[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Ashok Yadav Etc on 16 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-000807-2015
SC 56438/2016
STATE Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ another
FIR No.1525/2014
PS:(Rajouri Garden)
U/s : 120B IPC and u/s
326A/392/397/411 read with Section 120B IPC IPC
JUDGMENT
Date of commission of offence 23.12.2014
Date of Committal in the Court of 16.04.2015
Sessions
Name of the complainant Dr. ‘AK’
Name of accused and addresses 1. Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o
Sh. Om Prakash R/o A-16B,
MIG Flat, Mayapuri, New
Delhi.
2. Vaibhav Kumar S/o Sh.
Anand Kumar R/o Plot
no.24A, Top Floor, Pratap
Nagar, Hari Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved Section 120B IPC and u/s 326A/392/397 read with Section 120B IPC and u/s 411 IPC. Plea of the accused persons Not pleaded guilty or claimed State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 1 of 137 trial. Final Order Both the accused convicted for offence under section 120- B IPC and under Section 326A/392/394 read with Section 120B IPC and Section 411 IPC Date of announcing of judgment 16.07.2025 BRIEF FACTS
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23.12.2014,
a PCR call vide DD no.30B at 09:50 a.m. was received at
PS Rajouri Garden regarding acid attack on one lady at the
Main market, Chawla Jewellers, from mobile no.
9717271916. On receiving the said information, SI Suresh
Chand and Ct. Tej Pal reached the spot. They found one
Honda Activa scooty having registration no. PB-XX-
XX17 (hereinafter referred to as the victim’s scooty) with
droplets of some chemical on its head light and handle. In
the meanwhile, another DD no.33B was received by SI
Suresh Chand regarding admission of victim Dr. ‘AK’ at
ESI hospital, Basai Darapur with acid attack on her face
and eyes. SI Suresh reached the said hospital and found
that the victim had been further referred to AIIMS
hospital. He reached AIIMS hospital where he met the
victim, who informed him that two boys on a motorcycle
had thrown some chemical on the right side of her face and
had snatched her bag. He recorded the statement of the
victim and seized her hand gloves and woollen cap.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 2 of 137
Thereafter, he returned to the spot and prepared the rukka
and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Tej Pal.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. On basis of the rukka, present FIR was registered under
Section 394/326A/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC). During
investigation, Call Detail Records (CDR in short) of
victim and accused Ashok were obtained, on basis of
which accused Vaibhav was apprehended and the stolen
bag of the victim was recovered from his possession. In
his mobile phone, WhatsApp chats and audio recordings of
the conversation between him and accused Ashok were
discovered. Accused Vaibhav led the police to JCLs ‘SS’
and ‘SM’ (names not disclosed to protect their identity).
The debit cards/credit cards of the victim were recovered
from the possession of the JCLs. Mobile phone of the
victim was recovered from the possession of accused
Ashok Yadav. The accused persons were arrested. The
JCLs were also apprehended and investigation was carried
out against them. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet under Section
326A/392/394/397/120B/411/34 IPC was filed against the
accused persons in the Court of Learned Metropolitan
Magistrate concerned. After completion of proceedings
U/s 207 Cr.P.C, Learned MM committed the case to
Learned Sessions Court. Separate final report against the
JCLs was filed before the concerned Juvenile Justice
Board.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 3 of 137
CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 06.10.2015, charge under Section 120B
IPC and under Section 326A/392/397 read with Section
120B IPC was framed against the accused Ashok and
Vaibhav, to which both the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Separate charge under Section 411 IPC was
also framed against the accused Vaibhav, to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The present case was received by this court by way of
transfer vide order of Learned Principal District and
Session Judge, West on 05.03.2025.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the
prosecution has examined 44 witnesses in total.
6. PW-1/Sh. Gurdeep Singh Malhotra deposed that he had a
jewellery shop in the name of Ram Hari Jewellers situated
on the ground floor of his house. He had installed CCTV
Camera at his house as well as shop. On 23.12.2014, at
about 09:30 am, he was present on the upper floor of his
house. On hearing some commotion, he came down and
saw a gathering of people in front of his shop. He came to
know that two persons had poured acid on a doctor
Madam. She was having white colour Scooty. She
informed that she was doctor on duty at Basai Darapur
hospital. After sometime, one of her friends came there
and took her to the hospital. He deposed that the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 4 of 137
victim/doctor was having acid injury on her face and was
crying in pain and also seeking help. He checked the
CCTV Camera installed at his shop and saw that two
persons had thrown something on her and snatched her bag
from the Scooty. He conveyed this fact to the police. DCP,
ACP and other senior officers of the police reached there
and saw the CCTV footage installed at his shop. He
provided the CCTV footage of relevant time of that day
wherein the incident was covered to the police on
24.12.2014. He identified the CCTV footage coverage
from the period 08:08 am to 10:41 am dt. 23.12.2014
(Tuesday) as the same coverage which he had provided to
the police. The victim, her Scooty and two persons on
motorcycle throwing something at her were visible in the
said CCTV footage. Pen Drive containing the CCTV
footage is Ex.P-1/1. The certificate under Section 65-B,
Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-1/A. The witness identified
the accused Ashok Yadav as the friend of the victim. He
admitted the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP that the
name of victim is Dr. ‘AK’.
7. During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he handed
over the Pen Drive containing the CCTV footage to the
Police on 24.12.2014 at about 2:30-3:00 PM. He could not
recall the make, model, number & capacity of the said Pen
Drive. He stated that he had signed on the seizure memo of
that Pen Drive, however, when confronted with the seizure
memo of CCTV Footage Ex.PW-1/DA, he admitted that it
does not bear his signatures.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 5 of 137
8. PW2/victim Dr. ‘AK’ deposed that she was residing in
Delhi at H.No. XX/XX, Hari Nagar since last five years
and had been working as Senior Resident doctor at XX
hospital, Basai Darapur, Delhi since 01.10.2014. On
23.12.2014, at about 09:15-09:30 AM, she was going to
the hospital to attend her duty by her white colour Honda
Scooty bearing no. PB-XXXX-17. When she reached the
main market, Rajouri Garden, two bike borne persons
came from behind and picked her bag which she had kept
between her legs on the Scooty. The bag was of orange
brown colour of Tommy Hilfiger brand, containing a pink-
coloured wallet, stethoscope, cosmetic items, pen, some
other documents. The wallet was containing her ATM
Cards of Axis Bank, OBC Bank, HDFC Bank, PNB Bank
and SBI Bank, Debit Card, cash of Rs.5,000/-, hospital
stamps, I phone S-4 of white colour, charger, one Mala
(Rosary/Sumirani) and driving license. Thereafter, they
threw some chemical on her face. She stopped her Scooty
and was sensing much pain on her face. She took her
Scooty by the side of road and asked for help from the
persons present there but none came forward. After about
half an hour, one Sikh gentleman came there and she was
taken to nearby maternity home. She disclosed her identity
to the doctor of that maternity home. They informed her
that her injury was serious. She washed her face with the
water provided by them. Thereafter, she rang the accused
Ashok Yadav from the mobile phone of someone who was
present outside the Maternity Home. She dialed the mobile
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 6 of 137
number 9990700626 and informed accused Ashok Yadav
that someone had thrown acid on her and called him at the
spot i.e. at Rajouri Garden. Accused Ashok Yadav reached
the spot within 10 minutes and took her to ESI hospital,
Basai Darapur in his Car. She asked him to inform the
police but he told her to go to Emergency and that he
would come after informing the police. She went to the
Emergency of the hospital where she was given initial
treatment. Thereafter, she was shifted to AIIMS hospital,
where she was immediately attended as information had
already reached there. Police came at AIIMS hospital and
recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. She correctly identified
the accused Ashok Kumar before the court.
9. PW-2 further deposed that she and accused Ashok Yadav
were good friends since long, may be 2-3 years prior to
this incident. Accused Ashok Yadav was working in DDU
hospital with her as a colleague and they were having
visiting terms in their families. There was good bonding in
their families as father of accused was serving in ITBP and
her father was serving in BSF. They developed good
relations with each other. She deposed that the accused
Ashok Yadav proposed her for marriage, but she refused.
At that time, they were in DDU hospital. He repeatedly
proposed her for marriage, but she refused and told him
that there cannot be inter-caste marriage in her family.
Then accused asked her to remain friends despite their
marriage may not be performed. She accepted his
friendship proposal as they were already
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 7 of 137
friends/colleagues. Thereafter, accused Ashok Yadav
started raising objections as to why she was talking to
somebody else, why she was exchanging her duty with
other doctors and that she should consult him prior to
exchanging her duty with other doctors. Thereafter, her
marriage was fixed with Dr.G Singh in December, 2014.
Thereafter, the behavior of accused Ashok changed
towards her. He used to ask her as to why she was going
for arrange marriage. His possessiveness increased
towards her. He used to ask her not to go here and there
and thereafter, this incident happened. She correctly
identified the case properties i.e:-
1. One ladies purse containing one small money purse,
one $100 bearing No. CB 72344369 CB 2, one Debit
Card of State Bank bearing nо. 6220180177700035831,
some visiting Cards, six coins (Indian Currency), one
stethoscope, mobile charger, documents out of which
some pertain to ESI Hospital, one passport size
photograph of her father, driving license, Adhar Card,
Voter I-Card, PAN Card, Shoppers stop card having no.
2210912501081820, some cosmetic articles and one
mobile I-Phone. All the articles are collectively Ex.P-1.
2. Honda Activa Scooty as Ex. P-2.
3. One partly burnt woollen Cap (Ex. P-3) and one pair of
partly burnt woollen gloves, which she was wearing at
the time of incident as Ex. P-4 (Colly).
4. Two ATM Cards, one of HDFC Bank having no. 4386-
2430-0594-1242 and other of Punjab National Bank
having no. 5126-5200-5335-7476, collectively Ex.P-5.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 8 of 137
5. Two ATM Cards, one of Axis Bank having no.
4179170020180509 and other of Oriental Bank of
Commerce having no. 4357089628774543, collectively
Ex.P-6.
10. The case property Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 were released to her
on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW-2/B and
Panchnama Ex. PW-2/C.
11. In her cross-examination, PW-2 stated that she had met the
accused Ashok Kumar 4-5 years back at DDU hospital.
She was unable to tell the exact date on which accused
Ashok had proposed her. However, it was after one month
of their meeting. She stated that accused Ashok used to ask
her for marriage sometimes seriously and sometimes in a
lighter mood (मज़ाक से). She never took the said proposal
seriously. Whenever he proposed her, she always asked
him to talk to her parents in this regard. She admitted that
there used to be disputes due to the marriage proposals
which used to be brought by her parents.
12. PW-2 stated that she had told police in her statement about
the contents of her purse. She did not have any diary in her
purse at the time of incident. She admitted that she had
met the accused Ashok one day prior to the date of
incident. She was in contact with accused Ashok Kumar
on telephone, message and WhatsApp messages. She
admitted that initially she did not suspect Ashok Kumar
and had not given any statement in this regard to the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 9 of 137
police. She came to know about the involvement of Ashok
Kumar in the present case when he was arrested by the
police, and when she was still in the hospital.
13. PW-2 further stated that at the time of TIP of the JCLs, she
had the knowledge that Ashok Kumar Yadav was being
interrogated by the police in respect of the present
incident. After 7-8 days of her identifying the JCL, she
came to know that both the JCLs were in touch with
accused Ashok Yadav. She denied having told the parents
of accused Ashok Kumar that she wanted to marry him.
She denied that accused Ashok Kumar never wanted to
marry her. She never conveyed to her father that accused
Ashok wanted to marry her.
14. PW-2 further deposed that on 16 or 17.12.2014, she had
exchanged duty with accused Dr. Ashok Kumar. She had
to take a flight early in the morning and accused Ashok
asked her not to wake up her father and instead inform
him, so that he could be in contact with her for her safety
to the airport. When she was leaving for the Airport, she
called accused Ashok Kumar and then she saw the two
JCLs standing just in front of her staircase and she told
him about their presence near her house on telephone
itself.
15. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Vaibhav, PW-2 was confronted with her statement
Ex.PW-2/A wherein it was not recorded : the bag was of
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 10 of 137
orange brown colour of Tommy Hilfiger brand containing
stethoscope, cosmetic items, pen, I phone S-4 of white
colour, Charger and one Mala (Rosary/Sumirani).
16. PW-3/Manoj Kumar, landlord of the victim deposed that
Dr. ‘AK’ resided on third floor of his house as a tenant
from 2010 till 2015, at monthly rent of Rs.4000/-. The rent
agreement is Mark PW3/A. He identified the accused
Ashok Yadav as friend of the victim and deposed that he
used to visit her at her residence.
17. During cross-examination, PW-3 stated that he had no
interaction with the guests visiting the house of Dr. ‘AK.
He did not know if Dr. Anees used to visit the house of Dr.
AK regularly for about three years. He admitted that
doctors used to visit the victim’s house but he cannot
identify them by their names except for the accused Ashok
Yadav. He denied that Dr. ‘AK’ represented Dr. Anees as
her husband or that she had informed him that her husband
Dr. Anees got employment in Gulf country. He knew that
Dr. Anees used to visit Dr. ‘AK’ but could not tell if he
used to stay there or that he was her husband. He admitted
that Dr. Anees had visited Dr. ‘AK’s house about 10 days
before the incident, however, he could not tell whether he
stayed there for 8-10 days.
18. PW-3 further stated that he is not aware whether Dr. Abhay
Sharma or one Amit, who was bouncer in a club in G.K,
used to visit victim’s house frequently. He denied that in
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 11 of 137
April, 2013 Dr. Abhay Sharma had suddenly met Amit at
her house and a fight ensued between them or that he had
intervened and pacified them and advised not to call
police. He denied that Dr. Abhay Sharma was also injured
in that fight.
19. PW-4/Raj Kumar Malhotra deposed that he runs a shop
under the name and style of M/s Raj Sanitary & Paints in
Ashok Nagar, Delhi. He voluntarily stated that police from
PS Rajouri Garden had enquired from him whether he had
sold chemical to any person and he had told the police that
he did not deal in chemicals. The witness was declared
hostile and was cross examined by Ld. Addl. P.P. for state
under Section 154 Indian Evidence Act. He denied the
suggestion that he used to sell toilet cleaners containing
acid at his shop. He denied his statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. dated 26.12.2014, Mark PW-4/A. He denied
that on 26.12.2014, police had brought two persons at his
shop, whose names were disclosed as ‘S’ and ‘S’ and that
he had identified them as the persons who had purchased
acid (used for toilet cleaner) from him few days before.
20. PW-5/Sushil Kapoor deposed that he had provided to the
police a pen drive containing CCTV camera recording of
the CCTV Camera installed at Arya Samaj Chowk,
Subhash Nagar, Delhi on 23.12.2014. He also issued the
certificate Ex.PW-5/A regarding the said CCTV recording.
The pen drive Mark PD (make Sandisk, Cruzer Blade 16
GB) was played in the court. It contained a folder namely
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 12 of 137
‘Acid Attack CCTV Footage’ having 12 files. Two files
named as “Arya Samaj Chowk at 09.14-26 AM” and
“Arya Samaj Chowk at 09.14-29 to 40 AM” were played
and after seeing them, the witness stated that the footages
feature the same area covered within the range of CCTV
Camera installed at Arya Samaj Chowk and is the same
footage handed over by him to the police in the Pen drive
Mark ‘PD’.
21. PW-6/Santosh Tripathi, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry,
FSL, Rohini deposed that on 29.12.2014, he alongwith his
team consisting of Mr. Shahjad Ali, Ms. Anjana and
Sh.Kunal had visited PS Rajouri Garden at the request of
SHO and thoroughly examined the victim’s scooty parked
in the premises of the police station. He observed dried
brownish stains on the headlight and its cover area, on
both rear-view mirrors, on mudguard of front wheel and
on front portion between ‘Honda’ Logo and number plate.
Cotton swabs of dried brown stains were collected and
handed over to the IO in a container for further
examination in the FSL. He prepared the report Ex.PW6/A
to that effect. He further deposed that 3 sealed parcels and
6 duly sealed plastic containers were received through SI
Manohar Lal in FSL on 30.12.2014. He examined all these
parcels and containers:-
Parcel No.1 contained one sealed plastic container
having white coloured bandage cloth having pink
and brownish stains on it, and was marked Ex.1 by
him.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 13 of 137
Parcel No.2 contained plastic container having
transparent droplets sticking inside the syringe make
DISPOVAN with needle, and was marked Ex.2 by
him.
Parcel no.3, bearing seal of SCM, containing plastic
container having blackish brown colour earth
material and marked Ex.3 by him.
Parcel No.4, bearing two seals of SCM containing
one plastic container containing one woolen hand
glove black colour with white design on it having
brownish stains was marked Ex.4A by him; and one
woolen hand glove black colour with white design
on it with torns of thumb, index, middle and small
finger alongwith brownish stains on it was marked
Ex.4-B by him; and one partially torn dark brown
colour feather design head cap having brownish red
stains on it was marked Ex.4-C by him.
Parcel No.5 bearing seal of SCM contained one
plastic container having blackish brown colour earth
material, marked Ex.5 by him.
Parcel No.6 had three seals of SCM containing one
transparent polythene having one white colour and
blue design full sleeves sweatshirt with cap make
‘Super brand’, in it and was marked Ex.6A by him. It
also contained one sunglass with black and red
frame, which was marked Ex.6-B by him.
Parcel No.7 bearing seven seals of SCM was one
sealed cloth parcel having one white polythene
containing blue colour sleeveless jacket, which wasState Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 14 of 137
marked Ex.7 by him.
Parcel No.8 bearing two seals of SCM was one cloth
parcel containing one syringe ‘B/BRAUN OMNI
VAN’ having brownish stains on it, marked Ex.8-A
by him; and one Dispovan syringe having brownish
stains in it, marked Ex.8-B by him.
Parcel No.9 bearing seal of SCM was a plastic
container containing cotton swab, marked Ex.9 by
him.
22. He deposed that on chemical examination of the exhibits,
Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 4C, 6A, 6B, 7, 8A, 8B and 9 were
found to contain sulfuric acid. However, he did not find
sulfuric, hydrochloric or nitric acid on Ex.5. His report is
Ex.PW6/B.
23. During cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he had lifted
the dried brownish stains from the scooty at four places.
He had prepared one cotton swab of all the samples. He
had not specifically mentioned in Ex.PW6/A that only one
cotton swab was used to collect dried brown stains. He had
not sealed that cotton swab nor IO had sealed it in his
presence.
24. PW-7/Dr. Hemant Kumar Kesri, ESI Hospital, Basai
Darapur had examined the victim on 23.12.2014 vide
MLC No.1012/14 (Ex.PW7/A). The patient was brought
by accused Ashok Yadav with alleged history of acid
attack. During examination, PW-7 observed that the victim
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 15 of 137
had suffered injury on right eye and right side of the face.
She was complaining of pain on the right side of face and
diminution of vision in the right eye with pain. She was
also complaining of burning sensation. The patient on
examination was found conscious, oriented and her
general condition was fair. After providing initial
treatment, he referred her to the Eye department and
Surgery. He had called the concerned eye surgeon and
general surgeon for further treatment in Emergency ward
itself.
25. PW-8/Pankaj Arora, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate,
Delhi had conducted the Test Identification Proceedings
(TIP in short) of the victim’s bag. He deposed that on
30.1.2015 while he was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate
in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, SI Mangal Ram from P.S
Rajouri Garden moved an application Ex.PW8/A for
conducting TIP of case property in this case. He fixed the
TIP proceeding for 31.1.2015 in his chamber. On
31.1.2015, IO produced two white coloured pullandas,
sealed with the seal of SCM. On opening the pullandas,
one was found containing black colour bag and other one
having orange colour Tommy Hilfiger Bag with brown
straps containing some articles. IO stated that articles
contained in orange colour bag Tommy Hilfiger are not
required to be subjected to TIP. IO had also brought two
identical black colour bags and four pink colour bags for
mixing with the case property. The TIP proceedings were
conducted in his chamber. The witness ‘AK’ was identified
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 16 of 137
by the IO. She failed to identify the black bag but she
identified the orange colour Tommy Hilfiger bag. The TIP
proceeding is ExPW8/B (colly).
26. During cross-examination, PW-8 stated that the identical
articles produced by the IO for mixing with the case
property were not brought in sealed condition.
27. PW-9/Chander Shekhar, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
produced the record pertaining to Mobile phone number
98XXXX38 and 9990700626 for the period from
01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014. As per record, mobile phone
number 9990700626 has been subscribed by accused
Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 29.04.2013. The copy of his Election
I/Card is Mark PW9/B, copy of CAF is Ex.PW-9/A (OSR)
and the CDR running in 35 pages back-to-back for the
period between 01.11.2014 and 24.12.2014 is Ex.PW-9/C
(colly). The printouts of the CDR brought by the witness is
Ex.PW-9/C.1.
28. PW-9 further deposed that mobile phone number
98XXXXXX38 was subscribed by one Bhupender Singh
w.e.f. 16.07.2014. The copy of his election I-Card
submitted at the time of subscription is Mark PW9/E; copy
of CAF is Ex.PW-9/D (OSR); and CDR for the period
from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014, running in 32 pages back-
to-back, is Ex.PW-9/F. The printouts of CDR brought by
the witness is Ex.PW-9/C. The Cell Location Code Chart,
running in 8 pages back-to-back, in respect of the Cell IDs
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 17 of 137
reflected in CDRs is Ex.PW-9/G. The certificate U/s 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of CDRs Ex.PW-9/F
and Ex.PW-9/C is Ex.PW-9/H.
29. PW-10/Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal officer, Vodafone
Mobile Services Ltd. produced the record in respect of
mobile phone numbers 8587059020, 99XXXXXX73,
83XXXXXX15 and 96XXXXXX97 alongwith respective
CDRs for the period from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014. As
per record, Mobile Number 8587059020 was subscribed
by Ms. Laxmi W/o Anand Kumar w.e.f. 25.10.2013. The
copy of the CAF is Ex.PW-10/A (OSR). Copy of her
Election I-Card, submitted at the time of subscribing the
connection, is Mark PW-10/B. The CDR in respect of this
number for the period from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014
running in eleven pages back-to-back is Ex.PW-10/C. He
produced a fresh Printout of the same Ex.PW-10/C.1. The
certificate U/s 65-B, Indian Evidence Act in respect of the
CDR is Ex. PW-10/D.
