[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Lokesh Kumar Solanki @Rajput And Ors on 13 May, 2025
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
DLNE010023982020
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03,
NORTH-EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
INDEX
Sl. HEADINGS Page Nos.
No.
1 Description of Case & Memo of Parties 2-3
2 Case set up by the Prosecution 4-8
3 Charges 8-10
4 Description of Prosecution Evidence 10-36
5 Plea of accused under Section 351 BNSS 37
6 Arguments of Defence & Prosecution on the
point of Incriminating Evidence 37
7 Section 255 BNSS & 351 BNSS 38-43
8 Plea of accused Lokesh and Pawan 43-44
FINAL ARGUMENT OF DEFENCE AND PROSECUTION
9 Section 153-A/505 IPC 44-46
10 Section 412/201 IPC 46-47
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
11 Unlawful Assembly & Riot 47-50
12 Identification of accused persons 50-58
13 Section 153-A/505 IPC 59-63
14 Section 412/201 IPC 64-67
15 Conclusion and Decision 67-68
Digitally signed by
Page 1 of 68 PULASTYA (Pulastya Pramachala)
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ASJ-03, North-East District,
PRAMACHALA Date: 2025.05.13 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
16:27:28 +0530
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sessions Case No. : 117/2020
Under Section : 144/147/148/149/153-A/188/505/302/201/
427/395/396/432/435/412/120-B/34 IPC.
Police Station : Gokalpuri
FIR No. : 37/2020
CNR No. : DLNE01-002398-2020
In the matter of: -
STATE
VERSUS
1. Lokesh Kumar Solanki @ Rajput
S/o. Sh. Yogender Kumar,
R/o. H.No. C-5/47, 4th Floor,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-53.
2. Pankaj Sharma
S/o. Late Sh. Rajveer Sharma,
R/o. H.No. C-162, Gali No.3,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94.
3. Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah
S/o. Late. Sh. Om Prakash,
R/o. H.No. A-367, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
4. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fouzi
S/o. Sh. Rajkumar,
R/o. H.No. G-14, Gali No. 2, G-Block,
Ganga Vihar, Gokalpuri, Delhi-94.
5. Prince @ D.J. Wala
S/o. Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o. H.No. C-33, Gali No.2,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94.
6. Pawan Kumar @ Lokesh
S/o. Sh. Moji Lal,
R/o. A-69, GF-3, SLF Ved Vihar,
Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P
7. Lalit Kumar @ Rahul Chaudhary
S/o. Sh. Rajesh,
R/o. H.No. B-622, Sanjay Camp,
Dakshinpuri, Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi.
8. Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapas
S/o. Sh. Yogender Singh,
R/o. H.No. F-53, Gali No.1,
Ganga Vihar, Gokalpuri, Delhi-94.
Page 2 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
9. Jatin Sharma @ Rohit
S/o. Sh. Gouri Shankar Sharma,
R/o. H.No. C-101, DLF,
Dilshad Extension-II, Ghaziabad,
Sahibabad, U.P.-201005.
10. Vivek Panchal @ Nandu
S/o. Sh. Pramod Kumar Panchal,
R/o. H.No. D-106, Gali No.4,
Ganga Vihar, Delhi-94.
11. Himanshu Thakur
S/o. Sh. Harender,
R/o. H.No. F-19, 1st Floor, Flat No.1,
Ekta Society, DLF-Ankur Vihar,
Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P.
12. Tinku Arora
S/o. Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o. H.No. E-51, Gali No.2,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94.
13. Sandeep Kumar @ Mogli
S/o. Late Sh. Dalveer Singh,
R/o. H.No. E-24, Gali No.3,
Bhagirati Vihar, Delhi-94.
14. Sahil @ Babu
S/o. Late Sh. Rakesh Sharma,
R/o. H.No. D-138, Gali No.11,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi-94. ...Accused persons
Complainant: ASI Ram Dass
Date of Institution : 04.06.2020
Date of reserving Judgment : 05.05.2025
Date of pronouncement : 13.05.2025
Decisions: -
1. Accused Lokesh Kumar Solanki is convicted of offences punishable
u/s. 153-A/505 IPC. He is acquitted of remaining charges levelled
against him in the present case.
2. Remaining accused persons are acquitted of all the charges
levelled against them in the present case.
(Section 481 BNSS complied with by all the accused persons)
Page 3 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
JUDGMENT
CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION: –
1. The above-named accused persons have been chargesheeted by
the police for offences punishable under Section
144/147/148/149/153-A/188/505/302/201/427/395/396/432/435/
412/120-B/34 IPC.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 27.02.2020 SHO, PS
Gokulpuri informed Duty Officer vide DD No. 24-B that dead
body had been found in the Bhagirathi Vihar Drain (Nala) near
Pulia. Police staff visited that place and three dead bodies were
taken out, which were given Mark A, B, and C. This case related
to dead body Mark C. Some injury marks were found present on
its face. Accordingly, this case vide FIR No. 37/2020 dated
27.02.2020 U/s 147/148/149/201/302/427 IPC, was registered at
police station Gokalpuri.
3. After the registration of FIR, the investigation of the case was
taken up by the local police. During the course of investigation,
on 28.02.2020 the dead body was identified that of Aamir and
post mortem of the body was conducted at GTB Hospital on
29.02.2020 vide PM No.356/2020 by a Board of Doctors.
Subsequently, investigation of the case was transferred to the SIT
of Crime Branch.
4. During the course of further investigation, eleven (11) accused
persons namely, (1) Lokesh Kumar Solanki @ Rajput (2) Pankaj
Sharma (3) Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah (4) Ankit Chaudhary @
Fauzi (5) Prince @ DJ wala, (6) Pawan Kumar @ Lokesh, (7)
Lalit Kumar @ Rohit Chaudhary, (8) Rishabh Chaudhary @
Page 4 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Tapash, (9) Jatin Sharma @ Rohit, (10) Vivek Panchal @ Nandu
and (11) Himanshu Thakur were arrested in this case.
5. Accused Pawan Kumar was arrested on the allegation that from
his possession, a phone set with IMEI No. 911552250231690
was recovered. This phone set was used with SIM card with
mobile no. 9313118035 for some time after killing of Aamir, and
this SIM card was issued to and used by deceased Aamir. The
other SIM card which was used in this mobile phone set make
Intex, was found to be in the name of father of accused Pawan.
On the basis of disclosure statement made by Pawan, a mobile
phone set (VIVO) was recovered from the possession of accused
Lalit Kumar @ Rohit Chaudhary. This mobile phone (VIVO)
belonged to deceased Aamir.
6. The statements of eye witnesses were recorded u/s 161 CrPC and
the witnesses stated about the specific role of above-mentioned
accused persons except Pawan and Lalit, inter alia that on
26.02.2020 they were present at Bhagirathi Vihar Nala Pulia,
carrying stones, cudgel, sticks, swords and iron rods etc. and
were shouting slogans like “Jai Sri Ram” and “Har Har
Mahadev”. All the accused were leading the mob and giving
directions to their associates by calling each other by their names.
The above said accused persons are alleged to have been
involved in killing of nine muslim persons, after checking their
identity. Public witnesses also witnessed the incident of murder
of Aamir Ali. They stated that a mob stopped two persons riding
Apache bike and after ascertaining their identity as muslims, the
mob killed both the persons with stones, cudgel, sticks, swords
Page 5 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
and iron rods and threw their body in the drain (nala) along with
the bike.
7. During further course of investigation, mobile phones of Mohit
Sharma and Shivam Bhardwaj were looked into and it revealed
that they were members of WhatsApp group namely ” KATTAR
HINDUT EKTA”. Further investigation of this group was carried
out, which revealed that aforesaid group was created on
25.02.2020 for taking revenge from Muslim Community. As per
prosecution the accused persons, already arrested in FIR
No.35/20 PS Gokalpuri, along with other rioters had become
active in Ganga Vihar/Bhagirathi Vihar area. They conspired to
teach Muslims a lesson for attacking the Hindus, equipped
themselves with lathis, danda, sticks, swards, fire arms etc. and
killed many innocent persons including Hashim Ali and his
brother Aamir (deceased in this case).
8. After completion of investigation, on 04.06.2020 main
chargesheet was filed against eleven (11) accused persons
namely Lokesh Kumar Solanki @ Rajput, Pankaj Sharma, Sumit
Chaudhary @ Badshah, Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, Prince @
D.J. Wala, Pawan Kumar @ Lokesh, Lalit Kumar @ Rahul
Chaudhary, Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapas, Jatin Sharma @ Rohit,
Vivek Panchal @ Nandu and Himanshu Thakur, for offences
punishable under Section
144/147/148/149/302/201/427/395/396/432/435/412/120-B/34
IPC. This chargesheet was filed before ld. Duty MM (North-
East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. On 20.07.2020, ld. CMM/NE
took cognizance of offences under Section
Page 6 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
302/144/147/148/149/201/395/396/427/432/435/120-B/34 IPC
against nine (9) accused persons. Vide this order, ld. CMM/NE
also took cognizance of offence punishable under Section
412/201 IPC against accused Pawan Kumar @ Lokesh and under
Section 412 IPC against accused Lalit Kumar @ Rahul
Chaudhary. Thereafter, case was committed to the court of
sessions vide order dated 30.09.2020.
9. On 06.11.2020, first supplementary chargesheet along with
additional documents, was filed before ld. CMM (North-East),
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Section 153-A/505 IPC were also
added in the present case through this supplementary charge-
sheet. This supplementary chargesheet was sent by ld. CMM/NE
to the court of sessions vide order dated 11.12.2020.
10. On 24.01.2021, second supplementary chargesheet along with
copy of sanction under Section 196 Cr.P.C., certified copy of
CDRs and CAFs of mobile numbers of three accused persons and
Shivam and Mohit, FSL reports and other additional documents
and impleading three additional accused persons namely Sahil @
Babu, Sandeep @ Mogli and Tinku Arora, was filed before Duty
MM/NE, Karkardooma Court, Delhi. Section 188 IPC was also
added in the present case. This supplementary chargesheet was
sent by ld. CMM/NE to the court of sessions vide order dated
15.02.2021.
11. On 01.10.2020, third supplementary chargesheet along with
complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C. and another sanction under Section
196 Cr.P.C. accorded against accused Sahil @ Babu, Sandeep @
Mogli and Tinku Arora, was filed before ld. CMM/NE. This
Page 7 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
supplementary chargesheet was sent by ld. CMM/NE to the court
of sessions vide order dated 26.10.2021.
12. Thereafter, on 10.10.2022 fourth supplementary chargesheet was
filed directly before this court. On 07.11.2024, fifth
supplementary chargesheet in respect of mirror image of the
WhatsApp Chats, was filed directly before this court.
CHARGES
13. On 04.04.2022, charges were framed against twelve (12) accused
persons namely 1. Lokesh Kumar Solanki @ Rajput 2. Pankaj
Sharma, 3. Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauzi, 4. Prince @ D.J Wala, 5.
Jatin Sharma @ Rohit, 6. Himanshu Thakur, 7. Vivek Panchal @
Nandu, 8. Rishabh Chaudhary @ Tapash 9. Sumit Chaudhary @
Badshah, 10. Tinku Arora, 11. Sandeep @ Mogli and 12. Sahil @
Babu for offences punishable under Section
144/147/148/188/302/201/427/432/435/395/396/153A/505/34
IPC read with Section 149 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial. The charges were framed in following terms: –
“That from the early morning of 25.02.2020 till the late
night of 26.02.2020, in the area at or around main Ganda Nala
Road, near C-Block, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi, within the
jurisdiction of PS Gokalpuri, all of you being members of
unlawful assembly along with your other associates(identified
& unidentified) formed an unlawful assembly carrying deadly
weapons like lathis, sticks(danda), stones, swords and other
arms, used force or violence in prosecution of a common object
i.e. committed rioting and you all knew being members of the
aforesaid unlawful assembly that offences were likely to be
committed in prosecution of that common object and thereby
committed offences punishable under Section(s)144/147/148
IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Page 8 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS GokalpuriSecondly, in the night of 26/02/2020, exact time
unknown, at or around main Ganda Nala Road, near C-Block,
Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi, , you all being members of said
unlawful assembly along with your other associates (identified
and unidentified) used force or violence in prosecution of a
common object and in furtherance of common intention
committed murder of Aamir Khan, S/o Shri Babu Khan, merely
on account of the fact that he belonged to the other community
and thereafter threw his dead body in the Bhagirathi Vihar
ganda nala with a view to conceal/destroy his identity and also
committed mischief by fire or explosive substance by setting on
fire Apache Motorcycle bearing Regn. No.DL- 5SBA-7168
upon which deceased Aamir Khan along with his brother
Hashim Ali were heading to their residence and thereby you all
along with your other associates (identified and unidentified)
committed offences punishable under
Section(s) 302/201/427/432/435/34 IPC read with Section 149
IPC and within my cognizance.
