Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs Muninder Panjeta on 9 April, 2018

     IN THE COURT OF MS. ASHA MENON : DISTRICT 
     & SESSIONS JUDGE : SOUTH DISTRICT :  SAKET
                          NEW DELHI
CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016
CNR­DLST01­000246­2010

State 
Versus
1      Muninder Panjeta 
       S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand
       R/o Village Alahar, PS Radour
       Distt. Yamuna Nagar (HR)
2      Saurabh Yadav S/o Sh. Shish Pal Yadav
       3126/256, Leo Chowk,
       Konishiwas Road, Rewari (HR)
3      Charan Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan
       54A, Gali No.9, Rewari (HR)
4      Narender Kumar S/o Sh. Hari Kishan
       196, Village Bajhgheda, Gurdaon
5      Raju Kumar S/o Sh. Balwant Singh
       R/o Village Babrabaki PO Jamal,
       Purushottam Gurgaon
              &
       C­280, New Palam Vihar,
       Phase­2, Gurgaon.
6      Himanshu Rathi
       S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
       1575 Sector­2, Rohtak (HR)

FIR NO.125/10
U/s  302/34 IPC
PS Vasant Vihar   

Instituted on: 07.08.2010
Judgment reserved on: 02.02.2018
Judgment pronounced on: 09.04.2018

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                          Page...1  of 136
                                 JUDGMENT

The   investigations   in   this   case   started   when   the  two   DDs were received at the PS Vasant Vihar, one informing that there was "jhagda", while the other was regarding "chaku ka vardat".  These DDs were recorded in the night of 10.05.2010 being DDs no.54A and 55A.  The Insp. Ved Prakash with his staff reached the place of occurrence, at village Katwaria Sarai Goombadwali gali, in front of the house no. A­375.  The charge­sheet records that when the Insp. Ved Prakash had reached the place of  occurrence, he found that there was a large angry crowd outside the house no. A­375 and two persons   were   being   beaten   up   by   the   crowd.     SI   Ajit   Pal,   ASI Arshad Ali and other staff of PS Vasant Vihar were trying to rescue these persons being beaten up.   Insp. Ved Prakash also took steps and  rescued these two persons and sent them in the PCR van with HC Lekh Raj and Ct. Kuldeep.   He thereafter pacified the crowd and also made some preliminary enquiries by which he came to know that one other person had been removed by the PCR van to the Trauma Centre.  He also learnt that the boys apprehended along with   their   associates   had   beaten   up   one   resident   of   the   village named Honey and had hit him with a knife and Honney had been removed to the Fortis hospital.

When Insp. Ved Prakash went to the hospital, he learnt that Honey had died.  He found Nitin Sansanwal in the hospital and he   recorded   his   statement,   on   the   basis   of   which   the   FIR   was lodged.   This statement of Nitin Sansanwal is to the   effect that CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...2  of 136 Nitin Sansanwal was a resident of B­27, village Katwaria Sarai, Sangam Vihar and that in the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010 at about 11.30 - 11.45 pm, one Joginder @ Tuli had called from his cell   phone   bearing   no.9711674898   on   Nitin   Sansanwal's   mobile no.9717558020   informing   him   that   some   boys   who   were   often teasing the village girls, had an argument with other boys and had asked Nitin Sansanwal to come immediately outside the shop of Dinesh Bansal.  When Nitin Sansanwal reached outside the shop / store of Dinesh Bansal, he saw that his cousin brother Honey was having some tussle with other boys who were residing in the next gali as tenants and those boys had also threatened to kill Honey. He also saw Joginder @ Tuli and Avinash who were youngsters of the village trying to rescue Honey.   Nitin Sansanwal also tried to rescue his cousin from the hands of the other boys. 

The   7­8   boys   suddenly   pounced   upon   proclaiming "gaon ka bada thekedaar banta hai issue aaj maar dete hain" and immediately one short and stout boy stabbed Honey with a knife on his right side and another  boy who had an iron rod, hit Honey on the   head   with  the   iron   rod.     The  other   boys   were   slapping   and kicking   Honey.     In   a   little   while,   Honey   fell   down,   covered   in blood and on seeing Honey fall in an injured condition, all the boys ran away in the direction of the gali adjacent to the Bansal General Store and the people who had gathered there ran after them.  Nitin Sansanwal   picked   up   Honey   and   called   the   people   to   help   him remove Honey to the hospital.  Dinesh Bansal, Joginder & Tuli and Avinash   came   forward   to   help   him.     In   the   meantime,   Dinesh CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...3  of 136 Bansal told Nitin Sansanwal that the boys involved were tenants of Harish and the boy who had struck with the knife was Muninder Panjeta, the one who gave a blow with the rod was Saurabh Yadav and the other boys were Narender, Raju Kumar, Himanshu. Rathi and   Charan   Singh.     He   also   told   Nitin   Sansanwal   that   he   was familiar with these boys as they used to purchase articles from his store.   Nitin Sansanwal in his statement also told the police that when   he   brought   Honey   to   the   Fortis   hospital,   the   doctor   after examining Honey declared him dead.

On this statement, the FIR No.125/2010 was registered at the PS Vasant Vihar (Ex.PW.9/A) on the endorsement made by Insp. Ved Prakash, Ex.PW.9/B.   The charge­sheet reveals that the boys   who   had   been   taken   to   the   Trauma   Centre,   as   they   were beaten by the crowd, were brought to the Police Station by the police   who   had   taken   them   to   the   Trauma   Centre   and   their identities were revealed as Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan   Singh.     They   were   arrested.     Subsequently,   the   other accused   Narender,   Raju   Kumar,     Himanshu   Rathi   were   also arrested.     The   charge­sheet   and   the   supplementary   charge­sheet were submitted against them and the case was committed for trial to the Sessions.

The charge for commission of the offence punishable U/s   302/34   IPC   was   framed   against   all   the   accused   persons   to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution  has examined a total of 41 witnesses. The statements of the accused U/s 313 Cr.PC were recorded.  They CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...4  of 136 did not lead any evidence in  defence.

The   accused   Himanshu   Rathi   claimed   that   he   was innocent and falsely implicated in the case and he was not present at the spot nor was he in Delhi at the time of the alleged incident. He   also   stated   that   he   had   no   history   of   any   quarrel   with   the deceased and his friends.

The   accused   Muninder   Panjeta   claimed   that   he   was innocent and falsely implicated in the case and had nothing to do with the case.  He stated that on 10.5.2010 when he and his friend Saurabh Yadav were present at their  accommodation, they were badly beaten by the public and thereafter they were apprehended by the police and implicated in this case.

The  accused   Charan   Singh  claimed   that  he   too   was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.  He stated that on the fateful day, he had come to his college to collect the admit card for his examination and  he was asked to come to collect the admit card in the post lunch session.  He tried to get the admit card in the post lunch session till 5 pm, but he was unable to get it and as the college staff asked him to come next dauy, he had gone to his friend's room at Katwaria Saria.  There he refreshed himself and changed his clothes.  At about 8/9 pm, he had gone for dinner and after taking dinner while returning to the room, he lost his way and entered   another   gali.     There   three   persons   were   shouting   that unknown   persons   were   draining   petrol   from   the   vehicles   in   the locality and seeing him as a new person, apprehended him.  He was also handed over to the PCR van as   a "petrol   thief" and during CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...5  of 136 this course, he started bleeding from his nose of its own.

The   accused   Saurabh   Yadav   claimed   that   he   was innocent and falsely implicated in this case and had nothing to do with  the case.   He  stated  that  on 10.05.2010,  he and  his  friend Muninder Panjeta  were present in their accommodation when they were badly beaten by the locals and apprehended by the police and later on  implicated in this case.

The accused Raju Kumar claimed that he was innocent and falsely implicated in this case and that he was not present at the given date, time and place and that he had never quarrelled with the deceased  or any of his friends at any point of time.  He stated that his exams were going on at the aforesaid time and he did not visit the place in question during those days.

The   accused   Narender   Kumar   stated   that   he   was innocent and falsely implicated in this case.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE It will be useful to refer to the testimonies of the 41 witnesses   examined   by   the   prosecution.   The   prosecution   has examined Harish as PW.1.  He deposed that in the month of May or June, 2010 on the 10th  or 11th, he had rung up the police after witnessing a quarrel between the boys Honey of Katwaria Sarai and Saurabh Yadav, Narender, Raju Kumar and some other boys. One of those boys had given a knife blow to Honey and thereafter, some of the boys had taken Honey to the hospital.  He deposed that the police had made enquiries from him about the incident.   He identified the accused Saurabh Yadav and Narender while stating CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...6  of 136 that the boys who were quarrelling with Honey were present in the Court.  He was not able to identify Raju Kumar.  He had only heard the name of Raju Kumar.

Ld. APP for the State put some leading questions to the witness on some material points.  The witness stated that he had given accommodation to the accused Narender, Saurabh Yadav and Raju Kumar Singh prior to the incident.   He stated that accused Muninder Panjeta and Himanshu. Rathi were not his tenants.   He admitted as correct that he had stated to the police that he had told the police that the accused persons were teasing the girls of the village causing annoyance to the village people and the deceased Honey had also raised objection to this fact.  

However,   he   denied   making   statement   to   the   police that on the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010 at about 11.30 pm, he was present at his house when he heard noise of quarrel and came down and saw that   his tenants Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav, Himanshu. Rathi and Narender and two other companions namely Charan Singh and Raju Kumar running from the side of Bansal   General   Store   towards   their   room   and   that   the   villagers were saying that they had assaulted Honey with a knife.  He stated that he had apprehended the accused Saurabh Yadav in a flat but denied that the accused Muninder Panjeta and Charan Singh were also apprehended by him.   He deposed that thereafter the crowd collected there and beaten the accused Saurabh Yadav and some other boys whose names he did not know.   The police reached the spot and had taken the accused Saurabh Yadav and the other boys CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...7  of 136 to the hospital.  He denied having stated to the police that he had apprehended   the   three   accused   namely   the   accused   Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh in the flat and the crowd had beaten them up and thereafter the police had taken them to the hospital.  

He admitted that he had stated to the police that three boys had escaped from outside the flat.  He admitted that the police had recorded his statement on 08.09.2010 wherein he had stated that  the  accused   Saurabh  Yadav   son  of   Sh.  R.  Prakash  was  his cousin  who was residing in Katwaria Sarai and that he had taken one mobile phone no.9213953376 around 10 or 11 months back with the ID of Sumit, which mobile phone  he was using then and that   after   seeing   the   incident   in   the   intervening   night   of 10/11.05.2010, he   had  rung up the at no.100 from that mobile phone.   He again identified the accused Saurabh Yadav and Raju Kumar correctly but claimed that he could not identify the accused Muninder Panjeta,Himanshu Rathi and Charan Singh.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he was   confronted   with   his   statement,   U/s   161   Cr.PC   dated 11.05.2010 Mark A wherein it was not recorded that the police had made enquiries from him about the incident and he had narrated the facts as deposed to by him and that boys who were quarreling with Honey were Saurabh Yadav and Narender.  He admitted as correct that   he   was   available   in   the   village   at   his   residence   from 11.05.2010 to 08.09.2010 and was always available to the police if CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...8  of 136 they had wanted to record his statement.   He stated the had not handed over any proof with regard to the tenancy of the accused. The flat belonged to his father and his father was available in the village.     He   denied   the   suggestion   that   he   had   never   made   any telephonic   call   on   11.05.2010   at   11.45   pm.     He   denied   that   he deposed  falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer and the family members of the deceased.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   R.K.   Singh,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar, he admitted that the accused Raju Kumar Kumar was never his tenant and was not known to him prior to the incident.  He also stated that he had not seen the accused   Raju   Kumar   at   the   spot   and   that   he   had   named   as   the people were doing so.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   R.S.   Hooda,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, this witness stated that the  people   who  had  collected  at  the  spot   were  from  the  village Katwaria Sarai as well as some tenants.   He had not named any member from out of the crowd who had assembled at the spot.  He denied that he was a planted witness or deposing falsely.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender. this witness stated that he would get the police   verification   done   before   keeping   the   tenants   in   the   flat however, he had not got the police verification done of the accused Narender as he had been inducted as tenant only a week prior to the incident.  He denied that he had not got the police verification done because the accused Narender was never his tenant.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...9  of 136 There   was   no   cross­examination   on   behalf   of   the accused Charan Singh.

PW.2 is Satish.  He deposed that he used to do private work.     On   11.05.2010,   at   about   11/11.30   pm,   he   was   present outside the residence No.375­A belonging to Harish.  At that time, the SHO, PS Vasant Vihar along with other staff had come there. Several other persons were also standing there and they were asked to join the recovery proceedings / investigations.  Out of the crowd, he i.e. PW.2 himself agreed to join the investigations whereas all the   other   persons   refused   to   join   the   same.     During   the investigations, the SHO, PS Vasant Vihar revealed the names of the two persons as Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav. Both of them disclosed that they had thrown / concealed the weapons of offence i.e knife and rod in the house No.375­A, room no.16 on the tand.  The police had taken out the knife from the tand which was approximately of 30/31 cms long and its blade was around 3 to 4 cms. wide and the knife was having blood stains.   The knife had the name of Muninder.   The rod and knife were sealed and seized vide memos, Ex.PW.6/A and Ex.PW.6/B.  He identified the knife as Ex.P1 and the rod as Ex.P2.

During the cross­examination by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness stated he had belonged to the village of the deceased and the witness Nitin Sansanwal.  He stated that the police officials had met him at about 11/11.30 pm in the   village.   He did not kn ow whether any finger prints were lifted from the knife and the rod.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...10  of 136 He stated that the seal impression was not put on the blank paper before using on the  pulanda by the Investigating Officer  and the seal after use was kept by the SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash himself.  He stated that neither the family of Harish nor Harish was present at that time.  He further stated that the distance between the house of Harish and his own house may be covered in 2 to 3 minutes.  

He admitted as correct that the house of Harish was situated in a populated area and was at the end of the village and the gali was not a thoroughfare.   He also admitted as correct that there was a Bansal General Store and other houses near the house of Harish.  He stated that Nitin Sansanwal was not with the police at   the   time   of   recovery.     He   also   admitted   that   no   disclosure statement was ever made by the accused Muninder Panjeta or  the accused Saurabh Yadav in his presence.   He was also confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.2/DA wherein it was not recorded that both the persons had disclosed that they had thrown / concealed the weapons of offence i.e. a knife and a rod in the house no.375­A, room no.16 on the tand.  He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the Investigating Officer.

This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of the other accused persons.

PW.3  is Joginder @ Tuli.   He deposed that he was studying in the 10th class from the Open School from Dev College, Munirka.  He deposed that the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav, Himanshu Rathi and Raju Kumar   used to reside near the house   of   the   deceased   Honey.     He   deposed   that   the   accused CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...11  of 136 Muninder   Panjeta   and   Saurabh   Yadav   used   to   drive   their motorcycles at high speed and used to also tease the village girls and the deceased Honey objected to their driving motorcycles at a high speed and eve teasing the girls.   He further deposed that on 10.05.2010, he along with Avinash and Honey had gone to Bansal Store and at that time, the accused Muninder Panjeta, Himanshu Rathi, Raju Kumar and Charan Singh were standing there and they started abusing Honey on the old issue.  

After that, they all returned.  After a while they were going from the side of Bansal store and found all the accused were still standing there. The witness deposed that the accused Muninder Panjeta told his associate about Honey saying "ye gaon ka bahut daada   banta   hai,   aaj   isko   dekhte   hain".     The   witness   further deposed that thereafter all the accused started beating Honey with fists   blows   and   kicks.     He   then   informed   Nitin   Sansanwal,   the brother   of   the   deceased   Honey   while   the   accused   persons   were beating Honey.   In the meantime, the accused Muninder Panjeta and   Saurabh   Yadav   went   towards   their   room.     He   along   with Avinash   tried   to  rescue  Honey.    The  accused  Muninder  Panjeta came back with a knife while the accused Saurabh Yadav brought an iron rod.  In the meantime, Nitin Sansanwal also reached at the spot and he also intervened.  

The   witness   further   deposed   that   first,   the   accused Saurabh Yadav gave a blow to Honey with the iron rod and then the accused Muninder Panjeta struck with a knife on the right side of   the   chest   of   Honey.     The   witness   stated   that   he   along   with CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...12  of 136 Avinash and Nitin Sansanwal carried the injured to the hospital where the injured was declared brought dead by the doctor.   He deposed that the accused persons were present in the court.

In the cross­examination by the Sh. R.S. Hooda, Ld. Counsel   for   the   accused   Himanshu   Rathi,   the   witness   was confronted with his statement Ex.DA, in which he had not named the accused Himanshu Rathi as being the resident of the vicinity. He   was   confronted   with   his   statement   Ex.DA   where   the   words "girls of our village" was not recorded.  He admitted as correct that the whole dispute was with the boys who started living as tenants of Harish.  He stated that Harish did not belong to his village.  He stated that  he had told to the police that the accused Himanshu Rathi, Raju Kumar and Charan Singh were found standing with the accused   Muninder   Panjeta   in   front   of   the   Bansal   General   store where   Honey   exchanged   abuses   with   them   and   was   confronted with   his   statement,   Ex.DA   where   the   names   of   the   accused Himanshu Rathi, Raju Kumar and Charan Singh were not recorded.

The witness further stated that after coming from the street, they had again gone  in front of the Bansal Store for about half an hour.   He explained that they had left for their respective houses and returned after having their meals.   Thereafter, they had assembled   at   the   house   of   Harish.     He   stated   that   he   had   not informed   anyone   from   his   house   or   anyone   from   the   house   of Harish and Avinash or any other person about the altercation which had occurred between him and the accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends.  The witness further stated that they were going for a CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...13  of 136 walk but the accused had met them in front of the Bansal General Store in the street.  

He was confronted with his statement, Ex.DA wherein it is not recorded that the accused Muninder Panjeta had exhorted his companions to teach Honey a lesson.  He was again confronted with his statement, Ex.DA wherein it was not recorded that the accused Muninder Panjeta and others abruptly left for their rooms and that the remaining accused continued to assault Honey till the two returned.   The witness further stated that he had telephoned Nitin   Sansanwal   about   an   altercation   just   before   the   accused Muninder Panjeta   and Saurabh Yadav left the spot.   He deposed that when Nitin Sansanwal reached the spot, the accused Saurabh Yadav   and   Muninder   Panjeta   had   come   back   to   the   spot.     He further submitted that the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav   instantaneously   after   their   arrival   inflicted   injuries   upon Honey.  

He deposed that a crowd had gathered there at the time of   occurrence   due   to   which   he   could   not   identify   the   persons gathered at the spot.  He was confronted with his statement, Ex.DA wherein it was recorded as having told the police, that after seeing blood oozing out  of Honey's body, the accused ran away from the spot into the street adjoining Bansal General Store and the people who had gathered there had pursued them.  He admitted as correct that some of the accused were caught hold of by the people   and given beatings and they were handed over to the police.  He stated that neither he nor Avinash nor Nitin Sansanwal had been injured.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...14  of 136 He denied that he was a planted witness or that he had been told by the others  including the  family members of  Honey to name the accused persons or that he was not present at the time occurrence.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   Jagmal   Singh,   Ld. Counsel   for   the   accused   Charan   Singh,   the   witness   was   again confronted   with   his   statement   Ex.DA   wherein   the   name   of   the accused   Charan   Singh   was   not   recorded   as   residing   with   the accused Muninder Panjeta in the vicinity of the deceased Honey.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Sanjay Khatana, Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar, he was confronted with his statement, Ex.DA wherein he claimed that the accused Raju Kumar Kumar used to reside with Monu in the vicinity of the deceased Honey.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness stated that the distance between the Bansal Store and the alleged place of incident was about 2 to 3 yards.     The store was open at that time and two to four persons were also present in the store.  He stated that the first incident  using abusive language had taken place at around 11.10 pm after which they had gone back to their respective houses and taken dinner.   He stated that they had not   apprised   their   parents   about   the   incident.     He   admitted   as correct that even at the time of the first incident,   a lot of people had   collected   there.     He   was   sought   to   be   confronted   with   his statement, Ex.DA about the accused Muninder Panjeta and others driving   their   motorcycles   at   a   high   speed   and   eve   teasing   the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...15  of 136 village   girls   and   the   deceased   Honey   objecting   to   their   driving motorcycles at high speed and eve teasing village girls.  But it was found recorded in Ex.DA that the accused Muninder Panjeta and his three­four companions used to live in the vicinity of deceased Honey and used to stay at the village well in the evening and used to eve tease the girls passing by and that   they used to drive the motorcycles at fast speed on which the deceased Honey used to oppose.  

The witness was further confronted with his statement Ex.DA   in   respect   of   the   statement   made   in   the   court   that   on 10.05.2010, he along with Avinash and Harish had gone to Bansal General   Store     where   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta,   Himanshu Rathi, Raju Kumar and Charan Singh were standing and they had started abusing the deceased Honey on the old issue.  He was also confronted with his statement Ex.DA about the accused Muninder Panjeta   and   Saurabh   Yadav   coming   with   a   knife   and   iron   rod respectively and the accused Saurabh Yadav giving a blow with the iron rod and the accused Muninder Panjeta giving a knife blow on the right side of the chest.  The witness admitted as correct that his own   residence   was   in   another   Mohalla   behind   the   Mohalla   of Harish, where the accused persons were tenants and the distance was about 500 meters.  He also admitted as correct that the house of Harish was the last in the vicinity and there was wall of IIT and nobody could go beyond the house of Harish.   He stated that the house of Avinash was situated on the main road at a distance of 1 Km from the house of Harish.  

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...16  of 136 The witness stated that his statement was recorded on 11.05.2010 i.e. the next day in the police post in the noon time.  He also stated that the police had met him in the night of 10.05.2010 in the hospital itself.  He remained with the police for about half an hour in the night of 10.05.2010 when Avinash was also with him. He had not noticed whether Harish and Satish were present at the hospital.  He stated that the first incident had taken place at about 11.10 PM and the second incident had taken place at about 11.30 PM.  Regarding the first incident he stated that it had lasted for two minutes.     He   admitted   as   correct   that   they   had     decided   before departing for their respective houses   that they would be together again in front of the house of  Honey near the well after taking meal.  He stated that it would take 2 to 3 minutes from the house of Harish to the well.  He stated that the distance between the place of incident  and the house of Harish was about 4 to 5 meters.   He admitted   as   correct   that   the   house   of   Harish   was   situated   in   a thickly populated area and there were houses on the left side and the right side and in front of the house of Harish.  The width of the gali where the incident took   place was about 200 meters and the distance between the Bansal store and the place of incident was about one and half meters according to this witness.  The witness further deposed that after the incident Nitin Sansanwal had come to the   spot   within   two   minutes.     The   injured   was   removed   to   the hospital by him though he had not handed over his blood stained clothes to the police and stated his inability to produce the clothes as he had thrown them away.  

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...17  of 136 In   the   further   cross­examination,   this   witness   stated that on 11.05.2010, he was available in the village at his residence if the police had wanted him to join investigations.   He deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the police.  He stated that in his presence, neither the police nor the crime team had come and he could  not tell whether any finger prints or foot prints were lifted from the place of incident.  He admitted that he was a close friend of   the   deceased   Honey  and   also   belonged   to   the   same   village. However, he denied that he has deposed falsely to implicate the accused   being   the   co­villager   or   at   the   instance   of   the   family members of the deceased Honey.  He denied that he had never seen any quarrel between the Honey and the accused persons.

