Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Kuldeep @ Sanjay on 24 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL :
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: (FTC) (W):DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. :1/11
ID No. 02401R0431112010
FIR No. : 76/10
U/s : 302/212/34 IPC
P.S. : Khyala
STATE Vs. 1. Kuldeep @ Sanjay
S/o Sh. Chhote Lal
R/o Jhuggie No.513, R-Block,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Deepak @ Sooraj
S/o Sh. Booti
R/o Jhuggi No.515, R-Block,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Sunil @ Teja
S/o Sh. Subramanium
R/o 27/101, P.O & PS:
Khairatabad, Begumpet
Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh,
Present Address:
Jhuggi No.379, T huts Clock
WZ 139, Raghubir Nagar,
New Delhi.
4. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Dashrath
R/o Jhuggi No.379, T-Huts,
R-Block, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : 302/212/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Plead not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of committal : 03.01.2011
Date of Judgment : 24.01.2015
FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 1 of 40
J U D G M E N T:
1. On 14.05.2010 Dheeraj made a complaint to the police that his father was residing in Jhuggi No.370, R-Block Raghubir Nagar. In those jhuggies itself Sunil S/o Sh. Dashrath, Kuldeep S/o Sh. Chhotey Lal and Deepak were also residing and were having criminal antecedents. Kuldeep had come out of jail on bail a few days ago. He was in custody in a murder case. These persons use to extort money from the people under threat and pressure and nobody dated to make complaint against them. Sunil and Deepak demanded money from his father but as his father refused to make payment they all gave him beatings but no complaint was made to the police. On 13.05.2010 at 11:30 pm his neighbor Madan informed him that Sunil, Deepak and Kuldeep are beating his father he immediately reached Jhuggi of his father, he intervened and save his father. Kuldeep and Sunil threatened to pay Rs.5,000/- till morning or get ready to face consequences. Kuldeep also said that a few days ago he murdered Raj Kumar and he has no hesitation in committing another murder if payment is not made. Due to fear he did not make any complaint. On 14.05.2010 at 9:30 am he brought tea for his father. While his father was taking tea inside Jhuggie and he was standing outside, FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 2 of 40 in the meanwhile Sunil, Deepak and Kuldeep and one more boy whom he can identify by face came there. Sunil and Kuldeep were having knives in their hands, Deepak was having iron rod, 4th boy was also having an iron rod. All the 4 entered jhuggi and demanded money. My father refused to pay and raised alarm on which all the 4 over powered my father in the corner near the door of the jhuggi and started hitting him with iron rods and knives. When he move forward to save his father Kuldeep pointed out knife on him and threatened that if he came there he will also face the same consequences he raised alarm and on seeing the people gathering there all the accused fled away. He removed his father to Khetarpal Nursing home in the Maruti Car of a passerby. The Doctor on seeing the serious condition of his father referred him to Aggarsain Hospital where his father died. On this compliant the FIR was registered, all the four accused were arrested. Accused Kuldeep got recovered his shoes and clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and also knife used in commission of offence. Accused Deepak also got recovered the shoes and clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and the iron rod used in the commission of offence. They also pointed out the place of occurrence. The shoes, clothes and weapon of offence recovered were sent to FSL along with the blood sample of the deceased, the opinion was received according to which human FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 3 of 40 blood was detected on the shoes and the clothes and on the T- shirt of Deepak and Kuldeep blood of group B was found which was also of deceased. All the accused were charged for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC. Accused Sunil @ Teja and Sunil S/o Sh. Dashrath could not be apprehended initially and were declared P.O on 09.12.2010 and 29.11.2010 respectively. The other two accused Kuldeep and Deepak were charged for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC by my Ld. Predecessor on 28.01.2011. Lateron Sunil @ Teja was arrested and Sunil @ Dashrath was also arrested. Again charge was re-framed on 19.04.2011 and all the accused persons were charged for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC. Lateron an application was moved by the defence that accused Sunil @ Teja was arrested for the offence u/s 212 IPC only and not for 302 IPC. After hearing the arguments on the application the charge was re-framed. Accused Deepak, Kuldeep and Sunil S/o Sh. Dashrath were charged for the offence u/s 302/34 IPC and Sunil @ Teja were charged for the offence punishable u/s 212 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Before the charge was amended 3 witnesses were already examined but the defence stated that they did not want those witnesses to be re-called.
2. Prosecution examined twenty eight witnesses to prove the guilt of accused persons.
FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 4 of 40
3. PW-1 was HC Mahavir Singh who proved the copy of DD No.26A as Ex.PW1/A. Vide this DD information was received from Anti Robbery Cell, Crime Branch, Nehru Place, about the arrest of the accused Deepak @ Sooraj, Kuldeep @ Sanjay and Sunil @ Teja u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C and that they will be produced in the court on 17.05.2010.
4. HC Babu Ram was examined as PW-2. On 14.05.2010 he along with staff members went to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital there he met ASI Ashok Kumar who handed over him rukka. He brought the same to PS: Khyala, got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he along with rukka and copy of FIR went to Jhuggi No.370 and handed over the same to Inspector Anil Kumar.
5. SI Nirmala was examined as PW-3. She was working as Duty Officer on 14.05.2010. She recorded FIR No:76/10 on the basis of rukka and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW3/A. She also proved her endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B. She also proved the copy of DD No:13A. This DD is with respect to the information received at 9:50 am from W-50 that in R-Block Jhuggi Raghubir Nagar somebody had cut the leg of a person. This DD was assigned to ASI Ashok Kumar. She also proved the copy of DD No.17 recorded at 11:45 am recorded on the basis of information received that in Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital Mukesh S/o Sh. Phool Singh aged-48 years R/o FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 5 of 40 H.No.468, Raghubir Nagar is brought dead. He was given knife blow in the house. This witness was recalled lateron on an application u/s 311 Cr.PC to prove the certificate prepared by her u/s 65B of Evidence Act which she proved as Ex.PW3/E.
