Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu on 9 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
II (NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Session Case No. 106/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0660392007
State Vs. (1) Sanjeev Gahlot @ sonu
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o House No.78,
Village Kakrola, New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(2) Rajesh @ Raju
S/o Sh. Gian Singh
R/o 121B, Village Kakrola,
New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(3) Sunny
S/o Sh. Balwan
R/o 121C, Village Kakrola,
New Delhi
(Acquitted)
(4) Vijay Gahlot @ Kalu
S/o Sh. Hawa Singh
R/o House No. 89B,
Village Kakrola, New Delhi
(Acquitted)
FIR No.: 741/07
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Under Sections: 302/201/120B/34 Indian Penal Code
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 1 of 128
Date of committal to sessions Court: 28.1.2008
Date on which orders were reserved: 4.6.2012
Date on which judgment announced: 09.7.2012
JUDGMENT:
(1) As per allegations, on 29.8.2007 at about 9:30 AM at Main Nazafgarh Road, Rama Park in front of Metro Pillar No. 764, Uttam Nagar all the four accused namely Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gahlot @ Kalu in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Pal. It has also been alleged that all the accused knowing that the offence of murder had been committed, caused the country made pistol and empty cartridge to disappear with intention to screen themselves from the legal punishment. Further, it is alleged that on 12.9.2007 at TPoint, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg and Feroz Gandhi Marg, Near ICICI Bank, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi the accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu was found in possession of one pistol and three live cartridges which were used for committing the murder of Jitender Kumar on 29.8.2007. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:
(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 29.8.2007 at about 9:45 AM an information was received in the Police Station Uttam Nagar regarding a firing incident near Mohan Garden, Metro Pillar No. 764.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 2 of 128 Pursuant to this information DD No. 20A was recorded which was marked to SI Randhir Singh who along with Ct. Randhir Singh reached the spot where they found a motorcycle Hero Honda CBZ bearing No. DL9SM2926 and came to know that the injured had been removed to DDU Hospital by the PCR Van. Thereafter they reached DDU Hospital and collected the MLC of the injured and while SI Randhir Singh was still in the hospital, the father of the deceased Jitender namely Rajpal came to the hospital and gave his statement to the police.
(3) In his statement Rajpal informed the police that on 29.8.2007 at about 9:00 AM while his son Jitender was leaving the house to go to LNJP Institute where he was studying, he (Rajpal) asked him (Jitender) that he had to go to a doctor in Vikaspuri so he should drop him there. Rajpal sat on the back seat of the motorcycle and at around 9:30 AM when they reached near Rama Park, Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, near Metro Pillar No.764, two motorcycles upon which four persons were riding, overtook them and made their motorcycle to stop. He further informed the police that one motorcycle was being driven by Raju S/o Shri Gian Singh on which Sanjeev @ Sonu S/o Ram Chander was sitting on the back seat; the other motorcycle was being driven by accused Sunny S/o Shri Balwan and on the backseat of that motorcycle one other boy was sitting. All the four boys surrounded them after which Sunny and Raju told Sanjeev to take revenge of the death of his brother, on which Sanjeev took out a pistol. According to Rajpal, he jumped from the motorcycle St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 3 of 128 and raised an alarm but in the meanwhile the boy who was sitting behind Sunny, told Sanjeev to kill Jitender on which Sanjeev @ Sonu fired upon his son Jitender on his chest indiscriminately. Thereafter, all the four boys took a UTurn and fled towards Kakrola mor. According to Raj Pal, after sometime the PCR vehicle came and he lifted the body of his son and put it in PCR van which took his son Jitender to DDU hospital. He further informed the police and he gave information at his house and thereafter reached at DDU Hospital where his son Jitender was declared as brought dead. Raj Pal further informed the police that in the year 2005, a quarrel took place between his son Jitender and Sanjeev @ Sonu, his brother Anil, Balwan and Raju etc. which Anil brother of Sanjeev had died and crosscases were registered against them. According to Raj Pal, since that day the said persons were having grudge against his son Jitender two months prior to the incident, these accused persons had given a threat that they would take the revenge of death by a death and due to this grudge they had killed his son Jitender.
(4) On the basis of the statement of Raj Pal the present case was got registered. On 12.9.2007 an information was received from the Police Station Lajpat Nagar about the arrest of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot who was found in possession of a pistol used in the commission of the offence. Thereafter on 14.09.2007 the accused Sanjeev was arrested in this case and pursuant to his arrest, the accused Sanjeev Gahlot got recovered one Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. DL4SAJ2697 from the residence of his St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 4 of 128 maternal uncle. The accused Sanjeev Gahlot also disclosed that he had thrown the desi katta (country made pistol) and his mobile phone in the Najafgarh drain. Efforts were made to trace the country made pistol and mobile of the accused but the same could not be traced. On 25.9.2007 the accused Rajesh @ Raju and Sunny surrendered before the Court after which they were arrested. Further, on 4.10.2007 the accused Vijay @ Kalu was arrested from Kakrola village pursuant to a secret information. (5) After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/201/120B/34 Indian Penal Code.
CHARGE:
(6) Charges under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code were settled against all the accused namely Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gahlot to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, charge under Section 27 of Arms Act was also settled against the accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE:
(7) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as Thirty One witnesses as under:
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 5 of 128 Public witnesses/ complainant:
(8) PW1 Rajpal is the father of the deceased who has deposed that he is residing at village and post office Kakrola along with his family, comprising of two sons namely Jitender Kumar, aged about 22 years (on the date of incident) and Hemender Kumar, aged about 22 years (on date of his deposition). According to him, his elder son namely Jitender Kumar was student of M.Sc (Criminology) Final Year at LNJP Institute, Rohini, Delhi, and used to leave for his institute at around 9:00 AM on his motorcycle bearing number DL9SM2926. Witness has further deposed that on 29.08.2007 when his son Jitender was leaving the house at around 9:00 AM to go to his institute in Rohini, he (witness) asked Jitender to drop him at Vikas Puri where he had to go to a doctor. According to the witness, he sat on the back seat of the motorcycle and they moved from their above house and at around 9:30 AM when they reached near Rama Park, Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, near Metro Pillar No. 764, two motorcycles upon which four persons were riding, overtook them and stopped their motorcycle. Witness has further deposed that one motorcycle was being driven by Raju S/o Shri Gian Singh and accused Sanjeev @ Sonu was sitting on the back seat of the said motorcycle.
According to him, the other motorcycle was being driven by accused Sunny S/o Shri Balwan and on the backseat of this motorcycle one boy was sitting. Witness has further deposed that at that moment, accused Raju and Sunny told accused Sanjeev to take revenge of the death of St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 6 of 128 Sanjeev's brother, then at that time accused Sanjeev took out a pistol on which he (witness) jumped from the motorcycle and raised an alarm. In the meanwhile the boy who was sitting behind Sunny, told Sanjeev to kill Jitender and accused Sanjeev @ Sonu fired upon his son Jitender on which his son Jitender fell down bleeding and all the above four accused took Uturn on their motorcycle and ran away towards Kakrola mor / village. Witness has further deposed that after little while a PCR Van came there and he lifted the body of his son and put it in PCR van and PCR van took the body of his son Jitender to DDU hospital, after which he informed at his house and followed them to DDU hospital where doctor declared his son Jitender as brought dead. According to him police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. (9) Witness has further deposed that in the year 2005, a quarrel took place between his son Jitender and the accused persons and in that quarrel Anil, brother of Sanjeev (accused herein) had died. According to him, in that quarrel Anil, Sanjeev, Balwan and Raju participated against his son Jitender and since that day, these persons were having a grudge against his son Jitender. Witness has further deposed that two months prior to the murder of his son Jitender, these accused persons had gave a threat that they would take the revenge of death by death and due to this grudge they had killed his son Jitender. Witness has further deposed that SI Randhir Singh came to the spot where SHO with staff were present, and in his presence the spot was got photographed by the police. According to St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 7 of 128 him, The Investigating Officer lifted blood with the help of cotton, placed it in a plastic dibbi and converted it in a pullanda which were sealed with the seal of RK. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer also lifted the blood stained earth (concrete) and placed it in a plastic dibbi, which was then converted into a pullanda and the seal of RK was affixed on it. According to him investigating officer also lifted earth control, placed it in a plastic dibbi and converted it into a pullanda and sealed it with the same seal. Witness has further deposed that investigating officer also lifted one fired (empty) cartridge case, placed it in a plastic dibbi, converted it in a pullanda and sealed it with the same seal and all the above items were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Witness has further deposed that investigating officer had also seized one bag of his son, from the spot, that there had blood stains and word Diesel was written on that bag. According to him, that bag contained some books and library card etc and a whole of a bullet was also there on that bag. Witness has further deposed that investigating officer had placed the said bag in a polythene and then converted it in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RK and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. According to him, the investigating officer also seized the motorcycle of his son, from the spot, which was stationed on the side of the road and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. According to him investigating officer has taken his blood stained clothes and those clothes had blood stains belonging to his son Jitender. Witness has further St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 8 of 128 deposed that investigating officer seized the said clothes consisting of one pant, one shirt and one handkerchief by converting it in a pullanda, which were sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/E. According to him at his instance police prepared site plan of the spot which is Ex.PW1/F. (10) Witness has further deposed that on 10.10.2007 he was called in Rohini Jail through police station Uttam Nagar to identify the fourth accused, who on the date of incident was sitting on the back seat of a motorcycle driven by accused Sunny, then he went to Rohini jail where a magistrate was available in Rohini Jail. According to him, he was told that the accused for whose TIP he had came, has refused to participate in the TIP. Witness has further deposed that on 20.11.2007 he was called in police station Uttam Nagar, from there along with SI Mahesh Kumar, came to the spot where on his pointing out SI Mahesh Kumar prepared a rough plan. According to him on 30.11.2007 he was called by the police to Rohini Court, Room No. 107, Court was of Sh. Vinod Kumar, MM when he had seen these four accused persons in police custody. According to him he identified fourth accused namely Vijay Kumar @ Kalu as the person who was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle of accused Sunny on the date of incident. Witness has further deposed that on the date of incident this Vijay Kumar had uttered a words "Jaldi Kar maar Shale Ko".
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 9 of 128 (11) Witness has also correctly identified the case property i.e. one bag having word Diesel written on it, the stripe of this bag have cut mark as the same to be of his deceased son Jitender and the bag is ExP1; one shirt, one pant and one handkerchief as the clothes which he was wearing at the time of the incident and the same are ExP2, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively; one empty cartridge which is Ex.P5. (12) Witness has correctly identified all the four accused persons in the Court and has deposed that on 30.08.2007 he had identified the dead body of his son Jitender vide statement Ex.PW1/G and after postmortem the body was handed over to them vide documents Ex.PW1/H. According to him, he had taken the motorcycle No. DL9SM2926, Hero Honda, black color of his deceased son Jitneder, on superdair, which is Ex.P6.
(13) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that his school duty timings are 1:00 PM to 6:30 PM (afternoon shift), his school is situated at a distance of 15 Km from his residence and he used to go by bus. According to him, he knew driving a two wheeler as well as four wheeler vehicles and he has only one motorcycle as stated above in examination in chief. Witness has further deposed that the college of his deceased son is situated at a distance of 20 Km approximately from his residence and his son used to start at 9 AM for college. According to him, he had no knowledge of his daily college St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 10 of 128 timings and has explained that the place of incident is at a distance of 2:00 KM from his residence. Witness has further deposed that the distance between Najafgarh road and his village is approximately about 1.75 KM and from there right turn leads towards the place of occurrence which is also around less then 1 KM. Witness has admitted that Najafgarh road at 9 AM remains very busy. He is unable tell the width of the opposite road which goes from Janakpuri and Najafgarh. Witness has admitted that there is nothing between metro pillar No. 763 and 764 and one can take Uturn or that one can take right turn if coming from Uttam Nagar. According to him the space between metro pillar No. 763 and 764 is marked with green color pen and encircled in site plan Ex.PW1/F and he cannot tell exactly the distance between Metro Pillar No. 763 and 764. Witness has admitted that from metro pillar while coming from Uttam Nagar one takes right turn the way split in a Vshape and road bifurcates into two out of which one goes towards Rama Park and another goes towards some other colony. Witness has further admitted that the width of road side where the incident took place is having less width then the other side of the road or that beside the road where the incident took place the adjacent is the kucha road. According to him besides kacha road there is a nala. Witness has admitted that there is no red light at the Uturn between metro pillar No. 763 and 764 or that people generally from both side take Uturn at the green encircled place in Ex.PW1/F. Witness has further deposed that generally, there is a situation of trafficjam and there St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 11 of 128 is no red light signal installed at that place and he does not know whether the traffic constable stands there to manage the traffic. According to him, the width of the grills installed between the road where metro pillars are situated is having width of 56 feet and his son was carrying the bag of the back while driving the motorcycle. Witness has further deposed that he was not feeling uncomfortable with this situation / condition of the bag. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not feeling uncomfortable to the bag position/ situation as he was not the pillion rider with his deceased son on the day of incident. Witness has further deposed that his deceased son was sitting on the motorcycle at the time of receiving the first bullet and he cannot tell how much traffic was there at the time when his son received first bullet shot. According to him he did not make any effort to attack the accused persons when he had jumped from the motorcycle nor he made any efforts to save his deceased son and he stated that at that time his son was hit by bullets. Witness has further deposed that he had left the motorcycle when the first bullet was hit his deceased son and all the four accused persons took off from the motorcycle and one accused fired at his son. According to him the bullet was hit on the chest of his son, but he is unable to tell whether it was right side chest or left side chest and has voluntarily added that the accused Sanjeev @ Sonu fired bullet continuously. Witness is unable to tell the total number shots fired at his son and he was at a distance of 2 feet from his son when he was shot.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 12 of 128 (14) According to him the accused Sanjeev @ Sonu was standing at distance of 1 ½ feet away from himself and accused Sanjeev @ Sonu took one or two minute to fire all the shots at his son and he does not notice the timing gap between the fires. Witness has further deposed that accused Sanjeev was firing with pistol but he did not count the shots and he also does not know whether there was any gap between the shots and states that he only knows that he continuously fired at his son. According to him, no public person present at the spot tried to stop the accused when they were fleeing taking Uturn. Witness has further deposed that all the four accused persons were without helmets and he was also not wearing helmet. Witness has admitted that from Kakrola to Vikaspuri there are several traffic signals and his son did not advise him to wear helmet. Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no question of wearing a helmet as he was not the pillion rider on the day of incident. He is unable to tell whether the accused Sanjeev or any other person tried to shoot at him. He has stated that after the first shot his son fell down and received remaining bullet while lying on the road. Witness has further deposed that his son fell down towards the left side of the motorcycle and motorcycle did not fall on him. Witness has denied the suggestion that his deceased son received first bullet from back side at his back. According to him he does not know whether any bullet hit from the back or not. (15) Witness has further deposed that the motorcycle fell down towards right side of the road and the motorcycle fell on the side grill and St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 13 of 128 he does not keep mobile phone. According to him, during the investigations he had provided to the police the mobile number of his brother and states that he himself was not the owner of mobile number 9868263902. Witness has further deposed that at that time of incident his deceased son Jitender was having land line connection and two mobile phones. He has admitted that he had taken both the mobile phones on superdari and has stated that his family members i.e. his wife and himself and a son namely Hemender Kumar are not having any mobile phone. Witness has denied the suggestion that he is the owner of mobile phone number 9868263902 or that police informed him about the murder of his son Jitender on the day of incident on the above said his mobile number i.e. 9868263902. According to him, he is not aware of the numbers of both the mobile phone owned by him deceased son Jitender. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not telling the mobile number despite having knowledge or that the two mobile phones were got released on superdari by him at the instance of the investigating officer in order to destroy the originality and its phone numbers. Witness has further deposed that he did not telephone to the police from the spot at the time just after the incident and has explained that the PCR vehicle had reached the spot after ten minutes of the incident. According to him, he completely lost his senses after witnessing the murder of his son. He has further deposed that he did not keep his son on his lap and states that he regained his senses after seeing the police PCR vehicle. Witness has St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 14 of 128 further deposed that he does not remember how many police officials came in the PCR vehicle and has explained that the police officials changed the traffic flow at the spot. According to him, the PCR officials immediately lifted his son and removed him to the hospital and states that he had told the PCR officials that he is the father of the deceased/injured but none of the police officials asked him to accompany them to DDU hospital along with his son. Witness has denied the suggestion that all these things did not happen because he was not present at the spot. Witness has further deposed that he does not accompany his son to DDU hospital in PCR vehicle as this was not came in his mind at that time. When question as to when his mind became stable initially the witness responded that his mind became stable after about one hour of the incident but thereafter again stated that his mind regained stableness immediately when PCR vehicle came.
(16) Witness has further deposed that he went to his brother's house which very near to the place of incident situated at Kakrola mor from there he along with his brother he went to DDU hospital. He has stated that his son was lifted without a stretcher in the PCR vehicle and admits that great volume of blood was coming out from the body of his son. The witness is shown his shirt Ex.P2, it is having three spots in front from where FSL lifted the blood. The dark grey color pant Ex.P3 is also shown to the witness from where the FSL taken the blood sample from right side two spots and the left one spot of blood near the knee. The shirt St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 15 of 128 and pant are not entirely blood soaked. According to him, when his above clothes were seized by the investigating officer, he had called for other clothes from his house which fact he never told to the police. Witness has further deposed that the name of his brother is Lal Chand but he did not state this fact to the police. According to him, he reached DDU hospital immediately on three wheeler scooter from the house of his brother Lal Chand. Witness is not aware when the MLC was prepared in the hospital. He has stated that since no doctor asked him therefore, he did not tell to any doctor that he was the eye witness. Witness is further not aware if the doctors at DDU hospital came to know the name, parentage and the address of his son through his identity card. According to him, he remained at DDU hospital for 3040 minutes and states that he did not meet with SHO or ACP in the hospital and is unable to tell the time when he had left the DDU hospital. According to the witness, his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded by SI in the hospital but he cannot tell the exact time when his statement was recorded because he was in a great sorrow state after witnessing his son's murder and voluntarily explained that it may be 11:30 AM or 12 PM when his statement was got recorded. Witness has further stated that he did not lodge any complaint or report regarding the threat received about two months prior to the incident. He has admitted that two cases were pending in the Rohini Court bearing FIR No. 274/05 and FIR No. 275/05 of Police Station Uttam Nagar and that his deceased son was one of the accused in FIR No. 275/05, U/s 304 St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 16 of 128 IPC, Police Station Uttam Nagar. Witness has denied the suggestion that he used to occasionally attend the dates in the courts in the above said two cases or that he used to come along with accused Sanjeev @ Sonu on his motorcycle or sometimes in his car. Witness initially admitted that no threat was received from accused Sanjeev and his family members from 27.03.2005 to June 2007 but after some time explained that he recollects his deceased son having received threat during the above period on his mobile phone. According to him, no complaint was lodged in this regarding and has explained that he had told the family members of accused Sanjeev in this regard but this fact he did not disclose to the investigating officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that he deliberately made an improvement in order to prove the fact of threat or that no such threat were given by the accused Sonu to Jitender on telephone. Witness has further deposed that he does not lodge any report with the police since he had conveyed to the family members of accused Sanjeev @ Sonu regarding the threats but admits that he did not receive any direct threat. According to him he had stated the age of his deceased son to police officials as 22 years.
