State vs Jagdish @ J.K.Jaggu on 6 March, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Jagdish @ J.K.Jaggu on 6 March, 2025

         IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA: ADDL.
          SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST DISTRICT:
               KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI

SESSIONS CASE No. 143/2016
CNR No. DLNE01-003233-2016
FIR No. 257/2016
P.S.: Gokalpuri
U/s : 302/34 and 174A of IPC

STATE

                                       Versus

(1) Jagdish @ J.K. @ Jagga
s/o Sh. Mohan Lal
r/o H. No. A-188, A-Block
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094

(2) Akash
s/o Jagdish Kumar @ JK
r/o H. No. A-188, A-Block
Gokalpuri, Delhi-110094


Date of Institution :        22-08-2016
Date of Argument :           27-02-2025
Date of Judgment :           06-03-2025


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of the case are that on 07-04-2016, at about
9:13 pm, an information was received at PS Gokalpuri through
Wireless Operator that some people are attacking one person
with a brick under Gokalpuri flyover, in a park. The information
was reduced into writing vide 78B and the same was marked to
ASI Murari Lal (hereinafter referred to as first IO/ investigating
officer). Thereafter, the IO along with Ct. Sudhir reached the

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 1 of 47
spot. Upon inquiry, they came to know that victim had already
been taken to hospital by PCR van. The complainant Ravi
Kumar met at the spot and got his statement recorded. The
complainant stated that he was working as a TSR driver and used
to drive between Loni roundabout to Shahdara. On that day, he
had taken off from work. On 07-04-2016, he went to Gokalpuri
market for purchasing articles in connection with Nav Durga
Puja. At about 9 pm, when he was passing on a road adjoining
park on the northern direction of Gokalpuri flyover, he saw that
some people were beating one boy inside the park. When he
entered inside the park, he found that his friend Neeraj’s brother
namely Puneet was being beaten by one Jagdish Kumar @ JK
and his son Aakash along with one more person with leg and fist
blows, bottle and stone piece. Accused Aakash was holding a
glass bottle and accused Jagdish Kumar was holding stone piece.
After beating Puneet, they threw him in the drain. He came to
know that scuffle had taken place on account of some previous
enmity. Somebody made 100 number call. Thereafter, the IO
went to hospital and collected MLC of victim wherein the doctor
concerned had endorsed, ‘A/H/O physical assault at Golakpuri
below Flyover around 9 pm dated 07-04-2016’. Multiple
lacerated wounds were reported in the MLC. On the basis of
above-stated statement of complainant and MLC, the present FIR
came to be registered for the offence punishable u/s 308/34 of
IPC. Crime team was called. Site plan was prepared at the
instance of complainant. Blood-stained soil, stone piece and
some hairs were lifted from the spot. The Crime Team came and
inspected the spot, took photographs and prepared scene of crime
report. The victim Puneet was referred to Safdurjung Hospital in

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 2 of 47
an unconscious condition on 08/04/2016. On 14-04-2016, an
information was received through Duty Constable Sandeep
regarding death of victim Puneet during treatment at Safdurjung
Hospital vide DD no. 23A. Thereafter, section 304/34 of IPC
added in the FIR. Thereafter, IO reached at Safdurjung Hospital
where dead body of deceased was got identified through his
brother Neeraj and jija Devi Sahay. Postmortem on the dead
body was got conducted at mortuary of Safdurjung Hospital.
After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to his brother
Neeraj and other relatives. On 19-04-2016, on the pointing out
of brother of deceased namely Neeraj and complainant, accused
Jagdish Kumar @ JK @ Jagga was apprehended on the basis of
secret information at a place near BSES office, near Gokalpuri
flyover. He was interrogated and during interrogation, he
confessed about committing assault upon the deceased at
Gokalpuri Flyover. His disclosure statement was recorded. He
was arrested and personally searched. Accused was produced
before concerned court and an application seeking PC remand
was moved but the same was dismissed. Accused was sent to JC.
Thereafter, efforts were made to search the co-accused Aakash
but he was found to be absconding. On 14-06-2016, the IO
obtained NBWs against co-accused Aakash. After completion of
necessary formalities, initially, chargesheet was filed against
accused Jagdish Kumar @ JK @ Jagga for the offence
punishable u/s 304/34 of IPC. Further investigation was carried
out by the second IO Inspector Ashok Kumar. He made efforts
to search co-accused Aakash but in vain. He got initiated
proceedings u/s 82 of Cr.P.C. against accused Aakash.
Subsequently, accused Aakash was declared proclaimed offender

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 3 of 47
vide order dated 10-03-2017. On 05-03-2018, accused Aakash
was arrested on the basis of secret information from MCD
parking, A-Block, Gokakpuri by the raiding team of PS
Gokalpuri. Kalendra vide DD no. 21A was prepared. On 06-03-
2018, accused Aakash was formally arrested by by IO Inspector
Gian Chand from the lock-up. Pointing out memo of place of
occurrence was prepared at the instance of accused Aakash.
Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed qua accused
Aakash.

COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of
Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of
Sessions vide order dated 09-08-2016 by the Ld.
CMM/NE/KKD. The same was allocated by the then Ld.
District and Sessions Judge to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
CHARGE

3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie
case was made out against the accused persons for the offence
punishable u/s 302/34 of IPC and accused Aakash was also
charged for the offence punishable u/s 174A of IPC, charges
were framed by ld. Predecessor against the accused persons, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter,
prosecution got examined as many as 20 witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. PW1 Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh, SR, Forensic Medicine
Safdarjung Hospital, N.Delhi was deputed by the HOD to depose
on behalf of Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bansal, who had left the service
from the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known to
him. After seeing the postmortem report No. 720/16 dated

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 4 of 47
15.04.2016 of deceased Puneet prepared by Dr. Mukesh Kumar
Bansal, PW1 identified writing and signatures of Dr. Mukesh
Kumar Bansal in official capacity as he had performed his duties
with him in the hospital. He deposed that PM report bears
signatures of Dr. Mukesh Kr. Bansal at points X1, X2 and X3
and same is Ex. PW1/A.
As per PM report, 30 injuries were found on the person of
dead body which are mentioned in detail in the aforesaid PM
report. As per PM report, cause of death was given as “death is
due to cranio-cerebral damage as a result of injuries sustained to
head produced by blunt force impact which are sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature”. All injuries were ante-
mortem in nature. As per PM report, 14 inquest papers were
initialed by the doctor. As per PM report, blood on gauze of
deceased was taken, sealed and handed over to Police alongwith
sample seal.

In his cross-examination by Sh. R. K. Kochar, Ld. Counsel
for accused, PW-1 affirmed that he has no personal knowledge
about this case. He affirmed that PM report Ex.PW1/A was not
prepared in his presence by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bansal. He
affirmed that Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bansal had not conducted
postmortem of deceased Puneet in his presence. Injuries
mentioned in PM report were possible by blunt object but he
cannot say whether it was danda, lathi or sariya or any other
blunt object.

PW1 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
reiterated the facts as deposed by him earlier in his deposition
dated 21-03-2017.

In his cross examination by Sh. A. K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 5 of 47
for both the accused persons PW-1 affirmed that he has no
personal knowledge about this case. He affirmed that PM report
Ex. PW1/A was not prepared in his presence by Dr. Mukesh
Kumar Bansal. It is affirmed that Dr. Mukesh Kumar Bansal had
not conducted postmortem of deceased Puneet in his presence.
Injuries mentioned in PM report were possible by blunt object
but he cannot say whether it was danda, lathi or sariy or any
other blunt object.

PW2 SI Mukesh Chauhan was the In-charge of Crime
Team, which inspected the spot on 07-04-2016 at about 11:15
pm. He has proved the scene of crime report prepared by him as
Ex. PW2/A. After seeing 20 photographs Mark PW2/A1 to
PW2/A20, he identified the same.

He was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing
material came out therein.

PW2 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
reiterated the facts as deposed by him earlier in his deposition
dated 21-03-2017.

He was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing
material came out therein.

