State vs Deepak Verma Etc on 29 September, 2012

[Cites 35, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Deepak Verma Etc on 29 September, 2012

    IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
           DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI


SC No.16/1/11
FIR No.131/10
U/s 392/397/302/411/34 IPC
PS Dhaula Kuan

State 

Vs.

1. Deepak Verma s/o Sh. Nand Kishore Verma
2. Sher Singh s/o Sh. Madan Lal Jatav
                                               ............. Accused

Challan filed on : 10.09.2010
Received by Sessions Court on:22.09.2010
Reserved for Order on : 13.09.2012
Date of Pronouncement :  29.09.2012

JUDGMENT

The conspectus in brief of the prosecution case are that 21.06.2010 at about 10.45 p.m on receipt of DD no.44A SI Pravin Kumar alongwith Ct. Shahid reached at the spot i.e. Ring Road State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 1 of 70 (Dhaula Kuan to Naraina) where one Maruti Baleno car bearing no. DL 2CAG 1496 was found parked and blood was lying near the tyre of driver side. Injured was reported to have removed to hospital by PCR. PCR Caller Ajay Sharma was spoken at mobile no. 9868261233 who informed that the injured was removed to hospital by his brother and since he was passing from there, he made call to police. After leaving Ct. Shahid at the spot, IO himself went to Chanan Devi Hospital where he collected MLC no. 2477/10 of Rajnish Arora s/o Rattan Chand Arora who was declared brought dead. Manish brother of deceased met him in the hospital. He was brought to the spot. AT the spot crime team and dog squad were present. On search of Baleno car, one country made pistol was recovered. The sketch of the said katta was prepared. In the barrel of katta one piece of kartoos(cartridge) was found. It was taken into possession by the IO.

2. It is further the case of the prosecution that IO recorded the statement of brother of deceased who has stated that on 21.6.2010 at about 10.20 p.m his brother Rajnish Arora called up him from his mobile no. 9810289071 that his car is parked on ring State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 2 of 70 road about half km ahead of Dhaula Kuan flyover due to break down and that he be taken (mujhe aakar le jao). On this Manish Arora alongwith his son Abhinav boarded in WagonR from their residence at Janakpuri and came to take him. At about 10.35 p.m he again talked to him. He could not talk when he again tried to talk to him after 10 minutes. He reached there at about 11 p.m and found that Rajnish was lying outside his car near rear tyre in pool of blood. He was unconscious. With the help of onetwo persons he put his brother in his car and took him to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. Police also reached there. But his brother was declared brought dead. On this statement IO prepared rukka and got the case registered.

3. It is further the case of the prosecution that three chance prints were lifted from the car. The post mortem on the dead body was got conducted. All the incriminating articles were seized. An information was received that accused persons arrested in some other case have disclosed about the present case offence. After due investigation and process of law, the accused persons were arrested in this case. The investigation was conducted and after completion State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 3 of 70 of investigation, challan was filed.

4. This case being triable by the court of session, after committal proceedings, it was committed by the Ld.MM and received by the court of sessions on 22.09.2010.

5. The charge against both the accused u/s 392/302/34 IPC was framed by Sh. Praveen Kumar Ld.ASJ on 4.10.2010. Accused Deepak Verma has also been separately charged u/s 397/411 IPC and accused Sher Singh u/s 411 IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution in all has examined as many as 34 witnesses.

7. The evidence against the accused persons were put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they have pleaded their innocence and deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Accused persons did not opt to lead defence evidence. Thereafter the case was fixed for final State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 4 of 70 arguments.

8. I have heard the Ld.counsel for the accused at too length as well as Ld.APP for the State and perused the testimonies of all the PWS and exhibited documents carefully.

9. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld.APP and Ld.Counsel on behalf of the accused, I have perused the testimonies of all the PWS.

10. PW1 ASI Ruldu Ram is the FIR recorded who produced FIR register. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A.

11. PW2 Sunil is the public witness who has stated that in the month of June 2010 he was coming at about 10.45 p.m on his two wheeler scooter from Malviya Nagar to Mangolpuri and when he cross Dhaula Kuan Flyover, he found three boys crossing the road. He was driving his two wheeler scooter at the speed of 60 KMPH. The boys were at the distance of 15 to 20 feet from him. When he covered about 500 meters from Dhaula Kuan flyover he State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 5 of 70 found a boy alongwith three wheeler raising 'help me help me and help me'. He stopped his two wheeler scooter and went there. One person was found lying at the backside of Baleno car and blood was oozing out from the head of that person. One santro also came there and thereafter one WagonR car came. The injured was sent to hospital in WagonR Car. Police came at the spot and made enquiries from him. Next day he was called at the PS where a katta was shown to him stating that it was used in committing the murder. He denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that he had seen the katta lying in baleno car. In cross examination he has stated that he did not see the face of those boys who were crossing the road. He did not try to catch those boys. He handed over the keys of Baleno car and the purse to the brother of injured. He was shown katta in the PS and no cartridge was shown to him.

12. PW3 R.K.Arora has deposed that he identified the dead body of Rajnish vide identification memo ex.PW3/A and after PM dead body was handed over vide memo Ex.PW3/B.

13. PW4 Ajay Sharma has deposed that on 21.6.10 he State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 6 of 70 alongwith his family was returning to his house and when he reached about half kilometer from Dhaula Kuan, one person had given signal to stop his car. He got down. He found that one Baleno car was standing there and one person was lying on ground near the rear tyre of Baleno having injury on his abdomen and blood was oozing from the said injury. He made call at number 100 two or three times but no PCR came. In the meantime brother of injured came with two children. He with the help of brother of injured made the injured sit in santro car and injured was taken to hospital. He gave his mobile number to Police.

14. PW5 Bhuvneshwar Uniyal has deposed that police made enquiry from him regarding mobile no.9811395946 and he told that it is not belonging to him. He told that he lost his purse containing ID, one or two photographs in the year 2008 . He is using mobile no. 9810041335.

15. PW6 Rajesh Kumar has deposed that 21.06.2010 at about 10.45 p.m he alongwith his DVan Champion was coming from Maharani Bagh to go to Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar and when State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 7 of 70 he reached about half km ahead of Dhaula Kuan flyover he found one car standing there. He has seen three boys while running towards Karol Bagh and one person lying on the ground near the rear tyre of Baleno Car. The blood was oozing out from his head and stomach. He raised alarm saying help, help. One WagonR reached there and after some time santro also reached there. Injured was taken to hospital. He cannot identify those persons to whom he had seen on that day while running towards Karol Bagh from the spot as he had seen them from behind.

16. PW7 Manish Arora is the complainant in this case and he has deposed that on 21.06.10 deceased Rajnish told him on phone that his Baleno car was not in working condition due to having snag and stuck up near Dhaula Kuan. He alongwith deceased's son Abhinav and Sidharth went to Dhaula Kuna to pick up his brother and car. At about 10.45 pm he made call but did not get any response. At about 11 p.m he alongwith both the sons reached at the spot and found his brother in a pool of blood at the rear wheel of the car. Some public persons were also present there. He made his brother sit in WagonR and took him to Mata Chanan State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 8 of 70 Devi Hospital. He has further deposed that on 22.06.2010 he identified the dead body vide memo Ex.PW7/A. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW7/B. He has further stated that on the formal search of the body of deceased, one mobile phone make Samsung bearing no. 9810289071, one central locking remote of the Baleno car and one writs watch make Titan were found missing. The model number i.e. 1315YAA India, 30M water resistant, stainless steel was inscribed on the back side of the wrist watch. He handed over the bill of mobile and Titan to the police which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/C. The bills are Ex.X and Y. In cross examination he has admitted that the original bill of wrist watch does not bear the name of deceased.

17. PW8 SI Ramesh Chander has deposed that on 21.06.2010 he received call from control room regarding incident of stabbing knife to one person near Dhaula Kuan flyover which was recorded in DD no.44A. The copy of the DD is Ex.PW8/A.

18. PW9 Dr. Abhishek Yadav has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Rajnish and prepared post mortem State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 9 of 70 report which is Ex.PW9/A.

19. PW10 Dr.Manoj Kumar has examined the deceased and he found large CLW on the upper part of occipital region with palpable bone and person was dead. He found a gun shot injury with entry wound on the right side upper abdomen surrounded by charred skin. The MLC is Ex.PW10/A. In cross examination he has stated that the death could have been caused by the injury which was on the upper part of the occipital region.