(17) Witness has further deposed that he along with SI Randhir Singh had gone from hospital to the spot of crime at about 12 to 1:00 PM from the hospital on a two wheeler scooter and at the spot, he saw police officials and SHO police station Uttam Nagar. He is unable to tell how many photographs were taken by the photographer of the scene of offence St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 17 of 128 and states that there were several public persons standing at a distance from the spot. Witness has further deposed that in his presence, investigating officer did not call any public persons standing at a distance to join the proceedings and states that he is not aware whether a Jain Kulche Rehri remained permanently parked near the spot of crime. According to him, he did not sign the cloth in which investigating officer seized and made pullandas of earth control, concrete, fired cartridges, rexene bag and also states that the investigating officer did not give the seal to him after use and states he might have kept it with him. According to him, he had called for his clothes and then, police seized his clothes, which he was wearing and his brother Lal Chand brought those clothes. Witness has denied the suggestion that Lal Chand had not brought the clothes or that the clothes were not sealed at the spot or that it was handed over to police in the police station later on. According to him he remained at the spot for about 3045 minutes, thereafter, he went to his house. Witness has further deposed that his relative Lal Chand followed him from the hospital and when the investigating officer asked him to give his blood stained clothes, then he had gone to his house and brought clothes for changing. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to the effect that Lal Chand followed him from the hospital. Witness has further deposed that he had described the spot of crime, on which basis, investigating officer prepared site plan and he had signed the same. The witness has been shown the site plan Ex.PW1/F St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 18 of 128 (which bear his signatures). He has denied the suggestion that when he was informed by the police officials of Police Station Uttam Nagar, that his son Jitender has been shot and was admitted in DDU hospital, he was taking a tea with a person namely Ajay and dealing with him in respect of the sale of a plot belonging to him. Her has stated that his statement was recorded on 29.08.2007 between 1112 PM on which basis, FIR was got registered. Witness has further deposed that he again visited the spot of crime with police officials on 20.11.2007 along with Draftsman Mahesh Kumar but he did not continuously visit the police station after the day of the incident till 30/11/2007 to know the progress of the case. According to him he does not make inquiry after every arrest of the accused from the concerned police officials and police also did not inform him about the arrest of the accused persons. He has explained that his statement was recorded by police official other than investigating officer. (18) Witness has further deposed that he did not know whether accused Vijay was arrested on 04.10.2007 and states that he was neither called at the police station nor informed by the police about the arrest of Vijay Gahlot. Witness has admitted that accused Vijay Gahlot belonged to his village. According to him he knew accused Vijay Gahlot by face prior to the incident but had no knowledge about his residence or father's name. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately denying having known Vijay Gahlot by name and the name of his father and residence. Witness has further deposed that he had described the St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 19 of 128 physical appearance of the fourth accused person on the day when FIR was lodged. The witness has been confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where the physical description of fourth person was was described by him. According to him, he had stated to the police that the fourth person, whose name he does not know belonged to his village. The witness was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where this fact was not so recorded.
(19) According to him, he had knowledge that accused Vijay Gahlot was produced before the court on 30.11.2007 but he has no knowledge about his earlier appearance before the court and has further explained that on 30.11.2007 he visited the court after receiving the information from the police that accused Vijay Gahlot would be produced in the court. According to him, prior to 30.11.2007 police did not inform him about the arrest of accused Vijay Gahlot. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in respect of identification of accused Vijay Gahlot or that Vijay Gahlot has already been shown to him in the police station. Witness has further deposed that he has no knowledge if on 04.10.2007 accused Vijay Gahlot was roaming around in the village or the spot of crime. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was a planted witness or that he had not seen the incident or that he was not present at the time of incident at the spot or that some two unknown persons killed his son or that due to enmity, he falsely implicated accused Vijay Gahlot and Sanjeev Gahlot. Witness has admitted that a murder St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 20 of 128 trial was going on against his deceased son Jitender and other persons for the murder of elder brother of accused Sanjeev Gahlot. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Gahlot and Vijay Gahlot were not present at the spot or that they have not murdered his son or that he was deposing falsely. Witness has further deposed that on the day of incident, accused Rajesh was wearing Tshirt of red color and a blue color trouser and accused Sunny was wearing a whitish shirt and pant but does not recollect the colour of the pant worn by accused Sunny. According to him, he did not run away after falling from the motorcycle, which was driven by his son. Witness has further deposed that he must have reached the hospital after 10:30 AM. According to him, his son was on a stretcher in the emergency ward and he was allowed to see his injured son in the emergency ward and has voluntarily added that on seeing his son, he was disturbed and not in a position to stand there and he was thereafter directed by the doctor to go outside. Witness has further deposed that he does not know whether his brother Lal Chand was also allowed to see the injured son in the emergency ward.
(20) According to the witness, he knew accused Rajesh and Sunny prior to the incident. Witness has denied the suggestion that becuase his deceased son was facing a murder trial of the elder brother of coaccused Sanjeev Gahlot and he had enmity with accused persons or that due to enmity, he falsely implicated accused Rajesh being the complainant in the murder trial and Sunny is the relative of accused Rajesh. Witness has St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 21 of 128 further deposed that police official informed that they had recovered two motorcycles, which were used by accused persons on the day of incident but has explained that there motorcycles were never shown to him. He does not recollect, how many police officials lifted his injured son or that whether the clothes of the police officials also got blood stained. (21) PW2 Sukhlal has deposed that on 30.08.2007 he went to DDU hospital and has identified the dead body of his nephew Jitender aged 22 years and states that the police recorded his statement which is Ex.PW2/A. According to him at that time, he was residing at H.No. 161, 334, village Kakrola, New Delhi. In his crossexamination, the witness has deposed that his statement was recorded at hospital in the morning but he cannot tell the time. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not telling the time in order to avoid contradictions or that he was deposing falsely.
(22) PW10 Sant Ram has deposed that he was having a motorcycle on hire purchase basis, it was pulsar of violet color bearing registration No. DL4SA2697. According to him, the motorcycle was sold by Abhimanyu @ Mannu and this motorcycle was sold to his known person Ram Pal. Witness has further deposed that he does not know any relative of Abhimanyu @ Mannu, who was present in the court and states that the police recorded his statement.
(23) Despite the Ld. Addl. PP being permitted to put leading question, the witness has failed to identify accused Sanjeev Gahlot and St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 22 of 128 give his relationship with the Abhimanyu @ Mannu. The witness was declared hostile on this point only and with the permission of the Court, Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross examined the witness, wherein he has admitted that he had told the police that the accused Sanjeev Gahlot was the mama of Abhimanyu @ Mannu. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deliberately not identifying the accused Sanjeev Gahlot, who was present in the court.
(24) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he had seen the accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the court premises for the first time and he does not know the name of father of Abhimanyu and he was resident of Issar Heri, Haryana. According to him, he had sold the motorcycle to Abhimanyu @ Mannu but he does not know if the motorcycle is still in his name. Witness has denied the suggestion that he never sold the motorcycle No. DL4SA2697. Witness has further deposed that police made inquiries from him regarding the above said motorcycle, his statement was not recorded and the same was not read over to him.
(25) PW14 Gagan Kumar is an independent witness who has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was coming from Najafgarh and at about 9:15 or 9:30 AM when he reached near pillar No.764, he heard a noise and immediately saw that one boy was riding motorcycle and two boys were on another motorcycle who (two boys) fired bullets on that single boy on the motorcycle. According to the witness, he ran away St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 23 of 128 from the spot immediately and after some distance about 500 meter he stopped after which first he drank water and thereafter made a call to police at 100 number. However, he did not note down the registration number of their motorcycle nor did he see their faces as their faces were covered with helmets. He does not remember his phone number from which he called the police on 100 number. (26) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State regarding telephone number as mentioned in PCR form, on which the witness has deposed that the said mobile number was 9910474409. He has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Counsels for the accused and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (27) PW19 Naresh Kumar has deposed that he is a property dealer by profession and is the owner of motorcycle TVS Star No. DL4SBB0169. He has produced the motorcycle which is Ex.PA and its keys which are Ex.PB. According to him he used to attend Gold Gym at Mansaram park, near Uttam Nagar daily at 7:30 AM and somebody had stolen his motorcycle from the Gym on 27/28 in the month of Raksha Bandhan, 2007. He has testified that after two days of Raksha Bandhan, he lodged FIR with police station, PP Matiala and after 1520 days, SHO, Uttam Nagar informed him that his motorcycle had been recovered from the possession of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot. According to the witness, he was not known to accused Sanjeev Gahlot and it was only when he was St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 24 of 128 called at police station, Uttam Nagar that he came to know of accused Sanjeev Gahlot. Witness has further deposed that prior to this he was not known to accused Sanjeev Gahlot and he also came to know that accused Sanjeev Gahlot belonged to his village. He has testified that the SHO had also inquired from him if the accused Sanjeev borrowed his motorcycle. According to the witness, he had purchased the motorcycle from his Financer. He has correctly identified the accused Sanjeev Gehlot who was present in the court.
(28) The witness was directed to produce the copy of FIR of theft of motorcycle or the registration certificate or insurance papers, pursuant to which the witness had brought the RC (the particulars of the vehicle, ownership and number are not properly visible) which is mark PW19/1 and has also produced photocopy of the complaint dated 29.08.2007 which is mark PW19/2; pollution certificate and insurance photocopy of which are Ex.PW19/3 and Ex.PW19/4 (original of which were seen and returned).
(29) He has also deposed that he had informed the police regarding theft of the motorcycle at about 7:00 AM which information was furnished by him at police post Matiala Chowki. According to him, after one and half month his motorcycle was recovered by the police on which he along with his brother Satya Narain went to police station Uttam Nagar and he identified his bike before the police. Witness has further deposed that he prepared an application but he was not confirmed as to whom he St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 25 of 128 had handed over the application. He has also deposed that thereafter he got released his bike from police station Uttam Nagar and also moved an application before the court and got released the motorcycle on Superdari. He does not remember the facts mentioned in the superdari application moved before the Court nor he recollects if he had executed any superdarinama.
(30) The said witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State since he was resiling from his earlier statement made before the police, wherein he had deposed that village Kakrola was spread within four five kilometers and he is not aware the name of Sarpanch or Pradhan of the area but he knew the name of Counselor Smt. Dhanpati Devi. He has testified that he is residing in village Kakrola since birth and knew the villagers who used to reside in his gali or mohalla and might have known some persons of the village by faces. Witness has further deposed that he knew accused Rajesh, Sunny and Vijay who were present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) as belonging to his village Kakrola. He has denied the suggestion that all the four accused persons are his thick friends or that all the four accused persons also used to visit Gym. The witness has denied the suggestion that he used to visit Gym to build his body so that he can show his dadagiri in the area. According to him, he has no knowledge that accused persons also used to visit Gym to build their body for showing dadagiri in the area. He has denied the suggestion that police recorded his statement wherein he told St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 26 of 128 to the police that on 29.08.2007 he was going to his house on his motorcycle DL 4S BB 0169 TVS and reached at about 8 AM outside the village when accused Sanjeev @ Sonu who was his friend along with Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay met him there. He has also denied the suggestion that he told to the police in his statement that at that time accused Sanjeev was having a motorcycle who stopped him and demanded his motorcycle and thereafter he handed over his motorcycle to him and went to his house on foot. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he told to the police in his statement that after handing over the motorcycle he came to know after some time the accused Sanjeev fired on the person of Jitender S/o Rajpal or that later on he came to know that his motorcycle was recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeev and thereafter, he got released it on superdari for a sum of Rs 25,000/. He has also denied the suggestion that he came to know about the fact that accused persons fired on the person of Jitender S/o Rajpal or that when he knew the fact of firing he was aware that his motorcycle must be involved in that case and because of this reason he informed to the police at about 1:00 PM in respect of the fact that his motorcycle has been stolen at 7AM on the same day. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW19/A the said facts were not found so recorded. Witness has further deposed that his mobile number is 9289925328 which mobile SIM was purchased by him at about six months back and has stated that he did not remember the number of his St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 27 of 128 previous mobile. He has denied the suggestion that his previous mobile number was 9213852238 and has voluntarily added that he does not recollect about this number. Witness has further denied the suggestion that on 29.08.2007 he was having the mobile number 9213852238 and he informed to the police from his mobile at 1:00 PM about theft of his motorcycle on the same day at 7:00 AM. He is unable to tell if on his information DD No. 26 was recorded by the police which is mark PW19/B. Witness has admitted that he had produced a photocopy of the application to show that his motorcycle was stolen and he informed to the police through this application in writing on same day which is marked as Mark PW19/2 contents of which application are correct. He has admitted that the fact mentioned in the application was that he came to know about the theft of his motorcycle at 10:15 AM when he came outside the Gym. He has denied the suggestion that he came to know about the incident of firing on the person of Jitender S/o Rajpal in between 9:30 to 10 AM and in that incident his motorcycle was used by accused persons due to which reason he wrongly mentioned the time in that application as 10:15 AM about the knowledge of motorcycle to save himself as well as accused persons and fabricated this document. He has admitted that the application mark PW19/2 is in his handwriting and it bears his signature, which application is Ex.PW19/X1. The witness has also admitted that on his instructions his Advocate Sh. Deepak Juneja had St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 28 of 128 filed an application for release of his motorcycle in the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar Yadav, Ld. MM, bearing his signatures at point A which application is Ex.PW19/X2. He has also admitted that he had filed photocopy of his driving license which is Ex.PW19/X3 and photocopy of RC which is Ex.PW19/X4. Witness has further admitted that application is written in English Language. The witness was read over the contents of the application in Hindi vernacular language after which he has admitted that in this application he has not stated the facts and disclosed that he had earlier filed an application in the police station regarding theft of his motorcycle on 29.08.2007. He has denied the suggestion that he did not mention this fact in his application because his motorcycle was not stolen on 29.08.2007 at 7 AM. He has admitted having furnished a superdarinama Ex.PW19/X5 before Ld. MM but states that he has no knowledge whether an FIR was registered for theft of his bike on application Ex.PW19/X1. According to the witness, he did not approach senior officers when police did not register FIR. He has denied the suggestion that he did not do so because his motorcycle was never stolen or that he deposed falsely in order to save accused persons who used his motorcycle in the incident.
(31) In his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he has no legal knowledge to differentiate between FIR and written application endorsed by the police. He does not St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 29 of 128 remember whether he had given the copy of application Ex.PW19/X1 bearing the stamp of police to his counsel Sh. Deepak Juneja at the time of moving application. According to the witness, he had told to his Advocate that his motorcycle was stolen but he was not sure whether his Advocate got typed superdari application in his presence. Witness has admitted that he does not remember complete facts as it is four years old incident.
Medical witnesses:
(32) PW3 Dr. Nishu Dhawan has deposed that she has been deputed by the Medical Superintendent in place of Dr. Vishnu, SR who has left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known and she can identify the writing and signatures of Dr. Vishnu as he has worked with her in the hospital and she had seen him while signing and writing.
Witness has deposed that she had seen MLC of patient Jitender Kumar, S/o Rajpal, aged 21 years, male who was brought in the casualty on 23.08.2007 at 10:15 AM by HC Deepak Kumar with alleged history of gun shot as told by the police officials. According to the witness, Dr. Vishnu examined and found that the patient was unconscious, BP unrecordable, having four gun shot wound seen in front of chest and four wound seen over back of the chest and the patient was declared brought dead and referred to Mortuary. The witness has proved that some belongings of the deceased were also mentioned on the MLC by Dr. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 30 of 128 Vishnu, which are as under:
1. Rs 410/
2. Nokia cellphone.
3. Sony Ericcson phone.
4. Timex wrist watch.
5. Metro card.
6. Silver color ring.
7. DL photocopy.
8. Some loose papers and photo.
9. One empty lather black color purse.
10. Five Icards and two DTC pass.
(14) Witness has further deposed that Dr. Vishnu prepared MLC Ex.PW3/A and the belongings of the deceased were handed over to the police official.
(15) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that she has not brought any documentary proof to show that she had worked with Dr. Vishnu. According to her, Dr. Vishnu was SR in the casualty and she was discharging duties as CMO and she has no knowledge that in case any doctor leaves his job, then he informs about his future address. Witness has denied the suggestion that she had not worked with Dr. Vishnu at any point of time. Witness has admitted that she has not personally examined the patient, so she cannot tell the distance of injuries.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 31 of 128 (16) PW11 Dr. Komal Singh has deposed that on 30.08.2007, he conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Jitender Kumar, 21 years male which body was brought by Insp. Rakesh of police station Uttam Nagar with the alleged history of gun shot injuries on 29.08.2007 at about 9:10 AM. According to him the person was wearing full sleeve yellow check shirt, its lower four button were broken and the fourth eye of the button on the shirt was torn. Witness has further deposed that an oval shape tear was present on the right side of the shirt and shirt was blood stained, there were two big and two small tears were present on the back of the shirt. Witness has also deposed that white color vest was having two tears in its front, which correspondents to the tear on the shirt and belt was tied around the jeans, one handkerchief was tied loosely around the neck and it was blood stained. According to her on external examination, the following injuries were found :
1. Gun shot entry wound measuring 1x0.5cm located at right fifth intercoastal space, which was 3.5 cm from the right nipple, it was oval in shape and margins were inverted.
2. 2cm to the lateral to No.1 gun shot entry, there was another entry wound of 1.5x1 cm, it was oval in shape and margins were inverted, there was 2mm thickness abraded collar was encircling the wound.
3. Gun shot entry wound 1.5x1.2 cm, oval in shape having 2mm abraded collar around and it was placed on St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 32 of 128 15.2cm from the right nipple and 4.5cm below the xiphisternum.
4. Gun shot entry wound 1x1 cm having the inverted margins, 2mm abraded collar, it was placed above 4.5cm and lateral to the left nipple margins.
5. On back, gun shot exit wound placed 15.5cm below the inferior angle of the scapula, it was oval in shape and size was 3x1.5cm and margins were averted.
6. Gun shot exit would 1.5x1 cm placed 12cm from the left inferior angle of the scapula, margins were averted.
7. Gun shot entry wound 1x0.9cm and 3cm from No. 6 injury, its margins were inverted.
8. Gun shot exit wound 4x3cm, margins were averted, placed 5.5cm from the No. 7 injury.
9. Gun shot exit would 2.5x2 cm, margins were averted, lying 12.5cm below the left shoulder.
(14) Witness has further deposed that on internal examination, it was found that on the seventh intercoastal space, one metal piece of the bullet was found over the surface of the sternum. There were bullet entry and exit margins corresponding to the entry and exit wounds. There were two holes on the anterior surface of the heart, two holes on the posterior surface of the heart, one hole on the lobe of the left lung and one hole on St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 33 of 128 the right side of the liver. All the body organs were pale, the stomach was empty.
