Delhi District Court
State vs Bachchan Nagar And Others on 28 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
Karkarduma COURTS: DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 44351/15
CNR No. DLNE01-000024-2010
FIR No. 88/2010
P.S.: Sonia Vihar
U/s : 364/302/201/34 of IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) Bachchan Nagar
s/o Sh. Vishnu Nagar
r/o A-183, Gali no. 4, Part-II,
1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(2) Umesh Kumar
s/o Sh. Ram Babu
r/o A-379, Gali no. 7/3,
A-Block, Part-1, 1st Pusta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(3) Yogesh @ Kalli
s/o Sh. Satveer Singh
r/o B-1798, Gali no. 26,
1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(4) Parvinder @ Titu
s/o Sh. Jaikishan
r/o B-1798, Gali no. 26,
1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
(5) Parveen Nagar
s/o Vishnu Nagar
r/o A-183, Gali no. 4,
First Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
Date of Institution : 30-11-2010
Date of Argument : 29-01-2025
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 1 of 106
Date of Judgment : 28-02-2025
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of this case are that on 12-07-2010, an
information was received at PS Sonia Vihar that some people had
abducted the son of caller from Nanaksar Gurudwara, Wazirabad
road, out of which, the caller knew some people. After some
time, another call was received informing that some people are
abducting one boy in a WagonR car bearing no. 9C3229 white
colour at Nanaksar Gurudwara, T-point. The above-stated
informations were reduced into writing vide DD no. 2A and 3A
respectively and the same were marked to SI Mintu Singh.
Thereafter, SI Mintu Singh along with Ct. Pawanveer reached at
the spot. Meanwhile, Inspector Vijay Bhushan (hereinafter
referred to as Investigating officer/IO of this case) also reached at
the spot to verify the call vide DD no. 5A. Thereafter, vide DD
no. 7A, the IO received information regarding beating of the
person at Bhagwati Mandir, Sonia Vihar. Thereafter, IO along
with SI Mintu Singh and police staff reached A-Block, Sonia
Vihar, where crowd had already gathered. On inquiry, the IO
came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB
hospital by PCR. Thereafter, they reached at GTB hospital and
collected MLC of victim Kamal Singh s/o Balam Singh wherein
the doctor concerned had endorsed ‘brought dead’ and the dead
body was referred to GTB hospital mortuary for postmortem.
The IO inspected the dead body and noticed that there were
injury marks on the head, hands and legs. The marks were sharp
and blunt. Eyewitness namely Kanhaiya @ Kanu met in the
hospital, whose statement was recorded. Witness Kanhaiya @
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 2 of 106
Kanu stated that he was residing at H. No. D-2/27, Gali no. 2, 3 rd
Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi along with his parents and he was
learning computer. He was in the habit of taking stroll everyday
in the morning. On 12-07-2010 at about 6 am, he left from his
home for morning walk. At about 6:30 am, when he reached
near Nanaksar T-point, he saw that his friend Kamal Singh was
standing near Nanaksar bus stand, Gurudwara side. At about 7
am, four people arrived in WagonR car. He knew two of them
namely Bachchan Nagar and Umesh. One motorcyclist namely
Praveen, who is brother of Bachchan Nagar, followed the car of
the above-stated persons. The occupants of the car including
accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh and their associates started
beating Kamal Singh and put him inside the WagonR car while
beating him and took him towards Wazirabad flyover. The
motorcyclist Parveen also followed them. The above-stated
persons kept on beating Kamal inside the car as well. He passed
on the information to father of Kamal namely Balam Singh at his
house. After some time, he came to know that Bachchan Nagar,
Umesh and their companions had killed Kamal who had been
taken to GTB hospital. He reached GTB hospital. The deceased
Kamal was having dispute with one Jagpat on account of
payment of motorcycle about 5-6 months ago. Accused
Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar were residing along with
Jagpat Chakkiwala. On the basis of statement of Kanhaiya @
Kanu, the present FIR came to be registered u/s 365/302/34 of
IPC. The postmortem of the dead body was got conducted and
after postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the
relatives. Crime Team was called which inspected the spot and
took photographs. No blood stains were found on the spot,
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 3 of 106
which the accused persons had washed off as claimed by the IO.
Therefore, section 201 of IPC was added. Site plan was
prepared. Thereafter on 14-07-2010, investigation of the present
case was assigned to Inspector Safdar Ali.
On 13-07-2010, accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh
Kumar were arrested on the basis of secret information from the
turn of Aggarwal sweets, Chattarpur by police officials of PS
Mehrauli. They were interrogated and during interrogation, they
had confessed to have committed murder of Kamal along with
their associates. They were arrested vide DD no. 76B u/s 41.1
Cr.P.C. IO of this case was intimated. A kalandra was prepared
and accused persons were produced in Patiala house Court on 14-
07-2010. The IO Inspector Safdar Ali formally arrested the
accused persons from Patiala House Courts with the permission
of the court. Their PC remands were obtained and during PC
remand, slippers of deceased and vehicle i.e. Wagon R bearing
registration no. DL9CR-3229 car which was used in the
commission of offence were recovered at the instance of accused
Bachhan Nagar. One iron rod with which injuries were inflicted
upon the deceased was recovered at the instance of accused
Umesh Kumar. The aforesaid accused persons were interrogated
and arrested. Their respective disclosure statements were
recorded wherein they revealed the names of co-accused Yogesh
@ Kalli, Parvinder @ Titu, and juvenile Praveen Nagar in the
commission of alleged murder. Postmortem report was obtained
wherein cause of death of deceased was opined as “haemorrhage
shock as a result of antemortem injury to long bones and
extravasated blood into the soft tissues spaces produced by blunt
force. Certain observed injuries are sufficient to cause death in
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 4 of 106
ordinary course of nature. Subsequent opinion was sought from
the autopsy surgeon as to whether the recovered rod at the
instance of accused Umesh can be used to cause injuries reported
in the postmortem report, wherein the autopsy surgeon concerned
had reported, after going through the postmortem report and
examining the given weapon, that certain injuries are possible by
the given weapon i.e. iron rod and certain injuries are likely to be
possible by the given weapon i.e. iron rod or a weapon of similar
shape and dimension. Thereafter, the IO started searching the
co-accused persons.
On 03-08-2010, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was arrested on
the basis of secret information from 2nd pusta, near A-one
Dharamkanta. His disclosure statement was recorded. Pointing
out memo of the place where the dead body was claimed to have
been thrown was prepared at the instance of accused Yogesh @
Kalli.
On 04-08-2010, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was subjected to
TIP, however, he refused to participate therein. His PC remand
was obtained and during PC remand, one purse containing
election I-card, educational I-card and some visiting cards,
belonging to the deceased was recovered. TIP of the said purse
was got conducted. During TIP proceedings, the said recovered
purse was correctly identified by the father of deceased namely
Balam Singh. After completion of necessary formalities,
chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. Ilaqa MM.
On 19-11-2010, accused Praveen Nagar had surrendered
himself before JJB, Kingsway Camp. He was interrogated with
the permission of the Board. His two days PC remand was
obtained. During interrogation, accused Praveen Nagar disclosed
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 5 of 106
that motor-cycle vehicle which was used in the crime was seized
by the officials of PS Khajuri Khas. Thereafter, IO made inquiry
from MHCM of PS Khajuri Khas and it was revealed that said
motor-cycle was deposited in Malkahna in case FIR no. 181/10.
On 13-12-2010, he was declared juvenile after conducting age
inquiry. The order was challenged by the father of deceased
before the sessions court in an appeal u/s 52 of Juvenile Justice
Act. Vide order dated 12-07-2011, Ld. Sessions court directed
the JJB concerned to conduct the age enquiry afresh after
collecting medical evidence. The accused Praveen Nagar was
declared not a juvenile on the date of commission of offence vide
order dated 30-04-2012 by the JJB-II. Thereafter, supplementary
charge-sheet qua accused Praveen Nagar was received.
COMMITTAL
2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of
Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of
Sessions vide order dated 16-11-2010 by the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate. The same was allocated by the then Ld. District and
Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CHARGE
3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie
case was made out against the accused persons Bachchan Nagar,
Umesh Kumar, Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu for the
offence punishable u/s 364/302/201/34 of IPC, charge was
framed by ld. Predecessor against the accused persons on 27-07-
2011, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On 14-
05-2012, after filing of supplementary chargesheet, charges for
the offence punishable u/s 364/302/201/34 of IPC were also
framed against accused Praveen Nagar, to which he pleaded not
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 6 of 106
guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as
many as 43 witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. (i) PW1 Kanhaiya @ Kanoo is the eye-witness of the
incident got examined by the prosecution. He deposed that
earlier, he was residing at H. No. D-2/27, Gali No. 2. 3 rd pusta,
Sonia Vihar. Delhi. He knew Kamal Singh S/o Sh. Balam Singh.
On 12.07.2010 at about 06.00 am, he had gone for his morning
walk and at about 06.45-07.00 am, when he reached near T-point
Nanaksar towards Sonia Vihar side, one WagonR of white colour
came there and stopped near Kamal Singh Rawat who was
standing near Gurudwara. Four persons came out from the
WagonR. Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were known to him and
he did not know the names of two other persons. Parveen, brother
of Bachchan Nagar came there on the motorcycle with two other
boys. All the above-said started assaulting Kamal Singh and put
him in the WagorR while beating him and took him towards
Wazirabad side. Praveen also followed the WagonR. Assailants
were giving iron rod blows and fist blows to deceased Kamal
Singh at the time of incident.
PW1 further deposed that he went to the house of Kamal
Singh and informed his father. The father of the Kamal made a
call on 100 number and they both went in search of Kamal.
When they reached near Nanaksar, one constable met them and
he informed them that Kamal was found near the house of
Bachchan and he was taken to GTB Hospital. He along with
parents of Kamal reached at GTB Hospital. He came to know
that Kamal was declared dead by the doctors. He went to the
room of Police officials of the GTB Hospital and he informed all
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 7 of 106
the facts to them. Police recorded his statement vide Ex. PW1/A.
He correctly identified accused Bachchan and Umesh in the
court. He did not know the names of other two accused present
in the Court. Witness pointed out towards accused Yogesh and
Parvinder and stated that these accused accompanied with
accused Bachhan and Umesh in the WagonR and participated in
the incident. He deposed that accused Parveen Nagar was not
present in the Court on that day.
During cross-examination dated 17-10-2011 by Ld.
Defence counsel for accused Yogesh @ Kalli & Parvinder @
Tittu, he affirmed that there is a playground near the Sonia Vihar
Water Pump house. He affirmed that other children and Yogesh
@ Kalli & Parvinder @ Tittu used to play in that playground. He
affirmed that Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu are
residents of Sonia Vihar. He also used to play in the same ground
and hence he knew these two accused prior to the incident. He
affirmed that Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu were not
present at the time of incident at Nanaksar, nor he had named
them in FIR. He volunteered that had Yogesh @ Kalli and
Parvinder @ Tittu been there, he would have named them in the
FIR. He affirmed that he had identified Yogesh @ Kalli and
Parvinder @ Tittu before this court on the last date of hearing on
05.09.2011, on the directions of the police. He volunteered that
he was told to identify these accused by the police officials
outside the court. He affirmed that Yogesh @ Kalli was shown
to him at the police station. However, he did not remember when
he was shown to him. He affirmed that police called him at
police station and then took him to Tihar jail on 02-11-2010.
Police officials told him to identify accused Parvinder @ Tittu,
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 8 of 106
by his looks, features and also told that a tattoo of ‘OM’ is
inscribed on his right hand. He affirmed that he identified
accused Parvinder @ Tittu on the directions of the police.
He did not name accused Parvinder @Tittu and Yogesh @
Kalli in any of his statements to the police at any point of time.
He volunteered that if the names were mentioned that may be
done by the police on its own. He affirmed that he identified the
accused Parvinder @Tittu and Yogesh @ Kalli in Tihar Jail and
before this court due to the pressure and fear of police.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for
accused Bachchan Nagar, he deposed that he is 10th pass from
Open School. He was assisting his father in his business since
2007 or 2008. They are three brothers and two sisters. Deceased
Kamal was known to him for the last 3 years prior to incident.
His family is residing at Delhi for the last 15-20 years. His family
and deceased Kamal’s family were residing at Sonia Vihar. He
volunteered that they are residing at different Pushtas of Sonia
Vihar. Accused Bachchan Nagar and his brother Parveen Nagar
is known to him for the last 3-4 years from the date of incident,
being resident of Sonia Vihar and they used to indulge in
criminal activities such as snatching money, quarrel with
residents of area and also used to misbehave with girls and used
to threaten the people of the area, However, he was not
personally victimized by the acts of the accused Bachchan Nagar
and Parveen Bagar. He did not know that Bachchan Nagar is a
married man. No criminal case is pending against him. He
denied that he was dealing in sale purchase of Country made
pistols through one Abdul Hamid lodged in Jail No. 5 of Tihar
Jail. He denied that he was dealing in Cocaine business through
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 9 of 106
Kausi William lodged in Jail No. 4 of Tihar Jail and supplying
the same in the rave-parties of youth in Delhi.
He denied that he was a stock witness of the Police and
have been pressurized by the Police to depose against accused
Bachchan Nagar in this case because of his involvement in the
above mentioned cases. He usually go to his bed between 9 to 11
pm and gets up at 5.30 or 6 am. After getting up, he goes on
morning walk towards the Pump House. He wears T-Shirt, lower
portion of the track suit and sports shoes. He left his house at
about 6-6.15 am on 12.07.2010. He saw deceased Kamal at
about 6.45-7 am. Deceased Kamal was at a distance of about 12-
15 paces from him at Nanaksar Gurudwara side. Accused
Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were having iron rods with them at
that time. He did not remember the colour of the iron rods. It
was iron rods as accused were giving blows by the iron rods to
the deceased. The accused persons were hitting hard to the
deceased Kamal, had it been a wood, the same would have
broken, hence, he was firm that it was only the iron rods with
which the accused persons were giving blow to the deceased. He
denied that it was not the iron rod used by the accused persons to
cause injuries to the deceased Kamal. He volunteered that he
was not 100 per cent sure that it was iron rod. Accused Bachchan
was driving the Wagon-R and all four assailants stepped down
from the Wagon-R and took away deceased Kamal while giving
beatings to him. Deceased Kamal was put in the Wagon-R by
accused Bachchan Nagar and after putting him, Wagon-R was
driven by another assailant. Three assailants namely Bachchan,
Umesh and the third assailant were having iron rods in their
hands. The iron rods were of different sizes. The iron rod held by
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 10 of 106
Bachchan Nagar was 2½ -3 feet long. There were no gathering
of the public persons near the place where the accused persons
were giving beatings to deceased Kamal. He volunteered that the
people numbering about 15 were standing at distance at separate
places from the place of incident, there were also some school
children, who were going to school. He did not try to save Kamal
by going to other side of the road nor he shouted as he was
frightened. About 5-7 boys were present on his side of the road
also. The house of Kamal was at about 1-1½ km away from that
place. He denied that he was deposing falsely under the pressure
of the Police or that he was not present on the spot. He denied
that he and Kamal had quarreled with Bachchan Nagar 5-6
months before the incident on some business dispute. He did not
know Pradeep Goswami and Dharmender @ Dhamo. He denied
that he along with Pradeep Goswami and Dharmender@ Dhamo
went to the house of accused Bachchan Nagar and put the house
of Bachchan Nagar on fire or that looted goods worth one crore
from the house of Bachchan Nagar. He denied that he was
deposing falsely to save himself and his friends in that case of
arson and looting at the house of Bachchan Nagar. He denied that
he was deposing falsely.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for
accused Umesh Kumar, he affirmed that he had stated that he
was working as a Pvt. service on 05-09-2011 before the Court.
He denied that he was neither doing any Pvt. service nor he was
doing any other work. His statement was recorded by the Police.
He had not told in his statement Ex. PW1/A that accused persons
were giving beatings to Kamal with iron rods. The road where
the first incident took place is about 60 feet 80 feet wide. He
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 11 of 106
affirmed that there were bus stops on both the sides of the road
where the incident took place. There were no shops near the
place of occurrence. Generally, there are some tambhaku and
gutka vendors, who sell the same while sitting on both sides
patri. There was a khoka of pan, bidi and cigarette on the side on
which he was standing. He did not know any pan or bidi vendor,
took who sit there. He had never taken the Police to them. He
went on roaming about in the area of Nanaksar for about 5 to 7
minutes. He affirmed that there is no park in the area of
Nanaksar Gurudwara. After coming from his house, he went
inside the pump house area. The distance between water pump
and the place of incident is about less than half km. The water
pump is towards inner side of Nanaksar Gurudwara. The water
pump comes prior to the place of incident from his house. There
are two water pumps. After coming from his house, the water
pump he visited was on the right side. It was situated about half
km away from the main road. No friend of his is living on water
pump, which is on the right side of the road. No persons, who
were present near the spot raised any hue and cry at the time of
incident. He affirmed that there is a Police Booth at a distance of
5-10 paces, where he was standing. He denied that police
officials are available 24 hours on that booth. He volunteered
that he had not seen any police official on that booth. Police
officials sit on the auto stand which is inside the Nanaksar. The
auto stand is about 25-30 paces from the place, where he was
standing. He did not inform those police officials by going to
auto stand as he was frightened and he straightway went to the
house of Kamal after hiring an auto. He did not remember the
number of that auto. He had also not disclosed the fact of hiring
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 12 of 106
an auto to the Police in his statement Ex. PW1/A. He had told
auto driver to move quickly as his friend had been lifted. He was
not having mobile at that time. He had not inquired from auto
rickshaw driver whether he was having mobile with him at that
time. No telephone booth was available at that time. He had not
asked for mobile from anybody for informing the Police or the
parents of Kamal. There is no other Police Chowki in between
the place of occurrence and the house of Kamal. There is a zero
pusta near the place of occurrence. He could not tell the distance
between the place of occurrence and zero pusta. He affirmed that
after Zero pusta, pusta no.1, 2 and 3 also come afterwards. He
affirmed that he was living in 3rd pusta. Bachchan is living in the
1st pusta. Kamal is also living in the first pusta. He could not tell
after passing how may streets does the house of Kamal arrive. He
had not made any telephone call at the house of Kamal on
12.07.2010. He had not made any phone call to the brother,
sisters of Kamal or his father. He could not tell the exact time
when he reached the house of Kamal. It was about 7.30 am. He
had met parents of Kamal at their house. Father of Kamal had
made a call at 100 no. immediately in his presence. He did not
know whether father of Kamal had informed the names of
assailants. He along with Mahesh, younger brother of Kamal
went in search of the Kamal. They hired auto rickshaw from
pusta. He could not tell the distance between the pusta from
where he hired the auto to the house of Kamal. He did not know
whether any blood had fallen on the road where the incident had
taken place.
