Delhi District Court
State vs Neeraj Kumar @ Narender Kumar on 24 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC 02) :
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
CNR No: DLSE010032912017
SC: 189/2017
FIR No: 255/2016
PS: Govind Puri
U/s: 307/201/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Neeraj Kumar @ Narender Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o: H.No. B415, Transit Camp,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
2. Pawan Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Surender Kumar
R/o: H.No. B503, Transit Camp,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
3. Mohit Kumar
S/o Sh. Shyam Lal
R/o: H.No. B415, Transit Camp,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
....ACCUSED PERSON(s)
Date of Institution : 06.04.2017
Judgment reserved on : 17.08.2023
Date of Decision : 24.08.2023
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 1 of 49
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons were sent for trial by SHO Police Station Govind Puri, for committing an offence in furtherance of their common intention along with JCL 'S' while causing stab injuries to the injured in such a manner that if he would have died, then all the accused persons would have been guilty of murder and later on, they had also cleaned the blood from the spot and thereby caused destruction of the evidence under Section 307/201/34 IPC.
Briefly stating the facts arising out of the charge sheet are that upon receipt of DD No. 61A dated 18.03.2016, ASI Birender Singh along with Const. Vigyas had reached the spot, however, neither the injured, nor, any witness was available there. On inquiry, it was revealed that injured had already been shifted to some unknown hospital. After sometime, ASI Birender received another DD No. 6A dated 19.03.2016, through which he came to know that injured had been taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. Thereafter he along with Const. Vigyas had reached there, where injured Pratap Rai S/o Sh. Arun Rai, was found admitted on MLC No. 548617/16 and was declared unfit for statement by the doctor, as he had suffered laceration RT Hypochondrium 5 x 2 cm actively bleeding (2) laceration left Elbow 8 x 4 cm, and the final opinion was pending in this case.
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 2 of 49Thereafter ASI Birender had met the eye witness, who had also got the injured admitted to the hospital namely Manoj Bhattarcharya S/o Sh. Ratan Bhattacharya. He had given him a written complaint, as per which he was stated to be residing at H.No. B1331, Transit Camp, Govind Puri and was driving TSR. On the date of occurrence i.e., 18.03.2016, he along with his friend Sapan Das, Jamaluddin and his maternal uncle (mama) Pratap Rai, were standing in the park, opposite to the main gate of Deepalya School and at about 11:00pm, they were talking to each other. In the meanwhile, JCL 'S' along with his brother Neeraj @ Kalu, Rohit and Pawan had reached there and asked Pratap as to why he was fighting in the evening and challenged him to dare to fight now and he would see him. Accused Neeraj had caught hold of his neck, Pawan had slapped him and then Rohit had also given beatings to him. In the meantime JCL 'S' had taken out a knife and had stabbed the injured in his abdomen. Rest of his three friends had tried to rescue the injured, but all four accused persons had continued to beat him. Due to stab injuries, Pratap Rai had fallen down and blood started oozing out. Thereafter all four of them had fled away from the spot. The said Manoj had brought the injured to AIIMS Trauma Centre and got him admitted there.
2. On this written complaint, IO had prepared rukka and got the FIR registered in this case and further investigation of this case was marked to SI Rajinder Kumar, who had recorded FIR No: 255/2016 Page 3 of 49 the statements of other witnesses. On 20.03.2016, CCL was apprehended from his house as well as accused Pawan and Mohit were also arrested.
3. On 19.04.2016, accused Neeraj had visited the Police Station and surrendered himself and was arrested on the same day. Later on accused Pawan was granted bail vide order dated 22.04.2016, accused Mohit was granted bail vide order dated 28.04.2016 and accused Neeraj was granted bail vide order dated 11.05.2016. The alleged weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of JCL, which was also taken into possession and seized by the IO. After recording the statements of witnesses and conducting the further investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed by him before the Court on 06.04.2017, on which date cognizance of the offence was also taken against all the accused persons by ld. MM and vide order dated 22.04.2017, matter was committed to the Court of Sessions for 27.04.2017.
4. On 05.07.2017, charge for offence(s) u/s 307/201/34 IPC was framed against all accused persons, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Further vide their statements made before the Court on 09.05.2019, they had admitted the certificate issued by SDMC Primary School, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, in respect of FIR No: 255/2016 Page 4 of 49 accused Neeraj Kumar @ Narender and was exhibited on record as Ex. A1 and Ex. A2.
Vide statements dated 29.10.2021, all accused persons had admitted the copy of FIR, FSL forwarding letter as well as its report which were exhibited on record as Ex. A1, Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 respectively.
6. In order to prove the guilt of all accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses in all. However, for the sake of clarity and brevity, it shall be prudent to divide them into category of formal and material witnesses.
(A) At the outset, I would like to discuss the testimonies of the formal witnesses:
PW3 is Dr. Mahesh Kumar, Asst. Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, Lady Harding Medical College, who had deposed that on 19.04.2016, he was posted as Senior Resident, in Forensic Department, of Jai Prakash Narain Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, when he had received an application moved by SI Rajinder along with copy of FIR, original MLC for mentioning the opinion and citing the nature of injuries as dangerous and kind of weapon used was sharp, by one Doctor Anand Kumar, who had prepared the MLC. After perusal of the FIR No: 255/2016 Page 5 of 49 documents, he had given his opinion in the form of report as Ex. PW3/A. It was mentioned that the injuries could have been caused by the weapon which was produced before him.
He was not cross examination by or on behalf of accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.
PW5 is Sh. Vishwajeet Das, brother of injured/ victim Pratap Rai @ Deepu, who had deposed that on 18.03.2016, at about 11:00pm, when he was present at his house, Sapan came to his house and informed him that his brother Pratap Rai @ Deepu had been stabbed by JCL. On hearing this, he immediately went to the spot, his brother was lying on the ground in a pool of blood. Jamaluddin and Manoj had also reached there, as they were not present at the spot and had taken his brother to Trauma Centre on a scooter. He had gone there by TSR.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel appearing for all accused persons, he could not tell the distance of his house and Deepalya park. Injured was stated to be his cousin brother and was working as Field Boy. Injured was stated to be residing at Govind Puri, however, witness did not know the purpose for which he had come to the park on that day. He had admitted that injured had not come to meet him at his house on that day. He could not tell the number FIR No: 255/2016 Page 6 of 49 of public persons who were present in the park at that time. He could not find out any reason of quarrel between JCL and injured, nor, could he remember if there was any electricity in the park or not. He was stated to have not seen the office of Sai Nath Properties on the main road which led to the park. IO of this case was stated to have never made any inquiry from him, nor, he had recorded his statement at any point of time.
PW7 is SI Devender Kumar, who had provided the PCR Form Ex. PW7/A along with accompanying certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW7/B, to the IO of this case.
This witness was also not cross examined by or on behalf of the accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.
PW8 is Sh. Trilok Singh, MRT, JPNATC, who had brought the medical record of MLC No. 548617 dated 19.03.2016 and had placed the same on record as Ex. PW8/A, which was stated to be bearing signatures of Dr. Anand Kumar at pt. A1, A2, A3 and A4. He was well acquainted with his handwriting and signatures, as he had worked with the concerned doctor and had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties.
