Delhi District Court
State vs Ferman on 11 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 32/2018)
FIR No. 67/2017
Police Station Bara Hindu Rao
Charge-sheet filed under Section 302 IPC
Charges framed against accused Sec. 302 IPC.
State Versus Farman
S/o Sh. Ayub,
R/o Vegabond, Bara Tooti Chowk,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Permanent Address:-
Village & Post: Kursel,
District Purnia (Bihar).
...Accused
Date of Institution of case 10.01.2018
Date of Arguments 03.07.2026 & previous dates.
Judgment reserved on 03.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on 11.07.2026
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Farman is facing trial for the offence punishable
under Sec. 302 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on
13.07.2017 at about 10:00 am, in front of Shop No. 644, Shivaji
Road, Azad Market, Delhi accused Farman committed murder of
Sh. Suresh @ Khanna.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 1 of 73
State Vs. Farman
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the
case are that on 13.07.2017, on receiving DD No. 9A regarding
stabbing of a person at Pul Mithai, Azad Market, Delhi, PW-6
ASI Gayasuddin along with Ct. Manish went to the spot of
incident where he came to know that injured was shifted to Aruna
Asaf Ali Hospital. In the meantime, PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin
received another information from a passerby that a person was
stabbed with knife at Shivaji Road and he was lying in injured
condition on a cycle rickshaw. Thereafter, PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin
left Ct. Manish to Pul Mithai to look after the spot and he along
with other staff reached in front of Shop No. 644, Shivaji Road,
where a person aged about 40-41 years was lying on the rickshaw
in injured condition and there was blood on the rickshaw and
blood in huge quantity was also scattered on the ground. A pair of
blood stained black colour plastic slippers were also lying in the
rickshaw. Thereafter PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin, inspected the person
and noticed that there were several wounds on his chest and
abdomen and at that time, injured was breathing. Thereafter,
PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin removed the injured to Hindu Rao
Hospital in a private auto through ASI Jagdish.
3. During inquiry, PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin inspected the spot
and the cycle rickshaw and between the rickshaw and the back
side wall of shop no. 9A, Azad Market, an empty plastic quarter
bottle on which ‘Rasilla Santara’ was written and an empty water
pouch was also found lying on the ground. Thereafter PW-6 ASI
Gayasuddin along with Ct. Kuldeep went to HRH hospital and
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 2 of 73
State Vs. Farman
collected MLC No. 4076/17 of injured/unknown, who was
declared brought dead by the concerned doctor. Thereafter PW-6
ASI Gayasuddin searched for the eyewitness at the spot as well
as in the hospital but no eyewitness was found at that time.
Thereafter PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin prepared rukka, Ex. PW-6/A
and got the present FIR registered at PS Bara Hindu Rao through
ASI Jagdish and after registration of FIR further investigation of
present case was carried out by the then SHO/PW-35 Inspector
Ravi Kant.
4. During investigation, IO/PW-35 Inspector Ravi Kant got
inspected the spot of incident through Mobile Crime Team and
prepared site plan, Ex. PW-35/A. He also seized the DVR
containing CCTV footage of camera installed at Shop No. 644,
Shivaji Road covering the spot of incident vide seizure memo,
Ex. PW-3/A. During investigation, IO also lifted blood sample in
gauze from footrest and underneath the rickshaw. Blood stained
slippers and earth control from the spot of incident were also
seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-30/A. He also seized cycle
rickshaw, empty quarter bottle of alcohol and empty water pouch
from the spot of incident vide seizure memos, Ex. PW-30/B &
Ex. PW-30/C. During investigation, IO showed CCTV footage to
number of rickshaw pullers and public persons for the purpose of
identity of deceased and during this, one of the rickshaw puller
namely Balbir came forward and informed that the name of
deceased was Suresh @ Khanna who hailed from his village.
Thereafter IO shifted the dead body to Mortuary and family
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 3 of 73
State Vs. Farman
members of deceased were informed, who came to Delhi on next
day and identified the dead body of deceased Suresh @ Khanna
and thereafter IO got conducted postmortem on the body of
deceased. After postmortem, IO also seized biological exhibits
and clothes of deceased along with sample seal vide seizure
memo, Ex. PW-12/A.
5. During investigation, on 14.07.2017 accused Farman was
arrested in case FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao from Pul
Mithai along with weapon of offence i.e. knife, who confessed
his involvement in the present case. Thereafter IO went to Pul
Mithai where PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin produced accused Farman
before him and gave photocopy of his disclosure statement,
sketch of recovered knife and its seizure memo in case FIR No.
66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao. Thereafter IO/PW-35 Inspector
Ravi Kant interrogated accused Farman, arrested him in the
present case and recorded his disclosure statement, vide memos
Ex. PW-33/A & Ex. PW-33/A1. While the accused was being
interrogated by IO/PW-35 Inspector Ravi Kant, one eyewitness
namely Harish Chandra Mehto came there and met him who also
identified accused Farman as accused of present case and
thereafter IO recorded statement of Harish Chandra Mehto, Ex.
PW-35/B. During investigation, IO seized blood stained clothes
of accused along with sample seal, obtained postmortem report
of deceased, got prepared scaled site plan, obtained PCR form
and sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini. On completion of
investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the IO before the Court
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 4 of 73
State Vs. Farman
through the SHO. After obtaining the FSL results, supplementary
charge-sheet was also filed before the court.
6. Vide order dated 0 9 . 1 0 . 2 0 1 7 copy of the charge-sheet
was supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C and vide
order dated 06.11.2017, copy of supplementary charge-sheet as
well as CD of e-challan were supplied to the accused. Vide order
dated 04.01.2018 the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
7. Vide order dated 24.09.2018, the Ld. Predecessor Court
was pleased to frame charge under Sec 302 IPC against accused
to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 35 witnesses.
The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature
has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
9. PW-1 ASI Sukhbir Singh, was duty officer at PS Bara
Hindu Rao. He proved copy of present FIR, his endorsement of
rukka & certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act
exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/C. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that ASI Jagdish Singh did
not hand over the rukka to him. He also denied the suggestion
that he got registered the alleged FIR on the instruction of the IO.
10. PW-2 Sh. Sohan Pal, was the complainant in case FIR No.
66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao. He deposed that he was doing the
work of Beldari two years ago in Delhi in the area of Mithai Pul
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 5 of 73
State Vs. Farman
and during that period, he used to sleep on the pavement. He
further deposed that he was illiterate so he could not tell the date,
month & year, however, around two years ago it was summer
season and on the day of the incident at about 09:00 am, while he
was sitting on the police booth near the Mithai Pul, one person
came and robbed Rs. 40/- after causing injuries on his face with
the knife. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for
the State in which he denied the suggestion that on the next day
i.e. 14.07.2017, the said assailant was apprehended at his
instance. He also denied the suggestion that he was deliberately
not identifying the accused namely Farman in the court just to
save him. This witness was also confronted with his statement
recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, Ex. PW-2/A. This witness was
not cross-examined by accused despite opportunity given to him.
11. PW-3 Sh. Virender, was Manager at Shekhawati Transport
situated at Shop No. 644, Shivaji Road, Delhi. He deposed that
on 13.07.2017, an incident of murder had taken place and Police
officers from PS Bara Hindu Rao came to his shop and they
checked CCTV footage of camera no. 1 from 09:55 am to 10:05
am. He proved seizure memo of DVR alongwith adapter and
video cable as Ex. PW-3/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed
that police officers did not make a written request to him for
providing the CCTV footage. He also deposed that police had
prepared seizure memo and obtained his signature thereon. He
denied the suggestion that he had not handed over the said DVR
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 6 of 73
State Vs. Farman
and cable to police officers on the date and time in question or
that he was not available in his shop.
12. PW-4 Sh. Raja Ram, was the younger brother of deceased
who proved dead body identification memo and dead body
handing memo of deceased exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A & Ex.
PW-4/B. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
13. PW-5 Mohd. Chottey, was the owner of cycle rickshaw on
which deceased was found in injured condition. He deposed that
in the year 2017, he was having 17 rickshaws and he used to give
rickshaws on rent to other rickshaw pullers. He further deposed
that he was illiterate so he could not tell the date, month and year,
however, on the day of incident he was in his village Auray,
District Muzaffarpur, Bihar. He further deposed that he handed
over all his rickshaws to one Balbir, who was the rickshaw puller
and he used to take his rickshaw on rent. He further deposed that
he was owner of rickshaw having MCD No. Chote 1834. He
further deposed that Balbir told him that the said rickshaw was
given by him to one Suresh @ Khanna (since deceased) on rent,
on the day of incident. He also deposed that later on, he came to
know that Suresh had been murdered. He proved receipt of MCD
dated 08.12.2016 pertaining to the said rickshaw as Ex. PW-5/A.
He also proved photographs of said rickshaw exhibited as Ex.
PW-5/B1 to Ex. PW-5/B4. This witness was cross-examined by
Ld. Addl. PP for the State in which he admitted that he had stated
that on 13.07.2017, he had given the rickshaw make Neelam
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 7 of 73
State Vs. Farman
having same number 51350922 to Suresh @ Khanna (since
deceased). He also admitted that he identified his rickshaw
before the police. He denied the suggestion that Balbir who was a
rickshaw puller had given the aforesaid rickshaw to Suresh @
Khanna on rent in his absence. He also admitted that he came to
know that Suresh @ Khanna was murdered on 13.07.2017. He
also admitted that he had forgotten some facts due to lapse of
time. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he deposed
that he had given said rickshaw to Suresh @ Khanna through
Balbir. He also deposed that he did not maintain any register in
respect of 17 rickshaws as he was an illiterate. Voluntarily, he
deposed that he used to keep Aadhar card/Voter car of the
rickshaw puller, who used to take his rickshaw. He admitted that
on the day of incident, he was in his village. He also deposed that
police recorded his statement after returning from the village. He
also deposed that he left Delhi on 06.02.2017 and came back on
06.09.2017.
14. PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin, was the First IO in the present
case. He deposed that on 13.07.2017, on receiving information
vide DD No. 9A, he along with Ct. Manish went to the spot of
incident i.e. Pul Mithai, Azad Market, Delhi at about 10:00-10:15
am. He further deposed that he came to know that injured was
shifted to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. He further deposed that on
inquiry, he received an information from a passerby that a person
was stabbed with knife at Shivaji Road and he was lying in
injured condition on a cycle rickshaw. He further deposed that
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 8 of 73
State Vs. Farman
thereafter he left Ct. Manish to Pul Mithai to look after the spot
and he along with other staff reached in front of Shop No. 644,
Shivaji Road, where a person aged about 40-41 years was lying
on the rickshaw and there was blood on the rickshaw and blood
in huge quantity was also scattered on the ground. He further
deposed that a pair of blood stained black colour plastic slippers
were also lying in the rickshaw. He further deposed that he had
touched the person and during this, he noticed that there were
several wounds on his chest and abdomen and at that time,
injured was breathing. He further deposed that he removed the
injured to Hindu Rao Hospital in a private auto through ASI
Jagdish. He further deposed that he inspected the spot and the
cycle rickshaw. He further deposed that rickshaw was make of
Neelam and on the back side of rickshaw, CHHOTAE was
mentioned with paint and a phone number and Naseeb Apna
Apna was also mentioned on it. He further deposed that between
the rickshaw and the back side wall of shop no. 9A, Azad
Market, an empty plastic quarter bottle on which ‘Rasilla
Santara’ was mentioned and an empty water pouch was also
found lying on the ground. He further deposed that he had left
ASI Manoj, ASI Sunil and HC Ramdhari left at the spot to look
after and thereafter he along with Ct. Kuldeep reached at Aruna
Asaf Ali hospital where he had done proceedings relating to case
FIR No. 66/2017, DD No. 9A and thereafter he along with Ct.