Thirdly, that on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all
being members of the said unlawful assembly, along with your
other associates (identified and unidentified), while committing
the murder of deceased Aamir Khan robbed him of his mobile
phone instrument of make VIVO model 1610 with IMEI No.
8646550877115 and 864655038771107 and having number
9313118035, committed offences punishable under Section(s)
395/396 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my
cognizance.
Fourthly, that on the aforesaid dates, time and place, you
all being members of said unlawful assembly along with your
other associates (identified and unidentified) raised religious
slogans in furtherance of common intention and common object
to incite and promote enmity between different groups on
the ground of religion and acted in a way that are prejudicial to
the ways of harmony and thereby you all along with your
associates (identified and unidentified) committed offences
punishable under Section(s) 153A/505 IPC read with
Section 149 IPC and within my cognizance.
Page 9 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS GokalpuriFifthly, on the aforesaid dates, time and place you all
being members of the said unlawful assembly along with your
other associates (identified and unidentified) violated the
proclamation issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C. by the competent
authority and hence committed offence punishable under
Section 188 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and within my
cognizance.”
14. On 04.04.2022 itself charges were framed against accused Pawan
Kumar @ Lokesh and Lalit Kumar @ Rahul Chaudhary, in the
following terms, to which they pleaded not guilty.
” That the deceased Aamir Khan was having/using phone
instrument of make VIVO model 1610 with IMEI numbers
864655038771115 and 864655038771107 with mobile number
9313118035 and he was robbed of this mobile phone on
26/02/2020 at the time of his murder. You accused Pawan
Kumar @ Lokesh S/o Shri Moji Lal, knowing this fact, took the
said mobile phone instrument of deceased Aamir and gave the
instrument to Lalit S/o Shri Rajesh and used the SIM of the said
mobile number in the instrument with IMEI number
911552250231690 since 02/03/2020. Later on, you destroyed
the said SIM of mobile number 9313118035 and committed the
offences punishable under Section(s) 201/412 IPC and within
my cognizance.
Secondly, that you accused Lalit S/o Shri Rajesh took and
used the mobile phone instrument to make VIVO model 1610,
from Pawan with IMEI no. 864655038771115 and
864655038771107 with dual SIM slots, well knowing the fact
that the same, was robbed from the deceased Aamir Khan as
mentioned above and the same was recovered from you at your
instance and thereby you committed offence punishable
underSection 412 IPC and within my cognizance.”
DESCRIPTION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
15. Several witnesses were dropped on the basis of admission of
documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C./330 BNSS and prosecution
examined 39 witnesses in support of its case, as per following
Page 10 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
description: –
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
PW1/Sh. PW1 was residing at E-61/1, main nala road, near
Nisar Johripur pulia, Bhagirathi Vihar alongwith his family.
Ahmed On 26.02.2020, in the morning, he was at the home of
his brother-in-law Anwar. His brother Esh Mohammad
was stuck at the house of his sister Ameena situated
near Johripur pulia. PW1 requested one Avdhesh
Mishra to lock his home and to rescue his brother from
the house of Ameena. Niece of PW1 namely Sitara,
who resided near his house, requested him to rescue
her. When PW1 reached Bhagirathi nala, he did not go
ahead as he was hearing noise of hue and cry but he
had not personally seen assault to any person. PW1
also did not see and identify any person in the mob of
rioters on 26.02.2020 at the alleged place of incident.
Though, PW1 named and identified some accused
persons as part of mob of rioters at different points of
time and date.
Thus, PW1 did not support the case of prosecution and
was declared hostile by ld. SPP on the aspect of
identification of some accused during incident of this
case.
PW2/ Sh. PW2 was resident of C-129, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi.
Shivam He was using a mobile phone make Realme using no.
Bhardwaj 7217779080 of Jio company, during period between
24.02.2020 to 26.02.2020. He was member of certain
WhatsApp group during that period. His afore-said
mobile phone was taken from him in the Crime Branch
Office. He identified his signature at circle X on the
seizure memo of WhatsApp Chat dated 08.03.2020
with print of chats (39 pages) pertaining to FIR
No.35/20. PW2 identified his said mobile phone
(Ex.PW3/Article-1 pertaining to FIR No.35/20) before
the court.
Page 11 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
PW2 did not support the case of prosecution and he
was also declared hostile on the point of knowing some
accused and about confession made by Lokesh for
killing muslim persons, alongwith other accused
persons.
PW3/Sh. PW3 was working in Khaibar Pas Metro Depot as
Mohit technician. Crime branch officials had taken him
Sharma alongwith Shivam and Dimple, to their office and had
taken mobile phones of all three of them. PW3 was
added in a WhatsApp group namely Kattar Hindut and
crime branch officials had checked contents of all three
mobile phones, which were seized. He identified his
mobile phone (Ex.PW4/Article-1 pertaining to FIR
No.35/20) before the court.
PW3 also did not support the case of prosecution and
he was also declared hostile on the point of knowing
some accused and about confession made by Lokesh
for killing muslim persons, alongwith other accused
persons and about knowing the chats in the Whats App
group.
PW4/Sh. In February 2020, PW4 was residing at B-55/1, gali
Amit Kumar no.1, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. In the month of February
2020, riots had taken place in this locality. On
26.02.2020, PW4 remained inside his home and he did
not see any mob at any place on that day.
Thus, PW4 did not support the case of prosecution and
he was declared hostile on the point of identifying
accused persons in a mob at Nala Road, Bhagirathi
Vihar on 26.02.2020 at 9.15 P.M. and for having seen
beating of a muslim boy at that time by this mob.
PW5/ PW6 was user of mobile phone no.9873723713, which
Dimple was registered in his name and he was also using
another number from the same phone set i.e.
Page 12 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
8383847939.
PW5 did not support the case of prosecution and he
was also declared hostile on the point of being member
of a WhatsApp group namely “Kattar Hindut Ekta”.
PW6/Sh. PW6 was running a private parking at A-1/1, Gali
Shalu No.1, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. Riots had taken place in
his area between 24.02.2020 and 26.02.2020. On
26.02.2020, he had opened his afore-said parking at 10
AM and after closing the same at around 03:30 PM, he
was going back to his house situated at A-83, Gali
No.2, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi. At that time, a mob had
started assembling in his gali no.1, Bhagirathi Vihar
and the number of persons in that mob was increasing,
wherein persons from both communities were there.
PW6 deposed that during his presence there, the afore-
said mob in gali no.1 was assembling only and they
were not doing anything. He immediately left that
place for his home and therefore, he did not know that
what was done by that mob.
Thus, PW6 did not support the case of prosecution and
he was also declared hostile on the point of
identification of the accused persons.
PW7/Sh. PW7 was resident of B-99, gali No.1, Bhagirathi Vihar,
Paras Delhi and he was working in Kosmos Hospital. He
deposed about making a call to police at 100 number
on 25.02.2020 regarding situation of riots.
PW8/Sh. PW8 was father of deceased Amir Ali. On 26.02.2020,
Babu Khan he was present at his home bearing no. D-222, Gali
No.16, Old Mustafabad, Delhi. His other son namely
Nasir was also present at home with him. Since
evening time of 26.02.2020, his son Nasir was in
regular telephonic touch with Hashim Ali, who was
returning back to Delhi along with his brother Aamir
Page 13 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
on a motorcycle make Apache, from Pasonda,
Ghaziabad. In the last conversation taken place at 9:30
PM, it was informed to Nasir that Hashim and Aamir
had reached Gokalpuri and they were expected to reach
home in next 5-10 minutes. However, none of them
reached home and mobile phone of Aamir was also
switched off.
On 27.02.2020, PW8 came to know that his two sons
were no more. He had sent his son Sheruddin and his
relative Rehmat for the purpose of identification of
dead bodies of Hashim and Aamir at GTB hospital.
On 10.03.2020, his nephew Mohsin made telephonic
call to PW8 and told that someone was making calls to
his sisters using mobile phone number of Aamir i.e.
9313118035. PW8 visited PS Gokalpuri and informed
SHO about this fact.
PW9/Ct. On 26.02.2020, vide DD No.16-B, PW9 was deputed
Vipin for law-and-order duty in the area of Bhagirathi Vihar.
On that day, his duty hours were from 9 a.m. onwards,
which continued for whole night of 26.02.2020.
At about 10 p.m., PW9 was near ganda nala pulia
(known as Ganga Vihar pulia). He was coming towards
this pulia from the side of Ganga Vihar and he saw a
mob of around 100-150 persons near this pulia. On
seeing PW9 with other police staff, that mob started
running away, while taking name of Rishabh, Pankaj,
Prince, Avdhesh and Ankit.
PW9 was witness to taking colour print of photographs
of some persons including accused Prince DJ wala and
Pankaj, by Insp. Vinay Tyagi in the present case and in
FIR No.35/20. These photographs were shown by
accused Lokesh by opening his Facebook account, on
the laptop of SHO PS Gokalpuri.
Page 14 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
On 10.03.2020, Insp. Dinesh from crime branch had
made similar enquiry from PW9 in FIR no. 36/20 and
had recorded his similar statement therein.
PW9 was cross-examined by ld. Special PP and he
admitted the suggestion that he had also mentioned the
names of accused Himanshu, Lokesh Rajput, Jatin,
Monty Nagar, Pawan, Monu and Sumit, as being taken
by the persons in the mob at Ganga Vihar pulia, and
that PW9 had mentioned name of Ankit as Ankit Fauzi
at that time; and that PW9 had also mentioned name of
accused Rishabh Jaat and Jatin, as being told by
accused Lokesh, while pointing out photograph on his
facebook page.
PW10/Sh. PW10 was brother of Aamir Ali (deceased in this case).
Nasir Ali On 26.02.2020, PW10 was present at his house bearing
H.No. D-222, gali no.17, main 25 foota road, Old
Mustafabad, Delhi. On this day at about 9.30 p.m.,
PW10 had received a call from mobile phone no.
7291882903 of Hashim Ali and during this call, PW10
had conversation with his brother Aamir Ali (deceased
in this case). During this conversation, Aamir had told
PW10 that he was somewhere near the canal and was
about to reach home in 5 minutes.
His brothers Aamir and Hashim were coming on
Apache motorcycle, but they did not come back to
home by night of 26.02.2020. On 28.02.2020, PW10
came to know that his both aforesaid brothers had died
and their dead bodies were recovered from drain.
PW11/HC On 24.02.2020, an order passed by DCP, North-East
Pradeep u/s. 144 Cr.P.C., was received through Dak in the
morning and on the directions of SHO, PW11 obtained
loud hailer from malkhana and announced the
proclamation u/s. 144 Cr.P.C. in the jurisdictional area
of PS Gokalpuri i.e. Johripur Extension, Ganga Vihar,
Page 15 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
Chaman Park, Indira Vihar, Bhagirathi Vihar, Sanjay
Colony, Gokalpuri and Gokalpuri Village.
PW12/ASI PW12 was working in Record Ex.PW12/A
Naresh Pal Branch, North East District, Delhi (true copy of
Police. He produced office record order u/s. 144
with original order u/s 144 Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C.) &
dated 24.02.2020 as passed by Sh.
Ex.PW12/B
Ved Prakash Surya, the then
(original
DCP/NE. PW12 identified signature
complaint u/s
of Mr. Surya at circle X and true
195 Cr.P.C)
copy of that order.
PW12 also produced office record of
complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. PW12
identified signature of Sh. Sanjay
Kumar Sain on the same.
PW13/ASI On 27.02.2020, PW13 along with Ex.PW13/A
Manvir ASI Ram Dass went to E-Block, (seizure memo
Bhagirathi Vihar Nala, on a call of clothes of
recorded vide DD No.24-B. PW13 deceased)
witnessed recovery of three dead
bodies and one motorcycle bearing
DL-5SBA-7168, from the drain.
PW13 also deposed that all three
dead bodies were sent in TATA 407
to GTB hospital alongwith ASI
Manvir and Ct. Karamveer.
On that day, ASI Ram Dass prepared
rukka on DD No.24-B and got
registered two FIRs bearing 35/20
and 37/20.
