State vs . 1. Rahul on 28 October, 2021

[Cites 44, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Rahul on 28 October, 2021

                                         1

  IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE -02 (SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS : NEW
                           DELHI
____________________________________________________________

In the matter of:

           State             Vs.         1.    Rahul
                                               S/o Sh. Ranjeet @ Lala

                                         2.    Sandeep @ Sardar
                                               S/o Sh. Rajender Singh

                                         3.    Vikrant Birla @ Kaatu
                                               S/o Sh. Ram Kumar

                                         4.    Sagar
                                               S/o Sh. Satpal

                                         5.    Mukesh Kumar
                                               S/o Sh. Surender

                                         6.    Naresh Kumar
                                               S/o Sh. Balkishan

                                         7.    Suresh Kumar @ Munnu
                                               S/o Sh. Balkishan

                                         8.    Ramesh Kumar @ Dheela
                                               S/o Sh. Balkishan

                                         9.    Preeti
                                               W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar @
                                               Munnu (Proclaimed Offender)

                                               All R/o Village Mitraon
                                               New Delhi.



State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar.        Page No. 1 of 77.
                                          2

...........................................................................................

●     CNR No.                                : DLSW01-000228-2014.
●     Registration No. of the Case           : 440320/2016.
●     SC Number                              : 53/2014
●     FIR Number                             : 469/2014
●     PS                                     : BHD Nagar
●     Under Section                          : 302/324/147/148/149/34 IPC.
●     Date of Institution                    : 27.10.2014
●     Case Committed to the
      Court of Sessions for                  : 05.11.2014
●     Case Received by this Court
      by way of Transfer on                  : 05.11.2014
●     Case Reserved for
      Judgment on                            : 05.10.2021
●     Judgment Announced on                  : 28.10.2021
...........................................................................................


                                   JUDGMENT

1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case bearing SC No. 53/2014, being FIR No. 469/2014, PS BHD Nagar, registered under Sections 302/307/147/148/149 IPC. The brief facts necessitated in registration of this case, as per the prosecution are given as under:-

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 2 of 77.

3

2. BRIEF FACTS The police machinery was put into motion through a PCR Call dated 30.07.2014 at 10:16 PM regarding a quarrel at Balmiki Mandir Lane, Mitarau Village. On that information DD No. 45A dated 30.07.2014 was recorded, immediately thereafter another information was received that one person namely Ravi was stabbed with a knife at the same place. On receiving the said information and copy of DD no.45A, SI Raj Kumar along with Ct. Udha Ram left for the spot and reached in a gali leading to Balmiki Mandir, near the house of one Dalbir, they found pool of blood and at some distance two different colour slippers, in front of house of one Shriniwas, they also found blood stains and iron pipe and broken baseball bat in front of the house of one Shriniwas.

3. The above police officials came to know that injured was already taken to RTRM Hospital by PCR Van. The Crime Team was called at the spot for investigation and thereafter SI Raj Kumar went to RTRM Hospital, where he obtained MLC No. 4043/14 of victim Ravi S/o Kishan Pal, who had been declared brought dead. State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 3 of 77.

4. Sh. Bijender, the complainant (PW-4), was present at the hospital, his statement was recorded by SI Raj Kumar, who narrated that on 30.07.2014 at about 07.30 PM son of his brother in law namely Ravi and his cousins namely Sachin and Naveen came to their house on the occasion of Teej festival for giving 'Siddha'. At around 10.00 PM when his son Vineet, (aged about 16 years) was filling water in the water tank installed in their house through submersible pump, some water splashed towards the house of their neighbors namely Suresh @ Munnu S/o Balkishan, on which wife of Suresh namely Priti (proclaimed offender) started hurling abuses. He along with his wife Bala came outside and requested Suresh to stop his wife but instead, Suresh also started abusing them. Suresh called his brothers Ramesh and Naresh and they all started beating him and his son Vineet. On seeing the quarrel, his relatives namely Sachin, Navin, Ravi and Shyambeer @ Shyamu came outside and tried to pacify the matter. But Suresh called Rahul S/o Ranjeet @ Lala, Sandeep S/o Rajender, Vikrant S/o Ram Kumar, Mukesh S/o Surender and Sagar S/o Satpal, they were carrying baseball bats, knife, iron rod, lathi and wooden sticks with them, Suresh instigated them by saying "Jo Bhi Saamne State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 4 of 77.

5 Aaye, Maaro Saalon Ko". On which, they all started beating him and his relatives. Accused Sandeep caught hold Ravi from behind and when Ravi tried to save himself, accused Sandeep, Naresh and Ramesh caught hold his both hands and Suresh further instigated them by saying "Bach ke na jaane paye...Maar.", on which accused Rahul stabbed Ravi by knife and after turning the knife got out the same from his body. Accused Suresh thereafter asked his associates to flee away as Ravi had been killed. Accused persons also inflicted injuries upon his son namely Vineet and his nephew Sachin. Someone made a call at 100 number and PCR Van arrived at the spot. On the basis of the statement of complainant Ex. PW-4/A, present FIR no. 469/14 was registered u/s 302/307/147/148/34 IPC in PS BHD Nagar.

5. The further investigation of the case was taken over by IO / Inspector Sheelwant Singh, who during investigation collected all the relevant documents, recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also got exhibits deposited in FSL. The postmortem of deceased was got conducted and dead body after postmortem was handed over to relatives of deceased.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 5 of 77.

6. On 31.07.2014, accused Rahul, accused Sandeep @ Sardar Ji, accused Vikrant Birla @ Kaatu, accused Sagar, accused Mukesh Kumar @ Mukka, accused Naresh and accused Suresh were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded wherein they admitted their guilt. As per disclosure statement of accused Rahul, the weapon of offence i.e. "Chhura" and clothes worn by him at the time of incident were recovered from his house at his instance. Accused Ramesh @ Dheela and accused Preeti were absconding and were declared P.O.

7. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.10.2014. On the basis of police report, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM committed the present case to the Court of Sessions.

8. Accused Ramesh @ Dheela was arrested and supplementary charge sheet qua him was filed before the Court of Ld. MM on 22.11.2014. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, took cognizance of the State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 6 of 77.

7 offence punishable u/s 302/307 IPC against him and after complying the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed his case as well to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 Cr.P.C.

9. The Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 22.12.2014, framed charges against all the accused persons except accused Preeti (Proclaimed Offender) for having committed offences punishable under sections 147/148/302/324 read with Section 149 of IPC. Charges were read over and explained to all these accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.

10. In order to prove the charges, prosecution has examined 29 witnesses.

● PW-1:- Dr. Anil Yadav, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, Jaffarpur, New Delhi, proved MLC bearing no. 4046/14 of injured Sachin as Ex. PW-1/A and MLC bearing no. 4045/14 of injured Vineet Kumar as Ex. PW-1/B. State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 7 of 77.

8 ● PW-2:- ASI Sohan Lal, was posted as Incharge of PCR van on the date of alleged incident.

● PW-3:- Dr. Parvinder Singh, Special Forensic Medicines, RTRM Hospital, conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ravi S/o Kishal Lal and gave his detailed report Ex. PW-3/A and Subsequent Opinion Ex. PW-3/B with regard to the weapon of offence and sketch of weapon of offence from the overleaf as Ex. PW-3/C. ● PW-4:- Bijender S/o Om Prakash, R/o Village Mitraon is the complainant and eye witness of the alleged incident.

