Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Naveen Sehrawat @ Lamba on 13 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 75/2013
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0047212009
State Vs. (1) Naveen Sehrawat @ Lamba
S/o Suresh Kumar
R/o House No. 212,
Near Lalawali Chaupal,,
Village Dariyapur Kalan,
PS Bawana, Delhi
(Acquitted)
(2) Ajay Kumar @ Sonu Pandit @ Sonu
S/o Suresh Kumar
R/o Village Lalhiri Kalan,
PS Gannaur, District Sonepat,
Haryana
(Since expired)
FIR No.: 604/2008
Police Station: Sultan Puri
Under Sections: 302/307/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act
Date of committal to session court: 21.2.2009
Date on which orders were reserved: 13.1.2014
Date on which Judgment announced: 13.1.2014
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 1 of 70
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per the allegations on 17.9.2008 at about 6:15 PM at Flat No. 170, Ground Floor, PocketII, Sector 24, Rohini the accused Naveen Sehrawat along with the accused Ajay Kumar @ Sonu Pandit (since expired), Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen Dabas (both juveniles) in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Ravi Sehrawat and Sandeep Lathar by firearm. It is also alleged that the accused in furtherance of their common intention fired at Pankaj Maan by firearm with such intention and under such circumstances that if by the said act he had caused the death of Pankaj Maan he would have been guilty of murder. BRIEF FACTS/ CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.09.2008 at about 6:27 PM DD No.21 was received at Police Station Sultan Puri pursuant to which SI Deepak Malik along with Ct. Mahesh reached at ground floor of H. No. 170, PocketII, Sector 24, Rohini where two dead bodies of young boys were lying down in pool of blood and PCR officials were also present at the spot. The SHO of Police Station Sultanpuri along with other police officials reached at the spot and inside the room where the bodies of both the boys were lying, three empty cartridges of 9mm bore and two empty cartridge were also lying in the said room. On the table which was lying in the room, one empty bottle of Vodka "Smirnoff", one bottle of two liter Pepsi with some Pepsi in the bottle, two mobile phones were found, five empty St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 2 of 70 cartridges i.e. three of 9 mm bore and two of 7.62 bore, three fire leads were found inside the room and one fired cartridge of 9 mm was found outside near the main entrance/ door. One Santro car of white color bearing number plate DL4CAG9277 was found parked outside the flat i.e. House No. 170, Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Sector 24, Rohini. A large number of public persons had also gathered by that time and they identified the deceased persons as Sandeep Lather and Ravi Sehrawat. SI Deepak Malik prepared the rukka on DD No. 21 and after the registration of the case the investigations were handed over to Inspector Mahender Singh who lifted the various exhibits from the spot.
(3) During investigations the accused Naveen Sehrawat, Ajay Kumar, Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen Dabas were arrested. I may observe that initially the charge sheet has been filed against the accused Naveen Sehrawat, Ajay Kumar, Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen Dabas and later on the accused Ajay Kumar had expired and proceedings against him stood abetted. The accused Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen Dabas who had actually fired on the deceased have been declared juveniles and are facing trail before the Juvenile Justice Board and it is the accused Naveen Sehrawat who is facing trial before the Court.
CHARGES:
(4) Charges under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against the accused Naveen Sehrawat to which he pleaded not St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 3 of 70 guilty and claimed trial.
(5) Before coming to the testimonies of individual witnesses, the details of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the defence and the documents proved by them are hereby put in a tabulated form as under:
List of Prosecution witnesses:
Sr. PW No. Name of the witness Details of witness
No.
1. PW1 Dr. Manoj Dhingra Autopsy Surgeon
2. PW2 Ct. Ram Avtar Police Witness - Special Messenger
3. PW3 Pramod @ Ballu Public witness - an alleged eye witness to the
incident who has turned hostile
4. PW4 SI Manohar Lal Police Witness Draftsman
5. PW5 Ct. Mahesh Kumar Police witness who had reached the spot with
SI Deepak Malik
6. PW6 Pankaj Maan Public witness - an alleged eye witness to the
incident who has turned hostile
7. PW7 Ct. Manish Police Witness - Crime Team Incharge
8. PW8 ASI Rajender Singh Police witness from Police Station Sadar
Bahadurgarh
9. PW9 W/Ct. Summan Police Witness - DD Writer
10. PW10 HC Ramesh Kumar Police Witness MHCM
11. PW11 ASI Joginder Police Witness - Duty Officer
12. PW12 Ct. Bhim Singh Police Witness - DD Writer
13. PW13 Dr. Dhruv Sharma FSL Expert
14. PW14 Jagdeep Public witness - not an eye witness to the
incident
15. PW15 Sh. M.N. Vijayan Nodal Officer from TATA Teleservices
16. PW16 Capt. Rakesh Bakshi Nodal officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd.
17. PW17 Israr Babu Nodal Officer from Vodafone
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 4 of 70
18. PW18 Sunil Kumar Nodal Officer from MTNL
19. PW19 Sarita Public witness who has turned Hostile
20. PW21 Vineet Sahrawat Public witness who has turned Hostile
21. PW22 Pradeep Kumar Public witness - cousin of deceased Ravi
22. PW23 Mukesh Kumar Public witness - uncle of deceased Sandeep
23. PW24 Ranbir Singh Public witness - an alleged eye witness to the
incident who has turned Hostile
24. PW25 Yash Pal Singh Public witness - not an eye witness to the
incident
25. PW26 Manish Public witness - brother of the deceased
Sandeep who has identified the dead body of
the deceased
26. PW27 Narayan Singh Public witness - covillager of deceased Ravi
27. PW28 Jitender Public witness - neighbour of the deceased
Sandeep Lathar
28. PW29 SI Ashok Kumar Police witness who had joined investigations
29. PW30 HC Kaushal Police witness who had joined investigations
30. PW31 SI Deepak Malik Police witness who had first reached the spot
31. PW32 ACP Mahender Investigating Officer of the present case
Singh
32. PW33 Sh. V.R. Anand FSL Expert
List of documents:
Sr. Exhibit No. Detail of documents Proved by
No.
1. Ex.PW1/A Postmortem Report in respect of Sandeep Dr. Manoj
Lather
2. Ex.PW1/B Postmortem Report in respect of Ravi
3. Ex.PW3/A Statement of Pramod u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Pramod
4. Ex.PW3/B Statement of Pramod u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.
5. Ex.PW4/A Site plan SI Manohar Lal
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 5 of 70
6. Ex.PW6/A Statement of Pankaj Maan u/s. 161 Pankaj Maan
Cr.P.C.
7. Ex.PW7/A1 to Photographs Ct. Manish
PW7/A24
8. Ex.PW7/B1 to Negatives
PW7/B25
9. Ex.PW8/A Seizure memo of Car ASI Rajender Singh
10. Ex.PW9/A PCR Form W/Ct. Suman
11. Ex.PW10/A Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 11624 HC Ramesh Kumar
12. Ex.PW10/B Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 11625
13. Ex.PW10/C Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 11705
14. Ex.PW10/D Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 11708
15. Ex.PW10/E Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 11723
16. Ex.PW10/F Copy of Reg No. 19 Sr. No. 12097
17. Ex.PW10/G RC No. 241/21/08
18. Ex.PW10/H RC No. 242/21/08
19. Ex.PW10/J FSL Receipt
20. Ex.PW11/A FIR ASI Joginder Singh
21. Ex.PW11/B Endorsement on Rukka
22. Ex.PW12/A DD NO. 21 Ct. Bhim Singh
23. Ex.PW13/A Biological Report Dr. Dhruv Sharma
24. Ex.PW13/B Serological Report
25. Ex.PW15/A Customer application form Sh. M.N. Vijayan
( 9212771942)
26. Ex.PW15/B Copy of Voter ID Card
27. Ex.PW15/C Call detail record
28. Ex.PW15/D Certificate U/s 65B
29. Ex.PW15/E Customer application form
( 9212431620)
30. Ex.PW15/F Copy of Voter ID Card
31. Ex.PW15/G Call detail record
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 6 of 70
32. Ex.PW15/H Certificate U/s 65B
33. Ex.PW15/I Customer application form
( 9212583373)
34. Ex.PW15/J & Copy of Pan Card and electricity
PW15/K
35. Ex.PW15/L Call detail report
36. Ex.PW15/M Certificate U/s 65B
37. Ex.PW15/N Customer application form
( 9210370413)
38. Ex.PW15/O Copy of Voter ID Card
39. Ex.PW15/P Call detail report
40. Ex.PW15/Q Certificate U/s 65B
41. Ex.PW15/R Cell ID Chart
42. Ex.PW16/A Customer application form Capt Rakesh Bakshi
( 9810309293)
43. Ex.PW16/B Copy of DL
44. Ex.PW16/C Call detail report
45. Ex.PW16/D Cell ID Chart
46. Ex.PW16/E Certificate U/s 65B
47. Ex.PW17/A Customer application form Israr Babu
( 9711324541)
48. Ex.PW17/B Copy of Voter ID Card
49. Ex.PW17/C Call detail report
50. Ex.PW17/D Cell ID Chart
51. Ex.PW17/E Certificate U/s 65B
52. Ex.PW18/A Customer application form Sunil Kumar
( 9968044908)