20. PW11 ASI Jagat Singh has produced register of call no. 80 dated 21.6.10 received at 22.47 hours recorded by L/Ct Sumitra. The copy of the call is Ex.PW11/A.

21. PW12 Deepak is the witness from Vodafone who produced the record of phone no. 9811522939. The letter is Ex.PW12/A. He also produced record of mobile no. 9811395946 in the name of Bhuvneshwar Uniyal. He also produced the call details of said mobiles from 21.6.10 to 22.6.2010 which are Ex.PW12/B and C. The certificate u/s 65 of Evidence Act is Ex.PW12/D and E. State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 10 of 70

22. PW13 Dr. Manish Kumath has deposed that he had examined one Anil Kumar and conducted his ossification test.

23. PW14 Mohd. Abid has deposed that he is running mobile repair shop in Gautampuri. On 22.06.2010 one boy came to his shop and gave a Samsung Mobile Phone and told him that the microphone and speaker of the said phone were not working. That boy told his name as Anil He put his SIM in the said phone and made various calls through the said mobile phone till evening. The phone was found working. In the evening Anil came and he charged Rs.100/. After seeing the mobile phone first the witness states that he is not sure whether this is the same phone again said this is the same phone. The phone is Ex.PX.

24. PW15 Ct. Raj Kumar is the witness from mobile crime team who reached at the spot where one baleno car was parked. He has stated that one countrymade pistol was lying on the next to driver seat and blood was also lying near the rear tyre of the driver side. He took 14 photographs from different angles. The State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 11 of 70 photographs are Ex.PW15/P1 to P12 and negatives are Ex.PW15/P13 to P24.

25. PW16 Ct.Hardeep Singh has deposed that he prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW16/A.

26. PW17 Ct. Devender has deposed that he was posted as Incharge Crime team on 21.6.10.He visited the spot and lifted three chance prints and out of which one chance print was lifted from next to driver seat and two chance prints were lifted from driver side. The same were sent to Finger Print Bureau. He prepared the report which is Ex.PW17/A.

27. PW18 SI Sandeep Sharma has deposed that on 25.8.10 he received three pullandas vide RC no.134 & 135/21 alongwith two live 12 bore cartridges with two FSL forms from Malkhana and deposited at FSL.

28. PW19 W/Ct Seema Tyagi has deposed that on 21.6.10 she received call at 10.54 p.m from phone no. 9868261233 State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 12 of 70 informing that one person is lying having stab injuries in pool of blood at Dhaula Kuan. She filled up PCR form which is Ex.PW19/A.

29. PW20 Ct. Vinod has deposed that on 15.7.2010 he alongwith Insp.Dinesh Kumar went to PCR room and obtained the PCR form. Thereafter they went to Gautam Puri where IO recorded the statement of Abid and thereafter statement of Ajay Sharma was recorded. He also deposed that they went to PS Khajoor and obtained the exhibits of the present case vide RC no.42/51/2010.

30. PW21 HC Bharat Lal has deposed that he was posted as MHC(M) and he made entries Ex.PW21/A,B,C,D & E. He sent the exhibits to FSL and made entry to this effect.

31. PW22 Ct. Vickey Kumar has deposed that he delivered the copies of FIR to ACP, DCP, Jt CP and Ld.MM on 22.06.2010.

32. PW23 ASI Attar Singh has visited the spot alongwith members of crime team. He inspected the spot. Photographs were State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 13 of 70 taken and 3 chance prints were lifted. His report is Ex.PW23/A.

33. PW24 Ct. Karar Khan has deposed that he was asked to reach Chanan Devi Hospital while he was on patrolling and to guard the dead body of Rajnish. He was also deputed in mortuary of the hospital to guard the dead body. Next day dead body was handed over to the relatives of Rajnish.

34. PW25 SI Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 22.6.2010 at about 4.30 p.m one secret informer came to PS Khajuri Khas and informed that two persons would come from Nanaksar Gurudwara who are involved in murder case which was committed on last night and he was produced before SHO. Thereafter a raiding party was formed and DD no.19A was lodged copy of which is Ex.PW25/A. Public persons were asked to join the raiding party on the way but none agreed. He has further deposed that at about 6.30 p.m two persons were seen coming from the side of Nanaksar Gurudwara and they were on foot and at the instance of secret informer they were stopped and enquired. Their search was taken and one mobile phone was recovered from the right side pocket of pant of accused State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 14 of 70 Deepak Verma. One central locking remote of black colour was recovered from the right side pocket of accused namely Anil. During interrogation they made disclosure statement. Accused Deepak Verma was arrested vide memo Ex.PW25/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW25/C. The disclosure statement is Ex.PW25/D. The mobile phone and electronic remote were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/E and Ex.PW25/F. He deposited the case property in malkhana. He made entry vide DD no.21A copy of which is Ex.PW25/G. He prepared kalandra u/s 41.1(a) Cr.PC which is Ex.PW25/H and given information to PS Dhaula Kuan at about 2.15 a.m on 23.6.2010. He has further deposed that on 23.6.2010 he produced both the accused in Karkardooma and on that day Insp. Dinesh Kr reached in the court and he handed over the relevant documents relating to this case to Inps. Dinesh Kr. He identified the mobile phone Ex.PX and remote control Ex.PY.

35. PW26 Ct. Shahid has deposed that on 21.6.2010 he alongwith SI Praveen reached Dhaula Kuan at about 11 p.m where two persons were present with Baleno bearing no. DL 2CAG 1496 State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 15 of 70 and blood was scattered near tyre of the said car. He was left at the spot and SI Praveen went to the hospital. Crime team was also called. SI Praveen Kumar came back with one person at the spot. The door of the car was open and one country made pistol was lying on the front seat of the car. Crime team lifted the finger prints from inside the car and sketch of the country made pistol Ex.PW26/A was prepared which was seized vide memo Ex.PW26/B. SI Praveen recorded the statement of public person, prepared rukka and handed over to him for registration of the case. HE went to PS and got the case registered. After registration of the case, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Insp. Dinesh Kumar. He identified the pistol Ex.PW26/P1. He also identified the car as Ex.PX.

36. PW27 Naresh Kumar is the witness from FSL who examined the case property of this case and given report which is Ex.PW27/A & B.

37. PW28 Sh R Suresh is also the witness from FSL who examined the exhibits i.e clothes of injured and given his report State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 16 of 70 Ex.PW28/A. He identified the kurta Ex.PX, paijama Ex.PX1, Banian Ex.PX2 and underwear Ex.PW3.

38. PW29 Sh.Vijay Singh, Addl.DCP has accorded sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution of Deepak Verma and Anil Kumar. The sanction is Ex.PW29/A.

39. PW30 Surender Arora has deposed that maruti Baleno car bearing registration no. DL2CAG 1496 was registered in the name of his proprietorship firm Golden Press Services. He got it released vide superdaginama Ex.PW30/A. The RC of the car is Ex.PW30/B. The car is Ex.PX.

40. PW31 Ct. Umesh Pal Singh has deposed that on 6.7.2010 he was posted in PS Dhaula Kuan and on that day he joined the investigation and went to PS Fateh Shah Ganj , Bareilly. He has stated that they went to the house of his inlaws at Village Shiv Nagar but he was not found there and while they were returning, secret informer met and informed that Sher Singh is standing at the tiraha of Aliganj.They reached there and on the State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 17 of 70 pointing out of secret informer a boy was apprehended who firstly disclosed his incorrect name but after deep interrogation he disclosed his name as Sher Singh @ Nanhe and confessed his guilt and stated that he alongwith his brother in law Anil and one Deepak had committed robbery at Dhaula Kuan on 21.6.2010. The disclosure statement of accused is Ex.PW31/A. He has further disclosed that accused Deepak had fired a shot at the time of robbery when the person refused to give the key of the car. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW31/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW31/C. His disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW31/A. He further deposed that accused Sher Singh produced the writs watch make Titan colour golden brown strap he was wearing in his hand which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW31/D. Thereafter accused led them to the place of incident and pointed out the place. The pointing out memo is Ex.PW31/E. He has further deposed that on 5.8.2010 at the direction of IO, he bought two cartridges 12 bore vide RC no. 117/21 Ex.PW31/F. He identified the watch Ex.PX1.