● PW-5:- Sh. Vineet Kumar S/o Sh. Bijender, Village Mitraon is another eye witness, who got injured during the alleged incident.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 8 of 77.

9 ● PW-6:- Sh. Sachin S/o Sh. Rohtash, R/o Village Karala, Mohammadpur Majri, New Delhi is another eye witness, who also sustained injury during the alleged incident.

● PW-7 HC Ashok Kumar, was part of Crime Team, which inspected the spot. PW-7 proved 26 photographs Ex. PW-7/P-1 to Ex. PW-7/P-26, and its negatives as Ex. PW-7/N-1 to Ex. PW-7/N-26.

● PW-8 HC Sadan Kumar, joined investigation along with IO / Inspector Sheelwant Singh and was also a part of the raiding team constituted by the IO to apprehend accused Rahul, on whose instance other accused persons were arrested. PW-8 exhibited Disclosure statement of accused Rahul as Ex. PW-8/A, Sketch of knife as Ex. PW-8/B, Seizure Memos Ex. PW-8/C & Ex. PW-8/D & Ex. PW-8/O, Arrest Memo State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 9 of 77.

10 Ex. PW-8/E, Ex. PW-8/G, Ex. PW-8/I, Ex. PW-8/K, Ex. PW-8/M, Ex. PW-8/P, Personal search memo Ex. PW- 8/F, Ex. PW-8/H, Ex. PW-8/J, Ex. PW-8/L, Ex. PW- 8/N, Ex. PW-8/Q. PW-8 also identified the chhura / knife Ex. P-1, clothes Ex. P-2 (colly) & Ex. P-3 (colly) and Wooden Danda Ex. P-4.

● PW-9 Dr. Sunil Dalal, CMO, RTRM Hospital, Delhi proved MLC no. 4043/14 dated 30.07.2014, of deceased Ravi as Ex. PW-9/A. ● PW-10 HC Rameshwar Prasad No. 1734 SW, PS Dwarka Sector - 26, Delhi Police was posted as Duty Officer at PS BHD Nagar on the day of incident. He proved DD no. 45A as Ex. PW-10/A and DD no. 46 A as Ex. PW-10/B. ● PW-11 W-HC Manju no. 3106 NE, CAW Cell, PS Seema Puri, Delhi was posted as Shift-C Call State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 10 of 77.

11 Attendant at CPCR, PHQ, ITO, Delhi. She proved the CIPA Form of PCR as Ex. PW-11/A. ● PW-12:- ASI Jagdish no. 3036 SW, 7 th Battalion, DAP, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, was working as Duty Officer in PS BHD Nagar on the intervening night of 30 / 31.07.2014. He proved FIR no. 469/14 as Ex. PW- 12/A and his endorsement on tehrir as Ex. PW-12/B. ● PW-13:- Sh. Om Prakash @ Nanak S/o Sh. Rai Singh, R/o 341, Village Mitrau, Najafgarh, Delhi. (Hostile). ● PW-14:- Sh. Dhanpal S/o Sh. Surjeet Singh, he exhibited Handing Over Memo Ex. PW-14/A, vide which dead body of his nephew Ravi was handed over for cremation.

● PW-15:- Sh. Shyam Vir @ Shamu S/o Sh. Krishan Kumar is one of the eye-witness of the alleged incident. State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 11 of 77.

12 (Hostile) ● PW-16:- Sh. Naveen @ Chuchu S/o Sh. Rohtash, is one of the eye witness of the present case. (Hostile.) ● PW-17:- HC Virender Kumar, NO. 923, South-West, PS Inder Puri, New Delhi, he proved DD entries in DD Register as Ex. PW-17/A and Ex. PW- 17/B. ● PW-18:- Ct. Rajender no. 507, SW, PS BHD Nagar, New Delhi.

● PW-19:- Ct. Udha Ram no. 1575 SW, PS Naraina, New Delhi.

● PW-20:- Ct. Naveen no. 3104/RD, Asst. Draftsman, Mapping Section, Sector - 23, Rohini, he proved scaled State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 12 of 77.

13 site plan of the spot prepared by him as Ex. PW-20/A. ● PW-21:- Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Hukum Chand, R/o village Mohammad Pur Majri, PO Karala, Delhi, he identified the dead body of his nephew Ravi at RTRM Hospital, and his statement in this regard is Ex. PW-21/A. ● PW-22:- ASI Yogesh Dutt no. 5328-PCR, Record Branch, CPCR, Qutab Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi. He proved the PCR call by ACP CPCR, PHQ, Delhi Sh. Sanjeev Tomar as Ex. PW- 22/A. ● PW-23:- Ct. Satender no. 1862 DW, PS Bindapur, Dwarka, New Delhi, he took the exhibits to FSL on 26.09.2014 and deposited the same vide RC no. 127/21/14 Ex. PW-23/A and RC no. 128/21/14 Ex. PW- State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 13 of 77.

14 23/B. ● PW-24:- SI Raj Kumar no. D4486, PS Kapashera, SW District, Delhi is the initial IO of the present case. ● PW-25:- ASI Vijender Singh No. 335 Crime, AHTU Crime Branch, Rohini was a part of the raiding team constituted on the secret information received for apprehending accused Ramesh Kumar. PW-25 proved arrest memo of accused Ramesh Kumar and his personal search memo as Ex. PW-25/A and Ex. PW- 25/B and his disclosure statement as Ex. PW-25/C. ● PW-26:- HC Ravi Khari no. 714, Crime SOS1, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi.

● PW-27:- ASI Baljeet Singh no. 15D, Special Branch, Police Bhawan, Asafali Road, Delhi. He proved Kalandara Ex. PW-27/A. State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 14 of 77.

15 ● PW-28:- HC Rakesh no. 8867 PCR, Outer Zone, New Delhi.

● PW-29:- Inspector Sheelwant Singh, Subsequent IO of the case.

11. After completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating material was put to accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.. All the accused persons denied the allegations and opted not to lead any defence evidence.

12. Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the State has contended that present case has been registered against the accused persons on the complaint of complainant Bijender. He further contended that PW-4 Bijender, the complainant, has fully supported the prosecution case during his examination in chief and has proved his statement Ex. PW-4/A and has correctly identified all the accused persons before the Court. He further argued that injured victims PW-5 State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 15 of 77.

16 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin have also fully supported the prosecution case during their examination in chief and established the role of each accused person in commission of alleged offence. He has further argued that blood stained Chhura, recovered from the possession of accused Rahul has been proved to be the weapon of offence scientifically vide FSL Report Ex. PW-29/D. He has further contended that in respect of the contradictory testimony made by PW-4 during his cross-examination, possibility of his being won over by accused persons cannot be ruled out because his cross-examination was conducted after more than 1 year. He has further contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt. He prayed that accused persons may be convicted. Ld. Additional PP has also filed brief written submissions and has relied upon judgments titled "Nisar Khan @ Guddu & Ors Vs State of Uttaranchal (Hon'ble Supreme Court), date of decision 25.01.2006; "Ramesh Kumar Vs State", Criminal Appeal no. 128 of 1992 (Hon'ble Delhi High Court); "Khujji @ Surender Tiwari Vs State of MP, AIR 1991 (Hon'ble Supreme Court).

