State vs Puranchand Rathore on 25 April, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Puranchand Rathore on 25 April, 2025

                     IN THE COURT OF MS. TWINKLE WADHWA
              ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02 (NORTH EAST)
                          KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI




SESSIONS CASE No.               44774/2015

FIR No.                         526/2013

PS.                             Karawal Nagar

U/s.                            Accused Puran Chand Rathore @ Rajan and Sonia @
                                Sonu are hereby convicted under sections 120B and
                                section 302 IPC read with section 120B IPC. Accused
                                Puran Chand is also convicted for offence under
                                section 452 IPC and section 27 of Arms Act.

Instituted on                   20.12.2013

Argued on                       28.01.2025

Decided on                      25.04.2025

Final Order                     25.04.2025




State Vs.          1. Puran Chand Rathore @ Rajan
                   S/o Sh. Daulat Ram
                   R/o House No. O-353,
                   Near Mayur School, Phase-IV,
                   Karawal Nagar, Delhi.


FIR No. 526/2013                   State Vs. Puran Chand and another    page 1 of 114
                    2. Sonia @ Sonu
                   W/o late Ashok Sharma
                   R/o D-300, Gali No.7,
                   D Block, Mukund Vihar,
                   Karawal Nagar, Delhi


JUDGMENT

Brief facts of the case:-

1. By way of this judgment this Court shall dispose off the case in
which allegations of murder are levelled against two accused. As per the case
of the prosecution, deceased Ashok Sharma was the husband of accused Sonia
@ Sonu and accused Puran Chand is claimed to paramour of Sonia. The star
eye witness in this case is nine year old Ajay who is the son of accused Sonia
@ Sonu and deceased Ashok Sharma.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that deceased Ashok Sharma
was sleeping in his house with his wife accused Sonia and three minor
children Abhishek (11 year), Ajay (9 year) and Krishna (5 year). In the night
of 07.09.2013 accused Puran Chand knocked at the door which was opened
by accused Sonia, however deceased Ashok Sharma also woke up and started
arguing with his wife why she has called Puran Chand at late night. Then,
Sonia held the hand of deceased Ashok Sharma and accused Puran Chand
fired at the deceased and ran away. This incident was clandestinely witnessed
by their son Ajay aged 9 years, however when accused Sonia saw him she
threatened him of dire consequences and told him not to disclose about the
incident to anyone. Then Sonia called a neighbour and took her

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 2 of 114
husband/deceased in an auto to a hospital. Police was informed by
neighbours. Crime inspection team members also arrived at the spot. Later on,
Sh. Shiv Charan Sharma, father of deceased Ashok Sharma came and took his
three grand-sons with him.

3. It is claimed that the motive behind the murder is that accused
Sonia was in an illicit relationship with accused Puran Chand and was not
willing to stay with deceased Ashok Sharma due to which this conspiracy to
murder was hatched. Police also obtained call detail records of both the
accused wherein last conversation between both the accused on the day of the
crime is at 10:35 pm. Further, at this time, location of accused Puran Chand
was Shiv Vihar which is on a distance of approximately 2 kilometer away
from the house of the deceased. Further, during the day i.e. on 07.09.2013
there have been 17 calls between two co-accused as per record. Further call
detail record would reveal that everyday there have been several calls
between them. Call details have been filed for the period 15.08.2013 till
08.09.2013. Further, as the child was scared, he did not disclose this fact of
being an eye witness to the murder of his father to the police officials
immediately. Further, as per the chargesheet, Shiv Charan Sharma, who is
father of deceased Ashok Sharma, apprised to the police on next day that he
has doubt that his daughter in law Sonia is involved in a murder as she is
having illicit relationship with one Rajan Pandit on 14.09.2013. IO spoke with
all the children separately. The second son Ajay who was nine years of age
started crying, asked about his father and disclosed about the commission of
murder and the involvement of two accused. Further, he was scared because
he was threatened by his mother. But since his mother was in custody then,
hence he was not scared then. Statement of child was recorded under section

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 3 of 114
164 Cr.P.C. on 17.09.2013 after which chargesheet was filed.

Charge
Charge was framed against both accused under section 302 IPC
and 120B IPC read with section 34 IPC. Additional charge against accused
Puran Chand was framed under section 452 IPC read with section 27 of Arms
Act. Both the accused pleaded not guilty.

Prosecution Evidence.

4. Prosecution has examined 30 witnesses in this case.

5. PW1 Ajay, who is the son of deceased deposed that Abhishek is
his elder brother and Krishna is his younger brother. Presently he is residing
with his grand parents. His father is no more and his name was Sh. Ashok
Sharma. Name of his mother is Sonu Sharma. When his father was died, we
were residing in a house in Gali No.7, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
He know a person by the name Rajan Pandit and he can identify him, if
shown to him. He know Rajan Pandit as he used to visit and come to their
house quite frequently. He used to come to their house to meet his mother.
Rajan Pandit and his mother became acquainted to each other by the fact and
reason that Rajan Pandit used to put a tent and his mother used to dance.
Rajan Pandit by putting tent used to perform “Bhagvad Katha” wherein Rajan
Pandit used to play some musical instrument (witness has described that
instrument as “Peepdi”) and his mother used to dance in those events. Rajan
Pandit when visited their house, it used to be sometimes when his father was
present in the house and on other occasions when his father was not present in
the house. Visits to his house by Rajan Padit used to be both in the day as well
in the night timing. Visits to their house by Rajan Pandit was not to the liking

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 4 of 114
of his brother Abhishek, PW1 as well of his father. PW1 and his brother used
to tell their mother that they did not like the visits of Rajan Pandit to their
house, but then on that point his mother used to speak harsh to them and even
used to slap us on that issue and his mother used to give a threat that if he
spoke to anyone on that point and issue, she would beat him.

6. PW1 further stated that on one occasion, date or month he did
not recollect, but that was an incident when he was studying in class three that
there was a fight/quarrel between his mother and his father on the issue of his
mother having visiting and gone alone to attend the Bhagvad Katha event
performed and organized by Rajan Pandit and his mother had declared that
she would go alone and had given a threat to his father that she would kill
him. He had seen and observed that fight and quarrel between his mother and
father only once. His mother, however, used to say that she would go and live
with Rajan Pandit and would take his younger brother Krishna also. His
mother besides having given threat to his father to kill him, no threat to
anybody else was given by his mother to his knowledge. His mother used to
ask him as well his younger brother Krishna to address Rajan Pandit as
“Papa”. PW1, however, cannot tell reason as to why his mother asked us to
address Rajan Pandit as “Papa”. During the examination both the accused
were shown to PW1 and he identified them. The incident of this case had
occurred on 7″ in the year, 2013, but the month he did not recall. His mother
was speaking to Rajan Pandit on phone and he himself heard his mother
speaking to Rajan Pandit on phone and that was a long duration call for about
half an hour and that was on the night of the incident. He had heard his
mother speaking that after getting him killed she would come to him with her
younger son Krishna. Exact expression used by the witness is “Mummy Kah

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 5 of 114
Rahi Thi Ki Isko Marwake, Krishna Ko Le Ke Tere Pass Aa Jaoongi” . PW1
mother also address to him and Abhishek that she would go away taking their
brother Krishna along with her. His mother had asked them three brothers to
go and sleep.

7. PW1 further stated that his mother used to sleep in a room
situated in the first floor in their house, but on the date of incident she slept on
the ground floor. On the night of incident, he woke up when he heard
someone giving a knock on the door of their house and that door was of the
main wide gali. His mother then stealthily went out and opened the door.
Rajan Pandit came inside and started talking with his mother. Meanwhile his
father also woke up and his father asked his mother as to why his mother had
called Rajan Pandit in that late night hour. His mother and father then started
quarreling and then his mother caught his father by his hands and Rajan
Pandit fired a firearm bullet upon his father and ran away. His father fell
down near the kitchen and his mother started crying. His mother then asked
him in a kind of a threat that if he disclosed fact to anyone, she would also kill
him by causing bullet injury. He then went to sleep. His mother then took his
father to Hospital by an auto rickshaw. On that date, his elder brother
Abhishek had been to the house of his grand parents and then his grand
parents came and took him and his younger brother Krishna with them. He
narrated the facts of this incident to his grand parents after some days, after
his mother had been sent to jail. He had narrated all these facts to the police
also. He had also narrated all these facts before a Magistrate and he did not
recall that date but that was also after many days.

8. Statement of witness as a part of the proceedings under Section

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 6 of 114
164 Cr.P.C available on the judicial file in a sealed envelope bearing seal DR
are taken out by opening the envelope. Witness has been shown his statement
and the witness having read over that statement which is in Hindi before this
Court states that this statement was given by him before the Magistrate and
witness identifies his signatures also on that statement (Ex.PW1/A). Later on,
he also came to know that name of Rajan Pandit is also known as Puran.

9. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran chand,
PW1 deposed that his mother used to keep a mobile phone but he did not
know number of that mobile and he cannot tell it now. His father had also a
mobile. He did not remember number of that mobile phone also. He was
studying in class three when they came to the house where incident has
occurred for their residence. He however cannot tell the month or the year
when they came to this house. Earlier they were residing in a house which
was a gali away from the house of his grandmother. He cannot tell the address
that is house number of that house. That house belonged to some of their
relative. He was studying in the same very school even while they were
residing in that other house. They were residing in the house where incident
has occurred for about two years when this incident took place. His father was
engaged in sale/supply of soaps to shops. His father used to procure that soap
from some place where it used to be manufactured. His father used to leave
house for his work at around 9 am and used to come back sometime early and
sometime late in the evening and that late hours used to be sometime 9 pm or
sometime 10 pm. On the night of the incident, he had gone for sleep at around
8 pm.

10. PW1 further deposed that his father had picked up him and his

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 7 of 114
brothers from the house of his grandmother and brought them to their house at
around 7pm. PW1 used to leave his house for his school at 8am and used to
come back home at 1.30pm. Again said from school they all three brothers
used to come back to his grandmother’s house and then in the evening, his
father used to bring us to their house. He did not know whether his mother
used to be in the house during that time. His father used to bring them to their
house sometime on a bicycle and sometime by his motorbike. On the date of
incident, his father brought us to their house on a bicycle. His father used to
park his motorbike inside the house. When his father brought them from his
grandmother’s house to their house, clothes he was wearing were the black
colour pant and white bu-shirt. On the night of incident their motorbike was
there inside the house. His father used to go to sleep only wearing pant. On
the night of incident, police arrived soon after his mother had taken his father
to hospital. His mother took his father to hospital in an auto-rickshaw. That
auto-rickshaw belonged to a person, who was residing in their gali just nearby
in front of their house. Name of that auto driver / owner was perhaps Krishan
Lal. They all three brothers were present in their house, just outside their
house, when police reached. Police had inquired only from his brother
Abhishek as to what was his name and their address that is house number and
gali number and police did not inquiry anything from him on that night of
incident. Ajay used to reside in front of their house in a house which was the
adjoining house of auto-rickshaw owner driver. He did not know police
officer Inspector Lekhraj. When police had reached spot, Ajay was also
present there in gali. Police had a talk with Ajay. He did not know if Ajay
stated any such fact to the police that 2-3 persons had run away after causing
bullet injury to his father causing bullet injury to his father. Vol. at that time

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 8 of 114
he had gone to house of their neighbourer on the roof to sleep. His brother
Abhishek was with him when they went to the neighbourer’s house roof to
sleep and Krishna went to another neighbourer’s house to sleep. The police
officer who had come to the spot on the night of incident was not the same
police officer who had brought him to the court for getting his statement
recorded as the police officer who brought him to court was Sunil. It is a fact
as suggested that he came to know name of that police officer as Sunil as he
read it from the badge he had on his uniform. The police officer, who had
come to the spot on the night of incident had also a badge. He had not read the
name appearing on that badge as he had gone to neighbourer’s house by that
time. The police officer who inquired from his brother his name and their
address, he had not had any talk with him. On that night of incident he had
told police that accused had caused bullet injury to his father. He had named
both accused Rajan and accused Sonu. After he had gone to neighbourer’s
house to sleep in the night of incident thereafter police had met him in the PS
and that was after four-five days of the incident. On that day when he had
gone to PS, his brother Abhishek, his grandfather and his uncle Sunil had
accompanied him.

11. PW1 further stated that on the night of incident itself, they had
gone to his grandfather’s house as after sometime of the incident when his
grandfather had arrived there. On that night of incident, he had met his
grandfather when he was there in the gali. At that point of time, police was
also present there. he had informed and told his grandfather that someone had
caused a bullet injury to his father, the exact version given by witness in
vernacular is “koi unko goli maar gaya”. At that point of time, his grandfather
did not take him or his brother to the police officer. He had not gone to the

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 9 of 114
hospital and only his grandmother and grandfather went to the hospital. He
had also not gone to the cremation ground and only his brother Abhishek had
gone there.

12. PW1 further deposed that firstly his statement had been taken /
recorded in the PS thereafter it had been recorded in the Court. It was the next
day when his statement was recorded in the court after his statement had been
recorded in the PS. Day before when his statement was recorded in this court,
no police officer had read over to him his statement asking him to give that
particular statement. Before coming to Court, he had been informed by police
official that he had to come to the Court for giving his statement. He however
did not know name of that police officer. During his examination a question
was put to the witness which is as below:

Q. When did that police official come to you to inform that you have to come
to the court to given your statement?

Ans. My grandmother and father had informed me to come to the court to
give my statement and it was not by any police official.

13. He deposed that day before when PW1 came to court for his
statement, nobody asked him or told him as to what statement he have to give
in the Court. He stated that it is wrong to suggest that he had been tutored and
as per that tutoring he gave his statement in Court.

14. He deposed that earlier when his statement was recorded in Court
(it is being referred to statement u/sec. 164 Cr.PC), he do not recall that date
or even the month. He further deposed that it is true the Judge, who recorded
that statement had asked him to narrate all the facts whatever he knew.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 10 of 114
Whatever he stated in this Court a day before, all that he had stated before
Judge in his earlier statement. Name of accused Rajan Pandit had been told to
him by his mother. His name as Puran was known to PW1 in the PS. He came
to know his name as Puran and that was after about six months. It was some
police official, whose name he did not know, who had told his name of Rajan
Pandit as Puran. On that occasion Police had not recorded his statement of the
said fact. On the day when police official told his name of accused Rajan
Pandit as Puran, this accused Rajan Pandit as Puran was present in the PS. His
mother was also present in the same PS. He had passed his examination but
he could not tell the grade achieved. He remember his class teaching for about
two days and then to keep it in memory, he had to repeat that reading of the
lesson. He remember the statement which he had given in this Court. He
remembered the incident on the date when police official Sunil brought him to
the Court and he made a statement before Magistrate. He recollect that he
stated that whatever he had deposed before this Court, he had stated before
Magistrate also. He had not stated before Magistrate that he did not remember
the date. He had not stated the fact in his statement before Magistrate that his
mother had a talk with Rajan Pandit on phone for about half an hour on the
date of incident. He had however stated before Magistrate that he had heard
his mother speaking that after getting him killed, she will come to him taking
alongwith Krishna. He had also stated the fact before Magistrate that his
mother then asked they two brothers that she would take their brother Krishna
with her, leaving behind they two brothers. Confronted with 164 CrPC
statement Ex. PW1/A where above facts are not found recorded. He had stated
the fact in his statement before Magistrate that his mother had then asked
them they three brothers to go and sleep.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 11 of 114

15. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it was not so
recorded. He had also stated before Magistrate that his mother used to usually
sleep on the first floor but on the date of incident she slept on the ground
floor. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. The
rooms on the ground floor of their house comprise only one kitchen and one
room which they used to sleep in and first floor comprised only one room.
There was a bed in the room on the first floor also. When his mother used to
sleep in the first floor room, they three brothers used to sleep in the ground
floor room. On the date of incident they three brothers slept on the bed and his
mother and father had slept on the floor in the ground floor room. Bedding
had been spread on the floor whereon his mother and father had slept. After
his father had suffered gun shot bullet injury, he fell in a position and posture
of sitting resting against the side of the double bed, on the end of the bed
towards the door of the room and he have seen that bed appearing in
photograph Ex. P3/5 ( witness has pin pointed that spot as point A in this
photograph ). Point B in this photograph is the spot where his father was
sleeping on the floor and point C behind the bed below cooler is the spot
where his mother was sleeping and point B also appear in the photograph
Ex.P3/4 also. Only one bulb light was there in the room. There was a wall
clock also in that room.

16. PW1 further deposed that he had stated fact in his statement
recorded before Magistrate that Rajan Pandit used to visit their house to meet
his mother. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded.
He had also mention the fact in that statement that Rajan Pandit used to install
tents where his mother used to take up dance and they became acquainted to
each other. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 12 of 114
He had also mentioned the fact in that statement before Magistrate that Rajan
Pandit used to perform religious discourse ( Bhagwat Katha ) and used to play
musical instrument ( Pipdee ) and his mother used to dance in those functions.
Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. I had
known Rajan Pandit for about two months before the incident of this case
( earlier witness deposed and described that period as two days before the
Court explained question again to witness ). He had himself not been
physically present in any of those “Bhagwat Kathas” which used to be
organized by accused. He himself thus never saw accused Rajan Pandit
playing that musical instrument “Pipdee” or his mother dancing in those
“Bhagwat Kathas”. But nobody has made him to speak that his mother used to
dance in those functions. He had never seen his mother reading or performing
“puja” or reading “Bhagwat Geeta” or any other religious book at home.

17. PW1 denied that his testimony in court that Rajan Pandit used to
play a instrument “Pipee” or that his mother used to perform dance in those
functions is a tutored statement as advised by police as well by his grand
parents. He had mentioned the fact in his statement before the Magistrate that
Rajan Pandit used to visit his house, sometimes during presence of his mother
or sometimes in his absence. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it
is not so recorded. He had also mentioned fact in that statement that visits by
accused Rajan Pandit to their house used to be sometimes during day timing
and sometimes during even night hours. Confronted with statement Ex.
PW1/A where it is not so recorded. He had also mentioned in that statement
that visits of accused Rajan Pandit to their house were not to his liking, to the
liking of his brother Abhishek as well his father and further fact that when
they told his mother that they did not like his visits, she responded that she

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 13 of 114
would give him beating if he said so. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A
where it is not so recorded. He had also stated the fact before Magistrate that
on a day, the date or month of which he did not remember that his father had
asked his mother to not to visit the function organized by accused Rajan
Pandit and a fight had taken place between his mother and his father on that
issue or that his mother on that occasion had given a threat to his father to kill
him. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. That
incident of quarrel between his father and mother on the above stated issue
was about a month before the incident of this case.

18. PW1 further stated that he had mentioned that fact of fight
between his father and mother to his grandparents also. Grandparents
however did not come to their house to intervene on that issue. His
grandparents used to visit their house only on festival occasions. He had also
stated fact before Magistrate that his mother used to threaten his father to kill
him. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. He
had also stated before Magistrate that his mother used to ask them to address
Rajan Pandit as Papa and that she would go and live with him. Confronted
with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. As he have deposed
that he had known Rajan Pandit about two months before the incident of this
case that first occasion when he came to know him was when Rajan Pandit
came to their house. His name as Rajan Pandit was told and disclosed by his
mother. On that occasion only himself, his younger brother, his elder brother
and his mother were present in the house when Rajan Pandit visited their
house. They used to switch off the light in the room when they used to go to
sleep. On the date of incident also the light of the room had been switched off.
There was no light/illumination in the wall clock in the room on that night.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 14 of 114
The room light was not switched on at the time of incident by anybody.
Nobody had informed him the timing as 12 o’ clock on that night. He
calculate as on now that it might be 12 o’ clock ( it is 12.30 exact time now ).

19. He did state before Magistrate that he woke up when a knock on
the entry door of their house was made on the night of the incident.
Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. On the
night of the incident, clothes which his father was wearing was only pant and
clothes which his mother was wearing was suit that is shirt and salwar. Blood
stains had come on the wearing clothes of his mother. Blood had fallen on the
floor also. Vol. His mother soaked it by cloth (expression used by witness is
“mummy ne poncha laga diya”). Some blood had fallen on the bed also.
Blood had fallen on the bedding on which his father was lying on the floor.
The bedding had been removed by the time police arrived. Police had not
taken away or seized those bedding. He had stated before Magistrate that
when Rajan Pandit came inside there was exchange of hot words between his
mother and father. Confronted with statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so
recorded.

20. His mother had caught hold of hands of his father on the back of
his father. His father had tried to get him released but then he was caused
bullet injury and he came in a sitting position against the wall of the bed. His
mother when caught hold of hands of his father, she was behind his father.
During his testimony a question was put to him which is as below:

Q. How long was the weapon whereby bullet was fired upon your father?

Ans. It was around the length (witness has mentioned by his hand and that

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 15 of 114
length appears around 10 to 12 inches).

21. The distance from which bullet was fired upon his father was
around 8 feet (witness described the distance by pin pointing a spot in the
court room). Vol. and the place wherefrom bullet was fired was a raised
platform kind around 8 to 10 inches height from the floor level (PW1
described that 8 to 10 inches by his both hands). He had stated above
volunteered fact to the Magistrate as well to the Police. Confronted with
statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. That raised part / spot was
outside the room. That raised part was cemented one. His father while held by
his mother before bullet was fired upon him was on the spot point A in the
photograph Ex.P3/4 (question put to the witness was then asked to be more
specific and clarify it from the photograph by the Court ).

Q. How low was the level of the floor at point A from the raised portion
appearing in this photograph?

Ans. It could be around 5 to 6 inches (witness described it by both hands
which approximately gave 5 to 6 inches.

