Display - PDF - 2024-03-10T131506.216

CNR No.HRFB01-001038-2018 CIS No.
SC-46-2018
State of Haryana Vs. Narender & Ors.
1
In the Court of Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.
(UID No. HR0198)
HRFB010010382018
Case Type : Session Case

CNR No. : HRFB010010382018
Case CIS No. : SC-46-2018
Date of Instt : 19.01.2018
Date of Decision : 19.02.2024
State of Haryana Versus 1. Narender son of Gyan Chand,

resident of Village Palwali,
Police Station Kheripul,
Faridabad.
2. Kamal Kishore @ Lillu son of

Maujiram, resident of Village
Palwali, Police Station Kheripul,
Faridabad
3. Gyan Chand son of Kallu Ram,

Faridabad.
4. Amit Kumar son of Anand

Kumar, resident of Village
Faridabad.
5. Ravi Kant son of Kamal Kishore

@ Leelu, resident of Village
Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
CNR No.HRFB01-001038-2018 CIS No. SC-46-2018
2

Faridabad.
6. Dharmender son of Nand

Kishore, resident of Village
Faridabad.
7. Shiv Kant son of Virender @

Billu, resident of Village
Faridabad.
8. Ravinder son of Subhash Chand,
Faridabad.
9. Vinay son of Deepak, resident of

Village Palwali, Police Station
Kheripul, Faridabad.
10. Rajender Prasad son of Rambir,

Faridabad.
11. Lokesh @ Loki son of Mansa

Ram, resident of Village
Faridabad.
12. Satish Kumar son of Mansa

Ram, resident of Village
Faridabad.
13. Harish son of Baljeet, resident of

Village Palwali, Police Station
Kheripul, Faridabad.
14. Mauji Ram son of Kallu Ram,


ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
3

Faridabad.
15. Nand Kishore son of Mauji

Ram, resident of village Palwali,
Faridabad(proceedings dropped
vide order dated 2.4.2018).
16. Omwati wife of Nand Kishore,

Faridabad.
17. Dayawati wife of Virender @

Faridabad.
18. Chaman son of Mansha Ram,

Faridabad.
19. Sagar son of Kamal Kishore @

Lillu, resident of Village Palwali,
Faridabad.
20. Shri Kant son of Virender @

Faridabad.
21. Harkesh @ Har Parshad,

Faridabad.
22. Subhash son of Mauji Ram, aged


ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
4

Faridabad.
23. Manoj son of Raja Ram,

Faridabad.
24. Virender @ Billu son of Gyan

Chand, resident of Village
Faridabad.
25. Om Dutt son of Braham Dutt,

Faridabad.
26. Shriram son of Gauri Sharma,

Faridabad.
27. Pramod son of Nand Kishore,

Faridabad.
......Accused.
FIR No.110 dated 18.09.2017 (date
wrongly mentioned as 08.09.2019 in final
report u/s 173 Cr.PC.
Under Sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323,
452 & 506 IPC and Sections 25-27-54-59
of Arms Act.
Police Station Kheripul, Faridabad.
Argued by:
Sh. Siddharth Sharma, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State

assisted by Sh. Sanjeev Jain, Advocate for the
complainant.
Complainant Sh. Lalit Kumar in person.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
5
Accused Omwati, Dayawati, Mauji Ram, Gyan Chand,

Shriram, Manoj Kumar and Om Dutt on bail with
Sh. Prashant Yadav, Advocate.
Accused Harkesh, Chaman, Harish, Lokesh, Rajender
Parshad and Vinay in custody represented by Sh. M.S.
Yadav, Advocate.
Accused Sagar, Ravinder, Ravi Kant, Virender, Subhash,
Shiv Kant, Srikant, Satish, Dharamender, Kamal Kishore,
Narender, Amit and Parmod in custody represented by Sh.
M.S. Yadav, Advocate and Sh.Sanjiv Singh Rao,
Advocate.
J U D G M E N T
The above said accused have been sent up to face trial for
the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302,
307, 323, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 27 of
Arms Act by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kheripul,
Faridabad.
2. Present case was registered on the basis of complaint
Ex.PW1/A given to the police by Lalit Kumar son of Sh. Rajender
Parshad wherein he stated that he was an Advocate by profession. On
17.09.2017 at about 9/9.15 p.m., he alongwith his uncle’s son Sunil son
of Shri Chand, Har Parshad son of Kanhiya Lal and Suresh son of Jai
Karan was standing in front of house of his cousin Sunil and thereafter,
he went back to his house. After sometime, he heard noise of abusing
and quarrel from the street on which he along-with his father Rajender
Parshad and brother Nitesh came outside their house and saw Gyan

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
6
Chand son of Kallu Ram, Virender @ Billu son of Gyan Chand,
Narender son of Gyan Chand, Shri Kant son of Virender @ Billu, Ravi
Kant son of Virender @ Billu, Mauji Ram son of Kallu Ram, Nand
Kishore son of Mauji Ram, Dharmender son of Nand Kishore, Subhash
son of Mauji Ram, Ravinder son of Subhash, Amit son of Anand,
Kamal Kishore @ Leelu son of Mauji Ram, Shiv Kant son of Kamal
Kishore @ Leelu, Sagar son of Kamal Kishore @ Leelu, Manoj son of
Raja Ram @ Rajju, Pramod son of Nand Kishore, Satish son of
Mansha Ram @ Buta, Lokesh @ Loki son of Mansha Ram @ Buta,
Harish son of Baljeet @ Bali, Harkesh son of Nathi Ram, Rajender @
Kallu son of Rambir, Chaman son of Mansha Ram @ Buta, Om Dutt
son of Braham Dutt @ Brahma, Shriram son of Gauri, A---(CCL facing
trial separately-name withheld) son of Narender, Vinay son of Deepak
@ Dabbu and 10-12 other persons standing in front of their house in
the street armed with guns, revolvers, pharsa, country-made pistols,
dandas and lathies. On hearing the noise, other members of his family
and neighbours namely Ishwar Chand son of Daya Nand, Shri Chand
son of Risal Singh, Naveen son of Ravi Dutt, Kanhiya son of Risal
Singh, Devender @ Pintu son of Sukh Ram, Suresh son of Dayanand,
Parmali wife of Dayanand, Bhagat Ram son of Shri Chand also reached
there. All the aforesaid persons suddenly attacked them with their

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
7
respective weapons. Amit gave a pharsa blow on his left hand, Nand
Kishore gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder, Shri Kant gave an iron
rod blow on his head and Kamal Kishore @ Leelu fired a shot from his
gun at the chest of his father Rajender Parshad. He tried to snatch the
said gun but Virender @ Billu succeeded in snatching the same and
fired shot at the right side of chest of his uncle Shri Chand. Thereafter,
Narender son of Gyan Chand, Dharmender son of Nand Kishore and
Subhash son of Mauji Ram also fired shots from their respective
weapons which hit Ishwar son of Dayanand, Naveen son of Ravi Dutt,
Devender @ Pintu son of Sukh Ram, Kanhiya son of Risal Singh and
Nitesh son of Rajender Parshad. Other assailants gave blows with
lathis, dandas, rods and pharsa etc. to Suresh son of Dayanand,
Parmali wife of Dayanand and Sunil son of Shri Chand etc. Thereafter,
their family members got them admitted in different hospitals. He
(complainant), Shri Chand, his father Rajender Parshad, Ishwar Chand
son of Dayanand and Parmali wife of Dayanand were brought to
Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-19, Faridabad, where Rajender Parshad,
Ishwar Chand and Shri Chand were declared dead. Naveen son of
Ravi Dutt and Kanhiya Lal son of Risal Singh were taken to Metro
Hospital where Naveen was declared dead. Devender @ Pintu and
Nitesh were taken to Asian Hospital where Devender @ Pintu was also

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
8
declared dead. The condition of other injured who suffered fire-shot
injuries was very critical. He further alleged that some of the assailants
also entered their house and they all committed the offence in
pursuance of a well planned conspiracy as they (complainant party) has
not supported Sarpanch of the village namely Dayawati wife of
Virender @ Billu in election and for this reason, they were having
grudge against them. They also extended threats to kill the other
persons saved in this incident. On the basis of this information, ruqa
Ex.PW41/B was sent to the police station by SI Badan Singh (PW41)
and formal FIR Ex.PW27/A was registered by HC Kuldeep (PW27)
who also made endorsement Ex.P27/B on the ruqa regarding
registration of FIR. Investigation of the case was set into motion.
Ruqas regarding death of deceased Shri Chand, Ishwar Chand and
Rajender Parshad Ex.PW41/Y1, Ex.PW41/Y2 and Ex.PW41/Y3
respectively from Sarvodaya Hospital, ruqa regarding death of
deceased Naveen Ex.PW41/Y4 from Metro Hospital and ruqa
regarding death of deceased Devender Ex.PW41/Y5 from Asian
Hospital were received by the IO. Inquest proceedings Ex.PW41/C,
Ex.PW41/D and Ex.PW41/E regarding deceased Siri Chand, Ishwar
Chand and deceased Rajender respectively were conducted. Dead
bodies of the deceased were shifted to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad for

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
9
conducting postmortem examination. On the same day, SI Badan
Singh reached Metro Hospital, Faridabad where dead body of deceased
Naveen was kept. Inquest proceedings Ex.PW41/F were conducted
and dead body of deceased Naveen was also shifted to B.K. Hospital,
Faridabad for postmortem examination. Thereafter, SI Badan Singh
reached Asian Hospital, Faridabad where dead body of deceased
Devender was kept. Inquest proceedings Ex.PW41/G were conducted
and dead body was shifted to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad for conducting
postmortem examination. Photographer was called who clicked
photographs of the place of occurrence in village Palwali. He also
visited B. K. Hospital and clicked photographs and conducted
videography of five dead bodies kept in mortuary. SI Badan Singh
moved application Ex.PW41/H for conducting postmortem of deceased
Devender. He also moved applications Ex.PW41/I, Ex.PW41/J,
Ex.PW41/K and Ex.PW41/L for conducting postmortem examination
on the dead bodies of Shri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Rajender Parshad and
deceased Naveen. Civil Surgeon made endorsements Ex.PW41/M to
Ex.PW41/Q on the said applications and constituted the Board of
Doctors. Postmortem on the dead bodies of Devender, Siri Chand,
Ishwar Chand, Rajender Parshad and Naveen was conducted vide
postmortem reports Ex.PW39/A, Ex.PW39/B, Ex.PW39/C,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
10
Ex.PW39/D and Ex.PW39/E respectively. Thereafter, Special
Investigating Team was constituted in the present case. On the same
day, Inspector Ashok Kumar (PW31) alongwith Ashwani went to the
spot where he collected blood stained earth from the spot and same was
converted into three parcels and sealed with seal of “AK” and was
taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW31/A. Six empty cartridge
cases lying on the spot were also lifted and converted into a parcel and
sealed with seal AK and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.
PW31/B. Rough site plan of place of recovery Ex. PW31/C was also
prepared. MLRs of injured were collected. Accused were arrested and
on interrogation, they suffered their respective disclosure statements
admitting having committed the offence. In pursuance of his disclosure
statement Ex.PW20/D, accused Shiv Kant got recovered one danda
from the house of Umesh Sharma which was taken into possession
vide memo Ex.PW20/D2 after preparing its sketch Ex.PW20/D1.
Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW20/D3 was prepared.
In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW20/E, accused Ravinder
also got recorded one danda from his old house. Its sketch
Ex.PW20/E1 was prepared and same was taken into possession vide
memo Ex.PW20/E2. Rough site plan of the place of recovery
Ex.PW20/E3 was prepared. Accused Nand Kishore suffered disclosure

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
11
statement Ex.PW20/F and got recovered one lathi from the house of
Sanjay situated in village Gharbara. Its rough sketch Ex.PW20/F1 was
prepared and same was converted into a parcel and sealed with seal
“BS” and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/F2. Rough
site plan of the place of recovery of said lathi Ex.PW20/F3 was
prepared. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW21/A1,
accused Gyan Chand got recovered one lathi which was taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW21/A2 after preparing its sketch
Ex.PW21/A1. Accused Mauji Ram got recovered one danda in
pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW21/B/1 which was
converted into a parcel and sealed with seal “VK” and was taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW21/B2 and its sketch Ex.PW21/B1 was
also prepared. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW21/E
was prepared. Accused Ravi Kant suffered disclosure statement
Ex.PW21/C and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered one iron rod.
Its rough sketch Ex.PW21/C1 was prepared and same was converted
into a parcel and sealed with seal ‘VK” and was taken into possession
vide memo Ex.PW21/C2. Rough site plan of the place of recoveries
from accused Gyan Chand, Mauji Ran and Ravi Kant Ex.PW21/E was
prepared. Accused Kamal Kishore @ Lillu in pursuance of his
disclosure statement Ex.PW26/A got recovered license of his rifle

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
12
Ex.PW41/R which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/B.
Rough site plan of the place of recovery of license of rifle Ex.PW25/B1
was prepared. Accused Kamal Kishore also suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW25/C and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered one
rifle .315 bore from village Khampur which was used in the
commission of crime. Rough sketch of rifle Ex.PW41/T was prepared
and thereafter same was converted into a parcel and sealed with seal
“BS” and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/D. Rough
site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW25/D1 was prepared. Accused
Kamal Kishore @ Lillu further got recovered four live cartridges .315
bore kept in the drawer of table lying in a shop. Rough sketch of
cartridges Ex.PW26/C1 was prepared and same were converted into a
parcel and sealed with seal “BS” and were taken into possession vide
memo Ex.PW26/C. Rough site plan of the place of recovery of
cartridges Ex.PW25/C2 was prepared. Accused Narender suffered
disclosure statement Ex.PW26/B and got recovered license of his
revolver Ex.PW41/S which was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW25/A. Rough site plan of the place of its recovery Ex.PW25/A1
was prepared. Accused Narender also suffered disclosure statement
Ex.PW41/T1 and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered a revolver
along-with five live cartridges. Rough sketch of the revolver as well as

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
13
cartridges Ex.PW26/D1 was prepared. Thereafter, revolver and five
cartridges were converted into separate parcels and sealed with seal
“BS” and same were taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PW26/D. Rough site plan of the place of recovery of revolver and
cartridges Ex.PW26/D2 was prepared. Accused Narender further
suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW26/E and in pursuance thereof, he
got recovered a DVR, data cable, connection wire and adapter from the
house of his brother in village Palwali which were converted into a
parcel and sealed with seal “BS” and were taken into possession vide
memo Ex.PW26/F. Rough site plan of the place of recovery
Ex.PW26/F1 was prepared. Accused Shri Kant suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW27/C and lateron resiled therefrom. Thereafter, he
suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW27/G and in pursuance thereof, he
got recovered one wooden danda from his fields situated in village
Palwali. Its rough sketch Ex.PW40/G was prepared and same was
converted into a parcel and sealed with seal “VP” and was taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW27/I. Rough sketch of place of its
recovery Ex.PW40/H was prepared. Accused Sagar who earlier
suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW27/D and lateron suffered
disclosure statement Ex.PW27/H, got recovered one wooden danda
from the fields of his uncle Billu. Rough sketch of said danda was

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
14
prepared and same was converted into a parcel and sealed with seal
“VP” and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW40/J. Rough
sketch of place of its recovery Ex.PW40/K was prepared. Accused
Harish suffered disclosure statements Ex.PW14/H and Ex.PW14/L and
got recovered one bamboo stick Ex.P1 from his house. Rough sketch
Ex.PW14/S was prepared and same was converted into a parcel and
sealed with seal “BP” and same was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW14/P. Accused Satish also resiled from his earlier disclosure
statement Ex.PW14/G and suffered fresh disclosure statement
Ex.PW14/M and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered one bamboo
stick from his house. Its rough sketch Ex.PW14/T was prepared and
same was converted into a parcel and sealed with seal “BP” and was
taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW14/Q. Rough site plan of the
place of recovery Ex.PW24/C was prepared. Accused Lokesh also
resiled from his earlier disclosure statement Ex.PW14/I and in
pursuance of his fresh disclosure statement Ex.PW14/N, he got
recovered one bamboo stick which was converted into a parcel and
sealed with seal “BP” and was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW14/R after preparing its rough sketch Ex.PW14/U. Rough site
plan of the place of recovery of bamboo stick Ex.PW24/C was
prepared. Accused Vinay resiled from his disclosure statement

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
15
Ex.PW23/G and in pursuance of his supplementary disclosure
statement Ex.PW23/F, he got recovered one danda which was taken
into possession vide memo Ex.PW23/F2 after preparing its sketch
Ex.PW23/F1 and converting it into a parcel and sealed with seal ‘JS’.
Rough site plan of the place of recovery of said danda Ex.PW23/F3
was prepared. Accused Rajender Prasad in pursuance of his disclosure
statement Ex.PW23/E got recovered one danda. Rough sketch
Ex.PW23/E1 was prepared and same was converted into a parcel and
sealed with seal “JS” and was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW23/E2. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW23/E3
was prepared. Accused Dharmender in pursuance of his disclosure
statement Ex.PW19/B got recovered one loaded revolver along-with
license from his house and on checking, six live cartridges were found
loaded therein. Its rough sketch Ex.PW22/B was prepared and same
was converted into a parcel and sealed with seal “RS” and was taken
into possession vide memo Ex.PW19/C. Rough site plan of the place of
recovery Ex.PW22/C was prepared. Accused Amit in pursuance of his
disclosure statement Ex.PW18/A got recovered one pharsa which was
converted into a parcel and sealed with seal “RS” and was taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW18/C after preparing its rough sketch
Ex.PW22/A. Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW22/D was

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
16
prepared. Accused Subhash resiled from his disclosure statement
Ex.PW33/A and in pursuance of his fresh disclosure statement
Ex.PW33/D, he got recovered one gun 12 bore, license and 10 live
cartridges from his house. Its rough sketch Ex.PW33/J was prepared
and same were converted into a parcel and sealed with seal “FK” and
were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW33/G. Rough site plan of
the place of recovery Ex.PW33/H was prepared. Accused Virender @
Billu suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW41/U and during search of
his house, the licensed rifle and one gun were taken into possession.
Rough sketches of licensed rifle Ex.PW41/W and gun Ex.PW41/V
were prepared and same were converted into separate parcels and
sealed with seal ‘BS” and taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW41/X.
The prosecution case further is that in pursuance of their
respective disclosure statements, accused persons demarcated the place
of occurrence. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana of the
police station which was lateron sent to RFSL, Bhondsi, FSL
Madhuban and CFSL Chandigarh and result of serological analysis
Ex.PX, ballistics report Ex.PY and CFSL report Ex.PZ were received.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. Scaled site plan of the place of
occurrence was got prepared. After completion of investigation, final

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
17
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented in the Court for trial of
the above named four accused by SHO Police Station Kheripul,
Faridabad.
3. Copies of challan were supplied to the accused as
envisaged under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions for trial vide order dated 12.01.2018 passed by Ms.
Shivani, the then learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad.
4. On finding a prima facie case, all the accused were
charged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 120B
IPC read with Sections 148/149/452/302/323/307/506 IPC; 149 IPC
read with Sections 120B/148/452/302/323/307/506 IPC; 148 IPC read
with Section 149 IPC; 452 read with Sections 120B/149 IPC and 506
read with Section 120B/149 IPC. Besides this, all the aforesaid
accused except Omwati and Dayawati were charged for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with
Section 120B/149 IPC; 323 read with Sections 120B/149 IPC and 307
read with Sections 120B/149 IPC. Further, accused Kamal Kishore @
Lilu, Dharmender, Narender and Subhash were also charged for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms
Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
18
5. In support of its case, prosecution initially examined forty
five witnesses namely complainant Lalit as PW1, Nitesh – eye witness
as PW2, Dr. Ravinder Kumar as PW3, Constable Amit Kumar as PW4,
Constable Ram Niwas as PW5, Constable Arvind as PW6, Constable
Bishan Singh as PW7, ASI Sharwan Kumar, Draftsman as PW8, Dr.
Subhash as PW9, Dr. Naveen Arichwal as PW10, Dr. Shailender Partap
Singh as PW11, Dr. Sweta Garg as PW12, Dr. Anushtup De as PW13,
Constable Raspal Singh as PW14, Constable Brij Lal as PW15,
Constable Brij Lal was again examined as PW16 and shall be treated as
PW15, Dr. Nidhi Batra as PW16, Dr. Jagdish Parashar as PW17, HC
Bachchu Singh as PW18, HC Karan Singh as PW19, Abhay Singh
(retired Sub Inspector) as PW20, SI Sumer Singh as PW21, SI Hari
Singh as PW22, SI Jeet Singh as PW23, SI Braham Parkash as PW24,
HC Mahavir as PW25, HC Khurshid Ahmed as PW26, HC Kuldeep as
PW27, ACP Sushil as PW28, SI Jamil Ahmed as PW29, HC Satender
Singh as PW30, Inspector Ashok Kumar as PW31, Inspector Rakesh
Kumar as PW32, Inspector Satender Singh as PW33, Dr. Rajesh Kumar
Koshal as PW34, Ms. Anju Bala, Senior Scientific Officer, Serology as
PW35, Suresh Kumar, Photographer as PW36, R. S. Sangwal,
Assistant Director FSL, Madbuban as PW37, D. P. Ganguwar, Assistant
Director, Physic CFSL as PW38, Dr. Sandeep Beniwal as PW39, SI

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
19
Silak Ram as PW40, Inspector Badan Singh as PW41, Dr. Ravi
Shanker, Radiologist as PW42, SI Sompal Singh as PW43, SI Mukesh
Kumar as PW44 and HC Veenu Kumar as PW45. Result of serological
analysis Ex.PX, ballistics report Ex.PY, CFSL report Ex.PZ and FSL
reports Ex.PX/1 and Ex.PZ/1 were tendered in evidence and the
prosecution evidence was closed by learned Public Prosecutor.
However, it is pertinent to mention here that on 25.07.2022 when the
arguments commenced in the case, it was noticed by the the then
learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad that initially prosecution had cited
20 private witnesses. However, only two material witnesses namely
Lalit and Nitesh were examined during the trial and the remaining 18
witnesses were given by learned Public Prosecutor. It was further
observed by him that in the present case, five persons had died due to
gunshot injuries and out of the 18 witnesses who had been given up,
PWs Kanhaiya, Bhagat Ram, Parmali and Suresh had also suffered
injuries during the occurrence. Victim namely Kanhaiya had suffered
bullet injury and as such, examination of PWs Kanhaiya, Bhagat Ram,
Parmali and Suresh was deemed necessary as the Court could not
remain a mute spectator and even if learned Public Prosecutor had
given up the aforesaid witnesses being unnecessary, PWs namely
Kanhaiya, Bhagat Ram, Parmali and Suresh were ordered to be

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
20
summoned for their examination. Thereafter, Bhagat Ram was
examined as Court witness No.46, Suresh Chand as Court witness
No.47 and Kanahaya as Court witness No.48. PW Parmali, who was
also summoned as a Court witness, appeared in the Court on
19.09.2022. However, she was unable to understand and answer the
certain questions put to her due to her old age and both the parties
submitted that she was not in a fit state of mind to depose and as such,
she was not examined as a Court witness.
6. The prosecution has also relied upon the
documents as depicted in table no.1 given below:-
Table No.1
Ex.PX/1 FSL Report

Ex. PX FSL Report
Ex.PY FSL Report
Ex. PW1/A Tehrir
Ex.PW41/B Police proceedings
Ex. PW27/B Endorsement
Ex.PW3/B MLR
Ex.PW3/C Consent Form
Ex.PW8/A Scaled site plan
Ex.PW9/A Discharge summary
Ex.PW9/B CT Scan
Ex.PW10/A MLR
Ex. PW11/B LAMA summary
Ex.PW12/A X-ray report
Ex.PW12/B X-ray

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
21
Ex.PW13/A Discharge summary

Ex.PW42/A & B X-rays
Ex. PW42/C X-ray report
Ex.PW14/A Arrest memo of accused Satish
Ex. PW14/B Arrest memo of accused Harish
Ex.PW14/C Arrest memo of accused Lokesh
Ex.PW14/D Search memo of accused Satish Kumar
Ex.PW14/E Search memo of accused Harish
Ex.PW14/F Search memo of accused Lokesh
Ex. PW14/G Disclosure statement of accused Satish
Ex.PW14/H Disclosure statement of accused
Harish
Ex.PW14/J Disclosure statement of accused
Lokesh
Ex.PW14/J Arrest memo of accused Chaman
Ex.PW14/K Search memo of accused Chaman
Ex.PW14/L Disclosure statement of accused
Chaman
Ex.PW14/M Disclosure statement of accused Satish
Ex.PW14/N Disclosure statement of accused
Harish
Ex.PW14/O Disclosure statement of accused
Lokesh
Ex.PW14/P Recovery memo of Bamboo
Ex.PW14/R Recovery memo of Bamboo
Ex.PW14/S Sketch of Bamboo
Ex.PW14/T Sketch of Bamboo
Ex.PW16/B Copy of Register no.19
Ex.PW16/A Consent MLR
Ex.PW16/B MLR
Ex.PW17/B MLR
Ex.PW17/C MLR
Ex.PW17/D MLR

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
22
Ex.PW17/E & F Opinion of Doctor

Ex.PW17/G & H Opinion of Doctor
Ex.PW17/I & J Opinion of Doctor
Ex.PW17/Q Recovery memo of Bamboo
Ex.PW16/A Disclosure statement of accused Amit
Kumar
Ex.PW18/B Disclosure statement of accused
Dharamender
Ex.PW18/C Recovery memo of pharsa
Ex.PW19/A Disclosure statement of accused Amit
Dharamender
Ex.PW19/C Recovery memo of revolver
Ex.PW20/A Arrest memo of accused Shiv Kant
Ex.PW20/B Arrest memo of accused Ravinder
Ex.PW20/C Arrest memo of accused Nand Kishore
Ex.PW20/B Disclosure statement of accused Shiv
Kant
Ex.PW20/D1 Sketch of danda
Ex.PW20/D2 Recovery memo of danda
Ex.PW20/D3 Site plan of recovery
Ex.PW20/E Disclosure statement of accused
Ravinder
Ex.PW20/E1 Sketch of Bamboo
Ex.PW20/E2 Recovery memo of danda
Ex.PW20/E3 Site plan of recovery
Ex.PW20/F Disclosure statement of accused Nand
Kishore
Ex.PW20/F1 Sketch of lathi
Ex.PW20/F2 Recovery memo of lathi
Ex.PW20/F3 Site plan of recovery
Ex.PW21/A Arrest memo of accused Gyan Chand
Ex.PW21/A1 Sketch of lathi

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
23
Ex.PW21/B Arrest memo of Moniram

Ex.PW21/B1 Sketch of Bait wood
Ex.PW21/C Arrest memo of accused Ravi Kant
Ex.PW21/C1 Sketch of iron rod
Ex.PW21/A1 Disclosure statement of accused Gyan
Chand
Ex.PW21/B1 Disclosure statement of accused Mauji
Ram
Ex.PW21/C1 Disclosure statement of accused Ravi
Kant
Ex.PW21/B Memo of demarcation of place of
occurrence
Ex.PW21/E Site plan of recovery
Ex.PW21/G Application for medical
Ex.PW21/H Application for medical examination
Ex.PW21/A2 Recovery memo of Bamboo
Ex.PW21/B2 Recovery memo of Bait wood
Ex.PW21/C2 Recovery memo of iron rod
Ex.PW22/A Arrest memo of accused Dharamender
Ex.PW22/B Arrest memo of accused Amit Kumar
Ex.PW22/A Sketch
Ex.PW22/B Sketch of pistol and cartridges
Ex.PW22/C Site plan of recovery pistol
Ex.PW22/D Site plan of recovery of pharsa
Ex.PW23/A Arrest memo of accused Vinay
Ex.PW23/B Arrest memo of accused Rajender
Prashad
Ex.PW23/C Disclosure statement of accused Vinay
Ex.PW23/D Disclosure statement of accused
Rajender Prashad
Rajender Prashad
Ex.PW23/E1 Sketch of lathi

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
24
Ex.PW23/E2 Recovery memo of Bamboo

Ex.PW23/E3 Site plan of recovery of Bamboo
Ex.PW23/F Disclosure statement of accused Amit
Ex.PW23/F1 Sketch of Bamboo
Ex.PW23/F2 Recovery memo of Bamboo
Ex.PW23/F3 Site plan of recovery of Bamboo
Ex.PW24/A Demarcation memo of place of
occurrence
Ex.PW24/B Demarcation memo of place of
occurrence
Ex.PW24/C Site plan of recovery of stick
Ex.PW24/D Disclosure statement of accused
Omdutt
Ex.PW24/E Disclosure statement of Shri Ram
Ex.PW24/F Demarcation memo of spot
Ex.PW25/A Recovery memo of revolver licence
Ex.PW25/B Recovery memo of rifle licence
Ex.PW25/C Disclosure statement of accused Kamal
Kishore @ Lilu
Ex.PW25/D Recovery memo of rifle .315 bore
Ex.PW25/A1 Site plan of recovery of revolver
licence
Ex.PW25/B1 Site plan of recovery of rifle licence
Ex.PW25/C2 Site plan of recovery of live cartridges
Ex.PW25/D1 Site plan of recovery of rifle
Ex.PW26/A Disclosure statement of accused Kamal
Kishore @ Lilu
Narender
Ex.PW26/C Recovery memo of live cartridges
Ex.PW26/C1 Sketch of live cartridges
Ex.PW26/D Recovery memo of revolver and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
25
cartridges
Ex.PW26/D1 Sketch of revolver and cartridges
Ex.PW26/D2 Site plan of recovery of revolver and
cartridges
Narender
Ex.PW26/F Recovery of DVR data cable etc.
Ex.PW26/F1 Site plan of recovery of DVR
Ex.PW27/A FIR
Ex.PW27/C Disclosure statement of accused Kamsl
Kishore @ Lilu
Ex.PW27/D Disclosure statement of accused Sagar
Ex.PW27/E Demarcation memo
Ex.PW27/F Demarcation memo
Ex.PW27/G Disclosure statement of accused Shri
Kant
Ex.PW27/H Disclosure statement of accused Sagar
Ex.PW27/I Recovery memo of danda
Ex.PW28/A Disclosure statement of accused
Dayawati
Omwati
Ex.PW28/C Demarcation memo
Ex.PW28/D Demarcation memo
Pramod Kumar
Ex.PW29/B Demarcation memo of spot
Ex.PW31/A Recovery memo of blood sample
Ex.PW31/B Recovery memo of six empty
cartridges
Ex.PW31/C Rough site plan

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
26

Subhash
Ex.PW33/B Disclosure statement of accused Manoj
Ex.PW33/C Disclosure statement of accused
Harkesh
Ex.PW33/D Disclosure statement of accused Manoj
Ex.PW33/E Disclosure statement of accused Manoj
Ex.PW33/F Disclosure statement of accused
Harkesh
Ex.PW33/G Recovery memo of pistol and
cartridges
Ex.PW33/H Site plan of recovery
Ex.PW33/J Sketch of rifle
Ex.PW39/A Postmortem report
Ex.PW39/B Postmortem report
Ex.PW39/C Postmortem report
Ex.PW39/D Postmortem report
Ex.PW39/E Postmortem report
Ex.PW40/A & B Application for providing MLC
Ex.PW40/C & D Application for statement of injured
Ex.PW40/E & F Opinion of Doctor
Ex.PW40/H Site plan of recovery
Ex.PW40/J Recovery memo of danda
Ex.PW40/K Site plan of recovery
Ex.PW40/L,M & O Recovery memo of live cartridges
Ex.PW41/A Application for obtaining opinion
Ex.PW40/I Sketch of danda
Ex.PW40/G Sketch of danda
Ex.PW41/R Arms licence

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
27
Ex.PW44/A Arms licence

Ex.PW41/S Arms licence
Ex.PW41/C Inquest report
Ex.PW41/D Inquest report
Ex.PW41/E Inquest report
Ex.PW41/F Inquest report
Ex.PW41/G Inquest report
Ex.PW41/H, M Application for postmortem
Ex.PW41/I, M Application for postmortem
Ex.PW41/J, N Application for postmortem
Ex.PW41/K, P Application for postmortem
Ex.PW41/L, Q Application for postmortem
Ex.PW41/Y1 MLC
Ex.PW41/Y2 MLC
Ex.PW41/Y3 MLC
Ex.PW41/Y4 Brought dead certificate
Ex.PW41/Y5 MLC
Ex.PW41/T Sketch of rifle
Ex.PW41/T1 Disclosure statement of accused
Narender
Ex.PW41/U Disclosure statement of accused
Virender
Ex.PW41/V Sketch of DBBL Gun
Ex.PW41/X Recovery memo of rifle and DBBL
Gun
Ex.PZ1 FSL report
Ex.PZ2 CFSL Report
Ex.DX Forwarding note

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
28
Ex.PW36/51 Certificate under section 65B of Indian

Evidence Act
Ex.PW44/B Form-II
7. The prosecution has relied upon the following
objects during evidence:
Sr. No. Description of objects

Ex.PW36/1 to Photographs
30
Ex.PW36/31 Photographs
to 45
Ex.PW36/46 CDs
to 55
Ex.PW39/K1 X-rays
to K2
Ex.PW39/C1 X-rays
& C2
Ex.PW39/O1 X-rays
to O2
Ex.PW39/M1 X-rays
to M2
Ex.PW39/N1 X-rays
to N2
Ex.PD/1 to 9 Photographs
8. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were
recorded, wherein entire incriminating material was put to them and
same was denied by them to be wrong. They pleaded innocence and
false implication in this case.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
29
Stand taken by accused Narender and Dharmender in their
statements under Section 313 Cr.PC is as under:
“I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present

case because of the party faction in the village. I was not
involved in the incident. I have reached the spot when I came to
know that my brother namely Virender and other family
members namely Sagar, Siri Kant and Subhash have been
attacked and mercilessly beaten. When I reached there, I found
my brother Virender and other family members in an serious
injured condition and we brought them back to the house. I was
never carrying any weapon at any point of time during the
incident and the same has been planted by the police. The
allegations of causing injuries by my weapon is totally false,
fabricated and concocted one. I was not involved in any
incident.”
Stand taken by accused Kamal Kishore @ Lillu is as under:

case. Infact, complainant party has concealed the genesis of
occurrence. There is a strong party faction in our village for
years on account of Gram Panchayat elections. The complainant
and deceased persons have been conspiring against our family
for years. On the fateful day, the deceased persons alongwith
other companions attacked my brother namely Virender and my
son namely Sagar and caused life threatening injuries. My
brother namely Virender suffered a fracture in his head and he
was bleeding profusely and was unconscious. My son was also

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
30
beaten badly. Upon hearing such commotion and the information

that my son and my brother have been done to death by the
opposition namely Ishwar, Rajinder, Naveen and Siri Chand etc.,
I rushed to the spot and I was carrying my registered weapon. I
fired one shot in the air just to scare away those persons and in
order to repel the attack. The deceased attacked me and tried to
snatch my weapon i.e gun and in such a perplexed situation, the
shot got fired and the deceased Rajinder Parsad got injured.
Thereafter, my gun was snatched by Rajinder Prasad and Ishwar
Singh etc. and in that process, many villagers, who had gathered
at the spot, got injured and ultimately died. The opposition
conspired and projected all the deaths to be caused by me and
my family members but it is not the truth. Deceased namely Siri
Chand, Ishwar, Naveen, Rajinder Parsad and Devender @ Pintu
were part of the villagers, who had rushed and gathered at the
spot after hearing commotion. The complainant, who is a lawyer,
had conspired and raised false allegations under a well legal
consultancy alongwith the ruling party politicians that we had
committed murder of these deceased persons. I have not caused
murder of any person nor I have injured anyone. Infact, my
family was attacked by them but fortunately my brother and son
survived the attack. We have been falsely implicated in this case
and the police under the political pressure and also under the
pressure of media and villagers, suppressed the true facts in the
investigation and projected it to be a case of murder of five
persons by our family. It is evident from the CCTV footage and
other evidence that we were in our houses and we had rushed out
of the houses when we heard the commotion. Till today, the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
31
police has not taken any action qua our injuries in the cross FIR
which has been lodged at our instance. It never happened that we
gathered and went to the house of complainant or attacked them.
We are victims of poor investigation, political pressure, extortion
and harassment.”
Accused Gyan Chand, Amit Kumar, Ravi Kant, Shiv Kant,
Ravinder, Vinay, Lokesh @ Loki, Satish, Harish, Mauji Ram, Omwati,
Dayawati, Sagar, Shrikant, Manoj, Om Dutt, Shriram and Pramod took
the following stand in their respective statements under Section 313
Cr.PC:

involved in the incident.”
Stand taken by accused Harkesh and Rajender Prasad in their
respective statements under Section 313 Cr.PC is as under:

case. As a matter of fact, at about 9.35 pm on the date of
incident, the co-accused Virender @ Billu was coming from the
shop of one Satish and during the transit, he was way laid by
Harish @ Chilu and his father Kanhaya Lal, who caught him by
neck and started abusing him. Said Harish and Kanhaya Lal
called others whereupon Narender, Kailash, Mam Chand, Manoj,
Pintu @ Devender, Bijender, Nand Kishor, Har Parshad, Bhagat
Ram, Sokhi, Jarman, Ravi, Raj Kanwar and Pankaj etc. came

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
32
armed with lathies, dandas, axes and rods and with a view to
attack Virender @ Billu, they caused him injuries upon his head
then somebody from the village informed family members of
Virender @ Billu whereupon his brothers and sons came there
unarmed and they attempted to shield Virender @ Billu. The said
persons of the complainant’s party then caused injuries to
Virender @ Billu by means of pharsa and rods. At that time,
Kamal Kishore @ Lillu, who is the brother of Virender @ Billu
fired shots from the licensed revolver with a view to disperse
them. Kamal Kishore @ Lillu gave a warning to the said persons
of the complainant party to go aside, so that he could remove the
injured from here. Inspite of their warning, they continued to
attack and also attempted to snatch the rifle of Kamal Kishore @
Lillu and Kamal Kishore then used the licensed rifle in the right
of private defence. I was not a participant in the incident. I was
simply present being in the neighbourhood. I was got implicated
by the complainant party, so that I could be debarred from
appearing as a witness on behalf of the accused party.
Accused Chaman took the stand as under:

case due to party faction in the village.”
Stand of accused Subhash is as under:

involved in the incident. I have reached the spot when I came to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
33
know that my brother namely Virender and other family

members have been attacked and mercilessly beaten. When I
reached there, I found my brother Virender and other family
members in an serious injured condition and we brought them
back to the house. I was never carrying any weapon at any point
of time during the incident and the same has been planted by the
police.”
Stand taken by accused Virender @ Billu is as under:

case. My wife was the Sarpanch of our village and we have been
winning the elections for years. The opposition was nurturing a
grudge against me and my whole family on this account. On the
fateful day, I was returning to my house from village. When I
reached in front of the house of Rajinder Parsad, I was stopped,
attacked and way laid by Nitesh, Narender son of Mam Chand,
Manoj @ Kala, Bijender, Pehlad, Duli Chand, Kanhaya, Het
Ram, Asru, Bhagat, Jerman, Lalit, Ravi, Trilok, Bintu, Naveen,
Raj Kumar, Pankaj, Rajinder Prasad, Ishwar Chand, Siri Chand,
Ravinder @ Pintu, Naveen, Harish and others and these persons
were carrying lathies and dandas in their hands and they caused
multiple injuries to me. My nephew Sagar also rushed to the spot
and he was also beaten mercilessly. Because of heavy blood loss,
I had lost consciousness and fell on the spot. I regained
consciousness after some time, when I was lifted by my family
members from the spot and they helped me to reach my house
and I was smeared with blood. I could not walk and therefore, I
was helped on both sides by my family members. I was given

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
34
immediate medical aid at my house and we stayed at the house

out of fear and shock. After some time, when the bleeding could
not stop, I was taken to QRG Hospital and I was treated there.
The police forcibly arrested me despite the fact that I was under
medical treatment and had suffered serious head injuries. The
police did not record my FIR but I had got my complaint lodged
with the police precisely. The police suppressed the true facts
under the pressure of political persons, villagers, complainant
and the lawyers of Faridabad Court. The complainant is a lawyer
and he misused his reputation and designation of being a lawyer
against us in this case. We moved various representations but
police had not even receive any representation. My entire family
has been roped in the present case on account of absolutely
frivolous allegations after concealing the genesis of occurrence. I
was saved by my family members, otherwise, these persons
would have killed me. Those unfortunates deaths have been
levelled against me and my family members under a well
hatched criminal conspiracy and legal consultancy with the
politicians and police and police supported their case with the
tainted investigation. I am completely innocent. I have not
caused any injury or death.”
9. In their defence evidence, accused examined Dr. Sachin
Gupta as DW1, HC Manjeet as DW2, Dr. Upender Bhardwaj as DW3,
Inspector Subhash Singh as DW4, Dr. Nitin Jaiswal as DW5, Dr. Ravi
Shankar as DW6 and Dr. Hem Kumar Sharma as DW7 and placed
reliance upon documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D7.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
35
10. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Nand Kishore
expired during the trial and proceedings against him were dropped vide
order dated 02.04.2018.
11. The brief resume of the evidence led by prosecution is (as
deposed in examination-in-chief) as under:-
PW1 Lalit Kumar is the complainant of the case. He
deposed that on 17.09.2017 at about 9/9.15 p.m., he alongwith his
cousin Sunil, Har Parsad and Suresh was standing in front of house of
Sunil and thereafter, he went back to his house. However, after some
time, he heard noise of abusing and quarrel from the street and he
alongwith his father Rajender Parsad and younger brother Nitesh came
outside the house and saw Gyan Chand son of Kallu Ram, Virender @
Billu, Narender, Shiv Kant, Siri Kant, A---(CCL), Mauji Ram, Nand
Kishore, Dharmender, Parmod, Amit, Subhash, Ravinder, Kamal
Kishore @ Leelu, Ravi Kant, Sagar, Satish, Chaman, Lokesh @ Loki,
Vinay, Rajender @ Kallu, Harkesh, Manoj, Harish, Shri Ram, Omdutt
alongwith 10-12 other persons of the other village, armed with
revolver, rifle, gun, lathi, dandas, Pharsa, iron rods standing in the
street. He deposed that other members of his family and neighbourers
namely Ishwar Chand, Kanhiya Lal, Siri Chand, Suresh, Parmali,
Bhagat Ram, Devender @ Pintu and Naveen also came out from their

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
36
respective houses and all these persons were surrounded by the accused
persons and accused party attacked them. He deposed that accused
Amit gave a pharsa blow to him. However, he protected himself with
his left hand and received injury on his left hand palm. Accused Nand
Kishore gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder. Accused Shri Kant gave
an iron rod blow on his head. Accused Kamal Kishore fired a shot from
a rifle on the chest of his father Rajender Parsad. He tried to snatch the
said rifle but accused Virender @ Billu succeeded in snatching the rifle
from Kamal Kishore and fired a shot on the right side of chest of his
uncle Siri Chand. He further deposed that accused Dharmender,
Narender and Subhash fired shots from their respective fire arms which
hit Ishwar Chand, Pintu @ Devender, Naveen, Kanhiya Lal and Nitesh.
Accused persons also attacked his family members namely Parmali,
Suresh and Sunil etc. with iron rods, dandas, lathis and pharsa and they
tried to save themselves by entering inside their houses. However,
accused persons followed them and entered into their houses. When
lady members of their house tried to defend by pelting stones on the
accused persons, they left the spot after giving threat of life to them.
His family members took all the injured persons to different hospitals.
He deposed that he alongwith Siri Chand, Rajender Parsad, Ishwar
Chand and Parmali were taken to Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-19,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
37
Faridabad where his father Rajender Parsad, uncle Siri Chand and
brother Ishwar Chand were declared brought dead. Naveen and
Kanhiya Lal were taken to Metro Hospital, Faridabad and lateron, he
came to know that Naveen was also declared brought dead at Metro
Hospital. Devender @ Pintu and his brother Nitesh were taken to
Asian Hospital where Devender alias Pintu was declared dead. He
deposed that accused persons had attacked them under a well planned
conspiracy as his family members opposed Dayawati wife of Virender
@ Billu in Gram Panchayat election. He deposed that his statement
Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police in Sarvodaya Hospital which
bore his signatures at point ‘A’. He identified all the accused persons
in the Court.
PW2 Nitesh, who is one of the injured and eye witness to
the occurrence, deposed that on 17.09.2017 at about 9/9.15 p.m., he
was present at his home when he heard the noise of quarrel from
outside. He alongwith his elder brother Lalit and father Rajender
Parsad came out of the house and saw that 30/40 persons namely Mauji
Ram, Nand Kishore, Dharmender, Parmod, Omwati, Subhash,
Ravinder, Amit, Kamal Kishore, Sagar, Ravi Kant, Gyan Chand,
Virender, Shri Kant, Shiv Kant, Dayawati, Narender, A---(CCL),
Harish, Manoj, Harkesh, Lokesh, Chaman, Satish, Vinay, Om Dutt,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
38
Shriram and Rajender along with 8/10 other persons were present in the
street. He deposed that the above named persons are residents of their
village and other 8/10 persons belong to their village and also from
outside and he did not remember their names and said persons were
carrying dandas, lathis, revolver, pharsa, rifle, rod etc. He further
deposed that accused Gyan Chand and Mauji Ram gave a lalkara and
instigated the other accused persons to teach a lesson to them
(complainant party) for opposing them in the Panchayat elections.
Thereafter, accused Amit inflicted pharsa blow on the left hand of his
elder brother Lalit. Accused Nand Kishore gave a lathi blow on the
head of Lalit, which hit on his shoulder. Accused Shri Kant inflicted an
iron rod blow on the head of Lalit. Accused Kamal Kishore fired a shot
towards him with an intention to kill him which embedded in his right
upper shoulder. Accused Kamal Kishore also fired a shot on the chest
of his father Rajender Parsad. Thereafter, accused Virender snatched
the rifle from Kamal Kishore and fired shot at Siri Chand which hit on
his chest. Accused Sagar gave a lathi blow on his head and accused
Harish gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder. He deposed that accused
Ravi Kant gave an iron rod blow on his head and he sustained injury
with bleeding. He further deposed that accused Narender, Subhash and
Dharmender fired shots with firearms which hit Naveen, Ishwar,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
39
Devender and Kanhiya Lal and Ishwar, Devender, Naveen, Siri Chand
and Rajender Parsad expired due to fire shot injuries. Kanhiya Lal
sustained fire shot injury on his forearm. He further deposed that other
accused persons surrounded other members of his family namely
Suresh, Parmali and Bhagat Ram under the street light and gave
beatings with lathis and dandas. Thereafter, he alongwith his brother
Lalit rushed towards his house to save themselves and some of the
accused persons followed them. However, ladies of their family
protected them by pelting stones/bricks on the accused and when they
went away, his mother opened the lache of the door from outside.
Thereafter, they were taken to the hospital. He was taken to Asian
Hospital where he was medico-legally examined and he remained
admitted there for three days. He deposed that police contacted him
lateron and recorded his statement. He identified all the accused in the
Court.
PW3 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, CMO, Asian Hospital,
Faridabad, had medico-legally examined injured Nitesh son of
Rajender on 17.09.2017 at 10.30 p.m. and tendered his affidavit
Ex.PW3/A in this regard alongwith MLR Ex.PW3/B and consent form
Ex.PW3/C.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
40
PW4 Constable Amit Kumar deposed that on
18.09.2017, he had delivered the special report of the case to learned
Area Magistrate and other police officers, which was handed over to
him by HC Kuldeep.
PW5 Constable Ram Niwas deposited the case property
at CFSL, Chandigarh on 11.10.2017 and at RFSL Bhondsi on
19.10.2017 which was handed over to him by Malkhana Moharrar
Constable Brij Lal. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW5/A in
this regard.
PW6 Constable Arvind Kumar tendered in evidence his
affidavits Ex.PW6/A & Ex.PW6/B regarding deposit of case property
at FSL Madhuban on 15.11.2017 and 06.12.2017.
PW7 Constable Bishan Singh took the tehrir written by
SI Badan Singh to the police station for registration of formal FIR, on
18.09.2017. He also remained associated in the investigation of this
case with ASI Jeet Singh on 19.09.2017 when accused Vinay and
Rajender were interrogated and they suffered disclosure statements
Ex.PW23/C and Ex.PW23/D which were signed by him as a witness.
PW8 ASI Sharwan Kumar, Draftsman deposed that on
31.10.2017, he visited the spot and prepared the scaled site plan of the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
41
place of occurrence Ex.PW8/A on the demarcation of Inspector Ashok
Kumar.
PW9 Dr. Subhash. Surgeon, Sarvodaya Hospital,
Sector-19, Faridabad, treated injured Lalit and has tendered his
discharge summary Ex.PW9/A. He also brought the CT Scan and X-
ray reports of Lalit and deposed that CT Scan report Ex.PW9/B shows
soft tissue swelling of scalp. During cross-examination, he stated that
all the injuries were simple in nature and no abnormality was found in
CT Scan and X-ray. He denied the suggestion that injuries can be self
inflicted.
PW10 Dr. Naveen Arichwal, Medical Officer, Metro
Hospital, Faridabad, had medico-legally examined injured Kanhiya
Lal on 17.09.2017 vide MLR Ex.PW10/A and he tendered in evidence
his affidavit Ex.PW10/B in this regard.
PW11 Dr. Shailender Partap Singh, Orthopaedic
Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Metro Hospital, Faridabad, tendered
in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW11/A regarding admission of patient
Kanhiya Lal on 18.09.2017 with alleged history of gun shot injury with
complaint of pain, swelling and wound over left forearm. He deposed
that patient was kept under observation where patient was treated with
IV Fluids and IV amoxyclav, IV fluid, IV volflam, IV pain and other