30. PW-10 further deposed that per record, mobile phone
number 99XXXXXX73 has been subscribed by Sh.’SJ’
(Father of JCL ‘SM’) w.e.f. 05.03.2011. Copy of the CAF
is Ex.PW-10/E (OS&R). Copy of the Election I-Card,
submitted by the customer at the time of subscription is
Mark PW-10/E1 and the CDR running in 4 pages is
Ex.PW-10/F. He also produced a fresh Print out and the
same is Ex.PW-10/F.1. The certificate U/s 65B, Indian
Evidence Act in support of the CDR is Ex.PW-10/G.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 18 of 137
31. PW-10 further deposed that mobile phone number
83XXXXXX15 has been subscribed by Ms. ‘SJ’ (Mother
of JCL ‘SM’) w.e.f. 09.01.2013. Copy of the CAF is
Ex.PW-10/H (OS&R). Copy of the Election I-Card,
submitted at the time of subscription is Mark AW-10/H1.
The CDR in respect of this mobile phone number for the
said period, running in 16 pages is Ex.PW-10/J. He also
produced fresh print out of the same which is
Ex.PW-10/J.1. The certificate U/s 65-B, Indian Evidence
Act is Ex.PW-10/K.
32. PW-10 further deposed that mobile phone number
96XXXXXX97 has been subscribed by Ms. ‘AS’ w.e.f.
05.09.2013, copy of the CAF is Ex.PW-10/L (OS&R).
Copy of the Election I-Card, submitted by the customer at
the time of subscription is Mark PW-10/L1. The CDR in
respect of this mobile phone number for the said period,
running in 8 pages is Ex.PW-10/M. Fresh printout of
CDRs is Ex.PW-10/M.1. Certificate U/s 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act is Ex.PW-10/N. The Cell ID Code Chart in
respect of the said phone numbers, running into 6 pages is
Ex.PW-10/P.
33. PW-11/Sh. Ritesh Kumar deposed that earlier he was
working in ECIL as Consultant for operating CCTV
cameras. The DVR system was at PATS, Rajouri Garden
and all the CCTV cameras were operated from there. On
23.12.2014, an incident of acid attack had taken place and
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 19 of 137
he was asked to provide the CCTV footage by the police
officials. He had saved the data in the system and handed
over the same to the police official in pen drive. The
witness identified his signature on the notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C
Ex.PW11/A at point A. The certificate U/s 65 B of
Evidence Act is Ex.PW11/B. The pen drive was played in
the laptop of IO SI Manohar Lal. It contained a folder
namely “Acid attack CCTV Footage”, containing 12 files
out of which, files at serial no.1 to 9 bearing following file
titles were pointed out as relevant-
1. D 09 Gambhir Hospital Road Corner at 9.32.59
a.m.
2. D08 Near fruit shop.
3. F 19 near fruit shop.
4. F 18 near Park Avenue at 9.32.49 a.m.
5. F 17 near Nokia and Lucky at 9.32.47 a.m.
6. F 14 near Chawla Fruit Juice at 9.34.07 a.m.
7. F 12 near Bajaj Estates at 9.33.55 a.m.
8. F 11 Opp. Woodland at 9.33.58 a.m
9. D 03 Opp. Woodland at 9.33.58 a.m.
34. All the above-said files were played and the witness duly
identified all the CCTV footages played in the court and
deposed that it was the same which he had had handed
over to the police official.
35. During cross examination, PW-11 stated that he had taken
the CCTV footage on 23.12.2014 and saved it in the
system. He handed over the pen driver to police official on
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 20 of 137
19.2.2015. He admitted that there were 12 files in the pen
drive but expressed ignorance to how and when the other
three files were transferred in the said pen drive.
36. PW-12/Dr. Tushar Aggarwal, Professor of Ophthalmology,
R.P Centre, AIIMS deposed that on 23.12.2014, the victim
was admitted under Unit III. Prior to that she had visited
the general OPD of the hospital on the same morning and
was advised admission for management of chemical
injuries. Medical management of the patient was started on
23.12.2014. On 24.12.2014, the patient underwent one
surgery for Amniotic Membrane Transplant. Subsequently,
she underwent Pro Kera transplantation twice, i.e. first on
05.01.2015 and second on 19.01.2015. Due to
typographical mistake, year 2015 was mentioned instead
of 2014 in his report ExPW12/A. The patient was
discharged on 28.1.2015. Her visual acuity was 3/60 in the
R/E (unaided vision) with epithelization of the cornea. The
patient was advised further follow up in the OPD. He had
also given final opinion about the injury of the said patient
on 5.3.2015 which is ExPW12/B. As per record, the victim
had grievous injuries at presentation on 23.12.2014. The
covering letter prepared by the Medical Record Officer
along with his opinion is Mark PW-12A.
37. During cross-examination, the witness was asked to
explain Dua’s Classification, as in his record, he had
mentioned that the right eye injury of the victim was
graded as ‘Grade 4 injury according to Dua’s
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 21 of 137
classification’. He stated that it is an established method of
classifying chemical injuries based on the extent of limbal
ischemia. It helps to guide the management of the case. Dr.
Dua’s classification is considered as standard of care in
ophthalmology.
38. PW-13/Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata
Teleservices Limited deposed that in January, 2015, at the
request of police, he had provided details of mobile phone
No. 9250925082. As per record, this phone was subscribed
by Ms. Sapna Sharma R/o T-9/2, Sanyat Line, Sadar
Bazar, New Delhi and was activated in her name w.e.f.
16.5.2013. Photocopy of CAF is ExPW13/A (OSR). Copy
of her PAN card is Mark PW13/B. The CDR of the said
mobile number from 01.11.2014 to 24.12.2014 running in
28 pages, is Ex.PW13/C (colly). The certificate under
Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act in support of the CDR
is Ex.PW13/D. The CAF alongwith CDR and certificate
U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act was forwarded to the IO
vide his letter Ex. PW13/E.
39. PW-14/Ajit Singh, Asstt. Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd.
proved the CDR of phone number 95XXXXXX50 for the
period from 1.11.2014 to 24.12.2014, running in 58 pages
as collectively ExPW14/A. The certificate u/s 65-B Indian
Evidence Act is ExPW14/B. The said phone number was
subscribed in the name of victim ‘AK’ and was activated
on 23.10.2010. The copy of driving license of the
applicant provided is Mark PW14/D. Copy of CAF is
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 22 of 137
ExPW14/C (OSR).
40. PW-15/father of the victim deposed that in the year 2014,
he was posted in XX Academy, Tekan Pur, Madhya
Pradesh. On 23.12.2014, he received a phone call from his
daughter informing him that someone had thrown acid on
her. He sought leave and proceeded to Delhi. He reached
Delhi in the evening and came to know that his daughter
was admitted for treatment in AIIMS. On visiting AIIMS,
he found that his daughter had sustained acid burns on her
right-side face around the eye. Her neck and one hand
were also affected by the acid burns. His daughter
remained admitted in AIIMS for about two months. Police
recorded his statement probably on 28.12.2014. From
police, he came to know that accused Ashok Yadav has
been apprehended. He had heard about the accused Ashok
Yadav earlier from his daughter. His reference was on
account of his daughter’s professional relations. At the
time of incident, his daughter’s marriage was arranged to
be fixed with ‘Dr. G Singh’.
41. In cross-examination, PW-15 stated that his daughter had
completed her MBBS from XX, Russia in the year 2007-
08. She passed requisite examinations conducted by MCI
after coming to India in the year 2008-09. She had
undergone her internship from XXU hospital, Hari Nagar.
He could not recall when she got employment in Delhi.
She resided in Delhi after returning from Russia except for
the period when she had done post-graduation from
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 23 of 137
Indore. He could not recall when she had undertaken post-
graduation course. While undergoing her post graduation
in Indore, his daughter used to stay in hostel as well as in a
separate accommodation for some period.
42. He could not recall whether his daughter had ever told him
about Dr Aneesh and that she was residing with him in
Delhi. He did not know whether his daughter was having
friendship with Dr Abhay Sharma or one Amit. He did not
know whether his daughter had to leave for Indore on
16.12.2014. However, she had told him that she had left
for airport early in the morning for taking flight to Indore
and had seen two persons on the way under suspicious
circumstances. He denied that they treated Ashok’s parents
as local guardian for his daughter.
43. He denied that his daughter had earlier rejected the
proposal to marry Dr G. Singh. He further denied that as
she intended to avoid her marriage with Dr. G. Singh, the
victim herself had staged or managed this incident through
the JCLs.
44. PW-16/Ms. XX, mother of JCL ‘SM’ deposed that the last
digits of her mobile number were 315 and her son ‘SM’
was using the said number in the year 2014. The said
mobile number was issued in the name of her husband.
She had another mobile number 92XXXXXX53. In
answer to a leading question put by Ld. APP on the point
of ID on which the number 83XXXXXX15 was issued,
she admitted her photograph on the CAF of the said
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 24 of 137
mobile number 83XXXXXX15 Ex. PW-10/H and that it
was issued on her ID. She admitted that copy of Election
ID card Mark PW-10/H1 was tendered at the time of
issuance of said mobile number. This witness was not
cross examined by either accused.
45. PW-17/father of JCL ‘SM’ stated that his son was using
mobile number issued on his ID. The mobile number on
which he used to speak with his son was 99XXXXXX69.
He admitted the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. PP that his
son was using two cell phone numbers, one on his ID and
the other on the ID of his wife. He was shown the
customer application form for mobile number
99XXXXXX73 Ex. PW-10/E and he admitted his
photograph thereupon, and that it was issued on his ID. He
also admitted that copy of Election ID card Mark
PW-10/E1 was tendered at the time of issuance of said
mobile number. He also admitted his photograph on the
CAF of mobile number 83XXXXXX15 Ex. PW-10/H and
that it was issued on his ID. He admitted that copy of
Election ID card (Mark PW-10/H1) was tendered at the
time of issuance of said mobile number. He was cross
examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state under Section 154
Evidence Act wherein he admitted having told the police
that mobile no. 83XXXXXX15, issued in the name of his
wife was being used by his son. He could not remember if
he had told the police that his son was also using the other
phone number 99XXXXXX73 issued in his name.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 25 of 137
46. PW-18/mother of JCL ‘SS’ deposed that in 2014, the JCL
was using two cell phones. One mobile number
98XXXXXX78 belonged to her. She did not have any
other mobile number and used that number only. On the
date of incident, her son was using the said phone number.
The other cell number which her son was using belonged
to her husband and she could not remember that number.
She deposed that her son used to take her husband’s cell
phone with him sometimes. When she had to speak with
him, she used to call him on 98XXXXXX78 from her
husband’s phone number. She was cross examined by Ld.
Addl. PP for the state was confronted with her statement
recorded by police dated 19.02.15, which she admitted to
be correct. The statement is Ex. PW-18/P1. She admitted
that her son had found one mobile sim in Jheel Wala Park
bearing no. 98XXXXXX38 and was using it.
47. PW-19/Laxmi Rajput, mother of accused Vaibhav Rajput
admitted the suggestion given by Ld. Addl. for the State
that her son was using cell phone number 8587059020.
She admitted her photograph on the CAF for mobile
number 8587059020 Ex. PW-10/A, and also admitted that
the same was issued on her ID. She admitted that copy of
her Election ID card Mark PW-10/B was tendered at the
time of issuance of said mobile number.
48. PW-20/Phool Chand Sharma deposed that Sapna Sharma
is his daughter while Rajnish Kaushik is his son-in-law. In
the year 2014, police came to his residence inquiring about
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 26 of 137
his daughter and he told them that she was residing at
Bahadurgarh with her in-laws. Police recorded his
statement. He stated that he does not know the accused. He
was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the state under
Section 154 Indian Evidence Act. He admitted his
statement given to the police dated 19.02.2015 as correct.
49. In cross-examination by accused Ashok Yadav, PW-20
denied that he never made the statement Ex. PW-20/P1 to
the police voluntarily, and the same is false and fabricated.
50. PW-21/SI Kalyan Singh, Incharge, Mobile crime team
reached the spot on 23.12.2014 at about 11:10 am, along
with SI Dharamvir Singh (Finger Prints Expert) and
PW-24/Ct.Amit (Photographer). IO/SI Suresh Kumar met
him at the spot. There were some stains/drops of
transparent liquid on the footrest and other parts of the
victim’s Scooty, and also on the road near the Scooty.
Some blood stains were also observed on the road and on
the seat of Scooty. He prepared his detailed report
Ex.PW-21/A. PW-24/Ct. Amit, Photographer, Mobile
Crime Team took nine photographs at the spot which are
Ex.PW-24/A1 to Ex.PW-24/A9 and the negatives are
Ex.PW-24/B (colly). In his cross-examination, he
identified two photographs indicating presence of blood
spots on the scene of crime i.e Ex.PW-24/A.3 and
Ex.PW-24/A.9.
51. PW-22/Retired ASI Pradeep Kumar deposed that on
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 27 of 137
23.12.2014 at about 12:30 PM, Ct. Tej pal presented a
rukka sent by SI Suresh Chand for registration of FIR. He
got registered FIR no. 1525/14 U/s 394/34/326 IPC
through computer operator and signed the computerized
copies of the FIR. The FIR is Ex. PW-22/A and his
endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW-22/B. Certificate U/s
65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW-22/C.
52. PW-30/Nitin Jain, registered owner of motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL-4S-BC-4072 deposed that in the month
of December, 2014, his motorcycle was stolen from
outside their house. He got registered an FIR for theft of
his motorcycle at PS Hari Nagar. After about 2-3 months,
he received phone call from a police official to contact PS
Hari Nagar. He reached PS Hari Nagar, where he was
informed that his motorcycle was used in an incident in the
area of PS Rajouri Garden and has been seized by the
police officials of PS Rajouri Garden. He got his
motorcycle released on superdari vide superdarinama
Ex.PW-30/A. Six photographs of the Motorcycle are
Ex.PW-30/B1-B6. PW-29/Satya Prakash, LDC, Transport
Department, Janakpuri Authority produced the record
pertaining to the above-said motorcycle, as per which, the
motorcycle is in the name of Nitin Jain. Same is
Ex.PW-29/A.
53. PW-23/ASI Shri Ram Meena, Duty officer at PS Hari
Nagar on 21.12.2014, had registered the FIR no. 1489/14
U/s 379 IPC on receiving rukka sent by HC Om Prakash.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 28 of 137
The said FIR is Ex.PW-23/A. PW-34/Ct. Deepak had
collected the abovesaid motorcycle from MHC(M) PS
Rajouri Garden and deposited the same in the Malkhana of
PS Hari Nagar on 01.02.2015.
54. PW-25/Ct.Anil Kumar deposed that in February, 2015 he
deposited three sealed Parcels alongwith two sample seals
at FSL, Rohini from MHC(M). One parcel was sealed with
the seal of SCM and other two parcels were sealed with
the seal of PK. The acknowledgment receipt was given to
the MHC(M).
55. PW-26/Abhishek @ Manu is the eye witness to the alleged
incident. He deposed that on 23.12.2014, at about 09:30
AM, he was present on the roof of his house. He saw a
scooty coming from the side of MS Marg towards main
market, Rajouri Garden. When the Scooty reached near the
shop of Chawla Jewellers, he saw that one Motorcycle
rider took over the Scooty and snatched the purse kept on
the footrest of the scooty. There were two persons on the
Motorcycle. The rider of the Motorcycle took the Purse
while the pillion rider, who was carrying a bottle, threw
the liquid of the bottle towards the face of lady riding the
Scooty. Both the offenders fled with their Motorcycle. The
lady stopped her Scooty near shop of Ram Hari Jewellers
and started shouting. He rushed to the spot to assist. The
lady told him that her purse has been snatched by the two
boys on motorcycle and that her face felt as if it was
burning. The witness took that lady to Kathuria hospital on
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 29 of 137
foot which was at a distance of about 50 mtrs. from the
spot. The doctors available in the Kathuria hospital refused
to provide treatment to that lady saying that it was a police
case. The lady informed him that her mobile phone was in
the purse which had already been taken away by the
offenders. He gave her his mobile phone. She made call to
one person Ashok Yadav. The witness called the police on
100 number. The victim informed her name as ‘AK’. Then
he took the victim to the spot. Accused Ashok Yadav came
there and the victim went with him. He further deposed
that within 2-3 minutes police reached the spot. The
CCTV Cameras installed in his house had captured the
entire incident and on the next day, police obtained the
recording of CCTV footage for the period from 09:00 AM
to 10:00 AM of 23.12.2014, in a pen drive brought by
Manohar Lal and SI Suresh. Police served a notice U/s 91
Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW-26/A) on him. The Pen drive Mark PD
(make Sandisk, Cruzer blade 16 GB) was taken out from a
sealed envelope on judicial record and played in the court.
There were total 12 files namely (1) Gambhir hospital,
Road corner D-09, (2) near Fruit shop D-08 (3) F-19, near
Fruit shop (4) F-18, near Park avenue (5) F-17 near Nokia
and Lucky (6) F-14, near Chawla Fruit Juice (7) F-12, near
Bajaj State (8) F-11, Opposite Woodland (9) D-03,
opposite Woodland (10) Arya Smaj Chowk (11) Arya Smaj
Chowk and (12) Ram Mari Jewellers shop. Out of these,
file no.12 was played and the witness stated that the
incident narrated by him in his examination in chief is
recorded therein. However, he also submitted that this file
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 30 of 137
is not from his CCTV Camera footage that he handed over
to the police officials. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the Pen
drive Mark PD does not contain the CCTV Footage
obtained from this witness. Infact, the CCTV footage
supplied by PW-26 has not been filed with the present
chargesheet, however, it has been filed before Learned JJB
which conducted the trial of the two JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’.
56. During cross-examination, PW-26 stated that he reached
the spot within 4-5 minutes after witnessing the incident.
His statement as recorded by the police is Ex.PW-26/DA.
He denied the suggestion that he neither witnessed the
incident nor took the Victim to the hospital. In his
presence, the police had taken photographs and members
from Forensic team of the police had inspected the spot.
57. The credit cards and debit cards in the name of the victim,
which were recovered from the possession of accused
Vaibhav and the JCLs were duly proved by the following
witnesses:
a) PW-27/Ram Kripal, Asstt. Manager, Axis Bank,
Rajouri Garden Branch, New Delhi produced the
details of Debit Card No. 4179xxxxxx059, issued in
the name of the victim by their branch. Same is
Ex.PW-27/A.
b) PW-28/Pappu Kumar, Asstt Manager, Oriental
Bank of Commerce, Maharaja Agarsain branch
produced the details of Debit Card no.
4357xxxxxxxxx4543, issued by their branch in the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 31 of 137
name of the victim. Same is Ex.PW-28/A.
c) PW-35/Ritesh Kumar, Manger, PNB, Rajouri
Garden Branch, Delhi produced the record relating
to the debit card bearing no. 51xxxxxxxxxxxx76,
issued in the name of the victim. The letter of their
senior manager Mrs. Urmila Jain is Ex.PW-35/A and
the statement of account of this debit card is
Ex.PW-35/B (colly). The certificate u/s 65 Indian
Evidence Act is Ex.PW-35/C.
d) PW-36/Sh. Harish Sharma, Assistant Vice
President, HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden, Delhi
produced the record relating to the debit card
bearing no. 43xxxxxxxxxxxx242 issued by their
bank in victim’s name. Same is Ex.PW-36/A. The
statement of account is Ex.PW-36/B (colly) and
certificate u/s 65 Indian Evidence Act is
Ex.PW-36/C.
e) PW-38/Sh. Ashish Kaushik, Senior Associate,
SBI, Rajouri Garden Branch produced the record
regarding debit card no. 62XXXXXXXXXXXX5831,
pertaining to account of the victim at SBI ADB, XX
branch, Punjab. His report is Ex. PW-38/C. His
authorization letter is Ex. PW-38/A and copy of his
identity card is Ex. PW-38/B (OSR).
58. PW-31/ Inspector Hukum Chand deposed that on
23.12.2014, he was Incharge of PCR, PHQ. At about
9.43:55 a.m, W/Ct. Jyoti had fed the information regarding
call in PCR form. This call was recorded vide DD no.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 32 of 137
1060080. PW-32/W/Ct. Jyoti deposed that on 23.12.2014,
she was working as call operator in PCR, PHQ. At about
9.43:55 a.m, she had fed the information regarding call in
PCR form, which was recorded vide DD no. 1060080. The
computerized copy of the DD no is Ex.PW-32/A. The PCR
form of DD no. 1060080 dated 23.12.2014 is Ex.PW32/B
and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act
is Mark X1.
59. PW-33/ Dr. Paschal Dsouza, deposed that on 12.02.2015,
he was posted as Additional Medical Suptd. at ESI
hospital, Basai Darapur, New Delhi. On 09.02.2015, notice
u/s 91 Cr.P.C was received at their office sent by SI
Pravesh Kaushik. He prepared reply to the said notice on
the basis of relevant document available at their office and
the document in this regard is Ex. PW-33/A.
60. In his cross-examination, PW-33 stated that the victim was
selected as Senior Resident for period of three years which
was renewable after every one year depending upon the
satisfactory work and conduct. Criteria for selection as
Senior Resident is MD degree in the concerned specialty
or MBBS with two years of experience after MBBS in the
relevant specialty in a government hospital. He had no
personal knowledge whether the victim Dr. AK had
fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be appointed as Senior
Resident, but he voluntarily stated that without fulfilling
the criteria, the appointment cannot be made. As per their
record, Dr. AK remained on leave from 23.12.2014 to
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 33 of 137
24.05.2015 on medical grounds.
61. PW-37/Mr. V. Lakshmi Narsimhan, deposed that on
12.02.2015 he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer
(Physics) at FSL Rohini, Delhi. On that day, three sealed
parcels in connection with case FIR 1525/2014, PS
Rajouri Garden were received in his office and marked to
him for examination. He examined the exhibits after
breaking the seals of the parcels. His detailed report in this
regard dated 29.09.2015 is Ex.PW37/A. As per the said
report, the voice exhibit of speaker marked Ex.Q1 and
Ex.S1 are of the same person i.e. accused Vaibhav Kumar;
and voice exhibit of speaker marked Ex.Q2 and Ex.S2 are
of the same person i.e. accused Ashok Yadav. After
examination, the said parcels were re-sealed with the seal
of “V. L.N. FSL-DELHI”.