41. PW32 SI Praveen Kumar has deposed that on receipt of State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 18 of 70 DD no.44A Ex.PW8/A he reached at the spot with Ct. Shahid where one maruti bearing no.DL2CAG 1496 was found and blood was also found lying near the rear side tyre. Two persons were present who disclosed their names as Rajesh Kr and Sunil and that injured has been removed to the hospital. He received DD no.3A mark PW32/A and came to know that injured has been admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. Leaving Ct. Shahid at the spot IO went to hospital where brother of deceased Manish Arora met and he collected the MLC Ex.PW10/A. Thereafter they came back at the spot. Crime team was summoned. He found one katta lying near the hand brake in between both front seats of the car and the barrel of the katta was on the left seat of the car. Crime team came alongwith photographer and finger print expert. The report of crime team is Ex.PW23/A and report of finger print expert is Ex.PW17/A. He prepared the sketch of katta Ex.PW26/A and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW26/B. He recorded statement of Manish Arora, made his endorsement Ex.PW32/A and got the case registered. He lifted the blood stained earth control in the form of bituminous concrete after breaking and it was sealed with the seal of DM and seized vide memo Ex.PW32/B. He seized the baleno car vide State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 19 of 70 seizure memo Ex.PW32/C. He got conducted the post mortem and after post mortem, exhibits were seized vide memo Ex.PW32/D. He has further deposed that on 23.6.2010, an information was received from PS Khazuri Khas that two persons namely Deepak Verma and Anil had been arrested and disclosed about the commission offence. On receipt of this information he alongwith Insp. Dinesh and other staff went to PS Khazoori Khas and found two persons in custody whose names were revealed as Deepak Verma and Anil Kr. Accused Deepak Verma was arrested vide memo Ex.PW32/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo ex.PW32/F. DD no. 21A of PS Khazuri Khas was handed over to Insp. Dinesh consisting of seizure memo of Mobile phone and electronic car locking remote Ex.PW25/E and F. Accused were produced in the court where an application was moved for JC remand. On 24.6.2010 JC remand was taken and disclosure statement of accused Deepak Ex.PW32/G was recorded wherein accused had disclosed about conducting of test fire in a school before conducting the fire of the present case and that there is one missed cartridge and one refilled cartridge lying at a school in Gautam Puri and that the SIM card of the mobile phone robbed in this case from the deceased was State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 20 of 70 kept in one polythene in which he had kept his shirt which he was wearing on the day of incident. He has further deposed that accused Deepak led the police party on 26.6.2010 to a room of Govt. Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalya Gautam Puri and got recovered on polythene bag lying in the window. It was found containing SIM card of vodafone . The shirt was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/H and SIM card was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/I. He has further deposed that the accused had produced two cartridges out of which one was misfired and other was refilled which was seized vide memo Ex.P32/J. He pointed out the place where the test fire was conducted and from the rood of primary School torn empty cartridge of 12 bore in two pieces was recovered. The same were seized vide memo Ex.PW32/K. Thereafter accused pointed out the spot vide memo Ex.PW32/L. He identified the country made pistol Ex.pw26/p1, Cartridge is Ex.1, SIM car Ex.PX2, shirt exPX3, cartridge in two pieces Ex.PX4, two other cartridges Ex.PX5 and 6, baleno car Ex.PX and earth control Ex.PX7.

42. PW33 HC Pradeep Kumar has deposed that on 22.6.2010 he was posted in PS Khazuri Khas. He joined the raiding State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 21 of 70 party and left PS vide DD no.19A copy of which is Ex.PW25/A and reached near Rajiv Vihar Pulia at Wazirabad Road and started checking the vehicles and kept waiting for the accused. At about 6.30 p.m two persons were seen coming form the side of Nanaksar Gurudwara who were pointed out by the secret informer and they were apprehended and their names revealed as Deepak Verma and Anil. They were interrogated and they confessed about the present case crime. On search of accused Deepak Verma one mobile phone make Samsung of silver colour was recovered which was seized vide memo ex.PW25/E. From Anil central lock remote was recovered which was seized vide memo Ex.PW25/F. SI Rakesh verified from PS Dhaula Kuan and both the accused were arrested u/s 41.1(a) Cr.PC vide kalandra Ex.PW25/H. Both the accused were arrested vide DD no.21A vide arrest memo Ex.PW25/B and Ex.PW33/A and their personal search was conducted vide memo ex.PW25/C and Ex.PW33/B. Accused were interrogated and their disclosure statements Ex.PW25/D and Ex.PW33/C were recovered. He identified the central locking remote as Ex.PY and black and silver colour mobile Ex.PX.

State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 22 of 70

43. PW34 Insp. Dinesh Kumar is the IO of this case who reached at the spot. He has stated that SI Praveen got the case registered. He collected the crime team report Ex.PW23/A and finger print report Ex.PW17/A. He lifted the exhibits and seized the same. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW34/A on the pointing out of complainant Manish Arora. He also recorded the statement of complainant Manish Arora. He found Rajesh and Sunil at the spot who were interrogated and their statement were recorded. Public witness Rajesh and Sunil had given physical description of all the three culprits who had run away from the spot after the commission of the offence. He tried to search the base of the cartridge but in vain. He prepared the inquest papers i.e. application Ex.PW34/B, brief facts Ex.PW34/C, attested statement of complainant Ex.PW34/D, death form Ex.PW34/E and got conducted the post mortem. He was handed over the clothes of deceased Rajnish and one sealed bottle containing pellets and pieces of wads of deceased Rajnish and another bottle of gauze of deceased which were sealed with the seal of forensic medicine SJH. He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW32/D. He has further deposed that on 23.6.2010 an information was got recorded vide DD no.5A Ex.PW24/F regarding State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 23 of 70 arrest of Deepak Verma and Anil u/s 41/1(a) Cr.PC. Thereafter in the morning at about 9/9.15 he alongwith SI Praveen went to PS Khazuri Khas where two persons Deepak Verma and Anil were found in their custody. They were interrogated. Accused Deepak was arrested vide memo Ex.PW32/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW33/F. Accused Anil was also arrested vide memo Ex.PW33/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW33/B. He collected the disclosure of Anil Ex.PW33/C and of Deepak Ex.PW25/D. He was handed over the original seizure memo of Mobile Phone recovered at the instance of Deepak and original seizure of electronic remote Ex.PW25/F. He collected the related documents. He has further deposed that he moved an application for production of accused persons copy of which is Ex.PW34/E which was allowed for 24.6.2010. Accused were produced and he moved an application for PC remand which was granted. He interrogated the accused persons and recorded the disclosure statement of Deepak is Ex.PW32/G. ON 26.6.10 accused persons pointed out the place of incident Ex.PW32/L. He has further deposed that accused took the police to Delhi Nagar Nigam Prathmik Vidyalya where test fire to check katta was conducted. At State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 24 of 70 the top of stairs they found torned red colour piece of gatta written Fox Wood on the base of .12 bore cartridge. The same was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/A. Thereafter the accused persons led them to Rajkiya Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalya Gautam Puri from where accused Deepak Verma got recovered his shirt which was blood stained at the time of incident but afterward washed by him and the SIM card which was used by the accused in the mobile phone of deceased Rajnish. From a room at 2nd floor accused got recovered one polythene lying in the window and which was found containing one shirt of white and kathai colour having strips,the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW32/H. Accused Deepak also produced one SIM card from the polythene which was of Vodafone company and stated that the SIM was belonging to him which he had used in the mobile phone of deceased Rajnish which was robbed from him at the time of incident. The SIM was seized. He has further deposed that accused Deepak also produced two missed fired cartridges from the same window which were hidden in the window behind the polythene containing the above said items and shirt and SIM. One such cartridge was of green colour. The same were seized. He has further deposed that on 6.7.2010 he alongwith his team went to State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 25 of 70 Agras, Bareilly where someone present there who acted as secret informer informed that Sher Singh is present at Tiraha of Aliganj. He was apprehended and his name came to know as Sher Singh. He was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex.PW31/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW31/C. His disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW31/A. He produced the wrist watch worn by him as the same which was robbed from the deceased. It was seized vide memo ex.PW31/D. Accused was brought to PS and he pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW31/E. He has further deposed that he collected the PCR form Ex.PW11/A. He also collected the details of SIM card used in the mobile of deceased. The said mobile phone was reported to have been given to Mohd. Abid for repair as the lock could not be opened. Who checked it by inserting his SIM EX.PW12/A. He also recorded the statement of Bhubneshwar Uniyal as the SIM used by Accused Deepak Verms in the mobile phone of deceased was taken in the name of Bhubneshwar Uniyal. He sent the exhibits to FSL through his staff and also sent the finger prints lifted from the car of deceased Rajnish to Finger Print Bureau. He collected the attested copy of RC Ex.Z of car no. DL State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 26 of 70 2CAG 1496. He seized the copy of the bill of mobile phone and bill of wrist watch which are Ex.Z1,Z2 and Z3. He got prepared the scaled site plan. The finger print report is Ex.PW17/A. OPD ticket of deceased is Ex.PW34/A4. He got the case property transfered from Malkhana of PS Khajuri Khas to Malkhana of PS Dhaula Kuan vide DD no.21A RC no.42/21 copy of which is mark 34/A5. Kalandra is Ex.PW34/A6. He collected the ballistic report Ex.PW28/A. He obtained sanction u/s 39A Act which is Ex.PW29/A. The result of biology division of FSL is Ex.PW27/A. The wrist watch is Ex.PX1, emptry cartridges is Ex.Pw32/K, shirt of Deepak is Ex.PX3, cartridges Ex.PX5 and PX6, SIM card is Ex.PX2 and car is Ex.PX.

44. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the witnesses it is revealed that this case was registered on the basis of statement of Manish Arora which is Ex.PW7/B. Prior to recording of this statement information regarding the present case incident was passed on Ajay Sharma PW4 from his mobile. Both the witnesses PW4 Ajay Sharma as well as PW7 Manish Arora have not seen the present case incident. They reached at the spot State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 27 of 70 afterwards. PW2 Sunil and PW6 Rajesh Kumar are alleged witnesses of last seen. From the testimonies of all the witnesses adduced by the prosecution in this case, it is revealed that none of the witnesses had seen the present case incident with their own eyes. In this case no one had seen the accused committing the crime. So, this case depends on circumstantial evidence.

45. It is settled law that in case of circumstantial evidence the circumstances from which the conclusion is to be drawn are not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilty of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused and the chain of evidence must be so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for being consistent with the innocence of the accused. It needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not mere indignation of the court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize evidence least suspicion takes the place of proof. It has been observed by State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 28 of 70 the Apex court in Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Devtia Vs. State of Gujrat 1997(2) CC cases SC 98 that court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to make the place of legal proof for some times unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof it has been indicated by the court that there is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. Our Hon'ble High court of Delhi in Raj Mani Vs. State has held that where the evidence of last seen together specially considering the evidence of the PWS cannot be said to prove with reasonable certainty that the circumstances of last seen together has been established beyond a shadow of doubt by the prosecution, the state of circumstances of last seen together being not free from suspicion. No finding with regard to the proof of circumstances of last seen together can be recorded.

46. In Sharad Birdichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashra, AIR 1984 S.C 1622, the law relating to circumstantial evidence has been discussed as under : 'A closed analysis of these decisions would show that the State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 29 of 70 following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this court in 'Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra' where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilt before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusion'. (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 explained on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 30 of 70 tendency (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

47. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the following can be the circumstances for linking accused persons with the present case crime.

LAST SEEN

48. In this case, first the prosecution has to establish the presence of accused at the spot with deceased. To prove this aspect, the prosecution has examined PW2 Sunil and PW6 Rajesh Kumar. PW2 Sunil has stated that he was coming at about 10.45 p.m on his State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 31 of 70 two wheeler scooter from Malviya Nagar to Mangolpuri and when he cross Dhaula Kuan flyover, he found three boys crossing the road.. He was driving his two wheeler scooter at the speed of 60 KMPH. The boys were crossing the road at the distance of 15 to 20 feet from him. When he covered about 500 meters from Dhaula Kuan flyover, he found a boy alongwith three wheeler who was raising help me, help me and help me. He stopped the scooter and went towards him. Blood was oozing out from the head of that person. As per the testimony of this witness he did not see the three boys crossing the road from near the said injured. Infact he had seen the boys at the distance of 500 meters from the place where the injured was crying for help. He has never stated that the said three boys were crossing the road from near the said injured. This witness had allegedly seen the boys at Dhaula Kuan Flyover. The time is about 10.45 p.m and many persons used to walk at that time to reach their destinations. He had denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the State that he had seen the country made pistol lying in the Baleno car at the spot. In cross examination this witness has clearly admitted that he did not see the face of those boys who were crossing the road. He did not try to catch those boys. He handed State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 32 of 70 over the keys of the baleno car and the purse to the brother of the injured who had come to the spot in car with the children of injured.

49. Another witness to last seen theory is PW6 Rajesh Kumar who has stated that he was going to his house at Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi when he reached at about half kilometer ahead of Dhaula Kuan flyover towards Naraina, he found that one car was standing there. He had seen three boys while running towards Karol Bagh and one person lying on the ground near the tyre of the Baleno car. Blood was oozing out from his head and stomach. He raised alarm help, help. One Wagon R Car reached there and and santro also reached there. He cannot identify those person who were seen on that day while running towards Karol Bagh from the spot as he had seen them from behind. This witness did not state that the accused persons present in the court are the same boys who were seen by him on the day of incident. He even did not state that the physical appearances of the accused persons present in the court is similar to the boys who were seen by him on the day of incident. PW2 has stated that he had seen the boys at the Dhaula Kuan Flyover while PW6 has stated that he saw the boys State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 33 of 70 running towards Karol Bagh. Both the witnesses did not even give the descriptions of the boys seen by them or stated that the accused persons present in the court are of similar physique. I have perused the rukka Ex.PW32/A. In the said rukka, the names of these two alleged last seen witnesses are not mentioned while they were allegedly present at the spot. The accused persons have also not been identified by any of the witness. In case titled Manzoor Vs. State of UP , (1982) 2 S.C.C 72 it is stated that : 'Criminal Trial - Identification - where at the earliest opportunity the eye witnesses failed to mention any identifying features of the accused when they were examined by investigating officer, held on facts, identification of the accused by one of the witnesses nearly two months later in T.I Parade is suspect - Evidence Act, 1872, Sec.9'.

'Criminal Trial - benefit of doubt - prosecution failing to prove the guilt of the accused satisfactorily beyond all reasonable doubt - Hence, the accused must be acquitted Sec.302 and 34 IPC'.

50. In the present case the IO has not taken any step to conduct the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons. They State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 34 of 70 did not mention the identifying features to the IO or before the court in their statements. So, from the evidence on record it cannot be inferred that the present accused persons were the same boys who were seen by Pw2 & Pw6 at the spot. Therefore, last seen is absent in this case.

FIRST INFORMATION

51. As per the case of the prosecution, first information in this case was passed on by Ajay Sharma who has been examined by the prosecution as PW4. He has stated that he alongwith his family was returning from Gurgaon at about 10.45 p.m and when they reached at the distance of about half kilometer from Dhaula Kuan flyover one person had given signal to stop and he stopped his car and he found Baleno car standing there and one person was lying on the ground having injury on his abdomen. He made a call on 100 number two or three times. PW19 W/Ct. Seema Tyagi has recorded the information received from phone no. 9868261233 regarding lying of one person having stab injuries and in pool of blood at Dhaula Kaun. The PCR form is Ex.PW19/A. I have perused the PCR form Ex.PW19/A. This information was received at 22.55 State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 35 of 70 hours and form states 'EK AADMI KO KISI NE CHAKKU MAAR RAKHE HAI, KAFI BLOOD NIKAL RAHA HAI'. This information Ex.PW19/A was passed on by Ajay Sharma PW4.

