Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Arun on 23 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 58250/2016
CNR No. DLNT01-001126-2014
State Vs. 1. Arun
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
R/o Gali No. 8, Shiv Mandir
Colony, Safiyabad Road, Narela,
Delhi.
2. Parveen
S/o Sh. Dharampal
R/o H.No. 69, Pana Udhyan,
Narela, Delhi.
3. Vijay
S/o Sh. Raj Singh
R/o H.No. 66 , Pana Udhyan,
Narela, Delhi.
4. Jasprit Singh @ Raja
S/o Sh. Balvinder Singh
R/o H.No. 89, Rail par Punjabi
Colony, Zile Singh Wali Gali, PS
Adarsh Mandi Shamli, Distt.
Shamli, U.P.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 1 of 95
5. Praveen (abated challan)
S/o Sh. Mahabir
R/o Gali No.6B, Swatanter Nagar,
Narela, Delhi.
6. Amit @ Vicky
S/o Sh. Gianender
R/o H.No. 407/1, Pana Udhyan,
Narela, Delhi.
FIR No. : 775/2014
Police Station : Narela
Under Sections : 302/307/365/511/120B/174/34 IPC and
25/27 Arms Act
Date of institution : 22.09.2014
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 01.10.2014
Date of Argument : 02.05.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 23.05.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2014 at about 7.55 am, DD No. 10A was registered at PS Narela regarding death of one person with gun short injury by the criminals. He further stated that on receipt of said information, SI Amit alongwith Ct. Lilu Ram reached the place of information where they met complainant SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 2 of 95 Ramesh Chand Garg who made the statement that on 17.06.2014 at about 6.10 am, he had gone to his shop no. 1973/2B, Lampur Road, Narela. He further stated that he was getting his goods unloaded at about 7.40 am one Maruti Eeco car of white colour stopped near his shop and two boys came to him. He further stated that they asked him to sit in said Eeco car at the point of pistol. He further stated that on his refusal to do so, both the said boys forcibly tried to make him sit in the said car. He further stated that during said process, one of said boys, fired one round towards ground and another round towards him but he escaped. He further stated that in the meantime, their third associate also got down from the said car and caught hold of him from the back side. He further stated that when all three of them tried to put him inside the car and he was resisting their said act, said boy again pointed out pistol at him and fired shot with intention to cause his death but bullet passed from near his head and hit the assailant who had caught hold of him from back side. He further stated that due to gun shot injury, said assailant fell down on the ground and other assailants fled away in the said car. He further stated that on enquiry, name of deceased was revealed as Parveen S/o Sh. Mahabir, R/o Gali No. 6-B, Swatanter Nagar, Narela, Delhi. He further stated that abovesaid persons fired a bullet in order to abduct him and kill him and the said bullet struck of one of their associate due to which he fell down on the ground and prayed that legal action may be taken against them.
2. It is mentioned in the charge-sheet that family members of SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 3 of 95 deceased Parveen disclosed during investigation that one boy namely Vicky who was resident of Pana Udyan, Narela and used to frequently visit their house, had come alongwith another boy to their house in white colour Maruti Eeco Car No. DL-8CR-8722 on 17.06.2014 at 6:00 am and took away Parveen (deceased) with them. Their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. During further investigation, Sh. Naveen Kumar, S/o Sh. Asha Ram was found to be the registered owner of Maruti Eeco Car bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722. Accordingly, notice u/s 133 M.V. Act was served upon him. He replied that the said car had been handed over by him to one Gianander, who was father of accused Amit @ Vicky (absconding) as security since he had taken loan of Rs. 1,80,000/- from Gianander.
Investigation was conducted to search the accused Amit @ Vicky S/o Sh. Gainender who had taken Praveen (deceased) alongwith him from his house at Swatanter Nagar, Narela in Maruti Eeco car bearing No. DL-8CR-6722 and he was run away after the said incident and it was found that he was using the mobile number 9717229427.
On 26.06.2014, accused Arun and Parveen S/o Sh. Dharam Pal were arrested and during their interrogation, accused Arun disclosed that accused Amit @ Vicky alongwith his associates i.e. deceased Parveen and co-accused persons namely Arun, Vijay, Jasprit Singh @ Raja and Parveen S/o Sh. Dharam Pal had hatched conspiracy at the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 4 of 95 house of Vijay situated at Pana Udyan, Narela in the evening of 16.06.2014 to abduct complainant Ramesh Chand Garg for ransom.
During investigation, accused Arun refused to participate in TIP proceedings. On 21.08.2014, TIP of accused Jaspreet Singh @ Raja was conducted and he was duly identified by the complainant. On 25.08.2014, TIP of accused Vijay was conducted but the complainant failed to identify him.
3. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed u/s 120B/34 IPC against accused Arun, u/s 365/511/120B/34 IPC against accused Parveen and Jaspreet Singh @ Raja and u/s 302/307/365/511/120B/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act against accused Vijay and abated challan u/s 365/511/120B/34 was filed against accused Parveen (deceased) before the concerned Magisterial Court on 22.09.2014.
4. Accused Amit @ Vicky was absconding. On 23.07.2015, he was apprehended and supplementary challan has been filed against him on 07.08.2015 u/s 302/307/365/511/120B/174A/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Accused Amit @ Vicky had refused to participate in TIP proceedings.
5. Vide order dated 03.06.2015, order on charge was passed and charge for the offences u/s 120-B IPC and u/s 365/511 IPC r/w SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 5 of 95 Section 120B IPC was framed against the accused Arun and Vijay; charge for the offence u/s 307 read with 34 IPC, 302 read with 34 IPC, u/s 27 Arms Act and u/s 25 Arms Act was framed against the accused Vijay Singh, charge for the offence u/s 120B IPC, u/s 365/511 read with 120B IPC and charge for the offence u/s 307 read with 34 IPC, u/s 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against the accused Praveen and charge for the offence u/s 120 IPC and u/s 365/511 read with 120B IPC and charge for the offence u/s 307 read with section 114 IPC and u/s 302 read with Section 111 IPC was framed against the accused Jaspreet Singh to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Charge for the offence u/s 120B IPC and u/s 365/511 read with Section 120B IPC and charge u/s 307 read with Section 34 IPC and u/s 302 read with Section 34 was framed against the accused Amit @ Vicky on dated 17.08.2015 as he has been PO and separate challan qua him was filed on dated 12.12.2014.
7. The prosecution had examined 38 witnesses in support of its case.
The details of said witnesses are as under:-
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 6 of 95S.No. Name of prosecution Purpose of examination witnesses
1. PW1 Insp. Manohar Lal He was the Inspector/Draftsman in the North-West District. He came to prove the scaled site plan Ex.PW1/A.
2. PW2 Sh. Parmod He is the brother of deceased (Praveen). He came to prove his statement Ex.PW2/A and his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW2/B.
3. PW3 Insp. Anil Kumar He was the incharge Mobile Crime Team. He came to prove Crime Team Report dated 17.06.2014 Ex.PW3/A.
4. PW4 Smt. Sudesh She is the wife of deceased Praveen.
She came to deposed about the incident.
5. PW5 Smt. Omwati She is the mother of deceased Praveen and came to depose about the incident.
6. PW6 Sh. Swaroop Singh He came to prove his statement Ex.PW6/A regarding identification of body of deceased Praveen and handing over receipt Ex.PW6/B.
7. PW7 Sh. Raju He came to depose regarding Eeco car which was parked near his workshop.
8. PW8 Sh. Shishir He was the Nodal Officer in Aircel Ltd.
Malhotra He came to prove photocopy of CAF Ex.PW8/A (OSR), copy of election I-
Card Ex.PW8/B, CDR of mobile number 9716960950 for the period between 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW8/C, certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW8/D, Cell ID-chart of mobile phone for the period 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW8/E, SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 7 of 95 and covering letter vide which the aforesaid documents were supplied Ex.PW8/F.
9. PW9 Sh. Anuj Bhatia He was the Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Pvt. Ltd. He came to prove the CAF of mobile no.
9536101004 Ex.PW9/A (OSR), attested copy of D/L of Balwinder Singh Ex.PW9/B, CDR of the aforesaid mobile number for the period 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW9/C, certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/D, CAF of mobile no.9582280876 Ex.PW9/E (OSR), attested copy of Election I-Card of Smt. Santosh Ex.PW9/F, CDR of mobile phone for the period between 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW9/G, the certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/H, CAF of mobile no. 8587850785 for the period w.e.f 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW9/J (OSR), attested copy of election I-card Ex.PW9/K, CDR of aforesaid mobile phone for the period between 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW9/L, certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW9/M, Cell ID Chart of aforesaid mobile numbers for the period 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW9/N and the covering letter by which the aforesaid documents were supplied Ex.PW9/O.
10. PW10 HC Pappu Ram He came to prove the attested copy of PCR Form Ex.PW10/A. SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 8 of 95
11. PW11 Sh. Ramesh Chand He is the complainant in the present case. He came to prove the incident in question and his statement Ex.PW11/A
12. PW12 Ct. Raj Kumar He was the photographer. He took the photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles.
13. PW13 HC Rajesh He lifted the chance prints from Maruti Eeco car bearing registration no. DL 8CR 6722.
14. PW14 HC Om Prakash He was the MHC(M). He came to prove the photocopy of relevant pages containing the entries Ex.PW14/A (OSR), Ex.PW14/B
15. PW15 Dr. Bhim Singh He was the incharge Mortuary, BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. He came to prove the postmortem report bearing no. 572/14 Ex.PW15/A.
16. PW16 Ct. Lilu Ram He came to prove the seizure memo of blood stained earth Ex.PW16/A, seizure memo of blood stains lying on the earth Ex.PW16/B, sketch of three cartridges lifted from the spot Ex.PW16/C, seizure memo of said cartridges Ex.PW16/D, sketch of one live cartridge lifted from the spot Ex.PW16/E, seizure memo of said cartridge Ex.PW16/F, seizure memo of earth control sample Ex.PW16/G, earth control Ex.P1, blood stained earth Ex.P2, gauze piece on which blood was lifted by the IO from the spot Ex.P3, three 7.65 mm cartridge cases Ex.P4 (colly.), one 7.65 mm test fired cartridge Ex.P5.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 9 of 9517. PW17 SI P.L. Meena DD No. 54B was marked to him. He came to prove the investigation conducted by him, seizure memo of car bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722 Ex.PW17/A.
18. PW18 Ct. Kapil After postmortem the concerned doctor had handed over him the exhibits i.e. pullanda containing blood sample of deceased, pullanda containing the sikka of bullet from the body of deceased, pullanda containing clothes of deceased alongwith sample seal of FMT BJRM hospital which he had handed over to IO. IO had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A
19. PW19 Dr. Rajesh Kumar He came to prove the MLC Ex.PW19/A.
20. PW20 Ct. Raj Kumar He was the photographer with Mobile Crime Team. He had taken 8 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. He came to prove the negatives of the photographs Ex.PW20/A1 to Ex.PW20/A8 and photographs Ex.PW20/B1 to Ex.PW20/B8.
21. PW21 SI Amit DD No. 10 A was marked to him. He came to prove the rukka Ex.PW21/A, seizure memo of driving licence Ex.PW21/B and one Idea Mobile Phone SIM Ex.PW21/C.
22. PW22 Sh. Virender Singh He was posted as MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi. He had recorded the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of witness Sh. Pramod S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh. He came to SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 10 of 95 prove the application moved by IO for recording statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of witness Sh. Parmod Ex.PW22/A, statment u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of witness Sh.
Pramod Ex.PW22/B, copy of the proceeding provided to the IO on his request made vide application Ex.PW22/C, after conducting the proceedings, the same were kept in an envelope Ex.PW22/D.
23. PW23 HC Hardesh He came to prove the arrest memo of accused Ex.PW23/A, his personal search memo Ex.PW23/B, his disclosure statement Ex.PW23/C, arrest memo of accused Ex.PW23/D, personal search memo Ex.PW23/E, his disclosure statement Ex.PW23/F, pointing out memo Ex.PW23/G, seizure memo of motorcycle bearing No. DL-11SE-6600 Ex.PW23/H and five photographs of aforesaid motorcycle Ex.PW23/I
24. PW24 ASI Ram Kishan He came to prove the computerized copy of FIR Ex.PW24/A (OSR) and his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW24/B.
25. PW25 Sh. Neeraj He deposed that he had purchased SIM bearing no. 9971781751 of Airtel. In the PS, he had shown the CDR of mobile no. 9716960950 dated 16.06.2014. He further stated that upon seeing the said CDR, he had stated to IO that on 16.06.2014, he had talked to aforesaid mobile no. 9716960950 with his Airtel SIM/mobile with one Guddu, who is his neighbour.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 11 of 9526. PW26 Ct. Ravinder He was the photographer with Mobile Crime Team. He took 5 photographs of vehicle bearing no. DL-8CR-6722 from different angles. He came to prove the negatives Ex.PW26/A (Colly.) and photographs Ex.PW26/B (Colly.).
27. PW27 Sh. Naveen Kumar He was the registered owner of Eeco car bearing no. DL-8CR-6722.
28. PW28 Sh. Prashant He was working as H.R. (Executive) Ranjan with ADEeco (I) Pvt. Ltd., Model Town, Delhi. He came to prove the biometric record of accused Amit seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/A and biometric computerized record Ex.PW28/B
29. PW29 Sh. Ranbir Singh He deposed that the CAF of mobile no.
9716960950 already Ex.PW8/A though bears his photograph and the ID proof i.e. copy of election I-Card already Ex.PW8/B though belonged to him, but he had not purchased any such mobile number and even his signatures on CAF Ex.PW8/A are forged.
30. PW30 Ct. Rambir He had seized on motorcycle bearing No. DL-11SE-6600 at the instance of accused Arun from road in front of H.No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW23/H and five photographs of aforesaid motorcycle Ex.PW23/I (colly.)
31. PW31 Ct. Uday Bhan He had joined the investigation of the present case with IO Insp. Gulam Shabir and Ct. Hardesh. He came to prove the sketch of pistol and cartridge SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 12 of 95 Ex.PW31/A recovered from accused Vijay on his formal search by IO from the right side of his wearing pant, seizure memo of said pistol or cartridge Ex.PW31/B, arrest memo of accused Jaspreet Singh @ Raja Ex.PW31/C and of accused Vijay vide memeo Ex.PW31/D and their personal search vide memo Ex.PW31/E and Ex.PW31/F resp, the disclosure statement of accused Jaspreet Singh @ Raja and Vijay Ex.PW31/G and Ex.PW31/H, pointing out memos Ex.PW31/J and Ex.PW31/K, one 7.65 mm improvised pistol and three cartridges i.e. two live and one test fired cartridge Ex.P31/1 (Colly.)