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
42
supportive treatment and his X-ray left fore-arm showed fracture lower
end of ulna. He deposed that patient was advised for surgical fixation
of fracture ulna but refused for some and left the hospital against
medical advice. He tendered discharge summary of Kanhiya Lal as
Ex.PW11/B.
PW12 Dr. Sweta Garg, Consultant Radiologist in
Metro Hospital, Faridabad, tendered report Ex.PW12/A given by her
on the basis of X-ray film Ex.PW12/B of Kanhiya Lal showing fracture
of lower end of left ulna.
PW13 Dr. Anushtup De deposed that on 17.09.2017, he
was posted as Consultant in Department of Surgery in Asian Hospital,
Faridabad when patient Nitesh was admitted in there and treated by
him and Dr. Prabal Roy. He further deposed that patient was brought
with alleged history of fire arm injury. Patient was admitted in ICU
and CT Scan of head was done which showed soft tissue contusion. CT
angiography of right upper limb was also done, which showed
contusion of muscle with no obvious fracture. Patient was taken up for
surgery – debridement and removal of bullet was done on 18.09.2017.
He deposed that bullet was stuck in the right upper arm area of injured.
He deposed that patient was discharged on stable condition on
20.09.2017 and the removed bullet was handed over to the appropriate

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
43
department. He tendered the discharge summary of Nitesh as
Ex.PW13/A and tendered the bullet removed from the body of injured
Nitesh as Ex.PW40/O.
PW14 Constable Raspal Singh remained associated in
the investigation of this case with SI Braham Parkash and deposed that
on 18.09.2017, accused Satish, Harish and Lokesh were arrested from
village Palwali vide arrest memos Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/C
respectively after their personal search vide jamatalashi memos
Ex.PW14/D to Ex.PW14/F. He deposed that on 19.09.2017, all the
aforesaid three accused were interrogated and they suffered disclosure
statements Ex.PW14/G to Ex.PW14/I respectively. He further deposed
that on the same day, accused Chaman was arrested from QRG
Hospital vide arrest memo Ex.PW14/J, after his personal search vide
jamatalashi memo Ex.PW14/K. On interrogation on 20.09.2017,
accused Chaman suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW14/L. On the
same day, accused Satish, Harish and Lokesh were again interrogated
and they suffered disclosure statements Ex.PW14/M to Ex.PW14/O
respectively and in pursuance thereof, they got recovered one lathi each
vide recovery memos Ex.PW14/P to Ex.PW14/R respectively. He
deposed that sketches of lathis Ex.PW14/S to Ex.PW14/U respectively
were prepared by the IO and all the lathis were converted into parcels

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
44
and sealed with seal of ‘BP’ before taking into possession. He tendered
the lathis recovered from accused Satish, Harish and Lokesh as Ex.P1
to Ex.P3 and identified his signatures on all the aforesaid
memos/disclosure statements etc.
PW15 Constable Brij Lal, Malkhana Moharrar
tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW15/A regarding deposit of case
property in the Malkhana by the Investigating Officer on different
dates. He tendered copy of Malkhana register as Ex.PW15/B reflecting
the deposit of case property vide entry Nos.55 dated 19.09.2017; 56 to
58 dated 20.09.2017; 59 and 60 dated 21.09.2017; 61 and 64 dated
22.09.2017; 62 dated 23.09.2017; 63 dated 24.09.2017; 66 dated
14.10.2017; 74A without date and 95 dated 04.12.2017 running into 26
pages. He deposed that said entries reflect the movement and dispatch
of case property in column No.8 of the register and receiving of report
from FSL alongwith case property. He (Constable Brij Lal) again
appeared in the witness box as PW16 (shall be treated as PW15) and
tendered his affidavit Ex.PW16/A regarding deposit of case property
entered at Sr. No.56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 & 68 as
well as at Sr. Nos.74A & 95 and tendered the same as Ex.PW16/B
collectively.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
45
PW16 Dr. Nidhi Batra was working as casualty Medical
officer at Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-19, Faridabad, on 17.09.2017
when she examined Lalit son of Shri Rajinder Sharma, R/o village
Palwali and found six injuries fully described in MLR Ex.PW16/A.
She deposed that Lalit was examined by her on 17.09.2017 at about
10.10 p.m. in the emergency but the print of the MLR was taken on
18.09.2017 as in the night computer system was not functional. She
deposed that injuries nos.1, 4 and 5 have been caused by blunt weapon
whereas injuries no.2, 3 and 6 have been caused by sharp edge weapon.
(However, it was observed by the Court that on page no.3 of the
MLR, the kind of the weapon used is blank)-
PW17 Dr. Jagdish Parashar, Civil Hospital, Faridabad,
had medico-legally examined Smt. Parmali wife of Dayanand Sharma,
Suresh Chand son of Daya Chand and Bhagat Ram son of Siri Chand
on 20.09.2017 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW17/A in this regard. He
tendered the MLR of Smt. Parmali as Ex.PW17/B, MLR of Suresh as
Ex.PW17/C and that of Bhagat Ram as PW17/D. He deposed that on
14.12.2017, on an application Ex.PW17/E moved by the I.O. and on
perusal of the weapon, he opined vide his opinion Ex.PW17/F that
possibility of injuries on the person of Suresh Chand with lathies and
dandas could not be ruled out. Similarly on the basis of application

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
46
Ex.PW17/G moved by the IO and on perusal of weapon, he opined
vide his opinion Ex.PW17/H that possibility of injuries on the person
of Bhagat Ram with lathies and dandas could not be ruled out. Similar
opinion Ex.PW17/J was given by him after perusal of weapon
regarding injuries on the person of Parmali on the basis of application
Ex.PW17/I moved by the IO.
PW18 HC Bachchu Singh remained associated with SI
Hari Singh during investigation of this case when accused Amit
suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW18/A and accused Dharmender
suffered disclosure statement Ex.P18/B which bear his signatures. He
also proved recovery memo Ex.PW18/C which was signed by him as
an attesting witness and vide which accused Amit got recovered Pharsa
Ex.P4.
PW19 HC Karan Singh remained associated with SI
Hari Singh when accused Amit suffered disclosure statement
Ex.PW19/A and accused Dharmender suffered disclosure statement
Ex.P19/B. He also proved recovery memo Ex.PW19/C vide which
accused Dharmender got recovered one revolver .32 bore loaded with
six live cartridges of the same bore alongwith his arm licence from the
TV trolley lying in his house and same were taken into possession vide

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
47
memo Ex.PW19/C. He tendered the revolver as Ex.P5, live cartridges
as Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 and used cartridges as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11.
PW20 Abhay Singh deposed that on 18.09.2017, he was
posted as Sub Inspector (since retired) in Police Station Sector-31,
Faridabad and was the member of SIT constituted for the investigation
of this case. On that day, he arrested accused Shiv Kant, Ravinder and
Nand Kishore from the red light of Sector-29, Bye-pass, vide arrest
memos Ex.PW20/A to Ex.PW20/C respectively and after their medico-
legal examination, they were got confined in the lock up of Crime
Branch, Sector-30, Faridabad. He deposed that during investigation on
19.09.2017, accused Shiv Kant suffered disclosure statement
Ex.PW20/D admitting his involvement in the present case and that he
had kept concealed the danda used in the crime in second house of
village Chhalera, Noida, UP and he could get the same recovered.
Similar disclosure statements Ex.PW20/E and Ex.PW20/F were
suffered by accused Ravinder and accused Nand Kishore regarding
their involvement in the present case and concealment of danda and
lathi respectively used in the commission of crime. In pursuance of his
disclosure statement, accused Shiv Kant got recovered one danda from
the house of Umesh Sharma. Its Sketch Ex.PW20/D1 was prepared
and same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/D2, after

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
48
sealing the same with the seal AS. Accused Ravinder got recovered one
danda from his old house. Rough sketch of the said danda Ex.PW20/E1
was prepared and the same was taken into possession vide recovery
memo Ex.PW20/E2 after sealing the same with seal of AS. Similarly,
accused Nand Kishore got recovered one lathi from the house of Sanjay
in village Gharbara. Rough sketch of lathi Ex.PW20/F1 was prepared
and same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW20/F2
and sealed with the seal of AS. Rough site plans of places of recoveries
Ex.PW20/D3, Ex.PW20/E3 and Ex.PW20/F3 respectively were
prepared. He tendered the danda recovered from accused Ravinder as
Ex.MO/1, lathi recovered from accused Nand Kishore as Ex.MO/2 and
danda recovered from accused Shiv Kant as Ex.MO/6.
PW21 SI Sumer Singh was also one of the member of the
SIT headed by ACP Aman. He deposed that on 18.09.2017, he had
arrested accused Gyan Chand, Mauji Ram and Ravi Kant vide arrest
memos Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW21/B and Ex.PW21/C respectively. On
interrogation on 19.09.2017, they suffered disclosure statements
Ex.PW21/A1, Ex.PW21/B/1 and Ex.PW21/C respectively having
admitting the commission of crime and concealment of their respective
weapons used by them. They also demarcated the place of occurrence
vide demarcation memo Ex.PW21/D. Thereafter on 21.09.2017, in

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
49
pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Gyan Chand got
recovered one lathi. Sketch of lathi Ex.PW21/A1 was prepared and
same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW21/A2,
after sealing the same with the seal of VK. Accused Mauji Ram got
recovered one wooden handle (danda) from the disclosed place. Sketch
of lathi Ex.PW21/B1 was prepared and the same was taken into
possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW21/B2, after sealing the same
with the seal of VK. Accused Ravi Kant got recovered an iron rod. Its
rough sketch Ex.PW21/C1 was prepared and same was taken into
possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW21/C2, after sealing the same
with the seal of VK. Rough site plan of the place of recoveries
Ex.PW21/E was prepared. Case property was deposited in the
Malkhana. He tendered the danda got recovered by accused Gyan
Chand as Ex.MO/3, danda got recovered by accused Mauji Ram as
Ex.MO/4 and the lathi, which was got recovered by accused Ravi Kant
as Ex.MO/5. He further deposed that on 20.09.2017, witnesses Parmali,
Suresh and Bhagat Ram disclosed that they could not get themselves
medically examined due to the death of five persons and thereafter, he
got them medically examined from B.K. Hospital, Faridabad vide
applications Ex.PW21/F, Ex.PW21/G and Ex.PW21/H respectively.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
50
PW22 SI Hari Singh was also one of the members of SIT
and had arrested accused Dharmender and Amit on 18.09.2017 vide
memos Ex. PW22/A and Ex. PW22/B respectively. He deposed that on
19.09.2017, both the accused were interrogated and they suffered
disclosure statements Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW19/A respectively which
were attested by HC Karan Singh but lateron they resiled from the said
disclosure statements regarding concealment of weapons. On
21.09.2017, they were again interrogated during which accused
Dharmender suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW18/B and accused
Amit suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW18/A. On the same day,
accused Amit in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered
one pharsa. Rough sketch of said pharsa Ex.PW22/A was prepared
and same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW18/C
after sealing the same with the seal of RS. Rough site plan of the place
of recovery Ex.PW22/D was prepared. He further deposed that on
22.09.2017, accused Dharmender got recovered one revolver from a
drawer of a TV trolley and six live cartridges were found loaded in the
said revolver. Accused Dharmender also got recovered license of the
said revolver. Sketch of the revolver and live cartridges Ex.PW22/B
was prepared and thereafter, same were taken into possession vide
memo Ex. PW19/C after preparing a sealed parcel with the seal of RS.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
51
Rough site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PW22/C was prepared. He
tendered the pharsa got recovered by accused Amit as Ex.PW18/C and
the revolver and six live cartridges which were got recovered by
accused Dharmender as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 to Ex.P11 and the license as
Mark A.
PW23 SI Jeet Singh is one of the Investigating Officers
of SIT and he had arrested accused Vinay Kumar and Rajinder Parsad
on 18.09.2017 vide arrest memos Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B
respectively. He deposed that during interrogation on 19.09.2017,
accused Vinay Kumar and Rajinder Parsad suffered disclosure
statements Ex.PW23/C and Ex.PW23/D respectively regarding their
involvement in the present case and concealment of dandas used by
them. He deposed that on 20.09.2017, both the accused were again
interrogated when accused Rajinder Parsad suffered disclosure
statement Ex. PW23/E and he disclosed that he had kept concealed one
danda used in the crime in the room of his house and he could get the
same recovered. Similarly, accused Vinay suffered disclosure statement
Ex. PW23/F and he disclosed that he had kept concealed one danda
used in the crime in the field of Billu Sarpanch near a wall and he could
get the same recovered. Thereafter, accused Rajinder Parsad got
recovered one danda from the disclosed place. Sketch of danda Ex.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
52
PW23/E1 was prepared and the same was taken into possession vide
memo Ex. PW23/E2 after converting the same into a sealed parcel and
sealed with seal JS. He prepared rough site plan of the place of
recovery Ex.PW23/E3. He further deposed that accused Vinay got
recovered one danda from the disclosed place. Its sketch Ex. PW23/F1
was prepared and the same was taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW23/F2 after sealing the same with the seal of JS. Rough site plan
of the place of recovery Ex.PW23/F3 was prepared by him. He
tendered the danda recovered by accused Rajinder as Ex.MO/6 and the
danda got recovered by accused Vinay as Ex.MO/7.
PW24 SI Braham Parkash deposed that on 18.09.2017,
after constitution of SIT team of this case, he alongwith Constable
Rashpal approached village Palwali Badshahpur where one Vaibhav
produced accused Lokesh, Harish and Satish, who were by name
accused of this case. He prepared the arrest memo and search memo
on the spot and kept the accused under police custody. He deposed that
on 19.09.2017, accused Lokesh suffered disclosure statement Ex.
PW14/I, accused Harish suffered disclosure statement Ex. PW14/H
and accused Satish suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW14/G and as
per their respective disclosure statements, they demarcated the place of
occurrence vide memo Ex. PW24/A. He deposed that on the same day,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
53
accused Chaman was arrested from QRG Hospital and on 20.09.2017,
he alongwith above named three accused was again interrogated during
which accused Harish, Satish, Lokesh and Chaman suffered disclosure
statements Ex.PW14/L to Ex.PW14/O respectively. On the same day,
accused Chaman demarcated the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.
PW24/B. On the same day, accused Satish, Harish and Lokesh got
recovered separate bamboo sticks from their residence vide recovery
memos Ex.PW14/P to Ex. PW14/R respectively. He proved the rough
sketches of bamboo sticks as Ex.PW14/S to Ex.PW14/U and the
recovery site plan Ex.PW24/C. He further deposed that on 30.09.2017,
accused Om Dutt and Shri Ram were arrested. On interrogation,
accused Omdutt and Shri Ram suffered disclosure statements Ex.
PW24/D and Ex.PW24/E respectively and in pursuance thereof, they
demarcated the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW24/F. He
tendered the bamboo sticks which were got recovered by accused
Lokesh, Satish and Harish as Ex.P1 to Ex. P3 respectively.
PW25 HC Mahavir remained associated in the
investigation of this case with SI Badan Singh when accused Narender
got recovered arm licence Mark A vide recovery memo Ex.PW25/A
and accused Kamal Kishore got recovered his arm licence Mark B vide
recovery memo Ex.PW25/B. He proved the disclosure statement

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
54
suffered by accused Kamal Kishore as Ex.PW25/C in pursuance of
which, he got recovered one rifle 315 bore Ex.P4 vide recovery memo
Ex.PW25/D.
PW26 HC Khurshid Ahmed also remained associated
with SI Badan Singh at the time when accused Kamal Kishore suffered
disclosure statement Ex.PW26/A and accused Narender suffered
disclosure statement Ex.PW26/B on 19.09.2017. He proved the
recovery memo Ex.PW26/C vide which accused Kamal Kishore got
recovered four live cartridges from village Kakripur and their rough
sketch prepared by the IO as Ex.PW26/C1. He further proved recovery
memo Ex.PW26/D vide which accused Narender got recovered one
revolver alongwith five live cartridges 32 bore and rough sketch of the
same as Ex.PW26/D1. He deposed that on 23.09.2017, accused
Narender suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW26/E in his presence and
in pursuance thereof, he got recovered DVR, data cable, connection
wire and adopter from the house of Virender @ Billu at village Palwali
vide recovery memo Ex. PW26/F. He identified his signatures on all
the aforesaid disclosure statements and recovery memos as a witness
and tendered the revolver which was got recovered by accused
Narender as Ex.P5, five live cartridges got recovered by accused
Narender as Ex.P6, four live cartridges got recovered by accused

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
55
Kamal Kishore as Ex.P7 and DVR got recovered by accused Narender
as Ex.P8.
PW27 HC Kuldeep deposed that on 18.09.2017, he
recorded formal FIR Ex.PW27/A on receipt of tehrir written by SI
Badan Singh through Constable Bishan and made endorsement
Ex.PW27/B in this regard. He also remained associated with SI Silak
Ram on 20.09.2017 when accused Shri Kant and Sagar suffered
disclosure statements Ex.PW27/C and PW27/D respectively and
demarcated the place of occurrence vide memos Ex.PW27/E and
Ex.PW27/F. He deposed that both the accused were again interrogated
during which they suffered disclosure statements Ex.PW27/G and
Ex.PW27/H respectively and accused Shri Kant got recovered a danda
vide recovery memo Ex.PW27/I, which was signed by him as a
witness. He tendered the said danda as Ex.PW27/J and parcel as
Ex.PW27/K.
PW28 ACP Sushil arrested accused Dayawati and
Omwati and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW28/A and
Ex.PW28/B respectively. He deposed that in pursuance of their
disclosure statements, accused Omwati and Dayawati demarcated the
place of occurrence vide memos Ex.PW28/C and Ex.PW28/D
respectively.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
56
PW29 SI Jamil Ahmed remained associated with
Inspector Ashok Kumar when he interrogated accused Pramod and
recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW29/A. He also proved the
demarcation memo Ex.PW29/B prepared by the IO at the instance of
accused Parmod.
PW30 HC Satender Singh remained associated in the
investigation of this case with SI Abhey Singh on 18.09.2017 when
accused Nand Kishore, Ravinder and Shiv Kant were produced by one
Jitender. He proved the disclosure statements suffered accused Shiv
Kant, Ravinder and Nand Kishore as Ex.PW20/D to Ex.PW20/F
respectively which were signed by him as a witness. He deposed that
on 20.9.2017, accused Nand Kishore led the police party to village
Gharbhara and got recovered lathi Ex.PW20/F1 which was taken into
possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW20/F2. On the same day,
accused Shiv Kant got recovered one danda Ex.MO/6 from the house
of Umesh Sharma. Its sketch Ex.PW20/D1 was prepared by the IO and
the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW20/D2. He
further deposed that accused Ravinder got recovered one danda Ex.
MO/1 from his old house. He proved the sketch of the said danda as
Ex.PW20/E1 and recovery memo Ex.PW20/E2 which were attested by
him as a witness.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
57
PW31 Inspector Ashok Kumar deposed that on
18.09.2017, investigation of this case was transferred to him and he
alongwith Ashwani came at the spot and collected blood soiled earth
which was converted into three parcels sealed with the seal of AK and
was taken into my possession vide memo Ex.PW31/A. He deposed
that six empty cartridge which were lying on the spot were put in a
plastic jar and sealed with the seal of AK and the sealed plastic jar was
taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW31/B. He also prepared rough
site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PW31/C and handed over the
case file as well as case property to SI Badan Singh on the same day.
He deposed that on 04.10.2017, accused Parmod surrendered before
him at CIA DLF Faridabad. His arrest memo and search memo were
prepared by him. On interrogation, accused Pramod suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW29/A and in pursuance thereof, he demarcated the
place of occurrence vide demarcation memo Ex. PW29/B. On
31.10.2017, he got prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence
from ASI Sharwan Kumar. He tendered the empty cartridges as
Ex.PW31/D to Ex.PW31/H and sealed parcel as Ex. PW31/J.
PW32 Inspector Rakesh Kumar deposed that he
prepared final report under Section 173 Cr.PC after completion of
investigation in this case on 10.12.2017.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
58
PW33 Inspector Satender Singh was also one of the
members of SIT to conduct the investigation of this case. He deposed
that on 22.09.2017, one Titu produced three accused namely Subhash,
Manoj and Harkesh. On interrogation, accused Subhash suffered
disclosure statement Ex.PW33/A, accused Manoj suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW33/B and accused Harkesh suffered disclosure
statement Ex. PW33/C regarding their involvement in the present case
and concealment of weapons. On the same day, accused Subhash
suffered another disclosure statement Ex. PW33/D and disclosed that
he did not fire any shot from his gun and he had kept concealed the said
gun in his residential house in a room situated in Palwali. On
24.09.2017, accused Manoj and Harkesh suffered disclosure statements
Ex.PW33/E and Ex.PW33/F respectively, which were attested by ASI
Kailash and ASI Deepak. He deposed that in pursuance of his
disclosure statement, accused Subhash got recovered one 12 bore gun,
license and 10 live cartridges from his residential house. He converted
the same into a parcel and sealed the same with the seal of FK and took
the same into possession vide memo Ex.PW33/G. He also prepared
rough sketch of the gun Ex.PW33/J as well as rough site plan of the
place of recovery Ex.PW33/H. He tendered the gun as Ex.MO/7, 10

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
59
live cartridges as Ex.MO/8 to Ex.MO/17 and license as Ex.MO/18 got
recovered by accused Subhash.
PW34 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Koshal, Ballistic Expert, FSL
Madhuban examined six sealed parcels pertaining to this case received
in FSL on 19.07.2019 vide ACP Old Faridabad forwarding No.179-5A
dated 30.05.2019 and RC No.226 dated 19.07.2019 through Constable
Krishan Kumar. He marked the said parcels as I to VI. He deposed
that parcel no.1 was having two seals of MOBKH and one seal of VP
and it contained blood stained clothes of deceased Naveen stated to
have been recovered from Bhondsi. Parcel no.2 was having two seals
of MOBKH and one seal of VP and it contained blood stained clothes
of deceased Siri Chand stated to have been recovered from Bhondsi.
Parcel no.3 was having two seals of MOBKH and one seal of VP and it
contained blood stained clothes of deceased Devender @ Pintu stated
to have been recovered from Bhondsi. Parcel No.4 was having two
seals of VP and it contained blood stained clothes of deceased Rajinder
Parsad stated to have been recovered from Bhondsi. Parcel No.5 was
having one seal of MOBKH and three seals of VP and it contained
blood stained clothes of deceased Ishwar Chand, stated to have been
recovered from Bhondsi. Parcel no. 6 was having one seal of GGN and
it contained blood stained clothes of injured Kanhiya Lal, stated to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
60
have been recovered from Bhondsi. He deposed that parcels no.1 to 6
were examined in Ballistics Division for gun shot discharge
residues/holes on the clothes and parcels no.1 to 5 were examined
under stereo microscope. No pellet/bullet hole was observed on clothes
contained in parcel No.6.
1. Holes on the clothes on parcels no.1 to 5 containing have been
caused by bullet projectiles.
2. No bullet/pellet hole could be observed on clothes containing on

parcel no. 6.
He deposed that exhibits after examination in Ballistics division
were resealed alongwith the original wrappers with the seal of RKK.
He tendered his report as Ex.PX1 and the case property as Ex.PW34/1
to Ex. PW34/6. He further deposed that Ex.PW34/1 contains three
clothes (pant in torn, t-shirt red colour and one underwear torn which
are Ex. PW34/1/A to Ex. PW34/1/C and that parcel is shown in serial
no.3 of Devender @ Pintu. In parcel no. 4, Ex. PW34/2 contains four
clothes (pant dark brown grey Ex. PW34/2/A, shirt Ex. PW34/2/B, two
inner garments Ex. PW34/2/C and Ex. PW34/2/D of deceased Rajinder
Parsad). Parcel no. 5 Ex.PW34/3 contains three clothes (one black pant
Ex. PW34/3/A, green t-shit Ex. PW34/3/B and one underwear Ex.
PW34/3/C of deceased Ishwer Chand). Parcel No.2 Ex. PW34/4
contains three clothes (white pajama Ex. PW34/4/A, white t-shirt Ex.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
61
PW34/4/B and one underwear Ex. PW34/4/C of deceased Sri Chand).
Parcel No.1 Ex.PW34/5 contains four clothes (one t-shirt Ex.
PW34/5/A, baniyan Ex.PW34/5/B and niker Ex.PW34/5/C and
underwear Ex.PW34/5/D of deceased Naveen). Ex.PW34/6 contains
two clothes ( one grey niker Ex.PW34/6/A and white baniyan
Ex.PW34/6/B of injured Kanhiya Lal).
PW35 Ms. Anju Bala, Senior Scientific Officer,
Serology, RFSL, Bhondsi deposed that on receipt of clothes in sealed
condition and swabs, she conducted technical examination in
laboratory regarding the blood available on the case property and she
proved her report Ex.PX in this regard. She deposed that firstly on
receipt of the parcel and after opening it, she conducted benzidine test
for blood detection. If it is positive, then gel diffusion method for
origin of the blood is conducted. In this regard if test is found positive
then they cut small pieces from the case property. During the
examination of this witness, an unsealed parcel Ex.PW34/3 (already
exhibited) was opened in the Court in which a green colour t-shirt was
shown having one cut mark and the witness stated that the t-shirt was
having her one initial and that a piece was cut by her assistant. Another
unsealed parcel Ex.PW34/1 (already exhibited) was also opened in the
Court and one underwear was shown to the witness. She deposed that

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
62
the underwear did not bear any signatures but a piece had been cut
from the sample which might had been taken by her assistant.
PW36 Suresh Kumar, Photographer is running Anmol
Photo Studio on Dabua Pali Road. He deposed that on 17/18.09.2017,
he visited the spot on the request of police official and clicked
photographs of the place of occurrence situated in village Palwali. On
18.09.2017, he visited mortuary in B.K. Hospital and clicked
photographs and conducted videography of five dead bodies. He
tendered photographs of the place of occurrence as Ex.PW36/1 to Ex.
PW36/30 and photographs of mortuary as Ex.PW36/31 to
Ex.PW36/45. He also prepared CDs of the place of occurrence as well
as videography of the dead house Ex. PW36/46 to Ex. PW36/50. He
tendered his certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as
Ex.PW36/51.
PW37 R. S. Sangwan, Assistant Director, FSL,
Madhuban deposed that on 15.11.2017, ten sealed parcels and on
06.12.2017, two more sealed parcels were received in ballistics
division for examination. He examined all the parcels having rifles,
revolvers, guns etc. and prepared his report Ex.PY. He deposed that
revolver recovered from accused Dharmender Ex.P5 was marked by
him as W3, rifle Ex.P4 recovered from accused was marked as W2 and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
63
revolver Ex.P5 recovered from accused Narender was marked by him
as W1. Six empty cartridges of .315 Ex.PW31/D to Ex.PW31/H
recovered from the place of occurrence were marked by him as C1 to
C6 and 12 bore hand-held DBBL gun recovered from accused Subhash
Ex.MO/7 was marked as W4. During examination of this witness,
case property was produced in the Court and he deposed that parcel no.
2 (Ex.P5), parcel no. 6 (Ex. P6 to Ex. P11) containing .32” revolver,
four .32” live cartridges and .32” test fired cartridges were marked by
him T/1 of W1, T/1 of W3, parcel no.7 containing 12 bore hand-held,
DBBL gun, six 12 bore live cartridges, test cartridge cases were
marked as RT/1, LT/2 of W4 and RT/1, LT/2 of W6 (already exhibited).
One parcel sealed with the seal of BS and three seals of RSS SSO
(Ball/FSL) containing .315” rifle is MO Ex.37/1 and sealed parcel is
Ex.37/2, one parcel sealed with three seals of BS and three seal of RSS
SSO (Ball/FSL) containing one hand-held 12 bore DBBL gun is MO
Ex.PW37/3 and sealed parcel MO PW 37/4. Parcels no.8 and 9
contained three jacket pieces and one lead piece, parcel no.1 contained
six .315” fired cartridge cases. Parcel no.III contained five cartridges,
parcel no.V containing four .315” live cartridges and parcel no.X
contained one cartridge.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
64
PW38 D. P. Ganguwar, Assistant Director, Physics
CFSL, Chandigarh deposed that on 11.10.2017, one parcel sealed
with the seal of BS was received at Physic division through Constable
Ram Niwas which contained one DVR and hard-disk in DVR. He
deposed that he had thoroughly examined the hard-disk and DVR to
retrieve the data and prepared his report Ex. PZ2 in this regard. He
tendered the said DVR as Ex.P8.
PW39 Dr. Sandeep Beniwal, Medical Officer in B.K.
Hospital, Faridabad, being a member of the board alongwith Dr. Ajay
Pal and Dr. Vikas Sharma conducted the postmortem examination on
the dead bodies of Devender, Sri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Rajender
Parsad and Naveen. He tendered his affidavits Ex.PW39/F to
Ex.PW39/J in this regard and tendered the postmortem report of
deceased Devender as Ex. PW39/A, postmortem report of deceased Sri
Chand as Ex. PW39/B, postmortem report of deceased Ishwar Chand
as Ex. PW39/C, postmortem report of deceased Rajender Prasad as Ex.
PW39/D and that of deceased Naveen as Ex. PW39/E. He has deposed
that cause of death has been mentioned in the respective postmortem
reports of deceased. After conducting postmortem, the board handed
over the sealed parcels of deceased separately as mentioned in their
respective postmortem reports. He identified the case property in the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
65
Court as the same articles which were handed over by the board to the
police. He further deposed that prior to postmortem, deceased were
subjected to X-rays on the recommendation of Board. He tendered X-
ray films pertaining to deceased Naveen as Ex.PW39/K1 and
Ex.PW39/K2, X-ray films pertaining to deceased Devinder @ Pintu
Ex.PW39/L1 and Ex.PW39/L2, X-ray films pertaining to deceased Siri
Chand as Ex.PW39/M1 and Ex.PW39/M2, X-ray films pertaining to
deceased Siri Chand as Ex.PW39/N1 and Ex.PW39/N2 and X-ray films
pertaining to deceased Rajender Parsad Ex.PW39/O1 and
Ex.PW39/O2.
PW40 SI Silak Ram remained associated in the
investigation of this case with SI Badan Singh and corroborated his
version. He deposed that on an information received in the police
station that three dead bodies have been brought in Sarvoday Hospital,
Sector-19, Faridabad and one injured namely Lalit was admitted there,
he alongwith SI Badan Singh reached there and IO had recorded
statement of injured Lalit and after making his endorsement, he sent the
rukka through Constable Bishan to get the FIR registered. He deposed
that after completion of inquest proceedings, dead bodies were sent to
the mortuary, B. K. Hospital, Faridabad. Thereafter, they went to Metro
Hospital, Faridabad where one injured Naveen had expired. IO Badan

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
66
Singh completed inquest proceedings and in the mean time,
information was received that injured Devender, who was admitted in
Asian Hospital, Faridabad, had also expired, on which they went there
and IO Badan Singh conducted inquest proceedings under Section 174
Cr.P.C. After postmortem, all the dead bodies were handed over to their
relatives. Thereafter, they proceeded towards Village Palwali and in
the meantime, an information was received that a Special Investigating
Team has been constituted by Commissioner of Police, Faridabad. As
per instructions of SI Badan Singh, he collected the MLR of Nitesh
from Asian Hospital, Faridabad and MLR of Kanhaiya Lal from Metro
Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad to
obtain the MLRs of Suresh and Parmali but their MLRs were not
available. He proved the application Ex.PW40/A moved by him for
providing MLRs of Parmali and Suresh on which concerned doctor
made endorsement Ex.PW40/B. He deposed that on 19.09.2017, he
alongwith Constable Narender attended meeting of SIT at Crime
Branch, Police Line, Sector-30, Faridabad and thereafter, they visited
Asian Hospital, Faridabad, where injured Nitesh was admitted. He
moved application Ex.PW40/C to seek opinion regarding fitness of
patient Nitesh, who was declared fit to make the statement vide
endorsement Ex. PW40/D, but injured Nitesh refused to make

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
67
statement on the ground that he is under the influence of medicines and
will make statement later. Thereafter, he went to Metro Hospital,
Faridabad, where injured Kanhaiya Lal was admitted and he moved
application Ex.PW40/E before Medical Officer, who declared
Kanhaiya Lal fit to make statement vide endorsement Ex. PW40/F. He
recorded the statement of injured Kanhaiya Lal. He deposed that on
the same day i.e. 19.09.2017, accused Shri Kant and Sagar were
arrested from QRG, Hospital, Ajronda Chowk, Faridabad. During
interrogation on 20.09.2017, accused Shri Kant suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW27/C to the effect that he has kept concealed the
wooden danda in the house of his bua at Village Chalera, Noida.
Accused Sagar suffered disclosure statement Ex. PW27/D to the effect
that he has kept concealed the danda in the house of his bua at Village
Buana. In pursuance to their disclosure statement, accused Shri Kant
and Sagar demarcated the place of occurrence vide memos Ex.PW27/E
and Ex.PW27/F respectively which were attested by HC Kuldeep and
Ct. Narender. He deposed that when they were about to proceed to
effect the recoveries, both the accused retracted from their disclosure
statements and they both were again interrogated during which accused
Shri Kant suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW27/G and accused
Sagar suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW27/H and in pursuance

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
68
thereof, both the accused got recovered wooden dandas from the
disclosed places. Rough sketch of the wooden danda got recovered by
accused Shri Kant Ex.PW40/G was prepared and after converting the
same into a sealed parcel, same was taken into possession vide memo
Ex. PW27/I. He prepared rough sketch of the place of recovery
Ex.PW40/H. Thereafter, accused Sagar got recovered a wooden danda
from the fields of his uncle Billu and after preparing its rough sketch
Ex.PW40/I, same was converted into sealed parcel and was taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW40/J. He prepared rough site plan of
place of recovery Ex.PW40/K. He further deposed that on 17.10.2017,
an information was received that one live cartridge was lying in the
street in front of the house of Mauji Ram, on which he went to Village
Palwali and one Het Ram S/o Jakdu Singh produced the live cartridge
having description of KF 7.65. Said cartridge was converted into sealed
parcel and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW40/L. He
further deposed that during trial of present case, it came in the notice
that bullet extracted from the injured Nitesh was not handed over by
the doctor, on which he went Asian Hospital, Faridabad on 16.01.2020
and obtained a sealed parcel containing a bullet which was removed
from the body of injured Nitesh during surgery and deposited the said
parcel with MM, P.S. Khedi Pul, Faridabad, who had sent the same to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
69
FSL, Madhuban. He tendered the danda got recovered by accused
Sagar as Ex.PW40/M (MO), danda got recovered by accused Shri Kant
as Ex.PW27/J, live cartridge recovered from the street as Ex.PW40/N
(MO) and bullet which was extracted from the body of Nitesh as
Ex.PW40/O (MO).
PW41 Inspector Badan Singh is the Investigating Officer
from the initial stage. He deposed that on 17.09.2017 at about 10.30
p.m., an information was received from control room that Rajender,
Shri Chand and Ishwar were brought dead in Sarvoday Hospital,
Sector-19, Faridabad after sustaining injuries in an assault in village
Palwali. Information regarding admission of Lalit in that hospital, who
was injured in the incident, was also received. On this information, he
reached Sarvodaya Hospital at about 11.00 p.m. and moved
application Ex.PW41/A to obtain opinion regarding fitness of injured
Lalit to make the statement. He deposed that by the time he moved
application, it was 12.00 midnight and the Medical Officer declared
injured Lalit fit to make the statement. Thereafter, he recorded the
statement of injured Lalit Ex.PW1/A on which he recorded police
proceedings Ex.PW41/B and deputed Constable Bishan to police
station for registration of FIR. He conducted inquest proceedings of
deceased Shri Chand and prepared inquest report Ex.PW41/C, inquest

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
70
proceedings of Ishwar Chand Ex.PW41/D and inquest proceedings of
Rajender Ex.PW41/E and recorded statements of persons present in the
hospital under Section 175 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, dead bodies of all the
three deceased were got transferred to B. K. Hospital, Faridabad with
ASI Jeet Singh for postmortem. Thereafter, he reached Metro Hospital,
Faridabad where dead body of deceased Naveen was kept. He
conducted police proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared
inquest report Ex.PW41/F and dead body of deceased Naveen was also
shifted to B. K. Hospital, Faridabad for postmortem with HC Khurshid.
Thereafter, he reached Asian Hospital, Faridabad where dead body of
deceased Devender was kept. He conducted inquest proceedings and
prepared inquest report Ex.PW41/G and thereafter, dead body was
shifted by him to B. K. Hospital, Faridabad for conducting postmortem.
He further deposed that in B. K. Hospital, Faridabad, he moved
applications Ex.PW41/H, Ex.PW41/I, Ex.PW41/J, Ex.PW41/K and
Ex.PW41/L alongwith inquest papers respectively of each deceased
namely Devender, Shri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Rajender Parsad and
Naveen. On the said applications, Civil Surgeon constituted board
consisting of Dr. Ajaypal, Dr. Sandeep Beniwal and Casualty Medical
Officer vide endorsements Ex.PW41/M to Ex.PW41/Q respectively
and after postmortem examination, dead bodies were handed over to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
71
their relatives. The Board of Doctors handed over postmortems reports
and clothes of all the five deceased persons sealed in different parcels
with the seal of Medical Officer. The Medical Board also handed over
fragments of bullets in sealed parcels, recovered from the body of
Rajender Parsad and Naveen during postmortem. He deposed that he
accompanied with the dead bodies to village Palwali and in the
meantime, he received information from senior police officials that SIT
has been constituted in the present case. Thereafter, he reached in
Crime Branch, Police Line- Sector-30, Faridabad at about 6.00 p.m. on
18.09.2017. ACP Aman Yadav was Incharge of SIT and he gave
directions to arrest the accused persons involved in this case. On the
same day, he arrested accused Kamal Kishore @ Billu and Narender
from Kheripul in pursuance of secret information. During interrogation
on 19.09.2017, accused Kamal Kishore and Narender suffered
disclosure statements Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B respectively in the
presence of HC Khurshid Ahmad. On 20.09.2017, accused Kamal
Kishore led the police party to the house of his relative situated in
village Kakdipur, District Palwal from where he got recovered the
license of rifle Ex.PW41/R which was taken into possession vide
memo Ex.PW25/B. Rough sketch of place of recovery Ex.PW25/B1
was prepared by him. He deposed that accused Narender led the police

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
72
party to the house of his relative situated in Village Gharbara Tappal
from where he got recovered the license of revolver Ex.PW41/S which
was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/A. Both the memos
were signed by accused and attested by HC Mahavir. He prepared
rough sketch of place of recovery Ex.PW25/A1. He deposed that on
21.09.2017, accused Kamal Kishore led the police party to Village
Khampur, Delhi and got recovered rifle used in this case from a shed
used for storing animal fodder. Rough sketch of recovered rifle
Ex.PW41/T was prepared. Thereafter, rifle was converted into parcel
and sealed with the seal of ‘BS’ and same was taken into possession
vide Memo Ex. PW25/D. Rough sketch of the place of recovery
Ex.PW25/D1 was prepared by him. Thereafter, when they alongwith
accused were heading towards Bavana, Delhi and reached Narela,
accused Kamal Kishore and Narender suffered supplementary
disclosure statements Ex.PW25/C and Ex.PW41/T1 respectively and
they were brought back to Faridabad. On 22.09.2017, accused Kamal
Kishore led the police party to the house of his relative situated in
village Kakdipur, Palwal and got recovered four live cartridges from a
drawer of table kept in a shop. He prepared rough sketch of recovered
live cartridges Ex.PW26/C1 and converted the cartridges into parcel
and sealed with the seal of BS and were taken into possession vide

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
73
memo Ex.PW26/C. He also proved the rough sketch of place of
recovery Ex.PW25/C2 prepared by him. He further deposed that
accused Narender led the police party to his relative’s house situated in
village Gharbara Tappal and got recovered a revolver and five live
cartridges. He prepared rough sketch of revolver and five live
cartridges. Thereafter, same were converted into sealed parcels and
sealed with the seal of BS and were taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW26/D. Rough sketch of place of recovery Ex.PW26/D2 was
prepared. On 23.09.2017, accused Narender suffered another
disclosure statement Ex.PW26/E and in pursuance thereof, he got
recovered DVR, data cable, connection wire and adopter from the
house of his brother namely Virender @ Billu situated in village
Palwali which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/F after
converting the same into parcel and sealed with the seal of BS. He
prepared rough sketch of place of recovery Ex.PW26/F1. On
23.09.2017, he arrested accused Virender @ Billu after discharge from
Central Hospital, Faridabad. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW41/U on 24.09.2017. During search on 04.12.2017,
the licensed rifle and one gun were taken into possession from the
house of accused Virender @ Billu. He prepared rough sketch of
recovered gun Ex.PW41/V and that of rifle Ex.PW41/W. Thereafter,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
74
the recovered rifle and gun were converted into parcel and sealed with
the seal of BS and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW41/X.
He deposed that he had deposited the case property with the MM, P.S.
Kheri Pul, Faridabad in sealed condition as soon as same were
recovered. He proved rukkas regarding death of Shrichand, Ishwar
Chand and Rajender Parsad received from Sarvoday Hospital as
Ex.PW41/Y1, Ex.PW41/Y2 and Ex.PW41/Y3, rukka regarding death
of Naveen received from Metro Hospital as Ex.PW41/Y4 and rukka
regarding deceased Devender received from Asian Hospital, Faridabad
as Ex.PW41/Y5. He tendered the gun and rifle recovered from the
house of Virender @ Billu as Ex.PW37/3 and Ex.PW37/1. He further
tendered the DVR as Ex.P8, revolver as Ex.P5 and five live cartridges
contained in a small plastic container as Ex. P6 (collectively) which
were got recovered by accused Narender. He also tendered four fired
bullets alongwith three lead contained in a small plastic container as
Ex. P7 (collectively) and rifle as Ex.P4 got recovered by accused
Kamal Kishore.
PW42 Dr. Ravi Shanker was working as Radiologist in
Asian Hospital, Faridabad on 17.09.2017 when patient Nitesh was
referred by Dr. Prabal Roy for X-ray chest A.P. view and forearm A.P.
(right). He deposed that after consulting X-ray films Ex. PW42/A and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
75
Ex.PW42/B, he prepared X-ray report Ex.PW42/C on 21.09.2017. He
deposed that in X-ray film Ex.PW42/A, two images are shown and in
both the images, there is a hole type gap in the right shoulder but he
had not mentioned the observation about the gap in his report. As per
his opinion, a foreign body of high density was present in the shoulder
and is depicted as a gap in the images.
PW43 SI Sompal Singh remained associated in the
investigation of this case with SI Badan Singh and accompanied him to
the house of Virender @ Billu where his brother-in-law Yadesh handed
over one rifle and double barrel gun to him in his presence. He
deposed that IO prepared rough sketches of the same Ex. PW41/V and
Ex.PW41/W and had taken the same into possession vide memo
Ex.PW41/X after converting the same in separate parcels. He signed
all the aforesaid memos as an attesting witness.
PW44 SI Mukesh Kumar, Incharge, Arms License
Branch, C. P. Office, Faridabad, brought the summoned record and
deposed that licenses Ex.PW41/R, Ex.PW41/S and Ex.P44/A are
correct as per record and relevant entries are recorded against the same
persons. He tendered the license details of Subhash Chand as
Ex.PW44/B.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
76
PW45 HC Veenu Kumar remained associated during the
investigation of this case with SI Sumer Singh, who was a member of
SIT constituted to investigate this case. He deposed that accused Gyan
Chand, Mauji Ram and Ravi Kant were arrested from village Palwali in
his presence on 18.09.2017 and on interrogation on 19.09.2017, they
suffered disclosure statements Ex.PW21/A1, Ex.PW21/B1 and
Ex.PW21/C respectively. In pursuance of their disclosure statements,
accused also demarcated the place of occurrence vide demarcation
memo Ex.PW21/D which was signed by him as a witness. He deposed
that on 20.09.2017, the aforesaid accused led the police party to village
Dadsia, Tehsil and District Faridabad where accused Gyan Chand got
recovered a lathi from the bushes near Yamuna river. He proved the
sketch of lathi as Ex.PW21/A3 and deposed that said lathi Ex.MO/3
was taken into possession by the IO vide memo Ex.PW21/A2 after
converting the same in a parcel sealed with seal “VK”. He further
deposed that accused Mauji Ram got recovered a danda Ex.MO/4
which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW21/B2 after
preparing its sketch Ex.PW21/B3 and converting the same into a parcel
sealed with seal “VK”. He further proved iron rod Ex.MO/5 which
was got recovered by accused Ravi Kant and was taken into possession
vide memo Ex.PW21/C2 after converting the same into a parcel and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
77
sealed with seal “VK”. He also proved the sketch of the iron rod as
Ex.PW21/C1.
PW46 Bhagat Ram (Court witness) deposed that in the
last election of panchayat held in the year 2015-16, Dayawati wife of
accused Virender @ Billu and Lalita wife of Dharambir were the
candidates for the post of Sarpanch. Earlier they used to support
Virender @ Billu but in the abovesaid election, they had supported
Lalita who is aunt of deceased Devender @ Pintu but she lost the
election to Dayawati wife of Virender @ Billu and for that reason,
Virender @ Billu and his family members were nursing a grudge
against them. He further deposed that on 17.09.2017 at about 9.30
p.m., he was present at his house when he heard some commotion from
outside. He came out from his house and reached near the house of
Ishwar and saw accused Gyan Chand, Narender, Virender @ Billu, Siri
Kant, Shiv Kant, A---(CCL), Dayawati, Subhash, Ravinder, Amit,
Mauji Ram, Nand Kishore, Dharmender, Parmod, Omwati, Kamal
Kishore, Ravi Kant, Sagar, Vinay, Harish, Satish, Locky @ Lovekesh,
Chaman, Rajender @ Kallu, Siri Ram, Om Dutt, Harkesh and Manoj.
Some of them were standing near his house and remaining were
coming from the house of accused Virender @ Billu. He deposed that
his father Siri Chand, cousin Ishwar Chand, Naveen, Pintu @

