State vs Sanjay on 21 January, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Sanjay on 21 January, 2025

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

SESSIONS CASE NO. 44299/15
CNR No. DLNE01-000028-2011
FIR No. 362/2010
P.S. New Usmanpur
U/s : 302/307/323/201/120B/34 of IPC

STATE

                                       Versus

(1) Sanjay                                     (expired and proceedings abated
S/o Nawab Singh                                vide order dated 25-07-2024)
R/o H. No. A-88, Gali no. 2,
1st Pushta, New Usmanpur, Delhi


(2) Vicky                                      (expired and proceedings abated
S/o Nawab Singh                                vide order dated 25-07-2024)
R/o H. No. A-88, Gali no. 2,
1st Pushta, New Usmanpur, Delhi

(3) Pradeep
s/o Charan Singh
R/o H. No. A-88, Gali no. 2,
1st Pushta, New Usmanpur, Delhi

(4) Bhanwar Singh
s/o Ram Pal
r/o Gali no. 2, 1st Pushta,
New Usmanpur, Delhi

(5) Bijender @ Mota
s/o Ram Pal
r/o Gali no. 2, 1st Pushta,            (expired and proceedings abated
New Usmanpur, Delhi                    vide order dated 11-08-2023)

(6) Tilak Singh
s/o Ram Pal
r/o H. No. A-93, Gali no. 2, 1st Pushta,

FIR No. 362/10         State Vs. Sanjay Etc.                        Page 1 of 50
 New Usmanpur, Delhi

(7) Pawan @ Pappu
s/o Sh. Chanda
r/o Gali no. 2, 25 Futa Road,
near Marshal Public School,
Milan Vihar, Burari, Delhi

Date of Institution :         31-03-2011
Date of Argument :            08-01-2025
Date of Judgment :            21-01-2025


JUDGMENT

1. Brief facts of this case are that on 22-11-2010 at about
10:18 pm, an information was received through Wireless
Operator that a quarrel was going on at First Pusta, Gali no. 2,
Usmanpur, near Sitaram Mandir, wherein one person was firing.
The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 35A (Ex.
PW1/A) and the same was marked to SI Satbir Singh. Thereafter,
the IO along with Ct. Sanuj reached at the spot and found that
quarrel took place between two parties in which persons from
both parties got injured. One party was taken to Trauma Center
Hospital while other one was taken to GTB Hospital. SI Amit
also reached the spot. Blood was found lying in gali no. 2. HC
Dharam Singh was left at the spot and SI Satbir Singh went to
Sushruta Trauma Center Hospital and collected MLC no. 128416
of Bijender having injury on neck, MLC no. 128417 of Ravinder
having injury on face, with nature of injury u/o sharp on both
MLCs and MLC no. 128418 of Deepak having injury on
forehead, with nature of injury U/O blunt. SI Satbir Singh
recorded statement of injured Ravinder, wherein he stated that he

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 2 of 50
was running a mobile shop in the name of M/s Prachi
Communication. Sanjay @ Maila was residing opposite his
house along with his family and he knew him very well. About
15 days ago, accused Sanjay borrowed Rs. 1200/- from him, out
of which he had not yet returned Rs. 500/-. Whenever, the
complainant used to ask Sanjay to return the money, he used to
make excuses. On 22-11-2010 at about 9:30 pm, when the
complainant telephonically called Sanjay to return the money,
then Sanjay asked him to come at first pusta. The complainant
left his home along with his brother Bijender and when they
reached at slope of first pusta, he noticed Sanjay along with his
uncle’s son namely Pradeep and one friend of Sanjay, whom he
can identify on production, were standing. When he asked
Sanjay to return the money, he again started taking excuses and
resorted to beating him. When he objected, then Sanjay, Pradeep
and his friend took out their knives and thereafter, they attacked
them with knives. Friend of Sanjay was also attacking them with
knives. In order to rescue themselves, they ran from the spot
towards their home. On the way, they found uncle of Sanjay
namely Tikak Singh, Bhanwar Singh, Vijender @ Mota and
brother of Sanjay namely accused Vicky armed with lathi and
danda. Thereafter, all the above-stated four assailants beaten him
and his brother as well as brother-in-law of his brother namely
Deepak Bhati with lathis and dandas, due to which Deepak Bhati
too had received injuries. Somebody called at 100 number and
PCR came and took them to Trauma Center. On the basis of
above statement of complainant Ravinder, present case u/s
307/323/34 IPC was registered. During course of investigation,
SI Satbir Singh got the place of occurrence inspected by Crime

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 3 of 50
Team. Photographs of the spot were also taken. Blood lying on
the spot was lifted, blood-stained earth and earth control were
lifted and converted into pulanda and sealed with the seal of
SSA. On 24-11-2010, ASI Yamuna Prasad while patrolling in
the area, after receiving secret information about the wanted
accused persons, apprehended accused Bhanwar Singh and
Bijender @ Mota from a place in front of an engineering college.
During interrogation, they confessed about commission of
offence and they were arrested. Their disclosure statement was
recorded. On 26-11-2010 at about 9:35 pm, information was
received in PS vide DD no. 27A that injured Bijender, who was
under treatment at Trauma Center Hospital, had expired.
Thereafter, section 302 IPC was added in the FIR and further
investigation was handed over to Inspector Arjun Singh. On 27-
11-2010, the dead body was identified by Richa Ram Pradeep
Kumar and postmortem of deceased was conducted. After
postmortem, the dead body was handed over to relatives. On 01-
12-2010, SI Ratnu Oraon reached Karkarduma court where
accused Sanjay and Pradeep had surrendered themselves. They
were interrogated and arrested in the present case and their
disclosure statement was recorded, wherein they stated that they
threw their knives used in the crime while running and they can
get the same recovered. Both accused were taken on PC remand
and they identified the place of occurrence and pointing out
memos were prepared accordingly. The weapon of offence could
not be recovered. On 03-12-2010, postmortem report was
received wherein cause of death was opined as ‘coma and its
complications due to cut throat injury including right carotid
vessels. All injuries are ante-mortem in nature”. Scaled site plan

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 4 of 50
of place of occurrence was prepared at the instance of
complainant Ravinder. On 07-12-2010, blood sample of
deceased along with sample seal were received from mortuary of
GTB hospital. Photographs were also collected. On 11-12-2010,
one pulanda sealed with the seal of Sushruta Trauma Center STC
was seized containing blood-stained clothes of deceased
Bijender. On 15-12-2010, accused Vicky surrendered in the
concerned court, who was formally arrested. During
interrogation, he revealed that third associate of Sanjay and
Pradeep was one of their relative namely Pawan @ Pappu. All of
them had preplanned this incident and they wanted to teach a
lesson to Ravinder since he was arrogant and on many occasions,
had disgraced Sanjay in public. In the light of disclosure
statement of Vicky, other accused persons were also re-
interrogated in the court and their supplementary disclosure
statement was recorded. Section 201/120B of IPC was added in
the FIR. PCR call form was received and MLCs of Ravinder and
Deepak were deposited in Trauma Center for obtaining final
opinion on nature of injury. On 28-01-2011, the exhibits of case
were sent to FSL Rohini through Ct. Om Prakash for obtaining
expert opinion. Efforts were made to arrest accused Tilak Singh
and Pawan @ Pappu but they were avoiding their arrest and
absconding and therefore, IO obtained their NBWs. On 18-02-
2011, accused Tilak Singh had surrendered himself in the court,
who was formally arrested after interrogation. His disclosure
statement was recorded. After completion of necessary
formalities, chargesheet was filed initially against all the accused
persons except accused Pawan @ Pappu for the offence
punishable u/s 302/307/323/201/120B/34 of IPC.

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 5 of 50

On 16-11-2014, accused Pawan was arrested by Special
Staff, Outer District u/s 41.1A of Cr.P.C. Upon receiving the said
information, accused Pawan was formally arrested by W/SI
Santosh and Ct. Prem Singh within the court premises with
permission of the court. Accused Pawan was subjected to TIP
proceedings but he refused. His PC remand was obtained and
during PC remand, he identified the place of incident. However,
weapon of offence i.e. knife could not be recovered. Thereafter,
supplementary chargesheet qua accused Pawan was filed.
COMMITTAL

2. After taking cognizance and compliance of section 207 of
Cr.P.C., the present case was committed to the Courts of
Sessions vide order dated 26-03-2011 by the Ld. MM/KKD. The
same was allocated by the then Ld. District and Sessions Judge to
the Ld. Predecessor of this Court. Subsequently, supplementary
chargesheet qua accused Pawan was filed and after compliance
of section 207 of Cr.P.C., the same was committed to the Courts
of Sessions vide order dated 02-02-2015 by the Ld.
ACMM/KKD/Delhi.