62. In his cross-examination, PW-37 stated that he completed
examining the said parcels on 29.09.2015 when the
aforesaid report was prepared. He stated that he had not
prepare phonetic transcription for voice exemplars. He had
not recorded the specimen voice samples of the accused.
He admitted that he had not given the (hash) value of
electronic measurement in his report. He explained that the
hash value in case of electronic measurement of voice
recording pertains to the Hex value of a digital file. He
stated that the continuity of the relevant audio files was
examined as per the procedure and no sign of any form of
alteration were observed. He denied that since he had not
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 34 of 137
mentioned the speed of recording in the cassette and CD,
therefore, it cannot be termed as phonetically same in both
samples. He stated that he had not mentioned the
dissimilarity of specimen voice sample with the
questioned voice in his report. He had received training in
the forensic speaker identification from National Institute
of Criminology and Forensic Science, Rohini Delhi and do
not have diploma in auditory and phonetics linguistics.
63. PW 44/IO SI Suresh Chand deposed that on 23.12.2014,
he along with Ct Tej Pal was on emergency duty from 8:00
AM to 8:00 PM. At around 9:50 AM he received DD
no.30B (Ex.PW44/A) that acid was thrown on a girl. They
reached the main market, Rajouri Garden. Victim’s scooty
was parked in front of Chawla Jewellers. In the
meanwhile, he received a telephone call from PS Rajouri
Garden regarding admission of the victim Dr. ‘AK’ in ESI
Hospital vide DD no.33B. He left Ct. Tej Pal at the spot
and proceeded to ESI hospital. On his way to the hospital,
he collected DD no. 33B (Ex.PW44/B) from PS Rajouri
Garden. At ESI Hospital he collected the MLC of the
victim (Ex.PW7/A). He was told by the doctor that victim
has been referred to AIIMS hospital. He reached AIIMS
hospital where injured Dr ‘AK’ was found admitted. He
recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. The treating doctor
handed over to him two woolen gloves having white
colour mark and one woolen cap of coca cola colour.
64. He returned to the spot and made endorsement on
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 35 of 137
Ex.PW2/A and handed over the rukka to Ct Tej Pal for
registration of the case. Mobile crime team was already
present there. SI Kalyan Singh, Mobile Crime Team In-
charge inspected the spot and handed over the crime visit
report Ex.PW21/A to him. Ct. Tej Pal returned to the spot
at around 1:20 PM and handed over the copy of FIR and
original rukka to him. He sealed both the woolen gloves
and cap of the victim in a plastic container with the seal of
SCM and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW39/G.
The Crime team lifted the following evidence from the
spot:-
(i) unknown chemical substance from the handle
and headlight of victim’s scooty with the help of a
syringe;
(ii) unknown chemical substance of Red colour from
the seat of the scooty;
(iii) earth control where chemical substance was
lying as well as earth control without chemical
substance near it.
65. The witness sealed all the said articles in separate plastic
containers and seized them vide seizure memo
Ex.PW39/B, Ex.PW39/A, Ex.PW39/C and Ex. PW39/D.
Thereafter he checked the CCTV footage installed at
house no. F-128, First Floor, main market Rajouri Garden,
where PW-26/Abhishek @ Manu met him. In the CCTV
Footage he saw that two boys on a red colour motorcycle
were following the victim. He also checked the CCTV
Footage installed in the area of PS Rajouri Garden by ECI
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 36 of 137
company and control room of the said CCTV Cameras are
in the police station Rajouri Garden. He checked the
CCTV Footage of the camera of the route of the victim as
well as the place of incident. In the said CCTV Footage
also, those two boys on a red colour motorcycle were seen
chasing the scooty of the victim. He got developed the
photographs of the said CCTV Footage. Same are marked
PW44/C1 and PW44/C2. The said photographs were
circulated to the police officer of West district to trace out
the accused persons.
66. He further deposed that on 24.12.2014 he got collected the
CDR of the mobile phone of the victim/complainant
Ex.PW14/A. On analyzing, he found that the victim was
having lot of conversations with 3-4 other numbers. Out of
those, two mobile numbers were 9250925082 and
9990700626. The other mobile numbers were 8962553000
and 776884466. These calls were duly catalogued in the
CDR Ex.PW14/A. After analyzing the CDR of the victim,
he sent the mail to service provider of the company of the
aforesaid numbers to provide the CDRs and CAF of the
aforesaid mobile numbers.
67. He along with PW-40/SI Manohar Lal and other staff
checked the CCTV footage installed at Ram Hari
Jewellers, Rajouri Garden with the help of PW-1/Gurdeep
Singh. In the said CCTV footage, they found that two boys
were chasing the scooty of the complainant. Gurdeep
Singh handed over the said CCTV footage to him in a pen
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 37 of 137
drive alongwith certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act.
He seized the said pen drive vide seizure memo
Ex.PW1/DA.
68. Thereafter they reached at the house of PW-26/Abhishek,
who handed over to him the CCTV footage in a pen drive
alongwith certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act (Mark
PW44/D). He seized the pen drive vide seizure memo
Ex.PW40/A. Thereafter he along with PW-40/SI Manohar
Lal and other police officials reached the office of one
property dealer namely Sushil Kapoor situated at Arya
Samaj Road and checked the CCTV Footage installed at
his office. The same two boys on motorcycle were seen
chasing the scooty of the victim. However, due to some
technical problem, Sushil Kapoor did not provide the said
CCTV Footage. They also checked the CCTV installed at
the house of Himanshu Bhasin situated at Janak Park, Hari
Nagar, Delhi. Again, the two boys on motorcycle were
seen chasing the scooty of the victim. Himanshu Bhasin
handed over the CCTV footage in a pen drive to him,
which he seized vide seizure memo.
69. PW-44 further deposed that on making inquiry with the
doctors at ESI hospital, he came to know that the victim
and accused Ashok were friends and were dating at that
time. However, neither the victim nor her father expressed
their suspicion on anyone. He obtained the CDR of mobile
no.9250925082 and analyzed the same. He found one
suspicious number i.e. 8287059020 and obtained the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 38 of 137
ownership details of phone number 8287059020 from
Nodal Officer telephonically. He came to know that the
said number belongs to one Smt. Laxmi W/o Anand R/o
174, Pratap Nagar, Hari Nagar, Delhi. Next day i.e.
25.12.2014 at about 7:00 AM, he constituted a team
including PW-40/SI Manohar Lal, PW-43/SI Pravesh
Kaushik, HC Satender, Ct Yashpal, Ct Jyoti Prakash and
PW-43/Ct Vivek. They reached at 174, Pratap Nagar, Hari
Nagar, Delhi where they met the landlord Shyam Sharma.
He disclosed that Laxmi and Anand resided earlier on rent
but now they were residing in House no.24, Top Floor,
Pratap Nagar, Delhi. They reached the said address where
Laxmi was present. She disclosed that her son Vaibhav
was using the said mobile number. Accused Vaibhav was
also present there. He interrogated the accused Vaibhav,
who admitted that he was using the said mobile number.
He inquired him about the mobile number 9250925082,
but he did not give any satisfactory answer. They brought
the accused Vaibhav to PS and interrogated him but he did
not cooperate in the investigation. He examined the mobile
phone of accused Vaibhav and found some screenshots of
WhatsApp chatting between him and accused Ashok in the
gallery. The mobile number of accused Ashok Yadav was
saved in the WhatsApp of accused Vaibhav. He found call
recordings between the accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav
till 14-15.12.2014. He interrogated the accused Vaibhav
regarding the screenshots, WhatsApp chats and call
recordings, and the accused disclosed that the said number
belongs to accused Ashok Yadav and that he along with
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 39 of 137
accused Ashok Yadav made the conspiracy to throw the
acid on the victim.
70. Thereafter he along with staff members went to the house
of accused Ashok Yadav and brought him to the PS. He
was confronted with accused Vaibhav and the above-said
screenshots, whatsapp chat and call recordings. Both the
accused persons admitted their involvements. Both the
accused were arrested and their personal search were
conducted. He also recorded their disclosure statements.
71. The mobile phone of accused Vaibhav make Micromax
(dual SIM) was sealed in a pullanda and seized vide
Ex.PW40/D. The two mobile phones of accused Ashok
were also sealed in a pullanda and seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW40/J.
72. As per the disclosure statement of accused Vaibhav, the
bag of victim was lying in his house. They reached at the
house of accused Vaibhav and one ladies bag
orange/brown colour was produced by the accused
Vaibhav. The witness checked the bag and found a pink
colour purse, DL, Voter ID Card, PAN Card, SBI Debit
Card, Cash Back Card, Shopper Stop Card, some slips of
ESI Hospital, 6 coins, one stethoscope etc. (total 16 items)
in the same. The bag with all its articles was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW40/K.
73. PW-44 deposed that as per disclosure of the accused
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 40 of 137
persons, the accused Ashok Yadav was in love with the
victim but victim’s marriage was fixed with someone else.
So, to teach lesson to the victim, accused persons hired the
JCLs to throw acid on victim. Accused Vaibhav led the
police team to the house of JCL ‘SM’. They took both
Vaibhav and Ashok with them to his house. The JCL was
interrogated and he disclosed his involvement in the
incident. He was apprehended vide apprehension memo
Ex.PW40/M. SI Manohar Lal recorded his version of child
in conflict with law, Ex.PW40/P. The witness also
recorded his version, Ex.PW40/Q. The proceedings were
conducted in presence of his parents. As per version of the
JCL ‘SM’, accused Vaibhav had hired him and another
JCL ‘SS’ to execute the incident. He produced one credit
card of HDFC Bank and one debit card of PNB belonging
to the victim from the almirah. The cards were seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW40/S. Two mobile phones (Nokia and
Nokia Lumia) of JCL ‘SM’ were seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW40/T. JCL ‘SM’ also produced one hoodie (woolen
jacket with cap) and one goggles, which he was wearing at
the time of the incident, which were sealed in a pullanda
and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/R.
74. Thereafter, they reached at the house of another JCL ‘SS’ at
XX, Hari Nagar. He interrogated the JCL ‘SS’ and his
apprehension memo was prepared. SI Manohar Lal
recorded his version of child in conflict with law,
Ex.PW40/X. The witness also recorded his version
Ex.PW40/Y. The JCL produced two mobile phones, one
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 41 of 137
make Nokia and one Blackberry, which were sealed in a
pullanda and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z2. JCL
‘SS’ also produced two debit cards from the pocket of a
pair of jeans hanging in his house. One of the debit cards
was of Axis Bank and the other was of Oriental Bank of
Commerce. Both the cards belonged to the victim. He
seized the said cards vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z1. JCL
‘SS’ also produced one blue colour jacket having white and
red colour stripes, which he was wearing at the time of
incident as disclosed by him. The said jacket was sealed in
a cloth pullanda and seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW40/Z. These proceedings were conducted in
presence of his parents.
75. PW-44/IO further deposed that the JCLs ‘SM’ and ‘SS’,
led police team to the park behind Gurudwara, Pratap
Nagar. At the instance of both JCLs, two syringe lying in
the bushes, near the gate of the park were found. Both
JCLs disclosed told that one syringe was used by them on
16.12.2014 when they were trying to throw the acid on the
victim and another syringe was used by them in the crime.
Both syringes were put in a polythene and wrapped with
white colour cloth and sealed with the seal of SCM and
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z3.
76. From the park, the police team alongwith both accused and
JCLs reached at the house of accused Vaibhav, from where
a black colour bag, which he had given to the JCL to look
like a student at the time of crime, was recovered and
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 42 of 137
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/L. Thereafter, all of
them reached at the house of accused Ashok. They
interrogated the accused Ashok qua the diary and mobile
phone of the victim but he did not cooperate.
77. PW-44/IO further deposed that the JCLs got recovered the
motorcycle bearing no. DL-4SBC-4072 which they had
used in the crime from D-45, Rajouri Garden, Ring Road.
Both JCLs disclosed that they had stolen it from Ghanta
Ghar, A Block, Hari Nagar on 21.12.2014. Through zipnet,
they came to know that the said motorcycle was stolen
from the area of Hari Nagar and one FIR was lodged in the
PS Hari Nagar. The motorcycle was seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW40/Z4. Pointing out memo Ex.PW40/Z5 and
Ex.PW40/Z6 of the place of occurrence were prepared at
the instance of JCL ‘SM’ and ‘SS’.
78. PW-44 further deposed that both JCLs pointed out the
shop namely Raj Sanitary situated at 64/14, Ashok Nagar
from where they had purchased the acid. The owner of the
shop, PW4/Raj Kumar Malhotra was present in the shop.
79. IO further deposed that on 26.12.2014, accused Ashok was
remanded to police custody by Ld. MM concerned. He
was taken to his house for search of mobile and diary of
the victim. Accused Ashok took out the mobile phone of
victim make I-Phone S-4 White Colour from box of his
bed. The said mobile phone was sealed in a pullanda and
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z8. He mentioned the
mobile number, IMEI number and SIM number of the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 43 of 137
mobile phone in the seizure memo.
80. PW-44 further deposed that on 05.01.2015, FSL team
came to PS Rajouri Garden and inspected the victim’s
scooty and took samples of acid with the help of cotton
and handed it over to him. He kept the same in plastic
container and sealed it with the seal of SCM. The said
plastic container was seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW39/F. The witness identified the following case
properties:-
(i) One woolen cap and two woolen gloves belonging to
victim, which were handed over to him at RP Eye center of
AIIMS. Same are Ex.P3.
(ii) Two syringes recovered from a park at the instance of
JCL ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ as Ex.PW43/P2.
(iii) One spectacle and one hoody recovered at the instance
of JCL ‘SM’ are Ex.PW43/P3.
(iv) One syringe with cap vide which the Crime team
officials had lifted the chemical from the head light and
handle of scooty of victim is Ex.PW44/P1.
(v) One sleeveless jacket of red, blue, white and black
color belonging to JCL ‘SS’ is Ex.PW43/P4.
(vi) Small piece of stones i.e. earth control lifted from the
spot is Ex.PW44/P2.
(vii) Small piece of stones i.e. earth control with chemical
substance lifted from the spot is Ex.PW44/P3.
(viii) One gauze with light brown stains with which the
liquid drops of chemical were lifted from victim’s scooty
is Ex.PW44/P4.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 44 of 137
(ix) Two mobile phones, one make Lenovo and the other
make Samsung CDMA, recovered from accused Ashok is
Ex.PW43/P5 (colly).
(x) Three cotton balls, with which the FSL team lifted the
chemical/acid swab from victim’s scooty at PS Rajouri
Garden are Ex.PW44/P5.
81. The witness also identified the WhatsApp chats obtained
from the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav. The 20
photographs reflecting the WhatsApp chats are
Ex.PW40/X1.
82. During cross examination on behalf of accused Vaibhav,
PW-44 stated that he had interrogated 3-4 other persons on
behalf of the CDR of the mobile phone of the victim apart
from accused Ashok Yadav, however he could not recall
their names. He further stated that accused Ashok Yadav
used to call to the victim through his two mobile numbers.
He stated that initially, he obtained CDR of mobile phone
of accused Ashok Kumar for one week prior to
23.12.2014. During investigation later on, he collected
certified copy of CDR of mobile phone of accused Ashok
but he could not recall for which period. PW-44 stated that
had made efforts to join independent public witnesses at
the time of recovery of victim’s bag and pitho bag from the
house of accused Vaibhav, however, none joined. No
notice was served upon those public persons who refused
to join the proceedings. No videography and photography
were done at the time of recovery of above said articles
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 45 of 137
from the house of accused Vaibhav.
83. He stated that the photographs of conversation between
co-accused Ex.PW40/X1 were recovered from the
Whatsapp chats of the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav
and same are not screenshots. He did not serve any
notice on META to provide end to end encrypted chats of
the conversation. He also did not export the complete
Whatsapp conversation between the accused persons from
the original source/phone. He denied that he alongwith
other police officials and father of the victim created
incriminating Whatsapp chats to falsely implicate the
accused persons.
84. During cross examination on behalf of accused Ashok
Kumar, PW-44 stated that he had received the information
of the present case through PCR on 23.12.2014 at about
09:45 a.m. He stated that the doctor at AIIMS hospital
produced the gloves and cap of victim. He took the same
from doctor but prepared its seizure memo after reaching
at the spot. He admitted that the doctor who handed over
the cap and gloves of victim to him was not made a
witness in this case nor was his signature obtained on the
seizure memo of those articles. He admitted that the pubic
persons were present at the spot but he did not record the
statement of any of those public persons.
85. PW-44 stated that he had procured the CDR of mobile
phone of accused Ashok at about 11:45 p.m. on
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 46 of 137
24.12.2014 for a period of one year. He was unable to
recall whether the fourth mobile number, apart from that of
the accused Ashok and Vaibhav’s father, on which the
victim had conversed, belonged to Dr. Anees. He did not
place the CDR and CAF of that mobile number on the
record. He denied that victim had informed him that Dr.
Abhay Sharma had made complaint against her before
MCI and on this issue, there was quarrel between her and
Dr. Abhay. He denied that the victim had informed him
that she had handed over her mobile phone to accused
Ashok Kumar when he brought her to AIIMS.
86. PW-44/IO admitted that he did not make enquiry from
Sapna regarding the mobile number 9250925082 that the
same was used by accused Ashok Kumar. He voluntarily
stated that the accused Ashok had told him on 24.12.2014
that he was using the sim issued in the name of Sapna.
However, he admitted that he had not recorded any
statement of accused Ashok Kumar to that effect. He
denied that the abovesaid phone number in the name of
Ms. Sapna was never used by accused Ashok and was
falsely planted on him. He did not give any notice to
Sapna to join the investigation.
87. PW-44/IO stated that victim’s scooty was parked inside the
PS premises and no general public had access to that place
prior to its inspection as the said place was cordoned off
by them. He had not made any departure or arrival entry
regarding his visits to the house of accused Ashok.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 47 of 137
88. He stated that no technical expert was called when the
mobile phone of accused Vaibhav was checked. The
recording of conversation and WhatsApp chats between
both the accused persons were transferred by him in his
personal HP laptop from the mobile phone of accused
Vaibhav. He denied that public person gathered near the
house of accused Vaibhav when they went there on
25.12.2014. He admitted that the signature of mother of
accused Vaibhav or of any independent public person were
not taken on the seizure memo Ex.PW40/K.
89. He stated that Victim had informed him that even on
16.12.2014, she had observed two persons standing
outside her house. He had recorded her statement in this
regard on 24.12.2014. All the CCTV footages relevant to
present case were taken in one pen drive, however, the
CCTV footage of the cameras installed by the PWD/govt.
authority was taken in separate pen drive. He did not seize
the DVR of the said CCTV cameras. He did not seal the
pen drives containing CCTV footage nor were they sent to
FSL for examination. He admitted that as per the CDR and
location chart of both the accused and JCLs, no
conversation or similar location was found between
accused Ashok and JCLs at any point of time.
90. PW-40/Insp. Manohar Lal was part of the police team
constituted to investigate the present case and had joined
the investigation with PW-44/IO SI Suresh and PW-42/SI
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 48 of 137
Parvesh Kaushik on 24.12.2024. He corroborated the
testimony of PW-44 & PW-42 regarding the investigation,
the recoveries and the arrest and disclosure of the accused
persons and the JCLs, and deposed on the same lines. He
witnessed the recovery proceedings and signed the seizure
memo Ex. PW-40/A, Ex.PW40/E and Ex.PW40/F. The
transcription of whatsapp chats is Ex.PW40/F (colly) (2
pages) while the photographs of the whatsapp chat, 20 in
total are Ex.PW40/X1 (colly).
91. He deposed that on 25.12.2014 accused Ashok Yadav was
arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW40/G and his personal
search was conducted vide search memo Ex.PW40/H.
Disclosure statement of accused Ashok Yadav was
recorded by the IO vide memo Ex.PW40/I. His two mobile
phones were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/J.
Accused Vaibhav was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.
PW-40/B and his personal search was conducted vide
memo Ex. PW40/C and his disclosure statement is
PW40/A.
92. PW-40 deposed that he accompanied the IO to the house
of JCL ‘SM’. He prepared the social background report of
JCL being the JWO. Same is Ex.PW40/O (colly). He
recorded the version of JCL in the presence of his mother
which is Ex.PW40/P. He signed the seizure memo
Ex.PW40/R vide which one upper woolen shirt with cap
and sunglasses, which he was wearing at the time of
incident was seized and also seizure memo Ex.PW40/S
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 49 of 137
vide which one debit card of PNB Bank and one credit
card of HDFC Bank were seized. He also signed the
seizure memo Ex.PW40/T, vide which two mobile phones
make Nokia and Nokia Lumia 520 were seized from the
possession of the said JCL. He also accompanied the IO to
the house of JCL ‘SS’ and was part of the proceedings and
recoveries conducted there. He prepared the social
background report of JCL Ex.PW40/W (colly). He also
recorded the version of JCL in the presence of his mother.
Same is Ex.PW40/X. He was a witness to the seizure
memo Ex.PW40/Z, Ex. PW40/Z1, Ex.PW40/Z2 vide
which one blue color jacket, which JCL was wearing it at
the time of incident; two debit cards of Axis Bank and
Oriental Bank of Commerce of the victim; and two mobile
phones make Nokia and Blackberry were seized
respectively. He was also witness to the recovery of two
syringes from Pratap Nagar Park at the instance of the
JCLs.
93. He further corroborated the testimony of PW-44 and
PW-42 qua the investigation conducted on 26.12.2014. He
deposed that on 30.12.2014, the investigation of the
present case was marked to him. During the investigation
he deposited the exhibits in the FSL, Rohini. On
06.01.2015 he seized the CCTV Footage of Arya Samaj
Chowk, Subhash Nagar from the office of Sushil Kapoor
vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/Z7. The exhibits of the
present case were collected by him from the malkhana
vide RC No.162/21/14 dated 30.12.2014 and deposited in
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 50 of 137
the FSL, Rohini. The copy of the said RC No. 162/21/14 is
Ex. PW40/Z-9. After depositing the exhibits in the FSL,
Rohini, he obtained acknowledgment slip Ex. PW40/Z-10
and handed it over to MHC(M). On 03.01.2015 he served
notice under Section 91 CrPC on the Nodal Officers of
Idea Company, Vodaphone Company and TATA Indicom
Company for collecting the CAF and CDRs of mobile
numbers of victim, both the JCLs ‘SM’ and ‘SS’ and both
the accused. Same are Ex. PW40/Z-11 to Ex. PW40/Z-13.
