Perjury punished - Witness gets 1 month jail for lying in court

>>>>perjury order <<<<

(main case  ALSO PRESENTED BELOW THIS PERJURY ORDER FOR BETTER GRASP )

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II(NW): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 691/06
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0268252006
Court on its own motion     Vs.  Ravinder Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o 2633, Main Road,
Patel Nagar,
Delhi
FIR No.  525/06
Under Section: 302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Date of Judgment: 5.7.2010
Date of hearing: 15.7.2010
Date of Sentence: 20.7.2010
ORDER ON SENTENCE AS AGAINST RAVINDER KUMAR:
The above mentioned FIR had been registered on the
statement of Ravinder Kumar stated to be an eye witness of the
incident in which Ashok son of Hukum Chand lost his life. Briefly
the facts of the case are that on 17.6.2006 the family of the deceased
Ashok Kumar along with 4-5 other families residing and having their
shops in the same area had organized a joint contributory Bhandara at
the Shiv Mandir, Vani Vihar, Uttam Nagar. After the conclusion of
the Bhandara while Ashok Kumar and his employees were winding up
one Santro car bearing No. DL-3C-AB-5306 driven by Shanky
Mahajan with Mukesh (accused in the above case) came at a fast speed
and hit the pole of the pandal which fell on the scooter of Ashok who
asked these boys to drive carefully on which there was a verbal
altercation. With the intervention of Hukum Chand the matters were

St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 77 of 88

sorted out and both these boys went away but not without threatening
Ashok with dire consequences. A few minutes later Mukesh returned
to the spot along with his brothers Dinesh and Rajesh (all accused in
the case) and while Mukesh and Dinesh caught hold of Ashok, Rajesh
inflicted a stab injury on his left chest below the armpit with a knife.
Dinesh was apprehended at the spot while Mukesh and Rajesh were
apprehended a few hours after the incident. Ashok was taken to Mata
Chanan Devi hospital by his father Hukum Chand where he expired.
This incident was witnessed by a large number of persons
including Ravinder Kumar an electrician by profession who used to
work with the deceased Ashok Kumar. It was on the basis of the
statement of this Ravinder Kumar an eye witness who was present in
the hospital with the father of the deceased when the deceased was
taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital that the present FIR bearing No.
525/2006, PS Uttam Nagar, Under Section 302/120-B/34 Indian
Penal Code was registered. 
Vide a detailed judgment dated 5.7.2010 the accused
Shanky Mahajan has been acquitted whereas the accused Dinesh,
Mukesh and Rajesh have been held guilty and accordingly convicted
of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code.
While convicting the aforesaid persons, this court arrived at a
conclusion that Ravinder Kumar the complainant in the case who has
been examined as PW4 is guilty of perjury on account of making a
false statement on oath before the court during the trial. The relevant
portion of the judgment is as under:
Further, in so far as the role of the witness
Ravinder Kumar is concerned, he is the
complainant before this court on whose statement

St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 78 of 88

the FIR was registered and the investigations were
kicked off. It has been established from the address
provided by him that he is a resident of the same
area. It is also evident that he is known to both the
families of the accused and the deceased. He has
been examined as PW4 and has denied his presence
in the hospital or having made any statement to the
investigating officer on the basis of which the FIR
has been registered though he admits his signatures
not only on the rukka which is Ex.PW4/1, but also
the site plan which is Ex.PW4/A-1; personal search
memo of Dinesh which is Ex.PW4/B; arrest memo
of the accused Dinesh which is Ex.PW4/C; personal
search of the accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/D;
arrest memo of accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/E;
disclosure statement of accused Rajesh which is
Ex.PW4/E-1; recovery-cum-pointing out memo of
the knife which is Ex.PW4/F1 and sketch of the
knife which is Ex.PW4/F. His presence at the spot
has been established from the testimonies of the
other witnesses. The investigating officer SI
Mahesh Kumar has proved that it was Ravinder
Kumar who met them in the hospital on whose
statement the FIR was registered. It may be
observed that the FIR had been registered at the
earliest possible opportunity without any delay and
the chances of there being any interpolation in the
same does not arise. It is further evident that the
accused Dinesh was apprehended at the spot itself.

St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 79 of 88

The said witnesses has turned hostile on the aspect
of his witnessing the incident and states that during
this time he was present in the house of the
deceased Ashok and that when he went to the spot
the deceased was bleeding on his chest. Despite the
fact that the apprehension and arrest of the accused
Dinesh has been established and proved from the
testimonies of other eye witnesses, Ravinder Kumar
has falsely deposed on this aspect also and has
testified that all the accused ran away from the
spot. Further, despite the fact that it was the father
of the deceased namely Hukum Chand who had
taken the deceased to the hospital, as evident from
the MLC of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Ravinder
Kumar has made false statement on that aspect by
deposing that it was the labour/ employee of the
deceased Ashok who had taken the deceased to the
hospital on a scooter. It is also borne out from the
record that the deceased was taken to Mata Chanan
Devi Hospital where he was first provided
treatment despite which he could not be saved. The
present witness Ravinder Kumar has also made a
false statement on this aspect wherein he has
deposed that the deceased was taken to Mahajan
Nursing Home. It stands established that the
complainant Ravinder Kumar has taken a complete
somersault in his deposition before the court. 
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 80 of 88

It was further observed that:
The testimony of witness Ravinder Kumar that he
was made to sign on all the documents later on in
the police station, does not inspire confidence of
the court since it is evident that the FIR was
registered on the basis of the statement of Ravinder
Kumar and it was only later that all the accused
were arrested which arrest memos also bear his
signatures which he admits. It was not possible for
the police to have apprehended the accused
persons without any help of identification which
was provided to them by the complainant Ravinder
Kumar who now in his testimony before the court
has denied not only the incident but also the
investigation proceedings which took place, before
the court. How convenient it is for this witness to
plead ignorance on all aspects except his
signatures, which he of course could not deny
knowing-fully well that the same could be
established and got proved by an expert. This
being so I am of a considered view that this court
cannot allow the complainant Ravinder Kumar who
is the most important witness being the
complainant, to pollute the stream of justice by
making a false statement on oath only to help the
accused persons and to get away with it. I hold the
witness Ravinder Kumar guilty of the offence of
perjury and I am satisfied that it is necessary and
expedient in the interest of justice that

St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 81 of 88

 

Ravinder Kumar should be tried summarily under Section
344 Code of Criminal Procedure for giving a false
statement on oath during the trial of the case.
In view of the aforesaid, a notice was directed to be issued
to Ravinder Kumar as to why he should not be punished for perjury on
account of giving false evidence on oath believing the same to be false
during the trial of the case despite being legally bound to state truth.
Ravinder Kumar was also directed to appear in person before the court
and to file his detail reply. 
Pursuant to the service of the aforesaid notice Ex.CW1/A
Ravinder Kumar appeared before this court on 15.7.2010 and filed his
reply Ex.CW1/B reaffirming that whatever he has stated during the
trial on oath was correct. In order to ensure that Ravinder Kumar is
granted a reasonable hearing, his statement was also recorded in the
court wherein he stated that on the date of incident he was a resident of
Uttam Nagar and was known to both the family of the deceased and
also the three accused Rajesh, Mukesh and Dinesh being the residents
of the same area. He also stated that he was doing the work of an
electrician from his house from where he was running his shop and the
deceased Ashok was doing the work of welding and he was also
working with the deceased Ashok. He also stated that at the time of
incident, the accused Dinesh, Rajesh and Mukesh who were known to
him, were doing the business of export. He further stated that
deceased Ashok was fully conscious when he was stabbed and also
when he was taken to the hospital. Ravinder Kumar also stated that he
went to the hospital later. According to him, the police was present in
the hospital and they recorded his statement after taking him to the
police station. He further stated that the accused Dinesh had already
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 82 of 88been apprehended at the spot and was made to sit in the office of
Ashok while he along with the father of Ashok namely Hukum Chand
had gone to the hospital. According to him Ashok was taken to the
hospital by his wife and one employee. He states that Ashok was first
taken to a Nursing Home and then to DDU Hospital whereas he along
with Hukum Chand had gone straight to the hospital. 
Today, when the matter was fixed for orders Ravinder
Kumar made a request to the court through his counsel Sh. Manoj
Sharma for permitting him to file another written reply to the show
cause notice. The Ld. counsel was informed that Ravinder Kumar had
already given a reply on 15.7.2010 but Sh. Manoj Sharma Advocate
requested that the reply prepared by him after legal assistance should
also be taken on record. In this background another statement of
Ravinder Kumar was recorded today wherein he exhibited his reply to
the show cause Ex.CW1/C. In the said reply it is pleaded that the
notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. is illegal and unconstitutional
without any proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is further
alleged that the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were not
informed and no notice was served to the witness to defend himself. It
is further stated that the trial of the case has been completed and part
of the judgment has been announced under Section 353 Cr.P.C. and
therefore the notice issued by the court under Section 344 Cr.P.C. is
not maintainable. 
I have considered the grounds now raised by the applicant/
witness PW4 Ravinder Kumar who has already been held guilty of
perjury vide judgment dated 5.7.2010 which are without any merits
and it may be observed that Ravinder Kumar has already been held
guilty of perjury by this court vide detailed findings in judgment dated
5.7.2010. The service of the notice issued to the witness also stands
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 83 of 88proved as he has himself admitted the same in his statement and has
appeared in the court pursuant to the same and therefore, the stand
now taken by him that he was not served with any notice is factually
incorrect.   
Coming now to the merits of the submissions. It is evident
that Ravinder Kumar PW4 is a most untrustworthy witness who has
been changing his stand time and again to suit his circumstances. His
first statement to the police Ex.PW4/A is as under:
Bayan kiya ki mei pata uprokat par saparivar rehta
hu aur mritak Ashok Arora ki dukan par bijali ki
fitting ka kam karta hu. Aaj dinak 17/06/06 ko
Ashok Arora ke ghar ke bahar shiv mandir hai,
usme har saal bhandara karte hai. Aaj bhi har
varsh ki tarah bhandara tha aur bhandara samapt
ho gaya tha. Ghar ke samne gali me tent laga hua
tha samay karib 4 baje sham ke aaspass ek
SANTRO kar number DL3CA B5306 barang silver
jise Shanky Mahajan chala raha tha va Mukesh
saed mein betha tha jinhe mein achhi tehre janta
hun kyoki hamari peechi wali gali mein rehte hain.
SANTRO chalak ne gari teji se gali se nikali jisse
tent ka pipe Ashok ke khare nay scooter par gir
gaya jis par Ashok Arora ne Santro Car rukwai
aur poocha ki tum gari dheere nahi chala sakte.
Jis par gari se Shanky Mahajan ve Mukesh bahar
nikly aur gali galoch karne lage jispar Ashok
Arora ke sath en dono ki tu tu mi mi ho gayi. Iske
bad Mukesh ve Sankey Mahajan ne apass mein
kuch bate ki ve dono kehkar chaley gaye ke hum
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 84 of 88dono abhi thodi der mein ate hai aur tumeha maja
cakhaty hai aur thore samay bad Mukesh Verma ,
S/O Ram Murti, R/O O-9, Vani Vihar, Uttam
Nagar, Delhi aur bhai Dinesh Verma ve Rajesh
Verma ke sath mritak Ashok Arora ki dukan Vishal
Properties P-60, Vijay Vihar aye aur Mukesh ne
chilla kar Dinesh ko kaha ki pakar saley Ashok ko
aur Rajesh ko kaha ki mar saley ko chako. Jis par
Mukesh ne Dinesh ke sath milkar Ashok Arora ko
pakar liya aur Rajesh ne chaku se Ashok Arora ke
chathi par var kiya jisse Ashok gir gaya. Rajesh
bhay chako ve Mukesh mauko se bhag gaye. Is
vkua ko lmauka par maujod Ajay, Manoj ve
Yogram ne dekha hai. Ajay, Manoj ve Yograj ne
mauka par Dinesh ko pakar liya aur mei ve Ashok
ke pitaji Sh. Hukam Chand Ashok ko scooter par
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital le gaye jaha par
doctor sahab ne thodi der bad Ashok Arora ko mrit
ghoshit kar diya. Dinesh, Rajesh, Mukesh ve
Shankey Mahajan ne yojna banakar Ashok Arora
ka katal kiya hai. Inke khilaf kanoni karyawahi ki
jaye.  Bayan sun liya thik hai.
During the trial Ravinder Kumar who had made the above
statement was called to the court and examined as PW4 on 1.9.2007,
26.2.2008 and 3.7.2008 when he did not support the case of the
prosecution by stating on oath that he was not a witness to the incident
nor he had made any statement to the police. He also stated that he did
not participate in any of the proceedings but identified his signatures
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 85 of 88on all the documents including rukka Ex.PW4/A; site plan
Ex.PW4/A1; arrest memo of the accused Dinesh who had been
apprehended at the spot which is Ex.PW4/C; personal search memo of
accused Dinesh Ex.PW4/B. He further identified his signatures on the
personal search memo of accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW1/D, arrest
memo of accused Rajesh Ex.PW4/E, disclosure statement of accused
Rajesh Ex.PW4/E-1; recovery-cum-seizure memo of the knife
Ex.PW4/F1 and sketch of the knife Ex.PW4/F. 
Now after the notice has been served upon Ravinder Kumar
and his statement has been recorded in the present proceedings he has
admitted that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer
(on the basis of which the FIR was registered). He has also now
admitted that he had gone to the hospital along with Hukum Chand the
father of the deceased. He has further stated that Dinesh was
apprehended at the spot itself and made to sit in the office of the
deceased when he and Hukum Chand had gone to hospital. It is
evident that now this same witness Ravinder Kumar has again taken a
somersault to what he had stated on oath in the court during trial. The
falsity of the statement of Ravinder Kumar stands established on the
following aspects on account of which he has been held guilty of
perjury:
1. Despite the fact that the apprehension and arrest of the accused
Dinesh has been established and proved from the testimonies of
other eye witnesses, Ravinder Kumar has falsely deposed on this
aspect and had testified that all the accused ran away from the
spot. Now, when he has been given a notice after being held
guilty of perjury, he admits that Dinesh was apprehended at the
spot.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 86 of 882. Further, despite the fact that it was the father of the deceased
namely Hukum Chand who had taken the deceased to the
hospital, as evident from the MLC of Mata Chanan Devi
Hospital, Ravinder Kumar made false statement to that aspect as
well by deposing that it was the labour/ employee of the deceased
Ashok who had taken the deceased to the hospital on a scooter.
Now, after he has been given a notice and his statement recorded
in the court he has again changed his stand and states that Ashok
was taken to the hospital by his wife and one employee.
3. It is also borne out from the record that the deceased was taken to
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where he was first provided
treatment but he unfortunately expired. The present witness
Ravinder Kumar has also made a false statement on this aspect
wherein he has deposed that the deceased was taken to Mahajan
Nursing Home whereas the documents prove that he was taken to
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital.
4. Ravinder Kumar was himself present in the hospital claiming to
be an eye witness on account of which his statement was
recorded by the police on the basis of which the FIR was
registered at the earliest opportunity, a fact which he now admits
after the notice has been given to him but denied during the trial
while making his statement on oath.
Chapter IX of Indian Penal Code has been incorporated to
deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public
justice. The offence in the Chapter are based upon recognition of
decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. The witnesses
are eyes and ears of the court and are extremely important subjects of
the criminal justice system. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily

St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 87 of 88

resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has to some
extent resulted in polluting the judicial system. Any attempt by a
witness to divert the course of justice, is required to be dealt with
sternly. Ravinder Kumar who is the complainant in the case on the
basis of whose statement the entire investigations were kicked off, was
legally bound by an oath to state the truth in the court which he did not
do and any leniency now shown to this witness will be misplaced and
send wrong signals to similar other wrong doers. This being so I am of
a considered view that this court cannot allow the complainant
Ravinder Kumar who is the most important witness being the
complainant, to pollute the stream of justice by making a false
statement on oath for reasons writ large and get away with it. 
I, therefore, hold that interest of justice would be
adequately met in case if Ravinder Kumar is sentenced to Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one month and fine to the tune of
Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, Ravinder Kumar shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of two days.
Ravinder Kumar is hereby informed that he has a right to
prefer an appeal against this judgment. He has also been apprised that
in case he cannot afford to engage an advocate, he can approach the
Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary,
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers
Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi. 
One copy of the judgment and order of sentence be given to
Ravinder Kumar free of costs and another be attached with his jail
warrants.
Announced in the open court  (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.7.2010   ASJ-II(NW): Rohini
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 88 of 88

 

>>>>> MAIN CASE >>>>>

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 691/06
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0268252006
STATE        Vs. (1)  Dinesh Verma,  
S/o Sh. Ram Murti,  
R/o O-9, Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
(Convicted)
(2)  Mukesh Kumar Verma,
S/o Sh. Ram Murti,  
R/o O-9, Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
(Convicted)
(3)  Rajesh Verma,
S/o Sh. Ram Murti,  
R/o O-9, Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
(Convicted)
(4)  Shanky Mahajan,
S/o Sh. Vishwa Mitra,  
R/o A-19, East Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
(Acquitted)
FIR No.  525/06
Under Section: 302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Date of Institution in sessions Court:   4.10.2006
Date on which judgment reserved: 5.6.2010
Date on which judgment pronounced : 5.7.2010  
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 1 of 88JUDGMENT
BRIEF  FACTS
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 17/6/2006 at
4pm at P-60, Vijay Vihar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction
of PS Uttam Nagar all accused persons, namely, Dinesh Verma,
Mukesh Kumar Verma, Rajesh Verma and Shanky Mahajan entered
into a criminal conspiracy with each other to do an illegal act i.e. to
commit murder of Ashok Kumar Arora. They, on the aforesaid date,
time and place in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy committed the
murder of Ashok Kumar Arora by stabbing him with a knife.
CHARGE
After hearing the arguments of all the sides, charges for the
offence under Section 120B IPC and 302/34 IPC were settled against
all the accused persons, namely, Dinesh Verma, Mukesh Kumar
Verma, Rajesh Verma and Shanky to which they all pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 25
witnesses.
Complainant:
  PW4 Ravinder is the complainant in the present case on
whose statement, the rukka was prepared and the FIR was registered.
He has deposed that on 17th
of a month about 1½ year earlier there was
a “bhandara” at Shiv Mandir near his house. After the “bhandara” he
received a phone call from mother of Ashok Arora to attend to the
inverter at their house which had stopped functioning. He has deposed
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 2 of 88that when he was attending the inverter of the first floor the present
occurrence took place. According to him, he is not a witness to the
incident. He has deposed that when he came down, the accused had
gone away and Ashok Arora was also not present. He further deposed
that his statement was recorded by the police at the police station.
During examination-in-chief this witness was declared hostile by Ld.
APP as he was found resiling from his previous statement recorded by
police officials under Section 161 Cr.P.C. During cross-examination
by Ld. APP, PW4 admitted that he saw the injured Ashok Arora and
he was bleeding from the left side of the chest. He further deposed
that the assailants had already left the spot when he reached the spot.
He further deposed that the injured had been taken to Mahajan Nursing
Home on a two wheeler scooter by a labour working at the shop of
Ashok Arora. This fact, however, is not borne out from the record
since it is evident from the MLC of the deceased that it is the father of
the deceased namely Hukam Chand who had brought the deceased to
the Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and not the labourer. This witness has
totally turned hostile despite being confronted with his statement made
to the police. He has, however, admitted his signatures on his
statement made to the police which is Ex.PW4/A; site plan which is
Ex.PW4/A1; arrest memo of accused Dinesh which is Ex.PW4/B;
personal search memo of the accused Dinesh which is Ex.PW4/C;
personal search memo of accused Rajesh Verma which is Ex.PW4/D;
arrest memo of accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/E; disclosure
statement of the accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/E-1; sketch of the
knife which is Ex.PW4/F and the pointing out memo, seizure cum
recovery memo of knife which is Ex.PW4/F-1. The complainant was
working with the deceased and the accused being residents of the same
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 3 of 88area, the chances of his being won over by the accused cannot be ruled
out, otherwise there could have been no reason for the complainant on
whose statement the Ruka was drawn and the FIR was registered to
have resiled from his earlier statement after admitting his signatures on
not only the Rukka but the documents of arrest of the accused persons,
their personal search, disclosure statements and seizure memos as
aforesaid. 
Public witnesses/ eye witnesses:
PW1 Radhey Shyam has deposed that on 17-6-2006 in the
morning a “Lunger” was organized by one Ashok at O-75, near a
Temple which Lunger started at about 1.30pm and continued till 4pm.
He has deposed that he had visited the “Lunger” to have his lunch at
about 1.30 pm and thereafter left the spot. According to him, at about
5 pm he saw three of the accused persons going towards the shop of
Ashok. He has pointed out towards Dinesh Verma, Mukesh Verma and
Rajesh Verma as the persons who had been seen by him though he is
unable to tell their names. He has deposed that one of them stabbed
Ashok and he has pointed out towards accused Mukesh Verma to be
the assailants. He further deposed that the other two persons had
caught hold of Ashok when Mukesh stabbed him. He further deposed
that all the three accused persons, namely, Dinesh Verma, Mukesh
Verma and Rajesh had collectively attacked upon the deceased and the
accused Dinesh was apprehended at the spot by him. He further
deposed that injured Ashok was shifted to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital
on a scooter by some person and thereafter he was shifted to DDU
Hospital. He further deposed that he was at a distance of about 30 feet
away when the injured was surrounded by all the three accused
persons. During the examination-in-chief this witness was permitted to
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 4 of 88be cross-examined as he was resiling from his previous statement
recorded by police official under Section 161 Cr.PC. During cross
examination he further deposed that his statement was recorded by
police. He has turned hostile on the role attributed to accused Shanky
Mahajan. He is not aware if accused Shanky Mahajan was driving the
car and Mukesh Verma was sitting besides him or that Ashok Kumar
had scolded Shanky Mahajan for driving at fast speed. He has denied
that Shanky Mahajan and Dinesh Verma had left the spot after
threatening to return to teach a lesson. According to him, he does not
know if Mukesh had exhorted Rajesh to stab Ashok and has denied
that Rajesh Verma had stabbed Ashok in his chest. 
In his cross-examination by the Ld. defence counsel he has
denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place at the spot on
17.6.2006. He has deposed that his statement was recorded by the
police for the first time on 5.9.2006 and has admitted that police had
not narrated his statement to him.
PW3 Manoj Kumar has deposed that he is a welder by
profession and worked in a welding shop owned by one Ashok Kumar.
He further deposed that on 17-6-2006 there was “Bhandara” in a
mandir near the house of Ashok Kumar. He further deposed that he
had been called by Ashok Kumar to help him in the “bhandara” as the
“bhandara” was organized by Ashok Kumar. He further deposed that
at about 3.00/4.00pm when they were winding up after the
“bhandara”, a Santro Car of silver colour bearing registration no.5306
came at a fast speed which was driven by accused Shanky Mahajan
who was sitting in the car on the front side with accused Mukesh. He
further deposed that the car hit one of the pipe supports of the tent and
the pipe fell down on the scooter of Ashok Kumar and there was
verbal altercation between Ashok and occupants of the car with regard
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 5 of 88to rash and negligent driving. He further deposed that accused persons
had come out of the car and then they left the spot after the altercation.
According to the witness, after about ten minutes the three accused
whom he has pointed out as Rajesh, Dinesh and Mukesh returned to
the spot on foot. He further deposed that all three accused persons i.e.
Rajesh, Dinesh and Mukesh started fighting with Ashok and the
accused Dinesh stabbed Ashok when he was caught hold by remaining
accused Rajesh and Mukesh. He has pointed out that accused Rajesh
was apprehended at the spot and was handed over by him and his co-
worker Ajay to the police whereas the other two had escaped away
from the spot. 
The said witness was found resiling from his previous
statement recorded by police officials under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
therefore, he was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State
during which he has deposed that the Santro car which was being
driven by the accused at the time of occurrence, was bearing the
registration no. DL-3CAB-5306 and that after Shanky Mahajan and
Mukesh got down from the car, after hitting the pole, they had got into
a verbal altercation with Ashok. On a specific court question the
witness has deposed that accused Rajesh, Mukesh and Dinesh had
returned together. PW3 has further admitted that the car driver who
was accompanying accused Mukesh shouted at Dinesh to catch hold of
Ashok and shouted at Rajesh to stab him. He has also admitted that
accused Mukesh and Dinesh were caught hold of Ashok and accused
Rajesh stabbed Ashok Kumar. He also admits that accused Mukesh
and Rajesh ran away from the spot and Dinesh was apprehended at the
spot. 
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the
witness has deposed that Shanky Mahajan was not known to him prior
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 6 of 88to this occurrence. He has admitted that he had stated in the court on
25.7.2007 that accused Dinesh had stabbed Ashok but according to
him, it was Rajesh who had stabbed Ashok. The witness has also
admitted that he did not see accused Shanky Mahajan at the spot along
with the remaining accused persons in the second part of transaction.
According to him, he had been working with the deceased for the last
10 years. He is not aware the name of the person who had taken the
deceased to the hospital but according to him, the deceased had been
taken on a two wheeler scooter. He has admitted that no site plan was
prepared by the police at his instance and he does not know if police
had collected the blood from the spot. According to the witness, he
did not make any efforts to stop the flow of blood and states that the
deceased had himself kept a handkerchief on the injured portion to
stop flow of blood. 
PW5 Yograj deposed that on 17-6-06 one Ashok Kumar
resident of Vani Vihar had organized a “bhandara” outside a mandir.
He further deposed that he had been invited to the “bhandara” and he
reached there at about 2.30pm. He further deposed that at about
3.45pm a Santro Car bearing registration no.DL3C-AB-5306, Silver
Colour came from a gali opposite to the spot whee “bhandara” was
organized. He further deposed that the car was being driven by
accused, who was wearing spectacles. This witness has pointed
towards accused Shanky Mahajan but he failed to name him. He
further deposed that another accused was sitting besides the driver in
the said car. Witness again pointed towards accused Mukesh Verma
but, he has again failed to name him. He further deposed that the said
car was being driven rashly and negligently and hit one of the
supporting poles of the tent. He further deposed that the pole fell down
on the scooter owned by father of Ashok. He further deposed that the
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 7 of 88car was stopped and both the accused came outside from the car. He
further deposed that deceased Ashok reprimanded them for rashly and
negligently driving in a narrow street. He further deposed that on this
both the parties exchanged hot words on which father of Ashok spoke
to both the accused persons and counselled them. He further deposed
that at this both accused persons i.e Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh
Verma left the spot saying “baad men aa ke dekh lenge”.  According to
the witness, the “bhandara” almost culminated and Ashok left the spot
to visit his shop, which was about 200 meters from the spot of
occurrence. He has further deposed that he had remained at the spot i.e
outside of the house of Ashok and was talking with his father where
other persons were also present and in the meantime he heard a
commotion from the side of Ashok's shop. He has deposed that a
crowd had gathered and he rushed to the spot followed by Ashok's
father and saw that Ashok was holding a pipe in both of his hand
against his chest, with his back towards the wall. Accused Mukesh
and Dinesh were also holding the same pipe and pushing Ashok
towards the wall. The accused Rajesh, who was wearing a knicker at
that time stabbed Ashok in his chest. He further deposed that after
stabbing the deceased, the accused persons ran away from the spot but
accused Dinesh was caught hold of by some workers of the shop of
Ashok namely, Manoj and Ajay. He further deposed that thereafter
Ashok's father and his wife immediately took Ashok to Mata Chanan
Devi Hospital in a TSR. He further deposed that after about ten
minutes police officials reached at the spot and accused Dinesh was
handed over to the custody of police officials. He further deposed that
he also left for Mata Chanan Devi Hospital.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 8 of 88The said witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP
for the State since he had missed out on certain details mentioned in
his earlier statement, during which he has admitted that accused
Mukesh had exhorted Dinesh to catch hold of Ashok and had exhorted
Rajesh to stab him. He has denied that accused Shanky Mahajan had
also similarly exhorted the accused persons and states that he did not
see Shanky Mahajan exhorting any of the accused persons. He has
admitted that personal search of accused Dinesh was taken in his
presence vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/C and the accused
Dinesh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B. 
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel PW5
has deposed that he had made only one statement dated 17.6.2006
which had been signed by him. He has admitted his statement
regarding identification dated 18.6.2006 which is Ex.PW1/DA.
According to him, he did not state to the IO that Ashok's father was
present at the spot and that while he was talking to the father of
deceased Ashok he heard commotion from the side of Ashok's shop.
The witness has further deposed that he had not noted down the
registration number of the car but he had remembered the same which
was not seized by the police. He has admitted that he did not know the
accused persons prior to the occurrence and that he had not disclosed
the names of accused persons to the police during investigations. He
has also admitted that he did not describe the roles of accused persons
by their names to the police during investigation and that he was not
taken to the spot by the police later to 17.6.2006. He does not
remember if the clothes of the accused persons were stained with
blood. PW5 has admitted that he did not accompany Ashok to the
hospital nor he called up the police. He has further admitted that
except the employees and family members of the deceased, police did
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 9 of 88not record the statement of any other person in his presence though
there were more than 50 persons present at the spot. The witness has
admitted that he was not called by the police for identification of the
accused person.
PW6 Ajay Singh was the employee of deceased Ashok
who has deposed that on 17.6.2006 he was employed with deceased
Ashok as a welder and on that day Ashok had organized a “bhandara”
at Shiv Mandir opposite his house. He further deposed that a tent had
been pitched in the gali opposite the house of Ashok. He further
deposed that the “bhandara” started at about 12 noon. He further
deposed that he attended the “bhandara” at about 1pm and then he left
the spot. According to the witness, the shop is situated at about three
to four minutes walk from the house and is visible from the house of
Ashok. He further deposed that at about 4pm he heard some noises and
rushed to the spot. He further deposed that when he reached at the spot
he saw that Ashok was standing and he had already been stabbed in
the side of his chest. He further deposed that the attackers had already
ran away from the spot. He further deposed that a crowd had gathered
there and father of Ashok also reached at the spot and took him to the
hospital. He further deposed that police arrived there after about
fifteen minutes and police lifted the knife and blood from the spot.
The above witness was found resiling from his previous
statement given to the police due to which reason he was cross-
examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the state during which the witness
has stated that police had made inquires from him about the present
occurrence. He has further deposed that his statement was not
recorded by the police nor he signed any document on 17.6.2006. He,
however, has admitted his signatures on the personal search memo of
accused Dinesh Verma which is Ex.PW4/C and arrest memo of
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 10 of 88accused Dinesh Verma which is Ex.PW4/B. He has been confronted
with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which he made to the
police but he has denied the contents of the same. He has failed to
identify the accused persons and the car as well.  
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the
witness has admitted that Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C were not filled
up and the same were signed by him on 18.6.2006 in the police station.
Thereafter the said witness was again cross-examined by