(15) According to her, blood in a guaze piece, piece of a bullet, clothes of the deceased were sealed and handed over to the investigating officer, Time since death was approximately 26 hours. She has proved that the cause of death was due to multiple gun shot injuries to the vital organs of the body and all the injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as together, all the injuries were antemortem and were of same duration. She has proved having prepared the detailed Postmortem report which is Ex.PW11/A. (16) The witness has correctly identified one deformed bullet marked as Ex.EB1 which was kept in a plastic box as the same as removed from the body of the deceased, same is Ex.PW11/1 and has also identified one banian, one handkerchief, one shirt, one jeans pant and one underwear as the same which were worn by the deceased at the time of postmortem and same were handed over to the investigating officer in a polythene, which clothes are Ex.PW11/2 collectively. According to her, the shirt and the baniyan were having the same hole as described in his PM report.
(17) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that the XRay of the dead body was not conducted to locate St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 34 of 128 the bullet and he does not got conducted the photographs of the dead body. According to her, there are no such guidelines to take the photographs in each case and it is required to be done only when a request was made by the investigating officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that the postmortem conducted as per the desires of the investigating officer. Witness has further deposed that she never took the photographs of the dead body during postmortem without the request of the investigating officer as the facilities of photographer was not available with the mortuary. According to him there were no abrasions or bruises on the dead body and has voluntarily added that he does not observe the same during postmortem. Witness has further deposed that he cannot tell whether there was any exit wound corresponding to injury No. 7 as there were so many entry and exit wounds, so it is difficult to corelate the entry and exit wounds of any injury. According to the witness after observing the entry wounds, he can tell the minimum distance from where the shots were fired is 6 inches and he cannot tell the maximum distance and it can be explained by the ballistic expert. Witness has further deposed that the injury No.7 caused by a fire from a distance of minimum may be from one feet but she is unable to tell from which injury. According to her, she had seen the recovered bullet from the dead body. Witness has denied the suggestion that he casually conducted the postmortem.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 35 of 128 Forensic expert witnesses:
(18) PW7 V. R. Anand has deposed that on 31.10.2007 two sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL of its examination and the seals were intact as per specimen seals and forwarding letter. According to him, on opening of both the parcels, parcel No. 1 was containing one deformed bullet marked as Ex.EB1 and in Parcel No. 2, one 9mm cartridge case marked as Ex.EC1, he examined both the exhibits and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW7/A. Witness has further deposed that he examined both exhibits and the 9 mm cartridge marked Ex.EC1 was a fired empty cartridge and the bullet marked Ex.EB1 corresponds to the bullet of 8mm/.315 cartridge. According to him, the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC1 and on test fired cartridges TC1 to TC3 in case FIR No. 880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar, FSL No. 07/F3971 were compared under comparison microscope and were not found identical, hence EC1 has not been fired through the improvised pistol 9mm marked Ex.F1 in case FIR No. 880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar (FSL No. 07/F3971). (19) PW8 Ms Shashi Bala has deposed that on 31.10.2007, seven sealed parcels were received in FSL for examination, the seals were intact as per FA letter and she opened all the sealed parcels and given them serial No. 1 to 8. According to her, the Parcel No. 3 was sample seal and she had given the exhibit of the contents of the parcels vide Ex.1a,1b,1c, St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 36 of 128 1d,1e, Ex.2,4,5,6,7,8a,8b,8c and examined them biologically and prepared her detailed report vide Ex.PW8/A. Witness has further deposed that Ex.
1a,1b,1c,1d,1e, Ex. 2,4,5,7,8a,8c were examined serologically and she prepared her detailed report in this respect vide Ex.PW8/B. According to her, after examination each exhibit turned into its respective parcels and sealed with the seal of SB FSL Delhi.
(20) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that they do not conducting any test to find out RH factor whether negative or positive and they analyze only the ABO blood groups. Witness has denied the suggestion that report given by her is not perfect as RH factor is mentioned. Witness has admitted that RH factor to the O group may negative or positive. Witness has denied the suggestion that she had not analyzed properly the exhibits and prepared a report without RH factor at the instance of the investigating officer. Police/ official witnesses:
(21) PW4 W/ASI Pricilla, has deposed that on 29.08.2007 she was posted as duty officer at police station Uttam Nagar from 9 AM to 5 PM and on that day a call received at 9:45 AM from SI Randhir, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 20A, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A (OSR), thereafter at about 1:15 PM, rukka was sent by SI Randhir through Ct. Randhir for registration of the FIR. According to her, on which basis, she recorded FIR No. 471/07 U/s 302/34 IPC, copy of FIR is Ex.PW4/B St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 37 of 128 (OSR), thereafter she made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW4/C. Witness has further deposed that at 10:20 AM, a call was received from DDU hospital, on which basis, she recorded DD No. 22A (OSR) and copy of the same is Ex.PW4/D. According to her, she made DD No. 24A for reducing the FIR on the basis of rukka and DD No. 25 A is the completion of writing of rukka. Copy of the same are Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F. Witness has further deposed that a special messenger Ct.
Manoj was deputed along with a copy for giving the information to the senior officers.
(22) In her crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that she had copied word to word in DD entry No. 20A information, which was received from PCR. Witness has denied the suggestion that she does not recorded the DD No. 20A word by word as message received from PCR or that PCR wireless operator had given her the message as "Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar Pillar No.764, Dwarka Metro ke pass, 2 ladke motorcycle number na malum goli marke bhage hai". Witness has denied the suggestion that after the receipt of a call of murder the Rojnamcha was stopped at the instance of the SHO and the same were filled later on on the dictation of the SHO. Witness has denied the suggestion that at 1:15 PM, no rukka was brought to her by Ct. Randhir and the same was not reduced into writing in the shape of FIR. Witness has admitted that she had not written the contents of the rukka in St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 38 of 128 DD No. 24A and 25 A. Witness has further deposed that the special messenger left the police station at 2:30 PM and as per DD register he returned at 6:20 PM vide DD No. 31 which is Ex.PW4/DX1. Witness has denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely because the rojnamcha was tampered at the instance of the SHO.
(23) PW5 Ct. Manoj has deposed that on 29.08.2007, he was posted as constable at police station Uttam Nagar from 8AM to 8PM on motorcycle No. DL1SN 5549 and at about 2:30 PM in the afternoon, he took the special message as special messenger from DO W/ASI Pricilla and he delivered the special message to ACP, Tilak Nagar, DCP West, Rajouri Garden, PHQ and area MM, Rohini, Sh. Vinod Yadav in the court, thereafter returned to the police station at 6:20 PM. (24) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he cannot tell the time of delivery to the ACP office, the DCP office, PHQ as well as at court to Area MM. Witness has has denied the suggestion that he was deliberating not telling the time of delivery of special message in order to avoid contradictions or that no FIR was handed over to him at the time which he stated in his examination in chief.
(25) PW6 Ct. Dinesh has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted as duty constable at DDU hospital and on that day, he was on duty from 8AM to 8PM, when at about 1010:15 AM PCR Van P61, brought one injured namely Jitender Kumar and admitted in the hospital. According St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 39 of 128 to him, the doctor examined the patient and prepared the MLC and declared the patient brought dead and it was then that he informed to the Police Station Uttam Nagar. Witness has further deposed that the personal search of the dead body was handed over to SI Randhir, who came later on and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A, thereafter investigating officer recorded his statement.
(26) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he came to know the name of the injured (deceased) on seeing driving licence and identity card which was recovered from its personal search and the personal search of the dead body was taken by him as well as the Ct. Deep Kumar in presence of the doctor at about 1010:15 AM. According to him the recovered articles were turned into a polythene bag and handed over to SI Randhir in unsealed condition. He ha deposed that he did not try to contact to the relatives of the deceased from the two mobile phones which were recovered from its personal search. Witness has denied the suggestion that from the phone book of the mobile phone, they came to know about the phone numbers of the relatives of the deceased's father and accordingly he informed him about the incident. (27) PW9 Ct. Trilok Chand has deposed that on 29.10.2007 he was posted at police station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he collected sealed parcels of case FIR No. 880/07 U/s 25 Arms Act from the MHC(M) for depositing the same to FSL Rohini, vide RC No. 78/21. According to him, it was deposited on the same day to FSL Rohini, Delhi, St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 40 of 128 and case property was not tampered with by anybody till its remained in his possession and investigating officer recorded his statement. (30) PW12 HC Deep Kumar has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted on PCR van P61 from 8AM to 8PM and on that day at about 9:30 AM he received a call that the motorcycle riders fired on a person near Metro Pillar No. 764 of Mohan Garden and thereafter ran away. According to him on that information, he along with staff reached at the spot and found many persons were gathered there and one person namely Rajpal also met them there, he told that the injured is his son namely Jitender Kumar who was bleeding there. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they removed him to DDU hospital where doctor declared brought dead about the injured and his formal search was conducted in front of the doctor and entry in this regard was made in the MLC, which entries in the MLC are at point X to X. According to him investigating officer recorded his statement and a separate seizure memo in respect of the belongings of the deceased was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW6/A and the personal search of the deceased from Point 1 to 10 as detained in the MLC are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.12/10 (not objected by the Ld. Defence counsels).
(31) In his crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he was accompanied with Ct. Kartar Singh, who was driver of the van, the name of gunman he does not remember. According to him he does not remember the name of gunman because they St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 41 of 128 frequently changed on PCR vans. According to him, the model of the PCR van was Toyota Qualis. Witness has further deposed that in the back of the Qualis two parallel seats adjoining to the window were in that vehicle and injured/deceased Jitender was carried to the hospital by lying on the rear seat, whereas his legs were remained on the floor and he was kept by the gunman. According to him, he informed to the control room about the removal of the injured / deceased to the hospital. The information mentioned in PCR form Ex.PW12/X1 showed to the witness who states that the information mentioned in the PCR form was exactly received by him as "Mohan Garden Uttam Nagar,Pillar No. 764, Dwarka Metro ke paas do ladke motorcycle number na maloom, goli maarkar bhage hai. Taalash". The witness has admitted that at about 10:35 AM he informed to the control room that the name of the injured came to be known as Jitender, S/o Rajpal, house No. 161, Village Kakrola, through his driving license. According to him, he did not tell to the control room that Rajpal father of the deceased met them at the spot and he told them that the injured was his son. Witness has denied the suggestion that no person by the name of Rajpal met them at the spot and he did not disclose the name of the injured to them as his son. Witness has further deposed that when he reached at the spot the traffic was stopped and they reached there through approach road. According to him, when they reached at the spot they found that deceased was lying on the ground and his face was towards the sky. He has stated that he did not notice the direction in St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 42 of 128 which the motorcycle had fallen down but stated that it had fallen there. Witness has further deposed that he did not put any chalk mark before the lifting the injured to show the exact position of the body. He admits that in between pillar No. 763 and 764, there is a cut on the road, but there is no red light and no traffic constable was present there. According to him in the PCR vehicle they carry one iron chain, one stretcher and first aid box and injured Jitender was not put on the stretcher prior to removing him to the vehicle. Witness has further deposed that at the time of removing the injured into the PCR vehicle he along with gunman and twothree other public persons helped to remove the injured into the PCR. According to him his statement was recorded by the investigating officer in the hospital on the same day but he does not remember the exact time when it was recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had left the hospital at about 10:15 AM. Again said at about 10:15 AM, the injured was admitted in the hospital, he left the hospital after an hour. According to him, his statement was read over and explained to him by the investigating officer. According to him the physical description of the Raj Pal is similar to his height i.e. approximately 6 feet and Rajpal followed them to the hospital by his own vehicle.
(32) PW13 Ct. Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team West District and on that day he along with SI Anil Kumar and other staff members of Mobile Crime Team visited the scene of crime i.e. pillar No. 764, main Najafgarh St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 43 of 128 road, Uttam Nagar and inspected the scene of crime. He has proved having taken ten photographs of the scene of crime at the instance of the investigating officer and after developing the photographs the same were handed over to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A10 and negatives are Ex.PW13/N1 to Ex.PW13/N10.
(33) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that Crime Team reached the spot at about 10:15 AM and left the spot at about 10:55 AM and investigating officer had recorded his statement. According to him he does not state to the investigating officer regarding the number of photographs which was taken by him. He has testified that he does not notice any motorcycle lying at the spot and has voluntarily added that there was a crowd and many vehicle were near the spot. Witness has further deposed that the photographs of the spot which he had taken was surrounded by bricks and he did not take photograph of any motorcycle. He has denied the suggestion that he did not intentionally or deliberately take the photographs of motorcycle of the deceased or that he had taken more then ten photographs at the instructions of the investigating officer but remaining photographs were not place on the record.
(34) PW15 HC Randhir Singh has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Constable and on that day he along with SI Randhir Singh were on emergency duty from 8AM to 8PM St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 44 of 128 at police station. According to him at about 9:30 AM SI Randhir Singh received information about DD No. 28A, after which he along with SI Randhir Singh reached the metro pillar No.764, Main Najafgarh Road, Near Rama Park, Uttam Nagar where they found that blood was lying on the road and the motorcycle number DL9SM 2926 make Hero Honda CBZ of black color was lying there. According to the witness, he thereafter came to know that the injured was already removed by the PCR to DDU hospital and at the same time SHO along with the staff reached at the spot. Witness has further deposed that he along with SI Randhir Singh reached DDU hospital where Investigating Officer collected the MLC of injured Jitender wherein which doctor declared him brought dead. The witness has testified that father of the deceased namely Rajpal met them there whose statement was recorded by Investigating Officer. He has proved that the Investigating Officer collected the personal search of the deceased from the Duty Constable after which Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR on which he went to the police station. According to the witness, after getting registered the case he reached the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Insp. Rakesh Kumar Tyagi. He has correctly identified the motorcycle bearing registration number DL 9SM 2926 which is Ex.M1.
(35) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that they reached at the spot at around 9:37AM and remained St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 45 of 128 there for about half an hour. According to him he had returned to the spot again after the registration of the FIR at about 2:45 PM. He has admitted that he had not seen the Crime Team at the time of his visits at the spot. Witness has further deposed that the SHO came to the spot after about 15 minutes of his first visit at about 9:30 AM. According to the witness, the traffic was flowing on the same road by the side of the spot of crime and the motorcycle was lying on the left side with the front site towards Kakrola to Uttam Nagar and one handkerchief was also lying at the spot. The witness has testified that they met Rajpal at hospital at about 10:30 AM when they reached there and Rajpal was already there when reached the hospital. According to the witness, he did not meet any other family members of Rajpal at the hospital nor does he recollect the exact time when SI Randhir Singh recorded the statement of Rajpal but stated that it might be 11:15 or 11:30 AM. Witness has further deposed that his statement was recorded at emergency room of duty constable in the handwriting of SI Randhir Sigh which completed at about 12:30 PM along with the endorsement. He has testified that he went to the Police Station on motorcycle and no other proceedings were conducted by SI Randhir Singh in his presence at hospital except stated in the examination in chief till 12:30 PM. He has further deposed that when he handed over copy of FIR to Insp. Tyagi, at that time SHO and other staff were already present there and thereafter he returned police station at about 4:30 PM. He has denied the suggestion that no rukka was handed over to him or St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 46 of 128 that he had not gone to police station for registration of the FIR at the relevant time. He does not remember the exact time when duty officer recorded the FIR but it may be at 2:15 PM.
(36) PW16 SI Gulshan Gupta has deposed that on 12.09.2007, he was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, investigations of case FIR No.880/07 under Section 25 Arms Act was marked to him after which he reached at the spot. According to him he arrested the accused Sanjeev Gahlot (correctly identified by the witness) and SI Shiv Raj handed over sealed parcel containing the weapon i.e. pistol and three live cartridge along with seizure memo FSL Form etc. Witness has further deposed that accused made his disclosure statement about the crime of this case and further disclosed that the pistol belong to his brother Anil Gahlot which weapon recovered from his possession was used in the commission of crime in the present. According to the witness, he recorded statement of accused who was sent to judicial custody, photocopy of which disclosure statement is mark PW16/A. Witness has further deposed that the weapon of offence was deposited with MHC(M) police station Lajpat Nagar and subsequently sealed parcel of the weapon was sent to FSL through Ct. Trilok.
(37) The original judicial file of case FIR No.880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar, under Section 25 Arms Act and the disclosure statement of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot which is Ex.PW16/A. Witness has further St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 47 of 128 deposed that Investigating Officer handed over the sealed parcel of weapons sealed with the seal of SSB which was deposited by him with the MHC(M) of police station Lajpat Nagar. He has proved having filed the challan of FIR No.880/07 of police station Lajpat Nagar after completion of investigations. He has correctly identified the accused Sanjeev who was present in the court.
(38) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has admitted that nothing was recovered in his presence in case FIR No. 880/07 of police station Lajpat Nagar. Witness has further deposed that the investigations of case FIR No. 880/07 was handed over to him when he was present at police station and he arrested the accused Sanjeev in that case. According to the witness, he recorded statements of Ct. Vir Singh, HC Sunil and first investigating officer SI Shivraj and subsequently the constable who had taken the case property to FSL and MHC(M). Witness has further deposed that SI Shivraj Singh handed over the sealed parcels containing the pistol and cartridges at the spot and same was subsequently deposited by him to the MHC(M) and seal after use was not handed over to him and states that it was handed over to Ct. Vir Singh. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev had not made any disclosure statement to him and only gave information to him that the police officials from police station Uttam Nagar wanted to eliminate him by way of a fake encounter and because of this reason accused Sanjeev surrendered himself in the police station Lajpat Nagar after giving a call St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 48 of 128 to 100 number. He has further denied the suggestion that there were contradictory view in between the SHO, Lajpat Nagar and SHO, Uttam Nagar or that he was deposing falsely or that nothing was recovered from accused Sanjeev.
(39) PW17 ASI Bal Kishan has brought the original FIR No. 274/05 U/s 308/34 IPC and has deposed that he was posted as a duty officer at police station Uttam Nagar. According to him on 27.3.2005 at about 11:05 AM he received a rukka sent by HC Satyawan through Ct. Naseeb for the registration of FIR on the absis of which he recorded the FIR photocopy of which is Ex.PW17/A wherein there were allegations against accused Balwant, Raju, Sonu and Lalu. The witness has also proved the FIR No. 275/05 U/s 308/34 IPC, photocopy of which FIR is Ex.PW17/B wherein there are allegations against accused Askash, Lal and Monu.
(40) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness has deposed that as per record, the accused in both the cases were acquitted on 17.03.2010 from the court of Ms. Barkha Gupta, Ld. ASJ, Rohini, Delhi.
