Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(42) PW2 Ct. Manoj is a formal witness being the Crime Team Photographer who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having taken visited the scene of crime and having taken the photographs Ex.PW2/A­1 to Ex.PW2/A­17 and negatives of the same are collectively Ex.PW2/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.
(43) PW3 HC Satish is a formal witness being the Finger Print Proficient who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having visited the scene of crime and took chance prints from the spot. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite opportunity granted in this regard.

(49) PW8 HC Ram Parvesh is a formal witness being the Duty Constable at BSA Hospital who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 24.7.201 the Investigating Officer had taken the pullanda of clothes of the injured into possession. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.

(50) PW9 SI Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW9/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.

(51) PW10 Sh. Sushil Kumar is a formal witness being the Finger Print Expert who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW10/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 18.10.2012 he received the scene of crime examination report, photographs of chance prints and a request letter from SHO South Rohini. He has proved having prepared the Finger Print Examination Report which is Ex.PW10/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (52) PW11 Ct. Arvind is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW11/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 27.09.2012 he had taken the exhibits of this case from the MHCM vide RC No. 130/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW11/A and deposited the same in the FSL vide receipt which is Ex.PW11/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (53) PW12 HC Raj Kumar is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW12/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 18.8.2012 he took the exhibits containing the weapon of offence from the MHCM vide RC No. 85/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW12/A and deposited the same at Mortuary BSA Hospital vide receipt Ex.PW12/B. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard.

(54) PW13 Ct. Vishram is a formal witness being the Special Messenger who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW13/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having supplied the copies of FIR to the senior officers and the Ld. MM. (55) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has deposed that he had delivered the copy of the FIR to the Ld. MM at 10:00 AM on 24.07.2012. Witness has denied the suggestion that he handed over the copy of the FIR to the Ld. MM on 25.07.2012 i.e. next day of the incident and has voluntarily added that he had made his departure entry int he Police Station in the form of DD No. 15A on 24.07.2012 after which he had gone to the court and delivered the copy to the Ld. MM. (56) PW14 Ct. Ram Sewak is a formal witness being the PCR official who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW14/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the PCR Form which is Ex.PW14/A. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (57) PW15 Ct. Amar is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW51/1(as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 24.7.2012 on receipt of information he along with ASI Surender reached the spot of incident where he preserved the scene of crime. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite being granted an opportunity in this regard. (58) PW24 Sh. Dharmender Sehrawat, Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Rajneesh Bhatnagar, ASJ­II, North, Rohini has brought the summoned record i.e. case FIR No. 152/12 PS South Rohini titled State Vs. Rusy @ Surender under Section 302/460/396/380/457/34 IPC. He has placed on record the copy of arrest memo of accused Mahesh which is Ex.PW24/A; copy of arrest memo of accused Rajesh @ Tinku which is Ex.PW24/B; copy of arrest memo of accused Ravinder @ Tunda which is Ex.PW24/C; copy of arrest memo of accused Rusy @ Surender is Ex.PW24/D; copy of personal search memo of accused Mahesh which is Ex.PW24/E; copy of personal search memo of accused Rajesh @ Tinku which is Ex.PW24/F; copy of personal search memo of accused Ravinder @ Tunda which is Ex.PW24/G; copy of personal search memo of accused Rusy @ Surender is Ex.PW24/H; copy of disclosure statement of accused Mahesh which is Ex.PW24/I; copy of disclosure statement of accused Rajesh @ Tinku which is Ex.PW24/J; copy of disclosure statement of accused Ravinder @ Tunda which is Ex.PW24/K; copy of disclosure statement of accused Rusy @ Surender is Ex.PW24/L; copy of seizure memo of buttondar knife recovered from accused Rajesh @ Tinku which is Ex.PW24/M; copy of seizure memo of buttondar knife recovered from accused Ravinder @ Tunda which is Ex.PW24/N; copy of seizure memo of iron rod which is Ex.PW24/O and copy of seizure memo of iron rod which is Ex.PW24/P. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel, despite an opportunity being granted in this regard. (59) PW28 HC Virender is a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit Ex.PW28/1(as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved entry in register No. 19 vide Mud No. 3716/12 dated 24.07.2012 copy of which is Ex.PW28/A; copy of Mud No. 3717 dated 25.07.2012 which is Ex.PW28/B, entry in register No. 21 vide RC No. 85/21/12, RC No. 130/21/12, copies of which are Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW11/A respectively and FSL Receipt copies of which are Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW11/B respectively. He has also proved the copy of Mud No. 3772 dated 28.08.2012, copy of which is Ex.PW28/C. (60) In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has denied the suggestion that he has fabricated the entries on the directions of the Investigating Officer later on or that the case property was tampered during its possession with him.