6. Ct. Vikas was examined as PW-4. He delivered the copies of FIR to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Joint Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police, West.
7. Vicky was examined as PW-5. He is the eye witness according to the prosecution case but he stated that on 14.05.2010 he was sleeping at his house. At about 9/9:15 am his wife received a call that his father-in-law Mukesh has been stabbed. His wife woke him up. He immediately rushed to the Jhuggi of his father-in-law situated at R-block, Raghubir Nagar. He saw a huge crowd there and came to know that his father-in-law had been taken to Kheterpal Nursing Home. He rushed to Kheterpal Nursing Home, there he came to know that as the condition of his father-in-law was serious therefore, doctor referred his father-in-law to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital. He along with some neighbourers shifted his father-in-law to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital where he expired. He was cross-examined at length by Ld.APP for the State but no evidence supporting the prosecution case came on record. He denied that he had witnessed the incident or that he saw accused persons giving him beatings with FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 6 of 40 iron rod and stabbing him with knife.
8. Dheeraj son of Mukesh (deceased) was examined as PW-6. He is the complainant and also eye witness. He also did not support the case of prosecution. He stated that on 14.05.2010 he had gone to Jhuggi No.370, R-Block, Raghubir Nagar to serve tea to his father. When he was at some distance from the jhuggi he found crowd of 40-50 persons and a quarrel was going on. When he reached there he wound his father Mukesh lying in injured condition. The crowd disbursed, when he reached there and due to that reasons he could not recognize the assailants. He stated that accused persons present in the court are not known to him. He had not seen them on the spot and were not among those persons who caused injuries to his father. He removed his father from the gate of the jhuggi. Thereafter his brother Nitin and brother-in-law Vicky also reached there. He signaled one Maruti car passing in front of his jhuggi and removed his father to Kheterpal Nursing Home. Doctor in the Nursing Home directed him to take him to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital. He took his father to Maharaja Aggarsain hospital where he expired. He stated that incident had not taken place in his presence. This witness has also been cross examined at length by Ld. APP and was confronted with his complaint Ex.PW6/A made to the police but he did not support his complaint and did not utter a single word FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 7 of 40 against the accused persons. He stated that Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F were blank when police obtained his signatures. It is important to note that Ex.PW6/A is the complaint. Ex.PW6/D is the recovery of the clothes and iron rods at the instance of accused Deepak. Ex.PW6/E is the recovery of clothes and the knife at the instance of accused Kuldeep. Ex.PW6/F is the sketch of the knife. He also stated that non of the accused was apprehended in his presence and no recovery was effected in his presence from accused persons or at the instance of accused persons.
9. Nitin is the other son of deceased was examined as PW-7. He also did not support the prosecution case. He stated that at about 9:30 or 10:00 am some persons of the locality came to his house and informed that some unknown persons had caused injuries to his father at Jhuggi No.370, R-block, Raghubir Nagar. He came to know from family members that Dheeraj had already gone to Jhuggi No.370, R-Block Raghubir Nagar to serve tea to his father. He also reached there. Dheeraj was present there and he found that his father Mukesh was lying in injured condition having stab injuries on his abdomen and other injuries on his person. He along with his brother Dheeraj and Vicky removed him to Kheterpal Nursing Home there doctor advised him to take his father to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital. They took their father FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 8 of 40 to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital where his father expired. He stated that all the four accused persons are not known to him and they had not caused any injuries to his father Mukesh. He was also cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State but he did not support the prosecution case.
10. Parvesh Kumar was examined as PW-8 he accompanied ASI Ashok Kumar to the DDU mortuary on 14.05.2010 at 6:00 pm and had identified the dead body of his uncle Mukesh and proved his statement in this regard as Ex.PW8/A.
11. Madan was examined as PW-9. He also did not support the case. He stated that Mukesh was known to him. None of the accused persons quarreled or gave beatings to Mukesh in his presence nor he informed Dheeraj about the quarrel. He was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State but of no avail.
12. SI Arvind Kumar was examined as PW-10 he along with Ct. Vikas reached the office of anti robbery cell on 22.05.2010 on the directions of the IO. From there they received Maruti Van No. DL 1C 4690 from MHC(M) PS: Crime Branch vide RC No.190/21/10 and deposited the same in the malkhana at PS:
Khyala along with its key.
13. HC Ran Singh was examined as PW-11 he was working as MHC(M) and proved the copies of the entries made in FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 9 of 40 register No.19 and 21 as Ex.PW11/A to Ex.PW11/G.
14. HC Suresh was examined as PW-12. He stated that on 16.05.2010 he received the secret information that accused Deepak and Kuldeep wanted in a murder case of PS: Khyala along with their associate Sunil @ Teja will come in a Maruti Van No. DL 1T 4690 at about 5:00 pm and pass in front of INA market. He passed on this information to SI Ajit Singh. Thereafter, he along with SI Ajit Singh and ASI Joginder Singh and other staff reached INA market and apprehended accused Kuldeep, Deepak and Sunil @ Teja. They were interrogated and arrested u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. He proved their arrest memos. They were interrogated and they also made confessional statement about their involvement in the present case. He proved the memos Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/K. Accused Anil was also arrested u/s 25 Arms Act. As the accused confessed about his involvement in a murder case FIR No:76/10 of PS: Khyala therefore, this information was passed on to PS: Khyala.