22. Motorcycle of his father was parked may be behind the bicycle as
this bicycle is appearing in this photograph. Motor-pump appearing in
photograph Ex.P3/3 is also part of that raised portion above the floor level of
the room. The motor-pump appearing in photograph Ex.P3/3 could be at a
distance of around 3 feet from the door of the room which door is appearing
in photograph Ex.P3/4 (distance of around 3 feet mentioned by the witness
was his hand placed on the table of the court room). The gallery as appearing
in photograph Ex. P3/4 could be around 8 feet (witness described this distance

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 16 of 114
by pointing out on the table of the Court room ).

23. His father used to sleep on the ground floor. It is wrong to
suggest that on the night of the incident of this case his father as well PW1
had slept on the first floor room in their house. He did not recall exactly at
what time/hours when he had seen his mother talking on a phone call for a
long duration but that was in the night time. That phone call was however a
little before when there was a knock on the door of their house and at that
point of time he had not gone completely to sleep as he was hearing that voice
in the phone call. That phone call talk ended a little time before there was a
knock on the door. The light of the room was switched off when that phone
call was being attended by his mother. His mother had gone outside the room
to attend that phone call. That light in the room was switched on by his
mother, but then only a little after his father had been caused bullet injury.

24. It is true an iron grill door was there in the room in which they
were sleeping and that iron door opened in the back side gali. That iron door
had remained closed and nobody opened that door. It is true that back side
gali is about one feet high in level as compared to their room floor level. He
had seen photograph Ex.PW1/DA and he endorsed the correctness of the
photograph showing the room in which they were sleeping and it showing the
back side iron door opening in backside gali and that door is about one or one
and half feet above the floor level of the room.

25. As stated by PW1 earlier that when after being hit with a fire arm
bullet, his father rested his body against the bed lying in their room, he had
been lifted by his mother and a person residing in their neighbourhood when
taken to hospital. The auto-rickshaw whereby his father was taken to hospital

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 17 of 114
had been brought on the front door gali side. Many persons in their
neighbour’s houses had collected just a little after the incident of firing. His
father had remained in the position and posture, his body rested against bed,
till the neighbours arrived and collected. It is true blood was there lying in the
room where his father was resting against the bed till his mother and his
neighbouring persons took his father to hospital in auto-rickshaw. After his
father had been taken away in an auto-rickshaw to the hospital, police arrived
and in between that that is after his mother took his father to hospital in auto-
rickshaw and police reached, his mother had not come back to the
room/house. He was present inside the room when bullet injury was caused to
his father when he was present in the room. It is true the floor level of the spot
where there is a motor pump as well the main entry door of their house is
same. He had been joined by the police wherein he had informed police as to
where his father was when he was caused bullet injury and where he was in
the room when he saw that incident. It was next day of the incident of the
night when police had inquired the above facts from him. Police had joined
him from the house of his grand father on that occasion. Again said, that fact
situation of the spot had been narrated by him to the police in the police
station and not by visiting the spot. His statement, however, was given to the
police after two days. He denied that he was not present in the room or that he
himself had not seen accused causing bullet injury to his father. He denied
that accused Puran Chand used not to visit their house at all what to say in the
absence of his father. He denied that on the night of incident his father as well
himself were sleeping in the room on the upstairs or that he had given
deposition only as tutored advised by his grandfather.

26. In cross-examination by counsel for accused Sonia, PW1

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 18 of 114
deposed that on the date of incident his father had reached home at around
7pm. His father used not to take liquor. On the date of incident also, his father
had not taken any liquor after having reached home. He did not know if his
father took food in dinner on that date because he had gone to sleep. There
was a bed in the room on the first floor of house also. His father used to take
food in the first floor room of the house and on the date of incident also if he
had taken food he might have taken it on the first floor. He usually used to
take food in dinner with his father, but on the date of incident since he had
earlier taken food at the house of his grand parents, he did not take food with
his father. His elder brother Abhishek, he was not sure, if had taken food with
his father. He denied that he and his brother Abhishek had slept in the first
floor with their father. His mother usually and mostly used to sleep in the first
floor room in their house. Vol., but on the date of incident she had slept on the
ground floor. He and his brother Abhishek usually and mostly used to sleep on
the ground floor room.

27. On the date of incident, they three brothers, himself, Abhishek
and Krishna had reached their house from the house of their grand parents by
around 7pm. His father had picked them from the house of their grand parents
and they came along with their father to their house. His father had reached
house of his grand parents by around 6pm. His father had not taken food at
the house of his grand parents. He had woken up when there was a knock on
the front door of their house and the door was opened. He had not stated any
such fact in his statement given before the Magistrate that he had woken up
when his father had been caused bullet injury.

28. On the night of incident, room cooler in the room was on and

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 19 of 114
was working. He was on the bed when lying asleep. Abhishek and Krishna
were also on the bed when lying asleep. Blood stains had come on the bed
sheet of the bed in this incident. Accused Rajan had been there before he had
fired gun shot to his father and his presence on that occasion was for about 15
minutes and again said, for about half an hour but after causing bullet injury
to his father, he ran away. When his mother had caught hold of the hands of
his father, it was may be for about two minutes. His father had tried to get free
of that hold of his hands from his mother, but then he had been caused bullet
injury. His father had continuing to get free of hold from his mother. His
brothers had woken up when his mother had started shouting. His father was
in a standing posture when his mother had caught hold of his hands. His
mother was behind his father while holding his hands from his backside,
while on his backside she was a little on the side. His father was since
wearing only pant, there was no blood stains on his clothes but there were
blood stains on the clothes of his mother. The fire arm bullet suffered by his
father was on his chest towards right hand side (witness when asked to point
out his right hand, witness has pointed to his left hand). The bullet had not
passed through body of his father. He had not seen bullet in the room and may
be the bullet caused to his father remained inside his body. He has only one
“Bua” that is his father’s sister and she is a married woman. Her name is
Sonia. Husband of Sonia is his “Phoofa” and his name is Raghvind. It is true
once his Bua had come to his grand parents house but that was not on account
as suggested that she had a quarrel with her husband Raghvind, that was on
account that Raghvind used to indulge in bad conduct with his sister-in-law. It
is true his grand parents did not like his “Phoofa”. It is true once his mother
and father had mediated between his Bua and Phoofa and had sent them back

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 20 of 114
together. His father had never caused any assault or beating to his Phoofa. It is
true his bua came back to the house of his grand parents. He denied that his
father and mother had criticized and objected to the conduct and behaviour of
his bua or that they had supported and favored the conduct of his Phoofa. It is
true his grand parents as well his bua did not like his mother. He denied that
reason for the above fact was that his mother used to support the conduct of
his Phoofa. He denied that for that reason at the instance of his grand parents
and bua that he had deposed falsely against his mother.

29. PW1 further stated that his father used not to make use of the
mobile phone of his mother even after having arrived home. His father had his
own independent mobile phone. He denied that his father did not have his
mobile phone or that he used to use the mobile phone of his mother. He
denied that on the night of incident he had slept in the first floor room of their
house or that he woke up only after the police had reached. He denied that he
have given a false deposition against his mother for the reasons stated above.

30. PW2 SI Ravi Kumar deposed that on 08.09.2013 he was working
as In-charge mobile crime team, NE, on that he was on duty and was present
in the office at PS Seemapuri. On 08.09.2013 at about 1.30am he received a
call from Police Control Room regarding causing of a bullet injury at D300,
gali no.7, Mukund Vihar, Delhi. On receiving of said information he
alongwith his team consisting of SI Chet Ram, finger print expert and
photographer Ct. Sanjay and driver Ct. Satender went to the aforesaid spot.
They reached there at about 2 o’ clock midnight. ASI Ashok Kumar alongwith
other staff met them there. Meanwhile Inspector Arvind Pratap also reached
the spot. PW2 inspected the spot. There was blood lying on the ground just

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 21 of 114
after entering through main gate. One empty case of 7.65 mm bore was also
lying there and injured had already been removed to the hospital. He
inspected the spot and Ct. Sanjay took the photographs of the spot. After
inspecting the spot, he prepared his report Ex. PW2/A. Later on he had
handed over the same to Inspector Lekh Raj, SHO PS Karawal Nagar. His
statement was recorded by the IO.

31. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand,
PW2 deposed that he had been on the spot upto 3am and they had reached the
spot by around 2 am. There were persons present in the house but he did not
know who they were as his focus was only to observe the scene of the crime.
He did not recall. Again said there were kids also present in the house. The
house comprised two storey, ground and first. He had not gone to upper storey
of the house. Probably only one room was there on the ground floor. That
house comprised 25 sq. yards of land. One side of the house was a constructed
house and on the other side was an open plot. SI Chet Ram could not trace
any foot print or any finger print from that scene of crime. No chance print
were found from the main entry gate/door of the house and they had not
checked the door of the room to trace any chance finger prints. The empty
cartridge ( khol) was found lying near hand-pump just nearby from the entry
of the house. The blood spot was about hardly a one foot distance from the
empty cartridge. He denied that he had not visited the spot or that he is
deposing falsely.

32. Counsel for accused Sonia adopted the cross-examination of
PW2 conducted by counsel for accused Puran Chand.

33. PW3 Constable Sanjay deposed that on the intervening night of

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 22 of 114
7th September, 2013 he was working as photographer mobile crime team, NE
District. On that day he alongwith other staff was present in the office situated
at Seemapuri. On that night at about 1.30 o clock midnight an information
was received from PCR regarding causing of bullet injury at house no. D300
gali no.7 D Block, Mukund Vihar, Delhi. On receiving of this information he
alongwith Incharge Crime Team SI Ravi Kumar, SI Chet Ram, Finger Print
Expert, Driver Ct. Satender went to the aforesaid spot. On reaching there ASI
Ashok alongwith other staff met them there. Inspector Arvind Pratap had also
reached at the spot. SI Ravi Kumar inspected the spot. One empty case was
lying in the gallery just near the entry of the main gate near hand-pump.
Blood was also lying there near the empty cartridge/case. He took seven
photographs of the spot. Same are Ex. P3/1 to 7. He had brought negatives of
the photographs. The negatives of photographs are Ex.P3/8 to 14. Later on he
had handed over the developed photographs to Inspector Lekh Raj Singh. His
statement was also recorded by the IO.

34. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand,
PW3 deposed that 2 or 3 persons were present in the house when they had
reached the spot. One child probably or to say one or two kids were seen by
PW3 present inside the house. Finger prints could not be traced and lifted
from the main entry door or from the bore pump. The child present in house
appeared to be around 10 to 12 years of age. In his presence no inquiry of any
fact was taken up with child by anybody. The empty cartridge is in the hand
of SI Chet Ram when he took a close photo focusing the calibre 7.65 mm in
the particular photograph Ex.P3/2. He did not recall if any cloth / clothes were
lying nearby the bicycle on the spot. There was a bicycle parked in the gallery
nearby the wall and that cycle is appearing in photograph Ex. P3/4. The

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 23 of 114
bicycle was not in a position of lying on the floor. He denied that he had not
taken photographs in the night hours.

35. Counsel for accused Sonia adopted the cross-examination of
PW3 conducted by counsel for accused Puran Chand.

36. PW4 Sh. Amar Nath Singh, Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited
deposed that he was working as nodal officer in Idea Cellular Limited. he had
brought summoned record that is customer application form of mobile phone
bearing No. 8506931127. The mobile phone was in the name of Sonu, wife of
Sh. Ashok Kumar, a resident of 465, Gali No.9, E-1 Block, Nehru Vihar,
Delhi and at the time of applying for the SIM, the applicant Sonu had
submitted photostat copy of her election ID card. Said application form is
Ex.PW4/A along with ID proof (original seen and returned). Today he had
also brought the summoned CDR from 15.08.2013 to 10.09.2013 of aforesaid
mobile phone number and the said call details are running in seven pages is
Ex. PW4/B.

37. PW4 further stated that he had also brought the summoned
record pertaining to mobile phone number 9990564617, that is customer
application form as well as call details. As per record, the said SIM was issued
to one Amar Nath, son of Ami Chand, R/o 1006, Vijay Park, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi. The customer had attached election ID card at the time of applying the
application form. The said application form along with photostat copy of ID
card is Ex.PW4/C (original seen and returned). He had also brought the call
details of aforesaid mobile phone from 15.08.2013 to 10.09.2013 running in
12 pages. The said CDR is Ex.PW4/D. He also submitted the certificate under
Section 65B under Indian Evidence Act on behalf of his company for the

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 24 of 114
CDR of both the aforesaid mobile phone numbers. The said certificate is
Ex.PW4/E. The cell ID chart is Ex. PW4/F.

38. Opportunity to cross-examine PW4 were given to counsel for
both the accused and cross-examination of PW4 is nil.

39. PW5 Dr. Ashish Kumar deposed that on 08.09.2013 he was
working as Junior Demonstrator, UCMS and GTB hospital, Delhi and on that
day dead body of one Ashok Sharma, son of Shiv Charan was brought before
him for post mortem. The dead body was identified by Inspector Lekh Raj
Singh, Ct. Hukam Singh, Shiv Charan and one Sunil. The dead body was
brought before him with the alleged history of patient being brought in the
hospital sustaining firearm injury at Karawal Nagar at around 1.30am and was
admitted in GTB hospital vide MLC no.3644/B, dated 08.09.2013 at 2:08 am.
He started conducting post mortem on the dead body of Ashok Kumar at
12.25 pm. Dead body of an adult male, wrapped in white sheet and clothes on
the body found were black colour trouser, blue colour underwear and one
yellow colour towel was found tied around the wound. The towel was found
stained with blood. Eyes and mouth were found close. Frenulum intact. All
other natural orifices NAD. Post mortem staining present over back and was
fixed. Rigor mortis present in developing stage all over the body.

40. Details of external ante mortem injuries are as below:

41. 1 Firearm entry wound oval shaped and was of size 1.2 x 1.1 cm
present over the left side of the chest over lying the medial aspect of left
nipple and is 6.5cm lateral to midline and is 12.3cm below the left clavicle.
The wound has an abrasion collar around its margins. The track of the wound

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 25 of 114
was directed downwards, backwards and from left to right. It enters the chest
cavity through the fourth intercostal space and is 6.5cm lateral to midline and
then passes through and through the middle part of the left lung and then
passes through and through the pericardium and the left ventricle of the heart.
It exits ( probably wrongly mentioned as exists in the report ) the chest cavity
after fracturing the 11* rib alongwith the left para vertebral line and the bullet
is recovered from the subcutaneous tissues of the back 1 cm lateral to midline
and 28 cm below the nape of neck on the left side. Extravasation of blood is
noted throughout the track of the wound. All structures involved in the track
are lacerated. The bullet recovered is of size 1.2 cm x 0.6 cm, is copper
jacketed and is marked X at the base and is sealed in bottle.

Internal examination:

1 Head and Neck
Scalp: NAD ( no abnormality detected)
Skull: NAD
Brain: 116 grams, pale
Neck and vertebra: NAD.

2 Chest : about 600 ml of blood is noted in the left side thoracic cavity
upon opening the chest cavity/ribcage.

Ribcage: fracture of 11* rib was noted in the para vertebral line of left
side alongwith extravasation of blood in the surrounding tissue.

Lungs: right lung weighing 411 grams, left lung is weighing 316 grams,
through and through laceration of the lower border of upper lobe and upper
border of lower lobe of left lung is present.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 26 of 114
Heart: It weigh 226 grams, a laceration of size 5cm x .5 cm going
through and through the left ventricle is present alongwith extravasation of
blood in the surrounding tissues. Coronaries: NAD

Abdomen and others:

Stomach: it contains 100 ml of semi digested food and fluid walls
NAD.

Intestine: contains fluids and gases. Walls NAD.

Liver: It weighs 1300 grams, spleen weigh 126 grams, kidney : right
kidney weighing 111 grams, left kidney weighing 106 grams. Abdominal
organs are pale.

Pelvis and vertebra: NAD

urinary bladder: empty, walls NAD.

Viscera has been preserved under the seal of AGK as requested by the
Investigating Officer.

Saturated solution of common salt has been used for the preservation of
viscera. Blood has been preserved using sodium fluoride.

42. Clothes of deceased were taken into pulinda and same were
seized with the seal of AGK, blood in gauze of the deceased was also sealed
with the seal of AGK. Bullet recovered from the body of deceased was kept in
a bottle and same was sealed with the seal of AGK. Aforesaid sealed pulinda
alongwith sample seals were handed over to the IO.

Opinion: Time since death was about half a day. Cause of death was

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 27 of 114
haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante mortem injury to chest produced by a
projectile of a firearm. Injury no.1 mentioned in the post mortem report was
ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature. His detailed report is Ex. PW5/A.

43. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand,
PW5 deposed that most probably the weapon used in the offence in this case
is a rifled weapon. The injury in this case was downward. he cannot tell the
angle of the injury. He cannot tell the distance between entry wound and the
place of the body from where the bullet was found. Blackening and tattooing
was not present near the entry wound.

Q. Can you tell the distance from where the bullet was fired in the present
case?

Ans. I want to take a detail study and scrutiny of the report and then to give
answer.

44. The distance from where the bullet was shot in this case could be
somewhere at least 60cm to 90cm. Fracture of 11* rib in this bullet injury
case was noticed and there was no other bone injury or fracture found. In his
report he have not mentioned the distance of the bullet entry wound of the
body and where the projectile was found lodged inside the body and then
taken out, but roughly that distance could be somewhere 20 to 25cm. Even if
in the present case the projectile had been fired from a rifled weapon, its entry
wound as found 1.2cm X 1.1cm was a possible entry wound. From the
internal injury in the present case, he may not further specify or describe the
rifled weapon as to what extent it was a sophisticate or what could be the

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 28 of 114
velocity of the projectile fired from that weapon.

45. Counsel for accused Sonia adopted the cross-examination of
PW3 conducted by counsel for accused Puran Chand.

46. PW6 Ajay Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 7 th
and 8th September, 2013 while he was lying asleep in his house that
somewhere at around 1.30 o’clock midnight he heard a sound like a bike
sometime giving a sound of “dhamaka” like its wheel tube bursting. He woke
up and he then checked his bike but it was found OK. He then came out of his
house and then a lady came out of the house and that house was the adjoining
house of a house just in front of their house and that lady is today present in
Court as accused in custody and she was crying and said that 2-3 persons after
causing firearm bullet injury to her husband had ran away. Soon thereafter
many persons of the locality started assembling and someone asked to make a
100 number call. He then made a 100 number call from his mobile phone
which was No.8802445854. One Parasnath had also made 100 number call.
Lady present in court in custody with the help of Parasnath then took her
injured husband in an auto rickshaw and took injured to the hospital. Soon
thereafter, PCR vehicle reached the spot. I had also seen the victim injured
lying inside the house just a little distance from the main door and in front of
the kitchen of that house and he saw victim had a bleeding wound on the left
side of his chest. Parasnath had given 100 number call as asked and requested
by the lady present in custody and Parasnath had given that call but Parasnath
then told him that since his mobile phone battery was low he asked me also
and he accordingly also gave 100 number call.

47. In his cross-examination by counsels for both the accused, PW6

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 29 of 114
deposed that he used to go to his college at about 7.30 am. He use to come
back from his college at about 3.30 pm. He used to sleep at about 9.00 pm.
His family comprising his parents, three brothers including himself and one
sister. After hearing the sound of dhamaka he and his father had woke up.
Within few seconds after hearing sound of dhamaka he came out of his house.
At the time of incident there was no street light in their gali. He did not
remember if the light of house of Ashok Sharma was on. He was residing on
the above stated address since his birth. The victim injured family was
residing for about one year as a tenant. He had never been to the house of the
victim injured. As soon he had been on the exit door of his house he had seen
only accused lady in gali crying and uttering and no other person was present
in gali. Gali is about 10 feet wide. It is true the information given by PW6
while making 100 number call was that 2-3 boys after causing bullet injury
had run away.

48. PW6 further deposed that police had met him during their visits
to the spot for about one or two days. Police had recorded his statement at
around 7.00/7.15 am on next day morning. He did not recall if at that time
house of injured victim was open or locked. His information conveyed to
police that 2-3 boys after causing firearm bullet injury had run away was from
the utterance being made by that female lady today present in court. He
denied his above statement that his information was on the basis of utterance
being made by accused female is at the instance of the IO Insp. Lekhraj. Insp.
Lekhraj had informed him that some CBI police would be arriving and asked
him to keep in touch. CBI official had not recorded his statement and Insp.
Lekhraj had recorded his statement only once.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 30 of 114

49. PW6 further stated that on next day morning when Insp. Lekhraj
came and recorded his statement at around 7.00/7.15 am, kids of the injured
victim were present in the house. In his presence Insp. Lekhraj had not
conducted any inquiry from those kids. Police had reached the spot in about
five minutes of they having 100 number call and then he had seen all three
kids of the injured present in the house also. In his presence no police official
had conducted any inquiry from kids on that point of time. House of
Parasnath is adjoining their house. He had seen Parasnath present when
people started collecting. First 100 number call was made by Parasnath and
immediately thereafter may be within a minute I had made 100 number call.
He had come to know about capture and arrest of that lady who had been
crying when police took her to police station on next day morning, exact time
he did not recall.

50. PW6 further stated that it is true thereafter that lady did not come
back home. In his presence he never saw police having brought accused today
present in court or that his name is Puran Chand. Vol. As he left his house for
his college. His statement had been recorded by Insp. Lekhraj prior to that
lady taken away by police to police station. PW6 denied that his statement
had not been recorded on the next day morning or that it was recorded after
five days. Vol. he may not have been very particular in his memory on that
point. Lady today present in court had been taken away by the police from
hospital and thereafter she never came back to the spot in his presence. PW6
denied that he had given false statement.