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
78
Devender, aunt Parmali, Kanhaya Lal and Suresh were standing in
front of the house of Ishwar since deceased. He deposed that there was
an electric pole on which light was available and electric light was also
available in the houses of all persons. All the abovesaid accused were
armed with lathies, dandas, pharsa, revolvers and rifles and were
raising noise. In the meantime, Nitesh, Lalit and Rajender Parsad also
came there from their houses. Accused Gyan Chand exhorted to teach
a lesson to them for opposing them in the panchayat election.
Thereafter, accused Amit caused injury to Lalit with a pharsa, accused
Nand Kishore gave lathi blow to Lalit and Siri Kant gave a rod blow on
the head of Lalit. In the meantime, accused Kamal Kishore fired from
his rifle at Nitesh and the said shot had hit on his forearm. Accused
Kamal Kishore fired another shot from his rifle towards Rajender
Parsad which hit on his chest. Thereafter, Virender @ Billu snatched
the rifle of Kamal Kishore and at that time, Lalit was also trying to
snatch the rifle. Accused Virender @ Billu fired a shot from the said
rifle towards Siri Chand which hit on his chest. Thereafter, accused
Sagar and Harish caused injuries to Nitesh with lathies. Accused Ravi
Kant gave a rod blow to Nitesh. Accused Dharmender and Narender
were armed with revolvers and accused Subhash was having a rifle and
they fired towards Ishwar Chand, Naveen, Pintu @ Devender and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
79
Kanhaya Lal and they sustained bullet injuries. He deposed that
Rajender Parsad, Siri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Naveen and Pintu fell
down after sustaining bullet injuries. When he, Suresh and Parmali
tried to save them, accused Mauji Ram exhorted that no lenient view
should be shown towards Parmali being a lady and asked his
companions to cause injuries to her as well. He further deposed that
accused Om Dutt and Siri Ram caught hold of him and accused Manoj
gave a lathi blow on his head. Accused Harkesh also gave a lathi blow
on his left temple. Two co-accused had caught hold of Suresh and
Satish, Chaman and Locky etc. caused injuries to him with lathies and
dandas. Accused Chaman and Rajender pushed Parmali. In the
meantime, Lalit and Nitesh entered in their houses. Accused Virender
@ Billu and some other accused persons also entered in the house of
Lalit and thereafter, they came out from there. Thereafter, all the
accused went away towards the house of Virender @ Billu. He further
deposed that he alongwith his brother Sunil, Suresh and 2-3 villagers
shifted his father Siri Chand, Ishwar Chand and Rajender Parsad in a
vehicle and when they were proceedings towards the hospital, they
noticed that the accused persons were standing on the way but when
they drove the vehicle in a high speed, they had vacated the road. They
brought Siri Chand, Ishwar Chand and Rajender Parsad in Sarvodya

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
80
Hospital, Faridabad where they were declared brought dead. In the
meantime, Lalit and Parmali also reached there. After some time, he
came to know that Naveen and Kanhaya Lal were taken to Metro
Hospital, Faridabad where Naveen was declared brought dead. Nitesh
and Devender @ Pintu were taken to Asian Hospital, Faridabad where
Devender @ Pintu was declared brought dead. He deposed that since
three dead bodies of his family were lying before him and others were
got admitted or brought dead in other hospitals so, he became
perplexed and got himself medically examined on 20.9.2017 at B.K.
Hospital, Faridabad. He further deposed that his statement was
recorded by the police on the same day and that all the accused are
known to him being his co-villagers.
PW47 Suresh Chand (Court witness) deposed that on
17.09.2017 at about 9.30 p.m, he was present at his house when he
heard the sound of quarrel and gun shot and he came out of his house.
He noticed that 35/40 persons including Gyan Chand, Virender,
Narender, Shiv Kant, Siri Kant, A--(CCL), Mauji Ram, Nand Kishore,
Dharmender, Parmod, Subhash, Ravinder, Amit, Kamal Kishore, Ravi
Kant, Sagar, Dayawati, Omwati, Satish, Chaman, Lokesh, Vinay,
Harish, Harkesh, Manoj, Rajender, Om Dutt and Siri Ram were
standing in front of the house of Lalit. He deposed that accused Kamal

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
81
Kishore was armed with a rifle, accused Subhash was also armed with
a rifle, accused Narender and Dharmender were having revolver and
rest of the accused were armed with lathies, dandas and iron rods and
when he reached under the electric pole, he noticed that those persons
were firing from their weapons. He deposed that Rajender Parsad, Siri
Chand, Ishwar Chand, Devender and Naveen had died due to the fire
arm injuries. Nitesh and Kanhaya Lal had also sustained fire arm
injuries and when he tried to intervene to save them, accused Parmod
and CCLxx A caught hold of him and accused Ravinder gave a danda
blow on his temple. Accused Lokesh gave a lathi blow on his left
forearm. Accused Satish gave a lathi blow on his left leg. Accused
Chaman also gave a danda blow on his left hand. He further deposed
that Lalit, Bhagat Ram and his mother Parmali also sustained injuries at
the hands of accused persons. Thereafter, due to fear he fled away
towards his house and after sometime, he again came back to the spot
and by that time, accused persons ran away from the spot. Thereafter,
he helped the other persons to shift Rajender and Ishwar in a vehicle.
He alongwith Lalit and Parmali reached Sarvodya Hospital where his
uncle Rajender Parsahd, brother Ishwar Chand and Siri Chand were
declared brought dead. He became perplexed and got himself
medically examined on 20.09.2017. However, his statement was

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
82
recorded by the police on the same day. He deposed that all the
accused are known to him being his co-villagers.
PW48 Kanahaya (Court witness) deposed that on
17.09.2017 at about 9.30 p.m., he was present at his house when he
heard the noise of quarrel from the side of house of Lalit son of Shri
Rajender. On hearing the said noise, he went there and saw that 30/35
persons namely Harkesh, Rajinder, Harish, Satish, Chaman, Locky,
Vinay, Omdutt, Manoj, Siri Ram, Subhash, Ravinder, Mauji Ram,
Amit, Nand Kishore, Dharmender, Pramod, Leelu, two sons of Leelu,
Gyan Chand, Billu, Narender, son of Narender, two sons of Billu were
present there but he does not remember the names of sons of Billu, son
of Narender and Leelu and other persons. He deposed that Leelu was
armed with a rifle, accused Subhash was also armed with a rifle,
accused Dharmender and Narender were armed with revolvers and
other accused were having lathies, iron rods, pharsa and dandas. He
deposed that before he reached, one gun shot had already been fired.
However, in his presence, Leelu @ Kamal Kishore fired a shot from his
rifle at Rajinder which hit in his chest and he fell down. Thereafter,
accused Virender @ Billu snatched the rifle from Kamal Kishore and
fired a shot at Siri Chand which hit in his chest and he fell down.
Accused Dharmender fired a shot from his revolver which hit on his

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
83
left hand. Thereafter, out of fear, he ran away from there and entered in
the house of Rajinder to save himself and when he returned after some
time, five persons namely Siri Chand, Rajinder, Ishwar, Pintu and
Naveen were lying with bullet injuries and the accused had left the
spot. Thereafter, he was taken to Metro Hospital where he was
medico-legally examined. His statement was recorded by the police on
19.09.2017.
12. The brief resume of the defence evidence led by the
accused is as under:
DW1 Dr. Sachin Gupta deposed that on 17.09.2017, he
was working as Consultant Neuro Surgeon with QRG Central Hospital
and Research Centre, Faridabad when patient Billu son of Shri Gian
Chand was admitted there in an injured condition and was treated by
him alongwith Dr. Vikram Dua and Dr. Ravi Shankar. He further
deposed that one Sagar Sharma son of Shri Kamal Kishore was also
admitted in the said hospital in the intervening night of 17/18.09.2017,
who was also treated by him alongwith aforesaid doctors. He tendered
the discharge summary of Billu as Ex.D1 and that of Sagar Sharma as
Ex.D2.
During cross-examination, he admitted that on
28.03.2019, police moved an application seeking opinion about the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
84
nature of injuries suffered by Virender @ Billu and vide opinion
Ex.PAA, he had opined that the injury on the head was grievous in
nature. However, he could not say about the nature of weapon used for
causing injury to Billu.
DW2 HC Manjeet brought the summoned record and
placed on record copy of DD No.28 which was registered by ASI Jeet
Singh as Ex.D3.
DW3 Dr. Upender Bhardwaj was posted at Civil
Hospital, Faridabad, on 04.04.2019 when on the police request, a
medical board was constituted by the CMO, Faridabad and he
alongwith other members of board namely Dr. R.S. Gaur and Dr.
Rajesh summoned the treatment record of patients namely Virender @
Billu, Subhash, Sagar, Chaman and Siri Kant who were treated in QRG
Hospital, Faridabad. He deposed that after examination of the said
record, injuries on the persons of Siri Kant, Sagar and Chaman were
found to be simple in nature and opinions in this regard are Ex.D4 to
Ex.D6 respectively. He further deposed that injury No.2 on the person
of Subhash was found to be grievous in nature and remaining two
injuries were simple in nature and opinion in this regard is Ex.D7. He
deposed that injury no.1 on the person of Virender @ Billu was
declared dangerous to life whereas no opinion could be given regarding

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
85
injury no.2 as x-ray film and report were not produced by the
Investigating Officer. However, injury no.3 on the person of Virender
@ Billu was declared simple in nature vide opinion Ex.D8.
During cross-examination, he stated that none of the board
members had ever treated the patients and they had not even examined
the patients physically while giving the opinions.
DW4 Inspector Subhash Singh deposed that he is
presently investigating the case bearing FIR No.53 dated 23.02.2019
registered at Police Station Kheripul, Faridabad, under Sections 148,
149, 325, 304 & 323 IPC. He proved the copy of said FIR as Ex.D9
and the status report of investigation as Ex.D10. He deposed that the
investigation is on halt as a quashing petition bearing No.CRM-M-
14180 of 2019 is pending before Hon’ble High Court for 21.03.2022
and further investigation will be carried out subject to the outcome of
the above said petition before Hon’ble High Court.
During cross-examination, he admitted that accused
Virender etc. had filed one petition bearing CRM No.2158 of 2018 and
the said petition with withdrawn by them on 23.01.2019 and in DW5
between on 21.04.2018, ACP Aman Yadav filed detailed reply of the
said petition. He admitted the copy of petition as Ex.PBB, copy of
order Ex.PCC and reply filed by ACP Aman Yadav as Ex.PDD. He

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
86
further admitted that order Ex.PEE was passed by the Court of Shri
Rajesh Malhotra, the then learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in a
revision filed by Bijender Sharma against the order of the concerned
Magistrate to lodge the FIR.
DW5 Dr. Nitin Jaiswal was posted at QRG Hospital,
Faridabad on 18.09.2017 when he reported CT Head of patient Billu
and prepared report Ex.D11. He also prepared another CT Head report
of the said patient on the same day which is Ex.D12 and CT spine
Cervical/Dorsal/Lumbosacral(Each) Ex.D13. He further reported X-ray
chest of patient Billu on 18.09.2017 vide report Ex.D15 and X-ray
chest of the same patient on 21.09.2017 vide my report Ex.D14. He
also tendered X-ray forearm report Ex.D16, ultrasound abdomen report
Ex.D17 and CT films Ex.D18(five films) and ultrasound film Ex.D19
pertaining to Billu. Similarly, he reported X-ray chest of the patient
Chaman on 18.09.2017 vide his report Ex.D20, ultrasound abdomen
vide report Ex.D21 and X-ray hand vide report Ex.D22. He further
reported X-ray chest of the patient Chaman on 18.09.2017 vide report
Ex.D23, CT Head vide report Ex.D24, CT Spine vide report Ex.D25
and CT Head vide report Ex.D26. He tendered the x-ray film of the
hand as Ex.D27, ultrasound report as Ex.D28, chest x-ray film as
Ex.D29 and the CT films as Ex.D30 to Ex.D34 pertaining to patient

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
87
Chaman. He further deposed that on 18.09.2017, he also reported CT
Head of the patient Subhash vide report Ex.D35, CT Spine vide report
Ex.D36 and CT Head vide report Ex.D37. He also reported X-ray
forearm of patient Subhash on 20.09.2017 vide report Ex.D38 which
bears my signatures. He reported X-ray shoulder of the patient namely
Subhash on 18.09.2017 vide report Ex.D39. He deposed that on
18.09.2017, he also reported X-ray forearm of the patient namely
Subhash vide report Ex.D40 and this is the first X-ray of forearm and
the patient was treated in the hospital surgically and thereafter, post X-
ray Ex.D38 was prepared which shows that there were metallic
implants in the forearm of the patient. He also reported X-ray Chest of
patient Subhash on 18.09.2017 vide report Ex.D41 and ultrasound
abdomen vide report Ex.D42. During cross-examination, he admitted
that except the head fracture of Billu, fore-arm fracture of patient
Subhash and hand fracture of Chaman, other reports were normal.
DW6 Dr. Ravi Shankar was posted in QRG Hospital,
Sector-20-A, Faridabad, when patient Subhash was admitted there on
17.09.2017 at about 23.36 hours in an injured condition and was
treated by him and various other doctors. He deposed that patient was
discharged on 22.09.2017 and tendered the discharge summary in this
regard as Ex.D43.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
88
DW7 Dr. Hem Kumar Sharma, Medical Officer, SSB
Hospital, Faridabad (previously known as QRG Hospital) medico-
legally examined Chaman, Subhash Chand, Sagar, Billu @ Birender
and Shri Kant Gaur on 17.09.2017 and tendered his affidavits
Ex.DW7/A, Ex.DW7/B, Ex.DW7/C, Ex.DW7/D and Ex.DW7/E in this
regard. He also proved their respective MLRs as Ex.D44 to Ex.D48.
During cross-examination, he stated that there was alleged history of
assault at about 9.00 p.m. near home at village Palwali. He had sent
necessary ruqa to the police regarding arrival of injured in the hospital.
13. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State,
learned counsel for the complainant, the complainant in person and
learned defence counsels and have gone through the material on file.
14. Opening the arguments, learned Public Prosecutor assisted
by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the occurrence
took place on 17.9.2017 at about 9:35 PM and continued till 9:42 PM.
Injured Lalit along with deceased Ishwar Chand, Rajender Parshad and
Sri Chad were taken to Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad at about 10:10
PM. Injured Naveen and Kanhiya Lal were taken in Metro Hospital at
10:10 PM. He has further argued that Ishwar Chand, Rajender and Sri
Chand had died at the spot. Complainant Lalit had sustained injuries
on his head and remained admitted in Sarvodaya Hospital. On

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
89
receiving the telephonic information, PW-41 Investigating Officer had
received Sarvodaya Hospital and received relevant ruqas and MLR of
Lalit and also moved application regarding fitness of Lalit to make
statement and thereafter, recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. In
statement Ex.PW1/A, names of all the accused except two ladies,
motive, broad role of each accused, place of occurrence etc. have been
given and later on in the CCTV footage Ex.PD1, all the accused were
found involved. Even otherwise, there is no dispute about the identity
of the accused persons being co-villagers. He has argued that accused
Kamal Kishore @ Lillu fired at Rajender Parshad from his rifle and the
bullet hit in his chest. Accused Virender @ Billu snatched the rifle
from accused Kamal Kishore and fired at Sri Chand and bullet hit in his
chest. Accused Narender, Dharamender and Subhash fired with their
weapons at Ishwar Chand, Naveen, Devender and Kanhiya Lal. He has
argued that though two fragments of bullets each from the body of
Rajender Parshad and Naveen were handed over to the doctor but as
per FSL report Ex.PY due to small size and deformity, no opinion
could be found as mentioned in opinion no.4 and 5. He has further
argued that in his cross-examination PW1 Lalit has deposed that in
CCTV footage, Shivkant was seen carrying rifle of Billu at 21:38:30
and stayed at the spot during the occurrence and Banita wife of

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
90
Narender brought the said rifle inside the house at 21:41:08 PM and
said rifle was used by Subhash in the occurrence as deposed by PW-2
Nitesh in his cross-examination that there were two big firearms. He
has argued that in case of indiscriminate firing by three persons, it was
not possible to tell as to whose firearm’s bullet hit which deceased, as
deposed by PW1 in his cross-examination. The version is very natural
and it is natural to not to tell about the specific seat of injuries of each
injured and when three persons were firing with intention to kill, then
they all would be liable for the act of each other specially in the night
time (though there was sufficient light at the spot as deposed by the
witnesses and there is no rebuttal to the same) and in crowd of persons
and the role of Narender, Dharamender and Subhash specially when all
the deceased had sustained bullet injuries have been conclusively
proved. He has argued that all the five accused were having licensed
weapons and they could do the same easily. There was no question of
any accidental firing in case of five deaths moreover, rifles could not be
used by any novice as it required great skill to fire due to technique of
cock(reload) and jerk and that PW-39 in his cross-examination has
stated that all the injuries were not caused by a single firearm weapon
and on the basis of the guess work, it could not be presumed that all the
injuries were caused by a single firearm specially when both rifle and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
91
revolver were rifled firearms having same characteristics (land and
grove). The damages in all the bodies were by the rifled firearms with
a close range and the damage/injury by the rifle and revolver would be
similar as both are rifled firearm. He has argued that injured Lalit
suffered pharsa blow on left hand palm, Nand Kishore caused lathi
blow on left shoulder and Shri Kant caused rod blow on his head. PW-
16 Dr. Nidhi Batra proved MLR of Lalit Ex.PW16/A in which all the
said injuries were found including sharp weapon injuries. PW-9 Dr.
Subhash proved the treatment record including discharge summary
Ex.PW9/A and CT Scan Ex.PW9/B. He further argued that PW-2
Nitesh has deposed that accused Kamal Kishore fired from his rifle and
bullet hit on his right shoulder, accused Sagar gave lathi blow on his
head, accused Harish gave lathi blow on left shoulder and accused
Ravikant gave iron rod blow on his head and these injuries have been
proved by PW3- Dr. Ravinder Kumar and PW-42 Dr. Ravi Shankar.
PW-13 Dr. Anushtup has deposed that he removed the bullet on
18.9.2017 and proved the discharge summary. He has further argued
that Kanhiya Lal sustained firearm injuries on his forearm by the shot
fired by Dharamender and the injury is further proved PW10 Dr.
Naveen Arichwal, PW-11 Shailender Pratap Singh and PW12 Dr.
Shweta. He has argued that accused Manoj gave lathi blow on the head

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
92
of Bhagat Ram. Accused Harkesh gave lathi blow on left temple while
accused Om Dutt and Shri Ram caught hold of him. He has further
argued that accused Ravinder gave a danda blow on the temple of
Suresh, accused Lokesh gave a lathi blow on the left forearm, accused
Satish gave a lathi blow on left leg, accused Chaman gave a lathi blow
on his left hand and accused Parmod and CCL A xxx caught hold of
him. Thus, the presence and participation of twenty accused persons
has been clearly proved from the medical evidence and oral evidence.
He has argued that six empty cartridges Ex.PW31/D to Ex.PW31/H
were lifted from the spot and taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW31/B on 18.9.2017 and as per FSL report Ex.PY, all have been
fired from the rifle of Kamal Kishore and no empty or ammunition of
revolver or any other weapon were found. He has argued that it could
not be presumed that the six empty cartridges have been linked with the
rifle of Kamal Kishore so he had fired six shots in the incident without
any substantive evidence in this regard. He has further argued it is the
case of the prosecution that two shots have been fired from the rifle of
accused Kamal Kishore and there was not a single suggestion in the
cross-examination of any witness that Kamal Kishore had fired six
shots rather in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. he himself stated
that he had fired one shot in the air and other shot got fired at the time

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
93
of snatching of weapon and thus he has never claimed that he had fired
six shots in the occurrence and thus failed to discharge his burden
under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and thus it can be said
the said cartridges were planted/thrown by Kamal Kishre just to save
other accused persons or to create some confusion in the mind of
investigating agency. He has argued that specially when there is no
evidence and report that the said six cartridges were the result of firing
at the spot and no benefit could be given only on the basis of cartridges
at the spot, where the presence of Virender @ Billu, Dharamender,
Narender, Subhash and Kamal Kishore has been admitted by them in
their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. He has further argued that
law is well settled that recovery is only a corroborative piece of
evidence and eye witness account can not be discarded only on the
basis of non recovery of weapon/ammunition and even if the recovered
weapon/ammunition do not match with each other even then preference
should be given to the eye witness account. He has further argued that
admittedly Ex.D9 came into existence after the delay of five day
though Sagar, Chaman and Shri Kant were discharged on the same day
and Subhash was also discharged but they did not lodge any report with
the police regarding the incident before 20.9.2017 and even they
remained silent before the Court under section 313 Cr.P.C. In Ex.D9

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
94
presence of Nitesh and Parmali has not been mentioned, presence of
three deceased Rajender Parsad, Sri Chand and Ishwar has not been
mentioned. According to Ex.D9, Harish gave a lathi blow on the left
hand of Billu, Manoj and Vijender caused injury with axe on his head
and thereafter, he became unconscious but in the MLR of said Billu
Ex.D47 proved by DW7, no sharp edged weapon injuries were found.
Secondly, in the CCTV footage Ex.D1, at the time of MLR said Billu
was fully conscious, well oriented and his vitals were within normal
ranges and as per the treating doctor, the injuries on the head of Billu
was grievous. He has further argued that in the CCTV footage Ex.PD/1
at 9:50:39 PM he was talking on phone and was also drinking water.
At the time of MLR at 10:30 PM after one hour and 15 minutes of the
occurrence, he was fully conscious and DW1 Dr. Sachin Gupta, Neuro
Surgeon has declared the said injury grievous and opinion of DW3
carries no weight on 4.4.2019 as they have never seen or treated the
patient and being less qualified from the treating doctors. He further
argued that admittedly, challan has been filed on 31.12.2017. DW4
Inspector Subhash has admitted in cross-examination that accused
Virender etc. had filed a petition bearing CRMNo.2158 of 2018
Ex.PBB in which ACP Aman had filed a detailed report Ex.PDD
wherein it was specifically mentioned that as the accused party

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
95
received injuries in the same incident, therefore, there was no
proceeding regarding this DDR and the said petition was withdrawn
vide order Ex.PCC which clearly shows that police did not find any
case against the complainant party and no FIR was registered. He has
argued that on 19.12.2019 accused Virender succeeded in getting order
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the circumstances in which the said
order was obtained, as is clear from order Ex.PEE. He has further
argued that though Chaman, Subhash, Sagar and Shri Kant proved their
MLRs but in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. they were not
claiming that they had received injuries at the hands of complainant
party in the present case and thus there was no question of explaining
the injuries by the prosecution on them. He has argued that the
occurrence had taken place in front of houses of complainant party at a
distance of 35 meters from the house of accused persons and it was the
accused who had come in front of their houses armed with weapons
and as per Ex. D9, it was a case of 19 person versus 6 persons which
clearly shows as to who was the aggressor party with motive that
admittedly the occurrence had taken place due to serious party faction
in the village as mentioned in Ex.PW1/A, Ex. D9 and cross-
examination of the witnesses. He has argued that all the weapons were
licensed weapons. There were blunt weapons/lathies were available in

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
96
the house of accused as shown in CCTV footage Ex.PD1 and there is
no question of any plantation. He has argued that CCTV footage
Ex.PD1 from 8:00 AM to 11:00 PM belonged to the house of accused
Billu and not at the spot and in the footage, out of five accused, four i.e.
Narender, Dharamender, Billu and Kamal Kishore were seen coming
out from the house after 8:00 PM and they have failed to explain from
8:00 PM to 9:30 PM where were they present. Moreover, they did not
take any plea of alibi. Though Subhash reached the spot after some
time but again he was injured and it could not be presumed from the
CCTV footage that he did not participate in the occurrence. He has
further argued that law is well settled that unlawful assembly could be
formed at any point of time and common object could be developed at
the spur of moment on the spot. He further argued that from the
statement Ex.PW1/A, cross version Ex.D9 and statement recorded
under section 313 Cr.P.C., the occurrence had started at 9:35 PM and
lasted till 9:42 PM and during the said period, all the accused present at
the spot took active part. Five persons have been killed, two persons
have sustained firearm injuries and five persons had sustained blunt
and sharp weapon injuries. Weapons were visible in the CCTV footage
of house of accused Virender in the hands of accused persons and they
knew the consequences of firing upon unarmed persons. Specific role

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
97
to twenty persons have been specially attributed and the accused failed
to show as to how they reached the spot within 4-5 minutes specially
when Kamal Kishore, Narender, Dharamender and Billu @ Virender
were away from the house since 8:00 PM and thus there was definitely
unlawful assembly and common object to kill the innocent persons. He
has argued that from the nature of injuries, type of weapon, seat of
injuries (vital parts) causing injuries with firearm, sharp weapon and
blunt weapon to the injured and deceased common object is very clear.
One person can not caused such type of firearm injuries alone, one after
the other with such precision specially in the night time and in the
crowd. So, all the accused are liable for the act of each other and there
is no doubt about section 149 IPC. He has thus argued that from the
testimonies of injured witnesses and medical evidence, prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. While placing reliance on the
authorities laid down in Rakesh and another Versus State of U.P. and
another, 2021(3) RCR(Criminal) 625, Anil Kumar Versus State of
U.P., 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 358, Karan Singh Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors., 2022(2) RCR(Criminal) 239, Kunwar Bahadur and
others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1509,
State of Punjab Versus Hakam Singh, 2005 Supreme Court Cases
(Crl) 1678, Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1997(1) RecentCR

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
98
401, Dalip Singh and others Versus State of Punjab, 1985 SCC (Crl)
486, Manjit Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2021(2) RCR(Criminal)
24, Rishi Kumar Versus State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand),
2015(3) RCR(Criminal) 721, Susanta Das and others Versus State of
Orissa, 2016(2) RCR(Criminal) 252, Sumer Vs. State of U.P., 2005
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1665, Gurmail Singh and another Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases
(Cri) 403 and Nand Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh, 2014(4)
RCR (Criminal) 895, learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that the
accused persons be convicted for the commission of offences for which
they have been charge sheeted.
15. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that in the
present case the date of occurrence is 17.9.2017. The complaint made
by the complainant Lalit Kumar is Ex.PW1/A. In the present case, 27
persons are named as accused and two of them are females. Learned
counsel has further argued that the accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu
firstly fired at Rajender Parshad (who later on died) then the
complainant Lalit Kumar tried to snatch the rifle from Kamal Kishore
@ Lilu, however, he was not successful in doing so and Virender @
Billu snatched the rifle from accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu and fired

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
99
at Sri Chand. As per the complaint, Narender, Dharamender and
Subhash were also armed with revolvers and rifle and they fired at
Ishwar, Naveen and Devender who also died later on. Due to the firing
of the accused persons, Kanhiya and Nitesh also suffered gun shot
injuries. There are six injured in the present case. They are Lalit
Kumar, Nitesh, Kanhiya, Suresh Chand, Parmali and Bhagat Ram. The
motive for attacking the complainant party was that in the Sarpanch
election, the complainant party supported the opposite candidate
against Dayawati wife of Virender @ Billu, who was later on elected as
Sarpanch. FIR dated 23.2.2019 Ex.D9 is the counter version of the
accused persons. In the same 19 persons of the complainant party have
been made accused. The statement of the complainant in the said FIR
was recorded on 21.9.2017 i.e. 3-4 days after the incident. Thus,
motive for the offence is admitted and the presence at the spot is also
admitted by the present accused persos. Learned counsel has further
argued that five persons namely Virender @ Billu, Sri Kant, Chaman,
Subhash and Sagar were also admitted in the hospital and were got
medically examined. The injuries suffered by the accused Virender @
Billu was declared dangerous to life. Learned counsel has further
argued that the occurrence started at 9:38 PM on 17.9.2017 and was
concluded within four minutes i.e. at 9:42 PM on the same day.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
100
There is a CCTV footage Ex.PD/1 which is of the house of the accused
Virender @ Billu and all the accused after the incident are being seen
standing there. In the FIR, specific roles have been attributed to the
accused persons. Lalit, Ishwar, Rajender and Sri Chand were taken in
the Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad and they were examined there at
10:10 PM. Ishwar Chand, Rajender and Sri Chand were declared
brought dead. The other deceased Naveen was taken to Metro
Hospital, Faridabad and he was examined at 10:10 PM and he was
declared dead. Nitesh and Devender were brought to Asian Hospital,
Faridabad at 10:11 PM. Ex.PW41/Y1 to Ex.PW41/Y5 are the ruquas
sent by the respective hospitals. PW41 SI Badan Singh reached
Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad at 11:00 PM where PW1 Lalit Kumar
presented complaint Ex.PW1/A and he sent the tehrir and FIR was got
registered at 2:15 AM on 18.9.2017, therefore, the time period between
the incident calculated at 9:42 PM on 17.9.2017, examination of Lalit
Kumar by the doctor at 10:10 PM and the registration of FIR at 2:15
AM, this delay of four hours has been duly explained. Moreover, first
attempt of the injured was to take medical treatment. The police
arrived at 2:00 AM at Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad. The complainant
Lalit Kumar is an Advocate practicing at District Court, Faridabad. He
is junior to a leading lawyer Shri Ashwani Trikha, Advocate. There is

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
101
an allegation that the FIR was got registered by the complainant after
four hours after legal consultation, however, there is no proof that there
was any legal consultation. The complaint Ex.PW1/A can be used for
corroboration of PW1 Lalit Kumar who has specifically deposed about
the specific roles of the accused and the same is duly corroborated by
the medical evidence. The rifle used in the offence was a licensed rifle
of accused Kamal Kishore @ Billu and he fired at Rajender Parshad by
the same. Learned counsel has further argued that all the five deceased
persons received one bullet injury each on their chest. After fire by
Kamal Kishore on Rajender Parshad, the rifle was snatched by
Virender @ Billu and he fired at Sri Chand. Later on accused
Narender, Devender and Subhash who were armed with revolvers and
rifle fired from their respective weapons and they shot dead Ishwar
Chand, Naveen and Devender. They further injured Nitesh and
Kanhiya. The injuries mentioned in the postmortem report of the
deceased show that a single bullet damaged all their internal organs and
resulted in their death. Since three persons Narender, Dharamender
and Subhash were firing in the night in a crowd, it was not specifically
possible to state as to who fired at whom. In their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Narender, Dharamender and Subhash have
admitted their presence at the spot. During the postmortem examination

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
102
of Rajender, two bullet fragments were found. During the postmortem
examination of Naveen, two pieces of jackets of bullet were found. All
injuries were caused by firearm and each of the deceased suffered one
bullet injury. The complainant party was not having any firearm at the
time of occurrence, therefore, no question of the exercise of any right
to private defence arises. There is no question of accidental firing due
to simultaneous snatching of rifle by complainant Lalit Kumar and
accused Virender @ Billu from accused Kamal Kishore @ Billu.
Dharamender and Narender were having their licensed revolvers and
Subhash was armed with the rifle of Virender @ Billu. The said rifle is
being seen in the pendrive Ex.PD/1 in the hand of accused Shri Kant.
The accused Kamal Kishore in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
has admitted that the two shots were fired but has not stated that those
two shots were fired by him. There can not be any difference in the
injury caused by a rifle and a revolver. Lalit Kumar was caused injury
by Amit by pharsa and as per his MLR, sharp injury on his left hand
palm was found. PW2 Nitesh has deposed that Kamal Kishore @ Lilu
fired from his rifle at him and have suffered bullet injury in his
shoulder. Sagar, Harish and Ravikant also caused injuries to PW2
Nitesh. PW3 Dr. Ravinder Kumr has proved the MLR of Nitesh.
During his treatment, a bullet was removed from his body. PW48

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
103
Kanhiya Lal has deposed about firing at him by Dharamender from his
revolver with an intention to kill him. As per his MLR, punctured
wound and fracture of left ulna was found, which correspond with the
gun shot injuries from a revolver. PW46 was attacked by Manoj,
Harkesh, Omdutt and Shri Ram in his statement under section 313
Cr.P.C. has admitted his presence at the spot. PW47 was attacked by
Ravinder, Lokesh, Satish, Chaman and CCL A xxx. All the injuries
suffered by PW6 Bhagar Ram and PW47 Suresh Chand were simple in
nature. On 18.9.2017 six empty cartridges Ex.PW31/D Ex.PW31/H
were recovered by PW31 from the spot. As per FSL report Ex.PY,
opinion no.3, all the recovered cartridges were fired from the rifle of
Kamal Kishore. No empty or bullet of revolvers were found at the
spot. Learned counsel has further argued that the six empty cartridges
were collected at the spot by the police, but only two shots were fired
from the rifle of accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. Non recovery of the
empty cartridges of revolver is of no consequence. Link evidence in
this case has been brought by PW15 Constable Brij Lal, PW6
Constable Arvind, PW26 HC Khurshid Ahmed and PW37 Dr. R.S.
Sangwan. As per the testimony of PW34 holes were caused by the
bullet projectiles. There was proper and sufficient lighting at the time
of lifting of empty cartridges. PW3 Nitesh has specifically deposed

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
104
about the presence of the street light at the spot. Learned counsel has
further argued that either disclosure statement should be accepted as a
whole or rejected. Learned counsel has argued that in the CCTV
footage of the house of accused Virender @ Billu Ex.PD/1, Subhash is
being seen coming empty handed after sometime of the incident.
While placing reliance upon the authorities Abdul Sayeed Versus State
of Madhya Pradesh, 2011(1) RCR(Criminal) 550, Rakesh and
another Versus State of U.P. and another, 2021(3) RCR(Criminal)
625, Anil Kumar Versus State of U.P. , 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 358,
Karan Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2022(2)
RCR(Criminal) 239, Kunwar Bahadur and others Versus State of
Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1509, State of Punjab
Versus Hakam Singh, 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 1679,
Jaswant Singh Versus State of Haryana, 1997(1) Recent CR 401,
Manjit Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2021(2) RCR (Criminal) 24,
Susanta Das and others Vs. State of Orissa, 2016(2) RCR(Criminal)
252, Sumer Versus State of U.P. , 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Crl)
1665, Gurmail Singh and another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases 684 and Nand Kumar Versus State
opf Chhattisgarh, 2014(4) RCR(Criminal) 895, learned counsel has

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
105
prayed that all the accused may be punished for the offence committed
by them.
16. On the other hand, Shri M.S. Yadav and Sh. S.S. Rao and
Sh. Prashant Yadav, Advocates for accused have argued that no
separate charge for each accused has been framed by the Court which
was mandatory as per law. They have argued that there was an
unexplained delay of about 5½ hours in lodging the FIR as the incident
was occurred at about 9/9:15 PM and FIR was lodged at about 2:30
AM. They have argued that as per the case of prosecution, police
arrived at the spot at 10:30 PM and police had lifted six empty
cartridges from the spot and 15-20 persons were present there. They
have further argued that PW-23 SI Jeet Singh admitted this fact in his
cross-examination that he along with SI Badan Singh had reached the
spot at about 9:30 PM. From the CCTV footage also, it was clear that
police had arrived at the spot at about 10:30 PM and were aware about
the incident. They have argued that in this manner, it has been proved
that FIR was ante timed and was not brought into existence when the
knowledge was available with the police. They have further argued
that in the present case, it has been proved by the statement of
Investigating Officer Jeet Singh and Badan Singh that investigation in
this case has already commenced and once it was proved that

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
106
investigation commences prior to lodging of FIR, the same is hit by
section 162 Cr.P.C. and no value can be attached to the same. They
have argued that testimonies of PW1 and PW2 can not be relied upon
as the same was belied by medical evidence, ballistic evidence, CCTV
footage, site plan and other probable circumstances existing at the spot.
They have further argued that PW1 and PW2 have only specified the
role of Kamal Kishore and Virender alias Billu in respect of use of rifle
as in this case five weapons have been shown to be recovered by the
investigating agency which are two rifles, one 12 bore gun and two .32
bore revolvers. One .315 bore rifle has been shown to be recovered
from accused Kamal Kishore, another .315 bore rifle has been shown to
have been recovered from accused Virender @ Billu. One .32 bore
revolver has been shown to have been recovered from accused
Narender and on .32 bore revolver has been shown to b recovered from
accused Dharamender. They have argued hat as per FSL report, only
one rifle has been shown to be connected with the alleged crime and six
empty cartridges have been shown to have been connected with the
rifle which has been shown to have been recovered from accused
Kamal Kishore. They have argued that PW-39 Dr. Sandeep has also
admitted in cross-examination the size of entrance wound shows that
they were caused by single firearm whereas PW1 and PW2 have

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
107
alleged that Dharamender, Narender and Subhash have also used the
firearm. They have argued that at the most it can be considered the use
of firearm by accused Kamal Kishore that too in the exercise of Right
to Private Defence. As per CCTV footage Virender @ Billu has not
used any firearm. They have argued that PW2 has also improved his
statement as he has alleged that Gyan Chand and Mauji Ram raised
lalkara and instigated the other persons whereas CCTV footage says
otherwise and presence and participation of other accused persons has
not been proved in the crime by CCTV footage and medical evidence.
They have argued that so far as the injury of PW2 Nitesh is concerned,
bullet was not sent to FSL and the same might have been the
component of main bullet as the rifle is high velocity firearm and there
were exit wounds qua the dead persons and it is quite possible that the
same bullet might have hit Nitesh. They have argued that from the
cross-examination of PW1 and PW2, lot of legal consultancy was
available with them and they are also Advocates. They have argued that
from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2, no specific and categorical role
has been assigned in respect of use of weapon and 26 persons have
been made accused in this crime and their presence and participation is
not proved by use of weapon and number of injuries. They have
argued that testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are also falsified qua the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
108
alleged use of multiple firearms. As per medical evidence only one
firearm was used and similarly from the ballistic report, it is clear that
only one rifle of .315 bore was used. They have argued that from the
evidence of investigating agency, it is clear that six empties were lifted
from the place of incident which are of .315 rifle and no other
circumstances for use of any other firearm weapon has come to the
knowledge of investigating agency. They have argued that in this case
there is no evidence to suggest that any unlawful assembly was formed
and no common object of unlawful assembly has been proved on the
file as the evidence of CCTV footage is crystal clear on this point.
They have further argued that when there is no specific attribution in
respect of injuries and use of weapon by PW1 and PW2, so the
applicability of section 149 IPC is not attracted in this case. They have
argued that in this case there was no motive and there are only general
and omnibus allegations qua the presence and participation of the
accused persons. They have argued that in this case section 149 IPC is
not applicable as the plea of right of private defence has been taken by
the accused persons and PW1 and PW2 have also admitted the injuries
on the person of defence side in the incident. They have argued that
PWs Ashok Kumar, Jeet Singh and Badan Singh have also admitted
injuries to the defence, so in the case of right of private defence or free

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
109
fight, only individual role of accused is to be seen and when both the
parties suffered in the same incident in that eventuality the Court has to
see whether the parties have concealed the genesis of occurrence,
whether there was a right of private defence or it was a case of free
fight. They have argued that as per CCTV footage, all the accused were
taken by the police in the night of incident, yet police has shown
recoveries from them under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
which clearly shows that police had planted the recoveries to falsely
implicate the accused persons. They have further argued that keeping
in view the oral testimonies, medical evidence and CCTV footage, it is
clear that it is a false case and the innocent persons have been falsely
implicated in this case by the police in collusion with the complainant
party and under political influence. Medical and ballistic evidence also
show that the version of prosecution is full of doubt and suffers from
various infirmities and testimonies of PW1 and PW2 can not be relied
upon as they are interested and related witnesses.
17. Learned counsels for the accused have further argued that
the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and
the accused has to prove its defence by preponderance of probabilities.
Once the complainant is relying on the FIR Ex.D9 which was got
registered against them, they can not partly accepted the same and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
110
partly denied the same. In the present case, the genesis of the
occurrence and circumstantial evidence are very important for taking
justice but present complainant party was having grievances against the
present accused party as the accused party was winner in the Panchayat
election which was held about one year back. In the cases of direct
occurrence, motive become redundant. In the genesis of occurrence,
the version of both the parties are to be considered. It was a case of
free fight as five of the accused persons also suffered injuries and the
accused Virenender @ Billu suffered injury dangerous to life. In fact,
it was the present complainant party which attacked Virender @ Billu
and other members of is family namely Shrikant, Chaman, Subhash
and Sagar and caused injuries to them. Accused Virender @ Billu
suffered injuries in his hand and became unconscious and a rumour
came to the house of accused party that Virender @ Billu had been
killed. Learned counsels have further argued that medical evidence on
record and the FSL report including the ballistic report totally falsify
the version of the complainant. As per the FSL/ballistic report only one
rifle was used in the entire occurrence. Apart from the bald statement
of the complainant and his family members, there is no medical or FSL
evidence to corroborate the use of any other rifle or revolver. The
presumption under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is attracted

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
111
towards the accused Kamal Kishore, who was having a licensed rifle
with him. Six empty cartridges cases were recovered at the spot. As
per FSL/ballistic report, the said cartridges were fired from the rifle of
Kamal Kishore. There are differences in the versions of the occurrence
given by the prosecution witnesses who are all family members of the
complainant and no independent witness from the village has been
examined by the prosecution. Learned counsels have further argued
that exercising the political influence which the complainant and his
legal counselors enjoy, all the supporters and bystanders at the spot
have been made accused in the present case. There was exercise of
right of private defence by the accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu and the
apprehension of grievous hurt was sufficient for exercising his right of
private defence which could have extended to causing of the death of
the assailants. Learned counsels have further argued that the
statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. can not be used as
substitute of the prosecution evidence, which is very shaky in the
present case. Moreover, weak defence does not strengthen the
prosecution case. In the police report under section 173 Cr.P.C., it is
specifically mentioned that accused party also suffered injuries and the
injuries suffered by Virender @ Billu was dangerous to life. In the
present case, 27 persons are facing trial. Complaint of pain can not be

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
112
considered as an injury. Parmali and PW47 Suresh Chand suffered
superficial injuries, moreover, they were medically examined three
days after the occurrence, therefore, the possibility of injuries being
self inflicted can not be ruled out. Section 149 and 34 of IPC are rules
of evidence while section 120B IPC is a substantive evidence. There is
no evidence either direct or substantial to prove that there was any
meeting of mind. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to
suggest any criminal conspiracy among the accused persons. There is a
delay of 5½ hours in the registration of the FIR and the said time was
used by the complainant who is a practicing Advocate and his
associates for fabricating story and for falsely implicating as many
persons as possible. All the accused persons were taken by the police
at 10:30 PM on the same day and same is clear from the CCTV footage
Ex.PD/1 of the house of accused Virender @ Billu. PW23 SI Jeet
Singh has specifically deposed that they reached at the place of
occurrence within 20 minutes after the occurrence and lifted the empty
cartridges. Therefore, the allegations of the complainant are falsified.
Whenever anything prior to the lodging of FIR is in the knowledge of
the investigating officer, FIR is considered as ante timed. Therefore,
the investigation in the present case is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. PW46
Bhagat Ram is also a practicing Advocate in District Court Faridabad

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
113
and whole of his testimony is false and product of the clever legal
mind. His testimony is an improved version of the testimony of PW1
Lalit Kumar and PW2 Nitesh. He has deposed that there was no
incident till 9:30 PM. Lalit Kumar was also trying to snatch rifle from
accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. It is a common human tendency to
shot at the person who is trying to snatch weapon from the assailants
after killing of any person by that weapon. However, as per the
prosecution version, no shot was fired at Lalit Kumar. Site plan should
show the relative position of the parties which is not there in the
present case. Learned counsels have further argued that the evil acts of
the complainant are also clear from the fact that he had tried to
implicate a very old person of 80 years Mauji Ram in the present case
though he is totally blind. PW46 Bhagat Ram during his cross-
examination has stated that two rifles and two revolvers were used and
he did not see Parmali suffering any injury though he stated that he saw
her in the hospital on that day itself. PW47 Suresh Chand is also a
planted witness and he has improved his version in his testimony. He
stated that he heard 2-3 shots when he was at home. He had not seen
all the accused persons together at one point of time. He did not see
who fired at whom. PW48 Kanhiya has also made improvement in his
testimony. He admitted that Subhash did not fire any shot in his

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
114
presence. He has further admitted that one shot was fired, when the
attempts were being made to snatch the rifle from accused Kamal
Kishore by Lalit Kumar and Virender @ Billu. There are
contradictions in the testimony of PW1 Lalit Kumar and PW2 Nitesh
regarding firing by the accused persons. The theory propounded by
PW1 Lalit Kumar regarding snatching of rifle by Virender @ Billu
when the same was being snatched by Lalit Kumar does not appeal to
common sense. Complainant Lalit Kumar is a young person while the
accused Virender @ Billu is a middle aged person. In the site plan the
inter se distance and positions of the deceased and the accused have not
been shown. In fact, one of the Court witness said that lalkara was
given after causing of injuries. PW2 Nitesh during his cross-
examination stated that police recorded his statement on 28.9.2017,
therefore, the same also proves the improved version by him as he was
got discharged from the hospital on 20.9.2017 itself. Nowhere bullets
of revolver or their cartridge cases were found. Mauji Ram and Gyan
Chand are aged about 75-80 years. PW2 Nitesh has deposed that the
accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu fired at him and he suffered injury and
the bullet got lodged in the upper part of his arm. However, PW1 Lalit
Kumar who is the complainant in the present case has not deposed
about firing of any shot by Kamal Kishore @ Lilu at PW2 Nitesh.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
115
Learned counsels have further argued that the theory of snatching of
rifle is falsified in the disclosure statement of Virender @ Billu and the
same has also falsified by the investigating agency itself. PW8 Anoj
Kumar prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW8/A and during cross-
examination, he stated that no electric pole has been shown in his
scaled site plan. Learned counsels have further argued that PW10
Naveen during his cross-examination has admitted that there is no
history in MLR, there is no opinion as to firearm injury and the edge of
wound were not determined. PW21 SI Sumer Singh has admitted that
there was no evidence regarding use of revolvers by the accused
persons. PW23 SI Jeet Singh during his cross-examination has stated
that he reached with other police officials at village Palwali at about
9:30 PM i.e. after 20 minutes of the incident on 17.9.2017. SI Badan
Singh lifted cartridges from the spot. At that time PW24 SI Braham
Parkash who has admitted that there was no recovery from accused
Virender. As per the testimony of PW34 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Koshal
holes on clothes of parcels no.1 to 5 have been caused by bullet
projectiles. No bullet/pellet would could be discovered on the body of
Kanhiya. There was no blood group matching by PW35. PW37 Dr.
R.S. Sangwan of FSL vide his report has proved that six empty
cartridges recovered at the spot were fired from the rifle of Kamal

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
116
Kishore @ Lilu. In the present case, all the weapons were licensed
weapons and the complainant might have aware about the existence of
those licensed weapons, so he fabricated and concocted the story to
involve all the licensed arms holders of the family of the accused
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. No definite opinion about the bullets which
were sent to FSL could be formed. The bullet recovered from the body
of Nitesh was not sent for examination to FSL. Late sending of bullet
to FSL by the police make the recovery doubtful. PW40 SI Silak Ram
during his cross-examination has admitted that inquest proceedings
were conducted by him before the FIR in the present case. PW41
Inspector Badan Singh has deposed about the recovery of a second rifle
and DBBL gun from the house of Virender @ Billu but there is not an
iota of evidence to suggest that the same were used in the offence.
Section 149 IPC is not applicable in the present case. In the present
case, even bystanders have been made accused by complainant Lalit
Kumar. Kamal Kishore @ Lilu used his rifle for exercising his right of
private defence and once that has been pleaded, other party has to
explain the same. The present case is not a case of substantial evidence
and statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. are not so relevant in the
present case. While placing reliance upon the authorities State of
Haryana Versus Krishan, 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 827, Rajbir Singh

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
117
Versus State of U.P. and another, (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Crl)
209, Ganesh Gogoi Versus State of Assam, 2009(4) RCR(Criminal)
561, Kashi Ram Verus State of M.P., 2001(4) RCR(Criminal) 556 and
Subramani and ors., 2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 213, learned counsels
have prayed that all the accused may be acquitted.
18. At the request of complainant Lalit Kumar, he was
allowed to advance additional arguments. He has argued that six empty
cartridges recovered at the spot are allegedly connected with the rifle of
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. Hoever, in the statement under section 313
Cr.P.C. of accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu, he has not offered any
explanation for the presence of those empty cartridges at the spot.
Even the defence taken in DDR Ex.D9 also does not clarify the same.
The complainant Lalit Kumar has further argued that in his statement
under section under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu
has stated that he fired only one shot in the air which proves that he
was present at the spot with his rifle at the time of occurrence. The
complainant has further argued that the six cartridges cases of .315
bore recovered at the spot were planted by the police. None of the
accused is entitled to the benefit of right of private defence. Five
persons of accused party were injured but none of them received any
gun shot wounds. Only accused Virender @ Billu stated about the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
118
serious injuries allegedly suffered by him. Place of occurrence is a
public thoroughfare in front of the house of the complainant. In CCTV
footage Ex.PD/1 which is of outside the house of accused Virender @
Billu, time of the accused going from the house and coming back to the
said house has been duly recorded. The complainant has further argued
that in the present case, the presence of main accused Kamal Kishore
@ Lilu, Narender, Subhash, Dharamender at the place of occurrence
has been admitted by them. The occurrence occurred between 9:38 PM
to 9:42 PM and CCTV footage Ex.PD/1 is of the relevant time on the
same day i.e. 17.9.2017. The house of accused Virender @ Billu is
about 30 mtrs. away from the place of occurrence. In the CCTV
footage Ex. PD/1, accused Virender @ Billu is not being seen going
from the house. Similarly, the other four main accused are also not
being seen going from the said house. However, as per the CCTV
footage at 9:42 PM, all the accused are seen coming back to the house
along with their respective weapons. There is only some difference in
time of accused going and coming from the house of accused Virender
@ Billu. The complainant has further argued that in the present
incident, four weapons were used i.e. rifle of Kamal Kishore @ Billu,
revolver of accused Narender, revolver of accused Dharamender and
another rifle by accused Subhash. However, the empty cartridges cases

