Delhi District Court
State vs . Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 1 Of 26 on 23 May, 2019
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02, NORTH
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE CASE No..........................58005/16
FIR No. 210/13
PS S. P. Badli
U/s: 120B IPC 302/120B/34 IPC &
25/27/54/59 Arms Act
State
Versus
1. Ajay Maan @ Balli Maan
S/o late Sh. Banwari Lal
R/o H. No.703, Gurukul Road,
Village Khera Khurd, Delhi.
2. Ravinder @ Gullu
S/o Sh. Satbir Singh
R/o H. No. 523, near Chota Shiv Mandir
Village Alipur, Delhi.
Date of institution : 26.09.2013
Judgment reserved on : 20.05.2019
Judgment delivered on: 23.05.2019
ORDER/JUDGMENT: Both the accused persons Ajay Maan @
Balli Maan and Ravinder @ Gullu are
acquitted for the offence(s) u/S 120B
IPC and 302/120B/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 1 of 26 -2-
1. In brief, the prosecution story as emerged from the chargesheet is that on 01.05.2013, Inspector Sanjeev Kumar was present at DCP office, Outer District and received a message on wireless set regarding the bullet being fired at Balmiki Mohalla, Khera Kalan. Inspector Sanjeev also came to know that injured had already been taken to Saroj Hospital, Rohini.
He also came to know that DD No. 106B had been lodged in roznamcha of PS Samaypur and said DD marked to SI Ajay Kumar. Inspector Sanjeev Kumar immediately rushed to Saroj Hospital, Rohini and came to know that the injured in the occurrence namely Virender Maan had been declared dead. In the said hospital, SI Ajay Kumar had recorded the statement of eye witness Jitender, which reads as under: "That he is an agriculturist by profession. On 01.05.2013, at about 7:30 pm, he alongwith Virender Maan, Hoshiyar Singh and Anand Singh visited Village Khera Kalan, Balmiki Chaupal to attend the retirement party of wife of Sh. Banarsi Das. They all four came in the said party in the car of Anand Singh.
After they came to attend the said programme even during the said programme over the mobile phone of Virender Maan threatening calls were SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 2 of 26 -3- being received. Virender Maan had informed them that the said threatening calls were being made by Ravi Bhardwaj @ Bunty R/o Village Alipur. He also informed them that his brother Deepak had to take a sum of Rs.7/8 Lakhs from Ravi Bhardwaj, which Deepak had given for purchasing Scorpio vehicle to Ravi Bhardwaj @ Bunty.
When Deepak had demanded the said money from Ravi Bhardwaj, Ravi Bhardwaj had extended threats to kill him as well as to his brother.
Virender had also informed them that Ravi Bhardwaj had been threatening Deepak at the mobile of Deepak and due to the said reason, he had brought the mobile phone of Deepak so that there could be no further altercation between his brother Deepak and Ravi Bhardwaj, but Ravi Bhardwaj had made several calls over the phone of Deepak and had been inquiring about the whereabouts of Deepak as well as his whereabouts.
On or about 8:40 pm, while they all four were taking dinner in the said programme, on or about SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 3 of 26 -4- 8:40 pm, Ravi Bhardwaj @ Bunty alongwith his associate Ajay, who is a resident of Village Khera Khurd came in the said programme. Ravi Bhardwaj was having a pistol in his hand. Ravi Bhardwaj and Ajay came near to them and Ravi Bhardwaj had threatened Virender Maan by saying "Tumne apne paise maange hain, mai tujhe wa Deepak ko hi khatam kar deta hum."
After uttering the said words, Ravi Bhardwaj started using abusive language and Ajay had extorted to Ravi "Saale ko khatam kar de" and thereafter Ravi Bhardwaj caused gunshot injury over the chest of Virender Maan. Virender Maan fell and thereafter Ravi Bhardwaj and Ajay while waving the pistol in the air ran outside.
He followed them and saw one white colour Scorpio car in starting condition parked at ahead the gate of the chaupal. He saw Ravinder Maan @ Gullu sitting on the driver seat of said Scorpio car. Both the aforesaid culprits sat in the said Scorpio car and thereafter all the three ran away in Scorpio car no. HR70B5601.