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 16 of 77.

13. Sh. Anirudh Yadav, Ld. Counsel for accused Sandeep, Naresh and Sagar has contended that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case, and they were neither present at the place of occurrence nor anything was recovered at their instance. He further contended that accused persons have been named by the prosecution witnesses after having prior meeting amongst them. He has further contended that the entire prosecution case is having various loop holes, neither any public witness nor any scientific evidence has been adduced in order to connect the accused persons with the alleged offence. He has further contended that PW-4 Bijender, PW- 13 Om Prakash @ Nanak, PW-15 Shyam Vir @ Shamu and PW-16 Naveen @ Chuchu are not reliable because they have not supported the prosecution case. PW-4 Bijender though supported the prosecution version during his examination in chief, but during cross-examination, he has completely disowned his testimony and stated before the Court that he deposed in his examination in chief under pressure, thus testimony of all these witnesses is of no consequence. He has further contended that testimony of PW-5 Vineet and PW-6 Sachin cannot be relied upon because they have not only improved upon their version State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 17 of 77.

18 recorded in their statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. but because other prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that there was darkness in the gali, due to which neither assailants nor victims could be identified at that time. He has further averred that there is an inherent contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin regarding the fact that knife was rotated into the stomach of deceased Ravi by accused Sandeep. Whereas as per the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Parvinder Singh, there was no injury mentioned in post-mortem report, which shows that weapon of offence was rotated. On that basis, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that PW-5 and PW-6 are unworthy of credit, therefore, their testimony can not be relied upon. Ld. Defence Counsel has also filed brief written submissions. He prayed that accused persons may be acquitted.

14. Sh. Harshwardhan and Sh. Vikas Sharma, Ld. Defence Counsels of other accused persons have adopted the arguments advanced by Sh. Anirudh Yadav, Advocate. They have also not filed any written submissions despite opportunity.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 18 of 77.

15. I have heard Sh. Pramod Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for State, Sh. Anirudh Yadav, Sh. Harsh Vardhan Sharma and Sh. Vikas Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused persons. I have also perused the charge sheet, statement of witnesses recorded in the Court as well as documents and other material placed on record.

16. Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide, it prescribes that "whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."

17. Section 300 of IPC defines murder which reads as under:-

"Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -

(Secondly) - If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or (Thirdly) - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 19 of 77.

20 be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or - (Fourthly) - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid."

18. Section 299 and 300 of IPC deal with murder. All murder are culpable homicide but all culpable homicide are not murder. Culpable Homicide is genus and murder is its species. As per Section 300 of IPC, culpable homicide is considered as murder, if (i) The act is committed with an intention to cause death. (ii) The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender has knowledge that it would result in death. (iii) The person has the knowledge that his act is dangerous and would cause death or bodily injury but still commit the act would amount to murder.

19. The accused persons have been charged for commission of murder of deceased Ravi and causing hurt to injured Sachin and Vineet. They have also been charged for forming unlawful assembly for committing riot with deadly weapons.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 20 of 77.

20. Following points of determination arises, on the basis of the charges framed against accused persons:-

A. Whether deceased Ravi was murdered?

B. Whether accused persons committed the murder of deceased Ravi?

C. Whether accused persons formed unlawful assembly, having common object to commit murder of deceased Ravi S/o Bijender?

D. Whether accused persons had committed rioting with deadly weapons.

E. Whether accused persons being member of unlawful assembly, having common object to hit victims Sachin and Vineet?

21. A. Whether deceased Ravi was murdered?

To establish the said fact, prosecution has examined PW-4 Sh. Bijender, the complainant of this case. He has deposed in his examination in chief that on 30.07.2014, his relative Ravi was killed. State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 21 of 77.

22 The prosecution has also examined PW-5 Vineet Kumar, PW-6 Sachin, PW-13 Sh. Om Prakash, PW-15 Shyam Vir and PW-16 Naveen @ Chuchu. All these witnesses have also deposed that Ravi was killed in the night of 30.07.2014. Thus, all these witnesses have corroborated the version of PW-4 Bijender, the complainant.

22. The prosecution has also examined PW-9 Dr. Sunil Dalal, who has proved MLC of deceased Ravi as PW-9/A. The prosecution has also examined PW-10 HC Rameshwar Prasad, who has proved DD no. 45 A dated 30.07.2014, which was qua information received from Duty Constable, RTRM Hospital that injured Ravi was declared brought dead by the doctor.

23. Now the question arises as to whether the death of deceased Ravi was natural or homicidal? To prove this fact, prosecution has examined PW-3 Dr. Parvinder Singh from RTRM Hospital, who had conducted the post mortem of deceased Ravi and proved his Post Mortem Report Ex. PW-3/A. He has also proved his subsequent State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 22 of 77.

23 opinion regarding weapon of offence and injuries specifically mentioned in PM Report as Ex. PW-3/B.

24. The testimony of PW-3 Dr. Parvinder Singh has not been controverted by the defence, meaning thereby that findings of Post Mortem Report has not been disputed by the defence, thus same stands proved.

25. In the Post Mortem Report Ex. PW-3/A, it is specifically opined that, the cause of death in this case is due to hemorrhage shock following injuries described above. It is further opined in the PM Report that all the injuries are ante-mortem and recent. Injuries no. 1 & 2 are caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries no. 3 & 4 are caused by hard blunt object. It is further opined in the PM Report that injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

26. The Post Mortem Report Ex. PW-3/A thus clearly establishes that deceased Ravi was murdered and injury no. 1 inflicted by sharp State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 23 of 77.

24 edged weapon was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death.

27. The prosecution has thus successfully proved beyond any reasonable doubt that deceased Ravi was murdered as per Section 300 Clause (3) of IPC and his death was not not normal but homicidal.

28. B. Whether accused persons committed murder of deceased Ravi?

In order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of public witnesses i.e. PW-4 Bijender, PW-5 Vineet Kumar, PW-6 Sachin, PW-13 Om Prakash, PW-15 Shyam Vir @ Shamu and PW-16 Naveen @ Chuchu besides official witnesses.

29. PW-4 Bijender, complainant of the present case, has briefly deposed in his examination in chief as under:-

"On 30.07.2014, at about 07.30 PM, my relatives Ravi, Sachin State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 24 of 77.

25 and Navin had visited the house.

At about 09.30 to 10.00 PM, my son Vineet was filling the water from submersible pump in water tank. During the course of filling of tank, a small quantity of water had passed away towards the house of Suresh residing in front of our house. On this, wife of Suresh namely Priti abused us.

On this, I along with my wife Bala came outside the house and requested to Suresh not to abuse.

On this, Suresh along with his wife also abused us......During the course of abusing, Suresh called his brother Ramesh and Naresh, thereafter, they all i.e. Suresh, Ramesh and Naresh State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 25 of 77.

26 started beating me and my son Vineet. On seeing the quarrel, the aforesaid relatives i.e. Sachin, Naveen and Ravi, who had visited my house also came outside and tried to pacify the matter. In the meantime, Sandeep, Brother in Law of Naresh also joined them along with his assistant namely Rahul, Vikrant, Mukesh and Sagar. Suresh was having lathi, Rahul was having a knife, Vikrant, Mukesh and Sagar were having dandas. Sandeep was having one iron pipe and Naresh was having base ball Danda. They all gave beatings to myself, my son Vineet and my relatives i.e. Ravi, Sachin and State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 26 of 77.

