/G.
77. That accused Sombir also disclosed about the theft of another Hyundai Accent car from the Rani Bagh area which was kept in the lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border and thereafter they reached at the above said place along with the accused Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil.
78. That at the instance of the accused Sombir one Hyundai Accent Car bearing fake number plate HR20P5349 was recovered which was seized by SI Sharat Kohli vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H and the forged number plate was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I.
79. That on 23.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, Ct. Narender, HC Shyam Lal, HC Rajender and they reached Rani Bagh Main Market for investigations of the present case where the secret informer met Inspector Arti Sharma and informed that one person wanted in the present case i.e. Rajender Parshad had been seen roaming around in the market.
80. That thereafter on the pointing out of secret informer, one boy who was roaming around in the market was apprehended and his name was confirmed as Rajender Parshad @ Shalu.
81. That Rajender Prashad was casually searched by SI Sharat Kohli and from the lower which the accused was wearing some documents were found which documents on checking was found to relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26 AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle.
82. That when inquired about the said documents, the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 260 of 430 accused Rajender Prashad disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these documents and handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing No. HR26AK0728 (fake number given to the robbed car of the deceased) on the basis of these documents.
83. That thereafter Inspector Arti Sharma took these documents into possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/T.
84. That the Investigating Officer then arrested accused Rajender Parshad vide memo Ex.PW44/U1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/U2 and the accused then led them to the spot of incident at road No. 43, Raj Nagar in front of Raj Mandir and pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW44/V.
85. That they then returned to the office where Rajender Parshad was interrogated at length and the accused made his disclosure to the Investigating Officer regarding his involvement in the present case as well as in other incidents of robberies.
86. That the disclosure statement of the accused Rajender Prashad was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW44/W wherein the accused Rajender Parshad disclosed that the various gold chains which he had robbed in the different incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosures Ex.PW44/W had been sold by him to one Sanjay, who is running a shop under the name and style of Soni Jewelers at Avantika, Rohini.
87. That the accused Rajender Prashad then led them to the shop of Soni Jewelers Avantika Rohini, where they found Sanjay Soni in the shop as pointed out by the accused Rajender Parshad.
88. That Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma interrogated Sanjay Soni who admitted that Rajender Parshad sold five chains to him at different times after which he went to the room inside the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 261 of 430 shop and brought five gold chains and handed over the same to Investigating Officer on which the accused Rajender Parshad identified all the five chains as the one which he had sold to Sanjay Soni after committing robbery in the various incidents.
89. That the Investigating Officer then took the same into possession U/s 41.1(D) Cr. P.C. and converted the same into different pullandas with the help of polythene and white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and took the same into possession U/s. 102 Cr.P.C. after Sanjay Soni was arrested.
90. That they then returned to their office where his statement was recorded by Inspector Arti Sharma and he was relieved.
45. Inspector Vipin This witness was posted as SHO at Police Station Saraswati Bhatia (PW45) Vihar. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That on 22.11.2010 at about 1:30 AM he received message on wireless set that one person by the name of Prateek Trikha has been admitted in injured conditions from a fire shot at Maharaja Agrasen Hospital.
2. That he along with driver Ct. Yudhvir of Gypsy bearing No. DL1CJ3203 reached the said hospital where injured was under treatment vide MLC No. 965/10 with alleged history of gunshot at Raj Nagar Colony Gate and the patient was in serious condition.
3. That at the same time, SI Ranbir Singh and Ct.
Baldev reached at the hospital with father of the injured namely Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha who informed that his son was found in front of Raj Nagar Colony gate, Road No.43 in a pool of blood but Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha was unable to give any statement.
4. That he left SI Ranbir in the hospital whereas he alongwith Ct. Yudhbir, Ct. Baldev reached at Raj Nagar where he met watchmen Damodar and Virender Kumar Dubey who told him that at around St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 262 of 430 12:30 AM the injured had come on foot in stain of blood and told that he had been fired and told them to inform at his residence i.e. C67, Raj Nagar.
5. That he found blood trail from main gate Raj Nagar Colony to C89, Raj Nagar, Main Raod No. 43 near Ram Mandir where he found Blood on the Road in front of Kothi No.8.
6. That he also found one empty shell of the bullet lying in front of Kothi No.9, one motorcycle with number plate DLAS0234 on the backside and HR15A3 on the front with a key inside.
7. That he checked the motorcycle and found some documents in it which revealed that the actual number of the motorcycle was HR15A3501 and in the meantime, he requested through wireless set to the Crime Team for reaching at the spot.
8. That an information was received from the hospital by SI Ranbir that the injured had expired and SI Ranbir along with Sh. Suresh Trikha had reached at the house of deceased.
9. That he went there and recorded the statement of Sh.
Suresh Trikha vide Ex.PW1/A and thereafter made endorsement Ex.PW45/A after which he handed over the ruqqa to Ct. Baldev at about 4:40 AM for registration of the case on which Ct. Baldev went to Police Station.
10. That he prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/D1 at the instance of Sh. Suresh Kumar Trikha.
11. That in the meantime the Crime Team headed by SI Satpal with Photographer, Dog Handler and fingerprint expert inspected the site but the fingerprint expert could not find any fingerprints on the motorcycle found at the spot, however, the Photographer took photographs of the scene of crimes from different angles on his directions and on the directions of SI Satpal.
12. That the Dog could not find any material and SI Satpal handed over him mobile Crime Team report.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 263 of 430
13. That the motorcycle lying on the spot was checked and found one RC, Insurance paper, Pollution Certificate and one driving license of the owner of the vehicle Sh. Ashok Kumar.
14. That he also found the phone number of Ashok Kumar on a slip on which he made a call to him (Ashok Kumar) who told that his motorcycle was stolen from Rani Bagh on 19.11.2010 at 9:00 AM and that he had made a PCR call on that very date.
15. That he inquired about the same from Police Station Rani Bagh and found that a case vide FIR No. 377/10 U/s 379 IPC was registered in this regard at Police Station Rani Bagh.
16. That Ct. Baldev Raj came with a copy of FIR and original ruqqa and handed over the same to him for further investigation after which he mentioned the FIR No. on the site plan.
17. That he lifted blood sample with the help of cotton swab and put it into a plastic container and he also lifted blood stained pieces of Road and put the same in a plastic container and he also lifted earth control from the road and put the same in the plastic container.
18. That all the three containers were wrapped in pieces of clothes and converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of VKB and the same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A.
19. That one empty cartridge/ shell 'KF & 7.65' written at its bottom which was lying at the spot in front of H. No.C9, Raj Nagar was taken into possession after putting said empty cartridge in a matchbox which was wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of VKB and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B.
20. That the said motorcycle along with key was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW30/C.
21. That the documents found in the motorcycle were St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 264 of 430 also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/D, which driving license is Ex.PW30/E, RC is Ex.PW30/F, Insurance Paper is Ex.PW30/G and Pollution Certificate is Ex.PW30/H.
22. That he recorded statements of Watchmen Damodar and Virender Kumar Dubey under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
23. That SI Mahesh along with HC Somdev came to him and informed him that the deceased had gone to attend a marriage of his friend Pravesh at Ashok Vihar with his friends Ankur Mahajan with whom he had left the marriage venue at around 12:00 midnight after which the deceased had dropped Ankur Mahajan at his home and left for Raj Nagar.
24. That he along with staff reached at BJRM Hospital where SI Ranbir Singh and HC Kiran Pal were present and SI Ranbir handed over him one pulanda duly sealed with the seal of Maharaja Agrasen Hospital with sample seal.
25. That he took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/B.
26. That he prepared the brief facts Ex.PW45/B, recorded the statement of CM Sharma and Rajesh Trikha vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW3/A.
27. That he filled up form 25.35(1) (B) which Ex.PW45/C and moved an application for conducting the postmortem on the body of the deceased which is Ex.PW45/D and the postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased.
28. That HC Kiran Pal collected the clothes, bullet, blood in gauze piece duly sealed with the seal of the KG BJRM Hospital Mortuary and sample seal and all these sealed pulandas and envelopes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/C.
29. That he recorded statements of Incharge Crime Team, Photographer, Dog Handler, SI Ranbir Singh, HC Kiran Pal and Ct. Baldev under Section 161 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 265 of 430 Cr.P.C.
30. That he also flashed wireless message for tracing robbed vehicle of deceased i.e. Honda City car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 and deposited the case property with the MHC(M).
31. That during the course of investigation, he searched for accused and the case property and also recorded supplementary statement of Sh. Suresh Trikha, father of the deceased on 23.11.2010 who told him about the missing articles of his son i.e., his coat, his bag, his mobile phone and driving licence (D/L).
32. That on 01.12.2010, he received an information from SIT Crime Branch regarding transfer of this case after which the same was handed over to SIT Crime Branch on 02.12.2010 and he sent the case file to SIT Crime Branch, Rohini vide RC No.613/21.
33. That sixteen photographs are on the record showing the place of occurrence, the stolen motorcycle and where the injured reached after being shot and informed the Watchmen which photographs are Ex.PW23/A1 to Ex.PW23/A16.
34. That the motorcycle found at the spot was released to Superdar Ashok Kumar (PW14) who produced the same in the Court which is Ex.PX. The witness has also identified empty cartridge case as taken in possession lying at the spot which is Ex.P8.
46. SI Sharat Kohli He is also the member of SIT, Crime Branch and has proved (PW46) the following aspects:
1. That on 02.12.2010 Inspector Arti Sharma prepared a Police Team comprising of herself, HC Jitender, Ct.
Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Vikas and himself and gave briefing them with regard to the facts of the present case.
2. That HC Amit Tomar informed Inspector Arti that he was already working on the present case and his source would contact him at around 3:30 PM at M2K Cinema, Sector 3, Rohini and thereafter their team St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 266 of 430 left the office at about 1:30 PM and reached road No. 43, Raj Nagar near Ram Mandir where the incident had taken place where the Investigating Officer inspected the spot and they also made local inquiry but since the incident had taken place at night so therefore no body give them much details about the same.
3. That at about 3:30 PM they reached at M2K cinema Rohini where at about 3:45 PM secret informer met him and informed him that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of whom three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of whom, two boys would be coming on red coloured pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side Shamshan Ghat Road and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal Quarters between 56 PM.
4. That thereafter he produced the informer before the Investigating Officer, after the Investigating Officer spoke to the secret informer, she conveyed the secret information to the senior officers who directed her to take appropriate action.
5. That thereafter Investigating Officer tried to join 45 passerby to join the police party but none agreed to join and thereafter they reached T point Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar at around 5 PM and parked the vehicles on one side.
6. That HC Amit Tomar, Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu and secret informer took their positions near their vehicles and concealed themselves and he along with the rest of the team members took their positions on the other side of the Road.
7. That at around 5:25 PM two boys came on a Red Color pulsar motorcycle from Mangolpuri side on which the secret informer pointed out towards them as the boys who were involved in the incident, after which the secret informer went away.
8. That since the road was damaged therefore the bike St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 267 of 430 was not moving at a speed and hence they came in front of the same and tried to stop the same but the boys then turned around and tried to flee but the bike slipped and these boys then tried to run away on foot.
9. That HC Amit Tomar and Ct. Dabbu apprehended one person whose name was later on revealed as Neeraj whereas the other boy was apprehended by him and Ct. Sunny whose name was later on revealed as Krishnamurthy.
10. That after these boys were apprehended, they were produced before Inspector Arti who interrogated them.
11. That search of accused Neeraj was conducted by him on the directions of the Investigating Officer and from the back right side pocket of his blue colour wearing pant, one driving licence was recovered which license was of deceased Prateek Trikha.
12. That on inquiry, accused Neeraj informed that they were five boys involved in the incident of the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 i.e. himself, Krishnamurthy, Appu, Raja and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu.
13. That the accused Neeraj further disclosed that on the said day while they were in the area of Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir they found one boy smoking a cigarette while standing outside his car on which they tried to snatch his Honda City Car but the said boy resisted to the same on which Appu shot that boy on the asking of Raja.
14. That the accused Neeraj further disclosed that thereafter they i.e. Appu, Shalu and Raja took the Honda City Car and went away and some documents including driving licence, ATM card of ABN AMRO, Debit Gold card, Shoppers Card and three Visiting Cards, kept inside the vehicle on the dash board which were removed by accused Krishnamurthy.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 268 of 430
15. That the accused Neeraj also disclosed in these documents, there was a driving licence of the said boy and since he (i.e. Neeraj) did not have any driving licence therefore Krishnamurthy @ Vicky handed over the said driving licence for his use which he retained.
16. That the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed that he had left one stolen motorcycle at the place of occurrence and the said motorcycle was stolen by him from the area of Rani Bagh.
17. That the accused Neeraj was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/A, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/C.
18. That the Investigating Officer also kept the driving licence in a polythene and thereafter seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/D and also seized the Red Coloured Pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW2410 vide memo Ex.PW44/E.
19. That thereafter accused Krishnamurthy was interrogated by the Investigating Officer who disclosed that on the date of incident i.e. intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 they i.e. he himself, Appu, S. Raja, Neeraj and Shalu were on three motorcycles, one was driven by Appu and Raja was sitting on him, second was driven by him (i.e. Krishnamurthy) which was stolen motorcycle and third was driven by Neeraj with Shalu sitting with him.
20. That apart from disclosing about the incident as disclosed by Neeraj, the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that he had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot whereas he took the motorcycle of Appu to flee away from the spot and the stolen car was driven by Appu with Raja and Shalu with him.
21. That the accused Krishnamurthy similarly disclosed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 269 of 430 that they removed the various documents from the dash board which included the driving licence, ATM card, shoppers card, visiting cards etc.
22. That the personal search of accused Krishnamurthy was conducted from which Rs.350/, one mobile phone of Dual SIM, one key were recovered after which the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex.PW44/F, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/G and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/H.
23. That during this period both the accused were kept in muffled face.
24. That both the accused then led them to Road No. 43 where the incident had taken place and pointed out the spot to them on which Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo pursuant to which pointing out memos were prepared which are Ex.PW44/I and Ex.PW44/J.
25. That the accused Krishnamurthy had also disclosed that after the incident, he was residing with his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor.
26. That the accused Krishnamurthy led them to the room at the aforementioned address where they met the landlord Sh. Ghanshyam Singh on the ground floor and was joined him in the investigations.
27. That when they went to the first floor, they met James and his son Kapil and on seeing accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Kapil informed that accused Krishnamurthy was the elder brother of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room claiming that there was renovation going on in his house and that is why he had requested his father James and permitted them to stay in the room on the top floor.
28. That they then went to the top floor along with the landlord James and Kapil where Krishnamurthy opened the lock on the door with the help of the key St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 270 of 430 which was recovered in his jamatalashi and thereafter he entered the room and found a light black colored pant hanging on the wall on a khunti.
29. That the accused Krishnamurthy removed that pant which was hanging on the khunti and took out an ATM card of ABN AMRO Bank, one Shoppers Stop Card and three visiting cards in the name of deceased Prateek Trikha from the right pocket of the same and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer.
30. That the Investigating Officer then put AMRO Bank ATM Card, one Shoppers Stop Card and Visiting cards in a polythene which along with the pant was wrapped in a piece of cloth and converted into a pulanda and sealed the same with the seal of AS and then Investigating Officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/A.
31. That Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW13/B and the statements of public witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer who were relieved.
32. That both the accused then took them to the house of Appu in G29/186, Sector3, Rohini itself where outside his house there was a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461 after which they went inside Appu's house where they met his sister Sona and the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona on which the Investigating Officer asked for keys from Sona on which she handed over the keys to the Investigating Officer and also informed that Appu had not come home for the last fourfive days.
33. That the Investigating Officer then seized the bike vide memo Ex.PW44/K after which they went to the Police Station Saraswati Vihar where the case property were deposited in the Malkhana and they returned to their Office.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 271 of 430
34. That on 24.01.2011, he joined the investigation of the present case with the Investigating Officer and other staff when they reached at Rohini Court in the Court of Sh. Dheeraj Mor, Ld. MM where accused Srikant @ Appu surrendered before the Court.
35. That Investigating Officer moved an application for interrogation and arrest and accused Shirkant @ Appu was having fresh sharp injuries on his stomach and head.
36. That the accused Srikant @ Appu was produced before the Ld. MM after which the accused was interrogated and was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW46/A, his personal search was conducted vide arrest memo Ex.PW46/B and the disclosure statement of the said accused was recorded vide Ex.PW46/C.
37. That Investigating Officer moved an application for Police Custody Remand of the accused which was allowed by the Ld. MM and the accused was medically examined.
38. That on 25.01.2011 he again joined the investigations in the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender and the accused Appu was already on police custody remand who took them to the spot of incident i.e. Road No. 43, Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir and pointed out the place of incident on which Investigating Officer Prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/L and thereafter they returned to their Office.
39. That on 27.01.2011 he joined the investigations with the Investigating Officer and other staff and the accused Srikant @ Appu was interrogated by the Investigating Officer wherein he disclosed that he had taken a Pistol of 7.65 bore pistol with four live cartridges from his friend Dheeraj @ Dhiru and paid him Rs.2000/ in the second week of November, 2010.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 272 of 430
40. That the accused Srikant @ Appu disclosed that after using the pistol, he returned the same to Dheeraj and asked him to clean the barrel of the pistol since it was used by him in the commission of the present offence.
41. That the Investigating Officer recorded the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused vide Ex.PW46/D.
42. That on 28.01.2011 at around 12:20 AM he joined the investigations with Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct.
Dabbu and Ct. Narender and thereafter, the accused Appu took them to the above address i.e. House No. D413, Sector1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them.
43. That when they rang the bell of the house when one boy aged around 2425 years opened the door and Appu pointed out towards him as Surender @ Dheeraj.
44. That the Investigating Officer interrogated Surender @ Dheeraj but he initially refused that he had given any pistol to Appu and therefore they returned to their office along with Surender @ Dheeraj.
45. That at about 4:00 PM, the accused disclosed that he had kept the said pistol in his house and had cleaned the barrel of the said pistol as told to him by coaccused Srikant @ Appu.
46. That after his interrogation and disclosure, the Surender @ Dheeraj again took them to his house and the Investigating Officer asked twothree public persons to join the police party but they refused. However, the son of the landlord Rupesh consented to be a part of police team and joined the investigations.
47. That accused Surender @ Dheeraj then took them to a room on the ground floor which was situated inside the premises and was the last room in the row St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 273 of 430 and there was single bed in the room, which was box shape bed, from where the accused got recovered a pistol wrapped in a cloth and handed over the same to Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma.
48. That on checking by the Investigating Officer, it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening it was found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine after which the Investigating Officer Prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW12/C.
49. That the pistol was then measured and its total length was found to be 19cm, with a barrel of 15 cm and butt of 9cm and the magazine had the words 111 inscribed on the same and the pistol was of steel numa metal and the butt had plastic design on the same.
50. That thereafter the Investigating Officer converted the pistol and the cartridge into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and prepared the pointing outcumseizure memo vide Ex.PW12/D.
51. That the seal after use was handed over to HC Amit Tomar and Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW12/A.
52. That the Investigating Officer thereafter arrested the accused Surender @ Dheeraj vide memo Ex.PW12/E, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/M and thereafter they returned to their office.
53. That on 27.02.2011 he again joined the investigations of the present case along with Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct.
Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender.
54. That the accused S. Raja was on police custody remand and they were briefed by the Investigating Officer that pursuant to his disclosure they were to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 274 of 430 go to Bhiwani in search of one Sombir and thereafter, they all went to Bhiwani along with the accused S. Raja.
55. That from Bhiwani Police Station, the SHO was joined in the investigations and thereafter the accused S. Raja took them to Hanuman Gate, Balmiki Colony at Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the Colony as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with accused Appu on two three occasions.
56. That Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo of the said house which is Ex.PW44/N and in that house accused Sombir was not found but his father disclosed that Sombir did not return home for the last fourfive days and thereafter they returned to their office.
57. That on 28.02.2011, accused S. Raja was again interrogated in the office by the Investigating Officer and he disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir.
58. That the accused S. Raja disclosed that it was Sombir who took him to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it and at that time accused Shalu was also present.
59. That the said disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer in his presence which is Ex.PW44/O.
60. That the accused S. Raja then took them to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh where he pointed out the shop to them on which the Investigating Officer prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/P.
61. That there could not meet Amit @ Bunty but his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 275 of 430 younger brother Sumeet was sitting in the shop who disclosed that Amit was his elder brother and both of them used to sit on this shop and that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last about twothree days but not returned.
62. That Sumit then took them to his house at Railway Colony, Shakurbasti where they met his father and also disclosed to them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last twothree days.
63. That on 02.03.2011 he along with HC Amit Tomar, Inspector Arti Sharma, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Narender, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal went to the house of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL office, Rani Bagh, Delhi where the accused Amit @ Bunty was found present.
64. That the accused Amit @ Bunty was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW44/P1, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/P2 and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/P3.
65. That accused Amit @ Bunty led the Investigating Officer with team to Hotspot, Daryaganj where he had given the said mobile Make Sony Ericson for replacing its IMEI Number.
66. That on 02.03.2011 he joined the investigations along with HC Amit Tomar and on the directions of the Investigating Officer they reached Mumbai on 03.03.2011 where they went to the house of one Vivek Vats who was a resident of Kandivali, Mumbai and met him.
67. That he informed Vivek Vats about the case on which Vivek Vats produced one mobile Make Sony Xperia which he checked its IMEI number which was matching with the IMEI number 012379004668392 i.e. of the phone of the deceased.
68. That the said boy Vivek Vats also handed over to them Job Sheet card Ex.PW37/A and one bill of the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 276 of 430 mobile phone Ex.PW38/A.
69. That he took the said mobile into possession and converted the same into pullanda with the help of a white cloth and thereafter sealed the same with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW38/B.
70. That the Job Sheet and the purchase bill as handed over to them by Vivek Vats were also taken into possession by him.
71. That Sh. Vivek Vats informed him that since the said mobile was not charging, he went to Borivali, Mumbai at the Sony Ericsson Workshop who had taken the said mobile and sent the same to their Chennai Workshop for repairing and thereafter Chennai Workshop had returned the said mobile to him and its IMEI number was replaced by the company.
72. That he recorded the statement of Vivek Vats U/s 161 Cr.P.C. and he was relieved after which they went to Boriwali at Thakkar complex and met Vishwas Thakkar who was interrogated by him.
73. That on 17.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with HC Amit Tomar, ASI Sudesh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Narender, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Vikas and Ct.
Sunny and on that day, he reached the Tikri Border for investigations of the present case and for the search of Sombir.
74. That HC Amit Tomar met secret informer at around 3:00 PM, who informed him that the vehicle which had been robbed in the present case i.e. Honda City bearing No. DL4CNC1115 was with one Sombir who along with his associates would be coming from Haryana towards Rani Bagh for committing some incident/vardat between 56 PM and they would be carrying arms and ammunitions with them.
75. That the secret informer also informed that a fake number plate of HR26AK0728 would be present on the vehicle in place of actual number plate and produced the secret informer before him and also St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 277 of 430 questioned him in detail.
76. That the police team was briefed and he also stopped fourfive passersby and informed them about the secret information and requested them to join the police party but they refused to join and thereafter without wasting any further time, they reached Rani Bagh at about 4:40 PM and constituted a raiding party and laid a trap at Tpoint, Rani Bagh Market on the road going towards M2K Cinema.
77. That he again tried to join fourfive public persons in the police party but they refused.
78. That at about 5:20 PM one car make Honda City of golden color bearing number plate HR26AK0728 was found coming from Rani Bagh market side and on pointing out of secret informer they stopped the car in which three persons sitting.
79. That the occupants came out and started running in different directions but he along with HC Amit Tomar chased one boy who was driving the vehicle and was trying to escape and apprehended him whose name was later revealed as Sombir.
80. That the boy sitting along with him next to the driver seat was chased by HC Shyam Lal and apprehended him whose name later on disclosed as Sunil whereas the third boy who was sitting on the back seat was chased by Ct. Narender and apprehended whose name was later on disclosed as Jaideep.
81. That on casual search of accused Sombir revealed a pistol of 7.65mm from the left side of his dub which pistol on checking found to contain three live cartridges and it was unloaded and thereafter he prepared the sketch of the same which sketch is Ex.PW44/Q and the measurement of the pistol was taken.
82. That the pistol was found to be having total length of 20 cm, barrel of same was 15 cm and butt of same was 10 cm and the total length of the magazine was 10.5 cm.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 278 of 430
83. That he then converted the same into pullanda by putting the pistol, magazine and round into plastic container and closed the same with the doctor's tape and sealed the same with the seal of SK after which he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW44/R.