CHARGE

3. After hearing the arguments and finding that prima facie
case was made out against the accused persons for the offence
punishable u/s 120B, 302/34 r/w 120B, 307/34, 323/34 r/w 120B
of IPC, charges were framed by ld. Predecessor against accused
persons, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial. Thereafter, prosecution got examined as many as 38 witnesses.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

4. PW1 HC Narain Singh was the Duty Officer posted at PS
New Usmanpur on 22-11-2010 at the relevant time. He has

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 6 of 50
proved DD no. 35A regarding information of quarrel received at
the PS wherein one person was seeing opening firing as Ex.
PW1/A.
The witness was cross-examined by ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.

PW2 Sh. Satya Pal @ Satye is the eyewitness of the
incident. He deposed that he was running a mother dairy booth.
He was permanent resident of New Usman Pur village and
having his house bearing no. 36/107 Gali No. 2 New Usman Pur.
Earlier, he used to reside at this house. Now, he has given this
house on rent and shifted to the address T- 235 Gali No.3
Gautam Puri, Delhi.

On 22.11.2010, he had come to New Usman Pur on his old
house to take rent. On the same day at about 9.30 p.m, while he
was going towards first pushta on foot and when he came down
from the first Pushta, he saw that near the house situated on
corner accused Sanjay and Pradeep along with one other person,
who is not present today in the court (Had he been present today
in the court he would have identified) had caught hold Vijender
and Ravinder sons of Sant Ram and were manhandling with him
(hatha pai ho rahi thi). In the meantime, accused Sanjay and other
accused took out knife and razor (ustra) from their pockets and
inflicted injuries by knife and razor on the face etc. of Vijender
and Ravinder. They became injured and in order to save
themselves, they fled towards their house. Accused Sanjay,
Pradeep and his associate gave them chase, he also followed
them. When Ravinder and Vijender reached in gali no. 2 a little
ahead to their house, other accused persons including Tilak
Singh, Vijender @ Mota, Bhanwar Singh @ Bhonri and Vicky

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 7 of 50
also came there besides Sanjay, Pradeep and third associate. |
Accused Tilak singh, Vijender, Bhonri and Vicky were armed
with lathi, danda and started inflicting lathi and danda on
Vijender and Ravinder. In the meantime some villagers started to
came there and gathering started to collect. When the people
started to gather, he became frightened and out of fear he went to
his house.

On 05.12.10, he had come to his village i.e New Usman
Pur, IO met him and he gave his statement to him. He have stated
all the things which he have narrated to the IO. He identified
accused Sanjay, Pradeep in the court correctly. PW2 was re-
examined after the arrest of accused Pawan on 30-07-2016. he
had correctly identified the accused Pawan, who was
accompanying co-accused Sanjay and Pradeep on the date of
incident.

In his cross-examination, he deposed that Om Prakash is a
tenant at his house at New Usmanpur. He used to take rent
amount in cash. He did not give the rent receipt to his tenants.
No agreement was executed regarding tenancy of his house. He
did not have any documentary proof to show that Om Prakash
and Raju were residing in his above-mentioned house as tenants
under him. He denied that story of visiting the aforesaid house
and collecting rent by him is false and fabricated. He deposed
that when the scuffle was going on between Ravinder and
Bijender with Sanjay and Pradeep, there was light in the area. He
had seen the incident from the distance of 7-8 steps. Public
persons were passing through the spot at the time of the incident.
The scuffle lasted for 5-7 minutes. Sanjay, Pradeep and another
persons were giving beatings to Ravinder and Bijender. Till the

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 8 of 50
scuffle lasted, he remain standing at the same place. He did
notice on which part of the body of Ravinder and Bijender
received injuries by fist and kick blows during scuffle. He
volunteered that he has seen cut mark injuries on their persons
later on. He did not try to visit the police station to get his
statement recorded prior to 05-12-2010. He affirmed that Pratap
is his cousin. He volunteerd that the accused persons are also
having the same relations with him. He did not notice as to which
portion of the body Ravinder was given lathi and danda blow by
aforesaid four persons. He also did not notice as to which portion
of the body Bijender was given lathi and danda blow by aforesaid
four accused persons. People had started coming when he left
the spot. Till the time he remained at the spot, he did not observe
any injury on the person of accused Tilak Singh. He did not
notice any injury on the person of accused Vicky during the
incident. Nobody had caused any injury on the person of accused
Vicky and Tilak Singh in his presence. He did not know if case
U/s 308/34 IPC was registered at PS Usmanpur against aforesaid
Pratap, Rajender and Mehkar, Gaje and Chotte with regard to
causing injury on the person of accused Tilak Singh and Vicky.
He continued to run his mother dairy milk booth from
22/11/2010 to 05/12/2010 on the similar timings. The persons
involved in the incident were at the place of incident at the time
he was climbing the dhalan to the pusta. He had noticed the
presence of these people from a distance of about 20 meters.
They were fighting among themselves. When he reached at the
position higher up on the dhalan towards the pushta, he had seen
the injuries being caused. He had recognized Ravinder, Bijender,
Sanjay and Pradeep from a distance of 20 meters. He had also

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 9 of 50
recognized Pawan but he did not know his name then. None of
the these people are related to him are known to him. There were
light at the spot. He could not say whether any electricity pole
was situated there or not as he did not remember. Accused
Pawan had injured Bijender with the Ustra. He could not tell on
which part of the body accused Pawan hit the ustra. He denied
the suggestion that accused Pawan has not injured anyone.

PW3 Sh. Kiran Pal is also an eyewitness of the incident.
He deposed that he was cultivator by profession and cultivates at
Yamuna Khadar. On 22.11.2010 at about 9:45 pm or 10 pm, he
had come in the gali for night walk after taking dinner. When he
reached in gali no. 2 in front of house no. A-46 at crossing he
saw gathering of many people and heard noise of quarrel. He
reached there and saw that accused Tilak Singh, Bhanwar Singh,
Bijender and Vicky were beating by lathi and danda to the sons
of Sant Ram namely Ravinder, Vijender and one of their relative
namely Deepak. Accused Sanjay and Pradeep were giving them
fist and kick blows. Ravinder and Vijender were in critical
condition (lahu luhan the). In the meantime, the public started to
gather there and on seeing them, all the accused fled away. The
position of Vijender was very critical and was found unconscious
on the chowk. He was having injury on his neck.

He further deposed that since he knew to drive the vehicle,
he put Vijender with the help of Subash and others his villagers
in the car of uncle of Vijender and took him to Trauma Centre
Hospital for treatment and got him admitted. He knew accused
and the victims being the villagers. He had given his statement to
the IO on 03.12.2010 whatever he had narrated in the court.

He identified accused Tilak Singh, Bhanwar Singh,

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 10 of 50
Bijender, Vicky, Sanjay, and Pradeep in the court.

In his cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
affirmed that one cannot see directly House no. A-46 while
standing in front of his house. There was light in front of his
house also. He had seen gathering of around 400-500 people.
The width of the gali is approx. 30-40 feet. The chowk is
basically a t-point and another gali which connects the chowk is
also of width 30-40 feet. He had seen persons standing on the
rooftops of the houses. He had overheard the noise of quarrel and
thereafter, he had gone inside the gathering and saw the quarrel.
He had seen the occurrence from the distance of about 2-3
meters. I had overheard the noise of quarrel from the place near
the chowk i.e House No. A-43. He has been residing in that area
since birth. He was not related to deceased Vijender and injured
Ravinder. He denied the suggestion that he is related to these
persons and he is their cousin. During the incident which lasted
for about 5-7 minutes, accused Pradeep and Sanjay kept on
beating Vijender and Ravinder. Vijender was lying on the side of
the gali in which side his house is situated and same was the
position of injured Ravinder. He has not got issued Driving
licence. He has not even applied for issuance of Driving license.
He denied the suggestion that I did not know how to drive a car.
If he was allowed to drive a vehicle right now, he can drive the
same. It was reported by Ct. Manish and Sh. A. L Manav, ld.
Counsel that witness was offered one Maruti Swift car but
witness had refused to drive the same on the ground that he could
not drive Swift car as on the glasses, black film was affixed and
he can drive only Maruti 800 car. Thereafter the witness was
asked to drive one Alto car. Mr. Manav had asked the vehicle

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 11 of 50
right from the parking to the main road but witness submitted
that due to heavy congestion of the vehicle inside the parking, he
could not be in position to take out the vehicle from the parking
and he can drive the vehicle on main road and if permitted, he
can bring his car next day and can show he can drive. He had
had some blood stains on his hands but he could not tell if the
blood had fallen on the clothes of the others. Only Subhash had
accompanied him up to the hospital. So far as he remembered,
there was some blood stains on his hands. He had washed off the
blood in the hospital. He had not noticed blood on the rear seat
as he was lifted from inside the car by the hospital staff. He had
not tried to call to police when Bijender and Ravinder were being
beaten. He did not call to the police prior to taking Bijender to
the hospital. Police officials had come in the hospital on the day
of occurrence itself and on inquiry from them, he had informed
that he was the person who had brought the Bijender to the
hospital and the police had further told him that they would meet
him and they met him on 03-12-2010. He did not see any injury
on the head and legs of accused Vicky during this incident. In
his presence, nobody had caused any injury on the person of
accused Tilak Singh and Bijender @ vicky. The accused persons
after the incident had fled towards their house. He did not raise
any alarm but they were running. While he was driving the
vehicle, Subhash was sitting along with Vijender on the back set.
Doctor had asked him in Trauma Center as to how and from
whose hands Bijender had received injury. He had told doctor as
to Bijender had been injured and he had also told the name of the
assailant to the doctor. He volunteered that police officials and
doctor were standing there at that time. He had stayed in the

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 12 of 50
Trauma Center for 10-15 minutes.

