Delhi District Court
State vs . : Dherender on 12 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ASJ/PILOT COURT/NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No: 59226/16
FIR No. : 283/16
U/s : 302/201/34 IPC
P.S. : Bhalswa Dairy
State Vs. : Dherender
S/o Sh. Amrit Singh
R/o Gali No.5, C-Block,
Shardhanand Colony, Delhi
Permanent Address:
Village:Shaha Nagar,
PS: Agota, Distt. Bulandshahar,
U.P.
Offence complained of : 302/201/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of committal : 30.08.2016
Date of Judgment : 12.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. On 24.05.2016 Pankaj his younger brother Sonu, Deepak, Sanjay, Gandhi and Yogender were sitting at the house of Pankaj situated in 6D Block Shradanand colony, Bhalswa Dairy. At about 4:45 pm Sonu went away saying that he is going home. Deepak also left at about 7:45 pm for State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 1 ::
going to his house at Janta Vihar Mukundpur. Pankaj went to sleep. In the morning at 6:30 am Renu w/o Sonu came to his house and informed that yesterday in the evening at about 5:00/ 5:15 pm Dherender r/o Street No.5 Shradanand colony has called Sonu saying that they will come soon. She continued to make calls to Sonu throughout the night but Sonu did not pick up the phone and also did not return home. Pankaj told this fact to his other known persons also. They searched for Sonu. His cousin Deepak told him at about 7:30 am that yesterday in the night when he was going to his house in the tempo he had seen Sonu and Dherender going towards Tandoor wali Gali Shradanand colony. He called on mobile phone No.9990628858 of Sonu from his phone No.8510879280 but Sonu did not pick up the phone. At about 8:45 or 8:50 am he was able to connect the call on the mobile phone of his brother Sonu and he was called at Khatta of Bhalswa Dairy. He reached there and found that his brother was lying on the ground. His neck was cut with some sharp edged weapon. There was tatoo of OM on his right hand. There was cut injury on his hand also. He suspected that his brother has been killed by Dherender or his companions. Near the dead body the chappals of the deceased. One empty bottle of white Vodka, two water bottles, mobile phone of the deceased with one small diary, State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 2 ::
some visiting cards were lying there. All the exhibits were lifted from there. Accused was apprehended who got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident and also weapon of offence. He stated that he also tried to show that Sonu has been murdered as he was having relation with Anjali, sister of Anil and i.e. why he also made a call on the mobile phone number of Anil and Surender. The charge sheet against accused was filed. Ld. MM after complying with the provisions of section 208 Cr.PC committed the case to the sessions court as offence punishable u/s 302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Accused was charged for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
2. Pankaj was examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 24.05.2016 he along with Sonu, Deepak, Sanjay, Gandhi and Yogender were sitting at his home. At about 4:45 pm Sonu went to his house and they continued talking. Deepak also left for his house at about 7:45 pm. He went to sleep after taking dinner. On the next day i.e. on 25.05.2016 Renu w/o Sonu came to his house and told that Dherender had taken away Sonu at about 5:15 pm from her house. Dherender was residing in the back lane of house of Sonu and was doing the work of glass fitting. He was resident of native village of Shah State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 3 ::
Nagar PS: Agota, Distt. Bulandshehar UP. She told that Dherneder took him saying that they will return shortly and Sonu did not return. She continued to call on the mobile phone of Sonu but Sonu did not pick up the phone and also did not return home. He thought both Dherender and Sonu had consumed liquor and slept at the house of some of their friend. He made inquiries about Sonu. At about 7:30 am he went to the house of Renu and told that no contact could be made. Deepak also reached at the house of Sonu at about 7:30 or 7:45 am as he had to go to Sonepat along with Deepak and Naresh for the work. Deepak told him that on 24.05.2016 at about 8:00 pm he had seen Sonu and Dherender together going near Tandoor wali gali towards Shradanand colony when he was going to his house in the tempo. At about 8:45/ 9:00 am he again called on the phone of Sonu. This time the phone was picked up by the police and they called him at Bhalswa Dairy khatta. He along with the relatives reached there and found the dead body of Sonu lying there. Renu also reached there. There was cut mark on the neck of the deceased and also cut mark on his hand where there was tatoo of OM. His statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded. The dead body was shifted to BJRM hospital. He identified the dead body vide statement Ex.PW1/B. The post mortem was conducted and after post mortem he received State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 4 ::
the dead body vide memo Ex.PW1/C. He correctly identified the accused. He stated that accused was previously involved in two murder cases. The witness also identified the dead body of his brother in 14 photographs Ex.PW1/D1 to Ex.PW1/D14. He deposed that mobile phone number of his brother Sonu was 9990628858 and his mobile number is 8510879280. He identified the clothes of his brother Sonu collectively as Ex.P1.
3. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused he stated that Renu told him this fact at about 6:30 am on 25.05.2016. He knew accused Dherender for the last 8-10 months before the incident. He denied the suggestion that Renu and Deepak had not told him that they had seen the accused Dherender with Sonu on the night of 24.05.2016.
4. Renu was examined as PW-2. She deposed that about 1½ years ago in summer days on 24 th at about 5:00 pm accused Dherender came to her house. She correctly identified the accused. Accused called her husband. Her husband accompanied the accused. Her husband told her that they would return within an hour. At about 7:30 pm on the same day she made a call on the mobile phone of her husband but he did not return home. She made the call from the mobile phone of her neighbour Poonam. She kept on State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 5 ::
making calls on the mobile phone of her husband from the mobile phone of Poonam but the same was not picked up. When her husband did not return home till morning at about 6:30 am she went to the house of her brother-in-law (Jeth) Pankaj. She informed Pankaj that her husband had not returned home on the last night. Pankaj told her that he might have gone some where and would return home soon. Pankaj went to the godown where he was working. Pankaj received call of the police and was asked to reach at Khatta Bhalswa Dairy. Police informed Pankaj that Kissi Sonu naam ke aadmi ka murder ho gaya. Pankaj along with his relatives reached Khatta Bhalswa Dairy. He does not know where Dherender had gone. Dhereneder was residing in street No.5, Shradanad Colony, Bhalswa Dairy. Her husband along with her Jeth Pankaj and accused were working in godown together. She had not gone to the house of Dherender in the morning. She along with her Jethani Rajni went to the house of Dherender which was found locked.