84. That he then arrested accused Sombir vide memo Ex.PW44/S1, his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW44/S2 and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW44/S3.
85. That he checked the Engine and Chassis numbers of Honda City Car and it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Trikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115 and the forged number plates bearing no. HR 26 AK0728 found installed on the Honda City car were seized by the him vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/F.
86. That the Honda City was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/G.
87. That thereafter, HC Shyam Lal produced accused Sunil before him who was found in possession of one 7.65 bore pistol with three live cartridges and magazine.
88. That Ct. Narender produced accused Jaideep before him and he was found in possession of one 315 bore country made pistol with two live cartridges.
89. That all these pistols and cartridges were separately measured and seized vide seizure memos.
90. That the accused Sombir also disclosed about the theft of another Hyundai Accent car from the Rani Bagh area which was kept in the lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border.
91. That thereafter they reached at the above said place along with the accused Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil and at the instance of accused Sombir one Hyundai Accent car bearing fake number plate HR 20 P 5349 was recovered and he seized the Hyundai car St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 279 of 430 vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H and the forged number plates were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/I.
92. That he also filed up the FSL Forms after which they returned to Police Station Saraswati Vihar where the case properties i.e. Honda City car and weapons were deposited in the Malkhana.
93. That on 23.03.2011 he again joined the investigations along with Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma, HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh, Ct. Narender, HC Shyam Lal, HC Rajender and they all reached Rani Bagh, Main Market for investigations of the present case where a secret informer met Inspector Arti Sharma and informed that one person wanted in the present case i.e. Rajender Parshad had been seen roaming around in the market.
94. That on the pointing out of secret informer at about 3:20 PM, accused Rajender Prasad @ Shalu who was roaming around in the market was apprehended and his name was confirmed as Rajender Parshad @ Shalu.
95. That the accused Rajender Parshad was casually searched and from the wearing lower, some documents were found and the said documents on checking were found to relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle.
96. That when inquired about the said documents, the accused Rajender Prashad disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these forged documents and handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing No. HR26 AK0728 on the basis of the these fake documents.
97. That thereafter Inspector Arti Sharma took these documents into possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/T. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 280 of 430
98. That the Investigating Officer then arrested accused Rajender Parshad vide memo Ex.PW44/U1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/U2.
99. That the accused Rajender Prashad then led them to the spot of incident at road No. 43, Raj Nagar in front of Raj Mandir and pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW44/V.
100. That thereafter they returned to the office where Rajender Parshad was interrogated at length and he made his disclosure to the Investigating Officer regarding his involvement in the present case as well as in other incidents of robberies.
101. That disclosure statement of the accused Rajender Prashad was recorded by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.PW44/W wherein the accused Rajender Parshad disclosed that the various gold chains which he had robbed in the different incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosures Ex.PW44/W had been sold by him to one Sanjay, who is running a shop under the name and style of Soni Jewelers at Avantika, Rohini.
102. That the accused Rajender Prashad then led them to the shop of Soni Jewelers Avantika Rohini, where they found Sanjay Soni in the shop as pointed out by the accused Rajender Parshad.
103. That Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma interrogated Sanjay Soni who admitted that Rajender Parshad sold five chains to him at different times after which he went to the room inside the shop and brought five gold chains and handed over the same to Investigating Officer.
104. That the accused Rajender Parshad identified all the five chains as the one's which he had sold to Sanjay Soni after committing robbery in the various incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosure statement.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 281 of 430
105. That the Investigating Officer then took the same into possession under Section 102 Cr.P.C. and converted the same into different pullandas with the help of polythene and white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and took the same into possession U/s 102 Cr.
P.C. after Sanjay Soni was arrested.
The witness has correctly identified the accused Rajender Parshad, Appu @ Srikant, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Sombir, Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru, Neeraj, Amit @ Bunty, Jaideep and Sunil in the Court. He has also identified the Driving License bearing No. P08122004416486 of Prateek Trikha/ deceased as recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj which is Ex.P2; Honda City car bearing Number plate DL4C NC1115 which is Ex.P6 from the photographs Ex.PW32/J1 to Ex.PW32/J4; two number plates bearing number HR26AK0728 found with the recovered Honda City car which fake number plates are collectively Ex.P10; one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of black color having IMEI No. 012379004668392 as produced by Vivek Vats which is Ex.P14; one pistol and one empty cartridge case as recovered from possession of accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru which pistol with magazine is Ex.P15; bullet and cartridges case Ex.P16; one pistol and two live cartridges and one live cartridge with the details of the FSL mentioned on the same as FSL 2011/F1754/F2 mentioned on the same and the words auto pistol 16S1 round - VI 06 number 66600 inscribed on one side and the words AUTO NATIC PISTAL MADE IN CHINA inscribed on the other side as recovered from the possession of accused Sunil, which pistol is Ex.P17; the live cartridges are collectively Ex.P18 and cartridge case is Ex.P19; one pistol and two live cartridges and one empty cartridge case as recovered from the possession of accused Sombir, which pistol is Ex.P20, two live cartridges are collectively Ex.P21 and empty cartridge case which is Ex.P22.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 282 of 430
47. Inspector Arti She is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has Sharma (PW47) proved the following aspects:
1. That on 02.12.2010 the investigations of this case was marked to her.
2. That HC Amit Tomar (PW44) informed her that he was already working on this case and on 02.12.2010 she prepared a police team comprising of SI Sharat Kohli (PW46), HC Amit Tomar (PW44), HC Jitender, Ct. Narender (PW32), Ct. Sunny, Ct.
Dabbu and Ct. Vikas and herself and gave briefing with regard to the facts of the present case.
3. That HC Amit Tomar informed her that his source would contact him at around 3:30 PM at M2K cinema, Sector 3, Rohini after which their team left the office at about 1:30 PM and reached road No. 43, Raj Nagar near Ram Mandir where the incident had taken place where she inspected the spot and they also made local inquiry but since the incident had taken place at night therefore nobody give them much details about the same.
4. That at about 3:30 PM they reached at M2K Cinema Rohini where at about 3:45 PM secret informer met HC Amit Tomar and informed him that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of which three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of which two boys would be coming on red color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side via Shamshan Ghat Road and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal quarter to meet somebody there between 56 PM.
5. That thereafter HC Amit Tomar produced the informer before her and she verified the information from the secret informer and thereafter she conveyed the secret information to the senior officers who directed her to take appropriate action.
6. That thereafter she tried to join fourfive passerby and requested them to join the police party but none agreed to join and thereafter they reached T point St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 283 of 430 Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar at around 5 PM and parked the vehicles on one side.
7. That she along with HC Amit Tomar, Ct. Dabbu and secret informer took their positions near their vehicles and concealed themselves and the rest of the team members took their positions on the other side of the road.
8. That at around 5:25 PM two boys came on a red color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side on which the secret informer pointed out towards them as the boys which were involved in the incident, after which the secret informer went away.
9. That the said road was damaged and therefore the bike was not moving at a speed, on which they came in front of the same and tried to stop them.
10. That the said boys then turned around and tried to flee but the bike slipped and both the boys fell down on the road.
11. That they both immediately got up and then tried to run away on foot but HC Amit Tomar and Ct. Dabbu apprehended the boy who was driving the motorcycle and pillion rider was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny.
12. That HC Amit Tomar and Ct. Dabbu apprehended one boy whose name was later on revealed as Neeraj, R/o JJ Colony, Shakurbasti whereas the other boy whose name later on revealed as Krishnamurthy @ Vicky R/o JJ colony, Shakurbasti was apprehended by SI Sharat Kohli and Ct. Sunny.
13. That after these boys were apprehended, they were produced before her and she interrogated them and it was then that their names were revealed as Neeraj and Krishnamurthy.
14. That formal search of Neeraj was conducted by SI Sharat Kohli and from the pant of blue color which he was wearing one driving licence was recovered from the back side right pocket, which driving St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 284 of 430 licence was of deceased Prateek Tirkha.
15. That on inquiry the accused Neeraj informed that they were five boys involved in the incident of the intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 i.e. himself, Krishnamurthy, Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu and while they were in the area of Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir they found one boy smoking a cigarette while standing outside his car on which they tried to snatch his Honda city car but the said boy resisted to the same on which Appu shot this boy on the asking of S. Raja.
16. That the accused Neeraj also disclosed that thereafter they i.e. Appu, Shalu and Raja took the vehicle and went away and he followed them on his motorcycle whereas Krishnamurthy @ Vicky followed on Appu's motorcycle and some documents including driving licence, ATM card of ABN Amro, Debit gold card, Shoppers Card and three visiting cards, were kept inside the vehicle on the dash board which were removed by Krishnamurthy at Avantika.
17. That the accused Neeraj also disclosed that he i.e. Neeraj did not have any driving licence therefore Krishnamurthy @ Vicky handed over the driving licence of deceased to him for use which he retained.
18. That the accused Neeraj was arrested by vide memo Ex.PW44/A, his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/C and she also kept the driving licence in a polythene and thereafter seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/D.
19. That she then seized the red color Pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW 2410 vide memo Ex.PW44/E.
20. That thereafter Krishnamurthy was also interrogated by her who disclosed to her that on the date of incident i.e. intervening night of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 285 of 430 21/22.11.2010 they i.e. he, Appu, S. Raja, Neeraj and Shalu were on three motorcycles, one was driven by Appu and Raja was sitting on him, second was driven by himself i.e. Krishnamurthy which was stolen motorcycle and third was driven by Neeraj with Shalu sitting with him.
21. That apart from disclosing about the incident as disclosed by Neeraj, the accused Krishnamurthy also disclosed that on the directions of Appu he had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot whereas took the motorcycle of Appu to flee away from the spot and the stolen car was driven by Raja and Appu and Shalu with him.
22. That the accused Krishnamurthy similarly disclosed that they removed the various documents from the dash board which included the driving licence, ATM card, shoppers card, visiting cards etc. and further disclosed that Appu had directed him that he left his motorcycle to his residence at Sector 3 Rohini and would give the keys of the same to his sister Sona.
23. That the personal search of accused Krishnamurthy was conducted but it did not reveal anything except the key (as confirmed from the personal search memo) after which the accused Krishnamurthy was arrested by vide memo Ex.PW44/F, his personal search memo was prepared vide Ex.PW44/G and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/H.
24. That both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy one by one led them to road No. 43 where the incident had taken place and pointed out the spot to them on which she prepared the pointing out memos which are Ex.PW44/I and Ex.PW44/J respectively.
25. That the accused Krishnamurthy had also disclosed that after the incident he was residing St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 286 of 430 with his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor.
26. That the accused Krishnamurthy then led them to the said room at the aforementioned address where they met the landlord Ghanshyam on the ground floor and when they went to the first floor, they met James Lakyal and Kapil Nayyar.
27. That on seeing Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Kapil informed that Krishnamurthy was the elder brother of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room claiming that there was renovation going on in his house as his elder brother's marriage was held in the month of January 2011 and that is why he had requested his father James and permitted them to stay in the room on the top floor.
28. That they then went to the top floor along with the landlord James and Kapil where Krishnamurthy opened the lock on the door with the help of the key which was recovered in his Jamatalashi.
29. That the accused then entered the room where they found a light black colored pant hanging on the right side wall on a keel/nail.
30. That the accused Krishnamurthy removed that pant and took out a ATM card of ABN AMRO Bank, Citizen first shoppers stop card and three visiting cards all in the name of Prateek Trikha from the right pocket of the same and handed over the same to her.
31. That she then converted the pant and ATM card into a pullanda after putting the same in a transparent polythene after keeping the same into the pant and sealed the same with the seal of AS and handed over the seal to SI Sharat Kohli after use.
32. That she seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/A and prepared the site plan of the place of recovery vide Ex.PW13/B. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 287 of 430
33. That the statements of public witnesses were recorded by her and she relieved them after which both the accused then took them to the house of Appu in Sector 3 Rohini where outside his house there was a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461 parked.
34.That thereafter they went inside Appu's house where they met his sister Sona.
35. That the accused Krishnamurthy had disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona on which she asked for keys from Sona who thereafter handed over the keys to her and also informed that Appu had not come home for the last fourfive days.
36. That she then seized the bike vide memo Ex.PW44/K.
37. That thereafter they went to the Police Station Saraswati Vihar where the case property were deposited in the malkhana and they returned to their Office.
38. That on 24.01.2011 accused Appu surrendered in the court of Sh. Dheeraj Mor, Ld. MM on which she along with SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal and other team members reached Rohini Court complex and after the accused surrendered before the Court, she took permission from Ld. MM to interrogate him, which permission was granted.
39. That outside the Court, first casual search of the accused Appu was conducted by SI Sharat Kohli and it was revealed that he had inflicted blade injuries on his stomach and head which was superficial in nature which fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Ld. MM who immediately made an incorporation of this fact in the proceeding sheet.
40. That thereafter the accused Appu was interrogated outside the court and was arrested vide memo St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 288 of 430 Ex.PW46/A, his personal search memo was prepared vide memo Ex.PW46/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW46/C.
41. That she moved an application before Ld. MM and obtained a five day Police Custody Remand of accused Appu and they then took him to BSA hospital where he was provided treatment for self inflicted injuries on his stomach and head which took about four hours and thereafter they returned to SIT Office.
42. That on 25.01.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted consisting of herself, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Amit Tomar, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct.
Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender.
43. That the accused Appu who was already on Police Custody Remand took them to the spot of incident i.e, road No. 43, Raj Nagar, near Ram Mandir and pointed out the place of incident on which she prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/L after which they returned to their Office.
44.That on 27.01.2011 she recorded supplementary disclosure statement of accused Srikant @ Appu which is Ex.PW46/D.
45. That on 28.01.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted comprising of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal, Ct. Vikas, Ct.
Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender.
46. That the accused Appu had in his disclosure to her disclosed that he had taken the pistol with four live cartridges from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru on rent for Rs.2,000/ which Surender @ Dheeraj was a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 289 of 430
47. That the Accused Appu further disclosed that after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and he could get the same recovered from Surender @ Dheeraj.
48. That she briefed the other members of the police team about the same and thereafter Appu took them to the above address i.e. House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them.
49. That when they rang the bell of the house, one boy aged around 2425 years opened the door and Appu pointed out towards him as Surender @ Dheeraj and wife of Surender @ Dheeraj was also present there.
50. That she interrogated Surender @ Dheeraj but he initially refused that he had given any pistol to Appu and therefore they returned to their Office along with Surender @ Dheeraj.
51. That there Surender @ Dheeraj was interrogated at length and he disclosed that he had kept the pistol in his house and after his interrogation and disclosure, the accused Surender @ Dheeraj again took them to his house.
52. That she asked twothree neighbors to join the police party but they refused, however, the son of the landlord Rupesh consented to be a part of police team and joined the investigations.
53. That Surender @ Dheeraj then took them to the room on the ground floor which was situated inside the premises and was the last room in the row and there was single bed in the room, which was box shape bed.
54. That the accused Surender @ Dheeraj opened the same and from there got recovered a pistol from the clothes kept in the box and handed over the same to her.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 290 of 430
55. That on checking by her, it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening was found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine and she prepared the sketch of the same which is Ex.PW12/C.
56. That the pistol was then measured and its total length was found to be 19cm, with a barrel of 15 cm and butt of 9cm and the magazine had the words 111 inscribed on the same, the pistol was of steel numa metal and the butt had plastic design on the same.
57. That thereafter she converted both the pistol and cartridge into a pullanda with the help of cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo vide memo Ex.PW12/D and handed over the seal after use to HC Amit Tomar.
58. That she prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW12/A.
59. That she arrested the accused Surender @ Dheeraj vide memo Ex.PW12/E, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/M and thereafter they returned to their Office.
60. That on 16.02.2011 she deposited the exhibits through Ct. Dabbu in FSL, Rohini. According to her, on 23.02.2011 she got prepared the scaled site plan by Draftsman SI Mahesh at the instance of Inspector Vipin Kumar which site plan is Ex.PW18/A.
61. That on 25.02.2011 father of accused Neeraj namely Hawa Singh joined the investigations and handed over to her RC of the recovered motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW2410 and she took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW47/A.
62. That on the same day father of the deceased Prateek Trikha namely S.K. Trika joined the investigations and handed over to her the original bill of Sony Ericson Xperia mobile phone which was in the name of deceased Prateek Tirkha and also handed over to him photocopy of RC of snatched Honda St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 291 of 430 City car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 which she took into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW47/B.
63. That on the same day i.e. 25.2.2011 she received secret information about accused S. Raja through HC Shyam Lal on which she constituted police team comprising of herself, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Shyam Lal and other police team members and they went to Inderpuri where secret informer met HC Shyam Lal who informed that accused S. Raja had left his house and would return as his mother was not keeping well and he was taking care of her.
64.That they laid a trap by covering his house i.e. E399, JJ Colony, Inderpuri and after some time secret informer pointed out towards a person who was entering in a gali as accused S. Raja.
65. That with the help of her team members the accused S. Raja was apprehended and arrested vide memo Ex.PW35/A, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW35/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW35/C after which the accused S. Raja was produced before the illaka magistrate and was taken on seven days Police Custody Remand.
66. That on 27.02.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted comprising of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal, Ct.
Vikas, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Narender.
67. That on that day accused S. Raja was on police custody remand and she briefed the raiding party that pursuant to his disclosure they went to Bhiwani in search of one Sombir and thereafter they all went to Bhiwani along with the accused S. Raja.
68. That from Police Station City Bhiwani the SHO was joined in the investigations and thereafter S. Raja took them to Balmiki Basti at Bhiwani and pointed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 292 of 430 out towards a house in the Basti as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with Appu on twothree occasions.
69. That she prepared the pointing out memo of the said house which is Ex.PW44/N and in his house Sombir she could not find him but his father met them who informed that Sombir did not return to home for the last fourfive days, after which they returned to their Office.
70. That S. Raja was again interrogated in the Office by her and further disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir.
71. That the accused S. Raja disclosed that it was Sombir who was a friend of Appu who took him and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it.
72. That the accused S. Raja also disclosed that at that time when this mobile was handed over accused Shalu was also present and the said disclosure statement was recorded by her which is Ex.PW44/O.
73. That the accused S. Raja then took them to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh and pointed out the shop to them on which the she prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/P.
74. That there they could not meet Amit @ Bunty but his younger brother Sumeet was sitting in the shop who disclosed that Amit was his elder brother and both of them used to sit on this shop.
75. That Sumit further informed that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last about twothree days but not returned after which Sumit took them to his house at St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 293 of 430 railway colony, Shakurbasti where they met his father who also disclosed to them that Amit had gone to Rohtak for the last twothree days and thereafter they returned to their office.
76. That on 02.03.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted consisting of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Ct. Dabbu, Ct. Narender, ASI Suresh, HC Shyam Lal went to the shop of Amit @ Bunnty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh, Delhi where the accused Amit @ Bunty was found present and was interrogated by her and thereafter arrested vide memo Ex.PW44/P1, his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/P2 and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW44/P3.
77. That at the instance of Amit @ Bunty they went to Hot Spot Spice mobile phone shop at Daryaganj as Amit @ Bunty had disclosed that he had given the robbed mobile phone for repair over there.
78. That one Vishal Atwal who was working in the repair center identified the accused Amit @ Bunty and had stated that the Xperia mobile phone was given to him for repair by Amit @ Bunty through his friend namely Varun who is running shop in Rani Bagh market in the name and style of Nice Communications and after repair he handed over the mobile to Varun.
79. That Vishal Atwal also checked his computer records and informed that the IMEI number of the deceased was running with one Vivek Vats, resident of Mumbai, on which she immediately spoke to her senior officers and on their directions SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar were directed to go to Mumbai and to recover the mobile.
80. That thereafter they returned back to SIT Office where they called Varun who informed that after receiving the mobile phone he handed over the same St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 294 of 430 to Amit @ Bunty and thereafter she along with her team members and accused Amit @ Bunty went to his mobile shop at Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh where Amit took out a key hidden in the drawer and open another drawer and took out the robbed mobile phone of the deceased and handed over the same to her.
81. That she converted the same into pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed the same with the seal of AS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/E and thereafter they returned to SIT Office.
82. That on further investigations it was revealed that the IMEI number of recovered mobile number did not match with the repaired phone's IMEI number as intimated by Vishal Atwal and immediately she again went to Hot Spot Spice, Daryaganj where Vishal Atwal informed them that the repaired IMEI was interchanged with the IMEI of one Balram resident of village Bahrampur, Gurgaon.
83. That from there she went to village Bahrampur, Gurgaon where Balram joined the investigations and he handed over to her one black colored Sony Ericson Xyperia mobile phone which was having the repaired IMEI number along with two job sheets.
84. That the mobile phone was converted into pullanda with the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/F and seal after use was handed over to ASI Suresh.
85. That on 23.03.2011 the investigations in the present case were conducted and a police party was constituted comprising of herself, HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh, Ct. Narender, HC Shyam Lal, HC Rajender and they reached Rani Bagh Main Market for investigations of the present case where the secret informer met her and informed that one person wanted in the present case i.e. Rajender Parshad had been seen roaming around in the market.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 295 of 430
86. That thereafter on the pointing out of secret informer one boy who was roaming around in the market was apprehended and his name was confirmed as Rajender Parshad @ Shalu and he was casually searched by SI Sharat Kohli and from the lower which he was wearing some documents were found.
87. That the said documents on checking were found to relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle.
88. That when inquired the accused Rajender Parshad about the said documents, he disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these documents and handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing No. HR26AK0728 on the basis of the documents.
89. That thereafter she took these documents into possession and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW44/T and she then arrested the accused Rajender Parshad vide memo Ex.PW44/U1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW44/U2.
90. That the accused then led them to the spot of incident at road No. 43, Raj Nagar in front of Raj Mandir and pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW44/V and they then returned to the office where Rajender Parshad was interrogated at length and he made his disclosure to her regarding his involvement in the present case as well as in other incidents of robberies, which disclosure statement is Ex.PW44/W.
91. That the accused Rajender Parshad had in his disclosure stated that the various gold chains which he had robbed in the different incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosures Ex.PW44/W had been sold by him to one Sanjay, who is running a shop under the name and style of Soni Jewelers at Avantika, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 296 of 430 Rohini.
92. That the accused then led them to the shop of Soni Jewelers Avantika Rohini, where they found Sanjay Soni in the shop as pointed out by the accused Rajender Parshad and she interrogated Sanjay Soni who admitted that Rajender Parshad sold five chain to him at different times.
93. That Sanjay Soni then went to the room inside the shop and brought five gold chains and handed over the same to her and Rajender Parshad identified all the five chains as the one which he had sold to Sanjay Soni after committing robbery in the various incidents as disclosed by him in his disclosure statement.
94. That she then took the same into possession U/s 41.1(D) Cr. P.C. and converted the same into different pullandas with the help of polythene and white cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and took the same into possession U/s 102 Cr. P.C. and thereafter arrested Sanjay Soni after which they then returned to their Office.
95. That she prepared the first charge sheet on 27.02.2011 against accused Neeraj, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Srikant @ Appu and accused Surender @ Dheeraj and on 08.04.2011 she sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini through Ct. Narender.
96. That on 04.05.2011 she obtained the result from FSL Rohini through Ct. Vikas and thereafter, she prepared the supplementary charge sheet and filed the same in the Court.
She has identified the accused Rajender Parshad, Appu @ Srikant, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Sombir, Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru, Neeraj, Amit @ Bunty, Jaideep and Sunil in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one mobile phone of Sony Experia of white colour bearing IMEI number 3594190305283067 as the same as recovered at the instance of Amit @ Bunty and belonging to the deceased which is Ex.P1; Driving St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 297 of 430 License bearing No. P08122004416486 of Prateek Trika/ deceased as the same as recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj which is Ex.P2; shoppers stop card, ATM Gold Debit Card of ABN Amro Bank and three visiting cards as the same having been got recovered by the accused Krishnamurthy which are Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively; Honda City car bearing Number plate DL4CNC1115 which is Ex.P6 from the photographs Ex.PW32/J1 to Ex.PW32/J4 as that recovered from Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil; one mobile phone of Sony Experia of black colour bearing IMEI number 359419030873086 as the same as recovered from Balram which is Ex.P13; one pistol and one empty cartridge as recovered from possession of accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru at the instance of Srikant @ Appu which pistol with magazine is Ex.P15 and bullet and cartridges case is Ex.P16.
(190) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of evidence against the accused persons.
Medical Evidence:
(191) The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 2122.10.2011 Prateek Trikha was inflicted a firearm injury on his vital part i.e. over lateral front of right shoulder which was fatal for him. He received the injury when he resisted a robbery/ dacoity attempt on him. In this regard the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimonies of Dr. Ashish Bansal (PW16), Dr. Anupam (PW17) and Dr. Kulbhushan Goel (PW28).
