Delhi District CourtState vs . (1) Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu on 9 July, 2012IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE­
                 II (NORTH­WEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI

Session Case No. 106/2011
Unique Case ID No.: 02404R0660392007

State                                    Vs.               (1)   Sanjeev Gahlot @ sonu
                                                                 S/o Sh. Ram Chander
                                                                 R/o House No.78, 
                                                                 Village Kakrola, New Delhi
                                                                 (Acquitted)

                                                           (2)   Rajesh @ Raju
                                                                 S/o Sh. Gian Singh
                                                                 R/o 121­B, Village Kakrola,
                                                                 New Delhi
                                                                 (Acquitted)

                                                           (3)   Sunny 
                                                                 S/o Sh. Balwan
                                                                 R/o 121­C, Village Kakrola,
                                                                 New Delhi
                                                                 (Acquitted)

                                                           (4)   Vijay Gahlot @ Kalu
                                                                 S/o Sh. Hawa Singh
                                                                 R/o House No. 89­B,
                                                                 Village Kakrola, New Delhi
                                                                 (Acquitted)

FIR No.:                            741/07
Police Station:                     Uttam Nagar 
Under Sections:                     302/201/120­B/34Indian Penal CodeSt. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                     Page No. 1 of 128
 Date of committal to sessions Court:                            28.1.2008

Date on which orders were reserved:                             4.6.2012

Date on which judgment announced:                               09.7.2012


JUDGMENT:(1)            As   per   allegations,   on   29.8.2007   at   about   9:30   AM   at   Main 

Nazafgarh   Road,   Rama   Park   in   front   of   Metro   Pillar   No.   764,   Uttam 

Nagar all the four accused namely Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ 

Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gahlot @ Kalu in furtherance of their common 

intention committed murder of Jitender Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Pal.   It has 

also been alleged that all the accused knowing that the offence of murder 

had been committed, caused the country made pistol and empty cartridge 

to   disappear   with   intention   to   screen   themselves   from   the   legal 

punishment.     Further,   it   is   alleged   that   on   12.9.2007   at   T­Point,   Lala 

Lajpat   Rai   Marg   and   Feroz   Gandhi   Marg,   Near   ICICI   Bank,   Lajpat 

Nagar,   Delhi   the   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot   @   Sonu   was   found   in 

possession of one pistol and three live cartridges which were used for 

committing the murder of Jitender Kumar on 29.8.2007.


CASE OF THE PROSECUTION/ BRIEF FACTS:(2)            The case of the prosecution is that on 29.8.2007 at about 9:45 

AM   an   information   was   received   in   the   Police   Station   Uttam   Nagar 

regarding   a  firing  incident  near Mohan Garden, Metro Pillar No. 764.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 2 of 128
 Pursuant   to   this   information   DD   No.   20A   was   recorded   which   was 

marked to SI Randhir Singh who along with Ct. Randhir Singh reached 

the spot where they found a motorcycle Hero Honda CBZ bearing No. 

DL­9SM­2926 and came to know that the injured had been removed to 

DDU Hospital by the PCR Van.  Thereafter they reached DDU Hospital 

and collected the MLC of the injured and while SI Randhir Singh was still 

in the hospital, the father of the deceased Jitender namely Rajpal came to 

the hospital and gave his statement to the police.(3)           In his statement Rajpal informed the police that on 29.8.2007 at 

about 9:00 AM while his son Jitender was leaving the house to go to 

LNJP Institute where he was studying, he (Rajpal) asked him (Jitender) 

that he had to go to a doctor in Vikaspuri so he should drop him there. 

Rajpal sat on the back seat of the motorcycle and at around 9:30 AM 

when they reached near Rama Park, Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, near 

Metro   Pillar   No.764,   two   motorcycles   upon   which   four   persons   were 

riding,  overtook   them   and   made  their  motorcycle  to stop.    He  further 

informed the police that one motorcycle was being driven by Raju S/o 

Shri Gian Singh on which Sanjeev @ Sonu S/o Ram Chander was sitting 

on the back seat; the other motorcycle was being driven by accused Sunny 

S/o Shri Balwan and on the backseat of that motorcycle one other boy was 

sitting.   All the four boys surrounded them after which Sunny and Raju 

told Sanjeev to take revenge of the death of his brother, on which Sanjeev 

took out a pistol.   According to Rajpal, he jumped from the motorcycle 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar          Page No. 3 of 128
 and raised an alarm but in the meanwhile the boy who was sitting behind 

Sunny, told Sanjeev to kill Jitender on which Sanjeev @ Sonu fired upon 

his son Jitender on his chest indiscriminately.   Thereafter, all the four 

boys took a U­Turn and fled towards Kakrola mor.  According to Raj Pal, 

after sometime the PCR vehicle came and he lifted the body of his son 

and put it in PCR van which took his son Jitender to DDU hospital.  He 

further  informed   the   police   and  he  gave  information at   his  house  and 

thereafter reached at DDU Hospital where his son Jitender was declared 

as brought dead.  Raj Pal further informed the police that in the year 2005, 

a quarrel took place between his son Jitender and Sanjeev @ Sonu, his 

brother Anil, Balwan and Raju etc. which Anil brother of Sanjeev had 

died and cross­cases were registered against them.  According to Raj Pal, 

since   that   day   the   said   persons   were   having   grudge   against   his   son 

Jitender two months prior to the incident, these accused persons had given 

a threat that they would take the revenge of death by a death and due to 

this grudge they had killed his son Jitender.(4)            On the basis of the statement of Raj Pal the present case was got 

registered.   On 12.9.2007 an information was received from the Police 

Station Lajpat Nagar about the arrest of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot who 

was found in possession of a pistol used in the commission of the offence. 

Thereafter on 14.09.2007 the accused Sanjeev was arrested in this case 

and pursuant to his arrest, the accused Sanjeev Gahlot got recovered one 

Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. DL­4SAJ­2697 from the residence of his 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 4 of 128
 maternal uncle.   The accused Sanjeev Gahlot also disclosed that he had 

thrown the desi katta (country made pistol) and his mobile phone in the 

Najafgarh drain.  Efforts were made to trace the country made pistol and 

mobile of the accused but the same could not be traced.  On 25.9.2007 the 

accused  Rajesh  @  Raju  and Sunny surrendered before the Court  after 

which they were arrested.   Further, on 4.10.2007 the accused Vijay @ 

Kalu was arrested from Kakrola village pursuant to a secret information.  

(5)            After completion of investigations charge sheet was filed against 

all the accused persons for the offence underSections 302/201/120­B/34Indian Penal Code.CHARGE:(6)           Charges   underSections  302/201/34Indian   Penal  Code  were 

settled against all the accused namely Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ 

Raju,   Sunny   and   Vijay   Gahlot   to   which   they   pleaded   not   guilty   and 

claimed trial.   Further, charge underSection 27of Arms Act  was also 

settled against the accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu to which he pleaded 

not guilty and claimed trial.EVIDENCE:(7)           In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many 

as Thirty One witnesses as under:St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar             Page No. 5 of 128
 Public witnesses/ complainant:(8)           PW1 Rajpal is the father of the deceased who has deposed that 

he is residing at village and post office Kakrola along with his family, 

comprising of two sons namely Jitender Kumar, aged about 22 years (on 

the date of incident) and Hemender Kumar, aged about 22 years (on date 

of   his   deposition).     According   to   him,   his   elder   son   namely   Jitender 

Kumar was student of M.Sc (Criminology) Final Year at LNJP Institute, 

Rohini, Delhi, and used to leave for his institute at around 9:00 AM on his 

motorcycle bearing number DL­9SM­2926. Witness has further deposed 

that on 29.08.2007 when his son Jitender was leaving the house at around 

9:00 AM to go to his institute in Rohini, he (witness) asked Jitender to 

drop him at Vikas Puri where he had to go to a doctor. According to the 

witness, he sat on the back seat of the motorcycle and they moved from 

their above house and at around 9:30 AM when they reached near Rama 

Park,   Najafgarh   Road,   Uttam   Nagar,   near   Metro   Pillar   No.   764,   two 

motorcycles  upon   which   four  persons  were  riding,  overtook them   and 

stopped   their   motorcycle.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   one 

motorcycle was being driven by Raju S/o Shri Gian Singh and accused 

Sanjeev   @   Sonu   was   sitting  on  the  back  seat   of   the   said  motorcycle.According   to   him,   the   other   motorcycle   was   being   driven   by   accused 

Sunny S/o Shri Balwan and on the backseat of this motorcycle one boy 

was sitting.   Witness has further deposed that at that moment, accused 

Raju  and  Sunny  told  accused Sanjeev to take revenge of the death of 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 6 of 128
 Sanjeev's brother, then at that time accused Sanjeev took out a pistol on 

which he (witness) jumped from the motorcycle and raised an alarm.  In 

the meanwhile the boy who was sitting behind Sunny, told Sanjeev to kill 

Jitender   and   accused   Sanjeev   @   Sonu   fired   upon   his   son   Jitender   on 

which his son Jitender fell down bleeding and all the above four accused 

took U­turn  on  their motorcycle and ran away towards Kakrola mor / 

village.  Witness has further deposed that after little while a PCR Van 

came there and he lifted the body of his son and put it in PCR van and 

PCR van took the body of his son Jitender to DDU hospital, after which 

he   informed   at   his   house   and   followed   them   to   DDU   hospital   where 

doctor declared his son Jitender as brought dead.  According to him police 

recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A.

(9)           Witness has further deposed that in the year 2005, a quarrel took 

place between his son Jitender and the accused persons and in that quarrel 

Anil, brother of Sanjeev (accused herein) had died. According to him, in 

that quarrel Anil, Sanjeev, Balwan and Raju participated against his son 

Jitender and since that day, these persons were having a grudge against 

his son Jitender.     Witness has further deposed that two months prior to 

the murder of his son Jitender, these accused persons had gave a threat 

that they would take the revenge of death by death and due to this grudge 

they   had  killed   his son   Jitender.   Witness  has further deposed that  SI 

Randhir Singh came to the spot where SHO with staff were present, and 

in his presence the spot was got photographed by the police. According to 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 7 of 128
 him, The Investigating Officer lifted blood with the help of cotton, placed 

it in a plastic dibbi and converted it in a pullanda which were sealed with 

the seal of RK. Witness has further deposed that Investigating Officer also 

lifted the blood stained earth (concrete) and placed it in a plastic dibbi, 

which was then converted into a pullanda and the seal of RK was affixed 

on it.   According to him investigating officer also lifted earth control, 

placed it in a plastic dibbi and converted it into a pullanda and sealed it 

with the same seal.  Witness has further deposed that investigating officer 

also lifted one fired (empty) cartridge case, placed it in a plastic dibbi, 

converted it in a pullanda and sealed it with the same seal and all the 

above   items   were   taken   into   possession   by   the   police   vide   memo 

Ex.PW1/B.   Witness has further deposed that investigating officer had 

also seized one bag of his son, from the spot, that there had blood stains 

and word Diesel was written on that bag.   According to him, that bag 

contained some books and library card etc and a whole of a bullet was 

also there on that bag.   Witness has further deposed that investigating 

officer had placed the said bag in a polythene and then converted it in a 

pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RK and it was seized vide 

memo Ex.PW1/C.  According to him, the investigating officer also seized 

the motorcycle of his son, from the spot, which was stationed on the side 

of the road and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D.  According to him 

investigating officer has taken his blood stained clothes and those clothes 

had   blood   stains   belonging   to   his   son   Jitender.   Witness   has   further 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar             Page No. 8 of 128
 deposed that investigating officer seized the said clothes consisting of one 

pant, one shirt and one handkerchief by converting it in a pullanda, which 

were   sealed   with   the   seal   of   RK   and   seized   vide   memo  Ex.PW1/E. 

According to him at  his instance police prepared site plan of the spot 

which is Ex.PW1/F.  

(10)             Witness has further deposed that on 10.10.2007 he was called 

in Rohini Jail through police station Uttam Nagar to identify the fourth 

accused, who on the date of incident was sitting on the back seat of a 

motorcycle driven by accused Sunny, then he went to Rohini jail where a 

magistrate was available in Rohini Jail.   According to him, he was told 

that the accused for whose TIP he had came, has refused to participate in 

the TIP. Witness has further deposed that on 20.11.2007 he was called in 

police  station  Uttam  Nagar, from there along with SI Mahesh Kumar, 

came to the spot where on his pointing out SI Mahesh Kumar prepared a 

rough plan.  According to him on 30.11.2007 he was called by the police 

to Rohini Court, Room No. 107, Court was of Sh. Vinod Kumar, MM 

when   he   had   seen   these   four   accused   persons   in   police   custody. 

According to him he identified fourth accused namely  Vijay Kumar @ 

Kalu as the person who was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle of 

accused Sunny on the date of incident.  Witness has further deposed that 

on the date of incident this Vijay Kumar had uttered a words "Jaldi Kar  

maar Shale Ko".St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar          Page No. 9 of 128
 (11)             Witness has also correctly identified the case property i.e. one 

bag having word Diesel written on it, the stripe of this bag have cut mark 

as the same to be of his deceased son Jitender and the bag is ExP1; one 

shirt, one pant and one handkerchief as the clothes which he was wearing 

at  the  time  of  the  incident  and the same are  ExP2,  Ex.P3  and  Ex.P4 

respectively; one empty cartridge which is Ex.P5. 

(12)             Witness has correctly identified all the four accused persons in 

the Court and has deposed that on 30.08.2007 he had identified the dead 

body of his son Jitender vide statement Ex.PW1/G and after postmortem 

the   body   was   handed   over   to   them   vide   documents  Ex.PW1/H. 

According to him, he had taken the motorcycle No. DL­9SM­2926, Hero 

Honda, black color of his deceased son Jitneder, on superdair, which is 

Ex.P6.(13)             In his cross­examination  by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has   deposed   that   his   school   duty   timings   are   1:00   PM   to   6:30   PM 

(afternoon shift), his school is situated at a distance of 15 Km from his 

residence and he used to go by bus.  According to him, he knew driving a 

two   wheeler   as   well   as   four   wheeler   vehicles   and   he   has   only   one 

motorcycle as stated above in examination in chief.   Witness has further 

deposed that the college of his deceased son is situated at a distance of 20 

Km approximately from his residence and his son used to start at 9 AM 

for college. According to him, he had no knowledge of his daily college 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar             Page No. 10 of 128
 timings and has explained that the place of incident is at a distance of 2:00 

KM from his residence.   Witness has further deposed that the distance 

between Najafgarh road and his village is approximately about 1.75 KM 

and from there right turn leads towards the place of occurrence which is 

also around less then 1 KM.  Witness has admitted that Najafgarh road at 

9 AM remains very busy.  He is unable tell the width of the opposite road 

which  goes from  Janakpuri and Najafgarh.   Witness has admitted that 

there is nothing between metro pillar No. 763 and 764 and one can take 

U­turn   or   that   one   can   take   right   turn   if   coming   from   Uttam   Nagar. 

According   to   him  the  space between metro pillar No. 763 and 764 is 

marked with green color pen and encircled in site plan Ex.PW1/F and he 

cannot tell exactly the distance between Metro Pillar No. 763 and 764. 

Witness has admitted that from metro pillar while coming from Uttam 

Nagar one takes right turn the way split in a V­shape and road bifurcates 

into two out of which one goes towards Rama Park and another goes 

towards some other colony.  Witness has further admitted that the width 

of road side where the incident took place is having less width then the 

other side of the road or that beside the road where the incident took place 

the adjacent is the kucha road.  According to him besides kacha road there 

is a nala.   Witness has admitted that there is no red light at the U­turn 

between metro pillar No. 763 and 764 or that people generally from both 

side take U­turn at the green encircled place in  Ex.PW1/F. Witness has 

further deposed that generally, there is a situation of traffic­jam and there 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 11 of 128
 is no red light signal installed at that place and he does not know whether 

the traffic constable stands there to manage the traffic.     According to 

him, the width of the grills installed between the road where metro pillars 

are situated is having width of 5­6 feet and his son was carrying the bag of 

the back while driving the motorcycle.   Witness has further deposed that 

he was not feeling uncomfortable with this situation / condition of the 

bag.     Witness   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   he   was   not   feeling 

uncomfortable to the bag position/ situation as he was not the pillion rider 

with   his   deceased   son   on   the   day   of   incident.       Witness   has   further 

deposed that his deceased son was sitting on the motorcycle at the time of 

receiving the first bullet and he cannot tell how much traffic was there at 

the time when his son received first bullet shot.  According to him he did 

not make any effort to attack the accused persons when he had jumped 

from the motorcycle nor he made any efforts to save his deceased son and 

he stated that at that time his son was hit by bullets.  Witness has further 

deposed that he had left the motorcycle when the first bullet was hit his 

deceased   son   and   all   the   four   accused   persons   took   off   from   the 

motorcycle and one accused fired at his son.  According to him the bullet 

was hit on the chest of his son, but he is unable to tell whether it was right 

side chest or left side chest and has voluntarily added that the accused 

Sanjeev @ Sonu fired bullet continuously.  Witness is unable to tell the 

total number shots fired at his son and he was at a distance of 2 feet from 

his son when he was shot.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 12 of 128
 (14)             According to him the accused Sanjeev @ Sonu was standing at 

distance of 1 ½ feet away from himself and accused Sanjeev @ Sonu took 

one or two minute to fire all the shots at his son and he does not notice the 

timing gap between the fires.   Witness has further deposed that accused 

Sanjeev was firing with pistol but he did not count the shots and he also 

does not know whether there was any gap between the shots and states 

that he only knows that he continuously fired at his son.   According to 

him, no public person present at the spot tried to stop the accused when 

they were fleeing taking U­turn.   Witness has further deposed that all the 

four accused persons were without helmets and he was also not wearing 

helmet.   Witness has admitted that from Kakrola to Vikaspuri there are 

several  traffic  signals  and  his son did not advise him to wear helmet. 

Witness has denied the suggestion that there is no question of wearing a 

helmet as he was not the pillion rider on the day of incident.  He is unable 

to tell whether the accused Sanjeev or any other person tried to shoot at 

him.  He has stated that after the first shot his son fell down and received 

remaining bullet while lying on the road.     Witness has further deposed 

that   his   son   fell   down   towards   the   left   side   of   the   motorcycle   and 

motorcycle did not fall on him. Witness has denied the suggestion that his 

deceased son received first bullet from back side at his back.  According 

to him he does not know whether any bullet hit from the back or not.

(15)             Witness   has   further   deposed   that   the   motorcycle   fell   down 

towards right side of the road and the motorcycle fell on the side grill and 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 13 of 128
 he   does   not   keep   mobile   phone.     According   to   him,   during   the 

investigations he had provided to the police the mobile number of his 

brother and states that he himself was not the owner of mobile number 

9868263902. Witness has further deposed that at that time of incident his 

deceased son Jitender was having land line connection and two mobile 

phones.   He has admitted that he had taken both the mobile phones on 

superdari and has stated that his family members i.e. his wife and himself 

and a son namely Hemender Kumar are not having any mobile phone. 

Witness has denied the suggestion that he is the owner of mobile phone 

number 9868263902 or that police informed him about the murder of his 

son Jitender on the day of incident on the above said his mobile number 

i.e. 9868263902.   According to him, he is not aware of the numbers of 

both the mobile phone owned by him deceased son Jitender.  Witness has 

denied   the   suggestion   that   he   was   deliberately   not   telling   the   mobile 

number despite having knowledge or that the two mobile phones were got 

released on superdari by him at the instance of the investigating officer in 

order  to  destroy   the  originality  and its  phone numbers.     Witness  has 

further deposed that he did not telephone to the police from the spot at the 

time just after the incident and has explained that the PCR vehicle had 

reached the spot after ten minutes of the incident.  According to him, he 

completely lost his senses after witnessing the murder of his son.  He has 

further deposed that he did not keep his son on his lap and states that he 

regained his senses after seeing the police PCR vehicle.     Witness has 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 14 of 128
 further  deposed   that   he does  not  remember how many police officials 

came   in   the   PCR   vehicle   and   has   explained   that   the   police   officials 

changed the traffic flow at the spot.  According to him, the PCR officials 

immediately lifted his son and removed him to the hospital and states that 

he had told the PCR officials that he is the father of the deceased/injured 

but none of the police officials asked him to accompany them to DDU 

hospital along with his son.   Witness has denied the suggestion that all 

these   things   did   not   happen   because   he   was   not   present   at   the   spot. 

Witness has further deposed that he does not accompany his son to DDU 

hospital in PCR vehicle as this was not came in his mind at that time. 

When question as to when his mind became stable initially the witness 

responded   that   his   mind   became   stable   after   about   one   hour   of   the 

incident   but   thereafter   again   stated   that   his   mind   regained   stableness 

immediately when PCR vehicle came.(16)             Witness has further deposed that he went to his brother's house 

which very near to the place of incident situated at Kakrola mor from 

there he along with his brother he went to DDU hospital.  He has stated 

that his son was lifted without a stretcher in the PCR vehicle and admits 

that great volume of blood was coming out from the body of his son.  The 

witness is shown his shirt  Ex.P2, it is having three spots in front from 

where   FSL   lifted   the   blood.     The  dark   grey   color   pant  Ex.P3  is  also 

shown to the witness from where the FSL taken the blood sample from 

right side two spots and the left one spot of blood near the knee. The shirt 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 15 of 128
 and pant are not entirely blood soaked.  According to him, when his above 

clothes were seized by the investigating officer, he had called for other 

clothes from his house which fact he never told to the police. Witness has 

further deposed that the name of his brother is Lal Chand but he did not 

state this fact to the police. According to him, he reached DDU hospital 

immediately on three wheeler scooter from the house of his brother Lal 

Chand.  Witness is not aware when the MLC was prepared in the hospital. 

He has stated that since no doctor asked him therefore, he did not tell to 

any doctor that he was the eye witness.   Witness is further not aware if 

the doctors at DDU hospital came to know the name, parentage and the 

address   of   his   son   through   his   identity   card.     According   to   him,   he 

remained at DDU hospital for 30­40 minutes and states that he did not 

meet with SHO or ACP in the hospital and is unable to tell the time when 

he had left the DDU hospital.   According to the witness, his statement 

Ex.PW1/A was recorded by SI in the hospital but he cannot tell the exact 

time when his statement was recorded because he was in a great sorrow 

state after witnessing his son's murder and voluntarily explained that it 

may   be   11:30   AM   or   12   PM   when   his   statement   was   got   recorded. 

Witness has further stated that he did not lodge any complaint or report 

regarding the threat received about two months prior to the incident.  He 

has admitted that two cases were pending in the Rohini Court bearing 

FIR No. 274/05 and FIR No. 275/05 of Police Station Uttam Nagar and 

that his deceased son was one of the accused in FIR No. 275/05, U/s 304 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 16 of 128IPC,  Police Station Uttam Nagar.   Witness has denied the suggestion 

that he used to occasionally attend the dates in the courts in the above said 

two cases or that he used to come along with accused Sanjeev @ Sonu on 

his motorcycle or sometimes in his car.  Witness initially admitted that no 

threat was received from accused Sanjeev and his family members from 

27.03.2005 to June 2007 but after some time explained that he recollects 

his deceased son having received threat during the above period on his 

mobile   phone.     According   to   him,   no   complaint   was   lodged   in   this 

regarding   and   has   explained   that   he   had   told   the   family   members   of 

accused Sanjeev in this regard but this fact he did not disclose to the 

investigating   officer.     Witness   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   he 

deliberately made an improvement in order to prove the fact of threat or 

that   no   such   threat   were   given   by   the   accused   Sonu   to   Jitender   on 

telephone. Witness has further deposed that he does not lodge any report 

with the police since he had conveyed to the family members of accused 

Sanjeev @ Sonu regarding the threats but admits that he did not receive 

any direct threat.  According to him he had stated the age of his deceased 

son to police officials as 22 years.(17)             Witness   has   further   deposed   that   he   along   with   SI   Randhir 

Singh had gone from hospital to the spot of crime at about 12 to 1:00 PM 

from the hospital on a two wheeler scooter and at the spot, he saw police 

officials and SHO police station Uttam Nagar.  He is unable to tell how 

many photographs were taken by the photographer of the scene of offence 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 17 of 128
 and states that there were several public persons standing at a distance 

from   the   spot.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   in   his   presence, 

investigating officer did not call any public persons standing at a distance 

to join the proceedings and states that he is not aware whether a Jain 

Kulche   Rehri   remained   permanently   parked   near   the   spot   of   crime. 