27 Navin.......Suresh was instigating them by saying "Maar do saalo ko, bhagne na paye" and immediately on saying this, accused Rahul stabbed knife in the upper abdomen right side of Ravi....accused Rahul lost grip over the knife, which was in the stomach of Ravi and thereafter accused Sandeep who had caught hold of Ravi from behind by is neck, pulled the knife from the stomach of Ravi and blood started oozing out from his stomach. As soon as the said knife was taken out by accused Sandeep from the stomach of Ravi, accused Suresh instructed all the accused to flee away as Ravi had been killed.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 27 of 77.

28 Accused Suresh had inflicted injuries on the hand of his son Vineet by using Danda. Accused Sagar, Vikrant and Mukesh were armed with wooden logs / dandas and gave beatings to Vineet and Sachin. Sachin had received injury on his head and Vineet received injury on his left hand.

30. During cross-examination of PW-4 Bijender, which was conducted after around more than 1 year of his examination in chief, PW-4 has completely disowned his own testimony. He stated in his cross-examination that he was not present at the place of occurrence and had came drunk later. He had not witnessed anything. He has also stated that he deposed in his examination in chief at the tutoring of police and he was threatened by the police to face problem, if he would not make statement as per their tutoring.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 28 of 77.

31. The prosecution has also examined PW-13 Sh. Om Prakash, PW-15 Shyam Vir @ Shyamu, and PW-16 Naveen @ Chuchu. All these witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case even during the cross-examination conducted by Ld. Additional PP.

32. The Ld. Defence counsels have argued that testimony of PW-4 Sh. Bijender, PW- 13 Om Prakash @ Nanak, PW-15 Shyam Vir @ Shamu and PW-16 Naveen @ Chuchu are not reliable because they have not supported prosecution case and except PW-4 Bijender, all the above witnesses were declared hostile. They have further argued that PW-4 Bijender though supported the prosecution version during his examination in chief, but during cross-examination, he has completely disowned his testimony and stated before the Court that he deposed in his examination in chief under pressure. As per the defence, testimony of all these witnesses is of no consequence.

33. It is true that PW- 13 Om Prakash @ Nanak, PW-15 Shyam Vir @ Shamu and PW-16 Naveen @ Chuchu have been declared hostile by State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 29 of 77.

30 the prosecution as they have resiled from their previous version and PW-4 Bijender though supported the prosecution case during his examination in chief but during his cross-examination, he disputed that he deposed in his examination in chief under pressure of the police and was not present at the time of commission of offence.

34. It is a well settled law that the testimony of hostile witness cannot be ignored completely. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb Vs State of U.P., reported as AIR 2006 SC 951 has held that:-

"It is well settled that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof."

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 30 of 77.

35. PW-13 Om Prakash @ Nanak, PW-15 Shyam Vir @ Shamu and PW-16 Naveen @ Chuchu, have not supported the prosecution case. The testimony of these witnesses can only be relied upon to the extent that on 30.07.2014, an altercation had taken place outside the house of PW-4 Bijender and in the said altercation, Ravi was killed and Sachin had sustained injury. Besides that, their testimony is of no help to the prosecution.

36. PW-4 Sh. Bijender though supported the prosecution version fully during his examination in chief. He clearly assigned specific roles to each of the accused persons. However, during cross-examination, PW-4 has completely taken a summer salt and demolished his own testimony.

37. Ld. Defence counsels have argued that entire prosecution case is unbelievable because PW-4 Sh. Bijender, who was the complainant of the case, has made the prosecution case unbelievable. They contended that PW-13 Om Prakash @ Nanak, PW-15 Shyamvir @ Shamu and PW-16 Naveen have also not supported the case of State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 31 of 77.

32 prosecution, thus, accused persons deserves acquittal.

38. The said contention of defence is not sustainable. The entire case of the prosecution would not become unbelievable, merely on the ground that the complainant of the case has not supported it.

39. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Inder Singh Vs State", reported as 1996 JCC 262 has held that:-

"It is true that even hostile witness Sri Bhagwan, in examination in chief, had narrated the occurrence in consonance with the prosecution case but it is only when he was cross-examined after about one year of his examination in chief statement that witness turned hostile and came out with another version that in fact he had not seen Satish being stabbed and that he saw Satish outside the cinema taking water from a handcart. It is evident that the gap of one year between the examination-in-chief and cross- examination had brought about this change in the testimony of Sri Bhagwan. It is true that prosecution has not cared to further cross-

examine Sri Bhagwan when he had turned hostile to the prosecution case but this lapse of the prosecutor, who conducted the case before the trial Court, would not inhibit us from scrutinizing the whole case of State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 32 of 77.

33 the prosecution in order to determine as to which part of the hostile testimony of Sri Bhagwan can be relied upon.

40. PW-4 Bijender, has disputed his own statement during his cross-examination conducted by defence. But we must not forget that his cross-examination was recorded after more than 1 year from his examination in chief. Thus, possibility of his being won over by accused persons, during this period, cannot be ruled out.

41. The Ld. PP should have sought permission to carry out re-

examination of PW-4, when he disputed his testimony made in his examination in chief. But no such permission was sought. But this lapse of Ld. Prosecutor, is not sufficient to hold that prosecution has failed to prove its case.

42. Now the Court has to see, whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against accused persons through other witnesses or not?

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 33 of 77.

43. Ld. Defence Counsels have further argued that investigation of this case is faulty and there are various loopholes in the investigation as none of the IOs could even tell before the Court as who had recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Ld. Defence Counsels claimed that accused persons deserves acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation itself.

44. It is a well settled law that cause of justice cannot be allowed to be jeopardize for the inaction of investigating officer or for lapse or omission committed by the investigating agency. The Court should make every efforts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defect in investigation.

45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "D.K. Rajendran & Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2010 (9) SCC 567 has held that:-

"There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground of acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 34 of 77.

35 negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omission etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the Court to examine the prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."

46. The above legal proposition thus makes it amply clear that any defect in investigation itself, cannot be a ground of acquittal. The Court has to examine the prosecution evidence, de hors such lapse carefully to ascertain whether such evidence is reliable or not.

INJURED WITNESSES -

47. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Sh. Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sh. Sachin, to establish the guilt of accused persons. Both these witnesses had received injuries in the said incident dated 30.07.2014. State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 35 of 77.

48. PW-5 Vineet Kumar has briefly deposed in his examination in chief that on 30.07.2014, at about 07.30 PM, his relatives Ravi, Sachin and Navin had visited his house. At about 09.30 to 10.00 PM, he was filling water from submersible pump in water tank and simultaneously taking bath in the gali, a small quantity of water passed away towards the house of accused Suresh residing in front of their house. On this, wife of Suresh namely Priti (proclaimed offender) abused him. On hearing abuses, his mother Smt. Bala came outside and asked accused Priti not to abuse. Then accused Suresh came but he did not pacify the matter and started beating him. In the meantime, his father came outside in the gali. He also told accused Suresh not to abuse. Ravi, Sachin and Navin also came outside in the gali. Accused Suresh called his brothers Ramesh and Naresh and 3-4 other associates namely Rahul, Vikrant, Sagar, Sandeep and Mukesh. Accused Rahul was having knife, accused Sandeep, Sagar, Vikrant were having Dandas and accused Suresh was having lathi. Accused Sagar was having iron rod. Accused Sandeep caught hold Ravi by his neck from back side and accused Rahul stabbed knife in the right side upper abdomen of Ravi and accused Sandeep rotated the knife. Accused Suresh was saying that State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 36 of 77.