51. PW7 Insp. Mukesh Kumar Jain deposed that on 21.10.2013, he
was working as Insp. Draftsman in North East District, Delhi and on that day

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 31 of 114
he was called by Insp. Lekhraj the then SHO PS Karawal Nagar and on his
calling he went to PS Karawal Nagar and from there he along with Insp.
Lekhraj and other police staff went to the spot i.e. house no.D300, gali no.7,
Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He inspected the spot at the pointing
out of Insp. Lekhraj and took measurements and prepared rough notes of the
spot. On the basis of those rough notes he prepared scaled site plan on
22.10.2013 in his office, same is Ex.PW7/A. On 25.10.2013 he had handed
over the scaled site plan to Insp. Lekhraj and he had destroyed the rough
notes.

52. In his cross-examination by counsels for both the accused, PW7
deposed that on 21.10.2013 when he visited the spot no kid was present at the
spot. When he reached at the spot the aforesaid premises was open. There was
one public person present in the aforesaid house. He did not recall the name
of said person. He also did not recall the age of said person. The distance
between point A and the door of the kitchen is about 220 cm. Entry door of
the house in question were two, one on the north side which was the main
entry door/ gate and the second was on the south side which was a small entry
door. He had visited only the ground floor and he did not go to any upper
storey in that house. There was only one room on the ground floor as shown
in the plan and that room had two doors, one door opening towards / into the
gallery of the house and the back side small door opening into back side gali
and that back side door was iron door. The main entry door of the house was a
wooden door. Many other houses had also opening into the back side gali.
PW7 denied that he prepared his scaled site plan without visiting the spot.

53. PW8 HC Kamal Negi deposed that on the intervening night of 7

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 32 of 114
and 8.09.2013 he was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as HC. On that night, he
was working as duty officer from 12 midnight to 8 am. On that day, at about
1.30 midnight he received an information from North-East control room
through telephone that 2-3 boys had run away after causing injury to a person
at gali no.7, D block, Mukund Vihar. On this information he had recorded DD
No.6A. The said information was received in the control room from a mobile
phone no. 8802445854. He had given the said information to ASI Ashok
through telephone. He prepared the copy of said DD and was sent to ASI
Ashok Kumar through HC Vijender. ASI Ashok was in the area and attending
some other call. He had brought original daily diary register. Copy of DD
No.6A is Ex.PW8/A. On the same night at about 4.45 am, he had recorded
FIR No.526/13 u/S 452/302 IPC and 27 Arms Act through computer operator
on the basis of a rukka which was sent by Insp. Lekhraj Singh through HC
Vijender. The computer copy of said FIR is Ex.PW8/B. He made endorsement
on the rukka regarding registration of the case, same is Ex.PW8/C. After
registration of the case, he had handed over the computer copy of FIR and
original rukka to HC Vijender for handing over the same to Insp. Lekhraj.
Today he had brought the original daily diary register, DD No.7A and DD
No.8A regarding registration of the case are Ex.PW8/D and Ex. PW8/E
respectively.

54. In his cross-examination by counsels for both the accused, PW8
deposed that Ex.PW8/A is not in his hand but it bears his signature at point A.
His endorsement Ex. PW8/C on the rukka is in his hand. PW8 affirmed that
Ex.PW8/C is having overwriting at point A and B.

55. PW9 Ramwati deposed that she has been residing at House No.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 33 of 114
D52, gali no.7, Panchal Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi for the last about three
years. Her son Ashok Sharma (deceased) was married with accused Sonia @
Sonu and they were earlier residing with her along with their children
Abhishek, Ajay and Krishna. She correctly identified accused Sonia @ Sonu.
After some time accused Sonia started picking quarrels with them and she
along with her son Ashok Sharma left the house and started residing in rented
accommodation at Mukund Vihar. She did not recollect the block number due
to lapse of time. Her son Ashok Sharma was doing private job at Seelampur.
In the month of December 2012, “Bhagwat Katha” was held in the same
locality where her son Ashok Sharma was residing and the same continued for
about 8 days. Her grandson had told her that accused Rajan had installed
sound system in the said Bhagwat Katha. Her grandson further told her that
accused Rajan used to meet Sonia at her house when here son Ashok Sharma
used to go to her duty and children used to go to their school. Accused Sonia
used to take back the children from the school and dropped them at his house
at about 2:00-2:30 pm and she used to take back the children at about 5:00
pm-6:00 pm and sometime her son Ashok Sharma also used to take back the
children from her residence.

56. About six months before behaviour of accused Sonia was not
good towards her son Ashok Sharma and she used to wear dresses which were
not proper and decent. As and when she used to go to meet Sonia and her
Ashok Sharma she used to pick quarrel with her and used to turn her back.
Her son Ashok Kumar used to tell her that accused Sonia was having illicit
relation with accused Rajan and her behaviour towards him was not good. Her
son had also told her that he had learnt from neighbours that when he used to
go to his duty, accused Sonia in his absence used to call accused Rajan and

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 34 of 114
used to go with him on motorcycle for outing.

57. PW9 further stated that one day all the children of her son Ashok
Sharma had come alone from school at her residence and on inquiry they told
her that they were not brought there by accused Rajan and they further told
that their mother accused Sonia would go for strolling with accused Rajan.
Her grandson Krishna had also told her that accused Sonia used to beat him
and used to direct him to address accused Rajan as Papa and he further told
her that accused Rajan used to love him and used to give him money. Accused
Sonia about 15 days prior to the incident had come at her residence and she
had told her that she should make her son Ashok Sharma to understand and to
ask him not to come in her way failing which he would be killed and she
further told that she would go away with her son Krishna. When her son
Ashok Sharma asked about it to accused Sonia, she complained to him that he
was neither having good looks or money or fame. She further told to the son
of PW9 that not to come on her way otherwise he would be killed. Her
grandsons also used to tell her that accused Sonia always remained busy in
talking with accused Rajan on telephone and thereafter used to delete the call
details. Her grandsons also used to tell them that Sonia did not pay respect to
their father Ashok Sharma and she used to give threat to kill her.

58. PW9 further stated that in the month of September 2013 but she
did not recollect the exact date due to lapse of time, accused Sonia leaving all
the three her grandsons had gone away and at about 5:00 pm-6:00 pm her son
Ashok Sharma had come in perplexed condition and he told her that he would
not go back to his house because he would be killed by accused Sonia and
Rajan. Her son Ashok Sharma had also told her that accused Rajan used to

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 35 of 114
come to his house even in his presence and he was afraid of his life from
accused Sonia and Rajan. At that time her son Ashok Sharma had taken only a
cup of tea before going to his house. At that time she had advised to deceased
that in case accused Sonia used to go away let her go but do not allow her to
take Krishna and go with him. Her son Ashok Sharma with her grandsons
went from there unwillingly to her house. In the night time they came to know
that her son was shot down and this happened after about 15 days as earlier
told by accused Sonia. She was sure that her son Ashok Sharma was killed by
accused Sonia and Rajan. She correctly identified accused Puran Chand
Rathore @ Rajan in the court.

59. In her cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand,
PW9 deposed that name of first wife of deceased Ashok Sharma is Vimal,
who remained with Ashok Sharma for about 1 – 1 ½ year. Vimal had filed a
case for divorce and thereafter divorce had taken place between them. The
distance between her house and house of deceased Ashok Sharma may be
about 2-3 km. But she did not know the exact distance. She had lastly gone to
the house of deceased Ashok Sharma 2-3 months prior to the incident on foot.
It took about 10-15 minutes to reach to house of Ashok Sharma from her
house, but she cannot tell the exact time. She he had seen accused Puran first
time in the police station after the incident. She did not recollect if she had
gone to the PS after she brought the children of deceased Ashok Sharma to
her house. Her husband had gone to the police station, but she cannot tell the
exact time. Ashok Sharma, deceased, used to take his children from her house
at about 5:00 pm -6:00 pm and sometimes accused Sonia also used to take the
children of Ashok Sharma from her house.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 36 of 114

60. In her cross-examination PW9 further stated that on 08.09.2013
Ashok Sharma had come to her house on motorcycle to take her children at
about 5:00 pm-6:00 pm. She might have seen accused Puran Chand on
14/15.09.2013 in the PS, but she did not recollect the exact date. Children of
Ashok Sharma were also with her on that occasion. Police had come to her
house to make inquiry from the children of Ashok Sharma either on the day of
the incident or after 1 or 2 days of the incident. Police had recorded statement
of Ajay, son of deceased Ashok Sharma. Rest of the two children of deceased
Ashok Sharma were sleeping at that time. Police had recorded her statement,
but she did not recollect the exact date. She did not recollect if her statement
was recorded on the day when statement of Ajay was recorded. Her son
Ashok Sharma, deceased, used to sleep in the room near kitchen at the ground
floor along with his children.

61. In her cross-examination PW9 further stated that on the day of
incident she had not gone inside the house of Ashok Sharma whereas her
husband had gone inside the house. She did not notice any blood lying near
the house of Ashok Sharma. A lot of public persons had assembled at the spot
when she reached there. So many police officials were present there also at
that time. They had brought children of Ashok Sharma from his house in the
presence of police officials, but she did not recollect if at that time inquiry
was made from the children or not by the police official. She had not made
any inquiry from the children of Ashok Sharma at that time. At that time, one
of the neighbour of Ashok Sharma had told her that blood was lying at the
spot and it was cleaned and wiped out. She did not recollect if children of
Ashok Sharma or his neighbour had told her or not about as to how the
incident had taken place.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 37 of 114

62. In her cross-examination PW9 further stated that Abhishek was
brought by one neighbour on a motorcycle. Someone had also come on
another motorcycle. She did not ask from Abhishek as to who had caused
gunshot injury to deceased Ashok. She had gone at the house of deceased on
the same motorcycle whereon Abhishek was brought. She did not recollect if
Abhishek was also with her or not when she went at the house of deceased on
said motorcycle. She had gone there along with her husband and her son
Sunil. She did not know by which mode her husband and Sunil reached at the
house of deceased. Again said they had gone on other motorcycle. Ajay and
Krishna sons of deceased were present there when she reached at the house of
deceased. No one told her as to who had caused injuries to the deceased.
However, public persons present there had told her that deceased was caused
gunshot injury. Police was also present there at the spot. Police had made
inquiry from her. Police had also recorded her statement. She did not recollect
if she had told or not to the police that Rajan used to visit the house of the
deceased and he had organized Bhagwat Katha and there was sound system of
high volume. She did not recollect if she had told to the police or not that
Abhishek had told her that Rajan used to visit the house of the deceased in his
absence. She did not recollect if she had told or not to the police on the day of
incident that about six months prior before, behaviour of accused Sonia was
not good towards her son Ashok Sharma and she used to wear dress which
were not proper and decent. Her son Ashok Sharma had told her about 15
days prior to the incident that Sonia was in illicit relation with Rajan. She did
not suggest Ashok Sharma to divorce Sonia or to lodge report against accused
Sonia and Rajan. On the occasion of Janamasthami accused Rajan had
brought all the three children of deceased to drop them at her house. Main

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 38 of 114
accused Sonia about 15 days prior to the incident had come at her residence,
she along with children of deceased were present in the house.

63. In her cross-examination PW9 further stated that Ajay was
present in her house when he was taken to concerned ld. MM for recording
his statement u/S 164 Cr.P.C. PW9, her husband and Krishna had also gone
with him. PW9 denied that Ajay was tutored by her and her husband before he
was produced before the concerned ld. MM for recording his statement u/s
164 Cr.P.C. He further denied that the entire story is concocted.

64. PW10 Sunil Sharma deposed that he had been residing at E9/465,
Nehru Vihar, Dayalpur, Delhi for the last about 5 years. In the year 2013 his
brother Ashok along with his wife Sonia and children was residing on rent at
house no.300 D Block, Gali No.7, Mukund Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. On
08.09.2013 at about 2:00 am, he received an information that someone had
caused gunshot injury to his brother Ashok Sharma (deceased) in his house.
On hearing this he along with his mother and father reached in the room of his
brother Ashok Sharma and came to know that some one had caused gunshot
injury to Ashok Sharma after entering into his house. He along with his
mother and father also came to know that Ashok Sharma was taken to hospital
by his wife accused Sonia. On this he along with his parents and children of
Ashok Sharma (Abhishek, Ajay and Krishna) came to the house of his
parents. He along with his father went to GTB Hospital and they found Ashok
Sharma dead there. His “bhabhi” Sonia did not tell anything about this
incident. PW10 identified accused in the court. On the instructions of IO,
PW10 along with his father and other relatives reached mortuary, GTB
Hospital at about 10:30 am where he along with his father had identified the

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 39 of 114
dead body of his brother Ashok Sharma. His statement and his father’s
statement was also recorded regarding identification of his brother Ashok
Sharma. After post mortem, dead body of his brother Ashok Sharma was
handed over to them. PW10 raised suspicion upon accused Sonia and Rajan
Pandit regarding murder of his brother Ashok Sharma. PW10 identified
accused Rajan in the court. IO recorded his statement from 3:45 pm to 4:00
pm. His statement regarding identification of dead body of his brother Ashok
Sharma is Ex. PW10/A. Dead body of deceased Ashok Sharma was handed
over to them vide handing over receipt Ex. PW10/B.

65. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Sonia, PW10
deposed that he was not residing with his parents. He was residing separately.
Accused Sonia is second wife of his deceased brother Ashok Sharma and the
name of his first wife was Vimal. There was litigation between them broken.
He did not know for how long the marriage between Vimal and Ashok
Sharma lasted. Marriage of Ashok Sharma was performed with accused Sonia
about seven years back. PW10 has only one sister namely Sonia. Name of
husband of his sister Sonia is Raghvind. PW10 had no idea if any quarrel had
taken place between his sister Sonia and Raghvind. He denied that in that
quarrel between his sister Sonia and Raghvind the accused Sonia taken the
side of Raghvind or that since then their family members developed grudge
against accused Sonia.

66. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand,
PW10 deposed that he was told by his parents that someone caused gunshot
injury to his brother Ashok Sharma. When he reached in the room of Ashok
Sharma, deceased, none else was found present there. Again said public

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 40 of 114
persons as well as the three children of Ashok Sharma were present. Children
of Ashok Sharma were scared and they did not tell anything about the incident
to him or to his parents in his presence. He did not recollect when and where
police official met him for the first time after the incident. Police officials did
not come in his presence at the house of his parents. He was living in a
separate accommodation. He met children of deceased Ashok Sharma next
day of the incident after they were brought to house of his parents. No talk
took place between him and children of Ashok Sharma on his next meeting
with them.

67. PW11 Constable Ravi Kumar deposed that on 25.09.2013, he
was posted as Constable at PS Karawal Nagar. On that day, on the instruction
of IO, he reached in the office of MHC (M) (CP) and Constable Ramesh
Kumar who handed over to him one sealed parcel stated to be containing
blood in gauze and blood stained earth of deceased duly sealed with the seal
of LRS and another sealed parcel stated to be containing blood gauze of
deceased duly sealed with the seal of AJG and one more sealed parcel stated
to duly sealed with the seal of AKG along with sample seal which were
deposited by him in FSL Rohini vide RC no. 102/21/2013. Aforesaid exhibits
were deposited in FSL Rohini vide FSL No. B-7368 memo No. 3620 dated
25.09.2013 and after depositing the same copy of receipt was handed over to
MHC (M). Case property was not tampered with by anyone so long as it
remained in his custody. IO recorded his statement between 5:30 pm to 5:40
pm.

68. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran, PW11
deposed that he did not recollect the nature of documents which he had taken

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 41 of 114
to FSL Rohini along with the exhibits. He had taken exhibits along with three
sample seals. He denied that he had not collected any exhibits from MHC
(M). He further denied that exhibits etc. were not deposited by him in FSL
Rohini or that he was deposing falsely.

69. PW12 Constable Rakesh Dhawan deposed that on 24.09.2013, he
was posted at PS Karawal Nagar as Constable. On that day, he received one
sealed viscera “petti” along with sample seal from MHC (M) vide RC No.
101/21/13 for depositing at FSL, Rohini, Delhi. After depositing the same at
FSL Rohini, the received copy of RC was handed over to the MHC (M). The
forwarding letter was also taken by him. The sealed parcel remained intact in
his possession and was not tampered with in any manner.

70. PW13 Shiv Charan deposed that Ashok Sharma (deceased) was
his son. Ashok Sharma along with his wife Sonia and three children was
residing on rent at D Block, Street No. 7, House No.300, Mukund Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi. His son was working as Distributor (private job). On
the intervening night of 7/8.09.2013, his grandson Abhishek came to his
house along with some neighbours at about 2:00 am and disclosed that his
father has been shot by someone at about 1/1:30 am. Abhishek further told to
him that his mother Sonu had taken his father to the hospital. He along with
his wife and younger son Sunil, went to the house of Ashok and found several
police persons were present there. He along with his three grandsons came
back to his house. He left all the three sons of Ashok in his house and went to
the GTB Hospital. On reaching at the hospital, he came to know regarding the
death of his son Ashok. He went to the Police Station. Thereafter, he along
with the SHO went to the GTB Hospital, where the dead body of Ashok was

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 42 of 114
duly identified by him and his son vide memo Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW10/A.
The dead body of his son was received by him after its post mortem for his
last rites vide memo Ex. PW10/B. The wife of Ashok did not disclose
anything to him regarding the cause of death of his son. The witness correctly
identified the accused Sonu, wife of Ashok. He had a doubt on Sonu and
Rajanj accused present in the court, regarding the death of his son Ashok.
Sonu had told him about 15 days prior to this incident that she will go along
with her younger child Krishna to somewhere else as his son Ashok was an
obstacle (“roda”) between her and accused Rajan.

71. PW13 further stated that on 12.12.2012, Bhagwat Katha had
taken place in Mukund Vihar near the house of Ashok. The accused Rajan @
Puran was doing the work of light and sound during functions/programms.
His daughter-in-law Sonu used to attend Bhagwat Katha held near her house
and happened to meet accused Puran. The accused used to visit at the house
of his son in the absence of his children when they were away to school. His
grandsons were dropped by the accused Sonu at the house of PW13 after their
school at 2:00 pm daily and after dropping their she returned to her house.
The behaviour of Sonu was totally changed after Bhagwat Katha and she used
to quarrel with him and his wife whenever they visited her house to see their
grand children. Accused Sonu had developed intimacy with accused Rajan @
Puran as he was richer than the son of PW13, deceased Ashok. His grandsons
had told him that the accused (Rajan uncle) used to come to their house and
their mother sometimes used to talk to him over telephone. On inquiries made
by her children regarding the call which was received by their mother, the
accused Sonu told them that it was from the company and she used to delete
the calls. They also told him that their mother Sonu and accused Rajan met

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 43 of 114
frequently. On inquiries from Ashok regarding the relations between Sonu and
Rajan, he had told him that he had danger to his life from Sonu.

72. PW13 further stated that in the evening of 07.09.2013, he told
Ashok to take back his children to his house. However, Ashok refused to
return to his house by telling that his life was in danger. Later Ashok went to
his house and the incident took place.

73. PW13 further deposed that on 12.09.2013, he reached Mukund
Vihar at the house of Ashok where the accused Rajan was present along with
the police. On the pointing out of the accused Rajan, one mobile phone was
recovered, which was seized by the police. Thereafter, they came back to the
police station. That mobile phone belonged to the accused Sonu. The seizure
memo of the mobile phone of accused Sonu is Ex. PW13/B. The accused was
also interrogated by the police on that day in his presence. The disclosure
statement of Sonu is Ex. PW13/C. Accused Sonu was arrested in his presence
and her arrest memo is Ex. PW13/D. An empty cartridge was also recovered
from the house of his son Ashok and there were few drops of blood at the
spot. PW13 identified the mobile phone (Ex.PW13/1) make Mosis which
was recovered by accused Sonia.

74. During the cross-examination by the ld. Chief Prosecutor for the
State, PW13 affirmed that this mobile phone was got recovered by accused
Sonia @ Sonu and not from accused Puran Chand Rathore @ Rajan as stated
by PW13 on 09.07.2015.

75. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand,
PW13 deposed that his house is at a walking distance of 15 to 20 minutes

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 44 of 114
from the house of Ashok. He was working in a factory in the year 2013 in
Babarpur, Shahdara. He used to leave home around 9 am and return at 6 pm.
He had visited the house of Ashok 15 days prior to the present incident.
Ashok had met him on that day. Ashok used to visit his house frequently
while returning from his work place in the evening. On 07.09.2013 Ashok had
visited him around 6/7 pm and had stayed for about 15-20 minutes. He had
then left along with children for his home. He was on his motorcycle. He used
to park his motorcycle in the gallery near the gate inside his house. His
grandson visited us around 2:00 am (in the night) and informed him that his
father (Ashok) had been shot. He did not inquire from him as to who had shot
him. He could not think of anything on hearing the news. He reached the spot
on a motorcycle of neighbours soon thereafter. A large number of people had
collected there. Police was also there. He did not remember names of the any
of those persons today. His grandson Abhishek stayed at his house. His other
two grandsons were there sitting with the police officials. Police did not
inquire his grandsons as to who had Ashok in his presence. His other two
grandsons also came to his house around 4 am. He inquired Ajay, his
grandson, about the incident on 12.09.2013. Ajay was staying with him from
08.09.2013 to 12.09.2013. Vol. There were large number of relations in his
house during that period and therefore he could not inquire from him about
the incident. Police came to his house during the period 08.09.2013 to
12.09.2013. Police made inquiries from Ajay regarding the incident in his
presence on 13.09.2013. The police did not meet his grandson Ajay till
12.09.2013. The police had inquired Ajay on 13.09.2013 at his house. The
other sons of Ashok and all his other family members were present in the
house. The police tried to inquire his other grandsons but they started crying

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 45 of 114
and could not tell about the incident. Police did visit us after 13.09.2013 but
they (the two grandsons other than Ajay) could not tell anything about the
incident (due to their mental state at that time).