the Ld. Addl. PP wherein he has deposed that he did not make any
complaint to any senior police officer or to the court against the IO for
having obtained his signatures on the said documents.
PW7 Hardeep Singh has deposed that he had a shop of
Durga Tent House immediately adjoining to the shop of deceased
Ashok Kumar. He further deposed that on 17-6-2006 he and deceased
Ashok had organized a “bhandara” in the gali opposite the house of
deceased Ashok. He further deposed that he had pitched a tent for the
“bhandara”. He further deposed that the “bhandara” was contributory
by 3-4 families and the main contribution was by the deceased. He
further deposed that he left the “bhandara” at about 3.30pm as he felt
exhausted and also because the “bhandara” had completed. He further
deposed that deceased Ashok was present at the “bhandara” as he was
winding up the articles. He further deposed that after about five
minutes before 4pm he received a phone call from deceased Ashok to
immediately reach the spot as he had been stabbed by three brothers,
namely Rajesh, Mukesh and Dinesh. According to the witness, he
immediately reached at the spot i.e pavement opposite his shop and
found that Ashok was lying on the pavement and was bleeding from
the left side of the chest. He has further deposed that some cloth had
been wrapped on his injury and Ashok told him that about ten minutes
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 11 of 88prior to the occurrence, a minor quarrel had taken place, when a Santro
Car with accused Mukesh and accused Shanky, in the car had hit the
pole of the tent and a minor scuffle had taken place. He further
deposed that one of the assailants, namely, Dinesh had been
apprehended at the spot and he was handed over to the police.
According to him, one Ravinder (Electrician) and employees of
deceased-Ashok, namely, Ajay and Manoj along with other members
of the family and crowd were present at the spot. He further deposed
that accused Dinesh had been kept in the shop of deceased and the
father and wife of deceased took him to the hospital.
The said witness has also been cross-examined by the Ld.
Addl. PP for the State on the aspect of individual role of accused
persons during which he has admitted that Ashok had told him on
telephone that accused Mukesh Verma and Dinesh Verma had caught
hold of him and accused Rajesh had stabbed him.
In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the
witness has deposed that inquiries were made from him on that day but
his statement was not recorded. According to him, he kept giving
information to the police on every meeting but his statement was not
recorded. According to him, police did not ask for his mobile number
from him, when his statement was recorded. He has also deposed that
police did not ask for his mobile number from him when his statement
was recorded. He has stated that his house is in the third gali from the
place of occurrence. He has further deposed that when he reached at
the spot, wife and father of Ashok were already present at the spot. He
has also deposed that his statement was read over to him by the police
when he made the same. The witness has been confronted with his
statement earlier given to the police which is Ex.PW7/DA where
certain facts have not been recorded. According to the witness, his
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 12 of 88brother and wife were present with him when he received the phone
call from Ashok. He has admitted that he did not call up police on
receiving Ashok’s phone call and that he did not rush to the police
station to lodge a report. PW7 has further deposed that the cloth used
by the deceased to stop the flow of blood was taken by him to the
hospital and the injured was taken to the hospital in a TSR. He has
also stated that before riding a TSR a 2 wheeler scooter had been
arranged and the injured had boarded the same but in the meantime a
TSR reached and the injured was shifted to TSR. He is not aware if
the clothes of the persons who had helped the injured were stained
with blood or not. He has admitted that he knew the accused persons
with their respective names even prior to the occurrence. The witness
has deposed that he did not hand over the call record of his mobile
phone to the police nor the same was seized by the police. According
to him, all throughout before the arrival of the police, accused had not
tried to run away as there was a large crowd at the spot.  
PW8 Pandit Mohan Shyam has deposed that on
17.6.2006 deceased Ashok had organized a “bhandara” in Shiv Mandir
where he was working as a “pujari”. He further deposed that tents had
been pitched near the mandir on the road. He further deposed that the
tents had been brought from Durga Tent House and “bhandara” started
at 12.30pm and continued till 3pm. He further deposed that he was
present in the mandir during the duration of “bhandara” and left the
mandir at 3pm. He further deposed that at about 5.30 pm when he
came to the mandir area to the shop of Bansal Provision Store for
purchasing milk, he was told by certain persons that Ashok had been
stabbed by some boys and some of them had been apprehended by the
public at the spot. He further deposed that his statement was recorded
by the IO. During his cross examination he deposed that he cannot
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 13 of 88depose when his statement was recorded by the police.
PW9 Smt. Suman deposed that she is the owner of the
house where accused Rajesh resided along with his family as a tenant.
She further deposed that at the time of occurrence he had been a tenant
for about one year on the first floor of her house and accused Rajesh
was introduced by one of her relations namely, Bharat Bhushan.
According to her, she did not issue any rent receipt to him. 
In her cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the
passage to the first floor leads through her house and that on 18.6.2006
police did not come to her house along with accused Rajesh. She has
also admitted that no recovery was effected by the police from the first
floor of her house or from any other portion of her house on 18.6.2008.
Thereafter, the said witness was re-examined by the Ld.
Addl. PP for the State wherein she has denied that on 18.6.2006 the IO
along with accused Rajesh had come to her house and recovered a
knife or that the passage to the portion occupied by Rajesh is
independent or that one does not have to pass through her portion. 
PW13 Hukam Chand is the father of the deceased Ashok
Kumar who has deposed that on 17.6.2006 there was a “langar”
organized by them in a Shiv Mandir opposite his house and when the
lunger finished at about 3.30pm, his son Ashok was getting the tent
removed. He further deposed that when he and Yograj talking to each
other, in the meantime a Santro Car came from the side of gali and hit
one of the poles of tent which landed on his scooter which was parked
nearby and caused a dent thereon. According to him, on this his son
Ashok addressed the occupants of car and asked them as to why they
were driving rashly and they entered into an altercation with his son
which turned into exchange of fisticuffs. He has further deposed that
he separated them. The witness has stated that he could not identify
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 14 of 88the occupants of the car as he had not seen them earlier but according
to him, both of them left the spot after threatening his son Ashok that
they will return to teach him a lesson. PW13 has also stated that his
son Ashok went to his shop which was about 20 steps from the spot
whereas he and Yograj were kept standing near the gate of his house
for about 15 minutes. He has testified that in the meantime he saw
three persons running from the side of his shop in a gali which is on
the rear side of mandir, one of them was carrying a knife, another was
carrying a danda and the third person was unarmed. The witness has
deposed that he heard a commotion from the side of his shop and he
went there and saw that his son had been stabbed. He has further
deposed that one of the assailants had been apprehended at the spot,
who was present there and he was being beaten by the public and was
taken inside the office, in the shop of Ashok. According to PW13, his
son Ashok was then shifted to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital on an auto
rickshaw by him, his daughter-in-law, namely Anuradha and a worker
namely Rinku but at the hospital his son expired. The witness has
proved having identified the dead body of Ashok in the mortuary of
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and has deposed that dead body after
postmortem was handed over to him vide receipt Ex.PW13/A. He has
correctly identified the accused Dinesh in the court as the person who
was apprehended at the spot and has deposed that at the time of
occurrence Manoj, Sanjay, Ajay and Rinku were working at their
shop.
The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has also cross-examined the
witness as he was found resiling from his earlier statement during
which he has deposed that he did not state to the police that one
Ravinder Kumar worked as an Electrician, on call, wherever he was
called or that he remained at his shop. He further deposed that he did
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 15 of 88not state to the IO that Ravinder was paid by the persons, who called
him for work at their house or that they also paid him as per the work
done by him. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by
the police.
In his cross-examination the witness has stated that the
scooter was not taken into possession by the IO. According to him, he
had not stated to the IO that a Santro Car came from the side of Gali
and hit the one of the pole of tent or that the police landed on his
scooter which was parked nearby and caused a dent thereon. He has
deposed that he had stated to the police that two occupants of the car
left the spot after threatening his son Ashok that they would return to
teach a lesson to him. According to him, he had stated to the
investigating officer that he saw three persons running from the side of
their shop in a gali which is on the rear side of Mandir and that one of
those persons was carrying a knife. He has also deposed that he had
stated to the IO that one of the assailants had been apprehended at the
spot and he was being beaten by the public and that he was taken in
side the office in the shop of Ashok. The witness has been confronted
with his statements made to the police which are Ex.PW13/DA,
PW13/DB & Ex.PW13/A where these facts have not been recorded.
He has denied the suggestion that he has improved his statement as he
is the father of the deceased.
Police Witnesses:
PW10 HC Ram Mehar has deposed that on 25.7.2006 he
was posted as Ct. in PS Uttam Nagar and on that day he was handed
over three sealed parcels i.e. one parcel sealed with the seal of MCDH
and remaining two parcels were sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU
Hospital. According to him, he took the said parcels vide RC
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 16 of 88No.120/21/06 and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini and after
depositing he handed over the receipt to the MHC (M) of PS Uttam
Nagar. He has proved that the seal on the parcels and sample seal
remained intact till the same remained in his possession and he did not
tamper with the seal.
PW11 ASI Satyaveer Singh has deposed that on
17.6.2006 he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as MHC (M) and on that
day Inspt. K.R. Meena, the Additional SHO had deposited with him
one sealed parcel containing clothes and one sample seal and the same
were sealed with the seal of MCDH. He further deposed that on the
same day Inspt. K.R. Meena had also deposited one Santro Car bearing
no.DL-3C-AB-5360. He has further deposed that the personal search
articles of accused Dinesh Verma were also deposited by Inspt. K.R.
Meena in the malkhana. According to him, on 18.6.2006 Inspt. K.R.
Meena deposited one blood sample and a sample seal duly sealed with
the seal of DFMT DDU Hospital. He has deposed that on the same
day IO had also deposited with him one sealed parcel containing knife
duly sealed with the seal of Additional SHO and also the personal
search articles of accused Mukesh Verma. The witness has further
deposed that he made the relevant entry regarding the deposit of
exhibits and personal search of the accused at serial numbers 4161 and
4171. He further deposed that on 25.7.2006 on the asking of IO he had
sent the aforesaid exhibits through Ct. Ram Mehar vide RC
No.120/21/2006 and after depositing the exhibits through Ct. Ram
Mehar vide RC No.120/21/2006 and after depositing the exhibits in
FSL, Rohini. Ct. Ram Mehar handed over the receipt. He further
deposed that he made the entry pertaining to sending the articles to the
FSL in Register No. 19 and the copy of the same is Ex.PW11/B. He
further deposed that on 4.7.2006 on the directions of IO he took the
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 17 of 88sealed parcel of knife duly sealed with the seal of IO to DDU Hospital.
He further deposed that the parcel was handed over to doctor in the
presence of Investigating Officer. He further deposed that thereafter he
returned to the police station. He further deposed that on the same day
Inspt. K.R. Meena had re-deposited the sealed parcel of knife duly
sealed with the seal of hospital and he made the relevant entry in
Register no. 19 at serial no. 4171. 
PW12 SI Munshi Ram has deposed that on the
intervening night of 17/18.6.2006 he was posted at PP East Uttam
Nagar, PS Uttam Nagar and on that day he was on patrolling duty. He
further deposed that he was informed about DD No.28 dated 17.6.06
and thereafter reached in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He further
deposed that the doctor had handed over to him one sealed parcel and
sample seal duly sealed with the seal of MCDH. He further deposed
that he handed over the same to the IO and he had taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW12/A bears his signatures at point A. He
further deposed that the seals on the exhibit remained intact till the
same remained in his possession and he did not tamper with the seal.
PW14 ASI Ram Chander deposed that on 17-10-2006 he
was posted at PP East Uttam Nagar as ASI and on that day on receipt
of DD No.28 he along with Ct. Jaswant reached Mata Chanan Devi
Hospital. He further deposed that at the hospital they found that Ashok
Kumar had expired. He further deposed that Inspt. K.R. Meena,
Additional SHO also reached at the hospital having received DD
No.28. He further deposed that one eye witness, namely, Ravinder
Kumar appeared before the IO, whose statement was recorded by him
and on the basis of the statement of Ravinder rukka was prepared and
handed over to Ct. Anil Kumar for registration of FIR. He further
deposed that dead body of Ashok was got preserved in the mortuary of
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 18 of 88DDU Hospital and Ct. Jaswant was deputed to guard the body. He
further deposed that they returned to the spot and accused Dinesh, who
was present at the spot was arrested by Inspt. K.R. Meena but, in the
court witness has wrongly identified accused Dinesh. He further
deposed that accused Shanky Mahajan was then arrested from his
house vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/A and the personal search of
accused Shanky Mahajan was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/B. He
further deposed that on the night intervening 17/18.10.2006 accused
Dinesh got arrested the third accused. He has further deposed that he
cannot identify the third accused. He further deposed that his personal
search was conducted. During examination-in-chief ld. APP seeks
permission to cross-examine the witness as he was resiling from his
previous statement under Section 161 Cr.PC recorded by the police
officials. During cross examination by ld. APP this witness stated that
his statement was recorded by the IO and he had joined the
investigation in the month of June and not in the month of October,
2006. During cross examination by ld. APP accused Dinesh Verma
has been pointed out to the witness and he had submitted that he had
wrongly identified accused Dinesh Verma due to lapse of time. In his
cross-examination he stated that third accused, namely, Mukesh
Verma was arrested in his presence vide memo Ex.PW14/C and his
personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/D. In her cross-
examination by ld. APP this witness stated that his statement was
recorded twice by the Investigating Officer. He further deposed that
his first statement was recorded on 17-6-06 and second statement was
recorded on 18-6-06.
PW15 SI Randhir Singh (Retd.) deposed that on 18-6-
2006 he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as SI and on that day he joined
the investigation of this case. He further deposed that on the same day
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 19 of 88he along with Inspt. K.R. Meena, the then Addl. SHO and
Investigating Officer of the case, ASI Ram Chander and Ct. Anil
Kumar were also with them. He further deposed that they went in a
government vehicle at Arya Samaj Road, Najafgarh Road at about
10.20am and on the pointing out of accused Dinesh, accused Mukesh
Verma was apprehended. He further deposed that accused Mukesh
Verma was arrested vid memo Ex.PW14/C and the personal search of
accused Mukesh Verma was conducted vide memo Ex.PW14/D, both
bears his signatures at point B. He further deposed that from the search
of accused Mukesh Verma, a mobile phone was recovered and the
information regarding the arrest of accused Mukesh Verma was given
to his wife Anita. According to him, his statement was recorded by the
IO. During his cross examination this witness stated that he does not
remember the DD numbers of the entries regarding departure and
arrival at the PS or the name of the DD writer. He further deposed in
his cross examination that no public person was associated in the arrest
of accused Mukesh Verma.
PW16 Ct. Murari Lal has deposed that on 18-6-2006 he
was posted in PP East Uttam Nagar, PS Uttam Nagar and on that day
he was called by the Investigating Officer to the PS and he joined the
investigation in this case. He further deposed that he accompanied the
Investigating Officer to ICICI Bank, Najafgarh Road and there they
met one person, namely, Ravinder Kumar who led the police party to
A-45, Ram Dutt Enclave. He further deposed that at the instance of
Ravinder Kumar, Rajesh Verma was apprehended and he was arrested.
He further deposed that an information regarding arrest of accused
Rajesh Verma was given to his mother in-law, namely, Kamlesh. He
further deposed that after interrogating him, he was brought to the PP
East Uttam Nagar and thereafter they went to Vijay Vihar at H. No. P-
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 20 of 8860 at the instance of accused. He further deposed that the accused
Rajesh pointed out the place of occurrence and he then led the police
party to his house i.e A-45, Ram Dutt Enclave, First Floor and got
recovered a kitchen knife from under the bed. He further deposed that
the blade of the knife was of steel and was 11cm long and handle was
of black and pink colour, made of plastic and was 11cm long. He
further deposed that the blade was blood stained. He further deposed
that sketch of the knife was prepared and then it was sealed in a cloth
pullanda and sealed with the seal of KRM and seal after use was
handed over to him. He proved the arrest memo Ex.PW4/E, personal
search memo Ex.PW4/D, disclosure statement Ex.PW4/E1, sketch of
knife Ex.PW4/F, pointing out memo of the place of occurrence
Ex.PW16/A and recovery memo of knife Ex.PW4/F1. During in his
cross-examination this witness stated that his statement was recorded
by the Investigating Officer on 18-6-06 at the house of accused Rajesh
Verma. He further deposed that he had not stated to the IO that
accused Rajesh was apprehended and arrested at the instance of