5. During cross-examination by the Ld. Amicus she deposed that her husband occasionally drank liquor. Her Jeth Pankaj also used to take drinks occasionally. She admitted that one day prior to 24 th her husband Pankaj and accused Dherender came to her house after consuming liquor. Her Jethani had gone to the house of Dherender. She knew one State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 6 ::
Anjali who is daughter of accused Dherender. She denied the suggestion that her husband had illicit relations with some Anjali or that she and Sonu used to quarrel with each other on this issue. She also denied the suggestion that on 10.05.2016 brothers of Anjali came to her house and quarreled with her and her husband. She denied the suggestion that she had not gone to Bhalswa Dairy Khatta to see her husband as her relations with Sonu were strained.
6. Deepak was examined as PW-3. He deposed that on 24.05.2016 at about 4:45 pm he along with Pankaj, Sonu, Gandhi, Sanjay and Yogender were sitting outside the house of Pankaj. They used to load the glasses from a shop and unload the same at the destination. At that time they were discussing for taking glasses and loading the same in a tempo and the destination where the same were to be unloaded. Sonu left saying that he has to go to his house. At about 7:00 /7:30 pm he also left for his house. He boarded a gramin sewa tempo. While sitting in a tempo and going towards his house at about 7:45 or 8:00 pm he saw Sonu and Dherender going together in Tandoor wali gali near Mangal Bazar road. Next day i.e. 25.05.2016 he reached at Swami Shradanand colony where his friend Pankaj used to reside. He reached outside the house of Pankaj at about 7:00/ 7:30 am. He also met Gandhi, Sanjay, Pankaj and State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 7 ::
Naresh. Pankaj informed him that Sonu has not reached his house who has to accompany them. He told Pankaj and other friends that he had seen Sonu with Dhereneder going towards Tandoor Wali gali, Mangal Bazar. Pankaj told them that he would inquire about Sonu and asked him and Naresh to reach the destination. While he along with Naresh were going in gramin sewa he received a call of Pankaj, who informed that Sonu has been murdered at Khatta Bhalswa Dairy. Pankaj asked them to reach khatta immediately. They got down from the gramin sewa and reached khatta. They saw the dead body of Sonu lying in the khatta. Police was already present there. There were cut marks on the neck of Sonu. The body was shifted to BJRM hospital. Renu informed Pankaj that Dherender had taken her husband Sonu from her house at about 5:00 /5:15 pm on 24.05.2016. Dherender was also involved in 2-3 other murder cases as informed to him by Sanjay brother of Dherender. Dherender had also murdered the daughter of Sanjay. The sister of Dherender later on met them and informed that Dherender had kidnapped her son and demanded ransom for the release of her son. She also informed that her son had not been found anywhere till date. He correctly identified Dherender. He also identified the dead body of Sonu vide memo Ex.PW3/A in the mortuary. They received the dead State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 8 ::
body vide memo Ex.PW1/C after post mortem.
7. During cross-examination by the Ld. Amicus he deposed that Sonu is his cousin (son of his uncle). Pankaj is a contractor and he used to provide them employment. Sonu was also working with them in loading and unloading of glasses. On the day of incident he was residing at Mukundpur with his family. Sonu along with his wife and son was residing in a tenanted house. The relations between Sonu and his wife were cordial. There was no quarrel between Sonu and his wife. He denied the suggestion that Sonu had relations with a girl named Anjali or that there was a dispute in between Sonu and his wife regarding relation of Sonu with Anjali. He denied the suggestion that brother of Anjali visited the house of Sonu about 15-20 days prior to his death or that the brother of Anjali had quarreled with Sonu with regard to his relation with Anjali. He was not using any mobile number. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen Sonu with accused Dherender or that he is deposing falsely.
8. Retired Inspector Suraj Bhan was examined as PW-4.
He deposed that on 25.05.2016 he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, North West District. After receiving information on wireless set he along with Ct. Vikas Finger Prints Expert, Ct. Amit Photographer and the other staff State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 9 ::
reached near Shradanand Colony, Bhalswa Dairy, Mukarba Bypass. ASI Narender Singh IO and senior officers met them there. In the Khatta near drain a dead body was lying. The neck was found cut from the left side. A pair of sleepers, two empty bottles of water, three plastic tumblers and one empty bottle of Vodka were lying near the body. One packet of Namkeen with small quantity of namkeen in it and one full sealed packet of namkeen were lying near the body. In one plate 3-4 pieces of momos and some chowmin were also lying near the body. He prepared the crime scene report Ex.PW4/A.
9. During cross-examination by the Ld. Amicus he deposed that he received the information at about 8:30 am.
They reached the spot at about 9:00 am. Public persons were present at some distance from scene of crime. Dead body was not removed from the spot in his presence. The photographer took the photographs of scene of crime. They left the scene of crime at about 9:50 am.
10. Ct. Amit Kumar was examined as PW-5. He was posted in the mobile crime team as photographer. He along with the team reached at Ganda Nala, Shradanand colony, Bhalswa Dairy. Local police met them there. SI Suraj Bhan Incharge inspected the scene of crime. He took 14 photographs. The photographs are Ex.PW1/D1 to D14. The State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 10 ::
CD is Ex.PW5/A. The certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act is Ex.PW5/B.
11. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel he deposed that they reached the spot at about 9:00 am. He denied the suggestion that the scene of crime was arranged or that he took the photographs from different angles as suited the case of prosecution.
12. ASI Jai Bhagwan was examined as PW-6. He deposed that on 25.05.2016 on receipt of DD No.7A that one male dead body is lying near the Nala Khatta, he along with PSI Kuldeep left for the spot. They reached at Khatta Bhalswa Dairy. ASI Narender Singh met them there. He handed over the DD No.7 to him. Many persons were present near the spot. One dead body of a male aged about 25-26 years was lying having cut injury on the left side of neck with sharp edged weapon. There was blood on the shirt, Baniyan and on the ground. There was cut injury on right side arm of the dead body. On the dead body there was white printed shirt and blue colour jeans. A pair of red colour hawai chappal was also lying there. An empty bottle of white Vodka, two empty water bottles, four plastic disposable glasses, two namkeen packets, momos, one mobile phone of Intex black colour found in the jeans pocket of the dead body and one brown colour purse in the right side back pocket of State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 11 ::
jeans containing some cards etc. SHO and other staff also reached there. At the same time one call came on the mobile phone of the deceased which was attended by ASI Narender Singh. ASI Narender Singh requested the caller to reach the spot. One telephone call of Pankaj was also received who claimed to be brother of Sonu. Pankaj reached the spot and dead body was shifted to BJRM hospital. ASI Narender Singh prepared the rukka and handed over to him at 10:30 am. He went to police station and duty officer got registered the FIR. Duty Officer handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He came back at the spot at about 11:15 am and handed over the same to Inspector Satish Kumar for further investigation. Inspector Satish Kumar prepared the site plan. He along with Inspector Satish reached BJRM Hospital. IO prepared inquest papers. Post mortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased. Dead body was identified by the relatives namely Deepak and Pankaj. After post mortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives. After post mortem doctor handed over the wooden box and sample seal to the IO who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW6/A. Doctor also handed over one sealed parcel, envelope duly sealed along with sample seal to the IO who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW6/B.
13. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 12 ::
the witness stated that in his presence no exhibits were lifted from the spot. No other articles were lying near the dead body except the articles mentioned by him his examination in chief. He had not seen any dustbin trolly near the dead body. The dumpers were passing from there. He denied the suggestion that dumpers containing garbage were found stationed near the body. He does not remember who other family members of deceased were present on the spot besides Pankaj. Many public persons had gathered near the dead body. There was no female relative of deceased on the spot. The photographer of the crime team took the photographs in his presence. He does not know how many photographs were taken. He does not know which articles were seized by the IO from the spot. He denied the suggestion that no exhibits were received from the hospital after the post mortem.
14. Ct. Vikram was examined as PW-7. He deposed that on 25.05.2016 he was posted in CPCR PHQ. His duty was on channel No.129. On that day at 7:50:10 hrs a call was received from mobile phone No.8287848699 that Kudeydan ke paas Nale ke pass wale rastey par Shradanand colony, Bhalswa Dairy ek male dead body padi hai, Bhalswa Dairy. He dispatched this message at 7:55:55 hours. He proved the computer generated copy of PCR form as Ex.PW7/A. State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 13 ::
Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during the cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel.
15. HC Mahesh was examined as PW-8. He deposed that on 28.05.2016 he was posted in PS: Bhalswa Dairy. At about 9:45 am he along with Inspector Satish, HC Sikander, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Virender and accused Dherender left for Bulandshehar in private vehicle. At about 12:15 pm they reached Saini Nagar, Aurangabad, Bulandshehar. Surender Saini and his wife met them there. Surender Saini produced two mobile phones i.e. one belonging to him and other belonging to his wife. IO seized both the mobile phones vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A.
16. At about 2:00 pm they reached Chirora Mustafabad, Aurangabad, UP where Anil saini met them. He also produced one mobile phone. IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW8/B. At about 4:30 pm they reached Shah Nagar, PS:
Agota, Bulandshehar. The village of the accused. From the Jhuggi constructed in the field accused got recovered his mobile phone along with memory card. The mobile phone with memory card was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/C. Thereafter, they came back to PS along with accused and case property. He correctly identified the accused. He identified the black colour Lava mobile phone as Ex.PW8/Article-1. The Intex mobile phone is identified as State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 14 ::
Ex.PW8/Article-2. He identified the Samsung Mobile phone as Ex.PW8/Article-3 and the another Intex Mobile phone is identification as Ex.PW8/Article4.
17. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that on 28.05.2016 they left for Bulandshehar at 9:45 am along with the accused. They were in the Ertiga car. They all were in uniform. First of all they reached the house of Surender Saini. IO perused the call details of accused and found that Surneder Saini was in contact with accused on mobile phone. Thereafter, they went to Saini Nagar Aurangabad at the house of Surender Saini. Wife of Surender Saini and his other family members were present there. They also went to Local police station but he does not remember if any local police officer accompanied them to the house of Surender or Anil or to the house of accused. IO requested the neighbours of Surender Saini to join the investigation but they refused. At about 1:00 or 1:15 pm they left the house of Surender Saini. He does not know the relation between Surender Saini and Anil. He does not remember if they visited the local police station before reaching the house of Anil. They stayed at the house of Anil for about 25 to 30 minutes. No public person had joined investigation at the time of seizure of mobile phone. IO informed the local police station at Agota. IO did not request State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 15 ::
head of the village to join the investigation. No public person was joined when accused produced his mobile phone. He denied the suggestion that Surender, Anil and accused did not produce any mobile phone or that the same were planted upon the accused.