(41) PW18 SI Shivraj Bisht has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he along with HC Sunil Gaur and Ct. Bir Singh were on patrolling duty. According to the witness, at about 7:45 AM when they were present at Tpoint of Lala Lajpat Rai Road and Firoz Gandhi Marg near ICICI Bank, they saw that St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 49 of 128 one boy coming on a motorcycle from Defence Colony flyover. The witness has testified that on seeing them, the said boy immediately turned his motorcycle and on suspicion, they chased him and apprehended. Witness has further deposed that when he inquired from the said boy about the reason of turning the motorcycle immediately on seeing them, he could not reply satisfactory and his formal search was conducted during one pistol with magazine was recovered from the right dub of his pant. According to the witness, he asked four public persons to join the investigations but they refused and went away on the one pretext or the other. He has proved having made inquiries from the accused during which he disclosed his name as Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court). He has testified that he sent Ct. Bir Singh for arranging the Investigating Officer Kit for further investigation on which Ct. Bir Singh brought the same. The witness has also deposed that the pistol was unloaded and it found to contain three live cartridges in the magazine after which he prepared the sketch of the pistol and cartridges copy of which is Ex.PW18/A. According to the witness, he also found that the pistol was engraved the words "for army use only and made in USA" after which he prepared cloth parcel of the pistol and cartridges and sealed with the seal of SSB and also filled up form FSL at the spot and affixed the seal on it which seal after use was handed over to HC Sunil Gaur. He has testified that the weapon was taken into possession vide preparing the seizure memo which is St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 50 of 128 Ex.PW18/B and the motorcycle bearing No. DL4SBB0169 along with helmet and key of the motorcycle were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/C. He has proved having prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Bir Singh for getting registered the case and he (Ct. Bir) returned back with SI Gulshan on which he handed over all the memos and sealed parcels and case property and custody of the accused to SI Gulshan. According to the witness, SI Gulshan prepared site plan of the spot at his instance and further investigations was conducted by him. He has further deposed that the cartridges were of 9 mm and were engraving the words KF04, 9mm. According to him, SI Gulshan recorded his statement and on 6.10.2007 Investigating Officer of this case also recorded his statement.
(42) He has correctly identified the motorcycle bearing No. DL4S BB0169 and keys which were produced by superdar which are Ex.PA and PB; the helmet is Ex.PC; one pistol and magazine and three empty cartridges as the same which were recovered from the possession of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot (the live cartridges test fired by FSL) which pistol with magazine is Ex.PD and three empty cartridges are collectively Ex.PE.
(43) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that he did not sign the site plan Ex.PW18/D and Investigating Officer did not write specifically that it was prepared at his St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 51 of 128 instance and has voluntarily added that this fact is recorded in his statement. He has admitted that the spot of arrest stated in the FIR is a public place. According to him, threefour persons to whom he asked to join the investigations were passerby and there was no shop or temporary Gutke wala situated near the spot therefore, he did not ask such person for joining the investigations. He has further deposed that no auto rickshaw came there during the proceedings and that he was in a police uniform. According to the witness, he had apprehended the accused Sanjeev Gahlot at about 7:45 AM. The witness was shown upper part of barrel of pistol Ex.PD where it has been written"for army supply". Witness has further deposed that SI Gulshan Kumar is junior to him but the rank is same. He has admitted that at that time SHO was C.K. Sharma. He has denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Gahlot surrendered himself at police station Lajpat Nagar by saying that SHO Uttam Nagar wanted to kill him in an encounter as he has been implicated him in a false murder case pertaining to police station Uttam Nagar. According to him, he did not give any information in this regard to police station Uttam Nagar. Witness has denied the suggestion that SHO Uttam Nagar instructed them not to show arrest and hand over the accused Sanjeev or that because of this issue, there were differences between SHO, Uttam Nagar and SHO Lajpat Nagar. The witness has further denied the suggestion that thereafter SHO Uttam Nagar provided the weapon Ex.PD for false implication of accused Sanjeev in police station Lajpat Nagar in order to prove nexus between St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 52 of 128 the weapon of offence and the recovery. Witness has also denied the suggestion that the FIR No. 880/07 was registered later on by way of concocted story or that on 11.09.2007, in the evening hours, accused Sanjeev himself surrendered in the police station Lajpat Nagar or that the motorcycle, key and helmet shown in the recovery memo were already in their possession as they found the said motorcycle in an abandoned condition. He has has further denied the suggestion that no recovery of pistol and cartridges were effected from the accused as they were planted. (44) PW20 HC Jeet Singh has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he was posted at police Station Lajpat Nagar as Duty Officer from 8AM to 8PM and on that day he received a rukka through Ct. Bir Singh sent by SI Shivraj Singh for registration of FIR after which he got recorded FIR through computer operator vide FIR No. 880/07 U/s 25 Arms Act. According to him investigation of the case was handed over to SI Gulshan. He has proved the computer generated copy of the FIR, photocopy of which is Ex.PW20/A. (45) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has denied the suggestion that no rukka was brought to him by Ct. Bir Singh or that the FIR was registered at the instance of the SHO, police station Lajpat Nagar or that FIR is ante time.
(46) PW21 HC Sunil Gaur has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he was posted at police station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he along with SI Shiv Raj Singh and Ct. Bir Singh were present at Lala Lajpat Rai Marg T St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 53 of 128 point and were conducting picket checking. According to him, at about 7:45 AM one motorcycle came there from Defence Colony Flyover side and one seeing them the motorcycle rider turned his motorcycle immediately. Witness has further deposed that on getting suspicion they apprehended that person and his formal search was conducted during which one pistol was recovered from the right dub of the pant. The witness has also deposed that on interrogation the said boy disclosed his name as Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court). He has testified that SI Shiv Raj Singh sent Ct. Bir Singh for bringing the Investigating Officer Kit from police station and in the meantime Investigating Officer asked threefour public persons to join the recovery proceedings, but they did not join and left the spot without disclosing their names and address. According to the witness, in the meantime Ct. Bir Singh returned back at the spot and handed over the kit to Investigating Officer after which the Investigating Officer unloaded the pistol while lifting the magazine and three live cartridges were recovered from that magazine. He has also deposed that Investigating Officer prepared the sketch of pistol and three live cartridges which is Ex.PW18/A. The witness has testified that it was a .9mm pistol and it was written on the barrel of the pistol "ONLY ARMY SUPPLY" and the other side words "Auto pistol 9 mm 9 rounds" were engraved. He has proved that the Investigating Officer prepared the parcels and sealed the same with the seal of SSB and also prepared FSL form and seal after use St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 54 of 128 handed over to him, after which the Investigating Officer seized the weapon and cartridge vide memo Ex.PW18/B. According to the witness, the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S BB 0169 TVS Star along with its key and helmet was also seized vide memo Ex.PW18/C. The witness has also proved that the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over to Ct. Bir Singh for registration of FIR after which Ct. Bir Singh went to police station and after some time returned back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to SI Gulshan who was also came to the spot with Ct. Bir Singh. Witness has further deposed that further investigation was conducted by SI Gulshan and the accused was arrested after which he (accused) made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW16/A. According to him, the accused was medically examined and the Investigating Officer deposited the case property with MHC(M). The witness has also deposed that the second Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of spot at the instance of the first Investigating Officer SI Shiv Raj Singh and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement. (47) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S BB 0169 and keys which are Ex.PA and Ex.PB; pistol with magazine and three cartridges which are Ex.PD and three empty cartridges which are collectively Ex.PE.
(48) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that the police officials were not having vehicle at the time St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 55 of 128 when the accused was apprehended and the accused turned his bike from a distance of five seven steps from the picket. According to him at that time, they were on picket checking and no vehicle was stopped for checking. Witness has further deposed that the investigating officer asked the passerby on foot to join the investigation after apprehension of accused and no request was made by the investigating officer from any auto drivers, motorcycle rider and car riders to join the investigation. According to him no tea vendor or paan vendor were present at the spot. He has stated that the accused disclosed the source of acquiring of weapon that the said weapon was brought by his deceased brother namely Anil. He has denied the suggestion that Sanjeev Gahlot himself surrender in the police station Lajpat Nagar because the SHO Police Station Uttam Nagar wanted to kill him by way of fake encounter or that the accused Sanjeev Gahlot only disclosed that he has been falsely implicated in a murder case registered at police station Uttam Nagar. The witness has further denied the suggestion that this fact was brought into the notice of police station Uttam Nagar and at the instance of SHO, Uttam Nagar the said weapon was planted upon accused Sanjeev Gahlot in order to connect him with the murder case. Witness has further denied the suggestion that a hot discussion taken place between SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar and SHO Police Station Uttam Nagar as SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar refused to give Sanjeev Gahlot for helping him to murder Sanjeev Gahlot by way of fake encounter. He has also denied the suggestion that nothing St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 56 of 128 happened as stated in his examination in chief or that no motorcycle and weapon of offence .9 mm pistol and three live cartridges were recovered from the possession of accused Sanjeev Gahlot or that no rukka was handed over to Ct. Bir Singh.
(49) PW22 HC Bir Singh has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar as Constable and on that day he along with SI Shiv Raj Singh and HC Sunil Gaur were present at Lala Lajpat Rai Marg, T Point and were conducting picket checking. According to him, at about 7:45 AM one motorcycle came there from Defence Colony flyover side and on seeing them the motorcycle rider turned his motorcycle immediately and on suspicion they apprehended that person. Witness has further deposed that on formal search of that person one pistol was recovered from the right dub of the pant and investigating officer sent him to police station for bringing the investigating officer kit. According to him he brought the same and on interrogation that boy disclosed his name as Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu accused present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). He has testified that the Investigating Officer unloaded the pistol while lifting the magazine and three live cartridges were recovered from that magazine after which the Investigating Officer prepared sketch of pistol and three live cartridges which is Ex.PW18/A. He has further deposed that the weapon and cartridges were measured and it was a .9mm pistol and "ONLY ARMY SUPPLY" was written on the barrel of the pistol whereas St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 57 of 128 the other side was having words "Auto Pistol 9mm 9 Rounds". Witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer prepared parcels and sealed with the seal of SSB and also prepared FSL form and seal after use handed over to HC Sunil Gaur. According to him investigating officer seized the weapon and cartridge vide memo Ex.PW18/B and the motorcycle bearing No. DL4SBB0169 TVS star along with key was also seized along with helmet vide memo Ex.PW18/C. According to him, the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR after which he went to police station and after some time he returned back at the spot along with SI Gulshan and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. He has testified that further investigation was conducted by SI Gulshan and accused was arrested and interrogated. He has proved that the accused made a disclosure statement which is Ex.PW16/A and was medically examined and then went to police station where the Investigating Officer deposited the case property with MHC(M). Witness has further deposed that the second investigating officer prepared the site plan of spot at the instance of first investigating officer SI Shivraj Singh.
(50) He has correctly identified the case property i.e. motorcycle and keys which are Ex.PA and Ex.PB; helmet which is Ex.PC; pistol with magazine which is Ex.PD and three empty cartridges which are collectively Ex.PE.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 58 of 128 (51) The said witness has been crossexamined on the similar lines as that of PW21 HC Sunil Gaur and nothing much has come out of the same.
(52) PW23 HC Anil Kumar has deposed that on 29.08.2007, he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as MHC(M) and on that day, SI Randhir Singh deposited personal search of deceased Jitender Kumar pursuant to which he made entries in this regard at serial No. 4994 in register No. 19, photocopy of which is Ex.PW23/A. He has further deposed that on the same day, Investigating Officer Insp. Rakesh Kumar deposited total six sealed parcels and a motorcycle with sample seal along with four seizure memos on which he made entries at point X,Y,Z and Z1 on Ex.PW23/A. He has testified that on 30.08.2007 Insp. Rakesh Kumar again deposited three sealed parcels with two sample seals and he made entries in this regard at serial No. 4996 in register No.19 photocopy of which is Ex.PW23/B. According to the witness on 05.09.2007 Insp. Rakesh Kumar deposited motorcycle No. DL4SA2697 Pulsar and he made entries in this regard at serial No. 5013 in register No. 19, photocopy of which entry is Ex.PW23/C. He has testified that on 28.10.2007 Investigating Officer Insp. Rakesh Kumar deposited one motorcycle No. DL4SBB0169 TVS which was brought from Police Station Lajpat Nagar vide RC No.77/21 dated 28.10.2007 and he made entries in this regard at serial No. 5064 in register No.19, photocopy of St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 59 of 128 which entry is Ex.PW23/D. He has further deposed that on 05.09.2007 the belongings of the deceased was released to Rajpal as per order of the court and he made entry in this regard at point A1 on Ex.PW23/A. According to him, on 31.10.2007 seven sealed parcels were sent to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 220/21 through Ct. Rajan and he made entry in this regard at point A2 on Ex.PW23/A. Witness has also deposed that on 02.06.2008 he collected seven sealed parcels and result and deposited in the malkhana and entry in this regard is at point A3 on Ex.PW23/A, which result was handed over to the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2008 and entry in this regard is at point A4. The MHCM has further deposed that on 05.09.2007 itself the motorcycle bearing No. DL 9S M 2926 was released to the Rajpal, father of the deceased by the order of the Court and entry in this regard is at point A5 on Ex.PW23/A. He has further deposed that on 31.10.2007 two sealed parcels with sample seal were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Rajan and entry in this regard is at point A6 on Ex.PW23/B. Witness has also deposed that on 28.03.2008 Ct. Shivshankar deposited two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of FSL with report, and the entry in this regard is at point A7 on Ex.PW23/B and result was handed over to the Investigating Officer and entry in this regard is at point A8 on Ex.PW23/B. He has further testified that on 29.10.2007 motorcycle No. DL 4S BB 0169 was released to Naresh Kumar as per the order of the court and entry in this regard is at point A9 St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 60 of 128 on Ex.PW23/C. He has placed on record RC No.220/21, photocopy of which is Ex.PW23/E; photocopy of receipt of FSL which is Ex.PW23/F; RC No.221/21 photocopy of which is Ex.PW23/G and photocopy of the receipt of FSL is Ex.PW23/H. According to him the case property was not tampered by anybody till it remained in his custody. (53) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that entry No.4994 was completed at one time till the other entry stated No. 4495. He does not remember the time of writing entry No. 4994 and states that he might have taken half an hour for writing entry No. 4994. Witness has deposed that SI Randhir Singh only deposited personal search of deceased and other articles were deposited by investigating officer Insp. Rakesh Kumar and they kept sitting for some time with him. According to him both police officials supplied him copy of seizure memos which were kept in separate record. He does not remember exactly whether it was day time, evening time and night time when the case property was deposited but states that it might be 78 PM. He has admitted that he had not mentioned the time in register of depositing of case property but has denied the suggestion that case property was deposited in the malkhana after 29.08.2007 and he made the entries ante time and antedate as per the instructions of the SHO. (54) PW24 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 20.11.2007 he was posted as Draftsman in Crime Branch and on that day on the request of Insp. Rakesh Kumar, Addl. SHO Police Station Uttam Nagar he St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 61 of 128 reached at Police Station from where he along with the Investigating Officer and Sh. Rajpal went to the spot i.e. Najafgarh Road Near Metro Pillar No. 764765 where at the instance of Sh. Rajpal he took rough notes and measurements of the spot. According to him, on the basis of those measurements he prepared a scaled site plan which is Ex.PW24/A and rough notes were destroyed after preparation of scaled site plan. (55) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has denied the suggestion that he had not visited the place of occurrence and that he prepared the scaled site plan at the instance of the investigating officer in the police station.
(56) PW25 SI Anil Kumar has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, West District and on that day they were called near Pillar No.764, Main Najafgarh Road, Ram Park, Village Nangloi for inspection of scene of crime. According to the witness, he along with photographer Ct. Rakesh Kumar and Finger Print Proficient Ct. Bal Kishan reached there at about 10:25 AM and inspected the scene of crime. Witness has deposed that photographer took the photographs from different angles of the scene of crime and injured was already removed to the hospital. He has proved having prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW25/A. (57) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that he inspected the scene of crime from 10:25 to 10:55 AM on 29.08.2007. He has deposed that he left the spot at 10:55 AM. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 62 of 128 Witness has further admitted that he handed over the crime report which is Ex.PW25/A to the Investigating Officer at the spot at about 10:55 AM. He has also admitted that all the contents of the report are in his handwriting and as per the contents of his report Ex.PW25/A the name of the complainant is PCR call and his report is having FIR No.741/07. (58) PW26 HC Parveen Kumar has deposed that on 14.09.2007 he was posted in IIIrd Bn. DAP, Vikaspuri and his duty was in Lock Up Rohini Courts for producing the accused persons before the court. According to him on that day he produced accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu in the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar Yadav, MM Court No. 107. He has deposed that Addl. SHO Insp. Rakesh Tyagi obtained the permission from the Court for interrogation of the accused and thereafter he interrogated the accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the room of the Ahlmad. Witness has further deposed that accused Sanjeev Gahlot made his disclosure statement to him wherein the accused disclosed that he could get arrested his associates and could also recover the motorcycle. He has also deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW26/A and also recorded his statement. He has correctly identified the accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the Court.
(59) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness has deposed that he does not remember the case FIR No. in which he produced the accused Sanjeev Gahlot before Ld. MM Sh. Vinod Yadav St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 63 of 128 nor does he remember as to whether he made statement to the Investigating Officer regarding the case FIR No. in which accused was produced before the Ld. MM. According to the witness, he along with one another witness, accused and Investigating Officer signed the disclosure statement which was recorded on one page only and investigating officer himself written the disclosure statement in the room. Witness has further deposed that his statement was also recorded by the investigating officer. Witness has denied the suggestion that no such disclosure statement was made by the accused Sanjeev Gahlot or that he simply signed the already written disclosure statement at the instance of the Addl. SHO Rakesh Tyagi. He is unable to tell at what time the disclosure statement was recorded by the police but it was noon hours and the accused Sanjeev Gahlot was interrogated for about half an hour. (60) PW27 HC Rajender Singh has deposed that on 04.10.2007 he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Constable and on that day he joined the investigations of the present case. According to the witness, he along with Insp. Rakesh Tyagi went to village Kakrola where one secret informer met them who told that Vijay @ Kalu would come from Dwarka side on foot. Witness has further deposed that on this they reached Dwarka mor and at the pointing out of the secret informer accused Vijay @ Kalu was apprehended who was interrogated by the Investigating Officer. According to him, in his disclosure statement the accused confessed the crime of this case and also disclosed the names of his St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 64 of 128 associates. The witness has testified that the accused he further told that he could get recover the weapon i.e. pistol by which Jitender was murdered from a nala in Kakrola village. He has proved the disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW27/A and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW27/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW27/C. According to him, accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW27/D and also pointed out the nala/ drain where the weapon was thrown vide pointing out memo which is Ex.PW27/E. The witness has correctly identified the accused Vijay in the Court.
