State vs Vijay on 12 July, 2025

Delhi District Court

State vs Vijay on 12 July, 2025

        IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
  ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02), SOUTH-EAST
         SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI




CNR No: DLSE010077232017
Session Case No.430/2017
FIR No.250/2017
Police Station: Govind Puri

State


Versus

1. Vijay
Son of Bittoo
Resident of House No.24, Rampuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.


2. Aman Poddar
Son of Dharmender Poddar,
Resident of House No.1408/13,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.

(Proceedings against him abated on 05.06.2025)

                                                   ..........Accused persons




FIR No.250/2017       PS Govind Puri   State vs. Vijay & Anr.   Page 1 of 92
 Date of Institution                       :          23.09.2017
Judgment reserved on                      :          05.06.2025
Date of Decision                          :          12.07.2025

JUDGMENT

1. A police report was put up by the State through
officer-in-charge of the police station Govind Puri before the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take
cognizance of offences under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC‘) against the accused persons,
namely, Vijay and Aman Poddar for having committed the said
offence.

2. As per the police report, on 27.06.2017, this case
FIR was registered against the accused persons, namely, Vijay
and Aman in police station Govind Puri for the offence
punishable under sections 307/34 IPC.

3. As per the police report, on 26.06.2017, upon reecipt
of DD No.55A regarding stabbing of brother of the caller at
H.No.1196/13, Govind Puri, Sub-Inspector Rajender along with
Constable Jaivir had reached the spot where blood was spread
inside the shop and broken glass bottle of soft drink was found
and in the meantime, Head Constable Rajender had arrived at the
spot, who was left at the spot to preserve it, and Sub-Inspector
Rajender informed the control-room to send the crime-team to
the spot.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 2 of 92

4. It is further reported in the police report that Sub-
Inspector Rajender along with Constable Jaivir had left for
AIIMS Trauma Center, where the injured Deepak was found
under treatment; that after some time, Sub-Inspector Rajender
collected the MLC No.500031484/17 of the injured Deepak, and
as per the MLC, the injured was declared ‘unfit for statement’;
Ronak, brother of the injured, was present with the injured, and
Sub-Inspector Rajender got his statement recorded.

5. It is further reported in the police report that it is,
inter-alia, stated by the complainant in his statement that he lived
with his family at the above-mentioned address and ran a grocery
shop; that his brother Deepak used to run a shop in the name of
Deepak Store at Shop No.1196/13 Govind Puri; that his brother
Deepak was having an argument with his friend Aman Poddar
who lives in gali no.13, Govind Puri and Vijay Bhange, who is
son of Battu, regarding taking goods on credit from the shop for
the past few days.

6. It is further stated by the complainant that on
26.06.2017 at about quarter to ten O’clock in the night, Aman and
Vijay had come to the shop and at that time, he (complainant)
was standing outside the shop in the gali and after 5-7 minutes,
Aman and Vijay had come out of the shop and run towards the
Transit Camp; that he had seen that the clothes of both of them
were soaked in blood; that on his asking them as to what
happened, they had told him to go inside the shop and take care

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 3 of 92
of his brother as they had killed his brother that day; that he
immediately had gone inside the shop and saw that there was
blood all over the shop and his brother Deepak was lying
unconscious inside the shop.

7. It is further stated by the complainant that in the
meanwhile, his neighbour Pankaj had arrived and had taken his
brother to AIIMS Trauma Center and he had gone to his home
and then he also along with his mother had reached at Trauma
Center; that after some time, he had seen that Vijay and Aman
had also come to Trauma Center and after some time you (SI
Rajender) had also come to Trauma Center. It is further stated by
the complainant that he had pointed out towards Aman and Vijay
and told that those were the persons who had, in furtherance of
their common intention, tried to kill his brother, therefore,
appropriate action as per law be taken against them.

8. It is further reported in the police report that from
the statement of the complainant and the circumstances and
perusal of MLC, the offence under section 307 read with section
34 IPC has been made out and SI Rajender had prepared rukka,
sent it through Constable Jaivir, got a case registered under those
sections, and further investigation was taken up by SI Rajender
himself.

9. It is further reported in the police report that SI
Rajender had got the bloodstained clothes of the accused persons

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 4 of 92
Aman and Vijay changed at the AIIMS Trauma Centre and seized
the bloodstained clothes worn at the time of the incident.

10. It is further reported in the police report that at
AIIMS Trauma Centre, the doctor had handed over a pullanda
which was sealed with the seal of CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND and
a sample seal to Sub-Inspector Rajender and told that in that
bundle there were bloodstained clothes of the injured Deepak @
Pankaj @ Gandhi; SI Rajender had seized the pullanda and
sample seal.

11. It is further reported in the police report that the
accused persons involved in the commission of the offence, as
informed by the complainant, whose names and addresses were
revealed to be Vijay son of Bittu resident of H.No.24 Rampuri,
Kalkaji, New Delhi and Aman son of Dharmender resident of
H.No.1408/13, Govinapuri, New Delhi were kept under the
surveillance of constable Rajjo Singh.

12. It is further reported in the police report that during
the investigation, SI Rajender Kumar had inspected the spot at
the instance of the complainant, and prepared the site-plan.

13. It is further reported in the police report that upon
interrogation by SI Rajender Kumar, the age of the accused
Aman was revealed to be less than 18 years, on which SI
Rajender Kumar had called CWPO SI Ajit Singh and father of
CCL to the spot, and in the presence of CWPO SI Ajit Singh and

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 5 of 92
Dharmender, father of CCL, CCL Aman and the accused Vijay
were interrogated, who had admitted to have committed the the
offence in the present case.

14. It is further reported in the police report that Sub-
Inspector Rajender had apprehended CCL Aman in the present
case, and completed the documents and arrested the accused
Vijay and completed the documents related to the arrest.

15. It is further reported in the police report that during
the investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender had prepared separate
memos of the blood-soaked clothes of each of the accused
persons and seized them.

16. It is further reported in the police report that during
investigation, the accused Vijay had pointed out the place of
incident and disclosed that it was the same place where they had
a fight and Aman had stabbed Deepak in the neck with a Pepsi
bottle kept in the shop, and separate pointing out memo of the
spot of incident was prepared.

17. It is further reported in the police report that during
investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender found broken glass bottles
of Pepsi and Slice and some broken pieces of glass bottles inside
the shop which had blood on them, and he put the broken glass
bottles of Pepsi and Slice and the pieces in a plastic box and
closed the lid of the plastic box and sealed the box with doctor

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 6 of 92
tape and sealed it with the seal of ‘RK’, and taken the sealed box
into police custody as evidence in the case.

18. It is further reported in the police report during
investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender had collected the blood on
the stairs with the help of white cotton and put the blood soaked
cotton in an empty envelope and blood was also found inside the
shop as well which was collected on a stick covered with cotton
and put it into a khaki envelope and both the envelopes were
sealed with the seal of ‘RK’ and the envelope containing blood
picked up from the stairs was given Mark A and the envelope
containing blood picked up from inside the shop was given Mark
B and both the envelopes were seized.

19. It is further reported in the police report that during
the investigation, Sub-Inspector Rajender had enquired about the
CCTV camera installed around the spot and there was a Gupta
Mobile Store located next to the shop of the injured Deepak,
whose house number was 1197/13, Govind Puri which has a
camera installed on the opposite side of its shop, towards Sony
Jewellers; that Sub-Inspector Rajender had called the shopkeeper
of Gupta Mobile Store to the spot and the owner of Gupta Mobile
Store, Sanju Gupta had come to the spot, and Sub-Inspector
Rajender had joined him in the investigation of the present case
and checked the CCTV footage of the camera installed in his
shop and in the footage, the gate of the shop of the injured could
be seen opening and closing; that first, two boys could be seen

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 7 of 92
coming out of the shop of the injured and after some time,
another boy had come out who had fallen down near the stairs,
who appears to be the injured in the present case; that the counter
and goods inside the shop were kept in such a way that entry and
exit inside the shop was possible only from the right side, which
was covered by the CCTV camera.

20. It is further reported in the police report that Sub-
Inspector Rajender had asked the owner of the mobile shop,
Sanju Gupta to provide the DVR installed in his shop, who while
presenting the DVR-UC-AHD 404N installed in his shop to Sub-
Inspector Rajender, told that he had not tampered with whatever
data was inside it, and Sub-Inspector Rajender had seized the
aforesaid DVR as evidence in the case and a certificate under
section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in this regard was also
collected by Sub-Inspector Rajender, which was attached filed
and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.

21. It is further reported in the police report that the
accused Vijay was produced in the Court and sent to judicial
custody, and CCL Aman was produced before the JJB-II, Delhi
Gate and sent to Observation Home and the case property was
deposited in the Malkhana.

22. It is further reported in the police report that Krishan
had admitted the injured Deepak Gandhi in AIIMS Trauma
Centre, and in haste and panic, he had written the name of the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 8 of 92
injured as Pankaj Gandhi, whereas, the name of the injured was
Deepak Gandhi.

23. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, on 28.06.2017, an information was
received from AIIMS Trauma Centre vide DD No.15A at the
police station concerned that the injured Deepak, who was
admitted vide MLC No.50031484/17, had died during treatment;
upon receiving such information, Sub-Inspector Rajender had
reached AIIMS Trauma, and got the dead-body preserved in the
mortuary of AIIMS Hospital and added section 302 IPC in the
present case and further investigation of the case was handed
over to Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj.

24. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the investigating officer along with
his staff had reached Mortuary, AIIMS Hospital, where brother of
the deceased, Raunak and his cousin, Manoj Kumar had met
them at the mortuary; later, the investigating officer had got the
dead body of the deceased identified by his family members,
whose statements regarding identification was recorded
separately and inquest papers were prepared and the
circumstances of the case were explained to the autopsy
surgeon/doctor, and a request for conducting the postmortem of
the dead-body of the deceased Deepak @ Gandhi was made.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 9 of 92

25. It is further reported in the police report that the
doctor had conducted the postmortem of the deceased Deepak @
Gandhi vide PM No.TC-333/17 and after postmortem of the dead
body, the doctor handed over the exhibits, namely, one plastic
bottle sealed with the seal of JPNATC AIIMS, Forensic Medicine
New Delhi containing nail clippings of both hands, one paper
envelope sealed with the seal of JPNATC AIIMS, forensic
Medicine, New Delhi containing blood in gauze and two sample
seals were also taken into possession as per the procedure, and
the above exhibits were seized and on postmortem report, the
doctor has given his opinion which is in the form of
“Hemorrhagic shock via injury no. (1) cause by sharp edge
weapon/object which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature. Injury no.(2) (3) are caused by blunt
force/impact all injuries are ante-mortem in nature.”

26. It is further reported in the police report that the
investigating officer had handed over the dead-body to the family
members of the deceased for last rites vide handing over receipt
and exhibits were deposited in malkhana and statement of the
witnesses were recorded.

27. It is further reported in the police report that during
the investigation, the investigating officer along with staff
reached JJB where the Court declared CCL Aman @ Toshant
Poddar as Major, thereafter, Aman @ Toshant Poddar has been
apprehended in FIR No.377/16, u/s 395/412/34 IPC, PS-O.L.A.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 10 of 92
New Delhi and his date of birth was 12.06.1999; that the JJB
ordered to produce the Aman @ Toshant Poddar in the Court on
29.06.2017; the investigating officer obtained the copy of such
order.

28. It is further reported in the police report that on
29.06.2017, the investigating officer along with his staff had
reached Saket Courts, where the accused Aman @ Toshant
Poddar was being produced before the Court and the
investigating officer, after taking permission from the Court, for
interrogation and formal arrest of the accused, interrogated the
accused Aman and recorded his separate disclosure statement and
arrested the accused Aman in the present case and after
producing the accused Aman in the Court, production warrant
was obtained for 03.07.2017 for taking fingerprints of the
accused Aman and after producing the accused in the Court, he
was sent to judicial custody and statement of the witnesses were
recorded.

29. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the investigating officer had collected
the date of birth certificate of the accused Vijay and got it
verified by Sub-Registrar birth & death, Central Zone, Lajpat
Nagar, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi, which
was found correct.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 11 of 92

30. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, on 02.08.2017, the investigating
officer had collected one sealed plastic container containing
broken bottle of cold drink (Pepsi & Slice) and some pieces of
glass having blood stains sealed with the seal of “RK” and
deposited in the malkhana of the police station vide RC No.
126/21/17 from MHCM (CP) and got the exhibits submitted
along with the R/C and MLC in the AIIMS Trauma Centre
Mortuary, New Delhi for opinion.

31. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the mother of the deceased Smt.
Manju Devi leveled allegations under SC/ST Act against the
accused Aman and his brother Deepak and lodged a complaint at
the police station; an enquiry was conducted in this regard and
the statement of Smt. Manju Devi was obtained, and the caste
certificate given by Smt. Manju Devi was verified and found to
be correct; the statement given by Smt. Manju Devi was different
from the facts of the present FIR, hence, its verification was
being done.

32. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the investigating officer had made
inquiries from the accused Deepak and his friends and on
interrogation, Deepak told that he lived at the above mentioned
address with his family and on 26.06.2016 was Meethi Eid; that
on that day, he had left his house at around 12.00 noon and

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 12 of 92
reached the house of his friend Intaff S/o Jamen Khan R/o H. No.
1620, 2nd Floor, Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi and from
there, he had gone to Subway Restaurant Kalkaji at about 01.00
p.m. on the same day with his friend Intaff; that they ate biryani
there and thereafter that they stayed at Giani Ice Cream Kalkaji,
2nd Gol Chakkar from 2.00 p.m. to 3-3:30 p.m. and from there,
he came to Intaff’s house and ate Khor Biryani; that after that he
and Intaff stayed at the house of their friend Shom Rawat S/o
Kirath Singh R/o 261, Bal Mukund Khurd, Giri Nagar, Delhi and
their friend Nitin S/o Rajender R/o H. No. 1334A, Gali No. 8,
Govind Puri. New Delhi, who was studying BBA in Ballabhgarh
had also come there; that from there they had gone to Laziz
Dhaba Amar Colony at around 08.00 p.m. and stayed there till
around 10:30 p.m. and after that, he had come to his home; that
on coming there, they had come to know that Gandhi had been
murdered; that the accused Deepak had told that he was not
connected with that murder, neither he had gone to Gandhi’s
house on the day of murder on Eid; that he was falsely implicated
and neither had he used caste-related words against Deepak @
Gandhi.” It is further reported in the police report that after
giving appropriate warning to Deepak, he was relieved from the
investigation and the facts told by Deepak were verified and were
being checked and corroborated with the CDR of Deepak and his
friends.

33. It is further reported in the police report that Bitto,
the father of the accused Vijay had come to the police station and

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 13 of 92
presented his caste certificate to the investigating officer, and
according to the caste certificate, the accused Vijay belonged to
Balmiki (SC/ST) caste, which was attached and the caste
certificate was verified which was found to be correct.

34. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, on 22.08.2017, the investigating
officer had obtained the result of fingerprints from SCRB, Kamla
Market, New Delhi on which it was opined “1. Chance print
market Q1 is partial print, hence this cannot be searched on the
record of the Bureau. 2. Chance print marked Q2 is partial &
smudged and does not disclose sufficient number of ridge detail
in their relative positions for comparison, hence it is Unfit for
comparison/search”, which result was attached with file, and the
fingerprints of the accused persons Aman Poddar and Vijay were
sent separately to the fingerprint bureau for tallying.

35. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation on 06.09.2017, the investigating
officer got the scaled site-plan of the spot prepared from the
draughtsman, and after obtaining the scaled site-plan, he had
attached with the file.

36. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the investigating officer had received
the opinion along with exhibits, MLC and postmortem report
from mortuary, AIIMS Trauma Centre and the opinion given by

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 14 of 92
doctor was noted as “On perusal of the above documents, I am of
the considered opinion that injuries mentioned in MLC
500031484/2017, dated 26.06.2017 could be possible by
submitted weapon of offence.”

37. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the accused Vijay and Aman had
disclosed in the disclosure statements that they had attacked the
deceased Deepak Gandhi with a cold drinks bottle i.e. fact of
disclosure has been corroborated by the opinion regarding
weapon of offence by the autopsy surgeon now, and hence, the
fact was re-prospectively established discovered subsequent to
disclosure, and the investigating officer deposited the case
property in the Malkhana.

38. It is further reported in the police report that during
the course of investigation, the exhibits collected in the present
case by the investigating officer were submitted vide R/C
No.145/21/17 to FSL Rohini on 21.09.2017 and the DVR seized
in the present case was being sent to FSL which would be sent
after the inquiry of SC/ST Act and investigation about Pankaj
would be completed and based on the outcome of the inquiry, a
separate supplementary police report would be filed in the Court.

39. It is further reported in the police report that the
aforesaid acts on the part of the accused persons, Vijay and Aman
Poddar revealed commission of offences punishable under

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 15 of 92
sections 307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is,
therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offence committed by
accused persons, Vijay and Aman Poddar may be taken and they
should be tried as per the provisions of law.

40. After completion of the investigation, the
investigating officer had filed the police report before the
concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.

41. On 19.09.2018, when this case was at the stage of
prosecution evidence, a supplementary police report was put up
by the State through officer-in-charge of the police station
Govindpuri.

42. It is reported in the supplementary police report that
in continuation of the main police report, the following exhibits
were sent to the FSL, Rohini for expert opinion;

Parcel 1: One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal
of “RK” containing exhibits ‘la’ and “1b’ described as
clothes of accused/ injured Vijay.

Exhibit 1a: One Jeans pant’s having brown stains.
Exhibit 1b: One T-shirt having brown stains.

Parcel 2: One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal
of “RK” containing exhibits “2a’ and ‘2b’ described as
clothes of accused/ injured Aman.

Exhibit 2a: One pant’s having brown stains.

Exhibit 2: One Cut/ torn shirt having brown stains.
Parcel 3: One sealed plastic container sealed with the
seal of “FORENSIC MEDICINE JPNATC AIIMS
NEW DELHI” containing exhibit ‘3″.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 16 of 92

Exhibit 3: Broken pieces of glass bottle having brown
stains described as broken bottle of cold drink (Pepsi
and slice) and some pieces of glass having brown
stains.

Parcel 4: Sealed brown envelope sealed with the seal
of “RK” containing exhibit “4”.

Exhibit 4: Cotton wool swab having brown stains
described as blood in gauze as marked ‘A’ blood lift
from the stairs.

Parcel 5: One sealed brown envelope sealed with the
seal of “RK” containing exhibit ‘5’.

Exhibit 5: Cotton wool swah.on a stick described as
blood in gauze as marked ‘B’ blood lift from inside the
shop.

Parcel 6: One sealed plastic bag sealed with the seal of
“CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND” containing exhibit ‘6’.
Exhibit 6: One cut/ torn damp T-shirt having foul
smelling having brown stains described as clothes of
injured Deepak @ Pankaj Gandhi.

Parcel 7: One sealed vial sealed with the seal of “CMO
AIIMS HOPT ND” containing exhibit ‘7″.

Exhibit 7: One blood vial having dark brown liquid
described as blood in gauze of injured CCL Aman.

43. It is further reported in the supplementary police
report that FSL Result/opinion had been received in that regard
from FSL, Rohini and the same was attached therewith.

44. It is further reported in the supplementary police
report that Ms. Soni Khampa, Jr. Forensic/ Chemical Examiner
(Biology) Forensic Science Laboratory Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi, Madhuban Chowk, Rohini, New Delhi has
given the following result of DNA examination:

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 17 of 92

1. Male DNA profile were generated from the
source of exhibit ‘la’, ‘b’, ‘2a’, ‘2b’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’ and
‘7’.

2. DNA profile could not be generated from the
source of exhibit ‘6’ which may be due to
degradation of sample.

45. It is further reported in the supplementary police
report that Ms. Soni Khampa has given the conclusion that:

DNA Profile STR analysis were performed on exhibits
‘la’, ‘lb’, ‘2’, ’26’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’ and ‘7’ were sufficient to
conclude that the DNA profile generated from the source
of exhibit “la’ and ‘Ib’ is found to be similar with DNA
profile generated from the source of exhibit ‘3’, ‘4’ and
‘5’. DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit
“2a’, ’26” and ‘7’ is found be similar with each other.

46. On the police report, on 23.09.2017, the
Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offence.

47. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused
persons were also produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Copies of police report and other documents were supplied to the
accused persons.

48. On 07.10.2017, the Metropolitan Magistrate found
the offence to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session and
therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.

49. On 03.01.2018, upon considering the police report
and the documents sent with it under section 173 Cr.P.C. and
after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 18 of 92
accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused
persons, namely, Vijay and Aman Poddar for their having
committed offence punishable under section 302/34, the Indian
Penal Code.

50. The charge was read over and explained to the
accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the
offence charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did
not plead guilty and claim trial.

51. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined
PW1 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Roop Singh, PW2 Ronak
(complainant), PW3 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Inderjit
Singh, PW4 Sanju Gupta, PW5 Smt. Manju, PW6 Dr. Om
Prakash, Senior Resident, General Surgery, AIIMS, New Delhi,
PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, SR, Department of Forensic Medicine and
Toxicology, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, PW8 Assistant
Sub-Inspector (ASI) Devanand, PW9 Head Constable (HC)
Madan, PW10 Constable (Ct.) Dharmender, PW11 Constable
(Ct.) Deep Ram, PW12 Head Constable (HC) Ajit, PW13 Head
Constable (HC) Soran Singh, PW14 Sub-Inspector (SI) Chetram,
PW15 Sub-Inspector (SI) Ajit Singh, PW16 Constable (Ct.)
Jaibir, PW17 Constable (Ct.) Puneet Singh, PW18 Inspector
Mukesh Kumar Jain, PW19 Sub-Inspector (SI) Raju, PW20 Sub-
Inspector (SI) Rajendra Kumar, PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj, PW22 Ms. Soni Khampha, Jr. Forensic/Chemical
Examiner, Biology, FSL, Rohini, New Delhi, PW23 Assistant

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 19 of 92
Sub-Inspector (ASI) Rajender Prasad, PW24 Rajender Singh,
Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, PW25 Head
Constable (HC) Ajay, PW26 Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI)
Yadvir, PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, AIIMS Trauma
Center, New Delhi, PW28 Dr. Mehul K, Senior Resident,
Department of Emergency Medicine AIIMS Trauma Centre, New
Delhi, PW29 Head Constable (HC) Shish Ram and PW30 Head
Constable (HC) Dharamvir Yadav. During the examination of the
prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B,
Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A,
Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A,
Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A,
Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/D,
Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B,
Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW16/D,
Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H, Ex.PW17/A,
Ex.PW17/B-1 to Ex.PW17/B-7, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A,
Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C,
Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C,
Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B,
Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C,
Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C, Ex.PW29/A
Ex.PW30/A; and ‘Pullanda’ Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 were also
tendered in evidence.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 20 of 92

52. On 07.04.2025 prosecution evidence was closed and
matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under
section 313 Cr.P.C and for their statement.

53. On 08.05.2025, this Court examined the accused
persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statements
were recorded. During their examination under section 313 of
Cr.P.C., the accused persons, namely, Vijay and Aman Poddar
denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing
in the evidence against them. During the examination under
section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused Vijay took the defence that
that he has been falsely implicated in the present case since
deceased and his family were owing money to him which they
had to pay. It is further stated that after the death of the deceased,
his family members falsely implicated him in order to avoid
paying his money back and he did not commit any offence.

54. During the examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
the accused Aman took the defence that he has been falsely
implicated in the present case since the deceased and his family
were owing money to Vijay which they Vijay had to pay. It is
further stated that since he was with Vijay on the intervening
night of 26/27.06.2017, he was made a scapegoat in this case and
he did not commit any such offence as charged.

55. Both the accused persons expressed their desire not
to lead evidence in their defence.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 21 of 92

56. I have heard Mr. Jagdamba Pandey, Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Anil Kumar Verma,
Advocate for the accused Vijay and Mr. Anunay Sahay, Advocate
for the accused Aman and have gone through the record of the
case carefully.

57. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of
PW1 ASI Roop Singh, PW2 Ronak, PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh,
PW4 Sanju Gupta, PW5 Smt. Manju, PW6 Dr. Om Prakash,
PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, PW8 ASI Devanand, PW9 HC Madan,
PW10 Ct. Dharmender, PW11 Ct. Deep Ram, PW12 HC Ajit,
PW13 HC Soran Singh, PW14 SI Chetram, PW15 SI Ajit Singh,
PW16 Ct. Jaibir, PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh, PW18 Inspector
Mukesh Kumar Jain, PW19 SI Raju, PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar,
PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj, PW22 Ms. Soni Khampha,
PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad, PW24 Rajender Singh, PW25 HC
Ajay, PW26 ASI Yadvir, PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, PW28
Dr. Mehul K, PW29 HC Shish Ram and PW30 HC Dharamvir
Yadav, and the documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A,
Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B,
Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B,
Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A,
Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW14/A,
Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW15/A, Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW16/A,
Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E,
Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H, Ex.PW17/A,
Ex.PW17/B-1 to Ex.PW17/B-7, Ex.PW18/A, Ex.PW19/A,

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 22 of 92
Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, Ex.PW20/C,
Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/C,
Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW24/A, Ex.PW24/B,
Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B, Ex.PW26/C,
Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C, Ex.PW29/A
Ex.PW30/A, and ‘Pullanda’ Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4, the
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that the
prosecution has been successful in proving beyond a reasonable
doubt the commission of the offence by the accused persons. It
is further submitted that PW5 Smt. Manju has been successful in
proving that on 26.06.2017 at about 07.30 p.m., the accused
persons had taken the deceased along with them by calling him
from their house. It is further submitted that CCTV camera was
installed in the adjoining shop of PW5 Sanju Gupta which was
partially covering the shop of the deceased, where the incident
had happened, and footage seized by the investigating officer
shows that two persons were going in the shop at 09.17 p.m., and
coming out at 09.53 p.m., followed by one person seems to be in
injured condition. It is further submitted that the present case was
registered on the complaint of one Raunak, brother of the
deceased, who had seen the accused persons with bloodstained
clothes in the hospital and his such testimony has remained intact
during cross-examination. It is further submitted that the
bloodstained clothes of accused persons have been identified by
the investigating officer and the said clothes were sent to FSL for
matching the blood found on the clothes of the accused with the
blood of the deceased. It is further submitted that the FSL result

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 23 of 92
has been proved by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa, and according to
the FSL result blood of the deceased was found on the clothes of
the accused Vijay. It is further submitted that the cumulative
circumstances indicate the guilt of the accused.

58. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused Vijay has
drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 ASI Roop Singh,
PW2 Ronak, PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh, PW4 Sanju Gupta, PW5
Smt. Manju, PW6 Dr. Om Prakash, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, PW8
ASI Devanand, PW9 HC Madan, PW10 Ct. Dharmender, PW11
Ct. Deep Ram, PW12 HC Ajit, PW13 HC Soran Singh, PW14 SI
Chetram, PW15 SI Ajit Singh, PW16 Ct. Jaibir, PW17 Ct. Puneet
Singh, PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain, PW19 SI Raju,
PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar, PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj,
PW22 Ms. Soni Khampha, PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad, PW24
Rajender Singh, PW25 HC Ajay, PW26 ASI Yadvir, PW27
Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, PW28 Dr. Mehul K, PW29 HC Shish
Ram and PW30 HC Dharamvir Yadav, and the documents
Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C,
Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B,
Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C, Ex.PW8/A,
Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW13/A,
Ex.PW13/D, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW14/B, Ex.PW15/A,
Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW16/B, Ex.PW16/C,
Ex.PW16/D, Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H,
Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW17/B-1 to Ex.PW17/B-7, Ex.PW18/A,
Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B,

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 24 of 92
Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B,
Ex.PW21/C, Ex.PW21/D, Ex.PW22/A, Ex.PW24/A,
Ex.PW24/B, Ex.PW24/C, Ex.PW26/A, Ex.PW26/B,
Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/C,
Ex.PW29/A Ex.PW30/A, and ‘Pullanda’ Ex.P1, Ex.P3 and
Ex.P4, and the law laid down the judgments Takhaji Hiraji v.
Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 145,
Jasbir Singh v. State (2022) 291 DLT 232, Krishan Kumar Malik
v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130, Sunil Kumar
Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC
657, Geeta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2010) 13 SCC
678, Birappa and Another v. State of Karnataka (2010) 12 SCC
182 and submitted that the spot where the incident had happened
is thickly populated area, however, the prosecution has not
produced any eye-witness. It is further submitted that PW
Raunak is an interesting witness being brother of the deceased. It
is further submitted that the cctv footage shows the feet only of
the assailants. It is further submitted that as per the testimonies
of PW5, his mother had not gone with Raunak. It is further
submitted that the prosecution has failed to examine the material
witnesses. It is further submitted that there are material
contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. It
is further submitted that infact, the accused Vijay had lent money
to the deceased.

59. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
submissions made on behalf of the parties.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 25 of 92

60. The accused persons have been charged for the
offence punishable under sections 302/34 I.P.C. Section 302 IPC
provides for punishment of murder. Whereas, the offence of
murder has been defined under section 300 IPC. Sections 300
and 34 IPC read as follows: –

“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, if-

Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offence 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 it 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.”

34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention.–When a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of the common intention of
all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone.

61. The facts of the case have already been noticed
earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has
been adduced by the prosecution.

62. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution had examined thirty (30) witnesses.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 26 of 92

63. PW1 ASI Roop Singh has deposed that in the
intervening night of 26/27.06.2017, he was working as ASI and
was on duty at police station Govind Puri as duty officer from
12:00 a.m to 08:00 a.m. and at around 12:45 a.m., Ct. Jaibir had
produced one rukka sent by SI Rajender for registration of the
FIR. It is further deposed by PW1 ASI Roop Singh that on the
basis of said rukka, he had registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A)
bearing his name at point A, through Computer Operator. During
his evidence, PW1 ASI Roop Singh has brought the original FIR
register. It is further deposed by PW1 ASI Roop Singh that he
had also made the endoresment to that effect along with his
signature at point A on the rukka (Ex.PW1/B). It is further
deposed by PW1 ASI Roop Singh that the further investigation
was handed over to SI Rajender.

64. PW2 Ronak has deposed that on 26.06.2017, at
around 09:45 p.m., he was present in the street near his shop at
1196/13, Govind Puri in the name and style of Deepak Store
which was run by him and his brother Deepak (deceased). It is
further deposed by PW2 Ronak that Aman and Vijay used to visit
their shop to purchase goods and they had some quarrel on the
issue of payment pending with them quite often prior to the date
of incident. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that in that night,
he had seen the accused persons Vijay and Aman going towards
Transit Camp and on his query, they had told him that they had
killed his brother and their clothes were having bloodstains. It is
further deposed by PW2 Ronak that he had immediately reached

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 27 of 92
his shop, and found his brother lying in pool of blood on the
floor. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that his neighbours
had taken his brother to Trauma Center, and he had gone to his
house and reached at Trauma Center along with his mother as he
was under the trauma. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that
police officials were present in the hospital, and both the accused
persons were also there, and he had pointed out and identified
them and police officials had apprehended them. It is further
deposed by PW2 Ronak that police officials had recorded his
statement (Ex.PW2/A). It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that
his brother had passed away in the hospital on the next day. It is
further deposed by PW2 Ronak that he had identified the dead-
body of his brother Deepak in the mortuary of the hospital vide
memo (Ex.PW2/B). It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that
after the postmortem, body was handed over to his family
members vide handing over memo (Ex.PW2/C). PW2 Ronak has
correctly identified both the accused Vijay and Aman during his
evidence.

65. During his cross-examination, PW2 Ronak has,
inter-alia, deposed that on the day of incident, he had not seen the
accused Vijay while entering the shop and there was no servant
in the shop and the shop used to open at 06.00 a.m. and close at
11.00 p.m. It is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that Pankaj has
taken his brother to Hospital and he did not meet Pankaj on the
day of incident, and he has again stated that he could not
recollect whether he met Pankaj on the day of incident or not. It

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 28 of 92
is further deposed by PW2 Ronak that the incident had not taken
place in his presence. It is admitted by PW2 Ronak that five
persons had come to his house on the day of incident as that was
told to him by his mother and he was not at home. It is further
deposed by PW2 Ronak that Aman, Vijay and Sunny had come to
his house on that day.

66. PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh has deposed that on
28.06.2017, he was working as ASI and was on duty at police
station Govind Puri as duty officer from 08:00 a.m. to 04:00 p.m.
It is further deposed by PW3 ASI Inderjit Singh that at around
08:30 a.m., one call was received from Trauma Center, AIIMS
which he had recorded vide DD No.15A dated 28.06.2017
(Ex.PW3/A).

67. PW4 Sanju Gupta has deposed that on 26.06.2017,
he was present in his shop at 1197/13, Govind Puri, Kalkaji, New
Delhi and he was taking a walk due to gas in his stomach at
around 9:00 p.m. near his shop and after the walk, he had gone
back to the shop. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that
at around 9:15-9:20 p.m., he had heard the noise of commotion,
and come out of the shop and found people were standing in
front of shop of Deepak. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju
Gupta that the shutter of the shop of Deepak was closed when he
was having the walk. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta
that he had installed CCTV at his shop and also towards outside
on the road. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that on the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 29 of 92
next morning, police officials had come to his shop, and taken his
DVR with them and they had not displayed the DVR in his
presence at his shop. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta
that the DVR was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW4/A) bearing
his signature at point A. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju
Gupta that he had also given a certificate (Ex.PW4/B) under
section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act to the investigating officer.
It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that he had not
tampered with the DVR or its contents. During his deposition,
PW4 Sanju Gupta correctly identified the case property i.e. DVR
(Ex.P-1).

68. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that
Deepak had come out from his shop and started abusing
unparliamentary language. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju
Gupta that he had put his counter inside the shop and pulled
down the shutter. It is further deposed by PW4 Sanju Gupta that
one DVR sealed with the Court seal has been opened, however, it
could not be played as there was no lead available to connect it
with the laptop brought by the MHC(M) and since, this DVR has
not been sent to FSL for its scientific examination, hence, the
Court was of the considered opinion that no more efforts were
required for playing it. No DVD or pendrive was placed on
record regarding the said footage.

69. PW4 Sanju Gupta was not cross-examined by the
accused persons.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 30 of 92

70. PW5 Smt. Manju has deposed that Deepak @
Gandhi (since deceased) was her son and on 26.06.2017, at about
07:30 pm, she was present in her house and preparing meals, and
her son Deepak @ Gandhi was taking dinner. It is further
deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that at that time, Aman (accused),
Vijay (accused), Deepak, Pankaj and one another boy, the name
of whom she did not know, had come to her house and they all
asked her son Deepak @ Gandhi to accompany them saying that
they would be coming back in five minutes. It is further deposed
by PW5 Smt. Manju that after one and a half hour, she had come
to know that a quarrel had taken place between her son Deepak
@ Gandhi and both the accused persons. It is further deposed by
PW5 Smt. Manju that she had also come to know that her son
was bleeding and on hearing this, she had gone to street No.13,
Govind Puri where the above quarrel had taken place, and come
to know at the said spot that her son Deepak @ Gandhi had been
taken to Trauma Center by Pankaj. It is further deposed by PW5
Smt. Manju that her son had died due to the injuries received by
him in the above quarrel and the neck of her son was cut. It is
further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that she belonged to Khatik
Caste which falls under SC/ST and the accused Aman used to
call her son by “Gandi Khatik sudhar ja and chuda chamaar”. It is
further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that Deepak, the brother of
the accused Aman, also used to pass such caste related
derogatory remarks to her son Deepak @ Gandhi about which he
used to tell her. It is further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that on

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 31 of 92
29.06.2017, she had given a complaint (Ex.PW5/A) to SHO
regarding the aforesaid incident. It is further deposed by PW5
Smt. Manju that during the course of investigation, she had also
given an affidavit (Ex.PW5/B) to prove her caste as ‘Khatik’. It is
further deposed by PW5 Smt. Manju that she had also gone to the
AIIMS Trauma Center, where she had seen the accused persons
Vijay and Aman were also present. It is further deposed by PW5
Smt. Manju that she had found her son Deepak was admitted in
the hospital and his condition was not good and after seeing the
condition of her son, she had lost consciousness. PW5 Smt.
Manju has correctly identified both the accused persons Vijay
and Aman.

71. During leading questions put on behalf of the State,
PW5 Smt. Manju has admitted that in the night of 26.06.2017,
her son Ronak had come to the house and told her that the
accused persons Vijay and Aman had assaulted Deepak Gandhi
with the bottle of pepsi and slice at shop No.1196/13 Govind
Puri, New Delhi, and run away from the spot.

72. PW6 Dr. Om Prakash, Senior Resident, General
Surgery, AIIMS, New Delhi has deposed that he has been
authorized by Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi to
appear and depose on behalf of Dr. Madhvi Verma, JR, AIIMS
Hospital, who has left the services of Hospital and whose present
whereabouts are not known to the hospital. Having seen the MLC
No.5523/17 (Ex.PW6/A) with UHID No.102944727 of the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 32 of 92
patient Vijay son of Bittu, PW6 Dr. Om Prakash has deposed that
as per the MLC, the patient was brought to the hospital for
medical examination on 27.01.2017 at 02:31 p.m., and the said
patient was examined by Dr. Madhvi vide above MLC. PW6 Dr.
Om Prakash has identified the signatures of Dr. Madhvi on the
MLC No.5523/17 (Ex.PW6/A) as she had worked with him and
he had seen her signing during course of his official duties. This
witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.

73. PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, Senior Resident, Department of
Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS Truama Center, New
Delhi has deposed that on 28.06.2017, upon receipt of inquest
papers at about 12:05 p.m., he had started conducting the autopsy
on the body of Deepak @ Gandhi at 12:30 p.m., and concluded it
at 01:30 p.m. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that
the body of the deceased was brought and identified by Inspector
Sanjay, the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr.
Suraj Ohal that he had conducted the autopsy on the basis of an
application (Ex.PW7/A) made by the investigating officer in that
regard, which was also received along with the inquest papers
and along with the inquest papers, Form 25.35, information of
MLC cases etc. were enclosed.

74. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that as
per the record, the alleged history was of assault with broken
glass bottle on 26.06.2017 at 09:30 p.m., and the patient was
taken to JPNATC where he had died during the course of

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 33 of 92
treatment on 28.06.2017 at 02:00 a.m. It is further deposed by
PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that the patient was admitted there vide
MLC No. 500031484/17 and on examination of the deceased, he
had found three injuries which were mentioned in the
postmortem report No. TC-333/17 dated 28.06.2017 prepared by
him and he had also found effusion of blood in righ temporal
region of scalp.

75. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that in
his opinion, the cause of death in the present case was
‘hemorrhagic shock via injury No.1 and injury No.1 caused by
sharp edged weapon/object which was sufficient to cause death
in ordinary course of nature, injury No.2 and 3 were caused by
blunt force/impact and all the injuries were ante-mortem in
nature’. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that the time
of death was consistent with the hospital record and after the
postmortem, the blood in gauze, nail clipping of both hands were
taken as sample which were sealed, signed and handed over to
investigating officer along with the sample seal. It is further
deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that he had prepared his detailed
postmortem report (Ex.PW7/B) in respect of examination of the
deceased.

76. It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that he
had also received the letter of the investigating officer regarding
opinion about weapon of offence in the present case on
02.08.2017 along with the application of the investigating officer.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 34 of 92

It is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that the original
copy of MLC No. 500031484/17 dated 26.06.2017, original
postmortem report No. TC-333/17 dated 28.06.2017, road
certificate 126/21/17 dated 02.08.2017 and a sealed weapon of
offence were also received, which sealed transparent jar was
sealed with the seal of ‘RK’ and on opening the seal, he had
found pieces of broken glass bottle in it as were mentioned by
him in his subsequent opinion dated 02.08.2017 at Serial No.1 to
4 vide opinion no.221/17 (Ex.PW7/C) and after the perusal of the
above documents and the weapon of offence, in his opinion, the
injuries mentioned in MLC No.500031484/17 dated 26.06.2017
Mark A could be possible by the submitted weapon of offence. It
is further deposed by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal that after examination,
the weapon of offence was sealed, signed and handed over to
investigating officer along with the sample seal and he had also
advised that the weapon of offence be sent to FSL for biological
and chemical analysis.

77. PW8 ASI Devanand has deposed that on 26.06.2017,
he was posted as ASI/DD writer in police station Govind Puri
from 04:00 p.m. to 12 midnight and on that day, at about 10:09
p.m., an information from control room operator J-63 had
informed in the duty officer room that House No.1196/Gali
No.13, Govind Puri “jhagade mai chaku maar diya” and that call
was received from mobile phone number 7982948489. It is
further deposed by PW8 ASI Devanand that he had recorded the
information vide DD No.55 (Ex.PW8/A) which was marked to SI

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 35 of 92
Rajender and he was informed about the same telephonically, and
he had left for the spot. It is further deposed by PW8 ASI
Devanand that on the same day, at about 11:05 p.m., he had
received an information from duty constable Jasbir from AIIMS
Trauma Center about the admission of Pankaj Gandhi in Hospital
by some passersby which he had recorded vide DD No. 65A
(Ex.PW8/B) and the information in this regard was given to SI
Rajender. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused
persons.