15. During cross-examination he stated that SI Ajit Singh made the entry about the secret information. The secret information was received at about 3:15 pm. No call was made at PS: Khyala to ascertain the registration of FIR No.76/2010 or involvement of accused persons. Ct. Anil, Ct. Rajesh, Ct Surender and Ct. Manoj were also members of raiding team besides SI Ajit FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 10 of 40 Singh, ASI Joginder Singh and this witness. They were in two private vehicles. He was driving the Santro car and the other Santro car was being driven by Manoj. They all were carrying the official weapons issued to them as per the register. No public person agreed to join the investigation, The Maruti Van in which accused persons were traveling was a black and yellow colour Taxi. The ignition key was also seized but was not put in a sealed parcel.
16. ASI Ashok Kumar was examined as PW-13. DD No.13A was assigned to him copy of which is proved as Ex.PW3/C. On receiving the DD he along with Ct. Hoshiyar Singh reached Jhuggi No.370, R-Block, Raghubir Nagar. He found the crowd of people present there outside the Jhuggi. He found the blood spread outside jhuggie and also inside the jhuggi as well as on the walls. On inquiry he came to know that injured had been removed to Kheterpal Nursing Home. He directed Ct. Hoshiyar Singh to guard the spot and went to Kheterpal Nursing Home. There he came to know that doctor referred the patient to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital. He reached Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Mukesh. Doctor had declared him brought dead. In the meantime HC Babu Ram reached there along with other staff of PS: Khyala. Dheeraj son of deceased met him. He recorded his statement Ex.PW6/A, FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 11 of 40 prepared rukka Ex.PW13/A and sent the same to police station through HC Babu Ram. Ct. Hoshiyar Singh also reached there. The dead body was sent to mortuary through Ct. Hoshiyar Singh. Then he returned to the spot along with Dheeraj and other public persons who met him in the hospital. Inspector Anil Kumar was also present on the spot. After registration of the case the investigation was assigned to Inspector Anil Kumar. IO lifted blood and blood stained concrete from the spot, put in separate plastic jars, sealed in the pullanda with the seal of AKC and took into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/C. IO also seized one pair of Hawai Chappal, one piece of rexene cover stained with blood, 3 cricket stumps and one empty bottle stained with blood. The same were sealed in a separate pullandas sealed with the seal of AKC. He also identified the case property.
During cross examination he stated that Ex.PW21/DA was not written by him which is supplementary statement of Ct. Hoshiyar Singh. No chance prints were lifted by him, by the IO or by the crime team from the earth control or the blood stained wooden stumps.
17. Dr. B.N. Mishra, was examined as PW-14. He conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Mukesh and proved the post mortem report as Ex.PW14/A. He opined that all the injures appear ante mortem in nature and external injuries FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 12 of 40 1, 11 & 13 individually and as well as in combination are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The manner of death was homicide, time of death was approximately 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination. On 10.06.2010 IO along with Ct. Sukhbir moved application for opinion about the weapon of offence and also produced two sealed parcels having seal of AKC and one parcel having seal of DFMT DDU hospital given sl.no. As A, B and C. Parcel A was having one knife, parcel B was having iron rod and parcel C was found to contain clothes of deceased. He gave the subsequent opinion as Ex.PW14/B and opined that the injury No.1, 8, 9, 10 & 14 could have (been) inflicted by produced weapon of offence i.e. by knife as mentioned in the external injuries. Injury at sl. No.7,11, 12 & 13 could have been inflicted by produced iron rod marked as B. Rest of the injuries no.2,3,4,5 and 6 could have been inflicted by some other weapon of offence like one danda/pipe and small size sharp edge weapon like knife. The injury No.1, 11 and 13 were sufficient to cause death individually in ordinary course of nature. Clothes produced bears the tearing (cuts) at the corresponding sites of body of deceased. It is quite possible that the tearing (cuts) could be caused by different course of infliction of injuries by produced weapon or associated with weapons which are not traceable /recovered. He also identified the iron rod as Ex.P-2, the knife as Ex.P-3 and the clothes Ex.P-1. FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 13 of 40
During cross examination he stated that his report is silent about the blood group of the deceased, he further submitted that as blood group of a person / deceased is only to be ascertained by the FSL and not by doctor who conducted the post mortem. He denied the suggestion that he gave the opinion Ex.PW14/B only at the instance of the IO.
18. Dr. Ashok Gupta from Maharaja Aggarsain hospital was examined as PW-15. He declared injured brought dead. He stated that on 14.05.2010 at about 10:50 pm patient Mukesh aged 48 years was brought to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital by Vicky with the alleged history of multiple stab injuries. He examined him and declared him as brought dead. He proved the MLC Ex.PW15/A. He stated that the alleged history mentioned at point A to A1 on MLC Ex.PW15/A was told to him by Vicky. The history mentioned on the MLC is "alleged history of multiple stab injuries at home, Raghubir Nagar about 1 hour back by some unknown persons".
19. SI Jai Singh was examined as PW-16. He was incharge of the Mobile Crime Team. He visited the spot along with HC Surender Singh, photographer and other members. He inspected the spot, photographs of scene of crime were taken from different angles and he gave his report Ex.PW16/A.
20. HC Surender Singh was examined as PW-17. He FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 14 of 40 proved the photographs which he took on the spot. He proved the negatives as ex.PW17/A1 to A7 and the photographs as Ex.PW17/B1 to B7.
21. SI Ajit Malik was examined as PW-18, he was posted in Anti Robbery Cell and on receiving secret information apprehended Kuldeep, Deepak and Sunil @ Teja u/s 41.1. Cr.PC. He proved the documents about arrest and the disclosure statement made by the accused persons Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/J.