The witness was re­examined during which he  stated that his mobile no. was 9711674898 which stood in the name of one Prashant who was his previous tenant and who had now shifted to some unknown place.  He stated that on the date of the incident, he had called from the said mobile number to  Nitin at about 11.30 pm and then to Brahm Singh after about 10 to 15 minutes.   He stated that he had informed Nitin Sansanwal and Brahm Singh that they should come immediately as Honey had been stabbed by a knife though he stated that he had informed Nitin Sansanwal about the quarrel and after about 15 minutes, he had informed Brahm Singh that Honey had been stabbed by knife.

PW.4 is Sumit Kumar. He deposed that he had given his   Tata   Indicom   mobile   phone   No.9213953376   and   the   said mobile phone had been used by Harish for informing the police CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...18  of 136 about the incident.

In   his   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he stated that the distance between the  village of Hiran Kudna and the village Katwaria Sarai was about 30 to 35 Kms..  He denied that he was deposing only to fill the lacuna in the prosecution's case.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for   the   accused   Narender,   the   witness   was   confronted   with   his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC, Ex.DE wherein it was not recorded that Harish   had   used   his   mobile   phone   for   the   purpose   of   giving information to the police.

PW.5  is   Dr.   Subrata   Gorai,   Incharge   (Emergency) Fortis Hospital, New Delhi who deposed on behalf of Dr. S. Sajid Mir who had examined the patient Honey Sansanwal who had been brought by Nitin Sansanwal, his cousin brother on 11.05.2010 at 12 mid­night to the Casualty of   the Fortis hospital with the alleged history   of   assault   by   several   persons   with   sharp   object.     This history according to PW.5 had been given by Nitin Sansanwal.  On local examination, there was a large stab wound approximately 10 X 55 cms in right upper chest bleeding profusely.  The patient on examination   was   found   to   be   dead   on   arrival.     The   nature   of injuries was opined as dangerous.  He brought on record the MLC, Ex.PW.5/A.  He also deposed that the security officer informed the PCR.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Sanjay Khatana, Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar, he stated that he had not seen CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...19  of 136 the patient personally and therefore, he had no personal knowledge of the case.

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination by Sh. Nitin Rai  Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he stated that it was correct that the permanent address of doctors are maintained in the hospital and that no communication with regard to the summons had been sent to Dr. Sajid Mir  who is a resident of Kashmir.  He stated that the deceased Honey was not examined in his presence by Dr Sajid Mir, nor the MLC was prepared in his presence.

In response to the questions put by Sh. R.S. Hooda, Ld. Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, it was stated that as per   the   MLC,   there   were   several   injuries   on   the   person   of   the deceased except as mentioned in the MLC.

PW.6  is   L/Ct.   Bala   Sharma.     She   deposed   that   on 10.05.2010, she was posted as a Constable at Channel No.1125 of the   PCR.     Her   duty   hours   were   from   8   pm   to   8   am.     On   the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010 at about 23.44.24 hours, she received   a   call   from   one   Sumit   Kumar   on   the   mobile   no. 9213953376 regarding a quarrel at 875­A Katwaria Sarai, Gumbad Wali gali no.1 which she recorded and sent the information to the PS Vasant Vihar vide the form, Ex.PW.6/A. This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.

                 PW.7  is   Deepak,   the   Assistant   Nodal   Officer,
Vodafone.     He   brought   on   record   of   the   Vodafone   prepaid

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                                         Page...20  of 136

connection   of   mobile   no.9711674898   issued   in   the   name   of Prashant  son of Sh. S.C. Sharma, resident of 186A, 4/2, Mehrauli, New   Delhi.     The   application   form   was   brought   on   record   as Ex.PW.7/A with the copies of the ID proofs being Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. He   also   brought   on   the   record   the   CAF   of   the   mobile no.9999037283 issued in the name of Brahm Singh son of Sh. Veer Singh, resident of F­III, near tomb,  Katwaria Sarai as Ex.PW.7/B and the photocopies of the ID proofs photocopy as Mark P3. 

He further deposed that on 27.08.2010, the company had provided the call details with the ownership details, copies of the mobile numbers to the SHO, PS Vasant Vihar along with the certificate.   The letter has been brought on record as Ex.PW.7/C with   the   certificates   Ex.PW.7/D   and   Ex.PW.7/E.     The   witness further   brought   on   record   the   call   detail   records   of   the   mobile no.9711674898 for the period 09.05.2010 to 12.05.2010 running into 8 pages as Ex.PW.7/F1 to Ex.PW.7/F8 (collectively).  The call detail   records   of   the   mobile   no.9999037283   for   the   period 09.05.2010 to 12.05.2010 running into 4 pages have been brought on record   by this witness as Ex.PW.7/G1 to Ex.PW.7/G4.   He further   submitted   that   as   per   the   call   detail   records,   the   mobile no.9711674898   dated   10.05.2010   was   located   at   23.17.29   hours (Jia Sarai) at 23.21.35 hours (Katwaria Sarai) and 23.55.09 hours (Qutab  Institutional   area),  and   calls  had  been   received  from  the mobile   no.9717558020.     Three   calls   had   been   made   from   the mobile No.9711674898 to mobile no.9717558020 on 10.05.2010 at 23.16.34 hours (Katwaria Sarai) and immediately after this, a call CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...21  of 136 had   been   made   from   mobile   no.9999037283   to   no.100   on 10.05.2010  at 23.50.47 hours (Katwaria Sarai).

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, the  mobile  nos.9999037283 and Mobile no. 9711674898 stood in the names of Brahm Singh and Prashant respectively on the date of the incident and the two mobile numbers were not allotted to any other person at the time and date of the incident.  He stated that the location of the mobile phones which he had mentioned were tower locations.  He, however, could not specifically state  what  was the area of coverage of the tower, but stated that generally, a tower covered an area ranging from 0.5 km to 2.5 km..  He denied that he was suppressing the information.

This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any of the other accused.

PW.8  is   ASI Kishan Lal.   He deposed that he was posted as duty officer on 10.05.2010 at the PS Vasant Vihar from 4 pm to 12 mid­night.  He stated that on that night at about 11.53 pm, he received a PCR call through Wireless Operator   S (Sheera)­60 which pertained to a quarrel at A­375, Katwaria Sarai.   He stated that he recorded this message vide DD No.54A and the copy of the same   was   handed   over   to   ASI   Arshad   Ali.     The   DD   has   been brought on record as Ex.PW.8/A.  He further deposed that at about 11.55 pm,  he again received a PCR call through Wireless Operator which pertained to the stabbing at Devi Singh's house in Katwaria Sarai   and   he   recorded   this   message   vide   DD   no.55A   and   the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...22  of 136 information was sent to the SI Ajit Pal through the telephone call. This DD has been brought on record as Ex.PW.8/B. In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination by Sh. Nitin  Rai Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness denied that the DDs were fabricated at the instance of the Investigating Officer or that no such information was ever received by him.

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, he submitted that the ASI Arshad Ali was not present in the Police Station when the witness had recorded the DD No.54A and he had informed ASI Arshad Ali on phone.  He stated that he had handed over the DD No.54A to ASI Arshad Ali personally.  He also stated that   immediately   on   receipt   of   information   recorded   as   DD No.55A, he had informed the SI Ajit Pal on phone.  It was within five minutes of such receipt of information.

No other questions were put in the cross­examination on behalf of the other accused.

PW.9  is   HC   Devender   Singh.     He   deposed   that   on 11.05.2010 he was posted on the PCR van and was working from 12 mid­night to 8 am.  He deposed that on that night  at about 4.15 am, he received a rukka from Ct. Raj Kumar which was sent by Insp.   Ved   Prakash,   the   SHO,   PS   Vasant   Vihar,   on   the   basis   of which rukka, the computerized copy of the FIR NO.125/2010 U/s 302/34   IPC   was   registered   by   the   Computer   Operator. Computerized   copy   of   the   FIR   has   been   brought   on   record   as CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...23  of 136 Ex.PW.9/A.  He also made endorsement on the rukka, Ex.PW.9/B. He   deposed   that   the   copies   of   the   FIR   were   sent   to   the   Senior Officials   and   to   the   Ilaka   MM   through   a   Constable   as   Special Messanger.  He further deposed that he had handed over the copy of the FIR and the original rukka to Ct.  Raj Kumar to be given to the Insp. Ved Prakash for investigations.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   Jagmal   Singh,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh, the witness stated that it was correct that there was no person at the time when the FIR was registered on the computer.   He also did not know whether the person who had brought the rukka was present at the said computer or not.   He stated that it was correct that the said person was not present with the witness at that time.

PW.10 is Avinash Malik. He has deposed that he lived in Katwaria Sarai.  The accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends used to stay in the house of Harish and used to live in the same area.  The witness deposed that they used to tease the girls passing by while sitting at the well and that the villagers were agitated  by this.  Honey also used to object.  Due to this, the accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends vacated the room in which they were living after 10 to 11 days and lived in the room of Harish.  The witness further deposed that on 10/11­05­2010, he along with Joginder @ Tuli   and   Honey   were   strolling   in   the   Goombadwali   gali.     The accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends started abusing Honey on the old issue of teasing girls.  

He deposed that they came back from there after about CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...24  of 136 half an hour.  The witness along with Joginder @ Tuli and Avinash were strolling in the area of Bansal General Store.   The acused Muninder Panjeta and his friends Himanshu Rathi, Charan Singh, Saurabh  Yadav and  Raju  Kumar  started  beating  Honey.   In the meantime, the witness Joginder telephoned Nitin Sansanwal and he also arrived.  The accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends gave beatings to Honey and the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav then went to their rooms and the accused Muninder Panjeta came back with a knife and the accused Saurabh Yadav returned with an iron rod.  The accused Muninder Panjeta stabbed Honey on the right side of his chest with the knife and the accused Saurabh Yadav gave lathi blow to Honey on the head from behind.   The witness stated that he became frightened and ran away from there. He returned after about 15 minutes to the place of occurrence and found Honey lying on the ground in a pool of blood.  He deposed that he, Nitin Sansanwal and Joginder @ Tuli lifted Honey and took him to Fortis hospital where he was declared brought dead. The witness stated that his statement was recorded   at the Police Booth, Katwaria Sarai.  He further identified correctly the accused Charan Singh, Raju Kumar and Muninder Panjeta.   He identified the accused Saurabh Yadav as Himanshu Rathi.  He was not able to identify the other accused.

Ld. APP for the State put some leading questions to this   witness   on   some   material   points.     During   such   cross­ examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness stated that he had stated to the police in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC that the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...25  of 136 accused Muninder Panjeta with 4 to 5 associates namely Saurabh Yadav, Himanshu Rathi, Raju Kumar and   Narender  and others also   were   standing   in   front   of   Bansal   General   Store.     He   also admitted that he had stated to the police in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC that before giving beatings to Honey, the accused Muninder Panjeta and his associates had told "yeh gaon ka bada dada banta hai,  aaj saale ko jaan se maar dete hain".  He  further stated that the accused persons present in the Court today were also present in the night on the date of the incident, though he did not know the names of some of them.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   Jagmal   Singh,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh, by Sh. Sanjay Khatana,. Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar and   Ld. Proxy Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, the witness stated that his statement was recorded by the police only once and that was at the police chowki.   He further stated that prior to the date of the incident, there   was   no   complaint   regarding   eve   teasing   by   the   accused Charan Singh.  He further stated that he had reported the matter of eve teasing to the father of Nitin Sansanwal but he did not recall the name of the father of Nitin Sansanwal or the date on which he had made such a complaint to the father of Nitin Sansanwal.   He denied that he had made no such complaint as infact no incident of eve teasing had taken place. 

The witness deposed that he had not seen the accused Charan   Singh   before   the   date   of   incident   but   he   denied   the suggestion that the accused Charan Singh did not live as a tenant in CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...26  of 136 the village.  The witness did not remember as to whose tenant the accused Charan Singh was but claimed that the accused Charan Singh lived in the Mohalla of Honey.  The witness further deposed in the cross­examination that in the night of 10.05.2010, the first quarrel   took   place   at   about   9/10  pm.     He   stated   as   correct   that thereafter he had gone to his house for dinner.   He stated that he had not informed the family members about the quarrel when he had gone for dinner.   He spent half an hour to take dinner.   The distance   between   place   of   occurrence   and   his   house   could   be covered in 10 to 15 minutes on foot.  He did not remember whether there was any  street light at the spot.  He denied that the spot was a dark place as there was light source about 6 to 7 feet away from the spot.  

He further deposed that he had come back to the spot to   meet   Monu   and   met   him   at   about   10.35/11   pm.     He   had, however,   not   told   this   fact   to   the   police.     The   witness   further deposed that the quarrel took place only after 10 minutes after his meeting   with   Monu   and   after   Monu   had   left.     He   admitted   as correct that when the quarrel took place several people numbering 10   to   15   had   gathered.     He   was   confronted   with   his   statement, Ex.PW.10/DA wherein it was not recorded that the knife injury was inflicted by the accused Muninder Panjeta and a blow with the rod   was   given   by   the   accused   Saurabh   Panjeta.     He   denied   the suggestion that he did not know as to who had given the blows.  He denied that he was not present at the spot or that he was introduced subsequently by the police.  

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...27  of 136 He   denied   the   suggestion   that   the   accused   Charan Singh had not given fist and leg blows.  He was confronted with his statement,   Ex.PW.10/DA   wherein   it   was   not   recorded   that   the accused persons used to reside in the house of Harish or the fact that   after   half   an   hour   he,   Joginder   @   Tuli   and   Honey   were strolling in front of Bansal General Store as it was found recorded in Ex.PW.10/DA that the accused persons were standing in front of Bansal General Store and  not strolling.  The witness further denied the suggestion that the accused Raju Kumar was not present at the spot or that the accused Raju Kumar was never a tenant in village Kataria Sarai.   He denied that he had identified the accused Raju Kumar wrongly at the behest of the police.  

He further stated that it was correct that his clothes were   stained   with   blood   when   they   had   removed   Honey   to   the hospital but stated that the police did not seize the blood stained clothes.   He further stated that he did not meet the police in the hospital but denied the suggestion that he did not meet the police because the witness had not gone to the hospital.   He stated that neither Monu nor any of his family members had come out of his house when the quarrel was going on, though he resided in a flat adjoining Bansal General Store.  He denied the suggestion that the accused   Charan   Singh   was   not   present   at   the   spot   or   that   the accused Himanshu Rathi was never a tenant in the village Katwaria Sarai or that he was deposing falsely at the behest of the police.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, the witness stated that they used to meet CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...28  of 136 at 1 / 1.30 pm at Harish's house.  Then, they used to go in park and kept on talking there.  They used to return from the park at 5.30 pm and used to go home together.  Thereafter, they used to come out of the house at about 7/7.30 pm and used to meet again and kept on sitting for hours till 8/8.30pm.   Thereafter, they used to come to their respective houses and again used to meet at 9/9.30 pm and return home  at  about   12 mid­night / 12.30  am.   This  was  their routine for the last one month from the date of the incident.   He further deposed that there were several girls in the village but he had not given the names of the girls who had been  teased, to the police.  He also did not know whether the girls who were subjected to eve teasing ever reported the matter to the police.   He further stated that neither he, nor Joginder nor Harish had called the police at no.100 to lodge a complaint about the eve teasing of the village girls.  He denied the suggestion that the accused persons had never indulged in eve teasing or that he was  deposing to this effect at the instance of the Investigating Officer.  

The witness further deposed that he had remained at the spot for about two / two and half hours and left the spot at around 1 am or 1.30 am and during that time, no police person had reached the spot.   He had met Dinesh Bansal in the evening the next day, along with his father and remained there for about half an hour.  His statement was recored in the Police Booth.  His father's name and address were enquired but the   statement of his father was   not   recorded     The   witness   further   deposed   that   when   the incident took place, the accused Narender was residing in the house CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...29  of 136 of Harish.  He stated that he had gone to the house of Harish one day prior to the date of occurrence to meet Monu.  He did not know on which floor Monu resided as he used to call him on the mobile phone.  He further stated that the accused Narender used to live on the ground floor of the house of Harish.  He denied the suggestion that the accused Narender was not a tenant in the house of Harish nor   was   a   student   of   H.M.   (Hotel   Management)   College.     He denied that he had not seen the accused Narender inflicting leg and fist blows  to the deceased.  He denied the suggestion that he had never seen the accused Narender or that he had falsely implicated the accused Narender at the instance of the Investigating  Officer.

On   his   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness has stated as correct that his statement was recorded the next day of the incident at about 4 am when he was called by the police from his house and hence, he had gone to the Police Booth at Katwari Sarai.  He further stated that it was correct that he had stated in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC that when the boys had come in the gali, he had run away due to fear.  He was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.10/DA in respect of his statement that the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav had gone to their room and had come back with a knife in the hand of the accused Muninder   Panjeta   and  rod  in   the  hands   of   the  accused   Saurabh Yadav or that the accused Muninder Panjeta had given a stab injury to Honey on the right side of his chest and the accused Saurabh Yadav had given a blow on the head of Honey with the rod.  

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...30  of 136 He admitted as correct that the police had met him in the night of 10.05.2010 at the hospital.  He further deposed that it was correct that though the police met him in the intervening night of   10/11­05­2010 in the hospital, his statement was not recorded nor had he stated anything to the police.   He stated that when he had come back to the village at the spot in the night of 10/11­05­ 2010, the police had met him there.   But even then, he had not stated   anything   to   the   police   nor   had   the   police   recorded   his statement   though   he   had   remained   there   for   10   minutes.     He admitted as correct that throughout the next day before he  went to the Police Post, he remained at his residence and was available at his residence for the police to make enquiries from him but no such enquiries  were  made.   He admitted as  correct that the deceased Honey was a close friend of his.  However, he denied as incorrect that  being friend of the deceased, he was deposing falsely or that he was introduced as a witness in this case subsequently by the police or that nobody had beaten Honey.

PW.11  is Dinesh Bansal who was running a shop in Katwari  Sarai  village.   He deposed that on 10.05.2010 at about 10.30 pm, the deceased Honey had come in front of his shop and remained   there   for   half   an   hour   and   thereafter   went   away.     He thereafter closed his shop and went to his house for taking a bath. When he was sitting for dinner, he heard some noise of quarrel from the street below his room on the 4th floor at F­315, Katwaria Sarai.  He looked down from his room but could not see anything. He   therefore,   rushed   down   running   and   found   a   gathering   of CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...31  of 136 persons there in the street and many people  running here and there.

Honey was lying on the ground with his face down. Nitin   Sansanwal   also   came   there.     The   public   was   saying   that Honey   had been stabbed.   PW.11 further stated that his brother Sudesh asked him to go back to the house as he was only in a towel.   As started to go inside, his landlord Harish had held two persons.     This   witness   then   went   inside   his   house.     The   police asked him whether he knew the persons to which he replied that the said persons had been purchasing things from his shop for the last about   one   and   half   months.     He   could   not   identify   those   two persons who were held by his landlord.  He gave the names of the boys who used to buy things from his shop as Narender, Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Raju Kumar.  He further stated that he had no further knowledge of the case.

Ld. APP for the State cross­examined the witness as he   was   resiling   from   his   earlier   statement.     During   the   cross­ examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness admitted as correct that the accused Saurabh Yadav, Narender and Raju Kumar were residing behind his shop for sometime and that for the last about 10 days, they had shifted to the house of Harish which was situated parallel   to his shop.   He further admitted as correct that the accused Raju Kumar used to   come to the room of the said boys.  He claimed that he did not know the accused Charan Singh and could not say whether he used to come to the room but he was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.11/A wherein the name of the accused Charan Singh was also recorded.  The witness admitted CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...32  of 136 as correct that he had told the police that those boys used to buy goods from his shop and hence, he could recognize them.  He also admitted as correct that he had information that these boys were studying in the Qutab Institutional area.  He denied having stated to the   police   and   was,   therefore,   confronted   with   his   statement, Ex.PW.11/A, that for the past few days the accused were teasing the girls of the village and used to stand at the well of the village and the villagers were complaining against them or that Harish and he had tried to counsel the boys.  

He admitted as correct that  in the intervening night of 10/11.05.2010, the boys of the village made these boys understand about   their   conduct   on   which   some   altercation   had   taken   place between   them.     He   denied   that  Harish   had   intervened   to   pacify them.  When confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.11/A, wherein it was recorded, the witness volunteered that infact his brother and he had made them understand.   He denied that he had closed the shop   around 11.30 pm and had gone home after pacifying them. When he was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.11/A wherein it was so recorded, he admitted as correct that he had made   his statement, U/s 161 Cr.PC.  He further admitted that after about 15 to 20 minutes, hearing the noise, he along with Harish came down and saw that Honey, Joginder @ Tuli and Avinash who were co­ villagers were abusing with the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav, Himanshu Rathi, Narender, Charan Singh and Raju Kumar. He denied stating that he had told the police that in the meanwhile Nitin Sansanwal also came there and tried to pacify them.  He was CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...33  of 136 confronted   with   his   statement,   Ex.PW.11/A   wherein   it   was recorded.  

However, the witness deposed that he had not stated to the police that in the meanwhile the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav had gone to their rooms and the accused Saurabh Yadav   brought   an   iron   rod   and   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta brought a kit and when they reached the spot, the accused Saurabh Yadav attacked Honey with iron rod and the accused Muninder Panjeta took out a knife (chopper) from his kit and gave a knife blow on the right side of chest of Honey saying that "Ke Sale Tu Bada Gaon Ka Thekedar Banta Hai".  The witness was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.11/A wherein it was so recorded.   He denied   having   made   a   statement   to   the   police   that   the   accused Narender,   Himanshu   Rathi,   Charan  Singh   and  Raju   Kumar   also gave   leg   and   fist   blows   to   Honey   and   was   confronted   with   his statement, Ex.PW.11/A.  He further denied having made statement Ex.PW.11/A that after sustaining the knife injury, Honey fell down on   the   ground   and   /   or   the   boys   ran   towards   their   rooms   and thereafter, he, Nitin Sansanwal, Joginder @ Tuli and Avinash lifted Honey from the ground outside the gali and put him in a car and took   him   to   the   hospital.     He   was   again   confronted   with   his statement, Ex.PW.11/A wherein it was not so recorded.  