(61) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has deposed that accused Vijay was medically examined after his arrest from the DDU hospital in night hours but he is unable to tell the exact time. According to the witness, he along with the Investigating Officer had taken the accused Vijay to the hospital for medical examination and accused was arrested at about 8:30 PM. Witness has further deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused Vijay was recorded by the Investigating Officer at the spot from where he was apprehended by sitting under the street light on a patri. The witness has deposed that the disclosure statement was recorded in two/ three pages and he signed only at one place where his name was mentioned but he does not remember as to how many places accused signed the disclosure statement. According St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 65 of 128 to the witness, he himself, the Investigating Officer and the accused signed the disclosure statement and at that time they only two police officials were present with the accused. He has also deposed that accused Vijay Gahlot did not try to run away after seeing them and accused pointed out the drain at about 10 PM and thereafter, he pointed out the place of occurrence and thereafter they went to the police station after 11 PM. He has testified that thereafter the accused was medically examined and they went to the place of arrest, place of occurrence, place of drain and hospital by the private vehicle i.e. car which was driven by the Investigating Officer but he does not remember the make of that car and states that it was of white color. According to him, the information regarding arrest of the accused was given to one Rajbir relative of the accused. He does not remember if the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan of the drain. He has deposed that the the pointing out memo of the drain was signed by the accused once only whereas he signed twice on the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence.
(62) PW28 HC Om Prakash is the MHC(M) of Police Station Lajpat Nagar who has brought the Register no.19 according to which on 12.08.2007 SI S. S. Bisht had deposited in the malkhana one pistol and live cartridge both in sealed condition, form FSL and seal of SSB vide entry no. 2146, which is Ex.PW28/A. Witness has further deposed that on 29.10.2007 the pistol and the live cartridge were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Trilok Chand vide RC No. 78/21/07 along with the FSL St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 66 of 128 Form, copy of which RC is Ex.PW28/B and the receipt of the FSL was received on the same day which he pasted in register no.21, which is Ex.PW28/C. (63) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness has admitted that the entries in register no.19 and 21 are not in his handwriting and the said entries were made by his predecessor. (64) PW29 SI (Retd) Randhir Singh has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Uttam Nagar and on that day he was telephonically informed about the DD No. 20A which is Ex.PW4/A by the Duty Officer and was told that there was a firing incident in Rama Park at Metro Pillar No.764 Main Najafgarh Road, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar on which he along with Ct. Randhir Singh reached the spot on his private motorcycle. According to him there they did not find any injured but were informed by the public person that the person who was shot was taken to DDU Hospital by the PCR Van. Witness has further informed that he saw that there was blood lying on the road and also found an empty used cartridge and a motorcycle Hero Honda, CBZ bearing no. DL9SM2926. According to him the SHO also reached the spot during this period and he thereafter received information from the Duty Officer by DD No.22A Ex.PW4/D that the injured Jitender S/o Raj Pal R/o Village Kakrola had been admitted in the DDU Hospital. He has testified that on receipt of this information he along with Ct. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 67 of 128 Randhir Singh went to DDU Hospital where he collected the MLC Ex.PW3/A of injured Jitender in which the doctor had declared him brought dead with the history of gun shot, while he was still in the hospital, the father of deceased Jitender namely Rajpal also came to the hospital. Witness has deposed that he interrogated him (Rajpal) and recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A on which he made his endorsement which is Ex.PW29/A and handed over the same to Ct. Randhir who took the same to Police Station Uttam Nagar and hand over the same to Duty Officer for registration of the case while he himself remained in the hospital where he was handed over some articles by the doctor which were found on the body of the deceased. According to him, the said articles were Rs.410/ cash, one wrist watch, one chain, two bus passes of DTC, one NOKIA mobile phone, one SIM card, one more mobile whose make he does not recollect, some loose papers, one driving license, one empty envelop. The witness has deposed that all these articles were released to the father of deceased on the direction of the Court. He has further testified that he along with Raj Pal went back to the spot of incident where he met SHO Inspector PC Maan, Addl. SHO Rakesh Kumar Tyagi and the other police staff including the Crime Team and the photographer. Witness has further deposed that he handed over the said articles to the Addl. SHO Inspector Rakesh Kumar to whom further investigations were handed over as per the direction of the SHO. According to the witness, on the pointing out of Raj Pal, Inspector Tyagi St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 68 of 128 prepared the site plan and also lifted the blood stained earth and earth control. He has testified that a bag having blood stains and a hole indicating bullet entry, was also lying near the motorcycle which was taken into possession by Inspector Rakesh Tyagi. Witness has proved that the motorcycle was seized and the blood and earth control were kept in separate bottle and converted into pullandas and sealed with the seal of RK and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B. According to him, the rexene bag was also converted into a pullanda by putting the same in a bag and sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C. Witness has further informed that the clothes of Raj Pal which he was wearing at that time i.e. shirt and pants whose color he does not recollect, were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and converted into a pullanda and thereafter sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/E. According to him the seal after use was handed over to him and thereafter they returned to the police station where his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. (65) He has testified that on 30.08.2007 he had joined the investigations in the present case and was present with the Investigating Officer on which day the postmortem of the deceased was got conducted in the Hospital. According to him, the doctor had handed over to the investigating officer one led removed from the body of deceased, clothes of deceased which he was wearing at that time all in a sealed condition alongwith two sample seals which the investigating officer seized the St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 69 of 128 same vide memo Ex.PW29/B after that his statement was recorded in the hospital itself.
(66) With the permission of the Court leading questions were put by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein the witness has admitted that Duty Constable Dinesh had handed over to him the articles of deceased with regard to which he prepared memo Ex.PW6/A. (67) The witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. rexene bag of brown colour as the same which was lying along with the motorcycle and had been seized by the Investigating Officer which is Ex.P1; shirt which is Ex.P2; pant which is Ex.P3; handkerchief which is Ex.P4 and an empty cartridge which was collected from the spot which is Ex.P5.
(68) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel witness has deposed that the contents of DD No.20A were that "main Najafgarh Road Uttam Nagar par, Pole no. 764 ke paas goli mari hai" which information was received by him at 9.30AM and he reached at the spot after twenty minutes. According to him, there were many public persons present there and the road traffic was stopped in order to preserve the evidence. He has testified that the SHO and other officials reached at the spot within twothree minutes after he reached the spot. He does not remember at what time he reached the hospital and states that he left the spot immediately after reaching of the SHO and other police official at the St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 70 of 128 spot. According to the witness, he went to the hospital on his motorcycle along with Ct. Randhir and the distance between the place of incident and the DDU Hospital is about six to seven kilometers. Witness has admitted that there is no red light between metro Pillar no.763 and 764 and that no traffic police official was deputed in order to control or maintain the traffic and the public persons are free to divert their traffic in any side of the road without any restriction and states that he is not aware whether because of this reason the situation of traffic jam arises during the peak hours. The witness has admitted that the place of incident is a thickly populated area where the shops and residential area is situated. He is also not aware whether any Jain Kulche Wala had parked his rehri permanently near the place of the incident and states that he never came to know about any person who made to call on 100 number during his period in which he joined the investigations. He has testified that Raj Pal met him in the hospital after five minutes of his reaching in the hospital and the PCR Van Incharge and Ct. Dinesh met him in the hospital prior to meeting with Raj Pal. According to the witness, he record the statement of Raj Pal after two or two and a half hours after making detailed interrogation from him after reaching the hospital which statement of Raj Pal was recorded in the office of the Duty Constable. According to the witness, he recorded the statement of Raj Pal after talking with the higher officials but no senior police officer came to the hospital. Witness has further informed that the rukka was handed over to Ct. Randhir and sent St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 71 of 128 him to the police station for registration of FIR but he is not aware how Ct. Randhir had gone to police station with rukka but he had not given his motorcycle to him. He has testified that at the time of recording of statement of Raj Pal, some other family members of his family were also present but he did not record their statements. Witness has also deposed that he came to the spot on his motorcycle and Rajpal was his pillion rider and he had not seen any family member of Raj Pal at the place of occurrence. He does not recollect at what time he reached the place of occurrence again. He has stated that the crime team was already present at the spot and photographer was taking photographs. He is unable to tell even approximately the time of any of the proceedings conducted by him in his presence in this case. According to the witness, Rajpal made a call to someone from his mobile to bring his clothes and the blood of deceased was lying at the spot. He has admitted that Raj Pal had not accompanied the PCR to the hospital.
(69) A specific suggestion was put to this witness by the Ld. Defence Counsel that Raj Pal had not accompanied the PCR because he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence, on which the witness replied that he was not aware.
(70) SI Randhir Singh (PW21) has further deposed that the photographs of the motorcycle were not taken by the photographer in his presence and during his interrogation Raj Pal told him that he had gone to his relative's house after putting the dead body of his son in the PCR Van. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 72 of 128 According to him, he had not mentioned the fact that Raj Pal had gone to his relative's place, in the statement of Raj Pal. He has denied the suggestion that no statement of Raj Pal was recorded in the hospital or that no rukka was handed over to Ct. Randhir. Witness has further stated that he does not recollect the mobile number of Raj Pal. He has denied the suggestion that the FIR was recorded in the Police Station in the evening hours and shown as antetimed or that the clothes which were lying at house were called to the spot and the blood which was lying on the spot was put upon those clothes in order to create the false evidence of presence of Rajpal at the spot.
(71) PW30 ASI Harpal Singh has deposed that on 14.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Head Constable and on that day he along with Insp. Rakesh Tyagi Investigating Officer of the case reached at Rohini Courts in Court No. 107 where accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu was produced who was arrested by Insp. Rakesh Tyagi with the permission of the court after his interrogations. According to the witness, the accused Sanjeev was arrested vide memo Ex.PW30/A and the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.PW26/A. He has testified that his five days Police Custody Remand was granted and on the same day Investigating Officer conducted the raid at the different places to arrest the other accused persons but they could not be arrested. The witness has also deposed that on 15.09.2007 he again joined in the investigations with the Investigating Officer Insp. Rakesh Tyagi and Ct. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 73 of 128 Rajan when accused Sanjeev Gahlot was taken out from the lock up and again interrogated by the Investigating Officer after which the accused Sanjeev Gahlot pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW30/B. According to him, at the instance of accused Sanjeev Gahlot they reached at Gali No.17, House No.D138, Dashrathpuri and at his instance one motorcycle make Pulsor bearing No. DL4SAJ2697 from the house of his maternal uncle was recovered which motorcycle was seized by the Investigating Officer vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/C which motorcycle was sent to police station through Ct. Rajan. The witness has further deposed that on 17.09.2007 he joined the investigations with investigating officer Insp. Rakesh Tyagi and Ct. Rajan when the Investigating Officer again interrogated accused Sanjeev Gahlot and his disclosure statement was again recorded by Insp. Rakesh Tyagi which is Ex.PW30/D wherein the accused disclosed that the weapon of offence i.e. a country made pistol (katta) and his mobile phone had been thrown by him in the Najafgarh drain. Witness has testified that thereafter accused Sanjeev Gahlot pointed out the place of Najafgarh drain where he had thrown the above said articles vide pointing out memo which is Ex.PW30/E. According to him, they searched the articles in the nala/ drain but nothing could be recovered from there and the investigating officer recorded their statements. He has also deposed that on 25.09.2007 he again joined the investigations with Investigating Officer Insp. Rakesh Tyagi and Ct. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 74 of 128 Rajan and reached Court No. 107, Rohini Courts where two accused Rajesh @ Raju and Sunny surrendered. According to him, Investigating Officer interrogated them with the permission of the Court and thereafter arrested them. He has proved the arrest memo of the accused Rajesh @ Raju which is Ex.PW30/F; his personal search memo which is Ex.PW30/G; arrest memo of accused Sunny which is Ex.PW30/H and his personal search memo which is Ex.PW30/J. The witness has also deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement of Rajesh @ Raju vide Ex.PW30/K and the disclosure statement of accused Sunny which is Ex.PW30/L after which four to five days Police Custody Remand of both the accused was granted by the Court. According to ASI Harpal during the Police Custody remand both accused pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo which is Ex.PW30/M. He has testified that tried to locate the accused Vijay @ Kalu and a raid was conducted but he could not be arrested after which they returned back to the police station and Investigating officer recorded their statements.
(72) The witness has further proved that on 28.09.2007 he again joined the investigations of the present case with Investigating Officer Inps. Rakesh Tyagi and Ct. Rajan when both accused were taken out from the lock up and interrogated both the accused persons when they disclosed that the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol (katta) was with Vijay St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 75 of 128 @ Kalu on which disclosure statement of accused Rajesh was recorded by the investigating officer in this regard which is Ex.PW30/N and the disclosure statement of accused Sunny is Ex.PW30/O. He has also deposed that raid was conducted for arrest of accused Vijay @ Kalu but he could not be arrested.
(73) The witness has correctly identified the accused Sanjeev, Rajesh @ Raju and Sunny in the Court and has also identified the motorcycle bearing No. DL4SAJ2697 which is Ex.P7. (74) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Sanjeev dated 14.09.2007 is in his handwriting and has voluntarily added that it was recorded on the dictation of the Investigating Officer. According to him, the said disclosure statement was recorded in the court premises which disclosure statement was shown to the Court by the investigating officer. He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was recorded in the court or that the said disclosure statement was already written in the police station and they simply obtain the signatures of accused Sanjeev on it in order to get his police remand. The witness has also deposed that the accused put his signatures as Sanjeev Sonu and that at the time of pointing out he along with the Investigating Officer, Ct. Rajan and the accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu had gone together in a private car belonging to the Investigating Officer but he does not remember its make. He has denied the suggestion that the pointing out St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 76 of 128 memo was prepared in the Police Station and they had never visited to the place of occurrence with investigating officer or that accused Sanjeev Gahlot did not led them to the place of occurrence. According to the witness, as per the disclosure of the accused which he had made to the Investigating Officer there were two weapons i.e. one which was a katta used in the present incident which he had thrown in the drain and second pistol which he had used in the present incident which he had already got recovered at Lajpat Nagar. Witness has denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Gahlot has nothing disclosed that he had thrown the katta and the mobile in the drain, nor pointed out the drain, nor led them to the drain. According to him they had gone to the drain in the noon hours and returned back to the police station in the evening hours. He has testified that on 15.09.2007 they went to the house of maternal uncle of accused at Dashrathpuri in order to recover the motorcycle where investigating officer made request to the near by residents to become the witness of the proceedings but none agreed and did not disclose their names and addresses. However, the Investigating officer did not serve any notice to them for their refusal in his presence. The witness has further deposed that the motorcycle was parked inside the house and maternal aunt of accused Sanjeev Gahlot was present there but they did not obtain her signatures on the seizure memo. He has also deposed that they reached at Dashrathpuri in the private vehicle arranged by the Investigating Officer and Ct. Rajan drove the motorcycle to the police station but he does not St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 77 of 128 remember whether the seizure memo of the key of the motorcycle was prepared or not. He has further deposed that the distance between police station and house of maternal uncle of Sanjeev is about four to five Kms. He has denied the suggestion that this motorcycle did not belongs to Sanjeev Gahlot or his maternal uncle and was already parked in their police station or that the above said motorcycle was found in an abandon condition which was falsely planted on the accused Sanjeev Gahlot. Witness has deposed that he is not aware about the ownership of this motorcycle. He has denied the suggestion that all the disclosure statements were recorded at their own and the Investigating Officer had obtained the signatures of the accused persons on blank papers. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the formalities were conducted in the police station or that he and Ct. Rajan had signed the papers prepared by the investigating officer in a casual manner at the instance of the investigating officer without participating in the investigations. (75) PW31 Insp. Rakesh Kumar Tyagi is the Investigating Officer of the present case who has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Additional SHO and on that day after receiving the information about a firing from the SHO and Duty Officer, he went to the spot i.e. Metro Pillar No.764, Uttam Nagar, Najafgarh Road where he found blood and motorcycle was lying at the spot and came to know that the injured was taken to the hospital and SI Randhir was already conducting the proceedings. Witness has further St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 78 of 128 deposed that in the meanwhile Ct. Randhir reached the spot and handed over the copy of FIR of this case and original rukka to him for further investigations. According to him, Crime Team officers already reached there and Crime Team Photographer took the photographs of the scene of crime and Crime Team Incharge gave crime team report to him. He has further deposed that he lifted blood from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of RK; he also lifted blood earth control concrete from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of RK; he lifted earth control from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of RK and also lifted one empty cartridge of 9 mm from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of RK. He has proved having seized the said articles vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B and also seized the motorcycle found at the spot which is Ex.PW1/D. According to the witness, one rexene bag having one hole was also found at the spot which was also taken into possession by him and the books and documents contained in the bag were kept in a cloth pullanda by him and sealed with the seal of RK and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/C. He has also deposed that Raj Pal complainant met him at the spot who produced one pant and one shirt having blood stains which were converted in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of RK and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW1/E. According to the witness, he prepared the site plan at the instance of Raj Pal which is St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 79 of 128 Ex.PW1/F and recorded the statements of witnesses. He has testified that he went to DDU hospital and found that the dead body of Jitender Kumar had been sent to mortuary after which he returned back to the police station and deposited all the seized articles in the malkhana. The witness has further deposed that on the next day on 30.08.2007 he went to DDU hospital along with SI Randhir and other staff and filled the inquest form which is Ex.PW31/A and prepared the brief facts which is Ex.PW31/B. According to the witness, he recorded the statement of Raj Pal and Sukh Lal which are Ex.PW/1/G and Ex.PW2/A about the identification of the dead body. He has proved having made a request for the postmortem which is Ex.PW31/C handed over the dead body after postmortem to the relatives of Jitender Kumar vide Ex.PW1/H. According to the witness, after postmortem doctor handed over one polythene containing the clothes of the deceased and one small bottle containing the metal piece (bullet) and one envelope containing the blood gauze of the deceased in sealed condition with the seal of hospital along with two sample seals to him after which he seized the said articles vide memo Ex.PW29/B and returned back to the police station where he deposited these articles in the malkhana. He has also proved having collected the postmortem report from DDU hospital. The witness has testified that on 12.09.2007 he received an information from the police station Lajpat Nagar about the arrest of accused Sanjeev Gahlot who was wanted in their case and on St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 80 of 128 13.09.2007 he moved an application for production of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot before the concerned Court. He has deposed that on 14.09.2007 he along with HC Harpal and one more Constable reached Rohini Courts in Court No.107 where accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu was produced and was arrested by him after taken permission from the Court. According to him, after interrogating the accused, he (accused) was arrested vide memo Ex.PW30/A and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW26/A after which five days Police Custody remand was granted by the Court. The witness has also deposed that on the same day he conducted the raid at different places to arrest the other accused persons but they could not be arrested.