PW4 Ravinder is the eyewitness as well as one of the
victims of the present case. He deposed that he had been running
a mobile shop at his house in the name and style of Prachi
Communication. Accused Sanjay @ Mela, who resides in the
gali opposite to his house. About 15 days prior to 22-11-2010,
accused Sanjay @ Mela had taken cash amount of Rs.1,200/-
from him as loan. Out of Rs.1,200/-, he had returned Rs.700/-
and Rs.500/- had to be returned by accused to him. He assured
him that he would return remaining Rs.500/- within 2-3 days.
When after 2-3 days, he asked him to return the remaining
amount of Rs.500/- but he made one pretext to other. He had
asked Sanjay @ Mela for remaining amount for about two times
and on each time he made one pretext to other.

On 22-11-2010 at about 9.30 p.m, he made a call to Sanjay
@Mela and asked him about the remaining amount, on this, he
told him to come at Pehla Pusta while saying KE TERE PAISE
WAHI LAUTA DUNGA. When he was leaving his house for
Pehla Pusta in the meantime, his younger brother namely
Vijender also accompanied him for First Pusta. They both
reached at First Pusta. On reaching there, they found accused
Sanjay @ Mela, Pradeep and one friend of Sanjay @ Mela were
present there. When he asked his remaining amount from Sanjay
@ Mela on this, he refused and got annoyed and started scuffling
with them. When he resisted, in the meantime, Sanjay @ Mela
and Pradeep took out knives and attacked upon him with knives.
He received knife blow given by Pradeep on his right side
forehead upto cheek. His brother Vijender when tried to rescue
him, brother was also attacked by accused Sanjay @ Mela with

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 13 of 50
knife and accused Sanjay @ Mela gave knife blow on his neck
(front portion ie. throat). The friend of Sanjay @ Mela was also
having Ustra with him at that time and he was also attacking
upon them with that Ustra. He received Ustra injuries on his
cheek and ear. After getting released themselves from the
accused persons, when they were running from there towards
their house and reached at the Chowk of Gali no. 2 (in front of
the house of Nepal Singh), they found that accused Tilak,
Bhawar Singh, Vijender @ Mota and Vicky were standing there
armed with lathi dandas and they restrained them (GHER LIYA)
and started giving lathi dandas blows to them. While, the
abovesaid persons were giving beatings to them with lathi dandas
in the meantime, Deepak Bhati (who is the brother in law of his
brother) came there and tried to save them from them but the
abovesaid accused persons also gave beatings to him with lathi
dandas. Someone, made a call at 100 number. Public persons
gathered there and thereafter, they all ran away from there. PCR
van reached at the spot and took him and Deepak to Trauma
Centre. Prior to removing him and Deepak from the spot by the
PCR, his brother Vijender was taken to Trauma Centre by one
Kiran Pal in a car. In the Trauma Centre, police met him and his
statement was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW4/A. On the
next morning, he was discharged from the hospital.

PW4 further deposed that on 03-12-2010, police officials
came to his house and thereafter, he led them to the spot and
pointed out the places of occurrence and at his instance site plan
was prepared by the IO. His supplementary statement was also
recorded by the IO and in the statement, he had explained as to
who and how inflicted injuries upon him and his brother Vijender

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 14 of 50
with knives. The abovesaid accused persons inflicted injuries
upon him and his brother Vijender and Deepak with pre-
planning. On 05-02-2011, police officials again inspected both
the spots in his presence and they took rough notes and
measurements. In the intervening night of 26/27-11-2010, his
brother Vijender had expired in the Trauma Centre itself. All the
accused persons except the friend of Sanjay were correctly
identified by the witness. PW4 was re-examined after the arrest
of accused Pawan on 10-07-2015. He had correctly identified the
accused Pawan, who was accompanying co-accused Sanjay and
Pradeep on the date of incident.

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

PW5 Deepak Bhati is the victim as well as eyewitness in
the present case. He deposed that on 22-11-2010 at about 9.45
p.m., when he was present in front of his house, he heard the
noise of quarrel and on hearing the same, he went towards from
there the noise was coming and he saw that in front of the house
of Nepal Singh, accused Tilak Singh, Bhawar Singh, Vicky,
Bijender @ Mota were giving beatings to Vijender (since
deceased) and Ravinder with lathi dandas. When he tried to save
Ravinder and Vijender from the clutches of abovesaid accused
persons, they all gave lathi danda blows to him. He received lathi
danda blows on his head as well as on the other parts of the body.
All the abovesaid accused persons attacked upon him with danda
lathis and on Vijender and Ravinder with intend to kill them.
After some time, PCR van reached there and he and Ravinder
were removed to Trauma Hospital. His statement was also
recorded by the police on 23-11-2010. All the accused persons

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 15 of 50
namely Tilak Singh, Bhawar Singh, Vicky, Bijender @ Mota
were correctly identified by the witness.

He was cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel but
nothing material came out therein.

PW6 SI Om Prakash was the Duty Officer posted at PS
New Usmanpur on the intervening night of 22/23-11-2010 at the
relevant time. He has proved the endorsement made by him on
the rukka prepared by the first IO as Ex. PW6/A and copy of FIR
as Ex. PW6/B.
The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW7 HC Satish was posted as MHCM at the relevant time.
He has proved the entries of register no. 19 regarding deposition
and dispatch of exhibits from Malkhana of PS. He has also
proved the relevant Road Certificate for dispatch of exhibits to
FSL Rohini and acknowledgment obtained from FSL. The
necessary records/ entries proved by him are Ex. PW7/A to Ex.
PW7/F.

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

PW8 HC Sukhpal Singh deposed that in the intervening
night of 22/23.11.2010, he was posted in PCR and was Incharge
on PCR Van Backer 45 and on that night his point was Khajoori
chowk At about 10.25 p.m he received a PCR call regarding
jhagda at Ist Pushta, New Usman Pur. After receiving the above
said call, he along with his PCR van went to the spot. On
reaching there he found that many persons were present there and
from them he came to know that the injured persons had already
been taken to the PS by the local police of PS New Usman Pur

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 16 of 50
Thereafter, he along with his staff and PCR van went to PS New
Usman Pur and in the room of DO two injured namely Ravinder
and Deepak Bhatti were sitting and DO told him to remove them
to the Trauma Centre. Thereafter, both the injured persons were
taken by him in the PCR van to Trauma Centre, Civil Line, Delhi
and they both were got admitted by him there. Thereafter, he
came back to his base point. His statement was recorded by the
IO later on.

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

PW9 Ct. Sanuj was the investigating police official, who
had accompanied the first IO SI Satbir Singh at the spot on the
intervening night of 22/23-11-2010. He deposed on the same
lines on which SI Satbir Singh (PW25) has deposed, whose
testimony shall be dealt with later on.

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

PW10 SI E. S. Yadav was the in-charge, Crime Team who
had inspected the spot on the date of incident. He has proved the
scene of crime report prepared by him as Ex. PW10/A.

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

PW11 Richha Ram was the uncle of deceased. He has
proved the dead body identification proceedings conducted at the
mortuary vide statement Ex. PW11/A and Ex. PW11/B.
Witness was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel but
nothing material came out therein.

PW12 Ct. Sanuj was again re-examined, who was earlier

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 17 of 50
examined as PW9, upon arrest of accused Pawan. He has
reiterated the same facts which were earlier deposed by him.

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

PW13 Pradeep Kumar was the cousin of brother of
deceased. He too proved dead body identification proceedings at
mortuary of GTB hospital vide statement Ex. PW13/A.

Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the
opportunity.

PW14 HC Shyam Lal was the photographer of the Crime
Team who had inspected the spot on the intervening night of
22/23-11-2010. He has proved 14 photographs clicked by him
which are Ex. PW10/DN to Ex. PW10/DO and negatives thereof
as Ex. PW14/A1 to Ex. PW14/A14.

Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came
out in his cross-examination.

PW15 Mahesh was the public person who had made PCR
call of quarrel on the date of incident.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that he had not seen anyone firing gunshot. He knew
Tilak Singh and Vicky. He had seen the quarrel. Tilak was
injured in that quarrel and sustained hurt in his head. Vicky had
also received injuries in his head and leg in the quarrel.

PW16 ASI Jasbir Singh was the in-charge of record of
CPCR/ Zones (Admn) Branch/ PCR/PHQ. He has proved the
PCR form in connection with PCR call made in the present case
vide Ex. PW16/B.