32. PW32 Ms. Anita Chhari He came to prove the reports Ex.PW32/A and PW32/B.
33. PW33 Ct. Dinesh He had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith IO Insp. Gulam Shabir and HC Hardesh.
34. PW34 ACP Sh. Gulam He is the IO in the present case. He Shabir came to depose about the investigation conducted by him. He also came to prove the rough site plan Ex.PW34/A, application Ex.PW34/B for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased, brief facts prepared by him Ex.PW34/C and filled form no.
25.35(1)(b) Ex.PW34/D.
35. PW35 ASI Narender He came to prove the arrest memo of accused Amit @ Vicky Ex.PW35/A and his disclosure statement Ex.PW35/B SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 13 of 95
36. PW36 ASI Roshan Singh He came to prove the DD No. 44 Ex.PW36/A, arrest memo of accused Amit @ Vicky Ex.PW36/B, his personal search Ex.PW36/C, his disclosure statement Ex.PW36/D, DD No. 11A Ex.PW36/E and kalandara u/s 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. Ex.PW36/F.
37. PW37 ASI Surender He was the duty officer. He came to prove the DD No. 11A dated 23.07.2015 vide which he was informed through telephone regarding arrest of accused Amit @ Vicky in kalandara u/s 41.1 Cr.P.C.
8. In view of statement accused persons, vide order dated 24.11.2016, ld. Addl. PP for the State has dropped the witnesses namely Ct. Dinesh, ASI Ram Kumar, Ct. Krishan Kumar, Sh. Harjeet Singh Jaspal (the then ld. MM), HC Surender and Ct. Sandeep.
In view of the statement of Ld.Addl. PP for the State, PW ASI Rishikesh dropped from the list of witnesses as he was the witness of repetitive facts in respect of which other witnesses namely PW36 ASI Roshan Singh has already been examined.
9. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the case of prosecution and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. All accused persons had chosen not to lead any defence evidence except accused Vijay who had chosen to lead evidence in defence.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 14 of 9510. I have heard ld. Addl P.P for the State and ld. defence counsels and perused the record alongwith written arguments filed on behalf of accused Parveen.
11. Ld. Additional P.P for the State has stated that prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and hence, accused persons may be convicted in the present case.
12. On the other hand, Ld. defence counsels submitted that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have further submitted that accused persons were not involved in the commission of the offences.
13. PW1 : Inspector Manohar Lal deposed that on 21.07.2014, he was posted as Inspector /Draftsman in North-West District, Delhi. He has further deposed that on that day, at the request of IO Insp. Gulam Shabir, he reached at PS Narela and from there, he accompanied IO to the spot i.e. in front of shop No. 1973/2B, near Railway Under Pass, Lampur, Narela, Delhi i.e. the place of occurrence. He further deposed that there on the pointing out of IO Insp. Gulam Shabir, he had prepared rough notes and took measurements, after carrying out the inspection of the spot. Thereafter, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW1/A at his office and same was delivered by him to the IO later on.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 15 of 9514. PW2 Sh. Parmod deposed that on 17.06.2014 in the morning hours, he was present at his house. He further deposed that on that day he was sleeping on the roof of his house and he woke up at around 6.00 am. He further deposed that while he was present at the roof of his house in between 6.00/6.15 am, accused Vicky S/o Sh. Gainender came to their house in Maruti Eco Car number DL8CR-6722 and accused Vicky had called his brother Parveen outside their house. Thereafter, accused Vicky sat on the driver seat of the aforesaid car and his brother sat on the back seat of the aforesaid car. Accused Arun was sitting besides accused Vicky. Accused Arun and Vicky were correctly identified by the witness. He further deposed that both accused Arun and Vicky took his brother Parveen with them. He further deposed that on the same day at about 10.00 am, an information was received over phone call by his cousin namely Babloo. The said phone call was made by Karambir who had been running Ghee Shop at main road Swatantar Nagar. The said Karambir had informed his cousin Babloo that the body of his brother Parveen has been lying at Lampur underpass. Accordingly, he alongwith his mother and maternal uncle rushed to the said place and police officials were already present there and he had noticed a bullet injury over the forehead of his brother Parveen and was lying dead there. He further deposed that police conducted necessary investigation at the spot and sent the body of his brother to BJRM hospital. He further deposed that on 18.06.2014, he went to BJRM Mortuary alongwith his other SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 16 of 95 family members and he identified body of his brother Parveen in the said Mortuary and IO had recorded his statement in this regard Ex.PW2/A. He further deposed that during investigation, Ld Link MM had also recorded his statement U/s 164 Cr.PC. At this stage, the witness has identified the carbon copy of his statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC Ex. PW2/B. 14.1. He has been cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was partly resiling from portion of his statement U/s 164 Cr.PC Ex. PW2/B. During his cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State he admitted that he had stated in his statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.PC before Ld MM that he had received a phone call on my mobile no. 9718605091 of Karambir. He voluntarily stated that he had inadvertently stated so before Ld MM but the call was received on the mobile number of my cousin Babloo as deposed by him before the Court today.
14.2. During his cross-examination he deposed that his statement was recorded twice by the investigating officer and he had also made statement before Ld MM. He did not remember the exact dates of his aforesaid three statements. He further deposed that he had signed on all his statements made during investigation. He further deposed that his both statements recorded by the police officials at PS. He further deposed that he had made all the statements correctly during investigation. The attention of the witness has been drawn towards statements U/s 161 Cr.PC dated 17.06.14 and 03.07.14 Ex. PW2/D1 and SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 17 of 95 PW2/D2 respectively. After going through the said statements, the witness admits that both the said statements do not bear his signatures. He voluntarily stated that the statements Ex. PW2/D1 and Ex. PW2/D2 were the same statements which were made by him before the police.
14.3. He deposed that he was not knowing accused Arun prior to the date of occurrence. He further deposed that accused Arun was sitting on front seat adjacent to the driver seat of the aforesaid vehicle. Although, he had not told the description of accused Arun before the police but he had stated to the police that he could identify the said accused on being shown to him. Confronted with statements U/s 161 Cr.PC Ex. PW2/D1 and Ex.PW2/D2 where it is not recorded that the witness could identify the said accused on being shown to him. He had not told the name of accused Arun to the police as he was not knowing his name at that time.
14.4. During his cross-examination by ld. counsel for accused Amit @ Vicky he deposed that he had met accused Amit @ Vicky in the marriage function of daughter of his Mausi and thereafter, he had seen the said accused on 17.06.2014. He further deposed that his brother i.e. deceased Parveen was daily wager as driver in the office of MCD. He further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky also was working as daily wager as driver in the office of MCD. The duty hours of his brother i.e. deceased Parveen were somewhere between 6.00 am till 4.00 pm. He further deposed that it is not within his knowledge in case his brother SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 18 of 95 deceased Parveen used to go alongwith accused Amit @ Vicky on their duty together or not and that is why, he could not admit or deny the suggestion that his brother Parveen and accused Amit @ Vicky together used to go to their duty on almost daily basis. He denied the suggestion that he had met accused Amit @ Vicky several times prior to date of occurrence or that since he was knowing the said accused, he falsely identified him during trial at the instance of IO and complainant of this case. He further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky was wearing half sleeve shirt and pant on 17.06.2014 when he had seen him. He further deposed that so far as he remembers, the colour of shirt was black and the colour of pant was blue. He further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky had stayed for about 4-5 minutes in front of their house on 17.06.2014. He further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky was standing 4 to 5 paces away from the main gate of their house on 17.06.2014. He further deposed that he had not inquired from his brother as to where he was going.
15. PW-3 Inspector Anil Kumar deposed that on 17.06.2014, he was posted as In-charge, Mobile Crime Team, Outer District. He further deposed that on that day at about 8.35 pm, he had received a call through wireless set for reaching alongwith Crime Team at the place of occurrence i.e. under bridge Narela Lampur Road, Opposite MCD Office, Delhi. Accordingly, he alongwith other members of Crime Team i.e. HC Shiv Om, Finger Print Proficient and Photographer/Ct. Raj SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 19 of 95 Kumar had reached there, where they had met Inspector Gulam Shabir, SI Amit Kumar alongwith other police officials. He further deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence and got the same photographed through Ct. Raj Kumar from different angles. He further deposed that HC Shiv Om made efforts to lift chance prints from the spot, but in vain. He further deposed that after carrying out the inspection of the spot, he prepared Crime Team report dt. 17.06.2014 Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that on the scene of crime, he had noticed blood lying on the road and three empty cartridges lying nearby. He further deposed that one live cartridge was also found lying there. It was informed to him that injured had been taken to hospital and had been declared dead in the hospital.
15.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he deposed that they had reached at the scene of crime at about 9.15 am. He had not noticed any CCTV camera installed near the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that he had not noticed any CCTV Camera at the spot as they had not visited the scene of crime. He also denied the suggestion that the entire exhibits as seen by him lying at the spot, were manipulated by the police officials at the instance of complainant.
16. PW4 : Smt. Sudesh deposed that on 17.06.2014, she was present at her house. She further deposed that on or about 6 am, accused Amit @ Vicky (correctly identified by the witness), came to her house SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 20 of 95 and called his husband Parveen. She further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky came to their house in an Eeco vehicle. She further deposed that accused Arun (correctly identified by the witness), was also seen by her sitting in the said Eeco vehicle on the front seat besides driver seat. She further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky had called her husband on the pretext that they had to attend the duty. During investigation, IO had recorded her statement.
16.1. During her cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, she deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky had not been coming to their house daily in order to call her husband. She further deposed that she had stated all the facts to the IO, which she had deposed in her examination- in-chief. She further deposed that she had told the name of accused Arun in her statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the IO. She was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW4/DA, where the name of accused Arun, has nowhere mentioned. She further deposed that she was not knowing name of accused Arun prior to the incident in question. She further deposed that she came to know the name of accused Arun while said accused was present in front of house at the time when accused Amit @ Vicky had called her husband and at that time, they were taking the names of each other. She deposed that she had also stated this fact in her statement to the IO. The aforesaid Eeco vehicle was parked at a distance of about 3-4 houses away from her house. She further deposed that she had not noticed whether any black film was there on the windows of the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 21 of 95 said vehicle.
16.2. During his cross-examination by accused Amit @ Vicky, she admitted that her husband Parveen was working in MCD as driver on daily wages. She also admitted that accused Amit @ Vicky was also working in the same office where her husband used to work as driver on daily wages. She denied the suggestion that her husband used to accompany her husband daily to the office. She further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky had also visited their house when her father-in- law had expired.
17. PW-5: Smt. Omwati deposed that on 17.06.2014, she was present at her house. She further deposed that on or about 6 am, she alongwith her daughter-in-law Sudesh were mulching milk (dudh nikaal rahe the) of buffalo. She further deposed that at about 6.05 am, accused Amit @ Vicky (correctly identified by the witness), came to their house and called her son Parveen. She further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky came to their house in an Eeco vehicle. She deposed that accused Arun (correctly identified by the witness), was also seen by her sitting in the said Eeco vehicle on the front seat besides driver seat. She further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky had called her son Parveen on the pretext that they had to attend the duty. During investigation, IO had recorded her statement.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 22 of 9517.1. During her cross-examination by ld. defence counsel for accused Amit @ Vicky she deposed that her son Pramod was residing with her. However, deceased Parveen used to live in the adjoining house. She denied the suggestion that accused Amit @ Vicky used to accompanying her son Parveen daily for their job. She further deposed that IO had recorded her statement during investigation at her house and also at the PS but she did not remember whether she had signed any of her statement made to the IO. She deposed that she had not stated to the IO that accused Amit @ Vicky used to visit their house on routine basis. She was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW5/DA, where it is so mentioned. She denied the suggestion that accused Amit @ Vicky had not accompanied her son Parveen in the morning hours of 17.06.2014. She further denied the suggestion that she had accompanied the IO at the house of Ramesh Chand Garg or that said Ramesh Chand Garg had handed over one cheque to her or that she had refused to take the said cheque. She further denied the suggestion that Ramesh Chand Garg had stated to her that he would give the money in cash to her by visiting her house. She denied the suggestion that Ramesh Chand Garg had paid money in cash to her daughter-in-law Sudesh in her presence. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of Ramesh Chand Garg or at the instance of IO. She also denied the suggestion that she was not on talking terms with her son Parveen.
17.2. During her cross-examination by ld. defence counsel for SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 23 of 95 accused Arun and Vijay, she deposed that on 17.06.2014 at about 6 am, she alongwith her daughter-in-law Sudesh were tying buffalo in front of their house. She deposed that her statement to the effect that they were tying buffaloes was correct. She further deposed that the main door of her house was in main gali, whereas the main door of house of her son Parveen was in adjoining gali.
18. PW-6 Sh. Swaroop Singh deposed that on 18.06.2014, he had accompanied IO Inspector Gulam Shabir and his relative Sh. Chander Bhan to BJRM Hospital Mortuary. In the said Mortuary, he had identified the dead body of Parveen S/o Sh. Mahavir being my nephew (bhanja). My nephew Parveen had expired due to gun shot injury. He deposed that IO had recorded his statement Ex.PW6/A regarding the identification of body of deceased Parveen. He deposed that after postmortem, dead body of Parveen was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW6/B. IO had also recorded her statement in this regard.
19. PW7: Sh. Raju deposed that he was having a workshop of repairing of Tata 407 Tempos and buses at Gali No. 14, Gautam Colony in the name of Sapan Motor Workshop. He further deposed that on 17.06.2014, he came to his aforesaid workshop in the morning hours on or about 9 am. There he had noticed one Martuti Eeco Car parked under a tree near his workshop. He further deposed that he had waited for sometime so that the person to whom the said car belonged, would come SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 24 of 95 and take away his car, but nobody turned up on the entire day of 17.06.2014 for picking up the said car. He further deposed that on the next day i.e. 18.06.2014, when he had again returned to his workshop, he found the aforesaid Eeco Car still parked over there. He further deposed that he made enquiries from the nearby shop keepers/ residents, but nobody gave any reply to him about the owner of said car. Accordingly, on the same day in the evening hours, he had made a call at 100 number. First PCR Van and thereafter, local police came there and made enquiries from him. Thereafter, the local police officials took away the said car with them. During investigation, IO had recorded his statement. He did not remember the registration number of the said Eeco car. Ld. Addl PP for the State sought permission to put one leading question from the witness.