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
119
of the revolvers of Narender and Dharamender did not fall at the spot
as they remained in the chamber of revolvers even after the firing. All
the five deceased were unarmed. The DDR Ex. D9 was recorded four
days after the incident.
19. The complainant Lalit Kumar has further argued that at
time between 21:48:09 to 21:51:48 in camera no.3 of the CCTV
footage Ex.PD/1, accused Virender @ Billu is being seen talking on
phone and drinking water and going here and there in the house.
Accused Amit in camera no.4 at 23:43:48 is being seen returning with a
pharsa. At 21:53:05 in camera no.3 he is being seen with DBBL gun in
his hand in his house. In camera no.3 at 21:55:29, Narender is being
seen with his revolver. In camera no.3 at 21:55:13 and 21:57:15
Ravikant is seen as having rifle and DBBL gun respectively in his
hand. At 21:39 in camera no.4 Shivkant is being seen going to the
place of occurrence while carrying rifle and in camera no.3 at 21:43:16
Shivkant is seen bringing back the empty cartridges cases inside his T-
shirt. At 21:44:20 in camera no.4 Kamal Kishore @ Lilu is being seen
with his rifle. At 21:44:35 in camera no.4 Dharamender is being seen
going inside the house. At 21:30:50 and at 21:42:05 in camera no.4
Pramod is being seen as going to the place of occurrence and being
coming back after the occurrence. In camera no.4 at 21:38:30 and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
120
21:43:25, accused Subhash is being seen as going to the place of
occurrence and coming back from the place of occurrence respectively.
At 21:38:45 and 21:43:25 Gyan Chand is being seen going to the place
of occurrence and coming back from the place of occurrence
respectively. At 21:43 and 21:43:05 in camera no.4 Mauji Ram is
being seen as going to the place of occurrence and coming back from
the place of occurrence. In camera no. 4 at 21:43:48 accused Sagar is
being seen on the road outside the house of Virender @ Billu.
Similarly, other accused are also seen in the cameras while going to the
place of occurrence and coming back from the same. Complainant has
prayed that all the accused persons may be held guilty and punished of
the offences of which they have been charge sheeted.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE:
20. First of all, the medical evidence shall be discussed to
determine the cause of death of Devender, Siri Chand, Ishwar Chand,
Rajender Parsad and Naveen. As already observed, prosecution in this
regard has examined Dr. Sandeep Beniwal, Medical Officer, B. K.
Hospital, Faridabad as PW39, who tendered his affidavits Ex.PW39/F
to Ex.PW39/J and proved postmortem reports of aforesaid deceased
persons as Ex.P39/A to Ex.PW39/E.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
121
21. A perusal of postmortem report Ex.PW39/A pertaining
to deceased Devender @ Pintu shows that on general examination,
physique was well built. Rigor Mortis was present in all four limbs.
Postmortem staining was present over the dependent parts of the body.
On further examination, following external injuries were found on the
person of the deceased Devender @ Pintu:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. ENTRY WOUND: A WOUND MEASURING 2CM X 1.5
CM LOCATED AT 5 INCHES MEDIAL TO RIGHT
NIPPLE AND 3.5 INCHES MEDIAL TO LEFT NIPPLE,
THE WOUND IS SITUATED 6 INCHES BELOW THE
STERNAL NOTCH.
THERE IS NO BLACKENING AND EMBEDDED SOOT
PARTICLES SURROUNDING THE WOUND PRESENT.
THE MARGINS OF WOUNDS ARE REGULAR AND
INVERTED. ON FURTHER DISSECTION OF THE
WOUND, IT IS BACKWARDS AND LATERALLY
TOWARDS THE RIGHT HALF OF THE BODY
TRAVERSING THROUGH THE LOWER PART OF THE
STERNUM BREAKING IT INTO TWO AND FURTHER
PIERCING THE PERICARDIUM AND RUPTURING THE
RIGHT ATRIUM AND RIGHT VENTRICLE OF HEART
AND THE MEDIAL PART OF LOWER LOBE OF RIGHT
LUNG AND FURTHER GOING BACKWARDS TO
PIERCE THE POSTERIOR CHEST WALL AND SKIN
WHERE (EXIT WOUND) A TRIANGULAR SHAPED
WOUND WITH IRREGULAR EVERTED MARGINS
DEVOID OF ANY SURROUNDING SOOT PARTICLES.
THE WOUND IS SITUATED 3 INCHES LATERAL FROM
THE SPINAL CORD AND 4 INCHES BELOW THE
LOWER ANGLE OF SCAPULA.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION:
ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
122
Sr.No. Component Remarks

1. Cranium @ spinal Cord (Brain must be exposed in every
case, Spinal cord need not to be examined except in case of
injury to vertebral column/Spinal Cord)
Scalp NAD
Skull NAD
Meninges and Vessels PALE
Brain PALE
Vertebrae & Spinal Cord NOT OPENED
2. Mouth, Pharynx & NAD
Oesophagus
3. Neck NAD
Condition of neck tissues MAD
Thyroid
Hyoid bone INTACT
Larynx @ Trachea NAD
4. Thorax
Chest wall, Ribs/Sternum and PALE
Cartilage
Pleura / pleural Cavity 2000 CC OF BLOOD
PRESENT IN CHEST
CAVITY
Lung(Rt) PALE
Lung(Lt) AS DESCRIBED
Pericardium PALE
Heart AS DESCRIBED
5. Abdomen
Peritoneum, Retroperitoneum PALE
Stomach and its contents PALE, CONTAINS SEMI
DIGESTED FOOD AND
GASES
Small Intestine and its content PALE, CONTAINS CHYME
AND GASES
Large Intestine and its content PALE, CONTAINS FECAL

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
123
MATTER AND GASES

Liver and Gall Bladder PALE
Spleen PALE
Pancreas PALE
Kidney(Rt.) PALE
Kidney(Lt.) PALE
Suprarenal (Rt.) PALE
Suprarenal (Lt.) PALE
Urinary Bladder FEW CC OF URINE
(Male)
CAUSE OF DEATH:
In the opinion of the Board, the cause of death in this case is shock and
hemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by gun shot over the vital
organs such as heart and right lung which are antemortem in nature and
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PROBABLE TIME:
a. Between injury and death : VARIABLE

b. Between death and postmortem examination : WITHIN 24 HOURS
HANDED OVER TO THE POLICE:
After postmortem examination, dead body duly stitched along-with its

belongings, postmortem report and a sealed white cloth packet bearing
04 seals containing the underwear of the deceased, two X-ray films
with MLX No.1141 dated 18.09.2017 were handed over to the police.
A perusal of postmortem report Ex.PW39/B pertaining to
deceased Shri Chand shows that on general examination, physique was
found average built. Rigor Mortis was present in all four limbs.
Postmortem staining was present on the dependent parts of the body.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
124
person of the deceased Shri Chand:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. A wound (Entry wound) measuring 1.5 cm x 1cm situated 4
inches below the right nipple and 2 inches lateral to the
midline the wound has clean regular inverted margins with
absence of any surrounding soot particles or blackening of
surrounding skin. On further dissection, the wound is
traversing backwards and downwards and laterally piercing
the anterior chest wall further rupturing the lower lobe of
right lung, right side of diaphragm and thereafter rupturing
right lobe of liver and then piercing the posterior abdomen
wall and breaking the posterior aspect of right 8 th, 9th, 10th
ribs and piercing the skin wherein a wound (Exit wound)
measuring 6 x 3 cm elliptical in shape with irregular everted
margins situated 6 inches below the inferior angle of right
scapula and 6 inches lateral to the posterior midline.
Ruptured part of underlying muscles and subcutaneous tissue
are coming out of the said wound.

Scalp NAD
Skull NAD
Meninges and Vessels NAD
Brain PALE
Oesophagus

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
125
3. Neck NAD
Condition of neck tissues NAD
Thyroid
Hyoid bone INTACT
4. Thorax
Chest wall, Ribs/Sternum and AS DESCRIBED
Cartilage
Pleura / pleural Cavity FULL OF BLOOD
Lung(Rt) AS DESCRIBED
Lung(Lt) PALE
Pericardium PALE
Heart RIGHT SIDE CONTAINS
LIQUID BLOOD AND
LEFT SIDE EMPTY
Coronary Arteries & Large NAD
Blood Vessel
5. Abdomen
Peritoneum, Retroperitoneum ABDOMINAL CAVITY
FULL OF BLOOD
DIGESTED FOOD AND
GASES
AND GASES
MATTER AND GASES
Liver and Gall Bladder AS DESCRIBED
Spleen PALE
Pancreas PALE
Kidney(Rt.) PALE
Kidney(Lt.) PALE

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
126
Urinary Bladder Few CC OF URINE

(Male)
CAUSE OF DEATH:
hemorrhage due to injury sustained by the bullets to the vital organs
such as right lung, liver which are antemortem in nature and sufficient
to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
Nature of weapon is mentioned as ‘Firearm’.
PROBABLE TIME:


belongings, postmortem report, police inquest papers numbering 1 to
22, a sealed white cloth packet bearing 04 seals containing a white
coloured T shirt, white coloured pajama and white V shaped underwear
with attested sample seal used and X-rays of the deceased bearing
MLX No.1142 were handed over to the police.
A perusal of postmortem report Ex.PW39/C pertaining to
deceased Ishwar Chand shows that on general examination, physique
was found average built. Rigor Mortis was present in all four limbs.
person of the deceased Ishwar Chand:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
127
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. A WOUND (ENTRY WOUND) MEASURING 1 X 1 CM
SITUATED AT THE STERNAL NOTCH HAVING
REGULAR INVERTED MARGINS WITH BLACKENING
OF SURROUNDING SKIN UPTO A DISTANCE OF 0.5
TO 1CM FROM THE MARGINS OF THE WOUND. ON
FURTHER DISSECTION, THE WOUND WAS GOING
DOWNWARDS BACKWARDS AND LATERALLY
DESTROYING THE MEDIAL END OF RIGHT
CLAVICLE, MEDIAL ASPECT OF SECOND RIB AND
DESTRUCTURING THE MAJOR VESSELS ON THE
RIGHT SIDE OF BASE OF NECK CRATING A GAPING
HOLE OF ABOUT 3 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND
RUPTURING THE UPPER LOBE OF RIGHT LUNG
THEN PIERCING THE POSTERIOR CHEST WALL
FURTHER BREAKING POSTERIOR ASPECT OF 3RD
AND 4TH RIB AND PIERCING THROUGH THE BODY
OF RIGHT SCAPULA, SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE AND
SKIN CREATING A WOUND (EXIT WOUND) OF SIZE
MEASURING 4 X 4 CM IRREGULAR EVERTED
MARGINS SITUATED 4 INCHES BELOW THE MEDIAL
ASPECT OF RIGHT ACROMIAL SPINE AND 4.5
INCHES LATERAL TO POSTERIOR MIDLINE.

Scalp NAD
Skull NAD
Brain PALE
Oesophagus

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
128
3. Neck AS DESCRIBED
Condition of neck tissues AS DESCRIBED
Thyroid
Hyoid bone INTACT
4. Thorax
Chest wall, Ribs/Sternum and AS DESCRIBED, CHEST
Cartilage CAVITY FULL OF BLOOD
Pleura / pleural Cavity FULL OF BLOOD
Lung(Rt) AS DESCRIBED
Lung(Lt) PALE
Pericardium PALE
Heart RIGHT SIDE CONTAINS
LIQUID BLOOD AND
LEFT SIDE EMPTY
Coronary Arteries & Large NAD
Blood Vessel
5. Abdomen
Peritoneum, Retroperitoneum PALE
Stomach and its contents PALE, CONTAINS
GESTRIC JUICES AND
GASES
AND GASES
Large Intestine and its content PALE, CONTAINS FOUL
SMELLING GASES
Spleen PALE
Pancreas PALE
Kidney(Rt.) PALE
Kidney(Lt.) PALE

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
129
(Male)
CAUSE OF DEATH:
hemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by the bullet over the vital
organ such as lung, which are antemortem in nature and sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PROBABLE TIME:


24, a sealed white coloured packet bearing 04 seals containing blue
coloured T shirt, black pant, black underwear with attested sample seal
and an envelope containing X-rays bearing MLX No.1143 were handed
over to the police.
Postmortem report Ex.PW39/D pertaining to deceased
Rajender Prasad shows that on general examination, physique was
found average built. Rigor Mortis was present in all four limbs.
person of the deceased Rajender Parsad:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
130
1. 1. A wound (Entry Wound) measuring 2 x 1 cm with

irregular inverted margins situated 2.5 inches below and
medial to left nipple the wound is devoid of any surrounding
blackening of skin or presence of any soot particles. On
further exploration wound is traversing obliquely backwards
and downwards piercing the anterior chest wall rupturing the
left ventricle of heart and lower lobe of left lung. On further
dissection the wound is going downwards piercing the left
side of diaphragm and rupturing the spleen further piercing
the posterior abdominal wall, subcutaneous tissue and skin
where a wound (exit wound) of size 1 cm diameter which is
situated 8 inches below the interior angle of left scapula and
1.5 inches lateral to the midline. Two fragments of bullet
were recovered from the subcutaneous tissue about 1.5
inches away from the exit wound.

Scalp NAD
Skull NAD
Brain PALE
Oesophagus
3. Neck NAD
Thyroid
Hyoid bone INTACT
4. Thorax

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
131
Cartilage
Pleura / pleural Cavity CHEST CAVITY FULL OF
BLOOD
Lung(Rt) PALE
Pericardium FULL OF BLOOD
Heart AS DESCRIBED
Coronary Arteries & Large AS DESCRIBED
Blood Vessel
5. Abdomen
FULL OF BLOOD
DIGESTED FOOD AND
GASES
AND GASES
MATTER AND GASES
Spleen AS DESCRIBED
Pancreas PALE
Kidney(Rt.) PALE
Kidney(Lt.) PALE
(Male)
CAUSE OF DEATH:
hemorrhage due to the injury sustained by the bullets to the vital organs

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
132
such as heart, left lung, spleen which are antemortem in nature and
PROBABLE TIME:


24, a sealed white cloth packet bearing 04 seals containing a white
baniyan, white shirt, brown pant, black underwear with attested sample
seal used, X-rays of deceased bearing MLX No.1144 and a sealed
container bearing 02 seals containing two fragments of bullet with
attested sample seal, were handed over to the police.
A perusal of postmortem report Ex.PW39/E pertaining to
deceased Naveen shows that on general examination, physique was
average built. Rigor Mortis was present in all four limbs. Postmortem
staining was present on the dependent parts of the body. On further
examination, following external injuries were found on the person of
the deceased Naveen:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. 1. A wound (Entry wound) of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm oval in
shape with regular inverted margins situated 1.5 inches
below and 1 inch medial to left nipple the wound is devoid of
any surrounding blackening of skin or presence of any soot
particles. On further dissection, wound is traversing
downwards and backwards piercing the anterior chest wall
breaking the anterior aspect of 5th and 6th rib near costo –

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
133
chondral joints. On further exploration, the wound is going

downwards rupturing both the ventricles of heart and lower
lobe of left lung, piercing the diaphragm and rupturing the
spleen and piercing the posterior abdominal wall,
subcutaneous tissue and skin creating a wound (exit wound)
of size measuring 2 x 1 cm with irregular, everted margins 9
inches below the nape of neck and 1.5 inches lateral to
posterior midline on the left side. Two fragments of bullet
were recovered from the subcutaneous tissue within 1.5
inches diameter of exit wound.

Scalp NAD
Skull NAD
Meninges and Vessels CONGESTED
Brain CONGESTED
2. Mouth, Pharynx & AS DESCRIBED
Oesophagus
3. Neck NAD
Thyroid
Hyoid bone NAD
4. Thorax
Cartilage
Pleura / pleural Cavity CHEST CAVITY FULL OF
BLOOD
Lung(Rt) PALE

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
134
Pericardium FULL OF BLOOD
Heart AS DESCRIBED
Coronary Arteries & Large AS DESCRIBED
Blood Vessel
5. Abdomen
FULL OF BLOOD
DIGESTED FOOD AND
GASES
AND GASES
MATTER AND GASES
Spleen AS DESCRIBED
Pancreas PALE
Kidney(Rt.) PALE
Kidney(Lt.) PALE
(Male)
CAUSE OF DEATH:
hemorrhage due to the injury sustained by the bullets to the vital organs
such as heart, left lung, spleen which are antemortem in nature and
PROBABLE TIME:

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
135


24, a sealed white cloth packet bearing 04 seals containing a khakhi
coloured underwear, mahndi coloured T-shirt, white baniyan, orange
coloured shorts with attested sample seal used, X-rays of deceased
bearing MLX No.1140 and a sealed plastic container bearing 02 seals
containing two fragments of bullet with attested sample seal, were
handed over to the police.
22. During cross-examination, PW39 Dr. Sandeep Baniwal
stated that cause of death in all the five cases was due to firearm injury.
Nothing favourable could be extracted during his cross-examination
and from his testimony, it is established that all the five deceased died
as a result of injuries suffered by them as disclosed in the postmortem
reports and same were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause
death in ordinary course. Accordingly, it is held that all the five
deceased died a homicidal death.
23. As per the prosecution case, besides causing the death of
Devinder @ Pintu, Shri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Rajender Parsad and
Naveen, accused persons also assaulted Lalit, Nitesh, Kanhiya Lal,
Parmali, Suresh and Bhagat Ram, who suffered various injuries at the
hands of accused. As already observed, in order to prove the injuries
on the person of Nitesh (PW2), prosecution has examined PW3 Dr.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
136
Ravinder Kumar, who had medico-legally examined him at Asian
Hospital, Faridabad, PW13 Dr. Anushtup De, who treated the patient
and PW42 Dr. Ravi Shankar, Radiologist. PW3 Dr. Ravinder Kumar
tendered his affidavit Ex.PW3/A alongwith MLR Ex.PW3/B which
reveals that Nitesh was brought to the hospital with alleged history of
firearm injury in village Palwali, Greater Faridabad on 17.09.2017 at
about 10.00 p.m. Patient was conscious and on examination, following
injuries were found on his person:
Sr.No. Injuries
1. Superficial lacerated wound size approx 2 cm x 0.5 cm over
left mastoid region above pinna.
2. Abrasion over medial aspect of left arm.
3. Lacerated wound size approx 4 cm x 1 cm in occipital region.
4. Lacerated wound size approx 6 cm x 1 cm left tempro partial
region. Pt. Advised for NCCT head.
5. Oval shaped wound (size approx 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm) in ward
directed ragged blackish margin, swelling around the wound
present, fresh bleeding present in lateral aspect of right arm on
deltoid region approx 7 cm below acromion process of right
shoulder joint. Mild restricted movement of right shoulder
joint. Pt. Advised for X-ray right shoulder AP view, X-ray
right arm AP/Lat and chest X-ray.
6. Abrasion over right shoulder joint.
PW13 Dr. Anushtup De deposed that on 17.09.2017, he was
posted as Consultant in Department of Surgery in Asian Hospital,
Faridabad when patient Nitesh was admitted there and treated by him
and Dr. Prabal Roy. He deposed that patient was brought with alleged

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
137
history of fire arm injury. CT Scan of head was done which showed
soft tissue contusion. CT angiography of right upper limb was also
done, which showed contusion of muscle with no obvious fracture.
Patient was taken up for surgery – debridement and removal of bullet
was done on 18.09.2017. He deposed that bullet was stuck in the right
upper arum area of injured. He deposed that patient was discharged on
stable condition on 20.09.2017 and the removed bullet was handed
over to the appropriate department. He proved the discharge summary
of Nitesh as Ex.PW13/A and identified the bullet removed from the
body of injured Nitesh as Ex.PW40/O.
PW42 Dr. Ravi Shanker was working as Radiologist in
Asian Hospital, Faridabad on 17.09.2017 when patient Nitesh was
referred by Dr. Prabal Roy for X-ray chest A.P. view and forearm A.P.
(right). He deposed that after consulting X-ray films Ex. PW42/A and
Ex.PW42/B, he prepared X-ray report Ex.PW42/C on 21.09.2017. He
deposed that in X-ray film Ex.PW42/A, two images were shown and in
both the images, there was a hole type gap in the right shoulder but he
had not mentioned the observation about the gap in his report. As per
his opinion, a foreign body of high density was present in the shoulder
and was depicted as a gap in the images.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
138
To prove the injuries and treatment of injured Lalit (PW1)
who is complainant of the case, prosecution has examined PW9 Dr.
Subhash and PW16 Dr. Nidhi Batra. PW16 Nidhi Batra was working
as casualty Medical officer at Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-19, Faridabad
when she examined Lalit son of Shri Rajinder Sharma, R/o village
Palwali on 17.09.2017 at about 10.10 p.m. in the emergency and found
following six injuries as described in MLR Ex.PW16/A:
Sr.No. Injuries
1. Right contusion with abrasion (4 x 2 inch) left shoulder adv X-
ray left shoulder.
2. Right parietal region with CLE (3 x ½ inch) adv NCCT head
3. CLW left Palm above distal palmer creeze (2 x 0.5 inch)
4. Abrasion skin deep Palmer creeze 2 inch
5. Abulsion of nail left middle finger
6. CLW 1 cm x skin deep left index finger.
PW16 Dr. Nidhi further deposed that injuries nos.1, 4 and 5 were
caused by blunt weapon whereas injuries no.2, 3 and 6 were caused by
sharp edge weapon. She further deposed that printout of the MLR was
taken on 18.09.2017 as in the night computer system was not
functional.
PW9 Dr. Subhash. Surgeon, Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-
19, Faridabad, treated injured Lalit and tendered his discharge
summary Ex.PW9/A. He also brought CT Scan and X-ray reports of

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
139
Lalit and deposed that CT Scan report Ex.PW9/B shows soft tissue
swelling of scalp.
In order to prove the injuries on the person of injured
Kanhiya Lal, prosecution examined PW10 Dr. Naveen Arichwal, PW11
Dr. Shalender Partap Singh and PW12 Dr. Sweta Garg. PW10 Dr.
Naveen Arichwal, Medical Officer, Metro Hospital, Faridabad, had
medico-legally examined injured Kanhiya Lal, who was brought with
the alleged history of gunshot at village Palwali on 17.09.2017 at about
9.45 p.m., vide MLR Ex.PW10/A and he tendered in evidence his
affidavit Ex.PW10/B in this regard. A perusal of MLR Ex.PW10/A
shows that patient was found conscious and following injuries were
found on his person:
PUNCTURED WOUND MEDIAL SIDE OF DORSUM OF

FOREARM JUST BELOW HALF OF LEFT FOREARM
PW11 Dr. Shailender Partap Singh, Orthopaedic Surgeon-
cum-Medical Officer, Metro Hospital, Faridabad, tendered in evidence
his affidavit Ex.PW11/A regarding admission of patient Kanhiya Lal
on 18.09.2017 with alleged history of gun shot injury with complaint of
pain, swelling and wound over left forearm. He deposed that patient
was kept under observation and was treated with IV Fluids and IV
amoxyclav, IV fluid, IV volflam, IV pain and other supportive

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
140
treatment and his X-ray left fore-arm showed fracture lower end of
ulna. He deposed that patient was advised for surgical fixation of
fracture ulna but refused for some and left the hospital against medical
advice. He placed on record discharge summary of Kanhiya Lal as
Ex.PW11/B.
PW12 Dr. Sweta Garg, Consultant Radiologist in Metro
Hospital, Faridabad, tendered the report Ex.PW12/A given by her on
the basis of X-ray film Ex.PW12/B of Kanhiya Lal showing fracture of
lower end of left ulna.
In order to prove the nature of injuries suffered by Smt.
Parmali, Suresh and Bhagat Ram, prosecution has examined PW17 Dr.
Jagdish Parashar from Civil Hospital, Faridabad, who had medico-
legally examined these injured persons on 20.09.2017 with the alleged
history of assault at village Palwali at about 9.30 p.m. on 17.09.2017.
A perusal of the MLR Ex.PW17/B shows the following injuries on the
person of Smt. Parmali:
Sr. No. Injuries

1. A BROWN COLOUR BRUISE ON LEFT HAND, ADVISE
X-RAY LEFT HAND AP/LAT, ORTHO OPINION
NOI-KUO, KOW-BLUNT, P DOI – WITHIN 96 HOURS
2. RIGHT CHEEK ABRASION MARK OF SIZE 0.5 CM X
0.10 CM ADVISE X-RAY SKULL AP/LAT, SURGEON
OPINION

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
141
MLR Ex.PW17/C shows the following injuries on the person of injured
Suresh:
Sr.No. Injuries
1. LEFT ARM ABRASION SIZE 1.75 CM X 0.75 CM WITH
SWELLING TENDERNESS
ADVISED X-RAY LEFT ARM AP/LAT, ORTHO OPINION
2. LEFT LITTLE FINGER NEEL SWELLING PAIN
ADVISED X-RAY LEFT HAND AP/LAT, ORTHO
OPINION
3. LEFT FOOT TOE PAIN WITH SWELLING
ADVISED X-RAY LEFT FOOT AP/LAT, ORTHO OPINION
4. FOREHEAD A CLOTTED SCRATCH MARK PRESENT
TENDERNESS
NOI-SIMPLE, KOW-BLUNT, P DOI – WITHIN 96 HOURS
Ex.PW17/D is the MLR of injured Bhagat Ram which reveals his
injuries as under:
Sr.No. Injuries
1. C/O PAIN WITH SWELLING LEFT TEMPO PARIETAL
REGION
ADVISED X-RAY SKULL AP/LAT, SURGEON OPINION
2. LEFT EYE WITH BRUISE MARK WITH TENDERNESS
MIDDLE OF LEFT EYE
ADVISED ORTHO SURGEON OPINION
PW17 Dr. Jagdish Parashar further deposed that on 14.12.2017,
on an application Ex.PW17/E moved by the I.O. and on perusal of the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
142
weapon, he opined vide his opinion Ex.PW17/F that possibility of
injuries on the person of Suresh Chand with lathies and dandas could
not be ruled out. Similarly on the basis of application Ex.PW17/G
moved by the IO and on perusal of weapon, he opined vide opinion
Ex.PW17/H that possibility of injuries on the person of Bhagat Ram
with lathies and dandas could not be ruled out. Similar opinion
Ex.PW17/J was given by him after perusal of weapon regarding
injuries on the person of Parmali on the basis of application Ex.PW17/I
moved by the IO.
24. In the present case, accused Narender, Kamal Kishore @
Leelu, Gyan Chand, Amit Kumar, Ravi Kant, Chaman, Sagar, Sri Kant,
Harkesh, Subhash, Dharamender, Shiv Kant, Ravi Kant, Vinay,
Rajender, Lokesh @ Loki, Satish Kumar, Harish, Moji Ram, Omwati,
Dayawati, Manoj, Virender, Omdutt, Shriram and Pramod have been
charged for the offence under section 120-B IPC with sections 148,
149, 452, 323, 302, 307, 506 IPC with allegations that on or before
17.9.2017 at about 9/9:15 PM in the area of village Palwali, they
agreed to do the illegal acts and in pursuance of the said agreement,
formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons i.e. country
made pistol, pharsa, iron rods, guns, revolver, danda and lathi and in
prosecution of common object of such assembly committed house-

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
143
trespass by entering into the house of complainant party used as a
human dwelling and committed murder of Ishwar, Naveen, Rajender
Prasad, Sri Chand and Devender and also caused injuries to Lalit,
Kanhiya Lal, Nitesh, Bhagat Ram, Parmali and Suresh and criminally
intimidated complainant party. They have been further charged for the
offence under section 149 read with sections 120B, 148, 542, 323, 302,
307, 506 IPC with the allegations that on 17.9.2017 at about 9/9:15 PM
in the area of village Palwali in pursuance of the above mentioned
conspiracy formed unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons i.e.
country made pistol, pharsa, iron rods, guns, revolver, danda and lathi
and in prosecution of common object of such assembly committed
house-trespass by entering into the house of complainant party used as
a human dwelling, committed murder of Ishwar, Naveen, Rajender
Prasad, Sri Chand and Devender and also caused injuries to Lalit,
Kanhiya Lal, Nitesh, Bhagat Ram, Parmali and Suresh and criminally
intimidated complainant party. All the above named accused have been
further charged for the offence under section 148 read with section 149
IPC with the allegations that on the above mentioned date, time and
place they were members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution
of common object of such assembly, were armed with deadly weapons
i.e. country made pistol, pharsa, iron rods, guns, revolver, danda and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
144
lathi which were used as weapons of offence to cause injuries to
deceased Ishwar, Naveen, Rajender Prasad, Sri Chand and Devender
and injured Lalit, Kanhiya Lal, Nitesh, Bhagat Ram, Parmali and
Suresh. All the above named accused have been further charged under
section 452 read with section 120B/149 IPC with the allegations that in
pursuance of common object of the above mentioned unlawful
assembly, they committed house-trespass by entering into the house of
complainant party used as a human dwelling having made preparation
for causing hurt to Lalit, Kanhiya Lal, Nitesh, Bhagat Ram, Parmali
and Suresh after committing murder of Ishwar, Naveen, Rajender
Prasad, Sri Chand and Devender in the street.
All the above named accused except accused Omwati and
Dayawati have been further charge sheeted for the offence under
section 302 IPC with the allegations that on the above mentioned date,
time and place in pursuance of the conspiracy and also in pursuance of
their common object of such unlawful assembly committed murder of
Ishwar, Naveen, Rajender Prasad, Sri Chand and Devender in the
street.
All the above named accused except accused Omwati and
Dayawati have been further charge sheeted for the offence under
section 323 read with section 120B/149 IPC with the allegations that on

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
145
the same date, time and place in pursuance of their common object of
such assembly, they caused injuries to Lalit, Kanhiya Lal, Nitesh,
Bhagat Ram, Parmali and Suresh.
All the above named accused have been further charge
sheeted for the offence under section 506 read with section 120B/149
IPC with the allegations that on the said date, time and place in
pursuance of conspiracy and also in pursuance of their common object
of such unlawful assembly used criminal intimidation by threatening
complainant party with dire consequences. All the above named
accused except accused Omwati and Dayawati have been further
charge sheeted for the offence under section 307 read with section
120B/149 IPC with the allegations that on the same date, time and
place in pursuance of conspiracy and also in pursuance of their
common object of such assembly committed an act with such intention
or knowledge, to kill Lalit, Kanhiya Lal, Nitesh, Bhagat Ram, Parmali
and Suresh Chand, that if by the said act they had caused the death of
said Lalit, Kanhiya Lal, Nitesh, Bhagat Ram, Parmali and Suresh
Chand, they would have been guilty for the murder.
Accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu has further charged for
the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act with the allegations that
on 21.9.2017 he kept in his possession one licensed rifle .315 bore

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
146
which was used in the commission of crime on 17.9.2017. The said
accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu was charge sheeted for the offence
under section 25 of the Arms Act with the allegations that on 22.9.2017
he kept in his conscious possession four uncounted live cartridges .315
bore.
Accused Dharamender has been further charged for the
offence under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act with the allegations
that on 22.9.2017 in the area of village Palwali, he kept in his
possession one licensed revolver 32 bore along with six uncounted live
cartridges which was used in the commission of crime on 17.9.2017.
Accused Narender has been further charge sheeted for the
offence under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act with the allegations
that on 22.9.2017 in the ares of village Dharbara, Tappal, he kept in his
possession one licensed revolver 32 bore along with five live cartridges
which was used in the commission of crime on 17.9.2017.
Accused Subhash has been additionally charge sheeted for
the offence under sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act with the
allegations that on 24.9.2017 in the area of village Palwali, he kept in
his possession one licensed pistol 12 bore along with ten uncounted
live cartridges which was used in the commission of crime on
17.9.2017.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
147
25. In the present case, there are five eye witnesses/injured
who have been examined as prosecution/Court witnesses. It is
noteworthy that though the complainant/eye witness Lalit (PW1) and
injured Nitesh (PW2) were examined by the prosecution. The other
injured/eye witnesses namely PW-46 Bhagat Ram, PW-47 Suresh
Chand, PW-48 Kanhiya were examined as Court witnesses. One of the
injured namely Smt. Parmali though was called as a witness by the
Court was not found in a fit state to depose due to her old age etc. It is
further noteworthy that as per the complaint Ex.PW1/A given by PW1
Lalit, the incident occurred on 17.9.2017 at 9/9:30 PM. On the basis of
complaint Ex.PW1/A, the present FIR was registered on 18.9.2017 at
2:20 AM, under sections 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 452 and 506 IPC and
Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. As per the complaint Ex.PW1/A and
the testimony of PW1 Lalit on 17.9.2017 at about 9/9:15 PM, he along
with his cousin Sunil, Har Parsad and Suresh was standing in front of
house of Sunil and thereafter, they went back to his home. However,
after some time, he heard noise of abusing and quarrel from the street
and he alongwith his father Rajender Parsad and younger brother
Nitesh came outside the house and saw Gyan Chand son of Kallu Ram,
Virender @ Billu, Narender, Shiv Kant, Shri Kant, CCL A xxx, Mauji
Ram, Nand Kishore, Dharmender, Pramod, Amit, Subhash, Ravinder,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
148
Kamal Kishore @ Leelu, Ravi Kant, Sagar, Satish, Chaman, Lokesh @
Loki, Vinay, Rajender @ Kallu, Harkesh, Manoj, Harish, Shri Ram,
Omdutt alongwith 10-12 other persons of the other village, armed with
revolver, rifle, gun, lathi, dandas, Pharsa, iron rods standing in the
street. Other members of his family and neighbourers namely Ishwar
Chand, Kanhiya Lal, Siri Chand, Suresh, Parmali, Bhagat Ram,
Devender @ Pintu and Naveen also came out from their respective
houses and all those persons were surrounded by the accused persons
and accused party attacked them. He further deposed that accused
Amit gave a pharsa blow to him. He protected himself with his left
hand and received injury on his left hand palm. Accused Nand Kishore
gave a lathi blow on his left shoulder. Accused Shri Kant gave an iron
rod blow on his head. Accused Kamal Kishore fired a shot from a rifle
on the chest of his father Rajender Parsad. He tried to snatch the said
rifle but accused Virender @ Billu succeeded in snatching the rifle
from Kamal Kishore and fired a shot on the right side of chest of his
uncle Siri Chand. He has further deposed that accused Dharmender,
Narender and Subhash fired shots from their respective fire arms which
Accused persons also attacked his family members namely Parmali,
Suresh and Sunil etc. with iron rods, dandas, lathis and pharsa and they

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
149
tried to save themselves by entering inside their houses. However,
accused persons followed them and entered into their houses. When
lady members of their house tried to defend by pelting stones on the
accused persons, they left the spot after giving threat of life to them.
As far as allegations of firing by the accused persons is concerned,
PW2 Nitesh has deposed that accused Kamal Kishore fired a shot
towards him with an intention to kill him which embedded in his right
upper shoulder. Accused Kamal Kishore also fired a shot on the chest
of his father Rajender Parsad. Thereafter, accused Virender snatched
the rifle from Kamal Kishore and fired shot at Siri Chand. He further
deposed that accused Narender, Subhash and Dharmender fired shots
with firearms which hit Naveen, Ishwar, Devender and Kanhiya Lal.
Therefore, there is a slight deviation in the testimony of PW1
Lalit and PW2 Nitesh. As far as firing of respective shots on the
respective victims are concerned, though PW1 Lalit Kumar has stated
that accused Kamal Kishore fired first shot from a rifle on the chest of
his father Rajender Prasad. He tried to snatch the said rifle but accused
Virender succeeded in snatching the rifle from Kamal Kishore and fired
on his uncle Sri Chand. However, PW2 Nitesh has not deposed
anything about attempt of PW1 of snatching the rifle. Though both
PW1 Lalit and PW2 Nitesh have deposed about snatching of rifle from

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
150
Kamal Kishore by Virender and allgedly firing a shot by him at Sri
Chand. However, as per testimony of PW1 Lalit Kumar, accused
Dharmender, Narender and Subhash fired shots from their respective
fire arms which hit Ishwar Chand, Pintu @ Devender, Naveen, Kanhiya
Lal and Nitesh. However, PW2 Nitesh has deposed that accused Kamal
Kishore fired a shot towards him with an intention to kill him which
embodied in his right upper shoulder.
26. The Court witness PW46 Bhagat Ram who also claimed to
be an eye witness has deposed that accused Kamal Kishore fired from
his rifle at Nitesh and the said shot had hit on his forearm. Accused
Kamal Kishore fired another shot from his rifle towards Rajender
Parsad which hit on his chest. Thereafter, Virender @ Billu snatched
the rifle of Kamal Kishore and at that time, Lalit was also trying to
snatch the rifle. Accused Virender @ Billu fired a shot from the said
rifle towards Siri Chand which hit on his chest. Accused Dharmender
and Narender were armed with revolvers and accused Subhash was
having a rifle and they fired towards Ishwar Chand, Naveen, Pintu @
Devender and Kanhaya Lal.
PW47 Suresh Chand (Court witness) has deposed that accused
Kamal Kishore was armed with a rifle, accused Subhash was also
armed with a rifle, accused Narender and Dharmender were having

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
151
revolvers and rest of the accused were armed with lathies, dandas and
iron rods and when he reached under the electric pole, he noticed that
those persons were firing from their weapons. He deposed that
Rajender Parsad, Siri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Devender and Naveen had
died due to the fire arm injuries.
PW48 Kanahiya (Court witness) has deposed that Leelu was
armed with a rifle, accused Subhash was also armed with a rifle,
accused Dharmender and Narender were armed with revolvers and
other accused were having lathies, iron rods, pharsa and dandas. He
deposed that before he reached, one gun shot had already been fired.
However, in his presence, Leelu @ Kamal Kishore fired a shot from his
rifle at Rajinder which hit in his chest and he fell down. Thereafter,
accused Virender @ Billu snatched the rifle from Kamal Kishore and
fired a shot at Siri Chand which hit in his chest and he fell down.
Accused Dharmender fired a shot from his revolver which hit on his
left hand. Thereafter, out of fear, he ran away from there and entered in
the house of Rajinder to save himself and when he returned after some
time, five persons namely Siri Chand, Rajinder, Ishwar, Pintu and
Naveen were lying with bullet injuries.
RECOVERIES

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
152
27. PW22 SI Hari Singh who was member of SIT and
arrested accused Dharmender and Amit on 18.09.2017 has deposed that
accused Amit in furtherance of his disclosure statement Ex.PW18/A got
recovered a Pharsa which was taken into police possession vide memo
Ex.PW18/C and the same was sealed with seal of ‘RS’. In furtherance
of his disclosure statement Ex.PW18/B, accused Dharmender got
recovered one revolver from a drawer of a TV trolley and six live
cartridges were found loaded in the said revolver. Accused Dharmender
also got recovered license of the said revolver. Sketch of the revolver
and live cartridges Ex.PW22/B was prepared and thereafter, same were
taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW19/C after preparing a sealed
parcel with the seal of RS.
PW31 Inspector Ashok Kumar has inter alia deposed that
six empty cartridges which were lying on the spot were put in a plastic
jar and sealed with the seal of AK and the sealed plastic jar was taken
into possession vide memo Ex. PW31/B. He further deposed that on
04.10.2017, on interrogation, accused Pramod suffered disclosure
statement Ex.PW29/A and in pursuance thereof, he demarcated the
place of occurrence vide demarcation memo Ex. PW29/B. This
witness further tendered the empty cartridges as Ex.PW31/D to
Ex.PW31/H and sealed parcel as Ex. PW31/J.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
153
PW33 Inspector Satender Singh has inter alia deposed
that on 22.09.2017, he arrested accused Subhash and he suffered
disclosure statements Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/D respectively and
disclosed that he did not fire any shot from his gun. Accused Subhash
further got recovered one 12 bore gun, license and 10 live cartridges
from his residential house and same were taken into police possession
vide memo Ex.PW33/G.
PW41 Inspector Badan Singh has inter alia deposed that
on 18.9.2017, he arrested accused Kamal Kishore @ Billu and
Narender from Kheripul in pursuance of secret information. During
interrogation on 19.09.2017, accused Kamal Kishore and Narender
suffered disclosure statements Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B
respectively. On 20.09.2017, accused Kamal Kishore led the police
party to the house of his relative situated in village Kakdipur, District
Palwal from where he got recovered the license of rifle Ex.PW41/R
which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW25/B. Rough
sketch of place of recovery Ex.PW25/B1 was prepared by him.
Accused Narender led the police party to the house of his relative
situated in Village Gharbara Tappal from where he got recovered the
license of revolver Ex.PW41/S which was taken into possession vide
memo Ex.PW25/A. Both the memos were signed by accused and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
154
attested by HC Mahavir. On 21.09.2017, accused Kamal Kishore led
the police party to Village Khampur, Delhi and got recovered rifle used
in this case from a shed used for storing animal fodder. The said rifle
was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW25/D. On
22.09.2017, accused Kamal Kishore led the police party to the house of
his relative situated in village Kakdipur, Palwal and got recovered four
live cartridges from a drawer of table kept in a shop. The same were
taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW26/C. On 23.09.2017, accused
Narender suffered another disclosure statement Ex.PW26/E and in
pursuance thereof, he got recovered DVR, data cable, connection wire
and adopter from the house of his brother namely Virender @ Billu
situated in village Palwali which were taken into possession vide memo
Ex.PW26/F. On 23.09.2017, he arrested accused Virender @ Billu
after discharge from Central Hospital, Faridabad. On interrogation, he
suffered disclosure statement Ex.PW41/U on 24.09.2017. During
search on 04.12.2017, the licensed rifle and one gun were taken into
possession from the house of accused Virender @ Billu and the same
were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW41/X. During
investigation, he tendered the gun and rifle recovered from the house of
Virender @ Billu as Ex.PW37/3 and Ex.PW37/1. He further tendered
the DVR as Ex.P8, revolver as Ex.P5 and five live cartridges contained

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
155
in a small plastic container as Ex. P6 (collectively) which were got
recovered by accused Narender. He also tendered four fired bullets
alongwith three lead contained in a small plastic container as Ex. P7
(collectively) and rifle as Ex.P4 got recovered by accused Kamal
Kishore.
PW14 Constable Raspal Singh remained associated in the
investigation of this case with SI Braham Parkash and has deposed that
on 18.09.2017, accused Satish, Harish and Lokesh were arrested from
village Palwali and in furtherance of their disclosure statements
Ex.PW14/M to Ex.PW14/O respectively, they got recovered one lathi
each vide recovery memos Ex.PW14/P to Ex.PW14/R respectively.
PW20 Abhay Singh deposed that on 18.09.2017, he
arrested accused Shiv Kant, Ravinder and Nand Kishore. In
furtherance of their disclosure statements Ex.PW20/D, Ex.PW20/E and
Ex.PW20/F, they got recovered one danda each and one lathi which
were taken into police possession vide recovery memos Ex.PW20/D2,
Ex.PW20/E2 and Ex.PW20/F2.
PW21 SI Sumer Singh has deposed that he was also one of
the member of the SIT and on 18.09.2017, he arrested accused Gyan
Chand, Mauji Ram and Ravi. In furtherance of his disclosure
statement, accused Gyan Chand got recovered one lathi. Sketch of lathi

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
156
Ex.PW21/A1 was prepared and same was taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PW21/A2. Accused Mauji Ram got recovered one
wooden handle (danda) and the same was taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PW21/B2. Accused Ravi Kant got recovered an
iron rod and same was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PW21/C2. He further deposed that on 20.09.2017, witnesses
Parmali, Suresh and Bhagat Ram disclosed that they could not get
themselves medically examined due to the death of five persons and
thereafter, he got them medically examined from B.K. Hospital,
Faridabad vide applications Ex.PW21/F, Ex.PW21/G and Ex.PW21/H
respectively.
PW23 SI Jeet Singh deposed that he arrested accused
Vinay Kumar and Rajinder Parsad on 18.09.2017. In furtherance of
their disclosure statements Ex.PW23/C and Ex.PW23/D respectively,
they disclosed about concealment of dandas used by them. On
20.09.2017, accused Rajinder Parsad suffered another disclosure
statement Ex. PW23/E and got recovered one danda used in the crime
in the room of his house and accused Vinay in furtherance of his
disclosure statement Ex. PW23/F got recovered one danda used in the
crime from the field of Billu Sarpanch near a wall and same were taken
into possession vide memo Ex. PW23/E2 and Ex.PW23/E3.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
157
PW24 SI Braham Parkash has inter alia deposed that on
18.09.2017, one Vaibhav produced accused Lokesh, Harish and Satish,
who were by name accused of this case. They were arrested by him.
They suffered their disclosure statements and as per their disclosure
statements, they demarcated the place of occurrence. Accused Chaman
was arrested from QRG Hospital and on 20.09.2017, he alongwith
above named three accused was interrogated, during which accused
Harish, Satish, Lokesh and Chaman suffered disclosure statements
Ex.PW14/L to Ex.PW14/O respectively. On the same day, accused
Satish, Harish and Lokesh got recovered separate bamboo sticks from
their residence vide recovery memos Ex.PW14/P to Ex. PW14/R
respectively. He further deposed that on 30.09.2017, accused Om Dutt
and Shri Ram were arrested and in furherance of their disclosure
statements Ex. PW24/D and Ex.PW24/E respectively, they demarcated
the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PW24/F.
PW26 HC Khurshid Ahmed remained associated with SI
Badan Singh during investigation. He has deposed that in furtherance
of his disclosure statement, accused Narender got recovered one
revolver alongwith five live cartridges 32 bore and same were taken
into police possession vide memo Ex.PW26/D.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
158
PW27 HC Kuldeep deposed that on 18.09.2017, he
remained associated in the investigation of the present case with SI
Silak Ram. Accused Shri Kant and Sagar suffered disclosure
statements Ex.PW27/C and PW27/D respectively and they demarcated
the place of occurrence. They were again interrogated and in
furtherance of his disclosure statement, accused Shri Kant got
recovered a danda which was taken into police possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PW27/I.
PW28 ACP Sushil arrested accused Dayawati and Omwati
and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B
respectively. In pursuance of their disclosure statements, accused
Omwati and Dayawati demarcated the place of occurrence vide memos
Ex.PW28/C and Ex.PW28/D respectively.
PW33 Inspector Satender Singh has deposed that on
22.09.2017, one Titu produced three accused namely Subhash, Manoj
and Harkesh. In furtherance of his disclosure statement, accused
Subhash got recovered one 12 bore gun, license and 10 live cartridges
from his residential house and same were taken into police possession
vide memo Ex.PW33/G.
PW40 SI Silak Ram has further deposed that on
19.09.2017, accused Shri Kant and Sagar were arrested from QRG,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
159
Hospital, Ajronda Chowk, Faridabad. In furtherance of their disclosure
statements Ex.PW27/G and Ex.PW27/H, they both got recovered
wooden dandas from the disclosed places which were taken into police
possession vide memo Ex.PW27/I. Thereafter, accused Sagar got
recovered a wooden danda from the fields of his uncle Billu which was
taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW40/J. He further
deposed that on 17.10.2017, an information was received that one live
cartridge was lying in the street in front of the house of Mauji Ram, on
which he went to Village Palwali and one Het Ram son of Jakdu Singh
produced the live cartridge having description of KF 7.65. The same
was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PW40/L.
CROSS EXAMINATIONS:
28. During his cross-examination, this PW1 Lalit has stated
that he is in legal profession as an Advocate since the year 2012. There
are 2-3 houses in between his house and that of his cousin Sunil. He
specifically named 26 persons as assailants but volunteered to state that
later on, he came to know that Omwati and Dayawati were also
present. He was told about these two names by Het Ram Chauhan that
these two ladies brought the weapons and supplied to the remaining
accused persons. He had not seen these two ladies supplying weapons
to the remaining assailants. There was electric light in the gali where