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 18 of 50
Witness was not cross-examined despite having given the
opportunity.

PW17 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain was the draftsman.
He has proved the scaled site plan prepared by him on 05-02-
2011 at the instance of witness Ravinder and IO Inspector Arjun
Singh as Ex. PW17/A.
During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that when he inspected the spot, he did not find blood
there. In his presence, the statement of witness Ravinder was not
recorded by the IO.

PW18 HC Dharam Singh deposed that in the intervening
night of 22/23.11.2010, he was posted at PS New Usman Pur. On
that night, he was patrolling in the area of his beat and at about
10.00 pm, he received information regarding quarrel and after
receiving the information, he went at first pushta Usman Pur,
Gali No. 2 near House No. A-43. On reaching there he found
many persons present there. IO and Ct. Pawan were also present
there. He also came to know that injured persons had already
been taken to the hospital by the PCR. After leaving him at the
spot, IO and Ct. Pawan left for the hospital. At the spot, blood
was lying. Subsequently, IO came back at the spot. Crime Team
was also called at the spot by the IO and crime team inspected
the spot and took the photographs of crime scene. Thereafter,
blood was lifted from the spot and it was put in a small plastic
container. Blood stained earth and earth control were also lifted
from the spot and same were put in two different plastic
containers and containers were converted into parcels sealed with
the seal of SSA. The parcels were also given sl. no. 1, 2 and 3.
After use, the seal was handed over to him by the IO. His

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 19 of 50
statement was recorded in this regard by the IO.

On 24.11.2010, he along with Ct. Om Prakash was on
patrolling duty with the IO ASI Yamuna Prasad in the area of PS
New Usman Pur and while patrolling when at about 7.45 p.m
they reached near Jag Pravesh Chandra hospital, secret informer
gave secret information to the IO that the accused persons, who
were involved in the present case, would come from the side of
engineering college towards their houses. After receiving the said
information, they along with secret informer took their position
near Engineering college and two persons were apprehended at
the instance of secret informer. They were interrogated and on
asking, they revealed their names as Bhanwar singh and Bijender
and they also admitted that they are involved in the present case.
Thereafter, they both were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.
PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B respectively. Their personal search
was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW18/A1 and 18/B1
respectively. During the course of interrogation, both the
accused. persons made their disclosure statements vide Ex.
PW18/C and Ex. PW18/D respectively. Thereafter, both the
accused persons led the police party to the spot i.e. near House
No. A43, Gali No. 2 and pointed out the place of occurrence vide
memos Ex. PW18/E and Ex. PW18/F. Thereafter, both the
accused persons were brought to the PS. His statement was
recorded by the IO in this regard. Both the accused persons
Bhanwar Singh and Bijender were correctly identified by the
witness.

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

PW19 Ct. Devender deposed that on 27-11-2010, he along

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 20 of 50
with SI Satbir Singh went to Trauma Center, Civil Lines, from
where the dead body of deceased Vijender was removed to GTB
hospital by them and it was got preserved. On the same day,
identity of dead body was got established through relatives.
Thereafter, postmortem of dead body was got conducted by the
IO Inspector Arjun Singh. On 07-12-2010, he had gone to GTB
hospital and doctor handed over one sealed envelope along with
sample seal and he handed over the same to IO, which was seized
vide seizure memo Ex. PW19/A.
The witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW20 HC Anil Kumar was the investigating police official
who had accompanied the IO SI Ratnu Oran to KKD court on
01-12-2010, where accused Pradeep and Sanjay had surrendered
themselves. He has proved the arrest memos, personal search
memos and disclosure statements of aforesaid accused persons
vide Ex. PW29/A to Ex. PW20/D.
Witness was cross-examined but nothing material came
out in his cross-examination.

PW21 Ct. Om Prakash was the police official who was
performing patrolling duty along with HC Dharam Singh and
ASI Yamuna Prasad. He deposed on the same lines on which
PW18 HC Dharam Singh has deposed regarding the proceedings
conducted at the time of arrest of accused Vijender and Bhanwar
Singh.

During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for State, the
accused persons Bhanwar Singh and Vijender were shown to the
witness but he was unable to identify them. He affirmed that due
to lapse of time, he was unable to identify the accused persons.

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 21 of 50

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
denied that he signed the above-said documents in PS at the
instance of IO. He denied that no persons in the name of
Bhanwar Singh and Vijender were ever arrested in his presence
and that is why he was not able to identify them. He denied that
accused Bhanwar Singh and Vijender did not make any
disclosure statement nor pointed out the spot in his presence. He
denied that he was deposing falsely.

PW22 Ct. Mukesh was the investigating police official
who had accompanied the IO Inspector Arjun Singh on 15-12-
2010 to Karkarduma court at the time of surrender of accused
Vicky. He claimed that accused Vicky was arrested and
personally searched vide memos Ex. PW22A and Ex. PW22/B.
His disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex. PW22/C.
On 23-12-2010, he again accompanied IO Inspector Arjun Singh
to KKD court at the time of production of accused Sanjay and
Pradeep, Bhanwar Singh and Vijender. Disclosure statements of
accused persons were recorded vide memos Ex. PW22/D to Ex.
PW22/G. He deposed on the same lines on which Inspector
Arjun Singh has deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with
later on.

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

PW23 Ct. Sandeep was the investigating police official
who had accompanied Inspector Arjun Singh to Karkarduma
court at the time of surrender of accused Tilak Singh. He
deposed on the same lines on which Inspector Arjun Singh has
deposed, whose testimony shall be dealt with later on.

The witness was cross-examined but nothing material

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 22 of 50
came out therein.

PW24 Dr. Rajender Kumar was the expert from FSL, who
had examined the exhibits i.e. blood of gauge, blood-stained
earth material, earth control, blood stained clothes of deceased
and one more blood-stained gauge. He proved the biological
report prepared by him as Ex. PW24/A and serological report as
Ex. PW24/B prepared by him. As per his report, blood was
detected on all the exhibits except in the earth control, and
human blood was detected in the said exhibits.

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

PW25 Retired SI Satbir Singh deposed that on 22.11.2010,
he was posted as SI at PS New Usmanpur. On that day, DD No.
35-A Ex. PW1/A was assigned to him. Thereafter, he along with
Ct. Sanuj went to the spot i.e. First Pusta dhalan, in front of H.
No. A-43, Gali No. 2, New Usmanpur, where they came to know
that a quarrel had taken place between two parties and the injured
of one party was removed to Trauma Centre Civil Lines by the
PCR while the injured person of other party were removed to
GTB Hospital by the PCR. SHO also reached at the spot. SI Amit
was also called by the SHO at the spot who reached there along
with Ct. Pawan. Beat Constable HC Dharam Singh Meena had
also reached there. Blood was found lying at the corner of gali
no. 2. After leaving HC Dharam Singh at the spot (for guarding
the spot) he along with Ct. Sanuj went to Sushruta Trauma
Centre. In Trauma Centre, injured Vijender, Ravinder and
Deepak Bhati were found admitted. He collected their MLCs. On
the MLC of Ravinder, doctor mentioned him as fit for statement.
Thereafter, he recorded the statement of injured Ravinder vide

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 23 of 50
Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, on the basis of his above said statement,
he prepared rukka Ex. PW25/A. Rukka was sent to PS New
Usmanpur through Ct. Sanuj. Thereafter, he reached at the spot
from the Trauma Centre. Crime Team was already present there
as SHO had called the Crime Team there. Crime Team took the
photographs and inspected the spot vide SOC report Ex.
PW10/A. The blood was lifted from the spot with the help of
cloth piece and it was put in a plastic container. Earth control was
also lifted from there and it was also put in another plastic
container. Blood stained earth was also lifted from there and it
was also put in another plastic container. All the three containers
were sealed in cloth parcels and parcels were given serial no. 1, 2
and 3 and thereafter, all the three parcels taken into possession
and were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW25/B. He recorded
the statement of the PWs. Thereafter, he went back to the police
station and deposited the exhibits with MHC(M).

He further deposed that on 27.11.2010, DD No. 27-A
dated 26.11.2010 Ex. PW25/C regarding the death of injured
Vijender in Trauma Centre Hospital was assigned to him. After
receiving the above said DD, he along with Ct. Devender he went
to Trauma Centre, from there he collected the papers i.e. death
summary and death certificate Ex. PW25/D & PW25/E. The dead
body of Vijender was also removed by him from there to GTB
Hospital Mortuary. After getting the dead body preserved in the
mortuary, he handed over the above said documents ie death
summary and death certificate to Inspector Arjun Singh who met
him in the mortuary. On 27.11.2010, the investigation of the
present case was transferred to Inspector Arjun Singh and he
handed over the case file to Inspector Arjun Singh.

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 24 of 50

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

PW26 HC Pankaj was the investigating police official who
had accompanied SI Ratnu Oran to Karkarduma court on 01-02-
2010 along with PW28 Retd. SI Ratnu Oran. He deposed on the
same lines on which PW28 has deposed regarding proceedings
conducted at the time of and subsequent to, arrest of accused
Sanjay and Pradeep.