Q. Is it correct that you had stated the registration number of the said Eeco Car as DL-8CR-6722 in your statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the police?
Ans. It may be correct that he had stated the registration number of the said Eeco Car as DL-8CR-6722 in her statement to the police.
During her cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he deposed that he could not tell as to since when the aforesaid Eeco Car was parked in front of his workshop. He further deposed that he had made enquiries from number of shopkeepers / residents regarding the name of the person who had parked the said car near by workshop, but SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 25 of 95 nobody had given him any satisfactory reply in this regard. He furher deposed that he did not remember if there was any black film on the glasses of said car. However, the said Eeco Car was of white colour. He further deposed that the aforesaid workshop was hired on rent basis but he was not having any receipt of payment of rent. The factum of his tenancy was not got verified by the police by said Naresh. He deposed that he is a permanent resident of Talliganj, Kolkatta. He used to open his shop in between 8.30 - 9.00 am. He further deposed that he had made call at 100 number from the mobile phone of his mother. He had been using the said mobile number for the last 10 - 12 years. He had not informed his landlord about the aforesaid facts. He deposed that police official had called some mistri, who had broken the lock of the said car and started the ignition of said car. He further deposed that he had not signed any document regarding seizure of aforesaid Eeco Car during the investigation of the present case.
20. PW-8 Sh. Shishir Malhotra, Nodal Officer, Aircel Limited. He deposed that he is working in the abovesaid company since August, 2009. He had seen the Call Details Record in respect of mobile no. 9716960950 for the period w.e.f. 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014. The said mobile number was issued in the name of Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh, as per Customer Application Form. He had brought original of the said Customer Application Form. The photocopy of CAF has been compared with the original CAF brought by the witness. Photocopy of SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 26 of 95 CAF is Ex.PW8/A(OSR). He further deposed that alongwith the said application, the applicant had furnished photocopy of his Election I-Card. He had brought the attested photocopy of said Election I-Card. The same has been compared with the photocopy and after comparing the same, he stated that same was the true copy of Election I-card thereof. The original stamp impression of their company and his initials appears on attested copy of Election I-card at point-A. The attested copy of Election I-card is Ex PW8/B. He further deposed that the CDRs of the aforesaid mobile phone for the period between 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 (running into 3 pages) is Ex.PW8/C, bearing the seal impression of the company as well as my initials at points-A on each page. He had seen requisite certificate in terms of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The said certificate bears the seal impression of company as well as his signatures at point-A. Said certificate is Ex.PW8/D. He further deposed that the Cell ID Chart of aforesaid mobile phone for the period 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 is Ex.PW8/E. The covering letter vide which the aforesaid documents were supplied Ex.PW8/F, bearing his signature at point-A. 20.1. He deposed that as per the CDR, three calls were made from mobile phone no. 9536101004 to mobile phone no. 9716960950 and one SMS was made from mobile phone no. 9536101004 to mobile phone no. 9716960950. One call was made from mobile phone no. 9716960950 to mobile phone no. 9536101004. The said calls/SMS are being highlighted with green highlighter.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 27 of 9520.2. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that the Cell ID Location may change upon the failure of electricity. He voluntarily stated that there used to be power back-up in all the systems. He also denied the suggestion that upon the heavy load, the Cell ID Location may change. He voluntarily stated that in the eventuality of heavy load, the call may not mature / connect.
21. PW-9: Sh. Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited. He deposed that he was working in the abovesaid company since June, 2009. He further deposed that he had seen the Call Details Record in respect of mobile no. 9536101004 for the period w.e.f. 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014. The said mobile number was issued in the name of Balwinder Singh S/o Sh. Maan Singh, as per Customer Application Form. He had brought original of the said Customer Application Form. The photocopy of CAF has been compared with the original CAF brought by the witness. Photocopy of CAF is Ex.PW9/A (OSR). He further deposed that alongwith the said application, the applicant had furnished photocopy of his D/L. He had brought the attested photocopy of said D/L in the Court. The same has been compared with the photocopy and after comparing the same, he had stated that same was the true copy of D/L thereof. He further deposed that the original stamp impression of their company and his initials appears on attested copy of D/L at point-A. The attested copy of D/L is SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 28 of 95 Ex PW9/B. He further deposed that the CDRs of the aforesaid mobile phone for the period between 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 (running into 17 pages from front and back) is Ex.PW9/C, bearing the seal impression of the company as well as his initials at points-A on each page. He further deposed that the requisite certificate in terms of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. bears the seal impression of company as well as his signatures at point-A. Said certificate is Ex.PW9/D. 21.1. He further deposed that he had seen the Call Details Record in respect of mobile no. 9582280876 for the period w.e.f. 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014. The said mobile number was issued in the name of Smt. Santosh W/o Sh. Dharampal, as per Customer Application Form. He had brought original of the said Customer Application Form in the Court. The photocopy of CAF has been compared with the original CAF brought by the witness. Photocopy of CAF is Ex.PW9/E. He further deposed that alongwith the said application, the applicant had furnished photocopy of her Election I-Card. He had brought the attested photocopy of said Election I-Card in the Court. The same has been compared with the photocopy and after comparing the same, he stated that the same was the true copy of Election I-Card thereof. The attested copy of Election I- Card is Ex PW9/F. 21.2. He further deposed that the CDRs of the aforesaid mobile phone for the period between 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 (running into 1 SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 29 of 95 page) Ex.PW9/G. He had also seen requisite certificate in terms of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The said certificate bears the seal impression of company as well as his signatures at point-A. Said certificate is exhibit Ex.PW9/H. He had also seen the Call Details Record in respect of mobile no. 8587850785 for the period w.e.f. 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014. The said mobile number was issued in the name of Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Singh, as per Customer Application Form. He had brought original of the said Customer Application Form. The photocopy of CAF has been compared with the original CAF brought by the witness today. Photocopy of CAF is Ex.PW9/J (OSR). He further deposed that alongwith the said application, the applicant had furnished photocopy of his Election I-Card. He had brought the attested photocopy of said Election I-Card. The same has been compared with the photocopy and after comparing the same, he stated that same was the true copy of Election I-Card thereof. The original stamp impression of their company and his initials appeared on attested copy of Election I-Card at point-A. The attested copy of Election I-Card is exhibited as Ex PW9/K. The CDRs of the aforesaid mobile phone for the period between 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 (running into 1 page) is Ex.PW9/L, bearing the seal impression of the company as well as his initial at point-A. Today, he had also seen requisite certificate in terms of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The said certificate bears the seal impression of company as well as his signatures at point-A. Said certificate is exhibited as Ex.PW9/M. He had also brought the Cell ID Chart of aforesaid mobile SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 30 of 95 phone numbers for the period 15.06.2014 to 15.08.2014 Ex.PW9/N, bearing his initials as well as official stamp at point-A. The covering letter vide which the aforesaid documents were supplied, Ex.PW9/O, bearing his signature at point-A.
22. PW-10: HC Pappu Ram deposed that on 16.06.2014, he was posted in PCR Control Room and was on duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am in Channel No. 110. He further deposed that at about 07:50:51 hrs., a call was received by him from phone number 9811184501 in Control Room of PCR. The caller had informed that "caller bol raha ki yaha par badmash goli chala rahe hai, ek aadmi mar gaya hai". The place of incident was informed to be at Narela Lampur Road, near MCD Hospital. He recorded the said call in the PCR Form and transmitted the same to wireless operator for necessary action. The attested copy of PCR Form is Ex.PW10/A.
23. PW-11 Sh. Ramesh Chand deposed that he was running hardware shop in the name of M/s Ram Gopal Lakhmi Chand & Co. at Premises No. 1973/2B, Lampur, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that on 17.06.2014, he had reached at his aforesaid shop at about 6.10 am as certain goods are to be de-loaded at his aforesaid shop. He further deposed that on or about 7.40 am, while he was present in front of his shop and the goods were being unloaded from a truck, suddenly one white colour Maruti Eeco vehicle came in front of his aforesaid shop and SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 31 of 95 halted in front of said shop. He further deposed that two boys deboarded from the said vehicle. Both the said boys were armed with pistols. Both the said boys caught hold of him and pushed him towards the said Maruti Eeco Vehicle, but he resisted and refused to sit in the said vehicle. He further deposed that when he resisted to accompany them towards the said car, one of the said boys fired from his pistol on the ground. Thereafter, the said boys again started pushing him towards the said vehicle and when he resisted, the second offender amongst the said two boys, fired in the air from the said pistol. In the meantime, one more offender de-boarded from the said Maruti Eeco vehicle and caught hold of him from behind. Thereafter, the offender who caught hold of him from behind, started pushing him towards the said Maruti Eeco vehicle and he resisted. In the meantime, one amongst the two offenders who had initially de-boarded from said vehicle, fired towards him in order to kill him, but the bullet missed him and struck over the person who had caught hold of him from behind. In the meantime, public persons started gathering there and the two offenders who had initially de-boarded from Maruti Eeco vehicle and fired gun shots, ran towards the said vehicle and managed to sit in the said vehicle, the ignition of which was already on and he had seen one person found sitting over the steering of the said vehicle. Thereafter, they managed to run away while driving the said Eeco vehicle. He further deposed that the offender who had caught hold of him, had received gun shot injury over his head, he fell on the spot and expired at the spot. He further deposed that someone amongst the public SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 32 of 95 persons made a call at 100 number. PCR Van had reached at the spot and took the offender who had received gun shot injury, to the hospital. Thereafter, local police officials had also reached at the spot. SI Amit had recorded his statement Ex.PW11/A. Crime team officials were also called at the spot and crime team official had inspected the place of occurrence. Crime Team Photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence. Police officials had also lifted the blood from the place of occurrence and one live cartridge lying at the spot. Police officials had also lifted three fired cartridges from the spot and seized the said articles after sealing the same. I had also shown the place of occurrence to the police and IO had prepared rough site plan at his instance.
23.1. During investigation of the present case, he had gone to Tihar Jail on one occasion, where the police official accompanied him and had shown one photograph and had asked him to identify the person whose face was visible in the said photograph, from amongst the persons/boys who shall be shown to him inside the jail premises. Accordingly, he had identified the boy during judicial TIP held before Ld. Magistrate, on the basis of said photograph. However, he was not able to recollect the face of said boy who was identified by him during judicial TIP in Tihar Jail premises, due to lapse of time. He further deposed that he did not give any statement before the police at any point of time after judicial TIP of aforesaid boy held in Tihar Jail premises. He further deposed that he could not identify the offenders who had SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 33 of 95 committed the aforesaid offences in his presence even if shown to him today, as the attack upon him was so sudden that he was not able to see the faces of the offenders properly and further due to said sudden attack, he had lost his mental balance at that point of time and he was not able to see the face of any of the offenders properly. He further deposed that he could not identify the said Maruti Eeco vehicle even if shown to him as he was not able to note down the registration number of said vehicle as there was mud over both the number plates of the said vehicle. He also could not identify the blood stains as well as three fired cartridges and one live cartridge, lifted from the spot even if shown to him, as while police was conducting investigation at the spot, he went inside his shop and he had not seen the seizure proceedings.
23.2. The said witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statements given to the police. During his cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, he denied the suggestion that he had made supplementary statement dated 05.07.2014 before the police. Supplementary statement dated 05.07.2014 Mark PW11/1 has been read over to the witness. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO in his supplementary statement Mark PW11/1 that on 05.07.2014 at about 9 am, he had visited PS Narela upon receipt of information about the apprehension of few of the offenders or that IO had stated to him that amongst the offenders, two offenders had been apprehended or that thereafter, IO had shown him the said two offenders SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 34 of 95 in the Lock-up or that upon seeing the said offenders, he had stated to IO that accused Arun, present in the Court, is the same person who had put his tractor at his shop on rent for loading the goods of his shop or that he was knowing accused Arun prior to the incident of present case also or that it was informed to him that accused Arun had conspired with the remaining offenders in his abduction and to demand ransom after his abduction. The witness was confronted with portion A to A-1 of supplementary statement Mark PW11/1, where it was found so recorded. The attention of the witness has been drawn towards accused Arun, present in Court and even after seeing towards said accused, witness has submitted that he was not knowing the said accused and he had never seen him prior and that he had neither identified the said accused at PS on 05.07.2014 nor made any supplementary statement with regard to accused Arun before the police. He further denied the suggestion that he had made supplementary statement dated 05.07.2014 Mark PW11/1 before the police or that he had stated in said supplementary statement that when he had seen the second offender in the Lock-up, he had stated to IO that the said offender whose name was revealed to him as Praveen, was present in the aforesaid Maruti Eeco vehicle amongst the other offenders or that the said accused Praveen was sitting on the back seat of the said Maruti Eeco vehicle alongwith one more offender. Confronted with portion B to B-1 of supplementary statement Mark PW11/1, where it was found so recorded. The attention of the witness has been drawn towards accused Praveen, present in Court and even after seeing towards SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 35 of 95 said accused, witness has submitted that he was not knowing the said accused and he had never seen him prior and that he had neither identified the said accused at PS on 05.07.2014 nor made any supplementary statement with regard to accused Praveen before the police.
23.3. Original TIP proceeding in respect of accused Jaspreet @ Raja S/o Balwinder Singh was put to the witness and witness has identified his signature at point-A on the said TIP proceeding. The said TIP proceeding is Ex.PW11/B. Attention of the witness has been drawn toward accused Jaspreet @ Raja, present in the Court and after seeing the said accused, witness submits that he had identified said accused during judicial TIP Ex.PW11/B. He voluntarily stated that he had identified accused Jaspreet @ Raja on the strength of photograph shown to him by the police official prior to the TIP proceeding. He further deposed that supplementary statement dated 10.09.2014 has been read over to the witness and witness denied to have made any such statement before the police. Said supplementary statement is marked as Mark PW11/2. He denied the suggestion that in his said supplementary statement he had stated to IO that on 10.09.2014, he had visited PS Narela or that he had stated to IO that on 21.08.2014 he had identified accused Jaspreet @ Raja during judicial TIP and said accused Jaspreet @ Raja was sitting in Maruti Eeco vehicle and he remained sitting inside the said vehicle during the occurrence. The witness was confronted with portion A to A-1 SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 36 of 95 of supplementary statement Mark PW11/2, where it was found so recorded.