He   further   admitted   as   correct   that   he   had   told   the police that when he had come back after putting Honey in the car for the hospital, he found that Harish had held those boys.   He further admitted as correct that he had told the police that when he CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...34  of 136 came back and heard the noise of the villagers, three boys ran away from the roof on which he bolted the room by keeping   Harish, Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh and Charan Singh in the room.  He also admitted   as   correct   that   he   had   told   the   police   that   in   the meanwhile, lot of people of the village gathered there and the boys were taken out and were beaten.   He denied having stated to the police that he had informed the police on his mobile or that after sometime   the   police   came   there   or   these   three   boys   were   got separated or that they were handed over by the PCR to the police. He was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.11/A wherein it was so recorded.   He identified one boy namely Saurabh Yadav.   He also   identified   the   accused     Muninder   Panjeta.     He   denied   the suggestion of the Ld. APP for the State that the accused Muninder Panjeta had given a knife blow or that the accused Saurabh Yadav had given iron rod blow.  He explained that he had seen seen only the three boys after the incident when they were caught hold by the villagers.  The witness pointed out to the accused Himanshu Rathi as   probably   the   third   person   but   was   not   sure.     He   denied   the suggestion that he was deliberately and knowingly not identifying the accused persons or that he was under fear.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he stated that it was correct that he had come to the spot after hearing the noise and had not actually seen the incident of stabbing.   He further   stated   that   Nitin   Sansanwal   was   also   present   when   he reached the spot.  He denied that he had told the police that it was CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...35  of 136 in   the   meanwhile   that   Nitin   Sansanwal   had   come   there.     The witness was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.11/A wherein it was   so   recorded.     He   admitted   that   he   had   a   mobile no.9650372789.     He   admitted   that   the   mobile   no.9717558020 belonged to Nitin Sansanwal.   He admitted as correct that he had made a call from his mobile to Nitin Sansanwal at the said number at   23.42.29   hours   for   61   seconds   on   10.05.2010.     The   witness explained   that   on   that   day,   he   had   made   two   calls   to   Nitin Sansanwal, one at about 9.30 pm when he had told him that he had pacified Honey who was under the influence of liquor and had sent him with 3­4 boys to make him sleep at his residence and with regard to the second call, he stated that Nitin Sansanwal could not take his call.  He denied the suggestion of the Ld. Counsel for the accused as incorrect that he had made three calls from his mobile phone   to   Nitin   Sansanwal   after   11   pm   till   mid   night.   But   the witness was unable to recall the three calls when he was asked and he affirmed as correct that if a person  was close to the person who wanted to speak to him, there would be no need to call him on the mobile phone.

There   was   no   cross­examination   of   this   witness   on behalf of the other accused persons.

PW.12  is   R.K.   Singh,   Nodal   Officer,   Bharti   Airtel Limited.     He   brought   the   summoned   record   relating   to   mobile no.9717558020   in   the   name   of   Nitin   Sansanwal.     He   filed   the certified copy of the subscription envelope form with the ID Proofs of passport as Mark PW.12/A.  He also brought the call details of CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...36  of 136 the mobile no.9717558020 for the period 09.05.2010 to12.05.2010, running into five pages as Ex.PW.12/B1 to B5 (collectively).  The certificate   U/s   65B   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act   signed   by   this witness was placed  on the  record as  Ex.PW.12/C.    The witness brought   on   record   one   copy   of   cell   ID   location   charge   as Ex.PW.12/D.   As   per   record,   the   witness   testified   that   on 10.05.2010 at 23.16.37 hours, an incoming call was received from mobile no.9711674898 for 30 seconds.   At that time, the cell ID location of the mobile no.9717558020 was 45681 which was in Katwaria Sarai. At 23.17.32 hours, an outgoing call was made from the   mobile   no.9717558020   at   mobile   no.9711674898   for   17 seconds from the same Cell ID.  Another outgoing call was made at 23.21.38   hours   from   the   mobile   no.9717558020   at   the   mobile no.9711674898   for   7   seconds   with   the   same   sell   ID.     Another outgoing   call   was   made   at   23.30.27   hours   from   the   mobile no.9717558020 at the mobile no.9650372739 for 47 second, from the same cell  ID.   Another outgoing call was made at 23.47.58 hours from the mobile no.9717558020 to no.100 for a duration if 6 minutes by the cell ID 26721 which was at Ber Sarai.   Another outgoing   call   was   made   at   23.48.15   hours   from   the   mobile no.9717558020 at no.100 for a duration of 8 seconds by the cell ID 7443   which   is   at   Jia   Sarai.     An   incoming   call   was   received   at 23.52.21   hours   on   the   mobile   no.9717558020   from   the   mobile no.9711674898 for 30 seconds from the cell ID no.45682 which is at Katwaria Sarai.

Only Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Counsel  for  the accused CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...37  of 136 Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav cross­examined this witness. During his cross­examination, the witness admitted as correct that there   was   a   talk   in   between   the   two   mobile   numbers   i.e. 9717558020 and 9650372739 on 09.05.2010  at 23.42.59 hours for 61 seconds and thereafter at 23.47.21 hours for 75 seconds and on 10.05.2010   at   00.13.53   hours   for   183   seconds   as   reflected   in Ex.PW.12/B1 to B5.   He further admitted as correct that if two persons were standing nearby at one spot, they would generally not make a phone call to each other.

PW.13 is Ct. Raj Kumar.  He has deposed that in the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010, the SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash received a  call  regarding quarrel.   He accompanied  the  SHO to Goombad Wali gali, Katwaria Sarai where there was a large crowd gathered.  He was instructed to manage the public.  Thereafter he went   to   the   Fortis   hospital   wherein   Honey   was   admitted   with injuries on the right side of the chest and was declared dead by the doctor.   At about  4 am, he was sent with the rukka which was prepared at the statement of Nitin Sansanwal.   After the FIR was registered at the police station at about 6 am, he came back to the spot with  the copy of the FIR and the original rukka and handed over the same to the Insp. Ved Prakash.  He also accompanied the Insp. Ved Prakash to the AIIMS Trauma Centre where after the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.   Ct. Har Sahai handed over three pulandas to the Insp. Ved Prakash which were seized vide memo Ex.PW.13/A. During the cross­examination by Sh. R.S. Hooda, Ld. CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...38  of 136 Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, he deposed that Honey had already been declared dead when he had reached the hospital. He stated Insp. Ved Prakash examined the dead body of Honey and had also recorded the statement of Nitin Sansanwal.   He deposed that   Nitin   Sansanwal's   statement   was   recorded   after   then preparation of the inquest papers.

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he deposed that he was the Operator with the SHO at the relevant time.   He stated that the distance between the police station and Katwaria Sarai was about 2 to 3 Kms whereas the Fortis hospital was about 8 Kms from the police   station.     He   did   not   know   whether   any   accused   was apprehended at the spot when they had reached at the spot.   He denied   that   the   rukka   was   prepared   while   sitting   in   the   police station   or   that   the   same   was   manipulated   in   the   police   station showing Nitin Sansanwal as a witness although he had not been present at the spot.

In response to the questions put by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, he stated that they had reached the spot at about 12  mid night /  12.10 am and remained at the spot for about 20­25 minutes with the SHO.

PW.14   is Brahm Singh.   He deposed that he was a businessman and on 10.05.2010 at about 11.45 pm, he had received a  telephone   call   from  Joginder  @  Tuli  who   told  him  that  hotel management boys have stabbed  Honey with a knife.  He reached CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...39  of 136 the spot i.e. in front of B­1, F­375, Kataria Sarai.  There he found Joginder  @ Tuli, Nitin Sansanwal and many other persons who were carrying Honey who was bleeding due to  the knife stab.  He also helped them.  The witness also stated that  he called at no.100 from his mobile phone  no.9999037283.  He deposed that they had taken Honey to the Fortis hospital where after examination by the doctor, he was declared dead.

During his cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LACA   for   the   accused   Narender,   he   denied   as   incorrect   the suggestion that he had not received any call on 10.05.2010 or that he was deposing falsely.

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination   by   Sh.   Fauzi   Sayeed,   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused Charan Singh, he deposed that there were four persons who had carried Honey to the hospital.  He denied that he had not rescued any boy on 10.05.2010 or that he was deposing falsely.

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination by Sh. Nitin Rai Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness stated that the police had met him for the first time after his information at the Fortis hospital.  He claimed that the shirt that he had been wearing while removing Honey to the hospital was blood stained and the same had been handed over to the police.  He also admitted that he was available in Delhi between 10.05.2010 and 28.07.2010.   He deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police at the Fortis hospital. He had been sent information from the house of CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...40  of 136 Honey that he had to make a statement before the police and   on this he had gone to the police station.  He also denied that he was deposing falsely.

PW.15  is   HC   Lekh   Ram.     He   deposed   that   on 10.05.2010,   he   was   posted   at   the   PS   Vasant   Vihar   and   was performing  patrolling duty at Katwaria Sarai on that night.  During the patrolling at about 11.30 / 11.45 am, he came to know that there was   a   gathering   of   persons   and   two   persons   were   being   given beatings.  SI Ajit Pal and ASI Arshad Ali also reached that place from the police station by that time.  The two persons, according to PW.15 were saved by them.   In the meantime, the SHO and the Additional SHO, PS Vasant Vihar also reached.  The witness stated that he along with Ct. Kuldeep were sent in the PCR van to the Trauma Centre, AIIS by the SHO.  He stated that they had carried the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav in the PCR Van. Both  the  injured  were got  treated  in  the  Trauma  Centre.   Their MLCs   were   prepared.     Thereafter,   the   SHO   and   the   Additional SHO came at the Trauma Centre.  At the Trauma Centre, one more injured, namely, the accused Charan Singh was brought by another PCR Van.  

The   witness   stated   that   all   the   three   persons   were brought to the police station and produced before the SHO who made   enquiries   from   them.     Thereafter,   the   accused   Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav were taken by the police to Katwaria Sarai at the House No. A­375.   Some   flats were constructed and from   the   flat   no.16   on   the   ground   floor,   the   accused   Muninder CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...41  of 136 Panjeta got recovered a knife from the tand in the room while the accused Saurabh Yadav got recovered an iron rod from the same tand   in   the   room   which   were   seized   by   the   SHO,   Insp.   Ved Prakash.     He   also   deposed   that   one   public   witness   Satish   was present   during   recovery.     The   witness   correctly   identified   the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh.

During his cross­examination by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness stated that  he had not made  any departure entry in this regard.  He had not signed any seizure memo, disclosure statement or sketch of knife or   iron rod.   He denied that he had deposed falsely regarding recovery of the knife or the iron rod or that these were   not   got   recovered   by   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta   and Saurabh Yadav.  He denied that he was deposing falsely or was not present in the investigations.

No cross­examination was conducted of this witness on behalf of the accused Raju Kumar, Narender, Himanshu Rathi and Charan Singh.

PW.16  is Nitin Sansanwal.   He deposed that in the year 2010 at abut 11.30 pm he received   call from the mobile of Joginder  @ Tuli that a quarrel had taken place in front of Bansal shop.  He rushed there within 5 minutes and saw that 7­8 persons were   giving   beatings   to   Honey   and   also   saying   "gaon   ka   bada thekedaar banta hai, isse aaj maar dete hain".   Joginder @ Tuli were also there who tried to save Honey.  He also stated that he had made   efforts   to   save   his   cousin   Honey.     In   the   meantime,   the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...42  of 136 accused Muninder Panjeta gave a knife blow on the right side of chest of Honey and the accused Saurabh Yadav gave the iron blow on the head of Honey.  Others were giving kicks and fists blow to Honey.     Within   5   to   10   seconds   Honey   fell   down.     He   picked Honey up with the help of Joginder @ Tuli, Avinash and Dinesh Bansal and put him in a car and took him to the Fortis hospital. Dinesh   Bansal   went   back   after   putting   Honey   in   the   car.     The witness also identified the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav   in   the   dock.     The   witness   further   stated   that   the   doctor examined the patient and declared him brought dead.  

After   about   one   and   half   hours,   according   to   this witness,   the   Insp.   Ved   Prakash   reached   there   and   recorded   his statement Ex.PW.16/A.   He stated that after one or one and half hours,   he   along   with   Insp.   Ved   Prakash   came   back   to   the   spot where the quarrel had taken place.  The Inspector lifted blood spots on a white cloth, one stone having blood spots, earth control,  one cardboard   box   having   blood   stains,   one   shirt   of   white   coloured stripe     having   blood   stains,   Honey's   black   coloured   chappal "Spark" and his own blood stained shirt, which were all seized by Insp.   Ved   Prakash   vide   seizure   memos   Ex.PW.16/B   to Ex.PW.16/H.  He deposed that on 11.05.2010 at 9.30 am, he went to the PS where he identified the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh who had been  apprehended by the police. The witness stated that he had been told the names by Dinesh Bansal as they used to buy general store items from his shop and he had also told that they lived in  the house of Harish.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...43  of 136 He identified   his signatures on the arrest memos of all the three accused E.PW.16/I to Ex.Pw.16/K. He also stated that at about 1 / 1.15 pm he also identified the dead body of Honey  at the AIIMS mortuary vide memo Ex.PW16/l.  The SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash and SI Mahesh Singh took him to the place of incident and the site plan was prepared at this instance.

Ld. APP for the State sought permission  to put some leading   questions   on   some   material   points.   During   the   cross­ examination   by   Ld.   APP,   the   witness   also   stated   that   he   had received a call from the mobile no.9717558020.  He also admitted as correct that he had accompanied the Insp. Ved Prakash and SI Mahesh   Singh     on   14.06.2010   and   not   on   14.05.2010   for   the preparation of the site plan.   The witness also identified the shirt belonging to Honey which which is exhibited as Ex.PW.16/11.  He identified the   slippers of Honey Ex.PW.16/2.   He also identified his shirt Ex.PW16/3.  The witness further stated that the four boys whom he had identified by names who were giving fist   and leg blows to Honey are Narender, Charan Singh, Muninder Panjeta and Raju Kumar.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   RS   Hooda,   Ld. counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, he stated that the names of the accused persons were   given to him by Dinesh Bansal and that he did not know them by names but only knew them by face. He stated that he had been told the names by Dinesh Bansal after they had kept Honey in the car to be taken to the hospital.   He admitted as correct that the Duty Officer had told him that those CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...44  of 136 boys were living in the house of Harish.  He also stated that he had come to know the names of those boys before he had visited the police station. He stated that Insp. Ved Prakash and he had come to the spot at about 3 / 4 am  and there was a gathering of persons at the spot.  He stated that he had gone to his house at  about 4/5 am but did not sleep thereafter.  He stated that Dinesh Bansal had met him at about 5.30  am who told him the names.  He denied that his statement was not recorded in the hospital and that it was recorded after he had consulted Dinesh Bansal.  

The   witness   further   deposed   that   Honey   fell   down after sustaining injuries. Thereafter, the assailants ran away from the   spot.     He   stated   that   he   had   reached   the   spot     two   /   three minutes prior to the injuries being inflicted on Honey.  He denied the   suggestion   as   being   incorrect   as   he   had   not   witnessed   the offence or that he was a planted witness.  He denied the suggestion that   he   did   not   name   the   accused   namely   Himanshu   Rathi, Narender, Charan Singh and Raju Kumar when his statement was recorded and that was why he had not named them or identified them.     He   admitted   as   correct   he   had   seen   the   accused   Charan Singh in the Police Station and did not know where the accused Charan Singh lived.

The   cross­examination   of   this   witness   was   also conducted on behalf of the accused Raju Kumar and Charan Singh and Narender.

In   the   cross   examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld, counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...45  of 136 deposed that his statement was recorded twice by the police, first one was recorded in the hospital in the night of  11.05.201 at 2 am at   that   time,   Joginder   @   Tuli,   was   also   present   but   probably Avinash was not present with him at the hospital.  He admitted as correct that on 10.05.2010 before 11.30  pm, he never received any call   from Joginder @ Tuli on his mobile and stated that he had received the call  after 11.30 pm about the incident and at that time he was present at  the residence.  He stated that it took him 7 to 8 minutes to reach the spot from his residence.  He stated that it was correct   that   after   receiving   the   last   call   at   his   residence     from Joginder @ Tuli, he had never received any call from Joginder @ Tuli on his mobile phone on that day.  The witness further stated that it was correct that prior to the incident, he had never seen the accused persons in this case.  When asked about the source of light, he stated that there was light coming from the shop of Harish.  He further   deposed   that   when   he   reached   the   spot,   the   quarrel continued for one and half minutes and thereafter those boys ran away from the spot and he had taken the injured to th hospital.  He admitted as correct that after he had removed the injured to the hospital he was not aware as to what  had happened at the spot.  

The  witness further stated that  he informed the family members from the spot immediately after the incident.  He further stated that they had reached the hospital at about 12 mid night / 12.30   am   and   the   SHO     reached   the   hospital   at   1.30   am.   He admitted   as   correct   that   the   SHO   prepared   the   site   plan   at   his instance when they had come back to the spot at about 5.00 am.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...46  of 136 He further stated that when he had come back to the spot, perhaps Dinesh   Bansal   was   present,   his   mother,   brother   and   family members   were   not   with   him.   He   confirmed   that   Dinesh   Bansal lived in Katwaria Sarai itself.  He further admitted as correct that at about   7/8 am, he was shown three persons in the Police Station namely the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav by the SHO   and   his   statement   was   recorded   to   this   effect.   He   further stated   that   he   had   signed   his   statement   made   to   the   police   on 11.05.2010   at   about   7/8   am   when   he   was   called   in   the   Police Station by the SHO.  He admitted as correct that he was an accused in a murder case which took place on  03.06.2010 in his village and was arrested on 26.06.2010.  He also admitted that the deceased in that murder case belonged to his village.  He denied that he had not witnessed the incident or that he had been introduced as a witness as an after thought by the investigating agency.  He also denied the suggestion as wrong that Dinesh Bansal had never told him the names of the boys / accused.

PW.17  is   Dr.   Susheel   Sharma,   Assistant   Professor, Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS.   He deposed that on 11.05.2010,   he   was   posted   as   the   Sr.   Resident   of   the   same department   and   had   conducted   postmortem   on   the   body   of   the deceased Honey aged 19 years.  A cut mark, 5 cm in  length was present there at the front aspect of chest at "sandow" baniyan  worn by the deceased.   He recorded an ante­mortem injury being stab wound 5 cm in length gaping, cavity deep present over the right aspect of the lower chest.   The wound was   horizontally placed, CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...47  of 136 inner   angle   was   sharp,   a   blood   strained   track   was   established directed   upward,   leftward   and   backward   passing   through   inter coastal space and terminating in the middle lobe of right lung about 1.5 cm  deep.   The stab wound was about 12 cm in depth.   He further noticed the cut mark on the blood stained "sandow" baniyan was   found   to   correspond   to   this   injury.   He   deposed   to   the preservation of the blood in gauze which was handed over to the Investigating Officer along with the original postmortem report and 13 inquest papers.  The witness deposed that the cause of death was hemorrhagic   shock   consequent   to   the   above   mentioned   injury caused by a pointed sharp edged long weapon and the said injury was sufficient to  cause  death in the ordinary course of nature and was   found   ante­mortem   in   nature   and   fresh   in   duration.     The postmortem report was brought on record as Ex.PW.17/A. In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused  Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness   stated   that   there   was   one   injury   on   the   person   of   the deceased. He could not remember exactly whether the weapons had been  shown  to  him   or  not after  the  postmortem.    He,  however, agreed that   had the weapons been shown to him, he would have given   his   opinion   on   the   same   which   would   then   be   filed. However, no such opinion was found on the record. 

PW.18  is L/Ct, Manoj Kumari.   She deposed that on 10.05.2010, she was posted as CPCR, PHQ as Operator and was on duty from 8 pm to 8 am.  On that night at about 23.53.18 hours, she received   a   call   regarding   stabbing   from   the   mobile   no.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...48  of 136 9999037283, the informer being one Brahm Singh that he had  also that "Ek   Ladke Ko Chaku Maar Diya Hai".   The witness stated that   she   recorded   this   message   vide   CRDD     DD   no.10   May, 1010976 and placed the PCR form in this regard as Ex.PW.18/A. She also stated that she had forwarded this message on the  police related net.

This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.

PW.19  is HC Giriraj who brought the register no.19 and deposed to the deposit of 13 exhibits as per the seizure memo on 11.05.2010 by the Insp. Ved Prakash which were entered vide serial   no.1165   in   the   register   no.19,   the   copy   of   which   is Ex.PW.19/A.   He deposed that on 13.05.2010, 13 exhibits   along with two sample seals, one of Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS,   New   Delhi   and   the   another   of   VP     were   sent   to   FSL, Rohini   through   HC   Gulab   vide   RC   No.66/21/10   and   that   HC Gulab handed over the receipts of the exhibits and copy of the RC vide Ex.PW.19/B.   He deposed that so long as the case property remained in his possession, it remained intact and no one tampered with it.

During his cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC   for   the   accused   Narender,   the   witness   denied   that   the Investigating Oficer had not deposited the exhibits in the Malkhana on 11.05.2010 or that the exhibits were tampered with while these were in his custody. During the cross­examination by Sh. Jagmal Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh.   He admitted CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...49  of 136 that the exhibits were not kept under a separate lock and key but the room in which the exhibits were placed was kept under lock and key. No other questions were put to this witness by the Ld. Counsel for the remaining accused.

PW.20   is ASI Om Prakash.   He deposed that in the intervening   night   of   10/11­5­2010,   he   was   posted   in   the   PCR, South Zone and was on duty from 8 pm to 8 am.  At about 11.54 pm, he received a call regarding a boy being injured with a knife at Katwaria Sarai, near Devi Singh's house.  He along with the staff reached the spot.  He saw people beating a boy saying that the boy had given a knife blow to another boy.   The injured had already been taken to the hospital.  The local police also reached there.  He deposed   that   he   saved   the   boy   from   the   clutches   of   the   public persons and that boy revealed his name as Charan Singh and he was   taken   to   the   AIIMS   Trauma   Centre   for   his   medical examination along with one Constable and the local police.  After admitting the boy in the hospital, he had come back on his duty. He identified the boy in the court.

In his cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, the witness stated that he had reached the spot within four minutes after receiving the call and remained there for 5/7 minutes.

This witness was recalled for  cross­examination U/s 311 Cr.PC on   the oral request of Sh. Fauzi Sayeed, Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh.   During his cross­examination, he deposed that he had reached the spot at about 11.58 pm and had CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...50  of 136 remained at the spot for about 10­12 minutes.   He deposed that there were 25 to 30 persons present at the spot.  He had not asked the name of anyone   present there.   He took the accused Charan Singh to the hospital and informed the Control Room of taking the accused Charan Singh to the hospital.   He denied the suggestion that the public was not stating that the injured had been stabbed by a knife by the person who  was caught  hold by the  public.    He denied the suggestion that he had been told by the public that the accused Charan Singh had been wrongly beaten up and he was not involved in the offence.   He also denied that the accused Charan Singh himself had told him about these facts.

PW.21 is Ct. Hari Ram.  He stated that on 11.05.2010, he was posted at PS Vasant Vihar.  On that day, at about 5.30 am, the duty officer had handed over the copy of the FIR which he delivered at  the house of Ld. MM, Karkardooma Court Complex and returned to the PS Vasant Vihar at about 12 noon / 1 pm.  He further   stated   that   the   Investigating   Officer   had   recorded   his statement.

During the cross­examination by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness was unable to show  the copy of  the FIR  which he had delivered to the Ld. MM as the same had not been placed on the judicial file.   He denied the suggestion of the ld. Counsel that he had not delivered  the copy of FIR to the Ld. MM or was deposing falsely.