22. SI Mahesh Kumar was examined as PW-19 he inspected the scene of crime on 22.05.2010 along with the IO where Dheeraj son of deceased also met them. He took the measurement on the pointing out of Dheeraj and Inspector Anil Kumar, prepared the rough notes and thereafter, prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW19/A. During cross examination he stated that the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW19/DA was not given by him and was also not assigned to him. He also admitted that Jhuggi number mentioned in Ex.PW19/DA is not mentioned in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW19/A.
23. SI Tilak Singh was examined as PW-20, he joined the investigation of this case on 15.05.2010 and went to mortuary DDU hospital along with Inspector Anil Kumar. There IO recorded the statement of Dheeraj and Parvesh, relative of deceased FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 15 of 40 regarding identification. Thereafter, post mortem was conducted. After the post mortem doctor handed over 2 sealed pullanda and one sample seal of mortuary to Inspector Anil Kumar. IO seized these pullandas and sample seal vide memo Ex.PW20/A.
24. Ct. Hoshiyar Singh was examined as PW-21, he alongwith ASI Ashok Kumar joined the investigation and on receiving DD No.13A they reached Jhuggi No.370. They found the blood lying outside Jhuggi then they went inside the jhuggi there also they found blood in large quantity and also on the walls. They came to know that injured Mukesh has been removed to Kheterpal Nursing Home. ASI Ashok went to Kheterpal Nursing Home and ask this witness to guard the scene of crime. In the meantime SHO PS:Khyala Randhir Singh Khatri along with staff reached there. He received the message that ASI Ashok called him at Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital on which he reached there. ASI Ashok Kumar handed over the dead body to him along with written request to preserve the body. He removed the dead body to the mortuary of DDU hospital where the dead body was preserved. The post mortem was conducted on 15.05.2010 and thereafter dead body was handed over to family members of the deceased. So long as dead body remained in his possession nobody tampered with the same.
25. HC Ved Parkash was examined as PW-22. On FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 16 of 40 17.06.2010 he collected the 12 sealed parcels from MHC(M) vide RC No:46/21/10 and deposited the same at FSL. He also stated that till the parcels remained in his custody nobody tampered with the same.
26. SI Hans Raj Swami was examined as PW-23. On 18.05.2010 at 11:25 am he along with Inspector Anil and other staff reached Rajouri Garden lockup. They took the accused Deepak and Kuldeep and returned back to PP Khyala. Both the accused were interrogated. They made supplementary disclosure statement which are Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. Accused Kuldeep produced his shoes make columbus which were put in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of AKC and seized vide memo Ex.PW23/C this parcel was given sl.no.5. Accused Deepak also produced his shoes make Reebok, shoes were put in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of AKC and seized vide memo Ex.PW23/D. This parcel was given sl.no.6, Thereafter both the accused led the police team to Western court, Janpath, Member of Parliament Hostel but could not point out the room where they stayed in the night of the incident. Thereafter, they returned back and both the accused were put in the lockup of PS:Rajouri Garden. On 19.05.2010 both the accused were taken out from the lockup of PS: Rajouri Garden. They led the police team to R- block, Jhuggis. On the way Dheeraj met them who was also FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 17 of 40 joined. Both accused pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW23/E and Ex.PW23/F. Thereafter, accused Deepak led the team to Jhuggi No.308 old No.515. Accused Deepak went inside the Jhuggi and from the left side corner of the Taand took out his clothes i.e. white colour T-shirt on which words " Nokia Connections" were found printed and one black colour Pyjama on which "Adidas" was found written and was also having red stripes and also produced one iron rod. The clothes as well as iron rod were found blood stains. The clothes were put in a cloth parcel, sealed with the seal of AKC. The iron rod was also put in a cloth parcel and sealed with the seal of AKC. Both the parcels were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/D. IO also prepared site plan of place of recovery which is Ex.PW23/G accused Kuldeep led the police team to his Jhuggi No. CN:266, R-Block Raghubir Nagar, Old No:513. Accused Kuldeep took out his clothes i.e. white colour T=shirt having logo of "SYNCON INFRASTRUCTURE" and black colour Pyjama having logo of Lancer with white strips having blood stains and one knife having blood stains from the wooden Taand situated in the right side of Jhuggi. Clothes were sealed in a separate parcel with the seal of AKC. The knife was also sealed in a parcel with the seal of AKC. Both parcels were seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A. He also stated that before the knife was put in a cloth parcel it was put in a card board box. IO prepared the site FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 18 of 40 plant of the place of recovery Ex.PW23/H. Seal after use was handed over to him. Thereafter, they returned back to PS:
Khayala and case property was deposited in the malkhana. Both the accused persons were produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody. He also identified case property produced by the MHC(M).
During cross-examination he stated that he does not know when accused Deepak and Kuldeep were arrested in the case. He denied the suggestion that pair of shoes were planted upon the accused. He stated that Jhuggi No.370 was single storied only and it was lying open. He does not remember whether there was any door of the jhuggi. He does not remember how many storys were there in adjacent Jhuggi to Jhuggi No.370. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW23/C and Ex.PW23/F were not prepared on the spot. Jhuggi No.308 was made up of bricks and was double storied. Accused told that the Jhuggi is of his maternal uncle Vijay. He does not remember if IO made any inquiry regarding ownership of Jhuggi. The Jhuggi was lying open and he does not remember if there was any door of the Jhuggi. Jhuggi No. R CN 266 was of bricks and was single story. It was lying open and nobody was found inside the Jhuggi. Accused Kuldeep told him that Jhuggi is owned by him. He denied the suggestion that no such recovery was effected. FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 19 of 40
27. Lady Ct. Rubina was examined as PW-24 she was in the police control room, PHQ. She received the message at 9:46 am about stabbing of which she filled up form and also flashed the message and also sent the message to CAT and the concerned PS. The PCR form is proved as Ex.PW-24/A.
