Delhi District Court
State vs Neeraj Ors on 13 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTC)-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS
PRESIDED OVER BY : SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
CNR No. DLST01-001097-2015
SC no. 7194/16 (old SC no. 148/15)
STATE VS. NEERAJ AND OTHERS
FIR NO. 689/15
PS: MEHRAULI
U/S: 302/307/147/148/149/201/120B IPC
AND U/S 25/27/54/59 OF THE ARMS ACT
State
Versus
1. Neeraj,
S/o Sh. Ramkishan,
r/o F-279, Lado Sarai, New Delhi.
2. Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Desilva,
s/o Sh. Jagdish Swaroop Gupta,
r/o TA-70, Gali no. 4,
Tuglakabad Extn., New Delhi.
3. Kartik,
s/o Sh. Nagraj,
r/o H1/354, Madangir, New Delhi.
4. Dhruv @ Gaurav,
s/o Sh. Munna Lal Gupta,
r/o 10/261, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
5. Kamal Hadda,
s/o Sh. Veerpal,
r/o 3/72, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi.
6. Karanjeet Singh @ Kannu,
s/o Sh. Ratnesh Singh,
r/o F-342, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi.
7. Ravinder Kumar @ Rabbu,
s/o Sh. Rajender Kumar,
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 1 of 28
r/o 10/259, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi.
8. Jagmohan Sagar @ Bhaiya,
s/o Sh. Ratta Pumar,
r/o B-1st 677, Dadangir, New Delhi.
9. Mohd. Tahir,
s/o Sh. Kamaluddin,
r/o 273, Hauz Rani,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
10. Mohd. Israr,
s/o Sh. Azruddin,
r/o 235, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
11. Sanjeev Sharma,
s/o Sh. Lakhpat Ram Sharma,
r/o RZ 218/18, Tuglakbad Extn.
New Delhi.
12. Rajat Chauhan @ Golu,
s/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
r/o RZ-822/23, Tuglakbad Extn.
New Delhi.
13. Mantosh
s/o Sh. Shanmugam,
r/o H-1st 252, Madangir,
New Delhi.
14. Rohit Chaudhary,
s/o Sh. Devender Chaudhary,
r/o Village Aaya Nagar,
Phase II, Ghorra Mohalla,
New Delhi.
15. Anil Kumar,
s/o Sh. Kalicharan,
r/o 10/210 & 10/218, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi.
... Accused persons
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 2 of 28
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.06.2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ ORDER : 13.01.2025
FINAL ORDER : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of accused persons namely Neeraj, Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Desilva, Kartik, Dhruv @ Gaurav, Kamal Hadda, Karanjeet Singh @ Kannu, Ravinder Kumar @ Rabbu, Jagmohan Sagar @ Bhaiya, Mohd. Tahir, Mohd. Israr, Sanjeev Sharma, Rajat Chauhan @ Golu, Mantosh, Rohit Chaudhary and Anil Kumar pursuant to charge sheets filed by Police Station Mehrauli U/s 302/307/147/148/149/201/120B Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and u/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 689/15.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.2015 on receipt of DD no. 35A regarding firing incident, SI Ramphal along with Ct. Ashok reached at the spot i.e. Lado Sarai road, near Haji Ali Masjid, Shakti Dhabha where they found people gathered at the spot and it transpired that two persons have sustained gun shot injuries and have been shifted to Max Hospital by the PCR van.
Crime team was called at the spot. The caller namely Sanjay met at the spot whose statement was recorded.
3. As per the statement of complainant Sanjay, on 09.03.2015 he was having hukka at Shakti ka dhaba, Lado Sarai mor, near Ali Jaan Masjid at about 10-10.30 AM along with FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 3 of 28 Ashok, Narender, Sandeep and Sonu. At about 11.00 AM, one white colour Safari car came at the spot and few boys alighted from the said car and called Narender @ Kittu aside and talked to him and left the spot. There was some heated arguments between Narender @ Kittu and those boys who alighted from the Safari car. Thereafter, at about 01.30 PM, two vehicles, one Safari car bearing no. HR26BE0927 and another Skoda car of silver colour came from the side of Qutub Minar stopped near Shakti ka Dhabha and 3-4 boys alighted from those vehicles having pistols in their hands and started firing upon them. All the persons sitting at the dhabha started running here and there to save themselves. Two persons got gun shot injury in the said firing. Thereafter, the accused persons left the spot. After the said incident, complainant came back at the place of incident and saw Surender @ Sonu lying in the injured condition. Thereafter, the complainant/caller called at 100 number and PCR van reached at the spot and shifted the injured Surender @ Sonu to hospital. The caller came to know that another injured namely Sandeep has been shifted to Max Hospital. On the basis of the statement of the complainant i.e. Ex. PW7/A, the present FIR was registered.