(192) Coming first to the testimony of Dr. Ashish Bansal (PW16) from Maharaja Aggrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi, he has proved that on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 298 of 430 22.11.2010 at about 12:45 AM, patient Prateek Trikha was brought to the Hospital by W/Constable Sulochana of PCR with the alleged history of gun shot history at Raj Nagar colony gate. He has proved the MLC of the injured which MLC is Ex.PW16/A according to which the patient was admitted under CTVS on call under ICU. Similarly, Dr. Anupam (PW17) has proved that when the patient Prateek Trikha was referred to casualty from ICU, the BP and heart rate of the patient was not recordable and there was no signs of respiration. According to the witness, they made their efforts to resuscitate the patient but the patient could not be revived and hence the patient was declared dead at about 2:07 AM and the dead summary was prepared which is Ex.PW17/A. (193) Dr. Kulbhushan Goel (PW28) is the Autopsy Surgeon who has proved the Postmortem Report of the deceased which is Ex.PW28/A which establishes following external injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Lacerated punctured wound 1.2 x 1 cm with inverted margins over upper lateral front of right arm about 9.5 cm below right shoulder tip and 4 cm away from axilliary tip. No blackening or tattooing were seen. Fine abrated collar was seen around the wound (entry wound of firearm).
2. Abrasion 2 x 0.5cm over right molar region and 1 x 1 cm over back of left wrist.
(194) He has deposed that on exploration, injury no.1 was found running medially, slightly downwards and backwards, entered into chest St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 299 of 430 cavity through right third inter coastal space, purported upper lobe of right lung through and through, exit root of right lung; Vessels in the root of right lung were ruptured; the injury track ended at anterolateral aspect of fifth inter vertebral disc where a bullet was found embedded in fifth inter vertebral disc. This injury which runs medially downwards from third intercoastal space to 5th intervertebral disc confirms that the deceased was shot when he put up a resistance and was caught by the assailants from the back. It confirms that the incident was not the work of one or two persons but many persons who acted fast in consortium leaving little time to the victim to react or raise an alarm. The height of accused Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu and also S. Raja is 5' 9'' whereas Rajender Prashad is 5' 8'' and Krishnamurthy is 5' 7'' (as evident from the conviction slips on Judicial Record and confirmed by the Court on observing the accused). It is the case of prosecution that when the deceased Prateek Trikha a well built young man resisted the dacoity he was caught from behind by the accused Neeraj (5' 9'' high) and given fist and leg blows by Krishnamurthy (5' 7'' high) and Rajender Prashad (5' 8'' high) whereas the accused S. Raja (5' 9'' high) snatched the keys of his car from his hand which the deceased was resisting when S. Raja exhorted Srikant @ Appu to shoot the victim, that the shot was fired. This shot on the right side chest when during this melee the victim who was given a blow on right jaw fell on the left side causing abrasions on right jaw and left wrist. This explains the firearm injury on the right side running downwards and confirms the presence of many persons and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 300 of 430 resistance by deceased and also use of force on him before being shot. (195) He has proved having opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature, Injury No.1 was caused by firearm, Injury No.2 was caused by friction against rough blunt surface and cause of death was combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and respiratory failure consequent upon chest and lung injuries; Firearm injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and time since death was ten hours. The witness Dr. Kulbhushan Goel (PW28) has proved having preserved the, Clothes of the deceased, Bullet recovered from the body and Blood samples in gauze piece and sealed them with the seal of hospital which were then handed over to the Investigating Officer along with the sample seal.
(196) I may observe, that as per the Postmortem Report Ex.PW28/A there was an Abrasion 2 x 0.5cm over right molar region and 1 x 1 cm over back of left wrist which according to the Autopsy Surgeon were caused by friction against rough blunt surface. However, it is not possible that both the abrasions were on account of friction against rough surface on account of fall being in diametrically opposite directions. One abrasion was on the right molar region whereas other was over back of left wrist. It is evident from the disclosures of the accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Prashad that the deceased Prateek Trikha was shot by Appu on asking of S. Raja as he was offering St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 301 of 430 resistance. He was first given leg and fist blows and then caught from behind because he was not ready to hand over the keys of the car to the assailants only after which he was shot. Here, I may observe that the deceased was a young boy of 25 years with a good/ healthy built and had resisted the dacoity attempt due to which reason the accused had fired at him. This injury on his right molar region i.e. abrasion of 2 x 0.5cm present on the body of the deceased was apparently caused when he was given the fist and leg blows and thereafter when he fell down on the road on his left side i.e. rough blunt surface he received injury measuring 1 x 1 cm over back of left wrist.
(197) This being the background, I hereby hold that the Medical Evidence on record is compatible to the prosecution version and establishes that the death of the deceased Prateek Trikha was on account of gun shot injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature which injury was caused to him after he resisted the dacoity and was given left and fist blows by the assailants.
Forensic Evidence:
(198) The case of the prosecution is that the death of the deceased Prateek Trikha was on account of firearm injury and during the postmortem a bullet was found embedded in the body of the deceased which bullet the Autopsy Surgeon handed over to the Investigating Officer in a sealed condition. Further, as per the case of the prosecution an empty cartridge St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 302 of 430 case was found lying at the spot of incident and the firearm i.e. pistol used in the present case was got recovered by the accused Srikant @ Appu from the house of Surender @ Dheeraj pursuant to his disclosure statement.
Thereafter, the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased, the empty cartridge case and the recovered pistol were sent to FSL for expert opinion. In this regard the prosecution has placed its reliance on the opinion given by the forensic expert who has been examined as PW31. (199) Sh. R. Suresh (PW31) the then Sr. Scientific Officer (Ballistics) at FSL Rohini, Delhi has proved that on 18.02.2011, three parcels in sealed condition were received at office at FSL Rohini, Delhi in case FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar through Ct. Dabbu Kanwar and the same were marked to him for examination. According to this witness, the seals were found intact and tallied with the sample seal. He has further proved that on opening the Parcel No.1 it was found to contain one improvised pistol of 7.65 mm caliber and one 7.65 mm cartridge and he marked the pistol as F1 and cartridge as A1. On opening the Parcel No.2 he found one 7.65 mm empty cartridge case which was marked by him as EC1 and on opening the Parcel No.3 he found one deformed bullet which was marked by him EB1. The witness has proved that after examination he found that the improvised pistol marked as F1 is designed to fire 7.65 mm cartridge and in working order; test fire conducted successfully; 7.65 mm cartridge marked Ex.A1 was a live one and 7.65 mm cartridge case marked as St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 303 of 430 Ex.EC1 was a fired empty cartridge case. He has proved that the deformed bullet marked as EB1 corresponded to the bullet of standard 7.65 mm cartridge. According to the witness, one cartridge marked A1 and two 7.65 mm cartridges taken from laboratory stock were test fired through the improvised pistol marked F1 and the test fired cartridges cases were marked by him as TC1, TC2 & TC3 and the recovered test fired bullets were marked by him as TB1, TB2 & TB3 respectively. He has proved that the individual characteristics of the firing pin marks and the breach face marks present on the fired cartridge case marked EC1 and on the test fired cartridge cases marked as TC1 to TC3 were examined and compared under the comparison microscope model LEICA DMC and were found identical and hence the cartridge case marked EC1 has been fired through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked F1. He has further proved that the individual characteristics of striation present on the deformed bullet marked EB1 are insufficient for examination and comparison to opine whether it has been discharged through the improvised pistol 7.65 mm caliber marked F1 or not. According to the witness, exhibits marked F1 is the firearm and the exhibits marked A1, EC1 & EB1 are ammunition as defined in the Arms Act. He has proved the detailed ballistic report in this regard which is Ex.PW31/A. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 304 of 430 (200) It is evident from the aforesaid and also stands established that the lead/ deformed piece of bullet recovered from the body of the deceased Prateek Trikha by the Autopsy Surgeon which after sealing was handed over to the Investigating Officer and when examined corresponded to the bullet of standard 7.65 mm cartridge and the cartridge case which was lifted from the spot of the incident where firing took place was discharged through the improvised pistol F1 of 7.65 mm caliber (i.e. Ex.PW12/2 in the Court) recovered from the house of the accused Surender @ Dheeru who was identified and pointed out by Srikant @ Appu and it is confirmed to be having the same individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks as that of cartridges test fired from this improvised pistol F1 (Ex.PW12/2 in the Court).
(201) It is this forensic report which conclusively connects the use of this firearm Ex.PW12/2 (recovered from the house of Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru so pointed out by Srikant @ Appu) to the crime (i.e. bullet inside the body of the deceased and cartridge case recovered from the spot) and incriminate the accused.
Electronic Evidence:
(202) The case of the prosecution is that the accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Prashad belong to a gang of robbers/ dacoits who operate in the area and are also individually involved in large number of cases. The are frequently on a prowl during night hours St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 305 of 430 looking for vulnerable targets. They indulge into looting of electronics, automobiles, cash etc. and in case of resistance do not hesitate to silence their victims by use of illegal force. On the date of the incident i.e. the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 a young boy namely Prateek Trikha aged about 25 years who was enjoying a cigarette standing outside his new Honda City Car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 near the gate of the Society where he was residing before returning home being a reclusive smoker. The accused finding him alone attempted to rob him of his car and other belongings but when Prateek an able bodied young boy put up a resistance, he was caught by the assailants and immediately silenced being shot dead. Thereafter the accused took away his Honda City car, mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392, ABN AMRO Bank Master Card and other documents belonging to the deceased.
(203) It is the case of the prosecution that after the accused Krishnamurthy and Neeraj and thereafter S. Raja were apprehended that the entire chain leading to the arrest of the accused Amit @ Bunty was unfolded and worked out and recovery of the robbed mobile phone was effected. This mobile phone of the deceased was recovered on 3.3.2011 from the possession of accused Amit @ Bunty but with changed IMEI number.
(204) ASI Suresh Kumar (PW35) and Inspector Arti Sharma (PW47) have proved that on 25.02.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused S. Raja was apprehended from near his house situated at JJ Colony, Inderpuri and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he had St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 306 of 430 disclosed the names of his assailants as Appu (Srikant), Shalu (Rajender Prashad), Neeraj and Vicky (Krishnamurthy). The witness ASI Suresh Kumar (PW35), HC Amit Tomar (PW44), SI Sharat Kohli (PW46) and Inspector Arti Sharma (PW47) have also proved that on 03.03.2011 during Police Custody Remand the accused Amit @ Bunty led the police team at the shop of Hot Spot of Spice, Darya Ganj, Delhi where the shopkeeper them who interrogated by the Investigating Officer and the shopkeeper then called Vishal Atwal and Hemant Banswal at the shop. Vishal Atwal identified the accused Amit @ Bunty as the person who had given his mobile phone of Sony Erricson for repair through Varun proprietor of Nice Communication, Rani Bagh. Thereafter they alongwith accused Amit @ Bunty reached at his shop at Rani Bagh where his (accused Amit's) brother Sumit was present and at the instance of accused Amit @ Bunty, one mobile phone of Sony Erricson of white colour was recovered from the drawer of the shop, which mobile phone was seized vide memo Ex.PW35/E. According to the witness, the Investigating Officer checked the IMEI number of the mobile phone and then they came to know from Vishal Atwal that the IMEI number of the said mobile phone of victim was interchanged with one Balram of Village Behrampur, Gurgaon, Haryana. He has further deposed that he alongwith the Investigating Officer and one constable reached at Village Behrampur where Balram met them and his mobile phone of Sony Erricson was checked by the Investigating Officer and Balram disclosed that he had sent his mobile phone for Chennai for repair work.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 307 of 430 Thereafter the Investigating Officer after checking the IMEI number of the said phone, seized the said mobile phone of Balram vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/F and the cash receipt Ex.PW35/G and the service job sheets Ex.PW35/H and Ex.PW35/I were also taken into possession. ASI Suresh Kumar has identified the mobile phone of Sony Erricson Experia with cover bearing the IMEI number 3594190305283067 which was got recovered at the instance of the accused Amit @ Bunty as Ex.P1 and the mobile phone Sony Erricson Experia of black colour bearing IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover as was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from Balram as Ex.P13.
(205) Coming first to the testimony of Sh. Uma Shankar (PW33), he is the Senior Manager in Run Service, Infocare Pvt. Ltd., A6, Mogapair, Industrial Estate Mogapair West, Chennai has proved that on 13.12.2010 they received one Sony Erricson phone Model X10 I bearing IMEI number 012379004668392 from Delhi Sony Erricson Service Center, Hot Spot, Darya Ganj, Delhi since the mobile set was having an on/off problem and turn off randomly and remained in poor network. According to the witness, they repaired the said mobile phone with a changed motherboard and sent the said mobile phone to Mumbai Center to be delivered to another customer and sent the mobile phone of Delhi Customer with a changed motherboard as repaired one and due to this reason IMEI number of both mobile phones were changed. He has proved that they provided a new IMEI number to the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 308 of 430 Delhi Customer which is 359419030873086. The witness has further proved the computerized copy of delivery challan cum gate pass with new IMEI number to Delhi Customer which is Ex.PW33/A (two pages); computerized copy of delivery challan cum gate pass with IMEI number of mobile phone sent to the Mumbai Customer which is Ex.PW33/B (three pages); Job sheet of the above said mobile phone with IMEI number received from Delhi which is Ex.PW33/C and the job sheet of the Soni Erricson, Hot Spot Service Center which is Ex.PW33/D which they received from the said office.
(206) Sh. Varun (PW36) who is into business of sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones by the name of Nice Communication at 1593, Main Market, Rani Bagh, Delhi is the witness who had actually sent the mobile of the deceased given to him by Amit @ Bunty to the Head Office of the company at Darya Ganj for purposes of rectification of defect. He has proved that he knew the accused Amit @ Bunty as he was also doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones at Rani Bagh and was also having a shop there. According to Varun, in the month of December 2010 accused Amit @ Bunty handed over one mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i of white colour to him for repair and told him that there was a problem in charging and there was a default in IMEI No. with motherboard and also that the mobile phone was in warranty period. The witness has explained that when he asked about the bill of mobile phone St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 309 of 430 from accused Amit @ Bunty he told him that he had kept the bill receipts etc. at his house and the same were not traceable. According to Varun, the accused Amit @ Bunty was a regular visitor to him being into same business, he sent his mobile phone for repairing to Vishal Atwal working at the Spice Hot Spot Service Centre of Sony Ericson at Daryaganj, Delhi in good faith. According to this witness, Vishal Atwal sent the said mobile phone to the company for repair work and after getting the same repaired he had handed over the repaired mobile to Amit @ Bunty. The witness has testified that he checked the mobile phone and found it to be properly working and its motherboard was changed and its IMEI number was also changed on which he handed over the mobile phone to accused Amit @ Bunty. He identified this mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of white colour which is Ex. P1.
(207) In so far as Vishwas Vitthal Thakkar (PW37) is concerned, he is having a service centre of Sony Ericson at shop no.1, Thakkar Shoping Mall, Second Floor, Opposite Boriwali Railway Station, SV Road, Boriwali West, Mumbai92. He has proved that on 14.12.10, he received a mobile phone of Sony Ericson model no. Xperia X10i bearing IMEI No. 359419037492237 from Vivek Vats for repair work as there was a charging problem in the phone. According to this witness, he prepared the jobsheet no. SE310SGI12639 and on checking the mobile phone, he found that there was PCB motherboard problem on the mobile phone on which he St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 310 of 430 took the PCB motherboard from mobile phone and sent the same to Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai, the high level repair service centre of Sony Ericson on 15.12.10. He has also proved that on 23.12.10, they received a PCB Motherboard from Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai with IMEI No. 012379004668392 as replacement of their abovesaid PCB Motherboard after which he put the replaced PCB Motherboard on the mobile phone of Vivek Vats and repaired the same and handed over the mobile phone to Vivek Vats with new IMEI No. 012379004668392 on 24.12.2010. He has proved having prepared the delivery computerized jobsheets regarding the abovesaid proceedings at the time of delivery phone to Vivek Vats which is Ex.PW37/A which testimony of Vishwas Vitthal finds due corroboration from the testimony of the customer and user Vivek Vats (PW38). Sh. Vivek Vats (PW38) has similarly deposed that in the year 201011 he was working in Panasonic as Area Sales Manager and during that period he was residing at Building no. 20, flat no. 208, Sanskar Cooperative Housing Society, Ekta Nagar, Kandiwali West, Mumbai. He has proved that on 10.9.2010 he purchased a mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia10i, vide cash memo which is Ex.PW38/A for a sum of Rs.16,500/ and the cash memo was issued on the same day on 10.09.2010 and the shop owner also mentioned IMEI No. of mobile phone in cash memo as 359419037492237. According to the witness Vivek Vats, he used the said mobile phone but there was a problem in charging of mobile phone on which he handed over the said mobile phone to authorized service centre of Sony Ericson situated at St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 311 of 430 Thakkar Shoping Mall Boriwali Mumbai in the second week of month of December 2010 for repair work and in the last week of December 2010, the abovesaid service centre returned his mobile phone and informed him that motherboard of his mobile phone was changed and hence the IMEI No. of his mobile phone was also changed i.e. IMEI No. 012379004668392. He has proved the delivery jobsheet prepared by service centre which is Ex.PW37/A. The witness has also proved that on 03.03.11 Delhi Police seized his mobile phone having new IMEI no. 012379004668392 vide memo Ex.PW38/B. He has identified his mobile phone of Sony Ericson Xperia of black colour bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 belonging to him with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P14.
(208) Coming next to the testimony of Balram (PW39) a resident of Village Behrampur, District Gurgaon, Haryana another customer/ user of another Mobile Set of the same company and make i.e. Sony Ericson Xperia 10i, who has confirmed the change of the motherboard of his mobile set. He has deposed that on 03.03.2011, Delhi Police had come to his house and made inquiries regarding his mobile phone and checked his mobile phone bearing no. 9999474098 make SONY ERICSON X10 I. According to the witness, after checking the phone, the police noted down some numbers which was written inside the phone and asked him to hand over the documents regarding the purchase of the said mobile phone, on which he handed over to them the cash memo/ receipt of the same. The witness St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 312 of 430 Balram has explained that he had purchased the said phone from Sahara Mall, Second Floor, Spice Retail Ltd. vide cash memo/ receipt Ex.PW35/G but the said phone was not working properly and hence he had given the same to the same person i.e. Spick Retail Ltd. According to Balram after some days, again this phone was not working properly and hence he returned the same to them (Spice Retail Ltd.) for repair on 20.12.2010 and again on 28.01.2011 and the job sheets in this regard are Ex.PW35/H and Ex.PW35/I. The witness Balram has explained that it was only the police reached to his house he came to know that the IMEI number on his phone which was later allotted to him belonged to some other person. He has explained that he was told by the police that the IMEI number which had been given on his mobile phone which was handed over to him by the company after its repair after second occasion, was belonging to some person whose murder had been committed. He has proved that Delhi Police has seized the mobile phone and the documents vide Ex.PW35/F. The witness has further explained that at the time of purchase of mobile phone its IMEI number was mentioned in the cash memo which is 359419030947138 and its IMEI No. was changed to 359419030873086 which was received by him after repairing which phone is Ex.P13.
(209) Sh. Vineet Sharma (PW40) has proved that on 04.03.2011 he was employed in Spice Hot Spot in Noida 63 which is presently in Sector 12, Noida while he used to operate from Daryaganj. According to him, on that St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 313 of 430 day Delhi Police had approached his office where he was employed as Engineer and showed a white coloured mobile phone Make Sony Ericson X10i and made inquiries from him regarding the motherboard of said phone on which he informed them that this mobile phone had come to him for repair and he had sent it to Chennai at L4 level i.e. in case if mobile phone is not repairable or any of its part requires a replacement then it is sent to main head office at Chennai for replacing the same. According to the witness, police also made inquiries about the motherboard/ PCB of the phone on which he informed them that the said motherboard of the abovesaid phone has been put in another mobile phone of Balram and he handed over the documents in this regard i.e. jobsheet in response to the notice U/s. 91 of Cr. P.C. given by the police and his reply is Ex.PW40/A. The witness Vineet Sharma has also explained that they received a phone of Sony Ericson Xperia10Xi bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 from Varun which was sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086 and they also received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 from Balram for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067. According to him, Balram was excited and in a hurry to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram and hence to pacify him they put St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 314 of 430 the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Varun in the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Varun with prior approval from their head office. He has identified the mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover belonging to Balram with changed IMEI No. which is Ex. P13 and also identified one mobile phone of white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same received from Varun with changed IMEI No. which mobile phone is Ex.P1. His testimony finds due confirmation and corroboration from the testimony of the other person working in the center namely Hemant Banswal and Vishal Atwal.
(210) In so far as Hemant Banswal (PW42) is concerned, he had similarly proved that he was working with Manager Service Operation with Spice Hot Spot in Noida 63 which is presently in Sector 12, Noida while he used to operate from Daryaganj, has deposed that Police had approached at his office and showed him a white colour mobile phone Make Sony Ericson X10i and made inquiries from him regarding the motherboard of said phone because he came to know that the same has been replaced. He has explained that he informed them that this mobile phone had come to their office for repair and the same was handled by Vineet Sharma who had sent it to Chennai at L4 level. According to the witness, he was served with notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. pursuant to which he and Vineet gave St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 315 of 430 their reply vide Ex.PW40/A. He has explained that they received a phone of Sony Ericson Xperia10Xi bearing IMEI No. 012379004668392 from Varun which was sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086. He has also explained that they also received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 from Balram for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067. According to the witness, Balram was in a hurry to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram and hence to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Varun to the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Varun with prior approval from our head office. Similarly, Vishal Atwal (PW43) who was the then Deputy Service Executive in Spice Hot Spot at 19, Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi has established and confirmed the above testimony of Hemant Banswal and Vineet Sharma. He has proved that he knew Varun who is having business of mobile and has a shop at Rani Bagh by the name of Nice Communication. According to Vishal Atwal, in the month of December 2010, Varun handed over one mobile phone of Sony Ericson X10i Xperia for repair work as there was problem of charging and it was the accused Amit @ Bunty (whom the witness knew through Varun who was also having business of mobile phone in Rani Bagh) who handed over St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 316 of 430 the said mobile phone to Varun. He has proved that he prepared jobsheet of said mobile phone having IMEI No. 012379004668892 and sent the PCB Motherboard of mobile phone to Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai i.e. the authorized high service centre of Sony Ericson. The witness has further proved that after some days they received back the another PCB Motherboard from the said service centre of Chennai with changed IMEI No. 359419030873086. He has also explained that they also received another mobile phone of Sony Ericson of same model bearing IMEI No. 359419030947138 of Balram from Hot Spot, Lajpat Nagar for repair work which was also sent to Chennai and they received the same with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067. According to the witness, since Balram was in hurry to receive his mobile phone after repair but they did not receive the motherboard of mobile phone of Balram, hence to pacify him they put the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 of Amit @ Bunty to the mobile of Balram and later on they put new IMEI No. 359419035283067 in the mobile of Amit @ Bunty with prior approval from their head office. He has proved that they received a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. from Police and they gave reply to the same vide Ex.PW40/A and handed over the jobsheets of mobile phone of Amit @ Bunty which is Ex.PW43/A (3 pages), receipt details of Run Service Inforcare Pvt. Ltd which is Ex.PW43/B (two pages), jobsheet of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/C; receipt detail of Run Service Infocare which is Ex.PW43/D (2 pages); challan receipt of Lajpat Nagar in St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 317 of 430 respect of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/E; jobsheet of Mobile phone of Balram prepared at Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/F (two pages); challan prepared at Lajpat Nagar in respect of mobile phone of Balram which is Ex.PW43/G; jobsheet of mobile phone at Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/H; challan of mobile phone of Balram of Gurgaon which is Ex.PW43/I and their reply to the Police which is Ex.PW40/A. He has identified one mobile phone of black colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419030873086 with cover belonging to Balram with changed IMEI No. which is Ex.P13 and mobile phone of white colour of Sony Ericson Xperia X10i with IMEI No. 359419035283067 with cover as the same received by him from Varun for repair which belonging to accused Amit @ Bunty with changed IMEI No. which is Ex.P1. (211) The above evidence clearly show as to how sequence of swapping of motherboards took place officially which motherboards contained the IMEI numbers of the original sets and how on tracking the destinations of these IMEI numbers changed. It establishes the manner in which the IMEI number of the mobile set of the deceased Prateek Trikha Ex.P1 was found changed/ swapped when it was got recovered by the accused Amit @ Bunty. For the sake of convenience the various IMEI Numbers originally allotted to mobile sets and also the number allotted after change and also the number actually put in the mobile sets by the mobile company are put in a tabulated form as under which would explain the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 318 of 430 sequence in which the events unfolded:
Sr. Name of the Original IMEI Subsequent IMEI Motherboard No. owner of number allotted by no. so allocated by containing the IMEI mobile set of the company at the company Head No. actually put in Sony Ericson first instance Office at Chennai the mobile set after Xperia X10i after the repair of repair by the branch and exhibit the motherboard offices at Delhi and number put containing the IMEI Mumbai which in the court number explains the swapping/ change
1. Deceased 012379004668392 359419030873086 3594190305283067 Prateek (New motherboard Trikha (got and IMEI No. put in recovered the mobile set of from the Prateek Trikha by the accused Amit branch office at @ Bunty) Darya Ganj, Delhi though it was allotted Ex.P1 for the mobile set of customer Balram)
2. Balram 359419030947138 3594190305283067 359419030873086 (mobile phone (New motherboard and IMEI No. put in Ex.P13) the mobile set of Balram by the branch office at Darya Ganj, Delhi though it was allotted for the mobile set of the deceased Prateek Trikha)
3. Vivek Vats 359419037492237 012379004668392 012379004668392 (Mobile phone (Original IMEI No. of (Motherboard deceased) Ex.P14) containing the original IMEI No. of the mobile set of the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 319 of 430 deceased Prateek Trikha was put in the mobile set of customer Vivek Vats by the branch office at Mumbai being freshly allotted to him by the Head office at Chennai after repairs which explains how the IMEI number of the mobile set of the deceased was tracked to the mobile set of another customer at Mumbai) (212) From the above evidence on record the sequence of events pertaining to the motherboard containing the IMEI numbers being changed/ swapped by the Head Office/ Branch Offices of the company i.e. Sony Ericson thereby leading to the change of IMEI numbers, which sequence I now cull out as under:
➢ On 22.12.2010 the mobile phone of the deceased Prateek Trikha of make Sony Ericson Xperia X10i of white colour was robbed from him during the incident of Robbery/ Dacoity.