37 "Jo bhi beech mein aae, maar do". PW-5 further deposed that he was trying to save Ravi. In the meantime, accused Sagar inflicted injury to him on his left hand by iron rod. He had also sustained injury on his thighs given by accused Sagar. Sachin had also sustained injuries in the incident. Thereafter, due to fear, he went at house of his maternal uncle. PW-5 identified all the accused persons present in the Court.

49. PW-5 Vineet Kumar has been thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. However, except few minor contradictions, his testimony has remained unshakened.

50. The prosecution has also examined PW-6 Sachin, who was another injured witness. He briefly deposed in his examination in chief that on 30.07.2014, he along with his two brothers namely Navin and Ravi came to the house of their Bua at Village Mitrau and reached there at about 07.00 - 07.30 PM. After two hours of their stay over there, a quarrel had taken place on the ground of water. He does not know the name of assailants except accused Rahul at the time of incident but he can identify them. He further deposed that he knows only the name of State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 37 of 77.

38 accused who stabbed Ravi with knife and his name is accused Rahul. PW-6 Sachin has identified accused Sandeep, who had rotated the knife in the stomach of deceased Ravi and taken the same out. He also identified accused Suresh, Sagar, Ramesh and Naresh, who had given beatings to him by using wooden dandas and accused Naresh instigated other accused to flee away from the spot. He has also identified accused Vikrant and Mukesh, who had given beatings to Vineet. PW-6 has further deposed that he had sustained injuries on his head and both his hands.

51. PW-6 Sachin has also been thoroughly cross-examined by defence, but his testimony has remained unshaken on material particulars.

52. PW-5 Vineet Kumar is the main witness of the prosecution, with whom whole incident started as he was the person who was filling water from submersible outside his house and also taking bath in the gali and with whom accused Suresh and Preeti (Proclaimed Offender) started quarreling and beating him.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 38 of 77.

53. PW-5 Vineet Kumar has categorically deposed before the Court that accused Suresh started beating him. After hearing altercation, Ravi, Sachin and Navin also came outside in the gali and tried to resolve the issue but accused Suresh called his brothers Ramesh and Naresh and 3- 4 other persons namely Rahul, Vikrant, Sagar, Sandeep and Mukesh. He further deposed that accused Rahul was carrying knife, accused Sandeep and Vikrant were having dandas, accused Suresh was having lathi and accused Sagar was having an iron rod.

54. The said witness also categorically deposed that accused Sandeep caught hold Ravi by his neck from back side and accused Rahul stabbed knife to Ravi in right side upper abdomen. He further deposed that accused Sandeep rotated the knife and taken the same out of the body of Ravi whereas accused Suresh was saying " Jo bhi beech me aaye, maar do". He has further deposed that accused Sagar inflicted injury to him on his left hand by iron rod and on his thighs.

55. PW - 5 has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence but his above testimony has remained unshakened as State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 39 of 77.

40 neither any cross-examination has been carried out nor any suggestion was given to him with regard to his above testimony.

56. The testimony of PW-5 Vineet Kumar has been duly corroborated by PW-6 Sachin, who had also sustained injuries in the said scuffle. PW-6 Sachin has also given details of the accused persons present at the spot of crime carrying different weapons. He has also categorically stated that Ravi was stabbed with a knife by accused Rahul (identified by PW-6 before the Court) and accused Sandeep rotated the knife in the stomach of deceased Ravi and taken out the same.

57. PW-6 Sachin has also identified accused Suresh, Sagar, Ramesh and Naresh, who had given beatings to him by using wooden danda and accused Naresh instigated other accused persons to flee away from the spot. PW-6 has also identified accused Vikrant and Mukesh who gave beatings to him.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 40 of 77.

58. Ld. Defence counsels have argued that testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 are not reliable because these witnesses have not only improved upon their version recorded in their statement u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. but because other prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that there was darkness in the gali, due to which neither assailants nor victims could be identified at that time. They have further pointed out that there is an inherent contradiction in the testimony of PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW- 6 Sachin regarding the fact that knife was rotated into the stomach of deceased Ravi by accused Sandeep. Whereas as per the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Parvinder Singh, there was no injury mentioned in post- mortem report, which shows that weapon of offence was rotated.

59. PW-5 and PW-6 are injured witnesses they themselves sustained injury in the incident dated 30.07.2014. It is a well settled law that testimony of injured witness cannot be ignored because of minor discrepancies in their testimony.

60. An ability of a person to assimilate and reproduce such a traumatic incident frame by frame after years of witnessing it vary State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 41 of 77.

42 from person to person. Discarding a truthful witness on minor contradictions is a fallacy.

61. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "State Vs Lekh Raj", reported as (2000) 1 SCC 247 has observed that:-

"minor contradictions are bound to appear even in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person and the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of the witness."

62. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Akbar Vs State", reported as 2009 Cri LJ 4199, has enumerated certain principles of appreciation of ocular evidence of a witness:-

"The appreciation of ocular evidence is a Herculean task.

There is no fixed or strait-jacket formula for appreciation of ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles regarding the appreciation of the ocular evidence is a criminal case can be enumerated as under:-

I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 42 of 77.

43 whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.

II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.

III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 43 of 77.

44 IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there form the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.

V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.

VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person.

What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 44 of 77.

45 unnoticed on the part of another.

IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them.

They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be human tape recorder.

X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the SC No. 437/16, FIR no. 269/13, State Vs Rahid Mirza & Ors. Spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

XII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 45 of 77.

46 the witness.

63. Both PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin are the injured witnesses. They themselves had sustained injury in the said incident dated 30.07.2014. PW-1 Dr. Anil Yadav, Medical Officer from RTRM Hospital has examined injured Sachin and prepared his MLC Ex. PW-1/A, which he has proved on record. He has also examined injured Vineet Kumar and proved his MLC Ex. PW-1/B.

64. PW-6 Sachin was having abrasion on his forearm, right side abdomen, right thigh and in frontal bone. Whereas PW - 5 Vineet Kumar was having abrasion on his left arm above elbow and swelling on left elbow. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed that they were inflicted injuries by accused persons in the same incident dated 30.07.2014.

65. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Man Singh & Ors, reported as 2003 (10) SCC 414 has State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 46 of 77.

47 held that:-

"The evidence of injured witnesses have greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly."

It is further observed that:-

"Minor discrepancies do not corrode credibility of otherwise acceptable evidence."

66. The Hon'ble Supreme court in case title Abdul Sayeed Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as 2010 (10) SCC 259 has held that:-

"The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 47 of 77.

67. Similar proposition has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Naresh", reported as 2011 (4) SCC 324.

68. The above well settled legal propositions makes it absolutely clear that testimony of injured witness cannot be ignored lightly unless there is convincing evidence to prove the falsity of injured witness.