76. PW13 further deposed that the motorcycle was parked in the
gallery in his house when he had gone there on 08.09.2013 (after receipt of
information of his having been shot). The front wheel of motorcycle was
almost touching a motor installed in the gallery. He had not entered the house
but had only peeped inside from the gate. He could look at the room inside the
house from the gate. He had seen the blood lying on the floor in the gallery. It
was at 2-3 places. He was not aware whether the blood was there on the floor
of the room also. He visited the house of Ashok after the incident on
12.09.2013 and 13.09.2013 – in the evening on 12.09.2013 around 11 am. The
police had broken open the lock of the house of Ashok. He did not see any
blood lying on the floor of the room. He did not see any bed lying on the floor
of the room. There was a single bed lying in the room. There was a bed sheet
on the said bed. He did not see blood on the said bed sheet. The police had
seized mobile phone from the room on that day. He had seen accused Puran
for the first time after the incident on 13.09.2013 in the PS. He had been to PS
between 08.09.2013 to 12.09.2013. He cannot say if accused Puran was kept
in the PS by the police from 08.09.2013 to 12.09.2013. Vol. As he had not
seen.

77. PW13 affirmed that the house of Ashok comprised of two rooms,
one on the ground floor and other on the first floor. PW13 further deposed
that the stairs leading to the first floor was not very wide. He did not know
where Ashok used to sleep in the house. PW13 denied that he had got the

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 46 of 114
accused Puran implicated through his grandson Ajay. He denied that Ashok
had never complained to him against Sonia. PW13 denied that accused Puran
is not know by the name of Rajan Pandit. Vol. His grandsons used to tell him
that Rajan Pandit used to visit their house (house of Ashok). He denied that
accused Puran @ Rajan Pandit never visited the house of Ashok or that his
grandsons never told him about the visit of Rajan Pandit @ Puran about his
visit to their house.

78. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Sonia, PW13
affirmed that neither him nor Ashok lodged any complaint against the accused
even after receipt of information 15 days prior to the incident. He never made
any inquiries from the neighbours of Ashok regarding the threats extended by
his wife Sonia. He denied that accused Sonia never threatened Ashok before
the incident. He had stayed at the house of Ashok on 13.09.2013 for about 1
to 1 ½ hour. Neighbours did not come to the house while he and police were
there inside the house of Ashok. The neighbours were standing outside the
house of Ashok. The door of the room from where Sonia got recovered the
mobile phone was open when they entered the house of Ashok. The almirah
was also open at that time. All articles like bed, almirah and other household
articles were lying inside the room. He did not put his signature on any paper
in the house of Ashok on that day. He had signed on a paper at PS on
13.09.2013. Police did not make inquiries from the neighbours in his presence
on 13.09.2013. Police had not put any mark of identification on the mobile
phone Ex. PW13/1. He denied that there was no almirah in the room and he
had concocted a story of recovery of mobile from almirah at the instance of
Sonia. He denied that accused Sonia did not get recover mobile phone from
the almirah.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 47 of 114

79. PW13 further stated that he had a daughter namely Sonia. The
name of his son in law is Rajbir. He denied that he had falsely implicated
accused Sonia because of her interference in the family matter between his
son in law Rajbir and his daughter Sonia. He denied that accused Sonia had
pressurized him and his daughter Sonia to join and stay with her husband
Rajbir. He further denied that neither his daughter Sonia nor him were happy
and therefore they have implicated Sonia in the crime. He denied that the
phone Ex. PW13/1 belonged to deceased Ashok.

80. PW14 Constable Brijesh Kumar deposed that on 25.09.2013, on
the direction of the IO, he took sealed pulandas bearing seal of LRS of this
case from MHC (M) HC Ramesh Kumar, to deposit the same at CFSL, CBI,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. He took the same vide RC, number
of which he did not remember and deposited the same at the office of CFSL,
CBI and obtained receipt and came back to the maalkhana and handed over
the same to HC Ramesh Kumar. So long as the pulandas remained with him,
nobody tampered with the same. IO recorded his statement on the same day.

81. PW15 HC Ramesh deposed that on 08.03.2013 he was posted at
PS Karawal Nagar and was working as MHC (M) On that day Inspector Lekh
Raj Singh, SHO, PS Karawal Nagar deposited three pulandas bearing seal of
LRS and one petti of viscera along with the sample seal, one blood in gauze
and sample seal, one pulanda of the clothes of the deceased, one bottle along
with the sample seal, bearing seal of AGK, which he entered at serial no.815
and deposited the case property in the malkhana. On 12.09.2013, Inspector
Lekh Raj Singh deposited personal search of the accused. On 13.09.2013
Inspector Lekh Raj Singh deposited one mobile phone bearing seal of LRS

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 48 of 114
and personal search of the accused Sonia which he entered at serial no. 825 of
the register no.19 and deposited the case property in the malkhana. On
25.09.2013 one exhibit, empty cartridge was sent to CBI, CGO Complex, N.
Delhi through Constable Brijesh Kumar, No. 1426 vide RC no. 103/21/13.
Constable Brijesh after depositing the case property obtained receipt and
handed over the same to him.

82. PW15 further deposed that on 24.04.2014 the empty cartridge
bearing seal of CFSL, CBI was received back in the malkhana through
Constable Brijesh Kumar which was deposited in the malkhana and the report
was handed over to the IO. On 24.09.2013 the exhibits viscera petti was sent
to FSL, Rohini through Constable Rakesh no.2535 who deposited the same at
the office of FSL, Rohini and obtained the receipt and handed over the same
to him. On 25.09.2013 the four pulandas were sent to FSL, Rohini through
Constable Ravi Kumar vide RC No. 102/21/13. On 18.11.2013, Constable
Bhupender deposited one pulanda bearing seal of FSL, Rohini which was
entered in the register and the report was handed over to the IO Inspector
Lekh Raj Singh. On 23.05.2014 four pulandas along with the report of FSL,
Rohini were received in the maalkhana through HC Ramesh which were
entered in the register no.19 and deposited in the malkhana and the report was
given to SI Manoj. So long as these pulandas remained with him, nobody
tampered with the same. The photocopy of the relevant abstract of register
no.19 is Ex. PW15/A running into five pages and the photocopy of register
no.21 is Ex. PW15/B running into five pages.

83. In his cross-examination by counsels for both the accused, PW15
affirmed that the SHO of the PS checks the register and put his signatures.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 49 of 114
The SHO has signed on each page of the register. But date is not given below
the signature. PW15 further affirmed that the fluid put on register no.19 on
some portion of the entries of this case are not bearing the signature or
counter signature of the official/SHO. PW15 denied that he had made all the
entries at the instruction of SHO (and not as per the fards) or that these entries
are ante timed or ante dated.

84. PW16 Constable Hakim Singh deposed that on 07.09.2013, when
he was on patrolling duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, duty officer HC Kamal
Singh Negi called him in the PS and gave copies of the FIR of this case and
directed him to deliver the same to Addl. DCP Sh. V. V. Chaudhary, Joint C. P.
Sh. Sanjay Beniwal at their residence. He had also gone to the house of
Additional DCP at flat no.121, South Avenue and thereafter Vasant Kunj at
the residence of Sh. Dheeraj Kumar, Additional DCP and thereafter
Karkardooma Court Complex at the court of Ms. Ravinder Bedi, the then ld.
CMM and delivered the copy of the FIR and thereafter he returned back to the
PS. In the evening IO recorded his statement.

85. In his cross-examination, PW16 deposed that he had reached the
court complex at around 10:00 am. At rest of the places I had handed over the
copy of the FIR to the staff officials. He had not taken any receipt from any of
the officer. He denied that he had not delivered copy of the FIR to any of the
officer.

86. PW17 HC Lokesh Kumar deposed that on 08.09.2013, he was on
duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. At about 1:23 am Constable Rakhi no.3794
PCR received an information at channel 126 that at gali no.7, block no.D,
Mukund Vihar near Gauri Shankar Mandir, the caller informed that 2-3

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 50 of 114
persons have shot at one man and ran away. This information was recorded in
the prescribed form and it was further dispatched to the console. Copy of the
PCR form 1 is Ex. PW17/A.

87. PW18 Constable Rakhee deposed that on 08.09.2013 she was on
duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. At about 1:23 am he received an information
at channel no.126 that at gali no.7, Block no. D, Mukund Vihar near Gauri
Shankar Mandir, the caller informed that 2-3 persons had shot at one man and
ran away. This information was recorded by her in the prescribed form and
further dispatched to the Console. Copy of the PCR form is Ex. PW17/A.

88. PW19 Constable Anita deposed that on 13.09.2013, at about 9:00
am she along with SHO PS Karawal Nagar, HC Vijender, Constable Amit
(driver), Constable Tarun (operator) left the PS in Govt. gypsy for the PS
Bhajanpura. Accused Puran Chand Rathore was taken out from the lock-up by
Inspector Lekh Raj, SHO, PS Karawal Nagar. Thereafter, accused led them to
house no. D-300, D Block, Gali no.7, Mukund Vihar and thereafter accused
entered in the said house from the north side gate and pointed out the boring
and informed them that he along with Sonia had committed the murder of
Ashok Sharma by firing (objected to by defence counsel). She further stated
that Shiv Charan Sharma, father of deceased, was also present in the house IO
prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW19/A of the spot (at the spot) at the
instance of accused Puran Chand. Accused Puran Chand was made to sit in
the Govt. gypsy, parked outside the house. Accused Sonia also met them in
the house IO interrogated her and on sustained interrogation, she admitted her
guilt in the commission of offence (objected to by the defence counsel).
Thereafter, IO arrested her vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/D. Personal search of

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 51 of 114
accused Sonia was also carried out vide memo Ex. PW19/B. One black colour
glass bracelet, one golden nose-pin, one pair of golden ear ring, one locket
and one plastic-wooden “mala” were recovered from the person of accused
Sonia. IO put the above said articles into a cloth and converted the same into
possession.

89. PW19 further stated that thereafter, accused Sonia voluntarily
produced one mobile phone make Mosis after taking it from the almirah near
the bed lying in the room. IO also prepared the pulanda of the said mobile and
sealed the same with the seal of LRS and taken into possession vide seizure
memo Ex. PW13/B. Thereafter, they left the place and at about 12:15 pm they
reached in the PS in the Govt. gypsy. Thereafter, she along with HC Vijender,
HC Vikas took the accused Sonia to GTB Hospital for medical examination.
IO also recorded the statement of accused Sonia after arresting her, vide
memo Ex PW13/C. PW19 identified the moble phone make Mosis.

90. In her cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran, PW19
deposed that on 09.09.2013, she had not seen accused Puran in the PS prior to
13.09.2013. She had not seen the spot earlier. She did not know if Inspector
Lekh Raj had already seen the spot. Accused Puran was taken out of lock up
at about 9:30 am. Entry was made in the DD register of PS Bhajanpura. She
could not tell the distance between PS Bhajanpura and the spot (Vol. It will
take about 25-30 minutes if there is normal traffic). There was no cabin in the
gypsy. SHO was sitting by the side of the driver and accused Puran was
sitting on the back seat. She cannot tell the exact distance between the place
where they parked the gypsy and the house no. D-300, Mukund Vihar (Vol.)
they had walked for about five minutes to reach House No. D-300). People

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 52 of 114
had collected at the spot after they reached the spot. IO had not asked any
person to join the investigation. PW19 affirmed that house is located in a
populated area. She did not remember if any neighbour was called by the IO
to join the proceedings. She cannot tell the width of road opposite the house
No.D-300. She did not remember the number of storeys of House No. D-300.
She also did not remember the number of storeys of House No. D-300. She
also did not remember that the main door of the house were made of iron or
wood. The boring place was about 8-10 ft. from the main gate of the house
She cannot tell that the said place/passage was elevated. They had entered the
room on the ground floor. She did not remember as to the articles lying in the
said room. She also did not remember the distance between the boring and the
entrance to the room. She did not remember whether any person standing at
the boring place could see inside the room. A bed was lying inside the room.
She did not remember whether it was a single or double bed. She did not
remember the distance between the bed and entrance of the room.

91. In her cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran, PW19
further deposed that she did not remember if any blood was lying near or at
the entrance or near the boring place. She also did not remember if any blood
was lying in the room. She also did not remember whether there was any bed
sheet over the bed. She did not remember whether there was blood on any
wall of the house. She did not remember the size of the room. There were two
doors of the room. She did not remember whether both the doors were opened
or not. She did not remember whether the other door opened towards outside
or inside. She did not remember if there was any window near the other door
at the back. She did not remember whether there was any window on the wall
facing boring. She did not go upstairs (on the first floor). The stairs were

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 53 of 114
inside the house. She did not remember the width of the stairs. She did not
remember whether IO had interrogated the accused after taking him out from
the lock up of PS Bhajanpura and on way to spot, he was enquired about the
route of the spot. The accused was brought out from lock up and was dropped
to duty room where she was sitting in about five minutes. They stayed at
D-300 till 12:15 pm. She did not remember the place where the proceedings
were recorded by the IIO. She had put her signatures on 5-6 papers. The seal
after use was handed over to her by the IO. She did not remember whether
Shiv Charan Sharma was present at the spot at that time. She did not
remember whether Shiv Charan Sharma had put his signatures on any papers
at that time. She returned the seal to the IO on reaching PS. Her statement was
not recorded when she returned the seal to the accused Puran had not led the
police party to the house no. D-300 or had not pointed out the place near
boring. She denied that the accused Puran did not make any disclosure
statement in her presence. She denied that she had not visited the spot or that
she had signed the documents at the instance of SHO at the PS.

92. In her cross-examination by counsel for accused Sonia, PW19
deposed that the house in question was around 25 Sq. Yards in the area. She
did not remember the width of the house from front side. She did not
remember the colour of paint on the walls in the room. She did not remember
whether the almirah from which mobile was recovered was opened or
covered. She also cannot tell the direction inside the room from entrance
where the almirah was installed. She also cannot tell the description /
dimension of the almirah. She did not remember whether IO had put his
signatures or any mark of identification on the mobile before sealing the
same. She remember the two persons Shiv Charan and Sonia were present

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 54 of 114
inside the house when they reached the spot. She denied that no mobile was
recovered at the instance of accused Sonia or that accused Sonia did not make
any disclosure statement. She denied that accused Sonia was not arrested from
her house or that she was already detained illegally in the PS or that she never
visited the said house or that she put her signatures on the documents in the
PS subsequently or that she did not join the investigation.

93. PW20 Constable Karambir deposed that on 15.09.2013, she
joined the investigation of this case with SHO Lekh Raj and Constable/driver
Vinod and HC Tarun and HC Vijender. Accused Puran Chand Rathore present
in the court was also with them. He led them to house no. 0353, 33 foota road,
Som Bazar Chowk near Mayur Public School, Karawal Nagar at around 10:30
am at his house and got recovered one mobile phone of Samsung of black
colour from a wooden table and told that he used to talk to Sonia from that
mobile phone. IO converted the mobile phone into a pulanda with a white
cloth and sealed with the seal of LRS and seized vide seizure memo
Ex.PW20/A. Thereafter, they along with the accused came to the
Karkardooma Court and the IO obtained two days further PC remand of the
accused and thereafter went back to the PS. During his evidence he identified
the mobile phone make Mosis Ex. PW20/P1.

94. In his cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand
Rathore, PW20 deposed that he had seen the accused for the first time in
custody on 15.09.2013 at about 10:00 am in the PS. No public person was
present in the PS near the lock-up. IO did not make any inquiry from him in
presence of PW20. The distance of the house of the accused from the PS
could be covered in about 20 to 25 minutes in vehicle. He did not recollect as

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 55 of 114
to who were present in the house of accused when he had gone there. IO had
asked some neighbours to join investigation but none agreed. Only IO can tell
whether he had issued any written notice to the neighbour who had refused to
join the investigation. The main gate of the house of the accused was closed
when they reached there. The gate was opened by the accused. The door of
the room inside the house was also closed. The door was not locked. They
stayed at the house of the accused for about 15-20 minutes. A number of
persons were present but he did not know whether they were neighbours or
family members of the accused. IO had made inquiries about the bill of the
mobile but he did not know whether the bill was given to the IO or not. IO
had inquiries about the ownership of the mobile but he did not ask for any
documents in his presence. Mobile phone contained a sim when it was
recovered. IO had checked the mobile phone but he cannot tell as to when the
last call was made from the phone. He denied that the phone was already
lying in the PS since 13.09.2013. He denied that accused did not lead the
police party to his house or that got the phone recovered from his house.

95. PW21 Constable Hukam Singh deposed that on 07.09.2013 he
was posted at PS Karawal Nagar and on that day, he was on night emergency
duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. On receipt of DD No. 48A he along with
ASHo Ashok Kumar went to house no. D-300, D Block, Gali no.7, near the
Gauri Shankar Mandir where one dead body of Ashok Sharma was lying. IO
called the crime team and the photographer. Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh
along with operator and driver also reached at the spot. Mobile 35 ASI Sudhir
Kashyap also reached at the spot. SHO Lekh Raj also reached at the spot
along with the operator and the driver. Crime team reached and inspected the
scene of the crime. Scene of the crime was got photographed. The PCR van

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 56 of 114
removed the dead body to the GTB Hospital. Later on he along with the IO
also reached the hospital. Wife of deceased, accused Sonia also met them in
the hospital. She could not give her statement to the IO as she was not in
proper state of mind. PW21 was deputed by the IO in the hospital to protect
the dead body from any tampering. He remained there till the post mortem on
the body of the deceased was conducted. After the post mortem the doctor had
given viscera along with the sample seal, one envelope containing blood in
gauze and sample seal, one pulanda of cloth along with sample seal and one
bottle containing bullet was given by the doctor to him which he handed over
to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/A.

96. In cross-examination by counsel for accused Sonia, PW21
deposed that when he reached the spot no public person was found in the lane.
Even no public person was found inside the house. They stayed at the spot for
about half an hour. During his stay no public person entered inside the house.
IO did not record statement of any person in his presence. He probably
reached in the hospital at around 2:30 am. He denied that Sonia had told IO
that some unknown person committed the murder but her statement was not
recorded by the IO at that time. He denied that he was deposing falsely in the
regard that Sonia could not give any statement. Father and brother Sunil of the
deceased met the IO in the hospital in his presence. IO did not record their
statement in the hospital in his presence. He further denied that he did not join
investigation at any point of time.

97. In cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand, PW21
deposed that the house of the deceased was single storey built up in the area
around 25 yards. There were two gates in the front of the said house. Blood

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 57 of 114
was lying near (2 to 3 feet) the main gate of the house. He cannot say whether
the bed and other articles were visible from the main gate. He did not go to
the room. Empty cartridge was lying at the side of the main gate (in the inside
portion). He cannot tell the distance of the door of the room from the main
gate of the house. The passage from the main gate to the door of the room was
plain. Many persons had collected at the house. IO made inquiries from those
persons but none informed him about the incident. The children of the
deceased did not meet him in the house. No neighbour also informed them
about the children of the deceased. There was no light at the gate of the house
There was only street light and inside the house it was dark. He did not
recollect the number places where the blood was lying. He was deputed at the
spot to protect when the IO left for the hospital. He remained at the spot till
8:00 am. He did not remember whether the children of the deceased came
there. He do not remember whether the children of the deceased came there.
He do not remember the time when the crime team came to the spot. The
crime team stayed there for about half an hour. He did not know whether
crime team had lifted chance prints from the spot. The crime team had taken
4/5 photographs of the spot.

98. PW21 further deposed that he did not know when the crime team
left the site as it had not reached there in his presence. He did not remember
whether any senior police had come to the spot. He had not seen any child of
the deceased at the spot till 8:00 am. He did not remember as to what come
first in the house of the deceased from the main gate. He denied that he never
visited the spot and that is why he did not know the layout of the house. No
public person was present when the exhibits were lifted from the house. IO
did not call any public person at that time. No exhibits were lifted in his

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 58 of 114
presence from the spot.

99. PW22 ASI Rohtash Kumar deposed that on the intervening night
of 8.9.2013, he had received a call from control room stating that two-three
persons had fired upon one another person and ran away by a caller at Gali
no.7, D Block, Mukund Vihar. He along with the staff reached near Gauri
Shankar Mandir and on reaching the spot it was revealed that the injured had
already been shifted to hospital by TSR. It was revealed that someone had
fired on the chest of the injured at D-300, Gali No.7, Mukund Vihar and blood
was found to be lying at the spot. One cartridge case was also found at the
spot. It was revealed that Ashok Sharma had sustained injury. SHO along with
the staff had also arrived at the spot. After arrival of the local police, PW22
left the spot. Necessary information was conveyed to the control room. IO
recorded his statement.

100. In cross-examination, PW22 deposed that he reached at the spot
within four minutes of receiving the call and twenty-twenty five public
persons from the neighbourhood were found gathered at the spot. SHO came
at the spot after three-four minutes. SHO did not record the statement of any
person in his presence. SHO had not lifted anything from the spot in his
presence. (Vol.) Empty cartridge was lifted from the spot by the SHO.