Kuldeep went to HRH hospital and he collected MLC No.
4076/17 of injured/unknown, who was declared brought dead by
the concerned doctor. He further deposed that he searched for the
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 9 of 73
State Vs. Farman
eyewitness at the spot as well as in the hospital but no eyewitness
was found at that time. He further deposed that he prepared
rukka, Ex. PW-6/A and got the present FIR registered at PS Bara
Hindu Rao through ASI Jagdish. He further deposed that when he
reached at the spot, Crime Team was already present which
inspected the spot of incident at his instance and lifted the
exhibits therefrom. In his cross-examination, he deposed he had
gone through DD No. 9A pertaining to FIR No. 66/2017. He
deposed that no police officer/official posted at Police picket near
Avantika Bai statue met him at the spot when he reached there.
He also deposed that lot of public persons were present at the
spot at that time and he had not noted down the name, address etc
of the person who had informed him that one person was lying in
injured condition. He deposed that he had not prepared any site
plan of the place from where said liquor bottle as well as water
pouch were recovered. He also deposed that he had prepared
rukka regarding present case in Bara Hindu Rao hospital and in
the said rukka, it was not mentioned by him that the same was
prepared at Bara Hindu Rao hospital. He deposed that Crime
Team was informed regarding FIR No. 66/2017, however, the
said crime team also inspected the crime scene of present case on
receipt of information regarding this case. He also deposed that
SHO did not seize/recover anything in his presence neither on
13.07.2017 nor on 14.07.2017 regarding this case. He deposed
that he had not noted down the name, address etc. of the passerby
who had informed him about the incident in question. He denied
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 10 of 73
State Vs. Farman
the suggestion that he had never joined investigation of this case
at any point of time.
15. PW-7 Sh. Balbir, was rickshaw puller in the locality of
spot of incident. He deposed that one day, while he was pulling
his rickshaw, one police official stopped him and showed him
one rickshaw belonging to his garage from which he used to take
rickshaw. He further deposed that after seeing the rickshaw on
which there were bloodstains, he told the police official that the
said rickshaw was being pulled by his co-villager namely Suresh
@ Khanna. He further deposed that the police official also
showed him one CCTV footage in which he saw Suresh @
Khanna in injured condition. He further deposed that he also
visited Mortuary, Hindu Rao Hospital on direction of police
official and identified dead body of Suresh @ Khanna and
thereafter he informed about the incident to his family members
in his village. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there was
no distinct identification mark on the said rickshaw. He denied
the suggestion that he had not given any statement to police.
16. PW-8 Sh. Vikram Jeet, was the brother of deceased who
proved his statement regarding identification of dead body of his
deceased brother and handing over memo of dead body of
deceased as Ex. PW-8/A & Ex. PW-4/B. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not identified
the body of his deceased brother Suresh @ Khanna in the manner
as stated by him in his examination-in-chief.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 11 of 73
State Vs. Farman
17. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto, was the eyewitness of the
alleged incident of murder in the present case. He deposed that
the incident took place three years ago and it was summer
season. He further deposed that on that day, while he was going
from Shivaji Road to Mithai Pul, before Mandir on Shivaji Road,
one person was stabbing with a knife on a person who was sitting
on a rickshaw. He further deposed that initially, he did not report
to the police due to the fear but later on when he saw the attacker
in the police custody, he identified him. This witness correctly
identified accused during his deposition before the court as well
as in the CCTV footage played in the court. This witness was
also clearly visible in the CCTV footage and he also identified
himself in the CCTV footage as a persons wearing yellow colour
capri while passing from the spot of incident while the incident
was going on. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion
that he was not visible in the CCTV footage shown in the court.
He denied the suggestion that he was planted as witness in this
case as his physique was similar to the physique of person seen
in the CCTV footage. He denied the suggestion that he was
tutored by the police and he was specifically directed by police to
identify himself as well as accused in the CCTV footage which
was played in the court. Voluntarily, he deposed that he had
identified accused as well as himself on his own. He denied the
suggestion that he had left Delhi for his village on the date of
incident itself.
18. PW-10 SI Ved Prakash was In-charge at Mobile Crime
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 12 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Team. He deposed that on 13.07.2017, at about 11:00 am, on
receiving call from Control Room, he along with Crime Team
reached at the spot of incident i.e. in front of Shop No. 644,
Shivaji Road, Azad Market, Delhi and he along with his team
inspected the spot. He further deposed that Ct. Sudesh had taken
photographs of spot of incident from different angles. He proved
his detailed report exhibited as Ex. PW-10/1. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that ASI Gayasuddin had met him at the
spot, when he reached the spot at about 11:30 am. He further
deposed that he was not able to recollect whether ASI
Gayasuddin had not met him at the spot as he had gone to the
hospital. He also deposed that he had received phone call directly
from Control Room. He denied the suggestion that he had not
gone to the spot on the relevant date and time and no proceedings
were conducted by Crime Team.
19. PW-11 HC Vijender, deposed that on 03.08.2017, on
instruction of IO, he received five sealed parcels and one sample
seal from MHC(M) vide RC No. 53/21/17 along with FSL Form
and deposited the same at FSL Rohini and after depositing the
same at FSL, Rohini, he handed over acknowledgment to
MHC(M). In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that
he neither took any parcel from MHC(M) nor he deposited the
same to the office of FSL, Rohini or that he deposed falsely at
instance of IO.
20. PW-12 ASI Rupender Singh, deposed that on 13.07.2017,
he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO and
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 13 of 73
State Vs. Farman
went to the spot of incident i.e. Shivaji Road and from there he
along with IO went to HRH Hospital where ASI Gayasuddin and
ASI Jagdish met them. He further deposed that ASI Gayasuddin
sent rukka to PS through ASI Jagdish and he remained in the
hospital to guard the dead body of deceased. He further deposed
that on the next day, dead body of deceased namely Suresh @
Khanna was identified by his family members and thereafter
postmortem upon the dead body was conducted. He proved
statement of brother of deceased namely Vikramjeet Singh
regarding identification of dead body exhibited as Ex. PW-8/A
and dead body handing over memo exhibited as Ex. PW-4/B. He
further deposed that the concerned doctor handed over the
parcels of exhibits of deceased, which were seized by IO vide
seizure memo, Ex. PW-12/A. In his cross-examination, he
deposed that he did not remember the number of pages of the
rukka which was prepared by ASI Gayasuddin in the hospital. He
denied the suggestion that he did not guard the dead body in the
hospital or that no such seizure of the exhibits of the deceased
was made in his presence.
21. PW-13 Retd. Inspector Manohar Lal, was draftsman who
proved scaled site plan exhibited as Ex. PW-13/A. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that he had prepared the
scaled site plan while sitting in the PS at instance of the IO.
22. PW-14 Inspector Sanjay, deposed that on 08.09.2017, he
received case file of present case for further investigation. He
further deposed that during investigation he collected PCR form,
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 14 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Ex. PW-14/A along with relevant certificate under Sec. 65B of
The Indian Evidence Act and collected FSL result. He also
deposed that he recorded statement of PWs and thereafter he
prepared charge-sheet and sent the same to SHO. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that the further
investigation of the present case was never assigned to him or
that he did not collect FSL result and PCR form.
23. PW-15 Sh. Naval Kishore Joshi, Senior Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini has proved his detailed chemical report
exhibited as Ex. PW-15/A. He also deposed that on chemical,
microscopic, TLC & GC-HS examination following results were
found:-
(i) Exhibits 5A, 5B & 5C were found contain Ethyl
Alcohol.
(ii) Exhibit 5C was found to contain Ethyl Alcohol 183.9
mg/100 ml of blood.
(iii) Metallic poison, ethyl and methyl alcohol cyanide,
phosphide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquilizers and
pesticides could not be detected in Ex. 5D.
This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused
despite opportunity given to him.
24. PW-16 HC Sudesh Kumar, was the photographer at
Mobile Crime Team. He proved 14 photographs of the spot of
incident from different angles exhibited as Ex. PW-16/A1 to Ex.
PW-16/A14. He also proved negatives of aforesaid photographs
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 15 of 73
State Vs. Farman
exhibited as Ex. PW-16/B (colly). In his cross-examination, he
deposed that he had taken photographs at the instruction of the
IO of the case as well as In-charge, Mobile Crime Team. He
denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of crime with
Mobile Crime Team or that he was on leave on that particular
date.
25. PW-17 W/HC Komal, deposed that on 13.07.2017, she
was posted at CPCR, PHQ and on that day at about 09:51 am, a
call was received regarding stabbing of a person at Azad Market
near Rani Jhasi Statue. She proved PCR form regarding aforesaid
information exhibited as Ex. PW-17/A. In her cross-examination,
she denied the suggestion that in the abovesaid call, no time and
location was described by the caller.
26. PW-18 ASI Ram Prakash, deposed that during September,
2017, he was posted at North Zone, PCR as ASI and was
working as Deployment Officer. He further deposed that on
asking of IO/Inspector Sanjay Kumar, he had informed him after
checking the records that on 13.07.2017, ASI Mohan Lal was on
duty at PCR Van Sugar 27 from 08:00 am to 08:00 pm. He
proved duty roaster of said date as Mark PW-18/A. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that record vide Mark
PW-18/A was manipulated or that for the said reason, he had
given evasive answers to the questions put to him in his cross-
examination. He also denied the suggestion that he had
deliberately not brought the original record of abovesaid duty
roaster.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 16 of 73
State Vs. Farman
27. PW-19 Dr. Rakesh Solanki, CMO, Hindu Rao Hospital,
Delhi proved MLC No. 4076/17 of deceased, prepared by Dr.
Dhawal Kumar exhibited as Ex. PW-19/A. He also deposed that
as per record, one person was brought to Casualty on 13.07.2017
at about 10:55 am and he was declared brought dead. In his
cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was tutored
by MS to falsely identify the signature of Dr. Dhawal Kumar. He
also denied the suggestion that he had not worked at any point of
time with Dr. Dhawal or that he was not acquainted with the
handwriting and signature of Dr. Dhawal.