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 7 of 49This witness was also not cross examined by or on behalf of the accused despite availing an opportunity in this regard.
PW9 is Dr. Siva, Senior Resident, Department of Orthopedics, JPNATC, AIIMS, who had deposed that as per the MLC, the patient had a history of assault on 18.03.2016 at 23:00 hours. The injuries were mentioned by Dr. Anand Kumar at portion X and injuries suffered by injured were dangerous in nature caused by a sharp object.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel for accused, he had admitted that said MLC was not prepared in his presence. He had joined the hospital in February 2019 and he had only identified the signatures of Dr. Anand Kumar, on the basis of official record of MLC. He had denied the suggestion that signatures appearing on the MLC from pt. A1 to A4, were of different doctors and were not of Dr. Anand Kumar alone.
PW10 is Const. Vigyas, No. 2903/SE, who had deposed that on 18.03.2016, he was posted as Constable at Police Station Govind Puri and was on emergency duty from 8:00pm to 8:00am and at about 11:20pm, a call was received at Police Station regarding stabbing of a person, when he along with ASI Birender had reached at DDA Park, infront of Deepali School, FIR No: 255/2016 Page 8 of 49 where, some public persons had informed them that injured had already been taken to hospital but name of the said hospital was not known, hence, they had returned back to the Police Station.
Thereafter information was received from Trauma Centre, AIIMS, vide DD No. 6A, then both of them had reached at Trauma Centre, however, he could not remember the time of his reaching there, one Sh. Manoj Bhattacharya was stated to have met them, who had brought the injured to the Trauma Centre. Since injured was not in a position to give his statement, hence, statement of Sh. Manoj Bhattacharya was recorded by IO, who had thereafter prepared rukka and had given it to this witness for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, rukka was brought to Police Station by him and FIR was got registered by Duty Officer. Thereafter, further investigation was marked to SI Rajender.
ASI Birender had also collected the sealed pulanda of blood sample and clothes of injured and had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at pt. A. He along with SI Rajender had reached at the spot and searched for accused persons but they were not found. On 05.04.2016, he had again joined the investigation and reached at AIIMS Hospital, where IO had collected blood in gauze in a FIR No: 255/2016 Page 9 of 49 sealed condition which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/B bearing his signatures at pt. A. During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for accused, he had deposed that no separate departure entries were made while going to the spot on 18.03.2016. He had reached the spot within 10 minutes of receiving the information, but had not noted down the names of the persons who had met them at the spot. IO had also not recorded the statements of those persons, nor, he had collected any blood or any other articles from the spot till the witness had remained there as a part of the investigation. He did not remember the names which were told by Manoj Bhattacharya to IO. His statement was recorded at the Police Station. He had denied the suggestion that he had never joined the investigation in this case.
PW11 is HC Jorawar Singh, No.4067/Security, who had deposed that on 20.03.2016, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Govind Puri, on which date in the morning hours, he along with IO of this case SI Rajinder and Const. Bal Kishan had reached at B415, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, where they met JCL 'S' and thereafter JWO SI Abhishek was called for investigation in respect of CCL. After his arrival, JWO SI Abhishek made inquires from CCL in the presence of his father and later on he was apprehended and JWO had prepared documents in this regard.
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 10 of 49Thereafter this witness along with Const. Bal Kishan had left the said place in search of other accused persons and during the said process, they had reached at H.No. B503, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, where accused Pawan had met them. He had correctly identified the said accused in the Court. Thereafter they came back to H.No. B415, with accused Pawan and then accused Mohit was apprehended at his house. Accused Mohit was also correctly identified by this witness. Thereafter both of them were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B respectively and their personal searches were also conducted vide memo Ex. PW11/C and Ex. PW11/D and IO had also prepared pointing out memos Ex. PW11/E and Ex. PW11/F respectively and all the memos were bearing his signatures at pt. A. Accused persons were thereafter taken for their medical examination and were produced before the Court and their custody remand was also obtained by the IO.
In this case, on instruction of the IO, a sealed pulanda of knife and medical record of injured along with application of IO were taken by him to HOD, AIIMS Trauma Centre, vide RC No. 59/21/16 and he had also obtained the receiving of the same on the copy of RC and handed over the same to the IO. He had not tampered the seal or sealed pulanda till it remained in his possession. Copy of the RC was marked as Mark PW11/1 bearing his signatures at pt. A. FIR No: 255/2016 Page 11 of 49 During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel, he was stated to have joined the investigation with IO at about 2:00am in the morning. They had reached the house of CCL on foot and had remained there for about 1020 minutes at the first instance. JWO was stated to have reached there within 510 minutes. No documentation was done by the IO in his presence at that time. House nos. B415 and B503 were stated to be hardly 50 mtrs away from each other and accused Pawan was stated to have been arrested firstly, when they had reached his house at 3:00 am and had left the place at 3:30 am and had gone to the house of accused Mohit, where they had remained there till 5:30am. The distance between the spot and house of Mohit was stated to be 150 mtrs. IO had not made any efforts for taking the photographs of the spot. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
PW12 is Const. Bal Kishan, who was accompanying the IO with PW11 on 20.03.2016, and had deposed on the similar lines as was deposed by PW11. He had also proved on record the arrest memo of accused Neeraj Ex. PW12/A bearing his signatures at pt. A. Neeraj was stated to have been medically examined at AIIMS Hospital and thereafter his custody was handed over to the IO.
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 12 of 49During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel for all accused persons, he was stated to have joined the investigation at about 4:005:00am in the morning and had gone to the house of CCL 'S' in a government gypsy, where they had remained there for about half an hour at the first instance. JWO SI Abhishek was stated to have arrived at the house of CCL at around 4:30am and IO was stated to have prepared some documents in his presence at the house of CCL. The distance between H.No(s). B415 and B503 was stated to be hardly 100150 sq. mtrs.
As per this witness, accused Mohit was arrested first from his house and thereafter accused Pawan was arrested. The entire investigation was stated to have been completed by them by 5:30am in the morning and IO had also taken photographs of the spot in his presence. The distance between the house of accused Mohit and the spot was stated to be around 150 sq. mtrs. Formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
However, it shall be pertinent to mention here itself that though both these witnesses PW11 and PW12 were the witnesses to the same fact but there are stark contradictions in their versions. PW11 was stated to have joined the investigation at about 2:00am in the morning and had reached the house of CCL on foot, whereas, PW12 had stated the said time to be around 4:005:00am in the morning and had gone to the house of FIR No: 255/2016 Page 13 of 49 CCL in a government gypsy. PW11 had mentioned about having remained at the house of CCL for just about 1020 minutes at the first instance, whereas, PW12 had cited the said period for about half an hour and no documentation was stated to have been done by IO in the presence of PW11, whereas, PW12 had stated that IO had prepared some documents at the house of CCL in his presence. Even the distance between both the houses i.e., B415 and B503, was varying in the estimation of both these witnesses. As per PW11 it was stated to be 50 mtrs, whereas, PW12 has mentioned the same to be 100150 mtrs, making it double or triple of what PW11 had deposed.