FIR in the present case was
registered concerning to the dead
body of Aamir with reference to
Page 16 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
MLC bearing no. 760/03/20. All
three dead bodies were declared
brought dead and were preserved in
the mortuary, GTB hospital.
PW13 witnessed (i) recording
statement of father and other
relatives of deceased Aamir, at GTB
hospital; (ii) identification of both
dead bodies; (iii) seizure of wearing
clothes of deceased with blood on
gauze, by ASI Ram Dass and (iv)
seizure of mobile phone make
TECHNO, which was found in the
pocket of dead body identified as
Hashim (deceased in FIR No.35/20).
On 10.08.2020, PW13 had seized
one mobile phone and one pen-drive
in FIR No.78/20 of same PS, from
one Nisar Ahmed. On 18.01.2021,
Insp. Dinesh from Crime Branch
visited PS Gokalpuri and he made
inquiry from PW13 about afore-said
mobile phone and pen-drive.
PW14/HC PW14 was photographer in mobile Ex.PW14/A
Javed Khan crime team/NE District. On the (certificate u/s.
direction of I/C ASI Mahavir, PW14 65-B of I.E.
took 7 photographs near pipeline, Act);
main nala, Bhagirathi Vihar, Delhi, Ex.PW14/P1 to
on 02.03.2020. Ex.PW14/P-7
(seven
photographs)
PW15/SI PW15 was Duty Officer in PS Ex.PW15/A
Yashpal Gokalpuri. He registered FIR in the (endorsement
present case on the basis of rukka of PW15 on the
Page 17 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
handed over by ASI Ram Dass. back side of
Thereafter, he also made rukka); &
endorsement on the back side of Ex.PW15/B
rukka. (FIR)
PW15 handed over copy of FIR with
original rukka to Insp. Pramod
Joshi/SHO for further investigation.
PW16/ASI PW16 participated in the Ex.PW16/A &
Shyam Lal investigation of the present case on Ex.PW16/B
17.03.2020, along with IO/Insp. (arrest and
Vinay Tyagi, SI Hava Singh, SI personal search
Arjun Singh, ASI Salim Khan, ASI memos of
Sunil Kumar, ASI Ramesh Kumar, accused Pawan,
HC Shashikant, HC Babu Ram and respectively);
Ct. Kuldeep. PW16 witnessed arrest Ex.PW16/C
and personal search of accused (seizure memo
Pawan on the pointing out of secret of Intech
informer. PW16 also witnessed mobile phone);
recovery and seizure of mobile
Ex.PW16/D &
phone make Intech (Intex), from
Ex.PW16/E
possession of this accused.
(arrest and
PW16 also witnessed confession of personal search
accused Pawan regarding golden memos of
colour mobile phone make Vivo of Rishabh
deceased, which was lying with Chaudhary,
accused Lalit. PW16 also witnessed respectively);
arrest and personal search of accused
Ex.PW16/F
Lalit and recovery and seizure of said
and
mobile phone at the instance of
Ex.PW16/G
accused Lalit.
(arrest and
PW16 deposed that on 09.04.2020, personal search
Insp. Dinesh had brought three memo of
accused Rishabh Chaudhary, Jatin accused Vivek
Sharma and Vivek Panchal, in the Panchal,
Page 18 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
office and interrogated them. respectively)
Thereafter, Insp. Vinay Tyagi
arrested all three of them, in the
present case. Insp. Vinay Tyagi
prepared their separate arrest and
personal search memos and recorded
their disclosure statement. PW16
identified his signature at circle X on
arrest and personal search memos of
accused Rishabh Chaudhary and
Vivek Panchal.
PW16 took sealed pullanda from PS
Gokalpuri, to CERT Technology
Information at CGO complex, Lodhi
Road and deposited the same there,
on 08.09.2020, in FIR No.35/20.
On 24.09.2020, Insp. Tyagi handed
over one authority letter to PW16, in
order to bring the result from CERT,
CGO complex. PW16 went to CERT
and handed over the authority letter.
In CERT, PW16 was handed over 4
sealed pullandas and documents
running into 8 pages. PW16 took all
these materials to malkhana PS
Gokalpuri and handed over the same
to MHC(M). MHC(M) handed back
2 sealed pullandas out of 4 pullandas,
alongwith some papers out of
aforesaid 8 pages, to PW16, so as to
hand over the same to the IO and he
did the same.
PW16 did not support the case of
prosecution and he was also declared
Page 19 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
hostile on the point of colour of
VIVO mobile phone as recovered
from accused Lalit on 17.03.2020.
PW17/ASI PW17 deposed on the lines of Ex.PW17/A
Ram Dass & PW13/ASI Manvir, in respect of: – (i) (rukka);
PW18/ recovery of dead bodies; (ii) Ex.PW17/B
RetdACP recovery and seizure of one (site plan);
Mahesh motorcycle bearing no.
Ex.PW17/C
DL-5SBA-7168; (iii) sending those
(identification
three dead bodies in TATA 407 to
statement of
GTB hospital along with ASI Manvir
Babu Khan);
and Ct. Karamveer; (iv) preparing of
rukka by PW17; (v) recording Ex.PW17/D &
statement of father of deceased and Ex.PW17/E
identification of dead body of Aamir; (Request form
and (vi) seizure of one cloth pullanda to conduct
with blood on gauze vide memo postmortem
Ex.PW13/A. examination
alongwith form
PW17 witnessed preparation of site
25.35); &
plan by SHO at his instance, in the
present case. Ex.PW18/A
(scaled site
PW17 prepared inquest papers for
plan)
conducting postmortem on the dead
bodies in FIR Nos.35/20 and 37/20
i.e. deceased Hashim Ali and Aamir,
respectively. PW17 also identified
his signature at circle X on request-
form to conduct postmortem
examination alongwith form 25.35.
On 06.05.2020, PW17 had pointed
out the place of recovery of dead
bodies to PW18/Retd. ACP Mahesh,
who was draughtsman from Crime
branch. PW18 had taken his
Page 20 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
measurements. On the basis of said
measurements, PW18 prepared
scaled site plan on 26.05.2020 and
thereafter handed over the same to
the IO/Insp. Vinay Tyagi on same
day.
PW19/ASI PW19 was working as MHC(M) in Ex.PW19/A
Mahesh PS Gokalpuri. (OSR) (copy of
R/C no.
PW19 deposed that IO of this case 59/21/20)
deposited 2 sealed pullandas in the
malkhana. PW19 handed over those
two sealed pullandas to ASI Satbir
for depositing the same in FSL
Rohini. PW19 had issued road
certificate no.59/21/20 to ASI Satbir.
After depositing the aforesaid
pullandas in FSL Rohini, ASI Satbir
handed over 3 documents i.e. copy of
acknowledgement, receipt as issued
by FSL and copy of R/C. The copy
of road certificate was pasted in the
register no.21.
Till the time the pullandas remained
in his custody, they were not
tampered with.
PW19 declared hostile by the
prosecution on the point of one name
of Satish Patil, which was wrongly
mentioned by PW19 as Satbir, in his
evidence.
PW20/SI He joined investigation of the present Ex.PW20/A
Sunil case on 10.04.2020, along with IO/ (pointing out
Insp. Vinay Tyagi, SI Hava Singh, memo at the
ASI Mohd. Salim, ASI Satish Patil, instance of
Page 21 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
HC Shashikant, HC Shyam Lal, HC accused Jatin
Babu Ram, Ct. Kuldeep and Ct. Sharma)
Puneet.
He witnessed preparation of pointing
out memo at the instance of accused
Jatin Sharma, Vivek Panchal and
Rishabh Chaudhary.
PW20 correctly identified accused
Jatin Sharma, before the court.
PW21/ASI He joined investigation of the present Ex.PW21/A
Ramesh case on 08.03.2020, along with (arrest memo
Kumar & IO/Insp. Vinay Tyagi, PW22/SI Hava of accused
PW22/SI Singh and other staff. PW21 and Lokesh);
Hava Singh PW22 witnessed seizure of mobile Ex.PW21/B
phones from witnesses Shivam, (arrest memo
Mohit and Dimpal Paul. PW21 and of accused
PW22 also witnessed arrest and Ankit
personal search of accused Lokesh Chaudhary);
Solanki, in the present case.
Ex.PW21/C
PW22 witnessed seizure of three (pointing out
print outs of WhatsApp messages memo at the
related to riots, by IO/Insp. Vinay instance of
Tyagi. These messages were found in accused Ankit);
the mobile phones of witnesses
Ex.PW21/D &
Shivam, Mohit and Dimpal.
Ex.PW21/E
PW21 and PW22 also joined (arrest and
investigation of the present case on personal search
11.03.2020, along with IO/Insp. memo of
Vinay Tyagi, ASI Mohd. Salim, ASI accused Jatin).
Satish Patil, ASI Sunil, HC Shyam
Ex.PW22/A to
Lal, HC Babu Ram, Ct. Kuldeep &
Ex.PW22/C
Ct. Puneet. PW21 and PW22
(print outs of
witnessed arrest of accused Ankit
WhatsApp
Chaudhary and Sumit @ Badshah
Page 22 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
and pointing out memo. chats found in
PW21 also joined investigation of mobile phones
the present case on 09.04.2020. He of witnesses
witnessed arrest and personal search Shivam, Mohit
of accused Pankaj Sharma. and Dimple,
respectively);
PW22 witnessed arrest of accused
Himanshu by IO on 22.04.2020, at Ex.PW22/D to
Tihar Jail. Ex.PW22/F
(true copy of
PW21 correctly identified accused
seizure memo
Ankit, Pankaj & Badshah, before the
of mobile
court.
phones of
During his cross-examination by ld. witnesses
Special PP, PW21 admitted Shivam, Mohit
suggestion of ld. SPP in respect of and Dimple,
identification of his signature on respectively);
arrest and personal search memo of
Ex.PW22/G
accused Jatin Sharma. PW21 also
(true copy of
admitted the suggestion of ld. SPP in
seizure memo
respect of identification of accused
of mobile
Jatin Sharma.
phone of
During his cross-examination by ld. Lokesh)
Special PP, PW22 admitted
Ex.PW22/H
suggestion of ld. SPP in respect of
(personal
identification of accused Himanshu,
search memo
Rishabh Chaudhary, Sandeep @
of accused
Mogli, Sahil @ Babu and Lokesh
Lokesh);
Solanki.
Ex.PW22/I
(arrest memo
of Sumit);
Ex.PW22/J
(pointing out
memo at the
instance of
Page 23 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
accused Ankit
and Sumit);
Ex.PW22/L
(arrest memo
of Himanshu)
PW23/Insp. PW23 was posted as SHO in PS Gokalpuri.
Pramod During patrolling on 27.02.2020, he found three dead
Joshi bodies near Johripur pulia in Bhagirathi Vihar nala.
PW23 passed on this information to DO. ASI Ram
Dass along with ASI Manvir Singh came to this place
and PW23 pointed out those bodies to these two
officials.
After registration of FIR in this case, PW23 had taken
up investigation of this case on same day. He was
handed over original tehrir and copy of FIR by ASI
Ram Dass.
PW23 deposed on the lines of PW17 in respect of: – (i)
site plan Ex.PW17/B prepared by him; (ii) sending
dead body to GTB hospital mortuary on 27.02.2020;
(iii) direction given to PW17/ASI Ram Dass on
29.02.2020, to get postmortem examination done on
this dead body.
Thereafter, further investigation of this case transferred
to Crime branch and PW23 sent the case file to Crime
branch through road certificate.
On 06.05.2020 on the call of Insp. Vinay from Crime
branch, PW23 reached the place of recovery of dead
body in this case. Insp. Mahesh was already called by
IO/Insp. Vinay for the purpose of preparing scaled site
plan. PW23 pointed out the place of recovery of dead
body to Insp. Mahesh.
PW24/Sh. He was working as Nodal Officer in Ex.PW24/A to
Ajay Kumar Bharti Airtel company and he proved Ex.PW24/N
Page 24 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
certified copy of CDR, and (certified copy
respective CAFs/EKYCs/DKYCs, as of CDR, and
pertaining to mobile numbers respective
9871171934, 9212946177, CAFs, as
9205095077, 9891407613, pertaining to
9821685321, 9560585420 and given mobile
7453838637, for the period w.e.f numbers);
01.02.2020 to 29.02.2020.
Ex.PW24/P &
PW24 also proved manual Cell ID Ex.PW24/Q
Chart and certificate u/s. 63 BSA (Respective
pertaining to afore-said CDRs, certificates u/s.
EKYCs/DKYCs. 65-B of I.E.