53. Ex.PW18/B Copy of ESIC Insurance slip
54. Ex.PW18/C Call Detail Record (9968044908)
55. Ex.PW22/A Articles handing over memo Pardeep Kumar
56. Ex.PW23/A Dead body identification memo Mukesh Kumar
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 7 of 70
57. Ex.PW23/B Dead body identification memo
58. Ex.PW24/A Dead body identification memo Ranbir Singh
59. Ex.PW24/B Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.
60. Ex.PW25/A Statement of Yashpal Yashpal
61. Ex.PW26/PX1 Statement of Manish Manish
62. Ex.PW27/A Dead body identification statement Narayan Singh
63. Ex.PW27/B Dead body handing over memo
64. Ex.PW29/A Arrest memo of accused Naveen SI Ashok
65. Ex.PW29/B Personal search memo of Naveen
66. Ex.PW29/C Disclosure statement of Naveen
67. Ex.PW29/D Pointing out memo of Naveen
68. Ex.PW30/PX1 Statement of HC Kaushal HC Kaushal
69. Ex.PW31/A Rukka SI Deepak Malik
70. Ex.PW31/B Seizure memo of blood sample
71. Ex.PW31/C Seizure memo of bottle & Pepsi
72. Ex.PW31/D Seizure memo of cartridges
73. Ex.PW31/E Seizure memo of mobile phone
74. Ex.PW31/F Seizure memo of santro car
75. Ex.PW32/A Site plan ACP Mahender Singh
76. Ex.PW32/B Request for postmortem of Sandeep
77. Ex.PW32/C Form 25.35
78. Ex.PW32/D Handing over memo of articles of
deceased
79. Ex.PW32/E Request for postmortem of Ravi
80. Ex.PW32/F From 25.35
81. Ex.PW32/G Seizure memo of bullet led, blood
sample and blood gauze of Sandeep
82. Ex.PW32/H Seizure memo of bullet led, blood
sample and blood gauze of Ravi
83. Ex.PW32/I Letter of Service Provider
84. Ex.PW32/J Letter to Director, STA
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 8 of 70
85. Ex.PW32/K Particulars of vehicle
86. Ex.PW33/A Ballistic Report Sh. V.R. Anand
EVIDENCE:
(6) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as
Thirty Three witnesses as under:
Public witnesses:
(7) PW3 Pramod @ Ballu S/o Sh. Hanumant Singh has deposed that
in the year 2008, he was running a DJ Shop by the name of "Five Star Hi Fi DJ". He has further deposed that about one and half year back in the afternoon, he received a telephone call from deceased Ravi who had called him at Rohini on the pretext that he was over drunk and could not drive the car so he should come to take him back to the village. According to the witness, he left for Rohini in a DTC bus where again he received a telephonic call number of which, he did not recollect and Ravi asked him about his position on which he told Ravi that he was going to reach at Pooth Khurd village. The witness has further deposed that Ravi told him that Sandeep was also coming in his car and was standing in Pooth Khurd village so he should accompany him and accordingly from Pooth Khurd he (witness) came to Rohini alongwith Sandeep in his car. The witness testified that Sandeep was a JBT teacher with deceased Ravi and when they were about to reach Rohini, Ravi again called on the mobile phone of Sandeep to St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 9 of 70 know about their position on which Sandeep told him that within 1015 minutes, they would reach at Metro Walk, Rohini. He also deposed that Sandeep purchased liquor and beer bottles from a theka at Sector - 16 and thereafter they reached at Metro Walk where Ravi, Pankaj and their other friends were also present. According to the witness, except himself and Pankaj, all the boys present there consumed liquor and beer after which they all went inside Metro Walk. The witness has further deposed that Ravi had passes of a party of PDM College, Bahadurgarh which was going in Metro Walk but by the time they reached at Metro Walk, the party was over and on their request for sometime DJ was played and thereafter they all were sent out. He has also deposed that Ravi went towards his car and he, Sandeep and two other boys remained in the Metro Walk. He has testified that Ravi had called Sandeep that he was suffering from vomiting and all of them should come immediately, on which they all came out and saw that Ravi was vomiting. The witness has also deposed that he (witness) started driving the said car of Ravi after making him sit besides the driver seat and in the meanwhile, Pankaj called him on his mobile phone and asked him as to where he was on which he told him that they were just leaving the parking then he told him that he was standing outside the parking and further asked him to accompany him if they were going towards the village. The witness has testified that they took Pankaj alongwith them and when they reached near Sector - 11 Sandeep called on the mobile phone of Ravi and asked as to where they were going, on which Ravi replied that they were going St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 10 of 70 towards home. According to him, on this Sandeep had asked Ravi to come in a flat at Sector - 24 Rohini to have some food etc. on which he (witness) showed his unawareness of the said flat at Sector - 24 and on this Ravi asked him to drive the car towards his directions. PW3 has further deposed that when they reached near Rithala Metro Station, Sandeep again called on the mobile phone of Ravi to know about their position and informed them that he was also standing at Rithala Metro Station. According to the witness, when they went a little ahead near red light, Ravi again vomited and sat on the footpath. The witness has deposed that he told Ravi that he was feeling very hungry on which Ravi had asked him to take his lunch box and have food. He has testified that he along with Pankaj had food and in the meanwhile, Sandeep along with his friend whose name he does not recollect also reached there. According to him, Sandeep alighted from the said car and came in the car in which they were going and thereafter Sandeep drove the car towards a flat of Sector - 24 and ordered for some cold drink etc. He has further deposed that they took out the remaining liquor and beer also and started having food and drink. The witness has further deposed that since Ravi was over drunk, so he went inside the bed room. According to him, Pankaj wanted to go home as he was getting late and he (witness) went outside the flat for urinating and in the meanwhile, Pankaj also came out from the flat and asked him to go home as the other boys were involved in the drinks etc. after which they left for the home. He has also deposed that after reaching at home and waiting for Ravi, he called on his mobile phone St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 11 of 70 but it was not responding and he told this incident to his brother who asked him to tell about Ravi to his parents. According to the witness, the family members of Ravi also called him on his mobile but no response was coming from the other side after which they all came along with family members and neighbours of Ravi and reached at the flat at Sector - 24 where they found a big crowd of public and police officials in the flat and on inquiry they came to know that firing had taken place and two persons had been injured who had already been removed to SGM Hospital. The witness has testified that police had inquired from him but his statement was not recorded nor he signed any paper on that day but he had identified the dead body.
(8) The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State since he was resiling from his previous statement, wherein the witness has deposed that he did not know if inquiries made by the police from him was reduced into writing in the shape of his statement. The witness has admitted that two more boys were accompanying Sandeep when he came in the flat of Sector - 24 though he is unable to tell if their names were Vineet and Jaggu.
He has testified that he did not tell the police that during the course of conversation Pankaj had asked him about Neeraj who was stated to be from his village and when he told Pankaj he know that it was Neeraj who had fired in the marriage of his brother; that he asked from Pankaj as to why he was asking about Neeraj on which he told that Neeraj used to call and tease his sister on telephone on which he (witness) replied that in case he meets St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 12 of 70 Neeraj, he would talk to him and further asked his phone number on which Pankaj called Neeraj on his mobile phone which was going busy; that after sometime Neeraj had called on the mobile phone of Pankaj which was handed over to him by Pankaj for talking with Neeraj. Pankaj had enabled the speaker of the mobile phone or that when he asked if Neeraj was speaking in response he asked him as to who was speaking from other side and Neeraj had asked him what was the matter on which he (witness) told him about Pankaj that he was known to him being the resident of village Prahladpur and like a brother to him; that he asked Neeraj as to why he teased the sister of Pankaj on telephone by abusing her and warned him to mend his ways otherwise it would not be good for him on which he asked about his position and he (witness) told him that he was in Sector - 24, Rohini near DPS School and he called him there; that he took the mobile phone of Pankaj after sometime and he & Sandeep went in Santro car to bring Neeraj from DPS School and on the way, he called Neeraj on his mobile and told him that they were standing at Aggarwal Sweets ahead of DPS School and when they reached there, it was bad weather and he gave indications to Neeraj to follow their car; that when they reached near the flat and parked the car in the ground opposite temple and when they about to enter in the flat, they gave indication to Neeraj also to come in the flat; that Sandeep sat on a single sofa whereas he himself sat on bed side sofa and Pankaj was sitting on the bed and Neeraj came along with three other boys out of whom one was Naveen @ Bali @ Chhotu of village Sultan Pur St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 13 of 70 Dabas, second was Sonu and the third was Naveen of village Dariyapur Kalan, who allegedly roam together and who were seen in the swift car bearing no. DL 3 C - 3254 of Neeraj. He has denied having told the police that all the said boys came and sat on the bed besides Pankaj and he asked them as to what they would like to have on which Neeraj replied that they had carried their drink with themselves or that he then asked Neeraj to see inside the other room who after seeing the room asked him as to why he was called on which he pointed out towards Pankaj who was sitting on the bed and was his friend from village - Prahladpur and asked why he tease his sister on telephone and in between Sandeep asked Neeraj "tu hamare se chhota hai, kal tak tujhe school chhorta tha, ab tu dada ho gaya aur hamari bahan ko phone par gali deta hai". He has denied having told the police that Sandeep then gave a fist blow to Neeraj and they all stood up; that after this Neeraj had asked Bali to take out his pistol and finish him and Neeraj had asked Sonu and Naveen to guard the main door so that no one could escape and that all of them should be killed and on hearing the noise Ravi came from the adjoining room while shouting and asked what was the drama going on and also told Neeraj that they wanted to scare them with the toys on which Neeraj had put the gun on the head of Sandeep and then fired after which Bali also fired and Bali fired upon Ravi. He has further denied having told the police that on this Neeraj said that he was from their street on which Bali told Neeraj that now he had fired, he should fire him as well as he was favouring the others on which Neeraj had also fired on Ravi who St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 14 of 70 was lying on the sofa. The witness has also denied having told the police that thereafter he (witness) got nervous after watching the entire incident and Pankaj ran inside the flat and Neeraj followed him whereas he (witness) ran towards the door where Sonu and Naveen were standing who did not let him go out and he (witness) started begging before them on which they allowed him to go outside the flat after which he reached home while running and narrated the entire incident to his father and family members and also to the villagers and Councillor of the area namely Narain who took him to the house of Ravi where he told the incident to the father and other family members of Ravi. He has denied having told the police that he informed about the incident to the father of Sandeep namely Ranvir Singh Lathar; that Neeraj S/o Prem is from his village, Bali is a resident of Sultan Pur Dabas, Naveen @ Lamba is of village Dariyapur Kalan and Sonu is of village Tatesar. However, when the witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/A all the above facts were found mentioned. (9) The witness has only identified the accused Neeraj (now declared juvenile) in the court since he is from his village but he is unable to identify the other three boys. He denied the suggestion that those three boys who came along with accused Neeraj were present in the court or that he is not intentionally identifying the accused persons out of the threat of his life as they are professionals and desperate criminals. He has further denied the suggestion that he went to Police Station Sultan Puri on 28.11.2008 or that he had identified accused Neeraj at the Police Station on 28.11.2008 as the St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 15 of 70 same person who on 17.09.2008 had fired a shot in Flat no.170, Pocket - 2, Sector24, Ground Floor, Rohini. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW3/B the aforesaid fact was found mentioned. (10) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that on 17.09.2008, he did not meet Neeraj nor saw him on the said date either in the village or at any other place. The witness has also admitted that he had identified accused Neeraj due to his acquaintance with him as he is hailing from the same village to which he belong and they both have been born in the same village. The witness further stated that he did not know as to who killed the said two deceased nor they were killed in his presence.