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 4 of 26 -5- Thereafter, he alongwith Anand Singh put injured Virender in the car of Anand Singh and took Virender to Saroj Hospital, Rohini, where the doctor had declared him dead. The three culprits i.e. Ravi Bhardwaj, Ajay and Ravinder Maan @ Gullu with common intention had committed the said murder and he want legal action against them.
2. On the basis of said statement, SI Ajay prepared rukka and an FIR u/s 302/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act was registered at PS S. P. Badli and investigations were taken up by Inspector Sanjeev Kumar. During the course of investigation, postmortem on the body of the deceased was got conducted and IO Inspector Sanjeev Kumar had prepared rough site plan and also lifted exhibits from the place of occurrence. During the course of investigation, accused Ravinder @ Gullu was arrested on 03.05.2013 and his PC remand was obtained. During the course of investigation, on 20.05.2013, accused Ravi Bhardwaj (since expired) was arrested and his PC remand was obtained. During PC remand, accused Ravi Bhardwaj also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol and one live cartridge which were seized through seizure memo. During the course of investigation, on 08.06.2013, accused Ajay Maan was also arrested. During investigation, IO had recorded the SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 5 of 26 -6- statement of witnesses and obtained the CDRs of the relevant mobile phones. During investigation, IO had also collected the bank statement of Deepak. During investigation, the exhibits were sent to FSL.
3. After completion of investigation, chargesheet for offence(s) punishable u/s 302/120B/34 IPC and 468/471 IPC as well as for offence(s) punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act was prepared and after the completion of further investigation, supplementary chargesheet was prepared.
4. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide detailed order dated 21.11.2014, charge(s) for offence(s) punishable u/s 120B & 302/120B/34 IPC was framed against all the three accused persons and separate charge(s) for offence(s) punishable u/s 25/27 Arms Act was framed against accused Ravi Bhardwaj (since expired), to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case has examined 30 (few inadvertently numbered) witnesses :
a) PW1 is Ct. Sandeep Kumar, who deposed to have recorded DD No. 106B Ex. PW1/A. He also recored DD No. 114B Ex. PW1/B. SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 6 of 26 -7-
b) PW2 is ASI Anoop Singh, who deposed to have recorded DD No.8A Ex. PW2/A and he also exhibited the attested copy of DD No. 8A as Ex. PW2/B.
c) PW3 is Ct. Sukhdev, who deposed that on 02.05.2013, after the registration of FIR, on the instruction of DO, he delivered the copies of FIR to Ld. MM and senior police officials.
d) PW4 is HC Navrattan, who recorded DD No.33A Ex. PW4/A regarding the arrest of accused Ravinder Maan @ Gullu u/s 41.1
(b) Cr.P.C.
e) PW5 is Ct. Ashish, who recorded DD No.28B Ex. PW5/A regarding the arrest of accused Ajay Maan @ Bali u/s 41.1 (b) Cr.P.C.
f) PW6 is Ct. Raj Kumar i.e. crime team photographer who deposed to have taken 18 photographs of the place of occurrence and exhibited the said photographs as Ex. PW6/A1 to Ex.
PW6/A18 and their negatives as Ex. PW6/B1 to Ex. PW6/B18.
g) PW7 is HC Sushil Kumar, who deposed to have registered FIR SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 7 of 26 -8- No. 90/13 PS Crime Branch u/s 25 Arms Act and exhibited the copy of said FIR as Ex. PW7/A and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW7/B.
h) PW8 is Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, who as per the case of the prosecution was one of the eye witness of the occurrence, but this witness has turned hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite crossexamination, he failed to support the statement mark PW8/A. This witness has also failed to identify any of the accused persons being the offenders. This witness has also failed to identify the case property.
i) PW9 is Sh. Kuldeep is the registered owner of Scorpio vehicle no. HR70B5601 and has deposed that accused Ravi Bhardwaj @ Bunty (since expired) was his nephew. He also deposed that he had never given his aforesaid vehicle to accused Ravi Bhardwaj either on 01.05.2013 or at any point of time.