According to him, he did not sign the cloth in which investigating officer 

seized   and   made   pullandas   of   earth  control,   concrete,   fired   cartridges, 

rexene bag and also states that the investigating officer did not give the 

seal to him after use and states he might have kept it with him.  According 

to him, he had called for his clothes and then, police seized his clothes, 

which he was wearing and his brother Lal Chand brought those clothes. 

Witness has denied the suggestion that Lal Chand had not brought the 

clothes or that the clothes were not sealed at the spot or that it was handed 

over   to   police   in   the   police   station   later   on.     According   to   him   he 

remained at the spot for about 30­45 minutes, thereafter, he went to his 

house.  Witness has further deposed that  his relative Lal Chand followed 

him from the hospital and when the investigating officer asked him to 

give his blood stained clothes, then he had gone to his house and brought 

clothes   for  changing.     Witness   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   he   was 

deposing   falsely   to   the   effect   that   Lal   Chand   followed   him   from   the 

hospital.   Witness has further deposed that he had described the spot of 

crime, on which basis, investigating officer prepared site plan and he had 

signed the same.   The witness has been shown the site plan  Ex.PW1/F 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 18 of 128
 (which bear his signatures).   He has denied the suggestion that when he 

was informed by the police officials of Police Station Uttam Nagar, that 

his son Jitender has been shot and was admitted in DDU hospital, he was 

taking a tea with a person namely Ajay and dealing with him in respect of 

the sale of a plot belonging to him.  Her has stated that his statement was 

recorded on 29.08.2007 between 11­12 PM on which basis, FIR was got 

registered.  Witness has further deposed that he again visited the spot of 

crime with police officials on 20.11.2007 along with Draftsman Mahesh 

Kumar but he did not continuously visit the police station after the day of 

the incident till 30/11/2007 to know the progress of the case.  According 

to him he does not make inquiry after every arrest of the accused from the 

concerned police officials and police also did not inform him about the 

arrest of the accused persons.   He has explained that his statement was 

recorded by police official other than investigating officer.  

(18)               Witness  has  further  deposed that  he did not  know whether 

accused Vijay was arrested on 04.10.2007 and states that he was neither 

called at the police station nor informed by the police about the arrest of 

Vijay Gahlot.  Witness has admitted that accused Vijay Gahlot belonged 

to his village.  According to him he knew accused Vijay Gahlot by face 

prior to the incident but had no knowledge about his residence or father's 

name.     Witness   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   he   was   deliberately 

denying having known Vijay Gahlot by name and the name of his father 

and residence.   Witness has further deposed that   he had described the 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar          Page No. 19 of 128
 physical appearance of the fourth accused person on the day when FIR 

was lodged.  The witness has been confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A 

where the physical  description of fourth person was was described by 

him.  According to him, he had stated to the police that the fourth person, 

whose name he does not know belonged to his village.  The witness was 

confronted   with   statement  Ex.PW1/A  where   this   fact   was   not   so 

recorded.(19)               According   to   him,   he   had   knowledge   that   accused   Vijay 

Gahlot   was   produced   before   the   court   on   30.11.2007   but   he   has   no 

knowledge about his earlier appearance before the court and has further 

explained   that   on   30.11.2007   he   visited   the   court   after   receiving   the 

information from the police that accused Vijay Gahlot would be produced 

in the court.  According to him, prior to 30.11.2007 police did not inform 

him about the arrest of accused Vijay Gahlot.   Witness has denied the 

suggestion   that   he   was   deposing   falsely   in   respect  of   identification   of 

accused Vijay Gahlot or that Vijay Gahlot has already been shown to him 

in   the   police   station.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   he   has   no 

knowledge if on 04.10.2007 accused Vijay Gahlot was roaming around in 

the village or the spot of crime.  Witness has denied the suggestion that he 

was a planted witness or that he had not seen the incident or that he was 

not present at the time of incident at the spot or that some two unknown 

persons killed his son or that due to enmity, he falsely implicated accused 

Vijay Gahlot and Sanjeev Gahlot.   Witness has admitted that a murder 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 20 of 128
 trial was going on against his deceased son Jitender and other persons for 

the   murder   of   elder   brother   of   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot.     Witness   has 

denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev Gahlot and Vijay Gahlot were 

not present at the spot or that they have not murdered his son or that he 

was   deposing   falsely.   Witness   has   further   deposed   that   on  the   day   of 

incident, accused Rajesh was wearing T­shirt of red color and a blue color 

trouser and accused Sunny was wearing a whitish shirt and pant but does 

not recollect the colour of the pant worn by accused Sunny.  According to 

him, he did not run away after falling from the motorcycle, which was 

driven by his son. Witness has further deposed that he must have reached 

the hospital after 10:30 AM. According to him, his son was on a stretcher 

in the emergency ward and he was allowed to see his injured son in the 

emergency ward and has voluntarily added that on seeing his son, he was 

disturbed   and   not   in   a   position   to   stand   there   and   he   was   thereafter 

directed by the doctor to go outside.  Witness has further deposed that he 

does not know whether his brother Lal Chand was also allowed to see the 

injured son in the emergency ward.(20)              According to the witness, he knew accused Rajesh and Sunny 

prior to the incident. Witness has denied the suggestion that becuase his 

deceased son was facing a murder trial of the elder brother of co­accused 

Sanjeev Gahlot and he had enmity with accused persons or that due to 

enmity, he falsely implicated accused Rajesh being the complainant in the 

murder trial and  Sunny  is  the relative of accused Rajesh. Witness has 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 21 of 128
 further deposed that police official informed that they had recovered two 

motorcycles, which were used by accused persons on the day of incident 

but has explained that there motorcycles were never shown to him.   He 

does not recollect, how many police officials lifted his injured son or that 

whether the clothes of the police officials also got blood stained.  

(21)              PW2 Sukhlal has deposed that on 30.08.2007 he went to DDU 

hospital and has identified the dead body of his nephew Jitender aged 22 

years   and   states   that   the   police   recorded   his   statement   which   is 

Ex.PW2/A.  According to him at that time, he was residing at H.No. 161, 

334, village Kakrola, New Delhi. In his cross­examination, the witness 

has deposed that his statement was recorded at hospital in the morning but 

he cannot tell the time.  Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not 

telling the time in order to avoid contradictions or that he was deposing 

falsely.(22)             PW10 Sant Ram has deposed that he was having a motorcycle 

on hire purchase basis, it was pulsar of violet color bearing registration 

No.   DL­4SA­2697.   According   to   him,   the   motorcycle   was   sold   by 

Abhimanyu @ Mannu and this motorcycle was sold to his known person 

Ram Pal.  Witness has further deposed that he does not know any relative 

of Abhimanyu @ Mannu, who was present in the court and states that the 

police recorded his statement.(23)               Despite   the   Ld.   Addl.   PP   being   permitted   to   put   leading 

question, the witness has failed to identify accused Sanjeev Gahlot and 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 22 of 128
 give his relationship with the Abhimanyu @ Mannu.   The witness was 

declared hostile on this point only and with the permission of the Court, 

Ld. Addl. PP for the State cross examined the witness, wherein he has 

admitted that he had told the police that the accused Sanjeev Gahlot was 

the mama of Abhimanyu @ Mannu.  Witness has denied the suggestion 

that he was deliberately not identifying the accused Sanjeev Gahlot, who 

was present in the court.(24)             In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that he had seen the accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the court 

premises for the first time and he does not know the name of father of 

Abhimanyu and he was resident of Issar Heri, Haryana.   According to 

him, he had sold the motorcycle to Abhimanyu @ Mannu but he does not 

know   if   the   motorcycle   is   still   in   his   name.     Witness   has   denied   the 

suggestion that he never sold the motorcycle No. DL4SA2697. Witness 

has further deposed that police made inquiries from him regarding the 

above said motorcycle, his statement was not recorded and the same was 

not read over to him.(25)             PW14   Gagan   Kumar  is   an   independent   witness   who  has 

deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was coming from Najafgarh and at about 

9:15 or 9:30 AM when he reached near pillar No.764, he heard a noise 

and immediately saw that one boy was riding motorcycle and two boys 

were   on   another   motorcycle   who   (two   boys)   fired   bullets   on   that 

single boy on the motorcycle.  According to the witness, he ran away 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 23 of 128
 from the spot immediately and after some distance about 500 meter 

he stopped after which first he drank water and thereafter made a 

call   to   police   at   100   number.    However,   he   did   not   note   down   the 

registration number of their motorcycle nor did he see their faces as their 

faces   were   covered   with   helmets.   He   does   not   remember   his   phone 

number from which he called the police on 100 number.

(26)              With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put 

by   the   Ld.   Addl.   PP   for   the   State   regarding   telephone   number   as 

mentioned in PCR form, on which the witness has deposed that the said 

mobile number was 9910474409.  He has not been cross­examined by the 

Ld. Counsels for the accused and his testimony has gone uncontroverted.  

(27)                PW19   Naresh   Kumar  has   deposed   that   he   is   a   property 

dealer   by   profession   and   is   the   owner   of   motorcycle   TVS   Star   No. 

DL­4S­BB­0169.   He has produced the motorcycle which is  Ex.PA  and 

its keys which are Ex.P­B.  According to him he used to attend Gold Gym 

at Mansaram park, near Uttam Nagar daily at 7:30 AM and somebody had 

stolen his motorcycle from the Gym on 27/28 in the month of Raksha 

Bandhan, 2007.  He has testified that after two days of Raksha Bandhan, 

he lodged FIR with police station, PP Matiala and after 15­20 days, SHO, 

Uttam Nagar informed him that his motorcycle had been recovered from 

the possession of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot.  According to the witness, 

he was not known to accused Sanjeev Gahlot and it was only when he was 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 24 of 128
 called at police station, Uttam Nagar that he came to know of accused 

Sanjeev Gahlot.  Witness has further deposed that prior to this he was not 

known to accused Sanjeev Gahlot and he also came to know that accused 

Sanjeev Gahlot belonged to his village.  He has testified that the SHO had 

also inquired from him if the accused Sanjeev borrowed his motorcycle. 

According   to   the   witness,   he   had   purchased   the   motorcycle   from   his 

Financer.   He has correctly identified the accused Sanjeev Gehlot who 

was present in the court.(28)             The witness was directed to produce the copy of FIR of theft of 

motorcycle or the registration certificate or insurance papers, pursuant to 

which   the   witness   had   brought  the RC (the particulars  of   the  vehicle, 

ownership and number are not properly visible) which is mark  PW19/1 

and   has   also   produced   photocopy   of   the   complaint  dated   29.08.2007 

which is mark PW19/2; pollution certificate and insurance photocopy of 

which are Ex.PW19/3 and Ex.PW19/4 (original of which were seen and 

returned).(29)             He has also deposed that he had informed the police regarding 

theft   of   the   motorcycle   at   about   7:00   AM   which   information   was 

furnished by him at police post Matiala Chowki.  According to him, after 

one and half month his motorcycle was recovered by the police on which 

he along with his brother Satya Narain went to police station Uttam Nagar 

and he identified his bike before the police.  Witness has further deposed 

that he prepared an application but he was not confirmed as to whom he 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar           Page No. 25 of 128
 had handed over the application.  He has also deposed that thereafter he 

got released his bike from police station Uttam Nagar and also moved an 

application before the court and got released the motorcycle on Superdari. 

He does not remember the facts mentioned in the superdari application 

moved   before   the   Court   nor   he   recollects   if   he   had   executed   any 

superdarinama.(30)              The said witness was cross­examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for 

the State since he was resiling from his earlier statement made before the 

police, wherein he had deposed that village Kakrola was spread within 

four   ­   five   kilometers   and   he   is   not   aware   the   name   of   Sarpanch   or 

Pradhan of the area but he knew the name of Counselor Smt. Dhanpati 

Devi.   He has testified that he is residing in village Kakrola since birth 

and knew the villagers who used to reside in his gali or mohalla and might 

have known some persons of the village by faces.   Witness has further 

deposed that he knew accused Rajesh, Sunny and Vijay who were present 

in   the   court   (correctly   identified   by   the   witness)   as   belonging   to   his 

village Kakrola.   He has denied the suggestion that all the four accused 

persons are his thick friends or that all the four accused persons also used 

to visit Gym.  The witness has denied the suggestion that he used to visit 

Gym   to   build   his   body   so   that   he   can   show   his   dadagiri   in   the   area. 

According to him, he has no knowledge that accused persons also used to 

visit Gym to build their body for showing dadagiri in the area.   He has 

denied the suggestion that police recorded his statement wherein he told 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                   Page No. 26 of 128
 to   the   police   that   on   29.08.2007   he   was   going   to   his   house   on   his 

motorcycle DL 4S BB 0169 TVS and reached at about 8 AM outside the 

village when accused Sanjeev @ Sonu who was his friend along with 

Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay met him there.  He has also denied the 

suggestion   that  he  told  to  the police in his statement that  at that time 

accused   Sanjeev   was   having   a   motorcycle   who   stopped   him   and 

demanded his motorcycle and thereafter he handed over his motorcycle to 

him and went to his house on foot.     The witness has also denied the 

suggestion that he told to the police in his statement that after handing 

over   the   motorcycle   he   came   to   know   after   some   time   the   accused 

Sanjeev fired on the person of Jitender S/o Rajpal or that later on he came 

to   know   that   his   motorcycle   was   recovered   from   the   possession   of 

accused Sanjeev and thereafter, he got released it on superdari for a sum 

of Rs 25,000/­.  He has also denied the suggestion that he came to know 

about the fact that accused persons fired on the person of Jitender S/o 

Rajpal  or that when  he knew the fact of firing he was aware that his 

motorcycle must be involved in that case and because of this reason he 

informed to the police at about 1:00 PM in respect of the fact that his 

motorcycle has been stolen at 7AM on the same day.   However, when 

confronted with his statement Ex.PW19/A the said facts were not found 

so   recorded.    Witness   has   further   deposed   that   his   mobile   number   is 

9289925328  which   mobile   SIM   was   purchased   by   him   at   about   six 

months back and has stated that he did not remember the number of his 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 27 of 128
 previous mobile.  He has denied the suggestion that his previous mobile 

number   was  9213852238  and   has   voluntarily   added   that   he   does   not 

recollect about this number.   Witness has further denied the suggestion 

that on 29.08.2007 he was having the mobile number 9213852238 and he 

informed  to  the  police  from his mobile at  1:00 PM about theft  of his 

motorcycle on the same day at 7:00 AM.   He is unable to tell if on his 

information   DD   No.   26   was   recorded   by   the   police   which   is   mark 

PW19/B.  Witness has admitted that he had produced a photocopy of the 

application to show that his motorcycle was stolen and he informed to the 

police through this application in writing on same day which is marked as 

Mark   PW19/2  contents   of   which   application   are  correct.     He   has 

admitted that the fact mentioned in the application was that he came to 

know   about   the   theft   of   his   motorcycle   at   10:15   AM   when   he   came 

outside the Gym.   He has denied the suggestion that he came to know 

about   the   incident   of   firing   on   the   person   of   Jitender   S/o   Rajpal   in 

between 9:30 to 10 AM and in that incident his motorcycle was used by 

accused persons due to which reason he wrongly mentioned the time in 

that application as 10:15 AM about the knowledge of motorcycle to save 

himself as well as accused persons and fabricated this document.  He has 

admitted that the application mark  PW19/2  is in his handwriting and it 

bears his signature, which application is Ex.PW19/X­1.  The witness has 

also admitted that on his instructions his Advocate Sh. Deepak Juneja had 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 28 of 128
 filed an application for release of his motorcycle in the court of Sh. Vinod 

Kumar   Yadav,   Ld.   MM,   bearing   his   signatures   at   point   A   which 

application   is  Ex.PW19/X­2.     He   has   also   admitted   that   he   had   filed 

photocopy of his driving license which is  Ex.PW19/X­3  and photocopy 

of   RC   which   is  Ex.PW19/X­4.     Witness   has   further   admitted   that 

application is written in English Language.  The witness was read over the 

contents of the application in Hindi vernacular language after which he 

has   admitted   that   in   this   application   he   has   not   stated   the   facts   and 

disclosed   that   he   had   earlier   filed   an   application   in   the   police   station 

regarding   theft   of   his   motorcycle   on   29.08.2007.     He   has   denied   the 

suggestion that he did not mention this fact in his application because his 

motorcycle  was   not   stolen   on  29.08.2007  at  7  AM.    He  has  admitted 

having   furnished   a   superdarinama  Ex.PW19/X­5  before   Ld.   MM   but 

states that he has no knowledge whether an FIR was registered for theft of 

his bike on application Ex.PW19/X­1.  According to the witness, he did 

not approach senior officers when police did not register FIR.   He has 

denied the suggestion that he did not do so because his motorcycle was 

never stolen or that he deposed falsely in order to save accused persons 

who used his motorcycle in the incident.(31)             In   his   cross­examination   by   the   Ld.   Defence   Counsel   the 

witness   has   deposed   that   he   has   no   legal   knowledge   to   differentiate 

between FIR and written application endorsed by the police.  He does not 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 29 of 128
 remember whether he had given the copy of application  Ex.PW19/X­1 

bearing the stamp of police to his counsel Sh. Deepak Juneja at the time 

of   moving   application.     According   to   the   witness,   he   had   told   to   his 

Advocate that his motorcycle was stolen but he was not sure whether his 

Advocate got typed superdari application in his presence.   Witness has 

admitted that he does not remember complete facts as it is four years old 

incident.Medical witnesses:(32)             PW3   Dr.   Nishu   Dhawan  has   deposed   that   she   has   been 

deputed by the Medical Superintendent in place of Dr. Vishnu, SR who 

has left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known and she 

can identify the writing and signatures of Dr. Vishnu as he has worked 

with her in the hospital and she had seen him while signing and writing.Witness has deposed that she had seen MLC of patient Jitender Kumar, 

S/o   Rajpal,   aged   21   years,   male   who   was   brought   in   the   casualty   on 

23.08.2007 at 10:15 AM by HC Deepak Kumar with alleged history of 

gun shot as told by the police officials.   According to the witness, Dr. 

Vishnu   examined   and   found   that   the   patient   was   unconscious,   BP 

unrecordable, having four gun shot wound seen in front of chest and four 

wound seen over back of the chest and the patient was declared brought 

dead   and   referred   to   Mortuary.     The   witness   has   proved   that   some 

belongings   of   the   deceased   were   also   mentioned   on   the   MLC   by   Dr. 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 30 of 128
 Vishnu, which are as under:1. Rs 410/­2. Nokia cellphone.3. Sony Ericcson phone.4. Timex wrist watch.5. Metro card.6. Silver color ring.7. DL photocopy.8. Some loose papers and photo.9. One empty lather black color purse.10. Five I­cards and two DTC pass.(14)              Witness has further deposed that Dr. Vishnu prepared MLC 

Ex.PW3/A  and the belongings of the deceased were handed over to the 

police official.(15)              In her cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that she has not brought any documentary proof to show that 

she had worked with Dr. Vishnu. According to her, Dr. Vishnu was SR in 

the   casualty   and   she   was   discharging   duties   as   CMO   and   she   has   no 

knowledge that in case any doctor leaves his job, then he informs about 

his future address.   Witness has denied the suggestion that she had not 

worked with Dr. Vishnu at any point of time.  Witness has admitted that 

she   has   not   personally   examined   the   patient,   so   she   cannot   tell   the 

distance of injuries.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 31 of 128
 (16)             PW11  Dr. Komal Singh  has deposed that on 30.08.2007, he 

conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Jitender Kumar, 21 

years male which body was brought by Insp. Rakesh of police station 

Uttam Nagar with the alleged history of gun shot injuries on 29.08.2007 

at about 9:10 AM.  According to him the person was wearing full sleeve 

yellow check shirt, its lower four button were broken and the fourth eye 

of the button on the shirt was torn.  Witness has further deposed that an 

oval shape tear was present on the right side of the shirt and shirt was 

blood stained, there were two big and two small tears were present on the 

back of the shirt.   Witness has also deposed that white color vest was 

having two tears in its front, which correspondents to the tear on the shirt 

and  belt was  tied  around  the jeans, one handkerchief was tied loosely 

around the neck and it was blood stained. According to her on external 

examination, the following injuries were found :­1.            Gun shot entry wound measuring 1x0.5cm located at 

                    right   fifth   intercoastal   space,   which   was   3.5   cm   from   the 

                    right nipple, it was oval in shape and margins were inverted.2.            2cm to the lateral to No.1 gun shot entry, there was 

                    another entry wound of 1.5x1 cm, it was oval in shape and 

                    margins   were   inverted,   there   was   2mm   thickness   abraded 

                    collar was encircling the wound.3.            Gun   shot   entry   wound   1.5x1.2   cm,   oval   in   shape 

                    having   2mm   abraded   collar   around   and   it   was   placed   on 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                     Page No. 32 of 128
                     15.2cm   from   the   right   nipple   and   4.5cm   below   the 

                    xiphisternum.4.            Gun shot entry wound 1x1 cm having the inverted 

                    margins, 2mm abraded collar, it was placed above 4.5cm and 

                    lateral to the left nipple margins.5.            On back, gun shot exit wound placed 15.5cm below 

                    the inferior angle of the scapula, it was oval in shape and size 

                    was 3x1.5cm and margins were averted.6.            Gun shot exit would 1.5x1 cm placed 12cm from the 

                    left inferior angle of the scapula, margins were averted.7.            Gun shot entry wound 1x0.9cm and 3cm from No. 6 

                    injury, its margins were inverted.8.            Gun shot exit wound 4x3cm, margins were averted, 

                    placed 5.5cm from the No. 7 injury.9.            Gun   shot   exit   would   2.5x2   cm,   margins   were 

                    averted, lying 12.5cm below the left shoulder.(14)               Witness has further deposed that on internal examination, it 

was found that on the seventh intercoastal space, one metal piece of the 

bullet was found over the surface of the sternum.  There were bullet entry 

and exit margins corresponding to the entry and exit wounds.  There were 

two holes on the anterior surface of the heart, two holes on the posterior 

surface of the heart, one hole on the lobe of the left lung and one hole on 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 33 of 128
 the right side of the liver.  All the body organs were pale, the stomach was 

empty.(15)               According to her, blood in a guaze piece, piece of a bullet, 

clothes of the deceased were sealed and handed over to the investigating 

officer, Time since death was approximately 26 hours.   She has proved 

that the  cause of death was due to multiple gun shot injuries to the 

vital organs of the body and all the injuries are sufficient to cause 

death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as together, all 

the injuries were antemortem and were of same duration.   She has 

proved   having  prepared   the   detailed   Postmortem   report   which   is 

Ex.PW11/A. 

(16)             The   witness   has   correctly   identified   one   deformed   bullet 

marked   as  Ex.EB­1  which   was   kept   in   a   plastic   box   as   the   same   as 

removed from the body of the deceased, same is Ex.PW11/1 and has also 

identified one banian, one handkerchief, one shirt, one jeans pant and one 

underwear as the same which were worn by the deceased at the time of 

postmortem and same were handed over to the investigating officer in a 

polythene, which clothes are Ex.PW11/2 collectively.  According to her, 

the shirt and the baniyan were having the same hole as described in his 

PM report.(17)              In her cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that the X­Ray of the dead body was not conducted to locate 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar             Page No. 34 of 128
 the bullet  and  he does  not got  conducted the photographs of the dead 

body.     According   to   her,   there   are   no   such   guidelines   to   take   the 

photographs in each case and it is required to be done only when a request 

was made by the investigating officer.  Witness has denied the suggestion 

that   the   postmortem   conducted   as   per   the   desires   of   the   investigating 

officer. Witness has further deposed that she never took the photographs 

of   the   dead   body   during   postmortem   without   the   request   of   the 

investigating officer as the facilities of photographer was not available 

with the mortuary. According to him there were no abrasions or bruises 

on the dead body and has voluntarily added that he does not observe the 

same during postmortem.  Witness has further deposed that he cannot tell 

whether there was any exit wound corresponding to injury No. 7 as there 

were so many entry and exit wounds, so it is difficult to co­relate the 

entry   and   exit   wounds   of   any   injury.     According   to   the   witness   after 

observing the entry wounds, he can tell the minimum distance from where 

the shots were fired is 6 inches and he cannot tell the maximum distance 

and   it   can   be   explained   by   the   ballistic   expert.       Witness   has   further 

deposed that the injury No.7 caused by a fire from a distance of minimum 

may   be   from   one   feet   but   she   is   unable   to   tell   from   which   injury. 