Ravinder. He further deposed that departure and arrival entry were
made at the Police Station. He further deposed that on 18.6.06 he had
left PP East Uttam Nagar at about 7.50pm and reached the PS Uttam
Nagar at 8pm and that he did not make any departure entry at the
Police Post or arrival entry at the Police Station. He has further
deposed that no public person was associated by the Investigating
Officer during investigation at ICICI Bank and Ram Dutt Enclave.
PW17 ASI Sukhvir Singh deposed that on 17.6.2006 he
was posted as ASI at PS Uttam Nagar and was working as duty officer
from 5pm to 1am and on that day at about 7.15pm he received a rukka
brought by Ct. Anil Kumar and the same was sent by Inspt. Kamal
Ram Meena. He further deposed that on the basis of rukka, he
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 21 of 88registered the FIR for the offence under Section 302/120B/34 IPC. He
further deposed that after registration of FIR he handed over copy of
FIR and original rukka to Ct. Anil Kumar for handing over to IO/Inspt.
K.R. Meena. He further proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW17/A. He has
further deposed that he also recorded DD No.41A dated 17-6-06
regarding registration of case. He has also deposed that he made an
endorsement to that effect on the rukka. He further deposed that he
also recorded DD No.42 regarding the closure of writing the FIR and
regarding the fact that copy of FIR was sent to senior officers through
Ct. Jitender. He proved the copy of DD No.42 as Ex.PW17/D. He also
proved the DD No.5A Ex.PW17/G, 14A Ex.PW17/E and 15A dated
18-6-06 Ex.PW17/F. He further proved DD No.5A which was
prepared by HC Sriram and proved the DD No.14A and 15A in the
handwriting of Duty Officer-HC Ram Karan.
PW18 Ct. Durg Singh deposed that on 18-6-2006 he was
posted as DD writer in PS Uttam Nagar from 5pm to 8am and on that
day he recorded DD No.63B regarding the arrival of Inspt. K.R.
Meena along with staff. He further proved the copy of the same as
Ex.PW18/A.
PW19 Inspt. Suresh Chand deposed that investigation of
this case was handed over to him on 11.8.2006. According to him, he
collected the scaled site plan from SI Mahesh Kumar and recorded his
statement. He has deposed that on the same day he recorded statement
of Suman, the landlord of accused Rajesh. He further deposed that on
4-9-06 he collected the copy of RC of vehicle bearing no.DL-3C-AB-
5306 (Santro Car) from one Vishwamitra, the father of accused
Shanky Mahajan and seized vide memo Ex.PW19/A. He has proved
the copy of RC as Ex.PW19/B. He has further deposed that on 5-9-06
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 22 of 88he recorded statement of Hukum Chand, father of the deceased,
Radhey Shyam Sharma, Hardeep, supplementary statement of
Ravinder, Pt. Mohan Sharma and MHC(M). He further deposed that
after completion of investigation challan was prepared by the then
SHO/Inspt. P.C. Maan and filed in the court. He further deposed that
later on FSL result was collected and filed in the court which is
Ex.PX. During his cross-examination, he deposed that there was no
reference of PW’s Radhey Shyam and Hardeep being eye witnesses or
being present at the spot at the time when he received the papers
relating to the investigation of this case. He further deposed that
statement of Pws Radhey Shyam and Hardeep were recorded after a
gap of 82 days. He further deposed that between 11-8-06 till 5-9-06
neither Hardeep nor Radhey Shyam met him in respect of recording or
giving of any statement. He further deposed that Pws Hardeep and
Radhey Shyam are not witnesses of arrest memo and personal search
of accused Dinesh. He further deposed that he had not obtained the
call details of any of these telephone numbers or telephones in respect
of PW Hardeep or Ashok.
PW20 HC Pramod Kumar deposed that on 19-6-06 he
was posted as duty officer in PS Uttam Nagar from 5pm to 1am (mid
night) and on that day at about 7.10pm he recorded DD No.41A
Ex.PW20/A regarding the departure of Inspt. K.R. Meena along with
Ct. Anil, the motor cycle rider. He further deposed that on 19-6-06 he
also recorded DD No.51 Ex.PW20/B regarding arrival of Inspt. K.R.
Meena along with motor cycle rider.
PW21 W.ASI Prasila deposed that on 19-6-2006 he was
posted at PS Uttam Nagar as duty officer from 9am to 5pm and on that
day he recorded DD No.27A Ex.PW21/A regarding the departure of
Inspt. K.R. Meena along with motor cycle rider Ct. Anil, accused
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 23 of 88Rajesh and HC Abhya. He has also deposed that on the same day he
also recorded DD No.30A Ex.PW21/B regarding the arrival of Inspt.
K.R. Meena along with motor cycle rider-HS Abhay.
PW22 K.R. Meena has deposed that on 17.6.06 he was
posted as Addl. SHO at PS Uttam Nagar and on that day, he received
DD No. 28 PP East Uttam Nagar regarding the death of Ashok Kumar
who was got admitted in injured condition in Mata Chanan Devi
Hospital by his father. He has deposed that information was received
from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital at PP East Uttam Nagar on which he
along with Ct. Anil Kumar reached at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital
where he met ASI Ram Chander, SI Munshi Ram and Ct Jaswant. He
inspected the dead body of Ashok Kumar who was found medically
examined vide MLC No. 93/06. He has deposed that there was deep
wound below left arm pit of the deceased. He further deposed that in
the hospital he met Ravinder Kumar, eye witness and he recorded his
statement Ex. PW 4/A and attested his signatures at point X. He
further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW 22/A which bears his
signatures at point A and rukka was handed over to Ct. Anil Kumar for
getting the FIR registered. He further deposed that he conducted the
inquest proceedings and the form 25:35 Ex.PW22/B was filled up by
him. He further deposed that the dead body was sent to DDU hospital
mortuary through Ct. Jaswant Singh. He further deposed that SI
Munshi Ram handed over to him one pullanda sealed with the seal of
hospital along with sample seal alleged to be containing clothes of the
deceased which were seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A bears his
signatures at point B. He further deposed that thereafter he along
with SI Munshi Ram, ASI Ram Chander and complainant Ravinder
Kumar reached at the spot i.e P 60 Vijay Vihar Uttam Nagara, Delhi
where they met Ajay, Manoj and Yograj and they had produced them
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 24 of 88accused Dinesh Verma, present in the court today. Then he prepared
the site plan Ex.PW4/A at the instance of complainant Ravinder
Kumar. He further deposed that Ct. Anil Kumar came back at the
spot and handed over to him the copy of FIR and original rukka. He
further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses. He further
deposed that accused Dinesh was interrogated and arrested vide memo
Ex.PW4/B which bears his signatures at point B. He further deposed
that personal search of accused Dinesh was conducted vide memo
Ex.PW4/C which bears his signatures at point B. He further deposed
that thereafter he along with ASI Ram Chander, Ravinder Kumar, Ct
Anil and accused Dinesh reached at A-19 East Uttam Nagar where
they met accused Shanky Mahajan. He further deposed that witness
Ravinder identified accused Shanky Mahajan and he was apprehended
and interrogated and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/A bears his
signatures at point A and his personal search was conducted vide
memo Ex.PW14/B bears his signatures at point B. He has further
deposed that one car bearing No. DL 3C AB 0006 Santro which was
parked opposite the house was seized along with key vide memo
Ex.PW22/C and the key of the car was produced by accused Shanky
Mahajan. He further deposed that after completing the investigation,
the accused were sent to police lock up and the case property was
deposited in malkhana and he recorded statement of witnesses. He
further deposed that on 18.6.06, he along with SI Randhir, ASI Ram
Chander, Ct. Anil and Ct. Baljeet had left the PS in Govt. vehicle
along with accused Dinesh and Shanky Mahajan and reached at Arya
Samaj Road and there accused Dinesh told that his brother Mukesh is
coming to surrender. Thereafter accused Mukesh Verma came there at
about 12.22 am, midnight and was interrogated and arrested vide
memo Ex.PW14/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 25 of 88Ex.PW14/D, both bear his signatures at point X. He further deposed
that accused was sent to police lock and case property was deposited
in malkhana. Thereafter they searched for accused Rajesh Verma who
could not be found. He has further deposed that in the morning at
around 10.30am he along with SI Baljeet and ASI Randhir reached at
DDU Hospital for getting conducted the postmortem examination of
the deceased.   He further deposed that the dead body was identified by
Yograj, relative of deceased and Hukum Chand vide their statements
Ex.PW1/DA and PW13/A. The witness thereafter prepared the brief
facts Ex.PW22/D bearing his signatures at point A and requested for
conducting postmortem as Ex.PW22/E bearing his signatures at point
A and the form in this regard is Ex.PW22/F bearing his signatures at
point A. He has further deposed that postmortem examination on the
dead body of deceased was conducted and the dead body was handed
over to LRs of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW22/G bears his
signatures at point A. He has further deposed that from the hospital
one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of DFMT DDU alleged to be
containing blood sample of the deceased and one sample seal was
handed over to him and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW22/H
bears his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that he
recorded statement of witnesses and case property was deposited in
malkhana and the accused were produced before Ld. Duty MM and
sent to judicial custody. He has further deposed that on 18.6.06 at
about 7.20pm, he along with HC Driver Mehar Singh had left the PS
along with ASI Ram Chander and Ct. Murari Lal for search of
accused Rajesh Verma and he received the telephone information from
Ravinder that accused Rajesh was present at his rented house and if
raided he could be apprehend. He further deposed that when they
reached near ICICI Bank the complainant Ravinder met them and
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 26 of 88joined them after which they reached at A -45 Ramdutt Enclave Uttam
Nagar and from there at the instance of Ravinder apprehended accused
Rajesh. He further deposed that accused Rajesh was interrogated and
arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/E and his personal search was conducted
vide memo Ex.PW4/D, bearing his signatures at point X. He further
deposed that complainant told that accused Rajesh is the same person
who had stabbed Ashok Arora. He further deposed that thereafter
accused was brought to PP East Uttam Nagar and his disclosure
statement Ex.PW4/E1 was recorded. He further deposed that he
disclosed that he can get the knife used in commission of offence
recovered from his house at Ramdutt Enclave which is lying below his
bed. In pursuance of his statement accused Rajesh Verma took them
to his house and took out one blood stained knife which was lying
below the bed. He has further deposed that he prepared sketch
Ex.PW4/F of the knife bearing his signatures at point X which knife
was put up into pullanda and sealed with the seal of KRM and seized
vide memo Ex.PW4/F1 bearing his signatures at point X and seal after
use was handed over to Ct. Murari Lal. He has further deposed that
thereafter accused took them at the spot near at main road, Vani Vihar
near Vishal Property office P60 Vijay Vihar and pointed out the place
vide memo Ex.PW16/A bearing his signatures at point X. According
to the witness, he recorded the statement of witnesses and accused was
sent to police lock and case property was deposited in malkhana. He
has further deposed that on 4.7.06 he took the sealed pullanda
containing knife for obtaining subsequent opinion to DDU Hospital
and he moved an application which is Ex.PW22/J bearing his
signatures at point A. The doctor opined that injury inflicted on the
body of deceased as mentioned in the postmortem report could be
possible by this weapon or similar weapon like this. The subsequent
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 27 of 88opinion of the doctor is mark PW22/A. He has further deposed that
he collected the postmortem report and subsequent opinion and case
property was deposited in the malkhana again. According to the
witness, on 11.7.06 SI Mahesh Kumar took the rough notes and
measurements for preparing the scaled site plan on 11.7.2006. He has
further deposed that on 25.7.06 the exhibits of this case were sent to
FSL Rohini through one constable and thereafter he deposited the
receipt with the MHC(M) and he recorded their statements. He
further deposed that in the month of August, 2006 he was transferred
from PS Uttam Nagar and he deposited the case file with MHC(R). 
PW23 HC Shriram deposed that on 18-6-06 he was
posted as duty officer in PS Uttam Nagar from 12 mid night to 8am
and on that day he recorded DD No.5A Ex.PW17/G regarding the
departure of Inspt. K.R. Meena. He has proved DD No.26 and 28
dated 18-6-06 regarding the arrival of Inspt. K.R. Meena and DD
No.28 regarding the departure of Inspt. K.R. Meena. He has further
deposed that both the DD entries are in the handwriting of Inspt. K.R.
Meena.
PW24 HC Jitender deposed that on 17-6-06 he was posted
as Ct. in PP East Uttam Nagar and on that day the duty officer handed
over to him envelope containing copy of FIR for delivering the same
Deputy Commissioner of Police –I, Deputy Commissioner of Police
–II, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of Police
and Ld. MM and he delivered the copy of FIR to the aforesaid officers
at their residence.
PW25 SI Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 11-7-06 he was
posted at Crime Branch at a Draftsman and on that day he was called
by the IO/Inspt. K.R. Meena at PS Uttam Nagar and from there he
along with IO/Inspt. K.R. Meena reached at the spot i.e Opposite
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 28 of 88Vishal Properties, P-60 Vijay Vihar. He further deposed that at the
pointing out of the complainant Ravinder Kumar and in the presence
of Inspt. K.R. Meena he took rough notes and measurement of the
place of occurrence and on the basis of those rough notes he prepared
scaled site plan with its correct marginal notes on 14-8-06 and handed
over the same to IO. He further proved the site plan Ex.PW25/A. He
further deposed that he destroyed the rough notes after preparing the
scaled site plan. During his cross-examination he stated that his
statement was recorded by the IO on 11-7-2006.
Medical Witnesses:
PW2 Dr. N.S. Gill deposed that on 17-2-2006 he was
posted at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and on that day he had medically
examined Ashok Kumar, S/o Hukum Chand, who was brought by one
Hukum Chand, father of Ashok Kumar with the alleged history of
assault. He further deposed that the patient was brought in casualty in
unconscious state. He further deposed that on examination the patient
was unconscious, not responding to deep painful stimuli. Pulse and BP
were not recordable. No breath sound was found in chest, no heart
sound was heard and the patient was unconscious and the pupils were
semi dilated not reacting the light. He further deposed that on local
examination, deep penetrating would left mid axillary lying
approximately 12cm axilla, abrasion on right elbow, ECG shows
asystol after CPR the injured was referred to surgical department in
CCU. He further deposed that he prepared MLC Ex.PW2/A bears his
signatures at point A.
Vide a separate statement of ld. Counsel Sh. Rajbir Malik
and Ld. Counsel Sh. N. Hariharan for all accused persons they state
that the correctness or veracity of opinion dated 4-7-06 given by Dr.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 29 of 88Pooja Rastogi regarding the weapon of offence was not disputed. They
further submitted that they have no objection if the said opinion qua
weapon of offence is taken on record without formal examination of
the concerned doctor. Ld. Addl. PP for the State in his statement had
also submitted that he do not wish to examine Dr. Pooja Rastoi.
Statement of the accused/ defence evidence:
After completion of the prosecution evidence the
statements of the accused persons namely Dinesh Verma, Mukesh
Kumar Verma, Rajesh Verma and Shanky Mahajan were recorded
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating evidence has been
put to them which they have denied. They have claimed that they are
innocent and have been falsely implicated by the police.
FINDINGS:
I have carefully perused the record along with the written
synopsis of arguments filed by both the parties. I propose to first deal
with all the allegations/ averments individually in a tabulated form and
later on comprehensively.
Sr.
No.
Name of the
witness
Details of Deposition
PUBLIC WITNESSES/ EYE WITNESSES
1. Radhey Shyam
(PW1)
EYE WITNESS
He is an eye witness to the incident and has proved
the following:
1. That a Lungar was organized by the deceased on
17.6.2006 near the temple.
2. At about at 5:00 pm he saw the accused Dinesh,
Rajesh and Mukesh going towards the shop of the
deceased Ashok and one of them stabbed him
whereas two other caught hold of him.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 30 of 883. That the injured Ashok was shifted to Mata
Chanan Devi Hospital on scooter by some person
and thereafter to DDU Hospital.
4. The said witness has turned hostile on the role
attributed to accused Shanky Mahajan despite his
cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP.
According to the present witness Radhey Shyam, it is
the accused Mukesh who has stabbed the deceased
Ashok and has denied the suggestion put to him that it
was Rajesh Verma who had stabbed Ashok on his
chest. The said witness has got confused on the
aspect as to who had stabbed the deceased Ashok i.e.
whether it was Rajesh Verma or Mukesh Verma. The
case of the prosecution is that it was the accused
Rajesh who had stabbed the deceased whereas
accused Dinesh Verma and Mukesh Verma had
caught hold of him but Radhey Shyam had deposed
that it was accused Mukesh who had stabbed him.
Therefore, his testimony to that extant can be ignored
and the presence of the three accused Rajesh Verma,
Dinesh Verma and Mukesh Verma at the time of
incident stand established. 
2. Manoj Kumar
(PW3)
EYE WITNESS
He was an employee of the deceased Ashok and also
the eye witness to the incident. He has proved the
following:
1. That a Lungar was organized by the deceased on
17.6.2006 near the temple.
2. That at about 3:00 – 4:00 pm when he along with
Ashok Kumar were winding up the Bhandara a
Santro car which was being driven by Shanky
Mahajan and Mukesh sitting on the front seat,
came at a fast and hit the pole of the tent as a result
of which the pole fell down on the scooter of Ashok
Kumar on account of which there was a verbal
altercation between Ashok on one side and Shanky
Mahajan & Mukesh on the other side. 
3. That after the altercation Shanky Mahajan and
Mukesh went away and after 10 minutes of the
incident Mukesh came back to the spot with Rajesh
and Dinesh (his brothers).
4. He has identified the accused Rajesh as the person
who stabbed Ashok and Dinesh and Mukesh as the
persons who had caught hold of him and had
correctly identified all the accused persons
including Shanky Mahajan as driver of the car.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 31 of 885. He has also proved that the accused Dinesh was
apprehended at the spot itself and he handed over
the accused Dinesh to police.
The said witness in the court has wrongly named
accused Rajesh as Dinesh and vice-a-versa though he
has correctly identified the said accused and also
deposed correctly on the role attributed to each of