52. PW11 ASI Jagat Singh produced the record of call no.80 Ex.PW11/A. I have perused the same also. It is revealed that this information was passed on at 22.52 hours by one Arif Khan and the information passed on is 'Dhaulakuna se Naraina ki side main road par ek gadi wala behosh pada hai'. It is clear that before passing the information about the incident, one Mir Arif Khan had also passed on the first information to the police at 22.52 hours but the said Mir Arif Khan has not been examined by the police nor any investigation has been conducted in this respect while his phone number is written on the Control Room form. The information received from VAN is also mentioned on this form stated that '1 admi sawar tha jisko kisi u/k amdi ne chakku mara hai. Jisko uski bhai kisi u/k hospital le ja chuke hai........' I have also perused the DD no.44A recorded by PW8 SI Ramesh Chander and this DD also states that 'Dhaula Kuan, Naraina ki taraf road par ek admi ko kisi ne chaku maar rakha hai'. IO of the case has not conducted any State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 36 of 70 investigation in respect of Mir Arif Khan who passed the information first. In case Law Shyam Sunder & Raj Kumar Vs. State (Delhi Admn), 1995 (33) DRJ (DB) High Court of Delhi in para 26 has observed that : 'It is significant to mentioned that one Sh Malhotra had given a telephone call to the police control room at 8 p.m that a number of persons had sustained injuries in quarrel at H.No.70 Western Extn Area, Karol Bagh. This report was recorded in DD no.180 copy of which is Ex.PW8/A. ........ Even the telephone number of said Sh Malhotra is recorded in DD report which is 5711372. Earlier to this report, a report had been received from the hospital recorded at 7.50 p.m in Daily Dairy copy of which is Ex.PW3/A , SI Laxmi Chand had been deputed to inquire into the matter. The place of occurrence was known to the police from these two reports and it is inconceivable that the police would not have taken steps to immediately reach the place of occurrence besides taking steps at the hospital in order to find out about the presence of any eye witnesses either at the hospital or at the place of occurrence. Nothing has come on the record to reveal as to whether the IO had contacted the said Malhotra or not and whether the said Malhotra was an eye witness of the occurrence or not.' State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 37 of 70

53. In case Law State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram, 1999 II AD (SC) 537 = (1999) 3 SCC 507 it is stated that : "..... If the court has discerned from the evidence or even from the investigation records that some other independent person has witnessed any event connecting the incident in question, then there is a justification for making adverse comments against nonexamination of such a person as a prosecution witness.'

54. In case law State of UP Vs. Jaggoo AIR 1971 SC 1586 It is stated that : 'It is true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witnesses whose evidence is essential to the 'unfolding of the narrative' should be called. This salutary principle in criminal trials has been stressed by this court in the case of Habeeb Mohammad Vs. The State of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 51, for eliciting the truth. The absence of Ramesh from the prosecution evidence seriously affects the truth of the prosecution case.'

55. In this case first informant Mir Arif Khan was a crucial witness but he was withheld by the prosecution from the trial as no State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 38 of 70 investigation conducted in this respect. The testimony of said witness might be convenient, or might be contrary to the expectation of the prosecution and therefore there is legitimate ground for suspecting the prosecution version. He would have been the best witness to throw some light on the case of the prosecution. But the prosecution has failed to investigate this aspect of the case.

56. In case Law Mubin Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi), 2010 (2) JCC 934 it has been observed in the head note that : 'Penal Code, 1860 - Sec. 302 and 201 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - cannot be sustained when the prosecution has not been able to firmly establish the incriminating circumstances leading to irrefutable inference of guilty of accused - A possibility of someone else have committed the murder and dumping the dead body in gutter cannot be ruled out - Since a possibility of innocence of appellant cannot be ruled out his conviction and sentence cannot be upheld.

FINGER PRINTS

57. It has been stated by PW26 Ct. Shahid that the crime State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 39 of 70 team was called at the spot. PW32 SI Praveen Kumar has stated that crime team and dog squad were called. The crime team was consisting of Incharge crime team, photographer, finger print expert and dog squad. The finger print expert inspected the scene of the crime and also lifted the finger prints and prepared his report which is Ex.PW17/A and the crime team prepared report which is Ex.PW23/A. Similar is the version of PW34 Insp. Dinesh Kumar. It is admitted case that the finger print expert lifted the chance prints from the car. I have perused the report of crime team Ex.PW23/A and finger print expert report Ex.PW17/A. In view of Ex.PW17/A three chance prints were lifted from the car. In the said report it was directed to send the finger and palm impression slips of inmates/suspects and deceased for comparison with the developed chance prints at the earliest with forwarding letter including reference of the case. On perusal of the file it is revealed that there is no such report of Finger Print Bureau available on file. IO has never sought permission to take the finger prints of the accused persons to match with the chance prints. Even IO has not stated as to whether he sent the chance prints to Finger Print Bureau for further action in the matter or not.

State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 40 of 70

58. Further, it has been stated that one katta(country made pistol) was found lying on the seat of the car. The katta is alleged to have been used by accused Deepak at the time of commission of offence. It would also have been finger prints of accused. But no chance prints were taken from the said country made pistol. This circumstance would have been the strongest circumstance against the accused persons in this case. But on perusal of the file it is revealed that IO has not made genuine efforts to take the finger prints of accused persons or to lift the chance prints from the country made pistol. In my view the prosecution has miserably failed to prove this circumstance against the accused persons. Infact the prosecution has itself withheld this chain of circumstance in this case.

MEDICAL EVIDENCE

59. PW10 Dr. Manoj Kumar has deposed that on 21.06.10 he examined one person and found large CLW on the upper part of occipital region with palpable bone and person was dead. He prepared the MLC Ex.PW10/A. In cross examination he has stated State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 41 of 70 that the death could have been caused by the injury which was on the upper part of the occipital region. PW9 Dr. Abhishek Yadav has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Rajnish Arora. The following external injuries were found on the body of deceased Rajnish Arora.

1. Lacerated wound, having a blackening of around 2 cm alone the periphery of the wound, measuring 2.3x1.8 cm was present over the right over abdomen, 7 cm below ribcage, 6 cm from midline. The wound was going downward, medially and backwards. The beginning of the track of would shows blackening and was having a cherry red appearance. The track of the would enters the abdominal cavity lacerating through soft tissues and muscles of abdomen, then progressing further lacerating through multiple loops of intestine and mesentry. It ends on the right side of L1L2 vertebra where lacerated abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava was present. In the vicinity of L1, L2 region pellets and plastic wads of a cartridge were recovered which were collected and sealed. Abdominal cavity contains about 2 liter of blood and the entire tract of wound is heamorrhagic.

2. Raddish abrasion, 1x1 cm was present over right knee, lower aspect, horizontally placed.

3. Reddish abrasion ½ cm x ½ cm was present over right elbow tip posterior aspect

4. Lacertaed wound, 6x1 cm x bone deep was present over left frontal region, obliquely placed, starting from midline at the level of hairline, upper end was ending 3 cm from midline with blood stained margin.

5. Lacerated wound, 7x1 cm x bone deep was present over parietal region, extended across midline horizontally placed with blood stained margins 12 cm behind injury no.4.

State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 42 of 70 Internal Examination Scalp, skull were NAD. Brain was pale. Neck was NAD. Chest wall was NAD. Lungs were pale. Heart was NAD. Stomach was containing about 150 ml of semi digested fluid material, walls were NAD. Intestine and mesentery were as described in injury no.1. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Pelvis and bladder were NAD. Rest of the body structure was NAD.

60. After conducting the post mortem, PW9 has given opinion cause of death is haemorrhagic shock as a result of antemortem injuries to abdominal aorta, inferior vena cava and mesentry produced by projectiles from a fire arm and injury no.1 is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and is produced by projectiles from a fire arm. However, PW10 Dr. Manoj posted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital has stated in cross examination that the death could have been caused by the injury which was on the upper part of the occipital region. In consideration of the post mortem report it is crystal clear that the deceased had fire arm injury. PW34 Insp. Dinesh has stated that after post mortem he was handed over sealed pullanda containing the clothes of deceased Rajnish Arora, one sealed bottle containing pellets and pieces of wads of deceased Rajnish and one another pulldanda containing blood on gauze of deceased Rajnish duly sealed with the State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 43 of 70 seal of hospital. PW9 Dr. Abhishek has stated that plastic wads were recovered which were collected and sealed. The prosecution has failed to prove FSL result on file regarding sending these recovered pellets and plastic wads to FSL. FSL result Ex.PW27/A is from biology & serology division and Ex.PW28/A is from Ballistic division regarding gunshot residue particular on the clothes of deceased. There is no explanation on file from the prosecution as to why the FSL result has not been proved regarding sending the pellets and plastics wads to compare with cartridges recovered from the school at the instance of accused persons. Further the post mortem report revealed that the injury on the body of deceased was produced by fire arm. The investigating agency has also recovered one katta from inside the car being driven by deceased. But the prosecution has failed to send this country made pistol to PW9 Dr. Abhishek Yadav who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajnish for his expert opinion to establish as to whether the injury found on the dead body of Rajnish was possible with this country made pistol or not. Therefore, prosecution has failed to take subsequent opinion on the weapon of offence in this case from the doctor who had conducted the post mortem. There State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 44 of 70 were injuries on the body of deceased. In case Law 1990 (1) CC Cases 250 (HC) it is stated in head note that: 'Presence of injuries on the person of the deceased cannot be ground for commission of an offence'. ARREST OF ACCUSED PERSONS