94. PW-40 further deposed that he had moved application for
TIP of case property before court concerned on 05.01.2015
(Ex. PW40/Z-14) and on 12.01.2015 (Ex. PW40/Z-15).
However, TIP of the case property could not be conducted
on these applications as the victim was admitted in the
hospital. On 20.01.2015 he again moved the application
Ex. PW40/Z-16. He also moved an application (Ex.
PW40/Z-17) before the court for getting the voice samples
of accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav. On 12.01.2015 both
the accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav were taken to FSL,
Rohini and their voice samples were collected. On
23.01.2015, further investigation of the present case was
marked to SI Parvesh Kaushik. However, on 13.03.2015
again the investigation of the present case was marked to
him. He recorded the statement of witnesses under Section
161 CrPC. On 21.03.2015, after completion of
investigation, he filed the chargesheet before the court.
95. While recording the testimony of PW-40, efforts are made
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 51 of 137
to switch on the mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav,
however, the same could not be switched on. One pen
drive make Sandisk Cruzer Blade 16GB of red and black
color was played while recording his evidence. Out of total
12 files, file no.1 Gambhir Hospital, Road Corner D-09
and 12 Ram Hari Jeweller Shop were played as the same
were containing the recording of the incident.
96. In File no.1, the timing of said footage is from 9:33 AM
(for 56 seconds) at 9:33 AM, and one black color
motorcycle with rider and pillion rider (both JCLs) were
seen chasing one white color scooty which the victim was
riding. In File no.12, the timing of footing is from
08:08:32 hours till 10:41:46 hours and the incident is
captured from 09:23:06 to 9:23:11 hours. It was seen that
two boys on one motorcycle were chasing the victim’s
scooty. The rider of the said motorcycle snatched the bag
of the victim from the footrest of the scooty. The left hand
of the pillion rider of the motorcycle was very close to the
right-side face of the victim, close enough to the right eye
of the victim and he could be seen throwing something on
the face of the victim. Within a second after the
motorcycle riders crossed her, the victim stopped her
scooty and she was seen in visible pain and calling for help
and she could be seen having some problem on her face
towards the right side near the eye portion.
97. During recording of the testimony of this witness, file of
JJB-1 pertaining to present case was received. The mobile
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 52 of 137
phones recovered from the JCL ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ were
released to their mothers vide two separate orders dated
13.07.2017. Copy of the said order sheet dated 13.07.2017
are Mark PW40/Z21 (OSR) and PW40/Z23 respectively.
98. In the cross examination, PW-40 admitted that the family
members of accused Vaibhav or the public persons were
not made witness by the IO to the recovery proceedings.
He admitted that at the time of recovery of the lady’s bag
and one pitho bag from the house of accused Vaibhav, the
family members or public persons were not made witness
to the seizure memos. He had not prepared any video nor
clicked any photographs at the time of recoveries. He
denied that nothing was recovered from the possession of
the accused Vaibhav or at his instance. He denied the
suggestion that the IO had tampered with the mobile phone
of accused Vaibhav to create false evidence against the
accused persons.
99. PW-40 was questioned regarding the procedure to obtain
CDR of a mobile number. He stated that IO has to make a
written request for obtaining CAF, CDR and location of
any mobile number addressed to DCP and same is to be
forwarded through SHO and ACP. After receiving the
abovesaid request in the office of DCP, a mail is sent to
mobile service provider company by DCP and thereafter,
the requisite information was provided by the mobile
service provider. He admitted that he did not send any
request to the DCP office for obtaining CDR of any mobile
number.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 53 of 137
100. He admitted having seen the contents of mobile phone of
accused Vaibhav. He stated that IO had requested the
neighbours to join the proceedings at the time of recovery
of mobile phone of the victim from the house of accused
Ashok but none joined. He admitted that IO SI Suresh did
not make enquiry from Ms. Sapna, in whose name SIM of
mobile no. 9250925082 was issued and was being used by
accused Ashok Kumar.
101. PW-41/ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 12.01.2015,
he joined the investigation in the present case along with
IO/SI Parvesh Kaushik and Ct. Phool Kumar. On that day,
they reached Tihar Central Jail and took the custody of
accused Ashok Yadav and Vaibhav for recording of their
voice sample at FSL, Rohini. Both the accused were taken
to FSL, Rohini where FSL expert took their voice samples
in two separate cassettes and prepared copy of each
separate cassette. Four voice recording cassette were
handed over to the IO including two original cassette and 2
copy cassettes. IO sealed the same in a pullanda with the
seal of PK and seized the pullanda vide seizure memo.
Thereafter, both accused persons were brought back to
Tihar Central Jail and their custody was handed over to the
Jail Supt. IO deposited pullanda of voice sample in the
malkhana. He identified the audio cassette having FSL no.
‘O’ Ashok Yadav dt. 12.01.2015, in which FSL experts had
taken the voice sample of accused Ashok Yadav as
Ex.PW41/P1; and the audio cassette having FSL. no. Ex.2
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 54 of 137
and ‘O’ Vaibhav dt.12.01.2015, in which FSL experts took
voice sample of accused Vaibhav as Ex.PW41/P2.
102. PW42/Parvesh Kaushik was part of the investigation team
since 25.12.2014 along with PW44/IO SI Suresh Chand
and PW40/Inspector Manohar Lal. He has corroborated
the testimony of PW-44 and deposed on the same lines. He
deposed that during interrogation, accused Ashok revealed
that he knew Dr. AK since college days and he liked her a
lot and wanted to marry her. After college, both of them
met at DDU Hospital where they both were working.
Thereafter, they started working in ESI, Govt. Hospital.
When accused Ashok Yadav came to know that marriage
of Dr. ‘AK’ was fixed with someone, he hatched a
conspiracy with accused Vaibhav, who was his ex-
employee and used to work at call center, Janakpuri.
Accused Ashok Yadav revealed about his feelings for Dr.
‘AK’ to Vaibhav and shared his intention to take revenge
from her. He planned to throw acid on Dr. ‘AK’ and
instructed Vaibhav that while committing the said crime,
the purse and belongings of the victim be snatched in order
to give the crime a shape of robbery. Accused Ashok also
told him that he need the mobile phone and dairy of Dr.
‘AK’ which might be kept in the said purse to know her
contacts as he had doubts that Dr. ‘AK’ was in relationship
with someone else. Accused Vaibhav arranged the meeting
with his two friends i.e JCLS ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ with accused
Ashok and told him that they have previously been
involved in many incidents and ‘SS’ is a very good driver
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 55 of 137
and can run away from the spot after the incident. All the
above said 4 persons hatched the conspiracy and deal was
fixed for Rs.25,000/-. Accused Ashok handed over
Rs.12,000/- to Accused Vaibhav as part payment, out of
which Rs. 2,000/- was kept by Vaibhav himself and
5,000/- each was given to ‘SS’ and ‘SM’. Accused asked
them to arrange a stolen motorcycle, so that registration
number is not traceable. Accused Ashok trained both the
JCLs to throw acid on the victim with the help of syringe.
The route which the complainant took on daily basis was
also found out by the accused persons. Accused Ashok
showed them the victim so as to successfully conduct the
said crime. Special directions were given by accused
Ashok to the other accused persons not to use the mobile
phone at the time of incident. Accused Ashok used to
pressurize the other accused persons to conduct incident as
early as possible. Proper practice of the incident was
conducted by accused persons. It was decided that the
incident will be conducted on 23.12.2014. On 22.12.2014
all the said accused persons met at Partap Nagar Park
where JCLs told accused Ashok that they have arranged
one stolen motorcycle make discover in order to commit
the crime. On 23.12.2014, accused persons committed the
said incident and also met each other in the evening. The
balance amount of Rs.13,000/- was paid by accused Ashok
to the JCLs and accused Vaibhav. Out of the said amount,
3,000/- was kept by accused Vaibhav and 5,000/- each was
given to the two JCLs. At the time of incident, the acid
was thrown by JCL ‘S’ and motorcycle was being driven
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 56 of 137
by JCL ‘S’.
103. PW-42 further deposed that on 25.12.2014 disclosure
statement of accused Vaibhav Ex. PW43/A was recorded
and he was arrested. PW-42 corroborated the testimony of
PW-44 with respect to the arrest of accused Vaibhav and
recovery of his mobile phone Micromax having mobile
SIM No. 8587059020 and regarding data transfer of the
Whatsapp chats and audio conversation between Ashok
and Vaibhav dated 14.12.2014 and 15.12.2014, from his
phone to the laptop of PW-44. He further corroborated the
testimony of PW-44 with respect to the investigation qua
the accused Ashok Yadav, recording of his disclosure
statement and seizure of his mobile phones. He further
corroborated the testimony of PW-44 regarding the
recoveries made from both the accused persons and the
investigation qua the two JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’. He further
corroborated the testimony of PW-44 and PW-41 with
respect to the proceedings conducted on 12.01.2015
regarding recording of the voice samples of both the
accused persons. He deposed that he alongwith his team
had gone to Tihar jail and procured the custody of both the
accused and taken them to FSL, Rohini where their voice
samples were taken by FSL team. After recording of voice
samples, FSL officials handed over four cassettes of the
same to him, which were marked by FSL official as ‘O’ for
original and ‘C’ for copy of the voice sample. Out of the
said 4 cassettes, two pertained to accused Ashok and two
to accused Vaibhav. He seized the cassettes vide seizure
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 57 of 137
memo Ex.PW42/A.
104. He further deposed that on 24.01.2015, investigation of the
present case was marked to him. He perused and analyzed
thoroughly the CDRs of total 7 mobile numbers, out of
which one mobile number 8587059020 belongs to accused
Vaibhav and same was connected with other mobile
numbers belonging to accused Ashok (9250925082 and
9990700626) and the JCL ‘SS’ (98XXXXXX38 and
96XXXXXX97) and JCL ‘SM’ (83XXXXXX15 and
99XXXXXX73). After analyzing the CDRs, it was
revealed that the said mobile numbers were frequently in
touch with each other from 02.12.2014. It was also
revealed that one day prior from the incident in question,
the two JCLs were continuously in touch with accused
Vaibhav. In the morning of day of incident also both the
JCLs were in touch with accused Vaibhav over mobile
phone, and had also talked to him on that evening on
mobile phone.
105. He further deposed that on 31.01.2015, TIP of case
property i.e. purse of victim and the black bag, recovered
at the instance of accused Vaibhav was conducted. The
victim identified her purse but failed to identify the black
colour bag. Test Identification Parade (TIP) of JCL ‘SM’
was conducted at the Observation Home, Majnu ka tilla,
where the victim correctly identified him. However, JCL
‘SS’ refused to participate in the TIP. The TIP proceedings
of JCL ‘SM’ is Mark A and that of JCL ‘SS’ is Mark C; TIP
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 58 of 137
proceedings of case property is Mark B. He prepared the
site plan of the place of incident (Ex.PW42/B) at the
instance of victim.
106. On 12.02.2015, PW-42 got deposited the voice sample
cassettes and recovered mobile phones with FSL Rohini
through Ct Anil. He collected the employment record of
victim and accused Dr. Ashok from ESI Hospital, Basai
Darapur, Delhi. On 18.02.2015, he recorded the
supplementary statement of the victim at her home. On
19.02.2015, he got collected the PCR form through Ct
Bhagirath from PCR Control Room, which is Ex.PW42/C.
On the same day Sh. Ritesh Kumar, In-charge, CCTV
Camera ECIL gave him a pen drive containing the CCTV
Footage of the incident dated 23.12.2014 between 9:00
AM to 10:00 AM. He seized the same vide seizure memo
Ex.PW42/D. He also examined the persons in whose name
the SIM cards were issued and the said SIM cards were
used by the accused persons and JCLs in their respective
mobile phones. He also recorded the statement of Sh Nitin,
owner of motorcycle no. DL-4SBC-4072.
107. PW-42 further deposed that he served notice u/s 91 Cr.PC
to PNB, HDFC, OBC, Axis Bank and SBI which had
issued the debit cards recovered from the possession of
accused Vaibhav and the JCLs. Same are Ex.PW42/E to
Ex.PW42/L. On 21.02.2015, the concerned officials of
PNB Bank and HDFC Bank gave reply to the said notice
that the debit cards were issued in the name of Ms.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 59 of 137
Amarjeet Kaur. The officials of OBC Bank, Axis Bank and
SBI also replied to the notice that these ATM/Debit cards
were issued in the name of the victim. Thereafter PIR was
filed in JJB against the JCLS ‘SS’ and ‘SM’.
108. PW-42 further deposed that on 07.03.2015, he obtained the
opinion of the concerned doctor on MLC of injured/victim
who opined that nature of injury was grievous. As such, he
added Section 397 IPC in the charge-sheet.
109. In his cross examination, PW-42 admitted that daily diary
registers A and B were maintained at PS Rajouri Garden
and one daily diary register was maintained at Police Post,
MIG Flat. He admitted that it is mandatory for police
officers to record entry in the registers at the time of his
leaving or coming back to the PS or PP. He did not make
any departure entry on 25.12.2014 while leaving from PS
at 7:00 am and voluntarily stated that the said departure
entry was made by the IO vide DD No. 10. He stated that
the place where Vaibhav’s house is situated is thickly
populated residential area. IO had not requested any of the
neighbours of the said house or adjacent house to join the
investigation. They had made efforts to join independent
public witnesses on the day when they went to carry
investigation on 25.12.2014 at Vaibhav’s house but no
public witness joined. No formal notice was served on any
public witness to join investigation nor were their names
written down.
110. He admitted that a Micromax mobile phone was recovered
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 60 of 137
from accused Vaibhav and the phone was checked by the
IO at the PS. He admitted that the locality where accused
Ashok resides and from where he was apprehended is
fairly populated and some shops were situated around
those Flats. He admitted that no person was asked to join
investigation in his presence by IO.
111. PW-42 further stated that IO must have asked members of
the public to join the investigation when they again went
to the house of accused Vaibhav for making recovery. He
did not ask any member of the public to join investigation.
No notice was given to any public person nor their names
and details were recorded. He had sent the exhibits i.e.
audio cassettes and mobile phones to FSL Rohini on
10.02.2015. He could not tender any explanation for the
delay in sending the above-said exhibits. No videography
was done in his presence at the time of recovery of mobile
phone and seizure of other case properties from accused
Vaibhav. The mobile phone of accused Vaibhav was in
sealed condition at the time it was sent to FSL. He could
not tell the number of audio recordings found in the
mobile phone of accused Vaibhav at the time when it was
checked by IO. The IO had recovered the screenshots of
whatsapp chats from the image gallery of the mobile
phone of accused Vaibhav.
112. PW-42 further stated that IO had asked the independent
public persons to join the investigation at the house of
JCLS ‘ss’ and ‘SM’, but none had joined due to their own
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 61 of 137
reason. No notice was served upon such public persons. At
Partap Nagar Park near Gurdwara also, IO had asked the
public witnesses to join the investigation but none joined.
The distance between the park and house of ‘SS’ was about
500-600 meters. The distance between the place of
incident and the park was about 1½-2 km. The syringes
were lying behind the bushes in polythene. There were no
needles along with syringes. IO had asked the public
persons to join the investigation at house of accused Ashok
but none had joined. He admitted that there was no
communication of accused Ashok Yadav from any of his
mobiles with any of the mobile numbers maintained by the
other two JCLs. He admitted that there was no CCTV
footage obtained with respect to meeting of accused
persons and JCLs on 23.12.2014 at Pratap Nagar Park at
around 5:00-5:30 PM evening. After going through the
CDRs, he admitted that there were no calls reflecting
regarding calls between Vaibhav and Ashok from period
19.12.2014 to 24.12.2014. No scientific test was
conducted on the recovered mobiles phones to ascertain
whether any whatsapp chats/sms/whatsApp calls/normal
call logs or any other records were deleted by the accused
persons from their mobile phones. He stated that the phone
of accused Ashok (CDMA) bearing the SIM of Tata did
not have Whatsapp. He denied the suggestion all the
recoveries made in this case are planted. He denied the
signatures of accused persons were obtained on several
blank papers and thereafter those documents were misused
to falsely implicate them.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 62 of 137
113. PW43/ASI Vivek had jointed the investigation on
25.12.2014 and was a part of the investigation team
alongwith PW44/IO SI Suresh Chand, PW-40/SI Manohar
Lal and PW42/SI Parvesh Kaushik, HC Satender, Ct
Jaswir, Ct. Yashpal and Ct. Jyoti Parkash. He has
corroborated the testimony of PW-40, PW-42 and PW-44
and deposed on the same lines qua investigation in this
case, i.e arrest of the accused persons, recovery of the case
property from them; apprehension of JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’;
recoveries of victim’s belongings from the JCLs; recovery
of motorcycle used in offence and the two syringes used
by JCLs in the offence. The witness identified the
following case properties amongst others:-
(i) One plastic box containing one syringe as
Ex.PW43/P1.
(ii)One plastic box containing one syringe as
Ex.PW43/P2.
(iii)One full sleeve sweatshirt of super brand and
one sunglass/specs belonging to JCL ‘SM’ as Ex.
PW43/P3.
(iv)One sleeveless jacket belonging to JCL ‘SS’ as
Ex.PW43/P4.
(v)Two mobile phones of accused Ashok, one make
Samsung red-black colour keypad and other make
Lenova as Ex.PW43/P5.
(vi) One mobile phone make Micromax white
colour with battery recovered from accused Vaibhav
as Ex.PW43/P6.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 63 of 137
(vii) One black colour school bag recovered from
accused Vaibhav as Ex.PW43/P7.
(viii) Two debit cards, one of PNB and other of
HDFC bank as Ex.PW43/P8 (colly).
(ix) Two debit card of Axis Bank and Oriental bank
of commerce as Ex.PW43/P9 (colly).
114. During cross examination, PW-43 stated that he had not
asked any public persons to join the raiding party before
reaching house of accused persons. He admitted that IO
did not ask any passersby or resident to join the
investigation conducted at the house of accused Ashok or
Vaibhav. He admitted that the IO did not make the family
members and neighbors witness to the seizure memo of
the purse or the pithoo bag from accused Vaibhav.
115. PW-39 ASI Tejpal had accompanied PW-44/SI Suresh to
the spot on 23.12.2014. He had taken the rukka to PS
Rajouri Garden and got the present FIR registered. After
registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed
over the FIR and original rukka to SI Suresh. He had
signed the seizure memos Ex. PW-39/A, PW-39/B,
PW-39/C, PW-39/D and Ex. PW-39/E.
116. Vide their statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. dated
20.03.2025, accused persons admitted the following
documents:-
(i) DD entries no.30 and 33B dated 23.12.2014 PS
Rajouri Garden, Ex.PW44/A and Ex.PW44/B.
(ii) Entries made by MHC(M) of PS Rajouri Garden
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 64 of 137
in register no.19 at the time of deposition of case
property of present case in the Malkhana and
relevant entries made by MHC(M) in register no.21
vide RC no.162/21/14 and 21/21/15 at the time of
sending the case property to FSL and the
acknowledgment receipts received after deposition
of these exhibits in FSL. The photocopies of relevant
entries made in register no. 19 (running into 07
pages) are Ex.PA-1 and photocopies of RC no.
162/21/14 and 21/21/15 with acknowledgment
receipts (running 04 pages) are Ex.PA-2.
117. Also, vide another statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C.
jointly made by both the accused, they have not disputed
DD no. 30 and 33B dated 23.12.2014 PS Rajouri Garden,
which are Ex.PW44/A and Ex.PW44/B respectively.
118. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, separate
statement of accused persons was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the entire prosecution
evidence and stated that they have been falsely implicated
in the present case. Accused Vaibhav admitted that he was
in touch with the JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ since 2008-2009 and
with co-accused Ashok Yadav since 2012. He also
admitted that he used to converse with the JCLs as well as
with the co-accused Ashok on regular basis. He also
admitted using the mobile phone Micromax having
number 8587059020. He has also admitted in answer to
ques. No.145 that their voice samples were taken by the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 65 of 137
FSL. He stated that in the year 2012 he used to do job at
the call centre of father of co-accused Ashok Yadav and he
came in contact with him there. He remained in his contact
even after leaving the job. He admitted having
accompanied the police officials to the house of the JCLs,
however he stated that he was made to sit in the car and
expressed his ignorance about the proceedings conducted
there. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case due to extensive media coverage and since the
victim belong to an influential family, which extorted
pressure on the police to solve the case. He has been made
scapegoat in this case as he belongs to the socially and
economically lower strata of the society.
119. Similarly, the accused Ashok also in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted that he had reached the spot
on receiving the call from the victim and had taken her to
ESI hospital. He also admitted that she was shifted to
AIIMS and thereafter to RP eye center. This factum he has
stated even in his testimony as DW-1. However, he stated
that the mobile phone of the victim was never robbed
during the incident and the same was left by her in
Kathuria hospital. He had informed the IO about this on
23.12.2014 itself. He alleged that the said mobile phone
has been planted on him. He also stated that he was using
only one mobile phone make Lenovo having mobile no.
9990700626 and admitted that it was seized from his
possession. He denied using the mobile phone Samsung
and the no.9250925082. He further stated that the victim
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 66 of 137
had left her wollen cap and gloves at Kathuria hospital
only. He stated that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case being the soft target as he was victim’s friend
and victim’s father did not like their friendship.
Accused Ashok Kumar Yadav lead defence evidence and
got himself examined as DW-1 and Sh. Priyadarshi
Veeresh as DW-2.
120. DW-1/Ashok Yadav deposed that he joined ESI hospital,
Basai Darapur on 07.10.2014. After about 1-2 days of his
joining, he met the victim Dr. AK for the first time. As
both of them had completed their MBBS from foreign
country and as their fathers were working in para-military
forces, friendship developed between them.