101. PW23 ASI Bijender Singh deposed that on 08.09.2013, at about
1:30 am, duty officer HC Kamal Singh Negi handed over to him DD No.6A
which was taken by him to House No. D-300, Gali No.7, Mukund Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi. PW23 met with Inspector Arvind Pratap, Constable
Rohit Rathi, HC Sanjay, ASI Sudhir and ASI Ahsok along with Constable
Hukum Singh at the spot. PW23 handed over DD No.6A to ASI Ashok. SHO

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 59 of 114
Inspector Lekh Raj also arrived at the spot. SHO Inspector Lekh Raj along
with Constable Hukum Singh then left for the hospital. PW23 had observed
one cartridge case lying inside the door of the house of deceased Ashok
Sharma. On inquiries it was revealed that some had shot Sh. Ashok Sharma
and his wife Sonia had taken him to hospital. Inspector Arvind Pratap called
the crime team at the spot. After arrival of the crime team the spot was
inspected by them. They left the spot at about 3:00 am. At about 03:30 am,
SHO Inspector Lekh Raj again arrived at the spot. DD No.6A was taken by
SHO Inspector Lekh Raj from ASI Ashok. SHO Inspector Lekh Raj made his
endorsement and handed over the same to PW23 for registration of the
present case. PW23 went to the police station got the present case registered
and returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to SHO
Inspector Lekh Raj.

102. PW23 further deposed that Ajay Kumar who had made a call to
100 number also met them at the spot and he informed that Sonia had told
him that two-three persons had shot her husband and ran away and on her
asking he had made a call to 100 number. SHO Inspector Lekh Raj then put
the FIR number on the seizure memo and on the pulinda. Statement of
Inspector Arvind Pratap, ASI Ashok and Ajay was recorded by the IO. At
about 9:00 am they returned to the police station. IO recorded his statement.

103. PW23 further deposed that on 12.09.2013, he again joined the
investigation along with IO and Constable Rakesh and Constable Dharmender
and reached the place of occurrence House No. D-300, Gali No.7, Mukund
Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. The IO made local inquiries from the
neighbourhood and it was revealed that Sonia became acquainted with Pooran

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 60 of 114
in a Bhagwati Jagran in December 2012 and thereafter, both of them often
used to meet each other. Thereafter, they came to the house of the parents of
deceased at D-52, Gali No.7, Panchal Vihar. There they met Shiv Charan
Sharma and Ramwati, parents of the deceased, who told them that on
07.09.2013 deceased Ashok Sharma had come to his parent’s house and it was
also revealed that he expressed threat to his life from Sonia and Pooran. IO
recorded the statements of the parents of deceased Ashok Sharma.

104. PW23 further deposed that they reached the house of accused
Pooran at O-353, Shiv Vihar, Phase-IV, New Mayur Public School. Accused
was not present at his house. They reached the crossing at Shiv Vihar at about
10:30 pm. Accused Pooran was seen coming from Johripur side and going
towards Shiv Vihar and was apprehended. Accused was arrested vide his
arrest and personal search memos Ex. PW23/A and Ex. PW23/B respectively.
He was interrogated and his disclosure statement (Ex. PW23/C) was recorded.

105. PW23 further deposed that on 13.09.2013, he again joined the
investigation along with the IO and Woman Constable Anita, Constable Arun
and Constable Amit. Accused Pooran was taken out from the lock-up and
reached the place at House No. D-300, Gali No.7, Mukund Vihar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi. On pointing out of accused Pooran pointing out memo, already
exhibited as Ex. PW19/A, was prepared and same is signed by him at point
B. Accused Sonia was also present in the said house and was interrogated.
Thereafter, she was arrested vide arrest memo and personal search memos Ex.
PW13/D and Ex. PW19/B respectively. Disclosure statement (Ex.PW13/C) of
accused Sonia was also recorded. One mobile phone was produced by
accused Sonia and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memo

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 61 of 114
Ex.PW13/B. Accused Pooran and Sonia were taken to the hospital for their
medical examination and thereafter produced in the Court. IO recorded the
statement of PW23 in the PS. PW23 further deposed that the mobile phone
(Ex. PW13/1) was seized from accused Sonia.

106. In cross-examination, PW23 deposed that he reached the spot at
about 1:45 am. About ten-twelve public persons with Ajay Kumar were
present in the gali. House of Ajay Kumar was at a distance of about twenty
meters from from the house of accused Sonia. The SHO reached within five
minutes of his reaching there. PW23 had stated in his statement to the police
that Ajay Kumar informed them that Sonia had disclosed two-three persons
having shot her husband. He remained present at the spot till about 6:00 am
on that day. Only the statement of Ajay Kumar was recorded by the IO
amongst all the public persons present. PW23 was a distance of one-one and a
half meter from the IO when he was making inquiries from the public
persons. PW23 had not heard those public persons disclosing their names.

107. PW23 further deposed that on 12.09.2023 he had reached the
spot along with the IO at about 6:00 pm. He did not know the names of public
persons from whom the IO gathered information that there was relationship
between the accused persons, however, there were three-four public persons.
Those three-four public persons were called out from their respective houses
by the IO. House of two public persons was opposite the house of accused
Sonia and house of two remaining public persons was in the same line as the
house of accused Sonia. This inquiry continued for about twenty minutes.
Sonia along with her three children was found to be present in the house. The
house no.D-52, Panchal Vihar is at a distance of about three kilometers from

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 62 of 114
the house of accused Sonia. They reached the said house at about 6:50 pm.
Statement of PW23 on 12.09.2013 was not recorded by the IO. PW23
affirmed that his statement was not recorded since he never joined the
investigation on 12.09.2013.

108. PW23 further deposed that on 13.09.2013, he reached the house
of accused Sonia at about 10:00 am and she was alone at her house. He
remained present at her house till about 11:30 am. Those four persons were
not called by the IO on 13.09.2013. House of accused Sonia was measuring
about 25 square yards and was built up on the ground and first floor. There is
one room on the ground floor at a distance of about 6 feet from the main gate.
He cannot tell the dimensions of the room at the ground floor. The wall
almirah was open and without doors. It is situated on the left side as they
entered the room. There was no partition on the wall almirah. He did not
check if the mobile phone recovered at the instance of accused Sonia was
working or not. In his presence the mobile pulinda was not got signed by
accused Sonia. Photographs of the room were not taken in his presence. Site
plan was also not prepared by the IO in his presence. PW23 denied that no
mobile phone was recovered at the instance of accused Sonia. It is further
denied that the recoveries if any have been planted upon accused Sonia. He
further denied that he never joined the investigation among the IO on
13.09.2013. He further denied that accused Sonia was never arrested in his
presence nor she made any disclosure statement.

109. PW24 ASI Garib Dass deposed that on the intervening night of
7/8.9.2013, he was on duty from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am, on Becker 13 as In-
charge. He had a base near Jag Pravesh Chandra Hospital. At around 2:00 am,

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 63 of 114
one lady came to them in an auto and stated that her husband had received
gun shot injury but the hospital is refusing to treat him therefore, they took
the injured and the lady namely Sonia to GTB Hospital. The injured was
stated to be brought dead by the doctor at GTB Hospital. Local police also
arrived at the hospital. They came back to their base. PW24 also informed
Becker 1 regarding the abovesaid incident. The relevant entry (Ex. PW24/A )
is in the handwriting of PW24.

110. In cross-examination, PW24 deposed that he did not remember
whether the injured and Sonia was accompanied by some other person or not.
They reached GTB Hospital within 7/10 minutes. He could not say whether
the injured had already died when the lady Sonia approached them. The lady
Sonia was crying at that time.

111. PW25 Inspector Arvind Pratap Singh deposed that on the
intervening night of 7/8.9.2013 he was on patrolling duty along with
Constable Rohit Rathi and HC Sanjay on a govt. vehicle gypsy. On receipt of
information that some persons had fired upon one another person, PW25
reached the place of occurrence at D-300, Gali no.7, D Block, Mukund Vihar.
On reaching the spot, he met ASI Ashok, Constable Hukum Singh, who were
on motorcycle patrolling duty and ASI Sudhir and HC Vijender also on
patrolling duty. On entering the house, he had seen empty cartridge case of
7.65 mm cartridge and some blood spots. It was also revealed that the injured
had been shifted to hospital by his wife Inspector Lekhraj, SHO PS Karawal
Nagar also reached the spot at about 1:50 am. He called for the crime team
and himself proceeded to GTB Hospital. He was left at the spot along with
other police staff.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 64 of 114

112. PW25 further deposed that crime team arrived at 2:15 am.
Photographer had taken Photographs and inspected the place of occurrence.
They left the crime scene at about 3:30 am. At about 3:30 am, Inspector
Lekhraj returned from GTB Hospital along with staff. Inspector Lekhraj
prepared a tehrir and same was handed over to HC Vijender at about 4:30 am
for registration of the present case. The IO had taken into possession the
cartridge case and had separately taken into possession the blood lying at spot
and earth control. The different pulandas were sealed with the seal of LRS.
Seal after use was handed over to ASI Ashok Kumar. HC Vijender returned
with the copy of FIR and rukka at about 6:00 am. His statement was recorded
by the IO at about 6:30 am.

113. In cross-examination by counsel for accused Sonia, PW25
deposed that when he reached the spot, he found the gathering of 7-8 persons
at that time. The children of the injured were inside the house. He did not
remember the name of children who met him there. He stayed there till 7 am.
The cartridge was lying inside the room. The said house was about 25 Sq.
Yards in area. It was constructed upto only first floor. (Vol.) he had visited
upto first floor. He did not make inquiry about the caller of DD entry. IO did
not record the statement of any public persons till he remained at the spot.
The seizure memo of the cartridge was prepared inside the house and at that
time, he was standing outside. He did not remember if the said memo bears
the signature of any public person. IO had made inquiries from the children of
injured in his presence. The parents of the family member of deceased did not
meet him at the spot till he remained there. He denied that he did not join the
investigation and did not visit the spot.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 65 of 114

114. In cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand, PW25
deposed that he did not remember the width of the gali. The entrance is from
the gali but he did not see any other entrance or exit at the back side. The
water motor was nearby from the entrance but he cannot tell the accurate
distance. He did not remember if any blood spot was present near the water
motor. There was a motorcycle parked inside the house. The motorcycle was
parked towards the right side from the entrance to the house. The ground level
of the gallery and room were approx. the same and were at the same level. He
cannot tell the distance of the bed from the entrance of the house. He did not
observe any blood stains on the bed when he had taken casual look. He did
not observe blood stains near the bed. He had observed blood stains near the
bed. He had observed blood stains only in the gallery near the motor. He did
not know that night was moonlight or not. 5-6 persons from the
neighbourhood also collected at the spot after his arrival. He did not know if
they were joined by the IO in the investigation. He denied that he never
visited the spot.

115. PW26 Dharmender Rana, the then Ld. ACMM deposed that he
recorded the statement (Ex. PW1/A) under section 164 Cr.P.C. of witness
Ajay.

116. PW27 Dr. Amarpal Singh deposed that on 24.09.2013, he was
posted as Assistant Director (Chemistry) at FSL, Rohini. On that day, one
sealed wooden box in respect of postmortem report no. 1204/13 duly sealed
with the seal of AGK was received in the office and was marked to him for
examination along with the related documents. He proceeded to examine the
exhibit on 14.10.2013 and concluded the examination on 29.10.2013. During

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 66 of 114
examination parcel no.1 was found to contain exhibits 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D
kept in the sealed jar and bottles respectively. He noted the details of exhibits
in his report. The result of examination was exhibits 1A, 1B and 1C were
found to contain ethyl alcohol and methyl alcohol. Ex. 1C was found to
contain ethyl alcohol 50.4 mg and methyl alcohol 8.5 mg per 100 ml of blood.
Ex. 1D gave negative test for common poison. After examination, remnants of
the exhibits were sealed with seal of APS FSL DELHI and were handed over
to office for onward transmission to concerned. His report is Ex. PW27/A.

117. PW28 Dr. Devender, DMS, GTB Hospital deposed that Dr. Alok
had left the services of the hospital. He identified his handwriting and
signatures in officials capacity as he had performed his duties under his
supervision in the hospital in the year 2013. As per MLC No. B-3644/13
dated 08.09.2016, one Ashok, son of Shiv Charan was brought by ASI Garib
Das with alleged history of unconscious state and firearm injury at Karawal
Nagar at around 1:30 am, as stated by brought by person, was medically
examined by Dr. Alok. Injured was declared brought dead after medical
examination at about 2:08 am on 08.09.2013 and it was advised that body
may be sent to mortuary for postmortem examination. MLC prepared by Dr.
Alok is Ex. PW28/A.

118. In cross-examination, PW28 deposed that the patient was not
medically examined in his presence. MLC was also not prepared in his
presence.

119. PW29 SI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 07.09.2013, at 1:30 am,
when he was returning to attend a call from Mustafabad and was in the way
and he received telephonic information from HC Kamal Negi, then duty

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 67 of 114
officer that 2-3 persons had shot a man at Gali no.7, D Block, Mukand Vihar,
near Gauri Shankar Mandir, House No.300. He immediately proceeded for the
spot on his motorcycle. Inspector Arvind Pratap with Rohit Rathi, HC Sanjay
and ASI Sudhir Kashyap were found present at the spot. After 5-10 minutes,
SHO, Karawal Nagar Inspector Lekhraj along with his staff also reached at
the spot. At the spot, it was revealed that one lady Sonia had taken her injured
husband Ashok Sharma to GTB Hospital in PCR van.

120 PW29 further deposed that crime team officials had reached the
spot. The spot was inspected and photographed by them. He saw that it was a
house constructed around 25 sq. yards facing north direction. On opening the
gate, one motorcycle was found stationed on the right side. There was a
boring of water on the left site. Blood spots were visible near the boring. One
empty shell was lying near the boring. On the bottem of the empty shell, 7.65
mm was engraved. SHO reached the spot. HC Virender gave copy of DD No.
6A to SHO. SHO recorded his endorsement under the DD No. 6A and gave it
to HC Virender for registration of the case. HC Virender left the spot with
rukka around 4:30 am. HC Virender reached the spot at about 5:00 am with
copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SHO.

121 PW29 further deposed that SHO/IO lifted the blood sample from
the spot and kept the same in a small plastic container and sealed the same
with seal of LRS. He further took earth control sample and kept the same in a
plastic container in the same manner. The blood sample was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW29/A. The empty shell was also taken into possession by
same sealing process by seizure memo Ex. PW29/B. Seal after use was given
to PW29. IO recorded statement of police officials including PW29.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 68 of 114
Thereafter, PW29 left the spot. PW29 identified empty bullet shell (Ex. P1).

122. In cross-examination by counsel for accused Puran Chand, PW29
deposed that he did not remember if the street light was available in the gali,
however, lights were available in the houses. When they reached at the spot,
2-3 public persons were present there, one such person was Ajay Pal who had
informed the PCR. Ajay Pal was interrogated by the IO. He did not know if
Ajay Pal had signed any documents in this case. IO had inquired facts from 2-
3 other public persons also. The house, in question, is two sides open house.
He did not know as to at what depth from road surface the back side of said
house is located. He did not remember whether the back side door of the said
house was made of wood or iron. Volunteered, it was closed at that time from
inside. There was a window by the side of back door, a cooler was installed
there. The cartridge case Ex. P1 was lying just at the distance of about 4-5
feet from main gate inside the room. He could not tell the location of water
motor installed from main gate. The motorcycle was found stationed just on
the right side of main entry gate. The entry point for inside room of house was
via that very main entrance gate where motorcycle was stationed. The blood
was lying at two spots near the water motor. IO had lifted blood samples from
that spot. The inside room was adjacent to the first room i.e. entrance. He had
left the spot around 9 am. The motorcycle remained at that very spot when he
left the spot. Photographer reached at the spot at about 2/3 am. He cannot
comment if photographer had taken the photographs of the spot i.e. water
motor point, motorcycle point and inner room. A bed was lying inside the
room. He had not noticed any blood spot on the bed. The blood was lying at a
distance of about 8/10 feet from bed point. He cannot comment if the room
was comparatively on lower surface than the main gate entrance room of that

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 69 of 114
house. He did not remember if any bicycle was found stationed near the
motorcycle. The spot scene in photograph Mark PW29/D-1 is the photograph
of a house just opposite the house where incident had occurred. He cannot
comment if the brick wall portion shown in photograph Mark PW29/D-2 is
the wall portion of that very house where incident occurred or otherwise. It is
correct that motorcycle is not visible in any of the photographs placed on
judicial record. He had visited first floor of house. One room and a toilet was
built on first floor. No door was lifted in the room. A cot was lying inside the
room on first floor.

123 PW29 further deposed that he had seen the children of deceased
at the spot around 5-6 am, however he did not recollect their names. All the
three children were boys. At that time, Inspector Lekh Raj was also present.
He did not remember if Inspector Lekh Raj made inquiries from those
children. He did not remember if statement of any person was recorded by IO
at spot. All the children were present at spot when he left the spot. PW29
denied that he had not visited the spot.

124 In cross-examination, PW29 deposed that the house, in question,
was constructed in the area of 25 sq. yards.

125. PW30 Inspector Lekhraj Singh deposed that on the night
intervening 7-8.9.2013, he was working as SHO and received a wireless
message from control room of North-East District to the effect that in street
no.7, D Block, Mukund Vihar, near Gauri Shankar Mandir 2-3 persons had
runaway after shooting a perron. Consequently, PW30 proceeded for the spot
leaving SI Shree Chand and staff there. He reached House No. D-300, Gali
No.7, Mukund Vihar. Inspector Arvind Pratap, ASI Ashok Kumar, ASI Sudhir

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 70 of 114
Kashyap, HC Sanjay, HC Bijender, Constable Rohit Rathee and Constable
Hukam Singh met them there. On spot inquiry, he came to know that Ashok
Sharma had sustained bullet injury and his wife Sonia @ Sonu had taken him
to hospital by PCR Van. PW30 inspected the spot and noticed that on the floor
an empty shell of 7.65 bore was lying on the ground floor near the boring
while entering the house. Some blood spots were visible on the right side of
the boring at the distance about 2 feet from boring. PW30 flashed message to
control room and requisitioned crime team and photographer at the spot.

126. PW30 proceeded to GTB Hospital with Constable Hukam Singh
leaving the remaining staff there. PW30 collected MLC No. 3644/2013 of
Ashok Kumar Sharma, doctor had declared Ashok Kumar Sharma brought
dead having gun shot injury. He saw the dead body of Ashok Sharma and
observed that there was bullet injury mark on the left side nipple of chest and
there was a black stripped pant and sky blue colour underwear and yellow
colour towel on the person of deceased. Sonia, wife of deceased met PW30 in
the hospital. PW30 inquired facts from her but she did not disclose anything.
No eye witness was met to PW30 in the hospital. PW30 left Constable Hukam
Singh with the dead body which was sent to mortuary by the doctor.

127 PW30 returned to the spot. No eye witness met him at the spot.
ASI Ashok Kumar had produced him DD no.6A which is Ex. PW8/A. On the
basis of spot inspection and circumstances of this case he prepared rukka
(Ex.PW30/A) and handed over the same to Constable Bijender for registration
of the case who left the spot with rukka to PS around 4:30 am. Inspector
Arvind conveyed PW30 that in his absence crime team had reached the spot
and after spot inspection, crime team had left. Then, PW30 prepared site plan

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 71 of 114
(Ex.PW30/B) of the spot on his own observation. PW30 lifted bullet piece
from the spot and kept the same in a small plastic container and converted the
same into cloth parcel, affixed his seal LRS over the parcel and took the same
into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW29/B. PW30 lifted blood sample
and earth control sample from the spot and converted the same into a parcel
by same sealing process and took the same into possession vide memo Ex.
PW29/A.

128 HC Bijender reached the spot with copy of FIR and rukka and
handed over the same to PW30. PW30 recorded the statement of Inspector
Arvind Pratap and examined Ajay Kumar who had given information to
police on 100 number and recorded his statement. PW30 also recorded
statement of ASI Ashok Kumar and made efforts to trace the accused but no
result yielded. He left the spot with entire staff and deposited the case
property in Malkhana. PW30 called father of deceased Shiv Charan Sharma,
who expressed his doubt towards Sonia and Rajan Pandit. PW30 directed
Shiv Charan Sharma to reach mortuary, GTB Hospital in respect of
postmortem examination. At about 10:00 am, PW30 reached GTB Hospital,
where father of deceased and his sib Sunil Sharma and other relatives were
present there. Since autopsy surgeon was busy in conducting postmortem on
the other dead body, PW30 directed Shiv Charan Sharma to remain present
there and he proceeded for Crime Team Office, Seema Puri. He collected
scene of crime report from SI Ravi Kumar of crime team (Ex. PW7/A). He
recorded statement of SI Ravi Kumar and photographer Constable Sanjay.
Again PW30 reached GTB Hospital. Dead body of Ashok Kumar was
identified by Shiv Charan and Sunil. He recorded their statement Ex. PW13/A
and Ex. PW10/A in this regard. He prepared inquest papers i.e. request for

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 72 of 114
postmortem (Ex. PW30/C). Then PW30 filled in death report from which is
Ex. PW30/D and submitted the document before the autopsy surgeon for
postmortem. After postmortem dead body of Ashok Sharma was handed over
to his father vide receipt Ex. PW10/B. Doctor had preserved viscera, clothes
and bullet and blood sample and the same were handed over to him by
Constable Hukam Singh. He took the same in possession vide seizure memo
Ex. PW21/A. Then, they returned police station and deposited the case
property in maalkhana. He recorded statement of Constable Hukam Singh,
Constable Hakim Singh the special messenger and HC Bijender.