28. Sh.Radhey Shyam was examined as PW-25. He is the owner of Maruti Van bearing registration no.DL-1T-4690 and proved the same but he did not support the prosecution case. He was cross examined by Ld.APP but he did not support the prosecution case that his car was taken away by accused Sunil @ Teja for taking his relative on ride on 15.05.10 at about 10 PM or that he came to know that Sunil @ Teja has been apprehended.
29. Dr.Dhruv Sharma, Asst.Director, Biology, FSL, Delhi was examined as PW-26. He examined the exhibits and proved his report as Ex.PW-26/A and serological report Ex.PW-26/B. During cross examination he stated that blood samples were not putrefied. He also stated that he has not gone through the post mortem report before conducting the examination.
30. Inspector Anil Kumar Chauhan, IO of the case was examined as PW-27. He proved the prosecution case and also proved the investigation carried out by him.
31. Ct.Sukhbir Singh was examined as PW-28. He remained in investigation with inspector Anil Kumar Chauhan on 04.02.11, FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 20 of 40 proved the arrest of Sunil, who was produced on production warrant, proved the disclosure statement of accused Sunil son of Sh.Dashratha Ex.PW-27/N and PW-27/O. The accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW-27/P. Thereafter the prosecution evidence was closed.
32. Statement of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.PC, wherein all denied the evidence and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. They did not wish to lead evidence in defence and case was fixed for arguments.
33. I have heard the Ld.Addl.PP for state, Ld.Defence counsel for accused persons and perused the record.
34. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that this is the case based upon the ocular evidence as well as circumstantial evidence. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that in this case the FIR was registered on the complaint of Dheeraj son of the deceased. He has been examined as PW-6.
The other witness Vicky was examined as PW-5. Nitin is another son of deceased was examined as PW-8 and madan, PW-9 is the person, who informed Dheeraj about quarrel. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that all these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case but as Dheeraj has identified his signature on the complaint which he made to the police and is proved as Ex.PW- 6/A. The reliance upon the testimony can be placed wherein he has specifically mentioned that the accused persons gave FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 21 of 40 beatings to his father, stabbed him and thereafter his father died due to the injures. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that there was no reason for police to record false statement of Dheeraj and therefore, the court shall place reliance upon the testimony of Dheeraj and the complaint filed by him and hold the accused guilty.
35. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that none of the witness has proved and supported the case of the prosecution. The alleged eye witnesses have no where stated that they have witnessed the incident or that any of the accused in their presence even gave beatings to the deceased. Ld.counsel submitted that onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged and as all the witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, no reliance even on the complaint, though signed by PW-6 can be placed.
36. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that according to the case of prosecution it was Dheeraj who had gone there to give tea to his father. When he reached there, he found four boys giving beatings to his father. He has also mentioned in his complaint that he was also threatened due to which he could not save his father. But when this witness appeared in the witness box, he did not support the prosecution case. He stated that when he was at some distance from the jhugi of his father i.e. jhugi no.370, R-Block, Raghubir Nagar. He found FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 22 of 40 a crowd of 40-50 persons and a quarrel was going on. When he reached there, he found his father Mukesh lying in injured condition. He has specifically stated that he could not recognize the assailants and that he had not seen the accused persons on the spot and they were not among those persons, who caused injuries to his father. He also stated that he removed his father from the gate of jhugi and only thereafter his brother Ninin examined as PW-7 and his brother in law Vicky examined as PW- 5 came there. This statement clearly shows that according to PW- 6, accused persons facing trial did not cause any injury to the deceased as they were not there according to PW-6. His testimony also shows that PW-5 and PW-7 were not there when the incident took place and they arrived there lateron. PW-5 stated that he was at home on 14.5.10 when a call was received by his wife that his father in law has been stabbed. He reached there and according to him he could meet his father-in-law only at Khetra Pal Nursing Home. This witness again has not supported the prosecution case or deposed that he witnessed the incident. Similarly, PW-7 also stated that some persons of the locality told him about the incident and then he reached the jhugi no.370, R- Block, Raghubir Nagar, where he found his father having stab injury and other injuries on his persons and Dheeraj PW-6 was already there. This witness has also not witnessed the incident. FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 23 of 40 PW-9 the other alleged eye witness also stated that he has not witnessed the incident or any quarrel. He also did not inform Dheeraj about the quarrel. All these witnesses were cross examined at length by Ld.Addl.PP but no evidence supporting the prosecution case came on record. There is no other eye witness on record or according to the prosecution case, therefore, in my opinion the prosecution on the basis of the ocular evidence in the form of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 failed to prove and establish the guilt of the accused persons that they caused death of Mukesh.
37. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that in this case there is circumstantial evidence also. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that the Apex Court has laid down the guide lines for the cases based upon circumstantial evidence to be followed. In the case titled C. Chenga Reddy v State of M.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 it was held that:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 24 of 40 accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence"
38. In another case titled Padla Veera Reddy v State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79 it was laid down that: "When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently & firmly established;
2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
39. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that in this case the prosecution wants to establish and prove the following circumstance. (1) Recovery of blood stained clothes, shoes and iron rod at the instance of accused Deepak.