them. Initially he called Rajesh as Dinesh and
Dinesh as Rajesh but supported the case of the
prosecution that it was accused Rajesh whom he has
correctly identified and wrongly called him as Dinesh
as the person who had stabbed the deceased. The
presence of this witness Manoj Kumar at the spot is
only natural as he was the employee of the deceased
Ashok who had organized the Bhandara and was
helping his employer the deceased Ashok in winding
up. The shop of the deceased is also situated in the
vicinity where the incident had taken place and his
presence being natural, his statement cannot be
doubted, moreover his presence stand established
from the testimony of other witnesses including Yog
Raj (PW5) and Hardeep Singh (PW7).
3. Ravinder Kumar
(PW4)
He is the complainant in the present case on whose
statement the FIR was registered. The case of the
prosecution is that he was the eye witness who had
met the investigating officer in the hospital and had
accompanied them to the spot where the accused
Dinesh Kumar had been apprehended by public
persons and also joined the investigations and was
present at the time of the arrest of accused Rajesh. He
has turned hostile and has not supported the case of
the prosecution. In so far as the incident is
concerned, according to him he is not a witness to the
incident.  He has however, proved:
1. That the Bhandara was organized by the deceased
at Shiv Mandir on 17.6.2006.
2. He has admitted his signatures on the rukka
Ex.PW4/A; site plan Ex.PW4/A1; arrest memo of
the accused Dinesh who had been apprehended at
the spot which is Ex.PW4/C; personal search
memo of accused Dinesh Ex.PW4/B. He has
further identified his signatures on the personal
search memo of accused Rajesh which is
Ex.PW1/D, arrest memo of accused Rajesh
Ex.PW4/E, disclosure statement of accused Rajesh
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 32 of 88Ex.PW4/E-1; recovery-cum-seizure memo of the
knife Ex.PW4/F1 and sketch of the knife
Ex.PW4/F.
3. This witness has resiled from his previous
statement made to the police but during his cross-
examination by the Ld. Addl. PP he admits that he
saw the injured/ deceased Ashok bleeding from his
left side of his chest.
According to this witness the assailants had already
left the spot when he reached there. He has also
deposed that the injured had been taken to Mahajan
Nursing Home by the labour of the injured. 
The above witness is through and through a lier and
has made a false statement before this court. He
admits his signatures on the various documents but
has denied the contents of the same. The said witness
is a resident of the same area and is known to both the
family of the deceased and also the accused persons
and the chances of his being won over by the accused
persons cannot be ruled out. His deposition to the
extent that the injured had been taken to Mahajan
Nursing Home by the labour of the deceased, is not
borne out from the record since it is evident that the
deceased was taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital
and not to Mahajan Nursing Home and that too by
his father Hukum Chand as evident from the MLC.
Therefore, under these circumstances, the testimony
of Ravinder Kumar that the deceased Ashok was
taken to Mahajan Nursing Home on a two wheeler
scooter by some labour of the deceased is required to
be excluded since the MLC of the deceased Ashok
shows that it was Hukum Chand who took him to
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and not the labour as
claimed by him. The falsity of the said witness is also
evident from the fact that in his statement before this
court he has testified that all the accused had run
away from the spot whereas in fact the accused
Dinesh Verma had been apprehended by the public
persons and kept in the shop of the deceased and was
handed over to the police in the presence of this
witness whose signatures are present on the arrest
memo. The apprehension of accused Dinesh at the
spot has been proved by the witnesses Radhey Shyam,
Manoj Kumar, Yog Raj, Hardeep Singh and Hukum
Chand. 
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 33 of 884. Yog Raj (PW5)
EYE WITNESS
He is an eye witness to the incident and is also related
to the deceased being the brother in law of his brother
and his presence at the spot being a member of the
family who had participated in the function is only
natural.  He has proved the following:
1. That a Lungar was organized by the deceased on
17.6.2006 near the temple. 
2. At about 3:45 pm a Santro car bearing no. DL3C-
AB-5306 came and hit the pole of the tent which
fell on the scooter of the deceased Ashok. 
3. The witness has correctly identified the accused
Shanky Mahanjan and Mukesh in the court but he
is unable to name them.
4. That there was an altercation between Ashok
Kumar on one side and Shanky Mahajan and
Mukesh on the other side after which both the
accused left the spot saying “Baad mein dekh
lenge”. 
5. He has further proved Ashok left the spot to go to
his shop which was about 200 meters from the
place of Bhandara and after sometime he heard a
commotion and on reaching the spot he saw that
Ashok was holding a pipe in both of his hands
against his chest, with his back towards the wall
and the accused Mukesh and Dinesh were also
holding the same pipe and pushed Ashok towards
the wall. He has further identified the accused
Rajesh who was wearing a knicker at the time of
occurrence, who took out a knife from his knicker
and stabbed Ashok on his chest. The said witness
has admitted his signatures on the personal search
memo and arrest memo of the accused Dinesh
which are Ex.PW4/C & PW4/B respectively.
5. The testimony of this witness finds a corroboration
from the testimony of Radhey Shyam and Manoj to
the extent of identification of the accused persons
and the role attributed to all of them and there are
no major contradictions in his cross-examination.
5. Ajay Singh
(PW6)
He was the employee of the deceased Ashok Kumar
and also the eye witness to the incident who has
turned hostile and stated that on 17.6.2006 he heard
some noises and rushed to the spot where he saw that
Ashok had already been stabbed in the side of his
chest.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 34 of 886. Hardeep Singh
(PW7)
He is neighbour of the deceased and was having a
shop adjoining to the shop of deceased Ashok Kumar
and has proved the following:
1. That a Lungar was organized by the deceased on
17.6.2006 near the temple.
2. At about 3:55 pm he received a telephone call from
the deceased who asked him to immediately reach
at the spot as he had been stabbed. The deceased
also informed him that Mukesh and Dinesh caught
hold of him and Rajesh had stabbed him. 
3. He reached at the spot where he found that Ashok
was bleeding from the left side of the chest. 
4. Ashok also informed him that 10 minutes prior to
the incident, there was a minor scuffle between him
and Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh.
5. He has proved that Ravinder Kumar (Electrician)
and other employees of the deceased along with
other members of the family (including Yog Raj
and Hukum Chand father of the deceased) were
present at the spot. He has proved that the accused
Dinesh had been apprehended at the spot by the
public persons and kept in the shop of the deceased
and thereafter handed over to the police.
6. He is a witness of the last statement made by the
deceased with regard to the cause of his death and
the statement of the deceased is in the nature of his
dying declaration made to the present witness
Hardeep Singh. It is settled law that conviction
can be based upon the sole dying declaration by the
deceased in a case where questions have been
raised with regard to the correctness and
authenticity of the said dying declaration, then it is
required to be read with care and caution the
should find an independent corroboration but there
is no reason to over look and ignore the entire
testimony of such witness. The testimony of
Hardeep Singh finds a corroborated from the
testimony of other witnesses present at the spot and
therefore, no doubt his statement is required to be
read with care and caution but once there is an
independent corroboration, there is no reason to
reject the same.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 35 of 887. Pt. Mohan Shyam
(PW8)
He is the Pujari of the temple in Shiv Mandir and has
proved that the deceased Ashok had organized a
Bhandara on 17.6.2006 from 12:30 pm to 3:00 pm.
According to him, he left the Mandir at about 3:00 pm
and when he reached back at about 5:30 pm, he was
told by certain persons that Ashok had been stabbed
by some persons and some of them had been
apprehended by the public at the spot.
8. Smt. Suman
(PW9)
She is the landlady of accused Rajesh. According to
her, Rajesh was a tenant @ Rs.3,300/- per month. In
her cross-examination she has stated that no knife
was recovered in her presence but it may be noted that
she is not a witness to the recovery of knife.
9. Hukam Chand
(PW13)
He is the father of deceased Ashok Kumar and has
proved the following:
1. That on 17.6.2006 a Langar was organized by them
in Shiv Mandir opposite their house.
2. That at about 3:30 pm a Santro car came from the
side of gali and hit one of the poles of the tent
which fell on the scooter of Ashok Kumar.
2. That there was an altercation between Ashok
Kumar and Shanky Mahanjan & Mukesh after
which both Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh left the
spot and threatened his son Ashok. 
3. That after 15 minutes he saw three persons
running from the side of their shop in a gale one of
whom was carrying a knife and another was
carrying a danda. 
4. That he heard a commotion from the side of his
shop and he went there when he saw that his son
had been stabbed and one of the assailants had
been apprehended at the spot. 
5. He has identified the accused Dinesh as the person
who was apprehended at the spot. 
6. He has also proved that Manoj, Sanjay, Ajay and
Rinku were working at their shop at the relevant
point of time.
MEDICAL WITNESS
10. Dr. N.S. Gill
(PW2)
This witness has proved having medically examined
the injured Ashok on 17.6.2006 at Mata Channan
Devi Hospital. According to him, on local
examination deep penetrating wound left mid axillary
lying approximately 12 cm below axilla and abrasion
on right elbow was found. He has proved his MLC
which is Ex.PW2/A.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 36 of 88The postmortem report has not been disputed by the accused persons and
therefore, no formal witness from the DDU Hospital has been called to
the court. The postmortem report is Ex.PZ-1 wherein it is opined by the
doctor that the injury no.1 i.e. stab wound of wedge shaped on lateral
aspect of middle 1/3 of left side chest in mid axillary plane of size 4 cm x
1.8 cm x cavity deep, is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of
nature.
POLICE WITNESSES (proving  investigations)
11. HC Ram Mehar
(PW10)
He is a formal witness who was handed over three
parcels on 25.7.2006 to be deposited in FSL Rohini.
12. ASI Satyaveer
Singh (PW11)
He is also a formal witness being the MHCM.
13. Retd. SI Munsi
Ram (PW12)
He has proved having received the DD no. 28 on
17.6.2006 pursuant to which he reached at Mata
Chanan Devi Hospital where doctor handed over him
a sealed parcel which he handed over to the IO and
the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW12/A.
14. ASI Ram
Chander (PW14)
He is a formal witness who had joined investigations.
He has proved that on receipt of DD no. 28 he
reached at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital where he
found that Ashok had already expired and Ravinder
the eye witness was present, on whose statement the
rukka was prepared. Thereafter they returned to the
spot where accused Dinesh was arrested by Inspector
K.R. Meena. He has further proved the subsequent
arrest of accused Shanky Mahajan, Dinesh and
Mukesh vide following documents:
PW14/A Arrest memo of Shanky
PW14/B Personal search memo of Shanky
PW14/C Arrest memo of Mukesh
PW14/D Personal search memo of Mukesh
15. Retd. SI Randhir
Singh (PW15)
He has joined investigations with the IO and has
proved the arrest of accused Mukesh on the pointing
out of accused Dinesh.
16. Ct. Murari Lal
(PW16)
This witness has joined the investigations with the IO
on 18.6.2006 and has proved the arrest of accused
Rajesh at the instance of Ravinder Kumar, personal
search of accused Rajesh, disclosure statement,
recovery of the knife, seizure memo of the knife and
has also identified the knife in the court.
17. ASI Sukhvir
Singh (PW17)
He is the Duty Officer who has proved having
recorded the present FIR and various DD entries.  
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 37 of 8818. Ct. Durg Singh
(PW18)
He is a formal witness who has proved having
recorded the DD no. 63B.
19. Insp. Suresh
Chand (PW19)
He is the second IO to whom investigations were
handed over on 11.8.2006. He had collected the
scaled site plan prepared by SI Mahesh Kumar; the
RC of the Santro car bearing no. 3C-AB-5306 from
father of the accused Shanky Mahajan vide memo
Ex.PW19/A. Thereafter he collected the FSL report
which is Ex.PX and prepared the charge sheet and
filed the same in the court.
20. HC Pramod
Kumar (PW20)
He is a formal witness who has proved the DD no. 41
A dated 19.6.2006 which is Ex.PW20/A and the DD
No.51 which is Ex.PW20/B.
21. W/ASI Prasilla
(PW21)
She is also a formal witness who has proved having
recorded the DD no. 27A dated 19.6.2006 and DD no.
30A.
22. ACP K.R. Meena
(PW22)
He is a material witness who has proved the various
investigations conducted by him.
23. HC Shri Ram
(PW23)
He has proved having recorded the DD no. 5A, 26 &
28 dated 18.6.2006.
24. HC Jitender
(PW24)
He is the special messenger who had delivered the
envelope containing copy of the FIR to DCP-1, DCP-
II, ACP, Joint CP and Ld. MM.
25. SI Mahesh
Kumar (PW25)
This witness has proved having prepared the scaled
site plan which is Ex.PW25/A.
Evidence against accused Shanky Mahajan:
Now coming to the microscopic examination in respect of
the evidence against the accused Shanky Mahajan. The entire
evidence on record suggests the existence of two specific and distinct
occurrences. First of the altercation which took place between the
deceased Ashok on one side and the accused Shanky Mahajan &
Mukesh on the other side. The case of the prosecution is that on the
date of the incident i.e. 17.6.2006 between 3-4 pm the deceased Ashok
Kumar had organized a Bhandara at Shiv Mandir and was winding up
the same at about 3:45 pm when a silver colour Santro Car bearing no.
DL-3C-AB-5306 being driven by accused Shanky Mahajan came at a
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 38 of 88fast speed and hit the pole of the pandal which fell on the scooter of
the deceased Ashok Kumar. Thereafter, there was a verbal altercation
when Ashok Kumar asked Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh as to why
they cannot drive carefully. According to the prosecution the accused
both Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh Verma left the spot after
threatening the deceased. The second incident is of the same date
when after 10-15 minutes Mukesh Verma the person who was sitting
with Shanky Mahajan on the front seat, came to the spot accompanied
by his brother Rajesh Verma and Dinesh Verma when they caught
hold of the deceased Ashok and inflicted a stab injury on him as a
result of which Ashok later expired at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. In
this background the charges settled against the accused Shanky
Mahajan are of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B Indian Penal
Code and also under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code. 
I have gone through the testimonies of the eye witnesses as
discussed herein above. It is evident from the testimonies of Radhey
Shyam PW1, Manoj Kumar PW3, Ravinder PW4, Yog Raj PW5,
Ajay PW6, Hardeep Singh PW7 and Hukam Chand PW13, that they
are all silent on the presence of accused Shanky Mahajan when the
second incident of stabbing of Ashok took place. The witness Manoj
Kumar (PW3), Yograj (PW6) and Hukam Chand (PW13) are eye
witnesses to the first incident of altercation which took place between
the deceased and the two accused including Shanky Mahajan. They
are eye witnesses to this incident and have specifically deposed that it
was the accused Shanky Mahajan who was driving the Santro Car
bearing no. DL-3C-AB-5306 with the accused Mukesh sitting besides
him when this car came at a fast speed and hit the police of the pandal
which fell on the scooter of Ashok which led to a verbal altercation.
PW7 Hardeep Singh was orally told about the said incident of
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 39 of 88altercation by the deceased Ashok Kumar before his death, which fact
he has proved before this court.
Under Section 120A, IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is
committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done
an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is legal act by
illegal means over act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is
exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute
crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons
having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be
agreement to carry out the object of intention, which is an offence.
The question of consideration in a case is did all the accused had the
intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not
be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused
merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that
offence is committed. Acts subsequent to the achieving of object of
conspiracy may tent to prove that a particular accused was party to the
conspiracy. 
Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely
possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both
the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from
the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. Conspiracy may,
for example, be enrolled in chain A enrolling B, B enrolling C and so
on and all will be the members of the single conspiracy if they so
intend and agree, even though each member knows only the person
who enrolled him and the person whom he enrolls. Persons may be
members of a single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the
identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a
part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree
to play the same on an active role.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 40 of 88When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of
conspiracy then regardless of making or considering any plans for its
commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such
person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by
each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be
two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the
charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was
committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to
prove the charge of conspiracy. It is not necessary that all conspirators
should agree to the common purpose at that same time. They may join
with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the
intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each
conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to
when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. 
As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment, which is gist or the essence of the crime of
conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though
there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be
accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of
the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to
a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in
and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts
and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be
extended into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be
reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the
conspiracy. It has been seen that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership
in crime and that it is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for
the prosecution of a common plan. A man may join a conspiracy by
word or by deed. If two or more person entered into conspiracy any
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 41 of 88act done by them pursuant to the agreement is under contemplated of
law, an act of each of them and they are jointly responsible thereafter. 
A conspiracy thus is a continuing offence and continues to
subsist and is committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act
or series of acts. As long as its performance continues, it is a
continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by
choice or necessity. A crime is committed as soon as the agreement is
made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It is not necessary that each
member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy.
This means that everything said, written or done by any of the
conspirator in execution or any part-with is deemed to have been said,
done and written by each of them and thus joint responsibility
existence not only to what is done by any f the conspirator pursuant to
the original agreement but also to collaterally cause incident and
growing out of the original purpose. 
Therefore, in order to establish the charge, prior meeting of
mind or agreement to common purpose before consummation of
intended objective is necessary. The case of the prosecution is that all
the accused persons conspired to kill the deceased Ashok as a fall out
of the altercation which took place between them on account of the
accident. In order to prove the conspiracy, it was necessary for the
prosecution to prove a prior meeting of mind between Shanky
Mahajan and the three other accused to commit the illegal act of
killing of deceased which the prosecution has failed to prove and
establish. The second incident where the three co-accused i.e. Dinesh
Verma, Rajesh Verma and Mukesh Verma had caught hold of the
deceased and stabbed him is the only the fall out of the earlier incident
of altercation which took place between the deceased Ashok on one
side and accused Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh on the other side. The
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 42 of 88Ld. Addl. PP has tried to bring the case within the ambit of Section
120-B of the Indian Penal Code by placing its reliance on the
testimony of the eye witness PW5 Yog Raj who has testified that while
leaving, the accused Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh had threatened the
deceased that they would see him later “baad mein aa kar dekh
lenge” but this in itself would not be sufficient since it is evident from
the evidence before this court that not even a single witness has
mentioned that Shanky Mahajan had a prior meeting of mind with any
of the other co-accused to kill the deceased Ashok or done any act in
furtherance of the aforesaid agreement. Rather, it is evident from the
material on record that he did not even come back to the spot after
altercation. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that
in so far as the accused Shanky Mahajan is concerned, the prosecution
has failed to bring home the charge of Section 120-B IPC against him
and further in so far as the offence of Section 302 Indian Penal Code is
concerned, the presence of the accused Shanky Mahajan at the spot
does not stand established at the time of the incident and therefore,
under these circumstances, the accused Shanky Mahajan is hereby
acquitted of the offence under Section 120-B and also of the charges
under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.       
Evidence against Rajesh, Dinesh and Mukesh:
In so far as the accused Rajesh, Dinesh and Mukesh are
concerned, as discussed herein above the prosecution has failed to
bring on record any material to prove and substantiate the allegations
regarding prior meeting of mind or agreement between them to
commit the murder of the deceased Ashok. Merely because all the
three accused were present together at the same point of time, does not
necessarily imply a criminal conspiracy and therefore, the charges
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 43 of 88under Section 120-B IPC do not stand substantiated and proved. 
However, in so far as the charge under Section 302 Indian
Penal Code is concerned, Firstly the prosecution has been able to
prove the fact that a Bhandara/ Lungar was organized by the family of
the deceased Ashok along with 4-5 other families including the family
of PW7 Hardeep Singh on 17.6.2006 of which the family of the
deceased was a major contributor. In their testimonies the various eye
witnesses i.e. PW1 Radhey Shyam, PW3 Manoj Kumar, PW4
Ravinder Kumar, PW5 Yog Raj, PW6 Ajay Singh and PW7 Hardeep
Singh have all corroborated each other on this aspect. It is also not
disputed that Bhandara was organized outside the Shiv Mandir due to
which reason a Pandal was affixed. PW8 Pt. Shyam Mohan who is the
Pujari of the temple has proved that a Bhandara was organized by the
deceased Ashok from 12:30 pm to 3:00 pm outside the Shiv Mandir.
This being so, the presence of the family members of the deceased, his
employees and friends at the spot at the time of conclusion of the
Bhandara, when the alleged incident took place is only natural.
Secondly the prosecution has also proved the incident
when the Santro Car bearing no. DL-3C-AB-5306 driven by the
accused Shanky Mahajan with accused Mukesh sitting by his side,
came at a high speed and hit the police of the pandal which fell on the
scooter of the deceased resulting in an altercation between them. This
incident has been duly proved by eye witnesses Manoj (PW3), Yog
Raj (PW5) and Hukum Chand (PW13). These witnesses have
identified the accused Shanky Mahajan who was driving the car and
Mukesh as the person sitting by his side, when the car being driven by
the accused Shanky Mahajan hit the pole of the tent which fell on the
scooter of the deceased Ashok resulting in an altercation as the
deceased Ashok asked these boys to drive the car carefully. It is
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 44 of 88alleged that the accused Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh left the spot
after threatening the deceased Ashok with dire consequence by stating
“baad mein aa ke dekh lenge”. This fact stands established from the
testimony of the eye witnesses Yog Raj PW5 who has specifically
testified to this extent. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused
has vehemently argued that Yog Raj is an interested witness being a
close relative of the deceased and therefore, being a planted witness,
his testimony should be rejected. I am not convinced by the ground
sought to be raised by the Ld. counsel. The presence of Yog Raj
(PW5) who is a close relative to the deceased from his wife side, has
been explained. The Bhandara being organised by the family of the
deceased it is only natural that the near relatives, employees and
friends would be present to attend the same and the the presence of
Yog Raj who is also residing in the nearby area is only natural.
Thirdly there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the
deceased Ashok and the accused Dinesh Verma, Rajesh Verma,
Mukesh Verma and the various public witnesses are all residents of the
same area or nearby area. This being so, the question of there being
any doubt or confusion regarding their identity does not arise. PW1
Radhey Shyam, PW3 Manoj Kumar and PW7 Hardeep Singh have all
identified the three accused Mukesh Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Dinesh
Kumar. It is Manoj Kumar PW3, the employee of the deceased who
got confused in the name of Rajesh Kumar and Dinesh Kumar and had
initially named them vice-a-versa but later corrected himself and also
correctly explained the role attributed to the aforesaid accused while
deposing in the court. Also the witness Yog Raj PW5 was not known
to the accused previously. He has physically correctly identified all
the accused in the court. In fact the accused Dinesh was apprehended
at the spot itself and therefore his identity otherwise stands established.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 45 of 88Fourthly in so far as the accused Dinesh Verma is
concerned, the case of the prosecution is that after the deceased Ashok
Kumar was stabbed by the accused Rajesh Kumar, all the three
accused tried to flee away from the spot but accused Dinesh was
apprehended by the employees of the deceased and other public
persons and thereafter made to sit in the shop of the deceased till the
arrival of the police when he was handed over to them. This fact has
been proved by the employee of the deceased namely Manoj who has
been examined in the court as PW3, who in his testimony has
specifically identified the accused Dinesh Verma as the boy who was
handed over by him to the police after his apprehension by Radhey
Shyam. The apprehension of Dinesh Verma finds a corroboration
from the testimonies of PW1 Radhey Shyam, PW3 Manoj Kumar,
PW5 Yog Raj, PW7 Hardeep Singh and PW13 Hukam Chand, who
have all identified the accused Dinesh as the person who had been
apprehended by at the spot. Radhey Shyam (PW1) has specifically
deposed that he had caught Dinesh while fleeing away whereas the
witness Manoj Kumar (PW3) has proved that he handed over Dinesh
to police. Therefore, the presence of the witnesses Radhey Shyam,
(PW1) and Manoj Kumar (PW3) stand established. PW7 Hardeep
Singh has also testified to the extent that the deceased before his death
had told him that he had been stabbed by the three brothers Rajesh,
Dinesh and Mukesh as a result of altercation between him on one side
and accused Shanky Mahajan and Mukesh on the other side. The
defence of the accused is that he had been apprehended later does not
appear to be plausible. All the eye witnesses have unanimously
identified the accused Dinesh as one of the assailant who had been
apprehended at the spot.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 46 of 88An attempt has been made by the Ld. counsel for the
accused to demolish the credibility of the eye witnesses on the plea
that Manoj Kumar, Ravinder and Ajay were the employees of the
deceased and his father Hukum Chand and Yog Raj was their relative
and are introduced witnesses. It is also argued that Hardeep Singh is
an introduced witness only to give credibility to the version of the
prosecution. The plea raised by the Ld. defence counsel does not hold
any merit since it is evident from the record that the Bhandara had
been organized by his family where family of the deceased was a
major contributor. It is only natural that his own employees and
family members would be present at the spot and there is no reason to
doubt their presence. It is further evident that PW1 Radhey Shyam is
very categorical in so far as accused Dinesh Verma is concerned and
has specifically testified that Dinesh Verma had been apprehended by
him. Similarly Manoj Kumar who has been examined as PW3 has
also correctly identified the accused Dinesh (though he had initially
wrongly named him as Rajesh but later corrected himself but there is
no dispute in so far as the identification is concerned) as the boy who
was apprehended at the spot and handed over to the police by him.
PW5 Yog Raj has also identified the accused Dinesh Verma as the boy
who was apprehended at the spot. The role attributed to Dinesh
Verma by all the three eye witnesses i.e. Radhey Shyam, Manoj
Kumar and Yog Raj is that he had caught hold of the deceased along
with Mukesh while the co-accused Rajesh stabbed Ashok Kumar.
Fifthly in so far as the accused Mukesh is concerned, the
case of the prosecution is that he was the person who was initially
present in the Santro Car with accused Shanky Mahajan which car had
hit the pole of the pandal which fell on the scooter of Ashok resulting
into an verbal altercation with deceased Ashok on one side and the
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 47 of 88present accused Mukesh and Shanky Mahajan on the otherwise
wherein the father of the deceased namely Hukum Chand had to
intervene. As per the allegations, the present accused Mukesh and co-
accused Shanky Mahajan had left the spot after threatening the
deceased Ashok with dire consequences by saying “baad mein aa ke
dekh lenge” which clearly reflect their intent. This fact has been
specifically proved in the testimonies of PW3 Manoj Kumar, PW5
Yog Raj and PW13 Hukum Chand who were the eye witnesses to the
altercation and it was Hukum Chand who had to intervene in the same.
The above witnesses have very specifically deposed that a few minutes
after the incident, it was the accused Mukesh who returned back to the
spot along with his two brothers i.e. Dinesh and Rajesh and the role
attributed to the accused Mukesh is that he had caught hold of the
deceased alongwith Dinesh, which aspect has been proved in the
testimony of the witness Yog Raj (PW5) and Manoj Kumar (PW3).
Hardeep Singh (PW7) is the witness to whom the last statement was
made by the deceased. He has testified before this court that the
deceased Ashok before his death had specifically named the accused
Mukesh as the person who was sitting with Shanky Mahajan and had
an altercation with him and came back with his brothers Dinesh and
Rajesh and while the accused Dinesh and Mukesh caught hold of him,
Rajesh stabbed him. No doubt this court is required to read the
testimony of Hardeep Singh with caution but finding due
corroboration from the testimonies of the other eye witnesses and the
forensic evidence on record, there is no reason to outrightly reject his
testimony.
There is, however, a contradiction with regard to the role
attributed to the accused Mukesh since as per the eye witness Radhey
Shyam who has been examined as PW1, it was the accused Mukesh
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 48 of 88had stabbed the deceased Ashok whereas Rajesh and Dinesh had
caught hold of him whereas according to Manoj Kumar (PW3) and
Yog Raj (PW5) it is the accused Rajesh who had stabbed the deceased
Ashok while Dinesh and Mukesh had caught hold of him. This in my
view would not materially affect the case of the prosecution since it is
evident that the presence of all the three accused at the spot stand
established and out of them Dinesh was apprehended at the spot itself.
There is no reason to doubt the presence of Mukesh since the act of
stabbing of Ashok was only a fallout of first incident when Mukesh the
real brother of accused Dinesh and Rajesh, had an altercation with the
deceased Ashok and the accused Dinesh and Rajesh had come to the
spot only his asking or else there could have been no reason for Dinesh
or Rajesh to have come to the spot to fight with the deceased Ashok
unless Mukesh would have told them about the altercation. The
motive is writ large. After having an altercation with Ashok on
account of the accident the accused Mukesh got his brothers Dinesh
and Rajesh at the spot to teach him a lesson and killed him.
Sixthly in so far as the accused Rajesh is concerned, all the
eye witnesses i.e. PW1 Radhey Shyam, PW3 Manoj Kumar and PW5
Yog Raj have correctly identified Rajesh as one of the assailants. As
discussed herein above, PW3 Manoj Kumar had initially in his
testimony wrongly named Rajesh as Dinesh and vice-a-versa. This
would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution for reason that the
said witness had only got confused with the names but has correctly
identified the accused and also specified the role attributed to him.  He,
however, correct himself later. Similarly PW7 Hardeep Singh has also
in his statement made to the court correctly identified the accused
Rajesh and has deposed that before his death the deceased had told
him that it was the accused Rajesh who had stabbed him whereas
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 49 of 88Dinesh and Mukesh had caught hold of him. PW5 Yog Raj has
specifically identified the accused Rajesh as the person who was
wearing a knicker and had taken out a knife from his knicker and
stabbed Ashok Kumar. PW3 Manoj Kumar also pointed out towards
the accused Rajesh as the boy who had stabbed the deceased (though
he initially called him by the name of Dinesh but later corrected
himself).
Seventhly in so far as PW7 Hardeep Singh is concerned,
Ld. counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that he is a planted
witness whose statement was recorded after many months and his
testimony cannot be relied upon. Hardeep Singh is a witness of dying
declaration of the deceased. According to him, he was also a
contribution to the Bhandara and present there but after conclusion of
the Bhandara had returned house being tired while the deceased Ashok
and his employees were still winding up. He has deposed that the
deceased had made a telephone call to him asking him to come to the
spot as the three boys Rajesh, Dinesh and Mukesh had stabbed him.
He has also stated that the deceased had told him that Dinesh and
Mukesh had caught hold of him and Rajesh stabbed him because
earlier to that he had an altercation with Mukesh when the Santro Car
driven by Shanky Mahajan in which Mukesh was also sitting, hit the
pole of Pandal as a result of which the pole had fallen down on his
scooter. Ld. counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the
investigating officer has neither collected the telephone number of the
deceased nor the telephone number of Hardeep Singh due to which
reason the aspect of telephone call has not been established and
therefore, the testimony of Hardeep Singh should be rejected. I have
considered the submissions made by the Ld. counsel. Merely because
the the investigating officer has failed to conduct the investigations
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 50 of 88properly, would be no ground to out rightly dismiss the testimony of a
witness whom the deceased had made a last statement regarding the
cause of his death. No doubt, it should be ensured that the testimony
of such a witness is required to be read with care and caution and
independent circumstantial corroboration should be forthcoming. 
I have considered the circumstances of the case which
speaks for themselves. The presence of Hardeep Singh at the spot
cannot be doubted. He has specifically deposed that he is having a
shop adjacent to the shop of the deceased and he alongwith the
deceased and 4-5 other families have organized the Bhandara by
contributing jointly where the family of the deceased had given the
largest contribution. According to Hardeep Singh, he had participated
in the Bhandara but after the Bhandara was over he left for his
residence being tired but within a few minutes received a call from the
deceased asking him to come to the spot as he had been stabbed by
Rajesh while Dinesh and Mukesh caught hold him. The deceased had
also told him about the earlier altercation which took place between
him and accused Shankay Mahajan & Mukesh. In this regarding
independent corroboration is forthcoming from the testimonies of the
various eye witnesses. The arrest of the accused Dinesh Verma at the
spot establishes his presence. The incident regarding altercation which
took place between the deceased Ashok on one side and Mukesh and
Shanky Mahajan on the other side has also been proved by the eye
witnesses and there being no history of previous animosity or rivalry
between the family of the deceased or other witnesses, there is no
question of the eye witnesses falsely implicating the accused persons.
The testimony of Hardeep Singh on the basis of what has been told to
him by the deceased before his death can always be relied upon for
corroborative purposes.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 51 of 88Eighthly the arrest of all the three accused Dinesh, Mukesh
and Rajesh have been proved by the prosecution witnesses. It has
been proved that the accused Dinesh Verma was apprehended at the