121. He further deposed that during that time, he was serving
notice period in ESI hospital, Okhla. The victim was
impressed with him as he was working at two places and
performing duty of eight hours at each place. He further
deposed that the victim was pursuing her PG course from
Index College, Indore. She requested him to perform her
duty in the hospital as her exams were approaching. He
was shocked to know that she was working in a
government hospital and pursuing regular PG course in
Indore at the same time. He agreed to perform her duty at
the hospital considering that victim is a female.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 67 of 137
122. DW-1 further deposed that he lastly performed his duty in
ESI hospital, Okhla on 21.10.2014. However, just after 1-2
days, victim asked him to perform her duty as she had to
study for her exams. Thereafter, it became a routine for the
victim to ask him to perform her duty. She used to call him
telephonically, asking to perform her duty and informing
her duty hours. She started making frequent calls i.e. about
4-5 calls to the accused on daily basis to enquire whether
anyone came to know that he was performing duty on her
behalf. He performed duty on behalf of victim
continuously from 10.11.2014 to 20.11.2014, while she
appeared for her exams at Indore. After returning from
Indore, she called accused and proposed to celebrate as he
had released her from a big tension. She invited him to her
house on 22.11.2014 or 25.11.2014. He went to her house
at about 6:00-7:00 p.m. He observed that victim had taken
a very big house on rent. When he asked her why she had
taken such a big house for herself on rent, she informed
him that during the year 2009-2010, when she was doing
her internship in DDU hospital, one Dr. Anees, Senior
Resident, department of Pediatrics, had proposed her and
thereafter, they had starting living together in the said
house in live-in relationship. She also told him that during
the year 2010-2011, she met Dr. Abhay while she was
working as JR in ESI hospital, Basai Darapur and they
started dating. However, the victim concealed this fact
from Dr. Anees and also concealed her relationship with
Dr. Anees from Dr. Abhay. However, one day, Dr. Anees
and Dr. Abhay came to know about the relationship of
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 68 of 137
victim with both of them. They both got furious and Dr.
Abhay made a complaint with MCI (Medical Council of
India) against the victim that she is pursuing PG course
from Indore while doing govt. job at ESI hospital. Dr.
Anees left the victim. The victim got a call from Index
Medical College, Indore that a complaint has been lodged
in MCI against her that she is doing govt job while
pursuing the PG course and directed the victim to leave the
job, otherwise her degree will be cancelled. The victim left
her govt job at XX hospital and shifted to Punjab. Since
the post-graduation of the victim was getting effected,
therefore, she apologized to Dr. Abhay and requested him
to take back the complaint. Dr. Abhay agreed to the same
and assured her that he would not make any complainant
against her in future. Thereafter, she came back to Delhi.
After some time, she again started talking with Dr. Anees
on phone. Dr. Anees informed her that he has shifted to
Gulf country for his job but they continued to talk with
each other on phone. The victim also informed him that
she is now engaged with one Dr. G. Singh and they are
going to get married soon. The accused asked her about
the person who used to pick and drop her at the hospital, to
which she replied that he is Amit, owner of a night club
and that she is in open relationship with him. The victim
also informed him that whenever Dr. Anees visits India, he
stays with her for a few days. He asked the victim why she
did not marry Dr. Anees, to which she replied that her
family members are against inter-caste marriage and Dr.
Anees belongs to different religion.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 69 of 137
123. DW-1 further deposed that during the period from
10.12.2014 to 20.12.2014, victim again started calling him
to perform duty on her behalf as she had to complete her
thesis for her PG course. But he refused as he was very
much tired due to double shift duty for last two months
and requested her to ask someone else. She replied that she
cannot ask anyone else as no one else knows about her
pursuing PG course and govt. job at the same time. On
repeated requests, he agreed to perform duty on her behalf
for the above said period.
124. On 22.12.2014 victim called him at about 2-3 p.m. and
invited him at her house for party as she had completed her
thesis and she wanted to thank him for the help. He told
her that he was on emergency call and would call her back.
He got free by 8-9 p.m. on that day and called the victim to
inform her that they would party some other day as he was
late. But she insisted saying that the cook has already
prepared the dinner and requested him to come to have
dinner atleast. He reached the house of victim at about
9:30-10:00 p.m. However, he noticed that the victim was
continuously on phone call with some other persons and
her phone was continuously ringing. She informed him
that she was very much tensed as her fiancé was coming
tomorrow i.e. on 23.12.2014 and would stay with her for
two days and Dr. Anees was also coming tomorrow to stay
with her for 2-3 days. She was busy talking on phone till
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 70 of 137
01:30 a.m. DW-1 was tired and fell asleep in her house.
When he got up at about 06:30 a.m., even at that time the
victim was talking on phone. They left together at around
08:45 a.m. Her phone kept ringing even when she was
locking her house and when she came near her scooty. She
said “आज फोन मेरा पीछा नहीं छोड़ेगा’. The victim dropped
him outside her society on the main road as his bike was
parked in DDU hospital Residential flats. She apologized
for spoiling his time and requested him to continue their
party some other day. Her phone again started ringing at
about 09:15 a.m. At that time, she was wearing a cap. She
put her phone under the cap near her ear and said that she
would drive the scooty while talking on phone, otherwise
she would get late.
125. Thereafter, she left the place and the accused also went to
his home on his bike. At about 09:50-10:00 a.m. he
received a call from an unknown number. It was the victim
who told him that she had sustained injury near her eye
and requested him to come to Rajouri Garden Main
market. He reached there by his car after 10 minutes and
found the victim standing near her scooty. There was
redness in her right eye and she was holding a water bottle.
One Sikh person was also standing with her for her help.
He took her to ESI hospital in his car. In the car, she
informed him that she left her jacket, cap and clothes in
the nearby hospital and her phone was also inside her
jacket and she asked him to pick the said things. But he
insisted that she first reach the hospital and get treatment,
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 71 of 137
assuring her that he would collect her above said
belongings later. She also told him that on her way to
hospital on her scooty, two unknown persons came on bike
and robbed her bag and put something in her eye and that
no one came for her help for about 30 minutes. Therefore,
she called him for help. When they reached ESI hospital,
victim went inside the casualty while instructing him to go
to the police booth located inside the hospital premises and
inform the police. After informing police, the accused
went to the emergency ward where victim was getting
treated and remained there for about one hour. Thereafter,
the victim was referred to eye department of ESI hospital
and was admitted there. The doctor advised to take the
patient to AIIMS and also arranged the ambulance. When
they were waiting for the ambulance, IO SI Suresh reached
the hospital. After consulting with doctor and after talking
with victim for 2-3 minutes, they all left for AIIMS
hospital. After initial examination, she was referred to RP
Eye centre, which was at a distance of about 5-10 minutes
from AIIMS. Victim was treated in OPD and then was
taken to surgery room where a minor eye surgery was
performed. Thereafter, she was admitted in the eye
department.
126. DW-1 further deposed that during enquiry by IO, the
victim has stated that she could not see the faces of the
robbers as they were in muffled faces and everything
happened in the spur of a moment. IO recorded her
statement. IO SI Suresh also made enquiry from him and
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 72 of 137
treating doctor. He reached the house of victim at about
07:00 p.m. to take her clothes. Her landlord and some
police officials were present there. One police official gave
his phone and asked him to talk to IO SI Suresh, who
directed him to come to PS. He first went to his house and
got some food packed for victim and then went to PS
Rajouri Garden. He called SI Suresh, who asked him to
wait at the police post located at the back side of PS
Rajouri Garden. After around one hour, IO came there and
showed him one print out of a photograph in which two
persons were sitting on a motorcycle and enquired whether
he recognize them or not. He replied that since their faces
were muffled, he cannot identify them. IO SI Suresh asked
him about any enmity of victim with any person, to which
he replied that once victim had informed him that on one
occasion she had quarreled with Dr. Anees and Dr. Abhay
on some issue. He also informed IO SI Suresh about her
current relationship with one Amit and also with Dr.
Anees, who was about to come to meet her on 23.12.2014.
IO SI Suresh also showed him 03 pen drives in three
different envelopes. Two pen drives kept in the envelope
bearing the title “Chawla Jwellers’ and “Ram Hari
Jwellers” respectively contained CCTV footage reflecting
the incident which took place with victim but the faces of
offenders were not visible being muffled. On the third
envelope, ‘Himanshu Janak Park’ was written and the pen
drive kept in the same contained the CCTV footage of the
road outside the gate of the society of victim in which
victim was driving the scooty and he was sitting as pillion
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 73 of 137
rider. He left PS at about 11:30 p.m. and called the victim
to inform her that he was coming to hospital with her
clothes and food, to which, she replied that her parents had
come to the hospital and her father is angry with him and
asked him not to come to hospital. When he asked the
victim for the reason of his anger, she replied that she
would tell later on.
127. DW-1 further deposed that on 24.12.2014 at about 10:00
a.m. he reached RP Eye Centre. He asked the victim about
the reason of anger of her father with him. She told him
that his father did not like his staying overnight with her.
He met her father, who was in the lobby outside the room,
but he started shouting at him saying, “how dare you come
here” and held him responsible for what had happened
with the victim. He threatened that he would not spare
him. The accused informed the victim that during enquiry
made in PS, he had specified the names of Dr. Anees and
Dr. Abhay before the police, on which she became angry
saying that now police will make enquries from them as
well and her father would be angrier with her.
128. DW-1 further stated that at about 08:00 p.m. on
24.12.2014, three police officials in civil dress came to his
residence and asked him to accompany them to identify
some persons apprehended by them. When he sat in the
car, one official forcibly took his phone and card holder
having his Adhar Card, hospital ID card and some cash.
They took him to a flat in Rajouri Garden. Enquiry was
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 74 of 137
done as to when he first met the victim and when he last
met her by 2-3 different police officials at different times
and his statement was recorded. After some time, SI
Parvesh Kaushik came with his mobile phone and after
showing the call logs available in his mobile phone, he
started making enquiries from him about the details of the
mobile number available in his call log. He enquired about
the mobile number of co-accused Vaibhav and that of his
friend Sapna having mobile no.9250925082. Thereafter, SI
Parvesh left and after about one hour he heard voices of
his friends and acquaintances with whom he was in regular
touch and after some time, SI Parvesh alongwith some
other police officials came to his room with his friends and
acquaintances one by one and made enquiries from them
in his presence asking them how they know him and
victim. Accused Vaibhav was brought to that flat at about
4:00-5:00 a.m. on 25.12.2014. SI Parvesh made enquiries
from him and Vaibhav as to how they know each other, to
which he replied that Vaibhav used to come to DDU
hospital alongwith his father in the year 2012-2013 for
taking medicines for his father. Vaibhav used to talk in
English and was friendly in nature and from there he got
acquainted with him. Later Vaibhav sent him friend
request on Facebook, which he accepted. Thereafter,
Vaibhav started sending him messages on Facebook. He
alleged that SI and other police officials started torturing
him and also hit him. He told police that he had started
making calls to Vaibhav one month before the date of
incident and was sending messages to him. He also told
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 75 of 137
the police that he never talked with accused Vaibhav
regarding victim. Thereafter, police gave him some
printouts running into 15-20 pages and asked him to read
those papers.
129. DW-1 admitted that the photographs reflecting
conversation and Whatsapp Chats between him and
accused Vaibhav, Ex.PW40/X1 which were shown to him
and these photographs reflects screenshots of WhatsApp
conversation between him and accused Vaibhav. He asked
the police officials on what basis they were trying to link
the said chats with acid attack on victim, as the said chats
were not related to victim. He also explained that the said
chats did not relate to the present incident, rather the said
conversation was related to his personal work for which,
he asked Vaibhav to follow some persons to whom he had
given money on loan, indirectly through gym instructor
namely Jitu. He asked Vaibhav to follow those unknown
persons and keep track on them and inquire about their
addresses, so in case of any default and from the next time
he could directly contact them for giving loan. The witness
pointed out towards four photographs of WhatsApp
conversation, marked as Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/A3 stating
that in these chats, he was talking about following those
unknown persons to whom Jitu has given his money on
higher interest.
130. Police had also shown him some other chats with Vaibhav,
which are not in Ex.PW40/X1. After seeing the same, he
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 76 of 137
specifically told them that it does not belong to the present
case and even the name of victim was not there in the said
chats, on which, police official threatened him by saying
‘हम जब इस chat को case के साथ जोड़गे तो तू क्या तेरा बाप भी
कहेंगा कि यह इस case की chat है’.
131. Thereafter, one police official took Vaibhav to another
room and the remaining police official started asking him
to tell the name and address of those persons who had
thrown acid on victim. They also asked him to help them
in preparation of their sketches. He replied to them that the
victim has already told SI Suresh that she had not seen the
faces of those robbers, so how can he help them in making
sketch as he was not present at the time of incident. He
heard SI Parvesh Kaushik saying to someone on phone
that ‘हमने जो बुलवाना था बुलवा लिया आप चिंता मत करो काम हो
जाएगा’. After some time, one police official came with
some typed printouts of the WhatsApp chats with Vaibhav
and asked him to see the same. After seeing the same he
noticed that most of the conversation was removed by the
police officials and informed them that this was not
complete conversation. Thereafter, police officials showed
him 2-3 pages of typed conversation and asked him to read
the same loudly. He read the same conversation loudly
three to four times and recorded his voice. He also
informed the police official that he does not know about
the duty hours of victim as reflected in Ex.PW40/F (colly).
132. DW-1 further deposed that on 25.12.2014, police official
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 77 of 137
came with unknown persons and stated that they had put
acid on victim and robbed her bag. Police officials asked
him whether he knew them, to which he replied that he
had seen them for the very first time. Thereafter, police
official took him, Vaibhav and those two persons to PS
Rajouri Garden. From there, they were taken to Vaibhav’s
house but nothing was recovered from his house.
Thereafter, they all came back to PS Rajouri Garden. After
some time, police official took them to the house of those
JCLs. He and Vaibhav were made to sit inside the car only.
After sometime police official came with said JCL and told
that they have recovered one bag belonging to the victim
from the house of one JCL. Thereafter, they all came to PS
Rajouri Garden. He alleged that SI Manohar Lal alongwith
SI Suresh Chand forcibly obtained his signatures on two
blank papers and printed proformas. On 12.01.2015 he and
Vaibhav were taken to FSL from jail and their voice
sample were taken. While giving his voice sample, he
noticed that they were making him read the same page
having conversation i.e. Ex.PW40/F, which he was made
to read loudly on the intervening night of 24/25.12.2014.
He alleged that police has falsely implicated him in the
present case by fabricating false evidence.
133. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State,
DW-1 stated that he had joined DDU hospital as intern in
the year 2010 and after completing internship for one year,
he joined as JR in DDU hospital and worked there till
about June/July, 2013. However, he denied having met and
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 78 of 137
befriended the victim in DDU hospital. He had never made
any complaint against the victim before any authority that
she had asked him to perform her duty repeatedly. He
denied the suggestion that victim had already given her
written exams of MD course prior to joining XX hospital,
Basai Darapur and only her practical exams were pending
at Medical College, Indore. DW-1 produced a copy of his
RTI reply from XX XX Vishwavidyalaya, Indore, in which
date-sheet of the exam schedule of Xx Medical College for
the post of MD was mentioned. The exams were scheduled
from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014. Same is Mark DW1/1.
134. DW-1 denied that he wanted to marry the victim and that
he got furious when he learnt that she was engaged to Dr.
G. Singh. He denied that he and the victim were friends for
last 1-2 years. He denied that victim never informed him
about Dr. Anees and that they were in a Live-in
relationship and that he had cooked up a false story
regarding Dr. Anees. He denied that Dr. Abhay was just a
colleague of victim and that she was not in an open
relationship with one Amit. He stated that the victim did
not ask him to inform Dr. Anees and Dr. Abhay about the
incident of acid attack. He admitted that neither Dr. Anees
nor Dr. Abhay visited the hospital to see victim after the
incident.
135. He stated that Rajnish Kaushik, husband of Sapna was his
friend and Sapna was using the mobile number
9250925082. He denied that he was using the said sim in a
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 79 of 137
Samsung mobile phone, and that he used to call the victim
as well as co-accused Vaibhav with the said mobile
number. He denied that his mobile phone make Samsung
in which he was using above said mobile number was
recovered from his house. He admitted that during the
period of 1½ years prior to the incident, he never talked to
accused Vaibhav on phone. He voluntarily stated that
Vaibhav used to send messages to him on Facebook.
136. DW-1 further stated that he had given approximately Rs.8-
10 lacs in cash to gym instructor Jitu on different
occasions for giving his money on interest. He was not
aware of the names and details of persons to whom Jitu
had given his money on interest. He did not have any
document to show the amount given by him to Jitu. He
voluntarily stated that he used to maintain a diary in which
he used to write the details of the money give to the said
Jitu, however, since he was in JC for about 10 years,
therefore, he does not have the said diary because of
change of address. He did not produce the any such
document/diary before the police during investigation. He
had not informed his department about his lending money
on interest. He called Vaibhav on 15.12.2014 for helping
him locate the persons first time but he could not do so on
one pretext or other. He requested Vaibhav 2-3 times for
locating those persons, to whom Jitu used to lend his
money, however, on first occasion Vaibhav informed him
by saying ‘अंधेरा ज्यादा था इसलिए मैं देख नहीं पाया’ on second
occasion he informed him ‘एक आते ही गाड़ी कै से भगा रहा था.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 80 of 137
आपने बोला था bike पे आएगा पर वो कार पे आया. Thereafter, he
messaged him ‘तेरे बस की नहीं है रहने दे’ and after 16-
17/12/2014, he never called him or messaged him.
137. He denied that he had never given any money to any Jitu
for lending the same further on high interest. He denied
that he and co-accused Vaibhav hatched conspiracy to
throw acid on the victim as he had a grudge against the
victim after she was engaged with Dr. G Singh.
138. DW-1 was re-examined by his counsel. He relied upon and
produced certain documents i.e Ex.DW1/B (colly), which
are as follows:-
1. RTI application of the accused seeking information
regarding the term of employment of victim at Xx
hospital, Basai Darapur and reply thereof that she was
employed at the said hospital from 12.10.2010 to
11.10.2011.
2. RTI application of the accused filed seeking
information regarding the term of employment of
victim at Xx hospital, Noida and reply thereof that she
was employed there from 21.04.2012.
3. RTI application of the accused seeking information
regarding the examination schedule of Xx Medical
College, Indore; and reply thereof that the exam
schedule was from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014.
4. RTI application of the accused seeking information
regarding the date of completion/award of degree to theState Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 81 of 137
victim by Xx Medical College, and reply thereof that
the victim cleared her PG in 2015.
5. RTI application of the accused seeking information
regarding the mandatory attendance required by MCI
for PG course, and reply thereof that 80% attendance is
mandatorily required for PG course.
139. He was again cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State. He admitted that he has not filed any complaint
against the victim before any forum regarding her PG.
140. DW-2 Sh. Priyadarshi Veeresh, Legal Consultant, EMRB
National Medical Commission, Dwarka, Delhi failed to
produce the summoned record i.e complaint made against
the victim/Dr. AK in the year 2011-2012 stating that no
complaint could not be traced out despite online and
offline search. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP
for the State, he stated that no information regarding the
name of person who had made complaint against Dr. AK
was provided to them for tracing the record.
141. The accused Vaibhav did not lead any evidence despite
opportunity and case was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
142. Ld. Counsel for accused Vaibhav as well as Learned APP
for state have made detailed oral submissions. The accused
Ashok Yadav has himself addressed the final arguments
and has also filed written submissions.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 82 of 137
143. Learned counsel for accused Vaibhav has submitted that
the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
It has been submitted that nothing was recovered from the
possession of the said accused and the recovery of victim’s
bag was planted on him. Ld. Counsel has submitted that
the IO did not join any independent public witness in the
recovery proceedings, nor any videography or
photography of the recovery proceedings were conducted.
Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the
Whatsapp chats were recovered from the mobile phone of
the accused Vaibhav. The police also failed to examine
Shyam Sunder, the person who had given the address of
the accused, as a prosecution witness. Also, accused
Vaibhav is not visible in any of the CCTV footages. There
is nothing in the CDRs or the CCTV footages played in
the court to prove that the accused Vaibhav was present at
the spot, where incident had taken place or even near the
place of incident. Further, there is no proof of any
acquaintance between Vaibhav and Ashok or between
Vaibhav and the JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’. The prosecution has
failed to prove any link between the accused persons and
the JCLs, and has further failed to prove any conspiracy
between them.
144. The accused Ashok has submitted that first and foremost
the injury received by the victim is not grievous. PW-12
has deposed that on 23.12.2014 the injury was ‘grievous
on presentation’. However, there is no final opinion that
the injury was grievous. He has further submitted that
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 83 of 137
PW-2/victim is an unreliable witness as she had prepared
false documents to obtain the job at Xx hospital. She was
pursuing her MD from Indore while still working as a full-
time doctor in government hospital in Delhi. Also, she was
in relationship with one Dr. Abhay and one Dr. Anees at
the same time. She herself had told the accused that she
was in an open relationship with one Amit. Hence, she is
not a credible witness. Further, the prosecution has failed
to prove any documents or Whatsapp chats or messages to
show that the accused Ashok was romantically inclined
towards PW-2 or even to prove that he started harassing
the victim later on.
145. Further, the accused Ashok has submitted that the CDRs
were not obtained by the police officials as per rules. The
CDR can be obtained only through the DCP concerned,
however there is no communication on record to show that
any request to obtain the CDRs was made by the IOs
through DCP. He has further submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove that he was using mobile
no.9250925082. He has alleged that Sapna in whose name
the said mobile number was issued, was not examined as a
prosecution witness, nor was she made part of the
investigation at any point of time. He has pointed out that
as per the CDR of mobile no.9250925082 and
9990700626, there are several calls between these two
mobile numbers. If he himself was using both the said
numbers, why would he make call to himself from one
mobile number to another. He has submitted that a study
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 84 of 137
of CDR of his mobile no. 9990700626, mobile no. of
Sapna 9250925082 and mobile number of the victim
shows that he had called the victim 83 times but he called
Sapna 120 times. Also, it was the victim, who had called
him 248 times. Then how can it be said that he was
pursing or harassing the victim. No staff or doctor or
friend of the victim was examined to prove that the
accused Ashok had proposed the victim or even that he
was harassing her when she refused his proposal. Hence,
the prosecution has failed to prove the motive in the
present case.
146. The accused Ashok has further argued that no independent
person was made to join the investigation by the IO. The
recovery of mobile phone of the victim from his
possession has been planted on him. He has further argued
that the prosecution has failed to prove his link with the
JCLs; there is no proof that he had met the JCLs at any
point of time or contacted them telephonically. He has
further submitted that the Whatsapp conversation between
him and co-accused Vaibhav pertained to some other job.
He had given some money on loan to unknown persons
through one person Jitu and had asked Vaibhav to trace
them out. However, the IOs have manipulated these chats
to falsely implicate him in this case. He has further
submitted that there is no proof that the syringe used in
commission of the offence were procured by him.