78. PW9 HC Madan has deposed that on 28.06.2017, he
was posted as Constable in police station Govind Puri and on that
day, he along with the investigating officer/Inspector Sanjay
Bhardwaj had reached the mortuary of the Trauma Center,
AIIMS, where after the identification of the body of the deceased
Deepak @ Gandhi by his relatives, postmortem on his body was
conducted, thereafter, the dead-body of the deceased was handed
over to its relative. It is further deposed by PW9 HC Madan that
the doctor had handed over one sealed pullanda containing the
exhibits of the deceased and one sample seal which were seized
by the investigating officer vide memo (Ex.PW9/A). This witness
was not cross-examined by the accused persons.

79. PW10 Ct. Dharmender has deposed that on
02.08.2017, he was posted as constable in police station Govind
Puri and on that day, on the directions of the investigating officer,
he had taken one sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 36 of 92
‘RK’ from MHC(M) vide RC No.126/21/17 and one MLC,
which were to be given in Trauma Center, AIIMS for seeking
opinion. It is further deposed by PW10 Ct. Dharmender that he
had deposited the abovesaid sealed container in the FSL and the
MLC in AIIMS Trauma Center, and handed over the receipt to
the MHC(M) vide RC No.126/21/17 (Ex.PW10/A). It is further
deposed by PW9 HC Madan that the case property remained
intact till it remained in his possession. This witness was not
cross-examined by the accused persons.

80. PW11 Ct. Deep Ram has deposed that on the
directions of the investigating officer, he had taken seven sealed
exhibits and three sample seals from MHC(M) vide RC
No.145/21/17 (Ex.PW11/A) on 21.09.2017 to the FSL, Rohini,
and deposited the abovesaid sealed exhibits and sample seals in
FSL, obtained the receipt, and handed over the receipt to the
MHC(M). It is further deposed by PW11 Ct. Deep Ram that the
case property remained intact till it remained in his possession.
This witness was not cross-examined by the accused persons.

81. PW12 HC Ajit has deposed that on 11.09.2017, on
the direction of SHO Sanjay Bhardwaj, he had gone to Fatehbad,
Agra (UP) at the office of Tehsildar for the verification of caste
certificate of Raunak as he was handed over the copy of the caste
certificate of Raunak alongwith covering letter. It is further
deposed by PW12 HC Ajit that he had made inquiries from
dealing clerk who made endorsement on the said covering letter

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 37 of 92
regarding the issuing of said certificate and after verification of
the said certificate, he had returned to Delhi and handed over the
said covering letter to SHO.

82. PW13 HC Soran Singh has deposed that on
26.06.2017, he was posted as fingerprint proficient at crime-
team, SED and on that day, upon receipt of the call from Control
Room, SED, he alongwith Ct.Puneet (Photographer) had reached
at the spot i.e. Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and met the
investigating officer and his staff there. It is further deposed by
PW13 HC Soran Singh that they had inspected the spot and
Ct.Puneet had taken the photographs of the spot and he had
lifted two chanceprint from broken pieces of glass bottle of slice
cold drink with the help of RUVIS (Reflected Ultraviolet Images
System) instrument and two chanceprints, and prepared the
report at the spot and the said report was handed over to
investigating officer. Fingerprint report (Ex.PW13/A) placed on
judicial file was shown to the witness and the witness has
correctly identified the same.

83. PW14 SI Chetram has deposed that on 28.06.2017,
he was posted as SI (Fingerprint Expert) at Fingerprint Bureau,
police station Kamla Market, Delhi and on that day, he had
received scene of crime examination report bearing Sl. No.
772/17 from fingerprint proficient HC Soran Singh, SED Mobile
Crime Team mentioning two chanceprints developed and
photographed under RUVIS method. It is further deposed by

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 38 of 92
PW14 SI Chetram that he had examined the photographs of the
chanceprints Mark Q-1 & Q-2 and found that chanceprint Mark
Q-1 is partial print and hence, it cannot be searched on the record
of the Bureau. It is further deposed by PW14 SI Chetram that he
had also found that chanceprint Mark Q-2 was partial and
smudged and was unfit for comparison and his detailed report
dated 22.08.2017 (Ex.PW14/A) bears his signatures at point A.

84. It is further deposed by PW14 SI Chetram that on
11.09.2017 he had received specimen fingerprints of Aman son
of Dharmender and Vijay son of Bittoo for comparison and
experts opinion on the chanceprint Mark as Q-1. It is further
deposed by PW14 SI Chetram that he had tried to compare the
same and found that chanceprint Mark Q-1 was not able to be
compared with available specimen fingerprints due to non-
availability of clear corresponding area in specimen print and his
report dated 21.09.2017 (Ex.PW14/B) bears his signatures at
point A.

85. PW15 SI Ajit Singh has deposed that on 27.6.2017
he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Govind Puri and was working
as Juvenile Welfare Officer and on that day, he had received call
from the investigating officer and thereafter, he had reached the
spot, i.e. House No.1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and met
the investigating officer/SI Rajinder Kumar there with two boys,
namely, the accused Vijay and CCL and Dharmender, father of
CCL. It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 39 of 92
investigating officer had made inquiries in his presence from the
accused and CCL, who admitted their complicity in the present
case. It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that he had
conducted proceedings regarding CCL and apprehended him vide
memo (Ex.PW15/A) and conducted further proceedings. It is
further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that the investigating
officer had seized the broken pieces of cold drink bottles of pepsi
and slice brand (glass bottles), containing bloodstains in a plastic
box sealed with the seal of ‘RK’ and seized vide memo
(Ex.PW15/B). It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that
the investigating officer had recorded version of examination of
CCL. It is further deposed by PW15 SI Ajit Singh that later on,
the investigating officer had recorded his statement under section
161 Cr.P.C. PW15 SI Ajit Singh has correctly identified broken
glass pieces of pepsi and slice bottles (Ex.P1 collectively).

86. PW16 Ct. Jaibir has deposed that he had joined the
investigation along with the investigating officer/SI Rajender
Kumar on 26.06.2017, and upon receipt of DD No.55A regarding
stabbing by brother at 1196/13, Govind Puri, he alongwith the
investigating officer had reached at the spot, which was a shop
and inside the shop blood was spilling on the road and a broken
glass bottle of cold-drinks was also lying inside the shop. It is
further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that in the meantime, HC
Rajender had also reached there, and the investigating officer had
called at 100 number to requisition of crime-team. It is further
deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that on coming to know that injured

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 40 of 92
had already been taken to AIIMS Trauma Center, he along with
the investigating officer had reached at Trauma Center and found
the deceased Deepak was admitted and undergoing treatment
there, and the investigating officer had collected his MLC. It is
further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that Raunak, brother of
injured met them in the hospital, and he had pointed out towards
two persons present in the Trauma Center, and identified them as
the accused Aman and the accused Vijay and told the
investigating officer that they had inflicted injuries on Deepak. It
is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the wearing cloths of
Aman and Vijay were having bloodstains and they had
apprehended the accused persons Vijay and Aman. It is further
deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the investigating officer had
recorded statement (Ex.PW2/A) of Raunak, endorsed the same,
prepared rukka and handed over same to him for registration of
FIR. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that in the hospital,
concerned doctor had handed over wearing cloths of the injured
Deepak having bloodstains in the sealed pullanda with the seal of
hospital alongwith with one sample seal to him, which he handed
over to the investigating officer, who had taken it into possession
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A). It is further deposed by PW16
Ct. Jaibir that he had taken tehrir to police station Govind Puri,
got FIR registered, and handed over copy of FIR and original
tehrir to SI Rajender on his return to the spot. It is further
deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that during inquiry, upon coming to
know that the accused Aman was minor, he had called CWPO SI
Ajit Singh and father of the Aman at the spot and in his presence,

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 41 of 92
Aman was interrogated and his version was recorded and his
apprehension memo was prepared. It is further deposed by PW16
Ct. Jaibir that the accused Vijay was also interrogated and was
arrested in the present case vide arrest memo (Ex.PW16/B), his
personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW16/C) and his
disclosure statement was recorded vide memo (Ex.PW16/D). It is
further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the wearing cloths of
both the accused persons were taken into possession by the
investigating officer after converting into separate pullandas
sealed with seal of ‘RK’ vide memo (Ex.PW16/E and
Ex.PW16/F). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the
accused Vijay had pointed out the place of occurrence and the
investigating officer had prepared pointing out memo
(Ex.PW16/G). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the
investigating officer had also sealed the broken pieces of the
glass bottle of Pepsi and Slice some of which were having
bloodstains in a plastic box sealed with seal of ‘RK’, and taken
into possession vide memo (Ex.PW15/B). It is further deposed by
PW16 Ct. Jaibir that the investigating officer had also lifted the
blood spilled on the floor and on the staircase with the help of
separate gauzes and sealed them in separate envelopes with the
seal of ‘RK’, and taken into possession vide memo
(Ex.PW16/H). It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that they
had returned to the police station with the accused persons and
case property and the investigating officer had deposited the case
property in malkhana and recorded his statement under section
161 Cr.P.C. It is further deposed by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that he could

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 42 of 92
not identify the accused Vijay and Aman due to lapse of time and
he could not identify the case property due to lapse of time.

87. During leading question put by Ld. Addl. PP for the
State, the attention of PW16 Ct. Jaibir was drawn towards the
accused persons who were present in the Court and the witness
submits that he was not able to identify the accused persons due
to lapse of time. The witness was shown the case property i.e.
one jeans pant having brown stains and T-shirt having brown
stains of the accused Vijay (Ex.P3 colly.) and after seeing the
same, the witness has stated that the same was recovered from
the accused Vijay and the case property i.e. one pant having
brown stains and one torn/cut shirt having brown stains of the
accused Aman (Ex.P4 colly.) were also shown to the witness and
after seeing the same, witness stated that the same was recovered
from accused Aman, thereafter, the case property i.e. broken
pieces of the pepsi and slice bottles (Ex.P1 colly.) were taken out
and shown to the witness, after seeing the same witness stated
that the same was recovered from the spot.

88. During his cross-examination, PW16 Ct. Jaibir has
deposed that on 27.06.2017 at about 04.00 a.m., the shop where
the alleged incident had taken place was open and the adjoining
shops were closed. It was admitted by PW16 Ct. Jaibir that he or
the investigating officer had not taken the photographs of the
blood split at the stairs or on the road. During his cross-
examination, he has further deposed that he cannot say whether

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 43 of 92
the investigating officer had made public person as witness at the
time of arrest of the accused persons.

89. PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh has deposed that on
26.06.2017 he was posted as Constable (Photographer) in Mobile
Crime Team/SED, New Delhi and on that day upon receipt
information from control room, he alongwith HC Soran Singh
(Fingerprint Proficient) and SI Satish (in-charge) had reached at
the spot i.e. Shop No.1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi. It is
further deposed by PW17 Ct. Puneet Singh that they had
inspected the spot, and he had taken seven (7) photographs of the
spot from different angles, and later on, he had handed over
negatives of the photographs, who got the photographs developed
and returned the negatives. It is further deposed by PW17 Ct.
Puneet Singh that he had brought the seven (7) negatives
(Ex.PW17/A Colly.) of the photographs (Ex.PW17/B-1 to
Ex.PW17/B-7) clicked by him at the spot and the corresponding
to negatives (Ex.PW17/A Colly) and the investigating officer had
recorded his statement to the above said effect.

90. PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain has deposed
that on 06.09.2017, he was posted as draughtsman having office
at police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi and on that day, on the
request of the investigating officer/SHO Inspector Sanjay
Bhardwaj, he had gone to police station Govind Puri, from where
he alongwith the investigating officer and few other police
officials had gone to the spot i.e. Deepak Store, 1196/13,

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 44 of 92
Govinde Puri, New Delhi. It is further deposed by PW18
Inspector Mukesh Kumar Jain that he had inspected the spot,
taken measurements, and prepared the rough-notes with the help
of the investigating officer of the case, thereafter, he had come
back to his office and on 07.09.2017 he had prepared the scaled
site-plan (Ex.PW18/A) on the basis of abovesaid rough notes and
measurements and handed over the same to the investigating
officer. It is further deposed by PW18 Inspector Mukesh Kumar
Jain that after the preparation of scaled site-plans, the rough notes
etc. were destroyed.

91. PW19 SI Raju has deposed that on 29.06.2017, he
had joined investigation with Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, the
investigating officer of the present case, and they reached Saket
Court where the accused Aman @ Toshant Poddar present in the
court (correctly identified by the witness) was produced. It is
further deposed by PW19 SI Raju that with due permission from
the Court, the investigating officer had interrogated the accused
and had recorded his disclosure statement (Ex.PW19/A),
thereafter, the investigating officer had formally arrested the
accused vide arrest memo (Ex.PW19/B) and the investigating
officer had recorded his statement to the abovesaid effect.

92. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has deposed that in the
intervening night of 26th and 27th June, 2017, he was posted as
SI at police station Govind Puri and was on emergency duty at
about 10.00-10.15 p.m., and upon receipt of DD No.55A dated

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 45 of 92
26.06.2017 police station Govind Puri regarding stabbing of a
person at Building No.1196, Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New
Delhi, he alongwith Ct. Jaivir had reached at the spot i.e.
Building No.1196, Gali No.13, Govind Puri, which was a shop. It
is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that public
persons/passerby were present there and he had inquired and
inspected the spot. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that the blood was lying spilled inside the shop, which
was a small grocery shop and broken glass bottles of soft drink
were lying inside the shop, and in the meantime, HC Rajinder
had also reached at the spot, who called crime-team at the spot. It
is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that in the
meantime, upon receipt of another DD No.65A police station
Govind Puri regarding intimation from AIIMS Trauma Centre of
admission of the injured Deepak Gandhi and the accused Aman
Poddar, leaving HC Rajinder for the preservation of spot, he
along with Ct. Jaivir had gone to Trauma Centre, AIIMS and
found the injured Deepak son of late Mewa Ram admitted in the
hospital. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that
he had collected his MLC, on which concerned doctor had
declared him ‘unfit for statement’. It is further deposed by PW20
SI Rajendra Kumar that he had met brother of injured/deceased
namely Ronak in the hospital, inquired him, recorded his
statement/complainant (Ex.PW2/A), endorsed the complaint and
prepared rukka (Ex.PW20/A) under section 307/34 IPC, and sent
the same with Ct. Jaivir for registration of FIR. It is further
deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that in the hospital, he had

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 46 of 92
also met the accused persons Aman Poddar and Vijay, and he
alongwith the accused Aman Poddar and Vijay left for the spot. It
is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the crime
team had visited the spot, which inspected the spot and taken its
photographs, thereafter, Ct. Jaivir had returned to the spot with
copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him
as investigation was marked to him. It is further deposed by
PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that fingerprint proficient from the
crime-team had lifted chanceprint from broken piece of glass
bottles found lying inside the shop of the deceased and he had
seized the broken piece of glass bottles of Pepsi and Slice found
lying inside the shop in a plastic box sealed with the help of
doctor tape with his seal of ‘RK’ and had seized vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW15/B). It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that he had found blood being spilled inside the shop and
stairs of the shop and he lifted the blood which spilled on the
stairs of the shop with the help of cotton gauze and sealed it in an
envelop marked as Mark A by him. It is further deposed by
PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had lifted the blood which
spilled on the floor inside shop with the help of cotton gauze and
sealed it in an envelop marked as Mark B by him and he had
sealed both the envelops with his seal of ‘RK’ and seized them
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/H).

93. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that on 27.06.2017 when the accused Vijay had met him in the
hospital, his wearing clothes were having bloodstains, therefore,

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 47 of 92
he got changed his clothes and seized his clothes i.e. one jeans
pant having white and light black colour and his wearing t-shirt
having blue, white and slaty colour both containing bloodstains
and he converted them into a cloth pullanda with his seal of ‘RK’
and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/F). It is further
deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that when the accused
Aman Poddar had met him in Trauma Centre. AIIMS, his
wearing clothes were also having bloodstains, therefore, he got
changed his clothes and seized his clothes i.e. one pant of cream
colour (checkdaar) and a t-shirt of red and black colour on the
collar of which ‘Garments, spl.garments.com’ was inscribed. It is
further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that both the said
clothes were containing bloodstains and he converted them into
a cloth pullanda with his seal of ‘RK’ and seized vide seizure
memo (Ex.PW16/E).

94. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that on the same day, Ct. Jaivir had handed over him a sealed
pullanda with the seal of ‘CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND’ handed
over to them by the concerned doctor, containing bloodstained
clothes of Deepak @ Pankaj Gandhi alongwith sample seal,
which he seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A) and on the
same day, he had also got collected the blood sample of the
accused Aman Poddar in AIIMS Hospital and seized his blood
sample sealed with the seal of CMO AIIMS HOPT ND along
with sample seal on its production to him by Ct. Ajay vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW20/B).

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 48 of 92

95. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that
during investigation, he had met PW Sanju Gupta, who was
owner of the adjoining shop of the shop of the deceased and he
had inquired him and recorded his statement. It is further deposed
by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had also come to know that
PW Sanju Gupta had installed CCTV cameras covering his shop
bearing No.1197, Gali No.13, Govind Puri and partially the shop
of the deceased and on requisition by him, PW Sanju Gupta had
handed over him DVR bearing No.UCAHD-404N in which
CCTV footage of the relevant time was saved, and he had
checked the CCTV footage and seized the said DVR/hardrive
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW4/A). It is further deposed by PW20
SI Rajendra Kumar that during checking, he had found that two
persons were seen going inside the shop of the deceased at 09.17
p.m. on 26.06.2017 and two persons were seen coming out of the
said shop at about 09.53 p.m. on the same day shortly followed
by one person coming out of the shop while sitting seemingly to
be in injured condition but face of none of the abovesaid person
was clear. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that
PW Sanju Gupta had also handed over him certificate under
section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW4/B) regarding
the aforesaid DVR/storage of CCTV footage and regarding
proper functioning of the CCTV installation which he kept on
record.

96. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that on that day during investigation, he had also met PW

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 49 of 92
Krishan @ Sunny, who told him that he had taken the deceased
to hospital where due to mistake, name of the deceased was
mentioned as Pankaj Gandhi instead of Deepak Gandhi and he
had recorded his statement.

97. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that he had prepared site-plan (Ex.PW20/C). It is further deposed
by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had interrogated both the
accused and initially, the accused Aman Poddar had told that he
was a minor, therefore, he recorded version of Aman Poddar
(Ex.PW20/D) and repared his apprehension memo (Ex.PW15/A).
It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had
also interrogated the accused Vijay, recorded his disclosure
statement (Ex.PW16/D), arrested him and conducted his personal
search vide (Ex.PW16/B and Ex.PW16/C). It is further deposed
by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the accused Vijay had pointed
out the spot i.e. shop of the deceased, and he had prepared
pointing out memo (Ex.PW16/G). It is further deposed by PW20
SI Rajendra Kumar that during the aforesaid investigation
proceedings, PW Ronak was with him and he had recorded his
supplementary statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further
deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had also examined
and recorded statement of mother of the deceased, namely,
Manju and also recorded statements of witnesses under section
161 Cr.P.C.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 50 of 92

98. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that the case property was deposited in the malkhana, and he had
sent the accused Aman Poddar with JCO SI Ajit to be produced
before concerned JJB, and produced the accused Vijay before the
Court after due medical examination and the accused Vijay was
sent to judicial custody.

99. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that on the next day i.e. 28.06.2017 in the morning, upon
receiving of DD No.15A police station Govind Puri regarding
intimation of death of the injured Pankaj Gandhi from AIIMS
Trauma Centre, section 302 IPC was added, and he had handed
over case file to Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj/the then SHO, police
station Govind Puri, who had taken up the further investigation.

100. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that he alongwith the investigating officer and staff had reached
at AIIMS Trauma Centre where after due identification of the
dead-body, its postmortem was got conducted by the
investigating officer and thereafter, the dead-body was handed
over to its relatives and the investigating officer had recorded his
statement. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has correctly identified
both the accused persons in the Court.

101. During examination-in-chief of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar, the DVR having No.UCAHD-404N was shown to him
and he has correctly identified the same to be seized by him in

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 51 of 92
the present case and the DVR (Ex.P1) was played on the system
brought by the investigating officer and there was auto recording
in the DVR showing contemporaneous date and time of the
recording. It is further deposed by PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that
the focus of camera was largely covering shop of PW Sanju
Gupta, slightly covering small portion of the shop of the
deceased and the recording was carefully perused in which at
about 09.17 p.m. on 26.06.2017 and two persons were seen
entering in the shop of deceased but their faces were not shown
in the video and one of the said person was wearing a t-shirt
having dark and light stripes and the colour of cloth of other
person was not clearly identifiable. It is further deposed by PW20
SI Rajendra Kumar that at about 09.53 p.m., said persons who
entered inside were shown coming out of the shop but at this
time also, their faces were not visible and after about one minute,
a person was seen coming out of the shop while dragging his
body in sitting posture but face was not visible.

102. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has correctly identified
broken pieces of Pepsi and Slice bottles (Ex.P1 colly.) stating that
the same were seized by him from the spot.

103. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has also correctly
identified one jeans pant having brown stains and one T shirt
having brown stains (Ex.P3 colly.) as the clothes of the accused
Vijay seized by him and he has also correctly identified one pant

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 52 of 92
having brown stains and one torn/cut shirt having brown stains
(Ex.P4 colly.) as clothes of the accused Aman seized by him.

104. PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj has deposed that
on 28.06.2017 upon reciept of an information regarding death of
injured Deepak in police station vide DD No.15A, he had
undertaken the investigation of the case himself from SI
Rajender. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that he along with SI Rajender and Ct. Madan Lal had
gone to JPN Trauma Center, and met Ronak and Manoj, brothers
of deceased, and had prepared inquest papers (Ex.PW7/A) and
also filled Form No.25.35 (1)B (Ex.PW21/A). It is further
deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that he had
recorded dead-body identification statements of Ronak
(Ex.PW2/A) and Manoj (Ex.PW21/3) and dead-body was handed
over to Ronak vide receipt (Ex.PW2/C). It is further deposed by
PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that after postmortem of the
deceased, duty constable had handed over the exhibits, namely,
nail clippings of the deceased and blood in gauge along with
sample seals, taken the same into possession vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW9/A), and deposited the case property in malkhana.

105. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that on 29.06.2017, he had gone to concerned Saket
Court where the accused Aman had been produced from JWB as
he had been declared major, thereafter, he had made an
application (Ex.PW21/C) for interrogation and formal arrest of

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 53 of 92
the accused. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that with the permission of the Court, he had formally
arrested him vide arrest memo (Ex.PW19/B) and he had also
recorded the disclosure statement (Ex.PW19/A) of the accused.

106. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that on 02.08.2017, he had sent the weapon of offence
through Ct. Dharmender to FSL for its examination vide
application (Ex.PW21/D). It is further deposed by PW21
Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that during investigation, he had
collected the opinion (Ex.PW7/C) of the same.

107. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that on his calling, Inspector Mukesh Jain,
Draughtsman had visited the place of occurrence i.e. scene of
crime on 06.09.2017, and prepared scaled site-plan. It is further
deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that it was later
on collected by him.

108. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that DVR was sent to FSL for forensic analysis on
21.09.2017.

109. It is further deposed by PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that after completion of the investigation, he had filed
the charge-sheet before the Court, and during investigation, he
had collected the PCR Form pertaining to the call and the FSL

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 54 of 92
result and filed the supplementary charge-sheet before the Court.
PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj has correctly identified the
accused Aman in the Court.

110. The scaled site-plan of the place of incident was got
prepared by the investigating officer from PW18 Inspector
Mukesh Kumar Jain, the draughtsman.

111. As per the testimonies of PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj, the investigating officer of this case that on
06.09.2017, upon his calling, Inspector Mukesh Jain,
Draughtsman had visited the place of occurrence i.e. scene of
crime, and had prepared scaled site-plan.

112. PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa, Jr. Forensic/Chemical
Examiner, Biology, FSL Rohini, New Delhi has deposed that she
was working as mentioned above since August 2011 and she has
reported more than 1000 cases related to biological and DNA
examination. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa
that on 21.09.2017, seven sealed parcels were received in DNA
unit of the FSL Rohini and same were marked to him for
examination. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa
that seals on all the parcels were intact and tallying with the
specimen seal provided which she opened and examined all the
parcels. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that on
biological examination, blood was detected on exhibits 1a, 1b,
2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the exhibits no. la, lb, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 55 of 92
and 7 were subjected to DNA isolation and DNA was isolated
from the exhibit no.la, lb, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. It is further
deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that DNA profile was
generated from the source of exhibit la and 1b was found to be
similar with DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 3,
4 and 5. It is further deposed by PW22 Ms. Soni Khampa that
DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits 2a, 2b and 7 is
found to be similar with each other and after examination of the
exhibits, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seal of
SKH FSL DELHI, and her detailed report Ex.PW20/A (running
into 3 pages) (colly) bears her signature at Point ‘A’ on each page.

113. PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad has deposed that on
26.06.2017, on the direction of duty officer, he had gone to
House No.1196, gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and met
Ct. Jaiveer and SI Rajender there. It is further deposed by PW23
ASI Rajender Prasad that SI Rajender had left him at the spot,
and gone to the hospital. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI
Rajender Prasad that after some time, crime-team officials had
come and inspected the spot, and handed over their report to him
and, in the meanwhile, Ct. Rajjo Singh, SI Rajender, the accused
Vijay and CCL ‘A’ had also come at the spot, and he had handed
over the crime-team report to SI Rajender.

114. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that Ct. Jaiveer had also come there and after registration of the
FIR, he had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 56 of 92
Rajender. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that SI Rajender had interrogated the accused persons, and they
had confessed their involvement in the present case and they had
also shown the place of occurrence i.e. inside the shop No.1196,
to the investigating officer. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI
Rajender Prasad that they had also recovered some broken
glasses, bottle of slice and pepsi, which were used in commission
of crime from the spot. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI
Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also lifted the
blood sample from the spot, and seized vide seizure memo
(Ex.PW16/H).

115. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that the investigating officer had also checked the CCTV footage
of the shop no.1197, and prepared site-plan (Ex.PW20/C).

116. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that the investigating officer had arrested the accused Vijay vide
arrest memo (Ex.PW16/B) and conducted his personal search
vide memo (Ex.PW16/C) and also recorded his disclosure
statement (Ex.PW16/D).

117. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that the investigating officer had also seized the broken bottle and
glasses vide seizure memo (Ex.PW15/B).

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 57 of 92

118. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that the investigating officer had also taken the DVR into
possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW4/A) bearing my signature
at Point ‘C’.

119. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that JWO SI Ajeet had apprehended the JCL ‘A’ in presence of his
father and recorded his version (Ex.PW20/B) bearing his
signature at Point ‘B’. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI
Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had also prepared
pointing out memo (Ex.PW16/G) of the place of occurrence at
their instance, bearing his signature at Point ‘C’.

120. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad
that the investigating officer had also seized clothes of the
accused Vijay and CCL ‘A’ vide seizure memos (Ex.PW16/E and
Ex.PW16/F) bearing his signatures at Point ‘C’, respectively, and
they had returned to the police station, and the case property was
deposited in the malkhana. It is further deposed by PW23 ASI
Rajender Prasad that after medical examination, the accused
Vijay was sent to police lock-up. It is further deposed by PW23
ASI Rajender Prasad that the investigating officer had recorded
his statement in police station. PW23 ASI Rajender Prasad has
correctly identified both accused persons in the Court.

121. PW24 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS
Trauma Center, New Delhi has deposed that he was posted as

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 58 of 92
Record Clerk in AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi and he has
been deputed by Faculty In-charge, Dr. Adarsh Kumar to produce
the record pertaining to the MLC No.500031484 dated
26.06.2017 of the deceased Pankaj Gandhi @ Deepak, prepared
by Dr. Piyush Mishra, vide the authority letter dated 27.07.2024
(Ex.PW24/A) bearing the signature of the Faculty In-charge, Dr.
Adarsh Kumar at Point ‘A’. It is further deposed by PW24 Mr.
Rajender Singh that he has seen the signature and handwriting of
Faculty In-charge, Dr. Adarsh Kumar during the course of his
duty.

122. It is further deposed by PW24 Rajender Singh that
Dr. Piyush Mishra had left the services of the hospital and his
whereabouts were not known to the hospital and he had seen the
signatures and handwriting of the above-said doctor during the
course of his duty.

123. During his examination-in-chief, MLC
No.500031484 dated 26.06.2017 of the deceased Pankaj Gandhi
@ Deepak was shown to PW24 Rajender Singh, who has
identified the signature of Dr. Piyush Mishra at point ‘A’ on the
said MLC (Ex.PW24/B).

124. PW24 Mr. Rajender Singh has brought the certified
copy of the death summary (Ex.PW24/C running into two pages)
of the deceased Pankaj Gandhi @Deepak, bearing the signature
of Mr. Radhey Shyam, Junior Medical Record Officer at Point

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 59 of 92
‘A’. It is further deposed by PW24 Rajender Singh that he has
seen the signature and handwriting of Mr. Radhey Shyam, JMRT
during the course of his duties. This witness was not cross-
examined by the accused persons.

125. PW25 HC Ajay has deposed that on 26.06.2017, he
was posted as Constable at police station Govind Puri and was
present in his beat, when the investigating officer had called him
at AIIMS hospital. It is further deposed by PW25 HC Ajay that
he had reached at AIIMS hospital and met the investigating
officer and his staff members and the concerned doctor had
handed over sealed exhibits (blood-in-gauze) of CCL Aman
along with sample seal to him. It is further deposed by PW25 HC
Ajay that he had handed over the said exhibits along with sample
seal to the investigating officer, who had seized the same vide
seizure memo (Ex.PW20/B). It is further deposed by PW25 HC
that during his custody, the seals of the said exhibits had
remained intact and the invesetigating officer had recorded his
statement.

126. PW26 ASI Yadvir has deposed that on 27.06.2017,
he was posted as MHC(M) at police station Govind Puri. PW26
ASI Yadvir has brought register no.19 and 21 pertaining to the
year 2017-18. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that on
27.06.2017, the investigating officer SI Rajender Kumar had
deposited the sealed pullanda containing the clothes of the
accused Vijay (the details of the same is mentioned in seizure

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 60 of 92
memo Ex.PW16/F), sealed pullanda containing the clothes of the
accused Aman (the details of the same was mentioned in seizure
memo Ex.PW16/E), sealed pullanda containing the blood-in-
gauze lifted from Shop no.1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi (the
details of the same is mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW16/H),
sealed pullanda containing the blood-in-gauze of CCL Aman
along with sample seal (the details of the same was mentioned in
seizure memo Ex.PW20/B), sealed pullanda containing the
broken pieces of Pepsi and Slice bottle (the details of the same
was mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW15/B), one DVR model
no. UCAHDHD404N (the details of the same is mentioned in
seizure memo Ex.PW4/A) and sealed pullanda containing the
blood-in-gauze of deceased Deepak @ Pankaj along with sample
seal (the details of the same mentioned in seizure memo
Ex.PW16/A). It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that in
the malkhana, he had made an entry (Ex.PW26/A) to that effect
at Sr. No.2592 dated 27.06.2017. It is further deposed by PW26
ASI Yadvir that on 28.06.2017, Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj had
deposited two sealed pullandas containing one plastic bottle and
one paper envelope along with two sample seals in the malkhana.
It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that he had made an
entry (Ex.PW26/B) to that effect at Sr. No.2593 dated
28.06.2017.

127. It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that on
02.08.2017, on the instructions of the investigating officer, he
had handed over one sealed parcel containing the broken bottle

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 61 of 92
of cold-drink (Pepsi and Slice) and some pieces of glass having
blood stains, duly sealed with the seal of ‘RK’ to Ct. Dharmender,
for depositing the same at AIIMS Hospital vide RC no.126/21/17
(Ex.PW10/A) dated 02.08.2017. It is further deposed by PW26
ASI that on 21.09.2017, on the instructions of the investigating
officer, he had handed over seven sealed exhibits along with
three sample seals to Ct. Deepram vide RC No.145/21/17 dated
21.09.2017 (Ex.PW11/A) for depositing the same at FSL Rohini.
It is further deposed by PW26 ASI Yadvir that Ct. Deepram had
deposited the said articles at FSL Rohini against the
acknowledgement (Ex.PW26/C) and the same was deposited in
the malkhana.

128. PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, MRT, AIIMS
Trauma Centre, New Delhi has deposed that he has been
authorized by Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha, Faculty in-charge, Medical
Record Section, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi to bring
office record of MLC No.500031485/26June, 2017 of the injured
Aman prepared by Dr. Jyothi Nandanan, JR Surgery, Trauma
Centre, AIIIMS and deposed with regard to said MLC. It is
further deposed by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma that his
authorization letter (Ex.PW27/A) showed signature of Dr. Tej
Prakash Sinha at Point ‘A’. Having seen the aforesaid original
MLC kept on judicial record (Mark A), It is deposed by PW27
Bhunesh Kumar Sharma that it showed signature of Dr. Jyothi
Nandanan at point ‘A’ and the original MLC was exhibited as
(Ex.PW27/B). It is further deposed by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 62 of 92
Sharma that Dr. Jyothi Nandanan had then left services of AIIMS
Trauma Centre and his present whereabouts were not known. It is
further deposed by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma that he has
been working in Medical Record Section of AIIMS Trauma
Centre since January 2015 and during the course of his duties, he
has seen Dr. Jyothi Nandanan writing and signing, therefore, he
has identified his signature and handwriting. The office copy of
aforesaid MLC with discharge summary of patient Aman was
exhibited as (Ex.PW27/C colly).

129. PW28 Dr. Mehul K, Senior Resident, Department of
Emergency Medicine, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi has
deposed that he has been authorized by Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha,
Faculty in-charge, Medical Record Section, AIIMS Trauma
Centre, New Delhi to depose on behalf of Dr. Jyothi Nandanan,
JR Surgery, Trauma Centre, AIIIMS with respect to MLC No.
500031485/26June2017 of the patient Aman vide authorization
letter (Ex.PW27/A) bearing the signature of Dr. Tej Prakash
Sinha at Point ‘A’. Having seen the MLC (Ex.PW27/B) kept on
judicial record, it is deposed by PW28 Dr. Mehul K that as per
which, the patient had suffered injuries i.e. laceration 4x2x1cm
on occipital region of right scalp and abrasion on right arm.

130. PW29 HC Shish Ram has deposed that he was on
patrolling duty in the intervening night of 26/27.06.2017, when
SI Rajender Kumar had called him up and instructed to reach at
1196/13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, and he had reached there and

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 63 of 92
met SI Rajender Kumar along with staff, who had apprehended
the accused persons Vijay and Aman. It is further deposed by
PW29 HC Shish Ram that as the accused Aman had told that he
was a minor, SI Rajender Kumar had called Juvenile Welfare
Officer, SI Ajit, who reached at the spot. It is further deposed by
PW29 HC Shish Ram that the father of Aman was also called at
the spot and the investigating officer had inquired from the
accused persons and the accused Vijay was duly arrested in the
present case, while apprehension memo of Aman was prepared.

131. It is further deposed by PW29 HC Shish Ram that
the investigating officer had taken wearing clothes of both the
accused persons, which were bloodstained in possession, by
separately seizing them and on the pointing of the accused Vijay,
investigating officer had prepared the pointing out memo of spot
vide memo (Ex.PW29/A), thereafter, investigating officer had
recorded his statement to the aforesaid facts. PW29 HC Shish
Ram has correctly identified both the accused persons Aman and
Vijay in the Court.

132. PW30 HC Dharamvir Yadav has deposed that he
was working in the police control room for last two and half
months and in the present case, summons were received in police
control room to bring office record and certificate under section
65B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding CPCR DD
No.26JUN171130535 pertaining to present case. It is further
deposed by PW30 HC Dharamvir Yadav that in the year 2021,

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 64 of 92
the PCR calls made at 100 number were changed to be called at
112 number and at that time, due to some technical problem in
the mother board of their computer system, old PCR data of the
calls made at 100 number got deleted from their system and
could not be retrieved, therefore, the required PCR Form and
certificate cannot be brought and the copy of the order of DCP
concerned in this regard was exhibited as Ex.PW30/A.

133. In the light of the charge framed against accused
persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following
are the points for determination:

1. Whether the accused persons have caused
death of the deceased Deepak Gandhi, with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause death of the person to whom harm
is caused., or 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 with the knowledge that
the fact is so imminently dangerous that it must in
all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 65 of 92

2. Whether the accused persons had acted in
furtherance of the common intention in committing
the above offence.

DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

134. In the present case, the criminal justice system was
set into motion on receiving of an information regarding ‘ jhagde
me chaku maar diya’ from Control Room Operator J-63 in the
duty room of the police station Govind Puri on 26.06.2017 at
about 10.09 p.m., which was recorded vide DD No.55.

135. PW8 ASI Devanand has proved the DD No.55
(Ex.PW8/A). As per the testimonies of PW8 ASI Devanand, he
was working as DD writer in the police station Govind Puri on
the relevant date, and the above information from the police
control room was recorded by him vide DD No.55 (Ex.PW8/A),
which was marked to SI Rajender, and he was informed about the
same on phone, who had left for the spot.

136. It is also in the evidence of PW8 ASI Devanand that
on the same day, at about 11:05 p.m., he had received another
information from duty constable Jasbir from the Trauma Center,
AIIMS about the admission of Pankaj Gandhi in Hospital by
some passersby, which information was recorded vide DD
No.65A (Ex.PW8/B), and the information in that regard was
given to SI Rajender.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 66 of 92

137. It is important to note here that PW8 ASI Devanand
was not cross-examined by the accused persons, therefore, his
above testimonies regarding receiving of the information from
police control room regarding the incident and from Trauma
Center, AIIMS regarding admission of the deceased to the
hospital, and recording of those two information vide DD No.55
(Ex.PW8/A) and DD No.65A (Ex.PW8/B) remained unrebutted.

138. As per the testimonies of PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20
SI Rajender Kumar, in the intervening night of 26 th & 27th June,
2017 at about 10.15 p.m., upon receipt of a DD No.55
(Ex.PW8/A) regarding stabbing of a person at Building No.1196,
Gali No.13, Govind Puri, New Delhi, they had reached at the
spot, which was a shop.

139. It is in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that public persons/passerby were present there and he had
inquired and inspected the spot. It is also in the evidence of
PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that the blood was lying spilled inside
the shop, which was a small grocery shop and broken glass
bottles of soft drink were lying inside the shop.

140. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that in the meantime, HC Rajinder, who had also reached
at the spot called crime-team at the spot.

141. As per the testimonies of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar,
in the meantime, upon receipt of another DD No.65A police

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 67 of 92
station Govind Puri from the Trauma Centre, AIIMS regarding
intimation of admission of the injured Deepak Gandhi and the
accused Aman Poddar, leaving HC Rajinder for the preservation
of spot, he along with Ct. Jaivir had gone to Trauma Centre,
AIIMS, where the injured Deepak son of late Mewa Ram was
found admitted in the hospital.

142. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that he had collected the MLC of the injured, in which the
concerned doctor had declared him ‘unfit for statement’.

143. The above-said testimonies of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar have been duly corroborated by PW16 Ct. Jaibir and
PW23 ASI Rajener Prasad.

144. Regarding registration of FIR, testimonies of PW1
ASI Roop Singh, PW2 Raunak, PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20 SI
Rajendra Kumar are relevant.

145. It is in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar
that he had met and inquired brother of the deceased, namely,
Raunak in the hospital, and recorded his statement/complaint
(Ex.PW2/A) and in the hospital, thereafter, he had endorsed the
complaint and prepared rukka (Ex.PW20/A), and sent it through
Ct. Jaivir for registration of FIR. It is further deposed by PW20
SI Rajendra Kumar that Ct. Jaivir had returned to the spot with
copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him
as investigation was assigned to him.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 68 of 92

146. The above-said testimonies of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar have also been duly corroborated by the PW16 Ct. Jaibir.

147. PW2 Raunak, the complainant had proved his
statement (Ex.PW2/A) recorded by the police officials.

148. PW1 ASI Roop Singh was working as duty officer
on the date of incident, when as per his testimonies, Ct. Jaibir had
presented the rukka sent by SI Rajender to him for registration of
the FIR. It is also in the evidence of PW1 ASI Roop Singh that he
had registered the FIR (Ex.PW1/A), bearing his name at point A,
through Computer Operator on the basis of said rukka. PW1 ASI
Roop Singh has brought the original FIR register, and he has also
proved the endorsement to that effect as well as his signature at
point A on the rukka (Ex.PW1/B).