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

PW27 Dr. Girish Chand was the medical witness from
Sushruta Trauma Center. He has proved the opinion as simple
on the MLC no. 128417 of victim Ravinder as Ex. PW27/A.
The witness was not cross-examined by ld. Defence
counsel despite having given the opportunity.

PW28 Retd. Ratnu Oraon was retd. IO who had formally
arrested accused Sanjay and Pradeep on 01-12-2010. He
deposed on the same lines on which PW20 and PW26 have
deposed.

During cross-examination by ld. Defence counsel, he
deposed that they took the accused persons at about 5 pm at first
pusta. They remained in the surrounding areas i.e. Khadar with
the accused persons for three hours. The accused persons did not
lead them to any residential house. There was public movement
in the Khadar area during his stay. He denied that accused
persons did not lead them to any place or that he was deposing
falsely.

PW29 SI Yamuna Prasad deposed that on 24.11.2010, he
was posted at PS New Usmanpur as SI. On that day, the present

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 25 of 50
case file was assigned to him for the investigation as the IO was
on leave on that day. He received the case file from MHC(R).
Thereafter, he along with HC Dharam Singh and Ct. Om Prakash
left PS in search of accused persons. When they reached near Jag
Pravesh Hospital opposite Engineering College, he received
secret information through the secret informer that accused
persons Bijender and Bhanwar Singh involved in the present case
were coming from the side of park and were going to their
respective houses. Thereafter, at the instance of secret informer,
accused persons Bijender and Bhanwar whose names were
revealed later on, were arrested vide their arrest memo Ex.
PW18/A and Ex. PW18/B. Their personal search were also
conducted vide memo Ex PW18/A-1 and Ex. PW18/B-1. Both
accused persons were interrogated and during that course, they
made disclosure statements already Ex. PW18/C and Ex.
PW18/D. Thereafter, both the accused persons were brought to
PS. Thereafter, both accused persons led the police party at the
spot and they pointed out the place of occurrence and pointing
out memo Ex. PW18/E and Ex. PW18/F were prepared by him.
Both the accused persons also led the police party to Khadar in
search of Danda but nothing could be recovered. Thereafter, they
both were brought to PS and put in the lockup. On the next day,
both the accused persons were produced before the court
concerned and from there they were remanded to J/C. He
identified accused Bijender and Bhanwar Singh in the court.

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

PW30 Dr. Thejaswi H.T, Associate Professor, Forensic
Medicine, PGIMER, Dr. R. M.L. Hospital deposed that on

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 26 of 50
27.11.2010, he was posted as Senior Demonstrator in the
department of Forensic Medicine, UCMS, GTB Hospital. He
received a request by Inspector Arjun Singh, PS New Usmanpur
to conduct the postmortem examination on the dead body of
Bijender S/o. Sh. Sant Ram aged about 20 years R/o. F-43, gali
No.2, First Pusta, New Usmanpur, Delhi. As per the alleged
history, the deceased had sustained cut throat injury on
22.11.2010 at about 9.45 PM and after which he was taken to
Sushruta, Trauma Centre for treatment. He died on 26.11.2010 at
9.15 PM during treatment in the said hospital.

General Observations recorded by him are:

The dead body of male well built and nourished, wrapped
in a white colour bedsheet was present. The rigor mortis was
present in the head and neck along with upper limbs. The
postmortem staining was present and fixed on the back except for
contact areas.

Details of External injuries recorded by him are:

1. Partially healed stitched incised wound was present on the
upper part of the right side of the neck measuring 17.8 cm,
containing 17 black colour stitches in situ. On exploration of the
wound after removal of the stitches, the cut ends were united.

This wound was present 2 cm from the midline to the right side,
running upwards and outwards was located 1.5 cm from the right
angle of mandible. Further it was running upwards and outwards,
where it was situated 2.5cms below the right ear and was further
running upwards into temporo- occipital region, 12 cm below the
right parietal eminence and 5.5 cm behind the right ear. Further
exploration of this wound, the ligature material was present in the
right carotid sheath. This wound was surgically altered and

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 27 of 50
partially healed. The right greater horn of the larynx was cut.
Internal Examination conducted by him as follows:

Scalp: No Abnormality Detected (NAD).

Skull: NAD
Meninges was congested. Brain was edematous (Swollen) and
congested. Right fronto tempro and parietal low was partially
liquefied.

Chest: both lunges were swollen and congested.
Heart:

NAD
Abdomen & others
Stomach: About 500 ML greenish brown colour liquid was
present and walls were congested. Other internal organs were
congested.

Time since death: about one and a half day.

Cause of Death was given as, “Coma and its complications
due to cut throat injuries involving right carotid vessels. All the
injuries were ante-mortem in nature”.

Sealed envelope containing blood on gauze (air dried) was
handed over to the IO along with the postmortem report. The
postmortem report on judicial file is Ex. PW30/A which bears his
signature at point A.
The witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel
but nothing material came out therein.

PW31 Dr. Ashish Kumar was the doctor posted at Sushruta
Trauma Center, who had given opinion regarding nature of injury
on the MLC Ex. PW31/A of injured Deepak as simple.

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

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 28 of 50

PW32 Inspector Arjun Singh is the investigating officer in
the present case. He deposed that on 27.11.2010, he was posted
at PS New Usmanpur. On that day, the investigation of the
present case was assigned to him as on 26.11.2010 at about 9.35
PM, DD No.27A Ex. PW25/C was registered in the PS regarding
the death of injured Bijender and he received case file from the
previous IO namely SI Satbir Singh. He went to the mortuary of
GTB hospital where the dead body of deceased Bijender was
brought by SI Satbir Singh and Ct. Devender from Trauma
Centre. In the mortuary, the identification of dead body was
established through one Pradeep Kumar and Richha Ram. He
recorded their statements Ex. PW13/A and Ex. PW11/A in this
regard. Thereafter, he filled up the inquest papers i.e request for
postmortem Ex. PW32/A and form No. 25:35 (1)(b) Ex. PW32/B
and thereafter, the postmortem on the dead body of deceased
was got conducted vide postmortem report Ex.PW30/A and after
the postmortem the dead body was handed over to the relatives of
the deceased vide handing over memo Ex. PW11/B. The accused
persons namely Sanjay, Pradeep, Vicky and Tilak Singh were
absconding and he searched the above said accused persons but
they could not be arrested. Thereafter, he was proceeded on
medical leave and he joined his duty on 03.12.2010. On
03.12.2010 he went to the spot and there he called injured
Ravinder. Thereafter, at the instance of Ravinder, site plan
Ex.PW32/C was prepared by him. He recorded the statements of
PWs.

He claimed that on 07.12.2010, he got collected blood
sample through Ct. Devender from Mortuary, GTB Hospital,
who handed over the same along with sample seal and he took

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 29 of 50
the same into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW19/A.
On 11.12.2010, he went to Trauma Centre, Civil Lines and from
there, he collected one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of
Sushrut Abhighat Kendra STC containing bloodstained clothes of
deceased Bijender and he took the said parcel into possession
vide memo Ex.PW32/D.
He further claimed that on 15.12.2010, accused Vicky had
surrendered himself before the court concerned and he was
formally arrested and interrogated by him after seeking
permission from the court concerned. During the course of
interrogation, accused Vicky made his disclosure statement
Ex.PW22/C and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW22/A
and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW22/B.
Thereafter, accused Vicky was produced before the court
concerned and from there he was remanded to J/C. Since accused
Vicky disclosed some new facts in his disclosure statement from
the facts disclosed by other arrested accused persons namely
Sanjay, Pradeep, Bhanwar Singh and Bijender, he interrogated
the above said accused persons after seeking permission from the
court concerned in the Court premises on 23.12.2010 and during
that course they made their disclosure statements Ex. PW22/B
(of accused Pradeep), Ex. PW22/E (of accused Bijender), Ex.
PW22/F (of accused Bhanwar Singh) and Ex.PW22/G (of
accused Sanjay). After interrogation, all the above-said accused
persons were produced before the court concerned and from there
they were remanded to J/C. On 06.01.2011, he had deposited the
MLC of injured Ravinder Ex.PW27/A in the Trauma Centre for
obtaining the opinion regarding the nature of injury and on
03.02.2011, it was collected by him from there and the doctor

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 30 of 50
opined the nature of injury on it as simple in nature. On
28.01.2011, the exhibits of the case were sent to the FSL Rohini
through Ct. Om Prakash. He recorded the statement of Ct. Om
Prakash and MHC(M) concerned. On 05.02.2011, the inspection
of the spot was got conducted by him through SI Mukesh Jain,
Draftsman and SI Mukesh Jain inspected the spot at the instance
of injured Ravinder. Later on, he collected the scaled site plan
already Ex. PW17/A from Sl Mukesh Jain. He had obtained the
NBWs of accused persons namely Tilak Singh and Pawan.