During his cross-examination dated 20-10-2011 on behalf
of accused Umesh Kumar, he further deposed that his house is
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 13 of 106
situated at pusta no.3. It takes about 2/3 minutes for him to reach
on main pusta road from his house. The main Wazirabad road is
about 3½ km from his house. There is a railing in the middle of
the main Wazirabad road. He could not say whether plants are
also present along with the grill. He volunteered that perhaps
only wild shrubs are there. He did not know whether there are
some plants of six feet height in between the road. He affirmed
that Nanaksar Gurudwara is situated on the other side of the road
from our side. There is a cut in between the railing and vehicle
can pass through that. He denied that Wazirabad road is 400-500
feet wide. He affirmed that the road of pusta leads to Tronica
City. He volunteered that on the other side, it leads to
Gurudwara Nanaksar. He affirmed that after coming to the main
Wazirabad road if one wants to go to Bhajan Pura and Khajuri,
he would have to go to the left side on the main road. He
affirmed that there is a bus stop. He could not say the distance
between the bus stop and the point from where they reached to
main road is about 30 meter. He could not tell even the
approximate distance. He affirmed that bus stop leading to
Wazirabad side comes after crossing the main highway towards
the right side. The distance between the cut on the road and the
bus stop towards Wazirabad is about 8 to 10 meter and not 40 to
50 meter. He could not tell the length of the bus stop towards
Wazirabad. Vehicle in which accused persons came was coming
from the wrong side on the way towards Khajuri Khas. He had
seen the vehicle i.e Wagon-R from the front side and was being
driven at a very slow speed. He had not seen the no. plate of the
vehicle. The vehicle was not having black window panes. He
volunteered that it was having black sun shades fitted from inside
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 14 of 106
of the vehicle. He affirmed that the persons sitting inside could
not be identified through the sun shades. The vehicle stopped
only for about two minutes. Kamal had cried on receiving iron
rod blow. He volunteered that he had cried only once and then
he saw towards that side. He denied that one cannot see anything
and hear anything from the place where he was standing and at
the place, where the incident took place. He volunteered that he
was not standing near the bus stop. The incident took place at
some distance from the bus stand for going to Wazirabad. He had
no talked with Kamal on that day. He was standing near the T-
point for about 1-2 minutes and then he saw the incident. He was
just standing there after his walk. He was not standing there for
any specific purpose. He did not know whether he had mentioned
in his statement regarding the shouting and crying of Kamal.
During his cross-examination dated 15-11-2011, he
affirmed that there is a well maintained park at pusta no. 2½.
They went in search of Kamal towards Nanaksar Gurudwara and
pontoon bridge and it took about 30 to 45 minutes in searching
Kamal. He along with mother and father of Kamal went to
hospital in auto and father of Kamal handed over his cycle to
Mahesh. No other relatives and friend were present in the
hospital when they reached there. They found Kamal in
emergency ward. Police had not recorded statement of father of
Kamal in his presence nor any inquiry was made from him in his
presence. He might have stayed in the hospital for about one
hour. Vijay Bhushan had obtained only one signature from him
only on one document. No copy was provided to him by Vijay
Bhushan. No identification parade was conducted in respect of
accused Umesh in his presence. He had never visited any place
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 15 of 106
where Kamal died. He did not know the names of any friend of
Kamal except his friends of Sonia Vihar namely Yogi and Chotu.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State
as the witness was resiling from his earlier statement in respect of
identification of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto.
During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he
deposed that he did not state to the Magistrate that he identified
accused Parvinder @ Titto at the instance of police on 02-02-
2011. He did not make any complaint against the police official
for pressurizing him to identify accused Parvinder @ Titto before
the MM and before the Court. He did not make any complaint
before this court on 05-09-2011 and before 17-10-2011 about
pressure of the police to identify accused Parvinder @ Titto and
accused Yogesh @ Kalli. He denied that he had been won over
by the accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto and due to
their pressure, he had given a wrong statement regarding
identification of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto
on 17-10-2011.
During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for accused
Parvinder @ Titto and Yogesh @ Kalli, he affirmed that due to
the fear of the police, he did not make the complaint against the
police before MM and before the court. He gave a correct
deposition on 17-10-2011 during cross-examination on behalf of
accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto.
PW1 Kahnahiya was recalled after filing of supplementary
chargesheet against accused Praveen Nagar. During his
examination dated 17-07-2012 after framing of charge against
accused Praveen Nagar, he deposed that he saw one WagonR
wherein four boys came there. Out of those four boys, two boys
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 16 of 106
were accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh (correctly identified
by witness). One motor-cycle also came there driven by accused
Praveen Nagar (correctly identified by witness) and two pillion
riders. Thereafter, accused persons along with their associates
put Kamal in the WagonR while giving beating to him and took
him towards Wazirabad Bridge. Accused Praveen Nagar along
with his associates on his motor-cycle also followed the
WagonR. On this, he went to the house of Kamal and informed
about this incident to father of Kamal. He knew accused Yogesh
@ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu (correctly identified by witness) as
he used to play cricket with them, both of them were not present
at the time of occurrence in this case.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he
volunteered that he had stated regarding participation of accused
Yogesh and accused Parvinder in the commission of offence in
the present case due to pressure by the police. He did not make
any complaint or protest application to any authority that he had
named accused Yogesh and Parvinder regarding their
involvement in the commission of offence of the present case due
to pressure mounted by the police. He could not give any
explanation to this effect. He denied that he was won over by the
accused persons Yogesh and Parvinder.
During cross-examination dated 09-08-2012 by Ld.
Defence counsel, he affirmed that he had not seen accused
Praveen Nagar before his evidence recorded in court on 17-07-
2012. He did not know accused Praveen Nagar before 17-02-
2012. Ex. PW1/A was a plain blank paper when he was made to
sign the same and as such, there is no question of same having
read over to him. He affirmed that he saw that a crowd had
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 17 of 106
gathered at red light near Gurudwara Nanaksar. He affirmed that
he was told by someone in the crowd that one car came there and
its occupants had quarrel with deceased Kamal and they had
taken Kamal with them in car. He signed Ex. PW1/A at his
residence. He affirmed that during the period when his statement
was recorded in the court in the year 2011, one Mahesh, brother
of deceased, Surjeet, Chhottu, Sandeep Kalu had given him
beatings, so that he should depose according to their version. He
affirmed that PCR van had come and taken him to GTB hospital
for treatment. He affirmed that he ran from hospital out of fear
of these people. He volunteered that those boys had reached
GTB hospital. He affirmed that he did not tell names of
assailants to the father of Kamal as he had not seen the incident.
He affirmed that he was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh,
Surjeet and Sandeep and due to their beatings, he had deposed in
the court against accused persons. He affirmed that earlier he
had deposed against the accused persons because he was
threatened by the police to depose against the accused persons
and police had further threatened to implicate him in false case.
He affirmed that on 02-11-2010, he was taken to Tihar Jail by the
police and he was told by the police to identify accused Parvinder
and he identified accused Parvinder due to fear and pressure of
police. He affirmed that he was not knowing accused Bachchan
Nagar and Umesh before he appeared as a witness in the witness
box in this case.
During re-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he did not
lodge any complaint or protest application to any authority to the
effect that he was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh, Sujreet
and Sandeep and due to their beatings, he had deposed in the
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 18 of 106
court against accused persons. He could not give any
explanation to this effect. He could not produce any medical
document with regard to alleged beatings given by accused
persons. He also did not lodge any complaint or protest
application to any authority to the effect that earlier he had
deposed against the accused persons because he was threatened
by the police to depose against the accused persons and police
had further threatened to implicate him in false case. He could
not give any explanation to this effect. He did not lodge any
complaint or protest application to any authority to the effect that
he was told by the police to identify accused Parvinder and he
had identified accused Parvinder due to fear and pressure of
police. He could not give any explanation to this effect.
PW2 Rajbala is another eye-witness of the incident got
examined by the prosecution. She deposed that she knew Vishnu
Nagar and his son Bachchan Nagar being her neighbours. She
correctly identified accused Bachchan Nagar in the court. She
did not remember exact date, but it was 1½ years ago, in the
month of June/ July on 12th day of month at about 8 am, she was
present at her house. She heard some noise and came out of her
house and saw that many persons had gathered. There were
about 30-40 persons gathered. Thereafter, she again returned
back inside her house. She had not seen any person causing
injuries to anybody. She did not know anyone namely Kamal.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for State
as she was resiling from her earlier statements.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, she
deposed that she is illiterate. Police inquired her about the facts
of this case. Police did not record her statement. She denied that
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 19 of 106
on 12.07.2010 at about 7.30 am, she was sweeping outside her
house in the lane, she saw that her neighbours Bachchan Nagar,
S/o Vishnu Nagar came there in a car along with his associates
including Umesh and two other persons grandsons of Bhagat Ji
R/o B- Block, Near Bhagatji Mandir. She denied that she knows
those persons by faces, but she did not know their names. She
denied that one person was brought by these persons in the car
and they took him inside the house after while giving beatings to
him. She denied that meanwhile Praveen Nagar, brother of
Bachchan Nagar also reached there on motorcycle and he also
joined the above said persons. She denied that after some time,
the above said persons brought that victim outside from the
house in the gali and again gave beatings to him. She denied that
she saw the above said incident from outside of her house and
due to fear she and other persons did not rescue that victim from
the assailants. She denied that PCR vehicle also reached there
and took victim from there. She affirmed that she came to know
from the public persons that the name of victim was Kamal who
was resident of A-Block, Sonia Vihar and had expired in the
hospital later on. Statement Mark X was read over to the witness,
but witness denied having stated so to the police.
She further stated that she remained standing outside her
house for about 2-3 minutes only. House of Praveen Nagar and
Bachchan Nagar is situated after one house from her house. She
closed the doors of her house and thereafter, she did not go
outside. She did not open the gates of her house for whole day.
She saw police officials in their street on the next day at about
11.00 AM. Police came to her and made inquiries from her about
the occurrence. She did not remember whether police came to her
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 20 of 106
on 16/07/2010 i.e. after four days from the incident. She denied
that police met her on 16.07.2010 and after making inquiries,
recorded her statements U/s 161 Cr.PC. She had not seen the
victim when she came outside her house. Bachchan Nagar owns
a car of white colour. She could not tell the make of the car. She
deposed that Praveen Nagar i.e. brother of Bachchan Nagar was
not present in the court on that day. She denied that she was not
deposing the true facts before the court as accused Bachchan
Nagar is her neighbour. She did not know other accused persons
present in the court except accused Bachchan Nagar. She did not
see the other accused persons on the day of occurrence when she
came out of her house. She denied that she was deposing falsely
as she had been won over by the family of Bachchan Nagar.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, she
affirmed that besides the car of Bachchan Nagar, other
neighbours were also having white colour cars.
PW3 Yadvendra Singh deposed that on 12-07-2007, on
hearing about the death of his nephew Kamal Singh, he had gone
to mortuary of GTB hospital and identified the dead body of
Kamal Singh vide identification Ex. PW3/A.
The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW4 Babu is another eye-witness of the incident got
examined by the prosecution. He deposed that he has been
residing at A-155, Gali no. 3, 1st Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi since
last about 20 years and he is doing private job. He did not know
anything about this case. One day but he did not recollect the
date, month and year, police had met him and made enquiry from
him and he had told to the police that he did not know anything
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 21 of 106
about this case. He did not want to say anything more about this
case.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State
as he was resiling from his earlier statement.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he
denied that on 12.07.2010 at about 8 AM, a lot of persons had
assembled outside his lane no. 4 and when he went there, he saw
that one boy was lying in injured condition in the lane in front of
house Bachchan Nagar S/o Bisnu Nagar and public persons had
assembled there. He did not state so before the police. He denied
that after a short time, PCR van came there and took away the
injured from there. He did not state so before the police. He
denied that later on, it was learnt that said boy was also resident
of A-Block, Sonia Vihar, Delhi and his name was Kamal, who
died in GTB Hospital. He did not state so before the police. He
denied that he was won over by the accused persons and
deposing falsely to save them in this case.
The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW5 Sh. V. S. Chauhan deposed that he has been
practicing in Delhi as an advocate since 1995. On 12-07-2010 at
about 6.30 a.m., he was coming from Tronica City towards
Delhi. When he reached at Nanaksar T-Point, he stopped his
vehicle at red light and in the meantime, he heard noise of
‘PAKDO-PAKDO’ and saying that one boy was being taken
after lifting him. When he crossed the road after green light, he
saw the crowd assembled there, who told him that some boys
after lifting forcibly one boy had been taken away in white colour
WagonR. Number of the vehicle was told by one person as
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 22 of 106
DL9CR but he did not remember complete number of the
vehicle. He made a telephone call on 100 number about this
information.
To a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for State regarding
remaining number of the said vehicle, he deposed that due to
lapse of time, he was not confirmed that remaining number of the
said vehicle was 3229.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel for
accused Umesh, he affirmed that he had not seen the vehicle in
question. He affirmed that he had not seen any person carrying
away the boy. He had also not seen the boy who was being
carried. He affirmed that he deposed on the basis of hearsay.
During cross-examination Ld. Defence counsel for accused
Bachchan Nagar, he affirmed that mobile no. 9810401964 is his
mobile number. He affirmed that from the same mobile number
he had dialed 100 number but he did not recollect that he had
made this telephone call at about 7.04 a.m. He had the SIM card
of the said mobile phone and the same was in his name.
PW6 Sh. Ravinder deposed that he was the registered
owner of WagonR car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 of white colour.
He had given said car in gift to his niece Meenakshi w/o
Bachchan Nagar in her marriage in the year 2007 but said car
was got financed and the installments was being paid by him and
said car was not got transferred in her name. The said car was
being used by Bachchan Nagar husband of Meenakshi since 2007
and was with him. He volunteered that on 12-07-2010, the said
car was with him. He did not know anything more about this
case. He correctly identified accused Bachchan Nagar in the
court.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 23 of 106
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State
as he was resiling from his earlier statement recorded by the
police.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he
denied that on 12-07-2010 aforesaid car was with Bachchan
Nagar and he had given in writing on notice u/s 133 MV Act in
this connection. He did not state so before the police. He denied
that he was deposing falsely on confronted portion in order to
save the accused as he was won over by them being his relative.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused persons despite having given the opportunity.
PW6 was recalled for further examination u/s 311 Cr.P.C
wherein he affirmed that the IO of the case had given notice u/s
133 M.V. Act to him. He deposed that reply to the notice
Ex.PW37/O was not in his handwriting, however it bears his
signature at point A.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State on some
points.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he
denied that reply to notice u/s 133 M.V. Act dated 06.10.2010
Ex.PW37/O was in his handwriting. He affirmed that the
WagonR Car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 was given by him to his
niece Meenakshi wife of accused Bachchan Nagar and that
accused Bachchan Nagar used to drive the said car. However, he
denied that the said WagonR car was with Meenakshi and her
husband accused Bachchan Nagar and was used by him since
2007 or that it was with him on 12.07.2010. He denied that he
had stated these facts to the IO in reply to the notice u/s 133 M.
V. Act. He had signed the same without knowing the contents of
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 24 of 106
the reply. He denied that he was deposing falsely or that the
facts stated in the reply were told by him to the IO. He
volunteered that 3-4 days prior to 12.07.2010, he had brought
back the said WagonR Car from the house of Meenakshi as he
could not pay some of the installments (EMI) of the said car. He
affirmed that he continued to have the car in his possession. He
denied that the car was not in his possession or that the car was in
possession and use of accused Bachchan Nagar.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW7 Mahesh Rawat deposed that on 12-07-2010, he had
gone to mortuary of GTB hospital where he identified the dead
body of his brother Kamal vide statement Ex. PW7/A. After
postmortem, the dead body of Kamal was handed over to them
vide handing over memo Ex. PW7/B.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW8 Balam Singh deposed that he has been residing at A-
157, Gali no. 1, Part-1, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi with his
family members since 1986. He has been doing the work of
supply of spare parts of electric goods since 1995. On
12.07.2010 at about 6.40 am, Kanhaiya @ Kalu, who was friend
of Kamlesh @ Kamal, had come at his house and told him that at
about 6.30 AM, accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh, Praveen and
their associates Kalli, Titu, Dickey and Ajay Dogra had forcibly
taken away Kamal from Nanaksar Bus Stand in WagonR car
bearing no. DL9CR-3229 towards Yamuna Khadar while giving
beating to Kamal. On receiving this information, he made
telephone call on 100 number. He had also made telephone call
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 25 of 106
to duty officer of PS Khajuri Khas at about 7.00 am. While he
was searching for his son Kamal, he received information from
police that his son Kamal was removed in injured condition from
gali no. 4 by PCR van for treatment to GTB hospital. On this, he
along with his relatives reached GTB hospital where they found
his son Kamal who had already died. At the time when his son
had left the house, he was having one wallet of black color
containing his identity cards i.e. school as well as his election
card and Rs. 300/- or 400/-, two mobile phones make Samsung
and Tata Indicom and some visiting cards. At the time of
identification of dead body of his son Kamal none of the
aforesaid articles were found.
He identified accused Bachchan Nagar, accused Parveen
Nagar, accused Umesh, accused Yogesh @ Kalli correctly in the
court. Accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Parveen Nagar
were having grudge with his son Kamal on the issue of
motorcycle. He volunteered that there was no issue between
them earlier to that. Accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and
Parveen Nagar had also given threat to Kamal and his family
members saying that they would eliminate his son Kamal.
On 03.9.2010, he had come to the KKD court for
identification of the wallet of his son Kamal before the concerned
court but he did not recollect the court room number where he
had identified the purse of his son Kamal mixed with 11 purses
during judicial TIP. He had identified the purse of his son Kamal
in TIP proceeding because he used to see the purse of his son
Kamal in his house.
He deposed that he had identified the parcels of his son
Kamal vide TIP proceedings Ex. PW8/A. On 15/07/2010, the
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 26 of 106
police had joined him in the investigation of this case and he was
in the Police Station. Accused Bachchan and Umesh were in the
custody of the police. They were interrogated by them and they
disclosed that they can got recovered the chappal of the deceased
and the rod with which they had given beatings/ committed
murder of his son Kamlesh @ Kamal. They had also disclosed
that they can also got recovered the car bearing no. DL9CR-3229
WagonR of white colour. Thereafter, both the accused persons
were made to sit in a police Zypsy. He and the police party were
also in that Zypsy. The accused persons led them to near pontoon
Pul, Wazirabad and at some distance from that Pul got recovered
the chappal of his son from a play ground. He identified those
chappal as of his deceased son. The police had sealed the chappal
in a parcel but he did not remember the seal impressions. The
same was sealed by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/B.
Thereafter, the accused took them to Third Pushta, Sonia
Vihar. In the Yamuna Pushta Khadar there is a free parking and
the accused Bachchan Nagar pointed at the Maruti WagonR car
bearing registration no. DL9CR-3229. He also disclosed that this
car was used by him while kidnapping deceased Kamlesh @
Kamal. The said car was taken into possession by the police
officials vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Accused Bachchan
Nagar also disclosed that he had also made a phone call on
no.100 after committing murder of Kamlesh @ Kamal.
Thereafter, all of them, the accused persons came back to first
Pushta. Near bricks, the First Pushta, accused Umesh got
recovered an iron rod and disclosed that this rod was used by
them to commit murder of deceased Kamlesh @ Kamal. The said
iron rod was also seized and sealed in a parcel by the police
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 27 of 106
officials vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/D. The accused persons
namely Bachchan Nagar and Umesh had further disclosed that
when they had committed murder of Kamlesh @ Kamal, accused
Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittoo were also with them.
He volunteered that during his earlier depositions in the court, he
had disclosed the name of accused Parvinder @ Tittoo, but
instead of writing the name as Parvinder @ Tittoo, his name has
been recorded as Parveen Nagar. Disclosure statements of
accused Bachchan and Umesh were also recorded in this regard.
He volunteered that witness Rajbala had also disclosed to him
that she had seen all the accused persons with his son Kamlesh @
Kamal in the Maruti WagonR car and she had seen the accused
persons taking his son Kamlesh @ Kamal to the residence of
accused Bachchan Nagar where his son was killed by the accused
persons. She further disclosed to him that his son was unable to
walk properly. She further disclosed that after committing his
murder, the accused persons had thrown his dead body in Gali
No. 4. She further disclosed that when PCR van came to the spot,
all the accused persons along with one Vishnu Nagar put the
dead body in the PCR van. All these facts were disclosed to him
by Rajbala after about 2/3 months of the incident.