According to her, she had seen the recovered bullet from the dead body. 

Witness   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   he   casually   conducted   the 

postmortem.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 35 of 128
 Forensic expert witnesses:(18)             PW7 V. R. Anandhas deposed that on 31.10.2007 two sealed 

parcels were received in the office of FSL of its examination and the seals 

were intact as per specimen seals and forwarding letter.   According to 

him, on opening of both the parcels, parcel No. 1 was containing one 

deformed   bullet   marked   as  Ex.EB1  and   in   Parcel   No.   2,   one   9mm 

cartridge   case   marked   as  Ex.EC1,  he   examined   both   the   exhibits   and 

prepared his detailed report which is  Ex.PW7/A.   Witness has further 

deposed that he examined both exhibits and the 9 mm cartridge marked 

Ex.EC1   was   a   fired   empty   cartridge   and   the   bullet   marked   Ex.EB1 

corresponds to the bullet of 8mm/.315 cartridge.  According to him, the 

individual   characteristics   of   firing   pin   marks   and   breech   face   marks 

present on EC1 and on test fired cartridges TC1 to TC3 in case FIR No. 

880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar, FSL No. 07/F3971 were compared 

under comparison microscope and were not found identical, hence EC1 

has not been fired through the improvised pistol 9mm marked Ex.F1 

in case FIR No. 880/07, police station Lajpat Nagar (FSL No. 07/F­3971). 

(19)             PW8 Ms Shashi Bala has deposed that on 31.10.2007, seven 

sealed parcels were received in FSL for examination, the seals were intact 

as per FA letter and she opened all the sealed parcels and given them 

serial No. 1 to 8.According to her, the Parcel No. 3 was sample seal and 

she had given the exhibit of the contents of the parcels vide Ex.1a,1b,1c,


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar           Page No. 36 of 128
 1d,1e, Ex.2,4,5,6,7,8a,8b,8c and examined them biologically and prepared 

her detailed report vide Ex.PW8/A. Witness has further deposed that Ex.1a,1b,1c,1d,1e,   Ex.   2,4,5,7,8a,8c   were   examined   serologically   and   she 

prepared her detailed report in this respect vide Ex.PW8/B. According to 

her, after examination each exhibit turned into its respective parcels and 

sealed with the seal of SB FSL Delhi.(20)             In her cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that they do not conducting any test to find out RH factor 

whether   negative   or   positive   and   they   analyze   only   the   ABO   blood 

groups.  Witness has denied the suggestion that report given by her is not 

perfect as RH factor is mentioned. Witness has admitted that RH factor to 

the O group may negative or positive. Witness has denied the suggestion 

that   she  had   not   analyzed   properly  the  exhibits  and  prepared   a  report 

without RH factor at the instance of the investigating officer.   


Police/ official witnesses:(21)                  PW4 W/ASI Pricilla,  has deposed that on 29.08.2007 she 

was posted as duty officer at police station Uttam Nagar from 9 AM to 5 

PM and on that day a call received at 9:45 AM from SI Randhir, which 

was reduced into writing vide DD No. 20A, copy of which is Ex.PW4/A 

(OSR), thereafter at about 1:15 PM, rukka was sent by SI Randhir through 

Ct. Randhir for registration of the FIR. According to her, on which basis, 

she recorded FIR No. 471/07 U/s 302/34IPC, copy of FIR is Ex.PW4/B 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar          Page No. 37 of 128
 (OSR), thereafter she made endorsement on the rukka vide  Ex.PW4/C. 

Witness has further deposed that at 10:20 AM, a call was received from 

DDU hospital, on which basis, she recorded DD No. 22A (OSR) and copy 

of the same is Ex.PW4/D.   According to her, she made DD No. 24A for 

reducing   the   FIR   on   the   basis   of   rukka   and   DD   No.   25   A   is   the 

completion of writing of rukka.   Copy of the same are  Ex.PW4/E  and 

Ex.PW4/F.   Witness has  further deposed that a special messenger Ct.Manoj was deputed along with a copy for giving the information to the 

senior officers.(22)              In her cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has 

deposed   that   she   had   copied   word   to   word   in   DD   entry   No.   20A 

information,   which   was   received   from   PCR.     Witness   has   denied   the 

suggestion that she does not recorded the DD No. 20A word by word as 

message received from PCR or that PCR wireless operator had given her 

the message as "Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar Pillar No.764, Dwarka  

Metro ke pass, 2 ladke motorcycle number na malum goli marke bhage  

hai".  Witness has denied the suggestion that after the receipt of a call of 

murder the Rojnamcha was stopped at the instance of the SHO and the 

same were filled later on on the dictation of the SHO.  Witness has denied 

the   suggestion   that   at   1:15   PM,   no   rukka   was   brought   to   her   by   Ct. 

Randhir and the same was not reduced into writing in the shape of FIR. 

Witness has admitted that she had not written the contents of the rukka in 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 38 of 128
 DD   No.   24A   and   25   A.   Witness   has   further   deposed   that   the   special 

messenger left the police station at 2:30 PM and as per DD register he 

returned at 6:20 PM vide DD No. 31 which is Ex.PW4/DX1. Witness has 

denied   the   suggestion   that   she   was   deposing   falsely   because   the 

rojnamcha was tampered at the instance of the SHO.(23)               PW5   Ct.   Manoj  has   deposed   that   on   29.08.2007,   he   was 

posted as constable at police station Uttam Nagar from 8AM to 8PM on 

motorcycle No. DL1SN 5549 and at about 2:30 PM in the afternoon, he 

took the special message as special messenger from DO W/ASI Pricilla 

and he delivered the special message to ACP, Tilak Nagar, DCP West, 

Rajouri   Garden,   PHQ   and   area   MM,  Rohini,   Sh.   Vinod  Yadav  in   the 

court, thereafter returned to the police station at 6:20 PM.  

(24)              In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, witness has 

deposed that he cannot tell the time of delivery to the ACP office, the 

DCP office, PHQ as well as at court to Area MM.  Witness has has denied 

the suggestion that he was deliberating not telling the time of delivery of 

special   message   in   order   to   avoid   contradictions   or   that   no   FIR   was 

handed over to him at the time which he stated in his examination in 

chief.(25)             PW6 Ct. Dinesh has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was posted 

as duty constable at DDU hospital and on that day, he was on duty from 

8AM to 8PM, when at about 10­10:15 AM PCR Van P61, brought one 

injured namely Jitender Kumar and admitted in the hospital.  According 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 39 of 128
 to   him,   the   doctor   examined   the   patient   and   prepared   the   MLC   and 

declared the patient brought dead and it was then that he informed to the 

Police   Station   Uttam   Nagar.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   the 

personal search of the dead body was handed over to SI Randhir, who 

came  later  on  and   same  was seized vide memo  Ex.PW6/A, thereafter 

investigating officer recorded his statement.(26)              In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that he came to know the name of the injured (deceased) on 

seeing driving  licence and  identity card which was recovered from its 

personal search and the personal search of the dead body was taken by 

him as well as the Ct. Deep Kumar in presence of the doctor at about 

10­10:15 AM.  According to him the recovered articles were turned into a 

polythene bag and handed over to SI Randhir in unsealed condition. He ha 

deposed that he did not try to contact to the relatives of the deceased from 

the two mobile phones which were recovered from its personal search. 

Witness has denied the suggestion that from the phone book of the mobile 

phone, they came to know about the phone numbers of the relatives of the 

deceased's father and accordingly he informed him about the incident.  

(27)             PW9  Ct. Trilok Chand  has deposed that on 29.10.2007 he 

was posted at police station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he collected 

sealed   parcels   of   case   FIR   No.   880/07   U/s   25Arms   Actfrom   the 

MHC(M)  for depositing  the same to FSL Rohini, vide RC No. 78/21. 

According to him, it was deposited on the same day to FSL Rohini, Delhi, 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar           Page No. 40 of 128
 and case property was not tampered with by anybody till its remained in 

his possession and investigating officer recorded his statement.  

(30)               PW12 HC Deep Kumar  has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he 

was posted on PCR van P­61 from 8AM to 8PM and on that day at about 

9:30 AM he received a call that the motorcycle riders fired on a person 

near Metro   Pillar  No.  764  of Mohan Garden and thereafter ran away. 

According to him on that information, he along with staff reached at the 

spot and found many persons were gathered there and one person namely 

Rajpal also met them there, he told that the injured is his son namely 

Jitender Kumar who was bleeding there.  Witness has further deposed that 

thereafter   they   removed   him   to   DDU   hospital   where   doctor   declared 

brought dead about the injured and his formal search was conducted in 

front of the doctor and entry in this regard was made in the MLC, which 

entries in the MLC are at point X to X.  According to him investigating 

officer recorded his statement and a separate seizure memo in respect of 

the belongings of the deceased was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW6/A 

and the personal search of the deceased from Point 1 to 10 as detained in 

the   MLC   are   collectively   exhibited   as  Ex.PW12/1  to  Ex.12/10  (not 

objected by the Ld. Defence counsels).(31)              In his cross­examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that he was accompanied with Ct. Kartar Singh, who was 

driver of the van, the name of gunman he does not remember.  According 

to   him   he   does   not   remember   the   name   of   gunman   because   they 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar         Page No. 41 of 128
 frequently changed on PCR vans. According to him, the model of the 

PCR van was Toyota Qualis.  Witness has further deposed that in the back 

of  the  Qualis  two   parallel   seats  adjoining to the window  were in  that 

vehicle and injured/deceased Jitender was carried to the hospital by lying 

on the rear seat, whereas his legs were remained on the floor and he was 

kept by the gunman.  According to him, he informed to the control room 

about   the   removal   of   the   injured   /   deceased   to   the   hospital.   The 

information mentioned in PCR form Ex.PW12/X1 showed to the witness 

who states that the information mentioned in the PCR form was exactly 

received by him as "Mohan Garden Uttam Nagar,Pillar No. 764, Dwarka  

Metro ke paas do ladke motorcycle number na maloom, goli maarkar  

bhage hai.  Taalash".  The witness has admitted that at about 10:35 AM 

he informed to the control room that the name of the injured came to be 

known as Jitender, S/o Rajpal, house No. 161, Village Kakrola, through 

his driving license.  According to him, he did not tell to the control room 

that Rajpal father of the deceased met them at the spot and he told them 

that the injured was his son.   Witness has denied the suggestion that no 

person by the name of Rajpal met them at the spot and he did not disclose 

the name of the injured to them as his son.  Witness has further deposed 

that when he reached at the spot the traffic was stopped and they reached 

there through approach road.  According to him, when they reached at the 

spot they found that deceased was lying on the ground and his face was 

towards the sky.   He has stated that he did not notice the direction in 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar           Page No. 42 of 128
 which the motorcycle had fallen down but stated that it had fallen there. 

Witness has further deposed that he did not put any chalk mark before the 

lifting the injured to show the exact position of the body.  He admits that 

in between pillar No. 763 and 764, there is a cut on the road, but there is 

no red light and no traffic constable was present there.  According to him 

in the PCR vehicle they carry one iron chain, one stretcher and first aid 

box and injured Jitender was not put on the stretcher prior to removing 

him   to   the   vehicle.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   at   the   time   of 

removing the injured into the PCR vehicle he along with gunman and 

two­three other public persons helped to remove the injured into the PCR. 

According to him his statement was recorded by the investigating officer 

in the hospital on the same day but he does not remember the exact time 

when it was recorded. Witness has further deposed that he had left the 

hospital at about 10:15 AM.  Again said at about 10:15 AM, the injured 

was admitted in the hospital, he left the hospital after an hour. According 

to   him,   his   statement   was   read   over   and   explained   to   him   by   the 

investigating officer.   According to him the physical description of the 

Raj   Pal   is   similar   to   his   height   i.e.   approximately   6   feet   and   Rajpal 

followed them to the hospital by his own vehicle.(32)             PW13 Ct. Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he 

was posted as photographer in Mobile Crime Team West District and on 

that day he along with SI Anil Kumar and other staff members of Mobile 

Crime Team visited the scene of crime i.e. pillar No. 764, main Najafgarh 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 43 of 128
 road,   Uttam   Nagar  and   inspected  the  scene  of   crime.    He  has  proved 

having taken ten photographs of the scene of crime at the instance of the 

investigating officer and after developing the photographs the same were 

handed   over   to   the   Investigating   Officer   which   photographs   are 

Ex.PW13/A1  to  Ex.PW13/A10  and   negatives   are  Ex.PW13/N1  to 

Ex.PW13/N10.(33)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that Crime Team reached the spot at about 10:15 AM and left 

the spot at about 10:55 AM and investigating officer had recorded his 

statement.  According to him he does not state to the investigating officer 

regarding the number of photographs which was taken by him.   He has 

testified that he does not notice any motorcycle lying at the spot and has 

voluntarily added that there was a crowd and many vehicle were near the 

spot.  Witness has further deposed that the photographs of the spot which 

he had taken was surrounded by bricks and he did not take photograph of 

any   motorcycle.     He   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   he   did   not 

intentionally or deliberately take the photographs of motorcycle of the 

deceased   or   that   he   had   taken   more   then   ten   photographs   at   the 

instructions of the investigating officer but remaining photographs were 

not place on the record.(34)             PW15 HC Randhir Singh has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he 

was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Constable and on that day he 

along with SI Randhir Singh were on emergency duty from 8AM to 8PM 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar          Page No. 44 of 128
 at police station. According to him at about 9:30 AM SI Randhir Singh 

received information about DD No. 28A, after which he along with SI 

Randhir Singh reached the metro pillar No.764, Main Najafgarh Road, 

Near Rama Park, Uttam Nagar where they found that blood was lying on 

the road   and  the  motorcycle number DL9SM 2926 make Hero Honda 

CBZ   of   black   color   was   lying   there.     According   to   the   witness,   he 

thereafter came to know that the injured was already removed by the PCR 

to DDU hospital and at the same time SHO along with the staff reached at 

the   spot.     Witness   has   further   deposed  that   he  along  with  SI  Randhir 

Singh   reached   DDU  hospital   where  Investigating Officer collected  the 

MLC   of   injured   Jitender   wherein   which   doctor   declared   him   brought 

dead.  The witness has testified that father of the deceased namely Rajpal 

met them there whose statement was recorded by Investigating Officer. 

He has proved that the Investigating Officer collected the personal search 

of the deceased from the Duty Constable after which Investigating Officer 

prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of the 

FIR on which he went to the police station.   According to the witness, 

after getting registered the case he reached the spot and handed over copy 

of   FIR   and   original   rukka   to   Insp.   Rakesh   Kumar   Tyagi.       He   has 

correctly identified the motorcycle bearing registration number DL 9SM 

2926 which is Ex.M­1.(35)               In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness 

has deposed that they reached at the spot at around 9:37AM and remained 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar             Page No. 45 of 128
 there for about half an hour.  According to him he had returned to the spot 

again after the registration of the FIR at about 2:45 PM.  He has admitted 

that he had not seen the Crime Team at the time of his visits at the spot. 

Witness has further deposed that the SHO came to the spot after about 15 

minutes of his first visit at about 9:30 AM.  According to the witness, the 

traffic was flowing on the same road by the side of the spot of crime and 

the   motorcycle   was   lying   on   the   left   side   with   the   front   site   towards 

Kakrola to Uttam Nagar and one handkerchief was also lying at the spot. 

The witness has testified that they met Rajpal at hospital at about 10:30 

AM when they reached there and Rajpal was already there when reached 

the hospital.  According to the witness, he did not meet any other family 

members of Rajpal at the hospital nor does he recollect the exact time 

when SI Randhir Singh recorded the statement of Rajpal but stated that it 

might   be   11:15   or   11:30   AM.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   his 

statement   was   recorded   at   emergency   room   of   duty   constable   in   the 

handwriting   of   SI   Randhir   Sigh   which   completed   at   about   12:30   PM 

along with the endorsement.   He has testified that he went to the Police 

Station on motorcycle and no other proceedings were conducted by SI 

Randhir Singh in his presence at hospital except stated in the examination 

in chief till 12:30 PM.  He has further deposed that when he handed over 

copy of FIR to Insp. Tyagi, at that time SHO and other staff were already 

present there and thereafter he returned police station at about 4:30 PM. 

He has denied the suggestion that no rukka was handed over to him or 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 46 of 128
 that he had not gone to police station for registration of the FIR at the 

relevant time.   He does not remember the exact time when duty officer 

recorded the FIR but it may be at 2:15 PM.(36)             PW16 SI Gulshan Gupta has deposed that on 12.09.2007, he 

was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, investigations 

of case FIR No.880/07 underSection 25Arms Act was marked to him 

after which he reached at the spot.   According to him he arrested the 

accused Sanjeev Gahlot (correctly identified by the witness) and SI Shiv 

Raj handed over sealed parcel containing the weapon i.e. pistol and three 

live   cartridge   along   with   seizure   memo   FSL   Form   etc.     Witness   has 

further   deposed   that   accused   made   his   disclosure   statement   about   the 

crime   of   this   case   and   further   disclosed   that   the   pistol   belong   to   his 

brother Anil Gahlot which weapon recovered from his possession was 

used in the commission of crime in the present.  According to the witness, 

he   recorded   statement   of   accused   who   was   sent   to   judicial   custody, 

photocopy of which disclosure statement is mark PW16/A.  Witness has 

further deposed that the weapon of offence was deposited with MHC(M) 

police station Lajpat Nagar and subsequently sealed parcel of the weapon 

was sent to FSL through Ct. Trilok.(37)              The original judicial file of case FIR No.880/07, police station 

Lajpat Nagar, underSection 25Arms Act and the disclosure statement 

of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot which is Ex.PW16/A.  Witness has further 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 47 of 128
 deposed   that   Investigating   Officer   handed   over   the   sealed   parcel   of 

weapons sealed with the seal of SSB which was deposited by him with the 

MHC(M) of police station Lajpat Nagar. He has proved having filed the 

challan of FIR No.880/07 of police station Lajpat Nagar after completion 

of investigations.   He has correctly identified the accused Sanjeev who 

was present in the court.(38)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has admitted that nothing was recovered in his presence in case FIR No. 

880/07 of police station Lajpat Nagar.  Witness has further deposed that 

the investigations of case FIR No. 880/07 was handed over to him when 

he was present at police station and he arrested the accused Sanjeev in 

that case.   According to the witness, he recorded statements of Ct. Vir 

Singh,   HC   Sunil   and   first   investigating   officer   SI   Shivraj   and 

subsequently the constable who had taken the case property to FSL and 

MHC(M).  Witness has further deposed that SI Shivraj Singh handed over 

the sealed parcels containing the pistol and cartridges at the spot and same 

was subsequently deposited by him to the MHC(M) and seal after use was 

not  handed   over  to  him  and states that it was handed over to Ct. Vir 

Singh.  He has denied the suggestion that accused Sanjeev had not made 

any disclosure statement to him and only gave information to him that the 

police officials from police station Uttam Nagar wanted to eliminate him 

by way of a fake encounter and because of this reason accused Sanjeev 

surrendered himself in the police station Lajpat Nagar after giving a call 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar          Page No. 48 of 128
 to  100  number.     He  has further denied the suggestion that there were 

contradictory view in between the SHO, Lajpat Nagar and SHO, Uttam 

Nagar or that he was deposing falsely or that nothing was recovered from 

accused Sanjeev.(39)             PW17  ASI   Bal   Kishan  has   brought   the   original   FIR   No. 

274/05 U/s 308/34IPCand has deposed that he was posted as a duty 

officer at police station Uttam Nagar.  According to him on 27.3.2005 at 

about 11:05 AM he received a rukka sent by HC Satyawan through Ct. 

Naseeb for the registration of FIR on the absis of which he recorded the 

FIR photocopy of which is  Ex.PW17/A  wherein there were allegations 

against   accused   Balwant,   Raju,  Sonu and  Lalu.    The witness  has  also 

proved the FIR No. 275/05 U/s 308/34IPC, photocopy of which FIR is 

Ex.PW17/B  wherein there  are allegations against accused Askash, Lal 

and Monu.(40)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels, the witness 

has   deposed   that   as   per   record,   the   accused   in   both   the   cases   were 

acquitted on 17.03.2010 from the court of Ms. Barkha Gupta, Ld. ASJ, 

Rohini, Delhi.(41)               PW18  SI Shivraj Bisht  has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he 

was posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he along with 

HC Sunil Gaur and Ct. Bir Singh were on patrolling duty.  According to 

the witness, at about 7:45 AM when they were present at T­point of Lala 

Lajpat Rai Road and Firoz Gandhi Marg near ICICI Bank, they saw that 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 49 of 128
 one  boy   coming   on   a  motorcycle from Defence Colony flyover.   The 

witness has testified that on seeing them, the said boy immediately turned 

his   motorcycle   and   on   suspicion,   they   chased   him   and   apprehended. 

Witness   has  further  deposed that  when he inquired  from  the said boy 

about the reason of turning the motorcycle immediately on seeing them, 

he   could   not   reply   satisfactory   and   his   formal   search   was   conducted 

during one pistol with magazine was recovered from the right dub of his 

pant.  According to the witness, he asked four public persons to join the 

investigations but they refused and went away on the one pretext or the 

other.   He  has proved having made inquiries from the accused during 

which   he   disclosed   his   name   as   Sanjeev   Gahlot   @   Sonu   (whom   the 

witness has correctly identified in the Court).  He has testified that he sent 

Ct.   Bir   Singh   for   arranging   the   Investigating   Officer   Kit   for   further 

investigation on which Ct. Bir Singh brought the same.  The witness has 

also deposed that the pistol was unloaded and it found to contain three 

live cartridges in the magazine after which he prepared the sketch of the 

pistol and cartridges copy of which is  Ex.PW18/A.   According to the 

witness, he also found that the pistol was engraved the words "for army  

use only and made in USA" after which he prepared cloth parcel of the 

pistol and cartridges and sealed with the seal of SSB and also filled up 

form FSL at the spot and affixed the seal on it which seal after use was 

handed over to HC Sunil Gaur.   He has testified that the weapon was 

taken   into   possession   vide   preparing   the   seizure   memo   which   is 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 50 of 128
 Ex.PW18/B and the motorcycle bearing No. DL­4S­BB­0169 along with 

helmet and key of the motorcycle were taken into possession vide seizure 

memo  Ex.PW18/C.     He   has   proved   having   prepared   the   rukka   and 

handed over to Ct. Bir Singh for getting registered the case and he (Ct. 

Bir)   returned   back   with   SI   Gulshan   on   which   he   handed   over   all   the 

memos and sealed parcels and case property and custody of the accused to 

SI Gulshan.   According to the witness, SI Gulshan prepared site plan of 

the spot at his instance and further investigations was conducted by him. 

He   has   further   deposed   that   the   cartridges   were   of   9   mm   and   were 

engraving the words KF04, 9mm.  According to him, SI Gulshan recorded 

his   statement   and   on   6.10.2007   Investigating   Officer  of   this   case  also 

recorded his statement.(42)             He has correctly identified the motorcycle bearing No. DL­4S­

BB­0169 and keys which were produced by superdar which are  Ex.PA 

and  PB; the helmet is  Ex.PC;  one pistol and magazine and three empty 

cartridges as the same which were recovered from the possession of the 

accused Sanjeev Gahlot (the live cartridges test fired by FSL) which pistol 

with   magazine   is  Ex.PD  and   three   empty   cartridges   are   collectively 

Ex.PE.(43)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness 

has   deposed   that   he   did   not   sign   the   site   plan  Ex.PW18/D  and 

Investigating Officer did not write specifically that it was prepared at his 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 51 of 128
 instance   and   has   voluntarily   added   that   this   fact   is   recorded   in   his 

statement.   He has admitted that the spot of arrest stated in the FIR is a 

public place.  According to him, three­four persons to whom he asked to 

join the investigations were passerby and there was no shop or temporary 

Gutke wala situated near the spot therefore, he did not ask such person for 

joining the investigations.  He has further deposed that no auto rickshaw 

came there during the proceedings and that he was in a police uniform. 

