Delhi District Court
State vs . : 1) Anchal on 9 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No: 417/17
FIR No. : 204/17
U/s : 147/148/149/452/302/325 IPC
P.S. : Bhalswa Dairy
State Vs. : 1) Anchal
S/o Sh. Dilip Mishra
R/o H.No.1494, Street No.21,
D-Block Mukund Pur, Part-1,
Delhi.
2) Neelu
D/o Sh. Dilip Mishra
R/o H.No.1494, Street No.21,
D-Block Mukund Pur, Part-1,
Delhi.
3) Dilip Mishra
S/o Sh. Ram Jagat
R/o H.No.1494, Street No.21,
D-Block Mukund Pur, Part-1,
Delhi.
4) Sushma
W/o Sh. Ashutosh
R/o H.No.1494, Street No.21,
D-Block Mukund Pur, Part-1,
Delhi.
5) Akash
S/o Sh. Gopal
R/o H.No.14, Street No.2,
Mukund Pur, Mukund Vihar,
Delhi.
6) Deepak @ Dutta
S/o Sh. Mohan Koli
R/o H.No.1211, Street No.19,
D-Block Mukund Pur, Part-1,
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 1 ::
Delhi.
7) Naushad
S/o Sh. Habib Ahmed
R/o H.No.3, Street No.10,
Macchi Chowk, Mukund Pur,
Part-1, Delhi.
8) Suraj @ Tinda
S/o Sh. Mitlesh Prasad
R/o H.No.311, Gali No.9,
Nayay chowk, Mukundpur Part-1
Delhi.
9) Jitender @ Guddu Passi
S/o Sh. Lotan Pase
R/o Gali No.5, Janta Vihar,
Mukund Pur, Part-1,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 147/148/149/452/302/323
/341/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of committal : 14.07.2017
Date of Judgment : 09.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On 29.03.17 at 12.50 PM information was received at PS Bhalswa Diary vide DD no.37 B that at house no.1285, street no.21, D Block, Mukandpur, a person has been State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 2 ::
apprehended, who is murder accused. ASI Ramesh Chand along with HC Ballu Palve reached there. On the spot they came to know that Rahul has been beaten by 10-12 persons and two girls and PCR van had taken Rahul to the police station. They came to the PS. Rahul was found in injured condition. Neelu, Sushma and there father Dilip Mishra were also in the PS. They told that Rahul is involved in the murder case of Chanchal. Rahul refuted the same. Rahul was sent to hospital for medical examination. Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra also left the PS. In the mean while ASI Ramesh Chand received information about beatings at Aam Admi Chowk. He reached there and found that Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra and 7-8 other persons were giving beatings to a boy, whose name he came to know as Narender. Narender was beaten by lathis, iron rod, bricks, stones, knife and kick and fist blows. Six accused persons were apprehended on the spot i.e. Dilip Mishra, Anchal, Akash, Juvenile 'V', Neelu and Sushma. 5-6 boys fled away. Out of them one was carrying a knife. Anchal Mishra was having a knife. Akash was having a danda. Juvenile 'V' was having an iron rod. Narender was declared dead in the hospital during treatment. Statement of Ram Kishan, father of Narender was recorded, who told that on that day, he had come to meet his son. He along with his son Narender and Rahul Nishad was sitting in State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 3 ::
the house. Some body knocked the door and Rahul opened the door. Three boys present there asked for water bottle and thereafter those three boys followed by 5-6 more boys forcibly entered the house. Out of them, two boys were having knives and the other boys were armed with lathis and iron rods. Out of those one boy, who was wearing white t- shirt and having knife said to Narender, "tune maire bhai ko marra hai aaj tujhe khatam ker denge". That boy gave blow of knife on the neck of Narender. Narender ducked and the knife landed on the head of Narender. Narender ran towards the staircase but was surrounded and beaten. They also started dragging Narender. When he tried to save his son, he was pushed, due to which he fell down. He is a heart patient and therefore felt giddiness. After regaining consciousness he along with Rahul Nishad reached Aam Admi Chowk, where he saw 10-12 persons along with two girls beatings his son Narender with iron rod, bricks, stones and knives. Narender was lying on the ground. Police reached there and apprehended both those girls, three boys and a man. 7-8 persons, out of whom, one was having knife and others were having dandas fled away. The accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Ld.MM after complying with the provisions of Sec.208 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court. As the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 4 :: offence punishable under sec.302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. All the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable under Sec.147, 148, 325 read with 149, 452 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 IPC. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
2. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of accused persons examined 27 witnesses.
3. Dr. Anshul Saxena was examined as PW-1. On 30.03.2017 he conducted the post mortem on the body of Narender s/o Sh. Ram Kishan. After post mortem examination he gave his report. He opined that cause of death in this case is the head injury sustained as a result of blunt force trauma to the head. Cumulatively, the injuries over the head are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death is between 12 to 24 hours at the time of post mortem. After post mortem examination he preserved the blood sample on gauze piece, clothes, viscera in saturated solution of common salt and blood in sodium fluoride for chemical analysis. These were sealed with the seal of AS FMT BJRM HOSPITAL and handed over to the police along with the sample seal. He proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW1/A. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 5 ::
4. Dr. Subhash Chandra Sr. Scientific Officer Chemistry, FSL Rohini was examined as PW-2. He conducted the chemical examination on the viscera. He found that exhibits 22A, 22B and 22C were containing ethyl alcohol. Ex.PW22C was found to contain 44.0 mg of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml of blood. He proved his report as Ex.PW2/A. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
5. Ct. Naveen was examined as PW-3. He deposed that on 10.06.2017 on the asking of Inspector Satish Kumar he reached PS: Bhalswa Dairy. He along with Inspector Satish reached Khasra No.283/53/2 House of Narender Janta Vihar, Mukundpur part-1. He took measurements and prepared rough notes at the instance of Inspector Satish Kumar. Thereafter they reached in front of Manoj fancy lights, Khasra No.65, street No.8 Mukund Vihar, Mukundpur Delhi. There also he took measurements and prepared rough notes at the instance of Inspector Satish Kumar. On 13.06.2017 he prepared two scaled site plans Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. Thereafter, he destroyed the rough notes.
6. During cross examination he deposed that in the site plan the scale is 1 cm is equal to 100 cm. When he took the measurements there was no blood and bamboo stick on the spot. However, the spots were pointed out to him by the IO. Public persons were present on the spot but he does not State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 6 ::
know their names. In his presence IO had not recorded the statement of any public person.
7. Sanjay was examined as PW-4. On 30.03.2017 he identified the dead body of Narender, his brother-in-law in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital. His statement to this effect is Ex.PW4/A. After post mortem he received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW4/B. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross-examination.
8. Ct. Ram Swaroop was examined as PW-5. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 he was called by ASI Ramesh Chand to reach at mortuary of BJRM Hospital. He was deputed there to guard the dead body and HC Deepak was relieved. On 30.03.2017 Inspector Satish reached the mortuary with the relatives of the deceased. The dead body was identified by the relatives of the deceased. IO prepared inquest papers for the post mortem. After the post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives. After the post mortem the autopsy surgeon handed over the viscera box along with the sample seal, sealed pullanda containing clothes and the envelopes along with sample seal to the IO who seized the same vide memos Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively.
9. On 10.05.2017 he along with Ct. Ramji Lal went to duty MM Gulabi Bagh. Inspector Satish Kumar also reached State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 7 ::
there. Accused Guddu Passi was produced before Ld. Duty MM by the crime team. IO arrested Guddu Passi vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/C. Police custody remand of accused was taken. IO brought the accused to the police station and on the next day he was produced in the court and was sent to J/C.
10. On 25.04.2017 he along with Ct. Ramji Lal and Inspector Satish Kumar went to Rohini court complex. Crime branch official HC Ajay produced three accused persons i.e. Naushad @ Habib, Suraj @ Tinda and Deepak @ Dutta. With the permission of the court IO interrogated them and arrested them vide arrest memos Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F. They made the disclosure statements Ex.PW5/G, Ex.PW5/H and Ex.PW5/I. IO moved application for the TIP of the accused persons but they refused to join the TIP. Witness has correctly identified all the accused persons.
11. During cross-examination for accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi he deposed that he does not know by which DD they left the police station on 10.05.2017. He denied the suggestion that the exhibits received from the hospital were tampered with.
12. During cross-examination for accused Naushad and Aakash he stated that he does not know by which DD he left for mortuary on 29.03.2017. 3-4 relatives of the deceased State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 8 ::
came to BJRM Hospital. IO recorded the statements of 2-3 relatives of the deceased for identification of dead body. He does not know by which DD they went to the court on 25.04.2017. They left the police station at about 11/12 noon for court. They reached the court at about 3:30 pm. At about 5:00 pm they left the Rohini court. He denied the suggestion that he was not deputed in the mortuary of BJRM Hospital or that no exhibits were taken from the hospital by the IO. No question was put to the witness on behalf of the remaining accused persons.
13. Ct. Chander Parkash was examined as PW-6. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 he along with HC Mahesh and HC Deepak was on patrolling duty in Mukundpur Part-2. At about 12:30 or 12:40 pm public persons informed that some persons were giving beatings to one person at chowk Mukundpur. He along with other staff of PS: Bhalswa Dairy reached Aam admi chowk. ASI Vinod, Ct. Rajnish, HC Rajiv met them there. They saw 8 -10 persons and 2 girls giving beatings to one person by bricks, stones, kicks, fist blows lathies and dandas. At the same time ASI Ramesh Chand and HC Ballu Pallve also reached there. They over powered assailants in order to save the injured. ASI Ramesh took the injured to the hospital in TSR. Accused Dilip Mishra was found in possession of danda. Accused Anchal Mishra was State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 9 ::
found in possession of knife. Accused Aakash @ Nakli was found in possession of knife and danda. There were blood stains on that danda. One JCL 'V' was found in possession of iron rod. ASI Ramesh Chand returned to the spot from the hospital. The weapons recovered from the above named accused persons were handed over to ASI Ramesh Chand. There were blood stains on the shutter of a shop. Blood was also found outside the shop and on the ground. ASI Ramesh Chand lifted the blood stains and the blood with the help of cotton put the same in plastic container and sealed the same. Total six accused were apprehended by them. HC Mahesh caught hold of accused Anchal with knife. HC Deepak caught hold of accused Aakash @ Nakli with danda. Accused Dilip Mishra was found in possession of danda which he handed over to ASI Ramesh. The danda was measured. It was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A. ASI Ramesh Chand called the crime team twice. Crime team inspected the scene of crime. Photographer took the photographs. The blood stained knife recovered from possession of accused Anchal Mishra was measured. Its sketch was prepared. The danda found in possession of accused Aakash was measured. The iron rod found in possession of Juvenile 'V' was having blood stains. The weapons were taken in State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 10 ::
possession by ASI Ramesh Chand by preparing seizure memos. The exhibits were lifted from two places i.e. Aam Aadmi chowk and street No.4 D-Block Janta Vihar, Mukundpur Delhi by ASI Ramesh Chand. SHO along with other staff also reached the spot. Injured Narender expired in the hospital during treatment. W/Ct. Suman, Shikha, ASI Renu Rathore and SI Ravinder also reached the spot. Accused Suman and Neelu were arrested and their personal search were conducted. The accused persons were taken to the police station. He correctly identified the accused persons. He also identified the danda which was found in possession of accused Dilip Mishra.
14. During cross-examination for accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma he deposed that they left the police station after attending the briefing at about 9:30 am. He did not make any departure entry. The duty officer made the departure entry. He does not know the names of those public persons who informed them about quarrel. About 40 to 50 persons were found gathered on the spot i.e. Aam Admi chowk. Police staff of beat No.8 were already present there. After reaching the spot they saved the injured from the assailants and apprehended them. Accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Aakash, Vicky and two females were over powered by them. No family member of injured Narender was there.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 11 ::
After 10-15 minutes since they reached there, ASI Ramesh Chand also reached there. Immediately, ASI Ramesh Chand took the injured to the hospital in TSR. There clothes/uniform were not stained with blood. He remained on the spot upto 7:30 pm. He does not remember the time when the female police officials reached there. The crime team reached there at about 2:40 pm. He does not remember what was lifted by the crime team from the spot. The weapon of offences were seized by ASI Ramesh Chand. He does not remember if ASI Ramesh Chand was wearing gloves while lifting exhibits. ASI Ramesh Chand was carrying the kit containing material for sealing. He denied the suggestion that no danda was recovered in his presence or that the same was planted upon accused Dilip Mishra. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot or that he had not seen the quarrel or that no recovery took place in his presence.
15. During cross-examination for accused Naushad, Aakash, Jitender @ Guddu passi, Deepak and Suraj @ Tinda he deposed that he did not tell the police in his statement that Aakash @ Nakli was found in possession of knife and danda. He was confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/DA where this fact is not found mentioned. He stated that knife was found recovered from the possession of Anchal and danda was recovered from the possession of State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 12 ::
Aakash. No other police official accompanied ASI Ramesh Chand and injured Narender. Crime team remained at the spot till 3:20 pm. He does not know at what time ASI Ramesh Chand returned to the spot. ASI Ramesh Chand again went to the hospital and this time HC Deepak accompanied him. ASI Ramesh and HC Deepak returned to the spot but he does not remember the time. He does not remember at what time SHO reached the spot. They never visited the house of Narender deceased. He denied the suggestion that accused Aakash and Naushad were not found in possession of any weapon or that the weapons were planted upon them.
16. HC Balu Palve was examined as PW-7. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 he was on emergency duty with ASI Ramesh Chand from 8 am to 8 p.m. On receipt of DD No.37B regarding apprehending of one person suspected to be involved in murder he along with ASI Ramesh Chand reached street No.21 D-Block. There they came to know that injured Rahul was beaten by some persons and females and has been removed to the police station. They returned to the police station and met the injured Rahul. In the police station Neelu, Sushma and his father Dilip Mishra were present and informed that Rahul is involved in the murder of Chanchal along with others. On inquiry Rahul informed that those two girls and their father, brother and six other persons doubted State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 13 ::
that he along with his employer was involved in murder of Chanchal. Rahul also informed that those persons has given beatings to him. ASI Ramesh Chand and other police officials requested Dilip Mishra and his family members that firstly Rahul is to medically examined and further action would be taken accordingly. Injured Rahul was sent to BJRM Hospital with Ct. Chander Parkash for medical examination. Ct. Chander Parkash returned to police station after medical examination of Rahul. They found that both the above named girls and their father were not in the police station.