18. HC Sikander was examined as PW-9. He deposed that on 26.05.16 at about 11.50 AM he along with Inspector Satish, Ct. Deepak, Ct. Virender left the PS in search of the accused. At about 12.50 PM they reached Mangal Bazar, Bhalswa Dairy in search of the accused. They came to know that accused is not coming to his house since 25.05.16. Thereafter they reached the scene of crime. At about 1.45 PM secret information was received by the IO that accused would come to his house at about 3/3.30 PM and that he would pass through the vacant plot in Swaroop Nagar Extn. At about 2.30 PM they reached in front of liquor shop Swaroop Nagar and laid the trap. At about 3.15 PM one person was apprehended on the pointing out of the secret informer. He disclosed his name as Dherender. He was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW-9/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-9/B. Accused was brought to the police station. He made the disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/C. Accused led them to the khatta with ganda nala and from the bushes took out one State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 16 ::
daav having blood stains. Its sketch Ex.PW-9/D was prepared. The weapon was wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-9/E. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW-9/F. Accused led them to his house situated in street no.5, Mangal Bazar Road, Bhalswa Dairy. From there he got recovered his shirt and pants which he was wearing at the time of incident. There were blood stains on both the clothes. The clothes were wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-9/G. IO prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of clothes Ex.PW-9/H.
19. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-8 regarding visit to Bulandshahr and seizure of the mobile phones from Surender Saini and Anil Saini. He identified the accused correctly. He also identified the case property.
20. During cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that secret informer personally met them. They did not pay any money to the secret informer. At about 1.15 PM they reached on khatta, Bhalswa Dairy. He did not make any telephone call to the secret informer. No public person was present when accused was apprehended. They reached PS along with accused at about 5 PM. The liquor shop is at about 100 to 150 mtr.from the place of apprehension. Many State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 17 ::
rag keepers were present in the khatta at that time. No public person joined despite request by the IO. He does not remember if the finger prints were lifted from the daav.
21. They did not visit the local police station before reaching the house of Surender Saini. Surender Saini along with his wife was present in the first room. Surender Saini and his wife also signed the seizure memo. They did not visit the local police station before reaching the house of Anil. The parents and sister of Anil were present at the house. He denied the suggestion that accused was arrested from his house at village Agota. No public person was present when mobile of accused was seized. They started for Delhi at 6 PM and reached PS Bhalswa Dairy at about 9.30 PM.
22. Ct. Virender was examined as PW-10. He deposed that on 26.05.2017 at about 11:15 am he along with inspector Satish, HC Sikander, Ct. Deepak left the police station in search of accused. He corroborated the testimony of PW-9 regarding the arrest of accused and the recoveries at his instance. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-8 and PW-9 regarding seizure of mobile phones from Surender Saini and Anil Saini. He correctly identified the accused and also the case property.
23. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that the secret informer personally met IO at State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 18 ::
Khatta, Bhalswa Dairy. Neighbour of accused Dherender told that Dherender is not coming home since 25.05.2016. The wife of accused was also at home. She also told that her husband has not reached home since morning of 25.05.2016. He does not know if IO made any inquiry from the landlord of the house. From the house of accused they reached Khatta Bhalswa Dairy at about 2:00 pm. Accused was apprehended from vacant plot near liquor shop. The liquor shop is at a distance of about 20-30 meters from the place of apprehension. No Public persons was present when accused was apprehended. In his presence the finger prints of accused was not taken. He denied the suggestion that accused surrendered in police station or that he was not arrested from the place, time and manner as deposed by him. He admitted that local police and village Pradhan was not with them when they went to the house of Surender and Anil. He denied the suggestion that daav and clothes were not recovered at the instance of accused or that the same were planted upon the accused.
24. Ct. Manoj Kumar was examined as PW-11. He deposed that on 25.05.2016 after receiving the information about the dead body of male lying near Khatt, Nala Bhalswa Dairy. He met ASI Narender, Ct. Jai Bhagwan, PSI Kuldeep and Ct. Naresh. He corroborated the testimony of PW-6. ASI State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 19 ::
Naresh, prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Jai Bhagwan at 10:30 am. Dead body was sent to the mortuary through Ct. Naresh. He also deposed that after registration of FIR the further investigation was assigned to Inspector Satish. The blood, blood stained earth and earth control was lifted from the spot and put in different plastic containers, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C. The pair of Hawai Chappal of red colour was put in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/D. The mobile phone make Intex was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW11/B. The wallet of brown colour having visiting cards and small diary was seized vide memo Ex.PW11/F. The empty bottle of Vodka, 2 plastic water bottles of Acquafina, 4 plastic disposable glasses, 2 packets of namkeen were wrapped in a piece of cloth, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/G. The momos were put in a plastic container, sealed with the seal of SK and seized vide memo Ex.PW11/H. He correctly identified the case property.
25. During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel he deposed that information was received by him in the PS:
Bhalswa Dairy. He reached Khatta at about 8:30 am. No relative of deceased was present on the spot when he State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 20 ::
reached there. Brother of deceased along with other members of the family reached lateron. IO recorded the statement of Pankaj in his presence. He remained at spot for 2 hours. He does not rememebr how many photographs were clicked by the photographer. IO prepared site plan in his presence.
26. HC Sanjay was examined as PW-12. He was working as duty officer. At about 8.18 AM wireless operator informed that "kudedaan ke paas nale wale raste per Bhalswa Dairy ek male dead body padi hai". He informed ASI Narender about the information. He recorded DD no.7A and proved the copy of same as Ex.PW-12/A. Ct. Jai Bhagwan and SI Kuldeep also left for the spot. He also informed the SHO about the information.
27. During cross examination by Ld. Amicus for the accused, he deposed that wireless operator received this information from police control room.
28. Ct. Kuldeep was examined as PW-13. He deposed that on 21.06.16 he collected 15 parcels and two sample seals from MHC(M) vide RC no.119/21/16, 120/21/16, 121/21/16 and 122/21/16 for depositing the same in FSL. He went to FSL and deposited the case property. He obtained the acknowledgement from FSL. He returned to the PS and handed over the acknowledges to the MHC(M). Till the State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 21 ::
exhibits remained in his possession, no one tampered the same. Nothing material came on record to discredit the witness during cross examination.
