Crl.A.Nos.891/2017 & 103/2018 Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 06^th September, 2022

Decided on: 28^th September, 2022

+

CRL.A. 891/2017

MONU SINGH

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr. M.L. Yadav, Advocate.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the

State with ACP Ved Prakash,

Special Cell NR/STF &

Inspector Sandeep Kumar.

+

CRL.A. 103/2018

ROHAN CHAUHAN & ANR.

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr. Mehul Sharma & Mr. Yash

Tyagi, Advocates.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the

State with ACP Ved Prakash,

Special Cell NR/STF &

Inspector Sandeep Kumar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1.

By the Crl.A. 891/2017, appellant Monu Singh, and by Crl.A.103/218,

appellants Rohan Chauhan and Mohit Chauhan challenge the impugned

judgment dated 13^th July, 2017, whereby they have been convicted for

murder of one Trilok; and order on sentence dated 21^st July, 2017, directing

all the three convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004034

Crl.A.Nos.891/2017 & 103/2018 Page 2 of 18

fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in default simple imprisonment for 3 months, for

offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC”); and also

directing convicts Rohan & Mohit to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3

years alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- each, and in default whereof, simple

imprisonment for 1 month for offence punishable u/s.27 Arms Act. Accused

Anuj Kumar Sharma was acquitted of charges u/s.25 Arms Act & S.201 IPC

vide the impugned judgment.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant Monu Singh assails the conviction

on the grounds that although the eye witnesses of the incident were Ct. Sunil

(PW-6) and Ct. Deepak Yadav (PW-22), however the FIR was not registered

on their statements but on the statement of Dinesh Tokas (PW-5). SI Manoj

Yadav (PW-35) stated that when he reached the spot, Ct. Sunil and Ct.

Deepak Yadav were present, however instead of recording their statement,

he alongwith Ct. Vijay Pal (PW-33) went to the hospital. This shows that

Ct. Sunil and Ct. Deepak Yadav were not the eye witnesses, however were

later shown as eye witnesses.

3.

It is contended on behalf of appellant Monu Singh that Ct. Sunil is not

a reliable witness as his testimony is neither corroborated by the other eye

witness Ct. Deepak Yadav (who was later declared hostile) nor by the

medical evidence. As per Ct. Sunil, the deceased had received 2 gunshot

injuries, but as per the PM Report (Ex.PW28/A), the deceased received 4

gunshot injuries. Further, Ct. Sunil despite being a home-guard did not try to

save the deceased and rather fled away from the spot. Version of Ct. Sunil

cannot be further relied upon as he himself stated that he ran away from the

spot and even could not clarify whether he ran away on foot or vehicle.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004034

Crl.A.Nos.891/2017 & 103/2018 Page 3 of 18

4.

As per the appellant Monu, Dinesh Tokas did not give any description

of the assailants in the FIR and his presence after the incident is highly

doubtful. As per Dinesh Tokas, he received a call from Ravinder (PW-7) that

somebody had shot his father and only when he was going towards the

complex and had reached the gate of sports complex that he saw three boys

running towards the village. This evidence of Dinesh Tokas is unreliable

and concocted. Further, Dinesh Tokas mentioned about one Sardarji who

w