According to the witness, he had apprehended the accused Sanjeev Gahlot 

at about 7:45 AM.  The witness was shown upper part of barrel of pistol 

Ex.PD where it has been written"for army supply".  Witness has further 

deposed that SI Gulshan Kumar is junior to him but the rank is same.  He 

has admitted that at that time SHO was C.K. Sharma.  He has denied the 

suggestion   that   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot   surrendered   himself   at   police 

station Lajpat Nagar by saying that SHO Uttam Nagar wanted to kill him 

in an encounter as he has been implicated him in a false murder case 

pertaining to police station Uttam Nagar.   According to him, he did not 

give any information in this regard to police station Uttam Nagar. Witness 

has denied the suggestion that SHO Uttam Nagar instructed them not to 

show arrest and hand over the accused Sanjeev or that because of this 

issue, there were differences between SHO, Uttam Nagar and SHO Lajpat 

Nagar.  The witness has further denied the suggestion that thereafter SHO 

Uttam Nagar provided the weapon Ex.PD for false implication of accused 

Sanjeev in police station Lajpat Nagar in order to prove nexus between 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 52 of 128
 the weapon of offence and the recovery.   Witness has also denied the 

suggestion that the FIR No. 880/07 was registered later on by way of 

concocted   story   or   that   on   11.09.2007,   in   the   evening   hours,   accused 

Sanjeev himself surrendered in the police station Lajpat Nagar or that the 

motorcycle, key and helmet shown in the recovery memo were already in 

their   possession   as   they   found   the   said   motorcycle   in   an   abandoned 

condition.  He has has further denied the suggestion that no recovery of 

pistol and cartridges were effected from the accused as they were planted.

(44)             PW20 HC Jeet Singh has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he was 

posted at police Station Lajpat Nagar as Duty Officer from 8AM to 8PM 

and on that day he received a rukka through Ct. Bir Singh sent by SI 

Shivraj Singh  for registration of FIR after which he got  recorded FIR 

through   computer   operator   vide   FIR   No.   880/07   U/s   25Arms   Act. 

According   to   him   investigation   of   the   case   was   handed   over   to   SI 

Gulshan.     He   has   proved   the   computer   generated   copy   of   the   FIR, 

photocopy of which is Ex.PW20/A. 

(45)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has denied the suggestion that no rukka was brought to him by Ct. Bir 

Singh or that the FIR was registered at the instance of the SHO, police 

station Lajpat Nagar or that FIR is ante time.(46)              PW21 HC Sunil Gaur has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he was 

posted at police station Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he along with SI 

Shiv Raj Singh and Ct. Bir Singh were present at Lala Lajpat Rai Marg T 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar             Page No. 53 of 128
 point and were conducting picket checking.  According to him, at about 

7:45 AM one motorcycle came there from Defence Colony Flyover side 

and   one   seeing   them   the   motorcycle   rider   turned   his   motorcycle 

immediately.  Witness has further deposed that on getting suspicion they 

apprehended   that   person   and   his   formal   search   was   conducted   during 

which   one   pistol   was   recovered   from   the   right   dub   of  the   pant.    The 

witness has also deposed that on interrogation the said boy disclosed his 

name   as   Sanjeev   Gahlot   @   Sonu   (whom   the   witness   has   correctly 

identified in the Court).  He has testified that SI Shiv Raj Singh sent Ct. 

Bir Singh for bringing the Investigating Officer Kit from police station 

and in the meantime Investigating Officer asked three­four public persons 

to join the recovery proceedings, but they did not join and left the spot 

without disclosing their names and address.  According to the witness, in 

the meantime Ct. Bir Singh returned back at the spot and handed over the 

kit to Investigating Officer after which the Investigating Officer unloaded 

the   pistol   while   lifting   the   magazine   and   three   live   cartridges   were 

recovered from that magazine.   He has also deposed that Investigating 

Officer prepared the sketch of pistol and three live cartridges which is 

Ex.PW18/A.   The witness has testified that it was a .9mm pistol and it 

was written on the barrel of the pistol "ONLY ARMY SUPPLY" and the 

other side words "Auto pistol 9 mm 9 rounds" were engraved.   He has 

proved that the Investigating Officer prepared the parcels and sealed the 

same with the seal of SSB and also prepared FSL form and seal after use 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 54 of 128
 handed   over   to   him,   after   which   the   Investigating   Officer   seized   the 

weapon and cartridge vide memo Ex.PW18/B.  According to the witness, 

the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S BB 0169 TVS Star along with its key 

and helmet was also seized vide memo Ex.PW18/C.  The witness has also 

proved that the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over to 

Ct. Bir Singh for registration of FIR after which Ct. Bir Singh went to 

police station and after some time returned back at the spot and handed 

over copy of FIR and rukka to SI Gulshan who was also came to the spot 

with Ct. Bir Singh.  Witness has further deposed that further investigation 

was conducted by SI Gulshan and the accused was arrested after which he 

(accused)   made   his   disclosure   statement   which   is  Ex.PW16/A. 

According   to   him,   the   accused   was   medically   examined   and   the 

Investigating   Officer  deposited  the  case  property with  MHC(M).   The 

witness has also deposed that the second Investigating Officer prepared 

the site plan of spot at the instance of the first Investigating Officer SI 

Shiv Raj Singh and the Investigating Officer recorded his statement.

(47)             He  has  correctly  identified the case property i.e. motorcycle 

bearing No. DL 4S BB 0169 and keys which are Ex.PA and Ex.PB; pistol 

with  magazine  and three cartridges which are  Ex.PD  and three empty 

cartridges which are collectively Ex.PE.(48)              In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that the police officials were not having vehicle at the time 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar             Page No. 55 of 128
 when the accused was apprehended and the accused turned his bike from 

a distance of five seven steps from the picket.  According to him at that 

time,   they   were   on   picket   checking   and   no   vehicle   was   stopped   for 

checking.  Witness has further deposed that the investigating officer asked 

the   passerby   on   foot   to   join   the   investigation   after   apprehension   of 

accused and no request was made by the investigating officer from any 

auto   drivers,   motorcycle   rider   and   car   riders   to   join   the   investigation. 

According to him no tea vendor or paan vendor were present at the spot. 

He   has   stated   that   the   accused   disclosed   the   source   of   acquiring   of 

weapon that the said weapon was brought by his deceased brother namely 

Anil.  He has denied the suggestion that Sanjeev Gahlot himself surrender 

in the police station Lajpat Nagar because the SHO Police Station Uttam 

Nagar wanted to kill him by way of fake encounter or that the accused 

Sanjeev Gahlot only disclosed that he has been falsely implicated in a 

murder case registered at police station Uttam Nagar.   The witness has 

further denied the suggestion that this fact was brought into the notice of 

police station Uttam Nagar and at the instance of SHO, Uttam Nagar the 

said weapon was planted upon accused Sanjeev Gahlot in order to connect 

him with the murder case.  Witness has further denied the suggestion that 

a hot discussion taken place between SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar 

and SHO Police Station Uttam Nagar as SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar 

refused to give Sanjeev Gahlot for helping him to murder Sanjeev Gahlot 

by way of fake encounter.  He has also denied the suggestion that nothing 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 56 of 128
 happened as stated in his examination in chief or that no motorcycle and 

weapon of offence .9 mm pistol and three live cartridges were recovered 

from   the   possession   of   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot   or   that   no   rukka   was 

handed over to Ct. Bir Singh.(49)             PW22 HC Bir Singh  has deposed that on 12.09.2007 he was 

posted at Police Station Lajpat Nagar as Constable and on that day he 

along with SI Shiv Raj Singh and HC Sunil Gaur were present at Lala 

Lajpat   Rai   Marg,   T   Point   and   were   conducting   picket   checking. 

According to him, at about 7:45 AM one motorcycle came there from 

Defence Colony  flyover  side and on seeing them the motorcycle rider 

turned his motorcycle immediately and on suspicion they apprehended 

that person.     Witness has further deposed that on formal search of that 

person   one   pistol   was   recovered   from   the   right   dub   of   the   pant   and 

investigating   officer   sent   him   to   police   station   for   bringing   the 

investigating officer kit.   According to him he brought the same and on 

interrogation  that  boy disclosed   his name as Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu 

accused present in the court (correctly identified by the witness).  He has 

testified that the Investigating Officer unloaded the pistol while lifting the 

magazine and three live cartridges were recovered from that magazine 

after which the Investigating Officer prepared sketch of pistol and three 

live cartridges which is  Ex.PW18/A.   He has further deposed that the 

weapon   and   cartridges   were   measured   and   it   was   a   .9mm   pistol   and 

"ONLY ARMY SUPPLY" was written on the barrel of the pistol whereas 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 57 of 128
 the other side was having words "Auto Pistol 9mm 9 Rounds".  Witness 

has   also   deposed   that   the   Investigating   Officer   prepared   parcels   and 

sealed with the seal of SSB and also prepared FSL form and seal after use 

handed over to HC Sunil Gaur.   According to him investigating officer 

seized   the   weapon   and   cartridge   vide   memo  Ex.PW18/B  and   the 

motorcycle bearing No. DL­4S­BB­0169 TVS star along with key was 

also   seized   along  with  helmet  vide memo  Ex.PW18/C.   According to 

him, the Investigating Officer prepared a rukka and handed over the same 

to him for registration of FIR after which he went to police station and 

after some time he returned back at the spot along with SI Gulshan and 

handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him.  He has testified that further 

investigation was conducted by SI Gulshan and accused was arrested and 

interrogated.  He has proved that the accused made a disclosure statement 

which   is  Ex.PW16/A  and   was   medically   examined   and   then   went   to 

police station where the Investigating Officer deposited the case property 

with MHC(M).   Witness has further deposed that the second investigating 

officer prepared the site plan of spot at the instance of first investigating 

officer SI Shivraj Singh.(50)               He has correctly identified the case property i.e. motorcycle 

and keys which are  Ex.PA  and  Ex.PB; helmet which is  Ex.PC;  pistol 

with   magazine   which   is  Ex.PD  and   three   empty   cartridges   which   are 

collectively Ex.PE.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar           Page No. 58 of 128
 (51)             The said witness has been cross­examined on the similar lines 

as that of PW21 HC Sunil Gaur and nothing much has come out of the 

same.(52)             PW23 HC Anil Kumar  has deposed that on 29.08.2007, he 

was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as MHC(M) and on that day, SI 

Randhir   Singh   deposited   personal   search   of   deceased   Jitender   Kumar 

pursuant to which he made entries in this regard at serial No. 4994 in 

register   No.   19,   photocopy   of   which   is  Ex.PW23/A.     He   has   further 

deposed that on the same day, Investigating Officer Insp. Rakesh Kumar 

deposited total six sealed parcels and a motorcycle with sample seal along 

with four seizure memos on which he made entries at point X,Y,Z and 

Z­1 on  Ex.PW23/A.   He has testified that on 30.08.2007 Insp. Rakesh 

Kumar again deposited three sealed parcels with two sample seals and he 

made entries in this regard at serial No. 4996 in register No.19 photocopy 

of which is  Ex.PW23/B.   According to the witness on 05.09.2007 Insp. 

Rakesh   Kumar  deposited   motorcycle  No. DL­4SA­2697  Pulsar and he 

made   entries   in   this   regard   at   serial   No.   5013   in   register   No.   19, 

photocopy   of   which   entry   is  Ex.PW23/C.     He   has   testified   that   on 

28.10.2007   Investigating   Officer   Insp.   Rakesh   Kumar   deposited   one 

motorcycle  No.   DL­4S­BB­0169  TVS  which  was  brought  from  Police 

Station Lajpat Nagar vide RC No.77/21 dated 28.10.2007 and he made 

entries in this regard at serial No. 5064 in register No.19, photocopy of 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 59 of 128
 which entry is Ex.PW23/D.   He has further deposed that on 05.09.2007 

the belongings of the deceased was released to Rajpal as per order of the 

court   and   he   made   entry   in   this   regard   at   point   A­1   on  Ex.PW23/A. 

According to him, on 31.10.2007 seven sealed parcels were sent to FSL, 

Rohini vide RC No. 220/21 through Ct. Rajan and he made entry in this 

regard at point A­2 on  Ex.PW23/A.   Witness has also deposed that on 

02.06.2008 he collected seven sealed parcels and result and deposited in 

the malkhana and entry in this regard is at point A­3 on  Ex.PW23/A, 

which result was handed over to the Investigating Officer on 22.12.2008 

and entry in this regard is at point A­4.  The MHCM has further deposed 

that on 05.09.2007 itself the motorcycle bearing No. DL 9S M 2926 was 

released to the Rajpal, father of the deceased by the order of the Court and 

entry   in   this   regard   is   at   point   A­5   on  Ex.PW23/A.     He   has   further 

deposed that on 31.10.2007 two sealed parcels with sample seal were sent 

to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Rajan and entry in this regard is at point A­6 

on  Ex.PW23/B.     Witness   has   also   deposed   that   on   28.03.2008   Ct. 

Shivshankar deposited two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of FSL 

with report, and the entry in this regard is at point A­7 on  Ex.PW23/B 

and result was handed over to the Investigating Officer and entry in this 

regard is at point A­8 on  Ex.PW23/B. He has further testified that on 

29.10.2007   motorcycle   No.   DL   4S   BB   0169   was   released   to   Naresh 

Kumar as per the order of the court and entry in this regard is at point A­9 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 60 of 128
 on  Ex.PW23/C.   He has placed on record RC No.220/21, photocopy of 

which is Ex.PW23/E; photocopy of receipt of FSL which is Ex.PW23/F; 

RC No.221/21 photocopy of which is Ex.PW23/G and photocopy of the 

receipt of FSL is Ex.PW23/H.  According to him the case property was 

not tampered by anybody till it remained in his custody.  

(53)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness 

has admitted that entry No.4994 was completed at one time till the other 

entry stated No. 4495.   He does not remember the time of writing entry 

No. 4994 and states that he might have taken half an hour for writing 

entry   No.   4994.     Witness   has   deposed   that   SI   Randhir   Singh   only 

deposited personal search of deceased and other articles were deposited 

by   investigating   officer   Insp.   Rakesh   Kumar   and   they   kept   sitting   for 

some time with him.  According to him both police officials supplied him 

copy of seizure memos which were kept in separate record.  He does not 

remember exactly whether it was day time, evening time and night time 

when the case property was deposited but states that it might be 7­8 PM. 

He   has   admitted   that   he   had   not   mentioned   the   time   in   register   of 

depositing   of   case   property   but   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   case 

property was deposited in the malkhana after 29.08.2007 and he made the 

entries ante time and ante­date as per the instructions of the SHO.  

(54)             PW24 SI Mahesh Kumar has deposed that on 20.11.2007 he 

was posted as Draftsman in Crime Branch and on that day on the request 

of   Insp.   Rakesh   Kumar,   Addl.   SHO   Police   Station   Uttam   Nagar   he 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 61 of 128
 reached   at   Police   Station   from   where   he   along   with   the   Investigating 

Officer and Sh. Rajpal went to the spot i.e. Najafgarh Road Near Metro 

Pillar No. 764­765 where at the instance of Sh. Rajpal he took rough notes 

and measurements of the spot.   According to him, on the basis of those 

measurements he prepared a scaled site plan which is  Ex.PW24/A  and 

rough notes were destroyed after preparation of scaled site plan.

(55)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness 

has denied the suggestion that he had not visited the place of occurrence 

and   that   he   prepared   the   scaled   site   plan   at   the   instance   of   the 

investigating officer in the police station.(56)             PW25 SI Anil Kumar has deposed that on 29.08.2007 he was 

posted as Incharge Mobile Crime Team, West District and on that day 

they were called near Pillar No.764, Main Najafgarh Road, Ram Park, 

Village   Nangloi   for   inspection   of   scene   of   crime.     According   to   the 

witness, he along with photographer Ct. Rakesh Kumar and Finger Print 

Proficient Ct. Bal Kishan reached there at about 10:25 AM and inspected 

the  scene   of   crime.     Witness   has   deposed   that   photographer   took   the 

photographs from different angles of the scene of crime and injured was 

already   removed   to   the   hospital.     He   has   proved   having   prepared   his 

detailed report which is Ex.PW25/A.

(57)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness 

has admitted that he inspected the scene of crime from 10:25 to 10:55 AM 

on   29.08.2007.     He   has   deposed   that   he   left   the   spot   at   10:55   AM. 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 62 of 128
 Witness has further admitted that he handed over the crime report which 

is Ex.PW25/A to the Investigating Officer at the spot at about 10:55 AM. 

He   has   also   admitted   that   all   the   contents   of   the   report   are   in   his 

handwriting and as per the contents of his report Ex.PW25/A the name of 

the complainant is PCR call and his report is having FIR No.741/07.  

(58)             PW26 HC Parveen Kumar has deposed that on 14.09.2007 he 

was posted in IIIrd Bn. DAP, Vikaspuri and his duty was in Lock Up 

Rohini   Courts   for   producing   the   accused   persons   before   the   court. 

According to him on that day he produced accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ 

Sonu in the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar Yadav, MM Court No. 107.   He 

has deposed that Addl. SHO Insp. Rakesh Tyagi obtained the permission 

from   the   Court   for   interrogation   of   the   accused   and   thereafter   he 

interrogated   the   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot   in   the   room   of   the   Ahlmad. 

Witness   has   further   deposed   that   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot   made   his 

disclosure statement to him wherein the accused disclosed that he could 

get arrested his associates and could also recover the motorcycle.  He has 

also   deposed   that   the   Investigating   Officer   recorded   the   disclosure 

statement   of   the   accused   which   is  Ex.PW26/A  and   also   recorded   his 

statement.  He has correctly identified the accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the 

Court.(59)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness 

has deposed that he does not remember the case FIR No. in which he 

produced the accused Sanjeev Gahlot before Ld. MM Sh. Vinod Yadav 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 63 of 128
 nor   does   he   remember   as   to   whether   he   made   statement   to   the 

Investigating Officer regarding the case FIR No. in which accused was 

produced before the Ld. MM.   According to the witness, he along with 

one   another   witness,   accused   and   Investigating   Officer   signed   the 

disclosure   statement   which   was   recorded   on   one   page   only   and 

investigating officer himself written the disclosure statement in the room. 

Witness has further deposed that his statement was also recorded by the 

investigating   officer.     Witness   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   no   such 

disclosure statement was made by the accused Sanjeev Gahlot or that he 

simply signed the already written disclosure statement at the instance of 

the   Addl.   SHO   Rakesh   Tyagi.     He   is   unable   to   tell   at   what   time   the 

disclosure statement was recorded by the police but it was noon hours and 

the accused Sanjeev Gahlot was interrogated for about half an hour.  

(60)             PW27 HC Rajender Singh has deposed that on 04.10.2007 he 

was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Constable and on that day he 

joined the investigations of the present case.  According to the witness, he 

along with Insp. Rakesh Tyagi went to village Kakrola where one secret 

informer met them who told that Vijay @ Kalu would come from Dwarka 

side   on   foot.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   on   this   they   reached 

Dwarka mor and at the pointing out of the secret informer accused Vijay 

@   Kalu   was   apprehended   who   was   interrogated   by   the   Investigating 

Officer.     According   to   him,   in   his   disclosure   statement   the   accused 

confessed   the   crime   of   this   case   and   also   disclosed   the   names   of   his 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 64 of 128
 associates.  The witness has testified that the accused he further told that 

he   could   get   recover   the   weapon   i.e.   pistol   by   which   Jitender   was 

murdered from a nala in Kakrola village.   He has proved the disclosure 

statement   of   the   accused   which   is  Ex.PW27/A  and   the   accused   was 

arrested vide memo  Ex.PW27/B and his personal search was conducted 

vide memo Ex.PW27/C.  According to him, accused also pointed out the 

place   of   occurrence   vide   memo  Ex.PW27/D  and   also   pointed   out   the 

nala/ drain where the weapon was thrown vide pointing out memo which 

is Ex.PW27/E.  The witness has correctly identified the accused Vijay in 

the Court.(61)             In  his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness 

has deposed that accused Vijay was medically examined after his arrest 

from the DDU hospital in night hours but he is unable to tell the exact 

time.   According to the witness, he along with the Investigating Officer 

had taken the accused Vijay to the hospital for medical examination and 

accused was arrested at about 8:30 PM.  Witness has further deposed that 

the   disclosure   statement   of   the   accused   Vijay   was   recorded   by   the 

Investigating   Officer   at   the   spot   from   where   he   was   apprehended   by 

sitting under the street light on a patri.  The witness has deposed that the 

disclosure statement was recorded in two/ three pages and he signed only 

at one place where his name was mentioned but he does not remember as 

to how many places accused signed the disclosure statement.  According 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 65 of 128
 to   the   witness,   he   himself,   the   Investigating   Officer   and   the   accused 

signed   the   disclosure   statement   and   at   that   time   they   only   two   police 

officials were present with the accused.  He has also deposed that accused 

Vijay   Gahlot   did   not   try   to   run   away   after   seeing   them   and   accused 

pointed out the drain at about 10 PM and thereafter, he pointed out the 

place of occurrence and thereafter they went to the police station after 11 

PM.  He has testified that thereafter the accused was medically examined 

and they went to the place of arrest, place of occurrence, place of drain 

and   hospital   by   the   private   vehicle   i.e.   car   which   was   driven   by   the 

Investigating Officer but he does not remember the make of that car and 

states   that   it   was   of   white   color.     According   to   him,   the   information 

regarding arrest of the accused was given to one Rajbir relative of the 

accused.  He does not remember if the Investigating Officer prepared the 

site plan of the drain.  He has deposed that the the pointing out memo of 

the drain was signed by the accused once only whereas he signed twice on 

the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence.(62)             PW28   HC   Om   Prakash  is   the   MHC(M)   of   Police   Station 

Lajpat Nagar who has brought the Register no.19 according to which on 

12.08.2007 SI S. S. Bisht had deposited in the malkhana one pistol and 

live cartridge both in sealed condition, form FSL and seal of SSB vide 

entry no. 2146, which is Ex.PW28/A.  Witness has further deposed that 

on 29.10.2007 the pistol and the live cartridge were sent to FSL Rohini 

through   Ct.   Trilok   Chand   vide   RC   No.   78/21/07   along   with   the   FSL 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 66 of 128
 Form, copy of which RC is Ex.PW28/B and the receipt of the FSL was 

received  on  the  same  day which he pasted in register no.21, which is 

Ex.PW28/C.  

(63)             In his  cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel the witness 

has   admitted   that   the   entries   in   register   no.19   and   21   are   not   in   his 

handwriting and the said entries were made by his predecessor.  

(64)             PW29   SI   (Retd)   Randhir   Singh  has   deposed   that   on 

29.08.2007 he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Uttam Nagar 

and on that day he was telephonically informed about the DD No. 20A 

which is   Ex.PW4/A  by the Duty Officer and was told that there was a 

firing   incident   in   Rama   Park   at   Metro   Pillar   No.764   Main   Najafgarh 

Road,   Rama   Park,   Uttam   Nagar   on   which   he   along   with   Ct.  Randhir 

Singh reached the spot on his private motorcycle.  According to him there 

they did not find any injured but were informed by the public person that 

the person who was shot was taken to DDU Hospital by the PCR Van. 

Witness has further informed that he saw that there was blood lying on 

the road and also found an empty used cartridge and a motorcycle Hero 

Honda, CBZ bearing no. DL­9S­M­2926.  According to him the SHO also 

reached the spot during this period and he thereafter received information 

from the Duty Officer by DD No.22A Ex.PW4/D that the injured Jitender 

S/o Raj Pal R/o Village Kakrola had been admitted in the DDU Hospital. 

He   has   testified   that   on   receipt   of   this   information   he   along   with   Ct. 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                   Page No. 67 of 128
 Randhir   Singh   went   to   DDU   Hospital   where   he   collected   the   MLC 

Ex.PW3/A  of   injured   Jitender   in   which   the  doctor   had   declared   him 

brought   dead   with   the   history   of   gun   shot,   while   he   was   still   in   the 

hospital, the father of deceased Jitender namely Rajpal also came to the 

hospital.     Witness   has   deposed   that   he   interrogated   him   (Rajpal)   and 

recorded   his   statement   which   is  Ex.PW1/A  on   which  he  made   his 

endorsement   which   is  Ex.PW29/A  and   handed   over   the   same   to   Ct. 