He also deposed that reply to notice u/s 133 M. V. Act Ex. PW9/A was written by him, but as per the dictation and asking of the police persons. Since this witness has turned hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite cross examination, he failed to support that the reply to notice u/s 133 M. V. Act was given by him voluntarily.
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 8 of 26 -9-
j) PW10 is Anand Singh, who as per the case of the prosecution was one of the eye witness of the occurrence, but this witness has turned hostile and was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite crossexamination, he failed to support the statements mark PW10/A and PW10/B. This witness has also failed to identify any of the accused persons being the offenders.
k) PW11 is Sh. Jitender, who as per the case of the prosecution was one of the eye witness of the occurrence and was the complainant, but this witness has turned hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite cross examination, he failed to support the statement/complaint Ex. PW11/A. He also failed to support the contents of seizure memo Ex. PW11/B. He also failed to support the statement mark PW11/A. He also denied that any such exhibits were lifted in his presence and also denied the contents of seizure memo Ex. PW11/C, Ex. PW11/D, Ex. PW11/E, Ex. PW11/F. He also failed to identify the case property.
l) PW12 is SI Ajit Singh i.e. crime team incharge, who inspected the place of occurrence and prepared crime team report Ex.
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 9 of 26 -10- PW12/A.
m) PW13 is Sh. Banarsi Das, who deposed that his wife Smt. Dev Kaur retired on 01.05.2013 from MCD and he organized a programme at Balmiki Chaupal. In the said programme, he invited the party workers and other guests.
He also deposed that he heard noise of fire and went towards the chaupal and saw Virender Maan, who had come alongwith Jitender in the party was shot by some outside persons.
n) PW14 is ASI Udayveer, who deposed to have deposited the exhibits at FSL vide RC No. 178/21/13 on 06.06.2013. He also deposed that on 07.06.2013, he again collected exhibits from MHCM vide RC No.181/13 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini.
o) PW15 is ASI Sudesh Pal i.e. DO who deposed to have registered FIR Ex. PW15/A, made endorsement Ex. PW15/B on rukka and also issued certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW15/C. He also deposed to have handed over the copies of FIR to Ct. Sukhdev vide DD No. 4A Ex. PW15/D and also lodged DD No. 3A Ex. PW15/E.
p) PW16 is Sh. Deshraj, who has brought the summoned record in SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 10 of 26 -11- respect of Scorpio vehicle no. HR70B5601 and deposed that as per the record, presently the said vehicle was registered in the name of Kuldeep, who purchased the same on 24.01.2013 from previous owner Rahul Saini and exhibited the computerized generated copy of the said record as Ex. PW16/A.
q) PW17 is Sh. Vishram Singh i.e. Ahlmad who has brought the summoned record i.e. original case file of case FIR No. 195/13 PS Alipur. He exhibited the documents i.e. kalandra as Ex. PW17/A, copy of DD No. 21 dated 07.06.2013 as Ex. PW17/B, copy of DD No. 22 dated 07.06.2013 as Ex. PW17/C and arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure of statement of accused Ajay Maan as Ex. PW17/D to Ex. PW17/F.
r) PW18 is Sh. Rajiv Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd., who exhibited the certified copy of the CAF as Ex. PW18/A, ID proof of Ram Das as Ex. PW18/B, certified copies of CDR as Ex. PW18/C in respect of mobile no. 9210082277. He also exhibited the certified copy of the CAF as Ex. PW18/D, ID proof of Bunty Bhardwaj as Ex. PW18/E, certified copies of CDR as Ex. PW18/F in respect of mobile no. 9212082277. He also exhibited the certified copy of the CAF as Ex. PW18/G, ID proof of Babita Jain as Ex. PW18/H, certified copies of CDR as SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 11 of 26 -12- Ex. PW18/J in respect of mobile no. 9268148283. He also exhibited the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW18/L.
s) PW19 is Dr. V. K. Jha, who has deposed on behalf of Dr. Sudesh Kumar and exhibited the postmortem report as Ex. PW19/A in the handwriting of Dr. Sudesh Kumar.