4. During the treatment, victim Surender @ Sonu succumbed to his injuries caused by bullet fired upon him. During the investigation, accused persons were arrested and at their instance, weapon of the offence and the vehicles used were recovered and various other exhibits were collected. Statement of the witnesses were recorded and forensic opinion was FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 4 of 28 obtained. After the conclusion of the investigation carried out in the FIR no. 689/15, police filed the charge sheet against the accused persons namely Neeraj, Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Desilva, Kartik, Dhruv @ Gaurav, Kamal Hadda, Karanjeet Singh @ Kannu, Ravinder Kumar @ Rabbu, Jagmohan Sagar @ Bhaiya, Mohd. Tahir, Mohd. Israr, Sanjeev Sharma, Rajat Chauhan @ Golu, Mantosh, for commission of offences U/s 302/307/147/ 148/ 149/ 201/120B IPC and u/s 25/27 of The Arms Act.
5. Vide Order dated 03.07.2015, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned took cognizance of the offences and the accused persons namely Neeraj, Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Desilva, Kartik, Dhruv @ Gaurav, Kamal Hadda, Karanjeet Singh @ Kannu, Ravinder Kumar @ Rabbu, Jagmohan Sagar @ Bhaiya, Mohd. Tahir, Mohd. Israr, Sanjeev Sharma, Rajat Chauhan @ Golu, Mantosh, were called to face the trial. Charge sheet along with relevant documents were supplied to the accused persons in compliance to Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, the present matter was received by way of committal to the Court of Sessions on 23.07.2015.
6. Accused persons namely Rohit Chaudhary and Anil Kumar were subsequently arrested during investigation. Supplementary charge sheet was filed qua the accused persons namely Rohit Chaudhary and Anil Kumar and same was also received by way of committal to the Court of Sessions on FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 5 of 28 08.03.2017.
CHARGE
7. Vide order dated 11.03.2016, charge for the offences punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w section 302 IPC, u/s 302 IPC r/w section 120B IPC, u/s 307/34 IPC r/w section 120B IPC and u/s 147/148 IPC r/w section 149 IPC was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court against the accused persons namely Neeraj, Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Desilva, Kartik, Dhruv @ Gaurav, Kamal Hadda, Karanjeet Singh @ Kannu, Ravinder Kumar @ Rabbu, Jagmohan Sagar @ Bhaiya, Mohd. Tahir, Mohd. Israr, Sanjeev Sharma, Rajat Chauhan @ Golu, Mantosh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Separate charges for the offence punishable u/s 201 IPC was framed against the accused Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Desilva; u/s 25 of The Arms Act was framed against the accused Neeraj and u/s 27 of The Arms Act was framed against the accused Anil Kumar by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Vide order dated 03.04.2017, charge for the offences punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w section 302 IPC; u/s 302 IPC r/w section 120B IPC, u/s 307/34 IPC r/w section 120B IPC and u/s 147/148 IPC r/w section 149 was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court against the accused persons namely Rohit Chaudhary and Anil Kumar, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 6 of 28 MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
9. Prosecution examined total twenty five (25) prosecution witnesses (hereinafter referred to as PW) to prove its case and their testimony in brief is discussed as below:-
10. PW1 ASI Rajbir Singh was working as Duty Officer, who exhibited on record endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/A, copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/B and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/C. PW1 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
11. PW2 Sh. Krishan Pal deposed that on 09.03.2015, at about 1.30 pm, when he was sitting on a cot lying on the footpath alongwith one Sanjay playing chess and having hukka, in the meanwhile, PW2 heard noise of firing and also heard alarm that "goli chal gayi, goli chal gayi" and he laid down himself on the cot. PW2 further deposed that after about 5-7 minutes, he came to know that one Sonu has sustained gunshot injury and thereafter, PCR van reached there and took the injured Sonu to hospital. PW2 failed to identify the accused persons before the court during the trial. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state with the permission of the court. PW2 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 7 of 28
12. PW3 Sh. Ashok Kumar @ Shakti @ Ashu deposed that in the year 2015 (date not remembered) at about 1.45 PM, he found gathering of number of public persons and police official were lifting one injured namely Sonu in PCR van for shifting him to hospital then PW3 made call to Sandeep and rushed to Max hospital where he met Sandeep's brother namely Sumit, father Om Prakash and they sought his help for bringing Honda City car of injured Sandeep which was stationed at Lado Sarai mor where the incident of firing had taken place and when PW3 reached there alongwith Sumit the said car has already been taken away by the police and thereafter, PW3 went to PS and police enquired him about the present incident. PW3 failed to identify the accused persons before the court during the trial. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state with the permission of the court. PW3 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