Further as per PW11, accused Pawan was arrested firstly at 3:00am, but as per PW12 it was accused Mohit who was arrested from his house first. No documents or photographs of the spot were taken by the IO as per PW11, whereas, PW12 had stated that IO had taken the photographs of the spot in his presence, hence, these inconsistencies and contradictions appearing in the version of these two witnesses cannot be considered lightly and brushed aside in a lighter manner.
PW13 is Retd. SI Birender. R/o: Village Guwani, District Mahendargarh, Haryana, who had deposed that on 18.03.2016, he was posted as ASI at PS Govind Puri and was on night duty from 8:00am to 8:00pm. At about 11:20pm, on receipt of DD No. 61A Ex. PW13/A, he along with Const.
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 14 of 49Vigyash had reached the spot i.e., main gate of Deepali School, Transit Camp, DDA Park, where they could not meet any injured. Upon inquiry, they came to know that injured was shifted to some unknown hospital. In the meantime, he had also received another DD No. 6A, Ex. PW13/B, from AIIMS Trauma Centre, regarding admission of injured Pratap. Thereafter, they had gone to AIIMS, Trauma Centre and collected the MLC, as per which, the injured was found unfit for statement. Thereafter he searched for the eye witness at the hospital and met one Manoj, who had got the injured admitted in the hospital. He had made some queries from him, who had narrated him the entire incident and had also given him a written complaint, on which he had prepared rukka Ex. PW13/C bearing his signatures at pt. A. Rukka was handed over to Const. Vigyash, who had gone to Police Station for registration of the FIR and after registration of the present case, further investigation was marked to SI Rajinder, on the directions of the SHO.
Duty Constable at AIIMS, Trauma Centre, had handed over him the sealed exhibits of the injured and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW10/A bearing his signatures at pt. A and they were also deposited in the malkhana.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Defence Counsel appearing for all accused persons, he had deposed that no eye witness was present when he had reached the FIR No: 255/2016 Page 15 of 49 spot, where he had remained for about one hour and had not noticed any blood stains at the spot. He was stated to have reached the hospital at about 2:00am. He had no knowledge as to from whom the complainant Sh. Manoj had got the complaint Ex. PW1/A written. It was admitted by him that he did not know the contents of pulandas which were handed over to him by the Duty Constable as well as the fact that none of the accused persons was arrested in his presence and had denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Here it shall be pertinent to point out that as per the version of PW10 Const. Vigyas, they had come back to Police Station from the spot, as they were not aware of the hospital where the injured was admitted, however, PW13, contrary to his version had stated that he had received DD No. 6A Ex. PW13/B, while he was still at the spot itself and had not deposed about his coming back to Police Station along with Const. Vigyas.
PW14 is SI Rajender Kumar, No. D5212, who is the second IO of this case and had deposed that on 19.03.2016, when he was posted as SI at Police Station Govind Puri and after registration of the FIR, investigation in this case was marked to him. Thereafter he along with Const. Vigyas had reached at the spot near Deepaliya School, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, where ASI Birender and complainant Sh. Manoj Bhatacharya had met them and he had prepared site plan at the instance of complainant FIR No: 255/2016 Page 16 of 49 which was placed on record as Ex. PW14/A bearing his signature at pt. A. Thereafter, he had inquired about the accused from ASI Birender, who had then left the spot. He had tried to search for the accused but they could not be traced out. Thereafter he along with complainant and Const. Vigyas had returned back to Police Station, where he had recorded the statements of witnesses.
On 20.03.2016, he along with beat staff Const. Zorawar, Const. Vigyas and Const. Balkishan had reached the house of accused i.e., BBlock, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, where, one person namely 'S' met them and he made inquiries from him and during inquiry, it was revealed that he was a JCL and information in this regard was sent by him to Police Station and JWO SI Abhishek had reached the spot and made further inquiries from JCL in the presence of his father. IO had recorded the statement of JCL and JCL had also got recovered one knife from Mother Diary, Baba Fateh Singh Marg, of which sketch was prepared by him and after its sketch, the same was seized and sealed with the seal of 'RKN'. Thereafter JCL had also led them to the place of occurrence and he had also prepared the pointing out memo. JCL had also led them to the house of co accused persons from where he got arrested accused Mohit and Pawan and their arrest memos and personal searches were conducted vide memos already placed on record as Ex. PW11/A to Ex. PW11/D respectively, both were bearing his signatures at pt. X. Both the aforesaid accused persons along with JCL were FIR No: 255/2016 Page 17 of 49 sent to hospital for their medical examination along with Const. Jorawar, Const. Balkishan and Const. Vigyas and thereafter he came back to Police Station and case property was deposited in the malkhana. Thereafter, accused persons were brought to Saket Courts and produced before ld. Duty MM and were sent to judicial custody. JCL was produced at the residence of ld. Principal Magistrate, JJB and was sent to Observation Home, Delhi Gate. Proceedings qua him were separated as against the present accused persons.
On 05.04.2016, he along with Const. Vigyas had reached at AIIMS, Trauma Centre, where he had moved an application before the concerned doctor for obtaining blood in gauze of injured Pratap Rai @ Deepu, who was declared fit for statement. Then he had recorded the statement of injured under Section 161 CrPC and Const. Vigyas had handed over him sample seals and exhibits in a sealed condition, which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo already Ex. PW10/B bearing his signatures at pt. X. Thereafter he came back to Police Station and exhibits were deposited in the malkhana.
On 19.04.2016, accused Neeraj along with his father had come to Police Station, who was arrested by him vide memo already Ex. PW12/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW14/D and both the memos were bearing his signatures at pt. X. He had also recorded the disclosure FIR No: 255/2016 Page 18 of 49 statement of accused vide Ex. PW14/E bearing his signature at pt. X and thereafter he was sent to Lock Up of Police Station Govind Puri and was produced before the Court on the next day and was sent to J/C. The knife which was used in the commission of crime was sent to the Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS Hospital, for obtaining the subsequent opinion and he had also collected the report regarding subsequent opinion from the Hospital. Const. Bal Kishan was stated to have handed over him the exhibits in a sealed pulanda bearing the seal of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS Hospital, which were seized by him vide memo Ex.PW14/F and both the memos were bearing his signature at pt. X. All the exhibits were sent to FSL for expert opinion. He had also recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet and filed the same in the Court. He had correctly identified all the accused persons present before the Court as well as the case property Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 respectively.
During his cross examination conduced by ld.
Defence Counsel for all accused persons, he was stated to have reached the spot on foot but he could not tell the exact dimensions of the park. It was admitted by him that site plan Ex. PW14/A was not showing the main gate of the park, nor did it mention anything about the electricity pole. The distance between the main gate and place of occurrence was stated to be about 2025 foot. It was denied by him that site plan was FIR No: 255/2016 Page 19 of 49 prepared by him falsely without visiting the spot or that the place of incident was located at a distance of 100 mtr from the main gate. He had remained at the spot for about 45 minutes on his first visit.