17. Another call vide DD No.42B was received by ASI Ramesh Chand. They reached at street No.4, D-Block, Mukundpur chowk. There they came to know that 6-7 persons were giving beatings to Narender and that they had taken him towards Aam Admi chowk. At the same time ASI Ramesh Chand received one another call and they reached at Street No. 8, D-Block, Aam Admi chowk where they saw Neelu, Sushma, Dilip Mishra and some other persons giviing beatings to one person with dandas, sarias, fist and kick blows. They came to know the name of the person as Narender. Beat staff of the area HC Mahesh, HC Deepak, ASI Vinod, HC Rajbir and Ct. Rajnish also reached there. He along with ASI Ramesh Chand and other staff of the police saved the injured from the assailants. They over powered the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 14 ::
assailants in order to save the injured. They snatched the weapons from the hands of assailants. ASI Ramesh took the injured to the hospital in TSR. Accused Dilip Mishra was found in possession of danda. Accused Anchal Mishra was found in possession of knife, accused Aakash @ Nakli was found in possession of danda having blood stains. One Juvenile 'V' was found in possession of iron rod. ASI Ramesh returned to the spot from the hospital. The weapons recovered from the possession of accused persons were handed over to ASI Ramesh Chand. Crime team was called on the spot. The danda found in possession of Dilip Mishra was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A. The danda found in possession of Aakas was put in a cloth piece and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The sketch of knife, found in possession of Anchal, was prepared, it was wrapped in a piece of cloth sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.XPW7/B. The danda found in possession of Juvenile 'V' was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. The blood was lying on the ground, blood stained earth was lifted, put in a plastic container sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/D. The earth control was also lifted from near that place put in a plastic container sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/E. The State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 15 ::
blood & some hair were found on the shutter of a shop. The blood and hair were lifted with the help of cotton, put in plastic containers, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/F. Three blood stained bricks were found in street No.8. The same were lifted, wrapped in piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/G. The blood stained piece of cloth was taken, put in a polythene, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/H.
18. Thereafter, they reached street No.4 D-Block Janta Vihar Mukundpur part-1. The crime team inspected the scene of crime. The blood stained brick was lifted, put in a polythene, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/I. The hair were lifted from the spot, put in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/J. The piece of the slab was lifted from the spot, put in a plastic bag, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/K. The bamboo stick was lifted from the spot, wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/L. He also proved the sketch of the knife recovered from Anchal as Ex.PW7/M. Accused Narender expired in the hospital during treatment. W/Ct. Suman, Shikha, ASI Renu Rathore and SI Ravinder also reached the spot. Accused Suman and Neelu were arrested State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 16 ::
and their personal search were conducted and taken to the police station. He along with other staff brought the accused persons to police station. He identified Dilip Mishra and both the females but he was not able to identify Anchal and Aakash. He also identified the case property. On the leading of APP he identified Anchal and Aakash also.
19. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma he admitted that DD No.37B was recorded at PS:Bhalswa Dairy at 12:50 pm. It takes 5-7 minutes to reach the place of occurrence from PS. Rahul, Neelu, Sushma and Dilip were taken to PS by PCR. They remained on the spot for about 20 to 25 minutes at street No.21 D-block. He admitted that around 1:30 pm they returned to the police station. He admitted that Rahul, Neelu, Sushma and Dilip were in the police station when they returned to the police station. Immediately after returning to the police station Rahul was taken to hospital by Ct. Chander Prakash. He does not know how Chander Prakash took Rahul to the hospital. Neelu, Sushma and Dilip were near the gate of the police station at that time and they left after some time. He cannot say if ASI Ramesh Chand took Rahul to hospital along with Ct. Chander Parkash on his motorcycle. It takes 10 to 15 minutes to reach BJRM Hospital from PS: Bhalswa Dairy. He State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 17 ::
admitted that ASI Ramesh Chand returned to the police station from BJRM Hospital at about 2:00 pm. He denied the suggestion that Neelu, Sushma and Dilip were in police custody when ASI Ramesh Chand returned to police station from BJRM Hospital. He deposed that they left the police station when Rahul was taken to hospital. When ASI Ramesh Chand went to hospital he did not instruct him to keep a watch on Neelu, Sushma and Dilip or that they be kept in the police station. Some ladies helped them on the spot in apprehending Neelu and Sushma and thereafter, Neelu and Sushma were sent to police station with those ladies. It takes them around 10 minutes to reach Aam Admi chowk from PS Bhalswa Dairy. Neelu and Sushma remained on the spot for about 2 - 2 ½ hours and thereafter, they were sent to the police station. He denied the suggestion that Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma were not present on the spot i.e. Aam aadmi chowk or that they were already present in the police station.
20. During cross-examination for the remaining accused persons he deposed that Chander Parkash did not return to the police station from BJRM Hospital in his presence. He does not remember at what time they reached Aam admi chowk but it was after 10-15 minutes of receiving the call. HC Mahesh, HC Deepak, Ct. Rajnish and few more police State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 18 ::
officials were already present on the spot before he reached there. The police officials who were already present there were catching hold of the accused persons and separating them from the victim. He admitted that in his presence none of accused assaulted Narender. ASI Ramesh with the help of some constables and public persons removed the injured in a TSR to hospital. He does not remember at what time ASI Ramesh Chand removed Narender from the spot. Immediately after reaching the spot he took Narender to the hospital. ASI Ramesh Chand returned to the spot after about 45 minutes. After ASI Ramesh Chand came to the spot from BJRM Hospital he called the crime team and got the scene of crime inspected and photographed. Thereafter, he seized the exhibits i.e. the weapons including dandas and knife and prepared the documents. He does not remember at what time they left the scene of crime. However, they remained there for about 2 to 3 hours.
21. From Aam admi chowk they went to the house of Narender situated in street No.4, Janta Vihar. He does not know at what time they reached the house of Narender. The accused persons were not taken to the house of Narender and were left in the custody of other police officials. He, HC Deepak, HC Mahesh, Ct. Rajnish and 2-3 other police officials went to the house of Narender and others remained State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 19 ::
on the spot with accused persons.
22. Ct. Pardeep was examined as PW-8. He deposed that on 13.05.2017 he joined the investigation with Inspector Satish Kumar. Accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi was interrogated who made the disclosure statement. HC Karam Singh was also joined. Accused led them to Bhaslwa Jheel jangal kaccha road, going towards Mukundpur, D-block. From the bushes accused took out one knife and handed over to the IO. IO prepared sketch of the knife Ex.PW8/A. The knife was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW8/B. Thereafter, they reutrned to the police station. The case property was deposited with the MHC(M). He identified the knife as Ex.PW23/Article4.
23. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi, Deepak and Suraj he deposed that he along with IO and accused reached kaccha road towards Jheel Mukundpur. IO prepared the site plan of place of recovery but he did not sign that site plan. The residential houses are away from the jungle. They reached the place of recovery at about 7:30 pm. They left the PS at about 7:15 pm. He does not know if he made departure and arrival entry. No public person was joined at the time of recovery. He did not notice any blood stains on the recovered knife. He denied State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 20 ::
the suggestion that they did not visit the place of recovery on 13.05.2017. Crime team was not called at the place of recovery. No question was put to the witness on behalf of other accused persons.
24. ASI Amrit Lal was examined as PW-9. On 29.03.2017 he was working as duty officer. He got registered the FIR on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Rajender Singh. He proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW9/A. The endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW9/B. The certificate u/s 65B evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW9/C. He handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Dhuni Lal to deliver the same to Inspector Satish Kumar for further investigation. The copies of FIR were also sent to senior police officials and area MM through Ct. Chander Parkash who left the police station on Govt. motorcycle No.DL 1SS 1275.
25. During cross-examination he denied the suggestion that FIR is ante dated and ante timed.
26. ASI Manzoor Alam was examined as PW-10. On 29.03.2017 he was posted as Incharge mobile crime team North West District. On receiving information from control room he along with ASI Prashant, finger print proficient and Ct. Amit, photographer reached street No.8 Mukund Vihar, Delhi. Local police was already present there. He inspected the scene of crime. The photographer took the photographs.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 21 ::
On the spot some stones and brick stained with blood were found. Blood was also lying on the spot. He prepared inspection report Ex.PW10/A. They remained on the spot till 3:10 pm. On the same day in the evening he along with his team again visited street No.4, Janta Vihar. Local police was already there. On the spot there were blood spots, one bamboo stick having blood stains and a brick having blood stains and bunch of hair and stone slab having blood stains were found. Photographer took the photographs. He inspected the scene of crime and prepared the report Ex.PW10/B.
27. During cross-examination he deposed that he reached the first spot at 2:40 pm. He does not know the distance between the two spots. He reached the second spot at about 6:10 pm. They remained there till 6:40 pm. Public persons were present on both the spots when they reached there. In his presence IO did not record the statement of any public person. He denied the suggestion that no exhibits were lifted from the scene of crime or that he had given a false report.
28. Sh. Ram Kishan was examined as PW11. He deposed that his son Narender was residing in Street No.4, D Block, Janta Vihar, Mukund Pur, Delhi for the last five years. On 29.03.17 at about 11:30/11:45 am, he visited the house of his son Narender. He along with Rahul Nishad and State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 22 ::
Narender were talking with each other at the house of Narender. At about 12.30/12.45 pm, someone knocked at the door. Rahul Nishad opened the door. Three persons were there. They asked for 20 ltr. water bottle. His son Narender used to supply drinking water. All the three persons entered the house of Narender. They were followed by 4-5 other boys. Anchal was among the three boys, who entered first, whom he knew prior to the incident. Anchal said, "tune mere bhai ko mara hai, aaj tujhe khatam kar denge". Anchal was carrying a knife in his hand. Anchal gave the blow of knife on the neck of his son Narender, who ducked and he sustained injuries on his head. Accused Juvenile "V" was carrying iron rod. Accused Aakash was carrying danda. They also assaulted his son Narender with iron rod and danda. Narender ran towards staircase in order to save himself. Accused persons surrounded his son. He moved to save his son but Naushad pushed him due to which he fell down. He being heart patient become semi unconscious. His nephew Rahul Nishad son of his brother in law (brother of his wife) hold him to support him. His son was beaten and dragged out of his house. They gave him beatings with bricks, piece of slab, danda, knife and iron rod. His son was taken to Aam Aadmi Chowk while giving beatings. After gaining consciousness, he along with Rahul State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 23 ::
Nishad reached at Aam Aadmi Chowk. At Aam Aadmi Chowk, Dilip Mishra, Neelu, Sushma, Jitender, Anchal, Deepak, Aakash, Naushad and two more persons were giving beatings to his son who was lying on the ground. He has correctly identified the accused persons. He and Rahul Nishad tried to save Narender but they were pushed aside. Somebody informed the police. Police arrived on the spot and apprehended Dilip Mishra, Anchal, Aakash, Juvenile "V", Neelu and Sushma. His son was taken to BJRM Hospital by the police in a TSR. He and Rahul Nishad also reached BJRM Hospital in e-rickshaw. His statement was recorded by the police in the hospital. He proved his statement Ex.PW11/A. Same day, his son died in the hospital. His clothes were stained with blood. He handed over his blood stained clothes to the police. Police seized his clothes vide memo Ex.PW11/B.
29. On 30.03.17, he identified the dead body of his son vide memo Ex.PW11/C. After postmortem, he received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW4/B.
30. On 02.04.17, he pointed out the place to the police. Police prepared the site plan at his instance. He identified his shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident as Ex.PW11/Article-1.
31. During cross examination for accused Anchal, State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 24 ::
Sushma, Neelu and Dilip Mishra, he admitted that Ex.PW11/B does not bear his signature. On the day of incident, he was at home as he was on rest. He denied the suggestion that on 29.03.17, he was on duty and was not at the house of Narender. He reached the house of his son from Trilok Puri by bus. His son was having mobile phone number 9013451419. Rahul Nishad was not having any mobile phone. The size of the bedroom was 10X12 ft. There was a double bed, a dressing table and almirah. In the room there were 10 persons, out of which 7-8 persons were having danda, sarias and knife. He admitted that in that incident he did not sustain any injury. Initially, Anchal carrying knife, Aakash carrying wooden danda, Juvenile "V" carrying iron rod entered the said room. After about 2-3 seconds, 4-5 other boys entered the said room. Before he could realize, Anchal suddenly stabbed his son. There was no chance for him to intervene and save his son. He was not fully conscious thereafter. Rahul did not loose his consciousness and lifted him. The distance between his house and the place where his son was taken was about 300 to 350 meters. He could not tell the time when he reached the place where his son Narender was taken by accused persons and then assaulted. He denied the suggestion that Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were not present at Aam Aadmi Chowk. He handed State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 25 ::
over his shirt to the police on the same day at about 9.00 p.m. His first statement was recorded by the police in BJRM Hospital at about 5.30 or 6.00 p.m.
32. During cross examination for accused Aakash and Naushad, he deposed that he had seen the accused persons before that date also as they used to visit their house for taking drinking water bottles. He was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that he knew Anchal before the incident. He did not tell the police that the boy asked for 20 ltr. water bottle. They only fill 20 ltr. water bottle. He does not remember who dragged his son out of the house. He tried to save his son but he was not allowed to reach upto him. He also raised alarm but of no use. Rahul Nishad did not try to save his son. The persons who prevented him to reach upto Narender were amongst the accused persons but he can not specify which accused. He admitted that people gathered at Aam Aadmi Chowk. Police reached there, after him in a gypsy. He did not accompany his son in auto as there was not enough space in the auto. 2-3 police officials took his son to the hospital in an auto. He and Rahul reached the hospital at about 2.30 p.m. Police did not record the statement of Rahul Nishad in the hospital in his presence. The girls were beating his son by bricks and stones. Police did not record the statements of persons who State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 26 ::
gathered at Aam Aadmi Chowk. He along with Rahul left the hospital after 6.00 p.m. and went to the police station. He remained in the police station upto 10 p.m. After 10.00 p.m., he went to his home at Trilok Puri. No articles at the house, where his son was giving beatings got blood stains. He was wearing the shirt with blood stains when his statement was recorded by SI Rajender. Rahul Nishad was working with his son for the last 6-7 months prior to the incident. After the incident, he visited the house of Narender with four police officials.
33. During cross examination by ld. Counsel for accused Deepak, Jitender and Suraj, he admitted that there is factory at the end of street in which house of his son Narender was situated. He does not know if CCTV cameras are installed in that factory. Ld. Defence counsel asked the witness:
Q : Can you identify the other persons who were present there except accused persons arrested in this case who were present at the spot at Aam Aadmi Chowk?
Ans: I do not know other persons who were present there besides the accused persons.