61. Ld. Counsel for the accused has dispute about the arrest of accused in this case. I have perused the evidence. In view of the DDs placed on record from PS Aliganj, there is no doubt that the police officials did not go to PS Aliganj. However, in this case accused Sher Singh was arrested from Agras UP. PW31 Ct. Umeshpal has deposed that he alongwith other police officials went to village Agras PS Fateh Shah Ganj, Bareily in search of accused Sher Singh and thereafter they went to the house of inlaws of accused but he was not found there. While returning from the house of his inlaws secret informer met and informed that Sher Singh was standing at tiraha of Aliganj. They went there and apprehended him. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW31/B. In cross examination he has stated that the secret informer did not meet him or the IO in his presence. Secret informer had not pointed out towards the accused State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 45 of 70 in his presence. It is correct that accused was not pointed out by the secret informer in his presence. He did not see the secret informer there. Accused was apprehended between 1011 a.m. He does not know whether the arrest memo was prepared. Nothing was recovered during his personal search. He does not know in whose hand writing Ex.PW31/D was prepared. They left Tiraha of Aliganj at about 12 noon. They left PS Aliganj for Delhi at 1 p.m. PW31 has admitted in his cross examination that he did not see the secret informer there and even accused Sher Singh was not pointed out by the secret informer in his presence. PW34 Insp. Dinesh Kumar has on 6.7.2010 he alongwith his team went to Agras . He has stated that they came out from the house of inlaws of accused and made enquiries from the neighbourhood and came to know that Sher Singh is residing there and they were informed by someone present there who acted as secret informer that Sher Singh is present at Tiraha of Aliganj. PW31 Ct. Umesh specifically stated that one secret informer met there his examination in chief but in cross examination he has stated that he did not see any secret informer. But PW34 has stated that some present there who acted as secret informer gave information that Sher Singh is present at Tiraha of State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 46 of 70 Aliganj. I have perused the arrest memo of accused which is Ex.PW31/B. The accused is shown to have been arrested on 7.7.2010 at 5 p.m and place of arrest is shown as Agrass Bareilly. Both the PWS (PW31 and PW34) have stated that accused was arrested from Tiraha of Aliganj, but arrest memo bellies this version. Further PW34 in cross examination has stated that accused Sher Singh is having two inlaws house one in Mukarampur Bhamora and in village Shiv Nagar where the first wife of his father in law is residing and from there accused Sher Singh was arrested. PW31 in cross examination has stated that they left Tiraha Ali ganj at 12 noon. They had left PS Ali Ganj for Delhi at about 1 p.m and reached Delhi at about 5 p.m. On perusal of the arrest memo it is revealed that accused was arrested on 7.7.10 at 5 p.m. But PW31 has given contradictory statement that they reached Delhi at about 5 p.m on that day. Arrest of accused Sher Singh is therefore doubtful.

62. Accused Deepak is alleged to have been arrested u/s 41.1

(a) Cr.PC by the police of PS Khazuri Khas in this case alongwith co accused Anil (juvenile). PW25 SI Rakesh Kumar is the witness from PS Khazuri Khas who has stated that he received secret State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 47 of 70 information at about 4.30 p.m on 22.6.2010 regarding coming of two persons involved in murder case on which raiding party was constituted and at about 6.30 p.m two persons were seeing coming from the side of Nanaksar Gurudwara and they were on foot and at the instance of secret informer they were apprehended. Accused Deepak Verma was arrested vide memo Ex.PW25/B. PW33 HC Pradeep Kumar has also stated about arrest of accused Deepak Verma at about 6.30 p.m. Accused Deepak is alleged to have been arrested by SI Rakesh of PS Khajuri Khas on 22.6.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. On perusal of the disclosure statement of accused Sher Singh and Deepak Verma they left Gautam Puri in the evening in order to give colour to another crime on 22.06.2010 but as per the case of the prosecution SI Rakesh also arrested accused Deepak at 6.30 p.m from Khauri Khas. Both the places Gautam Puri and Khazuri Khas are at long distance which might take about one hour 30 minutes to two hours to cover the said distance. I have perused the said arrest memo. On perusal of arrest memo Ex.PW25/B it is revealed that column no. 4 i.e.FIR no/DD no.& Section of Law, column no.6 i.e. date and time of arrest have been filled with different pen by different person. Column no.7 i.e. Name and State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 48 of 70 address & telephone no. whomsoever to convey the arrest information has been filled with some other pen by some other person and column no.1,2,5 and 7 have been filled by one person with same pen. Therefore the said arrest memo seems to have been filled by three different persons which create doubt about arrest of accused by the police of PS Khazuri Khas. Further PW33 HC Pradeep in cross examination has stated that Insp. Dinesh Kumar came to PS next day evening at about 5 p.m/6 p.m. It is clear that after arrest of accused Deepak, the IO of present case went to PS Khazuri Khas on 23.06.2010 at 5/6 p.m. But on perusal of the arrest memo Ex.PW32/E, the accused was arrested on 23.6.2010 at 12.30 p.m. Further at the time of arrest of accuse Deepak Verma, SI Rakesh has not tried to associate any public person. On perusal of the arrest memo, seizure memo, personal search memo and kalandra u/s 41.1 (a) Cr.PC, it is revealed that these were not prepared by SI Rakesh but he has only signed on these documents with different pen. In case law Ajay @Chotu Vs. The State, 2012(2) JCC 1261 it is stated in headnote that: 'Criminal Practice - Arrest of accused - Three conflicting versions undermine the prosecution's version about arrest of the accused - Principle laid State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 49 of 70 down by Hon'ble Apex Court followed that the circumstances surrounding arrest of the accused, and doubts emerging from the prosecution's case can be a ground for acquittal'.

63. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on Asif Mamu Vs. State of Rajaasthan, AIR 2009 SC 600. In the present case also, there are conflicting versions as discussed above which undermines the prosecution's version about arrest of accused persons. The arrest of accused is therefore, doubtful in this case. RECOVERY OF WRIST WATCH/MOBILE PHONE

64. The disclosure statements of accused Deepak Verma and Sher Singh were recorded. The disclosure statement of accused Deepak Verma was recorded by SI Rakesh first who arrested him u/s 41.1(a) Cr.PC. At the time of apprehension one mobile phone allegedly to be of deceased was recovered from him. On the basis of this disclosure statementEx.PW32/G, the prosecution has recovered some cartridges and shirt of accused from school in Gautam Puri and Sangam Vihar. The fact regarding test fire conducted by the accused has not been disclosed by accused Sher State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 50 of 70 Singh in his disclosure statement Ex.PW31/A. However, the recovery of cartridges are not related to this case since allegedly it was test fired by the accused in a school. The IO of the case has tried to connect this recovery by comparing the wads recovered from the body of deceased. But the prosecution has failed to prove any FSL result in this connection. As far as the recovery of shirt Ex.PX3 vide seizure memo Ex.PW32/H is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that this shirt was washed with soap by the accused. Further, the alleged test fire were made in the open and cartridges were also lying in the open and that too in a school. The alleged test fire was conducted on 21.6.201 and recovery of misfired cartridge and empty cartridge was effected on 26.6.2010. It is well settled law that recoveries effected from open space are not good recoveries. IO has also not jointed any independent witness at the time of alleged recovery. In this respect reliance can be placed on 2003 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1149, Salim Akhtar @ Mota Vs. State of U.P.in which it is stated in headnote 'A' that : 'Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - S.5 Recovery of a polythene bag containing a pistol, cartridges, a bomb and RDX at the instance of accused - appellant - Recovery from an open place State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 51 of 70 accessible to all and everyone - Conviction u/s 5 - Propriety - Pistol alleged to have been recovered not sealed and its "number" or "make" etc. to fix its identity not mentioned in the recovery memo or FIR - No effort made by police to get any independent public witnesses at the time of alleged recovery - The only public witness (a photographer) examined was not only intimate but was also obliged to the police party

- Held, Sec. 27 of Evidence Act what was admissible was the place from where the said polythene bag was allegedly recovery - The fact that some terrorist organization had given the pistol and other articles to the appellant or its use, held, not admissible - since the recovery was made from an open place accessible to all and everyone, held, it was not possible to hold that the appellant was in possession of articles alleged to have been recovered from him - Hence conviction and sentence of appellant set aside - Evidence Act, 1872, Sec.27 - Criminal Trial - Possession of incriminating article - Recovery of incriminating articles from an open place accessible to all - Inference of possession, held doubtful'.