On 20.03.2016, he was stated to have gone on foot to the house of accused after leaving the Police Station at about 2:30am. It was admitted by him that one office was being run in the name of Sai Nath Property and was stated to be situated near BBlock,Transit Camp. It was further admitted by him that family members of accused Pawan had handed over him a CD regarding presence of accused in the office of Sai Nath Property at the time of incident and it was further volunteered by him that on inquiry made by him regarding CD, the residence of accused was found near the office of Sai Nath Property and Pawan was not clearly visible in the said CD, hence, he could not say whether accused was present there or not and this fact was also mentioned by him in the case diary. However, he could not tell the exact distance between Sai Nath Property and the park. Formal suggestions regarding false implication of accused persons were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
(B) Now, I would like to discuss the testimonies of the material witnesses:
PWI is Sh. Manoj Bhattacharya S/o Sh. Ratan Bhattacharya, who is the complainant as well as the star witness FIR No: 255/2016 Page 20 of 49 of the prosecution case, who had deposed that on 18.03.2016, he along with his friends Sapan Das, Jamaluddin and Pratap Rai who was his maternal uncle, were present inside the gate of park situated in front of Deepalya School and at about 10:3011:00 pm, they were talking to each other while standing there. At that time one JCL'S', his brother Neeraj @ Kalu and Rohit, elder brother of Neeraj @ Kalu along with their associate Pawan came to them and after coming, they had started abusing. He had correctly identified the accused persons namely Neeraj @ Kalu, Pawan and Rohit in the Court, however, he had pointed out towards Mohit as Rohit.
At that time, all the accused persons had come to them and started abusing. Accused Neeraj had caught hold of the neck of Pratap Rai @ Deepu, accused Pawan had slapped Deepu and accused Rohit had also given beatings to him and he had also caught hold of Deepu. At that time JCL was standing behind Deepu and had stabbed Deepu in his abdomen 34 times. He had tried to save Deepu but after causing injuries to him, all of them had run away from the spot. After sustaining injuries, Pratap Rai @ Deepu had fallen down and Sapan had taken out his shirt and tied it around his waist so as to cover his abdomen. He had taken him on his scooty and Jamaluddin sat behind Deepu and they had taken him to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, where he was admitted. After some time police officials had come to the hospital and met him and he had given a written complaint Ex. PW1/A to the FIR No: 255/2016 Page 21 of 49 police at that time which was also signed by him at pt. A. He had also pointed out the place of occurrence and police had prepared site plan at his instance. One wooden piece of about 4 inches was also recovered by the police which had blood stains on it. Witness had correctly identified the knife Ex.P2 which was used by (JCL) for stabbing Pratap Rai. He had also correctly identified the shirt Ex. P1 which belonged to Sapan Dass, which he had tied around the wound on the stomach.
During his cross examination conducted by ld.
Counsel for all accused persons, he had stated that he was a TSR driver by occupation. The TSR was hired by him on rent and he used to run the same from morning till 10.00 pm in the night. The said TSR was taken on rent by him from one Sh. Robin Pandit, who used to reside in village Tehkhand. He used to park the TSR at his home and the distance between his house and the park where this incident had taken place was about 10 minutes. Jamaluddin used to reside in ABlock, Govind Puri whereas he was residing in BBlock, Govind Puri. The distance between his house and that of Zamaluddin was about 15 minutes away. Sapan Dass was residing in BBlock in front of the park where this incident had taken place and he did not know as to whom Pratap Rai @ Deepu had come to meet and he was his mama and used to reside in Govind Puri. There were many public persons in the park at the time of incident and they were already present in the park and had reached there separately. He could not FIR No: 255/2016 Page 22 of 49 remember as to who had reached the park first and Pratap Rai @ Deepu was standing in front of him. The accused persons had come there after half an hour and he knew all of them prior to the incident. Pratap Rai @ Deepu was also known to the accused persons prior to the incident and he saw that all of them were running towards them and started abusing. He could not tell the width of the park and there was no electricity pole in the park where this incident had taken place. He also could not tell the colour of the shirt and pant of injured Pratap Rai which he was wearing at the time of incident and could not remember whether his own clothes were stained with the blood of injured or not. He might have washed his clothes, however, he had not handed over his clothes to the IO of this case. He could not remember the complete number of scooty which he had used to take the injured to the hospital and it was his scooty which was with him at that time. Many public persons had gathered at the time of incident in the park who were walking there, however, he could not tell their names and addresses. Vishwajeet was called by Sapan Dass and he had gone there on foot to call him. Sapan Dass had tied his shirt on the stomach of injured before going to the house of Vishwajeet but he did not know whether Pratap Rai was wearing a sando baniyan at the time of incident or not. No one was having mobile phone at the time of incident and he had not seen any wine shop in the locality where this incident had taken place. He did not know at what time police had reached the spot. They were present in the hospital where his statement was recorded FIR No: 255/2016 Page 23 of 49 twice and had reached the hospital within half an hour. The distance of the main road and the spot in the park where this incident had taken place was about 200 steps. He could not tell the number of public persons who were present at the spot. He had admitted that one criminal case under section 324/34 IPC was registered against him at PS Govind Puri in the month of January, 2018. No clothes of injured Deepu were seized in his presence by the police. He had not seen any office in the name and style of Sai Nath Properties on the main road which lead to the park. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that CCTV cameras were installed in the office and outside it. He had stated in his statement to the IO that he had seen all the accused persons running towards them from the main gate and thereafter this witness was confronted with his statement recorded u/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. where it was not so recorded.
He was also stated to have told in his statement recorded u/sec 161 Cr.P.C. that injured was standing in front of him at the time of incident and thereafter again this witness was confronted with his statement where it was not so recorded. Vishwajeet came to the spot within 5 minutes. He had denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and had not seen anything or that he had deposed falsely, being the real bhanja of injured. He had further denied the suggestion that accused persons namely Neeraj, Pawan and Rohit were not present in the park or that accused Pawan was present in his office at the time FIR No: 255/2016 Page 24 of 49 of incident and his presence was depicted in the CCTV footage installed at Sai Nath Properties. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that injured Pratap Rai had quarreled with some unknown person at the wine shop which was situated at a distance of 1 km from the spot or that accused persons had never assaulted injured Pratap Rai @ Deepu at any point of time. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that he had deposed falsely to implicate the accused persons in the present case due to the previous animosity with the family of accused persons. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
Another material witness of the prosecution case is PW2 Sh. Sapan Dass, S/o Sh. Gokul Dass, who had deposed that he used to sell fish and the incident was of 18.03.2016, when he alongwith Jamaluddin, Manoj and one Deepu were present in the park opposite Deepaliya School, where, at about 11:00 PM, they were talking to each other in the park, thereafter, accused persons namely Kalu, Rohit, JCL and Pawan who were correctly identified by this witness in the court, had come there and thereafter. JCL had given a blow of knife to Deepu. Thereafter, they had called the brother of Deepu and had shifted the injured Deepu to Trauma Centre on a scooty. After the incident, he had tied his shirt on the wound of Deepu and got Deepu @ Pratap admitted in the hospital. Police had recorded his statement. He had identified his shirt Ex. P1 which was of red colour, which was tied by him on the wounds of injured Deepu.FIR No: 255/2016 Page 25 of 49
Thereafter this witness was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for State, with regard to the role of accused persons and with the permission of the Court, he was cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for State, wherein, he had admitted that he had stated in his statement to the police dated 19.03.2016, that when the accused persons namely JCL, his brother Neeraj @ Kalu, Rohit and Pawan came there and started saying "Deepu to sham to kyn jhagad raha tha, ab jhagad tujhe hum dekhte hai" and thereafter, accused Neeraj had caught hold of the neck of Deepu and Pawan had slapped him and Rohit had also done "maar peet" with him and during that period JCL had given blow of knife on his stomach. He had admitted that he had stated in his statement to the police that all of them had tried to separate, but all the four accused continued to give beatings and due to the stab injuries, Pratap Rai had fallen down and started bleeding and thereafter accused persons had escaped from there. He had also admitted that name of the person who was called by them, was Vishwajeet and he was the cousin of Pratap Rai. He could not depose these facts properly in his examination in chief due to lapse of time.