Randhir who took the same to Police Station Uttam Nagar and hand over 

the same to Duty Officer for registration of the case while he himself 

remained in the hospital where he was handed over some articles by the 

doctor which were found on the body of the deceased.  According to him, 

the said articles were Rs.410/­ cash, one wrist watch, one chain, two bus 

passes   of   DTC,   one   NOKIA   mobile   phone,   one   SIM   card,   one   more 

mobile whose make he does not recollect, some loose papers, one driving 

license,   one   empty   envelop.       The   witness   has   deposed   that   all   these 

articles were released to the father of deceased on the direction of the 

Court.  He has further testified that he along with Raj Pal went back to the 

spot   of   incident   where   he   met   SHO   Inspector   PC   Maan,   Addl.   SHO 

Rakesh Kumar Tyagi and the other police staff including the Crime Team 

and the photographer.   Witness has further deposed that he handed over 

the   said   articles   to   the   Addl.   SHO   Inspector   Rakesh   Kumar   to   whom 

further investigations were handed over as per the direction of the SHO. 

According to the witness, on the pointing out of Raj Pal, Inspector Tyagi 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 68 of 128
 prepared the site plan and also lifted the blood stained earth and earth 

control.   He   has   testified   that   a   bag   having   blood   stains   and   a   hole 

indicating   bullet   entry,   was  also lying near the  motorcycle which was 

taken into possession by Inspector Rakesh Tyagi.     Witness has proved 

that the motorcycle was seized and the blood and earth control were kept 

in separate bottle and converted into pullandas and sealed with the seal of 

RK and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/B.  According to him, 

the rexene bag was also converted into a pullanda by putting the same in a 

bag and sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide memo  Ex.PW1/C. 

Witness has further informed that the clothes of Raj Pal which he was 

wearing at that time i.e. shirt and pants whose color he does not recollect, 

were also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and converted 

into a pullanda and thereafter sealed with the seal of RK and seized vide 

memo Ex.PW1/E.   According to him the seal after use was handed over 

to   him   and   thereafter   they   returned   to   the   police   station   where   his 

statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.

(65)             He   has   testified   that   on   30.08.2007   he   had   joined   the 

investigations in the present case and was present with the Investigating 

Officer on which day the postmortem of the deceased was got conducted 

in the Hospital.   According to him, the doctor had handed over to the 

investigating officer one led removed from the body of deceased, clothes 

of deceased which he was wearing at that time all in a sealed condition 

alongwith   two   sample   seals   which   the   investigating   officer   seized   the 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 69 of 128
 same vide memo Ex.PW29/B after that his statement was recorded in the 

hospital itself.(66)               With the permission of the Court leading questions were put 

by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein the witness has admitted that 

Duty Constable Dinesh had handed over to him the articles of deceased 

with regard to which he prepared memo  Ex.PW6/A.  

(67)             The   witness  has   correctly   identified   the   case   property   i.e. 

rexene bag of brown colour as the same which was lying along with the 

motorcycle  and   had   been   seized by the Investigating  Officer  which  is 

Ex.P1; shirt which is Ex.P2; pant which is Ex.P3; handkerchief which is 

Ex.P4 and an empty cartridge which was collected from the spot which is 

Ex.P5.(68)             In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel witness has 

deposed   that   the   contents   of   DD   No.20A   were   that  "main   Najafgarh  

Road   Uttam   Nagar   par,   Pole   no.   764   ke   paas   goli   mari   hai"  which 

information was received by him at 9.30AM and he reached at the spot 

after twenty minutes. According to him, there were many public persons 

present there and the road traffic was stopped in order to preserve the 

evidence.  He has testified that the SHO and other officials reached at the 

spot within two­three  minutes after he reached the spot.   He does not 

remember at what time he reached the hospital and states that he left the 

spot immediately after reaching of the SHO and other police official at the 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 70 of 128
 spot.  According to the witness, he went to the hospital on his motorcycle 

along with Ct. Randhir and the distance between the place of incident and 

the DDU Hospital is about six to seven kilometers.  Witness has admitted 

that there is no red light between metro Pillar no.763 and 764 and that no 

traffic   police   official   was   deputed   in   order   to   control   or   maintain   the 

traffic and the public persons are free to divert their traffic in any side of 

the road without any restriction and states that he is not aware whether 

because of this reason the situation of traffic jam arises during the peak 

hours.   The witness has admitted that the place of incident is a thickly 

populated area where the shops and residential area is situated.  He is also 

not   aware   whether   any   Jain   Kulche   Wala   had   parked   his   rehri 

permanently near the place of the incident and states that he never came to 

know   about   any   person   who   made   to   call   on   100   number   during   his 

period in which he joined the investigations.  He has testified that Raj Pal 

met him in the hospital after five minutes of his reaching in the hospital 

and the PCR Van Incharge and Ct. Dinesh met him in the hospital prior to 

meeting with Raj Pal.  According to the witness, he record the statement 

of   Raj   Pal   after   two   or   two   and   a   half  hours   after   making   detailed 

interrogation from him after reaching the hospital which statement of Raj 

Pal was recorded in the office of the Duty Constable.  According to the 

witness, he recorded the statement of Raj Pal after talking with the higher 

officials but no senior police officer came to the hospital.   Witness has 

further informed that the rukka was handed over to Ct. Randhir and sent 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 71 of 128
 him to the police station for registration of FIR but he is not aware how 

Ct. Randhir had gone to police station with rukka but he had not given his 

motorcycle   to   him.     He   has   testified   that   at   the   time   of   recording   of 

statement of Raj Pal, some other family members of his family were also 

present but he did not record their statements.  Witness has also deposed 

that he came to the spot on his motorcycle and Rajpal was his pillion rider 

and   he   had   not   seen   any   family   member   of   Raj   Pal   at   the   place   of 

occurrence.   He does not recollect at what time he reached the place of 

occurrence again.  He has stated that the crime team was already present 

at the spot and photographer was taking photographs.  He is unable to tell 

even approximately the time of any of the proceedings conducted by him 

in his presence in this case.  According to the witness, Rajpal made a call 

to someone from his mobile to bring his clothes and the blood of deceased 

was lying at the spot.  He has admitted that Raj Pal had not accompanied 

the PCR to the hospital.(69)             A   specific   suggestion   was   put   to   this   witness   by   the   Ld. 

Defence Counsel that Raj Pal had not accompanied the PCR because he 

was   not   present   at   the   spot   at   the   time   of   occurrence,  on   which   the 

witness replied that he was not aware.(70)             SI   Randhir   Singh   (PW21)   has   further   deposed   that   the 

photographs of the motorcycle were not taken by the photographer in his 

presence and during his interrogation Raj Pal told him that he had gone to 

his relative's house after putting the dead body of his son in the PCR Van. 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 72 of 128
 According to him, he had not mentioned the fact that Raj Pal had gone to 

his   relative's   place,   in   the   statement   of   Raj   Pal.     He   has   denied   the 

suggestion that no statement of Raj Pal was recorded in the hospital or 

that no rukka was handed over to Ct. Randhir.  Witness has further stated 

that he does not recollect the mobile number of Raj Pal.  He has denied 

the   suggestion   that   the   FIR   was   recorded   in   the   Police   Station   in   the 

evening hours and shown as ante­timed or that the clothes which were 

lying at house were called to the spot and the blood which was lying on 

the spot was put upon those clothes in order to create the false evidence of 

presence of Rajpal at the spot.(71)             PW30 ASI Harpal Singh  has deposed that on 14.09.2007 he 

was posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Head Constable and on that 

day he along with Insp. Rakesh Tyagi Investigating Officer of the case 

reached at Rohini Courts in Court No. 107 where accused Sanjeev Gahlot 

@ Sonu was produced who was arrested by Insp. Rakesh Tyagi with the 

permission of the court after his interrogations.  According to the witness, 

the   accused   Sanjeev   was   arrested   vide   memo  Ex.PW30/A  and   the 

disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.PW26/A.  He 

has testified that his five days Police Custody Remand was granted and on 

the   same   day   Investigating   Officer   conducted   the   raid   at   the   different 

places to arrest the other accused persons but they could not be arrested. 

The witness has also deposed that on 15.09.2007 he again joined in the 

investigations with the Investigating Officer Insp. Rakesh Tyagi and Ct. 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 73 of 128
 Rajan when accused Sanjeev Gahlot was taken out from the lock up and 

again interrogated by the Investigating Officer after which the accused 

Sanjeev   Gahlot   pointed   out   the   place   of   incident   vide  Ex.PW30/B. 

According to him, at the instance of accused Sanjeev Gahlot they reached 

at   Gali   No.17,   House  No.D­138, Dashrathpuri   and at   his  instance one 

motorcycle make Pulsor bearing No. DL­4SAJ­2697 from the house of 

his maternal uncle was recovered which motorcycle was seized by the 

Investigating Officer vide seizure memo  Ex.PW30/C  which motorcycle 

was sent to police station through Ct. Rajan.   The witness has further 

deposed that on 17.09.2007 he joined the investigations with investigating 

officer  Insp. Rakesh Tyagi and Ct. Rajan when the Investigating Officer 

again interrogated accused Sanjeev Gahlot and his disclosure statement 

was again recorded by Insp. Rakesh Tyagi which is Ex.PW30/D wherein 

the   accused   disclosed   that   the   weapon   of   offence   i.e.   a  country   made 

pistol   (katta)   and   his   mobile   phone   had   been   thrown   by   him   in   the 

Najafgarh  drain.   Witness  has testified that thereafter accused Sanjeev 

Gahlot pointed out the place of Najafgarh drain where he had thrown the 

above   said   articles   vide   pointing   out   memo   which   is  Ex.PW30/E. 

According to him, they searched the articles in the nala/ drain but nothing 

could be recovered from there and the investigating officer recorded their 

statements.  He has also deposed that on 25.09.2007 he again joined the 

investigations   with   Investigating   Officer     Insp.   Rakesh   Tyagi   and   Ct. 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 74 of 128
 Rajan   and   reached   Court   No.   107,   Rohini   Courts   where   two   accused 

Rajesh @ Raju and Sunny surrendered.  According to him, Investigating 

Officer interrogated them with the permission of the Court and thereafter 

arrested them.  He has proved the arrest memo of the accused Rajesh @ 

Raju   which   is  Ex.PW30/F;  his   personal   search   memo   which   is 

Ex.PW30/G; arrest memo of accused Sunny which is  Ex.PW30/H  and 

his personal search memo which is  Ex.PW30/J.   The witness has also 

deposed that the Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement 

of   Rajesh   @   Raju   vide  Ex.PW30/K  and   the  disclosure   statement   of 

accused Sunny which is Ex.PW30/L after which four to five days Police 

Custody   Remand   of   both   the   accused   was   granted   by   the   Court. 

According to ASI Harpal during the Police Custody remand both accused 

pointed   out   the   place   of   incident   vide   pointing   out   memo   which   is 

Ex.PW30/M.   He has testified that tried to locate the  accused Vijay @ 

Kalu and a raid was conducted but he could not be arrested after which 

they returned back to the police station and Investigating officer recorded 

their statements.(72)             The  witness  has  further proved that  on 28.09.2007 he again 

joined the  investigations of  the present case with Investigating Officer 

Inps. Rakesh Tyagi and Ct. Rajan when both accused were taken out from 

the lock up and interrogated both the accused persons when they disclosed 

that the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol (katta) was with Vijay 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 75 of 128
 @ Kalu on which disclosure statement of accused Rajesh was recorded by 

the   investigating   officer   in   this   regard   which   is  Ex.PW30/N  and   the 

disclosure   statement   of   accused   Sunny   is  Ex.PW30/O.     He   has   also 

deposed that raid was conducted for arrest of accused Vijay @ Kalu but 

he could not be arrested.(73)             The   witness   has   correctly   identified   the   accused   Sanjeev, 

Rajesh   @   Raju   and   Sunny   in   the   Court   and   has   also   identified   the 

motorcycle bearing No. DL­4SAJ­2697 which is Ex.P­7.

(74)             In   his   cross   examination   by   the   Ld.   Defence   Counsels   the 

witness   has   deposed   that   the   disclosure   statement   of   accused   Sanjeev 

dated 14.09.2007 is in his handwriting and has voluntarily added that it 

was recorded on the dictation of the Investigating Officer.  According to 

him,   the   said   disclosure   statement  was  recorded in the court   premises 

which disclosure statement was shown to the Court by the investigating 

officer.     He has denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was 

recorded in the court or that the said disclosure statement was already 

written   in   the   police   station   and   they   simply   obtain   the   signatures   of 

accused Sanjeev on it in order to get his police remand. The witness has 

also deposed that the accused put his signatures as Sanjeev Sonu and that 

at the time of pointing out he along with the Investigating Officer, Ct. 

Rajan and the accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu had gone together in a 

private   car   belonging   to   the   Investigating   Officer   but   he   does   not 

remember its make. He has denied the suggestion that the pointing out 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 76 of 128
 memo was prepared in the Police Station and they had never visited to the 

place   of   occurrence   with   investigating   officer  or   that   accused   Sanjeev 

Gahlot did not led them to the place of occurrence.   According to the 

witness, as per the disclosure of the accused which he had made to the 

Investigating Officer there were two weapons i.e. one which was a katta 

used in the present incident which he had thrown in the drain and second 

pistol which he had used in the present incident which he had already got 

recovered   at   Lajpat   Nagar.     Witness   has   denied   the   suggestion   that 

accused Sanjeev Gahlot has nothing disclosed that he had thrown the katta 

and the mobile in the drain, nor pointed out the drain, nor led them to the 

drain.  According to him they had gone to the drain in the noon hours and 

returned back to the police station in the evening hours.  He has testified 

that on 15.09.2007 they went to the house of maternal uncle of accused at 

Dashrathpuri   in   order   to   recover   the   motorcycle   where   investigating 

officer made request to the near by residents to become the witness of the 

proceedings   but   none   agreed   and   did   not   disclose   their   names   and 

addresses.  However, the Investigating officer did not serve any notice to 

them for their refusal in his presence.   The witness has further deposed 

that the  motorcycle  was parked inside the house and maternal aunt of 

accused  Sanjeev   Gahlot   was present  there but  they did  not obtain her 

signatures on the seizure memo.  He has also deposed that they reached at 

Dashrathpuri in the private vehicle arranged by the Investigating Officer 

and Ct. Rajan drove the motorcycle to the police station but he does not 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 77 of 128
 remember whether the seizure memo of the key of the motorcycle was 

prepared or not. He has further deposed that the distance between police 

station and house of maternal uncle of Sanjeev is about four to five Kms. 

He   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   this   motorcycle   did   not   belongs   to 

Sanjeev  Gahlot  or  his  maternal  uncle and was already parked in their 

police station or that the above said motorcycle was found in an abandon 

condition   which   was   falsely   planted   on   the   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot. 

Witness has  deposed that he is not aware about the ownership of this 

motorcycle.     He   has   denied   the   suggestion   that   all   the   disclosure 

statements were recorded at their own and the Investigating Officer had 

obtained the signatures of the accused persons on blank papers.  Witness 

has further denied the suggestion that the formalities were conducted in 

the police station or that he  and Ct. Rajan had signed the papers prepared 

by   the   investigating   officer   in   a   casual   manner   at   the   instance   of   the 

investigating officer without participating in the investigations.  

(75)             PW31     Insp.   Rakesh   Kumar   Tyagi  is   the   Investigating 

Officer of the present case who has  deposed that on  29.08.2007 he was 

posted at Police Station Uttam Nagar as Additional SHO and on that day 

after receiving the information about a firing from the SHO and Duty 

Officer,   he   went   to   the   spot   i.e.   Metro   Pillar   No.764,   Uttam   Nagar, 

Najafgarh Road where he found blood and motorcycle was lying at the 

spot and came to know that the injured was taken to the hospital and SI 

Randhir  was already  conducting the proceedings.    Witness has further 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 78 of 128
 deposed that in the meanwhile Ct. Randhir reached the spot and handed 

over the copy of FIR of this case and original rukka to him for further 

investigations.   According to him, Crime Team officers already reached 

there and Crime Team Photographer took the photographs of the scene of 

crime and Crime Team Incharge gave crime team report to him.  He has 

further deposed that he lifted blood from the spot and kept the same in a 

plastic container and sealed the same with the seal of RK; he also lifted 

blood earth control concrete from the spot and kept the same in a plastic 

container and sealed the same with the seal of RK; he lifted earth control 

from the spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same 

with the seal of RK and also lifted one empty cartridge of 9 mm from the 

spot and kept the same in a plastic container and sealed the same with the 

seal of RK.   He has proved having seized the said articles vide seizure 

memo Ex.PW1/B and also seized the motorcycle found at the spot which 

is Ex.PW1/D.  According to the witness, one rexene bag having one hole 

was also found at the spot which was also taken into possession by him 

and the books and documents contained in the bag were kept in a cloth 

pullanda by him and sealed with the seal of RK and seized the same vide 

seizure memo Ex.PW1/C.  He has also deposed that Raj Pal complainant 

met him at the spot who produced one pant and one shirt having blood 

stains which were converted in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal 

of RK and seized the same vide memo  Ex.PW1/E.   According to the 

witness,   he  prepared   the   site  plan  at  the  instance  of   Raj  Pal  which  is 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 79 of 128
 Ex.PW1/F and recorded the statements of witnesses.  He has testified that 

he went to DDU hospital and found that the dead body of Jitender Kumar 

had   been   sent   to   mortuary   after  which  he returned  back  to  the  police 

station and deposited all the seized articles in the malkhana.  The witness 

has further deposed that on the next day on 30.08.2007 he went to DDU 

hospital along with SI Randhir and other staff and filled the inquest form 

which is Ex.PW31/A and prepared the brief facts which is Ex.PW31/B. 

According to the witness, he recorded the statement of Raj Pal and Sukh 

Lal which are Ex.PW/1/G and  Ex.PW2/A about the identification of the 

dead body.   He has proved having made a request for the postmortem 

which is Ex.PW31/C  handed over the dead body after postmortem to the 

relatives of Jitender Kumar vide  Ex.PW1/H.   According to the witness, 

after postmortem doctor handed over one polythene containing the clothes 

of the deceased and one small bottle containing the metal piece (bullet) 

and one envelope containing the blood gauze of the deceased in sealed 

condition with the seal of hospital along with two sample seals to him 

after   which   he   seized   the   said   articles   vide   memo  Ex.PW29/B  and 

returned back to the police station where he deposited these articles in the 

malkhana.   He has also proved having collected the postmortem report 

from   DDU  hospital.     The   witness   has   testified   that   on   12.09.2007   he 

received an information from the police station Lajpat Nagar about the 

arrest of accused Sanjeev Gahlot who was wanted in their case and on 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 80 of 128
 13.09.2007   he   moved   an   application   for   production   of   the   accused 

Sanjeev   Gahlot   before   the   concerned   Court.     He   has   deposed   that   on 

14.09.2007 he along with HC Harpal and one more Constable reached 

Rohini Courts in Court No.107 where accused Sanjeev Gahlot @ Sonu 

was produced and was arrested by him after taken permission from the 

Court.   According to him, after interrogating the accused, he (accused) 

was   arrested   vide   memo  Ex.PW30/A  and   recorded   his  disclosure 

statement vide Ex.PW26/A after which five days Police Custody remand 

was granted by the Court.  The witness has also deposed that on the same 

day he conducted the raid at different places to arrest the other accused 

persons but they could not be arrested.(76)             The   Investigating   Officer   has   further   deposed   that   on 

15.09.2007 he again interrogated accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the presence 

of HC Harpal and Ct. Rajan and after the accused was taken out from the 

lock up, he has pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW30/B, 

after which at the instance of accused Sanjeev Gahlot they reached Gali 

No.17,   House   No.   D­138,   Dashrathpuri   where   at   the   instance   of   the 

accused   one   motorcycle   make   Pulsor   bearing   No.   DL­4SAJ­2697   was 

recovered from the house of his maternal uncle which motorcycle was 

seized by  him  vide  seizure  memo  Ex.PW30/C  and was sent to police 

station   through   Ct.   Rajan.     Witness   has   further   deposed   that   on 

17.09.2007 he again interrogated accused Sanjeev Gahlot in the presence 

of  HC  Harpal   and   Ct.   Rajan after  which his disclosure statement  was 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 81 of 128
 again recorded which is Ex.PW30/D wherein the accused disclosed that 

the weapon of offence i.e. a country made pistol (katta) and his mobile 

phone had been thrown by him in the Najafgarh drain.  According to the 

witness, thereafter accused Sanjeev Gahlot pointed out the place of the 

Najafgarh drain where he had thrown the above said articles vide pointing 

out memo Ex.PW30/E and they searched the articles in the nala/ drain but 

nothing could be recovered from there and he recorded the statements of 

witnesses.(77)             The witness has testified that on 25.09.2007 he again reached 

Court No.107, Rohini Courts along with HC Harpal and Ct. Rajan since 

two accused Rajesh @ Raju and Sunny had surrendered before the court. 

According to the witness, he interrogated them with the permission of the 

Court and arrested the accused Rajesh @ Raju vide memo Ex.PW30/F; 

his   personal   search   was   conducted   vide   memo  Ex.PW30/G  and   also 

arrested   the   accused   Sunny   vide   arrest   memo  Ex.PW30/H  and   his 

personal search was also taken vide Ex.PW30/J.  He has further deposed 

that   he   recorded   disclosure   statements   of   Rajesh   @   Raju   which   is 

Ex.PW30/K and accused Sunny which is Ex.PW30/L.  The witness has 

further  deposed   that   four   days   Police   Custody  remand  was  granted  in 

respect   of   both   the   accused   persons   during   which   both   the   accused 

pointed   out   the   place   of   incident   vide   pointing   out   memo   which   is 

Ex.PW30/M after which they returned back to the police station and he 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 82 of 128
 recorded   the   statements   of   witnesses.     According   to   Inspector   Rakesh 

Tyagi on 28.09.2007 he again interrogated the accused persons Rajesh 

and   Sunny   in   the   presence   of   HC   Harpal   and   Ct.   Rajan   when   they 

disclosed that the weapon of offence i.e. country made pistol (katta) was 

with Vijay @ Kalu on which disclosure statement of accused Rajesh was 

recorded by him in this respect which is  Ex.PW30/N  and  also recorded 

the disclosure statement of accused Sunny which is Ex.PW30/O.  He has 

also deposed that raid was conducted for arrest of accused Vijay @ Kalu 

but   he   could   not   be   arrested.     He   has   proved   having   recorded   the 

statements of witnesses and thereafter all the accused persons were sent to 

judicial custody.(78)             The witness has further deposed that on 04.10.2007 he along 

with his staff including Ct. Rajender reached at Kakrola Village when at 

the instance  of  secret   informer one person namely Vijay @ Kalu was 

arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW27/B and conducted his personal 

search vide memo  Ex.PW27/C  and after interrogation he recorded his 

disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW27/A.   He has also deposed that 

the accused Vijay was kept in muffled case.   According to the witness, 

accused   Vijay   pointed   out   the place  of   incident  vide  Ex.PW27/D  and 

recorded the statements of witnesses.   He has further deposed that the 

accused Vijay also pointed out the Najafgarh drain where the weapon of 

offence  has been  thrown  along with mobile on which he prepared the 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 83 of 128
 pointing out memo vide memo  Ex.PW27/E.   The  witness has testified 

that on the next day he was produced before the Court and moved an 

application for his Test Identification Parade proceedings on 05.10.2007. 

He has also deposed that the accused were put in a muffled face when 

they   were   produced   on   05.10.2007   for   Test   Identification   Parade 

proceedings but the accused refused to take part in the proceedings and he 

recorded  the  statements  of  witnesses.     He has proved that during his 

investigations the exhibits of this case were sent to FSL and scaled site 

plan   was   got   prepared   from   the   Draftsman.     According   to   him,   he 

collected the documents of case FIR No.880/07 of Police Station Lajpat 

Nagar and took into possession the motorcycle No.DL­4SBB­0169 with 

key and helmet and deposited the same in their malkhana.  According to 

the   witness,   during   his   investigations   he   collected   photographs   and 

recorded the statements of witnesses.  He has proved that after completion 

of   investigations   he   submitted   the   charge   sheet   against   the   accused 

persons.(79)             With the permission of the Court, leading questions were put 

by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, wherein witness has deposed that the 

does not recollect how many site plans he had prepared. He has admitted 

that he had prepared a site plan on 15.09.2007 with regard to the premises 

No.   D­138,   Dashrathpuri   colony   from   where   the   motorcycle   was   got 

recovered   by   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot   which   site   plan   is  Ex.PW31/D. 