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
160
the incident had taken place. He did not know as to how many
cartridges were lifted from the spot by the investigating agency. He
could not say if police had lifted only six cartridges of .315 bore from
the spot. He did not know if from the side of the assailants, Virender
@ Billu, Sagar, Chaman, Subhash and Srikant suffered injuries in this
incident. He further stated that none of them had caused any injury to
those five persons. Out of five deceased in this case, two namely his
father Rajender Parsad and Sri Chand had received one firearm injury
each. He did not know as to how many injuries of firearms were
received by three remaining deceased. He further said that lateron, he
came to know that these three remaining deceased also received one
firearm injury each. In essence, each of the five deceased had received
one firearm injury each. He did not know that as per FSL report, all the
firearm injuries were found to be caused only by one firearm which
was the licensed weapon of one of the assailants. The first shot was
fired on his father by Kamal Kishore @ Leelu. The second shot was
fired by Virender @ Billu by the same weapon after snatching the same
from Kamal Kishore to Sri Chand. He could not tell the specific details
of the remaining fired shots, even though they were fired in his
presence by Dharamender, Narender and Subhash. He had specifically
mentioned the use of revolver and gun by these persons in his

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
161
statement Ex.PW1/A. Besides the five deceased persons in this case,
two more namely Nitesh and Kanhiya Lal had also received firearm
injuries in the incident. He could not specifically tell as to whose shots
had hit those persons. In all 8 to 10 shorts were fired out of which five
proved fatal and two rendered the two injured. He could not mention
the names of those assailants who had intruded in their house after this
incident. He could not see them as he had rushed into his house. He
has further deposed that in election of village Panchayat Smt. Dayawati
wife of Billu @ Virender had successfully contested the election of
village Sarpanch. They had opposed Smt. Dayawati in the said election
and rather supported Smt. Lalita who was not from their family. He did
not know that on 17.9.2017 Anuj was accompanying Anjali and
Archana to Faridabad from Akash Coaching Institute, Sector-15,
Faridabad. He did not know that during the transit, Harish @ Chillu
had caused obstruction in their passage by placing his motorcycle
against the vehicle in which Anuj was carrying his sisters Anjali and
Archana and he also used abusive and inappropriate words with them.
Then there was an altercation between Shri Kant and Harish and that
Shri Kant narrated this incident to his father Virender @ Billu. He
denied that on the same night at about 9:30 PM, Billu @ Virender was
coming from the shop of Satish and during the transit, he was waylaid

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
162
by Harish @ Chillu and his father Kanhiya Lal who caught him by
neck and started abusing him. He denied that said Harish and Kanhiya
Lal then shouted for calling others and thereupon Narender, Prehlad,
Mam Chand, Manoj @ Kale, Pintu @ Devender, Duli Chand, Bijender,
Nand Kishore, Het Ram Chauhan, Har Parsad, Bhagat Ram, Sokhi,
Jarman, Ravi, Raj Kanwar, Pankaj etc. came there armed with lathis,
dandas axes, rods and with a view to seriously attack Virender @ Billu,
they caused injuries on his head. He denied that somebody from the
village informed the family members of Billu @ Virender about the
incident whereupon the sons and brothers of Billu @ Virender came
unarmed and when they attempted to shield Billu, then the said persons
also caused injuries by means of Pharsa and rod which resulted into
serious injuries. He denied that Kamal Kishore @ Leelu gave a
warning to aforesaid persons to go aside so that he could remove the
injured persons from there. He denied that inspite of this warning, the
said persons continued attacking them and even attempted to snatch the
rifle of Kamal Kishore @ Leelu. He did not know if the accused
Subhash was continuing ill for the last about one month before the
incident. He did not know that he had remained admitted even 4-5 or 6
days on two occasions before the incident or that he advised bed rest.
He denied that Ravinder, Ravikant, Shiv Kant and Anuj were also not

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
163
present at the spot. Police recorded his statement on 18.9.2017 at about
2:00 AM. He denied that he made statement much after 2:00 AM after
consultation and discussion and after making elaborate plans for
implicating as many persons as possible. He admitted that in his
statement on the basis of which present FIR was registered, it is not
mentioned that he saw that all these persons were surrounded by the
accused persons. From their family, no one contested election for the
post of Sarpanch in the last election. The house of Billu and his family
are located at a distance of about 50 meters from their houses towards
entrance of the village from main road. He did not notice Bijender at
the time of incident. He came out of his house at the start of incident
only after 2-3 minutes of the noises being raised by the accused
persons. He did not mention the identification features of any of 10-15
unknown persons mentioned by him in his report. He did not
remember if they were carrying any firearm. He could not differentiate
between gun and a rifle. He could not tell if any firearm was reloaded
at the spot. He had not noticed as to how many empty cartridges had
fallen at the spot. Billu had snatched the gun from Kamal Kishore by
holding it from middle position. At the time of firing, the distance
between assailant Billu and Sri Chand might be approximately 4-5 feet.
The distance between Kamal Kishore and his father was the same at the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
164
time of firing bullet by Kamal Kishore towards his father. The distance
between the remaining deceased and assailants might be varying from
5 to 8 feet but he could not tell the exact distance. He could not tell
whether the bullets hit any other object after piercing through the
victim. The firearm as well as other weapons like lathi etc, were
simultaneously used in the crime. Subhash had fired from a gun while
Dharamender and Narender fired from their respective revolvers or
pistols but he could not tell as to whose bullet hit Ishwar, Devender @
Pintu, Naveen, Nitesh and Kanhiya Lal. Subhash was at a distance of
3-4 feet from the victim at the time of firing by his weapon.
Dharamender and Narender were also approximately at the same
distance. He did not remember as to how many bullets were fired by
Subhash, Dharamender and Narender by their respective weapons. He
did not notice whether the empties of these weapons had fallen on the
ground. He can not distinguish between pellet and bullet. He could not
tell whether the bullet hit or pellets hit the injured. He could not tell
where were Nitesh and Kanhiya standing at the time of receiving of
firearm injuries. He could not tell whether it was moonlit night but
volunteered that there was street light and every thing was visible. The
police never got demarcated the place of occurrence in his presence.
After sustaining the injuries, Sri Chand, Rajender Parsad, Naveen,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
165
Ishwar Chand and Devender @ Pintu succumbed to the injuries and fell
on the ground. The inter se distance between them was about 2 to 4
feet from one another. He did not know for how many days, Billu
remained admitted in the hospital.
29. He admitted that there was CCTV camera outside the
house of Virender @ Billu at the time of incident. The first shot was
probably fired at 9:35 PM. He could not tell if anyone from the said
house of Virender @ Billu joined or reached at the spot during the
period of incident. As per him, all of them were already present there.
(at this stage Pen-drive Ex.PD1 was played). After seeing the clipping,
the witness stated that this CCTV footage pertained to outside the
house of Virender @ Billu but he could not say whether it was the front
side or back side of the house of Virender or whether the same pertains
to the passage of house or outside the house. He admitted that CCTV
footage started from 9:05 PM to 10:00 PM and there was movement of
only two boys going outside the house at about 9:28 PM. He could not
identify the boy and old lady talking to each other from 9:33 PM to
9:34 PM. He could not identify the young girl talking with young lady
at 9:35 PM. He admitted that Anuj was seen coming out at the house at
9:38:30 PM. At 9:39 PM one boy was seen coming with gun. He
could not identify the other boy along with some lady carrying some

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
166
danda and entering in the house. At about 9:39 PM a boy was seen
going along with gun. Again a lady was seen coming at 9:39:30 PM
carrying lathi in her house. At about 9:40:40 PM, one young lady was
seen coming out the house and two young girl were also seen coming
out of the house. The lady comes back with a gun from outside and got
it back in the house. At about 9:42 PM, Anuj had come back with a
danda in his hand and took three more dandas. At 9:42 PM one boy
was seen carrying 3-4 dandas towards main gate. At 9:43.17 Shivkant
was seen coming in the house. At 9:44 PM one lady was seen going
out of the house towards the main gate along with big gun and the
danda as well. At 9:44.32 PM one boy was seeing coming out of the
house with a gun and going towards the main gate. One more boy was
also seen following him with the handgun. Harkesh was empty handed.
He admitted that various persons were present outside the main gate of
the house of Virender @ Billu and were seen in the light of some
passing vehicles. He admitted that at 9:46.57 PM few vehicles had
passed in front of the house of Virender @ Billu at a high speed and
persons were seen standing at the main gate of the house. He identified
the person in white Kurta Pyjama as Virender @ Billu, who was seen
talking at phone and also drinking water at 9:50.39 PM and he was

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
167
empty handed. At 9:51.15 PM, Anuj was seen coming empty handed in
the house.
30. In his further cross-examination, he further deposed about
various persons seen in the CCTV footage. He admitted that as per
CCTV footage, there was no ingress and egress in the house of accused
Billu till 9:28 PM. He admitted that a person came out from the house
of accused Billu @ Virender at about 9:30 PM empty handed. He
could not identify him to be the accused Gyan Chand. He has further
stated that as per CCTV footage, one person was seen coming on foot
from the right side of the house of accused Billu and he was walking
towards the other side wearing the towel around his waist and nothing
else on his body. He volunteered that he was Hari Chand and admitted
that he was empty handed. As per CCTV footage at 9:34 PM accused
Mauji Ram had come out of his house wearing ‘Lungi’ only he had
walked towards village. He volunteered that he was carrying lathi and
denied that it was a stick used by old persons to walk and not a lathi.
At about 9:38.30 PM, one man was seen coming from the side of house
of Amit. He was Subhash followed by his son Ravinder. As per
footage, one boy was seen carrying a rifle and coming out of house of
Virender @ Billu and he identified him Shivkant son of Virender @
Billu. As per the footage, at 9:41.02 PM, accused Dayawati along with

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
168
two girls had come out of the gate of house of Virender @ Billu and
stood there. They were empty handed. As per the footage, at 9:30.25
PM, accused Shiv Kant was stopped by one person who tried to snatch
the rifle carried by him in front of the house of Billu but he did not stop
and ran away. As per footage at 9:40.37 PM, one boy brought
something in his hand back to the house of accused Billlu. He could
not say it was a rifle, danda or something else because it was not clear
in footage. He denied that accused Virender @ Billu was being helped
to reach at the house in injured condition or that his clothes were
smeared with blood having sustained grievous injuries on his person or
that he was not intentionally identifying him. He admitted that there
was a crowd of many persons outside the house of accused Virender at
9:43 PM. He denied that he along with his family members under a
plan attacked Virender @ Billu, Subhash, Sagar, Chaman and Shri
Kant. He admitted that in between 9:46 PM to 9:48 PM, four vehicles
passed in front of the house of Billu.
31. When this witness was further recalled for cross-
examination, he stated that four vehicles shown to him on the last date
of hearing which were passed in front of house of Virender @ Billu
between 9:46 to 9:48 PM were their vehicles.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
169
32. To the question whether it was correct that Narender was
empty handed and he had snatched his gun from the kids from the main
gate of the house in order to put it in safe hands or that he wrongly
projected it before the Court on 30.5.2018 in his deposition while
seeing camera no.3 that Narender was carrying the gun or that he
concealed the true facts on that date from the Court, this witness denied
that Narender had snatched the gun carried by the kids in order to put it
in safe hands. He saw that accused persons together present in front of
his house. He denied that he was intentionally not identifying all
persons in the CCTV footages on bogus pretext just because it exposes
the falsehood of his claim that all were present together outside his
house. He further denied that accused Virender @ Billu suffered
fractures, grievous injuries, haemorrhages, severe head injury etc. in
the alleged incident. He denied that Subhash son of Mauji Ram had
sustained head injury, grievous shoulder injury, left upper limb fracture,
fracture of hand and a metallic rod already inserted therein the alleged
incident or that accused Sagar had sustained head injury and various
other injuries on his person or that Shrikant suffered head injury and
other injuries on his person in the said incident.
He further denied that he along with Narender son of Man
Chand, Manoj @ Kala, Bijender, Pehlad, Duli Chand, Kanhiya, Het

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
170
Ram, Asru, Bhagat, Jerman, Lalit, Ravi, Trilok, Bintu, Naveen, Raj
Kumar, Pankaj, Rajender Parsad, Ishwar Chand, Sri Chand, Ravinder
@ Pintu, Naveen, Harish and others have planned to attack accused
Virender @ Billu or that collected under this plan or that surrounded
accused Virender when he was on his way back to his house from the
village or that he was stopped and attacked or that Shivkant and
Shrikant, his sons had rushed to the spot to save him empty handed or
that thereafter, Subhash, Sagar and Chaman had also reached to save
him from their clutches or that they all gave merciless beatings to them
or that Virender @ Billu and Sagar lost consciousness due to the head
injuries or that there was prompt rumor that ‘Sarpanch aur Sagar ko
Mar Diya’ or that upon hearing such commotion, villagers were
attracted there at the spot. He denied that accused Kamal Kishore
became preplexed and lost his mental balance upon hearing that his son
and brother have been surrounded by them or that on the contrary they
got furious upon seeing the weapons and he was attacked by Rajender
Prasad, Ishwar Singh etc. or that they tried to snatch the weapon or that
the weapon fired in that event or that deceased Rajender and Ishwar
Chand suffered gun shot from almost contact range or that thereafter
they all left the injured and attacked accused Kamal Kishore or that in
that event few persons were also injured due to pallet injuries.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
171
33. In his further cross-examination, he stated that in his
presence no fire was shot from the weapon of Kamal Kishore after gun
shot injuries on Rajender Parshad and Sri Chand. When the fire was
shot by Subhash, Dharamender and Narender, they were towards the
side of street and they were towards the side of their house. He could
not tell as to who was carrying the weapon after causing injuries to Sri
Chand.
34. In his further cross-examination, he deposed that
occurrence had taken place opposite to the gate of his house. He could
not tell the names of the assailants, who chased him when he entered
his house for shelter. He had run into one of the rooms and somebody
had bolted the door of that room from outside. His mother, sister and
wife were standing in the open courtyard situated in the rear side of
their house. The street lights starting from the gate of his house were at
a distance of about 10 to 15 feet each and are equipped with white
colour LED lights. The accused Amit was standing at a distance of
about 2½/3 feet from him when he had caused the injuries to him.
Accused Amit had wielded the pharsa like a lathi and caused blow on
his head. He had not received a deep penetrating wound from the
pharsa injury inflicted by Amit on him. After about 25 days of
occurrence, one Het Ram Chauhan, who resides in his village told him

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
172
that Omwati and Dayawati were also present at the place of occurrence,
at the time of incident.
35. PW-2 Nitesh during his cross-examination stated that he
was discharged from the hospital on 20.9.2017. He was otherwise fully
conscious while in the hospital. His brother Lalit was in different
hospital. Police did not come in the hospital for recording his
statement. His statement was firstly recorded by the police on
28.9.2017. He did not know whether his brother Lalit had named the
ladies namely Omwati and Dayawati as accused in the case while
giving evidence. He stated that there was provision of electricity light
outside when the incident took place, however, he was confronted with
his statement Ex.DA where there was no mention of that fact. In all, 8-
10 shots were fired by the accused persons. Each of the five deceased
received one shot each. The said shots were fired from close range.
One of the shots hit him and another hit his uncle Kanhiya Lal. Rest of
the shots went in air. 2-3 firearms were used in firing these shots. He
did not know how many cartridges were lifted by the police during
investigation from the spot. He could not say if the same were of 315
bore. He further stated that it was possible that out of the assailants,
Virender @ Billu, Sagar, Chaman, Subhash and Shrikant might have
received some injuries. He volunteered that the same might had been

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
173
caused on account of pelting of stones by the ladies of their side. He
did not know whether as per FSL report, there was opinion that all the
firearm injuries had been caused only by one weapon. He further
denied the suggestion that on the date of incident, Anuj was
accompanying Anjali and Archana from Akash Coaching Institute,
Sector-15, Faridabad and during this transit, Harish son of Kanhiya
caused obstruction in their passage and also used abusive and
inappropriate words for them. He denied that the same resulted to
altercation between Shrikant and Harish and then Shrikant narrated this
incident to his father Virender @ Billu. He denied that at about 9:30
PM, Billu @ Virender was coming from the shop of Satish and during
the transit he was waylaid by Harish @ Chillu and Kanhiya Lal who
caught him by neck and started abusing him.He denied that Harish and
Kanhiya Lal shouted for calling others and then Narender, Prahlad,
Mam Chand, Manoj @ Kale, Pintu @ Devender, Duli Chand, Bijender,
Nand Kishore, Ravi and Pankaj etc. came armed with dandas, axes and
rods with a view to seriously attack Virender @ Billu and they caused
injuries on his head. He denied that someone informed the family
members of Billu @ Virender about the incident, whereupon his sons
and brother came unarmed and attempted to shield Billu, when these
persons also caused injuries by means of pharsa and rod which resulted

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
174
into serious injuries on the person of Virender @ Billu. He further
denied that at that stage Kamal Kishore @ Leelu, the brother of
Virender @ Billu saw them and he then fired two shots from his
licensed revolver in the air with a view to disperse them. He denied
that Kamal Kishore @ Leelu also gave a warning to the persons from
their side so that he could take the injured from there and when despite
warning their persons continue attacking and attempted to snatch the
rifle of Kamal Kishore and the said rifle was snatched by them and they
fired shots, some of which accidentally hit their own persons.
36. During his further cross-examination, he deposed that he
had stated before the police that Narender also fired from firearm
which hit Naveen, Ishwar, Devender and Kanhiya Lal and Kanhiya Lal
sustained firearm shot injury in his forearm (confronted with statement
Ex.DA where the factum of possession of pharsa by the accused
persons and name of accused Narender using the firearm and name of
the victim Kanhiya Lal was not mentioned). In his further cross-
examination, he stated that he also sustained gun shot injury and
remaining shots were fired by Subhash, Narender and Dharamender.
He did not know how many shots were fired by Subhash, Narender and
Dharamender. Subhash was having big gun and Narender and
Dharamender were having small weapon. First of all, his father

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
175
sustained single gun shot injury and thereafter, his uncle Sri Chand
sustained gun shot injury and for the remaining three persons, he could
not tell in what sequence other deceased and by whose hands, other
deceased sustained gun shot injuries and by whom. He could not tell
whether pellet, bullet or jacket hit him. The assailants who fired on
him was at a distance of 4-5 paces. The doctor removed that bullet
from his arm. His father and his uncle were also around 2-3 paces
when they were hit by the firearm. He could not tell from which
firearm and from whom Kanhiya Lal sustained firearm inury. He could
not tell whether the bullet remained inside the body of Kanhiya Lal or
exited outside the body. Virender @ Billu had snatched the rifle from
Kamal Kishore. The rifle was snatched from its middle. During his
further cross-examination, he stated that he had noticed around 40
persons present outside his house at the time of occurrence and out of
them, none was from their side. When specifically questioned, he
stated that when he along with his brother Lalit came out of the house,
he noticed Sri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Suresh, Parmali and Bhagat Ram
were present outside. Ishwar was his neighbour, Sri Chand was living
next to the house of Ishwar after a gap of 2-3 houses. Suresh and
Parmali were also living in neighbourhood whereas Bhagat Ram was
having two houses. He did not remember whether anyone from their

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
176
side had intervened or joined or attracted to the spot subsequently. The
occurrence started at about 9:15/9:30 PM and continued for 15 to 20
minutes. He remained locked in a room for about 1 or 2 minutes within
this period. They left at about 9:45/9:50 PM for the hospital and
reached there within 30/40 minutes. He was shot from a distance of 2-
3 paces. He was aimed. It was a big gun but he could not say whether
it was a double barrel gun. He had not seen the accused Amit coming at
the spot. He denied that Amit had come empty handed at the spot or
that it was evident in the CCTV footage. He could not say whether
Amit was shirtless at the spot. When CCTV footage of camera no.4 of
time 21:32.09 was shown to the witness, two persons were seen coming
to the house, the witness identified one person as accused Amit and the
said Amit was shirtless and only wearing shorts and was seen coming
out of his house and walking towards the village empty handed.
Accused Kamal Kishore fired on his father from the same place from
which he fired upon him. The distance between Kamal Kishore and his
father was one or two paces. Billu was one or two paces away from
Kamal Kishore. He volunteered that he came and snatched the gun
from Kamal Kishore. Billu also fired upon Sri Chand from a distance
of one or two paces. He did not fell even on receiving the gun shot.
He also did not become unconscious. Accused Sagar gave lathi blow

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
177
on him from front direction and it hit on the left side of his head. He
remained in the hospital till 20.9.2017. He was not in ICU. He denied
that accused Virender had suffered fractures, grievous injuries,
haemorrhages, severe head injury etc. in the said incident.
37. PW3 Dr. Ravinder Kumar, CMO, Asian Hospital,
Faridabad has tendered into evidence the MLR of Nitesh Ex.PW3/B.
During his cross-examination, he has stated that patient was conscious
at the time of his admission in the hospital. In the MLR, the time
period of injuries was mentioned as six hours. He could not comment
about the ammunition used for injury no.1 i.e. whether pallet or bullet.
He had given his opinion being firearm injury qua injury no.1 on the
basis of shape of injury, margins and history told by the patient and the
attendants.
38. PW-8 ASI Sharwan Kumar during his cross-examination
has stated that he did not remember whether there was any crossing
near the house of Rajender. The width of the street was about 14-15
feet.
39. PW-9 Dr. Subhash, Surgeon, Sarvodaya Hospital,
Faridabad proved the discharge summary and CT Scan report of the
injured as Ex. PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. During his cross-examination,
he stated that all the injuries were simple in nature. No abnormality

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
178
was found in CT Scan and x-ray report. The patient was brought
conscious and remained conscious throughout. Since no one had
revealed the names of assailants, he did not record the same.
40. PW-10 Dr. Naveen Arichwal tendered in evidence
affidavit Ex.PW11/A and discharge summary of the injured Kanhiya
Lal. During his cross-examination, he has stated that he perused the x-
ray film of Kanhiya Lal. He did not notice any foreign material over
the injury in question. He did not conduct the x-ray of Kanhiya Lal and
same was done by radiographer/operator. He had not conducted any
fixation of fracture ulna.
41. PW-13 Dr. Anushtup De, Consultant, QRG Central
Hospital, Faridabad has deposed that on 17.9.2017 he was posted as
Consultant in Department of Surgery in Asian Hospital, Faridabad. On
that day, Nitesh was admitted in their hospital and was treated by him
and Dr. Prabal Roy. He has further deposed that patient was taken up
for surgery debridement and removal of bullet was done on 18.9.2017.
Patient was discharged in stable condition on 20.9.2017. He has
proved discharge summary Ex.PW13/A. The bullet was stuck in the
right upper arm area of the injured and was removed during operation.
At that stage, the parcel already exhibited Ex.PW40/O was opened
from a small plastic box containing a piece of lead (metallic object)

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
179
was taken out, the witness identified it to be piece of bullet removed
from the body of injured Nitesh.
42. PW-14 Constable Raspal Singh during his cross-
examination has stated that such type of lathi and danda are available in
each house in the village. There was no special identification mark on
any lathi and danda. No blood was noticed on recovered lathi and
danda. The place of recovery was accessible to all the family
members. No reputed person like Numberdar and Member Panch was
joined at the time of recovery.
43. PW-18 HC Bachchu Singh, in his examination-in-chief
has deposed about the recovery of pharsa and licensed revolver by the
accused Amit and accused Dharamender respectively. During his
cross-examination, he has stated that no respectable person from the
village was called at the time of effecting recovery at the instance of
accused Amit. There was no blood stains available on the pharsa got
recovered by accused Amit. Voluntarily stated that same was wiped by
the accused with soil. At the time of recovery of the revolver by
accused Dharamender, no private witness was joined in the
investigation.
44. PW-20 Retd. Sub Inspector Abhay Singh during his cross-
examination stated that he did not know accused namely Shivkant,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
180
Ravinder and Nand Kishore prior to their arrest. Jitender son of Mehar
Chand produced these accused before him. All the accused were joined
in investigation on 18.9.2017 by him at the place of arrest. No
independent witness was joined at the time of interrogation of any of
the accused. On 20.9.2017, they reached in Gharbara, U.P. along with
above said three accused and reached in the village at about 9:00 AM.
Local police was not informed thee. Neither videography nor
photography was done at the time of alleged recovery. No respectable
person was joined at the time of recovery. The place of recovery was
only bolted from outside. No independent witness was joined. During
his further cross-examination, he stated that he was not aware about the
rule laid down in Punjab Police Rules as to whether the entry in the
local police station was mandatory regarding the recovery if effected
outside the local jurisdiction of the police station. He had no reason to
assign for not doing so in this case.
45. PW-21 SI Sumer Singh during his cross-examination
stated that he did not know the accused Gyan Chand, Mauji Ram and
Ravikant prior to their arrest. 3-4 more persons were also present with
them at the time of arrest at about 8/9:00 PM. There was no discovery
of fact about the incident in the disclosure statements of Ravikant and
Gyan Chand. The place of incident was also known to the investigating

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
181
agency. On 20.9.2017 they left the police station at about 10:00 AM to
effect the recovery and reached the place of recovery at about 11:00
AM. Neither videography nor photography was done. Place of
recovery was accessible to general public at large. No independent
witness was joined at the time of effecting recovery. Previously, the
investigation was carried out by SI Badan Singh posted at PS Kheri
Pul. He reached village Palwali at 6:00 PM on 18.9.2017. He was not
aware that on 17.9.2017 police had gone to village Palwali or not.
46. PW-22 Hari Singh during his cross-examination stated that
ACP Aman SIT head had disclosed about the previous events of
investigation before he started the investigation. ACP had shown him
the place of occurrence, informed about postmortem and other
proceedings conducted by the police. He was not aware that the family
members of accused Billu and other siblings were removed from the
village on the pretext of law and order and were detained in crime
branch. He was not aware at any stage of investigation that there was a
CCTV camera at the house of accused Billu or that the presence of
accused or about ascertaining whether they were carrying a pharsa or
gun would have been depicted in such footages. The investigation
remained with him from 18.9.2017 till 22.9.2017. He admitted that
Dharamender was employed in police and was posted at Gurgaon on

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
182
the day of occurrence. He did not collect any proof regarding the
presence of accused Dharamender on duty. He could not assign any
special reason for not doing so. He admitted that Dharamender was
found scratchless on 18.9.2017 when arrested by him. The weapon
recovered from accused Dharamender was of 32 bore. He did not
know whether any fired bullet or cartridge of 32 bore was recovered
from the spot by the police or not. He was not sure whether any fired
bullet or cartridge of 32 bore was found on the spot or not. No
previous case diary or police notes regarding the events of investigation
in the intervening night of 17.9.2017 or of 18.9.2017 were given to
them for reference. He did not summon any finger-print expert for
examination of the weapon. He was not aware whether he was ought
to preserve the weapon in a condition so that the gun combustion
material could be protected for a proper examination about the
possibility of firing from the weapon and its timings.
47. PW-23 SI Jeet Singh during his cross-examination has
deposed that he had not come across a single witness who claimed that
Rajender had caused any injury to him/her in the occurrence. He
admitted that since no specific name/injured/witness had come before
him to whom Rajender caused injury, therefore, there was no occasion
for cross-checking or corroborating the use of recovered danda from

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
183
accused Rajender. Similar was his reply regarding the role,
involvement and recovery from accused Vinay. No raid was conducted
at the house of accused Rajender and Vinay on 18.9.2017. They were
arrested from the Bus stand of village Palwali. They were produced by
one Rakesh Kumar of the same village. The disclosure statements
were got signed by the accused and the attesting witnesses.
48. PW-24 SI Braham Parkash during his cross-examination
stated that he started investigation at 5:00 PM on 18.9.2017. It had
come before him that house of accused Dayawati was equipped with
CCTV cameras. Investigation team might have taken CCTV footage
on 17.9.2017 but he did not know the time and the manner. He never
tried to see CCTV footage. The DVR recorder was sealed by
investigation team/SIT team and therefore, he could not see the same.
He admitted it to be correct that nothing was recovered from accused
Lokesh, Satish and Harish in pursuance of their first statements on the
basis of which remand was obtained. The bamboo sticks were
recovered from the houses of the accused. He admitted that accused
Harish, Lokesh, Satish, Sri Ram, Chaman and Omdutt were not in the
family of the accused Billu and they were co-villagers.
49. PW-25 HC Mahavir during his cross-examination stated
that he was out of police station from 16.9.2017 and came back on

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
184
18/19.7.2017. He did not remember the exact date of his return. He
had gone for his personal work. He was on official rest, therefore, he
did not know what happened on 17.9.2017. When he reported back, all
the accused were arrested but few were admitted in the hospital,
therefore, they could not be arrested by that time. All of them who
were arrested were seen by him in CIA Faridabad
50. PW-26 HC Khurshid Ahmad during his cross-examination
admitted it to be correct that nothing was recovered on 19.9.2017 from
accused Kamal Kishore and Narender. The cartridges were recovered
from the drawer of a table kept in the shop of the brother-in-law which
was situated in his house in village Kakripur. They did not visit the
local police station. He did not know whether toll was paid or not.
There was no house number in Gharbara. The recovery was effected
from the box of bed in the bed room of brother-in-law of accused
Narender. On 23.9.2017, he along with I.O. visited the house of
accused Virender @ Billu. The house was opened. No one was present
in the house. He did not know why the house was opened but not
occupied. The DVR was pertaining to the camera installed at the house
of accused Virender @ Billu. It was not played at the spot. No footage
was taken out from the DVR in a pen-drive or a CD.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
185
51. PW-27 HC Kuldeep during his cross-examination stated
that on 18.9.2017, SHO of police station did not come to police station
that night. No VT message was given to high police authority
regarding the present case. The FIR in this case was registered at
2:50 AM. He did not know when and from where accused Srikant and
Sagar had been arrested and by whom. He did not know whether SI
Silak Ram was aware of the place of occurrence prior to the
preparation of the demarcation memo Ex.PW27/E and Ex.PW27/F. No
new discovery of facts came from disclosure statement of accused
Sagar. The place of recovery of danda was accessible to all.
52. PW-28 ACP Sushil during his cross-examination admitted
that he had not cross-checked the role and involvement of accused
Dayawati ad Omwati by perusing the CCTV camera.
53. PW-30 HC Satender Singh during his cross-examination
has stated that the dandas recovered from the accused are easily
available in each house and there was no specific mark on the
recovered dandas. No public witness was joined in the proceedings of
recovery or of investigation in his presence. The danda was recovered
from the house of some relative of accused Shrikant. He did not know
his name. He was not joined in the investigation. He did not know who

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
186
was occupying the room in which the danda was recovered. He did not
know when had the accused gone to keep the danda.
54. PW-31 Inspector Ashok Kumar during his cross-
examination stated that he visited village Palwali in the intervening
night of 17.9.2017. He was directed to preserve the spot. Upon his
checking of the spot, he did not find any stone pelting or any stone
thrown at the spot. He admitted that no stone was found at the spot
and therefore, there was no question of lifting any stone from the spot.
He admitted that he did not find any pistol or revolver at the spot. He
did not find any fired bullet or any mark of fire bullet on any wall, door
or article at the spot during his spot visit. Had he found any such
evidence, he would have certainly seized the same in his investigation
on 17/18.9.2017. He had seized the spot and did not allow anyone to
remove anything from the spot. He stayed at the spot from 10:00 PM
on 17.9.2017 till 6/7:00 AM on 18.9.2017 along with his team. He was
not aware whether the CCTV footage was seized in the same night. He
admitted that it was collected by the other I.O. but he did not know the
exact date and time. When pen-drive containing CCTV footage was
played on the request of learned defence counsel and shown to the
witness, he admitted it to be correct that upon information of this
incident, the senior officer like Commissioner of Police were at the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
187
spot. He admitted that there was no direction given by Commissioner
of Police in writing which was to be performed at the spot by them. He
admitted that at 10:10 on 17.9.2017 three police vehicles had followed
a Swift Car and Swift Car had stopped outside the house of accused
Billu and the officials had alighted from the Swift car and entered in
the house. He admitted that at 22:19, two police vehicles have also
reached at the spot. One other police vehicle at 22:22 went towards the
spot. He admitted that at 22:22 police official had come from
Badshahpur side in the village and stopped outside the house of
accused Billu and then all the police officials went inside the house of
accused Billu. He admitted that at 10:23 police officials had come
from the side of village and stopped outside the house of accused Billu
and a beacon light was prominently seen. He admitted that the footage
ends at 22:30:10 and no further footage pertaining to this CCTV was
available on record. He admitted that other various persons had
gathered outside the house of accused Billu at 21:43:59 and assembled
on the ramp of the house.. At 21:48 all the persons had gone inside the
house. Four cars crossed at a hight speed in front of the house of
accused Billu and no obstruction was seen to be caused by the persons
present outside the house of accused Billu and in fact they came and
stood on the ramp and cleared way. Thereafter, none of the persons had

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
188
came out of the house of accused Billu. At 22:08 various private
persons had gone inside the house of accused Billu and thereafter, at
22:09:40 Swift car had stopped and the officials had gone inside the
house. He had lifted the blood with the help of gauze from the spot and
it was lifted from three places. Those stains were found at close
distance but he could give the distance though he marked the same in
the site plan but distances were not mentioned in his investigation. He
admitted that no case diary pertaining to 17.9.2017 was recorded. The
police proceeding were stated on 18.9.2017.
55. PW-33 Inspector Satender Singh during his cross-
examination stated that he was not aware about any investigation which
took place on 22.9.2017. In his entire investigation, he did not know
whether there was CCTV camera installed at the house of accused and
footage was available for proper investigation. The house of accused
Subhash was situated in front of house of accused Billu. He admitted
that if some one had to go to the spot from the house of accused
Subhash, then he would have to pass the house of accused Billu. He
denied that SIT was conscious about the existence of CCTV footage
and it was purposely concealed from records as it would exonerate the
accused Subhash. He admitted that as per his investigation, weapon
recovered from accused Subhash was not used in the incident and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
189
that was separately recorded in his final disclosure statement.
Accused Harkesh was produced in the evening of 22.9.2017 by one
Titu at about 8:30 PM. His disclosure statement was recorded in CIA
staff at about 8:30 AM on 23.9.2017. No recovery was effected in
pursuance of said disclosure statement. Accused Subhash voluntarily
suffered his first disclosure statement on 23.9.2017. He admitted that
there was no mention of 10 cartridges in the first disclosure statement
of accused Subhash Ex.PW33/A. No effort was made on 23.9.2017 for
effecting any recovery. They left for police station at about 3/3:30 PM
and reached the place of recovery at about 4:00 PM. Neither
videography nor photography was done. No respectable person from
the village was joined.
56. PW-34 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Koshal, Retired Deputy Director
and presently working as Ballistics Expert, FSL, Madhuban, Haryana
during his cross-examination has stated that T-shirt contained in the
parcel of deceased Naveen bore one exit hole at the back of 9X10 mm
of size. Intense Pb (lead) was detected from the margin of this hole
under stereo examination and it was found to be exit hole. The cuts on
the clothes were already done by serology department. He admitted
that the pieces cut from the clothes were not sent before him for the
examination of gun residue and the report was also not forwarded to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
190
him in this regard. He admitted that T-shirt had three scissor cuts on
the front side whereas one cut the back side. These were of varying
sizes. He volunteered to state that the same were found to have been
cut by serologist for blood examination.
“Q. Can you say with certainty that there was no gun residue, hole of
any bullet projectile on the clothes from where it has been cut?
A. I can not say with certainty.
Q. Is it correct that the corresponding holes regarding the entry or
exit in some case are not found in the clothes and it could be the area
on these cut clothes.
A. The clothes are sent to serologist after Ballastics examination but
in this case, these clothes were sent to serologist first and then to
Ballastics. It is correct that the corrresponding holes of any entry are
not available on T-shirt whereas it was available on the vest.”
The vest contained in the parcel of deceased Naveen has an entry
hole of 13X8 mm on the front left upper side and hold on
corresponding on T-shirt was fund on the back also. There was a piece
of cloth removed on the stomach towards right side of size about
1.5X0.5 inches. Similar was his reply regarding this cut piece as was
his reply for the T-shirt of the deceased. He did not find any firearm
hole/residues on any other clothes of deceased Naveen. He admitted

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
191
that the said underwear was cut at two places on the front upper left
side. The pieces were of about sizes 2X2 inches. He admitted that the
underwear found in the same parcel of deceased Naveen was also
having a cut of about 2X2 inches. He found an exit hole of about
24X18 mm on the back of the right shoulder of the T-shirt found in the
parcel of deceased Sri Chand. He admitted that there was a cut of
about 3X3 inches on the front left side of the T-shirt. Both these holes
on the T-shirt were not corresponding to each other. It was possible
that if the bullet was fired diagonally then these two points were
corresponding to each other. He admitted that there was no other hole
except one hole and one cut on the T-shirt. He admitted that the pyjama
of Sri Chand bore two cuts, one cut of size 2.5 X2.5 inches on the right
leg near centre and second cut of about size 1X2 inches above ankle
about 4/5 I nches. He admitted that in the shirt of Rajender Parsad
there was a bullet projectile entry point on the left side on the side of
the pocket and an exit point size 12X9 mm on the centre of back the
shirt. There was no other cut or hole in this shirt. Though the shirt was
cut and torn. In the vest of Rajender Parsad deceased there was entry
and exit corresponding points. He admitted that there was no cut in the
vest. In the trouser of deceased Rajnder Parsad, there was one cut on
the back of the left side near calf muscle. In the underwear of the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
192
deceased Rajnder Parsad there were three cuts on the front left side.
He admitted that in the T-shirt of deceased Ishwar Chand there was a
tear hole on front side and a hold of size 60X58 mm on the back right
shoulder. There was no entry hold in the front of the T-shirt. He
admitted that the tear was corresponding to the exit hole. There was no
other cut or hole on the T-shirt. He admitted that there was no hole or
cut in the trouser and underwear of deceased Ishwar Chand. He
admitted that in the T-shirt of deceased Devender @ Pintu had been
four holes in front side of sizes 6X11 mm, 22.5X9 mm, 6X6 mm and
2X3 mm. The 22.5X9 mm was of bullet hole present in the centre of
the chest portion of the T-shirt. The lead was also detected from this
hole. There were four holes on the back side of the T-shirt also having
sizes of 7X7 mm, 5X5 mm, 9X8 mm and 7X6 mm. These holes were
not found to be exit holes as lead could not be detected from the
margins of the wounds.
“Q. House would he find out or ascertain the pellet holes?
A. First of all by detection of lead. Secondly, he would examine the
margins of the holes under stereo microscope. Thirdly, the sizes and
shapes of hole.
Q. What would be size and shape of such a hole?

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
193
A. It may vary according to the type of the cartridge used in the
crime as they have about 20 to 30 different size of pellet.
Q. Would he tell what was the type of cartridge used in the
occurrence?
A. No.
Q. How would he ascertain the range of a shot by examining the
hole on a cloth?
A. In case the rifle firearms the presence of blackening, burning etc.
was used to determine the range of the shot and in case of shot guns
burning blackening, burning scorching and the spread of pellets on
cloth or target.
Q. Would it be correct to say that in case of shot guns the entry
wounds were smaller size whereas the exit wound were larger in size as
the pellets would make the exit larger than the entry?
A. It was not correct. There were various conditions and variations.
Q. In what kind of firearms the entry would be smaller and exit hole
would be larger in size?
A. It was possible in the case of rifle firearm.
Q. Can you assign as to how the entry wound was smaller and exit
was larger in case of rifle firearms?

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
194
A. In case of rifle firearms when the bullet comes out from the
muzzle of the barrel it has a very high spinning sped either in the right
hand side or in the left hand side. When this bullet enters inside the
body it creates a hole equal to its size but due to the elasticity of the
skin it contacts back. Inside the body its when obstruction due to bones
and skin comes in its way it spinning path goes on increasing and due
to that reason the exit wounds were much larger in the size than the
entry.
Q. Which cartridges emit pellets?
A. All the shot guns cartridges contain lead pellets made up of leads
or wads.
57. He admitted there was no hole, entry or exit in the short
and vest of injured Kanhiya Lal. He admitted that there was no
reference of any cut or cloth removed from the body of deceased or
injured in his report Ex.PX1. He also admitted that even his notes
which were used for refreshing his memory, were not having any
reference of cut or clothes removed from the body of deceased. These
clothes were given to him to give opinion about bullet pellet hole and
gun shot residues. He denied that his report was not based on any
technical examination.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
195
58. PW-35 Ms. Anju Bala, Senior Scientific Officer,
Serology, RFSL, Bhondsi, Gurgaon during her cross-examination
stated that after examination of cut piece, the said piece was destroyed
and she did not have any such record of destruction of such pieces. She
admitted that before her examination the gun shot residue examination
was not conducted on the clots available in the clothes. She admitted
that this fact was in the knowledge before conducting serology
examination. She admitted that due to non availability of any data with
her or prepared by her, she could not tell the size of the cut pieces taken
from the parcel, about the number of pieces taken from the parcel and
the material available on the cut pieces. She admitted that without
blood grouping, they could not differentiate the blood between
human beings. She admitted that the blood would start disintegrating
if it was exposed to normal atmosphere conditions and temperature.
59. PW-36 Suresh Kumar, Photographer during his cross-
examination stated that he visited the spot on 17/18.9.2017 at about
9:30/10:00 PM. He stayed at the spot for about 30/45 minutes. There
were 30-40 police officials during this time with him.
60. PW-37 R.S. Sangwan, Assistant Director, FSL, Madhuban
during his cross-examination has stated that the fired cartridge cases
received by him were compared with the fired test cartridge case. The

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
196
breech marks and firing pin marks were got compared. He had adopted
the procedure of side by side comparison under microscope from
different orientations and corners. He admitted that it was a human
analysis and comparison.
Q. Is it correct that there was no book reference per jurisprudence
whereby the abovesaid tests were mentioned to be conclusive in nature.
If no, could he refer any such book?
A. No. There was no reference in any book. He had vast experience
regarding test of weapons. During the 17 years of his job, he had
examined many types of weapons. Every weapon has its own
characteristics. He admitted that he did not receive any bullet fired
from the revolver or double barrelled guns. Volunteered he only
received lead pieces, jacket pieces and (.315) fired cartridges pieces.
The difference between bullet and lead was that the bullet would have
jacket and lead whereas the lead would not have the remaining pieces.
The such lead was available in rifle bullets. He denied that his report
was not based on any technical basis or that he had given wrong
opinion regarding the cartridges as it was not based on any technical
examination or jurisprudence. He had no professional degree of
ballistics. Volunteered he has experience and time to time training.
Q. Can he name on best books on ballistics scientific?

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
197
A. To his knowledge the books on Ballistics Science are B.R.
Sharma, B.K. Jain and he did not know any other book on this aspect.
He could co-relate the sealed parcels no. 1-10 received on 15.11.2017
and remaining received on 6.12.2017. He had brought the entire record
including sample seal. There was no cap either on the muzzle or near
the magazine on any other firearm sent to him. Track in wound could
only be opined by the autopsy surgeon. He could opine on the aspect
of distance only after examining the clothes of deceased/injured and in
this case, it was not examined by him as the same were not sent to
him. Rifle was a high valocity weapon and the effective range of a rifle
of .315 inch was about 400 meter. He admitted that in case of rifle gun
shot, the entry wound would be smaller than exit wound normally and
the exit wound would be elliptical and bigger in size. However, it
depends upon many facts i.e. distance from which firearms was fired,
part of body on which the bullet was hit and the track and the efforts of
the injured and assailants.
Q. What was the distance from which if a rifle gun was fired and
the exit wound would be smaller than the entry wound?
A. He could not give that distance exactly.
Q. Which was that body part where a rifle gun shot was hit and it
would not have a bigger exit wound than the entry wound?