During his cross examination conducted by ld.
Defence Counsel(s) for all accused persons, he had stated that he used to install his thiya at patri, Govindpuri from 4:00 PM to 11:00 PM and this place was about 5 minutes walking distance from his house. His thiya might be about 1 km away from his FIR No: 255/2016 Page 26 of 49 house and he had studied upto 6th class. Deepu had resided in Govindpuri and had volunteered that his brother was residing in their locality. House of Deepu was about 10 minutes walking distance from his house and at the time of incident, no public persons were present in the park.
On that day, Deepu had come to meet his brother and they were in the park for a walk. Deepu was already present in the park and they were also present there and walking. At that time Deepu was standing at a distance of 1012 feet away from them. After coming back from his work place, he had straightaway gone to his house and from there, he had gone to the Park at about 10:30/11:00 pm. When he had reached the park, some arguments were going on between Deepu and accused persons. He along with Jamaluddin and Manoj had reached the park together. The park where the incident had taken place was situated opposite to the gali at a distance of about 10 paces away from his house. He had not noticed the clothes of Deepu at the time of incident, however, as far as he recollected, he might have worn black colour shirt. He had only tied his shirt on the stomach, on the wounds of Deepu and was lifted by Jamaluddin and Manoj and both of them had taken Deepu on the scooty to the hospital. He had not noticed any blood stains on the clothes of Jamaluddin and Manoj as it was night time.FIR No: 255/2016 Page 27 of 49
The wine shop was about 5 minutes walking distance from their locality and about 1 km away from the park. He did not know as to who had called at 100 number. Vishwajeet was having mobile, however, he did not use any mobile phone. No public persons were present inside the park or had come into the park after hearing noise. He could not tell at what time police had reached the park as he had gone back to his house. Thereafter he had volunteered that police officials had come to the hospital. He was present in the hospital when police officials had come there. The red colour shirt was not seized by the police from him and he had volunteered that it was already tied on the wound of Deepu by him. He had told the police officials about tying of his shirt on the wound of Deepu and had also told the police that he had also reached the hospital at about 11:30 pm/12 midnight with his friend namely, Pawan on motorcycle, however, he did not know whether his friend Manoj was absconding or that he had inflicted any knife injury to some person on Lohri festival. Accused Pawan used to run naan rehri. He had gone to call Vishwajeet at his house, which was at a distance of 5 minutes walking from his house. Deepu might have been wearing vest, but it was not visible to him. In his presence, police had not seized the clothes of Deepu. From the hospital he came back to his house. His statement was recorded by the police at Trauma Centre as well as at police station. He had put his signatures on the statement which he had made to police. His statement was recorded by the police in their own handwriting and he had only FIR No: 255/2016 Page 28 of 49 signed the same. He was not aware whether there was any office of Sai Nath Properties on the main road which lead to park.
Thereafter this witness was shown some documents in the judicial file and was asked to identify his signatures on the same, however, no such statement was found attached with charge sheet. He had denied the suggestion that none of his statement recorded by police was signed by him. The pant which had been taken out from parcel no.3 besides red shirt was identified by him to be that of Deepu. He had admitted that earlier he had not stated with regard to the pant in his statement to the police and an objection was raised by Ld. Addl. PP, as specific question was put to the witness by Ld. Defence counsel.
In his presence police had not recorded statement of any other person in the police station with regard to the present case. He was standing at a distance of about 1015 feet when arguments were going on between accused persons and Deepu. JCL had come there running with knife and after inflicting one or two blows to Deepu, he had ran away.
Thereafter a specific question was put to this witness during his cross examination as to whether he had disclosed this fact that "Sahil came there running with knife and after inflicting one or two blows to Deepu, he again ran away" in his statement FIR No: 255/2016 Page 29 of 49 to police, and an objection was raised in this regard by Ld. Addl. PP, as specific question was put to the witness by Ld. Defence Counsel in his cross examination, hence, the defence could not have taken any benefit u/s 145 Indian Evidence Act, which was only restricted for previous statement and not to the answer given by the witness in cross examination. However, an observation was made by the Court that objection was not sustainable in view of section 146 of Indian Evidence Act as by such statement, a person was allowed to shake the credit or impeach the credibility of the witness.
This witness was stated to have mentioned the said facts in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and then he was confronted with statement Ex. PW 2/DA where it was not so recorded. He had also stated in his statement that when he had reached the park, the accused persons were arguing with Deepu and again he was confronted with statement Ex. PW 2/DA where the word argument was not recorded specifically, however, reference regarding the quarrel i.e talks was there.
He had denied the suggestion that accused persons namely Neeraj @ Kalu, Rohit and Pawan were not present in the park at the time of incident or that accused Pawan was present in the office of Sai Nath Properties with his friends. He did not know whether there were CCTV cameras installed in Sai Nath Properties or whether Pawan was present in Sai Nath Properties FIR No: 255/2016 Page 30 of 49 at the relevant time or that his presence was depicted in the CCTV footage installed at Sai Nath Properties. He had volunteered that Pawan was present at the place of incident and he had seen him there. He had denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj and Rohit were present in their house and that being friend of Vishwajeet, he had deposed falsely against the accused persons and made a false statement. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
Another material witness to the incident is PW4 Sh. Jamaluddin S/o Rehmat All, who had deposed that on 18.03.2016, at about 11.00 p.m., he along with Manoj, Sapan and Deepu @ Pratap Rai were present in the park near Deepalia School and were talking to each other. Accused Pawan, JCL, Kalu and Rohit had come there and started scuffling with Deepu @ Pratap Rai. Accused Kalu and Rohit had caught hold of Pratap Rai from his collar and neck and accused Pawan had slapped Deepu and asked as to why he was fighting yesterday, now could he dare to fight as his brother had also come. CCL had taken out a knife and stabbed Pratap Rai in his stomach after which he had fallen down on the ground and blood starting oozing out. All the four accused persons had fled away from the spot. Vishwajeet was called at the spot by them and Sapan had taken out his shirt and tied it around the wound of Pratap Rai. He along with Manoj Bhattacharya had taken Pratap Rai to Trauma Centre on the scooty of Manoj Bhatacharya. His statement was recorded by SI FIR No: 255/2016 Page 31 of 49 Rajender and this witness had correctly identified accused Neeraj @ Kalu, Rohit and Pawan in the court.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for all accused persons, he had stated that he was working as a field boy in the Trunk and Roods in Okhla Industrial Area. Injured Deepu had resided in BBlock, Govind Puri and he knew injured Deepu since his childhood and it took 510 minutes distance to reach the house of Deepu from his house. Sapan Dass used to run fish shop.