(2) Recovery of clothes, shoe and knife at the instance of Kuldeep. FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 25 of 40 (3) Pointing out of the place of occurrence.
(4) Detection of blood on t-shirt of Kuldeep and Deepak of the same blood group as of the deceased and detection of human blood on the shoes of accused Deepak and Kuldeep and on the iron rod and knife.
40. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that all these circumstances form a complete chain points towards the guilt of accused and at the same time inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused persons.
41. I taken up the circumstances one by one.
Recovery of clothes and weapons of offence
42. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that in the present case accused Deepak and Kuldeep were arrested by SI Ajit Malik PW-18 on secret information along with Sunil @ Teja while they were traveling in Maruti Van bearing no.DL-1T-4690 Ex.P-X1. They disclosed about the commission of this offence. Accordingly on 17.5.10 accused Kuldeep and Deepak were arrested under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of IPC by Inspector Anil Kumar Chauhan PW-27 in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW-27/E and PW-27/F and accused Sunil @ Teja was arrested for the offence punishable under Sec.212 IPC vide arrest memo Ex.PW-27/J. Police custody remand was taken and on 18.5.10 PW-27 along with SI Hans Raj examined as PW-23 took out accused Kuldeep and Deepak from the lock up. They made disclosure statements. FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 26 of 40 Disclosure statement of Deepak and Kuldeep are proved as Ex.PW-23/A and PW-23/B. They disclosed that they can got recovered the clothes worn by them at the time of incident, the weapon of offences and also the shoes. Accused Deepak produced his shoes make Reebok which he was wearing at that time. There were blood stains on the shoes. These shoes were placed in a cloth parcel seized with the seal of AKC and seized vide memo Ex.PW-23/C and Ex.PW-23/D. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that both these witnesses identified the pair of shoes got recovered by Deepak accused as Ex.PW-23/Article 3 and pair of shoes got recovered by Kuldeep accused as Ex.PW-23/Article 4. Accused Deepak also led the police team to his jhugi no.L-308, R Block, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi which belonged to his maternal uncle Vijay and from inside the jhugi from left side of the tand produced one white t-shirt on the front of which "Nokia connection" was found printed having a black pyjama with red colour strips on which "Adidas" found printed. He also produced one iron rod. There were blood stains on the clothes and also on the iron rod. The iron rod as well as clothes were put in different parcels sealed with the seal of AKC and seized vide memo Ex.PW-6/D. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that both these witnesses that is Anil Kumar Chauhan examined as PW-27 and SI Hans Raj examined as PW- 23 fully supported and corroborated each other and the recovery FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 27 of 40 of the blood stained clothes, shoes and iron rod from the possession of the accused that also from inside the juhugi from the tand clearly shows and point towards the guilt of the accused. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that this circumstance stands proved and established. Ld. Addl.PP submitted that accused Kuldeep also led the police team to his jhugi no.266, R-Block, Raghubir Nagar and from the right side of the tand inside the jhugi he got recovered his clothes i.e. t-shirt, the lower and also one knife. The clothes as well as knife were having blood stains. The clothes were put in a parcel of cloth sealed with the seal of AKC, the knife was also put in a cloth parcel sealed with seal of AKC and both parcels were seized vide memo Ex.PW-6/E. Sketch of knife was also prepared before seizing it. The sketch is proved as Ex.PW-6/F. IO also prepared the site plan of place of recovery which is Ex.PW-23/H. The t-shirt and the lower of the accused Kuldeep stands identified by the witness as Ex.PW-23/Article 1 and the knife got recovered at the instance of Kuldeep is Ex.P-3. Ld.PP submitted that the clothes and knife were got recovered from inside the jhugi not from public place. These were also kept concealed on the tand which clearly shows that it was within the special knowledge of accused and only he can get recovered the same which he did. All the witnesses have stood through the test of cross examination. There is no reason for them to depose falsely against the accused FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 28 of 40 persons. The onus which was upon the prosecution is discharged. This circumstance points towards the guilt of the accused and stands proved.
43. Ld.defence counsel submitted that according to the prosecution case the incident is of 14.5.10. The alleged recovery of the shoes is of 18.5.10 and it is some thing unbelievable that the accused will continue to wear the blood stained shoes even after the offence. Ld.counsel submitted that in fact this recovery has been pointed upon him and no such recovery was effected. Ld.counsel submitted that so far as the recovery of clothes and iron rod is concerned, there was a public witness Dheeraj, who is none else but the son of the deceased, he has not supported the prosecution case at all and also recovery. He stated that no such recovery was effected in his presence. This statement of Dheeraj, examined as PW-6, itself creates doubt about the truth fullness of the story of the prosecution about recovery of clothes and the iron rod. Ld.counsel submitted that no public witness from the locality was joined. The witnesses even do not know from where it was effected. The jhugi was owned by some other person who has not been joined. The jhugi was also lying open. The witnesses even do not know whether there was any door of the jhugi or not. Under the circumstances the recovery is not proved beyond doubt. Ld.counsel submitted that prosecution has failed to prove and FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 29 of 40 establish the circumstance.
44. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that so far as recovery of clothes and the iron rod is concerned, the story is that Dheeraj was joined in the investigation. His signature is also there on the memo but he did not support the prosecution case on this aspect. No other public witness has been joined at the time of effecting recovery, though the police was very well knowing that the accused has disclosed that he can get recovered his clothes and the weapon of offence and therefore, who have joined the public witnesses which has not been done. Keeping in view the fact that the only public witness to the recovery of the clothes and the iron rod has not supported the prosecution case, the recovery becomes doubtful and suspicious.