149. PW16 Ct. Jaibir has duly corroborated the above-
testimonies also of PW1 ASI Roop Singh.

150. From the testimonies of PW1 ASI Roop Singh, PW2
Raunak, PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar, the
prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR
against the accused persons. During the cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the
registration of FIR against the accused persons have not been
disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of
FIR has been pointed out by the defence.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 69 of 92

151. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that the crime-team had visited and inspected the spot,
and taken its photographs. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI
Rajendra Kumar that fingerprint proficient from the crime-team
had lifted chance-prints from broken piece of glass bottles found
lying inside the shop of the deceased, and he had seized the
broken piece of glass bottles of Pepsi and Slice found lying
inside the shop in a plastic box sealed with the doctor tape with
his seal of ‘RK’ and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW15/B).

152. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that he had found blood being spilled inside the shop and
stairs of the shop, and he had lifted the blood, which was spilled
on the stairs of the shop with the cotton gauze and sealed it in an
envelop Mark A. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that he had lifted the blood, which was spilled on the
floor inside shop with the help of cotton gauze and sealed it in an
envelop Mark B and he had sealed both the envelops with his
seal of ‘RK’ and seized them vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/H).

153. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that when the accused Aman Poddar had met him in
Trauma Centre AIIMS, his wearing clothes were also having
bloodstains and therefore, he had got his clothes changed and
seized his clothes viz., one pant of cream colour (checkdaar) and
a t-shirt of red and black colour on the collar of which ‘Garments,
spl.garments.com’ was inscribed. It is also in the evidence of

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 70 of 92
PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that both the said clothes were
containing bloodstains and he had prepared a cloth pullanda of
the above clothes of the accused Aman, sealed it with the eal of
RK, and seized it vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/E).

154. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that on the same day, Ct. Jaivir had handed over a
pullanda sealed with the seal of ‘CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND’,
which was handed over to them by the concerned doctor in the
Trauma Center containing bloodstained clothes of Deepak @
Pankaj Gandhi along with sample seal to him, which were seized
by him vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/A).

155. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that the case property was deposited in the malkhana.

156. Regarding arrest of the accused Vijay, it is in the
evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar that he had interrogated
both the accused persons and during interrogation, recorded
disclosure statement (Ex.PW16/D) of the accused Vijay and
arrested him and conducted his personal search vide (Ex.PW16/B
and Ex.PW16/C). It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that the accused Vijay had pointed out the spot of incident
i.e. shop of the deceased and he had prepared pointing out memo
(Ex.PW16/G).

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 71 of 92

157. It is also in the evidence of PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar that on the morning of next day i.e. 28.06.2017, upon
receipt of an information regarding intimation of death of the
injured Pankaj Gandhi from Trauma Centre, AIIMS vide DD
No.15A, police station Govind Puri, section 302 IPC was added,
and he had handed over case file to Inspector Sanjay
Bhardwaj/the then SHO, police station Govind Puri, who himself
had taken up the further investigation of the present case. The
said testimony of PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has been
corroborated by PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, who was
posted as SHO of the police station Govind Puri at the relevant
time, and as per his testimony, upon receipt of information about
death of the injured, he along with SI Rajender Kumar and other
staff had reached the Trauma Center, AIIMS.

158. For proving the commission of offence by the
accused persons, testimonies of PW2 Ronak, brother of the
deceased and PW5 Smt. Manju, mother of the deceased are
relevant.

159. It is in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that on
26.06.2017 at around 09:45 p.m., he was present in the street
near his shop at 1196/13, Govind Puri in the name and style of
Deepak Store, which was run by him and his brother Deepak
(deceased). It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that Aman
and Vijay used to visit their shop to purchase goods and they had
some quarrel on the issue of payment pending with them quite

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 72 of 92
often prior to the date of incident. It is also in the evidence of
PW2 Ronak that in that night, he had seen the accused persons
Vijay and Aman going towards Transit Camp and on his asking,
they had told him that they had killed his brother and their
clothes were having bloodstains. It is also in the evidence of
PW2 Ronak that he had immediately reached his shop, and found
his brother lying in the pool of blood on the floor. It is also in the
evidence of PW2 Ronak that his neighbours had taken his brother
to Trauma Center, and he had gone to his house and reached at
Trauma Center along with his mother as he was under the
trauma. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that police
officials were present in the hospital, and both the accused
persons were also there, and he had pointed out and identified
them and police officials had apprehended them.

160. It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that his
brother had passed away in the hospital on the next day.

161. PW2 Ronak has correctly identified both the accused
persons Vijay and Aman during his evidence.

162. During final arguments, learned counsel for the
accused Vijay has contended that PW Ronak is an interested
witness being brother of the deceased. Such contention raised by
learned counsel for the accused Vijay is not sustainable for the
reason that in examination-in-chief, as noted above, it is clear
that the place of incident i.e., shop in the name and style of

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 73 of 92
Deepak Store was run by PW Ronak and his brother Deepak
(deceased). As per cross-examination of PW2 Ronak, the said
shop was opened at 6:00 a.m. and closed at 11:00 p.m., and there
was no servant in the shop. The said testimonies of PW2 Ronak
has remained intact. Therefore, the presence of PW2 Ronak in
the street near his shop was quite natural and obvious.

163. The prosecution has also set up the present case on
the basis of last seen together theory against the accused persons.

164. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Gopal v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 120 has analysed
various judgments on last seen theory and held as follows:

6. It may be noted that once the theory of “last seen together”

was established by the prosecution, the accused was
expected to offer some explanation as to when and under
what circumstances he had parted the company of the
deceased. It is true that the burden to prove the guilt of the
accused is always on the prosecution, however in view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when any fact is within the
knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is
upon him. Of course, Section 106 is certainly not intended
to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the guilt of the
accused, nonetheless it is also equally settled legal position
that if the accused does not throw any light upon the facts
which are proved to be within his special knowledge, in
view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such failure on the
part of the accused may be used against the accused as it
may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances
required to be proved against him. In the case based on
circumstantial evidence, furnishing or non-furnishing of the
explanation by the accused would be a very crucial fact,
when the theory of “last seen together” as propounded by
the prosecution was proved against him.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 74 of 92

In case of Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi), it was
observed as under:

“12.2.4. Having observed so, it is crucial to note that the
reasonableness of the explanation offered by the accused
as to how and when he/she parted company with the
deceased has a bearing on the effect of the last seen in a
case, Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that
the burden of proof for any fact that is especially within
the knowledge of a person lies upon such person. Thus, if
a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an
explanation as to how and when he parted company with
the deceased. In other words, he must furnish an
explanation that appears to the court to be probable and
satisfactory, and if he fails to offer such an explanation on
the basis of facts within his special knowledge, the burden
cast upon him under Section 106 is not discharged.
Particularly in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, if
the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in
discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by
itself can provide an additional link in the chain of
circumstances proved against him. This, however, does
not mean that Section 106 shifts the burden of proof of a
criminal trial on the accused. Such burden always rests on
the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down the rule that
when the accused does not throw any light upon facts
which are specially within his/her knowledge and which
cannot support any theory or hypothesis compatible with
his innocence, the court can consider his failure to adduce
an explanation as an additional link which completes the
chain of incriminating circumstances.”

In Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, this Court observed as
under: –

“6. We have considered the respective submissions and the
evidence on record. There is no eyewitness to the
occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact
of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant.
Criminal jurisprudence and the plethora of judicial
precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the
basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a
facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may
be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction
upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with
other circumstances such as the time when the deceased
was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 75 of 92
corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused
owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence
Act with regard to the circumstances under which death
may have taken place. If the accused offers no
explanation, or furnishes- a wrong explanation, absconds,
motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence
available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise
forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only
inference for guilt of the accused, incompatible with any
possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based
on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of
chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the
accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on
its own facts for invocation of the doctrine.”

In view of the afore-stated legal position, it is discernible
that though the last seen theory as propounded by the
prosecution in a case based on circumstantial evidence
may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to base
conviction solely on such theory, when the said theory is
proved coupled with other circumstances such as the time
when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the
recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of
time, the accused does owe an explanation under Section
106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances
under which death might have taken place. If the accused
offers no explanation or furnishes a wrong explanation,
absconds, motive is established and some other
corroborative evidence in the form of recovery of weapon
etc. forming a chain of circumstances is established, the
conviction could be based on such evidence.

165. For establishing and proving the last seen together
theory, testimonies of PW5 Smt. Manju are relevant.

166. It is in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that Deepak
@ Gandhi (the deceased) was her son and on 26.06.2017, at
about 07:30 pm, she was present in her house, and when her son
Deepak @ Gandhi was taking dinner, Aman (accused), Vijay
(accused), Deepak, Pankaj and one another boy (name not

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 76 of 92
known) had come to her house and they all asked her son Deepak
@ Gandhi to accompany them by saying that they would be
coming back in five minutes. It is also in the evidence of PW5
Smt. Manju that after one and a half hour, she had come to know
that a quarrel had taken place between her son Deepak @ Gandhi
and both the accused persons. It is also in the evidence of PW5
Smt. Manju that she had also come to know that her son was
bleeding and on hearing that, she had gone to street No.13,
Govind Puri, where the above quarrel had taken place, and come
to know that her son Deepak @ Gandhi had been taken to
Trauma Center by Pankaj. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt.
Manju that her son had died due to the injuries received by him
in the above quarrel and the neck of her son was cut.

167. The above testimonies of PW5 Smt. Manju to prove
the last seen together theory and the accused persons along with
other persons calling the deceased from his house and taking
away with them, have not been rebutted on behalf of the accused
during evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju and she was not cross-
examined by the defence on this point. Even, the suggestion that
the accused persons had not called the deceased from their house
and taken him along is not given to PW5 Smt. Manju during her
cross-examination.

168. It is well settled law that cross-examination is a
matter of substance and not of procedure, one is required to put
one’s version in the cross-examination of an opponent. The effect

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 77 of 92
of non-cross-examination is that the statement of the witness has
not been disputed.

169. It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. State (Delhi), 2009 (163) DLT 658 as
under: –

“175. It is settled law that where a witness is not cross-
examined on any relevant aspect, the correctness of the
statement made by a witness cannot be disputed. (See the
decisions of Supreme Court reported as State of U.P. v.
Nahar Singh AIR 1988 SC 1328 and Rajinder Prasad v.
Darshana Devi AIR 2001 SC 3207).”

170. Further, the Hon’ble MP High Court in Moti Lal and
Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1990 Crl.L.J (NOC) 125 has
held that it is a well settled principle of law that when the
accused does not challenge a prosecution witness in his cross-
examination on certain facts, it leads to inference of admission of
that fact. In Moti Lal‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble MP High Court
observed as follows:-

“In Velu Pillai Padikalingam v. Paramandam it was ob-
served; “every cross-examiner should and can if he is
careful indicate in cross-examination whichever part of the
evidence given in examination-in-chief is challenged and
an omission to do so would lead to the inference that the
evidence is accepted subject of course to its being assailed
as inherently improbably.” Again in Sayed Aleem v. State
of Karnataka it was observed that non-cross-examination
of prosecution witnesses of certain facts leds to admission
of that fact, circumstances could be taken for considera-
tion. Thus, non-consideration, particularly P.W3 Achhelal
and P.W.4 Bhajna, on what is being projected in the de-
fence has been rightly held by the trial as sheer after-
thought.”

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 78 of 92

171. Similarly, The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarwan
Singh v. State of Punjab, 2002 (4) RCR (Crl) 471 held as
follows:

“It is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent
has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his
case in cross-examination it must follow that the evidence
tendered on that issue ought to be accepted. A decision of
the Calcutta High Court lends support to the observation
as above. (See in this context AEG Carapiet v. AY
Derderian : AIR 1961 Calcutta 359 (P.B. Mukherjee, J. as
he then was)].”

172. In view of the above discussion and in the light of
judgments in Rakesh Kumar‘s case (supra), Moti Lal‘s case
(supra) and Sarwan Singh‘s case (supra), the statement made by
PW5 Smt. Manju, I hold that the prosecution has been able to
establish that the accused persons had called the deceased from
his house at 07:30 p.m., and taken him along.

173. It is also important to note here that PW6 Dr. Om
Prakash, PW8 ASI Devanand, PW9 HC Madan, PW10 Ct.
Dharmender and PW11 Ct. Deep Ram were also not cross-
examined by the accused persons and the testimonies made
during their examination-in-chief stand proved.

174. The incident, as per the testimonies of PW2 Ronak,
had happened at about 09:45 p.m. On the same day, at noted
above, the deceased was called from his house and taken along
by the accused persons at about 07:30 p.m.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 79 of 92

175. To prove the fact that earlier also there were some
disputes between the deceased and the accused persons, it is in
the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that she belonged to Khatik
Caste which falls under SC/ST and the accused Aman used to
call her son by “Gandi Khatik sudhar ja and chuda chamaar”. It is
also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that Deepak, the brother
of the accused Aman, also used to pass such caste related
derogatory remarks to her son Deepak @ Gandhi about which he
used to tell her. It is also in the evidence of PW5 Smt. Manju that
on 29.06.2017, she had given a complaint (Ex.PW5/A) to SHO
regarding the aforesaid incident. It is also in the evidence of PW5
Smt. Manju that during the course of investigation, she had also
given an affidavit (Ex.PW5/B) to prove her caste as ‘Khatik’.

176. As per the unrebutted testimony of PW2 Ronak also,
the accused persons used to visit the shop of the deceased to
purchase goods and they had disputes regarding pending
payment. Even otherwise, the accused Vijay has, during his
examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that the deceased
and his family were owing some money to the accused Vijay, and
after death of the deceased, his family members have falsely
implicated him in order to avoid repayment. During the
arguments also, learned counsel for the accused Vijay has also
contended that infact, the accused had lent money to the
deceased.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 80 of 92

177. From the above, is has been established that there
were some disputes between the deceased and the accused
persons, which trigerred the quarrel between them, due to which,
the life of the deceased was lost.