Act);
During his cross-examination by ld.
SPP, PW24 admitted the suggestion Ex.PW24/R
that he had furnished the record (manual Cell
sought by IO in respect of CDR and ID Chart);
EKYC of mobile no. 9650832647.
PW24 proved certified copy of Ex.PW24/S &
EKYC with certificate u/s. 65-B of Ex.PW24/T
I.E. Act. (certificate u/s.
65-B of I.E.
Act and
certified copy
of EKYC)
PW25/ASI PW25 participated in the Ex.PW25/A
Satish Patil investigation of the present case on (pointing out
10.04.2020 along with IO/Insp. memo at the
Vinay Tyagi, SI Hawa Singh, ASI instance of
Sunil, ASI Salim Khan, ASI Ramesh, accused Vivek
HC Shashikant, HC Babu Lal, HC Panchal);
Shyam Lal, Ct. Kuldeep, Ct. Puneet. Ex.PW25/B
PW25 was witness to pointing out (original
memo at the instance of accused acknowledgme
Vivek Panchal. nt from FSL)
PW25 deposed on the lines of PW19
in respect of Ex.PW19/A (OSR). Till
the time aforesaid exhibits remained
Page 25 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
in his custody, same were not
tampered with in any manner.
PW25 correctly identified accused
Vivek Panchal before the court.
PW26/ASI On 20.08.2020, on the instruction of IO/Insp. Vinay
Shashikant Tyagi, PW26 went to office of FSL Rohini in Bio
Division. PW26 collected report no.
2730/CSMD/132/20/12639 dt.31.07.2020, which was
sealed with the seal of ‘FSL J DELHI’ and
articles/pullandas, pertaining to FIR No.35/20.
Thereafter, PW26 went to malkhana, PS Gokalpuri and
deposited 2 pullandas in the malkhana PS Gokalpuri.
Report was handed over to the IO/Insp. Vinay Tyagi.
Till the time exhibits and reports remained in his
custody, same were not tampered with, in any manner.
PW27/HC PW27 deposed that on 27.02.2020, on receipt of
Karamveer telephonic call from DO, he reached Johripur pulia.
PW27 accompanied PW13/ASI Manvir and PW17/ASI
Ram Dass to GTB hospital, in one TATA 407, wherein
three dead bodies were kept.
PW27 deposed that MLC of three dead bodies were
prepared in GTB hospital and dead bodies were
deposited in mortuary GTB hospital. PW27 was
deputed at the mortuary for safety of aforesaid dead
bodies and he remained there upto 29.02.2020, for
aforesaid particular duty. His statement was recorded
by Insp. Bineet Pandey in FIR Nos. 35/20 and 37/20.
PW28/Sh. PW28 was running his business in the name of L.A.
Rajeev Enterprises at the address of 4697/3, IIIrd floor, Nepal
Manocha Carrier Building, 21A, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New
Delhi.
PW28 deposed that his company had provied Mr.
Narottam a motorcycle bearing no. DL-1SA E 6074
Page 26 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
and a mobile no. 9310849006. Said motorcycle was
registered in the name of afore-said company and said
mobile number was obtained in the name of afore-said
company.
PW29/Insp. He was IO of FIR No. 156/20 PS Ex.PW29/A &
Vinod Gokalpuri. He had arrested accusedEx.PW29/B
Ahlawat Himanshu Thakur, in his case on (true copies of
08.04.2020. arrest and
personal search
PW29 correctly identified accused memo of
Himanshu Thakur. Himanshu
Thakur,
respectively)
PW30/Insp. PW30 was IO of FIR No.36/20 of PS Ex.PW30/A &
Dinesh Gokalpuri. Ex.PW30/B
Kumar (true copies of
In that case, PW30 had recovered
and seized one danda each at the seizure memos
instance of accused Jatin and Vivek, of danda at the
on 09.04.2020. On 11.04.2020, instance of
PW30 had provided copy of that Jatin and
seizure memos to the IO of this case Vivek); &
i.e. Insp. Vinay Tyagi.
Ex.PW30/C to
PW30 was assigned further Ex.PW30/E
investigation of this case and he had (arrest memo
interrogated and formally arrested
accused Sahil @ Babu in jail no. 5, of accused
Tihar, on 27.10.2020; accused Sahil, Sandeep
Sandeep @ Mogli and Tinku in jail and Tinku,
no.13, Mandoli on 29.12.2020. respectively)
PW30 recorded statement Sh. Rajiv
Minocha and Sh. Nasir, in the
present case.
On 18.01.2021, PW30 along with SI
Subhash visited PS Gokalpuri, where
PW30 was provided 3 photographs
of rioters, copies of seizure memo of
Page 27 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
mobile phone of Nasir and that of
pen-drive taken from Nasir, by
IO/ASI Manveer of FIR No.78/20.
PW30 seized all these materials vide
seizure memo.
PW30 received another report in
respect of examination of the dandas
from FSL. The dandas were also
received back from FSL. Thereafter,
PW30 sent those dandas alongwith
an application to GTB Hospital for
obtaining subsequent opinion
regarding injuries received by
deceased being possible to be
inflicted through those dandas.
Subsequently, PW30 received that
opinion also.
PW30 also received a sanction order
u/s 196 Cr.P.C. against accused
Lokesh Solanki, Pankaj, Ankit,
Sumit, Prince, Jatin, Vivek, Rishab
and Himanshu for offence u/s
153A/505 IPC. Thereafter, PW30
prepared supplementary chargesheet
and filed the same alongwith
aforesaid material in the court on
24.01.2021.
Thereafter, PW30 sent a request
letter to DCP, N/E for a complaint u/s
195 Cr.P.C. against all the accused
persons for the offence u/s 188 IPC
on account of violating the order u/s
144Cr.P.C. Subsequently, PW30
received that complaint from the
office of DCP, N/E. PW30 also sent a
request letter to Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, requesting sanction u/s 196
Cr.P.C. for offence u/s 153A/505 IPC
Page 28 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
against accused Sahil @ Babu,
Sandeep @ Mogli and Tinku. This
sanction order was also subsequently
received. Thereafter, in September
2021, PW30 filed another
supplementary chargesheet
alongwith aforesaid materials.
PW30 had also collected CDRs and
CAF of the mobile numbers used by
some witnesses and some accused
persons. PW30 correctly identified
accused Sahil @ Babu, Sandeep @
Mogli and Tinku before the court.
PW31/Sh. He was working as Nodal Officer in Ex.PW31/A to
Pankaj Reliance Jio and he proved certified Ex.PW31/J
Sharma copy of CDR and respective (certified copy
CAFs/EKYCs/DKYCs, as pertaining of CDR, and
to mobile no. 7557497409, respective
7557223533, 7982702731, CAFs, as
7217779080 and 8287809349, for pertaining to
the period w.e.f 01.02.2020 to given mobile
29.02.2020. numbers);
PW31 also proved manual Cell ID Ex.PW31/K
Chart and certificate u/s. 63 BSA (certificate u/s.
pertaining to afore-said CDRs, 63 BSA in
EKYCs/DKYCs. respect of
aforesaid
CDRs and
CAFs); &
Ex.PW31/L
(manual Cell
ID Chart)
PW32/Insp. PW32 had joined investigation in Ex.PW32/A &
Arjun Singh FIR No.35/20 and in this case with Ex.PW32/B
IO/Insp. Vinay Tyagi on 09.03.2020. (arrest and
In his presence pointing out memo personal search
was prepared at the instance of memos of
Page 29 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
accused Lokesh Solanki. Lokesh Pankaj);
Solanki had opened his Facebook Ex.PW32/C
profile and pointed out to his some of (copy of
friends while disclosing their names seizure memo
and IO had taken print/screenshot of of mobile at the
these photographs in his presence. instance of
Accused Pankaj and Prince were Pankaj,
arrested in his presence by IO on pertaining to
10.03.2020 and 13.03.2020. FIR No.35/20);
A mobile phone from accused Pankaj Ex.PW32/D
was seized in his presence in FIR (arrest memo
No.33/20. of accused
Pointing out memos of place of Prince);
incident at the instance of Sumit Ex.PW32/F
Chaudhary, Ankit and Prince were (seizure memo
prepared in his presence. On of VIVO
17.03.2020 accused Pawan and Lalit mobile at the
were arrested in his presence. instance of
One mobile phone make VIVO was Lalit); &
recovered from Lalit in his presence. Ex.PW32/G &
Subsequently, accused Sahil @ Ex.PW32/H
Babu, Sandeep @ Mogli and (arrest and
Himanshu Thakur were arrested in personal search
his presence on 27.10.2020 and memo of
29.12.2020, respectively. accused Lalit)
PW32 had examined HC Pradeep
regarding announcement of order u/s.
144 Cr.P.C.
In the court, this witness identified
all accused persons except Prince,
though in cross-examination by
prosecution, he admitted the
suggestion regarding identity of
Page 30 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
Prince.
PW33/Sh. PW33 was Alternate Circle Nodal Ex.PW33/A to
Shashank Officer in Vodafone Idea Ltd. He Ex.PW33/M
Tyagi proved certified copy of CDR and (certified copy
CAF in respect of mobile numbers of CDRs and
8750610027, 9540689734, CAFs of given
9136034019, 8588902696 & mobile number
9313118035 along with certificate along with
u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act and Cell ID certificate and
Chart. Cell ID Chart)
PW34/Ms. PW34 was widow of Aamir. She deposed that on
Shabina 26.02.2020, her husband late Aamir alongwith her
brother-in-law (devar) namely Hashim Ali left Garima
Garden, Ghaziabad, U.P. at about 9 p.m., for
Mustafabad, Delhi. They had gone on their Apache
bike. At around 9.30 p.m., PW34 spoke to her husband
on mobile phone from her mobile phone bearing
no.7827….. She did not remember the complete
number.
PW34 further deposed that her husband informed her
that they had reached Gokalpuri pulia and they would
be reaching home within 5 minutes. He had also
informed PW34 that at that place, there was a mob and
that the mob was intercepting the muslim persons.
After around 5-10 minutes, PW34 called her husband
on mobile phone, to know whether they had reached
home or not. However, his phone was switched off.
PW35/Sh. PW35 deposed on the lines of PW8 in respect of Aamir
Sheruddin and Hasim, who were coming home on Apache vehicle
on 26.02.2020 and in respect of telephonic
conversation of Nasir with Amir.
PW35 identified photograph of Amir and Hasim at PS
Gokalpuri, where police informed him that those dead
Page 31 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
bodies were taken out from the drain.
PW36/Sh. PW36 was not sure about the exact date, but on 25-
Narottam 26.02.2020 at about 7-8 PM, he had gone to drain of
Singh Bhagirathi Vihar, T-point bridge and had seen a mob of
around 100 persons on bridge. Those persons were
inspecting the passersby and making inquiry about the
religion. They were assaulting the persons from
Muslim Community. PW36 was at the distance of
about 100 meters from them near a Pipe Line and he
found that certain vehicles/bikes were set on fire. He
saw two persons coming on Apache motorcycle being
inspected by that mob. One of them had jumped in the
drain and second person was given beatings, thereafter
that person also jumped in the drain. Thereafter, PW36
came back to his home.
He did not know anyone in that mob nor did he see
face of any one in that mob. PW36 had also not seen
those bikers or their face because they were wearing
helmet. He had made call at 100 number and informed
police about ongoing riots.
PW36 was declared hostile by prosecution in respect of
identity of accused persons and other factual aspects,
but he did not confirm the date of incident of beating
two bike riders, nor did he support the prosecution
about having seen any of the accused persons in that
mob.
PW37/Sh. PW37 was working as Scientist B, in Ex.PW37/A
Arun Kumar Cyber Forensic Lab, CERT-In, (True copy of
Sahani Ministry of Electronics, Government original report
of India, New Delhi. On 17.04.2020, prepared by
PW37 received request letter from PW37 in FIR
Crime branch in FIR No.35/20, PS No.35/20, in
Gokalpuri, alongwith 5 sealed respect of
packets and other documents. These extracted data
exhibits were assigned to PW37 and from digital
Page 32 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
his Incharge Lt. Colonel Santosh exhibits);
Khadsare.
Ex.PW37/B
PW37 extracted data from the digital (certificate u/s
exhibits i.e. mobile phones, SIM 65B of IE Act
cards and memory cards as contained in respect
in those 5 sealed packets. The Ex.PW37/A);
extracted data were copied/stored in
a pendrive. PW37 and his I/C Ex.PW37/D &
prepared report about afore-said Ex.PW37/E
proceeding and issued a certificate in (true copy of
respect of the same, in that FIR. another report
dated
PW37 again received another request 22.09.2020 and
letter dated 07.09.2020 in FIR certificate u/s.
