Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Anil Puri on 21 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GOEL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016
In the matter of:
State Vs. 1. Anil Puri
S/o Late Sh. Rajesh Puri
R/o RZF-52, F/2, (1-205),
Raj Nagar -1, Gali No. 9.
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
2. Shahid Ali
S/o Sh. Banne Khan
R/o RZF-138, Raj Nagar,
Part-III, Palam Colony,
New Delhi.
3. Sonu Peter
S/o Sh. Guddu Peter
R/o RZF-310, Gali N0. 6,
Raj Nagar, Part-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
(Accused No. 3 Sonu Peter was
declared P. O. vide order dated
27.08.2015)
FIR No. : 836/14
Police : Dwarka South
Station
Under : 302/201/34/174A IPC & 25/27
Section Arms Act
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 1/90
Date of Filing of Charge Sheet : 21.03.2015.
Date of Committal of case to Sessions Court : 10.04.2015
Date of Assignment of case to this court : 25.05.2017
At the stage of P. E.
Date of Final Arguments : 01.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 21.10.2019
JUDGMENT:
1. John M. Nelson, noted member of U. S. House of Representatives once long back said:
When violence is committed against another soul, The aftermath is always going to take its toll. Most people will too often turn their backs, And do nothing to stop these attacks. As the human race, we are just trying to survive, Yet everyday is struggle to stay just alive. For no reason at all there is too much killing, And the thought of all this is too chilling.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Sh. Rajesh Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 2/90 Saini (since deceased) was known to accused Anil Puri for the last 10-12 years and he was his friend. It is stated that Sh. Rajesh Saini (since deceased) was in the business of catering and marriage function. It is averred that on 06.08.2014, accused Anil Puri and deceased entered into a partnership business vide partnership deed and accused Anil Puri invested Rs. 2 lakhs in the aforesaid business and the deceased invested Rs.8-10 lakhs. It is averred that accused Anil Puri and deceased were running a Vatika in the name of Sh. Shyam Kunj Vatika, Party and Lawn at Kakrola, New Delhi.
3. It is the case of prosecution that after few months, some disputes arose between accused Anil Puri and deceased and due to this, accused Anil Puri was removed from the partnership and a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- was paid to accused Anil Puri by the deceased Sh. Rajesh Saini.
4. It is stated that after the dispute, accused Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 3/90 Anil Puri extended threats to deceased Rajesh Saini many times and on 18.12.2014, accused Anil Puri had come alongwith two other persons had taken deceased Rajesh at about 7 pm from the vatika with him in his car.
5. It is further the case of prosecution that on 18.12.2014 when deceased Rajesh Saini did not return home, Ms. Suman Saini had tried to contact him on his phone but to no effect and finally Sh. Joginder Saini (brother in law of deceased) lodged a complaint at PS Dwarka North which was recorded vide DD No. 16A by ASI Usha Rani on 19.12.2014.
6. Thereafter, on 19.12.2014 Sh. Satish Kumar saw a dead body of a person lying near Shamshan Ghat Village Bagdola at about 11/12 noon and he informed the police on Telephone no. 100 which was received and recorded by Ct. Geeta Yadav at police control room and she passed the information to police network.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 4/90
7. Further on 19.12.2014 at 11.47, an information was received through wireless at PS Dwarka South that one dead body was lying near Pani Ki Pulia near Railway Track in front of Shamshan Bhoomi, Village Bagdola and the same was recorded by ASI Geeta vide DD No. 13A.
8. Thereafter, on said date, on receipt of DD No. 13A, SI Ashok Kumar along with Ct. Sudheer reached in front of Shamshan Bhoomi, Railway Track under Pulia, Village Bagdola, New Delhi at about 12 noon and found that dead body of a male was lying there. On inspection, two bullet injuries marks were found on the chest of the deceased and in the meantime, Inspector Sunil Gupta and HC Basant Kumar also reached there. The SHO along with other staff also reached at the spot and inquiry was sought regarding missing report, if any. As there was missing report in PS-Dwarka North, hence, Sh. Krishan Chand Saini was informed who also reached and he identified the dead Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 5/90 body of the deceased as that of his son namely Rajesh Saini and told that he was missing since 7 pm on 18.12.2014.
9. It is further the case of prosecution that two mobile phones were lying near the dead body and on the search of the body cash Rs.900/- a bunch of keys, some miscellaneous papers and small diary were recovered from the pant of the deceased.
10. It is further case of prosecution that SI Rakesh, In-charge mobile Crime Team reached the spot on 19.12.2014 at about 1 pm and he conducted inspection of the spot. The dead body of the deceased was sent to mortuary DDU Hospital and SI Ashok Kumar prepared rukka by making his endorsement on DD entry No. 13A and sent HC Basant Kumar to the police Station.
11. It is further the case of prosecution that on 19.12.2014 at about 2.55 pm, HC Basant Kumar presented the rukka before ASI Geeta who recorded Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 6/90 FIR No. 836/14 and made her endorsement.
12. After registration of FIR, the investigation was assigned to Inspector Sunil Gupta, who prepared site plan, seized two mobile phones, seized cash Rs.900/-, bank slip, other miscellaneous papers, small diary and bunches of keys which were recovered from the pocket of the deceased. Inspector Sunil Gupta also lifted the earth control, blood stained earth control and one blood stained half piece of brick and kept the same in three plastic container and seized the same. On 19.12.2014, on examination of the deceased, the deceased was declared brought dead by Dr. Vipin Kumar at DDU Hospital who prepared MLC under the supervision of Dr. Vineet.
13. Thereafter, on 20.12.2014 Sh. Sanjay Kumar took five photographs of the dead body of the deceased in mortuary DDU Hospital by digital camera. Further on 20.12.2014 Inspector Sunil Gupta filled forms 25-35 and made request to the doctor for Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 7/90 postmortem. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was identified by Sh. Sonu Saini, Sh. Krishan Chand Saini and Sh. Joginder Saini and their statements were recorded by Inspector Sunil Gupta. Further on 20.12.2014 Dr. Anurag Thapar conducted postmortem on the dead body of deceased Rajesh Saini vide PM report.
14. After postmortem, two projectiles, clothes of deceased, blood in gauze piece, blood and viscera were packed, sealed by the doctor and were handed over to the IO which were seized by Inspector Sunil Gupta. On 21.12.2014 at about 3.30 pm accused Anil Puri was apprehended by ASI Kuldeep Maan, HC Dharmender and other staff of Crime Branch from near Marble Market, Sector-20 Dwarka, New Delhi as in murder cases, the information is being sent to all the police station and crime branch has some information and thus he was arrested. After arrest his personal search was conducted and his disclosure Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 8/90 statement was recorded in which accused Anil Puri disclosed about his involvement in the present murder case.
15. On 21.12.2014 an information was received at PS Dwarka South regarding arrest of accused Anil Puri by Crime Branch and the same was recorded vide DD No. 28E. On 22.12.2014, accused Anil Puri was arrested in the present case by Inspector Sunil Gupta after the permission of the court in which he was produced. His personal search was conducted by Inspector Sunil Gupta and his disclosure statement was recorded wherein he disclosed about the commission of the murder of deceased along with two other persons namely Shahid Ali and Sonu Peter.
16. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Anil Puri led the police party including HC Basant Kumar, Inspector Sunil Gupta and SI Ashok Kumar to a place near park in front of house no. 222/4, R Sector-4 Faridabad Haryana and got Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 9/90 recovered a Maruti Swift Car No. DL9CAG0673. The said car found unlocked and on its inspection the keys were found in the car and accused Anil Puri opened the dicky of the car and took out a pistol under mat of the car above the stepney in the dicky. On checking, the recovered pistol was found loaded with two live cartridges in its magazine.