34. He denied the suggestion that he was not knowing the accused persons or that he mentioned the names of accused persons at the instance of police. He noticed one sign board of Manoj Fancy Lights at Aam Aadmi Chowk. He does not State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 27 ::
know if any CCTV camera is installed in Manoj Fancy Light Shop. He did not assault any person including accused persons.
35. HC Sohan Lal was examined as PW12. He deposed that on 24.04.17 he was posted in Special Team, Crime Branch, Delhi. On that day, HC Ajay received secret information. Thereafter, a raiding party comprising himself, ASI Shailender, ASI Perma Ram, HC Ravi Khari, HC Parveen and Ct. Azad Singh was constituted under the supervision of Inspector Satish Kumar. They left office in two private vehicles. The information was that three persons involved in the murder of PS Bhalaswa Dairy would come on service road near All Heavens Banquet Hall, Wazir Pur Industrial Area. IO requested public persons to join but none agreed. At about 6.45 p.m. they reached near All Heavens Banquet Hall and laid the trap. At about 7.00 p.m. three persons were noticed coming from the side of railway line jhuggis towards service road. They apprehended them on the pointing out of informer. Naushad was apprehended by Ct. Ajay, Deepak was apprehended by HC Parveen, Suraj @ Tinda was apprehended by HC Ravi Khari. Accused persons confessed about murder of Narender. All the three accused persons were arrested under Section 41.1A Cr.P.C. He identified all the accused persons.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 28 ::
36. On 06.05.17, he along with HC Parveen, ASI Parma Ram and SI Ajeet left for apprehension of absconder of different cases vide DD No. 24 Ex.PW12/A. On 09.05.17, they reached at PP Gosian Ka Bazar, where they met SI Madan Patel and other police officials. From there, they went to village Amora with the local police. One secret informer met outside the village and informed that accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi would come to his house and can be apprehended. 4-5 public person were asked to join but none agreed. They took position near the house of accused. At about 10.20 a.m. on the pointing out of informer a person was apprehended who disclosed his name as Jitender @ Guddu Passi. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/C. Accused was taken to PS Gambhir Pur, Janpad Azamgarh and DD No.22 Ex.PW12/D was made. Accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW12/E. He prepared kalandra U/s 41.1A Cr.P.C. Ex.PW12/F. On 10.05.17, he made arrival entry DD No.2 Ex.PW12/G. He correctly identified accused persons.
37. During cross examination for accused Aakash, Nausahd, Suraj @ Tinda, Jitender and Deepak, he stated that Naushad was apprehended from a public place. He does not know if there was any watchman at the gate of All State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 29 ::
Heavens Banquet Hall, Wazir Pur. He did not notice if there was any CCTV camera installed outside All Heavens Banquet Hall. He denied the suggestion that accused were not apprehended from the place and manner as deposed by him or that they did not make any disclosure statement.
38. HC Ravi Khari was examined as PW-13. He fully corroborated the testimony of PW-12 regarding the arrest of accused Naushad, Deepak and Suraj @ Tinda and that they confessed about the commission of offence on 29.03.2017. All the three accused were arrested u/s 41.1 (A) Cr.PC. He also deposed that accused Naushad was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/B. Accused Deepak @ Dutta was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/C. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/D. Accused Suraj @ Tinda was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/E. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW13/F. They also made the disclosure statements Ex.PW13/G, Ex.PW13/H and Ex.PW13/I respectively.
39. During cross-examination for all the accused persons he deposed that the accused persons were apprehended from a thoroughfare and a public place. The watchmen and other employees of All Heavens Banquet Hall were present in their office. There may be CCTV Cameras installed at All State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 30 ::
Heavens Banquet Hall. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not apprehended in the manner, time and place as deposed by him. He denied the suggestion that accused persons did not make any disclosure statement or that their signatures were obntained on blank papers which were converted into disclosures statements.
40. HC Ajay was examined as PW-14. He deposed that on 24.04.2017 he was posted in special team, crime branch. He received the secret information that three persons namely Naushad, Deepak @ Dutta and Suraj @ Tinda had committed murder in Bhalswa Dairy and they would come at service road near All Heavens Banquet Hall, Wazirpur Industrial Area. He conveyed the information to Inspector Satish and ACP. He was directed to conduct the raid. DD No.14 Ex.PW14/A was recorded with respect to the secret information. He corroborated the testimony of PW-12 and PW-13 regarding arrest and disclosures made by the accused persons.
41. During cross-examination for all the accused except Jitender @ Guddu Pasdsi, Deepak and Suraj @ Tinda he deposed that no written notice was given to the public persons. The accused persons were apprehended from the public place. The watchmen and other employees were present in All Heaven Banquet Halls and other banquet halls.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 31 ::
He admitted that there is a residential colony situated opposite to that road. No public person was called from the residential colony. There may be CCTV cameras installed at All Heavens Banquet Halls and adjoining Banquet Halls. They left in Santro car belonging to ASI Shailender and Maruti Swift belonging to Parveen. He did not mention the registration number of both the cars in the documents prepared by him. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not apprehended in the manner, time and place as deposed by him or that the accused persons did not make any disclosure statement.
42. During cross-examination for accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi, Deepak and Suraj @ Tinda he deposed that he did not mention in any document the mobile number belonging to the members of the raiding team. He handed over the accused persons to the PS: Bhalswa Dairy to Inspector Satish but he is not able to recollect the names of other police officials.
43. HC Dhuni Lal was examined as PW-15. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 on receipt of DD No.29A. He along with SI Rajender went to BJRM Hospital where they came to know that one Narender had died during treatment. SI Rajender collected the MLC and death summary of Narender. Ram Kishan father of Narender met them in the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 32 ::
hospital. SI Rajender recorded the statement of Ram Kishan Ex.PW11/A. ASI Ramesh Chand came to the hospital and informed that the crime team had inspected the scene of crime. The dead body of deceased was sent to mortuary through ASI Ramesh. SI Rajender made endorsement on the statement of Ram Kishan, prepared the rukka and handed over to him. He went to the police station and got the FIR registered. He came back and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Satish. He handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Satish Kumar for further investigation.
44. During cross-examination for the remaining accused persons he deposed that they received the call in the police station. They reached the hospital at about 5:05 pm. Statement of Ram Kishan was recorded after 5-7 minutes of their reaching the hospital. He does not remember the colour of clothes worn by Ram Kishan. He does not remember if there were blood stains on the clothes of Ram Kishan. He does not remember if any public person was present at the time of recording of statement of Ram Kishan. He admitted that IO did not record the statement of any other person in his presence except Ram Kishan. ASI Ramesh reached the hospital lateron. He was alone. He denied the suggestion that rukka was prepared in the police station or that the same State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 33 ::
was fabricated.
45. SI Rajender Kumar was examined as PW-16. He corroborated the testimony of PW-15. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 he received information vide DD No.29 A Ex.PW16/A regarding death of Narender in quarrel and admitted by ASI Ramesh. He reached the hospital along with HC Dhuni Lal. In the hospital he recorded the statement of Ram Kishan Ex.PW11/A. The dead body was sent to mortuary through ASI Ramesh who reached there lateron. He made endorsement Ex.PW16/B and handed over to HC Muni Ram for registration of FIR. Further investigation was conducted by Inspector Satish.
46. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused persons he deposed that at about 5:05 pm he reached BJRM hospital. In the hospital. He found the dead body of Narender and his father was also present. No other relative of deceased except Ram Kishan met them in the hospital. He started recording the statement of Ram Kishan at 5:10 pm. He does not remember the colour of the clothes worn by Ram Kishan. He does not remember if any blood was there on the clothes of Ram Kishan. He did not seize the clothes of Ram Kishan in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that rukka was prepared in the Police station.
47. Sh. Vikram Ld. MM was examined as PW-17. He State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 34 ::
deposed that on 12.05.2017 Jitender @ Guddu Passi was produced before him in muffled face for TIP. Accused refused to join the TIP. Accused was warned that an adverse inference may be drawn against him on his refusal to join TIP but he still refused to participate in the TIP. His statement Ex.PW17/A was recorded wherein he stated that he does not want to participate in TIP proceedings because complainant knew him being neighbour. He proved the TIP proceedings as Ex.PW17/B.
48. He conducted the TIP of accused Naushad on 25.04.2017 when the application was assigned to him. The accused was produced from J/C in muffled face. Accused refused to join TIP. He was warned that an adverse inference may be drawn against him on his refusal to join TIP. But he still refused to join the TIP. He recorded his statement Ex.PW17/C wherein he stated hat he does not want to participate in TIP proceeding because his photographs have already been clicked by the police. He proved the TIP proceedings as Ex.PW17/D.
49. On the same day accused Deepak @ Dutta was also produced before him in muffled face. He also refused to join TIP. He was warned that an adverse inference may be drawn against him upon his refusal to join TIP but he still refused to participate in the TIP. He recorded his statement Ex.PW17/E. State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 35 ::
The accused stated that he does not want to participate in TIP proceedings because his photograph have already been clicked by the police. He proved the TIP proceedings as Ex.PW17/F.
50. On the same day accused Suraj @ Tinda was also produced before him in muffled face for TIP. Accused refused to join the TIP. Accused was warned that an adverse inference may be drawn against him on his refusal to join TIP but he still refused to participate in TIP. His statement Ex.PW17/G was recorded wherein he stated that he does not want to participate in TIP proceedings because his photograph h as already been clicked by the police. The TIP proceedings are proved as Ex.PW17/H. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
51. Dr. Mukesh Mandal, CMO BJRM Hospital was examined as PW-18. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 at 2:25 pm Narender S/o Sh. Ram Kishor was brought by police with alleged history of physical assault. Patient was conscious but dis-oriented to TPP. ENT bleeding present. On local examination multiple abrasion over face, CLW multiple over head, CLW over left knee of size 3 x 0.4 cm, CLW over right chin of size 3x 0.2 cm with swelling all over body. Doctor Mohit prepared MLC Ex.PW18/A under his supervision. The patient was referred to surgery for opinion and management.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 36 ::
The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
52. Dr. Mukesh Mandal was recalled for further examination in chief. Where in he deposed that on 29.03.2017 Rahul was brought by police for medical examination with alleged history of physical assault. On local examination abrasion over the left side cheek region, loosening of inciser teeth was there. Patient was referred to Dental and further management and review in Dental OPD. The MLC was prepared by doctor Akil-raja under his supervision. He proved the MLC as Ex.PW18/B. He also identified the writing and signature of Dr. Mehraj SR Surgery who has left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. Dr. Mehraj prepared the death summary of Narender who was declared dead at 4:15 pm on 29.03.2017. The death summary is proved as Ex.PW18/C. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
53. HC Mahesh was examined as PW-19. He deposed that on 19.03.2017 after briefing he left for performing the duty in his beat. At about 12:30 or 12:40 he along with HC Deepak and Ct. Chander Parkash came to know that some persons are giving beatings to one person at Aam Admi chowk. He along with HC Deepak and Ct. Chander Parkash reached there. They found that 8-10 persons and two girls State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 37 ::
were giving beatings to one person with lathies, dandas, bricks, kicks and fist blows. The injured was lying on the ground and bleeding. The blood was also found on the clothes of the assailants. The other staff of beat No.8 i.e. ASI Vinod, HC Rajiv, Ct. Rajnish also reached the spot. At the same time ASI Ramesh Chand, HC Balu Palve and other staff also reached the spot. They saved the injured from the assailants. He caught hold of accused Anchal Mishra. Accused Dilip Mishra, Aakash, Juivenile 'V', Neelu and Sushma were apprehended by other staff. Knife, danda and saria were in possession of those assailants. ASI Ramesh took the injured Narender to BJRM hospital in an auto. They remained on the spot along with accused persons who were apprehended. ASI Ramesh returned to the spot after getting the injured admitted in BJRM Hospital. Crime team was called. HC Balu Palve, HC Deepak produced accused Dilip Mishra to ASI Ramesh along with blood stained danda in five broken pieces which was taken in possession. He produced accused Anchal Mishra along with blood stained knife to ASI Ramesh. The sketch of the knife Ex.PW7/M was prepared. The knife was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of RC and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. Accused Aakash was also produced before ASI Ramesh along with the danda. Juvenile "V" was also produced before ASI State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 38 ::
Ramesh along with the iron rod. All the weapons were sealed by ASI Ramesh. He corroborated the testimony of PW-7 with respect to lifting and seizure of the exhibits from the spot i.e. Aam Admi chowk & also from Street No.4, D-Block Janta Vihar, Mukundpur.
54. He further deposed that W/Ct. Suman, W/Ct Shikha, W/Ct Reena SI Ravinder also reached the spot. The custody of the female accused were handed over to the female police officials. Inspector Satish conducted the further investigation. Accused Dilip Mishra was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/A1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/A2. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW19/A3. Accused Anchal was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/B1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/B2. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW19/B3. Accused Aakash @ Nakli was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW19/C1, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW19/C2. Accused made the disclosure statement Ex.PW19/C3. Accused Dilip, Anchal and Aakash were found wearing blood stained clothes which were got changed with the clothes provided to them. The blood stained clothes of accused Dilip Mishra i.e. blue shirt and blue pants were put in a polythene, wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 39 ::
seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/A4. The blood stained clothes of accused Anchal i.e. T-shirt and blue jeans were put in a polythene wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/B4. The blood stained clothes of accused Aakash i.e. T-shirt was put in a polythene, wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/C4. Complainant Ram Kishan handed over his blood stained light green half sleeves shirt to Inspector Satish Kumar who put the same in a polythene, wrapped in a cloth piece sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/B. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons. He identified the shirt of Ram Kishan as Ex.PW11/Article1. The knife found in possession of Anchal as Ex.PW19/Article 1. He identified the cotton piece having hair attached to it as Ex.PW19/Article-2 which were found on the shutter. He identified the brick piece on which KUSH was found embossed as Ex.PW19/Article-3 which was found on the spot. He identified the piece of stone as Ex.PW19/Article 4 which was found on the spot. He identified another brick on which SRG was found embossed as Ex.PW19/ Article 5 which was found on the spot. He identified the piece of stone as Ex.PW19/Article 6 which was found on the spot. The Bamboo stick is identified as Ex.PW19/Article 7. the T-shirt of Aakash is Ex.PW19/Article State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 40 ::
8. The clothes of accused Dilip Mishra are identified as Ex.PW19/Article 9. The T-shirt and blue colour jeans of accused Anchal is identified as Ex.PW19/Article10.
55. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma he deposed that public persons informed them that quarrle is taking place at Aam Admi chowk. He does not know the names and address of those public persons who informed them. They reached the spot within 5 - 7 minutes. He admitted that he reached the said chowk before 1:00 pm. There were 50 to 60 persons at Aam Aadmi chowk and accused persons. He caught hold of Anchal and other police official caught hold of other accused persons. There is a distance of about 800 to 900 meters between the Aam Admi chowk and the house of deceased. He denied the suggestion that no seizure memo was prepared at the spot or that he signed the seizure memos in the police station lateron. Accused Anchal was in his custody when the crime team again reached the spot and inspected the house of deceased. He does not know at what time lady constables reached the spot. The father of the deceased namely Ram Kishan was present at the spot when he reached on the spot. Ram Kishan was in the quarrel and saving his son. He denied the suggestion that Ram Kishan was not present on State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 41 ::
the spot. He does not know if any other member of deceased besides Ram Kishan was present there or not. He does not know if clothes of other accused were stained with blood. Accused Anchal was brought to PS at about 8:45 pm. During this period crime team inspected the scene of crime twice and exhibits were lifted. At about 1:10 pm ASI Ramesh Chander took the injured Narender to the hospital. During his stay on the spot PCR van also reached there at about 2:28 pm. He does not know if the Incharge PCR Van informed the control room that there is no police personal present on the scene of crime. He was present on the spot when the PCR van reached there. He denied the suggestion that after the injured was removed to the hospital they also left the spot and took the accused persons to the police station. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused Anchal or Dilip Mishra or that knife, danda and clothes were planted upon the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not present at the scene of crime or that they were not apprehended at the time, place and manner as deposed by him.
56. During cross-examination for accused Aakash and Naushad he deposed that there was blood on the body of injured Narender when they reached the spot. He admitted that they reached the spot and saved injured Narender. They State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 42 ::
caught the accused persons in order to save the injured. He caught the accused Anchal and his clothes were found stained with blood. At about 1 pm ASI Ramesh Chand along with HC Balu reached the spot. ASI Ramesh Chand and HC Balu lifted the injured from the spot, made him to lay in the TSR. He does not know who other persons accompanied the injured with ASI Ramesh Chand. He does not know at what time ASI Ramesh Chand again came on the spot from the hospital. He does not know if any relative of Narender went to the hospital. First time the crime team stayed on the spot for about 50 to 60 minutes. He does not remember at what time crime team again visited the scene of crime. He does not remember the time when they reached the house of deceased. He does not remember at what time Inspector Satish reached the spot. First of all ASI Ramesh Chand lifted the exhibits and prepared the documents. He denied the suggestion that all the documents were prepared while sitting in the PS.
57. During cross-examination for accused Aakash and Naushad he denied the suggestion that no weapon or danda was recovered from the possession of accused Aakash or that the same was planted. He denied the suggestion that clothes of accused Aakash were not seized or that the same were planted upon. The same cross-examination as State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 43 ::
conducted earlier was adopted for accused Suraj @ Tinda, Jitender @ Guddu Passi and Deepak.
58. Rahul Nishad was examined as PW-20. He deposed that he along with his fufa Ram Kishan and Narender was residing in Mukund pur, Delhi. Narender used to supply R.O water. He and one more Rahul were working under Narender. On 29.03.2017 at about 12:30 - 12:45 pm Aakash knocked on the door of the house of Narender and asked for water bottle. He opened the door, Anchal, Aakash and Juvenile 'V' were there. They entered the house of Narender followed by other boys i.e. Deepak, Suraj, Guddu @ Passi, Naushad and others whose names he does not know. Anchal said, "tumne mere bhai ko mare ho, tumhe hum nahi chhodenge". Anchal gave the blow of knife to Narender, who ducked. The blow of knife hit on his head. Narender ran towards the stair case. Anchal, Akash, Deepak, Juvenile 'V' and the other accused persons gave beatings to Narender at stair case. His fufa Ram Kishan tried to save Narender. Naushad pushed Ram Kishan who fell down and became unconscious. He tried to save his fufa Ram Kishan who regained consciousness after 2-3 minutes. After regaining consciousness Ram Kishan asked where is Narender. He along with Ram Kishan reached Aam Admi chowk. Many persons had gathered at Aam Admi chowk. The above State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 44 ::
named accused persons and Sushma, Neelu and Dilip Mishra were giving beatings with kicks and fists blows to Narender. Ram Kishan intervened to save Narender but he was pushed. Police also reached there. Police removed Narender in TSR to the hospital. He along with his fufa Ram Kishan reached the hospital at about 2:30 pm. At about 4:15 pm Narneder expired. He along with Ram Kishan went to PS where the statement of Ram Kishan was recorded. His statement was recorded after 1 ½ month of the incident. He identified all the accused persons.
59. During cross-examination for accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma he deposed that he is illiterate. He was working with Narenmder for the last 6-7 months prior to the incident. He was not getting any salary as Narender was his brother. He was given some money to bear the expenses. Whenever customer used to demand extra water he used to deliver the same. He was knowing Anchal for the last 4-5 months prior to the incident. Anchal used to meet him as he used to come to take water. If anybody used to take water from the house of Narender they used to charge Rs.15/- per bottle and if it is to be delivered at house then Rs.20 or 25/-. He never visited the house of Anchal. He admitted that Dilip Mishra never came to the house of Narender. Similarly, Sushama and Neelu had never visited State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 45 ::
the house of Narender. He denied the suggestion that he had never seen Dilip Mishra, Sushma and Neelu before the incident. He used to go in the street to deliver water where they were residing and had seen them. Ram Kishan was not reisiding with Narender. He used to visit occasionally. Ram Kishan reached the house of Narender at 11:30 am on the date of incident. He was using mobile No. 7309092963. He took this number about 1 ½ month prior to the murder of Narender. There was a bed, one almirah and dressing table in that room but he cannot tell the size of the same. He along with Ram Kishan and Narender was sitting on the bed when Anchal and Aakash came on the door for taking water. First of all three accused entered the house followed by 4-5 other persons. Those persons were carrying dandas, sarias of size about 3 ft. The accused persons were not knowing that Ram Kishan is father of Narender and I am cousin of Narender. He was not knowing that brother of Anchal namely chanchal has been murdered. Ld. Counsel asked the question as follows:
Q. Did you try to save Narender when accused persons assaulted him?
Ans. Due to fear I was standing in the same room near bathroom.
60. Ram Kishan intervened to save his son but he was pushed by Naushad. He admitted that he did not sustain any State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 46 ::
injury. The incident took place in that room for about 1 - 1½ minutes. It takes 5 to 6 minutes to reach Aam Admi chowk from the house of Narender. He was not having watch and therefore cannot tell the exact time. He along with Ram Kishan was weeping and walking on the road and the children present on the road guided them to Aam Aadmi chowk. 80 to 90 public persons were present at Aam Aadmi chowk when they reached there. No police official was present there. After 5-6 minutes of their reaching the spot police arrived. The public persons were standing at distance and watching the incident. Narender was lying on the ground and accused persons were assaulting him. Ram Kishan tried to reach the spot where Narender was beaten by accused persons but one accused pushed Ram Kishan. Ram Kishan was about to fell down on the ground but he hold him. He admitted that before Ram Kishan could reach upto Narender he was pushed. No other female was present over there except Neelu and Sushma. He denied the suggestion that Sushma, Neelu and Dilip Mishra were not present at Aam Aadmi chowk or that he was also not there. He denied the suggestion that Sushma, Neelu and Dilip were shown to him in the police station.
61. It took them 15 to 20 minutes to reach hospital from Aam Admi chowk in e-rickshaw. Police reached there and State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 47 ::
they caught hold of accused persons. Narender was taken to the hospital by the police and they followed Narender in e- rickshaw.
62. During cross-examination for accused Aakash and Naushad he deposed that he does not know the date when he started living with his fufa in Delhi. He was residing with his brother Narender in Delhi. His partents and other family members did not accompany him to Delhi. Sometime he used to deliver water to the customers. He had not seen who had dragged Narender form the house as he was attending Ram Kishan at that time. 4-5 police officials reached at Aam Aadmi chowk in the police jeep. Narender was made to sit in TSR by the police officials. Three police personals accompanied Narender to the hospital. He along with Ram Kishan stayed in the hospital upto 6:00 pm. In the hospital police did the writing work by recording the statement of Ram Kishan. He was present with his fufa in the hospital when his statement was recorded. He told the police that incident took place in his presence and police asked him to come tomorrow and thereafter he went to his native village. He did not tell the police that he is going to his native village. However, he told this fact to his fufa. From the hospital they reached police station. They remained in police station till 10 pm. He was confronted with his statement where it was not State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 48 ::
found mentioned that Anchal said, "Tumne mere bhai ko mare ho tumhe hum nahi chodenge".
63. During cross-examination for accused Suraj, Deepak and Jitender @ Guddu Passi, he deposed that Rahul S/o Ramesh was working with Narender prior to him but he cannot tell since how long he was working. He denied the suggestion that he came to know the names of accused persons as tutored by Ram Kishan. Guddu Passi is residing in the back lane of house of Nareder. He does not know how many customers used to take water from Narender. He was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that Suraj @ Tinda is one of the accused. Ld. Counsel asked the following question:
Q: Do you recognize any of the person who were present at the scene of crime besides accused persons. Ans. I was not able to recognize them.
64. He denied the suggestion that he was not residing with Narender and that is why he is not able to recognize the persons present at the scene of crime except the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he recognized the accused persons as police told him their names. No lady police came on the spot in his presence.
65. Rahul S/o Sh. Ramesh was examined as PW-21. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 after supplying the water to the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 49 ::
customers he reached D-Block. At about 12:15 pm he was caught by Anchal and his associates. He was given beatings by them and asked him as to where is his employer. Narender was his employer. He told them that he does not know where is Narender. He was beaten and forcibly taken towards the house of Anchal. His jaw was broken due to beatings given by Anchal and his associates. He was forcibly taken and tied outside the house of Anchal. Two sisters of Anchal also reached there along with other persons and they all started beating him. He was beaten with bricks and stones. Anchal said where is his employer who is involved in the murder of his brother. Sister of Anchal exhorted "issey maar do". Anchal and his associates brought Bandook and sword from their house. Anchal put the Bandook on his head and asked where is his employer who is involved in the murder of his brother Chanchal. Under fear he told them that Narender is at his house. PCR reached there. The above accused persons ran away from there, before the arrival of PCR. He became unconscious. He was taken to police station from there he was taken to the hospital where he was medically examined. Thereafter, he was again taken to the police station. At about 4- 5 pm he left for his house. He identified Anchal as the person who caught hold of him and beaten him with fist blows. He pointed Aakash as the person State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 50 ::
who gave him kicks and fist blows. He identified Neelu and Sushma they gave him beatings with stones and also said "issey jaan se maar de". The witness pointed towards Deepak, Suraj, Jitender @ Guddu Passi who gave him beatings. He pointed towards Naushad who gave fist blow in his stomach and did not allow him to spit the blood. He also pointed towards accused Dilip Mishra who gave him beatings and also threatened him not to depose to police about the incident.
66. During cross-examination for accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma he deposed that he was working with Narender for the last 1 ½ year prior to his death. Narender used to pay Rs.7000/- as salary per month to him. Rahul Nishad was also working with Narender for about 6-7 months prior to his death. He does not know how much salary was paid to Rahul Nishad. Rahul Nishad was relative of Narender. He is not aware if Chanchal brother of Anchal had been murdered prior to this incident. He did not supply water to the house Anchal. He was knowing Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma prior to this incident as he used to supply water in the street where they used to reside. Neelu did not make any call to the police in his presence. He does not know if she informed the police that they had caught one of the associate involved in the murder of her brother State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 51 ::
Chanchal. He denied the suggestion that he ran away from the said place or that he fell down on the road and sustained injury on his face, after knowing that Neelu made call to the police. He had not seen the swrod in his life prior to the incident. The sword was of arm length. The pistol pointed on his head was of the length more than his palm. He denied the suggestion that Anchal and his associates never threatened him or that they did not put the pistol/ bandook on his head or that they were not having any sword.
67. He denied the suggestion that Sushma and Neelu were also sitting in the same PCR in which he was made to sit. His statement was recorded in the police station. He remained in the police station for 10 - 15 minutes thereafter he was taken to the hospital. When first time he was taken to police station Neelu, Sushma and Dilip were also in the police station. He admitted that the same police official who got him medically examined brought him to the police station. He does not know for how long he stayed in the hospital.
68. When he returned to the police station from hospital he had not seen Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma in the police station. He denied the suggestion that Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma were present in the police station when he was brought to police station from hospital. He was not using any mobile phone. Mobile phone No.9540716082 State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 52 ::
belongs to his father. He denied the suggestion that he was not beaten by Anchal and his associates and that he was not forcibly taken to the house of Anchal.
69. During cross-examination for accused Aakash and Naushad he was confronted with his statement where it was not found mentioned that he was forcibly taken outside the house of Anchal and that Anchal and his associates brought Bandook and sword from his house in order to kill him or that Anchal put a bandook on his head. He did not tell the police in his statement that the accused persons ran away from the spot. He does not remember the time when his statement was recorded. He did not tell the name of Naushad to the police in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC.
70. During cross-examination for accused Suraj, he denied the suggestion that he did not tell the name of Guddu Passi and Suraj to the police in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. He denied the suggestion that he is not able to identify the accused persons.
71. W/Ct. Suman was examined as PW-22. She deposed that on 29.03.17 the duty officer informed them that a quarrel took place at Aam Aadmi Chowk gali no.8. They reached there. Many public persons, local police officials including inspector Satish were also present there. Four male persons including one juvenile and two females were State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 53 ::
apprehended by the police officials. She along with W/Ct. Shikha and W ASI Runa Rathore reached there and the custody of accused Sushma and Neelu were handed over to them. The accused Sushma and Neelu were interrogated and arrested by Inspector Satish Kumar vide arrest memos Ex.PW-22/A and PW-22/B respectively. Their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW-22/C and D respectively. Both accused made disclosure statements Ex.PW-22/E and F respectively. In the personal search of accused persons one mobile phone each were found. The clothes of accused Sushma and Neelu were brought from their house through her mother and accused persons changed their clothes in the PS. The worn clothes of the accused Sushma and Neelu were put in a polythene, wrapped in white cloth, sealed and seized vide memos Ex.PW-22/G and Ex.PW-22/H respectively. She correctly identified both accused i.e. Neelu and Sushma. She identified the clothes of accused Sushma as Ex.PW22/Article-I and of Neelu as Ex.PW22/Article-2.