No.35/20, PS Gokalpuri alongwith 65-B of I.E.
sealed packets of exhibits as sent Act,
back by this witness to the police. respectively);
This time, PW37 examined exhibits
A1-MOB, A2-MOB and A3-MOB, Ex.PW37/H
alongwith their related SIMs and (certificate u/s.
memory cards. PW37 and his I/C 63 BSA in
prepared report about afore-said respect of
proceeding and issued a certificate in preparation of
respect of the same, in that FIR. mirror copy);
&
PW37 received a request letter from
Delhi Police, thereby seeking mirror Ex.PW37/
copy of extracted data, which was so Article-1 (Pen-
done in FIR No.35/20, PS Gokalpuri. drive with
PW37 prepared mirror copy of afore- extracted data)
said extracted data for this case,
using office copy maintained in his
office. The mirror copy was sealed
and sent back to Delhi Police. PW37
also provided certificate u/s 63 BSA
in this respect. He identified pendrive
with its contents as
Ex.PW37/Article-1. This pen-drive
contained chats from afore-said
WhatsApp group namely “Kattar
Page 33 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
Hindut”.
PW38/Sh. PW38 was working as Deputy Ex.PW38/A &
L.K. Secretary (Home), GNCT, Delhi. Ex.PW38/B
Gautam (sanction
PW38 deposed that Lt. Governor of
GNCT of Delhi, approved for orders dated
according sanction u/s. 196 Cr.P.C 16.12.2020 and
for offences u/s 153A/505 IPC 26.07.2021);
against accused Lokesh Solanki,
Pankaj Sharma, Sumit Chaudhary,
Ankit Chaudhary, Prince, Rishabh
Chaudhary, Jatin Sharma, Vivek
Panchal and Himanshu Thakur, in
this case.
PW38 being competent officer to
sign the sanction order on behalf of
LG, signed said sanction order.
Similar sanction was accorded by LG
against accused Sandeep, Sahil and
Tinku in this case.
PW39/Retd On 05.03.2020, PW39 was assigned investigation of
Insp. Vinay present case as well as of FIR No.35/20, both PS
Tyagi Gokalpuri. On same day, PW39 visited house of
deceased situated in Bhagirathi Vihar and met his
father Babu Khan and his elder brother Nasir Ali as
well as widow of deceased Aamir, namely Smt.
Shabeena Khan. He recorded their statements.
PW39 deposed on the lines of PW21 and PW22 in
respect of seizure of mobile phones from witnesses
Shivam, Mohit and Dimpal.
PW39 received report of SOC alongwith photographs
from Crime Team from North East district. Same were
inspected and placed on file.
PW39 also deposed on the lines of PW21, PW22 and
Page 34 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
PW32, in respect of Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/D,
Ex.PW21/E, Ex.PW22/A to Ex.PW22/L and
Ex.PW32/A to Ex.PW32/H.
PW39 also deposed on the lines of PW16 in respect of
Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW16/D,
Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F and Ex.PW16/G.
On 17.04.2020 PW39 sent all the pullandas to CERT-
In, for the retrieval of all the data i.e. text messages,
videos and audios, through ASI Satish Patil. On
27.04.2020, PW39 recorded statement of Insp. Pramod
Joshi regarding registration of FIR in this case.
On 06.05.2020 draughtsman Insp. Mahesh Chand
along with his team went to place of occurrence and he
took measurements at the instance of Insp. Pramod
Joshi. PW39 recorded their statement.
On 08.05.2020, clothes of deceased were sent to FSL,
Rohini, for the purpose of investigation, through ASI
Satish Patil.
PW39 had prepared the chargesheet and filed the same
on 04.06.2020 before the court of ld. CMM/NE. On
24.09.2020, report from CERT-In was collected by HC
Shyam Lal and he handed over the same to PW39. He
deposited the 5 mobile phones in the malkhana. In this
regard, statements of HC Shyam Lal (Crime branch)
and MHC(M) PS Gokalpuri namely HC Mahesh, were
recorded.
Thereafter, PW39 prepared supplementary
chargesheet-I and filed it on 30.09.2020 before the
court alongwith aforesaid materials.
On 22.07.2020 PW39 had also applied for sanction u/s
196 Cr.PC through DCP Crime Branch against the
accused persons. Same was received by PW39 and he
had also filed that sanction order in the court of ld.
Page 35 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Sl. No. & Role of Witness & Description of Proved
Name of Testimony documents/
Witness case properties
CMM/NE. Thereafter, this case was transferred to Insp.
Dinesh Kumar for further investigation.
PW39 had also collected certified copy of CAFs and
CDRs of mobile phones of all accused persons. He had
also obtained certified copy of CAF and CDR of
mobile phone of deceased Aamir Ali, witness Narottam
and some other witnesses. PW39 had sent information
of IMEI number of mobile phone set and SIM card
number alloted to deceased Aamir Ali, to all service
providers. PW39 received information from one
service provider that the SIM card number of Aamir
Ali i.e. 9313118035 was being used on a mobile phone
set with different IMEI number ending with 11151108.
PW39 also added Section 412 and 201 IPC against
accused Pawan and Lalit, in the present case.
PW39 correctly identified accused Sumit @ Badshah,
Pawan, Lokesh, Panchal, Jatin, Rishab and Prince,
before the court.
PW39 also correctly identified accused Ankit, Lalit,
Pankaj and Himanshu.
Admitted documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C/330 BNSS
Particulars of R/C of vehicle no. DL-5SBA-7168 as Ex.A-1 &
Ex.A-2; certificate u/s. 65-B of I.E. Act as Ex.A-3; MLC No.760 as
Ex.A-4; postmortem report no.356/2020 as Ex.A-5; death certificate
as Ex.A-6; emergency registration card as Ex.A-7; opinion regarding
weapon of offence as Ex.A-8; copy of FIR No.41/20 as Ex.A-9 (colly
3 pages); copy of arrest memo of Ankit Chaudhary as Ex.A-10; copy
of arrest memo of Sumit @ Badshah as Ex.A-11; copy of personal
search memo of Ankit Chaudhary as Ex.A-12; copy of personal
search memo of Sumit @ Badshah as Ex.A-13; copy of FIR No.50/20
as Ex.A-14; copy of arrest memo and personal search memo of
accused Prince as Ex.A-15 & A-16 respectively and copy of R/C
No.15/21/20 as Ex.A-17.
Page 36 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
PLEA OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 351 BNSS
16. For the purpose of recording statement of accused persons under
Section 351 BNSS, prosecution was asked to file synopsis of
incriminating evidence. It was so filed by ld. Special Public
Prosecutor. Submissions were heard from both the sides on the
point of incriminating evidence against the accused persons.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE & PROSECUTION ON THE POINT
OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE
17. Ms. Priyanka Jain, Adv. authorised by Sh. Nishant Kumar Tyagi,
ld. counsel for accused Jatin Sharma, Lokesh Solanki, Sahil @
Babu, Vivek Panchal and Rishabh Chaudhary; Sh. Rakshpal
Singh and Sh. Hari Krishan, ld. counsels for accused Pankaj
Sharma, Sumit @ Badshah, Ankit Chaudhary @ Fauji, Prince,
Tinku and Sandeep @ Mogli; and Sh. Rajan Sisodia, ld. counsel
for Himanshu Thakur, took plea that the alleged eye witnesses of
prosecution, did not support the case of prosecution and they
were declared hostile by the prosecutor. None of the witnesses of
prosecution identified any of the accused persons, as part of the
mob of rioters who killed the victim in this case. Hence,
judgment of acquittal should be passed in the case.
18. However, Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ld. Special P.P. argued that though
the witnesses cited as eye witness of the incident did not support
the case of prosecution, but there are circumstantial evidences on
the record, which point out to accused persons. Hence, those
circumstantial evidences should be put to the accused persons,
for their response under Section 351 BNSS.
Page 37 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
SECTION 255 BNSS & 351 BNSS
19. Section 255 BNSS (erstwhile S.232 Cr.P.C.) provides as under: –
“Acquittal- If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution,
examining the accused and hearing the prosecution and the
defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no
evidence that the accused committed the offence, the judge
shall record an order of acquittal.”
Section 256 BNSS (erstwhile 233 Cr.P.C.) provides as under: –
“Entering upon defence. – (1) Where the accused is not acquitted
under section 255, he shall be called upon to enter on his defence
and adduce any evidence he may have in support thereof. (2) If
the accused puts in any written statement, the Judge shall file it
with the record. (3) If the accused applies for the issue of any
process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the
production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such
process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such
application should be refused on the ground that it is made for
the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of
justice.”
Section 257 BNSS further provides that when examination of the
witness of accused, (if any) is complete, the prosecutor shall sum
up his case and thereafter the accused shall be entitled to respond
to the arguments of the prosecutor. Section 258 BNSS further
provides that after hearing arguments and points of law (if any),
the judge shall give a judgment in the case.
20. On the other hand, Section 351 BNSS (erstwhile S.313 Cr.P.C.)
provides as under: –
“Power to examine the accused – (1) In every inquiry or trial,
for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain
any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the
Court- (a) may at any stage, without previously warning the
accused, put such questions to him as the Court considersPage 38 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpurinecessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have
been examined and before he is called on for his defence,
question him generally on the case: ……”
21. As it is evident from the language used in Section 351 BNSS,
this provision talks about “any circumstance appearing in the
evidence against the accused”. On the basis of such language,
practically the courts have been using the term of “incriminating
evidence”. The purpose or objective behind the provision under
section 351 BNSS is also evident from the language of the
provision, wherein it is mentioned that ‘for the purpose of
enabling the accused personally to explain’. Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in the case of Ranjan Dwivedi & Anr. v. CBI, 2008
Cri.L.J. 1440 (DHC), was examining the scope and content of
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in that process, Delhi High Court
referred to following observations made by hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC
612: “the ultimate test in determining whether or not the accused
has been fairly examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. (similar
provision under old Act), would be to enquire whether, having
regard to all the question put to him, he did get an opportunity to
say what he wanted to say in respect of prosecution case against
him. If it appears that the examination of the accused person was
defective and thereby a prejudice has been caused to him, that
would no doubt be a serious infirmity.”. Taking view of object
behind Section 313 Cr.P.C., Delhi High Court observed that ” 19.
Thus, it is well settled that the provision is mainly intended to
benefit the accused and as it’s corollary to benefit the court in
reaching the final conclusion. 20. At the same time, it should be
Page 39 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
borne in mind that the provision is not intended to nail him to
any position, but to comply with the most salutary principle of
natural justice enshrined in the maxim ‘audi alteram partem’.”
22. Delhi High Court further made observations in the same case in
the following terms: –
“24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic approach is
warranted in regard to such special exigencies. The word
‘Shall’ in clause b to Section 313 (1) of the code is to be
interpreted as obligatory on the court and it should be
complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused.”
23. Delhi High Court was dealing with a different situation in the
concerned case, however, in that process, the court did come up
with clear cut observations that the principle underlying Section
313 Cr.P.C. was “audi alteram partem” i.e. to afford an
opportunity to the accused to explain adverse material or
circumstances. The court further made it clear that the said
provision was intended for the benefit of the accused, to explain
circumstances, which might appear adverse to him, so that
accused could explain them.
24. In the case of Sivamani & Anr. v. State of Kerala, 1993 Cri.L.J.
23 (Kerala), while examining the scope of section 232 Cr.P.C.,
hon’ble Kerala High Court observed that an accused can be
acquitted u/s 232 only when there is no evidence that he
committed the offence. In that case, Kerala High Court dealt with
the term of ‘there is no evidence’ and in that process the court
referred to observations made by Division Bench of same court
in the case of State of Kerala v. Mundan, 1981 Cri.L.J. 1795
(Kerala), to the effect that where there is some evidence
Page 40 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
connecting the accused with the commission of crime, it is the
duty of the judge to pass on to Section 233 and not to appreciate
that evidence and find out whether it was reliable or not, so as to
pass an order u/s 232 of the Code. In the case of Mundan (supra),
Kerala High Court had further observed that the words ‘no
evidence’ in Section 232 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed and
interpreted to mean absence of sufficient evidence for conviction
or absence of satisfactory or trustworthy or conclusive evidence
in support of the charge. The judge has to see whether any
evidence has been let in on behalf of the prosecution in support
of their case that the accused committed the offence alleged, and
whether that evidence is legal and relevant. It is not the quality or
quantity of the evidence that has to be considered at this stage. If
there is any evidence to show that the accused has committed the
offence, then the judge has to pass on to the next stage. It is not
open to him to evaluate and consider the reliability of the
evidence at that stage.