28. PW-20 Retd. ACP Harish Chander Pathak, deposed that
during the year 2017, he was posted as Sub-Inspector/Nodal
Officer, CPCR, PHQ, Delhi. He further deposed that on
13.07.2017, PCR Form-I, No. 13JUL171250112, Ex. PW-14/A
was generated and he issued certificate, Ex. PW-20/A under Sec.
65B of The Evidence Act. In his cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that certificate under Sec. 65B was never issued by
him in respect of PCR Form-I, Ex. PW-14/A. He also denied the
suggestion that he had been made witness by the IO being a
Police officer.
29. PW-21 Sh. Dheeraj, JA, Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts
proved the judicial file of case FIR no. 66/17, PS Bara Hindu
Rao under Section 392/397 IPC which contained judgment dated
25.10.2018 vide which accused was acquitted by Ld. Sessions
Court in that case. This witness not cross-examined on behalf of
accused despite opportunity given to him.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 17 of 73
State Vs. Farman
30. PW-22 HC Manish deposed that he was posted at PS Bara
Hindu Rao and went to Pul Mithai with ASI Giyasuddin on
receipt of call regarding stabbing of a person, who was found
with injury on his face. He deposed that injured was removed to
hospital and he remained there. He further deposed that one
public person informed them about one rickshaw puller lying in
injured condition in his rickshaw at Shivaji Road. He further
deposed that other police staff also reached there. In his cross
examination, he admitted that he had not made any departure
entry in rojnamcha while leaving police station. He deposed that
he had mentioned in his statement to police that the injured
person was shifted to hospital. This witness was confronted with
statement Ex. PW22/DA, where it is not so mentioned.
31. PW-23 ASI Sunil Kumar deposed that on 13.07.2017, he
was posted at PS Bara Hindu Rao. He deposed that on receipt of
a PCR call regarding a knife blow, he alongwith HC Ramdhari
reached Pull Mithai at about 10:00 AM where one person having
a knife injury on his face was found. He deposed that injured was
identified as Sohan Pal and was shifted to hospital. He further
deposed that in the meantime, another information was received
regarding an injured person at Shivaji Road. He deposed that he
alongwith other police staff reached at Shivaji Road where they
found a rickshaw in which one injured person was lying in a
prone position. He further deposed that the injured was bleeding
from his chest, blood was scattered on the footstep of the
rickshaw as well as on the ground and he was gasping. He further
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 18 of 73
State Vs. Farman
deposed that injured was immediately removed to Hindu Rao
Hospital. He further deposed that crime team was called. He
further deposed that one blood stained pair of flip-flop was lying
on the footstep of rickshaw. He further deposed that blood gauze,
earth control, and the blood stained pair of flip flop were taken
into possession. He further deposed that plastic bottle of desi
liquor with one empty water pouch was also taken into
possession. He further deposed that rickshaw was also taken into
possession. He further deposed that one CCTV camera was
noticed at shop no. 644, focusing towards the spot. He further
deposed that footage was checked and DVR was seized. He
further deposed that identity of the injured was revealed as
Suresh @ Khanna through one rickshaw puller namely Balbir. In
his cross examination, the witness deposed that he had received
the information regarding knife injury through the wireless set.
He deposed that he did not know the name of the person who
informed him about the second incident of injured person in a
rickshaw at Shivaji Road. He denied the suggestion that no
injured person namely Sohan Pal was found at Pull Mithai. He
deposed that he did not know whether the crime team was called
at pull mithai. He further deposed that no exhibits were lifted
from pull mithai in his presence. He further deposed that no
inquiry from any public person regarding the incident at pull
mithai was conducted in his presence. He admitted that a police
post was situated at pull mithai in front of statue of Avanti Bai
Lodhi and stated that no inquiry was conducted in his presence
from the staff posted there. The witness further stated that a
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 19 of 73
State Vs. Farman
number of public persons had gathered around the rickshaw at
Shivaji Road. He admitted that he did not make inquiries from
any of them regarding the incident, though other police officials
did so, but not in his presence. He admitted that mobile crime
team was called at the spot but could not remember the time
taken by them to inspect the spot. He deposed that Insp. Ravi
Kant seized the articles recovered from the spot. He admitted that
footage was seen and checked on the screen installed in shop. He
denied the suggestion that no seizure proceedings were
conducted in his presence. He also denied the suggestion that his
statement was recorded by the IO on his own. He also denied the
suggestion that CCTV footage was not shown to anyone, or that
he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police.
32. PW-24 Dr. Varun Garg, Associate Professor deposed that
he conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of
Suresh @ Khanna, Male, aged about 40 years. He opined the
cause of death as hemorrhagic shock resulting from injury to the
heart and lung caused by the stab wound which was sufficient to
cause death in the ordinary course of nature which was caused by
single edged stabbing weapon. He further opined that all the
injuries mentioned in the post mortem report were ante mortem
in nature. He proved the detailed post mortem report Ex.
PW24/A (colly). In his cross examination, witness deposed that
he could not specify the time interval between the three injuries
mentioned in the post mortem report, though all the injuries were
fresh in duration. He further deposed that PM report was in his
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 20 of 73
State Vs. Farman
own handwriting. He denied the suggestion that he had not
prepared the post mortem report or that it had been prepared by
his subordinate staff. He denied the suggestion that rigor mortis
had already passed off or that the death was not caused by
hemorrhagic shock. He denied the suggestion that injury no. 1
could have been possible by a sudden fall on a sharp object such
as broken glass in the facts of the present case. He denied the
suggestion that he had prepared false post mortem report. He
denied the suggestion that the post mortem report was prepared
at the instance of the Investigating Officer. He also denied the
suggestion that dead body was not produced before him on the
date and time mentioned in the report or that inquest papers were
not supplied to him at the relevant time.
33. PW-25 Dr. C.P. Singh, Assistant Director (Physics)
deposed that on 24.10.2017, one sealed parcel was assigned to
him for examination through the computer Forensic Unit
alongwith a forwarding letter. He deposed that he tallied the seal
impression on the parcel with the specimen seal forwarded and
found the same to be intact. He further deposed that he examined
the exhibits which consisted of one Writex make DVD
containing two video files in “avi” format and prepared detailed
report Ex. PW25/A. In his cross examination, the witness
admitted that he had not mentioned the date and time reflected in
the CCTV footage in Ex. PW25/A. He also admitted that the
video contained in the DVD had not been recorded in his
presence. He deposed that he did not know whether the
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 21 of 73
State Vs. Farman
investigating officer had visited him at any point during the
period when the examination was being conducted. He denied
the suggestion that he had prepared the FSL report at the instance
of the Investigating Officer.
34. PW-26 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant Director
(Biology), deposed that on 03.08.2017, eight sealed parcels were
received in the office and were allotted to him for examination
alongwith a forwarding letter. He further deposed that he tallied
the seal impressions on the parcels with the specimen seal affixed
on the forwarding letter and found the same to be intact. He
further deposed that he examined the exhibits and prepared
biological report Ex. PW26/A and after completion of the
examination, the remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the
seal of IKM FSL DELHI. This witness was not cross-examined
by accused despite opportunity given to him.
35. PW-27 Retd. ASI Jagdish deposed that on receipt of a PCR
call regarding a knife blow, he alongwith ASI Gayasuddin and
other police officials reached Pull Mithai at about 10:00 AM
where one person having a knife injury on his face was found. He
deposed that injured was identified as Sohan Pal and was shifted
to hospital. He further deposed that in the meantime, another
information was received regarding an injured person at Shivaji
Road. He deposed that he alongwith other police staff reached at
Shivaji Road where they found a rickshaw in which one injured
person was lying in a prone position. He further deposed that the
injured was bleeding from his chest and blood was scattered on
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 22 of 73
State Vs. Farman
the footstep of the rickshaw as well as on the ground and he was
gasping. He further deposed that injured was immediately
removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. He further deposed that injured
was declared brought dead. He further deposed that ASI
Gayasuddin collected MLC Ex. PW19/A. He further deposed
that ASI Gayasudding prepared rukka and FIR was registered.
He further deposed that one blood stained pair of flip-flop was
lying on the footstep of rickshaw. He further deposed that blood
gauze, earth control, and the blood stained pair of flip flop were
taken into possession. He further deposed that plastic bottle of
desi liquor with one empty water pouch was also taken into
possession. He further deposed that rickshaw was also taken into
possession. He further deposed that one CCTV camera was
noticed at shop no. 644, focusing towards the spot. He further
deposed that footage was checked and DVR was seized. He
further deposed that identity of the injured was revealed as
Suresh @ Khanna through one rickshaw puller namely Balbir. In
his cross examination, he deposed that his statement was
recorded on the same day i.e. on 13.07.2017. He further deposed
that many public persons were present where injured was found
and it was crowded area. He admitted that a police booth was
also situated near the statue of Jhansi ki Rani and there was no
police official present inside the booth when he proceeded for
patrolling. He deposed that he did not remember as to who
informed him about the injured lying in a rickshaw in front of
Shop no. 644, Shivaji Road. He further deposed that he did not
notice as to who conveyed the said information to ASI
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 23 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Gayasuddin. He further deposed that they had gone to Shop no.
644 on their own after receiving the information and had not
been led there by any person. He further deposed that IO ASI
Gayasuddin had taken them to Shop no. 9A. He stated that he did
not remember the exact distance or location of Shop no. 9A from
Shop no 64A or whether it fell in the same direction or in the
opposite direction. He further deposed that he did not remember
whether the owner of Shop 9A and 644 had been present there or
had reached the spot during his presence. He deposed that the
CCTV footage was taken into possession by Insp. Ravi Kant. He
further deposed that he did not remember the mode through
which the footage was shown to the public person. He further
deposed that he did not know whether the IO had recorded the
particulars or statements of the public persons to whom the
footage was shown. He further stated that he did not remember
the exact time when the public person Balbir arrived at the spot.
He denied the suggestion no seizure had been effected in his
presence or that he had not removed the injured/deceased to the
hospital or that public person Balbir had not come to the spot in
his presence or that he was deposing falsely.
36. PW-28 Dr. Mahendra Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL
proved his detailed report Ex. PW28/A. He also proved
certificate under Section 65 B Evidence Act Ex. PW28/B. In his
cross examination, he denied the suggestion that Hard disk drive
could have been easily removed from the DVR as it was neither
taped nor sealed. He admitted that he did not hand over any
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 24 of 73
State Vs. Farman
observation sheets or rough notes to the IO alogwith his report
Ex. PW28/A. He further deposed that he had not viewed the
CCTV footage stored in the Hard disk drive as it was not part of
his assigned duty. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared
the report at the instance or request of IO. He also denied the
suggestion the he did not possess the requisite qualifications or
experience to examine such devices. He also denied the
suggestion that IO had provided him with the DVD already
containing the CCTV footage.