Witness has further admitted that on 17.09.2007 he prepared the site plan 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar          Page No. 84 of 128
 of the place Najafgarh drain at the instance of accused Sanjeev where he 

had thrown the country made pistol (katta) and mobile phone which site 

plan   is  Ex.PW31/E.   He  has also admitted that  on 29.08.2007 Raj  Pal 

handed over one shirt, one pant with one handkerchief blood stained of 

light blue color to him which were sealed by him in a cloth pullanda with 

a   seal   of   RK  and   thereafter   seized   the  same   vide   seizure   memo 

Ex.PW1/E. Witness has further deposed that on 31.10.2007 Ct. Rajan on 

his instructions had taken the nine sealed pullandas and four sample seals 

to   the   FSL   Rohini   and   deposited   the   same   there   for   purposes   of 

examination   and   after   his   return   from   FSL   Rohini   he   recorded   his 

statement.(80)             He has correctly identified accused Vijay, Sanjeev, Rajesh @ 

Raju and Sunny in the Court and also identified the case property i.e. one 

bag which is Ex.P1; one shirt, one pant and one handkerchief which are 

Ex.P2  to  Ex.P4  collectively; one empty cartridge case which is  Ex.P5; 

one motorcycle bearing No. DL­9SM­2926 which is  Ex.P6; motorcycle 

bearing No. DL­4SAJ­2697 which is Ex.P7.(81)             In   his   cross   examination   by   the   Ld.   Defence   counsels,   the 

witness   has   deposed   that   he   reached   the   spot   at   about   10:30   AM 

approximately where he met the SHO with his staff.  Witness has further 

deposed   that   the   contents   of   the   call   which   was   given   to   him   were 

"motorcycle par ladke goli chala kar bhag gaye".  He has admitted that in 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 85 of 128
 the   call   the   number   of   the   motorcycle   was   not   mentioned   and   it   was 

reported that "do ladke motorcycle number na malom goli mar kar bhag  

gaye hai".  Witness has deposed that he had collected the PCR form and 

he is aware of its contents.  According to him, the Crime Team remained 

at the spot for about 1½ to 2 hours in his presence.  He has admitted that 

the Crime Team left the spot at about 12 noon and has deposed that by 

that time the Crime Team gave the report before leaving, he had also 

received the copy of the FIR after its registration.  He has admitted that he 

had   read   the   FIR   and   also   came   to   know   who   was   the   complainant. 

Witness has denied the suggestion  that on his directions the  rojnamcha 

was stopped and he had obtained the specific number of the FIR without 

formally getting the same registered and therefore he is not aware who 

was the complainant.  He has also denied the suggestion that by the time 

the   Crime   Team   could   not   decide   as   to   who   would   become   the 

complainant in the FIR because there was no eye witness.   Witness has 

further deposed that he had specifically mentioned the spot where the eye 

witness   was   standing   and   witnessing   the   incident   in   the   site   plan 

Ex.PW1/F however, when confronted with Ex.PW1/F the said fact was 

not   mentioned   and   has  voluntarily  explained  that  the  eye  witness   was 

standing   along   with   the   deceased   and   therefore   there   was   no   point   in 

separately showing the said spot because the spot where the deceased had 

been shot has been specifically shown.   He has admitted that the place 

where the bike was found lying is on the left side of the road.  According 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 86 of 128
 to him, the bike had fallen down on its left side.   The witness has also 

admitted   that   there   are   a   large   number   of   shops   and   also   temporary 

structures where thelas of kulcha bhathura etc. were present.  Witness has 

admitted that in between pillar No.763 and 764 there are no traffic lights 

and has voluntarily added that there is a cut on the central verge.  He has 

admitted   that   the   cut   on   the   central   verge   is   frequently   used   by   the 

residents of the area to go one side to the other.   According to him, the 

statement of Ct. Randhir and SI Randhir were recorded at 2­2:30 PM on 

29.08.2007 and thereafter he left the spot for the hospital.   Witness has 

further deposed that he does not recollect the date but states that he had 

recorded the statement of Gagan about 15­20 days later when Gagan had 

told him that he was the eye witness and had seen the incident while he 

was passing through the road.   Witness has denied the suggestion that 

Gagan had told him that one boy was going on the motorcycle whereas 

two boys had come on another motorcycle wearing helmets and had run 

away after firing shots at him.  According to the witness the seal after use 

was given to SI Randhir which fact he has not  mentioned in any of the 

seizure memos and has voluntarily added that he must have mentioned it 

in the Jiminies/case diaries.   He has testified that the fact regarding the 

accused Vijay being kept in muffled face on 04.10.2007 finds a mention 

in the DD entries of the arrest.  He has admitted that the same is not a part 

of the judicial record.  He has also deposed that two weapons were used in 

the present incident, one is desi katta and the second is pistol.  According 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 87 of 128
 to him, Raj Pal did not tell him if two weapons were used in the offence. 

Witness has denied the suggestion that Raj Pal is a planted witness only to 

work out the present case.   He has deposed that he had used his private 

vehicle Estelo and official TATA 407 at the time of the arrest of Sanjeev 

Gahlot and for taking him to various places.  He has further deposed that 

at the time of other investigations official gypsy was also used and when 

they had gone to the house of Abhimanyu they had gone on a private 

vehicle but he is unable to tell its details and has voluntarily added that it 

was perhaps belonging to other staff.  The witness has also deposed that 

he did not seize the key of the motorcycle recovered from the house of 

Abhimanyu because the key was not recovered.(82)             The Investigating Officer has also deposed that he had made 

inquiries from Raj Pal, the father of the deceased as to where he had gone 

after the incident when his son was lying injured on the road, on which 

Raj Pal told him that he had got scared and gone away from the spot of 

the incident.  According to the witness, Raj Pal met him at the spot first 

time between 1 and 2 PM and remained with him for about three to four 

hours thereafter.   Witness has further deposed that Raj Pal complainant 

was accompanied by SI Randhir when he met him and remained with him 

and no other public person was accompanied Raj Pal.  According to the 

witness   the   wife   of   Abhimanyu   met   them   at   the   time   of   recovery   of 

motorcycle  Ex.P7.    He  has testified that  he had not  asked any public 

persons or neighbours to join the investigations at the time of recovery of 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 88 of 128
 motorcycle and the signatures of the wife of Abhimanu were not taken on 

record.  He has denied the suggestion that no motorcycle was recovered 

from the house of Abhimanu or that the said motorcycle was already in 

the custody of police station Uttam Nagar as it was found in an abandoned 

condition.  Witness has further denied the suggestion that this vehicle was 

deliberately planted upon the accused Sanjeev Gahlot and falsely shown 

as the vehicle which was used in the offence.   He is not aware if the 

motorcycle Ex.P7 was in working condition or not and states that the key 

of the motorcycle was not found.   The witness has further deposed that 

some of the disclosure statements and other papers are in his handwriting 

and some are in the handwriting of HC Harpal on his dictation and except 

the disclosure statements which were recorded at the time of arrest in the 

Court were recorded in the court whereas the other disclosure statements 

were  recorded   in   the  police station.    According to  him, the document 

Ex.PW27/C  bear his signatures.   He has denied the suggestion that the 

FIR is an anti­timed and it was recorded at about 5 PM on 29.08.2007. 

He  has   also   denied   the   suggestion   that   he  had   been   won  over   by  the 

complainant Raj Pal and hence he had decided to kill Sanjeev Gahlot by 

way of fake encounter in place of his arrest due to which reason accused 

Sanjeev Gahlot had surrendered in police station Lajpat Nagar.  Witness 

has   further   denied   the   suggestion   that   an   altercation   had   taken   place 

between SHO Lajpat Nagar and himself and because of the reason since 

he  had   asked   him  not   to   show the arrest  of accused and handed over 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 89 of 128
 accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot   to   him,   thereafter   the   matter   was   patch   up 

between them on the pretext that SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar would 

plant a pistol upon Sanjeev Gahlot which was provided by him.  He has 

also denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the case in a fair 

manner or that the clothes of Raj Pal were deliberately planted in this case 

in   order   to   connect   the   fact   with   the   case   that   he   had   witnessed   the 

incident or that the blood was later on poured upon the clothes of Raj Pal 

and thereafter it was sealed.(83)             He has testified that during the investigations of this case Raj 

Pal   remained   in   touch   with   him   thoroughly   and   kept   on   asking   the 

progress of the investigations on phone or even personally coming to the 

police station and has voluntarily explained that Raj Pal also remained in 

constant   touch   with   the  SHO  during  the  investigations  of  this   case   to 

know about the progress of this case but they did not let him know about 

any of the development of the case during the investigations and after 

arrest   of  each   accused   in   this case Raj  Pal  was duly informed in  this 

regard only on his asking.   Witness has further deposed that the secret 

informer   had   not   disclosed   about   the   name,   parentage   and   address   of 

accused Vijay and simply told them that he could get the wanted person 

of  their  case  arrested.     According  to him  secret  information  had been 

given to him by the informer and he was not aware if even previously this 

informer had been providing information to the police.   He has testified 

that  the  secret   informer  met him at about  3 PM on 04.10.2007 in the 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                  Page No. 90 of 128
 police station.  The witness has also deposed that the accused Vijay was 

arrested from the Kakrola Najafgarh Road and they did not ask any public 

person, passerby or the resident of near by area to join the investigations 

with regard to the arrest of accused Vijay.  He has admitted that prior to 

the arrest of the accused Vijay he had visited the place of occurrence as 

well   as   Najafgarh   drain   and   both   the   places   were   in   his   knowledge. 

According to the witness, no site plan was prepared at the Najafgarh drain 

on the pointing out of accused Vijay and he (accused Vijay) was arrested 

at about 8 PM on 04.10.2007 and was put in lock­up on the same day 

between 9­10 PM.  He has testified that he confirmed that the accused was 

Vijay   because   during   interrogation   he   disclosed   his   own   name,   his 

parentage and his address which fact was got confirmed by him from his 

elder   brother   at   his   residence.     He   has   denied   the   suggestion  that  no 

evidence has been collected by him to show that the accused Vijay is the 

same person who is involved in the killing of the deceased on the day of 

the incident.  Witness has also deposed that he had given the information 

of Vijay to his family members including his brother and when the family 

member   of   the   accused   Vijay   called,   after   seeing   accused   Vijay   they 

identified   him   that   he   is   Vijay   Gahlot   @  Kallu.    Witness   has   further 

deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Vijay at the 

spot   where   he   was   arrested   and   it   took  about   one  and   a   half   hour  to 

complete all writing work.  He has has admitted that Vijay and Raj Pal is 

of the same village but Raj Pal was residing in the village and also at 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                Page No. 91 of 128
 Janakpuri and has voluntarily added that at the time of incident Raj Pal 

was residing in the village Kakrola.   According to the witness, he had 

seen the house of accused Vijay in village Kakrola and had also seen the 

house  of  Raj   Pal   situated   in the village Kakrola.   Witness  has further 

deposed that the distance between the house of Vijay and Raj Pal in the 

village Kakrola is about one kilometer.  He has denied the suggestion that 

after arrest of accused Vijay Raj Pal was called in the police station or 

that   accused   Vijay   was   shown   to   Raj   Pal.     He   has   also   denied   the 

suggestion  that  accused Vijay was not produced in muffled face before 

the   court   on   05.10.2007   or  that  accused   Vijay   had   not   made   any 

disclosure statement or that same has been fabricated.  


STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/ DEFENCE EVIDENCE:(84)             After completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of the 

accused   persons   were   recorded   underSection   313Code   of   Criminal 

Procedure wherein all incriminating evidence was put to them, which they 

have denied.  The accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu has stated that he is 

innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.  According to him, 

he was not present at the scene of crime at the time of incident and had 

himself surrendered in the Police Station Lajpat Nagar in order to save his 

life because the Investigating Officer wanted to kill him by way of a fake 

encounter having colluded with Raj Pal, father of the deceased. He has 

further stated that no weapon was recovered from his possession or at his 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 92 of 128
 instance   and   police   had   obtained   his   signatures   on   blank   papers.   The 

accused has also stated that the investigations done by the Investigating 

Officer   are   not   fair.     According   to   the   accused,   Raj   Pal   (PW1)   is   an 

interested   witness  and   deposed falsely in order to take revenge of  the 

death of his son.  He has stated that the deceased Jitender had committed 

the murder of his brother and was facing trial which matter was amicably 

settled between the parties resulting into an acquittal.  

(85)             The accused Sunny has stated that he is innocent and has been 

falsely implicated in this case and he was not even present at the scene of 

crime   at   the   time   of   incident.     According   to   the   accused,   he   himself 

surrendered   in   the   court   as   he   came   to  know  that   his  name   has   been 

falsely shown in the FIR.   He has alleged that police had obtained his 

signatures on blank papers and had not led the police party to any place of 

occurrence   nor   any   pointing   out   memo   was   prepared   at   his   instance.According   to   the   accused,   the   investigation   done   by   the   Investigating 

Officer is not fair and the entire proceedings pertains to investigation was 

done by the Investigating Officer was to prove the false case against him. 

(86)             The accused Vijay Gehlot @ Kalu has similarly stated that he 

is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case since he was not 

present at the scene of crime at the time of incident.   According to the 

accused he himself appeared in the police station when he was called as 

the police was harassing his family on the pretext that he was wanted in 

this case was thereafter falsely arrested in this case.  He has further stated 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 93 of 128
 that Rajpal was known to him previously despite which his name was not 

mentioned in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated at a later stage in 

order to connect him with the crime as an after thought.  He has alleged 

that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and he had not 

led the police party to any place of occurrence nor any pointing out memo 

was  prepared   at   his  instance.   The accused  has  further  stated that  the 

investigations done by the IO is not fair.   According to the accused, he 

refused the Test Identification Proceedings because the witnesses were 

known to him previously and since his photographs were taken and was 

shown to the witnesses in the police station.(87)             The  accused  Rajesh  @ Raju  has  similarly stated  that   he is 

innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.   According to the 

accused   he   was   not   present   at   the   scene   of   crime   at   the   time   of   the 

incident and he himself surrendered in the court as he came to know that 

his name has been falsely shown in the FIR.  He has alleged that police 

had obtained his signatures on blank papers and has stated that he had not 

led the police party to any place of occurrence nor any pointing out memo 

was  prepared   at   his  instance.   The accused  has  further  stated that  the 

investigations done by the IO is not fair and falsely implicated him in the 

above said case.(88)               However,   the   accused   have   preferred   not   to   examine   any 

witness in their defence.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                   Page No. 94 of 128
 FINDINGS:(89)             I   have  heard   the   arguments  advanced  before  me  by  the Ld. 

Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsels.   I have also gone 

through the written synopsis/ memorandum of arguments filed on behalf 

of the parties and the evidence on record.  First, I propose to deal with all 

the allegations/ averments made by the various witnesses individually in a 

tabulated form as under and later on comprehensively.Sr.          Name of the                                      Details of deposition
  No.              witness
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
1.        Raj Pal (PW1)                 He is the father of the deceased Jitender Kumar and is  
                                        an alleged eye witness who has deposed as under:1. That he is residing at village and post office Kakrola  
                                            along   with   his   family,   comprising   of   two   sons  
                                            namely Jitender Kumar, aged about 22 years (on the  
                                            date of incident) and Hemender Kumar, aged about  
                                            22 years.2. That   his   elder   son   namely   Jitender   Kumar   was  
                                            student of M.Sc (Criminology) Final Year at LNJP  
                                            Institute,  Rohini,   Delhi,  and  used  to   leave   for   his  
                                            institute   at   around   9:00   AM   on   his   motorcycle  
                                            bearing number DL­9SM­2926.3. That   on   29.08.2007   when   his   son   Jitender   was  
                                            leaving the house at around 9:00 AM to go to his  
                                            institute   in   Rohini,   he   (witness)   asked   Jitender   to  
                                            drop  him   at  Vikas   Puri  where  he   had  to  go  to  a  
                                            doctor.4. That he sat on the back seat of the motorcycle and  
                                            they moved from their above house and at around  
                                            9:30   AM   when   they   reached   near   Rama   Park,  
                                            Najafgarh   Road,   Uttam   Nagar,   near   Metro   Pillar  
                                            No. 764, two motorcycles upon which four persons  
                                            were   riding,   overtook   them   and   stopped   their  

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                 Page No. 95 of 128
                                             motorcycle.5. That one motorcycle was being driven by Raju S/o  
                                            Shri Gian Singh and accused Sanjeev @ Sonu was  
                                            sitting on the back seat of the said motorcycle.6. That   the   other   motorcycle   was   being   driven   by  
                                            accused Sunny S/o Shri Balwan and on the backseat  
                                            of this motorcycle one boy was sitting.7. That at that moment, accused Raju and Sunny told  
                                            accused   Sanjeev   to   take   revenge   of   the   death   of  
                                            Sanjeev's brother, then at that time accused Sanjeev  
                                            took out a pistol on which he (witness) jumped from  
                                            the motorcycle and raised an alarm.8. That   in   the   meanwhile   the   boy   who   was   sitting  
                                            behind   Sunny,   told   Sanjeev   to   kill   Jitender   and  
                                            accused Sanjeev @ Sonu fired upon his son Jitender  
                                            on which his son Jitender fell down bleeding and all  
                                            the   above   four   accused   took   U­turn   on   their  
                                            motorcycle   and   ran   away   towards   Kakrola   mor   /  
                                            village.9. That after a little while a PCR Van came there and  
                                            he lifted the body of his son and put it in PCR van  
                                            and PCR van took the body of his son Jitender to  
                                            DDU hospital, after which he informed at his house  
                                            and followed them  to DDU hospital where doctor  
                                            declared his son Jitender as brought dead.10. That police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A.11. That in the year 2005, a quarrel took place between  
                                            his son Jitender and the accused persons and in that  
                                            quarrel   Anil,   brother   of   Sanjeev   (accused   herein)  
                                            had died.12. That in the said quarrel Anil, Sanjeev, Balwan and  
                                            Raju participated against his son Jitender and since  
                                            that   day,   these   persons   were   having   a   grudge  
                                            against his son Jitender.13. That   two   months   prior   to   the   murder   of   his   son  
                                            Jitender, the accused persons had gave a threat that  
                                            they would take the revenge of death by death and  
                                            due to this grudge they had killed his son Jitender.  



St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                Page No. 96 of 12814. That SI Randhir Singh came to the spot where SHO  
                                            with staff were present, and in his presence the spot  
                                            was got photographed by the police.15. That the Investigating Officer lifted blood with the  
                                            help   of   cotton,   placed   it   in   a   plastic   dibbi   and  
                                            converted it in a pullanda which were sealed with  
                                            the seal of RK.16. That   Investigating   Officer   also   lifted   the   blood  
                                            stained earth (concrete) and placed it in a plastic  
                                            dibbi, which was then converted into a pullanda and  
                                            the seal of RK was affixed on it.17. That   the   investigating   officer   also   lifted   earth  
                                            control, placed it in a plastic dibbi and converted it  
                                            into a pullanda and sealed it with the same seal.18. That   investigating   officer   also   lifted   one   fired  
                                            (empty) cartridge case, placed it in a plastic dibbi,  
                                            converted   it   in   a   pullanda   and   sealed   it   with   the  
                                            same seal and all the above items were taken into  
                                            possession by the police vide memo Ex.PW1/B.19. That investigating officer had also seized one bag of  
                                            his son, from the spot, that there had blood stains  
                                            and word Diesel was written on that bag.20. That the bag contained some books and library card  
                                            etc and a whole of a bullet was also there on that  
                                            bag.21. That   the   investigating   officer   had   placed   the   said  
                                            bag   in   a   polythene   and   then   converted   it   in   a  
                                            pullanda which was sealed with the seal of RK and  
                                            it was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/C.22. That   the   investigating   officer   also   seized   the  
                                            motorcycle   of   his   son,   from   the   spot,   which   was  
                                            stationed on the side of the road and it was seized  
                                            vide memo Ex.PW1/D.23. That   the   investigating   officer   has   taken   his   blood  
                                            stained clothes and those clothes had blood stains  
                                            belonging to his son Jitender.24. That the investigating officer seized the said clothes  
                                            consisting   of   one   pant,   one   shirt   and   one  
                                            handkerchief by converting it in a pullanda, which  

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                  Page No. 97 of 128
                                             were   sealed   with   the   seal   of   RK   and   seized   vide  
                                            memo Ex.PW1/E.25. That at his instance police prepared site plan of the  
                                            spot which is Ex.PW1/F.26. That   on   10.10.2007   he   was   called   in   Rohini   Jail  
                                            through police station Uttam Nagar to identify the  
                                            fourth   accused,   who   on   the   date   of   incident   was  
                                            sitting on the back seat of a motorcycle driven by  
                                            accused Sunny, then he went to Rohini jail where a  
                                            magistrate was available in Rohini Jail.27. That he was told that the accused for whose TIP he  
                                            had came, has refused to participate in the TIP.28. That on 20.11.2007 he was called in police station  
                                            Uttam   Nagar,   from   there   along   with   SI   Mahesh  
                                            Kumar, came to the spot where on his pointing out  
                                            SI Mahesh Kumar prepared a rough plan.29. That on 30.11.2007 he was called by the police to  
                                            Rohini   Court,   Room   No.   107,   Court   was   of   Sh.Vinod   Kumar,   MM   when   he   had   seen   these   four  
                                            accused persons in police custody.30. That   he   identified   fourth   accused   namely  Vijay  
                                            Kumar @ Kalu as the person who was sitting as a  
                                            pillion rider on the motorcycle of accused Sunny on  
                                            the date of incident.31. That on the date of incident this  Vijay Kumar  had  
                                            uttered a words "Jaldi Kar maar Saale Ko".2.        Sukhlal (PW2)                 He is the uncle of the deceased who has deposed that on  
                                        30.08.2007   he   went   to   DDU   hospital   where   he  
                                        identified the dead body of his nephew Jitender aged 22  
                                        years vide his statement Ex.PW2/A.3.        Sant Ram (PW10)               This witness has deposed as under:1. That he was having a motorcycle on hire purchase  
                                            basis,   it   was   pulsar   of   violet   color   bearing  
                                            registration No. DL­4SA­2697.2. That the motorcycle was sold to him by Abhimanyu  
                                            @   Mannu  and   this   motorcycle   was   sold   to   his  
                                            known person Ram Pal.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                 Page No. 98 of 1283.  That the accused Sanjeev Gahlot was the mama of  
                                            Abhimanyu @ Mannu.Despite the Ld. Addl. PP being permitted to put leading  
                                        question,   the   witness   has   failed   to   identify   accused  
                                        Sanjeev Gahlot.4.        Gagan Kumar                   He is an independent witness and has  deposed on the  
          (PW14)                        following aspects:1. That on 29.08.2007 he was coming from Najafgarh  
                                             and at about 9:15 or  9:30 AM  when he reached  
                                             near   pillar   No.764,   he   heard   a   noise   and  
                                             immediately   saw   that  one   boy   was   riding  
                                             motorcycle   and   two   boys   were   on   another  
                                             motorcycle   who   (two   boys)   fired   bullets   on   that  
                                             single boy on the motorcycle.2. That he ran away from the spot immediately and  
                                             after   some   distance   about   500   meter   he   stopped  
                                             after   which   first   he   drank   water   and   thereafter  
                                             made   a   call   to   police   at   100   number   from   his  
                                             mobile phone 9910474409.3. That he did not note down the registration number  
                                             of their  motorcycle  nor  did he see their  faces  as  
                                             their faces were covered with helmets.5.        Naresh Kumar                  This witness has deposed on the following aspects:(PW19)                        1. That he is a property dealer by profession and is  
                                            the   owner   of   motorcycle   TVS   Star   No.   DL­4S­
                                            BB­0169   which   motorcycle   he   had   purchased  
                                            through a Financer.2. That   he   used   to   attend   Gold   Gym   at   Mansaram  
                                            Park,   near   Uttam   Nagar   daily   at   7:30   AM   and  
                                            somebody had stolen his motorcycle from the Gym  
                                            on 27/28 in the month of Raksha Bandhan, 2007.3. That after two days of Raksha Bandhan, he lodged  
                                            FIR with police station, PP Matiala and after 15­20  
                                            days,   SHO,   Uttam   Nagar   informed   him   that   his  
                                            motorcycle had been recovered from the possession  
                                            of the accused Sanjeev Gahlot.4. That he was not known to accused Sanjeev Gahlot  
                                            and   it   was   only   when   he   was   called   at   police  