He further testified that on 18.02.2011, accused Tilak
Singh had surrendered himself before the court concerned and he
was formally arrested and interrogated by him after seeking
permission from the court concerned. Accused Tilak Singh was
arrested vide his arrest memo Ex. PW23/A and his personal
search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW23/B. During the
course of interrogation, accused Tilak Singh made his disclosure
statement vide memo Ex. PW23/C. Accused Tilak Singh then
was produced from the court concerned and from there he was
remanded to J/C. He had also collected the photographs Ex.
PW32/1 to Ex.PW32/12 from the Crime Team Office. After
completion of the investigation, charge-sheet except accused
Pawan who was absconding, was filed by him before the court
concerned. He had also collected the FSL report already Ex.
PW24/A and Ex. PW24/B from MHC(M) and the same were
filed before the court. He had also got initiated proceedings u/s.
82 Cr. P.C against accused Pawan. He identified accused
persons Sanjay, Vicky, Pradeep, Bhanwar Singh, Bijender and
Tilak Singh in the court correctly.

The witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 31 of 50
but nothing material came out therein.

PW33 ASI Devender Singh deposed that on 16.11.2014,
he was posted at Special Staff Outer District, Delhi. On that day
when he along with Ct. Lokesh was present at Burari, Delhi,
there he received information from informer that one accused
namely Pawan who was wanted in case FIR No.362/10, U/s.
307/323/302/34 IPC, PS New Usmanpur, Delhi and process
under section 82/83 Cr. P.C had already been initiated against
him in the said case, was present at gali No.2, Milan Vihar, Delhi
and after receiving this information, he along with Ct. Lokesh
reached there and at the instance of secret informer, accused who
revealed his name later on, as Pawan was arrested from there
under section 41.1(A) Cr. P.C. His personal search was also
conducted. Photocopy of the arrest memo of accused Pawan is
marked as Mark A and his personal search is marked as mark B.
Accused Pawan was interrogated and during that course he made
disclosure statement mark ‘C’. Thereafter, accused Pawan was
brought to his office at Avantika, Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi. He had
also informed to the concerned IO of the present case regarding
the arrest of accused Pawan. On 17.11.2014, accused Pawan was
produced before the court concerned under section 41.1(A) Cr.
P.C. I0 of the present case also appeared in the court and he
formally arrested accused Pawan in the present case after seeking
permission from the court concerned. He prepared kalandra Ex.
PW33/A. Arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure
statement of accused Pawan are Ex.PW33/B to Ex. PW33/D.
Arrival DD entry is Ex. PW33/E. He identified accused Pawan
in the court correctly.

The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 32 of 50
counsel but nothing material came on record.

PW34 Ex. Ct. Lokesh was the police official who had
accompanied the IO/ ASI Devender in respect of investigation
conducted qua accused Pawan. He deposed on the same lines on
which ASI Devender (PW33) has deposed.

The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence
counsel but nothing material came on record.

PW35 ASI Prem Singh was investigating police officials
who had joined W/ASI Santosh during formal arrest proceedings
of accused Pawan conducted at Karkarduma court on 17-11-
2014. He deposed that on 24-11-2014, he joined IO/ Inspector
Rajeev Ranjan to Karkarduma court where accused Pawan was
produced. IO had moved an application for TIP of accused
Pawan, however, accused refused for TIP.

The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence
counsel but nothing material came on record.

PW36 IO/Ins. Rajiv Ranjan deposed that on 17.11.2014, he
was posted at PS New Usmanpur as Inspector ATO. On that day,
information was received that accused Pawan was to be produced
before Ld. Court at Karkarduma Courts, Delhi as accused was
arrested by Special Staff, Outer Delhi District. He directed WSI
Santosh and Ct. Prem to attend the court concerned and they had
come to the court and after permission of Ld. Court concerned,
accused Pawan was interrogated and arrested. The accused was
sent to J/C on that day. On 22.11.2014 he had moved an
application for TIP of accused Pawan in the Ld. Court concerned
and same was fixed for 24.11.2014. He came to the Ld. Court
concerned where accused Pawan was produced in muffled face
and he had refused for his TIP. He obtained the copy of the TIP

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 33 of 50
proceedings and then he was produced before Sh Sharad Gupta
Ld. ACMM and one day P/C remand was taken. Efforts were
made to recover the knife in question but could not be traced out.
Disclosure statement of accused Pawan was recorded vide Ex.
PW36/A. It was recorded on 24.11.2014 and inadvertently the
date has been mentioned as 17.11.2014. Accused pointed out the
place of occurrence. Pointing out memo was prepared vide Ex.
PW36/B. He had recorded the statements of relevant PWs.
Accused Pawan was identified correctly in court by the witness.
After completion of investigation, supplementary charge-sheet
was prepared and filed in the court concerned.

The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence
counsel but nothing material came on record.

PW37 W/SI Santosh deposed that on 17-11-2014, on
receipt of DD no. 21B Ex. PW37/A, she along with Ct. prem
reached KKD court where accused Pawan @ Pappu was
produced and with the permission of the court, he was
interrogated and arrested and conviction slip Ex. PW37/B was
prepared.

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

PW38 Anil Kumar, Record Clerk was the official from
Sushruta Trauma Center, who has proved the MLCs of victims
Bijender, Deepak and Ravinder as Ex. PW38/A, Ex. PW31/A,
and Ex. PW27/A respectively by identifying signatures of Dr.
Girish Chander.

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

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 34 of 50

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
wherein incriminating facts were put to the accused, which were
denied by them. Accused Bijender, Sanjay, Pradeep, Tilak Singh
and Vicky stated that they are innocent and have been falsely
implicated in this case by the complainant. Tilak Singh was a
witness against one person Kanwar Pal in a murder case.
Kanwar Pal was brother of Mehkar, Partap, Rajender and Gajje,
who were putting pressure Tilak Singh to depose in their favour.
Consequently, Mehkar, Partap, Rajender, Gajje and Chote gave
beatings to Tilak Singh, Vicky tried to rescue him but he was
also severely beaten. Later on, Mehkar and others falsely
implicated them in the present case. Accused Pawan stated that
he was never involved in the present incident. He had been
residing in the village Usmanpur with his family and was known
to both parties. Even after date of alleged incident, he was
residing there and police had never approached him for a period
of about three years. He was a driver by profession and used to
ply taxi. Police officails came to his house and asked him to
come to hospital as some accident had occurred with his taxi. He
went with the police but they took him to Rohini in their office
and falsely booked him in this case. Accused Bhanwar Singh
stated that legan ceremony of his daughter was fixed for 23-11-
2010 and her marriage was scheduled on 28-11-2010. He was
busy in making arrangement of marriage and later on, he came to
know that Mehkar, Partap, Rajender, Gajje, and Chote gave
beatings to his brother Tilak Singh and when Vicky tried to
rescue him, he was also severely beaten by them as Tilak Singh

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 35 of 50
was a witness against one person Kanwar Pal in a murder case.
All the accused persons opted to lead defence evidence but they
did not examine any witness and DE was closed vide order dated
16-08-2022.

FINAL ARGUMENTS

6. This court has heard the arguments from Ld. Addl. PP for
State, Ld. Counsel for complainant, Ld. Defence counsel and
have perused the record.

Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the testimony of
all the prosecution witnesses is sufficient to bring home the guilt
of accused persons for the offence punishable u/s
302/307/323/201/120B/34 of IPC. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5
are the eyewitnesses in the present case. There is no major
contradiction or discrepancy in their respective version. They
have explained with clarity the role of each of the accused
persons in committing assault upon the victims- the deceased
Bijender, PW4 Ravinder and PW5 Deepak Bhati. Postmortem
report of deceased Bijender Ex. PW30/A and MLCs of victims
corroborates their ocular version.

On the other hand, it is submitted by Sh. Gaurav Vashisht,
Ld. Counsel for all accused persons except accused Tilak that
there are inherent weeknesses in the prosecution case. The
medical evidence adduced by the prosecution is inconsistent
with ocular testimony of victims in the present case, therefore,
the testimony of star witness of prosecution is not reliable. In
PM report, the cause of death of deceased was mentioned as
coma and its complications due to cut throat injury in right
carotid vessels. However, autopsy surgey had not specifically
mentioned in his PM report that the injury reported therein is

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 36 of 50
sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature.
Therefore, the PM report is inconsistent with death certificate Ex.
PW25/E wherein the cause of death is given as cardiac arrest. It
is, therefore, submitted that there are contradictions and
testimony of star witnesses of prosecution. PW2 Mr. Satya Pal
did not reveal any role of accused Pradeep in effecting injury to
the victim. He did not even assign any role to the accused
persons namely Sanjay, Pradeep and Pawan in the second
incident of assault. There is no mention of presence of victim
Deepak Bhati in his deposition. The fact that PW-2 Satya Pal did
not report the incident to the police immediately shows that his
conduct was not natural. None of the star witnesses of
prosecution deposed as to how victims had sustained injury not
they have explained as to how the accused persons had sustained
injury which proves that the accused persons are falsely
implicated by the complainant party. As they had assaulted the
Tilak Singh who was a eyewitness against the relative of the
complainant party namely Kanwar Pal @ K.P in a murder case
and was pressurized by them to make compromise and depose in
favour of the accused and when their proposal was not accepted,
Tilak Singh was brutally beaten by the complainant party and
when accused Vicky tried to rescue his uncle Tilak Singh from
the clutches of the complainant party, he was also beaten by
them and when they shouted for help, the public persons gathered
there and had saved both of them from the clutches of the
complainant party and in that process the public persons had
beaten the complainant party due to which they, i.e. Ravinder,
Bijender and Deepak had sustained injuries and in order to save
them from the legal action the complainant party had falsely

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 37 of 50
booked the accused persons in the present case.