45. So far as the recovery of shoes is concerned there are two witnesses i.e. SI Hans Raj and Inspector Anil Kumar Chauhan the recovery was effected when he disclosed during interrogation that the shoes which he was wearing at the time of incident are still in his feet. Thereafter that pair of shoes make Rebok was seized by putting in a parcel of cloth sealing with the seal of AKC. The shoes is identified as PW-23/Article 3. Both the witnesses on this point have stood through the test of cross examination and there is no reason to disbelieve them on this aspect. In view of the above FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 30 of 40 discussions in my opinion prosecution has been able to prove and establish the circumstance of recovery of shoes of accused Deepak but has failed to prove and establish the circumstance of recovery of clothes, iron rod beyond doubt.
Pointing out of the place of occurrence
46. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that all the three accused Kuldeep, Deepak and Sunil son of Dashrath pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW-23/E and PW-23/F and Ex.PW- 27/E. These pointing out memos clearly shows that they know the place of occurrence only because they committed the offence there. No doubt the police was knowing about the place of occurrence but still the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence by the accused persons points towards there special knowledge, being involved in the commission of crime about the place of occurrence. Ld.counsel submitted that similarly Sunil Kumar son of Sh.Dashratha also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW-27/E. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that the witnesses in whose presence the accused persons pointed out the place of occurrence i.e. PW-23 SI Hans Raj and Inspector Anil Kumar Chauhan in whose presence accused Deepak and Kuldeep pointed out the place of occurrence and Ct.Sukhbir Singh examined as PW-2 and Inspector Anil Kumar Chanhan in whose presence accused Sunil son of Dashratha pointed out the place of FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 31 of 40 occurrence have stood through the test of cross examination. They are consistent and corroborated each other. They have no reason to depose falsely against the accused persons on this aspect and therefore can be relied. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that prosecution has discharged its onus and has proved the circumstance which points towards the guilt of accused persons.
47. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that this pointing out memo is of no consequence as the place of occurrence was already within the knowledge of the police and therefore, this does not amount to any discovery of a new fact, therefore no reliance upon the same can be placed. Ld.counsel submitted that even otherwise there is a public witness joined by the IO during investigation that is Dheeraj examined as PW-6. He does not say any thing about these documents and did not support the prosecution case on this aspect. Ld.counsel submitted that as the only public witness with respect to this documents has not supported the same and even otherwise this fact was already within the knowledge of the investigating officer, therefore, this circumstance does not point towards the guilt of accused and is also not proved.
48. Keeping in view the submissions and the facts, I found that in this case there is a public witness, who has joined in investigation by the IO namely Dheeraj examined as PW-6. He is FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 32 of 40 none else but son of the deceased and this witness has not supported the prosecution case on the aspect that the accused persons also pointed out the place of occurrence, therefore, this pointing out as alleged by the prosecution itself becomes doubtful. I also found no reason why Dheeraj, who is son of deceased would tell a lie in this regard if it has actually happened as alleged. Therefore, in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove and establish this circumstance.
Detection of Blood
49. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that in this case that the case property was deposited in the malkhana. MHC(M) has been examined as PW-11 and he proved the entries of depositing the exhibits in the malkhana as Ex.PW-11/A to PW-11/I. All these exhibits were sent to FSL through HC Ved Prakash PW-22 vide RC no.46/21/10 Ex.PW-11/G till the exhibits remained in their custody nobody tampered with the same. The exhibits were examined by Dr.Dhruv examined as PW-26. He proved the report as Ex.PW-26/A. He also conducted the serological examination on the exhibits and the report is Ex.PW-26/B. According to the report the blood was found on the pair of shoes got recovered by accused Deepak on his t-shirt, pyjama as well as iron rod and clothes of Kuldeep i.e. t-shirt, lower and knife. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that the blood was found to be of human origin and the FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 33 of 40 blood on the t-shirt of accused persons was found to be of group "B". Ld.Addl.PP submitted that blood sample on the blood gauze of the deceased was also sent to FSL. On examination the expert found that the blood group of the deceased was "B" i.e. blood group which was also found on the t-shirt of accused Deepak and t-shirt of accused Kuldeep. This detection of blood of the same group as of the deceased clearly points that the accused persons were wearing these t-shirts at the time of incident that is why the blood of the same group was found. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that this circumstance clearly point towards the guilt of accused as the blood of deceased is found on t-shirt. The circumstance stands proved.
50. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that in this case there is no evidence brought on record that blood group of the deceased was "B". Dr.B.N.Mishra, who conducted the post mortem on the deceased and examined as PW-14 has no where mentioned as to what was the blood group of the deceased and therefore to allege that the blood group of deceased was "B" is not admissible under law. NO such evidence has been produced, that blood group of the deceased was "B". Even otherwise the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the t-shirt at the instance of the accused and therefore this circumstance is not proved and also does not point towards the guilt of the accused.
FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 34 of 40
51. After hearing the arguments on this aspect and going through the record, I found that in the post mortem report Ex.PW- 14/A it is specifically mentioned on page 4 that blood in gauze piece is taken and there is no question about the same by the defence. This was seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW-20/A. This again is not disputed by the defence. All these exhibits were deposited in the malkhana along with other exhibits i.e. clothes of the deceased as well as the exhibits got recovered by the accused persons regarding which entry in register no.19 have been proved and MHC(M) examined as PW-11, thereafter these exhibits along with the blood in gauze were sent to FSL through PW-22 HC Ved Prakash vide RC No.46/21/10 Ex.PW-11/G. FSL PW-26 conducted the test on the exhibits and found that the blood in the blood gauze was of human origin and of group "B". From this it is established that the blood group of the deceased was "B". The report also shows that the blood which was found on the t-shirt has the blood of human origin of Group "B". The report also shows that even on the shoes got recovered by the accused Deepak and Kuldeep Ex.PW-23/Article 3 and Ex.PW-23/Article 4 pyjama as well as iron rod and knife have the stains of blood of human origin. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of biological expert PW- 26 in this regard.