(76) The Investigating Officer has further deposed that on 15.09.2007 he again interrogated accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the presence of HC Harpal and Ct. Rajan and after the accused was taken out from the lock up, he has pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW30/B, after which at the instance of accused Sanjeev Gahlot they reached Gali No.17, House No. D138, Dashrathpuri where at the instance of the accused one motorcycle make Pulsor bearing No. DL4SAJ2697 was recovered from the house of his maternal uncle which motorcycle was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/C and was sent to police station through Ct. Rajan. Witness has further deposed that on 17.09.2007 he again interrogated accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the presence of HC Harpal and Ct. Rajan after which his disclosure statement was St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 81 of 128 again recorded which is Ex.PW30/D wherein the accused disclosed that the weapon of offence i.e. a country made pistol (katta) and his mobile phone had been thrown by him in the Najafgarh drain. According to the witness, thereafter accused Sanjeev Gahlot pointed out the place of the Najafgarh drain where he had thrown the above said articles vide pointing out memo Ex.PW30/E and they searched the articles in the nala/ drain but nothing could be recovered from there and he recorded the statements of witnesses.
(77) The witness has testified that on 25.09.2007 he again reached Court No.107, Rohini Courts along with HC Harpal and Ct. Rajan since two accused Rajesh @ Raju and Sunny had surrendered before the court. According to the witness, he interrogated them with the permission of the Court and arrested the accused Rajesh @ Raju vide memo Ex.PW30/F; his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW30/G and also arrested the accused Sunny vide arrest memo Ex.PW30/H and his personal search was also taken vide Ex.PW30/J. He has further deposed that he recorded disclosure statements of Rajesh @ Raju which is Ex.PW30/K and accused Sunny which is Ex.PW30/L. The witness has further deposed that four days Police Custody remand was granted in respect of both the accused persons during which both the accused pointed out the place of incident vide pointing out memo which is Ex.PW30/M after which they returned back to the police station and he St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 82 of 128 recorded the statements of witnesses. According to Inspector Rakesh Tyagi on 28.09.2007 he again interrogated the accused persons Rajesh and Sunny in the presence of HC Harpal and Ct. Rajan when they disclosed that the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol (katta) was with Vijay @ Kalu on which disclosure statement of accused Rajesh was recorded by him in this respect which is Ex.PW30/N and also recorded the disclosure statement of accused Sunny which is Ex.PW30/O. He has also deposed that raid was conducted for arrest of accused Vijay @ Kalu but he could not be arrested. He has proved having recorded the statements of witnesses and thereafter all the accused persons were sent to judicial custody.
(78) The witness has further deposed that on 04.10.2007 he along with his staff including Ct. Rajender reached at Kakrola Village when at the instance of secret informer one person namely Vijay @ Kalu was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW27/B and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW27/C and after interrogation he recorded his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW27/A. He has also deposed that the accused Vijay was kept in muffled case. According to the witness, accused Vijay pointed out the place of incident vide Ex.PW27/D and recorded the statements of witnesses. He has further deposed that the accused Vijay also pointed out the Najafgarh drain where the weapon of offence has been thrown along with mobile on which he prepared the St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 83 of 128 pointing out memo vide memo Ex.PW27/E. The witness has testified that on the next day he was produced before the Court and moved an application for his Test Identification Parade proceedings on 05.10.2007. He has also deposed that the accused were put in a muffled face when they were produced on 05.10.2007 for Test Identification Parade proceedings but the accused refused to take part in the proceedings and he recorded the statements of witnesses. He has proved that during his investigations the exhibits of this case were sent to FSL and scaled site plan was got prepared from the Draftsman. According to him, he collected the documents of case FIR No.880/07 of Police Station Lajpat Nagar and took into possession the motorcycle No.DL4SBB0169 with key and helmet and deposited the same in their malkhana. According to the witness, during his investigations he collected photographs and recorded the statements of witnesses. He has proved that after completion of investigations he submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons.
(79) With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein witness has deposed that the does not recollect how many site plans he had prepared. He has admitted that he had prepared a site plan on 15.09.2007 with regard to the premises No. D138, Dashrathpuri colony from where the motorcycle was got recovered by accused Sanjeev Gahlot which site plan is Ex.PW31/D. Witness has further admitted that on 17.09.2007 he prepared the site plan St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 84 of 128 of the place Najafgarh drain at the instance of accused Sanjeev where he had thrown the country made pistol (katta) and mobile phone which site plan is Ex.PW31/E. He has also admitted that on 29.08.2007 Raj Pal handed over one shirt, one pant with one handkerchief blood stained of light blue color to him which were sealed by him in a cloth pullanda with a seal of RK and thereafter seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. Witness has further deposed that on 31.10.2007 Ct. Rajan on his instructions had taken the nine sealed pullandas and four sample seals to the FSL Rohini and deposited the same there for purposes of examination and after his return from FSL Rohini he recorded his statement.
(80) He has correctly identified accused Vijay, Sanjeev, Rajesh @ Raju and Sunny in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one bag which is Ex.P1; one shirt, one pant and one handkerchief which are Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 collectively; one empty cartridge case which is Ex.P5; one motorcycle bearing No. DL9SM2926 which is Ex.P6; motorcycle bearing No. DL4SAJ2697 which is Ex.P7.
(81) In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsels, the witness has deposed that he reached the spot at about 10:30 AM approximately where he met the SHO with his staff. Witness has further deposed that the contents of the call which was given to him were "motorcycle par ladke goli chala kar bhag gaye". He has admitted that in St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 85 of 128 the call the number of the motorcycle was not mentioned and it was reported that "do ladke motorcycle number na malom goli mar kar bhag gaye hai". Witness has deposed that he had collected the PCR form and he is aware of its contents. According to him, the Crime Team remained at the spot for about 1½ to 2 hours in his presence. He has admitted that the Crime Team left the spot at about 12 noon and has deposed that by that time the Crime Team gave the report before leaving, he had also received the copy of the FIR after its registration. He has admitted that he had read the FIR and also came to know who was the complainant. Witness has denied the suggestion that on his directions the rojnamcha was stopped and he had obtained the specific number of the FIR without formally getting the same registered and therefore he is not aware who was the complainant. He has also denied the suggestion that by the time the Crime Team could not decide as to who would become the complainant in the FIR because there was no eye witness. Witness has further deposed that he had specifically mentioned the spot where the eye witness was standing and witnessing the incident in the site plan Ex.PW1/F however, when confronted with Ex.PW1/F the said fact was not mentioned and has voluntarily explained that the eye witness was standing along with the deceased and therefore there was no point in separately showing the said spot because the spot where the deceased had been shot has been specifically shown. He has admitted that the place where the bike was found lying is on the left side of the road. According St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 86 of 128 to him, the bike had fallen down on its left side. The witness has also admitted that there are a large number of shops and also temporary structures where thelas of kulcha bhathura etc. were present. Witness has admitted that in between pillar No.763 and 764 there are no traffic lights and has voluntarily added that there is a cut on the central verge. He has admitted that the cut on the central verge is frequently used by the residents of the area to go one side to the other. According to him, the statement of Ct. Randhir and SI Randhir were recorded at 22:30 PM on 29.08.2007 and thereafter he left the spot for the hospital. Witness has further deposed that he does not recollect the date but states that he had recorded the statement of Gagan about 1520 days later when Gagan had told him that he was the eye witness and had seen the incident while he was passing through the road. Witness has denied the suggestion that Gagan had told him that one boy was going on the motorcycle whereas two boys had come on another motorcycle wearing helmets and had run away after firing shots at him. According to the witness the seal after use was given to SI Randhir which fact he has not mentioned in any of the seizure memos and has voluntarily added that he must have mentioned it in the Jiminies/case diaries. He has testified that the fact regarding the accused Vijay being kept in muffled face on 04.10.2007 finds a mention in the DD entries of the arrest. He has admitted that the same is not a part of the judicial record. He has also deposed that two weapons were used in the present incident, one is desi katta and the second is pistol. According St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 87 of 128 to him, Raj Pal did not tell him if two weapons were used in the offence. Witness has denied the suggestion that Raj Pal is a planted witness only to work out the present case. He has deposed that he had used his private vehicle Estelo and official TATA 407 at the time of the arrest of Sanjeev Gahlot and for taking him to various places. He has further deposed that at the time of other investigations official gypsy was also used and when they had gone to the house of Abhimanyu they had gone on a private vehicle but he is unable to tell its details and has voluntarily added that it was perhaps belonging to other staff. The witness has also deposed that he did not seize the key of the motorcycle recovered from the house of Abhimanyu because the key was not recovered.
(82) The Investigating Officer has also deposed that he had made inquiries from Raj Pal, the father of the deceased as to where he had gone after the incident when his son was lying injured on the road, on which Raj Pal told him that he had got scared and gone away from the spot of the incident. According to the witness, Raj Pal met him at the spot first time between 1 and 2 PM and remained with him for about three to four hours thereafter. Witness has further deposed that Raj Pal complainant was accompanied by SI Randhir when he met him and remained with him and no other public person was accompanied Raj Pal. According to the witness the wife of Abhimanyu met them at the time of recovery of motorcycle Ex.P7. He has testified that he had not asked any public persons or neighbours to join the investigations at the time of recovery of St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 88 of 128 motorcycle and the signatures of the wife of Abhimanu were not taken on record. He has denied the suggestion that no motorcycle was recovered from the house of Abhimanu or that the said motorcycle was already in the custody of police station Uttam Nagar as it was found in an abandoned condition. Witness has further denied the suggestion that this vehicle was deliberately planted upon the accused Sanjeev Gahlot and falsely shown as the vehicle which was used in the offence. He is not aware if the motorcycle Ex.P7 was in working condition or not and states that the key of the motorcycle was not found. The witness has further deposed that some of the disclosure statements and other papers are in his handwriting and some are in the handwriting of HC Harpal on his dictation and except the disclosure statements which were recorded at the time of arrest in the Court were recorded in the court whereas the other disclosure statements were recorded in the police station. According to him, the document Ex.PW27/C bear his signatures. He has denied the suggestion that the FIR is an antitimed and it was recorded at about 5 PM on 29.08.2007. He has also denied the suggestion that he had been won over by the complainant Raj Pal and hence he had decided to kill Sanjeev Gahlot by way of fake encounter in place of his arrest due to which reason accused Sanjeev Gahlot had surrendered in police station Lajpat Nagar. Witness has further denied the suggestion that an altercation had taken place between SHO Lajpat Nagar and himself and because of the reason since he had asked him not to show the arrest of accused and handed over St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 89 of 128 accused Sanjeev Gahlot to him, thereafter the matter was patch up between them on the pretext that SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar would plant a pistol upon Sanjeev Gahlot which was provided by him. He has also denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the case in a fair manner or that the clothes of Raj Pal were deliberately planted in this case in order to connect the fact with the case that he had witnessed the incident or that the blood was later on poured upon the clothes of Raj Pal and thereafter it was sealed.
(83) He has testified that during the investigations of this case Raj Pal remained in touch with him thoroughly and kept on asking the progress of the investigations on phone or even personally coming to the police station and has voluntarily explained that Raj Pal also remained in constant touch with the SHO during the investigations of this case to know about the progress of this case but they did not let him know about any of the development of the case during the investigations and after arrest of each accused in this case Raj Pal was duly informed in this regard only on his asking. Witness has further deposed that the secret informer had not disclosed about the name, parentage and address of accused Vijay and simply told them that he could get the wanted person of their case arrested. According to him secret information had been given to him by the informer and he was not aware if even previously this informer had been providing information to the police. He has testified that the secret informer met him at about 3 PM on 04.10.2007 in the St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 90 of 128 police station. The witness has also deposed that the accused Vijay was arrested from the Kakrola Najafgarh Road and they did not ask any public person, passerby or the resident of near by area to join the investigations with regard to the arrest of accused Vijay. He has admitted that prior to the arrest of the accused Vijay he had visited the place of occurrence as well as Najafgarh drain and both the places were in his knowledge. According to the witness, no site plan was prepared at the Najafgarh drain on the pointing out of accused Vijay and he (accused Vijay) was arrested at about 8 PM on 04.10.2007 and was put in lockup on the same day between 910 PM. He has testified that he confirmed that the accused was Vijay because during interrogation he disclosed his own name, his parentage and his address which fact was got confirmed by him from his elder brother at his residence. He has denied the suggestion that no evidence has been collected by him to show that the accused Vijay is the same person who is involved in the killing of the deceased on the day of the incident. Witness has also deposed that he had given the information of Vijay to his family members including his brother and when the family member of the accused Vijay called, after seeing accused Vijay they identified him that he is Vijay Gahlot @ Kallu. Witness has further deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vijay at the spot where he was arrested and it took about one and a half hour to complete all writing work. He has has admitted that Vijay and Raj Pal is of the same village but Raj Pal was residing in the village and also at St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 91 of 128 Janakpuri and has voluntarily added that at the time of incident Raj Pal was residing in the village Kakrola. According to the witness, he had seen the house of accused Vijay in village Kakrola and had also seen the house of Raj Pal situated in the village Kakrola. Witness has further deposed that the distance between the house of Vijay and Raj Pal in the village Kakrola is about one kilometer. He has denied the suggestion that after arrest of accused Vijay Raj Pal was called in the police station or that accused Vijay was shown to Raj Pal. He has also denied the suggestion that accused Vijay was not produced in muffled face before the court on 05.10.2007 or that accused Vijay had not made any disclosure statement or that same has been fabricated. STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
(84) After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them, which they have denied. The accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to him, he was not present at the scene of crime at the time of incident and had himself surrendered in the Police Station Lajpat Nagar in order to save his life because the Investigating Officer wanted to kill him by way of a fake encounter having colluded with Raj Pal, father of the deceased. He has further stated that no weapon was recovered from his possession or at his St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 92 of 128 instance and police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. The accused has also stated that the investigations done by the Investigating Officer are not fair. According to the accused, Raj Pal (PW1) is an interested witness and deposed falsely in order to take revenge of the death of his son. He has stated that the deceased Jitender had committed the murder of his brother and was facing trial which matter was amicably settled between the parties resulting into an acquittal. (85) The accused Sunny has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he was not even present at the scene of crime at the time of incident. According to the accused, he himself surrendered in the court as he came to know that his name has been falsely shown in the FIR. He has alleged that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and had not led the police party to any place of occurrence nor any pointing out memo was prepared at his instance.
According to the accused, the investigation done by the Investigating Officer is not fair and the entire proceedings pertains to investigation was done by the Investigating Officer was to prove the false case against him. (86) The accused Vijay Gehlot @ Kalu has similarly stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case since he was not present at the scene of crime at the time of incident. According to the accused he himself appeared in the police station when he was called as the police was harassing his family on the pretext that he was wanted in this case was thereafter falsely arrested in this case. He has further stated St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 93 of 128 that Rajpal was known to him previously despite which his name was not mentioned in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated at a later stage in order to connect him with the crime as an after thought. He has alleged that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and he had not led the police party to any place of occurrence nor any pointing out memo was prepared at his instance. The accused has further stated that the investigations done by the IO is not fair. According to the accused, he refused the Test Identification Proceedings because the witnesses were known to him previously and since his photographs were taken and was shown to the witnesses in the police station.
(87) The accused Rajesh @ Raju has similarly stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the accused he was not present at the scene of crime at the time of the incident and he himself surrendered in the court as he came to know that his name has been falsely shown in the FIR. He has alleged that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and has stated that he had not led the police party to any place of occurrence nor any pointing out memo was prepared at his instance. The accused has further stated that the investigations done by the IO is not fair and falsely implicated him in the above said case.
(88) However, the accused have preferred not to examine any witness in their defence.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 94 of 128 FINDINGS:
(89) I have heard the arguments advanced before me by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels. I have also gone through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record. First, I propose to deal with all the allegations/ averments made by the various witnesses individually in a tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.
Sr. Name of the Details of deposition
No. witness
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
1. Raj Pal (PW1) He is the father of the deceased Jitender Kumar and is
an alleged eye witness who has deposed as under:
1. That he is residing at village and post office Kakrola along with his family, comprising of two sons namely Jitender Kumar, aged about 22 years (on the date of incident) and Hemender Kumar, aged about 22 years.
2. That his elder son namely Jitender Kumar was student of M.Sc (Criminology) Final Year at LNJP Institute, Rohini, Delhi, and used to leave for his institute at around 9:00 AM on his motorcycle bearing number DL9SM2926.
3. That on 29.08.2007 when his son Jitender was leaving the house at around 9:00 AM to go to his institute in Rohini, he (witness) asked Jitender to drop him at Vikas Puri where he had to go to a doctor.
4. That he sat on the back seat of the motorcycle and they moved from their above house and at around 9:30 AM when they reached near Rama Park, Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, near Metro Pillar No. 764, two motorcycles upon which four persons were riding, overtook them and stopped their St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 95 of 128 motorcycle.
5. That one motorcycle was being driven by Raju S/o Shri Gian Singh and accused Sanjeev @ Sonu was sitting on the back seat of the said motorcycle.
6. That the other motorcycle was being driven by accused Sunny S/o Shri Balwan and on the backseat of this motorcycle one boy was sitting.
7. That at that moment, accused Raju and Sunny told accused Sanjeev to take revenge of the death of Sanjeev's brother, then at that time accused Sanjeev took out a pistol on which he (witness) jumped from the motorcycle and raised an alarm.
8. That in the meanwhile the boy who was sitting behind Sunny, told Sanjeev to kill Jitender and accused Sanjeev @ Sonu fired upon his son Jitender on which his son Jitender fell down bleeding and all the above four accused took Uturn on their motorcycle and ran away towards Kakrola mor / village.
9. That after a little while a PCR Van came there and he lifted the body of his son and put it in PCR van and PCR van took the body of his son Jitender to DDU hospital, after which he informed at his house and followed them to DDU hospital where doctor declared his son Jitender as brought dead.
10. That police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A.
11. That in the year 2005, a quarrel took place between his son Jitender and the accused persons and in that quarrel Anil, brother of Sanjeev (accused herein) had died.
12. That in the said quarrel Anil, Sanjeev, Balwan and Raju participated against his son Jitender and since that day, these persons were having a grudge against his son Jitender.
13. That two months prior to the murder of his son Jitender, the accused persons had gave a threat that they would take the revenge of death by death and due to this grudge they had killed his son Jitender. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 96 of 128
14. That SI Randhir Singh came to the spot where SHO with staff were present, and in his presence the spot was got photographed by the police.
15. That the Investigating Officer lifted blood with the help of cotton, placed it in a plastic dibbi and converted it in a pullanda which were sealed with the seal of RK.
16. That Investigating Officer also lifted the blood stained earth (concrete) and placed it in a plastic dibbi, which was then converted into a pullanda and the seal of RK was affixed on it.
17. That the investigating officer also lifted earth control, placed it in a plastic dibbi and converted it into a pullanda and sealed it with the same seal.
18. That investigating officer also lifted one fired (empty) cartridge case, placed it in a plastic dibbi, converted it in a pullanda and sealed it with the same seal and all the above items were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW1/B.
19. That investigating officer had also seized one bag of his son, from the spot, that there had blood stains and word Diesel was written on that bag.
20. That the bag contained some books and library card etc and a whole of a bullet was also there on that bag.
21. That the investigating officer had placed the said bag in a polythene and then converted it in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RK and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C.