25. In the case of Madan Mohan Jagga v. The State, 1984 Cri.L.J.
681 (Himachal Pradesh), even High Court of Himachal Pradesh
examined the scope of ‘no evidence’ as appearing in Section 232
Cr.P.C. to observe that “this term neither means total absence of
evidence, nor does it mean absence of cogent, convincing,
reliable and trustworthy evidence. All that it means is that there is
no inculpatory evidence against the accused in the sense that
even if the prosecution evidence adduced is accepted at it’s face
value, it would not amount to legal proof of the evidence,
charged against the accused. In such a case, the court is not
Page 41 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
required to marshal the evidence with a view to find out if it
would be safe to act upon it or not.”
26. In view of above-mentioned observations made by higher courts,
it had to be seen if at all examination of an accused u/s 351
BNSS was necessary in all the circumstances. As per S.351
BNSS, the inculpatory evidence appearing against the accused is
to be put to him, so as to enable the accused to give his
explanation. As per Section 255 BNSS, if the judge considers
that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence,
the judge shall record an order of acquittal. On conjoint reading
of Section 255 and Section 351 BNSS, it becomes amply clear
that the focus of the court has to be on inculpatory evidence.
However, the expression ‘no evidence’ as mentioned in Section
255 BNSS has an important role to decide if examination u/s 351
BNSS is mandatory in all circumstances. If there is no admissible
evidence on the record, so as to indicate towards the accused for
commission of alleged offence, then there remains no occasion to
seek any kind of explanation from the accused. In other words, if
there is no inculpatory evidence on the record to connect the
accused with the offences charged against him, then it is not a
viable situation to seek any kind of explanation from him. In
absence of inculpatory evidence on the record, examination u/s
351 BNSS shall be useless exercise, because accused is
otherwise not required to explain evidence of any such fact,
which does not connect him with the offences charged against
him. Section 255 BNSS becomes relevant for such situation only.
27. For this purpose, as per law explained by higher courts,
Page 42 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
appreciation of the evidence on the record was to be done on
limited para meters i.e. without looking into the credibility and
sufficiency of the evidence to convict the accused for the
offences charged with. On analysing the evidence on the record,
on the above-mentioned parameters, I did not find any
incriminating evidence against any of the accused persons, which
could connect them with the alleged riotous incident of killing of
victim Aamir. Hence, statement of all accused persons u/s 351
BNSS was dispensed with, vis a vis all the charges except the
charges framed under Section 153-A/505 IPC and 412/201 IPC.
On perusal of the record and taking into consideration the view
taken by this court in FIR No.35/20, PS Gokalpuri, the evidence
qua charges under Section 153-A/505 IPC was looked into in this
case and the relevant incriminating evidence was put to accused
Lokesh Solanki. Similarly, the relevant incriminating evidence
against accused Pawan was put to him which related to charge
under Section 201/412 IPC. However, on analysing the evidence
on the parameters of requisite ingredients of offence under
Section 412 IPC, no incriminating circumstance to satisfy those
ingredients could be found against accused Lalit. Hence,
statement under Section 351 BNSS of accused Lalit also, was
dispensed with.
PLEA OF ACCUSED LOKESH AND PAWAN
28. Accused Lokesh took plea that he did not know about the
WhatsApp Chat retrieved from the phone of witness Shivam. He
further took plea that he had not posted any message against any
community. He did not deny that a mobile phone make Redmi
Page 43 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Y-2 with dual SIM facility having SIM of mobile number
7557497409 was taken from his possession by IO, with
WhatsApp group in the name of “Kattar Hindut Ekta” and that
there were messages from his afore-said mobile number in afore-
said WhatsApp group. He also did not deny the correctness of
CDR and CAF of mobile no. 7557497409, which was issued in
his name. He took further plea that he was not an active member
in afore-said WhatsApp group and he was added in this
WhatsApp group by someone without his consent. He pleaded
innocence.
29. Accused Pawan took plea that he did not use the mobile phone
set (Intex) and that he did not give any information regarding
Lalit. He also pleaded innocence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE & PROSECUTION
SECTION 153-A/505 IPC
30. Sh. Nishant Tyagi, ld. counsel for accused Lokesh Solanki argued
that in the present case the ingredients of S.153-A IPC are not
proved and satisfied. He submitted that the allegations against
accused Lokesh could be covered under Clause (a) only and there
are no allegations to invoke Clause (b) & (c) at all. According to
him, for invoking Clause (a) malicious intent is very important
and there must be consequences of the words spoken or written
by the accused, to result into creating disharmony or riots etc. Ld.
counsel submitted that accused Lokesh through his messages did
not ask anyone to join him or to kill anyone. Accused rather
offered his help to the others. It was further argued that the other
members of that group were not before accused Lokesh in his
Page 44 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
physical presence and there is no evidence that any of those
members joined this accused for subsequent action. There is no
evidence to show that any disturbance was created because of
messages of accused Lokesh. Accused Lokesh did not hold any
position of responsibility so that his messages could be given
importance by anyone else. Thus, no one had listened to him and
no one was influenced by his messages.
31. Per contra, Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ld. Special Public Prosecutor for
State, argued that there is no requirement in law that there should
be some consequence as outcome of the hatred messages. He
submitted that if all the messages posted by Lokesh in the
WhatsApp group are read together, then there cannot be doubt
about satisfying the ingredients of S.153-A (a) IPC. He submitted
that a sanction under S. 196 Cr.P.C regarding this offence was
also duly proved.
32. Ms. Mangla Verma, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of victim
also argued that Section 153-A (a) & (b) IPC do not require any
consequent impact. She argued that these provisions only looked
for requisite intention of the accused, which can be reflected
from the messages posted by accused Lokesh.
33. A written argument was also filed on behalf of victim. In the
arguments, it has been mentioned that in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v.
State of A.P., (1997) 7 SCC 431, Supreme Court had analysed the
ingredients of Sections 153-A and 505 IPC and held that while
Section 153-A applies when a person, through spoken or written
words, signs, or visible representations, promotes or attempts to
promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill will, Section 505(2)
Page 45 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
requires that such feelings be promoted specifically through a
publication or by circulating a statement, rumour, or alarming
news. In both sections, however, the presence of mens rea or
criminal intent, is an essential element of the offence. Recently,
the Court in Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15
SCC 35 while referring to Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of
Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1, clarified that the intention has to
be judged primarily by the language of the piece of writing and
the circumstances in which it was written and published. The
matter complained of within the ambit of Section 153-A must be
read as a whole.
SECTION 412/201 IPC
34. Sh. Rakshpal Singh and Sh. Hari Krishan, ld. counsels for
accused Pawan argued that there is contradiction in the testimony
of PW22 and PW32 regarding recording of disclosure statement
of accused Pawan. PW22 mentioned the date of 18.03.2020,
while PW32 mentioned the date of 17.03.2020 for recording such
statement. They further argued that PW32 deposed that they had
gone in search of accused Pawan on 17.03.2020, though
according to IO/PW39 they were not aware about Pawan before
they met his father on 17.03.2020. It was further argued that IO
did not establish the chain and circumstances under which the
SIM card had allegedly reached upto accused Pawan. They
submitted that no mobile phone make Intex was recovered from
accused Pawan, rather it was planted upon him. IO did not make
inquiry from any of those persons with whom the conversions
would have taken place using afore-said SIM card, so as to
Page 46 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
confirm if the SIM card was actually used by accused Pawan.
35. Per contra, Sh. Saleem Ahmed, ld. Special Public Prosecutor for
State argued that CAF & CDR of mobile phone used by deceased
Aamir i.e. Ex.PW33/K & Ex.PW33/J show that the particular
mobile number was issued and was used by deceased Aamir.
Same mobile number was subsequently found being used after
the incident of killing of Aamir for some period, while using
IMEI of the phone set, which was found from the possession of
accused Pawan. The other SIM card used on that mobile phone
set (Intex) was found allocated in the name of father of Pawan.
He further submitted that S. 114 (a) of Indian Evidence Act
provides for presumption, which was not rebutted by accused
Pawan. He further submitted that Section 106 Evidence Act
operated against accused Pawan to account for his possession of
afore-said mobile set. He further submitted that IO deposed that
Pawan had disclosed about destroying the SIM card, which was
used in the name of deceased Aamir.
36. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions and
perused the record.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY & RIOT
37. Though the first charge refers to a wide range of period from
25.02.2020 to 26.02.2020, but it has to be appreciated that FIR in
this case was registered for murder of an unidentified person
presumably by a mob. Subsequently, said dead person was
identified as Aamir. On the basis of investigation, prosecution
alleged in the chargesheet that this victim was killed on
Page 47 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
26.02.2020 at about 9.40 P.M. at Bhagirathi Vihar Pulia.
Therefore, talking about any unlawful assembly at any other
place and at any other time, is irrelevant in this case. In the
present case, I have to look for evidence of unlawful assembly at
Bhagirathi Vihar Pulia at around 9.40 P.M. on 26.02.2020.
38. PW36/Narottam is the only witness, who claimed to have seen
two bikers being intercepted by a mob near Johripur Pulia. As per
testimony of PW36, either on 25 or 26.02.2020 at about 7-8 P.M.,
he saw a mob intercepting two bikers on T point bridge. One of
them jumped into the drain (Nala) and the second biker was
beaten. Thereafter second person also jumped into the drain.
Such evidence on its face value, establishes that two persons
riding a bike, were intercepted by a mob. One person jumped into
the drain, while other person was beaten and he also jumped into
the drain near Johripur Pulia (T point bridge). There is gap of
time between the time-period deposed by PW36 and alleged time
period of killing of Aamir. PW36 did not remember about the
exact date also. Thus, testimony of PW36 does not lead to any
concrete situation, to confirm the incident taking place in his
presence, as alleged in this case. This witness was examined by
prosecution in other cases also, including FIR 35/20 of same
police station which related to murder of Hashim (brother of
Aamir). However, prosecution did not take support from the
statement made by this witness in other case. Thus, evidence of
this witness on the record of this case, does not depict any
incriminating circumstance against any accused.
39. PW13 and PW17 were the police officials. According to their
Page 48 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
evidence, on 27.02.2020, they reached at drain in front of E
block, Bhagirathi Vihar and they recovered three dead bodies
from the drain. One motorcycle bearing no. DL-5S BA 7168 was
also recovered from the drain in burnt condition, from nearby
place to place of recovery of dead bodies. Number plate of the
motorcycle was lying outside the drain. Record from transport
authority related to motorcycle bearing aforesaid number, are
Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. These documents show that said motorcycle
(Apache) was registered in the name of Asgari, w/o Babu Khan.
PW8/Babu Khan deposed that Hashim and Aamir were his sons.
Aamir was having a bike bearing no. DL….7168, which was
purchased in the name of wife of Babu Khan i.e. Asgari.
According to evidence of PW8, PW10/Nasir and PW34/Shabina,
on 26.02.2020 Aamir and Hashim had left for Mustafabad, Delhi
from Ghaziabad on Apache bike at about 9 P.M. At about 9.30
P.M., Aamir had telephonic conversation with PW34, when
Aamir informed that he had reached Gokalpuri Pulia. But
thereafter Aamir or Hashim could not be contacted, as their
phone was found switched off. PW10 also had telephonic talk
with Aamir at about 9.30 P.M.
40. PW15 and PW19 did not find any other bike from the drain, at
least from the place where 3 dead bodies were lying in the drain.
Out of three, two bodies pertained to Hashim and Aamir. The
postmortem examination report of Aamir Ex. A-5 shows that he
had been inflicted several injuries including burn injuires.
Aforesaid evidence read together, show that probably Hashim
and Aamir were intercepted by someone in the night of
Page 49 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
26.02.2020 near Johripur Pulia and Aamir was beaten as well as
burnt. Aamir either jumped into the drain or he was thrown in the
drain. Their motorcycle was also burnt and thrown into the drain.
Therefore, on the basis of above-mentioned circumstantial
evidences, it can be inferred that Hashim and Aamir were
intercepted by someone which could or could not be a
mob/unlawful assembly. Postmortem report of Aamir shows that
he was inflicted 25 injuries and he died because of shock as a
result of injury to his head. Thus, it can be inferred from the
circumstances that it was a case of culpable homicide.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
41. Next question is that whether there is any evidence to show that
accused persons prosecuted in this case, were behind killing of
Aamir? Ld. Prosecutor submitted that the circumstantial evidence
on the record, point out to the accused persons.