23.4. He further denied the suggestion that on that day i.e. 10.09.2014, he had also seen Maruti Eeco vehicle bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722 parked in PS Narela or that upon seeing the said vehicle, he had stated to IO that the said vehicle was used in the commission of offence by the offenders. The witness was confronted with portion B to B-1 of supplementary statement Mark PW11/2, where it was found so recorded. Supplementary statement dated 25.08.2014, has been read over to the witness and witness denied to have made any such statement to the police. The said statement was marked as Mark PW11/3.
23.5. He admitted that on 25.08.2014, he went to the jail premises to attend the judicial TIP proceedings, however, in the said judicial TIP, he was not able to identify the offender amongst the persons shown to him. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO that infact, 11 persons were produced before him, who all were wearing white kurta pajama or that he got confused and afraid at that time. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to IO that the person who was standing at serial no. 8 from the left and at serial no. 4 from the right, was amongst the offenders and the said offender had fired gun shot at the time of commission of offence or that name of said offender was revealed to him as accused Vijay S/o Rajbir. Confronted with portion A to A-1 of SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 37 of 95 supplementary statement Mark PW11/3, where it was found so recorded.
23.6. The attention of the witness has been drawn towards accused Vijay, present in Court and even after seeing towards said accused, witness has submitted that he was not knowing the said accused and he had never seen him prior to today and that he had neither identified the said accused in jail in judicial TIP nor made any supplementary statement with regard to accused Vijay before the police. He further deposed that he had not stated to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate before whom judicial TIP of accused Jaspreet @ Raja was conducted that he had been shown the photograph of the said accused by some police official before participating in judicial TIP, outside Tihar Jail premises. Till date, he had not lodged any complaint either to the IO or to any senior police official or even before the Court to the effect that he had been shown the photograph of accused Jaspreet by some police official before participating in judicial TIP or that he was asked by said police official to identify the said accused in his judicial TIP to be held inside Tihar Jail premises or that he had identified the said accused only due to said reason. He further denied the suggestion that he did not do so as nothing of that sort happened or that no police official had shown him any photograph of accused Jaspreet @ Raja or that no police official had asked him to identify said accused on the basis of said photograph, in his judicial TIP or that for said reason, he did not inform Magistrate about the same, at the time of conducting judicial TIP of said accused in Tihar SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 38 of 95 Jail premises. He also denied the suggestion that he had voluntarily identified accused Jaspreet @ Raja in judicial TIP held at Tihar Jail premises on his own. The attention of the witness has been drawn towards accused Amit @ Vicky present in the Court and witness submitted that the said accused was not seen by him at the spot at the time of commission of offence. Four photographs Mark PX (colly.) of said Maruti Eeco vehicle bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722 produced by MHC(M), were put to the witness and after seeing the said photographs, witness submits that he could not identify if the aforesaid vehicle appearing in the photographs, is the same vehicle which was used by the offenders in the commission of offence, due to the reason already stated by him above. The witness has failed to identify three cartridge cases and one 7.65mm standard live cartridge produced by MHC(M) during his testimony stating that he cannot identify the said cartridge cases and he cannot not say whether the same were lifted by the police from the spot. He voluntarily stated that he was inside his shop when the police was conducting investigation.
23.7. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he admitted that CCTV cameras were installed at his shop at the time of incident in question. However, the said CCTV cameras were not in working condition at that time. He denied the suggestion that he was wrongly deposing to the effect that the said CCTV cameras were not in working condition at that time as the entire incident had been captured in SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 39 of 95 those CCTV cameras and viewing of said CCTV footages of the incident in question would have clearly shown that accused persons were not present at the place of alleged incident on 17.06.2014 at about 7.40 am. He further deposed that he had not told the police officials during investigation that CCTV cameras were installed in shop premises or that they were not in working condition at the time of incident in question. He stated that the police had not asked from him as to whether any CCTV cameras were installed at his shop.
24. PW-12 : Ct. Raj Kumar was the photographer with Crime Team Outer District, Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 17.06.2014, at about 8.30 am, he alongwith SI Anil Kumar, In-charge Mobile Crime Team alongwith staff, reached at the place of occurrence and upon the instructions of SI Anil Kumar, he took the 8 photographs of the place of occurrence from different angles. He further deposed that after developing, he handed over the photographs to the IO but the same are not available in the judicial record. He had brought the negatives of the said photographs. The witness was directed to develop the photographs from the negatives brought by him and to produce the same before the Court on next date of hearing.
25. PW-13 HC Rajesh deposed that on 18.06.2014, he was posted as Finger Print Proficient with Crime Team (OD). He further deposed that on the instruction of SI P.L. Meena, he alongwith ASI Ram SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 40 of 95 Kumar and photographer Ct. Ravinder went to Raju Yadav Motor workshop at Gali No. 14, Gautam Colony, Safiabad Road and took the chance prints from one Maruti Eeco car bearing registration No. DL 8CR 6722 parked over there.
During his cross-examination, he deposed that IO in his presence had not recorded the statement of any public witness till the time he remained present at the aforesaid spot.
26. PW-14: HC Om Prakash deposed that on 17.06.2014, he was working as MHC(M). He came to prove the entry in register no. 19 regarding depositing of case property of the present case Photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry is Ex.PW14/A (OSR).
Thereafter, on 18.06.2014, IO Inspector Gulam Sabir had deposited three pullandas, all sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital alongwith one sample seal of similar specimen, in the Malkhana. IO had also deposited one Maruti Eeco Car bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722 in the Malkhana. He had made entry at serial no. 371 in register no. 19 in this regard. Photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry is Ex.PW14/B (OSR).
Thereafter, on 04.07.2014, IO had deposited one motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-11SE-6600, in the Malkhana. He had made entry at serial no. 406 in register no. 19 in this regard. Photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry is Ex.PW14/C (OSR).
Thereafter, on 14.08.2014, IO had deposited one pullanda SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 41 of 95 sealed with the seal of GS containing one pistol, three live cartridges and one magazine, in the Malkhana. He had made entry at serial no. 501 in register no. 19 in this regard. Photocopy of the relevant page containing the aforesaid entry is Ex.PW14/D (OSR).
He further deposed that on 19.08.2014, he had handed over three pullandas sealed with the seal of GS, two pullandas sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital alongwith one sample seal of same specimen, to Ct. Krishan Kumar vide R.C. No. 151/21/14 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. He made necessary endorsement/entry against entry Ex.PW14/A in register no. 19 in this regard. Photocopy of the relevant portion of the endorsement/entry is Ex.PW14/A. Photocopy of original Road Certificate register containing RC no. 151/21/14 is Ex.PW14/E. He further deposed that after deposit, Ct. Krishan Kumar handed over him the acknowledgement from FSL, Ex.PW14/F (OSR).
He further deposed that on the same day i.e. 19.08.2014, he had handed over three pullandas sealed with the seal of GS and one pullanda sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital alongwith one sample seal of same specimen, to Ct. Krishan Kumar vide R.C. No. 152/21/14 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini. He made necessary endorsement/entry against entry Ex.PW14/A in register no. 19 in this regard. Photocopy of the relevant portion of the endorsement/entry in this regard is Ex.PW14/A. Photocopy of original Road Certificate register containing SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 42 of 95 RC no. 152/21/14 is Ex.PW14/G. After deposit, Ct. Krishan Kumar handed over him the acknowledgement from FSL Ex.PW14/H (OSR).
27. PW-15: Dr. Bhim Singh deposed that on 18.06.2014, he was posted as In-charge Mortuary, BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. On that day, he had conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Praveen S/o Sh. Mahavir with the alleged history of sustaining gun shot injury on 17.06.2014, who was declared brought dead at about 8.30 am. He carried out the postmortem examination on the dead body of said deceased and prepared his detailed report No. 572/14 dated 18.06.2014 Ex.PW15/A. 27.1. He further deposed that upon external examination, he found one firearm entry wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity over right side of forehead in hairline with blackening and abrasion collar, margins inverted. He further deposed that upon internal examination, found injuries over scalp tissues, bones of skull and brain and one bullet was recovered from the cranial cavity of the deceased. After carrying out postmortem, he gave an opinion that the death was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon firearm injury caused by bullet fired from close range. He further deposed that all the injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was about 26-28 hours. He further deposed that he also sealed the bullet recovered from the body of deceased Praveen Kumar. He also SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 43 of 95 took blood of deceased on gauze piece. After sealing, he had handed over the sealed pullanda containing bullet, sealed pullanda containing clothes of deceased and blood in gauze piece, all sealed with the seal of FMT BJRM Hospital alongwith the inquest papers, to the IO.
28. PW-16 : Ct. Lilu Ram deposed that on 17.06.2014, he was on night emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am alongwith SI Amit. He further deposed that on that day, DD No. 10A was marked to SI Amit. Accordingly, he had accompanied him to the place of occurrence i.e. MCD Office, Opposite Lampur Road, Under Bridge, Narela, Delhi, where they had met Sh. Ramesh Chand. He further deposed that it was informed to them that one of the injured had been taken to the hospital by PCR Van. SI Amit left him at the spot and went to the hospital. After sometime, Inspector Gulam Sabir alongwith SI Amit had reached at the aforesaid place. The aforesaid officials had called the Crime Team at the spot. Crime team officials reached at the spot and inspected the place of occurrence and Crime Team Photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence. He further deposed that from the spot, IO Inspector Gulam Sabir had lifted blood stained earth and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. He further deposed that IO had also lifted blood stains found lying at the spot, with the help of cotton gauze and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 44 of 95 Ex.PW16/B. He further deposed that IO had also lifted three cartridge cases and prepared the sketch Ex.PW16/C of the said cartridge cases. IO had kept the said cartridge cases in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/D. He further deposed that IO had also lifted one live cartridge from the spot and prepared sketch Ex.PW16/E of the said cartridge. IO had kept the said live cartridge in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/F. All aforesaid memos bear his signatures at points-A. IO had also lifted earth control sample and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/G. He has correctly identified the case property produced by MHC(M).
28.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he deposed that many public persons were present at the spot at the time of seizure of the aforesaid exhibits by IO. He himself did not ask any of those public persons to join the proceedings. He further deposed that in his presence, IO also did not ask any of those public persons to join the proceedings. He admitted that that all the aforesaid memos were not witnessed by any public witness. He further deposed that no videography of any proceeding was conducted by IO in his presence. He voluntarily stated that crime team officials took the photographs of the scene of crime in his presence. He further deposed that he alongwith SI Amit had SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 45 of 95 reached the spot somewhere around 7.50 am or so and he had finally left the spot somewhere in between 12 noon - 1 pm. Sh. Ramesh Chand had remained at the spot upto 9 am. He further deposed that he himself did not notice any specific mark of identification on cartridge cases or live cartridge. He had not noticed if any CCTV camera was installed either at the shop-cum-office of the complainant or near the place of occurrence.
29. PW-17 : SI P.L. Meena deposed that on 18.06.2014, at about 2.36 pm, DD no. 54B was marked to him. Accordingly, I went to Raju Yadav Work Shop situated at Gali no. 14, Safiabad Road. At the said place, I met caller Raju Yadav. He further deposed that in his presence IO had seized one Maruti Eeco Car bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722 white colour parked over there vide seizure memo Ex. PW17/A. He has correctly identified the four photographs of the aforesaid car Ex.P-17/1 to be of the aforesaid car which was seized by IO in his presence.
29.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he deposed that there were about 3-4 employees present in the nearby mechanic workshop, at the time of seizure of the aforesaid car. He himself did not ask any of those employees to join the proceedings. In my presence, IO also did not ask any of those employees to join the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that aforesaid photographs Ex.P- 17/1 (colly.) were taken subsequently while sitting in the PS itself after manipulating the relevant facts in order to support the case of SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 46 of 95 prosecution.
30. PW-18 : Ct. Kapil deposed that on 17.06.2014 on receipt of information regarding the occurrence he went to place of occurrence i.e. at Lampur Road, under Bridge, Shop No. 2B where he met SI Amit and handed over him the rukka. Accordingly, he took the rukka to PS on or about 9:30 am and handed over the said rukka to Duty Officer. Duty Officer got registered FIR no. 775/2014 and handed over him copy of FIR and original rukka. Accordingly, he had returned back to the spot on or about 11:15 am and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Amit. Thereafter, he had accompanied SI Amit to SRHC Hospital. Thereafter, on the instruction of SI Amit, he took the dead body of Praveen to BJRM Hospital Mortuary. He had deposited the said dead body in the said mortuary. On the same day, SI Amit alongwith the relatives of deceased visited the mortuary of aforesaid hospital and recorded the statement of relatives of deceased. SI Amit also got conducted postmortem on the body of deceased and after postmortem handed over the dead body to the relatives of the deceased. He further deposed that after postmortem the concerned doctor had handed over him the exhibits i.e. pullanda containing blood sample of deceased, pullanda containing the sikka of bullet from the body of deceased, pullanda containing clothes of deceased alongwith sample seal of FMT BJRM hospital which he had handed over to IO. Thereafter, IO had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW18/A. SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 47 of 95
31. PW-19 : Dr. Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 17.06.2014, he was on duty as Medical Officer at SRHC Hospital. He further deposed that on that day at about 8.30 am, one unknown was brought to the aforesaid hospital by the official of Libra-23. Accordingly, he had prepared the MLC Ex. PW19/A. He further deposed that upon local examination, the said unknown patient found suffered gun shot injury to the right fronto parietal region. Since, there was no sign of life, he had declared the said patient being brought dead.