13. PW4 Sh. Narender Kittu deposed that on 09.03.2015, at about 11 am, he was present at a tea stall (dhabha) of Ashok at Lado Sarai Mor, Opposite Masjid and dhabha owner Ashok, Sonu, Sanjay, Krishanpal and Sandeep were also present there. PW4 further deposed that as he had given Rs. 2 lacs to accused Neeraj for admission of his nephew therefore, PW4 wanted his money back and out of which accused Neeraj had already paid Rs. 50,000/-. PW4 further deposed that he had called accused Neeraj at the dhabha where some heated altercation took place between PW4 and accused Neeraj and he have challenged him.
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 8 of 28 Thereafter, at about 1.30 PM, accused Neeraj along-with some other persons reached there in Safari car and started firing gunshots upon PW4 from his pistol and on this, PW4 went underneath the bench in order to save himself and the bullet hit one Sonu. PW4 further deposed that commotion was there and he ran away from there and accused Neeraj along with his associates also ran away from there. PW4 further deposed that after sometime, he returned back at the spot and found Sonu lying there and one Sandeep had also sustained gunshot injury. PW4 further deposed that Sandeep went to the hospital on his own and Sonu was removed by PCR to hospital and thereafter, police reached there and enquired about the incident and recorded his statement as Ex.PW4/A. PW4 failed to identify the remaining accused persons before the court during the trial. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state with the permission of the court. PW4 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
14. PW5 Sh. Sandeep Sejwal deposed that on 09.03.2015, at about 12.15 PM, he went to Shakti Dhabha where Narender, Sanjay, Ashok and two three persons were already sitting there and PW5 started playing chess with Ashok on footpath. PW5 further deposed that after sometime, some vehicles reached there and he heard noise of firing. PW5 ran away from the spot and while running he received some injury on his abdomen and he took a TSR who drop him at Max hospital. PW5 failed to identify the accused persons before the court during the trial. As FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 9 of 28 this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state with the permission of the court. PW5 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
15. PW6 HC Tejpal deposed qua his limited role in the investigation along with the IO conducted on 09.03.2015 and 19.03.2015 and exhibited documents prepared during the said proceedings as Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/D. PW6 also identified and exhibited on record the mobile phone, key of motorcycle and one currency note of Rs. 10/- as Ex. PX (colly). This witness identified accused Mantosh before the court during trial. PW6 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
16. PW7 Sh. Sanjay Sejwal deposed that on 09.03.2015, he along-with Narender, Sonu, Ashok and Krishan were present at Shakti Dhaba being run by Ashok at near Alijan Masjid, Lado Sarai Mor, New Delhi. At about 1:00-2:00 PM, he heard noise of fire from his backside and on this he and other persons present there started running and PW7 also ran towards his residence. After 10/15 minutes, when he returned back at Dhabha he saw one person namely Sonu was lying on the floor in injured condition having gunshot injuries. PW7 further deposed that he made call to the police at 100 number whereon police came and took injured Sonu to hospital and thereafter, PW7 went to PS and recorded his statement Ex.PW7/A. PW7 further deposed that later on, he came to know that Sonu had died due to gunshot injury. PW7 had pointed out the spot vide pointing out memo FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 10 of 28 Ex.PW7/B. PW7 did not identify the accused persons before the court during the trial. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state with the permission of the court. PW7 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
17. PW8 Sh. Ajit Kumar deposed that on 09.03.2015, he was coming in his car bearing no. HR-29P-3743 Alto from the side of Gurgaon and when he took turn towards Qutub Minar after crossing the red light of Lado Sarai and reached near Haji Ali Masjid, at about 1.30 PM, one boy whose face was covered came from the side of Qutub Minar while firing. PW8 further deposed that one bullet hit his car and he stopped his car and the said boy ran away. PW8 further deposed that his car was inspected and seized by the police. PW8 exhibited on record superdari bond and the documents of the car as Ex.PW8/X1 to Ex.PW8/X3. PW8 identified his car from the photographs exhibited as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and the car is exhibited as Ex.PW8/P1. PW8 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