➢ On 13.12.2010 the accused Amit @ Bunty handed over the robbed mobile of the deceased to Sh. Varun who is doing the business of sale, purchase and repair of mobile phones by the name of Nice Communication at 1593, Main Market, Rani Bagh, Delhi for repair on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 320 of 430 the pretext that there was a problem in charging and there was a default in motherboard bearing the original IMEI number (proved by Varun).
➢ That thereafter Varun sent the above mobile phone for repairing to Vishal Atwal working at the Spice Hot Spot Service Centre of Sony Ericson at Daryaganj, Delhi (proved by Vishal Atwal, Hemant Banswal and Vineet).
➢ That Vishal Atwal prepared jobsheet of said mobile phone having IMEI No. 012379004668892 and sent the PCB Motherboard of mobile phone to Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai i.e. the authorized high service centre of Sony Ericson (proved by Vishal Atwal, Hemant Banswal and Vineet).
➢ That in another development on 10.9.2010 Sh. Vivek Vats a resident of Mumbai purchased a Sony Ericson Mobile Phone with IMEI No. 359419037492237 and since Vivek Vats was having a problem in charging of mobile phone, he therefore handed over the said mobile phone to authorized service centre of Sony Ericson situated at Thakkar Shoping Mall Boriwali Mumbai on 14.12.2010 for repair and on 24.12.2010 the service centre returned his mobile phone with the changed motherboard and the changed IMEI No. of his mobile phone i.e. IMEI No. 012379004668392 which was the original IMEI No. of the mobile phone belonging to the deceased (proved by Vivek Vats St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 321 of 430 and Vishwas Vitthal).
➢ That on 8.1.2011 Run Service Infocare Pvt. Ltd. Chennai repaired the above mobile phone with changed motherboard and sent the said motherboard to Mumbai Center which was delivered to another customer Vivek Vats and sent the mobile phone of Delhi Customer with a changed motherboard and IMEI No. 359419030873086 (proved by Uma Shankar, Vishwash Vitthal and Vivek Vats). ➢ That in the meantime on 20.10.2010 a mobile phone make Sony Ericson X10i having IMEI No. 359419035283067 was received at Spice Hot Spot Service Centre of Sony Ericson at Daryaganj which was also sent to Higher Center at Chennai and it was returned after repair with changed IMEI No. 359419035283067 (proved by Vishal Atwal, Hemant Banswal, Vineet and Uma Shankar).
➢ That on 25.11.2010 since Balram, another customer whose mobile set had similar problem was in a hurry to get the return of his own mobile set and in order to satisfy this impatient customer Balram the Branch Office at Darya Ganj which had received the motherboard containing new IMEI No. 359419030873086 in respect of mobile phone of deceased Prateek Trikha (which the accused Amit @ Bunty had handed over for repairs to Varun who in turn sent it to the Branch Office at Darya Ganj), put this motherboard with new IMEI number (allotted for the mobile set of the deceased) in the mobile set of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 322 of 430 Balram. Later on receipt of the motherboard with new allotted IMEI No. 359419035283067 (which was allotted by the Head office for the mobile set of Balram) was put in the mobile of deceased Prateek Trikha which the accused Amit @ Bunty had given to Varun who in turn had deposited the same with the Branch Office at Darya Ganj. (213) This being the background, I hereby hold that the electronic evidence as above conclusively establishes the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased Ex.P1 from the accused Amit @ Bunty which is compatible to the prosecution version and conclusively confirms and connects the accused persons with the crime.
No direct/ ocular evidence - Circumstantial Evidence Apprehension/ Arrest of the accused Disclosure made by accused:
(214) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
(215) Unfortunately in the present case there is no direct/ ocular evidence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence in the form of apprehension and arrest of the accused and recovery St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 323 of 430 pursuant to their disclosure statements. The case of the prosecution is that from day go when the incident took place, keeping in view the manner in which the crime was committed in quick sequence, the Investigating Agency had a suspicion that it was the work of professional Gang of Dacoits as there was no clue left behind by the assailants except an empty cartridge case of the fired bullet and an abandoned stolen motorcycle recovered at the spot of the incident.
(216) According to the prosecution the killing was an outcome of a looting incident in which the new City Honda Car of the deceased alongwith its documents and other contents (i.e. Driving License, ATM Card, Shopper's Card and other documents belonging to Prateek Trikha) and also the mobile phone of the deceased make Sony Ericson Xperia X10i bearing IMEI no. 012379004668392 was looted and the fact that one motorcycle make Hero Honda bearing fake number plates as 0234 at the back side and HR 15A 3 at the front side was found abandoned at the spot which motorcycle was found to have been stolen a couple of days ago from Rani Bagh area in respect of which FIR No. 377/2010, Police Station Rani Bagh was already registered, which rave rise to a suspicion that it was not the work of one or two persons but that of professionals who operate in the area.
(217) This case in hand was that of a blind murder with robbery/ dacoity committed upon the victim which was cracked only after the arrest of accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy who disclosed the details of other accused persons involved in the crime and manner in which it was given St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 324 of 430 effect. The case of the prosecution is that from the day one of the incident the Investigating Agency suspected that the crime had been committed by a Professional Gang of Robbers/ Dacoits since there was no clue and the Honda City car and Mobile phone belonging to the deceased were missing and a finger of suspicion was on this gang of which Krishnamurthy and Srikant @ Appu were members as they were active in the area and also keeping in view the modus operandi adopted. Despite the fact that there was no information of the assailants yet on the basis of the suspicion the police started to keep a watch on the various members of this gang, a fact which is borne out from the case diaries written by the first Investigating Officer Inspector Vipin Bhatia before was transferred to Crime Branch and finally cracked by them. After the investigations in the case were transferred to Crime Branch on 2.12.2010 pursuant to a secret information the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy were apprehended from T point Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar while they were coming from Mangolpuri side on a red colour Pulsor motorcycle. From the possession of accused Neeraj the Driving License of the deceased was recovered and the accused Krishnamurthy pursuant to his disclosure led the police party to the room of his friend where he was staying and got recovered one ABN Amro Bank Master Card, one Shopper's Stop card Citizen First and three visiting cards bearing the name of the victim Prateek Trikha were recovered. It was then that both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy disclosed about their involvement in the incident and also disclosed the details of their other St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 325 of 430 associates. They disclosed that on the intervening night of 2122.11.2012 they along with their associates namely Appu, Raja and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu were out on roads looking and searching for a potential vulnerable target when they saw a young boy smoking a cigarette outside his car and when they tried to snatch the Honda City Car from the victim but the said boy resisted to the same on which Appu shot the boy on the asking of S. Raja after which Appu, Shalu and Raja took the vehicle and went away whereas they i.e. accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy returned to their houses. While accused Neeraj disclosed that he returned home on his own bike, the accused Krishnamurthy then disclosed that it was he who was using a stolen motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor in which he had come to the spot and that after committing the offence in the present case, the said motorcycle with fake number plates was abandoned at the spot whereas he went away on the motorcycle of Appu on his asking and thereafter parked this motorcycle of Appu outside his house and handed over the keys of the same to his sister Sona.
(218) Here, I may note that when Inspector Vipin Bhatia saw this motorcycle with fake number plates abandoned, he checked the same and on checking of its tool box one RC, Driving License, Pollution certificate and insurance document were found which were found in the name of one Ashok Kumar. The telephone number of Ashok Kumar was found written on a slip and Inspector Vipin Bhatia made a call to Ashok Kumar who informed that his motorcycle was stolen from Rani Bagh on 19.11.2010 at 9:00 PM and a St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 326 of 430 case FIR No.377/10 under Section 379 IPC was registered in this regard at Police Station Rani Bagh. The factum of theft of the above motorcycle having original No. HR15A3501 from the area of Rani Bagh has been duly proved by Ashok Kumar (PW14) and in this regard the FIR No. 377/10 had been registered wherein the accused Krishnamurthy has already been convicted by this Court.
(219) Thereafter, on 24.1.2011 the accused Srikant @ Appu surrendered before the Court of Ld. MM after which he was arrested in the present case. During sustained interrogation the accused Srikant @ Appu disclosed his involvement in the incident and further disclosed that his friend Surender @ Dheeraj resident of House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini had a pistol which he normally gave on hire to antisocial elements and he had taken his pistol of 7.65 mm bore along with four live cartridges and paid him Rs.2000/ in the second week of November, 2010 for two weeks. Appu then disclosed that he used this pistol to facilitate him in committing incidents of robbery and for threatening persons which he had used on Prateek Trikha who had offered resistance when they wanted to snatch his car. He further disclosed that on returning the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru, he informed him of the incident and also asked him to clean the barrel of the pistol since it was used by him in the commission of the present offence. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Srikant @ Appu then led the police team to the house of accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru at I1165, Mangol Puri, Delhi which was not in the knowledge of the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 327 of 430 police and from there the accused Surender @ Dheeraj was arrested and interrogated. Surender @ Dheeraj then similarly disclosed that he had eloped with a girl and married her against the wishes of his parents and he had snatched a pistol from a person of Eastern Uttar Pradesh which he gives on hire to various antisocial elements. He also disclosed that Appu had taken this pistol on hire from him in the second week of November and when he returned it, Appu asked him to clean its barrel and informed him of its use in a incident on which he cleaned it barrel and hid the pistol in his room inside his bed concealed in clothes. Both Surender @ Dheeraj and Appu then went to the house of Surender and from the box of his bead the accused got recovered this 7.65 mm country made pistol with a live cartridge (FSL Ballistic Report connects this pistol to bullet recovered from the body of the deceased and cartridge case found at the spot).
(220) Further, on 25.02.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused S. Raja was arrested from his house i.e. E399/8, Inder Puri, Delhi.
During interrogation the accused S. Raja disclosed the name of Amit @ Bunty and Sombir who were known to accused Srikant @ Appu and also disclosed that he along with Appu and Rajender Prasad @ Shalu met Sombir at Rani Bagh for disposal of the robbed mobile phone and Honda City Car and it was accused Sombir who took them to the shop of Amit @ Bunty. During investigations the accused S. Raja identified the shop of Amit @ Bunty at Rani Bagh and also pointed the house of accused Sombir at Bhiwani, Haryana on twothree occasions.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 328 of 430 (221) On 02.03.2011 the accused Amit @ Bunty was arrested from his house i.e. House No. 294/4, Shakur Basti Railway Colony, Rani Bagh and from his possession the robbed mobile phone of the deceased Prateek Trikha was recovered but with an IMEI which was changed.
(222) On 17.3.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Sombir a professional Car Thief involved in large number of cases along with his associates Sunil Kumar and Jaideep were arrested from TPoint Rani Bagh Market while they were coming in a Honda City Car with number plate HR26AK0728. On checking the engine and chasis number of Honda City Car it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Tikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115. From the possession of accused Sombir one 7.65 bore pistol with three live cartridges were recovered; from the possession of accused Sunil Kumar one 7.65 bore pistol with three live cartridges were recovered and from the possession of accused Jaideep one 315 bore desi katta with two live cartridges were recovered. Further, during the interrogations and pursuant to their disclosures at the instance of the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep another Hundai Ascent Car (stolen property in another FIR) was also recovered from Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border with fake number plate HR20P5349 and it was found that a case FIR No. 37/11, under Section 379 IPC had already been registered at Police Station Rani Bagh (separate case). (223) On 23.3.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu was arrested from main market Rani Bagh and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 329 of 430 from his possession some documents were recovered and on checking they were found to relate to Registration Certificate of Honda City Car HR26 AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle. The accused Rajender then disclosed to them that it was Sombir who had handed over the same to him and also told him to sell this Honda City Car bearing No. HR26AK0728 on the basis of these documents. (224) In order to prove its case the prosecution has placed its reliance on the testimonies of various police witnesses i.e. Ct. Ashok Kumar (PW26), HC Ravinder Nath (PW27), Ct. Baldev (PW30), HC Narender Kumar (PW32), Ct. Krishan Kumar (PW34), ASI Suresh Kumar (PW35), HC Amit Tomar (PW44), Inspector Vipin Bhatia (PW45), SI Sharat Kohli (PW46) and Inspector Arti Sharma (PW47).
(225) Before analyzing the evidence on merits, it is necessary to observe that as per the provisions of Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 330 of 430 (226) Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act explains the meaning of the word Fact. It provides that a fact means and includes:
1. Anything, state of things, or relation of things, or capable of being perceived by the senses,
2. Any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
(227) It further provides five illustrations as to what would constitute a fact which are as under:
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention,
acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
(228) A cojoint reading of Section 3 and Section 27 of Evidence Act would apply that as much of the statement as would relate to the discovery of fact connected with the accused would be admissible in evidence. The discovery of the fact is not only the discovery of the articles but also the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by a particular accused at a particular place because in principle there is no difference between the statement made by the accused to the effect that "I will show you the person to whom I have given the articles" and the statement that "I will show you the place where I have kept the articles".
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 331 of 430 (229) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. reported in AIR 1962 SC 1788 had exhaustively discussed the scope and ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act had considered the question as to whether the statement of the accused to the effect that "he had hidden them (the ornaments)" and "would point out the place", where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under S. 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. In the above case the Ld. Sessions Judge had relied upon the judgment of Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. KingEmperor reported in 74 Ind App 65: AIR 1947 PC 67 where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. It was observed by My Lords of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the above case (Pulukuri Kotayya) the Judicial Committee considered S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as under: "Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved......"
".... this section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26 which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 332 of 430 Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police "whether it amounts to a confession or not" which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under S. 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under S. 27 and laid stress on the words "so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that "the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact...."
"........Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing that the information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If, however, to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant......"
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 333 of 430 (230) After considering the settled principles the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"......If we may respectfully say so, this case clearly brings out what part of the statement is admissible under S. 27. It is only that part which distinctly relates to the discovery which is admissible; but if any part of the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible wholly and the court cannot say that it will excise one part of the statement because it is of a confessional nature. Section 27 makes that part of the statement which is distinctly related to the discovery admissible as a whole, whether it be in the nature of confession or not. Now the statement in this case is said to be that the appellant stated that he would show the place where he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge has held that part of this statement which is to the effect "where he had hidden them" is not admissible. It is clear that if that part of the statement is excised the remaining statement (namely, that he would show the place) would be completely meaningless. The whole of this statement in our opinion relates distinctly to the discovery of ornaments and is admissible under S. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The words "where he had hidden them" are not on a par with the words "with which I stabbed the deceased" in the example given in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. These words (namely, where he had hidden them) have nothing to do with the past history of the crime and are distinctly related to the actual discovery that took place by virtue of that statement. It is however urged that in a case where the offence consists of possession even the words "where he had hidden them" would be inadmissible as they would amount to an admission by the accused that he was in St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 334 of 430 possession. There are in our opinion two answers to this argument. In the first place S. 27 itself says that where the statement distinctly relates to the discovery it will be admissible whether it amounts to a confession or not. In the second place, these words by themselves though they may show possession of the appellant would not prove the offence, for after the articles have been recovered the prosecution has still to show that the articles recovered are connected with the crime, i.e., in this case, the prosecution will have to show that they are stolen property. We are, therefore, of opinion that the entire statement of the appellant (as well as of the other accused who stated that he had given the ornament to Bada Sab and would have it recovered from him) would be admissible in evidence and the Sessions Judge was wrong in ruling out part of it. Therefore, as relevant and admissible evidence was ruled out by the Sessions Judge, this is a fit case where the High Court would be entitled to set aside the finding of acquittal in revision though it is unfortunate that the High Court did not confine itself only to this point and went on to make rather strong remarks about other parts of the evidence.
(231) Later in the year 1969 the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Zaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 1969 (2) SCC 872 while dealing with the applicability of the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evident Act relied upon the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy Vs. State of A.P. observed as under:
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 335 of 430 "....in order that the Section may apply the prosecution must establish the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed to by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by the accused.
The essential ingredient of the Section is that the information given by the accused must led to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information; secondly only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said discovery is admissible against the accused and thirdly the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence....."
(232) In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court further went to explain that:
"..... In a case where the accused is charged with theft of articles or receiving stolen articles states to the police "I will show you the articles at the place where I have kept them" and the articles were actually found there, there can be no doubt that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of a fact that is keeping of the articles by the accused at the place mentioned. However, the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place. It was observed that in principle, there is no difference between the above statement and that made by the accused in the case which in effect is that "I will show St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 336 of 430 you the person whom I have given the diamonds exceeding 200 in number". The only difference between the two statements is that a "named person" is substituted for "the place" where the articles are kept. In neither case are the articles of the diamonds, in fact discovered. There can be no doubt that the portion of the alleged statement of the accused would be admissible in evidence......"
(233) In the recent past the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu with Shaukat Hussain Guru Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 reinforced the above view when it observed that "discovery of fact" should be read with the definition of "fact" as contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which defines the "fact" as meaning and including anything, state of things or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses and also includes any mental condition of which any person is conscious (emphasis supplied). It was held that the provisions of Section 27 would apply whenever there is discovery which discovery amounts to be confirmatory in character guaranteeing the truth of the information given to which facts the police officer had no access earlier which also includes recovery of material object. The Hon'ble Court further observed that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. (234) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, at the very outset I may observe that the incident in question being the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 337 of 430 job of professionals there is no direct evidence, hence the sequence has been reconstructed and for the sake of convenience I am now putting the sequence of events as they transpired in a tabulated form as under:
S. Date Event Remarks
No.
1. 22.11.2010 Incident of robbery cum ➢ One empty shell, one motorcycle
murder had taken place. make Hero Honda Splender, which
was stolen vide FIR No. 377/10 PS
One mobile phone and Rani Bagh was recovered from the
Honda City Car of the spot.
deceased robbed.
2. 22.11.2010 DD No. 7A was lodged at ➢ Information was received from
1:24AM (Ex.PW10/A) Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital that
Pratik Tirkha R/o Raj Nagar was
admitted with gun shot which call
was entrusted to SI Ranbir Singh.
3. 22.11.2010 DD No. 6B was lodged at ➢ Information was received from 4.00 AM (Ex.PW34/A) Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital about the death of Pratik Trikha.
4. 22.11.10 The present FIR No. 439/10 ➢ On the statement of Sh. Suresh was registered at 4:50 AM Trikha, father of the deceased the (Ex.PW25/B) case was registered and it was informed that he stated that Honda City Car bearing No. DL 4C NC 1115 along with its contents and mobile phone of his son make Sony Ericson was not traceable
5. 22.11.10 Inspection of Scene of Crime ➢ Inspection of the scene of crime by Crime Team at 3:00 AM was carried out by the crime team (Ex.PW9/A) St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 338 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No.
6. 22.11.10 Inspection of the Scene of ➢ Rough site plan was prepared by Crime by the Investigating the IO of the case vide Ex.PW1/D1 Officer ➢ There was blood pool in front of H. No. C9 & 8 Raj Nagar, Road No. 43. ➢ There was a empty shell of bullet.
➢ A Hero Honda Splender Motorcycle black colour was found standing near the scene of crime (bearing number plates DLAS0234 on the backside and HR15A3 on the front side, both of which were fake) and key was also inserted in the bike, which motorcycle was found to be having original number HR15A3501 and was reported as stolen on 19.11.2010 by registered owner Ashok Kumar and case FIR no. 377/2010 was found registered at Police Station Rani Bagh.
➢ The distance between Raj Nagar Colony Gate and scene of crime was approximately 75 mtrs.
7. 22.11.10 Exhibits were lifted from the ➢S eizure memo of blood stained spot and Seizure Memos of earth, earth control and blood the same were prepared samples (Ex.PW30/A) ➢ Seizure of of empty bullet shell after sealing with the seal of VKB (Ex.PW30/B) ➢ Seizure memo of motorcycle (Ex.PW30/C) ➢ Seizure memo of documents recovered from the motorcycle showing that it was registered in the name of Ashok Kumar (Ex.PW30/D) St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 339 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No.
8. 22.11.2010 Statements of Damodar and ➢ Chowkidar Damodar and Virender Virender guards of the Raj met the Investigating Officer who Nagar Society posted at the informed that at about 12.30 AM entrance gate were recorded Prateek Trikha had come to the gate with great difficulty from outside being smeared with blood and told them that he had been shot and that the information may be passed to his family at C67 and the guards accordingly rushed to his house and informed his family who rushed him to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital.
9. 22.11.2010 Postmortem of the deceased ➢ Postmortem of the deceased was Prateek Trikha conducted conducted at BJRM Hospital vide Ex.PW20/A. ➢ Exhibits i.e. clothes of the deceased, Bullet recovered from the body and Blood samples in gauze piece were sealed with the seal of hospital and handed over to the IO who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW10/C. ➢ Dead body of Prateek Trikha was handed over to the family members vide Ex.PW3/B
10. 23.11.2010 Investigations were initiated ➢ Analysis of the Call Detail records by Local Police i.e. Inspector of the mobile phone of the deceased Vipin Bhatia was done.
➢ Supplementary statement of Sh.
Suresh Trikha recorded wherein he informed the IO that his son's Steria Company Bag, his coat which he used to hang on the hanger, D/L with some other article were also in the robbed Honda City Car.
➢ Keeping in view the modus
operandi the IO Inspector Vipin
Bhatia concluded that the robbery/
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 340 of 430
S. Date Event Remarks
No.
dacoity was the work of a
professional gang and he had
suspicion on this gang of
Krishnamurthy and Srikant @ Appu
who were operating in the area and
were involved in large number of
similar cases.
11. 25.11.2010 Search of accused and case During investigations whereabouts of
property Krishna Murthy @ Vicky and Neeraj
were ascertained but both were not
found present at their residence.
12 26.11.2010 Search of accused and case No break through
property
13. 27.11.2010 Search of accused and case Surveillance revealed that Appu and
property Vicky were seen in Shakurpur on
21.11.10 but both were not found
present at their residence.
14. 28.11.2010 Search of accused and case No clue of Appu, Vicky and Neeraj
property found during investigation.
15. 29.11.2010 Search of accused Search of accused conducted but no
clue could be found
16. 30.11.2010 Search of accused and case No clue could be found about Vicky
property and Appu
17. 02.12.2010 Case transferred to Crime Branch.