32. PW-21: SI Amit deposed that on 17.06.2014, he was on night emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am alongwith Ct. Lilu. He further deposed that on that day, DD No. 10A was marked to him. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Lilu Ram went to the place of occurrence where they had met Sh. Ramesh Chand. He had recorded the statement already Ex. PW11/A, made by Sh. Ramesh Chand. He further deposed that it was revealed / informed to them that one of the injured had been taken to the hospital by PCR Van. Thereafter, he had left Ct. Lilu Ram at the spot and went to SRHC hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital, he had met the concerned doctor who had informed him that one unknown (whose name was later on revealed as Praveen) had been brought dead in the hospital. Thereafter, he had collected the MLC of said unknown. In the hospital, the concerned doctor had handed over to him one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SRHC Hospital, Narela containing three SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 48 of 95 live bullets alongwith the sample seal. He further deposed that the concerned doctor has also handed over to him the DL of deceased Praveen and one Idea Mobile Phone SIM. In the meantime, SHO Inspector Gulam Sabir alongwith staff had reached at the aforesaid hospital. In the hospital, he had prepared rukka Ex. PW21/A and the same was handed over to Ct. Kapil who had accompanied Inspector Gulam Sabir to the hospital. Accordingly, Ct. Kapil took the said rukka to PS for getting the FIR registered. He further deposed that in the hospital itself, he had handed over the aforesaid articles/pullandas to Inspector Gulam Sabir which he seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/B and Ex. PW21/C respectively. Thereafter, he alongwith Inspector Gulam Sabir and staff had returned back to the spot. When we had reached at the spot, the officials of Crime Team were already present there. He further deposed that crime team Incharge SI Anil had inspected the place of occurrence and Crime Team Photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence. He further deposed that in the meantime, Ct. Kapil returned back to the spot and handed over computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to Inspector Gulam Sabir. He further deposed that from the spot, IO Inspector Gulam Sabir had lifted blood stained earth and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/A. He further deposed that IO had also lifted blood stains found lying at the spot, with the help of cotton gauze and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 49 of 95 same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/B. He further deposed that IO had also lifted three cartridge cases and prepared the sketch already Ex.PW16/C of the said cartridge cases. IO had kept the said cartridge cases in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/D. He further deposed that IO had also lifted one live cartridge from the spot and prepared sketch already Ex.PW16/E of the said cartridge. Thereafter, IO had kept the said live cartridge in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/F. He further deposed that IO had also lifted earth control sample and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/G. He further deposed that from the spot, on the instruction of IO, he alongwith Ct. Kapil went to SRHC hospital and on his instructions, Ct. Kapil took the body of Praveen to the Mortuary of BJRM hospital. The witness has correctly identified the case property already Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 being lifted by the IO from the spot in his presence, Ex.P3 being the same gauze piece on which blood was lifted by the IO from the spot in his presence, Ex.P4 (colly.) being lifted by the IO from the spot in his presence, Ex.P5 being lifted by the IO from the spot in his presence. The said witness has also identified from the judicial file the driving license in the name of Praveen Kumar and one Idea SIM Ex.P6 (Colly.) being the same which were handed over to him by the concerned doctor.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 50 of 9532.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he denied the suggestion that the statement of Complainant Sh. Ramesh Chand was not recorded in the manner as deposed by him during examination-in-chief. He further deposed that many public persons were present at the spot at the time of seizure of the aforesaid exhibits by IO. He herself did not ask any of those public persons to join the proceedings. He further deposed that in his presence, IO also did not ask any of those public persons to join the proceedings. He admitted that all the aforesaid memos were not witnessed by any public witness. He further deposed that no videography of any proceeding was conducted by IO in his presence. He further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Lilu Ram had reached the spot somewhere around 8.00 am and Sh. Ramesh Chand had remained at the spot upto 8.45 am. He further deposed that no CCTV camera was installed either at the shop-cum-office of the complainant or near the place of occurrence.
33. PW-22 : Sh. Virender Singh was posted as M.M. (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi. During his testimony, one envelope sealed with the seal of VS was opened. The same was found containing statement U/s 164 Cr.PC of witness Sh. Parmod S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh. He deposed that on 15.09.2014, application Ex.PW22/A moved by IO Inspector Gulam Sabir of PS Narela for recording statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of witness Sh. Parmod S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh in the present case. He further SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 51 of 95 deposed that on the very same day i.e. 15.09.2014, he had recorded statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. of witness Sh. Parmod S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh after satisfying himself that the witness was making statement voluntarily. The said statement is Ex.PW22/B. Copy of said proceeding was provided to the IO on his request made vide application Ex.PW22/C. After concluding the proceedings, the same were kept in an envelope, which was sealed with the seal of 'VS'. The said envelope is Ex. PW22/D.
34. PW-23 : HC Hardesh deposed that on 26.06.2014, he had joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Gulam Shabir and Ct. Dinesh. He further deposed that on that day, on the basis of secret informer, accused Arun S/o Sh. Mange Ram was apprehended from his house situated at Gali No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony, Safiabad Road, Narela, Delhi. After interrogation, IO Inspector Gulam Sabir had effected the arrest of accused Arun vide arrest memo Ex.PW23/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW23/B. Said accused had also made disclosure statement Ex.PW23/C. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Arun, they managed to apprehend accused Praveen (correctly identified by the witness) from his house No. 69, Pana Udhyan, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that after interrogation, IO Inspector Gulam Sabir had effected the arrest of accused Praveen vide arrest memo Ex.PW23/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW23/E. Said accused had also made disclosure statement Ex.PW23/F. He SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 52 of 95 deposed that accused Praveen had also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide memo Ex.PW23/G. Thereafter, accused Arun and Praveen were got medically examined from SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi. IO had recorded his statement in this regard.
34.1. Thereafter, on 04.07.2014, he had again joined the investigation of the present case. He further deposed that on that day at the instance of accused Arun, IO had seized one motorcycle bearing no. DL-11SE-6600 from road in front of H. No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony. The key of said motorcycle was taken out by accused Arun from inside his house. He further deposed that IO had seized the said motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/H and had recorded his supplementary statement in this regard. He deposed that he can identify the said motorcycle if shown to me.
35. PW-24 : ASI Ram Kishan deposed that on 17.06.2014, he was working as Duty Officer from 8.00 am to 4 pm. He further deposed that at about 9.30 am, Ct. Kapil had brought rukka sent by SI Amit, on the basis of which he got recorded the FIR no. 775/14. He further deposed that the computer through which the FIR was got recorded by me, was under the control and supervision of Computer Operator WCt. Preeti. The computerized copy of FIR is Ex.PW24/A (OSR). He had also made endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW24/B brought by Ct. Kapil at point-X to X-1. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 53 of 95 handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Kapil for handing over the same to Inspector Gulam Sabir, the then SHO for conducting investigation. He had handed over the copies of FIR to Ct. Dinesh Kumar for supplying the same to Ld. Area MM as well as senior police officers.
35.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge regarding the contents of the FIR. He deposed that it took about 45 minutes in getting the FIR recorded through computer.
36. PW-25 : Sh. Neeraj deposed that he has been residing at H. No. B-7D, Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that on 10.09.2014 on the call of IO, he went to PS Narela. He had stated to IO that he had purchased SIM bearing no. 9971781751 of Airtel. He deposed that in the said PS, he was shown the CDR of mobile phone no. 9716960950 dated 16.06.2014. Upon seeing the said CDR, he had stated to IO that on 16.06.2014, he had talked to the aforesaid mobile no. 9716960950 with my Airtel SIM/mobile with one Guddu, who is his neighbour. Except this, he did not want to say anything else in this case.
36.1. This witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. During his cross- examination by ld. defence counsel he denied the suggestion that he had SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 54 of 95 stated to IO that on 16.06.2014, he had talked on mobile no. 9716960950 with his Airtel SIM bearing no. 9971781751 with Arun S/o Sh. Mange Ram, R/o Gali No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony or that the said SIM was used by Arun or that he had also stated to IO that he was not aware as to who was owing the said SIM number or on whose ID, the said SIM was purchased. The statement Mark PW25/A had been read over to the witness and witness denied having made any such statement before the police. The witness was confronted with portion A to A, where the aforesaid facts have been specifically recorded.
37. PW-26 : Ct. Ravinder deposed that on 18.06.2014, he was posted at Photographer/Constable with Mobile Crime Team, Outer District, Delhi. He further deposed that on that day at about 5.30 pm, a call was received from District Control Room and accordingly, he alongwith ASI Ram Kumar, In-charge Mobile Crime Team alongwith Finger Print Proficient HC Rajesh, reached at Gali No.14, Safiabad Road, Gautam Colony, Narela, Delhi, where they met SI P.L. Meena and other police officials. He further deposed that upon the instructions of Crime Team In-charge and SI P.L. Meena, he took 5 photographs of vehicle bearing no. DL-8CR-6722 from different angles. He further deposed that after developing, he handed over the said photographs to the IO. He further deposed that he had brought today the negatives of the said photographs. The negatives are Ex.PW26/A (colly.) and photographs are Ex.PW26/B (colly.).
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 55 of 9538. PW-27 : Sh. Naveen Kumar deposed that he had been working as milk supplier. He further deposed that in the year 2012, he had got financed Eeco Car bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722 from financer. The said car was in his name. He further deposed that he had purchased the said car at his address i.e. H. No. 562, Ravidas Nagar, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that in the year 2011, he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- from one Gyanender S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, R/o H. No. 407/I, Pana Udyan, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that when Sh. Gyanender Kumar had asked for the refund of the said money, then he had financed the aforesaid Eeco Car in the year 2012 and an arrangement was made that he should pay the installments, so that the borrowed money taken from Gyanender could be cleared. He further deposed that he had given the aforesaid vehicle to accused Amit @ Vicky, present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness), who is son of Gyanender. He further deposed that it was also agreed that when the loan amount would be paid, he should transfer the aforesaid vehicle in the name of Amit @ Vicky. He further deposed that during investigation, IO had recorded his statement in this regard. During his testimony, the witness has identified the aforesaid Eeco Car from photographs available on judicial file and the said five photographs already Ex.PW26/B (colly.).
38.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he deposed that he was a tenant in the house of Gyanender for about 3-4 SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 56 of 95 years. He deposed that he is not having any receipt regarding the borrowing of Rs. 1,80,000/- from Gyanender. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely due to enmity with Gyanender and his family.
38.2. He further deposed that he is still the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. He further deposed that he had still not cleared the borrowed amount from financer. He deposed that the original R.C. of said vehicle is still with Gyanender. The witness further deposed that he had not brought the photocopy of R.C. today, but he can produce the same. He further deposed that he is also having sale letter in respect of said vehicle executed in favour of Atul/Alok, who is younger brother of accused Amit.
39. PW-28 : Sh. Prashant Ranjan deposed that on 10.09.2014, he was working as H.R. Executive with ADEeco (I) Pvt. Ltd., Model Town, Delhi. He deposed that on that day, IO of the present case came to his aforesaid office and enquired about the attendance of Amit. He further deposed that he had gone through their official record. Said Amit was working as LMV Driver with their said firm. He further deposed that upon checking the records, he had replied to IO that said Amit had joined his duties on 17.06.2014 at 13:37 hours and remained present upto 16:02 hours. He had handed over the copy of Biometric record to IO, which IO had seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW28/A. The said Biometric SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 57 of 95 computerized Record is Ex.PW28/B.
40. PW-29 : Sh. Ranbir Singh deposed that on 10.09.2014, he was called at PS Narela by IO of the present case. He further deposed that in the said PS, IO had shown him the copy of ID proof tendered at the time of purchasing mobile no. 9716960950. In the said CAF, he was shown to be the purchaser of aforesaid mobile number. He deposed that upon seeing the same, he had replied to IO that the CAF, which was already Ex.PW8/A though bears his photograph and the ID proof i.e. copy of Election I-Card already Ex.PW8/B, though belonged to him, but he had not purchased any such mobile number and even his signatures on CAF Ex.PW8/A were forged. He had also replied to IO that he was not knowing any person by the name of Arun S/o Mange Ram, R/o Gali No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony, Safiabad Road. He further deposed that he had also replied to IO that it is not within his knowledge as to how and who had used his photograph and ID Card while purchasing the mobile number. IO had recorded his statement in this regard.
41. PW-30 : Ct. Rambir deposed that on 04.07.2014, he had joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Gulam Shabir and Ct. Hardesh. He further deposed that on that day at the instance of accused Arun, present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness), IO had seized one motorcycle bearing no. DL-11SE-6600 from road in front of H. No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony. He further deposed that SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 58 of 95 the key of said motorcycle was taken out by accused Arun from inside his house. He further deposed that IO had seized the said motorcycle vide seizure memo already Ex.PW23/H. Witness has identified the photographs of the aforesaid motorcycle, which are available on judicial file. Five photographs of aforesaid motorcycle already Ex.PW23/1 (colly.).
41.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he denied the suggestion that no such motorcycle was recovered at the instance of accused Arun or that the said motorcycle was brought by the family members of accused Arun or that the said motorcycle was falsely shown to be recovered at the instance of accused Arun.
42. PW-31 : Ct. Uday Bhan deposed that on 14.08.2014, he had joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Gulam Shabir and Ct. Hardesh. He further deposed that on that day on or about 5 am, when they were present at Ramdev Chowk, Narela, there one secret informer gave an information to IO Inspector Gulam Shabir that the wanted accused persons of the present case namely Raja and Vijay would come from Saboli Road towards Narela on or about 6 am, if raided they could be apprehended. He further deposed that IO had disclosed the said information to them and also requested 5-6 passersby to join the investigation, but none agreed. Thereafter, they made a Nakabandi at near ITBP Camp, Narela. He further deposed that on or about 5.20 am, SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 59 of 95 accused Raja and Vijay were pointed out by the secret informer while they were coming from the side of Saboli Road on foot. Thereafter, they managed to apprehend accused Raja and Vijay, who were present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). He further deposed that IO Inspector Gulam Shabir took the formal search of accused Vijay and one country made pistol was recovered from the right side of his wearing pant. He further deposed that IO had checked the said pistol and three cartridges were found inside the magazine of said pistol. He further deposed that IO had prepared the sketch of said pistol and cartridges Ex.PW31/A. He further deposed that IO had also measured the said pistol, its magazine and three cartridges and mentioned their measurements on said sketch. Thereafter, IO had kept the pistol, magazine and cartridges in a plastic container and said container was sealed with the seal of GS and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW31/B. He further deposed that both the aforesaid memos bear his signatures at points-A. Thereafter, IO had interrogated both the aforesaid accused persons. He further deposed that after interrogation, IO had effected the arrest of accused Jaspreet Singh @ Raja vide memo Ex.PW31/C and of accused Vijay vide memo Ex.PW31/D and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW31/E and Ex.PW31/F respectively. He further deposed that both the said accused persons had also made disclosure statements Ex.PW31/G and Ex.PW31/H respectively.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 60 of 9542.1. Thereafter, both the aforesaid accused persons led them to the place of commission of offence and pointed out the same vide pointing out memos Ex.PW31/J and Ex.PW31/K respectively. Both memos bear his signatures at points-A. He further deposed that IO had recorded his statement in this regard. The witness has correctly identified the case property Ex.P31/1 (colly.) being recovered from the possession of accused Vijay and seized in this case.