17. Thereafter, Inspector Sunil Gupta prepared sketch of pistol, magazine and cartridges. Further on the back seat of the car, one bag was found containing one pant and shirt and accused Anil Puri disclosed that he was wearing the same at the time of murder. One blood stained cloth was found lying in the car in front of the rear seat. Inspector Sunil Gupta prepared a pointing out memo at the time of recovery of the car, country made pistol and clothes. Inspector Sunil Gupta sealed the pistol, two live cartridges, clothes of accused and blood stained cloth and seized vide seizure memo. Apart from above, Inspector Sunil Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 10/90 Gupta seized the recovered Maruti Swift Car No. DL9CAG0673. After completion of the proceedings at Sector - 4, Faridabad the Maruti Swift car was brought to PS Dwarka South and accused Anil Puri was taken to Safdarjung Hospital for medical examination which was conducted by Dr. Yogesh Gautam vide MLC.
18. The Maturi Swift car was again inspected by Inspector Sunil Gupta who found that one plastic bottle of Kinley and two plastic glasses were lying in the front portion in the car and thereafter Crime Team was called. SI Rakesh Kumar and Ct. Sandeep inspected the car. Ct. Sandeep Kumar lifted three chance print from the car out of which one was lifted from the rear view mirror and two were lifted from mineral water bottle. SI Rakesh Kumar In-charge Mobile Crime Team inspected the car.
19. Thereafter, Inspector Sunil Gupta sealed and seized the plastic bottle of Kinley and two plastic glasses. The Registration Certificate of the Maruti Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 11/90 Swift car was also recovered from the car and the same was seized by Inspector Sunil Gupta.
20. During investigation, it was revealed that accused Anil Puri, Shahid Ali and Sonu Peter had committed the murder of the deceased and thereafter, they had thrown the dead body under pulia near Shamshan Ghat Village Bagdola. Inspector Sunil Gupta seized the lease deed in between Sumer Shokeen and Sh. Rajesh Saini and he also seized the partnership deed between Sh. Rahat Hussain and deceased Rajesh Saini.
21. On 04.03.2015, Smt. Suman Saini wife of deceased Rajesh Saini gave the partnership deed executed between accused Anil Puri and deceased Rajesh Saini to Inspector Sunil Gupta who seized the same. Three photographs of Shyam Kunj Vatika were seized by Inspector Sunil Gupta.
22. On 19.12.2014 and on 20.12.2014 the case property pertaining to this case was deposited in the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 12/90 Malkhana with HC Lalu Ram who made entries in register No. 19.
23. On 21.01.2015 the pullanda pertaining to this case were sent to FSL through Ct. Sudheer vide RC and the same were received in the FSL.
24. On 21.03.2015, Sh. Hardeep Singh, Draftsman visited the spot near Shamshan Ghat Village Bagdola, New Delhi with Inspector Sunil Gupta and he took measurement of the spot and on the basis of the same, he prepared scaled site plan. The exhibits in four sealed parcel were examined by Dr. S. S. Murthi in CFSL Hyderabad vide his detail report and the exhibits pertaining to this case were also examined in FSL Rohini by Dr. Amarpal Singh vide his detailed report. The chance prints and the specimen impression/prints were examined by Sh. Shiv Raj Singh, Inspector-cum-Sr. Finger Print Expert vide his detailed reports.
25. On 27.08.2015, accused Shahid Ali and Sonu Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 13/90 @ Peter were declared proclaimed offender by the court, however, on 30.05.2016, accused Shahid Ali was apprehended by ASI Randhawa and other staff of Crime Branch from near Anaj Mandi, Najafgarh, New Delhi and after interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo and his disclosure statement was recorded and a Kalandara was filed against him. On 19.08.2016, sanction for prosecution of accused Anil Puri u/s 39 Arms Act was accorded by Sh. Rajesh Dev DCP vide sanction order.
26. Thereafter, on 31.05.2016, accused Shahid Ali was arrested by Inspector Anuj Agarwal and his personal search was conducted. He made a disclosure statement.
27. On 06.06.2016, the TIP proceeding of accused Shahid Ali could not be conducted and cancelled due to the non-availability of witness Sh. Raju Vashisht because he was not traceable.
28. On 10.06.2016, accused Shahid Ali pointed the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 14/90 place near Shamshan Bhoomi Village Bagdola, New Delhi.
29. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence U/s 302/201/ 120B/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act was filed in the court against accused persons.
30. After filing of charge sheet, the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate observed that the case for the offence U/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, hence case was committed to Court of sessions after compliance of provisions of Section 207 of Cr. P. C. vide its order dated 10.04.2015. Charge against the accused persons:
31. Vide order dated 07.06.2016, the charge for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was framed against the accused Anil Puri and Shahid Ali. Separate charge was framed against accused Anil Puri for the offence U/s 25 Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 15/90 & 27 Arms Act and against accused Shahid Ali for the offence U/s 174A IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
32. The prosecution examined following witnesses:
PW1 is Sh. Sonu Saini. He was younger brother of deceased Rajesh Saini. He is a witness who identified dead body of deceased in DDU Hospital. He proved his statement as Ex. PW-1/A and statement of his father as Ex. PW-1/B and memo regarding handing over of dead body of deceased as Ex. PW-1/C. PW2 is ASI Geeta. She is a witness who received an information through wireless opreation that one dead body was lying under Pani Ki Pulia near Railway track in front of Shamshan Bhoomi, Village Baghdola and she recorded DD No. 13A Ex. PW-2/A in this regard. She further proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW-2/B and her endorsement as Ex. PW-2/C and Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 16/90 certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW-2/D. PW3 is HC Lalu Ram. He is witness who had made entries regarding the deposit of pulandas, samples seal etc. in malkhana. He proved entries No. 1523 and 1525 made in register No. 19 as Ex. PW-3/A and PW-3/B regarding deposit of pulandas, samples seals, car of accused Anil Puri and other articles, the copy of RC No. 10/21/15 was proved as Ex. PW-3/C, copy of RC No. 11/21/15 as Ex. PW-3/D, copy of RC No. 12/21/15 as Ex. PW-3/E and copies of three receipts of FSL as Ex. PW-3/F, PW-3/G and PW-
3/H. PW4 is ASI Usha Rani. He deposed that on 19.12.2014, he was working as Duty Officer and on that day, Sh. Joginder Saini had come to PS and gave statement regarding missing of his brother in law and he recorded his statement in Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 17/90 rojnamcha vide DD No.16A and carbon copy of same was Ex. PW-4/A. PW5 is Sh. Kishan Chand Saini. He is a father of deceased. He deposed regarding starting of business by accused Anil Puri and his son Rajesh Saini and making investment in said business by them. He further deposed regarding arising of dispute between accused Anil Puri and his son Rajesh Saini in their business. He deposed that he had seen that accused Anil Puri came to Vatika with two other persons and thereafter, deceased Rajesh, Anil Puri and two other persons had gone from Vatika and thereafter, Rajesh did not return. He had identified the dead body of deceased.
PW6 is Sh. Joginder Saini. He deposed that deceased was his Jija. He had deposed regarding arising of dispute between accused Anil Puri and deceased Rajesh Saini. He further deposed that Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 18/90 on 18.12.2014 when he had gone to Vatika of Sh. Rajesh Saini, he came to know from Raju and Manju that Rajesh Saini had gone with accused Anil Puri in the evening of 17.12.2014 in white colour car. Later, dead body of deceased was found. He identified the dead body of deceased. PW7 is Smt. Manju. She deposed that on 18.12.2014, she was present in said Vatika and Sh. Rajesh Saini had told her that he had to go somewhere in the evening but he did not tell with whom and where, he was going. This witness resiled from her previous statement and was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State. PW8 is Sh. Vijender. He deposed that deceased was his brother in law and during investigation he handed over partnership deed between Sh. Rahat Hussain and Sh. Rajesh Saini to IO and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. He also handed over lease deed Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 19/90 between Sh. Sumesh Shokeen and Sh. Rajesh Saini to IO and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/B. PW9 is Ms. Suman. She is wife of deceased. She deposed regarding starting business of catering and marriage functions by his husband. She also deposed regarding arising of dispute between them. She proved the Partnership Deed between deceased and accused Anil Puri as Ex. PW-9/A and seizure memo of same as Ex. PW- 9/B. PW10 is Sh. Satish Kumar. He is a witness who had gone to cremation ground at Village Bagdola to attend a cremation and he had seen dead body of a person lying near nala near Shamshan Ghat and on seeing the same, he informed the police on telephone No. 100 from his mobile phone.