22. That the investigating officer also seized the motorcycle of his son, from the spot, which was stationed on the side of the road and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D.
23. That the investigating officer has taken his blood stained clothes and those clothes had blood stains belonging to his son Jitender.
24. That the investigating officer seized the said clothes consisting of one pant, one shirt and one handkerchief by converting it in a pullanda, which St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 97 of 128 were sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo Ex.PW1/E.
25. That at his instance police prepared site plan of the spot which is Ex.PW1/F.
26. That on 10.10.2007 he was called in Rohini Jail through police station Uttam Nagar to identify the fourth accused, who on the date of incident was sitting on the back seat of a motorcycle driven by accused Sunny, then he went to Rohini jail where a magistrate was available in Rohini Jail.
27. That he was told that the accused for whose TIP he had came, has refused to participate in the TIP.
28. That on 20.11.2007 he was called in police station Uttam Nagar, from there along with SI Mahesh Kumar, came to the spot where on his pointing out SI Mahesh Kumar prepared a rough plan.
29. That on 30.11.2007 he was called by the police to Rohini Court, Room No. 107, Court was of Sh.
Vinod Kumar, MM when he had seen these four accused persons in police custody.
30. That he identified fourth accused namely Vijay Kumar @ Kalu as the person who was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle of accused Sunny on the date of incident.
31. That on the date of incident this Vijay Kumar had uttered a words "Jaldi Kar maar Saale Ko".
2. Sukhlal (PW2) He is the uncle of the deceased who has deposed that on 30.08.2007 he went to DDU hospital where he identified the dead body of his nephew Jitender aged 22 years vide his statement Ex.PW2/A.
3. Sant Ram (PW10) This witness has deposed as under:
1. That he was having a motorcycle on hire purchase basis, it was pulsar of violet color bearing registration No. DL4SA2697.
2. That the motorcycle was sold to him by Abhimanyu @ Mannu and this motorcycle was sold to his known person Ram Pal.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 98 of 128
3. That the accused Sanjeev Gahlot was the mama of Abhimanyu @ Mannu.
Despite the Ld. Addl. PP being permitted to put leading question, the witness has failed to identify accused Sanjeev Gahlot.
4. Gagan Kumar He is an independent witness and has deposed on the (PW14) following aspects:
1. That on 29.08.2007 he was coming from Najafgarh and at about 9:15 or 9:30 AM when he reached near pillar No.764, he heard a noise and immediately saw that one boy was riding motorcycle and two boys were on another motorcycle who (two boys) fired bullets on that single boy on the motorcycle.
2. That he ran away from the spot immediately and after some distance about 500 meter he stopped after which first he drank water and thereafter made a call to police at 100 number from his mobile phone 9910474409.
3. That he did not note down the registration number of their motorcycle nor did he see their faces as their faces were covered with helmets.
5. Naresh Kumar This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW19) 1. That he is a property dealer by profession and is the owner of motorcycle TVS Star No. DL4S BB0169 which motorcycle he had purchased through a Financer.
2. That he used to attend Gold Gym at Mansaram Park, near Uttam Nagar daily at 7:30 AM and somebody had stolen his motorcycle from the Gym on 27/28 in the month of Raksha Bandhan, 2007.
3. That after two days of Raksha Bandhan, he lodged FIR with police station, PP Matiala and after 1520 days, SHO, Uttam Nagar informed him that his motorcycle had been recovered from the possession of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot.
4. That he was not known to accused Sanjeev Gahlot and it was only when he was called at police St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 99 of 128 station, Uttam Nagar that he came to know of accused Sanjeev Gahlot as belonged to his village.
5. That the SHO had also inquired from him if the accused Sanjeev borrowed his motorcycle.
6. That he had informed the police regarding theft of the motorcycle at about 7:00 AM which information was furnished by him at police post Matiala Chowki.
7. That after one and half month his motorcycle was recovered by the police on which he along with his brother Satya Narain went to police station Uttam Nagar and identified his bike before the police.
8. That he prepared an application but he was not confirmed as to whom he had handed over the application.
9. That thereafter he got released his bike from police station Uttam Nagar and also moved an application before the court and got released the motorcycle on Superdari.
The witness has placed on record the RC of the motorcycle (the particulars of the vehicle, ownership and number are not properly visible) which is mark PW19/1 and has also produced photocopy of the complaint dated 29.08.2007 which is mark PW19/2;
pollution certificate and insurance photocopy of which are Ex.PW19/3 and Ex.PW19/4.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
6. Dr. Nishu Dhawan This witness has proved the MLC of Jitender Kumar, (PW3) S/o Rajpal, aged 21 years, male who was brought in the casualty on 23.08.2007 at 10:15 AM by HC Deepak Kumar with alleged history of gun shot which MLC is Ex.PW3/C. According to the said MLC the patient was unconscious, BP unrecordable, having four gun shot wound seen in front of chest and four wound seen over back of the chest and the patient was declared brought dead and referred to Mortuary.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 100 of 128
7. Dr. Komal Singh This witness has proved that on 30.08.2007, he (PW11) conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Jitender Kumar vide postmortem report Ex.PW11/A. This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That the person was wearing full sleeve yellow check shirt, its lower four button were broken and the fourth eye of the button on the shirt was torn.
2. That an oval shape tear was present on the right side of the shirt and shirt was blood stained, there were two big and two small tears were present on the back of the shirt.
3. That white color vest was having two tears in its front, which correspondents to the tear on the shirt and belt was tied around the jeans, one handkerchief was tied loosely around the neck and it was blood stained.
4. That on external examination, the following injuries were found :
a) Gun shot entry wound measuring 1x0.5cm located at right fifth intercoastal space, which was 3.5 cm from the right nipple, it was oval in shape and margins were inverted.
b) 2cm to the lateral to No.1 gun shot entry, there was another entry wound of 1.5x1 cm, it was oval in shape and margins were inverted, there was 2mm thickness abraded collar was encircling the wound.
c) Gun shot entry wound 1.5x1.2 cm, oval in shape having 2mm abraded collar around and it was placed on 15.2cm from the right nipple and 4.5cm below the xiphisternum.
d) Gun shot entry wound 1x1 cm having the inverted margins, 2mm abraded collar, it was placed above 4.5cm and lateral to the left nipple margins.
e) On back, gun shot exit wound placed 15.5cm below the inferior angle of the scapula, it was oval in shape and size was St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 101 of 128 3x1.5cm and margins were averted.
f) Gun shot exit would 1.5x1 cm placed 12cm from the left inferior angle of the scapula, margins were averted.
g) Gun shot entry wound 1x0.9cm and 3cm from No. 6 injury, its margins were inverted.
h) Gun shot exit wound 4x3cm, margins were averted, placed 5.5cm from the No. 7 injury.
i) Gun shot exit would 2.5x2 cm, margins were averted, lying 12.5cm below the left shoulder.
5. That on internal examination, it was found that on the seventh intercoastal space, one metal piece of the bullet was found over the surface of the sternum.
6. That there were bullet entry and exit margins corresponding to the entry and exit wounds.
7. That there were two holes on the anterior surface of the heart, two holes on the posterior surface of the heart, one hole on the lobe of the left lung and one hole on the right side of the liver.
8. That all the body organs were pale, the stomach was empty.
9. That blood in a gauze piece, piece of a bullet, clothes of the deceased were sealed and handed over to the investigating officer.
10. That time since death was approximately 26 hours and the cause of death was due to multiple gun shot injuries to the vital organs of the body and all the injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as together, all the injuries were antemortem and were of same duration.
FORENSIC EVIDENCE
8. Sh. V.R. Anand This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW7) 1. That on 31.10.2007 two sealed parcels were St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 102 of 128 received in the office of FSL of its examination and the seals were intact as per specimen seals and forwarding letter.
2. That on opening of both the parcels, parcel No. 1 was containing one deformed bullet marked as Ex.EB1 and in Parcel No. 2, one 9mm cartridge case marked as Ex.EC1.
3. That he examined both the exhibits and prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW7/A.
4. That the 9 mm cartridge marked Ex.EC1 was a fired empty cartridge and the bullet marked Ex.EB1 corresponds to the bullet of 8mm/.315 cartridge.
5. That the individual characteristics of firing pin marks and breech face marks present on EC1 and on test fired cartridges TC1 to TC3 in case FIR No. 880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar, FSL No. 07/F3971 were compared under comparison microscope and were not found identical, hence EC1 has not been fired through the improvised pistol 9mm marked Ex.F1 in case FIR No. 880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar (FSL No. 07/F3971).
9. Ms. Shashi Bala This witness has proved the biological and serological (PW8) reports of the exhibits which reports are Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW18/B according to which human blood of O Group was found on Ex.8a (shirt of Raj Pal); human blood was found on Ex.1a (banian of the deceased), Ex. 5 (blood stained charcoal pieces) and Ex.8c (handkerchief of Raj Pal) whereas Ex.1b (handkerchief of the deceased), Ex.1c (shirt of the deceased), Ex.1d (jeans pants of the deceased), Ex.1e (underwear of the deceased) and Ex.7 (rexine bag) show inconclusive results.
POLICE/ OFFICIAL WITNESSES (Proving investigations)
10. Ct. Dalbir Singh She is the Duty Officer who has proved that on (PW7) 29.08.2007 a call received at 9:45 AM from SI Randhir, which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 20A, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter at about 1:15 PM, St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 103 of 128 rukka was sent by SI Randhir through Ct. Randhir for registration of the FIR on which she recorded FIR No. 471/07 U/s 302/34 IPC, copy of which is Ex.PW4/B and made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW4/C. She has also deposed that at 10:20 AM, a call was received from DDU hospital on which basis she recorded DD No. 22A copy of which is Ex.PW4/D. She has also proved DD No. 24A and DD No. 25 A which are Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F.
11. Ct. Manoj (PW5) He is a formal witness who has deposed that on 29.08.2007, at about 2:30 PM in the afternoon, he took the special message as special messenger from DO W/ASI Pricilla and delivered the special message to ACP, Tilak Nagar, DCP West, Rajouri Garden, PHQ and area MM, Rohini, Sh. Vinod Yadav in the court, thereafter returned to the police station at 6:20 PM.
12. Ct. Dinesh (PW6) He is also a formal witness who has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted as duty constable at DDU hospital and on that day at about 1010:15 AM PCR Van P61, brought one injured namely Jitender Kumar who was declared dead by the doctors and it was then that he informed to the Police Station Uttam Nagar. Witness has further proved that the personal search of the dead body was handed over to SI Randhir, who came later on and same was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A.
13. Ct. Trilok Chand He is a formal witness who has proved that on (PW9) 29.10.2007 while posted at police station Lajpat Nagar he collected sealed parcels of case FIR No. 880/07 U/s 25 Arms Act from the MHC(M) vide RC No.78/21 and deposed the case to FSL Rohini, Delhi.
14. HC Deepk Kumar He is the PCR official who has deposed that on (PW12) 29.08.2007 he was posted on PCR van P61 from 8AM to 8PM and on that day at about 9:30 AM he received a call that the motorcycle riders fired on a person near Metro Pillar No. 764 of Mohan Garden and thereafter ran away. According to him, on this information, he St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 104 of 128 along with staff reached at the spot and found many persons were gathered there and one person namely Rajpal also met them there, he told that the injured is his son namely Jitender Kumar who was bleeding there. Witness has further deposed that thereafter they removed him to DDU hospital where doctor declared brought dead about the injured and his formal search was conducted in front of the doctor and entry in this regard was made in the MLC, which entries in the MLC are at point X to X. He has proved that a separate seizure memo in respect of the belongings of the deceased was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW6/A and the personal search of the deceased from Point 1 to 10 as detained in the MLC are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.12/10.
15. Ct. Rakesh Kumar He is the photographer on the Mobile Crime Team who (PW13) has proved that on 29.08.2007 he along with SI Anil Kumar and other staff members of Mobile Crime Team visited the scene of crime i.e. pillar No. 764, main Najafgarh road, Uttam Nagar and inspected the scene of crime. He has proved having taken ten photographs of the scene of crime at the instance of the investigating officer and after developing the photographs the same were handed over to the Investigating Officer which photographs are Ex.PW13/A1 to Ex.PW13/A10 and negatives are Ex.PW13/N1 to Ex.PW13/N10.
16. HC Randhir Singh This witness had gone to the spot along with SI Randhir (PW15) Singh on 29.08.2007. He has deposed on the following aspects:
1. That at about 9:30 AM SI Randhir Singh received information about DD No. 28A, after which he along with SI Randhir Singh reached the metro pillar No.764, Main Najafgarh Road, Near Rama Park, Uttam Nagar where they found that blood was lying on the road and the motorcycle number DL9SM 2926 make Hero Honda CBZ of black color was lying there.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 105 of 128
2. That he came to know that the injured was already removed by the PCR to DDU hospital and at the same time SHO along with the staff reached at the spot.
3. That he along with SI Randhir Singh reached DDU hospital where Investigating Officer collected the MLC of injured Jitender wherein which doctor declared him brought dead.
4. That father of the deceased namely Rajpal met them there whose statement was recorded by Investigating Officer.
5. That the Investigating Officer collected the personal search of the deceased from the Duty Constable after which Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the FIR on which he went to the police station.
6. That after getting registered the case he reached the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Insp. Rakesh Kumar Tyagi.
17. SI Gulshan Gupta This witness has deposed as under:
(PW16) 1. That on 12.09.2007, he was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, investigations of case FIR No.880/07 under Section 25 Arms Act was marked to him after which he reached at the spot.
2. That he arrested the accused Sanjeev Gahlot (correctly identified by the witness) and SI Shiv Raj handed over sealed parcel containing the weapon i.e. pistol and three live cartridge along with seizure memo FSL Form etc.
3. That accused made his disclosure statement about the crime of this case and further disclosed that the pistol belong to his brother Anil Gahlot which weapon recovered from his possession was used in the commission of crime in the present.
4. That he recorded statement of accused who was sent to judicial custody, photocopy of which St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 106 of 128 disclosure statement is Ex.PW16/A.
5. That the weapon of offence was deposited with MHC(M) police station Lajpat Nagar and subsequently sealed parcel of the weapon was sent to FSL through Ct. Trilok.
18. ASI Bal Kishan He is the Duty Officer at police station Uttam Nagar (PW17) who has proved having recorded the FIR No. 274/05, U/s 308/34 IPC photocopy of which is Ex.PW17/A wherein there were allegations against accused Balwant, Raju, Sonu and Lalu. The witness has also proved the FIR No. 275/05, photocopy of which FIR is Ex.PW17/B wherein there are allegations against accused Askash, Lal and Monu.
19. SI Shivraj Bisth This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW18) 1. That on 12.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he along with HC Sunil Gaur and Ct. Bir Singh were on patrolling duty.
2. That at about 7:45 AM when they were present at Tpoint of Lala Lajpat Rai Road and Firoz Gandhi Marg near ICICI Bank, they saw one boy coming on a motorcycle from Defence Colony flyover.
3. That on seeing them, the said boy immediately turned his motorcycle and on suspicion, they chased him and apprehended.
4. That when he inquired from the said boy about the reason of turning the motorcycle immediately on seeing them, he could not reply satisfactory and his formal search was conducted during one pistol with magazine was recovered from the right dub of his pant.
5. That he asked four public persons to join the investigations but they refused and went away on the one pretext or the other.
6. That he made inquiries from the accused during which he disclosed his name as Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu (whom the witness has correctly identified in the Court).
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 107 of 128
7. That he sent Ct. Bir Singh for arranging the Investigating Officer Kit for further investigation on which Ct. Bir Singh brought the same.
8. That the pistol was unloaded and it found to contain three live cartridges in the magazine after which he prepared the sketch of the pistol and cartridges copy of which is Ex.PW18/A.
9. That the pistol was engraved the words "for army use only and made in USA" after which he prepared cloth parcel of the pistol and cartridges and sealed with the seal of SSB and also filled up form FSL at the spot and affixed the seal on it which seal after use was handed over to HC Sunil Gaur.
10. That the weapon was taken into possession vide preparing the seizure memo which is Ex.PW18/B and the motorcycle bearing No. DL4SBB0169 along with helmet and key of the motorcycle were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/C.
11. That he prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct.
Bir Singh for getting registered the case and he (Ct. Bir) returned back with SI Gulshan on which he handed over all the memos and sealed parcels and case property and custody of the accused to SI Gulshan.
12. That SI Gulshan prepared site plan of the spot at his instance and further investigations was conducted by him.
13. That the cartridges were of 9 mm and were engraving the words KF04, 9mm.
14. According to him, SI Gulshan recorded his statement and on 6.10.2007 Investigating Officer of this case also recorded his statement.
20. HC Jeet Singh This witness was posted at police Station Lajpat Nagar (PW20) as Duty Officer on 12.09.2007 and has proved recorded FIR No. 880/07 U/s 25 Arms Act photocopy of which is Ex.PW20/A. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 108 of 128
21. HC Sunil Gaur This witness has corroborated the testimony of SI (PW21) Shivraj Bhist (PW18) in toto and has proved the sketch of pistol and three live cartridges which is Ex.PW18/A; seizure of the weapon and cartridge vide Ex.PW18/B; seizure memo of the motorcycle vide Ex.PW18/C and disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW16/A.
22. HC Bir Singh This witness has corroborated the testimonies of SI (PW22) Shivraj Bhist (PW18) and HC Sunil Gaur (PW22) in toto and has proved the sketch of pistol and three live cartridges which is Ex.PW18/A; seizure of the weapon and cartridge vide Ex.PW18/B; seizure memo of the motorcycle vide Ex.PW18/C and disclosure statement of the accused which is Ex.PW16/A.
23. HC Anil Kumar He is the MHCM who has proved the various entries (PW23) which are Ex.PW23/A to Ex.PW23/H.
24. SI Mahesh Kumar He is a formal witness being the Draftsman in Crime (PW24) Branch who has proved having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW24/A.
25. SI Anil Kumar He is the Crime Team Incharge who has proved having (PW25) visited the spot of incident on 29.08.2007 at about 10:25 AM and inspected the scene of crime after which he prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW25/A.
26. HC Parveen Kumar This witness has deposed on the following aspects:
(PW26) 1. That on 14.09.2007 he was posted in IIIrd Bn.
DAP, Vikaspuri and his duty was in Lock Up Rohini Courts for producing the accused persons before the court.
2. That on that day he produced accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu in the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar Yadav, MM Court No. 107.
3. That Addl. SHO Insp. Rakesh Tyagi obtained the permission from the Court for interrogation of the accused and thereafter he interrogated the accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the room of the Ahlmad.
4. That accused Sanjeev Gahlot made his disclosure statement to him wherein the accused disclosed that St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 109 of 128 he could get arrested his associates and could also recover the motorcycle, which disclosure statement is Ex.PW26/A.