29. ASI Roona Rathore was examined as PW-14. She deposed that on 25.05.16 she was working as Duty officer. At about 10.45 AM Ct. Jai Bhagwan brought a rukka sent by ASI Narender. On the basis of rukka, she got registered the FIR and proved the computer generated copy of the same as Ex.PW-14/A. She made endorsement on the rukka regarding registration of FIR. She proved the same as Ex.P-14/B. She also proved the copy of DD No.13A as Ex.PW-14/C and copy of DD no.12A as Ex.PW-14/D. The copies of FIR were sent to Sr. Police officials and Ld.MM through Ct. Manoj. Further investigation was assigned to Inspector Satish. He proved the certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW- 14/E.
30. During cross examination by the defence, she deposed that FIR was typed on the computer by Ct. Tushar.
31. ASI Sushil Kumar was examined as PW-15. He was working as MHC(M). He proved the entries in register No.19 as Ex.PW-15/A to PW-15/C. He proved the entries in register no.21 as Ex.PW-15/D, E, F and G. He proved the acknowledgement of FSL as Ex.PW-15/H, I, J and K. He deposed that no body tampered with the case property till the State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 22 ::
same remained in his custody. On 01.06.16 Inspector Satish Kumar made DD no.46B regarding sealing of exhibits and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW-15/L.
32. During cross examination by the defence, he deposed that he does not know what was in the sealed parcels. He sent all the exhibits duly sealed through road certificates. He admitted that there is no entry in register no.19 that case property was sealed on 01.06.16.
33. Ms. Sunita Gupta, Sr. Scientific Officer, Biology, FSL, Rohini was examined as PW-16. She conducted the biological and DNA Finger Printing examination on the exhibits and proved her report as Ex.PW-16/A.
34. During cross examination by the defence, she denied the suggestion that she prepared the report without conducting proper examination and as per the direction of IO to suit the case.
35. Smt. Sonia wife of Surender Saini was examined as PW-17. She deposed that in summer season about one year ago in the night at about 10/10.30 PM she received a telephone call on the mobile phone of her husband. The person who made the call was using abusive language. The said caller made call on the mobile phone upto 12 mid night. When the regular calls coming after 12 mid night, she switched off the mobile phone. Her husband also attended State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 23 ::
the call and the caller was using abusive language. Leading question were put to the witness by Ld. APP with the permission of the court where in she admitted that her husband was using mobile phone no.9807691410. The caller made the call on 24.05.16 from mobile phone no.9990628858. She was using mobile phone no.9058613877. She denied the suggestion that on 28.05.16 accused Dherender was brought to their house or that she and her husband identified him as a person who was working in the field in their village or that she was knowing accused prior to 28.05.16. She admitted that police has taken away her mobile phone and the mobile phone of her husband. She identified the mobile phone of her husband as Ex.PW- 8/Article 2 and her mobile phone as Ex.PW-8/Article 3.
36. During cross examination by the defence, she stated that she can not identify the voice which was heard by her. These calls were received only on that night after 10/10.30 PM. Anjali is her niece, daughter of elder brother of her husband, and aged about 18 years. They had no quarrel with deceased Sonu about 15 days prior to his death.
37. Sh. Surender Saini was examined as PW-18. He deposed that he was using mobile no.9897691410 and his wife was using mobile phone no.9058613877. On 24.05.16 at about 10/10.30 PM a call was received on his mobile State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 24 ::
number. The caller was using abusive language. He disconnected that call. Thereafter the caller made a call on another mobile phone which was attended by his wife Sonia. The caller again used the abusive language. When the caller was again and again making the calls, he switched off the mobile phones. On 26/27/28.05.16 Delhi police along with some persons reached their house. Police made inquiries from him and his wife. He handed over both the mobile phones to the police, which were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW-8/A. He identified both these mobile sets as Ex.PW-8/Article 2 and PW-8/Article 2. The witness was cross examined by Ld. APP qua the identity of accused wherein he denied the suggestion that accused Dherender was brought to his house on 28.05.16 or that he and his wife identified him as he was working in the field of their village or that they were knowing him prior to 28.05.16. No question was put to the witness on behalf of the accused.
38. Sh. Anil was examined as PW-19. He deposed that he was using mobile phone No.9759116525 and 9528983589. About 2 years ago during summer at about 10:30 pm he received call on his mobile phone and heard the voice of a male. The caller inquired as to who is there and he told his name. Thereafter, caller started abusing him. The caller also told that he is speaking from Delhi. He told the caller that it is State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 25 ::
a wrong number and requested him to disconnect the call. After some time Delhi police reached his house and made inquiries from him. Polie also took away his mobile phone which was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/B. He identified his mobile phone as Ex.PW8/Article-4.
39. The witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he denied the suggestion that he received the call from mobile No.9990628858. He admitted that caller told him that he wanted to talk with Anjali. He admitted that the caller also sent a message "I love you to Sonu". He admitted that on 28.05.2016 accused Dherender was brought to their house or that he identified the accused as the person who was working in his field in his village. He admitted that he knew the accused prior to 28.05.2016 and also identified the accused.
40. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he deposed that this type of call was received only once. He cannot identify the voice of caller. He denied the suggestion that he had a quarrel with Sonu about 15 days prior to his death. He denied the suggestion that he and his brother went to the house of Sonu or that they threatened Sonu that if he talked about Anjali they would kill him. Anjali is daughter of his elder brother. Surender is his neighbour. He denied the suggestion that they also threatened Sonu that if he again State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 26 ::
called at their house they would thrash him.