PW11 is Sh. Rahat Hussain. He deposed that Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 20/90 he entered into a partnership with accused Anil Puri and deceased. He further deposed that in the month of December 2014, he received a call from accused Anil Pruri and he went to his house where accused Anil Puri started taking drinks and thereafter, they came to his house and there also they had taken some more drinks and then accused Anil Puri left his house. He further deposed that on same day, in the night, he received call from wife of deceased who informed that deceased had not returned home. PW12 is Sh. Sanjay Kumar. He deposed that he is private photographer and he was called by IO in DDU Hospital where he had taken 5 photographs of dead body of deceased and same were proved as Ex. PW-12/A to PW-12/E. PW13 is Ct. Sandeep. He deposed that on the requisition of IO/Inspector Sunil Gupta, he inspected car No. DL 9 CAG 0673 and lifted total Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 21/90 three chance print out of the car and his detailed report was proved as Ex. PW-13/A. PW14 is Sh. Hardip Singh, Draftsman, Maping Section. He deposed that he alongwith Inspector Sunil Gupta visited the spot near Ganda Nala near Road Bagdola and he had taken measurement of spot and prepared rough notes. He prepared and proved the scaled site plan as Ex. PW-14/A. PW15 is ASI Kuldip Maan. He deposed regarding arrest of accused Anil Puri after organising raiding team on receipt of secret information. The arrest memo of accused Anil Puri was Ex. PW-15/A, his personal search memo as Ex. PW-15/B, his disclosure statement as Ex. PW-15/C, the departure entry as DD No. 5 as Ex. PW-15/D, entry in Roznamcha vide DD No. 9 as Ex. PW-15/E and kalandra U/s 41 Cr. P. C. as Ex. PW15/F. Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 22/90 PW16 is Retd. HC Dharmender. He was one of the members in raiding team organised for arrest of accused Anil Puri pursuant to receipt of secret information by HC Kuldip Maan. PW17 is Dr. Vineet, CMO, DDU Hospital. He deposed that he was on duty in casualty as CMO on 19.12.2014 and said day, deceased was brought to casualty and on examination, he was declared brought dead. He identified handwriting and signatures of Dr. Vipin Kumar Jha on MLC as Ex. PW-17/A. PW18 is Dr. Yogesh Gautam, SMO, Safdarjung Hospital. He is a witness who medically examined accused Anil Puri and proved his MLC as Ex. PW-18/A. PW19 is ASI Randhawa. He deposed regarding receipt of secret information about accused Shahid, organising raiding team and apprehending of accused Shahid and his Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 23/90 associate. He further deposed that during inquires, it was revealed that accused Shahid was P. O. in the present case and during thorough interrogation, he made disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the present case. His disclosure statement was proved as Ex. PW-19/A, his arrest memo as Ex. PW-19/B, kalandra U/s 41 Cr. P. C. as Ex. PW-19/C and copies of DD entries No. DD No. 11, 7 and 10 as Ex. PW-19/D, PW-19/E and PW-19/F. PW20 is Wct. Geeta Yadav. She deposed that she was on duty at Police Control Room, CPCR PHQ on 19.12.2014 and she received an information regarding lying of dead body near Shamshan Bhoomi village Bagdola and she recorded the said information in prescribed form of PCR and attested copy of same was Ex. PW- 20/A. PW21 is HC Basant Kumar. He is a witness Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 24/90 who had gone to spot alongwith Inspector Sunil Gupta where dead body was found lying. He further deposed that SI Ashok Kumar prepared rukka and sent him to PS. He further deposed that Inspector Sunil Gupta prepared site plan at spot and seized 2 mobile phones lying near dead body vide seizure memo Ex. PW-21/A and the articles recovered from the pocket of the pant of deceased were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-21/B. During his examination in chief recorded on 06.05.2019, he proved the disclosure statement of accused Anil Puri as Ex. PW-21/C, the sketches of and PW-21/E, the seizure memo of country made pistol and live cartridges was proved as Ex. PW-21/F, the seizure memo of T-shirt and recovered cloth as Ex. PW-21/F, seizure memo of Maruti Swift Car as Ex. PW-21/G, seizure memo of one plastic bottle and two plastic glasses as Ex. PW-21/H. Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 25/90 PW22 is SI Rakesh Kumar. He deposed that on the requisition of local police, he alongwith other member of crime team reached at spot and found dead body of a male with bullet injury. He deposed that he inspected the spot and prepared and proved detailed report of inspection as Ex. PW-22/A. He further deposed that on the requisition of IO, he inspected Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No. DL9CAG0673 and prepared and proved detailed report of inspection as Ex. PW-22/B. PW23 is Dr. Anurag Thapar, Sr. Dept. of Forensic Medicine, SGM Hospital. He is a witness who conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased and proved the detailed P. M. report as Ex. PW-23/A. PW-24 is Dr. S. S. Murthy, Asst. Director Ballistic, CFSL, Ministry of Home Affairs, Hyderabad. He deposed that on 23.05.2016, Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 26/90 four sealed parcels were received in CFSL and same were marked to him for examination. He conducted the test and prepared the detailed report of examination which was proved as Ex. PW-24/A. PW-25 is Ct. Sudhir. He deposed that on receipt of DD No. 13A, he alongwith SI Ashok Kumar reached the spot near Railway Track pulia village Bagdola and found a dead body of male. He deposed that after preliminary investigation at spot by crime team and other police officer, he took the dead body of deceased to DDU Hospital. He deposed that pulandas containing viscera, cloths and bullet were seized with sample seal and seizure memo of same was proved as Ex. PW25/A. He further deposed regarding other investigation done in the matter. PW-25 is Dr. Amarpal Singh, Asst. Director, Chemistry, Forensic Science, Rohini. This Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 27/90 witness was also examined as PW-25 apart from Ct. Sudhir. He deposed that on 21.01.2015, one sealed polythene parcel was received in FSL Rohini and same was marked to him for examination. The report was proved as Ex. PW-25/A. PW26 is Sh. Shivraj Singh, Retd. Inspector cum Sr. Finger Print Expert. He deposed this case was marked to him for comparison and expert opinion of chance print Q1 and Q2 developed by Distt. Mobile Crime Team with the specimen finger / palm impression slips of co- accused namely Shahid Ali and same were found identical. He proved his report as Ex. PW-26/A, the enlarged photographs of identified chance print as Ex. PW-26/B and descriptions of present detail as Ex. PW-26/C. PW27 is Ct. Naveen Kumar. He deposed on the instructions of Inspector Sunil Gupta, he had Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 28/90 taken accused Anil Puri to DDU Hospital for his medical examination.