PW3 Dr. Arvind, CMO GTB hospital, Delhi identified
writing and signatures of Dr. Sumit, JR on MLC No. C-2228/16
dated 07.04.2016 prepared by Dr. Sumit, who had left the service
from the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known to
him. He identified writing and signatures of aforesaid doctor in
official capacity as he had performed his duty in hospital under
his supervision in the year 2016. MLC of unknown patient
(Puneet) S/o Unkown (Rattan Lal) 35 years male who was
brought by HC Satender PCR official for medical examination

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 6 of 47
with alleged history of physical assault at Gokul Puri below
flyover at about 9 P.M. on 07.04.2016. As per MLC, at the time
of medical examination i.e. at about 9:50 P.M. on 07.04.2016,
injured was unconscious and he was declared unfit by the doctor
Sumit. As per MLC, general condition of patient was normal.
History of LOC was present.

As per MLC on local examination, 11 injuries were found
on the person of injured. Same are mentioned in detail in the
MLC. After giving first aid, patient was referred to neuro-trauma,
ortho, ENT, and surgery departments for further management
and examination, MLC Ex.PW3/A bears signatures of Dr. Sumit
at point A and his name at point X.
In his cross examination by Sh. R. K. Kochar, Ld. Counsel
for accused PW-3 affirmed that neither patient was examined nor
MLC Ex.PW3/A was prepared in his presence by Dr. Sumit. As
per the MLC, name of patient, his parentage, address and brought
by person on the top columns of MLC is mentioned as unknown.
Name of the patient Puneet, his parentage Rattan Lal and his
address with name of brought by person has been mentioned
subsequently in MLC Ex.PW3/A. Name and parentage of patient,
address and name of brought by person had been mentioned by
the doctor in his presence on the MLC. Aforesaid entries (name
of patient, parentage, address etc.) were filled up by concerned
doctor within 10-15 minutes after the examination of injured. Dr.
Sumit can tell by whom name of injured and his parentage etc
were disclosed to him. As per MLC, alleged history was
disclosed by brought by person. He cannot say at what time ASI
Murari Lal had collected MLC from Dr. Sumit. He cannot say
that the injuries sustained by injured in the MLC is possible by

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 7 of 47
danda, iron rod, bainth, baseball bat, but those were possible by
any blunt object.

The Ld. Counsel for accused Akash raised no objection if
the examination in chief dated 21-03-2017 is read in evidence
and therefore, PW3 was not re-examined subsequently in the
presence of accused Aakash.

PW4 Ravi Kumar is the complainant in this case. He
deposed that in the year 2016, he was working as a labourer. On
07.04.2016, at about 8 or 8:30 P.M., he was present at his home.
Three police officials of PS Gokul Puri came at his home and
took him to PS. They obtained his signatures on some papers and
asked about the incident which had taken place with Puneet.
Some other persons were also brought at PS by aforesaid police
officials and they had made inquiry from them about the incident
which had taken place with Puneet. No incident with Puneet had
happened in his presence. He did not know accused Jagdish @
J.K. @ Jaggi present in court standing in dock. He was not aware
by whom injuries were caused to Puneet.

After seeing the statement Mark PW4/1 of witness dated
07.04.2016 recorded by ASI Murari Lal, he admitted his
signatures at point A. He volunteered that when he had put his
signatures on the aforesaid paper, it was blank. Police had not
lifted anything in this case in his presence.

After seeing two seizure memos, he admitted his
signatures at point A which are Mark PW4/2 and Mark PW4/3.

He was not aware about the spot of present case where
incident with Puneet had taken place. He had not shown spot of
this case to police at any point of time. He had not joined
proceedings of this case with Police at any point of time.

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 8 of 47

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State
as he was resiling from his earlier statement.

In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he
denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely in order to save the
accused present in court namely Jagdish as he has settled the
matter with him. He denied the suggestion that he deposed
falsely that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers.
He denied the suggestion that Police officials of PS Gokul Puri
had reached at spot i.e. under Gokul Puri flyover in the park in
his presence at about 9.00 or 9.15 P.M. He denied the suggestion
he met to Police officials of PS Gokul Puri there or that he had
claimed to be eye witness of the incident which had taken place
with Puneet.

He affirmed that in the month of April 2016 and before, he
used to ply TSR between Shahdara to Loni Gol Chakkar. He
denied the suggestion that on 07.04.2016 at about 9 PM, he was
going to market to purchase some puja material via Gokul Puri
Flyover as stated by him to Police in his statement. He
volunteered that at that time, he was at his home.

He denied the suggestion that when he reached near park
he saw some persons were giving beatings to one boy or that he
went inside the park and saw that Puneet, brother of his friend
Neeraj, was being beaten by Jagdish Kumar @ J.K., his son
Akash and some other their associates or that Jagdish and Akash
were earlier known to him or that aforesaid Jagdish, his son and
their associates were giving beatings by kick blows, fist blows,
bottle blows and stones or that he had seen bottle in the hand of
Akash or that he had seen piece of stone in the hand of Jagdish as
stated by him to Police in his statement.

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 9 of 47

He denied the suggestion that during the beatings, they had
reached at drain near park or that they had pushed him in the
drain or that the aforesaid quarrel had been taken place on
previous enmity as stated by him to Police in his statement. He
denied the suggestion that in his presence someone made call at
100 number from the spot or that police zypsy and local police
came at spot or that he had told to police that Puneet was beaten
by Jagdish Kumar, who is BC or that Puneet was also beaten by
Akash and their some associates with bottle, stone, kick blows
and fist blows or that aforesaid Jagdish, Akash and their some
associates had caused injuries by the aforesaid weapons on the
head and face of Puneet in his presence. He denied the
suggestion that ASI Murari Lal had recorded his statement Mark
PW4/1 or that he had read over the same to him. He denied the
suggestion that ASI Murari Lal recorded supplementary
statement at spot on 07.04.2016. He denied the suggestion that
he had joined investigation with ASI Murari Lal at spot or that
ASI Murari Lal had lifted blood, blood smeared clay and earth
control from the spot in his presence or that he had prepared
three parcels there or that parcels were sealed with seal of ML or
that seizure memo Mark PW4/3 was prepared at spot in his
presence or that he had put his signatures at point A on aforesaid
seizure memo Mark PW4/3 as stated by him in his
supplementary statement to Police on 07.04.2016.

He denied the suggestion that in his presence ASI Murari
Lal had taken into possession the red colour piece of stone from
the spot which had been used by accused Jagdish to cause
injuries to Puneet or that aforesaid stone was converted in a
parcel or that parcel was sealed with seal of ML or that same was

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 10 of 47
seized vide seizure memo Mark PW4/2 as stated by him to Police
in his statement. He denied the suggestion that ASI Murari Lal
had handed over the seal after use to Ct. Sudhir who had
accompanied them at the time of sealing and seizing the blood
and piece of stone etc. He denied the suggestion that he had
joined investigation with ASI Murari Lal on 19.04.2016. He
denied the suggestion that brother of deceased Puneet namely
Neeraj had also joined investigation on 19.04.2016 or that ASI
Murari Lal had made search of accused Jagdish and his son
Akash in their presence in the area of Gokul Puri Main Market
and BSES office, Gokul Puri area or that on that day at about 11
A.M. on the pointing out and identification by him and Neeraj,
ASI Murari Lal overpowered accused Jagdish present in court or
that ASI Murari Lal arrested accused Jagdish present in court or
that arrest papers were prepared in their presence or that accused
Jagdish had made disclosure statement in their presence or that
disclosure statement was recorded by ASI Murari Lal in their
presence as well as in presence of Ct. Sudhir at place of arrest
near Market, BSES Office, Gokul Puri, Delhi as he stated to
Police in his statement dated 19.04.2016.

He denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not
supporting the prosecution case in order to save the accused
Jagdish as he has been won over by him. He denied the
suggestion that he was intentionally refusing to identify the
piece of stone used as weapon by accused Jagdish in the incident
of present case. He denied the suggestion that he had shown the
place of incident to ASI Murari Lal or that he had prepared
unscaled site plan of place of incident of present case on his
pointing out. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 11 of 47

In his cross examination by Sh. R.K. Kochar, Ld. Counsel
for accused PW-4 affirmed that he was facing trial in 7 criminal
cases and all the cases are false cases. Police kept him in the PS
for inquiry of this case upto 12:30 A.M. in the intervening night
of 07-08.04.2016.