To a court question as to whether he had disclosed all these
facts to the police officials, he answered that he had disclosed
these facts to the police officials, but they had refused to record
these facts in his supplementary statement on the pretext that he
had already given his statement to them.
On 12/07/2010, he had made phone call to police on phone
no.100 from his landline phone number and he had also lodged
complaint regarding missing of his son Kamlesh @ Kamal.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 28 of 106
When he along with his younger son Mahesh were trying to trace
Kamlesh @ Kamal, his younger son Mahesh made phone call
from his mobile phone, on the mobile phone no. 9899665524 of
Kamlesh @ Kamal and he heard some noises of ‘ Maro-Maro’ in
the phone call.
The witness correctly identified all the accused persons
present in the court with their names by pointing out at them.
He identified one I-card in the name of Kamlesh Rawat
from the school of Open Learning, another I-card in the name of
Kamlesh Rawat in the name of Election Commission of India,
three visiting cards, one small pamphlet of Samsung Fun Club
and a black colour empty purse with marking and logo of Reebok
on the front side stating that the purse Ex. P-1 belonging to his
son Kamlesh @ Kamal; the election I-card and I-card of School
of Open Learning of his son Kamlesh are Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 and
stated that three visiting cards Ex. P-4 are of the concerned
customers from whom he was having business dealings.
He also identified one red and black sleeper ( hawai
chappal) as the same belonging to his son Kamlesh which was
seized by the IO at the instance of the accused persons as Ex.P5;
an iron rod/pipe Ex. P-6 as the same rod/pipe which was got
recovered by accused Umesh; Maruti WagonR bearing
registration no. DL-9CR-3229 as Ex.P7 as the same which was
recovered in his presence.
He volunteered that on 12/09/2010, one Ajay Dogra along
with 4/5 other persons came to his house and threatened him that
if he depose in the court against the accused persons then they
will kill him and his family members. Thereafter, he went to the
police station Sonia Vihar and gave a complaint in writing in this
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 29 of 106
regard but no action was taken by the police officials. A copy of
the said complaint was also sent to the Hon’ble High Court. The
accused persons had also threatened the public persons gathered
in gali no. 4 when they murdered his son and threw his body in
gali no. 4 that if anybody depose against them in the court, then
he would also meet the same fate. The accused persons are
known bad characters of the area and they used to roam around
in the area with dandas and iron rods and used to threaten the
residents of the locality. The accused persons also used to level
false allegations against his son and due to false complaints, the
police also visited their house on several occasions, prior to the
incident. There was also a dispute between his son and one
Manoj, the agency owner of motorcycle regarding the delivery of
their motorcycle. The said Manoj was neither returning their
money nor handing over the motorcycle and accused Bachchan
Nagar, Umesh and Pravin Nagar came to the agency of Manoj
and threatened his son.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that Nanaksar T-point is situated at a distance of about
one km from his house. On 12-07-2010, Kamal left the house at
about 6:15 am. He did not know the duration for which
Kanhaiya @ Kalu was a friend of Kamal, prior to the incident.
He made phone call to the police from his landline phone. He
had not disclosed the number of Maruti WagonR car to the
police. He had already told the police officials that his son
Kamal was wearing chappals when he had left the house on 12-
07-2010. He went to PS on 15-07-2010 at about 10 am and
remained with the police officials till evening. The chappals
were recovered from the playground at about 11-11:30 am and at
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 30 of 106
that time, no public persons were present there. There were no
public person in the free parking at that time. He did not
remember whether the Maruti WagonR no. DL9CR-3229 was
open or in locked condition. The front number plate of car was
in twisted condition whereas it was not having any rear number
plate. The purse of his son Kamal was not shown by the police
officials to him in the PS. He hd not disclosed the names of the
accused persons to the police when he made phone call for the
first time on 12-07-2010, in the morning due to fear/
nervousness. He had disclosed the names of Kalli, Titu, Dicky,
and Ajay Dogran to the police officials in his statement dated 12-
07-2010. He did not remember whether the police officials
prepared any site plan of the spot regarding recovery of chappal
from the playground. The spot from where the iron rod was
recovered, was vacant and was not habited place, however,
public persons used to pass through that space. He had disclosed
the fact that his son Mahesh had called Kamal on his mobile
phone no. 9899665524 and he heard some noises of “Maro-
maro’ to the police in his statements.
PW9 Ct. Pawan Veer deposed that during the intervening
night of 11/12.07.2010, he was posted as Constable at PS Sonia
Vihar and was on emergency duty in the PS from 08:00 pm to
08:00 am and during that night, SI Minto Singh had received
copies of DD No. 2A and DD No. 3A, regarding a quarrel on
Wazirabad Road. On receipt of DD, SI Minto Singh joined him
for the verification of the contents of the DD and they both went
to Wazirabad Road near Nanaksar Bus Stop but nobody met
them there. It is further deposed that nobody had disclosed about
the quarrel at that place and again said, from the local inquiry at
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 31 of 106
that place, it was revealed that a quarrel had taken place at
Bhagatji Mandir, A Block, Sonia Vihar which is situated in front
of Nanaksar Bus Stop. They both went there and from there it
was revealed that the PCR had removed the injured to GTB
Hospital. Thereafter, they both went to GTB Hospital where it
was revealed that the injured had died. Thereafter, the dead body
was got shifted to the mortuary of the hospital. Statement of one
public person namely Kanhaiya @ Kalu met them in the hospital.
The IO of the case had recorded his statement and the IO of the
case Inspector Bhushan had also reached at the spot and the
hospital. He recorded the statement of Kanhaiya @ Kalu and
made the endorsement thereon and handed over the same to Ct.
Prakash who took the same to the police station for registration
of the FIR. The dead boy was identified by the close relatives of
the deceased and after post-mortem the dead body was handed
over to them.
During the cross-examination by Sh. Rakesh Kochar,
Advocate for all the accused persons, the witness stated that they
had not found any evidence about the quarrel at Nanaksar Bus
Stand or Bhagatji Mandir. They had not found any eye witness
of the occurrence at Bus Stop Nanaksar or Bhagatji Mandir,
Sonia Vihar about the occurrence. They had not found public
gathering at Bhagatji Mandir and the public persons had told
them that the injured had already removed to GTB Hospital. No
proceedings were conducted by SI Minto by SI Minto Singh at
Nanaksar Bus Stop or Bhagatji Mandir, Sonia Vihar. In his
presence, IO did not prepare any sketch of knife at the hospital or
at the spot. Balam Singh, father of the injured had not met him at
the spot and he met him in the hospital at about 09:00 am.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 32 of 106
PW10 Ct. Prakash Meena deposed that on 12.07.2010, he
was posted as Constable at PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi and on that
day, Inspector Vijay Bhushan had joined the investigation of this
case. They went on the Bus Stop Nanaksar, Wazirabad Road as a
call was received from there where SI Minto Singh and Ct.
Pawan Veer met them. From where it was revealed that a quarrel
had taken place at Bhagatji Mandir in Sonia Vihar, B-Block.
They went there and from there it was revealed that the injured
had been recovered to GTB Hospital by the police of PCR. The
IO of the case had received the MLC of the injured who was
declared as brought dead by the concerned doctor. Inspector
Vihar Bhushan had handed over him a rukka. He took the same
to the Police Station. He produced the same before duty officer
who had got recorded FIR No. 88/10. He received copy of FIR
and original rukka and went to the GTB Hospital and handed
over the same to the IO. He remained in the hospital. The post-
mortem on the dead body was conducted by the concerned
doctor. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the
close relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, they went at the place
of occurrence. Crime Team also reached there and took the
photographs of the scene of the crime. He does not know what
was present on the scene of crime. Thereafter, they returned to
the police station and his statement was recorded there.
During the cross-examination by Ld. Chief Prosecutor of
the State, the witness admitted that one eyewitness Kanhaiya @
Kalu was present in the hospital and his statement was recorded
by the IO and he also admitted that IO had prepared the rukka on
his statement. He admitted that at the scene of crime, soil was
put with a view to deface the scene of crime.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 33 of 106
During the cross-examination by Sh. Rakesh Kochar,
Advocate for all the accused persons, the witness stated that SI
Minto Singh and Ct. Pawanvir were already present at Bus Stand
Nanaksar and they told them that the incident had taken place at
A-Block, Gali No. 4, Sonia Vihar. He had not seen any knife in
possession of Inspector Vijay Bhushan, SI Minto Singh and Ct.
Pawan Veer, in the hospital. The statement of Kanhaiya was
recorded in the duty room at GTB Hospital. He did not
remember the time when his statement was recorded. IO had not
obtained signatures of Kanhaiya on any document in his
presence. Crime Team had reached the spot at about 06:00-07:00
pm in the evening. He had not seen the blood at the spot.
PW11 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 11.07.2010, he was
posted at PS Soniya Vihar and was working as duty officer w.e.f.
12:00 mid night to 08:00 am on 12.07.2010. At about 07:02 am,
he received a call from the Control Room regarding the
kidnapping of a boy from H. No. 157, Gali No. 1, First Pusta,
Sonia Vihar. On which, he recorded DD No. 2A, which is Ex.
PW11/A. On the same day at about 07:04 am from the Control
Room regarding kidnapping of a boy from Nanaksar Gurudwara,
T-point, on which he recorded DD No. 3A Ex. PW11/B.
On 24.07.2010, he was working as duty officer and his
duty hours were 08:00 am to 04:00 pm and at about 04:00 -04:15
pm, Ct. Raj Narayan brought three sealed pulandas from
mortuary of the GTB Hospital and handed over the same to him.
All the three pullandas were sealed with the seal fo MK. He
made a memo regarding the receipt of the pulandas and handed
over the pulandas along with the memo to the MHCM. The
original seizure memo dated 24.07.2010 is in his handwriting and
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 34 of 106
is Ex. PW11/C. His statement was recorded by HC Puran in this
regard.
The witness was cross-examined but nothing material
came therein.
PW12 Ct. Sanjay deposed on the same lines on which
Inspector Safdar Ali (PW37) has deposed whose testimony shall
be dealt with later on regarding proceedings conducted on
14/07/2010 at the time of arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and
Umesh.
The witness was cross-examined but nothing material
came therein.
PW13 Ct. Raj Narayan, was the investigating police
officer, who went to mortuary of the GTB Hospital on
27.07.2010 and collected three sealed pullandas from there. He
proved the seizure memo thereof as Ex. PW11/A.
The witness was cross-examined but nothing material
came therefrom.
PW14 Lady SI Hiloria was the Duty Officer posted at PS
Sonia Vihar at the relevant time. She has proved the copy of FIR
as Ex. PW14/A; endorsement made by her on the rukka as Ex.
PW14/B.
The witness was cross-examined but nothing material
came out therein.
PW15 Dr. Meghali Kelkar deposed that on dated
12.07.2010, she was posted as Senior Demonstrator in
department of Forensic Medicines, at UCMS & GTB Hospital,
Delhi and she conducted postmortem examination on the dead
body of Kamal Singh Rawat S/o Ballam Singh Rawat, 21 years,
Male at 2.15 p.m. She had made following observations:
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 35 of 106
General Observations: It was a dead body of adult Male of
average built. Eyes partially open. Cornea Hazy, left black eye
present, sub-conjunctival hemorrhages present in both eyes.
Mouth close. All other natural orifices NAD. Postmortem
staining present over the back and fixed. Rigor Mortis was
present in developing stage. No signs of decomposition were
seen.
External Antemortem Injuries:
1. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep with reddish blue
contused margins present over right temporal region of head
horizontally placed 4 cm above right ear and 9 cm above right
eyebrow.
2. Reddish blue contusion 3.5 cm x 2.5 cm present on forehead
above glabella and just lateral to midline on right side 4 cm
3. Reddish abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on lateral end of right eyebrow.
4. Reddish abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm present on right face. 1.5 cm
below right eye and 5 cm from midline.
5. Reddish abrasion 3.5 cm x 1 cm present on right face. 4.5 cm.
medial to right ear and 9 cm above right angle of mandible.
6. Reddish blue contusion 13 cm x 11 cm present on left face and
upper neck. 4 cm below left eyebrow and 8.5 cm from midline.
7. Reddish scratch abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm present over left side
of upper lip. 2 cm from midline.
8. Reddish blue contusion 6.4 cm. X 1.5 cm present on
mucocutaneous surface of upper lip in midline.
9. Lacerated wound 2.1 cm x 0.6 cm present on mucosal surface
of lower lip in midline surrounded by reddish blue contusion in
an area of 5 cm x 2.5 cm.
10. Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on left half of
upper lip 4 cm from midline.
11. Reddish blue contusion 4 cm x 2 cm present on posterolateral
aspect of left arm 20 cm below shoulder tip.
12. Reddish abrasion 1 cm X 1 cm present on right shoulder top.
18 cm from midline.
13. Reddish blue contusion 10 cm x 7 cm present on right lower
face and neck region. 7 cm below right eyebrow and 8 cm from
midline.
14. Reddish blue contusion 6 cm x 8 cm present on right ear
pinna and mastoid process and right upper neck.
15. Reddish abrasion 4 cm x 1.5 cm present on lateral aspect of
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 36 of 106
left arm surrounded by reddish blue contusion. 5 cm x 4 cm, 19
cm below shoulder tip.
16. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 7
cm x 2 cm with intervening non contused area of width 1.3 cm
present horizontally on posterior aspect of right arm, 14 cm
below right shoulder tip.
17. Reddish scratch abrasion 1 cm x 0.2 cm present on posterior
aspect of right arm, 21 cm below right shoulder tip.
18. Reddish blue contusion 3 cm x 2 cm present on posterior
aspect of right arm, 17 cm below right shoulder tip.
19. Lacerated stab wound measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 9.5 cm
deep present on posterolateral aspect of right arm obliquely with
centre 1.5 cm above right elbow joint and 3 cm lateral to
olecranon process with direction of the wound downwards lateral
and forwards. The wound margins are reddish blue contused with
contusion surrounding wound in an area of 7 cm x 4 cm.
20. Reddish grazed abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm present on medial
aspect of right forearm, 3 cm below right elbow joint.
21. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 7
cm x 2 cm with intervening non contused area 1.2 cm wide,
horizontally placed present on front of left cubital fossa.
22. Reddish blue contusion 14 cm x 3 cm obliquely present on
right cubital fossa on medial aspect.
23. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 8
cm x 2.5 cm with intervening non contused area 0.5 cm wide,
obliquely placed present on lateral aspect of right elbow joint.
24. Tram line like patterned reddish blue contusion measuring 7
cm x 2 cm with intervening non-contused aren 0.5 cm wide,
horizontally placed present on left upper forearm, 1.5 cm below
cubital fossa.
25.Lacerated wound measuring 2.2 cm x 0.1 cm x 2 cm bone
deep present on olecranon process of left elbow joint surrounded
by reddish blue contusion in an area of 4 cm x 5 cm.
26.Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on left upper forearm,
3 cm below left elbow joint.
27. Lacerated stab wound measuring 1.1 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm
deep present on postromedial aspect of left forearm 6 cm below
left elbow joint with direction downwards medial and backwards
and margins reddish blue contused.
28. Reddish blue contusion 6 cm x 3 cm present on posterolateral
aspect of left forearm, 5 cm below left elbow joint.
29. Reddish blue contusion 6 cm x 1.5 cm present on
posteromedial aspect left forearm 15 cm below left elbow joint
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 37 of 106
obliquely placed.
30. Reddish blue contusion 3 cm x 2 cm present on posterior
aspect of right forearm and olecranon process.
31. Reddish blue contusion 9 cm x 6 cm present on dorsomedial
aspect of right forearm 12 cm below right elbow joint.
32. Reddish blue contusion 20 cm x 9 cm present
circumferentially around right wrist joint.
33. Reddish blue contusion 8 cm x 10 cm present on the dorsum
of the right hand, 2 cm behind metacarpophalangeal joints.
34. Reddish blue contusion 17 cm x 9 cm present
circumferentially around left lower forearm and wrist joint, 20
cm below left elbow joint.
35. Lacerated stab wound measuring 1 cm x 0.2 cm x 2.5 cm
deep with reddish blue contused margins and direction
downwards, medially and forwards present on dorsum of left
hand, 4 cm above second metacarpophalangeal joints.
36. Reddish grazed abrasion 9 cm x 1 cm present vertically on
dorsolateral aspect of left forearm and hand 20 cm below left
cubital fossa.
37. Reddish blue contusion 13 cm x 5 cm present on knuckles of
left hand.
38. Reddish blue contusion 4 cm x 2 cm present over the palm of
left hand horizontally 3 cm below metacarpophalangeal joints.
39. Lacerated wound measuring 2.8 cm x 0.3 cm muscle deep
present on fourth web space of right hand palm obliquely
margins reddish blue contused.
40. Reddish abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm present on right little finger
tip.
41. Reddish scratch abrasion 4.5 cm x 0.2 cm vertically placed
on left lower abdomen just above left anterior superior iliac spine
with non contused intervening area 1 cm wide present obliquely
on lateral aspect of right leg, 2 cm above right lateral malleolus.
51. Reddish blue contusion 10 cm x 2 cm present on right lateral
malleolus and dorsolateral aspect of right foot obliquely.
52.Lacerated stab wound 2.5 cm x 0.2 cm x 4 cm deep and
reddish blue contused margins present on right upper quadrant of
right knee joint horizontally placed and directed medially
downwards and backwards.
53. Lacerated stab wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm deep of shape, as
shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused margins
present on lower half of right knee joint directed upwards
laterally and backwards with underlying communited fracture of
right patella.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 38 of 106
54. Lacerated stab wound 2.5 cm x 0.9 cm x 6 cm deep of shape,
as shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused margins
present on right upper leg directed downwards medially and
backwards horizontally placed with underlying communited
fracture of right tibia bone, 41 cm above heel.
55. Lacerated stab wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x 6.5 cm deep of shape,
as shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused margins
present on right upper leg directed downwards medially and
backwards and obliquely placed with underlying communited
fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 38 cm above heel.
56. Lacerated stab wound 2.8 cm x 0.5 cm x 5.5 cm deep of
shape, as shown in the PM report, and reddish blue contused
margins present on right upper leg directed downwards medially
and backwards with underlying communited fracture of right
tibia bone shaft, 35 cm above heel.
57. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm deep of
circular shape, and reddish blue contused margins present on
front of right leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of
right tibia bone shaft, 33 cm above heel.
58. Lacerated stab wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x 10 cm deep of oval
shape, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of
right leg vertically placed directed upwards, backwards and
laterally with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 31 cm
above heel.
59. Lacerated stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 13 cm deep of oval
shape, and reddish blue contused margins present on front of
right leg vertically placed directed upwards, backwards and
laterally with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 28 cm
above heel.
60. Lacerated stab wound 1 cm x 0.6 cm x 7 cm deep, and
reddish blue contused margins present on front of right leg
vertically placed directed upwards, backwards and medially with
underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 29 cm above heel.
61. Lacerated stab wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm x 5.5 cm deep, and
reddish blue contused margins present on front of right leg
vertically placed directed downwards, backwards and medially
with underlying fracture of right tibia bone shaft, 27 cm above
heel.