PW28 is Inspector Sunil Gupta. He deposed that he alongwith HC Basant had reached at spot and he found crime team present there. HE had deposed regarding the investigation carried out by him in the present case. He proved various documents in this case i.e. site plan as Ex. PW-28/A, seizure memo of pulandas as Ex. PW-28/B, form 25-35 as Ex. PW-28/C, request application for post mortem as Ex. PW-28/D, attested copy o DD No. 46B as Ex. PW-28/E, arrest memo of accused Anil Puri as Ex. PW- 28/E1, his personal search memo as Ex. PW- 28/E2, pointing out memo as Ex. PW-28/E3, seizure memo of three photographs of Shyam Kunj Vatika as Ex. PW-28/E4 and said photographs as Ex. PW-28/E5 and PCR form as Ex. PW-28/E6.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 29/90
PW29 is SI Ashok Kumar. He deposed regarding investigation done by him on receipt of DD No. 13A. In his examination in chief, he proved the rukka as Ex. PW-29/A. PW30 is Inspector Anuj Aggarwal. He deposed he filled FSL report with his application Ex. PW-30/A, the attested copy of DD No. 33/B was proved as Ex. PW-30/B, the carbon copy of application regarding arrest and interrogation of accused Shahid Ali as Ex. PW-30/C, his arrest memo as Ex. PW-30/D, personal search memo as Ex. PW-30/E, disclosure statement as Ex. PW- 30/F, certified copy of order dated 01.06.2016 as Ex. PW-30/G, PW31 is Inspector Aditi Lily. She deposed that investigation of present case was assigned to her and he obtained process U/s 82 Cr. P. C. against accused Shahid Ali and Sonu. She proved the attested copy of order dated Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 30/90 27.08.2015 as Ex. PW-31/A, the copy of order dated 06.06.2016 as Ex. PW-31/B, pointing out memo as Ex. PW-31/C, application regarding FSL results in Biology Division as Ex. PW-31/D and FSL report as Ex. PW-31/E. PW32 is Sh. Rajesh Deo, DCP, Crime, Legal Cell. He deposed regarding according sanction for prosecution of accused Anil Puri and order of sanction was proved as Ex. PW-32/A.
33. The statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them. In their defence, they pleaded their innocence and stated that they have been implicated falsely and further stated that IO obtained their signatures on blank papers and converted them into different documents. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
34. Accused Anil Puri wished to lead DE in his Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 31/90 defence and produced following witnesses:-
DW-1 is Sh. Manoj Kumar Giri who deposed that on 19.12.2014 in the night, some police officials visited his house and enquired about accused Anil Puri and they told him to come at Police station Dwarka Sector-9 on 20.12.2014. He further deposed that on 20.12.2014, he alongwith his niece Poonam Giri (wife of accused Anil Puri) visited PS-Dwarka and met with police and they enquired about whereabout of accused Anil Puri and his car and said police station told him to send the car of accused to Sector-9 Dwarka and accordingly, he brought the crane and paid the charges to the driver of crane and car was taken in custody by police in police station.
DW-2 is HC Hopinder. He deposed that there was a police post in Patel Nagar adjoining to Sector-4R, Faridabad, Haryana in December Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 32/90 2014 and same was abolished in the year 2017 or 2018. He further deposed that said police post Patel Nagar is named as police post Sector- 8, Faridabad.
DW-3 is Sh. Ram Kumar, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital who brought the MLC record of MLCs No. 17970-17980 and copies of same were Ex. DW-3/1 to DW-3/11.
DW-4 is Sh. Varun. He deposed that he is working with Sai Crane Service as Helper and he identified his signatures on Ex. PW-28/D1. He further deposed that on 20.12.2014, one car No. DL9CAG0673 was picked from Sector-4R Faridabad, Haryana on the request of customer and police officials and was brought to Dwarka Sector-9 Police station. He proved the copy of his Aadhar Car as Ex. DW-4/1.
35. Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 03.09.2019.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 33/90
36. I have heard Sh. Dushyant Siwatch, Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and Ld. Counsels for the accused. The material on record has been perused. ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION:
37. Ld. Addl. PP for the state argued that Sh. Rajesh Saini (since deceased) was known to accused Anil Puri being friend and Sh. Rajesh Saini (since deceased) was in the business of catering and marriage function. Ld. APP further argued that on 06.08.2014, accused Anil Puri and deceased entered into a partnership business vide partnership deed and accused Anil Puri invested Rs. 2 lakhs in the aforesaid business and the deceased invested Rs.8- 10 lakhs and they were running a Vatika in the name of Sh. Shyam Kunj Vatika, Party and Lawn at Kakrola, New Delhi. Ld. APP further argued that after few months, some dispute arose between accused Anil Puri and deceased and due to this, accused Anil Puri Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 34/90 was removed from the partnership and a sum of Rs.2,05,000/- was paid to accused Anil Puri by the deceased Sh. Rajesh Saini. However, after the dispute, accused Anil Puri extended threats to deceased Rajesh Saini many times and on 18.12.2014 when Sh. Krishan Chand Saini was present in the Vatika, accused Anil Puri had come there in the morning and on the same day at about 7 pm, accused Anil Puri had come there with two other persons and thereafter, deceased Rajesh went with accused Anil Puri and the other two persons from the vatika and deceased Rajesh Saini did not return home, later on his dead body was found. It is further argued that accused Anil Puri and Shahid Ali had committed the murder of deceased with their accomplices Sonu Peter and after committing the murder, they had thrown the dead body of deceased near Shamshan Ghat. It is further argued that motive, last seen theory and recovery of weapon has been Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 35/90 duly proved by prosecution and from the report of CFSL, it has been established that the projectiles recovered from the dead body of deceased were fired from or through the pistol recovered at the instance of accused Anil Puri. Further accused Shahid Ali and Sonu Peter after committing offence had absconded and were declared proclaimed offender which also establishes that offence in question was committed by them. The country made pistol used in offence was recovered at the instance of accused. The one bottles seized from the car of accused from where dead body was recovered shows the chance print of accused Shahid Ali. It is further argued that accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence 302/201/34/174A IPC & 25/27 Arms Act. ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE:
38. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that disclosure statement of the accused is Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 36/90 not admissible as per the Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It is further argued that the motive in this case has not been established as alleged dispute admittedly was settled by returning amount to accused. It is further argued that the chain of circumstances in this case is broken and incomplete and the circumstances of last seen is doubtful and false and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt and as such they deserve to be acquitted.
JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY LD. APP FOR STATE.
i) Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610;
ii) Kishore Bhadke vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 2010 dated 03.01.2017;
iii) Raja @ Rajinder vs State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2010 dated 10.04.2015;
iv) Kalicharan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi having Crl.
Appeal No. 107/13;
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 37/90
v) Babuda Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1992 (Supreme Court) 2091;
vi) Hanuman Gobind Nargundkar Vs State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 (Supreme Court) 343;
vii) Vinod Kumar Vs. State reported as (1990) 2 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 211;
viii) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622[(1984) 4 SCC 116
ix) Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621;
x) Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. Vs. State of A.P.'' (2006) 10 SCC 17;
xi) Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 627. JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY Ld. DEFENCE COUNSEL.
i) Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 2 SCC 748;
ii) Uppala Bixam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 38/90 AIR 2019 SC 410;
iii) Navaneethakrishnan Vs. The State (2018) 16 SCC 161;
(iv) Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 12 SCC
438.
39. Before going to the merits of the present case, it is relevant to quote here section 302 IPC:-
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code
302. Punishment for murder.--Whoever com-
mits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be li- able to fine.