72. During cross-examination by Ld.defence counsel for accused Dilip Mishra, Anchal, Sushma and Neelu she deposed that duty officer told her around 5/5.30 PM that she has to go to spot. She along with Lady Ct. Shikha reached the spot at about 5.45 PM in government vehicle. There were State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 54 ::
about 6-7 police officials and some constables and some police officials from other police station were present at the spot when they reached there. Ld. Defence Counsel asked a specific question as follows:
Q. Besides those two girls who were the other accused present at the spot?
Ans. Anchal, Dilip, Akash and Juvenile 'V' were present on the spot when we reached there.
73. There was large gathering on the spot, therefore she can not tell if complainant was present on the spot when they reached there.
Q. Whether you noticed any blood stains on the clothes of Sushma and Neelu when you reached the spot? Ans. Yes.
74. Those blood stains were on the abdomen and down side of the clothes. She denied that both the accused were already present in the PS. They remained on the spot upto 7.30/8 PM.
Q. Who asked you to get change the clothes of accused persons and why?
Ans. Yeh baat IO ne kahi thi kuanki kapdo per khoon laga hua tha.
75. After about 30 minutes of reaching the PS the mother of the accused persons brought the other clothes which were State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 55 ::
provided to the accused persons and their wearing shirts were seized.
76. During cross-examination by Ld.counsels for the remaining accused persons she deposed that she does not remember if IO also obtained the signature of ASI Runa Rathore on any document or recorded her statement.
77. HC Karam Singh was examined as PW-23. He joined the investigation of this case on 06.05.17 with IO Inspector Satish, HC Mohar Singh and H.Ct.Sushil. The accused persons Deepak, Naushad, Suraj @ Tinda were interrogated by the IO and they led them to Bhalswa Jheel, Golf Course towards jungle where there were bushes. The accused persons Deepak, Naushad and Suraj @ Tinda produced one danda each to the IO. IO measured the dandas and wrapped the same in pieces of cloth separately, sealed all the three pullandas with the seal of SK. All the three pullandas were separately taken in possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW- 23/A, Ex.PW-23/B and Ex.PW-23/C.
78. On 13.05.17 he joined the investigation with Ct. Pardeep and Inspector Satish Kumar, who interrogated the accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi. In pursuance to disclosure statement accused led them to Bhalswa Jheel, Jangal, kacha road, going towards Mukandpur D Block, where there were bushes. The accused produced one knife from the bushes to State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 56 ::
the IO. IO prepared the sketch of knife Ex.PW-8/A. The knife was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-8/B. Thereafter they went in search of other accused persons but they were not found. He correctly identified accused Deepak, Naushad, Suraj @ Tinda and Jitender @ Guddu Passi. He identified the danda got recovered by accused Deepak @ Dutta as Ex.PW23/Article-1. He identified the danda got recovered by accused Naushad as Ex.PW23/Article-2. He identified the danda got recovered by accused Suraj @ Tinda as Ex.PW23/Article-3. He identified the danda got recovered by accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi as Ex.PW23/Article-4.
79. During cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Akash and Naushad he deposed that he does not remember by which DD they left the PS on 06.05.17. IO made DD entry. They left the PS at about 7/7.15 PM. No public persons were present at the kacha raasta in jungle. He denied the suggestion that all the three dandas were lying together at one place. They stayed at the place of recovery for about 15- 20 minutes. They reached at PS at about 7.45 PM. He does not remember if any DD entry of their arrival was made or not. The place of recovery of danda is at a distance of about one and half km. from PS. Public persons rarely use the said way.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 57 ::
80. No question was put to the witness by Ld. Counsel for accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma.
81. During cross examination for accused Deepak, Suraj and Jitender he deposed that he visited in and around the area of Bhalswa Jheel twice in this case. They reached at Bhalswa Jheel at about 7/7.15 PM. They were 8 persons i.e. three accused persons, three HC and IO. They reached at the place of recovery in a government vehicle. There was blood on the danda recovered at the instance of Suraj but he does not recollect on what part of the danda there was blood. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of danda. He admitted that accused persons himself picked up the dandas and handed over the same to IO. Accused persons were not wearing gloves when they picked up the dandas. When we visited the place of recovery second time on 13.05.2017, IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery.
82. HC Sikandar was examined as PW-24. He was working as MHC(M) in PS Bhalswa Dary. He proved the enteries in register No. 19 as Ex.PW-24/A, Ex.PW-24/B, Ex.PW-24/C, Ex.PW-24/D and Ex.PW-24/E.
83. On 25.05.17 he sent 25 sealed parcels and two sample seals to FSL through Ct. Chander Prakash vide RC no.131/21/17. Photocopy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 58 ::
24/F. On the same day he also sent one sealed wooden box and a sample seal to FSL through Ct. Chander Prakash vide RC no.132/21/17. Photocopy of the same is proved as Ex.PW-24/G. Ct. Chander Prakash came back to the PS and handed over acknowledgements to him, photocopy of the same are proved as Ex.PW-24/H and Ex.PW-24/I respectively.
84. On 14.07.17 he handed over one sealed parcel and a sample seal to HC Kamlesh vide RC no.196/21/17 for depositing in FSL. Photocopy of the RC is proved as Ex.PW- 24/J. HC Kamlesh came back in the PS after deposing the case property in FSL and handed over acknowledgement Ex.PW-24/K to him.
85. Till the case property remained in his possession, no one tampered the same in any manner. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
86. ASI Ramesh Chand was examined as PW-25. He deposed that on 29.03.17 at about 12.50 PM, duty officer informed him that one person has been caught in gali no. 21, D Block Mukandpur on suspicion of murder. On receipt of this information he reached the spot with HC Balu Palve. On the spot he came to know that a boy namely Rahul had been beaten by 10-12 persons and two females and that Rahul had been taken by PCR van to the PS. He along with HC State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 59 ::
Balu Palve returned to the PS where he came to know that Rahul son of Ramesh is injured. In the PS he also met Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra, who informed him that Rahul was involved in the murder of Chanchal. He told them that Rahul would be medically examined first and further action will be taken accordingly. Injured Rahul was sent to hospital with Ct. Chander Prakash to the BJRM hospital. Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were present in PS when he sent Rahul with Ct. Chander Prakash. When Rahul returned from the hospital after his medical examination, Sushma, Neelu and Dilip Mishra were not present in the PS.
87. After some time he received a call of quarrel in gali no.8, D Block, Janta Vihar. He reached the spot, where Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra and 5-7 associates were giving beating to one person by lathies, dandas, kicks and fist blows. Many public persons were present there. At the same time patrolling staff of PS Bhlaswa Dairy, HC Mahesh, HC Deepak, ASI Vinod, Ct. Ramesh, Ct. Rajeev also reached there. They all saved the injured. The persons who were giving beating were carrying dandas etc. The accused Dilip Mishra was carrying danda in his hand. Accused Anchal was carrying a knife in his hand. Accused Akash was carrying danda. Juvenile 'V' was carrying sariya and two females Sushma and Neelu were throwing bricks. 4-5 boys State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 60 ::
ran away from the spot. One of the boy was carrying knife, who also ran away from the spot. All above named persons were caught at the spot. He directed his staff to remain at the spot with five above named persons. The weapons from the hands of the above named persons were taken by the police. He took injured Narender to hospital in auto and got him admitted in the BJRM hospital. He returned to the spot. Crime team was called. Crime team inspected the scene of crime and photographer took photographs.
88. He corroborated the testimony of PW 6 and PW 7 regarding seizure of weapons found in possession of accused persons and also lifting and seizure of exhibits found on the spot.
89. He also deposed that SHO and Inspector Satish also reached at the spot. They came to know that injured Narender had expired in the hospital. He along with HC Deepak went to BJRM hospital where they met the father of Narender. He also met SI Rajender Kumar, who recorded the statement of father of Narender.The dead body of deceased was preserved in the mortuary of BJRM hospital. He came to know that Narender was beaten by above named persons and their associates at the house of Narender. Crime team was again called for inspection at the house of Narender. He reached the spot. All the above named accused persons State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 61 ::
were handed over to the Inspector Satish kumar. I went to PS and handed over the exhibits to MHC(M). He correctly identified all the accused persons and also the case property.
90. During cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused Akash, Naushad, Deepak, Suraj and Jitender he deposed that he reached the spot i.e. gali no.21 initially after 10 minutes since receipt of the call DD no.37B. Initially he stayed at the spot for about 5-10 minutes. Many public persons had gathered at the spot but he did not record the statement of any of those public person. He does not know the names and addresses of those public persons, who informed him that injured is taken to PS by PCR. He along with HC Balu reached at the spot on a government motorcycle. The distance in between the PS and the spot is about 1 km. He can not tell the exact time when he returned to the PS from the spot. He can not tell the exact time when he sent injured Rahul to the hospital with Ct. Chander Prakash. He just filled up a form on reaching the PS and immediately sent Rahul to the hospital. Rahul informed him that the accused persons are doubting involvement of Narender/employer and him in the murder. This inquiry was made by him from Rahul before sending him to hospital. He directed Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra to wait in the PS as Rahul is sent to hospital. Thereafter he started working in the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 62 ::
PS. There is a distance of about one and half kilometer in between PS and BJRM hospital. I can not tell the exact time when Rahul with Ct. Chander Prakash returned to the PS after medical examination. He did not record statement of Rahul when he returned to the PS from hospital.
91. At about 1.45 PM he received a call DD no.43B. At about 1.55 PM they reached in gali no.8. At the same time when he reached in gali no.8, the other police officials also reached there. He can not say if the other staff of the police reached before his reaching at the spot. At the time he reached there, he also saw other police officials at the spot. Five police officials of PS Bhalswa Dairy were at the spot. He along with HC Balu Palve reached at gali no.8 on a private motorcycle of HC Balu Palve. Many public persons were found gathered in gali no.8 when they reached there. Public persons were watching the incident. He had seen accused persons giving beating to Narender. He with the help of HC Balu Palve and HC Deepak made injured Narender to sit in the auto. HC Balu Palve and he accompanied injured to the hospital. He did not meet any family member of injured/deceased at the spot. He was not knowing the family members of the injured and hence can not say if they were present in the crowd or not. He immediately got Narender admitted in the hospital and returned to gali no.8. He State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 63 ::
returned to the spot with HC Balu Palve on his motorcycle. When the weapons were taken from the hands of accused, public persons were already dispersed and no public person was present there. He denied the suggestion that public persons were present at the time weapons were taken from the hands of accused or that the weapons were planted on the accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the scene of crime was not inspected by the crime team or that no exhibits were lifted from the spots. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the incident or that the accused persons did not give any beating to Narender in his presence.
92. He can not tell the exact time when he left the spot i.e. gali no.8. After receiving the call of death of Narender. He immediately left the spot and reached at BJRM hospital. He can not tell the exact time when he again reached BJRM hospital from the spot. When he took Narender to the hospital, he did not meet any family member of Narender in the hospital. When he again went to BJRM hospital after receiving the information of death of Narender, he met with Ram Kishan, father of deceased Narender in the hospital. Some persons were standing with Ram Kishan but he does not know how they were related to Ram kishan. Ram Kishan was talking with SI Rajender at that time. In his presence the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 64 ::
statement of Ram Kishan was not recorded by SI Rajender. From hospital he along with HC Deepak reached D Block, gali no.4, Janta Vihar, Delhi. HC Mahesh, HC Balu Palve and other police staff were present in gali no.4 when he reached there. Some public persons were standing in gali no.4 at a distance of about 20-25 steps away from the spot.
93. When he along with HC Balu Palve first reached in gali no.21, he had not seen if any accused was giving beating to any person. Ct. Chander Prakash returned to PS with Rahul from hospital. He met them in the PS. When Rahul reached at PS from hospital with Ct. Chander Prakash, at the same time he received DD no.46 B regarding quarrel in gali no.8.
94. He has not mentioned the description of the boy who was having knife in his hand and ran away from the scene of crime. He denied the suggestion that he reached street no.8 at about 2.30 PM or that he had not seen the accused persons beating Narender or that he had not seen the accused persons fleeing from scene of crime.
95. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for all accused persons except accused Aakash, Jitender and Naushad deposed that he reached the spot at about 1 pm. He does not remember the exact time when he returned back to police station from the spot i.e. street No.21. He State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 65 ::
admitted that Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were present in the police station when he reached there. Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were not in the custody of any police official. When Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were brought to the police station they were not suspect but Rahul was suspect as it was told that Rahul was involved in the murder of Chanchal. He denied the suggestion that Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were present in the police station when Ct. Chander Praskash came back to police station after getting Rahul medically examined. He denied the suggestion that accused Neelu, Sushma, Dilip Mishra were detained in the PS on 29.03.2017 or that no recovery was effected from the possession of accused persons or at their instance.
96. Inspector Satish Kumar was examined as PW-26. He deposed that on 29.03.2017, he came to know about the incident regarding 5 persons apprehended by Police Staff of PS Bhalaswa Dairy in the present case. He also received the information that Narender has expired. He reached at gali no. 8, near Aam Admi Chowk, Mukundpur, Delhi where the incident took place. He met ASI Ramesh Chand and other staffs who produced 5 accused persons and briefed him the facts of the case and investigation conducted by him. ASI Ramesh also handed over to him the sealed Pullandas. HC Dhani Ram handed over to him the copy of FIR and original State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 66 ::
rukka for further investigation. He called the female constables and J.W.O from the police station.
97. He corroborated the testimony of PW 19 regarding arrest of accused persons, the disclosure statements made by them and the seizure of their wearing clothes. He also seized the blood stained shirt of the complainant vide memo Ex. PW11/B. He also corroborated the testimony of PW 23 regarding the arrest of the accused Neelu and Sushma and the seizure of their wearing clothes.
98. He prepared the site plan Ex. PW26/A. The accused persons were got medically examined and sent to lock-up. The accused persons were produced in the court and sent to J.C on 30.03.2017.
99. On 30.03.2017, he alongwith Ct. Ram Swaroop went to mortuary of BJRM hospital where the dead body was identified by relatives of deceased. He prepared inquest papers Ex. PW26/B. He prepared application Ex. PW26/C for postmortem on the dead body. Postmortem was conducted vide report Ex. PW1/A. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of deceased. After postmortem, Doctor/hospital handed over exhibits to him which he seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B. On 30.03.2017, he prepared site plan Ex. PW26/D of the place of gali no.4 at the instance of Ram Kishan.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 67 ::
100. He corroborated the testimony of PW 5 regarding arrest of accused Naushad, Suraj @ Tindu and Deepak @ Dutta and the disclosure statements made by them. He moved an application for TIP of accused persons but they refused to participate in the TIP.