18. 2.12..2010 Accused Neeraj S/o Hawa ➢ The Driving License of the
Singh R/o L45, JJ Colony, deceased Prateek Trikha was
Shakurpur, Delhi was arrested recovered from the possession of (he was arrested along with Neeraj at the spot of apprehension. Krishnamurthy while they ➢ Neeraj disclosed about his were coming on motorcycle involvement in the dacoity and of Neeraj bearing No. murder of Prateek Trikha and also DL8SAW2410 at T Point disclosed that at the time of the Shamshan Ghat Road near incident they were five of them Vijay Vihar) including himself, Krishnamurthy, S.Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender @ Shalu who were on three motorcycles and while he was on his own motorcycle, it was St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 341 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. Krishnamurthy who was on the stolen motorcycle which he abandoned at the spot after snatching the car from victim Prateek Trikha after which S. Raja, Appu and Rajender @ Sallu went away in the stolen car of the victim.
➢ He also disclosed that the Driving License of Prateek Trikha was kept by him as he did not have a driving license and wanted it desperately to save himself from police harassment.
➢ The motorcycle of Neeraj bearing No. DL8SAW2410 which was used by him in the commission of offence to reach the spot was seized.
19. 02.12.2010 Accused Krishnamurthy @ ➢ The accused Krishnamurthy Vicky S/o Ramesh Mohan disclosed that on the date of incident R/o H.No L233, JJ Colony, i.e. intervening night of 21/22.11.2010 Shakurpur, Delhi (he was they i.e. he himself, Appu, S. Raja, arrested along with Neeraj Neeraj and Shalu were on three when they were coming on a motorcycles, one was driven by Appu motorcycle of Neeraj being and Raja was sitting behind him, driven by him at T Point second was driven by himself i.e. Shamshan Ghat Road near Krishnamurthy which was a stolen Vijay Vihar) motorcycle and third was driven by Neeraj and Shalu was sitting with him.
➢ He also disclosed that he had left the stolen motorcycle at the spot whereas he took the motorcycle of Appu to flee away from the spot and the stolen car was driven by Appu with Raja and Shalu with him and similarly disclosed that they removed the various documents from the dash board (glove box) which included the driving licence, ATM card, shoppers St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 342 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. card, visiting cards etc. ➢ Krishnamurthy further disclosed that after the incident he was residing with his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor.
➢ Krishnamurthy led the police party to the said house where they met the landlord Ghanshyam (PW13) on the ground floor who was joined in the investigations.
➢ When the accused along with the police party went to the first floor where they met James and Kapil.
➢ On seeing Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Kapil informed that Krishnamurthy was the elder brother of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room claiming that there was renovation going on in his house and that is why he had requested his father James and permitted them to stay in the room on the top floor.
➢ The police party then went to the top floor along with the landlord James and Kapil where the accused Krishnamurthy opened the lock on the door with the help of the key which was recovered in his Jamatalashi and then entered the room and they found a light black colored pant hanging on the wall on a khunti.
➢ That Krishnamurthy removed his pant from the Khunti and took out one ABN Amro Bank Master Card, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 343 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. one Shopper's Stop Card Citizen First and 3 visiting cards bearing the name of the victim from the right pocket of the same and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer who then converted the pant and the above articles into a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of AS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/A. ➢ The stolen Motorcycle Hero Honda Splender used and left by Krishanmurthy @ Vickey at the spot was found stolen vide FIR No. 377/10 U/s 379 IPC, P.S. Rani Bagh.
➢ The accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy took the police party to the house of Appu in Sector 3 Rohini itself where outside his house there was a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461.
➢ That the accused Krishnamurthy had disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona and led the police party to Sona and pointed her out to the IO on which the Investigating Officer asked for keys from Sona who handed over the keys to the Investigating Officer and also informed that Appu had not come home for the last fourfive days.
20. 24.01.2011 Srikant @ Appu S/o Rama ➢ The accused Srikant @ Appu Swamy R/o G29/186, disclosed his involvement along with Sector3, Rohini Delhi was the accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, arrested. S. Raja and Rajender.
➢ He also disclosed that he is involved in large number of cases and is a professional robber and the co St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 344 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. accused Surender @ Dheeraj was having a country made pistol which he used to give on hire to various persons on payment.
➢ He further disclosed that in second seek of November he had taken the pistol from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1 for use in the crime to threaten the victims.
➢ He also disclosed that he had used this pistol so taken from Surender @ Dheeraj in the offence and had shot the victim Prateek with the same.
➢ Accused further disclosed that after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and asked him to clean the barrel since he had used the said pistol.
➢ That thereafter Appu led the police party to the above address i.e. House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them.
21. 28.01.2011 Surinder @ Dheeraj @ ➢ The accused Srikant @ Appu led Dheeru S/o Suresh Chand police party to the house of accused Gupta R/o I1165, Mangol Surender @ Dheeraj and pointed him Puri, Delhi was arrested. out on which Surender @ Dheeraj was arrested.
➢ Initially the accused Surender @ Dheeraj refused that he had given any pistol by Appu and hence the accused was brought to the office of Crime Branch wherein he was interrogated at length and during interrogation he disclosed that he had kept the pistol in his house and after his St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 345 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. interrogation and disclosure again Surender @ Dheeraj took the police party to his house.
➢ That Surender @ Dheeraj then took the police party to a room on the ground floor which was situated inside the premises and was the last room in the row.
➢ That there was a single bed in the room, which was box shape bed, he opened the same and from there got recovered a pistol wrapped in a cloth and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer Inspector Arti Sharma.
➢ That on checking by the Investigating Officer, it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine.
➢ That the Investigating Officer then converted both the pistol and cartridge into a pullanda with the help of plastic cloth and sealed with the seal of AS and prepared the pointing out cum seizure memo vide memo Ex.PW12/D.
22. 25.02.2011 S. Raja S/o K. ➢ The accused S. Raja was arrested Subhramanium R/o E399/8, from his house on 25.2.2011 pursuant Inder Puri, Delhi was to a secret information.
arrested. ➢ The accused S. Raja disclosed his involvement in the present case along with Kishnamurthy, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad.
➢ That the accused disclosed that after committing the incident they St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 346 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. made planning to dispose off the robbed Honda City Car pursuant to which he along with Shalu contacted Sombir a professional Car Thief and a friend of Appu and handed over the stolen car and mobile phone to Sombir.
➢ Pursuant to his disclosure the accused S. Raja led the police party to the house of Sombir at Balmiki Basti at Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the Basti as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with Appu on twothree occasions.
➢ The accused S. Raja further disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir and it was Sombir who was a friend of Appu who took him and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it.
➢ That the accused S. Raja then took the police party to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh and pointed out the shop to them on which the she prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW44/P.
23. 02.03.2011 Amit @ Bunty S/o Sh. Ram ➢ Earlier the accused S. Raja led the Niwas, R/o H. No. 294/4, police party to the shop of Amit @ Shakur Basti Railway Colony, Bunty where he had gone along with Rani Bagh, Delhi. Srikant @ Appu, Sombir and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 347 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. Permanent Address Kabir Rajender @ Shalu and handed over Basti, Near Dadri Gate, Distt. the mobile phone of deceased for Bhiwani, Haryana was changing the IMEI number as Sombir arrested (he is a friend of wanted to use the phone himself. Sombir and was known to Amit was not present and only his him) brother was found after which they also went to his house.
➢ That accused Amit @ Bunty was arrested from his shop at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh, Delhi.
➢ Amit @ Bunty disclosed that he knew Sombir who is his friend and he himself is into business of mobile repair and Sombir had handed over the mobile Ex.P1 to him for changing its IMEI number on which he created a defect in the motherboard and then gave the mobile to his friend Varun also into business of sale of mobile for repair.
➢ Accused Amit @ Bunty led the police party to Hot Spot Spice mobile phone shop at Daryaganj as Amit @ Bunty had disclosed that he had given the robbed mobile phone for repair over there.
➢ That one Vishal Atwal who was working in the repair center identified the accused Amit @ Bunty and had stated that the Xperia mobile phone was given to him for repair by Amit @ Bunty through his friend namely Varun who is running shop in Rani Bagh market in the name and style of Nice Communications and after repair he handed over the mobile to Varun.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 348 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. ➢ That Vishal Atwal also checked his computer records and informed that the IMEI number of the deceased was running with one Vivek Vats, resident of Mumbai, on which the IO immediately spoke to her senior officers and on their directions SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar were directed to go to Mumbai and to recover the mobile.
➢ That thereafter they returned back to SIT Office where they called Varun who informed that after receiving the mobile phone he handed over the same to Amit @ Bunty.
➢ That the accused Amit @ Bunty went to his mobile shop at Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh where Amit took out a key hidden in the drawer and open another drawer and took out the robbed mobile phone of the deceased and handed over the same to her.
➢ That the IO seized the said mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/E. ➢ The robbed mobile phone of deceased Sh. Prateek Trikha was recovered from the possession of Amit @ Bunty.
➢ Mobile phone of the deceased Sh.
Prateek Trikha was recovered from his possession but IMEI of the recovered mobile phone was changed and new IMEI was 359419035283067 and during investigation it was came on record that the mother board of the mobile phone of the deceased St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 349 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. changed by the Sony Ericsson on the complaint and the original IMEI No. 012379004668392 of the deceased Sh. Pratik Trikha was reissued and activated in Mumbai which was also taken into police possession.
Thereafter, on scrutiny of the Job sheets of the concerned mobile phones, it was again came on record that the new IMEI No. 359419030873086 issued by the company to deceased Sh. Prateek Trikha's mobile phone was again not matching with the recovered handset of the deceased and on investigation it was came on record that the said IMEI was activated in Gurgaon which was issued by the Service Centre of the Sony Ericsson. Accordingly this mobile phone was also taken into police possession. To connect the Mobile Phone and IMEI of the deceased all the above three hand set were taken into police possession.
24. 17.03.2011 Sombir S/o Ram Gopal ➢ The accused Sombir, Sunil and Hanuman Gate, Balmiki Jaideep were found in possession of Basti, Bhiwani, Haryana was the robbed Honda City Car of the arrested. (He is a professional deceased Prateek Trikha with fake Auto Lifter and involved in number plate of HR26AK0728. number of cases of Haryana, ➢ One 7.65 bore pistol with three live Rajasthan and Delhi) cartridges was also recovered from his possession.
➢ One 7.65 bore pistol with three live Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Bhoop cartridges was recovered from the Singh R/o Village possession of accused Sunil Kumar. Panchgaon, Tehsil Charkhi ➢ One 315 bore desi katta with two Dadri, Distt Bhiwani, live cartridges was recovered from his Haryana was arrested possession St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 350 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. Jaideep S/o Mahavir Singh ➢ The accused Sombir disclosed that VPO Kharkari, Tehsil he said car was handed over to him by Laharoo, Distt. Bhiwani, Appu and Shalu and thereafter he put Haryana was arrested. a fake number plate of HR26 AK0728 and tried to sell if of but could not succeed.
➢ He also disclosed that it was he who had taken S. Raja and Shalu to the shop of Amit @ Bunty for getting the IMEI number of the mobile phone changed.
➢ One Hundai Ascent Car stolen from the area of P.S. Rani Bagh was also recovered on the instance of accused persons Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep. A case vide FIR No. 37/11 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Rani Bagh had already been registered in this regard.
27. 23.03.2011 Rajender Prasad @ Shalu ➢ The accused Rajender Prashad was S/o Khazan Singh D280/281, apprehended from Rani Bagh Main Shakur Pur, JJ Colony, Delhi Market.
and G105, Subzi Market, ➢ On interrogation the accused Shakur Pur, Delhi disclosed his involvement along with (Professional robber involved the accused Krishnamurthy, S. Raja, in many cases) Neeraj and Srikant @ Appu.
➢ From the lower which the accused was wearing, some documents were found and the said documents on checking were found to relating to registration certificate of Honda City car HR26AK0728, one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle.
➢ The accused disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these forged documents and handed over the same St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 351 of 430 S. Date Event Remarks No. to him and also told him to sell this Honda City car bearing fake No. HR26AK0728 on the basis of these fabricated documents.
(235) The aforesaid table reflects how the so called perfect crime was got unfolded by the specialized team of Crime Branch. Now for the sake of convenience I am putting the allegations against the individual accused in a tabulated form as under:
S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act
1. Neeraj S/o The accused Neeraj S/o Hawa ➢ Driving License of the Hawa Singh Singh disclosed the names of deceased (Ex.P1) was his associates as recovered from the Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, possession of accused Srikant @ Appu, S. Raja and Neeraj at the spot of Rajender Prashad @ Shalu apprehension duly proved (disclosure of details of by HC Amit Tomar number of persons involved (PW44), SI Sharat Kohli in the offence - not known (PW46) and Inspector Arti to the police previously). Sharma (PW47).
➢ The Driving License has been identified by Sh.
Suresh Kumar Trikha (PW1) father of the deceased and was present in the robbed vehicle of the deceased in the gloves box.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 352 of 430 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act
2. Krishna The accused disclosed the ➢ One ABN Amro Bank Murthy @ names of his associates who Master Card (Ex.P3), one Vicky S/o were involved in the Shopper's Stop Card Ramesh commission of crime with Citizen First (Ex.P4) and 3 Mohan him as Neeraj, Srikant @ visiting cards bearing the Appu, S. Raja and Rajinder name of the victim (Ex.P5) Prasad @ Shalu (disclosure were got recovered by the of details of number of accused Krishnamurthy persons involved in the from the pocket of a pant offence - not known to the kept in his room at F22/1, police previously). Sector3, Rohini, Delhi duly proved landlord by Ghanshyam (PW13), HC Amit Tomar (PW44), SI Sharat Kohli (PW46) and Inspector Arti Sharma (PW47).
➢ The ABN Amro Bank Master Card (Ex.P3), one Shopper's Stop Card Citizen First (Ex.P4) and 3 visiting cards bearing the name of the victim (Ex.P5) has been identified by Sh.
Suresh Kumar Trikha (PW1) father of the deceased and were present in the robbed vehicle of the deceased int he gloves box.
3. Srikant @ ➢ He disclosed the names of At the instance of accused Appu S/o his associates who were Srikant @ Appu accused Rama involved in the commission of Surinder @ Dheeraj @ Swamy crime with him as Neeraj Dheeru was arrested and one Krishan Murthy @ Vicky, S. 7.65 mm pistol with a live St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 353 of 430 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act Raja, Rajinder Prasad @ cartridge used in the Shalu. commission of crime was ➢ He also disclosed the name recovered from the possession of Surender @ Dheeraj @ of Surender @ Dheeraj, duly Dheeru who supplied weapon proved by HC Amit Tomar of offence to him on rent and (PW44), SI Sharat Kohli after offence he returned the (PW46) and Inspector Arti same after use. Sharma (PW47).
➢ The accused led the Investigating Team and pointed out the house of accused Surender @ Dheeru to the IO (disclosure of relevant fact i.e. the person from whom the accused took the weapon of offence - not known to the police previously).
4. Surender @ ➢ The accused disclosed that ➢ One 7.65 mm pistol Dheeraj @ he had given the pistol and (Ex.P15) with a live cartridge Dheeru S/o four live cartridges to Srikant used in the commission of Suresh @ Appu on hire for 15 days crime was recovered from the for Rs.2,000/ and after 1012 possession of Surinder @ Chand days Srikant @ Appu Dheeraj @ Dheeru at the Gupta returned the pistol and instance of accused Srikant @ informed him that he had shot Appu, duly proved by HC Amit a fire from this pistol and Tomar (PW44), SI Sharat Kohli robbed a Honda City Car (PW46) and Inspector Arti from him. Sharma (PW47).
➢ The accused also disclosed ➢ Ballistic Report confirms the
that Srikant @ Appu use of this firearm in the
informed him about the commission of offence (PW31).
incident of having shot the
victim and asked him to clean
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 354 of 430
S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries
No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same)
evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence
Act and not hit by Section 25
of Evidence Act
the barrel of pistol on which
he cleaned the same and
concealed the firearm in his
bed.
(disclosure of relevant fact
- not known to the police
previously).
5. S. Raja S/o ➢ The accused disclosed the ➢ The accused S. Raja led the
K. Subra names of his associates who Investigating Team to the
manium were involved in the house of Somvir to whom S.
commission of crime with Raja and Rajender Prashad
him as Krishna Murthy @ @ Shalu had passed on the
Vicky, Neeraj, Srikant @ robbed vehicle of the
Appu, and Rajinder Prasad @ deceased i.e. Honda City
Shalu. bearing No.
➢ He also disclosed that it DL4CNC1115 and also
was he who exhorted the the robbed mobile of the
accused Srikant @ Appu to deceased make Sony
shot the deceased since the Ericson bearing IMEI No.
deceased had offered 012379004668392. (This
resistance. Honda City Car was
➢ The accused further recovered from the
disclosed that for the disposal possession of accused
of the robbed mobile phone Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep
and Honda City Car they went on 17.3.2011).
to Amit @ Bunty and Sombir ➢ The accused S. Raja led the of Bhiwani who were known Investigating Team to the to accused Srikant @ Appu. shop of accused Amit @ ➢ The accused S. Raja led the Bunty who was entrusted police party to the house of the job of changing the Sombir at Balmiki Basti, IMEI number of the robbed Bhiwani and also to the shop mobile of the deceased after of Amit @ Bunty. which the accused Amit @ (disclosure of relevant fact Bunty was arrested and robbed mobile phone of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 355 of 430 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act i.e. the person & place - not deceased Sh. Prateek Trikha known to the police (Ex.P1) was recovered previously). from the possession of accused Amit @ Bunty, duly proved by HC Amit Tomar (PW44), SI Sharat Kohli (PW46) and Inspector Arti Sharma (PW47).
6. Amit @ ➢ The accused disclosed that The accused Amit @ Bunty got Bunty S/o he was running a mobile shop recovered the robbed mobile Sh. Ram in the area and about four phone of deceased Sh. Prateek Niwas months prior to his arrest, the Trikha which is Ex.P1.
accused Somivr along with his two friends including S. Raja came to his shop and gave a mobile phone X10i to him for changing its IMEI No. because they had robbed the said mobile phone and a Honda City car from a person at Saraswati Vihar and they wanted to keep the phone and use the said mobile phone personally.
➢ The accused further disclosed that he made the mobile phone faulty by creating a specific defect in the motherboard and problem in charging and on/ off system which he then deposited at Spice Hot Spot, Daryaganj (Vishal Atwal) for changing its motherboard containing the original IMEI St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 356 of 430 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act Number (disclosure of relevant fact -
not known to the police previously).
7. Sombir S/o ➢ The accused disclosed that ➢ The robbed Honda City Car Ram Gopal he is a professional car thief of the deceased (Ex.P6) involved in large number of Prateek Trikha was recovered case in Haryana. from the possession of Sombir, ➢ He knew the accused Sunil and Jaideep with fake Appu, Shalu and S. Raja who number plate.
met him at Shakurpur and ➢ One 7.65 bore pistol with Appu informed him that they three live cartridges was also had robbed a Honda City Car recovered from his possession, and Mobile phone from a duly proved by SI Sharat Kohli person at Saraswati Vihar (PW46), HC Amit Tomar after firing a shot upon him. (PW44) and Narinder (PW32). The accused also disclosed ➢ One Hundai Ascent Car that coaccused Appu, Shalu stolen from the area of P.S. and S. Raja handed over to Rani Bagh was also recovered him the Honda City Car on the instance of accused bearing No. DL4CNC1115 persons Sombir, Sunil and for its disposal on which he Jaideep. A separate case vide put a fake number pate of FIR No. 37/11 u/s 379 IPC, P.S. Haryana i.e. HR26AK0728 Rani Bagh was already on the said car. registered in this regard.
➢ That Appu and Shalu was handed over a stolen mobile phone of Sony Ericsion to him when they wanted to use and he handed over the said mobile to Amit @ Bunty who had a mobile shop at Rani Bagh, Delhi.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 357 of 430 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act (disclosure of relevant fact -
not known to the Delhi Police previously).
8. Sunil Kumar ➢ The accused disclosed that ➢ The robbed Honda City Car S/o Sh. he along with Sombir and of the deceased (Ex.P6) Bhoop Singh Jaideep were involve d in Sh. Prateek Trikha was illicit trafficking of liquor recovered from the and they had used the possession of Sombir, Sunil looted car in the same. and Jaideep with fake ➢ He also disclosed that he number plate. One 7.65 could get recover another bore pistol with three live stolen Hundai Ascent cartridges was recovered Car. from his possession, duly proved by SI Sharat Kohli (PW46), HC Amit Tomar (PW44) and Narinder (PW32).
➢ One Hundai Ascent Car
stolen from the area of P.S.
Rani Bagh was also
recovered on the instance of
accused persons Sombir,
Sunil and Jaideep. A
separate case vide FIR No.
37/11 u/s 379 IPC, P.S.
Rani Bagh was already
registered in this regard.
9. Jaideep S/o ➢ The accused disclosed that ➢ The robbed Honda City Car Mahavir he along with Sombir and of the deceased Sh. Prateek Singh Sunil were involve d in Trikha was recovered from illicit trafficking of liquor the possession of Sombir, and they had used the Sunil and Jaideep with fake looted car in the same. number plate. One 315 bore desi katta with two live St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 358 of 430 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act ➢ He also disclosed that he cartridges was recovered could get recover another from his possession.
stolen Hundai Ascent ➢ One Hundai Ascent Car
Car. stolen from the area of P.S.
Rani Bagh was also
recovered on the instance of
accused persons Sombir,
Sunil and Jaideep. A
separate case vide FIR No.
37/11 u/s 379 IPC, P.S.
Rani Bagh was already
registered in this regard.
10. Rajender ➢ He disclosed the names of ➢ Fake R/C, Insurance and
Prasad @ his associates who were pollution certificate of the
Shalu S/o involved in the commission of robbed Honda City Car was
Khazan crime with him as Krishan recovered. All the recovered
Murthy @ Vicky, Neeraj, fake documents were bearing Singh Srikant @ Appu and S. Raja. the fake registration number ➢ He also disclosed that the similar to the fake number plate robbed mobile phone and recovered from the Honda City Honda City Car were handed Car, duly proved by HC Amit over to Sombir by him, Appu Tomar (PW44), SI Sharat Kohli and Raja but Sombir could (PW46) and Inspector Arti not sell of the car. Sharma (PW47).
➢ The accused disclosed that Sombir had got prepared forged documents of the Car on the number HR26 AK0728 (which number was found inscribed on the number plates when the robbed vehicle was recovered from Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil); that these fake/ forged documents i.e. RC and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 359 of 430 S. Name of Disclosure made by the Discoveries/ Recoveries No. Accused accused admissible in (witnesses to the same) evidence u/s. 27 of Evidence Act and not hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act Insurance were handed over to him so that he could sell this Honda City Car of the deceased bearing original No. DL4CNC1115 on the fake No. HR26AK0728 with the help of these forged documents.
(disclosure of relevant fact -
not known to the police previously).