40. Before adverting to the facts of the case, I would like to discuss the law with respect to circumstantial evidence when direct evidence is not available. There are numerous judgments on this aspect but I would not like to refer number of judgments. Law is well settled in this regard. Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 39/90 Reference can be made to judgment titled Kishore Bhadke vs State of Maharashtra in Criminal Appeal No. 467 of 2010 dated 03.01.2017 with Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2010 & Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2015" and "Raja @ Rajinder vs State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2010 dated 10.04.2015"
Relevant para of judgment Kishore Bhadke vs State of Maharashtra (based of last seen evidence) "16. The prosecution has also established the vital circumstances of last seen together. The evidence is given by PW11 & PW12 in particular. Their evidence will have to be juxtaposed with the evidence of PW-15, who has spoken about the telephone call received from Nalini and pursuant to which Raman left his house in her presence with relevant Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 40/90 documents/papers. The courts below have accepted her version as truthful and reliable. That evidence cannot be discarded on the basis of some minor discrepancies pointed out during the court of argument. The finding recorded by the two courts below with regard to PW15 about the truthfulness of her version is unexceptional. The evidence of PW11 corroborates the fact that deceased Raman had gone to bank for withdrawing cash amount and then proceeded to the house of Nalini accused No.1. He has deposed that Raman went inside the house of Nalini and saw accused No.2,3,4 and 6 standing near the cattle shed of Nitin Rai. While returning back, he saw accused No.5 standing near the water tank.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 41/90
32. In the case of Keshav (supra), the court held that in the case of circumstantial evidence, conviction can be recorded on the basis of motive. Further, the circumstance of last seen together becomes relevant if the death takes place shortly after accused and deceased were last seen together."
Relevant para of judgment Raja @ Rajinder vs State of Haryana (based on circumstantial evidence).
"9. From the aforesaid, it is clear as day that the Court is required to evaluate the circumstantial evidence to see that the chain of events have been established to see that the chain of events have been established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 42/90 innocence of the accused. Needless to say whether the chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted.
10. In the instance case, the circumstances that have been established by the prosecution are that the deceased had accompanied the accused-appellant, being called by him, from his house in the early part of the evening on the date of occurrence. The mother of the deceased, Kalawati, PW11, has deposed in that regard. Thereafter, from the material brought on record, it is clearly revealed that the appellant was seen at the tea stall with the deceased. The said fact has been deposed by Mahender, PW10. Thus, Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 43/90 from the aforesaid evidence, two facts are established, namely, the accused and the deceased had left the house of the deceased and were seen taking tea together at the tea stall. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the last seen theory as advance by the prosecution is not acceptable in as much as the owner of the tea stall has not been examined. When the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses deserve acceptance and receive corroboration from the other evidence on the record, no adverse inference should be drawn because of non-examination of the tea stall owner, who, as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, is a material witness. It is well settled in law that non-examination of a material Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 44/90 witness is not a mathematical formula for discarding the weight of the testimony available on record, if the same is natural, trustworthy and convincing. That apart, he was not such a witness who alone was the competent witness to depose about a fact and his non-examination would really destroy the version of the prosecution.
12. Another circumstance that has been proven is about the recovery of knife, blood-stained clothes and the ashes of the burnt blanket. The seizure witnesses Sukha, PW7 and Nanak, PW9 have proven the seizure. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that police had recorded the confessional statement of the accused-appellant at the police custody and thereafter, as alleged, had recovered certain things which really do Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 45/90 not render any assistance to the prosecution, for the confession recorded before the police officer is inadmissible. That apart, the accused had advanced the plea that the articles and the weapon were planted by the investigating agency. To appreciate the said submission in proper perspective, we may profitably reproduce a passage from State of UP vs. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125:
The expression, 'accused of any offence' in Section 27, as in Section 25, is also descriptive of the person concerned i.e. against a person, who is accused of an offence, Section 27 renders provable certain statements made by him while he was in the custody of a police officer. Section 27 is founded on the principle that even though the evidence relating to Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 46/90 confessional or other statements made by a person, while he is in custody of a police officer, is tainted and therefore, inadmissible, if the truth of the information given by him is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be untainted and is therefore declared provable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. Even though Section 27 is in the form of a provision to Section 26, the two sections do no necessarily deal with the evidence of the same character. The ban imposed by Section 26 is against the proof of confessional statements. Section 27 is concerned with the proof of information whether it amounts to a confession or not, which lead to discovery of facts. By Section 27, even if a fact is deposed to as Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 47/90 discovered in consequence of information received, only that much of the information is admissible as distinctly relates to the fact discovered."
41. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down in judgment produced by defence. The main factor to be proved on the record is whether circumstantial evidence is such which is unbroken or whether chain is established or not. If the chain is found broken at any point of time, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt but if the chain is unbroken then there is no escape for accused. Now I will deal with the arguments raised by Ld. Defence counsel one by one. LAST SEEN:
42. The first argument of Ld. Defence counsel is that there is no last seen witness in this case who had seen accused persons alongwith deceased lastly Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 48/90 before his murder. Though as per the case of prosecution, there were two witnesses of last seen namely Raju Vashisht and Manju, out of which, witness Raju Vashisht could not be produced by prosecution being not traceable and witness Smt. Manju has been examined as PW-7. During her testimony, PW-7 Smt. Manju deposed that on 18.12.2014, she was present in the Vatika and Sh. Rajesh Saini (deceased) had told her that he had to go somewhere in the evening and she further deposed that he had gone outside at about 6.00 p.m. but did not return. This witness did not name any person with whom the deceased had gone, hence, she was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the state wherein she deposed that she knew accused Anil Puri but she denied all the suggestions put to her to the fact that in her presence, Raju Vashisht had told to Rajesh Saini (Deceased) that accused Anil Puri was calling him outside. From her testimony, at least it Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 49/90 has come on record that deceased Rajesh had gone somewhere at about 6.00 p.m. on 18.12.2014 from Vatika and did not return.
43. During examination in chief of PW-5 Sh. Kishan Chand Saini deposed that "Sh. Rajesh Saini (since deceased) was my elder son. Accused Anil Puri and my son Rajesh Saini had started some business in which my son had invested Rs. 12,00,000/- and accused Anil Puri had invested Rs. 2,00,000/-. After some time, some disputes had arosen between my son and accused Anil Puri and due to this, they had dissolved the said partnership and thereafter, my son had started a Vatika at Kakrola Mor. After the dispute between my son Rajesh Saini and accused Anil Puri, accused Anil Puri had extended threats to my son many times. On 18.12.2014, I was present at the Vatika of my son, accused Anil Puri had come there in the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 50/90 morning and talked with my son Rajesh and stated him that there was a client for him and after sometime, he went from there. On the same day at about 1-2 p.m., accused Anil Puri came again with two other persons and after some time, he went from there. At about 7 p.m., accused Anil Puri, who is present in court today (correctly identified by the witness) came again with two other persons and talked with my son Rajesh and thereafter, Rajesh, accused Anil Puri and the said other two persons had gone from the Vatika of the accused. My son Rajesh did not return and on this, my daughter-in-law (wife of Rajesh) made several calls on the mobile phone of Rajesh but the phone was not picked. In the night, she called to her brothers Sh. Joginder and Sh. Shekhar. The brothers of wife of Rajesh had gone to various places and police stations in Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 51/90 search of my son Rajesh Saini but they could not trace him. On 19.12.2014 at about 1 p.m., I received a call from SHO PS Sector-9, Dwarka, who called me in the police station. I alongwith my wife went there and thereafter, we were taken to the place where the dead body of Rajesh Saini was recovered. On seeing the dead body, I identified the dead body of my son Rajesh before the police and my statement in this regard was recorded".
44. From above discussed deposition of PW-5, it is crystal clear that this witness has deposed substantially regarding last seen of accused with deceased. He has specifically deposed that accused Anil Puri had come to Vatika with two persons and he had taken deceased with him. So he had qualified the test of last seen theory. Though said fact was not disclosed by him during recording of his statement Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 52/90 U/s 161 Cr. P. C. to the police but when the witness has deposed specifically in the court regarding last seen of accused with deceased, hence this special fact cannot be ignored specifically in the murder case where valuable life of one innocent person has been lost.