62. Lacerated stab wound 3 cm x 1 cm x 11.5 cm deep of shape
as shown in PM report, and reddish blue contused margins
present on front of left leg vertically placed directed upwards,
backwards and laterally with underlying fracture of left tibia
bone shaft, 36 cm above heel with extravasation of blood in soft
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 39 of 106
tissues.
63. Lacerated stab wound 2 cm x 1,5 cm x 5 cm deep, and
reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg
directed downwards, backwards and medially with underlying
fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 33 cm above heel.
64. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3.5 cm deep,
circular in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on
front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of
left tibia bone shaft, 32 cm above heel.
65. Lacerated stab wound 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm x 3 cm deep, circular
in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of
left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia
bone shaft, 30 cm above heel.
66. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 2.5 cm deep,
circular in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on
front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of
left tibia bone shaft, 33 cm above heel.
67. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm deep, circular
in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of
left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia
bone shaft, 26 cm above heel.
68. Lacerated stab wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 4 cm deep, circular
in shape and reddish blue contused margins present on front of
left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia
bone shaft, 0.5 cm above injury No. 67.
69. Lacerated stab wound 1 cm x 0.6 cm x 7 cm deep, and
reddish blue contused margins present on front of left leg
directed downwards, backwards and medially with underlying
fracture of left tibia bone shaft, 24 cm above heel. 70. Lacerated
stab wound 1 cm x 0.8 cm x 5 cm deep and reddish blue contused
margins present vertically on front of left leg directed downwards
laterally and backwards with underlying fracture of left tibia
bone shaft, 23 cm above heel. 71. Lacerated stab wound 1.5 cm x
0.5 cm x 3.5 cm deep and reddish blue contused margins present
on front of left leg directed backwards with underlying fracture
of left tibia bone shaft, 22 cm above heel.
72. Reddish grazed abrasion 8 cm x 2 cm obliquely present on
posterolateral aspect of left thigh 27 cm below iliac crest.
73. Reddish blue contusion 11 cm x 7 cm present on anterolateral
and posterior aspect of left lower thigh just above knee joint.
74. Reddish blue contusion 10 cm x 4 cm present on
posterolateral aspect of left leg just below left knee joint.
75. Multiple reddish abrasions in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm present
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 40 of 106
on posterolateral aspect of left leg, 1 cm above injury No. 74
surrounded by reddish blue contusion in an area of 9 cm x 8 cm,
76. Lacerated stab wound 1.2 cm x 0.5 cm x 3 cm bone deep,
present on left ankle joint just above lateral malleolus directed
upwards forwards and laterally with reddish blue contused
margins.
Internal Examination:
Scalp: Extravasation of blood seen under the scalp over left
temporal left parietal right temporal and bilateral occipital region.
Scull: NAD
Brain: 1200 gram congested with patchy sub arachnoid
hemorrhage present on bilateral frontal and left parietal region.
Neck: NAD
Ribcage: NAD
Lungs: Right 300 gram and left 250 gram, multiple contusions
present on anterolateral aspect of both lungs with rest region
pale.
Heart: 250 gram NAD
Stomach: Contained 200 ML brownish fluid with walls NAD
Intestines: contained
fluid walls NAD
1200 gram pale
Spleen: 150 gram pale
Kidneys: 110 gram each pale
Pelvis and Vertebrae: NAD
Urinary Bladder: Empty and NAD
Time since death: About 6 hours.
Cause of death. Hemorrhagic shock, as a result of antemortem
injuries to long bones and extravasated blood into the soft tissues
spaces produced by blunt force. Injuries No. 6, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21
to 24, 31 to 34, 37, 43 to 49, 52 to 71 and 73 to 76 are sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course of nature collectively.
Articles preserved:
1. Sealed envelope containing blood on gauge of deceased.
2. Sealed pulanda containing clothes of the deceased.
3. Sample seal.
She proved her detailed postmortem report bearing No.
968/10 dated 12.07.2010 running in 11 pages as Ex.PW15/A.
On 06.09.2010, she received a request for subsequent
opinion of weapon of offence along with two pulandas said to be
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 41 of 106
containing the weapon of offences from IO, SHO, Safdar Ali, PS
Sonia Vihar
On opening the pulanda No. 1 labelled as case FIR No.
88/10 dated 12.07.2010 signed by Inspector Vijay Bhucha dated
12.07.2010 bearing nine intact seals of VB. A knife with a silver
colour metallic handle and black plastic like material handle. The
blade fitted by three metallic fixes, as shown in the figure of
subsequent opinion and show a print as written in the subsequent
opinion report on one side of the blade. The edge of the blade
was sharp and other is blunt. Thickness of the blade 2 mm,
maximum width near handle 4 cm, length of the blade 20.5 cm
and total length of the knife 32.2 cm.
Reddish brown stains present on the blade. After
examining the weapon knife and PM report, she was of the
opinion that no injury caused by the the given weapon knife.
Pulanda No. 2 said to be containing iron road (pipe)
bearing 8 seals of SA. On opening the pulanda a white colour
metallic hollow rod was recovered covered with whitish and
brownish stains and both ends were frayed. The diagram of the
rod (not to scale) is in Subsequent Opinion report.
After going through the PM report and examining the rod,
she was of the opinion that injuries No. 1 to 18, 22 to 25, 26, 28
to 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 51, 73 & 74 are possible by the
given weapon rod. Injuries No. 21, 23, 24, 43, 46 to 50 are likely
to be possible by the given rod or a weapon of similar shape and
dimensions.
After examining the weapons, knife and rod were signed
and labelled by her and sealed in respective pulanda No. 1 & 2
by seal of MK and labelled. The original copy of the subsequent
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 42 of 106
opinion along with the two pulandas were handed over to the IO
and sample seal of MK given.
Her subsequent opinion regarding the weapon of offence
knife is EX PW15/B. Her subsequent opinion regarding the
weapon of offence i.e. rod is Ex PW15/C.
She identified the knife Ex. P-1 as the same which was
produced before her for giving the opinion. The witness also
identified her signatures on the knife at point A. The two cloth
pieces bearing particulars of the case are Ex.P-2 (Colly.).
She also identified the rod Ex. P-3 as the same hollow pipe
which was produced before her for giving opinion. The hollow
pipe bears the signatures of the witness at point A.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW16 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 15.07.2010, he
was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as HC and on that day, he
participated the investigation of the present case with Inspector
Safdar Ali, IO of the present case, HC Puran Singh and HC
Lakhvinder. They accompanied the IO to PS Bhajan Pura and
from there, accused persons Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were
taken out from the lockup and they were brought back to PS
Sonia Vihar. He identified both the accused person, who were
present in the court. Accused Umesh was kept sitting separate
and he took the accused Bachchan Nagar in the room of the
SHO. The SHO, Inspector Safdar Ali interrogated the accused
Bachchan Nagar and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.
PW16/A. At the time of interrogation of the accused Bachchan
Nagar, the father of the deceased and HC Puran were also present
there. The accused admitted to have committed the murder of
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 43 of 106
Kamal Singh, S/o Balam Singh. The accused also disclosed that
they have parked the car bearing registration no. DL 9CR 3229,
WagonR white colour in free parking, third pusta, Sonia Vihar.
The IO also interrogated the accused Umesh separately and he
was in custody of HC Lakhvinder at that time. He did not sign
the disclosure statement of accused Umesh. Thereafter, both the
accused persons were made to sit in vehicle and thereafter, they
reached to third pusta, Sonia Vihar, in pursuance to the
disclosure statement and the aforesaid car was recovered at the
pointing out of Bachchan Nagar. The IO seized the car, while
preparing the seizure memo Ex. PW8/C. Thereafter, the aforesaid
WagonR car was sent to PS Sonia Vihar while toeing the same
with crane. Thereafter, they along with accused persons went to
first Pusta, Sonia Vihar and he kept sitting in the car along with
accused Bachchan while IO along with accused Umesh and other
police officials went towards heap of bricks. After some time,
they came back with an iron rod, which was in open condition.
Thereafter, they left first pusta for Yamuna Khadar near
Wazirabad Bridge and there, on the pointing out of Bachchan
Nagar one slipper, red colour was recovered. The slipper was
converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of SA and seized
through seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. After completion of the
proceedings, they came back to the PS. IO deposited the case
property in the Malkhana. In the evening, the accused persons
were lodged in the lockup at PS Bhajanpura. IO recorded his
statement.
The witness correctly identified the case property i.e.
WagonR car bearing registration no. DL9CR-3229.
The witness was cross-examined by Sh. P.K. Dham,
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 44 of 106
Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar and
during his cross-examination the witness admitted that no
statement of accused was recorded about the second slipper. IO
did not interrogate the accused and not recorded the statement of
accused regarding the key of the WagonR Car. The car was
recovered at about 01:00 pm -02:00 pm and slipper was
recovered at about 03:00 pm -04:00 pm and they returned to PS
Bhajanpura at about 08:00 pm. He affirmed that in his presence,
the owner of car was not interrogated.
During cross-examination by Sh. K. C. Maini, advocate for
accused Umesh, he affirmed that iron rod Ex. P-6 was not got
recovered by accused Umesh in his presence. When the
disclosure statement was being recorded, he was standing near
the accused Umesh while holding him.
PW17 HC Ashok Kumar deposed that on 16.07.2010, he
was posted at PS Mehrauli as Head Constable and on that day, he
participated in investigation of the present with Inspector Safdar
Ali, who recorded his statement in the present case. Prior to that,
on 13.07.2010, he along with SI Ashok, SI Om Prakash and Ct.
Sanjeev were present at about 8.30 p.m. at the turn of Aggarwal
Sweets. Chhatarpur, Delhi, when one secret informer came and
informed to SI Ashok Kumar that two boys, who along with their
associates had committed murder of Kamal on 12.07.2010,
would come at about 9.00 p.m. at Andheriya More, Bus Stop
Mahrauli to meet their relative and they can be apprehended
there. On this information, SI Ashok Kumar made request to 3-4
passersby to join the investigations, but none of them came
forward to join and left without disclosing their names and
addresses while seeking their personal excuses. Without wasting
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 45 of 106
time, SI Ashok Kumar prepared raiding team with them and
informer and they left for the Andheriya More, Chhatarpur,
Delhi, near Aggarwal Sweets and reached there at about 8.45
p.m. On reaching there, SI Ashok Kumar again asked 4-5
passersby to join the investigations, but none of them came
forward to join and left without disclosing their names and
addresses while seeking their personal excuses. SI Ashok Kumar
gave instructions to the raiding party staff and Nakabandi was
made. At about 9.00 p.m., two boys came on foot and stood at
Bus Stand and they started looking around. The secret informer
pointed out towards those persons and thereafter, on the pointing
out and identification of informer, they overpowered those boys.
SI Ashok Kumar made enquiries from those boys and their
names were revealed as Bachchan Nagar, S/o Vishnu Nagar and
Umesh Kumar, S/o Babu Ram. The IO took cursory search of the
accused persons, but nothing objectionable recovered. The IO
arrested accused Bachchan Singh Nagar and Umesh Kumar vide
arrest memos Ex.PW17/A and Ex.PW17/B and their personal
search memos Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D were prepared. IO
interrogated the accused persons and the accused persons
confessed to have committing the murder of Kamal with their
associates i.e. the disclosure statement about the present case FIR
No. 88/10 of PS Sonia Vihar. The disclosure statements of
accused Bachchan Singh Nagar and Umesh are Ex.PW17/E and
Ex.PW17/F. The IO verified telephonically from PS Sonia Vihar
about the facts disclosed by the accused persons regarding
murder of Kamal and thereafter, the facts of the FIR No. 88/10
were revealed to the IO. Both the accused persons were then
taken for their medical examination and thereafter, both of them
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 46 of 106
were locked in the lock up of PS Mehrauli.
The witness correctly identified the accused persons
Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Kumar in the court.
During cross-examination by counsel for accused
Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, the witness deposed that
there were no residential houses near Andheria Mor however,
there were certain shops at distance of 100 meters from bus stop.
The shop-keepers were not asked to join the raiding party. He
did not make any departure entry before leaving PS. The
servants or the owner of Aggarwal Sweets were not asked to join
the police team. The bus stand was situated at a distance of
100/150 meters from Aggarwal Sweets. Two-three persons were
standing at the bus stand.
PW18 HC Rajesh Kumar was the Investigating Officer,
who accompanied IO at PS Mehrauli and thereafter went to
Patiala House Court on 14.047.2010. Thereafter, he deposed on
the same lines on which Inspector Safdar Ali (PW37) deposed,
whose testimony shall dealt with later on.
During cross-examination, he deposed that they reached at
Nanaksar bus stand in the evening at around 6 pm. He was not
having any knowledge if the place of occurrence was already
within the knowledge of IO. They remained at Nanaksar Bus
stand for about 5-7 minutes. None of the public persons were
joined in investigation at Nanaksar bus stand. From Nanaksar bu
stand, they went to first pushta, gali no. 4, Sonia Vihar, the place
where the dead body was recovered. He did not know the date of
recovery of the dead body. They remained there for about 10
minutes. He affirmed that place of recovery of dead body was
within the knowledge of the IO. It took about 5-7 minutes in
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 47 of 106
preparation of pointing out memo. He and HC Puran signed the
fard.
PW19 Ct. Sanjeev was the Investigating police official
involved in the arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh on
13.07.2010 on the basis of secret information. He deposed on the
same lines on which PW17 HC Ashok has deposed.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that there were residential houses behind Andheria Mor
at a distance which he could not tell. No one was called from
residential houses to join the investigation proceedings.
PW20 HC Lakhender Roy deposed that on 15/07/2010, he
was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as Constable. On that day, he
participated in the investigation with the IO Inspector Safdar Ali.
Accused Umesh S/o. Ram Babu was arrested from his house and
thereafter, he was taken to PS Sonia Vihar. Accused was under
interrogation at the PS and thereafter, he was sent to JC. He did
not remember what proceedings were carried out by the IO
before sending the accused to JC.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State
as he did not depose certain facts.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state,
he affirmed that IO recorded his statement in the present case.
He denied that accused Umesh was not arrested on 15/07/2010 or
that he was arrested in the present on 14/07/2010. He did not
remember if he had told the IO in his statement that accused
Umesh was arrested on 15/07/2010. He affirmed that IO
recorded disclosure statement of accused Umesh, wherein,
accused had disclosed that he can get recovered the iron rod,
which was used in commission of crime and thereafter, he gotFIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 48 of 106
recovered the iron rod and the IO seized the iron rod through
seizure memo. The seizure memo of iron rod (plash type) Ex.
PW8/D was shown to the witness, who identified his signatures
on the seizure memo at point B. He affirmed that accused
Umesh got recovered the plash type iron rod from near the heap
of bricks towards Yamuna Khadar First Pushta Side and the said
iron rod plash type was converted into pulanda which was sealed
with the seal of ‘SA’.
He correctly identified the case property i.e. plash type
iron rod recovered by accused Umesh as Ex P-3 (also exhibited
as Ex.P-6).
In his cross examination done by Sh. K.C. Maini,
Advocate for the accused Umesh Kumar, he affirmed that such
type of iron rod are easily available in market. It is affirmed that
presently there was no blood stain on the rod. It is correct that
iron rod does not bear the particulars of the FIR.
He signed the seizure memo Ex. PW8/D at the spot of
recovery Iron rod was recovered from 1st Pushta, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi. At that place, a heap of bricks (Chatta) was lying. The
“Chatta” was on the side of the Pushta road where several
persons used to pass. He did not state in his statement to the
police about the measurements of the recovered iron rod.
In his cross examination done by Chaudhary Rajender
Singh, Advocate for accused Yogesh @ Kali and Parvinder @
Titu, he stated that he did not remember as to whether he had
signed the said disclosure statements. He did not know in which
disclosure statement of Umesh, the name of Yogesh @ Kali and
Parvinder @ Titu were given by Umesh.
In his cross examination done by Sh. S.K. Ahluwalia,
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 49 of 106
Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar, he deposed that he took
Umesh Kumar in custody on 15.07.2010 at 9.30 a.m.-10.00 a.m.
from lockup of PS Bhajanpura, no public person accompanied
them. He did not remember as to any public person was
associated at the time of interrogation of accused Umesh Kumar.
Accused Umesh Kumar was interrogated for 4-5 hours.
PW21 HC Sandeep was the MHC (M) posted at PS Sonia
Vihar at the relevant time. He has proved the entries made in the
register No. 19 with regard to the deposit and dispatch of exhibits
from the Malkhana PS Sonia Vihar during the investigation of
the present case, acknowledgment receipt from FSL regarding
deposit of case properties. The official records proved by him are
Ex.PW21/A to Ex. PW21/O.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel for
accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, he affirmed that
entry was concealed by applying fluid at page no. 135, just below
the entry Ex. PW21/H. He volunteered that the said entry was
never made or removed / deleted by him.
PW22 Ct. Ishtekar was the investigating police official
who was assigned the task of depositing sealed exhibits to FSL
on 28.09.2010. He has proved the road certificate in that regard
as Ex. PW21/L and acknowledgment obtained from FSL as Ex.
PW21/M.
He was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but
nothing material came out therein.
PW23 SI Mintu Singh deposed that on 11.07.2010, he was
posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SL. On that day, from 8.00 p.m. to
8.00 a.m., he was on emergency duty at police station. On
12.07.2010 at about 7.05 a.m., he received DD No. 2-A and 3-AFIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 50 of 106
and thereafter, he along with Ct. Pawanveer reached at Bus Stop
near Nanaksar Gurudwara. There, nothing was ascertained during
enquiry and in the meantime, Inspector Vijay Bhushan along
with Ct. Prakash also reached there as there was another call
regarding the matter. Thereafter, they had reached Gali No. 4
near Bhagatji Mandir in Block-A. There, it was informed that
injured was taken by PCR to GTB Hospital and hence, they had
gone to GTB Hospital. There, Inspector Vijay Bhushan obtained
MLC of one Kamal Singh Rawat at which he was endorsed
brought dead. One eye witness of the occurrence namely
Kanhaiya met. Inspector Vijay Bhushan got recorded the
statement of Kanhaiya through him. Inspector Vijay Bhushan
made endorsement on the statement of Kanhaiya and sent rukka
to PS through Ct. Prakash for registration of the FIR. Inspector
Vijay Bhushan recorded statement of PWs about the
identification of the dead body of Kamal and thereafter,
postmortem of Kamal was got conducted and dead body was
handed over to his relatives. Ct. Prakash had produced rukka and
copy of FIR to the IO prior to that after returning from police
station.
Thereafter, they along with Kanhaiya had reached the spot
and IO prepared the site plan. Spot was got inspected through
crime team. IO recorded the statement of members of the crime
team. PCR Officers was also taken to A-Block, Gali No. 4 where
injured was found. Said place was also inspected by crime team
and IO. IO prepared site plan. PCR In-charge informed that
chhuri which was found there by him was given to DO of PS
Khajuri Khas. IO recorded statement of In-charge PCR Van.
Thereafter, they had gone to PS Khajuri Khas where duty officer
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 51 of 106
ASI Vijay produced chhuri/knife before the IO. IO prepared
sketch Ex. PW23/A of the chhuri/knife and after keeping the
knife in a pulanda sealed with the seal of ‘VB’ and taken into
police possession through seizure memo Ex. PW23/B. His
statement was recorded by the ΙΟ.