(11) PW6 Pankaj Maan has deposed that on 17.09.2008 he had gone to Metro Walk, Sector11, Rohini where he met his friend Ravi, Leele (residents of Bawana) and one other by whom he recognize by face only. He has further deposed that they asked him to join a party of PDM College in the Metro Walk since Ravi was having the passes of that party and in the meantime Ballu @ Pramod along with twothree other boys whom he is not known also met them outside the party and Ravi, Leele and twothree boys who came along with Pramod went inside the car and started drinking whereas he and Pramod remained outside the car. According to the witness, thereafter they all went inside the party hall but by that time party was over and on their request, they played the DJ for sometime after which they came outside the party hall. The witness has also deposed that since Ravi was St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 16 of 70 heavily drunk, he was made to sit in the car and he came out of the Metro Walk with the boys of PDM College. He has further deposed that he called Ballu on his mobile phone after taking the mobile phone from one of the boys of PDM college and asked Ballu to take him (Pankaj Maan) along with him. The witness has testified that Ballu asked him to wait for outside the Metro Walk as he was taking out the car from the parking and thereafter, he along with Ballu and Ravi went towards Sector - 11, Rohini and Ballu was driving the car. According to him, in the meanwhile Ravi received a call on his mobile phone and he asked Ballu to take the vehicle towards flat of Sector 24 but Ballu shown his ignorance about the flat of Sector - 24 upon that Ravi told him that he would guide him. He has also deposed that on the way Ravi vomited at red light near Rithala Metro Station and thereafter, Ballu told Ravi that he was feeling hungry on which Ravi asked him to take out the tiffin lying in the car after which he and Ballu had the food. According to the witness, by that time a Santro car came from behind in which threefour boys were sitting who were known to Ravi and Ballu and from the said car one boy got down and came and started driving their car and thereafter they all reached to flat at Sector - 24, Rohini and went inside the flat wheres the twothree other boys who came in the another Santro car went somewhere else. The witness has further deposed that there Ravi and another boy whose name was later on revealed as Sandeep again started drinking inside the flat and since Ravi was heavily drunk, he went inside the bed room. He has testified that since they were getting late and Ravi and St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 17 of 70 Sandeep were not in a mood to leave the flat, therefore he alongwith Ballu came out from the flat and went to their house. The witness has also deposed that on the same night at about 3:004:00 AM, police came to his home then he came to know that Ravi and Sandeep have been murdered. He has further deposed that his statement was never recorded by the police official in this case. However, police had interrogated him as to how he met the deceased.
(12) The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State since he was resiling from his previous statement wherein he has deposed that he had met Leele and Ravi at the coaching centre of Leele and became acquainted with each other. According to the witness, he had not stated to the police that on 17.09.2008 at about 1:00 PM, he received a telephone call from Leele from his mobile no. 9868953033 on his mobile no. 9711323454 asking him about his position or that Leele came in his Maruti 800 and from there he accompanied him and he told Leele that one Neeraj resident of his village had been teasing his sister Sarita by making absurd phone calls on which Leele provided him the telephone number of Neeraj and he immediately called Neeraj on his mobile no. 9968044908 which was replied by Neeraj and he asked him as to why he was teasing his sister on which Neeraj told him that he was busy and asked him to talk to him later on and disconnected the call. He has also denied having told the police that when Ravi was heavily drink, he asked Ballu to talk on his mobile which was either from Sandeep or Vineet or that Ballu had talked on St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 18 of 70 the phone and told that those boys were calling on the flat of Sector - 24; that at about 5:15 PM Sandeep & Vineet came in their car and thereafter they all came to flat in Sector - 24, Rohini by their car and Jaggu opened the flat and while they all went inside Vineet was sitting in his car and was talking on his phone and that Ballu and Sandeep asked him to bring some eatables after which they left the place and one boy delivered pepsi bottles at flat or that during conversation, he asked Ballu whether he knew Neeraj to which Ballu told that he knew Neeraj who had fired in the marriage of his brother in his village - Bawana and he informed Ballu upon his inquiry that Neeraj had been teasing his sister by making unpleasant call to her and Ballu told him that he would see to it or that he asked him (Pankaj Maan) to provide the phone number of Neeraj, if any, so he can talk to him; that thereafter he dialed the mobile no. of Neeraj which was responding as busy, but later on Neeraj told them on the same phone and he (witness) should talk to Ballu after activating the mobile on speaker mode. He has denied having told the police that Neeraj asked Ballu as to why he had called him on which Ballu told him as to why he had been teasing his sister and Ballu warned Neeraj not to repeat the same otherwise he would face the dire consequences on which Neeraj asked Ballu as to where he was at that time to which Ballu replied that he was at flat in Sector - 24 near DPS and asked him to come there after which Ballu and Sandeep went outside to take Neeraj in a Santro car after taking his mobile phone along with them but after sometime Ballu and Lathar came back followed by Neeraj, Bali, Sonu and Naveen whom he St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 19 of 70 already knew and when Ballu offered Neeraj and his associates some eatables to which Neeraj refused and told Ballu that he keep eatable along with them. He has also denied having told the police that at that time Ballu was sitting on big sofa in front of gate and Sandeep was sitting on single sofa lying near the gate of inside room and he (witness) was sitting on the bed along with Sonu, Naveen, Bali and Neeraj and in the meanwhile Neeraj asked Ballu as to why he had called him to which Ballu introduced him before Neeraj as his friend who asked him why he was teasing his sister on telephone and in the meantime Sandeep also told Neeraj that he was younger to them and how he dare he tease the sister of their friend and gave a fist blow to Neeraj on which they all stood up immediately and that Neeraj asked Bali to take out his pistol and finish Sandeep and also asked Sonu and Naveen to take their position on the door in order to guard the main gate so that no person can escape. He has denied having stated to the police that on hearing noise Ravi came from the inside room while shouting what drama was going on and told them that they wanted to scare them with the toys like pistols on which Neeraj put the gun on the head of Sandeep and then fired and Bali had also fired also fired upon Ravi on which Neeraj had said that he was from their street/ gali; that Bali had said that now he had fired and asked Neeraj to fire him as well as he was favouring the others on which Neeraj had also fired on Ravi who was lying on the sofa and he (witness) got nervous after watching the entire incident on which he ran towards inside the kitchen where Neeraj followed him and Ballu ran towards the St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 20 of 70 door where Sonu and Naveen were standing who did not let him go out. He has further denied having told the police that Ballu started begging before them upon which they allowed him to go outside the flat but Neeraj put gun on his head and pressed the trigger but by grace of God it was misfired and he begged before Neeraj for mercy and for his life and same was accepted and he was allowed to go after threatening not to disclose about the incident to anybody and then Neeraj again pressed the trigger and fired and thereafter he felt that he was leaving the flat after hearing the sound of foot steps and while leaving Bali fired in air and they all left the spot in a Swift car after which he came out of the flat and after finding Ballu missing, he ran away from there and reached his home but he did not tell anything about the incident to anybody due to fear and disturbance. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/A the above facts were found so recorded.
(13) The witness has denied the suggestion that he was intentionally and deliberately not identifying the assailants who killed Sandeep and Ravi as they are professional and desperate criminals. The witness further denied the suggestion that he is not identifying the assailants in order to save them as he had been won over by them. He has also denied the suggestion that on 19.12.2008, he visited Police Station Sultan Puri to know about the progress report where he identified Bali whose real name is Naveen Dabas @ Chhotu as one of the assailants or that on 09.03.2009, he identified accused Naveen @ Lamba R/o village - Dariyapur Kalan as one of the assailants who St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 21 of 70 committed the murder of Sandeep and Ravi. According to the witness, his statement was not recorded by the police to this effect. The witness was confronted with statements dated 19.12.2008 and 09.03.2009 wherein the was so recorded. He also denied the suggestion that on 15.04.2009 he identified Ajay @ Sonu in Police Station Sultan Puri as one of the assailants or that his statement was recorded to this effect. When confronted with his statement dated 15.04.2009 the above fact found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to save his life. (14) This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsels despite being given opportunity.
(15) PW14 Sh. Jagdeep has deposed that on 17.09.2008 at about 5.00PM he was present in Sector 24, Rohini at about 5.00PM when he received a mobile call of his friend Vineet resident of Village Daryapur Kalan who asked about the key of flat no. 170, situated at Sector 24 Rohini, Delhi and asked him that he want to sit in the flat. According to the witness, the said flat was taken on rent by one Ajit who was his friend and he had gone out of Delhi to attend his JBT Exam and had handed over the key of the said flat to him. He has testified that he asked Vineet to meet him at Rithala Metro Station within ten minutes and within ten minutes of his call he reached at Rithala Metro Station where he met Vineet and Sandeep in his car and he also sat in the car of Vineet. The witness has further deposed that thereafter they moved in the car at a distance where they found the car of Sandeep parked and Sandeep was also in the car. According to him, Ballu, St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 22 of 70 Ravi and Pankaj were also present in the car of Sandeep after which they all reached at flat no. 170 in both the vehicles and then he opened the lock of that flat and Ballu, Ravi, Sandeep and Pankaj went inside the flat and Vineet remained busy on his mobile as he was talking with some another person. According to the witness, Ballu asked him to bring the meal and thereafter Vineet went to CNG Pump at Sector 23, Rohini, Delhi and he also accompanied him. The witness has further deposed that they also purchased the beer from a wine shop. According to the witness, it took some time and he asked Vineet to arrange the meal by making a call at Sector 24, Rohini. He has also deposed that at about 8.008.30 PM when they reached at the said flat, they found a huge crowd at the flat and police was also present there. According to him, when they went inside the flat they noticed that Ravi and Sandeep were lying in a pool of blood and had died, on which they got scared and he and Vineet secretly fled from the flat in the car of Vineet. He has further deposed that when they heard the ringing of the mobile phone of Sandeep which was lying in the car of Vineet, Vineet told him that he is not able to drive the car and Vineet had threw the phone of Sandeep in Bawana Nahar (canal) and alighted him from the car at J J Colony, Bawana, Jhuggi stand. According to the witness, thereafter he went to his house and was later on interrogated by the police and his statement was recorded in this regard.
(16) This witness was not crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 23 of 70 (17) PW19 Ms. Sarita has deposed that she does not know anything about the present case. However, she was interrogated by the Police when Ravi and Sandeep were murdered.
(18) With the permission of Court, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State had put leading questions to the witness wherein he has deposed that Neeraj @ Neetu never used to call her on her mobile phone. On a specific Court Question the witness has replied that the mobile number used by her was 9211042460 which remained at her house and was being used by everybody at home and has voluntarily explained that at the time of incident she and her brother Rahul were at home and her mother had gone for a training. (19) She has admitted that whenever any call came on the said mobile phone she also used to receive the call frequently. According to the witness, the call on the said phone were also being attended by her Mausi. She has denied the suggestion that accused Neeraj (Juvenile) used to call her frequently and used to make offending calls to tease her. She has also denied that she has been won over by the accused and it is for this reason that she is not giving the complete details given by him to the police. (20) This court has observed that the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of this witness is not on judicial record as well as on police file that is why this witness could not be confronted from her earlier statement made during the investigation. The Investigating Officer has been asked if he had recorded any statement of this witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but he is unable to confirm the same. The Public Prosecutor has also been asked St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 24 of 70 to confirm if this fact of recording of statement of this witness is mentioned in the case diaries on which after seeing the case diaries, Ld. Addl. PP stated that the fact regarding the recording of statement of Sarita is not mentioned in the case diaries. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite given opportunity.