147. He has further alleged that the story that JCLs were
present near the house of the victim on 16.12.2014 is a
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 85 of 137
false and concocted one only to show that the victim had
seen them and justify their identification by the victim. He
has also alleged that the victim was shown the
photographs of the JCLs before the TIP and hence, she
was able to identify them in TIP proceedings. He has also
submitted that PW-3/landlord of the victim admitted that
Dr. Anees used to visit the victim.
148. Another argument of the accused is that their voice
samples were sent on 12.02.2015 i.e. after a considerable
delay and the prosecution has failed to explain this delay.
149. Per contra, Learned Addl. PP for the state has submitted
that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubts and the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
Ld. APP has submitted that the prosecution has
successfully proved its case against the accused persons. It
has been submitted that from the CCTV footages, the
entire incident has been captured and it has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was attacked with
acid and her bag was robbed by the JCLs. The samples of
acid were collected from the scooty of the victim, her cap
and gloves and from the FSL result ExPW6/B, it has been
proved that it was sulfuric acid. The hoodie and sun
glasses of the JCL ‘SM’ as well as jacket of JCL ‘SS’ also
contained traces of sulfuric acid. Further, from the CDRs
placed on record, it has been proved that the accused
persons were in constant touch with each other and that the
accused Vaibhav was in constant touch with the JCLs.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 86 of 137
Even on the date of incident the JCLs and accused
Vaibhav were in touch before and after the incident.
150. Ld. Addl. PP has submitted that the mobile phone
Samsung CDMA having mobile no.9250925082 was
recovered from the possession of the accused Ashok. The
accused Ashok has failed to lead any evidence to prove
that Sapna, in whose name the mobile number
9250925082 was subscribed, was his girlfriend and she
only was using the said mobile phone. She has further
submitted that PW-2/victim has deposed that the accused
Ashok wanted to marry her and had repeatedly proposed
her but she declined saying that her family would not
agree to inter-caste marriage. Hence, the accused Ashok
had the motive to cause hurt to the complainant.
151. It has also been submitted that the accused Ashok has
made a false and concocted story that the victim had left
her cap, gloves and mobile in Kathuria hospital, where she
was first taken and that the mobile phone was later on
planted on him. Had the victim been in possession of her
mobile phone, why would she use someone else’s mobile
phone to call the accused. Further, both the accused Ashok
and Vaibhav have admitted in their statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were known to each other
and were in touch with each other telephonically and
through WhatsApp messages. The accused Vaibhav has
even admitted that he was in touch with the JCLs ‘SS’ and
‘SM’ since 2008-2009.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 87 of 137
152. Ld APP has heavily relied upon the WhatsApp
conversations between accused Ashok and Vaibhav Ex.
PW40/X1 and has pointed out that it clearly suggests that
some conspiracy was brewing between the accused
persons. She has further submitted that the recoveries
made from the accused persons cannot be questioned
merely because they were proved by police officials and
no independent witness joined them. She has also
submitted that accused Ashok has failed to prove the
alleged relationships of the victim with Dr. Anees, Dr.
Abhay and one Amit, and it is a false story only to defame
her. She has also submitted that the audio conversations
between the accused persons have been duly proved by
PW-37/Mr. V. Lakshmi Narsimhan. Hence, the accused
persons are liable to be convicted.
COURT FINDINGS
153. I have heard the final arguments addressed on behalf of the
accused and the State and perused the entire record
carefully. The findings of the court are as below.
154. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Ashok
Kumar Yadav hatched a conspiracy alongwith accused
Vaibhav to throw acid on the victim and snatch her bag to
give it a colour of robbery. To achieve that purpose,
accused Vaibhav contacted two JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’, who
procured a stolen motorcycle and the acid. The accused
Ashok provided the syringe and showed them the victim.
He gave them details of victim’s duty hours and route to
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 88 of 137
the hospital. Finally, on 23.12.2024 the JCLs committed
the offence by throwing acid on face of the victim and
robbing her bag.
THE INCIDENT
155. PW-2/Dr. ‘AK’ is the victim in the present case. She
deposed that on 23.12.2014 at about 9:15-9:30 a.m, she
was going to her hospital for duty on her scooty (Ex.P-2).
When she reached the main market Rajouri Garden, two
persons came on a bike from behind. They took her bag of
orange-brown colour of Tommy Hilfiger brand (containing
a pink-coloured wallet, stethoscope, cosmetic items, pen,
some other documents as well as ATM Cards of Axis
Bank, OBC Bank, HDFC Bank, PNB Bank and SBI Bank,
cash of Rs.5,000/-, hospital stamps, I phone S-4 of white
colour, Charger, one Mala (Rosary/Sumirani) and driving
license), which she had kept between her legs on the
scooty and threw some chemical on her face. She sensed
pain and burning sensation on her face and asked for help.
Initially she was taken to a nearby hospital, where she was
informed that she had sustained serious injuries. She called
the accused Ashok, who reached at the spot and took her
to ESI hospital. From there, she was referred to AIIMS
hospital for treatment.
156. PW-2 was subjected to a detailed and lengthy cross-
examination. However, no material discrepancy has come
in the testimony of this witness. The defence has not been
able to impeach her credibility or to shake the veracity of
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 89 of 137
her statement. The facts as deposed by PW-2/victim in her
testimony before the court were also stated by her in her
complaint Ex. PW2/A, which was recorded on the very
same day at 12:15 P.M i.e within 3 hours of the incident. It
is a settled law that ocular evidence of the injured witness
is the best evidence. In the case titled as “Abdul Sayeed v.
State of M.P.” 2010 SCC OnLine SC 1027, it was held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that where a witness to the
occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be
very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in
guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is
unlikely to spare his actual assailant in order to falsely
implicate someone else. It was observed, “Convincing
evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.”
Similarly, in the case titled as “State of U.P. v. Naresh“
2011 SCC OnLine SC 450, it was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court as under,“27. The evidence of an injured witness must
be given due weightage being a stamped
witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted.
His statement is generally considered to be
very reliable and it is unlikely that he has
spared the actual assailant in order to falsely
implicate someone else. The testimony of an
injured witness has its own relevancy and
efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time
and place of occurrence and this lends support
to his testimony that he was present during the
occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. The
witness would not like or want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a
third person falsely for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured
witness should be relied upon unless there areState Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 90 of 137
grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the
basis of major contradictions and discrepancies
therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri)
107], Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 6
SCC 673: (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Abdul
Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259:
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262])”
157. The testimony of PW-2 has been sufficiently corroborated
by the testimony of eye-witness PW-26 Abhishek, who
deposed that he saw the incident and helped the victim. He
also called the PCR on 100 number to inform the police
about the incident. PW-26/Abhishek is a reliable witness
as it has been established from the PCR form Ex.PW32/B
that the information about the incident of acid attack was
received from one person namely Abhishek Jetly from
mobile number 9717271916. It is further mentioned in the
PCR form that caller Abhishek, F-120A, Rajouri Garden
met the PCR officials at the spot and informed them that
the injured had been taken to hospital. The same address
has been mentioned by the witness at the time of recording
his testimony in the court. Hence, PW-26 is a trustworthy
witness being naturally present at the spot.
158. Further, the testimony of the victim qua this incident is
also corroborated by CCTV footages seized by the police
from various persons i.e PW-1, PW-26 and PW-11 along
with certificates under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act.
On seeing the CCTV footage in court during recording of
his testimony, PW-26 denied that it was the same clip as
supplied by him to the police. However, he admitted that
it showed the same incident as described by him.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 91 of 137
159. The pen drive Ex.P-1/1 was played in the testimony of
PW-1. In the said CCTV footages, two boys are seen
following the victim and the entire incident of snatching of
victim’s bag by the bike-rider and throwing of chemical by
the pillion rider is visible. PW-1 has deposed that the
alleged incident is captured in the said CCTV footage.
160. Hence, it has been proved beyond doubt that on
23.12.2014 at around 09:15-09:30 a.m., two boys on a
motorcycle had thrown some chemical on the face of the
victim and also robbed her of her bag.
161. It has been alleged by the accused persons that the victim
was not attacked by acid and the IO later on planted acid
droplets on the scooty and clothes to falsely implicate the
accused persons. However, it has been deposed by
PW-2/victim that the bike-riders threw some chemical on
right side of her face, due to which, she sensed tremendous
pain on her face. The first MLC of the victim was prepared
at ESI hospital at 10:00 a.m. on 23.12.2014 by PW-7 Dr.
Hemant Kumar Kesari. As per the MLC Ex.PW7/A and
also from the testimony of PW-7/Dr. Hemant Kumar
Kesari, it is established that the victim had suffered injury
on her right eye and on the right side of face and she was
complaining pain on the right side and diminution of
vision in the right eye with pain. She was also complaining
of burning sensation. She was referred to Eye department
and Surgeon. Testimony of PW-7 has remained
uncontroverted and unrebutted as he was not cross
examined by the accused persons.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 92 of 137
162. PW-12/Dr. Tushar Aggarwal, AIIMS hospital has proved
his report qua injuries of the victim as Ex.PW12/A and his
final opinion qua her injury is Ex.PW12/B. As per Ex.
PW-12/A, the patient was having severe chemical burns in
the right eye including involvement of the right eye eyelid
and skin of the right side of the face. It is also stated that
the right eye injury of the victim was ‘Grade 4 injury as
per Dua’s classification’. The victim underwent Amniotic
Membrane Transplant and she subsequently underwent
Pro Kera transplantation twice. In his final opinion, PW-7
has given nature of injury as ‘grievous’.
163. Further, as per the report of PW-6/ Sh. Santosh Tripathi,
FSL expert, which is Ex. PW6/B, it has been proved that
the chemical, traces of which were picked from gloves,
woolen cap and scooty of the victim were containing
sulfuric acid. Thus, it is established that the chemical
thrown on the face of the victim was sulfuric acid.
164. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully
established beyond doubt that in the incident dated
23.12.2014, the victim had suffered injury due to acid
attack and her bag containing various articles was also
robbed by the assailants.
THE ASSAILANTS
165. It is deposed by PW-2/victim that there were two boys on a
motorcycle who committed the offence in question. In her
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 93 of 137
cross examination conducted on behalf of the accused
Ashok Kumar, PW-2 has clearly stated that she had
identified the JCLs in TIP proceedings. She stated that the
two assailants, who attacked her were juveniles and she
had gone for their judicial TIP. She further stated that after
identifying those juveniles she came to know that accused
Ashok Yadav was in their touch.
166. PW-42/SI Parvesh Kaushik has also deposed that Test
Identification Parade (TIP) of JCL ‘SM’ was conducted at
the Observation Home, Majnu ka tilla, where the victim
correctly identified him. However, JCL ‘SS’ refused to
participate in the TIP. The TIP proceedings of CCL ‘SM’ is
Mark A and TIP proceedings of JCL ‘SS’ is Mark C. It is a
settled law that an adverse inference can be drawn against
the accused who refuses to participate in the TIP
proceedings that he is avoiding identification by the
witness. In ‘Shyam Babu and Ors v State of Haryana‘,
AIR 2009 SC 577, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
where the accused persons had refused to join TIP, it
would speak volumes about their participation in the
crime.
167. PW-2/victim further stated in her cross-examination that
on 16th or 17th December, 2014, when she was going to
the airport in the early morning, she had seen those two
JCLs standing in front of her staircase and she had
informed accused Ashok Kumar about the same. Thus,
from the testimony of PW-2/victim, it is established that
the two boys who attacked her on 23.12.2014 were the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 94 of 137
JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ (names not disclosed to protect their
identity).
168. Further, it has been deposed by PW-40/Inspector Manohar
Lal, PW44/IO SI Suresh Chand and PW42/IO SI Parvesh
Kaushik that during the investigation of the present case,
the accused Vaibhav led the police team to the house of
JCL ‘SM’ from where the JCL was apprehended and one
debit card of PNB bank and one credit card of HDFC
bank, belonging to the victim were recovered from his
possession. PW-2/victim has duly identified these cards as
Ex. P-5 colly in her examination-in-chief.
169. JCL ‘SS’ was also apprehended at the instance of accused
Vaibhav. He also got recovered two debit cards – one of
Axis bank and the other of Oriental Bank of commerce
belonging to the victim. PW-2 duly identified these two
cards as Ex. P-6 colly. She had mentioned in her FIR and
in her testimony before court that these cards were in her
bag which was robbed at the time of incident. The
witnesses called from the banks i.e PW-27, PW-28,
PW-35 and PW-36 have proved that the abovesaid cards
were issued in the name of the victim.
170. Further, JCL ‘SM’ also got recovered one woolen shirt
with cap (sweat shirt/hoody) and sun glasses, which he
was wearing at the time of commission of the offence in
question, which were seized from his house vide seizure
memo Ex.PW40/R. JCL ‘SS’ also got recovered a blue
colour jacket, which he was wearing at the time of
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 95 of 137
commission of offence, which was seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW40/Z. The abovesaid articles were sent to
FSL for examination. As per FSL report Ex. PW-6/B, the
said sweatshirt (Ex.6A) and sunglasses (Ex.6B) as well as
the jacket (Ex.7) were having remnants of sulfuric acid,
which is the same acid which was found on the cap and
gloves of the victim and on her scooty.
171. Also, two syringes were recovered from the bushes behind
the wall of Gurudwara, near Pratap Nagar Park at the
instance of the two JCLs. The said syringes were also sent
to FSL for examination, and as per FSL result Ex.PW-6/B,
they were also found containing sulfuric acid.
172. The JCLs also got recovered the motorcycle bearing
registration number DL-4S-BC-4072, which was used by
them at the time of incident from D-Block, Rajouri
Garden. From a joint reading of testimony of PW-30/Nitin
Jain, owner of the said motorcycle, PW-29/Satya Prakash
(transport department) and PW-23/ASI Sri Ram Meena, it
has been proved on record that this motorcycle belonged to
PW-30 and was stolen from the jurisdiction of PS Hari
Nagar qua which a separate FIR no. 1489/14 u/s 379 IPC
dated 21.12.2014 was registered.
173. None of the police witnesses i. e. PW-40/Inspector
Manohar Lal, PW44/SI Suresh Chand, PW-43 ASI Vivek
and PW42/SI Parvesh Kaushik were cross examined on
the aspect of apprehension of JCLs in the present case. No
suggestion was given to them that the JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 96 of 137
were not involved in the offence in question. Infact,
accused Ashok had given a suggestion to PW-15/father of
the victim in his cross-examination that victim herself got
the acid attack staged on herself through the two JCLs as
she intended to avoid her marriage with Dr G Singh.
174. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond
doubt that it was JCL ‘SM’ and ‘SS’ who were the
assailants and who had followed the victim on motorcycle
and thrown acid on her face and robbed her bag.
175. It is to be noted that record of Learned Juvenile Justice
Board, where inquiry was conducted qua the JCLs ‘SS’
and ‘SM’, is attached with the present file. Vide order
dated 09.12.2015 both the JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ were held
guilty for offence under Section 326A/394/397/34 IPC by
Learned Principal Magistrate, JJB-I for acid attack and
robbery committed with the victim. In the said judgment
dated 09.12.2015, it was observed by Ld. Principal
Magistrate that the victim Dr. AK (who was examined as
PW-4 before Ld. JJB) had identified both the JCLs during
recording of her testimony, as the same boys, who had
snatched her bag containing valuable and thrown acid on
her face on 23.12.2014. She also recognized the JCLs as
the same boys, whom she had noticed loitering around her
house at 04:00 a.m. on 16.12.2014 and had felt odd about
their presence. Their conviction has been upheld in appeal
by Sh. Pawan Kumar Mattoo, Ld. ASJ-01, West, THC
vide order dated 30.11.2016.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 97 of 137
THE CONNECTION
176. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Ashok
Kumar Yadav and Vaibhav Kumar had conspired with the
JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ to throw acid on the victim under the
garb of robbing her bag.
177. As already discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the
prosecution has proved that the juveniles ‘SS’ and ‘SM’
have committed the offence in question. To prove the
connection between the accused persons and the JCLs, the
prosecution has relied upon the CDRs of the accused
Ashok and Vaibhav, and JCLs SS and SM.
178. As deposed by PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal, PW44/IO
SI Suresh Chand, PW-43 ASI Vivek and PW42/IO SI
Parvesh Kaushik, JCL ‘SM’ got recovered two mobile
phones with mobile phone numbers 83XXXXXX15 and
99XXXXXX73 which were seized vide memo
Ex.PW40/T. PW-10/Israr Babu, Nodal Officer Vodaphone
has proved that the mobile number 83XXXXXX15 was
issued in the name of Mrs. SJ/mother of JCL ‘SM’ and
99XXXXXX73 was issued in the name of Mr. SJ/father of
the JCL ‘SM’. PW-16/Mother of JCL ‘SM’ deposed that
her son i.e JCL ‘SM’ was using her mobile number in the
year 2014, last digits of which were ‘315’. She admitted
her photograph on the Customer application form of
mobile number 83XXXXXX15, Ex. PW-10/H and that it
was issued on her ID. She also admitted that copy of
Election ID card Mark PW-10/H1 was tendered at the time
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 98 of 137
of issuance of said mobile number. PW-17/father of JCL
SM also admitted that his son was using two cell phone
numbers, one on his ID and the other on the ID of his wife.
He admitted his photograph on the Customer application
form for mobile number 99XXXXXX73, Ex. PW-10/E
and that it was issued on his ID. He also admitted his copy
of Election ID card, Mark PW-10/E1 which was tendered
at the time of issuance of said mobile number.
179. Similarly, JCL ‘SS’ got recovered two mobile phones,
which were having mobile no.98XXXXXX38 and
96XXXXXX97, which were seized vide memo
Ex.PW40/Z2. PW-10/Israr Babu proved that mobile
phone number 96XXXXXX97 has been subscribed by Ms.
AS, mother of the JCL SS. Copy of the CAF is
Ex.PW-10/L (OS&R). Copy of the Election I-Card,
submitted by the customer at the time of subscription is
Mark PW-10/L1.
180. PW-9/Chandra Shekhar, Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel has
proved that the mobile phone number 98XXXXXX38 was
subscribed by one Bhupender Singh w.e.f. 16.07.2014.
PW-18/mother of SS in her cross-examination by Ld.
Addl. PP admitted that her son had found one mobile sim
in Jheel Wala Park bearing no. 98XXXXXX38 and he
started using it.
181. As deposed by PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal, PW44/SI
Suresh Chand, PW-43 ASI Vivek and PW42/SI Parvesh
Kaushik, accused Vaibhav got recovered a ‘Micromax’
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 99 of 137
mobile phone from his house, wherein he was using
mobile no.8587059020. PW-19/Laxmi, Mother of accused
Vaibhav has admitted that her son Vaibhav was using the
mobile no.8587059020, which was issued in her name.
PW-10/Israr Babu, Nodal officer, Vodafone has also
proved that the mobile Number 8587059020 was
subscribed by Ms. Laxmi w.e.f. 25.10.2013. The CAF is
Ex.PW-10/A (OSR) and copy of her Election I-Card,
submitted at the time of subscribing the phone connection,
is Mark PW-10/B.
182. As per the prosecution, accused Ashok was using two
mobile phones – 9990700626 issued in his own name and
9250925082 issued in the name of one Sapna Sharma.
While the accused Ashok has admitted that the mobile
number 9990700626 was issued in his name and that he
was using the same, he has denied that he was using the
other number 9250925082.
183. PW-13/Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services has proved the
CAF and CDR of the mobile no.9250925082, which are
Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/C respectively. As per the
CAF, the said mobile number was activated in the name of
Ms. Sapna Sharma. PW-9/Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel,
proved the CAF and CDR of mobile no.9990700626,
which are Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/C respectively. As per
the same, the said mobile number was subscribed in the
name of accused Ashok.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 100 of 137
184. A number of Nodal Officers from various service
providers have been examined in the court i.e. PW-9,
PW-10, PW-13 and PW-14, who have exhibited CAF and
CDR of the phone numbers of accused persons, JCLs and
the victim. From the analysis of the CDR records of the
mobile phones of the accused Ashok i.e. Ex.PW13/C and
Ex.PW9/C; of accused Vaibhav i.e. Ex.PW10/C; of JCL
‘SM’ i.e. Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/J; of JCL ‘SS’ i.e.
Ex.PW10/M and Ex.PW9/F, it had been proved that the
accused Ashok was in contact on phone with accused
Vaibhav and that accused Vaibhav was in contact with
accused Ashok as well as with JCL ‘SS’ and ‘SM’.
185. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
accused Vaibhav has categorically stated that mobile
no.8587059020 was used by him and he used to
communicate with accused Ashok Yadav through mobile
phone calls as well as through Whatsapp chats. He has also
stated that he was in touch with both the CCLs ‘SS’ and
‘SM’ since 2008-2009. He has further stated that since
long he was using mobile phone and used to converse with
the co-accused Ashok as well as with the CCLs on regular
basis and that his CDR reflects his conversations with co-
accused Ashok and the CCLs.
186. Furthermore, in his testimony under Section 315 Cr.P.C.,
accused Ashok Yadav/DW-1 has stated that he was in
contact with accused Vaibhav since 2012. He deposed that
the accused Vaibhav used to bring his father to ESI
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 101 of 137
hospital. Hence, it has been admitted by both the accused
persons that they were in contact with each other.
187. Thus, from the above discussion, it is proved beyond
doubt on record that accused Vaibhav was in contact with
accused Ashok as well as with the two JCLs namely ‘SS’
& ‘SM’ who had thrown acid on the face of the victim and
had robbed her bag.
188. It has been argued by the accused Ashok that the mobile
number 9250925082 belongs to his girlfriend Sapna and
she was using it. Infact, there are various calls between
this mobile no.9250925082 and his mobile
no.9990700626. He has further argued that it was his
girlfriend Sapna who had conspired with co-accused
Vaibhav and the JCLs SS and SM to commit the present
offence out of jealousy. However, this contention of the
accused is not acceptable for the following reasons:-
(i) As per police witnesses PW-40/Inspector Manohar Lal
and PW44/SI Suresh, the mobile phone Samsung CDMA
having sim no. 9250925082 was recovered from accused
Ashok Yadav vide seizure memo Ex.PW-40/J.
(ii) As per the CDR of mobile no.9250925082 (Ex.