18. PW9 Sh. Ravi Sharma was working as photographer, who identified the photographs taken by him on 09.03.2015 at the place of incident as Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex. PW9/A8. PW9 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
19. PW10 Sh. K.K. Jha was working as Sr. Scientific Assistant at CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, who exhibited on record the FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 11 of 28 report of SCC as Ex.PW10/A and rough site sketch as Ex.PW10/B. PW10 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
20. PW11 Sh. Rishikesh Meena was working as Laboratory Assistant, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi, who exhibited on record 189 photographs taken at the spot as Ex.PW11/P1 (colly). PW11 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
21. PW12 HC Jaiveer Singh was posted in the mobile crime team, who identified the photographs taken by him at the spot on 09.03.2015 as Ex. PW12/A1 to A7 and negatives as Ex.PW12/B1 to B7. PW12 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
22. PW13 ASI Jaswant was the formal witness who exhibited on record the seized pullanda handed over to him by the doctor vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A. PW13 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
23. PW14 Sh. Satish Sejwal deposed that on 09.03.2015, at about 1.40 pm, he received one phone call by which he came to know that his brother Surender @ Sonu had met with an accident and later on it was revealed that some firing incident has taken place. PW14 reached at AIIMS trauma centre and identified the dead body of his brother Surender @ Sonu vide statement Ex.PW14/A. PW14 exhibited on record the Form 25.35 (1) (B) as Ex.PW14/B and handing over memo of dead FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 12 of 28 body of his brother Surender @ Sonu as Ex.PW14/C. PW14 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
24. PW15 Inspector Vikas Pannu deposed that on 13.09.2015, he along-with ASI Balbir, HC Umesh, HC Vinod and two constables along with Incharge STF, Inspector Jasmohinder of PS Mehrauli visited Kanpur vide DD No.54A regarding the arrest of accused Neeraj and Kartik. PW15 further deposed that the car of accused Neeraj bearing no. HR26-0927 was found parked at the Railway Station in Kanpur and accused Neeraj was found roaming there in suspicious condition. At the identification by SI Rajeev accused Neeraj was apprehended and interrogated whereby he revealed that he had stayed at Siddhi hotel along with one another person. PW15 further deposed that at the instance of accused Neeraj, accused Kartik was apprehended from room no. 105, Hotel Siddhi and at his instance one country made pistol was found under the pillow of the bed which was found loaded with 8 live cartridges. PW15 further deposed that accused Neeraj was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW15/A and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW15/B, the sketch of the pistol and cartridges is Ex.PW15/C and they were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/D. PW15 further deposed that in his personal search, one car parking slip exhibited as Ex. PW15/E-2 and receipt of Rs. 500/- exhibited as Ex. PW15/E-1 regarding the booking of room were recovered and same were took into possession by SI Rajeev vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/E. PW15 further deposed that the RC of the Tata Safari Car Ex. PW15/F-1 FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 13 of 28 was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/F and the car was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/G. PW15 identified accused Neeraj and Kartik before the court during trial and also exhibited on record the TATA Safari car as Ex.PW15/P-1, pistol having magazine as Ex.PW15/P-2 and live cartridges, cartridges cases and lead as Ex.PW15/P-3. PW15 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
25. PW16 Sh. Harbir Rathi identified the dead body vide identification statement Ex.PW16/A and after postmortem, dead body was handed over. PW16 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
26. PW17 Sh. Saleem deposed that (date, month and year not remembered) at about 6.00-6.30 PM, accused Dhruv came at his shop and borrowed his motorcycle for visiting his friend at Trauma Centre. On the same day, accused Dhruv returned the said motorcycle to PW17 at around 10.00 PM. PW17 exhibited on record the seizure memo of the motorcycle as Ex. PW17/A, panchnama as Ex.PW17/B and photograph of the motorcycle as Mark PW17/X1, his statement dated 15.03.2015 as Ex.PW17/C and his motorcycle as Ex.PW17/P1. PW17 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
27. PW18 Sh. Sanjiv Kumar deposed that accused Neeraj was inducted as tenant in his flat no. 66, DDA, LIG Flats, Ground Floor, sector 16B, Pocket 3C, Dwarka, New Delhi vide FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 14 of 28 agreement Ex. PW18/B seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. As this witness did not support the case of the prosecution in its entirety, he was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the state as well as on behalf of accused.