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
198
A. It was possible when the gun shot has hit a hard bond during the
track in the body and in such a circumstances it would be diffracted and
the exit wound would not be bigger than the entry wound, otherwise
there was no such body part.
Q. What effort of a person could change the above said proposition
whereby the exit wound would be bigger than the entry wound?
A. He could not comment on this aspect.
He denied that he tried to furnish lame and ambiguous
explanations purposely or that the abovesaid explanations were not
tenable under medical jurisprudence or ballastics science. To his
knowledge the velocity of the rifle gun shot was 700/800 meter. The
rifle bullet would be spinning and therefore, the exit wound was
elliptical and bigger than that of entry wound.
61. PW-38 Dr. D.P. Gangwar, Assistant Director, Physic
CFSL, Chandigarh during his cross-examination has admitted that the
video footage after 17.9.2017 was not available till 22.9.2017 in the
hard disk as well as in the pendrive. The footage of 17.9.2017 lasted
till 11:00 PM. He did not know the time since when the footage started
on 22.9.2017. He did not retrieve the footage of 22.9.2017 to
23.9.2017. He volunteered to state that it could not be retrieved as
DVR hanged during the transfer of this footage. He admitted to be

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
199
correct that the hard disk or pendrive had not been played during his
deposition in the Court on that day. The police request/forwarding note
was Ex.DX. The queries of the police could not be meted out as their
branch lacked such technology to answer upon the queries of the police
and it was informed to the police when the parcel was received in the
laboratory. He denied that he had not opined the queries of the police
purposely in order to suppress the tempering and manipulation with the
electronic documents.
62. PW-39 Dr. Sandeep Beniwal , Medical Officer, B.K.
Hospital, Faridabad was a member of the Board of Doctors who
conducted the postmortems of deceased Devender, Sri Chand, Ishwar
Chand, Rajender and Naveen. During his cross-examination, he stated
that in all the cases, bullet was used not cartridge. He admitted that in
all death cases there was single bullet injury. In all cases, x-ray was
conducted for detection of foreign particle in the body. Edges of the
wounds from the dead body were not lifted to ascertain presence of
nitrate near the wound. He did not describe the injury as well as
opinion in any of the postmortem reports. He volunteered to state that
he had signed each postmortem report after going through the contents
of the same. He could not tell the nature of firearm used in the crime.
He has further deposed that in case of Devender son of Sukh Ram, Sri

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
200
Chand son of Vishal, Rajender Parsad son of Bhagwan Dass and
Naveen son of Ravi Dutt, the firer shot at a distance of more than 3 ft.
though he could not comment upon the exact distance upon the firer
and deceased at that time whereas in case of Ishwar Chand son of Daya
Nand Sharma the firearm was shot by the firer at the relevant time from
a distance less than 3 ft. He volunteered to state that bullet could
change its path in the body. There were fragments of bullets found
from the body of Rajender Parsad and Naveen. He could not comment
whether the path of projectile was parabolic or otherwise. He
volunteered to state that it was a sphere of ballistic or forensic expert.
He admitted that usually the size of entrance wound was smaller than
the diameter of bullet but in the case of bullet entering in a hard surface
or underlying bone it could be larger than the diameter of bullet. He
did not agree that small appearance was due to elasticity and shrinkage
of skin. Usually the size of entry wound was smaller than the size of
exit wound in any injury caused by firearm. He did not agree that
bullet usually travel straight path in soft tissues. He admitted that when
the bullet strike the body obliquely the entrance wound could be oval in
shape but he could not comment on the question of barrel used in the
crime. During his further cross-examination, he stated that since the
size of entry wounds were not same, therefore, the suggestion that all

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
201
of them have been caused by single firearm was correct. They saw x-
ray films before conducting the postmortems. They had used a probe
to check the path of the bullet. The track of the projectile was different
in each of the cases and it was so mentioned in the postmortem. The
probe was used to have an idea of the path of the projectile but the
exact path was determined on dissection which was mentioned in the
postmortem report. In his further cross-examination, he further stated
that whatever garments were recovered from the bodies were handed
over to the police. No fragment or bullet were marked but the parcel in
which the same were sealed were duly marked. Trajectory of a bullet
was usually guessed by looking at the entry and exit zones and they
sometimes used a probe to have an idea of the trajectory of bullet. In
case of deceased Devender, the path was from left to right, in case of
Sri Chand, the path was going downwards from the entry wound, in
case of deceased Ishwar Chand, the path was going downwards and it
was from left to right, in case of deceased Rajender Parshad, the path
was going downwards and in case of deceased Naveen, the path was
going downwards. The bullet could change its path inside the body.
Fragment of bullet were found in case of Rajender Parsad and Naveen
and were embedded in the subcutaneous tissues around the exit wound.
He stated that fragments were available on the exit would when it was a

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
202
case of shattering of bullet inside the body. He stated it to be correct
that abrasion collar is a common feature of a wound in case of a fire
from rifled weapon. He admitted that no abrasion collar was found in
three dead bodies during autopsy. He admitted it to be correct that size
of exit wound was larger than the size of entry wound in all cases
except Rajender but there were fragments of bullets found around the
exit wound in case of deceased Rajender. He stated it to be possible
that the larger projectile/bullets wound cause larger damage inside the
body or its trajectory as compared to smaller projectile/bullets but
stated that the damage caused also depends on the distance from which
the shot was fired. He further admitted it to be correct that size of entry
wound also depended on the distance from which the shot was fired.
He admitted that the size of entry wound may vary depending upon the
distance of fire, like the entry wound would be smaller if the shot was
fired from a very close range and the entry wound from the similar
projectile/bullet would be larger it was fired from a distance. There
was no injury of any pellet on the dead bodies except the injuries as
mentioned in the postmortem report.
63. PW-39 Dr. Sandeep Beniwal, Medical Officer, B.K.
Hospital, Faridabad was recalled for further examination. In his further
examination-in-chief he tendered his affidavits Ex.PW39/F to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
203
Ex.PW39/J and x-ray films Ex.PW39/K1, Ex. PW39/K2, Ex.PW39/L1
to Ex.PW39/O2. During his cross-examination, he stated that said x-
ray films were not prepared by him. He admitted that x-rays reports
were not available with him in the Court on that day. He further
admitted that findings and opinion about the impressions observed in x-
ray films were mentioned in the x-ray reports by an expert for a
reference at subsequent stage and to understand the medical opinion
and its interpretations of the x-ray films. In his re-examination by
learned Public Prosecutor on the point of suggestion/clarification
regarding the size of wounds and weapon mentioned in cross-
examination on 17.3.2020, he stated that he had seen his answer in para
no.1 of the cross-examination dated 17.3.2020. According to which
since the size of entry wounds were not same, therefore the suggestion
that all of them have been caused by single firearm has been mentioned
as correct but it seems a typographical mistake and now he was
clarifying that all of them have not been caused by a single firearm.
During his further cross-examination by learned counsels for the
accused, he admitted that size of any firearm entry wounds corresponds
with the distance of fire. He further admitted that change of distance
while firing would cause change of size of entry wound. The opinion

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
204
given by him on that day in the Court during re-examination was based
on his personal aptitude and not on ballistic science.
64. PW-40 SI Silak Ram during his cross-examination stated
that police station Kheri Pul received information on 17.9.2017 at
about 10:30 PM. They left police station at about 10:30 PM. As they
were going to village Palwali in between they got information that the
victim namely Rajender Parshad, Ishwar Chand and Sri Chand who had
already expired along with Lalit were present in Sarvodaya Hospital,
Sector-19, Faridabad. They reached Sarvodaya Hospital in the
intervening night of 17/18.9.2017 at about 12:05 AM. He did not know
whether CCTV camera were installed in Sarvodaya Hospital. He could
not tell at what point of time application for registration of the case was
presented. Again said Lalit moved application at about 2:00 AM in the
night. I.O. Badan Singh received copy of FIR in the morning time but
he could tell the exact time. In between I.O completed the inquest
proceeding on the body of Rajender Parshad. He did not know whether
any videography or photography about the wounds and clothes was
done before postmortem qua three deceased. No written order was
issued in respect of conducting of investigation by the particular team.
He moved the application before the doctor of Asian Hospital,
Faridabad about the fitness of injured Nitesh. Doctor had not given

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
205
any opinion about the factum that Nitesh was under the influence of
medicine and he was not in a position to make the statement. He did
not know Sagar and Shrikant prior to their arrest. He came to know
about the identity and the presence of accused Shrikant and Sagar
through secret informer. They were formally arrested at about 6:00 PM
on 19.9.2017. Place of incident was already known to the investigating
agency prior to its demarcation by accused persons. Neither any
revenue official nor any Numberdar from the village was called to fix
the identity and the ownership of the field. Neither videography nor
photography was done. No independent witness was joined. He did
not know as to who had conveyed the information to MHC about the
presence of one live cartridge lying near the house of Mauji Ram.
Neither videography nor photography was done at the time of
preparation of memos. Place of recovery was a thoroughfare. During
his further cross-examination, he stated that accused Sagar and
Shrikant were admitted in QRG Hospital, Ajronda, Faridabad. He did
not know since when they were admitted. He had arrested them in the
evening at about 5:00PM. They were discharged from the hospital and
then he arrested them. On 20.9.2017, firstly the accused Shrikant was
interrogated. Thereafter, accused Sagar was interrogated. He did not
make enquiry from the Patwari of the village as to the ownership of the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
206
field from where the dandas were allegedly recovered. He was having a
mobile phone having a camera. They were old dandas which did not
have any blood, mud or specific mark of any sort and were commonly
available. SI Badan Singh did not go anywhere in the intervening night
of 17/18.9.2017 and stayed there with him in the hospital itself. The
inquest proceedings of three deceased persons namely Rajender
Parshad, Sri Chand and one more deceased whose name he did not
recollect were conducted in the intervening night of 17/18.9.2017. He
did not know when was the case registered in the present case but tehrir
was sent at 2:15 AM. The case/FIR number was received by them after
two hours thereafter. He did not know whether any other team
including him and SI Badan Singh had visited village Palwali or not.
He volunteered to stated that he and SI Badan Singh remained in the
hospital throughout. He denied that he was hiding the true facts under
legal advise or that SI Badan Singh visited village Palwali.
65. PW-41 Inspector Badan Singh during his cross-
examination stated that he did not visit village Palwali on 17.9.2017
He was the first I.O. of the case. He was aware that I.O. was required
to record a case diary at the same time when any step was taken in
course of investigation. He had not recorded single case diary
pertaining to 17.9.2017. He voluntarily stated that this case started on

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
207
18.9.2017 as the FIR was registered on the same day and therefore, the
case diary was written from 18.9.2017. He admitted it to be correct
that various police officials had reached village Palwali after the receipt
of information regarding the commission of the offence on 17.9.2017.
He volunteered to state that he did not visit the village on that day. He
could not give the names of those police officials who had visited the
village Palwali on 17.9.2017. He did not make any effort to guard the
spot on 17.9.2017. He did not make any such request to fellow police
officials to visit the village and guard the spot. He admitted that being
the first investigating officer it was his duty to include the investigation
and steps taken by the police for the purpose of investigation on
17.9.2017. He did not include any such step of police investigation
pertaining to 17.9.2017. He was not aware of the fact that the police
official brought accused persons and their family member in CIA in the
intervening night of 17/18.9.2017. He had not seen the contents of
DVR recovered from accused Narender as he sealed the same
immediately and sent the same to FSL for expert opinion. He did not
see the incident in the DVR in the entire investigation. The DVR was
recovered on 23.9.2017. He could not say till which date it was
functional. He did not question the accused about this nor he
conducted any investigation on this aspect.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
208
During further cross-examination, he state that one camera was
installed on the pole facing the street in front of the house of accused
Narender whereas the other camera was installed inside the house
covering the main gate and gallery of the house of accused Narender.
As per his investigation, accused Narender and Billu were residing in
the same house with their families and children. He could identify his
fellow police officials, senior police officials, junior constables,
accused arrested by him, witnesses joined by him or any other person
known by him in the video footage contained in the DVR if shown to
him. On this, the footage of DVR contained in a pen-drive as sent by
CFSL, Chandigarh was played on the Court system. During his further
cross-examination, he stated that he was ready to answer the facts after
seeing the CCTV footage. He was not aware till date whether police
officials had visited the house of accused Virender @ Billu on
17.9.2017 or brought the all family members with them in police
vehicle. He admitted that on 17.9.2017 at 22:09 , one Swift car had
stopped outside the house of accused Virender @ Billu and one police
official alighted from the same and entered the house of accused but he
could not identify this police official or his car. He further admitted
that a few seconds later three police vehicles having beacon on top of
the vehicles have followed this Swift car. The vehicles had stopped in

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
209
front of the house of accused and then continued to travel inside the
village but he did not know as to which officials had travelled in the
said cars or which crime team had reached at that time. He did not
have any knowledge about those facts till then. He had not even
enquired about the visit of police officials nor any such statements were
recorded in his entire investigation. He further admitted that at 22:22
hours in the CCTV footage, eight officials had come on feet from the
side of village and stopped outside the main gate of house of accused
Billu and in the meanwhile, one police vehicle having beacon have
also arrived at the spot and had stopped outside the house of accused
Virender @ Billu. It has come to his notice for the first time after
registration of this case that ten police officials had entered the house
of accused Billu on 17.9.2017 and before this he was never told,
discussed apprised about this aspect.
At 22:26 hours, two police officials come out and moved
towards the village and remaining were standing outside the house of
accused Billu along with private persons have also come out with
police officials from the house of accused Billu and they were made to
sit in the police vehicles at 22:27 hours in the footage. Thereafter, in a
few seconds other police officials have also come and stopped outside
the house of accused Billu. At that time, one vehicle was stopped in

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
210
front of the main gate and the other was parked behind and two
vehicles have left in the meanwhile towards the outskirt of the village.
The Swift car was still parked and police officials were seen roaming
towards the house of accused Billu. At 22:30 hours one more police
vehicle has left the spot and thereafter, the CD has ended at 12:30 AM.
He further admitted it to be correct that there is no footage till 11:00
PM. He further admitted that as per FSL report, footage was available
till 11:00 PM. He could not say about remaining half an hour of the
footage as to how it had not appeared in the video footage. He had
not joined any single witness in his investigation regarding the
proceeding of 17.9.2017. He voluntarily stated that he had not
examined any witness and one witness namely Inspector Ashok
Kumar who had already been cited as witness had himself
partly investigated the case, therefore, his statement was not
recorded. He did not know which police team had visited the
village, which vehicles were used, the names and designations
of the officials, who brought the persons from the house of
accused Billu or where were they kept. There was law and order
situation in the village Palwali after the occurrence. He did not
know whether any team was deployed for maintaining law and
order. He was unknown and unaware of any fact of dated

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
211
17.9.2017 which had taken place in the village Palwali between
the police, accused or complainant party. He could not say
whether accused persons were taken away by the police to CIA
on the pretext of maintaining law and order or they were
illegally detained in the night of 17/18.9.2017. The first case
diary was recorded on 18.9.2017. He further admitted that
there is no police document of 17.9.2017 and he could not
produce any document of any nature which contains the
information regarding the proceedings of 17.9.2017. He could
not give any provision of Punjab Police Rules whereupon it was
mentioned that case diary should be recorded after registration
of FIR and not before that. Accused Kamal Kishore was
apprehended by him at Kheri Pul. At that time, he was
alighting from an auto. He started walking and he apprehended
him. No private person was with him. He was personally
known to Kamal Kishore. To the question as per CCTV footage
accused Kamal Kishore and Narender never ran away from the
spot, this witness replied that they are not identifiable and he
did not know who was seen in the footage. Again said he was
only deposing as per camera no.4. He further admitted that at
12:22 AM in camera no.3 of the footage, various persons had

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
212
come out from the house and stood in the drive way with the
police and they are seen conversing with the police. He could
not identify the single person in this footage but it was correct
that they have come out of the house of accused Billu. He was
kept unaware of these proceedings which are seen by him in the
CCTV footage for the first time in the Court. He had no idea of
these proceedings. He admitted that there is not even a single
statement which demonstrated the events of the footage. He
admitted that he had not produced the entire case diary before
the Ld. Magistrate at the time of producing of accused. There
were 8-9 investigation files of this case. Separate case diaries
were recorded in separate case files. It never happened in his
investigation that all case diaries were produced before the
Magistrate. He did not recollect whether his case diaries were
seen and attested by Ld. Magistrate or not. He was not aware
that accused Virender @ Billu had got the complaint filed
against the complainant party which was depicted at DDR
no.28 on 21.9.2017. He had not investigated the fact of the
complaint given by Virender @ Billu. Voluntarily stated that
he disclosed that he sustained the head injuries during
altercation. He did not enquire as to who had caused this injury

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
213
and what was the manner of causing this injury. He admitted
that accused Virender had sustained head injury. He was
admitted in Central Hospital for treatment. He did not take
opinion regarding the injury sustained by him. He could not
say whether injury was dangerous to life or not. He did not
make any effort in his investigation to verify the cross
version/cross case from the side of accused persons. He had no
reason to assign as to why had he not recorded the statement of
accused Virender @ Billu regarding the injury sustained by him
except the disclosure statement. He was arrested from the
hospital. He had not taken any opinion from the doctor whether
he was fit to be discharged. He denied that he had forcibly got
him discharged from the hospital or that he purposely concealed
the true facts in his investigation in order to oblige the
complainant party. To his knowledge, the rifle was a high
velocity weapon. During his investigation, it had come that
rifle had been used by Kamal Kishore and Billu. He was not
clear from which side the weapons were used. At the time of
recovery of weapons, no finger print expert was called to detect
chance finger prints. Neither videography nor photography was
done. It had come in his investigation that three persons

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
214
were injured in the same transaction of event and FIR has
been lodged as per direction of Judicial Magistrate against
the complainant party. He could not tell from which weapon
Nitesh sustained injury. He had not sought any opinion in
respect of use of weapon from doctor to co-relate the
injuries.
66. PW-42 Dr. Ravi Shankar, Radiologist, Metro
Hospital, Faridabad has stated during his cross-examination that
no retrieved foreign body was produced before him prior to
preparation fo x-ray film report. It was not necessary that the
foreign body seen in the x-ray film was a bullet or any metallic
object and it could be any other hard object which was not in
the nature of bullet or firearm. He admitted it to be correct that
there was no fracture of any bone nor there was any fragments
found around the metallic object which was suggestive of any
impact with the bone seen in the x-ray. During investigation,
the I.O. of the case did not seek any opinion qua that fact.
67. PW-43 SI Sompal Singh during his cross-
examination stated that they left police station at about 11::00
AM in a private vehicle. He did not remember the registration
number, make and colour of the vehicle. Neither videography

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
215
nor photography was done at that time. No independent
witness was joint at the time of preparation of recovery memo.
68. PW-45 HC Veenu Kumar during his cross-
examination stated that he did not know any of the accused
prior to their arrest. Formal arrest of the accused was made at
about 3:00 PM. Accused were interrogated on 18.9.2017 but
the same was not reduced into writing. At the time of recovery,
neither revenue official nor any Numberdar was called for
determination of ownership of land. He volunteered to state
that it was a jungle. Neither any blood stain nor any earth stain
was found on the lathi. There was no special identification
mark and such lathis are commonly available in the market.
69. PW-46 Bhagat Ram (Court witness) during his
cross-examination stated that he was practicing lawyer since
2018. He never moved any application before the Investigating
Agency in respect of his supplementary statement till filing of
challan. He stated before the police that out of them some were
standing near their house and remaining were coming from the
house of accused Virender @ Billu or that some of the accused
were standing in front of the house of Ishwar since deceased or
that there was an electric pole on which electric light was

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
216
available or that electric light was also available in the house of
all persons (he was confronted with statement ex.D10 wherein
it was not so recorded). During his further cross-examination,
he deposed that he stated before the police that accused Gyan
Chand exhorted to teach a lesson to them for opposing them in
the Panchayat election or that Dharamender and Narender were
armed with revolvers and accused Subhash was having a rifle or
that Naveen @ Pintu fell down after sustaining injuries that
Suresh and Parmali tried to save them or that accused Moji Ram
exhorted that no lenient view should be shown towards Parmali
being a lady and asked his companions to cause injury to her as
well (he was confronted with statement Ex.D10 wherein it was
not so recorded). He further stated to the police that Lalit and
Nitesh entered in their houses or that accused Virender @ Billu
and some other persons also entered in the house of Lalit or that
thereafter, all the accused went away towards the house of
Virender @ Billu or that he, his brother Sunil, Suresh with the
help of 2-3 villagers, shifted his father Sri Chand, Ishwar Chand
and Rajender Parsad in a vehicle and when they were
proceeding towards the hospital, they noticed the accused
persons standing on the way but when they drove the vehicle in

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
217
a high speed, they had vacated the road (he was confronted with
statement Ex. D10 wherein it was not so recorded). During his
further cross-examination, he stated that was pursuing and
involved in this case from the stage of investigation till date. He
had received summons from the Court earlier to depose in this
case. He admitted that he had made a statement in the Court
that he did not want to depose in this case as a witness. He did
not want to depose in this case as the facts which were to be
stated by him in the deposition, had already come on record and
therefore, his testimony could not have added any improvement
in this case of prosecution. He was aware that police had
recorded his statement on 20.9.2017. When his statement was
shown to him by learned defence counsel, he admitted it to be
his statement but stated that all the facts were not mentioned in
it. His house was situated at a distance of 15-20 meters from
the place of occurrence. He had heard the commotion at about
9:30 PM. He had not heard any argument or commotion
before 9:30 PM. There were about 35-40 persons present in
the street. His father had left the house 7-8 minutes earlier to
9:30 PM. PW Lalit was his cousin (chacha ka ladka). There
was no incident before 9:30 PM. The incident took place for

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
218
about 10-12 minutes. At about 9:30 PM, persons were coming
from both sides to the place of occurrence. Accused Kamal
Kishore was already present. Accused Virender @ Billu was
seen present at the spot when he came out of his hosue. He did
not know what kind of clothes were worn by accused Virender
@ Billu and similar was his reply for accused Kamal Kishore.
In the entire incident of 10 minutes, he had not seen accused
Virender @ Billu in an injured condition or being injured.
Accused Kamal Kishore fired two shots from a distance of
8-10 ft. on the deceased. Similarly, accused Virender @ Billu
fired gun shot from a distance of 8-10 ft on the deceased. He
could not recollect as to how many shots were fired by accused
Dharamender, Narender and Subhash. However, they might
have fired one or two shots each.
During his further cross-examination, he stated that
according to him, two rifles and two revolvers were used in
the alleged incident. Three gun shots were fired from the
rifle about which scuffle took place about snatching and two
gun shots were fired from another rifle. He had not noticed
any empty shell fallen on the earth. No rifle shot had hit any
object including person, pole, electric pole or any house after

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
219
exiting from body. Nitesh sustained rifle injury which entered
directly in his body which was used from the distance of 7-8 ft.
The process of snatching of rifle from accused Kamal
Kishore by Lalit and Virender @ Billu was simultaneous.
Virender, Kamal Kishore, Lalit and Nitesh were standing
together very near from a distance of 2-4 ft. with each other.
The other 15-20 accused were standing at a distance of 3-4 ft
away from accused Kamal Kishore near the house of Lalit.
Accused Dharamender, Narender and Subhash were standing
towards the house of Ishwar Chand at a distance of 7-8 ft.
Some of the injuries with lathis, dandas etc. were sustained
before the use of firearm and after receiving firearm injuries.
He could not tell the number of injuries received by each
injured. He could only tell the sequence. All the shots have
been fired while standing in front of the injured
persons/deceased. No accidental fire was shot in the process of
snatching the rifle. PW Lalit had sustained all injuries prior
to process of snatching rifle. Lalit had sustained all injuries at
one place. He, Suresh and Parmali sustained injuries after the
firing incident. He had seen Parmali sustaining any injury in
the scuffle. No blood had oozed out from the injuries of Suresh

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
220
and Parmali. He did not possess any record of Sarvodaya
Hospital for taking first aid by Parmali in that hospital. He
remained in Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad for about 4-5 hours.
He did not make any effort to take first aid from Sarvodaya
Hospital, Faridabad. When Omdutt and Shri Ram caught hold
of him till then firing incident had been completed. He denied
the suggestion that he had concealed the genesis of the
occurrence about the use of firearm and manner of occurrence
under the legal consultancy to fix more accused in this case. He
further denied the suggestion that only one firearm i.e. rifle was
used in the crime in exercise of right of private defence to save
Virender @ Billu and other injured persons from the
complainant party. He had driven an Alto car bearing
registration no. HR-51BC-5673 to the hospital and one Eon car
driven by one Vikas was also following him to the hospital.
One Maruti SX4 car was also following him at some distance
while crossing the house of accused Virender @ Billu. They
left at about 9:45 PM for the hospital. The accused persons
were seen by him present outside the house of accused Virender
@ Billu on the road at the time when they were leaving for
hospital. They had left the way after seeing their cars. He

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
221
volunteered to state that they were on high speed. He had seen
Omwati and Dayawati at the spot between 9:30 PM to 9:45 PM.
He had not seen their involvement in the incident. He had seen
CCTV footage of the incident in the Court and also in office
during preparation of case. He could identify accused Mauji
Ram, Amit, Virender @ Billu, Dayawati, Pramod,
Dharamender, Narender and their family members in the said
CCTV footage. At that stage, pen-drive Ex.D1 was played in
the Court, the witness stated that woman who had come out of
the house of accused Virender @ Billu in camera no.3 identified
as accused Dayawati and she was seen coming out in the porch
of the house at 21:40:29 PM and she was seen moving towards
the main gate empty handed. At that stage, footage of camera
no.4 in pen-drive Ex.D1 was played in the Court. The witness
stated that a woman accompanied by two young girls stepping
out of the house of accused Virender @ Billu at 21:40:00 hours
was identified as Dayawati and the two young girls
accompanying her were daughters of accused Narender and
thereafter, the young girls were seen walking towards the left
side of the house and accused Dayawati was seen walking. He
further admitted that as per camera no.4, accused Dayawati was

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
222
seen coming back to the house at 21:42:26 hours. He admitted
that they are seen empty handed throughout. The witness
identified accused Amit in camera no.4 at 21:32:19 hours
moving out of his house. He admitted that he was empty
handed. The mother of accused Billu was seen coming out of
their house and she had gone towards the house of accused
Amit and she was also seen entering in the house of accused
Amit and accused Amit, one old person and that lady were seen
coming out of the house at 21:32:19 hours. There was another
person in the house of accused Amit was Mauji Ram. He
identified the person coming out with accused Amit from his
house was Mauji Ram at the same time. He was carrying a
lathi. It would be wrong to suggest that it was a lathi carried by
an old and infirmed person to help him in walking. He had
walked towards the spot and returned back at 21:43:54 hours.
He could identify accused Subhash and Ravinder in the CCTV
footage. Accused Subhash was seen coming towards the spot at
21:38:30 hours from the side of the outskirts of the village and
going towards the spot. He admitted that he was empty handed
and he was seen walking towards the spot. He could also see
accused Ravinder following accused Subhash at a distance of

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
223
about 10-15 ft. and he was also walking towards the spot at
about 21:38:46 hours. They both had crossed the house of
accused Billu and had not gone inside the house of accused
Billu. They were not seen communicating the persons who
were entering or exiting the house of accused Virender @ Billu
during this period. He denied that accused Subhash was using a
mobile phone while walking towards the village.
In his further cross-examination, he had seen CCTV
footage in camera no.4 after 9:42 PM in which some persons
were coming and one of them was holding a person but he
could not say whether he was accused Virender @ Billu. He
could not identify any of those persons as their backs were
visible and not their faces. Moreover, it was dark. Father of
accused Virender @ Billu namely Gyan Chand also resided in
that house who was an aged person. The persons going towards
the house of accused Virender @ Billu after 9:42 PM had come
after the occurrence was over. Accused Virender @ Billu was
not visible in the CCTV footage of both the cameras prior to
9:42 PM. When accused Virender @ Billu entered this house as
visible in camera no.3, he was not armed with any weapon and
was seen talking on mobile phone. After departure of their

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
224
family members for hospital in their vehicles, accused Virender
@ Billu was also seen going in the same direction in his car
along with some family members. He could identify only one
person namely Manoj who accompanied him but faces of other
persons were not visible. He denied the suggestion that he had
not seen the incident or that he had been a planted witness. He
further denied the suggestion that accused persons had been
falsely implicated in this case due to party faction or that his
father and his companions had unlawfully stopped and
surrounded accused Virender @ Billu and Sagar and caused life
threatening injuries to them. He denied the suggestion that on
commotion and hue and cry, various villagers and family
members rushed to the spot and saved Virender and Sagar from
the clutches of his father and his companions. He denied that
no gun shots were ever fired by Virender @ Billu, Subhash,
Narender and Dharamender or that they had been implicated on
exaggerated allegations of gun shot injuries out of party faction
and vengeance in the village.
70. PW-47 Suresh Chand (Court witness) during his
cross-examination has stated that he had given his statement to
the police on 20.9.2017 in B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. No one

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
225
had written his statement at that time. However, he had
informed orally. He did not know the name and designation of
such police official. He had not ready his statement till date.
He had seen and heard statement Ex.D11 but he was not sure
that this was his statement or not. He had not been shown or
read over his statement by the Public Prosecutor or his private
counsel even in the Court on that date. He had got recorded in
his statement that accused Kamal Kishore was armed with a
rifle, accused Subhash was also armed with a rifle, accused
Narender and Dharamender were having revolvers and rest of
the accused were armed with lathies, dandas and iron rods or
that when he reached under the electric pole, he noticed that
those persons were firing from their weapons or that accused
Harkesh was present at the spot (he was confronted with his
statement Ex.D11 wherein it was not so recorded). He further
deposed that he had informed the police that gun shots were
getting fired before he could reach the spot. He could not tell
the position of accused persons at the place of occurrence. He
could not point out the same even if asked for any particular
accused. Even if he was shown the site plan of the place of
occurrence, he would not be in a position to point out the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
226
position of any accused. 5-6 more gun shots were fired after his
arrival at the place of occurrence. He could not tell the numbers
of gun shots fired by the respective accused. He had not seen
all the accused present together at one point of time. Some
of the accused were standing at the spot and some of the
accused were coming to the spot. When he reached at the spot,
he saw accused Ravinder. He had stayed at the spot for about
6-7 minutes and during that period, the incident of assault
continued to happen. He had seen accused Ravinder involved
in the incident for about 6-7 minutes. He returned back to the
spot after 2-3 minutes and the accused persons had left the spot
by that time. When he reached at the spot, he saw accused
Pramod was standing at the place of occurrence. He was
walking towards the spot. He did not know whether he was
empty handed or was carrying some weapon in his hand.
Accused Lokesh @ Loki was also seen by him. He did not
know from which side he was coming to the spot. Similar was
his reply regarding accused Chaman. Accused persons were
carrying lathies in their hands and no lathi was picked from the
spot or arranged from the nearby places of the spot. He did not
remember whether accused Virender @ Billu was injured in the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
227
incident or not. He saw Ishwar Chand, Naveen and Devender
getting injured from gun shot fires. He did not know who
caused these gun shots to them. He could not say which was
the position in which they were hit by gun shot injury or from
the position on which accused persons caused gun shot injuries.
He did not remember in which directions the accused persons
had gone after the incident. He was not medico-legally
examined on 17.9.2017. He had come back to the village on the
same day. He regained some consciousness on 20.9.2017 and
thereafter, he came to the senses of understanding as to what
was going around in the village. No medical treatment was
given to him till 20.9.2017. He had earlier supported accused
Virender @ Billu in the Panchayat elections but that time, he
was against him and had supported Lalita aunt of deceased
Devender. He admitted that deceased persons were his family
members.
71. PW-48 Kanhiya (Court witness) during his cross-
examination stated that he could not tell as to how many
persons had suffered injuries when he came outside his house.
Police met him after three days of the occurrence and recorded
his statement. He did not know what was recorded by the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
228
police in his statement regarding weapons in the hands of the
accused. Attention of the witness was drawn towards statement
Ex.D49 in which it was not mentioned as to which accused was
armed with rifles or revolvers. He had not told in his
statement given to the police that accused Dharamender
fired a shot which hit in his hand. Accused Narender,
Dharamender, Kamal Kishore @ Leelu and Subhash were
armed with firearms and they all had fired shots. Accused
Dharamender, Leelu, Narender had fired one shot each and one
shot was fired by accused Virender after taking rifle from
accused Leelu. He did not know whether empty shells had
fallen at the spot or not as he had himself got injured. All the
shots were fired at the victims from a distance of about 8 ft. He
had not seen blood falling at the spot due to bullet injuries
as he had ran inside his house for safety. No other person
including Lalit and Nitesh had suffered any injury in his
presence as he had ran inside his house. The occurrence
continued for five minutes in his presence but in all it continued
for 10 minutes. The police had not called him at the place of
occurrence while preparing the site plan to disclose the place
where other persons were standing. He had not told the name

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
229
of assailant to the doctor who had fired at him. Police met him
for the first time after three days. PW Lalit had also tried to
snatch rifle from accused Leelu but accused Virender @ Billu
succeeded in snatching the same. When Lalit tried to snatch
rifle from accused Leelu, remaining accused who were also
armed with firearms were standing about 1-2 ft. away. The
rifle was snatched within a spur of moment. Lalit and accused
Virender were trying to snatch rifle from Leelu at the same
time. No one had tried to catch hold of Lalit when he tried to
snatch the rifle from Leelu but Lalit went towards the other side
near the wall opposite to the accused. One shot had got fired
from the rifle when an attempt was being made to snatch the
same. Accused Virender had not fired any shot at him. He had
not told to the police in his statement that accused Virender had
fired a shot at him (he was confronted with portion A to A1 of
statement Ex.D49 wherein it was so recorded). He had not tried
to intervene and stop accused Virender from firing the shot and
he had also not stated this fact in his statement given to the
police (confronted with portion B to B1 of statement Ex.D49
wherein it was so recorded).
Defence witnesses

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
230
72. DW-1 Sachin Gupta, Senior Consultant, Neuro
Surgeon has deposed that on 17.9.2017 he was working with
QRG Central Hospital and Research Centre, Faridabad as
Consultant Neuro Surgeon. On that day, patient Billu son of
Shri Gyan Chand was admitted in the hospital in an injured
condition and he was treated in the hospital by him along with
Dr. Vikram Dua and Dr. Ravi Shankar. He had brought the
original treatment record of the patient. He further deposed that
similarly, another person namely Sagar was also admitted in
hospital in the intervening night of 17/18.9.2017 and he was
also treated by him and the above said doctors. The discharge
summary of Billu son of Gyan Chand was Ex.D1 and discharge
summary of Sagar son of Kamal Kishore was Ex. D2. During
his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor assisted by
learned counsel for the complainant, he stated that at the time of
MLR, patient Billu @ Virender was fully conscious, oriented
and his vital parameters were in normal range. He further
admitted that on 28.3.2019 police moved application seeking
opinion about the nature of injuries upon Virender @ Billu and
vide opinion Ex.PAA, he had opined that the injuries on the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
231
head was grievous in nature which was duly signed by him.
There was alleged history of assault at 9:00 PM.
DW-2 HC Manjeet brought the rojnamcha register
dated 21.9.2017. He proved copy of DD no.28 Ex.D3 which
was registered by ASI Jeet Singh and stated that same was
correct as per the original record brought by him. During his
cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor assisted by
learned counsel for the complainant, he stated that he had no
personal knowledge about the said DDR.
DW-3 Dr. Upender Bhardwaj, Senior Registrar,
Neuro Surgery Department, Apollo Hospital, New Delhi has
deposed that on 4.4.2019, he was posted as Medical Officer at
Civil Hospital, Faridabad, On that day, on the police request, a
medical board was constituted by the CMO, Faridabad and he
alongwith other members of board namely Dr. R.S. Gaur and
Dr. Rajesh summoned the treatment record of patients namely
Virender @ Billu, Subhash, Sagar, Chaman and Shri Kant who
were treated in QRG Hospital, Faridabad. He deposed that after
examination of the said record, injuries on the persons of Shri
Kant, Sagar and Chaman were found to be simple in nature and
opinions in this regard are Ex.D4 to Ex.D6 respectively. He

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
232
further deposed that injury No.2 on the person of Subhash
was found to be grievous in nature and remaining two
injuries were simple in nature and opinion in this regard
was Ex.D7. He has further deposed that injury no.1 on the
person of Virender @ Billu was declared dangerous to life.
No opinion could be given regarding injury no.2 as x-ray film
and report were not produced by the Investigating Officer.
However, injury no.3 on the person of Virender @ Billu was
declared simple in nature vide opinion Ex.D8. During his cross-
examination by learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel
for the complainant, he stated that none of the board members had ever
treated the patients and they had not even examined the patients
physically and opinions were given only on the basis of record. They
had also perused the MLR of Virender @ Billu according to which
there was no history of loss of consciousness.
DW4 Inspector/SHO Subhash Singh has deposed that he
was investigating officer of the case bearing FIR No.53 dated
23.02.2019 registered at Police Station Kheripul, Faridabad, under
Sections 148, 149, 325, 304 & 323 IPC. He proved the copy of said
FIR as Ex.D9 and the status report of investigation as Ex.D10. He
deposed that the investigation was on halt as a quashing petition

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
233
bearing No.CRM-M-14180 of 2019 was pending before Hon’ble High
Court for 21.03.2022 and further investigation would be carried out
subject to the outcome of the above said petition before Hon’ble High
Court. During his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor
assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, he admitted that
accused Virender etc. had filed one petition bearing CRM No.2158 of
2018 and the said petition was withdrawn by them on 23.01.2019 and
in between on 21.04.2018, ACP Aman Yadav filed detailed reply of the
said petition. He admitted the copy of petition as Ex.PBB, copy of
order Ex.PCC and reply filed by ACP Aman Yadav as Ex.PDD. He
further admitted that order Ex.PEE was passed by the Court of Shri
Rajesh Malhotra, the then learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, in a
revision filed by Bijender Sharma against the order of the concerned
Magistrate to lodge the FIR.
DW5 Dr. Nitin Jaiswal MD Radiologist, SSB Hospital,
Faridabad has deposed that on 18.9.2017 when he was posted in QRG
Hospital on that day, he reported CT Head of patient Billu and
prepared report Ex.D11. He also prepared another CT Head report of
the said patient on the same day which was Ex.D12 and CT spine
Cervical/Dorsal/Lumbosacral (Each) Ex.D13. He further deposed about
X-ray chest of patient Billu on 18.09.2017 vide report Ex.D15 and X-

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
234
ray chest of the same patient on 21.09.2017 vide report Ex.D14. He
also tendered X-ray forearm report Ex.D16, ultrasound abdomen report
Ex.D17 and CT films Ex.D18 (five films) and ultrasound film Ex.D19
pertaining to Billu. Similarly, he deposed about X-ray chest of the
patient Chaman on 18.09.2017 vide his report Ex.D20, ultrasound
abdomen vide report Ex.D21 and X-ray hand vide report Ex.D22. He
further deposed about X-ray chest of the patient Chaman on 18.09.2017
vide report Ex.D23, CT Head vide report Ex.D24, CT Spine vide report
Ex.D25 and CT Head vide report Ex.D26. He tendered the x-ray film
of the hand as Ex.D27, ultrasound report as Ex.D28, chest x-ray film as
Ex.D29 and the CT films as Ex.D30 to Ex.D34 pertaining to patient
Chaman. He further deposed that on 18.09.2017, he also reported CT
Head of the patient Subhash vide report Ex.D35, CT Spine vide report
Ex.D36 and CT Head vide report Ex.D37. He also deposed about X-
ray forearm of patient Subhash on 20.09.2017 vide report Ex.D38
which bore his signatures. He also deposed about X-ray shoulder of the
patient namely Subhash on 18.09.2017 vide report Ex.D39. He
deposed that on 18.09.2017, he also reported X-ray forearm of the
patient namely Subhash vide report Ex.D40 and this was the first X-ray
of forearm and the patient was treated in the hospital surgically and
thereafter, post X-ray Ex.D38 was prepared which showed that there

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
235
were metallic implants in the forearm of the patient. He also reported
X-ray Chest of patient Subhash on 18.09.2017 vide report Ex.D41 and
ultrasound abdomen vide report Ex.D42. During his cross-examination
by learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, he has admitted that except the head fracture of Billu,
fore-arm fracture of patient Subhash and hand fracture of
Chaman, other reports were normal.
DW6 Dr. Ravi Shankar has deposed that in September,
2017 he was posted in QRG Hospital, Sector-20-A, Faridabad. Patient
Subhash was admitted there on 17.09.2017 at about 23.36 hours in an
injured condition and was treated by him and various other doctors.
He deposed that patient was discharged on 22.09.2017 and tendered the
discharge summary in this regard as Ex.D43.
DW7 Dr. Hem Kumar Sharma, Medical Officer,
SSB Hospital, Faridabad (previously known as QRG Hospital)
tendered his affidavits Ex.DW7/A, Ex.DW7/B, Ex.DW7/C,
Ex.DW7/D and Ex.DW7/E in this regard. He also proved copy
of MLRs of patients namely Chaman, Subhash Chand, Sagar,
Billu @ Virender and Shri Kant Gaur as Ex.D44 to Ex.D48.
During his cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor
assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, he stated that

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
236
there was alleged history of assault at about 9.00 p.m. near
home at village Palwali. He had sent necessary ruqa to the
police regarding arrival of injured in the hospital. Virender @
Billu was fully conscious, oriented and his vital parameters
were in normal range.
73. In the present case, the accused have been charge sheeted
for the offences punishable under sections 148, 149, 452, 302, 323,307,
506, 120B IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
Whether section 149 IPC is applicable in present case:
74. Section 148 of the IPC provides punishment for rioting
armed with deadly weapons. It provides that whoever is guilty of
rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which,
used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both. The offence of rioting has been
defined in Section 146 of IPC, 1860 as follows:-
Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful
assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common
object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of
the offence of rioting.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
237
75. The term unlawful assembly has been defined in Section
141 IPC, 1860 as follows:-
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an
“unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing
that assembly is---
i) To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal

force (the Central or any State Government or Parliament
or the Legislature of any State), or any public servant in
the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
ii) To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal
process; or
iii) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or
other offence; or
iv) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal
force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any
property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a
right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal
right of which he is in possession of enjoyment, or to
enforce any right or supposed right; or
v) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal
force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to
do.
Explanation--- An assembly which was not unlawful
when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful
assembly.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
238
76. In Kuldeep Yadav Vs. State of Bhiar, 2007 CriLJ 2640
(SC) it was held that before convicting accused with the aid of Section
149 of IPC the Court must give clear finding regarding nature of
common object and that the object was unlawful. In the absence of
such finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons
mere fact that they were armed what not be sufficient to prove common
object.
77. Section 149 of IPC, 1860 provides that every member of
unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of
common objection and reads as follows:-
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or
such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time
of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is
guilty of that offence.
78. Section 142 of IPC, 1860 provides that whoever being
aware of the facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly,
intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a
member of an unlawful assembly. Mohd. Narul Haque Vs. State of

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
239
Assam, 1987 (3) Crimes 128 (Gau); Sudhir Samanta Vs. State of
West Bengal, AIR 1998 SC 289.
79. In Bharat Soni Vs. State of Chhatisgarh, 2013 Crl LJ
486 (SC), it was held that determination of the common object of an
unlawful assembly or the determination of the question whether a
member of the unlawful assembly knew that the offence that was
committed was likely to be committed is essentially a question of fact
that has to be made keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the
arms carried by the members and the behaviour of the members at or
near the scene. In Omparkash Vs. State of Haryana, 2014 Crl. L.J
2567 (SC), it has been held that common object of an unlawful
assembly can also be gathered from the nature of the assembly, the
weapons used by its members and the behaviour of the assembly at or
before the scene of occurrence.
80. The determination of the common object of an unlawful
assembly or the determination of the question whether a member of an
unlawful assembly knew that the offence that was committed was
likely to be committed is essentially a question of fact that has to be
made keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by
the members and the behaviour of the persons at or near the scene and
a host of connected facts and circumstances that can not be entrapped

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
240
by any attempt at an exhaustive enumeration (Bharat Soni Vs. State of
Chhatisgarh 2013(1) Crimes 66). The common object of an assembly
is to be ascertained from the acts and the language of the members
composing it, and from a consideration all the surrounding
circumstances. It may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted
by the members of the assembly. What the common object of the
unlawful assembly, is at a particular stage of the incident is essentially
a question of fact to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the
assembly, the arms carried by the members and the behaviour of the
members at or near the scene of the incident. An object is entertained in
the human mind and it being mentally a mental attitude, no direct
evidence can be available and like intention, has generally to be
gathered from the act which the person commits and the result
therefrom. There is no hard and fast rule can be laid down under the
circumstances from which the common object can be culled out, it may
reasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries
and behaviour it or before or after the scene of the incident. (Dani
Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2004(4) SC 203). It is difficult indeed
through any example to collect direct evidence of such knowledge. An
inference may be drawn from the circumstances such as the
background of the incident, the motive, the nature of the assembly, the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
241
nature of the arms carried by the members of the assembly, their
common object and the behaviour of the members soon before it or
after the actual commission of the crime. Pundalik Mahadu Bhane
Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997) 11 SCC 567, Ram Adhar Vs. State of
U.P., 1996 Crl LJ 1775 (All).
81. In Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2023) 10 SCC
470, Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter alia held as follows:
“25. We will first consider the issue with regard to non-
explanation of injuries sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar.
In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar [Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar,
(1976) 4 SCC 394 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 671] , which case also arose out of
a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149IPC, this Court
had an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation of injuries
sustained by the accused. This Court, after referring to the earlier
judgments on the issue, observed thus : (SCC pp. 401-402, para 12)
“12. … It seems to us that in a murder case, the non-
explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at
about the time of the occurrence or in the course of
altercation is a very important circumstance from which
the court can draw the following inferences:

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
242
(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and
the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented
the true version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the
injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most
material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains
the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered
probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries on the person of the accused assumes much
greater importance where the evidence consists of
interested or inimical witnesses or where the defence
gives a version which competes in probability with that of
the prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is held, as
it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh received
serious injuries which have not been explained by the
prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on
the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when
some of these witnesses have lied by stating that they did

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
243
not see any injuries on the person of the accused. Thus
neither the Sessions Judge nor the High Court appears to
have given due consideration to this important lacuna or
infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We must
hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of
Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima,
(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384] there may be cases
where the non-explanation of the injuries by the
prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This
principle would obviously apply to cases where the
injuries sustained by the accused are minor and
superficial or where the evidence is so clear and cogent,
so independent and disinterested, so probable, consistent
and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the
omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries. The present, however, is certainly not such a
case, and the High Court was, therefore, in error in
brushing aside this serious infirmity in the prosecution
case on unconvincing premises.”
26. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of
injuries has been taken by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Madho

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
244
[State of Rajasthan v. Madho, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 396 : 1991 SCC
(Cri) 1048], State of M.P. v. Mishrilal [State of M.P. v. Mishrilal,
(2003) 9 SCC 426: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1829] and Nagarathinam v. State
[Nagarathinam v. State, (2006) 9 SCC 57 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 212] .
27. Undisputedly, in the present case, the injuries
sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar cannot be considered to be
minor or superficial. The witnesses are also interested witnesses,
inasmuch as they are close relatives of the deceased. That there was
previous enmity between the two families, on account of election of
sarpanch, has come on record. As observed by this Court in Ramashish
Rai v. Jagdish Singh [Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC
498 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1611] , previous enmity is a double-edged sword.
On one hand, it can provide motive and on the other hand, the
possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.
28. We have already seen hereinabove the injuries
sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar. Much prior to lodging of the
FIR at 3.15 a.m. on 4-11-2006 by Khomlal, the police had taken
Accused 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination. The memo
forwarding Accused 11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination to
medical officer mentions that Accused 11 had informed the police that
at around 8.30 p.m., he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW 1).

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
245
Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed information with regard
to the said incident. The prosecution has also suppressed the FIR
lodged by Atmaram (PW 1). It is thus clear that the prosecution has
attempted to suppress the real genesis of the incident. Taking into
consideration this aspect of the matter, coupled with the non-
explanation of the injuries sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar, we
are of the considered view that Accused 11 Naresh Kumar is entitled to
benefit of doubt.
30. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of
this Court in Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra
[Ramesh Baburao Devaskar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC
501 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 212] : (SCC p. 509, para 19)
“19. In a case of this nature, enmity between two groups
is accepted. In a situation of this nature, whether the first
information report was ante-timed or not also requires
serious consideration. First information report, in a case
of this nature, provides for a valuable piece of evidence
although it may not be a substantial evidence. The reason
for insisting on lodging of first information report
without undue delay is to obtain the earlier information
in regard to the circumstances in which the crime had

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
246
been committed, the name of the accused, the parts
played by them, the weapons which had been used as
also the names of eyewitnesses. Where the parties are at
loggerheads and there had been instances which resulted
in death of one or the other, lodging of a first information
report is always considered to be vital.”
32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of
interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured witnesses.
This Court, in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [Vadivelu Thevar v.
State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 : 1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957
SC 614] , has observed thus : (AIR p. 619, paras 11-12)
“11. … Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-
established rule of law that the court is concerned with
the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence
necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally
speaking, oral testimony in this context may be
classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
247
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have
no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it
may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single
witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion
of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the
second category, the court equally has no difficulty in
coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of
cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to
look for corroboration in material particulars by
reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.”
33. It could thus be seen that in the category of “wholly
reliable” witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to press for
conviction on the basis of the testimony of such a witness. In case of
“wholly unreliable” witness, again, there is no difficulty, inasmuch as
no conviction could be made on the basis of oral testimony provided by
a “wholly unreliable” witness. The real difficulty comes in case of the
third category of evidence which is partly reliable and partly
unreliable. In such cases, the court is required to be circumspect and
separate the chaff from the grain, and seek further corroboration from
reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
248
35. As already discussed hereinabove, the names of Nand
Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular are not mentioned in the merg report,
which was lodged prior to the lodging of FIR, so also their names are
not found in the inquest panchnama and spot panchnama. Taking into
consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of
their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents,
the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be
ruled out. In our view, the conviction of these accused purely on the
basis of oral testimony of the interested witnesses, without sufficient
corroboration, would not be sustainable.
82. In State of Rajasthan v, Shiv Charan and Others 2013
SCC Online SC 532, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"16. The pivotal question of applicability of Section 149 IPC
has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua
non for its application. It contains essentially only two
ingredients, namely, (I) offence committed by any member of
any unlawful assembly consisting five or more members and;
(II) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the
common object (Section 141 IPC) of the assembly or members
of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of the common object. It is not necessary that for

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
249
common object there should be a prior concert as the common
object may be formed on spur of the moment. Common object
would mean the purpose or design shared by all members of
such assembly and it may be formed at any stage. Even if the
offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common
object of the unlawful assembly, it may yet fall under second part
of Section 149 IPC if it is established that the offence was such,
as the members knew, was likely to be committed. For instance,
if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the
land, it may be presumed that someone is likely to be killed, and
all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that
likelihood and, thus, each of them can be held guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 149 IPC. The court must keep
in mind the distinction between the two parts of Section 149 IPC,
and, once it is established that unlawful assembly had a common
object, it is not necessary that all persons forming the unlawful
assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act,
rather they can be convicted for vicarious liability. However, it
may be relevant to determine whether the assembly consisted of
some persons which were merely passive witnesses and had
joined the assembly as a matter of ideal curiosity without

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
250
intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.
However, it is only the rule of caution and not the rule of law.
Thus, a mere presence or association with other members alone
does not per se be sufficient to hold everyone of them criminally
liable for the offence committed by the others unless there is
sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to or
knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act,
being a member of unlawful assembly as provided for under
Section 142 IPC. It may also not be a case of group rivalry or
sudden or free fight or an act of the member of unlawful
assembly beyond the common object. (Vide : Baladin v. State of
U.P., AIR 1956 SC 181; Masalti v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC
202; Chandra Bihari Gautam v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC
1836; Ramesh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC
169; Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, AIR 2011 SC
3581; Onkar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 273; Roy
Farnandez v. State of Goa, AIR 2012 SC 1030;
and Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2946).
17. Thus, for resorting to the provisions of Section 149 IPC, the
prosecution has to establish that (i) there was an assembly of five
persons; (ii) the assembly had a common object; and (iii) the said

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
251
common object was to consist one or more of the five illegal objects
specified in Section 141 IPC”.
83. The offence of criminal conspiracy has been defined in
Section 120 A IPC :
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be

done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or
more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the
ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental
to that object.
84. The ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy are that
there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to
conspire and the said agreement should be for doing of an illegal act or
for doing, by illegal means, an act which by itself may not be illegal.
In other words, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to
do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by
direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both and it is a

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
252
matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy
is rarely available. Accordingly, the circumstances proved before and
after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the
complicity of the accused. Even if some acts are proved to have been
committed, it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance
of an agreement made between the accused persons, who were parties
to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances
regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are
incapable of any other reasonable explanation. In other words an
offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on
mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by
cogent and acceptable evidence [CBI versus K.Narayana Rao,
(2012)9 SCC 512].
85. In Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Hon`ble
Supreme court summarized the broad principle governing the law of
conspiracy :
1. Under Section 120A, offence of criminal conspiracy is

committed when two or more persons agree to do, or cause
to be done an illegal act, by illegal means. When it is a
legal act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Not only
the intention but also there has to be agreement to carry out
the object of the intention, which is an offence. The

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
253
question of consideration in a case is, did all the accused

have the intention and did they agree that the crime be
committed ? It would not be enough for the offence of
conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a
wish, however, horrendous it may be that the offence be
committed.
2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of

conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accused was
a party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy
has been achieved, any subsequent act, which may be
unlawful, would not make the accused a part of the
conspiracy.
3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is

rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence.
Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects
have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct
of the accused.
4. Conspirators may, for example, be enrolled in a chain.