PW-13/C), there are various calls between this number and
that of accused Vaibhav i.e. 8587059020. Hence, accused
Vaibhav was having conversation on this number.
However, the accused Vaibhav has nowhere stated that he
was in conversation with anyone named Sapna.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 102 of 137
(iii) Further, there are various calls between the
no.9250925082 and the phone number of the victim.
Again, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said
girlfriend of accused Ashok Yadav was in contact with
victim as well. Infact, no suggestion has been given to the
victim/PW-2 that she was in contact with Sapna, or that
they even knew each other. It is interesting to note that a
suggestion was given to PW-15/father of the victim that
the victim got the attack staged on herself as she intended
to avoid her marriage with Dr G. Singh. However, no
suggestion was given to him or PW-2/victim that it was
Sapna, who got the acid thrown on the face of the victim.
(iv) Also, as per the CDR of mobile number 9250925082
Ex.PW13/C, there are various calls between the number
9250925082 and the victim’s number, that too for very
long durations and sometimes at odd hours too.
189. It is highly unbelievable that girlfriend of the accused
namely Sapna, was in contact with the victim as well as
accused Vaibhav who was known to accused. Hence, the
fact that mobile no.9250925082 was in contact with victim
as well as accused Vaibhav, proves beyond doubt that it
was accused Ashok only who was using this number as
well.
190. PW20/Sh. Phool Chand Sharma, father of Sapna has also
not been cross examined by the accused on this aspect. No
suggestion has given to him that Sapna was using the said
mobile number or that she was in a relationship with
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 103 of 137
accused Ashok. Further, the SIM of the said mobile
number was in the mobile phone make Samsung CDMA,
Ex. P-43/5, which was recovered at the instance of the
accused Ashok vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/J.
191. It has been argued by accused Ashok that prosecution has
failed to prove any link between him and the JCLs who
have allegedly committed the crime. However, it was
never the case of the prosecution that the accused Ashok
had hired the juveniles to commit the offence. Infact, as
per the prosecution, it was accused Vaibhav, who had
contacted and hired the JCLs to commit the offence. And
as discussed above, the CDRs have duly proved the
connection between Vaibhav and the two JCLs.
192. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully
proved the connection between the accused Ashok,
Vaibhav and the JCLs SS and SM.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
193. Criminal conspiracy has been defined under Section 120A
IPC, while Section 120-B IPC prescribes punishment for
criminal conspiracy. The said provisions are reproduced
verbatim as under:-
“Section 120 A- When two or more persons
agree to do, or cause to be done –
(1) an illegal act, or
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 104 of 137
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means,
such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an
agreement to commit an offence shall amount
to a criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or more
parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation- It is immaterial whether the
illegal act is the ultimate object of such
agreement, or is merely incidental to that
object.”
“Section 120 B – (1) Whoever is a party to a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years
or upwards, shall, where no express provision
is made in this Code for the punishment of
such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy
other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six
months, or with fine or with both.”
194. It is established principle of evidence that conspiracy is
hatched in secrecy and it is rarely possible to establish a
conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence
of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from
the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. In the
case titled as ‘Santoshanand Avdoot @ Ghanshyam
Prashad & Anr v State‘ 2014 (4) JCC 2649, it was
observed by Hon’ble High court of Delhi,
“159. It is true that direct evidence is rarely
available to prove conspiracy. The law on
conspiracy has been discussed in detail in
State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu, 2005
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 105 of 137
(11) SCC 600. The Supreme Court while
relying on ‘Major E.G. Barsay vs. State of
Bombay‘, AIR 1961 SC 1762, held :
“…the gist of the offence is an agreement to
break the law. The parties to such an
agreement will be guilty of criminal
conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be
done has not been done. So too, it is not an
ingredient of the offence that all the parties
should agree to do a single illegal act. It may
comprise the commission of a number of acts.”
160. It further observed :
“90. In Nalini’s case, S.S.M. Quadri, J. pointed
out that the meeting of minds of two or more
persons for doing an illegal act or an act by
illegal means is a sine qua non of the criminal
conspiracy. Judge L. Hand, in Van Riper v.
United States (13 F 2d. 961) said of
conspiracy: “When men enter into an
agreement for an unlawful end, they become
ad hoc agents for one another and have made a
partnership in crime.”
91. In Yashpal Mittal v. State of Punjab,
Goswami, J, speaking for a three-Judge Bench
analyzed the legal position relating to criminal
conspiracy. At pages 610- 611, the learned
Judge observed that “the very agreement, the
concert or league is the ingredients of the
offence.” and that “it is not necessary that all
the conspirators must know each and every
detail of the conspiracy”. It was then observed
that “there must be unity of object or purpose
but there may be plurality of means,
sometimes even unknown to one another,
amongst the conspirators.
92. Dr. Sri Hari Singh Gour in his well known
‘Commentary on Penal Law of India’, (Vol.2,
11th Edn. page 1138) summed up the legal
position in the following words: “In order to
constitute a single general conspiracy there
must be a common design. Each conspirator
plays his separate part in one integrated and
united effort to achieve the common purpose.
Each one is aware that he has a part to play in
a general conspiracy though he may not know
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 106 of 137
all its secrets or the means by which the
common purpose is to be accomplished. The
evil scheme may be promoted by a few, some
may drop out and some may join at a later
stage, but the conspiracy continues until it is
broken up. The conspiracy may develop in
successive stages. There may be general plan
to accomplish the common design by such
means as may from time to time be found
expedient.”
93. In State of H.P. v. Krishan Lal Pradhan, it
was reiterated that every one of the
conspirators need not take active part in the
commission of each and every one of the
conspiratorial acts. In the case of State v.
Nalini, S.S.M. Quadri, J, after a survey of case
law made the following pertinent observations:
(at paragraph 662) “In reaching the stage of
meeting of minds, two or more persons share
information about doing an illegal act or a
legal act by illegal means. This is the first
stage where each is said to have knowledge of
a plan for committing an illegal act or a legal
act by illegal means. Among those sharing the
information some or all may form an intention
to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal
means. Those who do form the requisite
intention would be parties to the agreement
and would be conspirators but those who drop
out cannot be roped in as collaborators on the
basis of mere knowledge unless they commit
acts or omissions from which a guilty common
intention can be inferred. It is not necessary
that all the conspirators should participate
from the inception to the end of the
conspiracy; some may join the conspiracy after
the time when such intention was first
entertained by any one of them and some
others may quit from the conspiracy. All of
them cannot but be treated as conspirators.
Where in pursuance of the agreement the
conspirators commit offences individually or
adopt illegal means to do a legal act which has
a nexus to the object of conspiracy, all of them
will be liable for such offences even if some of
them have not actively participated in the
commission of those offences.”
XXX XXX XXX
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 107 of 137
96. There is one particular observation made
by Jagannadha Shetty in Kehar Singh’s (supra)
case which needs to be explained. The learned
Judge observed: “It is, however, essential that
the offence of conspiracy requires some kind
of physical manifestation of agreement. The
express agreement, however, need not be
proved nor is it necessary to prove the actual
words of communication. The evidence as to
transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful
design may be sufficient.” The expression
‘physical manifestation’ seems to be the
phraseology used in the Article referred to by
the learned Judge. However, the said
expression shall not be equated to ‘overt act’
which is a different concept. As rightly stated
by the learned senior counsel, Mr. Gopal
Subramanium, the phrase has reference to the
manifestation of the agreement itself, such as
by way of meetings and communications.
97. Mostly, the conspiracies are proved by the
circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is
seldom an open affair. Usually both the
existence of the conspiracy and its objects
have to be inferred from the circumstances and
the conduct of the accused. (Per Wadhwa, J. in
Nalini‘s case (supra) at page 516). The well
known rule governing circumstantial evidence
is that each and every incriminating
circumstance must be clearly established by
reliable evidence and “the circumstances
proved must form a chain of events from
which the only irresistible conclusion about
the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn
and no other hypothesis against the guilt is
possible.” G.N. Ray, J. in Tanibeert Pankaj
Kumar, observed that this Court should not
allow the suspicion to take the place of legal
proof. 98. As pointed out by Fazal Ali, J, in
V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Admn.), “In most
cases it will be difficult to get direct evidence
of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be
inferred even from circumstances giving rise
to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an
agreement between two or more persons to
commit an offence.” In this context, the
observations in the case Noor MohammadState Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 108 of 137
Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra are
worth nothing: “…in most cases proof of
conspiracy is largely inferential though the
inference must be founded on solid facts.
Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and
subsequent conduct, among other factors,
constitute relevant material.”
99. A few bits here and a few bits there on
which the prosecution relies cannot be held to
be adequate for connecting the accused in the
offence of criminal conspiracy. The
circumstances before, during and after the
occurrence can be proved to decide about the
complicity of the accused. (vide Esher Singh
v. State of A.P.)
XXX XXX XXX
101. One more principle which deserves notice
is that cumulative effect of the proved
circumstances should be taken into account in
determining the guilt of the accused rather
than adopting an isolated approach to each of
the circumstances. Of course, each one of the
circumstances should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard to the
appreciation of evidence relating to
conspiracy, the Court must take care to see
that the acts or conduct of the parties must be
conscious and clear enough to infer their
concurrence as to the common design and its
execution. K.J. Shetty, J, pointed out in Kehar
Singh’s case that “the innocuous, innocent or
inadvertent events and incidents should not
enter the judicial verdict.”
XXX XXX XXX
113. “….If there is proof to the effect that the
accused played a role, attended to certain
things or took steps consistent with the
common design underlying the conspiracy,
that will go a long way in establishing the
complicity of the accused, though it is not a
legal requirement that the conspirator should
do any particular act beyond the agreement to
commit the offence.”
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 109 of 137
195. It is settled position of law that act or action of one
accused cannot be used as evidence against the other
accused. However, an exception to the said rule is laid
down in Section 10, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Same is
reproduced verbatim as under,
“Section 10. Things said or done by conspirator
in reference to common design – Where there is
reasonable ground to believe that two or more
persons have conspired together to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong, anything said,
done or written by any one of such persons in
reference to their common intention, after the
time when such intention was first entertained
by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against
each of the persons believed to be so
conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving
the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was a
party to it.”
196. In ‘Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v State of
Maharashtra‘ (1964) 2 SCR 378, it was observed by
Hon’ble Apex Court,
“This section, as the opening words indicate will
come into play when the court is satisfied that
there is reasonable ground to believe that two or
more persons have conspired together to commit
an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say,
there should be a prima facie evidence that a
person was a party to the conspiracy before his
acts can be used against his co-conspirators. Once
such a reasonable ground exists, anything said,
done or written by one of the conspirators in
reference to the common intention, after the said
intention was entertained, is relevant against the
others, not only for the purpose of proving the
existence of the conspiracy but also for proving
that the other person was a party to it. The
evidentiary value of the said acts is limited by
two circumstances, namely, that the acts shall
have reference to their common intention and in
respect of a period after such intention was
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 110 of 137
entertained by any one of them. The expression in
reference to their common intention is very
comprehensive and it appears to have been
designedly used to give it a wider scope than the
words “in furtherance of in the English law; with
the result, anything said, done or written by a co-
conspirator, after the conspiracy was formed, will
be evidence against the other before he entered
the field of conspiracy or after he left it. Another
important limitation implicit in the language is
indicated by the expressed scope of its relevancy.
Anything so said, done or written is a relevant
fact only ‘as against each of the person believed
to be so conspiring as well for the purpose of
proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was a
party to it’. It can be used only for the purpose of
proving the existence of the conspiracy or that the
other person was a party to it. It cannot be said in
favour of the other party or for the purpose of
showing that such a person was not a party to the
conspiracy. In short, the Section can be analysed
as follows: (1) There shall be a prima facie
evidence affording a reasonable ground for a
court to believe that two or more persons are
members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition
is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any
one of them in reference to their common
intention will be evidence against the other; (3)
anything said, done or written by him should
have been said, done or written by him after the
intention was formed by any one of them; (4) it
would also be relevant for the said purpose
against another who entered the conspiracy
whether it was said, done or written before he
entered the conspiracy or after he left it; (5) it can
only be used against a co- conspirator and not in
his favour.”
197. It is also trite to observe that, it is not necessary that all the
actors in the conspiracy must have joined the offence from
its very inception. Conspiracy is a continuing offence and
the acts of the persons who join the conspiracy at a later
point in time, in furtherance of the object thereof, form a
part of the same offence of conspiracy.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 111 of 137
198. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged that the
accused Ashok had hatched the conspiracy to throw acid
on the victim, as he wanted to marry her, but she has
rejected his marriage proposal and her marriage was fixed
elsewhere. It has been proved by the prosecution that the
JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ who threw acid on the face of the
victim and robbed her of her bag were not even known to
her nor were they in any kind of romantic relationship with
her. Apparently, the offence of robbery was a camouflage
to commit the offence of throwing acid on the face of the
victim. In other words, the main goal of the attackers was
to throw acid on the face of the victim. However, in doing
so they robbed bag of the victim in order to give it the
colour of robbery with a view to mislead the police or
conceal the real motive behind the offence.
199. As deposed by PW-2/victim, the accused Ashok Yadav had
proposed her repeatedly but she rejected his proposals. She
has also deposed that she and accused Ashok were good
friends for last 2-3 years and that accused Ashok Yadav
had repeatedly proposed her for marriage but she refused
every time and also told him that her family would not
allow inter-caste marriage. She has also deposed that
accused Ashok had started raising objection on her talking
with others, which shows that he was becoming possessive
towards her. Finally, she deposed that in the month of
December, 2014 her marriage was fixed with Dr. G. Singh
by her family, and thereafter, the behavior of accused
Ashok changed towards her. He used to ask her as to why
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 112 of 137
she was going for arrange marriage. His possessiveness
increased towards her and he used to ask her not to go here
and there. In the very same month, on 23.12.2014, the acid
was thrown on the face of the victim.
200. Acid attack is a peculiar kind of offence, mostly
committed against women by the persons whose marriage
proposal or proposal for romance is rejected by her. On the
other hand, generally, the robbers do not use acid to attack
their victim; rather they use weapons like firearms or
knife, which inflict quick and neat injury to the victim in
order to facilitate them to quickly commit robbery.
201. The Law Commission of India in its 226th report titled as
“The Inclusion of Acid Attacks as Specific Offences in the
Indian Penal Code and a law for Compensation for
Victims of Crime” observed,
“Though acid attack is a crime which can be
committed against any man or woman, it has a
specific gender dimension in India. Most of the
reported acid attacks have been committed on
women, particularly young women for
spurning suitors, for rejecting proposals of
marriage, for denying dowry etc. The attacker
cannot bear the fact that he has been rejected
and seeks to destroy the body of the woman
who has dared to stand up to him.
Thus, acid throwing is an extremely violent
crime by which the perpetrator of the crime
seeks to inflict severe physical and mental
suffering on his victim. As stated above this
kind of violence is often motivated by deep-
seated jealousy or feelings of revenge against a
woman.”
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 113 of 137
202. In article ‘A Theoretical Overview on Acid Victims and
Government Regulations in India’ published in IOSR
Journal of Business and Management, Volume 21, Issue 2.
Ser. II (February. 2019), PP 35-41, it was observed that as
per a study conducted by UNICEF reveals,
“Acid attack is a serious problem all over the
world, even children are become victim of acid
attack in many cases. In an Acid attack, acid is
thrown at the face or body of the victim with
deliberate intent to burn and disfigure. Most of
the victims are girls, many below the age of
18, who have rejected sexual advances or
marriage proposals. Acid attack or vitriolage is
defined as the act of throwing acid onto the
body of a person “with the intention of
injuring or disfiguring [them] out of jealousy
or revenge”.
203. Though accused Ashok Yadav had denied the allegations
that he had proposed the victim or wanted to marry her,
however, CDRs of mobile number of the accused Ashok
9990700626 (Ex.PW-9/C) and 9250925082 (Ex.PW13/C)
and that of the victim (Ex.PW-14/A) clearly show that
they were having frequent conversations for long durations
and sometimes these calls have been made at odd hours
i.e. at 01:00 a.m or 12:00 midnight. Further, the victim
was so close to the accused Ashok that when she had to
catch an early flight on 17.12.2014, she had called the
accused at 04:00 a.m. in the morning. This fact is
corroborated from the CDR of the victim (Ex.PW-14/A)
which reflects that various calls were made from the
mobile number of the victim to the mobile number of the
accused Ashok on the morning of 17.12.2014. Even after
the incident in question had taken place, the first person
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 114 of 137
she contacted for help was none other than the accused
Ashok Yadav. This shows that the victim and accused
Ashok shared a deep bond and the victim trusted him more
than anyone else in her friend circle.
204. From the above stated facts two things have been
established that the accused Ashok was having romantic
inclination towards victim and he was very close to the
victim. The marriage of the victim was fixed somewhere
else and accused Ashok was disheartened due to this. As
already discussed, in most of the cases of acid attack, the
assailant is a spurned suitor. Thus, it is established that the
accused Ashok Yadav had the motive to throw acid on the
victim.
WhatsApp conversations-
205. The prosecution has relied on the screen shots of the
Whatsapp chats stored in the mobile phone of accused
Vaibhav. The 20 photographs of the screen shots of the
WhatsApp chats have been exhibited on record as
Ex.PW40/X1 (colly). Though no certificate under Section
65-B Indian Evidence Act qua these screen shots have
been filed on record, however, the original Mixcromax
mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav was exhibited in the
court from which these screen shots were taken, though
the said mobile phone could not be turned on during
recording of evidence.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 115 of 137
206. Further, in his on-oath testimony under Section 315
Cr.P.C., accused Ashok has admitted and even relied on
these chats and claimed that those chats were not in
respect of the victim but were in respect of some other
work. He claimed that he had asked the accused Vaibhav
to follow some persons to whom he had given money on
loan indirectly, through a gym instructor namely Jeetu. He
wanted the accused Vaibhav to follow and locate the
addresses of those persons to whom money was lent by the
said Jeetu. However, story of the accused Ashok is nothing
but a desperate attempt on his part to give an explanation
to the dubious kind of communication between him and
accused Vaibhav. His story suffers from the following
flaws:-
(i) The gym instructor Jeetu, whether is a fictional person or a
real person is not known to the court, has not been
examined by accused Ashok to prove that he had asked
him to further lend his money to others as loan.
(ii) There is no proof of any money given by the accused
Ashok to any such person namely Jeetu. In his cross
examination, DW-1 Ashok stated that on one occasion, he
had given Rs.8,00,000/- to Jeetu. However, he failed to
prove the same by leading any documentary evidence.
(iii) If the accused Ashok had given any money to any person
through Jeetu, he could have straightaway asked Jeetu
about whereabouts of those persons. What was the need of
asking accused Vaibhav to follow them?
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 116 of 137
(iv) There is no name fictional or real stated by the accused
Ashok of the persons to whom loan was given through
gym instructor Jeetu and for whom he was requesting
accused Vaibhav to follow and locate. If he was not aware
of such details, how and whom he asked accused Vaibhav
to follow is not clear.
207. Now, let us have a look at the WhatsApp Chats between
the accused Ashok and Vaibhav. Same is Ex.PW40/X1
and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as
under:-
“Date : 16.12.2014
Vaibhav at 6:37 P.M. : Bs*
Ashok at 10:29 PM : Haan
Ashok at 10:29 PM : Ab Bata
Ashok at 10:29 PM : Message delete kar diyo fir
Vaibhav at 10:31 PM: Wo pahuche to WO nikal gayi thi
Vaibhav at 10:31 PM : Pehle hi
Ashok at 10:31 PM : Nahi Yaar
Vaibhav at 10:31 PM : Ha ya sachi
Ashok at 10:31 PM : 9.15 par to wo hai thi
Ashok at 10:31 PM : Meri baat hui
Ashok at 10:32PM : Mujhe lagta hai tumhare Baski nahi
hai.
Ashok at 10:32 PM : Yaar Itne din
Vaibhav at 10:32PM : Nhi yr 9:25 pe to ghr PR thi
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 117 of 137
Ashok at 10:33 PM : Kal last baar haiVaibhav at 10:33PM : Pta hai
Ashok at 10:33 PM : Kal nahi to fir mat Karna
Vaibhav at 10:33 PM : Kkk
Ashok at 10:34 PM : 8.50 se
Ashok at 10:34 PM: Ghar se nikalne tak wait Karna
Vaibhav at 10:34 PM : Kkk
Vaibhav at 10:34 PM : Pkka
Ashok at 10:35 PM : Dekh lo kal Koi galti nahi Honi
chahiyeVaibhav at 10:35 PM : Kkk no galti
Ashok at 10:36 PM : Ghr se nikalte hi kar dena nahi to
raste Mai…
Vaibhav at 10:36 PM : Kkk
Ashok at 10:36 PM : Magar kal mujhe
Ashok at 10:36 PM : Bad news mat dena ki hua nahi
Vaibhav at 10:37 PM : Kkk sir
Ashok at 10:37 PM : Saala mai aaj bank se paise nikal ke
layaAshok at 10:37 PM : Ki kal dene padende
Vaibhav at 10:37 PM: Thk hai kl de dena
Ashok at 10:37 PM : Ushi time wahi par milta hu
Vaibhav at 10:38 PM : Ok
Ashok at 10:38 PM: Chat abhi delete kar
Ashok at 10:38 PM : Delete all conversation mai ja kar
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 118 of 137
Vaibhav at 10:40 PM : Kr bhi diAshok at 10:40 PM : Ok
Ashok at 10:41 PM : Waiting 4 Gud news
Vaibhav at 10:41 PM : Me too
208. It is clear from these conversations that the two accused
persons are planning to do something, and the person they
are taking about is a female. The accused Ashok had asked
Vaibhav to do it as soon as she leaves the home or on the
way. He has also asked the accused Vaibhav repeatedly to
delete the chats. Apparently, the dubious communication
between accused Ashok and Vaibhav was only in respect
of the present victim. He was ensuring that the victim be
followed by the JCLs arranged by accused Vaibhav and
acid be thrown on the face of the victim. Further, the
accused Ashok insisted that all the chats be deleted
immediately. If he was trying to locate the persons to
whom his money was lent, why would he insist on
deletion of chats. It only indicates that the said chat
pertains to some illegal act or some conspiracy to commit
an illegal act, and that the accused wants to erase each and
every evidence related to the same. It is a clear proof of a
conspiracy between the two accused persons.