                 PW.22  is     HC   Har   Sahai.     He   deposed   that   in   the

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                                         Page...51  of 136

intervening night of 10/11­05­2010, he was posted at the PS Vasant Vihar and at about 10/11 pm, SI Ajit Pal received a call of quarrel. Thereafter, he along with the other staff had gone with SI Ajit Pal to the gali at village Katwaria Sarai where they saw lot of people gathered near the chaupal.  There SI Ajit Pal came to know that the injured had been shifted to the Fortis hospital.   He along with SI Ajit Pal reached the Fortis Hospital where the doctor had declared the injured brought dead.  In the meantime, Insp. Vijay Pal reached there and he handed over an application to him and he had taken the dead body to the AIIMS mortuary where it remained in his custody and on 11.05.2010 after the postmortem, the dead body was released  by the Investigating Officer  to the relatives of  the deceased.  The witness stated that after the postmortem, the doctor handed over the exhibits of the deceased with the sample seal of the hospital which he had handed over to the Investigating Officer which   were   seized   vide   memo   Ex.PW.13/A   which   bore   his signatures at point B. During   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   Jagmal   Singh, Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh, he stated that he had reached the spot in the mid night of 10.05.2010 between 10 pm to 11 pm.  He was with ASI Arshad Ali while the other staff were in different vehicles.   He stated that SI Ajit Pal had made enquiry from   the   public   in   his   presence   but   he   did   not   record   anyone's statement in the absence of the witness at the spot.  He stated that he remained at the spot for 15 minutes.  He denied the suggestion that he had never gone to the spot.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                                         Page...52  of 136
                  PW.23  is Mukesh Sansanwal.     He deposed that on

11.05.2010 he identified the dead  body of his cousin Honey at the AIIMS mortuary and his statement to this effect was recorded vide Ex.PW.23./A.  He also stated that after the postmortem,  the dead body   was   received   by   Nitin   Sansanwal.     This   witness   was   not cross­examined on behalf of any of the accused.

PW.24  is   HC   Jagpal   Sinbgh   who   deposed   that   on 26.08.2010 when he was posted at the PS Vasant Vihar, he had gone with SI Neeraj Chaudhary and HC Sanjeev Kumar in search of   the   accused   Narender   at   village   Bajgera,   Gurgaon.   After sometime, the accused Narender came there and after interrogation, he   was   arrested   by   SI   Neeraj   Chaudhary   vide   arrest   memo Ex.PW.24/A.     After   the   medical   examination,   the   accused   was brought to the PS Vasant Vihar.

The witness during the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain,   Ld.   LAC   for   the   accused   Narender,   deposed   that   he   had reached the spot along with other police personnel at about   3.45 pm.   He stated that the accused Narender was apprehended while he was on the road and nor from his house.   All the documents were   prepared   there   during   which   time   some   people   assembled there.  The Investigating Officer asked them to join the procedings but   they   refused.     The   Investigating   Officer   did   not   serve   any notice to them nor had he noticed their names and addresses.  The witness stated that he had remained at the spot for half an hour. Thereafter, he along with other police personnel had returned to Delhi.   He denied that he had not joined the investigations.   He CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...53  of 136 denied   that   he   was   deposing   falsely   at   the   instance   of   the Investigating Officer.

PW.25  is   ASI   Arshad   Ali   who   deposed   that   in   the intervening night of 10/11.05.2010 he was posted at the PS Vasant Vihar on emergency duty from 8  pm to 8 am with SI Ajit Pal.  On that day at about 11.45  pm, they received DD no.54A pertaining to a quarrel  at Gumbadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai.  He along with SI Ajit Pal reached the spot where an angry crowd had gathered in the street.   There was plenty of blood lying.   Further near the   house no. A­375, Katwaria Sarai. many people were present  and in anger were beating two boys.   He stated that he had tried to save those two boys from the clutches of the public and also trying to calm the public.   In the meantime, the SHO Insp. Ved Prakash along with staff also reached there and somehow they had saved those two boys.  Both the boys were brought outside the street and were put in the PCR van and were sent with HC Lekh Ram and Ct. Kuldeep. One boy was already taken to the hospital by another PCR van. Inspector Ved Prakash made enquiries about the quarrel and came to know that the boys along with their associates had given a knife blow to one Honey who had been removed to the Fortis hosiptal. The witness stated that  Insp. Ved Prakash after leaving him at the spot went to the Fortis hospital and returned back from the Fortis hospital and made further enquiries from the public at the spot and learnt that the names of the three boys were the accused Muninder Panjeta,  Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh.  He also identified the accused Saurabh Yadav and  Charan Singh who were rescued from CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...54  of 136 the public and sent to the hospital.

During the cross­examination on behalf of the accused Charan   Singh   by   the   Ld.   Counsel,   Sh.   Jagmal   Singh   he   was confronted   with   his   statement   recorded   U/s   161   Cr.PC   Mark PW25/DA   where   the   names   of   the   accused   Charan   Singh   and Saurabh Yadav were not recorded. During the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld LAC for the accused Narender, he denied the suggestion that he had not been to the spot of incident.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan     Ld. counsel for the accused Muninder Panjet and Saurabh Yadav, the witness was confronted with his statement u/S 161 Cr.PC where it was not recorded that the witness had returned to the spot from the Fortis hospital and had made further enquiries from the public at the spot and had come to know the names of the three boys as Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh.  He admitted as correct that he had not stated in Ex.PW.25/DA that two boys were saved from the pubic namely the accused Charan Singh and Saurabh Yadav.   He admitted as correct that he had saved them from the public and put them in PCR van and sent them to the hospial.  He also admitted as correct that it was night time and dark at   the   place   of   incident.     He   was   further   confronted   with   his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC, Ex.PW.25/DA where it was not recorded that on enquiry, the Insp. Ved Prakash came to know that those boys along with their associates had given knife blow to one Honey and who had been taken to the Fortis hospital.  He further denied that he was a witness introduced by the IO.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...55  of 136 PW.26 is SI Devender Singh who deposed that in the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010, he was posted as ASI in the PCR, South.  On that day, he had attended his duty at 7.48 pm and on 10.05.2010 had remained on duty till 8 am on 11.05.2010.  On that day he was on duty at Eagle 35 (PCR van).   At about 12.13 (mid night), he received a call from the Fortis hospital regarding stabbing at Devi Singh's house, Katwaria Sarai and was directed to reach there.  Accordingly, he along with other staff reached there at 12.19 am and remained there till 12.45 am till the reaching of the SHO as well as the PCR with force.  He made all the entries in the Call Book in his own handwriting, copy of which was brought on record as Ex.PW.26/A. In the cross­examination Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, he stated that  at the time when he received the call from Eagle­I, only the driver of PCR, .Ct. Virender was with him   but when he reached the spot   he found 20/22 persons present there.   Some police persons were also present there from the local police station as well as PCR.   He further stated that he had not made any enquiries from the persons present there and had made enquiries from the caller who informed abut the incident.  He did not meet that caller.   He deposed as incorrect that he had not visited the spot or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the IO PW.27 is   HC Kapil who deposed that on  11.05.2010 he was posted in the South District as photographer and on that day he had accompanied the Mobile Crime Team Incharge, SI Naresh CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...56  of 136 Kumar and ASI Deepak (Finger Print Proficient) to the spot at A­ 375, Gumbadwali gali, Katwarai Sarai where SI Ajit Pal Singh and the   PCR   officials   met   them.   He   stated   that   thereafter   on   the directions of the IO and the Incharge, Mobile Crime team, he had taken four photographs of the spot from different angles.  He also brought on record the photographs as Ex.PW.27/A­1 to A­4 and the negatives as Ex.W.27/B­1 to B­4.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, ld  counsel for   the   accused   Narender,   he   admitted   as   correct   that   no   street number   or   the   house   number   was   shown   in   the   photographs, Ex.PW.27/A­1 to A­4.  He also admitted that no person was shown in the said photographs. He denied that the photographs were not of the spot.   This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any other accused.

PW.28 is Insp. Narender Kumar who deposed that in the intervening night of  10/11­05­2010, he was posted as Incharge, Mobile Crime Team, South District. He deposed that at about 12 mid night, he had received a call from the Control Room regarding stabbing at house no. A375, Gumbadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai and he along with ASI Deepak (Fingerprints Proficient)  and Ct. Kapil, the photographer reached the spot.  It was about 12.15 am, he met SI Ajit Pal along with other staff at the spot and as well as 15­20 persons at the spot. There was large quantity of blood scattered in the street.   The witness stated that he inspected the spot and Ct. Kapil   was   directed   to   take   the   photographs   of   the   spot.     He prepared his detailed report bearing No.568/10 which was brought CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...57  of 136 on the record as Ex.PW.28/A and  he handed over the same to SI Ajit Pal.

In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   Rajiv   Jain,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Narender, the witness stated that he  had received the call from the Investigating Officer of the present case when he was at the mobile crime team office, Hauz Khas.  He had stayed that night in the office.  He stated that he reached the spot in TATA 407.  He deposed that after carrying out all the proceedings, they left the spot at 2.20 am.  He also stated that he had prepared the   report   at   the   spot   itself   and   handed   over   the   report   to   the Investigating Officer.  He denied that he had not visited the site or that he had prepared the crime team report with a back date sitting at the police  station on 12.05.2010 In further cross­examination by Sh. Fauzi Sayeed, Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh, he stated that he had not made   any   entry   regarding   departure   for   the   spot     though   they maintained   the     Scene   of   Crime   Register   in   which   they   made entries after their return.   He stated that these were not counter­ signed nor had he supplied the photocopy  of the said register to the Investigating Officer.

In further cross­examination by Sh. Nitin Rai Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he stated that they had remained at the spot for about one to one and   half   hours   during   which   time   he   also   prepared   the   report Ex.PW.28/A   which   he   had   handed   over   to   the   Investigating Officer.  He denied that he had mechanically prepared the report.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...58  of 136 PW.29  is Sucha Singh, Section Officer who brought on record the copies of the fee receipt, admission form, ID Card application   form,   marks­sheets   of   the   accused   Raju   Kumar   as Ex.PW.29/A­1, Ex.PW.29/B and Ex.PW.29/C, Mark PW.29/X and Mark   PW.29/X1   to   show   that   the   accused   Raju   Kumar   was   a student of Shri Lal  Bahadur Shastri Rashtirya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Katwaria Sarai, Qutab Institutional Area and was in the course of Shastri (B.A.), Third year in the academic session 2009­10. This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any of the accused.

PW.30 is Ct. Kuldeep.  He deposed that on 11.05.2010 he was posted at the PS Vasant Vihar and that on the directions of the SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash, he along with HC Lekh Ram had reached   Gumbadwali   gali,  Katwaria   Sarai   where   in   front   of   the house No. A­375, he saw blood in the street and crowd of persons gathered   beating   two   persons.     He   deposed   that   prior   to   his reaching there, SI Ajit Pal was already present.   Both, he and SI Ajit   Pal     had   rescued   the   two   boys   from   the   public.     In   the meantime,   the  SHO,  Insp.  Ved Prakash also  arrived there who along with SI Ajit Pal and Ct. Kuldeep rescued those boys from the public.  He deposed that the boys were sent along with him and HC Lekh Ram and SI Ajit Pal to AIIMS Trauma Centre under their custody.  The witness deposed that they had taken both these two boys to AIIMS Trauma Centre where their names were revealed as the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta   and   Saurabh   Yadav.   When   they reached   at   the  AIIMS   Trauma   Centre,   they  were   joined  by   one more person who was also brought in the casualty by the PCR van CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...59  of 136 whose name was the accused Charan Singh.

The witness deposed that in the meantime, the Insp. Ved Prakash also reached there along with Insp. Vijay Pal (ATO). The SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash obtained the MLCs of the persons and left them in the supervision of Insp. Vijay   Pal and he left. After the discharge of the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, they were brought to the PS Vasant Vihar and produced before the SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash.  The witness deposed that the accused Muninder Panjeta was in the custody of HC Lekh Ram and the   accused   Saurabh   Yadav   was   in   his   custody.     The   witness testified   that   thereafter   the   Insp.   Ved   Prakash   conducted   the personal   search   of   both   the   accused   but   nothing   was   recovered from their personal search. Thereafter, they both were brought to the   spot     at   the   house   of   Harish   i.e.   A­375,   Gumbadwali   gali, Katwaria Sarai where the Investigating Officer asked 4­5 persons from the public to join the investigation and one of them namely Satish Kumar joined the investigation.

The witness stated that they were taken to the house no. A­375 and first  of  all, the accused Muninder Panjeta in the custody of HC Lekh Ram was taken into the house and he came to know that the accused Muninder Panjeta had got recovered one knife from the house.  Thereafter, the accused Saurabh Yadav was taken to the flat no.16 and he pointed out to the right side of the tand and got recovered the iron rod with which he stated, he had caused injuries to Honey.  The witness stated that the Investigating Officer took the knife as well as the iron rod into possession and CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...60  of 136 after measuring them converted them into pulandas and sealed the same   with   the   seal   of   VP.     The   witness   deposed   that   all   three accused persons were present in the Court.  He identified the iron rod as Ex.P2. This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any of the accused.

PW.31  is   SI   Ratan   Lal.     He   deposed   that   in   the intervening   night   of   10/11­05­2010,   he   was   posted   in   the   PCR, South   zone  as   Incharge   and  on   that  day   at   about  11.55   pm,  he received a call through the Control Room regarding stabbing of a boy in front of Devi Singh's house, Katwaria Sarai.  Thereafter, he along   with   the   staff   reached   the   spot   where   a   large   crowd   was present which was beating up two persons.  He deposed that with the help of local police, he saved the two boys and took them in PCR   van   to   the   AIIMS   Trauma   Centre   for   their   medical examination.     The   witness   stated   that   after   informing   the   Duty Constable   at   the   Trauma   Centre,   he   returned   for   his   duty   and narrated the facts to the Control Room.   He deposed that he also came to know the names of the two boys as the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav who were present in the Court. This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.

PW.32  is   Smt.   Payal   Batra   who   deposed   that   on enquiry   from   the   PS   Vasant   Vihar,   she   had   provided   the information   to   the   police   that   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta, Saurabh   Yadav,   Charan   Singh   and   Himanshu   Rathi   were   the students of the Ashok Institute of Hospitality & Tourism at C­12A, CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...61  of 136 Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi.  She deposed that the accused Narender Kumar was not their student.  The witness deposed that in reply to the police that she had also mentioned that tool kit for kitchen is not issued by the institute to the students but the students are   required   to   procure   directly   from   the   supplier   after   making payment   and   therefore,   there   was   no   record   of   the   same.     This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any of the accused persons.

PW.33  is   Rajiv   Ranjan.     He   deposed   that   he   was working  in  Tata   Tele  Services   Limited  since   May  2008  and   on 23.09.2010,   pursuant   to   the   requests   made   by   the   Assistant Commissioner   of   Police,   Sub   Division,   Vasant   Vihar,   he   had forwarded   to   him   the   call   detail   record   of   mobile   phone no.9213953376 for the period 10.05.2010 to 11.05.2010 along with particulars   of   the   subscriber   of   the   mobile   number   and   the   soft copy of the CDR   which were brought on record as Ex.PW.33/A and hard copy of the particulars of the said mobile as Ex.PW.33/B. The witness further brought on record certified copy of the CDR pertaining   to   the   said   number   for   the   period   01.05.2010   to 30.06.2010 as well as the cell ID chart and the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act which are Ex.PW.33/C,   Ex.PW.33/D and   Ex.PW.33/E   respectively.     The   copy   of   the   e­mail   reply   is Ex.PW.33/F.   The   witness   further   stated   that   the   customer application form of the mobile number has been misplaced and is untraceable   and   as   per   record,   the   subscriber   of   the   mobile no.9213953376 is Sumit Kumar son of Sh. Brahm Prakash,  house CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...62  of 136 no.224,  Hirankudnna, Delhi­41.  The witness further stated that  at the   time   of   furnishing   the   said   information,   he   had   verified   the particulars of the subscriber from the record.

During the cross­examination by Sh. Sanjay Khatana, Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar, he deposed that it was correct   that   along   with   the   customer   application   form,   besides photographs, ID proofs of the said customer and his verification report, no other document is maintained in the file of the customer. These were not available with him. This witness was not cross­ examined on behalf of any other the acscused.

                 PW.34  is   SI   Ajit   Pal   Tomar.     He   deposed   that   on
10.05.2010,   he   was   posted   as   SI   at   the   PS   Vasant   Vihar.     He

deposed   that   in   the   intervening   night   of   10/11.05.2010   at   about 10.55 pm, a call vide DD No.55A was received at the PS Vasant Vihat and pursuant whereof he along with ASI Arshad Ali reached the place of occurrence i.e. Gumbadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai where at the spot, a large number of people were found present giving beatings to two persons.   He deposed that   with the help of ASI Arshad Ali, he tried to save the two persons from the crowd while also trying to control the crowd.  According to him, the SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash along with staff and the PCR van came to the spot and thereafter, they saved the two persons and sent them to the hospital through  HC  Lekh  Ram  and   Ct.  Kuldeep  in  the  PCR   van.    The witness further  deposed that during the enquiry, it was revealed that one injured   whose name was later on revealed as Muninder had already been taken to the hospital by the PCR van.  It was also CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...63  of 136 revealed that during the enquiry that one Honey who had sustained injuries by knife had also been taken to the Fortis hospital by his relatives and villagers of Kataria Sarai.

He further deposed that the SHO along with the staff had left the spot for the hospital leaving him and ASI Arshad Ali to preserve the scene of crime.   He further stated that at about 2.15 am, SI Neeraj Chaudhary along with HC Gulab Chand also reached the spot.  During this, a call was also received by SI Ajit Pal and he left the spot to attend the same. At about 5.30 am, the SHO along with the officials of the crime team also reached the spot and the photographs   of   the   scene   of   crime   were   taken.     Exhibits   were collected and seized after they were sealed with the seal of VP vide the seizure memos Ex.PW.16/B to Ex.PW.16/G which were duly signed by the witness.  It was further deposed by this witness that on 11.05.2010 at about 6.30 am, the Investigating Officer, Insp. Ved Prakash at the instance of the Nitin Sansanwal prepared the site plan.   The witness further deposed that Nitin Sansanwal also handed   over   one   blood   stained   shirt   of     cream   colour   which belonged to him and it was seized after being sealed with the seal of VP vide seizure memo Ez.PW.16/H. The witness further deposed that thereafter they had returned to the police station where the accused Muninder Panjeta and Charan Singh were present in the custody of HC Lekh Ram, Ct. Kuldeep and HC Gulvinder.  The witness further stated that the SHO interrogated the three accused present at the police station and recorded their disclosure statements at about 9.25 am which are CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...64  of 136 Ex.PW.34/A,   Ex.PW.34/B   and   Ex.PW.34/C.   The   accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh were arrested at   5.20   am   vide   arrest   memos   Ex.PW.36/I,   Ex.PW.36/J   and Ex.PW.36/K   respectively   and   their   personal   searches   conducted vide   personal   search   memos   Ex.PW.34/D,   Ex.PW.34/E   and Ex.PW.34/F. The witness identified his signatures  on all of these memos.  The witness further stated that pursuant to the disclosure statements,   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta,   Saurabh   Yadav   and Charan Singh led the police to a house of Harish, Katwaria Sarai, bearing No.16A, ground floor, Katwaria Sarai.

Outside the house 4­5 persons were requested to join the   investigation   and   one   Satish   came   forward   to   join   the investigation.   Thereafter,   they   reached   the   ground   floor   of   the house   No.16A,   Katwaroia   Sarai,   New   Delhi   and   from   the   one room, the accused Muninder Panjeta produced one knife kept on the right side of the tand in the room.  The witness further deposed that the knife which was got recovered by the accused Muninder Panjeta was stained with blood.   The Investigating Officer, Insp. Ved   Prakash   prepared   the   sketch   of   the   knife   Ex,PW.36/A   and seized the same   after sealing it with the seal of VP vide memo Ex.PW.2/A.  Thereafter, the accused Saurabh Yadav got recovered one iron rod from the same room which was also sealed with the seal   of   VP   and   seized   vide   memo   Ex.PW.2/B.     The   witness identified his signatures on all these memos.

The   witness   further   deposed   that   thereafter,   they brought  all  the three  accused  Muninder  Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...65  of 136 and   Charan   Singh   to   the   police   station.     The   witness   correctly identified   the   three   accused   present   in   the   Court.     The   witness stated that clothes of the injured were also stained with blood and these were also seized vide memos Ex.PW.36/C, Ex.PW.36/D and Ex.PW.36/E.   All the pulandas were deposited in the Malkhana. The  witness   identified   the   blood  in   gauze   as   Ex.MO1,   piece   of stone as Ex.MP2   and earth control as Ex.MO3,   the exhibit i.e. card   board   box   having   black   stain   and   dark   brown   stain   as Ex.MO4, the clothes of the accused Muninder Panjeta as Ex.MO5, the clothes of the deceased as Ex.MO6, the black coloured slippers as Ex.MO8, the clothes of one of the accused i.e. a T­shirt of white, grey and white stripes and black colour pant having blood stains as Ex.MO7 and clothes of one of the accused i.e. blood stained cream colour   shirt   with   black   lining   as   Ex.MO9,   the   clothes   of   the complainant as Ex.MO10, the blood stained knife as Ex.P1 and the rod as Ex.P2.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Kumar Mukesh, Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh, the witness stated that he himself had not seized the weaponss of offence i.e. the knife and the iron rod.   He stated that except for seizing the blood stained clothes of the accused Charan Singh, no other recovery was made at his instance or from his person.   The witness stated that while rescuing the accused Charan Singh and sending him to the hospital, he had not noticed the nature of injuries sustained by him and the primary concern was to rescue the three persons from the wrath of the   crowd.     He   denied   that   the   accused   Charan   Singh   was   not CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...66  of 136 present   at   the   spot.     He   denied   that   he   had   not   joined   the investigation at any point of time.   He denied that he was deposing falsely.

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination   by   Sh.   R.S.   Hooda,   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused Himanshu Rathi and Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. Counsel for the accused Narender, he deposed that he had reached the spot at about 12.10 am after receipt of the call and was the first police person to reach the spot along with ASI Arshad Ali though he explained that the PCR van had already taken away one accused to the hospital.  He did not know the name of the Incharge of that PCR van and came to know of this fact only on formal enquiry from the people present there.  He was not aware if the landlord Harish  and the shopkeeper namely Bansal were present there when he had reached there.  He deposed that he and the SHO inspected the spot minutely.

  In   the   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness stated that the disclosure statements of the accused were recorded between 9 / 9.30 am and the accused were taken to the spot at 11 am.  The house owner and his family members were not available in the said house but the house was open.   He was not aware whether any neighbour was asked to join the investigation. However, he was not aware whether Satish belonged to the family of the deceased or not or was a neighbour.  He admitted as correct that   there   were   tenants   but   nobody   was   asked   to   join   the investigation at the time of recovery.  The witness further deposed CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...67  of 136 that   the   room   of   the   accused   persons   from   where   the   alleged recovery was affected was open and the same was not locked.  No fingerprints were lifted from the rod and the knife.  He denied that he   was   deposing   falsely   or   that   he   had   not   witnessed   recovery proceedings or that no disclosure statement of the accused were recorded in his presence.   He denied that he had signed all the memos   which   were   prepared at the Police Station itself. This witness  was not cross­examined on behalf of any other accused.

PW.35  is   Insp.   Vijay   Pal   who   deposed   that   in   the intervening   night   on   10/11­05­2010,   he   was   posted   as   the Additional   SHO,   PS   Vasant   Vihar.     He   deposed   that   in   the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010, on the information of the Duty Officer at 12.30 am, he along with SI Neeraj Chaudhary and HC Gulab Singh reached Gumbadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai where SI Ajit   Pal   and   other   police   staff   and   many   public   persons   were present.  He came to know that Honey had been injured by a knife and had been taken to the Fortis hospital and the three persons who had inflicted injuries, had been taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre. He left SI Ajit Pal and HC Gulab Chand at the spot to protect the scene  of   crime  as  the  blood, etc  was  lying  there  and  there  was tension in the area.