129 PW30 further deposed that he sent requisition for call details of
mobile phone of suspects Sonia, Pooran Chand, deceased and his father and
made efforts to trace the assailant but no clue was found. On 09.09.2013, he
received the copies of CDR of mobile number of aforesaid persons through
email of ACP. PW30 analyzed the call details of mobile no.8506931127 of
Sonia and mobile no.9990564617 of Pooran Chand Rathore @ Rajan Pandit,
and he came to know that there were frequent conversation between two even
upto 10:30 to 10:35 pm on 07.09.2013 and earlier to this also there were
frequent calls between the two. The call details analyzed by PW30 is Ex.
PW30/A (running into 25 pages including CAF from period 15.08.2013 to
10.09.2013).

130 PW30 summoned Pooran Chand Rathore @ Rajan Pandit and
questioned him but he did not disclose anything substantial then he went to
the house of Sonia and questioned her, who also did not disclose any
substantial. On 12.09.2013, PW30 along with HC Bijender were present at D
Block, Mukund Vihar and PW30 conducted local inquiry and came to know

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 73 of 114
that there was dispute between Sonia and deceased Ashok Kumar Sharma
concerning accused Rajan Pandit and that in absence of children of Sonia and
Ashok Sharma, Rajan Pandit used to visit the house of Sonia. PW30 reached
the house of Shiv Charan Sharma (father of deceased) i.e. D-52, Panchal
Vihar, Karawal Nagar, where Abhishek, Ajay and Krishna (sons of deceased)
were also present. PW30 recorded the statement of Shiv Charan Sharma and
his wife Ramwati and noticed that children of deceased Shiv Charan Sharma
were under fear and shock. PW30 could not interrogate them at that point of
time.

131 From the statement of Shiv Charan Sharma and Rawati, factum
of dispute and ill-will between Ashok Sharma and Sonia came to light.
Thereafter, on that very day, he went to the house of Rajan Pandit at House
No.O-353, near Mayur Vihar Public School, Phase-IV, Shiv Vihar but he was
not found present there and it was revealed to me through his wife that he had
gone to Johripur. Then, PW30 along with staff reached Shiv Vihar T-point. On
12.09.2013 at about 10:30 pm, PW30 apprehended accused Rajan Pandit at
Shiv Vihar T-point when he was seen coming and interrogated him and arrest
him in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW23/A and his personal search was
conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW23/B. On sustained
interrogation accused confessed his involvement in this case. He reduced the
same in writing which is Ex. PW23/C. Thereafter, accused was taken to GTB
Hospital, after medical examination he was brought to PS Bhajanpura and
kept in the lock-up there.

132 PW30 further deposed that in the morning of 13.09.2013 accused
was taken out from the lock-up of PS Bhajanpura, thereafter, PW30 along

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 74 of 114
with HC Bijender and Constable Anita reached House No. D-300, gali no.7,
Mukund Vihar. Accused led the spot and he prepared pointing out memo in
this regard which is Ex. PW19/A. Then, accused was sent back to PS.
Accused Sonia was present there at home. PW30 interrogated accused Sonia
in presence of Shiv Charan Sharma. On sustained interrogation, she confessed
her involvement in commission of murder of her husband Ashok Kumar
Sharma. PW30 arrested Sonia in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/D and
conducted her personal search vide memo Ex. PW19/B. PW30 seized mobile
phone of accused Sonia then and there. Seizure memo of mobile is Ex.
PW13/B. He had mentioned the make and IMEI number in the seizure memo.
At that time mobile phone was switched off, however, it was found
operational on no.8506931127. They returned to PS. PW30 recorded the
statement of Shiv Charan Sharma. Both the accused persons were produced
before the court. Accused Sonia was sent to JC. In PC remand of accused
Rajan, PW30 tried his best to recover the weapon of offence i.e. pistol but
could not recover the same as accused had misled them and informed that he
had thrown the weapon of offence in the naala.

133 PW30 further deposed that on 14.09.2013, he recorded statement
of Ajay Kumar under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein it was revealed that he was
the eye witness of this case. On 15.09.2013 accused got recovered his mobile
phone from his house and the same was switched off but the phone was found
operational on no.9990564617. PW30 noted it IMEl number in the seizure
memo and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/A. Accused was
produced before the court and again PW30 obtained two days PC remands for
recovery of weapon but no weapon could be recovered.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 75 of 114
134 On 17.09.2013 accused was sent to JC. PW30 got recorded
statement of witness Ajay u/s 164 Cr.P.C from Ld. MM Dharmendra Rana and
obtained its copy. On 24.09.2013 PW30 got sent viscera of this case to FSL
Rohini vide RC No.101/21/13 through Const. Rakesh and recorded his
statement and statement of MHC(M) Ramesh Chand. On 25.09.2013 PW30
got sent remaining exhibits of this case to FSL Rohini vide RC No.102/21/13
through Const. Ravi Kumar. On the same day empty shell recovered in this
case from the spot were also deposited at CFSL Lodhi Road vide RC
No.103/21 through Const. Brijesh. PW30 recorded the statements of these
police officials. On 09.10.2013 PW30 collected PCR Form which is
Ex.PW17/A and collected certified copies of call details alongwith CAF in
respect of Mobile Numbers of accused persons which he had received earlier
by way of email. The said records were requisitioned by PW30 vide his
application Ex.PW4/E and call details and location chart are placed on
judicial record which are Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C, Ex.PW4/D and
Ex.PW4/F. On 21.10.2013 PW30 got inspected the spot through draftsman
Mukesh Jain and got prepared scaled site plan of the spot which is Ex.PW7/A.
135 On 04.11.2013 PW30 recorded statement of PCR officials. PW30
had collected postmortem report Ex. PW5/A and viscera report which are
Ex.PW27/A. PW30 collected photographs of the spot which are Ex.PW3/1-7.
PW30 concluded investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW30 identified the
case property i.e. the bullet shell (Ex.P-1). PW30 also identified one mobile
phone make MOSIS vide IMEl No.863724012536877 and 863724012536885
which was recovered at the instance of accused Sonia, same is Ex.PW13/1.
PW30 also identified one mobile phone make SAMSUNG vide IMEl
No.356047043151753 and 356048043151751 which was recovered at the

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 76 of 114
instance of accused Rajan Pandit, same is Ex.PW20/P-1. PW30 also identified
one towel yellowish colour, one pant blackish colour and one sky colour
underwear, which were found on the dead body and handed over by the
autopsy surgeon, same are Ex. PW30/P1-3 respectively.

136. PW30 was in Lal Bagh Mandi area in the investigation of case
FIR no.422/13. The distance between the spot and Lal Bagh Mandi area is
about 1 – 1.5 KM approx. He had reached at the spot at about 2.00 AM. PW30
affirmed that the spot is in a thickly populated area. There was street light
available at the spot. Boring was at about 8-10 feet away from the main gate
of the house. There was electric bulb near the boring in the gallery. The bed in
the room was at distance of about 8-10 feet from the boring. The boring was
not higher than the bedroom area. The back door of the house was latched
from inside. PW30 had not noticed whether the same was locked or not and
he had not noticed any window at the back portion. The back side street was
about 2 feet higher than the rooms. PW30 did know the exact dimension of
the room. There was no mattress lying between the bed and the gallery. There
was no trace of blood between the boring and bedroom. There was no blood
noticed by PW30 in the bedroom. According to his investigation, this incident
took place near the boring and not inside the room. PW30 remained at the
spot for about 2.30 AM when PW30 first visited the spot. At that time many
persons had already gathered there and made inquiry from them but no one
came forward to give the statement. At that time, it was revealed that the
children of the deceased were taken to their grandparents house by one of the
neighbor whose name did not know. This fact came to the knowledge of
PW30 before 2.30 AM.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 77 of 114
137 PW30 again came to the spot at about 3.30 AM and remained
there till 8.00 AM. He affirmed that during this period he did not call the
children. Nobody had informed him that till 8.00 AM the children are in the
house of the neighbour. Shiv Charan met PW30 at about 9.00 AM. PW30 did
not inquire about the location of the children from him. PW30 came to know
that at the time of incident the children were present at the house. The
distance between the house of Shiv Charan from the place of incident was
about 1½ KM. PW30 affirmed that till 9 AM no eye witness was found.
PW30 cannot give specific reason as to why he did not call the children and
made inquiries from them. PW30 affirmed that when he recorded the
statement of Shiv Charan about the identification of dead body of Ashok, he
did not disclose that the children of deceased have disclosed anything to him
about the occurrence. The call at 100 number was made by one Ajay. PW30
had asked Ajay about the fleeing of 2-3 boys from the place of occurrence. He
did not disclose PW30 that he saw such boys. The distance between the house
of Ajay and that of deceased was about 25 feet. The statement of Ajay was
recorded at about 7.00 AM. At that time, he disclosed that Sonia had told him
that 2-3 boys ran away from the house. PW30 had made local inquiries in the
morning regarding the incident. Public persons had told that Puranchand used
to visit the house of Ashok. However, he cannot tell the name of any public
person who had disclosed the same at that time. PW30 affirmed that he did
not record the statement of any public person in this regard and have not
recorded the statement of other two children. PW30 denied that he had not
recorded the statement of other children as they have not supported the
prosecution case. Vol. On inquiry other two children had told that their father
was repeatedly harassed by their mother (accused). He further denied that

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 78 of 114
volunteered portion is false. PW30 met child Ajay on 12.09.2013. PW30 did
not know whether the children were with the grandparents qua the period
12.09.2013 to 17.09.2013. PW30 affirmed that on 17.09.2013 grandfather of
the children brought child Ajay in the court. PW30 had not recorded the
statement of any person prior to children Ajay disclosing the fact that
Puranchand is Rajan Pandit. PW30 denied that child Ajay had not disclosed
PW30 that Rajan Pandit is Puranchand. PW30 had collected the copy of the
statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of PW Ajay. PW30 cannot say whether child Ajay
had disclosed in his statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC that Rajan pandit is
Puranchand.

138 PW30 had not identified the accused from Ajay. However,
photograph of accused Puranchand was shown where Ajay had identified him
but PW30 did not remember the date. PW30 had shown the photograph of
accused when the same was taken for the preparation of his arrest documents.
The statement of child Ajay was recorded by PW30 on 03.12.2013. PW30
denied that he had recorded the statement on his own. No chance prints were
lifted by the Crime Team. The photographs were not taken by the Crime Team
in his presence. PW30 denied that the mattress and bed sheet were lying
spread in the room between the bed and the gate. No photographs were taken
on the date of inspection by defence counsel which was carried out by the
order of Court on the application of accused. PW30 cannot comment on
photograph Mark PW29/D1 and PW29/D2. PW30 affirmed that as per the call
records, the location of phone of accused Puran was not found at the spot. Vol.
It was not operational at that time. PW30 did not remember as to from which
area, the last call was made or received on the mobile phone of accused
Puran, hence same is his reply about the subsequent call. The phone was not

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 79 of 114
operational after 11.00 p.m. on 07.09.13. PW30 did not know when the phone
was re-activated again. PW30 called accused Puran for the first time on the
morning of 09.09.13. Written notice was served upon the accused Puran
Chand. During his testimony, PW30 had gone through the judicial file and no
such notice has been placed on record. PW30 did not record the statement of
accused Puran Chand on 09.09.13. At that time, accused Sonia was not
present in the PS. Accused Puran Chand was relieved in the evening. PW30
had recorded the case diary regarding the interrogation of accused Puran
Chand on 09.09.13. On seeing the case diary regarding interrogation of
accused Puran Chand, the entry has been made. The mobile phone of accused
Puran Chand was not seized by PW30 on that day. PW30 did not inquire from
the accused whether he was carrying mobile phone with him or not. Accused
Puran Chand was not taken to the spot. The house of accused was not
searched. PW30 did not call the children of deceased Ashok to the PS. Even
PW Shiv Charan was not called at the PS on 09.09.13 when accused Puran
was being interrogated. PW30 had reached Mukand Vihar at about 5.30 p.m.
on 12.09.13. PW30 did not record statement of any neighbourer regarding the
frequent quarrel between deceased and his wife. None of the public person
disclosed the address of Rajan Pandit to PW30 except that he was resident of
Shiv Vihar. None of the neighbourers told anything about accused Puran
Chand. PW30 can not tell whether the previous call record shows the
presence of accused Puran Chand ever at the house of accused Sonia at any
point of time. PW30 did not call three children of the deceased on 12.09.13 to
verify the statements made by neighbourers. Before 7.00 p.m. on 12.09.13,
PW30 had not visited the house of father of the deceased.

139 On 12.09.2013, all three sons of the deceased met PW30. On that

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 80 of 114
day, he did not record statement of anyone of those three children. Since
PW30 was in uniform and it was late hours, PW30 did not record their
statements. PW30 was not sure whether PW Shiv Charan had disclosed to
him that three sons of the deceased were residing with him. Since Abhishek
and Krishna, the sons of the deceased had not witnessed the occurrence, so
PW30 did not record their statements. PW30 did not know whether both of
them were present at their house with their father on the fateful night. PW30
affirmed that neighbourers had disclosed him that all three children were
present at their house on the night of the incident. Abhishek and Krishna
disclosed that they were sleeping with their parents in the same room.
Abhishek was about 2 years elder than Ajay. PW30 did not record their
statements regarding visit of Rajan Pandit to their house. Vol. Inquiry was
made and they supported the version that Rajan Pandit used to visit their
house in the absence of their father. Even then PW30 did not record their
statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. On 13.09.13, PW30 visited the house of Shiv
Charan and met the children and PW30 recorded statement of only Ajay on
that day. PW30 can not affirm or deny that in between 09.09.13 to 13.09.13,
Ajay was residing with his grand parents. PW30 recorded the statement of
Shiv Charan and Ramwati on 13.09.13. However, PW30 had recorded the
statement of Shiv Charan about the identification of dead body of deceased.
PW30 affirmed that at the time of recording the statement of Shiv Charan
regarding identification of dead body, he did not disclose that Ajay had seen
the occurrence on the intervening night of 08/09.09.13. However, on that day,
Shiv Charan disclosed that on the day of occurrence, all three children were
with their parents and thereafter, they were staying with him. PW30 denied
that he did not record the statement of Abhishek and Krishna as they were not

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 81 of 114
supporting the case of the prosecution and Ajay was tutored by his grand
parents and as such PW30 recorded his statement only. On 12.09.13 at about
9.00 p.m., PW30 visited the house of Rajan Pandit, where his wife met me,
but PW30 did not serve any notice on her directing her to produce the accused
Puran Chand in the PS. PW30 did not remember the DD number of our
departure. Departure and arrival entries regarding the investigation of this
case were made at the PS, but PW30 did not remember whether PW30 had
annexed the copy of the same with the judicial file or not.

140 PW30 gone through the judicial file and states that no copy of
such DD has been filed alongwith the chargesheet. No public person had
accompanied the police party to the house of accused Puran Chand. Johripur
is situated at a distance of 1 ½ or 2 k.m. from the house of accused Puran
Chand. PW30 affirmed that Johripur is a congested area and spread in vast
area. PW30 had not visited Johripur on 12.09.13. Shiv Vihar, T point is
situated at a distance of 1 or 1 / k.m. from the house of accused Puran Chand.
PW30 returned to the PS at about 3 a.m. There were some residential houses
at Shiv Vihar, T point and some public persons were coming and going on the
road at that time. PW30 saw the accused at a distance of 20-30 meters. There
was street light. There were 4 police officers in government gypsy and they
all were in uniform. Accused did not try to run away. No public persons
collected at the spot. Accused was interrogated at T point. On 09.09.13, the
accused was not sustainedly interrogated. On 09.09.13, PW30 was busy in his
official duty and till then, there was no ground for the arrest of the accused.
Accused was medically examined at about 2 a.m. From 10 p.m. to 2.00 a.m.,
PW30 remained at T point, Shiv Vihar for the investigation of this case. It is
correct that prior to 13.09.13, I had visited the spot and the same was within

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 82 of 114
his knowledge. Accused was taken to Mukand Vihar at about 9.15 a.m. None
of the neighbourer agreed to join the investigation on 13.09.13. No written
notice was served upon the public persons to join the investigation. Accused
was sent to PS after about 30-40 minutes. PW30 seized the mobile phone of
accused Puran Chand on 15.09.13. PW30 did not make inquiry about the
mobile phone of the accused from his wife on 12.09.13. Accused was not
having mobile phone at the time of his arrest. Accused disclosed that his
mobile phone was lying at his house. PW30 did not visit the house of accused
on 12.09.13 or 13.09.13 to seize the mobile phone. From the spot, empty
cartridge of 7.65 mm was recovered. PW Ajay (neighbourer) or son of the
deceased namely Ajay did not disclose about the description of the weapon of
offence. PW30 searched for the weapon in the nearby drains of Johripur Nala,
but the same was not recovered. PW30 recorded statement of Ajay at the
house of his grand parents in the evening of 14.09.13. Though his grand
parents were present in the house, but PW30 talked with the child when he
was alone.

141 Crime team did not visit the spot in presence of PW30, however
they visited the spot in between 2.00 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. No chance prints were
found in the room or in the premises of the deceased. Inspector Arvind Pratap
alongwith other staff were present at the time of inspection by crime team.
PW30 affirmed that as per court orders, the spot was inspected by the defence
counsel in his presence. On that day, landlord was called to open the door.
PW30 can not say as to whether the room shown in the photograph belongs to
the deceased or not. Vol. These photographs were not taken during the course
of investigation. Vol. Same were taken when the court has directed for the
inspection of the spot by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. The photographs

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 83 of 114
are marked as Mark PW 30/D-1 to PW 30/D-10. Photograph Mark PW
30/D-10 pertains to the spot where hand pump and motor were installed.
PW30 could not say whether photograph mark PW 30/D-3 and mark PW
30/D-4 pertains to the room of the deceased, where he was sleeping or not.
PW30 affirmed that the level of the room in which deceased was sleeping was
below the road level. PW30 could not say whether the handpump and the
motor were fixed in the same level of the gallery of the house of the accused
or the level was different. PW30 denied that accused Puran Chand has been
falsely implicated in this case or that accused did not make any disclosure
statement or that same was made forcibly. PW30 denied that PW Ajay was
not an eye witness or he was tutored or that he was falsely planted at the
instance of his grand parents. PW30 denied that he had not investigated the
case fairly or that I am deposing falsely. PW30 affirmed that accused Sonia
was not in a condition to tell him about the facts when he interrogated her in
GTB hospital. PW30 denied that Shiv Charan Sharma (father of deceased) did
not raise any suspicion about the role of accused Sonia before me. PW30 did
not remember whether Shiv Charan Sharma had filed any complaint earlier to
the incident about any quarrel with accused Sonia. PW30 denied that there
were no illicit relations between accused Rajan and Sonia. PW30 denied that
the accused has been implicated in a false case and she has never been
interrogated by PW30 nor she gave any disclosure statement before him
admitting her guilt. PW30 denied that I am deposing falsely being the
investigating officer.

Statements of both accused

142 Statement of accused Puran Chand was recorded under section

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 84 of 114
313 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2023. He stated that the child witness has been tutored
by the grand parents and police. He further submits that he does not know any
Rajan Pandit. He had never seen Sonia, the co-accused prior to his arrest in
this case. He has been falsely implicated to solve blind murder case.

143 Statement of accused Sonia was recorded under section 313
Cr.P.C. on 02.03.2023. She denied all the allegations. She stated that she was
sleeping along with her children inside the room, on hearing noise and cries of
her husband, she came out and found that her husband was lying in injured
condition near exit gate. On inquiry, she was informed by a neighbour that 2-3
persons had shot her husband. She stated that her relations with her husband
were very cordial however, her relations with her in-laws were strained as
they used to torture her on petty matters. In order to avoid day to day
dialogues between her and in-laws, her husband took a house on rent and
started living there. Her in-laws had tutored her son to depose against her. Her
son is a child who has lost his father and mother was in custody, hence he
succumbed to their desire and gave false statement.

Appreciation of Evidence and Findings
Testimony of a child witness:

144 In the present case the star witness is a nine year old child who
happens to be the son of the accused Sonia. Counsel has filed several
judgments whereby submitting that testimony of a child witness cannot be
made the sole basis for conviction. It is important to analyze the settled law
on the testimony of a child witness.

145 The Indian Evidence Act, Section 118 lays down who are the
persons who are competent to testify in the Court. Section 118 of the Indian

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 85 of 114
Evidence Act is as follows:

118. Who may testify.

All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are
prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational
answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of
body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.

146 A bare perusal of section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act would
show that no minimum age is prescribed for deposing in the Court. If the
Court considers that a child has capability to understand the questions put to
him and they are capable of giving rational answers to these questions, they
are said to be competent to testify. Courts must take special care when
handling such testimony. Hence a child regardless of any age can be a
competent witness as long as he can understand the questions and gives
rational answers. The competency of a child is determined by a Court based
on their ability to understand the difference between truth and false, hence to
be reliable their testimony has to be truthful and consistent. Due to their age
and vulnerability, Courts takes special precaution to assess if there is undue
influence or manipulation in his testimony.