52. In view of the above discussions, in my opinion the FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 35 of 40 circumstance stands proved.
53. Ld.Addl.PP further submitted that besides these circumstances the weapon of offence along with clothes of deceased were also produced before Dr.B.N.Mishra, PW-23, who examined the clothes of the deceased and also the weapon of offence and he found that there were corresponding cut marks on the clothes in the subsequent opinion Ex.PW-14/B and that the injury no.1,8,9,10 and 14 could have been caused by the weapon like the knife produced. The Dr.also opined that the injury no.7, 11,12 and 13 could have been produced by the iron rod produced before him. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that as established earlier the iron rod was got recovered by accused Deepak and knife was got recovered by accused Kuldeep which again shows and point towards the involvement of the accused persons in the murder of the case and the knife was also having the blood stains of human origin and also that it is the same knife with which the injuries were inflicted on the person of the deceased.
54. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that Dr.has not opined that it is the same knife and rod with which injuries were caused. He has just mentioned that the injuries could have been caused by this or such like weapon. Ld.counsel submitted that therefore, no such inference can be drawn that this is only the weapon with which the injuries were caused and therefore, it does not point towards guilt FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 36 of 40 of accused.
55. After considering the subsequent opinion, I found that the Dr.has opined that injuries no.1,8,9,10 and 14 could have been inflicted by produced weapon of offence and injuries no.7, 11,12 and 13 could have been inflicted by produced iron rod. From this it is clear that according to the doctor such injuries could have been inflicted by the knife and the iron rod allegedly recovered but as discussed above the prosecution has failed to prove and establish the recovery of the knife as well as iron rod itself and therefore, I do not find that this circumstance in any way help the prosecution.
56. Ld.counsel submitted that in this case on 16.5.10 HC Suresh got the information that Sunil @ Teja will come in Maruti Van bearing no.DL1T 4690 along with his associates and he was apprehended by SI Ajeet Singh, ASI Joginder, HC Suresh and other staff. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that accused Sunil @ Teja was harboring accused Kuldeep, Deepak and Sunil, who have committed murder of Mukesh in this case and despite having this knowledge he was taking them in the Maruti Van and harboring them. Ld.Addl.PP submitted that the offence which was committed by accused Kuldeep and Deepak was of serious nature i.e. the offence punishable with capital punishment and therefore, he is also liable to be held guilty for offence punishable under Sec.212 IPC.
FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 37 of 40
57. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that there is no evidence brought on record that Sunil @ Teja was harboring accused Kuldeep and Deepak, in fact there is nothing on record that Kuldeep and Deepak committed any offence and if committed whether that was in the knowledge of Sunil @ Teja. Ld.Defence counsel submitted that there is no such evidence brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the same. Even the prosecution has failed to prove and establish that Sunil @ Teja was taking them in the Maruti Van as the owner of the Maruti Van examined as PW-25 Sh.Radhey Shyam has not supported the case on this point. He stated that Sunil @ Teja had not taken away his car to take his relative on a ride which clearly shows that the case made out by the prosecution is false that accused Sunil @ Teja was taking accused Kuldeep and Deepak on a ride in Maruti Van. It is submitted that as the prosecution has failed to prove and establish this fact. They be given benefit and acquitted.
58. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that for making out a case under Sec.212 it has to be proved that the person harboring the accused persons either have the knowledge that he has committed the offence or has reason to believe that he has committed the offence. There is no evidence brought on record that Sunil @ Teja was having such knowledge or having any reason to believe that Kuldeep and Deepak had FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 38 of 40 committed some offence. The onus was on the prosecution to prove and establish this fact which the prosecution has not been been able to prove and establish. Only one fact which is proved is the recovery of shoes of Deepak and Kuldeep on which the blood of human origin was detected. Prosecution has also proved and established that blood of human origin of group "B" was also detected on two t-shirts. The prosecution alleges that these t- shirts were got recovered by accused Deepak and Kuldeep but it is not proved beyond doubt that accused Deepak and Kuldeep got recovered these t-shirts and also the alleged weapon of offence and the pyjama, therefore only one circumstance stands proved and established that accused Kuldeep and Deepak got recovered the shoes and the other issue proved is there were blood stain of human origin on those pair of shoes. But these two circumstances does not make out a chain or points that Kuldeep and Deepak committed murder or link them with the commission of murder of Mukesh. The chain is not complete and is not the conclusive proof of the guilt of accused Kuldeep and Deepak. So far as accused Sunil is concerned, there is no circumstance established against him. In view of the above discussions accused Kuldeep, Deepak and Sunil are acquitted of the charge i.e. 302 IPC. Bail bond of accused Sunil son of Sh.Dashratha is extended for a period of six months under section 436A IPC. So far as accused Sunil @ Teja FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 39 of 40 is concerned, as discussed above the prosecution has failed to prove that Kuldeep and Deepak committed the offence of murder, therefore the charge of harboring them by Sunil @ Teja is also not sustainable and Sunil @ Teja stands acquitted on the charge under Sec.212 IPC. His bail is extended for a period of six months under Sec.436A IPC. File be consigned to R/R. (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL) ASJ/ FTC (WEST) TIS HAZARI, DELHI Announced in open court on 24.01.2015 FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 40 of 40 FIR No:76/10 State Vs. Kuldeep etc. Page 41 of 40