69. The defence has sought to dispute the credibility of PW - 5 Vineet Kumar and PW - 6 Sachin on the ground that PW-5 and PW-6 have stated during their cross-examination that accused Sandeep rotated the knife into the stomach of deceased Ravi and thereafter same was taken out. As per the defence, said testimony is contrary to the medical evidence proved by PW-3 Dr. Parvinder Singh.

70. No doubt that both these witnesses have stated that said knife was rotated in the stomach of deceased Ravi, which is not supported by post-mortem report. But such minor discrepancies are bound to occur State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 48 of 77.

49 in ocular evidence because said fact was perceived by these witnesses, who were present at the site.

71. The Court cannot lose sight to the fact that said incident had taken place at night time. Both these witnesses have coherently stated before the Court that deceased Ravi was stabbed with knife by accused Rahul and accused Sandeep had taken out the said knife from his stomach.

72. The testimony of PW-5 & PW-6, cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there is some exaggerations in their testimony. Both these witnesses have narrated complete incident during their deposition and disclosed role of each and every accused persons. Some contradictions, variations and exaggerations are bound to come in the testimony of witnesses recorded after lapse of time. Moreover, when the incident had occurred suddenly and left the victim in shock and injured condition, it becomes quite difficult for a normal person to observe all the events accurately and then to narrate them perfectly.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 49 of 77.

73. The defence has further claimed that testimony of PW-6 cannot be accepted because he was not knowing all the accused persons as deposed by him, despite that, prosecution has not got conducted TIP during the investigation.

74. The said contention of Ld. Defence counsel is not sustainable because PW-5 Vineet Kumar has given name of all the accused persons in his testimony recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. These accused persons were known to PW-5 Vineet and even PW-4 Bijender has also stated this. PW-6 Sachin has also deposed that he was knowing Rahul, who inflicted knife injury to Ravi.

75. A Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Anil Kumar Vs State", reported as 2011 (V) AD (Delhi) 351, has held that:-

"It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 50 of 77.

51 Section 9 of the Evidence Act.

As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character.

The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings.

This rule of prudence, however is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal procedure which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 51 of 77.

52 test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration."

76. The said proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Raman Bhai Narayan Bhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat", reported as 2000 (1) AD SC 434. As well as recently in "Jayant Vs State of Kerala", case no.

SLP (Criminal) 6767/16, Date of Decision - 22.10.2021 (LL201582).

77. The identity of these accused persons was thus not in dispute.

PW-6 has identified each accused person before the Court and has categorically deposed about the role played by each accused person.

Thus, testimony of PW-6 cannot be discarded merely on the ground that prosecution has not got conducted TIP of accused persons during the investigation.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 52 of 77.

53

78. Ld. defence counsels have further argued that PW-6 Sachin has deposed during his cross-examination that he had not made any efforts to save deceased Ravi when he was stabbed. As per the defence, the said conduct of PW-6 Sachin, not rendering any assistance to his cousin Ravi, is unnatural.

79. It must be emphasized that accused Rahul was having an open knife in his hand and he stabbed Ravi. Thus, it is not unnatural that PW-6 Sachin did not come forward to the rescue of Ravi when assailant inflicted knife injury to Ravi and was having knife in his hand, which was blood stained.

80. The defence has also argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. They pointed out that all public witnesses have deposed that after the incident, a meeting took place in the premises of PW-4 Bijender, where they decided to name accused persons as assailants.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 53 of 77.

54

81. No doubt that prosecution witnesses including PW-5 & PW-6 have deposed that a meeting had taken place in which it was decided to give name of accused persons as assailants. But Both PW-5 & PW-6 have deposed categorically that these accused persons were present at the site and inflicted injuries to them and killed Ravi. Both PW-5 & PW-6 have categorically denied that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.

82. It is also improbable that PW-5 & PW-6, who themselves had sustained injuries in the said incident, would absolve the real culprits and would falsely implicate these accused persons.

83. It is relevant to mention at this juncture that Ld. Counsels of accused Suresh etc. has given suggestion to PW-5 Vineet Kumar that his relatives were armed and they started beating the residents of gali.

He has also given a suggestion that accused Ramesh tried to compromise the matter. He has given another suggestion to PW-6 that 10-15 persons reached at the spot at the instance of PW-5 Vineet Kumar to teach a lesson to Suresh and his family and State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 54 of 77.

55 they disconnected the electricity connection. He also gave suggestion that they have caused various injuries to the accused persons.

84. Both PW-5 & PW-6 have denied these suggestions. However, these suggestions given by Ld. defence counsel to PW-5 & PW-6 shows that accused Suresh was there at the spot. The defence has also claimed that those 10-15 persons caused injuries to all accused persons, which means that these accused persons were present at the spot when that incident had taken place.

85. The defence has also claimed that these persons had disconnected the electricity and beaten various persons in the gali. But no material has been placed on record to substantiate the said plea. The defence has neither given name of any neighbor, who was beaten by these persons nor examined any of them in their defence to prove the said suggestion.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 55 of 77.

56

86. The testimony of both PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin is coherent, in unison and clear and same cannot be discarded merely on the basis of some minor contradictions which is not of great significance.

87. Both these witnesses have categorically stated before the Court that accused Sandeep caught hold of Ravi by his neck and accused Rahul inflicted knife injury in the upper abdomen of Ravi and accused Sandeep had taken out the said knife.

88. The testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 regarding knife injury to deceased Ravi has been corroborated by his MLC Ex. PW-9/A and Post Mortem Report Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-3/B, which clearly shows that weapon of offence is knife.

89. The presence of PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin at the place of occurrence, is not in dispute, as both of them had sustained injuries in the said incident. Both these witnesses have correctly depicted the sequence of events and role of each accused person at the State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 56 of 77.

57 time of occurrence.

90. PW-5 and PW-6 are consistent in their testimony and have fully supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that testimony of both these witnesses is reliable and cannot be discarded merely on the basis of some minor contradictions.

91. ARREST OF ACCUSED PERSONS AND RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE The prosecution has claimed that on the basis of a secret information, accused Rahul was arrested from village Mitraon bus stand and on the basis of his disclosure statement Ex. PW-8/A, accused Rahul got recovered weapon of offence i.e. Chhura Ex. D from his home. Accused Rahul also led the police party to the house of accused Mukesh, and at his instance other accused persons namely Sandeep, Mukesh, Vikrant, Sagar, Suresh Kumar @ Munnu and Naresh @ Kala were arrested.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 57 of 77.

58

92. The prosecution has also claimed that on a secret information, accused Ramesh Kumar (who was declared P.O.) was apprehended and his disclosure statement Ex. PW-25/C was recorded.

93. The arrest of all these accused persons and recovery of weapon of offence and other material at their instance have been witnessed by PW-8 HC Sadan Kumar, PW-24 SI Raj Kumar and PW- 29 Inspector Sheelwant Singh, IO of this case and PW-25 ASI Vijender Singh and PW-26 HC Ravi Khari of crime branch.

94. The defence has argued that prosecution has not joined any public witness, either at the time of arrest of accused Rahul or other accused persons or at the time of alleged recovery. It is further argued that neither any neighbors of accused Rahul nor his family members were joined in the recovery, therefore, recovery, if any shown in this case, at the behest of accused Rahul, cannot be relied upon.