He was re-examined again after filing of supplementary
chargesheet of accused Aakash. He deposed that on 07-04-2016
at about 08:30 p.m. when he was present at his house at that time
the 3-4 official come to his house they made enquiry from him
about Puneet who was his friend and took him to police station
gokalpuri. At the PSI was made to sit for some time. At that time
police official took his signature on some blank papers. Police
made enquiries from him about the murder of Puneet and he had
told the police that he was not present at the spot at the time of
incident. From the PS police has taken him to the GTB hospital.
Puneet was not found there as he was referred to some other
hospital. His statement was not recorded by the police in this
case. He deposed that he can identify his signatures on the papers
which police had obtained at the PS.
The witness was shown complaint mark PW4/A. On
seeing the same, the witness identified his signatures at point A.
The complaint was exhibited as Ex. PW4/A.
The seizure memos Ex. PW9/A and Ex PW9/B were
shown to the witness, who identified his signatures at point A on
both the memos. He volunteered that all the aforesaid documents
were blank when he had signed on the same. He did not know
anything about this case.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State
as he was resiling from his previous statement.

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 12 of 47

In his cross examination done by Id. Addl. PP for State
witness denied that he was present at the spot when the incident
had taken place on 07.04.2016 at about 09.00 p.m. He denied the
suggestion that in his presence, accused Jagdish @ JK and his
son namely Aakash had caused injuries to Puneet. Police officials
had come from PS Gokal Puri at the spot ie. under Gokal Puri
flyover in the park at about 09-09.15 p.m. He denied the
suggestion that at that time he had met those police officials
there and he had claimed to be an eyewitness to the incident
which had taken place with Puneet. He denied the suggestion that
at that time, his statement Ex. PW4/A was recorded by the police
or that he had signed the same at point A after going through it.
He affirmed that in the month of April and before, he used to ply
TSR between Shahdara to Loni Gol Chakkar. He denied the
suggestion that on 07.04.2016 at about 09.00 pm, he was going to
market to purchase some pooja material to perform Durga Pooja
via Gokal Puri flyover. He denied the suggestion that he had
stated this fact in his statement given to the police.

He denied the suggestion that when he reached near park
he saw that some persons were beating a boy or that he went
inside the park and saw that Puneet, who was brother of his
friend Neeraj, was being beaten by Jagdish @ JK and his son
Aakash and their associates or that Jagdish and Aakash were
earlier known to him. The attention of witness was drawn
towards both the accused Jagdish and Aakash who are standing
in the dock. On seeing them, witness stated that he did not know
both these persons. He denied the suggestion that he knew both
the accused persons prior to the incident. He further denied the
suggestion that at that time, Jagdish, Aakash and their associates

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 13 of 47
were beating Puneet with kick blows, fist blows, bottle blows and
stones or that at that time, he had seen bottle in the hand of
Aakash or that he had seen stone in the hand of Jagdish. He
denied the suggestion that he had stated these facts in his
statement.

He denied the suggestion that during the beatings, they had
reached at drain near park where they had pushed Puneet in the
drain or that at that time he had come to know that the
aforementioned incident had taken place due to previous enmity
between them. He denied the suggestion that he had stated these
facts in his statement. He further denied the suggestion that in
his presence, some one had made a call at 100 number from the
spot or that police gypsy and local police had come to the spot or
that at that time, he had told the police that Puneet was beaten by
accused Jagdish Kumar, who is B.C. or that his son Aakash and
other associates had beaten Puneet with bottles, stone and leg and
kick blows due to which he had sustained injuries on his head
and face. He denied the suggestion that he had stated these facts
in his statement.

He denied the suggestion that on 07.04.2016, his
supplementary statement was also recorded by IO ASI Murari
Lal. He denied the suggestion that in his presence, ASI Murari
Lal had lifted blood, blood clay and earth control from the spot or
that he had prepared three parcels thereof or that after sealing the
same with the seal of ML, the same were taken by ASI Murari
Lal vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/3 or that only after that, he had
put his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that he had
stated these facts in his supplementary statement.

He denied the suggestion that ASI Murari Lal had also

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 14 of 47
taken one grey colour piece of stone from the spot which had
been used by accused Jagdish to cause injuries to Puneet. He
denied the suggestion that the aforementioned stone was
converted into a parcel which was sealed with the seal of ML or
that same was taken by ASI Murari lal vide seizure memo
Ex.PW4/2. He denied the suggestion that seal after used was
handed over to Ct. Sudhir by ASI Murari Lal who was also
accompanying him at that time. He denied the suggestion that he
had stated these facts in his supplementary statement.

He denied the suggestion that on 19.04.2016, he had again
joined investigation of this case with ASI Murari Lal or that at
that time, brother of deceased Puneet namely Neeraj had also
joined investigation. He denied the suggestion that on
19.04.2016, ASI Murari Lal had made search of accused Jagdish
and his son Aakash in their presence in PS Gokal Puri, main
market and BSES office Gokal Puri area or that on that day about
11.00 a.m on the pointing out and identification by him and
Neeraj, ASI Murari Lal had overpowered accused Jagdish or that
he was arrested by him in this case or that his arrest papers were
prepared in their presence. He denied the suggestion that accused
Jagdish had made disclosure in their presence which was
recorded by ASI Murari Lal. He denied the suggestion that he
had stated these facts in his statement dated 19.04.2014. He
denied the suggestion that accused Jagdish Kumar and accused
Aakash, who are present in the court, alongwith their associates
had beaten Puneet in his presence with kick blows, fist blows,
bottle blows and stones. He denied the suggestion that he know
both the accused persons prior to the incident or that he was
intentionally not identifying them.

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 15 of 47

He denied the suggestion that he had shown the place of
incident to ASI Murari Lal or that he had prepared unscaled site
plan of the place of incident on his pointing out. He denied the
suggestion that he had not signed any blank papers. He denied
the suggestion that he has been won over by accused persons or
that due to this reason, he was not supporting the case of
prosecution in order to save them.

In his cross examination by Sh. R.K Kochar, Counsel for
both the accused PW-4 affirmed that police had detained him in
the PS for the whole night in the intervening night of
07/08.04.2016. It was also affirmed that during the detention in
the PS, police had obtained his signatures on number of blank
papers. It was affirmed that he had not seen who had caused
injuries to deceased Puneet. It was affirmed that police had lifted
number of public persons from the area including him and
detained them in the police station as suspects.

PW5 ASI Inderpal Singh was the Duty Officer posted at
PS Gokalpuri at the relevant time. He has proved the rukka
prepared by the IO ASI Murari Lal as Ex. PW5/A; endorsement
made by him on the rukka as Ex. PW5/B; copy of FIR as Ex.
PW5/C and certificate regarding correctness of FIR and proper
maintenance of computer system as Ex. PW5/D.
He was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing
material came out therein.

PW5 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
reiterated the facts as deposed by him earlier in his deposition
dated 17-05-2017.

PW6 HC Ajay Kumar was the investigating police official,
who accompanied the IO ASI Murari Lal on 14-04-2016 to

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 16 of 47
Safdurjung Hospital. He deposed on the same lines on which
ASI Murari Lal has deposed regarding proceedings conducted at
Safdurjung hospital, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW6 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
reiterated the facts as deposed by him earlier in his deposition
dated 18-05-2017.

He was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel but nothing
material came out therein.

PW7 Ct. Sudhir was the investigating police official, who
accompanied the IO ASI Murari Lal on 19-04-2016 at the time of
arrest of accused Jagdish from a place near market, BSES office,
main Wazirabad road, Gokalpuri. He proved the arrest memo of
accused Jagdish, personal search memo and disclosure statement
as Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/C. He deposed on the same lines on
which ASI Murari Lal has deposed regarding proceedings
conducted at a place near BSES office, whose testimony shall be
dealt with later on.

The witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.

PW7 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
reiterated the facts as deposed by him earlier in his deposition
dated 14-09-2017.

He was not cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel despite
having given the opportunity.

PW8 Sh. Devi Sahay deposed that on 14.04.2016 he was
informed by his brother in law namely Neeraj that his elder
brother Puneet was admitted in Safdarjung Hospital. He reached

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 17 of 47
there. On next day, he received phone call of Neeraj that injured
Puneet was declared dead by the doctor. He again reached there
and identified dead body of Puneet before police. His statement
was recorded by police officials regarding identification of dead
body vide Ex. PW8/A. Neeraj was also present when dead body
was also identified. His statement was also recorded regarding
identification of dead body vide Ex. PW8/B. On the same day i.e
15.04.2016, their received the dead body after postmortem of
examination against receipt and they were brought the dead
body at home and cremation was conducted as per their customs.