On reaching the Fortis hospital he came to know from the doctor that Honey was brought dead.   He stated that he had seen body of Honey   lying in the emergency of the hospital and noticed blood oozing out from the right side of his body. In the meantime, the SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash also reached the hospital.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...68  of 136 He prepared   a written request Ex.PW.35/A and sent the body to the mortuary, AIIMS hospital through Ct. Ram Sahai.  The witness further   stated   that   the   SHO   recorded   the   statement   of   Nitin Sansanwal, prepared the rukka and gave the same to Ct. Raj Kumar for the registration of the case.  Thereafter, he along with the  SHO went to the AIIMS Trauma Centre where HC Lekh Ram and Ct. Kuldeep were present.   The accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh were also found in the Trauma Centre. The witness correctly identified the accused persons.  The witness further stated that the SHO left him at the AIIMS Trauma  Centre to supervise and keep the accused in his custody.  After the accused were   discharged   from   the   hospital,   he   brought   them   to   the   PS Vasant Vihar and produced them before the SHO.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, this witness stated that the crowd was large but he could not specify the number of the persons present. He stated that it was SI Ajit Pal who had told him that the injured had been taken to the Fortis hospital and the boys who had caused the  injuries  had  been  taken  to the  AIIMS  Trauma  Centre.    The witness further stated that he remained at the spot for about 5­10 minutes.   In   further   cross­examination   by   Sh.   Fauzi   Sayeed,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh, he submitted that it was incorrect that he had never visited the spot.

During his cross­examination by Sh. R.S. Hooda, Ld. Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, he stated that he did not make any enquiry from any person present at the spot.  He did not CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...69  of 136 know Nitin Sansanwal   prior to the incident and that he had no means   for determining the identity of the persons claimed to be Nitin   Sansanwal.   No   other   cross­examination   was   conducted   of this witness.s PW.36  is   HC   Gulab   Singh.     He   deposed   that   on 11.05.2010, he was posted at the PS Vasant Vihar and pursuant to the directions of the SHO, Insp. Ved Prakash, he along with Insp. Vijay  Pal, (ATO)   and SI  Neeraj  Chaudhary  reached  the  spot  at Gumwadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai where public persons were found gathered and the SHO was also found present.  He also deposed to having learnt that   Honey had been stabbed and removed to the Fortis hospital and the three persons who had assaulted Honey  had been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre.  He was left behind at the spot while the SHO went to the Fortis hospital.   He deposed that after some time, the SHO returned to the spot with Nitin Sansanwal and at his instance prepared the site plan.  He also deposed to the Investigating   Officer,   Insp.   Ved   Prakash   lifting   various   exhibits from the spot and sealing them with the seal of VP seizing them vide various seizure memos Ex.PW.16/B to Ex.PW.16/G.  He also deposed to the witness Nitin Sansanwal producing his shirt which was seized after being sealed with the seal of VP vide the seizure memo Ex.PW.16/H.   The witness identified his signatures on all these memos.

He   deposed   that   thereafter   they   had   returned   to   the police   station   where   the   assailants   Muninder   Panjeta,   Saubrabh Yadav   and   Charan   Singh   were   present.     He   deposed   to   the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...70  of 136 Investigating   Officer   making   enquiries   from   them   and   arresting them and conducting their personal searches and recording their disclosure   statements   vide   memos   Ex.PW.16/I   to   Ex.PW.16/K; Ex.PW.34/D   to   Ex.PW.34/F   and   Ex.PW.34/A   to   Ex.PW.34/C respectively.     The   witness   also   deposed   that   pursuant   to   the disclosure statements, the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav led them to the village Katwaria Sarai where Satish joined in the investigation and the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh and Saurabh Yadav led them to the rented room no.16 in the house no. A­375, ground floor, Katwaria Sarai and the accused Muninder Panjeta took out a blood stained knife from the tand  in the room which   was   stated   to   have   been   used   in   the   commission   of   the offence.     The   witness   also   deposed   to   the   Investigating   Officer lifting the knife, preparing its sketch vide memo Ex.PW.36/A and seizing   the   same   vide   memo   Ex.PW.2/A   after   sealing   the   same with the seal of the Investigating Officer.

The   witness   also   testified   to   the   accused   Saurabh Yadav taking out an iron rod from the same tand of the room no.16 and   producing   the   same   to   the   Investigating   Officer   and   the Investigating Officer measuring it and sealing the same with the seal  of   VP   and  seizing  it  vide  memo  Ex.PW.2/B.    The  witness further deposed that the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of recovery, Ex.PW.36/B.   He identified his signatures on all these memos.     He   also   deposed   to   the   seizure   of   the   clothes   of   the accused vide memos Ex.PW.36/C to Ex.PW.36/E and identified his signatures on the memos.  He further deposed that on 31.05.2010, CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...71  of 136 he   had   joined   the   investigation,   on   which   date   pursuant   to   the directions of the Investigating Officer, he took exhibits of the case from the Malkhana vide RC No.66/21/10 and deposited the same with the FSL, Rohini in sealed and intact condition.   He deposed that so long as the case property remained in his custody, no one had tampered with the same.

He deposed that on 07.08.2010, he had again joined the investigation of the case and during patrolling, he along with the Investigating Officer, Insp. Ved Prakash were present at the Booth of Katwaria Sarai when the Investigating Officer  received a secret information regarding the accused Raju Kumar standing near the gate of Sanskrit Vidyapith, Katwaria Sarai.  On the pointing out of the secret informer, they apprehended the accused Raju Kumar who was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW.36/F.  The Investigating Officer conducted the personal search vide memo Ex.PW.36/G and recorded   his   disclosure   statement   Ex.PW.36/H.     The   witness identified his signatures on all these memos.  He identified the case property which was produced.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Sanjay Khatana, Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar, the witness stated that no DD was lodged regarding the receipt of secret information regarding the accused Raju Kumar.   He deposed that except for the SHO, himself,   the   driver   and   the   operator,   there   was   no   other   police official i.e. Beat Officer and nor was there any police official or traffic   staff at the police booth at   that time.   He stated that no public person agreed to join the investigation.  He deposed that the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...72  of 136 SHO had not called anyone from Sanskrit Vidyapeeth to join the investigation.   He   denied   that   the   accused   Raju   Kumar   had surrendered himself in the police station or that they had wrongly shown   his   arrest   from   Katwaria   Sarai.     He   denied   that   the signatures   of   the   accused   Raju   Kumar   were   obtained   on   blank papers   or   that   the   accused   Raju   Kumar   had   not   made   any disclosure statement.

The witness in further cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain,   Ld.   LAC   for   the   accused   Narender,   stated   that   they   had reached the spot in a government vehicle.   They had started from the police station at about 2.10 am and had reached the spot within 10 minutes.  He stated that he did not know how many  persons had gathered at the spot when they had reached there but there were about 25 police officials  present as there was apprehension of riot. The witness further stated that he remained at the spot till 8 am. He   stated   that   the   Investigating   Officer   had   not   recorded   the statement of any person from the public in his presence.  He denied that he had not accompanied the Insp. Vijay Pal or that he had not joined the investigation or was deposing falsely.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Kumar Mukesh, Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh, the witness stated that the information   regarding   the   case   was   given   by   the   Investigating officer to him at about 1.38 am and they had reached the spot at about 2.15 am.   He stated that no statement was recorded in his presence though enquiries were conducted from the eye witness Nitin Sansanwal and from other local villagers who were present at CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...73  of 136 the spot.  He denied that all writing work and seizures  were made at the police station or that no site plan was prepared at the spot or that   he   had   not   joined   the   investigation   of   this   case   after 11.05.2010.

 During the cross­examination by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness deposed that he came to know during the enquiry at the spot that before they had reached the PCR officials had taken the injured Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh to the hospital and the spot was protected with the local police.  He stated that at about 8 am, he found three accused in the Police Station but did not know when and by whom they were brought to the Police Station from the hospital.  He stated that the disclosure statements were recorded at 10 / 10.30 on the next day.   He stated that the distance between the police station and the place of incidence was about 2 KM.  He stated that all the accused were taken to the spot at 12 12.30 pm on the same day.  According to him, nobody was found at the house where the accused were tenants; the house was not locked but the room of the accused was locked and the key was provided by the SHO though the witness did not know from where he had brought the key.  He stated that no fingerprints were lifted from  knife or the rod.

He   admitted   that   in   his   presence   neither   Nitin Sansanwal nor Brahm Singh were asked to join the investigation at the time of recovery of the knife and the iron rod.   He was not aware as to whom the seal was given after use by the Investigating CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...74  of 136 Officer.  He denied that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the   Investigating   Officer   or   that   no   disclosure   statements   were given   by   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta,   Saurabh   Yadav   and Charan Singh in his presence or that all the memos were prepared in the police station or that he had never joined the investigation.

PW.37 is Insp. Neeraj Chaudhary.   He deposed that in the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010, he was posted as SI in the PS   Vasant   Vihar   and   on   that   day   at   about   2   am,   he   had accompanied Insp. Vijay Pal for attending the call of the present case and when they reached at the spot, they came to know that the injured   and   the   three   accused   persons   have   been   taken   to   the hospital.  He was left to safeguard the spot while Insp. Ved Prakash who was already present at the spot left for the hospital along with other staff.   The witness further stated that the Insp. Ved Prakash along with the staff returned to the spot after about one and half hour and they conducted the proceedings and returned to the police station.  The witness further stated that so long as he remained at the spot, no disturbance was caused to it.

He further stated that at about 9 am, Insp. Ved Prakash handed over to him inquest papers in respect of the deceased and directed   him   to  submit   the   same   at   the  mortuary   of   the   AIIMS hospital so that postmortem could be conducted.  Accordingly, they reached the mortuary of AIIMS hospital where   Nitin Sansanwal and Mukesh met him who identified the dead body of Honey.  The witness stated that the Insp. Ved Prakash recorded the statements of   Nitin   Sansanwal   and   Mukesh   regarding   identification   of   the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...75  of 136 dead body.   After the postmortem was conducted, the dead body was  handed over to Nitin Sansanwal.  Thereafter, they returned to the police station.  The witness further deposed that on 18.05.2010, as   per   the   directions   of   the   SHO,   he   searched   for   the   accused Himanshu Rathi and went to the house no.1575, Sector 2, Rohtak but did not find the accused Himanshu Rathu there.

On   205.05.2010,   he   also   searched   for   the   accused Narender and Raju Kumar at their respective residences at Village Bajghera and New Palam Vihar but they were not found there.  The witness further stated that on 21.05.10 he again searched for the accused Narender and Raju Kumar and since they were not found at their residences, Insp. Ved Prakash obtained NBWs against the accused Narender, Himanshu Rathi and Raju Kumar.  The witness stated that he went to arrest the accused persons but they were all found absconding.  Thereafter on 16.08.10, the accused Himanshu Rathi, correctly identified by the witness surrendered in the Court. The   witness   stated   that   he   then   moved   an   application   for permission   to   interrogate   the   accused   and   arrest   the   accused Himanshu Rathi and custody was handed over to him through the Court orders.

He then interrogated the accused Himanshu Rathi and recorded his disclosure statement.   The arrest memo was brought on   record   as   Ex.PW.37/C   and   the   disclosure   statement   as Ex.PW.37/B.   The   application   for   permission   to   interrogate   and arrest   is   Ex.PW.37/A.     Personal   search   of   the   accused   was conducted vide memo Ex.PW.37/D.   An application for one day CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...76  of 136 police custody was brought on record as Ex.PW.37/E.  The witness stated that he brought the accused to the police station and handed over the file along with the accused to the Insp. Ved Prakash.  The witness   further   deposed   that   on   26.08.10,   Insp.   Ved   Prakash directed him to conduct raid  for the arrest of the accused Narender at village Bajghera.

Accordingly,   he   along   with   the   HC   Jagpal   and   Ct. Sandeep   went   to   the   village   Bajghera   of   the   accused   Narender, correctly identified by the witness.   He interrogated the accused Narender and his  disclosure statement Ex.PW.37/F was recorded. Thereafter, the witness arrested him and conducted  the personal search  vide   memos   Ex.PW.24/A   and   Ex.PW.24/B   on  which   the witness  identified  his  signatures.     He stated  that  he  brought  the accused Narender to the police station and produced him before the SHO to whom he handed over the accused and the file.  He also got the statements of the PCR officials recorded.  He also joined Harish who had made the call to the PCR and Sumit from whose mobile phone, call was made and recorded their statements U/s 161 Cr.PC.

During the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for the accused Narender, he stated that   there might have been   5/6   persons   present   outside     the   barricade   by   the   police officials safeguarding the spot and  when he reached  there  in the intervening night of 10/11­05­2010 at about 2.15 am, he remained at the spot for two / two and half hours.  He did not remember if any statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer during that time.  He was questioned on the various visits to the house of the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...77  of 136 accused Narender and he gave those details as to the date and time. He admitted that he had not joined the neighbours while effecting the arrest of the accused.  He did not recall if he had informed the local   police   in   whose   jurisdiction,   the   house   of   the   accused Narender   was   located,   before   the   arrest   of   the   accused   or conducting various raids. He denied the suggestion that the accused Narender  had himself surrendered  at the police station.  He denied that all the documentation was done at the police station.

In   response   to   the   questions   put   in   the   cross­ examination on behalf of the accused Himanshu Rathi by the Ld. Counsel  Sh.  R.S.  Hooda,   the  witness   stated  that  HC   Gulab  had accompanied him to the house of the accused Himanshu Rathi on 18.05.2010 and on 10.06.2010.  He stated that he had reached there at   about     2   pm   and   had   remained   at   the   house   of   the   accused Himanshu   Rathi   for   four   and   half   hours.   He   stated   that   in   the disclosure statement, the accused Himanshu Rathi disclosed that he could get recovered the clothes.  He stated that he had  lodged the departure entries.   He claimed to have informed the local police about his arrival but admitted that he had not joined any personnel from the local police station.  He stated that he had collected  the copy of the DD regarding his arrival in the local police station, Urban   State,   Rohtak   and   had   handed   over   the   same   to   the Investigating Officer.  He denied that they had delayed the arrest of the accused Himanshu Rathi as they were not having any evidence against the accused Himanshu Rathi.  He denied the suggestion put to   him   as   incorrect   that   the   documents   were   prepared   of   the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...78  of 136 accused as having made a disclosure statement voluntarily. This witness was not cross­examined on behalf of any other accused.

PW.38  is Ms. Anita   Chhari, Sr. Scientific Assistant, (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi.  She brought on record her reports, Ex.PW.38/A and Ex.PW.38/B.  A suggestion was put by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. Counsel for the accused Narender to the witness which she denied that she had not examined the exhibits or that she had prepared the reports at the instance of the Investigating Officer. No other questions were put to this witness in the cross­examination on behalf of any other accused.

PW.39,   Insp.   Ved   Prakash   deposed   that   on 10.05.2010, he was posted as SHO, PS Vasant Vihar.  On that day, two PCR  calls  were  received  regarding a quarrel in the area of Katwaria   Sarai     which   were   entrusted   to   SI   Ajit   Pal   for   taking necessary action.   On receipt of the information, he also departed for  the spot vide DD no.2 and reached Gumbadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai where SI Ajit Pal, ASI Arshad Ali along with other staff were present and there was a crowd beating up two boys.   Blood was found in the street opposite house no. A­375, Gumbadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai.  He deposed that the two boys being beaten by the public were rescued with the help of the police staff.  He also came to know one another boy had been sent to the hospital and the boy who   had   been   stabbed   had   already   been   removed   to   the   Fortis hospital by Nitin Sansanwal.

The witness stated that he had deputed SI Ajit Pal to safeguard   the   scene   of   crime   and   he   proceeded   to   the   Fortis CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...79  of 136 hospital where he collected the MLC of Honey who was declared brought dead.  He inspected the dead body and noticed the injuries with some sharp edged object on the right side of the chest of the deceased.   The   witness   stated   that   he   met   Nitin   Sansanwal,   the resident of Katwaria Sarai at the hospital and made enquiries from him,   recorded   his   statement,   Ex.PW.16/A;   made   endorsement Ex.PW.39/A; and sent the rukka through Ct. Raj   Kumar, asking the duty officer to register the FIR.   Ct. Raj Kumar immediately left with the rukka for the police station and he made arrangement for   the postmortem of Honey.   He further stated that he reached the AIIMS Trauma Centre where he enquired about the three boys, namely, the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh whom he correctly identified and found that they were in the casualty and were being examined by the doctor.  He deployed the staff for their safe custody with the direction to take them to the police station after their medical treatment.

Thereafter, the witness returned to the spot where he inspected   the   scene   of   crime   along   with   Nitin   Sansanwal   and prepared the site plan, Ex.PW.39/B.  The witness stated that he also seized various exhibits vide memos Ex.PW.16/C to Ex.PW.16/G. In the meantime, Ct. Raj Kumar reached the spot and handed over to him the original rukka and the copy of the FIR.  He also seized the blood stained shirt of Nitin Sansanwal vide memo Ex.PW.16/H after affixing the seal of VP.  Thereafter, he returned to the police station and deposited the case property with the Malkhana.   The witness stated that thereafter, HC Lekh Ram, Ct. Kuldeep and Ct.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...80  of 136 Balvinder brought the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and   Charan   Singh   to   the   police   station   and   handed   over   their MLCs.     The   witness   stated   that   he   interrogated   these   accused persons   who   made   disclosure   statements   Ex.PW.37/A   to Ex.PW.37/C.   He   arrested   the   accused   persons   vide   memos Ex.PW.16/I   to Ex.PW.16/K and  conducted  their   personal  search memos   vide   Ex.PW.34/D   to   Ex.PW.34/F.     He   identified   his signatures on all of these memos.

He further stated that on the disclosure statements of the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, they went to the flat no.,16, ground floor, House No.A 375, Katwaria Sarai and on the   pointing   out   and   at   the   instance   of   the   accused   Muninder Panjeta, a knife was recovered from the slab of inner room.   He prepared   the   sketch   of   the   knife,   Ex.PW.36/A,   placed   it   in   a pulanda   and   sealed   it   with   the   seal   of   VP   and   took   it   into possession   vide   memo   Ex.PW.2/A   which   was   signed   by   the witness as well as the accused.   He prepared the site plan of the place of recovery which is Ex.PW.36/B.  He also stated that at the time of recovery, one public witness had also accompanied him.   

The   witness   further   deposed   that   thereafter   on   the pointing   out   of   the   accused   Saurabh   Yadav,   one   iron   rod   was recovered from the same slab of the inner room.  The iron rod was also similarly converted into a parcel, sealed with the seal of VP and seized vide memo Ex.PW.2/B which was signed by the witness as   well   as   the   accused.     The   witness   stated   that   thereafter,   he brought   both   the   accused   with   the   case   property   to   the   police CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...81  of 136 station   and the case property was deposited in the malkhana and the accused were kept in his custody.  He further stated that he had seized the clothes worn by the accused vide memos Ex.PW.36/C to Ex.PW.36/E   which   were   duly   sealed   in   the   cloth   parcels.   The witness   identified   his   signatures   on   all   these   documents.   The witness   further   stated   that   he   had   got   the   dead   body   of   Honey identified   vide   statements   Ex.PW.23/A   and   Ex.PW.16/L.   He moved an application, Ex.PW.39/C for conducting the postmortem of the deceased.  The witness brought on record the inquest papers as Ex.PW.39/D.   After the postmortem, he handed over the dead body to his relatives.  Thereafter, he produced all the accused in the Court who were remanded to judicial custody.

The witness stated that from there he reached Katwaria Sarai and joined  Dinesh Bansal, Avinash and Harish and recorded their   statements.   He   got   recorded   the   statements   of   the   police personnel   who   were   associated   in   the   investigations.     He   also recorded the statement of Joginder @ Tuli in the intervening night of   10/11­05­2010.   He   further   deposed   that   he   searched   for   the remaining accused.   He collected the details of the admissions in the  schools  of   the  accused  Narender, Raju  and  Himanshu  Rathi who were absconding.  He collected the attested copies of the DDs no.54A   and   55A,   Ex.PW.8/A   and   Ex.PW.8/B   and   the   attested copies of the DDs no.2­A, 6­A, 13­A and 12­A which were brought on record as Ex.PW.39/E to Ex.PW.39/H respectively, which   all bore his signatures and were duly attested by the ACP.

He further deposed that he had got the spot inspected CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...82  of 136 from the Mobile Team also.   He deposed that the Mobile Crime Team Incharge handed over his report Ex.PW.28/A and the crime team photographer had taken the photographs.  The witness stated that he collected  four photographs from the Photo Section of the mobile   team   which   are   Ex.PW.27/A­1   to   Ex.PW.27/A­4.     The witness stated that he had got the scene of crime inspected through Draftsman, SI Mahesh Kumar who later on handed over the scaled site plan.   He also deposed that he had collected other relevant records from Lal  Bahadur Shastri Vidhyapeeth through SI  Neeraj Chaudhary to find out the parentage and residential addresses of the remaining accused  Narender, Raju Kumar and Himanshu Rathi and   obtained   NBWs   against   them   vide   memos   Ex.PW.39/I   and Ex.PW.39/J   and     the   applications   Ex.PW.36/K   and   Ex.PW.39/L The witness deposed to having initiated the proceedings U/s 82/83 Cr.PC against the absconding accused.

He also deposed that he filed the charge­sheet  against the   accused   who   were   in   custody   namely   Muninder   Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh.   The witness further deposed that on 07.08.2010, the accused  Raju, whom he correctly identified was apprehended near Lal Bahadur Shastri Sanskrit Vidhyapeet on the   basis   of   the   secret   information.   The   witness   stated   that   on interrogation,   the   accused   Raju   Kumar   gave   his   disclosure statement, Ex.PW.36/H.   The witness stated that he arrested the accused Raju Kumar vide Ex.PW.36/I and took his personal search vide   memo   Ex.PW.36/G.     He   deposed   that   he   had   sent   all   the exhibits  to  the FSL   and  had also  collected  the  FSL  reports.  He CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...83  of 136 identified all the case property as well.

The   witness   further   deposed   that   he   had   filed   the charge­sheet as well as the supplementary charge­sheet.  Later, on 12.10.2015,   he   moved   an   application   to   the   Court   seeking permission   to   take   the   subsequent   opinion   with   regard   to   the weapons of the offence from the doctor.   On 13.10.2015, he had submitted a sealed pulanda of knife along with the seizure memo of the   knife,   copy   of   the   FSL   report   and   copy   of   the   postmortem report of deceased   Honey and Dr. Mahesh Kumar, posted in the Department   of   Forensic   Medicines,   AIIMS   gave   the   subsequent opinion that the injury mentioned in the postmortem report was possible from the knife in question.  The witness stated that he filed the opinion in the Court which is Ex.PW.39/M and the subsequent opinion along with the sketch of the knife has been brought on record as Ex.PW.39/N. During the cross­examination by the Sh. R.S. Hoooda, Ld. Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, the witness stated that it was correct that on 10.05.2010, an information was received in the police station vide DD No.55A, Ex.PW.8/B "Katwaria Sarai Devi   Singh   house   ek   ladke   ko   chaku   maar   diya   hai"   and   the witness explained that a prior information was received vide DD No.54A, Ex.PW.8/A.   He stated that he had himself prepared the rough site plan of the place of crime, Ex.PW.39/I.  He admitted that he had not shown the house of Devi Singh in the site plan though Gumwadwali gali is shown in the site plan.   He admitted that he had shown the house of Harish in the rough site plan but had not CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...84  of 136 shown   the   position   of   the   witnesses   except   the   PW16   Nitin Sansanwal in Ex.PW.39/A.  He stated that ASI Arshad Ali and  SI Ajit   Pal   Tomar   had   also   reached   the   spot   by   the   time   he   had reached there.  He deposed by the time he reached the spot, people were beating up the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav and at that time,  no one informed him that any one of them were eye witnesses.