45. PW-6 Sh. Joginder Saini who is brother in law of deceased has also supported the case of prosecution and he has also thrown light on the theory of motive by stating that accused Anil Puri had been the partner of deceased for about two months in his business in Vatika and some dispute arose between them and accused Anil Puri was removed from the partnership and sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 5000/- was paid to accused Anil Puri by deceased which was the share of investment of accused Anil Puri. From his deposition, it is apparent that dispute had arosen between deceased and accused Anil Puri Though his share of investment was returned to him Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 53/90 by deceased but he was annoyed with the reason that he has been expelled from the settled business of Vatika.
46. Reliance is placed upon judgment passed in Crl. Appeal No. 107/13 titled a Kalicharan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has referred the case of Sunil Kumar Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2003) 11 SCC 367 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"38. As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act). But, it there are doubts about the testimony the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 54/90 courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."
47. Ld. APP for the state has relied upon judgment titled as Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, (2018) 6 SCC 610 wherein it was held that "Last seen theory is a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly -
But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as time when deceased was last seen with accused, and recovery of corpse being in very close proximity of time, Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 55/90 accused owes an explanation under S. 106, Evidence Act, with regard to circumstances under which death may have taken place - If accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter-alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for guilt of accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same - If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, benefit of doubt must go to accused - Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine". Above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
48. The Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that PW-7 Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 56/90 Smt. Manju who was the last seen witness as per case of prosecution has already turned hostile and due to said reason, PW-5 Kishan Chand Saini had purposely become last seen witness being father of deceased and had made improvements during recording of his examination in chief. It is argued that being father of deceased, he is interested witness in the present case and his deposition cannot be read against accused Anil Puri.
49. The abovesaid argument of Ld. Defence counsel does not hold any water because perusal of record shows that examination in chief of PW-5 Sh. Kishan Chand Saini was recorded on 25.05.2017 and examination in chief of other last seen witness namely Smt. Manju was recorded on 31.07.2017 after about 2 months of his examination and in these circumstances, it cannot be said or presumed that he has improved his statement because his examination was recorded earlier to statement of said Smt. Manju. Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 57/90 It is not an out of place to mention here that PW-5 Sh. Kishan Chand Saini on the date of his deposition was not aware about the non-supporting of the case of prosecution by witness Smt. Manju. In these circumstances, it is observed that he has deposed against the accused as per his knowledge about of the facts of the case without any ulterior motive or reason and he cannot be said to be interested witness because there is no explanation on the part of accused as to PW-5 has named only him regarding last seen. Thus the deposition of PW-5 Sh. Kishan Chand Saini has become very material regarding his last seen witness and the arguments in this regard as raised by Ld. Defence counsel is hereby discarded. MOTIVE:
50. The Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that accused Anil Puri had already received the amount of Rs. 2,05,000/- invested in the partnership Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 58/90 business from deceased during his life time and there was no motive of murder in this case for accused. It is further argued that wife of deceased during her examination in chief admitted that amount was returned to accused by deceased and matter was settled. I have gone through the deposition of PW-9 Ms. Suman Saini. In para No. 2 of his examination in chief, she specifically deposed that "Accused Anil Puri also used to give threats to my husband saying that he had not done good by removing him from the partnership". In para No. 3 she further deposed that "On 18.12.2014, when my husband did not return till 10 p.m. I made a call to him on his mobile phone but it did not respond. At about 10.30 p.m., I made a call at Vatika and enquired from the workers and they told me that my husband Rajesh Saini had gone with accused Anil Puri at about 6/7 p.m. in the car of accused Anil Puri. I continued Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 59/90 tried his phone upto 1-1.30 p.m. but to no effect. I called Rahat Hussain on his phone and had taken the mobile phone number of wife of accused Anil Puri. I contacted her and she told me that accused Anil Puri had gone on 18.12.2014 in the morning and had not returned. She further told me that the mobile phone of accused Anil Puri is also switched off".
51. From her above deposition, it is clear that there were threats to deceased from accused Anil Puri. PW-5 Sh. Kishan Chand Saini in his examination in chief has also deposed that "after the dispute between my son Rajesh Saini and accused Anil Puri, accused Anil Puri had extended threats to my son many times. From the deposition, it is further clear that though amount was returned by deceased to accused Anil Puri but he was not happy and satisfied by his removal from partnership business by deceased. It is pertinent to mention here Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 60/90 that PW-9 Smt. Suman Saini (wife of deceased), had called Ms. Manju, worker of Vatika for making enquiry about deceased who informed that deceased had gone with accused Rajesh Saini in car of accused Anil Puri. The said fact is also found mentioned in her statement U/s 161 Cr. P. C. recorded by police. Thus this piece of information /fact becomes very important as same is first hand knowledge received by wife of deceased through Ms. Manju. In last seen theory, there may be direct ocular evidence to the effect where the person had seen the deceased and accused together but if the same is not available and evidence comes where somebody had seen them going so and he tells before hand to the witness to that effect then that witness also becomes important, if he deposes so coupled with circumstances and other connecting evidence. The facts and circumstances of the present case shows that the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 61/90 accused had extended threats to deceased and as such there was motive for accused to commit murder of deceased and theory of motive is also established. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
52. Reliance is placed upon judgment titled as Babuda Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1992 (Supreme Court) 2091 that in circumstantial evidence complete chain should be formed without giving any room to any other hypothesis.
53. Reliance is placed on Judgment Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622[(1984) 4 SCC 116 wherein it was held that:
''The onus was on the prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and falsity or untenability of the defence set up by the accused cannot be made basis for ignoring serious Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 62/90 infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case. The court than proceeded to indicate the conditions which must be fully established before conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence. These are:
1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established;
2) The fact so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypotheses except that the accused is guilty;
3) The circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency;
4) They should exclude every possible
hypotheses except the one to be proved; and
5) There must be chain of evidence so Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 63/90 complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.''
54. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343, it was observed that:-
''It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, an all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypotheses of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypotheses but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 64/90 so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.''
55. Reliance is further placed on ''Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621'', wherein it was laid down that:-
''where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt.''
56. Reliance is also placed on ''Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and Anr. Vs. State of A.P.'' (2006) 10 SCC 17 wherein it was held that:
''It is now well settled that with a view Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 65/90 to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypotheses. It is also well settled that suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.''
57. The above judgments are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the present case also the chain evidence has been established thereby leaving no room to any other hypothesis.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE:
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 66/90
58. Ld. APP for the state has drawn attention of the court towards the deposition of PW-24 Dr. S. S. Murthy, Asst. Director Ballistic, CFSL, Ministry of Home Affairs, Hyderabad who deposed that "On 23.05.2016 four sealed parcels were received in CFSL, Hyderabad. The same were marked to me for examination. The seals on the parcels were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression. The parcels were opened and parcel No. 1 was found containing one fired bullet, parcel no. 2 was found another one fired bullet, parcel no. 3 was found containing country made pistol and parcel no. 4 was found containing two live cartridges. I conducted the tests from 01.07.2016 to 15.07.2016. I prepared a detailed report of examination and the same is Ex.PW24/A which bears my signature at point A on both pages with seal of office. After examination, the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 67/90 parcels containing the exhibits/remnants were sealed with the seal of S.S.M. and were sent to the Authority concerned with the report".
59. The CFSL report is very material and relevant para (14. Results of the Examination) of the abovesaid report is reproduced herein below:
1. The two 7.65 mm caliber cartridges marked Ex. 8 (a) and Ex. 8 (b) were test fired through the country made pistol marked Ex. 7 in the laboratory and their respective bullets were recovered. On the basis of test firing, it is opined that the country made pistol marked Ex. 7 is in working order and the cartridges marked Ex. 8 (a) and Ex. 8 (b) were live prior to test firing.
2. On thorough examination and comparison of individual characteristic marks present on the crime bullets marked Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 68/90 Ex. 4 & Ex. 5 and test bullets of Ex. 8(a) and Ex. 8(b) under the comparison microscope, it is opined that crime bullets marked Ex. 4 & Ex. 5 have been fired through the country made pistol Ex. 7 and it could have not been fired through any other firearm because every firearm has its own individual characteristic marks".