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                               Page No. 99 of 128
                                              station,   Uttam   Nagar   that   he   came   to   know   of  
                                             accused Sanjeev Gahlot as belonged to his village.5. That  the   SHO  had  also  inquired   from  him  if  the  
                                             accused Sanjeev borrowed his motorcycle.6. That he had informed the police regarding theft of  
                                             the motorcycle at about 7:00 AM which information  
                                             was   furnished   by   him   at   police   post   Matiala  
                                             Chowki.7. That after one and half month his motorcycle was  
                                             recovered by the police on which he along with his  
                                             brother Satya Narain went to police station Uttam  
                                             Nagar and identified his bike before the police.8. That   he   prepared   an   application   but   he   was   not  
                                             confirmed   as   to   whom   he   had   handed   over   the  
                                             application.9. That thereafter he got released his bike from police  
                                             station Uttam Nagar and also moved an application  
                                             before the court and got released the motorcycle on  
                                             Superdari.The   witness   has   placed   on   record   the   RC   of   the  
                                        motorcycle   (the   particulars   of   the   vehicle,   ownership  
                                        and   number   are   not   properly   visible)   which   is   mark  
                                        PW19/1  and   has   also   produced   photocopy   of   the  
                                        complaint  dated   29.08.2007   which   is   mark  PW19/2;pollution certificate and insurance photocopy of which  
                                        are Ex.PW19/3 and Ex.PW19/4.MEDICAL EVIDENCE6.        Dr. Nishu Dhawan   This witness has proved the MLC of Jitender  Kumar,  
          (PW3)              S/o Rajpal, aged 21 years, male who was brought in the  
                             casualty   on   23.08.2007   at   10:15   AM   by   HC   Deepak  
                             Kumar with alleged history of gun shot which MLC is  
                             Ex.PW3/C.  According to the said MLC the patient was  
                             unconscious,   BP   unrecordable,   having  four   gun   shot  
                             wound   seen   in   front   of   chest   and   four   wound   seen  
                             over   back   of   the   chest  and  the   patient   was   declared  
                             brought dead and referred to Mortuary.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 100 of 1287.        Dr. Komal Singh               This   witness  has   proved   that   on   30.08.2007,   he  
          (PW11)                        conducted   the   postmortem   on   the   body   of   deceased  
                                        Jitender   Kumar   vide   postmortem   report  Ex.PW11/A.  
                                        This witness has deposed on the following aspects:1. That   the   person   was   wearing   full   sleeve   yellow  
                                             check shirt, its lower four button were broken and  
                                             the fourth eye of the button on the shirt was torn.2. That an oval shape tear was present on the right  
                                             side of the shirt and shirt was blood stained, there  
                                             were two big and two small tears were present on  
                                             the back of the shirt.3. That white color vest was having two tears in its  
                                             front, which correspondents to the tear on the shirt  
                                             and   belt   was   tied   around   the   jeans,   one  
                                             handkerchief was tied loosely around the neck and  
                                             it was blood stained.4. That   on   external   examination,   the   following  
                                             injuries were found :­a)    Gun shot entry wound measuring 1x0.5cm  
                                                     located   at   right   fifth   intercoastal   space,  
                                                     which was 3.5 cm from the right nipple, it  
                                                     was   oval   in   shape   and   margins   were  
                                                     inverted.b)    2cm to the lateral to No.1 gun shot entry,  
                                                     there was another entry wound of 1.5x1 cm,  
                                                     it   was   oval   in   shape   and   margins   were  
                                                     inverted, there was 2mm thickness abraded  
                                                     collar was encircling the wound.c)    Gun shot entry wound 1.5x1.2 cm, oval in  
                                                     shape having  2mm  abraded collar  around  
                                                     and it was placed on 15.2cm from the right  
                                                     nipple and 4.5cm below the xiphisternum.d)    Gun shot  entry  wound 1x1  cm   having  the  
                                                     inverted   margins,   2mm   abraded   collar,   it  
                                                     was placed above 4.5cm and lateral to the  
                                                     left nipple margins.e)    On   back,   gun   shot   exit   wound   placed  
                                                     15.5cm   below   the   inferior   angle   of   the  
                                                     scapula, it was oval in shape and size was  

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 101 of 128
                                                      3x1.5cm and margins were averted.f)     Gun shot exit would 1.5x1 cm placed 12cm  
                                                     from the left inferior angle of the scapula,  
                                                     margins were averted.g)     Gun   shot   entry   wound   1x0.9cm   and   3cm  
                                                     from   No.   6   injury,   its   margins   were  
                                                     inverted.h)     Gun shot exit wound 4x3cm, margins were  
                                                     averted, placed 5.5cm from the No. 7 injury.i)     Gun   shot   exit   would   2.5x2   cm,   margins  
                                                     were   averted,   lying   12.5cm   below   the   left  
                                                     shoulder.5. That on internal examination, it was found that on  
                                            the seventh intercoastal space, one metal piece of  
                                            the   bullet   was   found   over   the   surface   of   the  
                                            sternum.6. That   there   were   bullet   entry   and   exit   margins  
                                            corresponding to the entry and exit wounds.7. That there were two holes on the anterior surface  
                                            of the heart, two holes on the posterior surface of  
                                            the heart, one hole on the lobe of the left lung and  
                                            one hole on the right side of the liver.8. That all the body organs  were pale,  the stomach  
                                            was empty.9. That  blood   in   a   gauze   piece,   piece   of   a   bullet,  
                                            clothes   of   the   deceased   were   sealed   and   handed  
                                            over to the investigating officer.10. That time since death was approximately 26 hours  
                                            and the  cause of death was due to multiple gun  
                                            shot injuries to the vital organs of the body and all  
                                            the   injuries   are   sufficient   to   cause   death   in  
                                            ordinary course of nature individually as well as  
                                            together,  all   the   injuries   were   antemortem   and  
                                            were of same duration.FORENSIC EVIDENCE8.        Sh. V.R. Anand                This witness has deposed on the following aspects:(PW7)                         1. That   on   31.10.2007   two   sealed   parcels   were  


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                              Page No. 102 of 128
                                               received in the office of FSL of its examination and  
                                              the   seals   were   intact   as   per   specimen   seals   and  
                                              forwarding letter.2.    That on opening of both the parcels, parcel No. 1  
                                              was   containing   one   deformed   bullet   marked   as  
                                              Ex.EB1  and in Parcel No. 2, one 9mm cartridge  
                                              case marked as Ex.EC1.3.    That he examined both the exhibits  and prepared  
                                              his detailed report which is Ex.PW7/A.4.    That   the   9   mm   cartridge   marked   Ex.EC1   was   a  
                                              fired empty cartridge and the bullet marked Ex.EB1  
                                              corresponds to the bullet of 8mm/.315 cartridge.5.    That   the   individual   characteristics   of   firing   pin  
                                              marks and breech face marks present on EC1 and  
                                              on test fired cartridges TC1 to TC3 in case FIR No.  
                                              880/07,   police   station   Lajpat   Nagar,   FSL   No.  
                                              07/F3971   were   compared   under   comparison  
                                              microscope   and  were   not  found  identical,   hence  
                                              EC1   has   not  been   fired   through   the   improvised  
                                              pistol 9mm marked Ex.F1 in case FIR No. 880/07,  
                                              police station Lajpat Nagar (FSL No. 07/F­3971).9.        Ms. Shashi Bala               This witness has proved the  biological and serological  
          (PW8)                         reports of the exhibits which reports are Ex.PW8/A and  
                                        Ex.PW18/B  according   to   which   human   blood   of   O  
                                        Group was found on Ex.8a (shirt of Raj Pal); human  
                                        blood was found on Ex.1a (banian of the deceased), Ex.
                                        5   (blood   stained   charcoal   pieces)   and   Ex.8c  
                                        (handkerchief of Raj Pal) whereas Ex.1b (handkerchief  
                                        of the deceased), Ex.1c (shirt of the deceased), Ex.1d  
                                        (jeans pants of the deceased), Ex.1e (underwear of the  
                                        deceased)   and   Ex.7   (rexine   bag)   show   inconclusive  
                                        results.POLICE/ OFFICIAL WITNESSES (Proving investigations)10.       Ct. Dalbir Singh              She   is   the   Duty   Officer   who   has   proved  that   on  
          (PW7)                         29.08.2007 a call received at 9:45 AM from SI Randhir,  
                                        which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 20A, copy  
                                        of which is  Ex.PW4/A.   Thereafter at about 1:15 PM,  


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                Page No. 103 of 128
                                         rukka was sent by SI Randhir through Ct. Randhir for  
                                        registration of the FIR on which she recorded FIR No.  
                                        471/07 U/s 302/34 IPC, copy of which is Ex.PW4/B and  
                                        made endorsement on the rukka vide  Ex.PW4/C.   She  
                                        has also deposed that at 10:20 AM, a call was received  
                                        from  DDU hospital  on which  basis she recorded DD  
                                        No. 22A copy of which is  Ex.PW4/D.     She has also  
                                        proved   DD   No.   24A   and   DD   No.   25   A   which   are  
                                        Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F.11.       Ct. Manoj (PW5)               He   is   a   formal   witness   who   has   deposed   that   on  
                                        29.08.2007, at about 2:30 PM in the afternoon, he took  
                                        the   special   message   as   special   messenger   from   DO  
                                        W/ASI   Pricilla   and   delivered   the   special   message   to  
                                        ACP, Tilak Nagar, DCP West, Rajouri Garden, PHQ  
                                        and area MM, Rohini, Sh. Vinod  Yadav in the  court,  
                                        thereafter returned to the police station at 6:20 PM.12.       Ct. Dinesh (PW6)              He is also a formal witness who has deposed that on  
                                        29.08.2007  he  was  posted  as  duty   constable   at  DDU  
                                        hospital and on that day at about 10­10:15 AM PCR  
                                        Van P61, brought one injured namely Jitender Kumar  
                                        who was declared dead by the doctors and it was then  
                                        that   he   informed   to   the   Police   Station   Uttam   Nagar.  
                                        Witness has further proved that the personal search of  
                                        the   dead   body   was   handed   over   to   SI   Randhir,   who  
                                        came   later   on   and   same   was   seized   vide   memo  
                                        Ex.PW6/A.13.       Ct. Trilok Chand              He   is   a   formal   witness   who   has   proved   that   on  
          (PW9)                         29.10.2007 while posted at police station Lajpat Nagar  
                                        he collected sealed parcels of case FIR No. 880/07 U/s  
                                        25Arms Actfrom the MHC(M) vide RC No.78/21 and  
                                        deposed the case to FSL Rohini, Delhi.14.       HC Deepk Kumar                He   is   the   PCR   official   who   has   deposed   that   on  
          (PW12)                        29.08.2007 he was posted on PCR van P­61 from 8AM  
                                        to 8PM and on that day at about 9:30 AM he received a  
                                        call that the motorcycle riders fired on a person near  
                                        Metro Pillar No. 764 of Mohan Garden and thereafter  
                                        ran away.   According to him, on this information, he  


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                              Page No. 104 of 128
                                         along  with  staff  reached  at  the  spot  and found  many  
                                        persons   were   gathered   there   and   one   person   namely  
                                        Rajpal also met them there, he told that the injured is  
                                        his son namely Jitender Kumar who was bleeding there.  
                                        Witness   has   further   deposed   that   thereafter   they  
                                        removed him to DDU hospital where doctor declared  
                                        brought dead about the injured and his formal search  
                                        was conducted in front of the doctor and entry in this  
                                        regard was made in the MLC, which entries in the MLC  
                                        are at point  X to  X.   He has  proved  that  a separate  
                                        seizure   memo   in   respect   of   the   belongings   of   the  
                                        deceased was also prepared vide memo Ex.PW6/A and  
                                        the personal search of the deceased from Point 1 to 10  
                                        as   detained   in   the   MLC   are   collectively   exhibited   as  
                                        Ex.PW12/1 to Ex.12/10.15.       Ct. Rakesh Kumar   He is the photographer on the Mobile Crime Team who  
          (PW13)             has proved that on 29.08.2007 he along with  SI Anil  
                             Kumar and other staff members of Mobile Crime Team  
                             visited   the   scene   of   crime   i.e.   pillar   No.   764,   main  
                             Najafgarh road, Uttam Nagar and inspected the scene  
                             of crime.  He has proved having taken ten photographs  
                             of the scene of crime at the instance of the investigating  
                             officer and after developing the photographs the same  
                             were   handed   over   to   the   Investigating   Officer   which  
                             photographs   are  Ex.PW13/A1  to  Ex.PW13/A10  and  
                             negatives are Ex.PW13/N1 to Ex.PW13/N10.16.       HC Randhir Singh   This witness had gone to the spot along with SI Randhir  
          (PW15)             Singh on 29.08.2007.  He has deposed on the following  
                             aspects:1. That at about 9:30 AM SI Randhir Singh received  
                                 information   about   DD   No.   28A,   after   which   he  
                                 along   with   SI   Randhir   Singh   reached   the   metro  
                                 pillar No.764, Main Najafgarh Road, Near Rama  
                                 Park,   Uttam   Nagar   where   they   found   that   blood  
                                 was lying on the road and the motorcycle number  
                                 DL9SM   2926   make   Hero   Honda   CBZ   of   black  
                                 color was lying there.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                               Page No. 105 of 1282.    That he came to know that the injured was already  
                                              removed by the PCR to DDU hospital and at the  
                                              same time SHO along with the staff reached at the  
                                              spot.3.    That he along with SI Randhir Singh reached DDU  
                                              hospital   where  Investigating  Officer  collected   the  
                                              MLC   of   injured   Jitender   wherein   which   doctor  
                                              declared him brought dead.4.    That father of the deceased namely Rajpal met them  
                                              there   whose   statement   was   recorded   by  
                                              Investigating Officer.5.    That   the   Investigating   Officer   collected   the  
                                              personal   search   of   the   deceased   from   the   Duty  
                                              Constable   after   which   Investigating   Officer  
                                              prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him  
                                              for registration of the FIR on which he went to the  
                                              police station.6.    That after  getting  registered the case he reached  
                                              the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original  
                                              rukka to Insp. Rakesh Kumar Tyagi.17.       SI Gulshan Gupta              This witness has deposed as under:(PW16)                        1. That on 12.09.2007, he was posted at Police Station  
                                            Lajpat   Nagar   and   on   that   day,   investigations   of  
                                            case  FIR  No.880/07 underSection  25Arms  Act 
                                            was marked to him after which he reached at the  
                                            spot.2. That   he   arrested   the   accused   Sanjeev   Gahlot  
                                            (correctly identified by the witness) and SI Shiv Raj  
                                            handed over sealed parcel containing the weapon  
                                            i.e.   pistol   and   three   live   cartridge   along   with  
                                            seizure memo FSL Form etc.3. That accused made his disclosure statement about  
                                            the crime of this case and further disclosed that the  
                                            pistol   belong   to   his   brother   Anil   Gahlot   which  
                                            weapon recovered from his possession was used in  
                                            the commission of crime in the present.4. That   he   recorded   statement   of   accused   who   was  
                                            sent   to   judicial   custody,   photocopy   of   which  


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 106 of 128
                                               disclosure statement is Ex.PW16/A.5.    That   the   weapon   of   offence   was   deposited   with  
                                              MHC(M)   police   station   Lajpat   Nagar   and  
                                              subsequently sealed parcel of the weapon was sent  
                                              to FSL through Ct. Trilok.18.       ASI Bal Kishan                He is the Duty Officer at police station Uttam Nagar  
          (PW17)                        who has proved having recorded the FIR No. 274/05,  
                                        U/s   308/34IPCphotocopy   of   which   is  Ex.PW17/A 
                                        wherein   there   were   allegations   against   accused  
                                        Balwant, Raju, Sonu and Lalu.   The witness has also  
                                        proved the FIR No. 275/05, photocopy of which FIR is  
                                        Ex.PW17/B  wherein   there   are   allegations   against  
                                        accused Askash, Lal and Monu.19.       SI Shivraj Bisth              This witness has deposed on the following aspects:(PW18)                        1. That on 12.09.2007 he was posted at Police Station  
                                            Lajpat Nagar and on that day, he along with HC  
                                            Sunil Gaur and Ct. Bir  Singh were on patrolling  
                                            duty.2. That at about 7:45 AM when they were present at  
                                            T­point of Lala Lajpat Rai Road and Firoz Gandhi  
                                            Marg near ICICI Bank, they saw one boy coming  
                                            on a motorcycle from Defence Colony flyover.3. That   on   seeing   them,   the   said   boy   immediately  
                                            turned   his   motorcycle   and   on   suspicion,   they  
                                            chased him and apprehended.4. That when he inquired from the said boy about the  
                                            reason   of   turning   the   motorcycle   immediately   on  
                                            seeing them, he could not reply satisfactory and his  
                                            formal search was conducted during one pistol with  
                                            magazine was recovered from the right dub of his  
                                            pant.5. That   he   asked   four   public   persons   to   join   the  
                                            investigations but they refused and went away on  
                                            the one pretext or the other.6. That   he   made   inquiries   from   the   accused   during  
                                            which he disclosed his name as Sanjeev Gahlot @  
                                            Sonu (whom the witness has correctly identified in  
                                            the Court).St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                             Page No. 107 of 1287.    That   he   sent   Ct.   Bir   Singh   for   arranging   the  
                                              Investigating   Officer   Kit   for   further   investigation  
                                              on which Ct. Bir Singh brought the same.8.    That   the   pistol   was   unloaded   and   it   found   to  
                                              contain three live cartridges in the magazine after  
                                              which   he  prepared   the   sketch   of   the   pistol   and  
                                              cartridges copy of which is Ex.PW18/A.9.    That the pistol was engraved the words "for army  
                                              use   only   and   made   in   USA"   after   which   he  
                                              prepared cloth parcel of the pistol and cartridges  
                                              and sealed with the seal of SSB and also filled up  
                                              form   FSL   at   the   spot   and   affixed   the   seal   on   it  
                                              which seal after use was handed over to HC Sunil  
                                              Gaur.10.   That   the   weapon   was   taken   into   possession   vide  
                                              preparing the seizure memo which is  Ex.PW18/B  
                                              and   the   motorcycle   bearing   No.   DL­4S­BB­0169  
                                              along with helmet and key of the motorcycle were  
                                              taken   into   possession   vide   seizure   memo  
                                              Ex.PW18/C.11.   That he prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct.Bir Singh for getting registered the case and he (Ct.  
                                              Bir)  returned  back  with  SI  Gulshan on  which  he  
                                              handed over all the memos and sealed parcels and  
                                              case   property   and   custody   of   the   accused   to   SI  
                                              Gulshan.12.   That SI Gulshan prepared site plan of the spot at  
                                              his   instance   and   further   investigations   was  
                                              conducted by him.13.   That   the   cartridges   were   of   9   mm   and   were  
                                              engraving the words KF04, 9mm.14.   According   to   him,   SI   Gulshan   recorded   his  
                                              statement and on 6.10.2007 Investigating Officer of  
                                              this case also recorded his statement.20.       HC Jeet Singh                 This witness was posted at police Station Lajpat Nagar  
          (PW20)                        as Duty Officer on 12.09.2007 and has proved recorded  
                                        FIR No. 880/07 U/s 25Arms Actphotocopy of which is  
                                        Ex.PW20/A. 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                   Page No. 108 of 12821.       HC Sunil Gaur                 This   witness   has   corroborated   the   testimony   of   SI  
          (PW21)                        Shivraj Bhist (PW18) in toto and has proved the sketch  
                                        of pistol and three live cartridges which is Ex.PW18/A;  
                                        seizure of the weapon and cartridge vide  Ex.PW18/B;  
                                        seizure memo of the motorcycle vide  Ex.PW18/C  and  
                                        disclosure   statement   of   the   accused   which   is  
                                        Ex.PW16/A.22.       HC Bir Singh                  This   witness   has   corroborated   the   testimonies   of   SI  
          (PW22)                        Shivraj   Bhist  (PW18)   and  HC  Sunil  Gaur  (PW22)   in  
                                        toto and has proved the sketch of pistol and three live  
                                        cartridges which is Ex.PW18/A; seizure of the weapon  
                                        and   cartridge   vide  Ex.PW18/B;  seizure   memo   of   the  
                                        motorcycle  vide  Ex.PW18/C  and disclosure statement  
                                        of the accused which is Ex.PW16/A.23.       HC Anil Kumar                 He is the MHCM who has proved the various entries  
          (PW23)                        which are Ex.PW23/A to Ex.PW23/H.24.       SI Mahesh Kumar   He is a formal witness being the Draftsman in Crime  
          (PW24)            Branch who has proved having prepared the scaled site  
                            plan which is Ex.PW24/A.25.       SI Anil Kumar                 He is the Crime Team Incharge who has proved having  
          (PW25)                        visited the spot of incident on 29.08.2007 at about 10:25  
                                        AM   and   inspected   the   scene   of   crime   after   which   he  
                                        prepared his detailed report which is Ex.PW25/A.26.       HC Parveen Kumar   This witness has deposed on the following aspects:(PW26)             1. That   on   14.09.2007   he   was   posted   in   IIIrd   Bn.DAP,   Vikaspuri   and   his   duty   was   in   Lock   Up  
                                 Rohini Courts for producing the accused persons  
                                 before the court.2. That   on   that   day   he   produced   accused   Sanjeev  
                                 Gahlot @ Sonu in the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar  
                                 Yadav, MM Court No. 107.3. That Addl. SHO Insp. Rakesh Tyagi obtained the  
                                 permission from the Court for interrogation of the  
                                 accused and thereafter he interrogated the accused  
                                 Sanjeev Gahlot in the room of the Ahlmad.4. That accused Sanjeev Gahlot made his disclosure  
                                 statement to him wherein the accused disclosed that  

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                               Page No. 109 of 128
                                               he could get arrested his associates and could also  
                                              recover the motorcycle, which disclosure statement  
                                              is Ex.PW26/A.27.       HC Rajender Singh   This witness has proved having joined the investigations  
          (PW27)              with Inspector Rakesh Tyagi 04.10.2007 and has proved  
                              the following documents:Ex.PW27/A               disclosure   statement   of   the   accused  
                                                                Vijay @ Kallu
                                        Ex.PW27/B               Arrest memo of accused Vijay @ Kallu
                                        Ex.PW27/C               Personal   search   memo   of   accused  
                                                                Vijay @ Kallu
                                        Ex.PW27/D               Pointing   out   memo   of   the   place   of  
                                                                incident
                                        Ex.PW27/E               Pointing out memo of the nala/ drain
28.       HC Om Prakash                 He is the MHC(M) of Police Station Lajpat Nagar and  
          (PW28)                        had proved the  entry no. 2146, which  is  Ex.PW28/A;  
                                        Copy of RC No. 78/21/07 which is Ex.PW28/B and the  
                                        receipt of the FSL, which is Ex.PW28/C.  
29.       SI Randir Singh               He is the initial Investigating Officer who had reached  
          (PW29)                        the spot.   Apart from the documents  proved by otherwitnesses, he has proved the following documents:Ex.PW29/A               Rukka
                                        Ex.PW29/B               Seizure memo of the pullandas handed  
                                                                over by the doctor
30.       ASI Harpal Singh              This   witness   has   joined   investigations   with   Inspector  
          (PW30)                        Rakesh Tyagi and has proved the following documents:
                                        Ex.PW30/A               Arrest   memo   of   accused   Sanjeev  
                                                                Gahlot
                                        Ex.PW30/B               Pointing   out   memo   of   the   place   of  
                                                                incident
                                        Ex.PW30/C               Seizure   memo   of  motorcycle   make  
                                                                Pulsor bearing No. DL­4SAJ­2697




St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                 Page No. 110 of 128
                                         Ex.PW30/D               Disclosure   statement   of   accused  
                                                                Sanjeev Gahlot
                                        Ex.PW30/E               Pointing out memo of drain/ nala
                                        Ex.PW30/F               Arrest   memo   of   accused   Rajesh   @  
                                                                Raju
                                        Ex.PW30/G               Personal   search   memo   of   accused  
                                                                Rajesh @ Raju 
                                        Ex.PW30/H               Arrest memo of accused Sunny
                                        Ex.PW30/J               Personal   search   memo   of   accused  
                                                                Sunny
                                        Ex.PW30/K               Disclosure statement of accused Raju
                                        Ex.PW30/L               Disclosure statement of accused Sunny
                                        Ex.PW30/M               Pointing   out   memo   of   the   place   of  
                                                                incident
                                        Ex.PW30/N               Another   disclosure   statement   of  
                                                                accused Rajesh
                                        Ex.PW30/O               Another   disclosure   statement   of  
                                                                accused  Sunny
31.       Inspector Rakesh              He is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the  
          Kumar Tuagi                   investigations of this case and apart from the documents  
          (PW31)                        proved   by   the   various   witnesses,   he   has   proved   the  
                                        following witnesses:
                                        Ex.PW31/A               Inquest Form
                                        Ex.PW31/B               Brief Facts
                                        Ex.PW31/C               Request for Postmortem
                                        Ex.PW31/D               Site   plan   of   premises   No.   D­138,  
                                                                Dashrathpuri   colony   from   where   the  
                                                                motorcycle   was   got   recovered   by  
                                                                accused Sanjeev Gahlot
                                        Ex.PW31/E               Site plan of the place Najafgarh drain  
                                                                where he had thrown the country made  
                                                                pistol (katta) and mobile phone



St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                                 Page No. 111 of 128
 (90)             Coming   now   to   the   microscopic   evaluation   of   the   evidence 

against the accused persons.  