He stated that there was a law and order situation and the   injured   had   been   removed   to   the   hospital.   He   deemed   it necessary   to   bring   the   situation   under   control   rather   than   make efforts   to   enquire   about   the   eye   witnesses.   He   denied   the suggestion that the accused persons were apprehended by him from the   house   of   Harish.     He   stated   that   though   Harish   and   Dinesh Bansal were present at the spot at that time, he had not recorded their statements at that time.   He gave the time taken by him to inspect the body of Honey at the hospital and record the statement of PW.16 Nitin Sansanwal and to return to the spot and to record the   statement   of   PW.3   Joginder   @   Tuli.     He   denied   all   the suggestions put to him that he had had not prepared the site plan or that the accused Himanshu Rathi had been falsely implicated in the present case or that there was no cogent evidence against him   to connect him to the crime.

During the cross­examination by Sh. K.K. Manan, Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness stated that he had collected the call detail records of PW.16 CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...85  of 136 Nitin Sansanwal and Joginder @ Tuli.   He stated that he had not got the TIP of the accused conducted.  He admitted as correct that on 11.05.2010, Nitin Sansanwal had come to the police station at 2.30 am  and he had been shown the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh   Yadav.     He   stated   that   he   had   recorded   the   disclosure statements   of   these   three   accused   after   the   arrival   of   Nitin Sansanwal   but   Nitin   Sansanwal   was   not   present   when   the disclosure statements were being recorded.  He admitted as correct that at the time of recovery of knife and the rod, he had not asked Nitin Sansanwal, Joginder @ Tuli and Dinesh Bansal to join the investigations for the purpose of recovery.  He admitted that he had not   even   asked   the   house   owners   namely   Harish   to   join   the investigations at the time of recovery  as he was not available at his residence.  He admitted as correct that though the family members of the house owners were available, he had not asked them to join investigations at the time of recovery. 

In further cross­examination, he stated that no memo was prepared for handing over and taking over of the seal in this case.  He denied the suggestion that the signatures of Satish were taken subsequently in the police station where the documents were prepared   or   that   Satish   was   not   present   at   the   time   of   the preparation of the sketch of knife.  The witness further stated that though   the   witness   Nitin   Sansanwal   was   available   in   the   police station, he had not made him a witness to the disclosure nor had he taken him  to the spot for recovery of the knife and rod   as he did not feel that it was required.  He also stated that he did not feel it CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...86  of 136 proper to take Joginder @ Tuli for the purpose of recovery of the knife and the rod.  He stated that though the departmental store of Dinesh Bansal was open and he was available, he did not join him in the proceedings as  he did not find it expedient.

The witness further deposed that when they reached the   place   of   recovery,   they   found   the   house   was   bolted   from outside.  The house was unbolted from outside in the presence of the family members of Harish and other persons and thereafter they entered the house.  He deposed that no fingerprints and the chance prints were lifted either from the rod or the knife.  He further stated that  the   knife  was   engraved   with   the   name   of   Muninder   on   its blade.     He   denied   the   suggestions   that   he   had   not   properly investigated the case or that he had falsely implicated the accused Muninder Panajeta or Saurabh Yadav in this case or that the knife was tampered with and the Court seal broken to engrave the name of Muninder on the blade or that he had deliberately not handed over the seal to an independent person in order to tamper with the case property.     He denied that the knife and the rod had been planted   falsely   on   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta   and   Saurabh Yadav.

During the examination by Sh. Sanjay Khatana, Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar, the witness stated he was on patrolling duty near police Booth, Katwaria Sarai when he received an information regarding presence of the accused Raju Kumar  but he had not reduced the same into writing.   He also deposed that CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...87  of 136 beat staff were also present there as were the driver and operator. He stated that he had asked persons from the public to join the investigations near Katwaria Sarai before the arrest of the accused Raju Kumar but they had refused.   The witness admitted that he had not asked any public person from the Lal Bahadur Vidyapeeth to be present  before arresting the accused Raju Kumar.  He denied the suggestion that the accused Raju Kumar had himself appeared in   the   police   station   to   join   the   investigations   and   he   had   no concern with the crime.   He denied that he had not investigated the case   properly   or   that   the   accused   had   made   no   disclosure statements to him.

In the cross­examination by Sh. Rajiv Jain, Ld. LAC for   the   accused   Narender,   the   witness   stated   that     SI   Neeraj Chaudhary  had produced relevant records of the accused Narender from  Lal   Bahadur   Vidyapeeth   and   Institute   of   Hospitality   and Tourism  Management  and   it   was   revealed   that   the   accused Narender   was   not   a   student   of   that   institute.   He   denied   the suggestion that the accused Narender was never residing with the accused   Raju   Kumar  at   the   tenanted   premises  no.   A­375, Gumbadwali   gali   or   any   other   place   of   Gumbadwali   gali.     The witness explained that he had recorded the statement of Harish and the landlord of the accused that Narender was staying with Raju Kumar   as   being   his   friend.     He   denied   the   suggestion   that   the accused   Raju   Kumar   had   been   falsely   implicated   in   the   present case or that he had no link with the crime.  

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...88  of 136 In the cross­examination by Sh. Kumar Mukesh, Ld. Counsel   for   the   accused   Charan   Singh,   the   witness   denied   the suggestion   that   he   had   obtained   the   signatures   of   the   accused Charan Singh on the disclosure statement forcibly.  He denied the suggestion   as   incorrect   that   the   accused   Charan   Singh   was   not present at the spot nor had participated in the crime.  He denied the suggestion that the accused Charan Singh as not residing in the tenanted   premises   along   with   other   accused.     He   denied   the suggestion that the accused Charan Singh had come to fill up some forms and had stayed with some other person.   He admitted that nothing was recovered from the accused Charan Singh except his clothes when he was apprehended and arrested.  The witness stated that he had seen the accused Charan Singh for the first time in the hospital after the incident as he had been removed by the PCR van to   the   hospital.     He   stated   that   the   accused   Charan   Singh   had sustained simple injuries.  He further stated that he enquired about the     antecedents   of   the   accused   Charan   Singh   but   no   previous involvement was found.   The witness denied that he had falsely implicated the accused Charan Singh in this case.

PW.40  is   Dr.   Mahesh   Kumar,   Sr   Resident, Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS.   He deposed that on 13.10.2015, he had been asked to give the subsequent opinion on the weapons of offence and he gave his opinion that the injuries mentioned   in   the   postmortem   report   could   be   possible   by   the alleged weapons.  He also prepared a sketch of the knife which was CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...89  of 136 brought on the record as Ex.PW.39/N. This witness was not cross­ examined on behalf of any of the accused.

PW.41 is Insp.  Mahesh Kumar who deposed that on 14.06.2010 when he was posted as SI Draughtsman, he was called by the Investigating Officer, Insp. Ved Prakash to visit the scene of crime.  Accordingly, he reached Gumbadwali gali, Katwaria Sarai in front of the Bansal Genereal Store where Nitin Sansanwal was also present.  The witness stated that on the pointing out of Nitin Sansanwal, he took the measurements and prepared the rough notes and thereafter prepared the scaled site plan, Ex.PW.41/A. In   his   cross­examination   by   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, he admitted that the scaled site plan Ex.PW.41/A   did not bear the signatures   of   Nitin   Sansanwal.     He   further   stated   that   he   had inspected   the   scene   of   crime   after   one   and   half   months   of   the incident and he had not noticed any incriminating article there.  He admitted that he had not prepared the site plan of his own but had done so at the instance of PW. Nitin Sansanwal.   He denied the suggestion that Nitin Sansanwal was not present on 14.06.2010 or that he had deliberately made him the witness at the instance of the Investigating Officer or that he had prepared the site plan while sitting in the police station.

ARGUMENTS Ld.   APP   for   the   State   has   placed   emphasis   on   the testimonies of PW.1 Harish, PW.2 Satish, PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli, CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...90  of 136 PW.10  Avinash   Malik,   PW.11   Dinesh   Bansal,  PW.16   Nitin Sansanwl,  PW.17 Dr. Susheel Sharma, PW.38 Ms. Anita  Chhari, PW.15 HC Lekh Ram,  PW.22  HC Har Sahai, PW.25 ASI Arshad Ali,  PW.30 Ct. Kuldeep,  PW.34 SI Ajit Pal Tomar,  PW.35 Insp. Vijay Pal,  PW.36 HC Gulab Singh,  PW.39 Insp. Ved Prakash and PW.40 Dr. Mahesh Kumar.   Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the witnesses namely PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli, PW.10 Avinash Malik  and  PW.16 Nitin  Sansanwal,  all  deposed  to the  deceased having   objected   to   the   eve   teasing   indulged   in   by   the   accused persons.   Ld. APP for the State submitted that a quarrel ensued when the deceased had objected to the eve teasing by the accused persons   which   led   to   the   stabbing   and   death   of   Honey.     He submitted that the eye witnesses had named the accused persons and explained their motives and the recovery of their clothes by the Investigating Officer, which were stained with blood, established to their presence  at the spot.  The witness of recovery including the independent witness Satish established that the weapons of offence were recovered at the instance of the accused Muninder Panjeta and   Saurabh   Yadav   from   their   room.   Ld.   APP   for   the   State submitted that the FSL reports established that the blood on the knife and rod and clothes of the accused and the eye witnesses proved that not only were the eye witnesses present at the spot, but the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused persons were also   connected   to   the   crime.     The   opinion   of   the     PW.40   Dr. Mahesh Kumar has also established this fact.

It is submitted that the three of the accused namely CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...91  of 136 Muninder   Panjeta,   Saurabh   Yadav   and   Charan   Singh   were apprehended   by   the   villagers   at   the   spot   and   beaten   up   and admittedly   they   were   removed   by   the   PCR   van   to   the   Trauma Centre where they were given medical attention.  These were very important   and   significant   facts   to   connect   the   accused   with   the offence.  Furthermore, Ld. APP for the State submitted that even if PW.11   Dinesh   Bansal   did   not   fully   support   the   case   of   the prosecution,   he   nevertheless   corroborated   the   other   witnesses regarding the escape of the accused persons to their room at the house   of   Harish   and   also   the   incident   of   eve   teasing.     He   also affirmed the presence of the accused persons.  He also affirmed the apprehension of two of the accused persons by Harish at the spot. The further submission of the Ld. APP for the State was that  the testimony of PW.11 was significant as res gestae.

The   Ld.   APP   for   the   State   submitted   that   not   only were the testimonies of the three eye witnesses available  as  direct evidence to connect the accused to the crime, but there was also scientific evidence to connect them to the death of Honey.   The scientific evidence was the FSL reports, Ex.PW.8/A & Ex.PW.8/B and the medical report including the postmortem and the opinion on   the   injuries.     According   to   the   Ld.   APP   for   the   State,   the prosecution had fully established that there was bad blood between the accused and the deceased as the deceased had protested against the accused indulging in eve teasing of the village girls and that an incident   of   abuses   and   quarrel   had   preceded   the   incident   of stabbing.     The   Ld.   APP   for   the   State   submitted   that   the   eye CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...92  of 136 witnesses had  clearly deposed to the accused beating the deceased with fists and kicks and to the accused Muninder  Panjeta running to his room and bringing a knife and the accused Saurabh Yadav coming with  a rod and attacking the deceased.

The   Ld.   APP   for   the   State   submitted   that   the   deep injury caused by a single stab wound was possible with the knife recovered   at   the   instance   of   the   accused   and   further,   the   knife injury was sufficient to cause the death in the normal course.  Ld. APP for the Sate argued that since all the accused were acting  in concert, all of them were liable for the death of Honey.  Thus, Ld. APP   for   the   State   submitted   that   the   accused   were   liable   to   be convicted for the offence U/s 302 read with Section  34 IPC.

On the other hand, Sh. Kumar Mukesh, Ld. Counsel for the accused Charan Singh submitted that as far as this accused was concerned, the allegations made were that he had given fist and kick blows.  It was submitted that the act of the accused could not have caused the death of the victim as no weapons were used by him.   The cause of death was stab injury.   In any case, Ld. Counsel submitted that the presence of the accused Charan Singh was only by chance to collect his Admit card being a student.  He stated that the accused  Charan Singh was a stranger to the locality and   had   actually   stayed   over   night   with   the   co­accused   only because he had been asked to come the following day and collect the Admit card.  According to the Ld. Counsel, there was no pre­ planning or conspiracy to commit the crime and thus there was no CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...93  of 136 question   of   common   intention   of   this   accused   to   cause   death. Moreover, the witness PW. 1 had not identified the accused Charan Singh neither had the complainant done so.  Thus, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused Charan Singh be acquitted.

Sh.   R.S.   Hooda,   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused Himanshu Rathi stated that nothing had been recovered from this accused.     Ld.   Counsel   submitted   that   the   accused   had   himself surrendered on 16.08.2010 and he was falsely implicated in this case.     Ld.     Counsel   submitted   that   the   allegations   against   the accused   were   also   of   having   given   kick   and   fist   blows   to   the victim.  PW.1 had stated Himanshu Rathi was never his tenant and since   the   information   was   that   the   tenants   of   Harish   were quarreling,  he  was   not  involved  in  this   case.     Ld.  Counsel  also argued that there was no pre­plan of the murder.  However, as per the evidence of the prosecution, two of the accused had allegedly brought the rod and the knife and so, there could be no common intention.  Further, Ld. Counsel submitted that the  presence of the eye witnesses was doubtful in as much as while they claimed that the accused Saurabh Yadav had hit Honey on the back of the head with the rod, there was no such injury seen.   Further, though the witnesses claimed that they had interceded and rescued the  victim, none of them had sustained any injury.  Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused Himanshu Rathi is also entitled to be acquitted.

  Sh. Rajiv  Jain,  Ld. LAC  for  the  accused  Narender CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...94  of 136 submitted   that   only   the   five   witnesses   were   concerned   with   the accused Narender namely   PW.1 Harish,  PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli, PW.10   Avinash Malik, PW.11 Dinesh Bansal, and PW.16 Nitin Sansanwal.   He further  submitted that there were no documents reflecting the tenancy of the accused Narender with PW.1 who had not obtained any police verification of his tenants so   it is doubtful whether   the   accused   Narender   was   the   tenant   of   PW.1.     Ld. Counsel pointed out that with regard to the testimony of PW.3 in his examination in chief, the witness   no doubt mentioned all the accused but he had only given five names which meant that the accused Narender was not present at the spot at the time of the offence.

Furthermore,   the   Ld.   Counsel   argued   that   when   the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav went and came back with the knife and the rod, it was clear that there was no common intention from  the very beginning to cause  the death of  Honey. During   the   cross­examination   of   this   witness   PW3   Joginder   @ Tuli, he had stated that the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav had come back and had instantaneously inflicted injuries on Honey and therefore, there was no common intention made out. So, Section 34 IPC was not attracted to the facts of the present case.  It was also submitted that when PW.3 was examined, he also did not name the accused Narender as being present at the spot, the prosecution   witness   has   himself   demolished   the   case   of   the prosecution against the accused Narender.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...95  of 136 Similarly, PW.7 did not name the accused Narender and   also   could   not   identify   the   accused   Narender   in   the   Court except   after   a   leading   question   was   put   to   him.     Ld.   Counsel submitted   that   the   entire   testimony   of   PW.10   in   naming   the accused   Narender   was   completely   doubtful   and   contradictory. PW.1   neither   named   the   accused   Narender   nor   identified   him. PW.14 claimed  that  PW.3 had informed   him about the quarrel which was completely hearsay evidence and liable to be rejected. Even,   PW.16   did   not   name   the   accused   Narender   in   his examination in chief nor responded to the leading questions of the Ld. Public Prosecutor and identified the accused in dock which was not proper identification at all.  According to the Ld. Counsel, since the prosecution had relied on direct evidence, it could not now seek to   build   a   case   of   circumstantial   evidence.     In   any   case,   Ld. Counsel   argued   that   no   case   was   proved   against   the   accused Narender and the accused Narender was entitled to be acquitted.

 Sh. Sanjay Khatana, Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar   also   submitted   that   the   accused   Raju   Kumar   at   best   is alleged to have given beatings to the deceased.   He had not used any weapon nor had he exonerated  anyone to kill the victim.  The postmortem report and the MLC of the deceased recorded no bruise except for the one stab injury.  Thus according to the Ld. Counsel for   the   accused   Raju   Kumar,   medical   evidence   did   not   support even the allegations of beatings.   Ld. Counsel pointed out to the testimony of PW.1 who deposed that the accused Raju Kumar was not his tenant nor did he know him and nor was the accused Raju CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...96  of 136 Kumar present at the spot.

Ld. Counsel submitted that the testimony of PW.3 was very contradictory and his naming of the accused Raju Kumar was not   credible   as   he   was   confronted   with   his   previous   statement, Ex.PW.3/DA   made   by   him.     He   also   contradicted   the   other witnesses   with   regard   to   the   facts   such   as   the     presence   of   the owner   of   the   store   and   whether   the   store   was   open   or   closed. Similarly,  PW.10  while   naming  the   accused   Raju  Kumar  in  the examination   in   chief,   he   was   confronted   with   his   previous statement wherein he had  not mentioned the name of the accused Raju Kumar.   PW.11 was hostile. PW.16 claimed that the names were provided by Dinesh Bansal and it was clear that the names were introduced later on.  It was argued that had these persons been present at the spot, and been involved in the incident,  their names would have been supplied to the police when they had come to the spot.       There   was   no   need   for   them   to  have   waited   till  Dinesh Bansal disclosed the names.  However, at the same time, the names find mention in the FIR.  All these contradictions established that the names were manipulated in the FIR.   Ld. Counsel submitted that there was thus no evidence against the accused Raju Kumar and he was entitled to be acquitted.

Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld.   Counsel   for   the   accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav referred to the testimony of each witness to submit that the entire case of the prosecution was completely   doubtful,   benefit   of   which   had   to   be   given   to   the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...97  of 136 accused.  Ld. Counsel submitted that the manner of investigations itself established that the entire case was a set up.  From the record, it   was   clear   that   the   Investigating   Officer   did   not   record   the testimonies of the eye witnesses even though they were present. Ld. Counsel also submitted that the prosecution had examined the witnesses as eye witnesses but the call detail records established that the so­called eye witnesses were not present at the time of the incident.   His   contention   was   that   if   two   people   were   standing together there would be no occasion to call the one by the other on the   cell   phone.     He   had   thus,   questioned   the   presence   of   PW.1 Harish, PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli,  PW.10 Avinash Malik, and  PW.16 Nitin Sansanwal at the spot.     PW.11 Dinesh Bansal had denied witnessing the incident.   According to the Ld. Counsel, there were no eye witnesses to the commission of the crime.  The testimonies of these witnesses were completely doubtful and no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of these witnesses to convict the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav for murder.

Ld. Counsel also questioned the recovery proceedings submitting   that   the   prosecution   itself   claims   that   the   accused Muninder   Panjeta   and   Saurabh   Yadav   along   with   the   accused Charan Singh were being beaten by the public and the PCR Van had removed all three of them to the Trauma Centre, AIIMS.  He further submitted that one witness had claimed that the two accused had been apprehended by their landlord Harish and locked in the room and handed over to the police but the police then claimed that they had found two persons being beaten by the public.   In any CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...98  of 136 case,   according   to   the   Ld.   Counsel,   there   was   no   opportunity whatsoever for the accused Saurabh Yadav and Muninder Panajeta to have hidden the alleged weapons of offence in the tand in their room.  Thus, the entire recovery was a manipulated event.

Ld. Counsel also submitted that the name of Muninder Panjeta   was   also   engraved   on   the   knife.     There   was   no   other evidence   produced   to   show   that   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta possessed such a knife.  The seal remained with the Investigating Officer   making   it   feasible   for   him   to   access   the   exhibits. Accordingly, even the presence of the blood was an unreliable fact as the access of the Investigating Officer  to the weapons of offence remained.   Ld. Counsel further argued that the postmortem report disclosed   only   one   injury   and   the   accusation   that   the   accused Saurabh Yadav had hit Honey on the back of the head with a rod was completely falsified   by the medical evidence.   Ld. Counsel has thus, argued that since the entire case of the prosecution was doubtful, the benefit of doubt must accrue to the accused. 

The   Ld.   Counsel   also   filed   the   written   arguments along with citations.

In   the   written   arguments,   the   Ld.   Counsel   has highlighted   from   the   testimonies   of   each   witness   the   facts   that woulds   show   that   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta   and   Saurabh Yadav were not involved in the alleged offence; that there was no eye   witness   identification   that   was   validly   made   and   that   the substantial evidence went against the prosecution's own case as the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...99  of 136 presence  of   the so­called  eye  witnesses  became  doubtful on  the basis of the call detail records.  The written arguments also list out the contradictions in the testimonies of the police witnesses and it is   submitted   that   the   investigations   also   suggested   that   the investigations were not with probity and fairness.   Thus, the Ld. Counsel   prayed  that   the accused  Muninder   Panjeta and  Saurabh Yadav be acquitted.

In response, the Ld. APP for the State submitted that nothing much could be made out of the small differences in the time   period   as   the   sequence   of   events   related   were   natural   and convincing.   Information regarding the quarrel had been received and when the police went to the site, the public was beating the three of the accused namely  Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh.   The police rescued them and sent them for their medical examination.  There was a reason for this quarrel namely the   eve   teasing.     Further   the   call   records   could   only   show   the general  location.   As  Nitin Sansanwal  was residing in Katwaria Sarai   no   presumption   could   be   raised   that   Nitin   Sansanwal   and Joginder @ Tuli never spoke to each other on the phone or that they did not witness the commission of the offence.   It was also submitted   that   there   was   no   explanation   by   the   accused   of   the blood   found   on   the   clothes   of   the   accused   and   the   weapons   of offence.  It was submitted that the accused had been apprehended at   the   spot   and   there   was   no   question   of   TIP.     Moreover,   the witnesses had correctly identified the accused in the Court. 

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...100  of 136 Ld. APP for the State  submitted that the concealment of the weapons of offence in the home was possible as the place of occurrence was only 4 / 5 meters away form the residence of the accused and when they went into the room, they were locked in by the public and they were apprehended from the spot by the police when public was beating them.  So the accused had no opportunity to   destroy   the   weapons.     It   was   submitted   that   Satish   was   an independent witness to the recovery.

It was submitted that there was no delay in lodging the FIR and the recording of the statements of witnesses and there was ample evidence against all the six accused.  Ld. APP for the State submitted   that   all   the   accused   be   convicted   for   committing   the offence of murder in furtherance of their common intention.  It can be stated that the prosecution has heavily relied upon eye witnesses' account   of   the   incident   and   the   role   assigned   to   the   accused persons.     To   bolster   direct   evidence,   the   prosecution   has   also placed on record the call details and also the forensic evidence.

FINDINGS    The case built up by the prosecution is that the accused Muninder Panjeta and his associates used to initially reside in the vicinity of the house of the deceased Honey and used to sit near the village well and indulge in eve teasing.  The deceased is stated to have objected to this conduct.  The accused Muninder Panjeta and his associates used to also drive their motorcycles noisily at high speed to which also the deceased had objected.   According to the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...101  of 136 prosecution,   there   were   hot   words   exchanged   between   the   two sides   on   several   occasions.     On   the   date   of   the   incident,   when Honey was stabbed to death, there were in fact two incidents.  The first one was when the accused and his associates were standing near the  Bansal store and a quarrel occurred whereafter Honey and his   friends   went   home   to   take   dinner.     The   second   incident occurred when Honey and his friends came back after dinner and a quarrel   ensued   between   the   associates   of   the   accused   Muninder Panjeta including the accused Muninder Panjeta, in the course of which Honey was stabbed which resulted in his death.