spot whereas Mukesh and Dinesh were subsequently arrested at his
instance within a few hours of the incident. PW4 Ravinder Kumar the
complainant has totally turned hostile. It is a settled law that even the
testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upto to the extent of its
corroboration. The said witness Ravinder Kumar the complainant who
has been examined as PW4 has however, admitted his signatures on
the rukka which is Ex.PW4/1, site plan which is Ex.PW4/A-1;
documents of arrest of accused Dinesh i.e. personal search memo of
Dinesh which is Ex.PW4/B; arrest memo of the accused Dinesh which
is Ex.PW4/C; personal search of the accused Rajesh which is
Ex.PW4/D; arrest memo of accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/E;
disclosure statement of accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/E-1;
recovery-cum-pointing out memo of the knife which is Ex.PW4/F1
and sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW4/F. The investigating officer
and other police officers who had joined investigations have proved
the arrest of the accused persons, their personal searches, disclosures
and recovery of knife from accused Rajesh. 
Ninethly it is evident from the documentary record and
also from the testimonies of the eye witnesses, that one stab injury had
been caused to the deceased by the accused Rajesh on his lung which
proved to be fatal. This fact stands established from the MLC duly
proved by PW2 Dr. N.S. Gill. The MLC Ex.PW2/A duly proved by
Dr. N.S. Gill shows deep penetrating wound left mid axillary which
was lying approximately 12 cm below axilla. The postmortem report
Ex.PZ1 (not disputed by the accused) shows that the said injury i.e.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 52 of 88one stab wound of wedge shaped on lateral aspect of middle 1/3 of left
side chest in mid axillary plane of size 4 cm x 1.8 cm x cavity deep
and had been caused by sharp edged weapon is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. As per the opinion of the
doctor the death in the present case was due to hemorrhagic shock and
there is no dispute to the aforesaid.
Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued
that none of the eye witnesses have been able to give the exact details
of the injury. He has pointed out that the injury is under the armpit
whereas all the eye witnesses have deposed that the deceased had
received injury on his chest. He has also pointed out that despite the
fact that the stab injury had been inflicted on the lung/ chest of the
deceased and the deceased was allegedly taken to the hospital by this
father yet there were no blood stains either on the spot or on the
clothes of the father of the deceased or other persons who had taken
the deceased to the hospital. I have considered the submissions made
in this regard. In this regard it may be necessary to point out that all
the eye witnesses have unanimously deposed that the stab injury was
inflicted on the left side chest.  All the public witnesses are laymen and
in common parlance the left side of the thoracic region where the
injury is inflicted, is called left side chest. Further, it is evident from
the testimonies of the various witnesses that the deceased was inflicted
with one knife blow and it was the deceased who immediately stopped
the blood by putting a handkerchief/ cloth on the same. This explains
the absence of the blood at the spot or on the clothes of other persons.
Further, it is not necessary that for every stab injury there should be
excessive external bleeding. The stab being inflicted on a part of the
body having a large number of subcutaneous tissues and muscles
which injury has been covered with a cloth by the deceased, the
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 53 of 88external bleedings would not be much. 
Tenthly the sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW14/F has
been proved by the investigating officer and tallies with the sketch
prepared by the Doctor which is Ex.PZ-2. Ld. counsel appearing on
behalf of the accused has vehemently argued that the knife produced
before the Doctor and the knife got recovered by the accused Rajesh
are two different knives since it is evident from the sketch of the knife
(Ex.PZ-2) that handle of the said knife so recovered from the accused
was red colour whereas the knife shown to the doctor shows the handle
of orange colour. I have considered the submissions so made before
me. Whether the colour of the handle has been stated to be of orange
or red or pink colour would be immaterial since colour is a matter of
individual perception but in so far as the size of the knife is concerned,
this court has personally measured the same from the sketch and found
that the sketch Ex.PW14/F tallies with the sketch prepared by the
doctor which is Ex.PZ-2. Further, it is evident from the MLC and the
postmortem report that the injury is of the dimension of 4 x 1.8 cm and
as per the subsequent opinion of the doctor on the said report (not
disputed by the accused) the injuries inflicted on the body can be
possible by the weapon of offence or similar kind of weapon. 
It has been vehemently argued by the Ld. counsel for the
accused that the knife so produced before this court is only 1.6 cm
wide and it is not possible that an inquiry of 1.8 cm wide could have
been caused by this weapon. I have considered his submissions made
in this regard. It may be noted that the injury has been caused under
the armpit towards the side of the left lung which is a part of the body
containing huge amount of muscles and subcutaneous tissues and
therefore, under these circumstances, if any injury is caused by a knife
or a sharp edged weapon of 1.6 cm width, the width of the injury can
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 54 of 88increase to 1.8 cm if the said weapon with which the injuries have
been inflicted is first inserted inside the body and thereafter taken out
with an equal amount of force, which would certainly cause splitting
and damage to the surrounding tissues and increase in the width in the
size of the injury on account of movement of the weapon inside and
outside the body and therefore, under these circumstances, I do not
find any substance in the objection raised by the Ld. counsel.
Eleventhly it has been proved that pursuant to his arrest
Rajesh admitted his involvement in the present case and pursuant to
the aforesaid disclosure, he took the police party to his residence
where he got recovered the knife used in stabbing the deceased Ashok
from under his bed. PW4 Ravinder Kumar has proved his signatures
on the seizure-cum-recovery memo of the knife which is Ex.PW4/F1.
Though he has turned hostile on the contents of the seizure-cum-
recovery memo but that in itself will not be sufficient to reject the said
document since it stand proved not only by the Investigating Officer
Inspector K.R. Meena (PW22) but also by Ct. Murari Lal (PW16).  Ld.
counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that Smt.
Suman the landlady who is also residing in the said premises, has
testified that the police had never come to her house and therefore, the
question of there being any recovery of the knife does not arise. In
this regard, I may observe that the DD entry in this regard has been
proved by PW18 Ct. Durg Singh which DD is Ex.PW18/A and cannot
be doubted. Further, merely because PW9 Smt. Suman the landlady of
the accused Rajesh, has stated in her cross-examination that no knife
was recovered in her presence would not assist the accused Rajesh in
any manner. She is only a witness to the fact that Rajesh was a tenant
in her premises and not of the recovery. None of the recovery memos
bear her signatures and her absence at the spot where the recovery was
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 55 of 88effected is explained by the investigating officer SI Mahesh Kumar
who has specifically deposed that there was a separate entry to the
premises of accused Rajesh.
Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused also tried to
demolish the case of the prosecution by arguing that the testimony of
Ajay PW6 would reveal that the knife had been thrown by the accused
at the spot and was lifted by the investigating officer. It may be noted
that PW6 Ajay Singh has already turned hostile and has not supported
the case of the prosecution at all. No reliance can be placed on the
testimony of a hostile witness who deposed falsely in the court. None
of the other witnesses have stated that the knife had been thrown at the
spot or that it had been later on found by the police.  Once the presence
of the second knife has not been established and the accused Rajesh
himself got the blood stained knife recovered, I find no merit in the
arguments raised by the Ld. counsel.
Lastly the FSL report placed on record has provided a final
clinching evidence which shows the presence of blood stains on the
knife of the same group (Group 'A') as that of the deceased.  No doubt
the finger prints have not been lifted from the knife yet benefit of the
same cannot go to the accused under the given circumstances, since it
is the accused Rajesh himself who had taken the knife and hidden the
same under his bed and later got it recovered almost 24 hours of the
incident. Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has further
argued that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of various
witnesses with regard to the presence of police officers at a particular
time; recovery of the knife; presence of alleged eye witnesses at the
spot; apprehension of the accused Dinesh and the arrest of other
accused. I have considered the submissions made. It may be observed
that the discrepancies are too minor to have been taken into
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 56 of 88consideration. All the discrepancies are immaterial and can be ignored
as the material facts have been specifically proved by the prosecution.
I do not find any force in the submission of the counsel for throwing
out the case of the prosecution merely on the ground of certain
discrepancies/ contradictions in the depositions of various PWs. I am
of the considered view that such discrepancies are bound to occur and
natural and even otherwise they are found be formal without striking at
the root of the matter and the same cannot be treated as fatal for the
prosecution.
In the case of State of H.P. Vs. Lekhraj and another
reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43 it was observed by the Supreme Court
of India as that:- 
“In the depositions of witnesses there are always
normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful
they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal
errors of observation, normal errors of memory due
to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as
shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the
like………
…….The traditional dogmatic hyper technical
approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic
and genuine approach for administering justice in a
criminal trial.”
Further, in the case of Surender Singh v. State of
Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India has observed as under:-
“It is well-established principle of law that every
discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 57 of 88treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The
discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution
case materially, does not create infirmity.”
In so far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the
statement of the witnesses it is held in Ousu Varghese v. State of
Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the
accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their
testimony. In the case of Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has held that
When the discrepancies were comparatively of minor character and
did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given
undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test
of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Kalki, reported in (1981)2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the
depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy,
however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due
to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to
lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at
the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those
which are not normal, and not  expected of a normal person. 
Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length
it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true
witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.
Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made
his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind
that it is only when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so
incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is
justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 58 of 88adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either
as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial
scrutiny.
The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why
discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of
Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in
1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC, the Supreme Court pointed out the
following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and
improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses.
(a) By and large a witness cannot be
expected to possess a photographic memory and to
recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a
video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
(b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness
is overtaken by events. The witness could not have
anticipated the occurrence which so often has an
element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore
cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the
details.
(c) The powers of observation differ from
person to person. What one may notice, another
may not. An object or movement might emboss its
image on one person's mind, whereas it might go
unnoticed on the part of another.
(d) By and large people cannot accurately
recall a conversation and reproduce the very
words used by them or heard by them. They can
only recall the main purport of the conversation. It
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 59 of 88is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human
tape recorder.
(e) In regard to exact time of an incident,
or the time duration of an occurrence, usually
people make their estimates by guess work on the
spur of the moment at the time of interrogation.
And one cannot expect people to make very precise
or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it
depends on the time sense of individuals which
varies from person to person.
(f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be
expected to recall accurately the sequence of
events which take place in rapid succession or in a
short time span. A witness is liable to get confused,
or mixed up when interrogated lateron.
(g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is
liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and
the piercing cross-examination made by counsel
and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused
regarding sequence of events, of fill up details
from imagination on the spur of the moment. The
subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so
operates on account of the fear of looking foolish
or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a
truthful and honest account of the occurrence
witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of
psychological defence mechanism activated on the
moment.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 60 of 88In the present case, the material facts with regard to the
stabbing of the deceased Ashok by accused Rajesh as a result of a
slight altercation between his brother Mukesh and the deceased a few
minutes before the incident as a result of which Mukesh had called
Rajesh and Dinesh, his other brothers of whom Dinesh (who was
apprehended at the spot) and Mukesh had caught hold of the deceased
whereas Rajesh inflicted knife injury on his vital organs i.e. chest with
a knowledge that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to
cause death; have been proved and established. Therefore, I hereby
hold the prosecution has been able to successfully bring home the
charge against the accused Dinesh Verma, Mukesh Verma and Rajesh
Verma who are convicted of the offence under Section 302 read with
Section 34 Indian Penal Code.
Further, in so far as the role of the witness Ravinder Kumar
is concerned, he is the complainant before this court on whose
statement the FIR was registered and the investigations were kicked
off. It has been established from the address provided by him that he
is a resident of the same area. It is also evident that he is known to
both the families of the accused and the deceased. He has been
examined as PW4 and has denied his presence in the hospital or
having made any statement to the investigating officer on the basis of
which the FIR has been registered though he admits his signatures not
only on the rukka which is Ex.PW4/1, but also the site plan which is
Ex.PW4/A-1; personal search memo of Dinesh which is Ex.PW4/B;
arrest memo of the accused Dinesh which is Ex.PW4/C; personal
search of the accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/D; arrest memo of
accused Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/E; disclosure statement of accused
Rajesh which is Ex.PW4/E-1; recovery-cum-pointing out memo of the
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 61 of 88knife which is Ex.PW4/F1 and sketch of the knife which is
Ex.PW4/F. His presence at the spot has been established from the
testimonies of the other witnesses. The investigating officer SI
Mahesh Kumar has proved that it was Ravinder Kumar who met them
in the hospital on whose statement the FIR was registered. It may be
observed that the FIR had been registered at the earliest possible
opportunity without any delay and the chances of there being any
interpolation in the same does not arise. It is further evident that the
accused Dinesh was apprehended at the spot itself. The said witnesses
has turned hostile on the aspect of his witnessing the incident and
states that during this time he was present in the house of the deceased
Ashok and that when he went to the spot the deceased was bleeding on
his chest. Despite the fact that the apprehension and arrest of the
accused Dinesh has been established and proved from the testimonies
of other eye witnesses, Ravinder Kumar has falsely deposed on this
aspect also and has testified that all the accused ran away from the
spot. Further, despite the fact that it was the father of the deceased
namely Hukum Chand who had taken the deceased to the hospital, as
evident from the MLC of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Ravinder
Kumar has made false statement on that aspect by deposing that it was
the labour/ employee of the deceased Ashok who had taken the
deceased to the hospital on a scooter. It is also borne out from the
record that the deceased was taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital
where he was first provided treatment despite which he could not be
saved. The present witness Ravinder Kumar has also made a false
statement on this aspect wherein he has deposed that the deceased was
taken to Mahajan Nursing Home. It stands established that the
complainant Ravinder Kumar has taken a complete somersault in his
deposition before the court. 
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 62 of 88Witnesses are the eyes and ears of the court and are
extremely important subjects of the criminal justice system. Any
attempt by a witness to divert the course of justice, is required to be
dealt with sternly. The testimony of witness Ravinder Kumar that he
was made to sign on all the documents later on in the police station,