It is submitted by Sh. Kamal Mehta, Ld. Amicus Curiae
for accused Tilak Singh that the complainant namely Ravinder
S/o Sh Santram is real nephew (chacha ka ladka) of Partap Gujjar
who is a habitual criminal and he is indulged in around 27
criminal cases. It is further submitted that the Kanwar Pal is the
real brother of above said Pratap Gujjar and uncle of Ravinder.
The accused Tilak is an eyewitness in a case of murder which
was registered by police vide FIR no. 242/10 on 08.08.2010 at
PS Usmanpur and Kanwar Pal had murdered a person and for
that the abovesaid FIR registered against him. As such to
pressurize the accused, he has been falsely implicated in the
present FIR. Sh. Ravinder has admitted his involvement in
criminal cases in his cross-examination dated 18.11.2013.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT

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

Sections Indian Evidence Act read as under:-

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

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

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

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 38 of 50

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

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.–(1) Whoever is a
party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for life] or rigorous
imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same
manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a
criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine
or with both.

307. Attempt to murder–Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if
he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the
offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.–Whoever,
except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily
causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

8. The present case is primarily based upon the testimony of
four eye-witnesses got examined by the prosecution, namely,
PW2 Satyapal @ Satte, PW3 Kiran Pal, PW4 Ravinder, and PW5
Deepak Bhati, out of which PW4 and PW5 are the victims. As
per the prosecution case, there were two episodes of attack upon
the victims. In the first episode, accused Sanjay @ Maila,
Pradeep and Pawan had given knife and ustra blows upon victim
Vijender and Ravinder at first pusta, in front of house no. A-46,
Gali no. 2, Usmapur. In the second episode, when the victims
Virender and Ravinder were running towards their house,
accused Tilak, Bhanwar Singh, Vijender @ Mota and Vicky,
armed with lathis and dandas, surrounded the victims and gave

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 39 of 50
lathi and danda blows to them. In the meantime, victim Deepak
Bhati (brother-in-law of brother of victim Ravinder) came there
and tried to intervene but he too was given lathi and danda blows
by accused Tilak, Bhanwar Singh, Vijender @ Mota and Vicky.
PW2 Satyapal, PW4 Ravinder are the eyewitnesses to both the
episodes whereas, PW3 Kiran Pal had testified only on the first
episode of assault. PW5 Deepak had testified only on the second
episode of assault. As far as presence of PW2 Satyapal and PW3
Kiran Pal at the spot is concerned, the same appears to be
doubtful as PW2 Satyapal had got his statement recorded on 05-
12-2010 whereas PW3 Kiran Pal got his statement recorded on
03-12-2010 i.e. more than ten days after the date of incident.
Moreover, PW3 Kiran Pal claimed that he took deceased
Vijender to Trauma Center Hospital for treatment in the car of
uncle of Bijender. However, during his cross-examination dated
07-08-2012, it was discovered that PW3 Kiran Pal was neither
got issued any driving license nor he has applied for driving
license nor he was able to drive in vehicle in the court premises
when he was asked to do so. As such, the testimony of PW3
Kiran Pal and PW2 Satyapal cannot be given much weight.

9. Nevertheless, PW4 Ravinder and PW5 Deepak, who also
happens to be the victims in the present case apart from deceased
Vijender have correctly identified all the accused persons at the
time of recording of their depositions in the Court on 23-04-
2013. PW4 Ravinder has correctly deposed about the manner in
which he and deceased Vijender had received injury in both the
episodes of assault. PW5 Deepak Bhati has corroborated the
second episode of assault carried out by accused Tilak Singh,
Bhanwar Singh, Vicky and Bijender @ Mota upon deceased

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 40 of 50
Vijender and victim Vijender. He too claimed that he received
lathi danda blows on his dead as well as on other parts of the
body. The evidence of an injured witness/ victim commands
greater respect and weightage under the law. In several decisions,
such as Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab. (2009) 9 SCC 719;
Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6SCC 673;
and Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh. (2010) 10 SCC
259, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has time and again
reiterated the value of an injured witness and has observed:

“The evidence of an injured witness must be given
due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his
presence cannot be doubted. His statement is
generally considered to be very reliable and it is
unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in
order to falsely implicate someone else. The
testimony of an injured witness has its own
relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at
the time and place of occurrence and this lends
support to his testimony that he was present during
the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. The
witness would not like or I want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third
person falsely for the commission of the offence.
Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection
of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions
and discrepancies therein”.

10. PW2 Ravinder has explained the manner in which he was
called by accused Sanjay @ Maila to reach at first pusta where he
and deceased Vijender were beaten mercilessly by accused
Sanjay @ Maila, Pradeep and Pawan. He categorically deposed
that on 22-11-2010 at about 9.30 p.m, he made a call to Sanjay
@Mela and asked him about the remaining amount, on this, he
told him to come at Pehla Pusta while saying “KE TERE PAISE
WAHI LAUTA DUNGA”. When he was leaving his house for

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 41 of 50
Pehla Pusta in the meantime, his younger brother namely
Vijender also accompanied him for First Pusta. They both
reached at First Pusta. On reaching there, they found accused
Sanjay @ Mela, Pradeep and one friend of Sanjay @ Mela
(accused Pawan) were present there. When he asked his
remaining amount from Sanjay @ Mela on this, he refused and
got annoyed and started scuffling with them. When he resisted, in
the meantime, Sanjay @ Mela and Pradeep took out knives and
attacked upon him with knives. He received knife blow given by
Pradeep on his right side forehead upto cheek. His brother
Vijender when tried to rescue him, brother was also attacked by
accused Sanjay @ Mela with knife and accused Sanjay @ Mela
gave knife blow on his neck (front portion ie. throat). The friend
of Sanjay @ Mela was also having Ustra with him at that time
and he was also attacking upon them with that Ustra. He
received Ustra injuries on his cheek and ear. After getting
released themselves from the accused persons, when they were
running from there towards their house and reached at the Chowk
of Gali no. 2 (in front of the house of Nepal Singh), they found
that accused Tilak, Bhawar Singh, Vijender @ Mota and Vicky
were standing there armed with lathi dandas and they restrained
them and started giving lathi dandas blows to them. While, the
abovesaid persons were giving beatings to them with lathi dandas
in the meantime, Deepak Bhati (who is the brother in law of his
brother) came there and tried to save them from them but the
abovesaid accused persons also gave beatings to him with lathi
dandas. His testimony is consistent with his statement Ex.
PW4/A, recorded by the IO prior to the registration of present
FIR. His presence at the Sushrut Trauma Center is corroborated

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 42 of 50
by PW8 HC Sukhpal, PW25 SI Satbir Singh and PW9 Ct. Sanuj.
DW2 Devender Kumar in cross FIR no. 363/2010, who is an
independent witness, has also supported the version of PW4 and
PW5 in the present case by testifying that accused Tilak,
Pradeep, Vicky and Sanjay, Bhanwar Singh were seen by him
beating Bijender.

11. PW4 had explained with clarity about the body part on
which he and deceased Vijender had sustained injuries due to
assault caused by all the accused persons. The testimony of PW4
is consistent with his MLC Ex. PW27/A, wherein following
injuries have been reported:-

1. Incised wound on right side of face expanding from eyebrow
to cheek.

2. small superficial incised wound 3 cm long on left cheek;

3. incised wound horizontal behind ear.

His testimony is also consistent with the MLC of Vijender
Ex.PW27/A wherein clean lacerated wound over neck (20 cm in
length x 0.5 cm extending from midline anterior to behind the
right ear) with active bleeding has been reported. Postmortem
report Ex. PW30/A also corroborates the version of victims
wherein the cause of death of deceased was opined as, “coma and
its complications due to cut throat injury” involving right carotid
vessels. It is proved that the deceased Vijender remained
admitted in Sushrut Trauma Center from the date of incident i.e.
22-11-2010 till his death i.e. 26-11-2010.

12. It is argued that cause of death of deceased Bijender is
doubtful as death summary report of Sushrut Trama Center Ex.
PW25/E wherein the cause of death is mentioned as “cardiac
arrest” is inconsistent with postmortem report Ex. PW30/A,

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 43 of 50
which mentions the cause of death as come and its complications
due to cut throat injuries. In this regard, it is pertinent to note
that autopsy surgeon has conducted detailed examination of the
dead body of the deceased, whereas death certificate Ex. PW25/E
was given only on the basis of general observations. As such, in
the opinion of this court, the contention regarding inconsistency
between the document Ex. PW25/E and Ex. PW30/A fails to
inspire the confidence of this court.