42.2. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he denied that accused Jaspreet @ Raja was called at PS on the pretext of making some enquiries from him or that he was falsely arrested at the PS or that his signatures were forcibly obtained on blank documents. He further denied the suggestion that accused Jaspreet @ Raja had not made any disclosure statement or that he had not pointed out the place of commission of offence. He admitted that there is a ITBP Camp near Saboli Road, Narela, Delhi and they had their pickets near Saboli Road. He deposed that in his presence, IO had not requested any of the ITBP official present at the picket for joining the investigation. He deposed that IO had not taken any photographs of the place from where accused Jaspreet @ Raja and Vijay were shown to be arrested. He further deposed that IO had also not lifted any chance prints from the country made pistol recovered from the possession of accused Vijay.
43. PW-32 : Ms. Anita Chhari, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 61 of 95 FSL, Rohini, Delhi. She deposed that vide letter no. 4487 dated 19.08.2014, their laboratory received 5 parcels duly sealed and the seals were found intact. She deposed that the said parcels were marked to him for examination and opinion purposes. She had checked said 5 parcels, out of which, 3 were sealed plastic containers, one was sealed envelope and one was sealed cloth parcel. She further deposed that she had opened all the said sealed parcels and the parcels were numbered as Ex.1 to Ex.5. She further deposed that she had examined the material contained in the said parcels from Biological side and upon examination, blood was detected on Exhibits 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d and 5. However, blood could not be detected on Ex. 1. She further deposed that upon serological examination, blood group "B" was detected on Ex.2, 3, 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d and 5. Her report in this regard are Ex.PW32/A and Ex.PW32/B respectively. She further deposed that after examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of AC FSL Delhi and were sent back to the investigating agency.
44. PW-33 : Ct. Dinesh deposed that on 26.06.2014, he had joined the investigation of the present case with IO Inspector Gulam Shabir and HCt. Hardesh. He further deposed that on that day, on the basis of secret informer, accused Arun S/o Sh. Mange Ram, present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) was apprehended from his house situated at Gali No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony, Safiabad Road, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that after interrogation, IO Inspector SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 62 of 95 Gulam Sabir had effected the arrest of accused Arun vide arrest memo already Ex.PW23/A and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex.PW23/B. He further deposed that accused Arun had also made disclosure statement already Ex.PW23/C. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Arun, they managed to apprehend accused Praveen, present in the Court (correctly identified) from his house No. 69, Pana Udhyan, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that after interrogation, IO Inspector Gulam Sabir had effected the arrest of accused Praveen vide arrest memo already Ex.PW23/D and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex.PW23/E. Thereafter, accused Praveen had also made disclosure statement Ex.PW23/F. He further deposed that accused Praveen had also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide memo already Ex.PW23/G. He further deposed that accused Arun and Praveen were got medically examined from SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi.
45. PW-34 ACP Sh. Gulam Sabir deposed that on 17.06.2014, SI Amit was on night emergency duty from 8 pm to 8 am alongwith Ct. Lilu. He deposed that on the receipt of DD no.10A, SI Amit alongwith Ct. Lilu Ram went to the place of occurrence i.e. MCD Office, Opposite Lampur Road, Under Bridge, Narela, Delhi, where they had met Sh. Ramesh Chand. He further deposed that SI Amit had left Ct. Lilu Ram at the spot and accompanied him and Ct. Kapil to SRHC hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital, SI Amit in his presence had met the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 63 of 95 concerned doctor who had informed them that one unknown (whose name was later on revealed as Praveen) had been brought dead in the hospital. Thereafter, SI Amit had collected the MLC of said unknown. In the hospital, the concerned doctor had handed over to SI Amit one sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of SRHC Hospital, Narela containing three live bullets alongwith the sample seal. He further deposed that the concerned doctor has also handed over to SI Amit the DL of deceased Praveen and one Idea Mobile Phone SIM. In the hospital, SI Amit had prepared rukka Ex. PW21/A and rukka was handed over to Ct. Kapil. Accordingly, Ct. Kapil took the said rukka to PS for getting the FIR registered. He deposed that in the hospital itself, SI Amit had handed over the aforesaid articles/pullandas to him which he had seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/B and Ex. PW21/C respectively. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Amit and staff had returned back to the spot. When they had reached at the spot, the officials of Crime Team were already present there. He deposed that Crime team Incharge SI Anil had inspected the place of occurrence and Crime Team Photographer took photographs of the place of occurrence. He deposed that in the meantime, Ct. Kapil returned back to the spot and handed over computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to him for investigation purposes.
45.1. The witness deposed that from the spot, he had lifted blood stained earth and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 64 of 95 already Ex.PW16/A. He further deposed that he had also lifted blood stains found lying at the spot, with the help of cotton gauze and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/B. He had also lifted three cartridge cases and prepared the sketch already Ex.PW16/C of the said cartridge cases. Thereafter, he had kept the said cartridge cases in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/D. IO had recorded his statement in this regard.
45.2. He further deposed that he had also lifted one live cartridge from the spot and prepared sketch already Ex.PW16/E of the said cartridge. He further deposed that he had kept the said live cartridge in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/F. He further deposed that he had also lifted earth control sample and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the said container with the seal of GS and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW16/G. He further deposed that from the spot, on his instructions, SI Amit alongwith Ct. Kapil went to SRHC hospital for preservation of dead body of Praveen in the Mortuary of BJRM hospital. He further deposed that at the spot he had prepared rough site plan Ex. PW34/A of the place of occurrence at the instance of the complainant Sh. Ramesh Garg. He had recorded the statement of Crime Team Incharge SI Anil Kumar, Crime Team SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 65 of 95 Photographer Ct. Raj Kumar, Supplementary statement of complainant Sh. Ramesh Chand. Thereafter, he went to the house of deceased Praveen where he had met the brother namely Pramod of deceased as well as the wife namely Sudesh of Praveen as well as Omwati, mother of deceased Praveen. He further deposed that he had recorded their statements and the statement of Ct. Lilu Ram, SI Amit, Ct. Dinesh Kumar i.e. special messenger.
45.3. He further deposed that on the next day i.e 18.06.2014, he went to the mortuary of BJRM hospital where he had met the relatives of deceased Praveen. He had prepared application Ex. PW34/B for conducting postmortem on the body of deceased. He had also prepared brief facts Ex. PW34/C and filled form no. 25.35(1)(b) Ex. PW34/D. Accordingly, the concerned Autopsy Surgeon had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased. Thereafter, he had also recorded the statement made by Pramod already Ex. PW2/A and Swaroop Singh already Ex. PW6/A thereby identifying the dead body and after postmortem the body of Praveen was handed over to his relatives vide receipt already Ex. PW6/B. He further deposed that on the same day i.e. on 18.06.2014, SI P. L. Meena who was on day emergency duty attended the call recorded vide DD no.54B. He further deposed that SI P. L. Meena on that day went to the workshop of Raju Yadav situated at Gali no.14, Safia Bad Road where he had met the caller Raju Yadav. Accordingly, SI P. L. Meena had called him at the aforesaid place and he SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 66 of 95 reached there and found one Maruti Eeco car bearing no. DL-8CR-6722 white colour parked over there. He further deposed that crime Team had inspected the said car and the Crime Team photographer took the photographs of the said car. He had seized the said car vide seizure memo already Ex. PW17/A. He further deposed that on 26.06.2014, Ct. Hardesh and Ct. Dinesh had joined the investigation of the present case with him. He further deposed that on that day, on the basis of secret informer, accused Arun S/o Sh. Mange Ram, present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) was apprehended from his house situated at Gali No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony, Safiabad Road, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that after interrogation, he had effected the arrest of accused Arun vide arrest memo Ex.PW23/A and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex.PW23/B. Said accused had also made disclosure statement already Ex.PW23/C. 45.4. Thereafter, at the instance of accused Arun, they managed to apprehend accused Praveen, present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) from his house No. 69, Pana Udhyan, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that after interrogation, he had effected the arrest of accused Praveen vide arrest memo already Ex.PW23/D and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex.PW23/E. Said accused had also made disclosure statement already Ex.PW23/F. He further deposed that accused Praveen had also pointed out the place of commission of offence vide memo already Ex.PW23/G. Accused Arun and Praveen were SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 67 of 95 got medically examined from SRHC Hospital, Narela, Delhi. Thereafter, on 27.06.2014 both the aforesaid accused persons were produced in court in muffled face and their one day JC remand was obtained. He deposed that on 28.06.2014 accused Arun was again produced before the court in muffled face and the concerned Ld. MM had fixed the date for TIP as 02.07.2014. He further deposed that on 02.07.2014 accused Arun had refused to participate in judicial TIP before Ld. MM and accordingly he had obtained the copy of said proceedings. Thereafter, on 03.07.2014, he had obtained two days PC remand of the accused Arun and Praveen. He further deposed that during PC remand Sh. Pramod had identified accused Arun and he had recorded his supplementary statement. He further deposed that on 04.07.2014, Ct. Hardesh and Ct. Ramvir had joined the investigation of the present case with him. The witness further deposed that at the instance of accused Arun, he had seized one motorcycle bearing no. DL-11SE-6600 from road in front of H. No. 8, Shiv Mandir Colony. The key of said motorcycle was taken out by accused Arun from inside his house. He had seized the said motorcycle vide seizure memo already Ex.PW23/H. He had recorded the statements of witnesses in this regard and deposited the aforesaid motorcycle in malkhana. He further deposed that on 05.07.2014, he had recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant Sh. Ramesh Chand thereby identifying the accused Arun and Praveen. After PC both the aforesaid accused persons were remanded to JC. He further deposed that on 21.07.2014, he had accompanied draftsman SI Manohar Lal to the place SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 68 of 95 of occurrence where said draftsman took measurements and prepared rough notes at his instructions and he had recorded his statement in this regard.
45.5. Thereafter, in the later part of his testimony, he deposed in the same lines as that PW31 Ct. Uday Bhan and his testimony is not repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
45.6. He further deposed that on 19.08.2014 on his instructions Ct. Krishan Kumar had collected five sealed pullandas, sample seal and form FSL as well as four sealed pullandas alongwith sample seal and form FSL from MHCM vide RC nos. 151/21/14, 152/21/14 and deposited the said pullandas at FSL Rohini. He further deposed that on 25.08.2014, Ld. MM had conducted TIP proceedings of accused Jasprteet Singh @ Raja as well as of accused Vijay. During judicial TIP complainant Sh. Ramesh Chand had correctly identified the accused Jaspreet Singh @ Raja. He had obtained the copy of TIP proceedings. He had also recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Ramesh Chand thereby identifying accused Vijay. During investigation, he had also recorded the statements of witnesses including the supplementary statement of complainant Ramesh Chand thereby identifying the aforesaid Eeco car. He further deposed that during investigation he had also got recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr. PC of PW Pramod. He had also collected the postmortem report, photographs from Crime Team SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 69 of 95 Photographer, scaled site plan and placed the same on record. He had also collected and analyzed the CDRs of the mobile numbers of the accused persons. He had also collected the relevant PCR forms. He further deposed that upon completion of investigation, he had prepared charge Sheet against accused Arun, Praveen, Vijay, Jaspreet Singh @ Raja. He had also obtained proceedings under Section 82 Cr. PC against accused Amit @ Vicky. Witness has correctly identified the case property already Ex.P1, Ex.P2 Ex.P3 Ex.P4 (colly.) Ex.P5. Witness stated that at the time of seizure of the said cartridge, it was a live cartridge. He has also identified from the judicial file the driving license in the name of Praveen Kumar and one Idea SIM Ex.P6 being the same which were handed over to him by the concerned doctor. Witness has identified the photographs of the aforesaid motorcycle, which are available on judicial file. Five photographs of aforesaid motorcycle are exhibited Ex.PW23/1 (colly.). The witness has also correctly identified the case property Ex.P31/1 (colly.) being recovered from the possession of accused Vijay and seized in this case.
45.7. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsels, he deposed that he reached at the spot on 17.06.2014 at about 7:45 a.m. and remained there for 30 minutes or 1 hour. He further deposed that he reached at the hospital at about 8:30 or 8:45 a.m. He further deposed that on 17.06.2014, when he left the PS, he made departure entry in the Roznamcha, however, today he did not remember the DD number. He SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 70 of 95 further deposed that he had checked the CCTV cameras installed near the place of occurrence, but the said CCTV Cameras were not functioning at that time. The said CCTV cameras were installed in front of shop of complainant. The witness further deposed that he did not remember if he had mentioned this fact in Inner Case Diary. He denied the suggestion that accused Vijay was lifted from his house on 09.08.2014. He further denied the suggestion that accused Vijay had been illegally confined at PS on 09.08.2014 to 14.08.2014. He denied the suggestion that accused Vijay had been confined at PS illegally or that upon lodging a complaint by the parents of accused Vijay on 12.08.2014, said accused was arrested in the present case falsely. He further denied the suggestion that the said CCTV camera was intentionally not seized during the investigation as no such incident was captured in the said CCTV camera.
48. PW-35 : ASI Narender deposed that on 23.07.2015, he alongwith Inspector Dheeraj Singh joined the investigation of this case and they came to the concerned court at Rohini Court. He further deposed that after taking permission from the court, accused Amit @ Vicky, present in the court (correctly identified by the witness) was interrogated by Inspector Dheeraj and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW35/A. Thereafter, said accused Amit @ Vicky made disclosure statement Ex.PW35/B. 48.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 71 of 95 deposed that though accused Amit @ Vicky was produced in muffled face, but he had seen his face during the interrogation by Inspector Dheeraj. During interrogation, the complete muffle was not removed.