42. Before I proceed further, it shall be beneficial to have an idea of
legal principles related to circumstantial evidence. In K.T.
Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal)
870, Supreme Court held that: –
“When the offence is said to have been committed and the
circumstantial evidence is made the basis for establishing
the charge against the appellant, indisputably all the links
must be completed to form the basis for his conviction. It
is now well settled that in a case where an offence is said
to have been established on circumstantial evidence alone,
indisputably all the links in the chain must be found to be
complete.”
43. Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with the conditions, which need
to be satisfied, before circumstantial evidence can be made the
Page 50 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
basis of conviction. In Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer
AIR 1956 SC 404; Shivaji Shohib Rao Bobade Vs. State AIR
1973 SC 2622; Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR
1984 SC 1622; Pandala Veera Reddy Vs. State of A.P and Other
AIR 1990 SC 79; C. Chenga Reddy and Others Vs. State of A.P
1996 (3) 10 SCC 193; Bodh Raj @ Bodha Vs. State of J & K
AIR 2002 SC 3164; Trimukh Murty Kirka Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 (Crl.); Vithal Eknath Adilinge Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2009(3) RCR (Crl.) 161, Hon’ble Supreme Court
had the occasion to deal with the circumstantial evidence based
cases. The principles for use of circumstantial evidence to arrive
at the finding of guilt, as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex court,
can be summarized as: –
i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn, should be fully established. The circumstances
concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;
ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of guilt of accused, i.e. to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused
is guilty;
iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature &
tendency;
iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused.”
44. In the present case, the circumstantial evidence has been relied
upon by ld. Prosecutor, for the reasons that the cited eye
witnesses, did not support the prosecution on the aspect of
identifying accused persons or any of them, as member of the
Page 51 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
mob which had allegedly intercepted Hashim and Amir. In fact,
except for PW36, no other witness claimed having seen any
incident. Even evidence of PW36 remained inconclusive in
respect of alleged incident. The circumstantial evidence has to be
looked into, to see if a chain of facts is so established, as to lead
to inference that accused persons or any of them, were part of a
mob which was responsible for killing of Hashim and Aamir.
45. Ld. Prosecutor as well as the written arguments on behalf of
victim, heavily relied upon the WhatsApp chats from above-
mentioned group, to raise fingers against accused Lokesh Solanki
and some others. These chats were proved to show extra judicial
confessions made therein by accused Lokesh. The relevant part
of those chats is as follows: –
“2/26/20, 9:45 AM – Binni: sare taiyaar rho
2/26/20, 8:29 PM – Binni: Bhai taiyaar rho kaam start hone vala
hai
2/26/20, 8:29 PM – Binni: taiyaar rho sare
2/26/20, 8:30 PM – Binni: puliya se pipeline ki trf aarge hai suer
2/26/20, 8:44 PM – +91 97168 29847: Aane du in mullo ka suar
bna denge
2/26/20, 10:22 PM – +91 70539 44604: Bhaio ye danga q ho raha
h nale par abhi jo hua tha
2/26/20, 10:22 PM – +91 70539 44604: Jhoripur nale par
2/26/20, 10:24 PM – +91 96435 06209: Dikat lag rhi he 6 no me
sab ready rhena
2/26/20, 11:39 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bhai Mai Ganga Vihar se
lokesh Solanki hu agr kisi ko koi problem ho or wha log Kam
pde to bta dena Mai apni Puri Ganga Vihar ki team k sath
aayunga Sara Saman hai humare pass goli bandook sab kuch
2/26/20, 11:40 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bhai Pura support hai
abhi Hindu bhaiyo ko
2/26/20, 11:40 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bilkul bhai Ganga Vihar
gokulpuri jhoripur sb sath hai tumharePage 52 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 97739 29196: 15 k Dane h kya
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 97739 29196: Kisi Bhai k pass
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 95992 45196: Monty Nagar.vcf (file
attached)
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 95992 45196: Bahi ad kro bhai ktr
hindu h
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 95992 45196: Yeh
2/26/20, 11:41 PM – +91 75574 97409: Pistol hai
2/26/20, 11:42 PM – +91 75574 97409: Humare pass
2/26/20, 11:42 PM – +91 97739 29196: Faltu h kya
2/26/20, 11:42 PM – +91 97739 29196: Bhai goli h Kya 315 ki
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 75574 97409: Tumhare Bhai ne abhi 9
bje k krib b.vihar m 2 mulla mare hai
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 75574 97409: Or nale m feka hai
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 97168 29847: Bilkul Lokesh bhai
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 75574 97409: Apni team k sath
2/26/20, 11:44 PM – +91 70539 44604: Haa bhai
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 97168 29847: Ha
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 75032 34804: Rajput bhai bhagirath
vihar me bande bhej do
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 75574 97409: Bhai abhi thodi aarhe hai
hum sab raily lekr
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 75574 97409: B.vihar m
2/26/20, 11:45 PM – +91 97739 29196: Koi dikkt na h Bhaiyo
2/26/20, 11:49 PM – +91 75574 97409: Vinay tumhe pta hai na
tumhara Bhai sbse aage rhta hai aise kamo m”
46. Such posts/messages may be put in the group solely with
intention of becoming hero in the estimation of other members of
the group and the alleged confession could be only a boast
without truth. Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with confessions
including extra judicial confession, in many cases. The
judgments of Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165;
Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094; Sahadevan v.
State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403; State of Maharashtra v.
Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269; Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh,
Page 53 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
(2022) LiveLaw (SC) 529; Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of
Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 147, uniformly classify extrajudicial
confessions as corroborative evidence rather than substantive.
They cannot form the sole basis for conviction due to their
inherent weaknesses and they must be supported by independent,
reliable evidence. The Supreme Court has emphasized for
voluntariness, truthfulness, and corroboration, reflecting
safeguards under Article 20(3) of the Constitution (protection
against self-incrimination).
47. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the relied upon
confessional chats, cannot be substantive evidence to show that
accused Lokesh had actually killed two muslim persons. Above-
mentioned chats, at the most could be used as corroborative piece
of evidence, so as to support the substantive evidence. But there
is no substantive evidence showing complicity of Lokesh in the
alleged incident. Moreover, they cannot be read, as confession of
killing Hashim and his brother Aamir. Prosecution has used same
confession for killings of nine persons in different cases. Thus,
even prosecution used it only as circumstantial evidence, without
being sure as to for which particular victim, this particular chat
related to. The first chargesheet itself mentioned about three
incidents of killing on 26.02.2020 between 9.15 P.M. and 9.40
P.M. So, even otherwise the relied upon confessional message in
the group, cannot be evidence of all these killings between 9.15
P.M. and 9.40 P.M. The argument of ld. Prosecutor that the chats
show that Lokesh and other accused persons who were member
of that group, were involved in the riots. However, I find that this
Page 54 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
plea is just a general presumption without support of substantive
evidence and has no bearing in this case. It shall be matter of
analysis of other piece of circumstantial evidence, to see if the
chain of all circumstances has been connected, to show
involvement of Lokesh and others in the incident leading to death
of Aamir.
48. Ld. Prosecutor and ld. counsel for victim, also relied upon
testimony of PW1/Nisar. PW1 claimed having seen and
identified several persons including some accused persons, in the
mob present near Bhagirathi Nala or Johripur Pulia at different
points of time than the alleged time of incident in this case. In
that situation, any name being mentioned by PW1, becomes
worthless.
49. Ld. Prosecutor argued that evidence of PW1 shows a pattern of
presence in the mob during the period since 24.02.2020 upto
26.02.2020. Before I deal with this plea, it is worth to refer to
some part of the evidence of PW1. In his cross examination by
prosecutor, PW1/Nisar deposed that he had subsequently come to
know from police that murders had taken place at Johripur Pulia.
This goes on to show that he had not seen any incident of murder
himself. PW1/Nisar admitted suggestion of the prosecutor that he
had told name of some persons to police, who were part of the
mob seen by him and who continued rioting for whole day of
25.02.2020 and they used to kill muslim persons. However, PW1
denied the suggestion that he had told before police about the
same continuing till night of 26.02.2020.
50. First of all, such admission of suggestion does not become
Page 55 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
evidence of the stated facts, because what was told by PW1/Nisar
before police, does not become substantive evidence. What was
deposed by him before the court, is the substantive evidence.
Secondly, even this statement does not show if PW1/Nisar had
seen any particular incident of murder. This was a generalized
statement, perhaps based on hearsay, which does not help in the
trial of a particular incident. Therefore, even without going into
question of credibility of evidence of PW1/Nisar, I find that his
evidence does not help the case of prosecution in any manner, to
prove involvement of any accused in the alleged incident or to
connect any chain of circumstances.
51. As far as pattern of presence in the mob for three days, is
concerned, it cannot be forgotten that prosecution has
chargesheeted the accused persons, for murder of Aamir with aid
of S.149 IPC. Unless, it is shown that there was a mob, which
killed Aamir and unless the identity of members of the culprit
mob is established, vicarious liability cannot be fastened upon
anyone else. In absence of some concrete evidence laying down
the foundation, no presumption can be raised that some persons
identified as part of some mob at some place at some other time
period, would also have been part of a mob, and such mob was
involved in the incident of murder of Aamir.
52. Ld. Prosecutor further referred to evidence of PW9/Ct. Vipin,
submitting that this witness also had heard names of some
accused, being taken by the members of a mob. As per testimony
of this witness, on 26.02.2020 he was on duty. On that day at
about 10 P.M., he was present near Ganda Nala Pulia known as
Page 56 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
Ganga Vihar Pulia. He was coming towards that Pulia (bridge)
from the side of Ganga Vihar and he saw a mob near that Pulia.
On seeing police, that mob started dispersing away and while
running away from that place, they took names of Rishabh,
Pankaj, Prince, Avadesh, Ankit and many other names. All of
them fled away from that place and this witness could not see
any person. This witness could not remember other names heard
by him but, when ld. Prosecutor suggested names of Himanshu,
Lokesh Rajput, Jatin, Monty Nagar, Pawan, Monu and Sumit,
then this witness admitted having heard these names as well at
Ganga Vihar Pulia. He was also witness of the proceedings
wherein Lokesh had pointed out to photographs of some accused
persons and had told their names before IO.
53. There are two site plans proved on the record as Ex.PW17/B and
Ex.PW18/A. In site plan Ex.PW18/A i.e. a scaled site plan, there
is only one Pulia, which is referred as Bhagirathi Vihar Jal Board
Pulia. Place of incident is also shown near that Pulia.
Unfortunately, prosecution did not get it confirmed from PW36
or PW9, as to it was same place where PW36 had seen two
bikers being intercepted, or PW9 had seen the mob. Moreover, in
none of these two site plans, there is any reference to Ganga
Vihar or Ganga Vihar Pulia. Thus, the evidence of prosecution
regarding place of recovery of dead body and motorcycle, does
not refer to Ganga Vihar Pulia. Prosecution has not come up with
any evidence to show that Ganga Vihar Pulia and Bhagirathi
Vihar Pulia were same. There is no evidence to confirm the place
where victim and his brother was intercepted. In the written
Page 57 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
argument on behalf of victim, statement of PW9 is quoted to say
that distance between Ganga Vihar and Bhagirathi Vihar was 100
meters. I find this distance to be irrelevant in this case, for
ascertaining the culprit in the case. This distance does not help in
any manner to raise any inference. The drain (Bhagirathi Drain)
was stated to be between Ganga Vihar and Bhagirathi Vihar. Both
these localities are across the drain to each other. It is not the case
of prosecution that there was only one pulia (bridge) between
these two localities. Therefore, whatever was heard by PW9,
cannot be connected with the alleged incident, nor on the basis of
the same it can be inferred that any of the accused persons were
part of a mob, which could be behind the killings of Aamir.
54. Other circumstance relied by ld Prosecutor and ld. counsel for
victim, was recovery of a stick (Danda) each from Himanshu,
Jatin and Vivek in other cases. Those sticks were sent to Forensic
Department of GTB Hospital. The Board of Doctors, who had
conducted postmortem examination, gave opinion that the
injuries found on the body of Aamir, could be caused by those
sticks. However, at the same time nothing more was found on
any of those sticks, so as to say that same sticks were used to
inflict injuries upon Aamir. Hence, such general opinion does not
help much, so as to infer anything against these three accused
persons in the present case.