Persons may be members of a single conspiracy even
through each is ignorant of the identity of many others who
may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime
of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play
the same or an active role.
5. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime

of conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any
plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no a step

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
254
is taken by any such person to carry out their common

purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who
joins in the agreement.
6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to

the common purpose at the same time. They may join with
other conspirators at any time before the commission of the
intended objective and all are equally responsible.
7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused

because its forces them into a joint trial. Introduction of
evidence against some may result in the conviction of all,
which is to be avoided.
8. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen

of the crime of conspiracy and the offence is complete even
though there is no agreement as to the means by which the
purpose is to be accomplished. The unlawful agreement
which amounts to a conspiracy needs not be formal or
express, but may be inherent in a inferred from the
circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of
the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into
by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached
by successive actions evidencing their joining the
conspiracy.
9. A criminal conspiracy may be termed as a partnership

in crime in as much as any act done by any of the
conspirators pursuant to the agreement is in contemplation
of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
255
responsible therefore. The responsibility of the conspirators

extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators
pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral
acts incidental to and growing out of the original purpose,
The joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not
create a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of
other conspirators and the mere fact that conspirators
individually or in groups perform tasks to a common end
does not split up a conspiracy into several different
conspiracies.
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.

However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires
more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing
conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge
of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to
the object of a conspiracy and goes alongwith other
conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the
conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take the
effective part in the crime.
[State versus Nalini (1999) 5 SCC 253].
86. At this stage, it becomes imperative to discuss the delay in
the registration of FIR and non-starting of police diary just after the
arrival of police at the scene of occurrence in the house of accused
Virender @ Billu and Narender. As per the prosecution version,
incident occurred between 9:38 PM to 9:42 PM on 17.9.2017. As per
the CCTV footage Ex.PD/1, one police official arrived at 22:09 PM on

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
256
17.9.2017, at the house of accused Virender @ Billu and few seconds
later three police vehicles having beacon on top following the Swift
car. The vehicles stopped in front of the house of the accused and then
continue to travel inside the village. At 22:22 hours eight officials
came on feet from the side of village and stopped outside the main gate
of house of accused Billu. There are further movements of police
officials there. All these has been admitted by PW41 Insepctor Badan
Singh in his cross-examination. Surprisingly, PW41 did not make any
entry in the police diary regarding proceedings of the police on
17.9.2017, though he was the first investigating officer of the case. In
fact he has deposed that he did not visit village Palwali on 17.9.2017
and he was not aware of the police officers, who visited the place of
occurrence on 17.9.2017. The testimony of PW40 SI Silak Ram is
more in form of falsehood then in truth. As per him, they got
information at Police Station Kheri Pul at about 10:30 PM on
17.9.2017. They left the police station at 10:30 PM. Surprisingly, he
claimed to have reached Sarvodaya Hospital at 12:05 AM, though the
travel time from Police Station Kheri Pul and Sarvodaya Hospital is not
more than 10-15 minutes. It is noteworthy that PW1 Lalit Kumar and
deceased Rajender Prasad, Ishwar Chand and Sri Chand were
examined in Sarvodaya Hospital by 10:10 PM on 17.9.2017. In his

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
257
cross-examination, PW40 Silak Ram has further deposed that
complainant Lalit Kumar moved application at 2:00 AM. The FIR was
admittedly registered at 2:20 AM on 18.9.2017. Therefore, there is an
unexplained delay of more than four hours in the registration of FIR.
PW1 complainant Lalit Kumar and PW46 Bhagat Ram are practicing
Advocates of Faridabad District Court and are juniors of the leading
criminal lawyers of Faridabad District Court. In all probability, this
time was utilized for padding up the case and to implicate as many as
possible family members and supporters of the accused party. No
explanation has been offered by the prosecution for not making entries
in the police diary of the proceedings conducted on 17.9.2017 (since
10:09 PM) by the police officers who reached at the place of
occurrence.
87. As per prosecution’s own version particularly those
admitted in cross-examination by Court witnesses, only few accused
persons were present continuously and others were coming and going.
No common object of any kind as mentioned in Section 141 IPC, on
the part of the accused has been made out. It is noteworthy that all the
private witnesses (PW-1 Lalit Kumar, PW-2 Nitesh, PW-46 Bhagat
Ram and PW-48 Kanhiya) are interested witnesses.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
258
88. At this stage, it becomes relevant to discuss the genesis of
the occurrence.
Genesis of Occurrence
89. There are two different versions regarding the genesis of
occurrence. As per complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar on 17.9.2017 at
about 9/9:15 PM, he along with his cousin cousin Sunil, Har Parsad
and Suresh was standing in front of house of Sunil and thereafter, he
went back to his house. However, after some time, he heard noise of
abusing and quarrel from the street and he alongwith his father
Rajender Parsad and younger brother Nitesh came outside the house
and saw the accused persons alongwith 10-12 other persons of the other
village, armed with revolver, rifle, gun, lathi, dandas, Pharsa, iron rods
standing in the street. He further deposed that other members of his
family also came out from their respective houses and all these persons
were surrounded by the accused persons and accused party attacked
them. He further deposed about causing of injuries to him and further
that accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu fired a shot from a rifle on the
chest of his father Rajender Parsad. He tried to snatch the said rifle but
accused Virender @ Billu succeeded in snatching the rifle from Kamal
Kishore and fired a shot on the right side of chest of his uncle Siri
Chand. He further deposed that accused Dharmender, Narender and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
259
Subhash fired shots from their respective fire arms which hit Ishwar
Chand, Pintu @ Devender, Naveen, Kanhiya Lal and Nitesh. As per
PW2 Nitesh, Kamal Kishore firstly fired shot at him and thereafter, at
his father and thereafter, Virender @ Billu snatched the rifle from
Kamal Kishore and fired shot at Srichand. Therefore, there is a big
difference between the testimony of PW1 Lalit Kumar and PW2
Nitesh regarding firing of number of shots by Kamal Kishore.
90. The stand taken about the defence regarding the genesis of
occurrence is that the complainant party was inimical towards the
family of the accused party as the wife of accused Virender @ Billu
namely Dayawati successfully contested the election of village
Sarpanch. On 17.9.2017, Anuj was accompanying Anjali and Archana
to Faridabad from Akash Coaching Institute, Sector-15, Faridabad.
During the transit, Harish @ Chillu had caused obstruction in their
passage by placing his motorcycle against the vehicle in which Anuj
was taking his sisters Anjali and Archana and he also used abusive and
inappropriate words with them. Then there was an altercation between
Shri Kant and Harish and that Shri Kant narrated this incident to his
father Virender @ Billu. On the same night at about 9:00 PM, Billu @
Virender was coming from the shop of Satish and during the transit, he
was waylaid by Harish @ Chillu and his father Kanhiya Lal who

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
260
caught him by neck and started abusing him. Then Harish and Kanhiya
Lal shouted for calling others and thereupon Narender, Prehlad, Mam
Chand, Manoj @ Kale, Pintu @ Devender, Duli Chand, Bijender, Nand
Kishore, Het Ram Chauhan, Har Parsad, Bhagat Ram, Sokhi, Jarman,
Ravi, Raj Kanwar, Pankaj etc. came there armed with lathis, dandas
axes, rods and with a view to seriously attack Virender @ Billu, they
caused them injuries on his head. When the family members of Billu
@ Virender came to know about the incident then the sons and brothers
of Billu @ Virender came unarmed and when they attempted to shield
Billu, then the said persons also caused injuries on them by means of
Pharsa and rod which resulted into serious injuries on the person of
Virender @ Billu and others. Then Kamal Kishore came with his
licensed .315 bore fifle and gave a warning to aforesaid persons to go
aside so that he could remove the injured persons from there.
However, despite warning, the said persons continued attacking them
and even attempted to snatch the rifle of Kamal Kishore @ Leelu and
thereafter, Kamal Kishore @ Lilu fired shot in the air to remove his
brother and other injured family members from there.
91. The stand taken by accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu in his
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. is that on the fateful day the
deceased persons alongwith other companions attacked his brother

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
261
namely Virender and his son namely Sagar. His brother namely
Virender suffered a fracture in his head and he was bleeding profusely
and was unconscious and he was also beaten badly. Upon hearing such
commotion and the information that his son and his brother have been
done to death by the opposition, he rushed to the spot. He was carrying
his licensed weapon. He fired one shot in the air just to scare away
those persons and in order to repel the attack. The deceased attacked
him and tried to snatch his weapon and in such a perplexed situation,
the shot got fired and the deceased Rajinder Parsad got injured.
Thereafter, his gun was snatched by Rajinder Prasad and Ishwar Chand
etc. and in that process, many villagers, who had gathered at the spot,
got injured and ultimately died. The complainant, who is a lawyer, had
conspired and raised false allegations under a well though out legal
consultancy alongwith the ruling party politicians that they had
committed murder of those deceased persons.
92. This is not in dispute that accused Virender @ Billu
suffered fracture in his head and accused Sagar, Shrikant, Subhash and
Chaman suffered injuries during the said incident and they were
admitted in QRG Hospital, Faridabad on the same day. Their MLRs
have been also duly proved. As per the testimony of DW03 Upender
Bhardwaj, Medical Board found that one of the injuries found on the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
262
head of accused Billu was dangerous to life and accused Subhash was
also having grievous injury. Injuries of Shrikant, Sagar and Chaman
were found having simple injuries. These injuries have not been
explained by the prosecution. Therefore, it is clear that it was not a one
way fight but was a quarrel between the two groups.
93. In Baldev Singh Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 464, it
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that as often happens in the
case of group rivalries and enmities, there is a general tendency to rope
in as many persons as possible as having participated in an assault.
The Courts have therefore, to be very careful and after a close scrutiny
of evidence a reasonable doubt arises with regard to the participation of
any of those who have been roped in, the Courts would be obliged to
give the benefit of doubt to them.
94. In Ganesh Gogoi Versus State of Assam, 2009(4) RCR
(Criminal) 561, it was inter alia held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that where in a case investigation has already commences, the
registration of FIR after the same is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and no
value can be attached to the same.
95. In Kashi Ram Versus State of M.P., 2001(4)
RCR(Criminal) 556, it was inter alia held that plea of self defence can
be taken in cross-examination of Pws or in statement of accused under

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
263
section 313 Cr.P.C. or by adducing evidence. Right of private defence
not specifically taken by accused in his statement under section 313
Cr.P.C. even then accused has a right to take the plea of self defence on
he basis of evidence on record. It was further held that assemblage of
accused persons, five or more in number, can not wholly be held liable
to conviction with the aid of section 149 IPC unless the whole
assembly shared the common object of doing anything in excess of the
exercise of the right of private defence.
96. In Subramani and ors. Versus State of Tamil Nadu,
2002(4) RCR(Criminal) 213, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that where the accused persons causing death of a person by
exceeding their right of private defence, they are individually
responsible and can not be convicted with aid of section 34 IPC. It can
not be said that murder was committed pursuance to the common
intention. Common intention has relevance only to commission of
offence and not to the right of private defence.
97. In Ramchandran Vs. State of Kerala, Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that where an assembly consisted of more than five persons,
it can not be said that the members of assembly had common object to
commit the offence. It becomes relevant to consider whether the
assembly consisted of some persons which were merely passive

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
264
witnesses and land joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity
without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly. The
law of vicarious liability under section 149 Indian Penal Code is crystal
clear that even the mere presence in the unlawful assembly, but with an
active mind, to achieve the common object makes such a person
vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly.
98. In State of Punjab Vs. Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere presence in an unlawful
assembly can not render a person liable unless there was a common
object and he was actuated by that common object and that object is
one of those set out in Section 141 IPC. It was further held:
1) The word ‘object’ means the purpose or design and, in order to
make it ‘common’ it must be shared by all.
2) A common object may be formed by express agreement after
mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be
formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the
other members may just join and adopt it.
3) Once common object is formed, it need not continue to be the
same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
265
4) Common object is different from a ‘common intention’ as it does
not require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the
attack. It is enough if each has the same object in view.
5) Common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts
and language of the members composing it, and from a consideration
of all the surrounding circumstances.
6) What the common object of the unlawful assembly is at a
particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact to be
ascertained, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms
carried by the members and the behaviour of the members at or near
the scene of the incident.
99. In Bishna@ Bishwadeb Mahto Vs. State of West Bengal,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following:-
1) For the purpose of attracting section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, it is not necessary that there should be a pre-concert by way of a
meeting of the persons of the unlawful assembly as to the common
object. If a common object is adopted by all the persons and share by
them, it would serve the purpose.
2) Mere presence in an assembly does not make a person, who is
present, a member of an unlawful assembly unless it is shown that he
had done something or omitted to do something which would make

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
266
him a member of an unlawful assembly. Overt act on part of that
person was not mandatory.
3) Factum of non-explanation of injuries is one circumstance which
has to be kept in view while appreciating the evidence of prosecution
witnesses. In case the prosecution version is sought to be proved by
partisan or interested witnesses, the non-explanation of serious injuries
may prima facie make a dent on the credibility of their evidence.
4) Number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for determining
who the aggressor was.
5) Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about
the time of occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important
circumstance.
6. Prosecution is under duty to explain injuries on accused person,
but merely because the prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the
accused persons, ipso facto, the same can not be taken to be a ground
for throwing out the prosecution case, especially when the same has
been supported by eye witnesses, including injured ones as well and
their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as well as objective
finding of the investigating officer.
100. In Shaji and others Vs. State of Kerala (Criminal Appeal
No.1618 of 2005, DOD 3.5.2011), Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
267
the following conclusion of Kuldeep Yadav Vs. State of Bihar, 2011(2)
RCR(Criminal) 820:-
“It is not the intention of the legislature in enacting

Section 149 to render every member of unlawful assembly
liable to punishment for every offence committed by one
or more of its members. In order to attract Section 149, it
must be shown that the incriminating act was done to
accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly and
it must be within the knowledge of other members as one
likely to be committed in prosecution of the common
object. If the members of the assembly knew or were
aware of the likelihood of a particular offence being
committed in prosecution of the common object, they
would be liable for the same under Section 149 Indian
Penal Code”.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that as observed
in Kuldeep Yadav (supra), before convicting accused with the aid of
Section 149 IPC, the Court must give clear finding regarding nature of
common object and that the object was unlawful. In the absence of
such a finding as also any overt act on the part of the accused persons,
mere fact that they were armed would not be sufficient to prove
common object. In as much as Section 149 IPC creates a specific
offence and deals with the punishment of that offence, in order to
convict a person or persons with the aid of Section 149 Indian Penal

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
268
Code, a clear finding regarding common object of the assembly must
be available and the evidence discussed must show not only the nature
of the common object but also that the object was unlawful.
101. In Musa Khan and other Vs. State of Maharashtra,
(1977) 1 SCC 733, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-
“…..thus a Court is not entitled to presume that any and

every person who is proved to have been present near a
riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any
stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act
committed by it from the beginning to the end, or that each
member of such a crowd must from the beginning have
anticipated and contemplated the nature of illegal activities
in which the assembly would subsequently indulge. In
other words, it must be prove in each case that the person
concerned was not only a member of the unlawful
assembly at some stage but at all the crucial stages and
shared common object of the assembly at all these
stages…..”.
102. In the present case, though a large number of persons have
been arrayed as accused, however, no common object or any criminal
conspiracy on the part of the persons who gathered at the spot has been
proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to explain the
injuries suffered by the accused Virender @ Billu, Sagar, Subhash,
Srikant and Chaman just before the occurrence or during the course of

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
269
occurrence through the prosecution has tried to explain the injuries
stating that when the complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar and PW2 Nitesh
entered the house, some of the accused followed them and when the
ladies of the house threw bricks on them, they went away. However,
PW1 Lalit Kumar who so specifically mentioned the names of 27
persons as soon as he came out of the house and claimed to have seen
them, has not named any person of those persons who allegedly
followed him. However, later on PW46 Bhagat Ram (Court witness)
when he examined after number of years since the testimony of PW1
and PW2 stated that Virender @ Billu and others followed them.
However, this assertion of attempts to explain injuries on all the five
injured of the accused party did not inspire confidence particularly
when the investigating officer in his testimony has admitted that he did
not find any brick etc. spreaded in the house of complainant PW1 Lalit
Kumar and PW2 Nitesh.
103. Facts of the present case are striking similar to that of
Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 10 SCC 470 (discussed
earlier). Here also there was previous enmity between the parties as the
wife of accused Virender @ Billu had won the election of Sarpanch and
the complainant party was supporting the defeated candidate. There is
also an unexplained delay in the registration of FIR. The life

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
270
threatening injury (fracture in the skull) of accused Virender @ Billu,
grievous injury suffered by accused Subhash and injuries suffered by
accused Sagar, Chaman and Shri Kant, just before or during the
occurrence have not been explained by the complainant PW1 Lalit
Kumar or other prosecution witnesses. In fact the first investigating
officer PW41 Inspector Badan Singh, during his cross-examination, has
admitted that accused Virender @ Billu had sustained head injury,
however he did not enquire, as to who had caused that injury and what
was the manner of causing that injury.
104. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that it was case
of free fight, there was no common object on the part of accused
persons. Therefore, there can not be any applicability of Section 149
IPC in the present case. Similar is the view of this Court about non-
applicability of Section 120B IPC in the present case as the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of section 120-A
IPC.
105. Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows :
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent

conduct
Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive
or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
271
any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or

proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or
relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence
against whom is subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if
such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue
or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent
thereto.
Explanation 1- The work "conduct" in this section does not

include statements, unless those statements accompany and
explain acts other than statements, but this explanation is
not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other
section of this Act.
Explanation 2—When the conduct of any person is relevant,

any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing,
which affects such conduct is relevant.
106. The relevant question at this stage to be considered is of
motive. Motive is that which moves a man to do a particular act; there
can be no action without a motive. Generally speaking the voluntary
acts of same persons have an impelling emotion or motive. Proof of the
presence of motive, preparation, opportunity or the previous attempts
would be relevant as to they show not only mens rea to commit a
crime but sufficient information in establishing commission of a crime.
Motive may create a very strong suspicion but it cannot take a place of
proof. Mere possibility of existence of motive cannot make the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
272
accused guilty. Though the prosecution is not under an obligation to
prove the motive for the offence, but it lends supports to the
prosecution case if is proved, though not by direct evidence but by the
circumstantial evidence. If motive is proved by prosecution, the court
has to consider it and see whether it is adequate. The existence of
motive for committing a crime is not absolute requirement of law but it
is always a relevant factor which can be considered by the factor as it
will render the assistance of the court while analyzing the prosecution
evidence and determining the guilt of the accused.
Whether Section 452 is made out?
107. Section 452 IPC provides punishment for house tress after
preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint and reads as follows:-
Whoever commits house-trespass, having made
preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person,
or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in
fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
108. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 452
IPC are that for a conviction under Section 452 of the IPC, it is
necessary to prove that the appellant committed house-trespass after

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
273
making preparation for causing hurt etc. The mere fact that the
offender entered the office and committed assault or caused hurt does
not necessarily presupposed such preparation. There must be clear
proof of preparation for causing hurt etc. To bring home the offence
under Section 452 IPC, the prosecution has to prove:-
a) That the accused committed house-trespass as
defined in Section 442 of IPC
b) That the said house-trespass was committed after
the accused made preparation for causing hurt too, or for
assaulting, or for wrongfully restraining some person; or
for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful
restraint.
109. Section 442 IPC defines the offence of house-trespass and
provides that whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or
remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or
any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody
of property, is said to commit “house-trespass.”
110. The offence of criminal trespass has been defined in
Section 441 IPC as follows:-
Whoever enters into or upon property in possession of
another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
274
annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully
entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains herewith intent
thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to
commit an offence is said to commit criminal trespass.
111. In the present case, though the complainant PW-1 Lalit
Kumar deposed that when he and Nitesh (PW2) rushed to their house,
accused persons followed them, but he has not named any specific
accused. However, PW46 Bhagat Ram (Court witness) has deposed
that Virender @ Billu and others followed Lalit and Nitesh. However,
it has been already established that the accused Virender @ Billu had
already suffered fracture in his skull (injury which was later on
declared as dangerous to life by a Board of Doctors). Otherwise also,
the testimony of PW46 Bhagat Ram is not wholly reliable, being full of
improvements. Therefore, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove
any house trespass by any of the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
Section 506:
112. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for the offence for
criminal intimidation and reads as follows:-
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
275
The offence of criminal intimidation has been defined in
Section 503 of IPC as follows:-
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that
person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat,
commits criminal intimidation.
113. As per the detailed testimony of prosecution witnesses, no
offence under section 506 IPC by any of the accused is not made out,
beyond reasonable doubts.
MAIN OFFENCES:
114. Section 299 IPC defines the offence of culpable
homicide as follows :
“Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is
likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
276
115. Section 300 IPC defines the conditions when the
culpable homicide shall be a murder and the same reads as follows :
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide
is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death,or-
Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused,or-
Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or-
Fourthly,- If the person committing the act knows that it is
so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability,
cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the
risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
116. Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows :
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any

information contained in an electronic record which is
printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical
or magnetic media produced by a computer (hereinafter

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
277
referred to as the computer output) shall be deemed to be

also a document, if the conditions mentioned in this
section are satisfied in relation to the information and
computer in question and shall be admissible in any
proceedings, without further proof or production of the
original, as evidence of any contents of the original or of
any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be
admissible.
(2) The conditions referred to in sub-section (1) in respect
of a computer output shall be the following, namely: -
(a) the computer output containing the information was

produced by the computer during the period over which
the computer was used regularly to store or process
information for the purposes of any activities regularly
carried on over that period by the person having lawful
control over the use of the computer.
(b) during the said period, information of the kind

contained in the electronic record or of the kind from
which the information so contained is derived was
regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of
the said activities;
(c) throughout the material part of the said period, the

computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect
of any period in which it was not operating properly or
was out of operation during that part of the period, was
not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy
of its contents; and
(d) the information contained in the electronic record

reproduces or is derived from such information fed into
the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities.
(3) Where over any period, the function of storing or

processing information for the purposes of any activities
regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by
computers, whether -
(a) by a combination of computers operating over that

period; or

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
278
(b) by different computers operating in succession over

that period; or (c) by different combinations of computers
operating in succession over that period; or
(d) in any other manner involving the successive

operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or
more computers and one or more combinations of
computers, all the computers used for that purpose during
that period shall be treated for the purposes of this section
as constituting a single computer; and references in this
section to a computer shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a

statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate
doing any of the following things, that is to say, -
(a) identifying the electronic record containing the

statement and describing the manner in which it was
produced;
(b) giving such particulars of any device involved in the

production of that electronic record as may be appropriate
for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was
produced by a computer;
(c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions

mentioned in sub-section (2) relate, and purporting to be
signed by a person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the relevant device
or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is
appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the
certificate; and for the purposes of this sub-section it shall
be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the
knowledge and belief of the person stating it.
(5) For the purposes of this section, -
(a) information shall be taken to be supplied to a

computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form
and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without
human intervention) by means of any appropriate
equipment;

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
279
(b) whether in the course of activities carried on by any

official, information is supplied with a view to its being
stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by
a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those
activities, that information, if duly supplied to that
computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course
of those activities;
(c) a computer output shall be taken to have been

produced by a computer whether it was produced by it
directly or (with or without human intervention) by means
of any appropriate equipment.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section any

reference to information being derived from other
information shall be a reference to its being derived
therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other
process.
117. In Gurpal Singh versus State of Punjab (2017) 2
SCC 265, it was held by Hon`ble Supreme court that where in the case
of death by shooting, testimony of the eye witnesses are trustworthy
and gun with which the offence was committed by the accused was
recovered from him and empty shells are recovered from the place of
incident; Medical evidence showing that injuries were compatible with
weapon used, the same proves the case beyond reasonable doubt and
the guilt of the accused is confirmed.
118. In Leela Ram (dead) through Duli Chand versus
State of Haryana and another (2000) SCC (Cri.) 222, Hon`ble
Supreme Court has inter alia held that in criminal cases,

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
280
corroboration with mathematical niceties should not be expected. It
has been further held that the ballistic expert opinion that the empty
cartridges recovered from the spot of occurrence matched with the
injury is a valuable piece of evidence and cannot be brushed aside.
Hon`ble Supreme Court further held that in a case of murder where
son and brother in law of the deceased testified that shots were fired by
the accused on the deceased, in absence of some other factor to
discredit the said witness, their evidence can-not be rejected merely on
the ground that they were interested witnesses.
119. As per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, when any
fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of the information
received from a person, accused of any offence, in the custody of a
police officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact that thereby
discovered, may be proved. Therefore, Section 27 of the Evidence Act
comes into play when the following two conditions are fulfilled :
(i) If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered
in consequence of information received from accused
persons in police custody;

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
281
(ii) If the information relates distinctly to the fact
discovered.
120. In Niranjan Panja versus State of West Bengal-2010
(6) SCC 525 Hon`ble Supreme Court held that for effecting a
discovery a statement has to be recorded on the part of the accused
showing his readiness to produce the material object and it is only that
part of the statement which is not incriminating and lead to discovery
which becomes admissible in the present case.
In State of Maharashtra versus Damu S/O Gopinath
Shinde and others, (2000) SCC (Cri.) 1088, Hon`ble Supreme Court
inter alia held that the basic idea embedded in section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events.
The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in
search made on the strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that information supplied by
the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-
inculpatory in nature, but if results in discovery of a fact, it become a
reliable information. Hence, the legislature permitted such information
to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the
minimum. Recovery of an object is not recovery of fact as envisaged
in section. The “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
282
place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the
accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that
effect. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence
is confined to that portion of the information which “distinctly relates
to the fact thereby discovered but the information to get admissibility
need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or in comprehensive.”
121. In State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram-2007(1) RCR
(Criminal) 131 ; AIR 2007 SC 144, Hon’ble Supreme Court inter
alia held as under:
“23. It is not necessary to multiply with authorities.

The principle is well settled. The provisions of section
106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and
categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially
within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving
that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with
the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and
when he parted company. He must furnish an
explanation which appears to the court to be probable
and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have
discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation
on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he
fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by section
106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on
circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a
reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
283
placed on that, that itself provides an additional link in

the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section
106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial,
which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the
rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon
facts which are specially within his knowledge and which
could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible
with his innocence, the court can consider his failure to
adduce any explanation, as an additional link which
completes the chain. The principle has been succinctly
stated in Naina Mohd, re(AIR 1960 Mad 218)”
122. In State of West Bengal versus Purunendu Kumar
Patra and Anr. (2017) 16 SCC 466, Hon`ble Supreme Court held
that:
it is not every doubt but only a reasonable doubt of

which benefit can be given to the accused. A doubt of a
timid mind which is afraid of logical consequences,
cannot be said to be reasonable doubt. The
experienced, able and astute defence lawyers do raise
doubts and uncertainties in respect of evidence adduced
against the accused by marshalling the evidence, by
what is to be borne in mind is -whether the testimony of
the witnesses before the court is natural, truthful in
substance or not. The accused is entitled to get benefit
of only reasonable doubt i.e the doubt which rational
thinking man would reasonably, honestly and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
284
conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a

vacillating mind that has no moral courage and prefers
to take shelter itself in a vain and idle scepticism. The
administration of justice has to protect the society and
it cannot ignore the victim altogether who has died and
cannot cry before it. If the benefits of all kinds of
doubts raised on behalf of the accused are accepted, it
will result in deflecting the course of justice. The
cherished principles of golden thread of proof of
reasonable doubt which runs through web of our law
should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every
hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt.
123. In Trimukh Maroti Krikan versus State of
Maharashtra-(2006) 10 SCC 681, it was inter-alia held as under :
“ 12.--------The normal principle in a case based on

circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an
inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established ; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the
circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be
incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt
of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”
124. Section 307 of IPC deals with attempt to murder and reads
as follows:-
ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
285
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act,
the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
125. In Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh (1998) 4 SCC 551, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while examining whether a case of
commission of offence under section 307 of IPC is made out, the Court
is required to see, whether act, irrespective of its result, was done with
the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in
Section 307 of the IPC. The intention or knowledge of the accused
must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. Without this
ingredient being established, there can be no offence of “attempt to
murder”. Under Section 307, the intention precedes the act attributed
to the accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all
circumstances and nor merely from the consequences that ensue. The
nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the
crime, severity of blow, the part of the body where the injury is
inflicted are some of the factor that may be taken into consideration to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
286
determine the intention. The state of mind of the accused has to be
established from surrounding circumstances and the motive would be
relevant circumstance. Where the evidence is not sufficient to establish
with certainty or knowledge of the accused, there can be no conviction
under Section 307 IPC.
126. The following are the essential ingredients of Section 307
of IPC. An offence under Section 307 of IPC has following essential
elements:-
i) That the accused did an act;
ii) That the act was done with the intention or knowledge
and under such circumstances to cause a bodily injury as
the accused knew to be likely to cause death or that such
bodily injury was in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or that the accused attempted to cause such death
by doing an act known to him to be so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and
iii) That the accused had no excuse for incurring of
causing such death or injury-- In other words all the
essential of murder except death of the victim are
ingredients of the offence under Section 307 IPC.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
287
127. In Charandas Swami versus State of Gujarat (2017) 7
SCC 177, while referring to the decision in Navjot Sandhu`s case i.e
State (NCT) of Delhi versus Navjot Sandhu-(2005) 11 SCC 600, para
no.120 and 121 of the said judgment have been reiterated as follows :-
“ 120 The history of case law on the subject of

confessions under Section 27 unfolds divergent views and
approaches. The divergence was mainly on twin aspects:
(i) Whether the facts contemplated by Section 27 are
physical, material objects or the mental facts of which the
accused giving the information could be said to be aware
of. Some Judges have gone to the extent of holding that
the discovery of concrete facts, that is to say material
objects, which can be exhibited in the Court are alone
covered by Section 27 (ii), The other controversy was on
the point regarding the extent of admissibility of a
disclosure statement. In some cases a view was taken that
any information, which served to connect the object with
the offence charged, was admissible under Section 27.
The decision of the Privy Council in Kotayya's case,
which has been described as a locus classicus, had set at
rest much of the controversy that centered round the
interpretation of Section 27. To a great extent the legal
position has got crystallized with the rendering of this
decision. The authority of Privy Council's decision has
not been questioned in any of the decisions of the highest
Court either in the pre or post independence era. Right
from 1950s, till the advent of the new century and till

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
288
date, the passages in this famous decision are being

approvingly quoted and reiterated by the Judges of this
apex Court. Yet, there remain certain grey areas as
demonstrated by the arguments advanced on behalf of the
State.
121. The first requisite condition for utilizing

Section 27 in support of the prosecution case is that the
investigating police officer should depose that he
discovered a fact in consequence of the information
received from an accused person in police custody. Thus,
there must be a discovery of fact not within the
knowledge of police officer as a consequence of
information received. Of course, it is axiomatic that the
information or disclosure should be free from any
element of compulsion. The next component of
Section 27 relates to the nature and extent of
information that can be proved. It is only so much of the
information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered that can be proved and nothing more. It is
explicitly clarified in the Section that there is no taboo
against receiving such information in evidence merely
because it amounts to a confession. At the same time, the
last clause makes it clear that it is not the confessional
part that is admissible but it is only such information or
part of it, which relates distinctly to the fact discovered
by means of the information furnished. Thus, the
information conveyed in the statement to police ought to
be dissected if necessary so as to admit only the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
289
information of the nature mentioned in the Section. The

rationale behind this provision is that, if a fact is actually
discovered in consequence of the information supplied, it
affords some guarantee that the information is true and
can therefore be safely allowed to be admitted in
evidence as an incriminating factor against the accused.
As pointed out by the Privy Council in Kotayya's case,
"clearly the extent of the information admissible must
depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered.”
128. Before the Arms (Amendment) Act 2019, which came into
force on 14.12.2019, Section 25 of the Arms Act used to be read as
follows:-
25. Punishment for certain offences.― (1) Whoever—
(a) manufactures, sells, transfers, converts, repairs, tests

or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or transfer, or has
in his possession for sale, transfer, conversion, repair,
test or proof, any arms or ammunition in contravention
of section 5; or
(b) shortens the barrel of a firearm or converts an

imitation firearm into a firearm in contravention of
section 6; or
(d) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or

ammunition of any class or description in contravention
of section 11, shall be punishable with imprisonment for

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
290
a term which shall not be less than three years but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
(1A) Whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries

any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in
contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five
years, but which may extend to ten years and shall also
be liable to fine.
(1AA) whoever manufactures, sells, transfers, converts,

repairs, tests or proves, or exposes or offers for sale or
transfer or has in his possession for sale, transfer,
conversion, repair, test or proof, any prohibited arms or
prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(1AAA) Whoever has in contravention of a notification

issued under section 24A in his possession or in
contravention of a notification issued under section 24B
carries or otherwise has in his possession, any arms or
ammunition shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than three years, but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
(1B) Whoever—

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
291
(a) acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm

or ammunition in contravention of section 3; or
(b) acquires, has in his possession or carries in any

place specified by notification under section 4 any arms
of such class or description as has been specified in that
notification in contravention of that section; or
(c) sells or transfers any firearm which does not bear the
name of the maker, manufacturer’s number or other
identification mark stamped or otherwise shown thereon
as required by sub-section (2) of section 8 or does any
act in contravention of sub-section (1) of that section; or
(d) being a person to whom sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause

(iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies,
acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or
ammunition in contravention of that section; or
(e) sells or transfers, or converts, repairs, tests or proves

any firearm or ammunition in contravention of clause (b)
of sub-section (1) of section 9; or
(f) brings into, or takes out of, India, any arms or

ammunition in contravention of section 10; or
(g) transports any arms or ammunition in contravention

of section 12; or

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
292
(h) fails to deposit arms or ammunition as required by

sub-section (2) of section 3, or sub-section (1) of section
21; or
(i) being a manufacturer of, or dealer in, arms or

ammunition, fails, on being required to do so by rules
made under section 44, to maintain a record or account
or to make therein all such entries as are required by
such rules or intentionally makes a false entry therein or
prevents or obstructs the inspection of such record or
account or the making of copies of entries therefrom or
prevents or obstructs the entry into any premises or other
place where arms or ammunition are or is manufactured
or kept or intentionally fails to exhibit or conceals such
arms or ammunition or refuses to point out where the
same are or is manufactured or kept, shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than one year but which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the Court may for any adequate and

special reasons to be recorded in the judgment impose a
sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one
year.
(1C) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

(1B), whoever commits an offence punishable under that
sub-section in any disturbed area shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
293
than three years but which may extend to seven years

and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.―For the purposes of this sub-section,

“disturbed area” means any area declared to be a
disturbed area under any enactment, for the time being
in force, making provision for the suppression of
disorder and restoration and maintenance of public
order, and includes any areas specified by notification
under section 24A or section 24B.
(2) Whoever being a person to whom sub-clause (i) of

clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 9 applies,
acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or
ammunition in contravention of that section shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever sells or transfers any firearm, ammunition

or other arms—
(i) without informing the district magistrate having

jurisdiction or the officer in charge of the nearest police
station, of the intended sale or transfer of that firearm,
ammunition or other arms; or
(ii) before the expiration of the period of forty-five days

from the date of giving such
information to such district magistrate or the officer in

charge of the police station, in contravention of the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
294
provisions of clause (a) or clause (b) of the proviso to

sub-section (2) of section 5, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine of an amount which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both.
(4) Whoever fails to deliver-up a licence when so

required by the licensing authority under sub-section (1)
of section 17 for the purpose of varying the conditions
specified in the licence or fails to surrender a licence to
the appropriate authority under sub-section (10) of that
section on its suspension or revocation shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine of an amount which
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(5) Whoever, when required under section 19 to give his

name and address, refuses to give such name and
address or gives a name or address which subsequently
transpires to be false shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months,
or with fine of an amount which may extend to two
hundred rupees, or with both.
129. Section 27 of Arms Act-- Punishment for using

arms etc.
(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in

contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
295
three years but which may extend to seven years and

shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited

ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
(3) Whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited

ammunition or does any act in contravention of
section 7 and such use or act results in the death of
any other person, (shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable
to fine).
130. FSL REPORT FROM MADHUBAN

KARNAL (Ex.PY).
Description of article (s) contained in parcel (s)

Parcel No. & seal Description of parcel (s)
No. Impression
I. 4 of A. K. Contained six .315” fired cartridge

cases, stated to have been
recovered from the place of
occurrence.
(Marked cartridge cases as C/1 to
C/6 by me).
II. 3 of B. S. Contained one .32” revolver

bearing Sr. No. A-7294 M of S. A.
F. KANPUR-IN-2016, stated to
have been recovered from accused

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
296
Narender. (Marked revolver as

W/1 by me).
III. 3 of B. S. Contained five cartridges, stated to

have been recovered from accused
Narender. (Marked cartridges as
L/1 to L/5 by me).
IV. 2 of B. S . Contained one .315” rifle bearing

Sr. No. 93AB1797, stated to have
been recovered from accused
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. (Marked
rifles as W/2 by me).
V. 3 of B. S. Contained four .315” live

cartridges, stated to have been
recovered from accused Kamal
Kishore @ Lilu.
VI. 3 of R. S. Contained one .32” revolver

bearing Sr. No. FG-42365 of
FIELD GUN KANPUR-2012
along-with six .
32” live cartridges, stated to have
Dharmender. (Marked revolver as
W/3 by me).
VII. 1 of F. K. Contained one 12-bore hand-held
DBBL gun bearing Sr. No.
8000201 along-with ten 12-bore
live cartridges, stated to have been
recovered from accused Subhash
Chand.(Marked gun as W/4 by
me).
VIII. 1 of Doctor Contained two badly deformed and
mutilated jacket pieces, stated
have been taken out from the body
of deceased Rajender Prashad.
(Marked jacket pieces as BC/1 &
BC/2 by me.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
297
IX. 1 of Doctor Contained one badly deformed and

mutilated jacket pieces and one
deformed & mutilated small lead
pieces, stated to have been taken
out from the body of deceased
Naveen.
(Marked jacket pieces BC/3 & lead
piece as BC/4 by me).
X. 2 of S. R. Contained one cartridge, stated to

have been recovered from the
place of occurrence. (Marked
cartridge as L/6 by me).
XI. 3 of B. S. Contained one .315” rifle bearing

Sr. No. AB96 4831, stated to have
Virender @ Billu. (Marked rifle as
W/5 by me).
XII. 3 of B. S. Contained one hand-held 12-bore

DBBL gun bearing Sr. No. 19711-
96 of RAJPUT GUN SERVICE,
stated to have been recovered from
accused Virender @ Billu.
(Marked gun as W/6 by me).
Laboratory Examination
Products of combustion of smokeless powder were

detected from the barrels of .32” revolvers marked as W/1 &
W/3, .315” rifles marked as W/2 & W/5 and 12-bore DBBL gun
marked as W/4 & W/6. Test firings were done in the laboratory
from weapons marked as W/1 to W/6. Their firing mechanisms
were found in working order.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
298
The class as well as individual characteristic marks

present on .315” fired cartridge cases marked as C/1 to C/6,
jacket pieces marked as BC/1 to BC/3, lead piece marked as
BC/4 and those on test fired cartridge cases and test fired
bullets fired from weapons marked W/1 to W/6 were examined,
compared and inter compared under stereo and comparison
microscope with their respective bore/calibre.
The cartridges marked as L/1 to L/5 contained in

parcel No. III and cartridge marked as L/6 contained in parcel
No. X were examined physically. Neither any firing pin mark
nor any other hit/tool mark could be observed on the cartridges
marked as L/1 to L/6. The cartridges were also found originally
crimped.
Based on the examination carried out in the

laboratory, the result of analysis is as under:-
Result
1. The firing mechanism of .32” revolvers marked as

W/1 and W/3, .315” rifles marked as W/2 and W/5
and 12-bore DBBL guns marked as W/4 and W/6
were found in working order.
2. The weapons marked as W/1 and W/3 to W/6 had

been fired through. However, scientifically the time of
their last firing cannot be given.
3. The .315” fired cartridge cases marked C/1 to C/6

have been fired from .315” rifle marked as W/2
(recovered from accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu) and
not from any other firearm even of same make and
bore/calibre because every firearm has got its own
individual characteristic marks.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
299
4. No definite opinion could be formed regarding

linkage of deformed and mutilated jacket piece
marked as BC/1 in respect of .315” rifles marked as
W/2 and W/5 due to lack of sufficient comparable
individual characteristic marks.
5. The jacket pieces marked as BC/2 and BC/3 and lead

piece marked as BC/4 are badly deformed, mutilated
and small in size. Hence, no definite opinion could be
formed regarding their bore/calibre.
6. The cartridges marked as L/1 to L/5 contained in

parcel No. III were found to be .32” live cartridge.
7. The cartridge marked L/6 contained in parcel No. X

was found to be a 7.65mm live cartridge.
Note: i) Exhibits, after examination in the laboratory were

resealed along-with their original wrappers with the
seal of R.S.S. SSO (BALL)/FSL(H) MBN.
ii) Two out of six .32” live cartridges contained in parcel
No. VI four .315” live cartridges contained in parcel
No. V and four out of ten 12-bore live cartridges
contained in parcel No. VII were used in the
laboratory during test firings. The fired cartridge
cases were returned in their respective parcels.
131. The following are the characteristics of the entrance
wounds caused by a bullet:-
The prominent features of the entrance wounds,
utilized for their identifications and evaluations, are:
1. The wounds are circular or oval, in most of the cases.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
300
Exceptions are there:
a. The re-entry wounds may not have circular/oval

shapes.
b. Some entrance wounds are star-shaped, with tears

of the skin, emanating from the edge of the entry
wound, extending to 3-4 mm. The nature of the site
and the firing range determine the emergence of such
injuries.
c. The palm, sole or elbow may not have standard

shapes.
d. Wobbling/tumbling/unstable bullets cause keyhole

entry wounds because the bullets strikes the target
length-wise, instead of nose-on position.
132. The diameter of the entrance wound is, ordinarily
slightly less than the diameter of the projectile creating the hole.
However, it is not always so. In such cases, if can be equal and
in some, it can be larger.
133. The entry wounds have usually inverted edges; i.e. the
edges are turned inward. In rare cases, it may be so and in still
rarer cases, takes may be everted (turned outward) margins.
Eversion of the edges takes place only when ejecta/body
materials come out of wound and push the edges outward.
Some entrance wounds have dirt or wipe ring. The

material deposited is the dirt on the projectile or picked up from

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
301
intermediate target.
An entrance wound may have an abrasive collar. The

rotating bullet, passing through the skin, abrades the skin/flesh
from the entry site to give abrasion collar.
An entrance wound may have a contusion ring around

the entry hole. It is found around the wound most of the times.
The ring, is dark red to bluish-black depending upon its age. It
permits identification of the entry wound where the inversion of
the edges may not be clear. The contusion ring is caused by the
impact of the entering projectile. The width of the contusion
band varies, depending upon the site and the velocity of the
projectile.
The ring is not seen on palmar surface of hands and feet.
GSR deposits are from close range firing only. They

identify the firearm entrance wound, whenever they are
available.
Sometimes the bullets carry GSR in their flight from

the ejecta, from the barrel fouling and deposit it on the edges or
inside the entrance hole. These GSR particles indicates entry
wounds.
The presence of a muzzle impression around a wound

indicates an entry wound.
The presence of pink colouration around a wound is

due to the absorption of carbon monoxide. It takes place only
around the entry wounds in close range firing.
The presence of wads in the wound may indicate that

it is entry wound.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
302
The everted/inverted edges of the projectile holes in

the bone or pattern of radial fractures also help in some cases.
Hot gases/flame from shots fired from close range

cause burning/scorching of the skin, flesh or singeing of the
hair. A hot projectile does not cause burning, etc. because the
maximum temperature, the projectile reaches, is around 100 o C
and the contact time with the skin is around one thousandth of a
second. (1 milli-sec).
The phenomena when present, identifies the firearm

entry wound. Singeing of hairs also indicates firearm entry
wound.
The difficulty of ascertaining the entry wound arises
in some explosive wounds where the body part hit is blown off.
The wounds created by some improvised firearms may also
inhibit the identification of entry wounds.
134. It is settled proposition of law and fact that projectile
wounds caused by firearm should correspond to the injuries on the
body of the victim.
2. In Firearm in Criminal Investigation and Trials by Dr.
B.R. Sharma at page 393 the main features of rifle are stated as
below:-
a. They have rifling in barrel.
b. They fire cylindro-conoidal bullets.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
303
c. They cause small entrance injury of approximately of the same
diameter as the bullet.
d. They cause a large exit would or multiple exit wounds if the
bullet fragments in the body.
e. They cause extensive internal injuries due to cutting, tearing
compression and pulverization of the body tissues.
f. They form both temporary and permanent cavities
135. The bullet of .32 bore of the revolver is diameter of
7.65 mm.
136. In State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath, 1999(5) SCC 96, it
was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-
“The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the
last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested
by the Court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or
objectivity, the Court is not obliged to go by that opinion.
After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person
regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion
and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same
facts it is open to the judge to adopt the view which is
more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion given
by one doctor is not consistent with probability the Court