101. On 05.05.2017, all the three accused persons were produced in the court and he obtained police custody remand of the accused persons. He corroborated the testimony of PW 23 regarding the recovery of dandas at the instance of Naushad, Suraj @ Tindu and Deepak @ Dutta.
102. On 10.05.2017, he alongwith Ct. Ram Swaroop & Ct. Ramji Lal went to the house of Duty Magistrate where the accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi was produced. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW5/C with the permission of the court. The accused made the disclosure statement Ex. PW26/E.
103. On 12.05.2017, accused Jitender was produced in the court where he moved an application for TIP of accused. The accused refused to participate in the TIP. He obtained police custody remand of the accused.
104. On 13.05.2017, accused Jitender was taken out from the lockup in the morning hour. The accused led them to Bhalaswa Jheel towards Mukundpur, D-Block, Kacha Rasta where there were bushes. The accused produced one knife State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 68 ::
which was put on white paper and its sketch was prepared. The sketch of knife is Ex. PW8/A. The knife was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW26/F.
105. On 25.05.2017, he sent case property/exhibits to FSL through Ct. Chander Prakash who deposited the same in FSL.
106. On 10.06.2017, Ct. Naveen, Draftsman accompanied them to the scene of Crimes & took measurement and prepared rough notes for scaled site plans.
107. He prepared the charge sheet which was forwarded by SHO and sent to court by ACP concerned. He correctly identified all the accused persons and also the case property.
108. He collected FSL result and filed the same in the court. FSL result dt.12.03.18 is Ex.PW-26/G. He placed on record the MLC of Rahul Ex.PW-26/H.
109. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushma he admitted that a murder case of Chanchal is also registered in PS Bhalswa Dairy. He does not know if accused Neelu, Sushma, Anchal and Dilip Mishra used to visit the PS regularly in order to inquire the progress of murder case of Chanchal. At about 6.20 PM he received the copy of FIR and State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 69 ::
original rukka for further investigation in the present case at the spot i.e. scene of crime. First of all he made inquiries from the police officials present there i.e. HC Mahesh, HC Deepak, ASI Vinod, Ct. Chander Prakash and others. Accused Sushma, Neelu, Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Juvenile 'V' and Akash were in the custody of police. He does not remember which police official was holding which accused. First of all he arrested accused Sushma, followed by Neelu, Dilip Mishra, Anchal and Aakash. First accused was arrested at 6.25 PM. He admitted that the accused Neelu and Sushma remained present at the spot till 7.10 PM. He reached at the spot at about 5 PM. He denied the suggestion that he got purchased new clothes from market for the accused persons or that blood was poured on the new clothes or that the same were seized. He denied the suggestion that the clothes seized are not of the size of the accused persons. He had informed Smt. Veena Devi after arresting the accused Neelam, Sushma, Dilip Mishra and Anchal. He denied the suggestion that complainant Ram Kishan later on handed over his shirt to him or that he poured blood on the same and seized. He admitted that he had not shown the position of accused persons in the site plan. He also admitted that he had not shown the place where the complainant was standing in the site plan. he admitted that State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 70 ::
he did not obtain any subsequent opinion on weapon of offence used in the commission of offence.
110. During cross-examination by Ld.Counsel for accused Naushad and Akash he admitted that on Ex.PW-26/D there is no date mentioned. He met complainant in PS first time at about 8.30/9 PM. He left the spot at about 8.15 PM on 29.03.17. He did not record statement of any independent public witness on 29.03.17. On the date of incident he visited the house of deceased at about 5.15 PM. He remained at the house of deceased for about 10-15 minutes. He does not know the name of police officials who accompanied him to the house of deceased. He did not write any document at the house of deceased. He had visited the Aam Aadmi Chowk on the date of incident as well as on the day when the scaled site plan was prepared. He does not know the date when he again visited the scene of crime. He denied the suggestion that blood stained clothes were planted on accused Aakash. He denied the suggestion that accused Naushad was lifted from his house or that he was falsely implicated in the case. He does not recollect if the site plan of place of recovery of danda was prepared or not. He admitted that public persons pass from the place where the danda was recovered at the instance of accused Naushad.
111. During cross-examination by Ld.Counsel for accused State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 71 ::
Jitender @ Guddu Passi, Suraj and Deepak Dutta he deposed that there were blood stains in the house of deceased and on piece of slab/silli. He did not take photographs of the house of deceased Narender. Photographs were taken by crime mobile team but not in his presence. He did not join any independent public person on 29.03.17 at the place of occurrence. He did not serve any notice to the neighbour of deceased Narender for joining the investigation. The crime branch official informed about the arrest of the accused Deepak, Suraj and Naushad. Crime branch informed PS Bhalswa Dairy, He does not know the number of DD which was recorded in PS Bhalswa Dairy. He does not remember if he had placed the DD entry by which crime branch informed PS Bhalswa Dairy regarding arrest of accused. He did not place the CDR of the mobile phone of crime branch, who arrested the accused persons on record.
He admitted that the dandas recovered from possession of accused Deepak Dutta and Suraj were having blood stains. He does not recollect at what part of the danda there were blood stains. The accused persons made disclosure statement and also revealed the place from where the dandas could be recovered. He does not remember if accused disclosed that they had thrown the danda in a vacant plot. He prepared site plan of the place of recovery of State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 72 ::
danda at about 7.45 AM. There was no blood stain on the knife.
112. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Jr. Forensic/Chemical Examiner(BIO) FSL, Rohini was examined as PW-27. He deposed that on 25.05.17 and on 14.07.17 FSL received 26 sealed parcels. The seals were intact and tallied with sample seal. The exhibits were opened and examined. The biological and DNA finger printing was done. Heproved his detailed report as Ex.PW-26/G. The testimony of the witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
113. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused persons denied the entire evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. Accused Jitender @ Guddu Passi wished to lead evidence in defence and the case was fixed for defence evidence.
114. Smt. Indu was examined as DW 1. She deposed that in the month of March she visited her parental home at village Amora, District Azamgarh, UP. She stayed at her parental home for 10 days. At that time her brother was present at the parental home i.e. till 27.03.2017. She returned to Delhi on 27.03.2017. On 04.04.2017 his brother Jitender came to meet her at Delhi.
115. During cross-examination by Ld. APP she deposed State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 73 ::
that she has no personal knowledge if Jitender @ Guddu Passi was in village from 27.03.2017 to 03.04 2017.
116. Thereafter the defence closed the defence evidence and the case was fixed for final arguments.
117. I have heard the Ld. APP for State, Ld. defence counsel for accused persons and perused the record.
118. This case is based upon direct evidence of eye- witnesses.
119. Ld. APP submitted that on 29.03.2017, two incidents took place. The first incident was of beating of Rahul PW21. The information about the same was received at PS vide DD no. 37B at about 12.50 PM. Rahul was beaten as the accused persons were suspecting that he is involved in the murder of Chanchal, brother of Anchal, Neelu, Sushma and son of Dilip Mishra.
120. The second incident is regarding beating of deceased Narender which started at his house situated in Street no. 4, D Block, Janta Vihar, Mukundpur and from there he was taken to Aam Aadmi Chowk, Mukundpur. The information of these beatings to Narender was received vide DD no. 46B at 2.05 PM. Narender scummbed to the injuries. There are eye witnesses to this incident i.e. Ct. Chander Prakash PW6 who reached there alongwith HC Mahesh PW19. HC Balu Palve PW7 also reached the spot alongwith ASI Ramesh State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 74 ::
Chand PW25. They had also seen the accused persons giving beatings to deceased Narender with Lathies, Dandas and kicks and fists blows. Besides that Ram Kishan PW11, the father of deceased and Rahul Nishad PW20 were also examined who had witnessed the incident, at the house of Narender and thereafter at Aam Aadmi Chowk.
121. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that so far as PW 21 is concerned, he has fully supported and corroborated the case of prosecution. He had identified all the accused persons and also deposed about the role played by each of accused. He was employee of Narender (deceased). He used to supply water. He deposed that on 29.03.2017 after supplying the water to the customers, he reached D Block at about 12- 12.15 PM. He was caught by accused Anchal and his associates. They gave him beatings and asked about his employer Narender. He was forcibly taken towards the house of Anchal and was tied. Two sisters of accused Anchal and other persons joined them and gave beatings.
Anchal asked "Where is your employer, who is involved in the murder of his brother". The sisters of Anchal identified as Neelu and Sushma exhorted "Isse Maar Do". Anchal and his associates also brought Bandook and Swords to kill him. Due to fear, he told that Narender is at his house. PCR van came there but before that accused persons ran away. PCR State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 75 ::
took him to PS and from there he was taken to the hospital where he was medically examined.
122. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the witness has stated that Anchal is the person who caught hold him and gave him kick and fists blows in his stomach. Neelu and Sushma gave him beatings with bricks and stones and also exhorted "Isse Jaan Say Maar Do". Deepak, Suraj and Jitender @ Guddu gave him beatings after he was tied with rope. Naushad hit him in his stomach and Dilip Mishra threatened him not to disclose the incident to the police. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that all these facts clearly show that they gave beatings to Rahul to find out the address of Narender. The MLC of Rahul has been proved as Ex. PW18/B & Ex.PW26/H which shows that there was fracture of Mandible. The witness also stated in his statement that his jaw was broken. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that there is no reason for Rahul to depose falsely against the accused persons. He will not implicated the accused persons falsely and let the actual culprits go free.
123. Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that after the accused persons got the address of Narender and his availability there, they reached at the house of Narender in Street no. 4, D Block, Janta Vihar, Mukundpur, Trilokpuri, Delhi. There are two eye witnesses of the incident which took place there i.e. PW11 and PW20. Both are consistant and corroborated each State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 76 ::
other. PW 11 Ram Kishan is father of deceased Narender and Rahul Nishand PW20 is cousin of deceased and was working with him. They both stated that on 29.03.2017 when they were present at the house of Narender, at about 12.30- 12.45 PM, Aakash knocked the door of the house of Narender. PW20 opened the door. Accused Aakash asked for a bottle of water 20 liter. Thereafter, Aakash, Anchal and Juvenile 'V' entered their room followed by 4 - 5 boys.
Anchal said, "Tumm Mere Bhai Ko Mare Ho Aaj Tujhe Nahin Chhodegay". Anchal gave the knife blow on the neck of Narender. Narender ducked and knife hit on his head. Juvenile 'V' was carrying an iron road and Aakash was carrying a Danda. Narender ran towards staircase but was apprehended and beaten. PW11 rushed to save his son but Naushad pushed him due to which he fell down on the ground. As he is a heart patient, he became unconscious. He regained consciousness after 2-3 minutes. Narender was taken to Aam Aadmi Chowk. PW-11 along with Rahul Nishad reached Aam Aadmi Chowk. Sushma, Neelu and Dilip also joined them and they all gave beatings to Narender with Dandas, iron rod, bricks and stones and also kick and fists blows. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that police received the information about the incident taking place at Aam Aadmi Chowk vide DD no. 46B and police arrived there. Ct.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 77 ::
Chander prakash PW6 alongwith HC Mahesh PW19, HC Balu Palve PW7 and ASI Ramesh PW25 and other staff reached there. They also corroborated the testimony of PW11 and PW20. They saw 10-12 persons giving beatings to Narender. They saved Narender and apprehended six accused on the spot i.e. Anchal, Neelu, Dilip Mishra, Sushma and Aakash alongwith one juvenile 'V'. The knife was recovered from the hand of Anchal and iron rod was recovered from Juvenile 'V'. One wooden Danda was recovered from Aakash. The other accused persons fled away from the spot but they were also apprehended later on and correctly identified by PW 11 and PW20 that they also gave beatings to Narender. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that all these persons were also therein the beatings of PW 21 Rahul.
124. Narender was taken to the hospital by PW25 ASI Ramesh Chand where he was referred to surgery but succumbed to the injury. The postmortem report Ex. PW1/A clearly shows that there were 32 injuries. The Doctor opined that deceased died to the head injury sustained as a result of blunt force trauma to the head. The injuries over the head are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that there is no reason for PW11, the father of deceased and PW20 Rahul Nishad, cousin of State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 78 ::
deceased to depose falsely against the accused persons. There is nothing on record to show that there was any animosity between the accused persons and PW11 and PW20. They are not interested witnesses. Even witness PW6, PW7, PW19 and PW25 have no interest to save actual culprits and falsely implicate the accused persons facing trial. The witnesses are trust worthy and reliable except slight variations of time which does not go to the route of the case. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that testimonies of these eye witnesses clearly show that the accused persons gave beatings to Narender and caused his death. The number of injuries found on the person of deceased itself corroborates the testimonies of PW6, PW7, PW11, PW19, PW20 and PW25. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged. It is prayed that accused persons be held guilty for causing grievous injuries on the person of Rahul PW21 and causing death of Narender. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that accused persons besides Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra also entered in the house of Narender armed with deadly weapons i.e. Lathi, Knife etc. and hence they have committed trespass. They were more than five persons and they wanted to take revenge of the murder of Chanchal and thus constituted an unlawful assembly. Every member of unlawful assembly is State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 79 ::
liable of the offence committed by them u/s 149 IPC. Accused Neelu, Sushma and Dilip MIshra joined the unlawful asembly again at Aam Aadmi Chowk.It is prayed that all the accused persons be held guilty and convicted for committing these offences.
125. Ld. counsel for accused persons Anchal, Dilip Mishra, Sushma and Neelu submitted that it is a false case. The witnesses have been planted only to make out case against accused persons. Falsity of the case is evident from the fact that according to the police story, police got information about the incident which took place at Aam Aadmi Chowk at about 02:04 pm on which DD No.46B was recorded at 02:05 pm. Whereas according to PW1 and PW20 accused persons entered the house of Narender situated at street no. 8, Janta Vihar, Mukundpur between 12.40 pm to 12.45 pm and from there they dragged Narender to Aaam Aadmi Chowk where he was again beaten. On the other hand, according to DD no.37B recorded at 12:50 pm one murderer has been apprehended i.e. Rahul PW41. Thereafter, Rahul along with Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were taken to PS. Rahul was taken for medical examination by Ct Chander Prakash around 1.00 pm and on MLC Ex PW18/D the time is 14:06 hours i.e. 02:06 pm. The name of person who brought Rahul to the hospital is mentioned as Ct Chander Prakash. Ct.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 80 ::
Chander Parkash was examined as PW6. Ld counsel submitted that if Ct Chander Prakash was in the hospital at 02.06 pm and getting Rahul medically examined then there is no possibility of his reaching Aam Aadmi Chowk and witnessing the incident. This contradiction is major contradiction and PW6 when appeared in witness box he even does not say that he took Rahul to the hospital as had he made such statement then he could not be present on the spot. Ld counsel submitted that so far as PW7 is concerned he himself stated that in his presence none of accused gave beatings to the deceased Narender, therefore, he is not an eye witness of that incident. ASI Ram Kishan PW25 was also in the PS. It was he who sent Rahul to the hospital. The witness also says that at that time Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were in the police station. If they were in the police station even after 1.00 pm then they can not be present simultaneously at Aam Aadmi Chowk and giving beatings to Narender. Ld counsel submitted that these witnesses have deposed falsely in this regard.