(236) It is evident from the evidence on record that prior to the arrest of accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy the Investigating Agency was neither aware of the details of the assailants i.e. who they were or how many the were and also about the manner in which the offence was committed. It was pursuant to the disclosure statements of both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy that the police came to know the names of the assailants i.e. Neeraj, Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu. Further, it was also not known to the Investigating Agency that the assailants had come on three motorcycles one of which was driven by Appu with Raja was sitting behind him, second driven by Krishnamurthy which was a stolen motorcycle and third driven by Neeraj with Rajender Prashad @ Shalu sitting behind him. It was only when the accused Krishnamurthy and Neeraj disclosed about the same to the police on St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 360 of 430 their arrest that this fact came to be known and was confirmed as accused Neeraj was using the Driving License of the deceased Prateek Trikha and Krishnamurthy got recovered the documents of the deceased recovered. It was also not known to the Investigating Agency that after committing the incident, the accused Krishnamurthy abandoned the stolen motorcycle at the spot and went away on the motorcycle of Srikant @ Appu whereas the robbed car was driven away by Srikant @ Appu with Shalu and S. Raja with him. It was also not within the knowledge of Police that the Driving License of Prateek Trikha was kept by accused Neeraj as he did not have a driving license and wanted it desperately in order to save himself from police harassment whereas the other documents i.e. ABN Amro Bank Master Card, one Shopper's Stop card Citizen First and three visiting cards bearing the name of the victim Prateek Trikha were kept by the accused Krishnamurthy. It was both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy who disclosed the same to the Investigating Agency and the fact came to be known. The Driving License of the deceased Prateek Trikha was recovered from the possession of the accused Neeraj at the time of his arrest whereas the accused Krishnamurthy disclosed that he was residing in a room of his friend and led the police team to F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini in the room constructed on the top floor where the landlord Ghanshyam (PW13) was joined in the investigations. It was in the presence of the landlord Ghanshyam that the accused Krishnamurthy led the police team to the top floor where the actual tenant of the room Kapil informed that Krishnamurthy was the elder brother St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 361 of 430 of his friend Karan who had approached him for a room claiming that there was renovation going on in his house on which he (Kapil) had requested his father James and permitted him (Krishnamurthy) to stay in the room on the top floor. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Krishnamurthy got recovered the ATM Card, one Shopper's Stop card Citizen First and three visiting cards bearing the name of the victim Prateek Trikha from the right pocket of the pant hanging on a Khunti, which documents were then seized vide memo Ex.PW13/A. Further, pursuant to their disclosure statements both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy also led the police party to the house of their associate Srikant @ Appu in Sector 3 Rohini and pointed out a bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461 as the same which accused Appu used at the time of the incident for reaching to the spot along with S. Raja (who was a first timer) and disclosed that after the incident since Appu drove the robbed car along with S. Raja and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu, Krishnamurthy was asked to leave the bike at his house and handover the key to his sister. Krishnamurthy also disclosed that he had handed over the key of the motorcycle to Sona pursuant to which the Investigating Officer asked for keys from Sona who handed over the keys to the Investigating Officer. All these above facts so disclosed by the accused Neeraj and particularly by Krishnamurthy were not known to the Investigating Agency till the time both the accused disclosed about the same leading to the subsequent recoveries. Therefore, I hold that the above portions of the disclosure statements of the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy (both of whom are professional robbers St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 362 of 430 and involved in large number cases) are admissible in evidence. (237) Coming next to the accused Srikant @ Appu, I may observe that he is a desperate criminal involved in large number of offences of similar nature. He had surrendered before the Court of Ld. MM on 24.01.2011 and pursuant to the same when his casual search was taken outside the court in the corridor, he inflicted superficial injuries on his stomach and head which he had concealed. This fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Ld. MM who immediately made an incorporation of this fact in the proceeding sheet. This perhaps was a ploy to avoid a sustained custodial interrogation. However, the accused Srikant @ Appu was provided treatment for his injuries and during interrogation he disclosed that it was he who had fired a shot on the victim on the exhortation of S. Raja since the victim Prateek had put a stiff resistance and was not handing over the keys of the Honda City car to them. This fact of a stiff resistance by the deceased was not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency, unless the accused Srikant @ Appu had disclosed the same to the police. Srikant @ Appu also disclosed that he had taken the pistol with four live cartridges on hire from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru for a sum of Rs.2,000/ and this Surender @ Dheeraj was a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1. The Investigating Agency was not aware of either the details of the firearm or from where the assailants had arranged the same and what happened to the same. It call came to be known on arrest of Srikant @ Appu who not only led the police team to Surender @ Dheeru but St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 363 of 430 also identified the firearm after its recovery. The accused Srikant @ Appu further disclosed that after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and informed him (Surender) that he had used the said pistol in committing a dacoity and asked him to clean the barrel. It was the accused Srikant @ Appu who pursuant to his disclosure statement led the police party to the house of Surender @ Dheeraj i.e. House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and identified the accused Surender @ Dheeraj, which was not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency. I, therefore, hold that these portions of the disclosure statement of accused Srikant @ Appu are discovery of relevant fact and are admissible in evidence.
(238) In so far as the accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru is concerned, it was the accused Srikant @ Appu who led the police party to him and identified him as the supplier of firearm for use in crime. Initially Surender @ Dheeraj had refused that he had given any pistol to Appu and hence the accused Surender @ Dheeraj was taken to the office of Crime Branch where he was interrogated at length during which he disclosed that he was having this illegal firearm and frequently supplied if to antisocial elements on hire for a consideration. He also disclosed that Srikant @ Appu a local criminal active in the area had taken this pistol from him on hire for Rs.2,000/ and after 1012 days returned the same to him and told him to clean the barrel as he had used it in this incident where he had shot the victim. Surender @ Dheeraj further disclosed that thereafter he cleaned the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 364 of 430 pistol and after wrapping it in a cloth had concealed the same in his house. Pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Surender @ Dheeraj took the police party to his room on the ground floor and from the single bed in the room the accused got recovered a pistol from the clothes kept in the box and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. On checking it was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening was found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine after which the said pistol along with magazine was seized by the Investigating Officer. This disclosure of the accused Surender @ Dheeraj that he used to give the pistol on hire to Antisocial elements which pistol he had snatched from a person in Eastern Uttar Pradesh about two three years ago, is a disclosure of fact not known to the police previously and admissible in evidence. The further disclosure of accused Surender that in the month of November 2010 he had given the pistol and four live rounds to Srikant @ Appu for Rs.2,000/ and after tentwelve days Srikant @ Appu returned the said pistol and informed him that he had fired a shot upon a person while committing robbery of his Honda City Car and that Srikant @ Appu also told him to clean the barrel after which he cleaned the same, is also a discovery of fact and admissible in evidence. The forensic evidence on record confirms the use of this firearm Ex.PW12/2 to the crime (i.e. bullet inside the body of the deceased and cartridge case recovered from the spot) and hence I hold that the portion of the disclosure statement of accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru leading to the recovery of firearm is admissible in evidence as contemplated.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 365 of 430 (239) Coming next to the accused S. Raja, who was arrested from his house on 25.2.2011 pursuant to a secret information. The accused S. Raja similarly disclosed his involvement in the present case along with Kishnamurthy, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad. Apart from disclosing the names of his associates, the accused S. Raja disclosed to the police that after committing the incident of dacoity and pursuant to their conspiracy for disposing off the robbed Honda City Car and Mobile Phone of the deceased he along with Shalu (Rajender Prashad) contacted Sombir a professional Car Thief who was an old friend of Appu and then handed over the robbed car and Mobile Phone of the deceased to this Sombir. Pursuant to his disclosure the accused S. Raja led the police party to the house of Sombir at Balmiki Basti at Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the Basti as the house of Sombir which he had visited along with Appu on two three occasions. The accused S. Raja further disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir and it was Sombir who was a friend of Appu who took him (S. Raja) and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it. Pursuant to his disclosure statement accused S. Raja led the the police party to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh and pointed out the shop of Amit @ Bunty to the Investigating Agency (and subsequently went to his house). These facts were not known to the Investigating Agency St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 366 of 430 prior to the arrest of accused S. Raja and these portions of the disclosure statement of accused S. Raja leading to discovery of relevant facts, are admissible in evidence.
(240) After the accused S. Raja pointed out the shop and house of accused Amit @ Bunty, on 02.03.2011 the accused Amit @ Bunty was apprehended from his house at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL office, Rani Bagh, Delhi. On interrogation the accused disclosed that that he was running a mobile shop in the area and about four months prior to his arrest, the accused Sombir along with his two friends including S. Raja came to his shop and gave a mobile phone X10i to him for changing its IMEI No. because they had robbed the said mobile phone and a Honda City car from a person at Saraswati Vihar and they wanted to use the said mobile phone. The accused further disclosed that after making the mobile phone faulty and creating a specific defect in the motherboard and problem in charging and on/ off, he deposited the same at Spice Hot Spot, Daryaganj for changing its motherboard containing the original IMEI number. The accused Amit @ Bunty led the police party to Spice Hot Spot, Darya Ganj where one Vishal Atwal whom he knew through his friend Varun and is an employee at the Branch Office who identified the accused Amit @ Bunty and informed the Investigating Officer that the Xperia Mobile phone (belonging to the deceased) was given to him for repair by Amit @ Bunty through his friend namely Varun who is running shop in Rani Bagh market in the name and style of Nice Communications and after repair he handed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 367 of 430 over the mobile to Varun. Till such time the accused Amit @ Bunty disclosed to the Investigating Officer that he had created a fault in the motherboard of the stolen mobile phone and got its IMEI number changed, it was not within the knowledge of the police (as the IMEI of the mobile phone of the deceased was being tracked to some number in operation at Mumbai). Further, pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Amit @ Bunty led the police party to his mobile shop at Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh where he took out a key hidden in the drawer and open another drawer and took out the robbed mobile phone of the deceased and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. I, therefore, hold that the portions of the disclosure statement of accused Amit @ Bunty leading to discovery of relevant facts and recovery of robbed mobile phone of the deceased, are admissible in evidence.
(241) Coming next to the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep, I may observe that the accused Sombir is a professional car thief and is reportedly having an expertise in disposing off and selling stolen/ robbed vehicles. He is an old associate/ friend of Appu. On 17.3.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep were apprehended while they were coming in a Honda City car with number plate HR26AK0728 at Tpoint, Rani Bagh Market on the road going towards M2K Cinema. On checking the Engine and Chassis numbers of Honda City Car it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Trikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115. The said car was then seized by the Investigating Officer. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 368 of 430 Further, at the instance of accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep another car make Hyundai Accent bearing fake number plate HR20P5349 was recovered from a lonely street in Indistural Area near Ghevra Phathak. The accused Sombir disclosed to the police that he said car was handed over to him by Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu for selling it and thereafter he put a fake number plate of HR26AK0728 and tried to sell it off but could not succeed. He also disclosed that it was he who had taken S. Raja and Shalu (Rajender Prashad) to the shop of Amit @ Bunty for getting the IMEI number of the mobile phone changed. Therefore, I hold that the portions of the disclosure statement of accused Sunil, Jaideep and particularly Sombir leading to discovery of relevant facts are admissible in evidence. (242) Coming now to the accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu who is also involved in large number cases and is a professional robber. He was apprehended on 23.3.2011 from Rani Bagh Main Market pursuant to a secret information. From the lower which the accused was wearing, some documents were found and the said documents on checking were found to relating to Registration Certificate of Honda City car HR26AK0728 (fake number plate on the robbed vehicle of the deceased), one pollution certificate, one insurance certificate of the same vehicle. Apart from disclosing his involvement in the present case along with his associates Neeraj, Krishnamurthy, S. Raja and Srikant @ Appu the accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu disclosed that it was the accused Sombir who had got St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 369 of 430 prepared these forged documents and handed over the same to him and also asked him to sell this Honda City Car of deceased bearing original No. DL4CNC1115 on the fake number HR26AK0728 on the basis of the these documents. This fact was not within the knowledge of the Investigating Agency unless the accused Rajender Prashad discloses about the same to them. It was known to the Investigating Agency till now that despite efforts the robbed vehicle which had been taken to various places including Nepal could not be sold/ disposed off but it was not known that even fake documents had been created on this new number i.e. HR26AK0728 to facilitate its sale which was given to Rajender Prashad @ Shalu and this fact came to the knowledge of the Investigating Agency only after the apprehension and arrest of accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu and I, therefore, hold that these portions of the disclosure statement of accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu leading to discovery of relevant facts, are admissible in evidence.
(243) In so far as the defence led by the accused Neeraj, Sombir, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Appu is concerned, the same is neither convincing nor probable and does not effectively meet the case put forth by the prosecution. All the accused have pleaded alibi as their defence but in order to establish the same they have failed to bring on record independent reliable witnesses, electronic record or authentic documentary evidence to defeat the case of the prosecution. The accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, Sombir, Jaideep, Sunil and Amit @ Bunty have failed to explain St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 370 of 430 how they came in possession of looted property including the documents of the deceased as discussed herein above and in so far as Rajender Prashad @ Shalu is concerned he too is unable to explain the possession of the forged documents relating to fake No. HR26AK0728. These accused were the best persons who could have offered an explanation with regard to the possession of these articles without any difficulty and the onus under these circumstances would not shift upon the prosecution. Since the facts relating to the same being especially within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, the legislature engrafted a special rule in Section 106 of the Evidence Act to meet exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible to disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.
(244) In view of my aforesaid discussion I hereby hold that the disclosures made by the accused leading to the discovery of persons involved in the offence, the manner in which the crime was executed and also the destination of looted articles are all incriminating qua the accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, S. Raja, Rajender Prashad @ Shalu, Srikant @ Appu, Surender @ Dheeraj, Sombir, Sunil, Jaideep and Amit @ Bunty and conclusively establishes their involvement in the crime. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 371 of 430 Criminal Conspiracy:
(245) The case of the prosecution is that the accused are professional thieves/ robbers involved in large number of cases. They reside in the same area or adjoining area and as per their convenience organize themselves into a group/ gang (Fleeter/ Transient/ ShortTerm Gang of Dacoits) who would move at night in the area on motorcycles and hunt for vulnerable targets whom they would loot/ rob by use of force and threat and commit robbery/ dacoity. While committing robbery/ dacoity in case of any resistance by the victim they would not hesitate to use criminal force to silence the victim forthwith as has happened in the present case.
(246) The accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru also a resident of Mangol Puri is a supplier of illegal firearms to the local criminal on hire for specific period which firearm i.e. countrymade pistol he had snatched from a person of Western Uttar Pradesh when he had eloped with his wife and started residing in Delhi and it was a lucrative deal for him as he used to hire out this weapon to criminals from time to time. Srikant @ Appu a resident of the same area and a local criminal involved in large number of cases had approached Surender @ Dheeraj in second week of November 2010 and obtained this countrymade pistol on hire for a consideration/ amount for use in threatening persons/ victims during commission of extortion/ robbery. It is further the the case of the prosecution that in pursuance to this conspiracy on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 the accused Neeraj, Krishnamurthy, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad and S. Raja got together St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 372 of 430 on three motorcycles of which Neeraj had his own bike, while Srikant @ Appu was on the bike of his sister and Krishnamurthy was on a bike stolen from the area of Rani Bagh on 19.11.2010 were on prowl in the area looking for a potential target for giving effect to robbery/ dacoity when they saw a young boy standing outside his Honda City car at Raj Nagar Society Gate when all the five accused approached him on these three motorcycles and asked the boy i.e. victim Prateek Trikha to hand over the keys of his car to them. On the resistance offered by the victim he was threatened with the firearm which Appu had taken on hire from Surender @ Dheeraj while the victim was caught by Neeraj from behind and given leg and fist blows by Rajender @ Shalu, Krishnamurthy and S. Raja as they were finding it difficult to manage the victim who was not handing over the keys of his car.
It was then that on the exhortation of accused S. Raja as they were, he was shot by accused Srikant @ Appu after which his vehicle along with its contents and the mobile phone of the victim were taken away and victim was left at the spot. The looted vehicle was driven by Srikant @ Appu and S. Raja and Rajender @ Shalu accompanied him in the same while Krishnamurthy who was on stolen motorcycle abandoned the said motorcycle at the spot and on asking of Appu and drove the motorcycle. They all then assembled at Avantika where the looted vehicle was checked. Neeraj who was not possessing a Driving License, was given the Driving License of the deceased by Krishnamurthy whereas the accused Krishnamurthy himself took away the various documents including ABN St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 373 of 430 Amro Master Card, Citizen first Shoppers Stop Card, visiting cards of his company etc. The looted vehicle and mobile phone were retained by Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu for passing on the same to another professional group. Thereafter Krishnamurthy who was on the motorcycle of Appu drove the same to his house and left the same at the house of Appu and handover its keys to the sister of Appu whereas Neeraj returned home on his own motorcycle which he was driving.
(247) The accused Srikant, Shalu and S. Raja then passed on the robbed vehicle and mobile to one Sombir a professional Auto Lifter who dealt in stolen cars and was a friend of Srikant @ Appu. It was the job of Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil to get rid of the looted property i.e. car. The accused S. Raja and Appu wanted to keep the mobile as it was expensive and hence Sombir along with S. Raja, Appu and Shalu contacted Amit @ Bunty who had a mobile repair shop in Delhi and asked to change the IMEI number of the mobile. In the meanwhile Sombir, Jaideep and Sunil desperately tried to sell the car which was even taken to Nepal on a fake number plate but the car could not be sold and hence they returned to Delhi where they were apprehended along with the stolen car having a fake number plate i.e. HR26AK0728. The accused Shalu also attempted to sell the car at his own level and in order to facilitate the same fake documents of the car i.e. Registration Certificate, Insurance etc. which had been prepared by Sombir were given to Rajender Prashad @ Shalu for the said purpose. During investigations the IMEI number of the robbed mobile phone was also tracked St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 374 of 430 to Mumbai but the mobile set was recovered from accused Amit @ Bunty with changed IMEI number.
(248) Before coming to the merits of the allegations, I may observe that though no specific charge for Conspiracy under Section 120B Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused persons, yet as per the provisions of Section 221 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure if in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of subsection (1), he may be convicted of the offence which is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it. Hence, in this background I proceed to first examine the evidence brought before this Court on the existence of prior agreement between the accused persons. I may observe that in so far as conspiracy is concerned, Section 120A IPC defines "criminal conspiracy" as under: "Definition of criminal conspiracy When two or more person agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) An illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object." (249) It is clear from the above noted definition of "criminal conspiracy" that the three essential elements of offence of conspiracy are (a) St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 375 of 430 a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished; (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object; (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means. Thus, the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to break the law.
(250) Sections 120A and 120B were brought on the statute book by way of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1913. Earlier to the introduction of Sections 120A and 120B, conspiracy per se was not an offence under the Indian Penal Code except in respect of the offence mentioned in Section 121A. In the Objects and Reasons to the Amendment Bill, it was explicitly stated that the new provisions (120A & B) were "designed to assimilate the provisions of the Indian Penal Code to those of the English Law...." Thus, Sections 120A & 120B made conspiracy a substantive offence and rendered the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable. (251) Proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy to get and probably for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted. It reads as under: "10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design:Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 376 of 430 said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
(252) Thus, the substantive section of the IPC i.e. Section 120A adumbrated thereon Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act give us the legislative provisions applicable to conspiracy and its proof. (253) After survey of the case law on the point, following legal principles pertaining to the law of conspiracy can be conveniently culled out: (A) When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. (State v Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253) (B) The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are coparticipators in the main object of the conspiracy. It is not necessary that all St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 377 of 430 conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. (Yash Pal Mittal v State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 2433 and State v Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253) (C) It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 378 of 430 conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the graham of the crime of conspiracy.
(D) The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. Since a conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, it would quite often happen that there is no evidence of any express agreement between the conspirators to do cause to be done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. The offence can be only proved largely from the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove actual meeting of conspirators. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct of accused persons constitute relevant material to prove charge of conspiracy. (Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v State of Maharashtra AIR 1980 SC 439, Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v State of Maharashtra AIR 1981 SC 1062 and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 379 of 430 Kehar Singh v State AIR 1988 SC 1883) (E) A conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalized or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice versa.
(F) Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the coconspirators. In short, the section can be analysed as follows: (1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him should have been said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 380 of 430 left it; and (5) it can only be used against a coconspirator and not in his favour. (See the decision of Supreme Court reported as Sardar Sardul Singh v State of Maharashtra AIR 1957 SC 747).
(254) Further, in the case of V.R. Nedunchezhian Vs. State reported in 1999 (2) ALD Crl. 559: 2000 CriLJ 976 the Hon'ble Madras High Court has observed as under:
"...... It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain, where each party performs even without the knowledge of the other, a role that aids or abets succeeding parties in accomplished the criminal objectives of the conspiracy. For example, in a case of smuggling, what is done in the process of procuring and distributing narcotics or smuggled goods for sale in different parts of the globe? In such a case, these smugglers know that the middlemen must sell to retailers; and the retailers know that the middlemen must bye from importers. Thus the conspirators at one end at the chain know that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers, and those at the other end know that it had not begun with their settlers. The action of each has to be considered as a spoke in the hubthere being a rim to bind all the spokes together in a single conspiracy...."
(255) As discussed in the foregoing paras, more often than not, the prosecution would adduce circumstantial evidence to prove the charge of conspiracy. The question which arises is that what should be the nature of circumstantial evidence in a case of conspiracy to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 381 of 430 (256) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, at the very Outset I may observe that after the examination of the evidence which has come on record it is borne out that the events can broadly be divided into two broad categories i.e. First to commit an armed dacoity and in case of resistance to finish the victim and Second to dispose off the looted/ robbed property.
(257) In so far as the conspiracy to commit an armed dacoity is concerned at the very Outset I may observe that the accused Krishnamurthy, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad @ Shalu, Neeraj, Sombir and Surneder @ Dheeraj @ Dheera are involved in large number of criminal cases. Coming first to the accused Krishnamurthy, his previous involvements are reproduced as under:
Sr. No. FIR No. Section Police station 1. 236/2011 326/34 IPC K N Katju Marg 2. 442/2010 392/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 3. 440/2010 392/397/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 4. 377/2010 379 IPC Rani Bagh 5. 372/2010 186/353 IPC Hari Nagar 6. 53/2008 307/302 IPC Saraswati Vihar 7. 1107/2007 308/120B/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 8. 1127/2007 323/394/397/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 9. 43/2006 21 NDPS Keshav Puram 10. 658/2005 457/380/411/34 IPC Keshav Puram St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 382 of 430 11. 600/2005 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar 12. 219/2005 457/380 IPC Saraswati Vihar 13. 469/2005 380/411/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 14. 605/2005 380/341 IPC Saraswati Vihar 15. 641/2005 457/380 IPC Sarawati Vihar 16. 623/2005 457/380 IPC Saraswati Vihar 17. 644/2005 380/341 IPC Saraswat Vihar 18. 686/2005 380/341 IPC Saraswati Vihar 19. 774/2005 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar 20. 1098/2005 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar 21. 581/2004 295/295A/379/411/34 IPC Keshav Puram (258) Coming next to accused Srikant @ Appu whose previous involvements are as under: S. No. FIR Section Police station 1. 08/2011 356/379/411/34 IPC Begum Pur 2. 14/2011 356/379/411/34 IPC Begum Pur 3. 269/2010 379/356/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 4. 341/2010 356/379/411/34 IPC K N Katju Marg 5. 685/2008 307 IPC Saraswati Vihar 6. 616/2007 394/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 7. 1462/2006 399/402 IPC Saraswati Vihar 8. 1427/2006 394/34 IPC Saraswati Vihar 9. 1144/2006 25 A Act Saraswati Vihar 10. 612/2006 457/380 IPC Saraswati Vihar St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 383 of 430 (259) In so far as the accused Neeraj is concerned, his previous involvements are as under: S. No. FIR Section Police station 1. 414/2010 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar 2. 630/2009 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar 3. 522/2009 25/54/59 A Act Saraswati Vihar 4. 569/2009 392/34 IPC Sarawati Vihar (260) Further, the previous involvements of the accused Surender @ Dheeraj are as under: S. No. FIR Section Police station 1 691/2007 323/307/341/506/34 IPC Mangol Puri 2 336/2008 324/351/506/427/34 IPC Sultan Puri (261) The details of previous involvements of accused Rajender Parsad are as under: S. No. FIR Section Police station 1 70/2011 379/356/34 IPC Ali Pur 2 77/2011 356/379/34 IPC Vijay Vihar 3 8/2011 379/356/411/34 IPC Begum Pur 4 14/2011 356/379/411/34 IPC Begum Pur 6 269/2010 356/379/411/34 IPC Paschim Vihar 7 80/2010 379/356/411/34 IPC Vijay Vihar 8 92/2010 356/379/34 IPC Roop Nagar 9 13/2010 356/379/34 IPC Roop Nagar St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 384 of 430 10 7/2010 356/379/34 IPC Roop Nagar 11 167/2010 379/356/34 IPC Mangol Puri 12 115/2010 382/34 IPC Prashant Vihar 13 318/2010 394/411/34 IPC Keshav Puram 14 143/2010 356/379/34 IPC Keshav Puram 15 43/2010 356/379/34 IPC Keshav Puram 16 341/2010 356/379/411/34 IPC K N Katju Marg (262) In so far as the accused Somveer is concerned, his previous involvements are as under: S. No. FIR Section Police station 1 29/2012 328/379/482/411/34 IPC Mundka 2 37/2011 379/411/34 IPC Rani Bagh 3 34/2011 379 IPC Rani Bagh 4 415/2010 379 IPC Rani Bagh 5 365/2010 379/411 IPC Rani Bagh 6 126/2005 379 IPC City Biwani 7 91/2007 379 IPC City Biwani 8 121/2007 379 IPC City Biwani 9 125/2007 379 IPC City Biwani 10 22/2007 379 IPC Loharu 11 134/2007 379 IPC City Biwani 12 282/2007 379 IPC City Biwani 13 306/2007 379 IPC City Biwani 14 124/2007 379 IPC City Dadri 15 231/2007 379 IPC Sadar Biwani St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 385 of 430 16 356/2007 379 IPC City Biwani 17 560/2007 379 IPC City Sirsa 18 216/2007 379 IPC City Hissar 19 259/2009 379 IPC City Narnnol 20 822/2009 379/420 IPC City Hissar 21 415/2009 379/411/465/468/471 IPC Civil Lines Sirsa 22 218/2009 379 IPC Raj Garh 23 210/2009 379/402 IPC Sadar Narnnol 24 55/2012 411/482/483/186/ IPC Fateh Garh 25/54/59 A Act 25 229/2007 379/411/34 IPC City Hissar (263) The previous involvements of accused Amit @ Bunty are as under: S. No. FIR Section Police station 1 332/2014 174A IPC Charkhi Dadri 2 338/2010 323/325/34 IPC Charkhi Dadri (264) In so far as the accused Jaideep and Sunil Kumar are
concerned they are involved in another case bearing FIR No. 37/2011, PS Rani Bagh, under Sections 379/411/34 IPC whereas the accused S. Raja is not involved in any other case and is a first timer. (265) Secondly I may observe that the accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad and Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru are residents of the same or at the most surrounding area. The St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 386 of 430 accused Krishnamurthy is a resident of H. No. L233, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi; accused Neeraj is residing at L45, JJ Colony Shakurpur, Delhi; accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu is a resident of D280281, Shakurpur Colony, Delhi; accused S. Raja (Subramanyam Raja) is a resident of 399/8, EBlock, JJ Colony, Inderpuri, Delhi and the accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru is a resident of I1165, Mangol Puri, Delhi. All the accused are known to known to each other and knew their job too well. They are Professional Criminals who get together and organize themselves into small groups depending upon their convenience and availability. They be classified into a Floating Group/ Gang who make or break as per convenience.