28. PW19 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Airtel, exhibited the documents such as CAF and CDRs pertaining to mobile nos. 9211848181, 9910021771, 9810717993, 9560970571, 9560262786 and 9971217844 as Ex.PW19/1 (colly). This witness also identified the signatures of previous nodal officer Vishal Gaurav who has handed over the above documents to the IO. PW19 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
29. PW20 Sh. Ajit Singh Nodal Officer, Vodafone, exhibited the documents such as CAF and CDRs pertaining to mobile nos. 7838094739, 9711119900, 9582671773, 9873048898, 8447254724, 9911681916 and 8860761598 as Ex.PW20/1 (colly). This witness also identified the signatures of previous nodal officer Anuj Bhatia who has handed over the above documents to the IO. PW20 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
30. PW21 ASI Krishan Kumar deposed that he participated in the investigation on 09.03.2015 along with Ct. Ram Bhajan, Ct. Mahender and Ct. Manoj at the spot i.e. Lado Sarai Masjid near Shakti Dhaba. PW21 further deposed that FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 15 of 28 empty used cartridges, live cartridges, lead of bullet were found at the spot that were seized by the IO vide Ex. PW21/A to Ex.PW21/C. PW21 also exhibited on record the seizure memo of broken chess box, hukka, Alto Car seized by the IO vide memo Ex.PW21/D to Ex.PW21/F respectively. PW21 further deposed qua the investigation conducted on 19.03.2015 which is more or less on the same lines as that of PW6 HC Tejpal qua the arrest of accused Mantosh. He also relied upon the documents exhibited in the testimony of PW6. PW21 further deposed that on 23.03.2015, accused Rajat Chauhan and Sanjeev @ Golu were produced in the court and after taking the permission of Court IO arrested them vide arrest memos Ex.PW21/G and Ex.PW21/H and recorded their disclosure statements as Ex.PW21/I and Ex.PW21/J respectively. Pointing out memos were prepared at their instance vide memo Ex.PW21/K and Ex.PW21/L. PW21 further deposed that on 25.03.2015, at the instance of accused Arvind D'Silva one mobile phone make Samsung Black Colour were recovered from near Tughlaqabad Fort near the bushes that was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/M. PW21 also exhibited on record the seizure memo qua the documents related to vehicle no. HR26BE0927 as Ex.PW21/N. The witness identified the accused Rajat, Arvind, Sanjiv and Mantosh. PW21 also identified the case property i.e. one chess board Ex.P1, hukka as Ex. P2, mobile phone make Samsung Ex.P3, led of bullet Ex.P4, one live cartridge Ex.P5, plastic box containing six empty bullets Ex.P6, two photographs of Alto Car as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. PW21 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 16 of 28
31. PW22 Retd. SI Ramphal on receiving DD no. 35A Ex.PW22/1 alongwith Ct. Ashok Kumar reached at Lado Sarai near Hazi Ali Masjid, Shakti Dhaba where he came to know that two persons had sustained gun shot injury and one injured was taken by PCR van and another injured had gone to Max hospital. PCR Caller Sanjay met him at the spot whose statement was recorded by PW22. PW22 further deposed that on receiving DD No. 50B Ex.PW22/2, it was informed that the admitted injured was declared dead. PW22 also exhibited on record the DD entry 52B received from Max Hospital as Ex.PW22/3 and tehrir prepared by him as Ex. PW22/4 upon which FIR was registered. PW22 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
32. PW23 SI Rajeev Singh deposed more or less on the same lines as that of PW15 Inspector Vikas Pannu. PW23 also relied upon the documents exhibited on record by PW15 in his testimony. Apart from the same, PW23 recorded the disclosure statement of accused Neeraj as Ex.PW23/1 and pointing out memo as PW23/2. The witness identified accused Neeraj before the court during the trial as well as the arm and ammunition recovered from accused Neeraj during the trial.