126. So far as presence of PW11 and PW20 on the spot is concerned i.e. doubtful from their own conduct itself. Firstly, they did not intervene and try to save Narender. Ld counsel submitted that if PW11 would have been present at the spot he would have certainly intervened to save or attempted to State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 81 ::
save his son from the clutches of the assailants. But here he did not try to save that is why he has not sustained any injury. Neither he nor Rahul Nishad took Narender to hospital. Only police official i.e. ASI Ramesh Chand PW25 removed Narender to the hospital and he also stated, besides the other witnesses i.e. PW6, PW7 and PW19 that no family member of Narender was present there. Ld counsel again submitted that the testimonies of PW6, PW7, PW19 and PW25 clearly show that PW11 and PW20 were not present there and were introduced later on. If they would have been there, they must have firstly taken Narender to the hospital and have also told police that they were present there. Ld counsel submitted that this fact clearly shows and establishes that accused persons have been falsely implicated.
127. Ld counsel further submitted that according to PW11 and PW20, accused Anchal was carrying knife and he hit on the neck of Narender, but Narender ducked due to which knife hit on the head of deceased. Ld counsel submitted that there is no injury on the head of deceased caused by any sharp edged weapon. This fact clearly shows that no such knife was used. Knife was also sent to FSL for analysis. Blood was not detected on the same. It clearly shows that no such knife was with Anchal and no injury with knife was State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 82 ::
caused on the person of Narender.
128. PW 11 did not explain as to how blood came on his shirt, when he did not remove his son to hospital. In fact blood was planted on his shirt. Position of PW11 as well as PW20 has not been shown in the site plan as to where they were standing when Narender was beaten by the accused persons. So far as PW20 is concerned there is delay in recording his statement u/s 161 Cr PC and there is no explanation as to why there is delay. He also did not accompany the injured to hospital. He deposed before the court that Ram Kishan became unconscious and regained consciousness after 2-3 minutes which was not there in his statement and was confronted. He was also confronted with his previous statement where it was not found mentioned that accused Anchal said "Tumney Hamarey Bhai Ko Mara Hai, Tumhey Aaj Nahi Chodenge". He also did not depose as to who dragged Narender from the house to Aam Aadmi Chowk. In fact, there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW11 and PW20 which make story of prosecution highly irreliable and improbable. Ld. counsel submitted that all these contradictions clearly show that these witnesses have been falsely planted. FSL result PW26/G also shows that weapon of offence were planted. Even according to the witness PW 7, accused Dilip Mishra, Neelu and Sushuma State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 83 ::
were in the PS at about 1.30 pm. If this is the position then they can not be present at the spot. Ld counsel submitted that it is not the defence of the accused but the evidence brought on record by the prosecution itself. Ld counsel submitted that all these facts make story of prosecution highly irreliable and improbable. Benefit of the same be given to the accused persons and they be acquitted.
129. Ld. Defence Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Madan Pal v State, Crl. A. 754/2003, Decided on 23.08.2018 wherein the Division Bench of High Court of Delhi has held that:
"26. The law in relation to the eye witness testimony of the related witnesses is fairly well- settled. In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab (1964) 3 SCR 397, the Supreme Court held:
"There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. But a person may be interested in the victim, being his relation or otherwise, and may not necessarily be hostile to the accused. In that case, the fact that the witness was related to the victim or was his friend, may not necessarily introduce any infirmity in his evidence. But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it... [I]t may be relevant to remember that though the witness is hostile to the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 84 ::
assailant, it is not likely that he would deliberately omit to name the real assailant and substitute in his place the name of the enemy of the family out of malice. The desire to punish the victim would be so powerful in his mind that he Crl. A. 754/2003 Page 10 of 23 would unhesitatingly name the real assailant and would not think of substituting in his place the enemy of the family though he was not concerned with the assault. It is not improbable that in giving evidence, such a witness may name the real assailant and may add other persons out of malice and enmity and that is a factor which has to be borne in mind in appreciating the evidence of interested witnesses. On principle, however, it is difficult to accept the plea that if a witness is shown to be a relative of the deceased and it is also shown that he shared the hostility of the victim towards the assailant, his evidence can never be accepted unless it is corroborated on material particulars."
27. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry (2010) 1 SCC 199, the Supreme Court held as under:
"We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency."
28. The legal position was succinctly summarised in Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2013 SC 983 thus: ".....we are concerned with four categories of witnesses - a third party disinterested and unrelated witness (such as a bystander or passer-by); a third party interested witness (such as a trap witness); a related and therefore an interested witness (such as the wife of the victim) having an interest in seeing that the accused is punished; a related and therefore an interested witness (such as the wife or brother of the victim) having an interest State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 85 ::
in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused. But, more than the categorization of a witness, the issue really is one of appreciation of the evidence of a witness. A court should examine the evidence of a related Crl. A. 754/2003 Page 11 of 23 and interested witness having an interest in seeing the accused punished and also having some enmity with the accused with greater care and caution than the evidence of a third party disinterested and unrelated witness. This is all that is expected and required."
29. While the Court is, therefore, not to view related witnesses with suspicion merely because of their relationship with the victim, the Court must seek corroboration on material particulars and be satisfied as to the truthfulness and reliability of their depositions. Site plans do not corroborate version of PW-6
30. In this background, if one first peruses the testimony of PW-6, it is seen that she accompanied the deceased to the house of Deepak (DW-3) and in that process, reached the house of A-4, his aunt. As per her testimony, when the deceased demanded from A-2 (A-4 ‟s husband) that the sum borrowed by DW-3 be repaid, A-1 and A-3 (A-4‟s son) were also present and all three of them began abusing the deceased and asked him to leave.
31. In light of this testimony, it becomes necessary to understand the precise locations of the houses of the deceased, the PWs and the accused. The only documents that are of any assistance to the Court in this regard are the site plans, i.e. the un-scaled site plan (Ex.PW-16/A) and the scaled site plan (Ex.PW- 9/A). The un-scaled site plan, it may be recalled, was purportedly drawn up by PW-16 on the basis of what was told to him by PW-6 on 24th October 1997, i.e. the day after the incident. Unfortunately, this plan is of little help. Five spots are marked therein i.e. bearing letters „A‟ to „E‟. „A‟ highlights the place in the gali in front of H.No.6464/2 where the murder took place. „B‟ to „E‟ are shown at various points around „A‟ and are simply Crl. A. 754/2003 Page 12 of 23 described as the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 86 ::
places where the blood was found.
32. It is surprising that despite this site plan being drawn up on the basis of the statement of PW-6, the houses of the deceased and the assailants are not shown. While DW-2, the resident of House No.6464/2, was examined by the defence, no attempt was made by the prosecution to examine this person. She in her deposition stated that at the time of the occurrence, it was dark and many people were present and shouting. Likewise, the houses of PW-7 and Laxmi are not shown in this site plan. It is for the prosecution to explain why such a shoddy site plan was drawn up which is of no use to anyone, least of all this Court. It cannot be countenanced that after recording the statements of the three purported eye witnesses, the IO would not indicate in the unscaled site plan where the said eye witnesses resided and from where they saw the incident as it was happening. In cases such as the present one, the precise location of each eye witness is a vital fact which could not have been overlooked by the IO.
"56. Another factor to be noted is that the weapon of offence viz., the knife was not shown to the doctor who conducted the post mortem for his opinion whether the injuries on the dead body could be caused by it. In this context, the following observations of the Supreme Court in Kartarey v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172, which received reiteration in Ishwar Singh v. State of U.P. (1976) SCC (Crl) 629, are relevant: "We take this opportunity of emphasising the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this point, for the proper administration of justice, particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species, e.g. stab wounds, and the problem before the Court is whether all or any of those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 87 ::
his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may, sometimes, cause aberration in the course of justice."
Possibility of false implication not ruled out".
130. Ld. Defence Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Oliver Kujur v. State of Delhi (Delhi)(DB), 2014 Cri LJ 4738 wherein it was held that:
"29. The only other piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of blood stained clothes of accused. These clothes along with clothes of deceased and other articles were sent to FSL and as per report Ex. PW17/B given by Dr. Rajendra Kumar, human blood of 'A' Group was found on the same which matched with the blood group of deceased.
30. The recoveries of blood-stained clothes and weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant, however, has to be viewed in light of various decisions of the Supreme Court where such kind of recoveries have been held to be very weak evidence.
31. In the decision reported as AIR 1963 SC 1113, Prabhoo v. State of U.P. recovery of a blood-stained shirt and a dhoti as also an axe on which human blood was detected was held to be extremely weak evidence. Similarly, in the decision reported as (1977) 4 SCC 600 (1) Narsinbhai Prajapati v. Chhatrasinh Kanji, the recovery of a blood-stained shirt and a dhoti as also the weapon of offence a dhariya were held to be weak evidence. In the decision reported as AIR 1994 SC 110 Surjit Singh v.
State of Punjab the recovery of a watch stated to be that of deceased and a dagger stained with blood of the same group as that of the deceased were held to be weak evidence. As late as in the decision reported as (2009) 17 SCC 273 Mani v. State of T.N. recoveries of blood stained clothes and weapon of offence State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 88 ::
stained with blood were held to be weak recoveries.
32. Following these judgments in Mohd.
Shahid v. State in Crl.A.433/1999 dated 01.04.2014 decided by this Bench and Jaffar @ Raju v. State in Crl.A.1057/2010 decided by a Bench [in which one of us, Sunita Gupta, J., was a member], such recovery of blood stained clothes on its own was held to be a circumstance too fragile to bear the burden of appellant's conviction for murder. Similar view was taken in Parmeshwari v. State, 2010 (4) Crimes 599 Delhi; Amar Pal v. State, 2010 (170) DLT 788, Shekhar & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi (Delhi); 2008 CriL.J 3258; Vijay Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2014(2) JCC
888.
33. Besides these circumstances, there is no other incriminating piece of evidence coming on record to connect the appellants with the crime.
34. It is true that circumstances alleged by the prosecution give rise to a suspicion against the appellants but suspicion howsoever strong it may be, is not enough to justify conviction of the appellants for murder. The trial court has, in our opinion, proceeded more on the basis that the appellants may have murdered the deceased Swati. In doing so, the trial court overlooked the fact that there is a long distance between 'may have' and 'must have' which distance must be traversed by the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence. No such evidence is unfortunately forthcoming in the instant case. The legal position on the subject is well settled."
131. Ld. Defence Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Kalloo Passi v. State, (Delhi)(DB), 2009 (3) CRIMES 192 wherein it was held that:
"19. In the decision reported as Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati v. Chhatrasinh & Ors AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1753 the Supreme Court had held that in the absence of any other evidence the circumstances of seizure of blood State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 89 ::
stained shirt and dhoti from the person of an accused and dharias from the houses of the accused are wholly insufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the accused.
20. In the decision reported as Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1994 Supreme Court 110 a watch belonging to the deceased and one dagger which was found to be stained with human blood were recovered at the instance of the accused. It was held by the Supreme Court that said recovery by itself, does not connect the accused person with the murder of the deceased. It was further held that said circumstance may create some suspicion but the same cannot take the place of proof.
21. In the decision reported as Deva Singh v.
State of Rajasthan 1999 Cri LJ 265 Supreme Court had held that merely because a knife is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused would not lead to a conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime of the murder.
22. In the decision reported as Prabhoo v.
State of U.P. AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1113 a kulhari, a shirt and a dhoti which were found to be stained with human blood were recovered from the house of the accused, at his instance. Holding that it is well settled that circumstantial evidence must be such as to lead to a conclusion which on any reasonable hypothesis is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and not with his innocence and that from the mere production of the blood stained articles by the accused, one cannot come to the conclusion that the accused committed the murder inasmuch as the fact of production cannot be said to be consistent only with guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, for the reason it is quite possible that someone else committed the murder and kept the blood stained articles in the house of the accused and that the accused might have produced the said articles when interrogated by the police, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused.
23. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that a rehri was used by the appellant in State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 90 ::
committing the murder of the deceased or in the transportation of the body. The only evidence pertaining to the rehri is the deposition of Ramjiwan PW-3, that he had seen the appellant with a rehri on the day the deceased had gone missing.
24. Therefore, in view of afore-noted judicial decisions, we hold that mere recoveries of the blood stained clothes, pieces of two daggers and a rehri at the instance of the appellant do not lead to a conclusion that the appellant is the perpetrator of the crime."
132. Ld. counsels for remaining accused persons also submitted on the same lines. They further argued that in this case according to story of the prosecution, PW6, PW7, PW19 and PW25 also reached the spot while the incident was still going on. They also stated that the assailants were apprehended. According to the story six persons were apprehended on the spot i.e. Anchal, Sushma, Neelu, Dilip Mishra, Aakash and juvenile 'V'. They have not identified any other remaining accused as the persons whom they had seen giving beatings to the deceased Narender at Aam Aadmi Chowk. Ld. Counsel submitted that they only identified the above named six persons. In view of this fact, the presence of these persons at the spot is doubtful. The case property has been planted upon them that is why the blood is not detected on the dandas & knife.
133. According to the case of prosecution, those weapons were used in the commission of crime but the report Ex.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 91 ::
PW26/G clearly shows that no blood was found. There is no evidence to link those weapons with the commission of offence. The four alleged eye witnesses have also not corroborated or deposed about their presence at the spot. Ld. Counsel further submitted that story of the prosecution is doubtful in view of the fact that according to the MLC Ex. PW18/B Ct. Chander Prakash examined as PW6 had taken Rahul to the hospital and thereafter at the same time his presence at the Aam Aadmi Chowk is shown which is not possible. Ld. Counsel submitted that documents and the record have been manipulated to frame the accused persons in this case. The witnesses have also contradicted each other. No independent witness has been joined in the investigation though the incident took place in broad day light at public place in the presence of many public persons as deposed by PW6, PW7, PW11, PW19, PW20 and PW25. Non joining of independent witnesses even at the time of arrest and seizure from the spot clearly show that no recovery was effected as alleged and none of accused was apprehended from the spot. Ld. Counsel submitted that as the witness examined are interested witnesses and police officials have failed to identify the other accused persons, benefit be given to them and they be acquitted.