(266) Thirdly the accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad are individually involved in large number of cases and are professional robbers whereas the accused S. Raja is a first timer. The accused Surender @ Dheeraj is a supplier of illegal firearm which he gives on hire to antisocial elements for a consideration. The accused Srikant @ Appu had taken the pistol along with four live cartridges from the accused Surender @ Dheeraj for fifteen days for a sum of Rs.2,000/ (disclosure leading to recovery of the pistol). Here, I may observe that the accused Srikant @ Appu is a desperate criminal which fact stands established that when he surrendered before the Court of Ld. MM and pursuant to the same when his casual search was taken outside the court in the corridor, he inflicted superficial injuries on his stomach and head which he had St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 387 of 430 concealed. This fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Ld. MM who immediately made an incorporation of this fact in the proceeding sheet. This apparently was a ploy and technique to avoid a sustained custodial interrogation.
(267) Fourthly the medical evidence establishes that the incident in question was the work of many persons and had been given effect in a professional manner. The gun shot injury on the body of the deceased was running medially downwards from third intercoastal space to 5th inter vertebral disc confirming that the deceased was shot when he put up a resistance and was caught by the assailants from the back. Further, there were two abrasions/ injuries on his body i.e. one on the right jaw and another on the left wrist and could only be possible when the deceased was given a blow on right jaw after he fell on his left side. It is this which confirms that the incident was not the work of one or two persons but many persons who acted fast in consortium leaving little time to the victim to react or raise an alarm. The height of accused Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu and also S. Raja is 5' 9'' whereas Rajender Prashad is 5' 8'' and Krishnamurthy is 5' 7'' (as evident from the conviction slips on Judicial Record and confirmed by the Court on observing the accused). It is the case of prosecution that when the deceased Prateek Trikha a well built young man resisted the dacoity he was caught from behind by the accused Neeraj (with a height of 5' 9'') and given fist and leg blows by Krishnamurthy (with a height of 5' 7'') and Rajender Prashad (with a height of 5' 8'') whereas the accused S. Raja (with a height of 5' 9'') St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 388 of 430 snatched the keys of his car from his hand which the deceased was resisting when S. Raja exhorted Srikant @ Appu to shoot the victim, that the shot was fired. This shot on the right side chest when during this melee the victim who was given a blow on right jaw fell on the left side. This explains the firearm injury on the right side running downwards and confirms the presence of many persons and the abrasions on the right jaw and left wrist, reflects the resistance by deceased and also use of force on him before being shot.
(268) Fifthly the recovery of the stolen articles of the deceased after the arrest of the accused persons which possession they are unable to explain (i.e. Driving License of the deceased from Neeraj; ABN Amro Master Card, Citizen First Shoppers Stop Card and three visiting cards of the deceased which he used to keep in the gloves box of the car from the accused Krishnamurthy; stolen mobile phone from the accused Amit @ Bunty; robbed car from the possession of accused Somvir, Sunil and Jaideep after being led by accused S. Raja and weapon of offence i.e. countrymade pistol from accused Surender @ Dheeraj after being lead by Appu) establishes the prior meeting of mind and plan. What started from the apprehension and arrest of Neeraj and Krishnamurthy ended with apprehension and arrest of Rajender Prashad @ Shalu thereby completing the entire chain. (269) Sixthly the recovery of firearm used in the offence from the accused Surender @ Dheeraj who is identified and got apprehended by the accused Srikant @ Appu; recovery of looted articles i.e. ATM Card, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 389 of 430 Shopper's Card and visiting cards of the deceased from accused Krishnamurthy; Driving License of the deceased from accused Neeraj; the looted vehicle bearing No. DL4CNC1115 from Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep (with fake number plate of HR26AK0728); looted mobile phone of the deceased with changed IMEI number from the accused Amit @ Bunty; fake documents of insurance, RC and Pollution Certificate of vehicle bearing No. HR26AK0728 (the new fake number given to the looted car found in the possession of Sunil, Sombir and Jaideep) from the accused Rajender Prashad coupled with the fact that the accused S. Raja the first time to the offence was the one who led the police party to the house of Sombir and Amit @ Bunty are all aspects which are highly incriminating qua the accused and confirm a prior meeting of mind and existence of a conspiracy. As already discussed, it is not not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role and there must be a unity of object and may be a plurality of means which is even unaware to some another amongst the conspirators as has happened in the present case.
(270) Lastly the preplanning is also evident from the manner in which the firearm was hired from Surender and after the incident returned to him with a caution to clean and conceal the same and also the manner in which the looted property was passed over to the group of professional Auto Lifters and Dealers of Mobile Phones with direction to change the IMEI number. The manner in which the fake number plate was put on the looted St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 390 of 430 vehicle and fake documents were created of this new forged number (i.e. Insurance, RC and Pollution Certificate) given to this vehicle which were recovered from the possession of accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu so as to enable him to sell the vehicle on this number, again confirms the existence of conspiracy and a premeditated manner in which the incident took place. Rather, each stage of the crime had been meticulously planned and executed in a perfectly organized manner within seconds without any one having come to know of the same, establishes the conspiracy. (271) I may observe that the crime of Conspiracy is complete as soon as the agreement is made but it does not end with the making of the agreement and continues so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effective design. The act done by one is admissible against the coconspirator (Doctrine of Agency). Conspiracy is always hatched in silence and there can never be a direct evidence to confirm conspiracy and it is from the circumstantial evidence that it can be gathered. It is not necessary to prove the actual meeting of the conspirators nor the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is sufficient and it is from the surrounding circumstances, antecedent and subsequent conduct of accused persons that the charge of conspiracy is established, as has happened in the present case. Further, for an offence under section 120B IPC it is not necessary that each and every person involved in the Conspiracy is required to expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act and it is sufficient if the agreement is St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 391 of 430 proved by necessary implication. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role and there must be a unity of object and may be a plurality of means which is even unaware to some another amongst the conspirators as has happened in the present case. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. As already discussed herein above what is important is unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. (272) No doubt, the accused, all of whom are professionals, planned a perfect crime, yet there is no such thing called a perfect crime and however smarter the assailants may, their are sure to leave clues which give away their game. The manner in which the crime had been committed, right from the day one the local police had a suspicion that it was the handiwork of a professional gang. The suspects included large number of persons including accused Neeraj who was questioned by Inspector Vipin Bhatia twice as admitted by him in his crossexamination and duly confirmed from the case diaries written by him i.e. Inspector Vipin Bhatia. The case was cracked only after it is transferred to the Crime Branch when pursuant to a secret St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 392 of 430 information the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy were apprehended on 2.12.2010 on a stolen motorcycle with the driving license of the deceased Prateek Trikha which was being used by accused Neeraj (who did not possess a driving license and had kept the same for using it) and it was then that the Crime unfolded. All the accused i.e. Krishnamurthy, S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad and Surender @ Dheeru are residents of the same area where they are operating. The accused S. Raja was a first timer in the gang and had came into contact with Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu who were involved in large number of criminal cases along with their associates Krishnamurthy and Neeraj. It is on the disclosure of the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy that ultimately the crime opened up leading to arrest of other accused persons. (273) This is a classic case demonstrating how crime has been committed professionally. Person dealing in firearms (Surender @ Dheeru @ Dheeraj) rents out firearm to local criminals (Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender @ Shalu and S. Raja) on payment/ consideration who indulges into robbery/ dacoity after which the looted property is passed on to another gang of professionals who was specialized in disposing off looted automobiles and electronics. In case if an electronic items i.e. mobile phones are looted the same are passed on to the local professional i.e. Amit @ Bunty dealing in the salepurchase and repair of mobile phones the same are handed over to them for changing its IMEI number and in case of motor vehicles the same are passed on to organized gang (Somveer, Sunil and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 393 of 430 Jaideep) who are dealing in stolen vehicles.
(274) The entire evidence on record as discussed herein above establishes the entire sequence as to how the Crime was given a shape and executed and also the role of each and every accused in the said conspiracy in its execution, which is reflected in the following flow chart:
S u r e n d e r @ D h e e r a j (S u p p lie r o f fire a rm )
S u p p lie r o f ille g a l fire a r m w h ic h h e g a v e to S rik a n t @ A p p u in s e c o n d w e e k o f N o v e m b e r ,
2 0 1 0 o n h ire to fa c ilita te h im in h is ille g a l a c tiv itie s . It is S rik a n t @ A p p u w h o le a d s th e
p o lic e to S u r e n d e r a n d fro m th e p o s s e s s io n o f S u re n d e r th e fire a r m is re c o v e re d (F S L re p o rt
c o n firm s th e u s e ).
K r is h n a m u r t h y R a je n d er P ra sh a d S r ik a n t @ A p p u S . R a ja N eeraj
R e a c h e d th e s p o t @ S h a lu T o o k th e ille g a l R e a c h e d th e R e a c h e d th e
o n a s to le n R e a c h e d th e s p o t o n fire a rm fro m s p o t o n th e s p o t o n h is o w n
m o to rc y c le b e a rin g th e m o to rc y c le o f S u ren d er @ D h eeraj m o to rc y c le o f m o to rc y c le .
N o . H R -1 5 A -3 5 0 1 S rik a n t @ A p p u . on paym ent of A ppu. D riv in g L ic e n s e
(in F IR n o . 3 7 7 /1 0 , A t th e tim e o f a rre s t R s .2 ,0 0 0 /- A fte r h is a rre s t o f th e d e c e a s e d
PS R ani B agh) o f accu sed fak e R e a c h e d th e s p o t o n h e le d th e w a s reco v ered
w h ic h h e d o c u m e n ts re la tin g th e m o to rc y c le o f h is p o lic e p a rty to fro m th e
a b a n d o n e d a t th e to N o . H R -2 6 -A K - s is te r a lo n g w ith th e h o u s e o f p o s s e s s io n o f
s p o t o f in c id e n t. 0 7 2 8 ( th e n e w fa k e R a je n d e r @ S h a lu S o m b ir a n d a c c u se d N e e ra j
T h e ro b b e d a rtic le s n u m b e r g iv e n to a n d a fte r th e in c id e n t th e re a fte r to th e a t th e tim e o f h is
i.e . A T M C a r d , lo o te d c a r) w e re re tu rn e d th e fire a rm s h o p o f A m it a rre s t w h ic h h e
S h o p p ers C ard an d re c o v e re d fro m h is to S u re n d e r @ @ B u n ty fro m re ta in e d fo r
v is itin g C a rd s o f p o s s e s s io n a s h e D h e e ra j. H e le a d s w h e re lo o te d p erso n al u se as
th e d e c e a s e d w e r e w a n te d to s e ll th is th e p o lic e p a rty to m o b ile o f th e he had no
g o t reco v ered b y c a r o n th e s e fa k e th e h o u s e o f d eceased w as D riv in g L ic e n s e
h im . d o c u m e n ts . S u ren d er reco v ere d .
G o e s to th e h o u s e o f A p p u R e tu rn s to h is
a n d p a rk s th e m o to rc y c le o f h o u s e o n h is
A p p u a n d h a n d s o v e r its o w n b ik e w h ic h
k e y s to h is s is te r S o n a a n d h e p a rk s th e re .
re c o v e re d fro m th e re .
S o m b ir (P r o fe s s io n a l A u to L ifte r - D is p o s a l o f L o o t e d P r o p e r ty ) a frie n d o f A p p u w h o w a s a p p ro a c h e d b y S . R a ja , S rik a n t @ A p p u a n d R a je n d e r P rs a h d @ S h a lu a n d th e L o o te d C a r a n d M o b ile P h o n e o f th e d e c e a s e d w e r e p a s s e d o n to th e a c c u s e d S o m b ir w h o in tu rn h a n d e d o v e r th e m o b ile p h o n e to A m it @ B u n ty fo r c h a n g in g its IM E I N o . H e w a s fo u n d in p o s s e s s io n o f th e ro b b e d H o n d a C ity c a r o f th e d e c e a s e d a lo n g w ith J a id e e p a n d S u n il w ith fa k e n u m b e r p la te H R -2 6 -A K -0 7 2 8 J a id e e p a n d S u n il a re a s s o c ia te s A m it @ B u n ty (d e a le r o f m o b ile o f S o m b ir a n d w e r e fo u n d in p h o n e s ) w a s fo u n d in p o s s e s s io n o f p o s s e s s io n o f th e lo o te d H o n d a th e lo o te d m o b ile p h o n e o f th e C ity c a r o f th e d e c e a s e d a lo n g d e c e a s e d w ith c h a n g e d I M E I w ith S o m b ir w h ic h c a r w a s w h ic h p h o n e w a s h a n d e d o v e r to h a v in g a fa k e n u m b e r p la te o f h im b y S o m v ir in th e p re s e n c e o f S . H R -2 6 -A K -0 7 2 8 . R a ja a n d R a je n d e r P ra s h a d @ S h a lu St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 394 of 430 Motive of the Offence/ Intention:
(275) The case of the prosecution is that the sole motive for the offence in question was an Armed Dacoity with an intent to kill and silence the victim in case of any resistance. Both the sides i.e. the victim as well as the accused persons were not known to each other. On the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 when the deceased Prateek Trikha a young boy of 25 years employed in Steria Software Company Ltd. was returning home after attending the marriage reception of a colleague and had just stopped outside the gate of his Society to smoke a cigarette while standing outside his car, his vehicle, mobile phone along with other contents of car were looted and the victim Prateek Trikha had been killed on his resistance.
(276) I may observe that the Motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evident should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 395 of 430 motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
(277) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
(278) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.: IV (2012) SLT 257].
(279) Moreover, in a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of a crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused is guilty of the offence charged with. However, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to certain course of action leading to the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 396 of 430 commission of the crime [Ref.: State of U.P. Vs. Bahu Ram reported in 2000 (4) SCC 515 and Ujjagal Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 (14) SCALE 428].
(280) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that Snkur Mahajan (PW6) the friend of the deceased Prateek Trikha has proved that he and deceased were good friends on 21.11.2010 at about 9 PM Prateek came to him in his Honda City Car for attending the marriage reception of one common friend Parvesh Tomar after which he along with Prateek went for attending the reception of the marriage in his Honda City car and left the ceremony spot at about 12 midnight for returning their house. He has further proved that within ten to twelve minutes, Prateek dropped him at his house and while Prateek was dropping him, his (Prateek's) mother telephoned him and he (Prateek) informed her that he would reach home within ten to fifteen minutes to his house which unfortunately did not happen. When Prateek Trikha reached the gate of his Society and stood outside his car for sometime to smoke a cigarette, the incident in question took place at an isolated spot on the side of a motorable road which is about 50 to 70 years from the gate of the Society. The blood trail leading to the spot from the gate of the Society confirms the testimonies of the security guards namely Damodar (PW2) and Virender Kumar Dubey (PW5) who have both confirmed that while they were on duty the deceased smudged in blood had walked up to the gate of the Society with great difficulty and called out to them on which they made him to sit on a chair.
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 397 of 430 The victim was gasping at that time and with great effort informed them of the number of his house as C67 on which the guard Damodar rushed and called out his family members. Unfortunately by that time the deceased slipped into unconscious state and did not say anything (as established from the testimony of Suresh Trikha - PW1 the father of the deceased and neighbour Rohit Kakkar PW15). Immediately thereafter the victim Prateek Trikha was shifted to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital but declared dead by the doctors at 2:07 AM as the efforts to resuscitate him could not succeed. The spot of the incident has been established not only from the trail of blood which lead from the spot of the incident to the gate of the Society but also from the empty Cartridge Case recovered from the said spot which was duly seized by the Investigating Officer at the first instance. Further, a motorcycle make Hero Honda Splendor having a number plate of DL AS0234 on the backside and number plate HR15A3 on the front side with a key inside was also found standing near the spot and on checking the actual number of the motorcycle was found to be HR15A3501 which was stolen from the area of Police Station Rani Bagh a couple of days earlier. After the postmortem of the deceased the remaining part of the bullet i.e. led was also recovered from the right lung of the deceased which was also seized. During the investigations the weapon of offence had been recovered at the instance of accused Srikant @ Appu who led the Investigating Agency to the house of Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru the supplier of illegal firearm who then got the recovery of the firearm effected and FSL Report (Ballistics) confirms the St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 398 of 430 use of this firearm on the deceased and connects it to the offence. (281) Further, the looted property i.e. Honda City Car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 and mobile Phone make Sony Ericson was passed on to accused Sombir a professional Auto Lifter previously known to the accused Srikant @ Appu for disposal of the same. It was Sombir who then passed on the looted mobile phone of Sony Ericson to a mobile dealer i.e. accused Amit @ Bunty who was known to him previously and asked him to change its IMEI so that they could use the said mobile phone, which mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Amit @ Bunty from his shop (as discussed in detail herein above) with a change IMEI No. (as discussed separately under the head of Electronic Evidence). It stands established that the accused Krishnamurthy had come to the spot on a stolen motorcycle which he abandoned at the spot of incident (as discussed herein above) confirms his presence at the spot.
(282) Coming next to the aspect of intention, I may observe that the evidence on record establishes that it was the accused Srikant @ Appu a local criminal involved in as many as Ten Cases who had taken a firearm from Surender @ Dheeraj for a period of two weeks to facilitate him in commission of the offence for purposes of threatening the witnesses while committing extortion/ robbery. The gang so constituted comprised of Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu was a Fleeting/ Transient ShortTerm Gang who organized themselves into a group during the intervening night of 2122.11.2010, the limited St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 399 of 430 purpose of giving an effect to robbery/ dacoity, for which they were moving on the roads looking for vulnerable targets. From the evidence which has emerged it establishes that the other members of the gang were aware of the fact that Srikant @ Appu was carrying a firearm and it was after the arrest of accused persons that it was disclosed to the police that it was on the exhortation of accused S. Raja that Srikant @ Appu fired upon the deceased and the medical evidence on record establishes that it was the work of many persons out of whom some were involved in catching hold of the deceased and gave him fist and leg blows while one shot was given on the vital organ of the deceased. The manner in which the incident had been given effect confirms and establishes that not only the motive of the offence in question was to commit an Armed Dacoity but the use of firearm upon the victim on his vital part i.e. chest from a close range conclusively establishes the intention which was to kill and silence the victim because of the resistance offered by him. Further, the recovery of robbed mobile phone and the car as well as the recovery of articles of the deceased i.e. Driving License of the deceased, ABN Amro Master Card, Citizen First Shoppers Stop Card and visiting cards of Steria Company belonging to the deceased which were kept in the gloves box of the looted vehicle and the weapon of offence which the forensic evidence conclusively confirms had been used in the murder of the deceased conclusively establishes the motive so alleged i.e. to commit an armed dacoity and to dispose off the robbed/ looted property. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 400 of 430 Charges established against the accused persons:
(283) The record reveals that the Ld. Predecessor Court had settled charges under Sections 395, 396 and alternatively under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code against the accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Prashad; under Section 397 Indian Penal Code against the accused Srikant @ Appu; under Section 467 Indian Penal Code against the accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu;
under Section 412/34, 471/34 and 468/34 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act against the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep; under Section 412 Indian Penal Code against the accused Amit @ Bunty and under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act against the accused Surender @ Dheeraj.
(284) However it is settled law that if in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged, he may be convicted of the offence which is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it [Ref.: Section 221 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure]. (285) Now, on the basis of the evidence which has come on record in the form of oral testimonies of the various witnesses, forensic report, medical report and other circumstantial evidence I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish that the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit an Armed Dacoity and in St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 401 of 430 pursuant to the same the firearm was hired by Srikant @ Appu (a local criminal residing at Shakurpur involved in number of cases) from the accused Surender @ Dheeraj (a supplier of firearm on hire) for use in his illegal activities of extortion/ robberies and in pursuance thereof the accused Krishnamurthy (a local criminal residing at Shakurpur involved in number of cases), Neeraj (a local criminal residing at Shakurpur involved in number of cases), Rajender Prashad @ Shalu (a local criminal residing at Shakurpur involved in number of cases) and S. Raja (a resident of Inderpuri and an associate of Srikant @ Appu and a first timer) got together on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 and organized themselves into a fleeting gang for giving effect to an Armed Dacoity and went around the area hunting for a potential victim. While Neeraj who was newly married only a couple of days ago was on his own bike bearing No. DL8SAW2410 with Rajender Prashad @ Shalu sitting behind him, Krishnamurthy was on a motorcycle with fake number plates on both sides stolen a couple of days ago in respect of which FIR No. 377/2010, Police Station Rani Bagh is registered, the accused Srikant @ Appu was on his own motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAU6461. with S. Raja sitting behind him. Near the gate of Raj Nagar Society they found a young boy of around 25 years (namely Prateek Trikha) smoking a cigarette while standing outside his new Honda City Car and grabbing the opportunity the accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu surrounded him and tried to snatch the keys of his car. On finding the victim Prateek Trikha offering St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 402 of 430 resistance they inflicted leg and fist blows on him and fired a shot on him at his chest injuring him and thereafter robbed him of his car, mobile phone and other articles kept in the car and fled from the spot by abandoning the stolen motorcycle of Krishnamurthy at the spot. While the accused Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad and S. Raja escaped in the looted vehicle along with the mobile phone and the other contents of the car, the accused Neeraj followed them in his own motorcycle and Krishnamurthy followed them in the motorcycle of Srikant @ Appu till Avantika where they stopped for sometime. The Driving License of the deceased which was found in the glove box of the car was handed over to Neeraj for his personal use as he did not have a driving license and the other documents kept in the glove box which included the ABN Amro Smart Card, Shopper's Stop Citizen First Card, visiting cards of Steria Company of the deceased were hurriedly handed over to Krishnamurthy with the directions to first leave the motorcycle of Shrikant @ Appu at his house and hand over its keys to his sister Sona while the accused S. Raja, Rajender Prashad @ Shalu and Shrikant @ Appu then passed on the looted vehicle and the mobile phone of the deceased to Sombir a professional Automobile Thief involved in large number of cases of similar kind. Fake number plates were then put on the looted vehicle and since the accused themselves wanted to use the mobile phone of the deceased make Sony Ericson Xperia being an expensive mobile, the accused S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad and Sombir then contacted Amit @ Bunty a mobile dealer known to Sombir and handed St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 403 of 430 him this mobile set with directions to get the IMEI number of the mobile set changed, pursuant to which Amit @ Bunty created a defect in the motherboard of the mobile set and handed over the same to Vishal Atwal at the Branch Office at Darya Ganj and got the motherboard and IMEI number changed. Also, in the meanwhile Srikant @ Appu returned the firearm which he had taken on hire from Surender @ Dheeraj and informed him about the incident asking him to clean the barrel. All this was done by the accused in pursuance to a conspiracy and with a view to conceal the evidence of crime in order to screen themselves from legal punishment. (286) Before proceeding further to conclude about the charges established against the various accused, I may observe that in so far as the accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu is concerned he was found in possession of forged documents relating to forged no. HR26AK0728 given to the looted Honda City Car of the deceased which was found in possession of Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep with the fake number plate of HR26AK0728 and during interrogation he disclosed that the said documents had been handed over to him by Sombir after preparing the same to enable him to facilitate the sale of this looted car on fake number i.e. HR26AK0728. This part of the disclosure statement of the accused Rajender Prashad is inadmissible in evidence though the recovery of the documents as discussed separately is admissible. When this incriminating evidence was put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he could not satisfactorily explain or justify the possession of these documents. He was the best person St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 404 of 430 who could have offered an explanation with regard to the possession of these forged documents without any difficulty and the onus under these circumstances would not shift upon the prosecution, since the facts relating to the same being especially within his exclusive knowledge (Section 106 of the Evidence Act to meet exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible to disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience) which explanation he failed to offer and hence the inference that the same were prepared by him.