In his cross-examination done by Mr. R. K. Kocher, Adv.
for accused he stated that he alongwith Neeraj had visited the PS
in connection with this case. He affirmed that Police had
obtained their signature Ex. PW 8/A/& Ex. PW 8/B. He again
said that the police had obtained their signature at Safdarjung
Hospital at the time of identification of dead body. It is affirmed
that police had not recorded his statement in this case. Police had
obtained their signature in 2-3 papers but he did not know what
was written on those papers.

PW8 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
reiterated the facts as deposed by him earlier in his deposition
dated 14-09-2017.

In his cross examination by Sh. A. K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel
for both accused persons, he deposed that he alongwith Neeraj
had visited the PS in connection with the case. It is affirmed that
police did not record his statement in this case. Police had
obtained their signature in 2-3 papers but he did not know what
was written on those papers.

PW9 HC Sudhir Kumar deposed that on 07.04.2016, he

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 18 of 47
was posted at PS Gokalpuri. During his duty at about 9.15 p.m.,
copy of DD no.78B was assigned to ASI Murari Lal. He
alongwith ASI Murari Lal reached at the place inside the
Northern side of the park, near Gokalpuri Flyover, Gokalpuri,
Delhi. Blood was lying on the spot. One eyewitness namely Ravi
Kumar was present there. He told that injured had already been
removed to hospital. ASI Murari Lal recorded statement of Ravi
Kumar marked as PW4/1. Thereafter, he went to GTB hospital
leaving him and Ravi Kumar at the spot as a guard. After about 1
hour, ASI Murari came at the spot. He prepared rukka Ex.
PW5/A on the basis of statement of Ravi Kumar to get registered
FIR of present case u/s 308/34 IPC. He took the same to PS from
the spot at about 10.30 p.m. and presented the same before DO.
FIR of the present case was registered. Same is already Ex.
PW5/C. Investigation of the case was assigned to ASI Murari
Lal. DO HC Inderpal had delivered rukka and copy of FIR to
him. He reached again at the spot and handed over the rukka
and copy of FIR to ASI Murari Lal for investigation as directed
by DO.

Crime team officials were present there and they were
busy in their work. IO ASI Murari Lal inspected the spot and
prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. IO had lifted
air, blood smeared clay and earth control for comparison besides
one piece of a stone having blood stains which had been used a
weapon. IO prepared 4 sealed parcels for the aforesaid articles
which were sealed with the seal of ML and seized two seizure
memos Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B respectively. Seal after use
was handed over to him. On completion of spot proceedings,
efforts were made to trace out the assailants namely Jagdish

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 19 of 47
Kumar @ J.K s/o Mohan Lal and Akash s/o Jagdish Kumar, but
in vain. Thereafter, they returned to PS.
He correctly identified one cemented piece of a stone of
red colour from one side having dirty mark on 2-3 places besides
cloth piece used for parcel having broken seal impression of IO
and FSL slip having FSL number and date as same piece of stone
which was seized in presence of the complainant and which had
been identified by complainant as weapon of offence.

He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite
given opportunity.

PW9 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
claimed that he would stand by his deposition dated 15-09-2017
which was not objected to by Ld. Defence counsel and therefore,
he was not re-examined in chief.

In his cross examination by Sh. A. K. Pandey, advocate for
accused Akash, PW-9 deposed that he had reached the spot on
07-04-2016 at around 8:45 pm. He remained at the spot for
about 1½ hours. In his presence, IO recorded statement of only
Ravi Kumar. He took the rukka to PS after about 1½ hour of his
arrival at the spot. He could not tell the exact time when the
rukka was recorded. No passersby was present at the spot in his
presence. It is affirmed that there are residential houses in the
vicinity of the spot. He denied the suggestion that he did not
visit the spot or that many persons of the locality were present in
the park or that IO did not record statement of complainant Ravi
in his presence at the spot. IO had requested some public persons
present outside the park but they refused to join in the
investigation. He could not tell as to how many public persons
were present outside the park. It is affirmed that many public

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 20 of 47
persons were present there. No notice was given to the public
persons who refused to join the investigation. He did not
remember if their names and addresses were recorded by the IO.
He did not notice as to at exactly how many places blood was
detected at the spot. He did not remember the time when came
back at the spot after registration of FIR. He could not tell how
much time was taken by him in going to PS with rukka and in
coming back to the spot. When he came back at the spot, the then
SHO. Crime Team, complainant Ravi, and IO were present. The
then SHO was Inspector Dharam Dev. He did not remember as
to whether the public persons were present at the spot when he
came back there after registration of FIR as he was busy in his
work such as collecting the samples handed over to him by the
IO etc. He had not seen the recovered stone piece as he was
handed over the same in pulanda. He denied the suggestion that
nothing was recovered in his presence from the spot or that all
proceedings were conducted while sitting at PS or that due to this
reason, no witness was joined from the colony. His statement
was recorded by the IO at the spot, however, he did not
remember the time. He could not identify the case property as he
had received the same in a pulanda. He denied the suggestion
that he deposed falsely at the instance of IO.

The witness was re-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State on
limited aspect of seeing the case property at the spot.

During re-examination Ld. Addl. PP for State, he was
questioned as under:-

Q: On 15-09-2017, you claimed that Crime Team had lifted inter-
alia one piece of a stone having blood stains which was used as a
weapon and you can identify the case property i.e. piece of a

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 21 of 47
stone used to prepare the footpath, weighing about 3 kg but today
you are claiming that you had received the same in a pulanda and
as such, you cannot identify the same. Which of the statement of
yours is correct?

Ans: When he initially reached the spot with the IO, he had seen
one piece of a stone having blood stains lying at the spot,
however, later when the Crime Team was making pulandas, he
had not seen the said proceedings of sealing the same.

In his cross examination by Sh. A. K. Pandey, advocate for
accused Akash, PW-9 deposed that there were several stones
lying at the spot however, only one stone was having blood stains
on it. He did not remember whether the Crime Team had seized
one stone or multiple stones. He denied the suggestion that the
seized articles i.e. blood-stained stone was not the one which he
had seen at the spot. He could not tell to what extent blood was
smeared on the stone. He volunteered that it was lot. He denied
the suggestion that he had not seen any blood-stained stone at the
spot or that he deposed falsely only being after suggested by Ld.
Addl. PP for State.

PW10 Ct. Mukesh deposed that on receiving information
from control room, he alongwith SI Mukesh Chauhan and ASI
Surender Prasad reached at the spot i.e inside the park of D-
block, Gokalpuri in North Direction from Gokalpuri Flyover,
Delhi at about 11.15 p.m on 07.04.2016 where ASI Murari Lal
alongwith other police officials met them. They noticed blood on
the ground besides cemented bricks having blood stains and
some hair near the drain (nali) of aforesaid park which was at
some distance from D-Block gate of the park. He had taken 20
photographs from different angles on the directions of ASI

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 22 of 47
Murari Lal. Their Incharge also inspected the spot. They left the
spot at about 11.45 p.m. on 07.04.2016.

Twenty photographs Ex. PW10/A-1 to Ex. PW10/A-20
available on file were shown to the witness and he submitted that
those were depicting the scene of crime. He had brought
certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act regarding proper
maintenance of camera as well as memory card and same is Ex.
PW10/B and tendered on file.

He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel
despite having given the opportunity.

PW10 was recalled after arrest of accused Aakash. He
reiterated the facts as deposed by him earlier in his deposition
dated 05-02-2018.

In his cross examination by Sh. A.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel
for accused Akash, he deposed that he received call from control
room at about 11:00 pm to reach at spot. He alongwith SI
Mukesh Chauhan, ASI Surender Prasad (finger print proficient)
and driver Const. Mohit reached at the spot by govt. vehicle i.e.
TATA 407. He did not remember its registration number. The
aforesaid TATA 407 were used by them for more than four
months. When he reached at the spot, they found ASI Murari Lal
present there. He did not know size of the park, however, it was
small park. The spot was at a distance of 5-10 steps from the
main gate of park. They had not visited entire park. They had
reached at spot and remained in the nearby area of the spot. He
had performed his duty as Constable in North-East District,
Delhi. They took 20 minutes to reach at the spot by vehicle. He
had no idea about the distance between park and their office in
kilometer. He did not remember whether he had visited aforesaid

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 23 of 47
park before and after the day of inspection. Park was facing to
main road. If any person if present on main road park is visible
to him. He denied that he had not visited the park at any point of
time that is why he was unable to tell the exact area of park. No
public person was present inside the park. Only police officials
were present at spot near the gate of park. When they reached at
park, they had noticed that ASI Murari was present at the gate of
park and he took them to spot of this case. The spot was visible
to them from the gate of park. Hair were also lying at a some
distance inside the park from the gate. One bunch of hair and
some loose hair were lying near the pedi of nali inside the park.