178. It is also important to note here that from the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has
successfully proved that both the accused persons Vijay and
Aman were present in the hospital, where the deceased was under

treatment before his death. It is in the evidence of PW5 Smt.
Manju that she had gone to the AIIMS Trauma Center, where she
had seen the accused persons Vijay and Aman were also present.
As per the testimony of PW2 Ronak also, both the accused
persons were also there in the hospital, and upon his pointing out
and identification, the police officials had apprehanded them. The
testimonies of PW2 Ronak have been duly corroborated by
PW16 Ct. Jaibir and PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar.

179. As per the statement (Ex.PW2/A) of the complainant
Ronak also, which formed basis of registration of FIR, the
complainant has specifally named the accused persons, who had
visited the shop of the deceased and the complainant was present
in the street and the accused persons had told the complainant
that they had killed his brother.

180. Further, the presence of the accused persons at the
hospital has also been proved by the MLC (Ex. PW27/B) of the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 81 of 92
accused Aman, which has been proved by PW27 Bhunesh Kumar
Sharma and PW28 Dr. Mehul K. As per the MLC C (Ex.
PW27/B, on the date of incident, the accused Aman had also
gone to Trauma Center, AIIMS with alleged history of assault,
and was examined there on June 26, 2017 at 22:43:59 hours.

181. MLC (Ex. PW24/A) of the deceased has been
proved by PW24 Rajender Singh, Record Clerk from the Trauma
Center, AIIMS. As per the MLC (Ex. PW24/A), the deceased was
brought to Trauma Center, AIIMS on June 26, 2017 at 22:27:52
hours with alleged history of assault.

182. The postmortem of the deceased was got conducted
by the investigating officer, Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj.

183. It is in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bhardwaj that upon receipt of information regarding death of
injured Deepak, further investigation of the present case was
undertaken by him, and he along with SI Rajender and Ct. Madan
Lal had gone to JPN Trauma Center, where he had met Ronak
and Manoj, brothers of the deceased. It is also in the evidence of
PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj that he had prepared inquest
papers (Ex.PW7/A) and also filled Form No.25.35 (1)B
(Ex.PW21/A).

184. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has duly corroborated the
above-said testimonies of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 82 of 92

185. For proving the injury on the person of the deceased,
testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal are relevant.

186. As per the testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, he
was working as Senior Resident in JPNATC, AIIMS, New Delhi,
and on 28.06.2017, upon receipt of inquest papers, he had
conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased brought
and identified by Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj/IO on the basis of
an application (Ex. PW7/A) and his detailed postmortem report is
Ex. PW7/B; upon examination, he had opined the cause of death
in the present case was, “hemorrhagic shock via injury No.1 and
injury No.1 caused by sharp edged weapon/object which was
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, injury No.2
and 3 were caused by blunt force/impact” and all the injuries
were ante-mortem in nature. PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal has duly proved
the postmortem report and his signature on it.

187. As per postmortem report (Ex.PW7/B), the cause of
death of the deceased was “hemorrhagic shock via injury No.1
and injury No.1 caused by sharp edged weapon/object which was
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, injury No.2
and 3 were caused by blunt force/impact” and all the injuries
were ante-mortem in nature.

188. Regarding nature of injury on the person of
deceased, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal has opined that injury No.1 caused

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 83 of 92
by sharp edged weapon/object which was sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course of nature.

189. From the testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, PW20
SI Rajendra Kumar and PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, it has
been duly proved that postmortem of the deceased was conducted
by PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal.

190. From the testimonies of PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal, the
nature of injury present on the person/deceased has also been
duly proved to be sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature.

191. Regarding identification of the dead body of the
deceased, it is in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that he had recorded dead-body identification
statements (Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW21/3) of Ronak and Manoj.
The said testimony has been corroborated by PW2 Ronak, and as
per his testimonies, he had identified the dead-body of his brother
Deepak in the mortuary of the hospital vide memo (Ex.PW2/B).
It is also in the evidence of PW2 Ronak that after the
postmortem, body was handed over to his family members vide
handing over memo (Ex.PW2/C). the said testimonies have been
duly corroborated by PW20 Rajender Kumar.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 84 of 92

192. Dead-body of the deceased, as per testimonies of
PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bhardwaj, was handed over to Ronak
vide receipt (Ex.PW2/C).

193. It is also in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that after postmortem of the deceased, duty constable
had handed over the exhibits viz., nail clippings of the deceased
and blood in gauge along with sample seals, which he had seized
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/A), and deposited the case property
in malkhana.

194. It is also in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that on 02.08.2017, he had sent the weapon of offence
to FSL for its examination through Ct. Dharmender vide
application (Ex.PW21/D) and during investigation, he had
collected the opinion (Ex.PW7/C) of the same. PW7 Dr. Suraj
Ohal proved the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW7/C).

195. As per the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW7/C), on
perusal of the above documents, PW7 Dr. Suraj Ohal was of the
considered opinion that injuries mentioned in MLC
500031484/2017, dated 26.06.2017 could be possible by
submitted weapon of offence.

196. Regarding completion of investigation, it is in the
evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay Bharadwaj that after

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 85 of 92
completion of the investigation, he had filed the police report in
the Court.

197. It is also in the evidence of PW21 Inspector Sanjay
Bharadwaj that during investigation, he had collected the PCR
Form pertaining to the call and the FSL result and filed the
supplementary police report in the Court.

198. Regarding identification of the accused persons,
PW2 Raunak, PW5 Smt. Manju & PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has
correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.

199. PW20 SI Rajendra Kumar has correctly identified
broken pieces of Pepsi and Slice bottles (Ex.P1 colly.) stating that
the same were seized by him from the spot. PW20 SI Rajendra
Kumar has also correctly identified one jeans pant having brown
stains and one T shirt having brown stains (Ex.P3 colly.) as the
clothes of the accused Vijay seized by him. He has also correctly
identified one pant having brown stains and one torn/cut shirt
having brown stains (Ex.P4 colly.) as clothes of the accused
Aman seized by him.

200. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been
brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above
prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version
given by either of them and their testimonies have remained

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 86 of 92
consistent. All the prosecution witnesses, who had joined the
investigation, have duly corroborated and proved the said fact.

201. The most important piece of evidence against the
accused Vijay is the recovery of his blood-stained clothes which
matched with the blood of the deceased during forensic
examination.

202. As per the testimonies of PW20 Sub-Inspector
Rajendra Kumar, on 27.06.2017, when the accused Vijay had met
him in the hospital, his wearing clothes were having bloodstains
and therefore, he had got his clothes changed and seized his
clothes viz., one jeans pant having white and light black colour
and his wearing t-shirt having blue, white and slaty colour both
containing bloodstains, and he had prepared a cloth pullanda of
the above clothes and sealed it with the seal of ‘RK’ and seized it
vide seizure memo (Ex.PW16/F).

203. The blood-stained clothes along with other exhibits
were deposited by PW11 Ct. Deep Ram to FSL Rohini. It is in
the evidence of PW11 Ct. Deep Ram that on 21.09.2017, on the
directions of the investigating officer, he had taken seven sealed
exhibits and three sample seals from MHC(M) vide RC
No.145/21/17 (Ex.PW11/A). It is also in the evidence of PW11
Ct. Deep Ram that he had deposited the above-said sealed
exhibits and sample seals in FSL, and obtained the receipt and

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 87 of 92
handed over the receipt to the MHC(M). It is also in the evidence
of PW11 Ct. Deep Ram that the case property had remained
intact till it remained in his possession. PW11 Ct. Deep Ram was
not cross-examined by the accused persons, therefore, his
testimonies stand proved.

204. As per road certificate (Ex.PW11/A), the blood-
stained clothes of the accused persons along with other exhibits
were sent to FSL Rohini.

205. During the examination-in-chief of PW20 SI
Rajender, he has correctly identified the clothes i.e. Ex.P3 of the
accused Vijay and Ex.P4 of the accused Aman in the Court when
produced by the MHC(M).

206. As per the FSL report (Ex.PW22/A), in the
description of parcel(s)/exhibit(s), blood-stained clothes of the
accused Vijay, which he was wearing at the time of incident are,
inter-alia, mentioned at serial number 1 (Parcel No.1) as follows:

Parcel-‘1’: One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal
of “RK” containing exhibits ‘1a’ and ‘1b’ described as
clothes of accused/injured Vijay.

Exhibit ‘1a’: One jeans pant;s having brown stains.

Exhibit ‘1b’: One T-shirt having brown stains.
Parcel ‘2’: One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of
“RK” containing exhibits 2a’and ‘2b’described as clothes of
accused/injured Aman.

Exhibit ‘2a’: One pant’s having brown stains.

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 88 of 92

Exhibit ‘2b’: One Cut/torn shirt having brown stains.

Parcel ‘3’ : One sealed plastic container sealed with the seal of
“FORENSIC MEDICINE JPNATC AIIMS NEW DELHI ”

containing exhibit ‘3’.

Exhibit ‘3’ : Broken pieces of glass bottle having brown stains
described as broken bottle of cold drink (Pepsi and slice) and
some pieces of glass having brown stains.

Parcel ‘4’ : One sealed brown envelope sealed with the seal of
“RK” containing exhibit 4″.

Exhibit ‘4’ : Cotton wool swab having brown stains described
as Blood in gauze as marked ‘A’ Blood lift from the stairs.

Parcel ‘5’ : One sealed brown envelope sealed with the seal of
“RK” containing exhibit 5′.

Exhibit ‘5’ : Cotton wool swab on a stick described as Blood
in gauze as marked ‘B’ Blood lift from inside the shop.

Parcel ‘6’ : One sealed plastic bag sealed with the seal of
“CMO JPNATC AIIMS ND” containing exhibit’6′.

Exhibit ‘6’: One cut/torn damp Tshirt having foul smelling
having brown stains described as clothes of injured
Deepak@Pankaj Gandhi.

Parcel ‘7’ : One sealed vial sealed with the seal of “CMO
AIIMS HOPT ND” containing exhibit ‘7’.

Exhibit ‘7’ : One blood vial having dark brown liquid
described as Bloodin gauze of injured CCL Aman.

207. The FSL result has been proved by PW22 Ms. Soni
Khampa, Jr. Forensic/Chemical Examiner, FSL, Rohini, New
Delhi. The result of examination in the FSL report (Ex.PW22/A)
is reproduced as follows:

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 89 of 92

“Result of Examination:

1. Male DNA profile were generated from the source of
exhibits ‘la’, ‘Ib’, ‘2a’, ‘2b’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’ and ‘7’.

2. DNA profile could not be generated from the source of
exhibit ‘6’ which may be due to degradation of sample.

CONCLUSION

DNA profile (STR) analysis were performed on the exhibits
‘la’, ‘lb’, ‘2a’, ’26’, ‘3’, ‘4’, ‘5’ and ‘7’ were sufficient to conclude
that the DNA profile generated from the source of exhibits
‘la’ and ‘1b’ is found to be similar with DNA profile generated
from the source of exhibits ‘3’, ‘4’ and ‘5’. DNA profile
generated from the source of exhibits ‘2a’, ’26’ and ‘7’ is found
to be similar with each other.”

208. In the light of the FSL report (Ex.PW22/A), it is
established that the DNA profile (STR) analysis were performed
on the exhibits ‘1a'(one jeans pant having brown stains of the
accused Vijay) and ‘1b'(one t-shirt having brown stains of the
accused Vijay), were sufficient to conclude the DNA profile
generated from the source of the exhibit ‘1a’ and ‘1b’ (clothes of
the accused Vijay) was found to be similar with the DNA profile
generated from the source of exhibits ‘3’ (Broken pieces of glass
bottle having brown stains described as broken bottle of cold
drink (Pepsi and slice) and some pieces of glass having brown
stains.), ‘4’ (Cotton wool swab having brown stains described as
Blood in gauze as marked ‘A’ Blood lift from the stairs.) and ‘5’
(Cotton wool swab on a stick described as Blood in gauze as
marked ‘B’ Blood lift from inside the shop.)

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 90 of 92

209. Blood-stained clothes of the accused Vijay had
matched with the blood which was found on the blood-stained
glass bottle and blood-in-gauze lifted from the stairs of the spot
of incident and this fact has been duly proved by FSL expert
(PW22 Soni Khampa) by way of her FSL report (Ex.PW22/A).

210. From the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution
which has been discussed herein above, the prosecution has been
successful in proving that on the date of incident, (i) at about
07:30 p.m., the accused persons along with other persons had
called the deceased from his house and taken him along, (ii) at
about 09:45 p.m., the accused persons were seen coming out of
the shop of the deceased i.e. the spot of incident, (iii) during the
course of investigation of the present case, blood-stained clothes
of accused Vijay were recovered by the investigating officer, (iv)
the blood-stained clothes of the accused Vijay along with other
exhibits including the blood lifted from the spot of incident was
sent to FSL for forensic examination, and (v) the DNA of the
blood found on the clothes of the accused Vijay matched with the
blood of the deceased lifted from the spot of incident.

211. It is important to note here that after the case was
fixed for pronouncement of judgment, the accused Aman died
and the present proceedings against him stood abated.

212. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt the charge
under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 91 of 92
accused Vijay, so the accused Vijay is found guilty of having
committed the said offence and hence, he is convicted of offence
punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

213. Let the convict be heard on the question of sentence.

Digitally signed
by RAKESH

                                          RAKESH                   KUMAR
                                          KUMAR                    Date:
                                                                   2025.07.12
                                                                   17:20:19 +0530

Pronounced in the open Court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR)
on 12thof July, 2025. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02,
South-East, Saket Court Complex,
New Delhi

FIR No.250/2017 PS Govind Puri State vs. Vijay & Anr. Page 92 of 92