(21) PW21 Vineet Sehrawat has deposed that in the year 2008 he was working as a teacher on Contract Basis in MCD School, Badli, Delhi and deceased Sandeep and Ravi were also working as a teacher with him in the same school. According to the witness, deceased Sandeep was known to him earlier as they both used to take tuitions and they both did JBT whereas Ravi came to his contact and became his friend after he joined his duties as teacher. He has testified that on 17.09.2008 at about 10.30AM he went for taking a round as routine in his Santro car bearing no. DL 4C AG 0958 and Sandeep met him on the Bawana Narela main road and after meeting Sandeep he went to his home whereas Sandeep also left for his house. He has explained that he along with Sandeep and Ravi used to teach in the evening shift. According to the witness, he left for his duty from his house in his car and Sandeep and Ravi separately proceeded for school in the car of Sandeep.
(22) The witness has further deposed that while he was on the way, he received a call on his mobile bearing no. 9212431620 around 12.00 Noon from the mobile phone of Sandeep or Ravi to know his location on which he replied that they can meet at Rithala Metro Station. According to the St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 25 of 70 witness, thereafter they met at about 12.30 PM at Rithala Metro Station and he was told by Sandeep and Ravi that there was a get together party at Metro Walk Rithala which was being arranged by their college friends and they also requested him to join the party and on that day they will take leave from the school. The witness has testified that he alongwith Sandeep and Ravi left for Metro Walk in their respective vehicles and after reaching there Sandeep told him that his clothes which he was wearing are not according to attend the party and he intended to change his clothes after which he alongwith Sandeep went for his house in his Santro car and Sandeep handed over his Santro car to Ravi who remained at the Metro walk with their friends which were ten to twelve in numbers at that time. According to the witness, he along with Sandeep went to his house at Bawana and after Sandeep changed his clothes they returned at Metro Walk. He has further deposed that while he and Sandeep were on the way to Rithala Metro Walk, Ravi made a telephone call to them and asked to take Ballu from Pooth Khurd and they reached at Metro Walk where they enjoyed. The witness has also deposed that during the get together party Ravi started vomitting after which they made a programme to return to their homes. He has testified that thereafter he alongwith Sandeep, Ballu, Ravi and one another boy namely Pankaj left for their houses in their cars. He has explained that Sandeep was in his car and Ballu, Ravi and Pankaj were in the car of Sandeep. According to him, on the way, after some time Sandeep made a programme to take meals and thereafter they reached in a flat situated at St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 26 of 70 Sector24, Rohini whose key was with Jagdeep @ Jaggu. He has further deposed that it was around 6.00 PM and he made a call at Jagdeep @ Jaggu who was his friend and asked him to bring the key of that flat and within ten minutes of his call, Jagdeep @ Jaggu came at Rithala Metro Station and thereafter they all went to that flat which was situated on the ground floor. According to the witness, after some time he along with Jaggu went to the market to take food and to get CNG in his car and after about 45 minutes they came back to the said flat after taking food and CNG and found a large crowd in front of the said flat. He has testified that police was also there and they noticed Sandeep and Ravi were lying in a pool of blood and he and Jaggu got scared and left the spot for their respective houses and his statement was recorded by the police.
(23) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put to the witness wherein he has deposed that he had not heard the ring tone from the phone of Sandeep while returning to his house. In his crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State the witness deposed that he had not stated to the police in his statement mark A that while he was returning to his home in his car, he heard ring tone from the mobile phone of Sandeep which was lying in his car or that due to fear he had thrown away the said phone on the way. However, when confronted with statement mark A the above fact was found so recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he intentionally concealing the fact regarding throwing of phone which is reflected in his statement mark A from point A to A or that he had stated St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 27 of 70 this fact to the police in his statement. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (24) PW22 Sh. Pardeep Kumar has deposed that he is residing at Village and post office Halalpur, District Sonepat, Haryana along with his family. According to the witness, Ravi was the son of his real mamaji Yashpal Singh Sehrawat and on 18.09.2008 he received an information from his mama Yashpal Singh regarding murder of Ravi. He has further deposed that on the next day in the evening he had gone to Sultanpuri Police Station from where he collected the articles belonging to his cousin brother Ravi, i.e. a gold chain and empty tiffin box and he received the above said articles vide handing over memo which is Ex.PW22/A. On a specific court question the witness has explained that the above articles i.e. chain and tiffin box were in open condition and were not sealed. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (25) PW23 Sh. Mukesh Kumar has deposed that on 18.09.2008 he went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital along with his brother Ranbir where he identified the dead body of his nephew Sandeep S/o Sh. Ranbir vide Ex.PW23/A. He has proved that after postmortem he received the dead body of Sandeep vide memo Ex.PW23/B. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (26) PW24 Sh. Ranbir Singh who is working in a wine shop is the father of the deceased Sandeep. He has deposed that he is residing along with his family comprising of himself, his wife and two sons namely St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 28 of 70 Sandeep and Manish. According to the witness, on 17.09.2008 he was on duty in the wine shop when his son Manish called him up on telephone and informed him that Sandeep had a quarrel with somebody and had been shot and Manish also asked him to reach the mortuary of SGM Hospital where his body was lying. According to the witness, he reached the SGM hospital at around 89 PM where he found the body of his son Sandeep. He has further deposed that on the next day i.e. on 18.09.2008 he went to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital along with his brother Mukesh Kumar, his son Manish and other relatives where he identified the dead body of his son Sandeep vide Ex.PW24/A. He has testified that after postmortem he received the dead body of Sandeep vide memo Ex.PW23/B. The witness has further deposed that he had heard from the villagers i.e. son of Hamunat namely Parmod that his son Sandeep had been called at Sector 24 Rohini by his other friends where there was a quarrel and dispute about some girl and in that quarrel, he was shot. He has also deposed that whatever he was told by the villagers he told the same to the police after which his statement U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.PW24/B. (27) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that he is not an eye witness to the incident and whatever he had told to the police is on the basis of whatever told to him by Parmod and other villagers and friends of Sandeep.
(28) PW25 Sh. Yash Pal Singh has deposed that on 17.09.2008 at about 8.00PM he was at his home and at that time Councilor Narayan Singh St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 29 of 70 who is a resident of his village and one Pramod S/o Hanumant who is also a resident of his village alongwith some persons came to his house, at that time his brother Jaipal was also with him at his home. According to the witness, when he inquired about the reason of their visit whatever they told to him by Pramod, Naryan Singh, Hanumant and other villagers, he had stated to the Investigating Officer in his statement Ex.PW25/A. The witness has further deposed that after the postmortem examination he identified the dead body of his son Ravi and also received his dead body and Narayan Singh also identified the dead body of Ravi.
(29) The witness has testified that the accused Neeraj @ Neetu has been deliberately and intentionally got declared a Juvenile without any proper inquiry and despite his request to the Investigating Officer to conduct an inquiry from the Primary School where Neeraj was first admitted which is Maharishi Dayanand Public School, Eshwar Colony, Bawana where the correct age of accused Neeraj @ Neetu vide enrollment no. 714 dated 05.08.1988 is mentioned as 27.12.1985 showing that on the date of incident i.e. on 17.09.2008 he was aged around twenty years one month and twelve days.
(30) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that Pramod @ Ballu did not tell anything in his presence or that Narayan Singh, Hanumant, Pramod and other villagers did not visit his house on 17.09.2008. He has also denied the suggestion that he had given false statement to the Investigating Officer on 18.09.2008. St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 30 of 70 (31) PW26 Sh. Manish is the brother of the deceased Sandeep. He has deposed that the deceased Sandeep was his elder brother. According to him, on 17.09.2008 he was at his house when he received a telephone on their land line phone bearing No. 01127751155 from the police station at about 7 PM who informed him about vehicle No. DL4CAG9277 and he confirmed that this vehicle belonged to them. The witness has further deposed that thereafter he was told that the said vehicle had met with an accident and immediately while he was listening the call, the door bell rang and he kept down the phone and rushed to the door where two police men were found present who informed him about the vehicle number i.e. DL4CAG9277 and also confirmed him the name of his brother Sandeep. The witness has further deposed that on his confirmation they informed him that Sandeep had met with an accident and also asked him about one Sujeet and his address. He has testified that he informed them that Sujeet was also their neighbors and also gave them the address on which the said two police officials went to the house of Sujeet. The witness has also deposed that on coming to know of this information he immediately called up a friend of his brother Sandeep namely Ravinder who is residing in their neighbourhood and asked him about what the police officers had informed him. According to him, Ravinder told him that the last time when he had spoken to Sandeep was at around 5:00 PM when Sandeep was with Ravi. The witness has also deposed that he did not have the number of Ravi and hence he along with Ravinder who had also come to his house, went to the house of Ravi. St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 31 of 70 According to the witness, when they reached the house of Ravi, two police men met them who were not the same person who had come to his house and they were telling the family members of Ravi that Ravi had expired. He has also deposed that from the police officials he came to know that the incident had taken place at Sector 24 Rohini on which he and Ravinder immediately started for Sector 24 Rohini on his bike and on the way Ravinder had spoken to somebody on his mobile and they came to know that his brother was shifted to SGM hospital. He has testified that therefore instead of going to Sector 24 Rohini they turned towards SGM hospital and on the way he spoke to his father on phone and informed him about what was told to him. According to him, when he reached the hospital there they came to know that his brother Sandeep had expired and somebody had shot him and he also came to know that his body was shifted to mortuary. He has also deposed that in the meantime his father also reached SGM hospital and they went to Sultanpuri Police Station from where he informed his relatives about the incident.
(32) According to the witness, in the police station there were two boys, both by the name of Vineet i.e. one was Vineet who was resident of Dariyaopur and another was Vineet who was resident of Bawana and they both told him that his deceased brother Sandeep was called to Sector 24 Rohini by Parmod @ Ballu since there was some issue relating to a girl whom Neeraj had teased and thereafter Neeraj was also called there and Pankaj who was a friend of Parmod had informed Parmod that this Neeraj St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 32 of 70 resident of Bawana was teasing his sister and when Sandeep intervened to advised them not to quarrel on the issue of a girl, thereafter both Sandeep and Ravi were shot. He has testified that the police did not record his statement at any point of time but all these things which he is now telling were in the knowledge of police as Vineet resident of Dariyaopur and Vineet resident of Bawana had informed him about the incident and in the manner in which it took place in the presence of police at Police Station Sultanpuri.
(33) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein the witness has denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded by the police on 18.09.2008 which is Ex.PW26/PX1 and has voluntarily explained that whatever is mentioned/ recorded in Ex.PW26/PX1 was told to him by Vineet resident of Dariyaopur and Vineet resident of Bawana and not by Parmod @ Ballu who is a Constable driver in Delhi police. He has denied the suggestion that he had made a statement to the Investigating Officer on 18.09.2008 and informed that it was Parmod @ Ballu who informed him about the entire incident and has voluntarily explained that it was told that it was Parmod @ Ballu who had called everybody including his brother Sandeep and Ravi and also Neeraj to Sector 24 Rohini at a flat on the ground floor. He has also denied the suggestion that he is deliberately trying to shift the source of information to Vineet resident of Dariyaopur and Vineet resident of Bawana. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 33 of 70 Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(34) PW27 Sh. Narayan Singh has deposed that on 18.09.2008 he came to know that his covillager Ravi S/o Yash Pal had expired and his dead body was lying in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital on which he along with a lot of covillagers went to the said hospital and identified the dead body of Ravi vide statement Ex.PW27/A and after postmortem of Ravi they received the dead body vide receipt Ex.PW27/B. (35) During crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State after taking permission from the court since the witness was resiling from his earlier statement. He has denied the suggestion that whatever he came to know he had stated all those facts to the Investigating Officer in his statement dated 18.09.2008 which is MarkA. The contents of the same are confronted to the witness which he denied having made so before the Investigating Officer. He has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons and hence he has concealed the true facts of the case. This witness was not crossexamined on behalf of accused Naveen Sehrawat despite given opportunity.