37. PW-29 HC Rahul Kumar deposed that he was posted at PS
Bara Hindu Rao as a Constable and obtained one sealed parcel
vide RC no. 50/21/17 Ex. PW29/A with forwarding letter from
MHC(M) and deposited the same with FSL, Rohini. He also
proved acknowledgment Ex. PW29/B of FSL regarding deposit
of exhibits. He also deposed that he had also collected on blank
hard disk from the MHC(M) and deposited the same at FSL,
Rohini. He further deposed that no tampering was done with the
sealed parcels till remained in his possession. In his cross
examination, he deposed that he had gone through the contents of
the RC and had satisfied himself that the articles handed over to
him were the same as mentioned therein. He further deposed that
RC was prepared in his presence. He admitted that the particulars
of the accused were not mentioned in the RC and that he was not
aware as to who was the accused. He further denied the
suggestion that he had not taken the aforesaid exhibits to FSL on
the date stated by him in his examination in chief. He also denied
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 25 of 73
State Vs. Farman
the suggestion that he was not on duty on the said day or that for
that reason, he was unable to recollect whether his departure and
arrival entries had been recorded in the rojnamcha.
38. PW-30 ASI Manoj Kumar deposed that on 13.07.2017 he
was posted as an ASI at PS Bara Hindu Rao and was on
patrolling duty at about 10:00 A.M. He further deposed that upon
receiving wireless information regarding a knife assault at Pull
Mithai, he reached at the spot where ASI Gayasuddin, ASI Sunil,
ASI Jagdish, Ct. Manish, HC Ram Dhari, HC Rupender and Ct.
Kuldeep were already present. He further deposed that an injured
person who was identified as Sohan Pal, had been removed to
Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital by a PCR van. He further deposed that
another wireless message was received regarding an injured
person lying in front of Shop No. 644, Shivaji Road. He further
deposed that there was a rickshaw in which one person was
lying in a prone position with bleeding injuries on his chest. He
further deposed that blood was scattered on the ground beneath
the rickshaw, though the injured was still breathing. He further
deposed that earth control and blood samples were lifted from the
spot. He further deposed that a pair of black-coloured blood-
stained slippers lying on the footrest of the rickshaw were seized.
He further deposed that one empty liquor quarter bottle and one
empty water pouch found at the spot were also seized. He further
deposed that the rickshaw was also taken into possession. He
further deposed that a CCTV camera installed at Shop No. 644,
facing the place of occurrence, was noticed. He further deposed
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 26 of 73
State Vs. Farman
that footage was checked and shown to persons present at the
spot for identifying the deceased and the assailant. He further
deposed that one public person, namely Balbir, identified the
deceased as Suresh @ Khanna. He further deposed that efforts
were thereafter made to apprehend the accused, but he could not
be traced at that time. He further deposed that the photographs of
the scene of crime were taken. He further deposed that the DVR
along with its adapter and video cable was seized vide seizure
memo Ex. PW3/A, and the IO transferred the CCTV footage in a
pen drive. He proved the seizure memos of exhibits lifted from
the spot, the rickshaw, the liquor bottle and the water pouch as
Ex. PW-30/A, Ex. PW-30/B and Ex. PW-30/C respectively. In his
cross examination, he deposed that the injured found in the
rickshaw was shifted to the hospital within five to seven minutes.
He further deposed that that no markings were made on the
empty liquor bottle or the water pouch, though markings were
made on the sealed pullandas. He deposed that he did not
remember if details of said public person, who informed about
injured in rickshaw was recorded or not. He admitted that some
of the vendors/labourers were available and they were inquired
by the IO. He also deposed that footage was also taken in the
mobile phone and same was shown to public persons. He denied
the suggestion that public person namely Balbir had not come to
the spot on his own or that he was false and planted witness. He
also denied the suggestion that he was not present on the date and
time as stated by him in his examination-in-chief.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 27 of 73
State Vs. Farman
39. PW-31 Inspector Pushpendra, deposed that on 13.07.2017,
on the direction of Inspector Ravi Kant, he went to the spot of
incident i.e. in front of Shop No. 644 (back side of shop no. 9),
Shivaji Road where police staff was already present. He further
deposed that a cycle rickshaw make Neelam was parked there.
He also deposed that one plastic empty quarter bottle of liquor,
empty pouch of water and blood was found lying scattered on the
ground. He further deposed that all the exhibits were taken in
possession. He also deposed that one camera focusing towards
spot was found installed at shop no. 644 and said footage was
checked by IO and DVR was taken in possession. In his cross-
examination, he deposed that he did not remember exactly which
of the police staff lifted the exhibits from the spot. He also
deposed that he did not remember if any specific mark was
labeled by the IO/police staff on empty liquor bottle and empty
water pouch. He also deposed that footage was got copied in a
pen drive by the IO. He also deposed that he did not member if
photography of same was conducted or not. He denied the
suggestion that he had not visited the spot at any point of time or
that he had given evasive answers with respect to the some of the
specific questions.
40. PW-32 ASI Kailash, deposed that on 13.07.2017, on the
direction of IO, he delivered copy of FIR to the office of DCP,
Joint CP and residence of Ld. MM. In his cross-examination, he
deposed that he did not make any departure entry while leaving
police station for delivery of copy of FIR. He also deposed that
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 28 of 73
State Vs. Farman
he did not hand over receiving of copy of FIR to DO or MHC(R).
He denied the suggestion that he did not go to deliver copy of
FIR.
41. PW-33 ASI Ram Dhari, deposed that on 13.07.2017, on
receipt of PCR call regarding inflicting knife blow, he along with
ASI Sunil Kumar reached spot of incident i.e. Pul Mithai at about
10:00 am, where a person having knife blow on his face, was
found present. He further deposed that ASI Gayasuddin with
other police officials were also present there and name of injured
was revealed as Sohan Pal who was removed to hospital. He
further deposed that in the meanwhile, one more information was
received regarding one more injured at Shivaji Road, thereafter
he along with police staff proceeded to Shivaji Road after leaving
Ct. Manish at Pul Mithai. He further deposed that they reached
near shop no. 644, where a rickshaw was found and one injured
was lying in prone condition in rickshaw and said injured was
bleeding from his chest. He further deposed that blood had
scattered on footstep of his rickshaw as well as on the ground and
he was gasping. He further deposed that he immediately removed
injured to Hindu Rao Hospital and crime team was also called.
He further deposed that one blood stained pair of flip-flop was
lying on the footstep of rickshaw. He further deposed that blood
on gauze, earth control and said blood stained pair of flip-flop
were taken in possession. He further deposed that one empty
plastic bottle of desi liquor, one empty water pouch and rickshaw
were also taken into possession. He further deposed that one
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 29 of 73
State Vs. Farman
CCTV camera was noticed at shop no. 644, focusing towards the
spot and thereafter footage was also checked and DVR was taken
into possession. He further deposed that name of injured was
revealed as Suresh @ Khanna through one rickshaw puller
namely Balbir. He further deposed that on next day i.e.
14.07.2017, he along with ASI Gayasuddin joined the
investigation and went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital to inquire
about injured Sohan Pal but it was revealed that he had already
been discharged. He further deposed that they came back to Pul
Mithai where Sohan Pal met them and pointed out towards
accused near statue of Anatibai. He proved arrest memo and
disclosure statement of accused Farman exhibited as Ex.
PW-33/A & Ex. PW-33/A1. He also narrated about recovery of
knife from possession of accused and proved sketch of recovered
knife and its seizure memo Ex. PW-33/B & Ex. PW-33/B-1. He
also proved seizure memo of blood stained clothes of accused as
Ex. PW-33/C. This witness correctly identified accused as well as
case property during his deposition before the court. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that spot in question was congested
place and comprising masala and dry fruits stalls. He deposed
that ASI Gayasuddin did not inquire any person about the
incident in question. He admitted that CCTV camera were
installed at the Beat office, near statue and the chowk. He
deposed that IO/ASI Gayasuddin did not check any CCTV
cameras. He deposed that the place from where exhibits were
lifted was adjacent to the place where abovesaid rickshaw was
found parked. He deposed that he did not remember as to who
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 30 of 73
State Vs. Farman
had lifted the exhibits from the spot. He deposed that he did not
ask any public person though available on the spot, to join the
investigation at the time of recording of disclosure statement and
personal search of accused. He deposed that blood stains were
found present on the entire body of recovered knife. He deposed
that PW Harish had come to the spot on his own on 14.07.2017.
He deposed that he did not see the CCTV footage qua the present
incident as he was standing few steps away from the shop. He
denied the suggestion that he did not participate in the
investigation and due to this reason, he had not given proper
answers to the questions put to him.
42. PW-34 ASI Rajesh Kumar, was the MHC(M) at PS Bara
Hindu Rao. He proved entries made by him in register no. 19 &
21 regarding movement of case properties exhibited as Ex.
PW-34/A to PW-34/F. He also proved acknowledgment received
from FSL, Rohini exhibited as Ex. PW-34/D-1 to Ex. PW-34/F-1.
In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that aforesaid
entries were made on the date as stated by him or that same were
entered in register no. 19 at later stage. He also denied the
suggestion that he had not handed over the aforesaid pullandas to
Ct. Rahul & Ct. Vijender on the dates as stated by him.
43. PW-35 Inspector Ravi Kant, was Investigating Officer in
the present case. He deposed that during July, 2017, he received
telephonic information regarding knife blow to two persons in
two separate incident at Pul Mithai. He further deposed that he
reached spot i.e. in front of shop of 644, Shivaji Road, Pul
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 31 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Mithai, Azad Market where it was revealed that one injured had
been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital and another to Aruna Asaf
Ali Hospital. He further deposed that it was revealed later on that
the injured who was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital had
succumbed to the injury. He further deposed that he along with
HC Rupender went to the Hindu Rao Hospital where ASI
Gayasuddin and ASI Jagdish met him and briefed him about the
incident. He further deposed that ASI Gayasuddin also handed
over MLC of deceased to him and he prepared rukka and after
registration of FIR, further investigation was carried out by him.
He further deposed that HC Rupender was left at hospital and he
along with ASI Gayasuddin returned to spot where spot was got
inspected through Mobile Crime Team and he prepared site plan
Ex. PW-35/A. He further deposed that he also seized CCTV
footage from camera installed at Shop No. 644, Shivaji Road
covering the spot of incident vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/A. He
further deposed that he lifted blood sample in gauze from rest
and underneath the rickshaw, blood stained slippers and earth
control from the spot of incident and seized the same vide seizure
memo, Ex. PW-30/A. He further deposed that he seized cycle
rickshaw, empty quarter bottle of whiskey and empty water
pouch from the spot of incident vide seizure memos, Ex.
PW-30/B & Ex. PW-30/C. He further deposed that he showed
CCTV footage to number of rickshaw pullers and public persons
for the purpose of identity of deceased and during this, one of the
rickshaw puller namely Balbir came forward and informed that
the name of deceased was Suresh @ Khanna who hailed from his
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 32 of 73
State Vs. Farman
village. He further deposed that he shifted the dead body to
Mortuary and family members of deceased were informed, who
came on next day and identified the dead body of deceased
Suresh @ Khanna and thereafter he got conducted postmortem
on the body of deceased. He further deposed that after
postmortem, he also seized biological exhibits and clothes of
deceased along with sample seal vide seizure memo, Ex.