55. Thus, in the name of circumstantial evidence, there are some
fragments and pieces of evidence, which fall much short to point
out towards any of the accused persons as culprit for killing of
Aamir.
Page 58 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
56. In the written arguments filed on behalf of victim, some case
laws are referred, which are Bilal Kaloo v. State of A.P., (1997) 7
SCC 431; Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya, (2021) 15
SCC 35 and Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) 5 SCC 1.
57. It is relevant to reproduce the provisions u/s 153-A and 505 IPC,
which are as follows:
S.153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds
of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and
doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. — (1)
Whoever– (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or
by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence,
language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever,
disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between
different reli-gious, racial, language or regional groups or castes
or communities, or (b) commits any act which is prejudicial to
the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial,
language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which
disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquility, or (c)
organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity
intending that the participants in such activity shall use or be
trained to use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be
likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained
to use criminal force or violence, or participates in such activity
intending to use or be trained to use criminal force or violence orPage 59 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuriknowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will
use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any
religious, racial, language or regional group or caste or
community and such activity for any reason whatsoever causes or
is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity amongst
members of such religious, racial, language or regional group or
caste or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Offence
committed in place of worship, etc.–
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in
any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the
performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall
be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years
and shall also be liable to fine.
S.505. Statements conducing to public mischief. — (1) Whoever
makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,
with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or
community of persons to commit any offence against any other
class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
58. In the case of Patricia (supra), hon’ble Supreme Court while
dealing with aforesaid legal provisions, made following
observations: –
“9. Only where the written or spoken words have the tendency
of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order or
affecting public tranquility, the law needs to step in to prevent
such an activity. The intention to cause disorder or incite people
to violence is the sine-qua-non of the offence under Section 153
Page 60 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS GokalpuriA IPC and the prosecution has to prove the existence of mens
rea in order to succeed.1
10. The gist of the offence under Section 153 A IPC is the
intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between
different classes of people. The intention has to be judged
primarily by the language of the piece of writing and the
circumstances in which it was written and published. The matter
complained of within the ambit of Section 153A must be read as
a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated
passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a
sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a
meticulous process of inferential reasoning.
11. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of A.P.3, this Court analysed
the ingredients of Sections 153 A and 505 (2) IPC. It was held
that Section 153 A covers a case where a person by “words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representations”, promotes or attempts to promote feeling of
enmity, hatred or ill will. Under Section 505 (2) promotion of
such feeling should have been done by making a publication or
circulating any statement or report containing rumour or
alarming news. Mens rea was held to be a necessary ingredient
for the offence under Section 153 A and Section 505 (2). The
common factor of both the sections being promotion of feelings
of enmity, hatred or ill will between different religious or racial
or linguistics or religious groups or castes or communities, it is
necessary that at least two such groups or communities should
be involved. It was further held in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo (supra)
that merely inciting the feelings of one community or group
without any reference to any other community or group cannot
attract any of the two sections. The Court went on to highlight
the distinction between the two offences, holding that
publication of words or representation is sine qua non under
Section 505.”
59. This charge is based on the chats posted in the aforesaid
WhatsApp group. This group was created on 24.02.2020 at
19:19:42 hours. Accused Lokesh was member of this group since
Page 61 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
beginning. Some of the messages posted by him in this group, are
already reproduced in this judgment. I have gone through the
messages posted in this group by different members. As the name
suggests, the central focus of messages in this group have been to
unite the persons from Hindu community. However, on that
pretext, messages started pouring in to the effect of abusing the
muslims. Messages were posted to call upon the members to
assemble together, so as to counter the muslims.
60. In the given scenario of riots which started from 24.02.2020, any
communication only for the purpose of being united or to come
together to counter any attack from rival group, can be
understandable. However, messages in the aforesaid group were
not limited to this extent only. There were abuses in some
messages for muslims. There were instigations against the
community of muslim. For example, some of such messages are
reproduced herein below: –
“9mullo ko maar diya gya hai.
brijpuri puliya pr.
himmat bnaye rkho or inki bajaye rkho.”
61. Among such kind of messages, accused Lokesh also posted
messages like mentioned herein below: –
“Are inki MAA ki ch–
Jo krna hai kro
Are sbki maa cho–
Dekha jayega
Group m bakchodi krne se kya hoga
Agr Kuch krna hai to
Bhar road pr aao na”
62. The messages posted in the group by accused Lokesh on
26.02.2020, have already been reproduced in paragraph 45. I
Page 62 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
have deliberately skipped to reproduce some of the messages
containing abuses and only a few of them have been mentioned
here. Thus, in the background of messages posted earlier in the
aforesaid group and the kind of participation shown by accused
Lokesh therein, the messages posted by him on 26.02.2020 leave
no doubt that theme of all those messages was to mobilize the
members against muslim persons. It is also well apparent that
intent of the messages posted by accused Lokesh, was to instigate
the others against muslim persons. This act was in fact alike
spreading hatred for muslim persons and to instigate others to
resort to violence against them.
63. I am in agreement with the arguments of ld. Prosecutor and ld.
counsel for victim, that there is no requirement of evidence of
consequent action taking place, on the basis of messages posted
by accused Lokesh. Thus, I do find that accused Lokesh through
his messages attempted to promote disharmony, feeling of enmity
and hatred for muslim persons and he committed offence defined
and punishable under S.153-A IPC.
64. Accused Lokesh offered to others to help with weapons etc.,
which was to incite others to commit offences against muslim
persons, because no person without authority of law can use
weapon or force against any person. If force or weapons were to
be used by any member of this group against muslim persons,
then it had to be an offence. Thus, messages posted by accused
Lokesh are also found to be with intent to cause alarm to other
members of the group and to induce them to commit offence
against muslim persons and against public tranquility, being
Page 63 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
punishable under S.505 IPC.
65. Section 412 IPC deals with dishonestly receiving or retaining
stolen property, with knowledge of such property being acquired
by the commission of dacoity, or with knowledge that the person
from whom such property is being received, is member of a gang
of dacoits, or the knowledge that it is a stolen property, or having
reason to believe that such property is stolen property. The
burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the
elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. To convict a
person under Section 411 or 412 IPC, the prosecution must prove
the following:
1. The property in question was obtained through theft (as
defined under Section 378, IPC) or related offenses like robbery
or dacoity.
2. The accused had possession or control of the stolen property.
3. The accused knew or had reason to believe that the property
was stolen i.e. the accused was aware or had reasonable grounds
to suspect that the property was stolen.
4. The act was done dishonestly i.e. the accused acted with intent
to wrongfully gain or cause wrongful loss to the rightful owner.
66. There can be situation where the accused directly knew that the
property was stolen (e.g., he was informed by the thief or witness
of the theft). Reason to believe means that the accused had such
circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to suspect the
property to be stolen, which may include purchasing goods at a
Page 64 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
suspiciously low price or acquiring property in a clandestine or
irregular manner (e.g. late-night transactions without
documentation).
67. The prosecution bears the burden of proving all elements of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is not required to
prove his innocence. Ld. Prosecutor mentioned about S. 114 (a)
of the Indian Evidence Act. This provision provides that if the
accused is found in recent possession of stolen property and he
cannot satisfactorily explain as to how did he acquire it, the court
may presume that accused stole that property or he knew that it
was stolen property or he dishonestly received it. This is a
rebuttable presumption meaning thereby the accused can offer an
explanation to counter it, but the ultimate burden remains with
the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence.
68. In the case of Trimbak v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC
39, Supreme Court held that mere possession of stolen property
does not automatically prove guilt unless the prosecution shows
the accused had knowledge or reason to believe it was stolen. In
the case of Shiv Kumar v. State of M.P., (2022) 7 SCR 493, while
relying upon aforesaid judgment, Supreme Court again observed
that “12. In this case, although recovery of items was made, the
prosecution must further establish the essential ingredient of
knowledge of the appellant that such goods are stolen property.
Reliance solely upon the disclosure statement of accused Raju
alias Rajendra and Sadhu alias Vijaybhan Singh will not
otherwise be clinching, for the conviction under Section 411 of
the IPC…….The penal Section extracted above can be broken
Page 65 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
down into four segments namely: Whoever, I. Dishonestly; II.
Receives or retains any stolen property; III. Knowing; or IV.
Having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
15. To establish that a person is dealing with stolen property, the
“believe” factor of the person is of stellar import. For successful
prosecution, it is not enough to prove that the accused was either
negligent or that he had a cause to think that the property was
stolen, or that he failed to make enough inquiries to comprehend
the nature of the goods procured by him. The initial possession
of the goods in question may not be illegal but retaining those
with the knowledge that it was stolen property, makes it
culpable.”
69. In the present case, prosecution alleged that a mobile phone was
recovered from the possession of accused Pawan, and SIM card
issued in the name of deceased Aamir, was used on that phone set
after killing of Aamir. The CDR of mobile phone number issued
in the name of Aamir, i.e. Ex.PW33/I, shows that said number
was used on mobile phone set bearing same IMEI number, which
pertained to mobile phone (Intex), from 02.03.2020 to
10.03.2020. However, prosecution did not prove the CAF of
mobile number, which was allegedly found in the name of father
of accused Pawan. Moreover, there is merit in the argument of ld.
defence counsel that IO did not confirm from those persons, with
whom conversations had taken place using SIM card in the name
of Aamir on this phone set (Intex), as to who was actual user of
Page 66 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
this mobile phone and that SIM card. Most importantly,
prosecution did not prove any such circumstance, which could
lead to inference that this SIM card was received with knowledge
of same being stolen property. In my opinion, presumption u/s
114 (a) of I.E. Act cannot come into play in this case, because
there was a big gap of the mobile phone of Aamir being
stolen/robbed and recovery of this phone from accused Pawan or
accused Lalit. IO deposed that accused Pawan had disclosed to
him that mobile phone and Sim card of Aamir was given to
Pawan by one Babu. But IO could not find that Babu. The
allegation of prosecution that Pawan and Lalit disclosed before
IO that SIM card of Aamir was destroyed by them, is not
acceptable because it is hit by S.24, S.25 and S.27 of I.E. Act.
This alleged disclosure did not lead to recovery of any new fact.
There is no evidence on the record, except for one circumstance
of mobile phone sets being found in possession of Pawan and
Lalit, to show that it was Pawan who actually used the SIM card
of Aamir. S.106 I.E. Act could have application in this case, only
when aforesaid fact would have been established. There is no
evidence to show that Pawan or Lalit had the knowledge of the
SIM card and mobile phone set being stolen property. Thus, I
find that charges u/s 201 are not proved against Pawan.
Evidences on the record do not establish all ingredients of
offence u/s 412 IPC either against Pawan or Lalit.
CONCLUSION & DECISION
70. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, I
find that charges under Sections
Page 67 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CNR No. DLNE01-002398-2020
State v. Lokesh Solanki etc.
SC No. 117/2020, FIR No. 37/2020, PS Gokalpuri
144/147/148/188/302/427/432/435/395/396/34 IPC read with
Section 149 IPC, are not proved at all, against accused namely 1.
Lokesh Kumar Solanki, 2. Pankaj Sharma, 3. Sumit Chaudhary
@ Badshah, 4. Ankit Chaudhary, 5. Prince @ D.J. Wala, 6.
Rishabh Chaudhary, 7. Jatin Sharma @ Rohit, 8. Vivek Panchal
@ Nandu, 9. Himanshu Thakur, 10. Tinku Arora, 11. Sandeep @
Mogli and 12. Sahil @ Babu. Hence, they are acquitted of such
charges.
71. Accused 1. Pankaj Sharma, 2. Sumit Chaudhary @ Badshah, 3.
Ankit Chaudhary, 4. Prince @ D.J. Wala, 5. Rishabh Chaudhary
@ Tapal, 6. Jatin Sharma @ Rohit, 7. Vivek Panchal @ Nandu, 8.
Himanshu Thakur, 9. Tinku Arora, 10. Sandeep @ Mogli and 11.
Sahil @ Babu are also acquitted for charges under Sections 153-
A/505 IPC.
72. Accused Pawan Kumar @ Lokesh and Lalit Kumar @ Rahul
Chaudhary are acquitted for charges under Sections 201/412 IPC.
73. Charges under Sections 153-A/505 IPC stand proved against
accused Lokesh Kumar Solanki and he is held guilty and
convicted under both these provisions.
Digitally signed
by PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date:
2025.05.13
16:27:39 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 13.05.2025 ASJ-03 (North- East)
(This order contains 68 pages) Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Page 68 of 68 (Pulastya Pramachala)
ASJ-03, North-East District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
[ad_2]
Source link