49. PW-36: ASI Roshan Singh deposed that on 23.07.2015, he was posted at Crime Branch, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi. On that day, at about 4 am, a secret informer came to the office and informed him that a person namely Amit @ Vicky wanted in a case of kidnapping and murder, would come under the bye-pass, Mukarba Chowk in between 5.30 - 6 am to meet someone. He brought the secret information to the knowledge of senior officers. He produced the secret informer before Inspector Ravinder Verma. He further deposed that after discussion and on the instruction of Inspector Ravinder Verma, he organized a raiding party consisting of myself, SI Narender, SI Amit, HC Rishikesh, HC Mahesh, HC Harvinder, Ct. Sonu, Ct. Vinay and Ct. Sanjeev and the said raiding party left the office of Crime Branch at about 4.30 am with secret informer vide DD No. 44. True copy of DD No. 44 is Ex.PW36/A. Thereafter, they reached the place of secret information at about 4.40 am. He further deposed that he requested 5-6 passersby to join the raiding party, but they refused and went away without telling their names and addresses. Thereafter, he briefed the members of the raiding party and the positions were taken. Thereafter, at about 5.50 am, one person was seeing coming on foot from GTK Bus Depot side and stood under Fly Over and started waiting for someone. He further deposed that on the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 72 of 95 pointing out of secret informer, the said person was apprehended with the help of HC Rishikesh. The witness further deposed that on enquiry, the name of said person was revealed as accused Amit @ Vicky, present in the court (correctly identified by the witness). Thereafter, accused Amit @ Vicky was interrogated and disclosed about his involvement in the present case. He verified about the same from PS Narela and found that said accused was declared P.O. by the court of Ld. MM on 03.12.2014. Thereafter, accused Amit @ Vicky was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW36/B. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW36/C. Accused Amit @ Vicky also made disclosure statement Ex.PW36/D. He further deposed that he informed at PS Narela about the arrest of said accused vide DD No.11A. Attested copy of said DD is Ex.PW36/E. Thereafter, he prepared a kalandra U/s 41.1(c) Cr.P.C. Ex.PW37/F and produced accused Amit @ Vicky before the concerned court.
49.1. During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he deposed that at that time, he was using mobile phone bearing SIM No. 9818447513. He further deposed that he might be using the said mobile phone on 23.07.2015. He further deposed that the raiding party went to the place of secret information in two private cars and one motorcycle. One of the said car belonged to SI Narender. He did not remember to whom another car and the motorcycle belonged to. He further deposed that he was sitting with SI Narender and HC Rishikesh was also with them in the said car. He further deposed that one more Constable was SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 73 of 95 also with them in the said car, but he did not remember his name. He further deposed that accused Amit @ Vicky was not having any mobile phone with him when he was arrested. He further deposed that he could not tell the names of those persons who refused to join the raiding party as they had not disclosed their names. He did not serve any notice to those persons.
49.2. He further deposed that there was no PCR Van present at the time of apprehension of accused Amit @ Vicky. He had verified about the accused Amit @ Vicky from PS Narela through his office. He did not remember from whose mobile phone the said fact was verified. He further deposed that they returned to their office after the arrest of accused Amit @ Vicky i.e. after 9 am.
50. PW-37 : ASI Surender deposed that on 23.07.2015, he was working as Duty Officer from 8.00 am to 4 pm. He further deposed that on that day at about 9 am, ASI Roshan Singh of Crime Branch, informed through telephone regarding the arrest of accused Amit @ Vicky in a Kalandra U/s 41.1 Cr.P.C. and regarding his production in the concerned Court. Accordingly, he recorded the said information in Rojnamcha vide DD no. 11A and gave the copy of said DD to MHC(R) for informing the concerned IO. He had brought the DD Register containing the DD no. 11A dated 23.07.2015. The attested copy of said DD entry is Ex.PW36/E (OSR).
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 74 of 9551. PW-38 : Inspector Dheeraj Singh deposed that on 23.07.2015, investigation of this case was marked to him vide DD No. 11A already Ex. PW36/E. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith ASI Narender went to Rohini Court where accused Amit @ Vicky was produced by ASI Roshan Singh of Crime Branch in the court of ld concerned M.M, in muffled face. After taking permission from the concerned Court, accused Amit @ Vicky, present in the court today(correctly identified) was interrogated by him and then arrested by him vide memo already Ex. PW35/A. He further deposed that he had recorded the disclosure statement of the accused vide memo already Ex. PW35/B. He had moved application before the concerned Court for judicial TIP of accused Amit @ Vicky. Carbon copy of the same is Mark B-1 and got the TIP of the said accused conducted. He further deposed that the copy of the TIP proceedings is Mark B-2. He deposed that he had recorded statement of ASI Narender, ASI Roshan Singh, Ct. Rishikesh and ASI Surender.
DEFENCE WITENSSES
52. D3W1 Smt. Santosh deposed that the police officials of P.S Narela came to his residence on 09.08.2014 at about 6 p.m and had taken away his son Vijay (A-3) on the ground that they need to question him. She further deposed that when her son Vijay did not return, they went to P.S Narela, but they were not allowed to meet Vijay. She further deposed that with regard to the same, on 12.08.2014, she had made a complaint by SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 75 of 95 registered post Mark D3W1/A to Commissioner of Police, with copies to Joint Commissioner concerned, DCP Outer District and SHO P.S Narela. The photocopy of the two speed post receipts in this regard affixed on one page were Mark D3W1/B. She further deposed that his son was falsely implicated in the present case.
During her cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, she deposed that the originals of Mark D3W1/B have been misplaced. She deposed that she had mentioned in Mark D3W1/A that his son Vijay was lifted by police officials of P.S Narela, while he was sleeping in the house. She denied the suggestion that her son was not taken away for questioning by police officials of P.S Narela on 09.08.2014. She denied the suggestion that no such complaint as Mark D3W1/A was sent to any police official or in case the same was sent, the same was false.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
53. As to the quality and the quantity of the testimonies of witnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P., 27.10.2010 upheld as under:
"....A similar view has also been taken by this Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 322, wherein the Court has upheld as under:-
"There is no rule of evidence that no conviction can be based unless a certain minimum number of witnesses have identified a particular accused as a member of the unlawful assembly. It is axiomatic that evidence is not to be counted but only weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that matters. Even the testimony of one single witness, if wholly reliable, is sufficient to establish the identification of SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 76 of 95 an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly. All the same, when the size of the unlawful assembly is quite large (as in this case) and many persons would have witnessed the incident, it would be a prudent exercise to insist on at least two reliable witnesses to vouchsafe the identification of an accused as a participant in the rioting"
"......22. Thus, from the above, the law on the issue remains that in a case involving an unlawful assembly with a very large number of persons, there is no rule of law that states that there cannot be any conviction on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, unless that the court is of the view that the testimony of such sole eye-witness is not reliable. Though, generally it is a rule of prudence followed by the courts that a conviction may not be sustained if it is not supported by two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in a fit case the court may believe a reliable sole eye- witness if in his testimony he makes specific reference to the identity of the individual and his specific overt acts in the incident. The rule of requirement of more than one witness applies only in a case where a witness deposes in a general and vague manner, or in the case of a riot...."
The present case is related with the direct evidence. As upheld in the judgment of Ranjeet Singh (supra) in a case where there is an eye witness, the reliability of the witness has to be testified. It is the quality and not the quantity of witnesses that is required to prove a case. Even a single witness, if he is reliable and trustworthy may be sufficient to convict. In the present case, the prosecution has produced five witnesses i.e. PW2 Sh. Parmod (brother of deceased), PW4 Smt. Sudesh (wife of deceased), PW5 Smt. Omwati (mother of deceased), PW7 Sh. Raju and PW11 Sh. Ramesh Chand (complainant) in order to prove the story of prosecution.
The relevant portion of the testimony of complainant/ PW11 SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 77 of 95 Sh. Ramesh Chand is as under:
"....I have been residing at the aforesaid address alongwith my family. I am running hardware shop in the name of M/s Ram Gopal Lakhmi Chand & Co. at Premises No. 1973/2B, Lampur, Narela, Delhi.
"On 17.06.2014, I had reached at my aforesaid shop at about 6.10 am as certain goods are to be de-loaded at my aforesaid shop. On or about 7.40 am, while I was present in front of my shop and the goods were being unloaded from a truck, suddenly one white colour Maruti Eeco vehicle came in front of my aforesaid shop and halted in front of said shop. Two boys deboarded from the said vehicle. Both the said boys were armed with pistols. Both the said boys caught hold of me and pushed me towards the said Maruti Eeco Vehicle, but I resisted and refused to sit in the said vehicle. When I resisted to accompany them towards the said car, one of the said boys fired from his pistol on the ground. Thereafter, the said boys again started pushing me towards the said vehicle and when I resisted, the second offender amongst the said two boys, fired in the air from the said pistol. In the meantime, one more offender de-boarded from the said Maruti Eeco vehicle and caught hold of me from behind. Thereafter, the offender who caught hold of me from behind, started pushing me towards the said Maruti Eeco vehicle and I resisted. In the meantime, one amongst the two offenders who had initially de-boarded from said vehicle, fired towards me in order to kill me, but the bullet missed me and struck over the person who had caught hold of me from behind. In the meantime, public persons started gathering there and the two offenders who had initially de-boarded from Maruti Eeco vehicle and fired gun shots, ran towards the said vehicle and managed to sit in the said vehicle, the ignition of which was already on and I had seen one person found sitting over the steering of the said vehicle. Thereafter, they managed to run away while driving the said Eeco vehicle...."
PW11 Sh. Ramesh Garg is the complainant in the present case. He had categorically deposed about the incident happened on 17.06.2014 SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 78 of 95 and has identified the accused Jaspreet Singh during TIP but he has failed to identify the accused persons during his testimony stating that :
"... During investigation of the present case, I had gone to Tihar Jail on one occasion, where the police official accompanied me had shown one photograph and had asked me to identify the person whose face was visible in the said photograph, from amongst the persons/boys who shall be shown to me inside the jail premises. Accordingly, I had identified the boy during judicial TIP held before ld. Magistrate, on the basis of said photograph. However, I am not able to recollect the face of said boy who was identified by me during judicial TIP in Tihar Jail premises, due to lapse of time. I did not give any statement before the police at any point of time after judicial TIP of aforesaid boy was held in Tihar Jail premises.
"....I cannot identify the offenders who had committed the aforesaid offences in my presence even if shown to me today, as the attack upon me was so sudden that I was not able to see the faces of the offenders properly and further due to said sudden attack, I had lost my mental balance at that point of time and I was not able to see the face of any of the offenders properly....."
"....I also cannot identify the said Maruti Eeco vehicle even if shown to me as I was not able to note down the registration number of said vehicle as there was mud over both the number plates of the said vehicle....."
In catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have upheld that the testimony of the hostile witness cannot be outrightly rejected and if the court is satisfied with regard to the portion of testimony that can be believed, the Court may act upon it. A recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of 'Hari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, dated 26.11.2021, Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 2018, it has been held as under:
"......It is well settled that the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected in toto merely because the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 79 of 95 prosecution chose to treat them as hostile and cross- examined them. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. It is for the judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a while, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it...."
As already discussed, PW11 has admitted about the incident in question hence, his testimonies cannot be discarded only on the basis that the said PWs has turned hostile on the point of identity of the accused persons.
IDENTITY OF THE DECEASED
54. Regarding identity of the deceased the prosecution has produced PW2 Sh. Parmod, who is the real brother of Parveen (deceased).
The relevant portion of testimony PW2 Sh. Parmod (brother of deceased) is as under:
"....On 17.06.2014 in the morning hours, I was present at my house. On that day I was sleeping on the roof of my house and I woke up at around 6.00 am. While I was present at the roof of my house in between 6.00/6.15 am, accused Vicky S/o Sh. Gainender came to our house in Maruti Eco Car number DL8CR-6722 and accused Vicky had called my brother Parveen outside our house. Thereafter, accused Vicky sat on the driver seat of the aforesaid car and my brother sat on the back seat of the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 80 of 95 aforesaid car. Accused Arun was sitting besides accused Vicky.
Accused Arun and Vicky are present in the Court today(correctly identified). Both accused Arun and Vicky took my brother Parveen with them. On the same day at about 10.00 am, an information was received over phone call by my cousin namely Babloo. The said phone call was made by Karambir who had been running Ghee Shop at main road Swatantar Nagar. The said Karambir had informed my cousin Babloo that the body of my brother Parveen has been lying at Lampur underpass. Accordingly,I alongwith my mother and maternal uncle rushed to the said place and police officials were already present there and I had noticed a bullet injury over the forehead of my brother Parveen and was lying dead there...."
PW2 Sh. Parmod has identified the deceased Parveen as his brother.
CAUSE OF DEATH
55. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.06.2014, the accused persons according to their plan attempted to abduct the complainant for ransom but when the complainant resisted one of the accused person fired upon him but fortunately he escaped and the bullet hit one of the accomplish of accused persons, who later on identified as accused Parveen. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW15 Dr. Bhim Singh, who had carried out the postmortem on the dead body of Parveen. He prepared the detailed postmortem report bearing no. 572/14 dated 18.06.2014 Ex.PW15/A. The relevant portion of his testimony is reproduced herein:
"......Upon external examination, I found one firearm entry wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity over right side of forehead in hairline with blackening and abrasion collar, margins SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 81 of 95 inverted...."
"......Upon internal examination, I found injuries over scalp tissues, bones of skull and brain and one bullet was recovered from the cranial cavity of the deceased. After carrying out postmortem, I gave an opinion that the death was due to cranio cerebral damage consequent upon firearm injury caused by bullet fired from close range. All the injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Time since death was about 26-28 hours....."
The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of PW19 Dr. Rajesh Kumar in this regard who had prepared the MLC Ex.PW19/A. He opined that the patient found suffered gun shot injury to the right fronto parietal region.
From the testimony of abovesaid independent witnesses, it is clear that the death of Parveen was caused due to gun shot injury.
RECOVERY SUBSEQUENT TO DISCLOSURE
56. Regarding recovery of weapon of offence prosecution has produced PW23 Ct. Hardesh, PW31 Ct. Uday Bhan and PW34 ACP Gulam Shabir. They consistently deposed in the similar lines. They stated that on 14.08.2014 at about 5.20 am, on the basis of secret information, PW31 Ct. Uday Bhan alongwith IO Insp. Gulam Shabir and Ct. Hardesh apprehended accused Raja and Vijay coming from the side of Saboli Road on foot. IO took the formal search of accused Vijay and one country made pistol was recovered from the right side pocket of his wearing pant. On checking the said pistol by IO, three cartridges were found inside the magazine of said pistol.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 82 of 95After satisfying that accused Vijay was apprehended by police officials and he is found in possession of improvised pistol 7.65 mm bore and three live cartridges, IPC Shweta Chauhan has accorded sanction u/s 39 Arms Act for prosecution of aforesaid accused for offence punishable u/s 25 Arms Act. The sanction accorded by him is Ex.PY.
It was argued by the ld. counsel that no public witness was made witness to the recovery hence, recovery from the accused Vijay was doubtful.
In this regard, Ld. counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of 'Manoj @ Lekhraj v. State, dated 06.02.2018', CRL.A. 835/2014 and 'Inderpal @ Mandhu v. State, dated 14.12.2017', CRL.A. 1526/2014.