13. It is further argued that there are major discrepancies and
contradictions in the testimony of star witnesses of the
prosecution and therefore, the accused persons deserves benefit
of doubt. This court has already analyzed the testimony of star
witness of the prosecution. This court did not find any major
discrepancy in the testimony of victims i.e. PW4 Ravinder and
PW5 Deepak Bhati.

14. It is settled position in law that testimony of an eyewitness
is to be preferred to that of a medical/ forensic witness.
Reference may be made to State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13
SCC 542, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court told the position of
law thus:

“In any event, unless the oral evidence is totally
irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has
primacy.”

15. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer here the case of State of
H.P. v. Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43,
wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
that:-

“In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal
discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such
discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal
errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 44 of 50
such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the
like………

…….The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be
replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for
administering justice in a criminal trial.” Further, in the case of
Surender Singh v. State of Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC
645, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as
under :- “It is well-established principle of law that every
discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal
to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect
the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity.”

As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement
of the witnesses it is held in Ousu Varghese v. State of Kerala,
reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the
accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of
their testimony. In the case of Jagdish v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has
held that when the discrepancies were comparatively of minor
character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they
need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or
consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also
in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2
SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses
there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and
truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal
errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of
time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the
time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are
those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal
person.

(133) Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at
length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies.
No true witness can possibly escape from making some
discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored
can successfully make his testimony totally non discrepant. But
Courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in
evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of
his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling
in the narration of 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.
(134) The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to
why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the
judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of
Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC
7453 (1), the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons
as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements
occur in the testimonies of the witnesses:

(a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 45 of 50
photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It
is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.

(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by
events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence
which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties
therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

(e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of
an occurrence, usually people make their estimates by guess
work 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.

(f) 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.

(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed
by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination
made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get
confused regarding sequence of events, of 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 witnessed by
him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism
activated on the moment.

16. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the
case of Sonu Arora Vs. State on 21 July, 2010 in Crl. A. No.
241/1997 that:-

“If the discrepancies found in the testimony of a witness are
normal and attributable to loss of memory with the passage of
time or they are on matters which are peripheral or trivial, not
forming the core of the case, his testimony cannot be rejected on
account of such minor variations or infirmities. But, where the
contradiction relates to the main incident forming core part of
his testimony, that could depending upon the nature of the
contradiction and other facts and circumstances of the case,
seriously affect the credibility and truthfulness of the witness
since he is not expected to give contradictory version with

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 46 of 50
respect to the important material parts of the incident which he
claims to have witnessed.”

17. Further, it is well settled that testimony of hostile witness
cannot be discarded in toto. In the case of Khujji @ Surendra
Tiwari Vs. State of M.P, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1853, Hon’ble
Apex Court examined the evidentiary value of a hostile witness
and held that the evidence of a witness, declared hostile, is not
wholly effaced from record and that part of evidence, which is
otherwise acceptable can be acted upon. Hon’ble Apex Court
relying upon its previous decisions in Bhagwan Singh Vs. State
of Haryana, (1976) 2 SCR 921, Rabinder Kumar Dey Vs. State
of Orrisa (1976) 4 SCC and Sayed Akbar Vs. State of Karnataka
(1980) 1 SCR 95 held that the evidence of a prosecution witness
cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose
to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of
such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the
record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their
version found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
Merely because there are several inconsistencies in the version of
PW2 Satya Pal and PW3 Kiran Pal, in the present case, the entire
prosecution case cannot be thrown away.

18. No material contradiction/ discrepancy/ inconsistency has
been pointed out by the Ld. Defence counsel in the version of
PW4 Ravinder and PW5 Deepak Bhati which would have the
effect of discarding their testimonies in toto. In view of the law
as stated above, the contention regarding contradictions,
inconsistencies and discrepancies in the version of PW4 and
PW5 fails to inspire the confidence of this court.

19. It is argued vehemently that no independent witness was

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 47 of 50
got examined by the IO and therefore, prosecution case cannot be
relied upon. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that in the
present case, PW4 Ravinder and PW5 Deepak Bhati have been
cross-examined at length. There is nothing in their version to
indicate that any other independent witness apart from PW2
Satya Pal and PW3 Kiran Pal had seen the occurrence i.e. the
incident of assault being caused by the accused persons.

20. It is pertinent to mention that on the above-mentioned
aspect, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
judgment titled “Jhodha Sahney Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 2011
(1) Crimes 382”, as under:-

“7. The next ground taken by the Counsel for the appellant is
that no public witness was joined at the time of recovery. The
accused had started moving quickly towards the village on the
seeing police party and police party therefore stopped the
accused/appellant and checked his gunny bag. On checking it
was found that gunny bag held by the accused contained charas.
Merely because the police party did not associate public persons
in this “chance recovery” cannot be a ground to disbelieve the
case of prosecution. Moreover, there is normal tendency of
public persons not to associate themselves with police
investigation as the investigation and the trials in this country
are the source of great harassment to the witnesses who are often
not taken care of by the Courts or by the police. The witnesses
are normally scared to join any investigation or give testimony
even of what they have witnessed in broad daylight because of
the repeated summoning in the Courts and sending them
unexamined in a routine and casual manner by the Courts.”

21. Dealing with the aspect of reluctance of the public persons
to join the police proceedings, this Court in Jawahar vs. State
(2007) ILR 2 Delhi 146 observed as under:-

“As far as non association of public witnesses at the time of
recovery is concerned, I consider that this is not an infirmity
sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution. It is very hard
these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal
investigation. Investigation itself is a tedious process and a
public witness, who is associated, has to spend hours at the spot.
Normally, nobody from public is prepared to suffer any

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 48 of 50
inconvenience for the sake of society. The other reason for the
public witness not readily agreeing to associate with
investigation is harassment of public witness that takes place in
the courts. Normally a public witness should be called once to
depose in the court and his testimony should be recorded and he
should be discharged. But experience shows that adjournments
are given even in criminal cases on all excuses and if
adjournments are not given, it is considered as a breach of the
right of hearing of the accused. These adjournments are
specifically taken by counsels for accused persons, when
witnesses are present, just to see that witnesses get harassed by
calling them time and again. The excuses normally given in the
courts are; the counsel having urgent personal work, left the
court; death of some near relatives etc; the counsel being busy in
arguing other matter in other court or cross examining other
witness in some other court. This attitude of the courts of
sending witness back is a major cause of harassment which
discourages public from associating in the investigation of any
case. Since the police is faced with this handicap, the police
cannot be blamed for not associating public witness. There is no
presumption that the police witnesses are not credible witnesses.
The testimony of every witness, whether from public or police,
has to be judged at its own merits and the court can believe or
disbelieve a police witness considering the intrinsic value of his
testimony. Police witnesses are equally good witnesses and
equally bad witnesses as any other witness and the testimony of
police witness cannot be rejected on the ground that they are
official witnesses”.

Thus, the contention regarding non-joining of independent
public witnesses raised by the Ld. Defence counsel fails to
inspire confidence of this court.

22. However, it is noted that there is nothing on record to
indicate that there was any agreement or conspiracy between the
accused persons prior to commission of alleged offence and
therefore, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has
failed to establish the offence of conspiracy between the accused
persons. It is established from the version of PW4 Ravinder that
accused persons were armed with weapons i.e. knife and ustra
when PW4 Ravinder reached at the place of incident on being
called by accused Sanjay @ Maila in the first episode of assault.

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 49 of 50

Even in the second episode of assault, both PW4 Ravinder had
claimed that accused Tilak, Bhanwar Singh, Bijender @ Mota
and Vicky were armed with lathis and dandas prior to his
reaching at gali no. 2, in front of house of Nepal Singh, thus, it is
established that all the accused persons were having the
necessary mens-rea i.e. intention to carry out murder, assault
upon the victim Bijender (deceased) and Ravinder.
DECISION OF THE COURT

23. In the opinion of this court, the testimony of prosecution
witnesses comes out to be clear, convincing, trustworthy and
inspires confidence of this court. Nothing material came out in
their respective cross-examination. There is no reason to
disbelieve the version of prosecution witnesses. All the
ingredients of section u/s 302/307/323/34 of IPC are satisfied.
Accordingly, accused Pradeep, Bhanwar Singh, Tilak Singh and
Pawan @ Pappu are hereby convicted for the offences punishable
under section 302/307/323/34 of IPC. Let the convicts be heard
on the quantum of sentence and grant of compensation on the
next date of hearing.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
ON 21-01-2025

(PANKAJ ARORA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-04: NORTH-EAST/
KARKARDOOMA/ 21-01-2025

FIR No. 362/10 State Vs. Sanjay Etc. Page 50 of 50