65. In the present case, the shirt was sent to FSL. As per FSL result no reaction for blood group was found on the shirt. But human blood was detected. When the shirt was already washed by the accused, it is not improbable that it would have been human State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 52 of 70 blood. However, since the blood group on the said shirt could not be detected, the recovery of this shirt also do not link the accused with the present case offence. It has been stated in case law Satish Kumar Vs. State, 1995(34) DRJ (DB) in para 33 that : 'Now we are left only with the evidence with regard to the disclosure statement allegedly made by the appellant and the recovery of blood stained knife and blood stained shirt at the instance of the appellant. At the outset, we may mention that the group of the blood appearing on the said articles could not be deciphered by the experts. Only human blood was found on the said articles. So, strictly speaking, the said articles cannot be linked with the crime in question. Be as it may, both the SHO and SI Sher Singh and Shushil Kumar admitted that no efforts were made by the police to join any independent witnesses before recording the disclosure statement of Satish and before effecting the recoveries. It is not understood as to how the basic principle of investigation has been lost sight................. Merely having the brother of the deceased with them for this purpose does not remove the suspicion about the genuineness of disclosure statement and the recoveries allegedly effected on the basis of such disclosure statement. (Reliance can also be placed on Kedar Singh @ Kedari Vs. State, 1996 JCC 111, para 21.) State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 53 of 70

66. Accused Sher Singh was apprehended by SI Dinesh and his team from U.P, and at the time of apprehension accused handed over one wrist watch to the police which is allegedly to be of deceased. After disclosure statement Ex.PW31/A of accused Sher Singh, no recovery was effected on the basis of disclosure statement. He has also not disclosure about conducting of test fire in Gautam Puri School and Sangam Vihar School.

67. As far as the pointing out memo of the place of incident is concerned, it is revealed that the place of incident was already in the knowledge of police before apprehension of accused persons.

68. As far as the recovery of mobile phone from accused Deepak is concerned, I have perused the evidence led by the prosecution. This mobile phone was allegedly being used by deceased. PW14 Mohd. Abid has deposed that on 22.06.2010 one boy came to his shop and gave a samsung mobile phone and told that the microphone and speaker of the said phone were not working. The boy told his name as Anil. He put his SIM in the said mobile phone and made various calls through said mobile phone till State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 54 of 70 evening. The phone was found working properly. He can identify Anil. After seeing the mobile phone he has stated that he is not sure whether this is the same phone again said this is the same which was given by Anil. The phone is Ex.PX. As per the case of the prosecution, the mobile phone was recovered from accused Deepak Verma and it was also given by accused Deepak Verma for repair as per the disclosure statement while PW14 has stated that it was given by Anil. Further, the case of the prosecution is that the mobile could not be operated as it was locked. But PW14 has stated that it was working properly. He has not stated that the mobile phone was locked. PW14 also could not identify the said mobile at first instance. The phone was given to PW14 on 22.6.2010 and he used it till evening by putting his SIM. The shop of Abid PW14 is situated in Gautam Puri. As per his version the mobile phone was taken by the said boy in the evening. But as per the case of the prosecution, the accused Deepak Verma was arrested at about 6.30 p.m on the same day i.e. 22.6.2010 from the jurisdiction of PS Khazuri Khas. It is highly improbable that the person present in Gautam Puri in the evening would also be present within the jurisdiction of PS Khazuri Khas at 6.30 p.m as both the places are at a long distance. There is State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 55 of 70 also no mention in kalandra u/s 41.1(a) Cr.PC that Samsung Mobile Phone was recovered from accused but only Mobile Phone is mentioned. There is no description or IMEI number mentioned in the kalandra.

69. PW7 Manish Arora who is the brother of deceased has stated that he had handed over the bill of mobile phone to police. I have also perused the said bill Ex.'Y'. The IMEI number disclosed on the bill is 354283020902296. I have perused the letter of Nodal Officer Ex.PW12/A and call details Ex.PW12/B. The phone from which PW14 Mohd. Abid had made calls is bearing IMEI no. 354283020902290 while the IMEI number of phone which the deceased was using is 354283020902296. It is manifest from the call details that the mobile phone of deceased was not recovered from accused Deepak Verma and it was some other phone. Further mobile no. 9811395946 is belonging to some Bhuvneshwar Uniyal of Sangam Vihar and phone no. 9811522939 is belonging to Mohd. Abid of Gautampuri, New Seelampur. PW5 Bhuvneshwar Uniyal has stated that he has never taken connection no.9811395946 in his name and that he had lost his purse containing ID card and State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 56 of 70 photograph in the year 2008. However he never lodged any NCR in this respect. None of the SIM is belonging to accused Deepak Verma which establishes that he had never made call from the mobile of deceased having above IMEI number.

70. The prosecution has recovered the alleged mobile phone from Deepak Verma. But it has never been shown to PW7 Manish Arora during his examination for identification as to whether this mobile phone was belonging to his brother or not. The IO has also not taken any step to get the TIP of said mobile phone conducted by the Magistrate to establish its genuineness. In view of my above discussions, the recovery of mobile phone is highly doubtful and the prosecution could not establish this circumstance in his favour.

71. The prosecution has also recovered one wrist watch from accused Sher Singh in this case who was arrested from U.P. PW31 Ct. Umesh Pal and PW34 Insp. Dinesh Kr are the witnesses for recovery of wrist watch. PW31 has stated that accused was apprehended, confessed his guilt about the crime and handed over wrist watch from his wrist which was belonging to deceased State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 57 of 70 Rajnish. The wrist watch of of Titan make, golden colour having brown strap which was sealed with the seal of DM and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW31/D. PW34 Insp. Dinesh Kumar has also stated about recovery of wrist watch. I have perused the seizure memo Ex.PW31/D. The IO had recovered Titan watch of golden colour having brown leather strap and at the back on steel body 'titan 1315 YAA India 30M Water resistant Stainless Steel' is written. PW7 Manish brother of deceased had handed over the bill of said watch to IO. The bill is Ex.X. On perusal of the same it is revealed that description of the watch is mentioned as 1315YL while as per seizure memo the watch with number 1315 YAA was recovered. The prosecution has also failed to examine the person who prepared this bill. The bill also does not bear the name of the anyone. IO has also not taken steps to conduct the TIP of said watch. Even it has not been shown to PW7 Manish at the time of his examination before the court to establish that it was belonging to his deceased brother Rajnish.

72. I have perused the testimony of PW21 HC Bharat Lal who is the MHC(M) and made entries regarding deposit of case property State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 58 of 70 in the malkhana. He has stated in his statement that on 26.6.2010 Insp. Dinesh Kumar handed over him one sealed pullanda containing wrist watch sealed with the seal of DM alongwith copy of seizure memo to deposit in the malkhana. He deposited the same and made an entry in register no.19 at sr.no.450 to this effect. Copy of the same is Ex.PW21/D. As per statement of PW21 case property was deposited in malkhana on 26.6.2010 while as per Ex.PW21/D it was deposited on 7.7.10. PW34 SI Dinesh has stated that the accused was arrested on 7.7.10 and he produced the wrist watch. As per arrest memo accused was arrested on 7.7.10 at 5.00 p.m while PW31 Ct Umesh has stated that they reached Delhi at 5 p.m. So, there are contradictions in this case as arrest memo shows that accused was arrested at 5 p.m and recovery of watch was effected thereafter while as per the statement of PW31 they reached Delhi at 5 p.m from Agras, Bareilly. Further the IO of the case has not joined any single pubic witness at the time of effecting recoveries of mobile phone and wrist watch from accused persons. In case titled Preetam Singh Vs. The State, 1998 (1) JCC (Delhi) 94 it is stated in head note that : Recoveries - Murder and theft case - Recoveries not State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 59 of 70 made in presence of independent witnesses though available - Such recoveries cannot be considered by the court in evidence.