On 03.08.2010, he had joined investigation of this case
along with Inspector Safdar Ali and HC Puran Singh had gone in
search of accused persons. At about 3.00 p.m., one secret
informer met them at Second Pushta and informed that accused
Kalli@ Yogesh wanted in this case would come to meet his
friend in B-Block near Bhagatji Mandır. IO asked 2-3 passersby
to join the raiding party but no one agreed and left the spot
without telling their names and addresses and thereafter, they
had reached in gali Bhagatji Mandir and at about 3.40 p.m.,
secret informer pointed out towards a person who was seen
coming from the side of Pushta. Said person was apprehended
and he disclosed his name as Kalli @ Yogesh. He was arrested in
this case and his arrest memo Ex.PW23/C and personal search
memo Ex.PW23/D were prepared. Information about this arrest
was given to his father Sh. Satbir Singh. His disclosure statement
Ex.PW23/E was recorded by IO. He had pointed out the places of
occurrence i.e. Gali No. 4, A-Block, Sonia Vihar and Bus Stand,
Nanaksar Gurudwara. IO prepared pointing out memos
Ex.PW23/F and Ex.PW23/G in this regard. Accused was kept in
muffled face and notice in this regard was also given to him vide
Ex.PW23/G1. His statement was recorded by IO.
On 04.08.2010, he had joined the investigation of this case
with Inspector Vijay Bhushan, HC Puran Singh, Ct. Sajjan Singh.
Accused Kalli @ Yogesh was interrogated as he was on police
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 52 of 106
remand. He made second disclosure statement Ex.PW23/H and
he confessed to get recovered the purse of deceased Kamal.
Thereafter, he led them near Bhagatji Mandir and there from a
space between bricks, he had taken out a black colour purse and
produced the same before IO. On being checked, one election I-
card of Kamlesh Rawat, School photo I-card of Kamlesh and few
visiting cards were found. The same purse along with the articles
was kept in the pulanda which was sealed with the seal of ‘VB’
and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW23/I.
Copy of DD No. 2-A is Ex.PW23/J and copy of DD No.3-A
dated 12.07.2010 is Ex.PW23/K. His statement was recorded by
IO.
On 06.02.2011, he had again joined investigation of this
case along with Inspector Vijay Bhushan and HC Puran Singh.
Accused Parvinder @ Titu was on police remand. IO recorded
disclosure statement of accused Parvinder as Ex.23/L. Thereafter,
accused Parvinder had pointed out the places of occurrence i.e.
Gali No. 4, A-Block, Sonia Vihar and Yumuna Khadar, Jungle
Usmanpur. Pointing out memos are Ex. PW23/M and
Ex.PW23/N.
He identified accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @
Titu in the Court.
He identified the case property i.e. chhuri/knife Ex.P-1 re-
exhibited as Ex.P-1A the same as seized in his presence; black
colour purse Ex.P-1 containing one election I-card of Kamlesh
Rawat Ex.P-2, School photo I-card of Kamlesh Ex.P-3 and few
visiting cards Ex.P-4 collectively as the same as recovered by
accused Yogesh @ Kalli.
During his cross examination done by Sh. K.C Maini, Ld.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 53 of 106
Counsel for accused Umesh, he stated that he did not recollect
whether father of deceased met them before eyewitness or later
on. The name of accused persons was not mentioned in DD
entries No, 2A and 3A. There were 40-50 persons present at bus
stand. Statement of none of the persons from bus stand was
recorded. He did not know whether any PCR gypsy was
stationed near the bus stand. There is no taxi stand or scooter
stand near bus stand. No relative of deceased met them in the
hospital. Eyewitness Kanhaiya met them in the hospital at 9:10
am. There was no demonstration in the hospital. He volunteered
however, a gathering collected there. They returned to PS at
around 07:00 PM from the spot. He denied the suggestion that no
churi was produced in his presence. The churi was produced in
open condition. On the sharp edge of Churi, Lord stainless steel
was written.
During his cross-examination done by Sh. Rajender
Choudhary, Ld. Counsel for the accused Yogesh @ Kalli and
Parvinder @ Titu, he was not able to recall as to whether the
name of accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu was not
mentioned by the complainant Kanhaiya Lal in his complaint on
the basis of which the present FIR was registered (FIR Ex. PW-
1/A was shown to the witness ). He affirmed that in spite of fact
that accused Yogesh @ Kalli disclosed that he had concealed a
mobile phone belonging to deceased at Kasba Gulawthi but the
IO did not go at Kasba Gulawthi to recover the said mobile. He
affirmed that the recovery of the articles from Yogesh @ Kalli
and his arrest is the same place. The informer had left the raiding
party about 400-500 meters away from Bhagatji Temple. He did
not know Yogesh @ Kalli prior to his arrest. He did not know at
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 54 of 106
whose identification, the IO apprehended the accused Yogesh @
Kalli. On 04.08.2010, the accused Yogesh @ Kalli had made his
supplementary disclosure statement in the police station in the
noon time at about 11.00/12.00. He did not notice any
atmospheric change on alleged recovered purse. IO had given the
notice Ex. PW28/A to accused Yogesh @ Kalli before his arrest
at about 03:30 pm from identification of eyewitness Kanhaiya.
IO did not produce the accused for the TIP by the eye witness.
He denied the suggestion that IO had produced the accused for
the TIP before the court and he deposed falsely. IO did not take
any mark of identification before sealing the case property
allegedly recovered from Yogesh @ Kalli.
PW24 ASI Satya Prakash deposed that on 12.07.2010, he
was posted in North-East Zone, PCR, Bhajanpura. On that day,
he was on duty and having base of their vehicle, Backer-45 at
Chowk Near Traffic Post, Khajuri Khas. He had reported on his
duty at about 7.50 a.m. At about 7.54 a.m., he received a call
about a quarrel in Gali No. 4, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
After receiving the call, they had reached there. He found one
boy in injured condition was lying there. He was semi-
unconscious condition. One knife was also lying near the boy.
He took the said boy by his PCR Van to GTB Hospital. He also
took the knife from there and kept with him at that time. Injured
was admitted in the hospital by them. Later on, he had handed
over the knife to ASI Vijay Kumar who was Duty Officer at PS
Khajuri Khas. Thereafter, he had returned to his base. IO of this
case, Inspector Vijay Bhusan came to him at his base and made
enquiries from him. He had inspected the site at his instance and
prepared the site plan Ex.PW24/A. His statement was recorded
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 55 of 106
by IO. Thereafter, he returned to his base.
He identified the case property i.e. chhuri/knife Ex. P-1A
as same knife which was found by him near the injured boy and
handed over by him to the Duty Officer of PS Khajuri Khas.
In his cross-examination by Sh. S.K Ahluwalia, Ld.
counsel for the accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar
PW24 stated that the knife was lying at a distance of 2 foot from
the left hand of the said boy. During that period knife was kept
on a paper in the PCR Van. That paper might have been stained
with slight blood. Said paper was not handed over to Duty
officer. Site plan Ex. PW-24 /A was prepared between 05:00
P.M -06:00 pm at his instance on the same day and at that time
his statement was recorded by IO. Site plan Ex. PW-24 A was
prepared between 5.00-06:00 PM.
In his cross examination by Sh. Chaudhary Rajender
Singh, Ld. counsel for the accused Yogesh @ Kali and Parvinder
@ Titu, PW-24 affirmed that SI Mintu Singh had not shown him
the spot where the injured Kamal Suffered injuries and therefore,
he has not shown the same in his scaled site plan He had also not
shown him the points /spot where the blood stains were found or
lifted.
PW25 Mukesh Kumar Jain was the police official who
had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PW25/A at the instance of SI
Mintu Singh Gautam.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
affirmed that SI Mintu Singh had not shown him the spot where
the injured Kamal suffered injuries and therefore, he had not
shown the same in scaled site plan. He had also not shown him
the points/ spot where the blood stains were found or lifted.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 56 of 106
PW26 Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, Ld. CMM, Dwarka Courts
was the judicial officer who conducted TIP of recovered purse on
the application moved by Inspector Safdar Ali on 17.08.2010.
The record pertaining to TIP proceedings proved by him are
Ex.PW26/B to Ex.PW26/C and Ex. PW8/A whereby the said
purse was correctly identified by the father of deceased namely
Balam Singh.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.
PW27 ASI Puran Singh deposed that on 14.07.2010, he
was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as HC. On that day, he along with
HC Rajesh, Ct. Sanjay, Inspector Safdar Ali had gone to PS
Mahroli where accused Bachchan Nagar was apprehended. IO
obtained documents from SI Ashok Kumar and thereafter, they
had come to Patiala House Court there accused Bachchan Nagar
and accused Umesh Kumar (correctly identified by witness) were
arrested after the permission of the Court. Disclosure statement
of both the accused persons were recorded by Inspector Safdar
Ali. Thereafter, both the accused persons were brought to
Karkarduma Court and there, police remand of both the accused
persons were taken. Accused persons were taken to the area of
PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi. They had pointed out the place of
incidents ie Nanaksar Gurudwara, Wazirabad Road and A-183,
Gali No. 4, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi IO prepared pointing
out memo in this regard which were signed by him.
On 15.07.2010, he again joined the investigation of this
case along with IO, HC Ashok, HC Lakhender and Balam Singh.
Further disclosure statement of accused Bachchan Nagar and
Umesh Kumar were recorded wherein they had confessed about
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 57 of 106
killing deceased Kamal. They had also disclosed to get recover
the car, slippers and rod. They had gone to Pushta Road.
Accused Umesh got recovered one iron rod from near heap of
bricks, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar towards Yamuna Side. Road
was kept a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of ‘SA’ and
taken into police possession through seizure memo which was
signed by him.
Thereafter, accused Bachchan Nagar got recovered one car
bearing registration No. DL9CR-3229 from free parking, Third
Pushta, Sonia Vihar. Car was taken into police possession
through seizure memo. Thereafter, they had gone to Yamuna
Khadar where accused Bachchan Nagar got recorded slippers of
deceased which was taken into police possession after keeping in
a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of ‘SA’ through seizure
memo which were signed by him Seal after use was handed over
to him. His statement was recorded by IO. On 16.07.2010, he
along with IO had gone to PS Mehroli where IO recorded
statement of witnesses.
On 03.08.2010, he along with SI Mintu Singh, Inspector
Safdar Ali were present at Second Pushta, Sonia Vihar at about
3.00 p.m. In the meantime, a secret information was received to
IO about arriving of co-accused Yogesh @ Kalli at Baghatji
Mandir, First Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi to meet his friend. On
this information, IO asked 4-5 passer-by to join the raiding party
but no one has agreed to join the investigation and left without
telling their names and addresses. Thereafter, at about 3.25 p.m.,
they had taken position in the gali. At about 3.40 p.m., accused
Yogesh @ Kalli present in the Court today, came there. He was
stopped and interrogated. He was arrested in this case. On
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 58 of 106
interrogation, he made disclosure statement. Accused Yogesh @
Kalli had appointed out both the places from where deceased was
lifted and the place at which deceased was killed. Accused was
sent to lock-up.
On 04.08.2010, he along with SI Mintu Singh, Inspector
Vijay Bhushan joined the investigation of this case. Disclosure
statement of accused Yogesh was recorded. He had confessed
that he had kept documents of the deceased at B-Block, Bhagatji
Mandir in a space near bricks. They had gone to there with
accused Yogesh @ Kalli. There, accused Yogesh produced one
Election I-Card and one Education Card of deceased besides
some visiting cards and a purse to IO. Same were taken into
police possession through seizure memo after keeping in a
pulanda which were sealed with the seal of IO. Seal after use was
handed over to SI Mintu Singh.
On 03.09.2010, he had again joined the investigation of
this case. He along with Inspector Safdar Ali and Balam Singh
came to Karkarduma Courts and reached in the Court of Sh.
Satish Kumar, Ld. MM. TIP of case property was conducted.
On 19.11.2010, accused Praveen Nagar (correctly
identified by witness) surrendered before JJB Board. He was
formally arrested in this case and documents were prepared by
IO.
On 27.01.2011, he along with Ct. Sajjan, Inspector Safdar
Ali came to Karkarduma Courts where accused Parvender @
Titu (correctly identified by witness), had surrendered before the
Court. After permission of the Court, he was interrogated and
arrested by IO. His disclosure statement was recorded.
Documents of his arrest and disclosure statement were signed by
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 59 of 106
him. Accused was asked to keep his face muffled. Accused was
sent to JC in this case.
On 06.02.2011, police remand of accused Parvinder @
Titu was taken from the Court. He was taken to police station. He
was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded. He
had pointed out both the places. IO prepared memos in this
regard.
He identified the case property i.e. one black purse Ex.P-1,
Election ID Card of Kamal Ex.P-2, College I Card of Kamal
Ex.P-3, and few visiting cards Ex.P-4 as the same as got
recovered by accused Yogesh @ Kali; one slipper Ex. P-5 as the
same recovered at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar; one
iron rod Ex.P-6 as the same as got recovered by accused Umesh.
In his cross-examination done by Sh. Satish Verma,
Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar and Parveen Nagar and
Sh. P.K. Dham, Advocate for accused Bachchan Nagar and
Praveen Nagar PW27 affirmed that IO did not interrogate the
accused persons and or any other person about the key of the car
and second slipper. He affirmed that car was parked in the open
parking, meant for public besides the other vehicles. The iron rod
about which he has deposed was recovered at about 12.00 mid
night.
In his cross-examination done by Sh. K.C. Maini,
Advocate for accused Umesh, PW-27 deposed that father of
deceased Balam Singh had reached there i.e. police station at his
own. Signatures of Balam Singh were not obtained on any
document/paper on 14.07.2010. He did not remember as to
whether any entry was made by him in this regard or not. He did
not remember as to whether he got lodged any DD entry
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 60 of 106
regarding his leaving the police station on that day. He affirmed
that on 12.07.2010 the investigation of the present case was
going on. No site plan was prepared at that time. No photograph
was taken at that time. The place from where the rod was
recovered was an open place. No site plan of the place of
recovery of the rod was prepared. He could not say as to such
rod is easily available in the market. He did not remember as to
whether any of the accused had disclosed during their
interrogation that they had used dandas and knives while
committing the offence in the present case. He denied the
suggestion that accused Umesh was booked as an accused in the
present case due to political pressure. He denied the suggestion
that IO had told in his presence that accused Umesh was not
involved / linked with the present case. He was not aware as to
whether public had looted the domestic articles from the house
of Umesh after setting his house on fire.
During his cross examination done by Sh. Chaudhary
Rajender Singh, advocate for accused Yogesh @ Kalli and
Parvinder @ Titu, he was not aware as to whether departure entry
was made by his senior or not. However, he personally not made
the same. Secret informer left them before 500 meters at B-Block
from Bhagatji Mandir after pointing out towards the accused.
After pointing out towards the accused by the secret informer,
they did not ask any public person to join the investigation. In his
presence, no notice was served to those public persons who
refused to join the investigation. Accused was apprehended when
he came near to them in the said gali. Inspector Safdar Ali asked
him to stop and accordingly, he stopped.
He affirmed that in pursuance of first disclosure statement
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 61 of 106
of accused Yogesh @ Kalli, no recovery was effected. He
affirmed that in his presence, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was not
taken to Gulawti for the purpose of recovery of the said mobile
phone. He affirmed that accused Umesh and Bachchan were
arrested in his presence. He affirmed that their disclosure
statements were recorded. He affirmed that accused Umesh and
Bachchan did not disclose the name of accused Yogesh @ Kalli
and Parvinder and their involvement, in their disclosure
statements. He affirmed that in the second disclosure statement
of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh the names of accused
Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder had come. IO did not ask any
public persons to join investigation at the time of recovery of
purse. He affirmed that the purse was got recovered from open
place. He had visited the house of deceased but he could not tell
the complete address of the deceased. The place of recovery of
dead body was about less than half kilometer away from the
house of the deceased. The distance between house of deceased
and Nanaksar is about less than one kilometer. He affirmed that
the complainant of the present case is Kanhaiya. He affirmed that
Kanhaiya did not mention the name of accused Yogesh @ Kalli
and Parvinder in the FIR.
PW28 Sh. Ankur Jain, Ld. Additional Senior Civil Judge,
was the Metropolitan Magistrate, who had conducted TIP
proceedings of accused Yogesh @Kali on 04.08.2010. He has
proved record pertaining to TIP proceedings Ex. PW25/A to
PW28/C whereby the accused Yogegsh @ Kalli had refused to
participate in the TIP proceedings.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 62 of 106
PW29 Dr. Naresh Damesha, Neuro Surgery was the
Doctor who had examined the victim at GTB hospital on
12.07.2010 and declared the victim as brought dead. He has
proved MLC prepared by him as Ex. PW29/A.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW30 SI Ashok was investigating official who was the
member of the raiding team constituted at the time of arrest of
accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh on the basis of secret
informer. He deposed on the same on lines on which PW16 HC
Ashok has deposed.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that he did not ask any shopkeeper to join the raiding
party including any employee of Aggarwal Sweets. No notice
was served on the public persons who refused to join the raiding
team due to shortage of time.
PW31 ASI Vijay Kumar deposed that on 12.07.2010, he
was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as HC. On that day, he was on duty
as Duty Officer from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. On that day, at about
9.45 a.m. HC Satya Prakash, In-charge Baker-45, PCR came to
him and produced one chhuri which was stained with blood. He
had informed him that said chhuri was recovered from Gali No.
4, A-Block, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. Thereafter, HC Satya Prakash
had left the police station. He kept the said chhuri in his box.
On the same day at about 3.00 p.m.-4.00 p.m., Inspector
Vijay Bhushan came to him. He had produced the said chhuri
before him. He took measurements of the said chhuri and
prepared a sketch thereof on a white paper which is already
exhibited as Ex.PW23/A. Thereafter, Inspector Vijay Bhushan
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 63 of 106
kept the chhuri in a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of
‘VB’ and taken into police possession vide seizure memo which is
already exhibited as Ex.PW23/B. He identified the case property
i.e. chhuri Ex. P-LA.
He was not cross-examined by Sh. P.K Dham, Ld. defence
counsel for accused Bachchan Nagar and Parveen Nagar despite
given opportunity.
In his cross examination done by Sh. K.C. Mani, Advocate
for accused Umesh he stated that Churi was produced before him
in opened condition and it was not wrapped in anything.
He was not cross-examined by Sh. R.K. Chaudhary,
Advocate for accused Parvinder and Yogesh despite given
opportunity.
PW32 Inspector Vijay Bhushan, deposed that on
12.07.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as inspector
Investigation. On that day, while he was present in the PS, DD
Nos. 2A and 3A about kidnapping was received to SI Mintu
Singh. He was also apprised about the same by duty officer. Vide
DD No. 5A, he had gone for the verification of DD No. 2A and
3A by Govt. Zypsy and reached Nanaksar along with Ct. Prakash
and driver Ct. Jitender. At bus stand Nanaksar SI Mintu Singh
met him. No information about kidnapping was found there. He
received information about DD No. 7A from Duty Officer
regarding beating of a person at Bhagatji Mandir, Sonia Vihar.
Thereafter, he along with SI Mintu and staff had reached A-
block, Sonia Vihar. There they found a crowd. He was informed
that injured taken to GTB hospital by PCR vehicle. Thereafter
they had reached at GTB Hospital. There he obtained MLC of
injured Kamal who was endorsed brought dead and dead body
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 64 of 106
was referred to mortuary for postmortem. He inspected the dead
body of deceased Kamal. There was injury marks on the head,
hands and legs. The marks were sharp and blunt. Eye witness of
the incident namely Kanhaiya @ Kanu met him in the hospital
who had informed him in this regard. He recorded his statement
already Ex.PW1/A. He made endorsement on his statement and
prepared rukka Ex.PW32/A. He had send rukka to PS for
registration of FIR through Ct. Prakash, Ct. Prakash had returned
back after registration of FIR and produced rukka and copy of
FIR before him. Dead body was got identified. He recorded
statement of the witnesses in this regard which are already
Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW7/A. He had prepared inquest papers
which are Ex.PW32/B (colly.). Thereafter postmortem on the
body of the deceased was got conducted. After postmortem dead
body was handed over to father of deceased vide receipt already
Ex.PW7/B.