Ocular Evidence and Motive:

(91)             Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in anycase.  In the present case the entire case of the prosecution is rests upon 

the testimony of Rajpal (PW1) who is the father of the deceased Jitender. 

According to the prosecution story, on 29.8.2007 Rajpal was travelling 

with his son Jitender on his motorcycle bearing No. DL­9SM­2926 and at 

about   9:30   AM   when   they   reached   near   Rama   Park,   Najafgarh   Road, 

Uttam Nagar near Metro Pillan No. 764, two motorcycles upon which 

four boys were riding overtook them and made their motorcycle to stop. 

One   motorcycle   was   being   driven   by   Raju   and   Sanjeev   @   Sonu   was 

sitting   on   the   back   seat   of   that   motorcycle;   the   other   motorcycle   was 

being driven by Sunny on which one boy who has now been identified in 

the Court as Vijay was sitting.   The accused Raju and Sunny asked the 

accused Sanjeev to take revenge for his brother's death when the accused 

Sanjeev Gehlot took out a pistol.  According to Rajpal, he raised an alarm 

but   in   the   meanwhile   the   accused   Vijay   who   was   sitting   behind   the 

accused Sunny told Sanjeev to kill Jitender on which accused Sanjeev 

fired upon his son Jitender who fell down bleeding and thereafter all the 

four accused took a U­Turn and ran away towards Kakrola mor/ village. 

According to this witness Rajpal, after a little while a PCR van came and 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 112 of 128
 he lifted the body of his son and put it in PCR van after which the PCR 

took Jitender to DDU Hospital while he himself went to his house and 

informed them and then went to DDU Hospital where the doctors had 

declared his son Jitender as brought dead.   The said witness Rajpal has 

further explained  that  earlier  in the year 2005 a quarrel had taken place 

between his son and the accused persons in which Anil brother of Sanjeev 

had   died   and   in   the   said   quarrel   Anil,   Sanjeev,   Balwan   and   Raju 

participated against his son Jitender and since then the said boys were 

having a grudge against his son Jitender.  According to Rajpal, even two 

months prior to the incident, the accused gave a threat that they would 

take the revenge of death by a death and due to this reason they had killed 

his son Jitender.(92)             Before,   analyzing   the   statement   of   Rajpal   on   merits,   I   may 

observe   that   in   so   far   as   Motive   is   concerned,   the   motive   has   to   be 

gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should 

form one of the links to the chain of circumstantial evidence.  The proof 

of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the court 

in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence 

or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused 

cannot be convicted.  Motive is best known to the perpetrator of the crime 

and not to others.   Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and 

unamenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence 

thereon   if   other   clinching   evidence   exists.     A   motive   is   indicated   to 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 113 of 128
 heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person 

who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been 

committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the 

pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.

(93)             Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a 

case based on circumstantial evidence, the existence of motive assumed 

significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit 

the prosecution   case,  if  the case stands otherwise established by other 

conclusive circumstances and the chain of circumstantial evidence is so 

complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the 

accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.

(94)             Existence of motive for committing a crime is not an absolute 

requirement of law but it is always relevant fact, which will be taken into 

consideration   by   Courts   as   it   will   render   assistance   to   Courts   while 

analysing prosecution evidence and determining guilt of accused.  [Ref.:IV (2012) SLT 257].(95)             Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present 

case Firstly it is an admitted case of the accused that in the year 2005 a 

quarrel had taken place between Jitender and Anil (brother of accused 

Sanjeev) had been killed in respect of which an FIR had been registered 

and the deceased was facing trial in the same.  However, the fact that two 

months prior to the incident of murder of Jitender, the accused before this 

Court had also given a threat of taking revenge of death by death, is a fact 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar            Page No. 114 of 128
 which  does not find  corroboration from any other independent source.Keeping in view the previous background of history of disputes between 

the   parties   in   the   eventuality   any   such   threat   being   extended   by   the 

accused, I am sure that it would have been reported to the police which 

has   not   been   done.     Rajpal   (PW1)   in   his   cross­examination   has 

specifically admitted that he did not report any such instance or threat to 

the police and has justified the same by stating that he had informed the 

parents of the accused Sanjeev about the same.  Here, I may observe that 

both the main accused namely Sanjeev Gehlot and the deceased Jitender 

belonging to the same village and in case of any such incident, I am sure 

that if the Police was not informed the elders and locals of the village 

certainly would have been informed of the same, which is not the case. 

The testimony of Rajpal (PW1) which does not find any corroboration 

from   any   independent   source   and   under   the   given   circumstances   the 

incident of threats being extended to the deceased does not appear to be 

convincing.(96)             Secondly  in his cross­examination the witness Rajpal (PW1) 

has denied that he was using any mobile at the time of the incident and 

has specifically denied that he is the owner of mobile no. 9868263902 and 

has stated that he had provided the mobile number of his brother to the 

police during investigations.   He has further admitted that his deceased 

son was having two mobile phones which fact stands duly established 

since he had taken these mobiles back on Superdari on which aspect there 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 115 of 128
 is no  dispute.   Hence, in this background if Raj Pal would have been 

present at  the  spot at  the  time of the incident  when the deceased was 

killed, the first thing that he would have done as any other reasonable 

person would do, is to make a PCR call which he did not do.  The case of 

the  prosecution   is that   it   is not  Raj Pal  but  another passer­bye Gagan 

Kumar (PW14) who made the PCR call.  It is this which creates a doubt 

on the credibility and truthfulness of the statement of the father of the 

deceased to the extent that he was present at the time of the incident, for 

had that been so, the first thing he would have done is to make a call to 

the PCR which he did not do.(97)             Thirdly despite the fact that a number of shots had been fired 

upon the deceased and Rajpal was stated to be sitting behind the deceased, 

strangely not even a single shot hit him.  The postmortem report which is 

Ex.PW11/A  shows that the deceased had been shot from the back side 

and there were as many as five gun shot injuries and one metal piece of 

bullet was found over the surface of the sternum which bullet entered his 

body through the back side by passing through the bag which he was 

carrying on his back (as there are holes in the said bag indicating that the 

bullet had passed through the same).  Had somebody been sitting on the 

backside/ behind the deceased on the pillion seat (as claimed by Raj Pal), 

the said bullet before passing through the bag and entering the body of the 

deceased would have first hit that person sitting on the pillion seat and 

then passed through the bag which the deceased was carrying on his back, 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar      Page No. 116 of 128
 before entering the body of the deceased (which bag Rajpal admits the 

deceased   was   carrying   on   his   back).     The   fact   that   Raj   Pal   remained 

unscathed during the entire shooting incident creates a doubt in the mind 

of the Court with regard to his presence at the spot.

(98)             Fourthly Gagan Kumar (PW14) an eye witness to the incident 

who had made a PCR call has in his testimony before the court deposed 

that he saw one boy riding motorcycle and two boys were on another 

motorcycle who fired on that single boy on the motorcycle.  According 

to him, after witnessing the incident he was no extremely shocked that he 

first parked his vehicle at a distance of about 500 meters and drank some 

water after which he made a call to the police at 100 number informing 

them above the same.  Here, I may observe that the PCR Form which is 

Ex.PW12/X1 which shows that the call was received from the phone of 

Gagan Kumar according to which two boys on a motorcycle had fired 

on   a   boy.     The   detail   statement   of   Gagan   Kumar   underSection   161Cr.P.C. has not been recorded nor is present on the judicial file and it is 

for the first time that he had stated in the court that  both the assailants 

were wearing helmets and the deceased was alone when the assailants 

fired at him.  However, there is no reason to disbelieve him because he is 

an independent eye witness who is neither known to the accused nor to 

the deceased.   If his version is taken as correct that the assailants were 

wearing the helmets then under these circumstances it does not appear 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 117 of 128
 possible that Raj Pal was present at the spot, Gagan Kumar having only 

seen one person on the bike who had been shot and even if assuming that 

Raj Pal was with the deceased then it is not possible that he could have 

identified the accused from the helmet.(99)             Fifthly  this statement of Rajpal (PW1) that he was present at 

the   time   of   firing   incident   while   the   PCR   came,   also   does   not   stands 

established.  Though in his statement the PCR official HC Deep Kumar - 

PW13) who in the information given to Central Control Room does not 

state that the father of the injured met them at the spot and in his cross­

examination HC Deep Kumar (PW12) has admitted that he did not inform 

the presence of Rajpal at the spot to the PCR.   It is evident from his 

testimony that he came to know about the name of the injured from the 

Driving Licence.   Had Rajpal (PW1) been present at the spot, he would 

have informed the PCR officials or the doctors about the details of the 

deceased and there was no occasion for these PCR officials to ascertain 

the same from his Driving Licence.  The testimony of HC Deepak Kumar 

(PW12) with regard to the presence of Rajpal is a total improvement over 

the   documentary   record   i.e.   PCR   Form   which   neither   mention   the 

presence of Rajpal nor about the assailants.(100)              Lastly  the case of Rajpal is that after putting his son in the 

PCR vehicle which took him to DDU Hospital, he himself went back to 

his house and reached DDU Hospital later which behaviour of a father is 

most unreasonable, unnatural and unjustified.   Under no circumstances, 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 118 of 128
 will any father leave his fatally wounded son to the mercy of the police 

officials and that too without providing them with the details of his name, 

age, address etc. while he himself would rush to his own house at Kakrola 

which is quiet some distance away from the spot of the incident.  The first 

thing which any reasonable man would do, was to make attempts to save 

the life of his son, rather than running away from the spot first to save his 

own life and then to inform his family by leaving his injured son at the 

mercy   of   the   strangers.     This   behaviour   is   highly   unnatural   and 

improbable.(101)              Therefore,   under   the   give   circumstances,   I   do   not   find   the 

uncorroborated oral testimony of Rajpal convincing, credible, trustworthy 

and   truthful.     There   is   no   corroboration   forthcoming   whatsoever   and 

hence, in the absence of any independent corroboration it is no safe to rely 

upon the sole testimony of the witness Rajpal in so far as the identity of 

the accused and their presence at the spot of the incident is concerned.  

(102)              In so far as the aspect of motive is concerned, no doubt the 

accused Sanjeev Gehlot and other accused had a motive of taking revenge 

but in the absence of any convincing evidence to connect the accused with 

the offence, motive alone is not sufficient to connect the accused with the 

offence.Medical Evidence:(103)                PW3 Nishu Dhawan has proved the MLC of the deceased 

which is  Ex.PW3/A  showing that there were four gun shot wounds in 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                   Page No. 119 of 128
 front of chest and four wound over back of the chest.  Dr. Komal Singh 

(PW11)   has   proved   the   postmortem   report   of   the   deceased   which   is 

Ex.PW11/A showing that there were following injuries on the body of the 

deceased:1.      Gun   shot   entry   wound   measuring   1x0.5cm   located   at 

                          right fifth intercoastal space, which was 3.5 cm from the 

                          right   nipple,   it   was   oval   in   shape   and   margins   were 

                          inverted.2.      2   cm   to   the   lateral   to   No.1   gun   shot   entry,   there   was 

                          another entry wound of 1.5x1 cm, it was oval in shape 

                          and   margins   were   inverted,   there   was   2mm   thickness 

                          abraded collar was encircling the wound.3.      Gun shot entry wound 1.5x1.2 cm, oval in shape having 

                          2mm abraded collar around and it was placed on 15.2cm 

                          from the right nipple and 4.5cm below the xiphisternum.4.      Gun   shot   entry   wound   1x1   cm   having   the   inverted 

                          margins, 2mm abraded collar, it was placed above 4.5cm 

                          and lateral to the left nipple margins.5.      On back, gun shot exit wound placed 15.5cm below the 

                          inferior angle of the scapula, it was oval in shape and size 

                          was 3x1.5cm and margins were averted.6.      Gun shot exit would 1.5x1 cm placed 12cm from the left 

                          inferior angle of the scapula, margins were averted.

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                        Page No. 120 of 1287.      Gun   shot   entry   wound   1x0.9cm   and   3cm   from   No.   6 

                          injury, its margins were inverted.8.      Gun   shot   exit   wound   4x3cm,   margins   were   averted, 

                          placed 5.5cm from the No. 7 injury.9.      Gun   shot   exit   would   2.5x2   cm,  margins   were   averted, 

                          lying 12.5cm below the left shoulder.(104)                Dr. Komal Singh has proved that on internal examination it 

was found that on the seventh intercoastal space, one metal piece of the 

bullet was found over the surface of the sternum; there were bullet entry 

and exit margins corresponding to the entry and exit wounds; there were 

two holes on the anterior surface of the heart, two holes on the posterior 

surface of the heart, one hole on the lob of the left lung and one hole on 

the right side of the liver.   The  cause of death was opined that  due to 

multiple gun shot injuries to the vital organs of the body and all the 

injuries   are  sufficient   to   cause   death   in   ordinary  course  of  nature 

individually as well as together, all the injuries were antemortem and 

were of same duration.(105)              In view of the above, I hereby hold that the prosecution has 

been able to prove that the death was on account of gun shot injury. 


Forensic Evidence (Ballistic Report):(106)              The FSL (Ballistic) Report which is Ex.PW7/A has been duly 

proved by Sh. V.R. Anand (PW7) who has proved that the 8mm/.315"St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                 Page No. 121 of 128
 cartridge case exhibit EC1 was a fired empty cartridge and the deformed 

bullet marked exhibit EB1 was corresponding to the bullet of 8mm/.315 

cartridge.  It has been proved that the individual characteristics of firing 

pin and breech face marks present on  fired cartridge case marked exhibit 

EC1 and on the test fired cartridge cases marked as TC1 to TC3 (in case 

FIR No. 880/07, PS Lajpat Nagar) were examined and compared under 

the   comparison   microscope   model   Leica   DMC   and   were   not   found 

identical and hence, it was concluded that the exhibit EC1 has not been 

fired through the improvised pistol 9 mm marked exhibit F1 in case 

FIR No.880/07, PS Lajpat Nagar.  PW8 Ms. Shashi Bala has proved the 

biological and serological reports which are  Ex.PW8/A  and  Ex.PW8/B 

respectively showing the presence of blood on the clothes of the deceased 

and   his   father   Raj   Pal   (but   that   in   itself   is   not   incriminating   qua   the 

accused).Ownership of motorcycle No. DL­4SA­2697 and DL­4S­BB­0169: 

(107)              In so far as the motorcycle bearing No. DL­4SA­2697 make 

Pulsar of violet colour is concerned, the same belong to Sant Ram who 

had sold it to Abhimanyu @ Mannu though Rampal.  Sant Ram (PW10) 

has failed to identify the accused Sanjeev Gehlot in the Court and his 

relationship   with   Abhimanyu   @   Mannu.     It   was   only   in   the   cross­

examination of Addl. PP for the State that he has admitted that Sanjeev 

Gehlot is the Mama of Abhimanyu @ Mannu.  In so far as the motorcycle 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                   Page No. 122 of 128
 make   TVS­Star   bearing   No.   DL­4S­BB­0169   is   concerned,   Naresh 

Kumar (PW19) has turned hostile and has stated that this motorcycle had 

been stolen from Gold Gym at Mansaram Park, Uttam Nagar in the month 

of   Raksha   Bandhan   of   the   year   2007   and   after   two   days   of   Raksha 

Bandhan he lodged an FIR with the police post Matiala which is  mark 

PW19/2.(108)              Both   the   witnesses   Sant   Ram   (PW10)   and   Naresh   Kumar 

(PW19) do not support the case of the prosecution in any manner.  The 

numbers of the motorcycle used in the offence have not been noted down 

by any of the eye witness and therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution 

has miserably failed to connect the above said motorcycles with any of 

the accused or with the offence.Sequence of events not conclusively established so as to connect the  
accused with the offence:(109)              The manner in which the accused Sanjeev Gehlot has been 

apprehended and arrested is most dramatic.   According to the accused 

Sanjeev   he   had   himself   surrendered   at   Police   Station   Lajpat   Nagar 

because   he   was   fearing   his   fake   encounter   by   the   local   police   in 

connivance with the father of the deceased whereas the case of the Police 

Station Lajpat Nagar particularly PW18 SI Shiv Raj in FIR No.880/2007, 

underSection 25of Arms Act that after the accused Sanjeev Gehlot had 

been found in possession of a pistol which he disclosed belonging to his 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar           Page No. 123 of 128
 brother Anil Gehlot on which the accused Sanjeev Gehlot was booked 

under theArms Act.  A specific suggestion had been put to this witness SI 

Shiv   Raj   that   the   accused   Sanjeev   had   himself   surrendered   at   Police 

Station Lajpat Nagar and there was a conflict between the SHO Police 

Station Uttam Nagar and SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar.  Why was it 

that   Sanjeev   Gelhot   himself   surrendered   before   the   SHO   Police 

station Lajpat Nagar and not before any Senior Officers of the same 

district or some other district or to the Court and why did he chose to 

do so, specifically at Police Station Lajpat Nagar?   The possibility of 

the accused Sanjeev Gehlot having done so only to create evidence in his 

favour by first surrendering before the SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar 

and disclosing that it was the same weapon with which he had killed the 

deceased knowingly that the same was not the weapon, cannot be ruled 

out, but at the same time  it also appears highly improbable that the 

SHO Police Station Lajpat Nagar could have been taken in by the 

claims of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot so easily.   Certainly there was 

much more going on behind the curtain than it appears to the eye.  As 

per the prosecution case pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused 

Sanjeev Gehlot, efforts were made to trace out the country made pistol 

(weapon   of   offence)   and   his   mobile   phone   from   the   Najafgarh   drain 

which has not been recovered till date.St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar           Page No. 124 of 128
 (110)              Be that as the case may be, the law as it exists is that the case 

of the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and in a criminal 

trial the Court cannot go by the weaknesses of the case put forward by the 

defence.     The   possibility   of   the   accused   Sanjeev   Gehlot   having 

meticulously   planned   the   entire   killing   and   also   having   prepared   his 

defence   cannot   be   ruled   out.     The   fact   of   the   matter   is   that   the 

Investigating Officer has not been able to trace the weapon of offence so 

as to conclusively connect the accused with the offence nor has he been 

able   to   collect   sufficient   evidence   so   as   to   conclusively   connect   the 

accused persons with the offence and hence benefit of doubt has to be 

given to the accused.   Hence, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not 

been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused.

(111)              In so far as the accused Rajesh @ Raju are concerned, they 

have  surrendered  before the Court  on 25.9.2007 and on 4.10.2007 the 

accused Vijay @ Kalu was arrested at the instance of the secret informer 

which proceedings have been duly proved by the prosecution.FINAL CONCLUSION:(112)              In   the   case   of  Sharad   Birdhichand   Sarda   Vs.   State   of  

Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests 

which are pre­requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are 

as under:St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar              Page No. 125 of 1281.      The  circumstances  from  which the  conclusion  of  

                             guilt   is   to   be  drawn  should  be fully  established.The   circumstances   concerned   '   must   or   should'  

                             and not 'may be' established;2.      The facts so established should be consistent only  

                             with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that  

                             is to say, they should not be explainable on any  

                             other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;3.      the circumstances should be of conclusive nature  

                             and tendency;4.      they   should   exclude   every   possible   hypothesis  

                             except the one to be proved; and5.      There must be a chain of evidence so complete as  

                             not   to   leave   any   reasonable   ground   for   the  

                             conclusion   consistent   with   the   innocence   of   the  

                             accused   and   must   show   that   in   all   human  

                             probability   the   act   must   have   been   done   by   the  

                             accused.(113)              Applying   the   settled   principles   of   law   to   the   facts   of   the 

present   case,   it   is   evident   that   the   identity   of   all   the   accused   Sanjeev 

Gehlot   @   Sonu,   Rajesh   @   Raju,   Sunny   and   Vijay   Gehlot   stands 

established.  They were previously known to the complainant Raj Pal.   It 


St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                     Page No. 126 of 128
 also   stands   established   that   on   29.8.2007   at   about   9:30   AM   at   Main 

Nazafgarh Road, Rama Park in front of Metro Pillar No.764, Uttam Nagar 

the deceased Jitender Kumar was shot dead.  It further stands established 

that the cause of death of deceased is due to multiple gun shot injuries to 

the vital organs of the body and all the injuries are sufficient to cause 

death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as together, all the 

injuries were antemortem and were of same duration.  However, I do not 

find   the   uncorroborated   oral   testimony  of   Rajpal   convincing,   credible, 

trustworthy   and   truthful.    There   is   no   corroboration   forthcoming 

whatsoever and hence, in the absence of any independent corroboration it 

is no safe to rely upon the sole testimony of the witness Rajpal in so far as 

the identity of the accused and their presence at the spot of the incident is 

concerned.  Hence, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove 

and substantiate the allegations against all the accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ 

Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gehlot beyond reasonable doubt.  

(114)              I   hereby   hold   that   the   circumstances   reflected   from   the 

material on record do not stand conclusively established.   The facts are 

also are not consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. 

The chain of evidence is not so much complete so as not to leave any 

reasonable   ground   for   the   conclusion   consistent   with   the   guilt   of   the 

accused persons.  The materials brought on record by the prosecution are 

insufficient so as to hold that each of the accused Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu, 

Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny and Vijay Gehlot was guilty beyond reasonable 

St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar               Page No. 127 of 128
 doubt.     Further,   each   circumstance   has   not   been   proved   beyond 

reasonable doubt.  The prosecution has also not established a conclusive 

link   connecting   each   individual   circumstance   with   the   other,   and   the 

accused   namely   Sanjeev   Gehlot   @   Sonu,   Rajesh   @   Raju,   Sunny   and 

Vijay Gehlot.  Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not 

bridge the gap between "may be true" and must be true" so essential for a 

court to record a finding of guilt of an accused, particularly in cases based 

on circumstantial evidence.  Therefore, I hereby hold that the prosecution 

has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the 

accused  Sanjeev Gehlot @ Sonu, Rajesh @ Raju, Sunny  and  Vijay 

Gehlot, beyond reasonable doubt and hence, benefit of doubt is being 

given   to   them   who   are   acquitted   of   the   charges   under  Section 

302/201/120­B/34Indian Penal Code.(115)              File be consigned to Record Room.  



Announced in the open court                                                (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 9.7.2012                                                           ASJ­II(NW)/ ROHINI 




St. Vs. Sanjeev Gehlot Etc., FIR No. 741/2007, PS Uttam Nagar                    Page No. 128 of 128