PW-12/A. He further deposed that on 14.07.2017 accused
Farman was arrested in case FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu
Rao from Pul Mithai along with weapon of offence i.e. knife,
who confessed his involvement in the present case and thereafter
he went to Pul Mithai where ASI Gayasuddin produced accused
Farman before him and gave photocopy of his disclosure
statement, sketch of recovered knife and its seizure memo in case
FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao. He further deposed that he
interrogated accused Farman, arrested him in the present case
and recorded disclosure statement, vide memos Ex. PW-33/A &
Ex. PW-33/A1. He further deposed that one eyewitness namely
Harish Chandra Mehto came there and met him, who also
identified accused Farman as accused of the present case and
thereafter he recorded statement of Harish Chandra Mehto, Ex.
PW-35/B. He further deposed that during investigation, he seized
blood stained clothes of accused along with sample seal, obtained
postmortem report of deceased, got prepared scaled site plan,
obtained PCR form and sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini. This
witness correctly identified accused as well as case properties
during his deposition before the court. In his cross-examination,
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 33 of 73
State Vs. Farman
he deposed that ASI Gayasuddin who arrested accused Farman in
case FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao had not handed over
any site plan of the spot of arrest of accused Farman. He deposed
that he had not noticed any blood spot on the sketch of recovered
knife. He admitted that he had never seen recovered knife during
the course of investigation conducted by him. He deposed that he
had not given any notice under Sec. 91 Cr.PC to the
owner/manager/employee of shop no. 644, Shivaji Road from
where he had seized DVR of CCTV camera. He deposed that he
had not mentioned in the charge-sheet about the all public
persons from whom he had inquired regarding the search of
accused Farman. He deposed that during the tenure of his
investigation, he had not sought the subsequent opinion regarding
nature of weapon. He denied the suggestion the he had not
properly lifted the exhibits from the spot. He also denied the
suggestion that he had not conducted proper and fair
investigation.
44. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of
accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied
all the charges against him. He claimed that all the prosecution
witnesses were the interested/planted witnesses. He also claimed
that he had not committed any crime and he was victim of
circumstances and had been falsely implicated in the commission
of the present case. He also claimed that police had obtained his
signatures/thumb impression on many blank papers and later on
same were converted into different memos/incriminating
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 34 of 73
State Vs. Farman
evidences against him. He further claimed that police had
manipulated CCTV footage in question. He also claimed that he
was a daily wager. He further claimed that police had met him at
Sadar Bazar Chowk and later on he was implicated in the present
case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
45. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Yatinder Kumar, Ld.
Legal Aid Counsel for accused.
46. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution
witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have
corroborated each other’s version. To substantiate his
submissions, he argued that PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto who
was the eyewitness of the incident has narrated the incident in
detail and he has identified the accused in court as well as in the
CCTV footage played in the court. He also argued that the
original DVR was seized which was sent to FSL. He further
argued that the face of the accused is clearly visible in the CCTV
footage and he can clearly be seen committing the murder of
deceased Suresh @ Khanna. He further argued that the weapon
of offence has been recovered from the possession of accused.
He further argued that the doctor who conducted the postmortem
on body of deceased has also given his opinion regarding the
weapon of offence at the time of recording of his evidence. He
further argued that as per the FSL report, blood of deceased was
found on the clothes of accused. He further argued that as per the
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 35 of 73
State Vs. Farman
postmortem report, the injury caused to deceased was sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course. He further argued that accused
has not taken any specific defence in the present case. He further
argued that all the prosecution witnesses are of sterling quality
and have not turned hostile. He also argued that since the
prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond
reasonable doubt, accused should be convicted for the offence
punishable under Sec. 302 IPC.
47. Per Contra Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused argued that
the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against
accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his
points, he argued that the investigation in the present case has
been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He further argued that
PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto is a planted witness. He further
argued that from the CCTV footage, it cannot be surely said that
it was accused who was stabbing the deceased. He further argued
that PW-2 Sh. Sohan Lal has turned hostile with respect to
identity of accused in case FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao.
He further argued that testimony of PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin is
suffering from material contradictions. He further argued that
DNA of the blood of deceased was not found on the weapon of
offence i.e. knife. He further argued that prosecution witnesses
are not of sterling quality and hence cannot be relied upon. He
also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case
against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt, accused should
be acquitted under Sec. 302 IPC.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 36 of 73
State Vs. Farman
48. In the present case, charge under Sec. 302 IPC has been
framed against accused. This Section has been defined as
follows:-
Section 302 IPC provides punishment for the commission of
offence of murder which has been defined U/s 300 IPC.
300 Murder
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable
homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or
Fourthly-If the person committing the act knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 When culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offendor,
whilst deprived of the power of self control by grave
and sudden provocation, causes the death of the
person who gave the provocation or causes the death
of any other person my mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following
provisos:-
First-That the provocation is not sought or
voluntarily provoked by the offendor as an excuse for
killing or doing harm to any person.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 37 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Secondly- That the provocation is not given by
anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of the
public servant.
Thirdly-That the provocation is not given by
anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.
Explanations: Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence amounting to
murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the
power given to him by law and causes the death of the
person against whom he is exercising such right of
defence without premeditation, and without any
intention of doing more harm then is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.
Exception 3: Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offendor, being a public servant or adding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice,
exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes
to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of
his duty as such public servant and without ill-will
towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4: Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without pre meditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
the offendor’s having taken undue advantage or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation : It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 38 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Exception 5: Culpable homicide is not murder when
the person whose death is caused, being above the age
of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of
death with his own consent.
49. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced,
perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence
led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions
of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the
Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for
accused.
50. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto is the star witness of the
prosecution as he is the only eyewitness of the incident. The
testimony of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto is to be appreciated
as per the established principles of law pertaining to the
testimony of sole eyewitness.
51. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto deposed that in the year
2017, he used to reside in Delhi and used to work as a labourer.
He further deposed that the incident took place three years ago
and it was summer season. The testimony of PW-9 Sh. Harish
Chand Mehto was recorded on 24.02.2020 and the alleged
incident of murder of Sh. Suresh @ Khanna took place on
13.07.2017 and hence the version of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand
Mehto that the incident took place in summer season about three
years back is correct. In his cross-examination, PW-9 Sh. Harish
Chand Mehto specifically told the date of incident as 13.07.2017.
52. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto deposed that on the date of
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 39 of 73
State Vs. Farman
incident while he was going from Shivaji Road to Mithai Pul,
before Mandir, on Shivaji Road and he saw that one person was
stabbing with a knife on a person who was sitting on a rickshaw.
He also deposed that initially he did not report the matter to the
police due to fear but later on when he saw the attacker in police
custody, he identified him. He specifically deposed that IO had
shown him the CCTV footage on next day. In the cross-
examination of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto, accused has
failed to create any doubt with respect to his testimony.
53. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto deposed that police
official had shown him the CCTV footage in which he was seen
wearing a yellow colour capri. During the examination of PW-9
Sh. Harish Chand Mehto, the CCTV footage contained in CD
Mark-A was played in the court in which witness identified
himself in the said CCTV footage. The said witness i.e. PW-9 Sh.
Harish Chand Mehto can be seen at the spot from 10:05:59 to
10:06:12 am. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto has also correctly
identified the accused in the court as well as in the CCTV
footage. The accused has failed to create any doubt with respect
to the presence of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto at the spot of
incident at the time of incident and seeing of the incident by him.
54. The authenticity of the CCTV footage contained in the CD
Mark-A is also to be examined by this court before reaching any
conclusion. PW-3 Sh. Virender deposed that on 13.07.2017, he
was working as a Manager in Shekhawati Transport at Shop No.
644, Shivaji Road and on that day, the incident of murder had
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 40 of 73
State Vs. Farman
taken place and the police had seized the DVR of CCTV camera
installed at the abovesaid shop along with adapter and video
cable vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/A. He correctly identified
the DVR along with adapter and cable in the court, exhibited as
Ex. P-1. PW-35 IO/Inspector Ravi Kant also deposed that he
obtained relevant footage in pen-drive and thereafter seized the
DVR along with its adapter vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/A.
PW-34 ASI Rajesh Kumar has proved the entry made by him in
register no. 19 with respect to deposit of sealed DVR with him by
the IO on 13.07.2017 vide memo, Ex. PW-34/A. He has also
proved the entry in register no. 21 made by him for sending the
same to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Rahul, exhibited as Ex.
PW-34/D. PW-29 HC Rahul Kumar deposed that on 01.08.2017,
he obtained sealed parcel vide RC No. 50/21/17, Ex. PW-29/A
with forwarding letter from MHC(M) and deposited the same at
FSL, Rohini and obtained an acknowledgment from the FSL
Rohini, exhibited as Ex. PW-29/B. He also deposited one blank
hard-disc which was obtained by him from MHC(M). He also
deposed that no tempering was done with the sealed parcel till it
remained in his possession. PW-28 Dr. Mahendra Singh
Niranjan, Sr. Scientific Officer, FSL deposed that on 01.08.2017,
one sealed parcels was assigned to him for examination with
forwarding letter and he tallied the same with forwarding letter
and found the same to be intact. Thus, the prosecution has proved
the safe custody of DVR containing the CCTV footage in which
the alleged offence of murder was recorded, from the point of
seizure to the point of opening of the same at FSL, Rohini.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 41 of 73
State Vs. Farman
55. PW-28 Mahendra Singh Niranjan, Sr. Scientific Officer,
FSL, Rohini deposed that the exhibit, hard-disc drive was
forensically duplicated on sterile storage media and the
duplicated storage media was analyzed by using DVR. He further
deposed that the data dated 13.07.2017 (from 09:30 am to 10:15
am of CAM-01) retrieved from hard-disc drive was enclosed in
one digital versatile (DVD) and he prepared his detailed report
exhibited as Ex. PW-28/A. He also deposed that he also issued
certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act, Ex.
PW-28/B and the same DVD was forwarded by him to Physics
Division for further examination. PW-25 Dr. C. P. Singh,
Assistant Director (Physics), FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that on
24.10.2017, one sealed parcel was assigned to him for
examination with the forwarding letter through Computer
Forensic Unit and tallied the seal impression with the forwarding
letter and found the same to be intact. He further deposed that he
opened the parcel, examined the exhibit i.e. one DVD of ‘Writex’
make containing two video files ‘avi’ format and prepared his
detailed report, exhibited as Ex. PW-25/A. As per the FSL
Report, Ex. PW-25/A prepared by PW-25 Dr. C. P. Singh, there
was no indication of alteration in the continuous video footage of
CCTV recording on the basis of frame by frame examination.