He was not aware whether visitor of the park used to throw
hair and garbage on the pedi of nala or not. One complete
cemented brick having blood stains was lying at the spot. They
had stayed there for about half an hour. He had no knowledge if
IO asked any person to join investigation. No writing work was
done by the IO at the spot. Their statement were recorded in
their office. He denied that he had not visited the spot.

PW11 ASI Surender Singh deposed that on 07.04.2016, he
was posted at PCR, NE Zone. On that day, he along with two
constables was on duty at their base near BSES office,
Gokalpuri, Delhi and their duty time was 8 pm to 8 am During
his duty at about 9.20 p.m. on 07.04.2016, he received
information from control room that quarrel had taken place inside
the park in the northern side from Gokalpuri Flyover. He reached
inside the aforesaid park by government gypsy. They found one
injured lying in the park. He took him to GTB and got him
admitted for medical examination. He passed on information to
control room about admission of unknown injured in GTB

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 24 of 47
hospital. Local police reached at the hospital and they left the
hospital and started their duty. His statement was recorded by
the police.

He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite
having given the opportunity.

PW12 Neeraj deposed that in the year 2016, he alongwith
his family was residing at H. No. E-86, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-

94. He has two brothers and one sister. His brother Puneet
(deceased) used to play DJ in the marriage function.

On 07.04.2016 at about 9.00 p.m., his friend Ravi came to
him and informed that a quarrel was taking place with his brother
Puneet inside the park near Gokalpuri Flyover. He reached
inside the park and saw that accused Akash and his father namely
Jagdish @ J.K.@ Jagga were beating his brother Puneet. Both the
accused were holding bricks in their hands and they were causing
injuries on the head of Puneet. Four other unknown persons were
also present there and they were also giving beatings to his
brother Puneet alongwith the aforesaid two accused persons
present in court (correctly identified). Both the accused were
known to him since his childhood. He was frightened and ran
away from the spot. Somebody made a call at 100 number about
the incident to the police. It came into his notice that his injured
brother Puneet was taken to GTB hospital.

He reached at GTB hospital at about 10/10.30 p.m where
doctor refused to get him admitted there for his medical
examination as X-ray machine for examination of head was not
in order. Thereafter, doctor referred his injured brother to
Safdarjung hospital on the same day night. He also accompanied
his brother to Safdarjung Hospital on the same night. His brother

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 25 of 47
remained under treatment for about 6 days. He had stayed there.
On 14.04.2016, doctor declared his brother Puneet ‘Dead’ as he
was in Coma due to head injuries.

Police reached at the mortuary of Safdarjung hospital on
15.04.2016 where he had identified dead body of his brother
Puneet in presence of his jija Devi Sahai. SI Murari had recorded
his statement regarding identification of dead body vide
Ex.PW8/B. On the same day, postmortem of dead body was
conducted and they had received the dead body for cremation.

On 19.04.2016 at about 10 a.m., accused Jagdish was
arrested by SI Murari from place near BSES office, Gokalpuri,
Delhi. Nothing was told about the incident by the accused in his
presence. His brother was beaten by both the accused and his
associates due to previous enmity. Ravi has not joined
investigation when arrest proceeding of accused Jagdish was
completed. He did not know other facts of the case.

He was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State as he
was resiling from his statement given to the police and
suppressing the truth.

During his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he
affirmed that police has recorded his statement on 19.04.2016. It
is affirmed that injuries were caused on the head and face of his
brother Puneet with an intention to kill him. He denied the
suggestion that his brother Puneet was given beatings by three
assailants. It is affirmed that his brother was caused injuries with
fists, kick blows and stones by three assailants. It is affirmed that
accused Jagdish was having stone in his hands and he had caused
injuries to his brother with stone. It is affirmed that accused
Akash was holding glass bottle in his hands and he had caused

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 26 of 47
injuries to his brother with the said glass bottle. It is affirmed
that accused Jagdish @ J.K was arrested by the IO in the
presence of complainant Ravi Kumar. It is affirmed that accused
Jagdish was interrogated by the IO after arrest on 19.04.2016 and
that he had told to police that he alongwith his son Akash and his
associate had caused injuries to Puneet with an intention to kill.

In his cross-examination by Sh. A. K Pandey, Ld Counsel
for both the accused persons PW12 stated that on the last date of
hearing of present case i.e. 13.12.2018, he has been extended
threats to kill by 6-7 unknown associates of accused Jagga near
staircase adjacent to court room no. 72. It was about 11 am /12
noon. One out of aforesaid 6-7 unknown persons had extended
threats to him and they extended threats that if he deposed
against accused persons, he would also be killed like his brother.
He was wearing jersy and pant but he did not remember its
colour. He had not passed on information regarding threat neither
to his private counsel nor to police despite having mobile phone
number of his private counsel. He denied that he was not
threatened by anyone on last day of hearing that is why he did
not make any complaint or informed to his counsel. On last date,
he along with his brother were presented outside of the court
room. He had not told to his brother Gagan about the aforesaid
threat. He affirmed that he had been bound down to appear
before the court on 15-10-2018 and he had not appeared on that
day and bailable warrants and NBWs were issued against him for
not appearing in the court. He volunteered that on the day of
incident, he had gone to meet his father at Gokalpuri and he was
present at spot at the time of incident. He denied that on the day
of incident he was not in the area of Gokalpuri or that he was not

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 27 of 47
present at the spot at the time of incident of that he was not an
eyewitness of this case. His deceased brother Puneet was present
inside the park at the time of incident. He was not aware what he
was doing there. Approximately 50 visitors were inside the park
at the time of incident. He had not seen accused J.K and Akash
going inside the park together on that day. On that day, he had
noticed aforesaid accused persons inside the park and they were
present on different places inside the park. He did not remember
whether his statement was recorded by the IO in this case or not.
He was not interrogated by the IO pertaining to incident of
present case at any point of time. He volunteered that at initial
stage of investigation, he was interrogated by the IO, thereafter,
he was not interrogated and examined as witness by the IO.

PW13 HC Deepak deposed that on 08-02-2017, he was
posted at PS Gokalpuri and process U/s. 82 Cr.P.C. issued
against the accused namely Akash s/o Jagdish @ J.K. Jaggu r/o
H.No. A-188, Gokalpuri, Delhi was received by him for
execution. On the same day, he and ASI Azad Singh reached at
the given address and accused was not found available there, but
his grandmother met them there. He made efforts to procure
presence of accused there, but he was not present at his house.
His grandmother did not disclose present whereabouts of accused
Akash. He pasted copy of the same at the main gate of the house
of accused which could be seen by every person. He got the
munadi done in the area. And also pasted one copy of the same
process outside the concerned court. His detailed report in this
regard dated 08.02.2017 is Ex. PW13/A. His statement was
recorded in this case on 10.03.2017.

Two photographs of process which was pasted on the wall

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 28 of 47
of the house of the accused were taken which are Ex. PW13/B-1
and Ex. PW13/B-2. He had recorded his departure and arrival
entry vide DD no. 84 B and 112 B Ex. PW13/C-1 and Ex.
PW13/C-2. On the same day, accused Akash was declared PO
by Ms. Preeti Agarwala, Ld.MM.

In his cross-examination by Sh. A.K.Pandey, Ld.Counsel,
PW-13 deposed that they reached at the house of accused at
about 6.15 p.m and remained there till 7.30 p.m. During this
period, he had asked some public persons to join the
investigation, but they refused to join the investigation. The said
public persons were his neighbourers, but he could not tell the
address of the said neighbourers. No legal action was taken
against the said public persons so refusing. At that time,
Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh and ASI Puran were posted at PS
Gokalpuri. He had no knowledge whether PO proceedings were
quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dt.
26.09.2017. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the
house of the accused nor he had conducted any proceedings at
the house of accused. He denied the suggestion that photographs
of the process were taken by affixing on the wall of some other
house. He did not have any knowledge if the accused was
declared PO after 26.09.2017. He denied the suggestion that all
the writing work was done while sitting at the PS or that he
deposed falsely.