134. Ld. Defence counsels further submitted that so far as State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 92 ::
Guddu Passi is concerned none of the witness i.e. PW6, PW7, PW 19 and PW 25 have stated that he was carrying any knife. PW11 and PW20 also do not say that he was carrying knife. The knife was also not sent to FSL for analysis, which clearly shows that police was knowing that knife was not used in commission of offence. There is no evidence to link the knife with commission of offence. There is also no evidence that accused persons i.e. Guddu Passi, Suraj @ Tinda, Deepak, Aakash and Naushad had any motive to commit the offence. In the absence of that motive to commit the offence that is murder of a person, coupled with no recovery of clothes and the fact that blood was not detected on the weapons recovered, clearly show that weapons were planted upon them that is why blood was not detected. Accused persons have been falsely implicated. The eye witnesses PW 6, PW7, PW19 and PW25 have also not identified them. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts, they be acquitted.
135. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that this is a case based upon the direct evidence. There are two incidents. In first incident Rahul PW- 21 was beaten by the accused persons in order to find out, the where abouts of his employer Narender. It is important to note here that before this incident Chanchal was murdered.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 93 ::
Regarding that the FIR was also registered at PS: Bhalswa Dairy as admitted by PW-27 IO of the case. Accused Neelu, Sushma and Anchal are the brothers and sisters of Chanchal and Dilip Mishra is father of deceased Chanchal. They suspected that Rahul PW-21 and Narender the deceased are involved in the murder of Chanchal. On 29.03.2017 they caught hold of PW-21 Rahul in D-Block Mukand Pur, gave him beatings to find out the address of his employer that is Narender. He was mercilessly beaten as is evident from MLC of Rahul proved on record as Ex.PW18/B & Ex.PW26/H. His jaw was also broken as is reflected in the MLC there is fracture of mandible. DD No.37B was also received at 12:50 pm in PS: Bhalswa Dairy which according to the defence was made by none else but Neelu. This again supports the contention and the deposition of PW-21 that he was beaten by the accused persons and they wanted to ask him the address of his employer Narender and due to beatings and fear he told the address. Rahul was examined as PW-21. He deposed that after delivery of water when he reached D- Block Mukundpur at about 12:00 / 12:15 pm he was apprehended by Aanchal and other persons. He had identified all the accused persons and also deposed about the role played by each one of them. They thought that Rahul PW21 & his employer Narender (deceased) were involved in State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 94 ::
the murder of Chanchal. They wanted to know the address of Narender, with whom he was working. Neelu and Sushma also exhorted to kill him. He was mercilessly beaten. He was taken to the police station by PCR Van. Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra also reached the police station as deposed by PW-6, PW-7, PW-19 and PW-25. Rahul was taken to hospital as deposed by PW-25 and was got medically examined. In the meanwhile another DD was received that a person is being beaten at Aam Admi chowk. On this DD PW- 25 along with staff reached the spot. Other police staff also reached there and they found that 10-12 persons and two females i.e. Neelu and Sushma were giving beatings to a boy lying on the ground. They saved that boy whose name they came to know as Narender and apprehended six persons on the spot i.e. Neelu, Sushma, Aanchal, Dilip, Aakash and one Juvenile 'V'. The other persons fled away from the spot as deposed by PW-25 and he identified all the accused persons. He also deposed that one of those boys who fled away was carrying knife who was lateron apprehended as Jitender @ Guddu Passi. It is important to note that these accused persosn were also identified by Ram Kishan PW-11 who is the father of deceased Narender and PW-20 Rahul Nishad who is the cousin of Narender and was also working with Narender. The fact that he was working with Narender is State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 95 ::
also deposed by PW-21 Rahul that besides him Rahul Nishad was also working with Narender. He also deposed that Rahul Nishad was relative of Narender and no salary was paid to him. This fact is also deposed by Rahul Nishad. Both PW-11 and PW20 corroborated each other that they were sitting in the house of Narender when some one knocked on the door. Rahul Nishad opened the door. Aanchal, Akash and Juvenile 'V' were there. They asked for the water bottle and thereafter they all 3 persons entered the room followed by 4-5 more boys. Aanchal was having knife in his hands. Juvenile V' was having iron rod and Aakash was having a danda. Anchal attacked Narender with the knife. Narender ducked and the knife landed on his head. Narender ran towards the stair case to save himself but the accused persons surrounded him and he was attacked. When PW11 intervened to save him, he was pushed by accused Naushad. Due to the push PW-11 fell down and became unconscious. PW-20 supported PW-11. The accused persons dragged Narender from the house and took him to Aam Aadmi chowk. There also they gave him beatings. The fact that he was beaten there is also evident from the fact that the piece of slab was found near the house of Narender having blood and at Aam Aadmi chowk also at the shutter of one shop the blood and hair were found which matched with State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 96 :: the blood of deceased. PW-11 regained consciousness after 2-3 minutes and he along with PW-20 Rahul Nishad reached Aam Aadmi chowk. There they found accused persons assaulting Narender. Rahul Nishad said that he was frightened therefore, he did not try to save his cousin Narender. PW-11 tried to save Narender but he was not allowed to reach there. Only the police saved Narender and removed Narender to the hospital. As deposed by PW-11, PW-20 and also PW-6, 7, 19 and 25. It was PW-25 who took Narender to BJRM Hospital and got him admitted there. In the hospital he died during the treatment.
136. Doctor Anshul Saxena conducted the post mortem and he opined that cause of death in this case is the head injury sustained as a result of blunt force trauma to the head.
The defence has taken the plea that PW-11 and PW-20 were not there. But it is important to note that they both have fully supported and corroborated each other. Secondly, the presence of PW-20 on the spot is quite natural as he was working with the deceased as deposed by PW-21 also and there is nothing on record to dispute the same. Infact there is no cross-examination to PW-21 on this aspect that Rahul Nishad was not working with Narender. The other contention is that he was not there as he had not sustained any injury but he himself has explained that he did not try to save State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 97 ::
Narender as he was frightened. Even other wise there is no such law that before an eye witness can be believed he must sustain injury on his person. The other important fact which PW-20 has deposed is that the accused persons were not knowing that he is relative of the deceased. They were not even knowing that the other persons present i.e. PW-11. Sh. Ram Kishan is father of Narender. Even the presence of Ram Kishan cannot be disputed here as according to him he reached there to meet his son and there is nothing unnatural in the same. PW-20 also stated that Ram Kishan reached there house on that day at about 11:30 am and while they were talking someone knocked at the door. Both PW-11 and PW-20 are consistent that when PW-11 tried to save his son Narender Naushad pushed him and when on the spot PW-11 tried to save Narender he was not allowed to reach upto his son and accused persons prevented him from doing so. PW- 19 also deposed that PW-11 was there and was trying to save his son. Even the police witnesses stated that there were many persons on the spot around 80 to 90 but they were just moot spectator and none of them tried to save Narender from the clutches of accused persons. Which shows that the accused persons were so daring that in the bright day light and in the presence of 80 to 90 persons they mercilessly gave beatings to Narender resulting into his State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 98 ::
death. It was only the police who could separate the accused persons from assaulting the deceased and thereafter removed him to the hospital. The fact that Narender was removed to the hospital is evident from the MLC where it is mentioned that ASI Ramesh Chand brought Narender to the hospital. The defence has again contended that as Narender was not removed to the hospital by PW11 & PW20, therefore, his presence on the spot itself is doubtful. But merely because they could not be accommodated in the same auto in which police removed Narender to the hospital does not mean that he was not present there. PW-19 in his cross-examination by the defence has specifically stated that Ram Kishan father of Narender was present at the spot even before they reached the spot. PW-11 and PW20 also deposed that police reached on the spot after them and thus corroborated the statements of PW-11 and PW-20.
137. It is also important to note that the shirt of the complainant was seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A as deposed by PW-11 and also corroborated by PW-27. This shirt was sent to FSL. The FSL result has also been proved on record as Ex.PW26/G. According to this FSL result the blood was detected on the shirt. The DNA was isolated which matched with the DNA of the deceased. Keeping in view all these facts and the corroboration to the testimony of PW-11 by PW-20 State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 99 ::
and also by the other witnesses proves his presence on the spot.
138. Ld. Counsels have also argued that presence of Ct.
Chander Parkash on the spot is doubtful. Ct. Chander Parkash was examined as PW-6. According to the evidence it was PW-6 who took Rahul to the hospital got him medically examined and thereafter brought him to the police station. Even if this contention is believed still there are two other witnesses i.e. PW-11 and PW-20 and besides them PW-19 and PW-25. All these witnesses have fully supported the contention and the story that the accused persons were giving beatings to Narender. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is no question put to PW-6 as to whether he took Rahul to hospital for medical examination. It is also important to note that none of them stated that Neelu and Sushma were in the police station, they all stated that Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were on the spot. They all left the police station and were found on the spot where they also gave beatings to Narender. It is important to note that the distance between Aam Aadmi chowk and PS: Bhalswa Dairy is not much and it takes only 10 minutes on foot to reach the spot from the police station as deposed by PW-7. The fact that they reached Aam Aadmi chowk is also evident from the statements of PW-11 and PW-20 they did not say Neelu, State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 100 ::
Sushma and Dilip Mishra reached the house of Narender they only stated that when they reached Aam Aadmi chowk they found Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra were also assaulting Narender. The other fact which is also important is that the clothes of Aanchal, Neelu, Sushma, Dilip and Aakash were sezied. These were sent to FSL. The blood has been detected on the clothes of Aanchal, Dilip-, Neelu and Sushma. The DNA was isolated and it matched with the DNA of the deceased. The defence taken is that the IO PW-27 purchased new clothes. Poured blood on the same and planted the same on the accused persons. During the course of arguments the clothes were again opened and it was found that the clothes are not new one and infact are used one. The clothes of Dilip Mishra were even worn out. The clothes of Neelu, Susham and Anchal were also old clothes and there were signs of wearing the same, as there was dirt deposit on the collar of the shirts. Therefore, I do not found any merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel that the new clothes were brought and blood was poured on the same and planted upon the accused persons.
139. Even other wise there is evidence of Lady Ct. which deposed that the mother of accused persons brought the clothes which were given to the accused persons and their wearing clothes were seized as there were blood stains on State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 101 ::
the same. This detection of the blood of deceased on their clothes further strengthen the story of prosecution and also proves their presence on the spot. There is no plauzible defence and explanation coming from the accused persons as to how the blood of deceased reached on their wearing clothes if they were not on the spot. As discussed above the only explanation coming from the defence does not found supports from the clothes itself.
140. Ld. Counsel has also taken the plea that other accused persons were not there as they had not been identified by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-19 but it is important to note that the witnesses, PW-11, PW-20 and PW-25 identified them that they were there. PW-20 has even stated that Jitender @ Guddu Passi was residing at their back side and was known to him before hand. All the accused persons have been correctly identified. There is no dispute about their identification. Efforts were made to conduct the TIP but they all refused to join the TIP and in the absence of their not joining the TIP the identification by the witnesses in the court can be relied upon. The TIP proceedings of Jitender @ Guddu Passi and his statement of not joining TIP are Ex.PW17/B and Ex.PW17/A respectively. Similarly, the statement of Naushad for not joining the TIP is Ex.PW17/C and the TIP proceedings are Ex.PW17/D. Statement of State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 102 ::
Deepak @ Dutta refusing to join the TIP is Ex.PW17/E and the TIP proceedings are Ex.PW17/F. Suraj @ Tinda refused to join the TIP and his statement is Ex.PW17/G. The proceedings are Ex.PW17/H. The TIP proceedings were conducted by Ld. MM Sh. Vikram Singh and testimony of the Ld. MM has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted in this regard. Jitender @ Guddu Passi in his statement also stated i.e. Ex.PW17/A that complainant knew him being neighbour which corroborates the testimony of PW-20. The defence alswo does not dispute their presence on the spot as they asked PW11 & PW20 as to whether he can identify any other persons present on the spot besides the accused persons. The defence does not dispute the presence of PW-19 and PW25 on the spot. During the cross examination PW-25 stated that he had seen the accused persons giving beatings to Narender and PW-19 admitted the fact that they saved the Narender from accused persons. These suggestions itself shows that they themselves admitted that PW-11, PW-19, PW20 and PW25 were present on the spot.
141. Keeping in view all these statements and the evidence I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-11 and PW-20 finding corroboration from medical evidence and then the detection of blood of deceased on the clothes of Aanchal, Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra and also on the State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 103 ::
shirt of the complainant PW-11.
142. Ld. Defence counsel raised the plea that the position of PW-11 and PW-20 is not shown in the site plan. It is a major lapse. If PW-11 and PW-20 could have been present on the spot, I.O must have shown their positions in the site plan. After considering the entire evidence, the fact that PW11 and PW20 are reliable and trustworthy in my opinion their statements cannot be discarded merely due to lapse of IO for not showing their positions in the site plan.
143. The accused were more than five persons. The motive is there as Chanchal the brother of Neelu, Sushma and Anchal was murdered. They thrashed Rahul to know the whereabouts of Narender. It is important to note that Dilip Mishra is father of Chanchal and also of the accused Aanchal, Neelu and Sushma. Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra went to police station to tell that Rahul is involved in the murder of Chanchal as deposed by PW-25 also. When Rahul was sent to hospital for medical examination. Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra also joined the other accused persons and thrashed Narender resulting into his death.
Keeping in view all these facts I found that firstly they all thrashed Rahul PW-21 and had broken his jaw i.e. causing grievous injury on his person. They were more than five persons and their motive was to thrashed the killers of State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 104 ::
Chanchal and also to know the whereabout of other accused Narender. Thereafter, they all except Neelu, Sushma and Dilip entered the house of Narender armed with weapons, thrashed him dragged him to Aam Aadmi chowk and there again they were joined by Neelu, Sushma and Dilip Mishra and killed him. Keeping in view all these facts Neelu, Sushma and Dilip are held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 147, 325 r/w 149 IPC and 302 r/w 149 IPC and 148/149 IPC. The other accused persons are also held guilty and convicted for offence u/s 147, 325 r/w 149 IPC and 302 r/w 149 IPC and 452 r/w 149 IPC and 148/149 IPC.
Let convicts he heard on the quantum of sentence on 11.10.2018.
VIRENDER Digitally signed by
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2018.10.09
Announced in the open court BANSAL 11:46:11 +0530
today on 09.10.2018 (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL)
ASJ/Pilot Court/North District
Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Anchal etc. SC No.417/17 :: 105 ::