95. No doubt that police has not joined any public witness at the time of arrest of accused Rahul and other co-accused nor any public State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 58 of 77.

59 witness was called at the time of recovery of clothes and knife (chhura), weapon of offence, recovered from the premises of accused Rahul, at his instance.

96. The arrest of accused Rahul and other accused persons except accused Ramesh Kumar and recovery of the weapon of offence has been witnessed by PW-8 HC Sadan Kumar and PW-24 SI Raj Kumar, both police officials and PW-29 Inspector Sheelwant Singh, IO of the case.

97. The moot question is whether arrest of accused persons and recovery made at their instance can be proved by police witnesses?

and whether non-joining of public witnesses is fatal for prosecution case?

98. It is a well settled law that recovery proceedings do not stand vitiated automatically on the ground of non-joining of public/independent witness, though in such a case, the only precaution to be taken by Courts is that the testimony of police officials has to be State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 59 of 77.

60 examined carefully.

99. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in "Ram Kishan Vs State", reported as 2021 SCC Online Del 3481 has held that:-

The fact that no public witness had been examined also cannot be a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. In Girja Prasad Vs. State of M.P. reported as (2007) 7 SCC 625, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "25. In our judgment, the above proposition does not lay down correct law on the point. It is well settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. It is quite possible that in a given case, a court of law may not base conviction solely on the evidence of the complainant or a police official but it is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police official as any other person. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of police officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 60 of 77.

61 require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. 26. It is not necessary to refer to various decisions on the point. We may, however, state that before more than half a century, in Aher Raja Khima Vs State of Saurashtra (AIR 1956 SC 217 : 1956 Cri LJ 426), Venkatarama Ayyar, J. stated: (AIR p. 230, para 40) "40. ... The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the public. It can only run down the prestige of the police administration."

In Tahir Vs State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 515] , dealing with a similar question, Dr. A.S. Anand, J. (as His Lordship then was) stated: (SCC p. 341, para 6) "6. ...

Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."

100. The above legal proposition makes it absolutely clear that non- joining of public witnesses is not fatal, if the testimony of police State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 61 of 77.

62 witnesses is believable.

101. The testimonies of PW- 8 HC Sadan Kumar, shows that he was accompanying the IO at that time of arrest of accused Rahul. But during cross-examination PW-8 has stated that he did not enter inside the house of accused Rahul, where proceedings had taken place.

102. The said deposition of PW-8 HC Sadan Kumar shows that he had not witnessed the recovery of knife taken place at the instance of accused Rahul from his premises.

103. PW-24 SI Raj Kumar has deposed that accused Rahul, after his arrest led them to his house, from where he had produced blood stained big knife (chhura) from the almirah and a trouser / pant (military colour) and one yellow coloured shirt, which he disclosed that said clothes were worn by him at the time of commission of offence.

104. The testimony of PW-24 SI Raj Kumar regarding recovery of knife and clothes of accused Rahul has remained uncontroverted as State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 62 of 77.

63 defence has not given any contrary suggestion to PW-24 in this regard.

105. The knife in question was got recovered by accused Rahul from the almirah of his house, which was not a public place and same was within the knowledge of accused Rahul only, therefore, testimony of PW- 24 SI Raj Kumar regarding recovery of knife i.e. weapon of offence, can be accepted and recovery of knife at the instance of accused Rahul is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

106. The defence has disputed the recovery only on the ground that public witnesses were not joined by the police / IO at the time of arrest of accused persons and recovery of weapon of offence. However, when testimony of police witnesses is trust worthy, then same cannot be ignored on the ground that public witnesses were not joined.

107. It is a known fact that public persons hardly muster courage to become witness and join investigation in such heinous crime. Thus, the contention of the defence that testimony of police officials regarding recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused persons State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 63 of 77.

64 cannot be accepted, in the absence of public witnesses, is untainable.

108. It is also relevant to mention at this juncture that PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin have categorically stated before the court that accused Rahul had inflicted knife injury on the upper portion of abdomen of deceased Ravi. Their testimony has been corroborated by post-mortem report of deceased Ravi Ex. PW-3/A and subsequent opinion regarding weapon of offence Ex. PW- 3/B, which clearly shows that injury was inflicted by knife / chhura.

109. The knife Ex. D, which was got recovered at the instance of accused Rahul was sent to CFSL for examination and prosecution has placed on record CFSL Report prepared by Dr. Manish Upadhyay dated 30.06.2015 Ex. PW-29/D.

110. A persusal of CFSL Report Ex. PW-29/D shows that DNA profile of blood samples of deceased Ravi is found similar to DNA profile from the source marked as Ex. D State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 64 of 77.

111. Ex. D is the weapon of offence i.e. Chhura, which was got recovered from the premises of accused Rahul at his instance. The knife Ex. D was having blood stain of blood group of deceased Ravi, which proves beyond any reasonable doubt that deceased Ravi was murdered by the knife got recovered by accused Rahul from his premises.

112. The aforestated facts thus clearly proves that accused Rahul had committed murder of deceased Ravi by inflicting injury no. 1 mentioned in Post Mortem Report Ex. PW-3/1, which was caused by knife Ex. D and the said injury was sufficient to cause death of Ravi in the ordinary course of nature. The prosecution has thus proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused persons had committed murder of Ravi.

C. Whether accused persons formed unlawful assembly having common object to commit murder of deceased Ravi S/o Bijender?

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 65 of 77.

66 D. Whether accused persons had committed Rioting with deadly weapons?

113. Chapter 8 of IPC provides offence of public tranquility. Section 141 IPC defines 'Unlawful Assembly' to be an assembly of five or more person. They must have a common object to commit any mischief or criminal trespass or other offence. Section 147 IPC is punishable section for 'rioting'. The offence of rioting is defined in Section 146 IPC, which reads as under:-

Section 146 IPC Rioting. --

Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

114. On a fair reading of Section 146 IPC, for the offence of rioting, there has to be,

i) An unlawful assembly of 5 or more persons as defined in Section 141 IPC, i.e an assembly of 5 or more persons and such assembly was unlawful;

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 66 of 77.

ii) The unlawful assembly must use force or violence; and

iii) The force or violence used by an unlawful assembly or by any member therefore must be in prosecution of the common object of such assembly in which case every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

115. Force is defined Under Section 349 IPC. As per Section 349 IPC, force means:-

"A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation or motion to that other....."

116. The evidence adduced by the prosecution on record proves that accused Suresh and his wife started fight with PW-5 Vineet Kumar in the night on 30.07.2014. The prosecution has also proved on record that accused Suresh called his brother accused Ramesh and Naresh. Accused Suresh also called his 3-4 associates namely accused Rahul, Sandeep, Vikrant, Sagar and Mukesh at the place of incident. State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 67 of 77.

117. The prosecution has also proved that accused Rahul was having knife, accused Suresh, Mukesh and Sandeep were having lathis and dandas and accused Sagar was having iron rod. All these accused persons were thus forming unlawful assembly and were armed with deadly weapons and inflicted injury to PW-5 and PW-6 and also inflicted knife injury to deceased Ravi, who died.