209. During investigation, accused Vaibhav got recovered the
orange and brown colour ladies’ bag, which was found
containing an orange colour wallet, Adhar card, election
card and pen card of the victim and DL of the victim, slips
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 119 of 137
of ESI hospital, 100 dollar notes, one debit card of SBI
bank, Stethoscope, photographs of father of the victim,
cosmetic articles, mobile charger, six coins, visiting card
and other articles. The said bag and articles were seized
vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/A. PW-2/Victim duly
identified these articles in judicial TIP conducted before
PW8/Ld. MM Sh. Pankaj Arora vide proceedings
Ex.PW8/B and also identified the same before the court as
Ex. P-1 colly.
210. Similarly, mobile phone i.e. I phone S-4 bearing sim no.
96XXXXXX50 of the victim was recovered at the instance
of accused Ashok Yadav from his house. It has been
contended on behalf of accused Ashok Yadav that mobile
phone of the victim was never stolen and it was available
with her at all the time. Infact, she had left the same at
Kathuria hospital where she was taken immediately after
the incident. However, this contention of the accused
Ashok Yadav is not tenable for the following reasons:-
(a) If the mobile phone of the victim was not robbed and
was in her possession at Kathuria hospital, she would have
called the police herself from her mobile phone. However,
as already proved on record by PW-26/Abishek @ Mannu
and as per PCR form Ex. PW-32/A, the call on 100
number was made by PW-26/Abhishek from his mobile
phone having number 9717271916.
(b) If the mobile phone of the victim was available with
her, she would have called accused Ashok Yadav for helpState Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 120 of 137
from her own mobile phone. However, as per the own
admission of accused Ashok, the victim had called him
from an unknown number for help after the acid attack.
This is further proved by the CDR of accused Ashok Ex.
PW-9/A, as per which, a call from mobile no 9717271916
was received on his mobile number 9990700626 on
23.12.2014 at 10:24:08 hours.
(c) Offence in question had taken place at 09:30 a.m. on
23.12.2014. Statement of the victim was recorded and
rukka was prepared on the same day at about 12:15 p.m.,
i.e within three hours of the offence in question. In her
statement Ex.PW2/A, the victim has categorically stated
that her mobile phone i.e. I phone S-4 having number
96XXXX50 was kept in her bag which has been robbed. It
is to noted that by this time victim had no intention to
implicate the accused Ashok, whom she herself called for
help, nor she had the knowledge of his involvement in the
present case. Then why would she falsely state about theft
of her mobile phone.
211. Hence, it is established beyond doubt that the mobile phone
of the victim i.e I phone S-4 bearing no. 96XXXXXX50
was also robbed with her bag.
212. The accused persons have raised objections qua recovery of
the articles at their instance and from their houses on the
basis that the recoveries are planted on them. It has been
contended that no public person was made witness to the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 121 of 137
said recoveries despite availability. Hence, the said
recoveries have not been proved as per law.
213. In the present case, all the police officials who were part of
the investigation team i.e PW-39, PW-40, PW-41, PW-42,
PW-43 and PW-44, have deposed about the recoveries
made from the accused persons and the JCLs. They have
been subjected to detailed and lengthy cross-examination.
However, none of the said witnesses has given conflicting
or evasive statements or shifted their stand, nor any major
discrepancy has come in their testimony. When their
testimonies have not been varied from any spectrum, there
is no reason to discard the same only for the reason that
they are police officials.
214. At this stage, the court finds it appropriate to refer to the
case titled as ‘Kashmiri Lal v State of Haryana‘, (2013) 6
SCC 595, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court,
“As far as first submission is concerned, it is
evincible from the evidence on record that the
police officials had requested the people
present in the dhaba to be witnesses, but they
declined to cooperate and, in fact, did not
make themselves available. That apart, there is
no absolute command of law that the police
officers cannot be cited as witnesses and their
testimony should always be treated with
suspicion. Ordinarily, the public at large show
their disinclination to come forward to become
witnesses. If the testimony of the police officer
is found to reliable and trustworthy, the court
can definitely act upon the same. If in the
course of scrutinising the evidence the court
finds the evidence of the police officer as
unreliable and untrustworthy, the court may
disbelieve him but it should not do so solely
on the presumption that a witness from the
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 122 of 137
department of police should be viewed with
distrust. This is also based on the principle of
quality of the evidence weighs over the
quantity of evidence. These aspects have been
highlighted in State of U.P. v. Anil Singh,
State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil and
another and Ramjee Rai and others v. State of
Bihar. Appreciating the evidence on record on
the unveil of the aforesaid principles, we do
not perceive any acceptable reason to discard
the testimony of the official witnesses which is
otherwise reliable and absolutely trustworthy.”
215. Similarly, in the case titled as ‘Sonu @ Hemraj v State
(NCT of Delhi)’ 2021, 1AD (Delhi) 280, it was held by
Hon’ble High court of Delhi,
“It was next argued by the Ld. defence counsel
that IO has not joined public witnesses during
the investigation and also at the time when the
appellants pointed out the place of occurrence.
As far as the question of non-joining of public
witnesses is concerned, no doubt, the IO has
not joined the public witnesses but that by itself
does not falsify the entire case of the
prosecution. The testimony of the official
witnesses cannot be thrown away simply on the
ground that IO failed to join public witnesses.
Experience has shown that public witnesses are
reluctant to join the investigation. Even
otherwise, the non-joining of public witness by
the IO can only be said to be a fault on the part
of the IO which cannot be the sole basis for
disbelieving the entire case of the prosecution
and the testimony of the believable official
witnesses. Conviction can be recorded on the
sole testimony of police officials without
corroboration from a public witness, if it
inspires confidence. In this regard reliance can
be placed upon Tahir v. State (1996) 3 SCC
338, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as follows:
“No infirmity attaches to the testimony of
police officials, merely because they belong to
the police force and there is no rule of law or
evidence which lays down that conviction
cannot be recorded on the evidence of theState Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 123 of 137
police officials, if found reliable, unless
corroborated by some independent evidence.
The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a
more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since
they can be said to be interested in the result of
the case projected by them. Where the evidence
of the police officials, after careful scrutiny,
inspires confidence and is found to be
trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of
conviction and the absence of some
independent witness of the locality to lend
corroboration to their evidence does not in any
way affect the creditworthiness of the
prosecution case.”
216. In the present case, as deposed by PW-40 Insp Manohar
Lal, PW-42/SI Parvesh Kaushik and PW-44/SI Suresh, the
accused Vaibhav had led the police team to the JCLs ‘SS’
and ‘SM’. While on one hand police was investigating
through CCTV footages and trying to locate the assailants,
at the same time they analysed the CDRs of the victim and
made enquiry from the hospital where victim was working.
They discovered that the victim and accused Ashok were
friends and dating at that time and were in regular
telephonic contact with each other. From analysis of two
CDRs of accused Ashok (Ex.PW13/C and Ex.PW9/C) it
was discovered that accused Ashok was in regular contact
with accused Vaibhav from starting of December till
middle of December i.e. upto 17-18th December. Accused
Vaibhav was interrogated, who confessed to his culpability
before the police and told the entire story. Police also
found certain WhatsApp chats in his mobile phone with
accused Ashok, which were of suspicious/dubious nature.
Police also found audio recording of telephonic
conversations between accused Vaibhav and accused
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 124 of 137
Ashok recorded in his phone by accused Vaibhav.
Transcript of those two audio conversations was prepared
by the police. Voice sample of accused Vaibhav and
accused Ashok were also taken qua same. These Voice
samples along with those transcripts were matched in FSL,
report qua same is exhibited on record as Ex.PW37/A.
This report established that the two conversations were
having voices of accused Ashok and accused Vaibhav.
217. The audio recordings of these conversations were recorded
in the Micromax mobile phone of the accused Vaibhav,
which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW40/D. The
said mobile phone has been exhibited on record as
Ex.PW43/P6. Transcript of the said audio recordings
Ex.PW40/F were prepared by the IO. The said audio files
were sent to FSL, where they were compared with the
specimen voice samples of both the accused. As per
Ex/PW37/A, prepared by PW37/Mr. V. Lakshmi
Narsimhan, FSL Expert, the original voice of the two
accused persons matched with the samples given.
However, the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav could not
be switched on in the court despite efforts. Thus, the two
audio files could not be played in the court.
218. These audio recordings are very relevant for the present
case. In first of the transcript of the said audio recordings,
accused Ashok is telling accused Vaibhav ‘ तू बस इनको बता
दियो क्योकिं फिर time नहीं है, कल रात को ही करना पड़ेगा उनको
ठिक है’. Thereafter, he is telling accused Vaibhav ‘कल
उनकी evening duty ही है और 8 बजे मिल ले मैं 8 baje aur
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 125 of 137
confirm kr dunga sab’. Further in the second transcript
accused Ashok is asking accused Vaibhav ‘ अच्छा ठिक है
उनको ये तो बोल दे कि कल सवेरे तो कर देगें ना कम से कम 9 baje
उसकी duty है 9 या 09:30 तक निकलेगी. From this
communication, it is clear that accused Ashok is asking
accused Vaibhav to tell some other persons to do
something in the morning as a female would leave around
9:00 or 09:30. It is further stated by accused Ashok that
सवेरे 09 बजे निकलेगी वो कल आखरी दिन है फिर वो जा रही है
flight है उसकी. From these conversations also it is clear
that accused was taking about victim that on 16th or 17th
December, victim had to catch a flight. From these
transcripts it is apparent that accused Ashok was planning
to inflict acid injury on the victim for last few days but
was unable to get the work done.
219. However, these transcripts though very relevant for the
present case cannot be read in the evidence as the mobile
phone of the accused Vaibhav Ex.PW43/P6, though
produced before the court many times, could not be
switched on at any point of time and the audio recordings
of the conversation between the co-accused were never
played before the court. The audio cassettes containing
the voice samples of the accused Ashok (Ex.PW41/P1)
and accused Vaibhav (Ex.PW41/P2) were also never
played during evidence before the court. This is despite
the fact that the mobile phone of accused Vaibhav was in
working condition during the time it was with FSL lab,
where specimen of accused Ashok and Vaibhav were
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 126 of 137
positively compared with the recordings of accused’s
conversation.
220. Merely by producing the transcripts of the said audio
conversations, the prosecution cannot prove that the said
audio recordings was of the conversation between the two
accused persons. Ld. Addl. PP has relied upon the FSL
report prepared and exhibited by PW37 Sh. V. Lakshmi
Narsimhan, FSL expert. However, the testimony of said
witness is of no use to the prosecution as the original audio
recording of the conversation contained in the mobile
phone of accused Vaibhav was never played during
recording of prosecution evidence and hence, it has not
been proved as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act,
1872.
221. Be that as it may, even otherwise, there is sufficient
material on record as discussed above to connect the
accused Ashok and Vaibhav with the incident of throwing
of acid and robbery committed with the victim by the JCLs
‘SS’ and ‘SM’.
222. One of the arguments raised by accused Ashok is that
PW-2/victim was in Live-in relationship with one Dr.
Anees and also in relationship with one Dr. Abhay and a
person called Amit. He has also deposed about the same in
his statement under Section 315 Cr.P.C. However, he has
miserably failed to prove any such relationship of the
victim. Infact, he has failed to cross examine PW-2/victim
on the said aspect of her relationships with the above said
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 127 of 137
persons. Though, he had questioned PW-3/landlord of the
victim, about Dr. Anees and PW-3 admitted that Dr. Anees
used to visit the victim. However, this is not sufficient to
prove that Dr. Anees and the victim were in any
relationship or were in a live-in relationship. The accused
has also failed to show that Dr. Abhay had filed any
complaint against the victim at MCI regarding her PG
course. Also, the accused has not put a single question to
PW-2 regarding her PG course or her PG exams or any
complaint filed against her regarding her pursuing a
regular PG course while employed at a Govt. hospital. He
did not cross examine her regarding exchange of duties or
that he was present with her on the previous night or had
left with her in the morning.
223. It has been alleged that the IOs have failed to follow the
protocol to obtain the CDRs and hence, the CDRs cannot
be read in evidence. However, it is a settled law that any
lacunae in investigation by the IO shall not affect the case
of the prosecution.
224. In ‘C. Muniappan and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu‘, 2010
(9) SCC 567, it was observed by Hon’ble Apex Court,
“55. There may be highly defective
investigation in a case. However, it is to be
examined as to whether there is any lapse by
the IO and whether due to such lapse any
benefit should be given to the accused. The
law on this issue is well settled that the defect
in the investigation by itself cannot be a
ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to
such designed or negligent investigations or to
the omissions or lapses by perfunctory
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 128 of 137
investigation, the faith and confidence of the
people in the criminal justice administration
would be eroded. Where there has been
negligence on the part of the investigating
agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in
defective investigation, there is a legal
obligation on the part of the court to examine
the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses,
carefully, to find out whether the said evidence
is reliable or not and to what extent it is
reliable and as to whether such lapses affected
the object of finding out the truth. Therefore,
the investigation is not the solitary area for
judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The
conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be
allowed to depend solely on the probity of
investigation.”
225. In the present case, PW-40/Insp Manohar Lal stated that
IO has to make a written request for obtaining CAF, CDR
and location of any mobile number addressed to DCP and
same is to be forwarded through SHO and ACP. After
receiving the abovesaid request in the office of DCP, a
mail is sent to mobile service provider company by DCP
and thereafter, the requisite information was provided by
the mobile service provider. He admitted that he did not
send any request to the DCP office for obtaining CDR of
any mobile number. However, in light of the above-
discussed judgment, this court is of the view that even if
there is any failure on part of the IOs in procuring the
CDRs as per procedure, it would not be a fatal blow to the
prosecution.
THE OFFENCE
226. It has been argued by the Ld. PP for the state that in view
of the incident committed with the victim, the accused
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 129 of 137
persons are liable to be convicted for offences punishable
under Section 120-B IPC and Section 326A IPC/392/397
IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. Further, the accused
persons are also liable to be convicted under Section 411
IPC.
227. Per contra, it has been submitted on behalf of accused
persons that offence under Section 326A IPC is not made
out in the present case, as the victim has not received any
grievous injury in terms of Section 320 IPC.
228. Let us first examine the relevant provisions for the purpose
of this case. Section 326-A IPC prescribes punishment for
voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc. Same
is reproduced verbatim as under:-
“326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid,
etc.- Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or
deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables,
any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous
hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that
person, or by using any other means with the intention of
causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause
such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which shall not be less than
ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life,
and with fine.
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to
meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 130 of 137
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section
shall be paid to the victim.”
229. ‘Grievous hurt’ has been defined under Section 320 IPC.
Same is reproduced verbatim as under:-
“Section 320. Grievous hurt- The following kinds of hurt
only are designated as ‘grievous’:
(i) Emasculation.
(ii) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
(iii)Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
(iv)Privation of any member or joint.
(v)Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of
any member or joint.
(vi)Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(vii)Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(viii)Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the
sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe
bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
230. The scope of Section 326A IPC was discussed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case titled as ‘Maqbool Vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh‘ AIR 2018 SC 5101. The
relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced verbatim
as under:-
“6. Section 326-A carries title of “voluntarily
causing grievous hurt by use of acid” whereas
Section 326-B does not carry any such
indication in the title regarding the nature of
injury as grievous. But on closer analysis, it
can be seen that both the Sections provide forState Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 131 of 137
eight types of injuries – (i) permanent damage,
(ii) partial damage, (iii) deformity, (iv) burns,
(v) maiming, (vi) disfigurement, (vii)
disability or (viii) grievous hurt.
7. The first seven of the injuries referred to in
the Sections are classified based on the normal
aftereffect of acid attack whereas the eighth
one is on the gravity of the effect. Under
Section 326A and Section 326B, grievous hurt
is only one among the eight injuries. In view
of the explanation under Section 326B, the
resultant damage or deformity under 326A or
326B is not required to be irreversible. The
other seven injuries may be either simple or
grievous. The nature of injury being simple or
grievous, is irrelevant for distinguishing
between Section 323 and Section 326A of IPC
or between Section 326A and Section 326B of
IPC. If the injury referred to under Section
326A or 326B is one among the specified eight
injuries, whether the seven of them be simple
or grievous, the special provisions are
attracted.
XX X XXX XXX
9. Thus, merely because the title to Section
326A of IPC speaks about grievous hurt by use
of acid, it is not a requirement under the
Section that the injuries caused should be
invariably grievous. Even if the seven injuries
are simple, Section 326A, and under Section
326B the mere act of throwing or attempt, as
indicated in the Section, would attract the
offence.
10. The title to the provision need not
invariably indicate the contents of the
provision. If the provision is otherwise clear
and unambiguous, the title pales into
irrelevance. On the contrary, if the contents of
the provision are otherwise ambiguous, an aid
can be sought from the title so as to define the
provision. In the event of a conflict between
the plain expressions in the provision and the
indicated title, the title cannot control the
contents of the provision. Title is only a broad
and general indication of the nature of the
subject dealt under the provision.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 132 of 137
XXX XXX XXX
16. As we have already discussed above, it is
not the percentage or gravity of injury, which
makes the difference. Be it simple or grievous,
if the injury falls under the specified types
under Section 326A on account of use of acid,
the offence under Section 326A is attracted.
Section 326B would be attracted in case the
requirements specified are met on an
attempted acid attack.”
231. From the above stated judgment, it has been squarely
established that there are eight kind of injuries
contemplated under Section 326A IPC, out of which first
seven injuries can be simple hurt; still offence under
Section 326A IPC would be made out.
232. In the present case, the victim suffered burn injuries on her
face and right eye due to throwing of acid on her face. This
injury may not fall within the definition of grievous hurt as
provided by Section 320 IPC as the prosecution has failed
to prove that permanent disfiguration or permanent
privation of right eye of the victim has been caused.
However, even if the injury is simple one, Section 326A
IPC would still be attracted. Hence, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully
proved that the accused persons had conspired to throw
acid on the victim with an intention to cause partial
damage to her face and eye, and the accused persons are
liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 326A
IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 133 of 137
OFFENCE OF ROBBERY
233. The offence of robbery is defined under Section 390 IPC.
As per the said provision, theft/extortion becomes robbery
when a person during theft, or in carrying away or
attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft,
causes to a person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or
fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful
restraint. The said section is reproduced verbatim as
under:-
“Section 390. Robbery- Robbery is either theft or
extortion.
When theft is robbery- Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the
committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in
carrying away or attempting to carry away property
obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily
causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or
wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant
hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery- Extortion is “robbery” if the
offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the
presence of the person put in fear, and commits the
extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of
instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person
or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces
the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the
thing extorted.
Explanation – The offender is said to be present if he is
sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant
death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.”
234. Section 392 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of
robbery, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and also fine. If the robbery is
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 134 of 137
committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the
imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. Section
397 IPC deals with robbery or dacoity (robbery by a group
of five or more) when the offender uses a deadly weapon,
causes grievous hurt, or attempts to cause death or
grievous hurt during the commission of the crime. The
minimum sentence prescribed is rigorous imprisonment of
at least seven years.
235. Section 394 IPC and Section 397 IPC are aggravated
forms of offence of robbery. Section 394 IPC is attracted
when hurt is caused voluntarily in committing robbery or
while attempting to commit robbery. This section is
applicable to the person who has actually caused the hurt
as well as the other accused persons who have not actually
caused the hurt but were jointly concerned in causing hurt.
Hence, the perpetrator of hurt as well as to the others who
were jointly concerned in committing or attempting to
commit robbery are constructively liable under this
section. Unlike Section 394 IPC, the concept of
vicarious/constructive liability is not applicable to Section
397 IPC. Section 397 IPC relates only to the offender who
actually uses the deadly weapon. Guilt of the accused
under this section can be attributed only to that offender
who uses deadly weapons or causes grievous hurt to
anyone during the course of commission of robbery.
236. In the present case, at the time of committing the theft of
the bag of the victim and while taking away her bag, acid
was thrown on the face of the victim. Thus, at the time of
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 135 of 137
theft, hurt was caused to the victim. Thus, the act of the
assailants squarely falls within the definition of robbery as
punishable under Section 392 IPC. However, as already
discussed, the injury sustained by the victim does not fall
within the definition of grievous hurt as provided by
section 320 IPC. Also, Section 397 IPC does not
contemplate vicarious liability. Only the person who
actually uses the deadly weapon is punishable under this
section. Hence, offence under section 397 IPC is not made
out in the present case as the accused Ashok or Vaibhav
did not actually threw the acid on the face of the victim to
commit robbery. However, even if the hurt caused during
robbery is simple, Section 394 IPC would be attracted,
Hence, the accused persons are liable to be convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with
Section 120-B IPC.
CONCLUSION
237. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully
proved beyond reasonable doubt all the facts and
circumstances by leading convincing evidence that the
accused persons Ashok Kumar Yadav and Vaibhav Kumar
alongwith the JCLs ‘SS’ and ‘SM’ hatched the conspiracy
to throw acid on the face of the victim with a view to cause
hurt to her and to rob her of her bag, with a view to give it
the colour of robbery. All the facts and circumstances so
established are consistent with the hypothesis of their
guilt. The prosecution has successfully proved the chain
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 136 of 137
connecting the accused persons with the JCLs and with the
offence.
238. The accused Ashok and Vaibhav are convicted for offence
punishable under Section 120-B IPC as well as under
Section 326A/392/394 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC.
The accused Vaibhav is further convicted for offence
under Section 411 IPC as the bag of the victim (Ex P-1)
was recovered from his possession. Even though no charge
under Section 411 IPC was framed against the accused
Ashok, he is also convicted for offence under Section 411
IPC as he was found in possession of the mobile phone of
the victim, and as Section 411 IPC is a lesser offence for
the offence of robbery.
239. Copy of judgment be supplied free of cost to both the
accused persons or their counsel alongwith coversheet as
per practice direction by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
contained vide no.124/Rules/DHC dated 10.12.2024.
Digitally signed by SAUMYA CHAUHAN SAUMYA Date: CHAUHAN 2025.07.16 17:01:21 +0530 Announced in the open court (Saumya Chauhan) today i.e. 16.07.2025 ASJ/FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 137 pages and each page Digitally signed bears my signatures. SAUMYA by SAUMYA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2025.07.16 17:01:41 +0530 (Saumya Chauhan) ASJ/FTC)-02, West Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 16.07.2025 State Vs. Ashok Kumar Yadav @ anr. SC No.56438/2016 FIR No. 1525/2014 Page 137 of 137
[ad_2]
Source link