t) PW20 is ASI Anand Singh, who has brought the summoned record and exhibited the attested computerized copy of PCR form as Ex. PW20/A, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW20/B. He also exhibited the PCR form as Ex. PW20/C. u) PW21 is Dr. Sandeep Dhuriya, who has identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Jaswinder on MLC Ex. PW21/A. PW21 is Sh. Vikramjeet Singh (inadvertently numbered), the then Addl. DCP who has accorded sanction Ex. PW21/A u/s 39 Arms Act against accused Ravi Bhardwaj.
v) PW22 is ASI Narender i.e. one of the member of Special Staff, Outer District and in his presence, accused Ravinder Maan was apprehended and one mobile phone make Samsung recovered from the possession of said accused was seized vide seizure SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 12 of 26 -13- memo Ex. PW22/A and two other mobile phones recovered from the possession of said accused were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/B. He also exhibited the arrest memo of said accused as Ex. PW22/C, personal search memo Ex. PW22/D and disclosure made by said accused as Ex. PW22/E. He also exhibited the seizure memo of Scorpio car bearing no. HR70B5601 recovered from the possession of said accused as Ex. PW22/F. w) PW22 is Sh. Pawan Singh (inadvertently numbered) i.e. Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., who exhibited the certified copy of the CAF as Ex. PW22/A, ID proof of Deepak as Ex. PW22/B, certified copies of CDR as Ex. PW22/C in respect of mobile no. 9818162462 as well as certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW22/D.
x) PW22 is Sh. Jai Bhagwan, who deposed that in the year 2012, he had let one amongst his five shops to accused Ravinder Maan at a monthly rent of Rs.2500/ and accused Ravinder Maan remained as a tenant in the said shop for about 1 ½ years.
y) PW24 is ASI Bijender i.e. one of the member of Special Staff, Outer District and in his presence, accused Ravinder Maan was SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 13 of 26 -14- apprehended and one mobile phone make Samsung recovered from the possession of said accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/A and two other mobile phones recovered from the possession of said accused were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW22/B. He also exhibited the arrest memo of said accused as Ex. PW22/C, personal search memo Ex. PW22/D and disclosure made by said accused as Ex. PW22/E. He also exhibited the seizure memo of Scorpio car bearing no. HR70B5601 recovered from the possession of said accused as Ex. PW22/F. z) PW25 is Sh. Karamveer Maan, who deposed that around 3 to 4 years prior to 2013, he had purchased Airtel SIM bearing no. 9818162462 from a shop at Alipur. He had used the said SIM for about one week and thereafter had given the said SIM to his friend Deepak and since then the said SIM was used by Deepak over his mobile phone. He also deposed that on one day, Deepak informed him in the month of April, 2013 that he had ported the said Airtel SIM to be of Idea company.
z1) PW26 is Sh. Sumit Maan, who deposed that he had purchased one mobile SIM bearing no. 9933329595 on his identification. He was also using another SIM no. 9716293494. He had never given SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 14 of 26 -15- the said SIMs to accused Ajay Maan.
z2) PW27 is Dr. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Biology, who deposed to have examined the exhibits and prepared FSL report(s) dated 03.09.2013 Ex. PW27/A and Ex. PW27/B. z3) PW28 is Sh. V. R. Anand, Assistant Director, Ballistics, who deposed to have examined the exhibits and prepared FSL report(s) dated 24.09.2013 Ex. PW28/A and FSL report(s) dated 29.01.2014 and Ex. PW28/B and Ex. PW8/C. z4) PW29 is Ex. Ct. Munim, who deposed to have accompanied SI Ajay Kumar to the place of occurrence on 01.05.2013. He also accompanied SI Ajay Kumar to Saroj Hospital. He also took rukka and got the FIR registered.
z5) PW30 is ACP Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, who deposed to have conducted investigation. He exhibited rough site plan as Ex. PW30/A and seizure memos of the exhibits lifted from the spot as Ex. PW11/C to Ex. PW11/E. He also deposed to have seized mobile phone vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/B. He also deposed to have conducted inquest proceedings and exhibited application for postmortem as Ex.