Thus, in the present case, PW-35 IO/Inspector Ravi Kant had
seized the original DVR i.e. the primary evidence which was
duly examined by PW-28 Dr. Mahendra Singh Niranjan who also
issued certificate under Sec. 65B of The Indian Evidence Act and
PW-25 Dr. C. P. Singh and the contents of CCTV footage
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 42 of 73
State Vs. Farman
recorded in the DVR were found to be intact and there was no
alteration in the same. Thus, the scientific evidence led by the
prosecution in the form of CCTV footage which is a electronic
document has been proved by the prosecution as per the law and
procedure and same is reliable one and needs to be analyzed in
view of the testimony of PW-9/eyewitness Sh. Harish Chand
Mehto.
56. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto has specifically deposed
that on 13.07.2017 while he was going from Shivaji Road to
Mithai Pul, he saw that one person was stabbing with a knife on a
person who was sitting on a rickshaw. He has also identified
himself in the CCTV footage as a person who was wearing
yellow colour capri. At the time of recording of testimony of
PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto, one CD was taken out from a
sealed envelope duly sealed with the seal of ‘FSLxMSNxDELHI’
having inscription of FSL-2017/CFU-5727/PHY-403/17 and was
played in the court. There were two files in the said CD. In the
first file (containing the CCTV footage), at about 09:54:30 am,
accused was seen coming near the rickshaw and accused was
carrying/having one plastic glass and one quarter bottle of liquor
and thereafter he urinated near the wall of the spot. Thereafter he
is seen coming near rickshaw and saying something to the
rickshaw puller while pouring the liquor in plastic glass and he is
also seen consuming the liquor and constantly speaking/saying
something to the rickshaw puller. In the second file (containing
the CCTV footage), accused is seen pulling the knife from his
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 43 of 73
State Vs. Farman
pocket and checking the pocket of rickshaw puller. The accused
is also seen to have taken cigarette from his pocket and he lit the
same. At about 10:05:00 am, accused is seen in aggression and he
is holding knife in his right hand while searching the pocket of
rickshaw puller and he is seen threatening him to attack with
knife. At about 10:05:05 am, accused gave first blow and at about
10:06:02 am, he gave second blow and at about 10:06:06 am, he
gave third blow to the rickshaw puller with the knife and
thereafter he left the spot. After receiving the knife injuries, the
rickshaw puller i.e. deceased Suresh @ Khanna can be seen lying
down on the rickshaw and blood can be seen dropping from the
rickshaw on the ground. Thus, as per the CCTV footage, the
stabbing took place between 10:05:05 am to 10:06:06 am and
PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto can be seen passing through the
spot at 10:05:59 am. During the final arguments, the CCTV
footage was played in the court and PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand
Mehto wearing yellow capri can be seen passing from the spot of
incident from very near to the rickshaw and all the three blows of
knife were given in his presence and he can be seen watching
towards rickshaw puller as well as the offender continuously and
he also turned back when he had just crossed the rickshaw and
the accused can also be seen following him. PW-9 Sh. Harish
Chand Mehto has identified himself as the abovesaid person
wearing the yellow capri who had witnessed the whole incident.
In the cross-examination of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto,
suggestion has been given to him that his physique was similar to
the physique of the person seen in the CCTV footage, which has
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 44 of 73
State Vs. Farman
been denied by him. Accused has failed to create any doubt on
the prosecution story with respect to the presence of PW-9 Sh.
Harish Chand Mehto at the spot of incident at the time of
incident and seeing of the alleged incident of murder by him.
This court is of considered opinion that PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand
Mehto who had no enmity with the accused is a witness of
sterling quality and his testimony has been corroborated by the
scientific evidence led by the prosecution in the form of CCTV
footage and this court does not find any reason for not relying on
the testimony of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto.
57. PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin deposed that on 13.07.2017, he was
posted as ASI at PS Bara Hindu Rao and on that day, after
receiving DD No. 9A, he along with Ct. Manish reached at the
spot i.e. Pul Mithai at about 10:00-10:15 am and he came to
know that injured had been taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. He
further deposed that in the meantime, he received another
information from a passerby that a person was stabbed with a
knife at Shivaji Road and he was lying in the injured condition
on a cycle rickshaw. Thus, two incidents of stabbing had taken
place in the nearby areas and PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin had reached
to the first spot of incident on receiving DD No. 9A pertaining to
the first incident and he came to know about the present incident
from a passerby and thereafter he reached there. PW-35
IO/Inspector Ravi Kant also deposed that he received telephonic
information regarding knife blow to two persons in two separate
incidents at Pul Mithai and he reached at the spot i.e. in front of
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 45 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Shop No. 644, Shivaji Road, Pul Mithai, Azad Market and came
to know that one injured had been removed to Aruna Asaf Ali
and other one was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital and the
injured who was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital had succumbed
to injuries. PW-6 ASI Gyasuddin deposed that he prepared rukka
in the present case, exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A and thereafter the
investigation was handed over to PW-35 Inspector Ravi Kant.
PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin was the IO in case FIR No. 66/2017, PS
Bara Hindu Rao which pertained to the first incident of stabbing
while after preparation of rukka in the present case i.e. FIR No.
67/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao, PW-35 IO/Inspector Ravi Kant
investigated the present case. As per the prosecution story,
accused Farman had stabbed the injured persons in case FIR No.
66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao as well as deceased Suresh @
Khanna in the present case in short span of time in the same area.
58. PW-35 IO/Inspector Ravi Kant deposed that in the evening
of 14.07.2017, ASI Gayasuddin informed him that he had
apprehended accused of first incident (FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara
Hindu Rao) and weapon had also been recovered from him at Pul
Mithai and also informed that the said accused had disclosed his
involvement in the present case also. He further deposed that he
reached Pul Mithai where ASI Gayasuddin produced accused
Farman before him and ASI Gayasuddin handed over him the
photocopy of sketch of knife, photocopy of seizure memo of
knife and photocopy of disclosure statement of accused in case
FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao. He further deposed that he
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 46 of 73
State Vs. Farman
interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo, Ex.
PW-33/A and recorded his disclosure statement, Ex. PW-33/A-1.
He further deposed that while he was interrogating accused, one
public person i.e. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto came there and
informed him that he had seen the incident. He further deposed
that he showed PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto, the CCTV
footage in phone wherein PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto was
seen passing through the way at the time of incident and he also
identified himself in the footage. He further deposed that he
recorded statement of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto, Ex.
PW-35/B. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto has corroborated the
version of PW-35 IO/Inspector Ravi Kant by deposing that he
saw the attacker in the police custody and identified him and at
that time police official had showed him the CCTV footage in
which he was seen wearing yellow capri. Accused has failed to
create any dent on the prosecution story with respect to
abovesaid facts.
59. As per testimony of PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin and PW-35
IO/Inspector Ravi Kant, the knife used in the commission of
offence in the present case was seized by PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin
in another case i.e. case FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao on
the next day of incident i.e. on 14.07.2017 vide seizure memo,
Ex. PW-33/B1. PW-33 ASI Ram Dhari has also corroborated the
version of PW-6 ASI Gayasuddin with respect to the recovery of
said knife from possession of accused. PW-21 Sh. Dheeraj,
Judicial Assistant, Record Room produced the original case file
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 47 of 73
State Vs. Farman
of case bearing FIR No. 66/2017, PS Bara Hindu Rao containing
the original document i.e. seizure memo of knife, sketch of knife
and disclosure statement of accused and said witness was not
cross-examined by the Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused. Ld.
Legal Aid Counsel for accused argued that no independent public
person was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of
knife and the victim of other case i.e. PW-2 Sh. Sohan Pal has
turned hostile and hence the recovery of knife from possession of
accused has become doubtful. Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that
the accused was arrested in other case i.e. FIR No. 66/2017, PS
Bara Hindu Rao at instance of PW-2 Sh. Sohan Pal only and his
turning of hostile at the time of recording of his testimony in the
present case for some reason shall not affect the testimonies of
police witnesses in whose presence, the said bloodstained knife
was recovered at instance of accused as the police witnesses are
also equally competent witnesses and they had no enmity with
the accused.
60. Sec. 118 of The Indian Evidence Act deals with the
competency of witnesses. As per the mandate of Sec. 118 of The
Indian Evidence Act, all persons shall be competent to testify
unless the court consider that they are prevented from
understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational
answer to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age,
diseases, whether of body or mind or any other cause of same
kind. Section 118 as well as Chapter IX of The Indian Evidence
Act does not put any bar on relying upon the testimonies of the
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 48 of 73
State Vs. Farman
police witnesses. Thus, the police witnesses are also competent
and reliable witnesses like public witnesses. Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in judgment titled as ‘Karamjit Singh Vs. State
(Delhi Administration), cited as AIR 2003 SC1311 held as
under:-
“8. Shri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of
recovery examined by the prosecution are police
personnel and in absence of any public witness, their
testimony alone should not be held sufficient for
sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion
the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be
accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be
treated in the same manner as testimony of any other
witness and there is no principle of law that without
corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony
cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person
acts honestly applies as much in favour of police
personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper
judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without
good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and no principle of general
application can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has
clearly stated in the opening part of his examination-in-
chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked some public witnessesFIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 49 of 73
State Vs. Farman
to accompany them but they showed their unwillingness.
PW10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement
and has deposed that despite their best efforts no one
from public was willing to join the raiding party due to
the fear of the terrorists. Exactly similar statement has
been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey. We should not forget
that the incident took place in November 1990, when
terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring
areas. The ground realities cannot be lost sight of that
even in normal circumstances members of public are very
reluctant to accompany a police party which is going to
arrest a criminal or is embarking upon search of some
premises. At the time when the terrorism was at its peak,
it is quite natural for members of public to have avoided
getting involved in a police operation for search or arrest
of a person having links with terrorists. It is noteworthy
that during the course of the cross-examination of the
witness the defence did not even give any suggestion as to
why they were falsely deposing against the appellant.
There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to
show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to
falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a
colleague of theirs being a member of the same police
force. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sinha that
on account of non-examination of a public witness, the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are policeFIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 50 of 73
State Vs. Farman
personnel, should not be relied upon the hardly any
substance and cannot be accepted.”
61. Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in judgment titled
as ‘Vikas Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)’ cited as
MANU/DE/3605/2016 held as under:-
“6. The testimony of police personnel have to be treated
in the same manner as testimony of any other witnesses
and there is no principle of law that without
corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony
cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person
acts honestly applies, as much in favour of police
personnel as of other person and it is not a proper
judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without
good ground. It depends upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and no principle of general
application can be laid down as held in Karamjit Singh
Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) MANU/SC/0245/2003 : 2003 III
AD (S.C.) 353 : 2003 5 SCC 291, C. 17-06-2017 (Page
2 of 3 ) www.manupatra.com MS. YOGITA KAUSHIK
APPRonald & Anr. Vs. Union Territory of Andaman &
Nicobar Islands, MANU/SC/0963/2011 : 2011 IX AD
(S.C.) 306 : MANU/SC/0963/2011 : (2012) 1 SCC (Crl.)