does not inspire confidence of the court since it is evident that the FIR
was registered on the basis of the statement of Ravinder Kumar and it
was only later that all the accused were arrested which arrest memos
also bear his signatures which he admits. It was not possible for the
police to have apprehended the accused persons without any help of
identification which was provided to them by the complainant
Ravinder Kumar who now in his testimony before the court has denied
not only the incident but also the investigation proceedings which took
place, before the court. How convenient it is for this witness to plead
ignorance on all aspects except his signatures, which he of course
could not deny knowing-fully well that the same could be established
and got proved by an expert. This being so I am of a considered view
that this court cannot allow the complainant Ravinder Kumar who is
the most important witness being the complainant, to pollute the
stream of justice by making a false statement on oath only to help the
accused persons and to get away with it. I hold the witness Ravinder
Kumar guilty of the offence of perjury and I am satisfied that it is
necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that Ravinder Kumar
should be tried summarily under Section 344 Code of Criminal
Procedure for giving a false statement on oath during the trial of the
case. Therefore, under these circumstances, notice is directed to be
issued against Ravinder Kumar as to why he should not be punished
for giving false evidence on oath believing the same to be false during
the trial of the case despite being legally bound to state truth and
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 63 of 88believing the same to be false. Witness Ravinder Kumar shall appear
in person before this court on the next date of hearing and shall also
file his reply with regard to the above. The proceedings in this regard
are directed to be separated. 
Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 9.7.2010.
Announced in the open court  (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 5.7.2010   ASJ-II(NW): Rohini
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 64 of 88IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSION
JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 691/06
Unique Case ID No. 02404R0268252006
STATE        Vs. (1)  Dinesh Verma,  
S/o Sh. Ram Murti,  
R/o O-9, Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
(2)  Mukesh Kumar Verma,
S/o Sh. Ram Murti,  
R/o O-9, Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
(3)  Rajesh Verma,
S/o Sh. Ram Murti,  
R/o O-9, Vani Vihar,
Uttam Nagar,
Delhi.
FIR No.  525/06
Under Section: 302/120B/34 Indian Penal Code
Police Station: Uttam Nagar
Date of Conviction: 5.7.2010
Arguments heard on: 15.7.2010
Date of sentence: 20.7.2010  
APPEARANCE:
Present: Sh. Tofiq Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
Sh. Rajbir Malik, advocate for the convicts.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 65 of 88ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my detailed judgment dated 5.7.2010, the accused
Dinesh Verma, Mukesh Verma and Rajesh Verma have been held
guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code. However, they have been acquitted of the
charges under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. Further, the accused
Shanky Mahajan has been acquitted of the charges under Section 120-
B Indian Penal Code and 302 Indian Penal Code.
This case of road-rage has culminated into the death of
Ashok Arora in the hands of the present convicts Rajesh Verma,
Dinesh Verma and Mukesh Verma. The case as has been established
during trial is that on 17.6.2006 a contributory Bhandara was
organized outside the Shiv Mandir by the family of the deceased and
few other families of which the family of the deceased was the major
contributor. After the Bhandara concluded and while Ashok Arora a
resident and a shopkeeper of the same area and his employees were
still in the process of winding up, a Santro car bearing no. DL-3C-AB-
5306 which was being driven by one Shanky Mahajan came at a high
speed with the convict Mukesh was sitting next to him and hit the pole
of the pandal which fell on the scooter of Ashok on which there was a
minor verbal altercation which was sorted out by the intervention of
Hukum Chand the father of Ashok. The said persons Shanky Mahajan
and Mukesh left the spot after threatening Ashok and after sometime
the Mukesh returned to the spot with his brothers i.e. Dinesh and
Rajesh. While Dinesh and Mukesh caught hold of the deceased, the
convict Rajesh gave him one vital stab injury on the left side of his
lung near the armpit resulting in his death on the same day within a
few minutes of the incident after he was taken to Mata Chanan Devi
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 66 of 88Hospital. All the accused have been acquitted of the charges under
Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. The accused Shanky Mahajan has
also been acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with 34
Indian Penal Code whereas the accused Dinesh Verma, Mukesh
Verma and Rajesh Verma have been convicted for the offence under
Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. 
I have heard the arguments on the point of sentence. Ld.
counsel appearing on behalf of the convicts has argued that all the
convicts are real brothers and having an aged widow mother. In so far
as the convict Dinesh is concerned, he is a young boy of about 35
years and is the youngest of the three brothers. He is still unmarried
and and is working with a property dealer. The convict Dinesh Verma
has remained in custody from 17.6.2006 to 20.8.2009 and w.e.f.
5.7.2010 till date.
Convict Rajesh Verma is aged about 39 years having a
family comprising of wife and three children out of which two are sons
and one is daughter. He is working in a garment shop and has
remained in custody from 17.6.2006 to 20.8.2009 and w.e.f. 5.7.2010
till date
The convict Mukesh Verma is aged about 41 years having a
family comprising of wife and two children i.e. one son and one
daughter. He has already remained in judicial custody from 18.6.2006
to 20.8.2009 and w.e.f. 5.7.2010 till date. 
The Ld. counsel for the convicts, has vehemently argued
that all the convicts are first time offenders and they are not having
any criminal records. He prays for a lenient view against the convicts.
The Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the other hand has pleaded for a
strict punishment for all the convicts on the ground that incidents of
road-rage are on a rise and people do not hesitate to take law into their
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 67 of 88hands and taking the life of persons on minor disputes. He submits
that the murder of Ashok Arora had been committed in cold blood by
the convict Rajesh and therefore, in so far as the convict Rajesh is
concerned, he prays for a death penalty for him so that it should serve
as a precedent for others. The Ld. Addl. PP has placed his reliance on
the case of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 SCC
(Crl.) 580 and Machhi Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported
in 1983 SCC (Crl.) 681. Ld. Addl. PP has also submitted that in the
alternative if this court comes to the conclusion that the present case
does not fall within the 'Rarest of Rare Category' then it should be
considered to be falling under the category of Rare Case where the
convict Rajesh should not be held entitled to any remissions. In this
regard he has placed his reliance in the case of Shree Gopal @ Mani
Gopal Crl. Appeal No. 528/09 decided on 31.8.2009.
I have considered the submissions made before me. At the
outset, I may state that there can be no dispute as to the applicability of
the various principles as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in the aforesaid two cases viz Machhi Singh (Supra) and Bachan
Singh (Supra) which are required to be kept in mind before
awarding a death sentence in any given case.
The necessity of there being a proportion between the
offences and punishment has been long felt. However off late various
judgments of the higher courts of the land and various jurists have
tried to provide certain rules to this moral arithmetic as under:   
(i) The punishment sought to be inflicted
for any given offence should be such that
the evil of the punishment must be made
to exceed the advantage of the offence.
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 68 of 88ii) The more deficient in certainty a
punishment is, the severer it should be.
iii) The greater an offence is, the greater
reason there is to hazard a severe
punishment for the chance of preventing
it, and
iv) Same punishment for the same
offence ought not to be inflicted upon all
delinquents. It is necessary to pay some
regard to the circumstances which effect
sensibility.
However, at the same time it must be kept in mind that the
principle of there being a proportion between punishment and offences
ought not to be so mathematically followed so as to render the laws
subtle, complicated and obscured. Brevity and simplicity are a superior
good. Something of exact proportion may also be sacrificed to render
the punishment more striking, more fit to inspire people with a
sentiment of aversion for those vices which prepare the way for
crimes.
Recently in criminal appeal no.528/2009 and death
reference number 1/2009 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment
dated 31/8/2009 observed that the Court has to see as to whether the
case falls in the category of the Rarest of Rare i.e an extreme form of
being extremely rare within the larger category of rare or not. Thus, it
has to be established that the case falls in the category of the rarest of
the rare. Making a reference to their earlier decision as rendered in
death reference number 1/2008, titled State Vs. Raj Kumar
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 69 of 88Khandelwal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Indermeet Kaur of the Delhi High Court further referred
to the summary of various judicial pronouncements as made by them
while considering the mitigating factors and the aggravating factors.
The various judicial pronouncements in this regard are summarized as
under:-
A bird's eye view of various judicial decisions
reveal that Courts have considered the under
noted circumstances, as mitigating: lack of any
prior criminal record as held in the decision
reported as 2006 EWHC 1555 (OQ) In Re.
Butters'; the age of the offender being too
young or too old as held in the decision
reported as AIR 1974 SC 799 Ediga Anamma
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh; the character of
the offender i.e how the offender is perceived in
the society by men of social standing; the
probability of the offenders' rehabilitation,
reformation and re-adaptation in the society;
whether the offence was committed under a
belief by the assailant that he was morally
justified in doing so; or that the accused acted
under the duress or domination of another
person as held in the decision reported as 1982
(3) SCC 24 Bachan Singh Vs. State of Punjab;
commission of the offence at the spur of the
moment without any premeditation; or the
offender being provoked (for instance by
prolonged stress) in a way not amounting to the
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 70 of 88defence of provocation, as held in the decisions
reported as 2008 EWHC 36 (QB) Re. Rahman
and AIR 1998 SC 2821 A. Devendran Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu; a belief by the offender that the
murder was an act of mercy as held in the
decision reported as 1994 (Supply) 3 SCC 143
Janki Dass Vs. State (Delhi Administration); a
guilty plea by the offender or his voluntarily
surrendering before the authorities and his
being genuinely remorseful as held in the
decisions reported as (2008) EWHC 92 (QB)
In Re. Rock and (2006) EWHC 1555 (QB) In
Re. Butters'; that the offender acted to any
extent in self defence; that his intention was
merely to cause serious bodily harm rather
than to kill; that the victim provoked or in any
way contributed to the crime, as held in the
decision reported as AIR 1999 SC 1699
Kumudi Lal Vs. State of U.P. Lastly, in the
decisions reported as AIR 2007 SC 2531
Swami Shradhanand @ Murali Manohar
Mishra Vs. State of Karnataka and 2007 Cri.
L.J. 1806 Shivu & Anr. Vs. High Court of
Karnataka & Anr., it was held that in cases of
conviction being based on circumstantial
evidence a lenient view should be taken on the
issue of sentence.
Aggravating factors/circumstances have been
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 71 of 88opined to be; the accused having undergone
previous convictions and his proving to be a
future danger/threat or menace to the society
considering aspects like criminal tendencies,
vagabond lifestyle, drug abuse etc. as per the
decision reported as (2008) EWHC 719 (QB)
In Re. Miller; offender being in a dominating
position to the victim or in a position of trust
and has abused the trust; anti social or socially
abhorrent nature of the crime i.e where the
offence arouses social wrath and shakes the
confidence of the people in any social
institution; a crime committed for a motive
which evinces total depravity and meanness for
instance, a financial gain; where the magnitude
of the crime is large i.e there are more than one
victim; where the crime is committed in an
extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical
revolting or dastardly manner so as to arouse
extreme indignation of the community as held in
the decision reported as 1983 (3) SCC 470
Machhi Singh Vs. State of Punjab; significant
degree of planning or premeditation and lack of
remorse as held in the decision reported as AIR
2005 SC 2059 Holiram Bordoli Vs. State of
Assam; the victim being vulnerable due to age
or physical infirmity as held in the decision
reported as 2008 (110) Bom. LR. 373 State of
Maharashtra Vs. Haresh Mohandass Rajput;
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 72 of 88mental or physical suffering inflicted on the
victim before the death; victim being a public
service provider or performing a public duty at
the time when the crime was committed, as held
in the decision reported as (1977) 431 US 633
Roberts Vs. Louisiana. Lastly, the offender
attacking sovereign democratic institutions as
held in the decision reported as 2003 (6) SCC
641 Navjyot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru Vs. State”.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog in his decision as
rendered in Shree Gopal @ Mani Gopal Crl. Appeal No. 528/09
decided on 31.8.2009 examined another important facet pertaining to
the sentencing procedure i.e of consideration of alternative options
while referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as
rendered in the case Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, JT 2009 (7) SC 249 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India had observed that a real and abiding concern
for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through the instrumentality of law. That ought not to be done, save in
the rarest of rare cases, when the alternative option is
unquestionably foreclosed.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog further considered
the various alternatives available to him in the light of Section 433
Cr.P.C. and Section 433A Cr.P.C. regarding the meaning of the
sentence for imprisonment for life and the power of the executive to
grant remission but, not before a period of 14 years of imprisonment.
He also referred to various other decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India while classifying the sentence of imprisonment in two
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 73 of 88categories i.e the ordinary category whereby the court leaves the
exercise of executive power at the discretion of the executive, to be so
exercised after 14 years of imprisonment and grant remission; and a
higher category, where the Court, in a Rare Case, but not the Rarest of
Rare, would clip said benefit being extended by directing that the
accused shall undergo an actual sentence for a higher period or even
for the remainder of his life. Such kind of cases can be put in the
category of Rare Cases with appropriate direction of not being entitled
to the benefit of remission till a fixed term of imprisonment is
undergone. Some of the decisions, noted in this regard by the Hon'ble
Judge were Swami Shraddhanand Vs. State of Karnataka reported
in AIR 2007 (SC) 2531 in paras 60 to 63 of the said decision i.e the
decisions reported as Shri Bhagwan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported
in 2001 (6) SCC 296, Parkash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2002 (2) SCC 35, Ram Anoop Singh Vs.
State of Bihar reported in 2002 (6) SCC 686 and Mohd. Munna Vs.
Union of India reported in 2005 (7) SCC 417. 
I have applied my mind to the various judgment placed
before me. Before proceedings to decide the quantum of sentence, it is
necessary to consider the various aggravating circumstances in the
light of mitigating circumstances. In so far as the aggravating
circumstances are concerned, it is evident that the murder of the
deceased Ashok had been committed in cold blood without there being
any instigation only because he objected to the rash and negligence
driving and asked the convict Mukesh and the driver of the vehicle to
drive carefully. Being aggrieved with this kind of moral sermon being
given to them, the convict Mukesh who was sitting along with Shanky
Mahajan the driver of the vehicle which had hit the pole of the pandal
which pole fell on the scooter of the deceased, came back to the spot
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 74 of 88along with his brothers to teach him a lesson and the Ashok had to pay
with his life. 
The mitigating circumstances are that all the convicts are
young boys and have no criminal record. The incident is an outcome
of the altercation which took place at the spur of the moment on
account of the accident. Therefore, in my considered opinion, no
doubt all murders are most degrading and depraving but the case in
hand certainly does not fall within the category of Rarest of Rare or
least even in category of Rare Case.  I hereby sentence Dinesh Verma,
Rajesh Verma and Mukesh Verma to Rigorous Imprisonment for life
and fine to the tune of Rs.1 lacs each for the offence under Section
302 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine convicts shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each. The
entire amount of fine of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs. One Lacs from each
convicts), if recovered, shall be paid to the family of the deceased
Ashok Arora under Section 357 Cr.P.C. as compensation.
The convicts are already in judicial custody. They are sent
to custody for serving the sentence. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
shall be given to the convicts for the period undergone by them during
the trial.
The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer
an appeal against this judgment. 
Copy of this order of sentence be given to the convicts free
of costs and another be attached with their jail warrants.
Further, vide a separate detailed order, the witness
Ravinder Kumar has also been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment
for a period of one month and fine to the tune of Rs.500/- for
committing an offence of perjury for giving false evidence on oath
believing the same to be false during the trial of the case despite being

St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 75 of 88

legally bound to state truth and believing the same to be false. In
default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 2 days.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 20.7.2010 ASJ (NW)-II: Rohini
St. Vs. Dinesh Verma Etc., FIR No.525/06, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 76 of 88

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>