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 15 of 26 -16- PW30/B, brief facts Ex. PW30/C, form no. 25.35(1)(b) Ex. PW30/D, statements of identification of dead body as Ex. PW30/E and Ex. PW30/F. He also deposed to have effected the arrest of accused Ravinder @ Gullu vide arrest memo Ex. PW30/J and recorded disclosure statements as Ex. PW30/K and Ex. PW30/L. He also exhibited the arrest memo of accused Ravi Bhardwaj as Ex. PW30/M, his disclosure statement as Ex. PW30/N, sketch of katta and cartridge as Ex. PW30/O, its seizure memo as Ex. PW30/P. He also deposed to have effected the arrest memo of accused Ajay Maan vide arrest memo Ex. PW30/Q, his disclosure statement as Ex. PW30/R. He also exhibited the pointing out memos as Ex. PW30/R1 to Ex. PW30/R3.
He also deposed to have collected and analyzed CDRs. He also deposed to have collected the FSL report Ex. PX in respect of handwriting division and obtained sanction Ex. PY u/s 39 Arms Act.
6. Vide order dated 18.09.2018, on the basis of death verification report of accused Ravi Bhardwaj @ Bunty, proceedings against accused Ravi Bhardwaj were abated.
7. Vide order dated 27.04.2019, the prosecution evidence was closed.
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 16 of 26 -17-
8. Thereafter, statement of both the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded separately in which the entire incriminating evidence appearing against the accused was put to them, in which the defence of both the accused persons was that they have been falsely implicated and falsely arrested and that they have no role in the commission of offence of the present case. However, they chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
9. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Rahul Saraswat, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.
10. Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons has argued that all the material public witnesses have turned hostile and have failed to identify both the accused persons being the offenders / assailants despite crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state. He also argued that there is no incriminating evidence on record to connect both the accused persons with the commission of offence, as the recovery of weapon of offence had been effected from accused Ravi Bhardwaj (since expired) and thus, he prayed that the aforesaid accused persons may be acquitted in respect of the charges(s) framed against them.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP has strongly opposed the SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 17 of 26 -18- same.
12. Here it is observed that the case of the prosecution was based on eye witnesses account and during trial, the prosecution has examined PW8 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, PW10 Sh. Anand Singh, PW11 Sh. Jitender, but all the said three witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner at all. They have only deposed to the extent that on 01.05.2013, at about 7:30 pm, they alongwith Virender (since deceased) had gone to attend a retirement party of the wife of one Sh. Banarsi Dass, R/o Kheda Kalan, Delhi and further deposed that during the party programme at about 8:40 pm, Virender went outside the chopal for the purpose of urination and they kept on eating the dinner inside the chopal.
PW8 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh and PW10 Sh. Anand Singh have deposed that after about 23 minutes, they heard a fire shot sound from outside the chopal and they went outside the chopal, they found Virender Maan lying dead in the street outside the said chaupal and one weapon was lying near the body of Virender Maan. However, PW11 Sh. Jitender has deposed that while eating when he went towards the gate of chaupal, he saw two boys on a bike who were trying to rob Virender and when he resisted one of those boys shot him and when the assailants ran away from the spot, their weapon fell on the spot.
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 18 of 26 -19- All the aforesaid three PWs i.e. PW8 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, PW10 Sh. Anand Singh and PW11 Sh. Jitender have failed to identify the accused persons being the assailants.
PW8 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh during his examination has turned hostile and was crossexamined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite crossexamination, he failed to support his earlier statement mark PW8/A. This witness has also failed to identify both the accused persons being amongst the offenders. This witness has also failed to identify the case property rather this witness has deposed that the weapon of offence was found lying at the spot. Despite lengthy crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness had not supported the statement mark PW8/A recorded by the police.
PW10 Anand Singh during his examination has turned hostile and was crossexamined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite crossexamination, he failed to support the statements mark PW10/A and PW10/B. This witness has also failed to identify both the accused persons being amongst the offenders. Despite lengthy crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness had not supported the statements mark PW10/A and PW10/B recorded by the police.