73. In view of my above discussions, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the recoveries of wrist watch from accused Sher Singh and Mobile phone from accused Deepak Verma beyond reasonable doubt and thus prosecution has failed to establish this strong link of circumstance in this case. REOVERY OF KATTA

74. The case of the prosecution is that one country made pistol was recovered from the car belonging to deceased. The said katta is alleged to have been left away by the accused persons after committing the murder in the car. PW2 Sunil reached at the spot. Ld. APP for the State has put a leading question to this witness that : Question: I put it to you that you had seen the country made pistol lying in the Baleno car at the spot.

Ans. It is incorrect.

State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 60 of 70

75. PW4 Ajay Sharma also reached at the spot and stopped his vehicle but he did not stated anything in respect of lying of any katta in the car. PW6 Rajesh and PW7 Manish Arora (brother of deceased) who had also reached at the spot have also not stated anything in this respect. The katta has not been produced before PW9 Dr. Abhishek who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of deceased for his expert opinion. However, it is alleged by the prosecution that katta was recovered from the car. PW2 has stated that on the next day he was called at PS Dhaula Kuan at 6 a.m, the police officer had shown him a katta stating that the same was used in committing the murder on the last night. PW26 Ct. Shahid and SI Praveen Kumar have stated that the katta was seized and sealed at the spot. But PW2 has stated that it was shown to him in the PS next day. It is clear that the katta was not sealed at the spot on the day of incident and therefore recovery of desi katta from the car is doubtful. On the other hand it is the case of the prosecution that desi katta was recovered from the car. At that time PW17 Ct. Davinder, finger print expert was present. The IO of this case has not tried to ask PW17 to lift the finger prints from the said katta. Also PW17 himself has not lifted chance prints from the said katta State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 61 of 70 to match the same later on with the finger prints of the accused. There is no evidence on file that the chance prints were not found on katta. It would have been the best evidence with the prosecution to establish as to who had used the said country made pistol. But the prosecution has failed to prove the same. Therefore, prosecution could not link this katta (country made pistol) with the commission of offence in the present case.

MOTIVE

76. Ld. Counsel has argued that there was no motive for accused persons to kill deceased Rajnish and therefore, the prosecution case be thrown on this ground alone. The most important aspect of the present case or for that matter of any criminal case is a motive. Undoubtedly, motive is an important aspect of every criminal trial. Sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and, therefore, motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence must be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view of State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 62 of 70 achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with, though at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable. It was stated in case State of H.P. Vs. Jeet Singh 1999 (3) A.D.(S.C.) 89 (para33) that: 'It is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution failed to prove the precise motive of accused to commit it. It is almost an impossibility for prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he offended. ' In case law Nathuni Yadav S. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 S.C 1808 it was held that : 'Many murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable.' State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 63 of 70 In case Ashok Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (1) CC 59, it is held that : 'Criminal Trial Normally in circumstantial evidence based cases, the prosecution has to prove motive - Absence of motie in such cases becomes material - corresponding motive is not important in the case of direct or ocular evidence.' In case law titled Pandra Khadia Vs. State of Orissa , 1992 CRI L.J 762 it is stated in headnote : 'Evidence Act. 1872, Ss. 3,8 - Penal Code (1860), Ss. 299, 300, 302 - Murder - Proof of - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Motive of accused not proved by prosecution - Held, that since important circumstantial evidence had been disbelieved absence of proof of motive would weigh in favour of accused'.

77. On the aspect of motive, I have perused the evidence. The prosecution has alleged the motive to kill the deceased as the accused had robbed him. Perusal of evidence on record revealed that the recovery of wrist watch and mobile phone of deceased from the accused persons is doubtful and even the evidence revealed that State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 64 of 70 it was some other mobile recovered from the accused as the IMEI number of the said mobile do not tally with the IMEI number of the mobile of deceased as per the bill provided by the brother of deceased. Further there is also difference in the number of watch written on the bill as well as on the seizure memo. The recoveries are not conclusively proved by the prosecution. Also, no public witnesses joined at the time of alleged recovery. Therefore, I am of the view that there was no motive for accused persons to kill deceased Rajnish. Further in case titled Preetam Singh Vs. The State, 1998 (1) JCC (Delhi) 94 it is stated in head note that : 'Penal Code, 1860 - Sec. 302, 460 and 411 - Murder and theft A number of defaults in prosecution case and conviction - Circumstantial evidence -

Prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. In the present case the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution does not conclusively lead to the only irresistible conclusion that the appellants were the persons who committed the crime and none else - Hence the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.' In case law 2012 (1) JCC 59 (DHC), Ashok Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi it has been observed in head note that : State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 65 of 70 'Criminal trial - Murder case - Motive - Importance of - Normally in circumstantial evidence based cases, the prosecution has to prove motive - Absence of motive in such cases becomes material -

Correspondingly, motive is not important in the case of direct or ocular evidence.' In case Law 2011(4) JCC 2818, Raj Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) it has been observed in head note that : 'Criminal trial - Motive - Significance of - Motive is a relevant factor in criminal cases whether based on testimonies of eye witnesses or on circumstantial evidence - In cases based on circumstantial evidence, if prosecution proves motive, the same is of great significance and is counted as one of the circumstances - Non investigation of motive part - A factor against prosecution.

78 In the present case also the prosecution has failed to prove the motive since recoveries effected are not conclusively proved. 79 In case law Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1989 Supp (2) S.C.C 706 it is stated in head note that : 'Criminal Trial - Circumstantial evidence - Held, on State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 66 of 70 facts, circumstantial evidence not sufficient to conclusively establish guilty of accused persons - Conduct of the accused must be seen in its entirety - Mere suspicion not enough - Penal Code, 1860, Secs. 302/34 and Sec. 498A - Evidence Act, 1972, Sec. 8. 'Evidence Act. 1972 - Sec.3 - 'Proved' - Conviction cannot be based on suspicion, however, strong it may be'.

It is stated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy Vs. State of A.P (SCC P.181 para 2627) that : 'It is now well settled that with a view to base a conviction on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all the pieces of incriminating circumstances by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form such a chain of events as would permit no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused. The circumstances cannot be on any other hypothesis. It is also well settled that suspicion, however, grave it may, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. The story of last seen theory, furthermore, comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 67 of 70 that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Even in such a case the courts should look for some corroboration'.

80. The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts, and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It is no doubt a matter of regret that a foul cold blooded and cruel murder should go unpunished. There may also be an element of truth in the prosecution story against the accused. Considering as a whole, the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by the prosecution by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence before an accused can be convicted. It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. In view of the above discussions as well as observation of the case laws, I am of the opinion that prosecution could not complete each and every chain of circumstances in this case without any reasonable doubt State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 68 of 70 by leading cogent and reliable evidence.

81. It is well settled principle of law in AIR 2003 SC 3609, State of Punjab Vs.Karnail Singh that : "Golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the views which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty is not less than from the conviction of an innocent".

82. In view of my above discussions and the case laws cited above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution could not establish the complete chain of circumstances in this case while it is well settled principle of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence each and every circumstance has to be proved by the prosecution by leading legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence. But I did not find any legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence in this case. I State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 69 of 70 am unhesitatingly of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed in proving such chain of circumstantial evidence as would fasten the guilt on the accused persons leaving no room for doubt. So, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons u/s 302/392/397/411/34 IPC. I therefore give the benefit of doubt to accused Deepak Verma and Sher Singh and they are acquitted for the commission of offence punishable u/s 302/392/411/34 IPC and accused Deepak Verma is also acquitted u/s 397 IPC.

83. Both the accused are in JC in this case. In view of provisions of section 437A Cr PC, both the accused are directed to furnish the personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/each with one surety in the like amount each. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 29.09.2012.

(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS) (South West District) Dwarka Courts/ NEW DELHI State Vs.Deepak Verma etc FIR no.131/10 Page No. 70 of 70

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs Deepak Verma Etc on 29 September, 2012