147 To assess if a child is competent to depose, it is essential to
conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to assess his ability to understand the
questions and answer rationally. In such cases where detailed cross-
examination of a child witness has been done, the type of answers given in
such detailed cross-examination also helps Courts in assessing the capability
and ability of a child witness to depose being uninfluenced by external
factors. Hence, the judges conduct a preliminary examination by asking
certain general questions in order to assess the maturity, memory, ability to
comprehend and understand in general. Children are more susceptible to

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 86 of 114
suggestion and may struggle to recall that incident with accuracy, in such
scenario this preliminary inquiry becomes crucial. In such cases evidence is
recorded in a child friendly atmosphere with the help of trained professionals,
if needed.

148 Further, only because a child is found to be competent, the Courts
would not rely on such testimony with closed eyes. The Courts must assess if
the witness is credible as well. Credibility is assessed based on truthfulness,
consistency, demeanor of the witness, his memory and freedom from external
influences. The Courts must assess if the witness is speaking the truth or his
testimony is influenced. This is a contextual question which needs to be
answered on the basis of facts of every case. Why the child is deposing in this
case, what is the benefit to the child, who are the persons who could influence
him, if the child was influenced, such questions need to be kept in mind while
assessing his testimony. The Courts must evaluate if he understands the
importance of speaking the truth or if he is influenced.
149 There are many factors which affects the credibility of the
witness viz. age, intelligence, relationship with the accused, relationship with
other person who might have interest in the crime. After considering the
above factors, the Courts have the discretion to determine whether the witness
is credible or not. If the testimony is coherent and free from bias, they inspire
confidence.

150 In Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate and others v. State of Maharastra,
2008 (12) SCC 565, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

7. PW 13 has deposed that her mother of the deceased appellant No. 1
washed the blood of the father with a bucket of water and cloth. She
poured it outside the house. The appellants spread shawl on tiles. They put
the dead body on the shawl and put gunny bag on the dead body. They
lifted it by holding the shawl. They carried the body to their field. They

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 87 of 114
buried it in the pit. Thereafter they returned home. Appellant Nos. 2 & 3
went to their respective houses. The appellant No. 1 locked the house
where the deceased was killed and she went to the hut to sleep. She went
near her brother who had continued to sleep through the incident and
slept. Her evidence is as concise and precise and as it is specific and vivid.

It is neither embellished nor embroidered. It is the evidence of a child who
has seen through the unusual and cruel incidence. She was a girl of tender
age who saw the killing of her father by her mother and others.

8. The age of the witness during examination was taken to be about 12
years. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act“) does
not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness
to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act
envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court
considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to
them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender
years, extreme old age, disease whether of mind, or any other cause of the
same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has
intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers
thereto. This position was concisely stated by Brewer, J. in Wheeler v.
United States (159 US 523). The evidence of a child witness is not
required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers
such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the
quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. [See
Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2001 (9) SCC 129)]

9. In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 5 SCC 341] it
was held as follows: (SCC p. 343, para 5):

“A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts
and reliable one, such evidence could be the basis of
conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the
evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section
118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to
understand the questions and able to give rational answers
thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility
thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case.
The only precaution which the court should bear in mind
while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the
witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must
be like any other competent witness and there is no
likelihood of being tutored.”

The decision on the question whether the child witness has
sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his
manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 88 of 114
Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his
capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of
an oath. The decision of the trial court may, however, be disturbed by the
higher court if from what is preserved in the records, it is clear that his
conclusion was erroneous. This precaution is necessary because child
witnesses are amenable to tutoring and often live in a world of make-
believe. Though it is an established principle that child witnesses are
dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily,
shaken and moulded, but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful
scrutiny of their evidence the court comes to the conclusion that there is
an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the
evidence of a child witness”

Delay in recording the testimony of a witness:

151 Delay in recording the testimony of a witness by the police
officials can affect the reliability of the witness and creates doubt on his
testimony. Though delay in recording of testimony does not discredit a
witness, the Courts must carefully analyze the reasons behind the delay to
determine its effect on the case. However, delay could be due to fear, trauma,
lack of legal awareness or influence of kith and kin. In cases involving family
members or sensitive matters, the witnesses may hesitate to come forward.

Hence the delay, if reasonably explained, does not affect credibility of a
witness.

Corroboration to such testimony:

152 There is no such rule that uncorroborated testimony of a witness
may not form the basis for conviction, however the Courts must be cautious in
relying upon such uncorroborated testimony of a child witness.
153 It was held St of MP v Balveer Singh that if a child witness has
sufficient intelligence or not, this question rests primarily with the trial judge
who can observe child demeanors, conduct preliminary examination and has
occasion to consider his testimony in detail beside his intelligence.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 89 of 114

154. In Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2012 titled as the State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the
relevant law on ‘delay in recording the testimony of child witness, and need
for corroboration to such testimony. The relevant extract is as follows:

34. This Court in State of M.P. v. Ramesh reported in (2011) 4 SCC 786
summarized the principles pertaining to the appreciation of evidence of a child
witness as under: –

(i) First, it held that that a child witness must be able to understand the
sanctity of giving evidence on oath and the import of the questions that were
being put to him. The evidence of a child witness must reveal that he was able to
discern between right and wrong, and the court may ascertain his suitability as a
witness through either cross-examination or by putting questions to the child in
terms of Section 165 of the Evidence Act or by determining the same from the
evidence or testimony of the child itself. The relevant observation reads as under:

–

“11. The evidence of a child must reveal that he was able to discern
between right and wrong and the court may find out from the cross-

examination whether the defence lawyer could bring anything to
indicate that the child could not differentiate between right and
wrong. The court may ascertain his suitability as a witness by
putting questions to him and even if no such questions had been
put, it may be gathered from his evidence as to whether he fully
understood the implications of what he was saying and whether he
stood discredited in facing a stiff cross-examination. A child
witness must be able to understand the sanctity of giving evidence
on oath and the import of the questions that were being put to him.
(Vide Himmat Sukhadeo Wahurwagh v. State of Maharashtra
(2009) 6 SCC 712.)”

(Emphasis supplied)

(ii) Secondly, if the evidence of the child explains the relevant events of the
crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same inspire confidence
of the court, his deposition does not require any corroboration whatsoever. The
relevant observation reads as under: –

“12. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master (2010) 12 SCC 324 this
Court held that there is no principle of law that it is inconceivable
that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate the
facts in his memory. A child is always receptive to abnormal
events which take place in his life and would never forget those
events for the rest of his life. The child may be able to
recapitulate carefully and exactly when asked about the same in
the future. In case the child explains the relevant events of the
crime without improvements or embellishments, and the same
inspire confidence of the court, his deposition does not require
any corroboration whatsoever. The child at a tender age is
incapable of having any malice or ill will against any person.
Therefore, there must be something on record to satisfy the court
that something had gone wrong between the date of incident and

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 90 of 114
recording evidence of the child witness due to which the witness
wanted to implicate the accused falsely in a case of a serious
nature.”

(Emphasis supplied)

(iii) Thirdly, even if the courts find that the child witness had been tutored, even
then the statement of a child witness can be relied upon if the tutored part can be
separated from the untutored part and the remaining untutored part inspires
confidence. In such cases, the untutored part can be believed or at least taken
into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the case of a hostile
witness. The relevant observation reads as under: –

“13. Part of the statement of a child witness, even if tutored, can be
relied upon, if the tutored part can be separated from the untutored
part, in case such remaining untutored part inspires confidence. In
such an eventuality the untutored part can be believed or at least
taken into consideration for the purpose of corroboration as in the
case of a hostile witness. (Vide Gagan Kanojia v. State of Punjab
(2006) 13 SCC 516.)”

(Emphasis supplied)

(iv) Lastly, it held that an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not,
can be drawn from the contents of his deposition. If the deposition of a child
witness inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or
improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a
child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection
because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to
show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject his statement partly or
fully and look for corroboration. The relevant observation reads as under: –

“14. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised
to the effect that the deposition of a child witness may require
corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of
the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the
court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness
must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection
because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence
on record to show that a child has been tutored, the court can reject
his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether
child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his
deposition.”

(Emphasis supplied)

35. From the above exposition of law, it is clear that the evidence of a child
witness for all purposes is deemed to be on the same footing as any other witness
as long as the child is found to be competent to testify. The only precaution
which the court should take while assessing the evidence of a child witness is
that such witness must be a reliable one due to the susceptibility of children by
their falling prey to tutoring. However, this in no manner means that the
evidence of a child must be rejected outrightly at the slightest of discrepancy,
rather what is required is that the same is evaluated with great circumspection.
While appreciating the testimony of a child witness the courts are required to
assess whether the evidence of such witness is its voluntary expression and not
borne out of the influence of others and whether the testimony inspires

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 91 of 114
confidence. At the same time, one must be mindful that there is no rule requiring
corroboration to the testimony of a child witness before any reliance is placed on
it. The insistence of corroboration is only a measure of caution and prudence that
the courts may exercise if deemed necessary in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.

40. In Ranbir & Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in (1973) 2 SCC 444 this Court
observed that the factum of delayed examination of a witness ought to be specifically
put to the IO so as to enable him to explain the reasons therefor. It further held that
delay in examining a witness during investigation would be material only if it is
indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the
purpose of introducing a got-up witness to falsely support the prosecution case. The
relevant observation made therein reads as under: –

“7. […] The appellants’ counsel also faintly contended that Tota
Ram PW 7 was examined by the police after considerable delay, the
suggestion being that his evidence must be looked at with
suspicion. We are not impressed by this submission. The fact of
delayed examination of Tota Ram should, in our opinion, have been
put to the investigating officer so as to enable him to explain the
undue delay, if any, in examining Tota Ram. The question of delay
in examining a witness during investigation is material only if it is
indicative and suggestive of some unfair practice by the
investigating agency for the purpose of introducing a got-up
witness to falsely support the prosecution case. It is, therefore,
essential that the investigating officer should be asked specifically
about the delay and the reasons therefor. […]”

(Emphasis supplied)

41. In State of U.P. v. Satish reported in (2005) 3 SCC 114 this Court
held that before the delay in examination of any particular witness can
be taken into consideration to impeach their credibility, the IO must be
first asked by the accused to explain the delay by putting a question in
this regard. The relevant observation reads as under: –

“20. It is to be noted that the explanation when offered by the IO on
being questioned on the aspect of delayed examination by the
accused has to be tested by the court on the touchstone of
credibility. If the explanation is plausible then no adverse inference
can be drawn. On the other hand, if the explanation is found to be
implausible, certainly the court can consider it to be one of the
factors to affect credibility of the witnesses who were examined
belatedly. It may not have any effect on the credibility of the
prosecution’s evidence tendered by the other witnesses.”

(Emphasis supplied)

44. There is nothing on record that would lead to the inference that the delay in
recording the statement of PW6 was done deliberately in order to manipulate or
concoct the case against the respondent accused herein, and rather such delay
appears to be inadvertent with no sinister motive or design in mind. We say so
because, the statement of PW6 had been recorded on the same date as the
statement of PW5. If at all the investigating agency intended to allow the
doctoring of the testimony of PW6 then it would have only delayed the

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 92 of 114
examination of the child witness, Rani (PW6) and not of PW5 as-well, thus this
delay in examination appears to be attributable to the routine manner in which
the IO proceeded with the course of investigation and the overall investigation
inertia and not to give effect to any unfair practice.

45. One another reason for the High Court to discard the testimony of PW6 on
the ground of being tutored was due to the fact that at the time of recording of
her statement, PW6 was residing with PW3, the complainant herein who is her
maternal uncle and was also at inimical terms with the accused. However, the
High Court appears to have lost sight of the fact that PW6 at the relevant point of
time was only of seven years of age. She had not only lost her mother but had
also been abandoned by her father i.e., the respondent accused herein who went
absconding. In such circumstances, the only option available to PW6 was to
reside with her maternal uncle. Where else does the High Court expect a child of
such tender age in such circumstances to reside? How could the High Court even
possibly expect such child to go to the police station unaccompanied by any
adult family member to give her statement? The testimony of PW6 could not
have been discarded solely on the ground that it was recorded in the presence of
PW3, an interested witness who is at inimical terms with the accused, especially
in view of the facts narrated above. The courts are expected to deal with such
cases in a more realistic manner and not discard evidence on account of
procedural technicalities, perfunctory considerations or insignificant lacunas.

50. In order to obviate any confusion, we take this opportunity to explain what is
meant by a “tutored testimony” and the test for determining or ascertaining a
tutored testimony. Where there has been tutoring of any witness, the same can
possibly produce two broad effects in their testimony; (i) improvisation or (ii)
fabrication.

51. Improvisation refers to instances where the tutored witness in question adds
new details, alters facts, or provides an inconsistent version of events that were
not previously stated in their initial statements, such as those given to the police
in their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In such situations, the
improvisation by way of tutoring must be eradicated only in the manner
envisaged under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 145 of the
Evidence Act. The principle of law in this regard is that the witness who has
improvised its testimony must be first confronted with that part of its previous
statement that omits or contradicts the improvisation by bringing it to its notice
and give the witness an opportunity to either admit or deny the omission or
contradiction. Where such witness admits such omission or contradiction, there
is no further need to prove the contradiction through the IO and its effect would
be looked into while appreciating the evidence. If he denies having made that
part of the statement, his attention must be drawn to that statement and must be
mentioned in the deposition. By this process the contradiction is merely brought
on record, but it is yet to be proved. Thereafter when the investigating officer is
examined in the court, his attention should be drawn to the passage marked for
the purpose of contradiction. It will then be said to have been proved in the
deposition of the investigating officer who again by referring to the police
statement will depose about the witness having made that statement. The process

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 93 of 114
again involves referring to the police statement and culling out that part with
which the maker of the statement was intended to be contradicted. [See: V.K.
Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2015) 9 SCC 588]

52. However, where the allegation of tutoring pertains to fabrication – meaning
that certain portions of both the testimony and the previous statement of a
particular witness have been doctored or falsified – in such circumstances twin
conditions would have to be proved, namely; (i) the possibility or opportunity of
the witness being tutored AND (ii) the reasonable likelihood of the tutoring.

53. The first condition, namely the ‘possibility or opportunity of the witness
being tutored’ can be established by demonstrating or laying down certain
foundational facts that suggest the probability that a part of the testimony of the
witness might have been tutored. This may be done either by showing that there
was a delay in recording the statement of such witness or that the presence of
such witness was doubtful, or by imputing any motive on the part of such
witness to depose falsely, or the susceptibility of such witness in falling prey to
tutoring. A mere bald assertion that there is a possibility of the witness in
question being tutored is not sufficient.

54. The second condition ‘reasonable likelihood of tutoring’ requires that the
foundational facts established in the first step be further proven or cogently
substantiated before any portion of the witness’s testimony can be deemed
tutored. This may be done by leading evidence to prove a strong and palpable
motive to depose falsely that was imputed to the witness, or by establishing that
the delay in recording the statement is not only unexplained but is indicative and
suggestive of some unfair practice by the investigating agency for the purpose of
falsely supporting the case of the prosecution as held in Ranbir (supra), or by
proving that the witness fell prey to tutoring and was influenced by someone else
either by cross-examining such witness at length that leads to either material
discrepancies or contradictions, or exposes a doubtful demeanour of such witness
rife with sterile repetition and confidence lacking testimony, or through such
degree of incompatibility of the version of the witness with the other material on
record and attending circumstances that negates their presence as unnatural.

155 Coming to the facts of this case, the first question that has been
raised is on the competency of PW1 Ajay who was barely 9 years of age at the
time of the incident and is also star witness in this case.
156 An average child of 9 years has sufficient understanding and
maturity to understand right or wrong, such child has sufficient understanding
to express himself clearly. Usually, children of such age can express
themselves clearly and have the ability to care for others, to takes small

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 94 of 114
responsibility on themselves. However, the maturity level varies from child to
child, some may be more emotionally aware or responsible and have better
understanding of the things as compared to others. Further, if a child usually
lives in an environment where he is accompanied with his siblings who are
elder to his age, the chances of his capability to understand and maturity
would be more as such child would be communicating with his siblings on
daily basis.

157 In the present case, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the
learned Trial Court Judge before recording his testimony, he was asked about
the name of his school and subjects. He stated that he had never been late in
school. He further stated that he know tables uptill 20 and when learned Judge
ask him to recite table of 7, he was able to do so correctly in English. On the
basis of the interaction with the child, the learned Judge opined that he was
competent to understand the questions put to him and to give rational and
logical answers to them. Further, this witness has been examined in detail on
five different dates. His cross-examination is running into 18 pages. A perusal
of his cross-examination would show that he had given rational answers to all
the questions which were put to him about his mother, about the relationship
of his father and mother. He has narrated the details of the events pertaining to
the illicit relationship between his mother (accused Sonia) with accused
Pooran Chand. He stated in the Court after identifying co-accused Puran
Chand that he knows him by the name Rajan Pandit. He has narrated in detail
how his mother came to know him, how she used to receive phone calls from
him, she wanted to leave her husband deceased Ashok Kumar and was willing
to live with accused Puran. He has been able to narrate in detail, the incident
of the night when his father was killed by alleged persons. A bare perusal of

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 95 of 114
the testimony of this witness recorded on various different dates would show
that he has been deposing from his memory, as such intricate details about
the married life of his father and mother, and also the relationship of his
mother with Puran Chand can only be stated by a person who has himself
seen these incidents. Such details are difficult to be cooked up by a child of 9
years, this shows that he has a sharp memory. The answers flow from PW1
uninterruptedly. The perusal of the cross-examination running into 18 pages
would show that he was not repeating the same lines, he had been giving
details of his family life whenever asked, he has clarified the incidents
whenever asked. Further if any details given were incorrect according to
defence, PW1 could have been cross examined with correct details of events
as accused is his mother only who would be knowing about these facts so
narrated by PW1. Hence, PW1 Ajay Kumar is a competent witness who has
understood the questions asked from him and had been able to give rational
answers to the questions after understanding them.

158 The next question is if he is a credible witness, if his testimony
can be relied upon. Has he been tutored?

159 He has cogently stated before the Court that his mother had met
Rajan Pandit during a Bhagwat Katha, Rajan used to put tent to perform
Bhagwat Katha where Rajan Pandit used to play some musical instruments
and his mother used to dance. He stated that sometimes accused Rajan used to
visit their house in the absence of their father and sometimes in the presence
of their father. He further mentions that visits of Rajan uncle in their house
were not liked by their father, his elder brother Abhishek as well as by
himself. Further, accused Rajan used to come in their house during day as
well as during night time quite frequently. He himself along with his brother

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 96 of 114
used to tell their mother/ accused Sonia that they did not like Rajan but their
mother used to speak harsh to them and even used to slap them. She also used
to give threat that if they disclosed anyone, she would beat him. All these
facts explain the tension in the family which was created due to relationship
of his mother with accused Puran.

160 PW1 even narrated one incident when a quarrel took place
between his father and mother when his mother had gone to attend Bhagwat
Katha organized by Rajan Pandit, his father objected to it but his mother
declared that she would go and had given a threat to his father that she would
kill him. He had himself seen this fight between them. His mother used to say
that she would take younger brother Krishna with her and would go to live
with Rajan Pandit. She even used to ask her younger son Krishna to address
Rajan Pandit as Papa. He has been cross-examined in detail on these aspects.
There is nothing in his testimony for the Court to conclude that he is not
deposing the truth.

161 PW1 further stated before the Court regarding the incident of the
intervening night in detail. He stated that on 7 th in the year 2013, he overheard
while his mother was speaking with Rajan Pandit on phone . It was for half an
hour that she spoke with him on phone, she was saying that after killing
deceased, she would come to him with her younger son Krishna. PW1 further
stated that usually his mother used to sleep on the first floor of the house but
on he date of incident, she slept on the ground floor. When some one knocked
at the door, he woke up. His mother slowly went out and opened the door,
accused Rajan Pandit came inside and started talking with his mother. As his
father woke up, he asked his mother as to why she called Rajan Pandit in the
late night, his mother and father started quarreling, his mother held the hands

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 97 of 114
of his father from back and Rajan Pandit fired with a firearm on him and ran
away. His father fell down and his mother started crying. His mother also
gave PW1 a threat that if he disclosed to anyone, she would kill him. His
mother then took his father to the hospital by an auto rickshaw. His elder
brother went to the house of his grand parents and grand parents came and
took all the brothers with them. He further stated that he narrated this incident
to his grand father after some days, after his mother was sent to jail. He also
stated that he narrated these facts to a Magistrate also. He has been cross-
examined on these facts in detail and there is no inconsistency in his
statement.

162 Perusal of his statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C.
would show that he has deposed that it was Saturday when this incident
happened. At around 12:00 in the night, some one knocked at the door,
mother opened the door “chupke se”. Then, Rajan uncle came inside and his
mother talked to him but his father also got up. His father inquired from his
mother why he came at late night. Then his mother held the hands of his
father from back and Rajan uncle fired at his father and ran away. When his
mother saw him, she threatened him not to disclose to anyone then mother
started crying. Hence, his testimony is consistent through out without any
embellishments or improvements.