Ld. Counsel for the accused Muninder Panjeta laid a great   stress   on   the   time   frame   in   an   effort   to   show   that   the witnesses examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses did not actually  witness  the incident and further  there  was a  time lapse which   could   lead   to   only   one   inference   and   that   shows   false implication of the accused persons in this case.  Relying on the call detail   records,     Ld.   Counsel,   Sh.   K.K.   Manan   for   the   accused Muninder   Panjeta   argued   that     if   two   persons   were   standing together, there would have been no occasion to call each other and that the very fact the calls emanated from one witness to the other would reveal that PW.16 was not present at the spot.   Further, it was also argued that the residence of PW.16 was at some distance and therefore, he could not have witnessed the alleged incident. The said argument cannot hold water.  The witnesses are  clear as to the sequence in which the calls were made.  The mobile number of PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli is 9711674848 and that of PW.16, Nitin CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...102  of 136 Sansanwal   is   9717558020.     As   per   the   call   detail   records   on 10.05.2010, three calls  had emanated from the  mobile  phone of PW.3, Joginder @ Tjuli to the mobile number of   PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal.  The time record is of 23.16.34 hours, 23.44.03 hours, 23.52.18 hours, all of which are of Katwaria Sarai.  These calls are of short duration.  It is also recorded that from the mobile number of   PW.16,   Nitin   Sansanwal   three   calls   had   been   made   on 10.05.2010 at 23.17.24 hours, 23.23.35 hours and 23.59.00 hours. These were at the locations of Jia Sarai, Katwaria Sarai and Qutab Institutional area.  The locations are compatible with the locations of the witnesses as deposed to by them.

The first call is at 23.16.34 hours of PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli at Katwaria Sarai while the call that was received from the mobile   phone   of   PW.16   Nitin   Sansanwal   was   from   Jia   Sarai. PW.16,   Nitin   Sansanwal   called   again   Joginder   @   Tujli   from Katwaria   Sarai   and   about   half   an   hour   later   from   Qutab Institutional   area.     Thus,   these   call   details   do   not   belie   the prosecution's case that PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal was called to the spot   by   PW.3,   Joginder   @   Tuli   and   immediately   thereafter,   the stabbing took place and the injured was removed by PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal to the Fortis hospital.   Thus, on the basis of these call detail record, the testimonies of the witnesses cannot be rejected as there is no material to conclude otherwise.

Moreover,   the   witnesses   even   on   cross­examination have maintained that the stabbing took place after Nitin Sansanwal CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...103  of 136 had   reached.     The   time   of   arrival   at   the   hospital   also   helps   in corroborating the time sequence.  As the witnesses to the incident could  not  have   been  timing  themselves   and  working  by  the  the clock any discrepancies in regard to the time of occurrence can at best be minor flaws.  It is not as if the time given by one witness was   separated   by   hours   from   the   time   mentioned   by   another witness.   The time taken by the police in the investigation or the conclusion of   the formalities and discrepant time mentioned by PW.16 Nitin Sansanwal was not of such a nature as to make the entire case suspect.   These  minor    contradictions do not detract from the tenor of the prosecutions' witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution.  What is infact significant is that when the entire evidence is considered, there is a  seamless  consistency.  Thus, the witnesses   are   consistent   in   deposing   that   the   accused   Muninder Panjeta and his associates used to drive motorcycles at high speed and used to tease the village girls and villagers including Honey objected   to   such   behaviour.     The   witnesses   have   consistently deposed that this led to repeated quarrels   between the two sides. They   have   also   stated   that   there   was   one   incident   where   the accused   abused   the   injured   and   his   friends   and   there   was   the subsequent   event   when   the   stabbing   took   place.     They   are   also consistent   in   stating   the   actual   facts   of   the   quarrel   that   all   the accused gave beatings and kicks and fists blows to Honey.   The accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav had gone to their room to bring weapons and  both had  hit the injured.  They also consistently stated that  while PW.16 and PW.3 removed Honey to CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...104  of 136 hospital,   the   accused   had   run   towards   their   room   where   PW.11 Dinesh locked up three persons, two of whom had been caught by PW.1 Harish.   They have stated   consistently that the those boys were   brought   out   and   beaten   by   the   public   and   the   police   had rescued them.  Three accused had escaped.

There   is   no   manner   of   doubt   that   the   accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav had gone to their room when the quarrel was on and had returned armed.  They were caught and beaten   by   the   public.     So   was   the   accused   Charan   Singh. Therefore, the participation of these accused in the commission of the offence has been established beyond a shadow of doubt.  With regard to the remaining three accused, some witnesses have not named   them.     The   accused   have   been   identified   by   face.     This cannot be considered unrealistic as PW.3 and PW.10 had interacted with   them   along   with   Honey   albiet   through   quarrels   on   their objectionable conduct.  They were known as Management students and were residing as tenants in the area.  The inability to name all the accused, or the mixing up of their names will not detract from the otherwise cogent and convincing statements of the witnesses. Even witnesses such as PW.11 Dinesh was hostile yet during the cross­examination by the defence has completely corroborated the eye witnesses PW.3, PW.10 and PW.16.

   PW.1 Harish in his cross­examination by the Ld. APP for the State admitted as correct that he had told the police that the accused   persons   used   to   tease   the   girls   of   the   village   causing CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...105  of 136 annoyance to the village people and the deceased Honey had also raised objection to such acts.  This statement was not challenged by any of the accused during the cross­examinations on their behalf. PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli stated in his examination in chief that the accused   Muninder   Panjeta   and   Saurabh   used   to   drive   their motorcycles at high speed and they also used to tease the village girls   and   the   deceased   Honey   used   to   object   to   their   driving motorcycles   at   high  speed  and   had  asked   them  not  to  tease  the village girls.   Though it was sought to be shown that the witness had improved upon his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC, it is seen that  all facts deposed to by the witness PW.3 are found mentioned in the statement U/s 161 Cr.PC.

PW.10,   Avinash   Malik   has   also   deposed   that   the accused   Muninder   Panjeta  and   his   friends   used   to   sit   under   the house of Honey and they used to live in the same area and that they used to tease the passing girls while sitting at the well.  He stated that all the villagers were aggrieved by this and Honey also used to object.   He also explained that due to this the accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends vacated the room in which they were living after about 10­15 days and shifted to a room of Harish.  Though the cross­examination by the Ld. Defence counsel,  doubt was sought to be cast on this testimony as the witness admitted that there was no   police   complaint   regarding   the   eve   teasing   by   the   accused persons.   The witness stated that he had informed   the father of Nitin   Sansanwal   about   the   eve   teasing.     However,   the   question whether this witness had told anybody or complained to the police CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...106  of 136 about the eve teasing is not the relevant question.   Other witnesses from the village examined also were aware of the eve teasing by the accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends and the objection to such conduct by the deceased Honey and others of the village.  The absence of a police complaint will, therefore, not  falsify the factual situation deposed to by the witnesses that the girls of the village were being teased by the accused.  Admittedly, none of the accused persons   belonged   to   the   village.     Thus,   the   root   cause   of   the differences between   Honey and his friends namely Joginder  @ Tuli and Avinash Malik and the accused Muninder Panjeta and his associates   has   been   established   through   mis­behaviour   and unacceptable conduct in teasing the village girls.

With   regard   to   the   first   incident,   PW.3   Joginder   @ Tuli has deposed that on 10.05.2010, he along with Avinash Malik and Honey had gone to Bansal Store and at that time, the accused Muninder Panjeta, Himanshu Rathi, Raju and Charan Singh were standing   there.     They   started   abusing   Honey   on   the   old   issue namely   the   issue   of   eve   teasing.     He   deposed   in   his   cross­ examination that three of them had left for their respective houses and had returned after having their respective meals.   They had assembled   at   the   house   of   the   deceased   Honey.     The   cross­ examination   in   no   way   challenges   the   occurrence   of   the   first incident.     During   his   cross­examination   by   the   Ld.   Defence counsel, he no doubt, deposed that the first incident had taken place at about 11.10 PM and the second at 11.30 PM and that the first incident had lasted for about two minutes.  But this time mentioned CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...107  of 136 by him will not suffice to doubt the first occurrence.  

PW.10   Avinash   Malik   deposed   that   on  the   night  of 10/11­05­2010,   he,   PW.3   Joginder   @   Tuli   and   Honey   were strolling in the Gumbadwali gali and the accused Muninder Panjeta and his friends started abusing Honey on the issue of teasing the village girls.  He too stated that they had come back from there.  It was during the cross­examination by the defence that he stated that the first quarrel took place at about  9 or 10 PM.  He admitted as correct the suggestion that  thereafter he had gone to his house for dinner.  He stated that it would have taken him half an hour to take dinner.     Once   again,   this   sequence   of   events   set   up   by   the prosecution has not been controverted. 

PW.11, Dinesh Bansal in his cross­examination by the defence stated that he had made a call to PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal to inform him that an incident had occurred with Honey and that he had made this call at around 9.30 PM to PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal telling him that he had pacified Honey and had sent him away. Therefore,   this   witness   has   also   corroborated   regarding   the   first incident.

The eye witnesses examined in respect of the second incident which resulted in stabbing of Honey leading to his death are PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli, PW.10 Avinash Malik and PW.16 Nitin Sansanwal.   As noticed above, the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel,   Sh.   K.K.   Manan   that   their   presence   at   the   spot   was doubtful,   has   already   been   turned   down.     Therefore,   their CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...108  of 136 testimonies have to be evaluated as eye witnesses' account.  It has therefore, to be seen whether these witnesses withstood the cross­ examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel separately for the various accused.

Before proceeding further, it may also be   noted that according to the eye witnesses, the accused Muninder Panjeta and his associates first had a quarrel with Honey and the two witnesses PW.3 and PW.4 and when the three of them came back a second time   after   having   their   meals,   the   accused   abused   Honey   and started beating him in  order to teach him a lesson as he appeared to be a "Dada" of the village.  According to the eye witnesses, in the course of the beating, the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh ran   into   their   rooms   and   brought   out   the   weapons   of   offences namely the knife and the iron rod.  They have also stated that the accused   Muninder   Panjeta   stabbed   the   deceased   Honey immediately on reaching the spot with the knife while the accused Saurabh had hit the injured on his head with the rod.  It was for this reason   that   the   Ld.   Defence   counsel   for   the   accused   Narender, Charan Singh, Himanshu Rathi and Raju Kumar  argued that these accused   had   no   role   to   play   in   the   murder   of   Honey   and   that common   intentions   were   not   disclosed   qua   them.     Ld.   Defence counsel for  the accused Narender, Charan Singh, Himanshu Rathi and   Raju   Kumar   also   questioned   the   charge­sheeting   of   these accused on the ground that the witnesses had not identified them. It would be then relevant to refer to the testimonies of the witnesses in respect of each of the accused persons separately.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                                         Page...109  of 136
 (a)     The accused Narender

The   evidence   is   first   considered   qua   the   accused Narender.  PW.1, Harish is the landlord.  He deposed that he had informed the police after witnessing a quarrel between Honey and the accused Narender amongst others.  In the cross­examination by the   Ld.   APP   for   the   State,   he   stated   that   he   had   given accommodation to the accused Narender.  He admitted in his cross­ examination by the ld. APP for the State that he had told the police that three boys had escaped from the spot.   Ld. Counsel for the accused Narender had questioned the witness on whether the police verification   had   been   done   for   the   accused   Narender   and   the witness explained that  he had inducted the accused Narender only a week prior to the incident.  He had not got the police verification conducted of the accused Narender.   From this statement of the witness, it clear that   the accused Narender was a tenant and was present at the time of the incident at the spot but had been one of those who had  run away from the spot.  

PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli in his examination in chief did not name the accused Narender.   However, he made a statement that all the accused were present in the Court.   Ld. APP for the State did not chose to cross­examine the witness for not attributing any role or even naming the accused Narender.   PW.10, Avinash Malik did not attribute any role to or name the accused Narender when examined in chief.  However, during the examination by the ld. APP for the State by putting leading questions to the witness CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...110  of 136 PW.10, Avinash Malik, he stated that it was correct that he had stated to the police in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC that the accused Muninder Panjeta along with his five associates namely Saurabh, Charan   Singh,   Himanshu   Rathi,   Narender   and   Raju   Kumar   was standing in front of Bansal General Store.  He also stated that the accused persons present in the Court which included the accused Narender   were   also   present   at   the   spot   and   on   the   date   of   the incident,  even though he did not know the names of some of them.

In his cross­examination by the ld. Defence counsel for the accused Narender, he stated that the accused Narender used to live on the ground floor  of the house of  Harish.   He further admitted   that   he   had   never   tried   to   know   whether   the   accused Narender   was  studying  in H.M.  College  or  not.   He  denied  the suggestion that the accused Narender was not a tenant in the house of Harish.  He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the family members or that   he had not seen the accused Narnder inflicting leg and fist blows to the deceased.  He refuted the suggestion that he had never seen the accused Narender in   the   village.     From   this   testimony   of   PW.10,   one   fact   that   is established   is   that   the   accused   Narender   was   a   tenant   of   PW.1, Harish.     The   witness   in   his   cross­examination   appeared   to   be known to the accused Narender and where he was residing in the house of Harish.  It was pursuant to the leading question of the Ld. APP for the State that the witness stated that he had named the accused Narender in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC but only to the extent   that   he   was   standing   in   front   of   Bansal   General   Store.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...111  of 136 However, his participation is in the general form of "associates". No specific role has been given to him during the examination in chief.  

PW.11, Dinesh Bansal named the accused Narender @ Ninder as one of those who used to buy things from his shop but had nothing more to tell about his role in the commission of the offences.   In his cross­examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness stated that the accused Narender was residing behind his shop for sometime and for the last about 10 days prior to the incident,   he   had   shifted   to   the   house   of     Harish.     In   his   cross­ examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he denied having made any   statement   to   the   police   U/s   161   Cr.PC   that   the   accused Narender   had   given   fist   and   leg   blows   to   Honey   and   was confronted   with   his   statement   Ex.PW.11/A   where   it   was   so recorded.  He correctly identified the accused Narender though he claimed he was not very certain.  Thus, from the statement of this witness, it is clear that the accused Narender was residing as tenant in   the   house   of   Harish   and   was   known   to   this   witness   but   no specific role has been assigned to the accused Narender.  

Initially, PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal did not attribute any act to the accused Narender specifically though he had stated that when he had reached the spot, he had seen 7­8 boys giving beating to   Honey   and   were   giving   fists   and   legs   blows.     Nor   did   he identify him.  Ld. APP for the State put some leading questions to him and then he stated that the four boys "whom he has identified CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...112  of 136 by names" and who were giving blows to Honey were the accused Narender, Charan Singh, Himanshu Rathi and Raju Kumar.  

In   the   cross­examination   by   the   Ld.   Counsel   for accused Himanshu Rathi (and as also adopted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Narender),  the witness admitted that  the names of the accused persons were told to him by PW.11 Dinesh Bansal and that he did not know them by name but knew them only by face. He   further   explained   that   he   had   been   told   their   names   and residences by the witness Dinesh Bansal subsequently, while they were removing Honey in the car.  In the further cross­examination, the witness stated that the assailants had run away from the spot when Honey fell down after sustaining the injuries.   During his further   cross­examination   on   behalf   of   the   accused   Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the witness admitted as correct that he had never seen the accused persons in  this case before the incident. He   further   stated   that   when   he   reached   the   spot,   the   quarrel continued for about one and half minutes.  Thereafter, all the boys ran away from the spot and he removed the injured to the hospital immediately.  He did not recall whether there was any electric pole at the spot.   From this, it is clear that the witness was not very familiar with the accused Narender whose name was dislosed to him by Dinesh Bansal. 

It is thus, clear that the evidence that has come against the accused Narender is very nebulous   and unsatisfactory.   The witness who identified him   i.e. PW.16 Nitin Sansanwal was not CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...113  of 136 familiar with him and the witnesses who knew Narender namely PW.3 Joginder @ Tuli, PW.10 Avinash Malik and PW.11 Dinesh Bansal   have   not   assigned   any   role   to   this   accused   in   the   entire incident. Merely because he may have been standing in front of Bansal Store, it cannot be inferred that the accused Narender has shared any common intention with the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh leave alone to cause the death of Honey.  There is no incriminating evidence that has come against him.   No doubt, he had also run from the spot when the stabbing occurred.  But so had PW.10   Avinash   Malik.     An   action   out   of   alarm   cannot   be   a sufficient fact to attach culpability to the accused Narender and that too of murder.

(b) Accused Raju Kumar PW.1, Harish named the accused Raju Kumar as one of the boys with whom Honey had a quarrel.  He also asserted that the   boys   who   were   quarreling   with   Honey   were   present   in   the Court.  At the first instance, he claimed that he could not identify the accused Raju since he had only heard his name.   However, when questioned by the Ld. APP for the State, he admitted that he had given accommodation to the accused Raju Kumar as also the accused Narender and Saurabh a week prior to the incident.   He denied having told the police he had seen the accused Raju Kumar along with other accused running from the side of Bansal General Store   towards   their   room   and   villagers   shouting   that   they   had assaulted Honey with a knife.   Further, he identified the accused CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...114  of 136 Raju  Kumar during his examination by the Ld. APP for the State.

However,   during   the   cross­examination   by   the   Ld. Counsel for the accused Raju Kumar, he admitted that the accused Raju Kumar was never  his tenant and that the accused Raju Kumar who was present in the Court was not seen by him prior to the incident.   He also stated that he had not seen the accused Raju Kumar at the spot and had named him as people were saying so. Thus, this witness has given conflicting versions with regard to the accused Raju Kumar.

PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli claimed that the accused Raju Kumar  was standing near Bansal General Store on 10.05.2010 and had started to abuse Honey when he i.e. PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli, along   with   Avinash   Malik   and   Honey   had   gone   to   the   Bansal General Store.  The witness named him as being present along with others when PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli, Avinash Malik and Honey returned.  He stated that all the accused persons had given beatings to   Honey   with   fists   and   legs   blows.     He   also   identified   all   the accused   persons   present   in   the   Court   and   accused   Raju   Kumar amongst them.

PW.10, Avinash Malik also named the accused Raju Kumar as having given beatings to Honey.  He correctly identified the accused Raju Kumar in the Court.  During further examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness stated that it was correct that in his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC, he had given the name of the accused Raju Kumar as being one of five associates of the accused CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...115  of 136 Muninder Panjeta.   He also stated that the accused persons who were present in the Court that day were also present at the spot on the date of the incident though he could not name them.

During the cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the   accused   Raju   Kumar,   he   denied   that   he   had   identified   the accused Raju Kumar at the behest of the police.  The name of the accused   Raju   Kumar   and   the   participation   of   the   accused   Raju Kumar in the beatings to the Honey was sought to be confronted by reference to his statement, U/s 161 Cr.PC but these facts have also been stated therein.

PW.11, Dinesh Bansal named the accused Raju Kumar as one of those boys who used to buy things from his shop for the last about one or one and half months prior to the incident.  During the cross­examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he admitted as correct that the accused Raju Kumar used to come to the room of the accused Saurabh Yadav, Himanshu Rathi and Narender.  

He also admitted as correct that he had stated in his statement  U/s 161 Cr.PC that when he along with Harish had come out he saw that Honey, Joginder @ Tuli and Avinash Malik were abusing with the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Himanshu Rathi, Narender, Charan Singh and  Raju Kmar.   Thus, from his testimony, it is clear that he knew who Raju Kumar was and had stated that the accused Raju Kumar was also present and was abusing Honey, Joginder @ Tuli and Avinash Malik.

PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal as noticed above has stated CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...116  of 136 that 7/8 boys were giving beatings to  Honey and also giving kicks and   fists blows.   He had given the name of this accused Raju Kumar when the Ld.APP for the State put leading question to him as   being  able  to  identify  them  by  names.    However,   as  noticed above,  in his cross­examination, the witness has stated that  he did not know the accused persons by names but knew them by face and that Dinesh Bansal had told him the names.  He had also admitted that  he had never seen the accused persons in the case prior to the incident.     He   denied   the   suggestion   of   the   ld.   Counsel   for   the accused Raju Kumar that he had not witnessed the incident or that he had not seen any of the accused person.

From   the   evidence,   it   is   clear   that   the   specific   role assigned to the accused Raju Kumar is of having abused Honey and to have joined in the beating up of Honey.   PW.10 Avinash Malik has identified him.   PW.11 Dinesh Bansal knew him well and soon after the incident informed PW.16 Nitin Sansanwal of the participation of the accused Raju Kumar.  PW.11 had also admitted informing the police that the accused had abused Honey.  Thus, the presence and participation of  the  accused  Raju Kumar  is not in doubt,   but   such   participation   in   the   quarrel   is   seen   limited   to abusing the deceased and beating him.  It cannot be  held that he shared the common intention to kill Honey, even if he had shared the common intention to quarrel with and beat Honey.  The offence of murder cannot be attributed to him.

(c) Accused Himanshu Rathi Now,   turning   to   the   evidence   against   the   accused CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...117  of 136 Himanshu Rathi.

PW1,   Harish   did   not   name   him   initially   nor   did   he assign   any   role   to   the   accused   Himanshu   Rathi,     In   his   cross­ examination, the Ld. APP for the State confronted him with his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC wherein it was recorded that the accused Himanshu   Rathi   was   also   his   tenant.     He   denied   stating   to   the police   that   he   had   seen   his   tenant   the   accused   Himanshu   Rathi coming running from the side of Bansal General Store towards his room.  He stated that he could not identify the accused Himanshu Rathi in the Court.

During the cross­examination by the Ld. Counsl for the accused Himanshu Rathi , the witness stated that the people had collected at the spot who belonged to the village Katwaria Sarai. He stated that he had not named anyone from out of the crowd who had     assembled   at   the   spot.     He   denied   that   he   was   a   planted witness.

PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli named the accused Himanshu Rathi as a person near the house of the deceased Honey and as being present near the Bansal Genereal Store on 10.05.2010 along with others and who had abused Honey on the old issue.  He also deposed that the accused  Himanshu Rathi gave beatings to Honey with fists and legs blows.  He also stated that all the accused were present in the Court.

PW.10   Avinash   Malik   also   named   the   accused Himanshu Rathi as being present in front of the Bansal General Store   and   beating   Honey.     He   wrongly   identified   th   accused CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...118  of 136 Saurabh Yadav as the accused Himanshu Rathi and then stated that he   was   not   able   to   identify   the   accused   other   than   the   accused Charan Singh, Raju Kumar and Muninder Panjeta.

In his cross­examination by the Ld. APP for the State as noticed above, he affirmed as correct in his statement u/s   161 Cr.PC   he had named the accused Himanshu Rathi as standing in front of Bansal General Store and giving beatings to Honey.   He also stated that  he had seen all the accused who were present in the Court, at the spot on the date of the incident though he could not name them all.