27. HC Rajender Singh This witness has proved having joined the investigations (PW27) with Inspector Rakesh Tyagi 04.10.2007 and has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW27/A disclosure statement of the accused
Vijay @ Kallu
Ex.PW27/B Arrest memo of accused Vijay @ Kallu
Ex.PW27/C Personal search memo of accused
Vijay @ Kallu
Ex.PW27/D Pointing out memo of the place of
incident
Ex.PW27/E Pointing out memo of the nala/ drain
28. HC Om Prakash He is the MHC(M) of Police Station Lajpat Nagar and
(PW28) had proved the entry no. 2146, which is Ex.PW28/A;
Copy of RC No. 78/21/07 which is Ex.PW28/B and the
receipt of the FSL, which is Ex.PW28/C.
29. SI Randir Singh He is the initial Investigating Officer who had reached
(PW29) the spot. Apart from the documents proved by other
witnesses, he has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW29/A Rukka
Ex.PW29/B Seizure memo of the pullandas handed
over by the doctor
30. ASI Harpal Singh This witness has joined investigations with Inspector
(PW30) Rakesh Tyagi and has proved the following documents:
Ex.PW30/A Arrest memo of accused Sanjeev
Gahlot
Ex.PW30/B Pointing out memo of the place of
incident
Ex.PW30/C Seizure memo of motorcycle make
Pulsor bearing No. DL4SAJ2697
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 110 of 128
Ex.PW30/D Disclosure statement of accused
Sanjeev Gahlot
Ex.PW30/E Pointing out memo of drain/ nala
Ex.PW30/F Arrest memo of accused Rajesh @
Raju
Ex.PW30/G Personal search memo of accused
Rajesh @ Raju
Ex.PW30/H Arrest memo of accused Sunny
Ex.PW30/J Personal search memo of accused
Sunny
Ex.PW30/K Disclosure statement of accused Raju
Ex.PW30/L Disclosure statement of accused Sunny
Ex.PW30/M Pointing out memo of the place of
incident
Ex.PW30/N Another disclosure statement of
accused Rajesh
Ex.PW30/O Another disclosure statement of
accused Sunny
31. Inspector Rakesh He is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the
Kumar Tuagi investigations of this case and apart from the documents
(PW31) proved by the various witnesses, he has proved the
following witnesses:
Ex.PW31/A Inquest Form
Ex.PW31/B Brief Facts
Ex.PW31/C Request for Postmortem
Ex.PW31/D Site plan of premises No. D138,
Dashrathpuri colony from where the
motorcycle was got recovered by
accused Sanjeev Gahlot
Ex.PW31/E Site plan of the place Najafgarh drain
where he had thrown the country made
pistol (katta) and mobile phone
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 111 of 128
(90) Coming now to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence
against the accused persons.
Ocular Evidence and Motive:
(91) Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any
case. In the present case the entire case of the prosecution is rests upon the testimony of Rajpal (PW1) who is the father of the deceased Jitender. According to the prosecution story, on 29.8.2007 Rajpal was travelling with his son Jitender on his motorcycle bearing No. DL9SM2926 and at about 9:30 AM when they reached near Rama Park, Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar near Metro Pillan No. 764, two motorcycles upon which four boys were riding overtook them and made their motorcycle to stop. One motorcycle was being driven by Raju and Sanjeev @ Sonu was sitting on the back seat of that motorcycle; the other motorcycle was being driven by Sunny on which one boy who has now been identified in the Court as Vijay was sitting. The accused Raju and Sunny asked the accused Sanjeev to take revenge for his brother's death when the accused Sanjeev Gehlot took out a pistol. According to Rajpal, he raised an alarm but in the meanwhile the accused Vijay who was sitting behind the accused Sunny told Sanjeev to kill Jitender on which accused Sanjeev fired upon his son Jitender who fell down bleeding and thereafter all the four accused took a UTurn and ran away towards Kakrola mor/ village. According to this witness Rajpal, after a little while a PCR van came and St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 112 of 128 he lifted the body of his son and put it in PCR van after which the PCR took Jitender to DDU Hospital while he himself went to his house and informed them and then went to DDU Hospital where the doctors had declared his son Jitender as brought dead. The said witness Rajpal has further explained that earlier in the year 2005 a quarrel had taken place between his son and the accused persons in which Anil brother of Sanjeev had died and in the said quarrel Anil, Sanjeev, Balwan and Raju participated against his son Jitender and since then the said boys were having a grudge against his son Jitender. According to Rajpal, even two months prior to the incident, the accused gave a threat that they would take the revenge of death by a death and due to this reason they had killed his son Jitender.
(92) Before, analyzing the statement of Rajpal on merits, I may observe that in so far as Motive is concerned, the motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime and not to others. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 113 of 128 heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive. (93) Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence. (94) Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into consideration by Courts as it will render assistance to Courts while analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused. [Ref.:
IV (2012) SLT 257].
(95) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case Firstly it is an admitted case of the accused that in the year 2005 a quarrel had taken place between Jitender and Anil (brother of accused Sanjeev) had been killed in respect of which an FIR had been registered and the deceased was facing trial in the same. However, the fact that two months prior to the incident of murder of Jitender, the accused before this Court had also given a threat of taking revenge of death by death, is a fact St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 114 of 128 which does not find corroboration from any other independent source.
Keeping in view the previous background of history of disputes between the parties in the eventuality any such threat being extended by the accused, I am sure that it would have been reported to the police which has not been done. Rajpal (PW1) in his crossexamination has specifically admitted that he did not report any such instance or threat to the police and has justified the same by stating that he had informed the parents of the accused Sanjeev about the same. Here, I may observe that both the main accused namely Sanjeev Gehlot and the deceased Jitender belonging to the same village and in case of any such incident, I am sure that if the Police was not informed the elders and locals of the village certainly would have been informed of the same, which is not the case. The testimony of Rajpal (PW1) which does not find any corroboration from any independent source and under the given circumstances the incident of threats being extended to the deceased does not appear to be convincing.
(96) Secondly in his crossexamination the witness Rajpal (PW1) has denied that he was using any mobile at the time of the incident and has specifically denied that he is the owner of mobile no. 9868263902 and has stated that he had provided the mobile number of his brother to the police during investigations. He has further admitted that his deceased son was having two mobile phones which fact stands duly established since he had taken these mobiles back on Superdari on which aspect there St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 115 of 128 is no dispute. Hence, in this background if Raj Pal would have been present at the spot at the time of the incident when the deceased was killed, the first thing that he would have done as any other reasonable person would do, is to make a PCR call which he did not do. The case of the prosecution is that it is not Raj Pal but another passerbye Gagan Kumar (PW14) who made the PCR call. It is this which creates a doubt on the credibility and truthfulness of the statement of the father of the deceased to the extent that he was present at the time of the incident, for had that been so, the first thing he would have done is to make a call to the PCR which he did not do.
(97) Thirdly despite the fact that a number of shots had been fired upon the deceased and Rajpal was stated to be sitting behind the deceased, strangely not even a single shot hit him. The postmortem report which is Ex.PW11/A shows that the deceased had been shot from the back side and there were as many as five gun shot injuries and one metal piece of bullet was found over the surface of the sternum which bullet entered his body through the back side by passing through the bag which he was carrying on his back (as there are holes in the said bag indicating that the bullet had passed through the same). Had somebody been sitting on the backside/ behind the deceased on the pillion seat (as claimed by Raj Pal), the said bullet before passing through the bag and entering the body of the deceased would have first hit that person sitting on the pillion seat and then passed through the bag which the deceased was carrying on his back, St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 116 of 128 before entering the body of the deceased (which bag Rajpal admits the deceased was carrying on his back). The fact that Raj Pal remained unscathed during the entire shooting incident creates a doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to his presence at the spot. (98) Fourthly Gagan Kumar (PW14) an eye witness to the incident who had made a PCR call has in his testimony before the court deposed that he saw one boy riding motorcycle and two boys were on another motorcycle who fired on that single boy on the motorcycle. According to him, after witnessing the incident he was no extremely shocked that he first parked his vehicle at a distance of about 500 meters and drank some water after which he made a call to the police at 100 number informing them above the same. Here, I may observe that the PCR Form which is Ex.PW12/X1 which shows that the call was received from the phone of Gagan Kumar according to which two boys on a motorcycle had fired on a boy. The detail statement of Gagan Kumar under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been recorded nor is present on the judicial file and it is for the first time that he had stated in the court that both the assailants were wearing helmets and the deceased was alone when the assailants fired at him. However, there is no reason to disbelieve him because he is an independent eye witness who is neither known to the accused nor to the deceased. If his version is taken as correct that the assailants were wearing the helmets then under these circumstances it does not appear St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 117 of 128 possible that Raj Pal was present at the spot, Gagan Kumar having only seen one person on the bike who had been shot and even if assuming that Raj Pal was with the deceased then it is not possible that he could have identified the accused from the helmet.
(99) Fifthly this statement of Rajpal (PW1) that he was present at the time of firing incident while the PCR came, also does not stands established. Though in his statement the PCR official HC Deep Kumar - PW13) who in the information given to Central Control Room does not state that the father of the injured met them at the spot and in his cross examination HC Deep Kumar (PW12) has admitted that he did not inform the presence of Rajpal at the spot to the PCR. It is evident from his testimony that he came to know about the name of the injured from the Driving Licence. Had Rajpal (PW1) been present at the spot, he would have informed the PCR officials or the doctors about the details of the deceased and there was no occasion for these PCR officials to ascertain the same from his Driving Licence. The testimony of HC Deepak Kumar (PW12) with regard to the presence of Rajpal is a total improvement over the documentary record i.e. PCR Form which neither mention the presence of Rajpal nor about the assailants.
(100) Lastly the case of Rajpal is that after putting his son in the PCR vehicle which took him to DDU Hospital, he himself went back to his house and reached DDU Hospital later which behaviour of a father is most unreasonable, unnatural and unjustified. Under no circumstances, St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 118 of 128 will any father leave his fatally wounded son to the mercy of the police officials and that too without providing them with the details of his name, age, address etc. while he himself would rush to his own house at Kakrola which is quiet some distance away from the spot of the incident. The first thing which any reasonable man would do, was to make attempts to save the life of his son, rather than running away from the spot first to save his own life and then to inform his family by leaving his injured son at the mercy of the strangers. This behaviour is highly unnatural and improbable.
(101) Therefore, under the give circumstances, I do not find the uncorroborated oral testimony of Rajpal convincing, credible, trustworthy and truthful. There is no corroboration forthcoming whatsoever and hence, in the absence of any independent corroboration it is no safe to rely upon the sole testimony of the witness Rajpal in so far as the identity of the accused and their presence at the spot of the incident is concerned. (102) In so far as the aspect of motive is concerned, no doubt the accused Sanjeev Gehlot and other accused had a motive of taking revenge but in the absence of any convincing evidence to connect the accused with the offence, motive alone is not sufficient to connect the accused with the offence.
Medical Evidence:
(103) PW3 Nishu Dhawan has proved the MLC of the deceased which is Ex.PW3/A showing that there were four gun shot wounds in St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 119 of 128 front of chest and four wound over back of the chest. Dr. Komal Singh (PW11) has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which is Ex.PW11/A showing that there were following injuries on the body of the deceased:
1. Gun shot entry wound measuring 1x0.5cm located at right fifth intercoastal space, which was 3.5 cm from the right nipple, it was oval in shape and margins were inverted.
2. 2 cm to the lateral to No.1 gun shot entry, there was another entry wound of 1.5x1 cm, it was oval in shape and margins were inverted, there was 2mm thickness abraded collar was encircling the wound.
3. Gun shot entry wound 1.5x1.2 cm, oval in shape having 2mm abraded collar around and it was placed on 15.2cm from the right nipple and 4.5cm below the xiphisternum.
4. Gun shot entry wound 1x1 cm having the inverted margins, 2mm abraded collar, it was placed above 4.5cm and lateral to the left nipple margins.
5. On back, gun shot exit wound placed 15.5cm below the inferior angle of the scapula, it was oval in shape and size was 3x1.5cm and margins were averted.
6. Gun shot exit would 1.5x1 cm placed 12cm from the left inferior angle of the scapula, margins were averted. St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 120 of 128
7. Gun shot entry wound 1x0.9cm and 3cm from No. 6 injury, its margins were inverted.
8. Gun shot exit wound 4x3cm, margins were averted, placed 5.5cm from the No. 7 injury.
9. Gun shot exit would 2.5x2 cm, margins were averted, lying 12.5cm below the left shoulder.
(104) Dr. Komal Singh has proved that on internal examination it was found that on the seventh intercoastal space, one metal piece of the bullet was found over the surface of the sternum; there were bullet entry and exit margins corresponding to the entry and exit wounds; there were two holes on the anterior surface of the heart, two holes on the posterior surface of the heart, one hole on the lob of the left lung and one hole on the right side of the liver. The cause of death was opined that due to multiple gun shot injuries to the vital organs of the body and all the injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as together, all the injuries were antemortem and were of same duration.
(105) In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove that the death was on account of gun shot injury. Forensic Evidence (Ballistic Report):
(106) The FSL (Ballistic) Report which is Ex.PW7/A has been duly proved by Sh. V.R. Anand (PW7) who has proved that the 8mm/.315"
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 121 of 128 cartridge case exhibit EC1 was a fired empty cartridge and the deformed bullet marked exhibit EB1 was corresponding to the bullet of 8mm/.315 cartridge. It has been proved that the individual characteristics of firing pin and breech face marks present on fired cartridge case marked exhibit EC1 and on the test fired cartridge cases marked as TC1 to TC3 (in case FIR No. 880/07, PS Lajpat Nagar) were examined and compared under the comparison microscope model Leica DMC and were not found identical and hence, it was concluded that the exhibit EC1 has not been fired through the improvised pistol 9 mm marked exhibit F1 in case FIR No.880/07, PS Lajpat Nagar. PW8 Ms. Shashi Bala has proved the biological and serological reports which are Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively showing the presence of blood on the clothes of the deceased and his father Raj Pal (but that in itself is not incriminating qua the accused).
Ownership of motorcycle No. DL4SA2697 and DL4SBB0169: (107) In so far as the motorcycle bearing No. DL4SA2697 make Pulsar of violet colour is concerned, the same belong to Sant Ram who had sold it to Abhimanyu @ Mannu though Rampal. Sant Ram (PW10) has failed to identify the accused Sanjeev Gehlot in the Court and his relationship with Abhimanyu @ Mannu. It was only in the cross examination of Addl. PP for the State that he has admitted that Sanjeev Gehlot is the Mama of Abhimanyu @ Mannu. In so far as the motorcycle St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 122 of 128 make TVSStar bearing No. DL4SBB0169 is concerned, Naresh Kumar (PW19) has turned hostile and has stated that this motorcycle had been stolen from Gold Gym at Mansaram Park, Uttam Nagar in the month of Raksha Bandhan of the year 2007 and after two days of Raksha Bandhan he lodged an FIR with the police post Matiala which is mark PW19/2.
(108) Both the witnesses Sant Ram (PW10) and Naresh Kumar (PW19) do not support the case of the prosecution in any manner. The numbers of the motorcycle used in the offence have not been noted down by any of the eye witness and therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the above said motorcycles with any of the accused or with the offence.
Sequence of events not conclusively established so as to connect the accused with the offence:
(109) The manner in which the accused Sanjeev Gehlot has been apprehended and arrested is most dramatic. According to the accused Sanjeev he had himself surrendered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar because he was fearing his fake encounter by the local police in connivance with the father of the deceased whereas the case of the Police Station Lajpat Nagar particularly PW18 SI Shiv Raj in FIR No.880/2007, under Section 25 of Arms Act that after the accused Sanjeev Gehlot had been found in possession of a pistol which he disclosed belonging to his St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 123 of 128 brother Anil Gehlot on which the accused Sanjeev Gehlot was booked under the Arms Act. A specific suggestion had been put to this witness SI Shiv Raj that the accused Sanjeev had himself surrendered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and there was a conflict between the SHO Police Station Uttam Nagar and SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar. Why was it that Sanjeev Gelhot himself surrendered before the SHO Police station Lajpat Nagar and not before any Senior Officers of the same district or some other district or to the Court and why did he chose to do so, specifically at Police Station Lajpat Nagar? The possibility of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot having done so only to create evidence in his favour by first surrendering before the SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar and disclosing that it was the same weapon with which he had killed the deceased knowingly that the same was not the weapon, cannot be ruled out, but at the same time it also appears highly improbable that the SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar could have been taken in by the claims of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot so easily. Certainly there was much more going on behind the curtain than it appears to the eye. As per the prosecution case pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Sanjeev Gehlot, efforts were made to trace out the country made pistol (weapon of offence) and his mobile phone from the Najafgarh drain which has not been recovered till date.
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 124 of 128 (110) Be that as the case may be, the law as it exists is that the case of the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and in a criminal trial the Court cannot go by the weaknesses of the case put forward by the defence. The possibility of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot having meticulously planned the entire killing and also having prepared his defence cannot be ruled out. The fact of the matter is that the Investigating Officer has not been able to trace the weapon of offence so as to conclusively connect the accused with the offence nor has he been able to collect sufficient evidence so as to conclusively connect the accused persons with the offence and hence benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Hence, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused. (111) In so far as the accused Rajesh @ Raju are concerned, they have surrendered before the Court on 25.9.2007 and on 4.10.2007 the accused Vijay @ Kalu was arrested at the instance of the secret informer which proceedings have been duly proved by the prosecution.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
(112) In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 125 of 128
1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned ' must or should' and not 'may be' established;
2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
3. the circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
4. they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and
5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
(113) Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the identity of all the accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gehlot stands established. They were previously known to the complainant Raj Pal. It St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 126 of 128 also stands established that on 29.8.2007 at about 9:30 AM at Main Nazafgarh Road, Rama Park in front of Metro Pillar No.764, Uttam Nagar the deceased Jitender Kumar was shot dead. It further stands established that the cause of death of deceased is due to multiple gun shot injuries to the vital organs of the body and all the injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as together, all the injuries were antemortem and were of same duration. However, I do not find the uncorroborated oral testimony of Rajpal convincing, credible, trustworthy and truthful. There is no corroboration forthcoming whatsoever and hence, in the absence of any independent corroboration it is no safe to rely upon the sole testimony of the witness Rajpal in so far as the identity of the accused and their presence at the spot of the incident is concerned. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against all the accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gehlot beyond reasonable doubt. (114) I hereby hold that the circumstances reflected from the material on record do not stand conclusively established. The facts are also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused persons. The materials brought on record by the prosecution are insufficient so as to hold that each of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gehlot was guilty beyond reasonable St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 127 of 128 doubt. Further, each circumstance has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has also not established a conclusive link connecting each individual circumstance with the other, and the accused namely Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gehlot. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gehlot, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being given to them who are acquitted of the charges under Section 302/201/120B/34 Indian Penal Code.
(115) File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 9.7.2012 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar Page No. 128 of 128