(36) PW28 Jitender Singh is the neighbour of the deceased Sandeep Lather and being the beighbour he went to the Police Station along with the brother of the deceased Sandeep to take back his belongings. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity granted in this regard.
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 34 of 70 Witness of medical record:
(37) PW1 Dr. Manoj Dhingra MOIC, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital has deposed that on 18.09.2008, he had conducted a postmortem on the dead body of Sandeep S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh, 25 years old, male which dead body was sent by Mahender Singh SHO, Police Station-Sultanpuri.
According to the witness, the dead body was identified by Ram Avtar with alleged history of gun shot injury on 17.09.2008 at about 6:30 PM. He has proved that on examination, following external injuries were found on the body of the deceased Sandeep:
1. Lacerated penetrated wound oval in shape over right temporal bone with grased collar area of 1 cm X ½ cm, which is a fire arm entry wound.
2. Lacerated penetrated wound oval in shape over right side of occipital region with grased collar area of 1 cm X ½ cm. (entry wound).
3. Lacerated perforated wound margins averted 2 cm X 1.5 cm over right temporal bone to mid brain to temtorium cerebelli to cerebellum brain matter.
4. Bullet found in cervical spine entry from occipital region after piercing the brain matter, it entered in cervical spine.
(38) According to the witness on internal examination of Head:
Fracture, tempro perital occipital region and sub scalp haemotoma was found over right occipital region with fracture of posterior cranial fossa. He has proved having opined that the cause of death is shock consequent to St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 35 of 70 fire arm injury which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death is approximately 17 hours. The witness has also deposed that total number of inquest papers is nine and he handed over clothes of the deceased, blood gauze piece, bullet and blood for alcohol to the Investigating Officer, duly sealed with the seal of SGMH, Mangolpuri. He has proved the detailed postmortem report prepared by him which is Ex.PW1/A. (39) The witness has further deposed that on the same day, he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Ravi Sehrawat S/o Sh.
Yashpal Sehrawat, 25 years male which body was sent by Mahender Singh, SHO, Police Station Sultanpuri and the body was identified by Ram Avtar, with alleged history of gun shot injury on 17.09.2008 at about 6:30 PM. According to the witness, on examination following external injuries were found on the body of the deceased Ravi:
1. Lacerated punctured wound oval in shape on back over right shoulder right on 4 cm lateral to midline and 13 cam from top of shoulder joint. No burning, singing, tattooing present entry wound of firm arm.
2. Lacerated punctured wound oval in shape 1 cm X ½ cm with grased collar present over mastoid process distance from left ear is 2 cm.
3. Exit lacerated wound margin averted 2 cm X 1 cm over right side of chest, 11 cm from sternum bone and 9 cm from left shoulder.
4. Bullet found in frontal region enter from mastoid process through brain matter after making a hole in the frontal bone it was attached St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 36 of 70 with the skin.
(40) The witness has testified on the internal examination of Head:
Fracture of mastoid bone and frontal bone was found and Brain matter was pale and distorted. He has proved that the cause of death in this case was shock consequent to fire arm injury which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death is approximately 17 hours. According to him, total number of inquest papers were eight and he handed over clothes of the deceased, blood gauze piece, bullet and blood for alcohol to the Investigating Officer, duly sealed with the seal of SGMH, Mangolpuri. He has proved the postmortem report was prepared by him which is Ex.PW1/B. (41) This witness has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
Nodal Officers:
(42) PW15 Sh. M.N. Vijayan, Nodal Officer from TATA Teleservices Ltd. has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9212771942 which has been issued in the name of Hanwand Singh S/o Sher Singh, R/o 47/2, Narela Road, Village Bawana Delhi, copy of which is Ex.PW15/A; copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW15/B; call details from the period 10.09.2008 to 20.09.2008 which are Ex.PW15/C and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 37 of 70 which is Ex.PW15/D. He has also brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9212431620 which has been issued in the name of Umed Singh S/o Molar, R/o 197, Village Dariyapur Kalan, Delhi copy of which is Ex.PW15/E; copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW15/F; call details from the period 10.09.2008 to 20.09.2008 which are Ex.PW15/G and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW15/H. (43) The witness has also brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9212583373 which has been issued in the name of Harjeet Singh S/o Nripender Singh, R/o Plot No. 170, Pocket 2, Ground Floor, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi copy of which is Ex.PW15/I; copy of PAN card and copy of electricity bill in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW15/J and Ex.PW15/K respectively; call details from the period 10.09.2008 to 20.09.2008 which are Ex.PW15/L and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW15/M. He has also brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9210370413 which has been issued in the name of Sahahnawaz S/o Nihal Ahmed, R/o B289, JJ colony, Hastsal, New Delhi copy of which is Ex.PW15/N; copy of voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW15/O; call details from the period 10.09.2008 to 20.09.2008 which are Ex.PW15/P and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW15/Q. He has also placed on St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 38 of 70 record the Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW15/R (running into four pages). (44) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that their main server is situated at Hyderabad and he had retrieved the call details from his personal computer set as he has a direct access from the main server. He has denied the suggestion that there is no system of regular power backup in our office resulting into a data loss or that the above calls details have been fabricated on the directions and at the instance of the Investigating Officer.
(45) PW16 Retd. Capt. Rakesh Bakshi Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9810309293 which has been issued in the name of Sujeet Kumar S/o Sh. Jasbir Singh, R/o B108, Vijay Colony, Bawana copy of which is Ex.PW16/A, copy of driving licence in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW16/B; call details from the period 16.09.2008 to 17.09.2008 which are Ex.PW16/C (running into two pages); Cell ID chart which is Ex.PW16/D (running into one page) and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW16/E. (46) He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same.
(47) PW17 Sh. Israr Babu Alternate Nodal Officer from Vodafone Mobile Services has proved the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9711323454 which is issued in the name of Bindra W/o Sh. Satya Parkash, St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 39 of 70 R/o D67, Jain colony, Block D, Barwala, Delhi copy of which is Ex.PW17/A; copy of Voter ID Card in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW17/B; call details from the period 01.09.2008 to 27.12.2008 which are Ex.PW17/C (running into nine pages); cell ID chart which is Ex.PW17/D (running into 118 pages) and certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW17/E. (48) He has been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel but nothing much has come out of the same.
(49) PW18 Sh. Sunil Kumar Nodal Officer from MTNL has brought the summoned record pertaining to mobile No. 9968044908 which is issued in the name of Sant Baksh S/o Lalit Singh, R/o C514, Bhargarh, Narela, DSIDC Delhi copy of which is Ex.PW18/A; copy of ESIC Insurance slip in support of residence proof which is Ex.PW18/B; Call details from the period 16.09.2008 to 17.09.2008 which are Ex.PW18/C (running into two pages) which had been sent to the Investigating Officer through their office by Sh. Rakesh Soni, AMCDRW (Assistant Manager Call Detail Record Wireless Services).
(50) On a Court Question the witness has explained that Sh. Rakesh Soni was the AMCDRW (assistant manager call detail record wireless services) at the relevant time and in official control of the system and information sent to the ACP Sultanpuri and Sh. Rakesh Soni was authorized to operate the official mailing ID. He has confirmed that the two pages of St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 40 of 70 the CDRs for the period 16.09.2008 to 17.09.2008 of the number 9968044908 present on the judicial record are the same pages/ attachments which had been sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police at his mailing ID i.e. acpsultanpuri[email protected] from the official mailing ID of MTNL i.e. <[email protected]> which he has authenticated by putting his signatures on all the pages. The witness has certified that the call details record of mobile No. 9968044908 for the period 16.09.2008 to 17.09.2008 (running into two pages) had been generated in their office and dispatched to ACP Sultanpuri on his official ID through the official ID of MTNL and its contents are true reproduction of the original to the best of his knowledge and belief. He has further certified that the conditions lay down U/s 65 B(2)
(a) to 65B (2) (d) of the Evidence Act regarding the admissibility of the computer output in relation to the information and the computer in question are fully satisfied in all respects. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
FSL Expert:
(51) PW13 Dr. Dhruv Sharma, Assistant Director, Biology, FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that on 09.02.2009 he was posted as SSO (Biology)in FSL Rohini and on that day eight sealed parcels were received in the laboratory vide forwarding letter No. 303/SHO/Sultanpuri dated 06.02.2009 which was marked to him for analysis. According to the witness, the seal on the parcels were intact and matched with the specimen St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 41 of 70 seal. He has testified that he opened the parcels and examined in detailed biologically and submitted his detailed report dated 30.11.2009 which is Ex.PW13/A and Serological report of the examination of the exhibits of the parcels is Ex.PW13/B. According to the witness, after the examination the remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seal of DS FSL DELHI.
He has also not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
Police/ official witnesses:
(52) PW2 Ct. Ram Avtar has deposed that on 17.09.2008, he was posted at Police Post Budh Vihar, Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi and on that day, the Duty Officer of Police Station gave him the special report with regard to this case which he took to the Senior Officers which included the MM of the Area, Joint C.P (Northern Range) and DCP (Outer District). The witness also deposed that he took the same on the Government motorcycle bearing registration no. DL1SN3606. He has not been cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (53) PW4 SI Manohar Lal has deposed that on 13.10.2008, he was summoned by the Investigating Officer Inspector Mahender Singh at Police Station after which he along with the Investigating Officer reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 170, Pocket - II, Sector - 24, Rohini. The witness has also deposed that there on the pointing out by the Investigating Officer, he prepared rough notes and took measurement, on the basis of which he St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 42 of 70 prepared scaled site plan which is Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded after which rough notes were destroyed. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard. (54) PW5 Ct. Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 17.09.2008, he was posted at Police Post Budh Vihar, Police Station Sultan Puri and on that day on receipt of DD No. 21 A, he along with SI Deepak Malik reached at the spot i.e. H. No. 170, Pocket - II, Sector - 24, Rohini where in the room, they found two dead bodies, liquor bottles, four glasses, pepsi bottle of two liters and two mobile phones were also lying on the table. He has also deposed that three empty cartridges of 9 mm and two empty cartridges of 7.62 and fired lead were also found lying in the said room. The witness has further deposed that outside the flat, there was a temple where a Santro Car was found parked. According to him, the dead bodies were identified as Ravi and Sandeep and then the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed it over to him for registration of the case. He has also deposed that after registration, he came back at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed it over to the Investigating Officer after which his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(55) PW7 Ct. Manish has deposed that on 17.09.2008 on receipt of call from Control Room, he along with the In charge Crime Team reached at St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 43 of 70 Flat No.170, Ground Floor, Pocket - II, Sector - 24, Rohini, Delhi where he found Inspector Mahender Singh SHO Police Station Sultan Puri along with staff and on his instructions he took 25 photographs of scene of occurrence from different angles but 24 photographs could be developed. He has proved the photographs which are Ex.PW7/A1 to A24 and the negatives of the same which are Ex PW7/B1 to B25 (one is blank). This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite being given opportunity. (56) PW8 ASI Rajinder Singh has deposed that on 16.11.2008, he was posted at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgar and were on patrolling duty with Ct. Mohinder. He has further deposed that when they reached at village Khairpur near Naharpur where they found one Swift Maruti car of silver colour having number plate DL 3 C AW - 0710 on the front said and DL 03 TC - 0549 on the back side which was found parked there. According to the witness, its steering was blocked, both the windows of right hand side were opened and both the windows of left hand side were closed and was having no tool, owner document or stepany. He has also deposed that he brought the said car to Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh through crane and seized the same under 25 Police Act vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A. He has also deposed that DD No. 36 was recorded to this effect. The witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsels despite opportunity in this regard.