118. The prosecution has thus established on record beyond any reasonable doubt that unlawful assembly consisting of accused persons namely Rahul, Sandeep, Vikrant, Sagar, Mukesh, Naresh, Suresh and Ramesh have committed rioting as defined under Section 147 IPC. They were armed with deadly weapons and the common object of this unlawful assembly was to terrorize the complainant and his family members.

119. The prosecution has thus proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons namely Rahul, Sandeep, Vikrant, Sagar, Mukesh, Naresh, Suresh and Ramesh have committed offence punishable under State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 68 of 77.

69 Section 147 and 148 IPC.

120. The next question arises for consideration is as to what was the common object of the unlawful assembly of accused persons? and whether all the accused persons shared common object of committing murder of Ravi? or they had knowledge that murder was likely or could take place?

121. The Court thus has to see as to what was the common object of unlawful assembly consisting of all the accused persons.

122. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chikkarange Gowda & Ors Vs State of Mysore, reported as AIR 1956 SC 731 has held that:-

"Section 149 read with 141 IPC consists of two parts.

The first part criminalizes and mandates punishment, when an offence is committed in prosecution of the common object and when the offence is committed with view to State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 69 of 77.

70 accomplish the said object.

In such cases, the offence committed must connect or have direct or immediate nexus with the common object of the unlawful assembly, of which the accused was a member. The second part of Section 149 IPC is wider and consists of offences which are such as the member knew was likely to be committed. Thus, a member of unlawful assembly shall be held liable if he knew that an offence, which he may not share, was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The expression "knows" does not refer to a mere possibility which might or might not happen, but cases where it can be ascertained that the accused had positive knowledge that such an offence was likely to be committed."

123. The statement of PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin proves that accused Sandeep caught hold of Ravi by his neck from back side and accused Rahul inflicted knife injury to Ravi in right side upper abdomen and accused Sandeep had taken out the said knife from the stomach of State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 70 of 77.

71 deceased Ravi.

124. The knife injury inflicted by accused Rahul to Ravi was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature as per the opinion of PW-3 Dr. Parvinder Singh.

125. No other accused persons except accsued Rahul and accused Sandeep played any active role or inflicted any injury to Ravi. The knife injury was inflicted to Ravi by accused Rahul independently and no one else had participated, when said injury was inflicted to Ravi except accused Sandeep, who caught hold of Ravi and later on taken out knife from his stomach.

126. The prosecution though claimed that accused Suresh exhorted in the said scuffle that "Jo bhi beech me aaye, maar do" (Kill all those, who come in between). But no material has been placed on record to show that accused Rahul had inflicted knife injury to Ravi on the exhortation of accused State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 71 of 77.

72 Suresh.

127. Accused persons namely Vikrant, Sagar, Mukesh, Naresh, Suresh and Ramesh, though present at the place of occurrence and inflicted injury to PW-5 and PW-6, but they did not play any overt act in the commission of murder of Ravi.

128. No doubt that these accused persons came at the site of incidence on the calling of accused Suresh but there is no material on record to assume that all the accused persons were having common object to commit murder of Ravi or any other person.

129. Accused Suresh and Priti (Proclaimed Offender) had altercation with PW-5, and accused Suresh called all other accused persons.

Though, all the accused persons were having lathis, dandas and iron rods as established by the prosecution, but they did not inflict any injury to deceased Ravi nor they obstructed or stopped any other person to provide any help to Ravi. Other accused persons have only inflicted simple injuries to PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 72 of 77.

73 Sachin.

130. The presence of various weapons in the hands of members of unlawful assembly indicates that they wanted to show their determination, strength and anger to complainant and his family members, who had altercation with accused Suresh.

131. These accused persons have not joined accused Rahul by catching hold of Ravi or simultaneously attacking him by weapon in their hands. The act of accused Rahul of inflicting knife injury to Ravi was his unilateral act, which shows his intention to commit murder of deceased Ravi.

132. Accused Sandeep caught hold of Ravi, and accused Rahul inflicted knife injury to deceased Ravi.

Accused Sandeep had also taken out knife from the stomach of Ravi. If accused Sandeep had not caught hold Ravi, he could have saved himself from the injury inflicted by accused Rahul, which caused his death.

State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 73 of 77.

74

133. The material placed on record thus clearly shows that accused Sandeep and accused Rahul were having common intention to commit murder of Ravi and both of them in furtherance of their common intention killed Ravi by inflicting knife injury.

134. The prosecution has thus proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Rahul and accused Sandeep have committed murder of Ravi as prescribed under Section 300 Clause 3 of IPC, which is punishable under Sections 302 R/w Section 34 IPC.

135. Though, accused Vikrant, Sagar, Mukesh, Naresh, Suresh and Ramesh were members of the unlawful assembly having deadly weapons, but their unlawful assembly was not having common object or knowledge to commit murder of Ravi. Thus, these accused persons cannot be fastened with the liability of commission of murder of Ravi.

136. The prosecution has thus failed to establish on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Vikrant, Sagar, Mukesh, Naresh, Suresh and Ramesh have committed offence punishable under Section 302 State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 74 of 77.

75 read with Section 149 of IPC.

137. E. Whether accused persons being member of unlawful assembly, having common object to hit victims Sachin and Vineet?

The prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused persons had formed unlawful assembly having deadly weapons. The prosecution has also proved on record that these accused persons had inflicted injuries to PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin, both these witnesses had sustained injuries, which has been duly corroborated by PW-1 Dr. Anil Yadav, Medical Officer, RTRM Hospital, who has proved their MLCs as Ex.PW-1/A & Ex. PW-1/B.

138. The prosecution has thus proved that all the accused persons being members of unlawful assembly, were having common object to hit PW-5 Vineet Kumar and PW-6 Sachin.

139. The prosecution has thus established on record beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rahul, Sandeep @ Sardar, Vikrant Birla @ Kaatu, Sagar, Mukesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar @ State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 75 of 77.

76 Munnu, Ramesh Kumar @ Dheela have committed offence punishable under Section 324 R/w Section 149 IPC.

CONCLUSION

140. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused persons namely Rahul, Sandeep @ Sardar, Vikrant Birla @ Kaatu, Sagar, Mukesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar @ Munnu and Ramesh Kumar @ Dheela have committed offence punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of IPC. The prosecution has further proved beyond any reasonable doubt that accused persons namely Rahul, Sandeep @ Sardar, Vikrant Birla @ Kaatu, Sagar, Mukesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar @ Munnu and Ramesh Kumar @ Dheela have committed offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 149 of IPC. The prosecution has further proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt that accused Rahul and accused Sandeep @ Sardar have committed offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, all the aforementioned accused persons are held guilty and convicted State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 76 of 77.

77 accordingly.

141. The prosecution however has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons namely Vikrant Birla @ Kaatu, Sagar, Mukesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar @ Munnu and Ramesh Kumar @ Dheela for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. Therefore, accused persons namely Vikrant Birla @ Kaatu, Sagar, Mukesh Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Suresh Kumar @ Munnu and Ramesh Kumar @ Dheela are acquitted for the same.

Announced in the open Court on 28th of October, 2021 (PITAMBER DUTT) ASJ-02/DWARKA COURTS (SW) NEW DELHI/28.10.2021 State Vs. Rahul & Others; FIR No. 469/2014 of PS BHD Nagar. Page No. 77 of 77.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . 1. Rahul on 28 October, 2021