60. The report Ex. PW-24/A is very clinching document in this case because this report shows that bullets recovered from the dead body of deceased were fired from the country made pistol recovered and seized at the instance of accused Anil Puri himself. It is pertinent to mention here that said country made pistol was recovered by investigation officer at the instance of accused only during investigation. This evidence also points towards the guilt of accused.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 69/90
61. PW-23 Dr. Anurag Thapar, Sr. Department of Forensic Medicine in his examination in chief deposed that "on 20.12.2014, I was posted in DDU Hospital in Dept. of Forensic Medicine. On that day I conducted post mortem on the dead body of Sh. Rajesh Saini Male age about 42 years. Body was identified by Sh. Kishan Chand Saini father and Sh. Sonu Saini, brother of deceased. Inquest papers were received from Inspector Sunil Gupta, PS Dwarka South. My detailed PM Report is exhibit ExPW23/A running into 5 pages each bearing my signatures at point A. In my opinion, cause of death was due to cardiogenic Shock as a result of tearing of heart by the projectile from the fire arm, however viscera and blood of deceased were preserved to rule out any prior intoxication. All injuries mentioned were fresh ante mortem in nature and of same duration. Time since death Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 70/90 was approximately 36 to 42 hours prior to the conduct of post mortem examination". In his cross-examination, he deposed that "In my opinion both the projectile which caused death was fired from nearby distance was approximately from 1 to 3 feet". So this witness has clearly proved the manner and cause of death by proving P. M. report in this case.
62. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that last page of the alleged disclosure statement of accused Anil Puri is completely blank and only bears the signatures of accused which shows that the signatures of accused were obtained on blank papers and same were later on converted into alleged disclosure statement.
63. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. APP for the state that case of prosecution which otherwise has sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the murder of deceased cannot be thrown away Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 71/90 simply because the above submissions of Ld. Defence counsel that the last blank page bears the signatures of accused because at the most it may be error or mistake of IO concerned while taking the signatures of accused on disclosure statement but on this account only, the entire testimony of the witnesses of recoveries cannot be discarded in the circumstances where last seen theory, motive, seizure memo of the recovery of weapon of offence, CFSL report and the P. M. report have been duly proved by the prosecution. Even otherwise, only blank paper on disclosure statement of accused does not dilute the case of prosecution because that piece of evidence is important and there was recovery of weapon of offence that too from the place which was known to him only and same is connected with scientific evidence with crime having CFSL report that this fire arm has been used in crime. No other statement, in disclosure statement is being used in this judgment Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 72/90 except this part. Moreover, it is not explained as to how police has come across with the weapon of offence, if it was not with accused because investigation agency has been able to get the weapon traced.
64. It is observed that rather accused himself disclosed about the car having been left by him at Faridabad and this fact only came to the knowledge of the Investigation Officer after disclosure of the accused. Prior to the disclosure of accused, the Investigating Agency was not aware about the car and weapon. The recovery of weapon was effected at the instance and pointing out of accused only and as such above discussed vital pieces of evidence which has come on record cannot be ignored simply because of the fact that last page of disclosure statement bears only the signatures of accused.
65. So, in these circumstances, the time and place of recovery of car and pistol was within the exclusive Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 73/90 knowledge of the accused and these facts could only be discovered after his disclosure statement which makes the relevant portion of his disclosure statement admissible under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. This is fortified by the case law ''Vinod Kumar Vs. State reported as (1990) 2 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 211 in which a division Bench of Delhi High Court observed that under section 27 of the Indian Evidence act that part of the statement of accused made to the police can be admissible in evidence which had led to the discovery of a particular fact.
66. Moreover, Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that if there was some error or mistake committed by IO while taking signatures of accused on disclosure statement then why the family of deceased should suffer who are running from pillar to post in the search of justice only due to the mistake or error of IO. It is observed that complainant party Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 74/90 has been very vigilant in the present case and they have been appearing almost on each and every date. The arguments addressed by Ld. Counsel for complainant has force because there is no doubt that crime has been committed and valuable life has been lost and sufficient evidence has been produced by prosecution in this case to connect the accused with murder of deceased.
67. The Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that prosecution agency has tried to produce wrong witness by the name of Raju Vashisht before the court to falsely strengthen their case.
68. This argument of Ld. Defence counsel also does not hold any water because said witness namely Raju Vashisht had never been examined before the court and prosecution reported that witness Raju Vashisht was not traceable. In the circumstances, where one person namely Raju has been served with the summons of witness Raju Vashisht and said person Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 75/90 has appeared before the court and stated that he is not a witness in this case, and after ascertaining his identity by the IO, the said person was discharged unexamined. It cannot be said that an attempt was made to examine a wrong person in place of witness Raju Vashisht. Even said person did not utter even a single word against IO that he was pressurized to give testimony in this case against accused persons. So this argument of Ld. Defence counsel does not hold any water.
69. As far as defence evidence led by accused is concerned, same is also of no help to accused because DW-1 Sh. Manoj Kumar Giri is relative of accused and his deposition cannot be said to be reliable and trustworthy because he has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not made any complaint to the police or any court with regard to the lifting of the car on 20.12.2014 and he failed to give the name of the police officials who had Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 76/90 allegedly brought the car on 20.12.2014 as per his version. DW-2 HC Hopinder has just deposed that there was a police post in Patel Nagar adjoining to Sector-4R, Faridabad, Haryana in December 2014 and same was abolished in the year 2017 or 2018. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he has never been posted in police post, Patel Nagar named as Police Post, Sector-8 Faridabad and further deposed that on 22.12.2014, he was posted in Mewat area and not in Faridabad. So this witness is also of no help to the defence. DW-3 Sh. Ram Kumar, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital had simply proved the MLC record of MLCs No. 17970-17980 and copies of same were Ex. DW-3/1 to DW-3/11.
70. As far as testimony of DW-4 Sh. Varun is concerned, he deposed that he was working with Sai Crane Service as Helper and he further deposed that on 20.12.2014, one car No. DL9CAG0673 was picked from Sector-4R Faridabad, Haryana on the request of Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 77/90 customer and police officials and was brought to Dwarka Sector-9 Police station. However, in his cross- examination conducted by Ld. APP for the state he admitted that in Ex. PW-28/D1, the address of Faridabad is not mentioned and only Sector 4R is mentioned. He further admitted that the document Ex. PW-28/D1 does not bear any stamp of Said Crane Service and that in the column of time of lifting, no time is mentioned. He further admitted that in Ex. PW-28/D1 the make, colour and model of vehicle is not mentioned. From the answers given by him, it cannot be established as to which car was lifted by him and his deposition does not inspire any confidence.
71. Further the defence taken by accused that the car was lifted on 20.12.2014 and as per the case of prosecution, it was recovered on 22.12.2014 so there was a gap of two days in between the aforesaid dates and there was ample opportunity for the accused to Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 78/90 make a complaint to the higher officers of police or to the court with regard to alleged lifting of his car from Faridabad on 20.12.2014 but no such complaint has been shown or placed on record to substantiate this defence. Even no photographs of crane carrying the vehicle of accused has been taken or placed on record.
72. The argument of Ld. Defence counsel that last seen witness namely Manju has turned hostile in this case and she has completely demolished the case of prosecution, also does not hold any water because it is settled law that on one of the witness being hostile, the other incriminating evidence against accused cannot be ignored and court is required to come at some conclusion on the basis of strong reasons derived from the testimonies of witnesses. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment titled as Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 627 Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 79/90 wherein it was held that "Criminal Trial - Witnesses - Hostile Witness - Merely because a witness declared hostile, his entire evidence cannot be treated as effaced from the record - His testimony, to the extent found reliable, can be acted upon". The law laid down in this judgment is also squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. At least from the testimony of PW-7 Smt. Manju, one thing is clear that deceased had gone somewhere at about 6.30 p.m. on 18.12.2014 from Vatika and did not return.