33. PW24 Inspector Amit Kumar deposed that on 15.03.2015 he along with other police staff arrested the accused Arvind Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW24/1 and recovered a car make Skoda Octavia bearing no. DL-2FEA-9999 that was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW24/5. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW24/2 and his disclosure statement FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 17 of 28 Ex.PW24/3 was recorded. PW24 further deposed that passport of accused Rajat Chauhan was found in the aforesaid car that was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/4. PW24 further exhibited on record the pointing out memo prepared at the instance of accused Arvind vide pointing out memo as Ex.PW24/6. The witness identified accused Arvind before the court and also identified the passport as ExPW24/P1. PW24 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
34. PW25 SI Narender Singh deposed that on 17.03.2015 he alongwith SI Manmeet visited Flat no. 66, DDA LIG Flat, sector-16B, Pocket -3C, Dwarka where the flat was found locked and it was got opened by the owner Sanjiv Kumar. Upon opening of the door, accused Tahir and Ishrar were found present therein and after interrogation they were arrested vide memos Ex.PW25/1 and Ex.PW25/2 respectively and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW25/3 and Ex.PW25/4. Disclosure statement of accused persons were recorded vide memos Ex.PW25/5 and Ex.PW25/6. PW25 deposed that accused Ishrar got effected the recovery of Santro Car DL 3CAA 6355 where he along with his associates had fled away after the incident that was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/7. Custody of both the accused persons were handed over to Insp. Raman Lamba who recorded his statement. PW25 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
35. During trial the accused persons have admitted documents on record by recording their statement u/s 294 FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 18 of 28 Cr.P.C. i.e. superdarinama of vehicle no. HR 26AR 3405 Ex.PX1, superdarinama of vehicle no. HR 26BSE 0927 Ex.PX2, statement u/s 161 dated 28.05.15 of Surender Kaur Ex.PX3, Statement u/s 161 dated 28.05.15 of Mohd. Imran Khan Ex.PX4, Statement u/s 161 dated 28.05.15 of Bidnaya Babu Singh Ex.PX5, Statement of Sm. Manjula dated 27.05.15 Ex.PX6, Statement of Tanuj Kalra dated 09.05.15 Ex.PX7 and statement of Pitamber dated 25.05.15 Ex.PX8
36. No other PW was left to be examined, hence PE was closed vide order dated 26.11.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
37. Statement of accused persons recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to them. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations levelled against them. It is stated by accused persons that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
38. Ld. Additional PP for State has argued that prosecution witnesses have testified qua the incident and against the accused persons. It is further submitted that the forensic evidence lead on record also corroborates the case of the prosecution. The testimony of prosecution witnesses remained FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 19 of 28 unrebutted. That on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offences u/s u/s 120B IPC r/w section 302 IPC, u/s 302 IPC r/w section 120B IPC, u/s 307/34 IPC r/w section 120B IPC and u/s 147/148 IPC r/w section 149 IPC, u/s 201 IPC and u/s 25/27 of The Arms Act are proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
39. On the other hand, Ld. Counsels for accused persons have stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons. It is argued that the star witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution as they failed to identify the accused persons during the trial. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove on record the recovery of weapons from the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is lastly submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case on record. Thus, on the aforesaid grounds accused persons deserves to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
40. Arguments adduced by Ld. Additional PP for State and Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused persons have been heard. Evidences and documents on record perused carefully. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused persons are indicted for the offences u/s 120B IPC r/w section 302 IPC, u/s 302 IPC r/w section 120B IPC, u/s 307/34 IPC r/w section 120B IPC and u/s 147/148 IPC r/w section 149 IPC, 201 IPC and u/s 25/27 of The FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 20 of 28 Arms Act.
41. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused persons not guilty for any offence charged herein and they deserves acquittal for the following reasons:-
42. The case of the prosecution rested upon the oral testimony of the eye witnesses being the direct evidence. Prosecution has examined total 8 independent public witnesses out of which PW2 Krishan Pal, PW3 Ashok Kumar, PW4 Narender @ Kittu, PW5 Sandeep Sejwal and PW7 Sanjay Sejwal were the eye witnesses of the incident who deposed in this case. None of the aforesaid witnesses have identified the accused persons as the assailants in this case during their examination in chief. As the aforesaid witnesses turned hostile, they were cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the state, however, even during the said cross examination, the aforesaid witnesses clearly denied the role of the accused persons in this case and have failed to identify them being the perpetrators of the crime. The aforesaid witnesses denied all the material suggestions put to them during cross examination by the Ld. Additional PP for the state regarding the role of the accused persons.
43. PW4 Narender @ Kittu in his examination in chief identified the accused Neeraj and stated that he fired gun shots upon him from a pistol however, during the cross examination FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 21 of 28 by the accused persons, PW4 categorically denied to have seen the accused Neeraj on the day and time of the incident. He specifically stated that after the heated arguments happened between PW4 and accused Neeraj at about 11.30AM, accused Neeraj left the spot and thereafter he did not return back on that day. PW4 categorically stated that he could not see the vehicles in which the assailants came nor he could see the person who had opened firing as the assailants were wearing helmet and they have covered their face. Thus, in view of the discussion above, testimony of PW4 Narender @ Kittu is found to be shaky, inconsistent and blemished with material contradictions, hence, cannot be relied upon.
44. Similarly, PW7 Sanjay Sejwal on whose statement the FIR was registered also failed to support the case of the prosecution in any manner and he also denied seeing the assailants and thus failed to identify the accused persons in the court during the trial. PW3 Ashok Kumar even denied his presence at the spot at the time when the incident happened and also denied recording of his statement to the police in his examination in chief.
45. Thus, it is clear from the discussion above that none of the eye witness whose testimony has been appreciated above has supported the case of the prosecution on any material aspect including the identity of the accused persons and the role played by them in commission of the offence in question.
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 22 of 28
46. Prosecution has examined PW8 Ajit Kumar whose Alto car was hit by a bullet at the time of the incident. Even PW8 in his examination in chief referred to only one boy who was seen by him coming from the side of Qutub Minar while firing and he also failed to identify the said boy from the accused persons present in the court at the time of recording of his testimony during the trial. PW8 stated that the face of the said boy was covered so he could not identify him. Hence, the testimony of PW8 is also of no help to the case of the prosecution.
47. Prosecution has examined another independent public witness namely Saleem as PW17. As per the case of prosecution, accused Dhruv has borrowed the motorcycle from Saleem that was used in the incident. In his examination in chief PW17 categorically stated that accused Dhruv had taken his motorcycle Ex. PW17/P-1 at about 06-06.30 PM whereas the incident in question took place at about 01.30 PM. PW17 was cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the state and even in the said cross examination, PW17 again denied the suggestion that accused Dhruv took the motorcycle at about 10.30 AM and returned the same at 02.00 PM. PW17 further stated during the cross examination that IO obtained his signatures on blank papers and he wrote himself on that paper. Thus, the testimony of PW17 also failed to support the case of the prosecution.
48. Prosecution has examined another independent public witness namely Sanjiv Kumar as PW18. As per the case of FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 23 of 28 prosecution, accused Mohd. Tahir and Mohd. Israr were found present in the flat no. 66, DDA, LIG Flat, Ground floor, Sector 16B, Pocket 3C, Dwarka, New Delhi owned by PW18. In his examination in chief PW18 categorically stated that no proceedings were carried by the police in his presence and he also denied the presence of the aforesaid accused persons in his flat. PW18 was cross examined by the Ld. Additional PP for the state and even in the said cross examination, PW18 denied the presence of the aforesaid accused persons in his flat and refuted the suggestion put by Ld. Additional PP for the state to this effect. Thus, the testimony of PW18 also failed to support the case of the prosecution.
49. The prosecution has examined two Nodal Officers from Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea Ltd. as PW19 and PW20 who exhibited on record the documents pertaining to various mobile numbers that were allegedly under the usage of the accused persons at the time of incident to establish their location. At the outset, it is to be noted that no witness has been examined by the prosecution to establish the usage of a particular mobile number by a particular accused at the relevant point of time. Further, their location at the place of incident also could not be established by any cogent evidence lead on record. Thus, the mobile numbers for which the aforesaid witnesses were examined does not automatically gets connected to the respective accused persons establishing their role in the present case. Hence, this aspect of prosecution also could not be proved on record.
FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 24 of 28
50. Now coming to the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol Ex. PW15/P-2 used in the present case seized from the possession of accused Neeraj vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/D. As per the FSL report dated 11.09.2024, the evidence bullet retrieved from the body of the deceased Surender @ Sonu and the empty cartridges Ex. P6 could not be fired from the country made pistol Ex.PW15/P-2. Moreover, the country made pistol was found not to be in working order that could have been considered in the definition of Arms. Meaning thereby the weapon of offence recovered from the accused Neeraj do not get connected as weapon of offence in the present case.
51. As far as recovery of the weapon of offence is concerned, PW15 Insp. Vikas Pannu was examined by the prosecution in this regard. There are material discrepancies in the testimony of PW15 Insp. Vikas Pannu which renders his testimony unreliable and doubtful to be acted upon. As per PW15 the accused Neeraj was arrested from Kanpur and the recovery of the pistol was effected at his instance from Siddhi Hotel in Kanpur. During cross examination, PW15 stated that he did not make any arrival entry in the local police station at Kanpur which was mandatory as per law. PW15 also stated that SI Rajeev did not seize any copy of the guest register containing the entry of check in by the accused Neeraj nor the statement of owner / manager / receptionist of the hotel was recorded. He further admitted that no CCTV footage was seized by the police from hotel Siddhi that could have shown the presence of accused FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 25 of 28 Neeraj in the said hotel at the relevant point of time. There is also doubt raised as far as identification of accused Neeraj before his arrest as admittedly the secret informer on whose information he was arrested was not physically present with the police team nor the police team had the photograph of the accused Neeraj in order to ascertain and identify him before his arrest. Thus, the discrepancies discussed above in the testimony PW15 does not inspire confidence of the court about its credibility.
52. PW23 SI Rajeev Singh also deposed more or less on the same lines as that of PW15 Insp. Vikas Pannu and similar discrepancies appeared in his testimony as well rendering his testimony unreliable. It has also come on record that no public person was made witness to the recovery of the pistol at the instance of accused Neeraj and the seizure memo Ex. PW15/D does not bear the signatures of any independent public witness apart from the police witnesses whose testimony has already been found to be doubtful as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. The recovery was effected from hotel then what prevented the police to join the hotel staff in the investigation and recovery proceedings. No sincere efforts were made by the police to join the independent public witnesses, therefore, non- joining of independent public witness creates dent in the story of the prosecution especially in view of the manner under which the accused Neeraj was arrested and such recovery comes under the doubt of cloud. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Anoop Joshi FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 26 of 28 Vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC).
53. The testimony of the star witnesses and the independent public witnesses have completely failed to support the case of the prosecution qua the identity of the accused persons as the perpetrators of the crime. The recovery of the weapon of offence and its connection with the offence in question also could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing on record to suggest or prove the presence of the accused persons at the place of incident at the relevant point of time. Thus, it can be safely concluded that no incriminating evidence has appeared during the trial against the accused persons to prove their culpability.
54. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt if any in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
55. In view of the discussion above, it is thus concluded that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any tinge of doubt. In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence against the accused persons, the charges framed against them could not be established and therefore they are entitled to be given benefit of FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 27 of 28 doubt. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Neeraj, Arvind Kumar Gupta @ Desilva, Kartik, Dhruv @ Gaurav, Kamal Hadda, Karanjeet Singh @ Kannu, Ravinder Kumar @ Rabbu, Jagmohan Sagar @ Bhaiya, Mohd. Tahir, Mohd. Israr, Sanjeev Sharma, Rajat Chauhan @ Golu, Mantosh, Rohit Chaudhary and Anil Kumar stands acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in the present case.
Digitally signed
VISHAL by VISHAL
PAHUJA
PAHUJA Date: 2025.01.13
15:35:39 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA)
COURT ON 13.01.2025 ASJ (FTC) -02
SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS
Containing 28 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(VISHAL PAHUJA) ASJ (FTC) -02 SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURTS FIR no. 689/15 State v. Neeraj and ors Page no. 28 of 28