Thereafter, he along with Kanhaiya had reached the spot at
Nanaksar. At his instance, he inspected the site and prepared site
plan Ex.PW32/C. Spot was also got inspected through crime
team. He recorded statement of Kanhaiya and relieved him.
Thereafter they along with members of the crime team had
reached at Khazoori Chowk where PCR Vehicle Baker 45 was
found along with incharge HC Satya Prakash. After taking him
with them, they had reached A-block, Sonia Vihar. There HC
Satya Prakash pointed out the place from where he had lifted the
body of injured and the place from where he had found the
Chura. He prepared site plan Ex.PW24/A of the said place.
Photographs of the said place was also taken through mobile. The
said spot was washed to remove the blood. HC Satya Prakash
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 65 of 106
informed him that he had handed over the said chura to the duty
officer ASI Vijay Kumar of PS Khazuri. He recorded his
statement and relieved him. Crime team also inspected the site.
He recorded statement of crime team officials and also relieved
them. Thereafter they had reached at PS Khazuri. He met ASI
Vijay Kumar. He produced chura before him which was blood
stained. He prepared sketch of the chura as Ex.PW23/A. Chura
was kept in a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of VB and
taken into police possession through seizure memo Ex.PW23/B.
He recorded statement of ASI Vijay Kumar. Thereafter, they
had returned to PS Sonia Vihar. He recorded statement of
witnesses and deposited case property in malkhana.
Thereafter on 14.07.2010, he handed over the case file to
SHO Inspector Safdar Ali as investigation was assigned to him
on the directions of senior officers.
On 04.08.2010, since Inspector Safdar Ali was on leave,
therefore file of this case was received to him. He had produced
accused Yogesh @ Kalli who was already arrested and in
muffled face before the Court. He moved application for his TIP.
Accused had refused to join TIP. He obtained one day police
remand of accused Yogesh @ Kalli. He had interrogated accused
Yogesh @ Kalli and recorded his disclosure statement which is
Ex.PW23/H. Thereafter at the instance of accused Yogesh purse
of deceased Kamal was recovered from a wall behind Bhagatji
Mandir. On being checked, one election I-card of Kamlesh
Rawat one I-card of school and some visiting cards were found in
the said purse Purse along with articles were kept in a pulanda
which was sealed with the seal of VB and taken into police
possession vide memo Ex.PW23/I. Thereafter they had returned
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 66 of 106
to PS. He deposited pulanda in Malkhana and recorded
statements of witnesses.
On 05.08.2010, accused Yogesh sent to JC after producing
him before the Court. Case file was again handed over to
Inspector Safdar Ali. On 05.02.2011, since SHO had proceeded
on leave, therefore he again received the file. He had gone to the
concerned Court where accused Parvinder @ Titu was produced
on production warrant. He had interrogated him after obtaining
instruction from the Court. He obtained one day police remand of
accused Parvinder @ Titu. Accused was taken at Nanaksar. He
had pointed out the spot vide pointing out memo Ex.PW32/D.
Thereafter they had returned to PS. He recorded statement of
witnesses. Accused Parvinder @ Titu was sent to lock up of
Bhajanpura.
On 06.02.2011, Accused was brought from the lock up and
interrogated. His disclosure statement was recorded by him
which vide Ex.PW23/L. He had also pointed out the place in A-
block, Sonia Vihar vide pointing out memo Ex.PW23/M and
Yamuna Khadar, Usmanpur vide pointing out memo
Ex.PW23/N. He was produced before the Court and sent to JC.
He had recorded statement of witnesses. He had returned the case
file to Inspector Safdar Ali, SHO, PS Sonia Vihar.
He identified the case property i.e. one black colour purse
as Ex.P-1 containing one Election I-Card of Kamlesh Rawat as
Ex.P-2, one School I-Card of Kamlesh Rawat as Ex.P-3 and few
visiting cards as Ex.P-4 as the same as got recovered by accused
Yogesh; one chhura as Ex.P-1A as the same as produced before
him by ASI Vijay Kumar and seized by him.
In his cross examination by Sh. P.K. Dham, Advocate for
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 67 of 106
accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, PW32 affirmed
that position of Kanhaiya Lal from where he had seen the
occurrence has not been shown and marked in the site plan by
him. It is affirmed that when the dead body was seen by him in
the hospital, it was bare feet and not wearing any shoes or
skippers. It is affirmed that he did not make any enquiry from the
father of the deceased as to what was deceased wearing on his
feet when he left the house.
In his cross examination by Sh. K.C Maini, Advocate for
accused Umesh, he affirmed that said police booth and temple
were not shown in the site plan. He had not left any police
official to guard the place of incident from where injured was
removed. Initially, he did not reach up to the said place due to
crowd and also due to the fact that he was informed about the
fact that injured has been removed to the hospital, hence he
cannot say whether blood was lying there or not. At that time he
did not enquire from any person from the crowd about the
incident. When he saw the dead body some sharp and blunt
injuries were appeared to him on the head, chest, hand and legs.
Father of the deceased me him in the hospital at about 11:00 am
or 12:00 noon i.e. after recording statement of Kanhaiya. He also
did not enquire from him as to whom he had made the calls prior
recording his statement. Blood was washed from the spot by the
accused persons. It was not washed in his presence. When he
prepared the site plan at about 4.45 p.m., 7-8 persons were
present there including police officials and Kanhaiya. Kanhaiya
was with him since making his statement. He had not left him
throughout.
Father of deceased namely Balam Singh had stated in his
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 68 of 106
statement that Kalli, Tillu, Diggi and Ajay Dogra have taken
forcibly his son and murdered him. Statement of Balam Singh
recorded U/s 161Cr.P.C. He volunteered that associates of
accused persons along with them had taken deceased. He had not
recorded the details of the associates in any other statement of
Balam Singh as case file was assigned to Inspector Safdar Ali on
14.07.2010. He was aware that copy of FIR was sent to
concerned Magistrate after registration of FIR on 12.07.2010.
This fact is evident from the last para of FIR itself. It is correct
that column No. 15 is blank. It is affirmed that public persons
had attacked on the house of accused Umesh after 12.07.2010.
In his cross examination by Sh. Chaudhary Rajender
Singh, Advocate for accused Parvinder and Yogesh, PW-32
affirmed that Yogesh and his brother Parvinder @ Titu were not
named in FIR. Accused Yogesh got recovered the purse etc. at
about 05:00 PM on 04.08.2010. They had reached at the place of
recovery along with accused Yogesh directly from police station.
It is affirmed that place of recovery was open place. He did not
move any application for TIP of accused Parvinder.
PW33 SI Om Prakash was the member of the raiding party
formed at the time of arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and
Umesh on the basis of secret information. He deposed on the
same lines on which PW30 HC Ashok has deposed.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that no notice was given to public persons who had
refused to join the raid. He could not tell as to how many public
persons had gathered there.
PW34 HC Virender Singh deposed that on 20.11.2010, he
was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as HC. On that day, he was
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 69 of 106
working as MHC (M). Inspector Safdar Ali, SHO, PS Sonia
Vihar came to him and made enquiries about a motor-cycle CBZ
having chassis No. 07768 which was impounded in case FIR No.
181/10 PS Khajuri Khas. He had confirmed to him about the
deposition of said motor-cycle in the malkhana of PS Khajuri
Khas. Said motor-cycle was deposited in the malkhana on
13.07.2010. The registration number of the said motor-cycle was
not legible. His statement was recorded by IO.
He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite
having given the opportunity.
PW35 SI Teg Bahadur (Retired) deposed that on
19.11.2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SI. On that day,
he along with Inspector Safdar Ali and HC Puran Singh had gone
to Juvenile Justice Board, Kings Way Camp, Delhi. There, IO
Inspector Safdar Ali formally interrogated accused Parveen
Nagar after obtaining permission from the Board. Thereafter, he
was detained in this case. His father was informed in this regard.
He had signed the documents prepared by IO. The version of
accused Parveen Nagar is Ex.PW35/A. He identified accused
Parveen Nagar in the Court.
He was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite
having given the opportunity.
PW36 Ms. Suchi Laler, Ld. MM who conducted TIP
proceedings of accused Parvinder @ Titu, claimed that during
TIP proceedings, held on 02.02.2011 at Tihar Jail, witness
Kanhaiya had correctly identified accused Parvinder @ Titu. She
has proved record pertaining to TIP proceedings as Ex. PW36/A
and PW36/B.
He was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 70 of 106
nothing material came out therein.
PW37 ACP Safdar Ali is the second IO. He deposed that
on 14-07-2010, he was posted at PS Sonia Vihar as SHO. The
investigation of this case was taken over by him from Inspector
Vijay Bhushan, Inspector Investigation of PS Sonia Vihar. An
information was received from PS Mehrauli on 13.07.2010 vide
DD no. 13A about arrest of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh
Kumar, who were wanted in this case. He along with HC Puran
Singh, HC Rajesh and Ct. Sanjay had reached at PS Mehrauli on
14.07.2010. He had met SI Ashok Kumar of PS Mehrauli and
obtained copies of arrest papers of the accused persons.
Thereafter, SI Ashok Kumar had produced accused Bachchan
Nagar and Umesh Kumar before the concerned court. He
obtained permission from the court and interrogated both the
accused persons. Accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh Nagar
were arrested in this case vide arrest memos Ex. PW18/A and Ex.
PW18/B. Their disclosure statements were recorded by him.
Disclosure statement of accused Bachchan Nagar is Ex. PW18/C
and of accused Umesh Nagar is Ex. PW18/D. Thereafter, he
moved an application before the court for obtaining permission to
produce the accused persons before the court of PS Sonia Vihar.
Thereafter accused persons were produced before the
concerned Court of Shri Sonu Agnihotri, Ld. MM of PS Sonia
Vihar. He had moved an application for taking police remand of
accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh and obtained two days
police remand. Thereafter, accused persons were got medically
examined at GTB Hospital. Accused persons had pointed out the
place of incident at Nanaksar vide memos Ex. PW18/F, Ex.
PW18/E and of the place in gali no. 4 in front of house no.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 71 of 106
A/183, Sonia Vihar vide memos Ex. PW18/G and Ex. PW18/H.
Thereafter accused persons were taken to PS and they were
interrogated. He had recorded the statement of witnesses.
Thereafter they were sent to lock up of PS Bhajanpura.
On 15.07.2010, accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were
taken out from the lock up of PS Bhajanpura and brought to PS
Sonia Vihar. They were again interrogated in this case. He had
recorded their supplementary disclosure statements vide memos
Ex. PW16/A and Ex. PW37/A. Thereafter he along with HC
Ashok, HC Lakender Singh, HC Puran Singh and father of the
deceased namely Balam Singh along with both the accused
persons had gone to IIIrd Pusta Sonia Vihar. There at the
instance of accused Bachchan Nagar a Wagon Car bearing no.
DL9CR-3229 was recovered from a parking. Car was taken into
police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C.
Thereafter accused Umesh led them to Ist Pusta, Sonia
Vihar. There from a heap of bricks accused Umesh taken out a
rod/pipe and produced the same before him stating the same to
have been used in the incident. Said rod/pipe was about 3 foot
and few cm in length. It was kept in a pullanda which was sealed
with the seal of S.A. and taken into police possession vide
seizure memo Ex. PW8/D.
Thereafter accused Bachchan Nagar led them near Paltoon
Pool, Yamuna Khadar and from there he had got recovered a
slipper/chappal of Spark which was lying on the ground stating
the same belonging to the deceased. Father of the deceased,
namely Balam Singh identified the slipper belonging to his
deceased son namely Kamal. Slipper was kept in a pullanda
which was sealed with the seal of S.A. and taken into police
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 72 of 106
possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B. Seal after use was
handed over to HC Puran Singh. They had returned to PS and
deposited case property in the malkhana. He had recorded
statements of witnesses. Accused persons were sent to the lock
up of PS Bhajanpura. On 16.07.2010, accused persons were
produced before the Court and were sent to J/C.
He had recorded statements of PW Smt. Rajbala, and
police officials of PS Mehrauli namely SI Ashok Kumar, SI Om
Prakash, HC Ashok Kumar and Ct. Sanjeev. He had also made
searched for the remaining accused persons but they were not
found.
On 24.07.2010, Ct. Raj Narayan had brought sealed
parcels from GTB Hospital relating to the postmortem of
deceased Kamal and handed over the same to the duty officer HC
Anil, who had deposited the same in the malkhana. He recorded
statement of Ct. Raj Narayan and HC Anil.
On 03.08.2010, he along with SI Mintoo Singh and HC
Puran Singh had gone in search of remaining accused persons. At
about 3.00 pm, at IInd Pusta near A-One Dharam Kanta a secret
information was received that accused Yogesh @ Kalli would
come at Ist Pusta, B Block. Hence, they had reached there. At
about 4.10 pm, accused Yogesh @ Kalli was apprehended at the
pointing out by secret informer. He was interrogated and arrested
in this case. His arrest memo and personal search memos were
prepared by him vide Ex. PW23/C and Ex. PW23/D. His
disclosure statement is Ex. PW23/E. A notice was given to him
to cover his face vide Ex. PW23/G-1.
Thereafter accused Yogesh @ Kalli had pointed out the
place where dead body of Kamal was thrown vide memo Ex.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 73 of 106
PW23/G, had also pointed out the place from where Kamal was
lifted at Nanaksar vide memo Ex. PW23/F. Thereafter accused
Yogesh was taken to PS. He had recorded statements of
witnesses.
Due to illness, he had proceeded on medical rest therefore,
file was given to Inspector Vijay Bhushan for further
investigation on 03.08.2010. On 18.08.2010, WagonR car was
released on supardari by the Court Order. On 03.09.2010, TIP of
purse which was got recovered by accused Yogesh @ Kalli was
got conducted through father of the deceased namely Balam
Singh. During TIP, Balam Singh had identified the said purse
belonging to his deceased son namely Kamal. His application for
TIP is Ex. PW26/A. On 06.09.2010, he had taken sealed pullanda
of Iron Pipe and of Churri from malkhana and had gone to GTB
Hospital and moved an application before Autopsy Surgeon for
obtaining subsequent opinion. His application in this regard is
Ex. PW37/B. After handing over the said parcels to Dr. Meghali
Kelkar, he had returned from GTB Hospital.
On 16.09.2010, he took SI Mukesh Jain, Draftsman to Gali
No. Sonia Vihar, Delhi where Kamal was thrown. SI Mukesh
Jain had taken ugh notes and measurements on the instance of SI
Mintu Singh who was also with us. He had recorded their
statements. On 28.09.2010, three exhibits i.e. one sealed parcel
of the clothes of deceased, one sealed parcel having blood gauze
of deceased and one sealed parcel of knife along with the sample
seal were sent to the FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 36/21 through Ct.
Istkhar. He had also recorded the statement of Ct. Istkhar and
HC/MHC(M) Sandeep Kumar.
On 06.10.2010, a notice under Section 133 of the MV Act
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 74 of 106
was given to the owner namely Sh. Ravinder Kumar of WagonR
car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 Ex. PW37/N and he had replied on
the notice that the said car was gifted by him to his niece namely
Smt. Meenakshi in the year 2007 in her marriage and the car was
being financed therefore, the ownership was not transferred in
her name and the said car was being used by her husband namely
Sh. Bachchan Nagar and on 12.07.2010, the said car was being
used by him. Reply is Ex.PW37/O. He had also recorded the
statement of Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
On 19.11.2010, he along with SI Teg Bahadur and HC
Puran Singh reached JJB, Kingsway Camp where accused
Praveen Nagar had surrendered before JJB Court. After getting
permission from the JJB, he was interrogated and his version was
recorded vide Ex.PW35/A. He was detained vide memo
Ex.PW37/C. His personal search was also conducted vide
PW37/D. His request for interrogation of accused Praveen Nagar
is Ex.PW37/E. Request was also made for two days’ custody.
Request is Ex. PW37/F. Request was not allowed. Thereafter, he
was sent to observation home. He had recorded statements of SI
Teg Bahadur and HC Puran singh.
As the accused Praveen Nagar had disclosed that
motorcycle which was used in the crime was seized by the
officials of PS Khajuri Khas. Therefore, he along with HC Puran
Singh reached PS Khajuri Khas and where MHC(M) had
inquired about the motorcycle and it revealed that the said
motorcycle was deposited in malkhana in case FIR No.
181/2010. He had recorded the statement of HC Birender,
MHC(M) Khajuri Khas.
On 27.01.2011, accused Parvinder @ Titu has filed an
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 75 of 106
application for surrender in the Court of Sh. Sonu Agnihotri, Ld.
MM. He along with HC Puran Singh and Ct. Sajjan reached the
Court. Application for interrogation of formal arrest of accused
Parvinder @ Titu was filed before the Court vide Ex.PW37/G.
He was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded
vide Ex.PW37/H. A notice was also given to accused Parvinder
@ Titu to keep himself in muffled face vide Ex.PW37/I. After
interrogation, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW37/J and
his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo
Ex.PW37/K. On 27.01.2011, an application for TIP of the
accused Parvinder @ Titu was also filed vide Ex.PW37/L in the
Court of Sh. Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Ld. ACMM and the Ld.
ACMM had given directions to put up the same before the
concerned Magistrate and after putting the application before the
concerned Magistrate, the application was marked for the Ld.
Link Magistrate for 28.01.2011. He had recorded statement of
HC Puran Singh and Ct. Sajjan.
On 28.01.2011, the Ld. Link Magistrate had given the date
for TIP on 02.02.2011. On 02.02.2011, TIP of the accused
Parvinder @ Titu was conducted at Tihar Jail. He had filed an
application for supplying the copy of TIP Proceedings vide
Ex.PW37/M. In the TIP Proceedings, complainant Kanhaiya @
Kanu had identified the accused Parvinder @ Titu.
During investigation, he had collected scaled site plan,
subsequent opinion and recorded statement of witnesses. Copy of
application moved before the Court of PS Mehroli for obtaining
permission for interrogating the accused Bachchan Nagar and
Umesh Kumar is Ex.PW37/X. Carbon copy of application for
obtaining police remand of both the accused persons moved
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 76 of 106
before the Court of Sh. Sonu Agnihotri is Ex.PW37/Y.
Superdarinama for releasing the car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 is
Ex.PW37/X1. Copy of DD no. 7A dated 12.07.2010 is
Ex.PW37/X2 and copy of DD no. 13A is Ex.PW37/X3. After
completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before
the Court. On receipt of FSL result was also submitted in the
Court through his application Ex.PW37/Z. He tender FSL result
in evidence. Same are Ex.PX and Ex.PY.
He identified that accused persons in the Court. He stated
that he can identify the case property if shown to him.
The WagonR car bearing no. DL9CR-3229 Ex. P-7 was on
superdari and its identity was not disputed; the identity of
slipper / chappal Ex. P-5, which was recovered at the instance of
accused Bachchan Nagar, was not disputed; and identity of iron
rod Ex. P-6 got recovered by accused Umesh Kumar was not
disputed.