(287) Hence, in view of the above I hereby conclude that the following charges stand established against the accused herein under for which they are hereby convicted:
1. The accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad and Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru are guilty of the offence under Section 120B read with Sections 201/395/396/397/412/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act (for conspiracy to commit an Armed Dacoity and committing murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm and thereafter by concealing and retaining the looted property of the victim i.e. Driving License, ABN Amro Card, Shoppers Stop Citizen First Card, visiting cards, mobile set make Sony Ericsion, Honda City St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 405 of 430 Car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 and forging the number plates and creating fake documents of the forged number for disposing off the looted property and concealment of firearm for screening themselves from Legal Punishment). It is clarified that the murder of Prateek Trikha had been committed during the commission of dacoity therefore the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code are implicitly contained in Section 396 Indian Penal Code and therefore the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code are not being separately invoked.
(a) The accused Krishnamurthy is also individually held guilty of the offence under Sections 395, 396 r/w 412 and 201 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by member of the gang and thereafter by concealing and retaining the looted property of the victim i.e. ABN Amro Card, Shoppers Stop Citizen First Card, visiting cards and for screening himself from legal punishment).
(b) The accused Neeraj is also individually held guilty of the offence under Section Sections 395, 396 and 412 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by a member of gang and thereafter by concealing and retaining the looted property of the victim i.e. Driving License).
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 406 of 430
(c) The accused S. Raja is individually held guilty of the offence under Section Sections 395 and 396 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by a member of gang).
(d) The accused Srikant @ Appu is the person who had used a deadly weapon in the commission of offence and hence he is individually held guilty of the offence under Section 395 and Section 396 r/w 397 and 201 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm and its concealment).
(e) The accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu is individually held guilty for the offence under Section 395, 396 and 467 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and committing murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by a member of Gang and forging documents i.e. Registration Certificate, Insurance and Pollution Certificate relating to the fake number given to the looted car in order to dispose off the same).
(f) The accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru is individually held guilty of the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act (for St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 407 of 430 possession and supply of illegal firearm to the organized Gangs of Dacoits and local criminals and for concealment of firearm after use in order to screen the offenders from legal punishment).
2. The accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep are held guilty of the offence under Section 120B r/w 412/471/468/201 Indian Penal Code (for conspiracy to retain and conceal the looted Honda City Car of the deceased and by forging the number plates and using it as such in order to screen themselves from legal punishment) and the accused Amit @ Bunty and Sombir along with accused S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu are also held guilty of the offence under Section 120B read with Section 201/ 412 Indian Penal Code (for conspiracy to retain and conceal the looted mobile set of the deceased and for changing its IMEI number in order to screen themselves from legal punishment while retaining the looted mobile).
(a) The accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep are individually held guilty of the offence under Section 412 and 201 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 471 r/w 468 Indian Penal Code (for retaining and concealing the looted Honda City Car of the deceased and by forging the number plates and using it as such in order to screen themselves from legal punishment).
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 408 of 430
(b) The accused Amit @ Bunty is individually under Section 201 and 412 Indian Penal Code (for retaining and concealing the looted mobile set of the deceased and changing its IMEI number in order to screen the main offenders from Legal Punishment).
(288) In so far as the charges under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act against the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep are concerned, I may observe that separate FIRs ought to have been registered in respect of the illegal firearms recovered from the possession of the respective accused. The recovery of firearms from the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep is an altogether different transaction not relevant to the present case and hence, I am refraining myself from giving any findings in this regard and it is for the Investigating Agency to proceed against the accused in accordance with law. FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(289) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharastra, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 409 of 430 they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(290) Applying the above principles of law to the present case it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the first and the second investigating officers. From the evidence on record the following aspects stand established:
➢ The Prateek Trikha a young boy of 25 years working in Steria Company was residing at C67, Raj Nagar, Pitampura, Delhi (not disputed).
➢ That on the intervening night of 2122.11.2010 Prateek Trikha had gone to attend the reception party of his colleague Parvesh Tomar at Ashok Vihar in his Honda City Car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 (proved by Ankur Mahajan and Suresh Trikha).
➢ That Prateek Trikha and Ankur Mahajan left the venue and Prateek Trikha dropped Ankur at his house at about 12:00 midnight when Prateek received a call from his mother and informed her that he St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 410 of 430 would be reaching home within ten to fifteen minutes (proved by Ankur Mahajan) ➢ That at about 12:30 PM (midnight) Prateek Trikha reached the gate of Raj Nagar Colony in an injured condition and told the guards Damodar and Virender Duty to inform his parents since he had received a bullet injury (proved by Damodar, Virender Dubey and Ankur Mahajan and Suresh Trikha).
➢ That guard Damodar rushed to the house of Prateek Trikha and informed his parents on which Sh. Suresh Trikha along with his neighbours came and rushed Prateek Trikha to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital (proved by Damodar, Virender Dubey, Ankur Mahajan, Suresh Trikha and Rohit Kakkar).
➢ That pursuant to the information received at Police Station Saraswati Vihar SHO Inspector Vipin Kumar Bhatia reached the hospital where he found the injured Prateek Trikha admitted with alleged history of gunshot at Raj Nagar Colony Gate (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia and Ct. Baldev).
➢ That Inspector Vipin Bhatia then reached the spot where he found blood trail from main gate Raj Nagar Colony to C89, Raj Nagar, Main Raod No.43 near Ram Mandir where he found Blood on the Road in front of Kothi No.8 (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia and Ct.
Baldev).
➢ That one empty shell of bullet was found lying in front of Kothi No.9 St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 411 of 430 (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia, Ct. Baldev and SI Satpal Singh) ➢ That one motorcycle with number plate DLAS0234 on the backside and HR15A3 on the front with a key inside was also found standing near the spot (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia, Ct. Baldev and SI Satpal Singh - Incharge Crime Team and also visible in the photographs taken by the crime team).
➢ That Inspector Vipin Bhatia checked the motorcycle and from the documents it was revealed that the actual number of the motorcycle was HR15A3501 (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia, Ct. Baldev).
➢ That in the meantime Prateek Trikha was declared dead by the doctors at Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia, Ct.
Baldev and Dr. Anupam).
➢ That Inspector Vipin Bhatia interrogated Sh. Suresh Trikha the father of the deceased and came to know that the Honda City Car of the deceased bearing No. DL4CNC1115 containing the various documents of the deceased in the gloves box including Driving License, ABN Amro Card, Shoppers Card and visiting cards of his company (Steria) his Coat which he used to hang on the hanger of the car were missing (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia and Suresh Trikha).
➢ That on the basis of statement of the Suresh Trikha the present case was registered (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia).
➢ That spot of incident was got inspected by the Crime Team and Dog St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 412 of 430 Squad (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia, SI Satpal Singh and HC Sahab Singh).
➢ That the motorcycle lying at the spot was checked and one RC, Insurance paper, Pollution Certificate and one driving license of the owner of the vehicle Sh. Ashok Kumar and a slip containing the phone number of Ashok Kumar was also found on which the Investigating Officer made a call to Ashok Kumar (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia and Ashok Kumar).
➢ That Ashok Kumar informed the Investigating Officer that his motorcycle was stolen from Rani Bagh on 19.11.2010 at 9:00 AM (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia and Ashok Kumar).
➢ That on inquiry from Police Station Rani Bagh the Investigating Officer found that a case vide FIR No.377/10 U/s 379 IPC was registered in this regard at Police Station Rani Bagh (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia and Ashok Kumar).
➢ That the Investigating Officer then lifted various exhibits from the spot including the empty cartridge/ shell 'KF & 7.65' written at its bottom (proved by Inspector Vipin Bhatia and Ct. Baldev).
➢ That the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted after which the dead body was handed over to its claimants and the Autopsy Surgeon handed over the blood samples along with the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased, to the Investigating Officer duly sealed with the seal of Hospital (proved by St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 413 of 430 Inspector Vipin Bhatia and SI Ranbir Singh, HC Kiran Pal and Dr. Kulbhushan Goel).
➢ That on 2.12.2010 the investigations of this case were handed over to SIT Crime Branch (not disputed).
➢ That on 02.12.2010 pursuant to secret information the members of the SIT Crime Branch headed by Inspector Arti Sharma along with HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, HC Jitender, Ct. Narender, Ct. Sunny, Ct. Dabbu and Ct. Vikas conducted investigations of this case (not disputed).
➢ That a secret informer met HC Amit Tomar and informed him that there were five boys involved in the incident, out of which three were of Shakurpur, one of Rohini and one of Inderpuri, out of which two boys would be coming on Red Color pulsor motorcycle from Mangolpuri side via Shamshan Ghat Road and would go to Vijay Vihar Lal quarter to meet somebody there between 56 PM, which information was forwarded to the chief of his team and a police team was constituted (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That pursuant to the said information the police team reached at T Point Shamshan Ghat Road, near Vijay Vihar and the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy were apprehended while they were coming on a red color pulsor motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW 2410 from Mangolpuri side (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 414 of 430 Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That from the formal search of accused Neeraj one driving licence was recovered from the back side right pocket, which driving licence was of deceased Prateek Tirkha (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthry disclosed their involvement in the present case along with their associates S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Krishnamurthy led the police party to the room of his friend at F22/1, Sector 3, Rohini from where the accused Krishnamurthy got recovered ATM card of ABN AMRO Bank, Citizen first shoppers stop card and three visiting cards in the name of Prateek Trikha from the right pocket of the pant which was hanging on a Khunti (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Ghanshyam).
➢ That the pant of the accused Krishnamurthy along with the articles belonging to the deceased were then seized and taken into possession (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Ghanshyam).
➢ That both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy took the police party to the house of their associate Srikant @ Appu in Sector 3 Rohini from where the bike bearing No. DL8SAU6461 parked which was St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 415 of 430 used in the present incident was seized by the Investigating Officer (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Ghanshyam).
➢ That both the accused Neeraj and Krishnamurthy were known to each other (proved by Sanjeev Kumar).
➢ That on 24.01.2011 the accused Srikant @ Appu surrendered in the court of Ld. MM (not disputed and admitted by the accused).
➢ That outside the Court Room in the corridor when the casual search of the accused Appu was being conducted, he had inflicted blade injuries on his stomach and head which was superficial in nature and this fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Ld. MM Sh. Dheeraj Mor who immediately made an incorporation of this fact in the proceeding sheet (Judicial Record).
➢ That the accused Srikant @ Appu was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed his involvement in the present case and also disclosed that he had taken the pistol with four live cartridges from one Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru on rent for Rs.2,000/ which Surender @ Dheeraj was a resident of D413, Avantika, Rohini, Sector 1 (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That the accused Srikant @ Appu also disclosed that after the incident he had returned the pistol to Surender @ Dheeraj and he could get the same recovered from Surender @ Dheeraj (proved by HC Amit St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 416 of 430 Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Ghanshyam).
➢ That on 28.01.2011 pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Srikant @ Appu took the police party to the house of Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru at House No. D413, Sector 1, Avantika, Rohini and pointed out the said house to them (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That at the instance of accused Srikant @ Appu, the accused Surender @ Dheeraj was apprehended but he initially refused that he had given any pistol to Appu and hence he was taken to Crime Branch Office where the accused was interrogated at length wherein he disclosed that he had kept the pistol in his house (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That the accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru also disclosed to the police that he had given the pistol and four live cartridges to Srikant @ Appu on hire for 15 days for Rs.2,000/ and after 1012 days Srikant @ Appu returned the pistol and informed him that he had shot a fire from this pistol and robbed a Honda City Car from him (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That the accused also disclosed that Srikant @ Appu informed him about the incident of having shot the victim and asked him to clean the barrel of pistol on which he cleaned the same and concealed the firearm in his bed (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 417 of 430 ➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused Surender @ Dheeraj led the police party to his house from where he got recovered a pistol concealed in the clothes kept in the box of the bed and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Rupesh Kumar).
➢ That on checking the pistol was found to be of 7.65 mm and on opening was found to contain a live cartridge in the magazine after which it was taken into possession (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Rupesh Kumar).
➢ That on the same day i.e. 25.2.2011 the Investigating Officer received secret information about accused S. Raja that accused S. Raja would return to his house as his mother was not keeping well (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, ASI Suresh Kumar and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That thereafter a watch was kept in the area and the accused S. Raja was apprehended from near his house i.e. E399, JJ Colony, Inderpuri and on interrogation the accused S. Raja also disclosed his involved in the present case (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That pursuant to the disclosure statement the accused S. Raja led the police party to Bhiwani and pointed out towards a house in the Balmiki Basti as the house of Sombir where he had visited along with Appu on twothree occasions (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 418 of 430 Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That the accused S. Raja further disclosed that the mobile which had been robbed from the victim had been given to one Amit @ Bunty, a friend of Sombir and it was Sombir who was a friend of Appu who took him and Rajender Parshad @ Shalu to Amit @ Bunty for changing its IMEI number because it was an expensive mobile and they themselves had decided to use it (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That pursuant to his disclosure statement the accused S. Raja took the police party to the shop of Amit @ Bunty at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh but the accused Amit @ Bunty was not found there (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That on 02.03.2011 the accused Amit @ Bunty apprehended from his shop at WZ1621, Multani Mohalla, near NDPL Office, Rani Bagh, Delhi (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That the accused Amit @ Bunty led the police party to Hot Spot Spice mobile phone shop at Daryaganj where he had given the robbed mobile phone for repair (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That one Vishal Atwal who was working in the repair center identified the accused Amit @ Bunty and informed the police that the Xperia St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 419 of 430 mobile phone was given to him for repair by Amit @ Bunty through his friend namely Varun who is running shop in Rani Bagh market in the name and style of Nice Communications and after repair he handed over the mobile to Varun (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma, Vishal Atwal and Varun).
➢ That Vishal Atwal also checked his computer records and informed that the IMEI number of the deceased was running with one Vivek Vats, resident of Mumbai, on which SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar were directed to go to Mumbai and to recover the mobile (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Vishal Atwal).
➢ That the accused Amit @ Bunty went to his mobile shop at Multani Mohalla, Rani Bagh where Amit took out a key hidden in the drawer and open another drawer and took out the robbed mobile phone of the deceased, which mobile phone was then taken into possession (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That during investigations it was revealed that the IMEI number of recovered mobile number did not match with the repaired phone's IMEI number as intimated by Vishal Atwal and hence the Investigating Officer again went to Hot Spot Spice, Daryaganj where Vishal Atwal informed them that the repaired IMEI was interchanged St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 420 of 430 with the IMEI of one Balram resident of village Bahrampur, Gurgaon (proved by HC Amit Tomar, ASI Suresh Kumar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma, Balram, Vishal Atwal and Hemant Banswal).
➢ That Balram was then joined in the investigations who handed over to the Investigating Officer one black colored Sony Ericson Xperia mobile phone which was having the repaired IMEI number along with two job sheets, after which the mobile phone was seized and taken into possession (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli, Inspector Arti Sharma and Balram).
➢ That in the meanwhile SI Sharat Kohli and HC Amit Tomar traced the IMEI number of the deceased at Mumbai in the mobile phone of one Vivek Vats on which they went to Mumbai and seized the Mobile and came to know of the change of motherboard by the company (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli Vivek Vats, Vishal Atwal and Uma Shankar).
➢ That on 17.03.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep were apprehended from Tpoint, Rani Bagh Market on the road going towards M2K Cinema while they were coming in a Honda City Car bearing number plate HR26AK0728 (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender, SI Sharat and Kohli).
➢ That from the personal search of accused Sombir one 7.65 bore pistol with three live cartridges was also recovered from his possession (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender and SI Sharat Kohli but not St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 421 of 430 relevant to the present case).
➢ That one 7.65 bore pistol with three live cartridges was recovered from the possession of accused Sunil Kumar (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender and SI Sharat Kohli but not relevant to the present case).
➢ That one 315 bore desi katta with two live cartridges was recovered from the possession of Jaideep (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender and SI Sharat Kohli but not relevant to the present case).
➢ That SI Sharat Kohli checked the Engine and Chassis number of Honda City Car and it was found to be matching with the robbed car of Prateek Trikha bearing original number DL4CNC1115 after which the forged number plates bearing no. HR26AK0728 found installed on the Honda City Car were seized (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender and SI Sharat Kohli).
➢ That the accused Sombir disclosed that he said car was handed over to him by Appu and Shalu and thereafter he put a fake number plate of HR26AK0728 and tried to sell if of but could not succeed (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender and SI Sharat Kohli).
➢ That the accused Sombir also disclosed that it was he who had taken s.
Raja and Shalu to the shop of Amit @ Bunty for getting the IMEI number of the mobile phone changed (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender and SI Sharat Kohli).
➢ The accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep led the police party to a lonely gali in Industrial Area near Ghevra Phatak area near Tikri Border St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 422 of 430 from where they got recovered one Hyundai Accent car bearing fake number plate HR20P5349 which car was taken into possession and on inquiry it was found that a case vide FIR No. 37/11, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Rani Bagh had already been registered in this regard (proved by HC Amit Tomar, HC Narender and SI Sharat Kohli but the said recovery is only relevant in FIR No. 37/2011 and not in the present case).
➢ That on 23.03.2011 pursuant to a secret information the accused Rajender Parshad @ Shalu was apprehended from Rani Bagh Market (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That on interrogation the accused disclosed his involvement along with the accused Krishnamurthy, S. Raja, Neeraj and Srikant @ Appu (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That from the lower which the accused was wearing, some documents were found and the said documents on checking were found to be relating to fake registration certificate of Honda City car HR26 AK0728, one fake pollution certificate, one fake insurance certificate of the same vehicle (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma).
➢ That the accused disclosed that Sombir had got prepared these forged documents and handed over the same to him to facilitate told him to St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 423 of 430 sell this Honda City Car of the deceased bearing original No. DL4C NC1115 after putting fake No. HR26AK0728 (as put on the looted car) on the basis of these fabricated documents (proved by HC Amit Tomar, SI Sharat Kohli and Inspector Arti Sharma). (291) The Postmortem Report establishes an Abrasion 2 x 0.5cm over right molar region and 1 x 1 cm over back of left wrist which according to the Autopsy Surgeon were caused by friction against rough blunt surface and it is impossible that both the abrasions were on account of friction against rough surface on account of fall being in diametrically opposite directions. One abrasion was on the right molar region whereas other was over back of left wrist. It is the disclosures made by the accused Krishnamurthy @ Vicky, Neeraj, Srikant @ Appu, S. Raja and Rajender Prashad to the extent that the deceased Prateek Trikha was shot by Appu on asking of S. Raja as he was offering resistance when he was first given leg and fist blows and then caught from behind because he was not ready to hand over the keys of the car to the assailants only after which he was shot, which explains these injuries. The deceased was a young boy of 25 years with a good/ healthy built and had resisted the dacoity attempt due to which reason the accused had fired at him. The Medical Evidence on record, therefore, confirms the prosecution version and establishes that the death of the deceased Prateek Trikha was on account of gun shot injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature which injury was caused to him after he resisted St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 424 of 430 the dacoity and was given left and fist blows by the assailants and is compatible to the prosecution case.
(292) The Forensic Evidence establishes that the lead/ deformed piece of bullet recovered from the body of the deceased Prateek Trikha by the Autopsy Surgeon which after sealing was handed over to the Investigating Officer and when examined corresponded to the bullet of standard 7.65 mm cartridge and the cartridge case which was lifted from the spot of the incident where firing took place was discharged through the improvised pistol F1 of 7.65 mm caliber (i.e. Ex.PW12/2 in the Court) recovered from the house of the accused Surender @ Dheeru who was identified and pointed out by Srikant @ Appu and it is confirmed to be having the same individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks as that of cartridges test fired from this improvised pistol F1 (Ex.PW12/2 in the Court). This forensic report conclusively connects the use of this firearm Ex.PW12/2 (recovered from the house of Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru so pointed out by Srikant @ Appu) to the crime (i.e. bullet inside the body of the deceased and the cartridge case recovered from the spot) immediately after the incident.
(293) Further, the electronic evidence explains the change in the motherboard of the mobile phone of the deceased leading to the changed IMEI number and establishes the prosecution version and also corroborates and confirms the allegations against the accused. St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 425 of 430 (294) There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
(295) The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
(296) This being the background, the following charges stand established against the various accused for which they are hereby convicted:
1. The accused Krishnamurthy, Neeraj, S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu, Rajender Prashad and Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru are guilty of the offence under Section 120B read with Sections St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 426 of 430 201/395/396/397/412/467/468/471 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act (for conspiracy to commit an Armed Dacoity and committing murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm and thereafter by concealing and retaining the looted property of the victim i.e. Driving License, ABN Amro Card, Shoppers Stop Citizen First Card, visiting cards, mobile set make Sony Ericsion, Honda City Car bearing No. DL4CNC1115 and forging the number plates and creating fake documents of the forged number for disposing off the looted property and concealment of firearm for screening themselves from Legal Punishment). It is clarified that the murder of Prateek Trikha had been committed during the commission of dacoity therefore the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code are implicitly contained in Section 396 Indian Penal Code and therefore the provisions of Section 302 Indian Penal Code are not being separately invoked.
(a) The accused Krishnamurthy is also individually held guilty of the offence under Sections 395, 396 r/w 412 and 201 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by member of the gang and thereafter by concealing and retaining the looted property of the victim i.e. ABN Amro Card, Shoppers Stop Citizen First Card, visiting cards and for screening himself from legal punishment).
St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 427 of 430
(b) The accused Neeraj is also individually held guilty of the offence under Section Sections 395, 396 and 412 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by a member of gang and thereafter by concealing and retaining the looted property of the victim i.e. Driving License).
(c) The accused S. Raja is individually held guilty of the offence under Section Sections 395 and 396 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by a member of gang).
(d) The accused Srikant @ Appu is the person who had used a deadly weapon in the commission of offence and hence he is individually held guilty of the offence under Section 395 and Section 396 r/w 397 and 201 Indian Penal Code and Section 27 Arms Act (for committing an Armed Dacoity and murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm and its concealment).
(e) The accused Rajender Prashad @ Shalu is individually held guilty for the offence under Section 395, 396 and 467 Indian Penal Code (for committing an Armed Dacoity and committing murder by use of dangerous weapon/ firearm by a member of Gang and forging documents i.e. Registration St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 428 of 430 Certificate, Insurance and Pollution Certificate relating to the fake number given to the looted car in order to dispose off the same).
(f) The accused Surender @ Dheeraj @ Dheeru is individually held guilty of the offence under Section 201 Indian Penal Code and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act (for possession and supply of illegal firearm to the organized Gangs of Dacoits and local criminals and for concealment of firearm after use in order to screen the offenders from legal punishment).
2. The accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep are held guilty of the offence under Section 120B r/w 412/471/468/201 Indian Penal Code (for conspiracy to retain and conceal the looted Honda City Car of the deceased and by forging the number plates and using it as such in order to screen themselves from legal punishment) and the accused Amit @ Bunty and Sombir along with accused S. Raja, Srikant @ Appu and Rajender Prashad @ Shalu are also held guilty of the offence under Section 120B read with Section 201/ 412 Indian Penal Code (for conspiracy to retain and conceal the looted mobile set of the deceased and for changing its IMEI number in order to screen themselves from legal punishment while retaining the looted mobile).
(a) The accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep are individually St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 429 of 430 held guilty of the offence under Section 412 and 201 Indian Penal Code and also under Section 471 r/w 468 Indian Penal Code (for retaining and concealing the looted Honda City Car of the deceased and by forging the number plates and using it as such in order to screen themselves from legal punishment).
(b) The accused Amit @ Bunty is individually held guilty under Section 201 and 412 Indian Penal Code (for retaining and concealing the looted mobile set of the deceased and changing its IMEI number in order to screen the main offenders from Legal Punishment).
(297) In so far as the charges under Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act against the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep are concerned, I may observe that separate FIRs ought to have been registered in respect of the illegal firearms recovered from the possession of the respective accused. The recovery of firearms from the accused Sombir, Sunil and Jaideep is an altogether different transaction not relevant to the present case and hence, I am refraining myself from giving any findings in this regard and it is for the Investigating Agency to proceed against the accused in accordance with law. (298) Be listed for arguments on sentence on 17.7.2014.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 11.7.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Krishnamurthy Etc., FIR No. 439/10, PS Saraswati Vihar Page No. 430 of 430