(57) PW9 W/Ct. Suman has deposed that on 17.09.2008 at about 6:19 PM she received an information from Md. Yamin that at H. No. 170, St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 44 of 70 Sector - 24, Pocket - 2, DPS School, Rohini, two boys have been shot out. She has proved that this information was reduced into writing by her on the computer which was kept in the office for the ordinary course of its business which original PCR is Ex. PW9/A. She was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(58) PW10 HC Ramesh Kumar has deposed that on 17.09.2008 he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri as MHC(M) and on that day Inspector Mahender Singh SHO Police Station Sultan Puri deposited two jars sealed and two mobile phones sealed with the seal of MS, one fired cartridge and one bullet lead kept in plastic jar duly sealed with the seal of MS, one empty bottle in the brand of Simran off vodka and one pepsi bottle and one Santro car bearing no. DL 4 C AG - 9277 which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 11624 in register no.19 copy of the same which is Ex.PW10/A. The witness has further deposed that on 18.09.2008 Inspector Mahender Singh deposited eight pullandas duly sealed with the seal of SGM Mortuary Mangol Puri containing clothes of deceased Sandeep and Ravi, their blood sample, bullet lead and blood gauze piece which he deposited in malkhana vide entry no. 11625 in register no. 19 copy of the same is Ex.PW10/B. According to the witness, on 26.11.2008, Inspector Mahender Singh deposited Rs.600/ recovered from the possession of accused Neeraj @ Neetu which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 11705 in register no. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW10/C. According to the witness, on 28.11.2008 Inspector Mahender Singh deposited one pullanda St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 45 of 70 containing pistol duly sealed with the seal of MS which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 11708 in register no. 19, copy of which is Ex.PW10/D. He has testified that on 19.12.2008 SI K.S. Dogra deposited one pulanda containing pistol duly sealed with the seal of KSD which he deposited in the malkhana vide entry no. 11723 in register no. 19, copy of the same which is Ex.PW10/E. He has also proved the entry no. 12097 dated 06.11.2009 of register no. 19 copy of which is Ex.PW10/F. (59) The witness has also deposed that on 09.2.2009 he sent eight pulandas alongwith two sample seals through HC Satish Kumar vide RC No. 241/21/08 to FSL Rohini entry of which have been shown at point X on Ex.PW10/A and the copy RC is Ex.PW10/G. According to the witness, on 09.2.2009 he sent six pullandas along with three sample seals through HC Satish Kumar vide RC No. 242/21/08 to FSL Rohini entry of which have been shown at point Y on Ex.PW10/A and copy of the RC is Ex.PW10/H. The witness has further deposed that HC Satish had handed over the receipt of the acknowledgment of deposit of the case property and sample seals to him, copy of which is Ex.PW10/J. He has proved that the case property was not tampered with during his custody.
(60) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he had made entry in register no.19 simply copying the contents of memos provided by the Investigating Officer of this case but no time is mentioned in the entries. He has denied the suggestion that the entry St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 46 of 70 in register no. 19 were made by him anti timed and anti dated at the instance of Investigating Officer or that the entries shown in the register no. 19 were made at the instance of Investigating Officer and the said property were always available to the Investigating Officer during his custody or that the same were tampered or that the contents of register no. 19 showing the relevant entries are false and fabricated.
(61) PW11 ASI Joginder Singh has deposed that on 17.9.2008 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and was working as Duty Officer from 5 PM to 1:00 AM. According to the witness, at about 9:55 PM he received a rukka sent by SI Deepak Malik through Ct. Mahesh, on the basis of which he got the FIR recorded formally on the computer kept in the ordinary course of the business in the Police Station by computer operator which was according to the contents of the rukka and the same were not tampered with. He has proved the copy of FIR printout of which is Ex.PW11/A and his endorsement on the original rukka which is Ex.PW11/B which was given in original back to Constable Mahesh to be taken at the spot alognwith the computerized printout of the FIR. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(62) PW12 Constable Bhim Singh has deposed that on 17.9.2008 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and was working as DD Writer from 8.00 PM to 8.00 AM. According to the witness, at about 6.27 PM a call was received that two boys have been shot fired at H. No. 170, Pocket2, St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 47 of 70 Sector24, Rohini, Delhi. He has proved having recorded this information in DD Register vide DD No. 21 copy of which is Ex.PW12/A and the inquiry on the said DD was handed over to SI Deepak Malik with Ct. Mahesh Kumar. The true copy of the said DD is Ex.PW11/B. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard.
(63) PW29 SI Ashok Kumar has deposed that on 08.03.2009 he was posted at Police Station Sultan Puri as Sub Inspector and on that day he alongwith Investigating Officer Inspector Mahender and HC Satish joined investigations of this case. According to the witness, Inspector Mahender was having information about the availability of one of assailants of this case in village Daryapur pursuant to which he along with Inspector Mahender and HC Satish reached in the village Daryapur of assailants i.e. Naveen @ Lamba whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court who was found available near the chaupal of village. He has proved that the accused was apprehended and interrogated after which the accused Naveen was arrested vide memo Ex.PW29/A, his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW29/B and thereafter his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW29/C. He has also deposed that thereafter the accused took them to the place of incident and pointed out the same vide memo Ex.PW29/D. He has testified that during investigations nothing was recovered from the accused and they could not recovered anything and St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 48 of 70 having no option they returned back to the Police Station. The witness has also deposed that the accused was kept in lock up and his statement was recorded.
(64) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that the accused Naveen Sehrawat was not arrested from the place or in the manner as stated by him or that the accused Naveen Sehrawat did not make any disclosure statement. He has also denied the suggestion that the accused had not pointed out the place of incident or that the place of occurrence was already in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer including him. The witness has further denied the suggestion that accused Naveen Sehrawat was called in the police station from his house and was falsely implicated in this case or that signatures of Naveen Sehrawat were obtained forcibly on some blank papers which were subsequently converted into incriminating documents i.e. arrest memo, pointing out memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement. (65) PW30 HC Kaushal has deposed that on 10.12.2009 he was posted at Police Station Sultanpuri and joined the investigations of this case with the Investigating Officer. According to him, on the directions of the SHO he went to Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh along with Ct. Dayaram, where he handed over the communication letter of the Investigating Officer to the SHO of Police Station Sadar Bahadurgah, on which he was handed over one vehicle make Maruti Swift bearing two different number plates, one on the front side and one on the back side and one kept inside the diggi. St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 49 of 70 The witness has explained that the number plate on the front side was DL3CAW0710, the number plate on the back side was DL3TC0554 and the number kept in the diggi inside was DL3CAW3254. According to the witness, he also collected RC No. 143/10.12.2009 from Sadar Malkhana and after he brought the vehicle to Police Station Sultanpuri he handed over the same to the SHO along with the RC.
(66) With the permission of the Court the Ld. Addl. PP cross examined the witness since he had come up with a new version altogether. The witness has deposed that the Investigating Officer had recorded his statement on 10.12.2009. He has denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded on 10.12.2008. According to the witness, he had told the Investigating Officer Inspector Mahender Singh that three number plates were found present in the vehicle i.e. one at front, one at the back and one inside the diggi. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW30/PX1 where these details as deposed have not been found so recorded. He has admitted that the number found on the back plate was DL3TC0549.
(67) During examination of the witness, this Court has observed that the copy of the statement placed on judicial file is different to the recordings in the case diaries which is Ex.PW30/PX2 where the details of the date have also been mentioned as 143/10/12/2008 and there is an overwriting on the word 10 where 40 appears to have been made into 10.
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 50 of 70 (68) The witness has admitted that the RC vide which the vehicle had been brought from Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh is 143/10/12/2008 and not 143/10/12/2009.