PW11 Sh. Jitender, who as per the case of the prosecution was one of the eye witness of the occurrence and was the complainant SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 19 of 26 -20- during his examination has turned hostile and was crossexamined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite crossexamination, he failed to support the statement/complaint Ex. PW11/A. He also failed to support the contents of seizure memo Ex. PW11/B. He also failed to support the statement mark PW11/A. He also denied that any such exhibits were lifted in his presence and also denied the contents of seizure memo Ex. PW11/C, Ex. PW11/D, Ex. PW11/E, Ex. PW11/F. He also failed to identify the case property. Despite lengthy crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, this witness had not supported the statement Ex. PW11/A on the basis of which FIR was registered by the investigation agency.
The remaining witnesses examined during the trial i.e. PW1 Ct. Sandeep had only recorded DD no. 106B Ex. PW1/A and DD No.114B Ex. PW1/B and thus is a formal witness. PW2 ASI Anoop Singh, who had recorded DD No. 8A Ex. PW2/A and thus is a formal witness. PW3 Ct. Sukhdev is special messages and thus is also a formal witness. PW4 HC Navrattan, who had recorded DD No.33A Ex. PW4/A and thus is a formal witness.
13. PW5 Ct. Ashish, who had recorded DD No. 28B Ex. PW5/A and thus is a formal witness. PW6 Ct. Raj Kumar i.e. crime team photographer who took 18 photographs of the place of occurrence and thus is a formal witness. PW7 HC Sushil, who only recorded FIR SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 20 of 26 -21- No.90/13 u/s 25 Arms Act, PS Crime Branch and thus is a formal witness. PW12 SI Ajit Singh is crime team incharge and thus is a formal witness. PW14 is ASI Udayveer had only deposited the exhibits at FSL and thus is a formal witness. PW15 is ASI Sudesh Pal, who recorded FIR Ex. PW15/A and thus is a formal witness.
14. PW16 is Sh. Deshraj, who had brought the computerized generate copy of Scorpio vehicle no. HR70B5601 and thus is a formal witness. PW17 is Sh. Vishram Singh i.e. Ahlmad, who has brought the original case file of case FIR No. 195/13, PS Alipur and thus is a formal witness. PW19 is Sh. V. K. Jha has proved the postmortem report and opined the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock as a result of firearm injury no. 1 and thus is a formal witness. PW20 is ASI Anand Singh, who has exhibited PCR form Ex. PW20/A and thus is a formal witness.
PW21 is Dr. Sandeep Dhuriya who has exhibited MLC of Virender Maan and thus is a formal witness. PW21 is Sh. Vikramjeet Singh, the then Addl. DCP, who has accorded sanction u/s 39 Arms Act in respect of accused Ravi Bhardwaj. PW22 is ASI Narender Singh and PW24 is ASI Bijender, who alongwith other police officials apprehended accused Ravinder Maan @ Gullu and thus are formal witnesses.
PW29 is Sh. V. R. Anand (Ballistics) had examined the arm and SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 21 of 26 -22- ammunition recovered from the possession of accused Ravi Bhardwaj (since expired) and thus has nothing incriminating to depose against the present accused persons facing trial. PW29 is Ex. Ct. Munim had only accompanied SI Ajay Kumar to the place of occurrence ad thereafter to Saroj Hospital and got the FIR registered and thus is a formal witness.
15. Here it is observed that the remaining witnesses examined during the course of trial have also not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons. PW9 Sh. Kuldeep Singh, who deposed himself to be the registered owner of Scorpio no. HR70B5601 has deposed that he had never given his said vehicle to accused Ravi Bhardwaj at any point of time.
This witness has also deposed that the reply to notice u/s 133 M. V. Act was written by him as per the dictation and asking of the police officials. This witness has also turned hostile and was cross examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, but despite cross examination, he has not supported that he gave the said reply voluntarily. He also denied the fact that the said car was seized by the police on 02.05.2013 from accused Ravinder Maan @ Gullu. He even denied that he does not know accused Ravinder Maan @ Gullu.