Injured Deepu and Sapan were already present in the park. He had reached the park at about 99:30 pm. On that day, many public persons were present in the park, when the incident had taken place but he could not tell the exact number of public persons. He also did not know the names and addresses of those public persons. He had reached the park with Manoj Bhatacharya, who had met him outside the park. Accused persons had also reached the park after 1½ hours from his reaching there. Vishwajeet was called by Sapan Dass. Sapan Dass had gone on foot to call Vishwajeet and he could not tell the distance between house of Vishwajeet and park. The shirt was tied by Sapan Dass on the stomach of Deepu after arrival of Vishwajeet in the park. He could not tell the colour of the shirt. Injured Deepu was standing with him at the time of incident. He could not tell the width and length of the park. There was no FIR No: 255/2016 Page 32 of 49 electricity poll installed in the park where this incident had taken place. He could not tell the colour of clothes which were worn by injured Deepu. His clothes were also stained with blood of injured but he had not given the same to IO and had thrown away the same. He had volunteered that he had thrown his blood stained clothes out of fear of his mother, as she might have got angry. Manoj Bhatacharya was having mobile phone at that time and he had called 100 number. He had admitted it to be correct that there was a wine shop on the road of their locality and its distance was around ½ km from the park. He did not know whether any office in the name and style of Sai Nath properties was situated on the main road which lead to the park or not. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that CCTV cameras were installed in and outside the office of Sai Nath properties. He did not know Babloo who had worked in Sai Nath Properties. IO had recorded his statement in the hospital as well as in the police station and his signatures were also obtained by IO on his statement. He did not know if accused Pawan had asked the injured as to why he was fighting yesterday and could he dare to fight, as his brother had also come. No photographs of the spot were taken in his presence. He had denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj, Pawan and Rohit were not present at the spot or that he was also not present at the spot. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he had deposed falsely being the friend of injured Deepu or that accused Pawan was present in his office at the time of incident and his presence was depicted in the FIR No: 255/2016 Page 33 of 49 CCTV footage installed at the office of Sai Nath Properties. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that accused Neeraj and Rohit were present at their respective houses at the time of incident or that injured Deepu might have quarreled with some unknown person at the wine shop which was situated in the locality, at a distance of 1 km from the spot. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that accused persons had never assaulted injured or were not present in the park or that he had deposed falsely being the friend of Deepu and due to previous enmity of Deepu with the family of accused persons. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
The most material witness of the prosecution case is PW6 Sh. Pratap, S/o Sh. Arun Rai, who is the victim/ injured himself and had deposed that on 18.03.2016, he along with Jamaluddin was sitting in DDA Park, near Deepalaya School and at around 7.00 p.m, Vijay had come to him and was crying. He had asked him the reason for his crying and he told them that Neeraj @ Kalu had beaten him. On this, he along with Jamaluddin had gone to meet Kalu and asked him as to why he had beaten Vijay. Thereafter Neeraj had told him that he had asked Vijay to bring cigarette for him but he had denied. He had asked Neeraj not to beat Vijay on his denial to bring cigarette for him. Accused Neeraj had asked him not to intervene otherwise he would also beat him. Thereafter an altercation and quarrel had started between him and Neeraj. However, his friend Jamaluddin FIR No: 255/2016 Page 34 of 49 had pacified the matter and thereafter, he had gone to house of his mausi and Neeraj had also gone away.
At around 10.0010.15 p.m., younger brother of Neeraj, JCL came to his mausi's house and asked him to come to his house. On this, he along with JCL had gone to the house of Neeraj and he had apologized to the mother of accused Neeraj and requested her to ask Neeraj to forgive him. Mother of Neeraj had assured him that she would convince Neeraj and thereafter, he had left the house of Neeraj.
Thereafter, he had gone to the park near Deepalaya School, where, Manoj, Jamaluddin and Sapan had also met him. After some time, accused Neeraj, Mohit and Pawan who were correctly identified by this witness along with JCL had come to the park. Mohit had caught hold of his right hand and Pawan had caught hold of his left hand. Accused Neeraj had caught hold of his collar and suddenly JCL had stabbed him on his stomach from a knife. His friends got him freed from the clutches of accused persons and accused persons had fled away from the spot. Thereafter he became unconscious and when he gained consciousness, he was in hospital. He had correctly identified the knife Ex. P1, by which he was stabbed.
During his cross examination conducted by ld. Counsel for all accused persons, he had stated that he was a FIR No: 255/2016 Page 35 of 49 student of 1st year correspondence course in the year 2016. At that time, he was residing in Sangam Vihar and had come to the park to meet his friends. He had come to the park in the morning on that day. Vijay was residing in the same locality and father of Vijay was Niranjan Dass. He did not know the exact address of Vijay. Jamaluddin had met him at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening in the park. Neeraj was residing near the park. Vijay had not made any complaint or had called at 100 number regarding assault by accused Neeraj. After coming back from the house of accused Neeraj, he along with Jamaluddin had remained in the park till 10.30 p.m. He along with Jamaluddin, Sapan and Manoj had gone to the park together. Sapan and Manoj had met him in the gali outside the park. He had gone to the house of accused Neeraj at about 10.30 p.m and remained there for about 510 minutes. His mausi was residing at B436, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, New Delhi. Many family members of Neeraj were present. Pawan was not present at his house when he had reached the house of Neeraj. He had come to Govind Puri on his scooty which was parked outside the park. There were 24 public persons present in the park at that time. There were street lights outside the park and light was coming from those poles. Vishwajeet was his cousin brother and he had reached the spot after 10 minutes of the incident. Sapan had gone to call his brother Vishwajeet. He was having mobile phone at that time, however, he could not remember his mobile number at present. He had not made any complaint or called at 100 number. It took FIR No: 255/2016 Page 36 of 49 10 minutes walking distance between park and wine shop and he had remained in the park for about 10 minutes. Manoj and Jamaluddin had taken him to the hospital on scooty. Manoj was driving the scooty. The scooty was not stopped in the way by Manoj. Jamaluddin had not gone to the house of accused Neeraj with him. IO had recorded his statement only once in the hospital after 45 days of the incident. He had never met him regarding the present case after that day. He could not remember the date when his statement was recorded. His clothes were seized by police and his statement which was recorded by IO, was bearing his signatures. Accused had also come with JCL in the park. He had denied the suggestion that he never got unconscious on the day of incident. Manoj Bhattacharya was his nephew (bhanja) in relation. Jamaluddin and Sapan were his friends. He could not tell the names and addresses of public persons who were present in the park at that time. He had admitted that there was a office of property dealing in the name and style of Sai Nath Properties on the main road which lead to the park, however, he could not tell whether CCTV Cameras were installed in and outside it or not. JCL had come from his front side. His friends had tried to save him. They had not received any injury in the said assault. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that none of his friends namely Jamaluddin, Sapan and Manoj were present in the park at the time of incident or that he along with his friends had falsely implicated the accused persons namely Pawan, Neeraj and Mohit in the present FIR No: 255/2016 Page 37 of 49 case being the brother of JCL. He had further denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj had never beaten Vijay at any point of time or that accused Pawan was not present at the spot and at that time he was present in his office and his presence was depicted in the CCTV footage installed at Sai Nath Properties. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that accused persons namely Neeraj and Mohit were present at their house and were not present at the spot or that incident had taken place near wine shop, between him and unknown persons which was situated at a distance of 1 km from the spot. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that he had quarreled with JCL that is why he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case or that accused persons had never assaulted him at any point of time. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
7. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
8. After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of all accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein, entire incriminating circumstances and evidence as appearing against them on record were put to them and except the facts which were either specifically admitted to be correct by them or were purely and essentially a matter of record, the accused persons had expressed their lack of awareness about some facts and denied the rest as wrong and incorrect.