41. Inspector Manohar lal was examined as PW-20. He proved the scaled site plan of the place where dead body was found as Ex.PW20/A. Nothing material came on record during cross-examination by the defence to discredit the witness.
42. ASI Narender Singh was examined as PW-21. He deposed that on 28.05.2016 he received information that a dead body is lying near Nala, Bhalswa Dairy near Kudeydan. He reached the spot where PSI Kuldeep, Ct. Jai Bhagwan met him. PSI Kuldeep handed over to him the copy of DD No.7A Ex.PW12/A. He corroborated the testimony of PW-6. He recorded the statement of Pankaj Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement Ex.PW21/A on the statement of Pankaj, prepared the rukka and sent the same to police station through Ct. Jai Bhagwan for registration of FIR. Inspector Satish Kumar also reached the spot. Ct. Jai Bhagwan came back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Inspector Satish. He handed over mobile phone and wallet of the deceased containing visiting cards and documents and small diary to the IO.
43. During cross-examination by the defence he deposed that he reached the spot at about 8:25 am. No relative of deceased was found there. In his presence Pankaj reached State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 27 ::
there who identified the dead body. No eye witness was found at the spot. There is no way for dumper for unloading the garbage at the place where dead body was found. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of crime or that no photographs were taken.
44. Dr. V.K. Jha CMO, BJRM Hospital was examined as PW-22. He was deputed by Medical Superintend of BJRM hospital to depose in place of Dr. N.K. Gunjan. He proved the post mortem report. According to the report the cause of death in this case is hemorrhage as a result of cut throat injury produced by sharp edged object. Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Time since death is between 12 to 24 hours at the time of post mortem examination. Clothes, blood sample in gauze piece, viscera in saturated solution of common salt and blood in sodium fluoride for chemical analysis was sealed and handed over to the police. The post mortem report is proved as Ex.PW22/A. The testimony of witness has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
45. Inspector Satish Kumar was examined as PW-23. He deposed that on 25.05.2016 he reached the Nala Bhalswa Dairy near Kudeydan after getting information about dead body of a male. ASI Narender, PSI Kuldeep, Ct. Jai Bhagwan met him there. Many public persons were present there. He State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 28 ::
corroborated the testimony of PW-6 and PW-21. He also deposed that at 8:38 am a call of Sanjay on the mobile phone of deceased was received by ASI Narender who asked him to reach the spot. At about 8:53 am call of Panjak was received on the mobile phone of deceased. ASI Narender called him also on the spot. After the registration of FIR investigation was assigned to him. He corroborated the testimony of PW11 regarding lifting and seizure of the exhibits from the spot. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-9 regarding arrest of accused and seizure of exhibits at his instance. He also corroborated the testimony of PW-8 regarding seizure of mobile phone of Surender Saini and Anil Saini.
46. He deposed that on 15.06.2016 he received the sealed parcel having purse containing small diary. He opened the parcel and took out that small diary. The wallet and other articles were re-sealed. He recorded DD No.25A in this regard.
47. He sent the exhibits to FSL through Ct. Kuldeep. He got prepared the scaled site plan of the scene of crime through Inspector Manohar Lal. He collected the FSL result and filed the same with certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act Ex.PW23/D1 and Ex.PW23/D2. He also filed the FSL result Ex.PW23/D3 and Ex.PW23/D4. He correctly identified the State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 29 ::
asccused and also case property. He also collected the call detail records and customer application forms. He also obtained subsequent opinion of the autopsy surgeon which is Ex.PW23/E.
48. During cross-examination by the witness he deposed that Pankaj met him on the spot who identified the dead body as of Sonu. Cousin brother of deceased and other family members also reached the spot. The articles lying near the dead body were seized. He denied the suggestion that he made call to the accused who reached the spot. He recorded the statement of Deepak and his wife on the next date. He did not record the statement of Sanjay, Gandhi and Yogender. He did not visit the house of Dherender on 26.05.2016. In the morning hours the beat officer visited the house of Dherender but he was not found there. He denied the suggestion that Dherender was arrested from his tenanted house in the evening hours. There was no public persons present when accused was apprehended.
49. On 28.05.2016 he along with police party and accused reached Bulandshehar. First of all they reached house of Surender Saini. He did not inform the local police. He made inquiries from the Surender and his wife regarding Anjali. He did not meet any girl by the name of Anjali at the house of Surender. At about 1:30 pm they left the house of Surender. State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 30 ::
At about 2:00 pm they reached the house of Anil where he met Anjali and her mother. He made inquiries from Anjali and her brother but did not record statement of Anjali. Thereafter they went to the village of accused. He informed the local police station. The mobile phone produced by the accused was lying in a hut, in the filed, on a cot. There was no public persons near the field of accused. He arrested only accused Dherender in this case.
50. Sh. Pawan Singh Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular was examined as PW-24. He brought the record of mobile phone no.9990628858. As per the record this number was issued in the name of Sonu Kumar son of Narrotam Singh. The photocopy of CAF is proved as Ex.PW-24/A. The copy of voter ID card is proved as Ex.PW-24/B. The call detail record of this mobile number from 20.05.16 to 25.05.16 is proved as Ex.PW-24/C.
51. He had also proved the record of mobile phone no.9540081677. As per the record this number was issued in the name of Beena wife of Dherender. The photocopy of CAF is proved as Ex.PW-24/D. The copy of Aadhar card attached with the CAF is proved as Ex.PW-24/E. The call detail record of this number from 20.05.16 to 25.05.16 is proved as Ex.PW-24/F. The certificate under Sec.65 B of Evidence Act for the call detail records is proved as Ex.PW-24/G. State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 31 ::
52. During cross examination by the defence, he denied the suggestion that the CAF and CDRs are manipulated and forged documents.