One of the public witness examined during trial is PW13 Sh. Banarsi Dass, but this witness has deposed only to the extent that his SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 22 of 26 -23- wife Smt. Dev Kaur retired on 01.05.2013 from MCD and he organized a programme at Balmiki Chaupal. In the said programme, he invited the party workers and other guests. He also deposed that he heard noise of fire and went towards the chaupal and saw Virender Maan, who had come alongwith Jitender in the party was shot by some outside persons. This witness has admittedly not seen the actual occurrence taking place and thus has nothing incriminating to depose against accused persons.
16. So far as the testimonies of Nodal Officers i.e. PW18 Sh. Rajiv Ranjan is concerned, he has not exhibited the CDR of the mobile numbers of any of the accused facing trial. He has only exhibited the CDR, CAF of mobile number 9212082277 belonging to accused Bunty Bhardwaj (since expired).
Another Nodal Officer i.e. PW22 Sh. Pawan Singh (inadvertently numbered) of Idea Cellular Limited has also not exhibited the CDR of the mobile numbers of any of the accused facing trial.
Here it is also observed that PW25 Sh. Karamveer has only deposed to the extent that around 3 to 4 years prior to 2013, he had purchased Airtel SIM bearing no. 9818162462 from a shop at Alipur. He had used the said SIM for about one week and thereafter had given the said SIM to his friend Deepak and since then the said SIM was used by Deepak over his mobile phone.
SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 23 of 26 -24- On one day, Deepak informed him in the month of April, 2013 that he had ported the said Airtel SIM to be of Idea company. Thus, this witness has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons facing trial.
Here it is also observed that PW26 Sh. Sumit Maan has only deposed to the extent that he had purchased one mobile SIM bearing no. 9933329595 on his identification. He was also using another SIM no. 9716293494. He had never given the said SIMs to accused Ajay Maan. Thus, this witness has also turned hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he denied the fact that he ever handed over any of his SIMs to accused Ajay Maan.
He also denied to have made statement Ex. PW26/A. Thus, this witness has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons facing trial.
17. So far as the testimonies of the expert witnesses i.e. of PW27 Dr. Naresh Kumar, SSO (Biology) is concerned, he had not detected blood on the exhibits and admittedly has not conducted any DNA examination. PW28 Sh. V. R. Anand had examined the arm and ammunition allegedly recovered at the instance of accused Ravi Bhardwaj (since expired) and thus the ballistic report also nowhere connect any of the accused persons facing trial.
PW30 is the investigation officer, who had formally arrested both SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 24 of 26 -25- the accused persons in the present case. As per the testimony of PW30 ACP Sh. Sanjeev Kumar i.e. IO admittedly nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession or at the instance of both the accused persons facing trial.
18. In view of the fact that all the material public witnesses / eye witnesses i.e. PW8 Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, PW10 Sh. Anand Singh and PW11 Sh. Jitender have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution despite detailed crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and as discussed above, the remaining witnesses examined during the course of trial were formal in nature, as discussed above as such there is no incriminating evidence on record to connect accused persons namely Ajay Maan @ Balli Maan and Ravinder @ Gullu with offence(s) punishable u/s 120B IPC and 302/120B/34 IPC and accordingly, both accused persons namely Ajay Maan @ Balli Maan and Ravinder @ Gullu deserve to be acquitted and are accordingly acquitted of the charge(s) punishable u/s 120B IPC and 302/120B/34 IPC.
19. The previous bail bonds of both accused persons namely Ajay Maan @ Balli Maan and Ravinder @ Gullu are cancelled. Previous sureties stand discharged. Original document(s), if any, be returned after cancelling the endorsement(s), if any, on the same, if the same SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 25 of 26 -26- are not resubmitted while furnishing bail bonds u/S. 437A CrPC.
The abovesaid accused persons have already furnished their bail bonds in compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C, which will remain valid for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section 437A CrPC.
20. File on completion be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2019.05.24
14:39:00 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Sanjeev Aggarwal)
th
on this day of 23 May, 2019. Addl. Sessions Judge02,North Rohini Courts, Delhi 23.05.2019 SC No. 58005/16; FIR No.210/13; PS S. P. Badli State Vs. Ajay Maan & Anr. Page No. 26 of 26