In his cross examination by Sh. P.K. Dham, Advocate for
the accused Bachchan Nagar and Praveen Nagar, PW-37
affirmed that he did not find any blood stains in WagonR car in
question. He did not prepare any document regarding the enquiry
about the second chappal from the accused Bachchan Nagar and
this fact was not recorded anywhere by him. He did not get
recovered the keys of the WagonR car. He denied that he did not
question about it from the accused. He did not remember the size
of the recovered chappal. It appeared that the witness was
avoiding the answer. Chappal and iron rod were deposited in the
malkhana at the same time after reaching the police station at
about 03:00-04:00 PM.
In his cross examination by Sh. K.C Maini, Advocate for
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 77 of 106
the accused Umesh, PW-37 stated that the police officials of PS
Mehroli did not enquire about registration of case prior
apprehension of the accused persons. He denied the suggestion
that accused Umesh did not make any disclosure statement on
14.07.2010. He affirmed that place of incident was known to the
police prior to the arrest of accused Umesh. The heap of bricks
was about 15-20 meters away from the road. He did not prepare
site plan of the place of recovery of iron pipe. He also do not
prepare sketch of iron pipe. No public persons had joined the
investigation. He did not give any notice to any public person.
Chappal was recovered from Yamuna Khadar. He denied the
suggestion that he did not record statement of Rajbala. In his
presence, sketch of the rod was not prepared. Subsequent opinion
was taken by deposing the rod on 06.09.2010. He did not notice
blood on the rod at the time of recovery. There was no specific
identity mark on iron pipe/rod.
In his cross-examination by Sh. C. R. Singh, Ld. Counsel
for accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titto, he affirmed
that name of accused Yogesh and Parvinder was not there in FIR.
He affirmed that in first disclosure statement of accused
Bachchan and Umesh, there was no mention of their names. He
affirmed that he had mentioned the name of Smt. Raj Bala as one
of the witness in this case, who named accused Parvinder in her
statement. He affirmed that he did not get TIP conducted
through Smt. Raj Bala. He did not record supplementary
statement of Kanhaiya. Accused Yogesh @ Kalli was not known
to him. He denied that he was not kept in muffled face. He
denied that he was shown to both the witnesses and then put to
TIP. No recovery was effected from accused Yogesh by him.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 78 of 106
PW38 Ms. Arti Rawat deposed that deceased Kamal was
her brother. A mobile no. 9899665524 was issued on her ID
proof i.e. Pan card and same was used by her deceased brother
Kamal. Photocopy of CAF on judicial record was marked as
Mark PW38/A and photocopy of Pan card was exhibited as Ex.
PW38/A.
During cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, she
denied that she was intentionally stating that she was not
confirmed about voter ID of her brother Kamal though I-card
was issued.
PW39 Sh. V. Shankaranarayanan, Sr. Scientific Officer
from FSL examined the exhibits at FSL Rohini. On biological
examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1, 2a to 2d and 3.
he proved the detailed biological report as Ex. P-X. The exhibits
were also examined by him serologically. On serological
examination, exhibits, 1, 2a to 2d and 3 gave reaction for human
origin of blood. Exhibits 2a to 2d and 3 showed reaction for
human blood group ‘A’. He proved the detailed serological
report as Ex. P-Y.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW40 Surender Kumar is Nodal Officer from Bharti Airtel
Ltd. He deposed that mobile phone no. 9650502250 was issued
to Parvinder vide CAF no. 6399698 Ex. PW40/A. He proved
that subscriber details i.e. Pan card as Ex. PW40/B and Ex.
PW40/C; photocopy of electricity bill as Ex. PW40/D and CDR
of the said mobile number for the period 12-07-2010 to 13-07-
2010 as Ex. PW40/E.
He also proved the CDR of the mobile number
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 79 of 106
9650502350 for the period 12-07-2010 to 13-07-2010 vide Ex.
PW40/F. The mobile phone no. 9650502350 was issued to
Parvinder vide CAF no. 6811 as Ex. PW40/G; photocopy of Pan
card as Ex. PW40/H and Ex. PW40/I.
The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.
PW41 Sh. Yogesh Tripathi is Nodal Officer from Reliance
Communication Ltd. He has proved the CDR no. 6922042852 of
the mobile number 9350369633 for one day i.e. 12-07-2010 vide
Ex. PW41/A, photocopy of election I-card as Ex. PW41/B. The
said mobile phone number was issued to Bachchan Singh Nagar.
The call details with Cell ID charge of said mobile number is Ex.
PW41/C and Ex. PW41/D and certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act is Ex. 41/E.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.
PW42 Anuj Bhatia is Nodal Officer from Vodafone
Mobile Services Ltd. He has proved the CAF of mobile no.
9899265263 in the name of Umesh Kumar as Ex. PW42/A; copy
of election I-card as Ex. PW42/B and CDR dated 12-07-2010 as
Ex. PW42/C.
He has also proved the CAF of mobile no. 9899665524 in
the name of Arti Rawat as Ex. PW42/D; copy of MTNL bill as
Ex. PW42/E; CDR of said number for 12-07-2010 as Ex.
PW42/F. He has also proved the certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act for the above-said numbers as Ex. PW42/G and
Ex. PW42/H.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 80 of 106
SI Vijay Kumar was also examined as PW42 on an
application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. moved by ld. Spl. Addl. PP for State.
He deposed that on 11/12-07-2010, he was posted as PS Khajuri
Khas as ASI. On 12-07-2010 at about 7:55 am, he received a call
from PCR W/Ct. Seema stating that, “quarrel and beating, mobile
no. 9350369633, H. No. 183, A Block, gali no. 4, 1 st Pushta
Sonia Vihar”. He recorded DD no. 2A Ex. PW42/A. in this
regard and marked the same to ASI Dayanand.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of
accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein
incriminating facts were put to the accused persons, which were
denied by them. Accused Bachchan Nagar stated that he is
innocent and falsely implicated. Nothing was recovered at his
instance and police has planted the alleged recovery. He had
surrendered before the police as the police, in connivance with
father of deceased, were pressurizing and terrorizing his family
members and they had also set his house on fire, regarding which
FIR was registered. He was not present at the spot at the time of
alleged incident. PW Kanhaiya was a false witness, who
deposed under pressure and due to beatings given to him by
Goswami, Mahesh, Surjit and Sandeep and he was threatened by
police to depose against him otherwise, he would be falsely
implicated.
Accused Umesh stated that he is innocent and falsely
implicated in this case. Nothing was recovered at his instance
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 81 of 106
but the police planted the alleged recovery upon him. On 12-07-
2010, two policemen came to his house between 2-3 pm and told
that SHO had called him and he went to PS with them, where
several personal were already present. Police officials told him
that his name was appearing in FIR, he told them that he was not
present at the spot and he was taking tuition at his house. He was
a student of BCA and preparing for his exams, scheduled after
one week. Later on, he was arrested in this case. He did not
know the deceased as well as PW1 Kanhaiya but his name has
been falsely dragged in this case.
Praveen Kumar Nagar stated that he is innocent and falsely
implicated in this case. At the time of alleged incident, he was
juvenile and did not know driving motorcycle and other vehicles.
He went to Haridwar on the day prior to the date of alleged
incident and was at Haridwar on the date of incident and returned
back to Delhi in the evening on the date of alleged incident.
Accused Yogesh @ Kalli stated that he is innocent and
falsely implicated in this case by the IO in view of second
disclosure statement of accused persons Bachchan Nagar and
Umesh.
Accused Parvinder @ Tittu stated that he is innocent and
falsely implicated in this case.
Accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Praveen Kumar
Nagar opted to lead defence evidence and examined DW1 Kapil.
Accused Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Tittu did not opt to
lead defence evidence.
6. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
DW-1 Kapil deposed that he used to take coaching from
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 82 of 106
accused Umesh from Class 6th to 9th. In July 2010, he was in 9th
Class and rejoined the coaching with accused Umesh. Accused
Umesh used to take test on 2 nd and 4th Monday of month. In July
2010, on 2nd Monday, he gave test in the coaching before accused
Umesh. The batch was from period 6:30 am to 8:30 am and test
was also held between this period. This was his last day of
coaching before accused Umesh.
During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, he could
not tell the complete address of the coaching center where he
used to take classes from accused Umesh. He was not having
any documentary evidence to prove that he paid the said tuition
fee to accused Umesh during the said period of three years. He
was not having any documentary evidence i.e. test papers or any
other record to show that he used to take coaching from accused
Umesh during the said period of three years. He was not having
any documentary evidence to show that accused Umesh used to
take tests on 2nd and 4th Monday of every month or that on 2 nd
Monday of July 2010, accused had taken test between 6:30 am to
8:30 am. He had not brought any documentary proof to show
that H. No. A-582, Street no. 13, Pocket-A, Zero Pusta, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi is registered in the name of his mother. He never
gave any complaint or representation before the police or any
other govt. authority stating therein that accused had taken his
test in coaching class on 2nd Monday of July 2010, accused had
taken their test between 6:30 am to 8:30 am.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
7. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record.
Sh. R. K. Satyarthi, Ld. Spl. Addl. PP for the State
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 83 of 106
submitted that the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses is
sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences
punishable u/s 364/302/201/34 of IPC beyond reasonable
doubts. There is no major discrepancy or contradiction in the
testimony of prosecution witnesses. Despite the fact that PW2
Rajbala and PW4 Babu have not supported the case of the
Prosecution, nevertheless, the case of the Prosecution stands on
strong footing. It is submitted by ld. Spl. PP for State that case
of the prosecution is based on direct evidence as well as
circumstantial evidence. PW1 Kanhaiya is the eyewitness got
examined by the prosecution. His testimony dated 05-09-2011 is
consistent with his statement made by him at the time of
registration of FIR. He has correctly identified all the accused
persons in the court. On 17-07-2012, PW1 again supported the
case of the prosecution when he was recalled upon framing of
charge against the accused Praveen following conclusion of his
age inquiry. However, it is conceded that qua accused Yogesh
and Parvinder, he remained hostile. On 17-02-2011, PW1
Kanhaiya got one FIR lodged for receiving threats. Reliance is
placed upon DD no. 2A dated 12-07-2010 pursuant to PCR call
made by accused Bachchan and after this call, the accused fled
from the spot. This shows subsequent conduct of accused
Bachchan Nagar. There was a false claim of juvenility by
accused Praveen Nagar, which proves his subsequent conduct.
Apart from the direct evidence, the prosecution has also led
circumstantial evidence. The vehicle used in the commission of
offence i.e. one WagonR car was recovered at the instance of
accused Bachchan Nagar. Iron rod was recovered at the instance
of accused Umesh. The chappal of deceased was recovered at
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 84 of 106
the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar. All these recoveries of
incriminating articles have been carried out in the presence of
public witness i.e. PW8 Balam, who is father of deceased. The
purse of deceased was recovered at the instance of accused
Yogesh which was duly identified by the father of deceased
Balam Singh during TIP proceedings. PW6 Ravinder proves the
fact that vehicle i.e. WagonR car was with accused Bachchan
Nagar. Accused Yogesh refused to participate in TIP
proceedings, which also proves his subsequent conduct. The
postmortem report Ex. PW15/A indicates 76 injuries on the
person of deceased which is reflection of intention of accused
persons to commit murder. During investigation, one blood-
stained knife was also recovered along with the dead body. The
recovery thereof is proved by PW24 ASI Satya Prakash. As per
FSL report, blood upon the said knife was found to be that of
deceased. The recovery pursuant to disclosure of accused
persons carries significant evidentiary value as the same were
carried out in the presence of PW8 Balam Singh. As per
subsequent opinion of autopsy surgeon, the recovered weapon of
offence i.e. iron rod at the instance of accused Umesh is found to
be compatible with the injuries inflicted upon the deceased.
In support of his arguments, Ld. Addl. PP for State has relied
upon the following authorities:
1. Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Crl. Appeal no. 413/1982: (1991) 3 SCC 627;
2. Harendra Pal Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Crl. Appal no.
1726/15; 2023/INSC/738.
Ld. Counsel for complainant has argued that PW1
Kanhaiya @ Kanu was eyewitness of the incident. He was called
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 85 of 106
on different dates and finally on 17-07-2012, he resiled from his
earlier statements. It is further submitted that PW1 had identified
the accused Parvinder @ Titu in TIP proceedings on 27-01-2011.
The accused Parveen Nagar came before this court when Juvenile
Justice Board declined to declare him as juvenile on 30-04-2012.
PW1 correctly identified accused Parvinder @ Titu and
corroborated his role with respect to assault and murder of Kamal
Singh near Nanaksar T-point. PW1 filed complaint upon which
FIR No. 16/2011 dated 17-07-2011 u/s 323/341/504/506/34 of
IPC was registered on 17-02-2011 when he was threatened by the
accused persons. PW1 filed written complaint in the court of Sh.
R.P.S. Teji, the then Ld. ASJ, KKD through Ld. APP. Letter was
written by Sh. Mohan Singh Bisht dated 09-09-2011 to O/O
DCP, East District, Delhi. In support of his arguments, Ld.
Counsel for complainant has relied upon the following
authorities:-
1. Babu Ram Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and Ors, 1998
CRI.L.J 835;
2. Valson and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 208;
3. Smt. Kastura Devi and Anr. Vs. State of UP, 2000 Cri.L.J.
2851;
4. Vasa Chandrasekhar Rao Vs. Ponna Satyanarayana and Anr.,
2000 Crl.L.J. 3175;
5. Munna and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2001 Crl.L.J. 4127;
6. Manohar Lal alias Munna and Anr. Vs. The State (NCT of
Delhi), AIR 2000 Supreme Court 420.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has
submitted that only one eye-witness got examined by the
prosecution i.e. PW1 Kanhaiya and his testimony is doubtful on
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 86 of 106
following grounds:-
1. DD no. 2A was got recorded at 7:02 am by the father of
deceased. He did not disclose the name of assailant and make of
the car.
2. DD no. 3A was got recorded at 7:04 am by PW6. He did not
disclose the number of assailants and the fact if said car was
followed by bike. As per DD no. 7A, reference of accused
Umesh was not there.
3. IO did not mention in the site plan Ex. PW24/C as to on whose
instance it was prepared. The position of PW1 Kanhaiya is not
shown in the site plan. The IO did not mention in the sketch of
knife Ex. PW23/A as to which edge of knife was sharp and
which was blunt.
The attention of the court was drawn towards testimony of
PW1 wherein he stated that on 05-09-2011, 4 persons came out
from WagonR car, Praveen Nagar came on motorcycle with two
other boys, thus, he is alleging involvement of 7 persons. He
deposed on 17-10-2011 in cross-examination that Yogesh and
Praveen were not present at the time of incident at Nanaksar. He
further deposed that accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh were
having iron rod with them at that time, however, only one rod
was alleged to be used and recovered. He deposed that three
persons used the rod. He did not try to save Kamal by going
other side of road which is highly unnatural conduct of the
witness. No person were present near the spot raised any hue and
cry at the time of incident. He did not inform those police
officials by going to auto stand and he was frightened and
straightway went to the house of Kamal after hiring auto. He
deposed that he was not having mobile at that time, however, a
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 87 of 106
mobile no. 9899425119 is specifically mentioned in the FIR. It
was about 7:30, he had met parents of Kamal at their house and
father of Kamal had made a 100 number call, however, PW8
deposed that PW1 came at his house at 7 am. He deposed on 15-
11-2011, that there was well maintained park at pushta no. 2½
which is 708 minutes walking distance from the house and there
is no footpath for pedestrian on any side of road, thus he was
introduced subsequently. There was permanent constructed
police booth with telephone numbers of police on it on the road
which leads to Sonia Vihar. Even then, he did not inform to
police. It is highly improbable that accused persons took the
victim from front of his house. On 09-08-2012, he deposed that
Ex. PW1/A was a plain blank paper which he was made to sign
the same and there was no question of having read over the same.
He deposed on 18-08-2012 that he did not tell the names of
assailants to the father of Kamal as he had not seen the incident.
He deposed that he was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh,
Surjeet and Sandeep and due to their beatings, he had deposed in
the court against the accused persons. Earlier, he had deposed
against the accused persons because he was threatened by the
police to depose against the accused persons and police further
threatened to implicate him in false case. He was not knowing
accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh before he appeared as
witness in the witness box in this case.
PW2 and PW4 were alleged to be eyewitnesses of 2nd
incident but both of them had turned hostile.
PW5 V.S. Chauhan who had made 100 number call is also
a hearsay witness. The registered owner of WagonR car PW6
Ravinder deposed that on 12-07-2010 that the said car was with
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 88 of 106
him. On 01-02-2017, he deposed that Ex. PW37/O was not in his
handwriting.
PW8 deposed on 24-03-2012 that PW1 came to his house
at 6:40 am whereas, PW1 deposed that he visited the house of
PW8 at around 7:30. PW8 deposed that accused Bachchan
Nagar, Umesh, Praveen and their associates Kalli, Tillu, Dickey
and Ajay Dogra had taken away Kamal forcibly at around 6:30
am, however as per prosecution case, the time of offence is 7 am.
No investigation was conducted on Dicky and Ajay Dogra. He
deposed that accused Bachchan Nagar, Praveen Nagar, Umesh,
Yogesh @ Kalli were present in the court. He deposed on 14-02-
2013 that PW2 disclosed that when PCR van came to the spot, all
the accused persons along with one Vishnu Nagar put the dead
body in PCR van, which is highly improbable conduct of
assailant. He further deposed on 14-02-2013 that when he along
with his younger son Mahesh were trying to trace Kamlesh @
Kamal, he went in search with Mahesh. He deposed on 05-03-
2013 that there was also a dispute between his son and one
Manoj, the agency owner of motorcycle regarding delivery of
motorcycle. There is every possibility that deceased had quarrel
with some other person. He deposed on 05-10-2013 that his
statement was recorded by police on the same day after about 2
pm and statement of any other person was not recorded by the
police in his presence. Kanhaiya was also with him when police
made enquiries from him, however PW1 specifically deposed
that he left the hospital at 9 am. He deposed on 05-10-2013 that
his son Kamal was having no friendship or any business
relationship with Umesh.
PW9 deposed on 05-03-2013 that they both went to
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 89 of 106
Wazirabad road near Nanaksar bus stop but nobody met them.
Nobody had disclosed about the quarrel at that place. Thus, there
was no evidence of kidnapping available with the prosecution.
They had not found any evidence about the quarrel at Nanaksar
bus stop or Bhagatji Mandir. He had not seen any knife at the
spot or at the hospital with IO, thus, the knife was planted in this
case.
PW10 deposed on 05-03-2013 that IO had not obtained the
signatures of Kanhaiya on any document in his presence, which
corroborates the version of PW1 that he was not aware of the
content of PW1/A.
PW20 deposed on 18-01-2014 Umesh was arrested from
his house and taken to PS Sonia Vihar. Thus, it damages the
prosecution story about arrest and recovery from accused Umesh.
PW37 admitted in his cross-examination on 17-10-2014
that he did not find any blood stains in WagonR car. He did not
find any signs of struggle in the car and he did not get lifted any
finger prints from the car. The Prosecution failed to prove the
use of said WagonR in the crime. He did not notice blood on the
rod at the time of recovery and there was no specific identity
mark on iron rod/ pipe. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the
involvement of iron rod in the crime.
There are contradictions in the testimony of PW8, PW16,
PW27 and PW37 regarding evidence with regard to order in
which recoveries of incriminating articles were effected.
The prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW1,
PW2, PW4 and PW8 and only these are made public witnesses
but except PW8, all of them turned hostile which put a question
mark on the prosecution version and it shows that investigation
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 90 of 106
was not fair. The prosecution could not have established any such
cause or motive on the part of accused persons to have
committed the offence, which is indicative of the fact that
deceased was assaulted by some other person, who might be a
rival or enemy of the deceased and accused persons have
intentionally been implicated in the present case in order to
safeguard the real culprits. In the present case, the prosecution
has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond
any reasonable doubt.
It is submitted that accused persons have been acquitted in
case FIR no. 16/11, which has not been made part of record, for
reasons best known to the prosecution. Thus, there is no
evidence led by the Prosecution to show that PW1 Kanhaiya has
taken contrary stand as he was under threat.
In support of their arguments arguments, Ld. Counsel for
accused persons have relied upon the following authorities:-
1. Amar Singh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 AIR (SC) 4894;
2. Baby @ Sebastian & Anr. Vs. Circle Inspector of Police,
Adimaly, 2016 AIR (SC) 3671;
3. State Vs. Mohd. Iqbal, (2013) 6 ILR (Delhi) 4289;
4. Sri. M.S. Chaluvaiah Vs. M.C. Krishna & Ors., Crl. L. J. 219
(2008);
5. Jagir Singh Vs. State of Delhi, 1975 Crl.L.J. 1009;
6. Harkirat Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1997 AIR (SC) 3231;
7. State of Rajasthan Vs. Hazi Khan, 2017 AIR (SC) 4001;
8. Manjunath & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, (SC) (2023) 4
Crimes 202;
9. Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2024) (SC) AIR 695;
10. Wadla Bheemaraidu Vs. State of Telangana, (SC) 2024 INSC
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 91 of 106
923; and
11. Kishore & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, (2024) AIR (SC) 1080.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
8. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in
the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some
provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are
found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Sections 364/302/201/34 of IPC read as under:-
300. Murder–Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or –
Secondly–If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or–
Thirdly–If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or–
Fourthly–If the person committing the act knows that it is
so imminently dangerous that is must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall
be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving
false information to screen offender.–Whoever, knowing or
having reason to believe that an offence has been committed,
causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to
disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from
legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or
believes to be false.
364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.–Whoever
kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may
be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger
of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for
life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention–When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 92 of 106
persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.”
9. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in
case of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 by the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that:-
“In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its
case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to
travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the
prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the
benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.”
10. In Harendera Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991
S.C. 1842, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
reiterated the well-known principle of the criminal jurisprudence
as:
“……. The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of
circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter
view favourable to the accused…..”
10. In Data Xiva Naique Desai and Another vs. The State, AIR
1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated the well-known principles of the criminal jurisprudence
which are reproduced as under:
“The learned Judge would be advised to observe the following
general rules when he is dealing with the serious question of the
guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime: (i) The onus
of proving everything essential to the establishment of the
charge against the accused lies on the prosecution; (ii) The
evidence must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; (iii) In matter of
doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn; for it is between
several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent
person suffer; and (iv) the hypothesis of delinquency should be
consistent with all the facts proved.”
11. In Swarn Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957
SC 637, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that,
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 93 of 106
“in criminal cases mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take
the place of proof. The Court must also take into consideration
that an accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against
him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion,
however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof.”
12. Moreover, in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Apex Court had observed as follows:-
“Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views
are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This
principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the
accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.
Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence
adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his
innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of
guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the
court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the
accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of
course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be
reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so
vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or
so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their
natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt
also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to
surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. Although the
benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the
accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence
which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or
in the nature of conjectures.
The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a
vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his
guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record.
Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to
adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference
is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the
individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is
more apparent than real.
It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and
shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much
worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent
person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent
person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be
felt in a civilized society. All this highlights the importance of
ensuring as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful
conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction ofFIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 94 of 106
the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the
administration of criminal justice. Such a risk can be minimized
but not ruled out altogether.”
13. As per the postmortem report Ex. PW15/A, the deceased
Kamal had received 76 injury mark on his body. Thus, it is
manifest that the deceased Kamal had been murdered. In order
to connect the accused persons with the commission of alleged
murder, the prosecution has led direct as well as circumstantial
evidence. As far as direct evidence is concerned, three
eyewitnesses are cited in the chargesheet namely PW1 Kanhaiya,
PW2 Rajbala and PW4 Babu. Out of these three eye-witnesses,
PW2 Rajbala and PW4 Babu had completely disowned the case
of the prosecution. They have categorically denied all the
suggestions put by Ld. Addl. PP for State on the basis of
incriminating facts emerging from their respective statements u/s
161 Cr.P.C. i.e. Mark X and Ex. PW4/A. As far as testimony of
PW1 Kanhaiya @ Kanu is concerned, it is noticed that he had
blown hot and cold at different stages in his deposition. In his
deposition dated 05-09-2011, he has identified all the five
accused persons namely Bachchan Nagar, Praveen Nagar,
Umesh, Yogesh and Parvinder @ Titu along with two more boys
(not arrested) as the assailants who had assaulted the deceased
Kamal Singh and put the deceased in WagonR car while beating
him and took him towards Wazirabad side. However, in his
cross-examination dated 17-10-2011, he claimed that accused
Yogesh @ Kalli and Parvinder @ Titu were not present at the
time of incident at Nanaksar, nor he had named them in FIR. He
volunteered that he was told to identify these accused by the
police officials outside the court. Thus, it is apparent that PW1
Kanhaiya was deposing under the influence of police. PW1
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 95 of 106
Kahnaiya @ Kanu was recalled after the filing of supplementary
charge-sheet against accused Praveen Nagar, who was declared
major by the Juvenile Justice Board concerned subsequently. In
his examination-in-chief dated 17-07-2012, he has named only
accused Bachchan Nagar, Umesh and Praveen Nagar as the
assailants. However, in his cross-examination dated 09-08-2012,
he has taken a somersault and claimed that he was made to sign
his statement Ex. PW1/A on a plain blank paper. He admitted
the suggestion of Ld. Defence counsel that a crowd had gathered
at red light near Gurudwara Nanaksar (place of incident). He was
told by someone in the crowd that one car came there and its
occupants had quarrel with deceased Kamal and they had taken
Kamal with them in the car. He further admitted the suggestion
that during the period when his statement was recorded in the
court in the year 2011, one Mahesh, brother of deceased, Surjit,
Chotu, Sandeep Kalu had given him beatings so that he should
depose according to their version. Further, in his cross-
examination dated 18-08-2012, he admitted the suggestion that
he did not tell the names of assailants to the father of deceased
Kamal as he had not seen the incident. He maintained that he
was given beatings by Goswami, Mahesh, Surjit and Sandeep
and due to their beatings, he had deposed in the court against the
accused persons. He was permitted to be re-examined by Ld.
Addl. PP for State wherein he denied the suggestion that he had
been won over by the accused persons.
14. During the course of final arguments, it has been
vehemently argued that PW1 Kanhaiya was being threatened for
dire consequences and in this regard, FIR no. 16/11 u/s
323/341/504/506/34 of IPC was got lodged. A written complaint
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 96 of 106
was also sent to Sh. R. P. S. Teji, Ld. ASJ, Karkarduma Courts,
through Ld. APP for State and a written letter dated 09-09-2011
was also sent to the office of DCP by one Mohan Kumar Bisht.
15. In rebuttal thereto, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that
accused persons named in FIR no. 16/11 have already been
acquitted and therefore, there is no substance in the claim of Ld.
Counsel for the complainant that PW1 Kanhaiya was under any
threat or influence. The factum of acquittal of accused persons in
FIR no. 16/11 is not denied by ld. Counsel for complainant. Be
that as it may, this court deems it proper to analyze the deposition
of PW1 Kanhaiya dated 05-09-2011 and 17-07-2012 de hors his
cross-examination dated 09-08-2012 and 18-08-2012 in light of
the contentions raised by the Ld. Defence counsel in his written
arguments as well as oral submissions. Certain discrepancies are
observed in the testimony of PW1 Kanhaiya dated 05-09-2011
when the same is read in conjunction with testimony of other
prosecution witnesses, which are enumerated herein below:-
1. No specific role of accused persons was attributed by him in
his examination in chief dated 05-09-2011 and 17-07-2012 in
inflicting injuries upon the deceased. Nor there is any mention of
the body part on which the victim had received injury when he
saw the incident. Nor he has revealed as to which of the accused
was giving iron rod blows and who were giving fist blows to the
deceased.
2. PW8 Balam Singh contradicts the version of PW1 Kanhaiya
regarding the timing of incident as revealed by him in his
deposition dated 05-09-2011. PW8 claims that PW1 came to him
at about 6:40 am for reporting about the incident whereas as per
the version of PW1, the incident took place at about 6:45 to 7 am.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 97 of 106
3. PW1 Kanhaiya claimed that after reporting the incident to
father of deceased, he went to GTB hospital along with parents
of deceased. However, PW8 Balam Singh claimed that he went
to GTB hospital along with his relatives. Had Kanhaiya been
accompanying him, PW8 would have specifically named him.
4. Neither in the site plan nor in the scaled site plan, the position
of PW1 Kanhaiya is reflected.
5. PW32 Inspector Vijay Bhushan had admitted in his cross-
examination dated 15-10-2014 that PW1 Kanhaiya had revealed
his mobile number to him. At the same time, he stated that he
did not obtain call details of his mobile number. No cogent
explanation is furnished by the prosecution as to why the location
details of the mobile phone of PW1 Kanhaiya were not collected
during investigation.
6. There is no mention of introductory facts in the deposition of
PW1 Kanhaiya as to how he was aware of identity of deceased as
well as of accused persons.
7. There is no explanation in the deposition of PW1 Kanhaiya as
to why he has not reported the incident to police on 100 number
call when he was carrying the mobile phone with him.
8. There is no explanation as to why PW1 Kanhaiya did not
intervene in the incident of assault when he claimed that
deceased Kamal was his friend for about three years prior to the
date of incident.
9. PW1 Kanhaiya did not even reveal the registration number of
the WagonR car on which he claimed that the accused persons
took the deceased while beating him despite the fact that the said
WagonR car remained stationed at the spot for a considerable
time.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 98 of 106
10. PW8 Balam Singh in his deposition dated 24-03-2012
claimed that Kanhaiya @ Kanu had reported the name of accused
Dicky and Ajay Dogra as well apart from the other accused
persons in committing the alleged offence. However, there is no
mention of name of accused Dicky and Ajay Dogra in the
testimony of PW1 Kanhaiya @ Kanu.
16. In view of the above-stated findings, this court is of the
opinion that testimony of PW1 Kanhaiya is not of sterling quality
which the prosecution is supposed to present and his presence at
the spot is under cloud.
17. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the case of Rai
Sandeep Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. Appeal no. 2486/09
decided on 07-08-2012, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India that:
“In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of
a very high quality and caliber whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version
of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face
value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and
what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement
made by such a witness. What would be more relevant
would be the consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the
witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the
Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of
the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any
prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness
should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of
any length and strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the
factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as,
the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation
with each and everyone of other supporting material such as
the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of
offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert
opinion. The said version should consistently match with the
version of every other witness. In can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial
evidence where there should not be any missing link in theFIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 99 of 106
chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the
offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a
witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar
such test to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can
be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be
accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based
on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the
version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime
should remain intact while all other attendant materials,
namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match
the said version in material particulars in order to enable the
Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty
of the charge alleged.”
18. Now, let this court analyze the circumstantial evidence led
by the Prosecution.
As per the prosecution case, following incriminating
articles have been recovered at the instance of accused persons
during investigation of the case:-
1. One chappal (slipper seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/B)
belonging to the deceased Kamal and one WagonR car bearing
no. DL9CR-3229 seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C used by
the accused persons in commission of alleged offence has been
claimed to have been recovered at the instance of accused
Bachchan Nagar.
2. One iron rod/ pipe was recovered at the instance of accused
Umesh seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/D. The said rod has
been opined to be a weapon used in inflicting certain injuries
vide subsequent opinion of autopsy surgeon i.e. Ex. PW15/C.
3. One purse belonging to the deceased Kamal containing
election I-card, school photo I-card and few visiting I-cards was
got recovered at the instance of accused Yogesh @ Kalli seized
vide seizure memo Ex. PW23/I, which was duly identified by
PW8 Balam Singh during TIP proceedings held on 03-09-2010.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 100 of 106
19. A grave doubt is raised in the manner and the order in
which the above-stated recoveries have been effected. All the
above-stated recoveries have been effected from open place, yet
no efforts have been made to join any independent witness. No
photograph of the places from where the recoveries have been
effected has been placed on record. No DD entries regarding the
departure and arrival of police official from police station at the
time of effecting above-stated recoveries have been placed on
record. PW8 Balam Singh, PW16 HC Ashok Kumar, PW27 ASI
Puran Singh and PW37 ACP Safdar Ali are the recovery
witnesses got examined by the prosecution. There is a huge
variation in the timing and order in which the recovery of
chappal/ slipper, car and iron rod have been effected. As per
version of PW8 Balam Singh, first of all, chappal of his deceased
son was effected from a playground near pontoon pul, Wazirabad
at the instance of accused Bachchan Nagar and Umesh.
Thereafter, a Maruti WagonR car was recovered from a free
parking lot in the Yamuna pushta khadar at the instance of
accused Bachchan Nagar. Thereafter, accused Umesh got
recovered an iron rod from first pusta, near bricks. In his cross-
examination dated 05-10-2013, he claimed that the chappals were
got recovered at about 11 to 11:30 am. Contrary to the claim of
PW8, PW16 HC Ashok Kumar claimed that the aforesaid car
was recovered first and then iron rod and then chappal. As per
his version, the car was recovered at about 1 to 2 pm. Another
recovery witness i.e. PW27 ASI Puran Singh revealed another
sequence in which the recovery was effected. As per his version,
first of all, iron rod was recovered and that too at 12 midnight (as
per his cross-examination dated 04-08-2014), thereafter, car and
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 101 of 106
then chappal were recovered.
20. As per chapter 22 rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules it is
necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the
police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934,
is reproduced as under:-
”22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The
following matters shall, amongst others, be entered :-
(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a
police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank,
whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a
statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be
made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the
officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter
personally by signature or seal.
Note :- The term Police Station will include all places such
as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is
maintained.
21. The relevant entry regarding departure of police official at
the time of arrest of accused persons, recovery of incriminating
articles i.e. chappal, WarongR car, iron rod, purse have not been
proved on record. Even the DD Writer was not examined and
no explanation is given as to why the said DD Writer is not made
the witness in the present case. At this juncture, it would be
relevant to refer to a case law reported as Rattan Lal V/s State,
1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
“wherein it has been observed that if the investigating
agency deliberately ignores to comply with the provisions of
the Act the courts will have to approach their action with
reservations. The matter has to be viewed with suspicion if
the provisions of law are not strictly complied with and the
least that can be said is that it is so done with an oblique
motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD entries
creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution version and
attributes oblique motive on the part of the prosecution.”
In the present case, the above said provision appears to
have not been complied with by prosecution.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 102 of 106
22. No cogent explanation is furnished as to why no
independent public person was joined in the investigation
particularly at the time of alleged recovery of incriminating
articles at the instance of accused persons despite their
availability. PW32 Inspector Vijay Bhushan has admitted in his
cross-examination dated 15-10-2014 that place of recovery was
populated area. No resident was called to join the proceedings
before entering the place of recovery. PW37 ACP Safdar Ali had
also stated in his cross-examination dated 04-03-2015 in
reference to recovery of incriminating articles that no public
person had joined the investigation and he did not give any notice
to public person. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s
State, 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi has observed as under:
”18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such
cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts
have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present
case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been
made, particularly when we find that shops were open and
one or two shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join
the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from
the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to
join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken
legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not
have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform
their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a
citizen, which is an offence under the IPC”.
23. In Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R 69,
the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-
“It is well settled principle of the law that the Investigating
Agency should join independent witnesses at the time of
recovery of contraband articles, if they are available and their
failure to do so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on
the prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly the
independent witnesses were available at the time of recovery but
they refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This
explanation does not inspire confidence because the policeFIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 103 of 106
officials who are the only witnesses examined in the case have
not given the names and addresses of the persons contacted to
join. It is a very common excuse that the witnesses from the
public refused to join the investigation. A police officer
conducting investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to
join the investigation and on refusal by a person from the public
the Investigating Officer can take action against such a person
under the law. Had it been a fact that he witnesses from the
public had refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating
Officer must have proceeded against them under the relevant
provisions of law. The failure to do so by the police officer is
suggestive of the fact that the explanation for non-joining the
witnesses from the public is an after thought and is not worthy
of credence. All these facts taken together make the prosecution
case highly doubtful”.
24. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case of Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 49 that,
“It would have been a different matter altogether had there been no public
witness available or none was willing to associate. Here, as said before,
public witnesses were available but no explanation on these lines is
forthcoming. Thus, we got to the view that it would be unsafe to maintain
the conviction of the appellant for the offences charged. We, therefore, order
his acquittal”
25. Further, it is observed that no efforts have been made by
the IO to send the incriminating articles i.e. chappal and iron rod
for forensic examination to determine as to whether the said
articles had any blood stains or not, which in the opinion of this
court is a serious lapse in the investigation. Nor he has got the
recovered WagonR car examined through FSL expert to
determine as to whether the same bears blood stains or not. The
IO ACP Safdar Ali himself formed the opinion that there is no
blood on the rod at the time of recovery thereof as reflected from
his cross-examination dated 04-03-2015. Nor there is anything
on record to indicate as to what the deceased was wearing when
he left his home on the date of incident. No sketch of the alleged
recovered weapon of offence i.e. iron pipe/ rod was prepared. In
these circumstances, the recovery of incriminating articles i.e.
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 104 of 106
chappal, WagonR car, iron rod and purse is doubtful. No efforts
have been made by the investigating agency to lift the finger
prints from the knife recovered along side the dead body of
deceased Kamal.
26. It is further claimed by the prosecution that blood from the
spot was washed by the accused persons. However, no evidence
either documentary or oral, in this regard has been placed on
record. No efforts have been made to lift earth control from the
spot in order to determine as to whether the blood was washed
from the spot or not. Since the recovery of incriminating articles
is doubtful, the subsequent opinion of the autopsy surgeon
whereby it has been opined that the recovered iron rod was used
in inflicting injuries upon the deceased, which is a corroborative
piece of evidence, loses its significance. DD no. 2A (Ex.
PW42/A) whereby it is claimed that accused Bachchan Nagar
had made PCR call at the time of incident to show the subsequent
conduct of accused and the call details records of mobile phones
of accused persons are only corroborative piece of evidence. The
citations relied upon by ld. Counsel for complainant and Ld.
Special PP for State are not applicable in view of peculiar facts
of the present case.
DECISION OF THE COURT
27. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record,
the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and the benefit of
doubt certainly goes in favor of the accused persons. The
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 105 of 106
doubts against the accused persons. Accordingly, taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused
persons namely Bachchan Nagar, Umesh Kumar, Yogesh @
Kalli, Parvinder @ Titu and Praveen Nagar are hereby acquitted
of the charges punishable u/s 302/364/201/34 of IPC. File be
consigned to record room after compliance of section 437A of
Cr.P.C.
Copy of this judgment be sent to Commissioner of Police
for information regarding serious lapses in investigation of the
present case noted herein-above and necessary action.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 28-02-2025
PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ ARORA
ARORA Date: 2025.03.01
17:12:04 +0530
(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
Karkarduma/ 28-02-2025
FIR No. 88/10 State Vs. Bachchan Nagar Etc. Page 106 of 106