73. As far as law relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsels is concerned, same is not applicable to the present case being on different footing because gist of judgments relied upon by Ld. Defence counsels in case titted as Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), Uppala Bixam Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), Navaneethakrishnan Vs. The State Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 80/90 (supra) and Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab (supra) is that when a case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstance against the accused, if any does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the accused has committed the crime, he is entitled to acquittal but present case is rather on better footing because in the present case, basic parameters of offence in question including last seen theory, motive, scientific evidence coupled with circumstantial evidence has been duly proved on record which points towards guilt of accused and thus law relied upon on behalf of accused is not squarely and fully applicable to the facts of the present case.
74. So all the police witnesses have deposed as per their role in the investigation of present case. Last seen theory has also been duly proved on record. Ld. Defence counsel has failed to create any dent in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. All the witnesses have deposed categorically, corroborating the Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 81/90 testimonies of each other. I find no infirmity in their deposition. From the perusal of testimonies of the witnesses recorded in the court and going through all the exhibited documents, the connectivity of accused Anil Puri with the alleged incident has been established. Oral or direct meticulous evidence has come on record against the accused. Moreover, defence evidence adduced by accused has also remained of no help to accused. No cogent and believe worthy explanation has been furnished by accused Shahid Ali for his absconding.
75. The chain of events placed and proved by the prosecution by way of oral and documentary evidence shows that within all human probability the offence has been committed by the accused Anil Puri with pre-planned knowledge and motive resulting in death of deceased Rajesh Saini. Hence, ingredients of section 302 IPC are fully proved against the accused Anil Puri. Further it is clear from evidence on Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 82/90 record that after murder of deceased, his dead body was thrown near Pani Ki Pulia, under Railway Track, at Shamshan Ghat, Village Bagdola and thus accused tried to destroy the evidence of offence. Hence, ingredients of section 201 IPC are fully proved against the accused Anil Puri. Further the recovery of weapon of offence was effected by Investigation Officer at the instance of accused Anil Puri. Hence, ingredients of section 25 of Arms Act are proved against the accused Anil Puri and lastly, the CFSL report has duly proved that bullets /projectiles recovered from the dead body of deceased were fired from recovered country made pistol. Hence, ingredients of section 27 Arms Act are also proved against the accused Anil Puri.
76. There are many monikers for the soulless beings who will kill other for money. It is said that money does not buy happiness but ask these people who would beg to differ, who would do just anything for a little or lot Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 83/90 of money. Infact money is on of the top motives for committing murder. There is also something morbidly troubling about anyone living in delusion, who thinks that they can commit murder and get away with it. Murder is crime which abolishes the person it injures and most of the times murder victim is killed by someone known to them and fairies are made out of paper since the victim cannot answer the mode and manner of commission of crime. In cases of murder, where there is no explanation for disappearance and death of victim and accused was the last person seen in the company of deceased, circumstantial evidence is the crucial evidence to link accused with commission of crime to arrive at the conclusion that it was only the accused having committed the murder. Instant matter is also on similar footing where deceased was murdered by one of his known /business partner (accused herein) on the issue of money and evidence has come on record against him regarding last seen of accused with deceased prior to his murder, motive and recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 84/90 accused has also been successfully established by prosecution coupled with the scientific evidence i.e. testimony of PW-24 Dr. S. S. Murthy from CFSL and CFSL report which fully connects the recovered weapon of offence with the bullets/projectiles recovered from the dead body of deceased. It is really very difficult in such type of cases to find the fault and culpability but one has to see beyond the fog to find out the truth and to search it out. This sonnet sums up the same:
We're forced, each man, to walk a trialed path-
resisted trek, uphill through blinding daze that shrouds with crucible's perplexing haze till fog-white skies yield quick to black cloud's wrath.
Affliction brims a thorny pack to bear Whilst dewy darkness drenches in the night, but where is calming lamp to lend us sight?
And who will come to give us saving care? Here through veil is heard a whisper Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 85/90 certain, Then o'er the mountain creeps the dawning day and with clear eyes we see the brume give way.
77. In view of aforesaid discussion and evidence brought on record, the prosecution has been successful to connect the accused Anil Puri with murder of deceased Rajesh Saini and throwing his dead body near Shamshan Ghat after commission of murder beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused Anil Puri is held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 302/201 IPC. Since involvement of accused Shahid Ali in murder of deceased is not proved and other accused namely Sonu @ Peter is already P. O. and is not traceable till date, hence Section 34 IPC cannot be attracted at this stage.
78. As far as offences U/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is concerned, the prosecution has been able to Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 86/90 prove that weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of accused by examining the witnesses of recovery and has also proved the use of said weapon in the murder of deceased by way of CFSL report and testimony of PW-24 Dr. S. S. Murthy, according to which it has been established that the bullets /projectiles recovered from the dead body of deceased were fired from the weapon recovered at the instance of accused Anil Puri. Accordingly, accused Anil Puri is held guilty and is convicted for committing the offences U/s 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
79. As far as evidence against accused Shahid Ali in this case is concerned, there is only matching of his finger prints with the chance print taken from water bottles recovered from car of accused Anil Puri and apart from this, prosecution had failed to bring any other evidence against him. The family members and other public witnesses, who were as per the case Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 87/90 of prosecution were witnesses to the last seen and motive, have not deposed anything against accused Shahid Ali. The last seen witness PW-5 Kishan Chand Saini had deposed that on the fateful day, accused Anil Puri had come with two other persons and had taken his son with them. This witness has deposed only about two other persons and did not name accused Shahid and also did not identify him as the person who accompanied accused Anil Puri. In the testimonies of witness of motive, nothing has come on record against accused Shahid Ali. The matching of finger prints of accused Shahid Ali with the water bottle found in the car of accused Anil Puri is not sufficient to hold that he was involved in the murder of deceased Rajesh Saini with accused Anil Puri. Hence, in these circumstances, guilt of accused qua murder of deceased is not proved. Accordingly, accused Shahid Ali is acquitted for the offence U/s 302/201/34 IPC.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 88/90
80. However, after registration of present case, accused Shahid Ali had remained absconded and he was declared proclaimed offender and charge for the offence U/s 174A IPC was framed against him. Nothing contrary has come on record in favour of accused Shahid Ali qua offence U/s 174A IPC. The charge U/s 174A IPC stands proved. Accordingly, accused Shahid Ali is convicted for the offence U/s 174A IPC.
81. So from above discussion, the commission of crime by the accused Anil Puri and causing murder of deceased stands duly proved. Witnesses have duly supported the case of prosecution and no dent could be created in their testimonies. The unbroken chain of sequence of events leading to murder of deceased has been duly proved in this case by prosecution.
82. Thus, on all counts, guilt of accused Anil Puri has been duly proved beyond any doubt. The accused Anil Puri is convicted for the offences U/s Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 89/90 302/201/34 IPC and he is also convicted for the offences U/s 25 and 27 of Arms Act. Shahid Ali is convicted for the offence U/s 174A IPC.
83. Since accused No. 3 namely Sonu Peter is already P. O. hence proceedings of present case shall be revived against him as and when he is apprehended and produced by police for facing trial.
84. Case property be confiscated to State after expiry of period of appeal. Bail bonds and surety bonds are discharged. Copy of judgment be supplied to convicts free of costs.
85. Be put up for arguments and order on sentence on 24.10.2019. AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY GOEL GOEL Date: 2019.10.24 15:32:05 +0530 Pronounced in the open court. (AJAY GOEL) Dated: 21.10.2019 ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) Dwarka Courts/New Delhi.
Sessions Case No. 440402/2016 State Vs. Anil Puri & Ors. Page No. 90/90