(69) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that no vehicle was brought from Bahadurgarh to Delhi and the entire record has been fabricated much later due to which reason he is unable to give the details and had come up with a new version. (70) PW31 SI Deepak Malik has deposed that on 17.09.2008 he was posted as Incharge Police Post Budh Vihar of Police Station Sultan Puri. He has further deposed that on that day after getting a PCR Call vide DD No. 21 at about 6.27PM copy of which is Ex.PW11/B, he along with Ct. Mahesh reached at ground floor of H. No. 170, PocketII, Sector 24, Rohini where two dead bodies of young boys were lying down in pool of blood and PCR officials were also present at the spot. According to him, in the meantime SHO of Police Station Sultanpuri along with other police officials reached at the spot and inside the room where the bodies of both the boys were lying, three empty cartridges of 9mm bore and two empty cartridge were also lying in the said room. He has testified that the table which was lying in the room, one empty bottle of Vodka "Smirnoff", one bottle of two liter Pepsi with some Pepsi in the bottle, two mobile phones, one of SAMSUNG which on checking was found to SIM of 9968827641 and other was TATA Indicom which on checking found to contain a SIM, the backside of the mobile phone make SAMSUNG was having the words ZTE St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 51 of 70 written on the same with the chip of 9210370413 inside it, five empty cartridges i.e. three of 9 mm bore and two of 7.62 bore, three fire leads were found inside the room. He has further deposed that one fired cartridge of 9 mm was found outside near the main entrance/ door. Further, one Santro car of white color bearing number plate DL4CAG9277 was found parked outside the flat i.e. House No. 170, Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Sector 24, Rohini. According to him, large number of public persons had also gathered by that time and identified the deceased persons as Sandeep Lather and Ravi Sehrawat. He has proved having prepared the rukka which is Ex.PW31/A by making his endorsement on DD No. 21 Ex.PW11/B which endorsement bears his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Mahesh with directions to take the same to Police Station Sultanpuri for getting the case registered. The witness has also deposed that he had called the crime team along with the photographer who then reached the spot after about half an hour and inspected the spot of the incident and took photographs of the same. According to him, he noticed that both the deceased were wearing gold chains and Ravi Sehrawat was also wearing rings in both hands and in the meanwhile Inspector Mahender Singh Khatri, SHO, who was already at the spot took over the investigations after registration of the case. (71) He has proved that the SHO then lifted the various exhibits from the spot including the blood samples and converted the same into four different pullandas with the help of plastic container which he sealed with the surgical bandage and thereafter sealed the same with the seal of MS. St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 52 of 70 According to him, the mobile phones were also converted into one pullanda by putting the same into plastic container and sealing the same with the seal of MS and the Santro car of white color bearing No. DL4CAG9277 was also taken into possession after which the Investigating Officer then prepared the seizure memos of various exhibits. He has proved the seizure memo of blood sample of both the deceased which is Ex.PW31/B; seizure memo of water bottle and Pepsi bottle is Ex.PW31/C; seizure memo of six fired cartridges and three fire led is Ex.PW31/D; seizure memo of both the mobile phones which is Ex.PW31/E; seizure memo of Santro Car which is Ex.PW31/F. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Parmod @ Ballu and of Pankaj Mann and his statement was also recorded by the Investigating Officer on 18.09.2008. (72) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. two mobile phones i.e. one of SAMSUNG having IMEI No. 359251/00/085131/7 with MTNL SIM and other of TATA Indicom with SIM model No. C150 having ESN No. 6989DE91 and S/N No. 320752912877 which were recovered from the spot, the mobile phone of SAMSUNG is Ex.P1, mobile of TATA Indicom is Ex.P2; three leads which were lifted from the spot, which are Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5; six empty cartridges out of which four are of 9 mm and two are of 7.65 mm which were lifted from the spot, empty cartridges of 9 mm are Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 & Ex.P9; empty cartridges of 7.65 mm are Ex.P10 & Ex.P11; one Pepsi bottle and one bottle of St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 53 of 70 Vodka SMIRNOFF which were lifted from the spot which Pepsi bottle is Ex.P12 and Vodka Smirnoff bottle is Ex.P13.
(73) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he cannot give the details of the public persons who identified the deceased persons. According to the witness, there was no body inside the flat but large number of persons present outside the flat. (74) On a specific Court Question the witness has admitted that the official weapon issued by Delhi Police is normally a 9 mm pistol in which the cartridges of 9mm are used. He has denied the suggestion that Parmod @ Ballu is a driver in Delhi Police and a serving constable and has voluntarily explained that as per his knowledge he (Parmod) is not an employee of Delhi Police. He has also denied the suggestion that Parmod @ Ballu was present at the spot and provided to him the details of the family members of the deceased Sandeep and deceased Ravi.
(75) He does not recollect if any chance prints were lifted in his presence. According to him, neither he himself nor the Investigating Officer in his presence made a request to crime team to lift the chance prints from the bottles, door and other articles/ places at the spot. He has also deposed that the photographs of the spot were taken by the crime team in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that the scene of crime had already been disturbed by that time and manipulated. According to the witness, after reaching the spot he did not make any confirmation or inquiry as to who had made the call. He has denied the suggestion that no proceedings as St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 54 of 70 aforesaid were carried out at the spot or that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the police station and he merely signed the same on the asking of the Investigating Officer.
(76) PW32 Sh. Mahender Singh (Retired ACP) has deposed that on 17.09.2008 he was posted as SHO of Police Station Sultan Puri, Delhi and an information was received at PP Budh Vihar of Police Station Sultan Puri at about 6.30PM which was reduced into writing at DD No.21 copy of which is Ex.PW11/B which was entrusted initially to SI Deepak who was the Incharge of Police Post Budh Vihar. According to the witness, on receiving the said information when he reached at the spot i.e. Flat No.170, Ground Floor, Pocket II, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi where SI Deepak was found present and PCR officials were also present at the spot. The witness has deposed that in the room at the above said address the dead body of two young boys were lying in a pool of blood and on the bodies of both the young boys, there was some bullet injuries and many public persons were also found present at the spot. According to him, on the floor near the table the dead body of a young boy was identified as Sandeep Lather and the dead body which was lying on the Sofa was identified as of Ravi Sehrawat. He has testified that inside the room where the bodies were lying, three fired cartridges of 9mm and two of 7.62 bore were lying and inside the room three fired lead were also lying. He has further deposed that both the deceased were wearing wrist watch of golden chain and in both the hands of deceased Ravi, he was having one ring in each hand. According to the St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 55 of 70 witness, inside the room two mobile phones, one of Samsung and one of TATA Indicom were lying and the table which was lying inside the room, a empty bottle of Vodka "Smirnoff" and a two litre bottle of Pepsi were lying. He has testified that the Crime Team and Photographer were called at the spot. The witness has further deposed that from the crowd nobody claimed himself to be an eye witness. He has further deposed that one Santro car having number plate bearing number DL4CAG9277 was found there. According to him, SI Deepak Malik prepared the rukka on the DD No.21 and got the case registered through Ct. Mahesh who after registration of FIR came at the spot and further investigation of this case was carried out by him.
(77) The witness has proved that he lifted the blood samples of both the deceased from the spots where the bodies of Sandeep and Ravi were lying and kept the blood in two plastic dibbies and converted the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW31/B. According to him, thereafter he took into possession the bottle of Vodka and bottle of Pepsi vide memo Ex.PW31/C. He has also proved having lifted fired cartridges and fired lead which were lying at the spot, which were kept in a plastic dibbi and converted the same into pullanda and sealed with the seal of MS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW31/D. The witness has testified that thereafter he lifted both the mobile phone make Samsung and Tata Indicom which were having Chip Number 9968827641 and 9210370413, both the phones were converted into pullanda St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 56 of 70 sealed with the seal of MS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW31/E. He has also deposed that in the meantime crime team came at the spot and the crime team photographer took photographs of the spot from different angle and Incharge of the crime team also inspected the spot. The witness has further deposed that the Incharge of Crime Team inspected the spot prior to lifting the articles by him from the spot. He has proved that the said car which was parked outside the flat no.170 ground floor was also taken into possession vide memo already Ex.PW31/F after which he prepared the rough site plan which is Ex.PW32/A and thereafter both the dead bodies were sent to the mortuary of SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. He has further deposed that on that day he alongwith the case property and other police officials returned to the police station where he deposited the case property with the MHC(M) and recorded statement of witnesses.
(78) The witness has testified that on 18.09.2008 he alongwith his staff and the relatives of both the deceased reached mortuary of SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri where he conducted the inquest proceedings in connection with both the deceased and made request to Autopsy Surgeon separately. He has proved his request qua postmortem on the body of Sandeep Lather which is Ex.PW32/B and having filled Form 25.25(1)(B) which is Ex.PW32/C and recorded the identification statement of relatives of deceased. According to him, prior to the postmortem the concerned doctor handed over the articles of the deceased Sandeep Lather which were received by his brother Manish vide handing over memo which is St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 57 of 70 Ex.PW32/D. The witness has also proved the request qua postmortem on the body of Ravi which is Ex.PW32/E and the From 25.25(1)(B) which is Ex.PW32/F and he recorded the identification statement of relatives of deceased. According to the witness, prior to postmortem the concerned doctor handed over the articles of the deceased Ravi which were received by his uncle Shish Pal vide handing over memo Ex.PW22/A. He has testified that after postmortem, the bodies of Sandeep and Ravi were handed over to their relatives and the concerned doctor who conducted the postmortem, handed over to him four sealed parcels which were sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital Mangol Puri alongwith the sample seal which revealed the clothes, blood sample, blood gauze piece of deceased Ravi and one bullet lead which was found to be recovered from the body of deceased Ravi, on which he took the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/G. He has further proved that after the postmortem the concerned doctor who conducted the postmortem, handed over to him four sealed parcels which were sealed with the seal of SGM Hospital Mangol Puri alongwith the sample seal which revealed the clothes, blood sample, blood gauze piece of deceased Sandeep and one bullet lead which was found to be recovered from the body of deceased Sandeep, which he took into possession vide memo Ex.PW32/H. He has also deposed that thereafter he returned to the police station and deposited the case property with the MHC(M) and recorded statement of witnesses. The witness has further deposed that during the investigations he recorded statement of witnesses and made St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 58 of 70 search of the assailants.
(79) According to the witness on 28.11.2008 accused Neeraj (since Juvenile) was interrogated and he made his disclosure statement after which the accused Neeraj was arrested. He has further deposed that accused Naveen got recovered one pistol from his house from a vacant plot on which he prepared the sketch of the pistol and the pistol was taken into possession. He has also deposed that accused Naveen @ Bali was arrested by Special Cell and the accused Naveen also got recovered a pistol. According to him, the Incharge of Special Cell who had arrested accused Naveen also handed over to him the photocopy of the proceedings qua accused Naveen @ Bali. The proceedings relating to the Juvenile accused Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen @ Bali are not exhibited being not relevant qua the accused Naveen Sehrawat. The witness has further deposed that during investigations he got prepared the scaled site plan from SI (Draftsman) Manohar Lal and exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini.
(80) He has testified that on 08.03.2009 he again joined investigation alongwith SI Ashok Kumar and one HC whose name he does not recollect, since he was having an information that accused Naveen @ Lamba whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court was available at Village Daryapur. The witness has also deposed that he alongwith ASI Ashok and HC reached in village Daryapur, near the Chaupal where the accused Naveen @ Lamba was found present near his house on which he was apprehended and the accused made his disclosure statement which is St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 59 of 70 Ex.PW29/C. According to him, thereafter the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW29/A and his personal search was carried out vide Ex.PW29/B. He has further deposed that thereafter the accused Naveen Sehrawat @ Lamba took them to the place of incident where he pointed out the place vide pointing out memo Ex.PW29/D. The witness has also deposed that he along with accused Naveen Sehrawat went to police station and on next day the accused was produced before the court concerned and from where he was sent to Judicial Custody after detailed interrogation. He has testified that on 14.04.2009 accused Ajay (now deceased) was arrested, his arrest memo was prepared, his personal search was carried out and his disclosure statement was recorded. He has also deposed that during investigation he wrote a letter to mobile service provider to provide the call details, location and ownership of the mobile numbers as mentioned in his letter Ex.PW32/I. According to the witness, he wrote the letter to the Director, STA, New Delhi to provide ownership of car number DL 3C AW 3254, vide his letter Ex.PW32/J and particulars of the ownership of the said vehicle is Ex.PW32/K. He has further deposed that during investigation the FSL report were collected and filed the same on record which FSL report is Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B. He has proved having recorded the statement of witnesses and having filed the charge sheet in the court against all the four accused persons. He has correctly identified the case property i.e. two mobile phones one of Samsung having IMEI No. 359251/00/085131/7 with St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 60 of 70 MTNL SIM and other of TATA Indicom with SIM Model No. C150 having ESN No. 6989DE91 and S/N No. 320752912877 which were recovered from the spot, the mobile phone of Samsung is Ex.P1 and mobile of TATA Indicom is Ex.P2; three lead which was lifted from the spot which lead are Ex.P3, Ex.P4 & Ex.P5; six empty cartridges out of which four are of 9mm and two are of 7.65mm which were lifted from the spot, which empty cartridges of 9 mm are Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8 & Ex.P9 and empty cartridges of 7.65 mm which are Ex.P10 & Ex.P11; one Pepsi bottle and one bottle of Vodka SMIRNOFF which were lifted from the spot, the Pepsi bottle is Ex.P12 and Vodka Smirnoff bottle is Ex.P13.