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 38 of 49Accused Neeraj Kumar @ Narender had stated that he was not present at the spot and rather was present at his home at that time. He had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant being the brother of JCL, who had quarreled with the injured.
Accused Pawan Kumar had stated that he was present at the office of his brother Raj Kumar, which was situated at a distance of about 20 mtrs from the place of incident. He had been falsely implicated by the complainant being the cousin brother of JCL, who had quarreled with the injured. He had categorically stated that his presence was recorded in the CCTV footage at the time of incident in the office of his brother Raj Kumar.
Accused Mohit Kumar had stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident, rather he was present at his home and has been falsely implicated by the complainant being the brother of JCL, who had quarreled with the injured.
9. All the accused persons had also preferred to lead evidence in their defence.
DW1 is Sh. Pawan Kumar, S/o Sh. Surender Kumar, who is the accused himself, who had deposed that on FIR No: 255/2016 Page 39 of 49 18.03.2016, he was present in the office of Sai Nath Properties at the time of alleged incident and had left the same after 11.15 PM. CCTV Cameras were installed in the office of Sai Nath Properties and his presence over there was recorded in the same. He was not involved in the incident and had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and his associates.
During his further examinationinchief recorded on 20.04.2023, he had further deposed that Mr. Raj Kumar in whose office he was present at the time of alleged incident had brought the certificate affidavit u/s 65B regarding CCTV footage/video clip.
During his cross examination conducted by Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for State, he was stated to be 5th standard pass and could only sign in English. He was running a rehri of naan at Okhla phaseI and used to install rehri in the morning from 09.00 AM to 04.00 PM. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he used to install rehri from 04.00 PM to 12.00 midnight or that on 18.03.2016, at about 11.00 PM, he along with Neeraj Kumar @ Narender Kumar, JCI 'S' and Mohit Kumar were present in front of main gate of Deepaliya School in Park at Transit Camp. Govind Puri. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that on 18.03.2016, he was not present in the office of Sai Nath properties at about 11.00 PM or that he, in furtherance of his common intention with coaccused persons FIR No: 255/2016 Page 40 of 49 had caught hold of injured Pratap Roy @ Deepu and had given beatings to him and JCL had stabbed him with a knife. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that he along with co accused persons had wiped off the blood from the spot after stabbing the injured. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that he was deposing falsely to save himself and other co accused persons or that he had not slapped Pratap Roy @Deepu Another defence witness is DW2 Sh. Tapas Dass, S/o Sh. Manoranjan Dass, who had deposed that on 18.03.2016, around 10.30 PM, he had gone for an evening walk in the park and many other persons were also present in the park. Two boys namely JCL and Deepu who were residing in Transit Camp were fighting with each other as they were drunk. JCL had stabbed Deepu during their scuffle and he started screaming and he had gone to JCL's house to inform his family about the incident. Mother of JCL, accused Mohit, Neeraj and father of Neeraj had also accompanied him when they came back to the park. After sometime, police had come to the park thereafter, he had gone to his house.
Thereafter, during his cross examination conducted by Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for State, on 20.04.2023, he had stated that he was illiterate and was working in a printing press at F65, Okhla PhaseI and usually worked for 12 hours and sometimes he used to work overtime in the night till FIR No: 255/2016 Page 41 of 49 02.00 AM and sometimes he worked for 8 hours. His employer used to give him Rs. 10,500/ per month as salary and there was a holiday on Sunday. His duty hours were stated to be from 09.00 AM and when he came to his house after performing his duty, he used to sleep. He had admitted that nick name of Pratap Rai was Deepu and on the day of incident, JCL had stabbed Pratap Rai @ Deepu. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that accused Neeraj @ Kalu, Pawan and Rohit were also present on the day of incident and accused Rohit, Pawan and Neeraj @ Kalu had also given beatings to Pratap Rai @ Deepu and abused him or that on the day of incident, he had not called accused Mohit, Neeraj and father of Neeraj. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that on the day of incident Manoj Bhattacharya, Sapan Das and Jamalludin along with injured Pratap Rai @ Deepu were present at the spot or that he was deliberately not disclosing the complete facts as he had been won over by the accused persons or that he was deposing falsely to save accused Neeraj, Pawan and Rohit from the clutches of law. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
Another defence witness i.e., DW3 is Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Late Sh. Subhash Chand, who had deposed that in the year 2016, he used to run an office in the name and style of Sai Properties and on the date of incident, they had a party at his office and accused Pawan was also a member of the said party. The place where the incident had taken place was at a distance of FIR No: 255/2016 Page 42 of 49 12 minutes walk from his office. There was a commotion outside and all of them had come outside his office. Accused Pawan had moved towards the place of alleged incident very swiftly and they had also reached there, but by that time the incident of stabbing had already taken place. Thereafter, they came back and police had arrived at the place of occurrence and conducted its proceedings. CCTV cameras were installed in his office for security purpose and police had inquired from him about the CCTV footage during investigation and he had stated that accused Pawan's presence was recorded in the CCTV camera at the time of alleged incident. He had also seen the footage wherein it could be seen that accused Pawan was present in his office. He had brought a copy of CCTV footage in pen drive, which was proved on record as Ex. D1. He had also brought certificate Ex. D2, u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act, to the effect that no tampering had been done with the said CCTV footage of the date of incident.
Thereafter, this witness was cross examined by Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for State, wherein, he had stated that he was a graduate and the said incident had occurred on 18.03.2016. He usually remained present in his office from 09.00/09.30 AM to 07.30 PM, as he was working as a liasoner. He had organised a party in his office for the welcome of his friends who had come from Europe. He had admitted that he had not mentioned this fact in his examinationinchief. He had FIR No: 255/2016 Page 43 of 49 denied the suggestion as wrong that accused Pawan was not present in his party at about 11.00 PM or that on the day of the incident at about 11.00 PM, accused Pawan along with other accused persons were present at the spot and had given beatings to injured Pratap Roy @Deepu. He had admitted it to be correct that he had not given the CCTV footage to the police and had volunteered that police had come to his office and dealt with his partner Ajay Kumar. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that on the date of his deposition, he had brought tampered recording of CCTV footage in pen drive Ex. D1 that is why he had not given the same to the police. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he along with the help of accused Pawan had tampered the CCTV footage or that he had brought a false and fabricated certificate Ex. D2. He had further denied the suggestion as wrong that he had deliberately not brought the DVR.