PW14 Ct. Shailender deposed that accused Aakash has
been declared PO by the court of Ms. Preeti Agarwala, Ld. MM
vide an order dt. 10.03.2017. Their team comprising of ASI
Vijender, HC Anil, Ct. Pradeep and himself apprehended
PO/accused Aakash at about 9.30 p.m. on 05.03.2018 and ASI

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 29 of 47
Vijender prepared his arrest papers vide Ex. PW14/A and
Ex.PW14/B. Proclaimed offender was arrested in this case and
produced before Ld. MM. On the same day, information was
passed on to PS Gokalpuri about arrest of PO Aakash. He
correctly identified accused Aakash present in court. The copy
of order passed by Ld. MM dated 10.03.2017 was shown to the
witness as Ex. PW14/C.
In his cross-examination by Sh. S.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel
for both the accused namely, PW-14 stated that accused was
arrested from A-Block, MCD Park, Gokalpuri, Delhi. At that
time, 2-3 public persons were present in the said park. ASI
Vijender had asked the public persons to join the investigation,
but none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names
and addresses. No notice was got served upon so refusing
persons. He denied the suggestion that accused Aakash was
lifted from his house or that he was brought at PS or that arrest
papers were prepared at PS or that he had put his signatures on
the documents as per choice of ASI Vijender. He denied the
suggestion that he deposed falsely.

PW15 ASI Vijender deposed that on 05.03.2018, he along
with his team comprising of HC Anil, Ct. Pradeep and Ct.
Shailender had apprehended Proclaimed Offender Akash as he
had been declared PO by the court of Ms. Preeti Agarwala on
10.03.2017. He had produced aforesaid PO before concerned
court with kalandra proceedings Ex PW14/A and Ex. PW14/B
and from there, he was sent to J/C. He had passed on
information to PS Gokalpuri about arrest of PO Akash. He
correctly identified accused Akash present in court.

In his cross examination by Sh. A.K.Pandey, Ld Counsel

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 30 of 47
for both the accused, he deposed that he has no knowledge
whether aforesaid order passed by Ld. MM Ms.Preeti Agarwala
dt. 10.03.2017 was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
He was not aware whether in the month of September 2017,
Inspector Sanjay Kumar and ASI Puran Singh were on duty at PS
Gokalpuri. He denied the suggestion that he wrongly arrested
accused Akash as PO despite having knowledge that order dt.
10.03.2017 has already been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the
instance of SHO and IO.

PW16 Inspector Ashok Kumar deposed that on 14.11.2016
he was posted at PS Gokalpuri. On that day, further investigation
of this case was assigned to him. He collected case file from
MHCR. At that time, search of co-accused Akash was in
progress and main charge-sheet had already been filed against
accused Jagdish @ Jagga by previous IO. He made search to
procure presence of aforesaid accused Akash here and there but
no clue come forward. He got issued process u/s 82 Cr.P.C
against accused Akash. He had executed aforesaid process at the
residence of accused Akash, he was absconding from his house
and no clue come forward to procure presence of accused Akash.
He got declared the accused Akash from the concerned court on
17.03.2017. Thereafter, he was transferred form PS Gokalpuri
and he handed over the file to MHCR. Some other police official
would have completed investigation against Akash as and when
he was arrested.

In his cross examination by Sh. A.K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel
for both accused persons, PW-16 deposed that he had no
concerned with the investigation qua accused Jagdish @ Jagga.

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 31 of 47

He was not aware whether Hon’ble High Court had quashed the
order dated 17.03.2017 or not.

He affirmed that Insp. Sanjay Singh was posted at PS
Gokalpuri in those days when he performed his duty there. He
affirmed that ASI Puran Singh was posted at PS Gokalpuri in
those days and he used to go to Hon’ble High Court to attend the
matter on the directions of SHO. He was not aware whether on
26.09.2017 he had visited Hon’ble High Court in this case or not.
He denied the suggestion that he had not completed process u/s
82 Cr.P.C. as per law and procedure.

PW17 ASI Vijender Malik, deposed that on 05.03.2018, he
was posted as ASI at PS Gokul Puri. On that day, he alongwith
HC Anil, Ct. Pradeep, Ct. Shilander were present at about 8 pm
at A Gokul puri for patrolling duty. One secret informer came
and told him that one person by the name of Akash who is an
absconder and present at MCD parking of A block Gokul puri.
He prepared a raiding team of the aforesaid police officials and
went to the said MCD party with secret informer. On reaching
there, secret informer pointed out at a person present in MCD
parking and he went away. Thereafter, he with the help of his
team apprehended the said person who on interrogation told his
name as Akash s/o. Jagdish. They brought Akash to PS and
checked the records and came to know that Akash was PO since
10.03.2017 by the Ms. Preeti Agarwal, Ld. MM court. He
arrested accused Akash vide arrest memo Ex. PW14/A. He
personally searched the accused vide memo Ex. PW14/B.
Thereafter, he was put behind the bars after his medical
examination. On next day, at about 7 am, Inspector Gian Chand
came to PS and he handed over the aforesaid documents

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 32 of 47
regarding the arrest of accused Akash to him. They took out
accused from the lockup and thereafter accused took them i.e.
himself, Ct. Shailender and Inspector Gian Chand to place of
incident. The accused pointed out towards the place of
occurrence and IO prepared the site plan vide Ex. PW17/A.
Thereafter, IO Inspector Gian Chand interrogated the accused
and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW17/B.
Thereafter, the accused produced before the court from where he
was sent to JC. The witness correctly identified the accused
Akash present in court .

The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW18 Inspector Sanjay Kumar Singh was the investigating
police official, who had collected the FSL result on 15-09-2017
and deposited the same in the court vide his application Ex.
PW18/A.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW19 Inspector Gian Chand deposed that on 06-03-2018,
he was temporarily posted as Inspector at PS Gokalpuri. On that
day at around 4 am, he received information from ASI Bijender
vide kalandra DD no. 21/А Ex. PW19/A (colly) that he had
arrested PO Aakash and the further investigation was to be
conducted by him as per the order of SHO Gokalpuri. On same
day at about at 7 am, he took out accused PO Aakash from the
lock-up in the custody of ASI Bijender and Ct. Shailender. After
that, he interrogated accused Aakash and recorded his disclosure
statement Ex. PW17/B. Thereafter, accused took them to the
place of incident i.e. Park D Block, Gokalpuri. The site plan was

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 33 of 47
prepared at the instance of the accused Aakash Ex. PW17/A.
Thereafter, the accused was produced before the court and he
was sent to JC. Thereafter, he prepared the supplementary
charge-sheet related to PO accused and filed it before the Hon’ble
court. He identified Aakash in the court identified.

In his cross examination by Sh. S.K. Singh, Ld. Counsel
for both the accused persons he stated that he recorded the
disclosure of accused Aakash in the PS itself. He denied the
suggestion that Aakash has not made any disclosure statement.
Public persons were present in the park however they all went
away after seeing them in uniform. He tried to stop them in
order to ask them to join the investigation however none stopped.
He denied the suggestion that accused never took them to the
park nor he identified any place of incident and therefore public
was made witness to the site plan.