No ground has been shown by the defence counsel as to why the police officials would implicate the accused in a false case. Merely that no public witness was made a witness cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of the abovesaid witnesses. Even otherwise there is general tendency of people not to come forward to be a witness in criminal cases.
RESULTS OF BALLISTIC EXAMINATION/OPINION
57. The pistol and three cartridges recovered from accused Vijay were sent to FSL for examination.
The ballistic report defined exhibit 'F1' as fire arm as per Arms Act.
Further, as per ballistic report exhibits 'EC1' to 'EC3' (empty SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 83 of 95 cartridge cases recovered from the spot), the firing pin & breech face marks were similar with firing pin and breech face marks present on test cartridge cases fired through the exhibit improvised pistol marked 'F1'. Hence, opinion was given that exhibit empty cartridge cases marked 'EC1' to 'ECS' have been fired through the improvised pistol marked exhibit 'F1'.
As per report exhibit bullet marked 'EB1' (recovered from the body of deceased) was similar with individual striation marks present on test bullets fired through exhibit improvised pistol marked 'F1'. Hence, it was opined in the report that exhibit bullets marked 'EB1' had been discharged through exhibit improvised pistol marked 'F1'.
Ld. counsel argued that accused cannot be convicted solely on the ground that the weapon which had been recovered from the possession of accused Vijay had been matched with the bullet recovered from the dead body. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Surender @ Babli v. State of Delhi, 28.07.2011', Criminal Appeal No. 1547/2010 and 'Rahul v. State of Delhi, HMA (07/11/2022)', Criminal Appeal No. 611, 612-613 and 614-615 of 2022.
Ld. counsel has also argued that merely because the shot was fired by the said gun, it cannot show complicity of the accused in the crime. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Delhi in the case of "C.T. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka, 20.7.2004', Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2003.
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 84 of 95APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 25/27 ARMS ACT
58. As already discussed supra regarding the recovery from accused Vijay, the FSL report becomes more important. As per FSL report, the exhibit bullets marked 'EB1' had been discharged through exhibit improvised pistol marked 'F1' which was recovered from accused Vijay. In such circumstances, the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding Section 25/27 Arms Act.
RESULT OF BIOLOGY DIVISION
59. As per FSL report Ex.PW32/A given by PW32 Ms. Anita Chhari, blood was detected on exhibits '2', '3', '4a', '4b', '4c', '4d' & '5'. However, blood could not be detected on exhibit '1'.
In this regard, ld. counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of 'Prem Singh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), CRL.A. 1728/2014.
As the same has not been connected with the accused persons hence, no reliance can be placed on the same and the submission of the ld. counsel for the accused are acceptable.
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE
60. In this regard, the prosecution PW11 Sh. Ramesh Chand (complainant) is material. The relevant portion of his testimony is as SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 85 of 95 under:
".....Thereafter, the offender who caught hold of me from behind, started pushing me towards the said Maruti Eeco vehicle and I resisted. In the meantime, one amongst the two offenders who had initially de boarded from said vehicle, fired towards me in order to kill me, but the bullet missed me and struck over the person who had caught hold of me from behind...."
SECTION 301 IPC : CULPABLE HOMICIDE BY CAUSING DEATH OF PERSON OTHER THAN PERSON WHOSE DEATH WAS INTENDED:
"...If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause."
So, the legal principle is that if one intended to murder of 'A', but by that act murder of 'B' is caused then the person causing injury will be liable for causing of death of 'B'. Similarly in the present case, as per witness PW11, the fire was caused upon him but the same missed and hit Parveen, one of the assailant who was holding him from behind.
APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 106 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
61. For the sake of convenience Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is reproduced herein below:-
SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 86 of 95106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
As prosecution has successfully proved by the testimony of PW11 that incident of abduction and firing had occurred on 17.06.2014 thereby death of Parveen was caused. Prosecution has also successfully proved the recovery from the accused Vijay. The pistol recovered from accused Vijay has been found to be the same gun by the FSL result Ex.PX. In such circumstances, Section 106 of the Evidence Act comes into play as how accused Vijay had come in possession of the weapon whereby death of Parveen was caused. In this regard reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Allahbad High Court in case titled 'Anurag Sharma v. State of U. P., 06.08.2022', Criminal Appeal No. 3603 of 2018.
Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved its case qua accused Vijay and further burden had shifted on the accused Vijay. As no plausible defence had been put forward by the accused Vijay regarding the specific knowledge, the burden to disprove the fact has not been discharged by the accused.
EVIDENCE REGARDING CONSPIRACY
62. As per the case of the prosecution the accused persons have hatched conspiracy to kidnap the complainant /PW11 for ransom but when the complainant resisted, one of the accomplish of accused persons fired towards complainant in order to kill him but the bullet missed the SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 87 of 95 complainant and struck over the one of the accomplish of the accused persons but the other accused persons managed to run away while driving the Eeco car. In order to evaluate the fact that accused persons have conspired against complainant, it is necessary to find out the presence of accused persons at the relevant time.
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW4 Smt. Sudesh is as under:
".....On 17.06.2014, I was present at my house. On or about 6 am, accused Amit @ Vicky, present in Court today (correctly identified), came to my house and called my husband Parveen. Accused Amit @ Vicky came to our house in an Eeco vehicle. Accused Arun, present in Court today (correctly identified), was also seen by me sitting in the said Eeco vehicle on the front seat besides driver seat. Accused Amit @ Vicky had called my husband on the pretext that they had to attend the duty..."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW5 Smt. Omwati (mother of deceased) ".....On 17.06.2014, I was present at my house. On or about 6 am, I alongwith my daughter-in-law Sudesh were mulching milk (dudh nikaal rahe the) of buffalo. At about 6.05 am, accused Amit @ Vicky, present in Court today (correctly identified), came to our house and called my son Parveen. Accused Amit @ Vicky came to our house in an Eeco vehicle. Accused Arun, present in Court today (correctly identified), was also seen by me sitting in the said Eeco vehicle on the front seat besides driver seat. Accused Amit @ Vicky had called my son Parveen on the pretext that they had to attend the duty...."
Statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of PW2 Parmod is as under:
"....17.06.2014 ko subah 5-45/6.00 ke aas-paas Vicky aur ek ladka jiski umar lagbhag 24-25 saal ke aas-paas thi mere bhai Parveen ko bulane ke liye aaye the. Vicky ne mere SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 88 of 95 samne hi mere bhai Parveen ko duty par chalne k liye bola tha. Mein chhat par khada tha. Wo log Eco gadi mein aaye the jiska number DL 8CR 6722 tha. Fir mera bhai un logo ke sath chala gya...."
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW11 is as under:
"......On 17.06.2014, I had reached at my aforesaid shop at about 6.10 am as certain goods are to be de-loaded at my aforesaid shop. On or about 7.40 am, while I was present in front of my shop and the goods were being unloaded from a truck, suddenly one white colour Maruti Eeco vehicle came in front of my aforesaid shop and halted in front of said shop........"
As per postmortem report bearing no. 572/14 dated 18.06.2014 Ex.PW15/A proved by PW15 Dr. Bhim Singh "Time since death was about 26-28 hours.....". As the postmortem report was conducted on 18.06.2014 while the incident had occurred on 17.06.2014, the report also correlates to the time specified by the complainant. There is no ground to disbelieve the witnesses who are family member of the deceased. The time when accused Amit @ Vicky and Arun had left with Parveen (since deceased) is very less i.e. approximately one and half hours. In such circumstances, Section 106 Indian Evidence Act is also applicable on the accused persons namely Amit @ Vicky and Arun as only they could tell as to how the Parveen was found dead within one and half hour after they had left from the house of Parveen (since deceased). In the present case, prosecution had led evidence regarding the conspiracy having been hatched between the accused persons for abducting complainant i.e. PW11 which accidentally resulted in death of Parveen. It is also pertinent to mention here that the deceased was one of the associate of SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 89 of 95 the other accused persons. From the testimony of the witnesses only this fact comes out that accused Amit and Arun had taken Parveen (since deceased) with him at early morning about 6:00 a.m. The other evidence regarding having any previous meeting of mind with the accused Vijay is missing on record. Therefore, they cannot be related with the conspiracy read with Section 302 IPC. But as no explanation had come from their side as to how the death occurred of Parveen just within the short span of period had remained unexplained on part of the accused persons Amit and Arun. Again, it is reiterated that deceased Parveen was allegedly friend of Amit and Arun so, attributing murder of Parveen would be in contradiction with rest of the evidence on part of these accused persons but some sort of conspiracy is reflected from the circumstances but the nature of the same had remained unexplained. Therefore, the act of conspiracy on part of Amit and Arun remained exclusive and unconnected with rest of the evidence. As such, there role for conspiracy u/s 120 B IPC had been sufficiently proved by the prosecution as in case of conspiracy all the facts can never be proved and the Court has to come to the conclusion on the facts proved by the prosecution and the implication arising there.
With regard to the other co-accused, there is insufficient evidence and prosecution has badly failed to prove the element of conspiracy as well as their role in commission of the murder.
The eye witness /PW1 did not identify any of the accused persons being present on the spot. The prosecution did not have any SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 90 of 95 other sufficient material like CCTV footage or any other independent witness etc. which would establish the presence of accused persons. With regard to accused Vijay, Section 106 Indian Evidence Act is applicable regarding having committed the murder while Section 106 Indian Evidence Act is also applicable on the accused Amit @ Vicky and Arun but the same cannot be applied against the other remaining co-accused persons in the absence of any other evidence suggesting involvement of other co-accused persons in the incident.
The reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn.) on 3 August, 1988', 1988 AIR 1883, 1988 SCR Supl. (2)
24.
"274: It will be thus seen that the most important ingredient of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of agreement, but the very agreement is an offence and is punishable. Reference to Sections 120-A and 120-B would make these aspects clear beyond doubt. Entering into an agreement by two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means is the very quintessence of the offence of conspiracy.
275. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 91 of 95 have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. Gerald Orchard of (1988) 3 SCC 609 University of Canterbury, New Zealand explains the limited nature of this proposition: "Although it is not in doubt that the offence requires some physical manifestation of agreement, it is important to note that the limited nature of this proposition. The law does not require that the act of agreement take any particular form and the fact of agreement may be communicated by words or conduct. Thus, it has been said that it is unnecessary to prove that the parties 'actually came together and agreed in terms' to pursue the unlawful object; there need never have been an express verbal agreement, it being sufficient that there was 'a tacit understanding between conspirators as to what should be done'...."
CALL DETAIL RECORD AND LOCATION CHART
63. The relevant witnesses produced by the prosecution in this regard were PW8 Sh. Shishir Malhotra and PW9 Sh. Anuj Bhatia.
The prosecution has also relied on the CDR and Location Chart but no much reliance can be placed on the same as the CDR and Location Chart are insufficient to either prove the conspiracy as well as to prove the presence of accused persons on the spot.
64. In the present case, the prosecution has led evidence to prove that accused persons had come in Maruti Eeco car bearing registration no. DL-8CR-6722 and attempted to abduct PW11 Ramesh Chand Garg SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 92 of 95 for ransom at the point of arms. As per PW2 Sh. Parmod, PW4 Smt. Sudesh and PW5 Smt. Omwati, on 17.06.2014 at about 6:00 a.m., accused Amit @ Vicky alongwith Arun came in Eeco car and had called Parveen (deceased) on the pretext that they had to attend duty. Thereafter, on the same day at about 10:00 am, they received the information that the dead body of the Parveen has been lying at Lampur underpass.
The said Eeco car was found lying under a tree near at Gali No.14, Gautam Colony, Sapan Motor Workshop.
PW11 Ramesh Chand/complainant has failed to identify the Maruti Eeco vehicle as he was not able to note down registration number of said vehicle as there was mud over both the number plates of the said vehicle.
EVIDENCE REGARDING REMAINING SECTIONS
65. As PW11 has not identified the accused persons, there was very less material with regard to Section 365/511 IPC. With regard to Section 302 IPC, the testimony of PW11 was believed as he has stated about the facts as per prosecution case which got sufficient corroboration through recovery of weapon and subsequent matching of bullet by FSL report but the same could be applied only to the accused Vijay and not to other accused persons. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, no case is proved under section 365/511 IPC.
CONCLUSION SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 93 of 95
66. Criminal cases are required to be proved on the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' but it does not mean that all sorts of doubt has to be removed before prosecution can successfully prove its case. What is required is that there shall not be REASONABLE doubt and the test of prudent man is applicable.
In the present case, the prosecution has led evidence to prove that accused persons had come in Maruti Eeco car and attempted to abduct PW11 Ramesh Chand Garg for ransom at the point of arms.
The prosecution had cited five witnesses i.e. PW2 Sh. Parmod (brother of deceased), PW4 Smt. Sudesh (wife of deceased), PW5 Smt. Omwati (mother of deceased), PW7 Sh. Raju and PW11 Sh. Ramesh Chand (complainant) to prove the incident. PW11 who is the complainant in the present case admitted about the incident in question but he denied having seen any accused persons completely. The case regarding the identity of the vehicle also remains unproved.
The testimony of PW11 could not be completely discarded as he had, except the identity of the accused had explained the whole incident in detail and the same was reliable. He had also mentioned regarding the fire incident whereby death of one person was caused. Subsequently, the pistol recovered from accused Vijay had been found to be the same gun by the FSL result Ex.PX and there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence. As prosecution has successfully proved by the testimony of PW11 that incident of abduction and firing had occurred on 17.06.2014 thereby death of Parveen was caused. The pistol recovered SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 94 of 95 from accused Vijay has been found to be the same gun by the FSL result Ex.PX with which Parveen was shot dead. Hence, the prosecution has successfully proved the recovery from the accused Vijay and that he has caused murder of Parveen. The role of conspiracy also had been sufficiently proved by the prosecution against accused Arun @ Vicky, Arun and Vijay.
With regard to the other co-accused, there is insufficient evidence and prosecution has badly failed to prove the element of conspiracy as well as their role in commission of the murder.
Hence, accused Arun and Amit @ Vicky are held guilty for the offence under Section 120B IPC and accused Vijay is held guilty for the offence u/s 302 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act.
Accused Arun, Amit @ Vicky and Vijay are acquitted of remaining respective charges against them and Accused Parveen and Jasprit Singh @ Raja are acquitted of all the charges against them.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 23rd May, 2023 (Shivaji Anand) Additional Sessions Judge-04 North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 58250/2016 , FIR no. 775/2014 PS Narela State Vs Arun etc. Page 95 of 95