During his cross­examination by the ld. Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, he re­affirmed that he had told the police that   during the second incident, accused Himanshu Rathi was   present   and   had   started   beating   Honey.     He   denied   the suggestion that the accused Himanshu Rathi was not present at the spot   or   that   he   himself   was   not   present   at   the   spot   or   that   the accused Himanshu Rathi was never a tenant in the village Katwaria Sarai.   It is clear from his testimony that the witness was a little confused between the names and faces but has remained steadfast in naming the accused Himanshu Rathi as having been present and having abused and beaten the deceased Honey.

PW.11,   Dinesh   Bansal   did   not   name   the   accused Himanshu Rathi during his examination in chief.  During the cross­ examination by the Ld. APP for the State, he named the accused Himanshu Rathi as living in the house of one Harish (PW.1).  He affirmed that the accused used to take goods from his shop and CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...119  of 136 therefore, he could recognize them.   He also affirmed as correct that as per his information, the boys were studying in the Qutab Institutional area.  He also affirmed that he had told to the police that after about 15­20 minutes of hearing the noise when he had come along with Harish, he  had seen the accused Himanshu Rathi also abusing along with the accused Muninder Panjeta, Narender, Charan Singh, Raju Kumar, the deceased and the other prosecution witnesses.     He   was   confronted   with   his   statement,   Ex.PW.11/A where it was recorded that  the accused Himanshu Rathi had also given   leg   and   fist   blows   to   Honey.     He   identified   the   accused Himanshu Rathi  whom he had seen locked by the villagers but he was not very certain.   He denied that he was not identifying the accused Himanshu Rathi deliberately.    From the testimony of this witness,   it   is   clear   that   the   witness   had   named   the   accused Himanshu   Rathi   to   the   police   and   knew   he   was   the   tenant   of Harish.  He identified the accused in the Court  as he was familiar with him, as he used to buy goods from him.  He also affirmed that he had seen the accused Himanshu Rathi abuse the deceased.

PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal as referred herein above has named the six accused including the accused Himanshu Rathi by name after the Ld. APP for the State put leading questions to him.

During the cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Himanshu Rathi, as noticed herein above, the witness stated that he did not know the accused by name but only knew them   by face and that he had been told the names   by Dinesh Bansal.  He denied the suggestion that he did not know the names CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...120  of 136 of   the   accused   present   in   the   Court   including   the   accused Himanshu   Rathi   at   the   time   his   statement   was   recorded   and therefore,   he   had   not   identified   them   including   the   accused Himanshu   Rathi.   As   noticed   herein   above,   he   deposed   that   the assailants had run away from the spot and he had reached two to three minutes prior to injury being given to Honey.   He did not know any of these accused before the date of incident.

The   testimonies   clearly   establish   that   the   accused Himanshu Rathi was present at the time of both the incidents.  He had abused the deceased.   He had also beaten and kicked Honey. Thus, he clearly shared the common intention of quarrelling with, abusing and beating up of Honey.  But this cannot be sufficient to conclude   that   he   also   shared   the   common   intention   with   the accused Muninder Panjeta to cause the death of  Honey.  He cannot be held to have a common motive for murder.

(d) Accused Charan Singh Now,   turning   to   the   evidence   against   the   accused Charan Singh.

PW.1, Harish did not name the accused Charan Singh. He denied that he had told the police that he had apprehended the accused Charan Singh in the flat.  He, however, deposed that one of the boys whose name he did not know, had been beaten by the crowd.  He could not identify the accused Charan Singh.

PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli has named the accused Charan Singh as having abused Honey on the old issue and having given fist and leg blows  while assaulting Honey.  He deposed that all the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...121  of 136 accused present in the Court.

PW.10, Avinash Malik also named the accused Charan Singh   as   having   abused   and   having   beaten   Honey.     He   also correctly identified the accused Charan Singh though in his cross­ examination, he has stated that he had not seen the accused Charan Singh   prior   to   the   incident.     He   denied   the   suggestion   that   the accused Charan Singh was not  living separately as a tenant in the village but was unable to state the house, he was residing as tenant. He claimed that he resided in the Mohalla of Honey.  He denied the suggestion that the accused Charan Singh had not given fists and leg blows to the deceased Honey.  

PW.11,   Dinesh   Bansal   deposed   that   his   landlord Harish had held two persons but he could not identify them.  When cross­examined by the Ld. APP for the State, he again stated that he did not know who Charan Singh was and could not say whether he has come to the locality or not.   He was confronted with his statement,   Ex.PW.11/A   where   the   name   of   the   accused   Charan Singh was recorded.   He further claimed that he had not told the police that the accused Charan Singh had given leg and fist blows to the deceased Honey and he was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW./A.  He also denied that he had told the police that  all the boys had started running towards their room.  

He, however, affirmed that he had told the police that when he came back after putting Honey in the car and removing him   to   the   hospital,   he   found   Harish   had   held   those   boys.     He affirmed that he had told the police that when he had come back CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...122  of 136 and heard the noise of villagers and three boys had run away from the   roof,   he   had   bolted   the   room   where   Harish,   the   accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh were present. He also affirmed that he had told the police that lots of people from the   public   had   gathered   there   and   the   boys   were   taken   out   and beaten.  He, however, did not identify the accused Charan Singh as one of the boys held by the landlord.  

From this testimony, it is clear that after the incident had occurred the assailant boys had run towards their room of the landlord Harish and the witness had bolted the door of the room in which Harish and the three accused were present while the other three   were   successful   in   absconding.     It   is   also   clear   from   his testimony that the villagers had taken out the accused persons and had   beaten   them   and   that   the   PCR   had   removed   them   to   the hospital.

PW.16,   Nitin   Sansanwal   has   deposed   that   when   he went to the police station on 11.05.2010, the police had already apprehended  the  accused  Muninder  Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh who were arrested in his presence. He identified the accused Charan Singh amongst others as giving fist and leg blows to Honey.   The same cross­examination referred to herein above has   been   put   in   the   case   of   the   accused   Charan   Singh   as   well. From  his  testimony,  it  is  clear   that the  three  accused  were also present   at   the   police   station   when   he   had   gone   there   from   the hospital.  

Even though the Ld. Defence counsel argued that the CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...123  of 136 accused   Charan   Singh   had   not   been   identified   as   having participated in the offence, such an argument is not convincing. There  is   clear   evidence   including  from   the  testimony   of   PW.11 Dinesh   Bansal   that   three   persons   were   locked   up   in   the   room. From the cross­examination of PW.3, Joginder, it is clear that the house of Harish is the last in the gali and the gali ended there.  It is natural that along with the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh who lived there, the accused Charan Singh also ran for safety into the room.   PW.1, Harish has testified that he had caught two of them.     PW.11,   Dinesh   corroborates   him   that   Harish   had   caught three of the fleeing assailants and he had locked them in the room. The witnesses have stated that the three accused were brought out from the room and beaten by the public.  All the police witnesses have deposed that when they reached the place of occurrence, they found the public beating up boys who were then rescued by the police and sent to the AIIMS Trauma Centre.  The police officials have   even   not   been   cross­examined   to   challenge   such   rescue claims.  There is  no doubt that these three boys were the accused Charan Singh, Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav. Therefore, there can be no doubt about the participation of the accused Charan Singh   in   the   incident.     However,   the   eye   witnesses   have   only attributed to this accused the acts of abusing, beating and kicking the deceased Honey.   Therefore, as in the case of the other three accused discussed above, the accused Charan Singh can be liable for beating and abusing the deceased but it cannot be said that he shared a common intention to cause the death of Honey.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                                      Page...124  of 136
 (e)              Accused Saurabh Yadav

Now,   turning   to   the   evidence   against   the   accused Saurabh Yadav.

PW.1, Harish has named the accused Saurabh Yadav. He also identified the accused Saurabh Yadav.  He stated that the accused   Saurabh   Yadav   had   been   let   out   the   premises   a   week before the incident and he referred to the accused Saurabh Yadav as   his   tenant.     He   also   deposed   that   he   had   apprehended   the accused Saurabh Yadav in the flat.  He deposed that the crowd had collected   there   and   beaten   the   accused   Saurabh   Yadav   and   one other boy and the police had reached the spot and had taken the accused   Saurabh   Yadav   with   other   boy   to   the   hospital.     He admitted as correct that the accused Saurabh Yadav was a student of Hotel Management.

PW.3,   Joginder   @   Tuli   has   deposed   against   the accused Saurabh Yadav that he used to drive his motorcycle at high speed and used to tease the village girls and the deceased Honey used to object to such conduct.   He deposed that in the course of the beating of Honey, the accused Saurabh Yadav had gone to the room and had come back with an iron rod.   He deposed that the accused Saurabh Yadav gave a blow with iron rod on the head of Honey.  He identified the accused as being present in the Court.

In his cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused   Himanshu   Rathi,   the   witness   stated   that   the   accused Saurabh Yadav had immediately on their arrival inflicted injuries CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...125  of 136 on Honey.   He deposed that all the accused had run away after seeing blood oozing out of Honey's body.

. During the cross­examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Saurabh Yadav, the witness reiterated that the accused Saurabh Yadav used to tease the village girls.  He was confronted with   his   statement,   Ex.DA   in   respect   of   his   statement   that   the accused Saurabh Yadav had given a blow with an iron rod first on the head of Honey.

PW.10, Avinash Malik also specifically deposed that the accused Saurabh Yadav had started beating Honey.   He also deposed that the accused Saurabh Yadav went into his room and brought out an iron rod and had given a blow with the rod on the head of Honey.  This witness was not able to identify the accused Saurabh   Yadav.   He   stated   that   the   accused   persons   who   were present at the spot on that day were all present in the court though he could not name them all.  He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW.10/DA but denied that he did not know who was the person who gave the blows as there were large numbers of persons present at the spot.

PW.11,   Dinesh   Bansal   named   the   accused   Saurabh Yadav who purchased the goods from his shop and that he was residing behind the shop for some time.   He admitted as correct that he had seen the accused Saurabh Yadav abusing the witnesses and the deceased Honey.   He was confronted with his statement, Ex.PW.11/A when he denied that he had stated to the police that the accused Saurabh Yadav had attacked Honey with an iron rod.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...126  of 136 Once again, in respect of the accused Saurabh Yadav, as in the case of   the   accused   Charan   Singh,   the   witness   affirmed   that   he   had bolted the room  where the accused was with Harish as Harish had caught them.  He also deposed that the accused Saurabh Yadav was taken out and beaten by the crowd.  He also identified the accused Saurabh Yadav as one of the boys who were beaten by the crowd.

PW.16, Nitin Sansanwal deposed to having found the accused Saurabh Yadav in the police station as in the case of the accused Charan Singh and his statement in respect of this witness is the same as in the case of the accused Charan Singh.

It   would   be   convenient   to   discuss   the   evidence againsgt the accused Saurabh Yadav along with that against the accused Muninder Panjeta.

(F) Accused Muninder Panjeta Finally, we come to the evidence against the accused Muninder Panjeta.

PW.1, Harish has given a varying statement regarding the accused Muninder Panjeta as being or not being his tenant.  He denied having told the police that the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh were apprehended in the flat and the crowd had beaten them up and that the police had taken them to the hospital and was confronted with his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC by   the   ld.   APP   for   the   State.     He   did   not   identify   the   accused Muninder Panjeta.

PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli deposed on the same lines as for accused Saurabh Yadav that the accused Muninder Panjeta used CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...127  of 136 to ride  his motorcycle at high speed and tease the village girls and that   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta   was   present   on   10.05.2010 outside   Bansal   Store  and   had  started  abusing   Honey  on  the  old issue and thereafter, he had exhorted  his associates that as Honey was   becoming   a   leader   (dada)   in   the   village,   he   should   be controlled whereupon all the accused started beating Honey with fist and leg blows.  The witness deposed that in the meantime, the accused   Muninder   Panjeta   and   also   the   accused   Saurabh   Yadav went to their room and the accused Muninder Panjeta had come back with a knife while the accused Saurabh had come back with an iron rod.   The witness deposed categorically that the accused Muninder Panjeta gave a knife blow on the right side of the chest of Honey In  his  cross­examination,  the  witness   stated   that  the accused   Muninder   Panjeta   and   Saurabh   Yadav   instantaneously after their arrival inflicted injuries upon Honey.  The witness also stated that it was correct that   some of the accused were caught hold of by the villagers and given good beatings and handed over to the police.  

PW.10 has also clearly named the accused Muninder Panjeta as teasing the girls of the village while sitting at the well and that the villagers were aggrieved by this and Honey also used to object.  He has named the accused Muninder Panjeta as having taken the room where they were living with four other boys and shifted to the room belonging to Harish.  He has named the accused Muninder Panjeta as being present at Gumbadwali gali where he CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...128  of 136 had abused Honey along with his friends and being also present when PW.10 came to Bansal General Store with Joginder @ Malik and Honey.  He has named the accused Muninder Panjeta as having beaten Honey and his friends.   The witness also deposed to the accused Muninder Panjeta as having gone to his room and come back   with   the   knife.     The   witness   also   deposed   to   the   accused Muninder Panjeta as having given a stab with the knife on the right side chest of Honey.  The witness correctly identified the accused Muninder Panjeta.  

PW.11, Dinesh Bansal did not state anything in respect of   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta   by   name   and   denied   that   the accused Muninder Panjeta had   gone to his room and come out with a kit and took out a knife  and struck a blow on the right side chest of Honey.  However, he admitted that he had bolted the room where Harish had locked the accused Muninder Panjeta along with the accused Saurabh and Charan Singh.  He also admitted that the boys   were   taken   out   and   beaten   by   the   crowd   but   he   did   not identify the accused Muninder Panjeta.

PW.16,   Nitin   Sansanwal   stated   that   when   he   had reached the spot on being informed by PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli that a quarrel was taking place in front of Bansal shop, he had tried to rescue his cousin Honey and that the accused Muninder Panjeta gave a blow with a knife on the right side chest of Honey. The witness identified the accused Muninder Panjeta.

        DISCUSSION QUA ACCUSED SAURABH 
        YADAV AND MUNINDER PANJETA

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                                        Page...129  of 136

The evidence against the accused Saurabh Yadav and Muninder Panjeta are clear and clinching.   It is proved that they used to ride motorcycles at high speed in the village and tease the girls, which was found objectionable by the villagers as well as the deceased.     The   witnesses   have   identified   the   accused   Saurabh Yadav   while   some   witnesses   have   not   identified   the   accused Muninder   Panjeta.     But   as   discussed   above   in   respect   of   the accused Charan Singh, the accused Saurabh Yadav and Muninder Panjeta were caught by PW.1, Harish and locked up in the room by PW.11.  Then they were brought out by the crowd and beaten up. They were rescued by the police and brought to the police station. There is no scope to, therefore, believe that a wrong or mistaken identification of these accused has occurred.  These three accused are Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh.  All the witnesses have deposed to the accused Muninder Panjeta to have started the quarrel.  They have deposed to all the accused beating up   Honey.     They   are   all   categoric   that   during   this   assault,   the accused  Saurabh Yadav  and  Muninder  Panjeta  left the  spot  and went   into   their   room   and   brought   an   iron   rod   and   knife respectively.  PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli, in his cross­examination, has stated that the place of incident was about 500 meters from the room / house of Harish.   Therefore, it is not inconceivable   that there was  time to bring out the weapons.  Thus, when both left the spot and came out with the weapons, their common intention to cause   such   injuries   with   such   deadly   weapons   that   could   cause death of Honey is proved beyond any doubt.

CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...130  of 136 The   witnesses   have   also   stated   that   both   attacked Honey   instantaneously   on   return   armed   to   the   spot.     This   also proves   their   common   intentions.     Thus,   when   the   accused Muninder Panjeta stabbed Honey, the accused Saurabh Yadav is also liable for the consequences as it was done in furtherance of their common intentions.  Thus, their liability is the same that is for causing the death of Honey.

FURTHER DISCUSSIONS At   this   stage,   argument   of   Sh.   K.K.   Manan,   Ld. Defence counsel of the presence of PW.16 being not established can be considered.   PW.16 has stated that he had come when the quarrel was going on   and just before the stabbing incident.   The other witnesses have also supported this.   The   extensive cross­ examination of PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli also establishes that he had called   PW.16   when   the   quarrel   was   going   on     and   PW.16   had arrived just before the stabbing.  Similarly, PW.10, Avinash Malik has affirmed that PW.3, Joginder @ Tuli had called PW.16  when the quarrel was going on and he had come when the quarrel was still going on.  As noticed herein above, the call detail records do not disprove the presence of PW.16 at the spot or that he had not witnessed the stabbing and assault on Honey.  The deceased Honey was removed in the car by PW.16.  That fact has also been proved by the  prosecution. Had he had not been present, there was no way he could have removed the injured to the hospital.  

Moreover, during the cross­examination, PW.16 stated that he had left immediately with the injured Honey and therefore, CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...131  of 136 he did   not know what had happened thereafter.   But the other witnesses   including   PW.11   who   otherwise   were   hostile   to   the prosecution's case testified that when he had returned after helping PW.16 remove Honey, he found that PW.1 had apprehended three accused   and   three   had   run   away   and   those   three   accused   were bolted by him in the room but the people brought them out and gave them beatings.  The sequence of events shows that everything had happened in quick succession and therefore, the participation of   the   accused   Muninder   Panjeta,   Saurbah   Yadav   and   Charan Singh cannot be doubted.   No doubt, PW.1, Harish had claimed that he had caught two persons and not three.  PW.11 also affirmed intially that  two boys were detained in the room but during the cross­examination, he  stated  that  he had  bolted the  room where Harish, the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and Charan Singh were present and it were these three boys who were beaten.  

Thus,   the   public   witnesses   have   corroborated   each other in the sequence of events and the identity of the accused have been disclosed and established   by the public witnesses including the police officials.  The defence has not been able to present any other possible act of three boys who had been bolted in the room taken  on rent  from  PW.1 by the accused  Muninder  Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav to suggest that the incident was caused by some other persons and not them.  

Ld. Counsel  also submitted  that the recovery of  the knife   and   the   iron   rod   were   in   suspicious   circumstances   as   the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav would not have had CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...132  of 136 any opportunity to have hidden the knife and rod if they had been so apprehended by PW.1 and beaten by the police.  However, the evidence   has   established   that   the   accused   Saurabh   Yadav   and Muninder Panjeta had run into their room.  It would not have taken much to fling the weapons on to the tand when they got into their room.  Obviously, they had no opportunity to dispose the weapons somewhere else as the door of the room was bolted.  The recoveries were at the instance of the accused persons which was witnessed by PW.2, Satish who has fully supported the prosecution.  He has deposed   coherently   and   convincingly   that   at   the   instance   of   the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav, the knife and the iron rod were seized.  The knife was having dried blood stains at the time of  recovery.   These  are important statements of  PW.2. While the testimonies of the police officials cannot be discarded just because they have been made by the police officials, even if the police version was not given primacy, the testimony of PW.2, Satish is sufficient to prove the recovery of the knife and the iron rod from the room where the accused Muninder Panjeta, Saurabh Yadav and others were residing, which recovery was at the instance of the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav.  

The   knife   also   bears   the   name   of   the   accused Muninder Panjeta and the access to any other person to that knife, forming part of a kitchen kit has not been shown by the defence so as to cast any shadow of doubt on the recovery merely because the door of the room was not locked and was merely bolted.  The eye witnesses of the recovery of the knife and the iron rod sufficiently CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...133  of 136 prove the case against the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav that they had used the weapons.

The FSL report records that blood 'D' group which was of the deceased was found on the clothes of the accused Saurab Yadav and Muninder Panjeta.  It was also found on the knife.  As noticed above, the sequence of the events starting with the quarrel and the apprehension, rescue, medical attention and arrest of these two accused eliminates every possibility of false implication and planted   evidence.     The   blood   of   the   deceased   could   not   have stained the clothes of the accused Saurabh Yadav and Muninder Panjeta if they had not been present at the time of the commission of the crime.  The blood of the deceased would not have been on the knife, had it not been used in the commission of the crime.

There is one other aspect to be considered, that is the medical evidence.  No doubt, the MLC and the postmortem refer to only one injury and that is a knife injury.  Therefore, the argument was that the iron rod was not used and is planted.  However, it has to be noted that all the eye witnesses have testified to the accused Saurabh   Yadav   having   left   the   spot   to   return   with   an   iron   rod striking Honey with it.   That shows he shared common intention wiith  the accused  Muninder   Panjeta  who  had come  back  armed with a big knife.  The ocular testimonies can also not be completely discarded only because the  medical evidence does not record any other   injury,   for   the   blow   may   have   hit   lightly   as   it   is   also   in evidence that the stabbing also took place instantaneously.   The accused Saurabh Yadav is  equally liable for the death and murder CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...134  of 136 of Honey.   PW.40, Dr. Mahesh Kumar has opined that the knife, Ex.P1 could cause the injury found on the person of the deceased. The   injury   found   and   recorded   in   the   postmortem   report, Ex.PW.17/A is that it was a gaping wound and had punctured the lung.  It was 12 cm deep.  That reflects the force applied in causing the injury.  PW.17, Dr. Susheel Sharma opined that  the injury was sufficient  to cause death in the ordinary course of  nature.   It is clear, therefore, that when the accused Muninder Panjeta caused the   injury   he   intended   the   consequence,   namely,   the   death   of Honey.  He is clearly liable for the murder of Honey.

CONCLUSION Thus, the evidence fully proves that all the six persons had quarrelled with PW.3, PW.10 and the deceased Honey on two occasions on the fateful night of 10.05.2010.  The question then is that as Honey had died on account of the stab injury, did all the accused   share   common   intention   to   cause   the   death   of   Honey. Once again, reference is to be made to the eye witnesses accounts. All   the   three   witnesses   namely   PW.3,   PW.10   and   PW.16   have deposed   to   the   accused   persons   beating   up   Honey.     PW.3   and PW.10 have deposed to the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav leaving the spot to bring back the weapons of offence and then as one witness stated "instantaneously" using the weapon on Honey.  

In these circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that all the accused persons shared the common intention to commit the graver offence committed by the accused Muninder Panjeta and CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016 Page...135  of 136 Saurabh Yadav.  The common intention can no doubt be created  at the   spot,   but   the   evidence   does   not   substantiate   such   common intention being created in an impromptu manner after the weapons were brought by the accused Muninder Panjeta and Saurabh Yadav to the spot. The accused Charan Singh, Himanshu Rathi and Raju Kumar did participate in  giving fist and  kick blows while beating Honey,   they   but   did   not   share   common   intention   with   either accused Muninder Panjeta or the accused Saurabh Yadav to cause the death of Honey by inflicting  serious injuries to Honey.

In the light of the foregoing discussions, therefore, the accused   Narender   is   acquitted   of   the   charge   U/s   302/34   IPC, granting     him   the   benefit   of   doubt.     The   accused   Raju   Kumar, Himanshu Rathi  and Charan Singh while being acquitted of the charge U/s 302/34 IPC, however, are found guilty of committing the offence U/s 323/34 IPC and are convicted accordingly.

The accused Saurabh Yadav and Muninder Panjeta are found guilty of the charge against them of murdering Honey and are convicted for committing the offence U/s 302/34 IPC.

The accused are entitled to be heard on the quantum of sentence.  

Announced in open Court                            (ASHA MENON )      
today on 09.04.2018                      District & Sessions Judge (South)
                                                    Saket/New Delhi. 
                             Digitally signed
                             by ASHA
         ASHA                MENON
         MENON               Date:
                             2018.04.10
                             11:22:54 +0530
CIS - SC - 7072­ 2016                                      Page...136  of 136