Thereafter the pen drive was played in the laptop, wherein, face of accused Pawan was not clearly visible. He had denied the suggestion as wrong that he was deposing falsely and had brought false and fabricated pen drive, affidavit certificate u/s 65B to save accused Pawan, as he was his friend. Other formal suggestions were denied by him as wrong and incorrect.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Dr. Prayag Dutt Pandey, ld. Addl. PP representing the State and Sh.
FIR No: 255/2016 Page 44 of 49V.P.Kaushik, ld. Counsel(s) representing all the accused in this case and have meticulously and scrupulously gone through the entire material on record.
11. From the perusal of record and appreciation of testimonies of the witnesses, I have no hesitation in holding that there are stark inconsistencies and contradictions in the version of PWs, which are fatal for the case of prosecution. PW1 along with PW4 and PW6 had mentioned about the presence of public persons in the park, whereas, PW2 had categorically denied the presence of any public persons in park.
Further PW2 had mentioned about his walking along with other PWs/ injured, whereas, PW1 and other witnesses had stated that they were only talking in the park and nowhere they had mentioned about their walking. PW2 had deposed that injured was standing about 1012 feet away from him and when he reached there along with other two persons, arguments were already going on between the injured and accused persons, which shows that PW6 had not accompanied other PWs to the park, as claimed by him, in his examination in chief. PW2 had also admitted the fact about existence of a wine shop at about 1 km from the park having about 5 minutes walking distance at which place stabbing incident was reported vide DD No. 61A Ex. PW13/A. FIR No: 255/2016 Page 45 of 49 Not only this, but also, PW4 had claimed to have reached the park at about 9:009:30pm, whereas, PW2 had mentioned of his reaching park at about 10:3011:00pm, but as per PW4, injured and Sapan were already present in the park. PW4 himself was stated to have reached the park along with PW1 and as per this witness, PW1 had the mobile phone with him and had also made a call at 100 number, whereas PW1 had denied having any mobile phone either with himself or with any of the other PWs. PW2 on the other hand had shown his ignorance regarding the person who had called the police at 100 number and as per this witness, PW5 Sh. Vishwajeet had mobile with him. Though PW6 had stated that he was staying in the park with Jamaluddin since 7:00pm but no such fact was deposed by PW4 Sh. Jamaluddin regarding his presence with PW6 in the park at 7:00pm or any incident having taken place at that time as stated by PW6. As per the versions of PW1, PW4 and PW 5, it was Jamaluddin who had taken the injured to the hospital, however, as per PW2 it was he who had got the injured admitted in the hospital. PW4 had also admitted about presence of wine shop in the area at a distance of about half a kilometre.
Further PW6 had stated that he along with Jamaluddin had remained in the park till 10:30pm, after coming back from the house of accused Neeraj and himself was stated to have visited the park along with PWs Sh. Jamaluddin, Sapan Dass and Manoj Bhatacharya. Further in the same breath, he had FIR No: 255/2016 Page 46 of 49 also stated that he had gone to the house of accused Neeraj at 10:20pm and had stayed there for 510 minutes. Furthermore, as per this witness, JCL 'S' had come from his front side while he had attacked him, whereas, PW1 had stated that JCL was standing behind the injured. Interestingly, as per the version of PW1 Sh. Manoj Bhattacharya, JCL was stated to have given stab injuries to injured 34 times, whereas, the MLC negates this claim which mentions only about two injuries as discussed above. As per this witness, accused Mohit and Pawan had held his one arm each whereas accused Neeraj had held him from the collar, but none of the other witnesses claiming to be an eye witnesses had supported his version. Not only this, but also, he was stated to be residing at Sangam Vihar and not in Govind Puri, as was claimed by all other witnesses.
Not only this, but also, it is important to see the document Ex. PW7/A which is the PCR form, having written version of PCR call and as per this call "do jankaro ka sharaab pee kar aapas me jhagra jisme Neeraj @ Kalu S/o Shyam Lal ne pados ke rehne wale ladke Deepu S/o Arjun Dass, Age 20 years, R/o: B436, Transit Camp, Govind Puri ko chaku maar kar bhag gaya, Deepu Inj. tha jo pehle hi U/K hosp. ja chuka hai, aas paas ke logo ne bataya hai mauka per beat staff aur SI Rajender", which shows that despite knowing the name of assailants fully well, the name of Neeraj @ Kalu was deliberately taken in the FIR No: 255/2016 Page 47 of 49 PCR call instead of prosecution's own version of injured having been stabbed by JCL 'S'.
Further it shall be pertinent to mention here that DD No. 61A Ex. PW13/A had mentioned about the stabbing incident having taken place near wine shop, near Deepalaya School and not about stabbing in the park as claimed by the witnesses. Rather as per DD No. 6A dated 19.03.2016, Ex. PW13/B only a quarrel had taken place in the park infront of Deepalaya School in which the injured was got admitted to the hospital by his nephew (bhanja) Manoj.
As per PW5, PWs Jamal and Manoj had reached the spot after his arrival which shows that they were not even present at the spot earlier as claimed by them. As per PW10, they had returned to Police Station from Park and had later on gone to AIIMS, whereas, from the testimony of PW13, it is reflected as if he had directly gone to hospital from the spot itself. PW1 had categorically stated that all of them had reached the park separately which is in entire contrast to the version of PW6 who had claimed that all of them had gone there together. As per PW2, injured had come to meet his brother who was residing in the same locality but this fact was categorically denied by his brother i.e., PW5.
12. All these lacunaes and inconsistencies makes it look like a very suspicious case and casts a serious shadow of doubt about its authenticity and genuineness in the story of the prosecution regarding the very presence of these witnesses at the FIR No: 255/2016 Page 48 of 49 spot at the time of alleged incident, which could not be established on record beyond any reasonable doubt. Moreover, testimony of DW2 who was an independent witness had ruled out the very presence of these accused persons at the spot at the time of incident. Though face of accused Pawan was not clear in the CCTV footage but even then, his presence in the office at the relevant point of time can't be ruled out.
13. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of any of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt so as to convict them for the offence(s) as alleged.
14. Therefore, the accused persons are entitled for honorable acquittal. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the offence(s) charged against them. The bail bonds furnished by all the accused persons are cancelled and their sureties are discharged. The bonds furnished by them under Section 437A CrPC shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of their acquittal. Case file be consigned to record room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DATED: 24.08.2023 LOKESH Digitally signed by LOKESH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2023.08.25 SHARMA 15:45:20 +0530 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC - 02) SOUTH EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI FIR No: 255/2016 Page 49 of 49