163 Counsel for the accused tries to point out certain alleged
inconsistencies in the statement of PW1. He was asked in cross-examination
on 25.03.2014 and he stated that he remembers his class teaching for two days
and then he needs to repeat it to keep it in his memory. Then, he stated that he
remember the statement which he had given in the Court on the last date. He
also stated that he remembers whatever he had stated before the learned

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 98 of 114
Magistrate in his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. also. Then, question was
put to him if he had deposed before Magistrate that his mother had a talk with
Rajan Pandit on phone for half an hour and had he also stated that he had
heard his mother saying to Rajan Pandit on phone that she would kill her
husband and would go to him with younger son Krishna, witness answered in
affirmative. However, it was not mentioned in statement under section 164
Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/A . Further, he stated that he had deposed before the
Magistrate that his mother usually sleeps on first floor but on that date she
slept on ground floor but it was not so stated in Ex PW1/A. Hence, it is
submitted that there is discrepancy in the statement. However, only because
the witness could not remember exactly what he stated before the learned
Magistrate is not a ground to presume that he does not remember the incident
or there are inconsistencies. It is immaterial inconsistency. Perusal of
statement of PW1 before Magistrate would show that he had narrated the
incident in brief, he has not narrated the details of the incidents of their day to
day life involving relation of his mother with accused Pooran Chand, naration
of event in his section 164 crpc statement is very brief and is only confined to
the offence. As far as the offence is concerned, the narration in his statement
under section 164 Cr PC as well as in Court, there is no discrepancy in the
same.

164. In Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh v. The State of Bihar, Criminal
Appeal No.150/2024 dated 22.04.2022, the Supreme held as follows:

17. It is not disputed that there are minor contradictions with respect to the
time of the occurrence or injuries attributed on hand or foot but the
constant narrative of the witnesses is that the appellants were present at
the place of ccurrence armed with guns and they caused the injury on
informant PW-6. However, the testimony of a witness in a criminal trial
cannot be discarded merely because of minor contradictions or omission
as observed by this court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs.

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 99 of 114
State of Maharashtra 1. This Court while considering the issue of
contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in a
criminal trial, held that only contradictions in material particulars and not
minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the
witnesses. Relevant portion of para 42 of the judgment reads as under:

“42. Only such omissions which amount to contradiction in material
particulars can be used to discredit the testimony of the witness. The
omission in the police statement by itself would not necessarily
render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given
by the witness in the court is different in material particulars from
that disclosed 1 (2000) 8 SCC 457 in his earlier statements, the case
of the prosecution becomes doubtful and not otherwise. Minor
contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful
witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of
observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the
earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present
case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimony of PW 2.
Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any
material point, that is no ground to reject the whole of the testimony
of such witness.”

165 In Nanu Oli alias Ram Chander v. The State of H.P., Criminal
Appeal No.475 of 2016 dated 22.12.2023, the Supreme held as follows:

23. Sunil Kumar (PW4) stated that the police party met him at about
11:00-11:30 am, whereas, ASI Tibeti Ram (PW9) of stated that police
officials were associated at about 10:00 am. It rt was submitted that there
is a contradiction regarding the time, which is fatal to the prosecution
case. This submission is not acceptable. The incident took place on
06.05.2015. ASI Sunil Kumar made a statement on 23.03.2016 and ASI
Yashwant Singh made a statement on 13.05.2016 after the lapse of nearly
one year from the date of the incident. Human memories fail with time
and do not behave like a video recorder. The principles of appreciation of
ocular evidence were explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balu
Sudam Khalde And Another Versus The State Of Maharashtra AIR 2023
SC 1736, as under:-

“25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task.
There is no fixed or straightjacket formula for
appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially
evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a
criminal case can be enumerated as under:

“I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read
as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is .

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 100 of 114
undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the
evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies,
drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a
whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the
general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and
whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to
of render it unworthy of belief.

II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had
the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor
of evidence given by the rt witness, the appellate court which
did not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there
are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to
reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or
infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When an eyewitness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts
should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the
evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility
of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his
evidence.

IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence,
attaching importance to some technical error committed by
the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter
would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a
whole.

V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations
falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the
evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of
the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
scrutiny.

.

VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident.
It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by
events. The witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence, which so often has an of element of surprise. The
mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 101 of 114
absorb the details.

rt VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not.
An object or movement might emboss its image on one
person’s mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of
another.

IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or
heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the
conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a
human tape recorder.

X. In regard to the exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the
time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make
very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it
depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from
person to person.

XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events, which take place in rapid
succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get
confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-
examination by counsel and out of .

nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding the
sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the
spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness
sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking
foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a
truthful and honest account of the occurrence of witnessed
by him.

XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with
the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to
contradiction. Unless the rt former statement has the potency
to discredit the latter statement, even if the latter statement is
at variance with the former to some extent it would not be
helpful to contradict that witness.”

24. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karan Singh Vs
State of U.P. 2022 (2) RCR (Criminal) 239, that the Court has to examine

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 102 of 114
the evidence of the witnesses to find out whether it has a ring of truth or
not. The Court should not give undue importance to omission,
contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the
matter. It was observed:-

“This Court, in Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2013
14 SCC 434 held:-

“24. … The court has to examine whether the evidence read
as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping
in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed
out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation
of the evidence is shaken, as to render it unworthy of
belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue
importance to omissions, of contradictions and
discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter,
and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness…”

[42] Referring to Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and rt Another v. State
of Maharashtra, 2000 AIR(SC) 3352, Mr Tyagi argued that minor
discrepancies caused by lapses in memory were acceptable, but
contradictions were not. In this case, there was no contradiction, only
minor discrepancies.

[43] In Kuriya and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 10 SCC 433 this Court
held:

“30. This Court has repeatedly taken the view that the
discrepancies or improvements which do not materially
affect the case of the prosecution and are insignificant
cannot be made the basis for doubting the case of the
prosecution. The courts may not concentrate too much on
such discrepancies or improvements. The purpose is to
primarily sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth
from the testimony of the witnesses. Where it does not
affect the core of the prosecution case, such discrepancy
should not be attached undue significance. The normal
course of human conduct would be that while narrating a
particular incident, there may occur minor discrepancies.
Such discrepancies may even in law render credentials to
the depositions. The improvements or variations must
essentially relate to the material particulars of the
prosecution case. The alleged improvements and variations
must be shown with respect to the material particulars of
the case and the occurrence. Every such .

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 103 of 114
improvement, not directly related to the occurrence, is not
a ground to doubt the testimony of a witness. The
credibility of a definite circumstance of the prosecution
case cannot be weakened with reference to such minor or
insignificant improvements. Reference in this regard can
be made to the judgments of this Court in Kathi Bharat
Vajsur v. of State of Gujarat, 2012 5 SCC 724, Narayan
Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 8
SCC 457, Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2001 2 SCC
205 and Sukhchain Singh v. State of Haryana, 2002 5 SCC

100. rt

31. What is to be seen next is whether the version
presented in the Court was substantially similar to what
was said during the investigation. It is only when
exaggeration fundamentally changes the nature of the case,
the Court has to consider whether the witness was stating
the truth or not. [(Ref. Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT
of Delhi), 2003 11 SCC 367].

32. These are variations which would not amount to any
serious consequences. The Court has to accept the normal
conduct of a person. The witness who is watching the
murder of a person being brutally beaten by 15 persons can
hardly be expected to state a minute-by-minute description
of the event. Everybody, and more particularly a person
who is known to or is related to the deceased, would give
all his attention to take steps to prevent the assault on the
victim and then to make every effort to provide him with
medical aid and inform the police. The statements which
are recorded immediately upon the incident would have to
be given a little leeway with regard to the statements being
made and recorded with the utmost exactitude. It is a
settled principle of law that every improvement or
variation cannot be treated as an attempt to falsely
implicate the accused by the witness. The approach of the
court has to be reasonable and practicable.

.

Reference in this regard can be made to Ashok Kumar v.
State of Haryana, 2010 12 SCC 350 and Shivlal v. State of
Chhattisgarh, 2011 9 SCC 561.”

[44] In Shyamlal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 2012 7 SCC 646, this
Court held:

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 104 of 114
“46. Then, it was argued that there are certain discrepancies and
contradictions in the statement of of the prosecution witnesses
inasmuch as these witnesses have given different timing as to
when they had seen the scuffling and strangulation of the rt
deceased by the accused. ………… Undoubtedly, some minor
discrepancies or variations are traceable in the statements of these
witnesses. But what the Court has to see is whether these
variations are material and affect the case of the prosecution
substantially. Every variation may not be enough to adversely
affect the case of the prosecution.

49. It is a settled principle of law that the court should examine the
statement of a witness in its entirety and read the said statement
along with the statement of other witnesses in order to arrive at a
rational conclusion. No statement of a witness can be read in part
and/or in isolation. We are unable to see any material or serious
contradiction in the statement of these witnesses which may give
any advantage to the accused.”

[45] In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2013 14 SCC 434, this Court
held:-

“24. … The court has to examine whether the evidence read
as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping
in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed
out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witnesses and whether the .

earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, as to render it
unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give
undue importance to omissions, contradictions and
discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter,
and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness…”

166. Another argument is why IO had not made other two brothers a
witness in this case. PW1 has stated in his cross-examination conducted on
19.04.2014 that his brothers had woken up when his mother started shouting
after the death of his father. Hence, his brothers were not an eye witness ,
hence their statement were not recorded and they were not made eye

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 105 of 114
witnesses. IO also stated in his cross-examination conducted on 29.03.2019
that he did not record statement of other two sons of the deceased as they had
not witnessed the incident.

167. Further it is contended by Ld Defence Counsel since light of the
room was switched off as is stated by PW1 in his cross-examination on
28.03.2014, hence, it was not possible for PW1 to identify accused Puran in
the dark. However, there was light bulb in the gallery as was stated by the IO.
Further this question should have been put to the witness PW1 to explain but
this question was not put to the witness, hence witness could not give
explanation to the same. The arguments before this Court that there was no
light for PW1 to identify accused Puranchand does not stand anywhere as it
was for the PW1 to explain the same but it was not put to him during the
detailed cross-examination. The Court can not draw any assumption at this
stage that there was no sufficient light in the room for identification of
accused Puran Chand. Further, IO stated in his cross-examination on
29.03.2019 that there was electric bulb near the boring in the gallery.
168 It is also vehemently argued that there is considerable delay in
recording of the statement of PW1. He has been tutored during this period and
his testimony is an influenced one. It is deposed by PW1 in his cross-
examination conducted on 19.04.2014 that his grand parents and his bua did
not like their mother. This shows the reason for tutoring the child.
169 The delay in recording the testimony of a child witness has to be
looked in the context of every case. Firstly, the accused is the mother of child
(PW1 Ajay) and any child would be apprehensive of deposing against their
mother. Further, PW1 Ajay had specifically mentioned that his mother had
threatened to kill him if he discloses about this to anyone. PW1 stated in his

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 106 of 114
statement before the Magistrate recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. also that
his mother threatened him to be killed if he discloses about this fact to
anyone. Further, in his testimony before Court, PW1 mentioned in his
examination in chief that he narrated the facts of this incident to his grand
parents ‘after his mother was sent to Jail’ which implies that he was scared by
the threat of his mother, and his fear was genuine as he had already seen his
mother killing his father. He did not disclose to anyone initially because of the
threatenings given to him by his mother and later on disclosed when the fear
was removed ie she was sent to jail. It is also mentioned in chargesheet that
as the mother of PW1 was in custody hence he deposed against her.
170 The delay has been sufficiently explained by this witness. Also
PW30 Inspector Lekh Raj, IO of the case stated that on the date when he
visited the spot at late night at 02:30 am he did not meet children. Further, the
children were also under shock. Hence, he did not interrogate them
immediately thereafter. Further, it is explained by IO that he visited the father
of deceased on 12.09.2013 when he enquired from children and came to
know about the fact that PW1 Ajay is eye witness. He further explained that
since he was in uniform, hence he went to record his statement next day.
When the incident had happened, it was not in the knowledge of IO that son
of deceased was eye witness. Hence he showed no hurry to examine them,
who could have thought that this child would witness the unfortunate incident.
Hence IO was conducting investigation in routine manner. It is not expected
from police officials to conduct investigation at a hurried pace, investigations
are generally carried out in a routine manner, following due procedure and
established protocols and sanctions. Due to practical limitations, it is often not
feasible to record testimony of all the witnesses on the same day. Availability

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 107 of 114
of witnesses, workload of Investigating Officers and need to verify the facts
before recording statements can contribute to such delays. Hence, the fact that
all the probable witnesses were not inquired the same day by itself cannot
indicate any lapse or irregularity in the investigation process.
171 It is contended that at one point, PW1 stated that he disclosed about
witnessing the murder to IO after some days but in cross examination he says
that he disclosed to IO the same day. However offence occurred in Sept 2013
and this witness pw1 deposed in 2014 March and April. Human memory is
apt to blur with passage of time. Some discrepancies might occur due to lapse
of time. This only shows that witness is speaking the truth, he is speaking out
of his memory.

172 The next important aspect in this case is motive. There is a strong
motive established on record on behalf of both the accused to commit the
murder of the deceased. PW9 Smt. Ramwati (mother of the deceased) and
PW13 Sh. Shiv Charan (father of the deceased) also deposed about the illicit
relation of their daughter in law Sonia with accused Puran Chand. They have
deposed that their son as well as grand sons told them over a period of time
about the illicit relation between two accused persons. PW1 also deposed that
relation between his mother and said Pooran Chand was not liked by himself,
his elder brother and his deceased father. He had deposed that his mother
wanted to leave his father and go to reside with Pooran Chand. Hence, both
accused had motive to kill deceased Ashok Sharma.

173 Motive is a desire which prompts any person to do any act or
conduct. A motive is a mental state which is transformed into a physical
action. It is the reason why a person has committed a crime. Motive is a
crucial factor in criminal cases, it helps to establish the connection of accused

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 108 of 114
to the crime and add weight to the prosecution case. While motive alone is not
sufficient to establish guilt but is an important piece of evidence. It
strengthens the prosecution’s case and adds weights to the other evidence. It
helps in understanding the intent of accused behind committing the murder as
intention is important in criminal cases. Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act says
that any fact is relevant which shows or constitute motive for commission of
offence. Hence, it is a relevant fact. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Anwar Ali and another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2020
Supreme Court 4519, which is as follows:

39. The motive may be considered as a circumstance which is relevant for
assessing the evidence but if the evidence is clear and unambiguous and
the circumstances prove the guilt of the accused, the same is not
weakened even if the motive is not a very strong one. It is also settled law
that the motive loses all its importance in a case where direct evidence of
eyewitnesses is available, because even if there may be a very strong
motive for the accused persons to commit a particular crime, they cannot
be convicted if the evidence of eyewitnesses is not convincing. In the
same way, even if there may not be an apparent motive but if the evidence
of the eyewitnesses is clear and reliable, the absence or inadequacy of
motive cannot stand in the way of conviction.”

174 Further, there is corroborating evidence in this case to support the
case of the prosecution i.e. CDRs. The call detail record has been obtained by
the IO between both the accused for the period 15.8.2013 to 08.9.2013. The
record of the CDRs has been perused. There are several incoming and
outgoing calls from each mobile number to the other everyday. On the date of
incident i.e. 07.09.2013, there were 17 calls between them and the last call
was at 10:35 pm thereafter, mobile of accused Puran chand was switched off
as was stated by the IO. It was stated by accused Puran Chand in his statement
under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had never seen Sonia, co-accused in this
case and he has been falsely implicated. However, there are several calls

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 109 of 114
between them everyday, accused could not explain these calls. It is not the
case of accused that he was not using this mobile phone or this mobile does
not belong to him. No such suggestion is given to IO that this number did not
belong to him. Last location of accused Puran Chand was at Shiv Vihar which
is approximately 2 kilometer away from the house of deceased. Accused
persons could not explain these repeated several calls between them , what
was the occasion for them to call each other several times a day when they
claim to be not even knowing each other. These unexplained calls by the
accused only corroborate the version of prosecution regarding their illicit
relations.

175 It is argued by ld. Defence counsel and is also mentioned in
written submissions that it is important to consider and decide if PW1 is an
eye witness or has been planted by the prosecution. However, he is a chance
witness who was on the spot being a family member. But he was at the spot
neither by accident nor by co-incidence but because he is a family member
who was residing in this house. There is one room on the ground floor in the
house where this incident happened, there is small gallery/ verandah adjacent
to it. There were three children in the house beside deceased Ashok Kumar
and their mother accused Sonia. It is not very unlikely that a child would got
up due to the noise or knock at the door and would have witnessed such an
incident. Hence, like a chance witness who accidentally sees a crime, he had
seen it too. Hence, he is an eye witness to the incident and his direct
testimony is sufficient for conviction of accused persons.
176 The next argument is that Rajan uncle and accused Pooran are
not one and the same person. This argument is baseless. PW1 has repeatedly
stated in his examination-in-chief as well as his cross-examination that he had

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 110 of 114
seen Rajan uncle several times in his house with his mother. However, after
the commission of crime, he came to know that his name is Pooran Chand
also. There was no question of getting TIP done as accused Pooran Chand was
very well known to PW1. It is very common for a person to have two names,
one might be official name while another name may not be an official name
or may be a nick name. Hence, there was no occasion for PW1 to get
confused about the identity of the accused Pooran Chand whom he knew by
the name Rajan uncle.

177 It is further argued that eye witness had changed the place of
occurrence to introduce himself as an eye witness. It is submitted that as per
the prosecution’s case, the incident took place near hand pump of the main
gate and blood was also found lying near hand pump. But PW1 stated that
incident happened inside bed room. However, this question was asked from
PW1 in his cross-examination conducted on 28.3.2014 and he deposed that
blood had fallen on the floor but his mother cleaned it. He further deposed
that some blood had fallen on the bed also but his mother had changed the
bedding. He further deposed that police had not seized that bedding. Hence it
the deceased was shot at the room and later on dragged outside to gallery by
accused Sonia cannot be ruled out. Draftsman had made site plan immediately
after the incident when statement of PW1 was not recorded. Further, PW6
Ajay Kumar was called at the spot later on after the incident had happened, he
had not seen the incident himself. Further, the focus of an investigation is on
the facts surrounding the crime and not the exact location. Needless to say, the
crime occurred in the same house. Argument of change of spot or place of
occurrence might be relevant in some such cases where there is dispute about
the specific location of crime. In this case, it is established that deceased

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 111 of 114
Ashok was shot at his own house, inside his house on the ground floor, the
ground floor has a varandah/ gallery and a room. The discrepancy, if any, if he
was shot at the bed room or that adjacent varandah is an immaterial
discrepancy. Further, the trial focuses on establishing the facts of crime, who
was involved, what has happened, the motive behind the crime, tracing the
eye witnesses if any. The exact location where the crime happened is relevant
but is not sole determinant.

178 It is further argued that weapon of offence is not recovered,
further angle from where it was used is not proved. Angle of offence might be
relevant in such cases where there is issue if injury was accidental or
intentional or where there is requirement of reconstruction of events . PW1
deposed that his father was shot at his front from a pistol, this direct frontal
attack suggests a deliberate intent to harm. Further non recovery of weapon of
offence is not fatal in every case, it depends on overall evidence of the case.
In this case, there is eyewitness to the offence whose testimony inspires
complete confidence. Further there are CDRs on record to establish the
factum of illicit relations between accused Sonia and accused Puran.
179 It is established on record that she was interested to live with
accused Puran Chand and accused Puran used to come to her house often
which was disliked by deceased Ashok Kumar as well as her sons including
PW1. It is established on record that on the day of incident, accused Sonia got
a call from accused Puran and they both had spoken on phone on the date of
offence at night. Thereafter, accused Puran Chand knocked at the door of their
house which was secretly opened by his mother. As their father got up, their
mother held the hands of his father while accused Puran Chand fired at his
father. This shows a pre-planned conspiracy by both the accused to murder

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 112 of 114
deceased Ashok Kumar. Both had intentionally committed the murder of
deceased Ashok Kumar.

180 In view of the above discussion, it is established on record that
both accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Ashok Kumar and in
furtherance of their common intention, executed the said criminal conspiracy
and committed the murder of deceased Ashok Kumar. Hence, both accused
are convicted for offence under section 120B IPC.

181 Further, both accused had committed murder of deceased Ashok
Kumar intentionally. Hence, both are convicted for offence under section 302
IPC read with section 120B IPC.

182 Further, it is established on record that accused Puran Chand
entered the house of deceased Ashok Kumar in a clandestine manner with
pistol after making preparation to murder deceased Ashok Kumar and thereby
murdered him. Hence, he is convicted for offence under section 452 IPC.
183 According to PW5 Dr. Ashish Kumar, a bullet was found inside
his body. According to him, the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock as a
result of ante mortem injury to chest produced by a projectile of a firearm. In
his cross-examination he opined that it was probably caused by a rifle. It is
contended that PW1 stated that it was a pistol of approximately 8-10 inches.
The firearm in this case is not recovered. As already discussed above, the non
recovery of firearm is not fatal to prosecution case in every case. The bullet is
already recovered and as per opinion of doctor, a firearm was used. Hence,
the essential ingredients of section 7 of Arms Act are met hence, accused
Puran Chand is convicted for offence under section 7 of Arms Act also.

Conclusion:-

FIR No. 526/2013 State Vs. Puran Chand and another page 113 of 114

184 In view of above discussion, observations and findings, accused
Puran Chand Rathore @ Rajan and Sonia @ Sonu are hereby convicted under
sections 120B and section 302 IPC read with section 120B IPC. Accused
Puran Chand is also convicted for offence under section 452 IPC and section
27 of Arms Act.

Digitally signed

Announced in Open Court                                    TWINKLE by TWINKLE
                                                                   WADHWA
                                                           WADHWA Date: 2025.04.25
                                                                        16:38:16 +0530
as on 25.04.2025
                                                      ( Twinkle Wadhwa )
                                                  Additional Sessions Judge-02
                                              North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi




FIR No. 526/2013                    State Vs. Puran Chand and another                      page 114 of 114