596. In Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab,
MANU/SC/0740/2012 : 2012 IX AD (S.C.) 313 : 2012
11 SCC 205, Apex Court referred to State Govt., of NCTFIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 51 of 73
State Vs. Farman
of Delhi Vs. Sunil and Anr., MANU/SC/0735/2000 :
2000 8 AD(S) 613 : (2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein Court
held as under:-
“20. …But if no witness was present or if no person had
agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is
difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the
document so prepared by the police officer must be
treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable.
The court has to consider the evidence of the
investigating officer who deposed to the fact of recovery
based on the statement elicited from the accused on its
own worth.
62. In the present case, PW-33 ASI Ram Dhari has specifically
deposed that on cursory search of accused, he was found in
possession of knife, sketch of which was prepared, Ex. PW-33/B
and it was taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex.
PW-33/B-1. The original case file containing the abovesaid
original document was produced by PW-21 Sh. Dheeraj, Judicial
Assistant, Record Room, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Nothing has
been brought on record to show that the knife used in the
commission of offence was not recovered from possession of
accused. Thus, applying the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in ‘Karamjit Singh (supra) & law laid down by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in judgment titled as ‘Vikas
(supra)’, this court is of considered opinion that the police
witnesses in the present case who were present at the spot at the
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 52 of 73
State Vs. Farman
time of recovery of knife from possession of accused are
competent witnesses and their testimonies have to be treated at
par with the testimony of any other witnesses and their
testimonies cannot be doubted without any reasonable grounds.
63. PW-24 Dr. Varun Garg, who conducted the postmortem of
deceased Suresh @ Khanna and prepared postmortem report, Ex.
PW-24/A also examined the knife recovered from possession of
accused, Ex. MO-3 in the court and deposed that all the injuries
mentioned in the postmortem report, Ex. PW-24/A vide
HRH/102/17 could be possible by the weapon seen or similar
one. Thus, the injuries caused on the person of deceased Suresh
@ Khanna were possible by the knife, Ex. MO-3 recovered from
possession of accused and the argument by the Ld. Legal Aid
Counsel for accused that the same has been planted upon accused
is without any substance.
64. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Legal Aid Counsel that
accused had no motive to commit the present offence and the
intention to commit the offence has also not been proved by the
prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that in the CCTV
footage, the accused can be seen checking the pockets of
deceased by pointing knife towards him and hence the motive for
the commission of offence was robbery and since accused has
stabbed the deceased three times, he had the intention to commit
the said offence and the injuries caused on the person of deceased
were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 53 of 73
State Vs. Farman
65. Motive is relevant under Sec. 8 of Indian Evidence Act.
Motive is the force that moves a man to do a particular work.
Generally there can be no action without any motive. Under
Section 8 of Evidence Act, several factors including preparation,
previous threat, previous altercation, previous litigation between
the accused and the victim becomes relevant. The mere existence
of motive is by itself is not an incriminating circumstance.
Motive cannot be a substitute of proof, however, it is an
corroborating factor in proving the case of the prosecution. The
motive for the commission of offence is of vital importance in a
criminal trial and in cases based on circumstantial evidence
motive itself will be a circumstance which the Court has to
consider deeply. The existence of motive which operates in the
mind of perpetrator may not be known to others and hence it has
to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of this case.
66. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo
Shankar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr cited as (2011) 3
SCC 654 observed as under:-
“15. The legal position regarding proof of motive as
an essential requirement for bringing home the guilt
of accused is fairly well settle by a long line of
decision of this Court. These decisions have made a
clear distinction between cases where the
prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence
on one hand and those were relies upon the
testimonies of the eye witnesses on the other. In theFIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 54 of 73
State Vs. Farman
former category of cases proof of motive is given
the importance it deserves, for proof of motive itself
constitutes a link in the chain of circumstances upon
which the prosecution may rely. Proof of motive,
however, recedes into background in cases where
the prosecution relies upon and eye witness account
of the occurrence. That is because if the Court upon
a proper appraisal of the deposition of the eye
witnesses comes to the conclusion that the version
given by them is credible, absence of evidence to
prove the motive is rendered inconsequential.
Conversely, even if the prosecution succeeds in
establishing a strong motive for the commission of
the offence, but the evidence of the eye witnesses is
found unreliable or unworthy of credit, existence of
motive does not by itself provide a safe basis for
convicting the accused. That does not, however,
mean that proof of motive even in a case which rests
on an eye witness account does not lend strength to
the prosecution case or fortify the Court in its
ultimate conclusion proof of motive in such a
situation certainly helps the prosecution and
supports the eye witnesses.”
67. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment tilted as
Raghubir Singh Vs. State of Punjab cited as (1996) 9 SCC 233
observed as under:-
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 55 of 73
State Vs. Farman
“7…. The motives may be minor but nonetheless
they did provide occasion for attack on the
deceased by the appellants. That apart, even in
absence of motive, the guilt of culprit can be
established in a given case if the other evidence on
record is trustworthy in the absence of proof of
motive has never been considered as fatal to the
prosecution case where the ocular evidence is found
reliable”.
68. In the CCTV footage in which the entire incident has been
recorded and which has been duly proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubts, accused can be seen consuming
alcohol and smoking cigarette and that time he can also been
seen checking the pockets of deceased by pointing out knife
towards him. The plastic bottle of alcohol along with water
pouch which the accused was carrying before stabbing the
deceased have been recovered from the spot of incident which
have been seized by PW-35 IO/Inspector Ravi Kant vide seizure
memo, Ex. PW-30/C. Thus, the motive for the commission of
offence in the present case was to rob money by accused which
has also been disclosed by him in his disclosure statement, Ex.
PW-33/A-1. Moreover, the case of the prosecution is based on
the testimony of eyewitness i.e. PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto
and the same is not based on circumstantial evidence. Thus, the
prosecution has successfully proved the motive for the
commission of offence. Applying the law laid down by the
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 56 of 73
State Vs. Farman
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Sheo
Shankar Singh (supra) and Raghubir Singh (supra), this court is
of considered opinion that the accused wanted to rob money from
deceased and on resistence from the side of deceased, he got
angry and stabbed the deceased which was sufficient to constitute
motive for the commission of offence of murder in the present
case.
69. Whether the accused had intention to kill the deceased is a
question of fact and the evidence led by the prosecution in this
regard need to be appreciated for reaching any conclusion.
PW-24 Dr. Varun Garg deposed that on 14.07.2017, he conducted
the postmortem examination on the dead body of Suresh @
Khanna. He further deposed that on examination three injuries
including one stab wound on the left chest was found on the body
of deceased and he opinied that cause of death in the present case
was ‘hemorrhagic shock resulting from injury to the heart and
lung caused by the stab wound which was sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature which was caused by
single edged stabbing weapon’. He further opined that all the
injuries mentioned in the post mortem report were ante mortem
in nature. He proved the detailed postmortem report Ex. PW24/A
(colly). Thus, as per the postmortem report, Ex. PW-24/A, injury
no. 1 caused to the heart and lung of deceased were sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course. PW-24 Dr. Varun Garg in the
postmortem report has specifically mentioned ‘left side of
pericardium was torned and clean cut was present on postero
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 57 of 73
State Vs. Farman
latral aspect of left ventricle of heart’. Thus, the stab injuries
caused by the accused had caused serious injury to the heart of
deceased and same was sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course. Thus, the case of prosecution squarely falls within the
ambit of Clause thirdly of Sec. 300 IPC.
70. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
‘Arun Nivalaji More Vs. State of Maharashtra, cited as (2006) 12
SCC 613, while dealing with the scope of third Clause of Sec.
300 IPC has observed as under:-
“21. The argument that the accused had no
intention to cause death is wholly fallacious
for judging the scope of clause Thirdly of
Section 300 IPC as the words “intention of
causing death” occur in clause Firstly and
not in clause Thirdly. An offence would still
fall within clause Thirdly even though the
offender did not intend to cause death so
long as the death ensues from the
intentional bodily injury and the injuries are
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. This is also borne out from
Illustration (c) to Section 300 IPC which is
being reproduced below:
“(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or
club-wound sufficient to cause the death of aFIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 58 of 73
State Vs. Farman
man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies
in consequence. Here A is guilty of murder,
although he may not have intended to cause
Z’s death.”
22. Therefore, the contention advanced in the
present case and which is frequently
advanced that the accused had not intention
of causing death is wholly irrelevant for
deciding whether the case falls in clause
Thirdly of Section 300 IPC.
23. The scope and ambit of clause Thirdly of
Section 300 IPC was considered by this
Court in the oftquoted decision in ‘Virsa
Singh Vs. State of Punjab‘ and the principle
enunciated therein explains the legal
position succinctly. The accused Virsa Singh
was alleged to have given a single spear-
blow and the injury sustained by the
deceased was
“a punctured wound 2” x ½” transverse in
direction on the left side of the abdominal
wall in the lower part of the iliac region just
above the inguinal canal… Three coils of
intestines were coming out of the wound.”
(SCR petitioner. 1497).
After analysis of the clause Thirdly, it was
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 59 of 73
State Vs. Farman
held :(SCR Per contra Ld. Addl PP for the
State submits that. 1500-501)
“[T]he prosecution must prove the following
facts before it can bring a case under
Section 300 ‘3rdly’.
First, it must establish, quite objectively,
that a bodily injury is present.
Secondly, the nature of injury must be
proved. These are purely objective
investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an
intention to inflict that particular bodily
injury, that is to say, that it was not
accidental or unintentional, or that some
other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be
present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of
the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. This
part of the enquiry is purely objective and
inferential and has nothing to do with the
intention of the offender.
Once these four elements are established by
the prosecution (and, of course, the burden
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 60 of 73
State Vs. Farman
is on the prosecution throughout) the
offence is murder under Section 300 3rdly.
It does not matter that there was no
intention to cause death, [or] that there was
no intention even to cause an injury of a
kind that is sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature [there is no real
distinction between the two], [or even] that
there is no knowledge that an act of that
kind will be likely to cause death. Once the
intention to cause the bodily injury actually
found to be present is proved, the rest of the
enquiry is purely objective and the only
question is whether, as a matter of purely
objective inference, the injury is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause
death.”
25. In order to ascertain that “there was an
intention to inflict the particular bodily
injury” the enquiry should not be directed
to find out whether the offender had
intention to cause those very injuries to the
internal organs of the body which were
actually found to be there in the medical
examination. The intention has to be
gathered from a host of circumstances like
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 61 of 73
State Vs. Farman
the seat of injury viz. the place or portion of
the body where the injury has been caused,
the nature of the weapon, its size and
dimension or other attributes and the force
applied in inflicting the injury. Being a
question of fact it is difficult to lay down
exhaustive tests to ascertain as to whether
the offender intended to inflict that
particular injury which is found on the body
of the deceased but the features enumerated
above will certainly play a vital role in
arriving at a correct conclusion on the said
issue.