53. Sh.Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. was examined as PW-25. He proved the record of mobile phone no.9759116525. As per the CAF this number was issued in the name of Shravan Kumar son of Rajender. The photocopy of CAF is proved as Ex.PW- 25/A. The photocopy of Voter ID card annexed with CAF is proved as Ex.PW-25/B. The call detail record of this number from 20.05.16 to 26.05.16 is proved as Ex.PW-25/C. The certificate under Sec.65 B Evidence Act is proved as Ex.PW- 25/D. Nothing material came to discredit the witness during cross examination by the defence.
54. Dr. R.P.Singh Specialist, Forensic Medicine, BJRM hospital was examined as PW-26. He deposed that on 07.05.18 an application was received regarding opinion on weapon of offence along with copy of post mortem report and one sealed parcel having seal of VKB. He opened the parcel and took out the weapon of offence, sketch of which is Ex.PW-26/A. After examining the weapon and going through the post mortem report, he opined that the injury mentioned in the post mortem report are not possible by the examined weapon. After examining the weapon the same was resealed State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 32 ::
with the seal of FMT BJRM hospital. He proved the subsequent opinion as Ex.PW-23/E. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
55. Statement of accused was recorded under Sec.313 Cr.PC wherein he denied the entire evidence. He did not wish to lead evidence in defence and the case was fixed for final arguments.
56. I have heard the Ld. Addl.PP for state, Ld. Defence counsel for accused person and perused the record.
57. The present case is not based upon the direct evidence. It is based upon the circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that a person can be held guilty even on the basis of circumstantial evidence if all the circumstances are proved and established. All the circumstances so proved and established points towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances so proved and established formed a complete chain and are also inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused. In the present case also the prosecution intends to prove the guilt of the accused by proving the following circumstances.
1) Circumstance of last seen. 2) Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused. 3) Recovery of blood stain clothes of the accused. State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 33 :: 4) Making of calls to Surender and Anil.
58. I take up all the circumstances one by one.
Circumstance of last seen.
59. Ld. APP submitted that as per the testimony of PW-2 Renu, who is the wife of deceased Sonu, on 24.05.16 at about 5 PM accused Dherender came to their house and took Sonu with him on the pretext that they would return soon. At about 7.30 PM she made a call on the mobile phone of her husband but he did not return. Ld. APP submitted that the wife is the natural witness. She being residing there in the same house with her husband Sonu and can not be disbelieved. There is no reason as to why she will depose falsely against the accused and let the actual culprit go scot free. Ld.APP further submitted that on the same day Deepak examined as PW-3 also saw Sonu and Dherender going together in the tandoor wali gali, near Mangal bazar road at about 7.45/8.00 PM while going towards his house in the grameen sewa tempo. Deepak is also a natural witness as according to PW-1 he along with Deepak, Sonu, Gandhi, Yogender and Sanjay were sitting at the house and were planning for the next day work. According to him Deepak left for his house at about 7.45 PM. House of Pankaj is in street no.6 Mangal Bazar Road, Shardhanand Colony. Ld. APP submitted that from the statements of these two witnesses it State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 34 ::
is clear that deceased was lastly seen alive in the company of the accused thereafter none has seen him alive and only his dead body was found. There is no explanation by the accused also as to where he parted his way from the deceased and at what time. Both the witnesses are reliable. Defence has failed to breach their veracity. Ld. APP submitted that prosecution by examining these witnesses have discharged its onus and proved the circumstance beyond doubt.
60. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that both are interested witnesses and are deposing falsely. PW-2 is the wife of deceased and PW-3 is the cousin of deceased. Ld. Counsel submitted that accused had never gone to the house of deceased to call him. Deceased has also not accompanied the accused. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the two witnesses also contradicted each other and also the circumstances. According to PW-2, her husband went along with the accused at about 5 PM. The house of deceased was in street no.6 Mangal Bazar Road, Shardhanand Colony, Bhalswa Dairy. If that is to be believed then after three hours deceased and accused can not be seen near Mangal Bazar road, tandoor wali gali which is quite near to the house of the deceased. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is also contradiction in the testimony of State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 35 ::
PW-1 and PW-3. According to PW-1, PW-3 left his house at 7.45 PM. PW-3 deposed that he left the house at about 7/7.30 PM and he had seen the deceased in the company of accused at about 7.45/8 PM. Ld. Counsel submitted that if PW-3 left the house at 7.45 PM then there was no reason for him to be able to see the deceased in the company of accused at 7.45 PM. Ld. Counsel further submitted that there is also no proximity of time and space between the last seen as deposed by PW-3. Ld. Counsel submitted that according to PW-3 the accused and deceased were lastly seen together near tandoor wali gali, Swami Shardhanand colony, but the dead body has been found at khatta Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is a distance of about 500 to 700 meters between the place of last seen and where the dead body was found. The dead body was also detected next day at about 08:18 hours and hence there is time gap of more than 12 hours between the last seen and the recovery of dead body. Ld. Counsel submitted that there are so many bifurcating streets in between the place of last seen and where the dead body was found. Even otherwise on the place of incident one empty vodka bottle, two water bottles, four plastic disposable glasses were found. According to the FSL result Ex.PW-23/B-3 143.1 mg ethyl alcohol was detected per 100 ml.of blood. This report clearly shows that State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 36 ::
deceased has consumed liquor before his death. The presence of four glasses shows that there were three more persons with him at that time. No finger prints have been lifted from the bottles or the plastic glasses recovered to establish as to who were there with the deceased when he was consuming liquor where his dead body was found. Even no effort was made to find out if saliva was there as eatables were also found lying there to conduct the DNA test. Ld.counsel submitted that in fact the investigation has not been conducted properly and the accused has been falsely implicated. The onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged. The circumstance is not established.
61. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that there are two witnesses of last seen i.e. PW-2 wife of the deceased. According to her statement accused came to call her husband and her husband accompanied the accused. He did not return thereafter. According to PW-3 at about 7.45 or 8.00 PM he had seen the accused and the deceased entering tandoor wali gali. If both the witnesses are believed then accused and deceased were lastly seen together at about 8 PM on 24.05.16. The dead body has been recovered on 25.05.16 at about 8.18 AM. This clearly shows that there is a time gap of more than 12 hours when the accused and the deceased seen together and the State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 37 ::
recovery of dead body. There is also a distance of more than 500 meters between the place where they were lastly seen together by PW-3 and the place where dead body was found.
There are many intersecting streets in between. As rightly pointed out by the defence counsel and as per the story also on the spot one empty bottle of vodka, two empty bottles of water and four disposable glasses of plastic were found on the spot along with two packets of namkeen, some momos and chowmin. This clearly shows that there were three more persons with whom deceased consumed liquor. The fact that deceased consumed liquor is also evident from the viscera analysis report Ex.PW-23/D-3. This circumstance also shows that there were four persons. No efforts what so ever has been made to lift the finger prints from the plastic glasses and the bottles or to establish the identity of the persons with whom deceased consumed liquor. Keeping in view all this discussion, in my opinion even if PW-2 and PW-3 are believed that by itself does not point towards the guilt of the accused as firstly there is no proximity of time and space and secondly as per the articles found on the spot there were three more persons with the deceased with whom he consumed liquor. There were many intersecting streets in between the place where deceased was lastly seen with the accused and hence even if the circumstance is taken to be State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 38 ::
proved it is not in consistent with any hypothesis of innocence of accused.
Recovery of weapon of offence.
62. According to the story of prosecution after the accused was arrested, he led them to the ganda nala in the bushes near khatta and got recovered one daav Ex.PW-9/Article 1 from the bushes. The daav was seized vide memo Ex.PW- 9/E. Prosecution has examined PW-9, PW-10 and PW-23 to prove the recovery of the same. It is important to note here that no public witness was joined at the time of affecting recovery, despite the fact that they were knowing that accused is taking them for getting recovered the weapon of offence. This fact itself creates doubt regarding the truthfulness of the story of prosecution. The daav was sent to FSL for analysis but the DNA from the blood could not be isolated and therefore, it can not be said with certainty that the daav Ex.PW-9/Article 1 was used in the commission of offence. This fact is confirmed by Dr. R.P.Singh examined as PW-26. He examined this weapon to give the subsequent opinion as to whether the injuries found on the dead body could be caused by this weapon. He opined that the injuries mentioned in PM report are not possible by the examined weapon of offence. The report is proved as Ex.PW-23/E. Keeping in view this subsequent opinion it is clear that the State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 39 ::
weapon of offence shown to have been recovered at the instance of accused is not the weapon with which the injury found on the dead body could have been caused. Even the recovery of the weapon is doubtful as despite availability of the public persons no public person was joined at the time of recovery.
63. Keeping in view the above discussion, in my opinion the onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged and the circumstance is not proved. Circumstance of recovery of clothes of accused.
64. The other circumstance which the prosecution intend to prove against the accused is the recovery of his clothes. The clothes are one shirt and the pants Ex.PW-9/Article 2. Prosecution has examined PW-9, PW-10 and IO of the case examined as PW-23 to prove this fact. All three are consistent that accused led them to his house and got recovered his clothes Ex.PW-9/Article 2. The three witnesses have also stood through the test of cross examination. According to them there was blood on the clothes. The clothes were sent to FSL for analysis. The blood was detected on the clothes. The DNA was isolated which matched with the DNA of the deceased. There is no explanation by the accused as to how the blood of the deceased reached his clothes. Keeping in view the testimony State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 40 ::
of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-23 in my opinion the prosecution has proved and established this circumstance. Making of calls to Surender and Anil.
65. The story of prosecution is that accused in order to make out a case that deceased has illicit relation with Anjali, made the calls on the mobile phones of Surender Saini his wife Sonia and Anil. They have been examined as PW-18, PW-17 and PW-19 respectively. Their call detail record have also been proved on record which shows that certain calls were made from the mobile phone number of the deceased i.e. phone number 9990628858. The call detail record of this number has been proved as Ex.PW-24/C. The call detail record of the mobile phone of Anil are proved as Ex.PW- 25/C. The call detail record Ex.PW-24/C shows that certain calls were made on the mobile phone of Surender having no.9897691410 and on the mobile phone of his wife Sonia having no.9058613877 and on phone of Anil. There is nothing on record that these calls were made by the accused only. The onus was upon the prosecution to prove this fact which in my opinion the prosecution has failed, therefore, even if these call detail record shows and establish making of calls that does not point or establish that the maker was only the accused. The onus was upon the prosecution to prove this fact which the prosecution has failed. State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 41 ::
66. There is also recovery of mobile phone of accused but that does not lead to show that accused committed this offence and therefore, I am not discussing the same.
67. Keeping in view the above discussion on various circumstances, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the circumstance of last seen, the recovery of weapon of offence and making of calls on the mobile phone of Surender Saini, Sonia and Anil Saini. Prosecution has also not been able to establish any motive for committing this offence. The only circumstance proved and established is the recovery of clothes on which the DNA of the deceased was found. It is a weak type of evidence. Even otherwise the chain is not complete. The Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622 had laid down the following principles:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully 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 a 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 State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 42 ::
done by the accused.
68. Keeping in view the law established by the Supreme Court and the circumstances established by the prosecution in the present case as discussed above in my opinion prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. Accused is therefore, acquitted. He is released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount under Sec.437 A Cr.PC for a period of six months.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by
VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Announced in the open court BANSAL
Date: 2018.10.12
17:51:11 +0530
today on 12.10.2018 (VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL)
ASJ/Pilot Court/North District
Rohini Courts/New Delhi.
State Vs. Dherender SC No.59226/16 :: 43 ::