PW20 Retd. ASI Murari Lal deposed that on 07-04-2016,
he was posted at PS Gokulpuri as ASI. On that day, he received
DD no. 78B regarding fight. He along with Ct. Sudhir went to the
spot ie. park, beneath Gokulpuri flyover, north side where they
came to know that injured had been taken to GTB hospital by
PCR van. He left Ct. Sudhir at the spot for guarding the spot and
he went to GTB hospital. He collected the MLC of injured
namely Ravi, again said Puneet s/o Raghuraj. Thereafter, he
returned to the spot where he found present the complainant
Ravi. He recorded his statement Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, he
prepared a tehrir Ex. PW5/A upon the statement of complainant
and gave it to Ct. Sudhir, who went to PS Gokulpuri for
registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, Ct. Sudhir returned
to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 34 of 47
him. Thereafter, he called Mobile Crime Team at the spot who
did the inspection of scene of crime and took photographs.
During inspection, he also noticed one brick, some hairs at the
spot. He seized the brick vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/2 and
PW9/B. He also seized the said hairs along with earth control
from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/2 and Ex. PW9/A.
On 08-04-2016, he received information from GTB
hospital that the injured had been referred to Safdarjung Hospital
for surgery. On 14-04-2016, the injured died during his
treatment which they came to know vide DD no. 23A. He along
with Ct. Ajay went to Safdarjung Hospital where they met with
the relatives of the deceased i.e. brother and jija (brother-in-law).
Thereafter, he recorded body identification memos Ex. PW8/A
and Ex. PW8/B. Thereafter, he filled form for requesting
postmortem of the deceased vide Ex. PW20/A (colly). After
postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives.
Thereafter, he collected the exhibits i.e. blood on gauge from the
doctor of Safdurjang hospital and seized the same vide seizure
memo Ex. PW6/A.
On 19-04-2016, he prepared a raiding team as he received
a secret information that the accused was standing in front of
BSES office near PS Gokulpuri. Thereafter, he called the
complainant at the PS and he along with his raiding team,
complainant and the secret informer went to the spot where the
secret informer pointed out towards accused and stated that he
was the accused in the present case. Thereafter, they apprehended
the accused and they brought him to PS where after interrogation,
his disclosure was recorded vide Ex. PW7/C. Thereafter, the
accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW7/A. Accused was

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 35 of 47
personally searched vide memo Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, the
accused was sent to JC.

Thereafter, he made search for other accused Akash,
however, he was not found and he got issued NBWs against him.
During investigation, he had sent exhibits to FSL. He also
collected PM report and PCR form. He had also prepared a site
plan at the instance of complainant vide Ex. PW20/B. He also
got prepared a scaled site plan through Inspector Mahesh Kumar.
He also collected report of crime team. During investigation, he
recorded statement of witnesses. Thereafter, he prepared the
chargesheet and filed it before the court. He identified accused
Jagdish in the court correctly.

He identified the case property i.e. one brick/ tile of red
colour as Ex. PW20/Article-1; hair strands as Ex. PW20/Article-

2.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he
affirmed that people were passing through the spot and about 5-
10 people were also present in the park. At that time, he did not
record name and address of the said person who told him that
injured had been taken to GTB hospital. The park was huge. He
affirmed that place of incident is surrounded by residential
houses. He requested residents to join the investigation but they
refused. He did not note their house numbers of names. He
affirmed that no notice in writing was served upon them on their
refusal to join the investigation.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements
of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 36 of 47

wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused persons,
which were denied by them. They stated that they are innocent
and falsely implicated in this case. The accused persons did not
opt to lead defence evidence.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

6. This court has heard the arguments and perused the record.

It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that
prosecution has got examined PW-12 Neeraj, brother of
deceased, as the eyewitness. He has categorically deposed that on
07.04.2016 at about 09:00 PM, both accused Akash and Jagdish
@ JK were holding brick in their hands and were causing injuries
on the head of his brother Puneet. There is evidence to indicate
that both accused had tried to abscond after committing the
alleged offence. Accused Jagdish @ JK was arrested on the basis
of secret information on 19.04.2016 from a place near BSES
office near PS Gokalpuri. IO got issued NBW against the co-
accused Akash and proceedings U/s 82 Cr.P.C were also got
initiated against him which culminated in declaration of accused
Akash as Proclaimed Offender vide order dt. 10.03.2017. All
these facts shows the subsequent conduct of accused persons
after committing the alleged offence.

On the other hand Sh. A.K Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the
accused persons submitted that prosecution case is full of
discrepancies and contradictions. Independent eyewitness, cited
in the chargesheet namely Ravi Kumar has not supported the
case of the prosecution and turned hostile on 22.03.2017 as well
as on 10.10.2019 when he was recalled after the arrest of accused
Akash. Another eyewitness got examined by the prosecution

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 37 of 47
PW-12 Neeraj is an interested witness being the brother of
deceased. He did not account for his presence on the spot at the
time of incident. His statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded on
19.04.2016 i.e. after about 12 days from the date of incident.
Thus, presence of PW12 at the spot is doubtful. No independent
public person was joined in the investigation. No circumstantial
evidence led by the prosecution to connect the accused persons
with the commission of alleged offence. It is therefore, prayed
that benefit of doubt be conferred upon the accused persons.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT

7. Before analyzing the evidence led by the Prosecution in
the present case, this court deems it proper to refer to some
provisions of law and citations of Superior courts, which are
found to be applicable to the facts of the present case.

Sections 302 and 174A of IPC read as under:-

300. Murder–Except in the cases hereinafter excepted,
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or –

Secondly–If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or–
Thirdly–If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or–

Fourthly–If the person committing the act knows that it is
so imminently dangerous that is must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

302. Punishment for murder-Whoever commits murder shall be
punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be
liable to fine.

174A.Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section
82 of Act 2 of 1974.–Whoever fails to appear at the specified place
and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under
sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 38 of 47
declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section
pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that it has been held in case
of Sadhu Singh V/s State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55 by the
Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court that:-

“In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its
case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to
travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the
prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the
benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.”

9. In Harendera Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1991
S.C. 1842, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
reiterated the well-known principle of the criminal jurisprudence
as:

“……. The basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of
circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused
and the other to his innocence, the Court should adopt the latter
view favourable to the accused…..”

10. In Data Xiva Naique Desai and Another vs. The State, AIR
1967 Goa, Daman and Diu 4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reiterated the well-known principles of the criminal jurisprudence
which are reproduced as under:

“The learned Judge would be advised to observe the following
general rules when he is dealing with the serious question of the
guilt or innocence of persons charged with crime: (i) The onus
of proving everything essential to the establishment of the
charge against the accused lies on the prosecution; (ii) The
evidence must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused; (iii) In matter of
doubt it is safer to acquit than to condemn; for it is between
several guilty persons should escape than that one innocent
person suffer; and (iv) the hypothesis of delinquency should be
consistent with all the facts proved.”

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 39 of 47

11. In Swarn Singh Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1957
SC 637, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that,
“in criminal cases mere suspicion, however, strong, cannot take
the place of proof. The Court must also take into consideration
that an accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against
him are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere suspicion,
however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of legal proof.”

12. Moreover, in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,
AIR 1973 SC 2773, the Apex Court had observed as follows:-

“Another golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views
are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to
the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This
principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the
accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.
Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence
adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his
innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of
guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the
court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the
accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of
course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be
reasonable: it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so
vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or
so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their
natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt
also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to
surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. Although the
benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the
accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence
which is ex-facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or
in the nature of conjectures.

The guilt of the accused has to be adjudged not by the fact that a
vast number of people believe him to be guilty but whether his
guilt has been established by the evidence brought on record.
Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to
adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused. Reference
is sometimes made to the clash of public interest and that of the
individual accused. The conflict in this respect, in our opinion, is
more apparent than real. It is no doubt true that wrongful
acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people
in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 40 of 47
conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the
conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its
reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. All this
highlights the importance of ensuring as far as possible, that
there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person.
Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always
there in any system of the administration of criminal justice.
Such a risk can be minimized but not ruled out altogether.”

13. It is noted that present case is primarily based on the
testimony of eyewitness namely PW4 Ravi Kumar and PW12
Neeraj. As per the prosecution case, no eyewitness met at the
spot when IO ASI Murari Lal reached at the spot upon receiving
DD no. 78B. It is only after returning from the hospital,
complainant Ravi Kumar met at the spot. In his statement Ex.
PW4/1, he claimed that on 07-04-2016, he went to Gokalpuri
market for purchasing some articles in connection with Nav
Durga Puja. At about 9 pm, when he was passing on a road
adjoining park on the northern direction of Gokalpuri flyover, he
saw that some people were beating one boy inside the park.
When he entered inside the park, he found that his friend
Neeraj’s brother namely Puneet was being beaten by one Jagdish
Kumar @ JK and his son Aakash along with one more person
with leg and fist blows, bottle and stone piece. Accused Aakash
was holding a glass bottle and accused Jagdish Kumar was
holding stone piece. After beating Puneet, they threw him in the
drain. The present FIR was registered on the basis of his above-
stated statement. However, in his depositions dated 22-03-2017
and 10-10-2019, he took a completely contrary stand. He
claimed that on 07-04-2016, three police officials of PS
Gokalpuri came at his home, took him to PS and obtained his
signatures on some blank papers. He denied all the suggestions
put by Ld. Addl. PP for State on the basis of incriminating facts
FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 41 of 47
emerging from his statement Ex. PW4/1. He even failed to
identify the accused persons despite having been pointed out by
ld. Addl. PP for State as the assailants in the commission of
alleged murder.