(81) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he could not lift any chance print from the spot as the same could not find at the spot. He does not recollect the name of the finger print proficient in the crime team who had attempted to lift chance prints. According to the witness, he did not send the bottle of liquor and pepsi to the FSL for lifting the chance prints. He has further deposed that he made no attempts to collect the Customer Application Form of the person who had made 100 number call. He is unable to tell the details of the person who had made the 100 number call and the names of the persons who had informed him about the identity of deceased and has voluntarily explained that the friends of the deceased were present at the spot. He has further deposed that he did not cite any of these friends, who were present at the spot, as a St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 61 of 70 witness and has voluntarily explained that it was Pramod @ Ballu who spread the words in the village about the incident. According to the witness, he had made inquiries from Pramod @ Ballu as to why he did not inform the police about the incident on which Ballu informed him (witness) that he had got scared of the incident and therefore he did not inform the police about the incident. The witness has further deposed that he did not initiate any legal proceedings against Pramod @ Ballu for concealing and withholding information regarding commission of a cognizable offence punishable upto death from the police. He has also deposed that he is aware that this act of Pramod @ Ballu is also punishable under the law. He has denied the suggestion that he had diverted the blame upon the accused Naveen Sehrawat only to save the actual assailants accused from penal consequences.
(82) On a specific question the witness had admitted that during the investigation he came to know that one Sarita was being stalked and harassed on telephone by Neeraj @ Neetu on account which which, this incident arisen. According to the witness, he had made inquiries and found this aspect to be correct but did not invoke the appropriate provision of law of relating to stalking and outraging the modesty of a woman. (83) He has further admitted that the place of incident was already in his knowledge well prior to the arrest of accused Naveen Sehrawat. He has denied the suggestion that accused Naveen Sehrawat was not arrested in the manner and from the place as stated by him or that accused Naveen St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 62 of 70 Sehrawat was falsely arrested after calling him from his house to police station. He has further denied the suggestion that during his police custody, he was forced to sign certain blank papers which were subsequently converted into certain incriminating documents i.e. his arrest memo, his disclosure statement and pointing out memo in order to create false incriminating documents against him. He has also denied the suggestion that during the investigation he was aware that accused Naveen Sehrawat is innocent and has nothing to do with the present case or that he has fabricated the statement of witnesses and recorded the same of his own without actually joining them in the investigation or that he did not conduct the investigation of this case fairly.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(84) After completion of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused Naveen Sehrawat was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused which he has denied. He has stated that he is innocent and he was arrested in this because he was acquainted with co accused Ajay previously. According to the accused he has been falsely implicated in the present case and in so far as the witnesses of arrest are concerned they are official witnesses and are interested in upholding the official version.
(85) However, the accused have preferred not to examine any witnesses in their defence.
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 63 of 70 FINDINGS:
(86) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel. I have also gone through the memorandum of arguments and the evidence on record. My findings are as under:
(87) At the very Outset I may observe that initially the charge sheet has been filed against the accused Naveen Sehrawat, Ajay Kumar, Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen Dabas and later on the accused Ajay Kumar expired and proceedings against him stood abated, the accused Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen Dabas who had actually fired upon the deceased have been Declared Juveniles and are facing trail before the Juvenile Justice Board and it is only the accused Naveen Sehrawat who is facing trial before the Court.
(88) The brief facts of the case are that on 17.9.2008 at about 8:20 AM DD No. 21 was received at Police Station Sultan Puri wherein an information was given that "Sector24, Pocket2, DPS School, Rohini, Gadi No. unknown note nahi kar paya hai, do larko ko goli markar gaye hai, House No. 170, goli mar di hai". It is the case of the prosecution that after receiving the said DD, police officials of Police Station Sultan Puri reached the spot where blood was scattered everywhere and empty cartridges and lead were scattered here and there, which were seized. SI Deepak prepared rukka on DD No. 21 and case was registered on 18.09.2008, inquest St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 64 of 70 proceedings were conducted in SGM Hospital.
(89) It is further alleged that two boys were killed whose name were revealed during investigation were Ravi Sehrawat and Sandeep Lather and two eye witnesses namely Pankaj Mann S/o Late Dharampal and Parmod @ Ballu S/o Hanuwant, were interrogated by the Investigating Officer. During the course of investigation it was revealed that accused Neeraj had been calling on the Mobile number of one Sarita the cousin sister of witness Pankaj Mann, due to which reason on 17.09.2008, Pankaj informed this to his friend Leela S/o Raj Singh who gave the the mobile number of Neeraj to Pankaj and then Pankaj made a call to Neeraj, but at that time Neeraj told Pankaj that he was busy. Thereafter, Pankaj and Leela went to Metro Walk where they met Ravi Sehrawat and Ravi was heavily drunk and due to this reason he called Pramod @ Ballu at his flat to drive his car but Pramod was unaware about the address of flat of Ravi who asked him to wait on red light of Sector24, Rohini, Delhi. It is alleged by the prosecution that when they were standing at drain then Sandeep, Vineet and Jaggu came there in their car and thereafter, all six persons reached at Flat No.170 and thereafter Jaggu and Vineet went to market for the arrangement of food and drink and only Ravi, Sandeep, Pramod and Pankaj were remained at the flat.
Thereafter Pankaj asked Pramod that Neeraj called his sister on her cell phone and Pramod asked Neeraj not to call on Pankaj Sister's mobile on which a hot altercation took place between Neeraj & Pramod and Neeraj asked about the location of Pramod and after sometime Pramod and Sandeep St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 65 of 70 Lather came and just thereafter Neeraj, Bali, Sonu and Naveen also came. It is further alleged that there was a hot verbal altercation in the flat when Neeraj asked Ajay @ Sonu and Naveen to stand at the door so that nobody can run away and thereafter, Neeraj fired through his revolver on the head of Sandeep and Bali fired on Ravi Sehrawat two times and both Sandeep and Ravi died at the spot. Neeraj followed Pankaj and put his pistol on the head of Pankaj and fired upon him but it was misfired after which Pankaj begged for his life but Neeraj threatened him that if he disclosed this incident anyone then he and his family would be killed and thereafter all the four accused escaped in a silver color Swift Car.
(90) I have gone through the evidence on record. Firstly I may observe that as evident the main allegations are against the accused Neeraj @ Neetu and Naveen Dabas both of whom have been declared Juveniles. In so far as the accused Naveen Sehrawat is concerned, as per allegations and charges made against him, he was the person who was standing at the door of the room to prevent the deceased and other persons from escaping when the deceased Sandeep and Ravi were allegedly shot dead by Neeraj and Naveen. The most material eye witness i.e. Parmod @ Babloo (PW3) and Pankaj Maan (PW6) have turned hostile on the identity of the accused Naveen Sehrawat as the said boy who was standing at the door and have also not supported the prosecution case as regards the alleged incident. They are all totally Hostile and do not incriminate the accused Naveen Sehrawat. St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 66 of 70 (91) Secondly the witness Pramod @ Ballu (PW3) has turned completely hostile from his earlier version given to the police and has stated that he along with the family members of Ravi reached the spot where they came to know that a firing incident had taken place and two persons became injured who had been removed to SGM Hospital. He has denied having made any statement to the police. When confronted with his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has specifically denied having told to the police that the accused Sonu and Naveen (accused before this Court) were standing at the door and did not let him (Pramod) go out on which he started begging before them for permitting him to leave the door. He has failed to either name the present accused Naveen Sehrawat or identify him as the person who was present at the spot.
(92) Thirdly similarly, Pankaj Maan (PW6) who is again a most material witness of the prosecution and is also reported to be an eye witness along with Parmod has also turned hostile with regard to the incident and stated that he and Pramod had left the spot of the incident soon after consuming alcohol whereas Sandeep and Ravi were not in a mood to leave and it was later they came to that Ravi and Sandeep had been murdered. He has turned complete hostile with regard to the presence of the accused Naveen Sehrawat at the door. He has denied having told the police that Sonu and Naveen (accused before this Court) were standing at the door who did not let Ballu go and when Ballu started begging before them they permitted him to go outside.
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 67 of 70 (93) Fourthly the postmortem in respect of deceased Sandeep which is Ex.PW1/A establishes that the cause of the death was shock consequent to fire arm injury which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death was approximately Seventeen (17) hours. Further, the postmortem report in respect of deceased Ravi Sehrawat which is Ex.PW1/B establishes that the cause of death was shock consequent to fire arm injury which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and time since death is approximately Seventeen hours. (94) Fifthly the ballistic report Ex.PW33/A duly proved by Sh. V.R. Anand (PW33) does not assist the prosecution in any manner and does not connect the accused Naveen Sehrawat with the alleged offence as there are no allegations that the accused Naveen Sehrawat had fired from the pistol recovered or was responsible for the firing incident (no observations are being made by this Court on the aspect of Ballistic Report least it may adversely affect the trial of the case of juvenile accused and other case). (95) Lastly in so far as the manner of apprehension and arrest of the accused Naveen Sehrawat is concerned, the same has not been disputed by him and has not been controverted.
(96) This being the background, I hold that there is no evidence either ocular or medical or forensic or circumstantial or otherwise, the material eye witnesses having turned hostile, to establish the guilt of the accused Naveen Sehrawat beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt is being given to the accused Naveen Sehrawat.
St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 68 of 70 FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
(97) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
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 facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so 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.
(98) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, I hereby hold that neither the incident in question has been proved by the prosecution nor the prosecution has been able to connect the accused Naveen Sehrawat with the offence or conclusively establish his presence at the spot at the time of the incident and the circumstances reflected from the St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 69 of 70 material on record do not stand conclusively established. The medical, forensic, electronic and other circumstantial evidence also does not assist the prosecution in any manner nor it connects the accused with the alleged offence. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused. The material brought on record by the prosecution is insufficient so as to hold that the accused Naveen Sehrawat was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused Naveen Sehrawat. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Naveen Sehrawat, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to him who is acquitted of the charges under Section 302/307 Indian Penal Code.
(99) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 13.1.2014 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Naveen Sehrawat Etc., FIR No. 604/08, PS Sultan Puri Page No. 70 of 70