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
304
has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is
said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to
opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular
subject.”
137. As per Modi’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology (26th Edition) page 640 the series of steps necessary to fire
a cartridge from a bolt action rifle, which is in the open bolt position,
are as follows:-
(a) pushing the bolt ahead to feed the exact size cartridge;
(b) turning the bolt head down to lock the breech block to the
chamber;
(c) firing-igniting the primer in the percussion cap by release of a
firing pin which is achieved by pulling the trigger;
(d) burning of the propellant, obturation (it is a process of sealing
the gases) and ejection of the fired bullet;
(e) unlocking by lifting the bolt head followed by extraction and
ejection of the fired cartridge case;
(f) Repeating the above cycle, the next cartridge is loaded in the
chamber. The gun is cocked by closing the bolt and is ready for firing
the next cartridge.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
305
138. In Mohinder Singh v. State, AIR 1953 SC 415, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
In a case where death is due to injuries or would caused by
a lethal weapon, it is always the duty of the prosecution to prove by
expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to
have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in
which they are alleged to have been caused. It is elementary that where
the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it must prove the whole
of the case. It was found doubtful whether the injuries which were
attributed to the accused were caused by a gun or a rifle. It seemed
more likely that they were caused by a rifle than a gun, and yet the case
of the prosecution was that the accused was armed with a gun and in
his examination it was definitely put to him that he was armed with the
gun.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it was only by the
evidence of a duly qualified expert that it could have been ascertained
whether the injuries attributed to the accused were caused by a gun or a
rifle and such evidence alone could settle the controversy as to whether
they could possibly have been caused by a firearm used at such a close
range as was suggested in the evidence.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
306
139. With due regards to the rival contentions and facts on
record, before commenting upon the culpability of the accused in the
offences charged with, it is apt to mention the golden principle of
criminal jurisprudence that onus to prove its case is always on the
prosecution and if the story of the prosecution is found shrouded with
mystery, benefit should go to the accused. In other words, in a criminal
trial, presumption of innocence is a human right. The object of
criminal trial is to meet out justice and to convict the guilty and protect
the innocent. The trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout
over technicalities and must be conducted under such rules as will
protect the innocent and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which
has to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial
evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial and
not by an isolated scrutiny. Reliance to this effect is placed on the law
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.S. Sabarwal Vs. State of
M.P., 2008(2) RCR(Criminal) 269 (SC). Similarly, it has been held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishana Mochi and others Vs. State of
Bihar, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 567 that the society suffers from
wrong acquittals also and further observed “the maxim “let 100 guilty
persons be acquitted but not a single innocent be convicted” is, in
practice, changing world over and Courts have been compelled to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
307
accept that “society suffers by wrong conviction and it equally suffers
by a wrong acquittals”. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial
merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides
to see that a guilty man does not escape. It is a solemn duty of the
Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment
suspicions are created.” In Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh, 2002(3) JCC 1883, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that basic
presumption in administration of criminal law and justice delivery
system is the innocence of the alleged accused. Therefore, mere
suspicion, however, strong or probable, it may be, is no effective
substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of
commission of a crime and graver the charge is greater should be the
standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least
should constantly remember that there is long mental distance between
may be true and must be true.
Thus, it is clear that undoubtedly, an accused deserves benefit of
doubt and is not required to rebut the case of the prosecution on the
point onus to prove which rests upon the prosecution but at the same
time, slightest weakness in the prosecution’s case which is otherwise,
based on direct evidence, ipso facto, does not adversely affect the
merits of the prosecution case.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
308
140. A revolver is a low- velocity firearm, it has a muzzle
velocity of about 600 ft/s while an automatic or self-loading pistol has
a muzzle velocity of about 1200 ft/s.
141. The muzzle velocity of Indian Ordinance Factory .315
rifle is 2000 ft/s per second. It is not worthy that the bullet of .315 rifle
is copper jacketed therefore, it has more piercing power as stated
earlier. The muzzle velocity of .315 rifle is 2000 ft/s per second. The
muzzle velocity of Indian Ordinance Factory rifle .32 bore can at the
most be considered as 800 ft/s per second.
142. Firstly, coming to the CCTV footage Ex.PD/1 which is so
heavily relied by learned counsel for the accused as well as the
complainant and his counsel, some facts are to be considered before
drawing any conclusion from the said CCTV footage. Firstly, the
CCTV footage are of the cameras installed in the house of accused
Virender @ Billu. Secondly, the place of occurrence or the way to the
place of occurrence is not covered or shown in the said CCTV footage,
therefore, at the most the said CCTV footage can be considered for the
presence of the accused and the police officers shown in them in the
house of accused Virender @ Billu at the respective time.
143. Now the specific role of the accused along with the
evidence against them is to be considered for arriving any conclusion

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
309
about their involvement and respective role in the place of occurrence.
Firstly, it has been duly proved that the deceased Rajender Parshad, Sri
Chand, Ishwar Chand, Pintu @ Devender and Naveen died of bullet
injuries and each of them suffered one bullet shot each. Two other
persons who were stated to suffer gun shot injuries are PW2 Nitesh and
PW48 Court witness Kanhiya. As per the prosecution version, four
weapons were used in the offence i.e. .315 bore rifle of Kamal Kishore
@ Lilu, .32 bore revolver of accused Narender, .32 bore revolver of
accused Dharamender and a rifle by the accused Subhash. This is not
in dispute that the recovery of rifle .315 bore and one revolver each of .
32 bore were made from accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu, Narender and
Dharamender respectively and all these were licensed weapons
belonging to them. As far as the assertion of the prosecution witnesses
regarding the use of rifle by accused Subhash is concerned, no recovery
of any rifle was made from him. On the other hand, a DBBL gun .12
bore was recovered from him. This is not the case of the prosecution
that any pellet injury, which is there in case of .12 bore gun, was
suffered by the deceased or the injured Kanhiya Lal and Nitesh.
144. As per PW31 Inspector Ashok Kumar six empty cartridges
lying at the spot were taken into police possession and the said empty
cartridges .315 bore have been proved as Ex.PW31/D to Ex.PW31/H.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
310
As per the FSL report Ex.PY all these cartridges of .315 bore were fired
from the licensed rifle of accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. Neither any
bullet of .32 bore nor any cartridge case of .32 bore revolver was
recovered at the spot. This Court is in agreement with the arguments of
complainant Lalit Kumar that cartridges of revolver do not fall after
firing as the cartridge case remains in the chamber and only when
chamber is opened the cartridges are taken out.
145. Its now the stage to decide about the culpability of each of
the accused individually as once, it has been held that section 149 IPC
is not made out in the present case, each accused is liable for his
individual culpable act.
146. As far as role of accused Narender son of Gyan Chand is
concerned, PW1 Lalit Kumar has deposed that he along with
Dharamender and Subhash fired from their respective firearms which
It is noteworthy that Ishwar Chand, Pintu @ Devender and Naveen
died in the occurrence and Kanhiya Lal and Nitesh suffered injuries.
However, as per the testimony of PW2 Nitesh, he was fired upon by
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu by his rifle. PW46 Court witness Bhagat Ram
has deposed that accused Dharmender and Narender were armed with
revolvers and accused Subhash was having a rifle and they fired

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
311
towards Ishwar Chand, Naveen, Pintu @ Devender and Kanhaya Lal.
PW48 Kanhiya Lal (Court witness) has deposed that accused Narender
was armed with a revolver. PW41 Badan Singh has inter alia deposed
that on 20.9.2017 accused Narender got recovered licence of his
revolver and on 23.9.2017 he got recovered DVR etc. and he further
got recovered .32 bore revolver and five live cartridges. The other
witness to the recovery is PW26 HC Khurshid.
147. At this stage, it is important to consider the injuries found
on the body of deceased persons:-
person of the deceased Devender @ Pintu:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. ENTRY WOUND: A WOUND MEASURING 2CM X 1.5
CM LOCATED AT 5 INCHES MEDIAL TO RIGHT
NIPPLE AND 3.5 INCHES MEDIAL TO LEFT NIPPLE,
THE WOUND IS SITUATED 6 INCHES BELOW THE
STERNAL NOTCH.
THERE IS NO BLACKENING AND EMBEDDED SOOT
PARTICLES SURROUNDING THE WOUND PRESENT.
THE MARGINS OF WOUNDS ARE REGULAR AND
INVERTED. ON FURTHER DISSECTION OF THE
WOUND, IT IS BACKWARDS AND LATERALLY
TOWARDS THE RIGHT HALF OF THE BODY
TRAVERSING THROUGH THE LOWER PART OF THE
STERNUM BREAKING IT INTO TWO AND FURTHER
PIERCING THE PERICARDIUM AND RUPTURING THE
RIGHT ATRIUM AND RIGHT VENTRICLE OF HEART
AND THE MEDIAL PART OF LOWER LOBE OF RIGHT
LUNG AND FURTHER GOING BACKWARDS TO

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
312
PIERCE THE POSTERIOR CHEST WALL AND SKIN

WHERE (EXIT WOUND) A TRIANGULAR SHAPED
WOUND WITH IRREGULAR EVERTED MARGINS
DEVOID OF ANY SURROUNDING SOOT PARTICLES.
THE WOUND IS SITUATED 3 INCHES LATERAL FROM
THE SPINAL CORD AND 4 INCHES BELOW THE
LOWER ANGLE OF SCAPULA.
person of the deceased Shri Chand:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. A wound (Entry wound) measuring 1.5 cm x 1cm situated 4
inches below the right nipple and 2 inches lateral to the
midline the wound has clean regular inverted margins with
absence of any surrounding soot particles or blackening of
surrounding skin. On further dissection, the wound is
traversing backwards and downwards and laterally piercing
the anterior chest wall further rupturing the lower lobe of
right lung, right side of diaphragm and thereafter rupturing
right lobe of liver and then piercing the posterior abdomen
wall and breaking the posterior aspect of right 8 th, 9th, 10th
ribs and piercing the skin wherein a wound (Exit wound)
measuring 6 x 3 cm elliptical in shape with irregular everted
margins situated 6 inches below the inferior angle of right
scapula and 6 inches lateral to the posterior midline.
Ruptured part of underlying muscles and subcutaneous tissue
are coming out of the said wound.
person of the deceased Ishwar Chand:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
313
1. A WOUND (ENTRY WOUND) MEASURING 1 X 1 CM

SITUATED AT THE STERNAL NOTCH HAVING
REGULAR INVERTED MARGINS WITH BLACKENING
OF SURROUNDING SKIN UPTO A DISTANCE OF 0.5
TO 1CM FROM THE MARGINS OF THE WOUND. ON
FURTHER DISSECTION, THE WOUND WAS GOING
DOWNWARDS BACKWARDS AND LATERALLY
DESTROYING THE MEDIAL END OF RIGHT
CLAVICLE, MEDIAL ASPECT OF SECOND RIB AND
DESTRUCTURING THE MAJOR VESSELS ON THE
RIGHT SIDE OF BASE OF NECK CRATING A GAPING
HOLE OF ABOUT 3 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND
RUPTURING THE UPPER LOBE OF RIGHT LUNG
THEN PIERCING THE POSTERIOR CHEST WALL
FURTHER BREAKING POSTERIOR ASPECT OF 3RD
AND 4TH RIB AND PIERCING THROUGH THE BODY
OF RIGHT SCAPULA, SUBCUTANEOUS TISSUE AND
SKIN CREATING A WOUND (EXIT WOUND) OF SIZE
MEASURING 4 X 4 CM IRREGULAR EVERTED
MARGINS SITUATED 4 INCHES BELOW THE MEDIAL
ASPECT OF RIGHT ACROMIAL SPINE AND 4.5
INCHES LATERAL TO POSTERIOR MIDLINE.
person of the deceased Rajender Parsad:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. 1. A wound (Entry Wound) measuring 2 x 1 cm with
irregular inverted margins situated 2.5 inches below and
medial to left nipple the wound is devoid of any surrounding
blackening of skin or presence of any soot particles. On
further exploration wound is traversing obliquely backwards
and downwards piercing the anterior chest wall rupturing the
left ventricle of heart and lower lobe of left lung. On further
dissection the wound is going downwards piercing the left
side of diaphragm and rupturing the spleen further piercing
the posterior abdominal wall, subcutaneous tissue and skin

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
314
where a wound (exit wound) of size 1 cm diameter which is

situated 8 inches below the interior angle of left scapula and
1.5 inches lateral to the midline. Two fragments of bullet
were recovered from the subcutaneous tissue about 1.5
inches away from the exit wound.
person of the deceased Naveen:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
SR.NO. INJURIES
1. 1. A wound (Entry wound) of size 1.5 cm x 1 cm oval in
shape with regular inverted margins situated 1.5 inches
below and 1 inch medial to left nipple the wound is devoid of
any surrounding blackening of skin or presence of any soot
particles. On further dissection, wound is traversing
downwards and backwards piercing the anterior chest wall
breaking the anterior aspect of 5th and 6th rib near costo –
chondral joints. On further exploration, the wound is going
downwards rupturing both the ventricles of heart and lower
lobe of left lung, piercing the diaphragm and rupturing the
spleen and piercing the posterior abdominal wall,
subcutaneous tissue and skin creating a wound (exit wound)
of size measuring 2 x 1 cm with irregular, everted margins 9
inches below the nape of neck and 1.5 inches lateral to
posterior midline on the left side. Two fragments of bullet
were recovered from the subcutaneous tissue within 1.5
inches diameter of exit wound.
148. The version of the complainant as well other private
witnesses who are family members of the complainant is that the
deceased Rajender Parshad was shot dead by accused Kamal Kishore
@ Lilu. Then complainant Lalit Kumar tried to snatch the rifle from

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
315
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu and simultaneously rifle was snatched by
Virender @ Billu who fired at Sri Chand. The version of the
complainant and other prosecution witnesses is that the other three
deceased persons namely Ishwar Chand, Pintu @ Devender and
Naveen died due to firing by revolvers of Narender, Dharamender and
the rifle being held by Subhash. However, no rifle was recovered from
him and only a 12 bore DBBL Gun along with 10 live cartridges were
recovered from him. Considering the nature of the injuries suffered by
the deceased persons as stated above, it is impossible that shot from a
12 bore gun was fired as there are only one entry and one exit wound in
the dead bodies of the deceased persons. The cartridges of 12 bore
contained pellets and if any person is shot at by 12 bore gun, there will
be numerous entry wounds of the pellets discharged from 12 bore gun
which is not so in the present case. On the other hand, as stated above
the muzzle velocity of .315 bore rifle is about 1800 to 2000 meters per
second and the muzzle velocity of a revolver of .32 bore of Ordnance
Factory, which were recovered from accused Narender and
Dharamender is 600 meters per second which is almost 1/3 of the speed
of bullet of rifle of .315 bore. Moreover, the bullet of .32 bore revolver
does not have any copper jacket over the bullet and admittedly two
pieces of jacket of bullet were found from the body of Naveen during

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
316
postmortem examination. Thus, considering the extent of the injuries
caused inside the body of each of the deceased which included of
breaking of many bones also and further considering that a bullet of 32
bore can neither caused such extensive damage inside the body nor will
have the speed necessary to exit the body after causing such injuries, it
is clear that none of the deceased persons died of the shots of revolvers.
It is also note worthy that each of them received only one bullet injury
and the entry wound as well as exit wound of body of the deceased
persons corresponds to the injuries caused by a bullet of .315 bore rifle.
The bullet of .315 bore is far far bigger than the bullet of .32 bore
revolver. Thus, further considering that six empty cartridges of .315
bore were recovered at the spot immediately after the incident at 10:10
PM by the police and as per the report of the FSL Ex.PY, the same were
fired from the licensed rifle of accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. It was
incumbent on him to prosecution the presence of those cartridges at the
spot immediately after the occurrence.
149. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that all the
deceased persons namely Rajender Parshad, Sri Chand, Ishwar Chand,
Pintu @ Devender and Naveen died of the bullet shot injuries from the
licensed .315 bore rifle of the accused Kamal Kishore. However,
considering the report that the licensed revolver of accused Narender as

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
317
per the FSL report was fired and he could produce only five cartrides of
the said weapon, it established that he certainly fired by his revolver at
someone during the said occurrence, the same may not be a specific
person because there was chaos all around and both the parties suffered
injuries and were assailants as well. There is no evidence on record to
suggest that any injury was suffered by anyone by the bullet/bullets
fired by accused Narender. However, it has been conclusively
established that he attempted to murder someone though not a specific
person by his licensed revolver. Therefore, he is held guilty of offence
under section 307 IPC and 27(1) of Arms Act.
150. As per the testimony of PW1 Lalit Kumar, accused
Dharamender along with Narender and Subhash fired from his licensed
revolver which hit Ishwar Chand, Pintu @ Devender, Naveen, Kanhiya
Lal and Nitesh. However, as discussed above, PW2 has specifically
deposed that he was fired upon by Kamal Kishore @ Lilu by his .315
bore rifle. PW46 Court witness Bhagat Ram has also deposed that
Dharamender was armed with revolver. PW48 Court witness Kanhiya
Lal who is one of the injured in the present case has deposed that
Dharamender fired a shot from his revolver at him which hit on his left
hand. This assertion on the part of PW48 Kanhiya Lal has been
corroborated by his medical report. As far as recovery in the case are

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
318
concerned, PW22 Harish has deposed that the accused got recovered
one revolver with six loaded cartridges and the licence of the revolver.
As per the FSL report, the said weapon W3 was fired but the time of
last firing could not have been given. Therefore, it is clear that the
accused Dharamender fired at PW48 Kanhiya Lal by his licensed
revolver with an intention to kill him. As per the Arms licence
Ex.PW44/A, one NPB .32 bore revolver was endorsed on his said
licence. However, a perusal of the Arms licence Ex.PW44/A makes it
clear that no cartridges of .32 bore were purchased by him on the said
licence. However, as discussed earlier, accused Dharamender got
recovered a revolver with six live cartridges. No explanation for
having those live cartridges despite not having endorsement in his
Arms licence has been offered by the learned counsel for accused
Dharamender. Therefore, accused Dharamender is held guilty for the
offence punishable under section 307 IPC and sections 25, 27(1) of
Arms Act.
151. As far as accused Gyan Chand and Mauji Ram are
concerned, both of them are stated to be of about 80 years of age and
one of them is stated to be completely blind. The evidence against
them is that PW2 Nitesh deposed that Gyan Chand and Mauji Ram
gave lalkara and PW46 Bhagat Ram has deposed that Gyan Chand

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
319
exhorted to teach them a lesson for opposing them in Panchayat
election. As far as accused Mauji Ram is concerned, PW46 Court
witness Bhagat Ram has deposed that accused Mauji Ram was saying
that no lenient view be taken towards Parmali and asked for causing
injuries to her. As far as the recoveries from them are concerned, as per
PW21 SI Sumer Singh, accused Gyan Chand got recovered one lathi
and Mauji Ram got recovered one wooden handle. The said recoveries
are of no consequence as persons of 80 years age do mostly used lathi
or a ‘baint” as support for walking. Surprisingly, neither in the FIR
Ex.PW27/A nor in the testimony of PW1 Lalit Kumar who is the star
witness of the prosecution, no role of accused Gyan Chand and Mauji
Ram or any lalkara or exhortion is mentioned. Therefore, it is held that
prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt any
criminal act on the part of accused Gyan Chand and Mauji Ram each of
whom are 80 years old and therefore, they are entiteld to be acquitted.
152. As far as the allegations of criminal act qua accused Amit
Kumar are concerned, as per PW1 Lalit Kumar, Amit gave a pharsa
blow on him which hit on his left palm. As per PW2 Nitesh, Amit gave
a pharsa blow on the left hand of Lalit Kumar. PW46 Court witness
Bhagat Ram has also deposed that Amit caused injuries to Lalit Kumar
by pharsa. The MLR of Lalit Kumar also show that he suffered a

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
320
sharp injury at his left palm. Therefore, the ocular evidence in this
regard is duly corroborated by the medical evidence. Moreover, as per
PW22 SI Hari Singh, accused Amit Kumar got recovered pharsa used
in the offence, therefore, considering the above mentioned testimonies,
it is held that prosecution has been able to prove that accused Amit
Kumar hit the complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar by pharsa which hit at
his left palm. Therefore, accused Amit Kumar is held guilty for the
offence under section 324 IPC.
153. As far as evidence against accused Ravi Kant is
concerned, PW2 Nitesh who is one of the injured in the present case
has specifically deposed that Ravi Kant gave an iron rod blow on his
head. As per the medical evidence also there was an injury on the head
of PW2 Nitesh, therefore, the ocular evidence is corroborated by the
medical evidence. As far as recovery is concerned, PW21 Sumer Singh
has specifically deposed that in furtherance of his disclosure statement,
accused Ravi Kant got recovered one iron rod. Therefore, it is clear
that prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubt that Ravi Kant
caused simple hurt by blunt weapon to Nitesh. Therefore, he is held
guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 IPC.
154. As far as role of accused Shiv Kant is concerned, during
the course of arguments, it was stated that he hit danda on Parmali and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
321
he is seen in the CCTV footage of the house of co-accused Virender @
Billu carrying a rifle. As far as the recoveries are concerned, as per
PW20 SI Abhay Singh, accused Shiv Kant in furtherance of his
disclosure statement got recovered one danda, however, as stated
earlier the injured Parmali could not be examined in the Court though
she was summoned as a Court witness as she was not fit for making
deposition. Even otherwise, the medical examination of the injured
Parmali was conducted only on 20.9.2017 though she was present in
Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad on 17.9.2017 where the other injured
Lalit Kumar was also examined. Therefore, the assertion regarding the
hitting of danda by accused Shiv Kant on Parmali has not been proved
beyond doubt. Therefore, by the extension of the benefit of doubt,
accused Shiv Kant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges against him.
155. As far as the offence committed by accused Ravinder is
concerned, as per PW47 Suresh Chand who was examined as a Court
witness, Ravinder hit him with a danda on his head. As per the MLR
Ex.PW17/C inter alia there was a clotted scratch mark present on his
forehead. Therefore, the occular evidence is corroborated by the
medical evidence and the recovery made in furtherance of the
disclosure statement. Accordingly, it is clear that the prosecution has
proved beyond doubt that accused Ravinder caused simple hurt to

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
322
Suresh Chand by a danda. Therefore, he is liable to be held guilty
under section 323 IPC.
156. During the course of arguments, it was stated that accused
Vinay hit a danda on left hand of Parmali. However, as stated earlier,
the said Parmali though was called a Court witness, however, it was
found that she was not fit to make deposition in the Court. It is also
noteworthy that the medical examination of Parmali was only got
conducted on 20.9.2017 though she was present with the complainant
Lalit Kumar in the Sarvodaya Hospital,Faridabad on17.9.2017 itself.
As far as recoveries are concerned, as per PW23 SI Jeet Singh, accused
Vinay got recovered a danda in furtherance of his disclosure statement.
Therefore, there is a doubt about the alleged criminal act of accused
Vinay. Therefore, the accused Vinay is entitled for the benefit of doubt
157. As far as the criminal act of accused Rajender Prasad son
of Rambir is concerned, as per PW46 Bhagat Ram, Chaman and
Rajender Prasad pushed Parmali. However, as stated above, the said
Parmali was summoned Court witness, but could not be examined as
she was not fit to depose in the Court. As far as recoveries are
concerned, as per PW23 SI Jeet Singh, accused Rajender Prasad got
recovered one danda. However, there are no allegation of use of danda
by accused Rajender Prasad therefore, there is a doubt about any

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
323
criminal act by the accused Rajender Prasad son of Rambir. Therefore,
he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
158. So far as the role of accused Lokesh @ Loki, Chaman and
Satish in the occurrence are concerned, as per PW46 Court witness
Bhagat Ram, Lokesh @ Loki, Chaman and Satish caused injuries to
Suresh with lathies. PW47 Court witness Suresh Chand has deposed
that Lokesh @ Loki, Satish and Chaman gave danda blows on his
forearm, left leg and left hand respectively. As per the medical
examination of Suresh Chand which was got conducted three days after
the incident, Suresh Chand was having left arm abrasion, left little
finger neel swelling, left foot toe pain and forehead clotted scratch
mark. As per the testimony of PW24 SI Braham Prakash and PW14
Constable Raspal Singh, accused Lokesh @ Loki and Satish got
recovered one lathi each. As far as the role of accused Chaman is
concerned, as per the defence version he was one of the injured in the
incident and the injuries to him were caused by the complainant party
before firing. As per the testimony of DW3 Upender Bhardwaj, who
was a member of the Medical Board, Chaman suffered simple injury.
DW7 Dr. Hem Kumar has proved the MLR of Chaman as Ex. D44.
The prosecution in general and the complainant in particular has not
offered any explanation about the injuries suffered by the accused

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
324
Chaman in the same occurrence. Therefore, there is a serious doubt
about the involvement of accused Chaman in the alleged attack on
PW47 Court witness Suresh Chand. However, as far as role of Lokesh
@ Loki and Satish are concerned, the oral testimony has been
corroborated by the medical evidence and the recoveries made in
furtherance of their disclosure statements. Accordingly, accused
Lokesh@ Loki and Satish are liable to be held guilty of the offence of
causing simple hurt to PW47 Suresh Chand under section 323 IPC.
However, the prosecution has not been able to prove any role of
accused Chaman beyond reasonable doubt.
159. So far as the criminal acts of accused Harish in the
occurrence are concerned, as per PW2 Nitesh, Harish gave a lathi blow
on his shoulder. As per the MLR Ex.PW3/B the following injuries
were found on the body of PW2 Nitesh when he was examined at 10:00
PM on 17.9.2017:
Sr.No. Injuries
1. Superficial lacerated wound size approx 2 cm x 0.5 cm over
left mastoid region above pinna.
2. Abrasion over medial aspect of left arm.
3. Lacerated wound size approx 4 cm x 1 cm in occipital region.
4. Lacerated wound size approx 6 cm x 1 cm left tempro partial
region. Pt. Advised for NCCT head.
5. Oval shaped wound (size approx 1.5 cm x 0.8 cm) in ward
directed ragged blackish margin, swelling around the wound
present, fresh bleeding present in lateral aspect of right arm on

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
325
deltoid region approx 7 cm below acromion process of right

shoulder joint. Mild restricted movement of right shoulder
joint. Pt. Advised for X-ray right shoulder AP view, X-ray
right arm AP/Lat and chest X-ray.
6. Abrasion over right shoulder joint.
As per PW24 SI Braham Parkash and PW14 Constable Raspal Singh
on 18.9.2017 accused Harish got recovered a lathi in furtherance of his
disclosure statement. The injury no.6 on the shoulder joint of Nitesh
corresponds with his oral testimony. Therefore, the occular evidence is
supported by medical evidence and the prosecution has been able to
prove beyond doubt that accused Harish inflicted simple hurt on PW2
Nitesh by way of a lathi blow. Accordingly, he is liable to be held
guilty of the offence under section 323 IPC.
160. As far as the role of accused Omwati and Dayawati are
concerned, it was stated during the course of arguments that in the
CCTV footage of the cameras installed at the house of accused
Virender @ Billu, they are seen going to the place of occurrence and
coming back from there. Moreover, they are seen with dandas.
However, as per the testimony of PW28 ACP Sushil no recovery was
made in furtherance of their disclosure statements and they only
demarcated the place of occurrence. Therefore, there is a grave doubt
about commission of any criminal offence by accused Omwati and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
326
Dayawati. Therefore, accused Omwati and Dayawati are entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
161. So far as the role of accused Sagar is concerned, as per the
testimony of PW2 Nitesh, accused Sagar gave a lathi blow on his head.
As per the above mentioned MLR Ex.PW3/B of PW2 Nitesh, he
suffered two simple injuries on his head. As per PW40 SI Silak Ram,
accused Sagar was arrested from QRG Hospital, Faridabad where he
was earlier admitted and in furtherance of his disclosure statement, he
got recovered a danda. It is noteworthy that as per DW1 Dr. Sachin
Gupta of QRG Hospital, Faridabad in the night of 17/18.9.2017, Sagar
was admitted in QRG Hospital, Faridabad in injured condition. As per
DW3 Dr. Upender Bhardwaj who was a member of the Medical Board,
Sagar suffered a simple injury. DW7 Dr. Hem Kumar has proved his
MLR Ex. D46. In his cross-examination, he has further stated that in
the MLRs there is mentioning of facts of alleged history of assault at
9:00 PM at village Palwali, Neither the prosecution nor the
complainant for that matter has been able to contradict the testimony of
DW1, DW2 and DW7. Therefore, it is clear that accused suffered
injury prior to the alleged firing of shots. Therefore, there is a serious
doubt about the testimony of PW2 Nitesh regarding the above

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
327
mentioned alleged factum. Therefore, accused Sagar is entitled to the
benefit of doubt.
162. So far as the role of accused Sri Kant is concerned, as per
the complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar, Shri Kant gave an iron rod blow on
his head. PW2 Nitesh has also deposed that Sri Kant inflicted iron rod
blow on the head of Lalit Kumar. Similar is the assertion of PW46
Bhagat Ram Court witness. As per PW40 SI Silak Ram and PW27 HC
Kuldeep, accused Shri Kant was arrested from QRG Hospital and in
furtherance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a danda.
However, as per the testimony of DW3 Dr. Upender Bhardwaj,
member of the Medical Board, Sri Kant suffered simple injuries and
DW7 Dr. Hem Kumar of QRG Hospital, Faridabad has proved his
MLR Ex. D48. Thus, it is clear that the accused Sri Kant was admitted
in the QRG Hospital due to the injuries suffered by him in village
Palwali at 9:00 PM. Neither PW1 Lalit Kumar who is an Advocate and
complainant in the present case, nor PW2 Nitesh or PW46 Bhagat Ram
have stated anything about the injuries suffered by the accused Shri
Kant before the alleged attack by him. No iron rod was recovered from
him. Therefore, there is a serious doubt about the
prosecution/complainant version regarding his role in the incident.
Therefore, accused Shri Kant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
328
163. As per PW46 Bhagat Ram (Court witness) who is also an
Advocate, Harkesh gave a lathi blow on his left temple. During the
course of arguments, it was asserted that he is seen CCTV footage of
the house of co-accused Virender @ Billu and he came there after the
incident. However, as stated earlier, neither the place of occurrence nor
the way to the place of occurrence is seen in the CCTV footage.
Therefore, there is a serious doubt about the involvement of accused
Harkesh @ Har Prasad in the said occurrence. Merely being present in
the house of co-accused Virender @ Billu does not make him liable for
any criminal act. Accordingly, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
164. So far as the role of accused Subhash in the alleged
occurrence is concerned, as per PW1 Lalit Kumar, he along with
Dharamender and Narender fired shots from their respective weapons.
PW2 Nitesh has also deposed about the firing and PW46 Bhagat Ram
and PW48 Kanhiya Lal have deposed that he was assaulted with a rifle
and he was firing from the same. However, as per PW33 Inspector
Satender Singh, in his disclosure statement accused Subhash
specifically stated that he did not fire. As per Inspector Satender Singh
in furtherance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a 12 bore
gun along with its licence and ten live cartridges. As discussed above,
it has been duly established that no injury by a 12 bore gun was caused

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
329
either to either of the deceased or to the injured persons of the
complainant party. On the other hand, the alleged assertion of PW46
Bhagat Ram and PW48 Kanhiya lal regarding possession of a rifle by
accused Subhash is also very doubtful considering the recovery
effected from the accused. On the other hand, it is the case of the
defence that the accused Subhash was a victim of attack by the
complainant party before the alleged firing and he suffered a fracture in
the forearm and he was admitted in QRG Hospital on 17.9.2017 at
23:36 O’clock. The same has been duly proved by DW6 Dr. Ravi
Shankar and DW7 Dr. Hem Kumar vide MLR Ex. D45. Neither the
complainant nor the other private witnesses all of whom are connected
with each other have deposed anything about the causing of injury
suffered by accused Subhash. Therefore, there is a serious doubt about
the allegations of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged role
of accused Subhash. It is well nigh impossible to any person to fire
with a rifle with a fracture in the forearm. Therefore, accused Subhash
is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
165. As per the testimony of PW46 Court witness Bhagat Ram,
accused Manoj gave a lathi blow on him. As per the injuries mentioned
in the MLR Ex. PW17/D of injured Bhagat Ram, there was complaint
of pain with swelling left tempo frontal region and there was left eye

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
330
bruise mark. However, no recovery of lathi was effected from the
accused Manoj. Otherwise also, the learned counsel for the accused
have taken a strong plea that the medical examination of Bhagat Ram
was conducted on 20.9.2017 i.e. three days after the incident, though he
was present in the hospital. Therefore, there is a serious doubt about
the allegations of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged role
of accused Manoj. Accordingly, accused Manoj is entitled to the benefit
of doubt.
166. So far as the role of accused Omdutt and Shri Ram are
concerned, as per the testimony of PW46 Bhagat Ram, Omdutt and
Shri Ram caught hold of him and Manoj gave a lathi blow on his left
temple. As discussed above, his assertions regarding the lathi blows by
Manoj have been found to be doubtful. Therefore, his assertion
regarding catching hold of him by Omdutt and Shri Ram particularly,
when none of the other prosecution witness has deposed about the
same, makes it very doubtful. Therefore, accused Omdutt and Shri
Ram are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
167. There is allegation against accused Pramod that PW46
Suresh Chand (Court witness) has deposed that Pramod and CCL A xxx
caught hold of him. Lokesh @ Loki gave a lathi blow on his left
forearm. Satish gave a lathi blow on his left leg. Chaman gave a danda

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
331
blow on his left hand. However, as discussed above, though accused
Lokesh @ Loki and Satish have found to be guilty under section 323
IPC, however the assertions of PW47 Suresh Chand (Court witness)
regarding causing of injury by Chaman has been found to be false.
Though PW47 was recorded long time after the examination of PW1
Lalit Kumar and PW2 Nitesh, he must have been aware about their
testimony as well. There is tendency to implicate as many persons of
the opposite party as possible and there is no corroboration of his
assertion regarding catching hold of him by accused Pramod.
Otherwise also, PW31 Inspector Ashok Kumar has deposed that
accused Pramod only demarcated the place of occurrence. Therefore,
accused Parmod is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
168. As far as the role of accused Virender @ Billu is
concerned, neither the complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar nor his brother
PW2 Nitesh nor the Court witnesses who are stated to be present at the
place of occurrence, have offered any explanation for the injuries found
on the body of Virender @ Billu who also suffered serious injuries
including an injury in his head, which was found to be dangerous to
life. The prosecution has not made any effort to explain those injuries
found on the body of Virender @ Billu. There is nothing on record to
dispute his assertion that he was firstly attacked and beaten by the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
332
complainant party and only thereafter, the firing of shot happened. The
story propounded by the complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar particularly
when he was medically examined at 10:10 PM in Sarvodaya Hospital,
Faridabad, and investigating officer reached there, non recording of
FIR till 2:20 AM the next morning also makes it clear that the
complainant Lalit Kumar is not a wholly reliable witness. It is to be
considered at this stage that he is a practicing Advocate at Faridabad
Court and he claims to be junior to a highly reputed Advocate of
Faridabad Bar. Unexplained delay in the registration of FIR gains
importance here. Otherwise also, the accused Virender @ Billu is a
middle aged person while the complainant Lalit Kumar is a young
person. Therefore, the assertion of the complainant that when he was
trying to snatch the rifle from accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu, accused
Virender @ Billu snatched the rifle from Kamal Kishore @ Lilu and
fired at Sri Chand is doubtful. Though, the recovery of another rifle
and a DBBL gun is claimed to have been made at his instance but this
is not the case of prosecution that any of those weapons were used in
the said incident. Both those weapons were licensed weapons.
Admittedly, no shot was fired in the occurrence from this rifle and
DBBL Gun, got recovered by the accused Virender @ Billu.
Therefore, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
333
accused Virender @ Billu beyond all reasonable doubts and the
accused Virender @ Billu is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
169. As far as the role of main accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu
is concerned, complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar has deposed that Kamal
Kishore fired a shot from his rifle on the chest of his father Rajender
Prasad. As per the testimony of PW2 Nitesh, Kamal Kishore fired a
shot towards him i.e. Nitesh with intention to kill which embedded in
his right shoulder. He has further deposed that Kamal Kishore @ Lilu
fired a shot on the chest of his father Rajender Prasad. PW46 Bhagat
Ram (Court witness) has deposed that Kamal Kishore fired from his
rifle at Nitesh and that shot hit him on his forearm. PW47 Suresh
Chand (Court witness) has deposed that he saw Kamal Kishore armed
and firing. PW48 Kanhiya Lal (Court witness) has deposed that Lilu
was armed with a rifle and he fired a shot at Rajender Prasad As far as
recovery from accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu is concerned, PW31
Inspector Ashok Kumar has deposed that six empty cartridges which
were lying at the spot were taken into police possession. PW44
Inspector Badan Singh has deposed that the accused Kamal Kishore @
Lilu in furtherance of his disclosure statement got recovered the licence
of the rifle. On 21.9.2017 he got recovered the rifle used in the offence
and on 22.9.2017 he got recovered four live cartridges. As per FSL

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
334
report Ex. PY where the rifle recovered from accused Kamal Kishore
@ Lilu was marked as W/2 and six .315 fired cartridges cases were
marked as C/1 to C/6, after examination, it was found that all the six
cartridges C/1 to Ex. C/6 were fired from .315 bore rifle Mark W/2.
Therefore, it has been conclusively proved that the six cartridges of .
315 bore, cases of which were recovered at the spot, were fired from
the .315 bore rifle of Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. As discussed above, all
the deceased persons namely Rajender Prasad, Sri Chand, Ishwar
Chand, Pinti @ Devender and Naveen were shot dead by a single bullet
each. It has been already discussed that the injuries suffered from
inside their bodies would not have been caused by a revolver of .32
bore and in all probability were caused by rifle of Kamal Kishore @
Lilu. The complainant has taken the stand that only one shot was fired
by Kamal Kishore @ Lilu and six empty cartridges were planted at the
spot. However, the prosecution own witness PW31 Inspector Ashok
Kumar has specifically deposed about the recovery of six cartridges
cases lying at the spot just after the occurrence. Even during the course
of investigation, no complaint or application was made by the
complainant Lalit Kumar to any senior Police Officer as to the alleged
planting of six cartridges at the spot. Therefore, the assertion of the
complainant regarding the alleged planting of those cartridges of .315

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
335
bore seems to be doubtful. As discussed earlier, the injuries suffered by
the deceased persons could not have been caused by .32 bore revolver
and were certainly caused by the bullets of rifle which are far far bigger
than the bullet of .32 bore revolver. Otherwise also, the velocity of
bullet of revolver is even less than 1/3 of velocity of bullet of the rifle
and the extent of entry, damages inside the bodies of deceased and exit
wounds of all the deceased conclusively establish that they were shot
by the rifle of .315 bore.
170. Now the question arises as to who fired those six shots
from the rifle of Kamal Kishore @ Lilu. As per PW1 Lalit Kumar,
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu fired a shot from his rifle on the chest of his
father Rajender Prasad and later on, he tried to snatch that rifle from
accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu but the same was snatched by Virender
@ Billu who fired a shot on the right side of chest of his uncle Shri
Chand. However, PW2 Nitesh who is brother of complainant Lalit
Kumar has a slightly different version. He has deposed that Kamal
Kishore fired a shot towards him with an intention to kill which
embedded in his right shoulder and thereafter, he fired a shot on the
chest of his father Rajender Prasad. During the course of arguments, it
was asserted that only two shots were fired from the rifle of Kamal
Kishore @ Lilu which is in contradiction with the FSL report Ex.PY

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
336
and the testimony of PW31 Inspector Ashok Kumar. If the version of
PW2 Nitesh is taken as true, accused Kamal Kishore fired a shot firstly
at him with an intention to kill which embedded in his right shoulder
and then he fired a second shot at his father Rajender Prasad. Thus, the
same creates a doubt about the assertion of PW1 Lalit Kumar who has
deposed about the firing of two shots by the same rifle firstly at
Rajender Prasad and secondly after snatching of rifle by Virender @
Billu at Shri Chand. This story of snatching of rifle by Virender @
Billu has many loop holes in it. Firstly, Kamal Kishore had already
killed Rajender Prasad and complainant PW1 Lalit Kumar was
snatching the rifle from him, the question of snatching of rifle by
Virender @ Billu becomes very doubtful particularly in view of the
injuries suffered by him prior to the firing. One of the injuries was
suffered by him was in head and same was declared by DW2 Dr.
Upender Bhardwaj as ‘dangerous to life’. DW1 Dr. Sachin Gupta has
deposed that Virender @ Billu was admitted in QRG Hospital,
Faridabad on 17.9.2017 itself. The Medical Board could not give any
opinion regarding the second injury found on the body of Virender @
Billu as the concerned x-ray film and report were not produced by the
investigating officer. DW5 Dr. Nitin Jaiswal has proved CT and x-ray
of Billu, Subhash and Chaman. DW7 Dr. Hem Kumar has proved the

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
337
MLR of accused Billu as Ex.D47. As discused above, the genesis of
the occurrence as stated by PW1 Lalit Kumar is doubtful. Neither he
or any of his other family members who were examined as prosecution
witnesses have stated anything about the injuries suffered by Virender
@ Billu before firing.
171. The stand taken by accused Virender @ Billu in his
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the opposition was nurturing
a grudge against him and his due to winning of election by his wife. On
the fateful day, he was returning to his house from village. When he
reached in front of the house of Rajinder Parsad, he was stopped,
attacked and way laid by Nitesh, Narender son of Mam Chand, Manoj
@ Kala, Bijender, Pehlad, Duli Chand, Kanhaya, Het Ram, Asru,
Bhagat, Jerman, Lalit, Ravi, Trilok, Bintu, Naveen, Raj Kumar,
Pankaj, Rajinder Prasad, Ishwar Chand, Siri Chand, Ravinder @
Pintu, Naveen, Harish and others and these persons were carrying
lathies and dandas in their hands and they caused multiple injuries to
him. His nephew Sagar also rushed to the spot and he was also beaten
mercilessly. Because of heavy blood loss, he had lost consciousness
and fell on the spot. He regained consciousness after some time, when
he was lifted by his family members from the spot and they helped him
reach his house and he was smeared with blood. He could not walk and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
338
therefore, he was helped on both sides by his family members. He was
given immediate medical aid at his house and they stayed at the house
out of fear and shock. After some time, when the bleeding could not
stop, he was taken to QRG Hospital and he was treated there. The
police forcibly arrested him despite the fact that he was under medical
treatment and had suffered serious head injuries. The police suppressed
the true facts under the pressure of political persons, villagers,
complainant and the lawyers of Faridabad Court. The complainant is a
lawyer and he misused his reputation and designation of being a lawyer
against them in this case. His entire family was roped in for frivolous
allegations after concealing the genesis of occurrence. As already
discussed, the accused Virender @ Billu was admitted in the hospital
on 17.9.2017 itself and injury no.1 on his body was found dangerous to
life. As per the discharge summary of Billu Ex.D1, he was admitted in
QRG Central Hospital, Faridabad on 17.9.2017 at 23:27 O’clock with
alleged history of assault with head injury with left frontal and right
parietal extraxial bleed and fracture right parietal bone with SAH and
scalp laceration. At the time of his admission, there was history of loss
of consciousness.
172. In view of the above discussion, it was incumbent upon
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu to justify the presence of six empty cartridges at

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
339
the place of occurrence which were fired from his licensed .315 bore
rifle and to further prove that they were not related to injuries suffered
by deceased persons and PW2 Nitesh. However, despite availing
numerous opportunities for defence evidence, accused Kamal Kishore
@ Lilu has not been able to justify the presence of six empty cartridges
of .315 bore which were fired from his licensed rifle. It has also been
conclusively found that all the five deceased died of the injuries caused
by the bullets of rifle. Therefore, this Court has no other option, but to
held Kamal Kishore @ Lilu guilty for the offence of committing
murders of Rajender Prasad, Shri Chand, Ishwar Chand, Pintu @
Devender and Naveen. He is also held guilty of the offence of attempt
to murder of PW2 Nitesh. Moreover, the weapon used by accused
Kamal Kishore @ Lilu was a licensed rifle as per his Arms licence
Ex.PW41/R. However, he used the said weapon in violation of the
terms and conditions of the said Arm Licence and therefore, he is liable
to be held guilty for all the five murders and the offences punishable
under sections 302 for each of them, sections 307 IPC and 27(1) of the
Arms Act, 1959.
173. On the ultimate analysis of my above mentioned
discussion and findings, accused Narender is held guilty and convicted

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
340
for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC and section 27(1) of
Arms Act, 1959;
Accused Kamal Kishore @ Lilu is held guilty and
convicted for the murders of Rajender Prasad, Shri Chand, Ishwar
Chand, Devender @ Pintu and Naveen and is accordingly convicted
under section 302 IPC for each of the above mentioned murders. He is
further held guilty and convicted for the offences under section 307
IPC and 27(1) Arms Act;
Accused Amit Kumar is held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under section 324 IPC;
Accused Ravi Kant is held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under section 323 IPC;
Accused Dharamender is held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under section 307 IPC and sections 25 and 27(1) of
Arms Act, 1959;
Accused Ravinder has been held guilty and convicted for
the offence punishable under section 323 IPC;
Accused Lokesh @ Loki is held guilty and convicted for
the offence punishable under section 323 IPC;
Accused Satish Kumar is held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under section 323 IPC; and

ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198
341
Accused Harish is held guilty and convicted for the
offence punishable under section 323 IPC. They are respectively
acquitted of the other charges against them.
174 Accused Gyan Chand, Shiv Kant, Vinay, Rajender
Prashad, Mauji Ram, Omwati, Dayawati, Chaman, Sagar, Shri Kant,
Harkesh @ Har Parshad, Subhash, Manoj, Virender @ Billu, Omdutt,
Shri Ram and Pramod are acquitted of the charges framed against
them. Accused Harkesh, Chaman, Rajender Parshad, Vinay, Sagar,
Virender @ Billu, Shiv Kant, Pramod, Subhash and Shri Kant be
released forthwith. They are directed to furnish bail bonds for a sum of
Rs.20,000/- each with one surety to the like amount to the satisfaction
of this Court in compliance of section 437-A Cr.P.C. Bail bonds
furnished. Same are accepted and attested. The bail bonds shall
remain valid for a period of six months from the date of this judgment.
On the request, now to come up on 26.02.2024 for
arguments on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in open Court: (Sanjay Kumar Sharma)

Dated: 19.02.2024 Addl. Sessions Judge,
Faridabad. UID No.HR0198
Note: All the pages of this judgment have been checked

and signed by the undersigned.
(Sanjay Kumar Sharma)

Kamal Singh Addl. Sessions Judge,
Steno Gr.1 Faridabad. UID No.HR0198
ASJ, Fbad. 19.02.2024
UID No.HR0198

Display - PDF - 2024-03-10T131506.216

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display - PDF - 2024-03-10T131506.216

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CNR No.HRFB01-001038-2018 CIS No.

In the Court of Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Case Type : Session Case

State of Haryana Versus 1. Narender son of Gyan Chand,

2. Kamal Kishore @ Lillu son of

3. Gyan Chand son of Kallu Ram,

4. Amit Kumar son of Anand

5. Ravi Kant son of Kamal Kishore

Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Palwali, Police Station Kheripul,

6. Dharmender son of Nand

7. Shiv Kant son of Virender @

9. Vinay son of Deepak, resident of

10. Rajender Prasad son of Rambir,

11. Lokesh @ Loki son of Mansa

12. Satish Kumar son of Mansa

13. Harish son of Baljeet, resident of

14. Mauji Ram son of Kallu Ram,

Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Police Station Kheripul,

15. Nand Kishore son of Mauji

16. Omwati wife of Nand Kishore,

17. Dayawati wife of Virender @

18. Chaman son of Mansha Ram,

19. Sagar son of Kamal Kishore @

20. Shri Kant son of Virender @

21. Harkesh @ Har Parshad,

22. Subhash son of Mauji Ram, aged

Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Police Station Kheripul,

23. Manoj son of Raja Ram,

24. Virender @ Billu son of Gyan

25. Om Dutt son of Braham Dutt,

26. Shriram son of Gauri Sharma,

27. Pramod son of Nand Kishore,

Sh. Siddharth Sharma, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State

Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Accused Omwati, Dayawati, Mauji Ram, Gyan Chand,

the commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 149, 302,

Arms Act by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kheripul,

2. Present case was registered on the basis of complaint

Ex.PW1/A given to the police by Lalit Kumar son of Sh. Rajender

Parshad wherein he stated that he was an Advocate by profession. On

he went back to his house. After sometime, he heard noise of abusing

Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Chand son of Kallu Ram, Virender @ Billu son of Gyan Chand,

Kishore son of Mauji Ram, Dharmender son of Nand Kishore, Subhash

son of Mauji Ram, Ravinder son of Subhash, Amit son of Anand,

Kishore @ Leelu, Sagar son of Kamal Kishore @ Leelu, Manoj son of

Raja Ram @ Rajju, Pramod son of Nand Kishore, Satish son of

Mansha Ram @ Buta, Lokesh @ Loki son of Mansha Ram @ Buta,

Harish son of Baljeet @ Bali, Harkesh son of Nathi Ram, Rajender @

Kallu son of Rambir, Chaman son of Mansha Ram @ Buta, Om Dutt

son of Braham Dutt @ Brahma, Shriram son of Gauri, A---(CCL facing

trial separately-name withheld) son of Narender, Vinay son of Deepak

@ Dabbu and 10-12 other persons standing in front of their house in

the street armed with guns, revolvers, pharsa, country-made pistols,

Singh, Devender @ Pintu son of Sukh Ram, Suresh son of Dayanand,

Sanjay Kumar Sharma,

Narender son of Gyan Chand, Dharmender son of Nand Kishore and

Nitesh son of Rajender Parshad. Other assailants gave blows with

lathis, dandas, rods and pharsa etc. to Suresh son of Dayanand,