14. Another eyewitness got examined by the prosecution is
PW12 Neeraj, who also happens to be the brother of deceased,
therefore, an interested witness. In his examination in chief
dated 15-05-2018, he has narrated in detail about the role of both
accused Akash and Jagdish in inflicting injuries on the head of
his brother Puneet with bricks. However, his presence at the
spot is doubtful due to following reasons:-

1. He did not report the incident to the police by calling 100
number or otherwise.

2. He did not try to intervene between the fight of accused
persons and his brother.

3. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, he
admitted the fact that police has recorded his statement on 19-

04-2016 i.e. after 12 days from the date of incident. There is no
explanation from his side regarding the delay in recording of his
statement. It is pertinent to note that prior to 19-04-2016, his
statement was already recorded by same IO on 15-04-2016 i.e. at
the time of identification of dead body of his brother.

4. He was hesitant in deposing before the court. After the
conclusion of his examination in chief on 15-05-2018, he
defaulted in appearing before the court despite the fact that he
was bound down on 24-08-2018. On 13-12-2018, he came in
the court in the morning and left the court without intimation.
The demeanor of PW12 has already been recorded in ordersheet
dated 13-12-2028. He finally appeared in the court on 27-02-

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 42 of 47
2019, on execution of non-bailable warrants against him.
Though he claimed that he was being threatened by 6-7
unknown associates of accused in the court premises, yet he
could not give any explanation as to why he had not reported
about the threat either to police or to his private counsel in his
cross-examination dated 27-02-2019.

5. There is nothing in the testimony of IO/ PW20 ASI Murari
Lal as to when PW12 Neeraj approached them during the
investigation of the present case.

6. The position of PW12 Neeraj is also not specified in the site
plan Ex. PW20/B.

7. PW12 Neeraj was also not present at the time of recovery of
incriminating articles i.e. stone piece, blood stained sand, earth
control etc. vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A and PW9/B
respectively as his signatures are not found mentioned therein.

8. Call detail record indicating the location of his mobile phone
have also not been collected by the IO.

15. It is further observed that necessary DD entries with regard
to the movement of police officials and proceedings dated 19-04-
2016 with regard to arrest of accused Jagdish, proceedings dated
05-03-2018 at the time of arrest of accused Akash and other
places visited by the investigating team during investigation of
the present case have not been placed on record. Neither IO
PW20/ ASI Murari Lal nor PW9 HC Sudhir had deposed
anything regarding recording of DD entry with regard to their,
departure from and arrival at, PS with regard to the proceedings
conducted in connection with the present case.

16. As per Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, it is

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 43 of 47
necessary to record DD Entry of arrival and departure of the
police official. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934,
is reproduced as under:-

”22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II The
following matters shall, amongst others, be
entered :-

(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or
from a police station of all enrolled police officers of
whatever rank, whether posted at the police station
or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their
duty. This entry shall be made immediately on
arrival or prior to the departure of the officer
concerned and shall be attested by the latter
personally by signature or seal.

Note :- The term Police Station will include all
places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where
Register No. II is maintained.

17. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a case law
reported as Rattan Lal V/s State, 1987 (2) Crimes 29 the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court

“wherein it has been observed that if the
investigating agency deliberately ignores to comply
with the provisions of the Act the courts will have to
approach their action with reservations. The matter
has to be viewed with suspicion if the provisions of
law are not strictly complied with and the least that
can be said is that it is so done with an oblique
motive. This failure to bring on record, the DD
entries creates a reasonable doubt in the prosecution
version and attributes oblique motive on the part of
the prosecution.”

In the present case, the above said provision appears to
have not been complied with by prosecution.

18. From the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly
the investigating police officials, it is apparent that they have not
made sincere efforts to join the independent public witnesses at
the time of arrest of accused persons and during their PC remand.
PW9 HC Sudhir has admitted in his cross-examination dated 24-

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 44 of 47
10-2024 that many public persons were present outside the park
where the incident took place. PW20 Retd. ASI Murari Lal has
also admitted in his cross-examination dated 09-07-2024 that
people were passing through the spot and about 5-10 people were
also present in the park where the incident took place. No cogent
explanation is furnished as to why no efforts have been made to
join the available public persons in the investigation of the
present case.

19. In a case law reported as Anoop Joshi V/s State, 1992 (2)
C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed
as under:

”18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in
such cases it should be shown by the police that
sincere efforts have been made to join independent
witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no
such sincere efforts have been made, particularly
when we find that shops were open and one or two
shop-keepers could have been persuaded to join the
raiding party to witness the recovery being made
from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers
had declined to join the raiding party, the police
could have later on taken legal action against such
shopkeepers because they could not have escaped
the rigours of law while declining to perform their
legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a
citizen, which is an offence under the IPC”.

20. In Roop Chand V/s The State of Haryana,1999 (1) C.L.R
69, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held as under:-

“It is well settled principle of the law that the
Investigating Agency should join independent
witnesses at the time of recovery of contraband
articles, if they are available and their failure to do
so in such a situation casts a shadow of doubt on the
prosecution case. In the present case also admittedly
the independent witnesses were available at the time
of recovery but they refused to associate themselves
in the investigation. This explanation does not
inspire confidence because the police officials who
are the only witnesses examined in the case have not
given the names and addresses of the persons

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 45 of 47
contacted to join. It is a very common excuse that
the witnesses from the public refused to join the
investigation. A police officer conducting
investigation of a crime is entitled to ask anybody to
join the investigation and on refusal by a person
from the public the Investigating Officer can take
action against such a person under the law. Had it
been a fact that he witnesses from the public had
refused to to join the investigation, the Investigating
Officer must have proceeded against them under the
relevant provisions of law. The failure to do so by
the police officer is suggestive of the fact that the
explanation for non-joining the witnesses from the
public is an after thought and is not worthy of
credence. All these facts taken together make the
prosecution case highly doubtful”.

The remaining witnesses got examined by the
prosecution in relation to offence punishable u/s 302/34 of IPC
are only corroborative in nature.

21. It is observed that during investigation of the present
case, accused Akash has been evading from his arrest. IO
obtained NBWs against him and thereafter, proceedings u/s 82
Cr.P.C. got initiated against him. Finally, vide order dated 10-
03-2017, he was declared proclaimed offender. PW13 HC
Deepak and PW16 Inspector Ashok Kumar have proved the
proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against accused Akash. It is proved
that vide order dated 10-03-2017 passed by Ms. Preeti
Aggarwala, Ld. MM, accused Akash has been declared
proclaimed offender. As per section 82 (3) of Cr.P.C., a
statement in writing by the court issuing the proclamation u/s 82
Cr.P.C. to the effect that the said proclamation was duly
published on a specified date, shall be conclusive evidence that
the requirements of Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been duly complied
with. The order dated 10-03-2017 Ex. PW14/C was never
challenged by accused Akash before any appellate or revisionist

FIR No. 257/16 State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr. Page 46 of 47
court. Thus, the prosecution has established the fact that accused
Akash has been declared proclaimed offender vide order dated
10-03-2017 by Ms. Preeti Aggarwala, Ld. MM (Mahila Court),
North-East, KKD.

DECISION OF THE COURT

22. It is well settled that it is the duty of the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, on the basis of the material available on the record,
the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful for the offence
punishable u/s 302/34 of IPC and the benefit of doubt certainly
goes in favor of the accused persons. Accordingly, taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, accused
persons namely Jagdish @ J.K. @ Jagga and Akash are hereby
acquitted of the charges punishable u/s 302/34 of IPC. However,
accused Akash is hereby convicted for the offence punishable u/s
174A of IPC. The accused persons are directed to furnish bail
bonds u/s 481 of BNSS/ 437A of Cr.P.C. Let the convict Akash
be heard on the quantum of sentence on the next date of hearing.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
 ON 06-03-2025                                  PANKAJ         Digitally signed by PANKAJ
                                                               ARORA

                                                ARORA          Date: 2025.03.06 17:07:03
                                                               +0530



                              (PANKAJ ARORA)
                   ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
                                KARKARDOOMA/06-03-2025




FIR No. 257/16         State Vs. Jagdish @J.K.@ Jagga & Anr.                         Page 47 of 47