26. The mere fact that a dangerous or deadly
weapon was not used or the injuries were
not caused on vital parts of the body may
not necessarily take out the offence from the
clutches of clause Thirdly of Section 300
IPC. Death may take place on account of
large number of blows given by a blunt
weapon like lathi on hands and legs causing
fractures. Though the injuries may not be on
a vital part of the body as the said term is
generally understood, but if the medical
evidence shows that they were sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 62 of 73
State Vs. Farman
death, the offence would fall in clause
Thirdly of Section 300 IPC. In ‘Anda Vs.
State of Rajasthan‘ where there were
Section 300 IPC having regard to the fact
that the doctor had opined that all these
injuries collectively were sufficient to cause
of death in the ordinary course of nature
though individually no injury was sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. It was observed : (AIR petitioner.
148)
“The third clause of Section 300 IPC views
the matter from a general standpoint. It
speaks of an intention to cause bodily injury
which is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. Here the emphasis is
on the sufficiency of the injury in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The sufficiency is the high probability of
death in the ordinary way of nature. When
this sufficiency exists and death follows and
the causing of such injury is intended, the
offence is murder. Sometimes the nature of
the weapon used, sometimes the part of the
body on which the injury is caused, and
sometimes both are relevant. The intentional
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 63 of 73
State Vs. Farman
injury which must be sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature, is
the determinant factor.”
71. In the present case, accused himself went to the spot of
incident and started arguing with the deceased. Prima-facie, as
per the contents of CCTV footage proved by the prosecution,
accused was drunk at the time of incident but since the
intoxication was voluntarily and same cannot be a defence under
Sec. 86 of IPC. In the present case, the accused took out knife
from his pocket and stabbed the deceased three times and he did
the said act intentionally and caused bodily injury on the person
of deceased Suresh @ Khanna, which he intended. PW-24 Dr.
Varun Garg has specifically deposed that the injuries caused on
the person of deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course. Applying the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in judgment titled as ‘Arun Nivalaji More (supra)’, this court is
of considered opinion that accused intentionally caused the
injuries on the person of deceased which he intended by using a
sharp edged knife and since same was sufficient to cause death in
ordinary course, the case of the prosecution falls under Clause
thirdly of Sec. 300 IPC and hence accused has committed the
murder of deceased Suresh @ Khanna.
72. PW-35 IO/Inspector Ravi Kant deposed that he went to the
spot of incident and saw that one rickshaw was parked at the spot
having blood on its footrest and blood was also lying underneath
rickshaw on the ground. He also deposed that one pair of slipper
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 64 of 73
State Vs. Farman
was also lying on the footrest of rickshaw which were
bloodstained. He further deposed that he took in possession the
blood sample in gauze from the footrest and underneath rickshaw
and also seized blood-stained slipper and earth control sample
vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-30/A. He also deposed that he
interrogated accused Farman who disclosed that he was wearing
the same clothes at the time of incident in which he was
apprehended. He proved disclosure statement of accused in this
regard, Ex. PW-33/A1. He further deposed that he sent accused
to hospital with HC Ramdhari for medical examination with the
direction to get seal his clothes. He further deposed that after
medical examination, HC Ramdhari handed over MLC of
accused along with sealed parcel containing the clothes of
accused with sample seal of ‘HRH’ and he seized the same vide
seizure memo, Ex. PW-33/C. PW-34 ASI Rakesh Kumar,
MHC(M) has proved the entries of register no. 19 & 21
maintained by him with respect to the properties deposited by IO
with him in the Malkhana and entries of sending the same to
FSL, exhibited as Ex. PW-34/A to Ex. PW-34/F1. In the Road
Certificate, Ex. PW-34/E, eight parcels/pullandas which were
sent to FSL Rohini vide RC No. 53/21/17 have been shown.
PW-11 HC Vijender deposed that on 03.08.2017 he received five
sealed pullandas along with one sample seal from MHC(M) and
he deposited the same at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 53/21/17. He
further deposed that four parcels were having seal of ‘RK’ and
fifth parcel was having seal of ‘HRH’. In the Road Certificate,
Ex. PW-34/E, three plastic box, three pullandas and two
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 65 of 73
State Vs. Farman
envelopes have been mentioned which were sent to FSL through
PW-11 HC Vijender. It seems that PW-11 HC Vijender
inadvertently forgot to mention three plastic boxes and he
deposed about five pullandas only and since the document, Ex.
PW-34/E has been proved by the prosecution, total eight
pullandas/parcels were sent to the FSL. Thus, the fifth parcel
containing the clothes of accused was sealed with the seal of
‘HRH’. He also deposed that so long as the parcels remained in
his custody, those were not tempered with in any manner and
remained intact. PW-26 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra, Assistant
Director (Biology), FSL Rohini deposed that on 03.08.2017,
eight sealed parcels were received at the office of FSL, Rohini
and same were allotted to him for examination with forwarding
letter. He further deposed that he tallied the sealed impression
with forwarding letter and found seal to be intact. He further
deposed that he opened the parcels and examined the exhibits
and prepared his report, Ex. PW-26/A. As per the FSL Report,
Ex. PW-26/A prepared by PW-26 Dr. Indresh Kumar Mishra,
blood was found on exhibits 1(blood gauze lifted from rickshaw),
Ex. 2 (blood soaks chappals from rickshaw), Ex. 3 (blood gauze
lifted from scene of crime), Ex. 4 (cemented material lifted from
the spot), Ex. 6a (shirt of deceased), Ex. 6b (half pant of
deceased), Ex. 6c (underwear of deceased), Ex. 8a (shirt of
accused), Ex. 8b (baniyan of accused), Ex. 8c (pant of accused)
& Ex. 9 (knife having light brown stain). As per the report, the
DNA of blood of deceased was found on Ex. 8a (shirt of accused)
& Ex. 8c (pant of accused). Thus, blood was found on the knife
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 66 of 73
State Vs. Farman
used in the commission of offence. The blood of deceased was
also found on the shirt & pant of accused and accused has failed
to give any explanation as to how blood of deceased was found
on his clothes which were sealed by the concerned doctor at the
time of his medical examination after his arrest. The prosecution
has proved the complete chain and safe custody of lifting of
exhibits from the spot and matching of the DNA of deceased with
the DNA of the blood found on the clothes of accused beyond
reasonable doubts which has strengthened the case of the
prosecution scientifically.
73. The basic purpose of recording of statement of accused
under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is to put in the incriminating evidence
brought on record against him by the prosecution and to accord
him an opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing
against him.
74. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment titled as
‘Neel Kumar Vs. State of Haryana cited as (2012) 5 SCC 766′
has held that:-
it was the duty of the accused to explain
incriminating circumstances proved against him
while making statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping
silent and not furnishing any explanation for such
circumstance was an additional link in chain of
circumstances to sustain charges against you.
75. Similary Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Judgment
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 67 of 73
State Vs. Farman
titled as Phula Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2014
SC 1256 has held that:-
if the accused remains silent or in complete denial,
the Court can take adverse intense against you.
76. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as
Sidhartha Vashisht Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) cited as (2010) 6
SCC 1 while convicting the accused and taking adverse inference
against him with respect to the false answers given by him u/s
313 Cr.P.C observed as under:-
“130. This Court has time and again held that where
an accused furnishes false answers as regards proved
facts, the Court ought to draw an adverse inference
qua him and such an inference shall become an
additional circumstance to prove the guilt of the
accused in the present case, the appellant Manu
Sharma has inter alia has taken false pleas in reply
to question no. 50, 54, 55, 56,57,64, 65,67,72,75 and
201 put to him under Section 313 of the Code.”
77. In the present case, the statement of accused under Sec.
313 Cr.PC was recorded and in reply to the most of the questions
put to him, he has stated either ‘I do not know’ or ‘It is incorrect’.
In answers, accused also stated that he was victim of
circumstances and was falsely implicated in the present case. He
also stated that the police had manipulated the CCTV footage in
question. Accused has not taken any specific defence either in the
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 68 of 73
State Vs. Farman
cross examination of prosecution witnesses or in his statement
recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC and he has also not taken the plea
of alibi. The answers given by the accused are evasive in nature
and he has not explained as to why he is visible committing the
offence in the CCTV footage proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubts. Accused has also failed to show as to how the
blood of deceased was found on his clothes and why PW-9 Sh.
Harish Chand Mehto, who was not even known to him has
deposed against him. In these circumstances, applying the law
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in ‘Neel Kumar
(supra), Phula Singh (Supra and Sidharth Vashisth (supra)’ this
court is of considred opinion that accused has not furnished any
explanations for these circumstances hence these circumstances
are additional link in the chain of circumstancial evidence against
him.
78. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but
the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in
arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that
the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In
a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of
prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To
secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution
witness must be of sterling quality.
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 69 of 73
State Vs. Farman
79. In case titled as ‘Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21′, it is held that :
“22. In our considered opinion, the “sterling
witness” should be of a very high quality and caliber
whose version should, therefore, be unassailable.
The court considering the version of such witness
should be in a position to accept it for its face value
without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness.
What would be more relevant would be the
consistency of the statement right from the starting
point till the end, namely, at the time when the
witness makes the initial statement and ultimately
before the court. It should be natural and consistent
with the case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the version
of such a witness. The witness should be in a
position to withstand the cross-examination of any
length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under
no circumstances should given room for any doubt
as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons
involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a
version should have corelation with each and every
one of other supporting material such as theFIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 70 of 73
State Vs. Farman
recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of
offence committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should consistently
match with the version of very other witness. It can
even be stated that it should be akin to the test
applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where
there should not be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the
offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of
such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all
other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held
that such a witness can be called as a “sterling
witness’ whose version can be accepted by the court
without any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the
version of the said witness on the core spectrum of
the crime should remain intact while all other
attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and
material objects should match the said version in
material particulars in order to enable the court
trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve
the other supporting materials for holding the
offender guilty of the charge alleged.”
80. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 71 of 73
State Vs. Farman
“23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a
case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of
the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where
the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the
prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with
cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the
evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that
may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction
solely on the basis of her testimony. In the instant
case we do not fine her evidence to be of such
quality.”
81. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the
version of the witness should be natural one and it must
corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with
the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such
a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
82. Applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the
considered opinion that PW-9/eyewitness Sh. Harish Chand
Mehto is a witness of sterling quality as his version is natural and
he has also withstood the test of cross examination. Moreover,
the version of PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto has also been
corroborated by the CCTV footage proved by the prosecution.
This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of
eyewitness PW-9 Sh. Harish Chand Mehto is clear, cogent,
credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by
FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 72 of 73
State Vs. Farman
the other prosecution witnesses, medical & scientific evidence on
record and the circumstances.
83. The prosecution has successfully proved beyond
reasonable doubt that accused Farman has committed the murder
of deceased Suresh @ Khanna by stabbing him. Thus, the
prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC against accused Farman
beyond reasonable doubts.
84. Accordingly, accused Farman is hereby convicted for the
offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open court KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Date: on 11th day of July, 2026 2026.07.11 15:01:36 +0530 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:11.07.2026 FIR No. 67/2017, PS: Bara Hindu Rao, Page No. 73 of 73 State Vs. Farman
